#in white supremacy cannot be blamed on her and is not valid criticism

[neotrances]

terfs defending racist white women on the basis of them just being women proving again the terf ideology mainly serves and is used by white “feminist” who r unable to process let alone apply intersectionality, failing to see how a woman openly okay with dating a nazi is at fault for supporting racism as white women being the silent aids for their racist partners is a recorded phenomenon throughout history

[bookofmirth]

I saw your recent response to an anon where you mentioned the drama that occurred the other day based around bookprofessor’s post. Obviously you don’t have to respond to this or publish it if you do not wish but I just wanted to bring up that while it is important to focus on the real life issues at hand, the OP was hypocritical in her post which is why people were getting upset. She was preaching against ableism while simultaneously flaunting her IQ and degree which is a form of ableism. She was speaking out against racism while ending her post using the racial slur “cracker” when talking about the possibly Caucasian Twitter elriels.

Obviously she had some important points but it was completely overshadowed by her participation in the hate speech and prejudice that she was speaking out against.

This does not in any way justify the nasty messages she received but on the same hand, I do not blame anyone that called her out for her hypocrisy. I hope you can understand why her post was so negatively received and how flawed it was. My hope is that one day everyone can just ignore the negativity, report those who are being racist/prejudiced in any way, and block those who are just being loud and who you don’t wish to see content from. But unfortunately I do not see that happening any time soon.

There are a few things I want to address in this because I think it's a good moment for the fandom to step back and reflect on how we treat one another, how we react to such issues, and how we behave moving forward.

First off, thanks for explaining your point of view without being antagonistic. I do think that everyone's emotional reactions to the post were valid. I do NOT think their responses, in terms of words and actions, were valid. Now before I move forward, I want to clarify that when I use the word "you", I am referring to anyone who may have had the response I am describing - not you personally, anon. Also please don’t freak out about how long this is, as a majority of it is a response to the fandom in general, not you in particular.

What was - and wasn’t - said in the original post

In this post, there were completely valid criticisms of the way that people in this fandom behave, and it wasn’t “generalizing” a certain group, it was literal, actual proof of things that had been said, by multiple people. I’m not going to get too into what Alyssa argued because her critiques of those tweets was flawless. The original post had very valid criticisms of what was happening on Twitter. Alyssa exposed the actually racist, homophobic, and imperialistic underpinnings of those tweets.

However, a lot of people are stuck on the bits before and after those critiques. @bookprofessor apologized for different aspects of her post in a few different asks. There were perhaps better ways that some of those things could have been phrased, some things that could have been left out. And she apologized. People can accept that apology or not but we can’t act like it didn’t happen. Like she didn’t reflect and learn to do better.

However, the people she was calling out have not done the same thing, and if anything, comments that focus more on Alyssa’s tone than why she wrote the post in the first place lets those people off the hook.

On cracker - Using the word "cracker" is not racist in the same way that using racial slurs against POC is. Is it prejudiced? Yes. But you cannot say that it is the same thing when that is demonstrably untrue, given centuries of oppressive history. No one has been oppressed for being white. Those are not the same. Reverse racism is not a thing because a white person punching down on POC is NOT AT ALL the same thing as a POC punching up at white people. The actions look the same, but the impact is so unequal it’s not even funny.

Racism is a systemic, institutionalized problem. It is not defined by individual actions, though those actions can either support or challenge racism. When someone calls a white person a cracker, there isn’t centuries of oppression giving power to and reinforcing that statement. That is not a “gotcha” moment.

Saying “I have x IQ” or “I have X degrees” is not ableist. I’m sorry to whoever told you it was ableist (again, not you specifically anon but people who had read the “aw shucks guys” vagueblogs about it), but it’s not. Those are facts. I have no idea what my IQ is, but I have five degrees from institutions of higher education. Me saying that is in no way ableist. 

Often, people mention those things to be elitist, yes. Sometimes, they can be used to say “hey I know more about this than you”. They can be used in a way that tries to make themselves feel superior. I suspect that this is the impression that a lot of people got of the post. However, there is a fine line between saying “hey that’s elitist” and professing anti intellectualism. Which is perhaps a side issue so I’ll let that go for now.

Another reason that people mention their degrees or qualifications is to establish their background knowledge and credibility. If I were to say “hey y’all I have two MA degrees” (which is true) I am not being ableist! It is a fact! It is factual! And I worked my ass off for those, I will be in student loan debt until I die for those, I have every right to mention them if I want to, and often I do so in order to establish my credibility, to explain the position I am coming from. And my prior knowledge of these topics is relevant when we are talking about literature since that’s what my degrees were on - literature and linguistics. That is why Alyssa mentioned her background, though she did pair it with comments about other people, for which she has apologized.

My final point about this is that I 1000% understand feeling insecure or less than because of educational attainment. I dropped out of high school. I had a complex about that for a long, long time. But I also know that if I took offense at someone else saying they had a PhD, then that offense is about me, not them. Someone else’s inferiority complex is not reason for people to pretend to be less than they are.

If those two comments are what overshadowed the bigger, more important issue for a lot of the readers of that post, then y’all allowed them to overshadow those more important issues. I am 99% sure that someone right now is reading this and thinking “but Leslie, it was the way that she said it!” Boy have I got some news for you!

How we react

This next section is not specific to this ask; instead, it is a discussion of how the fandom responded. If it were only one person who had said “but her tone” then I wouldn’t need to make this point. The fact that multiple people are exhibiting the behavior explained below is what makes this a cultural problem within the acotar fandom.

The main argument I saw on the post itself, and indeed any time I see people bring up how nasty Twitter can be, is that ��it was a joke” and “that’s how stan Twitter works”.

No.

Those responses were quite useful for this post, though! So buckle up everyone, because I am going to talk about gaslighting, racism, respectability politics, and tone policing. While I understand that some people might have taken personal offense to what was said, there is a much bigger issue at stake that has nothing to do with individual feelings, and everything to do with ensuring that POC stay silenced and white supremacy is upheld. 

Back to the “but it’s a joke” thing. Thanks for gaslighting! Great example of that, person I’m not going to tag! Gaslighting is when you make someone question their experiences, when you try to make them think “wait, did I really feel that way? Is my feeling about that valid? Do I need to re-evaluate my response to this?? Am I blowing this out of proportion???” And saying “it’s just a joke” is a perfect way to do that. Did I say something accidentally sexist? It’s just a joke, nbd! Now you’re the problem, because you didn’t understand my joke and laugh!!! 

Saying “it’s a joke” or “oh they are old/young/ignorant, they will learn” is not a good response to... anything. It takes the responsibility off the people who are doing the harm, and putting it onto the people who were hurt. And in this case, anyone who read those tweets and found them harmful (which should be everyone?) is completely valid. You aren’t lesser for being angry or emotional or for seeing a problem where other people saw a joke. The people who see those things as acceptable jokes are the ones in the wrong.

This is a tactic that is used against women all the time. Any time a woman is sexually harassed at work or online, for example, and she gets upset about it, and someone chimes in with “oh they weren’t serious, can’t you take a joke?” So you can imagine what this is like for women of color.

It is a very, very common tactic for people of color to be silenced via tone policing and respectability politics. Tone policing and respectability politics are very closely related, especially in this context. The idea is that if Alyssa had just written that post in just the right way, it would have been more palatable to white people, and therefore okay to write. The idea that if she had tried to be “understanding” or “see it from their perspective” or understand that it’s “just a joke” are all ways to silence and de-legitimize any accurate, valid criticisms that were made of those tweets. It effectively re-routes the conversation away from the real issues, and to the person trying to bring them up. It’s essentially an ad hominem attack in disguise. 

We see respectability politics in media when people of color who act or dress or speak like white people are afforded more respect. Or any time that a person of color is pulled over and people say, “well if they had just done what the police officer asked...” There is a pervasive idea that if people just “act” properly, aka if you act white, then the police won’t feel antagonized and try to kill arrest you. If we are nice enough, meek enough, smile enough, etc. then we will be accepted.

When we tone police, we refuse to allow marginalized people the right to be angry. We say that "hey, we can only have this discussion if you leave emotion, which you rightfully feel, at the door, and we can only continue this discussion if you behave in a way that makes me feel comfortable." But guess what? It isn’t about you! These discussions are often highly uncomfortable. There is no nice way to tell someone they are being racist. And yet somehow, that is the ever-moving goalpost. It seems reasonable, right? “Just be civil, be nice, don’t insult each other!” And there is that. But those criteria change constantly, to the point where anyone (white) at any time can say “WHOA WHOA THIS IS MAKE ME UNCOMFORTABLE???” Then we find ourselves at zero, and suddenly the focus of attention has shifted away from the actual problem.

Before we go further, I want to say this: people have a right to be angry. They do not need to make their anger palatable or tasteful for the consumption of others (read: white people). 

We saw this last summer, and I’m not sure how the message didn’t get across. But people are rightfully angry about racism. They are angry about the murder of people of color by police, they are angry about lack of quality education, or clean water, of centuries of oppression that have led to this very moment when all of that ceases to matter because a white woman’s feelings got hurt one time. 

And that is what pisses me off so much. There is no way in this world that we could criticize tweets like those that everyone would agree with, and that everyone would “approve” of, that would be “nice” enough and yet still be impactful and make the authors of those tweets understand the gravity of what they have done. 

The least we can do is allow one another to express our anger, our outrage, because it’s highly likely that those people know exactly what the fuck they are doing, and they do not fucking care. By criticizing a woman of color for the way in which she chose to engage with this topic, we are avoiding the issue and letting the people in those tweets off the hook. 

There were many responses to that post that were positive, that agreed with Alyssa. There are a ton of people who disagree with those tweets, who find them disgusting, who understand exactly how and why they are problematic. That should be what we are talking about. Getting to the core of the argument, on that post or any about racism or other problematic behavior in fandom, requires getting past our own egos. It requires us to be able to step back, say “hm this thing is frustrating but there is a bigger picture here”. It’s not easy, and I recognize that. 

The fact that it is a common tactic though? To say “hey this hurt me personally and so I’m going to ignore any valid points you made?” That feeds directly into centuries of white supremacy because it, once again, silences POC and makes them try to play a losing game. And they will always lose, because no matter how hard they try to play the white game, the goalposts are constantly shifting. So you know what? Fuck the game, and fuck respectability politics, and fuck tone policing and “uwu be nice guys” because when it comes to things like racism and sexism, I don’t expect the people who deserve to be criticized to be nice. In fact, trying to be nice only serves to fuck POC over in the end.

Indeed, in response to that post, certain blogs have taken the opportunity to position themselves as “the nice ones” or “the ones who would never” or “uwu let’s be nice guys” while completely ignoring the fact that a woman of color was attacked for calling out racism. And yes - that was the point of her post. People getting hung up on mentions of her degree are (intentionally or not, it doesn’t matter) completely obfuscating the fact that that is not what her post was about, which was to call out disgusting behavior. idk how many words the post actually was, but essentially, people are focusing on 5% of it to the detriment of the 95% that was actually really important shit. These types of vagueblog posts about the issue fall into exactly what I am talking about - these are people who have decided to look at this issue, see how Alyssa (and anyone else who dares speak up) has approached it, and intentionally try to act like they are “better” because they can be “rational” and “kind”. Newsflash, if you don’t have something to be angry about, then being “nice” about racism isn’t that much of a flex. If it didn’t bother you, then congratulations. That doesn’t make you better than people it did bother. You just got lucky this time, and decided to use that to your advantage to look like the good guy.

I am not saying that all calls for peace are doing this. Obviously it’s what we all want. This is the worst I have seen this fandom in the 4+ years I’ve been here. But we cannot have that by ignoring the real problems and pretending that if we are all just nice to each other, then we will solve racism and sexism and all bullying in the fandom will stop. 

So combining all of this - the gaslighting, the tone policing, and what do you get? You get a fandom that refuses to actually engage critically with its own problems and take accountability for them. You get a fandom that decides that it’s easier to be distracted by this one mean comment over here than it is to engage in the fact that you know what, the culture in this fandom has actually turned incredibly disgusting and a lot of people are just okay with it. You’ve got a fandom that is using the tools of white supremacy to avoid the discussions that should actually be taking place. Maybe people don’t realize that that’s what they are doing. But if someone still thinks that after reading this post, then godspeed my friend, I hope you enjoy Twitter.

Okay so my last thing I want to say is that I didn’t come to all of this knowledge fresh from the womb. I do a lot of work, in my personal life and my professional life, to be better. So here is a list of books that I have found particularly helpful:

How to Be An Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi

Stamped From the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America also by Ibram X. Kendi

White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism by Robin DiAngelo (side note, I was kinda meh about this one but the chapter “White Women’s Tears” is particularly helpful)

So You Want to Talk About Race by Ijeoma Oluo

Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment by Patricia Hill Collins

I’m not going to talk specifically about Alyssa’s post anymore, but if anyone wants to continue talking about these broader issues going on in the fandom, I am game. (I really should be grading papers though, so it might take a bit.)

[revlyncox]

Dreamers (2021)

Working toward a better world, a world of racial justice and an end to interlocking oppressions, requires imagination. On this weekend when we remember the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., let's also consider both the history of civil rights and the unbounded creativity of speculative fiction by writers of color as sources of inspiration. 

Expanded and revised for the Washington Ethical Society, presented January 17, 2021. 

“We are creating a world we have never seen,” writes Adrienne Maree Brown in Emergent Strategy. On this weekend, as we remember the legacy of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., support a peaceful transfer of power, and recommit to his legacy and the work of civil rights yet to do, it may seem like a luxury or a distraction to engage with imagination. It is not. Just like we cannot allow oppression to steal our joy, we cannot let it steal our imagination. Neither threats of violence, nor attempts to push us into re-creating a fictional and regressive society of the past, nor manufactured austerity preventing relief from reaching working people, nor white supremacy in any form should be allowed to steal our imagination. Our ability to dream of a better world is a matter of collective survival.

What does it take to dream big? What fuels our ability to imagine a future without limits like racism, classism, and sexism? Entering a dream state where equality is possible takes some practice. Music can get us there. Listening to activists who are moving our society forward can help us get into that frame of mind. Great art can invite us into that kind of transformational trance.

Dreaming is important. Dreaming gives us creativity, energy, and a warm vision around which we can gather a community. Dreaming is not enough. Once we have imagined a better world, we have to (we get to) build it, to keep building it, and to rebuild the parts that got torn down when we weren’t paying attention. The next step is to use those dreams as a doorway to action.

Dr. King’s words and actions demonstrated connections between systemic racial inequality, economic injustice, war, threats to labor rights, and blockades to voting rights. All of those forces are still relevant. He and the other activists of his era left a very rich legacy, for which we are grateful. We are not done.

I’ll be drawing today from Dr. King’s 1963 work, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” (Also available as an audio file from the King Institute.) I think the critiques he offered in that letter are still valid, especially for us in this community that strives to be anti-racist and yet must acknowledge that we are impacted by the norms of what King calls, “the white moderate.” His letter was a response to Christian and Jewish clergy, who had written an open letter criticizing nonviolent direct action. Though Ethical Culture uses different language and methods than our explicitly theist neighbors, I think it is incumbent upon us to hold on to the accountability that comes with being part of the interfaith community. So I believe this letter is written to us as well. Dr. King wrote:

I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the … great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises [us] to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I would like to think that, in this community, we have made some progress since 1963, and that majority-white communities have stopped explicitly trying to slow the pace of civil rights. Indeed, WES can be proud that racial justice has been woven into its goals from the beginning, though we must also be honest that a perfectly anti-racist history is unlikely. At the same time, I see people who claim to be progressive rushing to calls for “civility” or “unity” without accountability. Understanding the direct link between the intended audience of this letter and the people and communities with which we have kinship today is an act of imagination that we must embrace in order to learn from the past and to continue Dr. King’s legacy. “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” can help us understand why we need to dream of something different in the world.

We need dreams and we need plans. We seek inspiration as we continue to work toward bringing a dream of economic and political equality fully into reality.

One place I turn for inspiration is toward socially conscious science fiction. Looking at how the art form has offered critiques of what’s wrong and pathways to what’s right, I see suggestions for how we can nurture the dream of a better world.

Science fiction has even helped me understand spiritually-connected social movements, such as the one depicted in Parable of the Sower and Parable of the Talents by Octavia Butler. The series depicts a self-governing poetic community that tries to live sustainably in an environment affected by catastrophic climate change, and that maintains an improbable vision of exploring the stars. The poetry uses the word God, but not in the way that it is normally used. Recognizing that WES is not a community that makes use of theism, I hope you’ll be able to hear how that metaphor is used in the world of the story. In Parable of the Talents, the main character, Lauren Olamina, writes a poem for her community:

God is change

And hidden within change

Is surprise, delight,

Confusion, pain,

Discovery, loss,

Opportunity and growth.

As always, God exists

To shape

And to be shaped 

(Parable of the Talents, p. 92)

In the book, the community that reflects on change in meditation and song is able to use that energy to maintain resilience, even in the face of white supremacist violence and criminalization. Butler imagines an inclusive community led by People of Color who strengthen and encourage one another, inject their strategic planning with an expectation for backlash, and still imagine and make their way toward a better world. Her books provide inspiration to those who know that the negative extremes of the world of the story are possible.

Socially conscious science fiction spins dreams that are extreme, that challenge us in good ways. In science fiction and in practical experience with progressive movements, we learn that dreams need help to become reality.

The alternate universe where justice rolls down like water may seem too fantastic to believe, it may be cobbled together in ways that seem mis-matched to mundane perceptions, and it will certainly take work to achieve. Nevertheless, like Dr. King, I believe “we must use time creatively.”

Dreams Are Extreme

The first thing to note about dreams, whether sleeping or socially conscious, is that they are extreme. Things that would be totally absurd or unthinkable in everyday reality are woven into the fabric of a new vision. The dream might be a positive one, in which we imagine what it would be like to live in a better world. On the other hand, dystopian dreams can also be effective at stirring us to action. In an imagined world, we are met with the possibility that a flaw in our current society might go too far. Absurdity comes uncomfortably close to the truth.

Dr. King spoke about the role of discomfort in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” saying that nonviolent direct action is meant to bring that discomfort to bear so that those in power will sit down and negotiate, to recognize people of good conscience. This is different from using violence as coercion, which is destructive to democracy; this is using peaceful means to declare the right of people to have a voice in what concerns them. Dr. King writes:

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth.

Tension has a place in literature and drama that can also be used for racial justice. I once served as an intern at a regional theater. In one of the plays we presented that year, the plot hinged on something unexplainable and highly improbable, which is one definition for science fiction. It was the 1965 play Day of Absence by African American playwright Douglas Turner Ward. In the story, white citizens of a racist town awaken one day to find that all of the African American residents have mysteriously disappeared. They slowly come to realize that they cannot function without the neighbors they mistreated and took for granted. Rather than try to solve their problems, they spend the rest of the play panicking and blaming each other in comedic ways.

Between the satirical script, the exaggerated makeup, and the abstract set, the show turns reality inside out in an effort to alter the audience’s collective conscience. Day of Absence shines a spotlight on the links between racial oppression and economic oppression, and is an incitement to join a movement for change. Consistent with the Revolutionary Theatre aesthetic, the play is meant to make people uncomfortable. We should be uncomfortable with the real systems of inequality parodied in the play.

It worked. Audiences were uncomfortable. Some patrons were able to take that discomfort and use it to grow. Some patrons were not ready to deal productively with their discomfort. For art or spirituality or dreams or anything else to offer the chance for transformation, creating the opportunity can’t wait until everyone is equally ready to begin the journey.

One goal of satire is to take something that is true and to exaggerate it until the truth cannot be ignored. When that something is oppression, making art that can’t be ignored and suggesting a justice-oriented overhaul to society is going to seem extreme to some people.

Speculative fiction by writers of color, even when not satirical, can also use exaggeration for a positive effect. The 2019 HBO Watchmen series explored this, creating an alternate history that lifted out problems with racism and policing in our own timeline. The Broken Earth trilogy by N.K. Jemisin explores extremes of climate change and identity-based exploitation, and weaves in glimpses of generational trauma between parents and children trying to survive in a society that rejects their wholeness. Extremes in literature can reflect back to us the plain truth.

Similarly, a dream that draws people together for the hope of a society that is very different from what we have, a dream that re-imagines the future of justice and economic opportunity, is going to be considered extreme, which is not a good thing by some standards. Every time there is a popular movie or TV show in the science fiction/fantasy genre that uses multiracial casting, and every time a speculative fiction novel by a writer of color receives sales or awards, there are claims that social justice warriors are running amok, or that trends have gone too far. Allowing for multiracial imagination is considered a violation of balance, a bridge too far. Inclusion is considered extreme, rather than a tool for bringing imagined futures into being.  

Dr. King explored this critique of extremism. In “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” he expresses some initial frustration at being labeled an extremist for his peaceful methods. It seemed that any movement toward change was too radical for the white moderate clergy. But the status quo was not and is not acceptable. Dr. King writes:

So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." … (Dr. King gives a few more examples before he goes on.) So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? … Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists. (paragraph 24)

I believe the nation and the world are in need of creative extremists. We need dreamers. We need bold playwrights, courageous writers, and artists who cannot be ignored. We need the power to imagine a more just and radically different future.

Dreams Need Help to Become Reality

Another point that connects science fiction with visions of equality is that dreams need help to become reality. We hear often that “the arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” but the unwritten part of that is that actual people have to do some bending. Dr. King wrote about that, too; though he uses “man” in a way that was common at the time to mean people of all genders, and he invokes his own religious tradition, we can all hear the collective responsibility in this passage. In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” Dr. King wrote:

Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity. (paragraph 21)

We can and should have hope. We still need to act according to our values. No act of encouragement, no vote cast, no letter written is a wasted effort. We must use time creatively. In the case of arts, literature, and entertainment, we must also use time travel creatively. Progress does not happen by accident.

Nichelle Nichols, who played Lieutenant Uhura in the original Star Trek series, spoke about the creation of her character and why she chose to stay on the show. None of it was an accident. When she first met with Gene Roddenberry, she was in the middle of reading a book on Uhuru, which is Swahili for freedom. Roddenberry became more convinced than ever that he wanted a Black woman on the bridge of the Enterprise. Nichols said:

When the show began and I was cast to develop this character – I was cast as one of the stars of the show – the reality of the matter was the industry was not ready for a woman or a Black and certainly not the combination of the two (and you have to remember this was 1966) in that kind of role, on that equal basis, and certainly not that kind of power role.

Nichols was also an accomplished singer and stage actress. The producers never told her about the volume of fan mail she was receiving. She was considering leaving the show to join a theatrical production headed for Broadway, when she was at an event (probably a fundraiser for the NAACP, but Nichols doesn’t remember clearly) and was asked to meet a fan. The fan turned out to be the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He told her how much he enjoyed the show, and that it was the only show he and his wife allowed their children to stay up late to watch. She told him that she was planning to resign. “You cannot!” he said. Nichols goes on:

Dr. King said to me, ‘Don’t you understand that you have the first non-stereotypical role in television in a major TV series of importance, and you establish us as we are supposed to be: as equals, whether it’s ethnic, racial, or gender.’ I was breathless. ‘Thank you, and Yes, I will stay.’

Nichols’ decision to stay had a ripple effect. Whoopi Goldberg said that the first time she saw Lieutenant Uhura on television was a major turning point for her as a child. Mae Jemison, the first African American astronaut in space, spoke about Uhura as an inspiration. Stacey Abrams is a fan.

The inner workings of a TV show with cheesy special effects, beloved as that show may be, might seem inconsequential to the future of human rights. I maintain that anything that expands our ability to dream of a better world is necessary. Stories that give us building blocks for change make a difference. And representation matters. People are hungry for diverse, respectful, innovative stories. Representation increases the chances that someone from a marginalized group can get the resources to tell their own stories rather than relying on the dominant group to borrow them. In this age of communication, it is possible to engage people from all over the planet in a conversation about our shared future. The trick is that we have to work to make sure all of the voices are included. The dream of a better world needs people who can make it a reality.

Imagination is key, and it is a starting point. In Emergent Strategy, Adrienne Maree Brown writes:

Science fiction is simply a way to practice the future together. I suspect that is what many of you are up to, practicing futures together, practicing justice together, living into new stories. It is our right and responsibility to create a new world. What we pay attention to grows, so I’m thinking about how we grow what we are all imagining and creating into something large enough and solid enough that it becomes a tipping point.

Earlier, you heard another quote from the book, in which Brown names the Beloved Community that we can use imagination to grow ourselves into. She names “a future without police and prisons ... a future without rape … harassment … constant fear, and childhood sexual assault. A future without war, hunger, violence. With abundance. Where gender is a joyful spectrum.”

Brown frames this imagined future world, this Beloved Community, as a project of both imagination and community organizing. A better world is possible.

Conclusion

The arts, in particular science fiction, can ignite a kind of a dream state. By using time and time-travel creatively, we can envision a world of justice, equality, and compassion. We have yet more ways to craft stories and plans that respect the inherent worth and dignity of every person. The dream of economic equality, the dream of equal voting rights, the dream of equal protection under the law all need foundations built under them.

If we wish to count ourselves among the dreamers, let us take action. We can continue to build coalitions with partner organizations of other faiths and cultures. We can send representatives to workshops and meetings, and listen carefully to their findings when they return. We can read about dismantling oppression and share what we find with each other.

This community is a place where we can dream freely. Let us use time effectively. Let us enter into the powers of myth, creativity, and art to imagine a better future. And then let us work and plan to make that better future come to pass. May our dreams refresh us and energize us for the tasks ahead.

May it be so.

[leftpress]

Turning Point USA Enlists Milo’s Alt-Right Understudy

Anonymous Contributor | IT'S GOING DOWN | March 15th 2017

The post Turning Point USA Enlists Milo’s Alt-Right Understudy appeared first on IT'S GOING DOWN.

Turning Point USA, the malformed brain child of neoliberal bootlicker Charlie Kirk, have publicly declared that the organization has no ties to the Alt-Right. T...

his has been refuted more than once; including Kirk’s involvement with both Breitbart and the Trump campaign, he has also provided a platform for Reddit darlings like Milo Yiannopoulos on multiple college campuses. Now that Milo has lost his marketability, TPUSA has supplanted him with an equally repulsive understudy; Ivan Throne, of “Dark Triad” fame. He will be speaking at TPU’s regional conference in Denver.

Ivan is a psychopath; this means, generally speaking, psychologists and philosophers agree that he is incapable of being held morally responsible for the detrimental effects of his actions. He has explained it as being “emotionally deaf” — he doesn’t experience empathy. However, this makes him a uniquely valuable tool for the directors of TPUSA; Ivan’s cold, detached calculation can validate the worst behaviors of those who choose to suppress their empathy as part of a political ideology. And just as one person’s blindness doesn’t erase the existence of color to the sighted, Ivan’s inability to value the human consequences of his behavior doesn’t justify or neutralize the pain of the emboldened oppression it causes. Turning Point is to blame for knowingly contributing to that oppression.

This was Step 1. We still need something more permanent.

/pol/ is still discussing solutions. pic.twitter.com/hpjHGq5Gh7

— /pol/ News Network (@polNewsNetwork1) March 13, 2017

If TPUSA is not affiliated with the alt-right, and doesn’t support hate speech, they could have fooled us. Let’s tick off the boxes for Ivan:

TOXIC MASCULINITY

Ivan has expressed concerns over his personal safety while visiting the Grand Hyatt, apparently convinced of an Antifa plot to physically attack him. Unsurprisingly, he had no such pearl-clutching reaction to violence when he was employing thinly-veiled death threats against the protesters at Milo’s CU Boulder visit. Ivan has no real anxieties about this matter; just like at CU Boulder, he’ll be nowhere near the Antifa frontline. He’ll be preening in safety behind the riot cops.

Throne gained his online reputation pushing the ideology of the “dark triad,” a mixture of narcissistic, sociopathic behaviors that Red Pill types believe are the ultimate secret to financial success, public recognition, and of course, sexual conquest. As part of this exaltation of psychopathic symptoms, he tries to typify the “warrior cult” persona that so many MRAs, Gaters, Freepers, and other “dark enlightenment” poseurs use as a substitute for a backbone and a personality. It is the cornerstone of toxic masculinity to equate physical conflict and psychological manipulation to legitimate male identity, while downplaying the value of sympathy and cooperation.

But Ivan takes it an extra step, proposing a laughable, Bushido-esque lifestyle:

“Gold and glory don’t care if you publicly bedded a stunning blonde and left her sticky and exhausted and sore in front of a crowd. Gold and glory are not about image or publicity or fashionable displays. Gold and glory are about death, power and the dark world.” ~ 3 Steps to Gladiator Power

“Your entire life is preparation for any fight for survival. Do not leave that survival to chance… There are no referees in your fight for survival… You must accept without outrage or indignation that another man plans to take your life and destroy your existence. There cannot be hope of pity or expectation of gentleness or wish for his forbearance. You must accept the dark world as it is.” ~ How to Fight Like a Psychopath

“As long as your adversary breathes he is capable of rising and ensuring your death. When killing, certainty is demanded of you in the pursuit of your own survival. Do not guess.”

This is the heart and soul of the buffoonish “dark triad” rubric. It’s a delusional view of one’s self as a masculine, warlike hero in a world of helpless thralls. It’s a storybook journey through a gritty movie universe of harsh amorality, where only the strong survive — a schoolboy’s daydream taken to a revolting conclusion. With this Social Darwinist, knockoff Patrick Bateman identity comes one of the foundational fascist tenets: the equating of compassion with weakness, and weakness with unworthiness of inclusion in the national identity. Umberto Eco categorized this as a fundamental column of the fascist power structure:

For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare… In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler. Since the group is hierarchically organized (according to a military model), every subordinate leader despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors. This reinforces the sense of mass elitism.”

And this delusion of conquest, of course, brings us right back to Trump’s popularity in the alt-right. He’s their “strong man” leader, despite being a paunchy septuagenarian. He “tells it like it is” and stands up to political correctness, by lying endlessly and shrinking from conflict immediately. He’s a successful, ruthless businessman who’s bankrupted four casinos and couldn’t follow through with his promise to remain totally self-funded. In short, he’s an overgrown child masking his insecurity through name calling and generic misogyny– a model student of the manosphere if ever there was one.

MISOGYNY AND STRICT GENDER ROLES

Like the rest of the alt-right, Ivan possesses an endless wellspring of hatred, condescension, and insecurity surrounding women. Unlike MRM and Red Pill devotees, he is usually careful to fine-tune the tone of his written pieces so as to maintain a smidgen of plausible deniability. But his writing quickly wears this veneer thin whenever he speaks on the subject of women and sex:

“The principle of hypergamy often drives, to the dissolution of the female, an unattractive carousel process of bedding male after male while in her attractive young adulthood and her sexual glow is at its prime. This does wonders for her self-esteem and sexual experience but detracts from her market worth and severely degrades the calculation of her wife value.” ~ 10 Ways to Calculate Her Wife Value

“Committed feminists are nearly universally unhappy, bitter and complaining whiners who refuse to accept the reality of the dark world and insist on subservient behavioral and intellectual conformity with their silly and obnoxious ideology.” ~ 10 Ways to Calculate Her Wife Value

“Bit by bit, the damaged and deranged woman will assuage her abandonment fears by insidiously infecting your life and your time with her control.” ~ 3 Red Flags of the Damaged Woman

For those not in the know, “hypergamy” is a term the MRM adopted to shame women for having “too much sex,” a statement which bases itself off of an arbitrary male threshold of tolerance for how sexually active a woman should be.

Notice the stale, telltale pattern of patriarchal thinking: women are to be valued based on their usefulness and acceptability in a man’s eyes, and held to a lower standard because of a presumed inferiority. This is the point of unification between Ivan and the rest of the alt-right, an agreement around male supremacy based on the misguided belief that males of the species are meant to be dominant, and that a “feminization” of modern men is bringing about the destruction of civilization. Nevermind that genuine human evolution improved our adaptability by moving away from this unnecessary gender dichotomy which is more pronounced in our less-evolved sister species.

The natural, intrinsic counterpart of male fanaticism is female repression; it’s as simple as that. To keep one elevated, the other must be devalued. This belief has been demonstrated by every significant figure in the alt-right, including Milo’s derogatory remarks towards women, trans identity, and feminism:

“Everyone knows that becoming a feminist makes a woman less marriageable, more crass and generally just unpleasant to be around. But does it also make them uglier?… This may explain why so many angry, lesbianic placard-wavers look like they’ve been hit by a bus.”

“Men on the other hand dominate high paying STEM majors like Electrical Engineering.  Women are free to study engineering, and often make fine engineers. But why on earth would feminism feel the need to shoehorn women into studying a subject they don’t want to?”

“Feminism is like the Netherlands: it owes its existence to a network of dykes fighting the forces of nature.”

This rhetoric has caused real damage over time; Ivan’s own suspicion that every woman is, at heart, a conniving succubus is echoed in the manifesto of Elliot Rodger.

TPUSA is, unquestionably, taking part in a continuation of the behaviors exhibited during Gamergate and the surge of Reddit-based male supremacist movements during 2014. Before the alt-right gained legitimacy in mainstream politics, they were propped up by the hatemongering and abusive tactics deployed against critics of pop culture’s rampant disregard for the female, the non-cishet, and the non-white. This component of the alt-right was, and remains, a reactionary movement dedicated to preserving a dominant gender by intimidating the opposition, nothing more or less than a contemporary rebirth of the He-Man Woman Haters Club.

Turning Point will furnish as evidence of their gender-neutrality their Women’s Leadership event, and their numerous female members. This omits the fact that as adherents of Donald Trump, they support the agenda of an admitted sexual predator and open misogynist, irrespective of the gender of this or that supporter specifically — that’s to say nothing of their ties to Milo, or to Steve Bannon, who once said that leftist women only oppose female conservatives because they are “a bunch of dykes that came from the Seven Sisters schools.” Tokenism is not a satisfactory defense against such deafening inhumanity.

THE PATRIOT-WARRIOR CULT

As part of his worship of Trump – to whom Ivan insipidly refers as the “God Emperor” – Throne is equal parts jingoist and capitalist, forming that rich soil of nationalistic chauvinism and neoliberalism from which fascism inevitably sprouts:

“$54 billion is expensive. It is far less expensive than no longer being the dominant military hyperpower in the new age.” ~ Responding to a question on 45’s budget adjustments

“The leftist bastions across the nation are reeling with shock and fear at the overwhelming victory of Trump at the polls on Tuesday. It is a phenomenal outcome, well predicted by those who face reality unblinded – and the source of savage opportunity for men of the West to both push forward the advance of civilization, and their own natural ferocity.” ~ Your Future Under the God Emperor

“In Trump’s popular rise to ultimate power we see the lessons of his ferocious talent and a secure future for an American nation faced with the fall of Western civilization into a pit of multicultural collapse.” ~ Donald Trump the Dark Triad Man

This nationalistic, ego-driven mentality is mirrored by TPUSA’s patriotic zealotry, heightening American society to an Olympian ideal of self-sufficiency, militaristic dominance, embodiment of justice, and entitlement based on superiority. But their claim that this country is “the best in the world” is not just a childish tautology, it’s also visibly untrue.

Remember, the Western culture that alt-right goons and Trump disciples fetishize is demonstrably NOT a culture of prosperity or valor. “Real America” is a place where the military budget can be increased obscenely at the expense of HUD and SNAP, where high infant mortality, poisoned water supplies, police state violence, childhood homelessness, and mass incarceration are routine. America supplies itself not through “self-sufficiency,” but by robbing weaker countries of resource and autonomy. It is a nation which allows a codified privilege of the white, heterosexual male to reign supreme. Those in power — just as in the days of race, gender, and property restrictions for voters — have access to a code of law which overwhelmingly benefits them, and thereby enables them to mold those very same laws to their personal gain. This is not the failing of the system, but its very function; to extract resource from the many, at whatever cost, for the benefit of the few. Donald Trump is the most openly corrupt politician in recent years, certainly, but that openness is his only truly unique trait. American presidents have variously been murderers, white supremacists, war criminals, and outright crooks.

This is not a culture to be applauded. It is an appalling slaughter, one which robs life from the innocent, robs time from the sick and the imprisoned, and has contributed to misery on every continent for the benefit of a scant few aristocrats. This is based largely on two recurring dynamics in human civilization; white male privilege, and fascism born from global neoliberalism. Both are dear to the alt-right, and Ivan is no exception.

WEAPONIZED IGNORANCE

What lies at the core of TPUSA, Ivan Throne’s fame, and the assorted organs of the alt-right, is a fundamental lack of awareness. It is from this aquifer of willful ignorance and arrogance that Western chauvinism is dredged:

“Be a man of the West and stand hard and proud in defense of your civilization against the invader, the murderer, the degrading monster of appeasement…” ~ Men of the West

“It is the responsibility of every man of the Western world to stand and take personal responsibility for the preservation of his family, his community, his country, his culture, and his very civilization itself.” ~ Uncuck Your Bloody Country

“Men are masters of their own fate. Most human beings are common. To rise above this strata you must deserve such rise.” ~ Quora question

Yet again, Ivan is a useful prism of alt-right dogma: he believes that certain folk are unworthy of success because they are “common,” and lack the willpower to succeed. Similarly, Charlie Kirk scowls at any effort or legal measure which protects, elevates, or relieves the poor because he erroneously considers them to be the authors of their own poverty. These beliefs are founded on personal experience; neither of these men has experienced a lack of status or means, so they assume their “success” must be due to their own greatness.

Ivan believes males are superior, because he lives in a culture which punishes women for pursuing leadership, and makes him see patriarchy as natural, reasonable, and beneficial — all untrue, but psychologically satisfying to him. This is the behavior we call “bigotry;” a pleasurable, gratifying, deliberate ignorance of material reality. Charlie Kirk, for his part, believes in the “American Dream.” He claims his organization is advancing meritocracy, not realizing that using outside funds to influence college elections negates that very belief, and actually demonstrates the inherently unjust and coercive nature of capitalism.

Ivan, like Charlie, applauds nationalistic, hypermilitaristic tendencies throughout history, because he has never confronted their ill effects, and never will. It’s no wonder his orations are so emptily grandiose and hyperbolic; without recognizing (or acknowledging) oppression, a legitimate and useful analysis of America is impossible. The image of the “conquering empire” becomes a romantic ideal, rather than a daily-administered cudgel in the hands of a self-appointed aristocracy, with which the elite have extinguished countless lives in the name of preserving their own artificial superiority. But willfully ignoring or flippantly justifying these imperialistic trends is mentally pleasing, and allows a person to consider themselves part of a grand tradition of idealistic civilization — ironically, seeking validation through a conforming identity, the antithesis of the “lone wolf” ideal that Ivan and his fans drool over.

This destructive behavior exceeds by leagues and miles the singular voices of the alt-right. It informs the mentality of Steve Bannon, of ICE and DHS agents, of the NSA and the military and the police. The battle against this ongoing territorial occupation called “America” goes far beyond lone individuals.

THIS HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT JUST ONE MAN

Ivan Throne, like Milo, is a sloppily-painted mockery of an intellectual. His hollow writing combines the forced edginess of our cringe-inducing high school days with a knack for hocking commodified anti-PC pornography to Red Pill dopes. He’ll wave around his bestseller as proof of his genius, forgetting he shares that honor with the Twilight Saga, The Secret, 50 Shades, and the Da Vinci Code — all highly marketable, self-indulgent, pseudo-spiritual masturbatory aids for the paranoid, the immature, or the terminally affectatious.

If not for their milking of the anxieties of wannabe “dark” intelligentsia, and their preexisting societal exemption from consequences for such bigoted posturing, Milo and Ivan would be fetching coffee for the bosses in an unpaid San Fransisco tech intership. They are neither worthwhile authors, nor meaningful political figures, nor lofty philosophers. They prey financially upon that toxic pairing of boyish insecurity masked by juvenile malice which calls itself the Men’s Rights Movement. It’s the easiest racket since the diet pill pyramid.

Ivan Throne is, in the grand scheme, inconsequential as a individual, just like his predecessor. But the problem for we antifascists is that the recent spike in hate crimes, the undisguised manipulation of public narrative, the despotic behavior of the elite, and this newfound exuberance for misogyny, transphobia, and white supremacist terrorism are inflicting real harm, on real people, who aren’t being protected by their “elected” officials. A maggot among maggots is individually impotent and craven — nobody will ever sing the victory hymns of Paul Elam, Richard Spencer, or Davis Aurini, either. But like the rest of the alt-right menagerie, Ivan’s rhetoric can, and does, contribute to the rising tide of fascism in America.

Some of the white supremacist and Alt-Right accounts that Ivan follows on twitter

It is utter fantasy that Ivan considers himself a potential target for assassination; he’s not a Cuban diplomat, he’s Jordan Owen in a tuxedo. What matters to Denver’s antifascists is having a self-governing community where the immigrant and refugee are protected, where Muslims and Jews are not terrorized by racists, where the trans and asexual identity are included in commonplace sexual education, where women and men are equal on paper and off, and where The People are empowered by their shared sense of humanity, a bulwark against their common oppressors. That is why we fight. 

We root our struggles in material circumstances, not egotistical visions of a make-believe world. We deal in the realities of American imperialism and colonialism. That is why we do not “debate” fascists; the have no debatable positions. Their paranoia and prejudice are rooted in self-delusion, and to debate the question, “should the black population be eliminated” or “should women be allowed to vote” would suppose that the question has merit enough to deserve debate at all. Fascism is only ended through swift, exponential action by the laboring class, not though cowering centrism and polite discussion with blackshirts. It must be repeatedly demonstrated that TPUSA’s membership and allies are NOT excused from the consequences of proudly declaring one’s opposition to basic human rights, irrespective of their “free speech” bullshitting.

Denver is not for the taking. Charlie Kirk continues to deny his connection to the alt-right, but also continues to supply a platform for their dreggish figureheads, and extend thereby the influence of his avaricious mentors. So long as TPUSA invites alt-right personalities to spread ignorance and destruction in our city, we will be fighting them not because they are uniquely threatening, but because the bramble of imperialism must be hacked apart in order of the closest branches. It’s their own fault that happens to be them.

Donate to help us grow and expand!

[hanzi83]

Different topics: Self reflection, Pro WWE Stans, and Backlash of the XXXtentacion Joke

Blog

I am back for another blog. I keep thinking it will be the end, but due to not being able to jot down my personal thoughts I have had the need to at least put my mind frame out there so people can see where my mind is going. I am going to focus on certain things, I mean there will still be self loathing and self reflection with a mixture of other things on my mind because sometimes, as limited as my verbiage can be due to being a fucking scattered brain nut who can’t organize the thoughts in his head in a precise manner, and can’t figure out where my mind has been over the course of the last decade and that is the unfortunate thing about someone who followed the lead on how to think because I never knew how to think for myself, and I have fell for ignorant point of views or limited point of views and it has never left me satisfied.

Over the course of the last few years I have moved towards being more of a leftist person. I used to not be empathic or sympathetic towards others because I thought nihilism is such a cool and edgy thing for most of my existence, when being a nice person did not make me stand out and made people dislike me for being too much of a square, not realizing I was buying into a normalized right wing and centrist mentality because of the people who had platforms, who would be woke about certain behaviors and on certain issues, and it feels like with all the shit I have been through, trying to interview different people on my periscope sessions, and even talking to people with ignorant views, to see a better way, even if they seem like a Trump supporter, who still have minorities as friends etc, and I feel it is a challenge, because my mind is weak and it feels like if I am not embraced by leftist leaning people, who never really say anything when I am dealing with harassment, it seems more people who come across as peaceful centrists or right wings that they are embracing me, like “Look our side is embracing you, those leftists don’t care about you” and I feel like a certain point I might buckle, because I am a weak minded person, and I have always conformed with who I was around with the outlook, so I constantly deal with this harassment the more I try to put out a more peaceful message.

I am vehemently attacked for having a different outlook on groups fighting against oppression so the right wing government agents trolling me, are trying to paint me as a terrorist sympathizer, while they are the ones siding with the real systemic terror that is taking place. I am accused of hating all white people, when I have pointed out how people are buying into a systemic white supremacy and it is a big no-no. The people, who are supposed free speech advocates, are not for me expressing how people who think they are being edgy are not really being edgy. I have been blackballed from even being able to have a career when I have contributed many ideas that have been taken from me, and the specifics have never made me point it out, just the fact that I contributed.  Maybe that was  Stern Show tactic I fell for, because Stern was a huge influence to me and I always wanted to impress him, so when he would make fun of Stuttering John for keeping tabs on what joke he wrote and would have all sorts of papers he made light of that, and that is when I decided never to keep tab of what ideas and jokes were used by multiple people. The propaganda is so real, even if I explain my narrative, they will just say I was a crazy caller and nothing more, and then they will hint that I helped Stern make millions and I am owed money, and they will deny it is my incapability of finding a job and never disclose that they are keeping me censored. They fuck with my views and pump them up when it is convenient, to show these views on periscope, especially are not genuine. They constantly try to peace talk with me, and not disclose their views are leaning toward the right, so I don’t immediately shoo them away.

This is where it ties into wrestling because they love when I lose my mind. I have spoken out about WWE’s practices, and how I don’t like who runs the company etc, I still appreciate the people who work there and entertain the fans, but even rubbing it in my face I won’t be a part of the Summer festivities in Toronto is meant to make me lose my mind because I lost my mind when Mania festivities took place. Sometimes I wonder if this is all worth it, over the last few months I have not cared about pop culture news or television shows/movies etc to catch up on anything. Maybe I should not care, but it is literally everything we consume is run by some sort of evil. I am sure this computer I am typing on was probably put together by some sweatshop worker or something. It feels like the easiest mind frame to have does just not want to be here because I try to be socially conscious, but I am still using shit that is tied to evil shit, whether it is a tablet, or consuming from some fast food place or something. I lose my fucking mind and the possibility that people I know are also involved with shady things, even though I don’t fucking know, it fucks with me. \

So the wrestling stuff has really taken its toll because even though I believe a lot of the stuff outside the ring, even stuff involving media outlets is also like wrestling, maybe I am buying into it but ever since the introduction of AEW, which does have shadiness with its owners as well, to be fair, it seems like the pro WWE contingent have attack others like they are socially conscious, while never copping to the fact they might be taking WWE money to shill for them online, and because they call out Saudi Arabia, or calling out Hulk Hogan, they think they are doing their due diligence of being socially conscious, and will constantly show off WWE hiring minorities as the most socially conscious shit ever, while it is performative at its best. They accuse others of not keeping the same energy while also not keeping the same energy. Their points towards other companies and people are valid, but the fact they are acting like these new hip people and they are siding with WWE, it supposed to be this manufactured talk about race misogyny etc, while they are supporting the company who have systemically caused a lot of this shit as well. So when there are accounts dedicated to mocking Dave Meltzer, who I don’t agree with by the way on a lot of shit, and I have called him out as well, but since he is has been more on AEW side the harassment has taken another level, under the guise of criticism of his reports etc, there have been attacks on his family and his kids, and when he finally puts on his own board the name of the person doing it, which anyone can see, he is accused of doxing even though it was his first name. I wouldn’t have done it since it said in their terms that no one would do that, but these same shit disturbers are acting like the biggest victims, so much so that he put out the name himself on his own twitter, totally normal for someone to do when they fear their name is out there.

These same dudes who are performative about the outrage were the same ones attacking other people who don’t believe a company with shoddy morality and has had a huge track record of sweeping corruption within their own company under the rug, would actually being capable of exaggerating one of their employees, or independent contractors’ battle with cancer. Now it is genius if this was a lie or some sort of exaggeration because you present a severity of something like cancer, which is horrible to have, so now because people question it, they will have their shills attack anyone questioning it, and if it does end up that this was a lie, it shows how so many of these WWE shills and fan boys and girls, are propping their own experiences and this narrative of “HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THIS, THIS IS NOT A STORYLINE” the same fucking guy who grilled Brian Pillman’s wife on live television after her husband’s death so he could deflect blame on the company, the fact that he may have paid off people to get off Jimmy Snuka off a murder, or the infamous ring boy scandal, or how recently in the affidavit there was reports from Ashley Massaro being raped and it was covered up. “BUT THEY ARE A PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY” Yeah because that has stopped other publicly traded companies from partaking in any shadiness or corruption.

These same people who care about the sanctity of cancer victims, they were the first ones who would pile on me and tell me to go kill myself, someone who has mental illness, and they had to secrecy of hiding their identities even though I know which people they were and I cannot prove it technically but people accusing Meltzer using his fan boys to defend him etc, are the same ones defending WWE and being a stan of a billion dollar company. I could be wrong about the Reigns stuff but everything to me in this system is manufactured in some way or another, whether it is staged or some other cause orchestrating. I don’t have all the facts, and that is true, but since you guys pit me as this guy who is in his mom’s basement and is a fucking loser, why would you be so threatened by some mentally ill asshole right? Obviously I struck a chord with you guys if you are encouraging me to kill myself, and then acting like you are not doing at behest of a billion dollar company, or some popular radio host who can never be called out.

 The last thing I will say and I am in a hurry. There seems to be this controversy of XXXtentacion joke by some comedian. I have many thoughts of this. People are outraged because she made a joke about someone, who on his time on earth was not the best human being and did horrible things, so she made a joke that his death of getting killed and robbed would be commercial for why you should get Venmo. The joke was not the greatest, even though I feel she has every right to do that joke, comedians should be allowed to try something out without the fear of getting people to threaten her and dox her. Part of me feels, as much I agree with any comedian being able to try to do their jokes and apply their craft, that there is a contingent of right wing comedians who hide behind free speech etc, but they will censor anyone’s else’s free speech under the guise of getting their fan base to threaten other women, but are for this woman’s joke who mocked XXX’s death. Comedians act like their craft is some pure art and never call out the government agents and undercover law enforcement supporters in their own shit. Only time you see these “edgy” comedians call out someone, is when it is someone being “Too PC’ but never call their own side’s bullshit and act like they are the fighters of free speech, while still being prostituted by the right wing side, which has always had a part in the comedy world. Ill see supposed conspiracy theorist comedians, who will put out shit as fact, and I have put out theories, and always state I never know for a fact, but these people will put out that Drake and other rappers sacrificed XXX like it is a fact and that is more dangerous than getting backlash for a fucking joke. It feels like these things are created, maybe both sides are in on it, but it serves its agendas, because the cultists of XXX’s will have a field day and then the ones fighting back have a new angle of a comedian being the fucking victim. These same comedians would not approve of me calling out how comedians are compromised, and not with the jokes they tell, but when they do their podcasts or radio shows, and are being 100 percent serious will advocate for death of minorities and intellectualize it.

I never seen anyone in comedy ever call out how comedy shows like Stern Show or O&A helped start the alt right, and even though these shows were hilarious and there was satirizing of racism, misogyny, and homophobia etc but when they spoke out seriously about things they were spreading nonstop propaganda, and acting like the side they were fighting for is completely freedom, while constantly tying corporate nature with people speaking out against the systemic evils, even if it was limited, like they were not doing the same thing but on a much more edgier level. You don’t see any of these free speech comedians ever call out people like Stern for blackballing me from comedy and not letting me have a more progressive message or maybe explaining how there are initiations about how people have to partake in propaganda to make it, no one wants to hear that shit, so they will limit the messages on either side. No one will pay attention to this anyways, because I will be lumped in with every blogger who is censoring comedy, even though I want comedy to be free, and this supposed presentation of “what comedy is supposed to be” is also prostituted and no one will ever dare point it out and it will just be seen with different cliques and more limited narratives.

So there is my fucking piece. It was shitty and no one should respect me. I hope someday I am out of this world so I never have to endure the pretentiousness and maybe I won’t feel the need to give into this bullshit because my mind does weaken and sometimes I wish I did sell out because it looks so appealing to be celebrated and be able to have connections, but I isolated myself and am not capable of fully trusting another fucking human being. I will always be miserable, and even though I used to think it was cool to be miserable, and self centered, because that was seen as the ultimate “I don’t give a fuck” thing, I realized it was propaganda, but it might be too late for me because my mind has been poisoned for so long, that my mind could be persuaded into this shit. It is what scares me, and for the good of this planet, I would beg people to just rid me off here because it is becoming too much for my fucked up brain to handle.  

Let me clarify though, every comedian has a right to try out dark material, it might not land well, but sometimes it feels like these situations are meant to cause a reaction because it is the new marketing, and I don’t think that XXX deserved to die, being shot at 20 year old is horrible and I do personally believe that someone could have changed if the right people had got to him, and I always feel like people in the industry who do horrible things is part of some initiation, and for some rappers it is always meant to put them in violent situations etc, but no one ever wants to discuss that, so maybe XXX was changing his life and the problematic behavior, but people have to keep in mind that people don’t also have to like what he did, and the ones who have a problem with that joke maybe get on your platforms and discuss why people in the industry do shitty things, like these corporations don’t design it this way, but we can’t prove any of that right? I just had layered thoughts of this whole situation, and people will accuse me of not being for free speech of comedy. I believe comedians should be able to tell their jokes etc. It would not even shock me some of the people threatening to dox and kill this female comedian, weren’t also some right wing types making it seem far more dangerous than what it was. I could be wrong but I question everything and everyone. Everyone has a fucking agenda. These same people who defend Louie, also act like people going after Louie are the ones who have the agenda, but acting like your defense of him is just for the art of comedy, not like you are being given incentive to defend him. It is also funny that the people who were embracing him when he was more socially conscious, never once mentioned how Louie came from being a well off privileged dude, and was not this everyday working man, it is funny how that happens to come out after all of this, kind of like it is like wrestling and it was time to turn Louie heel now. Just my thoughts.

[topmixtrends]

IN HER 1981 keynote address to the National Women’s Studies Association, the poet and freedom fighter Audre Lorde described the perils of some such gatherings. She told her audience that “I speak out of direct and particular anger at an academic conference, and a white woman says, ‘Tell me how you feel but don’t say it too harshly or I cannot hear you.’” Lorde then asked: “But is it my manner that keeps her from hearing, or the threat of a message that her life may change?” Lorde was up against “white fragility,” but the problem then lacked a name.

The person providing the name has been Dr. Robin DiAngelo, whose doctorate in education from University of Washington analyzed the racial discourse of white preschool teachers. An award-winning professor who has increasingly turned to being a facilitator of workshops designed to teach whites to frankly discuss their own racial position, she first used “white fragility” in a 2011 article. Her work has informed many experts in multicultural education and activists in social movements. In the book under review here, DiAngelo mostly lets readers figure out what white fragility is by trickling out interesting concrete examples, often from her workshop experiences. Through the years her most succinct definition has specified,

White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation.

There rages among antiracists and those who imagine that we are past all that a pretty fierce debate over the merits of asking people to confront, in an organized way, the advantages accruing to them as whites. On the right, DiAngelo is already attacked, as is critical whiteness studies generally. Indeed, one perverse dimension of such venomous attack is an ability to perpetually gin up outrage and white fragility around academic studies of whiteness as if it were a new and intolerable thing, a quarter century after the first such attacks. Now that DiAngelo’s book has appeared on the New York Times nonfiction best-seller list, she is almost certain to become the outrage du jour.

At one extreme of progressive opinion is the position taken by the political scientist Adolph Reed and the literary scholar Walter Benn Michaels. They discern in activism and education around racism the diversionary initiatives of a “class” of academics, middle managers, and political hired hands who, consciously or otherwise, divert attention from the hard facts of economic inequality and keep us preoccupied instead with obsessing about identity. This “antiracism/industrial complex” — odd that a nation so bereft of industrial jobs is said to keep generating these complexes — allegedly expresses the interests of a professional/managerial class serving capital. The counter-positions to those of Reed and Benn Michaels hold that stark racial inequality continues and that something like what feminists called “consciousness raising” has value where whiteness is concerned. Whites — the feminist imagination of a process with the oppressed themselves at the center is perhaps insufficiently emphasized in the antiracist variant — might then puzzle out the miseries, to others and themselves, done in the name of adherence to a set of unexamined assumptions and fiercely defended privileges.

Neither position very much encourages constructing a balance sheet regarding what antiracist seminars, study circles, workshops, and certificates might achieve. Neither much notices the differing ideologies and material realities under which they operate. For Reed and Michaels, the antiracist consultant is a class enemy; the more sympathetic, myself included, are sometimes too tempted to then suppose that the well-meaning consultant ought not be criticized, or even that the critiques are themselves simply evidence of a desire for what DiAngelo calls “comfort” and “white-centeredness” among the critics.

To occupy more fruitful ground, treating the contradictions and success of the book together seems apposite before I offer a closing section on the challenges and possibilities of antiracism training. White Fragility fascinatingly reads as one-part jeremiad and one-part handbook. It is by turns mordant and then inspirational, an argument that powerful forces and tragic histories stack the deck fully against racial justice alongside one that we need only to be clearer, try harder, and do better. On the one hand, as its subtitle suggests, the book underlines how wildly difficult it is for mere conversation to break through layers of defensiveness among whites. The sedimented debris of past injustices conspire with current patterns of white advantage to make white employees and even white activists very hard to coach toward any mature questioning of racial oppression. Their practiced (in all senses of the word) resort to defensiveness and even tears in squelching talk about such advantage is both reflexive and conscious. That very fact adds to opportunities for race talk to devolve into a need to validate the good intentions of individual whites at the expense of serious consideration of either structures of white supremacy or its impacts on its victims. Seldom can anyone learn anything.

On the other hand, White Fragility and DiAngelo’s website offer lists, links, and rules for working antiracist magic, making the task seem at times straightforward and centered on the skills of the workshop facilitator and perhaps on lay people adopting and adapting her wisdom. “Robin DiAngelo is,” Michael Eric Dyson writes a little oddly, in a generous and apt foreword, “the new racial sheriff in town.” DiAngelo is able to bring a “different law and order to bear upon the racial proceedings.” She can, he holds, deliver results by making whites own up to fear, pain, and privilege. If we do things right, the movement, workplace, or the congregation will change and grow, at the very least coming to contain better people. In tone and content, the book jars against itself. The can-do spirit of the workshop and primer knocks against the sober accounts of the utter embeddedness of white advantage in structures of both political economy and of personality and character. Such jarring is not indefensible. We live in contradictions and we do what we can. “Optimism of the will,” the Italian revolutionary Antonio Gramsci enjoined, but also “pessimism of the intellect.” The danger perhaps arises when doing ameliorative work well begins to seem like a strategy for deep structural change.

The subtitle itself suggests how hard it is for a book to thread needles that a society and the states of its social movements do not provide us with the resources to thread. I never blame an author entirely for his or her title and subtitle, as I have unhappily learned from personal experience how the marketing department can commandeer the naming of books. But whomever gave it to us, the subtitle of White Fragility offers a telling example of the apt severity of the book’s analysis clashing with its search for a plausible fix. It promises to tell us “Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism,” a real problem, but one deepened even more by the fact that white people do in fact drone on about race and racism. They speak privately, rehearsing what I have elsewhere called “whitelore” and to a remarkable extent casting themselves as the victims of racism. When a Donald Trump or a Rush Limbaugh markets himself as having the courage to defend in public what “you” already know and say, they trade on an extensive, if intellectually impoverished, discourse.

Thus the challenge only seems to be getting whites to open up and fill a void. At its best, DiAngelo’s work knows this well and emphasizes likewise that whites are not in the main vexed by being actually fragile around race. The more exact and obdurate problem is that they tend to be sullen, anxious to defend advantages, and given to performing a stance of fragility. It is less clear that all readers will know as much or that allowing them to acknowledge what underlays their fragility will change their attitudes.

The author’s keen perception, long experience, and deep commitment make White Fragility revealing as to how whites hunker down and huddle together for warmth. In movement settings, I have seen the term white fragility deployed to great effect, especially in the least scripted scenarios. In its appreciation of the emotional content of white identity’s many associations with misery, it calls to mind the indispensable work of the theologian Thandeka in Learning to Be White, though the latter leaves more room to acknowledge that the pain of white racial formation is profound and real as well as contrived. As Katy Waldman has written in The New Yorker, DiAngelo has issued a necessary “call for humility and vigilance.”

Though at times White Fragility envisions race as a durable category — even calling for whites to have more “racial stamina” in order to question whiteness — it does not imagine anything redemptive about whiteness and hopes at least for so-called white people to become “less white.” It is uncommonly honest about the duration and extent of entrenched injustice and provocative on the especially destructive role of progressive whites at critical junctures. How often, in the age of Trump, do we read that: “White progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color?”

Nevertheless, for me White Fragility reads better as evidence of where we are mired than as a how-to guide on where we are on the cusp of going. Its pessimistic half convinces more than its optimism. Without more than appeals to logical consistency and to conscience, what lasts beyond the workshop is likely to fade. There is no firm sense of the politics that might be productively attached to the attack on white fragility and white supremacy to which DiAngelo is passionately committed. Between the book’s lines, some sort of reparations for slavery, Jim Crow, and mass incarceration would seem the logically desired outcome, but DiAngelo elaborates little regarding what comes after white fragility.

Part of the problem is a certain reticence to become curious about what antiracist training is, who it has as an audience, and what are its limits. Is the workshop the project of a union, a church, a radical collective, or, as is so often the case, an employer? This difference goes unexamined. It includes much textured description of training sessions, but perhaps too little about their contradictions and limitations.

Beyond the contradiction belabored above — the one setting powerful structural and emotional causes for white fragility against discursive and voluntary solutions — several other (potentially productive) difficulties arise. What voices and eventualities are relatively missing from the description of the workshops deserves consideration. As Waldman points out in her appreciative review, the role of people of color in the sessions described is pretty scant. They appear as rightfully suspicious and not active at times or as weighing in late in the proceedings or afterward with a critique that enables the facilitator to reflect and grow, modeling the overcoming of white fragility. But the substance of their contributions and the ways in which they might become more central to the discussions remain unclear. The very important and often transformative moments when people of color disagree with each other in discussions of race are perhaps subjects for another book. The labor historian in me also wonders how many antiracism workshops take place in workplaces, and whether we should not emphasize that those interactions are management-sponsored as well as workplace-centered. As much as Starbucks, for example, seems to enter the side of the angels by undertaking diversity training, they and other corporations also manage workers hierarchically, and use their antiracism training in marketing, in damage control, and in combating litigation. Such corporations are themselves in large measure responsible for the obscene racial wealth gap in the United States. Under their auspices may not be the most favorable setting for workers to find their ways beyond racism.

Full disclosure: I have had an inglorious and meager career — okay, the better noun is surely side hustle — in giving non-corporate antiracist workshops, in addition to being a historian of race and class. If asked to do so by unions or by friends wanting me to do something extra when in town to do an academic talk, I grudgingly assent. The critical legal theorist john powell and I long ago prepared a questionnaire on whiteness. I still sometimes trot out a few questions from it — “When are you white?” or “What would you put in a display on white culture?” — to try to break through to frank discussions very like those DiAngelo has honed strategies for encouraging.

Sometimes, such antiracism without a license has proven to be a wonderful learning experience, more for me than my interlocutors. The best examples came a quarter century ago. I was still trying to figure who the “white worker” was, past and present, and why so much of her or his political behavior accented the “white.” So I just asked, particularly in workshops in Missouri sponsored by the New Directions Movement within the United Automobile Workers and the summer schools of the United Steelworkers: “Why would anyone want to claim the identity of ‘white worker?’” The students were perhaps two-thirds white, and it was the white trade unionists who first answered. They said that if you were white you could get a job in higher-paying skilled trades, that you could get a better interest rate and buy a house in any neighborhood, that your kids could go to better schools, that cops were less likely to hassle you and your family. That is, they understood acutely — in that setting anyway — the advantages attending whiteness.

The remarkable matter-of-fact set of insights that those workers presented, reinforced by interspersed comments from African-American workers, suggests that White Fragility may — if taken as panacea rather than as a useful corner of a big problem — be too pessimistic as well as too cheery. Some of the critique of whiteness may already reside in the heads of ordinary whites, though sadly what they already know can increase defensiveness as easily as decrease it.

Long ago, in The Fire Next Time, James Baldwin invited a dis-identification from whiteness so that whites in the United States might join in the “suffering and dancing” around them. More than ever in our moment we need just that. In my view, such a change will come when whites are swept into social movements that express the interests of humanity and that probably will seldom have whites at their center. White Fragility — indeed any single book — cannot conjure up such movements. But it does much help us to get there.

¤

David Roediger chairs the American Studies Department at University of Kansas. His recent Class, Race, and Marxism (Verso) has won the C. L. R. James Book Prize from the Working Class Studies Association.

The post On the Defensive: Navigating White Advantage and White Fragility appeared first on Los Angeles Review of Books.

from Los Angeles Review of Books https://ift.tt/2wQw2Wp

[deniscollins]

Outraged in Private, Many C.E.O.s Fear the Wrath of the President

What would you do if you were a CEO appointed to a Presidential Advisory Committee and you were upset with a series of presidential reactions, but also aware that resigning from the advisory committee may result in President Trump criticizing you on Twitter: (1) resign and clearly state your reasons, (2) resign but don’t say anything in public criticizing the President, or (3) not resign? Why? What are the ethics underlying your decision?

At what point do the C.E.O.s of the largest companies in the United States tell President Trump that enough is enough?

Not yet, apparently.

On Monday morning, President Trump went on a tirade against Kenneth C. Frazier, chief executive of Merck, the pharmaceuticals giant. Mr. Frazier, one of the nation’s most prominent African-American chief executives, had announced through his company’s Twitter account that he was resigning from the president’s American Manufacturing Council in response to Mr. Trump’s refusal over the weekend to immediately and directly condemn the white supremacists and neo-Nazis carrying swastika flags in Charlottesville, Va. Mr. Trump had pinned the blame for the bigotry and violence — which left one anti-bigotry protester dead — on “many sides.”

“America’s leaders must honor our fundamental values by clearly rejecting expressions of hatred, bigotry and group supremacy, which run counter to the American ideal that all people are created equal,” Mr. Frazier said.

Within minutes on Monday, Mr. Trump, in far less time than it took him to react to the violence in Charlottesville, was on Twitter criticizing Mr. Frazier. “Now that Ken Frazier of Merck Pharma has resigned from President’s Manufacturing Council, he will have more time to LOWER RIPOFF DRUG PRICES!”

Later, Mr. Trump renewed his criticism of Merck, tweeting: “@MerckPharma is a leader in higher & higher drug prices while at the same time taking jobs out of the U.S. Bring jobs back & LOWER PRICES!”

The silence from the larger C.E.O. community about Mr. Trump’s reaction to the situation in Charlottesville has been remarkably conspicuous, even as one of their own has now been attacked online by the president.

By Monday evening, at least two other C.E.O.s had stepped forward. Kevin Plank, the founder of Under Armour, announced on Twitter that he was resigning from the American Manufacturing Council, saying, among other things, that his company “engages in innovation and sports, not politics.” He did not refer to the president, though.

Mr. Plank was followed shortly after by Brian Krzanich, the Intel chief executive, who announced on the company’s website that he would step down from the council as well. “I resigned because I want to make progress, while many in Washington seem more concerned with attacking anyone who disagrees with them,” he said.

A few big-name corporate leaders released innocuous statements over the weekend condemning the violence by white supremacists in Charlottesville. But with the exception of Mr. Frazier, none appear to have directly condemned the president’s choice of words, which have been a lightning rod for Americans from many quarters, even among many Republican lawmakers and Trump supporters.

At a news conference on Monday, after a barrage of blistering criticism, the president said that “racism is evil.”

As the day wore on, several executives, including Meg Whitman of Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, made statements in support of Mr. Frazier, while others — including Tim Cook of Apple, and the Business Roundtable, which represents some 200 C.E.O.s — condemned the racism on display in Charlottesville.

But notably, not one executive on any of the president’s various councils said anything directly about the president.

The statements from American chief executives that came closest to criticizing Mr. Trump’s language came from Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Mr. Krzanich of Intel.

Mr. Blankfein tweeted on Monday morning: “Lincoln: ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ Isolate those who try to separate us. No equivalence w/ those who bring us together.” (Mr. Blankfein is not on any of the president’s councils, which may make it easier for him to be critical.)

Mr. Krzanich put it this way: “There should be no hesitation in condemning hate speech or white supremacy by name. #Intel asks all our countries leadership to do the same.”

Marc Benioff of Salesforce aimed at Mr. Trump with a sarcastic post, saying: “Thank you @realDonaldTrump for calling to Love thy neighbor, value equality, & calling evil by name.”

But how can so many other American business leaders and senior executives remain quiet about the president’s reaction? Where is the moral courage to stand up?

After all, most companies these days spend countless hours talking about their culture and values. Just last week, Google publicly fired one of its engineers within days of his writing a memo that questioned whether “personality differences” between men and women led to there being fewer female engineers in the technology industry.

How can people like Adebayo O. Ogunlesi, a lead director of Goldman Sachs and an infrastructure investor, remain a member of Mr. Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum — a role highlighted on Mr. Ogunlesi’s company biography? How could Mr. Ogunlesi, an immigrant from Nigeria who was a clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court, stay silent?

As Justice Marshall himself famously said, “Where you see wrong or inequality or injustice, speak out, because this is your country. This is your democracy.”

Mr. Ogunlesi declined to comment, through a spokesman.

What about Indra Nooyi, the Indian-born chief executive of PepsiCo? She is a member of the president’s business council and has long been a vocal advocate for minorities. The company said this year that it “does not tolerate bigotry or hate in any form.”

When I contacted her about Mr. Trump’s remarks over the weekend, a spokesman directed me to a tweet that clearly didn’t mention the president: “Heartbroken by the violence in #Charlottesville. Hate and intolerance are a betrayal of what we stand for as Americans.”

In truth, it should not fall to C.E.O.s who are members of minority groups to speak up. They face enough pressure already.

Some people who have less at stake are going on the record to support Mr. Frazier’s stance against the president. Tom Glocer, the former chief executive of Thomson Reuters, wrote on Twitter on Monday: “Ken has stood up for true American values. I call on all other members of Trump’s image-burnishing committees to do the same.”

Privately, many chief executives say they are fuming, outraged by the president. (This after many of them campaigned to get on Mr. Trump’s committees.) But many are too scared to say anything publicly that could make them or their company a target of Mr. Trump’s wrath.

Indeed, Mr. Trump’s vitriol against Mr. Frazier and Merck — a company that depends on the government as a buyer for many of its drugs — will perhaps have an even greater chilling effect on other C.E.O.s who may consider speaking out. (The potential for economic retribution against Merck also demonstrates just how brave Mr. Frazier was in taking a stand.)

When I asked one chief executive Monday morning why he had remained publicly silent, he told me: “Just look at what he did to Ken. I’m not sticking my head up.” Which, of course, is the reason he said I could not quote him by name.

The same trepidation may explain why people like Mr. Ogunlesi don’t say anything. He runs an infrastructure fund that will most likely have to do business with the federal government. And Ms. Nooyi’s PepsiCo, for example, was briefly boycotted by Trump supporters when she made some comments that were construed as critical of him.

Other C.E.O.s, like Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, have contended that they consider it part of their patriotic duty to remain on the president’s business council, even when they disagree with things Mr. Trump says or does.

“It is very hard if you say, I’m going to go off an advisory group or not do A-B-C, because you disagree on one issue,” Mr. Dimon said in early June after Mr. Trump withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, a move that Mr. Dimon was against. Elon Musk of Tesla and Robert Iger of Disney resigned from the council in protest.

“Honestly, no one is going to agree with every president or prime minister on every issue, so I don’t want to overreact to it,” Mr. Dimon said.

Lawrence Summers, who has served as Treasury secretary and president of Harvard, said in response to Mr. Dimon’s rationale at the time to Bloomberg News: “At what point as a patriot is your allegiance to your country rather to your president? I’ve always thought of my allegiance as a patriot as being to my country.”

On Monday, Mr. Dimon, who is the chairman of the Business Roundtable, put out his own statement about the violence in Charlottesville, but nothing about the president.

C.E.O.s have faced the question of how to address the president when they disagree with him before — over immigration, say, or the Paris climate accord. Each time, the executives have justified their silence by saying it is more valuable to be at the table than not.

That’s a valid argument — to a point. If the president isn’t following your advice or the values you espouse, when should you get up? Of course, big policy decisions like tax reform remain just around the corner, so many executives are desperate to keep a line open to the president even if it is only one-way.

It is a fair critique of the president that he didn’t immediately and directly condemn the bigoted actions over the weekend and call them out for what they were — remarks that tacitly helped normalize such hate.

While C.E.O.s may call out the hate, will they have the fortitude to call out the president?

[kansascityhappenings]

Man accused of ramming protesters pictured with racist group

Watch Video

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — The man accused of plowing a car into a crowd protesting a white supremacist rally in Virginia had been photographed hours earlier carrying the emblem of one of the hate groups that organized the “Take America Back” campaign.

Vanguard America denied on Sunday any association with the suspect, even as a separate hate group that organized Saturday’s rally pledged on social media to organize future events that would be “bigger than Charlottesville.”

James Alex Fields Jr. Photo by Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail via Getty Images

The mayor of Charlottesville and political leaders of all political stripes vowed to combat the hate groups and urged President Donald Trump to forcefully denounce the organizations that had promoted the protest against the removal of a Confederate statue. Some of those groups specifically cited Trump’s election after a campaign of racially charged rhetoric as validation of their beliefs.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced late Saturday that federal authorities would pursue a civil rights investigation into the circumstances surrounding the crash. The violence and deaths in Charlottesville “strike at the heart of American law and justice,” Sessions wrote. “When such actions arise from racial bigotry and hatred, they betray our core values and cannot be tolerated.”

Police charged James Alex Fields Jr. with second-degree murder and other counts after the silver Dodge Challenger they say he was driving barreled through a crowd of counter-protesters, killing a woman and wounding at least 19 others. Hours later, two State troopers were killed when the helicopter they were flying in as part of a large-scale police effort at the rally crashed into a wooded area outside the city.

In a photo taken by the New York Daily News, the 20-year-old Fields was shown standing with a half-dozen other men, all wearing the Vanguard America uniform of khakis and white polo shirts. The men held white shields with Vanguard America’s black-and-white logo of two crossed axes. The Confederate statue of Robert E. Lee was in the background.

Heather Heyer, 32 years old, was killed and 19 others injured when they were struck by Fields’ car. Photo by Matthew Hatcher/Getty Images

The Daily News said the photo was taken about 10:30 a.m. Saturday just hours before authorities say Fields crashed his car into the crowd at 1:42 p.m. The Anti-Defamation League says Vanguard America believes the U.S. is an exclusively white nation, and uses propaganda to recruit young white men online and on college campuses.

In a Twitter post, the group said it had handed out the shields “to anyone in attendance who wanted them,” and denied Fields was a member. “All our members are safe an (sic) accounted for, with no arrests or charges.”

In blog posts after the violence, the Daily Stormer, a leading white nationalist website that promoted the Charlottesville event, pledged to hold more events “soon.”

“We are going to start doing this nonstop,” the post said. “We are going to go bigger than Charlottesville. We are going to go huge.”

Saturday’s chaos erupted as neo-Nazis, skinheads, Ku Klux Klan members and other white supremacist groups staged a rally to protest the city of Charlottesville’s plans to remove the Lee statue. Peaceful counter-protesters arrived and marched downtown, carrying signs that read “black lives matter” and “love.”

The two sides quickly clashed, with hundreds of people throwing punches, hurling water bottles and unleashing chemical sprays. Some came prepared for a fight, with body armor and helmets. Videos that ricocheted around the world on social media showed people beating each other with sticks and shields. Amid the violence, the Dodge Challenger tore through the crowd.

The impact hurled people into the air and blew off their shoes. Heather Heyer, 32, was killed as she crossed the street.

“It was a wave of people flying at me,” said Sam Becker, 24, speaking in the emergency room where he was being treated for leg and hand injuries.

Those left standing scattered, screaming and running for safety. Video caught the car reversing, hitting more people, its windshield splintered from the collision and its bumper dragging on the pavement. Medics carried the injured, bloodied and crying, away as a police tank rolled down the street.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency, police in riot gear ordered people out of the streets, and helicopters circled overhead, including the one that later crashed. Both troopers onboard, Lieutenant H. Jay Cullen, 48, and Berke M.M. Bates, one day shy of his 41st birthday, were killed.

Officials have not provided a crowd estimate but it appeared to number well over 1,000.

McAuliffe and Charlottesville Mayor Michael Signer, both Democrats, lumped the blame squarely on the rancor that has seeped into American politics and the white supremacists who came from out of town into their city, nestled in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, home to Monticello, Thomas Jefferson’s plantation.

Fields’ mother, Samantha Bloom, told The Associated Press late Saturday that she knew her son, who had recently moved to Ohio from his hometown in Kentucky, was attending a rally in Virginia but didn’t know it was a white supremacist rally.

“I thought it had something to do with Trump. Trump’s not a white supremacist,” Bloom said.

Trump criticized the violence in a tweet Saturday, followed by a press conference and a call for “a swift restoration of law and order.”

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides,” he said.

The “on many sides” ending of his statement drew the ire of his critics, who said he failed to specifically denounce white supremacy and equated those who came to protest racism with the white supremacists. The Rev. Jesse Jackson noted that Trump for years questioned President Barack Obama’s citizenship and his legitimacy as the first black president, and has fanned the flames of white resentment.

“We are in a very dangerous place right now,” Jackson said.

Speaking at a news conference on Saturday, McAuliffe said he spoke to Trump on the phone, and insisted that the president must work to combat hate.

On Sunday, he reiterated that the angry political rhetoric needs to stop.

Trump “needs to come out stronger” against the actions of white supremacists,” McAuliffe told reporters at the First Baptist Church in Charlottesville. “They are Nazis and they are here to hurt American citizens, and he needs to call them out for what they are, no question,”

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo launched an online petition Sunday calling on Trump to denounce Saturday’s white supremacist rally.

The violence prompted responses from around the country, including in West Virginia and Florida, where activists and others pledged to work to remove Confederate statues in their cities, staged protests against white supremacy, and planned candlelight vigils in support of Charlottesville and in honor of the victims.

from FOX 4 Kansas City WDAF-TV | News, Weather, Sports http://fox4kc.com/2017/08/13/man-accused-of-ramming-protesters-pictured-with-racist-group/

from Kansas City Happenings https://kansascityhappenings.wordpress.com/2017/08/13/man-accused-of-ramming-protesters-pictured-with-racist-group/