Wednesday, August 17, 2022

That 'Progressive' Weapon of Global Dominance

 

[cartoon pending]

CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "That 'Progressive' Weapon of Global Dominance." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed [date pending]. Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.


CLICK & SUBSCRIBE below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:

M. Rasheed on YouTube!

M. Rasheed on BitChute!

************************************

Larry Hama - I stand behind Salman Rushdie. Anybody coming after me will need something better than a knife.

Phillip Provost - Iran in the 1970’s prior to the US meddling in their government and establishing the brutal Islamic rule.

All the crazy Islamic brutality we see is the result of our corrupt US government ignoring our constitution

Martin Solzberg - @Phillip... Please provide sources for your statement. According to that I remember and actual history the US backed the Shah and his regime which boosted several very progressive ideas IE: Prior to the revolution, Iran was ruled by a monarchy headed by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. The Shah was heavily US-backed and promoted westernization which many Iranians believed was diluting their indigenous culture and values. Separation of sexes, which had been a traditional practice, had been banned. Women during this period wore western clothes in place of the hijab and could now go to school, vote, and work. The new rights to women were embraced by the elite society while Islam Puritans viewed it as secularization. A more secular take on religion was adopted, where religious minorities could hold office." (https://bit.ly/3Arlbnd) The government was heavily opposed by the Conservative Shia Muslims led by Ayatollah Khomeini. The basis of their arguments against the government took a cultural and religious approach. The Conservative Shia accused the Shah of destroying Islam through the popularization of Western values.

Iranian Muslim Students, who had been exposed to the ideas of Ayatollah Khomeini, increasingly began to support the idea of an Islamic State. The left-wing Islamist groups encouraged the use of armed struggle as the means to topple the Shah’s regime. (Again; https://bit.ly/3Arlbnd) so please tell me how the pictures and your statement should condemn the Us for backing someone who was making changes to a brutal and oppressive belief system?

Muhammad Rasheed - Martin posted: "where religious minorities could hold office."

And that was the root cause of the downfall right there.

Martin Solzberg - @Muhammad... As I said progressive ideas. I should have included humanitarian as well.

Muhammad Rasheed - You all's use of "progressive" reveals itself as traditional white supremacist legacy families maintaining their global dominance.

Muhammad Rasheed - "Progressive" is very anti-competition with other sovereign groups I've noticed. lol

Muhammad Rasheed - ...especially when a "religious minority" is put in charge of a traditional ideological foe's nation. 😳

Phillip Provost - @Martin... All I know is that the people were looking free and happy prior to the US involvement in their politics

Martin Solzberg - Good one Muhammad. White supremacist. I happen to be a Jew, but according to your beliefs that makes me worse than the "White supremacist right? Were you part of the era that wanted or wants to drive the Israellis into the sea? I just like to know who is insulting me.

Martin Solzberg - @Phillip... Those students were not even born when the US first got involved in Iran's politics. The US had a relationship long before 1945. So by your declaration, the US may have contributed to the happy looking students. Check these out. there is lots more on this subject.

(https://bit.ly/3plZLkX)
(https://bit.ly/3JYD8MO)

Luke Coffey-Bainbridge - @Martin... Can we all just agree that Islam is a set of really bad, not at all Liberal beliefs....

Steven Abood - @Phillip... All the U.S.'s fault? For pushing for women not to be enslaved and for people to have human rights? Lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Martin wrote: "Good one Muhammad. White supremacist. I happen to be a Jew"

I figured. Your very insulting, classically anti-Islam position gave you away.

Martin wrote: "but according to your beliefs that makes me worse than the White supremacist right?"

It makes you exactly like them in literally every way that can be measured. Remember who owned the Middle Passage ships, the West African slaving forts, the sugar cane plantations and the New England rum distilleries during the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.

Martin wrote: "Were you part of the era that wanted or wants to drive the Israellis into the sea?"

No, I'm Black American of the former slave class. My interest in the topic is very personal (see: paternalism; gradualism; "Black & Jewish Alliance" treachery).

Martin wrote: "I just like to know who is insulting me."

Do you feel insulted just because I pointed out your use of "progressive" in the historical record doesn't match what you pretend it to mean here?

Muhammad Rasheed - Martin wrote: "Prior to the revolution, Iran was ruled by a monarchy headed by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. The Shah was heavily US-backed and promoted westernization which many Iranians believed was diluting their indigenous culture and values."

Apparently, "heavily US-backed" means "Iran's oil industry was run by private companies, largely controlled by foreign interests." lol

In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh was appointed as the Prime Minister of Pahlavi Iran. After the nationalization of Iran's oil industry, he became enormously popular. He was deposed in the 1953 Iranian coup d'Γ©tat, an Anglo-American covert operation that marked the first time the United States had participated in an overthrow of a foreign government during the Cold War. (https://amzn.to/3Ptf8CO)

The entire point of US intervention was to return Iran's oil to private foreign company control, not to bring them democracy or women's rights. "According to the political scientist Mark J. Gasiorowski, [Mosaddegh's] oil nationalization movement had two major results: the establishment of a democratic government and the pursuit of Iranian national sovereignty." (https://amzn.to/3QuIF0e)

lol As I said, "progressive" when you use the term means "anti-competition with sovereign nations you don't agree with." Why don't you agree with them? Because your megacorporations want their natural resources without having to pay market prices for them, but "Islam is bad." πŸ™„








________________________________

Get a signed copy of M. Rasheed's first novel!












Wednesday, August 10, 2022

Huey's Letter

 

Become an M. Rasheed Patreon Subscriber!


CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "Huey's Letter." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 27 Sep 2022. Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.


CLICK & SUBSCRIBE below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:

M. Rasheed on YouTube!

M. Rasheed on BitChute!

*******************************

Marcus John Lewis - ***DISCLAIMER***

This post comes after a long and frustrating argument with an apparently homophobic "woke" "pro-black" individual. After revisiting some black-oriented literature on the topic, I felt that finding the words of one of the most radical leaders in one of the most radical and iconic groups of the black liberation movement might cause people with his view to pause and reconsider their position. Considering some responses to this post, I have to say that I do not endorse the language that Newton used in parts of the letter. It just seemed apt to point out that radical black thought and organization with the LGBTQ community (the BLGBTQ community in particular) has long been sought, and any homophobia within that radical thought is wrong. I hope that this clears up my original intent.

***/DISCLAIMER***

"A LETTER FROM HUEY TO THE REVOLUTIONARY BROTHERS AND SISTERS ABOUT THE WOMEN’S LIBERATION AND GAY LIBERATION MOVEMENTS"

During the past few years, strong movements have developed among women and among homosexuals seeking their liberation. There has been some uncertainty about how to relate to the movements.

Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion. I say “whatever your insecurities are” because, as we very well know sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the mouth and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit the homosexual in the mouth because we’re afraid we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the woman or shut her up because we’re afraid that she might castrate us, or take the nuts that we might not have to start with.

We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for all oppressed people. We must not use the racist type attitude like the White racists use against people because they are Black and poor. Many times the poorest White person is the most racist, because he’s afraid that he might lose something, or discover something that he doesn’t have; you’re some kind of threat to him. This kind of psychology is in operation when we view oppressed people and we’re angry with them because of their particular kind of behavior, or their particular kind of deviation from the established norm.

Remember, we haven’t established a revolutionary value system; we’re only in the process of establishing it. I don't remember us ever constituting any value that said that a revolutionary must say offensive things towards homosexuals, or that a revolutionary should make sure that women do not speak out about their own particular kind of oppression. Matter of fact it’s just the opposite: we say that we recognize the women’s right to be free. We haven’t said much about the homosexual at all, and we must relate to the homosexual movement because it’s a real thing. And I know through reading and through my life experience, my observations, that homosexuals are not given freedom and liberty by anyone in society. Maybe they might be the most oppressed people in the society.

And what made them homosexual? Perhaps it’s a whole phenomena that I don’t understand entirely. Some people say that it’s the decadence of capitalism. I don’t know whether this is the case; I rather doubt it. But whatever the case is, we know that homosexuality is a fact that exists, and we must understand it in its purest form: That is, a person should have freedom to use his body in whatever way he wants to. That’s not endorsing things in homosexuality we wouldn’t view as revolutionary. But there’s nothing to say that a homosexual injecting some of my prejudice by saying that “even a homosexual can be a revolutionary.” Quite on the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most revolutionary.

When we have revolutionary conferences, rallies and demonstrations there should be full participation of the gay liberation movement and the women’s liberation movement. Some groups might be more revolutionary than others. We shouldn’t use the actions of a few to say that they’re all reactionary or counterrevolutionary, because they are not.

We should deal with the factions just as we deal with any other group or party that claims to be revolutionary. We should try to judge somehow, whether they’re operating sincerely, in a revolutionary fashion, from a really oppressed situation. (And we’ll grand that if they’re women, they’re probably oppressed.) If they do things that are un-revolutionary or counter-revolutionary, then criticize that action. If we feel that the group in spirit means to be revolutionary in practice, but they make mistakes in interpretation of the revolutionary philosophy, or they don’t understand the dialectics of the social forces in operation, we should criticize that and not criticize them because they’re women trying to be free. And the same is true for homosexuals. We should never say a whole movement is dishonest, when in fact they’re trying to be honest, they’re just making honest mistakes. Friends are allowed to make mistakes. The enemy is not allowed to make mistakes because his whole existence is a mistake, and we suffer from it. But the womens liberation front and gay liberation front are our friends, they are potential allies, and we need as many allies as possible.

We should be willing to discuss the insecurities that many people have about homosexuality. When I say “insecurities,” I mean the fear that they’re some kind of threat to our manhood. I understand this fear. Because of the long conditioning process which builds insecurity in the American male, homosexuality might produce certain hangups in us. I have hangups myself about male homosexuality. Where, on the other hand, I have no hangup about female homosexuality. And that’s phenomena in itself. I think it’s probably because male homosexuality is a threat to me, maybe and the females are no threat.

We should be careful about using those terms that might turn our friends off. The terms “faggot” and “punk” should be deleted from our vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people, such as Nixon or Mitchell. Homosexuals are not enemies of the people.

We should try to form a working coalition with the Gay liberation and Women’s liberation groups. We must always handle social forces in the most appropriate manner. And this is really a significant part of the population: both women, and the growing number of homosexuals that we have to deal with.

ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

Huey P. Newton
Supreme Commander
Black Panther Party


Marcus John Lewis - Whew! I had to type all of that out. Thought it needed to be more easily shared.

Dick Carter - Degradingly supportive.

Marcus John Lewis - @Dick... Degradingly?

Mia Stone - I think I understand his comment.

While I support the overall message he was trying to get across, some of the language he used made me uncomfortable.

"I have hangups myself about male homosexuality. Where, on the other hand, I have no hangup about female homosexuality. And that’s phenomena in itself. I think it’s probably because male homosexuality is a threat to me, maybe and the females are no threat."

He just admitted to being homophobic towards men, and also failed to realize that the reason he doesn't feel "threatened" by lesbianism is probably ultimately just his misogynistic objectification of lesbians.

It was the 70's though, so, I'm sure what he said was overall considered to be very progressive at the time.

Dick Carter - @Marcus... Seriously?

Dick Carter - @Mia... Black Panthers we’re definitely progressive. They wouldn’t have been stalked by the FBI otherwise.

Alternately, we queers have long been subjected to inter-societal degradation; nothing new. Then or now.

Marcus John Lewis - @Mia... Yeah. I felt that reading it, but I also felt that it was important to show the solidarity that the party was attempting to show in a far more homophobic political environment.

Marcus John Lewis - @Dick... Is what Mia said what you were getting at?

Dick Carter - @Marcus... The “homophobic political environment” hasn’t changed. Only the responses. See: The entirety of US history to date.

Marcus John Lewis - @Dick... What do you mean the responses? It seems to me that there is far more support now. What am I missing?

Marcus John Lewis - @Mia... I also posted this to target some in the pro-black community who maintain a hostility towards the BLGBTQ community. To signal that the attempts to develop stronger solidarity is not new, and is indeed well developed over decades.

Dick Carter - @Marcus... His message is clearly an exercise in pandering. Had he not needed to build a revolutionary base...all together different. Guaranteed.

Was it, generally speaking, progressive? Yes. Is it worth highlighting and reposting (especially considering your report of exhaustion at typing it all out) to establish god knows what? No. It’s not proof of any genuine support of the LGBTQ or women’s movements. Then or now.

Marcus John Lewis - @Dick... See the above. The target audience is "woke" homophobes. Not virtual signaling to my friends if that's how you see it.

Dick Carter - @Marcus... Lol...speaking of pandering.

Whatever dude. You do you.

Marcus John Lewis - @Dick... Whatever man. After a long frustrating discussion with one of those woke homophobes ... re-acquainted myself with some Black Panther Party literature on the topic. Sorry you're annoyed, but I think it needed to be stated that their heroes indeed were trying to work with as many people as possible. I take it Angela Davis .... a gay person ... also developed this thought.

Dick Carter - @Marcus... “Woke homophobes?”

I mean...πŸ™„πŸ˜‚

Marcus John Lewis - @Dick... Trust me, it's there. I've had many discussions with some of these folks and listened to many a podcast and lecture from some of these folks.

Marcus John Lewis - @Dick... If you've heard the word "hotep" floating around ... or "ashgardian" or "ashy", those are the folks Im talking about. So "woke" they need to go back to sleep.

Dick Carter - @Marcus... Hypocritical contradictions. I guess it works for some folks lol, the archaically self-loathing and willfully ignorant.

Marcus John Lewis - @Dick... Yes. This is why I thought this letter would be important. That even though he was extremely problematic in this letter, I am daring them to contradict one of the most highly regarded radicals in the struggle.

Marcus John Lewis - (Who also happens to be the leader of the most highly regarded group. An appeal to authority.)

Dick Carter - @Marcus... Sounds personal.

Best of luck.

Marcus John Lewis - @Dick... I apologize for this misunderstanding. I'm trying to be helpful.

Dick Carter - @Marcus...s Then stop pandering. If you’re unsure of the definition, hopefully you know what to do.

Revealing a bigot, regardless of their ulterior motives or dealt decade, proves nothing to no one. It seems dull to even be required to say that.

Dick Carter - @Marcus... *No need to apologize. I’m not a guardian. Just a thinking & talking hack.

Marcus John Lewis - @Dick... I know what pandering is. It is not pandering to you. It is arguing with bigots.

Marcus John Lewis - @Dick... Well, you have given me pause and reason to look further into what it is you are saying.

Dick Carter - @Marcus... Then my work here is done. Again, best of luck.

I learn daily. Never above it. Couldn’t be if I tried.

Dick Carter - @Marcus... Approach directly. Passive aggressive tactics bring your score way down, by default.

Marcus John Lewis - @Dick... Oh, I brought these things up in the argument with the dude directly. And in retrospect I thought it would be good to address those who think that way broadly even if Im not talking to them. Which is why I made it a public post instead of just to my friends. And social media, like it or not, has radicalized a good number of people.

Dick Carter - @Marcus... Lookit, honesty is key. Dancing around core truths only muddies. You seem like a smart fella. Don’t allow fear to dismantle that.

Muhammad Rasheed - Wow. This was an infuriatingly painful thread to read.

I commend your patience, Marcus.

Marcus John Lewis - @Muhammad... I submit to the concerns and frustrations of a member of the LGBTQ community, and appreciated the criticism.

Muhammad Rasheed - Ah. Was that the nature of your patience? I see.

Muhammad Rasheed - From my outsider perspective, it looked like you were being relentlessly bullied by a member of the dominant political identity who was self-servingly cosplaying as an oppressed minority.

Marcus John Lewis - @Muhammad... As I stated before, I am an advocate for Critical Theory. He is himself a member of an oppressed minority. But I also appreciate and understand the intersectional nature of the white LGBTQ person, and its implications are important to consider. This wasn't seen as the bullying of an oppressed minority by simply a white man. This was a white gay man being concerned about the history of gay oppression. And he thought I was trying to bring attention to myself for my own sake.

Marcus John Lewis - @Muhammad... I am not simply pro-black. I am a pro-everybody communist coming from a black perspective, and also pro LGBTQ community from a black perspective as a heterosexual male.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Marcus... I understand. I was able to see your viewpoint and the stance you took once you pointed out the nature of your patience.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Marcus... The reason why his irritating badgering came across as bullying to me was because the Black American former slave class ethnic group remains the most marginalized and most vulnerable identity group, while despite this one's identity as a "white gay man," he's still a white man -- a member of the most politically powerful, economically successful political identity group in Western Civilization.

The fact that this thread discussion between the two of you took place under a letter from The Black Panther Party underlines my point: The Civil Rights Era ended because all of my most effective leaders were assassinated; all of my most effective organizations infiltrated and disbanded. Today, my people remain a wealthless bottom caste in this country we've built, our ongoing struggles dismissed (and even sabotaged) by our wily and often deceitful Democratic Party rivals.

By contrast, white people are gay, able to use all of their political clout and power to get everything they want for their LGBTQ community advocacy without being sabotaged in the attempt. Consequently, it irritates me mightily to watch a white man presume to lecture a Black man on anything when it comes to the civil rights struggle.

But that's just me. In general, I thought it was an interesting thread.

Thanks for your time. Peace.

Marcus John Lewis - @Muhammad... I'd like to introduce you to the works of Professor Tommy Curry. Primarily his book "The Man-Not". So I agree to some extent with your gendered and racial position in the context of white supremacy. And his position as a member of the highest raced and gendered demographic in the West is important. But I must also consider the concerns of all members of the LGBTQ community as a part of the superstructure which must be considered in order to dismantle this system.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Marcus... Ha! It was already in my Wish List. Thanks for the recommendation.

Marcus wrote: "But I must also consider the concerns of all members of the LGBTQ community as a part of the superstructure which must be considered in order to dismantle this system."

Unfortunately, the fact that the Black American (ADOS) identity group continues to be economically discriminated against precisely because we are Black American, the only thing that can get us to experience the fullness of American life so far denied us is a total focus on the uplift of the group.

The LGBTQ community -- which functions politically as a rival identity group -- doesn't need our help, since it literally has the full force of the most dominant identity group in the nation to buoy it. We must focus on ourselves or else we will become nothing more than the puppeteered face of someone else's political agenda.

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "And his position as a member of the highest gendered demographic in the West."

It's difficult for me to give that gender angle too much weight, since those two have always functioned as a matched pair who hoard all of the benefits of Americaness together as a family.



Marcus John Lewis - @Muhammad... Disagree that the LGBTQ community is a rival group. Remember that we have proportionally the most members within our community. And those black members of said community are also over represented as recipients of anti-gay violence. Not to mention discrimination against them by white dominated gay institutions. So it is not so cut and dry.

Marcus John Lewis - @Muhammad... I have read that book. And it just adds another dimension to the gender issues in the west. The thing that the book *does undermine is the white feminist narrative.

Marcus John Lewis - @Muhammad... Feminism in order to be useful *must be intersectional.

Marcus John Lewis - @Muhammad... Also, as an aside. I have been very suspicious of the ADOS movement. Black reactionaries like Candace Owens regularly push it. And on top of that, as a communist I must be a transnationalist. I get that they advocate reparations for black Americans ... but some of the rationales just get on my nerves.

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "Remember that we have proportionally the most members within our community."

lol I remember that in 2010, the big controversy after the mid-term elections was that the Black American community in California -- the most liberal state in the union -- voted a decisive "No" to the gay marriage bill, confirming the traditional conservativism of the identity group despite our long-time history of Dem voter loyalty.

What has stood out to me in the 12 years since is how Hollywood has gone out of its way to ensure almost all Black actor casting has been not for race, but as LGBT character stand-ins. This obvious effort to indoctrinate the populace makes me more than skeptical of any claims that we are proportionately of higher LGBT numbers. No has ever pushed for that stuff more than the white community.

Marcus John Lewis - @Muhammad... If a person were only trying to be specific in identifying a demographic, that would be fine. But there are Jamaicans, Haitians, all sorts of Africans all over the country. And I believe in a dialectic that unifies us all.

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "Feminism in order to be useful *must be intersectional."

I don't see it as useful at all, since it only functions to enable the dominantly powerful white woman to pretend to be a protected oppressed minority when she helps, with her partner, to hoard literally 90% of the $136 trillion in national household wealth.

Marcus John Lewis - M. Rasheed wrote: "lol I remember that in 2010, the big controversy after the mid-term elections was that the Black American community in California -- the most liberal state in the union -- voted a decisive "No" to the gay marriage bill, confirming the traditional conservativism of the identity group despite our long-time history of Dem voter loyalty."

I fucking hate the Dems almost as much as the GOP.

M. Rasheed wrote: "What has stood out to me in the 12 years since is how Hollywood has gone out of its way to ensure almost all Black actor casting has been not for race, but as LGBT character stand-ins."

An over-correction that can be annoying at times. I do advocate for more black male leads. Although I can't say that I think that this is a zero sum game. All of this can happen at the same time, but for white nationalism and anti-black misegyny.

M. Rasheed wrote: "This obvious effort to indoctrinate the populace makes me more than skeptical of any claims that we are proportionately of higher LGBT numbers."

I think it is a fact, and I'm not worried about it.

M. Rasheed wrote: "No has ever pushed for that stuff more than the white community."

There are definitely white supremacist narratives to attack regarding that. But I don't for a second think that the existence of gay black people are the result of indoctrination.

Marcus John Lewis - (Sorry, misandry)

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "Also, as an aside. I have been very suspicious of the ADOS movement."

Your suspicions are unfounded. I strongly suggest you read the material from the co-founders themselves.


Marcus wrote: "Black reactionaries like Candace Owens regularly push it."

lol That's not even remotely true. Owens specifically is not only Caribbean immigrant-tied and not of our group, but she's a darling of the white Republican sect. The ADOS activists vote Democratic Party and share nothing at all with her.

Marcus wrote: "And on top of that, as a communist I must be a transnationalist."

"Must?"

Marcus wrote: "I get that they advocate reparations for black Americans ... but some of the rationales just get on my nerves."

The only rationale is that the ethnic group is owed Reparatory Justice from our ever-complicit government.

Marcus John Lewis - @Muhammad... Yes, I must. The communist project is a global one. And we can only solve the physical problems of the people in our societies by global cooperation. Ideally there should be no borders, but since there are, cooperation between those borders is crucial. Not only to eliminate reactionary racists and economic exploitation, but also the environment.

Regarding ADOS:

I could go back and read the page again. But my focus is on the majority of participants in the conversation about black politics. I got fed up quick with all of the anti-african, anti-carribean talk I saw when I tried to explore it from its advocates. Granted, this was twitter and thus a shit show ... but it turned me off.

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "Although I can't say that I think that this is a zero sum game."

Well, the LGBT community has made it clear that they want Black Americans to only use our dormant voting power to help them achieve their agenda items while neglecting our own Black Political Agenda and Reparations fight. It's definitely a zero sum game by way of how they move.


Marcus John Lewis - @Muhammad... Yes, but you are talking about how some people act, and not how it is. Physically speaking, there is room for all of us. This is a matter of interrogating the superstructure and exploring the concept of class war.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Marcus... How the dominant group with the unlimited deep pockets acts IS how it is. That's how society is shaped.

Marcus John Lewis - @Muhammad... I prefer to focus on the physical needs of people and undermining divisions within the working class.

Muhammad Rasheed - Their physical needs are addressed by politics... the point of which is group economic uplift.

Marcus John Lewis - @Muhammad... Correction. It is how it is NOW according to WHO the dominant group is. I am advocating CHANGING the dominant group. And no one specific demographic can do this alone considering the global implications of our problems. But I also focus on this from a black perspective because I am more of an expert on blackness than non black people ... because well, Im black and care about our history and traditions.

Marcus John Lewis - @Muhammad... Back to my aside for a second: I will submit that the character of the ADOS conversation may have changed. I am thinking about the explosive anti-african discourse I experienced from self described ADOS advocates from five years ago.

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "Yes, I must. The communist project is a global one. And we can only solve the physical problems of the people in our societies by global cooperation."

We can just as easily (MORE easily actually) solve economic-based physical problems through a strictly regulated (antitrust) competitive open free market capitalism than we can through communist models. In fact, the history of the 1919 infiltration of the Communist Party of the USA looks for all the world like an aspect of the plot to counter the 1866 Civil rights Act that enables the former Black slave class to do business equally in the US with whites.

Marcus wrote: "Ideally there should be no borders, but since there are, cooperation between those borders is crucial. Not only to eliminate reactionary racists and economic exploitation, but also the environment."

That sounds like the normal goals of any national level governance. I don't see how we can realistically not have borders, since humans have different needs on the identity group level. We are not a hive mind species.

Marcus wrote: "I got fed up quick with all of the anti-african, anti-carribean talk I saw when I tried to explore it from its advocates."

ADOS is not anti-immigrant, since our Black Political Agenda is specifically for ALL black groups with the USA. The problem, is that when we asserted our need for a specific political advocacy for our ethnic group specifically in our fight for our Reparations, the immigrant community ferociously attacked us as if we had no right to advocate for ourselves. In those early days, the attack was partially led by the rapper Talib Kwali(sp?) , who published a libelous online hit piece against the movement and it's co-founder. Our angrily pushing back against this treachery was probably what you remember.

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "I am thinking about the explosive anti-african discourse I experienced from self described ADOS advocates from five years ago."

Much of that was probably from Tariq Nasheed's "foundational" group, an unaffiliated rival who were fond of using the "ADOS" hashtag in their bios as shameless clout chasers.

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "And no one specific demographic can do this alone considering the global implications of our problems."

Agreed. The fundamental hurdle is that the Black American ethnic group has been politically disenfranchised as a group which makes us vulnerable to exploitation by other unified and politically strong groups, who have proven to use our dormant disenfranchised political might for their own rival goals.

This is why the ADOS advocacy movement is important. The best thing for us is to be unified as a political special interest group and in our strength, interconnect with others for a group win/win. Otherwise, we'll only continue to be exploited & plundered by others (pretending to be our allies) in our disunified weakness.

Marcus John Lewis - M. Rasheed wrote: "We can just as easily (MORE easily actually) solve economic-based physical problems through a strictly regulated (antitrust) competitive open free market capitalism than we can through communist models."

Look to the PRC. On top of that, we already know from historical precedent that socialist societies economically grow more rapidly than capitalism has because it has planning via five year plans. I fear you might have that view because capitalism is presently the dominant world system. But when we explore it, the current global hegemon slaps down any nation attempting to be independent of the West. Even the ones who swear up and down that they are capitalist.

M. Rasheed wrote: "In fact, the history of the 1919 infiltration of the Communist Party of the USA looks for all the world like an aspect of the plot to counter the 1866 Civil rights Act that enables the former Black slave class to do business equally in the US with whites."

Can't deny this. The communist party in the United States was constantly infiltrated by racism that only served to undermine the communist project here. This country is *more enlightened now than it was then ... but the concerns remain.

M. Rasheed wrote: "That sounds like the normal goals of any national level governance."

You'd THINK so ... until you examine international politics. But I trust that things are going to change in one way or another considering the rise of the PRC and its alliance with Russia.

M. Rasheed wrote: "I don't see how we can realistically not have borders, since humans have different needs on the identity group level."

Borders were only developed as they are today because of the results of WWII. Meaning most of human history saw more fluid movements of human migration.

M. Rasheed wrote: "We are not a hive mind species."

No, which is why I am a Maoist. Maoism further developed Leninism and Stalinism as a regional question. Every communism looks different depending on the communities involved, but each communist country aids one another in good faith ... at least since the fall of the USSR. Look to Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, and especially our new super power China. All of them have participated in mutual aid.

M. Rasheed wrote: "ADOS is not anti-immigrant, since our Black Political Agenda is specifically for ALL black groups with the USA."

I'd say this is a further problem, being a transnationalist.

M. Rasheed wrote: "The problem, is that when we asserted our need for a specific political advocacy for our ethnic group specifically in our fight for our Reparations, the immigrant community ferociously attacked us as if we had no right to advocate for ourselves."

I suppose I can get behind part of that. Although all people of African descent are owed, each demographic has its specific problems that white supremacy has to answer for. But I have seen plenty of anti-African sentiment within the scope of the ADOS conversation, so the specificity of our needs is warranted, just not treating it how it has been treated.

M. Rasheed wrote: "In those early days, the attack was partially led by the rapper Talib Kwali(sp?) , who published a libelous online hit piece against the movement and it's co-founder. Our angrily pushing back against this treachery was probably what you remember."

I remember that, and its causes. I specifically remember all of that trash talk from ADOS. I seem to recall that he is more of a pan-africanist being attacked by ADOS at the time.

Marcus John Lewis - M. Rasheed wrote: "Agreed. The fundamental hurdle is that the Black American ethnic group has been politically disenfranchised as a group which makes us vulnerable to exploitation by other unified and politically strong groups"

Sure. And this requires a global shift in how people navigate oppression by white supremacy. The communist approach seems best considering what I have seen. I mean even the USSR had a Council of the Nationalities which could veto regions with a large voting base when it threatened their interests.

M. Rasheed wrote: "who have proven to use our dormant disenfranchised political might for their own rival goals."

Definitely another Western hobby. But just like the Sino-Soviet Split, we know that this is a deliberate tactic and byproduct of their obsolete system of democracy.

M. Rasheed wrote: "This is why the ADOS advocacy movement is important. The best thing for us is to be unified as a political special interest group and in our strength, interconnect with others for a group win/win. Otherwise, we'll only continue to be exploited & plundered by others (pretending to be our allies) in our disunified weakness."

I can understand the sentiment. And we do have very specific problems. And it is definitely another iteration of a very splintered political conversation black people are having. But whatever dominant movement happens, it needs to be within a framework of mutual aid between other members of The Diaspora.

Marcus John Lewis - @Muhammad... If this is indeed the primary thought of ADOS (and I am still suspicious), then it should be in the framework of a maoist attitude of mutual aid. Otherwise it will not work. We will not succeed in the least by alienating other Africans. In this aspect, I agree with the sentiments of Omali Yeshitela and his Uhuru Movement.

Marcus John Lewis - If you don't know the Uhuru Movement, check out these guys:


Dick Carter - @Marcus... Studied the movement in grad school and worked with them contractually in a public housing capacity in Florida. I admired their efforts. Pure socialists if I recall.

Marcus John Lewis - @Dick... Yeah, it is a socialist movement, but also kind of a pan-africanist group too to my understanding. I went to a few of their meetings.

Marcus John Lewis - @Dick... Omali himself was kind of in the periphery of the Black Panther Movement. He likes to talk about how he knew all those cats.

Dick Carter - *And in the interest of full disclosure, they didn’t like an agency I worked for. There were YouTube protest videos I believe. Perspective I suppose.

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "we already know from historical precedent that socialist societies economically grow more rapidly than capitalism has because"

Because the brutal, heavy-handed tactics of [fill-in-the-blank] dictator made everyone get in line, only to topple once said dictator was removed.

Marcus wrote: "I fear you might have that view because capitalism is presently the dominant world system."

No, I have that view because a properly and strictly regulated competitive, free open market capitalism works for the people and distributes the wealth. Currently, capitalism isn't the dominant system since it was usurped by the 1% grifter monopolist class in partnership with unscrupulous government officials. Welcome to the Second Gilded Age where competition itself is a sin, thus the opposite of capitalism. You know who else hates competition as fiercely as the who's who of 1% monopolist figures? The communist.

Marcus wrote: "But when we explore it, the current global hegemon slaps down any nation attempting to be independent of the West."

Yes, this is the 1% grifter elite being protective of their global dominance.

Marcus wrote: "Even the ones who swear up and down that they are capitalist."

The only true capitalists are little guys struggling in monopolized, shrinking markets.

Marcus wrote: "Can't deny this. The communist party in the United States was constantly infiltrated by racism that only served to undermine the communist project here."

"Infiltrated by racism?" It's entire point was as an arm of anti-Black racism to prevent the sharing of wealth, land & rule with the former slave class. It's goal was to indoctrinate us into hating capitalism so we would stop fighting for our fair share of this nation we built.

Marcus wrote: "This country is *more enlightened now than it was then"

Is it? In those days, the common US citizen was terrified of the rising monopolist class and pressured the government to pass the first antitrust laws to control it. Today, the average US citizen stupidly thinks a billionaire class is a good idea.

Marcus wrote: "But I trust that things are going to change in one way or another considering the rise of the PRC and its alliance with Russia."

Meh. The usual suspects are merely finding more ways to solidify their global monopolies.

Marcus wrote: "Borders were only developed as they are today because of the results of WWII. Meaning most of human history saw more fluid movements of human migration."

"As they are today," sure. But the species has always been a warring one, and crossing over into a rival's territory has always held violent consequences. Borders are a thing and have always been, whether "internationally recognized" or not.

Marcus wrote: "but each communist country aids one another in good faith ... at least since the fall of the USSR. Look to Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, and especially our new super power China. All of them have participated in mutual aid."

From here it looks like they have all agreed to be an obedient support class under their 1% global elite masters.

Marcus wrote: "I suppose I can get behind part of that. Although all people of African descent are owed, each demographic has its specific problems that white supremacy has to answer for."

Even in that, ADOS advocates for a general Black Political Agenda for all US Black groups, one separate from our own sacred Reparations justice claim. We are not anti-immigrant.

Marcus wrote: "But I have seen plenty of anti-African sentiment within the scope of the ADOS conversation"

ADOS has never been anti-African. We are anti-black immigrant grifters though, who only showed themselves to disparage us in our unification effort for our political identity group. Tariq's group, pretending to be ADOS, is your actual culprit.

Marcus wrote: "so the specificity of our needs is warranted, just not treating it how it has been treated."

Yes, that's the main mission of ADOS... transformational specificity laws for our own group economic uplift... laws 150 yrs late since the abolishment of slavery.

Marcus wrote: "I specifically remember all of that trash talk from ADOS. I seem to recall that he is more of a pan-africanist being attacked by ADOS at the time."

The blatant lies in his infamous hit piece, combined with savage personal attacks against the ADOS co-founder, tell another tale.

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "And this requires a global shift in how people navigate oppression by white supremacy."

It requires no less than the political unification and enfranchisement of the American Descendants of Slavery.

Marcus wrote: "The communist approach seems best considering what I have seen."

The communist approach seems for all the world like a scheme to further finds ways to keep our government from paying ADOS our long overdue Reparations debt.

Marcus wrote: "I mean even the USSR had a Council of the Nationalities which could veto regions with a large voting base when it threatened their interests."

You could have just as easily said that the USA was usurped by multitentacled white supremacist interests that vetoed Black American efforts to achieve full citizenship.

Marcus wrote: "Definitely another Western hobby. But just like the Sino-Soviet Split, we know that this is a deliberate tactic and byproduct of their obsolete system of democracy."

Hm. We know it is a deliberate tactic of the white racist aristocracy to maintain their dominance at my people's expense.

Marcus wrote: "And it is definitely another iteration of a very splintered political conversation black people are having."

"Divide & Conquer" is a preferred weapon of my traditional ideological foe and the nature of that old "splintering" is not lost on me. My people need to capture their group identity and unify under the ADOS banner.

Marcus wrote: "But whatever dominant movement happens, it needs to be within a framework of mutual aid between other members of The Diaspora."

That's the next step AFTER Black Americans are unified and politically strong. Then we can work with other groups for win/wins.

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "If this is indeed the primary thought of ADOS"

It is.

Marcus wrote: "(and I am still suspicious)"

Said the red commie agent. :P

Marcus wrote: "then it should be in the framework of a maoist attitude of mutual aid."

Nah. It should be in the framework of a strictly regulated competitive free open market, with socialist safety nets and a protected, wealth-building ownership class for ADOS.

Marcus wrote: "Otherwise it will not work."

It will work if we commit to making it work. The point of studying history is to not repeat the mistakes of the past, all of which follow behind us like blaring noises...

Marcus wrote: "We will not succeed in the least by alienating other Africans."

That's not the problem. lol All ADOS did is assert the great necessity for our ethnic group to align as a special interest group along our unique lineage & heritage, only to be attacked for it by hostile immigrants, many of which had grown used to pretending to be us so they could enjoy double-dipping into both immigrant benefits as well as civil rights benefits. "Pan-african/flat blackness" has only ever benefitted Black immigrant elitists, you see. That's why they are mad at the rise of ADOS -- proudly asserting our own national identity and a demand for Black disaggregated data so they can no longer cheat.

The age of sneaky skinfolk grifting the system at our expense is over. If "alienating other africans" means they no longer get to be anti-ADOS parasites helping white supremacy plunder us of our wealth by pretending to be us, then they can get over it.

Marcus John Lewis - M. Rasheed wrote: "Because the brutal, heavy-handed tactics of [fill-in-the-blank] dictator made everyone get in line, only to topple once said dictator was removed."

We speak of brutal dictators as if we black people don't live under a brutal dictatorship. Also, look into the concept of "democratic centralism" and "immediate recall". I no longer without criticism accept the accusations of dictatorships after looking into the mechanics of these socialist governments.

M. Rasheed wrote: "No, I have that view because a properly and strictly regulated competitive, free open market capitalism works for the people and distributes the wealth."

So you are not concerned with the tendencies of capitalism? It is an ideal system, but we just haven't gotten it right yet? I encourage you to look into the tendencies and imperatives of each system. The dominant imperatives are the most important. Now, if you are conflating capitalism with free markets, I encourage you to look into the differences between who rules here and who rules in China. And the fact that both systems engage in market activities.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Currently, capitalism isn't the dominant system since it was usurped by the 1% grifter monopolist class in partnership with unscrupulous government officials."

The system of governance dominated by capitalism favors consolidation. The systems of socialism dominated by a communist party favors humanitarian development. Capitalism is inferior because it depends on the theory that humanitarian development will indirectly develope. Which might have worked in its early stages, but the consolidation begins to degrade that very expectation.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Welcome to the Second Gilded Age where competition itself is a sin"

Not a sin. A degraded concept.

M. Rasheed wrote: "thus the opposite of capitalism."

Once more ... simply a mechanical byproduct of its existence without mitigation.

M. Rasheed wrote: "You know who else hates competition as fiercely as the who's who of 1% monopolist figures? The communist."

You really don't know how these systems work then. Because there is ample competition within communist systems. The difference is where that competition happens.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Yes, this is the 1% grifter elite being protective of their global dominance."

Which is a natural outgrowth of the global system of capitalism. What happens when unbridled competition happens? The powers eventually consolidate into smaller and smaller groups of capitalists. The goal of socialism is to mitigate that consolidation by managing the actions of capitalists.

M. Rasheed wrote: "The only true capitalists are little guys struggling in monopolized, shrinking markets."

False. The capitalist class is specifically the ownership class. Anyone owning the means of production. You have conflated free markets with capitalism, which simply is not true.

M. Rasheed wrote: "'Infiltrated by racism?' It's entire point was as an arm of anti-Black racism to prevent the sharing of wealth, land & rule with the former slave class."

Within the bounds of the communist movement, the entire thing was about removing the boundaries of black development. Might I recommend reading Harry Haywood's "Black Bolshevik". Also "Hammer and Hoe". They both talk about how racism undermined the communist movement because of the American racist superstructure.

M. Rasheed wrote: "It's goal was to indoctrinate us into hating capitalism so we would stop fighting for our fair share of this nation we built."

Its goal was to organize the working class and take power from the capitalist class.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Is it?"

Did you get lynched today for talking smart to a white woman? The development happened. It's just not nearly enough.

M. Rasheed wrote: "In those days, the common US citizen was terrified of the rising monopolist class and pressured the government to pass the first antitrust laws to control it."

Sure. You are talking about the development of the power grab that was neoliberal politics, which I do not disagree with. Also, that concern was bolstered by the communists within the working class.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Today, the average US citizen stupidly thinks a billionaire class is a good idea."

Again, the ideology of the ruling class will be the dominant ideology of the society. This does not surprise me. Which is why the left must continue its work in ideology to reverse this. Although we probably don't have to work that hard considering recent national developments.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Meh. The usual suspects are merely finding more ways to solidify their global monopolies."

Usual? PRC is a recent member of the world stage after the storied Century of Humiliation. Different things are going to happen, even though they will be characterized by the behavior and policies of the current hegemon.

M. Rasheed wrote: "'As they are today,' sure. But the species has always been a warring one, and crossing over into a rival's territory has always held violent consequences."

And yet the species has always been a social one, implying cooperation ... which we can always find examples of. I recommend reading The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Borders are a thing and have always been"

*Nations have always been a thing. Not borders. Nations are simply communities of interest determined by the character of the territory they live on.

M. Rasheed wrote: "whether 'internationally recognized' or not."

Look at this statement. None of this sounds influenced by an elite engineered system to you?

M. Rasheed wrote: "From here it looks like they have all agreed to be an obedient support class under their 1% global elite masters."

Look into War Communism and the reasons for it. When you do, also note the structure of each one of these governments. I started by looking at "How does China work?" by Viki1999 on youtube, which overviews how democratic centralism works. Generalized moralism just encourages one to avoid the details of any given system ... and leads to incorrect conclusions.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Even in that, ADOS advocates for a general Black Political Agenda for all US Black groups"

It is okay to pay attention to your own demographic. It starts to become a mistake when one thinks of themselves as at war with all others.

M. Rasheed wrote: "ADOS has never been anti-African."

Tell that to the ADOS people I have so far talked to. You are an outlier to date.

M. Rasheed wrote: "We are anti-black immigrant grifters though, who only showed themselves to disparage us in our unification effort for our political identity group."

I was in that conversation on twitter and saw it develope. All of that is false. He is a pan-africanist.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Tariq's group pretending to be ADOS, is your actual culprit."

No true scotsman argument.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Yes, that's the main mission of ADOS... transformational specificity laws for our own group economic uplift... laws 150 yrs late since the abolishment of slavery."

Yeah, I still think the only way to solve that will be cooperation and coordination with other groups in mutual respect. The powers mainly just ignore us or give out concessions otherwise ... which they reliably roll back when we finally shut up about it.

M. Rasheed wrote: "The blatant lies in his infamous hit piece, combined with savage personal attacks against the ADDOS co-founder, tell another tale."

No, I'm talking about ADOS people dropping into his feed to talk shit at him on twitter when he wasn't even talking to them or about them. Like I said. I remember a bunch of those feeds. Then he started defending his position, and suddenly he is betraying black Americans? Not so much.

Marcus John Lewis - @Muhammad... Look at what these leftist governments are actually doing. They are not just handing out loans. They are physically building infrastructure for other peoples. When the west hands out loans, they revolt when someone defaults. When the east hands out loans, they renegotiate the terms of those loans to avoid defaults.

Marcus John Lewis - So regardless of what you think about specific governments, you have to look at behavior.

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "We speak of brutal dictators as if we black people don't live under a brutal dictatorship."

It sounds suspiciously as if you're suggesting that I should simply accept living under brutal dictatorship as a fact of life as designed by communist masters just because I've lived under it before.

Marcus wrote: "I no longer without criticism accept the accusations of dictatorships after looking into the mechanics of these socialist governments."

I'm an American citizen who has lived under 230 years of brutal chattel and 150 yrs of ongoing accrued discrimination & plunder so the white racist aristocracy can live as faux-lords at my expense. Under ADOS, I fight for the Reparations and economic inclusion into a protected, wealth-building ownership class I am owed. I certainly have no interest in fighting to be under a Red Communist brutal dictatorship. lol If this represents your attempt to actually recruit me to your team, I suggest you try a radically different tactic. This ain't it, as the kids say.

Marcus wrote: "So you are not concerned with the tendencies of capitalism?"

The tendency of capitalism I should be concerned about is when talented and successful businessmen rise above their competition to seek out more than their fair share of market revenue. Known as "bigness," these greedy fellows if unchecked will bribe unscrupulous politicians to get around the competition laws and will monopolize the markets. Bigness is the natural predator of the capitalist system and must be ferociously guarded against. That's all.

Marcus wrote: "Now, if you are conflating capitalism with free markets"

Capitalism requires the competitive open free markets to function, as that is its life blood. Without it, it's not capitalism. A monopolized market is not a capitalist market.

Marcus wrote: "The system of governance dominated by capitalism favors consolidation."

The natural predators of a capitalist system favor corporate shark takeover of rival business so they may monopolize the wealth of industry for themselves alone.

Marcus wrote: "The systems of socialism dominated by a communist party favors humanitarian development."

Oh, is that what the 20th century's bloody reigns of terror represented at the rise of Old World communism? 100 million murders is now called "humanitarian development?" Curious.

Marcus wrote: "Capitalism is inferior because it depends on the theory that humanitarian development will indirectly develope."

The thing about human systems is they require humans to run them. Moral and ethic ideals aren't built into any of these economic systems; we need the humans who step up to run them to bring their own moral codes learned from other systems in their training & upbringing. If these codes are found deficient in these leaders, then we'll get sociopathic communist dictators and sociopathic corporate heads, all caring only for themselves while reading off something different in their propaganda.

Marcus wrote: "Which might have worked in its early stages, but the consolidation begins to degrade that very expectation."

Once we let the bad guys take over our systems, it's bloody difficult to turn them around.

Marcus wrote: "Not a sin. A degraded concept."

The reference was to a quote from John D. Rockefeller, the pro-monopolist, patron saint of bigness himself who declared in a frustrated huff that competition should be a sin. So, the self-identified communist likewise considers competition as a negative? lol

Marcus wrote: "Once more ... simply a mechanical byproduct of its existence without mitigation."

All human systems require strict mitigation to prevent their take over from the dedicated criminal class. Treating capitalism as if it is unique in that regard is itself criminal, and only reflects a biased marxian perspective I have little interest in.

Marcus wrote: "You really don't know how these systems work then."

You yourself referred to it as a "degraded concept." I see you.

Marcus wrote: "Because there is ample competition within communist systems."

I'll bet. Hence the 100 million bloody murders. "Reign of Terror," amirite?

Marcus wrote: "The difference is where that competition happens."

One is fair trade in open free markets, the other is a desperate power struggle between conniving cliques shooting one another in the face as they jockey for position as the heads of a global supremacy. Naturally, I like the first one. lol Your earlier effort to get me to relax into the idea of being ruled over by a brutal dictator was not lost on me.

Marcus wrote: "Which is a natural outgrowth of the global system of capitalism."

Hm. It's the natural outgrowth of cliques of greedy, powerful men who believe only they get to enjoy the bounties of the earth.

Marcus wrote: "What happens when unbridled competition happens?"

Probably a golden age of prosperity for everyone. The competition part isn't the problem, but the talented, greedy individuals who feel in their hearts that competition is in their way of hoarding everything worthwhile for themselves alone.

Marcus wrote: "The powers eventually consolidate into smaller and smaller groups of capitalists. The goal of socialism is to mitigate that consolidation by managing the actions of capitalists."

That's what antitrust is for. Socialism's job is to provide an economic safety net for those least successful businessmen and the poor class.

Marcus wrote: "False. The capitalist class is specifically the ownership class. Anyone owning the means of production."

lol There's nothing in "little guys struggling in monopolized, shrinking markets" to suggest those little guys don't also own their own stuff. Of course, as the markets are monopolized fully, forcing them out of business, they will probably have to sell their stuff as they are now ruined though. Victims of the natural predators of their beloved capitalist system.

Marcus wrote: "You have conflated free markets with capitalism, which simply is not true."

It's 100% true as the economist definition of the term. Why would I join you in accepting marx's biased, anti-capitalism definition as if it is a default universal truth (perhaps they actually leased or rented the means of production, for example)? The idea is absurd.

Marcus wrote: "Within the bounds of the communist movement, the entire thing was about removing the boundaries of black development."

100 years later, the historical record reveals my economic development sabotaged at literally every step of the way (see: paternalism, gradualism) while under the wing of the very pro-communist white liberal. It would appear that I have far more reason to be suspicious of your red commie friends than you have to be suspicious of my ADOS ones.

Marcus wrote: "They both talk about how racism undermined the communist movement because of the American racist superstructure."

I have no doubt that there were quite a few true believer individuals who were fully convinced that the communists really were trying to remove the boundaries of black development, only to likewise fall for all of the numerous excuses when not once did any of that happen under a pro-communist liberal apparatus on their behalf. If anything, Black Americans were bamboozled into being guinea pigs in a failed proto-socialist state. "Failed" because of the bipartisan effort to keep my people as an artificially impoverished bottom caste no matter what their claims.

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "Its goal was to organize the working class and take power from the capitalist class."

Its goal was to indoctrinate us into hating capitalism so we would stop fighting for our fair share of this nation we built. What matters is what has happened in real time under their watch, not what's written on their brochure.

Marcus wrote: "Did you get lynched today for talking smart to a white woman? The development happened. It's just not nearly enough."

The point of domestic terror was to keep my people from the economic inclusion promised by the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Once whites were given the wealth & land windfalls from the homesteading acts and the New Deal, they felt the wealth gap was suitably wide enough to dial back on all their terror violence against us.

Marcus wrote: "Sure. You are talking about the development of the power grab that was neoliberal politics"

I'm talking about the rise of the 1% grifter plutocracy by the original members of the Money Trust.

Marcus wrote: "which I do not disagree with."

Sure.

Marcus wrote: "Also, that concern was bolstered by the communists within the working class."

Nice try. It was bolstered by the average citizen who recognized the traditional danger when individuals gained enough wealth to challenge the state and how it was always the common people who ate it when the two fell out.

Marcus wrote: "Again, the ideology of the ruling class will be the dominant ideology of the society. This does not surprise me. Which is why the left must continue its work in ideology to reverse this."

Funny, considering the who's who of the high-profile billionaire monopolists are all ideological leftists.

Marcus wrote: "Different things are going to happen, even though they will be characterized by the behavior and policies of the current hegemon."

The devil has no new tricks. It'll be the same ole, same ole -- the greedy elite hoarding wealth & power for themselves.

Marcus wrote: "And yet the species has always been a social one, implying cooperation"

Cooperation within groups and wars without. Wars driven by the greed of bigness figures.

Marcus wrote: "*Nations have always been a thing. Not borders. Nations are simply communities of interest determined by the character of the territory they live on."

Borders are the recognized lines between territories where people will draw their swords on you if you don't have permission to cross.

Marcus wrote: "Look at this statement. None of this sounds influenced by an elite engineered system to you?"

Why would I need an elite to determine the borders of the territory that my tribe lives on?

Marcus wrote: "Generalized moralism just encourages one to avoid the details of any given system ... and leads to incorrect conclusions."

The alternative is a specialized info-dump designed to gaslight me with over-talkative, "banality of evil" minutiae?

Marcus wrote: "It is okay to pay attention to your own demographic. It starts to become a mistake when one thinks of themselves as at war with all others."

Based on the historical record, Black Americans are at war with all other groups, who've readily sided with white supremacy against us the second they stepped off the boat, including our skinfolk. Despite this, ADOS still generously advocates for a general Black Political Agenda to benefit all US Black groups.

Marcus wrote: "Tell that to the ADOS people I have so far talked to. You are an outlier to date."

That means you haven't been talking to any ADOS. You barely even remembered what it was when the discussion started, evidenced by you oddly believing Candace Owens of all people advocated for our movement. lol

Marcus wrote: "All of that is false."

No, it's not. You are out of the loop and apparently didn't recognize what was actually going on when you believed you were in the loop.

Marcus wrote: "He is a pan-africanist."

Tariq? Today, he and his goons pretend otherwise.

Marcus wrote: "No true scotsman argument."

lol Read the ADOS website info, and then go watch Tariq's last three vids.

Marcus wrote: "Yeah, I still think the only way to solve that will be cooperation and coordination with other groups in mutual respect."

Black Americans won't receive that respect until we are politically unified and strong. Otherwise, "allies" will continue to exploit us.

Marcus wrote: "No, I'm talking about ADOS people dropping into his feed to talk shit at him on twitter when he wasn't even talking to them or about them."

It's convenient to ignore the fact that he attacked us and our co-founder first. He even got banned from twitter from savagely attacking other women outside of our group. He's just unhinged. Perhaps that's the type your team favors for the red dictator position? 😏

Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "Look at what these leftist governments are actually doing. [...] So regardless of what you think about specific governments, you have to look at behavior."

The behavior that concerns me is other people escaping their undesirable home nations to come to my country "looking for a better life" by siding with white supremacy and helping my foes & rivals to keep me subjugated for continued exploitation & plunder.










________________________________

Get a signed copy of M. Rasheed's first novel!