Interpretations of Groupthink and More White Terrorism…

“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. …
” – 1 Corinthians 13:11, Holy Bible, King James Unabridged

I was asked a question today.
The question was in the form of a multiple choice query.
The question was:
What holds bodies to the earth?
The first choice for an answer was gravity. The other choice was magic.

Now if I were in grade school, I would have immediately answered “gravity.” Being that I am no longer of the degree that would simply volunteer answers without consideration, no matter how simple the answer may seem, I said both. Gravity is a concept. It is a theory used to describe the inertial magnetic attraction of masses to one another while in an orbit or space flux. Magic is a term used to describe phenomena that may escape human comprehension, but are also based on the “laws”, or well-founded theories that have been accepted by the experts of said field. My argument, which was readily accepted, was that both are simply terms used to describe phenomena that lead people to a better understanding of their existence. I could have said God makes it such. If my definition of “god” can stand up the dialectics of debate, in which case, I would simply define “god” as power and force, then my argument would stand.

One of the first lessons we are taught is to define your words. In a contest for minds, and for attention, it can be very easy to persuade people’s emotions through metaphor, or symbol. This is why poets are trained to be consistent with their metaphors, to avoid the possibility of misunderstanding. We build our understanding, so that we won’t have a misunderstanding. Follow me?

The religious scholars have a tendency to demand that their interpretations of a particular symbol be taken as the only interpretation. This can be quite useful, more people are inclined to concrete thinking than abstraction. And if you can define the abstract in concrete terms that are palatable, you can redefine the total world view of a group of people. Throw in a dash of theology, and you can begin to define god, the powers and the forces, that rule a person’s world. The artist is usually left to his or her own whims with the creation of things, and often is given license by their followers. The follower of the artist is even given leeway by the artist to interpret the artist’s more abstract pieces, although the artist may use extremely concrete means to symbolize the abstraction. Still there?

Let’s take this a step further, shall we?

According to an article released by the Associated Press, nine suspects tied to a Christian militia that was preparing for the Antichrist were charged with conspiring to kill police officers, and then kill scores more by attacking a funeral using homemade bombs. Now, no where through this article, or on any of the stations that reported this story that I watched earlier, namely CNN and MSNBC, have referred to these organized cell of religiously motivated and politically conscious agents plotting to terrorize the local armed forces of the US as terrorist. This is a useful interpretation on the part of the US media that seems to have a deeply seated affective connection with these gentlemen. Why? Your guess is as good as mine.
I have worked the course of a year now in developing this understanding however. When an Arab member of the Islamic Faith even thinks about a political attack on US soil they are dubbed ‘enemy combatants’ and more colloquially labeled terrorists. The media has even dropped the use of the term ‘domestic terrorists” as we have not heard that term since the days of Timothy McVeigh who was a co-conspirator and perpetrator of the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing. A quick Google search of the term ‘terrorist’ gave me this screen that I have preserved for you in digital.

As you can see the “Image results for ‘terrorist'” all depict Arab possibly Muslim individuals and likenesses. Why is this interpretation given when the term “terrorist” is defined as:

“an advocate or practitioner of terror as a means of coercion”
(“Terrorism.” Def 1. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. 1st ed. Print.)

“1. As a political term: a. Applied to the Jacobins and their agents and partisans in the French Revolution, esp. to those connected with the Revolutionary tribunals during the ‘Reign of Terror’.

b. Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation.”

(“Terrorist.” Def. 1. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. Print.)

“1. One who adopts or supports a policy of terrorism.”

(“Terrorist.” Def. 1. Webster Comprehensive Dictionary. International. Print.)

“One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.”

(“Terrorist.” Def 1. The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th ed. Print.)

I started to see a pattern in the dictionaries of latter dates, so I switched it up….

The definition of “terrorism”:

“The unlawful use of threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”

(“Terrorism.” Def 1. The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th ed. Print.)

“the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion”

(“Terrorism.” Def 1. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. 1st ed. Print.)

***Yeah, I had to go back to the Malcolm x school of thought and grab the dictionary. Google is still my friend, but the library was my first love. Go figure.***
As the definitions above allude, there is no racial, national, or ethnic origin for a terrorist. Why is it that the media continues to avoid the term when discussing white males who fit the standard of “terrorism” without room for contradiction? As often as the media use the term, I would find it very difficult to imagine that they are simply attempting to expand their vocabulary. In fact, I find it almost demeaning of my intelligence that they would not incorporate a more inclusive set of individuals. To be certain, the only time we hear the term is when an Arab Islamic political group or person attacks or threatens a western power or a country that has been imperialized or is about to be.
The interpretation of the media singles out Arabs as terrorists. Although there have been more cases of acts of violence and intimidation used coercively in this country by white males. So my question to you is this:

What keeps white males from being labeled as “terrorist”?
A) Institutional Racism.
or
B) Groupthink.

Tea Party Terrorist: Just Another Grand Ole Party?

During the Health Care Debate, a virulent set of white terrorists has emerged. The Tea Party campaign is nothing if not persistent, and yet their language and behavior is nothing short of terrorism. Terrorism in that it is political, it has a political agenda, and the group is targeting political representatives with violence in order to enact change. They are also using racially tinged acrimony to further their movement.

We have seen the likes of this right-wing behavior before. We all can remember when the President Barrack Obama was called a terrorist and a muslim during his campaign. We recall the rage that was being fomented by Sarah Palin, who has become one of the more pronounced ring-leaders of this terror unit. The fact that the media has yet to address the illegal behavior in such manner is telling. I have to bring to your attention this country’s dangerous practice of protecting all things white, and demonizing all acts that are non-white.

The conservative white US citizen has been allowed to terrorize town hall meeting after town hall meeting, with no more than a slap on the wrist, and heavy news coverage. While the media attempts to make Vice President Joe Biden’s possible slip of the tongue a major story, they seem to be downplaying the racially demoralizing comments of the Tea Party. It would seem that their(the tea party) attacks on the Health Care Bill is no more than a half cocked excuse to spew hatred for all things non-white. In the mix of this terroristic behavior, democratic elected officials are being targeted for actual violence.

I am troubled this country’s repeated show of double standards toward the white US terrorist. These people are no more than enemy combatants that should be incarcerated indefinitely. Their determined aggression is nothing short of treasonous, and they only soil the already feces and urine stained fabric of US society. What is this country waiting for, civil war? When the media address these savages as the terrorist organization that they are? While the intelligence agencies of this country are busy tapping our phones and studying our social networking practices, faking yet another Bin Laden Sex tape, there is a real clear and present danger being allowed to grow in our back yards.

As the American Blacks of this country have to debate whether we should be counted by an insensitive census bureau, which may offset statistic reporting for the next five years, terrorists are being catered to. Where are the gang units that ravage the American Black community in the communities of those who threaten law makers? Where are the phone tap reports of these terror cells? Why has the right-wing media not been to taken to account for their anti-democratic, anti-US demagoguery? Muslim clerics aren’t allowed to speak, but conservative wing nuts are promoting violence on this soil as though it were their religion. The insidious death threats towards the President and government officials through social networking sites, blogs, and the like are a part of a cohesive ideology designed to instill fear in those whose political ideas and racial make up are different. That is the definition of terrorism.

What is ‘Politics’? (part 2)

I wanted to revisit this particular topic, in lieu of the Health Care debate, and my belief that many in the American Black community are still blind to a full and comprehensive understanding. Due to my own ignorances, and constant need for edification, I will take counsel with my elders on these topics. Hopefully you will be blessed with understanding from our discussion…

Brother George, many people have been discussing fascism as though it doesn’t exist in this society. I really need some help and describing this particular ideological as it shows itself in practice…

“We will never have a complete definition of fascism, because it is in constant motion, showing a new face to fit any particular set of problems that arise to threaten the predominance of the traditionalist, capitalist ruling class. But if one were forced for the sake of clarity to define it in a word simple enough for all to understand, that word would be “reform.” We can make our definition more precise by adding the word “economic.” “Economic reform” comes very close to a working definition of fascist motive forces.”

Alright! Alright. Hold on, though sir. Could further explain it in terms that might give me an example, or how it works in everyday dealings?

“Such a definition may serve to clarify things even though it leaves a great deal unexplained. Each economic reform that perpetuates ruling-class hegemony has to be disguised as a positive gain for the upthrusting masses. disguise enters as a third stage of the emergence and development of the fascist state.”

Break it down for me a little more, OG….

“The modern industrial fascist state has found it essential to disguise the opulence of its ruling-class leisure existence by providing the lower classes with a mass consumer’s flea market of its own. To allow a sizable portion of the “new state” to participate in this flea market, the ruling class has established currency controls and minimum wage laws that mask the true nature of modern fascism.”

OH SYHT!!! My fault, sir, but that was profound! Alright, let me reiterate for my own comprehension. The ruling-elite, those with power of money to control the governing representatives that have been elected by the lower classes, need to create the illusion of “freedom” to hide their pimping and parading, they allow the lower classes to spend their hard earned money on consumables and the like. But they have created ways to limit the amount of money made, products with planned obsolescence, and use race as a means to keep the competitive edge off certain sectors of the middle class…

I want to thank you for speaking with me, my brother…I love you…rest in revolt…

The Left, The Right, and The White…

I was watching Bill Maher’s Real Time on HBO this morning. Although I am often offended by his off color remarks with regard to race, and his undercover Jewish habit of thinking because he is having sex with black women he is given the right to speak about black people in an often too blunt manner, I still tuned into the white camel nosed comedian while giving his notoriously uncomical monologue. Later in the show I was blessed with a jewel from the mouth of swine. The greasy political one-liner stated that the Pentagon shooter, John Patrick Bedell was an internet conspiratorialist.

Now it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch for me to accept the shock spot of the desperate clown, except that HBO’s jester was borrowing sound bites from CNN. CNN is supposedly an objective news source, but with republican sponsored advertisements disparaging the Health Care Bill being presented by the president of the United States, Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party. Now what I want to explain is what is supposed to be the difference between the right-wing and the left wing, left to center, and right to center.

Bill Maher’s supposedly represents himself as leftist. In the United States, “left” is more a political stance that attempts to improve the conditions of the middle class. The Right is the part of the political spectrum that symbolizes the ideas of the rich and the status quo. The major ideas of the right are rooted in the preservation and extension of the “American Idea”, and in many ways the White US American, or Old US American way of expanding the market through genocide and cultural imperialism. The Right is the political stance most represented by Fox News anchors and conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck. Although these are all extreme examples, they are the voice of the visible media conduits of these political wings, or spectrums.

Center, as one might guess, is the place where policies and stances on issues get balanced and interchanged. Barack Obama is a left to center president of a country that is right to center. Capitalism is a conservative state of mind that employs military means to expand markets that benefit the status quo while objectifying the working class. The observative political scientist needs to understand that the basis of all political decisions in this country is weighed heavily against a very rightist base of economics and social system. The average US K-12 student is highly seeped in a belief that if you work hard, you will achieve financial stability and possibly financial comfort. The student is socialized to believe that if anyone does not possess particular material possessions or a certain type of job, then it is their fault. These types of people, for some reason, lack the ability or motivation to be mobile in this country and they are a burden on the “taxpayer”. This is often an immature political and socio-economic viewpoint that lacks to consider the actual lack of laissez-faire as the government offers loans and grant subsidies to business ventures without the rightist stigma placed on the citizen. Laissez-faire is the political ideology and state of affairs where the government is supposed to allow entities involved in business ventures free reign from government regulation. But as we all have seen this administration continue the practices of the former with regard to the billion dollar bailout of corporate and banking interests. the same interests that buttressed the decline of the US economy to begin with.

The question becomes if we are such a centered nation, at what point does Republican and Democratic interest become divergent? Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both received campaign donations from Bill Gates, as did George Bush. Bill Clinton opened more prisons during his administration than any other president in history. Bill Clinton created a bill that hinders anyone convicted of drug trafficking from receiving financial aid from the government. Two very obvious attacks on the poor. This is supposedly left wing behavior, and a liberal stance. Even Barack Obama displays a right wing ideology when making statements regarding the poor that the poor have to work their way up like everyone else. Well, not quite Mr. President, seeing that your administration has helped bankers and corporations survive financial setbacks that would have surely sent them to the asking about how many stamps they get monthly on their EBT card.

From the point of view of the citizen, the question you need to prepare yourself with is where do you stand on certain issues. If I was living in a country that was administrated by American Blacks than my stance on most issues would be considered right wing, highly nationalistic. Even in the US, I would have a difficult time placing my take on issues on the spectrum. I don’t support abortion, but I don’t think abortion should be a question of legislation. Well, I should say, I don’t think the US government should have any say in the matter. This is the type of analysis you should begin in your own thinking.

Where do you fall in the spectrum?