Date   

Re: Down with the Islamophobia in France: “We Are Not Samuel!”

Sābrīn M
 

Yes, regimes which commit genocide are very well known for upholding freedom of speech, and not censoring dissent. Give me a break. 


On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:17 AM workerpoet <red-ink@...> wrote:
"  . . . can express themselves without fear of retribution. Yes, that includes racists."

That is how every single genocide has begun. Racist libel is not free speech and while liberals support it, Communists should not. Free speech has limits which are not hard to define re, libel, bigotry, blatant, purposeful misinformation designed to incite or cause harm are examples.


H-Net Review [H-LatAm]: Acevedo-Field on Gitlitz, 'Living in Silverado: Secret Jews in the Silver Mining Towns of Colonial Mexico'

Andrew Stewart
 



Best regards,
Andrew Stewart 
- - -
Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/

Begin forwarded message:

From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <h-review@...>
Date: October 21, 2020 at 8:20:45 AM EDT
To: h-review@...
Cc: H-Net Staff <revhelp@...>
Subject: H-Net Review [H-LatAm]:  Acevedo-Field on Gitlitz, 'Living in Silverado: Secret Jews in the Silver Mining Towns of Colonial Mexico'
Reply-To: h-review@...

David M. Gitlitz.  Living in Silverado: Secret Jews in the Silver
Mining Towns of Colonial Mexico.  Albuquerque  University of New
Mexico Press, 2019.  xii + 420 pp.  $65.00 (cloth), ISBN
978-0-8263-6079-3.

Reviewed by Rafaela Acevedo-Field (Independent Scholar)
Published on H-LatAm (October, 2020)
Commissioned by Casey M. Lurtz

The monograph _Living in Silverado: Secret Jews in the Silver Mining
Towns of Colonial Mexico_ by historian David M. Gitlitz is a
carefully crafted narrative of three interconnected crypto-Jewish
families who established themselves in the lesser-studied mining
towns in colonial Mexico of Ayoteco, Tlalpujahua, Pachuca, and Taxco.
These narratives, based on late 1500s Inquisition trials, trace the
lives of these family clusters as their respective founding men
migrated from Portugal to Spain and finally to colonial Mexico. Once
there, they became miners, started families, and participated in
secret Jewish religious communities based on friendship, kinship, and
business ties. At times, the monograph is also an intimate portrayal
of day-to-day mining life in colonial Mexico. Parallel to tracing the
trajectory of the families throughout the sixteenth century, this
monograph also examines the regional development of mining in the
cities where these men eventually made their living.

In the first two chapters Gitlitz provides the background and context
of the Portuguese secret Jews and the migration pattern they followed
from Portugal to Spain to Mexico City. Once there, they became part
of the existing crypto-Jewish community and eventually headed to the
towns surrounding Mexico City to try their luck at mining. In
chapters 3 to 9 Gitlitz narrates the trajectory of the first family
cluster of Gabriel de Fonseca and his wife. Gitlitz then focuses on
the trajectories of Fonseca's son and later, his grandson, both named
Tomás de Fonseca. In the 1530s and 40s we see Gabriel's family
struggling to make ends meet. He and others like him slowly made
their fortunes by doing things like selling their comparatively
smaller mining product to larger, more successful miners for
processing while taking up the buying and selling of commodities such
as cochineal and cacao to supplement their income, especially in the
early years of their mining activity.  

The narrative then follows the history of two more related family
clusters in chapters 11 to 14. The second cluster, the
Almeida-Fonsecas, is centered on Jorge del Almeida and his close
friend and colleague Antonio de Cáceres. The third cluster, headed
by Simón Paiba and Beatriz Enríques la Paiba, focuses primarily on
their daughter, Justa Mendez, and her husband, Manuel de Lucena, who
were a devout Judaizing couple who hosted religious events and
proselytized. These histories examine the lives of those men and
women with whom they came in contact, which included both family and
acquaintances from throughout the _converso_ community, including the
very prominent Carvajal family. Chapter 15 is an in-depth treatment
of how each family fared during the Inquisition trials that began in
1589 and dragged on to 1605. Chapter 16 offers some conclusions about
each family and their varying crypto-Jewish identities.

Although the discussions of each of the three family clusters vary in
length, the chapters in the middle of the book follow similar
narrative patterns. For each family cluster, the author introduces a
patriarch miner and his origins in Portugal and follows his migration
at a young age to Sevilla and then to New Spain. Then the reader
learns the varying ways each individual became a miner, started a
family, and, typically, moved from Mexico City, the initial landing
spot in the New World, to a mining town, eventually acquiring an
estate and becoming established. Later, each one connected, or
sometimes did not, to his respective crypto-Jewish faith and
community. Finally, in each case the author explores how the
individual and his social circle, including his business
acquaintances and families, Judaized (or practiced Judaism). We learn
that these practices were contingent on how the individual men and
their spouses approached their religion. Although the men's Jewish
practices were carried out in the context of male friendships, their
wives played a central role in the practice and the creation of a
religious community that revolved around the observance of the
Sabbath and important holidays, like Yom Kippur, Passover, and the
Fast of Esther. All three families owned a home or estate in the
mining city, but like most wealthy families in colonial Mexico, they
also owned a home in Mexico City. It was there that the families
carried on a dynamic crypto-Jewish life in which they tended to
interact and come together to observe Jewish holidays. Woven into
these narratives are some threads that explore the technical aspects
of mining and the development of mining in a given community, such as
the cities of Taxco or Pachuca. The only deficiency here is that a
map showing the location of these cities in relation to Mexico City
and to the more prominent mining cities further north would have
provided a better geographical context.

When it comes to organization, three unusual features aid in reading
the monograph. First, instead of the usual five to eight chapters,
this book has a short introduction and sixteen shorter chapters. This
short-chapter format makes for a more engaging, almost episodic read.
Second, the physical and visual layout of the book is slightly
unusual. The book does not include historiographic commentary within
the main text; most of it appears in the endnotes, which is not too
unusual. However, every so often in the text a grayed-out textbox
appears in a different font in which the author provides definitions,
historiographic discussions, or clarifying comments. For instance,
the explanation of the significance of cocoa and cochineal (pp.
72-73) in the commercial life of colonial Mexico provides a deeper
context for understanding why one of the mining families relied on
these commodities to supplement their mining income, especially early
on in their trajectory. One of the most significant historiographical
discussions in this format concerns the importance of historian
Seymour Liebman's work and its impact on the study of conversos in
colonial Mexico (p. 104). Third, historical writing on
intergenerational and interfamilial converso/crypto-Jewish
communities can often lose the reader in the details of individual
names and surnames. To avoid this, Gitlitz includes genealogical
graphs that prevent confusion about each family member and clarify
where each belongs in the family line. Whether these were the
author's or the publisher's editorial choices, they each make for a
more fluid reading experience.

When it comes to sources and historiographic contribution, Gitlitz
relies on Inquisition trials and testimonies from a combination of
the Mexican Inquisition collection at the Bancroft Library at the
University of California, Berkeley, and the Inquisition collection at
the Archivo General de la Nación in Mexico City. In the
historiography of conversos and crypto-Jews in colonial Mexico, the
study of the Carvajal family and their Inquisition trials at the end
of the sixteenth century is central. This monograph expands that
narrative by de-centering the Carvajal family, even though each
family examined here is somehow related to the Carvajal family
through friendship or marriage. In terms of studying the history of
mining in the sixteenth century, this monograph also de-centers the
traditional mining cities most historians have described in detail,
such as Zacatecas, San Luis Postosí, Queretaro, and Chihuahua, by
focusing on cities closer to the viceregal capital.

Finally, this monograph complicates the narrative of secret Judaism
by explicitly recognizing and exploring the fact that not all
conversos observed the same form of Judaism, largely because they
were not operating in a context where they were close to normative
Judaism. Gitlitz points out, for instance, that conversos did not
have access to a traditional religious quorum (p. 105), which in
practice meant that dietary practices were not necessarily aligned
with theological understandings or traditional practices. In this way
Gitlitz continues the historiographical discussion taking place
across Europe, Africa, and the Americas that has complicated our
understanding of religious, cultural, and ethnic identities in the
early modern Atlantic world. Some individuals, such as Manuel Lucena
and his wife, Catarina Enríquez, were enthusiastic Judaizers,
whereas others, such as Jorge de Almeida and his friend Antonio Díaz
de Cáceres, rejected their Judaism, but the fact that they married
women from the Carvajal family kept them linked to the crypto-Jewish
community throughout their lives, both before and after their
Inquisition trials. Overall, this book provides a better
understanding of the wider crypto-Jewish community in late
sixteenth-century Mexico beyond the Carvajal narrative and beyond
Mexico City. It also opens up the study of mining cities to which
historians have not previously paid as much attention in the
historiography.

Citation: Rafaela Acevedo-Field. Review of Gitlitz, David M., _Living
in Silverado: Secret Jews in the Silver Mining Towns of Colonial
Mexico_. H-LatAm, H-Net Reviews. October, 2020.
URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=54950

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License.



H-Net Review [H-Environment]: Ludwig on Horn, 'The Future as Catastrophe: Imagining Disaster in the Modern Age'

Andrew Stewart
 



Best regards,
Andrew Stewart 
- - -
Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/

Begin forwarded message:

From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <h-review@...>
Date: October 21, 2020 at 10:56:53 AM EDT
To: h-review@...
Cc: H-Net Staff <revhelp@...>
Subject: H-Net Review [H-Environment]:  Ludwig on Horn, 'The Future as Catastrophe: Imagining Disaster in the Modern Age'
Reply-To: h-review@...

Eva Horn.  The Future as Catastrophe: Imagining Disaster in the
Modern Age.  Translated by Valentine Pakis. New York  Columbia
University Press, 2018.  296 pp.  $105.00 (cloth), ISBN
978-0-231-18862-3; $35.00 (paper), ISBN 978-0-231-18863-0.

Reviewed by Jason Ludwig (Cornell University)
Published on H-Environment (October, 2020)
Commissioned by Daniella McCahey

Eva Horn's new book is an insightful meditation on fiction and
futurity. Horn analyzes a range of fictional disaster scenarios from
works of art, literature, and the sciences to examine how the
anticipation of catastrophe has come to shape modernity's orientation
toward the future. Through insightful analyses of diverse texts, the
book traces the emergence of a modern catastrophic imaginary in
nineteenth-century Romanticism and tracks its transformation into
present-day collective anxiety about the consequences of atomic
weapons, nuclear accidents, and anthropogenic climate change. The
book's major strength lies in the diversity of texts analyzed, which
underscores the pervasiveness of the catastrophic imagination that
Horn seeks to uncover. At the heart of this analysis is her concern
with the kinds of fiction that underpin the prediction of future
catastrophes. As she writes, "all knowledge of the future contains a
degree of _non-knowledge_," to the extent that all predictions of
catastrophe place fictitious narrative structures upon phenomena that
cannot yet possibly be known in their totality (p. 15).

Horn argues that the modern catastrophic imaginary first emerged in
the apocalyptic works of writers and artists associated with
Romanticism. The Romantics dismissed the eschatological model of
history prevalent in Christian thought, which depicted the apocalypse
as the ultimate triumph of divine justice over evil. Instead, they
imagined catastrophes that would reveal the inherent fragility and
meaninglessness of contemporary social and political institutions,
implicit critiques of Enlightenment notions of infinite human
progress. Horn produces a novel reading of Lord Byron's poem
"Darkness" (1816), arguing that its depiction of humanity in the
throes of famine and violence draws on Thomas Malthus's _Essay on the
Principle of Population _(1798) as well the poet's own observation of
the volcanic winter that struck Europe in 1815 due to the eruption of
Mount Tambora. The protagonists of the apocalyptic works of Byron and
other Romantics were the "Last Men," the final survivors of numerous
imagined catastrophes whose perspectives their authors adopted to
reflect on the mechanisms that would bring about an end to human
history. Horn shows how Cold War films like _Dr. Strangelove _(1964)
and_ Fail-Safe _(1964) revived the "Last Men" trope to shed light on
the self-destructive nature of the nuclear arms race.

One of Horn's major arguments is that present anxieties concerning
climate change can be distinguished from the catastrophic scenarios
imagined during the Romantic era and the Cold War by their
"eventlessness." This, she argues, is a result of the complex modes
of knowledge-making that shape contemporary understanding of
anthropogenic climate change, a topic she delves into in chapter 2.
Unlike Cold War think-tanks that sought to predict the damages
incurred by specific acts, such as the detonation of a nuclear bomb,
knowledge-making about climate change applies computational models
toward comprehending the drawn-out processes marking human disruption
of planetary ecological processes--a catastrophe without event. This
eventlessness, Horn argues, has challenged researchers, artists, and
science communicators to develop images and narratives that can
convey the ubiquity of disaster brought about by climate change. She
analyzes a diverse set of works that do exactly this, from the
apocalyptic fiction of Cormac McCarthy and J. G. Ballard to Al Gore's
film _An Inconvenient Truth _(2006), all of which present climate as
the "medium that contains and preserves humanity," the disruption of
which threatens the basis of all existence (p. 88).

Chapter 3 turns to an examination of how catastrophic imaginaries
shape regimes of survival. Horn analyzes imagined disaster scenarios
that probe the steps necessary to ensuring the preservation of human
species. She argues that such imagined disasters index a biopolitics
of catastrophe in which the survival of life itself is purchased only
through death, and she insightfully contrasts two modes in which this
ideology has appeared. She locates the first in "war of the worlds"
narratives inspired by the Great-Power conflicts of the twentieth
century, in which the survival of a community is assured only through
the death of an enemy Other. The second biopolitical imaginary
emerged amid neo-Malthusian debates in the postwar period over
unchecked population growth and resource scarcity, and is
characterized by a "Lifeboat Earth" ethics in which group survival
hinges on deliberations over who _within_ the group must live and who
must die. Following Giorgio Agamben's work on biopolitics, she argues
that such narratives open up a "'zone of undecidability' between the
realm of the law and the realm of mere physical necessity" (p. 115).
She finds the consequences of such arbitrary choices over who lives
and dies best comprehended in the postapocalyptic melancholy of
fictional works like Samuel Beckett's _Endgame_ (1957), in which the
resultant perishing of communal connections and norms renders the
very prospect of survival meaningless.

Horn moves on in chapter 4 to analyze technical safety regimes,
arguing that efforts to control the potential catastrophes latent to
complex technological systems constitute a ubiquitous fear of
technological disaster, the "white noise of modernity" (p. 173). This
is the most ambitious and challenging chapter of the book as Horn
ties together such thematically and temporally disparate works as the
German philosopher Friedrich Theodor Vischer's ideas on the "malice
of objects," Charles Perrow's seminal analyses of high-risk
technologies, and the _Final Destination _film series (2000-11).
While she does not always make the connections between these works
fully apparent, Horn's broader point in this chapter is an important
one: that imagined accidents in literature and film evince a modern
desire for latent catastrophes to manifest themselves so that they
might be made available to human understanding and control.

The final chapter draws together many of the threads of the previous
ones to argue that knowledge of catastrophic futures can only exist
in the form of disaster scenarios, speculative models,
postapocalyptic texts, and other kinds of fiction "that look back on
the future as something in the past" (p. 174). Horn proceeds to
catalog films and literary works in which imaginations of a
catastrophic future animate efforts to prevent it and argues that no
text better captures this aspect of modernity's fearful relation to
the future as Franz Kafka's short story "The Burrow" (1931), whose
narrator relentlessly probes the vulnerability of his home and
fruitlessly attempts to secure it. She brilliantly examines the story
as a parable of the impossibility of achieving perfect security--no
matter how much the narrator shores up the defenses of his home, an
interminable array of threats reveal themselves. This analysis of
what Horn describes as the "paradoxes of prediction" perhaps sits
uncomfortably with her conclusion, which makes the case that disaster
fictions like "The Burrow" can serve as tools for spurring action
aimed at preventing the worst consequences of looming environmental
catastrophe. As she herself asks, however, how might we integrate
these fictional catastrophes into our own imagining of the future
"without succumbing to the epistemic, political, and ethical pitfalls
of alarmism or remaining stuck in comfortable interpassivity" (p.
236)?

Regardless of one's answer, Horn's book is a valuable contribution to
environmental studies insofar as it urges one to consider such
questions. _The Future as Catastrophe_ is theoretically rich and its
arguments are bolstered by the sheer breadth of texts with which it
engages. Skillfully combining methods from intellectual history,
literary criticism, and the environmental humanities, Horn's
breathless analysis of a diverse corpus of texts constitutes the
book's main strengths, but this may also make it too challenging of a
read for undergraduate or introductory courses. The best audience for
this stimulating book would be those already well versed in the
ever-expanding literatures on risk and disaster.

Citation: Jason Ludwig. Review of Horn, Eva, _The Future as
Catastrophe: Imagining Disaster in the Modern Age_. H-Environment,
H-Net Reviews. October, 2020.
URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=54978

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License.



3433. A Critical Theoretical Assessment of the U.S. Socialist Workers Party: Past and Present

Louis Proyect
 


From the transcript of the trial of the Chicago Seven

Louis Proyect
 

MR. KUNSTLER: I call your attention, Mayor Daley, to the week of August 28, 1968. Did you attend any sessions of the Democratic National Convention?
MAYOR RICHARD DALEY: I did.
MR. KUNSTLER: And were you there during the nominating speeches for the various candidates?
DALEY: I was.
MR. KUNSTLER: Mayor Daley, on the twenty-eighth of August, 1968, did you say to Senator Ribicoff--
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FORAN: Oh, your Honor, I object.
MR. KUNSTLER [continuing]: --"Fuck you, you Jew son of a bitch, you lousy mother-fucker, go home"?


Sara Nelson: The 21st century John L. Lewis?

John Reimann
 

"In 1935, John L. Lewis, president of the coal miners union, famously punched right wing president of the Carpenters, Bill Hutchenson, in the jaw, walked out of the AFL, and formed the CIO. along the way, he supported the most radical strike wave of the 20th Century United States – the sit down strikes of 1937. Could Sara Nelson be the 21st century’s answer to John L. Lewis? She is the same one who called for a national general strike during the government shutdown of 2018-19."

--
“Science and socialism go hand-in-hand.” Felicity Dowling
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook


I Spoke to a Scholar of Conspiracy Theories and I’m Scared for Us

Louis Proyect
 

I Spoke to a Scholar of Conspiracy Theories and I’m Scared for Us
The big lesson of 2020 is that everything keeps getting more dishonest.
By Farhad Manjoo
Opinion Columnist

NYT, Oct. 21, 2020

Lately, I have been putting an embarrassing amount of thought into notions like jinxes and knocking on wood. The polls for Joe Biden look good, but in 2020, any hint of optimism feels dangerously naïve, and my brain has been working overtime in search of potential doom.

I have become consumed with an alarming possibility: that neither the polls nor the actual outcome of the election really matter, because to a great many Americans, digital communication has already rendered empirical, observable reality beside the point.

If I sound jumpy, it’s because I spent a couple of hours recently chatting with Joan Donovan, the research director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School. Donovan is a pioneering scholar of misinformation and media manipulation — the way that activists, extremists and propagandists surf currents in our fragmented, poorly moderated media ecosystem to gain attention and influence society.

Donovan’s research team studies online lies the way crash-scene investigators study aviation disasters. They meticulously take apart specific hoaxes, conspiracy theories, viral political memes, harassment campaigns and other toxic online campaigns in search of the tactics that made each one explode into the public conversation.

This week, Donovan’s team published “The Media Manipulation Casebook,” a searchable online database of their research. It makes for grim reading — an accounting of the many failures of journalists, media companies, tech companies, policymakers, law enforcement officials and the national security establishment to anticipate and counteract the liars who seek to dupe us. Armed with these investigations, Donovan hopes we can all do better.

I hope she’s right. But studying her work also got me wondering whether we’re too late. Many Americans have become so deeply distrustful of one another that whatever happens on Nov. 3, they may refuse to accept the outcome. Every day I grow more fearful that the number of those Americans will be large enough to imperil our nation’s capacity to function as a cohesive society.

“I’m worried about political violence,” Donovan told me. America is heavily armed, and from Portland to Kenosha to the Michigan governor’s mansion, we have seen young men radicalized and organized online beginning to take the law into their own hands. Donovan told me she fears that “people who are armed are going to become dangerous, because they see no other way out.”

Media manipulation is a fairly novel area of research. It was only when Donald Trump won the White House by hitting it big with right-wing online subcultures — and after internet-mobilized authoritarians around the world pulled similar tricks — that serious scholars began to take notice.

The research has made a difference. In the 2016 election, tech companies and the mainstream media were often blind to the ways that right-wing groups, including white supremacists, were using bots, memes and other tricks of social media to “hack” the public’s attention, as the researchers Alice Marwick and Rebecca Lewis documented in 2017.

But the war since has been one of attrition. Propagandists keep discovering new ways to spread misinformation; researchers like Donovan and her colleagues keep sussing them out, and, usually quite late, media and tech companies move to fix the flaws — by which time the bad guys have moved on to some other way of spreading untruths.

While the media ecosystem has wised up in some ways: Note how the story supposedly revealing the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop landed with a splat last week, quite different from the breathlessly irresponsible reporting on the Democrats’ hacked emails in 2016. But our society remains profoundly susceptible to mendacity.

Donovan worries about two factors in particular. One is the social isolation caused by the pandemic. Lots of Americans are stuck at home, many economically bereft and cut off from friends and relatives who might temper their passions — a perfect audience for peddlers of conspiracy theories.

Her other major worry is the conspiracy lollapalooza known as QAnon. It’s often short-handed the way Savannah Guthrie did at her town hall takedown of Donald Trump last week — as a nutty conspiracy theory in which a heroic Trump is prosecuting a secret war against a satanic pedophile ring of lefty elites.

But that undersells QAnon’s danger. To people who have been “Q-pilled,” QAnon plays a much deeper role in their lives; it has elements of a support group, a political party, a lifestyle brand, a collective delusion, a religion, a cult, a huge multiplayer game and an extremist network.

Donovan thinks QAnon represents a new, flexible infrastructure for conspiracy. QAnon has origins in a tinfoil-hat story about a D.C.-area pizza shop, but over the years it has adapted to include theories about the “deep state” and the Mueller probe, Jeffrey Epstein, and a wild variety of misinformation about face masks, miracle cures, and other hoaxes regarding the coronavirus. QAnon has been linked to many instances of violence, and law enforcement and terrorism researchers discuss it as a growing security threat.

“We now have a densely networked conspiracy theory that is extendible, adaptable, flexible and resilient to take down,” Donovan said of QAnon. It’s a very internet story, analogous to the way Amazon expanded from an online bookstore into a general-purpose system for selling anything to anyone.

Facebook and YouTube this month launched new efforts to take down QAnon content, but Q adherents have often managed to evade deplatforming by softening and readjusting their messages. Recently, for instance, QAnon has adopted slogans like “Save the Children” and “Child Lives Matter,” and it seems to be appealing to anti-vaxxers and wellness moms.

QAnon is also participatory, and, in an uncertain time, it may seem like a salvation. People “are seeking answers and they’re finding a very receptive community in QAnon,” Donovan said.

This is a common theme in disinformation research: What makes digital lies so difficult to combat is not just the technology used to spread them, but also the nature of the societies they’re targeting, including their political cultures. Donovan compares QAnon to the Rev. Charles Coughlin, the priest whose radio show spread anti-Semitism in the Depression-era United States. Stopping Coughlin’s hate took a concerted effort, involving new regulations for radio broadcasters and condemnation of Coughlin by the Catholic Church.

Stopping QAnon will be harder; Coughlin was one hatemonger with a big microphone, while QAnon is a complex, decentralized, deceptive network of hate. But the principle remains: Combating the deception that has overrun public discourse should be a primary goal of our society. Otherwise, America ends in lies.



NY Times illustrated essays on Angela Davis and Barbara Kruger

Alan Ginsberg
 


On Slavery and Slave Formations (Patterson, 1979)

Andrew Stewart
 

https://cominsitu.wordpress.com/2020/10/10/on-slavery-and-slave-formations-patterson-1979/


Best regards,
Andrew Stewart 
- - -
Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/


Re: Down with the Islamophobia in France: “We Are Not Samuel!”

workerpoet
 

"  . . . can express themselves without fear of retribution. Yes, that includes racists."

That is how every single genocide has begun. Racist libel is not free speech and while liberals support it, Communists should not. Free speech has limits which are not hard to define re, libel, bigotry, blatant, purposeful misinformation designed to incite or cause harm are examples.


Re: Down with the Islamophobia in France: “We Are Not Samuel!”

Sābrīn M
 

This whole article is about why we shouldn't feel bad about Samuel's murder and that he brought it upon himself for making Muslims feel bad. It is akin to arguments like  "it sucks she got raped, but she brought it upon herself for wearing revealing clothes." 

Islam has been an imperial force for centuries too. I lived in an Islamic country my entire life until very recently, where being an atheist could get you imprisoned or killed, where women do not have many rights. I did not know freedom until I came to the west. It's amazing to me how eurocentric and ignorant you are. Stop infantilizing and romantizing the Muslim world. They commit just as many evils as the west and are equally as capable as westerners of being held accountable to the standards of universal human rights. If you do not want to appear hypocritical, go write one of these articles when a Christian beheads an atheist in Central Park for mocking Jesus. Oh wait, you can't do that because Christians have already gone through the process of getting desensitized to blasphemy so they don't do that anymore.

I don't care if Charli Hedbo is racist, or whatever. What I do care about is living in a society in which everyone can express themselves without fear of retribution. Yes, that includes racists.

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 8:52 AM RKOB <aktiv@...> wrote:

If you have read the article by our comrade, you will have seen that we oppose the killing of this provocateur teacher. But the fact that you defend him and the racist magazine Charlie Hedbo and that you say "Who the fuck cares if it offends Muslims?" tells a lot about you. French imperialism also did not "care if it offends Muslims" for centuries. This is the ideology helping to build colonial empires. This approach is part of racism and racial oppression today. You did choose your camp (holding the banner "Who the fuck cares if it offends Muslims?") and we choose the opposite side.

Am 21.10.2020 um 13:57 schrieb Sābrīn M:
Whoever wrote this, and everyone who approves of this is a reactionary scumbag. Nice job being islamofascist apologists. Nobody should be killed for drawing cartoons, period. All leftists must stand with Samuel and Charlie Hedbo. Who the fuck cares if it offends Muslims? If this offends them to the point of beheading people, that signifies that we need to draw more cartoons of Muhammad and blaspheme Islam more in order to desensitize them to it. Something tells me that you wouldn't be fine with evangelical Christians beheading people for saying mean things about Jesus. You should be ashamed of yourself. 

>As to the right of free speech and freedom of expression,  we support the right of the free speech
your sentence should have ended there

JE SUIS SAMUEL. 

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:14 AM RKOB <aktiv@...> wrote:

Down with the Islamophobia in France: “We Are Not Samuel!

By Yossi Schwartz, 20 October 2020

https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/down-with-the-islamophobia-in-france/

-- 
Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG
(Österreichische Sektion der RCIT, www.thecommunists.net)
www.rkob.net
aktiv@...
Tel./SMS/WhatsApp/Telegram: +43-650-4068314

Virenfrei. www.avast.com
-- 
Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG
(Österreichische Sektion der RCIT, www.thecommunists.net)
www.rkob.net
aktiv@...
Tel./SMS/WhatsApp/Telegram: +43-650-4068314


Reply. Down with the Islamophobia in France: “We Are Not Samuel!”

Andrew Coates
 


Teachers’ Union, SNES-FSU, Declaration After Islamist Murder in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine.






Un “martyr de la liberté” – Imam Hassen Chalghoumi, This is taking place today: France to pay respects to beheaded teacher with ceremony at Sorbonne The  reactions to the  murder …
tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com


"

The radical anti-fascist left site, La Horde has published this about the principal figure accused of inciting murder,   Abdelhakim Sefrioui. the anti-Semitic circles he is part of,  and the above “Cheikh Yassine” Collective:

À propos d’Abdelhakim Sefrioui et du collectif Cheikh Yassine

The individual is not unknown to anti-fascists, and the comrades of the REFLEXes site, who had already spoken of the character a few years ago, reminded us of this. In the wake of the creation of the Cheikh Yassine collective, and therefore of the decision to use support for the Palestinian people for proselytising purposes, Sefrioui also created in 2005 the “Committee on the Genocide in Palestine”, with two unwavering supporters of Holocaust Denial, Ginette Hess Skandrani and Mondher Sfar, leaders of the association Entre la Plume et l’Enclume.



Andrew Coates

--
Andrew Coates


Les, Tamara Payne Malcolm X biography 'The Dead Are Arising' - Los Angeles Times

Louis Proyect
 


Re: Down with the Islamophobia in France: “We Are Not Samuel!”

RKOB
 

Look, we have seen this already before in history. "Der Stürmer" published denegrating cartoons of Jews. I know that racism is not unique to the Nazis. But that people claiming to be progressive are still defending such anti-Muslim chauvinism is really a shame!

For those who want to make their own picture of the disgusting Charlie Hebdo cartoons can take a look here:

http://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/racist-charlie-hebdo/

Am 21.10.2020 um 16:19 schrieb swhopkinson@...:

Is it any wonder people think the Left (the Marxist Left in this case) is soft on this issue. Of course condemn murder (I mean does ANYONE support it?) but then you "explain" it by saying its causes by Islamophobia of the majority - which people read you as saying that its justified - of course you say thats not what I meant but when someone calls you on it - you denounce them as racist. Obviously you are pandering the most conservative elements in Islam - and if they are offended then who gives a shit. You do apparantly want to accomodate them. There are millions of Muslims fighting against this kind of reactionary Islam too. French Imperialism didn't care about whether it offended those they colonised - but I don't see say Vietnamese communists - denouncing  French school teachers for teaching colonialism was OK - or thinking that cutting people's throats is justified. I'll tell you what else offend these hyper-reactionary Muslims - Marxism and Communism - so if they attack you next I guess we'll just have to say it was a result of your godless Marxism - and while we would of course condemn it - well you know the Soviet Communists did kill millions of people so you can see how they might have had it coming. Right?

 

-- 
Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG
(Österreichische Sektion der RCIT, www.thecommunists.net)
www.rkob.net
aktiv@...
Tel./SMS/WhatsApp/Telegram: +43-650-4068314

Virenfrei. www.avast.com


Karl Marx’s Debt to People of African Descent - ROAPE

Louis Proyect
 

In this blogpost, Biko Agozino argues that Karl Marx was among the few European theorists of his time who did not try to conceal his ‘debt’ to Africa but celebrated such knowledge as foundational. Agozino shows how people of African descent were central to the theory, practice and writings of Marx. Marxism is not a Eurocentric ideology.

https://roape.net/2020/10/21/karl-marxs-debt-to-people-of-african-descent/


A Black Lives Matter Movement in Small-Town Ohio: A Conversation with Shawn Captain - Los Angeles Review of Books

Louis Proyect
 

I grew up in Hillsboro. On June 6, 2020, Eleanor Curtis Cumberland texted me: “I’m at the BLM rally. 400 people marching!”

There hadn’t been any action like this on the streets of Hillsboro since Eleanor’s mother, Imogene, carried a sign that read Must Hillsboro Lag Behind the South? Now 400 people showed up with signs that read I Can’t Breathe.

The young man who organized the march is Shawn Captain. His great-grandmother, Maxine Thomas, and her children — Delbert Thomas, Harold Joe Thomas, Brenda Thomas, and Winifred Thomas — were out on the streets of Hillsboro in the segregation protests. He created an organizing group called HARD. Our conversation coincided with the passing of John Lewis, who left this message in his parting essay. “Democracy is not a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part to help build what we called the Beloved Community, a nation and world society at peace with itself.”

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/a-black-lives-matter-movement-in-small-town-ohio-a-conversation-with-shawn-captain/


Is there such a thing as far-Right ‘literature’? | Aeon Essays

Ken Hiebert
 

I have read and enjoyed a number of books by people have been active on the far left (see below). I sometimes wonder if there are memoirs of those who have been active on the far right. I am guessing that there are not or that they are rare. Perhaps because they have nothing to be proud of.
ken h


https://fernwoodpublishing.ca/book/holocaust-to-resistance-my-journey

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/c/winter-bookshop-sylvia-riley

https://houseofanansi.com/products/heroes-in-my-head

https://socialistaction.org/2006/08/24/the-life-of-the-party-barry-sheppard-the-swp-the-1960s/

https://socialistaction.ca/2014/11/25/review-revolutionary-activism-in-the-1950s-60s-ernest-tate-a-memoir/


Re: Down with the Islamophobia in France: “We Are Not Samuel!”

Shane Hopkinson
 

Is it any wonder people think the Left (the Marxist Left in this case) is soft on this issue. Of course condemn murder (I mean does ANYONE support it?) but then you "explain" it by saying its causes by Islamophobia of the majority - which people read you as saying that its justified - of course you say thats not what I meant but when someone calls you on it - you denounce them as racist. Obviously you are pandering the most conservative elements in Islam - and if they are offended then who gives a shit. You do apparantly want to accomodate them. There are millions of Muslims fighting against this kind of reactionary Islam too. French Imperialism didn't care about whether it offended those they colonised - but I don't see say Vietnamese communists - denouncing  French school teachers for teaching colonialism was OK - or thinking that cutting people's throats is justified. I'll tell you what else offend these hyper-reactionary Muslims - Marxism and Communism - so if they attack you next I guess we'll just have to say it was a result of your godless Marxism - and while we would of course condemn it - well you know the Soviet Communists did kill millions of people so you can see how they might have had it coming. Right?

 


Chomsky and the Syria revisionists: Regime whitewashing

Louis Proyect
 


Re: Chomsky: OPCW cover-up of Syria probe is 'shocking' | The Grayzone

mkaradjis .
 

This ongoing saga is dispiriting in the extreme. I admit I’ve put little time into the details, while I think it is logical to accept the OPCW report I prefer to look at the overall context than obsess with the detective work. After all, even if it was shown the OPCW was mistaken and that Assad didn’t really launch that particular chlorine attack killing around 40 people, it wouldn’t alter the fact that his regime has killed hundreds of thousands of people, destroyed every city in the country, by using every conceivable type of “conventional” WMD for a decade.

 

“But”, one might say, “the point is that the lie about chemical weapons is whipped up to give the US the excuse to bomb Syria.” Oh? Of course the 30,000 US strikes on ISIS, Nusra/HTS, Ahrar al-Sham, killing, according to Airwars, anywhere up to 13,000 civilians, levelling the city of Raqqa, are not "the US bombing Syria"? Of course this is of no interest to the western “anti”-war movement; for them, it only becomes dangerous US aggression if they hit some Assad building for a few minutes a couple of times in 8 years and kill no-one.

 

But OK, let’s have it your way, only bombing Assad is bad, as opposed to bombing Syria, which is of no consequence. Fine. So, why would the US need to concoct stories of chemical attacks? Wouldn’t the US already have enough political ammunition with years of Assad levelling entire cities, dropping barrel bombs, cluster bombs, bombing schools, hundreds of hospitals, markets, firing ballistic missiles at apartment blocks etc? No? Oh, OK, all this is bad, but the US, for some pacifistic reason, only drew the red-line against chemical weapons, not all the rest. OK, but in that case, if it goes to all the trouble to concoct a chemical weapons story just because it is so desperate to attack Assad but can never find the excuse, then having concocted the excuse, wouldn’t the US perhaps use the opportunity to actually do some damage to Assad’s war machine, rather than hit three buildings in 45 minutes?

 

Let’s look at the context of the allegedly “false flag” Assad chemical weapons attack on Ghouta in April 2018.

 

In March 2018, the regime launched its final campaign to subjugate the long-time rebel-held, working-class East Ghouta region of outer Damascus, at the cost of some 1700 lives in four-weeks, in one of the most relentless episodes of terror bombing in the war. Far from using this horror as an excuse to “make war on Syria” as feverish imaginations believe the US wanted to do forever, throughout this month-long massacre the silence from the US and other western governments was deafening. During this month, top US and Russian generals held high-level discussions twice, where the topic of Ghouta was apparently not even mentioned. The conversation, which focused on Syria, reportedly demonstrated “a clear mutual interest to maintain the military lines of communication.” Defense James Mattis stressed the importance of cooperation with Russia, but noted that issues such as Ukraine and Crimea suggested the Kremlin had other ideas. The Kremlin’s role at the very moment in pulverising Ghouta was not even considered worthy of note.

 

On March 29, weeks into Assad’s horror bombing of Ghouta, Trump announced that “We’re knocking the hell out of ISIS, we’re coming out of Syria very soon. Let the other people take care of it now” – “other people” being the Assad regime. Ghouta? Trump had probably never heard of it. It is true that the Pentagon pushed back on this rapid withdrawal idea, but not because they thought the US should do anything about Assad or the horrors of Ghouta, but rather simply that “we will continue to support the SDF as they continue to fight against ISIS.”

 

By early April, Assad had been completely victorious over almost all of the Ghouta region, but one militia was holding out in the suburb Douma. This is where Assad’s “alleged” chlorine massacre took place. The very next day, Douma surrendered, an answer to those who ask “what did Assad have to gain?”.

 

Confronted with yet another rude violation of the US red-line against only chemical weapons, despite Trump’s gift to the ungrateful Assad of such extreme indifference to the month of slaughter and the announcement that the US was leaving Syria to Assad since all that mattered was defeating ISIS, Trump needed to once again launch a “credibility” strike. The casualty-free strike hit three buildings allegedly associated with chemical weapons’ research or storage, with zero impact on Assad’s war machine. It then abruptly stopped. “Mission accomplished” declared Trump after 45 minutes.

 

Really, US imperialism, allegedly determined come what may to “make war on Syria”, to carry out “regime change” against Assad, concocted a false flag chemical attack in order perform this mere hiccup? What garbage.


On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:36 AM Louis Proyect <lnp3@...> wrote:
On 10/20/20 8:33 PM, Dayne Goodwin wrote:
I think it's the same old has-been donkey.

If any of you catch me making a fool of myself in the next 10 years or so, contact Les Schaffer. Also contact my wife who has been instructed to get me started on jigsaw puzzles.