This article [by Cornelis van Vliet--JG] is crap. There is not a single citation of Leon Trotsky's Transitional Program, only characterizations.
This is the first time I've heard of Cornelis van Vliet and the Communist Platform, so I can't say much about them. But as for citations from Trotsky showing many of his errors, they are readily available to those who are willing to seriously study the experience of Trotskyism.. My own critique of Trotsky's version of the transitional program is backed by abundant citations to "The Transitional Program: The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International" and other of Trotsky's writings. Part one of an overall critique of Trotsky's views can be found at www.communistvoice.org/30cTrotsky.thml. It is divided into subjects such as the following, and backed by numerous citations:
Permanent revolution --Denigration of the democratic revolution --Trotsky versus "the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" --Overlooking the non-socialist revolutionary trends --The issue of the provisional revolutionary government --"Left" rhetoric leading to subordination to the bourgeoisie
The transitional program --Trotskyist repudiation of the minimum program --Claiming reforms go beyond the bounds of capitalism --An inconsistent and muddled stand towards various demands and struggles --A strong element of manipulation --The problem isn't the term "transitional demand"
The colonial and semi-colonial world --Nothing to say about class relation in undeveloped countries- --Ludicrous suggestions about China- --In judging wars, a mechanical rule rather than class and political criteria
The hypocrisy of "military but not political support": backing reactionary regimes at war Betraying the right to self-determination --Implying the right to self-determination is outdated --Holding that independence would lead directly to socialism --Ignoring the national oppression of a number of nationalities, including the Moroccan people during the Spanish Civil War- --Seeing nothing but the struggle for independence- --Trotskyist justifications for oppressing certain nationalities
Democratic struggles and the fight against fascism --Worried about taking anti-fascist struggle too seriously --Unable to fight fascism except with immediate socialist revolution --Embracing social-democracy in the name of opposing fascism --The "French turn": embracing social-democracy
When Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg revealed last month that she had been treated for
cancerous lesions on her liver, a YouTube video whispered
across the liberal internet like a prayer. The video, titled
“Hang On Ruthie!” is a 2018 parody of the McCoys’ 1965 hit
“Hang On Sloopy,” and every few months, it is resurrected
through boomer chain emails and Facebook pages with names
like the Rude Liberals. Filmed “somewhere in Oregon” by the
musical duo Buffalo Romeo, “Hang On Ruthie!” features the
earnestly progressive trappings of the Pacific Northwest (a
local lesbian choir sings backup in black judicial robes)
and a charmingly amateurish production (still photographs of
Supreme Court justices are made to wink or bob their heads
to the beat). The “Sloopy” lyrics are recast to celebrate
Ginsburg’s legal prowess: “You know you argue so good/You
know your briefs are so tight/You got the juris and the
prudence/Keep counsel up all night.”
"Hang On
Ruthie!" from Buffalo Romeo.Credit...CreditVideo by Lea Jones
But
the subtext is that Ginsburg’s greatest accomplishment these
days is staying alive. Ginsburg is 87 and has been treated
for cancer of the colon, pancreas, lung and liver. With
every new health scare — she headed back to the hospital
again last month to clean out a stent in her bile duct — her
online fandom erupts in a panicked frenzy of memes, as if
the sheer force of cultural production alone could sustain
her. As a Supreme Court justice with a lifetime appointment,
Ginsburg wields immense power in American government, but
her liberal influence on the court is extremely precarious.
If she dies before President Trump leaves office, her legacy
could be the ascension of a far-right judge to her spot on
the bench.
This national death watch is
an absurd and distressing phenomenon. And yet Ginsburg’s
physical frailty is central to her pop-cultural cachet. The
whole appeal of her little-old-lady archetype is that it
situates her as an underdog and makes for a heady contrast
to her intellectual might. In a sequence from the 2018
documentary “RBG” that has been sliced into GIFs and pasted
around the internet as tribute, she wears a “SUPER DIVA!”
sweatshirt as she heaves teensy hand weights over her
shoulders. Even footage of Ginsburg nodding off at the 2015
State of the Union was celebrated by her fans, especially
after Ginsburg explained that she had not been “100 percent
sober.”
The
more Ginsburg’s persona was revered, the more she appeared
to be literally irreplaceable. Any call for Ginsburg to step
down risked being cast as sexist, the brutish dismissal of a
powerful older woman who refuses to shut up. “I love my
job,” Ginsburg told The New York Times in 2013, while Obama
was in his second term and Democrats safely controlled the
Senate. Besides, she said, “There will be a president after
this one, and I’m hopeful that that president will be a fine
president.”
“The
Notorious R.B.G.,”Ginsburg’s online
alter ego, was codified in a fan Tumblr in 2013 by Shana
Knizhnik, a law student at the time, in the wake of
Ginsburg’s electrifying dissent in Shelby County v. Holder.
As Chief Justice John Roberts led the court in dismantling a
key protection of the Voting Rights Act, Ginsburg argued
that it was “like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm
because you are not getting wet.” Then she made the rare,
pointed move of reading the dissent aloud from the bench. In
the Trump years, the Notorious R.B.G. branding has fused
with the aesthetics of the patriotic liberal #resistance,
where knitted pink pussy hats are Photoshopped onto bald
eagles and otherwise staid government officials are cast as
characters in conspiratorial fantasies.
But
Ginsburg, as Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern has noted, is not the
most liberal Supreme Court justice; that would be the Obama
appointee Sonia Sotomayor. In recent years Ginsburg has
voted with the majority in favor of the fossil-fuel industry
and against criminal defendants and asylum seekers. As a
lawyer arguing before the court, Ginsburg built the case for
gender equality incrementally, patiently moving conservative
male minds in the style of “a kindergarten teacher,” as she
put it in “RBG”; she counted the archconservative Antonin
Scalia as a friend and carries a keychain that reads “With
best wishes, Strom Thurmond.”
Ginsburg’s
tendency toward consensus building has only served to
support her brand. She is the ideal heroine for a liberal
faction obsessed with norms and eager for alliances with
never-Trump Republicans. In place of taking to the streets,
the #resistance lionizes conservative bureaucrats like James
Comey and Robert Mueller, plugging them into fan-fiction
narratives about stopping Trump. And it lauds Democrats for
performing cinematic acts of civil disobedience: a
condescending clap at the State of the Union or a pointed
“dissent” jabot worn behind the bench.
Ginsburg’s recent bending of
tradition to voice her political views tipped her into the
realm of #resistance wish fulfillment. Trump, she said in
the summer before the 2016 election, is a “faker” with an
“ego.” She later apologized for the breach, but she had
fulfilled her Facebook fans’ greatest fantasy: a buttoned-up
official dramatically breaking character in opposition to
Trump. It’s the ultimate testimony that his ascent in
American politics is not normal.
The
fact that Ginsburg was wrong about Obama’s successor did not
temper her cult. Since Trump’s election, the R.B.G. economy
expanded with more children’s books, action figures, a board
game and popular movies, including the biopic “On the Basis
of Sex,” in which Ginsburg herself makes a cameo. Trump’s
rise represents a serious threat to Ginsburg’s legacy, but
as a narrative twist in her mythology, it is thrilling: The
superhero has found her archvillain, whom she must best by
cheating death yet again.
Recently
an indie musician named Pleb Mahogany posted a TikTok in
which he appears in front of a janky montage of Ginsburg
news photographs. Hand on his heart, he lip-syncs a song
from “Hamilton,” in which Eliza Hamilton implores her
husband: “Just stay alive/That would be enough.” The TikTok
has the quality of many masterful internet videos, in that
its sincerity level is impossible to divine, but the
comments are unmistakably earnest: “SUPERHERO QUEEN”; “We
LOVE RBG!! She’s on my keys.”
As
Trump’s presidency drags on and Ginsburg’s hospital visits
arrive with ever greater frequency, all this hagiography
appears increasingly misplaced. Ginsburg’s dissents are as
cutting as ever, and chemotherapy does not appear to have
slowed her down. It is her fandom that feels spent. She was
fashioned into the star of a mythical vision of the Obama
era that never really existed — the dawn of a “postracial”
society in which liberals were so comfortable in their
dominance that they could consume their own politics as if
they were kitschy pop-culture artifacts.
Now that the Trump era has
been met by a true activist movement with the sustained
protests of Black Lives Matter, the Ginsburg memes hit like
relics. In 2016, Ginsburg was asked about Colin Kaepernick’s
kneeling during the national anthem, and she called it
“disrespectful” and “really dumb.” She later apologized,
admitting that she had been “barely aware of the incident or
its purpose.” Today the symbol of progressive change looks
not like a justice in a chic dissent collar but a regular
person for whom justice was not served. It looks like
Breonna Taylor or George Floyd. It looks like a movement
staged not in the halls of power but on the streets.
Luxury Homes Tie Chinese Communist Elite to Hong
Kong’s Fate
Three top leaders of China’s
Communist Party have relatives who own assets in Hong Kong,
including more than $51 million in luxury real estate, a New
York Times investigation shows.
China’s
leading political families have put money into Hong
Kong real estate, giving them personal stakes in the
city’s fate.Credit...Lam Yik
Fei for The New York Times
HONG
KONG — Li Qianxin, the elder daughter of the Chinese
Communist Party’s No. 3 leader, has quietly crafted a life
in Hong Kong that traverses the city’s financial elite and
the secretive world of Chinese politics.
For
years, she has mingled with senior executives of state
companies through Hong Kong and mainland professional clubs
known for grooming the sons and daughters of officials. She
has represented Hong Kong in Chinese provincial political
advisory groups. She is thechairwoman of a state-owned investment bankbased
in Hong Kong that has long done business with the relatives
of top Chinese officials.
Ms.
Li, 38, also has deep financial roots in the city, having
bought a $15 million, four-story townhouse perched high
above a beach. Her partner owns anow-retired racehorseand spent
hundreds of millions on a stakein
the storied Peninsula Hotel that he later sold.
Ms. Li and other members of
the Communist nobility are embedded in the fabric of Hong
Kong’s society and financial system, binding the former
British colony closer to the mainland. By building alliances
and putting their money into Hong Kong’s real estate,
China’s top leaders have inextricably linked themselves to
the fate of the city.
As
the party now takes a stronger hand in running Hong Kong,
the top leadership in Beijing has a vested interest,
politically and personally. Ms. Li’s father, Li Zhanshu,
oversaw the swift passage of the new national security law
for Hong Kong that handed the party a powerful new weapon to
quash dissent.
The
law could protect the families of the party’s leaders by
stopping the protests that wreaked havoc on the economy, or
leave them vulnerable by driving down business confidence in
the territory. It could also expose them to sanctions.
Image
Li Qianxin, a daughter of the Chinese
Communist Party’s No. 3 leader, during a rare public
appearance last year.Credit...Hong Kong Policy
Research Institute
Already
the law has prompted rebukes from foreign countries that
could threaten Hong Kong’s access to the global financial
system. The Trump administrationimposed sanctions on Fridayon
Hong Kong’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, and 10 other senior
officials in the city and the mainland they accuse of
curtailing freedoms in Hong Kong.
“Members of the Red
aristocracy in China, including the princelings, have made
huge investments in Hong Kong,” said Willy Lam, an adjunct
professor of China studies at the Chinese University of Hong
Kong. “If Hong Kong suddenly loses its financial status,
they cannot park their money here.”
One
of the leadership’s biggest exposures to Hong Kong is in
real estate. Including Ms. Li, relatives of three of the top
four members of China’s Communist Party have in recent years
bought luxury homes in Hong Kong worth more than $51 million
combined, a New York Times investigation shows.
Qi
Qiaoqiao, the older sister of Xi Jinping, China’s president,
started buying properties in Hong Kong as early as 1991,
Hong Kong property records show. Her daughter, Zhang Yannan,owns a villa in Repulse Bay, which she bought
in 2009 for $19.3 million, and at least five other
apartments, the city’s property and company records
indicate.
Wang
Xisha,a former Deutsche Bank executivewho
is the daughter of Wang Yang, the No. 4 party leader, bought
a $2 million home in Hong Kong in 2010, according to city
property records.
The
Communist Party has long been secretive about the riches of
many of its leaders’ relatives, aware that such an
accumulation of wealth could be seen as the elite abusing
their privilege for personal gain. In Hong Kong, the party
is also mindful that the presence of princelings could
further fan resentment of Beijing.
Ms.
Li, like many relatives of top Chinese officials, keeps a
low profile.
In
the mainland, there are few mentions of Mr. Li’s family in
the party-controlled news media, and searches for his
daughter’s name on social media sites yield minimal results.
A trip to Nangoucun, his ancestral village in northern Hebei
Province, offered little insight about his children.
But internal documents from
Deutsche Bank obtained by the German newspaper Süddeutsche
Zeitung and reviewed by The New York Times late last year
referred to a woman with the same name in English and
Chinese as the elder daughter of Li Zhanshu, now the No. 3
leader in China. Those documents werepart of an internal inquirystemming
from an investigation by the Securities and Exchange
Commission into the bank’s politically connected hires.
The Hong Kong identity
number that is used by Ms. Li in a Hong Kong corporate
record listing the directors of China Construction Bank
International is the same one used in the records linked to
the beachfront property and a company she owns with her
partner.
Image
The
villa in Hong Kong owned by a niece of President Xi
Jinping, Zhang Yannan.Credit...Eric Rechsteiner for The New York Times
A
well-connected businessman and an associate have confirmed
that the Ms. Li who is an executive at China Construction
Bank International is the daughter of Li Zhanshu, as does abiography of the officialwritten
by Cheng Li, an expert on elite Chinese politics at the
Brookings Institution.
The
rest of her résumé can be pieced together through news
snippets andarchived web pages. They showed how Ms. Li has
strengthened her ties to the city in ways that position her
well for a political career in the mainland.
She
joined networks like theHua Jing Societyin Hong Kong that
provide a forum for princelings to meet the children of Hong
Kong’s tycoons and political class.
In
2013, she and other Hong Kong representatives of the Chinese
People’s Political Consultative Conference, or C.P.P.C.C., a
party-run political advisory group,helped organize
relief fundsfor a village. Two years
later, shevisited farmers and carried toddlersin
the same province to promote the United Front Work
Department, a party unit that develops overseas political
networks.
Ms.
Li is now the chairwoman of China Construction Bank
International, the investment arm of a major state lender,
according to corporate records in Beijing. Ms. Li, her
partner and the bank have not responded to multiple requests
for comment from The Times.
“There is often an
assumption that simply being well connected is enough to get
ahead in Chinese politics,” said Rana Mitter, a professor of
Chinese history and politics at Oxford University, who did
not comment specifically about Ms. Li. “Actually, there is
still a great deal of interest in candidates proving
themselves for higher office in institutions such as the
Communist Youth League and the C.P.P.C.C.”
Like
many other members of China’s Communist elite, she has
amassed significant wealth, according to a review of company
and property documents filed in Hong Kong. Ms. Li also took
advantage of a tax haven popular with the world’s elite.
She
bought the waterfront townhouse overlooking Stanley Beach
through Century Joy Holdings Ltd., a company registered in
Hong Kong and incorporated in the British Virgin Islands,
for $15 million in 2013, according to a document filed with
the city’s land registry.
Ms.
Li, then 30, was the Hong Kong entity’s sole director. That
entity was dissolved in October, hours after The Times
contacted Ms. Li for comment ahead of the publication ofthe article about Deutsche Bank’s hires in China.
Her partner, a 35-year-old
Chinese-born Singaporean businessman, Chua Hwa Por, has used
a similar strategy.
Image
Stanley
Beach, where Ms. Li bought a townhouse for $15 million
in 2013.Credit...Marcel Lam for The New York Times
The nature of Ms. Li’s
relationship with Mr. Chua is unclear, but they own a
company together and have used the same home addresses in
documents they have filed with Hong Kong’s property and
company registries. Hong Kong news reports have speculated
that the couple were married.
That
year, he also started to make a number of major purchases,
according to filings with the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. He
took over Tai United, a little-known investment company
listed in Hong Kong, using it to buy trophy assets including
a large stake in the Peninsula Hotel and the 79th floor of
an iconic skyscraper.
In July 2017, barely five
months after he was appointed chairman of Tai United, Mr.
Chua resigned from the company. He stepped down shortly
after Next Magazine, a Hong Kong news outlet owned by the
pro-democracy tycoon Jimmy Lai,reported on the
purchasesand his possible ties to Mr.
Li, the senior Chinese official. (The publisher,Mr. Lai, was arrested this week, accused of
national security and other offenses.)
Image
Chua
Hwa Por, holding a wine bottle, is the partner of Ms. Li
and owner of Limitless, a racehorse whose victory he was
celebrating in 2017 in Hong Kong.Credit...Kenneth Chan/South China Morning Post, via
Getty Images
Mr.
Li, the official, was at the time poised for a promotion to
the Politburo Standing Committee, the apex of party power,
and even the whiff of corruption in his family would have
been potentially damaging. In January the next year, Mr.
Chua sold the bulk of his stake in Tai United.
Without
public disclosure of the wealth of officials and their
relatives, it is impossible to know how Mr. Chua and Ms. Li
obtained their income. There are legitimate reasons for
people to own companies offshore, and it is also not illegal
for Chinese citizens to do so.
Shirley Yam, a prominent
financial writer in Hong Kong, also raised questions about
the couple’s financial dealings in a 2017 column in The
South China Morning Post, a local newspaper owned by Jack
Ma, one of China’s richest tech tycoons.
The
newspaper later pulled the column from its website,citing“multiple unverifiable
insinuations.” Ms. Yam resigned, and defended her column in
a statement.
Since
then, Mr. Chua has largely shied away from the public eye.
But he and Ms. Li remain joint owners of a company called
Chua & Li Membership. In annual filings with the
government, both had listed the $15 million beach house as
their residence until earlier this year, when Ms. Li changed
her address to an apartment owned by Mr. Chua on the 60th
floor of an exclusive property.
She
applauded alongside the Hong Kong leader, Mrs. Lam, at the
opening of a government-backed exhibition promoting national
security for Hong Kong,a promotional videofor the event
showed. Other special guests included the deputy commander
of the People’s Liberation Army in Hong Kong and the
directors of the highest offices representing mainland
authorities in Hong Kong.
This article is crap. There is not a single citation of Leon
Trotsky's Transitional Program, only characterizations. For
example, it states:
"The idea that a small vanguard party,
without any mass basis in the working class, will be able to
arise victorious out of a revolutionary crisis is laughable."
Yes, it is laughable but Leon
Trotsky never said anything like that.
It is useful to study Lenin's
polemics that are permeated by citations. For example, from
"The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky":
The
fundamental question that Kautskydiscusses
in his pamphletis that of the very essence of
proletarian revolution, namely, the dictatorship of the
proletariat. This is a question that is of the greatest importance
for all countries, especially for the advanced ones, especially
for those at war, and especially at the present time. One may say
without fear of exaggeration that this is the key problem of the
entire proletarian class struggle. It is, therefore, necessary to
pay particular attention to it .
Kautsky
formulates the question as follows: “The contrast between the two
socialist trends” (i.e., the Bolsheviks and non-Bolsheviks) “is
the contrast between two radically different methods: thedictatorialand
thedemocratic”
(p. 3).
Let
us point out, in passing, that when calling the non-Bolsheviks in
Russia, i.e., the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries,
socialists, Kautsky was guided by theirname, that is, by a word, and
not by theactual
placethey occupy in the struggle between the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie. What a wonderful understanding
and application of Marxism! But more of this later.
Something I've been advocating for a few years: eating grass fed/grass-finished beef for a host of political, health and environmental issues. Such beef is MORE not less expensive. But if it means we eat less meat, but better tasting, everyone wins (save for the animal but even they live much better, longer and happier lives by us doing so)
How several former vegans and vegetarians across the country came to see meat as their calling.
Kate Kavanaugh, who owns Western Daughters Butcher Shoppe in Denver, breaking down a rack of beef ribs, separating rib-eyes from rib plates.
At Western Daughters Butcher Shoppe in Denver, Kate Kavanaugh trimmed the sinew from a deep-red hunk of beef the size of a bed pillow.
“Flatiron steak is the second-most tender muscle in a steer’s body,” she said, focused on her knife work. “This guy sits on the scapula, and I love it because it has beautiful lacy fat.”
After the meat was cut down into several smaller steaks, she wrapped one up, grabbed a couple of tallow cubes molded into the shapes of “Star Wars” characters, and headed to a nearby kitchen to cook us some lunch.
Before she was a butcher, Ms. Kavanaugh was a strict vegetarian. She stopped eating meat for more than a decade, she said, out of a deep love for animal life and respect for the environment.
Even though she owns a butcher shop, Ms. Kavanaugh eats a mostly vegetable-based diet. She and Josh Curtiss, her business partner
She became a butcher for exactly the same reasons.
Ms. Kavanaugh, 30, is one in a small but successful cadre of like-minded former vegetarians and vegans who became butchers in hopes of revolutionizing the current food system in the United States.Referring to themselves as ethical butchers, they have opened shops that offer meat from animals bred on grassland and pasture, with animal well-being, environmental conservation and less wasteful whole-animal butchery as their primary goals.
“I’m basically in this to turn the conventional meat industry on its head,” she said, as Darth Vader melted in her hot cast-iron pan.
Once the tallow was liquid, she added the steak, letting the meat sizzle as she hummed “The Imperial March.” She left it in the pan a lot longer than I was expecting; like many of her ex-vegetarian customers, Ms. Kavanaugh prefers her steaks cooked to medium.
It was one of the best steaks I’d ever had, which is saying a lot: I like my meat black-and-blue. Crisp-edged, velvety and still remarkably juicy, it had a mineral tang and funky brawniness that would make its blander, cornfed cousins taste like chicken in comparison.
The ethical butchery movement first gained traction about 15 years ago, in the wake of the journalist Michael Pollan’s 2002 New York Times Magazine article about the abuse of factory-farmed beef cattle, and his subsequent book, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” published in 2006.
One of the central questions in the book is whether Mr. Pollan can bring himself to kill an animal — first some chickens, then a wild pig — for his own dinner.
“It seemed to me not too much to ask of a meat eater, which I was then and still am,” he wrote, “that at least once in his life he take some direct responsibility for the killing on which his meat eating depends.”
This challenge struck a chord with many people, including vegans and vegetarians looking to change the factory-farming system.
For Janice Schindler, 28, who was a vegan for five years and is now the general manager of the Meat Hook butcher shop in Brooklyn, the animal in question was a turkey at a “Kill Your Own Thanksgiving Dinner” event at a local farm.
“It was really morbid. I was the only one who signed up,” she said. “I’d never killed anything before. Turkeys are such large animals. But when you put them in a poultry cone upside down, they completely relax. Then you can cut an artery. It stuns them and they bleed. I spent the rest of the day working the eviscerating station. It was super-gross, but I found it fascinating.”
That experience was the gateway to her training as a butcher, which she began immediately afterward.
Ms. Schindler’s transformation from vegan to ethical butcher was similar to that of several butchers I spoke with. Hers began in high school: As a member of the National FFA Organization (better known as the Future Farmers of America) in Lucerne Valley, Calif., she was charged with caring for a baby lamb as it grew from a tiny ball of fleece to a bleating, prancing adolescent.
“Nothing prepared me for the emotional earthquake of selling that lamb for meat,” she said. “His name was Frederick.”
That was the first identity crisis, she said, that led her to become a vegan. Her second came in college, when she returned to eating meat after learning that the soybean and corn monocultures that accounted for much of her vegan diet were wreaking havoc on the environment.
“I felt I was being lied to as a consumer every time I’d go into Trader Joe’s and see a fake farm on the package of a G.M.O. soy burger,” she said. “I knew it was up to me to find an alternative food system.”
The system that she, Ms. Kavanaugh and many other of these butchers embrace is rooted in grassland ranching, in which grazing animals play an integral role in sustainability. They do so by providing manure for fertilizer, which encourages the growth of a diversity of grasses, and by lightly tilling the soil with their hooves, which allows rainwater to reach the roots.
The system’s advocates say it can regenerate vast swaths of grassland, which has the potential to sequester carbon rather than emitting it as factory farm operations do. (Critics of the alternative approach say that not all studies show improved carbon sequestration on grazed grassland, and that the system can’t produce enough meat to meet current demand.)
“I grew up hiking the prairies of Colorado, and I developed a really deep love for those plains,” Ms. Kavanaugh said. “It’s like people say when they talk about loving the ocean, that you can see for miles under a big blue sky. When I decided to open a butcher shop, I knew I only wanted to source 100-percent-grass-fed animals from ranches that were helping regenerate the prairies.”
Raising grazing animals on grassland, however, is significantly more expensive than raising steers on feedlots, making the meat more costly for consumers. Ms. Kavanaugh, for example, charges $21 a pound for top sirloin steak, as compared with $8.99 at a nearby King Soopers supermarket.
When Joshua Applestone, 49, opened Fleisher’s Grass Fed and Organic Meats in Kingston, N.Y., in 2004, he was a fourth-generation butcher and first-generation former vegetarian. By opening Fleisher’s — one of the first ethical butcheries in the United States — he sought to make this type of meat more available.
“When we first opened, people were surprised at the prices,” he said. “But our costs are much higher than what a giant company pays. We are paying to have control over the quality of our animals, what they are being fed, how they are being treated, transported, slaughtered and cut up. Once people understood that, the business took off.”
In order to exert this kind of control, butchers like Mr. Applestone cultivate close relationships with local ranches and farms that they periodically visit. This intimate connection helps inspire trust among their customers, and creates a transparency lacking in factory farming.
Mr. Applestone has since sold Fleisher’s (which has become Fleishers Craft Butchery) and opened the Applestone Meat Company, a 24-hour butcher shop with locations in Stone Ridge and Hudson, N.Y., that uses refrigerated vending machines to bring prices down and further increase accessibility.
“My customers tend to eat less meat than average Americans,” he said, “and I always make sure to keep less expensive cuts in stock so there’s always something under $10 per pound that they can buy. It might not be the beef filet, but I sell my boneless, skinless chicken breasts for $9.99 a pound, and that’s what everyone wants.”
As Anya Fernald, one of the founders of Belcampo Meat Company, put it: “Cheap meat isn’t a win. I want people to spend the same amount on meat as they do now, and buy better meat, but less of it.”
Ms. Fernald, 44, became a vegetarian as a teenager, on the day she learned that it can take as much as 12 pounds of grain to yield one pound of beef. “The underlying fallacy here is that cows don’t have to eat grain,” she said. “They have five stomachs evolved to eat grass.”
After spending her high school and college years subsisting on a vegetarian diet of flavored yogurt, Gardenburgers, pizza pockets and mac and cheese with frozen vegetables mixed in, she began eating meat again in Europe, where she worked on farms for a few years.
“As soon as I started eating meat, my health improved,” she said. “My mental acuity stepped up, I lost weight, my acne cleared up, my hair got better. I felt like a fog lifted.” All of the meat was from healthy, grass-fed animals reared on the farms where she worked.
Other former vegetarians reported that they, too, felt better after introducing grass-fed meat into their diets: Ms. Kavanaugh said eating meat again helped with her depression. Mr. Applestone said he felt far more energetic.
“It can be hard to balance your diet as a vegetarian, especially when you’re younger, and I wasn’t doing it right,” he said.
Grass-fed and -finished meat has been shown to be more healthful to humans than that from animals fed on soy and corn, containing higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, conjugated linoleic acid, beta carotene and other nutrients. Cows that are fed predominantly grass and forage also have better health themselves, requiring less use of antibiotics.
“There’s one health for animals and humans,” Ms. Fernald said. “You can’t be healthy unless the animals you eat are healthy,”
There’s another benefit to grass-fed and -pastured meat: It can be absolutely delicious, as that steak in Denver reminded me.
Mr. Applestone vividly remembers that first bacon sandwich (made with pasture-raised pork) in his post-vegetarian life, served on a soft Martin’s potato roll: “I thought it was the greatest thing that ever hit my mouth.”
Jered Standing, 40, who owns Standing’s Butchery in Los Angeles, never stopped longing for meat during the five years he was a vegetarian. He eschewed meat after working as a conventional butcher in a supermarket right out of college.
“I was really turned off by what I saw,” he said. Even so, he couldn’t quite get grilled steaks and browned sausages off his mind.
After reading “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” he decided to give ethical butchery a shot, first getting a job at a Whole Foods Market, and then with Ms. Fernald at Belcampo, before opening his own place.
“Being a vegetarian was always a struggle,” he said. “I never thought there was anything wrong with eating meat. I just didn’t want to support the meat industry.”
And selling meat from alternative sources is a way to protest factory farming of animals without having to abstain from eating meat. “Rather than being passive and just not supporting an industry I don’t like, I’m taking an active approach by taking thousands of dollars out of it, “ he said. “When people come to me, they aren’t going to Costco for meat.”
Even so, he has witnessed what he calls a “vegan backlash,” including vitriolic comments on his Instagram feed, and a protest in front of his shop.
“I have a business based on the fact that I’m sad about the way animals are being treated,” he said.
Other butchers said they have been similarly criticized.
“Since I became a butcher I’ve been called some horrible things on the internet, and it doesn’t seem right,” said Lauren Garaventa, a co-owner of the Ruby Brink butcher shop and restaurant on Vashon Island, Wash., and a former vegetarian and animal-rights activist. “There’s a larger problem here: the problem with concentrated feedlots, and with animals being commodities. That’s what we should be attacking, not each other. ”
But they see their work as Mr. Standing does: a stand against an industry whose practices they abhor.
“I opted out in the only way that I could, by rejecting meat,” Ms. Fernald said. “Now Belcampo is how I opt out. I can do it by changing the system. And I see both stages in my life as totally consistent.”
Helali is the candidate of the Party of Communists, USA. He is not a candidate of the better-known CPUSA.
Where's Leftist Transpotters when you really need them?
_._,_._,_
Oops. I meant Leftist Trainspotters.
Also, Helali's group appears to be connected to some kind of international movement launched by the Greek Communist Party (KKE). Lots of hammers and sickles and fire-breathing rhetoric.
(I never put much stock into the whole Russiagate interference in the 2016 election story, especially as promoted by Rachel Maddow. However, I was always troubled by how so many "anti-imperialist" websites like Consortium News tended to repeat Kremlin talking points. This article shows how this remains a real problem. It mentions Duran and Zero Hedge, two conspiracist websites but I have a feeling that a lot of the crap that originates on RT.com feeds Grayzone and others deemed more respectable.)
NY Times, Aug. 12, 2020
A Bible Burning, a Russian News Agency and a Story Too Good to Check Out
By Matthew Rosenberg and Julian E. Barnes
WASHINGTON — For some of President Trump’s loudest cheerleaders, it was a story too good to check out: Black Lives Matters protesters in Portland, Ore., had burned a stack of Bibles, and then topped off the fire with American flags. There was even a video to prove it.
The story was a near-perfect fit for a central Trump campaign talking point — that with liberals and Democrats comes godless disorder — and it went viral among Republicans within hours of appearing earlier this month. The New York Post wrote about it, as did The Federalist, saying that the protesters had shown “their true colors.” Senator Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican, said of the protesters, “This is who they are.” Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, tweeted that antifa had moved to “the book burning phase.”
The truth was far more mundane. A few protesters among the many thousands appear to have burned a single Bible — and possibly a second — for kindling to start a bigger fire. None of the other protesters seemed to notice or care.
Yet in the rush to paint all the protesters as Bible-burning zealots, few of the politicians or commentators who weighed in on the incident took the time to look into the story’s veracity, or to figure out that it had originated with a Kremlin-backed video news agency. And now, days later, the Portland Bible burnings appear to be one of the first viral Russian disinformation hits of the 2020 presidential campaign.
With Election Day drawing closer, the Russian efforts to influence the vote appear to be well underway. American intelligence officials said last week that Russia was using a range of techniques to denigrate Democrats and their presumptive presidential nominee, Joseph R. Biden Jr. And late last month, intelligence officials briefed Congress on Russian efforts — both covert and overt — to stoke anger over the nationwide racial-justice protests.
Russian officials have aggressively sought to refute the allegations. But American officials are growing increasingly confident in their assessment, and say the Russian tactics are evolving. Moscow, they say, has shifted away from the fake social media accounts and bots used by the Internet Research Agency and other groups to amplify false articles ahead of the 2016 vote. Instead, the Russians are relying increasingly on English-language news sites to push out incendiary stories that can be picked up and spread by Americans, many of whom have proved as eager as foreign powers to stoke partisan divisions inside the United States.
The Russian technique is a kind of information laundering, akin to money laundering. Stories originate with Russian-backed news sites, some of them directly connected to Moscow’s spy agencies, officials and experts said. They are then picked up by Americans on social media or in domestic news outlets, and their origins quickly become obscured. Often, by the time a story reaches most of its American audience, there is little to indicate that it was created to fuel grievances and deepen political divisions.
Some of the news outlets used by Russia are well known, like RT, the Kremlin-financed operation whose video news agency, Ruptly, put out the video of the Bible burning. Others are more obscure, including some directly connected to Russia’s spy agencies, and are used to actively test themes and stories to see which ones play best.
Some stories are tailored to appeal to conservatives, others to an audience that might be best described as the alt-left. Many of them are made to exacerbate racial tensions ahead of the election, officials said earlier this year, well before the recent civil rights protests began.
Some of the stories spread by the Russian news outlets are outright fictions. But the most useful ones — the ones most likely to go viral — are those with a kernel of truth, like the tale of Bible burnings in Portland. It offers a case study in how the Russian information-laundering operation works, and how potent a weapon it can be.
The video on which the story is based came from Ruptly, which regularly streams a live feed from the protests for a few hours each night and then clips together a short video of highlights. The livestream and the clip later edited down by Ruptly shows at least one Bible burning after midnight on Aug. 1, as some protesters were trying to build a fire. Another clip shows what may have been the same Bible or a second one. A small crowd can be seen hanging around, some of the people watching the flames grow higher, but the scene looks and sounds as if it is far from the main action of the protest.
The Bible appears to be used as kindling by two protesters working on the fire. There is no discernible reaction from the crowd as the book is put in the flames along with twigs and branches, notebook pages and newspapers. The crowd does cheer when an American flag is thrown on the flames.
Apart from the Ruptly videographer, only one other journalist — a local television reporter — heard about the Bible burning, and noted it with a single sentence in a lengthy report on that night’s protests. The story, by KOIN, the local CBS News affiliate, also reported that a group of women calling themselves Moms United for Black Lives Matter attempted to put out the fire — a detail not included in the Ruptly video, which was edited to string together a number of clips from the night. (A New York Times reporter had observed a truck offering free Bibles at the protests earlier that night, though it was not clear whether it provided the book that was burned.)
Ruptly instead made the Bible burning a focus of its protest coverage that night. The news agency tweeted the video twice on Aug. 1 — here and here — and featured it on its website. In the tweets and text that accompany the video on the agency’s website, the Bible burning is presented as the night’s central event; the flag burning is secondary. RT, the network that runs Ruptly, also wrote an entire story about the Bible burning.
Ruptly and RT then let Twitter take it from there.
The video was first tweeted by an account that lists two cities — Oklahoma City and Abu Dhabi — as its users’ location and has only a few dozen followers. It was soon after deleted. But before it disappeared, the tweet was picked up by a Malaysian named Ian Miles Cheong who has amassed a large Twitter following by playing a right-wing American raconteur on social media.
Mr. Cheong added his own commentary to the initial tweet, wildly exaggerating what the Ruptly video showed. “Left-wing activists bring a stack of Bibles to burn in front of the federal courthouse in Portland,” he wrote.
His tweet quickly became the basis for an entire day of outrage from right-wing news outlets, Republican political figures and alt-right commentators. It was Mr. Cheong whose tweet spurred the younger Mr. Trump, Mr. Cruz and numerous other high-profile Republicans to weigh in. It was also held up as evidence of the protesters’ depravity by prominent alt-right conspiracy theorists like Jack Posobiec, a correspondent for the One America News Network, which is much favored by the president.
It has since been retweeted more than 26,000 times.
Asked about his tweet, Mr. Cheong said he “was just trawling through Twitter looking for ‘Portland’ as I normally do” and heard talk of it of the Bible burnings.
He did not see the stacks of Bibles being burned that he described in his tweet. All he saw was the Ruptly video of the single burning Bible.
Sign up to receive an email when we publish a new story about the 2020 election. Sign Up “Apart from the Ruptly video,” he wrote in a direct message on Twitter, “I don’t think anyone else got it directly.”
The Portland video represents the Russian disinformation strategy at its most successful. Take a small but potentially inflammatory incident, blow it out of proportion and let others on the political fringes in the United States or Canada or Europe spread it.
Mr. Cheong, for instance, does not appear to be in any way complicit. He regularly tweets multiple videos a night from the protests and, he said, “It definitely wasn’t my intention to drive just the one story.”
But the Bible video fit his politics, and his tweet about it caught fire.
Russian Spies and American Conspiracies Most of the Russian efforts garner far less notice, and unfold on far less well known websites. American officials late last month identified one of those websites as Inforos, an outlet that they said is controlled by Russia’s military intelligence service, the GRU, and used to test out various disinformation themes that target Americans, Canadians and Europeans. Covid-19 disinformation, for instance, has spread with the pandemic, and stories about dangers posed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have by now become an old standard.
“Russian intelligence has grown more sophisticated and more highly resourced in their use of online disinformation,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut Democrat, citing a recent State Department report on Russian disinformation. “The methods used in 2016, seem almost rudimentary and quaint.”
InfoRos, according to current and former American officials, sits atop a GRU-directed network that includes two other nominally independent news sites, OneWorld.Press and InfoBrics. Those sites, in turn, push out stories to alt-right and alt-left sites in North America and Europe that are receptive to the anti-establishment and often-conspiratorial messaging pushed by the Russians.
In some instances, a straight line can be traced from the GRU-run operations to American websites that promote conspiracy theories. One such story appeared in January, when InfoBrics claimed a whistle-blower had revealed that British spies and Ukraine’s former president, Petro Poroshenko, had orchestrated the downing of a Malaysia Airlines flight over eastern Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists were fighting government forces. (Investigators determined that the plane had been brought down by a Russian-made missile.)
The story was produced by a research fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies, a think tank in Serbia that is similarly believed to have ties to Russian intelligence. The article was then published by InfoBrics. In turn, it was picked up by The Duran, an independent website based in Cyprus that often spreads Russian disinformation.
Neither the U.S. nor allied governments have publicly identified The Duran as having direct ties to Russia’s spy agencies. But the site is where Russian state-sponsored disinformation and fringe theories come together, according to a NATO cyber-analyst who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.
Russia favors the website and others like it because it publishes user-generated content, allowing it to serve as a clearing house for Moscow’s preferred narratives, the analyst said. The Duran has repeatedly targeted NATO, and the alliance has traced the interactions between the site and overtly Russian-backed news networks, such as RT and its Ruptly video news agency.
The Duran itself does not have a significant reach. But it does often feed websites in the United States and Europe that do, as demonstrated by the false story about the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.
The article jumped from The Duran to popular American conspiracy sites, such as ZeroHedge and RedPill.Institute. By the time it was spreading on social media, there was little to indicate its origins: A Times analysis found 287 tweets that matched the exact text of The Duran’s headline, “Ukrainian Whistleblower Reveals MH-17 Tragedy was Orchestrated by Poroshenko and British Secret Service.” Yet 166 of the tweets linked to Zerohedge; only 40 linked to The Duran.
“There’s more of an effort now to just keep placing these bread crumbs onto these various sites and various blogs and then hope they get picked up authentically,” said Bret Schafer, who tracks disinformation for the Alliance for Securing Democracy in Washington.
From there, it is often just a matter of repetition.
“You keep kind of bringing it up,” he said. “It just keeps it kind of at the front of people’s mind and they start thinking, ‘If it’s something that is leaking every two weeks, there must be something more to it.’”
Washington Post, August 12, 2020 Cornel West: Is America ‘even capable of treating the masses of Black people with decency and dignity’?
Cornel West speaks to a crowd during a protest against fossil fuels at Harvard University in April 2015. (John Tlumacki/Boston Globe via Getty Images)
By KK Ottesen
August 11, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. EDT
Add to list
Cornel West, 67, is a professor at Harvard University and professor emeritus at Princeton University, as well as an author and frequent commentator on issues of race, gender and class in American society.
There’s been a real outpouring from people around the country and around the world in response to the death of George Floyd and others recently. Do you think this could actually be a turning point?
Well, I hope so. You never know which catalyst is the crucial one that can sustain the movement. The Rosa Parks moment. The Emmett Till moment. But there’s good evidence that this could be a real pivotal moment in which people seriously wrestle with this legacy of white supremacy and other forms of injustice. The question is really: Where are we going? And whether America is even capable of treating the masses of Black people with decency and dignity. We might be reaching the real limits — the structural limits and the spiritual threshold — of a white supremacist empire.
The white supremacists whose sensibilities are being called into question by so many on the street, you know, they still got a lot of cousins. And once they organize, then it’s a different thing. They got [lots of] white supremacist militia groups. And that’s the ones with rifles. I’m not even talking about the ones without rifles. And Black folk, we ain’t got none. So there are signs of great hope in terms of our precious fellow citizens hitting the streets and showing their deep outrage of a public lynching of a precious Black man. But once things settle down, that White backlash could set in with the neo-fascist gangster in the White House, and with his following — Trump [had] what, 65 percent of the White male vote, 52 percent of the White female vote? So, that’s the kind of country we’re dealing with.
Do you see a backlash coming from that coming as soon as November?
It's hard to say. It depends on who really decides to show up and whether, in fact, the milquetoast neoliberals in the Democratic Party can generate enough excitement so that voting for [Joe] Biden is substantive and serious and expansive. I mean, right now, it doesn't look too good. Biden just is charismatic as a dead fish in many ways. He's much better than Trump, but that's not good enough. You got to have somebody who can generate real enthusiasm.
AD
I know you were a big Bernie Sanders supporter. Many of the issues he was talking about that people called outlandish at the time are now talked about by the mainstream candidates.
He reshaped the climate of opinion, there’s no doubt about it. But the question is whether it’s just lip service from the Democratic Party establishment during the election period. And they’ll fall right back in. I mean, when you look at Biden’s advisers, these are some of the most problematic neoliberal figures in both Clinton and Obama administrations. This is a new time, a new era, a new moment. You can’t just keep looking back. As I’ve told people, I think we ought to vote for [Biden]. But that’s in no way an endorsement.
For me, it’s always a question of being true to the standards that come out of my own and our own Black freedom struggle. But when I first talked with brother Barack back in 2007, he asked me to work with him. I said: Well, what is your relationship to the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., Fannie Lou Hamer and Ella Baker? And we talked for hours. And it was an honest, wonderful talk. I said: This is wonderful, brother. And jumped on board.
But see, there’s a connection for me between police crime, Wall Street crimes and Pentagon crimes. And once I saw him bring in the neoliberal economists — Larry Summers and others who had played such an ugly role in terms of unleashing Wall Street greed, repealing Glass-Steagall — I knew they were calling for the bailout of Wall Street. But when he brought in [John] Brennan as well, responsible for the torture, and then he allowed the torturers to go free. Well, how are you going to talk about torturers walking free and be critical of police walking free? They’re still killing folk. Somebody’s got to be accountable.
I raised the issue early on when he started hanging out with all those folk. I know politicians got to be politicians. I understand that’s one lane that they’re in. I’m in another lane. I said: Where’s the talk about poverty? Where’s the talk about the criminal justice system? Where’s the talk about the new Jim Crow? Where’s the talk about stopping these drones? Bush had 45 [drone strikes]. I’d call him a war criminal a zillion times. Obama’s got 563, killing innocent folk. I’ve got to be morally consistent.
AD
Everybody'd think: Oh, you must be working for Fox News. No, no, no. I voted for Barack twice. Because I'm against the right wing, but I want to be truthful about him. And when I was looking at his policies, I could see very clearly it was too beholden to Wall Street, too tied to the militarism of Pentagon. And did not address head-on the Black predicament. So I had to raise my voice. I said: We're going to need a Black agenda even with a Black president. Just your Blackness itself is not enough.
So did you ever get to have those conversations with him?
Oh, no, no. Sister Valerie [Jarrett] put out a thing: West is a traitor, a race traitor. He's un-American and all that. I said: Okay, y'all. All righty. But what is happening now is that people come up to me and say: Brother West, I hated you. You were nothing but a trasher of Obama. And now I see exactly what you were talking about.
AD
And I tell them, I never said that I hated Obama. Some of my critics did. I never hated Obama. You can't vote for somebody twice. You can't pray for his safety and protection against these white supremacist militia trying to kill him. Pray for him and his family. But I hate injustice. I don't care whether it's a Black person or a Black president. Or a White president. You got to be morally consistent.
So do you think this could be the election, the year, the event that really does force the United States to come to grips with the choices we have to make as a country?
I think it’s going to be two moments. The first moment’s going to be the election. And we just hope we can get through the election. Because Trump may either cancel it with the second wave of the virus or just claim voter fraud and refuse to leave. Then we got a serious crisis.
AD
But the other moment is when the verdict comes down as to whether policemen [in the George Floyd case] are actually convicted or not. It only takes one vote on a jury in order to impede the conviction. And then it’s very clear that the system does not have the capacity to reform itself. Because it’s not just the police. Now it’s the judges. And it’s the prosecutors. It’s the jury. You see, we’ve been through this before. I mean, how many times have we heard [Al] Sharpton talking about we’re going to get justice, and rally after a precious Black fellow just gets killed? And he can’t deliver. The system is too tight.
These killings went on by the hundreds under the Obama administration. And if you’ve got an Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, these are very decent folk. They got a lot of power. So you got a Black president, two Black attorney generals, and Black homeland security [secretary], and Black mayor, and sometimes a Black police commissioner, and you still can’t send these folks to jail. See, that’s a systemic problem. That’s not just individuals, you know? All that Black official power can’t translate into stopping the police murders of precious Black young people. That’s a system that is just rotten at the core.
Is it possible to transform the system from the inside, or do you think it needs radical overhaul?
AD
If, under the Obama administration, they had made it a priority to transform the criminal justice system the way they made it a priority to bail out Wall Street, then that’s a different kind of energy. That’s a very different kind of focus, different kind of concentration, of resources and energy. Now, if they did that, and they had those of us on the outside putting pressure, and we still couldn’t do it, then that’s like a [Marcus] Garvey moment, right? Just time to get the hell out.
So, a collapse in the legitimacy of the system, in the legitimacy of leadership?
That's right. You know, Keith Ellison is [a very decent] brother. He's going to break his neck and do all he can. But he still might not be able to follow through. But, I think, at that point we have to come up with our own mechanisms of ensuring that we are not attacked. Not literally going back to Africa, but symbolically saying, we've got to really turn to each other and come up with ways in which we can try to generate goods, resources, self-defense and so forth. Because we have no other option.
AD
Who do you see as being leading lights, or most exciting leaders, whether in academia, the arts, the political arena, who could inspire people to move forward and have the energy and enthusiasm?
That's a wonderful question. Because we just have so much mediocre Black leadership, just like you got mediocre White leadership. When you really look at the new wave of folk, they're not really that well known. You got Tef Poe in Ferguson. He's the co-editor of the Boycott Times journal with Mordecai Lyon. Phil Agnew, co-founder of Dream Defenders, is another. Sister [Charlene] Carruthers out of Chicago with the Black Youth Project [100]. All these are very important voices. Sister Ashley [Yates in Oakland]. Michael McBride, pastor of The Way [Christian Center], out in Oakland. There's always a very small number every generation of people who really love Black people. I'm not talking about people who love being in front of Black people. Willing to live and die for. You know, people like Stokely Carmichael and Huey Newton and Ericka Huggins. We're at that kind of point now. We have to have those kinds of persons of deep integrity and deep commitment.
As a professor, what do you see as the strengths of this generation, and things that give you pause?
The strength of the younger generation is the willingness to see more clearly certain truths that have been hidden and concealed. The courage to step forward. The willingness to be critical of charismatic models and be open to a variety of different people. That's why the multiracial solidarity that we see in the street is so beautiful, because the young folk grew up in a much more multiracial context and ideas.
The weaknesses of the younger generation, of course, is that they grew up in the most commodified culture in the history of the world. So there's something always very superficial about spectacle in a commodified culture. It's all about what's visible. What is projected. What your image is and so forth and so on. Just to give you one example, you can find a lot of the young brothers and sisters always talking about what they brand is. I say, I ain't got no god-dang brand. I got a cause. You know what I mean? They put a brand on enslaved Africans when they came here and kept that brand on them. But that language, that market language, is built into the culture. That's the mentality of a spectacle. So you've got to shatter the superficial to get at the substantial.
You're going to need money. You're going to need a career. You're going to need education. But do not view those things as idols. You use those things for something bigger than [your]selves. Love. Justice. Integrity. And so on. But it's easy to get caught. And, of course, my generation is a grand example of what it is to get caught in a commodified culture and think that it's all about success rather than greatness. This sense of: All I got to do is just become the first Black professor or Black mayor or Black president. That that, in and of itself, is a definition of service and success. No, don't confuse service and status. Once you get the status, then you start serving. What are you going to do with it?
Talking about how America might not actually have it in it as a country to get through this — is that a disappointment that you’ve come to grips with a long time ago?
In my first book 40 years ago, I said it's unclear if America [has] the structural capacity and the spiritual and moral wherewithal to really treat the masses of Black people — not Black middle-class folk, the Black masses — with dignity and decency. But that's blues — you can't find no way out. That's what it is to be a blues people. It's: Good morning, heartache, good evening, heartache. Heartache's there, no matter what. You've got to learn how to love and laugh and get through with dignity and make sure you fortify your children so they're able to deal with a predicament where it looks like there's no way out.
But it doesn't mean that we stop fighting. Because you know about this new Afro-pessimist movement that's out here. Especially my young folk. I've had a lot of debates with them, but that's a major, major influence these days. Their view is: To be Black in America is to be like a cow waiting to be slaughtered. We will always be slaves, either mentally or literally. And it's just a matter of when we're called out to be slaughtered. That, to me, captures certain elements of truth, but it's so wrong. Because it doesn't talk about how you keep fighting. How do you keep loving? How do you keep sustaining yourself?
On a personal level, is there a moment or memory or experience you continue to draw hope from?
I don't have a language to describe what it means to be the second son of Clifton and Irene West. And I'll never be one-half of the person that they are. I've got a whole wave of experiences and a life shaped by a Black family. Same is true with Shiloh Baptist Church [in Sacramento]. To be a product of Shiloh Baptist Church fortified me for life. It really did. So it's a whole network and system of relations with Mom and Dad and Cliff, my brother, and Cynthia and Cheryl and so on. Passing it on to my kids, that not just keeps me going, but I've got a surplus in my tank. I could go for three lifetimes without ever running out of gas, even though I wrestle with despair every day. Never allow despair to have the last word. But I've had that kind of luck. That's a love supreme right there. That's what Coltrane was playing right there.
You talked about the white supremacist structure maybe reaching the point of cracking. What would that look like? And then what happens?
You either have the kind of nonviolent revolution that takes the form of the democratic sharing of wealth, power, resources and dignity — or, you end up with a White backlash that is so vicious that it cannot but lead toward authoritarian regime. It could be that we just got to go down swinging, my dear sister. Might be that America just doesn’t have what it takes to treat our children and our mothers and fathers with respect. That’s a real possibility. We don’t know which way this thing is going to go. It’s a fork in the road.