I'm going to reply to your demand. But what the hell am I supposed to do? Oh well..I'll try rephrase everything:
Arguments:1. The violence victimization act is irrelevant to marginalized in the US. Their promotion of progressive action is viewed as a direct threat to the state, even without this act. COINTEL et al.
2. This act was to angry white male, who, while largely unimpressive, are going to be a force who can potentially hijack the current power structure.
3. Development of convergence between socio-economic groups: white male and other groups.
I don't see why digression is required. This is no different to what I said in the past, and what GoS even suggested before I joined IT. The problem is getting priorities straight.
For that reason, I'd rather cluster closer to Noam Chomsky: who opposes Western interventionism at all costs, and Malcolm X: who believes respect is earned self-sustainability.
To cluster closer to petter events on the side of the privileged is not given a high priority, imo. X didn't do that. In fact the majority in their end will end up supporting white institutions once everything is back to "normal". That is how blacks were duped by poor European immigrations over-and-over again in the urban areas.
Refers to Malcolm X:PLAYBOY: How do you reconcile your disavowal of hatred with the announcement you made last year that Allah had brought you "the good news" that 120 white Atlantans had just been killed in an air crash en route to America from Paris?
MALCOLM X: Sir, as I see the law of justice, it says as you sow, so shall you reap. The white man has reveled as the rope snapped black men’s necks. He has reveled around the lynching fire. It’s only right for the black man’s true God, Allah, to defend us−−and for us to be joyous because our God manifests his ability to inflict pain on our enemy. We Muslims believe that the white race, which is guilty of having oppressed and exploited and enslaved our people here in America, should and will be the victims of God’s divine wrath. All civilized societies in their courts of justice set a sentence of execution against those deemed to be enemies of society, such as murderers and kidnappers. The presence of 20,000,000 black people here in America is proof that Uncle Sam is guilty of kidnapping−−because we didn’t come here voluntarily on the Mayflower. And 400 years of lynchings condemn Uncle Sam as a murderer.
I don't believe in a God, but do you understand what this means?
He views this event as a punishment. I too, view the marginalization of the privileged white men as one as well. To maintain their privilege by supporting a power structure that in the end only supports a small minority is eventually going to harm him too. The return is decreasing, white folks are angry (due to low return) and now the corporate powers are going to use their power to contain them too.
Next:
X: The white man’s primary interest is not to elevate the thinking of black people, or to waken black people, or white people either. The white man is interested in the black man only to the extent that the black man is of use to him. The white man’s interest is to make money, to exploit.
In this case, I will your high affinity with those of the right-wing middle-class white males on the board. My aim will to prove that you are being duped by the same class who promotes Eurocentrism. In contrast, when you called GoS a "Tom" in the past, I felt lack of self-awareness on your end.
Analyzing the Uncle Tom PhenomenaFirst, one who prioritizes institutional changes directly meant to address the white majority
over the present reality of socio-economic disparity clusters closer to a Tom:
"Black man who is abjectly servile and deferential to Whites". This act will not affect blacks or the marginalized because progressive elements on their end were always classed as enemies of the state. I don't need a law to suggest that now just, because it is official. History is enough.
Second, the fitness of a black person today does not differ now that this act is enforced. It is a valid generalizable manner, which is standard in academic discourse. Maybe it'll differ with the black upper middle class, but generally it does not affect blacks. Now, if you haven't referred to statistics, blacks are
far more likely to be negatively selected vs. their white counterpart anywhere. They don't need expensive brain-chip technology, because blacks concentration in decrepit urban centres
is technology that can effectively control.
Nothing more is required, because it not possible (nor required) to monitor everyone 24-7.Third, to promote Afrocentrism does not make one less of a Tom. That's often more superficial than anything. Mugabe acted and spoke quite nationalistic, but was receiving honorary degrees in the West. Why? Because he in reality, destroyed the progressive elements of ZANU, and then implemented unadulterated capitalism. The high poverty and Western corporate involvement in Zimbabwe is not that surprising at all, my friend. This type of false cover was used for well, thousands of years.
Fourth, to be a secular nationalist that would mean promoting one's own interests. That should be accomplished without placing other groups at great risk (ala marginalized today), but also not involve surrendering one's own fitness. Black Africans are amongst the marginalized, whether male, women, homosexual, etc, and should not surrender fitness right now. I know many whites, who think in such a manner, and hence joining these mainly-white coalition to protect against reduction 'liberties' is a joke for the marginalized.
Results:1. Opposing an at that does not address not the marginalized, does not produce self-sustainability.
2. Supporting the socio-economic class that sustains the power structure will minimize potential returns. Most overall return will be diverted back to the power structure.
3. Surrender fitness is ot possible to those
sane. To protest about a Act or technologies that produce the same reality present in the marginalized is foolish.
Discussion: Applying conclusions to the present dayDo you think Palestinians would oppose military sanctions on Israel? No, even though it'll drastically reduce the fitness of Israelis living within or the vicinity of Palestinian. The death toll would probably resemble Palestinians. That being said, most Palestinians would not want to see Israeli kids being killed. However to expect Palestinians not the exploit this opportunity is foolish.
How can the marginalized exploit this opportunity?This act being implemented will mean that we'll see white males
converging with those marginalized. That means the support of the white institutions of power will decrease. The white class will act too, since they are not used to a police state. What Blacks, Hispanics, etc, should do is act and secure their own security. That means mounting pressure for self-autonomy, to control - without white intervention -public institutions that caters the marginalized.
It is by exploiting the opportunity at that time, reaction from white will be minimized and they will have to accept
just compromise in order to secure long-term security. They will no longer have full control of all institutions of power. The marginalized will control their own. Institutions of power will be proportional to socio-economic groups and all will focus on maximizing the interest of their target group. Today white male fitness is extremely high, but that is usually not the case for others. That needs to change.
Cost-benefit Analysis:In a nation where there exists multi-polar institutional where each socio-economic group are represented by each poles will result in direct revolution in all socio-economic sphere. The act itself, legal, is pointless, because rolling it back will
not change the reality for the marginalized. They are not represented by the state. Representation by all socio-economic groups is closer to an egalitarian ideal vs.
obsolete liberal alternative.
Second, it would prevent international militarism that we see today that primarily benefits the white male power. We need institutions to bridge with the marginalized in the third world. It is clear that US white power have bailed out their white brothers in Europe (i.e. Marshal Plan). The same could happen with institutions representing the marginalized. That is a change that will promote the interests of
everyone, like Iraq and Palestinian.
Notes: The liberal model, i.e. expecting Israel and Saudi Arabia to change is foolish. These nations setup are predominantly due to foreign intervention. I'll recap, what I (or Chomsky) suggested earlier, it is the West (represented by white powers) who arms their security forces creating a strong disparity between seculars and tyrants.
PS: Carry on RMX.
