Defund the Police. More Problems There. Part 2

THIS IS Part #2; Part #1 ⇒   

.

Impress

In part 1, much of the focus was on a recent case involving pan-African, anti-colonialist activists, allegations of Russia-backed propaganda and election-meddling campaigns, all under tenuous charges whose validity are easily challenged with just a superficial glance at US interventions since the 80s, the indictment delivered in an overly brusque and hostile manner that would surely see the FBI being sued had the 'criminals' been white and wealthy and armed with the right email address or cell number in their contact list...

Hmmm... is that right? I'll be frank, the "white" part doesn't feel correct; I'm not wholly comfortable with a racialized absolute assigned as a cause to explain the authorities' handling of this case. I suspect that this will be so for a growing number of case types and law enforcement activities, as I just don't buy the claims accusing police officers of specifically targeting Blacks and I don't see police departments making a U-turn on that, although, only in the general sense, acknowledging that racism is greatly responsible for individual, localised, and systemic issues that present a veritable strain on Black communities...

Hmmm. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that all-inclusive statement regarding Black communities, either. 'Some Black communities'? More accurate, yet... 'Most Black communities.' Let's go with that. 

The reason why I focused on the African People's Socialist Party and Omali Yeshitela's case in the context of the "Defund the Police" matter I wish to discuss is because those aspects of the case that I presented are in line with the intro, which I was stuck with at that point, my "Backspace" button having been loaned to a neighbour while the bank came and put a lock on the "Delete" one. They blocked "F6", too. I had to finance parts of my keyboard; I still owe on those two keys.

But don't be sad; it worked out well, no? You got the message, right? about the multitude constructs that play a role in formulating one's impressions along with the prejudices we absorb and allow in one shape or another — we're all victims, and guilty, too, as concerns prejudices — as we assess events, our conclusions forged out of a multitude of filters and external pressures and experiences, codified, what's reflected is our humanity in what we interpret to be reality, of which we get but a tiny glimpse, capting and decoding just the narrow bands of invisible waves that fall within our sensory capacities and the technological extensions we've invented.

If you got "solipsism" out of Part 1, then I may have overshot or you over-read subtext when it's the concrete that mattered. That time.

I do believe in an empiric reality we all share with a high degree of overlap in regard to 'measurable' perceptions, and I'm OK with relative determinism — I believe in it, too, radical indeterminism more — but not absolute forms; a people without a word for "blue" can still see the colour.

However, "meaning", or how we interpret anything that lies in the external, real world that's collectively accessible as sense information and the significance each assigns to the sum and its parts, that's where the real divergence lies, everyone possessing a singular parser that's uniquely informed by one's physical form and 'system' health, as well as myriad aspects of location and culture, with language playing a crucial role.

So, essentially, we're all built from the same basic building blocks, and we all come with the same basic equipment and functionality, except that every single manufacturer likes to pack different options and features packages on before rolling that baby off the line, packing them with more custom characteristics before releasing them into the world. All the stuff that's added on top of the basic blocks, these aspects, which include one's ethnicity, religion, education, home environment, etc, etc., all produce very different versions of the same thing: humans.

All agree that these various aspects play a role in shaping a unique individual  with characteristics that situate each within varying 'sets' based on shared aspects, right?

Congratulations, rightwingers! For here we are, revisiting that famed Martin Luther King Jr. quote you know a portion of and love to misuse, though you've just refuted that misuse, and finally agreed to the proper interpretation one is to have if one considers that MLK did more than leave those 8 - 14 words conservatives are able to recall with varying success, sometimes in the right sequence.

Your agreement is legally binding. However, to help you, below is a memory helper for you to print out and keep in your wallet. You may need to fold it.

Here's the full line: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Impressions

For all the "evil" that Moscow-based Aleksandr Viktorovich Ionov is accused of doing, reportedly acting as an agent of the Russian FSB, nonetheless, if convicted to the fullest, the maximum jail time he faces is five years.

I haven't confirmed this aspect, but I've heard that the three members of APSP are looking at a minimum of 10 years.

And with all that, and the extra bit since last attempting to provide an answer to, "The reason why I focused on the African People's Socialist Party and Omali Yeshitela," here's a better answer:

The obvious, anger-filled laments that revisit high-profile killings by law enforcement officers — which I do below — doesn't produce a truly productive and honest starting point for a discussion centred on a viable "Defund the Police" agenda that presents cogent arguments tied to policy, budgetary, and administrative goals, fully taking into account reality and all those who dwell in it.

That's not what I'm getting from any of the activists advocating for the defunding of police forces, these always having to establish their position clearly at some point, doing so due to some form of confusion creeping into the discussion/debate in regard to the particular flavour of "Defund" that defines their end goal, which implies that a serious lack of consideration for far too much is more than likely what's tying together their position on the topic, their arguments gleamed from headlines, geared to attack the other tribe, not provide any depth that moves all toward actionables, albeit the sentiments expressed rarely being dishonest, and the reasons that provide the motivation are justified.

Setting aside the actions that belie what's sought, i.e., voicing one's desire to see the abolition of police through violence and destruction, those most vocal on the matter invariably come armed with a shitty slogan and a matching attitude, aggressively offering one-sided stats that shift the whole issue toward racial matters and a focus on Blacks, only offering vague phrases that suggest a direction whilst always ready to serve up condemnation and insults when not receiving one's full support, yet these individuals never have clear answers that demonstrate having given meaningful consideration to the far-reaching implications in a manner that's in line with the societal pillar that is law enforcement, whether or not it is a desirable one.

What's demanded is, essentially, a complete overhaul of one branch of the US government. My problem with the current "revolution" mindset on this issue is the "blow it up and see what happens" answer being all they have to offer while crapping on anything they deem to be "incrementalism" or "reform" — as if that's an insult; talk about stupidly tribal — as they'd rather force their desired chaos on all rather than take firm steps to bring society to a point where everyone is naturally aiming for abolition.

Properly presented, as polls show (discussed below), there's very little opposition to major reforms being implemented and to budgetary funds being redirected toward preventative programs, community-based approaches, and providing field respondents trained to handle mental health-related cases, etc. The only significant opposition comes from those who want abolition and nothing else, the real hardliners sure to be either Blacks, libertarians, or criminals, or a combination of those. The underlying motivation of each is different; the only one that's justified, albeit the irrational path taken to attain their goal, is the Black's. However, one's motivation being justified does not necessarily equate to one's motivation being correct, or lead to a resolve that is desired by all.

So, going back to that answer: Yeshitela's case presents the full scope of threats we should all fear while making it real clear that law enforcement is an extension of the government and a tool of the elites; its ultimate purpose is oppression, its preferred method brute force, and those with their hands on the strings that control the police have no qualms about applying clear-cut double standards and exploiting all they can to coerce individuals and entities to their will, though the police's primary use is always political, always to convey a message and maintain a certain illusion, for the ills of a society are, principally, the failings of leaders, their inability to handle and resolve issues effectively, rarely opting for a long-term view and approach, is what allows the conditions that lead to thriving criminality.

The police are the sharp-bristled broom used to clean up leadership fails. The fails are piled high, and the capitalist modes we operate under are compounding them but, since these modes are thrust on all with little real option, their consequences are enforced on the working and middle classes — with varying degrees of applied insistence —  by police forces, domestically, and by armed forces abroad.

Of course, they don't see it like that. For them the police are a soft-bristled brush when a power-grinder is what would get the social riff-raff, the undesirables, and welfare lazies out of the fabric of proper society, never willing to take into account that these are the direct product of the system they protect and serve.

I also focused on that case due to the media's handling and mainstream's complicit nature, the layers of prejudices at work, some having been weaponised against citizens, and, this point being key, because 'reality' isn't plucked and truth is a laborious journey, and how one perceives the world isn't how all perceive it.

As evident as it may seem, too much of what's debated betrays a perturbing ignorance of the 'other' that's punctuated by a need to impose one's world on the other. Conservatives are notoriously annoying in this sense, though I'm sure they say the same about all the Dems. I can't really argue that, i suppose, as far as they're concerned; each tribe sees the other existing in a far further extreme than they actually do. People are a bit too free with their Far-right and radical left labels, in my opinion.

Here's where the white supremacy mentioned in part 1 comes in, playing out overtly whenever policy issues or other nations are discussed by a Republican, as there's a right way and there's the rest of the world, and if not doing it the US way is why Otherlandstan isn't #2, and another reason why they're more American than you — a real American owns two US flags, five shotguns, and is white, all know that, even the Indians First Peoples — so it makes sense that they should impose themselves on you and you see the world their way or leave the land of the Free and go back to your Gaboogaboo land, but if those are welfare-loaned bootstraps, make sure to return them first.

There have been several instances when some rightwing pundit, their views challenged by an 'other', exhibited a baffling inability to comprehend what was being forwarded, being totally locked into a worldview with fixed constructs and set variables they honestly assume provide the only way to possibly comprehend the real world and navigate within it, and anyone whose understanding of Freedom & Democracy doesn't match theirs is, simply, deficient, most probably brainwashed into destructive radicalism by the cult of socialism. Trying to convey a reality wherein different cultures have constructed varying worldviews through fundamentally different conceptual frameworks that bestow distinct sets of values and life goals and priorities, etc., can be as frustrating and as productive as trying to get a hissing cat to understand that they're not a dog.

US Exceptionalism, absorbed and held as a tautology that's only questioned by anti-American and radical-Commie folks, such notions fostered within an all-encompassing militarism that establishes the baseline for dealing with anything while the chauvinism that this engenders, combined with the delusions of national grandeur and a constant reminder that the world is jealous and, consequently, seeks the destruction of America, God's greatness always under threat, this, in turn, justifies escalating aggression and bullying a resolve that's favourable to America (rightwingers only fight patriotic battles, only! this being true for even the most asinine of lawsuits one may have filed), and it facilitates the contemptible conversion of oppressive acts into acts of liberation or, barring that, into morally good and just acts of valor albeit a negative outcome.

The convictions that run deep stem not from an imperial attitude per se, but from the packaged, controlled interpretation of imperialism as a patriotic duty that arms of the establishment inculcate into the population, done so the ruling elites can carry on with their imperialist obsessions without interference, as such behaviour would be unpatriotic.

Central to the free and democratic image of a proud America that accepts that violent pillaging forays are really humanitarian military interventions, so says MSNBC, is a firm, faithful adherence to hierarchical social structures and national cultural conventions, the traditional "family unit" being topmost, and the one most reactive to "threats", real or imagined.

•     •     •

A good example of the subtle ways this plays out can be heard in a recent Steven Crowder monologue that touched on his divorce (of which I learnt today), this offered in the context of a vicious cat fight he's having with one of media's highly-despicable creatures, Candace Owens. I'm not aware of the full details; I don't delve into the personal stuff unless invited to do so, it's a precise comment made by Crowder I caught within the extracted clips that generated 'Leftist' glee that I want to point out.

Crowder states that the decision to divorce "wasn't [his] choice. [His] then-wife decided that she didn't want to be married anymore, and in the state of Texas, that's legally permitted. It's not [his] choice, [his] beliefs didn't change [...] [he] still believe[s] that children need a mom and a dad and that divorce is horrible, but in today's legal system, [his] beliefs don't matter. In Texas, divorce is permitted when one party wants it, period."

So, if the law didn't grant his ex-wife the freedom she seeks, he'd keep her trapped in a loveless marriage, create a bile-filled and bitter environment for the kids and hope they don't pick up on the resentment that's embedded in the looks and quips and side comments and the tension that's become a part of all family affairs?  The begrudging tone, pained pauses, and the grimaced emphasis on what we're meant to grasp is a cruel imposition — the product of progressives getting near a court of law, no doubt? — showcases a male robbed of his male-hood, the result of government meddling, and it had the audacity to grant women equal power to decide with whom they want to spend their lives, providing that that person isn't between the ages of conception and birth?

What's striking is the sense of hierarchy conveyed, whereby if not for the courts, then the decision was his and he'd still be married. 

In this world, authority is clearly defined and chaos is the guaranteed result of any important shift in the expected, thus, necessary, structures and figures.

Understanding this is also crucial to any strategy involving a drastic change in policing.

•     •     •

A fair assessment of the dominant mindset within the US and of the power structures that it has generated, these now combined with those that were created to maintain the former, should convey in no uncertain terms that the issues relating to policing have little to do with departmental administrative problems or the lack of funds.

•     •     •    

Defund the Police is definitely a subject where the proponents of the main positions appear to reside in their own sphere, each isolated, embracing their resolve and showing growing hostility toward the others, for progress can never be achieved since the debates related to this topic invariably regress to fundamentals that are firmly tied to the tribal positions that define one's identity.

The surface form that's loudly presented tells us that the dividing arguments can, for the most part, be traced between three main groups, the Black community, the liberal-Left, and the conservatives, these representing abolition, reform, and expansion.

Abolitionists — those wanting to abolish police forces; it's assumed that these come from the aforementioned "Blacks, libertarians, or criminals" segments.

Reformists — those wanting to reform the police system (very broad group); it's assumed that these are "moderate liberals" and "false allies", the "Managerial Professional Class," comfortable whites folks, including the odd Black-colored white people, these all acting to pacify the Black community for their loyalty is to the white Dems.

In truth, those who are the loudest aren't the most numerous; the last covers the entire political gamut and more whites than Blacks support abolition, however, rightwing groups and rightwing media collapses these two into the "Woke crazies that want to get rid of all police"; those who oppose them are the sane people.

Really? Perhaps those who oppose the "Wokes" are betraying a lazy and/or gullible nature, and have allowed themselves to be controlled into disregarding the important conversation that needs to be had, caught up in the discourse of a tiny handful that manage to deceive in concordance to one's tribal leanings in order to impose modes and methods that are beneficial to so very few, all of these in positions of power. Hmmm.... I wonder if there's a connection?

Unfortunately, of all those loudest on the issue, none have reached a space whereby it's worthwhile and meaningful to discuss the topic, attempts devolving to each side aggressively pushing their views, setting more divisions and reasons to argue instead of locking down on points that demand compromise.

Abolition isn't possible in a single step and it should never be mentioned as being a part of one's campaign; abolition is an end goal that requires a lengthy process, because a self-policing society isn't created overnight, and when a society is jammed-packed with guns, the "abolish all cops today!" militant mindset kinda heralds free-flying-bullet times to come without all that's required to ensure the safety and security of all, for, despite the arguments presented to abolish the police, until underlying issues relating to Capitalism, corruption, and individual welfare are addressed, it's a recipe for disaster; the 'presence' of law enforcement agencies within certain structures does, at present, keep things far calmer and safe than not. 

To help keep things in perspective, compare the following rates of police killings (per 10 million) versus those in the table:
Venezuela: 1,829.9  El Salvador: 1,702.8   

I'll explore this area in greater detail in another post.      

One of the problems with this topic is how it receives relevant attention only during heated moments, emotions leading the cries, anger calling to defund the police, and out of the the synergy rises a collective chant. "Defund the Police!"

That's what the people want... until someone pulls them out of the influence of chanting crowds and bothers with asking them. The info is telling.

And, so, the inability to step out of their worldview and genuinely attempt to understand the perspective that lies behind one's motivation, of which I just accused the conservatives of possessing, Blacks, especially pro-abolitionists, are equality guilty of this.

Whites have been trained to see Blacks as criminals; they've ingrained it into our subconscious if you're a certain age, there's no arguing that. This must be considered.

Blacks have come to revile all that's white, and, though there's much there that's understandable, there's far more that's hypocritical, "white" used a dumping ground for all sorts of complaints, the great majority being ones that whites agree with and complain about without ever qualifying them as white problems.

Meanwhile, no one bothers with the Asians. Lucky them.

Oh, That's not so Bad 

The table shows the global ranking of select countries based on the number of killings by law enforcement officers; the rate is calculated based on 2020 population census results and the average of each country's total count for 2016 to 2022. I included Canada and USA, and some context, to offer a comparison, but I'll include the full chart along with other data and sources in a third part or in the "Side Street" section.

For the US, 42.25 (42 people and 1 arm) killings per 10 million may not seem like a relevant number if a conservatives who's freaking out watching the tens of millions who cross the southern border daily, sauntering into the US, usually with drugs and weapons and Cuban cigars and parts needed to build a nuclear bomb, most of them smuggling in at least three "illegals" each under their ponchos...

•     •     •

According to fatalencounters.org, which tracks police brutality, there are over 29,000 recorded cases of people killed by the police in the US since 2000.

Here's a frightening bit: The Police Violence Report for 2020 indicates that 1,126 people were killed by police that year and — scary bit — 620 of the deaths "began with police officers responding to reports of non-violent offenses or no crime." Only in 16 cases were officers charged with a crime.

(Compiling these, I noticed a clear upward trend in Canada, with an over 80% increase in cases from 2019 to 2020, 2021 and 2022's counts being roughly the same as 2020's.)

The Issues

The topic being invariably addressed through a focus on Black communities and victims is, to be blunt, the wrong way to go. The stats that are made the focus of such efforts the wrong ones.

A deeper understanding of the myriad dynamics and perceptions mentioned in part 1 and above should have one convinced that removing the fuse and opening up the powder keg doesn't disarm the gun powder, and now all it takes is an errant or targeted spark...

A list? In the next post? Maybe. But do know that, at the other end of the challenge spectrum: "There is growing concern about the extent to which U.S. military and law enforcement personnel have perpetrated—and been victims of—domestic terrorism." CSIS

This, too, must be taken into account.

Flip Sides

Understanding the Black perspective on this topic is crucial, and if you can't do it for them, at least do it for yourself, for selfish reasons, because, as long as Western societies maintain their current path, the more it should be apparent that what started out as a means of control to oppress a specific group, the creation of the police being motivated by the raw economics of a purely racist system, skin colour is no longer the primary factor that determines the focus of police oppression, it's class.

Nonetheless, this still results in a disproportionate number of victims of police brutality being Black, but it's wrong to say that police forces (not speaking about individuals; racist cops do exist) are trained and geared and pumped to target Blacks.

Unless an elite, the line between 'free' and oppressed is becoming clearer, solidifying itself around those who comply, and those who don't.

For those of us who understand the purpose and function of the police in our communities as the occupying armed wing of the White ruling class and state within our captive ghetto neighborhoods this is not a surprise.

Police terror is not a new issue in the African community anywhere in the world. We have seen that under the universal condition of colonization African people at home and abroad have been constantly harassed, brutalized, and murdered by police forces. Whether we are living in Kingston Jamaica, Nairobi Kenya, Bahia Brazil, Philadelphia Pennsylvania, Oakland California, London England, Toronto Canada, Queens New York, Israel, Freetown Sierra Leone, or anywhere else African people are the perpetual victims of police terrorism!

Under capitalism every police officer is a paid agent of imperialism. He or she regardless of their race, age, sex, and religion are members of the armed forces of capitalism!

Source: Anonymous comment from an African-based author; African Liberation Movement message board (bold emphasis is the author's)  

"White Supremacy" According to Non-KKK White Supremacists

In a discussion with dissenting intellectual Norman Finkelstein in episode #76 of Glenn Greenwald's “System Update”, Finkelstein, who decided to tackle "Woke" in his latest book, had dangled the label during the interview in a way that provided an opening that Greenwald hadn't hesitated to jump on, leading him to openly ponder a contrast as if an impromptu thought that felt a tad too prepared.

Greenwald contrasted his “standard Jewish upbringing” and what it implies, along with the proportionately high success rate of Jewish Americans, versus the bemoaned oppressive antisemitism that Jewish Americans are saying is at play everywhere today, this leading to points made by Finkelstein in relations to the weaponization of the label by Israel to shut down its critics as the Palestinians suffer continued aggres—

Whoa! Hold on there, Finkle-doo, Greenwald was trying to make a rightwing point about bootstraps and oppression creating a greater number of successfully oppressed people, driving his point through BS tortured into the pro-Trump, all-hail-Tucker narrative he's getting paid for and/or receiving heaps of validation for, which is, indeed, hard to get in this field, boy, howdy!

My quick two cents re Glenn Greenwald: There's lots of obsessive stupidity couched in tribalism from so-called Leftists as it concerns Greenwald, these unable to realize how their politics have shifted — which the whole world, practically, has commented on — despite a wide, cross-segment collective agreement that the mainstream progressives / Caucus-Leftists are those being referenced these days whenever one hears "establishment boot-licker" or similar.

This group is seriously infuriating, and, despite issues I have with Greenwald, I'm not convinced that his audience is worst off than those of Caucus-Leftists, these outlets shifting toward TMZ territory. Still, again, obsessing over seeing the Hunter Biden laptop as a partisan story — braindead; hopelessly so, I fume — and instantly seeing a lack of response by Comer as a reason to trumpet firm conclusions without taking into account 9/10th of what's relevant to a non-partisan view of this... that's so very abnormally obsessive! Tribal.

There's plenty evidence of collusion between FBI and the Dems, there's documented proof that paint a way different story of Shokin and why he got fired; there's Ukrainian authorities who tried to challenge the Dem's version and swear they have evidence and records are there of being prevented entry into the US or the US embassy in Ukraine, and more, all of that also establishing that EU and EC executive members lied and manufactured false information that's partly responsible for a civil war...

Like I said before the hearings, which I'll say again: Hearings are gonna turn the matter into a farce; I didn't even follow them. What's required is a criminal investigation, but I am serious when I say there's not a single official body within the US I'd trust to proceed fairly with this one.

Briefly, the whole thing is either big, major, or a false flag by the Dems, possibly an innocent coinkidink filled with falsely incriminating coinkidinks mixed with a Biden's bad luck...

I'm increasingly leaning toward the second and give less than a very slim possibility to the third; I don't know and I've at least 100 times more info than these tribalist Lefties who've been sure about the whole thing without knowing anything, so let's go shit on rightwingers because Leftists are so superior, and tolerant, too.

Yet, perhaps, if one were smart and seized on the implications as they looked around and realized that these are far from normal times we're traversing, and that the Ukraine war thingy... too many koinkidinks there, too, ditto the fact that only collective West, establishment-friendly bigots and warmongers still try to spin the "Putin's imperial folly" line? Is it a koinkidink that not everyone is as clueless and idiotically judgmental as these? Any hoot, if one were smart, maybe they'd want to actually get to the non-tribal truth of the matter rather than aim to satisfy whatever the equivalent of an empty, dry and raspy orgasm is to a tribalist?

However

I took a slight detour to vent when, rather, what I wanted to convey is the ridiculous all-or-nothing attitude that's always focused on divisions, not info, and certainly not on breaking out of the tribal idiocy that now establishes their good or bad.

Out of these Leftists' tribal lunacy, Greenwald has also parlayed a focus that pays well while he also tries to play everyone for a fool. Personally, I don't care what his politics are. I do, however, have a hard time with his puerile, Tim Pool-ish "I'm a leftist" self-identification moments in between doing nothing but denigrating a hyper-reductive version of the Left that represents no real Leftist, period, to then go on and on to promote the right, even adopting their talking points and limited-view arguments.

Why the games? I have a few possible answers; they're not flattering.

His take on "Woke" he did two months or so ago, I found it incredibly irresponsible, especially from someone who's gay. His intent was clear: revitalize Wokism as a real thing and danger even if no one can identify it properly.

'It's like porn and that famous quote,' he claimed, "I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it."

Without a proper caveat, he's thinking purely as a rightwinger; not one ounce of Leftist in the wide open, "slap on the label if you feel like it's Wokism" message he delivered, like an absolute tool. C'mon! Can't Greenwald see where that leads to??? Unbefuckinglievable.

He does that kind of thing quite a bit, extracting the reality he clearly knows to be so in order to stay within rightwing pleasing lines... just don't preach to the journalistic world about integrity, at the very least.

Like Garland Nixon, who claims to be a Lefty but I've only ever heard him promote the Right and disparage the Left, the latter per the gross generalizations that are forged out of Rightwing BS that completely distort reality. Why? Just be honest. Speak the truth; it doesn't care about politics.

My point, as it relates to all of this and the Finkelstein mention I'd started off with:

Greenwald continued, drawing the parallel between his Jewish upbringing and now, stating:

“There's a discourse that happens on the ‘right’, about the idea that America is an inherently white supremacist nation, and one of the arguments proffered in refutation of that is that, if you look at the higher income groups by wealth and by salary these days you have to go down to the eleventh or twelfth spot in order to find white Americans, you have Indians and Koreans and every other kind of hyphenated American group before you get to white Americans — kind of an odd thing for a white supremacist country — but certainly, for some reason, that argument isn’t quite accepted if you want to show people statistics about the success, the wealth, and the income levels of American Jews in response to similar claims that American Jews are now persecuted, in the United States they’re endangered.”

Funny he mentions only Indians and Koreans, which leads me to think that he's very well aware of the real picture and stats and he's playing rightwing BS games with info to serve up a boxed-in view that supports rightwing arguments against white supremacy, making sure to paint the version of a white supremacist that isn't the implied perspective, all as he fails to acknowledge the very real and harsh reality, harming the Black community by so doing.

But he's a Lefty...

Just, no.

He's excusing "white supremacy" because of the ambiguity the label carries (it packed the punch but past that, the label is a bigger problem, as I discuss below), but, properly viewed and contextualized, these graphs below say that he's acting very much like a BS-filled, navel-gazing propagandist who should be ashamed for what amounts to very white supremacist behaviour.

And the notion of white supremacy, as it's intended within the context of what's discussed, I can't stress how important an understanding of it is if a positive change for all is what's really desired.

But Greenwald mentioned Indians and Koreans

As mentioned in the "Forethoughts" section of part 1, all those notions of superiority that we've absorbed through the empire-building, colonizing mindset that's an inseparable part of European history, and that of those who were colonized, vestiges of this permeating our systems, our behaviour, language, and, ultimately, our mindsets, too... there's no negative in being aware of this. 

This is what's meant by "systemic racism", an irrefutable side effect of our ancestor's attitudes and beliefs that have shaped our 'now'. It is all the ways that past discriminations were expressed within the systems that gave function to a despicable part of our history — a society that relies on Χ will incorporate key elements i_χ in the systems that define everyday functions, maintain proper order, and regulate established norms, all of which are centred around Χ. In other words: No matter what it is that you do, the systems you'll develop and implement to guide your life and run your business will reflect the role and importance of the means and methods central to the times, which includes whatever technology, and any social and work structures, dominate at the time when such systems and rules were conceived.

Without a complete overhaul, if simply adapting certain aspects as the need forces the issue — no longer makes it an option — then, facets of the system are always carried forward, which include all those that once possessed historic significance, being forged in concordance to what was then apropos, but now act as a hindrance to a segment of a population, the times having, after all, changed greatly. With those that become deeply ingrained in the fabric of a society, it's easy to lose sight of their origins and of the reasons that brought them to life, as well as the predominant civic atmosphere in which they were conceived.

However, Blacks wrongly assume that whites are comfortable with the 'white system' and happy to function under it, not actually seeking to implement any real fundamental change as what's there presently serves their purpose, themselves not being an oppressed victim, thus, not understanding the frustration that the working class feels and the need for change that's now a vital necessity for many, while Black communities, being those most desperately requiring action, oversaturated with promises and talk, are raising their voices, and ignored all the more.

This assumption is somehow incorporated into the predominant Black "revolutionary" mindset, which sees this aspect as a defining characteristic of "reformists".

Racy Secrets

Here's a secret many whiteys have been shouting, loudly: For most whites, it's not "our" system either, much in the same way that it's not the Black's, or that of other minorities; it doesn't serve our purpose. Who it does serve, however, are the elites, and those fooled into playing the elitists' games as they chase their piece of the pie within modes and structures designed to oppress.

As this stems from the same ancestral mentality that gave reason to slavery, which ingrained within euro-centric societies and their systems elements of our past, which includes our previous acts of discrimination, although — this being a key part of the issues since these are too often conflated with the oppressive nature of Capitalism-praising corporate rulers, as these don't see race, they see demographics; they don't see ethnicity, they see markets. Devastation, from their comfort, can only be interpreted as opportunity.

One can collapse the all under "white supremacy", but doing so means applying that label on certain go-getter types who are Black... while never calling white folks the n-word?

As whites, our "privilege" is real, but becoming less relevant, conflation also playing a role here, as does denial; alas, as usual, each in the correct proportion is what's needed but only extremes will do, although this aspect is true for just the main voices, who also happen to be the loudest.

As such, not seeing the separation leads to major hurdles, these simply forcing a repetition of the same debates, the arguments tied to these now being delivered far more convincingly by high school drama-club geeks simply regurgitating words, and not on understanding of what they're saying, which puts them on par with the most seasoned and veteran of politicians on any topic that helps deepen the divide. Far too much has now turned into reflexive statements one simply makes in retort to whatever hackneyed comment was offered, either in praise or to express disgust, or anything in between. Because: repetition creates belief.

And no matter the level of wrong done to Blacks, history took its course and what's done is done; what truly matters is the now, and what's truly productive has absolutely nothing to do with assigning blame on an entire group with no direct involvement in past matters, holding them responsible and letting these become the target of one's pent up anger for the deeds of ancestors who were a product of the times, to which they adapted, being weak in spirit and morals, for sure.

Nothing I say here should diminish the despicable nature of that history, and no one can possibly offer anything that would justify a return to such a state, or excuse any of it.

However, if one taps into the Black culture and listens to what's being voiced outside of the mainstream and outside of the wide-open and mostly pale public sphere, one is bound to come across what's tantamount to a deep hatred of whites, laying all blame on them for the state of things, even doing so for the failures of movements like BLM and "Defund the Police", as well as their inability to bring about a radical change to the legal and prison system, for the state of education, and for everything in between, including wars and oppression.

Hate to break it to Black people, but non-white tribes and peoples of all non-white shades were bashing each other on the head — even enslaving one another — long before white men discovered them and bestowed upon them a sense of purpose, and a conscience, too, since whitey got the only real religion into them, shaming them out of loincloths and into underwear and pants. Bless the Jesuits!

What?! Oh. Right. Sorry.

.

Breaking it up here; whitey stuff, Tyre Nichols, and more, then RBN, a high-profile case, and other topic related bits. Coming soon

.