#There’s no split in white supremacy. Just a change in tactics

[rotzaprachim]

a longer analysis needed maybe but I think we’re giving too much moral credit to white supremacists and white nationalists when we say thing like “it’s just a fight if they hate Jews or Muslims more.” They hate us both and in neither interchangeable nor neatly separable ways, just like how antisemitism and Islamophobia are neither interchangeable nor fully separable and deeply racialized ideologies that often get misunderstood as simply “religious.” What they’re actually doing is making strategic decisions about the political capital they can use. Can someone be radicalized in a given moment against Muslims, or against Jews? What is the best way to advance our movement? Can we push a broad platform of hatred towards jihadi terrorists who are going to invade western society, or get people worked up about the Zionist deep state globalists who control our government from within? What is the most effective way to radicalize someone into not only hatred but the idea entire ethnic and religious groups are at the root of all our social problems and that the nation - or the world - would be better without them? Do not assume innocence. And furthermore, do not assume you are safe from their schema of who the world would be better without, even if they aren’t saying your name, right now

[manorpunk]

At the heart of every work of speculative fiction is a “what if,” a divergence which demarcates the line between worlds: what if aliens made contact with us? What if we suddenly had access to supernatural powers? The heart of Manorpunk 2069 is this: “what if it just keeps going like this?”

It is the most difficult question of all, because things quite clearly cannot keep going on like this, and my bravery in tackling this question directly shows why all other spec fic authors besides me are cowards, and probably reactionary.

That was a joke. Spec fic authors are not automatically reactionary. Authors of alternate history fiction definitely are, though. “Ohhhh what if the South won the American Civil War” oh you mean what if the Southern planter class survived and continued to enforce a program of white supremacy and oppression? Why I can hardly imagine such a world.

That was also a joke. My apologies. I am speaking to you as Manorpunk’s figurative father, and being a first-time dad, I cannot help being mawkish and overwrought, showing off baby pictures and trying to guess whether the audience is overcome with a new depth of emotion or simply trying to stifle a yawn.

In any case, I am here to give you the short version:

A series of crises known uncreatively as the Polycrisis struck America in the 2030s: climate change-fueled natural disasters, crumbling infrastructure, the final hollowing-out of the federal government, and the biggest goddamn real estate crash you’ve ever seen.

You can argue whether the real estate crash was the ‘biggest’ or ‘most important’ of the Polycrisis’s constituent parts, but in any case, it was the kicking-in of the rotten door that was America’s economy, and things just kinda… stopped working. Power became decentralized and regionalized, first to whoever could guarantee basic services and infrastructure (because neither the federal government or corporate finance sector had any will or ability to do so), soon coalescing into a half-dozen or so regional power blocks.

Oh, there were a couple more failed wars. Well, just one, really. There were the “IMF Wars” from 2035 to 2037, where the IMF and World Bank were forcibly removed from sub-Saharan Africa by “Chinese-supported Sankarist rebels,” which is how America referred to a democratically-elected government, but that wasn’t really a war-war.

China did give them a fuckton of support though, by the by. The 2030s looked like a hopeful time for the global south, as America fell apart and China hadn’t swallowed the world whole yet.

Speaking of which - at this point you may be asking yourself, “but where is the contingency? Where is the Innocent? Where is our Caesar, our Napoleon, our great Hegelian figure who holds the moment in his hand like a fly trapped in amber?”

Turns out it was Xi Jinping.

Yeah. Sorry.

As you might imagine, China was getting pretty sick of America dicking around. The American economy was collapsing so furiously that it was starting to threaten the export market for Chinese manufacturing. And, y’know, there was the Taiwan War.

Shit, right, the Taiwan War. It was hardly a war - China sank a couple US vessels, the US realized they had fallen too far behind on military tech and tactics, war’s over. The real fight, everyone knew, would be at the bargaining table.

What happened next goes by many names - the Great Bailout, The Reverse Marshall Plan, America’s Bride Price, The Gweilo Divergence, and “using the barbarians to control the barbarians” - a reference to the Self-Strengthening Movement of the Qing Dynasty. That one’s a thinker.

Anyway, China basically bought America. Second Cold War: over, winner: China, victory: flawless. As a fun footnote, the Great Bailout was finalized on September 4, 2039 - the 200th anniversary of the First Opium War.

It was more complicated than that, obviously - it was a tangled mess of playing musical chairs with corporate boards, merging and splitting and shuffling around. A controlled flood of investor money. The tactics were similar to how they had taken - right, I almost forgot, Russia was basically a Chinese protectorate at this point, and China did a similar economic shuffle to Russia after the Russo-Ukraine War.

Anyway! Short version, the timeline has made it to the 2040s and China just sort of swallowed the world whole. Tune in next time to see how that goes!

[fangirlshrewt97]

Story Summary - RamBheemJenny Canon Remix

Ok again with story summaries, this is a story that can be much longer, but I do not have the energy to write it. If any of you feel inspired, feel free to run with it. I initially brainstormed this story with @ronaldofandom who wanted a love triangle story. (Except I hate love triangles, so I came up with this instead).

///

Ok so the start of the movie stays the same. Malli is captured while Bheem is absent at the village, the British perpetuate their violence against the tribe, and leave with a child already traumatized beyond belief. Ram is still pig headed about his ideals, so sure they are right, and that there is no other way but brute force against his fellow brothers and sisters. Despite the emotional and physical toll, the promotions are al given to White soldiers. But. Come on. An Indian THAT willing to beat up other Indians and THAT brutal about it? That CO was sweating buckets, and definitely reports the incident to Scott.

Who is dumb and arrogant and so sure of British supremacy but also not a complete idiot. He has a niece visiting, and he does not trust her among the mongrels of this country. He meets Ram, and well, at least this brown monkey knows how to talk civilized. As much as he would prefer Jenny stay in the palace, she is coming on holiday to see the country, so keeping her sequestered makes no sense. He tells Ram he is getting a special job: Bodyguard to his niece.

Ram grits his teeth, blanks his faces and salutes the man. Inside, he is seething. He has better things to do than to babysit a child. Babai advises patience, tells him how getting to spend time with the Scotts will still let them get valuable intel, if not the guns Ram so desires. Ram begrudgingly accepts, even as he snarls at having to take a snobbish brat around the country and hearing them whine about his country. Hopefully the girl is just stupid enough to let Ram manipulate her.

Except...when the girl arrives, she is nothing like Ram expected. She doesn't have the vicious air her uncle and aunt do. She seems naive beyond compare, and is clearly way over her head and unaware about it. She's also so full of questions, and barely spends time at the mansion, which means Ram does not have the time to snoop that he had been hoping for. Some of her questions make him grind his teeth, forcing himself to breath, instead of demanding if she expected India to be a country of beggars.

He also sees as a little girl, barely 10 or 11, clearly kidnapped. He eventually learns her name is Malli, and sees how the "lady" of the house uses her as a singing toy doll, brought out for the amusement of her friends. The first time his opinion of Jenny changes is when he sees her sneak a piece of cake to the girl. He can't remember the last time any Britisher showed that kind of thoughtfulness towards one of his people. He spends the night punching the sandbag until his knuckles are all split open as punishment for his traitorous thoughts.

And yet, it keeps happening over, and over. He realizes Jenny's questions are not mean spirited, but genuine curiosity. That this is the first time she has been away from her parents, the first time she has had her own taste of freedom. Jenny notices Ram's boredom whenever she goes to the city outskirts to paint, and brings him to the mansion's library. It's the first time she notices his eyes widen in wonder. From then on, she always makes sure he is armed with a couple of books during their excursions. She laughs when she notices he has an even mix of adventure stories and military tactics books.

There is also Jake and his special posse to consider. Jenny ... doesn't like them. Finds them callous and doesn't understand how they cannot see what a lovely country they're in, why they always choose to complain about things. She also notices how ... overt Jake is about his position as heir to a small duchy and how Uncle Scott always sits him next to her. She wishes she could have Ram as a conversation partner, at least he lets her speak, instead of Jake who barely lets her express her opinions, or ridicules them when she does. The first time Jenny notices Ram is a good looking man (really notices, beyond the first impression) is when he easily shows up Jake but does it so professionally, even Jake cannot take offence without admitting he lost to him. Jenny's heart skips a beat when she notices the twitch at the corner of Ram's mouth.

Their friendship deepens. Instead of each doing their own thing during their excursions, conversation is more open. Jenny pours her heart out, her growing love for this country, sadness at the thought of having to return home. Ram doesn't share much, but he listens and he also starts to see the girl beyond the position.

He forces himself to remember just who they are to one another.

Of course living in the Scott residence, he hears all about the trouble that they are having with the elusive Gond Protector, and launches his own private investigation in his free time (yes because he hopes that capturing him will get him the promotion, but a smaller voice that he tries to shut up also tells him the singing girl is the same age as Chinna, and what would his mother say if he let a child continue to suffer and then also took away her only chance at freedom?).

Jenny notices Ram being more distracted and distant, and tamps down the disappointment in her heart.

The next few events happen quickly, with Ram chasing after Lacchu, getting caught up in that freak train accident, meeting Akthar, and befriending that man. Dosti happens, and Ram has not had many close friends, only Seetha really, but Akthar means so much to him.

Jenny notices Ram is smiling more nowadays and asks if it's a girl. Ram laughs it off and says he's made a new friend.

One day, Scott calls in Ram to ask about how Jenny is doing, and general status report type of situation. Jenny had planned to go to the market, and debates abut waiting for Ram, but honestly its only a couple things... in her car it will barely take an hour...

Bheem is still terrible at flirting but that is cause he is really not thinking of romance at the sight of this white girl. She lives in the house where Malli is. Bheem could use her to get inside. But she isn't cruel like the others, and Bheem has always been able to make friends within a few heartbeats, so what's new here?

Ram panics when he notices Jenny is missing, and Officer Harry is all too happy to rub it in his face as he brings her back.

Let's push back the timeline so instead of that very afternoon, it takes another two weeks for the garden party. Ram smiles more freely around Jenny now, and she has to control herself not to blush when she stops rambling about the party to notice him looking at her with something akin to fond indulgence. She of course wants to invite her new crush, because if Ram is pretty, the other man, Akthar is stunning. Broad and wide and strong and kind. So unlike the arrogant English boys and men she is accustomed to. She also knows that Ram is a safe fantasy that will never amount to anything, but with Akthar...she'd like to at least be able to talk to the guy! She asks Ram to start tutoring her in Hindi/Telugu, and Ram is confused but agrees.

Two weeks also gives times for a few more encounters between Bheem and Jenny, conveniently when Ram is not around. It's not that Jenny does it intentionally, but ok she doesn't want Ram to tell her uncle. More importantly though, she doesn't know how she'd react if both her crushes were in the same room together. She invites Bheem to the party anyways.

Anyways, the party happens, and two events take place. 1, the trio realize they all know each other and have a minute of tension that is thankfully interrupted by a belligerant Jake, annoyed that Jenny is more excited about two brown men than him. 2, Naatu Naatu.

In this iteration, Ram was not aware of Akthar's affections for Jenny, and he is wary but hey they are both sweet souls, and deserve happiness, even if it is temporary. He doesn't think about why his heart feels like its breaking twice. He takes comfort in the pain, uses it as a wake up call about his mission, and his promise to his father.

On his day off, Ram is walking around the city and spots Lacchu, gives chase, still tortures him, and ends up with a snake bite. Bheem saves him, reveals his identity, causes an existential crisis for Ram, and goes off to invade a party with a truck full of dangerous animals.

Ram wants to kill. Even more, he wants to die. He thought the worst the universe could do to him had already been done with the death of his family.

He was wrong.

The interval fight happens, with even more angst because at the end of it, Jenny looks just as betrayed and disgusted. Whatever bit of soul Ram had left shrivels up and dies.

Next is Komuram Bheemudo. For Ram it is the realization that he has been approaching everything through one small narrow way of looking at things. That words and ideas and spirit can serve as inspiration and weapons just as much as weapons.

If only this epiphany did not come at the cost of the life of the best man he has ever known (and the best friend he has ever had). Jenny throws up as soon as she returns to the room, summarily tells her uncle she never wants to see Ram again, and spends the next few days in bed, crying.

How could Ram have done such a thing to Akthar...Bheem? Akthar-Bheem. He was only trying to save Malli.

Except.

Except Bheem didn't die? He saved Malli and they have escaped? Ram aided and abetted them?

Jenny's head spins at this turn of events and she wishes desperately to talk to either man but is not given the chance, instead questioned thoroughly about Ram. She truthfully says she has no idea about anything about him.

Ram is scheduled for execution. Jenny makes plans to return home. She cannot stay here. Cannot watch him die.

She convinces the guards to look the other way for a single night, and goes to see Ram. Is horrified by the beatings and injuries he has sustained. She asks him why he captured Bheem. Why he let him go?

Ram doesn't give her his whole backstory. Just says he was tired of seeing his people and culture being erased by the British and he couldn't sacrifice his friend. He's ...somewhat redeemed in Jenny's book (aka she sees him as a friend again).

And when Bheem approaches Jenny (with Sita in tow), revealing the whole story, she immediately joins them in breaking Ram out. Sita gets her far from the city, so she is only distantly aware her only family in this land is dead when she sees the smoke from the debris of the mansion. Eventually the boys rejoin them all, and Bheem fulfills his promise of reuniting Ram with Sita.

(We haven't really spoken about Bheem's feelings in this iteration, but I think it's because it is the most consistent of them all. He always falls for Ram, and is betrayed, and then finds it in him to forgive his friend.)

Now which romantic and which platonic relationships spring from there, I'll leave to your indulgence. Personally, I'd like for Jenny to realize that a relationship with either is only ever going to be a fantasy. And for RamBheem, I want them to find a true friend in Jenny, beyond just her use as an ally. RamBheem themselves? Well, theirs is a bond forged in the heart of a star, born suspended over the Yamuna with an exploding train over their heads. Their souls and hearts are intertwined. Romantic readings are up to reader's discretion.

///

@rambheem-is-real @budugu @bromance-minus-the-b @hissterical-nyaan @obsessedtoafault @hufhkbgg @yehsahihai @rorapostsbl @fangirl-from-discord @fadedscarlets @alikokinav @chaotic-moonlight @rambheemisgoated @rambheemlove @jaganmaya @burningsheepcrown @lovingperfectionwonderland @rosayounan @iam-siriuslysher-lokid @thewinchestergirl1208 @dumdaradumdaradum @ronaldofandom @jjwolfesworld @jrntrtitties @kashpaymentsonly @jeonmahi1864  @stanleykubricks @m3gs1mps4a @tulodiscord @teddybat24 @sally-for-sally @ssabriel @jadebomani @stuckyandlarrystuff @veteran-fanperson @ohfuckoffpls @bheemaxrama @chaidrivenwhore @gifseafins @keyhunter04 @umbrulla

[96thdayofrage]

During the 1960s, local police departments conspired with the FBI to create disunity and undermine the organizations of Black radical groups including the Nation of Islam. The Covert Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) was created by the FBI to surveil and disrupt left political organizations. FBI agents would send letters forging signatures to create rifts or exacerbate internal rifts in organizations. 

In the FBI’s own words: 

COINTELPRO—short for Counterintelligence Program—in 1956 to disrupt the activities of the Communist Party of the United States. In the 1960s, it was expanded to include a number of other domestic groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Socialist Workers Party, and the Black Panther Party. All COINTELPRO operations ended in 1971. Although limited in scope (about two-tenths of one percent of the FBI’s workload over a 15-year period), COINTELPRO was later rightfully criticized by Congress and the American people for abridging first amendment rights and for other reasons.

Malcolm X did not simply advocate for Black people to be self sufficient in their own communities and to support the NOI financially. Malcolm X preached against the bedrock of US capitalism: the philosophy of white supremacy. He challenged the belief that white people were “superior,” revealing in fact the horrific, violent, and hypocritical acts white people and a white-run government took against Black people, in particular Black people protesting in the Civil Rights Movement. He denounced pacifism because it was ineffective against attack dogs and murderous bigots. He advocated for Black people to demand their democratic rights “by any means necessary.” The FBI was determined to take him down and use the rift between him and NOI leader Elijah Muhammad to kill him. The film makes clear what many Black revolutionaries already knew: the NOI was a willing puppet of the FBI in the murder of Malcolm X. Their disagreement was used to kill Malcolm X and undermine their organization’s ability to radicalize outside the system. 

This tactic would become commonplace for the FBI, CIA, and local police departments in destroying Black, left and socialist revolutionary organizations. FOIA files reveal systemic lies, misinformation, and even direct assassination of leaders to break revolutionary organizations like the Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, American Indian Movement, Socialist Worker’s Party, Young Lords, Communist Party-USA, and many others. As revealed in the documentary, Malcolm X’s personal bodyguard was an informant for the police. The informant, Gene Roberts, gave Malcolm CPR as he lay dying on the floor of the ballroom. 

“Leave Well Enough Alone” 

The film is also about history, and if a person is redemptive, why tarnish their history? William Bradley, aka Al-Mustafa Shabazz, was allegedly discovered to be the actual lone gunman of Malcolm X. As the film maker Abdur Rahman Muhammad prepares to confront him face-to-face, he is suddenly informed that Al-Mustafa Shabazz is dead. Before he died, after leading a life of crimes, he converted to Islam and became a pillar in his community, setting up a boxing gym to train low income at risk youth. Local politicians came to his funeral. Even former Presidential hopeful Cory Booker spoke highly of him. Does that then absolve him of being questioned about his past? 

The filmmaker suggests not only that Al-Mustafa Shabazz killed Malcolm X, but that elected officials suspected he was the murderer and allowed him to live freely as a “open secret.” Muslims interviewed in Newark also stated that because Shabazz had reformed his life, becoming a devout Muslim and contributing positively to the community,  he should be absolved of his crime. Although it is clear in the documentary Abdur Rahman Muhammad is not satisfied with that reasoning, he leaves the question open-ended. 

Malcolm X was an individual who went through personal and political changes in his life. His father, Earl Little, was run over by a trolley because he stood up to white supremacists. His mother was placed in a psychiatric hospital after her husband was murdered. Malcolm was split from his six brothers and sisters, growing up in foster homes. After being discouraged by a racist white teacher from becoming a lawyer (“An (n word) can’t be a lawyer. Become a carpenter”), Malcolm turned to a life of crime. After being in and out of jail, Malcolm Little was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in prison for burglary. While in prison, he was recruited and then joined the Nation of Islam. Often, the NOI has recruited and targeted people like Malcolm who are incarcerated. 

Malcolm Little became Malcolm X, stating he did not know his ancestors’ actual last name because it was taken from them during enslavement. While in the NOI, Malcolm X denounced the racist US government and called for Black people to defend themselves against the Klan, bigots and police attacking Black people. He specifically polemicized to the youth of the Civil Rights Movement. Most of the movement agreed with pacifism. Malcolm X strongly denounced pacifism as a tool of oppressors, arguing that Black people were taught pacifism specifically to keep us from revolting from being enslaved to resisting segregation. Malcolm X’s political agitation grew the NOI membership. It also directly challenged the US government’s racist policies. There began to develop a rift between Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X. With COINTELPRO, the FBI infiltrated and exacerbated the division. Malcolm X had already begun to drift from the NOI when a long time friend and NOI member Ronald Stokes was murdered by the Los Angeles Police Department. Malcolm X called for revenge against the police, but he was told by the Nation of Islam not to strike back against the LAPD. 

The division became an unofficial break when Malcolm X called the assassination of John F. Kennedy “Chickens Coming Home to Roost,” defying an order from Elijah Muhammad to be silent on the issue. 

Malcolm X’s life went from reactionary, to radical, to revolutionary. When he stood alone from the organization that “rescued him from the wilderness,” he went further to Pan-Africanism and was even influenced by socialist groups like the Trotskyist Socialist Workers’ Party. Malcolm X spoke several times at the Militant Labor Forum organized in part by the SWP, stating that the Militant “was one of the best papers in New York City.” He also gave an interview to the SWP weeks before his death stating, “It is impossible for capitalism to survive… it is only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completely.”Malcolm’s life parallels Trotsky’s life. Building an organization only to be betrayed by it. Working furiously knowing his days were numbered. The sharp speeches of dead men walking. 

Malcolm X was assassinated because he was growing and gaining a following among the Black youth and working class. He was growing internationally. From religious to secular, from separatist to internationalist. The US capitalist, imperialist was determined to assassinate him. 

Seeking Resolution

Film maker Abdur Rahman Muhammad did not stop at discovering who was the alleged killer of Malcolm. He also linked up with Muhammad Abdul Aziz, one of the three people charged with Malcolm’s murder who is still alive. The assassin who confessed waited until after Elijah Muhammad’s death and revealed the names of the four others. This also meant two people went to jail for crimes they didn’t commit. Further still, that the FBI knew these men were innocent and allowed them to spend most of their lives in jail. The other accused man, Khalil Islam but then known as Thomas 15X Johnson, died before he could be released and his name cleared. 

Film maker Abdur Rahman Muhammad’s meeting with Abdul Aziz discussed filing a appeal for he and the late Khalil Islam to the exonerated. It was a sad reality when Aziz said the filmmaker could do what he wanted, but that he had no hope in anything coming of it. Why would he? The U.S. government knowingly stole 20 years of his life. Because he was in prison, it ruined relations with his family and estranged him from generations of his children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren because he “wasn’t there.” It seems to this author rather naive to believe that this government that routinely ruins lives and ends lives with sadistic glee is capable of “justice.” The system itself is based on injustice. 

In a surprise twist, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office has decided to reopen the case of Malcolm X’s murder, possibly exonerating two of the three men convicted of his death. There are still dozens of political prisoners locked up behind trumped up charges. There are still millions locked up because they are poor, Black or Brown, and use illegal substances. Around the world, US imperialism continues to bomb, maime and terrorize people and their democratically elected governments for not towing the line. Even if because of pressure from this film, these men are exonerated (one posthumously), it would not make the system any more just.

We know who killed Malcolm X. It was the U.S. government. They even had an informant as Malcolm’s top bodyguard. The Nation of Islam, threatened by Malcolm’s power and unwillingness to be bought by the organizations financial success, were the ones who pulled the trigger. The documentary reveals first hand FBI accounts showing the depravity and fear of radical Black self organization. It is also about secrets kept and complicated histories. About the enduring importance of the truth and the complexities of that. It is a must-see to learn about the bold political life of Malcolm X and how a determined local Black Muslim historian changed the narrative of one of the most influential political leaders in U.S. history. 

[feelingbluepolitics]

Highest recommendation.

"Among the many strange and worrying truths about American elections, one has a tendency to get lost: The path to the presidency can run not just through battleground states but also through the Supreme Court.

"Back in 2000, it was the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore that put an end to a month-long post-election battle between the Democrat Al Gore and the Republican George W. Bush over who would be awarded the state of Florida’s Electoral College votes and, in turn, the presidency. This time, were the outcome of the 2020 election to fall to the Court, the situation could be far messier, and at stake would be the legitimacy of both the Court and the entire American electoral process.

..."With Democrats bringing ever more lawsuits challenging restrictive voting practices put in place by Republican legislatures and elected officials, there’s every reason to believe that another record will be set in 2020, and that the most important of these cases will end up before the Supreme Court.

"No one knows which cases will make it to the Court during the 2020 election season, but based on its generally conservative track record of late, it is a good bet that the Court will allow all but the most egregious efforts at voter suppression to go through. A recent example involved a law in North Dakota requiring voters to produce identification with a residence address on it, which uniquely burdened Native Americans living on reservations. In 2018, the Court refused to block this law, despite a total lack of evidence that the state had a good reason to impose it. That same year, the Court gave a green light to Ohio’s tough voter-purge practices. In addition, the Court’s conservative majority has been cutting back on protections of the Voting Rights Act for the last decade, most significantly when it killed off a key provision of the act in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case.

"Most of these disputes over voting rules and elections, and Bush v. Gore itself, featured a Supreme Court divided 5–4 between the Court’s conservatives and liberals, with the conservatives coming out on top. When angry Democrats confronted the late Justice Antonin Scalia about the Court handing the 43rd presidency to Bush, Scalia told them to 'get over it.' For the most part, people did get over it, with the Court’s legitimacy not taking a serious hit after the case.

"But increased polarization and other changes since 2000 have altered the landscape, and it is not clear that things will go as smoothly for the Supreme Court or the nation if the Court ends up in the position of determining the outcome of a presidential election again.

..."All of this tension over the Court and its role in American democracy was heightened by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s 2016 decision not to give a confirmation hearing to Judge Merrick Garland, whom Obama had nominated to succeed the late Justice Scalia. Instead, McConnell ran out the clock, denying Garland his chance for a vote to get on the high court and giving [t]rump the opportunity to fill the seat with the Scalia-like Gorsuch. Although McConnell justified his delaying tactics by citing the 'Biden rule' not to confirm a Supreme Court justice in the last year of a presidency, he has now reversed himself and says he would hold a confirmation hearing should a justice leave the Court in the run-up to the 2020 election.

..."[S]uppose that Russian hackers target the power grid on Election Day in a major Democratic city in a swing state (think Detroit or Milwaukee). The outage disrupts voting in that city, depressing Democratic turnout and causing the state to tilt to [t]rump in the Electoral College and pushing him to victory. Democrats might go to court to demand a revote or some other remedy, and the issue could come before the Supreme Court. How likely is it that Democrats accept a 5–4 Republican/Democrat split decision siding with [t]rump over his Democratic opponent and denying the chance for a revote?

"With gaping polarization, not just in society but on the Supreme Court, it becomes difficult to imagine that liberals could simply 'get over it' if they were once again on the losing side of a 5–4 decision choosing another Republican president following an election meltdown. Things could get very ugly very quickly."

The courts were not designed to have political capital. With extreme conservative bias, reflecting a small minority of Americans, they are now profoundly overdrawn.

Just as religion or spirituality can diverge completely from organized religion, it has become clear that the Supreme Conservatives' Court, tainted by trump, McConnell, and Roberts himself, no longer has anything to do with law and justice.

Roberts watched as the Republicon-held Senate was gut-squeezed between the people and the poisonous White House criminal. The Republicon-controlled Senate abased itself, surrendering constitutional power and duty.

Roberts may have learned something, piercing through his arrogance, but probably not. While he cannot at present lose his job, he can forfeit the legitimacy of the Court entirely. The Court could outlast trump easily if only it could. It's just one decision, or another, particularly one such as handing trump a second term, that will wreak destruction on the judiciary and the country as a whole.

Roberts is unlikely to hesitate though. Such decisions are what he and his ideological brethen, after a long and culminating process, were put into place to render. Destroy free and fair elections, turn women into breeding stock, further rich, white, male, and Christian privileges and supremacy, and keep conservatives in power no matter what. It will get seismically messy.

[slingsendarrows]

To His Coy Master

“I have often reflected on upon the new vistas that reading opened to me. I knew right there in prison that reading had changed the course of my life. As I see it today, the ability to read awoke inside me some long dormant craving to be mentally alive…My homemade education gave me, with every additional book I read, a little bit more sensitivity to the deafness, dumbness, and blindness that was afflicting the black race in America.” — Malcolm X “The Autobiography of Malcolm X”

Photo by Will Small

It never ceases to amaze the length, and breadth white people will go to willfully deny history in as much as it tells them the truth about themselves. I don’t blame them. It is a bitter pill to swallow owning up as a member of a people that has wreaked such havoc and extended so much unmitigated violence. Your domination in pursuit of betterment for your people and racial superiority was at the unquantifiable expense of others.

Now, before we get bogged down in the mire of wilfully confusing terms, let me resentfully explain what I mean by the words I am using. I say resentfully because expounding upon the injustices heaped upon my people requires I justify my position and take care not to offend the sensibilities of those I am addressing. It is dormant trauma indicative of the master/slave dichotomy I still have yet to shed. For it is only the oppressor that necessitates the oppressed exercise restraint and caution in stating and expressing his grievances, however vile and repulsive, adjusting for nuances and individual circumstances as if his subjugation wasn’t abrupt, violent, and complete. What is the virtue of incremental progress if the oppressor committed the original sin with absolute expediency? But, I digress.

“White people” or “white men,” refers to the collective white man, woman, and child as befits the ideologies of white supremacy, meaning those originating from Europe and the inheritors of their ancestors’ misdeeds. I will not deign to account for individual acts or attitudes of “good” white people because it is irrelevant. It is a tactic the oppressor uses to detract from the larger truth about himself.

Also, in speaking collectively, I will use the masculine pronouns, reflexive and otherwise, in an umbrella fashion similar to holy writ, signifying patriarchy as the apex of privilege and tyranny. Occasionally, I may address collective “white people” as women and men, specifically. “Master” is not restricted to those who owned slaves in actuality but those who propagated ideas of white superiority and black subjection.

Finally, and for what I hope will be the last time, privilege is a Russian doll ladder in that some have more than others in the broader context of the hierarchical structure as well as within each rung. Privilege is the exemption from specific experiences due to the inherent characteristics of race, ability, sexuality, gender identity, sex, socioeconomic status, etc. I have privilege within my rung as educated, able-bodied, cis-gender, and heterosexual. I shall leave it there.

I know you are, but what am I?

There are things you can’t unsee. I can neither unsee injustice nor abide civility for civility’s sake. Living as a black woman person is a burden, but one I am learning to carry with pride. You live in the depths of a valley with a clear perspective of the surrounding landscape. I look about me these days, and I yearn to be free. Natural freedom, not granted, but inborn and awakened through the conscious effort. Freedom rising from truth and understanding, painful though it may be. But master, I must tell you the truth about yourself, for I see now, as Malcolm X stated, you love yourself so much you’re often surprised to discover we do not share your “vainglorious self-opinion.”

Bettmann Archives/Getty Images

The cyclical nature of oppression angers me: outcries and marches, cosmetic salves for change, and disingenuous support that lasts just long enough for us to return to business, as usual. I don’t want to mince words anymore. It no longer serves to be palatable. You must swallow whole my incredulous raging despair and dubious hope for change. You will taste every unpleasant bite as I tell you the unflavored truth about yourself. I will not be distracted by dog-whistle racist dismissals of reverse-racism and black supremacy. Pipe down! You know I do not have the power to alter a fraction of your daily existence fundamentally.

For all your talk of progress, history shows very little of significance and import has materially changed. Individual achievement is pointless if institutionalized racism persists, unimpeded since the advent of colonial conquest when you left your lands to “discover” ours. It matters little that some of us make it if most of us continue to suffer the same injustices bereft of reprieve through education, wealth, and status. In short, your surface efforts at woke-ness and allyship are of little use if, in your white homes and white spaces, you propagate or remain silent in the face of racist sentiments and ideologies.

I reason real change calls for radical action. The how eludes me. Real change requires rooting out the problem in its entirety, a problem so deeply ingrained and pervasive it infects every facet of our daily existence. It is institutionalized. But our subjugation was so final we forgot our names. We have been in the wilderness far too long, thirsting for understanding and starving for identity. You hope we never figure out our freedom was never a matter for your consent.

In the midst of my hungering, I have awakened to two fundamental realizations: 1) we are and have only ever been as free as you have allowed us to be, 2) truth comes through knowledge of self, and knowledge of self comes through self-education.

It’s been a long, long time coming, but I know change is gonna come.

During moments of considerable racial unrest, you remind us to be grateful for the crumbs that fall from your feasting tables and make it into our mouths. With each protesting hamster-wheel cycle for change, you erroneously juxtapose our grievances against your apparent signs of progress, as if the two are analogous. You caution against violent reactions when your institutions murder us, and you selectively misquote our advocates out of context to suit your purposes and invalidate our rage. The conversation inevitably becomes about how we are not decent people, and our behavior courted death; therefore, we deserve to die. There is no need to mourn, much less to protest. Still, during our tear-gassed and rubber-bulleted peaceful protestations, you implore us, once again, to be patient. Someday we’ll all be free. Incrementalism over expediency!

Photo by Charles Moore

You ask us to remember Abraham Lincoln and his hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers. Do we not recall the numerous, albeit contradictory, supreme court decisions that have brought us thus far? Lyndon B. Johnson and his predecessors awarded us civil rights, benefitting the electorate with the sacrifice of black bodies. The matter of reparations is a non-starter — sins of the father, and all that; it’s in the past. See our constitutional amendments, white abolitionists, James Meredith, northern white liberalism, and lest we forget, the progressive black achievement permitted in your industries and society.

But the fact that we’re still witnessing black firsts 400 years later is not a sign of progress; it is the opposite.

Our schools teach the efforts and white generosity of Abraham Lincoln liberated black people in America. However, a cursory glance at your records will show this is factually incorrect. I am tired of being reminded to pay homage to the “Great Emancipator,” whom we remember, in large part, due to this astounding act of condescending deference. Master Lincoln is an excellent example of your self-conceit that our freedom is yours to grant or deny. And to add insult to injury, you congratulate yourselves for it. The overarching white supremacist belief you can deign to give us freedom is a glaring reminder we are only as free as you enable us to be. Your love for this lie is so profound; you pull it out each time issues of race arise. But Lincoln, a white man, freed you! He might have been black too.

So let’s set the record straight.

Lincoln did not free slaves out of moral imperative but political expediency. A cursory study of his papers and thinking at the time show he was willing to maintain slavery if it meant keeping the Union intact because “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Before the Missouri Compromise of 1820, a carefully maintained 1:1 ratio determined the slavery status of newly admitted states. This balancing act was codified when Maine and Missouri sought admittance; the former was free, and the latter legally permit slavery. The law also prohibited slavery north of the Mason-Dixon line.

At the onset of the Civil War, Missouri demographically split between confederate and union allies. In 1861, witnessing Missouri’s descent into chaos, Union Major Generals Fremont and Hunter issued emancipation proclamations calling for the execution of those found guilty of taking up arms against Union and the confiscation of their property, including freeing their slaves. Shortly after that, Lincoln fired the generals and annulled the proclamation. He issued a Second Confiscation Act in July 1862, allowing for the confiscation of slaves owned by the rebels, freeing them at the discretion of the court.

District of Columbia. Company E, 4th U.S. Colored Infantry, at Fort Lincoln

Slaves were commodities of considerable economic value. Slaves were mortgaged collateral and settled debts. Losing slaves would result in a substantial financial loss for southern masters. The Union knew that, so they exploited it. Freeing slaves robed the Confederacy of its free and disposable labor, eliminating the possibility of slaves fighting against the Union army at the behest of their rebel masters. Lincoln did not issue the Proclamation of 1863 because he thought black people were inherently equal and deserving of justice under the law. Asked about his decision-making process, he stated, “…if I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that…” The Civil War did not end slavery in acknowledgment of black equality. Slave emancipation crippled the Confederate economies and, in so doing, weakened the southern rebellion. Emancipation was a means to an end.

Lincoln could not conceive of a nation with black people as equal if not, primary stakeholders. Nevermind their backs built the wealth of the country. Now that the problematic part of nation-building over, he could simply return them from whence they came and be done with it. He thought it better to return black Americans to Africa and failing that, create a whole separate nation unto themselves.

Reportedly the only known photo of a black American Union soldier and his family. (Library of Congress)

In 1854, before the Civil War, Lincoln stated, at a speech in Illinois, his “…first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them back to Liberia.” It was the only foreseeable solution to the race issue. He considered the coal-mining prospects of the Chiriqui region in modern-day Panama an option for deportation and resettlement. Still, the idea met fierce abolitionist opposition when he tested it on a sample slave population in Delaware. He supported a congressional bill that would “…aid in the colonization and settlement of such free persons of African descent […] as may desire to emigrate to the Republic of Haiti or Liberia or such other country beyond the limits of the United States as the President may determine.” After signing the Second Confiscation Act, in August 1862, Lincoln invited a delegation of five prominent black men to the White House to clarify that white and black people cannot coexist; therefore, separation was the most direct path to peace. He wanted their support for a mass black exodus.

Liberia presented a logistical nightmare. The Chiquiri coal was worthless, and the land in dispute with Costa Rica. Approximately 450 black people moved to an island off the coast of Haiti, of which almost 25% died of poor nutrition and illness before the remainder returned to the U.S. Defeated, Lincoln, considered deporting “the whole colored race of the slave states into Texas.” Days before his death, he stressed, “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live peace unless we can get rid of the negroes…I believe it would be better [for the whites] to export them to some fertile country…”

Getty/Library of Congress

In conclusion, asking me to celebrate a white master for granting me what is rightfully mine is ludicrous — honoring him for a decision that only benefitted me as a secondary consequence of his primary purpose is the height of white arrogance. It merely cements you don’t believe freedom is ours by right; it is yours to give in the manner befitting your white sensibility stretched out over the expanse of time. Time to legitimize the numbing effect of revisionist history and position us in gratitude toward master’s acquiesce and tolerance, however slow. Master is doing his best. After all, his wife, at a time, condescended to teach Frederick Douglass to read and write.

And yet, here we remain, yearning for crumbs off of master’s table. Asking, begging, pleading, for what is ours.

The real nightmare scenario for white supremacy is an actualized black mind, educated and conscious of its pervasive and pernicious effects. Global black unity jellies the white man’s spine in fear of retribution for his crimes. It is why you champion incremental progress and hail peaceful protest as the height of moral discourse. You only understand violence for violence is what it took to achieve your dominance. You cannot conceive of any other possible outcome, and you cannot revise history with enough “good” white people committing “good” white acts to cover the rancid stench. You know it stinks, and since you cannot find a solution outside your oppressive playbook, you must deny, obfuscate, distract, appease and roll the ball down the road of historical replay.

To that, I now turn a deaf ear. We must educate ourselves about our people and history if we are to be truly free. We cannot depend upon you to what is right. You have made it abundantly clear.

[resourcesofcolor]

The Suffragettes Were Not Allies to Black Women, They Were Racist.

Excerpts of an important article written by ShaRhonda Knott-Dawson in August 2019, to address the problematic nature of celebrating White Feminism and the 99th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment. 

Knott-Dawson explains, “If the adage is true, 'those who forget about history are doomed to repeat it,' it is my duty as a parent to teach my children the truth about American history. And it’s our collective duty to teach the truth about the fight for women’s suffrage to the children in our schools—warts and all.”

WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE WAS A POLITICAL COMPROMISE

We teach our students that the idea of political compromise is part of what makes American democracy “great.” But for those of us who are not White men, “compromise” isn’t great at all. In fact, it’s horrible. The political compromises made by our government are almost always made at the expense of the most marginalized groups in America. And the 19th Amendment is a prime example of how American democracy’s compromises work against Blacks folks.

The truth about the 19th Amendment is that it was a political win for White women at the expense of Black women.

POLITICAL COALITIONS: BLACK FOLKS AND WHITE WOMEN

Black people and Northern White women realized they were disenfranchised and formed coalitions to advance the civil rights of both groups. This is the part of history that is often highlighted in our history books—both Black folks and White women, working hand in hand to fight for the right to be included in American democracy.

Here’s the part we don’t teach:

SOUTHERN WHITE WOMEN WERE ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN THE ENSLAVEMENT, DISENFRANCHISEMENT AND DEHUMANIZING OF BLACK FOLKS.

Black folks and Northern White women were political allies. However, in the conservative South, there were no coalitions between Black folks and White men, and especially White women. Southern White women were active participants in the enslavement, disenfranchisement and dehumanizing of Black folks. Some records show that up to 30% of slave owners were White women. Additionally, after the Civil War, White women were full participants in the KKK, lynching Black men.

THE SPLIT

After the Civil War, the Northern coalition between Black folks and White women was strong. With the win and a majority in the House and Senate, they quickly went to work on changing government policies to allow new participants. However, when the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were passed, White women were left behind.

From the moment Black men gained suffrage rights and White women were denied, the coalition was fractured. The suffragettes were furious. It was clear to Black folks that White women were not their allies and many had no real belief in equality. In fact, it became clear to Black folks that although White suffragettes may not have believed in slavery, they were White Supremacists all the same.

Anna Howard Shaw, president of the National Women Suffrage Associatio at the time, is quoted saying, verbatim: “You have put the ballot in the hands of your Black men, thus making them political superiors of White women. Never before in the history of the world have men made former slaves the political masters of their former mistresses!” 

A NEW COALITION

The suffragettes realized they needed to change their alliances from Black folks to Southern White women. Southern White women are a lot of things, but inconsistent in their hatred for Black people is not one of those things. And if the suffragettes wanted to partner with Southern White women, there could be no “racial equality” stuff.

During the Reconstruction, Southern White women were participating in one of the darkest periods of American history for Black folks that some have called, “worse than slavery.” Mass incarceration, brutal beatings, dire poverty and the barbaric act of lynching were running rampant in the South. For Black people, stopping lynching was the priority, and they hoped their “suffragette allies” would publicly join the cause.

That is not what happened.

What had happened was White suffragettes decided that the right for White women to vote was more important than lynching. From then on, Northern and Southern White Women decided to side with “Whiteness” and argue that the inclusion of White women in democracy was more important than any racial inclusiveness at all.

BLACK SUFFRAGE LEADERS

Our children rarely, if ever, hear about Black suffrage leaders in their history classes. Yet, Black women were out there doing the work— even when no one wanted them on their team. Black women refused to accept their exclusion from White suffrage organizations or the racist tactics they employed. In fact, some Black women pushed back— hard.

Ida B. Wells-Barnett, a Black woman journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist and Civil Rights leader, planned a boss move— a strategic, savage takedown of the phony White suffragettes.

She called out White suffragettes who were working with racist, Southern White women, while pretending in the North to be anti-racist to their major funders, the British Anti-Racist societies.

When she realized the game the White suffragettes were playing, she decided to fight. Wells got on a boat and went to London, met with the funders for the suffragettes and spilled all the tea about how the suffragettes were compliant and forming coalitions with White folks who were still doing barbaric shit, like burning and lynching a pregnant woman and cutting her stomach and letting the baby hang by the umbilical cord over the fire pit.

The British were outraged and immediately pulled funding from the American suffragettes. Because their funding was in jeopardy, the White suffragettes made more public attempts to seem anti-lynching, while simultaneously coalition-building with Southern White women.

FEMINISM WAS NEVER FOR BLACK WOMEN

Feminism, even and especially the feminism of the beloved suffragettes we remember when we mark the anniversary of the 19th Amendment, has never been for all women. Feminism has been for White women, usually upper-middle-class, White women.

Plenty of White women’s suffrage leaders held racist, White supremacist views and worked against the freedom of Black women. Black women understand this betrayal. In the same way we are clear that Black people were not part of the “independence of America,” we are also clear that Black women were not part of “women’s suffrage.”  

The suffragettes were focused and even formidable at times. They organized effectively, they marched and they picketed. They were beaten and wrongfully imprisoned. They went on a hunger strike and were forcibly fed. They were strategic and used the public sentiment to win “Votes for Women.” They deserve some recognition for this. But we must also recognize that they played a powerful role in maintaining White supremacy.

But Black feminists have been fighting for equality—both racial and gender equity—since the founding of the United States and not only have their struggles been ignored by White feminists and suffragettes historically, but the issues that are priorities for Black women are attacked by White women acting from racial bias today, who, ironically, claim to be feminist.

DIFFERENT TIME, SAME STORY

This is the complex and complete history we need to teach our children about the women’s suffrage movement because the impacts of these political bargains are still alive and well today. Black people are still disenfranchised, especially in the Southern states. And, just like the suffragettes who worked so hard to pass the 19th Amendment, White feminists are quiet about racism, White supremacy and voter suppression. Luckily, Black folks realize that White feminists are not allies. They are about advancing the rights of White women—no matter the cost.

[ty-talks-comics]

Best of Marvel: Week of August 28th, 2019

Best of this Week: Spider-Man Life Story #6: The ‘10s - Chip Zdarsky, Mark Bagley, Drew Hennessy, Frank D’Armata and Travis Lanham

All good things must come to an end. That’s the main theme of this final issue of Chip Zdarsky and Mark Bagley’s phenomenal Life Story miniseries as it recounts the last adventure that Spider-Man goes on as he leaves the world free and safe in the capable hands of the new generation of superheroes.

Comic books are cyclical. For some heroes, you get a short run, 6-12 issues and then they disappear for years until they’re needed again for some big event. For the bigger heroes, there are ongoing series that last years upon years with some BIG changes that inevitably get reversed for the sake of reestablishing the status quo. It’s understandable, recognizable names draw big money, but there’s only so many times you can see a hero fight a particular villain before it becomes trite and meaningless.

The same goes for their daily lives as well. Peter Parker has been stuck as a meandering young adult for the better part of a decade since the events of One More Day and he hasn’t been allowed to grow past his immaturity, save for the few times when the situations have become desperate and dire. Spider-Man: Renew Your Vows tried to posit a family man Peter Parker in an alternate universe, but for the most part he came off as just regular Peter with a kid to banter off of. Nick Spencer and Tom Taylor are doing their best in their respective Spider-Man series to get Spider-Man back to a position where things actively change for him, but Chip Zdarsky has gone the extra mile.

The Spider-Man Life Story miniseries goes through Peter’s life if he actually aged with the decades that all of his comics took place in. He goes through the struggles of being an American citizen straddling the fence during Vietnam, the aftermath boiling to a superhuman civil war, a better Clone Saga of the 90s, Aunt May’s death, the start of the information age and finally having children and watching them grow up. Peter Parker is allowed to grow old, change with the times. He sees old friends die, new heroes emerge, give his take on current events of the time and it’s all been amazing.

I know I mentioned that fighting the same villains over and over can seem trite and meaningless, but that’s only when they’re done for the sake of being done. In this fantastic take on the Superior Spider-Man story, Peter and Otto have their absolute final confrontation with one another over the body and soul of the young Miles Morales. Peter and Miles are shot into space to stop some sort of satellite created by Doctor Doom that allowed him to fill the power vacuum left by Captain America and Iron Man’s Civil War. As the two explore, Peter is attacked by Kraven wearing the Venom symbiote, but he dispatches the villain easily and it’s revealed that the suit was just piloting a are skeleton.

Miles questions how it was possible and Peter replies that all of his old enemies are dead and rightfully accuses Miles of being Otto Octavius, Doctor Octopus. Otto reveals his scheme, but instead of fighting Pete physically, he chooses instead to go into the mindscape and have a battle of the intellect as they were always destined to do. 

Bagey pulls out all of his stops as he draws Spider-Man costumes from the various decades as well as beautifully illustrates some of the best of Spider-Man’s rogues gallery as they battle for supremacy. Set against a white background, the characters shine with their vibrant colors, dynamic posing and Bagley’s ever amazing facial expressions. I have never seen Otto look so menacingly mad and subsequently, once Peter defeats him, absolutely crushed. 

Using the only person that Peter knew Otto cared about, Aunt May, she’s able to convince Otto to let go of his hatred and rage. She tells him to let Miles live his life, to move on. I really felt this and inside, it feels like Zdarsky is also telling us that sometimes we have to let the status quo go. Spider-Man has been around for longer than some of us have been alive and will be long after most of us are gone. Do we really want him to be the same mid-20s to early 30s hero that we knew, or do we want to spend our time with someone new? Miles Morales is a little more than ten years old, he’s fairly young as a character and I wholeheartedly believe that he can carry on the Spider-Man name on his own.

As the satellite starts to collapse and there’s only one escape pod left, Peter chooses to save Miles and sacrifice himself so that the future can flourish in peace due to his heroism. It’s a true heroes death and something that we almost never see (and likely never will), but if this were a true moment of closure, then I would be happy with it. Peter Parker is known for having more guilt than a Catholic who hasn’t been to Mass for a month (or Daredevil) and as he finally closes his eyes for the final time, he has a nice conversation with Mary Jane and recounts his recurring dream of the day he truly learned about power and responsibility. The last panel is his guilt finally being washed away.

If there is one series I would recommend anyone read, hands down, without a doubt it would be this one. Chip Zdarsky has a strange yet beautiful understanding of how to tell a story with characters that some of us know better than our own family members. Mark Bagley has the art skills to make us care about them immensely as well. Putting these two together as well as their amazing inker in Andrew Hennessy and colorist in Frank D’Armata, they sell you on each decade presented and how Peter changes throughout. 

Spider-Man isn’t the same plucky youth we met in the 1960s. By the end of his story, he’s led a full life full of adventure and his time has been well spent making sure that it was a future worth living in. Isn’t that something that we all can only dream of?

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

God is Here.

Runner Up: Absolute Carnage #2 - Donny Cates, Ryan Stegman, JP Mayer, Frank Martin and Clayton Cowles

After the events of the last issue there aren’t enough words to describe just how hopeless things are looking for anyone who has ever worn a symbiote.

Spider-Man and venom have been backed into a corner by Carnage and his horde of infected inmates at the Ravencroft Asylum. With no other options Eddie decides it best to break out and punches a hole through the wall for a tactical retreat. Eddie is typically known for his ability to brute force his way through any problem, but Carnage is a new monster altogether and as he sees Spider-Man running out of energy, he gives into the fear that they might die.

In the past, the combined might of Spider-Man and Venom has been more than enough to combat Cletus Kasady. Even when Cletus had help, he still couldn't hold a candle to the heroes, but now, they're almost low tier by comparison.

Spider-Man notes that he's almost out of web fluid, so there's no way that they're swinging out of there, so Eddie and the Symbiote utilize one of their badass upgrades, spreads his wings and flies out of Ravencroft with Peter screaming frantically "WHATISGOINGONRIGHTNOWIHATEALLOFIT!" They then land on a roof in the city, defeated and horrified that they may not be able to stop Carnage this time.

Spider-Man says that he'll try to get a hold of Wolverine and Captain America and Eddie says that he'll go find any of the lowlifes that have been Symbiotes and the two split to complete their missions. Carnage chooses not to follow after them, instead he waits and plots. This issue then turns into a bit of a catch up game for the other tie in issues while Carnage gloats to Norman that everything is running smoothly and that the world will be painted red soon enough.

Ryan Stegman absolutely smashes the art in this issue with absolutely killer detail, expressions of fear and disgusting visuals, especially in Carnage's underground lair - The sprawling mass of symbiotic flesh that covers New York's sewage system, packed full of infected humans is a dreadful sight. In the beginning of the issue, Stegman drew a splash page of Carnage with other panels overlaid, showing one of his eyes of madness and the decayed flesh that's absolutely under the symbiote. It's an absolutely terrifying sight that set the tone of this horror show.

Not only were these shots great, but Stegman kills one of the moments that happens in the Miles Morales tie-in where Miles and Scorpion (Mac Gargan) fight off the infected hordes trying to take Gargan's spine. In the tie-in, the art is more subdued and less violent, but here, Stegman turns it into something to get squeamish over. Gargan tries to abandon Miles to fight the infected alone, but is thrown back into the fight by Venom.

Unfortunately, Carnage is there waiting to pounce. He plunges a tendril into Mac's back and DIGS around to get that spine. There's no need to leave anything to the imagination as the blood spurts out, Gargan screams in agony and Kasady looks like he's having the goddamned time of his life. Mayer and Martin's colors and inks really sell just how violent all of this is. It's almost gross just how close they get the color right and how dark the scene is. Miles swoops in to save him, but… no good deed goes unpunished.

Absolute Carnage absolutely does what it set out to do. I have never been more afraid for the Marvel Universe than I am right now. Of course, there have been universal threats, but with how close and personal this feels and the looming feeling of dread knowing that Knull is THIS close to returning is mortifying. Normally a villain will just kill a hero or destroy them and whatnot, but Carnage wants nothing but massacre. If there's not torture and blood then what is it all worth?

Everything that Cates and Stegman have been building to has lead us here. To say that it's beginning to lay off would be an understatement. The dividends of fear are fore more exponential than anyone could have anticipated and this will likely go down as one of the greatest Venom/Carnage stories ever written. Absolute High Recommend.

[hermanwatts]

Sensor Sweep: REH Foundation Awards, Arthur Machen, Tunnels & Trolls, Terry Pratchett

Writing (Kairos): Last night I stopped by the Superversive SF live stream to discuss my new book Combat Frame XSeed: Coalition Year 40. My gracious host and the enthusiastic chat brought up lots of tantalizing questions about the mysteries I’ve planted in the series thus far. I addressed those questions and gave additional clues to those mysteries, which will be revealed in Combat Frame XSeed: CY 40 Second Coming.

We also embarked on an in-depth discussion of plot and pacing. I contend that the latter is derived more from character than from sentence and paragraph level mechanics. See the video for a full explanation and a mini writing clinic.

  Awards (REH Foundation): Congratulations to the REH Foundation Award winners! The winners were announced at a ceremony at Robert E. Howard Days in Cross Plains, Texas on June 7th.

Atlantean — Outstanding Achievement, Book (non-anthology/collection)

Winner: DAVID C. SMITH – Robert E. Howard: A Literary Biography (Pulp Hero Press)

Finalists: FRED BLOSSER – Western Weirdness and Voodoo Vengence (Pulp Hero Press) DON HERRON and LEO GRIN – Famous Someday: A Robert E. Howard Biography (The Cimmerian Press).

  Fiction (Patheos): Machen (The Great God Pan) has had an enormous influence on horror literature. He is a HP Lovecraft without the overt white supremacy and Stephen King with interesting ideas: both tip the hat to the Machen (as they should). Not surprisingly for someone who has poked around in the scary attics and basements of the Christian past, Machen ends up with a more elevated view of sin then one finds in someone like CS Lewis, who experimented with the occult briefly, but had too much philosophy to stay there for long.

  Cinema (Jon Mollison): Terry Pratchett has an impressive gift for stringing words together.  The man could make the back of a cereal box interesting to read.  His brain works in strange ways that follow clever paths, a trait that helps him paper over the thinness of his works’ overall plots and characters and underlying worldview.  That wizardry doesn’t lend itself to translation to the screen, particularly when the producers of said translation choose to translate Pratchett’s words literally.

  Fiction (DMR Books): Mundy’s comments in the Camp-Fire, along with his portrayal of Caesar in the first two installments of Tros of Samothrace, ignited one of the most remarkable controversies in the history of American fiction magazines.  The readership of Adventure split into groups that were for and against Talbot Mundy’s views on Caesar and the Camp-Fire was where their opinions were aired.  A number of writers and historians came down on one side or another of the issue and the Caesar controversy grew to fill the entire space of the Camp-Fire.

  D&D (Sacnoth’s Scriptorium): So, the new D&D Adventure/Campaign from WotC is now out, and it’s an interesting return to days of old. How old? So old that when the last time these adventures saw the light of day, TSR was still run by Gygax and the Blumes.

What they’ve done here is take one of their lesser-known classic adventure series and expanded it into a book-length campaign by the addition of several related adventures that had appeared in DUNGEON magazine over the years.

  Fiction (Shiver in the Archives): In September 1966, a previously unpublished short story “Forms of Things Unknown” by C.S. Lewis appeared posthumously in his collection Of Other Worlds: Essays and Stories, edited by Walter Hooper.  It was later collected in The Dark Tower and Other Stories (1977), also edited by Hooper.

  Cinema (Wasteland and Sky):  Welcome back to this series of posts where I try to nail down what exactly inspired me to write what I do. This is my personal Appendix N of art that has stuck with me. More than a favorites list, I’m focused first on what really attached itself to what I do. This hasn’t been as easy to compile as I would have thought.

As the years have gone by I’ve been watching less and less of the old boob tube or spending money to stare at a bigger screen.

  Adventure (M D Paust): “Wow! What a book!” So shouted W. M. Krogman in the Chicago Sunday Tribune of Kon-Tiki, saying the aforementioned exclamation could easily comprise his entire review. But he went on anyway gushing, “It has spine chilling, nerve tingling, spirit-lifting adventure on every page and in every one of its 80 action photographs. It is the fiction of a Conrad or a Melville brought to reality. It might be added that the writing is of itself worthy of either pen.”

      Fiction (Frontier Partisans): Summer of 2019 was already shaping up pretty damn good in the world of Frontier Partisans literature and cinema, what with a Deadwood movie, the return of Yellowstone and a mountain of research books to read. But this piece of news blows the whole thing up: Craig McDonald’s tale of Hector Lassiter and the Punitive Expedition is hitting the streets in July.

  RPG (Jeffro Johnson): One of the big changes in the new edition of The Fantasy Trip is that Steve Jackson has recanted on the old rule that IQ provided a harsh upper limit on the total number of spells and/or talents a character could have. The reason is… under the old advancement system there comes a point where attributes get ridiculously and pointlessly high.

  Robert E. Howard (M Porcius): Tarbandu’s recent blog post about Spanish artist Sanjulian reminded me about my acquisition back in February of 1979’s The Howard Collector, edited by Glenn Lord, for which Sanjulian provided the cover painting of an axe-wielding muscleman freeing a scantily clad woman from captivity in some dimly lit temple or other place of unspeakable deviltry.

  Fiction (Old Style Tales): There is something carnal and lascivious about these torch bearing sirens with their come hither faces and their glistening jewelry. Le Fanu employed such subjects in “Ultor de Lacy,” “Carmilla,” and “Laura Silver Bell” – femme fatales, victims of the supernatural, who leer out of the darkness with just enough attention (light) cast onto their beauty the lure us towards the darkness that engulfs them. But none of these stories contains quite the potency or indecent revulsion as the tale that bears Schalcken’s name.

  Pulp Magazines (Pulpfest): In June 1929 there were over a dozen air-oriented magazines available on the newsstands. Gernsback was riding a popular wave with AIR WONDER STORIES, a pulp that would tell “flying stories of the future, strictly along scientific-mechanical technical lines, full of adventure, exploration and achievement.”

  Fantasy (DMR Books): Carter is perhaps best regarded for his pioneering early critical studies of the fantasy fiction genre. These include works like Tolkien: A Look Behind The Lord of the Rings, H.P. Lovecraft: A Look Behind the Cthulhu Mythos, and Imaginary Worlds. While some of the scholarship particularly in the former two lacks rigor, Carter was working largely without precedent in the very early days of fantasy, before the latter existed as a defined genre.

  Pulp Magazines (SF Magazines): The reason I picked up this magazine was that the Herbert Best novel The Twenty-Fifth Hour had been recommended to me as one of the works I should consider reading for the 1940 Retro Hugo awards in the novel length category.1 Ah, I hear you say, but this is a 1946 magazine, so what is going on? Well, as I am sure most of you already know, Famous Fantastic Mysteries was a magazine that specialised in reprints.

  Games (Table Top Gaming News): Today on the platter we have: New Warbus Available From Puppets War, New Tactical Command Table From Kromlech, Orcs in Shorts Metal Minis Up On Kickstarter, Buy 3 Get 1 Free Sale Going On Now at Kraken Dice, New Late War Accessories Available From Battlefront For Flames of War, Undead Miniatures Up On Kickstarter, and Mighty Lords Miniatures Up On Kickstarter.

  Sensor Sweep: REH Foundation Awards, Arthur Machen, Tunnels & Trolls, Terry Pratchett published first on https://sixchexus.weebly.com/

[melindarowens]

2017: Right Splits over Civil Disobedience, Left Splits over Political Violence

This week’s biggest political controversies exposed fault lines within the country’s major political factions, with the right fighting about civil disobedience while the left fought over the attempted murder of a Republican Congressman.

Shakespeare in the Park

On Friday night, two conservatives disrupted a New York performance of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar that escalates the left’s campaign of imagery designed to cathartically depict the death or murder of President Donald Trump. TheRebel.tv’s Laura Loomer was arrested for running onstage during the Shakespeare in the Park production, while activist Jack Posobiec taped her demonstration and shouted at the crowd: “The blood of Steve Scalise is on your hands!”

“Old Right”

Several authors at anti-Trump conservative publications condemned Loomer and Posobiec, arguing that the two infringed on the free speech of Shakespeare in the Park and their tactics were too close to the Occupy of Black Lives Matter movement.

Pro-Trump conservatives labeled this faction the “old right,” stating that there is no moral equivalence between this disruption and the violence of left-wing protesters in dozens of recent incidents.

The old right losers who are upset about what Laura did don’t realize that unlike them, we fight – and that’s why our guy won. #FreeLaura

— Cassandra Fairbanks (@CassandraRules) June 17, 2017

Which is appropriate

She broke the law.

To fight an injustice

Just like #RosaParks https://t.co/VubPBkRbuH

— Google “CNN,175,Sue” (@NolteNC) June 17, 2017

They’re literally shooting at us and you want to play Marquis of Queensbury.

Cowardice.

Fight the enemy or fuck you.

— Google “CNN,175,Sue” (@NolteNC) June 17, 2017

Oh yeah, leftist students threatening conservatives with violence is the exact same as a 1 minute interruption of Shakespeare in the Park https://t.co/5oMTc5YIV0

— Scott Greer (@ScottMGreer) June 17, 2017

This is the mentality that has sat, patted itself on the back, and watched for decades as America has gone further and further Left https://t.co/pcEf3YbZ2C

— DanRiehl (@DanRiehl) June 17, 2017

We went to one play and accomplished more for the message than the millions donated to think tanks and handed to K Street. Let that sink in

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) June 17, 2017

Schlichter vs. Podhoretz

One archetypical exchange in the aftermath of the Julius Caesar demonstration saw Tablet editor and “Never Trump”-er John Podhoretz facing off with lawyer and author Kurt Schlichter.

I’d say I just learned tonight you’re a drooling, immoral, melodramatic idiot, but alas, I learned that long ago. https://t.co/2WuZPvp0Ux

— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) June 17, 2017

you want affirmative action for being a moron because you wore our country’s uniform? Happy to oblige.

— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) June 17, 2017

Cernovich vs. Shapiro

Even more heated was the war of words between independent author and White House reporter Mike Cernovich, responding to criticism from former Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large and “Never Trump”-er Ben Shapiro.

This obnoxious stupid snowflake crap is no better than the protesters who try to block college speeches. https://t.co/mDyOL6fO7J

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 17, 2017

He doesn’t matter. None of those guys matter anymore. They don’t break news or make news. Controlled opposition for media to abuse. https://t.co/NXMhrqtt2m

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 17, 2017

This is total, complete horse crap. She invaded a public performance to obstruct it. She has no right to the stage. https://t.co/YgcpKQrvPf

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 17, 2017

This is what a coward looks like. #FreeLaura https://t.co/EyiGZnR1a3

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 17, 2017

After trading a few intense personal insults, both men reiterated their arguments — but no longer directly to each other.

They took stage for 1 minute.

The left pulls fire alarms, uses pepper spray, hits people with bike locks.

It’s not even close.

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 17, 2017

Use free speech in ways that irritate the left. Do not impede other people’s freedom of speech. This is not difficult.

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 18, 2017

At the same time, the left was infighting over a much more high-stakes topic: targeted political violence.

Steve Scalise

On Wednesday, a 66-year-old Illinois man opened fire on Republican lawmakers practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game, wounding House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and putting him in critical condition through the weekend. The attacker — James Hodgkinson, who was killed by police returning fire — also shot Two Capitol Police officers, a congressional staffer, and a lobbyist. The Daily Caller has reported that investigators found a list of GOP lawmakers’ names on Hodgkinson’s body.

Instead of universal condemnation, Hodgkinson’s attack has brought about a tone-policing feud between the establishment left and the social justice left.

Impulse Control

Over the weekend, several Verified progressives of varying prominence — an L.A. Times blogger, the creator of #OscarsSoWhite, a rapper with 250 YouTube subscribers, an Uproxx editor, and TV actor George Takei — argued that sympathy for Rep. Scalise should not outweigh his sinful acts as a lawmaker. In most cases, more traditional liberals scolded their more radical peers for generating bad optics.

When will it be time to move Scalise’s opposition to gun control from the last graf of a story to the first? https://t.co/D3ZkHjFr2w

— Michael Hiltzik (@hiltzikm) June 18, 2017

You can despise Scalise’s politics and also despise the fact someone thought gun violence would somehow change his or anyone’s mind.

— John Haltiwanger (@jchaltiwanger) June 16, 2017

Wounded Congressman Scalise, who the GOP are so sad about, voted TWICE to not recognize the #MLK holiday. https://t.co/LKhFbJtIn9

— Iskandrah (@iskandrah) June 18, 2017

I ask you simply to look at Rep. Scalise’s record. Do you have sympathy for other white supremacists?

— Iskandrah (@iskandrah) June 15, 2017

Was Scalise a “human” when he voted against Marriage Equality and spoke at a white supremacy function? Or do only Dems need to be “human?” https://t.co/5lzMbfnKk0

— April (@ReignOfApril) June 16, 2017

and don’t tell me the man has a family and allat shit, because so do folk with their premiums traveling on a rocket to Mars

— SUPER SIZE (@GrandeMarshall) June 14, 2017

Made the mistake of looking up Steve Scalise voting record on women and LGBT rights. Time to break out Milkshake Duck.

— Donna Dickens (@MildlyAmused) June 14, 2017

I don’t have any tolerance for caveats on condemning political violence right now. You’re opening the door a crack. It needs to stay shut.

— jessicashortall (@jessicashortall) June 16, 2017

Cool – I guess enough time has passed since Scalise got shot that we can go back to attacking him as a homophobic bigot. Stay classy, Sulu. https://t.co/Pjkiai4yIN

— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) June 17, 2017

Why do we have to list Philando’s accolades? How come the headlines aren’t, “Steve Scalise, a bigot who is trying to kill you, got shot”?

— Brandi Geography B. (@ItsTheBrandi) June 17, 2017

Josh Barro, an editor at Business Insider, wrote a thread on how the dehumanization of the left’s political opponents is “bad for society.” Dozens of progressives rebuked Barro in the responses, calling him misguided, “insincere,” and “white boy.”

This feels like the wrong week to do an analysis of whether Steve Scalise is a good congressman.

— Josh Barro (@jbarro) June 18, 2017

On the other side of the argument, New Jersey Democratic strategist James Devine urged progressives to “hunt Republican Congressmen.”

Scarborough vs. Reid

On Saturday, MSNBC host Joy Reid called the situation “delicate” because, while “everybody is wishing the congressman well and hoping that he recovers” from an apparent assassination attempt, Reid lamented that “Scalise has a history that we’ve all been forced to sort of ignore on race.”

Joe Scarborough, one of Reid’s colleagues, appeared to attack this segment — without naming his target. CNN anchor Jake Tapper co-signed the condemnation.

Rep. #Scalise was shot by a white man with a violent background, and saved by a black lesbian police officer, and yet… #AMJoy pic.twitter.com/Qm96T90c6Y

— AM Joy w/Joy Reid (@amjoyshow) June 17, 2017

If you are attacking Steve Scalise’s voting record right now, do yourself a favor and just stop now. I can’t even believe what I’m seeing.

— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) June 17, 2017

Who would even think for one second that it is appropriate to attack a man who is fighting for his life after an assassination attempt?

— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) June 17, 2017

Agreed. Unfathomable. https://t.co/nh4BbDH4OM

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) June 17, 2017

Pelosi vs. Pelosi

Septuagenarian Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi’s conflicting reactions to the Scalise shooting provided the clearest example of progressive id vs. progressive super-ego.

On the day of the shooting, she said — in direct contradiction to virtually every other statement she has made about President Trump and Republicans — that she prayed for unity in the wake of the attack.

On days like today, there are no Democrats or Republicans, only Americans united in our thoughts for the wounded. https://t.co/HcsiRCcFiP

— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) June 14, 2017

Yet the very next day, in a seemingly unscripted moment, she returned to her default position of partisan blame:

Somewhere in the 1990s, Republicans decided on the politics of personal destruction as they went after the Clintons and that is the provenance of it and is what has continued. Again, I feel as if we’re having a family moment that is very, very serious and we’re talking about things that we can say, the discussion—save the discussion for another day. When you have a president that says, “I can shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and nobody would care,” when you have people saying, “beat them up and I’ll pay their legal fees,” when you have all the assaults that are made on Hillary Clinton, for them to be so sanctimonious is something.

The New Political Landscape

Two parties — Republicans and Democrats — still essentially rule American politics, but their constituencies are becoming more tribal and divided, even against their electoral allies. Trump voters hate Republican lawmakers, such as Sens. John McCain and Ben Sasse, for publicly attacking the president and his agenda during and after the 2016 election. Democrats are still picking up the pieces from a contentious DNC leadership race, where establishment-friendly Obama ally Evan Perez narrowly defeated far-left Rep. Keith Ellison.

These same divisions play out in cultural institutions, such as the social justice warriors purging classical liberal professor Bret Weinstein from the Evergreen State College campus or Fox News’ internal fight over the future of its programming style.

The arguments taking place now are over what are appropriate means to victory over the other side: for the right, whether to be polite or ruthless — and for the left, whether to be ruthless or violent.

Source link

source http://capitalisthq.com/2017-right-splits-over-civil-disobedience-left-splits-over-political-violence/ from CapitalistHQ http://capitalisthq.blogspot.com/2017/06/2017-right-splits-over-civil.html

[everettwilkinson]

2017: Right Splits over Civil Disobedience, Left Splits over Political Violence

This week’s biggest political controversies exposed fault lines within the country’s major political factions, with the right fighting about civil disobedience while the left fought over the attempted murder of a Republican Congressman.

Shakespeare in the Park

On Friday night, two conservatives disrupted a New York performance of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar that escalates the left’s campaign of imagery designed to cathartically depict the death or murder of President Donald Trump. TheRebel.tv’s Laura Loomer was arrested for running onstage during the Shakespeare in the Park production, while activist Jack Posobiec taped her demonstration and shouted at the crowd: “The blood of Steve Scalise is on your hands!”

“Old Right”

Several authors at anti-Trump conservative publications condemned Loomer and Posobiec, arguing that the two infringed on the free speech of Shakespeare in the Park and their tactics were too close to the Occupy of Black Lives Matter movement.

Pro-Trump conservatives labeled this faction the “old right,” stating that there is no moral equivalence between this disruption and the violence of left-wing protesters in dozens of recent incidents.

The old right losers who are upset about what Laura did don’t realize that unlike them, we fight – and that’s why our guy won. #FreeLaura

— Cassandra Fairbanks (@CassandraRules) June 17, 2017

Which is appropriate

She broke the law.

To fight an injustice

Just like #RosaParks https://t.co/VubPBkRbuH

— Google “CNN,175,Sue” (@NolteNC) June 17, 2017

They’re literally shooting at us and you want to play Marquis of Queensbury.

Cowardice.

Fight the enemy or fuck you.

— Google “CNN,175,Sue” (@NolteNC) June 17, 2017

Oh yeah, leftist students threatening conservatives with violence is the exact same as a 1 minute interruption of Shakespeare in the Park https://t.co/5oMTc5YIV0

— Scott Greer (@ScottMGreer) June 17, 2017

This is the mentality that has sat, patted itself on the back, and watched for decades as America has gone further and further Left https://t.co/pcEf3YbZ2C

— DanRiehl (@DanRiehl) June 17, 2017

We went to one play and accomplished more for the message than the millions donated to think tanks and handed to K Street. Let that sink in

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) June 17, 2017

Schlichter vs. Podhoretz

One archetypical exchange in the aftermath of the Julius Caesar demonstration saw Tablet editor and “Never Trump”-er John Podhoretz facing off with lawyer and author Kurt Schlichter.

I’d say I just learned tonight you’re a drooling, immoral, melodramatic idiot, but alas, I learned that long ago. https://t.co/2WuZPvp0Ux

— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) June 17, 2017

you want affirmative action for being a moron because you wore our country’s uniform? Happy to oblige.

— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) June 17, 2017

Cernovich vs. Shapiro

Even more heated was the war of words between independent author and White House reporter Mike Cernovich, responding to criticism from former Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large and “Never Trump”-er Ben Shapiro.

This obnoxious stupid snowflake crap is no better than the protesters who try to block college speeches. https://t.co/mDyOL6fO7J

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 17, 2017

He doesn’t matter. None of those guys matter anymore. They don’t break news or make news. Controlled opposition for media to abuse. https://t.co/NXMhrqtt2m

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 17, 2017

This is total, complete horse crap. She invaded a public performance to obstruct it. She has no right to the stage. https://t.co/YgcpKQrvPf

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 17, 2017

This is what a coward looks like. #FreeLaura https://t.co/EyiGZnR1a3

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 17, 2017

After trading a few intense personal insults, both men reiterated their arguments — but no longer directly to each other.

They took stage for 1 minute.

The left pulls fire alarms, uses pepper spray, hits people with bike locks.

It’s not even close.

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 17, 2017

Use free speech in ways that irritate the left. Do not impede other people’s freedom of speech. This is not difficult.

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 18, 2017

At the same time, the left was infighting over a much more high-stakes topic: targeted political violence.

Steve Scalise

On Wednesday, a 66-year-old Illinois man opened fire on Republican lawmakers practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game, wounding House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and putting him in critical condition through the weekend. The attacker — James Hodgkinson, who was killed by police returning fire — also shot Two Capitol Police officers, a congressional staffer, and a lobbyist. The Daily Caller has reported that investigators found a list of GOP lawmakers’ names on Hodgkinson’s body.

Instead of universal condemnation, Hodgkinson’s attack has brought about a tone-policing feud between the establishment left and the social justice left.

Impulse Control

Over the weekend, several Verified progressives of varying prominence — an L.A. Times blogger, the creator of #OscarsSoWhite, a rapper with 250 YouTube subscribers, an Uproxx editor, and TV actor George Takei — argued that sympathy for Rep. Scalise should not outweigh his sinful acts as a lawmaker. In most cases, more traditional liberals scolded their more radical peers for generating bad optics.

When will it be time to move Scalise’s opposition to gun control from the last graf of a story to the first? https://t.co/D3ZkHjFr2w

— Michael Hiltzik (@hiltzikm) June 18, 2017

You can despise Scalise’s politics and also despise the fact someone thought gun violence would somehow change his or anyone’s mind.

— John Haltiwanger (@jchaltiwanger) June 16, 2017

Wounded Congressman Scalise, who the GOP are so sad about, voted TWICE to not recognize the #MLK holiday. https://t.co/LKhFbJtIn9

— Iskandrah (@iskandrah) June 18, 2017

I ask you simply to look at Rep. Scalise’s record. Do you have sympathy for other white supremacists?

— Iskandrah (@iskandrah) June 15, 2017

Was Scalise a “human” when he voted against Marriage Equality and spoke at a white supremacy function? Or do only Dems need to be “human?” https://t.co/5lzMbfnKk0

— April (@ReignOfApril) June 16, 2017

and don’t tell me the man has a family and allat shit, because so do folk with their premiums traveling on a rocket to Mars

— SUPER SIZE (@GrandeMarshall) June 14, 2017

Made the mistake of looking up Steve Scalise voting record on women and LGBT rights. Time to break out Milkshake Duck.

— Donna Dickens (@MildlyAmused) June 14, 2017

I don’t have any tolerance for caveats on condemning political violence right now. You’re opening the door a crack. It needs to stay shut.

— jessicashortall (@jessicashortall) June 16, 2017

Cool – I guess enough time has passed since Scalise got shot that we can go back to attacking him as a homophobic bigot. Stay classy, Sulu. https://t.co/Pjkiai4yIN

— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) June 17, 2017

Why do we have to list Philando’s accolades? How come the headlines aren’t, “Steve Scalise, a bigot who is trying to kill you, got shot”?

— Brandi Geography B. (@ItsTheBrandi) June 17, 2017

Josh Barro, an editor at Business Insider, wrote a thread on how the dehumanization of the left’s political opponents is “bad for society.” Dozens of progressives rebuked Barro in the responses, calling him misguided, “insincere,” and “white boy.”

This feels like the wrong week to do an analysis of whether Steve Scalise is a good congressman.

— Josh Barro (@jbarro) June 18, 2017

On the other side of the argument, New Jersey Democratic strategist James Devine urged progressives to “hunt Republican Congressmen.”

Scarborough vs. Reid

On Saturday, MSNBC host Joy Reid called the situation “delicate” because, while “everybody is wishing the congressman well and hoping that he recovers” from an apparent assassination attempt, Reid lamented that “Scalise has a history that we’ve all been forced to sort of ignore on race.”

Joe Scarborough, one of Reid’s colleagues, appeared to attack this segment — without naming his target. CNN anchor Jake Tapper co-signed the condemnation.

Rep. #Scalise was shot by a white man with a violent background, and saved by a black lesbian police officer, and yet… #AMJoy pic.twitter.com/Qm96T90c6Y

— AM Joy w/Joy Reid (@amjoyshow) June 17, 2017

If you are attacking Steve Scalise’s voting record right now, do yourself a favor and just stop now. I can’t even believe what I’m seeing.

— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) June 17, 2017

Who would even think for one second that it is appropriate to attack a man who is fighting for his life after an assassination attempt?

— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) June 17, 2017

Agreed. Unfathomable. https://t.co/nh4BbDH4OM

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) June 17, 2017

Pelosi vs. Pelosi

Septuagenarian Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi’s conflicting reactions to the Scalise shooting provided the clearest example of progressive id vs. progressive super-ego.

On the day of the shooting, she said — in direct contradiction to virtually every other statement she has made about President Trump and Republicans — that she prayed for unity in the wake of the attack.

On days like today, there are no Democrats or Republicans, only Americans united in our thoughts for the wounded. https://t.co/HcsiRCcFiP

— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) June 14, 2017

Yet the very next day, in a seemingly unscripted moment, she returned to her default position of partisan blame:

Somewhere in the 1990s, Republicans decided on the politics of personal destruction as they went after the Clintons and that is the provenance of it and is what has continued. Again, I feel as if we’re having a family moment that is very, very serious and we’re talking about things that we can say, the discussion—save the discussion for another day. When you have a president that says, “I can shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and nobody would care,” when you have people saying, “beat them up and I’ll pay their legal fees,” when you have all the assaults that are made on Hillary Clinton, for them to be so sanctimonious is something.

The New Political Landscape

Two parties — Republicans and Democrats — still essentially rule American politics, but their constituencies are becoming more tribal and divided, even against their electoral allies. Trump voters hate Republican lawmakers, such as Sens. John McCain and Ben Sasse, for publicly attacking the president and his agenda during and after the 2016 election. Democrats are still picking up the pieces from a contentious DNC leadership race, where establishment-friendly Obama ally Evan Perez narrowly defeated far-left Rep. Keith Ellison.

These same divisions play out in cultural institutions, such as the social justice warriors purging classical liberal professor Bret Weinstein from the Evergreen State College campus or Fox News’ internal fight over the future of its programming style.

The arguments taking place now are over what are appropriate means to victory over the other side: for the right, whether to be polite or ruthless — and for the left, whether to be ruthless or violent.

Source link

from CapitalistHQ.com http://capitalisthq.com/2017-right-splits-over-civil-disobedience-left-splits-over-political-violence/