From jbn at forestfield.org Wed Jul 1 00:31:01 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:31:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Recommended NFN/AOTA videos, notes Message-ID: Here's what I recommended for playing during the News from Neptune/AWARE on the Air timeslots with corrections for Sacoolas' name & details of her killing 19-year-old Harry Dunn in the UK last year, and expansion of a point oft-repeated about Assange and the 1st Amendment. UPTV's Jason Liggett said that the first 3 listed will run during tonight's AWARE timeslot and the last 4 for this Friday's News From Neptune timeslot. Afghan war: Russiagate lives on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvEpHCOrnRc (25m 55s for the whole segment but the first 14m 16s is this story) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGY7J0eOVKA (3m 22s focusing on the NY Times portion) -- NY Times criticized over anonymous sources who claim Russia pays bounties in Afghanistan to kill Americans. George Galloway reminds us (in the longer version above) that this NY Times/Permanent Government claim is projection: this is what the US did in the 1980s to kill Russians. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3LFbOSPfrE -- (36m 7s) "Afghan War Exposed: An Imperial Conspiracy", Abby Martin's latest Empire Files segment on the history of the ongoing war in Afghanistan and our chances for ending that war (spoiler: it will never end). Assange extradition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMCi-7K-xCo -- (28m 8s) "Ramifications for press freedom in Julian Assange extradition" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OICpoYkO78 -- (5m 2s) Are the newest allegations against Assange merely smear tactics? Also covered is Anne Sacoolas, the wife of a US intelligence officer. Sacoolas killed 19-year-old UK resident Harry Dunn with her car outside RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire in August 2019. Sacoolas fled to the US for cover trying to avoid extradition to the UK to face murder charges. This brings up a double-standard for the US: the US won't extradite a CIA agent's wife but it wants a non-American (Assange) who published from outside the US (WikiLeaks is not an American-based organization) to face American interpretation of American law. Related: https://www.rt.com/usa/493394-soros-ngos-blocked-supreme-court/ -- RT's article about a recent SCOTUS ruling denying "federal funding to billionaire financier George Soros? international anti-AIDS organizations, ruling that in order to access the federal cash, the groups must explicitly oppose prostitution". An interesting point which caught my attention appeared to me to connect this to Assange's case by way of Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion which said "foreign affiliates possess no First Amendment rights": > Because plaintiffs? foreign affiliates possess no First Amendment rights, applying > the Policy Requirement to them is not unconstitutional. Two bedrock legal > principles lead to this conclusion. As a matter of American constitutional law, > foreign citizens outside U. S. territory do not possess rights under the U. S. > Constitution. and > In sum, plaintiffs? foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign > organizations operating abroad possess no rights under the U. S. Constitution. Julian Assange is an Australian national, and WikiLeaks is a foreign organization operating abroad (outside the US and its territories). So it seems to me that there is disagreement between those who hold that the 1st Amendment (which allowed the New York Times & Washington Post to publish the Pentagon Papers) also allows WikiLeaks to publish the Iraq & Afghan war logs (the publications at issue in Assange's case). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KKq4pPiVkI -- (14m 42s) Elwood has a different take on the recent Assange allegations from the US government: USG is trying to tie together Anonymous (which recently released information about who has connections to Jeffrey Epstein) with Assange hoping that any ill will you feel for Assange will carry over to Anonymous and thus discourage you from finding or believing any information Anonymous publishes. Economy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDf2SktV8NM -- (2m 33s) Millions of gallons of milk are thrown away while dairy products are in high demands in stores because the US government won't reorganize how we handle such products to deliver direct to the consumer (or give the soon-to-spoil product away gratis) during relatively low-demand times while schools and restaurants close for pandemic lockdown. -J From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Wed Jul 1 13:43:55 2020 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 09:43:55 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?T24g4oCcV2hpdGUgRnJhZ2lsaXR54oCd?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wow. The woketards have jumped the shark. On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:37 PM David Green via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > On ?White Fragility?A few thoughts on America?s smash-hit #1 guide to > egghead racialism > Matt Taibbi 18 hr > 695 466 > > > > *This is part of a larger piece that will be made available to subscribers > later this week:* > > A core principle of the academic movement that shot through elite schools > in America since the early nineties was the view that individual rights, > humanism, and the democratic process are all just stalking-horses for white > supremacy. The concept, as articulated in books like former corporate > consultant Robin DiAngelo?s *White Fragility* (Amazon?s #1 seller > !) > reduces everything, even the smallest and most innocent human interactions, > to racial power contests. > > It?s been mind-boggling to watch *White Fragility *celebrated in recent > weeks. When it surged past a *Hunger Games *book on bestseller lists, *USA > Today *cheered > , > ?American readers are more interested in combatting racism than in literary > escapism.? When DiAngelo appeared on *The Tonight Show, *Jimmy Fallon > gushed > , > ?I know? everyone wants to talk to you right now!? *White Fragility* has > been pitched as an uncontroversial road-map for fighting racism, at a time > when after the murder of George Floyd Americans are suddenly (and > appropriately) interested in doing just that. Except this isn?t a > straightforward book about examining one?s own prejudices. Have the people > hyping this impressively crazy book actually read it? > > DiAngelo isn?t the first person to make a buck pushing tricked-up > pseudo-intellectual horseshit as corporate wisdom, but she might be the > first to do it selling Hitlerian race theory. *White Fragility *has a > simple message: there is no such thing as a universal human experience, and > we are defined not by our individual personalities or moral choices, but > only by our racial category. > > If your category is ?white,? bad news: you have no identity apart from > your participation in white supremacy (?Anti-blackness is foundational to > our very identities? Whiteness has always been predicated on blackness?), > which naturally means ?a positive white identity is an impossible goal.? > > DiAngelo instructs us there is nothing to be done here, except ?strive to > be less white.? To deny this theory, or to have the effrontery to sneak > away from the tedium of DiAngelo?s lecturing ? what she describes as > ?leaving the stress-inducing situation? ? is to affirm her conception of > white supremacy. This intellectual equivalent of the ?ordeal by water? (if > you float, you?re a witch) is orthodoxy across much of academia. > > DiAngelo?s writing style is pure pain. The lexicon favored by > intersectional theorists of this type is built around the same principles > as Orwell?s *Newspeak*: it banishes ambiguity, nuance, and feeling and > structures itself around sterile word pairs, like *racist *and *antiracist, > platform *and *deplatform*, *center *and *silence, *that reduce all > thinking to a series of binary choices*. *Ironically, Donald Trump does > something similar, only with words like ?AMAZING > !? and ? > SAD !? > that are simultaneously more childish and livelier. > > Writers like DiAngelo like to make ugly verbs out of ugly nouns and ugly > nouns out of ugly verbs (there are countless permutations on *centering* > and *privileging *alone). In a world where only a few ideas are > considered important, redundancy is encouraged, e.g. ?To be less white is > to break with white silence and white solidarity, to stop privileging the > comfort of white people,? or ?Ruth Frankenberg, a premier white scholar in > the field of whiteness, describes whiteness as multidimensional?? > > DiAngelo writes like a person who was put in timeout as a child for > speaking clearly. ?When there is disequilibrium in the habitus ? when > social cues are unfamiliar and/or when they challenge our capital ? we use > strategies to regain our balance,? she says (?People taken out of their > comfort zones find ways to deal,? according to Google Translate). Ideas > that go through the English-DiAngelo translator usually end up > significantly altered, as in this key part of the book when she addresses > Dr. Martin Luther King?s ?I have a dream,? speech: > > *One line of King?s speech in particular?that one day he might be judged > by the content of his character and not the color of his skin?was seized > upon by the white public because the words were seen to provide a simple > and immediate solution to racial tensions: pretend that we don?t see race, > and racism will end. Color blindness was now promoted as the remedy for > racism, with white people insisting that they didn?t see race or, if they > did, that it had no meaning to them.* > > That this speech was held up as the framework for American race relations > for more than half a century precisely because people of all races > understood King to be referring to a difficult and beautiful long-term goal > worth pursuing is discounted, of course. *White Fragility *is based upon > the idea that human beings are incapable of judging each other by the > content of their character, and if people of different races think they are > getting along or even loving one another, they probably need immediate > antiracism training. This is an important passage because rejection of > King?s ?dream? of racial harmony ? not even as a description of the > obviously flawed present, but as the aspirational goal of a better future ? > has become a central tenet of this brand of antiracist doctrine mainstream > press outlets are rushing to embrace. > > The book?s most amazing passage concerns the story of Jackie Robinson: > > *The story of Jackie Robinson is a classic example of how whiteness > obscures racism by rendering whites, white privilege, and racist > institutions invisible. Robinson is often celebrated as the first African > American to break the color line?* > > *While Robinson was certainly an amazing baseball player, this story line > depicts him as racially special, a black man who broke the color line > himself. The subtext is that Robinson finally had what it took to play with > whites, as if no black athlete before him was strong enough to compete at > that level. Imagine if instead, the story went something like this: ?Jackie > Robinson, the first black man whites allowed to play major-league > baseball.?* > > There is not a single baseball fan anywhere ? literally not one, except > perhaps Robin DiAngelo, I guess ? who believes Jackie Robinson broke the > color barrier because he ?finally had what it took to play with whites.? > Everyone familiar with this story understands that Robinson had to be > exceptional, both as a player and as a human being, to confront the racist > institution known as Major League Baseball. His story has always been > understood as a complex, long-developing political tale about overcoming > violent systemic oppression. For DiAngelo to suggest history should re-cast > Robinson as ?the first black man whites allowed to play major league > baseball? is grotesque and profoundly belittling. > > Robinson?s story moreover did not render ?whites, white privilege, and > racist institutions invisible.? It did the opposite. Robinson uncovered a > generation of job inflation for mediocre white ballplayers in a dramatic > example of ?privilege? that was keenly understood by baseball fans of all > races fifty years before *White Fragility. *Baseball statistics nerds > have long been arguing about whether to put asterisks > next > to the records of white stars who never had to pitch to Josh Gibson, or hit > against prime Satchel Paige or Webster McDonald. Robinson?s story, on every > level, exposed and evangelized the truth about the very forces DiAngelo > argues it rendered ?invisible.? > > It takes a special kind of ignorant for an author to choose an example > that illustrates the mathematical opposite of one?s intended point, but > this isn?t uncommon in *White Fragility, *which may be the dumbest book > ever written. It makes *The Art of the Deal *read like *Anna Karenina.* > > Yet these ideas are taking America by storm. The movement that calls > itself ?antiracism? ? I think it deserves that name a lot less than > ?pro-lifers? deserve theirs and am amazed journalists parrot it without > question ? is complete in its pessimism about race relations. It sees the > human being as locked into one of three categories: members of oppressed > groups, allies, and white oppressors. > > Where we reside on the spectrum of righteousness is, they say, almost > entirely determined by birth, a view probably shared by a lot of *4chan* readers. > With a full commitment to the program of psychological ablutions outlined > in the book, one may strive for a ?less white identity,? but again, > DiAngelo explicitly rejects the Kingian goal of just trying to love one > another as impossible, for two people born with different skin colors. > > This dingbat racialist cult, which has no art, music, literature, and > certainly no comedy, is the vision of ?progress? institutional America has > chosen to endorse in the Trump era. Why? Maybe because it fits. It won?t > hurt the business model of the news media, which for decades now has been > monetizing division and has known how to profit from moral panics and witch > hunts since before Fleet street discovered the Mod/Rocker wars. > > Democratic Party leaders, pioneers of the costless gesture, have already > embraced this performative race politics as a useful tool for disciplining > apostates like Bernie Sanders. Bernie took off in presidential politics as > a hard-charging crusader against a Wall Street-fattened political > establishment, and exited four years later a self-flagellating, defeated > old white man who seemed to regret not apologizing more for his third > house. Clad in kente cloth scarves, the Democrats who crushed him will burn > up CSPAN with homilies on privilege even as they reassure donors they?ll > stay away from Medicare for All or the carried interest tax break. > > For corporate America the calculation is simple. What?s easier, giving up > business models based on war, slave labor, and regulatory arbitrage, or > benching Aunt Jemima? There?s a deal to be made here, greased by the fact > that the ?antiracism? prophets promoted in books like *White Fragility* share > corporate Americas instinctive hostility to privacy, individual rights, > freedom of speech, etc. > > Corporate America doubtless views the current protest movement as > something that can be addressed as an H.R. matter, among other things by > hiring thousands of DiAngelos to institute codes for the proper mode of > Black-white workplace interaction. > > If you?re wondering what that might look like, here?s DiAngelo explaining > how she handled the fallout from making a bad joke while she was > ?facilitating antiracism training? at the office of one of her clients. > > When one employee responds negatively to the training, DiAngelo quips the > person must have been put off by one of her Black female team members: ?The > white people,? she says, ?were scared by Deborah?s hair.? (White priests of > antiracism like DiAngelo seem universally to be more awkward and clueless > around minorities than your average Trump-supporting construction worker). > > DiAngelo doesn?t grasp the joke flopped and has to be told two days later > that one of her web developer clients was offended. In despair, she writes, > ?I seek out a friend who is white and has a solid understanding of > cross-racial dynamics.? > > After DiAngelo confesses her feelings of embarrassment, shame and guilt to > the enlightened white cross-racial dynamics expert (everyone should have > such a person on speed-dial), she approaches the offended web developer. > She asks, ?Would you be willing to grant me the opportunity to repair the > racism I perpetrated toward you in that meeting?? At which point the web > developer agrees, leading to a conversation establishing the parameters of > problematic joke resolution. > > This dialogue straight out of > *South Park > ? *?Is it okay if I touch > your penis? No, you may not touch my penis at this time!? ? has a good shot > of becoming standard at every transnational corporation, law firm, > university, newsroom, etc. > > Of course the upside such consultants can offer is an important one. Under > pressure from people like this, companies might address long-overdue > inequities in boardroom diversity. > > The downside, which we?re already seeing, is that organizations everywhere > will embrace powerful new tools for solving professional disputes, through > a never-ending purge. One of the central tenets of DiAngelo?s book (and > others like it) is that racism cannot be eradicated and can only be managed > through constant, ?lifelong? vigilance, much like the battle with > addiction > . > A useful theory, if your business is selling teams of high-priced > toxicity-hunters to corporations as next-generation versions of efficiency > experts ? in the fight against this disease, companies will need the help > forever and ever. > > Cancelations already are happening too fast to track. In a phenomenon that > will be familiar to students of Russian history, accusers are beginning to > appear alongside the accused. Three years ago a popular Canadian writer > named Hal Niedzviecki was > denounced > for > expressing the opinion that ?anyone, anywhere, should be encouraged to > imagine other peoples, other cultures, other identities." He reportedly was > forced out of the Writer?s Union of Canada for the crime of ?cultural > appropriation,? and denounced as a racist by many, including a poet named > Gwen Benaway. The latter said Niedzviecki ?doesn?t see the humanity of > indigenous peoples.? Last week, Benaway herself was denounced on Twitter > for failing to > provide proof that she was Indigenous. > > Michael Korenberg, the chair of the board at the University of British > Columbia, was forced to resign > for liking > tweets by Dinesh D?Souza and Donald Trump, which you might think is fine ? > but what about Latino electrical worker Emmanuel Cafferty, fired > after a > white activist took a photo of him making an OK symbol (it was described > online as a ?white power? sign)? How about Sue Schafer, the heretofore > unknown graphic designer the *Washington Post > *decided > to out > in > a 3000-word article for attending a Halloween party two years ago in > blackface (a failed parody of a *different* blackface incident involving > Megyn Kelly)? She was fired, of course. How was this news? Why was ruining > this person?s life necessary? > > People everywhere today are being encouraged to snitch out schoolmates, > parents, and colleagues for thoughtcrime. The *New York Times* wrote a > salutary piece > about > high schoolers scanning social media accounts of peers for evidence of > ?anti-black racism? to make public, because what can go wrong with > encouraging teenagers to start submarining each other?s careers before > they?ve even finished growing? > > ?People who go to college end up becoming racist lawyers and doctors. I > don?t want people like that to keep getting jobs,? one 16 year-old said. > ?Someone rly started a Google doc of racists and their info for us to ruin > their lives? I love twitter,? wrote > a > different person, adding cheery emojis. > > A bizarre echo of North Korea?s ?three generations of punishment > ? > doctrine could be seen in the boycotts of Holy Land grocery > , > a well-known hummus maker in Minneapolis. In recent weeks it?s been > abandoned by clients and seen its lease pulled > because > of racist tweets made by the CEO?s 14 year-old daughter *eight years ago.* > > Parents calling out their kids is also in vogue. In *Slate, *?Making a > Mountain Out of a Molehill? wrote to advice columnist Michelle Herman in a > letter headlined, ?I think I?ve screwed up the way my kids think about > race > .? > The problem, the aggrieved parent noted, was that his/her sons had gone to > a diverse school, and their ?closest friends are still a mix of black, > Hispanic, and white kids,? which to them was natural. The parent worried > when one son was asked to fill out an application for a potential college > roommate and expressed annoyance at having to specify race, because ?I > don?t care about race.? > > Clearly, a situation needing fixing! The parent asked if someone who > didn?t care about race was ?just as racist as someone who only has white > friends? and asked if it was ?too late? to do anything. No fear, Herman > wrote: it?s never too late for kids like yours to educate themselves. To > help, she linked to a program of materials designed for just that purpose, > a ?Lesson Plan for Being An Ally > ,? > that included a month of readings of? *White Fragility. *Hopefully that > kid with the Black and Hispanic friends can be cured! > > This notion that color-blindness is itself racist, one of the main themes > of *White Fragility*, could have amazing consequences. In researching *I > Can?t Breathe, *I met civil rights activists who recounted decades of > struggle to remove race from the law. I heard stories of lawyers who were > physically threatened for years in places like rural Arkansas just for > trying to end explicit hiring and housing discrimination and other remnants > of Jim Crow. Last week, an Oregon County casually exempted > ?people > of color who have heightened concerns about racial profiling? from a > Covid-19 related mask order. Who thinks creating different laws for > different racial categories is going to end well? When has it ever? > > At a time of catastrophe and national despair, when conservative > nationalism is on the rise and violent confrontation on the streets is > becoming commonplace, it?s extremely suspicious that the books politicians, > the press, university administrators, and corporate consultants alike are > asking us to read are urging us to put race even more at the center of our > identities, and fetishize the unbridgeable nature of our differences. > Meanwhile books like *The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn *and *To Kill a > Mockingbird, *which are both beautiful and actually anti-racist, have > been banned, for containing the ?N-word > .? > (*White Fragility *contains it too, by the way). It?s almost like someone > thinks there?s a benefit to keeping people divided. > > > https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-white-fragility > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Thu Jul 2 03:37:44 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 22:37:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Russiagate revived by the New York Times and a bipartisan consensus of neocons Message-ID: Ray McGovern's latest for consortiumnews.com at https://consortiumnews.com/2020/07/01/ray-mcgovern-new-york-times-deploys-heavy-gun-to-back-intel-on-russian-bounties/ starts: > The New York Times is pulling out all the stops in promoting its dubious story on > Russia offering bounty for dead U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. > > Wednesday?s installment, a ?news analysis? by Times veteran writers David E. > Sanger and Eric Schmitt, treats the allegations that Russia paid Taliban or > Taliban-related terrorists to kill U.S. troops as flat fact: > > ?Russia?s complicity in the bounty plot came into sharper focus on Tuesday as the > The New York Times reported that American officials intercepted electronic data > showing large financial transfers from a bank account controlled by Russia?s > military intelligence agency to a Taliban-linked account.? > > This is presented as ?bolstering other evidence of the plot, including detainee > interrogations.? The take from the Afghan-run interrogations is, ipso facto, > highly dubious; and we need to know a lot more about the alleged new ?electronic > data.? This is the same David Sanger who told us about Iraqi WMD as "flat fact". Related coverage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8mMmJ17n3Q -- McGovern's interview with RT (which includes footage of Congressional members reacting to Sanger's article as though it is fact) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMfV0cr1_T4 -- Max Blumenthal & Aaron Mat? (also brings up the history of the US killing Russians in Afghanistan making Sanger's claim look like what the US actually did) -J From jbn at forestfield.org Thu Jul 2 03:49:33 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 22:49:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Russiagate revived by the New York Times and a bipartisan consensus of neocons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I wrote: > Ray McGovern's latest for consortiumnews.com at > https://consortiumnews.com/2020/07/01/ray-mcgovern-new-york-times-deploys-heavy-gun-to-back-intel-on-russian-bounties/ and Caitlin Johnstone's latest at https://consortiumnews.com/2020/07/01/why-us-empire-works-so-hard-to-control-the-international-narrative-about-russia/ includes: > ?International law,? in reality, only meaningfully exists to the extent that the > international community is collectively willing to enforce it. In practice what > this means is that only nations that have no influence over the dominant > narratives in the international community are subject to ?international law.? > > This is why you will see leaders in African nations sentenced to prison[1] by the > International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes, but the USA can get away with > actually sanctioning ICC personnel[2] if they so much as talk about investigating > American war crimes and suffer no consequences for it whatsoever. It is also why > Noam Chomsky famously said[3] that if the Nuremberg laws had continued to be applied > with fairness and consistency, then every post-war U.S. president would have been > hanged. > > And this is also why so much effort gets poured into controlling the dominant > international narrative about nations like Russia which have resisted being > absorbed into the U.S. power alliance. If you have the influence and leverage to > control what narratives the international community accepts as true about the > behavior of a given targeted nation, then you can do things like manufacture > international collaboration with aggressive economic sanctions of the sort Senate > Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is currently calling for[4] in response to the > completely unsubstantiated narrative[5] that Russia paid Taliban fighters bounties > to kill occupying forces in Afghanistan. > > Sen. Schumer: "We need in this coming defense bill? tough sanctions against > Russia." pic.twitter.com/L3M9hZg0Xm[6] > ? The Hill (@thehill) June 28, 2020[7] [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-50329503 [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/11/politics/icc-executive-order/index.html [3] https://chomsky.info/1990____-2/ [4] https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1277304506670125056 [5] https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/this-russia-afghanistan-story-is-western-propaganda-at-its-most-vile-abe6084845f2 [6] https://t.co/L3M9hZg0Xm [7] https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1277304506670125056 Which, I point out, highlights how echoing/backing Russiagate is taking a pro-war stance -- Russiagate lies are used to back taking "tough sanctions against Russia". Sanctions are war on a country's poor and highly lethal. -J From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Jul 2 17:02:07 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 12:02:07 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Thank you for your pledge References: <5efe125c2f722_60ab93ef546161f@worker13.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Setsuko Thurlow > Subject: Thank you for your pledge > Date: July 2, 2020 at 11:59:08 AM CDT > To: "C.G. Estabrook" > > > > Dear C.G. -- > > My name is Setsuko Thurlow and I speak as a member of the family of Hibakusha ? those of us who, by some miraculous chance, survived the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I want to thank you for joining 306 people in pledging to join us in the fight to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons. > > For 75 years, we have worked for the total abolition of nuclear weapons. > > As a 13-year-old schoolgirl, I witnessed my city of Hiroshima blinded by the flash, flattened by the hurricane-like blast, burned in the heat of 4000 degrees Celsius and contaminated by the radiation of one atomic bomb. A bright summer morning turned to dark twilight with smoke and dust rising in the mushroom cloud, dead and injured people covering the ground, begging desperately for water and receiving no medical care at all. The spreading firestorm and the foul stench of burnt flesh filled the air. > > Within that single flash of light, my beloved Hiroshima became a place of desolation, with heaps of rubble, skeletons and blackened corpses everywhere. Of a population of 360,000 -- largely non-combatant women, children and elderly -- most became victims of the indiscriminate massacre of the atomic bombing. As of now, 75 years later people are still dying from the delayed effects of an atomic bomb considered crude by today?s standard for mass destruction. > > As the 75th anniversary of bombings Hiroshima and Nagasaki approaches, this is the very time to solidify our partnerships to achieve nuclear disarmament, for make no mistake: the majority of the world?s people want to live in a world without nuclear weapons. And the majority also want to live in a world where the human rights of all people are celebrated, as we can see now across the globe as citizens rise up to confront systemic racism. Hibakusha understand the sting of discrimination all too well. We join with peaceful people everywhere, demanding change. > > The adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by 122 UN member states was a moment of great joy, marking the beginning of the end of the most horrific weapons ever made. With each state that signs and ratifies this extraordinary treaty, we move closer to our goal becoming a reality. Seventy-five years after that great crime against humanity we can see the glimmer of a new dawn ? an era of peace built on stability, grounded in human rights, humanitarian law and secured through cooperation, not threats of global annihilation. Raise your voice with me and all Hibakusha who declare now is the time for all nations to join the nuclear ban treaty ? to end the darkness of this era and welcome the sunrise on a new day through the force of law and the will of the people. We now have the opportunity to bring the treaty into force. We now have the opportunity to stop funding nuclear violence instead of funding human needs. We now have the opportunity to stop risking the life of future generations. > > Thank you for taking action and choosing to work with us to make this dream a reality. > > Setsuko Thurlow > > > > READ SETSUKO?S STORY > > > > Why am I receiving this? > > You are receiving this email because you have signed up to news and updates from ICAN. When we contact you, it is to share campaign updates and calls to action, as well as inspiring stories about our activities worldwide. Click here to unsubscribe from this list . For more detailed information on how we use and store your data, please read our Privacy Policy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Jul 3 00:53:25 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 19:53:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] RT versus Apple on the origins of New York City's Central Park In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00f9424f-e243-9d05-dfcf-061e4d2e4036@forestfield.org> I wrote: > RT's Redacted Tonight offers a far more informative and (dare I say) entertaining > segment on the origin of Central Park is in > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9clyMwe-uaQ (and will probably be uploaded to YouTube > again as a separate video soon). I recommend it (and, coincidentally, the rest of > this episode). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB4Jw_0N0bU has been posted. From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Jul 3 06:17:06 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 01:17:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Any predictions on this pending free speech lawsuit? Message-ID: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/1/dc-sued-over-black-lives-matter-painted-city-stree/ > Judicial Watch went to court Wednesday demanding access to paint the streets of > Washington with its own political message after the city wrote ?Black Lives > Matter? on one street and allowed protesters to paint ?Defund the Police? next to > it. > > The conservative group said the city has effectively turned its roadways into a > public forum, and so it must allow those with differing viewpoints than BLM > protesters to have the same access, or else it?s violating the First Amendment. > > Judicial Watch said it wants to paint its own motto, ?Because No One is Above the > Law.? > > ?We have been patient. We also have been flexible. We have stated our willingness > to paint our motto at a different location if street closure is necessary and the > city is unwilling to close our chosen location,? the group told the city. ?All we > ask is that we be afforded the same opportunity to paint our message on a DC > street that has been afforded the painters on 16th Street.? > > Neither the office of Mayor Muriel Bowser nor Attorney General Karl Racine > returned messages about the challenge. [...] > The group said it first asked permission on June 10, four days after the > protesters added their message to 16th Street. Interim Deputy Mayor John > Falcicchio responded two days later saying it would conflict with road markings. > He said the 16th Street paintings were OK because those blocks of the street are > closed. > > Judicial Watch then asked for access to a similar closed street. Mr. Falcicchio > told them to submit an application for a public space permit. Judicial Watch said > those permits govern a parade or some other event, but not painting. > > Indeed, when the group inquired with the city?s permitting office it says it was > told there was no such road-painting permit available. > > ?We would gladly follow the rules if there were any. We are left with the firm > conviction that the process ? to the extent there is one ? is arbitrary and favors > only one viewpoint, that which is currently being expressed on 16th Street,? > Judicial Watch said. Any predictions on how this will be resolved? -J From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Jul 4 13:30:37 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2020 08:30:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] New Labor radio program premiers today at 11 AM Central Time Message-ID: <001e01d65207$4e8d2550$eba76ff0$@comcast.net> RADIO FREE LABOR - A new Labor radio program begins TODAY Saturday July 4th at 11 AM Central Time on radio station WEFT - 90.1 FM and LIVE worldwide at ; www.weft.org . The program is called ; " RADIO FREE LABOR ". Augustus ( GUS ) Wood is the Host along with Bob Paleczny. I hope you tune in as I will. David Johnson Host of the former radio program " THE WORLD LABOR HOUR " , Which had a 25 year run, first on radio station WEFT and then on radio station WRFU. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Sun Jul 5 21:50:59 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2020 16:50:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why isn't CHOP's massive failure being seen as a clear pointer to liberal policy failure and protest inarticulateness? Message-ID: <231acf27-687a-247a-c144-d3aa62f23464@forestfield.org> I'm purposefully pointing to establishment media source CNN here -- https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/us/chop-seattle-police-protesters-public-safety/ -- to make a point about the Seattle zone where police were unwelcomed and (allegedly) did not go; an area presumably set up by those who champion the "defund the police" line and who apparently never got around to identifying what the police do and how each of these tasks should be done instead. From what I can tell the CHOP supporters established no clearly-defined (nor democratically arrived at) policies covering how people would deal with real-world problems for which the police are typically called in; from the relatively mundane traffic accident to the obviously important murders (which happened). After two deaths and reports of other violence (shootings, beatings, and a rape) and the lethal experiment known as CHOP is now over. There should be quite a price to pay for Seattle's remarkably ignorant and negligent mayor Jenny Durkan both legally and in any re-election bid. Her being a Democrat also doesn't help that party's image. She's currently facing two separate petitions for recall[1]. [1] https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/judge-hears-dual-petitions-recall-seattle-mayor/4WVFOQAHHZCIZDR3AO5MBRNYVA/ So far I'm led to believe that what will come out of these protests is little more than vacuous sloganeering around "Black Lives Matter" (which merely repeats Glen Ford's earlier complaint about BLM) and "Defund The Police". There are lots of other choices for things we can do, we don't need the false dichotomy of accepting the police status quo or reinstating CHOP. Both lead to unacceptable horrors. But it's not good enough to point out that the status quo is horrible, one must identify specific actionable plans on what is to be done. Are protestors pushing for policies the country needs by listing actionable and identifiable plans (if not extant bills Congress could pass tomorrow if there were the political will to do it) and then insisting on their implementation? I'm thinking of policies such as cutting the war budget at least in half and redirecting former war budget money to pay for social services and funding federal guarantees to people? Americans need Medicare for All (2 bills exist to implement this now), a home for every American (not Cabrini Green-style warehousing), a Universal Basic Income, a national jobs program, recalling troops, ships, and weapons back home (including flatly abandoning occupations), local control over policing (not advisory boards), and clawing back the trillions of the "CARES" Act (which got widespread bipartisan support including so-called Congressional "progressives" like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) so that that money can be spent in direct cash payments to the public instead of the majority of CARES money going to the wealthiest people and businesses. From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 5 22:56:44 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2020 17:56:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why isn't CHOP's massive failure being seen as a clear pointer to liberal policy failure and protest inarticulateness? In-Reply-To: <231acf27-687a-247a-c144-d3aa62f23464@forestfield.org> References: <231acf27-687a-247a-c144-d3aa62f23464@forestfield.org> Message-ID: The horrible consequences of the current "movement" are not articulated by mainstream and most "progressive" media because BLM poses no threat to the capitalist ruling class. The Woke Left is not known for serious self-criticism. On Sun, Jul 5, 2020, 4:51 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > I'm purposefully pointing to establishment media source CNN here -- > > https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/us/chop-seattle-police-protesters-public-safety/ > -- to > make a point about the Seattle zone where police were unwelcomed and > (allegedly) did > not go; an area presumably set up by those who champion the "defund the > police" line > and who apparently never got around to identifying what the police do and > how each of > these tasks should be done instead. > > From what I can tell the CHOP supporters established no clearly-defined > (nor > democratically arrived at) policies covering how people would deal with > real-world > problems for which the police are typically called in; from the relatively > mundane > traffic accident to the obviously important murders (which happened). > > After two deaths and reports of other violence (shootings, beatings, and a > rape) and > the lethal experiment known as CHOP is now over. There should be quite a > price to pay > for Seattle's remarkably ignorant and negligent mayor Jenny Durkan both > legally and > in any re-election bid. Her being a Democrat also doesn't help that > party's image. > She's currently facing two separate petitions for recall[1]. > > [1] > > https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/judge-hears-dual-petitions-recall-seattle-mayor/4WVFOQAHHZCIZDR3AO5MBRNYVA/ > > So far I'm led to believe that what will come out of these protests is > little more > than vacuous sloganeering around "Black Lives Matter" (which merely > repeats Glen > Ford's earlier complaint about BLM) and "Defund The Police". There are > lots of other > choices for things we can do, we don't need the false dichotomy of > accepting the > police status quo or reinstating CHOP. Both lead to unacceptable horrors. > But it's > not good enough to point out that the status quo is horrible, one must > identify > specific actionable plans on what is to be done. > > Are protestors pushing for policies the country needs by listing > actionable and > identifiable plans (if not extant bills Congress could pass tomorrow if > there were > the political will to do it) and then insisting on their implementation? > I'm thinking > of policies such as cutting the war budget at least in half and > redirecting former > war budget money to pay for social services and funding federal guarantees > to people? > Americans need Medicare for All (2 bills exist to implement this now), a > home for > every American (not Cabrini Green-style warehousing), a Universal Basic > Income, a > national jobs program, recalling troops, ships, and weapons back home > (including > flatly abandoning occupations), local control over policing (not advisory > boards), > and clawing back the trillions of the "CARES" Act (which got widespread > bipartisan > support including so-called Congressional "progressives" like Ilhan Omar > and > Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) so that that money can be spent in direct cash > payments to > the public instead of the majority of CARES money going to the wealthiest > people and > businesses. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Jul 8 18:49:26 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 13:49:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Lula Endorses Nobel for Cuba Doctors References: <5f0611d88b434_3f41c2af6072662@asgworker-qmb3-10.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: <90EC30C7-8F3F-4F77-A5A3-8E52E8514294@newsfromneptune.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Alicia Jrapko and Medea Benjamin > Subject: Lula Endorses Nobel for Cuba Doctors > Date: July 8, 2020 at 1:35:04 PM CDT > To: "C. G. Estabrook" > > > ?While rich countries export soldiers and drop bombs on poor communities, Cuba, by sending doctors all over the world, exports life, love and health.? > > Luis Ignacio ?Lula? Da Silva, Former President of Brazil > Dear C. G., > > We agree with Brazilian leader Lula. While the U.S. government is engaged in endless wars and threatens new ones, we clearly see which countries finance death and which fund life. As the pandemic spreads across the globe, the response to COVID-19 by Cuba?s Henry Reeve Brigades exemplifies internationalism and humanitarianism versus unilateralism and militarism. Now, more than ever, it is important to recognize and celebrate Cuban doctors by awarding them the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize. > > Your endorsement of the Nobel for the Cuban Doctors Campaign contributed to a list of over 25,000 signatures. Let?s keep the list growing! Share this link? and help turn 25,000 into 30,000. > > Endorsements and signatures are part of our work. Dispelling the myths coming from Washington is important, too. Join us in the coming months as we share the richness of Cuba, her culture and her people. Learn how a Caribbean island persecuted by the United States for over 60 years successfully created the Henry Reeve Brigade humanitarian project. > > This week, watch and share Belly of the Beast's "Doctor's Speak? to hear Cuban doctors denounce Washington?s ludicrous claim that Cuba?s medical missions are a form of human trafficking. Check out Bill Hackwell's article "Distortions and Attempts to Undermine the Cuban Medical Brigades Will Not Succeed" for further debunking of these false charges. > > Also make sure to read ?Trump Hammers Cuba while Cuba Cures the Sick? , an analysis by Medea Benjamin and Leonardo Flores about the cruelty of Trump?s foreign policy that continues to punish Cuba while the island nation serves the sick at home and abroad. > > On July 18 and 19, experience the diversity and richness of Cuba?s music scene. Artists and activists from around the world (including Cuba Nobel Campaign co-chairs Alicia Jrapko and Medea Benjamin) will gather to honor Cuba at theHothouse Concert for Cuba . > > We look forward to working with you to continue the aspirations of the Nobel Peace Prize for the Cuban Doctors campaign. Watch for our upcoming webinars and film series. > > > Remember to follow us in social media: > > > > > In friendship, > > Alicia Jrapko and Medea Benjamin > Co-Chairs of the Cuba Nobel Prize Committee > > > This email was sent to carl at newsfromneptune.com . To unsubscribe, click here . > > To update your email subscription, contact contact at cubanobel.org . > > ? 2020 CUBANOBEL.ORG | Created with NationBuilder > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 17:57:50 2020 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 13:57:50 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Artist Letter urging Congress extend emergency unemployment benefits during COVID19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSedPBZQxNMj9EJUPZj8tUpHFA84q2hIgFCgtsGYBRDN8xjTRw/viewform The person organizing this says: "Know any musicians that would be willing to help with this? I worked ... on this letter in support of extending the emergency insurance through covid19. Hoping to get a mix of A listers and others to sign." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Thu Jul 9 23:13:47 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 18:13:47 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Jimmy Dore is back live in the afternoon Message-ID: <3699619d-eb05-6f17-f9f1-4cb391c926b7@forestfield.org> https://www.youtube.com/user/TYTComedy/videos has his videos, including a pointer to his live video as it airs. He's currently showing what a feckless idiot Bernie Sanders always was, why it's pointless to vote Democrat, and how electoral politics (particularly at the presidential level) get you nothing. From carl at newsfromneptune.com Fri Jul 10 19:05:41 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:05:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right Message-ID: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Jul 10 21:08:51 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:08:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Demonstration at politicians' homes tomorrow -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_wwjCTTq4U -- peoplesparty.org has info Message-ID: See Nick Brana's interview with Jimmy Dore: Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_wwjCTTq4U Information on tomorrow's protests: https://peoplesparty.org/ https://archive.md/utl0b (a Javascript-free snapshot) Tomorrow, 2020-07-11, there are a series of marches to demand a "People's Stimulus" to demand money and services for people. Here's the list of demands Brana said in the aforementioned interview: - Medicare for All - A Universal Basic Income - Cancelling rent & mortgage payments through the duration of the crisis - Keeping people on payroll - Defunding police and moving those funds back to social services - Cancelling debt payments like student debt and credit card debt According to Jimmy Dore in the interview: - 1 in 4 New York City tenants haven't paid rent since March. - 32% of US families missed July's house payments. - 23,000,000 in the United States face eviction by September. - The CARES Act enacted a 120-day eviction moratorium which ends on July 25th (which means delaying paying rent until after the moratorium, not forgiving for unpaid rent) - The boost to unemployment benefits also stops at the end of the month (2020-07-31) - There are 20,000,000 people out of work. - Nancy Pelosi's Democrats (including "The Squad") and Sens. Sanders & Warren voted for the CARES Act which added trillions to the economy (most of which has already gone to the wealthiest businesses and wealthiest people) and the banks have the power to add unlimited more money. -J From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jul 10 21:37:35 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:37:35 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Carl I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. > On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From carl at newsfromneptune.com Fri Jul 10 23:09:51 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:09:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE > On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Carl > > I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. > > Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. > > Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. > > Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. > > I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. > > > >> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >> >> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jul 10 23:19:51 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:19:51 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? JULY 10, 2020 Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO Facebook Twitter Reddit Email Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate ? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates : ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes : + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. > On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? > > I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. > > But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. > > Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE > > >> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> Carl >> >> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. >> >> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. >> >> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. >> >> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. >> >> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. >> >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>> >>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > From carl at newsfromneptune.com Fri Jul 10 23:28:34 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:28:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? right? In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. That?s what we should be talking about. Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is wrong? > On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? > > JULY 10, 2020 > Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO Facebook Twitter Reddit Email > > Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair > Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate ? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. > > The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. > > The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates : > > ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? > > Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? > > One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. > > Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes : > > + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? > > + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? > > + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? > > + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? > > All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. > > The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. > > I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. > > Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. > > Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. > > The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. > > In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. > > Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. > > I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. > > We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? >> >> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. >> >> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. >> >> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. >>> >>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. >>> >>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. >>> >>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. >>> >>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>>> >>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>> >> > From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jul 10 23:50:40 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:50:40 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di Maggio refers to below: ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas.? "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place.? "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > > Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. > > But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? right? > > In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. > > That?s what we should be talking about. > > Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is wrong? > > >> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? >> >> JULY 10, 2020 >> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO Facebook Twitter Reddit Email >> >> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair >> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate ? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. >> >> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. >> >> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates : >> >> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? >> >> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? >> >> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. >> >> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes : >> >> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? >> >> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? >> >> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? >> >> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? >> >> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. >> >> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. >> >> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. >> >> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. >> >> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. >> >> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. >> >> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. >> >> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. >> >> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. >> >> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? >>> >>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. >>> >>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. >>> >>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. >>>> >>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. >>>> >>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. >>>> >>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. >>>> >>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>>>> >>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sat Jul 11 00:20:49 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 19:20:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased equine. It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that it?s affected his career so much. Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? Who does? Best, CGE > On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di Maggio refers to below: > > ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas.? > > "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? > > "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? > > "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? > > "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? > > "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? > > "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? > > "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place.? > > "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? > > "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? > > > On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. >> >> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? right? >> >> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. >> >> That?s what we should be talking about. >> >> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is wrong? >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>> >>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? >>> >>> JULY 10, 2020 >>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO Facebook Twitter Reddit Email >>> >>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair >>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate ? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. >>> >>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. >>> >>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates : >>> >>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? >>> >>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? >>> >>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. >>> >>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes : >>> >>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? >>> >>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? >>> >>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? >>> >>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? >>> >>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. >>> >>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. >>> >>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. >>> >>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. >>> >>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. >>> >>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. >>> >>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. >>> >>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. >>> >>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. >>> >>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >>>> >>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? >>>> >>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. >>>> >>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. >>>> >>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Carl >>>>> >>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. >>>>> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. >>>>> >>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. >>>>> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. >>>>> >>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jul 11 00:34:26 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:34:26 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Well Carl, I?m not familiar with his work, and only bothered to read this article as it is related to my statement regarding ?the letter." If he appears shocked I missed it. Everything you say below appears to agree with his and my assessment of the letter. Glad we agree. "U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? > On Jul 10, 2020, at 17:20, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased equine. > > It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that it?s affected his career so much. > > Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? > > Who does? > > Best, CGE > > >> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di Maggio refers to below: >> >> ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas.? >> >> "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? >> >> "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? >> >> "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? >> >> "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? >> >> "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? >> >> "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? >> >> "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place.? >> >> "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? >> >> "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >> >> >> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. >>> >>> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? right? >>> >>> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. >>> >>> That?s what we should be talking about. >>> >>> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is wrong? >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>> >>>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? >>>> >>>> JULY 10, 2020 >>>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO Facebook Twitter Reddit Email >>>> >>>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair >>>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate ? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. >>>> >>>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. >>>> >>>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates : >>>> >>>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? >>>> >>>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? >>>> >>>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. >>>> >>>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes : >>>> >>>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? >>>> >>>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? >>>> >>>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? >>>> >>>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? >>>> >>>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. >>>> >>>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. >>>> >>>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. >>>> >>>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. >>>> >>>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. >>>> >>>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. >>>> >>>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. >>>> >>>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. >>>> >>>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. >>>> >>>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? >>>>> >>>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. >>>>> >>>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. >>>>> >>>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Sat Jul 11 01:26:27 2020 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 20:26:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:21 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased equine. > What Carl means here is that DiMaggio is beating a dead horse. > It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that it?s > affected his career so much. > > Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and educational > institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing > views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we > stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of > ideas, the better.? > > Who does? > Who engages in this pretense about the U.S. media and educational instititutions being committed to the free exploration of competing views? That the 'landscape' represents a free and open exchange of ideas? Practically everyone. Including, of course, the media, and virtually everyone who makes his living in academia. > Best, CGE > > > > On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > > > I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken > out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t > like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, > not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di > Maggio refers to below: > > > > ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is > being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to > empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of > ideas.? > > > > "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it > misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political > discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and > untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to > serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting > notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about > exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality > to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate > capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who > have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? > > > > "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds > great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort > of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, > is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the > respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, > to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a > reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and > economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being > worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are > sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical > content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and > reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to > demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce > a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even > progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed > discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and > are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? > > > > "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, > available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented < > https://global.oup.com/academic/product/news-on-the-right-9780190913533?cc=us&lang=en&> > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion > polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s > virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the > U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. > The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to > those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly > reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to > progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate > ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? > > > > "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of > academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault > by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political > engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever > lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back > decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. > Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, > jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while > elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a > discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this > process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active > citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to > be regularly politically engaged.? > > > > "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory > tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which > academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in > the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer > review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are > filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to > challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, > and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find > academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad > school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their > scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? > > > > "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such > thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to > academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in > elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges > of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, > let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research > that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false > consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social > science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? > > > > "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, > media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these > timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking > engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. > But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever > in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for > understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing > high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal > corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, > it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus > attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other > reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited > from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t > dream of receiving in the first place.? > > > > "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling > university resources for their own personal publicity and > self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports > gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. > The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? > right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous > speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting > arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student > protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? > > > > "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel > culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American > society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what > little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and > higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and > critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and > educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration > of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. > The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open > exchange of ideas, the better.? > > > > > > On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > >> > >> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him > fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. > >> > >> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? > right? > >> > >> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the > Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. > >> > >> That?s what we should be talking about. > >> > >> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is > wrong? > >> > >> > >>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > >>> > >>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my > instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? > >>> > >>> JULY 10, 2020 > >>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American > Liberalism < > https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/10/free-speech-fantasies-the-harpers-letter-and-the-myth-of-american-liberalism/>by > ANTHONY DIMAGGIO Facebook > Twitter < > https://www.counterpunch.org/#twitter>Reddit < > https://www.counterpunch.org/#reddit>Email < > https://www.counterpunch.org/#email> < > https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/10/free-speech-fantasies-the-harpers-letter-and-the-myth-of-american-liberalism/print/ > > > >>> > >>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair > >>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate < > https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/>? is making its > rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel > culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black > Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and > perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the > free exploration of competing viewpoints. > >>> > >>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, > including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, > liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as > Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the > letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no > interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for > condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which > ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary > American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a > free exploration of ideas. > >>> > >>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in > principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of > ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to > ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open > exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free > exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a > liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and > ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding > moral certainty.? The letter elaborates < > https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/>: > >>> > >>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe > retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. > More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage > control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of > considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; > books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from > writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of > literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed > academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are > sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each > particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries > of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? > >>> > >>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open > dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably > hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic > participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and > persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? > >>> > >>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it > misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political > discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and > untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to > serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting > notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about > exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality > to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate > capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who > have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. > >>> > >>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that > U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration > of diverse and competing views. The letter includes < > https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/>: > >>> > >>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our > norms of open debate and toleration.? > >>> > >>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the > lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? > >>> > >>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by > institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic > counter-speech from all quarters.? > >>> > >>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement > without dire professional consequences.? > >>> > >>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They > obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are > routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social > discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. > >>> > >>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds > great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort > of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, > is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the > respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, > to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a > reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and > economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being > worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are > sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical > content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and > reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to > demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce > a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even > progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed > discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and > are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. > >>> > >>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the > mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those > from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and > mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited > space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this > marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those > seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive > institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of > repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of > unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in > American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric > that has taken over the American right. > >>> > >>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, > available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented < > https://global.oup.com/academic/product/news-on-the-right-9780190913533?cc=us&lang=en&> > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion > polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s > virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the > U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. > The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to > those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly > reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to > progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate > ?experience?-oriented schooling system. > >>> > >>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion > of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic > assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts > political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? > Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was > rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic > ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing > in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one > cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research > over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In > this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing > active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral > responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. > >>> > >>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory > tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which > academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in > the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer > review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are > filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to > challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, > and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find > academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad > school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their > scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. > >>> > >>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such > thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to > academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in > elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges > of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, > let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research > that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false > consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social > science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. > >>> > >>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, > media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these > timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking > engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. > But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever > in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for > understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing > high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal > corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, > it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus > attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other > reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited > from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t > dream of receiving in the first place. > >>> > >>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate > dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and > self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports > gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. > The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? > right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous > speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting > arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student > protests that are mobilized against these campus events. > >>> > >>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel > culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American > society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what > little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and > higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and > critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and > educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration > of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. > The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open > exchange of ideas, the better. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the > people who believe in them.? > >>>> > >>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people > you name from the list of signers. > >>>> > >>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s > more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. > >>>> > >>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Carl > >>>>> > >>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly > during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication > offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent > it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only > much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however > make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and > propaganda, during the Obama Administration. > >>>>> > >>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, > Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today > with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of > those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. > >>>>> > >>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the > ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who > the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing > everything in the area, a very large area. > >>>>> > >>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, > represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color > revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington > Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. > >>>>> > >>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his > specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Peace mailing list > >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net > >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jul 11 01:39:40 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:39:40 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: John, I know what Carl means by ?deceased equine.? But since when did we stop beating the drums of truth. Correction on my first communique: I referred to ?fly zone,? I meant to say ?no fly zone.? > On Jul 10, 2020, at 18:26, John W. wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:21 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: > > Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased equine. > > What Carl means here is that DiMaggio is beating a dead horse. > > > It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that it?s affected his career so much. > > Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? > > Who does? > > Who engages in this pretense about the U.S. media and educational instititutions being committed to the free exploration of competing views? That the 'landscape' represents a free and open exchange of ideas? Practically everyone. Including, of course, the media, and virtually everyone who makes his living in academia. > > > Best, CGE > > > > On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > > > I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di Maggio refers to below: > > > > ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas.? > > > > "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? > > > > "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? > > > > "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? > > > > "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? > > > > "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? > > > > "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? > > > > "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place.? > > > > "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? > > > > "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? > > > > > > On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > >> > >> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. > >> > >> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? right? > >> > >> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. > >> > >> That?s what we should be talking about. > >> > >> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is wrong? > >> > >> > >>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >>> > >>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? > >>> > >>> JULY 10, 2020 > >>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism >by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO >Facebook >Twitter >Reddit >Email > > > >>> > >>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair > >>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate >? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. > >>> > >>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. > >>> > >>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates >: > >>> > >>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? > >>> > >>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? > >>> > >>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. > >>> > >>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes >: > >>> > >>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? > >>> > >>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? > >>> > >>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? > >>> > >>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? > >>> > >>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. > >>> > >>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. > >>> > >>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. > >>> > >>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. > >>> > >>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. > >>> > >>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. > >>> > >>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. > >>> > >>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. > >>> > >>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. > >>> > >>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? > >>>> > >>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. > >>>> > >>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. > >>>> > >>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Carl > >>>>> > >>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. > >>>>> > >>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. > >>>>> > >>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. > >>>>> > >>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. > >>>>> > >>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Peace mailing list > >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net > >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sat Jul 11 17:17:32 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 12:17:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "The Letter" Message-ID: Anthony DiMaggio, like many Counterpunch writers during what is the decadent phase of the website/newsletter's existence, post-Cockburn, suffers from 2 fundamental symptoms: Obviously Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), which allows him not to see that the majority of the working class, and the vast majority if you exclude blacks, has been rejected during the past 3 decades by the Democratic Party, and has for lack of a better alternative migrated to the Republican Party, or simply checked out of the political process. Thus, for DiMaggio, Trump voters must be "racist" and therefore not worthy of their objective working class position in our current political economy--as opposed to the worthy academic such as himself . Second, DiMaggio remains blissfully uncritical of progressive neoliberalism, whom he describes as being from liberal to progressive to radical. That is, he remains uncritical of the Woke identity politics that now defines the "Left," embodied by the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC), including the black PMC (Hannah-Jones, Coates, Kendi on down). He pretends that they have somehow been excluded from mainstream discourse, when in fact they are now in the catbird's seat of mainstream (NPR, MSNBC, NYT, WP) media. DiMaggio's articles on Counterpunch in recent years, especially his analysis of Trump supporters' "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" would have found a perfect home on any of these mainstream Woke platforms. DiMaggio is defensive about accusations regarding "cancel culture," something that is very real and disturbing, which the open letter accurately and rightly addresses. Of course some of the signatories are hypocritical if not depraved, including Cary Nelson and Bari Weiss, especially regarding Israel/Palestine. But the larger point remains, and applies not just to mainstream outlets, but to allegedly alternative ones like the Intercept, and indeed to Counterpunch itself, which has, with exception of Rob Urie, excluded "anti-Woke" voices (I'm not talking about myself, at least not yet), while promoting a Woke identitarian-Marxist asshole like Louis Proyect and his support for the wretched 1619 Project. DiMaggio lives within a Woke academic world which is a clusterfuck of category errors regarding identity, oppression, liberation, etc. Those who attempt to address this sorry state of affairs on campuses will indeed be "cancelled" in various ways. Meanwhile, he narcissistically worries about not being able to publish his "Gramscian" perspectives in academic journals, for crying out loud. In the post-Sanders, post-George Floyd, BLM/trans era, we are entering a very dangerous situation, which will be characterized by "loyalty oaths", purges, and a Maoist style culture war around identitarian issues. There will be moral panics aplenty, such as we are experiencing now. There will be many casualties, as the Woke Left will attempt to gain control of the Democratic Party in coalition with both neoliberals and neoconservatives, neither of whom the Woke PMC have any fundamental problems with; and we can clearly see the neolibs/neocons strategically accommodating themselves to the repressive demands of the Woke, such as what occurred at the NYT and their editor. The DP will continue to exploit its remaining machine "base," which consists only of black voters, but no longer includes labor unions in terms of voting loyalty (the DP basically began its abandonment of the unions with McGovern in 1972). We have seen a microcosm of this process and these emerging developments locally in recent years, both on campus and in the county-city context, in relation to both trans and "pro-immigrant" movements, and the rise of a racialized, domineering political machine in the Democratic Party. Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and Wokeness get along just fine. Yes, let's have trans people, especially black trans people, in the military. And during the pandemic, let's have our public health official (Julie Pryde) supporting unsafe and illegal public gatherings, because "racism is a virus," with no local pushback at all from our "right-wing" newspaper. That's just perfect. Teachers and teachers' unions are going to be under the gun in terms of racialized, white-shaming "re-education." It's going to get messy, it already has, when the two superintendents kowtow to the notion that "silence is violence." But the teachers are in a relatively advantageous, unionized labor position, and we may see genuine struggle, and perhaps even some light rather than heat regarding our education system and our children's future; for example, if our districts try to implement the 1619 Project, there will be pushback, at least from me. And there promises to be many comedic moments as our teachers are required by Human Resources to examine their "white fragility." There's much more to say, but suffice it to say that DiMaggio's contribution to a necessary debate regarding free speech, cancellation, and Wokeness is utterly ungrounded in any coherent analysis of our situation, and absolutely tendentious; given his track record, all of this is unsurprising. DG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jul 11 17:35:12 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:35:12 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Well David, it seems I totally misread DiMaggio?s letter, I thought he was criticizing the ?Woke? generation of liberal fools making the assumption that our democratic rights and free speech have been eroded due to Trump. I probably should reread it, but I don?t consider it or the conversation that worthy. I was focusing my analysis on the ?Letter,? being promoted, by those very Woke Democrat Party tools, and conservatives who support free speech for those with the money and power to acquire the very expensive soapboxes such as CNN, MSN, the Washington Post, and the NYT?s, that most of American?s consider the voices of journalism. As to the individual Di Maggio with whom you and Carl seem to have knowledge, I still don?t see him nearly as evil as those I referred to posing as ?pillars of free speech? and ?unbiased journalism," signatories on the letter. > On Jul 11, 2020, at 10:08, David Green wrote: > > Anthony DiMaggio, like many Counterpunch writers during what is the decadent phase of the website/newsletter's existence, post-Cockburn, suffers from 2 fundamental symptoms: > > Obviously Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), which allows him not to see that the majority of the working class, and the vast majority if you exclude blacks, has been rejected during the past 3 decades by the Democratic Party, and has for lack of a better alternative migrated to the Republican Party, or simply checked out of the political process. Thus, for DiMaggio, Trump voters must be "racist" and therefore not worthy of their objective working class position in our current political economy--as opposed to the worthy academic such as himself . > > Second, DiMaggio remains blissfully uncritical of progressive neoliberalism, whom he describes as being from liberal to progressive to radical. That is, he remains uncritical of the Woke identity politics that now defines the "Left," embodied by the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC), including the black PMC (Hannah-Jones, Coates, Kendi on down). He pretends that they have somehow been excluded from mainstream discourse, when in fact they are now in the catbird's seat of mainstream (NPR, MSNBC, NYT, WP) media. DiMaggio's articles on Counterpunch in recent years, especially his analysis of Trump supporters' "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" would have found a perfect home on any of these mainstream Woke platforms. > > DiMaggio is defensive about accusations regarding "cancel culture," something that is very real and disturbing, which the open letter accurately and rightly addresses. Of course some of the signatories are hypocritical if not depraved, including Cary Nelson and Bari Weiss, especially regarding Israel/Palestine. But the larger point remains, and applies not just to mainstream outlets, but to allegedly alternative ones like the Intercept, and indeed to Counterpunch itself, which has, with exception of Rob Urie, excluded "anti-Woke" voices (I'm not talking about myself, at least not yet), while promoting a Woke identitarian-Marxist asshole like Louis Proyect and his support for the wretched 1619 Project. > > DiMaggio lives within a Woke academic world which is a clusterfuck of category errors regarding identity, oppression, liberation, etc. Those who attempt to address this sorry state of affairs on campuses will indeed be "cancelled" in various ways. Meanwhile, he narcissistically worries about not being able to publish his "Gramscian" perspectives in academic journals, for crying out loud. > > In the post-Sanders, post-George Floyd, BLM/trans era, we are entering a very dangerous situation, which will be characterized by "loyalty oaths", purges, and a Maoist style culture war around identitarian issues. There will be moral panics aplenty, such as we are experiencing now. There will be many casualties, as the Woke Left will attempt to gain control of the Democratic Party in coalition with both neoliberals and neoconservatives, neither of whom the Woke PMC have any fundamental problems with; and we can clearly see the neolibs/neocons strategically accommodating themselves to the repressive demands of the Woke, such as what occurred at the NYT and their editor. The DP will continue to exploit its remaining machine "base," which consists only of black voters, but no longer includes labor unions in terms of voting loyalty (the DP basically began its abandonment of the unions with McGovern in 1972). > > We have seen a microcosm of this process and these emerging developments locally in recent years, both on campus and in the county-city context, in relation to both trans and "pro-immigrant" movements, and the rise of a racialized, domineering political machine in the Democratic Party. Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and Wokeness get along just fine. Yes, let's have trans people, especially black trans people, in the military. And during the pandemic, let's have our public health official (Julie Pryde) supporting unsafe and illegal public gatherings, because "racism is a virus," with no local pushback at all from our "right-wing" newspaper. That's just perfect. > > Teachers and teachers' unions are going to be under the gun in terms of racialized, white-shaming "re-education." It's going to get messy, it already has, when the two superintendents kowtow to the notion that "silence is violence." But the teachers are in a relatively advantageous, unionized labor position, and we may see genuine struggle, and perhaps even some light rather than heat regarding our education system and our children's future; for example, if our districts try to implement the 1619 Project, there will be pushback, at least from me. And there promises to be many comedic moments as our teachers are required by Human Resources to examine their "white fragility." > > There's much more to say, but suffice it to say that DiMaggio's contribution to a necessary debate regarding free speech, cancellation, and Wokeness is utterly ungrounded in any coherent analysis of our situation, and absolutely tendentious; given his track record, all of this is unsurprising. > > DG > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:40 PM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > John, I know what Carl means by ?deceased equine.? > > But since when did we stop beating the drums of truth. > > Correction on my first communique: I referred to ?fly zone,? I meant to say ?no fly zone.? > > >> On Jul 10, 2020, at 18:26, John W. > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:21 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: >> >> Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased equine. >> >> What Carl means here is that DiMaggio is beating a dead horse. >> >> >> It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that it?s affected his career so much. >> >> Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >> >> Who does? >> >> Who engages in this pretense about the U.S. media and educational instititutions being committed to the free exploration of competing views? That the 'landscape' represents a free and open exchange of ideas? Practically everyone. Including, of course, the media, and virtually everyone who makes his living in academia. >> >> >> Best, CGE >> >> >> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >> > >> > I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di Maggio refers to below: >> > >> > ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas.? >> > >> > "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? >> > >> > "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? >> > >> > "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? >> > >> > "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? >> > >> > "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? >> > >> > "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? >> > >> > "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place.? >> > >> > "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? >> > >> > "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >> > >> > >> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: >> >> >> >> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. >> >> >> >> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? right? >> >> >> >> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. >> >> >> >> That?s what we should be talking about. >> >> >> >> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is wrong? >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? >> >>> >> >>> JULY 10, 2020 >> >>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism >by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO >Facebook >Twitter >Reddit >Email > > >> >>> >> >>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair >> >>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate >? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. >> >>> >> >>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. >> >>> >> >>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates >: >> >>> >> >>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? >> >>> >> >>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? >> >>> >> >>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. >> >>> >> >>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes >: >> >>> >> >>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? >> >>> >> >>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? >> >>> >> >>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? >> >>> >> >>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? >> >>> >> >>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. >> >>> >> >>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. >> >>> >> >>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. >> >>> >> >>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. >> >>> >> >>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. >> >>> >> >>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. >> >>> >> >>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. >> >>> >> >>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. >> >>> >> >>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. >> >>> >> >>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? >> >>>> >> >>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. >> >>>> >> >>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. >> >>>> >> >>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Carl >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>> Peace mailing list >> >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jul 11 17:37:37 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:37:37 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: > On Jul 11, 2020, at 10:08, David Green wrote: > > Anthony DiMaggio, like many Counterpunch writers during what is the decadent phase of the website/newsletter's existence, post-Cockburn, suffers from 2 fundamental symptoms: > > Obviously Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), which allows him not to see that the majority of the working class, and the vast majority if you exclude blacks, has been rejected during the past 3 decades by the Democratic Party, and has for lack of a better alternative migrated to the Republican Party, or simply checked out of the political process. Thus, for DiMaggio, Trump voters must be "racist" and therefore not worthy of their objective working class position in our current political economy--as opposed to the worthy academic such as himself . > > Second, DiMaggio remains blissfully uncritical of progressive neoliberalism, whom he describes as being from liberal to progressive to radical. That is, he remains uncritical of the Woke identity politics that now defines the "Left," embodied by the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC), including the black PMC (Hannah-Jones, Coates, Kendi on down). He pretends that they have somehow been excluded from mainstream discourse, when in fact they are now in the catbird's seat of mainstream (NPR, MSNBC, NYT, WP) media. DiMaggio's articles on Counterpunch in recent years, especially his analysis of Trump supporters' "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" would have found a perfect home on any of these mainstream Woke platforms. > > DiMaggio is defensive about accusations regarding "cancel culture," something that is very real and disturbing, which the open letter accurately and rightly addresses. Of course some of the signatories are hypocritical if not depraved, including Cary Nelson and Bari Weiss, especially regarding Israel/Palestine. But the larger point remains, and applies not just to mainstream outlets, but to allegedly alternative ones like the Intercept, and indeed to Counterpunch itself, which has, with exception of Rob Urie, excluded "anti-Woke" voices (I'm not talking about myself, at least not yet), while promoting a Woke identitarian-Marxist asshole like Louis Proyect and his support for the wretched 1619 Project. > > DiMaggio lives within a Woke academic world which is a clusterfuck of category errors regarding identity, oppression, liberation, etc. Those who attempt to address this sorry state of affairs on campuses will indeed be "cancelled" in various ways. Meanwhile, he narcissistically worries about not being able to publish his "Gramscian" perspectives in academic journals, for crying out loud. > > In the post-Sanders, post-George Floyd, BLM/trans era, we are entering a very dangerous situation, which will be characterized by "loyalty oaths", purges, and a Maoist style culture war around identitarian issues. There will be moral panics aplenty, such as we are experiencing now. There will be many casualties, as the Woke Left will attempt to gain control of the Democratic Party in coalition with both neoliberals and neoconservatives, neither of whom the Woke PMC have any fundamental problems with; and we can clearly see the neolibs/neocons strategically accommodating themselves to the repressive demands of the Woke, such as what occurred at the NYT and their editor. The DP will continue to exploit its remaining machine "base," which consists only of black voters, but no longer includes labor unions in terms of voting loyalty (the DP basically began its abandonment of the unions with McGovern in 1972). > > We have seen a microcosm of this process and these emerging developments locally in recent years, both on campus and in the county-city context, in relation to both trans and "pro-immigrant" movements, and the rise of a racialized, domineering political machine in the Democratic Party. Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and Wokeness get along just fine. Yes, let's have trans people, especially black trans people, in the military. And during the pandemic, let's have our public health official (Julie Pryde) supporting unsafe and illegal public gatherings, because "racism is a virus," with no local pushback at all from our "right-wing" newspaper. That's just perfect. > > Teachers and teachers' unions are going to be under the gun in terms of racialized, white-shaming "re-education." It's going to get messy, it already has, when the two superintendents kowtow to the notion that "silence is violence." But the teachers are in a relatively advantageous, unionized labor position, and we may see genuine struggle, and perhaps even some light rather than heat regarding our education system and our children's future; for example, if our districts try to implement the 1619 Project, there will be pushback, at least from me. And there promises to be many comedic moments as our teachers are required by Human Resources to examine their "white fragility." > > There's much more to say, but suffice it to say that DiMaggio's contribution to a necessary debate regarding free speech, cancellation, and Wokeness is utterly ungrounded in any coherent analysis of our situation, and absolutely tendentious; given his track record, all of this is unsurprising. > > DG > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:40 PM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > John, I know what Carl means by ?deceased equine.? > > But since when did we stop beating the drums of truth. > > Correction on my first communique: I referred to ?fly zone,? I meant to say ?no fly zone.? > > >> On Jul 10, 2020, at 18:26, John W. > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:21 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: >> >> Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased equine. >> >> What Carl means here is that DiMaggio is beating a dead horse. >> >> >> It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that it?s affected his career so much. >> >> Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >> >> Who does? >> >> Who engages in this pretense about the U.S. media and educational instititutions being committed to the free exploration of competing views? That the 'landscape' represents a free and open exchange of ideas? Practically everyone. Including, of course, the media, and virtually everyone who makes his living in academia. >> >> >> Best, CGE >> >> >> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >> > >> > I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di Maggio refers to below: >> > >> > ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas.? >> > >> > "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? >> > >> > "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? >> > >> > "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? >> > >> > "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? >> > >> > "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? >> > >> > "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? >> > >> > "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place.? >> > >> > "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? >> > >> > "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >> > >> > >> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: >> >> >> >> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. >> >> >> >> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? right? >> >> >> >> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. >> >> >> >> That?s what we should be talking about. >> >> >> >> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is wrong? >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? >> >>> >> >>> JULY 10, 2020 >> >>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism >by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO >Facebook >Twitter >Reddit >Email > > >> >>> >> >>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair >> >>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate >? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. >> >>> >> >>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. >> >>> >> >>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates >: >> >>> >> >>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? >> >>> >> >>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? >> >>> >> >>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. >> >>> >> >>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes >: >> >>> >> >>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? >> >>> >> >>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? >> >>> >> >>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? >> >>> >> >>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? >> >>> >> >>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. >> >>> >> >>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. >> >>> >> >>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. >> >>> >> >>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. >> >>> >> >>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. >> >>> >> >>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. >> >>> >> >>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. >> >>> >> >>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. >> >>> >> >>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. >> >>> >> >>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? >> >>>> >> >>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. >> >>>> >> >>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. >> >>>> >> >>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Carl >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>> Peace mailing list >> >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jul 11 17:39:28 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:39:28 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: <9764AE5C-B599-49FE-955B-0E1D694D3B48@hotmail.com> References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> <9764AE5C-B599-49FE-955B-0E1D694D3B48@hotmail.com> Message-ID: David, your below statements might be worthy of Counterpunch given their support for the likes of Proyect, another faux Marxist supporting imperialism. > On Jul 11, 2020, at 10:37, Karen Aram wrote: > > >> On Jul 11, 2020, at 10:08, David Green > wrote: >> >> Anthony DiMaggio, like many Counterpunch writers during what is the decadent phase of the website/newsletter's existence, post-Cockburn, suffers from 2 fundamental symptoms: >> >> Obviously Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), which allows him not to see that the majority of the working class, and the vast majority if you exclude blacks, has been rejected during the past 3 decades by the Democratic Party, and has for lack of a better alternative migrated to the Republican Party, or simply checked out of the political process. Thus, for DiMaggio, Trump voters must be "racist" and therefore not worthy of their objective working class position in our current political economy--as opposed to the worthy academic such as himself . >> >> Second, DiMaggio remains blissfully uncritical of progressive neoliberalism, whom he describes as being from liberal to progressive to radical. That is, he remains uncritical of the Woke identity politics that now defines the "Left," embodied by the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC), including the black PMC (Hannah-Jones, Coates, Kendi on down). He pretends that they have somehow been excluded from mainstream discourse, when in fact they are now in the catbird's seat of mainstream (NPR, MSNBC, NYT, WP) media. DiMaggio's articles on Counterpunch in recent years, especially his analysis of Trump supporters' "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" would have found a perfect home on any of these mainstream Woke platforms. >> >> DiMaggio is defensive about accusations regarding "cancel culture," something that is very real and disturbing, which the open letter accurately and rightly addresses. Of course some of the signatories are hypocritical if not depraved, including Cary Nelson and Bari Weiss, especially regarding Israel/Palestine. But the larger point remains, and applies not just to mainstream outlets, but to allegedly alternative ones like the Intercept, and indeed to Counterpunch itself, which has, with exception of Rob Urie, excluded "anti-Woke" voices (I'm not talking about myself, at least not yet), while promoting a Woke identitarian-Marxist asshole like Louis Proyect and his support for the wretched 1619 Project. >> >> DiMaggio lives within a Woke academic world which is a clusterfuck of category errors regarding identity, oppression, liberation, etc. Those who attempt to address this sorry state of affairs on campuses will indeed be "cancelled" in various ways. Meanwhile, he narcissistically worries about not being able to publish his "Gramscian" perspectives in academic journals, for crying out loud. >> >> In the post-Sanders, post-George Floyd, BLM/trans era, we are entering a very dangerous situation, which will be characterized by "loyalty oaths", purges, and a Maoist style culture war around identitarian issues. There will be moral panics aplenty, such as we are experiencing now. There will be many casualties, as the Woke Left will attempt to gain control of the Democratic Party in coalition with both neoliberals and neoconservatives, neither of whom the Woke PMC have any fundamental problems with; and we can clearly see the neolibs/neocons strategically accommodating themselves to the repressive demands of the Woke, such as what occurred at the NYT and their editor. The DP will continue to exploit its remaining machine "base," which consists only of black voters, but no longer includes labor unions in terms of voting loyalty (the DP basically began its abandonment of the unions with McGovern in 1972). >> >> We have seen a microcosm of this process and these emerging developments locally in recent years, both on campus and in the county-city context, in relation to both trans and "pro-immigrant" movements, and the rise of a racialized, domineering political machine in the Democratic Party. Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and Wokeness get along just fine. Yes, let's have trans people, especially black trans people, in the military. And during the pandemic, let's have our public health official (Julie Pryde) supporting unsafe and illegal public gatherings, because "racism is a virus," with no local pushback at all from our "right-wing" newspaper. That's just perfect. >> >> Teachers and teachers' unions are going to be under the gun in terms of racialized, white-shaming "re-education." It's going to get messy, it already has, when the two superintendents kowtow to the notion that "silence is violence." But the teachers are in a relatively advantageous, unionized labor position, and we may see genuine struggle, and perhaps even some light rather than heat regarding our education system and our children's future; for example, if our districts try to implement the 1619 Project, there will be pushback, at least from me. And there promises to be many comedic moments as our teachers are required by Human Resources to examine their "white fragility." >> >> There's much more to say, but suffice it to say that DiMaggio's contribution to a necessary debate regarding free speech, cancellation, and Wokeness is utterly ungrounded in any coherent analysis of our situation, and absolutely tendentious; given his track record, all of this is unsurprising. >> >> DG >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:40 PM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> John, I know what Carl means by ?deceased equine.? >> >> But since when did we stop beating the drums of truth. >> >> Correction on my first communique: I referred to ?fly zone,? I meant to say ?no fly zone.? >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 18:26, John W. > wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:21 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: >>> >>> Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased equine. >>> >>> What Carl means here is that DiMaggio is beating a dead horse. >>> >>> >>> It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that it?s affected his career so much. >>> >>> Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >>> >>> Who does? >>> >>> Who engages in this pretense about the U.S. media and educational instititutions being committed to the free exploration of competing views? That the 'landscape' represents a free and open exchange of ideas? Practically everyone. Including, of course, the media, and virtually everyone who makes his living in academia. >>> >>> >>> Best, CGE >>> >>> >>> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >>> > >>> > I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di Maggio refers to below: >>> > >>> > ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas.? >>> > >>> > "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? >>> > >>> > "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? >>> > >>> > "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? >>> > >>> > "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? >>> > >>> > "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? >>> > >>> > "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? >>> > >>> > "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place.? >>> > >>> > "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? >>> > >>> > "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >>> > >>> > >>> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. >>> >> >>> >> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? right? >>> >> >>> >> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. >>> >> >>> >> That?s what we should be talking about. >>> >> >>> >> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is wrong? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? >>> >>> >>> >>> JULY 10, 2020 >>> >>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism >by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO >Facebook >Twitter >Reddit >Email > > >>> >>> >>> >>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair >>> >>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate >? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. >>> >>> >>> >>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates >: >>> >>> >>> >>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? >>> >>> >>> >>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? >>> >>> >>> >>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. >>> >>> >>> >>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes >: >>> >>> >>> >>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? >>> >>> >>> >>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? >>> >>> >>> >>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? >>> >>> >>> >>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? >>> >>> >>> >>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. >>> >>> >>> >>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. >>> >>> >>> >>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. >>> >>> >>> >>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. >>> >>> >>> >>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. >>> >>> >>> >>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. >>> >>> >>> >>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. >>> >>> >>> >>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. >>> >>> >>> >>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. >>> >>> >>> >>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Carl >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>> >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sat Jul 11 18:22:40 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 13:22:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Betrayed by John Roberts References: <68.C0.11954.2920A0F5@emsmta16> Message-ID: <3364634D-B49E-4D64-BE0E-3F46EDFBE1A7@newsfromneptune.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Alveda King" > Subject: Betrayed by John Roberts > Date: July 11, 2020 at 6:06:06 AM CDT > To: Carl Estabrook > Reply-To: Patriot at americanlibertywire.com > > > > Fellow Supporter of Life: > > The Supreme Court is again overlooking the truth about the harmful impact of legal Abortion. Their recent decision to strike down a Louisiana law that would have required the so-called ?doctors? who performing abortions of these mothers of aborted babies to the hospital if something went wrong is heartless. > > The court's decision, and especially Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.'s heartbreaking decision to stand with the abortion industry, shows us that if we are going to end this barbaric practice once and for all, the fight must come from the people. > > > Please Help Us Today > The courts won't help us. > > My name is Dr. Alveda King, I am the niece of Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and I am continuing my family's legacy of justice, on behalf of the soul of our nation by battling the horrors of Abortion. > > I have teamed with some of the biggest stars in Hollywood, such as Jon Voight, Stacy Dash, and Steve Guttenberg, to produce a movie about the real story of Roe v Wade. > > If we can educate America about this dark chapter in our nation's history, we can start a wave that will sweep Abortion into history. > > Millions of babies have been aborted since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, and we intend to stop it. Will you help us educate America about the unborn lives that have been forgotten? > Abortion in America is a true Genocide, and too many people seem clueless. Since I have announced that I was producing a movie on the real history of Roe v Wade, enemies of life have done everything possible to block our production. They have tried to shut down this movie?a few times?they almost succeeded. Yet we are so close to getting the final cut of the film into theaters this Fall. > > We need your help now to get across the finish line. Will you help us finish this movie and educate America about the real story of Abortion in this country? > > The Roe v Wade Film team has come so far in the face of overwhelming adversity. Please help us now in this most critical mission of outreach. > > Your support will allow us to secure theatres to screen our film this Fall and save countless unborn lives. > > We can change hearts, minds, and even laws to save countless generations of unborn children. Pitch in today to change the course of history: just click one of the links below. > > >?>?>?CLICK HERE TO CHIP IN $10 > >?>?>?CLICK HERE TO CHIP IN $25 > >?>?>?CLICK HERE TO CHIP IN $50 > >?>?>?CLICK HERE TO CHIP IN $100 > >?>?>?CLICK HERE TO CHIP IN $1,000 OR MORE>>> > ALL GIFTS OF $1,000 OR MORE WILL RECEIVE TWO TICKETS TO OUR RED-CARPET PREMIERE AND EXCLUSIVE AFTER-PARTY, BUT WE APPRECIATE GIFTS IN ANY AMOUNT! > > If our movie helps save just one life, it will all be worth it! > > For the children, > > > > Dr. Alveda King > Executive Producer > Roe v Wade, The Movie > > P.S. Remember, a gift of $1,000 or more secures two tickets for you to the red-carpet premiere of the movie and after-party where you can mingle with our all-star cast and other Hollywood celebrities! But, please also remember that your gift of $100, $50, $25 or $10 will help fund our outreach efforts to spread our message and change hearts and minds to save future generations of precious unborn babies! Donate here. > Please take a minute to read the special message from our sponsor. > Sponsorships like this one help us keep our news service free of charge. The sponsorship above reflects the opinions & representations of the advertiser, & not necessarily the opinion of American Liberty Outreach > This email was sent to: carl at newsfromneptune.com > > ? 2020 American Liberty Outreach > 1200 G St NW Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20005 > > > Report as Spam > This message was intended for: carl at newsfromneptune.com > You were added to the system October 10, 2019. > For more information click here . Update your preferences > Unsubscribe | Unsubscribe via email > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Jul 11 20:49:33 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 15:49:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Suggested AOTA/NFN videos Message-ID: <789a86d3-a4a8-603b-d43a-7d423c0e9818@forestfield.org> Here are some videos I suggested to Jason Liggett for running during AWARE on the Air and News from Neptune timeslots: Grayzone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AvPfuBVrrU -- (32m 43s) What does community control of police look like? Jimmy Dore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGczmJQ2H28 -- (12m 21s) "Code Pink Has More Balls Than MSNBC!" on Code Pink's recent activism opposing the US-led Venezuelan coup attempts, Aaron Mat?'s twitter responses to MSNBC's Chris Hayes, and a repeat announcement that Dore is not above being paid handsomely to ditch the integrity he has to pitch neocon propaganda like Hayes. There is some censorship of Dore's language baked into the audio. Glenn Greenwald https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejqYrzEX14E -- (1h 7m) How Congress Maintains Endless War Black Agenda Report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul0AM_NFtWc -- (49m 24s) Left Lens: Premiere episode with Danny Haiphong and Margaret Kimberley introduce viewers to Black Agenda Report, question neoliberal confidence in Joe Biden's 2020 chances, discuss why community control of the police is so critical to the development of the movement against racist policing, and end with a brief analysis of internationalism and solidarity. Consortium News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq4qQiwL1iA -- (1h 21m 14s) Elizabeth Vos interviews guests on developments in the Ghislane Maxwell case: will she implicate others? What is Maxwell and Epstein's relationship to spying? -J From jbn at forestfield.org Sun Jul 12 03:31:52 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 22:31:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Suggested AOTA/NFN videos In-Reply-To: <789a86d3-a4a8-603b-d43a-7d423c0e9818@forestfield.org> References: <789a86d3-a4a8-603b-d43a-7d423c0e9818@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <45c34a78-c821-0f98-1d0e-9aca13dda570@forestfield.org> I wrote: > Here are some videos I suggested to Jason Liggett for running during AWARE on the Air > and News from Neptune timeslots: One more to add to the pile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGu1qDQnT70 -- (27m 42s) Chris Hedges interviews Dean Yates, who, 13 years ago, was head of the Reuters bureau in Baghdad when the "Collateral Murder" video (the famous WikiLeaks/Manning video showing the US military committing war crimes against civilians and two Reuters employees) was released. He speaks about that and US military cover up. A transcript should be available on https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/ soon. -J From brussel at illinois.edu Sun Jul 12 04:36:21 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 04:36:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "The Letter" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C0A479F-6251-42AF-BB35-F6E613B17534@illinois.edu> I find this analysis irrelevent and spurious, and moreover hard to digest. I?ll interpose some comments: On Jul 11, 2020, at 12:17 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: Anthony DiMaggio, like many Counterpunch writers during what is the decadent phase of the website/newsletter's existence, post-Cockburn, suffers from 2 fundamental symptoms: Obviously Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), which allows him not to see that the majority of the working class, and the vast majority if you exclude blacks, has been rejected during the past 3 decades by the Democratic Party, and has for lack of a better alternative migrated to the Republican Party, or simply checked out of the political process. Thus, for DiMaggio, Trump voters must be "racist" and therefore not worthy of their objective working class position in our current political economy--as opposed to the worthy academic such as himself . DiMaggio never mentions Trump or Trumpites in his critique, so just what relevency has this paragrwph to what he does say. That he dosn?t mention the word ?class? seems to be what you, David, are complaining about. Second, DiMaggio remains blissfully uncritical of progressive neoliberalism, whom he describes as being from liberal to progressive to radical. what are you talking about? Be more explicit with respect to his presnt words. That is, he remains uncritical of the Woke identity politics that now defines the "Left," embodied by the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC), including the black PMC (Hannah-Jones, Coates, Kendi on down). He pretends that they have somehow been excluded from mainstream discourse, when in fact they are now in the catbird's seat of mainstream (NPR, MSNBC, NYT, WP) media. I find this to be a non sequitur. Again, irrelevent to what DiMaggio tries to say. This ?woke? business doesn?t appear to me to enter at all into DiMaggio?s thesis. DiMaggio's articles on Counterpunch in recent years, especially his analysis of Trump supporters' "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" would have found a perfect home on any of these mainstream Woke platforms. No comment: I haven?t read those articles. I?m sticking to what he says in the present critique. DiMaggio is defensive about accusations regarding "cancel culture," something that is very real and disturbing, which the open letter accurately and rightly addresses. Of course some of the signatories are hypocritical if not depraved, including Cary Nelson and Bari Weiss, especially regarding Israel/Palestine. This is just the point DiMaggio promotes, although I do take issue to his final comments in his article, where he says he doesn?t give a damn about the right wing invitees to academic venues, and the protests they are subject to. Yet I symathize with his frustration, given the facts that radical leftish speakers are largely ignored in academic circles, as toxic to academic enterprise, and faculty are indeed filtered for intellectual respectability, meaning going along more or less with the status quo on politics and current world political problems. But the larger point remains, and applies not just to mainstream outlets, but to allegedly alternative ones like the Intercept, and indeed to Counterpunch itself, which has, with exception of Rob Urie, excluded "anti-Woke" voices (I'm not talking about myself, at least not yet), while promoting a Woke identitarian-Marxist asshole like Louis Proyect and his support for the wretched 1619 Project. DiMaggio lives within a Woke academic world which is a clusterfuck of category errors regarding identity, oppression, liberation, etc. Where does this conclusion come from? That he talks too much (elsewhere?) about racism, imperialism, plutocracy, neoliberalism, gender issues?? I guess I just missed it. Those who attempt to address this sorry state of affairs on campuses will indeed be "cancelled" in various ways. Meanwhile, he narcissistically worries about not being able to publish his "Gramscian" perspectives in academic journals, for crying out loud. A nasty remark, in my opinion. Narcissism? The point he tries to make is that discussion is way too limited in the academy. In the post-Sanders, post-George Floyd, BLM/trans era, we are entering a very dangerous situation, which will be characterized by "loyalty oaths", purges, and a Maoist style culture war around identitarian issues. There will be moral panics aplenty, such as we are experiencing now. There will be many casualties, as the Woke Left will attempt to gain control of the Democratic Party in coalition with both neoliberals and neoconservatives, neither of whom the Woke PMC have any fundamental problems with; and we can clearly see the neolibs/neocons strategically accommodating themselves to the repressive demands of the Woke, such as what occurred at the NYT and their editor. The DP will continue to exploit its remaining machine "base," which consists only of black voters, but no longer includes labor unions in terms of voting loyalty (the DP basically began its abandonment of the unions with McGovern in 1972). Who will be purged who is not already purged as far as popular discourse is concerned (on the mainstream airwaves and in literature). Take Chomsky as an example, reclining, declining in Arizona. Ellsberg, Greenwald, Saleita,? We have seen a microcosm of this process and these emerging developments locally in recent years, both on campus and in the county-city context, in relation to both trans and "pro-immigrant" movements, and the rise of a racialized, domineering political machine in the Democratic Party. Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and Wokeness get along just fine. Yes, let's have trans people, especially black trans people, in the military. And during the pandemic, let's have our public health official (Julie Pryde) supporting unsafe and illegal public gatherings, because "racism is a virus," with no local pushback at all from our "right-wing" newspaper. That's just perfect. Yes, I agree that there is a problem here, but that has little to do with what DiMaggio is saying. Teachers and teachers' unions are going to be under the gun in terms of racialized, white-shaming "re-education." It's going to get messy, it already has, when the two superintendents kowtow to the notion that "silence is violence." But the teachers are in a relatively advantageous, unionized labor position, and we may see genuine struggle, and perhaps even some light rather than heat regarding our education system and our children's future; for example, if our districts try to implement the 1619 Project, there will be pushback, at least from me. And there promises to be many comedic moments as our teachers are required by Human Resources to examine their "white fragility." There's much more to say, but suffice it to say that DiMaggio's contribution to a necessary debate regarding free speech, cancellation, and Wokeness is utterly ungrounded in any coherent analysis of our situation, and absolutely tendentious; given his track record, all of this is unsurprising. This is pretentious, bombastic, haughty and unworthy as far as I can see with respect to Dimaggio?s remarks in his critique of the Letter. David, let?s hear your detailed coherent analysis of our situation, whatever that situation is. I see no inkling of one here. Sorry to be so critical, but I think the criticisms here of DiMaggio are unfair. . mkb DG _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Jul 12 04:37:07 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 23:37:07 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: AMAZING: 11-Year-Old Chose Life After Rape, and Now Her Son Is a WWE Superstar References: <1594479986661.9685dc93-d445-4e58-a298-e1e5a106956a@bf10x.hubspotemail.net> Message-ID: <66BBBE18-A756-40A6-8FEE-6BE9CC08A952@newsfromneptune.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Live Action News > Subject: AMAZING: 11-Year-Old Chose Life After Rape, and Now Her Son Is a WWE Superstar > Date: July 11, 2020 at 10:19:56 AM CDT > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > Reply-To: info at liveaction.org > > > > > AMAZING: 11-Year-Old Chose Life After Rape, and Now Her Son Is a WWE Superstar > Wrestling fans are undoubtedly familiar with Titus O?Neil. The former football player and WWE superstar has been a fixture on the wrestling circuit for 10 years, and has won several championships. Less familiar for many, though, is the story of his upbringing. O?Neil, whose real name is Thaddeus Bullard, was born to Daria Bullard when she was just 11 years old. Read more > MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS > > > Oldest Abortion Facility in Ohio Closes for Good > Two years ago, Founder?s Women?s Health Center in Columbus, Ohio, closed its doors. That, however, turned out to be just temporary, with the abortion facility shutting down only to handle maintenance and management issues. Now Greater Columbus Right to Life (GCRL) is reporting that the facility is closed permanently. Read more > > Kanye West: Planned Parenthood Is ?White Supremacist? > West announced over Independence Day weekend that he intends to run for president in 2020, and because of this announcement, recently gave what Forbes called ?four rambling hours of interviews.? Amongst remarks that some would label conspiracy theory, West for the second time publicly addressed his views on abortion. Read more > > Awesome: Gucci?s First Model With Down Syndrome Goes Viral > A British teenager with Down syndrome has made history by starring in a Gucci Beauty campaign, which was featured in Italian Vogue. Eighteen-year-old Ellie Goldstein from Essex is the first model with Down syndrome to pose for Gucci, and she has quickly gone viral on social media for this huge accomplishment. Read more > > > Little Sisters of the Poor Win at Supreme Court Against Contraception Mandate > In a 7-2 ruling on Wednesday, The Supreme Court of the United States upheld rules allowing employers to opt-out of paying for birth control in their health care plans based on their religious beliefs. Read more > > Newly Obtained Records Indicate FDA Purchased Organs and Tissue of Aborted Babies > Judicial Watch announced on Tuesday that it has received 165 pages of records from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through a Freedom of Information request and lawsuit showing contracts between the FDA and Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR) for the purchase of tissue from aborted babies. The watchdog group said the eight contracts, which were dated from 2012 to 2018, requested ?fresh and never frozen? tissue from first and second-trimester aborted babies. Read more > > Actress Alyssa Milano and Others Mislead Public About Murdered Newborns in El Salvador > A war against life is being waged in El Salvador where abortion is illegal. The Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood are both helping to fund the effort to legalize abortion in the pro-life nation, but to do so, they are building a case built on lies and on the bodies of murdered newborns. Read more > > Husband ?Crushed? After Planned Parenthood Worker Convinces Wife to Abort Without His Knowledge > The deception could have ended the marriage. Planned Parenthood showed no concern about the most important relationship in this woman?s life. The father was given no say in the decision. Instead, his wife was pressured to abort to benefit him, even though it was not what he wanted. Pro-abortion activists claim that the father has no say in abortion, even if he is married to the woman. Many men suffer emotionally due to abortion, yet abortion advocates mock men who feel post-abortion grief. Read more > > Planned Parenthood Employees Describe Corporation?s ?Systemic Racism? and ?White Supremacy? Problem > Planned Parenthood?s century of racist, eugenicist history has been relatively ignored by members of the media, Hollywood, and political allies. These elites have, at times, lectured the public that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and her board members (including a Ku Klux Klan leader), who started the infamous ?Negro Project? and recommended that parents obtain licenses to bear children, were simply products of their time. Yet, reports indicate that the corporation is still steeped in racist philosophies and practices. Read more > > Victim of Jeffrey Epstein Claims He Forced Her to Have an Abortion as a Teen > An unnamed woman has come forward alleging that she was drugged and raped by the now-deceased convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his socialite associate Ghislaine Maxwell. When the abuse began in 1991 in Florida, the victim says she was only 14. The woman said the repeated sexual assaults stopped when she was 16, and after she became pregnant, Epstein forced her to have an abortion. Read more > > Live Action News is the publishing arm of Live Action > > Live Action is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Gifts are tax-deductible in the United States. > No goods or services are offered or given in exchange for contributions > > Live Action 2200 Wilson Blvd. Suite 102 PMB 111 Arlington VA 22201 > > You received this email because you are subscribed to Live Action News Weekly Updates from Live Action. > > Update your email preferences to choose the types of emails you receive. > > Unsubscribe from all future emails > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Jul 12 05:15:05 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 00:15:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <6AFDDC87-66D5-4C7D-8DBD-304AF126966A@newsfromneptune.com> David? I largely agree with you about DiMaggio, but not about "the decadent phase of [CounterPunch?s] existence, post-Cockburn.? And I don?t always agree with Jeff St. Clair, Cockburn?s hand-picked successor as editor of CP in that phase, who I think continues Cockburn?s heritage. As I?ve often mentioned, St. Clair is catholic in his tastes - in the secular sense of inclusive, universal. Not that he doesn't have strong views of his own - on display each week in his column on the site, ?Roaming Charges.? But he publishes people he doesn?t entirely agree with - including you and me. (And DiMaggio?) Even in these extraordinary times, he continues to publish a vast amount of material - discussion of which raises the level of political discourse in this country. I advise our friends and associates - and many others - to pay attention to what he publishes - and to what you say. Coraggio, CGE > On Jul 11, 2020, at 12:08 PM, David Green wrote: > > Anthony DiMaggio, like many Counterpunch writers during what is the decadent phase of the website/newsletter's existence, post-Cockburn, suffers from 2 fundamental symptoms: > > Obviously Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), which allows him not to see that the majority of the working class, and the vast majority if you exclude blacks, has been rejected during the past 3 decades by the Democratic Party, and has for lack of a better alternative migrated to the Republican Party, or simply checked out of the political process. Thus, for DiMaggio, Trump voters must be "racist" and therefore not worthy of their objective working class position in our current political economy--as opposed to the worthy academic such as himself . > > Second, DiMaggio remains blissfully uncritical of progressive neoliberalism, whom he describes as being from liberal to progressive to radical. That is, he remains uncritical of the Woke identity politics that now defines the "Left," embodied by the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC), including the black PMC (Hannah-Jones, Coates, Kendi on down). He pretends that they have somehow been excluded from mainstream discourse, when in fact they are now in the catbird's seat of mainstream (NPR, MSNBC, NYT, WP) media. DiMaggio's articles on Counterpunch in recent years, especially his analysis of Trump supporters' "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" would have found a perfect home on any of these mainstream Woke platforms. > > DiMaggio is defensive about accusations regarding "cancel culture," something that is very real and disturbing, which the open letter accurately and rightly addresses. Of course some of the signatories are hypocritical if not depraved, including Cary Nelson and Bari Weiss, especially regarding Israel/Palestine. But the larger point remains, and applies not just to mainstream outlets, but to allegedly alternative ones like the Intercept, and indeed to Counterpunch itself, which has, with exception of Rob Urie, excluded "anti-Woke" voices (I'm not talking about myself, at least not yet), while promoting a Woke identitarian-Marxist asshole like Louis Proyect and his support for the wretched 1619 Project. > > DiMaggio lives within a Woke academic world which is a clusterfuck of category errors regarding identity, oppression, liberation, etc. Those who attempt to address this sorry state of affairs on campuses will indeed be "cancelled" in various ways. Meanwhile, he narcissistically worries about not being able to publish his "Gramscian" perspectives in academic journals, for crying out loud. > > In the post-Sanders, post-George Floyd, BLM/trans era, we are entering a very dangerous situation, which will be characterized by "loyalty oaths", purges, and a Maoist style culture war around identitarian issues. There will be moral panics aplenty, such as we are experiencing now. There will be many casualties, as the Woke Left will attempt to gain control of the Democratic Party in coalition with both neoliberals and neoconservatives, neither of whom the Woke PMC have any fundamental problems with; and we can clearly see the neolibs/neocons strategically accommodating themselves to the repressive demands of the Woke, such as what occurred at the NYT and their editor. The DP will continue to exploit its remaining machine "base," which consists only of black voters, but no longer includes labor unions in terms of voting loyalty (the DP basically began its abandonment of the unions with McGovern in 1972). > > We have seen a microcosm of this process and these emerging developments locally in recent years, both on campus and in the county-city context, in relation to both trans and "pro-immigrant" movements, and the rise of a racialized, domineering political machine in the Democratic Party. Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and Wokeness get along just fine. Yes, let's have trans people, especially black trans people, in the military. And during the pandemic, let's have our public health official (Julie Pryde) supporting unsafe and illegal public gatherings, because "racism is a virus," with no local pushback at all from our "right-wing" newspaper. That's just perfect. > > Teachers and teachers' unions are going to be under the gun in terms of racialized, white-shaming "re-education." It's going to get messy, it already has, when the two superintendents kowtow to the notion that "silence is violence." But the teachers are in a relatively advantageous, unionized labor position, and we may see genuine struggle, and perhaps even some light rather than heat regarding our education system and our children's future; for example, if our districts try to implement the 1619 Project, there will be pushback, at least from me. And there promises to be many comedic moments as our teachers are required by Human Resources to examine their "white fragility." > > There's much more to say, but suffice it to say that DiMaggio's contribution to a necessary debate regarding free speech, cancellation, and Wokeness is utterly ungrounded in any coherent analysis of our situation, and absolutely tendentious; given his track record, all of this is unsurprising. > > DG > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:40 PM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > John, I know what Carl means by ?deceased equine.? > > But since when did we stop beating the drums of truth. > > Correction on my first communique: I referred to ?fly zone,? I meant to say ?no fly zone.? > > >> On Jul 10, 2020, at 18:26, John W. wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:21 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >> >> Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased equine. >> >> What Carl means here is that DiMaggio is beating a dead horse. >> >> >> It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that it?s affected his career so much. >> >> Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >> >> Who does? >> >> Who engages in this pretense about the U.S. media and educational instititutions being committed to the free exploration of competing views? That the 'landscape' represents a free and open exchange of ideas? Practically everyone. Including, of course, the media, and virtually everyone who makes his living in academia. >> >> >> Best, CGE >> >> >> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> > >> > I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di Maggio refers to below: >> > >> > ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas.? >> > >> > "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? >> > >> > "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? >> > >> > "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? >> > >> > "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? >> > >> > "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? >> > >> > "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? >> > >> > "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place.? >> > >> > "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? >> > >> > "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >> > >> > >> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> >> >> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. >> >> >> >> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? right? >> >> >> >> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. >> >> >> >> That?s what we should be talking about. >> >> >> >> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is wrong? >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >>> >> >>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? >> >>> >> >>> JULY 10, 2020 >> >>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO Facebook Twitter Reddit Email >> >>> >> >>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair >> >>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate ? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. >> >>> >> >>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. >> >>> >> >>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates : >> >>> >> >>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? >> >>> >> >>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? >> >>> >> >>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. >> >>> >> >>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes : >> >>> >> >>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? >> >>> >> >>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? >> >>> >> >>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? >> >>> >> >>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? >> >>> >> >>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. >> >>> >> >>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. >> >>> >> >>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. >> >>> >> >>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. >> >>> >> >>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. >> >>> >> >>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. >> >>> >> >>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. >> >>> >> >>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. >> >>> >> >>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. >> >>> >> >>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? >> >>>> >> >>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. >> >>>> >> >>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. >> >>>> >> >>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Carl >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>> Peace mailing list >> >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 11:41:39 2020 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 06:41:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] health care is a human right Message-ID: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/07/08/sanders-khanna-say-scotus-ruling-contraceptives-just-one-more-reason-demand-medicare?cd-origin=rss&utm_term=AO&utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter&utm_content=email&utm_source=Daily%20Newsletter&utm_medium=Email -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 15:01:51 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 10:01:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: <6AFDDC87-66D5-4C7D-8DBD-304AF126966A@newsfromneptune.com> References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> <6AFDDC87-66D5-4C7D-8DBD-304AF126966A@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: I appreciate both Mort and Carl's responses to my admittedly fervent post. I will respond respectfully in the next day or two, at which time I can promise that nobody will be cancelled. DG On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 12:15 AM C. G. Estabrook wrote: > David? > > I largely agree with you about DiMaggio, but not about "the decadent phase > of [CounterPunch?s] existence, post-Cockburn.? > > And I don?t always agree with Jeff St. Clair, Cockburn?s hand-picked > successor as editor of CP in that phase, who I think continues Cockburn?s > heritage. > > As I?ve often mentioned, St. Clair is catholic in his tastes - in the > secular sense of inclusive, universal. > > Not that he doesn't have strong views of his own - on display each week in > his column on the site, ?Roaming Charges.? > > But he publishes people he doesn?t entirely agree with - including you and > me. (And DiMaggio?) > > Even in these extraordinary times, he continues to publish a vast amount > of material - discussion of which raises the level of political discourse > in this country. > > I advise our friends and associates - and many others - to pay attention > to what he publishes - and to what you say. > > Coraggio, CGE > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 2020, at 12:08 PM, David Green > wrote: > > > > Anthony DiMaggio, like many Counterpunch writers during what is the > decadent phase of the website/newsletter's existence, post-Cockburn, > suffers from 2 fundamental symptoms: > > > > Obviously Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), which allows him not to see > that the majority of the working class, and the vast majority if you > exclude blacks, has been rejected during the past 3 decades by the > Democratic Party, and has for lack of a better alternative migrated to the > Republican Party, or simply checked out of the political process. Thus, for > DiMaggio, Trump voters must be "racist" and therefore not worthy of their > objective working class position in our current political economy--as > opposed to the worthy academic such as himself . > > > > Second, DiMaggio remains blissfully uncritical of progressive > neoliberalism, whom he describes as being from liberal to progressive to > radical. That is, he remains uncritical of the Woke identity politics that > now defines the "Left," embodied by the Professional-Managerial Class > (PMC), including the black PMC (Hannah-Jones, Coates, Kendi on down). He > pretends that they have somehow been excluded from mainstream discourse, > when in fact they are now in the catbird's seat of mainstream (NPR, MSNBC, > NYT, WP) media. DiMaggio's articles on Counterpunch in recent years, > especially his analysis of Trump supporters' "white nationalism" and "white > supremacy" would have found a perfect home on any of these mainstream Woke > platforms. > > > > DiMaggio is defensive about accusations regarding "cancel culture," > something that is very real and disturbing, which the open letter > accurately and rightly addresses. Of course some of the signatories are > hypocritical if not depraved, including Cary Nelson and Bari Weiss, > especially regarding Israel/Palestine. But the larger point remains, and > applies not just to mainstream outlets, but to allegedly alternative ones > like the Intercept, and indeed to Counterpunch itself, which has, with > exception of Rob Urie, excluded "anti-Woke" voices (I'm not talking about > myself, at least not yet), while promoting a Woke identitarian-Marxist > asshole like Louis Proyect and his support for the wretched 1619 Project. > > > > DiMaggio lives within a Woke academic world which is a clusterfuck of > category errors regarding identity, oppression, liberation, etc. Those who > attempt to address this sorry state of affairs on campuses will indeed be > "cancelled" in various ways. Meanwhile, he narcissistically worries about > not being able to publish his "Gramscian" perspectives in academic > journals, for crying out loud. > > > > In the post-Sanders, post-George Floyd, BLM/trans era, we are entering a > very dangerous situation, which will be characterized by "loyalty oaths", > purges, and a Maoist style culture war around identitarian issues. There > will be moral panics aplenty, such as we are experiencing now. There will > be many casualties, as the Woke Left will attempt to gain control of the > Democratic Party in coalition with both neoliberals and neoconservatives, > neither of whom the Woke PMC have any fundamental problems with; and we can > clearly see the neolibs/neocons strategically accommodating themselves to > the repressive demands of the Woke, such as what occurred at the NYT and > their editor. The DP will continue to exploit its remaining machine "base," > which consists only of black voters, but no longer includes labor unions in > terms of voting loyalty (the DP basically began its abandonment of the > unions with McGovern in 1972). > > > > We have seen a microcosm of this process and these emerging developments > locally in recent years, both on campus and in the county-city context, in > relation to both trans and "pro-immigrant" movements, and the rise of a > racialized, domineering political machine in the Democratic Party. > Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and Wokeness get along just fine. Yes, > let's have trans people, especially black trans people, in the military. > And during the pandemic, let's have our public health official (Julie > Pryde) supporting unsafe and illegal public gatherings, because "racism is > a virus," with no local pushback at all from our "right-wing" newspaper. > That's just perfect. > > > > Teachers and teachers' unions are going to be under the gun in terms of > racialized, white-shaming "re-education." It's going to get messy, it > already has, when the two superintendents kowtow to the notion that > "silence is violence." But the teachers are in a relatively advantageous, > unionized labor position, and we may see genuine struggle, and perhaps even > some light rather than heat regarding our education system and our > children's future; for example, if our districts try to implement the 1619 > Project, there will be pushback, at least from me. And there promises to be > many comedic moments as our teachers are required by Human Resources to > examine their "white fragility." > > > > There's much more to say, but suffice it to say that DiMaggio's > contribution to a necessary debate regarding free speech, cancellation, and > Wokeness is utterly ungrounded in any coherent analysis of our situation, > and absolutely tendentious; given his track record, all of this is > unsurprising. > > > > DG > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:40 PM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > John, I know what Carl means by ?deceased equine.? > > > > But since when did we stop beating the drums of truth. > > > > Correction on my first communique: I referred to ?fly zone,? I meant to > say ?no fly zone.? > > > > > >> On Jul 10, 2020, at 18:26, John W. wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:21 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> > >> Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased equine. > >> > >> What Carl means here is that DiMaggio is beating a dead horse. > >> > >> > >> It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that it?s > affected his career so much. > >> > >> Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and educational > institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing > views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we > stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of > ideas, the better.? > >> > >> Who does? > >> > >> Who engages in this pretense about the U.S. media and educational > instititutions being committed to the free exploration of competing views? > That the 'landscape' represents a free and open exchange of ideas? > Practically everyone. Including, of course, the media, and virtually > everyone who makes his living in academia. > >> > >> > >> Best, CGE > >> > >> > >> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >> > > >> > I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken > out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t > like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, > not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di > Maggio refers to below: > >> > > >> > ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? > is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, > to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of > ideas.? > >> > > >> > "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it > misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political > discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and > untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to > serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting > notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about > exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality > to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate > capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who > have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? > >> > > >> > "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds > great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort > of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, > is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the > respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, > to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a > reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and > economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being > worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are > sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical > content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and > reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to > demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce > a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even > progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed > discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and > are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? > >> > > >> > "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher > education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented < > https://global.oup.com/academic/product/news-on-the-right-9780190913533?cc=us&lang=en&> > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion > polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s > virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the > U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. > The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to > those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly > reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to > progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate > ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? > >> > > >> > "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion > of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic > assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts > political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? > Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was > rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic > ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing > in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one > cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research > over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In > this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing > active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral > responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? > >> > > >> > "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory > tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which > academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in > the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer > review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are > filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to > challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, > and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find > academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad > school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their > scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? > >> > > >> > "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such > thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to > academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in > elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges > of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, > let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research > that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false > consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social > science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? > >> > > >> > "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, > media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these > timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking > engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. > But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever > in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for > understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing > high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal > corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, > it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus > attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other > reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited > from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t > dream of receiving in the first place.? > >> > > >> > "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate > dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and > self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports > gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. > The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? > right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous > speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting > arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student > protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? > >> > > >> > "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC > ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in > American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an > assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within > the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for > free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media > and educational institutions have never been committed to the free > exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question > corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a > free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? > >> > > >> > > >> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published > him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. > >> >> > >> >> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? > right? > >> >> > >> >> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the > Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. > >> >> > >> >> That?s what we should be talking about. > >> >> > >> >> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is > wrong? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my > instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? > >> >>> > >> >>> JULY 10, 2020 > >> >>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American > Liberalism < > https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/10/free-speech-fantasies-the-harpers-letter-and-the-myth-of-american-liberalism/>by > ANTHONY DIMAGGIO Facebook > Twitter < > https://www.counterpunch.org/#twitter>Reddit < > https://www.counterpunch.org/#reddit>Email < > https://www.counterpunch.org/#email> < > https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/10/free-speech-fantasies-the-harpers-letter-and-the-myth-of-american-liberalism/print/ > > > >> >>> > >> >>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair > >> >>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate < > https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/>? is making its > rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel > culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black > Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and > perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the > free exploration of competing viewpoints. > >> >>> > >> >>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological > spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. > Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives > such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters > of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have > no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for > condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which > ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary > American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a > free exploration of ideas. > >> >>> > >> >>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in > principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of > ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to > ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open > exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free > exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a > liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and > ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding > moral certainty.? The letter elaborates < > https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/>: > >> >>> > >> >>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe > retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. > More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage > control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of > considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; > books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from > writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of > literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed > academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are > sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each > particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries > of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? > >> >>> > >> >>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open > dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably > hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic > participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and > persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? > >> >>> > >> >>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that > it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political > discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and > untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to > serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting > notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about > exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality > to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate > capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who > have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. > >> >>> > >> >>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that > U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration > of diverse and competing views. The letter includes < > https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/>: > >> >>> > >> >>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken > our norms of open debate and toleration.? > >> >>> > >> >>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the > lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? > >> >>> > >> >>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by > institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic > counter-speech from all quarters.? > >> >>> > >> >>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement > without dire professional consequences.? > >> >>> > >> >>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They > obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are > routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social > discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. > >> >>> > >> >>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position > sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, > that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on > its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through > the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of > truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. > Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service > political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are > elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values > that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, > apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political > diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, > but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other > minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. > Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be > included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely > blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in > higher educational institutions. > >> >>> > >> >>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the > mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those > from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and > mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited > space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this > marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those > seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive > institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of > repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of > unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in > American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric > that has taken over the American right. > >> >>> > >> >>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher > education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented < > https://global.oup.com/academic/product/news-on-the-right-9780190913533?cc=us&lang=en&> > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion > polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s > virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the > U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. > The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to > those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly > reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to > progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate > ?experience?-oriented schooling system. > >> >>> > >> >>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very > notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under > systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that > depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and > ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a > public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized > academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with > publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost > no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does > research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our > work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to > producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral > responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. > >> >>> > >> >>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the > ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through > which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school > experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the > process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with > the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who > are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it > through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. > It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their > political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same > values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. > >> >>> > >> >>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such > thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to > academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in > elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges > of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, > let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research > that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false > consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social > science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. > >> >>> > >> >>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, > media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these > timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking > engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. > But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever > in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for > understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing > high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal > corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, > it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus > attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other > reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited > from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t > dream of receiving in the first place. > >> >>> > >> >>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate > dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and > self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports > gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. > The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? > right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous > speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting > arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student > protests that are mobilized against these campus events. > >> >>> > >> >>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC > ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in > American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an > assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within > the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for > free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media > and educational institutions have never been committed to the free > exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question > corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a > free and open exchange of ideas, the better. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook < > carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for > the people who believe in them.? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the > people you name from the list of signers. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s > more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Carl > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly > during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication > offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent > it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only > much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however > make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and > propaganda, during the Obama Administration. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, > Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today > with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of > those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the > ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who > the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing > everything in the area, a very large area. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website > conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ > fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes > for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from > memory. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his > specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >> >>>>>> Peace mailing list > >> >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net > >> >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Peace mailing list > >> Peace at lists.chambana.net > >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jul 12 19:20:26 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 12:20:26 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> <6AFDDC87-66D5-4C7D-8DBD-304AF126966A@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: What is meant by cancelled? And, Mort?s posting, where might it be? I would like to see it. Mort is always candid and lucid focusing on that which others often don?t see, but if its just more of ?academics bashing other academics,? never mind. Entertaining, but as much a distraction as everything else out there to keep us from focusing on the ruling elites responsible for the cruelty, chaos and suffering. > On Jul 12, 2020, at 08:01, David Green wrote: > > I appreciate both Mort and Carl's responses to my admittedly fervent post. I will respond respectfully in the next day or two, at which time I can promise that nobody will be cancelled. > > DG > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 12:15 AM C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > David? > > I largely agree with you about DiMaggio, but not about "the decadent phase of [CounterPunch?s] existence, post-Cockburn.? > > And I don?t always agree with Jeff St. Clair, Cockburn?s hand-picked successor as editor of CP in that phase, who I think continues Cockburn?s heritage. > > As I?ve often mentioned, St. Clair is catholic in his tastes - in the secular sense of inclusive, universal. > > Not that he doesn't have strong views of his own - on display each week in his column on the site, ?Roaming Charges.? > > But he publishes people he doesn?t entirely agree with - including you and me. (And DiMaggio?) > > Even in these extraordinary times, he continues to publish a vast amount of material - discussion of which raises the level of political discourse in this country. > > I advise our friends and associates - and many others - to pay attention to what he publishes - and to what you say. > > Coraggio, CGE > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 2020, at 12:08 PM, David Green > wrote: > > > > Anthony DiMaggio, like many Counterpunch writers during what is the decadent phase of the website/newsletter's existence, post-Cockburn, suffers from 2 fundamental symptoms: > > > > Obviously Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), which allows him not to see that the majority of the working class, and the vast majority if you exclude blacks, has been rejected during the past 3 decades by the Democratic Party, and has for lack of a better alternative migrated to the Republican Party, or simply checked out of the political process. Thus, for DiMaggio, Trump voters must be "racist" and therefore not worthy of their objective working class position in our current political economy--as opposed to the worthy academic such as himself . > > > > Second, DiMaggio remains blissfully uncritical of progressive neoliberalism, whom he describes as being from liberal to progressive to radical. That is, he remains uncritical of the Woke identity politics that now defines the "Left," embodied by the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC), including the black PMC (Hannah-Jones, Coates, Kendi on down). He pretends that they have somehow been excluded from mainstream discourse, when in fact they are now in the catbird's seat of mainstream (NPR, MSNBC, NYT, WP) media. DiMaggio's articles on Counterpunch in recent years, especially his analysis of Trump supporters' "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" would have found a perfect home on any of these mainstream Woke platforms. > > > > DiMaggio is defensive about accusations regarding "cancel culture," something that is very real and disturbing, which the open letter accurately and rightly addresses. Of course some of the signatories are hypocritical if not depraved, including Cary Nelson and Bari Weiss, especially regarding Israel/Palestine. But the larger point remains, and applies not just to mainstream outlets, but to allegedly alternative ones like the Intercept, and indeed to Counterpunch itself, which has, with exception of Rob Urie, excluded "anti-Woke" voices (I'm not talking about myself, at least not yet), while promoting a Woke identitarian-Marxist asshole like Louis Proyect and his support for the wretched 1619 Project. > > > > DiMaggio lives within a Woke academic world which is a clusterfuck of category errors regarding identity, oppression, liberation, etc. Those who attempt to address this sorry state of affairs on campuses will indeed be "cancelled" in various ways. Meanwhile, he narcissistically worries about not being able to publish his "Gramscian" perspectives in academic journals, for crying out loud. > > > > In the post-Sanders, post-George Floyd, BLM/trans era, we are entering a very dangerous situation, which will be characterized by "loyalty oaths", purges, and a Maoist style culture war around identitarian issues. There will be moral panics aplenty, such as we are experiencing now. There will be many casualties, as the Woke Left will attempt to gain control of the Democratic Party in coalition with both neoliberals and neoconservatives, neither of whom the Woke PMC have any fundamental problems with; and we can clearly see the neolibs/neocons strategically accommodating themselves to the repressive demands of the Woke, such as what occurred at the NYT and their editor. The DP will continue to exploit its remaining machine "base," which consists only of black voters, but no longer includes labor unions in terms of voting loyalty (the DP basically began its abandonment of the unions with McGovern in 1972). > > > > We have seen a microcosm of this process and these emerging developments locally in recent years, both on campus and in the county-city context, in relation to both trans and "pro-immigrant" movements, and the rise of a racialized, domineering political machine in the Democratic Party. Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and Wokeness get along just fine. Yes, let's have trans people, especially black trans people, in the military. And during the pandemic, let's have our public health official (Julie Pryde) supporting unsafe and illegal public gatherings, because "racism is a virus," with no local pushback at all from our "right-wing" newspaper. That's just perfect. > > > > Teachers and teachers' unions are going to be under the gun in terms of racialized, white-shaming "re-education." It's going to get messy, it already has, when the two superintendents kowtow to the notion that "silence is violence." But the teachers are in a relatively advantageous, unionized labor position, and we may see genuine struggle, and perhaps even some light rather than heat regarding our education system and our children's future; for example, if our districts try to implement the 1619 Project, there will be pushback, at least from me. And there promises to be many comedic moments as our teachers are required by Human Resources to examine their "white fragility." > > > > There's much more to say, but suffice it to say that DiMaggio's contribution to a necessary debate regarding free speech, cancellation, and Wokeness is utterly ungrounded in any coherent analysis of our situation, and absolutely tendentious; given his track record, all of this is unsurprising. > > > > DG > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:40 PM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > John, I know what Carl means by ?deceased equine.? > > > > But since when did we stop beating the drums of truth. > > > > Correction on my first communique: I referred to ?fly zone,? I meant to say ?no fly zone.? > > > > > >> On Jul 10, 2020, at 18:26, John W. > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:21 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: > >> > >> Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased equine. > >> > >> What Carl means here is that DiMaggio is beating a dead horse. > >> > >> > >> It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that it?s affected his career so much. > >> > >> Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? > >> > >> Who does? > >> > >> Who engages in this pretense about the U.S. media and educational instititutions being committed to the free exploration of competing views? That the 'landscape' represents a free and open exchange of ideas? Practically everyone. Including, of course, the media, and virtually everyone who makes his living in academia. > >> > >> > >> Best, CGE > >> > >> > >> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >> > > >> > I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di Maggio refers to below: > >> > > >> > ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas.? > >> > > >> > "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? > >> > > >> > "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? > >> > > >> > "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? > >> > > >> > "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? > >> > > >> > "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? > >> > > >> > "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? > >> > > >> > "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place.? > >> > > >> > "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? > >> > > >> > "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? > >> > > >> > > >> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. > >> >> > >> >> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? right? > >> >> > >> >> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. > >> >> > >> >> That?s what we should be talking about. > >> >> > >> >> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is wrong? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? > >> >>> > >> >>> JULY 10, 2020 > >> >>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism >by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO >Facebook >Twitter >Reddit >Email > > > >> >>> > >> >>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair > >> >>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate >? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. > >> >>> > >> >>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. > >> >>> > >> >>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates >: > >> >>> > >> >>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? > >> >>> > >> >>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? > >> >>> > >> >>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. > >> >>> > >> >>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes >: > >> >>> > >> >>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? > >> >>> > >> >>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? > >> >>> > >> >>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? > >> >>> > >> >>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? > >> >>> > >> >>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. > >> >>> > >> >>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. > >> >>> > >> >>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. > >> >>> > >> >>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. > >> >>> > >> >>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. > >> >>> > >> >>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. > >> >>> > >> >>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. > >> >>> > >> >>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. > >> >>> > >> >>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. > >> >>> > >> >>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Carl > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >> >>>>>> Peace mailing list > >> >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net > >> >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Peace mailing list > >> Peace at lists.chambana.net > >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Jul 12 19:44:22 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 19:44:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Biden's economic plan? Message-ID: Biden announces his economic plan Matt Viser WaPo July 12, 2020 Joe Biden is looking at building 500 million solar panels, slashing U.S. carbon emissions within 15 years, and rapidly expanding a government-sponsored health care plan. He wants to overhaul the way policing is conducted on American streets and the way success is measured in primary schools. Over the past week, the presumptive Democratic nominee has offered the biggest burst of policy proposals since he effectively won the nomination, including a plan to spend $700 billion on American products and research. It marks a significant move to the left from where Biden and his party were only recently ? on everything from climate and guns to health care and policing ? and reflects a fundamental shift in the political landscape. The new plans, which have come in speeches, interviews, and a 110-page policy document crafted with allies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), provide a window into how Biden would govern, and they kick off a new phase in a campaign that until now has focused mostly on President Trump?s performance. As Biden releases more plans ? including one on climate and clean energy investments this week ? he appears to be drafting a blueprint for the biggest surge of government action in generations. ?I think the compromise that they came up with, if implemented, will make Biden the most progressive president since FDR,? Sanders, a democratic socialist who does not offer such assessments lightly, told MSNBC. Liberals want more from Biden than an anti-Trump message It?s a remarkable turn for a candidate who was once defined by incrementalism but is now attempting to show voters how he?d grapple with tens of thousands of Americans dying from a global pandemic, an economy in tatters, and a country wracked by a reckoning over racism. ?The primary was largely litigated in a pre-covid, pre-George Floyd moment,? said Abdul El-Sayed, a physician and liberal activist from Michigan, referring to the man whose death in police custody ignited weeks of protests. ?To try and run in the general on the primary?s precepts I think would be missing this immense moment in American history,? ? ? From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Jul 12 19:44:22 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 19:44:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Biden's economic plan? Message-ID: Biden announces his economic plan Matt Viser WaPo July 12, 2020 Joe Biden is looking at building 500 million solar panels, slashing U.S. carbon emissions within 15 years, and rapidly expanding a government-sponsored health care plan. He wants to overhaul the way policing is conducted on American streets and the way success is measured in primary schools. Over the past week, the presumptive Democratic nominee has offered the biggest burst of policy proposals since he effectively won the nomination, including a plan to spend $700 billion on American products and research. It marks a significant move to the left from where Biden and his party were only recently ? on everything from climate and guns to health care and policing ? and reflects a fundamental shift in the political landscape. The new plans, which have come in speeches, interviews, and a 110-page policy document crafted with allies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), provide a window into how Biden would govern, and they kick off a new phase in a campaign that until now has focused mostly on President Trump?s performance. As Biden releases more plans ? including one on climate and clean energy investments this week ? he appears to be drafting a blueprint for the biggest surge of government action in generations. ?I think the compromise that they came up with, if implemented, will make Biden the most progressive president since FDR,? Sanders, a democratic socialist who does not offer such assessments lightly, told MSNBC. Liberals want more from Biden than an anti-Trump message It?s a remarkable turn for a candidate who was once defined by incrementalism but is now attempting to show voters how he?d grapple with tens of thousands of Americans dying from a global pandemic, an economy in tatters, and a country wracked by a reckoning over racism. ?The primary was largely litigated in a pre-covid, pre-George Floyd moment,? said Abdul El-Sayed, a physician and liberal activist from Michigan, referring to the man whose death in police custody ignited weeks of protests. ?To try and run in the general on the primary?s precepts I think would be missing this immense moment in American history,? ? ? From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jul 12 19:50:34 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 12:50:34 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> <6AFDDC87-66D5-4C7D-8DBD-304AF126966A@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: I just noted another opinion in line with mine, from another academic. Francis Boyle is also outraged over the signatories: ?Anne Marie Slaughter, a Certified War Criminal who helped Obama exterminate 50,000 Libyans and destroy Libya as a State.? Fab. > On Jul 12, 2020, at 12:20, Karen Aram wrote: > > What is meant by cancelled? > > And, Mort?s posting, where might it be? I would like to see it. Mort is always candid and lucid focusing on that which others often don?t see, but if its just more of ?academics bashing other academics,? never mind. Entertaining, but as much a distraction as everything else out there to keep us from focusing on the ruling elites responsible for the cruelty, chaos and suffering. > > >> On Jul 12, 2020, at 08:01, David Green > wrote: >> >> I appreciate both Mort and Carl's responses to my admittedly fervent post. I will respond respectfully in the next day or two, at which time I can promise that nobody will be cancelled. >> >> DG >> >> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 12:15 AM C. G. Estabrook > wrote: >> David? >> >> I largely agree with you about DiMaggio, but not about "the decadent phase of [CounterPunch?s] existence, post-Cockburn.? >> >> And I don?t always agree with Jeff St. Clair, Cockburn?s hand-picked successor as editor of CP in that phase, who I think continues Cockburn?s heritage. >> >> As I?ve often mentioned, St. Clair is catholic in his tastes - in the secular sense of inclusive, universal. >> >> Not that he doesn't have strong views of his own - on display each week in his column on the site, ?Roaming Charges.? >> >> But he publishes people he doesn?t entirely agree with - including you and me. (And DiMaggio?) >> >> Even in these extraordinary times, he continues to publish a vast amount of material - discussion of which raises the level of political discourse in this country. >> >> I advise our friends and associates - and many others - to pay attention to what he publishes - and to what you say. >> >> Coraggio, CGE >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jul 11, 2020, at 12:08 PM, David Green > wrote: >> > >> > Anthony DiMaggio, like many Counterpunch writers during what is the decadent phase of the website/newsletter's existence, post-Cockburn, suffers from 2 fundamental symptoms: >> > >> > Obviously Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), which allows him not to see that the majority of the working class, and the vast majority if you exclude blacks, has been rejected during the past 3 decades by the Democratic Party, and has for lack of a better alternative migrated to the Republican Party, or simply checked out of the political process. Thus, for DiMaggio, Trump voters must be "racist" and therefore not worthy of their objective working class position in our current political economy--as opposed to the worthy academic such as himself . >> > >> > Second, DiMaggio remains blissfully uncritical of progressive neoliberalism, whom he describes as being from liberal to progressive to radical. That is, he remains uncritical of the Woke identity politics that now defines the "Left," embodied by the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC), including the black PMC (Hannah-Jones, Coates, Kendi on down). He pretends that they have somehow been excluded from mainstream discourse, when in fact they are now in the catbird's seat of mainstream (NPR, MSNBC, NYT, WP) media. DiMaggio's articles on Counterpunch in recent years, especially his analysis of Trump supporters' "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" would have found a perfect home on any of these mainstream Woke platforms. >> > >> > DiMaggio is defensive about accusations regarding "cancel culture," something that is very real and disturbing, which the open letter accurately and rightly addresses. Of course some of the signatories are hypocritical if not depraved, including Cary Nelson and Bari Weiss, especially regarding Israel/Palestine. But the larger point remains, and applies not just to mainstream outlets, but to allegedly alternative ones like the Intercept, and indeed to Counterpunch itself, which has, with exception of Rob Urie, excluded "anti-Woke" voices (I'm not talking about myself, at least not yet), while promoting a Woke identitarian-Marxist asshole like Louis Proyect and his support for the wretched 1619 Project. >> > >> > DiMaggio lives within a Woke academic world which is a clusterfuck of category errors regarding identity, oppression, liberation, etc. Those who attempt to address this sorry state of affairs on campuses will indeed be "cancelled" in various ways. Meanwhile, he narcissistically worries about not being able to publish his "Gramscian" perspectives in academic journals, for crying out loud. >> > >> > In the post-Sanders, post-George Floyd, BLM/trans era, we are entering a very dangerous situation, which will be characterized by "loyalty oaths", purges, and a Maoist style culture war around identitarian issues. There will be moral panics aplenty, such as we are experiencing now. There will be many casualties, as the Woke Left will attempt to gain control of the Democratic Party in coalition with both neoliberals and neoconservatives, neither of whom the Woke PMC have any fundamental problems with; and we can clearly see the neolibs/neocons strategically accommodating themselves to the repressive demands of the Woke, such as what occurred at the NYT and their editor. The DP will continue to exploit its remaining machine "base," which consists only of black voters, but no longer includes labor unions in terms of voting loyalty (the DP basically began its abandonment of the unions with McGovern in 1972). >> > >> > We have seen a microcosm of this process and these emerging developments locally in recent years, both on campus and in the county-city context, in relation to both trans and "pro-immigrant" movements, and the rise of a racialized, domineering political machine in the Democratic Party. Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and Wokeness get along just fine. Yes, let's have trans people, especially black trans people, in the military. And during the pandemic, let's have our public health official (Julie Pryde) supporting unsafe and illegal public gatherings, because "racism is a virus," with no local pushback at all from our "right-wing" newspaper. That's just perfect. >> > >> > Teachers and teachers' unions are going to be under the gun in terms of racialized, white-shaming "re-education." It's going to get messy, it already has, when the two superintendents kowtow to the notion that "silence is violence." But the teachers are in a relatively advantageous, unionized labor position, and we may see genuine struggle, and perhaps even some light rather than heat regarding our education system and our children's future; for example, if our districts try to implement the 1619 Project, there will be pushback, at least from me. And there promises to be many comedic moments as our teachers are required by Human Resources to examine their "white fragility." >> > >> > There's much more to say, but suffice it to say that DiMaggio's contribution to a necessary debate regarding free speech, cancellation, and Wokeness is utterly ungrounded in any coherent analysis of our situation, and absolutely tendentious; given his track record, all of this is unsurprising. >> > >> > DG >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:40 PM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> > John, I know what Carl means by ?deceased equine.? >> > >> > But since when did we stop beating the drums of truth. >> > >> > Correction on my first communique: I referred to ?fly zone,? I meant to say ?no fly zone.? >> > >> > >> >> On Jul 10, 2020, at 18:26, John W. > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:21 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: >> >> >> >> Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased equine. >> >> >> >> What Carl means here is that DiMaggio is beating a dead horse. >> >> >> >> >> >> It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that it?s affected his career so much. >> >> >> >> Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >> >> >> >> Who does? >> >> >> >> Who engages in this pretense about the U.S. media and educational instititutions being committed to the free exploration of competing views? That the 'landscape' represents a free and open exchange of ideas? Practically everyone. Including, of course, the media, and virtually everyone who makes his living in academia. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best, CGE >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di Maggio refers to below: >> >> > >> >> > ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas.? >> >> > >> >> > "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? >> >> > >> >> > "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? >> >> > >> >> > "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? >> >> > >> >> > "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? >> >> > >> >> > "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? >> >> > >> >> > "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? >> >> > >> >> > "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place.? >> >> > >> >> > "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? >> >> > >> >> > "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. >> >> >> >> >> >> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? right? >> >> >> >> >> >> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. >> >> >> >> >> >> That?s what we should be talking about. >> >> >> >> >> >> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is wrong? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> JULY 10, 2020 >> >> >>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism >by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO >Facebook >Twitter >Reddit >Email > > >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair >> >> >>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate >? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates >: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes >: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Carl >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>>>>> Peace mailing list >> >> >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> >> >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Peace mailing list >> >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Peace-discuss mailing list >> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Jul 12 20:25:16 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 15:25:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> <6AFDDC87-66D5-4C7D-8DBD-304AF126966A@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <291D1A8F-8569-469F-BA6C-597905510C7B@newsfromneptune.com> Ignored, put down, not answered, excluded from the discussion with disdain. > On Jul 12, 2020, at 2:20 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > What is meant by cancelled? > > And, Mort?s posting, where might it be? I would like to see it. Mort is always candid and lucid focusing on that which others often don?t see, but if its just more of ?academics bashing other academics,? never mind. Entertaining, but as much a distraction as everything else out there to keep us from focusing on the ruling elites responsible for the cruelty, chaos and suffering. > > >> On Jul 12, 2020, at 08:01, David Green wrote: >> >> I appreciate both Mort and Carl's responses to my admittedly fervent post. I will respond respectfully in the next day or two, at which time I can promise that nobody will be cancelled. >> >> DG >> >> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 12:15 AM C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> David? >> >> I largely agree with you about DiMaggio, but not about "the decadent phase of [CounterPunch?s] existence, post-Cockburn.? >> >> And I don?t always agree with Jeff St. Clair, Cockburn?s hand-picked successor as editor of CP in that phase, who I think continues Cockburn?s heritage. >> >> As I?ve often mentioned, St. Clair is catholic in his tastes - in the secular sense of inclusive, universal. >> >> Not that he doesn't have strong views of his own - on display each week in his column on the site, ?Roaming Charges.? >> >> But he publishes people he doesn?t entirely agree with - including you and me. (And DiMaggio?) >> >> Even in these extraordinary times, he continues to publish a vast amount of material - discussion of which raises the level of political discourse in this country. >> >> I advise our friends and associates - and many others - to pay attention to what he publishes - and to what you say. >> >> Coraggio, CGE >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jul 11, 2020, at 12:08 PM, David Green wrote: >> > >> > Anthony DiMaggio, like many Counterpunch writers during what is the decadent phase of the website/newsletter's existence, post-Cockburn, suffers from 2 fundamental symptoms: >> > >> > Obviously Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), which allows him not to see that the majority of the working class, and the vast majority if you exclude blacks, has been rejected during the past 3 decades by the Democratic Party, and has for lack of a better alternative migrated to the Republican Party, or simply checked out of the political process. Thus, for DiMaggio, Trump voters must be "racist" and therefore not worthy of their objective working class position in our current political economy--as opposed to the worthy academic such as himself . >> > >> > Second, DiMaggio remains blissfully uncritical of progressive neoliberalism, whom he describes as being from liberal to progressive to radical. That is, he remains uncritical of the Woke identity politics that now defines the "Left," embodied by the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC), including the black PMC (Hannah-Jones, Coates, Kendi on down). He pretends that they have somehow been excluded from mainstream discourse, when in fact they are now in the catbird's seat of mainstream (NPR, MSNBC, NYT, WP) media. DiMaggio's articles on Counterpunch in recent years, especially his analysis of Trump supporters' "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" would have found a perfect home on any of these mainstream Woke platforms. >> > >> > DiMaggio is defensive about accusations regarding "cancel culture," something that is very real and disturbing, which the open letter accurately and rightly addresses. Of course some of the signatories are hypocritical if not depraved, including Cary Nelson and Bari Weiss, especially regarding Israel/Palestine. But the larger point remains, and applies not just to mainstream outlets, but to allegedly alternative ones like the Intercept, and indeed to Counterpunch itself, which has, with exception of Rob Urie, excluded "anti-Woke" voices (I'm not talking about myself, at least not yet), while promoting a Woke identitarian-Marxist asshole like Louis Proyect and his support for the wretched 1619 Project. >> > >> > DiMaggio lives within a Woke academic world which is a clusterfuck of category errors regarding identity, oppression, liberation, etc. Those who attempt to address this sorry state of affairs on campuses will indeed be "cancelled" in various ways. Meanwhile, he narcissistically worries about not being able to publish his "Gramscian" perspectives in academic journals, for crying out loud. >> > >> > In the post-Sanders, post-George Floyd, BLM/trans era, we are entering a very dangerous situation, which will be characterized by "loyalty oaths", purges, and a Maoist style culture war around identitarian issues. There will be moral panics aplenty, such as we are experiencing now. There will be many casualties, as the Woke Left will attempt to gain control of the Democratic Party in coalition with both neoliberals and neoconservatives, neither of whom the Woke PMC have any fundamental problems with; and we can clearly see the neolibs/neocons strategically accommodating themselves to the repressive demands of the Woke, such as what occurred at the NYT and their editor. The DP will continue to exploit its remaining machine "base," which consists only of black voters, but no longer includes labor unions in terms of voting loyalty (the DP basically began its abandonment of the unions with McGovern in 1972). >> > >> > We have seen a microcosm of this process and these emerging developments locally in recent years, both on campus and in the county-city context, in relation to both trans and "pro-immigrant" movements, and the rise of a racialized, domineering political machine in the Democratic Party. Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and Wokeness get along just fine. Yes, let's have trans people, especially black trans people, in the military. And during the pandemic, let's have our public health official (Julie Pryde) supporting unsafe and illegal public gatherings, because "racism is a virus," with no local pushback at all from our "right-wing" newspaper. That's just perfect. >> > >> > Teachers and teachers' unions are going to be under the gun in terms of racialized, white-shaming "re-education." It's going to get messy, it already has, when the two superintendents kowtow to the notion that "silence is violence." But the teachers are in a relatively advantageous, unionized labor position, and we may see genuine struggle, and perhaps even some light rather than heat regarding our education system and our children's future; for example, if our districts try to implement the 1619 Project, there will be pushback, at least from me. And there promises to be many comedic moments as our teachers are required by Human Resources to examine their "white fragility." >> > >> > There's much more to say, but suffice it to say that DiMaggio's contribution to a necessary debate regarding free speech, cancellation, and Wokeness is utterly ungrounded in any coherent analysis of our situation, and absolutely tendentious; given his track record, all of this is unsurprising. >> > >> > DG >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:40 PM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > John, I know what Carl means by ?deceased equine.? >> > >> > But since when did we stop beating the drums of truth. >> > >> > Correction on my first communique: I referred to ?fly zone,? I meant to say ?no fly zone.? >> > >> > >> >> On Jul 10, 2020, at 18:26, John W. wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:21 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >> >> >> >> Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased equine. >> >> >> >> What Carl means here is that DiMaggio is beating a dead horse. >> >> >> >> >> >> It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that it?s affected his career so much. >> >> >> >> Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >> >> >> >> Who does? >> >> >> >> Who engages in this pretense about the U.S. media and educational instititutions being committed to the free exploration of competing views? That the 'landscape' represents a free and open exchange of ideas? Practically everyone. Including, of course, the media, and virtually everyone who makes his living in academia. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best, CGE >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> > >> >> > I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di Maggio refers to below: >> >> > >> >> > ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas.? >> >> > >> >> > "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? >> >> > >> >> > "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? >> >> > >> >> > "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? >> >> > >> >> > "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? >> >> > >> >> > "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? >> >> > >> >> > "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? >> >> > >> >> > "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place.? >> >> > >> >> > "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? >> >> > >> >> > "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. >> >> >> >> >> >> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? right? >> >> >> >> >> >> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. >> >> >> >> >> >> That?s what we should be talking about. >> >> >> >> >> >> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is wrong? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> JULY 10, 2020 >> >> >>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO Facebook Twitter Reddit Email >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair >> >> >>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate ? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates : >> >> >>> >> >> >>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes : >> >> >>> >> >> >>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Carl >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>>>>> Peace mailing list >> >> >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> >> >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Peace mailing list >> >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Peace-discuss mailing list >> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jul 12 20:28:34 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 13:28:34 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> <6AFDDC87-66D5-4C7D-8DBD-304AF126966A@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: I agree with Mort?s overall critique of David?s article/statement broadly speaking. I can?t make the detailed comments as he did. I think the issue here is that for those of us unfamiliar with DiMaggio, reading his current article as a critique of the Letter, we have no problem with it. Just as those unfamiliar with the role of Anne Marie Slaughter in the death and destruction of a nation that had become the most prosperous in Africa, focused on African unity, saving lives of those who are now if alive, being sold off as slaves. David?s critique should have focused on the current article, with perhaps a statement towards the end referring to DiMaggio?s previous statements which were seen as offensive, in order to clarify for those of us unfamiliar with his work. > On Jul 12, 2020, at 12:50, Karen Aram wrote: > > > I just noted another opinion in line with mine, from another academic. Francis Boyle is also outraged over the signatories: ?Anne Marie Slaughter, a Certified War Criminal who helped Obama exterminate 50,000 Libyans and destroy Libya as a State.? Fab. > >> On Jul 12, 2020, at 12:20, Karen Aram > wrote: >> >> What is meant by cancelled? >> >> And, Mort?s posting, where might it be? I would like to see it. Mort is always candid and lucid focusing on that which others often don?t see, but if its just more of ?academics bashing other academics,? never mind. Entertaining, but as much a distraction as everything else out there to keep us from focusing on the ruling elites responsible for the cruelty, chaos and suffering. >> >> >>> On Jul 12, 2020, at 08:01, David Green > wrote: >>> >>> I appreciate both Mort and Carl's responses to my admittedly fervent post. I will respond respectfully in the next day or two, at which time I can promise that nobody will be cancelled. >>> >>> DG >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 12:15 AM C. G. Estabrook > wrote: >>> David? >>> >>> I largely agree with you about DiMaggio, but not about "the decadent phase of [CounterPunch?s] existence, post-Cockburn.? >>> >>> And I don?t always agree with Jeff St. Clair, Cockburn?s hand-picked successor as editor of CP in that phase, who I think continues Cockburn?s heritage. >>> >>> As I?ve often mentioned, St. Clair is catholic in his tastes - in the secular sense of inclusive, universal. >>> >>> Not that he doesn't have strong views of his own - on display each week in his column on the site, ?Roaming Charges.? >>> >>> But he publishes people he doesn?t entirely agree with - including you and me. (And DiMaggio?) >>> >>> Even in these extraordinary times, he continues to publish a vast amount of material - discussion of which raises the level of political discourse in this country. >>> >>> I advise our friends and associates - and many others - to pay attention to what he publishes - and to what you say. >>> >>> Coraggio, CGE >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Jul 11, 2020, at 12:08 PM, David Green > wrote: >>> > >>> > Anthony DiMaggio, like many Counterpunch writers during what is the decadent phase of the website/newsletter's existence, post-Cockburn, suffers from 2 fundamental symptoms: >>> > >>> > Obviously Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), which allows him not to see that the majority of the working class, and the vast majority if you exclude blacks, has been rejected during the past 3 decades by the Democratic Party, and has for lack of a better alternative migrated to the Republican Party, or simply checked out of the political process. Thus, for DiMaggio, Trump voters must be "racist" and therefore not worthy of their objective working class position in our current political economy--as opposed to the worthy academic such as himself . >>> > >>> > Second, DiMaggio remains blissfully uncritical of progressive neoliberalism, whom he describes as being from liberal to progressive to radical. That is, he remains uncritical of the Woke identity politics that now defines the "Left," embodied by the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC), including the black PMC (Hannah-Jones, Coates, Kendi on down). He pretends that they have somehow been excluded from mainstream discourse, when in fact they are now in the catbird's seat of mainstream (NPR, MSNBC, NYT, WP) media. DiMaggio's articles on Counterpunch in recent years, especially his analysis of Trump supporters' "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" would have found a perfect home on any of these mainstream Woke platforms. >>> > >>> > DiMaggio is defensive about accusations regarding "cancel culture," something that is very real and disturbing, which the open letter accurately and rightly addresses. Of course some of the signatories are hypocritical if not depraved, including Cary Nelson and Bari Weiss, especially regarding Israel/Palestine. But the larger point remains, and applies not just to mainstream outlets, but to allegedly alternative ones like the Intercept, and indeed to Counterpunch itself, which has, with exception of Rob Urie, excluded "anti-Woke" voices (I'm not talking about myself, at least not yet), while promoting a Woke identitarian-Marxist asshole like Louis Proyect and his support for the wretched 1619 Project. >>> > >>> > DiMaggio lives within a Woke academic world which is a clusterfuck of category errors regarding identity, oppression, liberation, etc. Those who attempt to address this sorry state of affairs on campuses will indeed be "cancelled" in various ways. Meanwhile, he narcissistically worries about not being able to publish his "Gramscian" perspectives in academic journals, for crying out loud. >>> > >>> > In the post-Sanders, post-George Floyd, BLM/trans era, we are entering a very dangerous situation, which will be characterized by "loyalty oaths", purges, and a Maoist style culture war around identitarian issues. There will be moral panics aplenty, such as we are experiencing now. There will be many casualties, as the Woke Left will attempt to gain control of the Democratic Party in coalition with both neoliberals and neoconservatives, neither of whom the Woke PMC have any fundamental problems with; and we can clearly see the neolibs/neocons strategically accommodating themselves to the repressive demands of the Woke, such as what occurred at the NYT and their editor. The DP will continue to exploit its remaining machine "base," which consists only of black voters, but no longer includes labor unions in terms of voting loyalty (the DP basically began its abandonment of the unions with McGovern in 1972). >>> > >>> > We have seen a microcosm of this process and these emerging developments locally in recent years, both on campus and in the county-city context, in relation to both trans and "pro-immigrant" movements, and the rise of a racialized, domineering political machine in the Democratic Party. Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and Wokeness get along just fine. Yes, let's have trans people, especially black trans people, in the military. And during the pandemic, let's have our public health official (Julie Pryde) supporting unsafe and illegal public gatherings, because "racism is a virus," with no local pushback at all from our "right-wing" newspaper. That's just perfect. >>> > >>> > Teachers and teachers' unions are going to be under the gun in terms of racialized, white-shaming "re-education." It's going to get messy, it already has, when the two superintendents kowtow to the notion that "silence is violence." But the teachers are in a relatively advantageous, unionized labor position, and we may see genuine struggle, and perhaps even some light rather than heat regarding our education system and our children's future; for example, if our districts try to implement the 1619 Project, there will be pushback, at least from me. And there promises to be many comedic moments as our teachers are required by Human Resources to examine their "white fragility." >>> > >>> > There's much more to say, but suffice it to say that DiMaggio's contribution to a necessary debate regarding free speech, cancellation, and Wokeness is utterly ungrounded in any coherent analysis of our situation, and absolutely tendentious; given his track record, all of this is unsurprising. >>> > >>> > DG >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:40 PM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> > John, I know what Carl means by ?deceased equine.? >>> > >>> > But since when did we stop beating the drums of truth. >>> > >>> > Correction on my first communique: I referred to ?fly zone,? I meant to say ?no fly zone.? >>> > >>> > >>> >> On Jul 10, 2020, at 18:26, John W. > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:21 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased equine. >>> >> >>> >> What Carl means here is that DiMaggio is beating a dead horse. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that it?s affected his career so much. >>> >> >>> >> Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >>> >> >>> >> Who does? >>> >> >>> >> Who engages in this pretense about the U.S. media and educational instititutions being committed to the free exploration of competing views? That the 'landscape' represents a free and open exchange of ideas? Practically everyone. Including, of course, the media, and virtually everyone who makes his living in academia. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Best, CGE >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di Maggio refers to below: >>> >> > >>> >> > ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas.? >>> >> > >>> >> > "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? >>> >> > >>> >> > "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? >>> >> > >>> >> > "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? >>> >> > >>> >> > "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? >>> >> > >>> >> > "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? >>> >> > >>> >> > "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? >>> >> > >>> >> > "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place.? >>> >> > >>> >> > "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? >>> >> > >>> >> > "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? right? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> That?s what we should be talking about. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is wrong? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> JULY 10, 2020 >>> >> >>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism >by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO >Facebook >Twitter >Reddit >Email > > >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair >>> >> >>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate >? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates >: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes >: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> Carl >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>> >> >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> >> >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Peace mailing list >>> >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Peace-discuss mailing list >>> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jul 12 20:36:49 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 13:36:49 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: <291D1A8F-8569-469F-BA6C-597905510C7B@newsfromneptune.com> References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> <6AFDDC87-66D5-4C7D-8DBD-304AF126966A@newsfromneptune.com> <291D1A8F-8569-469F-BA6C-597905510C7B@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Carl, You and John, and others, I assume, must think me really ignorant, in that you need to define the words for me. LOL , I know the meaning of ?cancelled,? but I don?t know what David was referring to by use of the word ?cancelled.? Something he left out of his statement, or did he cancel out someone else?s statement? Never mind. Its always good to have these discussions, in spite of the blood pressure they may raise, if only as a learning tool for some, a means of expression for others. Especially during these times where we have little opportunity to converse with others. > On Jul 12, 2020, at 13:25, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > Ignored, put down, not answered, excluded from the discussion with disdain. > > >> On Jul 12, 2020, at 2:20 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> What is meant by cancelled? >> >> And, Mort?s posting, where might it be? I would like to see it. Mort is always candid and lucid focusing on that which others often don?t see, but if its just more of ?academics bashing other academics,? never mind. Entertaining, but as much a distraction as everything else out there to keep us from focusing on the ruling elites responsible for the cruelty, chaos and suffering. >> >> >>> On Jul 12, 2020, at 08:01, David Green wrote: >>> >>> I appreciate both Mort and Carl's responses to my admittedly fervent post. I will respond respectfully in the next day or two, at which time I can promise that nobody will be cancelled. >>> >>> DG >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 12:15 AM C. G. Estabrook wrote: >>> David? >>> >>> I largely agree with you about DiMaggio, but not about "the decadent phase of [CounterPunch?s] existence, post-Cockburn.? >>> >>> And I don?t always agree with Jeff St. Clair, Cockburn?s hand-picked successor as editor of CP in that phase, who I think continues Cockburn?s heritage. >>> >>> As I?ve often mentioned, St. Clair is catholic in his tastes - in the secular sense of inclusive, universal. >>> >>> Not that he doesn't have strong views of his own - on display each week in his column on the site, ?Roaming Charges.? >>> >>> But he publishes people he doesn?t entirely agree with - including you and me. (And DiMaggio?) >>> >>> Even in these extraordinary times, he continues to publish a vast amount of material - discussion of which raises the level of political discourse in this country. >>> >>> I advise our friends and associates - and many others - to pay attention to what he publishes - and to what you say. >>> >>> Coraggio, CGE >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2020, at 12:08 PM, David Green wrote: >>>> >>>> Anthony DiMaggio, like many Counterpunch writers during what is the decadent phase of the website/newsletter's existence, post-Cockburn, suffers from 2 fundamental symptoms: >>>> >>>> Obviously Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), which allows him not to see that the majority of the working class, and the vast majority if you exclude blacks, has been rejected during the past 3 decades by the Democratic Party, and has for lack of a better alternative migrated to the Republican Party, or simply checked out of the political process. Thus, for DiMaggio, Trump voters must be "racist" and therefore not worthy of their objective working class position in our current political economy--as opposed to the worthy academic such as himself . >>>> >>>> Second, DiMaggio remains blissfully uncritical of progressive neoliberalism, whom he describes as being from liberal to progressive to radical. That is, he remains uncritical of the Woke identity politics that now defines the "Left," embodied by the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC), including the black PMC (Hannah-Jones, Coates, Kendi on down). He pretends that they have somehow been excluded from mainstream discourse, when in fact they are now in the catbird's seat of mainstream (NPR, MSNBC, NYT, WP) media. DiMaggio's articles on Counterpunch in recent years, especially his analysis of Trump supporters' "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" would have found a perfect home on any of these mainstream Woke platforms. >>>> >>>> DiMaggio is defensive about accusations regarding "cancel culture," something that is very real and disturbing, which the open letter accurately and rightly addresses. Of course some of the signatories are hypocritical if not depraved, including Cary Nelson and Bari Weiss, especially regarding Israel/Palestine. But the larger point remains, and applies not just to mainstream outlets, but to allegedly alternative ones like the Intercept, and indeed to Counterpunch itself, which has, with exception of Rob Urie, excluded "anti-Woke" voices (I'm not talking about myself, at least not yet), while promoting a Woke identitarian-Marxist asshole like Louis Proyect and his support for the wretched 1619 Project. >>>> >>>> DiMaggio lives within a Woke academic world which is a clusterfuck of category errors regarding identity, oppression, liberation, etc. Those who attempt to address this sorry state of affairs on campuses will indeed be "cancelled" in various ways. Meanwhile, he narcissistically worries about not being able to publish his "Gramscian" perspectives in academic journals, for crying out loud. >>>> >>>> In the post-Sanders, post-George Floyd, BLM/trans era, we are entering a very dangerous situation, which will be characterized by "loyalty oaths", purges, and a Maoist style culture war around identitarian issues. There will be moral panics aplenty, such as we are experiencing now. There will be many casualties, as the Woke Left will attempt to gain control of the Democratic Party in coalition with both neoliberals and neoconservatives, neither of whom the Woke PMC have any fundamental problems with; and we can clearly see the neolibs/neocons strategically accommodating themselves to the repressive demands of the Woke, such as what occurred at the NYT and their editor. The DP will continue to exploit its remaining machine "base," which consists only of black voters, but no longer includes labor unions in terms of voting loyalty (the DP basically began its abandonment of the unions with McGovern in 1972). >>>> >>>> We have seen a microcosm of this process and these emerging developments locally in recent years, both on campus and in the county-city context, in relation to both trans and "pro-immigrant" movements, and the rise of a racialized, domineering political machine in the Democratic Party. Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and Wokeness get along just fine. Yes, let's have trans people, especially black trans people, in the military. And during the pandemic, let's have our public health official (Julie Pryde) supporting unsafe and illegal public gatherings, because "racism is a virus," with no local pushback at all from our "right-wing" newspaper. That's just perfect. >>>> >>>> Teachers and teachers' unions are going to be under the gun in terms of racialized, white-shaming "re-education." It's going to get messy, it already has, when the two superintendents kowtow to the notion that "silence is violence." But the teachers are in a relatively advantageous, unionized labor position, and we may see genuine struggle, and perhaps even some light rather than heat regarding our education system and our children's future; for example, if our districts try to implement the 1619 Project, there will be pushback, at least from me. And there promises to be many comedic moments as our teachers are required by Human Resources to examine their "white fragility." >>>> >>>> There's much more to say, but suffice it to say that DiMaggio's contribution to a necessary debate regarding free speech, cancellation, and Wokeness is utterly ungrounded in any coherent analysis of our situation, and absolutely tendentious; given his track record, all of this is unsurprising. >>>> >>>> DG >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:40 PM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> John, I know what Carl means by ?deceased equine.? >>>> >>>> But since when did we stop beating the drums of truth. >>>> >>>> Correction on my first communique: I referred to ?fly zone,? I meant to say ?no fly zone.? >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 18:26, John W. wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:21 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased equine. >>>>> >>>>> What Carl means here is that DiMaggio is beating a dead horse. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that it?s affected his career so much. >>>>> >>>>> Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >>>>> >>>>> Who does? >>>>> >>>>> Who engages in this pretense about the U.S. media and educational instititutions being committed to the free exploration of competing views? That the 'landscape' represents a free and open exchange of ideas? Practically everyone. Including, of course, the media, and virtually everyone who makes his living in academia. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best, CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di Maggio refers to below: >>>>>> >>>>>> ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas.? >>>>>> >>>>>> "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? >>>>>> >>>>>> "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? >>>>>> >>>>>> "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? >>>>>> >>>>>> "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? >>>>>> >>>>>> "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? >>>>>> >>>>>> "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? >>>>>> >>>>>> "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place.? >>>>>> >>>>>> "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? >>>>>> >>>>>> "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That?s what we should be talking about. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is wrong? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> JULY 10, 2020 >>>>>>>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO Facebook Twitter Reddit Email >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair >>>>>>>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate ? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Carl >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >> > From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Jul 12 20:43:25 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 15:43:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> <6AFDDC87-66D5-4C7D-8DBD-304AF126966A@newsfromneptune.com> <291D1A8F-8569-469F-BA6C-597905510C7B@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <88989528-A35D-4C6F-9403-8253FDA4334C@newsfromneptune.com> 'Cancel culture? is a recent term for refusing debate and excoriating those who take some ?wrong? positions. I don?t think anyone is ignorant for not knowing what it means. > On Jul 12, 2020, at 3:36 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Carl, > > You and John, and others, I assume, must think me really ignorant, in that you need to define the words for me. LOL , I know the meaning of ?cancelled,? but I don?t know what David was referring to by use of the word ?cancelled.? Something he left out of his statement, or did he cancel out someone else?s statement? Never mind. > > Its always good to have these discussions, in spite of the blood pressure they may raise, if only as a learning tool for some, a means of expression for others. Especially during these times where we have little opportunity to converse with others. > > >> On Jul 12, 2020, at 13:25, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> Ignored, put down, not answered, excluded from the discussion with disdain. >> >> >>> On Jul 12, 2020, at 2:20 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>> >>> What is meant by cancelled? >>> >>> And, Mort?s posting, where might it be? I would like to see it. Mort is always candid and lucid focusing on that which others often don?t see, but if its just more of ?academics bashing other academics,? never mind. Entertaining, but as much a distraction as everything else out there to keep us from focusing on the ruling elites responsible for the cruelty, chaos and suffering. >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 12, 2020, at 08:01, David Green wrote: >>>> >>>> I appreciate both Mort and Carl's responses to my admittedly fervent post. I will respond respectfully in the next day or two, at which time I can promise that nobody will be cancelled. >>>> >>>> DG >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 12:15 AM C. G. Estabrook wrote: >>>> David? >>>> >>>> I largely agree with you about DiMaggio, but not about "the decadent phase of [CounterPunch?s] existence, post-Cockburn.? >>>> >>>> And I don?t always agree with Jeff St. Clair, Cockburn?s hand-picked successor as editor of CP in that phase, who I think continues Cockburn?s heritage. >>>> >>>> As I?ve often mentioned, St. Clair is catholic in his tastes - in the secular sense of inclusive, universal. >>>> >>>> Not that he doesn't have strong views of his own - on display each week in his column on the site, ?Roaming Charges.? >>>> >>>> But he publishes people he doesn?t entirely agree with - including you and me. (And DiMaggio?) >>>> >>>> Even in these extraordinary times, he continues to publish a vast amount of material - discussion of which raises the level of political discourse in this country. >>>> >>>> I advise our friends and associates - and many others - to pay attention to what he publishes - and to what you say. >>>> >>>> Coraggio, CGE >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2020, at 12:08 PM, David Green wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Anthony DiMaggio, like many Counterpunch writers during what is the decadent phase of the website/newsletter's existence, post-Cockburn, suffers from 2 fundamental symptoms: >>>>> >>>>> Obviously Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), which allows him not to see that the majority of the working class, and the vast majority if you exclude blacks, has been rejected during the past 3 decades by the Democratic Party, and has for lack of a better alternative migrated to the Republican Party, or simply checked out of the political process. Thus, for DiMaggio, Trump voters must be "racist" and therefore not worthy of their objective working class position in our current political economy--as opposed to the worthy academic such as himself . >>>>> >>>>> Second, DiMaggio remains blissfully uncritical of progressive neoliberalism, whom he describes as being from liberal to progressive to radical. That is, he remains uncritical of the Woke identity politics that now defines the "Left," embodied by the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC), including the black PMC (Hannah-Jones, Coates, Kendi on down). He pretends that they have somehow been excluded from mainstream discourse, when in fact they are now in the catbird's seat of mainstream (NPR, MSNBC, NYT, WP) media. DiMaggio's articles on Counterpunch in recent years, especially his analysis of Trump supporters' "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" would have found a perfect home on any of these mainstream Woke platforms. >>>>> >>>>> DiMaggio is defensive about accusations regarding "cancel culture," something that is very real and disturbing, which the open letter accurately and rightly addresses. Of course some of the signatories are hypocritical if not depraved, including Cary Nelson and Bari Weiss, especially regarding Israel/Palestine. But the larger point remains, and applies not just to mainstream outlets, but to allegedly alternative ones like the Intercept, and indeed to Counterpunch itself, which has, with exception of Rob Urie, excluded "anti-Woke" voices (I'm not talking about myself, at least not yet), while promoting a Woke identitarian-Marxist asshole like Louis Proyect and his support for the wretched 1619 Project. >>>>> >>>>> DiMaggio lives within a Woke academic world which is a clusterfuck of category errors regarding identity, oppression, liberation, etc. Those who attempt to address this sorry state of affairs on campuses will indeed be "cancelled" in various ways. Meanwhile, he narcissistically worries about not being able to publish his "Gramscian" perspectives in academic journals, for crying out loud. >>>>> >>>>> In the post-Sanders, post-George Floyd, BLM/trans era, we are entering a very dangerous situation, which will be characterized by "loyalty oaths", purges, and a Maoist style culture war around identitarian issues. There will be moral panics aplenty, such as we are experiencing now. There will be many casualties, as the Woke Left will attempt to gain control of the Democratic Party in coalition with both neoliberals and neoconservatives, neither of whom the Woke PMC have any fundamental problems with; and we can clearly see the neolibs/neocons strategically accommodating themselves to the repressive demands of the Woke, such as what occurred at the NYT and their editor. The DP will continue to exploit its remaining machine "base," which consists only of black voters, but no longer includes labor unions in terms of voting loyalty (the DP basically began its abandonment of the unions with McGovern in 1972). >>>>> >>>>> We have seen a microcosm of this process and these emerging developments locally in recent years, both on campus and in the county-city context, in relation to both trans and "pro-immigrant" movements, and the rise of a racialized, domineering political machine in the Democratic Party. Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and Wokeness get along just fine. Yes, let's have trans people, especially black trans people, in the military. And during the pandemic, let's have our public health official (Julie Pryde) supporting unsafe and illegal public gatherings, because "racism is a virus," with no local pushback at all from our "right-wing" newspaper. That's just perfect. >>>>> >>>>> Teachers and teachers' unions are going to be under the gun in terms of racialized, white-shaming "re-education." It's going to get messy, it already has, when the two superintendents kowtow to the notion that "silence is violence." But the teachers are in a relatively advantageous, unionized labor position, and we may see genuine struggle, and perhaps even some light rather than heat regarding our education system and our children's future; for example, if our districts try to implement the 1619 Project, there will be pushback, at least from me. And there promises to be many comedic moments as our teachers are required by Human Resources to examine their "white fragility." >>>>> >>>>> There's much more to say, but suffice it to say that DiMaggio's contribution to a necessary debate regarding free speech, cancellation, and Wokeness is utterly ungrounded in any coherent analysis of our situation, and absolutely tendentious; given his track record, all of this is unsurprising. >>>>> >>>>> DG >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:40 PM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> John, I know what Carl means by ?deceased equine.? >>>>> >>>>> But since when did we stop beating the drums of truth. >>>>> >>>>> Correction on my first communique: I referred to ?fly zone,? I meant to say ?no fly zone.? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 18:26, John W. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:21 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased equine. >>>>>> >>>>>> What Carl means here is that DiMaggio is beating a dead horse. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that it?s affected his career so much. >>>>>> >>>>>> Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >>>>>> >>>>>> Who does? >>>>>> >>>>>> Who engages in this pretense about the U.S. media and educational instititutions being committed to the free exploration of competing views? That the 'landscape' represents a free and open exchange of ideas? Practically everyone. Including, of course, the media, and virtually everyone who makes his living in academia. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di Maggio refers to below: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas.? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place.? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That?s what we should be talking about. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is wrong? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> JULY 10, 2020 >>>>>>>>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO Facebook Twitter Reddit Email >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair >>>>>>>>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate ? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Carl >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>> >>> >> > From jbn at forestfield.org Sun Jul 12 20:46:12 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 15:46:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Biden's making good on his pledge to not substantially change anything because he doesn't have to compete In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51cd25e1-eebe-0308-75a8-3769c111493a@forestfield.org> Ron Szoke quoted the Washington Post and MSNBC: > The new plans, which have come in speeches, interviews, and a 110-page policy > document crafted with allies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), provide a window into > how Biden would govern, and they kick off a new phase in a campaign that until now > has focused mostly on President Trump?s performance. As Biden releases more plans > ? including one on climate and clean energy investments this week ? he appears to > be drafting a blueprint for the biggest surge of government action in > generations. > > ?I think the compromise that they came up with, if implemented, will make Biden > the most progressive president since FDR,? Sanders, a democratic socialist who > does not offer such assessments lightly, told MSNBC. For a counter-narrative on this which isn't about propping up the cooperative Democratic Party or its proven neolib/neocon candidate/standards-bearer Joe Biden, consider Jimmy Dore's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzvWNs0vDAE which refers to https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/08/biden-sanders-unity-task-force-recommendations-353225 and https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/889189235/democratic-task-forces-deliver-biden-a-blueprint-for-a-progressive-presidency What's most striking, particularly being in the midst of a pandemic, is what's not recommended by these 'task forces' and what's not in Biden's plans. From Politico.com: > The task force recommendations don't include the kind of wide-scale systemic > upheaval that won Sanders such a fervent following in his two presidential > campaigns - while provoking an outcry from moderate Democrats and Republicans > alike. A single-payer health care system such as "Medicare for All," a "Green New > Deal" overhauling environmental policy, and doing away with Immigration and > Customs Enforcement are not among the policy proposals. NPR pointed out: > Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal co-chaired the health care task force. She has > long pushed, like Sanders, for a single, government-run health insurance program > but didn't bring that recommendation to the table in any of the meetings or > negotiations. In other words, she, like Sen. Sanders and now deceased Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) before her will abandon their own legislation (Jayapal wrote HR 1384 which replaced Conyers' HR 676) when needed. Jayapal has been Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus since 2019. Dore rightly asks "What is the point of you co-chairing the fucking task force? What is the point of you being there? Anyone could show up and not fight for something!" and states "Jayapal is revealing to you that she is fucking worthless!". His reference to "blue check Hollywood assholes telling you to vote Democrat" is a reference to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkKLJvucDUE where wealthy celebrities (who don't need the government's largesse) with Twitter accounts featuring a blue checkmark (indicating Twitter ostensibly verified that the person holds that Twitter account) tell you to vote for such a non-competitive candidate. Dore doesn't get into Biden's foreign policy in this video (he has addressed Biden's belligerency in other videos). But The Boston Globe tells us there's no reason to expect change in a Biden presidency -- per https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/05/30/opinion/would-biden-presidency-bring-substantial-change-us-foreign-policy/ > Little in Biden?s record suggests that he would back away from a foreign policy > based on threats, coercion, sanctions, and war. He was an outspoken promoter of > our 2003 invasion of Iraq. After Russia seized part of neighboring Ukraine in > 2014, he insisted that Russia must be made to ?pay in blood and money,? and tried > unsuccessfully to persuade President Obama to supply heavy weapons to the > Ukrainian army. He supports plotters who are seeking to overthrow the government > of Venezuela. In January he cheered the American drone attack that killed Iranian > General Qassem Soleimani, insisting that Iran has ?supported terror and sowed > chaos? in the Middle East. He has promised to ?get tough with China,? and rejected > as ?absolutely outrageous? the idea that the United States should consider > reducing its military aid to Israel. Most tellingly, he has asserted that in world > affairs, the United States must be ?at the head of the table,? or else ?chaos will > ensue.? > > Given Biden?s depressing willingness to embrace the worst aspects of our post-Cold > War foreign policy, what basis is there to hope that his presidency would move the > United States in a different direction? One remarkable item on his political > resume suggests that he does not believe bombing countries and deposing foreign > leaders is always a good idea. In 2011, as vice president, he urged President > Obama not to launch the war that ended up transforming Libya from the most > prosperous country in Africa to a failed state and breeding ground for terror. > Although he voted for the 1995 law that imposed harsh sanctions on Cuba, he later > supported President Obama?s decision to seek reconciliation. He also endorsed his > boss?s nuclear accord with Iran. After decades of promoting Saudi Arabian > interests, he now promises to end American support for the Saudi bombing of Yemen. > He has pledged to ?bring the vast majority of our troops home from the wars in > Afghanistan and the Middle East.? It looks like a repeat of Hillary Clinton's most recent attempt at becoming president (possibly worse since Biden has been in power so much longer and made so many more bad choices) -- when trying to give "hope that his presidency would move the United States in a different direction" they mention only one thing which ended in wrecking Libya anyhow (slave markets are a frequently-cited indicator of how badly off Libyans are now) and even that is tempered with mentions of more economic attacks (sanctions). It's Trump's election to lose. Perhaps the Democratic Party has (to borrow a phrase) brought Trump to heel so that party doesn't care if they lose. Therefore the Democrats can afford to offer up Biden as an insurance plan to fulfill their neocon/neolib desires if somehow Trump doesn't get enough electoral votes to win again. Either way, I think it's a safe bet that the permanent government is again the real winner. -J From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 21:44:02 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 16:44:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: <88989528-A35D-4C6F-9403-8253FDA4334C@newsfromneptune.com> References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> <6AFDDC87-66D5-4C7D-8DBD-304AF126966A@newsfromneptune.com> <291D1A8F-8569-469F-BA6C-597905510C7B@newsfromneptune.com> <88989528-A35D-4C6F-9403-8253FDA4334C@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Cancel culture is a serious thing in Woke liberalism, originating in no-platforming. It destroys people's careers and lives. It's vicious, such as when Nina Paley' film was locally banned. It extends, for example, to the woman in Central Park who had to lose her job and career for a misdemeanor, no rights, no process, no nothing. Just shaming, vindictiveness, cruelty, witch-style. Very serious sociopathic shit, people. Very serious. And completely corporate-friendly, one more disciplinary methodology in there toolbox. That's the Woke Left. Robin DiAngelo style. On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 3:43 PM C. G. Estabrook wrote: > 'Cancel culture? is a recent term for refusing debate and excoriating > those who take some ?wrong? positions. > > I don?t think anyone is ignorant for not knowing what it means. > > > > > On Jul 12, 2020, at 3:36 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > > > Carl, > > > > You and John, and others, I assume, must think me really ignorant, in > that you need to define the words for me. LOL , I know the meaning of > ?cancelled,? but I don?t know what David was referring to by use of the > word ?cancelled.? Something he left out of his statement, or did he cancel > out someone else?s statement? Never mind. > > > > Its always good to have these discussions, in spite of the blood > pressure they may raise, if only as a learning tool for some, a means of > expression for others. Especially during these times where we have little > opportunity to converse with others. > > > > > >> On Jul 12, 2020, at 13:25, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > >> > >> Ignored, put down, not answered, excluded from the discussion with > disdain. > >> > >> > >>> On Jul 12, 2020, at 2:20 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > >>> > >>> What is meant by cancelled? > >>> > >>> And, Mort?s posting, where might it be? I would like to see it. Mort > is always candid and lucid focusing on that which others often don?t see, > but if its just more of ?academics bashing other academics,? never mind. > Entertaining, but as much a distraction as everything else out there to > keep us from focusing on the ruling elites responsible for the cruelty, > chaos and suffering. > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jul 12, 2020, at 08:01, David Green > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I appreciate both Mort and Carl's responses to my admittedly fervent > post. I will respond respectfully in the next day or two, at which time I > can promise that nobody will be cancelled. > >>>> > >>>> DG > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 12:15 AM C. G. Estabrook < > carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote: > >>>> David? > >>>> > >>>> I largely agree with you about DiMaggio, but not about "the decadent > phase of [CounterPunch?s] existence, post-Cockburn.? > >>>> > >>>> And I don?t always agree with Jeff St. Clair, Cockburn?s hand-picked > successor as editor of CP in that phase, who I think continues Cockburn?s > heritage. > >>>> > >>>> As I?ve often mentioned, St. Clair is catholic in his tastes - in the > secular sense of inclusive, universal. > >>>> > >>>> Not that he doesn't have strong views of his own - on display each > week in his column on the site, ?Roaming Charges.? > >>>> > >>>> But he publishes people he doesn?t entirely agree with - including > you and me. (And DiMaggio?) > >>>> > >>>> Even in these extraordinary times, he continues to publish a vast > amount of material - discussion of which raises the level of political > discourse in this country. > >>>> > >>>> I advise our friends and associates - and many others - to pay > attention to what he publishes - and to what you say. > >>>> > >>>> Coraggio, CGE > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Jul 11, 2020, at 12:08 PM, David Green > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Anthony DiMaggio, like many Counterpunch writers during what is the > decadent phase of the website/newsletter's existence, post-Cockburn, > suffers from 2 fundamental symptoms: > >>>>> > >>>>> Obviously Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), which allows him not to > see that the majority of the working class, and the vast majority if you > exclude blacks, has been rejected during the past 3 decades by the > Democratic Party, and has for lack of a better alternative migrated to the > Republican Party, or simply checked out of the political process. Thus, for > DiMaggio, Trump voters must be "racist" and therefore not worthy of their > objective working class position in our current political economy--as > opposed to the worthy academic such as himself . > >>>>> > >>>>> Second, DiMaggio remains blissfully uncritical of progressive > neoliberalism, whom he describes as being from liberal to progressive to > radical. That is, he remains uncritical of the Woke identity politics that > now defines the "Left," embodied by the Professional-Managerial Class > (PMC), including the black PMC (Hannah-Jones, Coates, Kendi on down). He > pretends that they have somehow been excluded from mainstream discourse, > when in fact they are now in the catbird's seat of mainstream (NPR, MSNBC, > NYT, WP) media. DiMaggio's articles on Counterpunch in recent years, > especially his analysis of Trump supporters' "white nationalism" and "white > supremacy" would have found a perfect home on any of these mainstream Woke > platforms. > >>>>> > >>>>> DiMaggio is defensive about accusations regarding "cancel culture," > something that is very real and disturbing, which the open letter > accurately and rightly addresses. Of course some of the signatories are > hypocritical if not depraved, including Cary Nelson and Bari Weiss, > especially regarding Israel/Palestine. But the larger point remains, and > applies not just to mainstream outlets, but to allegedly alternative ones > like the Intercept, and indeed to Counterpunch itself, which has, with > exception of Rob Urie, excluded "anti-Woke" voices (I'm not talking about > myself, at least not yet), while promoting a Woke identitarian-Marxist > asshole like Louis Proyect and his support for the wretched 1619 Project. > >>>>> > >>>>> DiMaggio lives within a Woke academic world which is a clusterfuck > of category errors regarding identity, oppression, liberation, etc. Those > who attempt to address this sorry state of affairs on campuses will indeed > be "cancelled" in various ways. Meanwhile, he narcissistically worries > about not being able to publish his "Gramscian" perspectives in academic > journals, for crying out loud. > >>>>> > >>>>> In the post-Sanders, post-George Floyd, BLM/trans era, we are > entering a very dangerous situation, which will be characterized by > "loyalty oaths", purges, and a Maoist style culture war around identitarian > issues. There will be moral panics aplenty, such as we are experiencing > now. There will be many casualties, as the Woke Left will attempt to gain > control of the Democratic Party in coalition with both neoliberals and > neoconservatives, neither of whom the Woke PMC have any fundamental > problems with; and we can clearly see the neolibs/neocons strategically > accommodating themselves to the repressive demands of the Woke, such as > what occurred at the NYT and their editor. The DP will continue to exploit > its remaining machine "base," which consists only of black voters, but no > longer includes labor unions in terms of voting loyalty (the DP basically > began its abandonment of the unions with McGovern in 1972). > >>>>> > >>>>> We have seen a microcosm of this process and these emerging > developments locally in recent years, both on campus and in the county-city > context, in relation to both trans and "pro-immigrant" movements, and the > rise of a racialized, domineering political machine in the Democratic > Party. Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and Wokeness get along just fine. > Yes, let's have trans people, especially black trans people, in the > military. And during the pandemic, let's have our public health official > (Julie Pryde) supporting unsafe and illegal public gatherings, because > "racism is a virus," with no local pushback at all from our "right-wing" > newspaper. That's just perfect. > >>>>> > >>>>> Teachers and teachers' unions are going to be under the gun in terms > of racialized, white-shaming "re-education." It's going to get messy, it > already has, when the two superintendents kowtow to the notion that > "silence is violence." But the teachers are in a relatively advantageous, > unionized labor position, and we may see genuine struggle, and perhaps even > some light rather than heat regarding our education system and our > children's future; for example, if our districts try to implement the 1619 > Project, there will be pushback, at least from me. And there promises to be > many comedic moments as our teachers are required by Human Resources to > examine their "white fragility." > >>>>> > >>>>> There's much more to say, but suffice it to say that DiMaggio's > contribution to a necessary debate regarding free speech, cancellation, and > Wokeness is utterly ungrounded in any coherent analysis of our situation, > and absolutely tendentious; given his track record, all of this is > unsurprising. > >>>>> > >>>>> DG > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:40 PM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >>>>> John, I know what Carl means by ?deceased equine.? > >>>>> > >>>>> But since when did we stop beating the drums of truth. > >>>>> > >>>>> Correction on my first communique: I referred to ?fly zone,? I meant > to say ?no fly zone.? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 18:26, John W. wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:21 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased > equine. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What Carl means here is that DiMaggio is beating a dead horse. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that > it?s affected his career so much. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and > educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration > of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. > The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open > exchange of ideas, the better.? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Who does? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Who engages in this pretense about the U.S. media and educational > instititutions being committed to the free exploration of competing views? > That the 'landscape' represents a free and open exchange of ideas? > Practically everyone. Including, of course, the media, and virtually > everyone who makes his living in academia. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best, CGE > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements > taken out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I > didn?t like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting > it, not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di > Maggio refers to below: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free > speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American > discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free > exploration of ideas.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that > it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political > discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and > untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to > serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting > notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about > exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality > to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate > capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who > have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position > sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, > that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on > its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through > the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of > truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. > Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service > political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are > elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values > that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, > apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political > diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, > but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other > minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. > Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be > included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely > blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in > higher educational institutions.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher > education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented < > https://global.oup.com/academic/product/news-on-the-right-9780190913533?cc=us&lang=en&> > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion > polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s > virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the > U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. > The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to > those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly > reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to > progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate > ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very > notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under > systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that > depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and > ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a > public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized > academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with > publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost > no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does > research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our > work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to > producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral > responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the > ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through > which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school > experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the > process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with > the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who > are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it > through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. > It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their > political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same > values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no > such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes > to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in > elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges > of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, > let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research > that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false > consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social > science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement > protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might > think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for > university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political > issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as > reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas > and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in > prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the > neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such > scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy > lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or > whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has > been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist > scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate > dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and > self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports > gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. > The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? > right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous > speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting > arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student > protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC > ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in > American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an > assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within > the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for > free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media > and educational institutions have never been committed to the free > exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question > corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a > free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook < > carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has > published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in > them,? right? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of > the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That?s what we should be talking about. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter > is wrong? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my > instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> JULY 10, 2020 > >>>>>>>>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of > American Liberalism < > https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/10/free-speech-fantasies-the-harpers-letter-and-the-myth-of-american-liberalism/>by > ANTHONY DIMAGGIO Facebook > Twitter < > https://www.counterpunch.org/#twitter>Reddit < > https://www.counterpunch.org/#reddit>Email < > https://www.counterpunch.org/#email> < > https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/10/free-speech-fantasies-the-harpers-letter-and-the-myth-of-american-liberalism/print/ > > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair > >>>>>>>>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate < > https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/>? is making its > rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel > culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black > Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and > perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the > free exploration of competing viewpoints. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological > spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. > Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives > such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters > of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have > no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for > condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which > ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary > American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a > free exploration of ideas. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in > principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of > ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to > ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open > exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free > exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a > liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and > ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding > moral certainty.? The letter elaborates < > https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/>: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe > retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. > More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage > control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of > considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; > books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from > writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of > literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed > academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are > sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each > particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries > of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for > open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? > ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of > democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, > argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is > that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political > discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and > untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to > serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting > notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about > exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality > to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate > capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who > have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression > that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open > exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes < > https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/>: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to > ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, > the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by > institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic > counter-speech from all quarters.? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith > disagreement without dire professional consequences.? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They > obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are > routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social > discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position > sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, > that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on > its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through > the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of > truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. > Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service > political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are > elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values > that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, > apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political > diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, > but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other > minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. > Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be > included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely > blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in > higher educational institutions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how > the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and > those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled > (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the > limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With > this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including > those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, > repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic > systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, > the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising > authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and > fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher > education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented < > https://global.oup.com/academic/product/news-on-the-right-9780190913533?cc=us&lang=en&> > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion > polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s > virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the > U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. > The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to > those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly > reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to > progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate > ?experience?-oriented schooling system. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very > notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under > systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that > depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and > ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a > public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized > academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with > publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost > no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does > research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our > work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to > producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral > responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the > ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through > which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school > experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the > process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with > the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who > are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it > through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. > It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their > political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same > values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no > such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes > to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in > elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges > of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, > let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research > that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false > consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social > science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement > protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might > think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for > university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political > issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as > reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas > and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in > prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the > neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such > scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy > lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or > whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has > been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist > scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate > dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and > self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports > gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. > The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? > right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous > speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting > arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student > protests that are mobilized against these campus events. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC > ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in > American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an > assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within > the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for > free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media > and educational institutions have never been committed to the free > exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question > corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a > free and open exchange of ideas, the better. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook < > carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible > for the people who believe in them.? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the > people you name from the list of signers. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think > it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Carl > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications > monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one > publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this > letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as > duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and > knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes > of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama > Administration. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed > Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we > are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my > list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support > the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know > who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means > bombing everything in the area, a very large area. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website > conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ > fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes > for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from > memory. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his > specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>>>> Peace mailing list > >>>>>>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Peace mailing list > >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net > >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list > >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 22:37:39 2020 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 17:37:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> <6AFDDC87-66D5-4C7D-8DBD-304AF126966A@newsfromneptune.com> <291D1A8F-8569-469F-BA6C-597905510C7B@newsfromneptune.com> <88989528-A35D-4C6F-9403-8253FDA4334C@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 4:44 PM David Green wrote: Cancel culture is a serious thing in Woke liberalism, originating in > no-platforming. It destroys people's careers and lives. It's vicious, such > as when Nina Paley' film was locally banned. It extends, for example, to > the woman in Central Park who had to lose her job and career for a > misdemeanor, no rights, no process, no nothing. Just shaming, > vindictiveness, cruelty, witch-style. Very serious sociopathic shit, > people. Very serious. And completely corporate-friendly, one more > disciplinary methodology in there toolbox. That's the Woke Left. Robin > DiAngelo style. > I see that on this topic I agree with you, David, and presumably with Carl. Cancel culture is something that local community radio station WEFT has elevated to high art. I guess I had to experience it myself to fully realize it. Thank you for elucidating the phenomenon. John Wason > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 3:43 PM C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > >> 'Cancel culture? is a recent term for refusing debate and excoriating >> those who take some ?wrong? positions. >> >> I don?t think anyone is ignorant for not knowing what it means. >> >> >> >> > On Jul 12, 2020, at 3:36 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> > >> > Carl, >> > >> > You and John, and others, I assume, must think me really ignorant, in >> that you need to define the words for me. LOL , I know the meaning of >> ?cancelled,? but I don?t know what David was referring to by use of the >> word ?cancelled.? Something he left out of his statement, or did he cancel >> out someone else?s statement? Never mind. >> > >> > Its always good to have these discussions, in spite of the blood >> pressure they may raise, if only as a learning tool for some, a means of >> expression for others. Especially during these times where we have little >> opportunity to converse with others. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jul 12 22:47:39 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 15:47:39 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Read the 'Harper's letter': it's right In-Reply-To: References: <003D642B-28C7-4F0A-B04C-C7947B676D13@newsfromneptune.com> <6AFDDC87-66D5-4C7D-8DBD-304AF126966A@newsfromneptune.com> <291D1A8F-8569-469F-BA6C-597905510C7B@newsfromneptune.com> <88989528-A35D-4C6F-9403-8253FDA4334C@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Cancel culture, is worse, or as bad as the ?McCarthy era", its trial by public and much like the Cultural Revolution of China, though others like Carl can refer to that era better than I. My neighbor?s in-laws, both academics, committed suicide as a result of the shaming in China, during that period, over a triviality. Shaming in Asia is what guilt is to the West, but far more effective in controlling behavior, which is one of the reasons I didn?t support the #MeToo movement, not that I didn?t enjoy seeing some of the ?mighty fall,? but recognized what it was, and where it would lead, trial by public, based upon accusations with no evidence. I see it also as the horror of the era of lynchings, no trial, no due process just lynch someone for being guilty of the wrong color, on the wrong side or as very aptly put by David, witch trials, based upon what someone said, therefore she or he must be guilty. > On Jul 12, 2020, at 14:44, David Green wrote: > > Cancel culture is a serious thing in Woke liberalism, originating in no-platforming. It destroys people's careers and lives. It's vicious, such as when Nina Paley' film was locally banned. It extends, for example, to the woman in Central Park who had to lose her job and career for a misdemeanor, no rights, no process, no nothing. Just shaming, vindictiveness, cruelty, witch-style. Very serious sociopathic shit, people. Very serious. And completely corporate-friendly, one more disciplinary methodology in there toolbox. That's the Woke Left. Robin DiAngelo style. > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 3:43 PM C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > 'Cancel culture? is a recent term for refusing debate and excoriating those who take some ?wrong? positions. > > I don?t think anyone is ignorant for not knowing what it means. > > > > > On Jul 12, 2020, at 3:36 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > > > Carl, > > > > You and John, and others, I assume, must think me really ignorant, in that you need to define the words for me. LOL , I know the meaning of ?cancelled,? but I don?t know what David was referring to by use of the word ?cancelled.? Something he left out of his statement, or did he cancel out someone else?s statement? Never mind. > > > > Its always good to have these discussions, in spite of the blood pressure they may raise, if only as a learning tool for some, a means of expression for others. Especially during these times where we have little opportunity to converse with others. > > > > > >> On Jul 12, 2020, at 13:25, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > >> > >> Ignored, put down, not answered, excluded from the discussion with disdain. > >> > >> > >>> On Jul 12, 2020, at 2:20 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >>> > >>> What is meant by cancelled? > >>> > >>> And, Mort?s posting, where might it be? I would like to see it. Mort is always candid and lucid focusing on that which others often don?t see, but if its just more of ?academics bashing other academics,? never mind. Entertaining, but as much a distraction as everything else out there to keep us from focusing on the ruling elites responsible for the cruelty, chaos and suffering. > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jul 12, 2020, at 08:01, David Green > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I appreciate both Mort and Carl's responses to my admittedly fervent post. I will respond respectfully in the next day or two, at which time I can promise that nobody will be cancelled. > >>>> > >>>> DG > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 12:15 AM C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > >>>> David? > >>>> > >>>> I largely agree with you about DiMaggio, but not about "the decadent phase of [CounterPunch?s] existence, post-Cockburn.? > >>>> > >>>> And I don?t always agree with Jeff St. Clair, Cockburn?s hand-picked successor as editor of CP in that phase, who I think continues Cockburn?s heritage. > >>>> > >>>> As I?ve often mentioned, St. Clair is catholic in his tastes - in the secular sense of inclusive, universal. > >>>> > >>>> Not that he doesn't have strong views of his own - on display each week in his column on the site, ?Roaming Charges.? > >>>> > >>>> But he publishes people he doesn?t entirely agree with - including you and me. (And DiMaggio?) > >>>> > >>>> Even in these extraordinary times, he continues to publish a vast amount of material - discussion of which raises the level of political discourse in this country. > >>>> > >>>> I advise our friends and associates - and many others - to pay attention to what he publishes - and to what you say. > >>>> > >>>> Coraggio, CGE > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Jul 11, 2020, at 12:08 PM, David Green > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Anthony DiMaggio, like many Counterpunch writers during what is the decadent phase of the website/newsletter's existence, post-Cockburn, suffers from 2 fundamental symptoms: > >>>>> > >>>>> Obviously Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), which allows him not to see that the majority of the working class, and the vast majority if you exclude blacks, has been rejected during the past 3 decades by the Democratic Party, and has for lack of a better alternative migrated to the Republican Party, or simply checked out of the political process. Thus, for DiMaggio, Trump voters must be "racist" and therefore not worthy of their objective working class position in our current political economy--as opposed to the worthy academic such as himself . > >>>>> > >>>>> Second, DiMaggio remains blissfully uncritical of progressive neoliberalism, whom he describes as being from liberal to progressive to radical. That is, he remains uncritical of the Woke identity politics that now defines the "Left," embodied by the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC), including the black PMC (Hannah-Jones, Coates, Kendi on down). He pretends that they have somehow been excluded from mainstream discourse, when in fact they are now in the catbird's seat of mainstream (NPR, MSNBC, NYT, WP) media. DiMaggio's articles on Counterpunch in recent years, especially his analysis of Trump supporters' "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" would have found a perfect home on any of these mainstream Woke platforms. > >>>>> > >>>>> DiMaggio is defensive about accusations regarding "cancel culture," something that is very real and disturbing, which the open letter accurately and rightly addresses. Of course some of the signatories are hypocritical if not depraved, including Cary Nelson and Bari Weiss, especially regarding Israel/Palestine. But the larger point remains, and applies not just to mainstream outlets, but to allegedly alternative ones like the Intercept, and indeed to Counterpunch itself, which has, with exception of Rob Urie, excluded "anti-Woke" voices (I'm not talking about myself, at least not yet), while promoting a Woke identitarian-Marxist asshole like Louis Proyect and his support for the wretched 1619 Project. > >>>>> > >>>>> DiMaggio lives within a Woke academic world which is a clusterfuck of category errors regarding identity, oppression, liberation, etc. Those who attempt to address this sorry state of affairs on campuses will indeed be "cancelled" in various ways. Meanwhile, he narcissistically worries about not being able to publish his "Gramscian" perspectives in academic journals, for crying out loud. > >>>>> > >>>>> In the post-Sanders, post-George Floyd, BLM/trans era, we are entering a very dangerous situation, which will be characterized by "loyalty oaths", purges, and a Maoist style culture war around identitarian issues. There will be moral panics aplenty, such as we are experiencing now. There will be many casualties, as the Woke Left will attempt to gain control of the Democratic Party in coalition with both neoliberals and neoconservatives, neither of whom the Woke PMC have any fundamental problems with; and we can clearly see the neolibs/neocons strategically accommodating themselves to the repressive demands of the Woke, such as what occurred at the NYT and their editor. The DP will continue to exploit its remaining machine "base," which consists only of black voters, but no longer includes labor unions in terms of voting loyalty (the DP basically began its abandonment of the unions with McGovern in 1972). > >>>>> > >>>>> We have seen a microcosm of this process and these emerging developments locally in recent years, both on campus and in the county-city context, in relation to both trans and "pro-immigrant" movements, and the rise of a racialized, domineering political machine in the Democratic Party. Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and Wokeness get along just fine. Yes, let's have trans people, especially black trans people, in the military. And during the pandemic, let's have our public health official (Julie Pryde) supporting unsafe and illegal public gatherings, because "racism is a virus," with no local pushback at all from our "right-wing" newspaper. That's just perfect. > >>>>> > >>>>> Teachers and teachers' unions are going to be under the gun in terms of racialized, white-shaming "re-education." It's going to get messy, it already has, when the two superintendents kowtow to the notion that "silence is violence." But the teachers are in a relatively advantageous, unionized labor position, and we may see genuine struggle, and perhaps even some light rather than heat regarding our education system and our children's future; for example, if our districts try to implement the 1619 Project, there will be pushback, at least from me. And there promises to be many comedic moments as our teachers are required by Human Resources to examine their "white fragility." > >>>>> > >>>>> There's much more to say, but suffice it to say that DiMaggio's contribution to a necessary debate regarding free speech, cancellation, and Wokeness is utterly ungrounded in any coherent analysis of our situation, and absolutely tendentious; given his track record, all of this is unsurprising. > >>>>> > >>>>> DG > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:40 PM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > >>>>> John, I know what Carl means by ?deceased equine.? > >>>>> > >>>>> But since when did we stop beating the drums of truth. > >>>>> > >>>>> Correction on my first communique: I referred to ?fly zone,? I meant to say ?no fly zone.? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 18:26, John W. > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:21 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Much of what DiMaggio says is a bodily assault on a deceased equine. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What Carl means here is that DiMaggio is beating a dead horse. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It's as if he?s just discovered the situation, and is shocked that it?s affected his career so much. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Surely he can?t just be discovering that "U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Who does? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Who engages in this pretense about the U.S. media and educational instititutions being committed to the free exploration of competing views? That the 'landscape' represents a free and open exchange of ideas? Practically everyone. Including, of course, the media, and virtually everyone who makes his living in academia. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best, CGE > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I never said the letter was ?wrong,? but Di Maggio?s statements taken out of context are those I tend to agree. I?m not an academic, but I didn?t like the letter as much as I should. My revulsion at those promoting it, not all, I like Chomsky, is related to the liberal assumption that Di Maggio refers to below: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ? I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:28, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yeah, I read DiMaggio?s piece in CP this morning. CP has published him fairly often, but I never particularly liked his stuff. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> But ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them,? right? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In this case, if I have to choose between his ideas and those of the Harper?s letter, I?ll take the latter. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That?s what we should be talking about. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Where, specifically do you think DiMaggio is right and the letter is wrong? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> True, but look what I just came across: An article supporting my instincts of aversion in reference to the ?Letter.? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> JULY 10, 2020 > >>>>>>>>> Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper?s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism >by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO >Facebook >Twitter >Reddit >Email > > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair > >>>>>>>>> Harper?s Magazine?s July 7th ?Letter on Justice and Open Debate >? is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the ?PC? ?cancel culture? we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Harper?s letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I think it?s warranted to focus on the ways in which ?free speech? is being weaponized in this case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the fa?ade of a free exploration of ideas. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The ideas established in the Harper?s letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of ?open debate? and ?toleration of differences,? and opposition to ?dogma[s],? ?coercion,? and ?intolerant climate[s]? that stifle open exploration of competing views. The letter?s supporters celebrate ?the free exchange of information and ideas,? which they deem ?the lifeblood of a liberal society,? contrary to a rising ?vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.? The letter elaborates >: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ?But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Appealing to Americans? commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper?s letter warns, ?restriction of debate? ?invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened ?public? political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Numerous passages in the Harper?s letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter includes >: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> + A lament that the emerging ?cancel culture? threatens to ?weaken our norms of open debate and toleration.? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> + The claim that the ?free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> + The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that ?uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> + The call ?to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from ?mainstream? political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic institutions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The ?let?s engage in a diversity of competing views? position sounds great until one realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth, to the benefit of all. But we don?t really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that?s aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I don?t draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into ?mainstream? discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence reveals the opposite. As I?ve documented > through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling questions on Americans? political and economic values, there?s virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly reactionary American university: there?s very little commitment to progressive or leftist values in the modern corporate collegiate ?experience?-oriented schooling system. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a ?professionalization? culture that depicts political engagement as ?biased,? ?unprofessional,? and ?unacceptable.? Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic ?professional? norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there?s been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The reactionary ?professionalization? that?s celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don?t get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they?ve secured an academic job. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there?s no such thing as a fair hearing for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses ? the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world ? in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues of our time. But this isn?t at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world. There?s little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it?s difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn?t dream of receiving in the first place. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I won?t shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The reality of the matter is that there?s no First Amendment ?free speech? right to be invited to numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large student protests that are mobilized against these campus events. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC ?cancel culture? from the right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within the media and higher ed. They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical inquiry in the rhetoric of ?free speech.? But U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 16:09, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I used to say on News from Neptune, ?Ideas aren?t responsible for the people who believe in them.? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I think that?s true - and I don?t disagree with you about the people you name from the list of signers. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> But the important thing is what the letter says. And I think it?s more or less right. That?s what we should be debating. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hope you?re keeping well in the current craziness. ?CGE > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Carl > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I?m very fond of Harpers, given I read their publications monthly during the late sixty?s and seventy?s, they were the one publication offering sanity at the time, and still do. However, this letter, excellent it is, nonetheless has signatories that are as duplicitous as Trump, only much more professional, polished and knowledgable. That does not however make them any less guilty of the crimes of war they supported with lies and propaganda, during the Obama Administration. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Anne Applebaum, Anne Marie Slaughter, David Frum, Fareed Zakaria, Francis Fukiyama, the list goes on, all contributed to where we are today with the Trump Administration and certainly would not be on my list of those demanding/urging truth in US institutions or government. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Anne Marie Slaughter urged a fly zone over Libya to support the ?rebels,? against Jeremy Scahill?s sound advice, given we didn?t know who the rebels were, they likely are ISIS, and a fly over zone means bombing everything in the area, a very large area. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Anne Applebaum, who once deleted you from her website conversation, represented a particularly egregious organization/NGO/ fomenting a color revolution in one of the nations in Africa, now writes for the Washington Post. Sorry, I?m weak on details, given I?m writing from memory. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I didn?t mention David Brooks, who sometimes is good given his specialty is ?culture,? but is another one with a hidden agenda. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:05, C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>>>> Peace mailing list > >>>>>>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Peace mailing list > >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net > >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list > >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Jul 14 04:19:43 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 23:19:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Ben Norton & Primo Nutmeg on Democracy Now!, Danny Haiphong on DN from 2017 Message-ID: In Ben Norton's recent interview with Primo Nutmeg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAvC_zzWN9k) at 6m 12s the two get into what happened to Democracy Now (DN) and Norton sheds some light on why DN is "running interference for imperialism in Syria" (as Danny Haiphong rightly put it in May 2017 in https://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/syria-crisis/1657-democracy-now-syria.html (copies are found on other sites as well[1]). Why does DN (which used to be known for challenging lies that lead to war as DN did during the run-up to the 2003 US/UK-led invasion of Iraq) "lend legitimacy to the imperialist line in Syria" (quoting Haiphong): Because that's the narrative its funders want it to provide. From Danny Haiphong aforementioned article: > Democracy Now runs interference for imperialism because it is beholden to funding > sources, as are numerous non-profits and non-governmental organizations. Just as > Gopal is a product of the New America Foundation, so too is Democracy Now! a > product of the Pacifica Foundation?s benefactors. An analysis conducted in > Critical Sociology[2] found that the Pacifica Foundation received upwards of > 148,000 USD between the years of 1996-1998 from the Ford, Carnegie, and other > foundations to launch Democracy Now. The Lannan Foundation gave Democracy Now an > additional 375,000 USD packaged in a number of grants, according to the > foundation?s IRS 990 forms since 2008[3]. Patrick Lannan, the capitalist mogul who > founded the organization, sat on the board of ITT corporation in the late 70s and > early 80s[4]. The ITT corporation was instrumental in the CIA-backed fascist coup > that overthrew the democratically elected socialist Salvador Allende in 1973. > > So-called international non-profits such as the Ford Foundation have a long > history of receiving enormous donations from the wealthiest individuals and > corporations to achieve imperialism?s objectives around the world. Foundations > wield a form of ?soft power? on behalf of US imperialism. Their main purpose is > to provide a ?civil society? infrastructure in targeted nations capable of > fomenting conditions of regime change. This has been a general condition > throughout Latin America. Foundations such as the National Endowment for Democracy > and the Ford Foundation have been caught supporting right-wing opposition groups > waging destabilization campaigns against Left governments in Venezuela[5], > Ecuador[6], and Bolivia[7]. > > So it should come as no surprise that Democracy Now! lends legitimacy to the > imperialist narrative in Syria. Democracy Now! is ?independent? in name only. > Democracy Now?s staff is beholden to funding sources that hold a large stake in > the creation of a humanitarian face for imperialism. So while the outlet may > present news and facts on US domestic issues largely left out of the corporate > press, it remains a dangerous source of misinformation on the international frot. > Only a distorted worldview can arise from the lies presented by Amy Goodman?s > coverage of Syria. [1] https://theiranproject.com/blog/2017/05/15/democracy-now-runs-interference-imperialism-syria/ https://www.globalresearch.ca/democracy-now-runs-interference-for-imperialism-in-syria/5590162 https://riseuptimes.org/2017/05/21/democracy-now-runs-interference-for-imperialism-in-syria/comment-page-1/ (which includes an editorial note) http://www.shoah.org.uk/2017/05/15/democracy-now-runs-interference-for-imperialism-in-syria/ https://21stcenturywire.com/2017/05/22/democracy-now-the-shattering-of-its-independent-facade-on-the-rocks-of-syrian-war-reality/ [2] https://isgp-studies.com/miscellaneous/2014_08_Coast_to_Coast/2007-bob-feldman-left-media-and-left-think-tanks-foundations.pdf [3] http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/tag/democracy-now/ [4] http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2015/03/24/flashback-democracy-now-show-funder-censors-anti-war-journalist-john-pilger/ [5] http://www.chavezcode.com/2014/04/the-dirty-hand-of-national-endowment.html [6] http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Foreign-Funded-NGOs-in-Ecuador-Trojan-Horse-for-Intervention-20170217-0013.html [7] https://thewrongkindofgreen.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/u-s-funded-democracy-centre-reveals-its-real-reason-for-supporting-the-tipnis-protest-in-bolivia-redd/ From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Jul 15 18:45:22 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US puts Reality Winner in danger of Covid Message-ID: <546015ED-B30B-4107-A3BF-20BD119F822C@newsfromneptune.com> https://dissenter.substack.com/p/covid-19-cases-triple-at-prison-where From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 18:52:19 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:52:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] DiMaggio Again Message-ID: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/14/canceling-the-cancel-culture-enriching-discourse-or-dumbing-it-down/ Anthony Dimaggio yesterday doubled down on the column that I criticized this past weekend. He is not interested in seriously entertaining the notion of cancel culture as Woke Left culture, woke culture as endemic in academia, and woke culture as primarily a neoliberal professional-managerial class (PMC) phenomenon, identified with the "left," which encompasses, for example BLM, me-too, and "pro-trans," as well as "abolish police," etc., and which contributed to undermining Bernie Sanders' campaign, although there's much more to it than that. DiMaggio presents himself as a leftist who can look only "rightwards," or "upwards" into the media power structure represented by the NYT and many of the signatories of "the letter." But the left that he imaginatively identifies himself with is no longer connected to the working class, or to Marxism in any serious way. It is a phantom. DiMaggio's material class interests are with neoliberalism. His tactic in soft-pedalling the notion of cancel culture is to describe, at length, 4 topics that he thinks should not be up for serious debate among right-minded people, so as to exonerate the "left" (in my words, the Woke) from charges of repression. 1. *Debating safety measures in a pandemic*. He spends many words stating the obvious. Tellingly, he doesn't bother to consider that social distancing and public gathering prohibitions were suspended during the height of BLM protests, with the support of public health officials. This is symptomatic of the complete lack of awareness that DiMaggio has about the nature of the "left" and "right." Such blatant hypocrisy deserves at least a mention, but DiMaggio is too hidebound to give it one. That's because he is bound up with the hypocrisy itself, and blinded by it. 2. *Throwback transphobia and pedophilia propaganda*: No, this won't fly. Those who want to rationally discuss the trans issue are being repressed, by the Woke Left. See Robert Jensen's column in today's Counterpunch. Very good, and surprising to me, because at one time I thought of Jensen as being Woke. Anyway, DiMaggio accuses J.K. Rowling of relating trans to pedophilia in a way that is not supported either by DiMaggio's narrative, or the by links he places in these paragraphs. At this point, it's fair to say that DiMaggio is just blatantly dishonest and slanderous. 3. *Death panels and the plot to kill "Granny":* DiMaggio continues to score points against right-wing propaganda. I get it, it's not hard. It's beating dead fish shot in a barrel. It has nothing to do with understanding the relationship of the Woke Left to the power structure. He's avoiding the topic, because he doesn't see the topic, because if he had to take a good look at the Woke Left, he might have to take a good look at the "academic Left" of which he is a part, which functions perfectly well within the PMC power structure and has absolutely nothing to do with the working class, socialism, Marxism, etc. DiMaggio could at least offer a nod to the fact that the Democratic establishment is opposed to Medicare for All, and promotes the mythology that "we can't afford it." 4. *Climate Change Denialism*: Repeat above. DiMaggio thinks he can foist all of our political pathologies onto right-wing populism, "white nationalism.," etc. But of course he never mentions Russiagate, etc. DiMaggio concludes: "Instead of embracing right-wing rhetoric about the perils of the ?cancel culture,? we should elevate the discourse to a higher level in which individuals are expected to engage in reasoned arguments based on evidence and data. The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed the severity of the threat when anti-science flat-earthers are placed into prominent positions of political power. The bankruptcy of the post-truth ?one position is equal to another? discourse has been laid bare. Whether we can move past such propagandistic ?debates,? however, remains to be seen." I would suggest that he consider the equivalence embodied in "racism is a virus," used to justify mass gatherings during a pandemic. Yes, that in my book would be a "higher level." Again, DiMaggio states, the obvious, but not considering the broad constitution of the power structure, from "right" to "left," from "populist" to "woke." All of it down with neoliberalism, with various shades of black and gray; none of it organically related in any way to the conditions and needs of the working class. DG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Wed Jul 15 22:56:43 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 17:56:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "1619 Project" gets a TV/film deal, Bari Weiss quits NYT gig Message-ID: https://deadline.com/2020/07/lionsgate-oprah-winfrey-nikole-hannah-jones-the-1619-project-1202980325/ > Lionsgate and media maven Oprah Winfrey have partnered with 2020 Pulitzer > Prize-winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones and The New York Times to develop > Hannah-Jones? interactive project, The 1619 Project, along with the NYT podcast, > 1619, into an expansive portfolio of films, television series and documentaries, > unscripted programming and other forms of entertainment. > > Launched in August of 2019, on the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first > enslaved Africans in the English colonies, The 1619 Project is an ongoing series > that connects the centrality of slavery in history with an unflinching account of > the brutal racism that endures in so many aspects of American life today. With > contributions from Black authors, essayists, poets, playwrights, and scholars, the > project examines the legacy of slavery in America and how it shaped all aspects of > society, from music and law to education and the arts, including the principles of > our democracy itself. Listed as a related story: https://deadline.com/2020/07/new-york-times-bari-weiss-resigns-bullying-1202985236/ > Bari Weiss, staff editor and writer in The New York Times? opinion section, > resigned on Tuesday, decrying what she said was ?constant bullying by colleagues > who disagree with my views? and an environment where she said ?self-censorship has > become the norm.? > > ?What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity,? she > wrote in a lengthy resignation letter, which she posted to her personal website[1]. > ?If a person?s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work > remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. > Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.? [1] https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter Bari Weiss embarrassed herself on Joe Rogan's show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T77uFdw9HJA) when she was caught repeating establishment propaganda while claiming Rep. Tulsi Gabbard held "monstrous ideas? she's an Assad toady" (see https://sputniknews.com/society/201901231071755360-NYT-Columnist-Calls-Gabbard-Assad-Toady/) just before it became clear that Weiss wasn't sure what "toadie" (as Weiss said) meant, and Weiss offered no specific examples of these allegedly "monstrous ideas". As Sputnik pointed out: > Gabbard, who announced her presidential campaign on January 11, has drawn > incredible amounts of ire from mainstream Democrats tripping over themselves for > war with Syria because in January 2017, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar > al-Assad and denounced the opposition rebels in the country's civil war as > "terrorists." She has also expressed skepticism[1] about accusations that Assad's > government has used chemical weapons during the conflict and spoken out against > cruise missile attacks by the US and its allies against the country. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxdsw_8W46Q So when Gabbard spoke against regime change war in Syria, she spoke against the establishment interests which Weiss promotes (however clumsily). From jbn at forestfield.org Wed Jul 15 23:34:56 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:34:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US puts Reality Winner in danger of Covid In-Reply-To: <546015ED-B30B-4107-A3BF-20BD119F822C@newsfromneptune.com> References: <546015ED-B30B-4107-A3BF-20BD119F822C@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <5f554359-334d-72ea-2f92-ed95f208805d@forestfield.org> C. G. Estabrook wrote: > https://dissenter.substack.com/p/covid-19-cases-triple-at-prison-where From that article: > At Federal Medical Center Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas, where NSA whistleblower > Reality Winner is incarcerated, the number of COVID-19 infections have tripled in > one week. > > Her sister Brittany Winner said one of her bunkmates had "severe symptomatic > COVID-19 and was removed." Brittany Winner believes it is a "matter of time" > before Reality Winner falls ill. Relatedly, COVID-19 runs through Belmarsh prison as well (much like so many prisons) where Julian Assange is being held: From https://on.rt.com/aeng : > Julian Assange has revealed to a friend the harrowing details of his life in > Belmarsh. WikiLeaks founder is still confined at the UK maximum security prison, > despite it being stricken with the novel coronavirus. > > Covid-19 has spread around Belmarsh to such an extent that the prison is ?barely > functioning? any more at all, British freelance video journalist Vaughan Smith has > revealed in a Facebook post, after talking with Assange by phone. > > As many as 150 prison staff members have been forced into self-isolation as they > might have contracted the coronavirus, Smith said. The prison admitted in > mid-March that the disease already reached it premises and even reported one > coronavirus-linked inmate death. > > Assange told Smith that the real death toll might well be higher, since ?the virus > is ripping through the prison.? > > The WikiLeaks founder has to spend almost 24 hours alone in his cell as the prison > apparently strives to limit any contact to stem the spread of the disease. Yet > Assange and other inmates still spend the half an hour of exercise they are still > allowed in a yard crowded with others, according to his friend. Meanwhile, in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom has re-closed businesses: per his tweet https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282752861835649024 from 2020-07-13: > NEW: #COVID19 cases continue to spread at alarming rates. > > CA is now closing indoor operations STATEWIDE for: > > -Restaurants > -Wineries > -Movie theaters, family entertainment > -Zoos, museums > -Cardrooms > > Bars must close ALL operations. and in https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282753656983449600 also from 2020-07-13: > NEW: As #COVID19 cases and hospitalizations continue to rise, 30 counties will now > be required to CLOSE INDOOR OPERATIONS for: > > -Fitness Centers > -Places of Worship > -Offices for Non-Critical Sectors > -Personal Care Services > -Hair Salons and Barbershops > -Malls Newsom also noted ?We?re continuing to see hospitalizations rise and we continue to see an increase in the rate of positivity in the state, [hence] We are moving back into a ?modification mode? of our original stay-at-home order. This is a new statewide action, effective today.? And the news gets worse for the poor: rent payments and eviction moratoriums run out in August 2020. So renters who have lost their jobs and any healthcare tied to those jobs will soon have to come up with all delayed rent payments. Federally, the Democrats have been absolutely no help in this. Democrats show no clear support for a Universal Basic Income (even one that would run out when COVID-19 shutdowns/stay-at-home orders end). Instead Democrats overwhelmingly supported the CARES Act and trillions were spent mostly on the wealthiest people and businesses. Democrats support Joe Biden for US President and Biden has already said that he'd veto any Medicare for All bill that crossed his desk as president. Not surprisingly, "Young Black voters say they aren't enthusiastic about a Joe Biden presidency" according to https://headtopics.com/us/young-black-voters-say-they-aren-t-enthusiastic-about-a-joe-biden-presidency-14229289 (and copied widely) and commented on in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3IUV-4Y8mc (Jimmy Dore's right and proper take on this news), and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK0k1BMUxl4 highlighting the Democrats that joined the Republicans in objecting to ending the Afghanistan war. -J From jbn at forestfield.org Thu Jul 16 04:53:27 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 23:53:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "NOT IN OUR NAME: The Psychological Torture of Julian Assange" film is worth seeing Message-ID: <92b86c0b-2264-b136-9d35-910451642866@forestfield.org> https://youtu.be/xvR4dpz6LS4 (24m) https://johnfurse.wordpress.com/ has some more information. "NOT IN OUR NAME: The Psychological Torture of Julian Assange" is a short film on what led to Julian Assange's capture, imprisonment, and torture. I highly recommend watching this movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7M41Nbtp5Y is a discussion of this film (the first 24m is a lower-quality copy of the film, so you can skip ahead to the talk which follows immediately afterwards). I plan to include these in my next batch of recommended videos for AOTA and NFN timeslots so your UPTV-watching friends can catch it on TV. -J From carl at newsfromneptune.com Fri Jul 17 05:42:39 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:42:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] What we should do about Covid Message-ID: <8CA8AD3C-9B01-422D-BB08-C7725553A538@newsfromneptune.com> https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/14/fix-covid-19-dumpster-fire-us/ From jbw292002 at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 16:18:54 2020 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:18:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What we should do about Covid In-Reply-To: <8CA8AD3C-9B01-422D-BB08-C7725553A538@newsfromneptune.com> References: <8CA8AD3C-9B01-422D-BB08-C7725553A538@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Thank you, Carl. That was good. Would that our federal government was on board. John Wason On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:58 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/14/fix-covid-19-dumpster-fire-us/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Jul 17 22:06:35 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 17:06:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] What we should do about Covid In-Reply-To: <8CA8AD3C-9B01-422D-BB08-C7725553A538@newsfromneptune.com> References: <8CA8AD3C-9B01-422D-BB08-C7725553A538@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: C. G. Estabrook pointed us to: > https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/14/fix-covid-19-dumpster-fire-us/ I think the article offers some good advice but it also has a notable gap which bears mentioning -- Medicare for All. I think any proper national healthcare structural discussion which leaves out Medicare for All is incomplete at best. Particularly in the midst of a pandemic. With regard to two particular sections in the article: * The entire "Cut out the politics" section is either too vague to be taken seriously or the article is self-conflicting. The very next section of the essay entitled "Provide more help for the hardest hit" offers advice along the lines of "cut out the politics" as a means of silencing discussion of political views they don't like. I'll offer one such view below. * The "Provide more help for the hardest hit" section says that: > Fixing this means providing income support so people who are sick or exposed can > stay home, and ensuring they have sick leave and family medical leave. It also > means funding unemployment insurance for the millions of people who have lost > their jobs in the pandemic, and extending rent forgiveness and moratoriums on > evictions and foreclosures, [...] as well as providing safe places for people who > need to isolate or quarantine but don?t have the space to do it at home. Fixing this should include passing Medicare for All, which is a practical means of helping the poor afford the healthcare which they'll certainly need (particularly during a pandemic). Medicare for All is left out of the article. Most Americans supported Medicare for All before the pandemic and they continue to support Medicare for All now. We should make elected officials afraid of us on the basis of Medicare for All alone -- encourage voting against running incumbents who, apparently, have not pushed for Medicare for All (even the so-called 'progressives' like Sen. Sanders and Rep. Jayapal who have both abandoned their respective Medicare for All bills in the Senate & House, respectively, and House Speaker Rep. Pelosi who is a long-time opponent of Medicare for All). The Democrats are no opposition party. They apparently stand as a bulwark against the very Medicare for All legislation which we need now. If voting in progressives gets us this outcome, it's difficult to see how voting in more progressives will help us. Leaving out the politics leaves no room for telling Congress to cancel their vacations, get back to work passing both of those bills, and forcing/embarrassing the other establishment party to go along with passing those bills. I don't care which bill wins or if it's some amenable union of both. With the proper political will this could all happen in one day. In light of the continuing wave of not paying rent/mortgage, the subsequent evictions (now that rent & eviction moratoriums are ending), and more people losing their jobs (and any healthcare tied to their jobs) per https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAppR4uGbWI [1], it seems reasonable to expect that even more people will declare bankruptcy due to unaffordably high medical costs. Medicare for All could help avoid more medical bankruptcies, a problem which predates COVID-19. We don't need to bother with establishment rhetoric asking how to pay for Medicare for All. Medicare for All costs less than what HMO payers are currently paying and recent trillions have shown us we can apparently afford. [1] RT news piece on "Jobless US: Another 1.3mn Americans file 'first-time jobless' claims but execs keep on cashing in" I'm all for "guid[ing our COVID-19 response] by science" but that should include some economic science too: we know from other western countries that see to all of their citizens' healthcare needs in an affordable way: that approach costs less per capita than Americans currently pay and that approach delivers better healthcare outcomes than America has shown. See what I mean about politics which some would rather not discuss versus good ideas that are 'political'? -J From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sat Jul 18 18:06:38 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 13:06:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Data bypass Message-ID: https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/cdc-data-bypass-2?share=16e9e11b-0a74-4bb7-b98c-5c572dfa182f&source=email-share-button&utm_medium=&utm_source=email From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sat Jul 18 18:29:01 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 13:29:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Weekly Update: Speaker Michael Madigan Implicated in Corruption Investigation References: <1134556272645.1133146763859.1652429309.0.561200JL.2002@scheduler.constantcontact.com> Message-ID: <28F640E4-35C7-4B75-8845-F468A99343FA@newsfromneptune.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Congressman Rodney Davis > Subject: Weekly Update: Speaker Michael Madigan Implicated in Corruption Investigation > Date: July 18, 2020 at 11:02:00 AM CDT > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > Reply-To: noreply at mail8.housecommunications.gov > > Weekly Update | July 18, 2020 > > Speaker Michael Madigan Implicated in Corruption Investigation > Today, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that ?Federal prosecutors implicated Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan on Friday in a brazen, Chicago-style bribery scheme involving ComEd that allegedly went on for years and involved payments to Madigan associates exceeding $1.3 million.? > > The Chicago Sun-Times also reported that ?Federal prosecutors have made a series of requests to the Cook County assessor?s office over the past five months for records regarding the $330,000 property tax break that Gov. J.B. Pritzker got on a Gold Coast mansion ? a break he got in part because the toilets were disconnected during a stalled remodeling job.? > > Illinoisans are sadly no strangers to corruption in our state?s politics, but simultaneous federal criminal investigations into both the Speaker of the House and the Governor are truly unprecedented. Today?s developments in the ongoing bribery investigation against Speaker Madigan and the property tax fraud investigation against Governor Pritzker are disturbing. I fully support U.S. Attorney John Lausch and other federal officials in their important work to bring those who violate the public?s trust to justice. The people of Illinois deserve better than Illinois Democrats? embarrassing, systemic corruption. > Non-Partisan Group Ranks Rodney Davis Most Bipartisan Illinois Congressman, Top 3% Nationwide > The Lugar Center & Georgetown University?s McCourt School of Public Policy?s Bipartisan Index has ranked me as the most bipartisan member of Congress from Illinois and the in the top 3% of bipartisan members of Congress nationwide. For the first half of the 116th Congress, the Bipartisan Index rated me as the 13th most bipartisan member of Congress, out of 437 members (includes non-voting delegates from Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico). > > Making Washington work for the people of Illinois has always been my top priority, and I have a record of working with Democrats and Republicans to get the job done. This Congress, I?ve teamed up with Democrats and Republicans on legislation to ensure access to health care for out-of-work Americans, protect nurses from being furloughed, investigate our nation?s response to COVID-19, and more. I?m proud of my bipartisan record and will continue to work with lawmakers of any party to move our country forward. > > You can learn more about the Bipartisan Index and some of the bipartisan legislation I have sponsored here . > C onstituent Service Spotlight > > Helping Constituents Cut Through Red Tape in Taylorville > ?Rodney, you are doing a fantastic job. I am more than happy with the help I received from your staff. Philip did a terrific job keeping me informed as things progressed and reaching out to the necessary departments of the SBA. I wouldn't have been able to do this on my own.? > > -John, Taylorville, IL > Like My Facebook Page for the Latest Information > More Important Updates > Additional Relief Needed for Local Child Care Providers > Many families I represent can only return to work if they have access to affordable child care. The unfortunate reality is that state and local government mandates geared towards mitigating the spread of COVID-19 have decimated child care providers. > > That?s why we need to do everything we can to make sure child care providers can stay afloat, otherwise our economy will be permanently held back and families can?t return to work. I will continue to urge Congressional leaders to make federal funding for local child care providers a top priority as we consider additional COVID-19 relief legislation. > > Read my letter to Congressional leaders on the need for relief for local child care providers here . > > International Students Deserve to Live, Study and Work in Their University Towns > > Earlier this week, I joined university officials from central and southwestern Illinois in supporting the Trump administration's decision to rescind guidance issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs (ICE) that threatened the legal status of tens of thousands of international students studying at Illinois colleges and universities. > > Thousands of international students travel from across the world to central and southwestern Illinois every year to seek a world class education at the public and private universities in the 13th District. These hardworking students are the best and brightest from their countries, and they help our communities grow both culturally and economically. I?m glad the Trump administration made the right decision and rescinded this guidance because universities should have as much flexibility as possible in determining how their students receive instruction in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. International students deserve to stay in their university towns if they choose, regardless of how they receive their class instruction, whether that?s online or in-person. > > You can read our letter and statements from regional university officials here . > > Our Office is Coming To These Towns Next Week > > Our office will be visiting additional towns during the last week of July as well, so stay tuned for more information. > RODNEYDAVIS.HOUSE.GOV > Congressman Rodney Davis | 1740 Longworth HOB, Washington, DC 20515 > Unsubscribe cgestabrook at gmail.com > Update Profile | About Constant Contact > Sent by noreply at mail8.housecommunications.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sat Jul 18 19:41:02 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 14:41:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Israel & Covid Message-ID: <316FE1A2-8332-4B4F-A84A-E2ED03423FC5@newsfromneptune.com> https://actionnetwork.org/letters/save-hebron-covid-center?source=direct_link& From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sat Jul 18 20:35:37 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 15:35:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real White Fragility Message-ID: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/opinion/sunday/white-fragility-meritocracy.html In 2001, when I was still attending college, David Brooks wrote an essay for The Atlantic called ?The Organization Kid,? in which he spent a lot of time with young Ivy Leaguers and came away struck by their basic existential contentment. Instead of campus rebels, they were r?sum? builders and accomplishment collectors and apple polishers, distinguished by their serenity, their faux-adult professionalism, their politesse. I thought at the time that Brooks made my cohort out to be more decent than we really were, mistaking the mask we wore for encounters with, say, an Atlantic journalist for our truer, darker, more ambitious selves. But he was entirely correct that most of my peers believed that meritocracy was fair and just and worked ? because after all it seemed to work for us. I graduated the year after ?The Organization Kid? ran, wrote a lot about college in my 20s, and then drifted to other interests and obsessions. To the extent that I followed the college admissions racket thereafter, it seemed to become more competitive, more ruthless, more itself ? and to extend its rigors ever earlier into childhood. But a few years ago we moved back to the college town where I grew up, which gave me a close vantage point on young-meritocratic life again. Some of the striving culture that Brooks described remains very much in place. But talking to students and professors, the most striking difference is the disappearance of serenity, the evaporation of contentment, the spread of anxiety and mental illness ? with the reputed scale of antidepressant use a particular stark marker of this change. I don?t think this alteration just reflects a darkening vision of the wider world, a fear of climate change or Donald Trump. It also reflects a transformation within the meritocracy itself ? a sense in which, since 2001, the system has consistently been asking more of ladder climbers and delivering less as its reward. The scholar Peter Turchin of the University of Connecticut, whose work on the cycles of American history may have predicted this year?s unrest, has a phrase that describes part of this dynamic: the ?overproduction of elites.? In the context of college admissions that means exactly what it sounds like: We?ve had a surplus of smart young Americans pursuing admission to a narrow list of elite colleges whose enrollment doesn?t expand with population, even as foreign students increasingly compete for the same stagnant share of slots. Then, having run this gauntlet, our meritocrats graduate into a big-city ecosystem where the price of adult goods like schools and housing has been bid up dramatically, while important cultural industries ? especially academia and journalism ? supply fewer jobs even in good economic times. And they live half in these crowded, over-competitive worlds and half on the internet, which has extended the competition for status almost infinitely and weakened some of the normal ways that local prestige might compensate for disappointing income. These stresses have exposed the thinness of meritocracy as a culture, a Hogwarts with SATs instead of magic, a secular substitute for older forms of community, tradition or religion. For instance, it was the frequent boast of Obama-era liberalism that it had restored certain bourgeois virtues ? delayed childbearing, stable marriages ? without requiring anything so anachronistic as Christianity or courtship rituals. But if your bourgeois order is built on a cycle of competition and reward, and the competition gets fiercer while the rewards diminish, then instead of young people hooking up safely on the way to a lucrative job and a dual-income marriage with 2.1 kids, you?ll get young people set adrift, unable to pair off, postponing marriage permanently while they wait for a stability that never comes. Which brings us to the subject invoked in this column?s title ? the increasing appeal, to these unhappy young people and to their parents and educators as well, of an emergent ideology that accuses many of them of embodying white privilege, and of being ?fragile,? in the words of the now-famous anti-racism consultant Robin DiAngelo, if they object or disagree. Part of this ideology?s appeal is clearly about meaning and morality: The new anti-racism has a confessional, religious energy that the secular meritocracy has always lacked. But there is also something important about its more radical and even ridiculous elements ? like the weird business that increasingly shows up in official documents, from the New York Public Schools or the Smithsonian, describing things like ?perfectionism? or ?worship of the written word? or ?emphasis on the scientific method? or ?delayed gratification? as features of a toxic whiteness. Imagine yourself as a relatively privileged white person exhausted by meritocracy ? an overworked student or a fretful parent or a school administrator constantly besieged by both. (Given the demographics of this paper?s readership, this may not require much imagination.) Wouldn?t it come as a relief, in some way, if it turned out that the whole ?exhausting ?Alice in Wonderland? Red Queen Race of full-time meritocratic achievement,? in the words of a pseudonymous critic, was nothing more than a manifestation of the very white supremacy that you, as a good liberal, are obliged to dismantle and oppose? If all the testing, all the ?delayed gratification? and ?perfectionism,? was, after all, just itself a form of racism, and in easing up, chilling out, just relaxing a little bit, you can improve your life and your kid?s life and, happily, strike an anti-racist blow as well? And wouldn?t it be especially appealing if ? and here I?m afraid I?m going to be very cynical ? in the course of relaxing the demands of whiteness you could, just coincidentally, make your own family?s position a little bit more secure? For instance: Once you dismiss the SAT as just a tool of white supremacy, then it gets easier for elite schools to justify excluding the Asian-American students whose standardized-test scores keep climbing while white scores stay relatively flat. Or again: If you induce inner-city charter schools to disavow their previous stress on hard work and discipline and meritocratic ambition, because those are racist, too ? well, then their minority graduates might become less competitive with your own kids in the college-admissions race as well. Not that anyone is consciously thinking like this. What I?m describing is a subtle and subconscious current, deep down in the progressive stream. But deep currents can run strong. And if the avowed intention of the moment is to challenge ?white fragility? and yet lots of white people seem strangely enthusiastic about the challenge, it?s worth considering that maybe a different kind of fragility is in play: The stress and unhappiness felt by meritocracy?s strivers, who may be open to a revolution that seems to promise more stability and less exhaustion, and asks them only to denounce the ?whiteness? of a system that?s made even its most successful participants feel fragile and existentially depressed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Mon Jul 20 05:36:18 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:36:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] What the US should have done Message-ID: <5288C089-CCD5-491B-8F2D-15882555505B@newsfromneptune.com> The final judgement between today?s capitalism and socialism is clear. The latter stopped the pandemic. The former didn?t. https://consortiumnews.com/2020/07/16/covid-19-why-laos-vietnam-china-have-beaten-the-virus-and-india-brazil-and-the-us-have-not/? From carl at newsfromneptune.com Mon Jul 20 06:43:37 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 01:43:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Deadly hand sanitizers Message-ID: <3734A0B6-9A1B-4282-9CB5-5C73C7BA9427@newsfromneptune.com> https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-updates-hand-sanitizers-methanol From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Jul 20 20:51:46 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 20:51:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A well spoken essay about power, rcism, and related topics Message-ID: You may find this interesting, even insightful. Jean Bricmont, opposing the wild French intellectuals(?) long ago considered these things. bit.ly/3fKTHw1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 22:06:28 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 17:06:28 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A well spoken essay about power, rcism, and related topics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Mort, I was very much a witness to what Bricmont discusses, including a course from Jackson and reading Apple. Their theories deserved better than the outcomes of this process, which was as J Bricmont states, ultimately nihlist and deadended. On Mon, Jul 20, 2020, 3:52 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > You may find this interesting, even insightful. Jean Bricmont, opposing > the wild French intellectuals(?) long ago considered these things. > > bit.ly/3fKTHw1 > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 22:08:45 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 17:08:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A well spoken essay about power, rcism, and related topics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My mistake regarding authorship but my comment stands. DG On Mon, Jul 20, 2020, 5:06 PM David Green wrote: > Thanks Mort, I was very much a witness to what Bricmont discusses, > including a course from Jackson and reading Apple. Their theories deserved > better than the outcomes of this process, which was as J Bricmont states, > ultimately nihlist and deadended. > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020, 3:52 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> You may find this interesting, even insightful. Jean Bricmont, opposing >> the wild French intellectuals(?) long ago considered these things. >> >> bit.ly/3fKTHw1 >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Tue Jul 21 02:32:57 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 02:32:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] How It Begins Message-ID: Trump consults Bush torture lawyer on how to skirt law and rule by decree John Yoo wrote memo used to justify waterboarding Trump keen to use executive orders and circumvent Congress Julian Borger in Washington The Guardian Mon 20 Jul 2020 The Trump administration has been consulting the former government lawyer who wrote the legal justification for waterboarding on how the president might try to rule by decree. John Yoo told the Guardian he has been talking to White House officials about his view that a recent supreme court ruling on immigration would allow Trump to issue executive orders on whether to apply existing federal laws. ?If the court really believes what it just did, then it just handed President Trump a great deal of power, too,? Yoo, a professor at Berkeley Law, said. ?The supreme court has said President Obama could [choose not to] enforce immigration laws for about 2 million cases. And why can?t the Trump administration do something similar with immigration ? create its own ? program, but it could do it in areas beyond that, like healthcare, tax policy, criminal justice, inner city policy. I talked to them a fair amount about cities, because of the disorder.? In a Fox News Sunday interview, Trump declared he would try to use that interpretation to try to force through decrees on healthcare, immigration and ?various other plans? over the coming month. The White House consultations with Yoo were first reported by the Axios news website. Constitutional scholars and human rights activists have also pointed to the deployment of paramilitary federal forces against protesters in Portland as a sign that Trump is ready to use this broad interpretation of presidential powers as a means to suppress basic constitutional rights. ?This is how it begins,? Laurence Tribe, a Harvard constitutional law professor, wrote on Twitter. ?The dictatorial hunger for power is insatiable. If ever there was a time for peaceful civil disobedience, that time is upon us.? ? < snip > -- From r-szoke at illinois.edu Tue Jul 21 02:32:57 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 02:32:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] How It Begins Message-ID: Trump consults Bush torture lawyer on how to skirt law and rule by decree John Yoo wrote memo used to justify waterboarding Trump keen to use executive orders and circumvent Congress Julian Borger in Washington The Guardian Mon 20 Jul 2020 The Trump administration has been consulting the former government lawyer who wrote the legal justification for waterboarding on how the president might try to rule by decree. John Yoo told the Guardian he has been talking to White House officials about his view that a recent supreme court ruling on immigration would allow Trump to issue executive orders on whether to apply existing federal laws. ?If the court really believes what it just did, then it just handed President Trump a great deal of power, too,? Yoo, a professor at Berkeley Law, said. ?The supreme court has said President Obama could [choose not to] enforce immigration laws for about 2 million cases. And why can?t the Trump administration do something similar with immigration ? create its own ? program, but it could do it in areas beyond that, like healthcare, tax policy, criminal justice, inner city policy. I talked to them a fair amount about cities, because of the disorder.? In a Fox News Sunday interview, Trump declared he would try to use that interpretation to try to force through decrees on healthcare, immigration and ?various other plans? over the coming month. The White House consultations with Yoo were first reported by the Axios news website. Constitutional scholars and human rights activists have also pointed to the deployment of paramilitary federal forces against protesters in Portland as a sign that Trump is ready to use this broad interpretation of presidential powers as a means to suppress basic constitutional rights. ?This is how it begins,? Laurence Tribe, a Harvard constitutional law professor, wrote on Twitter. ?The dictatorial hunger for power is insatiable. If ever there was a time for peaceful civil disobedience, that time is upon us.? ? < snip > -- From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Jul 21 03:27:15 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:27:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Suggested AOTA/NFN shows Message-ID: <9b89c378-d109-13e5-61a8-768db4a202b0@forestfield.org> Here are more videos which I've suggested to run during the AWARE on the Air and News from Neptune timeslots. I've also asked that if someone else has something else to to run please prioritize their suggestions above mine. Thanks. -J Consortium News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7M41Nbtp5Y -- (1h 10m) "NOT IN OUR NAME: The Psychological Torture of Julian Assange" film about Julian Assange's case, Assange's isolation, imprisonment, and torture. Followed by discussion with Director John Furse and Nils Melzer, UN Rapporteur on Torture. Very highly recommended viewing. If you want to run the film alone, run https://youtu.be/xvR4dpz6LS4 instead (24 minutes). It's a higher quality copy than the one with the discussion, but the discussion is good. Jimmy Dore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3IUV-4Y8mc -- (8m 02s) Why young black voters reportedly don't want to vote for 2020 Democratic Party nominee Sen. Joe Biden. A very good concise review of Biden's policies which would give anyone cause to not vote for the Democrats. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK0k1BMUxl4 -- (7m 41s) "DEMOCRATS Prevent Trump Withdrawing Troops From Afghanistan!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBQ6ihQPsDU -- (4m 51s) Nancy Pelosi's corrupt bailout for her husband's business and how politicians profit while most people are told to "calm down" and wait for their bailout (which never comes) as they suffer immiseration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUQPUHSlquA -- (5m 02s) "The Reality of America -- A Tale of Two Economies!" on two events that happened in the same day: the Dow Jones breaks 29,000 for the first time, and a man robbed a pharmacy and left a note saying "I'm sorry, I have a sick child". As Jimmy Dore concluded, "It's almost as if the Wall Street doesn't reflect the real economy.". Black Agenda Report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ4kCnbxy6s -- (36m19s) "Left Lens episode 2: Free Speech Against Black Lives" on the limits of allowable debate including calling out those who are credited as being "on the left" or "progressive" but are really for restricting speech that doesn't echo an establishment narrative, highlighting those whose struggle are left behind (even a mention of Steven Salaita and his firing plus subsequent difficulty finding a job in academia), the Democrats (kneeling in Kente cloth), NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio being photographed painting the street just outside Trump Tower with "BLACK LIVES MATTER" while not (and probably in an effort to avoid) changing police policy. From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Jul 21 03:38:58 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:38:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US is torturing political prisoners References: <20200720230748.1.0ua9ey4hzuv@mg2.substack.com> Message-ID: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Shadowproof > Subject: At Carswell, More Than 500 Women, Including Reality Winner, Have Tested Positive For COVID-19 > Date: July 20, 2020 at 6:07:48 PM CDT > To: galliher at illinois.edu > Reply-To: "Shadowproof" > > At Carswell, More Than 500 Women, Including Reality Winner, Have Tested Positive For COVID-19? > NSA whistleblower alleges retaliation from staff over media coverage > Kevin Gosztola > Jul 20 > > > > More than 500 women imprisoned at Federal Medical Center Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas, have tested positive for COVID-19. The facility has the second-most cases out of all federal prisons in the United States, and one of the prisoners who has tested positive is NSA whistleblower Reality Winner. > > Last week, The Dissenter reported that COVID-19 cases tripled at Carswell in one week. The article included comments from Winner's sister Brittany Winner. Staff at Carswell apparently read the story, and according to Brittany Winner, she is experiencing retaliation for our reporting. > > "Reality is being retaliated against for speaking out about the conditions in the prison, but she won't stop fighting for better treatment for herself and her fellow inmates," Brittany Winner declared. "She will continue to update us, and I want everyone to know that we are watching and won't stop being her voice." > > Brittany Winner continued, "I am terrified that she will develop severe symptoms and require urgent medical care, but with the huge swell of cases in FMC Carswell and the likelihood that the region's hospitals are already overwhelmed, I have no confidence that she will receive the care she needs." > > "She belongs at home where she can be safely quarantined and receive medical care," Brittany Winner contended. > > It took at least five days for Reality Winner to receive the results of her COVID-19 test, and fortunately, she has not exhibited symptoms of the virus yet. > > Reality Winner is waiting on the 11th Circuit to rule on an appeal that she filed after a lower court denied her request for compassionate release. > > As her attorneys warned in May, "The entire basis for Reality?s motion?and so many like hers?is that she cannot afford to wait until she is removed from FMC Carswell in a stretcher, or worse, before she is afforded relief." > > Reality Winner pled guilty in 2018 to one count of violating the Espionage Act when she disclosed an NSA report to The Intercept. She believed the report contained evidence that Russian hackers targeted United States voter registration systems during the 2016 election. She has served well over half of her 63-month sentence. > > On July 20, the Bureau of Prisons? number for "inmates positive" with COVID-19 spiked dramatically from less than 200 cases to 509 cases. > > The spike raises questions about the extent to which the facility has failed to report or track the spread of an outbreak that seems to increasingly be out of control. > > According to Brittany Winner, Reality Winner is in a "home unit" that is quarantining more than 200 inmates that have tested positive for COVID-19. > > Reality Winner told her family that she sought "administrative remedies" for retaliation she experienced as a result of reporting that was published on her case and the prison outbreak. > > One corrections officer apparently visited Reality Winner to tell her, "I just wanted to congratulate you on your positive results," said Brittany Winner. > > As Brittany Winner recalled, the same officer confronted Reality Winner last week and refused to allow her to clean. She alleges this officer tried to have her thrown in isolation so she would not be able to talk to her attorney. > > "I think they know that she enjoys cleaning. It's how they are punishing her," Brittany Winner stated. > > For a prisoner, cleaning the little amount of space that they can call their own gives them some sense of control, and in a pandemic, that means being able to disinfect and dramatically slow the spread of the virus. But in a system, where facility personnel want prisoners to remain dependent on them, staff can impose their authority by refusing to permit cleaning is a cruel act. > > It effectively intensifies the trauma a prisoner is already feeling, as they deal with the fact they are trapped in a facility in which it is nearly impossible to social distance from fellow prisoners. > > Brittany Winner shared a story from Reality Winner about an incarcerated person, who has diabetes, COVID-19 symptoms, and can barely walk on the stairs. They tried to have this woman do Reality Winner's paid prison detail. > > Furthermore, according to Brittany Winner, Reality Winner said the virus spread in a hospital unit with chemo and dialysis patients after someone who tested positive was allowed into the unit. > > There are isolation units that did not have prisoners with COVID-19, but that is not the case anymore. Reality Winner believes this is a result of staff coming and going and spreading the virus. > > Previously, The Dissenter reported that Reality Winner?s bunkmate tested positive and was removed from her unit. > > Reality Winner's prosecution was a high-profile prosecution and received a substantial amount of attention. The warden at Carswell, as well as the staff, are well aware that she can marshal press coverage to a degree that no other prisoners in the facility can and may have even marked this down in her file. > > When CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou was imprisoned at Federal Correctional Institution Loretto in Pennsylvania, his file was marked with, "CAUTION ? Inmate has extensive access to the press," and, "CAUTION: Publicity.? > > "[Staff] will do everything in their power to stop prisoners from telling the world what conditions are like in these prisons, and they'll operate both within the rules and outside the rules," Kiriakou declared. "They know that there is so little that a prisoner can do to protect herself that they push the envelope daring that prisoner try to do something about it." > > "In my case, the media were my friends because they allowed me a voice that I otherwise would not have had. And, yes, I was punished for being outspoken in the media," Kiriakou added. "But it was worth it." > > Joe Whitley, an attorney for Reality Winner, told R. Robin McDonald at Law.com that they hoped the 11th Circuit would permit her to "serve the balance of her sentence in home confinement." > > "She fits all the parameters that have been set by the Bureau of Prisons for release. It serves no real purpose to have her confined any longer, given the incidents of COVID at Carswell," Whitley added. > > *** > > Reality Winner has not emailed or mailed any messages to The Dissenter. Everything we have published comes from Reality Winner's family, and the Bureau of Prisons should cease their retaliation against Reality Winner immediately. > > Image from StandWithReality.org and used with permission. > > If you liked this post from The Dissenter , why not share it? > Share > ? 2020 FDL Media Group Unsubscribe > PO Box 5087, Portland, ME 04101 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Wed Jul 22 01:06:50 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 01:06:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Naomi Klein interviewed Message-ID: <51042A08-4E6F-4B16-A583-30EF274B0C30@illinois.edu> A remarkable person/women, worth hearing: Here's a podcast on an Australian program. Be patient with it, it gets more interesting as it proceeds. It?s about the wars we have about the pandemic, and climate change, and economic justice, and the future,? https://theanalysis.news/uncategorized/naomi-klein-on-juice-media-podcast/ ?mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Jul 22 18:49:20 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:49:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Death penalty case Message-ID: <06AFB0F3-A9C4-4A24-9821-E04458A5D3AA@newsfromneptune.com> https://www.innocenceproject.org/petitions/stop-execution-pervis-payne/?p2asource=sumo_07222020 From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Jul 22 20:34:24 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:34:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Honduras Message-ID: <663DF87E-4BA9-4790-A1DE-E3DC541D2943@newsfromneptune.com> : https://actionnetwork.org/letters/take-action-on-behalf-of-garifuna-leaders-in-danger?source=direct_link& From brussel at illinois.edu Wed Jul 22 22:00:36 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 22:00:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A pregnant snippet? Message-ID: Q: What is China? A: China is a large Asiatic nation which westerners use as an emotional punching bag for their capitalism-induced rage, propaganda-induced confusion, and fears about the death of the US empire. ~ Believing China wants to take over your country, censor your internet and give you a social credit score is exactly the same sort of foam-brained othering which told previous generations that black men want to take over your neighborhood so they can have sex with your wives. ~ "I guess you don't realize this Caitlin, but it's actually possible to be critical of the US government and mindlessly regurgitate CIA narratives about China," said the Smart Internet Person. "It's called being fair and balanced." ~ US conservatives whose precious religion admonishes them to "remove the plank from thine own eye" are obsessed with China, a nation on the other side of the planet whose alleged misdeeds are far less egregious than those of their own country. ~ If a foreign government is authoritarian toward its own people and your government is authoritarian toward the entire world, then yours is the more authoritarian government. If your attempts to fight tyranny help advance the planet-dominating agendas of the most powerful government on earth, then you're not fighting tyranny. You're facilitating it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Wed Jul 22 23:29:28 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 23:29:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [wbw-discussion] Here is how Senators voted on moving 10% out of military budget References: Message-ID: <28D535F3-4551-415B-99F3-513378E10D18@illinois.edu> The war budget, who voted how. Begin forwarded message: From: David Swanson > Subject: [wbw-discussion] Here is how Senators voted on moving 10% out of military budget Date: July 22, 2020 at 12:29:53 PM CDT To: David Swanson > Here is how Senators voted on moving 10% out of military budget https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00135 -- David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is executive director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and was awarded the 2018 Peace Prize by the U.S. Peace Memorial Foundation. Longer bio and photos and videos here. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook, and sign up for: Activist alerts. Articles. David Swanson news. World Beyond War news. Charlottesville news. -- This is a listserve to discuss the building of a global nonviolent movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace. Participants on this list must be respectful toward each other, not advocate violence, and not promote electoral candidates. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WBW discussion" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbw-discussion+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wbw-discussion/CAF1z47J6Pqf9%2BES0WWYa-nhVnum3%3Dv-N5hnnYbruYTdgojppeA%40mail.gmail.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Fri Jul 24 14:43:50 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:43:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My response to Danielle Chynoweth Message-ID: Danielle recently charged AWARE with "patriarchy" on the AWARE FB page. This led to a heated exchange. My basic comment in response to here is below, and I stand by it. DG You live in a fantasy world of victimization. If someone challenges you on your exalted self-image, and calls you on your slanders, you then accuse them of being sexist, or patriarchal. I've always found you to be impersonal, condescending, and strangely detached from ordinary human connection. You are a raging narcissist, and you depend on having people around you who conform to your expectations of exaltation and obedience. That's not sexism on my part. That's calling a narcissist a narcissist, and I could probably call you worse, especially after the whole IMC post office fiasco. Yes, I'm sure you organized intensively for months. Just like Barack Obama in Chicago. What a sick joke. And of course, you pick up your toys and go crying home, taking your supplicants with you. How predictable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Fri Jul 24 21:16:44 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 16:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Click the link to read the statement Message-ID: Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) Tweeted: The federal courthouse anarchists are trying to destroy in Seattle is named after a Japanese-American U.S. Army vet who was once sent to an internment camp. There are citizenship swearing in ceremonies at the building, one reason authorities want to protect it. https://t.co/lJsAB0g7Z2 https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1286765183973695491?s=20 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Fri Jul 24 22:00:06 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 22:00:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky interview, AOC speech in Congress Message-ID: <004D360B-1ADE-42A9-B07D-651A7A932723@illinois.edu> Both powerful to hear and to absorb, even if aware of much of it (four segments on DemocracyNow): https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/24/noam_chomsky_on_trump_s_troop?utm_source=Democracy+Now%21&utm_campaign=08c87dbe7d-Daily_Digest_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fa2346a853-08c87dbe7d-190569021 ---mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sat Jul 25 00:20:18 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 19:20:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on the unparalleled danger of Trump Message-ID: <25F90BDA-DBE9-45D5-AC9B-A5F37F735FB3@newsfromneptune.com> (This transcript links to two following parts of the interview.) https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/24/noam_chomsky_on_trump_s_troop From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sat Jul 25 01:18:15 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 20:18:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Dissenter Weekly: Massive COVID-19 Outbreak At Women's Medical Prison References: <20200724225821.1.oooikl9k8wq@mg2.substack.com> Message-ID: <5FA3D806-4A6A-4969-AA17-B789049CEB01@newsfromneptune.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Kevin Gosztola > Subject: Dissenter Weekly: Massive COVID-19 Outbreak At Women's Medical Prison > Date: July 24, 2020 at 5:58:21 PM CDT > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > Reply-To: "Kevin Gosztola" > > Dissenter Weekly: Massive COVID-19 Outbreak At Women's Medical Prison? > Plus, workers allege retaliation at Disney, McDonald's over COVID-19 safety > Kevin Gosztola > Jul 24 > > On this edition of the ?Dissenter Weekly,? host and Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola provides an update on the COVID-19 outbreak at Federal Medical Center Carswell, where the number of women who have tested positive spiked from around 200 to more than 500. NSA whistleblower Reality Winner is one of the prisoners that received positive results. > > Later in the show, Gosztola covers the Pentagon's "aggressive" leak investigation that Pentagon Secretary Mark Esper apparently launched in early 2020. He breaks down how the insider threat program was likely used and the impact it probably has had on potential whistleblowers. > > This edition also highlights multiple stories of workplace retaliation against employees at Disney and McDonald's because they demanded safety protections during the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, McDonald's apparently has a "blacklist" of gossipers or troublemakers. > > To watch the show, click on the above player or go here . > > This week?s stories: > > At Carswell, More Than 500 Women, Including Reality Winner, Have Tested Positive For COVID-19 > In Early 2020, Pentagon Launched 'Aggressive' Investigation Into 'Bad Leaks' > McDonald's Worker Says Corporation Fired Her For Organizing, Seeking Safety Gear During COVID-19 > Disney Allegedly Fired Performers After They Demanded COVID-19 Testing > Lucasfilm Supports Sgt. Esqueda, Who Blew The Whistle On Eric Lurry's Death > > If you liked this post from The Dissenter , why not share it? > Share > ? 2020 FDL Media Group Unsubscribe > PO Box 5087, Portland, ME 04101 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Sun Jul 26 01:26:42 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2020 20:26:42 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] COVID-19 eviction ban ends today, what this likely means for job loss and homelessness Message-ID: <5f0a8fa2-be3a-4f24-d3df-277520e56acf@forestfield.org> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctaUPbLhW38 -- Caleb Maupin's RT report on the coming end of eviction moratorium from federally-backed rental units, the related job loss figures (and trend upward again), and a quote from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) trying to lay the blame on Senate Republicans for policy we need but aren't getting. What's missing from this report is any mention of any of the following: - a national jobs program, - Medicare for All (including no mention of the 2 extant bills which could be brought to the floors of the House & Senate and voted into law if there were the political will to do this), - a Universal Basic Income, - the trillions recently added to the economy (most of which went to the already wealthy), - and that there is bipartisan agreement that we ought not have policy which benefits the poor. -J From jbn at forestfield.org Sun Jul 26 01:38:44 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2020 20:38:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AOTA & NFN recommended videos Message-ID: Videos I'll recommend for airing during AOTA & NFN. I highly recommend watching them all, even the ones UPTV doesn't end up running. Greyzone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG17cgS2-sU -- (30m 29s) Aaron Mate interviews Afshin Rattansi (host of RT's "Going Underground") on the UK government report which claims Russian interference in UK elections but does not back the claims with evidence. The committee putting this report together are a series of known neocons, western government propagandists, and liars (including Christopher Steele, author of the widely-debunked Russiagate report). The highest levels of establishment media repeat the baseless allegations and the allegations have considerable consequences for war profiteers and calls for censorship of social media & UK broadcast networks that don't fall in line such as RT, as Rattansi points out. This is more of the journalism that won Mate an Izzy award. Russiagate allegations continue from establishment media (which certainly includes Democracy Now since that show went from challenging this kind of narrative to being another member of the echo chamber). RT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctaUPbLhW38 -- (3m 7s) Caleb Maupin's RT report on the coming end of eviction moratorium from federally-backed rental units, the related job loss figures (and trend upward again), and a quote from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) trying to lay the blame on Senate Republicans for policy we need but aren't getting. What's missing from this report is any mention of any of the following: - a national jobs program, - Medicare for All (including no mention of the 2 extant bills which could be brought to the floors of the House & Senate and voted into law if there were the political will to do this), - a Universal Basic Income, - the trillions recently added to the economy (most of which went to the already wealthy), - and that there is bipartisan agreement that we ought not have policy which benefits the poor. Jimmy Dore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzkRP7FySUY -- (37m 22s) The myth of two parties, the baseless racism argument against Pres. Trump only works if we ignore continuing bombing people around the world, and the lack of Medicare for All & a Universal Basic Income. Dore interviews Nick Brana, who coordinated a series of protests at Congresspeople's houses demanding a stimulus consisting of a UBI, rent relief, and mortgage relief and received no establishment media coverage. According to Brana no establishment media covered this. Glenn Greenwald https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgxK9w5DSvQ -- (1h 52m) Greenwald examines the Bolivian coup which installed a neocon and neolib government. You won't find coverage of the Bolivian coup in many places, certainly not a lot of coverage in the establishment media. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXDPPkuRimQ -- (40m 28s) Greenwald on how "elites are distorting the 'cancel culture' crisis". Some criticism of the recent Harper's letter here too. -J From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 26 20:49:15 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:49:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE minutes Message-ID: The first set of AWARE minutes I could find on the peace-discuss list was from March of 2003, a year and a half after the founding of AWARE, recently noted, by Danielle Chynoweth and Elizabeth Simpson. Notice that neither of them are to be found at this meeting. Perhaps somebody can inform me of the patriarchy and sexism that they notice documented in this context by Linda Evans. This occasion was, of course, right before the beginning of the 2nd Persian Gulf War. Facilitator: Peter Rohloff Minutes: Linda Evans Time: Al Kagan Intros: over 40 people David Green spoke on the Israel/Palestine situation: David suggested the book 'Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on US Middle East Policy' by Kathleen Christison as a primer on this subject. He said this book is good for Americans who want to understand Palestine by beginning with the treatment of the Palestinians by successive U.S. administrations, going back to Woodrow Wilson. David discussed the US policy favoring Israel, which is structural and consistent, not an aberration or a mistake. He displayed several newspaper clippings showing violence on both sides during the past week and how they are covered in a manner that avoids addressing the fundamental nature of the occupation in shaping Israeli oppression and Palestinian resistance. While the word "terrorism" is no longer used to describe Palestinian violence, neither is the word "occupation" used to describe the fundamental reality of Palestinian lives. Thus Palestinian violence is seen as a force of nature, and Israeli violence is seen as retaliation or preemption. He suggested that Israel will not resolve the Palestinian problem in a just manner without a radical re-thinking of U.S. support, with the help of the international community, as Israel's right-wing government has never been more identified with a U.S. administration as it is now, and more free to pursue policies that murder Palestinians and put Israeli citizens in danger. He discussed the context of suicide bombings--the targeting of Hamas leaders by Israel, and their predictable response. While suicide bombings are immoral and condemnable, like other forms of "terrorism" they must be explained and understood. A couple questions were asked regarding the break down of peace talks. David expressed pessimism regarding "reforms" in the Palestinian authority. He said that the new boss would be the same as the old boss, his job being to sell out the interests of the Palestinian people. News of the week: Carl Estabrook (posted previously) Student Peace Action: A representative from Student Peace Action described their scheduled 'Day of War Event'. They are planning a march following the PRC event on the quad. The march will start around 1pm on the quad the day after a major US bombing of Iraq. AWARE agreed to endorse this event. A suggestion was made to SPA to contact Teachers for Peace. AWARE's Day of War Event: Charlotte Green and Jeff Sowers discussed AWARE's Day of War event and flyers have been posted at local businesses. Remaining flyers were passed around for people to post them at business where we have yet to flyer. Finances: Gabe said we have approximately $2000 in the bank. Approximately $60 was collected at Prospect for Peace last Saturday. Linda Evans will be able to write checks soon and will try to have a financial report for next meeting. Since Raia will not be back for awhile, Linda will start handling finances with the help of Gabe. AWARE Care: Al Kagan reported on the AWARE Care meeting last Monday. Long term goals and AWARE's philosophy (non-violence?) was discussed. Al said 'another world is possible'. Organizing structure (openness vs. coordination), outreach, and cultural presentation were also discussed. It was suggested that people with announcements give them to the facilitator of the meeting so we can streamline the announcement part of the meetings. An AWARE notebook is being created by Linda Evans and Charlotte Green. This notebook will have meeting minutes, flyers, current literature, etc. Linda and Charlotte are also working on a list of working groups and their facilitators that will be available every meeting. This may help people find ways they can get more involved in AWARE. Linda and Charlotte are also working on a table with current information for every meeting. The welcome flyer will also be resurrected. Prospect for Peace: Ricky Baldwin said over 160 people were protesting on N. Prospect last Saturday. He estimated around half of the people were newcomers to the N. Prospect event. He thinks the word is out about N. Prospect so we may not need to publicize this weekly event as much. Security was discussed. A green van stayed on the street, but got very close to the protesters last Saturday. The P4P security working group scheduled to meet after the meeting. Even with the 'security' group, we all need to look out for one another during the P4P. Flyers: Randall Cotton showed the new P4P handout with a new more readable layout by John Baldwidge. Randall estimated 1,000 Move On flyers were handed out last week on the corner of Green and Wright. Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 11:45am on the same corner, literature will be handed out so anyone can come by and help. An estimated 350 flyers were put in doors around the C-U area. Janet has the original electronic copy of the literature. There was discussion regarding adding AWARE information to the Move On literature. March 15th: If anyone is interested in traveling to DC for March 15th, contact Randall Cotton. For those people staying in the CU area, we need to have a strong presence at Prospect for Peace. The New Gazette will be at P4P March 15th. Speaker's Bureau: Linda Evans reported on last Tuesday's meeting of the Speaker's Bureau. The list of speakers is being updated. All the speakers on the old list will be contacted to make sure they still would like to speak and new speakers are being added. If anyone is interested, contact Joe Parnarauskis. The Speaker's Bureau is working on ways to outreach to the community and is interested in looking at this as an exchange of speakers. We would ask people from the community to come speak to AWARE as well as making AWARE available to speak. Announcements: The Public I's next issue (due out April 1st) will have an article on war tax resistance. Ken Urban has started 'Parklanders for Peace' and so far eight faculty have come out to the Prospect for Peace. He tables at Parkland with AWARE literature. Ken Urban suggested AWARE support Care3 since they have supported AWARE. He mentioned four people running in the Unit 4 School Board; Nathaniel Banks, Scott Anderson, Margie Skirvin ( http://www.skirvin.net/), and Charles (Ken, please provide the last name here I couldn't find it during a quick web search). Ken also said Miles Robert thinks we should have another DI ad regarding the Day of War Event. Due to the amount of money involved, it was suggested we write a letter to the editor instead. Jeff Sowers offered to write the letter. There is a lock down in Milwaukee, but we were lacking specific information. Jay Mittenthal announced the Nonviolence working group is going to have a meeting at the IMC on March 30th prior to the AWARE meeting at 4pm. There will be role playing and information on nonviolent activism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 26 20:53:07 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:53:07 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] More AWARE Minutes Message-ID: More minutes from March 2003: AWARE Meeting Notes 3/23/03 INTROS MUSIC FROM IRAQ: Sampled CD, short discussion NEWS OF THE WEEK (Carl): See www.anti-war.net for text EVENTS OF PAST WEEK: 1. Student Peace Action Rally?About 300 people marched around campus. No arrests. Marched through Illini Union, marched in the streets. Police re-routed traffic. Marched to West Side Park Vigil. 2. Move On Vigil?About 500 people participated. Diverse participants. 3. AWARE Vigil At West Side Park?People started arriving at 4:30 pm. Many groups marched to vigil. Lots of singing, candles. 4. PRC Rally?Over 1,000 people attended. Jello Biafra spoke briefly. 5. Prospect for Peace?About 280 people attended. Need more signs. Police were cooperative. Park at old Best Buy (around by O?brian Car Dealership. DO NOT PARK AT TIRES PLUS OR LOWES! They will tow you! Counter protesters were present also. Robert Mckim called about having signs like ?Methodists for Peace.? Security working group dealing with issues of confrontation with counter demonstrators. ELECTION UPDATE (Ken): Champaign City Council has 3 seats open. Openings on Champaign and Urbana School Boards. Ken interested in effort to get Representative Tim Johnson out of office. Ken is running for Champaign City Council. Cope Cumston is running for Urbana School Board. Vote on April 1st. FINANCIAL REPORT: We have $2,025. MOSQUE SECURITY (Robert): Mosque has had people checking on it during night hours. Anyone interested in helping out should indicate this to Robert. DISCUSSION (What Next?): Carl suggests talking more publicly in addition to demos, possibility of arranging a forum at the Champaign Library. Peter Miller spoke in favor of teach-ins, dialogue, canvassing, etc. in order reach people who are undecided. Working group on tax resistance. Working Group on Conscientious Objection.How do we break down the myth of Iraqi liberation?How do we step up resistance? Supporting the Impeach Bush movement? Republican congress is cutting veterans? benefits by 9 million, we need to disseminate this info. Could instigate a debate on WEFT between AWARE and Pro-War protestors. P4P signs could have specific info on them, statistics, etc. Could raise funds for humanitarian NGOs in Iraq. Could send care packages to troops to back up the ?Support Our Troops Send them Home? message. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 3/30 at 4pm at the IMC, the Nonviolence group will meet for role playing. Jeremy Glick (author of ?Another World is Possible?) will speak about peace on 4/10 at 7pm at the University YMCA. International Solidarity Movement (Palestinian Truth Tour) coming through on 4/13. More info on ISN event posted as it becomes available. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 26 21:01:11 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 16:01:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Where's Patriarchy? Where's Sexism? Message-ID: April 2003: Facilitator: Carol I. Time: Lisa C. Minutes: Linda E Intros: over 30 people News of the Week: Carl E. (posted previously) Election Results: Ken U. will review the recent local elections next Sunday. Ken U. came in 4th and Cope won. Art: Peter R. explained the art in the center of the room. 'Divided We Stand' chair from a Unity High school (Tolono) student. Events of the Past Week: Robert D. talked about a lecture at the local mosque on Friday and the Chicago Student Anti-war Network event (20,000? people) on Saturday. Meridith K. talked about 'Men in the Tree' at the IDF and 'Missing Women' at La Casa. PRC's weekly Thursday rally on campus from noon - 1pm was mentioned. The Buzz printed the name/address from an editorial letter and people are asked to contact the paper and ask them to not print personal info. The Yoga Institute was vandalized, apparently due to anti-war signs...any vandalizism should be reported to Ricky B. (as well as the police). Prospect for Peace: Numbers were down (on pro-war side as well). Estimated around 115 anti-war people present at P4P last Saturday. Buffer zone between the anti/pro-war groups seems to be working. Randall C. displayed revised casualty posters for possible use next Saturday. There was discussion for and against using US military pictures. Meeting at Linda E.'s house Tuesday night to discuss alternative protests and activities beyond P4P. Upcoming Events: Living Wage vote at the Champaign City counsel Tuesday April 8th at 7pm. Candlelight Vigil on the south side of the U of I quad Wednesday April 9th from 8-9pm. Jeremy Glick of Peaceful Tomorrows will be speaking Thursday April 10th 7pm at the University YMCA. Tax Resistance Working Group will meet at Kickapoo Landing Friday April 11th at 6pm. The Palestine Truth Tour will be at the Red Herring (basement of Channing-Murray Foundation on the corner of Oregon and Matthews, Urbana) Sunday April 13 from 1:30-3:30pm. Party for Peace (AWARE benefit) will be at the IMC Sunday April 13th from 6-10pm. Suggested donation is $5 - $20. Physicians for Social Responsibility will present a lecture by Doug Rokke, PhD on Gulf War Syndrome Wednesday April 16 noon - 1pm at the College of Medicine auditorium (free food!). The South Asian Collective will be at the Red Herring April 16th from 6:30-9pm. Boneyard Arts Festival April 18-19. Seewww.40north.org for more info. Carol I. is hosting a farewell party on April 26th (more info. to come later) for Meridith. Meridith K. is leaving the C-U area and moving on to do some very interesting work in other countries. The Non-Violence working group will show 'A Force More Powerful' April 27 4pm at the IMC (prior to the AWARE meeting). The CO Working Group will have a table at Urbana High school April 29th during the lunch periods. Announcements: The IMC is raising money to buy a building. The rent has been raised at the current location. They need to raise $100,000 by Dec. 31, 2003. Please give the IMC your support. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 26 21:07:20 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 16:07:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Where's Danielle? Where's patriarchy? Message-ID: What's on my mind? Well, frustration about being able to find Danielle, Elizabeth, sexism, or patriarchy at an AWARE meeting, more than 11/2 years after its founding by Danielle and Elizabeth, less than "a few years" after Danielle claimed to have left the organization: Randall's minutes are exemplary -- a piece of art -- with links to the articles mentioned, background info incorporated, succint but thorough summaries of what was said. Many thanks for such a good job. L. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randall Cotton" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:16 AM Subject: [Peace] Anti-war calendar and minutes of 5/4/03 AWARE meeting > Anti-War Calendar: > > May 3 (Saturday): AWARE's long-established "Prospect for Peace" > demonstration at Prospect and Marketview (2-4PM). > > May 4 (Sunday): AWARE's weekly meeting 5-7PM at the IMC (Independent Media > Center - 218 W. Main, Urbana). > > June 6-8 (Friday-Sunday) United for Peace and Justice Nationwide Anti-War > Conference in Chicago. AWARE may attend. > > October 7 (Tuesday): Noam Chomsky apparently coming to Illinois at ISU. More > info later. > --------------------------------------------- > meeting minutes: > > attendance: 20 > > presentation: Dave Johnson of the Carpenter's Union > > Dave promoted the idea of opposing anticipated anti-union, anti-worker > developments in Iraq as part of the larger opposition to the US occupation. > He pointed out it's only reasonable to expect the administration will > attempt to create a country-wide "free-trade" zone favorable to US corporate > interests and quash worker rights and organization as a result. > > Dave talked about Harry Kelber, who has spent his entire adult life (he is > now 90) in the service of the labor movement. Kelber is the editor and > founder of the newsletter "The Labor Educator" ( > http://www.laboreducator.org ). Kelber is a major proponent of actively > opposing anti-worker/anti-union developments in Iraq. > > handout: Harry Kelber article: "American Labor Can Play an Important Role as > Defender of Rights of Iraqi Workers" > > Dave noted that job site workers seemed to be about evenly divided > pro/anti-war. He noted that those who used the Internet to access news and > information were significantly more likely to be anti-war. > > He noted that the prospect of attacking Syria caused concern even among > pro-war workers. > > He described how once he informs workers of current developments regarding > the huge sweetheart contracts being doled out to anti-worker/anti-union > Bush-friendly/Bush-connected corporations such as Kellogg, Brown & Root and > Stevedoring, even pro-war workers became more skeptical of what's happening > in Iraq. > > During discussion, Dave made note of the fact that while many workers are > aware of and upset about NAFTA, many are uninformed about issues such as > GATT and WTO and the larger pattern of "free-trade" globalization. > --------------------------------------------- > news of the week (sadly, without Carl) > > Lisa: Good article in Sunday New York Times: "A Classicist's Legacy: New > Empire Builders" by James Atlas tracing back neo-conservative roots to the > late classicist and political philosopher Leo Strauss. (ed. note: here is a > link to the article: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/weekinreview/04ATLA.html > > Charlotte: Israel has explicitly announced they are cracking down on > International Solidarity Movement non-violent activists (members of ISM were > in town recently for the Palestinian Truth Tour). (ed. note: From May 3 New > York Times article: "Britain Holds 6th Person in Tel Aviv Blast": > > "Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, the chief of staff for the Israeli Army, announced > last month on army radio that he had given an order to remove the activists > from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, where they have acted as human > shields to prevent military operations against the Palestinians, such as > house demolitions." > > (ed.note: for more information, also see: > > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=402676 > > Matt: British cameraman James Miller was killed by Israeli Defense Forces, > though he was unmistakably and actively identifying himself as a journalist > (even carrying a white flag). (ed. note: News article covering this from the > British Independent is at: > > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=402956 > > Lisa: Noted that WMD is yet to be found and mentioned she had read that the > US Administration may be planning to target "enemy" regimes directly > (assassination, essentially) in the future. > > Linda: Listened to Bob McChesney's WILL AM 580 show "Media Matters" (Sundays > 1PM) and heard an interview with the editor of "The Progressive", Matthew > Rothschild, during which an incident was recounted from 2001 in which > Chicago police and a Federal postal inspector were called to question Voices > in the Wilderness because they chose not to buy stamps that depicted the US > flag. (ed. note: Details at: > > http://www.progressive.org/webex/wxmc120801.html > > Mort: Mentioned there was an unusual, good article in Sunday's News-Gazette > on the rife disinformation in the media regarding the war. > > Ricky: Hawaii passed a state resolution which opposes the Patriot Act and > encourages resistance against it within the state. > (ed. note: An article from Hawaii indymedia is at: > > http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/2164.php > > also, see: > > http://www.hawaiinews.com/archives/politics/000133.shtml > > David H: Says he learned of a recent assassination of a Pro-U.S Shia cleric. > (ed. note: It was unclear whether David was referring to the killing of > pro-western cleric Abdul Majid al-Khoei in Najaf on April 10 (he had > returned from exile in London). Much detail on the al-Khoei killing is at: > > http://www.observer.co.uk/islam/story/0,1442,936060,00.html > > Jeff: Says he learned Iraqi oil experts and executives were refusing to > cooperate with US. He also mentioned a Guardian article that described how a > single family was decimated during the firing of US troops at protestors in > Fallujah. (ed. note: The article is at: > > http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,949043,00.html > > Ricky: Added that Agence France Presse (AFP) reported that medical staff > were fired on during the first Fallujah shooting. > > Mort: Said that a United Nations humanitarian relief flight was not allowed > to land at Basra. He said it's not the first time this happened. Someone > else added the same thing happened with a CARE flight in northern Iraq. > > Peter: Added that some magnate or celebrity was allowed to land their relief > flight in Baghdad. > > Franklin Graham's (Billy Graham's son) mission to convert Iraqis to > Christianity was mentioned. (ed. note: An interesting article on this is at: > > http://www.counterpunch.org/cajee04112003.html > > David G: Noted that Democracy Now did an excellent piece last Friday on the > Carlyle group (ed. note - Carlyle is a secretive, powerful business > investment firm including a half-brother of Osama Bin Laden, both Bushes, > Frank Carlucci, Dick Cheney, James Baker, Colin Powell, John Major and > others. There is a new book exposing Carlyle - "The Iron Triangle". The > Democracy Now piece is an interview of the author, Dan Briody, by Amy > Goodman. Link to the audio interview at: > > http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/demnow/dn20030502.ra& > start=27:35.4 > > Jeff: Chimed in that Bush had a speech at United Defense in Silicon Valley > during his trip to the aircraft-carrier photo-op last week. United Defense > is owned by Carlyle. > --------------------------------------------- > events of the past week: > > Mike: Mentioned the last two sessions of the Chancellor's campus forum on > the war. He specifically referenced the last session and what Robert McKim > had to say. He like much of what McKim presented, including his taking > evangelicals to task for not opposing the war strongly. > > Mort: Chimed in on the forum sessions, saying attendance was 25-45. > Described the sessions as stimulating, but mostly comprised of sterile > academic discourse followed by more interesting discussion with the > audience. > > Ken: Attended a talk given by former president of Zambia, Kenneth Kaunda on > the role of Zambia in the liberation of South Africa. Kaunda is blamed for > mismanagement of Zambia since he came to power in 1964 and forcing > dictatorial one-party rule in 1972. These culminated in violent riots in > 1990, which ultimately forced him to allow a multi-party system which > resulted in his ouster in 1991. Ken noted how curious it was that dictators > like Kaunda somehow get recycled into lecture circuits. > > Randall: Attended a weekly Progressive Resource/Action Cooperative (PRC) > meeting to discuss the idea (touched on last week by Carl and Robert) of a > Sept. 6 anti-war conference bringing together anti-war and progressive > groups. Found there was solid enthusiasm for such an idea within PRC and > they encouraged it to go forward. Randall will help to move the idea > forward. > --------------------------------------------- > Working group reports: > > Farmer's Market: Farmer's Market at Lincoln Square starts next Saturday. A > working group headed by Jeff was formed to get a table out with literature, > signs, etc. Many agreed that tabling at Farmer's Market was very important. > The working group had their first meeting immediately after the main > meeting. > > CO: (Mike) Anti-militarism tabling event at Urbana High School went very > well. This proves that more tabling should be done at Urbana High and also > in Champaign, if possible. To find an inroad into Champaign, though, we may > need a parent of a Champaign high school student or a member of a high > school's faculty to help out (ed. note: can anyone out there help?). Other > future actions are also called for, such as leafleting students about their > opt-out rights under the "No Child Left Behind" rider which otherwise allows > the US to obtain student information from schools for recruitment purposes. > > P4P: (Ricky) Attendance was up at P4P this week. Attendance was down at Neil > St., though (and they wound up coming to Prospect). Due to lack of > attendance, there will no longer be an organized Neil St. component > (especially since the counter-demonstrators should be gone next week). There > were new signs. New literature was passed out (about 100 copies). > > Incident: The "pro-war" van often seen circling around heckling us (and > this week, even flashing us) was pulled over by the cops and subsequently > disappeared. > > Incident: A couple minutes before 4PM, as things were winding down, a > couple pro-war bikers apparently decided to go down our entire line, one of > them (a woman) taking individual close-up photos of people and verbally > attacking some. It was provocative harassment, though not violent and not > illegal. Lori asked the woman not to take a photo of her and then > unfortunately let her emotions get the best of her when she did. Lori > grabbed the camera and tried to destroy it (though she says she grabbed the > camera without actually touching the photographer). The cops came running > and one of them tackled Lori from behind, pinning her to the ground with a > knee in her back and then cuffed her. All our witnesses agreed that the cops > were unnecessarily violent with Lori. The photographer did not press charges > and Lori was not arrested. Lori was released on-site, but charged with > resisting arrest and has a court date. She plans to plead not guilty and > fight the charge. We got together a list of witnesses and asked them to > write down exactly what they saw as soon as possible. If Lori is fined, a > collection will be taken to help her out. As of Sunday, Kim Kranich was > setting up a meeting with Lieutenant Gallo to address this issue. Lesson > learned: don't let our guard down, even when all seems stable. This incident > could very well have been avoided if we had enforced the buffer zone by > protesting the crossover when it happened, appealing to the pro-war > organizers and the police as necessary. Luckily, this was the last week of > organized counter-protest. > > Ricky put forth the idea of winding down P4P during May and quitting at the > end of the month for the summer. > > He also suggested refreshments next week at P4P. > > Town Meeting: (Mort) Mark Thompson backed out from participating, so this > working group is reconsidering/re-evaluating the next step. > > Speaker's Bureau: (Linda) New meeting of speaker's bureau working group took > place immediately after main meeting. > > Literature: Mort and Ricky each have their new documents and continue to > revise them. It was suggested we have final versions ready to go for > Farmer's Market next week. > > Finances: Gabe reports a balance of $2073.51. Gabe will order buttons and > bumper stickers (for Farmer's Market among other things). > > Party 4 Peace: Lisa's place, Saturday May 17th. Lisa will post more > information later. > --------------------------------------------- > Upcoming Events/Miscellaneous > > RSO status: Mike pointed out that the semester is almost over and we need to > renew RSO status and request a table for Quad day NOW. > > Lisa: Wondered aloud whether we should try to have closer ties with and/or > enlist the support of prominent progressive/anti-war voices such as Bob > McChesney and Francis Boyle. > > Ricky: Alan Dershowitz (the legal scholar/celebrity who advocates torture in > some circumstances) is apparently speaking on Monday, May 5 at Foellinger > (ed. note - I couldn't find any reference to this presentation on any UIUC > web site, but it's Monday night already, so I guess it's moot). > > Lisa: Looking for socially responsible consumer tips to include in an > article for the Public I. Please forward them to her. > > Randall: United for Peace and Justice is conducting a national anti-war > conference in Chicago June 6-8 and offers funds to pay for travel and > conference attendance (possibly contingent on joining UFPJ as an affiliated > group). Randall is interested in going, is looking into this and will report > next week. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 26 21:12:03 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 16:12:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] You know what Message-ID: Well, you know what's on mind by now. Apparently by July 2003, Linda Evans still hadn't got the memo from Danielle and Elizabeth about sexism and patriarchy at AWARE meetings. I guess she was too busy with her toddler, they can be really distracting as we all know: Racism: Linda Evans talked about the anti-racism meeting at her house on Friday, 27 June. From that meeting, the ARE (Anti-Racism Effort) Group was thought of as a working group to fulfill the mission of AWARE. This group will be involved in outreach and network with other groups such as the NAACP, Urban League, etc., and report to AWARE. Mike Simon presented to the group a passionate argument that international and domestic war are inseparable, that AWARE has not lived up to its name, and that a working group to address racism is not enough. Some members took umbrage to Mike's statements. Jeff Sowers was concerned that dealing with anti-war and anti-race simultaneously would shift the focus of AWARE. Others also agreed with Jeff. A proposal was made to change the name of AWARE to an anti-war effort (ARE). Another proposal was made to keep the acronym and include racism in the mission statement. Mission Statement: The current mission statement does not include racism. Morton Brussel had written a revised mission statement with racism included (Refer to Peace-Discuss Archive to read Morton's mission statement). Even though the mission statement was the topic of discussion, people still wanted to talk about the racism issue. One person suggested that a mission statement cannot be composed save an agreement is made on AWARE's aim. Process: An agreement was made that consensus is not always needed. The group also agreed that policy is not more important procedure. Ninety percent approval is sufficient in a group decision. There was talk on when a vote becomes final. Answer: Read meeting minutes and any objections should be raised at the next meeting. Announcements: Jeff Sowers distributed twelve video tapes on DU and Gulf War Syndrome. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sun Jul 26 21:15:18 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:15:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Paul Jay interview Message-ID: Long and wide ranging. Worth a listen. https://theanalysis.news/interviews/no-time-for-evolutionary-change-paul-jay/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 26 21:21:04 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 16:21:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] More minutes! August 2003 Message-ID: Just look at all these women who hadn't yet figured out, as Danielle and Elizabeth had, that AWARE was no place for women to hang out. This is really interesting. Apparently this was the first time I took notes, because as a patriarchal and sexist male I tried to compensate by doing tasks that until recently could be considered womanly, especially because I was working as a secretary at U of I at that time. Anyway, fascinatingly, please notice the reference to David Roediger and Sundiata Cha-Jua, because of course AWARE was not interested in racism. Although of course, I'm not a big fan of either of these guys because I think they devote themselves to perpetuating the idea of whiteness. But that's for another day. Anyway, neither Danielle nor Elizabeth was there to take notes, like women are supposed to do in patriarchal and sexist contexts. So I did the dirty work, apparently for the first of many times. Minutes for AWARE Meeting ? August 17, 2003 Corrections and additions invited: 1. News of the Week ? Carl Estabrook Black-out related to de-regulation: see Greg Palast article at commondreams.org Families of soldiers speak out against occupation of Iraq Twice as many Americans feel it is more important to focus on the economy than foreign affairs. General Myers goes to Colombia, in the region that is a candidate for our next invasion. See complete notes, already posted on peace-discuss list. 2. Meredith Kruse discussed her trip to Guatemala?see her article in the current issue of the Public I. Rios Montt, now (illegally) running for President, claims to be endorsed by Ronald Reagan (who was supportive of mass murderers during an earlier period of his life), and pays campesinos to come to the capital and support him and intimidate others; but there is also conflict between R-M and local capitalist types?genocide is not always good for business. Police do nothing to defend journalists from FRG (R-M?s party) thugs. Elections will be November 9th. There are 22 parties. Del Monte Corporation is involved in corruption by subcontracting its land to local outfit, which keeps campesinos from farming on it for their subsistence crops. There is also massive corruption regarding social security, with retirees being neglected. Meredith will be returning to Guatemala as part of the Guatemala Accompaniment Project, and organizing a local support group to stand behind her in her continued efforts. Info about GAP and a sign-on sheet were passed around. Please contact Meredith for more information. 3. Voices in the Wilderness: Sharon Dorsey discussed Kathy Kelly?s visit on September 29-30, Monday and Tuesday. She will be speaking at the YMCA on Monday at 4. On Tuesday there will be a town meeting at the Champaign Public Library hosted by WILL-Jack Brighton, to be arranged, including various viewpoints. The tentative topic is ?Liberation or Occupation.? 4. Farmer?s Market, etc.: Tabling will be done at the Sweet Corn Festival this Saturday, August 23rd. There will be no Farmers Market tabling. Volunteers welcome, a sign-up sheet was circulated. We will work with the Public I people to jointly person the tables. Farmers? Market will continue on a week-by-week basis beginning August 30th, depending on volunteers. Contact David Green if you wish to be responsible for set-up and break-down. 5. Calendars: Carol Inskeep volunteered to order activism calendars for sale during the holiday season, or before. This was supported and approved. 6. Prospect for Peace ? Gabe Stanton is organizing a Prospect for Peace demonstration for the first Saturday of every month, beginning September 6th, 2 to 4 as usual. We will be protesting the occupation, military spending, etc. A sign-making party will be held in the morning before the event?location to be announced. 7. Quad Day: AWARE will participate in Quad Day by sharing a table with Student Peace Action, August 26th, Monday. Prime hours are from 11:30 to 1. Volunteers requested. 8. Labor Day Parade: AWARE members will be joining the Labor Day parade on September 1, which begins at Race and High Streets, formation at 9:30. The parade will end at the Brookens Center. Carol Inskeep will host a sign-making party for this parade on Thursday, August 28th, at 7 p.m., at her house. 9. Video Showing: Also on Saturday, August 23rd, at 7, Meredith Kruse will show ?The Color of Fear? at the home of Jan and Durl Kruse, 2007 George Huff Drive. All are welcome. 10. Anti-racism: Tentative plan for discussion prior to AWARE meeting of September 14th, at 3 p.m., with Dave Roediger and Sundiata Cha-Jua. To be confirmed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 26 21:29:46 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 16:29:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Sexism and Patriarchy rear their ugly heads at AWARE meeting Message-ID: Fooled you! For the second week in a row, in Sept. 2003, I took notes, in spite of secretarial work also being my day job. Notice that in spite of deciding not to give money for Danielle Chynoweth's ill-fated scheme to move the IMC to the Post Office, attendees were kind enough to encourage individuals to support it through there own funds. Danielle didn't even have to attend the meeting for that to happen; good thing, because I'm sure she would have been traumatized by the patriarchy and sexism that regularly occurred at AWARE meetings, but that I guess I didn't notice because I was busy taking notes and going on about Israel and Palestine, and issue not nearly as important as Danielle and Elizabeth's feelings. Facilitator: Jay Mittenthal Minutes: David Green Timekeeper: Durl Kruse Attendance: 20 For next week's meeting (September 14th), please send your agenda items to me (David Green). Note: Please feel free to make the necessary additions/modifications/corrections/clarifications. 1. News of the Week - Carl Estabrook General Anthony Zinni, a veteran of the Vietnam War, has reflected interestingly on the comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. George Bush is speaking tonight to the nation, while a movie about him called DC 911 is playing opposite to his speech. He ended up asking for $87 billion (in the speech, not the movie). Israeli incursions into Gaza put an exclamation point on the end of the ill-fated "roadmap" process. The Palestinian Prime Minister has since resigned. 69% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein is implicated in 9/11--there was a discussion about the meaning and validity of such a poll. Former members of Saddam Hussein's security apparatus are now being recruited in order to rule Iraq. 2. Mike Simon reported on a leadership building conference for minority students/students of color at the U of I. Mike presented some information about AWARE at this conference. He stressed to them (and us) the importance of connecting issues of war and peace to issues of domestic racism. AWARE needs to work more on networking with minorities and groups dealing with minority issues (such as the Urban League), and to examine our own issues of "whiteness." As an example of a domestic issue that connects to war, effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on education need to be understood--not only in terms of unfunded mandates, but in terms of the nature of the mandates themselves, which hardly promote racial justice. Reminder: David Roediger and Sundiata Cha-Jua will speak prior to the AWARE meeting on September 21st, at 3:00. 3. Working groups The AWARE literature, etc. table was at the Farmer's Market Saturday a.m. and then WEFTfest Saturday p.m. About $120 was raised at both, although "business" was not heavy. Peter, Carl, Al, and David enjoyed the interaction (even with each other). Thanks to Peter for two deliveries and pick-ups. Carol Inskeep is ordering 2004 peace/activism calendars for sale. A pamphlet addressing the Democratic Presidential candidates views was passed around. If you have any comments on the pamphlet, please e-mail Peter Rohloff, rohloff at uiuc.edu. Ricky Baldwin--Other literature still needed, especially regarding Afghanistan, Liberia, Congo. Please use "Notes and Quotes" for copying literature. We also need some current pamphlets at the IMC. Gabe Stanton--Prospect For Peace -- About 30 people attended on a warm day. Over 100 fliers from U.S. Labor Against the War were distributed by Al Kagan. More positive than negative responses, some interesting interactions reported by Susan Parenti on peace-discuss. We will consider the possibility of going back to a weekly demo, but nothing decided yet. As of now, next P4P will be on October 4th. Thanks to Gabe Stanton for promoting P4P, and proposing a flier for distribution. There was an article about P4P in the DI, perhaps also in the N-G and the Parkland paper. Finances (Gabe for Linda Evans): Balance is about $2468. 4. Carol Inskeep had raised issue of AWARE donating $500 to IMC building fund. The view was expressed that those who contribute to AWARE do so with the intention of the money being spent on AWARE-related activities, which are expressly and specifically political, as opposed to the IMC, which is not a political organization in the same sense. On the other hand, it was argued that it is in the interests of AWARE are so closely related to the success of the IMC that a contribution is merited. In any event, it was agreed that the success of the IMC is vital to AWARE, and that individual AWARE members are encouraged to donate to the IMC building fund, which hopes to raise $100,000 by the end of the year, and has already been pledged over $50,000. No final decision was made, but it was agreed that we should at least contact the IMC to find out whether we can pay more than the $10 per week that we have been paying, an amount more in line with the customary space renta--if that proves to be more than $10. Gabe will work with Linda to consult the IMC on this. 5. Proposal: It was agreeed for AWARE to co-sponsor the Student Peace Action BBQ, this Saturday from 1 to 4. Brooke Anderson will be notified. 6. Events of the past week: An informative talk at the mosque was given by the imam on his recent visit to Iraq. 7. Coming events: Mike Simon proposed handing out literature at the Engineering Career Expo, Monday-Thursday at the Illini Union, from 9-4. Ricky suggested handing out the "Reconstruction of Iraq" pamphlets. It was also proposed that as a student organization, AWARE apply for SORF (??) funds on a case-by-case basis from the U of I (such as for a speaker or teach-in). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 26 21:39:38 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 16:39:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Last minutes for now Message-ID: May 2004, 2 1/2 years after Danielle and Elizabeth founded AWARE, leaving no evidence whatsoever that they ever did anything else beyond that. But surely, if I were to move ahead for a year or two, I would discover evidence of blatant sexism and patriarchy that caused them to abandon the organization "a few years later" after their immaculate efforts to inspire the organization with their vision of peace, love, and justice. Damn men, fuck em all. Carol Inskeep hadn't yet figured out that AWARE was patriarchal and sexist. But I think that eventually she did. Greetings - Here's the minutes. Email any corrections - my apologies in advance for any oversights or distortions. cpi AWARE Meeting 5/23 - Al Kagan Facilitating / 20 folks attending Poetry by Matt Murrey Introductions News of the Week by Carl Estabrook (posted separately) P4P - Next protest is on June 5th ? Keeping with the National Day of Protest, we will have signs about the Israeli invasion into Gaza. Ricky will bring sign-making materials to the next AWARE meeting so that folks can make some much-needed new signs. - Ricky also mentions that some folks periodically ask for more frequent protests; we can always go more frequently if there is interest. Legal Issues (Al, Carol and Ricky) - Folks on the working group are contacting additional lawyers since there has been a delay in Ellyn Bullock?s law firm okay-ing her working for AWARE. - Ricky is setting up a meeting with the Champaign Police and their legal department for next week. - We may want to keep in mind the option of approaching the Champaign City Council with our concerns since they are the oversight for the police. Tim Johnson: Public Meeting - Matt presented the letter to Tim Johnson requesting a public meeting to discuss concerns about the war. Group approved his version and it will be faxed to Johnson?s Washington office this week. I?ve included the letter at the end of these minutes. Farmer?s Market - We need folks to work the 10-12 slot at the table on Saturdays. Please email Peter if you?re available for the upcoming Saturdays. rohloff at uiuc.edu> - Durl volunteered to coordinate the Farmer?s Market tabling in July. - Susan and Carol will work on literature / info to encourage folks who stop by the table to send a postcard to Kerry (or any candidate running for office) to encourage anti-war positions. ( In general discussion, folks mentioned that we all can email candidates or use the candidates? postage-paid fundraising envelopes as an opportunity to pressure for stronger stands against the war. See Ricky?s posting to peace-discuss for one example) Finances -Linda reports that we?ve got $1,812.76, thanks to donations to AWARE at Farmer?s Market. WILL commentary policy Local public radio station WILL has turned down a commentary submitted by David Green because they have decided (after Randall?s commentary) to only accept pieces which deal with local/regional issues. Much discussion about the hypocrisy of this stand, and a suggestion to go to the News Gazette to publicize it, or to try to impact them during the next fund drive. Group agreed that a first step is to talk to sympathetic WILL staff in as timely a way as possible. Al will follow up. Democracy Now! -Randall reports progress is being made on bringing DN! to UPTV. No meeting yet about getting it on WILL. News Gazette drops Boondocks - Jan has written a letter to the News Gazette protesting their dropping of the popular comic strip Boondocks. The strip was removed because of its critical humor targetting Bush. Several folks added their names to the letter. If you would like to be included, please email Jan promptly. durljan at earthlink.net New Ideas - Linda is doing the groundwork to get AWARE a table at the Sweet Corn Festival held in Urbana in August. - David Cobb, a Green Party candidate, is speaking on June 2nd at 8 pm at the Illini Union. We?ve been invited to table there. - Tom Mackaman is running as a Socialist candidate in District 103. A petition to help him get on the ballot was circulated. He will speak at an upcoming AWARE meeting. Events of the Past Week - Carl reported on the Free Speech forum at the Champaign Public Library Upcoming Events - WEFT is tabling at Pages for All Ages from May 23-27, and 20% of purchases will support the station (if you mention WEFT). Stop by their table and tell them you appreciate the public affairs programming and would like to see more. http://www.weft.org/ Randall graciously agreed to facilitate next week. Please email me (carolinskeep at yahoo.com) with agenda items or to volunteer to try your hand at facilitating. Thanks to Al for facilitating and to all the hard-working folks who keep AWARE going... cpi Matt?s letter to Tim Johnson follows below: Dear Representative Johnson, I am writing to you as a representative of the Champaign-Urbana group AWARE, an anti-war, anti-racist group of citizens, most of whose members are your constituents. I am contacting you because our group would like to hold a public meeting with you to ask you questions about the ongoing war in Iraq. We are especially interested in the following topics: the secret intelligence that led you to vote for authorizing the President to wage war in Iraq, the torture and abuse of prisoners in Iraq, exit strategy for US troops now in Iraq, the funding of the war, and the relation of the war to the Israel/Palestine conflict. It seems that the war and occupation of Iraq have reached a critical juncture, and with the "handover of sovereignty" planned for June 30th, your constituents should have an opportunity to ask you questions and give you their opinions about the war before your next public meeting in scheduled in August. I look forward to hearing from you about setting up this meeting as soon as possible. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Matthew Murrey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sun Jul 26 22:01:13 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 22:01:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] You know what In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <635B3E42-01B3-4FC0-8CD8-8BE67C3B317E@illinois.edu> Thanks David for digging up and reproducing this bit of history of early (2003) AWARE meetings. It reinforces my memory of who attended/participated, and who did not. The dangers now we all face are even more dire for humanity and the nation, but not as compelling, unfortunately for local organizing, as what the U.S. was waging then in the Middle East, especially in Iraq. Recent interviews with Chomsky, Richard Wolff, Paul Jay, and others, describe the present predicament compellingly. ?Desperate" is a word now in apt currency. "What is to be done?? Mort On Jul 26, 2020, at 4:12 PM, David Green via Peace > wrote: Well, you know what's on mind by now. Apparently by July 2003, Linda Evans still hadn't got the memo from Danielle and Elizabeth about sexism and patriarchy at AWARE meetings. I guess she was too busy with her toddler, they can be really distracting as we all know: Racism: Linda Evans talked about the anti-racism meeting at her house on Friday, 27 June. From that meeting, the ARE (Anti-Racism Effort) Group was thought of as a working group to fulfill the mission of AWARE. This group will be involved in outreach and network with other groups such as the NAACP, Urban League, etc., and report to AWARE. Mike Simon presented to the group a passionate argument that international and domestic war are inseparable, that AWARE has not lived up to its name, and that a working group to address racism is not enough. Some members took umbrage to Mike's statements. Jeff Sowers was concerned that dealing with anti-war and anti-race simultaneously would shift the focus of AWARE. Others also agreed with Jeff. A proposal was made to change the name of AWARE to an anti-war effort (ARE). Another proposal was made to keep the acronym and include racism in the mission statement. Mission Statement: The current mission statement does not include racism. Morton Brussel had written a revised mission statement with racism included (Refer to Peace-Discuss Archive to read Morton's mission statement). Even though the mission statement was the topic of discussion, people still wanted to talk about the racism issue. One person suggested that a mission statement cannot be composed save an agreement is made on AWARE's aim. Process: An agreement was made that consensus is not always needed. The group also agreed that policy is not more important procedure. Ninety percent approval is sufficient in a group decision. There was talk on when a vote becomes final. Answer: Read meeting minutes and any objections should be raised at the next meeting. Announcements: Jeff Sowers distributed twelve video tapes on DU and Gulf War Syndrome. _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 26 22:09:36 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 17:09:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Adolph Reed says: Message-ID: ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black Power populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in itself nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally *anti-leftist.* Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential nomination campaign?s call for decommodified public higher education as frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American underscores how deeply embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 02:32:11 2020 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:32:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I didn't understand a single sentence of that. On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black Power > populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in itself > nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally > understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and > other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic > neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical > self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally *anti-leftist.* > Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential > nomination campaign?s call for decommodified public higher education as > frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American underscores how deeply > embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 02:40:06 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:40:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a bourgeois neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, including POC. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, we should oppose BLM, which I do. On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. wrote: > > I didn't understand a single sentence of that. > > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black Power >> populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in itself >> nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally >> understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and >> other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic >> neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical >> self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally *anti-leftist.* >> Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential >> nomination campaign?s call for decommodified public higher education as >> frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American underscores how deeply >> embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Mon Jul 27 02:41:18 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:41:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tackling homelessness and why you can't trust the duopoly Message-ID: <4e5c5d9a-d653-8c8c-5816-b0a0b73923f1@forestfield.org> Lee Camp (host of "Redacted Tonight") spoke about the coming eviction crisis in https://invidio.us/watch?v=nsf_o0LqcvU -- as rent and eviction moratoriums end (with no federal rent forgiveness in sight) and people lose their jobs thus making it less likely to be able to pay back rent since March, there is a general expectation that lots of people won't be able to pay their rent at the end of this month. Therefore there will be lots of evictions and the homeless population will increase: "Looming evictions may soon make 28 million homeless in U.S., expert says" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/10/looming-evictions-may-soon-make-28-million-homeless-expert-says.html > CNBC: How does the eviction crisis brought on by the pandemic compare with the > 2008 housing crisis? > > Emily Benfer: We have never seen this extent of eviction in such a truncated > amount of time in our history. We can expect this to increase dramatically in the > coming weeks and months, especially as the limited support and intervention > measures that are in place start to expire. About 10 million people, over a period > of years, were displaced from their homes following the foreclosure crisis in > 2008. We're looking at 20 million to 28 million people in this moment, between now > and September, facing eviction. "Ghost towns: 30 zip codes with the highest vacancy rates in the US" https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/11/07/ghost-towns-america-zip-codes-highest-vacancy-rates/38371381/ > There are nearly 1.5 million vacant homes in the United States, or 1.5 percent of > all homes, according to a new report from real estate data company ATTOM Data > Solutions. "The State of Homelessness in America" https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report-legacy/ > There are an estimated 553,742 people in the United States experiencing > homelessness on a given night, according to the most recent national > point-in-time estimate (January 2017[1]). This represents a rate of approximately > 17 people experiencing homelessness per every 10,000 people in the general > population. [1] https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5639/2017-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us/ I think we ought to add to the criteria here because there are probably good reasons to not live in Gary, Indiana or Flint, Michigan. But still it looks like we have a lot of unused homes which could be someone's home. It's worth noting that we got to where we are with a bipartisan effort; both major parties (including so-called 'progressives') exploit the poor. Neither major party has announced any plans to help those in need now. There is vague talk of another stimulus but the details are unclear. Finally, a related story: "The Eviction Ban Worked, but It?s Almost Over. Some Landlords Are Getting Ready." https://www.propublica.org/article/the-eviction-ban-worked-but-its-almost-over-some-landlords-are-getting-ready > As tenants across Florida lost their jobs and incomes during the coronavirus > pandemic, executives at Axiom Realty Partners LLC, whose portfolio includes at > least nine apartment buildings throughout the Southeast, applied pressure on some > tenants to either pay rent or move out. > > One Axiom tenant, who asked that her name not be used for fear of retribution from > her landlord, told ProPublica that she fell behind on rent in early April when her > 4-year-old?s day care closed because of the pandemic. > > She was forced to leave her job at a staffing firm to take care of the child, who > has severe autism. She relied on $275 per week in state unemployment benefits to > support herself and her two young children, but money was still tight. She hasn?t > met the eligibility requirements for an additional $600 per week in federal > assistance. > > ?People think you can just go to work, but I have a special needs child, so I > can?t just put her in any open day care,? she said. ?It?s not like we don?t want > to go back to work. We don?t want to live like this.? > > In May, she received a three-day notice to pay what she owed or leave her home. > > After doing some research, she discovered that her apartment complex was covered > under the federal eviction moratorium as well as Florida?s statewide eviction ban. > She decided to stay, but her landlord continued to post notices threatening > eviction if she didn?t pay her rent. > > ?They act like they don?t know what I?m talking about when I tell them that the > property is covered,? she said. ?I?ve told them that they?re not supposed to be > giving notices, but they don?t care.? > > Starting July 25, a key component of the federal eviction moratorium is set to > expire, allowing landlords that operate federally backed rental properties to give > their tenants 30 days? notice to vacate. After that period, landlords can file for > eviction. Axiom has made it clear that it intends to take swift legal action once > the protections run out. > > ?COVID-19 is not an excuse to not pay rent,? the company wrote in a letter sent to > the tenant this month. ?Please be aware that when the eviction moratorium is > lifted, we will not only file an eviction, but we will seek a judgment against you > for the full amount of all unpaid rents in a court of law.? From jbw292002 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 02:51:54 2020 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:51:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green wrote: Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a bourgeois > neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, including POC. It > is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, we should oppose > BLM, which I do. > Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put matters into plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people the same way they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black people wantonly, is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for a friend, if I had one. > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. wrote: > >> >> I didn't understand a single sentence of that. >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black Power >>> populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in itself >>> nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally >>> understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and >>> other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic >>> neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical >>> self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally *anti-leftist.* >>> Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential >>> nomination campaign?s call for decommodified public higher education as >>> frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American underscores how deeply >>> embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 02:58:51 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:58:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Police violence correlates more with class than race. BLM is in support of Democrats, who are equally if not more responsible for neoliberalism and accompanying state violence. Trump is used to justify BLM supported destruction in working class urban communities. We should oppose Trump and BLM. On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:52 PM John W. wrote: > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green > wrote: > > Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a bourgeois >> neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, including POC. It >> is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, we should oppose >> BLM, which I do. >> > > Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put matters into > plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people the same way > they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black people wantonly, > is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for a friend, if I > had one. > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. wrote: >> >>> >>> I didn't understand a single sentence of that. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace < >>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black Power >>>> populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in itself >>>> nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally >>>> understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and >>>> other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic >>>> neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical >>>> self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally *anti-leftist.* >>>> Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential >>>> nomination campaign?s call for decommodified public higher education as >>>> frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American underscores how deeply >>>> embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 03:24:29 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 22:24:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tweet from Michael Tracey (@mtracey) Message-ID: Michael Tracey (@mtracey) Tweeted: We're approaching two months since the riots erupted, so I've done a roundup with photos and other observations. The basic takeaway: the enormity of what occurred here has not been CLOSE to adequately conveyed. It's a media scandal of epic proportions https://t.co/xxo0IUIWxX https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1287539171083485184?s=20 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 03:45:22 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 22:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tweet from Michael Tracey (@mtracey) Message-ID: Michael Tracey (@mtracey) Tweeted: Democrats and their media allies have a clear political motive to downplay what happened here. But you?re also not going to get an accurate narrative from Low IQ right-wing media who spin everything in their own dumbass fashion. So the people left out are the actual victims https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1287567052476014592?s=20 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 03:45:58 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 22:45:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tweet from Michael Tracey (@mtracey) Message-ID: Michael Tracey (@mtracey) Tweeted: Also want to emphasize how un-complicated what I?ve done here is. I?m not claiming this is intrepid investigative journalism. I simply drove around the country, interviewed people, took photos/videos, etc. Not rocket science. So, ask yourself why so few journalists did the same https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1287583366703808512?s=20 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 03:46:51 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 22:46:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tweet from Michael Tracey (@mtracey) Message-ID: Michael Tracey (@mtracey) Tweeted: Shots fired at the Portland protest zone. According to witnesses, eight or nine ?juveniles? beat the shit out of this guy during some sort of altercation, then chased him several blocks. He fired at least one shot and his gun is now missing, according to cop https://t.co/LsxmoYskTM https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1287579099712512000?s=20 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 03:47:36 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 22:47:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tweet from Michael Tracey (@mtracey) Message-ID: Michael Tracey (@mtracey) Tweeted: You know your political slogan is on the cutting edge of radicalism when it?s being beamed across every major establishment institution in your city https://t.co/wBnVnmpLLW https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1287559954707095552?s=20 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 03:52:46 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 22:52:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tweet from Michael Tracey (@mtracey) Message-ID: Michael Tracey (@mtracey) Tweeted: Journalists and pundits who spend all day talking to one another on Twitter + Slack might not fully appreciate the incredible stringency of "anti-racism" rhetoric within activist circles. (Such rhetoric eventually migrates to media circles.) See this clip: https://t.co/A9mcw7DKvL https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1287479700541992960?s=20 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 12:55:21 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 07:55:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tweet from Michael Tracey (@mtracey) Message-ID: Michael Tracey (@mtracey) Tweeted: You can call this many things, but to call it "peaceful" is a lie. If you want to support these tactics, fine. But don't lie and say what you're supporting is "peaceful" https://t.co/jFe9WpaZ5o https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1287617904402296833?s=20 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 12:55:50 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 07:55:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tweet from Michael Tracey (@mtracey) Message-ID: Michael Tracey (@mtracey) Tweeted: In other words, ?In no sense are we bound by the strictures of nonviolence? https://t.co/SoVSnxIgUk https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1287614314975657984?s=20 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 20:16:16 2020 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:16:16 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: ALL HANDS ON DECK FOR CUBA SOLIDARITY AND ANTI-SANCTIONS ACTIVISTS In-Reply-To: <5f1f3289d9b36_11c723fa1be8ac44865914a@ip-10-0-0-33.mail> References: <5f1f3289d9b36_11c723fa1be8ac44865914a@ip-10-0-0-33.mail> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Solidarity Collective Cuba Program < newengland at solidaritycollective.org> Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 4:01 PM Subject: ALL HANDS ON DECK FOR CUBA SOLIDARITY AND ANTI-SANCTIONS ACTIVISTS [image: Witness for Peace in blue, sits above an eye with planet earth as the iris and pupil, next to the words Solidarity Collective in lowercase letters] *From the National Network on Cuba:* **ALERT - ALL HANDS ON DECK FOR CUBA SOLIDARITY AND ANTI-SANCTIONS ACTIVISTS** We have a rare chance to hold -- and win -- two historic votes in the House of Representatives rolling back parts of Cuba sanctions pertaining to food, medicines and remittances (see explanation below). This is just a first small step to create momentum that will lead us towards defeating the embargo for once and for all. *We can make this first win happen if we are prepared to fully activate our networks on Monday 7/27 to convince Rules Committee Chair Rep. McGovern to hold the vote; and again on Wednesday 7/29 to ensure we overwhelmingly win the vote.* *What you can do RIGHT NOW: * 1. Get your organization to* endorse the amendments* (fill out form ) 2. Reach out to your Congressional representatives in the House* to urge them to cosponsor**.* Follow up Monday (today) and Tuesday (tomorrow). 3. *Prepare your organization to send out mass blasts* to email lists and social media first thing Monday AM. If you are an individual, CODEPINK will do a blast and a petition Monday morning that you can share. 4. *Tweet about the amendments and the need for a vote. * *Be sure to tag @RepJimMcGovern @RulesDemocrats @SpeakerPelosi OR SIMPLY RETWEET *https://twitter.com/lyciaora/status/1287156108407320579* Trump?s tightening of embargo against #Cuba in middle of a pandemic is cruel. @RulesDemocrats Chair @RepMcGovern & @SpeakerPelosi can start to change that: Pass the 2 amendments proposed by @RepBobbyRush to remove sanctions on food & medicine & end caps on family remittances. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: *Congressional Amendments Introduced to Allow Food, Medicine and Family Remittances to Cuba* *Congressman Bobby Rush proposed the amendments to the appropriations bill that funds sanctions enforcement* Congressman Bobby Rush (D-IL) has introduced two amendments to roll back aspects of sanctions on Cuba to the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) section of the minibus spending bill. Rush's amendments would prohibit the use of funds to enforce sanctions related to selling, delivering, transporting or providing food and medicine, as well as the ability to enforce caps on family remittances to Cuba. The amendments are listed on the website of the Rules Committee , which is chaired by Rep. Jim McGovern -- a longtime advocate against sanctions on Cuba . It is largely up to Rep. McGovern to make the final decision about whether the amendments come up for a vote in the House of Representatives. There are concerns, however, that Democratic leadership may seek to prevent the House from voting on these amendments, so McGovern's support is critical. While Cuba reports one of the lowest rates of confirmed Covid-19 in Latin America, severe shortages of food and medicine have hit the island, largely as a result of a defensive shutdown and a virtual lack of foreign tourism. Rush's first amendment would prohibit enforcement of sanctions against companies shipping food and medicine to Cuba, which has happened as recently as May 2020 . Rush's second amendment would roll back the 2019 Trump policy restricting remittances to only $1,000 every three months. This amendment would revert to the Obama-era remittance policy of not setting dollar amounts. Some 40 percent of Cuban-Americans send remittances, according to the widely respected FIU poll , while 56 percent of Cubans on the island depend on remittances, according to a recent independent study . Remittances have been a hot topic for South Florida Democrats with substantial Cuban-American constituencies. When the Trump decision was announced, even South Florida Congressional representatives Kathy Castor and Debbie Mucarsel-Powell spoke out forcefully against the decision. ?I am very concerned that the Cuban people and their U.S. relatives will suffer unnecessarily because of the Trump administration?s sanctions,? Rep. Mucarsel-Powell (D-Fla.) said. ?There are hundreds of thousands of Cuban Americans who live in South Florida and in my district, who would like to continue supporting their families back in Cuba." ?Trump?s harsh policy will do nothing but bring pain to families, hurt the growing Cuban private sector, alienate our closest allies and diminish our ability to promote democracy and human rights in Cuba,? said U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla. ?Trump?s restrictions on the amount of money Cuban Americans can send to their family members in Cuba is particularly cruel at a time when the administration has in essence closed the door to Cuban refugees and asylum seekers." More recently, the Trump Administration's plan to prohibit remittances from going through the Cuban entity FINCIMEX led Rep. Donna Shalala to condemn the action . "If Trump effectively cuts off remittances in the middle of a pandemic, it will not only be cruel to the Cubans on the island but their families ? many of my constituents - in the US." In solidarity, The Solidarity Collective Contact Us Write checks out to our fiscal sponsor: WFP Midwest PO Box 17262, Minneapolis, MN 55417-9998 www.solidaritycollective.org Follow Us The Honduras Team is hiring! Click here to apply. Want to support the International Teams directly? Become a Patron ! It's easy to leave your legacy at The Solidarity Collective. Ask us how today ! ** We have a new address for the Solidarity Collective and WFP Midwest (listed above). If you sent mail to PO Box 6078 in Minneapolis, it will be forwarded on to our new address. If you have any questions, please reach out to info at solidaritycollective.org .* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 20:17:49 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:17:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Michael Tracey on 1619 Message-ID: https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1287788767315521538?s=20 So in other words, it makes no fucking sense -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Jul 27 20:42:39 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 13:42:39 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David I understand what you and Adolph Reed are saying, and it should be noted, Adolphe Reed is African American and likely targets African Americans when speaking. Let me now express my simple interpretation and opinion: While we may not support the organization BLM given we know they are funded by the DNC and Soros as they support neoliberalism, and their criticism of Bernie for his stand on decommodification of education, etc. was counterproductive to helping African Americans, as well as working class white Americans, nonetheless I don?t propose opposing them. Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of the BLM organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African Americans, nothing wrong with that. Yes, when it first began those of us opposing our many wars in the Middle East, and the massacre of millions of Muslims, cried out ?all lives matter,? meaning ?what about the millions we are killing now elsewhere in the world who are also not white?? Today by saying ?Black Lives Matter,? it is now inclusive of indigenous peoples everywhere, as opposed to just white lives mattering. You are absolutely correct the many problems are a class issue, not a race issue, and by making it just about race, not to negate African Americans have been targeted and suffer worse due to conditions of poverty and racist policy?s, continues to create division between the masses and becomes counterproductive as it ignores the cause, thus preventing solutions. Promoting people of color to positions of power initially was thought to be progressive, and it was as it provided opportunity to many, but not enough, certainly not all, and it supports the power of the ruling class providing them with tokens of diversity, as we know, power and money corrupts. One would think the Obama presidency with his failure to address the ills of African Americans, and working class, his expansion of the Bush wars from two to eight, bail out of the banks and wall street, as well as the implementation of the NDAA which now legitimizes the Trump administration bringing federal troops into cities across the nation to kidnap, incarcerate or just terrorize protestors, would make it clear neither Party has concern for the lives of working class Americans. The lives of the majority of working class Americans, whatever their race, continue to deteriorate as we fight among ourselves. Therefore we must keep our focus at all times on our system of capitalism as the culprit in need of change. > On Jul 26, 2020, at 19:58, David Green via Peace wrote: > > Police violence correlates more with class than race. BLM is in support of Democrats, who are equally if not more responsible for neoliberalism and accompanying state violence. Trump is used to justify BLM supported destruction in working class urban communities. We should oppose Trump and BLM. > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:52 PM John W. > wrote: > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green > wrote: > > Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a bourgeois neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, including POC. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, we should oppose BLM, which I do. > > Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put matters into plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people the same way they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black people wantonly, is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for a friend, if I had one. > > > > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. > wrote: > > I didn't understand a single sentence of that. > > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace > wrote: > > ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black Power populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in itself nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally anti-leftist. Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential nomination campaign?s call for decommodified public higher education as frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American underscores how deeply embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 22:01:14 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:01:14 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Reed speaks to a broad audience, admittedly intellectual, but like Chomsky also to labor leaders. In any event, I'm cutting BLM no slack. It's analysis is preposterous, with no material component whatsoever. It's stated view on the family is disgusting. On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 3:42 PM Karen Aram wrote: > David > > I understand what you and Adolph Reed are saying, and it should be noted, > Adolphe Reed is African American and likely targets African Americans when > speaking. > > Let me now express my simple interpretation and opinion: > > While we may not support the organization BLM given we know they are > funded by the DNC and Soros as they support neoliberalism, and their > criticism of Bernie for his stand on decommodification of education, etc. > was counterproductive to helping African Americans, as well as working > class white Americans, nonetheless I don?t propose opposing them. > > Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of the BLM > organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African > Americans, nothing wrong with that. Yes, when it first began those of us > opposing our many wars in the Middle East, and the massacre of millions of > Muslims, cried out ?all lives matter,? meaning ?what about the millions we > are killing now elsewhere in the world who are also not white?? > > Today by saying ?Black Lives Matter,? it is now inclusive of indigenous > peoples everywhere, as opposed to just white lives mattering. > > You are absolutely correct the many problems are a class issue, not a race > issue, and by making it just about race, not to negate African Americans > have been targeted and suffer worse due to conditions of poverty and racist > policy?s, continues to create division between the masses and becomes > counterproductive as it ignores the cause, thus preventing solutions. > > Promoting people of color to positions of power initially was thought to > be progressive, and it was as it provided opportunity to many, but not > enough, certainly not all, and it supports the power of the ruling class > providing them with tokens of diversity, as we know, power and money > corrupts. > > One would think the Obama presidency with his failure to address the ills > of African Americans, and working class, his expansion of the Bush wars > from two to eight, bail out of the banks and wall street, as well as the > implementation of the NDAA which now legitimizes the Trump administration > bringing federal troops into cities across the nation to kidnap, > incarcerate or just terrorize protestors, would make it clear neither Party > has concern for the lives of working class Americans. > > The lives of the majority of working class Americans, whatever their race, > continue to deteriorate as we fight among ourselves. Therefore we must keep > our focus at all times on our system of capitalism as the culprit in need > of change. > > On Jul 26, 2020, at 19:58, David Green via Peace > wrote: > > Police violence correlates more with class than race. BLM is in support of > Democrats, who are equally if not more responsible for neoliberalism and > accompanying state violence. Trump is used to justify BLM supported > destruction in working class urban communities. We should oppose Trump and > BLM. > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:52 PM John W. wrote: > >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green >> wrote: >> >> Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a >>> bourgeois neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, >>> including POC. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, >>> we should oppose BLM, which I do. >>> >> >> Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put matters into >> plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people the same way >> they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black people wantonly, >> is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for a friend, if I >> had one. >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I didn't understand a single sentence of that. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace < >>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black Power >>>>> populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in itself >>>>> nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally >>>>> understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and >>>>> other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic >>>>> neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical >>>>> self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally *anti-leftist.* >>>>> Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential >>>>> nomination campaign?s call for decommodified public higher education as >>>>> frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American underscores how deeply >>>>> embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 22:09:20 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:09:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Riding the Protest Wave: How Elites Will Co-opt BLM - American Compass Message-ID: https://americancompass.org/respect-the-rage/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Jul 27 22:09:22 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:09:22 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I know, I understand. What is their stated view on the family? > On Jul 27, 2020, at 15:01, David Green wrote: > > Reed speaks to a broad audience, admittedly intellectual, but like Chomsky also to labor leaders. > > In any event, I'm cutting BLM no slack. It's analysis is preposterous, with no material component whatsoever. It's stated view on the family is disgusting. > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 3:42 PM Karen Aram > wrote: > David > > I understand what you and Adolph Reed are saying, and it should be noted, Adolphe Reed is African American and likely targets African Americans when speaking. > > Let me now express my simple interpretation and opinion: > > While we may not support the organization BLM given we know they are funded by the DNC and Soros as they support neoliberalism, and their criticism of Bernie for his stand on decommodification of education, etc. was counterproductive to helping African Americans, as well as working class white Americans, nonetheless I don?t propose opposing them. > > Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of the BLM organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African Americans, nothing wrong with that. Yes, when it first began those of us opposing our many wars in the Middle East, and the massacre of millions of Muslims, cried out ?all lives matter,? meaning ?what about the millions we are killing now elsewhere in the world who are also not white?? > > Today by saying ?Black Lives Matter,? it is now inclusive of indigenous peoples everywhere, as opposed to just white lives mattering. > > You are absolutely correct the many problems are a class issue, not a race issue, and by making it just about race, not to negate African Americans have been targeted and suffer worse due to conditions of poverty and racist policy?s, continues to create division between the masses and becomes counterproductive as it ignores the cause, thus preventing solutions. > > Promoting people of color to positions of power initially was thought to be progressive, and it was as it provided opportunity to many, but not enough, certainly not all, and it supports the power of the ruling class providing them with tokens of diversity, as we know, power and money corrupts. > > One would think the Obama presidency with his failure to address the ills of African Americans, and working class, his expansion of the Bush wars from two to eight, bail out of the banks and wall street, as well as the implementation of the NDAA which now legitimizes the Trump administration bringing federal troops into cities across the nation to kidnap, incarcerate or just terrorize protestors, would make it clear neither Party has concern for the lives of working class Americans. > > The lives of the majority of working class Americans, whatever their race, continue to deteriorate as we fight among ourselves. Therefore we must keep our focus at all times on our system of capitalism as the culprit in need of change. > >> On Jul 26, 2020, at 19:58, David Green via Peace > wrote: >> >> Police violence correlates more with class than race. BLM is in support of Democrats, who are equally if not more responsible for neoliberalism and accompanying state violence. Trump is used to justify BLM supported destruction in working class urban communities. We should oppose Trump and BLM. >> >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:52 PM John W. > wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green > wrote: >> >> Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a bourgeois neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, including POC. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, we should oppose BLM, which I do. >> >> Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put matters into plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people the same way they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black people wantonly, is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for a friend, if I had one. >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. > wrote: >> >> I didn't understand a single sentence of that. >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace > wrote: >> >> ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black Power populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in itself nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally anti-leftist. Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential nomination campaign?s call for decommodified public higher education as frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American underscores how deeply embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 22:12:18 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:12:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Neoliberal anarchism. You can read it on their website. Masquerading as "community". On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 5:09 PM Karen Aram wrote: > I know, I understand. What is their stated view on the family? > > > > On Jul 27, 2020, at 15:01, David Green wrote: > > Reed speaks to a broad audience, admittedly intellectual, but like Chomsky > also to labor leaders. > > In any event, I'm cutting BLM no slack. It's analysis is preposterous, > with no material component whatsoever. It's stated view on the family is > disgusting. > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 3:42 PM Karen Aram wrote: > >> David >> >> I understand what you and Adolph Reed are saying, and it should be noted, >> Adolphe Reed is African American and likely targets African Americans when >> speaking. >> >> Let me now express my simple interpretation and opinion: >> >> While we may not support the organization BLM given we know they are >> funded by the DNC and Soros as they support neoliberalism, and their >> criticism of Bernie for his stand on decommodification of education, etc. >> was counterproductive to helping African Americans, as well as working >> class white Americans, nonetheless I don?t propose opposing them. >> >> Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of the BLM >> organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African >> Americans, nothing wrong with that. Yes, when it first began those of us >> opposing our many wars in the Middle East, and the massacre of millions of >> Muslims, cried out ?all lives matter,? meaning ?what about the millions we >> are killing now elsewhere in the world who are also not white?? >> >> Today by saying ?Black Lives Matter,? it is now inclusive of indigenous >> peoples everywhere, as opposed to just white lives mattering. >> >> You are absolutely correct the many problems are a class issue, not a >> race issue, and by making it just about race, not to negate African >> Americans have been targeted and suffer worse due to conditions of poverty >> and racist policy?s, continues to create division between the masses and >> becomes counterproductive as it ignores the cause, thus preventing >> solutions. >> >> Promoting people of color to positions of power initially was thought to >> be progressive, and it was as it provided opportunity to many, but not >> enough, certainly not all, and it supports the power of the ruling class >> providing them with tokens of diversity, as we know, power and money >> corrupts. >> >> One would think the Obama presidency with his failure to address the ills >> of African Americans, and working class, his expansion of the Bush wars >> from two to eight, bail out of the banks and wall street, as well as the >> implementation of the NDAA which now legitimizes the Trump administration >> bringing federal troops into cities across the nation to kidnap, >> incarcerate or just terrorize protestors, would make it clear neither Party >> has concern for the lives of working class Americans. >> >> The lives of the majority of working class Americans, whatever their >> race, continue to deteriorate as we fight among ourselves. Therefore we >> must keep our focus at all times on our system of capitalism as the culprit >> in need of change. >> >> On Jul 26, 2020, at 19:58, David Green via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Police violence correlates more with class than race. BLM is in support >> of Democrats, who are equally if not more responsible for neoliberalism and >> accompanying state violence. Trump is used to justify BLM supported >> destruction in working class urban communities. We should oppose Trump and >> BLM. >> >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:52 PM John W. wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green >>> wrote: >>> >>> Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a >>>> bourgeois neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, >>>> including POC. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, >>>> we should oppose BLM, which I do. >>>> >>> >>> Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put matters into >>> plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people the same way >>> they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black people wantonly, >>> is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for a friend, if I >>> had one. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I didn't understand a single sentence of that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace < >>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black Power >>>>>> populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in itself >>>>>> nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally >>>>>> understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and >>>>>> other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic >>>>>> neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical >>>>>> self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally *anti-leftist.* >>>>>> Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential >>>>>> nomination campaign?s call for decommodified public higher education as >>>>>> frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American underscores how deeply >>>>>> embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Tue Jul 28 00:20:53 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 19:20:53 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tweet from Charles Fain Lehman (@CharlesFLehman) Message-ID: Charles Fain Lehman (@CharlesFLehman) Tweeted: In case you missed it over the weekend, read my deep dive on Robin DiAngelo, who's made millions and owns three homes thanks to a theory of "white fragility" that seems uniquely designed to dismiss the research showing her anti-bias trainings don't work. https://t.co/3FizccWTt2 https://twitter.com/CharlesFLehman/status/1287748911671779328?s=20 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Jul 28 00:46:27 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 00:46:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [wbw-discussion] A PANDEMIC of RUSSOPHOBIA - Scott Ritter References: <6895E0AD-0C16-4544-86BA-633DC37F8E56@gmail.com> Message-ID: FYI: Begin forwarded message: From: Alice Slater > Subject: [wbw-discussion] Fwd: A PANDEMIC of RUSSOPHOBIA - Scott Ritter Date: July 27, 2020 at 4:57:38 PM CDT To: "wbw-discussion at googlegroups.com" > Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Sharon Tennison > Date: July 27, 2020 at 5:37:31 PM EDT To: aslater at rcn.com Subject: A PANDEMIC of RUSSOPHOBIA - Scott Ritter Reply-To: Sharon Tennison > ? [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c455b8a6ccfed2424e0d56f4d/images/99f7b43e-9bcf-47c0-aa60-99fd564c4403.png] Biden, Russia?s not Iraq! Threatening the Kremlin over non-existent election meddling endangers not only the US but the world too July 21, 2020 By Scott Ritter Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf?s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter Together with his fellow Democrats, Joe Biden?s playing a dangerous game of Russia-baiting that lacks any basis in fact, and could lead to a precipitous fracturing of US-Russian relations. The Democratic Party?s presumptive nominee for president has put his foot down, so to speak, when it comes to the issue of Russian interference in US elections. ?I am putting the Kremlin and other foreign governments on notice,? Biden announced in a lengthy statement. ?If elected president, I will treat foreign interference in our election as an adversarial act that significantly affects the relationship between the United States and the interfering nation?s government,? he wrote. If such interference is detected, he declared he would direct his administration ?to leverage all appropriate instruments of national power and make full use of my executive authority to impose substantial and lasting costs on state perpetrators.? According to Biden, the costs that could be imposed on Russia include ?financial-sector sanctions, asset freezes, cyber responses, and the exposure of corruption.? More ominously, he noted that ?a range of other actions could also be taken, depending on the nature of the attack. I will direct our response at a time and in a manner of our choosing.? It doesn?t matter that the notion of Russian interference in US elections is little more than politicized fiction intended to explain away Hillary Clinton?s embarrassing 2016 electoral loss to Donald Trump, further sustained for the sole purpose of undermining the Trump presidency. From the moment the Clinton campaign became aware there was a major leak of potentially damaging data from the computer servers of the Democratic National Committee, campaign manager Robby Mook began manufacturing a ?Russia-did-it? narrative. That was magnified, in turn, by Perkins Coie, the law firm behind the funding of the infamous Steele dossier, and subsequently picked up on by the FBI and CIA to justify a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, alleging collusion with Russia. It doesn?t matter that virtually every aspect of the Russian election interference narrative has been debunked. Facts do not matter Facts no longer matter ? only perception. This is why the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, continues to repeat the mantra ?all roads lead to Putin,? when, in fact, as regards the Trump administration, they clearly do not. It?s also why the Democratic Congressional leadership would ask for a ?defensive counterintelligence briefing? from the FBI regarding Russian interference in the 2020 presidential election when, in fact, they already know no such intelligence exists. The Big Lie is a tactic that dates back to Nazi propagandists, and it was seemingly perfected by Pelosi and her fellow Democrats in their collective effort to propagate the Russian collusion narrative. The truth has always been an elusive commodity in American politics, especially during the ?silly season? of a presidential campaign, when promises are made with no intention of ever keeping them, and minor indiscretions are transformed into existential crises. While the impact of this trend toward diminished honesty and integrity can be damaging politically, beyond the fact that American democracy is being built, literally, on a body of lies deliberately told and willingly received, the potential for inflicting meaningful physical and fiscal harm on the United States by the telling of these lies is minuscule. Not so with the Russia-did-it fantasy being woven by the Democrats. Take Joe Biden?s statement regarding his plans to retaliate against Russia in the event of any interference by Moscow in the 2020 US presidential election. He speaks of ?cyber responses,? and ?a range of other actions? that ominously point to something more than a mere slap on the wrist. Biden would do well to read Russia?s recently released document governing its nuclear deterrence policy, where any attack, cyber or otherwise, on the ?critical state or military facilities of the Russian Federation the failure of which will lead to the disruption of the retaliatory action of nuclear forces? could trigger a nuclear launch. Pandemic of Russophobia But Biden, Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrats aren?t the only Americans infected by what can only be described as a pandemic of Russophobia. A coterie of former ?national security experts? has taken upon themselves the task of painting Russia as an enemy of the United States. A recent example of this came in an op-ed published in the Washington Post by a quartet of retired CIA officials, who used it to bash the Trump administration?s efforts to build a cooperative relationship with Russian intelligence. ?Putin?s Kremlin,? these former spies wrote, ?is not interested in a constructive relationship with the United States. Instead, Putin sees himself in a political war with us. And he benefits domestically by blaming the United States for all his ills.? The average reader might be excused from comprehending that the authors of this screed were, at one point or another in their careers, involved in committing the very acts against Russia ? recruiting agents, interfering in domestic politics, stealing secrets ? that they now accuse Russia of undertaking. There should be no doubt in anyone?s mind that the Russian intelligence services carry out robust collection operations targeting the United States. Such is the reality of life. For these former CIA officers to single out such action as an unforgivable sin, given their own resumes, is the height of hypocrisy. It also exposes the intellectual vacuum that exists among these so-called ?experts? when it comes to assessing Russia during the time of its current president, Vladimir Putin. The US intelligence community ? past and present ? doesn?t have a monopoly on Putin-based Russophobia. This has been a trend in American academia ever since the demise of Boris Yeltsin, the former Communist Party apparatchik turned democratic leader of post-Soviet Russia whose ties with, and inability to stand up to, the United States undermined Russian sovereignty. Putin?s efforts to repair the damage done by Yeltsin?s obsequious surrender to American political and economic pressure has been the source of resentment for a generation of post-Soviet Russian specialists, including the likes of Michael McFaul (President Obama?s principal advisor on Russia), Anne Applebaum, Masha Gessen, Fiona Hill, and others. The collective impact of this Russophobia within the American political body has created a cognitive dissonance that long ago transformed into the pathogenesis of psychosis. The five cognitive distortions that are keyed to such psychotic behavior ? jumping to conclusions, intentionalizing, catastrophizing, emotional reasoning and dichotomous thinking ? are all present in the words and actions of American politicians, academics, and journalists in their treatment of Putin?s Russia today. The distortions peddled by these so-called ?experts,? backed up by the legion of similarly affected former national security veterans, has colored domestic American thinking on Russia to the point that virtually any allegation can be leveled against Russia and its leadership, regardless of credulity or corroboration, and it will be accepted as fact by a population pre-programmed to accept at face value whatever narrative it is spoonfed. In this way, Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill) can continue to question President Trump about uncorroborated allegations pertaining to Russian ?bounties? in Afghanistan without any repercussion. Americans would do well to remember the last time such a psychosis swept over the nation ? in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Joe Biden was a proponent of that conflict, and played a major role in selling it to the American people. Pro hint, Joe: Russia isn?t Iraq. You and your fellow Democrats will put America and the rest of the world in grave peril, should you proceed with acting out on your schizophrenic cognitive biases regarding Russia. For more information about the Center for Citizen Initiatives, visit https://ccisf.org/. [Visit our Facebook page.] Visit our Facebook page. Copyright ? 2020 Center for Citizen Initiatives, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you subscribed to our email list. You can unsubscribe at any time. Our mailing address is: Center for Citizen Initiatives 820 N Delaware St Apt 405 San Mateo, CA 94401-1541 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. -- This is a listserve to discuss the building of a global nonviolent movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace. Participants on this list must be respectful toward each other, not advocate violence, and not promote electoral candidates. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WBW discussion" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbw-discussion+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wbw-discussion/6895E0AD-0C16-4544-86BA-633DC37F8E56%40gmail.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Jul 28 02:01:49 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 21:01:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] BLM virtue signaling sans specifics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <451722a6-0e9d-54d5-45c7-d45802fd0045@forestfield.org> David Green wrote: > In any event, I'm cutting BLM no slack. It's analysis is preposterous, with > no material component whatsoever. I concur, I'm particularly tired of the virtue signaling when what we need are specific, agreeable, and actionable policy choices with a published record of compliance with those policies. Where sloganeering could work I fail to see many BLM supporters championing a slogan backed by something we could use. For example, we need Medicare for All (particularly amidst a pandemic). Neither major party candidate backs this (Donald Trump hasn't called for one and Joe Biden is on record saying he'd veto such a bill should one come to his desk as President). "Medicare for All" is brief enough to fit on signs, well-defined (2 extant bills in Congress right now), and widely supported by the public (even pre-COVID-19 time). A universal jobs program, universal basic income, and immediate rent/mortgage payment program are other programs which could all help the poor right now. I rarely see anyone pair any of these with BLM either and I don't get the impression that BLM calls for these programs to be defined (where necessary) or demanded. Instead I see plenty of sloganeering advocating "defund the police"[1] and spelling out "Black Lives Matter". For all of the proper complaints about the police murdering black people, it's not easy to get specifics on something actionable which would end more of the same lethal outcomes. Giving communities control over police (not merely advisory roles; and I say that as having been involved in such an effort years ago knowing the whole time that it was insufficient to the task) is a good start but I rarely hear this brought up and clarified to be actionable: Any agreeable policy choices must describe what's in scope for the police to handle at all, how the police will be trained to do amenable tasks, and there must be reviews listing what actually gets done. This is full-time work that has to be carried out. As I've written before, when the establishment repeats one's talking points one is probably losing whatever fight they claim to be waging. Agreement with the establishment is indistinguishable from co-optation and therefore is neither radical nor challenging the establishment. I take any claim along this line to be a police-friendly variant of greenwashing -- businesses which engage in fundamentally anti-environmental practices use labeling to make their work seem more environmentally-friendly than they are. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: Starbucks told people (https://nitter.net/Starbucks/status/1271440945028796417 or https://twitter.net/Starbucks/status/1271440945028796417) > In response to this historic time, our store partners can also show support for > the Black Lives Matter movement with their own t-shirts, pins and name tags. To > learn more, visit: [a link to get Starbucks merchandise] But it remains to be seen if this will stop Starbucks' and Nespresso coffee beans farmers from being exploited. According to Channel 4 (UK television station) "Children under 13 filmed working around 40-hour weeks in gruelling conditions, picking coffee for little more than we pay for a Starbucks latte or a pack of Nespresso pods" (according to https://www.channel4.com/press/news/dispatches-starbucks-and-nespresso-truth-about-your-coffee from "Dispatches", an expose showing that this is going on). Circa 2020-03-01 Starbucks said it has: > [Z]ero tolerance for child labour anywhere in our supply chain[.] We?ve launched > a full investigation into the claims brought by Channel 4, carried out in > partnership with a leading third-party auditor. We can confirm we have not > purchased coffee from the farms in question during the most recent harvest > season, and we will not do so until we can verify that they are not in breach of > C.A.F.E. Practices ? our ethical sourcing program developed in partnership with > Conservation International that provides comprehensive social, environmental and > economic standards, including zero tolerance for child labour. T-shirts also don't create policies which clearly and unambiguously inform stores to stop kicking people out for being black or wearing "Ex-Muslims of North America" t-shirts as has happened in Florida, Philadelphia, and Texas Starbucks stores. Merchandise (t-shirts, buttons, etc.) do little more than tell the public that an organization wants to look like it cares so people feel more comfortable becoming customers. [1] https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-defunding-the-police-really-means/ (a 3m 45s video) purports to tell us "what defund the police really means". It claims that "We could move our tax money away from harmful policing toward human-centered services that actually work to keep our communities safer and help them thrive" and "In some cities, just giving 5% less to the police could DOUBLE the budget for public health". But no specific programs for "education, healthcare, housing, & opportunity" are listed. Instead we get lots of talk about how shifting money would help us. We're told this shift is happening but not where. None of the "cities across America" are named. The closest we get to details seems focused on "Demand[ing] INVESTMENT into Black communities". But why not universalize the appeal and the benefit? Medicare for All, for instance, doesn't help just poor black people it helps all poor people. -J From kmedina67 at gmail.com Tue Jul 28 02:19:32 2020 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 21:19:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Where's Danielle? Where's patriarchy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear David, As a friend of AWARE, thank you so much for these "snippets from the archive." -karen medina On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 4:08 PM David Green via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > What's on my mind? Well, frustration about being able to find Danielle, > Elizabeth, sexism, or patriarchy at an AWARE meeting, more than 11/2 years > after its founding by Danielle and Elizabeth, less than "a few years" after > Danielle claimed to have left the organization: > > Randall's minutes are exemplary -- a piece of art -- with links to the > articles mentioned, background info incorporated, succint but thorough > summaries of what was said. Many thanks for such a good job. L. ----- > Original Message ----- From: "Randall Cotton" > To: Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:16 AM > Subject: [Peace] Anti-war calendar and minutes of 5/4/03 AWARE meeting > > Anti-War Calendar: > > May 3 (Saturday): AWARE's long-established > "Prospect for Peace" > demonstration at Prospect and Marketview (2-4PM). > > > May 4 (Sunday): AWARE's weekly meeting 5-7PM at the IMC (Independent > Media > Center - 218 W. Main, Urbana). > > June 6-8 (Friday-Sunday) > United for Peace and Justice Nationwide Anti-War > Conference in Chicago. > AWARE may attend. > > October 7 (Tuesday): Noam Chomsky apparently coming > to Illinois at ISU. More > info later. > > --------------------------------------------- > meeting minutes: > > > attendance: 20 > > presentation: Dave Johnson of the Carpenter's Union > > > Dave promoted the idea of opposing anticipated anti-union, anti-worker > > developments in Iraq as part of the larger opposition to the US occupation. > > He pointed out it's only reasonable to expect the administration will > > attempt to create a country-wide "free-trade" zone favorable to US corporate > > interests and quash worker rights and organization as a result. > > > Dave talked about Harry Kelber, who has spent his entire adult life (he is > > now 90) in the service of the labor movement. Kelber is the editor and > > founder of the newsletter "The Labor Educator" ( > > http://www.laboreducator.org ). Kelber is a major proponent of actively > > opposing anti-worker/anti-union developments in Iraq. > > handout: Harry > Kelber article: "American Labor Can Play an Important Role as > Defender > of Rights of Iraqi Workers" > > Dave noted that job site workers seemed > to be about evenly divided > pro/anti-war. He noted that those who used > the Internet to access news and > information were significantly more > likely to be anti-war. > > He noted that the prospect of attacking Syria > caused concern even among > pro-war workers. > > He described how once he > informs workers of current developments regarding > the huge sweetheart > contracts being doled out to anti-worker/anti-union > > Bush-friendly/Bush-connected corporations such as Kellogg, Brown & Root and > > Stevedoring, even pro-war workers became more skeptical of what's happening > > in Iraq. > > During discussion, Dave made note of the fact that while > many workers are > aware of and upset about NAFTA, many are uninformed > about issues such as > GATT and WTO and the larger pattern of > "free-trade" globalization. > > --------------------------------------------- > news of the week (sadly, > without Carl) > > Lisa: Good article in Sunday New York Times: "A > Classicist's Legacy: New > Empire Builders" by James Atlas tracing back > neo-conservative roots to the > late classicist and political philosopher > Leo Strauss. (ed. note: here is a > link to the article: > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/weekinreview/04ATLA.html > > Charlotte: > Israel has explicitly announced they are cracking down on > International > Solidarity Movement non-violent activists (members of ISM were > in town > recently for the Palestinian Truth Tour). (ed. note: From May 3 New > > York Times article: "Britain Holds 6th Person in Tel Aviv Blast": > > > "Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, the chief of staff for the Israeli Army, announced > > last month on army radio that he had given an order to remove the activists > > from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, where they have acted as human > > shields to prevent military operations against the Palestinians, such as > > house demolitions." > > (ed.note: for more information, also see: > > > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=402676 > > > Matt: British cameraman James Miller was killed by Israeli Defense Forces, > > though he was unmistakably and actively identifying himself as a journalist > > (even carrying a white flag). (ed. note: News article covering this > from the > British Independent is at: > > > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=402956 > > > Lisa: Noted that WMD is yet to be found and mentioned she had read that the > > US Administration may be planning to target "enemy" regimes directly > > (assassination, essentially) in the future. > > Linda: Listened to Bob > McChesney's WILL AM 580 show "Media Matters" (Sundays > 1PM) and heard an > interview with the editor of "The Progressive", Matthew > Rothschild, > during which an incident was recounted from 2001 in which > Chicago > police and a Federal postal inspector were called to question Voices > in > the Wilderness because they chose not to buy stamps that depicted the US > > flag. (ed. note: Details at: > > > http://www.progressive.org/webex/wxmc120801.html > > Mort: Mentioned > there was an unusual, good article in Sunday's News-Gazette > on the rife > disinformation in the media regarding the war. > > Ricky: Hawaii passed a > state resolution which opposes the Patriot Act and > encourages > resistance against it within the state. > (ed. note: An article from > Hawaii indymedia is at: > > > http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/2164.php > > also, see: > > > http://www.hawaiinews.com/archives/politics/000133.shtml > > David H: > Says he learned of a recent assassination of a Pro-U.S Shia cleric. > > (ed. note: It was unclear whether David was referring to the killing of > > pro-western cleric Abdul Majid al-Khoei in Najaf on April 10 (he had > > returned from exile in London). Much detail on the al-Khoei killing is at: > > > http://www.observer.co.uk/islam/story/0,1442,936060,00.html > > Jeff: > Says he learned Iraqi oil experts and executives were refusing to > > cooperate with US. He also mentioned a Guardian article that described how a > > single family was decimated during the firing of US troops at > protestors in > Fallujah. (ed. note: The article is at: > > > http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,949043,00.html > > > Ricky: Added that Agence France Presse (AFP) reported that medical staff > > were fired on during the first Fallujah shooting. > > Mort: Said that a > United Nations humanitarian relief flight was not allowed > to land at > Basra. He said it's not the first time this happened. Someone > else > added the same thing happened with a CARE flight in northern Iraq. > > > Peter: Added that some magnate or celebrity was allowed to land their relief > > flight in Baghdad. > > Franklin Graham's (Billy Graham's son) mission > to convert Iraqis to > Christianity was mentioned. (ed. note: An > interesting article on this is at: > > > http://www.counterpunch.org/cajee04112003.html > > David G: Noted that > Democracy Now did an excellent piece last Friday on the > Carlyle group > (ed. note - Carlyle is a secretive, powerful business > investment firm > including a half-brother of Osama Bin Laden, both Bushes, > Frank > Carlucci, Dick Cheney, James Baker, Colin Powell, John Major and > > others. There is a new book exposing Carlyle - "The Iron Triangle". The > > Democracy Now piece is an interview of the author, Dan Briody, by Amy > > Goodman. Link to the audio interview at: > > > http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/demnow/dn20030502.ra& > > start=27:35.4 > > Jeff: Chimed in that Bush had a speech at United > Defense in Silicon Valley > during his trip to the aircraft-carrier > photo-op last week. United Defense > is owned by Carlyle. > > --------------------------------------------- > events of the past week: > > > Mike: Mentioned the last two sessions of the Chancellor's campus forum > on > the war. He specifically referenced the last session and what Robert > McKim > had to say. He like much of what McKim presented, including his > taking > evangelicals to task for not opposing the war strongly. > > > Mort: Chimed in on the forum sessions, saying attendance was 25-45. > > Described the sessions as stimulating, but mostly comprised of sterile > > academic discourse followed by more interesting discussion with the > > audience. > > Ken: Attended a talk given by former president of Zambia, > Kenneth Kaunda on > the role of Zambia in the liberation of South Africa. > Kaunda is blamed for > mismanagement of Zambia since he came to power in > 1964 and forcing > dictatorial one-party rule in 1972. These culminated > in violent riots in > 1990, which ultimately forced him to allow a > multi-party system which > resulted in his ouster in 1991. Ken noted how > curious it was that dictators > like Kaunda somehow get recycled into > lecture circuits. > > Randall: Attended a weekly Progressive > Resource/Action Cooperative (PRC) > meeting to discuss the idea (touched > on last week by Carl and Robert) of a > Sept. 6 anti-war conference > bringing together anti-war and progressive > groups. Found there was > solid enthusiasm for such an idea within PRC and > they encouraged it to > go forward. Randall will help to move the idea > forward. > > --------------------------------------------- > Working group reports: > > > Farmer's Market: Farmer's Market at Lincoln Square starts next Saturday. A > > working group headed by Jeff was formed to get a table out with literature, > > signs, etc. Many agreed that tabling at Farmer's Market was very important. > > The working group had their first meeting immediately after the main > > meeting. > > CO: (Mike) Anti-militarism tabling event at Urbana High > School went very > well. This proves that more tabling should be done at > Urbana High and also > in Champaign, if possible. To find an inroad into > Champaign, though, we may > need a parent of a Champaign high school > student or a member of a high > school's faculty to help out (ed. note: > can anyone out there help?). Other > future actions are also called for, > such as leafleting students about their > opt-out rights under the "No > Child Left Behind" rider which otherwise allows > the US to obtain > student information from schools for recruitment purposes. > > P4P: > (Ricky) Attendance was up at P4P this week. Attendance was down at Neil > > St., though (and they wound up coming to Prospect). Due to lack of > > attendance, there will no longer be an organized Neil St. component > > (especially since the counter-demonstrators should be gone next week). There > > were new signs. New literature was passed out (about 100 copies). > > > Incident: The "pro-war" van often seen circling around heckling us (and > > this week, even flashing us) was pulled over by the cops and subsequently > > disappeared. > > Incident: A couple minutes before 4PM, as things were > winding down, a > couple pro-war bikers apparently decided to go down our > entire line, one of > them (a woman) taking individual close-up photos of > people and verbally > attacking some. It was provocative harassment, > though not violent and not > illegal. Lori asked the woman not to take a > photo of her and then > unfortunately let her emotions get the best of > her when she did. Lori > grabbed the camera and tried to destroy it > (though she says she grabbed the > camera without actually touching the > photographer). The cops came running > and one of them tackled Lori from > behind, pinning her to the ground with a > knee in her back and then > cuffed her. All our witnesses agreed that the cops > were unnecessarily > violent with Lori. The photographer did not press charges > and Lori was > not arrested. Lori was released on-site, but charged with > resisting > arrest and has a court date. She plans to plead not guilty and > fight > the charge. We got together a list of witnesses and asked them to > write > down exactly what they saw as soon as possible. If Lori is fined, a > > collection will be taken to help her out. As of Sunday, Kim Kranich was > > setting up a meeting with Lieutenant Gallo to address this issue. Lesson > > learned: don't let our guard down, even when all seems stable. This incident > > could very well have been avoided if we had enforced the buffer zone by > > protesting the crossover when it happened, appealing to the pro-war > > organizers and the police as necessary. Luckily, this was the last week of > > organized counter-protest. > > Ricky put forth the idea of winding down > P4P during May and quitting at the > end of the month for the summer. > > > He also suggested refreshments next week at P4P. > > Town Meeting: (Mort) > Mark Thompson backed out from participating, so this > working group is > reconsidering/re-evaluating the next step. > > Speaker's Bureau: (Linda) > New meeting of speaker's bureau working group took > place immediately > after main meeting. > > Literature: Mort and Ricky each have their new > documents and continue to > revise them. It was suggested we have final > versions ready to go for > Farmer's Market next week. > > Finances: Gabe > reports a balance of $2073.51. Gabe will order buttons and > bumper > stickers (for Farmer's Market among other things). > > Party 4 Peace: > Lisa's place, Saturday May 17th. Lisa will post more > information later. > > --------------------------------------------- > Upcoming > Events/Miscellaneous > > RSO status: Mike pointed out that the semester > is almost over and we need to > renew RSO status and request a table for > Quad day NOW. > > Lisa: Wondered aloud whether we should try to have > closer ties with and/or > enlist the support of prominent > progressive/anti-war voices such as Bob > McChesney and Francis Boyle. > > > Ricky: Alan Dershowitz (the legal scholar/celebrity who advocates torture in > > some circumstances) is apparently speaking on Monday, May 5 at > Foellinger > (ed. note - I couldn't find any reference to this > presentation on any UIUC > web site, but it's Monday night already, so I > guess it's moot). > > Lisa: Looking for socially responsible consumer > tips to include in an > article for the Public I. Please forward them to > her. > > Randall: United for Peace and Justice is conducting a national > anti-war > conference in Chicago June 6-8 and offers funds to pay for > travel and > conference attendance (possibly contingent on joining UFPJ > as an affiliated > group). Randall is interested in going, is looking > into this and will report > next week. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -- -- karen medina "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." - Mark Twain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Tue Jul 28 02:26:56 2020 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 21:26:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Where's Danielle? Where's patriarchy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Men often have trouble spotting patriarchy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Jul 29 01:42:23 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 20:42:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE: A Post-Mortem Message-ID: *An AWARE post-mortem: The Reactionary Wages of Identitarian, Neoliberal Wokeness* David Green July 28, 2020 This message addresses issues raised by a recent exchange on the AWARE (Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Urbana-Champaign) Facebook page, during which Danielle Chynoweth and Elizabeth Simpson claimed that they had ?co-founded? AWARE (2001) but left ?years later? because of ?sexism? and ?patriarchy.? The post that they were responding to, from Carl Estabrook, promoted opposition to abortion. Chynoweth also created a new post, stating: ?I am calling for everyone on this group to please leave it. Long ago AWARE is taken over by sexists and should be abandoned. Good bye.? ************ I will speak from experience, knowledge, and interpretation; of course, I only speak for myself as someone highly if at times sporadically involved for many years, until 2018, when I continued to assist in tabling at the Farmers Market. I will refer to more general perspectives on the current *Woke/Identitarian/BLM ?anti-racism?* scene, which has, unfortunately, nothing but dire implications regarding what is still called the Left: a Left that no longer includes either the working class or even cogently class-based, material perspectives, no less ?anti-war? perspectives. My general political perspective is best characterized by this article on the current ?upper-middle class Left? by Swedish writer Malcom Kyeyune and this concise, clear 45 minute podcast by Marty McMarty that is referred to in that article, which is a post-mortem of the Bernie Sanders campaign and describes the evolution of U.S. political party/social class formations since World War II. I would also refer to an important recent blogpost by the political theorist, Benjamin Studebaker , which very much informs my understanding of insidious Wokeness in *ideological* categories and context. In addition, this article by Michael Lind plausibly if schematically lays out the material *class structure* that we have arrived at in the neoliberal era; nevertheless, the ideological categories that Studebaker articulates only map onto the *capitalist* (top of the horseshoe) class, broadly speaking; not onto the *working* (bottom of the horseshoe) class. ************ In brief, I would argue that, of course, AWARE is not likely meaningfully different than other localized, on-the-ground, material (as opposed to virtual) anti-war organizations, whether newly formed or pre-existing, that were activated by 9/11. These movements have receded or been disbanded as American military presence in the Middle East, etc.?along with an expanded volunteer army?has been normalized; as the neoliberal era has proceeded from crisis to crisis, whether financial, environmental, or medical; as capital accumulation and economic inequality has increasingly brutalized domestic material life in the U.S.; and as domestic politics has increasingly been characterized by submerged class conflict: ?right-wing? populism and ?left-wing? Wokeness (upper-middle class identitarianism). The latter is generated largely by the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC, or what Lind calls the Professional Bourgeoisie), and has politically weaponized Wokeness in a series of campaigns, since 9/11, regarding, sex, gender, immigration, and race?all to the economic benefit of no more than 20% of the population, over-represented in coastal urban regions. In that context, antiwar movements have obviously not only taken the back seat but have largely been thrown under the bus. The apotheosis of this trend, as I will argue below, is the one-two Woke punch that we see now in relation to (corporate, foundation-driven, neoliberal) Black Lives Matter and the panic-driven, anti-materialist transgender ?movement.? The consummation of this unholy matrimony was an event a few weeks ago in which, during a pandemic, an estimated 12,000 (tightly) gathered in front of the Brooklyn Museum in order to declare that ?black trans lives matter.? One would be hard-pressed to imagine anything more incoherent as a ?movement? in relation to capitalism, class struggle, economic justice, and opposition to war and empire. But this is the point of Woke, ?progressive? neoliberalism; that is indeed *exactly* the point of what is surely a petty-bourgeois class project. ************ >From early on, as AWARE proceeded in a framework prescribed by neoliberal American politics, and by a Woke academic and activist community and context, it became increasingly clear that the ?anti-racist? aspect of this mission?as articulated by emerging local critics?was indeed in contradiction to the anti-war aspect. This was determined by the fundamentally neoliberal nature of ?anti-racism? as has been well-articulated by Adolph Reed . This contradiction played out nationally, ever more clearly during the political ascendancy of Barack Obama; and locally, in very concrete ways, given his presence as a Senator for this state and his ?controversial ? visit to our community. After Obama?s election as President, AWARE limped on while black lives (and wars) that allegedly now matter only got worse for nearly a full decade, regardless of the ?racial? background of the President. While AWARE for all practical purposes ceased public operations (demonstrations, tabling) last Fall, it?s only fitting that the coffin lid should finally be closed shut not only during the pandemic, but during the current racialized (and incredibly and under-reportedly violent ) moral panic that calls itself Black Lives Matter; with its attendant moral panics regarding gender and sex, intensified during the Trump Era for obvious (Democratic Party) reasons, in ways that such panics could not be intensified during the Trayvon Martin/Ferguson/Obama era. I would only add, perhaps in a self-serving way, that the anti-racism pertaining to what came to be called Islamophobia has arguably been the most successful aspect of either the anti-war or anti-racism efforts. AWARE made a distinct contribution to a community-wide effort. But this also has to be qualified in relation to ongoing wars, continued Israeli occupation of Palestine, and the inclusion of such anti-Islamophobic efforts into the current panoply of neoliberal, ?pro-immigrant? Wokeness in what is now, for all practical purposes, and notwithstanding Steven Salaita and Cary Nelson, the post-active Zionist era. AWARE?s function, from the start, was to bring the truth about our nation?s wars to the local community. I feel that it did quite well in this regard. We utilized many if not all of the local communal and media resources available. I would stress that regarding the general trajectory of AWARE over a period of 18 years, what happened was, for better or worse, *nobody?s fault*. Therefore, it should not be the subject of anybody?s *judgment*, least of all those who were essentially *non-participants*. I doubt that AWARE has been any different in its trajectory, for better or worse, than hundreds of other local organizations that arose after 9/11. Nevertheless, it?s clear that the material conditions of the American population do not currently lend themselves to an organized working-class opposition to the forces of Capital and War. Moreover, such a movement will never emanate from an academic community, not in 21st Century America, not in any-century America. ************ On July 21st, *Danielle Chynoweth* commented on the AWARE FB Page: *I am one of the founders of AWARE along with Laura Haber Mark Enslin (who conceived of the name) Susan Parenti (who started the first demonstrations) and others. There were over 100 people at our first meeting at the YMCA. I facilitated the first meetings. A few years in it was hijacked by Carl and a few other white men who discarded the anti-racist and anti-sexist roots. It became the Carl show. We formed CUCPJ to focus on the racism in the militarized criminal justice system here at home while always remaining connected to anti war.* *One day later*, I made two separate comments in a short period of time: *Could you be more specific? Or is your purpose just to play the victim?* *Danielle, you were nowhere to be found at meeting or other activities, well before "a few years in." Therefore I can hardly expect a specific answer regarding "other white men." Sorry Danielle, I don't buy your slanderous Woke feminism. It's utterly disingenuous, among other things.* Danielle responded: *thank you for illustrating my point. and i sponsored the anti war resolution before city council with AWARE, organizing intensively for months while dealing with the slander of sexists* I responded on the same day: *You live in a fantasy world of victimization. If someone challenges you on your exalted self-image, and calls you on your slanders, you then accuse them of being sexist, or patriarchal. I've always found you to be impersonal, condescending, and strangely detached from ordinary human connection. You are a raging narcissist, and you depend on having people around you who conform to your expectations of exaltation and obedience. That's not sexism on my part. That's calling a narcissist a narcissist, and I could probably call you worse, especially after the whole IMC post office fiasco. Yes, I'm sure you organized intensively for months (re Urbana City Council resolution). Just like Barack Obama in Chicago. What a sick joke. And of course, you pick up your toys and go crying home, taking your supplicants with you. How predictable.* Danielle responded on the same day: *I am calling for everyone on this group to please leave it. Long ago AWARE is taken over by sexists and should be abandoned. Good bye.* *Opening a different thread to reply to me, she stated in large letters:* *Cancel* She proceeded to tag several other people, including Aaron Ammons, Rachel Storm Sandra Ahten, Stuart Levy, and Karen Medina. At that point, I commented: *Yes Danielle, marshal your forces; you are loved, admired, worshipped, and feared.* On the first thread, after my comments, *Elizabeth Simpson* commented: *I was also a founder of AWARE, and also ended up leaving (MANY many years ago) because I found some members (enough to carry a majority) to be questionably evasive about the anti-racism aspect, and because my experience of it as being polluted by patriarchal and domineering (despite many members who wished otherwise) made it not worth my time. At some point, it could be really powerful to do a post-mortem about what worked and didn't, and why, so that current projects can learn from its strengths and drawbacks, especially the dynamic of so many folks leaving and those left not having the wherewithal to continue, though we all remain committed to an anti-war stance and for many, engaged anti-war activities. RIP AWARE. Many thanks to Stuart Levy and others who really stuck it out for the good reasons.* I responded to Elizabeth: *What has killed the antiwar movement in this country, such as it is or was, is invoking cultural politics rather than class politics. AWARE was no exception. Some more than others have been more blatant about invoking cultural (identity) politics as a way of avoiding the capitalist basis of war. No post-mortem is needed, saved you the trouble of a boring meeting.* I later continued my response to Elizabeth Simpson: *groups like SURJ, which you promote in this community, have exemplified the Woke Left's shallow, race-reductionist and white guilt approaches to politics. That leads us away from any coherent analysis of capitalism and war, and any understanding of the relationship between exploitation and racism. Instead, we have aestheticized, performative virtue signaling in what is basically a neoliberal, market-driven, therapeutic framework. Performative virtue signaling is something you excel at, and I find it irrelevant, cloying, and obnoxious. SURJ is ultimately reactionary, as is a group like School for Designing a Society. It leads to nonsense like painting over a historical mural in San Francisco. I have never known you to be seriously involved in antiwar discourse or action in this community, or any serious truth-telling in this community. Your accusations of "patriarchal" etc. are pro forma, performative, thoughtless, and off-base. You wouldn't know patriarchy if it bit your butt. You do not suffer from patriarchy, but the "left" community, such as it is, suffers from your Woke ignorance. Considering the source, I don't take your insulting and ignorant comments personally. Neither do you deserve to be taken seriously. Just rest assured that I don't.* On the second thread, that had been started by Danielle, there was also an interaction between me and Elizabeth Simpson, when she intervened between me and Danielle, which ended abruptly when I told her: *fuck you*. ************ Before moving on, I must say that I went to almost all the weekly meetings between 2001 and 2005; I can recall neither Danielle Chynoweth nor Elizabeth Simpson being at more than a handful of them. I suspect that, combined, they attended less than a dozen. They played no role whatsoever in organizing and participating in specific AWARE activities that I am cognizant of, and I certainly would recall if I had had any positive or productive interaction with either of them. They contributed no coherent perspectives, factually, historically, or theoretically, regarding issues surrounding war, foreign policy, the Middle East, etc. I have no problem with their not finding AWARE to have been their cup of tea; that?s their business, that?s their lives, and in lieu of their recent intervention I would have no reason to address their slanders. But after nearly two decades they both found it worthwhile, in tandem no less, to gratuitously level false and ugly criticism of those willing to sustain their participation in terms of time, effort, funding, and conscience; that included me, of course, in terms of hundreds of hours and at least $2,000, and I will respond accordingly. At bottom it must be stressed, because they claim to be ?antiwar,? that they evidence no genuine interest in the topic or the ?movement,? beyond a checklist of moral virtue signifiers. That?s not a problem, I don?t care. I do care that they somehow found their way to the AWARE FB page in order to denigrate those who do; and all of this based on the alleged and implied credibility of their now meaningless claim to have been ?co-founders.? ************ In relation to Danielle Chynoweth, I would add that I served on the Board of the Independent Media Center for two years, 2011-13, with Chynoweth. At no moment, before, during, or since, did I have any experience of an even superficially normal friendly connection, the kind that people experience routinely with their colleagues and co-workers. I seriously doubt that I was the problem in this regard. I haven?t really known Elizabeth over the years, but I?ve been aware of her career as an emotional manager . While I think that there are huge ethical issues with this sort of process, I will leave that aside for now. She also leads a group called Standing Up for Racial Justice. These are the same folks who wanted to whitewash the famous San Francisco murals . SURJ?s ?white privilege? approach, a la Tim Wise, should have long been discredited. But in relation to Robin DiAngelo and ?white fragility ,? it?s back, in the form of an intensified, white-administered version of ?white-shaming.? That?s what Elizabeth Simpson is about, beyond trying to shame men on the AWARE FB page. ************ Beyond these individuals, I would note the general local activist context, especially the *School for Designing a Society*, with which Elizabeth Simpson is identified. While I have no interest in their work as ?activists,? I would in this context only assert that their work has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, with the working class, and with the material needs of the population. Woke activism of this nature is characteristically affective, therapeutic, performative, and aestheticized. It is a distraction from understanding the world as it is, in material terms. I have no problem with people calling themselves artists or therapists or activists, however performative these labels are. But they aren?t serious political actors and shouldn?t claim to be. They are not part of any coherent movement, and they?re not doing politics; far from it, they in effect support the social order as it exists. This has never been clearer than during the Trump era and, and it is also highlighted by the problems of the Sanders campaign that are discussed in the podcast linked to above. ************ It is not by accident that SDAS took up the issue of immigration, which so easily lends itself to Woke activism. What follows is my letter to the editor that was published in the News-Gazette from October of last year. While immigration policy has historically been rhetorically shaped by racism, it has been more fundamentally structured by globalized economic exploitation and (since WW II) our foreign wars and geopolitical alliances. During this four-decade neoliberal era, *immigration policies of all administrations have been consistent with (i.e., supportive of) massive redistribution of income/wealth upwards*, decline of unions, austerity, and ?free trade? policies that offshore jobs, suppress wages, and send economic refugees north (NAFTA). Compassionate policies towards immigrants are obviously desirable. Nevertheless, such controversies obscure continuities regarding the abandonment of American workers (and children), while stereotyping them (especially African-American and rural folk) as ?unskilled,? if not worse. When Jeffrey Brown advocates for increased immigration, he promotes intensified immiseration of the working class; that?s what business school deans do. When Mike Doyle of the Campus YMCA supports business leaders? ?Heartland? and ?skilled immigrant? agenda, he displays his ignorance and compromises his institution. The well-publicized supporters of our ?welcoming community??Bend the Arc, Solidarity Sundays, CU Immigration Forum, Unitarian-Universalist Church, etc.?are oblivious to the class politics behind their agenda. That?s because they?re immersed in class privilege, while disingenuously claiming to have rejected ?white privilege.? Ironically, Thomas Garza of the Immigration Forum (read Immigration Doctrine) stereotypes those who disagree with his views as xenophobic bigots, thus revealing his own bigotry. Garza?s overtly anti-Trumpian electoral advocacy serves establishment Democrats (anti-Sanders/Gabbard, pro-Biden, etc.). Thus, when the Urbana Free Library endorses Garza?s annual awards program, it not only displays inappropriate partisanship, it effectively supports Brown?s 1%, Gies-driven, pitiless economic agenda. ************ I would emphasize the ability of immigration advocates to deny the need and demand of the wealthiest among us for cheap labor, and its relationship to the four-decade immiseration of the working class (black and white, etc.) accompanied by the accumulation of wealth into very few hands. Beyond that are the elitist and stereotypical assertions regarding the ?white working class,? the so-called ?deplorables,? who are easily and haughtily dispensed with in rhetoric and reality by those who claim to embody ?anti-racism? and use the phrases like ?white nationalism? and ?white supremacism? all too loosely. Indeed, what we have among the Democrats and the Woke, including locally, is the racialization of the working class, in order to obliterate them from political consideration as those who actually produce most of the items that still make this a rich country. Meanwhile, blacks have literally nowhere politically to go, aside from their ineffectual representation by black politicians. Immigration activists work hard to get themselves to think and believe that immigration has nothing to do with the black working class, to keep their ineffectual anti-racism credible. Again, if people want to support the well-being of immigrants in this country and protect them from the harms that may be inflicted upon them by our federal government, fine, I have no problem with that, obviously. But it?s a charitable (bourgeois class project) ?cause,? that?s all it is. Just don?t pretend that it?s serious politics, no less ?transformative? politics. ************ The interlude that follows is transcribed from the indispensable podcast What?s Left (June 4th), immediately following the George Floyd and reaction in Minneapolis; they are meant to re-iterate and expand upon my previous arguments: *Aimee Terese*: I usually have a few different drums I?m beating at any given time. I?ve been beating the anarcho-liberalism (Woke) drum for quite some time. I think for a lot of people it started to make a bit more sense this week as we see these complete wing-nut anarchists, and also the Hillary voters all using the same hymn book at once. A lot of people are having trouble making sense of that, and I think basically the constituency of the Democratic Party at this point is split between PMC (professional-managerial class) and then a lot of desperately poor people of color. And so the anarchic discontent, regardless of the class content of the proponents on the ground, that?s always going to line up behind the PMC constituency of the Party because *anarchism is inherently petty-bourgeois* in the way it operates. So that?s why you?re seeing all these rich liberals enjoy the chaos, and ultimately?because the Democratic Party is in bed with Silicon Valley, finance, and the Feds?they can reinvest in all sorts of surveillance technology, an increasing mandate for the use of discretionary force by the state. At the same time, the rich suburbanites can have their egos stroked with this race-reductionist narrative, knowing that ?it?s race not class,? that they?re the good ones, the woke ones, and the NGO-industrial complex will see another increase in jobs for activists, post-grads, organizers, politicians, failed sons, all of that. None of this organizing takes on Capital. It?s a self-reinforcing cycle that keeps most of the Democratic coalition occupied. As long as they can keep workers divided along nationalist ideological lines, then the repressive policing and violence and brutality is going to keep happening. But they?ve managed to set up this anarchic feedback loop where the more this happens the more this feeds its own circular dynamic. *Oliver Bateman*: The two worst things that we don?t want to happen will happen: the rich will continue to feel good because it?s not a class problem, in fact if they say the right words and donate to the right things, they?ll be fine. If policing methods can be made softer but no less harmful, not as visible, not going to create social media. You can see this among the policing of the protests right now. A lot of the forces are clearly being very careful; this is not like the 1968 Democratic Convention. Atlanta fired two or three officers today for misconduct during the protest, so they?re going to figure out ways to be just as repressive if not more, but with a heavily overlay of Human Resources, and that?s what people are thinking about right now. That?s where the minds are going. ************ Accusations of ?sexism? and ?patriarchy? are curious in this current political context, in any event. As Helen Pluckrose has argued, correctly I think, ?Activists are not so worried about women as a sex anymore. This is evident from all the *Karen memes*. Similarly, activists feel gay men are not consistently being intersectional, and have lost some of their interest in the gay identity cause. What we have ended up with is race and transgender.? This absolutely resonates with me in relation to recent events. In 2016 I wrote a long article on Counterpunch regarding ?rape culture? on college campuses. It was around then that the absurdities and contradictions of Woke politics during the #resistance era became impossible to ignore; it was around then that I was reminded of the capabilities of moral/sexual panics: A black woman could accuse a black man of having raped her, in relation to a case that had already been legally adjudicated against the plaintiff, on Democracy Now, without Amy Goodman batting an eye; indeed, she validated it. Many of the cases addressed in this ?documentary? involved black men accused of being rapists. ?Feminism? was thus on the top of the gender/race ?intersectional? Woke agenda, so to speak. Much has changed, as Pluckrose points out, and the contradictions are impossible not to notice. Now we have the ?Coopers affair.? A white woman, Amy Cooper, reacted quite stupidly and disturbingly to a black man, Christian Cooper, in Central Park; nobody was injured. But we are no longer amid a ?feminist,? ?rape culture,? moral panic. We are amid a ?Black Lives Matter? (+ black trans women) race panic. So this white woman, this ?Karen,? has to be punished and erased, with utmost derision and contempt, even though if this were 2016 perhaps the ?Hunting Ground? moral panic would have not only saved her but supported her; certainly so if she were on a college campus rather than in Central Park, where Title IX doesn?t apply. No, she must lose her job and career, from a Wall Street firm no less (so, in a perverse way, the Woke don?t have to feel sorry for her, as they pretend to be anti-Wall Street), and essentially have her life ruined, with no questions asked regarding the proportionality of her punishment ?and certainly not by ?feminists? in the current context. The red meat of BLM must be thoroughly grilled. This woman did not deserve this. But this is what you get from Woke Corporate Human Resources culture in the BLM era, along with all the ?diversity training.? Within a few years, we?ll move on to the next thing, with no improvement for the vast majority of ?black lives,? since the purpose of Woke neoliberalism is to keep moving from one panic to another, while nothing about our economic system changes, other than that it continues to get worse for the vast majority of people of all racialized backgrounds. ************ Notwithstanding all this, some folks, like the progenitors of this missive, can still cram in a little ?sexism? and ?patriarchy? so long as it stands apart from black, BIPOC, and transgender issues. But as Nina Paley will tell you, you have to be careful that your sectionals don?t get mixed up with other folks? sectionals in a non-intersectional way in the wrong place and at the historically wrong panic time. In that case, your radical feminism becomes the object of a moral panic, and you are cancelled. The currently fashionable and apparently acceptable ?Karens ? meme or epithet is blatantly sexist and racist, which is to say *misogynist*, and is now featured by black liberal Leonard Pitts, and perhaps others, in our local newspaper, and more generally in Woke and twitter culture. It?s not the least bit cute or funny; nor does it accurately describe female vs. male ?managerial? behavior (obviously). Who knows, maybe 1980s jokes about Jewish-American princesses will also come back into fashion. Certainly, some of those college women grew up to be ?Karens,? in which case we can combine misogyny and anti-Semitism for a neat intersectional twofer. Perhaps Leonard Pitts and others would be a better target for bored local self-styled feminists than the defunct local anti-war movement, especially as its ?partriarchal? and ?sexist? men enter their dotages. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Jul 29 05:41:14 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 00:41:14 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on the great danger of Trump Message-ID: <2F0C1491-D5BA-4E16-B3BE-FCF70F047876@newsfromneptune.com> See the second and third parts of this interview (linked at end): https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/24/noam_chomsky_on_trump_s_troop From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Jul 30 02:08:53 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 21:08:53 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Black Lives Matter and the Nuclear Family - CounterPunch.org Message-ID: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/29/black-lives-matter-and-the-nuclear-family/ The fact that CP would publish this batshit psychopathic article is very worrisome and indicative of a profound failure to recognize the Woke Left for its destructive potential. I fear that that failure is widely shared among the "anti-racist" community, locally and nationally, especially in Blue regions. BLM is a paroxysm, anarcho-fascist, very very bad if this deluded guy is at all typical. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Thu Jul 30 03:13:53 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 03:13:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Saker analysis Message-ID: <5E5962D4-9BDE-48BC-B457-917875BF859E@illinois.edu> Very interesting! http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/55406.htm Perhaps most hopeful is listening, a video, to a German Woman politician, Sarah Wagenknecht, tell her German audience that the U.S. withdrawal of troops there would be very beneficial. Impressive. ?mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Jul 30 03:16:39 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 22:16:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on the great danger of Trump In-Reply-To: <2F0C1491-D5BA-4E16-B3BE-FCF70F047876@newsfromneptune.com> References: <2F0C1491-D5BA-4E16-B3BE-FCF70F047876@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: What the three parts of Chomsky?s interview make clear is that Trump must be defeated in November (or removed form office via the 25th Amendment before then). We should be organizing and working towards that - in spite of the Biden and the Democrats? bad politics. They are of course a ruing class party - but unquestionably the ?lesser evil? now. ?CGE > On Jul 29, 2020, at 12:41 AM, C. G. Estabrook via wrote: > > See the second and third parts of this interview (linked at end): > > https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/24/noam_chomsky_on_trump_s_troop > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Jul 30 04:15:42 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 23:15:42 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on the great danger of Trump In-Reply-To: References: <2F0C1491-D5BA-4E16-B3BE-FCF70F047876@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: When and if Biden assumes power, it will be important to understand that the Democrats are now the party of the elite, and thus the more reactionary party. We must be clear that they will have a viciously reactionary agenda, especially for flyover/throwaway country. BLM is a preview of that. On Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 10:18 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > What the three parts of Chomsky?s interview make clear is that Trump must > be defeated in November (or removed form office via the 25th Amendment > before then). > > We should be organizing and working towards that - in spite of the Biden > and the Democrats? bad politics. They are of course a ruing class party - > but unquestionably the ?lesser evil? now. > > ?CGE > > > > On Jul 29, 2020, at 12:41 AM, C. G. Estabrook via < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > See the second and third parts of this interview (linked at end): > > > > https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/24/noam_chomsky_on_trump_s_troop > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Jul 30 04:34:40 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 23:34:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on the great danger of Trump In-Reply-To: References: <2F0C1491-D5BA-4E16-B3BE-FCF70F047876@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Democrats and Republicans are both parties working for ruling class goals. They appeal in their propaganda to slightly different constituencies (or mix of constituencies). Propaganda and misrepresentation of those goals - primarily the profits of the ruling class - are necessary for both. ?CGE > On Jul 29, 2020, at 11:15 PM, David Green wrote: > > When and if Biden assumes power, it will be important to understand that the Democrats are now the party of the elite, and thus the more reactionary party. We must be clear that they will have a viciously reactionary agenda, especially for flyover/throwaway country. BLM is a preview of that. > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 10:18 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > What the three parts of Chomsky?s interview make clear is that Trump must be defeated in November (or removed form office via the 25th Amendment before then). > > We should be organizing and working towards that - in spite of the Biden and the Democrats? bad politics. They are of course a ruing class party - but unquestionably the ?lesser evil? now. > > ?CGE > > > > On Jul 29, 2020, at 12:41 AM, C. G. Estabrook via wrote: > > > > See the second and third parts of this interview (linked at end): > > > > https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/24/noam_chomsky_on_trump_s_troop > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From jbn at forestfield.org Thu Jul 30 06:33:45 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 01:33:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on the great danger of Trump In-Reply-To: <2F0C1491-D5BA-4E16-B3BE-FCF70F047876@newsfromneptune.com> References: <2F0C1491-D5BA-4E16-B3BE-FCF70F047876@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <22388a21-621e-4017-36ee-dd3a54e0fd55@forestfield.org> C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > See the second and third parts of this interview (linked at end): > > https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/24/noam_chomsky_on_trump_s_troop I'm afraid I don't agree with Chomsky in much of this interview because large portions of it came off to me as leaving out significant context and participating in Trump Derangement Syndrome. Yes, Trump is awful, but the Democrats offer nobody better because they're okay with Trump and Biden is merely a useful neolib/neocon insurance policy. Chomsky was said to have shown "massive differences" between Trump and Biden but as far as policy goes the two major corporate parties (and Trump & Biden in particular) share so much in common that it seems unrepresentative to get into what separates them as though there's enough to make a big deal out of that. When I take into consideration what is likely to be on most Americans minds during a depression and a pandemic with an upcoming election ahead, I can't concur with so much of what Chomsky or DN's Nermeen Shaikh got into here. Domestically, neither supports a UBI, jobs program, or Medicare for All (in fact, as Jimmy Dore pointed out in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv21BLO-JwI and as I've written to peace-discuss previously, it wouldn't be hard for Trump to shame the Democrats by even offering to pass Medicare for All into law knowing the Democrats will never bring such a bill to the House floor for a vote. Pelosi will see to that.). Medicare for All alone is an election winner and is massively important to Americans now. Medicare for All will only become more important as the coming weeks pass: evictions, more people losing their jobs, and the loss of whatever healthcare was tied to that job. Medicare for All didn't show up as a talking point in any of the three parts of this Chomsky interview linked from https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/24/noam_chomsky_on_trump_s_troop and that's probably because there's nothing a Democratic Party supporter could say about Medicare for All that would make the Democrats look good. I dare say that Medicare for All for Americans is more important than traveling to Europe (a topic Chomsky does reference). The interview spends a fair bit of time on speculation around imposing martial law and canceling the elections (perhaps so they don't have to talk about far more pressing issues where no speculation is necessary like the lack of Medicare for All, lack of a national jobs program, and no UBI and that this tells us the Democrats are fine with Trump). It's worth noting that in 2016 the largest bloc of registered voters did not vote for president. So if 2020 repeats what happened in 2016 the largest bloc of registered voters might not miss a chance to participate in a presidential election they would have skipped due to loathing the two most prominent candidates and their horrid policy choices. We also get a bit of psychoanalysis -- the kind of talk we'd rightly reject coming from anyone else (and it's not clear why we should hold Chomsky to different standards) -- Chomsky said Trump is "desperate", "psychotic. He is in extreme danger of losing his position in the White House", and "psychologically incapable of losing". But there's no acknowledgement that establishment pollsters got the 2016 election wrong (and there's no price to pay for being so wrong). Hillary Clinton lost her 2nd attempt at becoming US President to a TV game show host who had no electoral history. To shift the blame she backed a now 4-year-long baseless conspiracy theory (which DN is apparently happy to echo) blaming Russia for her loss known colloquially as Russiagate. But somehow Trump's speculated "[refusal] to commit to accepting the outcome of the 2020 election" is supposed to be troubling. Would that refusal come with sanctions against Russia like Russiagate has? Sanctions hurt and kill the poor. One would think those sanctions and the harms they cause would merit mention. I'm suspicious that the main reason DN wants to interview Chomsky on this topic now is because Chomsky is saying things that are compatible with DN's neoliberalist Trump Derangement Syndrome. Around election time Chomsky seems to favor the Democrats (witness this interview and the letter Chomsky signed on to not too long ago which reached a conclusion much like 'any Blue will do'). In another part of the same overall interview -- https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/24/man_woman_camera_person_tv_noam -- which DN titled "Noam Chomsky Responds to Trump Bragging He Aced a Dementia Test" -- nobody brought up Biden's readily-apparent mental problems (which the establishment media try to paper over by calling them "gaffes"). And his team knows it; Obama "bluntly counseled Mr. Biden to keep his speeches brief, interviews crisp and slash the length of his tweets" so as to not give Biden more opportunity to showcase his obvious mental inadequacy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmoln-XK3Gw). Recently a Biden staffer cut off Biden's interview with docile media outlet before Biden could go off-script too much further (https://youtube.com/watch?v=SaX1i4EeQRI). So I fail to see how Trump is dangerous enough to merit the single-minded mentions he gets in that DN interview; it would be far more useful to the audience to point out that Trump is all too typical a US President which means he's merely the latest leader of a line of rapacious oligarchs (quoting Dylan Ratigan). We got Trump because of what the Obama/Biden administration did. The country rejected Mrs. Clinton in part because of what we'd already seen her do as a Senator (which includes voting for authorizing invading Iraq alongside Sen. Biden who would later go on to brag that he'd make the same vote again, then when realizing that line is reading the room wholly wrongly, lie about the reason for his authorization vote). The Democrats currently give Trump what he asks for while calling Trump a traitor to the US. The Democrats & Republicans work together against our needs. The Democrats are not an opposition party. It's shameful to point out only one part of the trouble we're in with the Democrats and Republicans without the context that the other major corporate party agrees on all the major issues of the day. Joe Biden promised his wealthy campaign investors that "Nothing will fundamentally change". In that same speech he waxed fondly about "memories of working alongside segregationist senators, and telling wealthy donors they have nothing to fear from his presidency" according to establishment media outlet Vox, which continued: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/19/18690910/biden-fundraiser-controversy-segregationists-donors > [Biden] didn?t want to ?demonize? the wealthy and added that, though ?income > inequality? is a problem that must be addressed, under his presidency, ?no one?s > standard of living will change, nothing will fundamentally change.? He went on: ?I > need you very badly. I hope if I win this nomination, I won?t let you down.? Biden should be taken at his word. That's a bad promise for anyone trying to pitch the idea that Trump is "desperate" and "psychotic" in an effort to only talk about a part of the story (particularly problematic in the context of a presidential election). From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Jul 30 13:18:00 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:18:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on the great danger of Trump In-Reply-To: <22388a21-621e-4017-36ee-dd3a54e0fd55@forestfield.org> References: <2F0C1491-D5BA-4E16-B3BE-FCF70F047876@newsfromneptune.com> <22388a21-621e-4017-36ee-dd3a54e0fd55@forestfield.org> Message-ID: Yes, I think that what Jeff says is fundamentally correct. DG On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 1:34 AM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > See the second and third parts of this interview (linked at end): > > > > https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/24/noam_chomsky_on_trump_s_troop > > I'm afraid I don't agree with Chomsky in much of this interview because > large > portions of it came off to me as leaving out significant context and > participating in > Trump Derangement Syndrome. Yes, Trump is awful, but the Democrats offer > nobody > better because they're okay with Trump and Biden is merely a useful > neolib/neocon > insurance policy. Chomsky was said to have shown "massive differences" > between Trump > and Biden but as far as policy goes the two major corporate parties (and > Trump & > Biden in particular) share so much in common that it seems > unrepresentative to get > into what separates them as though there's enough to make a big deal out > of that. > When I take into consideration what is likely to be on most Americans > minds during a > depression and a pandemic with an upcoming election ahead, I can't concur > with so > much of what Chomsky or DN's Nermeen Shaikh got into here. > > Domestically, neither supports a UBI, jobs program, or Medicare for All > (in fact, as > Jimmy Dore pointed out in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv21BLO-JwI and > as I've > written to peace-discuss previously, it wouldn't be hard for Trump to > shame the > Democrats by even offering to pass Medicare for All into law knowing the > Democrats > will never bring such a bill to the House floor for a vote. Pelosi will > see to > that.). Medicare for All alone is an election winner and is massively > important to > Americans now. Medicare for All will only become more important as the > coming weeks > pass: evictions, more people losing their jobs, and the loss of whatever > healthcare > was tied to that job. Medicare for All didn't show up as a talking point > in any of > the three parts of this Chomsky interview linked from > https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/24/noam_chomsky_on_trump_s_troop and > that's > probably because there's nothing a Democratic Party supporter could say > about > Medicare for All that would make the Democrats look good. I dare say that > Medicare > for All for Americans is more important than traveling to Europe (a topic > Chomsky > does reference). > > The interview spends a fair bit of time on speculation around imposing > martial law > and canceling the elections (perhaps so they don't have to talk about far > more > pressing issues where no speculation is necessary like the lack of > Medicare for All, > lack of a national jobs program, and no UBI and that this tells us the > Democrats are > fine with Trump). It's worth noting that in 2016 the largest bloc of > registered > voters did not vote for president. So if 2020 repeats what happened in > 2016 the > largest bloc of registered voters might not miss a chance to participate > in a > presidential election they would have skipped due to loathing the two most > prominent > candidates and their horrid policy choices. > > We also get a bit of psychoanalysis -- the kind of talk we'd rightly > reject coming > from anyone else (and it's not clear why we should hold Chomsky to > different > standards) -- Chomsky said Trump is "desperate", "psychotic. He is in > extreme danger > of losing his position in the White House", and "psychologically incapable > of > losing". But there's no acknowledgement that establishment pollsters got > the 2016 > election wrong (and there's no price to pay for being so wrong). Hillary > Clinton lost > her 2nd attempt at becoming US President to a TV game show host who had no > electoral > history. To shift the blame she backed a now 4-year-long baseless > conspiracy theory > (which DN is apparently happy to echo) blaming Russia for her loss known > colloquially > as Russiagate. But somehow Trump's speculated "[refusal] to commit to > accepting the > outcome of the 2020 election" is supposed to be troubling. Would that > refusal come > with sanctions against Russia like Russiagate has? Sanctions hurt and kill > the poor. > One would think those sanctions and the harms they cause would merit > mention. > > I'm suspicious that the main reason DN wants to interview Chomsky on this > topic now > is because Chomsky is saying things that are compatible with DN's > neoliberalist Trump > Derangement Syndrome. Around election time Chomsky seems to favor the > Democrats > (witness this interview and the letter Chomsky signed on to not too long > ago which > reached a conclusion much like 'any Blue will do'). > > In another part of the same overall interview -- > https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/24/man_woman_camera_person_tv_noam -- > which DN > titled "Noam Chomsky Responds to Trump Bragging He Aced a Dementia Test" > -- nobody > brought up Biden's readily-apparent mental problems (which the > establishment media > try to paper over by calling them "gaffes"). And his team knows it; Obama > "bluntly > counseled Mr. Biden to keep his speeches brief, interviews crisp and slash > the length > of his tweets" so as to not give Biden more opportunity to showcase his > obvious > mental inadequacy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmoln-XK3Gw). Recently > a Biden > staffer cut off Biden's interview with docile media outlet before Biden > could go > off-script too much further (https://youtube.com/watch?v=SaX1i4EeQRI). > > So I fail to see how Trump is dangerous enough to merit the single-minded > mentions he > gets in that DN interview; it would be far more useful to the audience to > point out > that Trump is all too typical a US President which means he's merely the > latest > leader of a line of rapacious oligarchs (quoting Dylan Ratigan). We got > Trump because > of what the Obama/Biden administration did. The country rejected Mrs. > Clinton in part > because of what we'd already seen her do as a Senator (which includes > voting for > authorizing invading Iraq alongside Sen. Biden who would later go on to > brag that > he'd make the same vote again, then when realizing that line is reading > the room > wholly wrongly, lie about the reason for his authorization vote). > > The Democrats currently give Trump what he asks for while calling Trump a > traitor to > the US. The Democrats & Republicans work together against our needs. The > Democrats > are not an opposition party. It's shameful to point out only one part of > the trouble > we're in with the Democrats and Republicans without the context that the > other major > corporate party agrees on all the major issues of the day. > > Joe Biden promised his wealthy campaign investors that "Nothing will > fundamentally > change". In that same speech he waxed fondly about "memories of working > alongside > segregationist senators, and telling wealthy donors they have nothing to > fear from > his presidency" according to establishment media outlet Vox, which > continued: > > > https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/19/18690910/biden-fundraiser-controversy-segregationists-donors > > [Biden] didn?t want to ?demonize? the wealthy and added that, though > ?income > > inequality? is a problem that must be addressed, under his presidency, > ?no one?s > > standard of living will change, nothing will fundamentally change.? He > went on: ?I > > need you very badly. I hope if I win this nomination, I won?t let you > down.? > Biden should be taken at his word. That's a bad promise for anyone trying > to pitch > the idea that Trump is "desperate" and "psychotic" in an effort to only > talk about a > part of the story (particularly problematic in the context of a > presidential election). > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Thu Jul 30 16:01:03 2020 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 12:01:03 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is a misleading citation of Adolph Reed. He wrote these words in May 2018. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10624-017-9476-3 On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 6:13 PM David Green via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Neoliberal anarchism. You can read it on their website. Masquerading as > "community". > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 5:09 PM Karen Aram wrote: > >> I know, I understand. What is their stated view on the family? >> >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2020, at 15:01, David Green wrote: >> >> Reed speaks to a broad audience, admittedly intellectual, but like >> Chomsky also to labor leaders. >> >> In any event, I'm cutting BLM no slack. It's analysis is preposterous, >> with no material component whatsoever. It's stated view on the family is >> disgusting. >> >> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 3:42 PM Karen Aram wrote: >> >>> David >>> >>> I understand what you and Adolph Reed are saying, and it should be >>> noted, Adolphe Reed is African American and likely targets African >>> Americans when speaking. >>> >>> Let me now express my simple interpretation and opinion: >>> >>> While we may not support the organization BLM given we know they are >>> funded by the DNC and Soros as they support neoliberalism, and their >>> criticism of Bernie for his stand on decommodification of education, etc. >>> was counterproductive to helping African Americans, as well as working >>> class white Americans, nonetheless I don?t propose opposing them. >>> >>> Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of the BLM >>> organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African >>> Americans, nothing wrong with that. Yes, when it first began those of us >>> opposing our many wars in the Middle East, and the massacre of millions of >>> Muslims, cried out ?all lives matter,? meaning ?what about the millions we >>> are killing now elsewhere in the world who are also not white?? >>> >>> Today by saying ?Black Lives Matter,? it is now inclusive of indigenous >>> peoples everywhere, as opposed to just white lives mattering. >>> >>> You are absolutely correct the many problems are a class issue, not a >>> race issue, and by making it just about race, not to negate African >>> Americans have been targeted and suffer worse due to conditions of poverty >>> and racist policy?s, continues to create division between the masses and >>> becomes counterproductive as it ignores the cause, thus preventing >>> solutions. >>> >>> Promoting people of color to positions of power initially was thought to >>> be progressive, and it was as it provided opportunity to many, but not >>> enough, certainly not all, and it supports the power of the ruling class >>> providing them with tokens of diversity, as we know, power and money >>> corrupts. >>> >>> One would think the Obama presidency with his failure to address the >>> ills of African Americans, and working class, his expansion of the Bush >>> wars from two to eight, bail out of the banks and wall street, as well as >>> the implementation of the NDAA which now legitimizes the Trump >>> administration bringing federal troops into cities across the nation to >>> kidnap, incarcerate or just terrorize protestors, would make it clear >>> neither Party has concern for the lives of working class Americans. >>> >>> The lives of the majority of working class Americans, whatever their >>> race, continue to deteriorate as we fight among ourselves. Therefore we >>> must keep our focus at all times on our system of capitalism as the culprit >>> in need of change. >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2020, at 19:58, David Green via Peace < >>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> Police violence correlates more with class than race. BLM is in support >>> of Democrats, who are equally if not more responsible for neoliberalism and >>> accompanying state violence. Trump is used to justify BLM supported >>> destruction in working class urban communities. We should oppose Trump and >>> BLM. >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:52 PM John W. wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a >>>>> bourgeois neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, >>>>> including POC. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, >>>>> we should oppose BLM, which I do. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put matters into >>>> plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people the same way >>>> they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black people wantonly, >>>> is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for a friend, if I >>>> had one. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn't understand a single sentence of that. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace < >>>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black Power >>>>>>> populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in itself >>>>>>> nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally >>>>>>> understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and >>>>>>> other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic >>>>>>> neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical >>>>>>> self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally *anti-leftist.* >>>>>>> Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential >>>>>>> nomination campaign?s call for decommodified public higher education as >>>>>>> frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American underscores how deeply >>>>>>> embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Thu Jul 30 20:07:28 2020 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 20:07:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on the great danger of Trump In-Reply-To: References: <2F0C1491-D5BA-4E16-B3BE-FCF70F047876@newsfromneptune.com> <22388a21-621e-4017-36ee-dd3a54e0fd55@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <1563239980.8114288.1596139648231@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Carl: I agree with your assessment of Chomsky in this Interview by DN.? Looks like he's jointed the ABT (anybody but Trump) crowd.? He didn't convince me; I can'r abide biden, regardless who is his choice for VP--another "President Obama, Clinton" or even Duckworth (yuk)? mo'b ?? -----Original Message----- From: David Green via Peace-discuss To: J.B. Nicholson Cc: Peace-discuss Sent: Thu, Jul 30, 2020 6:18 am Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on the great danger of Trump Yes, I think that what Jeff says is fundamentally correct. DG On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 1:34 AM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss wrote: C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > See the second and third parts of this interview (linked at end): > > https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/24/noam_chomsky_on_trump_s_troop I'm afraid I don't agree with Chomsky in much of this interview because large portions of it came off to me as leaving out significant context and participating in Trump Derangement Syndrome. Yes, Trump is awful, but the Democrats offer nobody better because they're okay with Trump and Biden is merely a useful neolib/neocon insurance policy. Chomsky was said to have shown "massive differences" between Trump and Biden but as far as policy goes the two major corporate parties (and Trump & Biden in particular) share so much in common that it seems unrepresentative to get into what separates them as though there's enough to make a big deal out of that. When I take into consideration what is likely to be on most Americans minds during a depression and a pandemic with an upcoming election ahead, I can't concur with so much of what Chomsky or DN's Nermeen Shaikh got into here. Domestically, neither supports a UBI, jobs program, or Medicare for All (in fact, as Jimmy Dore pointed out in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv21BLO-JwI and as I've written to peace-discuss previously, it wouldn't be hard for Trump to shame the Democrats by even offering to pass Medicare for All into law knowing the Democrats will never bring such a bill to the House floor for a vote. Pelosi will see to that.). Medicare for All alone is an election winner and is massively important to Americans now. Medicare for All will only become more important as the coming weeks pass: evictions, more people losing their jobs, and the loss of whatever healthcare was tied to that job. Medicare for All didn't show up as a talking point in any of the three parts of this Chomsky interview linked from https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/24/noam_chomsky_on_trump_s_troop and that's probably because there's nothing a Democratic Party supporter could say about Medicare for All that would make the Democrats look good. I dare say that Medicare for All for Americans is more important than traveling to Europe (a topic Chomsky does reference). The interview spends a fair bit of time on speculation around imposing martial law and canceling the elections (perhaps so they don't have to talk about far more pressing issues where no speculation is necessary like the lack of Medicare for All, lack of a national jobs program, and no UBI and that this tells us the Democrats are fine with Trump). It's worth noting that in 2016 the largest bloc of registered voters did not vote for president. So if 2020 repeats what happened in 2016 the largest bloc of registered voters might not miss a chance to participate in a presidential election they would have skipped due to loathing the two most prominent candidates and their horrid policy choices. We also get a bit of psychoanalysis -- the kind of talk we'd rightly reject coming from anyone else (and it's not clear why we should hold Chomsky to different standards) -- Chomsky said Trump is "desperate", "psychotic. He is in extreme danger of losing his position in the White House", and "psychologically incapable of losing". But there's no acknowledgement that establishment pollsters got the 2016 election wrong (and there's no price to pay for being so wrong). Hillary Clinton lost her 2nd attempt at becoming US President to a TV game show host who had no electoral history. To shift the blame she backed a now 4-year-long baseless conspiracy theory (which DN is apparently happy to echo) blaming Russia for her loss known colloquially as Russiagate. But somehow Trump's speculated "[refusal] to commit to accepting the outcome of the 2020 election" is supposed to be troubling. Would that refusal come with sanctions against Russia like Russiagate has? Sanctions hurt and kill the poor. One would think those sanctions and the harms they cause would merit mention. I'm suspicious that the main reason DN wants to interview Chomsky on this topic now is because Chomsky is saying things that are compatible with DN's neoliberalist Trump Derangement Syndrome. Around election time Chomsky seems to favor the Democrats (witness this interview and the letter Chomsky signed on to not too long ago which reached a conclusion much like 'any Blue will do'). In another part of the same overall interview -- https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/24/man_woman_camera_person_tv_noam -- which DN titled "Noam Chomsky Responds to Trump Bragging He Aced a Dementia Test" -- nobody brought up Biden's readily-apparent mental problems (which the establishment media try to paper over by calling them "gaffes"). And his team knows it; Obama "bluntly counseled Mr. Biden to keep his speeches brief, interviews crisp and slash the length of his tweets" so as to not give Biden more opportunity to showcase his obvious mental inadequacy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmoln-XK3Gw). Recently a Biden staffer cut off Biden's interview with docile media outlet before Biden could go off-script too much further (https://youtube.com/watch?v=SaX1i4EeQRI). So I fail to see how Trump is dangerous enough to merit the single-minded mentions he gets in that DN interview; it would be far more useful to the audience to point out that Trump is all too typical a US President which means he's merely the latest leader of a line of rapacious oligarchs (quoting Dylan Ratigan). We got Trump because of what the Obama/Biden administration did. The country rejected Mrs. Clinton in part because of what we'd already seen her do as a Senator (which includes voting for authorizing invading Iraq alongside Sen. Biden who would later go on to brag that he'd make the same vote again, then when realizing that line is reading the room wholly wrongly, lie about the reason for his authorization vote). The Democrats currently give Trump what he asks for while calling Trump a traitor to the US. The Democrats & Republicans work together against our needs. The Democrats are not an opposition party. It's shameful to point out only one part of the trouble we're in with the Democrats and Republicans without the context that the other major corporate party agrees on all the major issues of the day. Joe Biden promised his wealthy campaign investors that "Nothing will fundamentally change". In that same speech he waxed fondly about "memories of working alongside segregationist senators, and telling wealthy donors they have nothing to fear from his presidency" according to establishment media outlet Vox, which continued: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/19/18690910/biden-fundraiser-controversy-segregationists-donors > [Biden] didn?t want to ?demonize? the wealthy and added that, though ?income > inequality? is a problem that must be addressed, under his presidency, ?no one?s > standard of living will change, nothing will fundamentally change.? He went on: ?I > need you very badly. I hope if I win this nomination, I won?t let you down.? Biden should be taken at his word. That's a bad promise for anyone trying to pitch the idea that Trump is "desperate" and "psychotic" in an effort to only talk about a part of the story (particularly problematic in the context of a presidential election). _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Jul 30 20:11:11 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:11:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bob, I honestly don't think he'd change his general analysis in any significant way in response to the current situation. He's done lots of interviews that testify to that in recent weeks, see Jacobin Youtube channel. Nonsite republished an article of Reed's from 2016 , with a new introduction by his co-conspirator Cedric Johnson. On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:01 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > This is a misleading citation of Adolph Reed. He wrote these words in May > 2018. > > https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10624-017-9476-3 > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 6:13 PM David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Neoliberal anarchism. You can read it on their website. Masquerading as >> "community". >> >> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 5:09 PM Karen Aram wrote: >> >>> I know, I understand. What is their stated view on the family? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 27, 2020, at 15:01, David Green wrote: >>> >>> Reed speaks to a broad audience, admittedly intellectual, but like >>> Chomsky also to labor leaders. >>> >>> In any event, I'm cutting BLM no slack. It's analysis is preposterous, >>> with no material component whatsoever. It's stated view on the family is >>> disgusting. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 3:42 PM Karen Aram wrote: >>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> I understand what you and Adolph Reed are saying, and it should be >>>> noted, Adolphe Reed is African American and likely targets African >>>> Americans when speaking. >>>> >>>> Let me now express my simple interpretation and opinion: >>>> >>>> While we may not support the organization BLM given we know they are >>>> funded by the DNC and Soros as they support neoliberalism, and their >>>> criticism of Bernie for his stand on decommodification of education, etc. >>>> was counterproductive to helping African Americans, as well as working >>>> class white Americans, nonetheless I don?t propose opposing them. >>>> >>>> Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of the BLM >>>> organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African >>>> Americans, nothing wrong with that. Yes, when it first began those of us >>>> opposing our many wars in the Middle East, and the massacre of millions of >>>> Muslims, cried out ?all lives matter,? meaning ?what about the millions we >>>> are killing now elsewhere in the world who are also not white?? >>>> >>>> Today by saying ?Black Lives Matter,? it is now inclusive of indigenous >>>> peoples everywhere, as opposed to just white lives mattering. >>>> >>>> You are absolutely correct the many problems are a class issue, not a >>>> race issue, and by making it just about race, not to negate African >>>> Americans have been targeted and suffer worse due to conditions of poverty >>>> and racist policy?s, continues to create division between the masses and >>>> becomes counterproductive as it ignores the cause, thus preventing >>>> solutions. >>>> >>>> Promoting people of color to positions of power initially was thought >>>> to be progressive, and it was as it provided opportunity to many, but not >>>> enough, certainly not all, and it supports the power of the ruling class >>>> providing them with tokens of diversity, as we know, power and money >>>> corrupts. >>>> >>>> One would think the Obama presidency with his failure to address the >>>> ills of African Americans, and working class, his expansion of the Bush >>>> wars from two to eight, bail out of the banks and wall street, as well as >>>> the implementation of the NDAA which now legitimizes the Trump >>>> administration bringing federal troops into cities across the nation to >>>> kidnap, incarcerate or just terrorize protestors, would make it clear >>>> neither Party has concern for the lives of working class Americans. >>>> >>>> The lives of the majority of working class Americans, whatever their >>>> race, continue to deteriorate as we fight among ourselves. Therefore we >>>> must keep our focus at all times on our system of capitalism as the culprit >>>> in need of change. >>>> >>>> On Jul 26, 2020, at 19:58, David Green via Peace < >>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Police violence correlates more with class than race. BLM is in support >>>> of Democrats, who are equally if not more responsible for neoliberalism and >>>> accompanying state violence. Trump is used to justify BLM supported >>>> destruction in working class urban communities. We should oppose Trump and >>>> BLM. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:52 PM John W. wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a >>>>>> bourgeois neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, >>>>>> including POC. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, >>>>>> we should oppose BLM, which I do. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put matters into >>>>> plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people the same way >>>>> they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black people wantonly, >>>>> is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for a friend, if I >>>>> had one. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I didn't understand a single sentence of that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace < >>>>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black >>>>>>>> Power populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in >>>>>>>> itself nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally >>>>>>>> understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and >>>>>>>> other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic >>>>>>>> neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical >>>>>>>> self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally >>>>>>>> *anti-leftist.* Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie >>>>>>>> Sanders 2016 presidential nomination campaign?s call for decommodified >>>>>>>> public higher education as frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American >>>>>>>> underscores how deeply embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Thu Jul 30 23:13:19 2020 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 19:13:19 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: When Adolph Reed wrote "this antiracist politics" in May 2018, he was referring to a particular kind of antiracist politics, not every imaginable instance of antiracist politics, hence the word "this." Here is the preceding paragraph: In the antiracist political project white supremacy/racism is?like ?terrorism??an amorphous, ideological abstraction whose specific content exists largely in the eyes of the beholder. Therefore, like antiterrorism, antiracism?s targets can be porous and entirely arbitrary; this means that, also like antiterrorism, the struggle can never be won. Clint Smith?s romantic assessment of Take ?Em Down NOLA?s contribution indicates as much and makes clear, as does everything that Ta-Nehisi Coates has ever written (e.g., Coates 2014 , 2016a , b , 2017 ), that winning anything concrete is not the point. The ?politics? that follows from this view centers on pursuit of recognition and representation on groupist terms?both as symbolic depiction in the public realm and as claims to articulate the interests, perspectives, or ?voices? of a generic black constituency or some subset thereof, e.g., ?youth? or ?grassroots.? It is not interested in broadly egalitarian redistribution. On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 4:11 PM David Green wrote: > Bob, I honestly don't think he'd change his general analysis in any > significant way in response to the current situation. He's done lots of > interviews that testify to that in recent weeks, see Jacobin Youtube > channel. Nonsite republished an article of Reed's from 2016 > , > with a new introduction by his co-conspirator Cedric Johnson. > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:01 AM Robert Naiman > wrote: > >> This is a misleading citation of Adolph Reed. He wrote these words in May >> 2018. >> >> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10624-017-9476-3 >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 6:13 PM David Green via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> Neoliberal anarchism. You can read it on their website. Masquerading as >>> "community". >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 5:09 PM Karen Aram wrote: >>> >>>> I know, I understand. What is their stated view on the family? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 27, 2020, at 15:01, David Green wrote: >>>> >>>> Reed speaks to a broad audience, admittedly intellectual, but like >>>> Chomsky also to labor leaders. >>>> >>>> In any event, I'm cutting BLM no slack. It's analysis is preposterous, >>>> with no material component whatsoever. It's stated view on the family is >>>> disgusting. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 3:42 PM Karen Aram wrote: >>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> I understand what you and Adolph Reed are saying, and it should be >>>>> noted, Adolphe Reed is African American and likely targets African >>>>> Americans when speaking. >>>>> >>>>> Let me now express my simple interpretation and opinion: >>>>> >>>>> While we may not support the organization BLM given we know they are >>>>> funded by the DNC and Soros as they support neoliberalism, and their >>>>> criticism of Bernie for his stand on decommodification of education, etc. >>>>> was counterproductive to helping African Americans, as well as working >>>>> class white Americans, nonetheless I don?t propose opposing them. >>>>> >>>>> Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of the >>>>> BLM organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African >>>>> Americans, nothing wrong with that. Yes, when it first began those of us >>>>> opposing our many wars in the Middle East, and the massacre of millions of >>>>> Muslims, cried out ?all lives matter,? meaning ?what about the millions we >>>>> are killing now elsewhere in the world who are also not white?? >>>>> >>>>> Today by saying ?Black Lives Matter,? it is now inclusive of >>>>> indigenous peoples everywhere, as opposed to just white lives mattering. >>>>> >>>>> You are absolutely correct the many problems are a class issue, not a >>>>> race issue, and by making it just about race, not to negate African >>>>> Americans have been targeted and suffer worse due to conditions of poverty >>>>> and racist policy?s, continues to create division between the masses and >>>>> becomes counterproductive as it ignores the cause, thus preventing >>>>> solutions. >>>>> >>>>> Promoting people of color to positions of power initially was thought >>>>> to be progressive, and it was as it provided opportunity to many, but not >>>>> enough, certainly not all, and it supports the power of the ruling class >>>>> providing them with tokens of diversity, as we know, power and money >>>>> corrupts. >>>>> >>>>> One would think the Obama presidency with his failure to address the >>>>> ills of African Americans, and working class, his expansion of the Bush >>>>> wars from two to eight, bail out of the banks and wall street, as well as >>>>> the implementation of the NDAA which now legitimizes the Trump >>>>> administration bringing federal troops into cities across the nation to >>>>> kidnap, incarcerate or just terrorize protestors, would make it clear >>>>> neither Party has concern for the lives of working class Americans. >>>>> >>>>> The lives of the majority of working class Americans, whatever their >>>>> race, continue to deteriorate as we fight among ourselves. Therefore we >>>>> must keep our focus at all times on our system of capitalism as the culprit >>>>> in need of change. >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 26, 2020, at 19:58, David Green via Peace < >>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Police violence correlates more with class than race. BLM is in >>>>> support of Democrats, who are equally if not more responsible for >>>>> neoliberalism and accompanying state violence. Trump is used to justify BLM >>>>> supported destruction in working class urban communities. We should oppose >>>>> Trump and BLM. >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:52 PM John W. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a >>>>>>> bourgeois neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, >>>>>>> including POC. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, >>>>>>> we should oppose BLM, which I do. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put matters into >>>>>> plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people the same way >>>>>> they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black people wantonly, >>>>>> is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for a friend, if I >>>>>> had one. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I didn't understand a single sentence of that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace < >>>>>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black >>>>>>>>> Power populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in >>>>>>>>> itself nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally >>>>>>>>> understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and >>>>>>>>> other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic >>>>>>>>> neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical >>>>>>>>> self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally >>>>>>>>> *anti-leftist.* Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie >>>>>>>>> Sanders 2016 presidential nomination campaign?s call for decommodified >>>>>>>>> public higher education as frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American >>>>>>>>> underscores how deeply embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Fri Jul 31 00:33:55 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 00:33:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just my 2? impressions: The BLM ?movement", which arouses such fervent antagonism by David, has had worthy manifestations throughout the country, and elsewhere. I have not seen the evidence that they were financed/supported by Soros and/or specific groups. There were all kinds of participants in the protests, aroused by the killing of George Floyd. David seems to relegate the protests to a false issue; i.e., by ignoring willfully the crucial class and revolutionary issues. It?s as if the mass protests were bad, i.e., counterproductive. But they did reveal the pernicious actions of the present system and the Trump government, viz Portland. As Karen noted: ?Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of [a] BLM organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African Americans.? From Adolph Reed, 2018? in his conclusion: ? that we recognize that race-reductionist politics is the left wing of neoliberalism and nothing more. It is openly antagonistic to the idea of a solidaristic left. "Race-reductionist politics" is simply a epithet: To whom are race issues reductionist to the exclusion of all else? Is it just that they are over emphasized by all who feel race issues merit emphasis and discussion? Let?s not go overboard. On Jul 30, 2020, at 3:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: Bob, I honestly don't think he'd change his general analysis in any significant way in response to the current situation. He's done lots of interviews that testify to that in recent weeks, see Jacobin Youtube channel. Nonsite republished an article of Reed's from 2016, with a new introduction by his co-conspirator Cedric Johnson. On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:01 AM Robert Naiman > wrote: This is a misleading citation of Adolph Reed. He wrote these words in May 2018. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10624-017-9476-3 On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 6:13 PM David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: Neoliberal anarchism. You can read it on their website. Masquerading as "community". On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 5:09 PM Karen Aram > wrote: I know, I understand. What is their stated view on the family? On Jul 27, 2020, at 15:01, David Green > wrote: Reed speaks to a broad audience, admittedly intellectual, but like Chomsky also to labor leaders. In any event, I'm cutting BLM no slack. It's analysis is preposterous, with no material component whatsoever. It's stated view on the family is disgusting. On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 3:42 PM Karen Aram > wrote: David I understand what you and Adolph Reed are saying, and it should be noted, Adolphe Reed is African American and likely targets African Americans when speaking. Let me now express my simple interpretation and opinion: While we may not support the organization BLM given we know they are funded by the DNC and Soros as they support neoliberalism, and their criticism of Bernie for his stand on decommodification of education, etc. was counterproductive to helping African Americans, as well as working class white Americans, nonetheless I don?t propose opposing them. Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of the BLM organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African Americans, nothing wrong with that. Yes, when it first began those of us opposing our many wars in the Middle East, and the massacre of millions of Muslims, cried out ?all lives matter,? meaning ?what about the millions we are killing now elsewhere in the world who are also not white?? Today by saying ?Black Lives Matter,? it is now inclusive of indigenous peoples everywhere, as opposed to just white lives mattering. You are absolutely correct the many problems are a class issue, not a race issue, and by making it just about race, not to negate African Americans have been targeted and suffer worse due to conditions of poverty and racist policy?s, continues to create division between the masses and becomes counterproductive as it ignores the cause, thus preventing solutions. Promoting people of color to positions of power initially was thought to be progressive, and it was as it provided opportunity to many, but not enough, certainly not all, and it supports the power of the ruling class providing them with tokens of diversity, as we know, power and money corrupts. One would think the Obama presidency with his failure to address the ills of African Americans, and working class, his expansion of the Bush wars from two to eight, bail out of the banks and wall street, as well as the implementation of the NDAA which now legitimizes the Trump administration bringing federal troops into cities across the nation to kidnap, incarcerate or just terrorize protestors, would make it clear neither Party has concern for the lives of working class Americans. The lives of the majority of working class Americans, whatever their race, continue to deteriorate as we fight among ourselves. Therefore we must keep our focus at all times on our system of capitalism as the culprit in need of change. On Jul 26, 2020, at 19:58, David Green via Peace > wrote: Police violence correlates more with class than race. BLM is in support of Democrats, who are equally if not more responsible for neoliberalism and accompanying state violence. Trump is used to justify BLM supported destruction in working class urban communities. We should oppose Trump and BLM. On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:52 PM John W. > wrote: On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green > wrote: Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a bourgeois neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, including POC. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, we should oppose BLM, which I do. Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put matters into plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people the same way they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black people wantonly, is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for a friend, if I had one. On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. > wrote: I didn't understand a single sentence of that. On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace > wrote: ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black Power populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in itself nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally anti-leftist. Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential nomination campaign?s call for decommodified public higher education as frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American underscores how deeply embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 02:21:00 2020 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 22:21:00 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You're throwing a lot of stuff together there. "BLM" got "under your skin," as it were, that much is clear. You cited Adolph Reed dishonestly out of context; let's put that act of bad faith to the side. Take your grievances against "BLM" one by one. Be honest about what's bothering you. Leave Adolph Reed out of it. On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:17 PM David Green wrote: > If you look up Michael Tracey's article on Medium about the destruction > during and subsequent to "peaceful" protests, you'll see why I oppose BLM > in concrete terms. People have died needlessly whose lives were no less > valuable than George Floyd. Beyond that, BLM is a bourgeois/PMC movement > with no serious class agenda. Indeed it's anti-working class. Moreover, the > blatant hypocrisy of gatherings during a pandemic for BLM, vs. harsh > criticism of those violating stay-at-home orders for the wrong reasons, > Woke self-righteousness gone mad. BLM will end badly and accomplish > nothing, except make some rich and others destitute. Having followed the > 1619 Project closely, I'm no longer surprised by the monumental arrogance > of the current crop of race hustlers. They are all right out of the > Obama/Oprah playbook. Opportunists. Collective self-pity by some > hyper-priveleged people, acting as if nothing has changed since 1950. And > plenty of what can justifiably be called racism. > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 7:33 PM Brussel, Morton K > wrote: > >> Just my 2? impressions: >> >> The BLM ?movement", which arouses such fervent antagonism by David, has >> had worthy manifestations throughout the country, and elsewhere. I have not >> seen the evidence that they were financed/supported by Soros and/or >> specific groups. There were all kinds of participants in the protests, >> aroused by the killing of George Floyd. David seems to relegate the >> protests to a false issue; i.e., by ignoring willfully the crucial class >> and revolutionary issues. It?s as if the mass protests were bad, i.e., >> counterproductive. But they did reveal the pernicious actions of the >> present system and the Trump government, viz Portland. As Karen noted:* ?Many >> of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of [a] BLM >> organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African >> Americans.?* >> >> From Adolph Reed, 2018? in his conclusion: ? *that we recognize that >> race-reductionist politics is the left wing of neoliberalism and nothing >> more. It is openly antagonistic to the idea of a solidaristic left.* >> >> *"Race-reductionist politics" *is simply a epithet: To whom are race >> issues reductionist to the exclusion of all else? Is it just that they >> are over emphasized by all who feel race issues merit emphasis and >> discussion? >> >> Let?s not go overboard. >> >> >> On Jul 30, 2020, at 3:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Bob, I honestly don't think he'd change his general analysis in any >> significant way in response to the current situation. He's done lots of >> interviews that testify to that in recent weeks, see Jacobin Youtube >> channel. Nonsite republished an article of Reed's from 2016 >> , >> with a new introduction by his co-conspirator Cedric Johnson. >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:01 AM Robert Naiman >> wrote: >> >>> This is a misleading citation of Adolph Reed. He wrote these words in >>> May 2018. >>> >>> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10624-017-9476-3 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 6:13 PM David Green via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Neoliberal anarchism. You can read it on their website. Masquerading as >>>> "community". >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 5:09 PM Karen Aram wrote: >>>> >>>>> I know, I understand. What is their stated view on the family? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 27, 2020, at 15:01, David Green wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Reed speaks to a broad audience, admittedly intellectual, but like >>>>> Chomsky also to labor leaders. >>>>> >>>>> In any event, I'm cutting BLM no slack. It's analysis is preposterous, >>>>> with no material component whatsoever. It's stated view on the family is >>>>> disgusting. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 3:42 PM Karen Aram >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> David >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand what you and Adolph Reed are saying, and it should be >>>>>> noted, Adolphe Reed is African American and likely targets African >>>>>> Americans when speaking. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me now express my simple interpretation and opinion: >>>>>> >>>>>> While we may not support the organization BLM given we know they are >>>>>> funded by the DNC and Soros as they support neoliberalism, and their >>>>>> criticism of Bernie for his stand on decommodification of education, etc. >>>>>> was counterproductive to helping African Americans, as well as working >>>>>> class white Americans, nonetheless I don?t propose opposing them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of the >>>>>> BLM organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African >>>>>> Americans, nothing wrong with that. Yes, when it first began those of us >>>>>> opposing our many wars in the Middle East, and the massacre of millions of >>>>>> Muslims, cried out ?all lives matter,? meaning ?what about the millions we >>>>>> are killing now elsewhere in the world who are also not white?? >>>>>> >>>>>> Today by saying ?Black Lives Matter,? it is now inclusive of >>>>>> indigenous peoples everywhere, as opposed to just white lives mattering. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are absolutely correct the many problems are a class issue, not a >>>>>> race issue, and by making it just about race, not to negate African >>>>>> Americans have been targeted and suffer worse due to conditions of poverty >>>>>> and racist policy?s, continues to create division between the masses and >>>>>> becomes counterproductive as it ignores the cause, thus preventing >>>>>> solutions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Promoting people of color to positions of power initially was thought >>>>>> to be progressive, and it was as it provided opportunity to many, but not >>>>>> enough, certainly not all, and it supports the power of the ruling class >>>>>> providing them with tokens of diversity, as we know, power and money >>>>>> corrupts. >>>>>> >>>>>> One would think the Obama presidency with his failure to address the >>>>>> ills of African Americans, and working class, his expansion of the Bush >>>>>> wars from two to eight, bail out of the banks and wall street, as well as >>>>>> the implementation of the NDAA which now legitimizes the Trump >>>>>> administration bringing federal troops into cities across the nation to >>>>>> kidnap, incarcerate or just terrorize protestors, would make it clear >>>>>> neither Party has concern for the lives of working class Americans. >>>>>> >>>>>> The lives of the majority of working class Americans, whatever their >>>>>> race, continue to deteriorate as we fight among ourselves. Therefore we >>>>>> must keep our focus at all times on our system of capitalism as the culprit >>>>>> in need of change. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 26, 2020, at 19:58, David Green via Peace < >>>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Police violence correlates more with class than race. BLM is in >>>>>> support of Democrats, who are equally if not more responsible for >>>>>> neoliberalism and accompanying state violence. Trump is used to justify BLM >>>>>> supported destruction in working class urban communities. We should oppose >>>>>> Trump and BLM. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:52 PM John W. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a >>>>>>>> bourgeois neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, >>>>>>>> including POC. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, >>>>>>>> we should oppose BLM, which I do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put matters >>>>>>> into plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people the same >>>>>>> way they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black people >>>>>>> wantonly, is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for a >>>>>>> friend, if I had one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I didn't understand a single sentence of that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace < >>>>>>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black >>>>>>>>>> Power populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in >>>>>>>>>> itself nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally >>>>>>>>>> understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and >>>>>>>>>> other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic >>>>>>>>>> neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical >>>>>>>>>> self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally >>>>>>>>>> *anti-leftist.* Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie >>>>>>>>>> Sanders 2016 presidential nomination campaign?s call for decommodified >>>>>>>>>> public higher education as frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American >>>>>>>>>> underscores how deeply embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 02:41:12 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 21:41:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: BLM is bad faith from the get-go, the Sanders fiasco. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 9:21 PM Robert Naiman wrote: > You're throwing a lot of stuff together there. "BLM" got "under your > skin," as it were, that much is clear. You cited Adolph Reed dishonestly > out of context; let's put that act of bad faith to the side. Take your > grievances against "BLM" one by one. Be honest about what's bothering you. > Leave Adolph Reed out of it. > > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:17 PM David Green > wrote: > >> If you look up Michael Tracey's article on Medium about the destruction >> during and subsequent to "peaceful" protests, you'll see why I oppose BLM >> in concrete terms. People have died needlessly whose lives were no less >> valuable than George Floyd. Beyond that, BLM is a bourgeois/PMC movement >> with no serious class agenda. Indeed it's anti-working class. Moreover, the >> blatant hypocrisy of gatherings during a pandemic for BLM, vs. harsh >> criticism of those violating stay-at-home orders for the wrong reasons, >> Woke self-righteousness gone mad. BLM will end badly and accomplish >> nothing, except make some rich and others destitute. Having followed the >> 1619 Project closely, I'm no longer surprised by the monumental arrogance >> of the current crop of race hustlers. They are all right out of the >> Obama/Oprah playbook. Opportunists. Collective self-pity by some >> hyper-priveleged people, acting as if nothing has changed since 1950. And >> plenty of what can justifiably be called racism. >> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 7:33 PM Brussel, Morton K >> wrote: >> >>> Just my 2? impressions: >>> >>> The BLM ?movement", which arouses such fervent antagonism by David, has >>> had worthy manifestations throughout the country, and elsewhere. I have not >>> seen the evidence that they were financed/supported by Soros and/or >>> specific groups. There were all kinds of participants in the protests, >>> aroused by the killing of George Floyd. David seems to relegate the >>> protests to a false issue; i.e., by ignoring willfully the crucial class >>> and revolutionary issues. It?s as if the mass protests were bad, i.e., >>> counterproductive. But they did reveal the pernicious actions of the >>> present system and the Trump government, viz Portland. As Karen noted:* ?Many >>> of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of [a] BLM >>> organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African >>> Americans.?* >>> >>> From Adolph Reed, 2018? in his conclusion: ? *that we recognize that >>> race-reductionist politics is the left wing of neoliberalism and nothing >>> more. It is openly antagonistic to the idea of a solidaristic left.* >>> >>> *"Race-reductionist politics" *is simply a epithet: To whom are race >>> issues reductionist to the exclusion of all else? Is it just that they >>> are over emphasized by all who feel race issues merit emphasis and >>> discussion? >>> >>> Let?s not go overboard. >>> >>> >>> On Jul 30, 2020, at 3:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> Bob, I honestly don't think he'd change his general analysis in any >>> significant way in response to the current situation. He's done lots of >>> interviews that testify to that in recent weeks, see Jacobin Youtube >>> channel. Nonsite republished an article of Reed's from 2016 >>> , >>> with a new introduction by his co-conspirator Cedric Johnson. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:01 AM Robert Naiman >>> wrote: >>> >>>> This is a misleading citation of Adolph Reed. He wrote these words in >>>> May 2018. >>>> >>>> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10624-017-9476-3 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 6:13 PM David Green via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Neoliberal anarchism. You can read it on their website. Masquerading >>>>> as "community". >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 5:09 PM Karen Aram >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I know, I understand. What is their stated view on the family? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 27, 2020, at 15:01, David Green >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Reed speaks to a broad audience, admittedly intellectual, but like >>>>>> Chomsky also to labor leaders. >>>>>> >>>>>> In any event, I'm cutting BLM no slack. It's analysis is >>>>>> preposterous, with no material component whatsoever. It's stated view on >>>>>> the family is disgusting. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 3:42 PM Karen Aram >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand what you and Adolph Reed are saying, and it should be >>>>>>> noted, Adolphe Reed is African American and likely targets African >>>>>>> Americans when speaking. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me now express my simple interpretation and opinion: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While we may not support the organization BLM given we know they are >>>>>>> funded by the DNC and Soros as they support neoliberalism, and their >>>>>>> criticism of Bernie for his stand on decommodification of education, etc. >>>>>>> was counterproductive to helping African Americans, as well as working >>>>>>> class white Americans, nonetheless I don?t propose opposing them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of the >>>>>>> BLM organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African >>>>>>> Americans, nothing wrong with that. Yes, when it first began those of us >>>>>>> opposing our many wars in the Middle East, and the massacre of millions of >>>>>>> Muslims, cried out ?all lives matter,? meaning ?what about the millions we >>>>>>> are killing now elsewhere in the world who are also not white?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Today by saying ?Black Lives Matter,? it is now inclusive of >>>>>>> indigenous peoples everywhere, as opposed to just white lives mattering. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are absolutely correct the many problems are a class issue, not >>>>>>> a race issue, and by making it just about race, not to negate African >>>>>>> Americans have been targeted and suffer worse due to conditions of poverty >>>>>>> and racist policy?s, continues to create division between the masses and >>>>>>> becomes counterproductive as it ignores the cause, thus preventing >>>>>>> solutions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Promoting people of color to positions of power initially was >>>>>>> thought to be progressive, and it was as it provided opportunity to many, >>>>>>> but not enough, certainly not all, and it supports the power of the ruling >>>>>>> class providing them with tokens of diversity, as we know, power and money >>>>>>> corrupts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One would think the Obama presidency with his failure to address the >>>>>>> ills of African Americans, and working class, his expansion of the Bush >>>>>>> wars from two to eight, bail out of the banks and wall street, as well as >>>>>>> the implementation of the NDAA which now legitimizes the Trump >>>>>>> administration bringing federal troops into cities across the nation to >>>>>>> kidnap, incarcerate or just terrorize protestors, would make it clear >>>>>>> neither Party has concern for the lives of working class Americans. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The lives of the majority of working class Americans, whatever their >>>>>>> race, continue to deteriorate as we fight among ourselves. Therefore we >>>>>>> must keep our focus at all times on our system of capitalism as the culprit >>>>>>> in need of change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 26, 2020, at 19:58, David Green via Peace < >>>>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Police violence correlates more with class than race. BLM is in >>>>>>> support of Democrats, who are equally if not more responsible for >>>>>>> neoliberalism and accompanying state violence. Trump is used to justify BLM >>>>>>> supported destruction in working class urban communities. We should oppose >>>>>>> Trump and BLM. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:52 PM John W. wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a >>>>>>>>> bourgeois neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, >>>>>>>>> including POC. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, >>>>>>>>> we should oppose BLM, which I do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put matters >>>>>>>> into plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people the same >>>>>>>> way they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black people >>>>>>>> wantonly, is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for a >>>>>>>> friend, if I had one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I didn't understand a single sentence of that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace < >>>>>>>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black >>>>>>>>>>> Power populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in >>>>>>>>>>> itself nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally >>>>>>>>>>> understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and >>>>>>>>>>> other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic >>>>>>>>>>> neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical >>>>>>>>>>> self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally >>>>>>>>>>> *anti-leftist.* Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie >>>>>>>>>>> Sanders 2016 presidential nomination campaign?s call for decommodified >>>>>>>>>>> public higher education as frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American >>>>>>>>>>> underscores how deeply embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Fri Jul 31 03:42:12 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 22:42:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on defeating Trump Message-ID: [See links to follow-up.] https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/30/noam_chomsky_coronavirus_trump_response From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jul 31 12:39:23 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 05:39:23 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Again, my simple explanation: I suggest checking out the BLM organization?s official website it clarifies what it stands for. There has been enough information over the past couple years in reference to BLM financing. They may have started out just opposing racism but they capitulated when accepting funds from such organizations as the Soros Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the DNC. Keeping in mind the goal of the DNC is to prevent revolution and ensure a Democratic victory in the next election. My point to David as quoted, was to separate his critique of the organization BLM, from criticizing the many people protesting racism, poverty, the police etc.,etc. and what they refer to as BLM, as many protests are not led by BLM. I support the protestors, but I fear as they continue to protest ?racism, and police and poverty? they are focusing on the symptoms, not the disease. The disease or cause is our system of capitalism, the solution or remedy is socialism, and the BLM organization and its funders goals are to prevent socialism. Thus no good will come from the protests, other than a handout or two as reform. It?s positive that recognition the US is not a democracy and what we are seeing now in our streets is what we have imposed on other nations for decades. However, if it appears the problems are only the madman in the WH, and the solution is to replace him, then again we are on the wrong path. > On Jul 30, 2020, at 19:41, David Green wrote: > > BLM is bad faith from the get-go, the Sanders fiasco. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 9:21 PM Robert Naiman > wrote: > You're throwing a lot of stuff together there. "BLM" got "under your skin," as it were, that much is clear. You cited Adolph Reed dishonestly out of context; let's put that act of bad faith to the side. Take your grievances against "BLM" one by one. Be honest about what's bothering you. Leave Adolph Reed out of it. > > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:17 PM David Green > wrote: > If you look up Michael Tracey's article on Medium about the destruction during and subsequent to "peaceful" protests, you'll see why I oppose BLM in concrete terms. People have died needlessly whose lives were no less valuable than George Floyd. Beyond that, BLM is a bourgeois/PMC movement with no serious class agenda. Indeed it's anti-working class. Moreover, the blatant hypocrisy of gatherings during a pandemic for BLM, vs. harsh criticism of those violating stay-at-home orders for the wrong reasons, Woke self-righteousness gone mad. BLM will end badly and accomplish nothing, except make some rich and others destitute. Having followed the 1619 Project closely, I'm no longer surprised by the monumental arrogance of the current crop of race hustlers. They are all right out of the Obama/Oprah playbook. Opportunists. Collective self-pity by some hyper-priveleged people, acting as if nothing has changed since 1950. And plenty of what can justifiably be called racism. > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 7:33 PM Brussel, Morton K > wrote: > Just my 2? impressions: > > The BLM ?movement", which arouses such fervent antagonism by David, has had worthy manifestations throughout the country, and elsewhere. I have not seen the evidence that they were financed/supported by Soros and/or specific groups. There were all kinds of participants in the protests, aroused by the killing of George Floyd. David seems to relegate the protests to a false issue; i.e., by ignoring willfully the crucial class and revolutionary issues. It?s as if the mass protests were bad, i.e., counterproductive. But they did reveal the pernicious actions of the present system and the Trump government, viz Portland. As Karen noted: ?Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of [a] BLM organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African Americans.? > > From Adolph Reed, 2018? in his conclusion: ? that we recognize that race-reductionist politics is the left wing of neoliberalism and nothing more. It is openly antagonistic to the idea of a solidaristic left. > > "Race-reductionist politics" is simply a epithet: To whom are race issues reductionist to the exclusion of all else? Is it just that they are over emphasized by all who feel race issues merit emphasis and discussion? > > Let?s not go overboard. > > >> On Jul 30, 2020, at 3:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Bob, I honestly don't think he'd change his general analysis in any significant way in response to the current situation. He's done lots of interviews that testify to that in recent weeks, see Jacobin Youtube channel. Nonsite republished an article of Reed's from 2016 , with a new introduction by his co-conspirator Cedric Johnson. >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:01 AM Robert Naiman > wrote: >> This is a misleading citation of Adolph Reed. He wrote these words in May 2018. >> >> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10624-017-9476-3 >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 6:13 PM David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> Neoliberal anarchism. You can read it on their website. Masquerading as "community". >> >> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 5:09 PM Karen Aram > wrote: >> I know, I understand. What is their stated view on the family? >> >> >> >>> On Jul 27, 2020, at 15:01, David Green > wrote: >>> >>> Reed speaks to a broad audience, admittedly intellectual, but like Chomsky also to labor leaders. >>> >>> In any event, I'm cutting BLM no slack. It's analysis is preposterous, with no material component whatsoever. It's stated view on the family is disgusting. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 3:42 PM Karen Aram > wrote: >>> David >>> >>> I understand what you and Adolph Reed are saying, and it should be noted, Adolphe Reed is African American and likely targets African Americans when speaking. >>> >>> Let me now express my simple interpretation and opinion: >>> >>> While we may not support the organization BLM given we know they are funded by the DNC and Soros as they support neoliberalism, and their criticism of Bernie for his stand on decommodification of education, etc. was counterproductive to helping African Americans, as well as working class white Americans, nonetheless I don?t propose opposing them. >>> >>> Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of the BLM organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African Americans, nothing wrong with that. Yes, when it first began those of us opposing our many wars in the Middle East, and the massacre of millions of Muslims, cried out ?all lives matter,? meaning ?what about the millions we are killing now elsewhere in the world who are also not white?? >>> >>> Today by saying ?Black Lives Matter,? it is now inclusive of indigenous peoples everywhere, as opposed to just white lives mattering. >>> >>> You are absolutely correct the many problems are a class issue, not a race issue, and by making it just about race, not to negate African Americans have been targeted and suffer worse due to conditions of poverty and racist policy?s, continues to create division between the masses and becomes counterproductive as it ignores the cause, thus preventing solutions. >>> >>> Promoting people of color to positions of power initially was thought to be progressive, and it was as it provided opportunity to many, but not enough, certainly not all, and it supports the power of the ruling class providing them with tokens of diversity, as we know, power and money corrupts. >>> >>> One would think the Obama presidency with his failure to address the ills of African Americans, and working class, his expansion of the Bush wars from two to eight, bail out of the banks and wall street, as well as the implementation of the NDAA which now legitimizes the Trump administration bringing federal troops into cities across the nation to kidnap, incarcerate or just terrorize protestors, would make it clear neither Party has concern for the lives of working class Americans. >>> >>> The lives of the majority of working class Americans, whatever their race, continue to deteriorate as we fight among ourselves. Therefore we must keep our focus at all times on our system of capitalism as the culprit in need of change. >>> >>>> On Jul 26, 2020, at 19:58, David Green via Peace > wrote: >>>> >>>> Police violence correlates more with class than race. BLM is in support of Democrats, who are equally if not more responsible for neoliberalism and accompanying state violence. Trump is used to justify BLM supported destruction in working class urban communities. We should oppose Trump and BLM. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:52 PM John W. > wrote: >>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green > wrote: >>>> >>>> Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a bourgeois neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, including POC. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, we should oppose BLM, which I do. >>>> >>>> Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put matters into plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people the same way they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black people wantonly, is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for a friend, if I had one. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. > wrote: >>>> >>>> I didn't understand a single sentence of that. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace > wrote: >>>> >>>> ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black Power populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in itself nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally anti-leftist. Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential nomination campaign?s call for decommodified public higher education as frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American underscores how deeply embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 13:21:04 2020 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 09:21:04 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Whether that's true or not, it's not an excuse for you to act in bad faith here. I'm in substantial agreement with the Adolph Reed May 2018 critique. But you're invoking it now in a different context to paint "BLM," a diverse movement phenomenon, with too broad a brush. Yes, there is an element which is still like what Adolph Reed described in May 2018. But there are other elements which are not like that. "Police should stop killing unarmed black people" is a concrete demand. You can tell whether we're making progress on it or not. You can easily think of concrete reforms that would contribute to it, and some of these reforms are happening in different places. Banning chokeholds. Licensing cops so abuser cops can't hop from department to department like abuser priests. Mandatory webcams. Mandatory public reporting on use of force statistics. Ending qualified immunity. These things are happening in some states. If Biden wins and Dems take the Senate, there's going to be sweeping national reform. Just in the last week, there was a fight in the Democratic Platform committee over Medicare for All. BernieBros were pushing Medicare for All. BLM was on the side of the BernieBros, demanding that Democrats fight for Medicare for All. BLM has a race-and-class analysis of why we need Medicare for All. Black people are dying from Covid-19 at a higher rate, and it's not just poverty. It's poverty, but it's not just poverty. You control for class, they're still dying at a higher rate. A study just came out on this in the last week. Look it up. There are racial disparities in the health system which are not just class. That's a reason we need Medicare for All. BLM is good on this. Jamaal Bowman is a BernieBro. Look it up. He's for Medicare for All, he's for Green New Deal, he's against the wars. In defeating Eliot Engel, he hammered Engel for voting to keep sending cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia. You're off the mark here, David. Use your talents and passion for something productive for justice. Let this go. On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:41 PM David Green wrote: > BLM is bad faith from the get-go, the Sanders fiasco. But that's just the > tip of the iceberg. > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 9:21 PM Robert Naiman wrote: > >> You're throwing a lot of stuff together there. "BLM" got "under your >> skin," as it were, that much is clear. You cited Adolph Reed dishonestly >> out of context; let's put that act of bad faith to the side. Take your >> grievances against "BLM" one by one. Be honest about what's bothering you. >> Leave Adolph Reed out of it. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:17 PM David Green >> wrote: >> >>> If you look up Michael Tracey's article on Medium about the destruction >>> during and subsequent to "peaceful" protests, you'll see why I oppose BLM >>> in concrete terms. People have died needlessly whose lives were no less >>> valuable than George Floyd. Beyond that, BLM is a bourgeois/PMC movement >>> with no serious class agenda. Indeed it's anti-working class. Moreover, the >>> blatant hypocrisy of gatherings during a pandemic for BLM, vs. harsh >>> criticism of those violating stay-at-home orders for the wrong reasons, >>> Woke self-righteousness gone mad. BLM will end badly and accomplish >>> nothing, except make some rich and others destitute. Having followed the >>> 1619 Project closely, I'm no longer surprised by the monumental arrogance >>> of the current crop of race hustlers. They are all right out of the >>> Obama/Oprah playbook. Opportunists. Collective self-pity by some >>> hyper-priveleged people, acting as if nothing has changed since 1950. And >>> plenty of what can justifiably be called racism. >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 7:33 PM Brussel, Morton K >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Just my 2? impressions: >>>> >>>> The BLM ?movement", which arouses such fervent antagonism by David, has >>>> had worthy manifestations throughout the country, and elsewhere. I have not >>>> seen the evidence that they were financed/supported by Soros and/or >>>> specific groups. There were all kinds of participants in the protests, >>>> aroused by the killing of George Floyd. David seems to relegate the >>>> protests to a false issue; i.e., by ignoring willfully the crucial class >>>> and revolutionary issues. It?s as if the mass protests were bad, i.e., >>>> counterproductive. But they did reveal the pernicious actions of the >>>> present system and the Trump government, viz Portland. As Karen noted:* ?Many >>>> of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of [a] BLM >>>> organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African >>>> Americans.?* >>>> >>>> From Adolph Reed, 2018? in his conclusion: ? *that we recognize that >>>> race-reductionist politics is the left wing of neoliberalism and nothing >>>> more. It is openly antagonistic to the idea of a solidaristic left.* >>>> >>>> *"Race-reductionist politics" *is simply a epithet: To whom are race >>>> issues reductionist to the exclusion of all else? Is it just that they >>>> are over emphasized by all who feel race issues merit emphasis and >>>> discussion? >>>> >>>> Let?s not go overboard. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 30, 2020, at 3:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Bob, I honestly don't think he'd change his general analysis in any >>>> significant way in response to the current situation. He's done lots of >>>> interviews that testify to that in recent weeks, see Jacobin Youtube >>>> channel. Nonsite republished an article of Reed's from 2016 >>>> , >>>> with a new introduction by his co-conspirator Cedric Johnson. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:01 AM Robert Naiman >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is a misleading citation of Adolph Reed. He wrote these words in >>>>> May 2018. >>>>> >>>>> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10624-017-9476-3 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 6:13 PM David Green via Peace-discuss < >>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Neoliberal anarchism. You can read it on their website. Masquerading >>>>>> as "community". >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 5:09 PM Karen Aram >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I know, I understand. What is their stated view on the family? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 27, 2020, at 15:01, David Green >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Reed speaks to a broad audience, admittedly intellectual, but like >>>>>>> Chomsky also to labor leaders. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In any event, I'm cutting BLM no slack. It's analysis is >>>>>>> preposterous, with no material component whatsoever. It's stated view on >>>>>>> the family is disgusting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 3:42 PM Karen Aram >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I understand what you and Adolph Reed are saying, and it should be >>>>>>>> noted, Adolphe Reed is African American and likely targets African >>>>>>>> Americans when speaking. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me now express my simple interpretation and opinion: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While we may not support the organization BLM given we know they >>>>>>>> are funded by the DNC and Soros as they support neoliberalism, and their >>>>>>>> criticism of Bernie for his stand on decommodification of education, etc. >>>>>>>> was counterproductive to helping African Americans, as well as working >>>>>>>> class white Americans, nonetheless I don?t propose opposing them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of the >>>>>>>> BLM organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African >>>>>>>> Americans, nothing wrong with that. Yes, when it first began those of us >>>>>>>> opposing our many wars in the Middle East, and the massacre of millions of >>>>>>>> Muslims, cried out ?all lives matter,? meaning ?what about the millions we >>>>>>>> are killing now elsewhere in the world who are also not white?? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Today by saying ?Black Lives Matter,? it is now inclusive of >>>>>>>> indigenous peoples everywhere, as opposed to just white lives mattering. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are absolutely correct the many problems are a class issue, not >>>>>>>> a race issue, and by making it just about race, not to negate African >>>>>>>> Americans have been targeted and suffer worse due to conditions of poverty >>>>>>>> and racist policy?s, continues to create division between the masses and >>>>>>>> becomes counterproductive as it ignores the cause, thus preventing >>>>>>>> solutions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Promoting people of color to positions of power initially was >>>>>>>> thought to be progressive, and it was as it provided opportunity to many, >>>>>>>> but not enough, certainly not all, and it supports the power of the ruling >>>>>>>> class providing them with tokens of diversity, as we know, power and money >>>>>>>> corrupts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One would think the Obama presidency with his failure to address >>>>>>>> the ills of African Americans, and working class, his expansion of the Bush >>>>>>>> wars from two to eight, bail out of the banks and wall street, as well as >>>>>>>> the implementation of the NDAA which now legitimizes the Trump >>>>>>>> administration bringing federal troops into cities across the nation to >>>>>>>> kidnap, incarcerate or just terrorize protestors, would make it clear >>>>>>>> neither Party has concern for the lives of working class Americans. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The lives of the majority of working class Americans, whatever >>>>>>>> their race, continue to deteriorate as we fight among ourselves. Therefore >>>>>>>> we must keep our focus at all times on our system of capitalism as the >>>>>>>> culprit in need of change. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 2020, at 19:58, David Green via Peace < >>>>>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Police violence correlates more with class than race. BLM is in >>>>>>>> support of Democrats, who are equally if not more responsible for >>>>>>>> neoliberalism and accompanying state violence. Trump is used to justify BLM >>>>>>>> supported destruction in working class urban communities. We should oppose >>>>>>>> Trump and BLM. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:52 PM John W. wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green < >>>>>>>>> davidgreen50 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a >>>>>>>>>> bourgeois neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, >>>>>>>>>> including POC. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, >>>>>>>>>> we should oppose BLM, which I do. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put matters >>>>>>>>> into plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people the same >>>>>>>>> way they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black people >>>>>>>>> wantonly, is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for a >>>>>>>>> friend, if I had one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I didn't understand a single sentence of that. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace < >>>>>>>>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black >>>>>>>>>>>> Power populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in >>>>>>>>>>>> itself nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally >>>>>>>>>>>> understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and >>>>>>>>>>>> other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic >>>>>>>>>>>> neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical >>>>>>>>>>>> self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally >>>>>>>>>>>> *anti-leftist.* Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders 2016 presidential nomination campaign?s call for decommodified >>>>>>>>>>>> public higher education as frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American >>>>>>>>>>>> underscores how deeply embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 15:41:28 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:41:28 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not letting go Bob, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. Whatever progress might be made regarding the police, the underlying Woke/anarchist demands for abolition are unhelpful. In any event, it's fanciful to think of BLM as being anything but folded into the neoliberal Democratic Party. Beyond that, BLM is part of the ongoing moral panic that we've experienced since the election of Trump: Russiagate, #metoo, transgender, cancel culture in general. *Aimee Terese:* I usually have a few different drums I?m beating at any given time. I?ve been beating the anarcho-liberalism (Woke) drum for quite some time. I think for a lot of people it started to make a bit more sense this week as we see these complete wing-nut anarchists, and also the Hillary voters all using the same hymn book at once. A lot of people are having trouble making sense of that, and I think basically the constituency of the Democratic Party at this point is split between PMC (professional-managerial class) and then a lot of desperately poor people of color. And so the anarchic discontent, regardless of the class content of the proponents on the ground, that?s always going to line up behind the PMC constituency of the Party because *anarchism is inherently petty-bourgeois* in the way it operates. So that?s why you?re seeing all these rich liberals enjoy the chaos, and ultimately?because the Democratic Party is in bed with Silicon Valley, finance, and the Feds?they can reinvest in all sorts of surveillance technology, an increasing mandate for the use of discretionary force by the state. At the same time, the rich suburbanites can have their egos stroked with this race-reductionist narrative, knowing that ?it?s race not class,? that they?re the good ones, the woke ones, and the NGO-industrial complex will see another increase in jobs for activists, post-grads, organizers, politicians, failed sons, all of that. None of this organizing takes on Capital. It?s a self-reinforcing cycle that keeps most of the Democratic coalition occupied. As long as they can keep workers divided along nationalist ideological lines, then the repressive policing and violence and brutality is going to keep happening. But they?ve managed to set up this anarchic feedback loop where the more this happens the more this feeds its own circular dynamic. On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:21 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > Whether that's true or not, it's not an excuse for you to act in bad faith > here. > > I'm in substantial agreement with the Adolph Reed May 2018 critique. But > you're invoking it now in a different context to paint "BLM," a diverse > movement phenomenon, with too broad a brush. Yes, there is an element which > is still like what Adolph Reed described in May 2018. But there are other > elements which are not like that. > > "Police should stop killing unarmed black people" is a concrete demand. > You can tell whether we're making progress on it or not. You can easily > think of concrete reforms that would contribute to it, and some of these > reforms are happening in different places. Banning chokeholds. Licensing > cops so abuser cops can't hop from department to department like abuser > priests. Mandatory webcams. Mandatory public reporting on use of force > statistics. Ending qualified immunity. These things are happening in some > states. If Biden wins and Dems take the Senate, there's going to be > sweeping national reform. > > Just in the last week, there was a fight in the Democratic Platform > committee over Medicare for All. BernieBros were pushing Medicare for All. > BLM was on the side of the BernieBros, demanding that Democrats fight for > Medicare for All. BLM has a race-and-class analysis of why we need Medicare > for All. Black people are dying from Covid-19 at a higher rate, and it's > not just poverty. It's poverty, but it's not just poverty. You control for > class, they're still dying at a higher rate. A study just came out on this > in the last week. Look it up. There are racial disparities in the health > system which are not just class. That's a reason we need Medicare for All. > BLM is good on this. > > Jamaal Bowman is a BernieBro. Look it up. He's for Medicare for All, he's > for Green New Deal, he's against the wars. In defeating Eliot Engel, he > hammered Engel for voting to keep sending cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia. > > You're off the mark here, David. Use your talents and passion for > something productive for justice. Let this go. > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:41 PM David Green > wrote: > >> BLM is bad faith from the get-go, the Sanders fiasco. But that's just the >> tip of the iceberg. >> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 9:21 PM Robert Naiman >> wrote: >> >>> You're throwing a lot of stuff together there. "BLM" got "under your >>> skin," as it were, that much is clear. You cited Adolph Reed dishonestly >>> out of context; let's put that act of bad faith to the side. Take your >>> grievances against "BLM" one by one. Be honest about what's bothering you. >>> Leave Adolph Reed out of it. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:17 PM David Green >>> wrote: >>> >>>> If you look up Michael Tracey's article on Medium about the destruction >>>> during and subsequent to "peaceful" protests, you'll see why I oppose BLM >>>> in concrete terms. People have died needlessly whose lives were no less >>>> valuable than George Floyd. Beyond that, BLM is a bourgeois/PMC movement >>>> with no serious class agenda. Indeed it's anti-working class. Moreover, the >>>> blatant hypocrisy of gatherings during a pandemic for BLM, vs. harsh >>>> criticism of those violating stay-at-home orders for the wrong reasons, >>>> Woke self-righteousness gone mad. BLM will end badly and accomplish >>>> nothing, except make some rich and others destitute. Having followed the >>>> 1619 Project closely, I'm no longer surprised by the monumental arrogance >>>> of the current crop of race hustlers. They are all right out of the >>>> Obama/Oprah playbook. Opportunists. Collective self-pity by some >>>> hyper-priveleged people, acting as if nothing has changed since 1950. And >>>> plenty of what can justifiably be called racism. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 7:33 PM Brussel, Morton K >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just my 2? impressions: >>>>> >>>>> The BLM ?movement", which arouses such fervent antagonism by David, >>>>> has had worthy manifestations throughout the country, and elsewhere. I have >>>>> not seen the evidence that they were financed/supported by Soros and/or >>>>> specific groups. There were all kinds of participants in the protests, >>>>> aroused by the killing of George Floyd. David seems to relegate the >>>>> protests to a false issue; i.e., by ignoring willfully the crucial class >>>>> and revolutionary issues. It?s as if the mass protests were bad, i.e., >>>>> counterproductive. But they did reveal the pernicious actions of the >>>>> present system and the Trump government, viz Portland. As Karen noted:* ?Many >>>>> of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of [a] BLM >>>>> organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African >>>>> Americans.?* >>>>> >>>>> From Adolph Reed, 2018? in his conclusion: ? *that we recognize that >>>>> race-reductionist politics is the left wing of neoliberalism and nothing >>>>> more. It is openly antagonistic to the idea of a solidaristic left.* >>>>> >>>>> *"Race-reductionist politics" *is simply a epithet: To whom are race >>>>> issues reductionist to the exclusion of all else? Is it just that >>>>> they are over emphasized by all who feel race issues merit emphasis and >>>>> discussion? >>>>> >>>>> Let?s not go overboard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 30, 2020, at 3:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Bob, I honestly don't think he'd change his general analysis in any >>>>> significant way in response to the current situation. He's done lots of >>>>> interviews that testify to that in recent weeks, see Jacobin Youtube >>>>> channel. Nonsite republished an article of Reed's from 2016 >>>>> , >>>>> with a new introduction by his co-conspirator Cedric Johnson. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:01 AM Robert Naiman >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This is a misleading citation of Adolph Reed. He wrote these words in >>>>>> May 2018. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10624-017-9476-3 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 6:13 PM David Green via Peace-discuss < >>>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Neoliberal anarchism. You can read it on their website. Masquerading >>>>>>> as "community". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 5:09 PM Karen Aram >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know, I understand. What is their stated view on the family? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 2020, at 15:01, David Green >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Reed speaks to a broad audience, admittedly intellectual, but like >>>>>>>> Chomsky also to labor leaders. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In any event, I'm cutting BLM no slack. It's analysis is >>>>>>>> preposterous, with no material component whatsoever. It's stated view on >>>>>>>> the family is disgusting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 3:42 PM Karen Aram >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I understand what you and Adolph Reed are saying, and it should be >>>>>>>>> noted, Adolphe Reed is African American and likely targets African >>>>>>>>> Americans when speaking. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let me now express my simple interpretation and opinion: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While we may not support the organization BLM given we know they >>>>>>>>> are funded by the DNC and Soros as they support neoliberalism, and their >>>>>>>>> criticism of Bernie for his stand on decommodification of education, etc. >>>>>>>>> was counterproductive to helping African Americans, as well as working >>>>>>>>> class white Americans, nonetheless I don?t propose opposing them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of >>>>>>>>> the BLM organization, they are simply people opposing racism against >>>>>>>>> African Americans, nothing wrong with that. Yes, when it first began those >>>>>>>>> of us opposing our many wars in the Middle East, and the massacre of >>>>>>>>> millions of Muslims, cried out ?all lives matter,? meaning ?what about the >>>>>>>>> millions we are killing now elsewhere in the world who are also not white?? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Today by saying ?Black Lives Matter,? it is now inclusive of >>>>>>>>> indigenous peoples everywhere, as opposed to just white lives mattering. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are absolutely correct the many problems are a class issue, >>>>>>>>> not a race issue, and by making it just about race, not to negate African >>>>>>>>> Americans have been targeted and suffer worse due to conditions of poverty >>>>>>>>> and racist policy?s, continues to create division between the masses and >>>>>>>>> becomes counterproductive as it ignores the cause, thus preventing >>>>>>>>> solutions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Promoting people of color to positions of power initially was >>>>>>>>> thought to be progressive, and it was as it provided opportunity to many, >>>>>>>>> but not enough, certainly not all, and it supports the power of the ruling >>>>>>>>> class providing them with tokens of diversity, as we know, power and money >>>>>>>>> corrupts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One would think the Obama presidency with his failure to address >>>>>>>>> the ills of African Americans, and working class, his expansion of the Bush >>>>>>>>> wars from two to eight, bail out of the banks and wall street, as well as >>>>>>>>> the implementation of the NDAA which now legitimizes the Trump >>>>>>>>> administration bringing federal troops into cities across the nation to >>>>>>>>> kidnap, incarcerate or just terrorize protestors, would make it clear >>>>>>>>> neither Party has concern for the lives of working class Americans. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The lives of the majority of working class Americans, whatever >>>>>>>>> their race, continue to deteriorate as we fight among ourselves. Therefore >>>>>>>>> we must keep our focus at all times on our system of capitalism as the >>>>>>>>> culprit in need of change. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 2020, at 19:58, David Green via Peace < >>>>>>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Police violence correlates more with class than race. BLM is in >>>>>>>>> support of Democrats, who are equally if not more responsible for >>>>>>>>> neoliberalism and accompanying state violence. Trump is used to justify BLM >>>>>>>>> supported destruction in working class urban communities. We should oppose >>>>>>>>> Trump and BLM. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:52 PM John W. wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green < >>>>>>>>>> davidgreen50 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a >>>>>>>>>>> bourgeois neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, >>>>>>>>>>> including POC. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, >>>>>>>>>>> we should oppose BLM, which I do. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put matters >>>>>>>>>> into plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people the same >>>>>>>>>> way they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black people >>>>>>>>>> wantonly, is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for a >>>>>>>>>> friend, if I had one. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't understand a single sentence of that. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace < >>>>>>>>>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black >>>>>>>>>>>>> Power populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist in >>>>>>>>>>>>> itself nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally >>>>>>>>>>>>> understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and >>>>>>>>>>>>> other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic >>>>>>>>>>>>> neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism?s critical >>>>>>>>>>>>> self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally >>>>>>>>>>>>> *anti-leftist.* Black political elites? attacks on the Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders 2016 presidential nomination campaign?s call for decommodified >>>>>>>>>>>>> public higher education as frivolous, irresponsible, or even un-American >>>>>>>>>>>>> underscores how deeply embedded this politics is within neoliberalism.? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 15:54:34 2020 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 11:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree that the "abolition" thing is stupid. So what? Why focus on that? Why be provoked by that? There's so many other things to focus on which are so much more important. For example: in Massachusetts' First Congressional District, BernieBro Alex Morse is primarying PelosiBro Richard Neal, chair of the tax code-writing Ways and Means Committee. Alex Morse is a Jew who supports Palestinian rights, Medicare for All, Green New Deal. If we get him in Congress, it's a big deal. If we defeat Richard Neal, it's a big deal. If we defeat Richard Neal, it sets up a fight for the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, just like the defeat of Eliot Engel by Jamaal Bowman set up a fight for the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Joaquin Castro is running for chair on a platform of ending wars, ending anti-civilian economic sanctions. This is world-historical, nothing like this ever happened before, and it wouldn't have happened if Jamaal Bowman hadn't defeated Eliot Engel. Why not focus on things that matter, instead of stupid things? On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:41 AM David Green wrote: > Not letting go Bob, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. Whatever > progress might be made regarding the police, the underlying Woke/anarchist > demands for abolition are unhelpful. In any event, it's fanciful to think > of BLM as being anything but folded into the neoliberal Democratic Party. > Beyond that, BLM is part of the ongoing moral panic that we've experienced > since the election of Trump: Russiagate, #metoo, transgender, cancel > culture in general. > > *Aimee Terese:* I usually have a few different drums I?m beating at any > given time. I?ve been beating the anarcho-liberalism (Woke) drum for quite > some time. I think for a lot of people it started to make a bit more sense > this week as we see these complete wing-nut anarchists, and also the > Hillary voters all using the same hymn book at once. A lot of people are > having trouble making sense of that, and I think basically the constituency > of the Democratic Party at this point is split between PMC > (professional-managerial class) and then a lot of desperately poor people > of color. And so the anarchic discontent, regardless of the class content > of the proponents on the ground, that?s always going to line up behind the > PMC constituency of the Party because *anarchism is inherently > petty-bourgeois* in the way it operates. > > So that?s why you?re seeing all these rich liberals enjoy the chaos, and > ultimately?because the Democratic Party is in bed with Silicon Valley, > finance, and the Feds?they can reinvest in all sorts of surveillance > technology, an increasing mandate for the use of discretionary force by the > state. At the same time, the rich suburbanites can have their egos stroked > with this race-reductionist narrative, knowing that ?it?s race not class,? > that they?re the good ones, the woke ones, and the NGO-industrial complex > will see another increase in jobs for activists, post-grads, organizers, > politicians, failed sons, all of that. None of this organizing takes on > Capital. It?s a self-reinforcing cycle that keeps most of the Democratic > coalition occupied. As long as they can keep workers divided along > nationalist ideological lines, then the repressive policing and violence > and brutality is going to keep happening. But they?ve managed to set up > this anarchic feedback loop where the more this happens the more this feeds > its own circular dynamic. > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:21 AM Robert Naiman > wrote: > >> Whether that's true or not, it's not an excuse for you to act in bad >> faith here. >> >> I'm in substantial agreement with the Adolph Reed May 2018 critique. But >> you're invoking it now in a different context to paint "BLM," a diverse >> movement phenomenon, with too broad a brush. Yes, there is an element which >> is still like what Adolph Reed described in May 2018. But there are other >> elements which are not like that. >> >> "Police should stop killing unarmed black people" is a concrete demand. >> You can tell whether we're making progress on it or not. You can easily >> think of concrete reforms that would contribute to it, and some of these >> reforms are happening in different places. Banning chokeholds. Licensing >> cops so abuser cops can't hop from department to department like abuser >> priests. Mandatory webcams. Mandatory public reporting on use of force >> statistics. Ending qualified immunity. These things are happening in some >> states. If Biden wins and Dems take the Senate, there's going to be >> sweeping national reform. >> >> Just in the last week, there was a fight in the Democratic Platform >> committee over Medicare for All. BernieBros were pushing Medicare for All. >> BLM was on the side of the BernieBros, demanding that Democrats fight for >> Medicare for All. BLM has a race-and-class analysis of why we need Medicare >> for All. Black people are dying from Covid-19 at a higher rate, and it's >> not just poverty. It's poverty, but it's not just poverty. You control for >> class, they're still dying at a higher rate. A study just came out on this >> in the last week. Look it up. There are racial disparities in the health >> system which are not just class. That's a reason we need Medicare for All. >> BLM is good on this. >> >> Jamaal Bowman is a BernieBro. Look it up. He's for Medicare for All, he's >> for Green New Deal, he's against the wars. In defeating Eliot Engel, he >> hammered Engel for voting to keep sending cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia. >> >> You're off the mark here, David. Use your talents and passion for >> something productive for justice. Let this go. >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:41 PM David Green >> wrote: >> >>> BLM is bad faith from the get-go, the Sanders fiasco. But that's just >>> the tip of the iceberg. >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 9:21 PM Robert Naiman >>> wrote: >>> >>>> You're throwing a lot of stuff together there. "BLM" got "under your >>>> skin," as it were, that much is clear. You cited Adolph Reed dishonestly >>>> out of context; let's put that act of bad faith to the side. Take your >>>> grievances against "BLM" one by one. Be honest about what's bothering you. >>>> Leave Adolph Reed out of it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:17 PM David Green >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If you look up Michael Tracey's article on Medium about the >>>>> destruction during and subsequent to "peaceful" protests, you'll see why I >>>>> oppose BLM in concrete terms. People have died needlessly whose lives were >>>>> no less valuable than George Floyd. Beyond that, BLM is a bourgeois/PMC >>>>> movement with no serious class agenda. Indeed it's anti-working class. >>>>> Moreover, the blatant hypocrisy of gatherings during a pandemic for BLM, >>>>> vs. harsh criticism of those violating stay-at-home orders for the wrong >>>>> reasons, Woke self-righteousness gone mad. BLM will end badly and >>>>> accomplish nothing, except make some rich and others destitute. Having >>>>> followed the 1619 Project closely, I'm no longer surprised by the >>>>> monumental arrogance of the current crop of race hustlers. They are all >>>>> right out of the Obama/Oprah playbook. Opportunists. Collective self-pity >>>>> by some hyper-priveleged people, acting as if nothing has changed since >>>>> 1950. And plenty of what can justifiably be called racism. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 7:33 PM Brussel, Morton K >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Just my 2? impressions: >>>>>> >>>>>> The BLM ?movement", which arouses such fervent antagonism by David, >>>>>> has had worthy manifestations throughout the country, and elsewhere. I have >>>>>> not seen the evidence that they were financed/supported by Soros and/or >>>>>> specific groups. There were all kinds of participants in the protests, >>>>>> aroused by the killing of George Floyd. David seems to relegate the >>>>>> protests to a false issue; i.e., by ignoring willfully the crucial class >>>>>> and revolutionary issues. It?s as if the mass protests were bad, i.e., >>>>>> counterproductive. But they did reveal the pernicious actions of the >>>>>> present system and the Trump government, viz Portland. As Karen noted:* ?Many >>>>>> of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of [a] BLM >>>>>> organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African >>>>>> Americans.?* >>>>>> >>>>>> From Adolph Reed, 2018? in his conclusion: ? *that we recognize that >>>>>> race-reductionist politics is the left wing of neoliberalism and nothing >>>>>> more. It is openly antagonistic to the idea of a solidaristic left.* >>>>>> >>>>>> *"Race-reductionist politics" *is simply a epithet: To whom are race >>>>>> issues reductionist to the exclusion of all else? Is it just that >>>>>> they are over emphasized by all who feel race issues merit emphasis and >>>>>> discussion? >>>>>> >>>>>> Let?s not go overboard. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 30, 2020, at 3:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >>>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Bob, I honestly don't think he'd change his general analysis in any >>>>>> significant way in response to the current situation. He's done lots of >>>>>> interviews that testify to that in recent weeks, see Jacobin Youtube >>>>>> channel. Nonsite republished an article of Reed's from 2016 >>>>>> , >>>>>> with a new introduction by his co-conspirator Cedric Johnson. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:01 AM Robert Naiman >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a misleading citation of Adolph Reed. He wrote these words >>>>>>> in May 2018. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10624-017-9476-3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 6:13 PM David Green via Peace-discuss < >>>>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Neoliberal anarchism. You can read it on their website. >>>>>>>> Masquerading as "community". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 5:09 PM Karen Aram >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I know, I understand. What is their stated view on the family? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 2020, at 15:01, David Green >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Reed speaks to a broad audience, admittedly intellectual, but like >>>>>>>>> Chomsky also to labor leaders. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In any event, I'm cutting BLM no slack. It's analysis is >>>>>>>>> preposterous, with no material component whatsoever. It's stated view on >>>>>>>>> the family is disgusting. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 3:42 PM Karen Aram >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I understand what you and Adolph Reed are saying, and it should >>>>>>>>>> be noted, Adolphe Reed is African American and likely targets African >>>>>>>>>> Americans when speaking. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Let me now express my simple interpretation and opinion: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> While we may not support the organization BLM given we know they >>>>>>>>>> are funded by the DNC and Soros as they support neoliberalism, and their >>>>>>>>>> criticism of Bernie for his stand on decommodification of education, etc. >>>>>>>>>> was counterproductive to helping African Americans, as well as working >>>>>>>>>> class white Americans, nonetheless I don?t propose opposing them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of >>>>>>>>>> the BLM organization, they are simply people opposing racism against >>>>>>>>>> African Americans, nothing wrong with that. Yes, when it first began those >>>>>>>>>> of us opposing our many wars in the Middle East, and the massacre of >>>>>>>>>> millions of Muslims, cried out ?all lives matter,? meaning ?what about the >>>>>>>>>> millions we are killing now elsewhere in the world who are also not white?? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Today by saying ?Black Lives Matter,? it is now inclusive of >>>>>>>>>> indigenous peoples everywhere, as opposed to just white lives mattering. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are absolutely correct the many problems are a class issue, >>>>>>>>>> not a race issue, and by making it just about race, not to negate African >>>>>>>>>> Americans have been targeted and suffer worse due to conditions of poverty >>>>>>>>>> and racist policy?s, continues to create division between the masses and >>>>>>>>>> becomes counterproductive as it ignores the cause, thus preventing >>>>>>>>>> solutions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Promoting people of color to positions of power initially was >>>>>>>>>> thought to be progressive, and it was as it provided opportunity to many, >>>>>>>>>> but not enough, certainly not all, and it supports the power of the ruling >>>>>>>>>> class providing them with tokens of diversity, as we know, power and money >>>>>>>>>> corrupts. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One would think the Obama presidency with his failure to address >>>>>>>>>> the ills of African Americans, and working class, his expansion of the Bush >>>>>>>>>> wars from two to eight, bail out of the banks and wall street, as well as >>>>>>>>>> the implementation of the NDAA which now legitimizes the Trump >>>>>>>>>> administration bringing federal troops into cities across the nation to >>>>>>>>>> kidnap, incarcerate or just terrorize protestors, would make it clear >>>>>>>>>> neither Party has concern for the lives of working class Americans. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The lives of the majority of working class Americans, whatever >>>>>>>>>> their race, continue to deteriorate as we fight among ourselves. Therefore >>>>>>>>>> we must keep our focus at all times on our system of capitalism as the >>>>>>>>>> culprit in need of change. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 2020, at 19:58, David Green via Peace < >>>>>>>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Police violence correlates more with class than race. BLM is in >>>>>>>>>> support of Democrats, who are equally if not more responsible for >>>>>>>>>> neoliberalism and accompanying state violence. Trump is used to justify BLM >>>>>>>>>> supported destruction in working class urban communities. We should oppose >>>>>>>>>> Trump and BLM. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:52 PM John W. >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green < >>>>>>>>>>> davidgreen50 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is a >>>>>>>>>>>> bourgeois neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, >>>>>>>>>>>> including POC. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, >>>>>>>>>>>> we should oppose BLM, which I do. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put matters >>>>>>>>>>> into plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people the same >>>>>>>>>>> way they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black people >>>>>>>>>>> wantonly, is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for a >>>>>>>>>>> friend, if I had one. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't understand a single sentence of that. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace < >>>>>>>>>>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Black Power populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in itself nor particularly compatible with a left politics as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventionally understood. At this political juncture, it is, like >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bourgeois feminism and other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>> within hegemonic neoliberalism, one might say a component of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> neoliberalism?s critical self-consciousness; it is thus in fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally *anti-leftist.* Black political elites? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> attacks on the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential nomination campaign?s call >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for decommodified public higher education as frivolous, irresponsible, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even un-American underscores how deeply embedded this politics is within >>>>>>>>>>>>>> neoliberalism.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 16:06:34 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 11:06:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Adolph Reed says: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Beyond having no say or influence whatsoever in districts in which allegedly decent Dems might be up for election, I think it's also worthwhile to point out that it is dangerous, and pretty scary in a McCarthy/witch hunt "satanic ritual abuse in daycare centers kind of way (1980s), when there is a general, elite consensus around ideas and analyses that are false and dangerous. Like, when they pulled a charred body out of a torched building in Minneapolis a few days ago. Or when two people died as a result of the "Autonomous Zone" in Seattle. Or when there is a resurgence in the pandemic partly related to demonstrations, obviously with lethal consequences. Many ordinary people, unlike many educated people, can probably see that it's outrageous for public health officials to make an exception because "racism is a pandemic," while alleged Trump supporters are vilified for wanting to open up businesses because they are going broke, albeit that is a result of Trump's economic response to the pandemic, albeit the Dems didn't propose and alternative that would have taken care of basic needs until the virus could be suppressed. On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 10:54 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > I agree that the "abolition" thing is stupid. So what? Why focus on that? > Why be provoked by that? There's so many other things to focus on which are > so much more important. > > For example: in Massachusetts' First Congressional District, BernieBro > Alex Morse is primarying PelosiBro Richard Neal, chair of the tax > code-writing Ways and Means Committee. Alex Morse is a Jew who supports > Palestinian rights, Medicare for All, Green New Deal. If we get him in > Congress, it's a big deal. If we defeat Richard Neal, it's a big deal. If > we defeat Richard Neal, it sets up a fight for the chair of the Ways and > Means Committee, just like the defeat of Eliot Engel by Jamaal Bowman set > up a fight for the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Joaquin > Castro is running for chair on a platform of ending wars, ending > anti-civilian economic sanctions. This is world-historical, nothing like > this ever happened before, and it wouldn't have happened if Jamaal Bowman > hadn't defeated Eliot Engel. > > Why not focus on things that matter, instead of stupid things? > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:41 AM David Green > wrote: > >> Not letting go Bob, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. Whatever >> progress might be made regarding the police, the underlying Woke/anarchist >> demands for abolition are unhelpful. In any event, it's fanciful to think >> of BLM as being anything but folded into the neoliberal Democratic Party. >> Beyond that, BLM is part of the ongoing moral panic that we've experienced >> since the election of Trump: Russiagate, #metoo, transgender, cancel >> culture in general. >> >> *Aimee Terese:* I usually have a few different drums I?m beating at any >> given time. I?ve been beating the anarcho-liberalism (Woke) drum for quite >> some time. I think for a lot of people it started to make a bit more sense >> this week as we see these complete wing-nut anarchists, and also the >> Hillary voters all using the same hymn book at once. A lot of people are >> having trouble making sense of that, and I think basically the constituency >> of the Democratic Party at this point is split between PMC >> (professional-managerial class) and then a lot of desperately poor people >> of color. And so the anarchic discontent, regardless of the class content >> of the proponents on the ground, that?s always going to line up behind the >> PMC constituency of the Party because *anarchism is inherently >> petty-bourgeois* in the way it operates. >> >> So that?s why you?re seeing all these rich liberals enjoy the chaos, and >> ultimately?because the Democratic Party is in bed with Silicon Valley, >> finance, and the Feds?they can reinvest in all sorts of surveillance >> technology, an increasing mandate for the use of discretionary force by the >> state. At the same time, the rich suburbanites can have their egos stroked >> with this race-reductionist narrative, knowing that ?it?s race not class,? >> that they?re the good ones, the woke ones, and the NGO-industrial complex >> will see another increase in jobs for activists, post-grads, organizers, >> politicians, failed sons, all of that. None of this organizing takes on >> Capital. It?s a self-reinforcing cycle that keeps most of the Democratic >> coalition occupied. As long as they can keep workers divided along >> nationalist ideological lines, then the repressive policing and violence >> and brutality is going to keep happening. But they?ve managed to set up >> this anarchic feedback loop where the more this happens the more this feeds >> its own circular dynamic. >> >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:21 AM Robert Naiman >> wrote: >> >>> Whether that's true or not, it's not an excuse for you to act in bad >>> faith here. >>> >>> I'm in substantial agreement with the Adolph Reed May 2018 critique. But >>> you're invoking it now in a different context to paint "BLM," a diverse >>> movement phenomenon, with too broad a brush. Yes, there is an element which >>> is still like what Adolph Reed described in May 2018. But there are other >>> elements which are not like that. >>> >>> "Police should stop killing unarmed black people" is a concrete demand. >>> You can tell whether we're making progress on it or not. You can easily >>> think of concrete reforms that would contribute to it, and some of these >>> reforms are happening in different places. Banning chokeholds. Licensing >>> cops so abuser cops can't hop from department to department like abuser >>> priests. Mandatory webcams. Mandatory public reporting on use of force >>> statistics. Ending qualified immunity. These things are happening in some >>> states. If Biden wins and Dems take the Senate, there's going to be >>> sweeping national reform. >>> >>> Just in the last week, there was a fight in the Democratic Platform >>> committee over Medicare for All. BernieBros were pushing Medicare for All. >>> BLM was on the side of the BernieBros, demanding that Democrats fight for >>> Medicare for All. BLM has a race-and-class analysis of why we need Medicare >>> for All. Black people are dying from Covid-19 at a higher rate, and it's >>> not just poverty. It's poverty, but it's not just poverty. You control for >>> class, they're still dying at a higher rate. A study just came out on this >>> in the last week. Look it up. There are racial disparities in the health >>> system which are not just class. That's a reason we need Medicare for All. >>> BLM is good on this. >>> >>> Jamaal Bowman is a BernieBro. Look it up. He's for Medicare for All, >>> he's for Green New Deal, he's against the wars. In defeating Eliot Engel, >>> he hammered Engel for voting to keep sending cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia. >>> >>> You're off the mark here, David. Use your talents and passion for >>> something productive for justice. Let this go. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:41 PM David Green >>> wrote: >>> >>>> BLM is bad faith from the get-go, the Sanders fiasco. But that's just >>>> the tip of the iceberg. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 9:21 PM Robert Naiman >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> You're throwing a lot of stuff together there. "BLM" got "under your >>>>> skin," as it were, that much is clear. You cited Adolph Reed dishonestly >>>>> out of context; let's put that act of bad faith to the side. Take your >>>>> grievances against "BLM" one by one. Be honest about what's bothering you. >>>>> Leave Adolph Reed out of it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:17 PM David Green >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If you look up Michael Tracey's article on Medium about the >>>>>> destruction during and subsequent to "peaceful" protests, you'll see why I >>>>>> oppose BLM in concrete terms. People have died needlessly whose lives were >>>>>> no less valuable than George Floyd. Beyond that, BLM is a bourgeois/PMC >>>>>> movement with no serious class agenda. Indeed it's anti-working class. >>>>>> Moreover, the blatant hypocrisy of gatherings during a pandemic for BLM, >>>>>> vs. harsh criticism of those violating stay-at-home orders for the wrong >>>>>> reasons, Woke self-righteousness gone mad. BLM will end badly and >>>>>> accomplish nothing, except make some rich and others destitute. Having >>>>>> followed the 1619 Project closely, I'm no longer surprised by the >>>>>> monumental arrogance of the current crop of race hustlers. They are all >>>>>> right out of the Obama/Oprah playbook. Opportunists. Collective self-pity >>>>>> by some hyper-priveleged people, acting as if nothing has changed since >>>>>> 1950. And plenty of what can justifiably be called racism. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 7:33 PM Brussel, Morton K >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Just my 2? impressions: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The BLM ?movement", which arouses such fervent antagonism by David, >>>>>>> has had worthy manifestations throughout the country, and elsewhere. I have >>>>>>> not seen the evidence that they were financed/supported by Soros and/or >>>>>>> specific groups. There were all kinds of participants in the protests, >>>>>>> aroused by the killing of George Floyd. David seems to relegate the >>>>>>> protests to a false issue; i.e., by ignoring willfully the crucial class >>>>>>> and revolutionary issues. It?s as if the mass protests were bad, i.e., >>>>>>> counterproductive. But they did reveal the pernicious actions of the >>>>>>> present system and the Trump government, viz Portland. As Karen noted:* ?Many >>>>>>> of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of [a] BLM >>>>>>> organization, they are simply people opposing racism against African >>>>>>> Americans.?* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From Adolph Reed, 2018? in his conclusion: ? *that we recognize >>>>>>> that race-reductionist politics is the left wing of neoliberalism and >>>>>>> nothing more. It is openly antagonistic to the idea of a solidaristic left.* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *"Race-reductionist politics" *is simply a epithet: To whom are >>>>>>> race issues reductionist to the exclusion of all else? Is it just >>>>>>> that they are over emphasized by all who feel race issues merit emphasis >>>>>>> and discussion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let?s not go overboard. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2020, at 3:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >>>>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bob, I honestly don't think he'd change his general analysis in any >>>>>>> significant way in response to the current situation. He's done lots of >>>>>>> interviews that testify to that in recent weeks, see Jacobin Youtube >>>>>>> channel. Nonsite republished an article of Reed's from 2016 >>>>>>> , >>>>>>> with a new introduction by his co-conspirator Cedric Johnson. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:01 AM Robert Naiman < >>>>>>> naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a misleading citation of Adolph Reed. He wrote these words >>>>>>>> in May 2018. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10624-017-9476-3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 6:13 PM David Green via Peace-discuss < >>>>>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Neoliberal anarchism. You can read it on their website. >>>>>>>>> Masquerading as "community". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 5:09 PM Karen Aram >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I know, I understand. What is their stated view on the family? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 2020, at 15:01, David Green >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Reed speaks to a broad audience, admittedly intellectual, but >>>>>>>>>> like Chomsky also to labor leaders. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In any event, I'm cutting BLM no slack. It's analysis is >>>>>>>>>> preposterous, with no material component whatsoever. It's stated view on >>>>>>>>>> the family is disgusting. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 3:42 PM Karen Aram >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I understand what you and Adolph Reed are saying, and it should >>>>>>>>>>> be noted, Adolphe Reed is African American and likely targets African >>>>>>>>>>> Americans when speaking. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Let me now express my simple interpretation and opinion: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> While we may not support the organization BLM given we know they >>>>>>>>>>> are funded by the DNC and Soros as they support neoliberalism, and their >>>>>>>>>>> criticism of Bernie for his stand on decommodification of education, etc. >>>>>>>>>>> was counterproductive to helping African Americans, as well as working >>>>>>>>>>> class white Americans, nonetheless I don?t propose opposing them. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Many of the people protesting BLM are not part of or members of >>>>>>>>>>> the BLM organization, they are simply people opposing racism against >>>>>>>>>>> African Americans, nothing wrong with that. Yes, when it first began those >>>>>>>>>>> of us opposing our many wars in the Middle East, and the massacre of >>>>>>>>>>> millions of Muslims, cried out ?all lives matter,? meaning ?what about the >>>>>>>>>>> millions we are killing now elsewhere in the world who are also not white?? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Today by saying ?Black Lives Matter,? it is now inclusive of >>>>>>>>>>> indigenous peoples everywhere, as opposed to just white lives mattering. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are absolutely correct the many problems are a class issue, >>>>>>>>>>> not a race issue, and by making it just about race, not to negate African >>>>>>>>>>> Americans have been targeted and suffer worse due to conditions of poverty >>>>>>>>>>> and racist policy?s, continues to create division between the masses and >>>>>>>>>>> becomes counterproductive as it ignores the cause, thus preventing >>>>>>>>>>> solutions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Promoting people of color to positions of power initially was >>>>>>>>>>> thought to be progressive, and it was as it provided opportunity to many, >>>>>>>>>>> but not enough, certainly not all, and it supports the power of the ruling >>>>>>>>>>> class providing them with tokens of diversity, as we know, power and money >>>>>>>>>>> corrupts. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> One would think the Obama presidency with his failure to address >>>>>>>>>>> the ills of African Americans, and working class, his expansion of the Bush >>>>>>>>>>> wars from two to eight, bail out of the banks and wall street, as well as >>>>>>>>>>> the implementation of the NDAA which now legitimizes the Trump >>>>>>>>>>> administration bringing federal troops into cities across the nation to >>>>>>>>>>> kidnap, incarcerate or just terrorize protestors, would make it clear >>>>>>>>>>> neither Party has concern for the lives of working class Americans. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The lives of the majority of working class Americans, whatever >>>>>>>>>>> their race, continue to deteriorate as we fight among ourselves. Therefore >>>>>>>>>>> we must keep our focus at all times on our system of capitalism as the >>>>>>>>>>> culprit in need of change. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 2020, at 19:58, David Green via Peace < >>>>>>>>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Police violence correlates more with class than race. BLM is in >>>>>>>>>>> support of Democrats, who are equally if not more responsible for >>>>>>>>>>> neoliberalism and accompanying state violence. Trump is used to justify BLM >>>>>>>>>>> supported destruction in working class urban communities. We should oppose >>>>>>>>>>> Trump and BLM. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:52 PM John W. >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:40 PM David Green < >>>>>>>>>>>> davidgreen50 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Corporate and foundation funded anti-racism, including BLM, is >>>>>>>>>>>>> a bourgeois neoliberal project of the professional-managetial class, >>>>>>>>>>>>> including POC. It is fundamentally antagonistic to the working class. Thus, >>>>>>>>>>>>> we should oppose BLM, which I do. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ah. So boiled down to its essence and attempting to put >>>>>>>>>>>> matters into plain English, demanding that the police treat Black people >>>>>>>>>>>> the same way they treat white people, and quit murdering unarmed Black >>>>>>>>>>>> people wantonly, is somehow antagonistic to the working class? Asking for >>>>>>>>>>>> a friend, if I had one. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 9:32 PM John W. >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't understand a single sentence of that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Green via Peace < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Black Power populist militancy, this antiracist politics is neither leftist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in itself nor particularly compatible with a left politics as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventionally understood. At this political juncture, it is, like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bourgeois feminism and other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within hegemonic neoliberalism, one might say a component of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neoliberalism?s critical self-consciousness; it is thus in fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally *anti-leftist.* Black political elites? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attacks on the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential nomination campaign?s call >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for decommodified public higher education as frivolous, irresponsible, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even un-American underscores how deeply embedded this politics is within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neoliberalism.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Jul 31 23:40:36 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 18:40:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Democrats don't support Medicare for All In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > "Police should stop killing unarmed black people" is a concrete demand. You > can tell whether we're making progress on it or not. You can easily think > of concrete reforms that would contribute to it, and some of these reforms > are happening in different places. Banning chokeholds. Licensing cops so > abuser cops can't hop from department to department like abuser priests. > Mandatory webcams. Mandatory public reporting on use of force statistics. > Ending qualified immunity. These things are happening in some states. If > Biden wins and Dems take the Senate, there's going to be sweeping national > reform. Where on Biden's website can we find this promise? My search for "site:biden2020.com police" (https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?kp=-2&q=site%3Abiden2020.com%20police) turned up no hits. It did not appear to be true when Biden was Vice President; cops were killing unarmed black people then too. Why would he wait so long to put some better policy into action? Webcams and body cameras have been in use and now we have video of the killings but the killings continue. If ending qualified immunity and other things you identified are happening now and we're supposed to tie this to the US President or national party policy, that would suggest we should vote Trump to keep that going in more states. > Just in the last week, there was a fight in the Democratic Platform > committee over Medicare for All. BernieBros were pushing Medicare for All. > BLM was on the side of the BernieBros, demanding that Democrats fight for > Medicare for All. BLM has a race-and-class analysis of why we need Medicare > for All. This one issue -- Medicare for All -- is so important (particularly during a pandemic) that I'd bet sincere and believable support for it alone could win someone the US presidency. But the Democrats don't distinguish themselves from the Republicans on this issue. BLM's website's front page doesn't make any mention of Medicare for All. When I look at the news footage from BLM marches I don't see people rallying around Medicare for All, taking that fight to the street. The Democratic Party Platform is meaningless and apparently doesn't guide the policy of that party's nominee. This is pretty widely known. But even that PR document doesn't look good from reports so far: https://khn.org/morning-breakout/democratic-platform-nixes-medicare-for-all/ > The Democratic Party platform aligns with Joe Biden's campaign promises, but > almost 400 delegates to the convention wanted the promise of "Medicare for All" > included. Legalizing marijuana is also not in the platform. https://truthout.org/articles/dnc-platform-committee-votes-down-medicare-for-all-amendment/ > A Democratic National Committee panel on Monday voted down an amendment that would > have inserted a plank supporting Medicare for All into the party?s 2020 platform, > a move progressives decried as out of touch with public opinion and a slap in the > face to the millions of people who have lost their health insurance due to the > Covid-19 pandemic. > > The DNC Platform Committee rejected the Medicare for All amendment introduced by > longtime single-payer advocate Michael Lighty by a vote of 36-125 during a virtual > meeting Monday. The committee also voted down separate attempts to include support > for expanding Medicare to children, dropping the Medicare eligibility age from 65 > to 55, and legalizing marijuana. In reference to what Kaiser Health News (khn.org) said above: Biden has publicly promised to veto any Medicare for All bill that crossed his desk as POTUS. Therefore there's no reason to believe that he's more likely to fight for our public interest when he doesn't need our vote than now when he ostensibly wants our vote. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, is a known opponent of Medicare for All. So a theoretical Pres. Biden would never get the chance to make good on his pledge for veto. Putting her in as a bulwark against Medicare for All also benefits all of the so-called progressives in the House (members of "The Squad", for instance) so they too never need to vote compatibly with their speeches supporting Medicare for All. Bernie Sanders dropped support for his own Medicare for All Senate bill and Medicare for All in general when he dropped his 2020 campaign. He said "Let me be clear: I am not proposing that we pass Medicare for All in this moment. That fight continues into the future.". It's not clear when "the future" is. He also released a video statement saying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uQV83U5Dk) around 41m44s he said "This is not Medicare for All, we can?t pass that right now.". Well, we could, but it would take a political will among the Democrats that doesn't exist. Then we had the Sanders/Biden "task forces" which resulted in: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/08/biden-sanders-unity-task-force-recommendations-353225 > The task force recommendations don't include the kind of wide-scale systemic > upheaval that won Sanders such a fervent following in his two presidential > campaigns - while provoking an outcry from moderate Democrats and Republicans > alike. A single-payer health care system such as "Medicare for All," a "Green New > Deal" overhauling environmental policy, and doing away with Immigration and > Customs Enforcement are not among the policy proposals. and https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/889189235/democratic-task-forces-deliver-biden-a-blueprint-for-a-progressive-presidency > Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal co-chaired the health care task force. She has > long pushed, like Sanders, for a single, government-run health insurance program > but didn't bring that recommendation to the table in any of the meetings or > negotiations. Rep. Jayapal wrote the House Medicare for All bill which replaced the late John Conyers' (D-MI) Medicare for All bill (HR676). HR676 received much praise and a lot of co-signers (more than Jayapal's bill last time I looked) but also was never brought to the floor of the House for a vote (which is what really matters).