Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

If it has syntax, it isn't user friendly.


devel / comp.theory / Re: The subjugation of BLM to Joe Biden.

SubjectAuthor
* The subjugation of BLM to Joe Biden.B.H.
`- The subjugation of BLM to Joe Biden.B.H.

1
The subjugation of BLM to Joe Biden.

<ff0c1586-8be5-4f52-ba43-dd642b6aeb4cn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30964&group=comp.theory#30964

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:d85:b0:449:96f7:6194 with SMTP id e5-20020a0562140d8500b0044996f76194mr12917265qve.48.1650899629080;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:5b42:0:b0:2f7:d55d:69b0 with SMTP id
p63-20020a815b42000000b002f7d55d69b0mr8002743ywb.65.1650899628874; Mon, 25
Apr 2022 08:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.104.152; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.104.152
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ff0c1586-8be5-4f52-ba43-dd642b6aeb4cn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: The subjugation of BLM to Joe Biden.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:13:49 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 60
 by: B.H. - Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:13 UTC

Hi everyone,

I was just looking at the Facebook page of a very good former history teacher that I had in school. It occurred to me: A lot of organizations are "focused on our goals" and serving a particular segment, leaving other organizations to prioritize other segments in a greater way. Sometimes, that is fine.

My concern about BLM is, there seems to be an analysis that goes about like this: "We don't approve of everything that AOC and Biden do--they literally support and advocate for human slavery and what amounts to lynch mobs against American citizens--but we must have their support to help our demographic. We would like to gently criticize these leaders, but given their unforgiving and sensitive and easily angered natures, we must be fairly compliant to maintain support from them."

I assert that that is a huge mistake. Organizations who act like this become "toothless"...when faced with a request, implicit or clear, specific or broad, to discuss an issue, such as "a white man whose ancestors were involved in civil rights activities might be being targeted for death and smearing and trafficking by your 'ally,' Joe Biden, a former segregationist-linked politician," the BLM group will say, "No, we cannot, this action would anger our sensitive ally."

Setting this as your precedent, as your policy for conducting yourselves in the world of politics, essentially deprives you of all power, bestowing it to Joe Biden instead. Based on the implicit decision to honor Joe Biden by giving him veto power over your organization, the organization ceases to exist except as a collection of assistants for President Biden. You have no will of your own, and observers see that, if you allow Biden to make any decision for you. If you act against your own organization's interests and stated goals to please a particular entity that is violating your mission statement and associated corollaries of it, you are essentially condemning to not exist, from a power perspective.

I could explain and re-explain this 100 times, and it might not sink in to anyone who doesn't want to listen to people who aren't in the "in crowd"; I can't persuade people who put their earmuffs on and try to keep driving across the closed bridge when there is no way across.

At the same time, by stating this, at least I can say that I tried to explain this...having a civil rights movement that bows to lynch mob operators and slaveowners is not going to be seriously. Frankly, the same thing is true of Congressmen who bow to Biden's insistence that I not be communicated with via email. The mentality is, "Yeah, we support Philip White's idea that he should be released...but gosh, I'd love to just win favor with Biden again, and not make the guy I think I know and understand mad, so why I don't I just defy Philip and good values, and serve para-Confederate-General Joseph Biden instead? Maybe I'll think of some process to help get Philip out, but emailing him is off the table, because I said so." That declaration is the kiss of death for political careers--it means you're not a real *American* leader, at least not on the Union side of things--and it shows people who are watching that you are not perceptive enough to understand how to assert yourself and *lead* when dealing with Joe Biden and Barack Obama, two men who know how to subjugate you, sabotage you, and smile charismaticaly, all at the same time.

Basically, you've been warned about where this is going, yet again.

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

Re: The subjugation of BLM to Joe Biden.

<b4e98230-940b-4d9c-838c-cffc213d4c28n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31105&group=comp.theory#31105

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:b442:0:b0:69a:fc75:ca52 with SMTP id d63-20020a37b442000000b0069afc75ca52mr20011287qkf.730.1651159677913;
Thu, 28 Apr 2022 08:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:9c03:0:b0:645:4638:2444 with SMTP id
c3-20020a259c03000000b0064546382444mr30863151ybo.596.1651159677769; Thu, 28
Apr 2022 08:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 08:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ff0c1586-8be5-4f52-ba43-dd642b6aeb4cn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.104.152; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.104.152
References: <ff0c1586-8be5-4f52-ba43-dd642b6aeb4cn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b4e98230-940b-4d9c-838c-cffc213d4c28n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The subjugation of BLM to Joe Biden.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 15:27:57 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 121
 by: B.H. - Thu, 28 Apr 2022 15:27 UTC

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 11:13:50 AM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I was just looking at the Facebook page of a very good former history teacher that I had in school. It occurred to me: A lot of organizations are "focused on our goals" and serving a particular segment, leaving other organizations to prioritize other segments in a greater way. Sometimes, that is fine.
>
> My concern about BLM is, there seems to be an analysis that goes about like this: "We don't approve of everything that AOC and Biden do--they literally support and advocate for human slavery and what amounts to lynch mobs against American citizens--but we must have their support to help our demographic. We would like to gently criticize these leaders, but given their unforgiving and sensitive and easily angered natures, we must be fairly compliant to maintain support from them."
>
> I assert that that is a huge mistake. Organizations who act like this become "toothless"...when faced with a request, implicit or clear, specific or broad, to discuss an issue, such as "a white man whose ancestors were involved in civil rights activities might be being targeted for death and smearing and trafficking by your 'ally,' Joe Biden, a former segregationist-linked politician," the BLM group will say, "No, we cannot, this action would anger our sensitive ally."
>
> Setting this as your precedent, as your policy for conducting yourselves in the world of politics, essentially deprives you of all power, bestowing it to Joe Biden instead. Based on the implicit decision to honor Joe Biden by giving him veto power over your organization, the organization ceases to exist except as a collection of assistants for President Biden. You have no will of your own, and observers see that, if you allow Biden to make any decision for you. If you act against your own organization's interests and stated goals to please a particular entity that is violating your mission statement and associated corollaries of it, you are essentially condemning to not exist, from a power perspective.
>
> I could explain and re-explain this 100 times, and it might not sink in to anyone who doesn't want to listen to people who aren't in the "in crowd"; I can't persuade people who put their earmuffs on and try to keep driving across the closed bridge when there is no way across.
>
> At the same time, by stating this, at least I can say that I tried to explain this...having a civil rights movement that bows to lynch mob operators and slaveowners is not going to be seriously. Frankly, the same thing is true of Congressmen who bow to Biden's insistence that I not be communicated with via email. The mentality is, "Yeah, we support Philip White's idea that he should be released...but gosh, I'd love to just win favor with Biden again, and not make the guy I think I know and understand mad, so why I don't I just defy Philip and good values, and serve para-Confederate-General Joseph Biden instead? Maybe I'll think of some process to help get Philip out, but emailing him is off the table, because I said so." That declaration is the kiss of death for political careers--it means you're not a real *American* leader, at least not on the Union side of things--and it shows people who are watching that you are not perceptive enough to understand how to assert yourself and *lead* when dealing with Joe Biden and Barack Obama, two men who know how to subjugate you, sabotage you, and smile charismaticaly, all at the same time.
>
> Basically, you've been warned about where this is going, yet again.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

Just now, I saw a pleasant BLM post welcoming some new leaders to the organization. The post is at 10:46, which might imply a screw-you gesture to the Israeli Defense Forces...or it's just a coincidence.

This makes me think of the question, since I'm a listener: Have I been too supportive and uncritical of Israel? I feel a particular biological link to WW2, given what I know about global history and my family's history; in contrast to African-American pain in the past, I feel that Jewish pain over the events of WW2 is "not mine" yet "something I should pay attention to closely, like a saluting soldier." I feel more attentive to Jewish pain and the pain of other Holocaust victims, even though I am not religious at all; I feel more "familiar" in a way with African-American pain, since even though I've had more Jewish friends than black friends in the past, I feel that I understand what it is like to be enslaved (and have people lie about and minimize, representation-wise, your pain en masse), and I feel more detached and worry-free when it comes to black people. I.e., even though both groups suffer, even still, I feel more confident discussing African-American issues because, whether it's a rational feeling or not, I view black people as less likely to be subjected to mass-extermination campaigns. I feel haunted by what is done to Jews more than I do about black people, even though some people might feel affected by historical (and ongoing) tragedies in very different ways.

Anyway, returning to Israel: I would be fine with criticizing Israel, as I've insisted that BLM not praise Biden/AOC/Obama when they support trafficking, if I saw information about Israeli misdeeds in the news. I would criticize Israel again if I saw that there were ongoing misdeeds going on that were being perpetrated by Israeli citizens. I would be extremely careful about these criticisms, though, because I view Israelis (note, I sympathize a lot with Muslim in other high-conflict countries too) "cannot always do anything" about the outrageously ongoing danger that these global citizens face. In America, I see black people as suffering a lot and probably being the most deserving group in the US of more support as a group, maybe other than mentally ill people...but at the same time, I think Israelis have it worse because you *can* avoid police confrontations...if you follow best practices, you can dodge unfair/evil cops much better than an Israeli citizen can dodge a bad-guy rocket, regardless of effort.

I think the reason I'm not criticizing Israel right now is that, pleasantly, Israel is at peace with global citizens in the Palestinian territories. I don't know for sure if Israel is fond of me, and I don't understand why, e.g., Israeli government representatives don't contact me to buy my IP...it would be helpful to Israel.

Anyway, in summary: I feel more urgent/careful about Israel, and more "calm about speaking" about African-Americans; I think a lot of people in the world face very difficult tragedies derived from the actions of vicious, intransigent bad guys who won't go away or give in. I would criticize Israel if I saw allegations of bad deeds in the news, but I haven't seen any information that I know of that Israel has done anything I wouldn't approve of recently. Many of my reactions are driven by what you might call "awareness bias"...I don't react to situations I don't know about, I focus on the ones I have learned about.

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor