Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBeware The Simplifiers
I once asked a reporter back from Vietnam, "Who's telling the truth over there?" "Everyone, he said. "Everyone sees what's happening through the lens of their own experience." That's how people see Jeremiah Wright. In my conversation with him on this broadcast a week ago and in his dramatic public appearances since, he revealed himself to be far more complex than the sound bites that propelled him onto the public stage. Over 2000 of you have written me about him, and your opinions vary widely. Some sting: "Jeremiah Wright is nothing more than a race-hustling, American hating radical," one viewer wrote. A "nut case," said another. Others were far more were sympathetic to him.
Many of you have asked for some rational explanation for Wright's transition from reasonable conversation to shocking anger at the National Press Club. A psychologist might pull back some of the layers and see this complicated man more clearly, but I'm not a psychologist. Many black preachers I've known - scholarly, smart, and gentle in person - uncorked fire and brimstone in the pulpit. Of course I've known many white preachers like that, too.
But where I grew up in the south, before the civil rights movement, the pulpit was a safe place for black men to express anger for which they would have been punished anywhere else; a safe place for the fierce thunder of dignity denied, justice delayed. I think I would have been angry if my ancestors had been transported thousands of miles in the hellish hole of a slave ship, then sold at auction, humiliated, whipped, and lynched. Or if my great-great grandfather had been but three-fifths of a person in a constitution that proclaimed, "We the people." Or if my own parents had been subjected to the racial vitriol of Jim Crow, Strom Thurmond, Bull Connor, and Jesse Helms. Even so, the anger of black preachers I've known and heard about and reported on was, for them, very personal and cathartic.
That's not how Jeremiah Wright came across in those sound bites or in his defiant performances this week. What white America is hearing in his most inflammatory words is an attack on the America they cherish and that many of their sons have died for in battle forgetting that black Americans have fought and bled beside them, and that Wright himself has a record of honored service in the Navy. Hardly anyone took the "chickens come home to roost" remark to convey the message that intervention in the political battles of other nations is sure to bring retaliation in some form, which is not to justify the particular savagery of 9/11 but to understand that actions have consequences. My friend Bernard Weisberger, the historian, says, yes, people are understandably seething with indignation over Wright's absurd charge that the United States deliberately brought an HIV epidemic into being. But it is a fact, he says, that within living memory the U.S. Public Health Service conducted a study that deliberately deceived black men with syphilis into believing that they were being treated, while actually letting them die for the sake of a scientific test. Does this excuse Wright's anger? His exaggerations or distortions? You'll have to decide or yourself. At least it helps me to understand the why of them.
But in this multimedia age the pulpit isn't only available on Sunday mornings. There's round the clock media - the beast whose hunger is never satisfied, especially for the fast food with emotional content. So the preacher starts with rational discussion and after much prodding throws more and more gasoline on the fire that will eventually consume everything it touches. He had help - people who for their own reasons set out to conflate the man in the pulpit who wasn't running for president with the man in the pew who was.
Behold the double standard: John McCain sought out the endorsement of John Hagee, the war-mongering Catholic-bashing Texas preacher who said the people of New Orleans got what they deserved for their sins. But no one suggests McCain shares Hagee's delusions, or thinks AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a foreign head of state and asked God to remove Supreme Court justices, yet he remains a force in the Republican religious right. After 9/11 Jerry Falwell said the attack was God's judgment on America for having been driven out of our schools and the public square, but when McCain goes after the endorsement of the preacher he once condemned as an agent of intolerance, the press gives him a pass.
Jon Stewart recently played a tape from the Nixon White House in which Billy Graham talks in the oval office about how he has friends who are Jewish, but he knows in his heart that they are undermining America. This is crazy; this is wrong - white preachers are given leeway in politics that others aren't.
Which means it is all about race, isn't it? Wright's offensive opinions and inflammatory appearances are judged differently. He doesn't fire a shot in anger, put a noose around anyone's neck, call for insurrection, or plant a bomb in a church with children in Sunday school. What he does is to speak his mind in a language and style that unsettle some people, and says some things so outlandish and ill-advised that he finally leaves Obama no choice but to end their friendship. We are often exposed us to the corroding acid of the politics of personal destruction, but I've never seen anything like this. I've never seen this wrenching break between pastor and parishioner before our very eyes. Both men no doubt will carry the grief to their graves. All the rest of us should hang our heads in shame for letting it come to this in America, where the gluttony of the non-stop media grinder consumes us all and prevents an honest conversation on race. It is the price we are paying for failing to heed the great historian Jacob Burckhardt, who said "beware the terrible simplifiers".
Bill Moyers is a journalist and host of PBS' Bill Moyers Journal.
© 2008 PBS
121 Comments so far
Show AllBill Moyers for President, for Poet Laurette, and for National Conscience.
Too bad he won't run. Wish he could be drafted.
What, me worry?
GOOD COMMENT Mr. Moyers, But there is more to it than that and it has to do with our profession!
The public rarely enjoins the true issues or the politicians the reasons are clear. Special interests and "free enterprise" capitalism it is what this country has devised as worth living and dying for. The basis for the consumer ideology is energy and its association with an auto centered economy closes the circle. It uses the media to direct the public flow of the so-called truth and we have a perfect example of it in this political campaign. It is why Exxon Mobile is out of control and the public is given platitudes rather than help.
The media is out of control this election has shown us just how far it has gone to dumb-down the public. The recent move by ABC to remove candidates from the debates was outrageous. They are trying to determine the fate of the country and the world being mouthpiece for special interests and the government and to silence dissent.
Media censure is unheard, the FCC should rule for the public but like the EPA its teeth are continually drawn. The media has no right to exclude any politician who is running for office as happened recently with the ABC debate. The only exclusion under the rules used by ABC should apply to a candidate not sitting in public office. The license of ABC would be lifted if the rules were changed but the congress, with the exception of a few pushes for more media conglomeration supported by special interests. I hope that someone picks up on this thought. We have seen the obsession by FOX and CNN, particularly in the form of Wolf Blitzer, and the FOX rabid journalists constantly referring to the Rev. Wright controversy.
Blitzer's bias is clear. He is quick to use every possible negative he can against Obama from the Flag Pin to anything else he could get his mouth around. His support for Clinton has been clear and inappropriate, for CNN to call itself a "fair and balanced" news network. I quote Mr. Nichols: 
" The media pretense of being a fly on the wall has often been preposterous. In the real world of politics — where power brokers and manipulators proceed with the cynical axiom that perception is reality — the fly on the wall is the wall. The political press corps is not observing reality as much as redefining it while obstructing outlooks and constraining public perceptions."
As usual, few are able to see the stampede of the public sheep created by media. I support the change that Obama represents! He is intelligent and wants America once again to be looked upon as a great nation that it could still be and once was. The present "lack of experience" cry of Clinton is preposterous. Could anyone having been near the White house as long as Bush done as badly for the USA? There is experience! However, the discovery of a job approval rating for him at about 28% of the American people speaks volumes about experience. No one could have been as bad as the Bush team! There is experience!
A flight from entrenched American politics is necessary . . .it has ruined this country and made greed the single value of importance. The young people once again embrace hope as a result of the Obama campaign. The Hillary political group and entrenched politics have virtually destroyed America with its policies and exclusive power clubs. She has believed this form government is America.
Clinton recently morphed to the Obama populist message, it was called, "finding her voice" while at the beginning of her stump showing her Madeline Albright, bomb the children image. 
Can anyone truly think that change is unnecessary? I guess not since all the politicos have adopted his message including McCain? The mistakes that Obama may make as president cannot be greater than those of the past seven years. It is also necessary to give him a democratic congress to make certain that the programs that Americans want can be enacted.
Mr. Gore Vidal, has pointedly criticized mainstream media as one of the major problems, and what is wrong with the USA. The corporate media conglomerates control the message and that message is perversely distorted and panders to its advertising portfolio! Wolf Blitzer one of the glaring examples of this criticism and shows clearly those distorted ideas with his reporting, which is nothing more than partially factual opinion dictated by his bosses.
He is a person who has no right to shape public opinion far from being the "fly on the wall" he espouses to be. We must remember flies morph from maggots. He displays ignorance as a virtue for the entire world to see, an example of what is considered, by many in America to be news reporting. If Blitzer were billed as a CNN commentator, at least the public would not be hoodwinked to believe his reporting to be the truth, while it is lack of concern for accuracy, rectitude and fairness to be considered to be news rather than opinion.
PART 2
The people of the USA have been so ill informed as to what a change would really do and mean to this country and the change in leadership that is necessary, they have forgotten that no one could be worse than George Bush . . . No one, not even a dogcatcher, at least the dog catcher has compassion for
Animals!
The future leaders, Obama or McCain, should discuss the problems America and the world faces. The problem of public ignorance of the issues caused by the media is serious. In the heat of elections the media panders to voter ignorance. The emphasis, as we see on nightly, so-called news, is constant repetition of candidate's miscues. The result of the media sensationalism becomes, the wrong problem and the wrong message at a crucial time in world history. The emphasis on having the politicians address a credible platform of ideas based on an American and global interaction in the world is critical.
There is not enough time left for civilization to focus on rubbish. The energy and environmental issues for example or food and health care are the problems the media should be focusing upon. But to use the Rev, Wright issue for one week, to try and hurt the candidacy of Obama is a travesty. The issues most pressing are once again avoided, those really important issues that must be put before the congress; the environment, continued funding of Iraq, energy issues, education, health care and so many others not dealt with, all impacting upon the economy, the failure of public dialog is outrageous!
The issue of this election will impact on the environment, economy and the future of the USA as no others. Still, if more than 50% of eligible voters cast their votes it will be a miracle, as a result of regressive US election laws and media obfuscation. It is compulsory for everyone to vote in Australia it should be so in the USA as well. Few of the candidates are really talking about the major points, even those who are the most erudite. The environment in association with the economy or health care and elections reform, to name some, are kept out of public dialog as a result of the nonsense punditry hours on end. The world looks at America and its "star struck reality" in wonder.
The political discussion rests on the complete lack of talking points in isolation, such as, Clinton's health package or the nonsense gasoline tax rebate and it's cost, rather than what is really at stake with energy issues, human survival. The candidates for the US presidency rarely talk about the complete interrelated package of the issues combined. Obama alludes to this deficiency in the media and public issues. When he asks for this to occur it lands on deaf ears because the media and special interests do not want this to occur.
The media reduces the public debate to its most simplistic level with pundits arguing about one inconsequential issue or another rather than the truly important issues of our time. The American people are kept from hearing and understanding the relationship of the entire package of issues, which a true leader must address and deal with for the very survival of America in the world within a global economy. The costs for the war would pay for every single need from health care to American infrastructure repair and education, as well as the alleviation of world hunger and energy research this is what is what is at stake.
The media deals with Rev. Wright and American Flag lapel pins instead.
The media keeps the public dumbed down for obvious reasons they represent the moneyed people. As a result the public becomes unable to talk about moving radically toward change and the related issues affecting their very life and the future. The issues of climate change, energy issues and the global economy not only American economy is the part of the mortgage crisis created by the "free market" system. All the other issues like people losing their homes as a result of Wall Street manipulation are tied to these fundamental problems. These is the first and major issue which affects all other issues and is completely related to the economic changes which must take place.
The media board rooms instruct their so-called journalists (news/opinion readers) to stay clear of those subjects that would attack advertising, consumption, tied together in the media collusion with special interests to maintain the consumer system killing the world. Media in collusion with government does not want the change that would result in the decline of their hundreds of millions of dollars in profits.
All environmental problems are in one way or another associated with the Western world's consumption based lifestyle led by the USA. These issues are affected by consumer advertising much of it coming from the millions spent on advertising of irrelevant product and campaign advertising. The media should be dealing with true American and global issues in this campaign affecting the very basis of the so-called American Dream, fast becoming the global nightmare. This is what the next president of the USA must address!
RSJ Rev. Wright went on and on about how Farrakahn has helped poor people, blah, blah. I would hope if I said well David Duke is OK because say he worked at a soup kitchen once and a lot of people Louisiana vote for him that you'd call me an expletive Nazi sympathizer and to go to hell. Although the Rev. Wright controversy WAS overblown and had nothing to do with Obmama it is nonetheless disturbing to me that Rev. Wright gave Farrakahn an even luke warm endorsement and no one here seems overly concerned about that, haters aren't suddenly better because they are black. Farrakahn and his homophobic anti-Semitism can go to hell as far as far as I'm concerned and I say that as an atheist.
Dear Mr. Moyers,
Thank you for speaking the truth!
Hootowl, I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Wright didn't endorse Farrakhan and, in fact, has disagreed with him in his speeches -- I heard him on C-SPAN. He simply said that the black community listens to Farrakhan, whether or not they agree with him, That's true.
Wright's daughter gave Farrakhan an award, but Rev. Wright himself had nothing to do with that.
Obama has completely rejected any endorsement of any kind from Farrakhan and his religion of hate, and he doesn't know the man.
I also don't know of any liberals or progressives who are endorsing anything Farrakhan has said, or his brand of Islam, or is providing any sort of cover for his hateful ideas, so what are you so upset about?
p.s Farrakahn admits to inciting the climate of hate that led to the assassination of Malcom X:
""I may have been complicit in words that I spoke leading up to February 21 [1965]," Farrakhan tells Shabazz and Wallace. "I acknowledge that and regret that any word that I have said caused the loss of life of a human being."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/05/10/60minutes/main194051.shtml
No cover for haters, regardless of their gender, race or sexual orientation. If we are to focus on the big issues like globalism, the enviroment, etc,that effect all the downtrodden of the earth then divisive haters like Farrakahn need to be told to take a hike. Can gays, straights, blacks, whites, transgendered people etc march in safety against the corporate globalist war mongering elite if Farrakahn is in the corner glaring at them and thinking and speaking hateful thoughts?
I think not... The extent that we give cover to haters is the extent we marginalized and shoved aside, do you think Dr. King would have allowed Farrakahn's vile words in the civil rights movement? Think about it... please...
RSJ that's not good enough here for example is some Farrakahn's anti gay and anti-Semetic rehtoric:
"But all of a sudden in the night clubs, they started having transvestite shows, drag queens… Scripture say no liar, no adulterer, no effeminate will get in the Kingdom."
Saviours' Day Speech, Chicago, 2/23/03
"I don't hate Jews. I honor and respect those who try to live according to the teachings of the Torah, but you can't criticize Jewish people. If you criticize them you are anti-Semitic. If you don't agree with what they are doing, you are anti-Semitic. The Bible says, Revelations, those who say they are Jews and are not, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan. I don't hear you preaching that full Gospel. You are afraid of consequences. But no man can say he's a Jew and promote homosexuality. No man can say he's a Jew and promote that which is against the commandments of God. No man can say he's a Jew and run the despicable, degenerate movies. The filth and degenerate language."
Saviours' Day Speech, Chicago, 2/23/03
"...I think that when you warehouse Black men in prisons and they have a sexual drive that is being titillated by the lyrics and by the cultural degeneracy that pervades America today, this sexual need is sometimes filled with activity that God disapproves of."
Meet The Press interview, 10/12/97
"It seems like being gay or whatever sin you wish to be a part of is okay...but I have the duty to lift that gay person up to the standard to ask if they want to live the life that God wants them to or live the lifestyle that they want to live."
Boston speech, 8/7/97
"God don't like men coming to men with lust in their hearts like you should go to a female. If you think that the kingdom of God is going to be filled up with that kind of degenerate crap, you're out of your damn mind."
Kansas City speech, 1996"
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2/on_homosexuals.asp
You know if someone white like David Duke said that we would rightly condemn them as engaging in hate speech. If we give someone a pass on hate speech just because they come from an oppressed community then we are in real trouble in terms of having a consistent morality on the left. To say that someone from an oppressed community can say any sort of vile neo-Nazi thing and get a pass is not helpful IMO. People like Farrakahn just give the Klan and other filth someone to quote from when they want to hate on gay people or Jews, yuck.
hootowl [May 7th, 2008 12:36 am] I would argue about Farrakhan's connection to or inciting the assassination of Malcolm X -- that was mainly the doing of Nation of Islam head at the time, Elijah Muhammad, who perceived Malcolm as a rival.
In his speeches, Wright has specifically spoken out against anti-Semitism and racism; by mentioning Farrakhan, he was simply acknowledging a reality in black America -- when Farrakhan speaks, as he said, black people listen, whether they agree with him or not. What Wright said regarding Farrakhan was not sophistry, it was reality -- a reality that is not recognized by the white-run Big Media in the US, and therefore disconcerting to them.
That was really vague what exactly do you mean by "go to it?" Go to what, and is that serious or sarcastic? Unless we are clear in our speech acts they make no meaningful difference in the world.
huzzah May 6th, 2008 11:44 pm
Thank You!
hootowl May 7th, 2008 12:36 am
Go to it!
p.s. USAian would you say Farrakahn is not a racist solely based on his skin color? If so you are exactly the sort of person who is destroying the left by taking it out of the Union Halls and the hands of the common man and keeping it locked up in academia for only in academia do people accept that sort of sophistry. If we want to have a left that is heroic like the labor movement in the 30s where white people and black people stood shoulder to shoulder facing off the capitalist owners then we need to tell the Farreakahns and the people teaching X,Y,and Z "studies" classes to take a hike. There is real work to be done fighting the oligarchic elite that is NOT helped by people shilling for people like Farrakahn with trumped up definitions of racism. The left took a serious wrong turn somewhere in the 70s that has made it increasingly irrelevant to real working peoples lives of all colors. That truly makes me sad and has had real consequnces in poor peoples lives, in the lives of oppressed minorities and for our endangered environment. If we don't wake up and get truly organized and cut out the bullshit and back sliding then we may see real fascism soon with no effective counter resistance, counter resistance which may involve eek scary guns to boot BT. If you think the old IWW guys were for gun control, think again... They had no time for gun controls or arguing the Semantics of racism, or shilling for Nazis like Farrakahn, or claiming to be women identified "feminists" because they vote for corporate puppets like Hillary Clinton. The left is fiddling while Rome burns and I'm quite certain Emma Goldman and Big Bill Haywood are turning over in their graves right now looking at the utter lack of seriousness and irrelevance of the modern left. And yes I do know of what I speak living in Ypsilanti Michigan ground zero of the globlization based gutting of poor working peoples lives.
Although I don't think Obama should be tarred for his association with Rev. Wright and that it's a non issue being trumped by the MSM to sink Obama one thing that Rev. Wright said that I DID find disturbing is his support for Farrakhan. Not only was Farrakhan involved in stirring up the hate that led to Malcom X's assassination, but he also said some very anti Semitic things back in the 80s. So in summary just because Rev. Wright said some righteous things against imperialism, and just because Obama is being unfairly swift boated it does not follow that Rev. Wright is any angel. Frankly anyone expressing support for Farrakhan gives me the creeps:
"BILL MOYERS: But even some of your admirers say it would be wrong to gloss over what Martin Marty himself called- who loves you- called your "abrasive edges." For example, you know, Louis Farrakhan lives in the south part of Chicago, doesn't he? You've had a long complicated relationship with him, right?
REVEREND WRIGHT: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: And he, you know, he's expressed racist and anti-Semitic remarks. And, yet, last year-
REVEREND WRIGHT: Twenty years ago.
BILL MOYERS: Twenty years ago, but that's indefensible.
REVEREND WRIGHT: The Nation of Islam and Mr. Farrakhan have more African-American men off of drugs. More African-American men respecting themselves. More African-American men working for a living. Not gang banging. Not trying to get by. That's not indefensible in terms of how you make a difference in the prisons? Turning people's lives around. Giving people hope. Getting people off drugs. That we don't believe the same things in terms of our specific faiths. He's Muslim, I'm Christian. We don't believe the same things he said years ago. But that has nothing to do with what he has done in terms of helping people change their lives for the better. I said direct quote was what? "Louis Farrakhan is like E.F. Hutton. When Lewis Farrakhan speaks, black America listens. They may not agree with him, but they're listening."
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/transcript1.html
And here is who Farrakahn is:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/466.html
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2/on_jews.asp
If we on the left do not constantly critically evaluate our leaders we are no better than the Rush Scumbaugh supporting dittoheads. As a Noam Chomsky reading, direct action participating person I say we ought to do better than this.
USAn --
If you happen to check back, I've never tried to argue that our society is not racist. I'm fully aware of that fact. My objection to your definition of racism is that it removes hate speech from the equation. "Kill Whitey" isn't racist but "Kill (insert slur for ethnicity or your choice" is? What, then, if someone acts on such speech? If a white supremacist kills a black guy, is it not racially motivated murder? Reverse those roles and what? It's not murder because the black guy is just trying to liberate himself by killing a member of the oppressor race?
Sorry, but such ideas ARE racist, even if they don't meet YOUR definition of racism.
I read the piece by Bill Moyer carefully because someone send it to me. Moyer has repeated, specifically and in detail, the tenor and substance of what the corporate conglomerate media has written and purveyed about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's speeches.
He has simply characterized the speeches. He has done nothing to disagree with the content of the speeches. Except for a single instance,there is not another word in what he has written that even attempts to dispute the content of the speeches. Moyer's piece is sophisticated name calling---sophistry of the worst order.
For instance, he begins with the intimation that there is the need for a psychologist to explain Wright's speech. The way he put it is, "Many of you have asked for some rational explanation for Wright's transition from reasonable conversation to shocking anger at the National Press Club. A psychologist might pull back some of the layers and see this complicated man more clearly, but I'm not a psychologist."
I don't know who the "many of you" are but I do know that many of the people that I have talked to that heard his speeches have told me that he has focused on parts of our history that makes us uncomfortable. The Reverend Wright punctures the accepted narrative of America in the way that the Santa Claus narrative becomes revealed as we grow out of our childhood. We would rather spend our time making an icon of evil out of the nazi led German government's dozen or so years of murderous, racist mayhem that has us looking outward instead of looking inward at the several centuries of the racist slaughter of innocents of both the indigenous population and Africans in ways that are both unimaginable and indescribable in their cruelty and inhumanity.
In spite of Moyer's commiserating, the "chickens coming home to roost" analogy was even alluded to by the Reverend Martin Luther King in two speeches that immediately come to mind. In his speech in opposition to the United States invasion of Viet Nam, King said, "God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment and it seems that I can hear God saying to America that you're too arrogant....You shall reap what you sow." Listen to the whole speech at
http://youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG-U&feature=related
And then, again, in his speech "The Drum Major Instinct", King comes back to the same analogy. he says, "The God I worship has a way of saying, 'Don't play with me.' He has a way of saying, as the God of the Old Testament used to say to the Hebrews, 'Don't play with me, Israel. Don't play with me, Babylon. Be still and know that I'm God. And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power.' And that can happen to America." Listen to the speech at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRFzBBrRJFk
or read it at
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sermons/680204.000_Drum_Major_Instinct.html"
The long and the short of the matter is that the Wright's "chickens come home to roost" is merely the venacular form of the extolled biblical admonition that " You shall reap what you sow" used by King.
The media venom that has excoriated Wright is simply a repeat of the venom that greeted King for his speeches in opposition to the United States invasion of Viet Nam in that period just before Moyer was special assistant to President Johnson and the White House Press Secretary in the midst of the invasion of Viet Nam by the United States.
======BILL
RSJ - great post!
Also, let's not forgot the genocide perpetrated upon the Native American Indians by the Americans of European heritage. The shameful actions taken against Asian Americans during World War II, the treatment of the German Americans during both world wars, and of course the continuing shameful treatment of Americans of Mexican and Latin American descent.
My uncles (my family is of Mexican descent) returning home from World War II (those who did survive) couldn't buy homes in certain sections of the Los Angeles basin. Remember, there were more Mexicans and Mexican Americans lynched in the American Southwest than blacks in the South.
Yes, as a country we have many blessings, but we also have much to be ashamed of.
Those in ignorant, vicious, denial can't face the truth and would rather slander and attack any who dare speak the truth. We are a young nation whose citizens often act infantile and destructive.
The backlash to affirmative action or to Rev. Wright is but only two examples of this ignorance. Wrongs have been committed, justice needs to be employed, and am atmosphere for healing must be establish in order to move on effectively. The ignorant of this world make it almost impossible for any of that to happen as they continue their vitriol toward those people and things they don't understand and thus fear.
I don't think Moyers calling some of what Rev. Wright said as outlandish or ill advised helps to further the cause of reconciliation. And certainly those who want to paint The Rev. Wright as a racists and hateful person are a big part of the problem we all face toward understanding and love and simply are trying to dictate the dialogue with their ignorance and fearful selves.
"Can we muster a vast intelligent-wing inspiracy? Please." - sandokai May 6th, 2008 6:27 am
Yes We can!
I love this phrase: intelligent-wing inspiracy. Inspiration is human dignity's greatest tool right now. The Citizens have so many chronic strictures of fear, from whatever stimulus, that to approach them for engagement with anything but inspiration and uplift will only stimulate them to a more constricted cringe - inspire on sandokai and CD writers and commentators.
Goatgirl (May 5th, 2008 11:15 pm), good points and the Tuskegee syphilis 'Experiment' and the distribution of crack to black neighborhoods have both been confirmed by reputable journalists. It also should be remembered that when Wright was growing up black men were returning from WWII -- they had served their country honorably and yet, in many parts of America, they still had to use separate bathrooms and water fountains; couldn't swim in the municipal pool that their taxes helped pay for; had to go around to the back to pick up their food, since they weren't allowed to eat inside 'all-white' restaurants; risked their lives if they walked through the 'wrong side' of town; found themselves wrongfully convicted by white juries and sent to long terms in prison or execution, and had a multitude of insults and injuries heaped on them daily just because of the color of their skin. Sadly, these things happened even in the North, although to a lesser degree.
James Baldwin and another Wright, Richard, have given insight to the conditions of black people in America in the generation when Jeremiah Wright was coming of age. Yet Jeremiah Wright enlisted to serve his country, doing two years in the Marines and a four year hitch in the Navy.
Even though he suffered racism from white America, giving the lie to 'all men are created equal' a hundred years after the Civil War ended, he also enlisted to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic -- which is more than most of the media pundits and our 'patriotic' flag pin-wearing politicians ever did for their country. Then, when he decides to use the right of free speech he defended to speak the truth as he sees it, this educated and intelligent man is turned into a cartoon racist idiot and castigated, misquoted and berated as a hater. I wouldn't blame him if he did hate this country -- it's a testament to his character that he hasn't descended to that ugly place. He doesn't hate the country or people of any color, just the temporary governments that have led us into disaster and the politicians and corporations who have used race to divide us against ourselves. He earned the right to say whatever he pleased about our nation as he sacrificed part of his youth to protect it, and educated himself to preserve the truth of it later.
As Mark Twain said, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." I have to admit I was disappointed in Obama that he didn't defend himself and Wright, even while disagreeing with him, by citing that quote.
He might have also used another Twain line: "Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul.
I think Obama's pastor would agree, and so should all progressive Americans, as I think it's past time for those of us who love our country, our freedom, and our Constitution to stop apologizing and cooperating with the 'framing' of those in our government and media who work against them, as Rev. Wright has courageously done.
Mr. Wright's thinking is ammunition against a churchgoer who happens to be a candidate for president. The current administration's thinking is massive destruction against Arabs, Muslims, and soon, Iranians who get in the way of a very particular nuanced bigotry. No opposing thinking brooked!
I think I understand why Hillary Clinton is liked by the brave new right. She is white, has a husband with marketable flaws, and will not compromise the values of Messrs Bush and Cheney.
Are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich still available? Can we muster a vast intelligent-wing inspiracy? Please.
WTF, technically you are correct: AIDS in itself is not a disease -- it just lets you die (horribly) of some other disease(s) you wouldn't otherwise get. As with syphillis, treatment can add longevity and quality to life for someone who's been infected.
That's a pretty sweeping statement about antivirals, etc. Are you saying that all HIV+ folk are wasting their time on treatment? If so, what's all the fuss about withholding expensive AIDS drugs from Africans and getting all upset that Brazil is making its own generics?
Wonderful to read so many thoughtful and thought-provoking comments.
One of the things I think whenever I see such umbrage taken at Rev. Wright's opinions and statements, always described in terms like "hate-filled", "paranoid" and "anti-American" and "anti-white" is that white folk sure have thin skins. The least little hint that some of those who have not been treated so kindly or justly by our nation and it's racial majority might just be a teensy bit pissed off. But, no, everyone is supposed to be "so, like, over that now".
Barak was right the first time he addressed it, the good Rev. Wright is part of a long historical tradition to blend social commentary, political organizing and religion in the relative sanctuary of the Black church.
But the media, only partially thanks to youtube, and completly subject to our willingness to be captivated by the issue kept focusing on it.
Somehow it is not the kiss of political death to be a white peacher suggesting that AIDS and tsunamis and 9/11 are God's punishment for Gay Pride and abortion and the lack of prayer in school. But a Black preacher, suggesting that our leaders unleashed AIDS or invited by our behaviours on the world stage, or at the very least failed to prevent or interrupt 9/11 INTENTIONALLY, as a matter of policy....well, we just can't have that! Besides, all he really suggested was that these COULD be true or possible. We know about Tuskeegee, we know about Typhoid blankets to the Native Americans, we know about the Reichtag. These are not too far from consensus reality as to be considered paranoid. Doesn't mean that is what did happen...just that it wouldn't be because we wouldn't or couldn't.
MiMiCcS May 5th, 2008 4:30 am
excellent post thanks for sharing even though most here will not comprehend what you've laid out.
Here's the AIDS connection that Suioxrose doesn't see.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8674401787208020885
Also, I listened to Rev. Wright's sermons on YouTube. I screamed every bad word and curse at all the news stations and right-wing fascists who only used sound-bites of those sermons without putting them in context. I hope they find themselves tongue-tied and soon without jobs for doing so!
Thank you, Bill Moyers. I still have a quote from your speech to the National Conference on Media Reform, May 15, 2005, in which you said:
"An unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only on partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda, is less inclined to put up a fight, to ask questions and be skeptical. That kind of orthodoxy can kill a democracy--or worse."
I have it hanging above my computer, and I take it to heart every time I write. I believe this cooked-up, hypocritical "Wright" problem is an excellent example of what you were talking about in your speech.
Bravo, my friend! Keep it going! I hope more and more are listening.
This is the best article on the web regarding this non issue. Now if only the people that need to read it would read it.
Gee, Jacob Freeze, I can't imagine why posters at the Daily Kos call you 'Jacob the Jihadist' and tell you to 'end the hate, Jacob.' And is it fair to say that you take "things out of context for the sole purpose of attack," as did Teacherken? I also don't believe you lick goat balls, as does Democratic Luntz.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/18/1938/07544/539/479495
Just because you continually go on the rampage against Obama, confusing and mauling facts and common sense along the way, is no reason to think you're a hate-filled person.
Just look at your current comments:
Jacob Freeze (May 4th, 2008 4:27 pm): "First Obama makes the most condescending defense of Jeremiah Wright that it is possible to imagine, even including racist language from the days of Jim Crow… He's my crazy old "uncle."
I heard Obama's Philadelphia speech March 18th and I didn't think it was condescending in the least. He was simply pointing out that Wright is from a different generation and it was harder back then for blacks. Also, your interpretation of Obama calling Wright his 'crazy old uncle' as Jim Crow racist is just plain bizarre.
"Then Obama gets exposed by his own advisor for bullshitting about NAFTA."
If you knew anything about Canadian PM Stephen Harper's Tory (conservative) government, you'd know they are in bed with the GOP in this country. (Harper's campaign was even helped by Bush advisors.) Furthermore, the initial reports were that Ian Brodie, Harper's Chief of Staff, was overheard by reporters saying that it was Clinton's campaign that had provided reassurances that their candidate didn't mean what she said about altering NAFTA. It was only after Hillary went on the attack, and Brodie changed his story to include Obama, that this hit the US media. Austan Goolsbee was invited to a meeting at the Canadian Embassy in Chicago, but he was told it was concerning his position as a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, not to discuss NAFTA. The talk briefly drifted into the Obama campaign's position on NAFTA, and Goolsbee assured them that what the candidate was saying in public was what he thought in private. That was it, end of story, and the Canadian Embassy in Chicago issued a memo to the effect that Goolsbee's version of the meeting was accurate. Meanwhile, Harper's government is in trouble for trying to illegally influence a US presidential campaign. Harper, as if you couldn't guess, favors Clinton or McCain. In your story, you complete dismiss the memo from the Canadian Embassy in Chicago in order to smear Obama. Who's bullshitting now, Jacob?
"The Obama decides it's a wonderful idea to undermine every gun-control law ever written, and make it almost impossible to write new gun-control legislation."
This is also sheer 'bullshit.'
"Maybe some of us are just too simple-minded to understand how Barack Obama could be anything other than an absolutely unscrupulous politician and all-around bullshitter, and I'm sure Bill Moyers would want us to be very ashamed…"
Jesus, you're going after Bill Moyers as well as Obama? Glad you're not a hater.
"And meanwhile Moyers and all the other Obamabots and Obama himself can just go on shamelessly bullshitting forever!"
One of your friends at Daily Kos is right: You really do need help, Jacob.
nellemason wrote: There is no cure for AIDS either, but we know that we can affect the course of the disease with treatment.
How can you cure a syndrome? AIDS is not a disease! Of course it cannot be cured (by definition).
So what is the biggest killer of people who have the (benign) HIV virus and a compromised immune system (acquired through a series of questionable decisions)? Answer: The drug cocktails these people take. AZT is almost 100% lethal, and was removed from the market in the 1960s because it not only aggressively killed cancer cells, it also aggressively killed normal cells.
Big Pharma loves the AIDS myth.
nellemason May 5th, 2008 2:47 pm
You mistook what I said.........I was simply saying that Wright represented that the victims were infected with syphillis which wasn't true, then represented that they let them die when they had a choice and there was no choice, there was simply no treatment available. Neither of the above was true.
What was true was that they told them that they were treating them, which was a lie. so you are exactly right when you say
"To deliberately misrepresent treatment to a patient and experiment on people without informed consent is wrong no matter how you try to couch the words." Maybe I didn't make it clear what I was trying to say. My apologies about that. No wonder you said shame on me when you thought I was trying to say that!
Under any circumstances what they did back then was criminal, callous and despicable. But I simply wanted to make clear what did happen. Wrights version was not true. I'll ework on my clarity
nellemason.
Dissident Heart May 5th, 2008 4:02 pm
"Black liberation theology is not a racist theology, it is an imperfect attempt to confront white supremacy."
I have heard that argument, but we'll just have to disagree. I read Black Liberation Theology as put out by Trinity and followed some of their references to Cone and others. The principals are racist it seems to me. I transposed colors to Nazi and Klan pomolgations and they actually match up pretty well. I always assume that if someone says White people are evil, the enemy of all blacks, that Black people are superior, etc....they are racist. If a white said this, suggested this theology there is no doubt in my mind what everyone here would call them. I simply don't give anyone a pass on racism because they are black.
Your point about the Gospel is well taken though." The Gospel is not about political expediency or party politics: it demands everything while promising a radically different way of life." I just can't see it applying to this theology.
But there is a lot of stuff flying around, so who knows. Example...Obama said Wright was a Marine, Someone else had hiom inthe Army and Bill has him in the Navy. Go figure.
I hope it will clear up in the end.
What ~DISSIDENT HEART~ ?????????? You say most whites are White Supremists. ___ How wrong can a person possibly be?
Perhaps where you reside and the people you may know are, But the VAST MAJORITY of whites are not. Just look how the voting has gone for Obama to date. ___ Over 88% of his votes are from white people which sure proves your words in that respect are TOTALLY wrong ____ and that's how wrong a person can be. ____ TOTALLY WRONG.
Thomas More: "My problem comes from his refusal to explain his continued association with racist theology all those years."
Black liberation theology is not a racist theology, it is an imperfect attempt to confront white supremacy. It is one way for an oppressed population to bring the Gospel to bear on an unjust society: exposing its abuses, challenging its lies, exorcising its demons, and offering a radical alternative...one that rejects the dominant values of worth and status while providing protection of the weakest and most vulnerable, and preferrential treatment for the poor. Within the context of white supremacy, that Gospel will look something like what Rev. Wright imperfectly provides. The Gospel is not about political expediency or party politics: it demands everything while promising a radically different way of life. White supremacy is an idolatry in US history and far too many still worship at its temple. Prophets expose idolatries. Politicians serve constituencies.
Thomas More, SHAME ON YOU -- you're playing with SEMANTICS. Withholding whatever treatment is available from some people and not others, and lying to them about it is UNETHICAL. There is no cure for AIDS either, but we know that we can affect the course of the disease with treatment. So it was with syphillis. To deliberately misrepresent treatment to a patient and experiment on people without informed consent is wrong no matter how you try to couch the words.
It is sad in the very time we are going to need all faith's to pull together to fix this country. Right now I am ashamed of the quiet timid white church. Your silence and hypocrisy is a stench.
Brian
Olympia WA.
White Supremacy is the issue here, and any honest look at its ugly legacy is simply unacceptable. Dialogues around race are valuable, but frank discussion about White Supremacy is essential. Since the majority of American voters are white, and a majority of them white supremacist, there is no way Obama can expect to win by calling them to the carpet- as Wright has done.
Simply wrong.....
"But it is a fact, he says, that within living memory the U.S. Public Health Service conducted a study that deliberately deceived black men with syphilis into believing that they were being treated, while actually letting them die for the sake of a scientific test."
That fact is correct, as far as Wright took it.
I'm surprised Bill didn't get it right. There was no treatment for syphilis at that time. Its a shameful episode with no excuse, but they weren't "letting" them die.. But I find half truths disgusting no matter who uses them. Truth is truth. So discuss the points truthfully or not at all.
We've had 7 1/2 years of half truths and lies. Lets not join them now.
The real shame here is that some don't or won't recognize racism or excuse it because of the color of a mans skin. Racist's are racist's. Is Wright one? You bet your bippy. Is Hagee? He could teach Wright a few tricks. So what, they aren't running. The only reason Wright matters to Obama is how it relates to his judgement.
Senator Obama joined the church originally for political reasons, we all know that. Nothing wrong with it either. My problem comes from his refusal to explain his continued association with racist theology all those years. I'm hoping he explains himself more fully. Good start on Sunday with Russert!
I agree too and I loved this article.
It's puzzled me what a big deal this was, I still don't see why people are so upset about what he said. They're getting away with sounding so righteous and non-racist, aren't they? It's pretty racist to ignore the historic and current racism that people deal with, whether they wanted to or not, it wasn't THEIR choice.
I bet a lot of black folks who might consider themselves racist, white-hating or America-hating would just LOVE the opportunity to walk away from the problem and just "forget" all the injustice. They might not stop being racist, but the option would be nice. If injustice is the standard, it seems living without racism is not even an option, and I'm not sure what a person is supposed to feel in that situation, because it seems like a lot of feelings would be pretty personal.
As a white person and a mother, when I imagined explaining the meaning and the history of the "n" word to my kids, if we were black, it really made me think, and it's so sad. A lot of people and the media have worked so hard to really demonize this man, and it seems like the subjects he discussed too, when they could.
It's good to hear a rational take on this, because the news spin and politics about it is sick.
They used to say "Black is Beautiful" when I was a kid. Black is still beautiful.
What a national treasure Bill Moyers is for continuing to tell the truth in such thoughtful language that is never bombastic. Like Noam Chomsky, Bill Moyers conveys his message in a calm, logical way that engages the intellect. We who support Barack Obama should never fail to critique him when he should be questioned on policy matters, and Rev. Wright has stated that he is not giving Obama a pass because of his race. We are worried, however, that Rev. Wright's language about U.S. foreign policy will hurt the campaign. All any American has to do is to read books like Chalmers Johnson's "BLOWBACK" to understand "chickens coming home to roost." Of course they won't, and the "my country right or wrong" mentality runs very deep in the United States because of the belief in American exceptionalism in our population.
I agree with Wright: God damn America. Stinking entitlement. Stinking exceptionalism. Mass murderers from the very beginning ...
"My government is the world's leading purveyor of violence."
M. L. King, Jr.
"When it comes to "Ay-Eye-Dee-Ess", as he clumsily pronounced the unfamiliar acronym at a Nairobi conference, the Pope [John Paul II] probably contributed more to the continental spread of the disease than the trucking industry and prostitution combined." Michela Wrong
dmia I agree!
Obama 2008
Leave it to Bill Moyers to get such an interesting discussion going. When this Wright controversy first got started I found his whole "God damn America" speech on YOUTUBE and listened to it from beginning to end. I have to say that I was quite impressed. I also recognized that his words would be anathema to the "My country, right or wrong" crowd. I didn't listen to the race speech delivered by Obama because from what I had already heard, I figured that I would be disappointed. One has to know that in order to get elected in this country it is unwise to lay all ones cards on the table. If we were better educated and informed, maybe. As it is, even a decent person will have to keep a great deal close to his/her vest.
I can't say that I have the greatest respect for Obama as he has said a number of things which struck me as wrong, but I have more HOPE that he MIGHT turn out to be someone who helps this country turn itself around with a more balanced approach. The fact that Obama is funded to a great extent by small donations and as well as the banking industry is something to ponder. IF Obama is elected AND a mostly NEW Congress is elected as well, it will be incumbent upon those who put him in office to make sure that what they thought they were electing him to do does, in fact, get done. We have had it too easy for so long that we tend to think that we can let someone else do the hard work. Those days are long gone. We need to stay informed and engaged. And let us not be too disappointed if it takes a while to change course. It will take sustained effort to roll back the right wing agenda. The right wing has been very clever and very patient. If we want the country we thought we had before all of this happened, we had better find out who we actually have been all along, warts and all. Just like any other country, we have our good points and our bad points. Unfortunately we have been in a position to throw our weight around and cause a lot of pain throughout the rest of the world. I suggest we start trying to make amends because we are definitely getting to the short end of the stick and may need some help getting through the hard times ahead. The rest of the world is not exactly in love with us at this point and with very good reason so I think we had better start shaping up. And electing Obama just might signal to the world that we are prepared to mend our ways.
Huzzah,
Affirmative action is absolutely NOT racist. In fact, it is the prime remedy of racism, because it breaks the sociological mechanisms that keep whites in power and blacks out of power.
I think you are completely misunderstanding me. Also there are geographical issues here. The issue of race in Atlanta is very different than in Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh being vastly more backward. Any kind of KKK comical buffoonery is not Racism the way white flight, catastrohic loss of tax bases, demolition of low-income housing and gentrification, cruumbling black neighborhood school and resulting savage inequality in education and job opportunities.
And then there are the utterly discriminatory labor unions - particularly the construction trades.
And all this racism happens, without a single white sheet in sight or racial epethet uttererd. It is administered calmly by bosses, union officers, white families around their kitchen tables, and government administratos. It is so intimately woven into our economy so that most people are in utter denial about it. An like an alchololic or heroin addict, there is nothing more dangerous that a racist in denial.
JAY JANSON: I think you raise a significant & important issue. For Moyers to genuflect on HIS past might cause others (like McCain) to do likewise. Did you ever send HIM a personal letter?
MiMiCCS: Your last posting had a lot of interesting data, but a conclusive connecting of dots to AIDS was not shared.
Do you not know your Congressional Representative, or how to contact them?
Yes, and he's a Republican. My contacting him will not cause Bush to be impeached. I can't convince Republicans of anything.
If you study great practitioners of any craft you'll find their basic methodology was very simplistic (Upledger, Reich, Feldenkrais, et al), a simplicity that leads to a complexity of hypothesis and potentiality of application.
Three good examples do not make a universal. Even if they did, they don't mean every simple methodology will produce the results desired. Lastly, impeaching Bush should be a method, not a methodology.
that the one action: capable of bringing all this humanity uplift to pass are through the impeachment hearings for George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney - a simple methodology
I hate to sound like I'm arguing against impeachment, but it won't automatically cause all the things you list to pass. It would be a first step towards legalizing and legitimizing the U.S. government, and I'm in favor of that, but the fact that I'm in favor of something doesn't automatically mean I can make it happen. You've written before about ridding the world of the warrior mentality, and I agree. I don't agree that it's a simple thing to do, or that impeaching Bush will cause it to happen.
Are you saying Moyers and Burckhardt are wrong, and that we should seek out the simplifiers?
I am in agreement with Bill Moyers as to the fact that it is a shame for us as a nation that Rev. Wright's comments can become a "scandal" that Obama must distance himself from. Perhaps due to my inability to comprehend the mindset of the mainstream corporate media connosieur, but I also find it beyond belief that Wright has been painted as a kind of radical that "average" Americans need to worry about. A sad day indeed.
The Biggest SECRET in the Land!
Welcome to a Never Never, Bush-Zarro Land!
Where the:
See No and Hear No Evil, Faux Media says:
I see nothing!
Some watch dog?
More like a pet goat.
Pack The Courts!
Pack the Schools!
Pack the Government!
Pack the Media!
Pack the Ballot Boxes!
Pack your job off to China!
Pack the Militia off to Die in a Death March.
Pack the Army full of Criminals and Torturers
Pack the Attorney Generals Office full of Liars.
Pack the Atmosphere full of Co2.
Pack Nuclear Waste into Cannons
Pack Terrorism, Torture, Death and Destruction
Pack the Environment with Toxic Waste and Pollution.
Pack Stores with Chinese JUNK
Pack Terminator Genes into the Food Supply.
Pack the Environment full of Genetic Mutations
Pack Clones into Laboratories
Pack the libraries with lies.
Pack TV with Crooks, Shysters, Quacks, Dicks, Bobbin Head Dolls and Schlock Meisters.
Pack your backyard full of WMD
Pack the Pulpit with Gestapo
Pack the Bankers full of Money
Pack the CEOs full of Stock.
Pack all the Loot offshore.
Pack all the Gold in Fort Knox off on Jack Asses.
Pack the Black House full of Pirates.
Pack the Resident off in a straight jacket.
Pack Dead Eye off with a Whore, Pills, Alcohol and a Lawyer for target practice.
Pack the Prisons with paupers.
Pack the Red Necks into Pickups without any Butts, Beer and GAS!
Pack all your belongings into a knapsack.
Pack all your hopes, dreams and Head into a Toilet.
FLUSH!
Had Enough yet?
Are you better off now? t
Than you were, eight years ago?
Nuff said.
Let the Good Times Roll!
Bill Moyers is a national treasure, and once again hits the nail on the head in his assessment of this tragic situation. It is about race. None of the luny white preachers on the right have received any scrutiny, despite the fact that Republicans openly court their endorsements, something I find far more troubling. After all, the right wing preachers do seek political pay back from public servants they help put in office. I can't imagine how I'd feel if my ancestors had been hauled over her against their will in the hulls of slave ships, forced into slavery, subjected to Jim Crow Laws, and all sort of discrimination. I certainly can't imagine any white person just getting over it. And, now with the Rev Wright fiasco, there's a clear double standard. Rev. Wright's anger is primarily directed at American policy (if you actually bother to listen to his words), both foreign and domestic, and with good reason. I find that far less offensive than white preachers who single out groups of people for moral condemnation. To hear Rev Hagee bellowing about the poor and penniless, "let them starve, let them starve", is morally reprehensible, yet this is the preacher whose endorsement was actively sought by McCain and others. Not the mention the fact that Hagee with his megachurch and televison broadcast reaches millions of people with his hate filled sermons. The bottom line is that much of what Rev Wright preaches is the truth. White folks aren't comfortable with his preaching style and angry tone. I say to them "get over it". Wake up America and get a clue.
They have managed to do it again. Now, can we get back to talking about the issues that affect all the people all the time,like healthcare and the fact our economy is in recession and possibly headed for a depression if it continues to decline.Oh, then are two on going wars!
I would be proud to call Jeremiah Wright my pastor. He certainly speaks the truth as I see it.
This definitely includes his 'chickens come home to roost' sermon after 9-11. His perspective was one I felt was critically missing from the USA discussion at that time. So many people were saying 'How could they do this to us?' He had the answer that I believe is the correct answer.
As for HIV origination, if you have an open mind, read the link below.
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=5420
Consider also:
On June 9, 1969, Dr. Donald M. MacArthur, Deputy Director, Research and Engineering, Department of Defense, testified before Congress:
Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory [resistant] to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease. [Hearings before the House Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, "Department of Defense Appropriations for 1970."]
July 1, 1970---Senate Appropriations hearings are held for the Department of Defense and refer to eminent biologists who believe that within 5 to 10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent (infective micro-organism), an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired. Tentative plans to initiate a program to develop such an agent were discussed by the National Research Council .
Hearings in the British House of Commons from April 8 to May 13, 1987 regarding AIDS will include the following: "Every biological scientist who has dispassionately studied the virus and the epidemic knows that the origins of the virus could lie in the developments of modern biology....Some who know perfectly well what has happened are deliberately fudging scientific data to keep the heat off them and fellow members of their molecular biological 'club'."
1974 Henry Kissinger signed a secret National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 200), calling for the deliberate suppression of 13 strategically important nations, so that they would not be using up resources that the United States and its allies want. The nations were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Egypt, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia.
2000-Project for New American Century issues publication calling for - I) "Biological warfare (and other new arms) could become a politically useful instrument". This point is particularly frightening if one considers the sudden spreading of the incurable SARS, which started in China, at the same time as the war in Iraq. Due to the importance of the subject, we are printing the remaining portion of the text. "New methods of attack – electronic, non-lethal, biological – will be more widely available….combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes….advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".
Other Eugenic methods of population control/reduction below. You are simply a higher class of animals to the elite, killing you off doesn't bother them much. The next virus they release will target those members of the non-elite of all races. The 600,000 members of the elite and upper classes will have been vaccinated.
1910---The Eugenics Record Office is established at Cold Spring Harbor in New York. It is funded by the Carnegie Institute, and will receive funding from the Rockefeller Foundation which will be founded in 1913. The Rockefeller Foundation also will fund Nazi Dr. Ernst Rudin's eugenics research at the Kaiser Wilhelm Brain Research Institute in Berlin. At the Third International Congress on Eugenics held in New York in 1932, Rudin will be unanimously elected president of the International Federation of Eugenic Societies. Rudin and other Nazis will be transported to the Congress on George Herbert Walker's and Prescott Bush's Hamburg-Amerika Lines.
1911---John D. Rockefeller, Jr., forms the Bureau of Social Hygiene, and in 1913 the Rockefeller Foundation will help organize and fund the American Social Hygiene Association "for reconsideration of public attitudes toward prostitution." Via the National Research Council, the Rockefeller Foundation's Medical Division for many years will fund the horrible sex research of Alfred Kinsey. In the early 1900s, Rockefeller introduces Margaret Sanger to the monied elite who help her form the Birth Control League that will become Planned Parenthood. She eugenically advocates limiting "dysgenic stocks" such as Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and Catholics, as well as "slum dwellers" such as Jewish immigrants.
1932 -- Plan for Peace by American Birth Control League founder Margaret Sanger (1921) is published. She calls for coercive sterilization, mandatory segregation, and rehabilitative concentration camps for all "dysgenic stocks" including Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and Catholics.
"In 1932, the British-led 'Eugenics' movement designated the Rockefellers' Dr. Rudin as the president of the worldwide Eugenics Federation. The movement called for the killing or sterilization of people whose heredity made them a public burden.
"A few months later, Hitler took over Germany and the Rockefeller-Rudin apparatus became a section of the Nazi state. The regime appointed Rudin head of the Racial Hygiene Society. Rudin and his staff, as part of the Task Force of Heredity Experts chaired by SS chief Heinrich Himmler, drew up the sterilization law. Described as an American Model law, it was adopted in July 1933 and proudly printed in the September 1933 Eugenical News (USA) with Hitler's signature. The Rockefeller group drew up other race laws, also based on existing Virginia statutes. Otmar Verschuer and his assistant Josef Mengele together wrote reports for special courts which enforced Rudin's racial purity law against cohabitation of Aryans and non-Aryans.
"The 'T4' unit of the Hitler Chancery, based on psychiatrists led by Rudin and his staff, cooperated in creating propaganda films to sell mercy killing (euthanasia) to German citizens. The public reacted antagonistically: Hitler had to withdraw a tear-jerker right-to-die film from the movie theaters. The proper groundwork had not yet been laid.
"Under the Nazis, the German chemical company I.G. Farben and Rockefeller's Standard Oil of New Jersey were effectively a single firm, merged in hundreds of cartel arrangements. I.G. Farben was led up until 1937 by the Warburg family, Rockefeller's partner in banking and in the design of Nazi German eugenics.
"In 1940, six months after the notorious Standard-I.G. meeting, European Rockefeller Foundation official Daniel O'Brian wrote to the Foundation's chief medical officer Alan Gregg that 'it would be unfortunate if it was chosen to stop research which has no relation to war issues' so the Foundation continued financing Nazi 'psychiatric research' during the war.
"In 1936, Rockefeller's Dr. Franz Kallmann interrupted his study of hereditary degeneracy and emigrated to America because he was half-Jewish. Kallmann went to New York and established the Medical Genetics Department of the New York State Psychiatric Institute. The Scottish Rite of Freemasonry published Kallman's study of over 1,000 cases of schizophrenia, which tried to prove its hereditary basis. In the book, Kallmann thanked his long-time boss and mentor Rudin.
"Kallmann's book, published in 1938 in the USA and Nazi Germany, was used by the T4 unit as a rationalization to begin in 1939 the murder of mental patients and various 'defective' people, perhaps most of them children. Gas and lethal injections were used to kill 250,000 under this program, in which the staffs for a broader murder program were desensitized and trained.
1948 -- UNESCO president and Fabian Socialist, Sir Julian Huxley, calls for a radical eugenic policy in UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy. He states:
"Thus, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy of controlled human breeding will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable."
1950-51---Rockefeller Foundation chairman John Foster Dulles takes John D. Rockefeller III on a tour of Third World countries stressing the need eugenically to control the growth of non-white populations. 1952---John D. Rockefeller III and John Foster Dulles found the Population Council to fund population control measures.
1961-- World Wildlife Fund (WWF, now the World Wide Fund for Nature) was founded for one stated purpose: to raise money to expand the operations of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Prince Philip became head of the WWF-UK from the outset. Among his closest collaborators was Sir Julian Huxley, president of the Eugenics Society, and a founder of the IUCN as well. Since Hitler had given eugenics a bad name, Huxley tried to sell his anti-human ideology through "conservation," as expressed in his statement, "the spread of man must take second place to the conservation of other species." He brought this same conviction to his role as the first head of the United Nations Education, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Philip also recruited a card-carrying Nazi into the leadership of the WWF, notably Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Bernhard had returned his Nazi Party membership card in a letter to Hitler when he was given the opportunity to marry the Dutch Queen Wilhemina, but betrayed his ongoing sentiments by signing the letter "Heil Hitler." Bernhard was the first head of the WWF-International, while Philip presided over the U.K. branch. After Bernhard was hit by the Lockheed scandals of the mid-1970s, he was replaced first by John Loudon, the former head of Royal Dutch Shell, and then, in 1981, by Philip himself.
As head of the WWF, Philip openly called for population control, calling human population growth "the single most long-term threat to survival." Treating human beings like animals, he claimed in a 1981 article in People magazine: "The more people there are, the more resources they'll consume, the more pollution they'll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn't controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war."
Philip has also endorsed the long-discredited Malthusian claim that population must outstrip food supply. While his official statements pay obeisance to the idea of merely reducing the rate of growth of population, Philip's activities—which involve setting up "ecological reserves" that are used to preserve animals and serve as sanctuaries for terrorist insurgencies, campaigning against life-saving major infrastructure projects, and opposing the most fundamental life-saving measures, such as draining swamps—give the genocidal game away.
March 11, 1969---Vice-President of Planned Parenthood-World Population Frederick Jaffe's "Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the U.S." is printed containing a memo to Population Council president Bernard Berelson. It includes examples of proposed measures to reduce U.S. fertility, such as (a) encourage increased homosexuality, (b) fertility control agents in water supply, (c) encourage women to work, (d) abortion and sterilization on demand, and (e) make contraception truly available and accessible to all.
In 1972, the Club of Rome was founded, releasing the book Limits to Growth, to assert, by computer simulation, that the world's limits to growth had been reached, and zero growth must be enforced..A slew of media operations and new agencies were mobilized to pound on this message. With the rock-drug counterculture under way as part of the campaign, the degradation operation proceeded.
March 7, 1972---The Rockefeller Commission on Population issues a report advocating population control, stating that further growth of the American population could cause economic problems, and that "in any case, no generation needs to know the ultimate goal or the final means, only the direction to which they will be found." In other words, they will control population, but they're not going to tell us how!
1973---The Trilateral Commission is begun by David Rockefeller and will issue a report stating that "population planning should be an integral part of social and economic development."
1973---George H.W. Bush praises the Population Crisis Committee (PCC) for having played a "major role in assisting government policy makers and in mobilizing United States' response to the world population challenge." The PCC was founded by General William Draper, Jr. (vice-chairman of Planned Parenthood), and is largely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.
In 1974, several key events in agriculture policy occurred. A World Food Conference was convened in Rome, to address how to defeat hunger. However, Secretary of State Kissinger was sent at the last minute to represent the United States, after an orchestrated scandal cancelled the trip of Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz—an "old school" farm advocate. Instead of addressing the need to rev up agriculture capacity, Kissinger's theme was that nations should try to help the needy with a little food aid.
In 1982 the World Resources Institute was founded, headed by Gus Spaeth, to issue pseudo-scientific tracts saying that expanding the food supply and population destroys the environment. Al Gore is on their board today.
In October 1982, the U.S. Congress granted the Commodity Credit Corp. of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) discretion to convert government grain stocks to gasohol fuel, and kicked off the ethanol promotion program, giving Cargill and ADM multi-billions for government-subsidized ethanol
an unprecedented U.S. food output reduction program was enacted, called "Payment-in-Kind," in which farmers were given claim chits for government-controlled surplus corn stocks, in exchange for idling 30-50% of their corn acreage. Then, during the very same 1983 crop season, a 50-year drought hit, and that entire year's corn harvest fell by 50% from its recent previous levels.
October 1984 report of the World Bank, "Toward the Sustainable Development of Sub-Saharan Africa," called for large-scale water projects to be "re-examined"—meaning cancelled—given the "extreme shortage of resources."
GATT was used as the venue for an all-out attempt at a one-world trade treaty, to make it even easier for the private, neo-British-East-India-Company networks to subvert nation-serving agriculture. An opening round of trade talks began at Punta del Este, Uruguay, aimed at "reforming" agricultural trade, by coercing nations to remove tariffs, export controls, and national regulations. Over the next ten years, a drawn-out sequence of conferences were held in Montreal and elsewhere, attended not only by national government officials, but by Cargill, ADM, major banks, and non-governmental agencies.
In 1985, the U.S. Patent Office ruled that plants could now be protected under the powerful industrial patent. The industrial patent does not have any exemptions for farmers or for research, so any use of a patented plant or seed without specific license from the patent holder would be considered
violation of the patent. This patent decision is the basis for the new weapon to control agricultural production and research that the cartels have pushed to the limit.
1986 The BSE brain-wasting disease—bovine spongiform encephalopathy, called Mad Cow—broke out for the first time ever, in Britain, around 1986, and was widely exported. Veterinarians attribute the occurrence directly to the Thatcher government's malfeasance. Soon after she was elected, a national livestock sanitation board asked the government to intervene to prevent any tainted sheep matter from being cycled elsewhere into the livestock feed chain, because there was at the time in the U.K., a widespread outbreak of sheep scrapie, TSE (transmissible spongiform encephalopathy). Thatcher and Agriculture Minister Lord Peter Walker refused, on the grounds that the animal feed sector should "regulate itself." Within six years, after tainted matter continued to be blended into animal feed, the species jump from sheep to cows occurred.
1988 The Princes of Genocide: Philip ...
"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
That statement, reported by Deutsche Press Agentur in August 1988, presents in the most concise manner, the commitment of the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, to genocide against the world's population. In expressing this view—which he also put in writing in the foreword to the book People as Animals in 1986—Philip places himself in the tradition of that Fabian genocidalist Lord Bertrand Russell, who had defined alleged overpopulation as the greatest threat to the oligarchical way of life.
World Wildlife Fund (founded in 1961), run in tandem with the Conservation Foundation (a U.S. continuation of a pre-World War II Europe-based, eugenicist "nature" society) merged in 1991, and subsequently became known as the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF).
Their assault on food and agriculture was profound. They mounted a campaign to force governments to remove land from agricultural production, in the name of "conserving" scarce resources. In the United States, an entirely new program was established, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). As of today, it has over 30 million acres locked up, out of a crop base of 365 million acres. The "Wetlands Reserve" is taking still more land out of production.
In 1994, the PVPA was amended in accordance with the regulations under the GATT. The changes to the act made it illegal for farmers to resell or exchange any seed of protected crops. The GATT agreement also forces the developing nations to recognize the patents and protections on plants
and living organisms held by other GATT member countries. This allows the cartels to deny developing countries' farmers access to advanced biotechnology, and instead forces them to pay huge licensing fees to use any patented seeds.
Inter- American Ethanol Commission (IEC), the entity founded in 2006 by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and the major sponsor of the First Biofuels Congress of the Americas. The IEC is at the center of many of the ethanol ventures now being promoted around Ibero-America. An ardent defender himself of free trade, Gore embraces Jeb Bush's notion of using multinational ethanol deals to "energize" the debate on hemispheric
free trade.
No matter that that debate is effectively dead. It makes a good talking point for the IEC, which argues that the continental "integration"—that is, elimination of sovereignty— that might have been achieved through the Bush Administration's failed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), is now
possible through ethanol! The IEC is a key driver behind the newly launched "Bioenergy Alliance," whose members reportedly include "the leading ethanol producers of the Americas." This apparatus, with heavy Brazilian input, is now embarking on a major biofuels offensive in Central America and the Caribbean, whose populations are starving. Thinking themselves very clever, these killers plan to use this impoverished
region as the base from which to significantly increase, and then export, biofuels to the United States, to get around the United States' 54-cent-a-gallon tax on Brazilian ethanol. If exported to the U.S. from a nation such as Guatemala, which is particularly targetted, ethanol can enter the U.S. tariff-free, because of Guatemala's participation in the Caribbean Basin
Initiative (CBI).
The Brazilian involvement with IEC and the Bush-Gore lovefest, is—tragically—lawful. In the speech he gave April 16 before the FAO conference in Brasilia, President Lula da Silva vowed that, despite world starvation, he intends to act as a spokesman for the British Empire's genocidal biofuels drive. He had the nerve to lie that "more people are eating better" in the world than ever before.
Jakob Burckhardt, a teacher and friend of F. Nietzsche, especially liked N's little aphorism against standard thinking, which went: "What? All Truth is Simple? Is that not doubly a lie?"
But deep thinking truth seekers don't get to be president in the US anymore, if they ever once rarely did. The electorate has been systematically dumbed-down to the point where anything resembling complex truth is automatically gagged on, blocked, shut-out.
Big lies told in a simple manner are the easiet route to power for now, and any presidential candidate expecting to get elected by telling the truth in its manifold complexity, like Nader, is quickly disposed of and made a pariah.
An honest candidate with an unrevealed aim of turning all this corrption around, could, theoretically, sneak past the System and get elected, I suppose; but only by telling simple truths that outshone the simple lies.
[Some people think this what Obama is trying to do.]
But even then, such an elected leaders' problem would be to quickly create an actual mandate for specific change, based, presumably, on widely cultivated and suddenly-shared 'less-than-simple' truths.
All of which is very complex in itself; i.e., politically unlikely.
Some of us feel that the best we can hope for at the moment, is the return of Some degree of truth, however simple.
Good article and interesting comments! I can't see how anyone could disagree with Wright.....except maybe about AIDS. Chances are it was developed to get rid of gays of any race.
But more importantly we should be talking about WHO set all this noise through the airwaves. It's a disservice to the election...we need to talk about issues. The Clintons started the "race" angle, and the Repubs want Clinton to win, believing they can beat her easier. The ditto headed talk show hosts are encouraging their people to temporarily change parties so they can vote for Clinton.
There's a lot of dirty business going on. We help promote the effort by taking the silly talking points seriously. We should point it out and shout, "Hey, I'm not buying this nothing you call news! I'm looking at the candidates and what they say and have done!"
Amen Bill!
USAn, I don't know where you got the idea that I think the dictionary definition of racism tells me all I need to know about it. Would that be considered a straw man? Yes, you may suggest a sociology text instead. Waiting...
Still waiting...Oh, should I just guess the text you're suggesting, much like we had to guess what definition you were using regarding racism? Defined by whom? You? Is this not the whole point here? You have a definition, I have a definition...Wright's perception of America is different from many others', but that doesn't mean it's necessarily incorrect.
"...a person can only be a racist if they are using race to maintain their position of privilege. A black American person can express hatred of whites all he wants, but because it doesn't buy him a single bit of power or privilege, it is NOT racism."
Sorry, but this is crap. By your definition, Affirmative Action is racist, but unemployed John Q. Redneck donning a sheet and marching around ranting about Niggers isn't racist, because in Affirmative Action Black people use their race to gain/maintain a position of privilege whereas Mr. Redneck has no position of privilege to maintain.
Look, I know racism. I live in a town in north Georgia. An hour drive South and you're in downtown Atlanta, an hour North and you're in hillbilly central. We have a literal "wrong side of town" here. A major thoroughfare cuts the town into northern and southern sections. The northern section is mostly White. The middle third of the southern section is mostly industrial, the western third mostly Hispanic, and the eastern third almost exclusively Black. The KKK has marched in our town within the past decade.
Now, I know you'll say that those things I just mentioned meet the sociological definition of racism or some shit like that, but I'll go with the definition of racism I know best -- racial prejudice and bigotry -- since I missed the memo that must have been issued at the beginning of this campaign stating that racism would henceforth be defined by a couple of sociologists. The idea that a Black man can't be racist even if he spends every waking hour screaming about how he hates White people is just about retarded.
It is always a pleasure to read Bill. One of the last authentic journalist's left in Ameri(k)a.
Rev. Wright is speaking from the context of Black Liberation Theology. A context developed by Professor Cone's seminal work on the subject and following on the heal of its Latin American version developed by Gustav Gutirerez and other Catholic theologians.
White Ameri(k)a is threatened every time a Black man or Woman asserts justice for marginal populations. Now, even Barack Obama is denouncing Wright. I guess the TRUE Obama has come the fore: a black man with a marshmellow center. Vote Nader.
brontoburger said: "All I know is that Obama supports infanticide and ethanizing the disabled."
But, then, you eat brontosaurus burgers...
All I know is that Obama supports infanticide and ethanizing the disabled.
Don't know how anyone can vote for someone like that.
To all who enjoyed the show, please tell Rupert Murdoch's propaganda service Fox, how much you love being duped by their adol minded so called journalist.
huzzah,
Consulting a dictionary for the word "racism" and then thinking it tells you everything you need to know about it is about as absurd as it's entry for "quantum mechanics" qualifying you to be a theoretical physicist.
May I suggest a text on sociology instead? Racism is a property of a society, and it permeates individual decisions in that society ("society" being a word badly in need of wider use in the USA) even if the role of race is often unconscious - by whites, that is, because it is a glaring as a blazing house on fire to a black person.
And everyone please re-read Moyers last paragraph. His main point was that race is the issue. And KEM, after studying the neighborhood, by neighborhood results of the primary here in Pittsburgh, the role of race in the working-class white neighborhoods was glaring and obvious. Among the white neighborhoods, only in the rich ones did Obama win. For an explanation of this result, go here:
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/17313
Also, anything by Tim Wise is good. Google his name.
Praise the Lord, Jeremiah Wright has achieved immortality -- well, relatively. His life span of attention on the news rivals Methusela. Why do we care? He isn't related to Obama. He is a retired pastor. He holds no official position in the Obama campaign, never did. Why is this story still alive? He has a right to his opinions and a right to express them, but it has zero to do with Barack Obama. If we accepted that, would it still be newsworthy?
recognizing the wonderful and much appreciated decades long efforts of Bill Moyer to confront the distortions and war propaganda in conglomerate owned media, one can only imagine how big a dent Bill could make in conglomerate owned media's ongoing successful project to rehabilitate the Vietnam war as something to be proud of, if he would relive and describe for us in detail, what must have been a supreme agony for young Bill Moyer, namely, his twenty six months as Chief of Staff and Press Secretary to President Johnson during the Vietnam war. Here is what Moyer could help us with:
Media constantly proclaims each and every Vietnam veteran a hero, silently encouraging viewers, listeners and readers to forget that many of these veterans were spit upon in the 70's upon their return home. Today, every politician who 'served' in Vietnam presents himself proudly, and is hailed by media as an American hero; in spite of three million dead Vietnamese, and another two million Laotians and Cambodians; in spite of Eisenhower having admitted that Ho Chi Minh would have won overwhelmingly the all Vietnam election Ike blocked; in spite of Truman going against Roosevelt's promise of freedom from French brutal colonial occupation, and putting back in the French, who had been collaborators with the Japanese; in spite of our eight years of funding the French war of re-conquest until the French defeat, and then creating an separate and independent dictatorship called South Vietnam; in spite of the fact that the government of which we slaughtered a million of their citizens, in a quarter century attempt to overthrow, is the very same communist government we now happily trade with and sponsor for WTO membership.
From October '64, until his resignation in December of '66, Bill Moyer was described as Lyndon Johnson's umbilical cord. What a volcanic blast our favorite talk host could loose on the media for its praise of the Vietnam War, categorized as a defense of our freedoms. But Moyer would have to confess and share with us participation in what he today would consider indictable in a court of law. The Vietnam War was a crime against humanity that has gone unpunished.
Below are just a few of the events Bill Moyer was called upon to defend from 1965 until his resignation in 1966:
February - The U.S. begins the regular bombing of North Vietnamese towns and villages.
March - Vietnam War: 3,500 United States Marines arrive in South Vietnam.
Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) organizes the first teach-in against the Vietnam War, with 2,500 participants, at the University of Michigan.
April - In the Dominican Republic, officers and civilians loyal to deposed President Juan Bosch mutiny against the right-wing junta running the country, setting up a provisional government. Forces loyal to the deposed military-imposed government stage a countercoup the next day, and civil war breaks out, although the new government retains its hold on power. U.S. troops are sent to the D.R. and to prevent the reinstatement of Bosch.
May - The largest teach-in to date begins at Berkeley, California, attended by 30,000.
June – An anti-war protest at The Pentagon
July - Johnson announces increase in the number troops in South Vietnam from 75,000 to 125,000, and to double the number of men drafted per month from 17,000 to 35,000.
August - President signs a law penalizing the burning of draft cards with up to 5 years in prison and a $1,000 fine.
October - Indonesian army arrests and executes communists, using lists provided by CIA.
Brazilian president Castelo Branco removes power from parliament, legal courts and opposition parties. (Recent declassified files reveal that Lyndon Johnson had wanted the US to "take every step" to support the military coup which overthrew President Joao Goulart 1964, described as a "democratic rebellion" by the U.S. ambassador)
November - In New York City, 22-year-old Catholic Worker Movement member Roger Allen LaPorte sets himself on fire in front of the United Nations building in protest of the war in Vietnam (this was the second such incident in a week; on 32-year-old Quaker member Norman Morrison did the same thing in front of The Pentagon).
- Congolese lieutenant general Mobutu ousts Joseph Kasavubu and declares himself president. (Elected Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba had been deposed in a US CIA sponsored coup and assassinated in 1961, and is still significant inspirational figure in the Congo as well as throughout Africa)
- Tens of thousands of Vietnam War protesters picket the White House, then march on the Washington Monument. Pentagon tells Johnson number of American troops in Vietnam will have to be increased from 120,000 to 400,000.
January - Lyndon Johnson states that the United States should stay in South Vietnam until Communist aggression there is ended.
March - In South Vietnam, 20,000 Buddhists march in demonstrations against the policies of the military government.
April - The South Vietnamese government promises free elections in 3-5 months.
May - Tens of thousands of anti-war demonstrators again picket the White House, then rally at the Washington Monument. In New York City, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. makes his first public speech on the Vietnam War.
June - U.S. planes begin bombing Hanoi and Haiphong.
August - The House Un-American Activities Committee starts investigating Americans who have aided the Viet Cong, with the intent to make these activities illegal. Anti-war demonstrators disrupt the meeting and 50 are arrested.
_
September - United Nations Secretary-General U Thant declares that he will not seek re-election, because U.N. efforts in Vietnam have failed.
Moyer prepared Presidential messages to Congress, and was chief speechwriter. He played a serious role in foreign policy discussions. "The Young Man in Charge of Everything," said Time Magazine at the time.
April 2007, grateful viewers of the Bill Moyer's Journal conspiracy expose "Buying the War" on PBS, observe Moyer's now well known demeanor of serenity and serious inner fortitude as he calmly presents undeniable evidence of criminality in government with media collusion promoting the deceptions. But the techniques of deception that Moyer addresses in this documentary on the fraudulent reasons, pretexts, and lies to produce an acceptance of bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq are the same as were used in presenting justifications for the war in Vietnam, in which Bill Moyer was supremely complicit as a key player involved in the day to day decisions of the war and criminal foreign policy toward other nations.
How much more could Bill help expose the entire murderous facade which confronts America and the world today, by recalling how similar it was back when our politicians were just as callous about daily body counts of innocent Indochinese as today they are about those equally beautiful Iraqi, Afghan and Somali civilians falling under U.S. bombs and bullets.
It is said that Moyer, at the time of his resignation was under severe strain, suffering from a stomach ulcer. Bill has subsequently been more or less on humanity's side for the greater part of his life. How very very much more could he accomplish with a complete and elucidating airing of contemptible U.S. policies within condemning recollections from his dark years.
I watch Bill Moyers Journal on PBS every Friday night. He conducts various interviews and show news clips that I find very interesting.
I agree with Moyers concerning the News Media. Many friends, neighbors, and others have asked me did I think Rev. Wright hurt Obama's campaign. My answer was no, the media is what's hurting his efforts. I failed to see how Rev. Wright's statements had anything whatever to do with Obama. I have been a member of the same church more than 40 years. Four Pastors have come and gone, and whether I agreed with everything they said, or not, it didn't effect me. I joined the Church, not the Pastor.
How can our now long time progressive Bill Moyer so deceiving relate a question like:
"I once asked a reporter back from Vietnam, "Who's telling the truth over there?"
You were in the White House as Johnson's spokesperson and even writing his own words for him, and they were lies, and half-truths that allowed for the continuing crucifixion of the largely rice farming French colonial populations of Indochina - millions, millions dead and all these years since we have been waiting for your memoirs of the day to day horrific crimes you were justifying as noble anti-communism.
Bill, we knew the truth here in the States, Muhammad Ali knew the truth, and you knew the truth. Only the poor boys in Vietnam didn't know until they were dying or killing some innocent in their own country, own village, own home very often. If they knew the truth of why they were sent there they would not have gone. Bill Moyer was at the top of the crew making sure they thought they were the good guys.
Is our Bill Moyer going to continue to let the media call every person who shamed this country's reputation by killing Vietnamese a hero? Ike said Ho Chi Minh would have easily won an election of all Vietnam had Ike allowed it FOUR years before McCain dropped his first bombs on OUR Hanoi, two weeks after Martin Luther King Jr. made headlines all over the world condemning the war as genocide!
Jesus, how could you write in this article of " that many of their sons have died for in battle" "for the America they cherish" Does Bill want us to continue to cherish sending their sons in ignorance to destroy innocent people like during the Vietnam War you sold them and your country.
Come on Bill, you have been a great exposer of current lies, but why hold back on throwing the light on why you felt compelled to do what you did that so belied your true wonderful kind character that we have come to know and love. Expose the establishment then that continues as you have shown that same murderous perfidy.
Ramsy Clark was with you in those Cabinet meetings. Ramsey has spoken of his past complicity and denounces calling every Viet vet a hero, thus glorifying even that shameful war to encourage the naive and misled to go to yet to 'serve' who in more and more invasions and occupations of third world nations. Don't let yourself and us down, Bill
Yours truly, Jay Janson, has asked you before in open letters, for cannot contact you directly, can see below:
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Confessions: Cindy re Casey, Bill Moyer re Vietnam, Jimmy Carter re Funding Terrorism
Cindy Sheehan, "I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy." Bill Moyer could stop media Vietnam War worship, by telling how the lies worked during dark days when he was Press Secretary to Johnson. Jimmy Carter please 'fess up' to secretly arming fundamentalist tribes against the socialist (women liberating) government in Kabul, six months BEFORE the Soviet entry.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jay_jans_070609_confessions_3a_cindy_r.htm
"The point of departure of Moyers piece and what we should be discussing is the prevalence of racism in the USA."
A good point, USAn.
Of course it's about race, but Moyers' point is that it has to do with so much more, such as stations in life, experiences, relationships, and more. Life is like that - full of nuances and complications. Don't we all just get caught up in all the little nuances...
Or, we can simplify life and see everything in black and white.
"I don't do nuance." George W. Bush
Rev Wright was spot on when he talked about the AIDS virus as a man made creation. I suggest if anyone wants to find out about it, read the well written and referenced book by Leonard G. Horowitz, DMD, MA, MPH called Emerging Viruses AIDS and Ebola in which the good doctor exposes the development and tracks the spread of AIDS originally through the Hepatitis B Vaccine in the gay community and Smallpox Vaccine in Africa.
Doesn't that Smallpox ring a deja vu bell. The blankets for the Native Americans. It's a novel twist, you have to admit, to put AIDS in a Smallpox Vaccine.
We cannot judge these people by our standards. They have no moral compass to guide them. We cannot use our view of life and humanity and garb TPTB with the same cloak, It is simply not a part of their ken.
"Racism is not just racial prejudice. Racism is defined as a system of race-based social and economic structures… A black American person can express hatred of whites all he wants, but…it is NOT racism. Prejudiced and bigoted? Yes! Racist? No"
Well, that's just stupid. From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrÄ-ËŒsi-zÉ™m also -ËŒshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination
Now, by YOUR definition, anyone belonging to a minority and/or not in power cannot be racist. And what, my being a white man in the USA means I automatically am racist, even if I hold no prejudiced beliefs, simply because it is other white men who run things? What about Germany? Nazism was clearly racist. Neo-Nazis have identical ideologies, yet not only are they not in power but the state keeps them on the fringe through laws designed to curtail speech our 1st Amendment protects. So do the tenets of Nazism lo longer count as racist since Nazism holds no sway in German society? I think not.
Hi~BARELY HUMAN~ guess I didn't express my thoghts properly for your understanding with my typed words.
You say Obama should feel guilt not grief. I wrote he was "guilty" and would feel grief because of what he'd done.__ He'll feel shame too. Well he will if he has a good soul.
He'd feel guilt, shame AND grief and if he does, it will show from now on in his public appearances, just as it did surface when he was being interviewed after he denied his friend. It was very sad seeing him attempt to justify it. He wasn't able to give a magnificent speech, he stuttered and stumbled and he looked like a person who had been whipped. He looked guilty.
If Obama is the Demo nominee and he likely will be, unless Hillary wins both N.Carolina and Indiana, then when he debates McCain the Wright issue will arise and arise and arise and his shame will be evident. It only will if he has a good soul and feels guilty, for what he has done was WRONG. It was totally unnecessary. ____ And that's the bottom line.
Race? Of course. Sadly race is an issue. However Obama proved so well in Iowa and Mass, Vermont and other predominently white voter's states, that race was not a big issue.___ Not at all, race was minor, if that. Few cared what color skin Obama has and it was refreshing and grand to see that.
White Americans for the most part don't care anymore, they wish to ignore race and most consider a person's moral values and character. Ophah Winfrey and so many other personalities with exceptional character have proven that is so and Obama managed to elevate their presence to a even higher level.
He won Iowa, and the other states and we "white" people applauded and cheered him on and Obama wasn't white and we whites for the vast majority didn't care, RACE was NOT an issue. Nor should it be.
But when Bill Clinton truthfully said,___ "Jessee Jackson recived most of the black vote in South Carolina when he ran for the office and so will Obama recieve most of the black votes there." ___ Oh my God.___ Clinton played the race card. and it has been the subject ever since, now it's racial.
Clinton -DID- NOT- play- a -race -card. He was correct and what Clinton said (had been) and (still is) said daily, by every TV and radio newscaster. They state, and no one accuses them of being racial,___ "Obama gets the black votes" __ and he does, by over 92%. So what??? Why wouldn't he???
Obama was the hope for the future for African Americans, but most importantly, not only black Americans, but for ALL Americans, for all of mankind as far as racial division goes and the black community wanted to insure he won. ______ He messed it up and he showed serious character flaws messing up. We'll know in about 50 more hours if he messed up real bad. ____ We'll see.
rtdrury wrote: Yes indeed the United States deliberately brought an HIV epidemic into being.
I believe this is mostly correct. But for different reasons than most y'all who believe that AIDS is a disease. AIDS is a wonderful way of scaring the population, and enforcing puritanical beliefs.
1) AIDS is not a disease, it is a syndrome;
2) No-one dies of AIDS. They die of associated complications;
3) AIDS is artificial. It is defined as the presence of one or more of 40+ diseases with the HIV virus, which is known to be completely benign;
4) There is no connection between the HIV virus and disease, other than the connection defined by the term AIDS;
5) AIDS is a lifestyle killer. It was first defined in gay, black and injected-drug communities because of their lifestyle. Their lifestyle consisted of unprotected sexual activity, multiple/anonymous partners, extreme drug use to extend sexual stamina, and the use of dirty needles. Such activity not only spread HIV, but weakened their auto-immune systems. Again I repeat: HIV is benign, and does not contribute to the immune system suppression;
6) Today, bi-sexuals, blacks and drug-users move freely and sexually through the heterosexual community much more easily than in the past, and so we see the HIV virus in the heterosexual community;
7) AIDS was enthusiastically adopted by the gay community as a lever to come out of the closet, and to generate funding for gay issues;
There is a lot more to the AIDS myth than I allude to here. Nevertheless, there is truth to saying that the AIDS myth was "invented" in both the USA and France.
Wipe the slate clean, dream a new dream. Thank you Bill Moyers
There is a way in which Hagee's support of Israel is like racism, which is based on the premise that the 'other' is not quite human. Hagee is a strong supporter of Israel (and therefore, by definition, completely opposed to any peaceful negotiations with the Palestinians) because he believes that the ultimate destruction of israel is one of the signs of the Apocalypse. When the Apocalypse happens, Christians like Hagee will ask the Jews if they accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour; if the answer is Yes, the Jews (now Christians) arise into Heaven; if the answer is No, the Jews go straight to Hell. I spell this out for two reasons: 1) like whites who believe that blacks (or natives) are less than human, Rev. Hagee believes that Jews are less than human if they remain Jews (at least they're not required to change the color of their skin!)
2) This is the man from whom John McCain has sought and received support! One more reason to feel very afraid, if McCain were to become President! And of course, MSM is leaving Hagee alone.
Mr. Freeze - Someone whispered something hugely, disspiritingly true in my ear a couple of elections ago when I had my shorts in a twist about milksop politicians who could not bring themselves to speak the plain truth or get specific about anything they stood for or intended to do. It still drives me nuts, but here is the reason why: The more positions a candidate specifies, the more votes he/she loses. Every position (guns, race, the war, you name it) has a pro and a con, and if you are a pro you lose all the cons and vice versa. You'd be insane to bravely speak your own truth as a candidate. It is not the fault of the candidates or their advisors. It is the name of the game as it has evolved in our unfortunate society. They are fighting right now over the votes of the vast herd of middle American ungulates who have not made up their tiny minds about anything because they have not looked at a newspaper in eight years. If they care about lapel pins, lapel pins it is. The trick is to appear to be candid and plain spoken and a brave little fighter for this or that, without ever actually saying what it is you plan to do, because anything beyond favoring "change" or offering "experience" is the kiss of death for your candidacy. They have zero room for strategic mistakes. I agree with you that there is no point in being ashamed of ourselves. We inherited this state of affairs from our dumbassed fathers, and we will pass it along to our children. But there is also no point in blaming the candidates, who must function in a demented culture. The fact is that we can't be sure what any of them will do if elected, based on the pitches they are making to get our votes. We should obtain their college grade transcripts and ignore their speeches.
USAn;
So right you are. I posted several comments (and rather long ones at that) these past days about the 'racism in America' aspect to all of this and there was only one comment, in response to that theme.
As Bill Moyers said, "it's all about race" and "he (Wright) finally leaves Obama no choice but to end their friendship (BECAUSE of the racism in America)".
"I personally cannot impeach Bush, nor do I know how to cause him to be impeached, so I think your proposal is too simple" - barely human May 4th, 2008 5:30 p
Do you not know your Congressional Representative, or how to contact them? Amazingly I find this as a common malady and one of the main reasons the Nation is in the condition it is in. It is also on my list of the constructive outcomes that would be derived from the human actions that would need to be carried out within a process of impeachment hearings - Citizen/Representative engagement.
If you study great practitioners of any craft you'll find their basic methodology was very simplistic (Upledger, Reich, Feldenkrais, et al), a simplicity that leads to a complexity of hypothesis and potentiality of application.
If the People will come to realize that stopping the jet fumes and missile strikes are the number one thing one could do for the environment, that putting a halt in the surging production of traumatic stress disorders would be the number one thing humanity could do for improving it's health, that it is now a matter of not supporting the Troops but Protecting the Troops, and that in terms of economics, nothing would help the US Treasury more for stopping the blood letting of deficits stemming from funding the Middle East wars, and, that the one action: capable of bringing all this humanity uplift to pass are through the impeachment hearings for George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney - a simple methodology - complex compelling potentials.
My friend Bernard Weisberger, the historian, says, yes, people are understandably seething with indignation over Wright's absurd charge that the United States deliberately brought an HIV epidemic into being.
Yes indeed the United States deliberately brought an HIV epidemic into being. The US had a choice between delivering free medicines to epidemic-prone areas and not delivering free medicines and the US made the deliberate choice not deliver to them. Thus the US deliberately brought HIV epidemic #2 into being, that is, an unnecessary epidemic above and beyond epidemic #1 that raged as the medicines were being developed. The US deliberated the pros and cons of bringing epidemic #2 into being. The pros were protection of the short term profits of the medicines developers and protection of the long term "well-being" of the capitalist system in particular, and elite domination over people in general. The cons of bringing epidemic #2 into being were the threat of class war escalation, rabble riots and revolution, possible degradation of elitist domination and destruction of elitist "property". The pros outweighed the cons and the US conspiracy to "bring on" HIV epidemic #2 was implemented.
Not enough blacks in America have employment as corporate elites, and lack cosy tax shelters in Bermuda, or shares in military corporate pillage of foreign countries. Why should rich old white men have all the fun?
USAn said: "ubrew12, I think you need to examine the definition of racism before describing the resentment of Hawiiians or US blacks as 'racism'. Racism is not just racial prejudice. Racism is defined as a system of race-based social and economic structures... A black American person can express hatred of whites all he wants, but...it is NOT racism. Prejudiced and bigoted? Yes! Racist? No... Even [Hawaiians] annual 'kill Haole (white foreigner) day' doesn't buy them a bit of power. "
I'm sure the white friends I had who couldn't go to school on the last day because they'd get the sh*t kicked out of them will appreciate the subtlety in your definitions. Hey, they'd say to themselves as the boots fell, THIS ISN'T RACISM, ITS JUST PREJUDICE!!! Among those white friends could have been Obama's MOTHER.
I hear what you're saying, however. When prejudice becomes institutionalized it becomes racism. I had white friends in Hawaii who, after 20 years in the fire department, finally just had to leave because they were NEVER going to get promoted and they'd FINALLY realized why.
Meanwhile, I'm here on the mainland, and I realize: I will NEVER get promoted and I FINALLY realize WHY!!!
The point of departure of Moyers piece and what we should be discussing is the prevalence of racism in the USA. I tried to do that in the 1:50 comment. It is telling that few have anything to say about it.
Sally wrote:
"He called Obama a politician who was saying what he said in order to be elected. This is not who Obama is. He says what he believes in, and apparently Rev. Wright did not understand this."
But Sally, you should understand that many of us are only going to vote for Obama if we can become convinced that his is indeed only saying the things he is saying in order to get elected - like increasing military spending, escalating military action in Afghanistan, maybe bombing Pakistan, supporting Israel as a "stalwart ally" utter silence on the plight of Palestine, promoting a useless corporate-insurance based health care plan, etc...
Obama would ONLY feel grief on that issue, ___ if he was guilty of doing somethng terribly wrong and knew that he had done so. So I agree with you, he will feel long time grief for what he has done, because he is guilty. ___ Would you agree?
Grief is not the emotion associated with wrongdoing, but with loss. If Obama has done something wrong and knows it, the feeling he should have is guilt. If he has instead lost a friend, he should feel grief.
The "simplest", most focused, act for overcoming the shame Moyers mentions, and for very much more: is through the process of impeachment hearings.
I personally cannot impeach Bush, nor do I know how to cause him to be impeached, so I think your proposal is too simple.
There are two posters on line who have touched the reality of thought: EJ and Kem Patrick: EJ weighs in with her respect for Bill Moyers as I do and I always hope to read a response from Kem for the depth of his reasoning.
The Rev Mr. Wright warned of actions coming home to roost ... they do and our actions in the Mideast will haunt our nation for eons in the future. However Mr. Moyers claims that offensive opinions and inflammatory appearances are judged differently. He adds that the Reverend Mr. Wright says some things so outlandish and ill-advised that he finally leaves Obama no choice but to end their friendship.
There was a choice - namely loyalty. But Obama does exibit loyalty - loyalty to war mongers when he said he would vote to bomb Pakistan and there hasn't been a war funding act that as an elected senator he hasn't voted to empower. Is that loyalty to the troops in the field? So Obama had no choice to end their friendship; will he have loyalty to the troops sent on an invasion of another country to steal its valued natural resource - OIL? Is his loyalty to these 4,000 plus service men and women killed in this grand theft? Is he loyal to his christian upbringing and to its perogatives to offer more than prayers to the million plus Iraqi citizens killed in this action. Maybe even monetary compensation to rebuild their homeland. Will he vote to invade another nation - Iran - without speaking out to oppose such a barbarity? Loyalty is as loyalty does.
Jeremiah Wright is of a generation of blacks that has every reason to be distrustful and cynical. They experienced an America that no white ever knew, or will ever know.
White America hates to be reminded of it's sins, whether racial or in foreign policy. Wright reminds them of both in no uncertain terms.
So of course he deserves to be pilloried.
Hagee, who unabashedly promotes war with Iran and Russia, gets a free ride because he's white, rich and republican.
I remembered the story of the contaminated blankets given to the Indians who'd gathered to greet those early white men coming in big ships when the AIDS thing turned out to be a major thing. My first thought was one of the germ warfare part of our military complex coming up with a new "bug" and looking for human guinea pigs. Which two groups would they see as expendable?
~Bill Moyers~ you wrote, "BOTH men will no doubt carry the grief to their graves." An excellent point Bill, and I totally agree with you on it.
Why should Obama feel any long tme grief for betraying his good friend and pastor of 20 years?
Obama would ONLY feel grief on that issue, ___ if he was guilty of doing somethng terribly wrong and knew that he had done so. So I agree with you, he will feel long time grief for what he has done, because he is guilty. ___ Would you agree?
Speaking of AIDS. I remember reading long ago, that our government gave Indians blankets, which were purposely contaminated with (small pox germs) in an attempt to eradicte the "savages", who were different. They had different skin coloring and practiced different customs and were a pain in the ass.
I wonder if our government stopped doing such criminal type of things over the years?
Let's make it a little less simple:
First Obama makes the most condescending defense of Jeremiah Wright that it is possible to imagine, even including racist language from the days of Jim Crow... He's my crazy old "uncle."
Then Obama gets exposed by his own advisor for bullshitting about NAFTA.
The Obama decides it's a wonderful idea to undermine every gun-control law ever written, and make it almost impossible to write new gun-control legislation.
Then Obama votes to fund the war in Iraq every chance he gets and then he throws Jeremiah Wright under the bus for saying exactly the same things he has been saying for 20 years.
Maybe some of us are just too simple-minded to understand how Barack Obama could be anything other than an absolutely unscrupulous politician and all-around bullshitter, and I'm sure Bill Moyers would want us to be very ashamed...
And meanwhile Moyers and all the other Obamabots and Obama himself can just go on shamelessly bullshitting forever!
Can we please turn this particular spotlight on John Hagee? I'd love to hear Moyers compare the two.
Here's a link to a documentary featuring one of the people that Wright referred to on Monday when the AIDS question was asked.
In Lies We Trust
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8674401787208020885
Wright appeared to be spot on in both interviews ,but the dumbed down public can't let go of the FACT that nearly all they've been taught in their (government funded)schools and institutions is simply Bullshit designed to keep them in their place.
Sorry Amerika but you've been took.
But some of you seem to enjoy it.
I find it interesting how many of us actually agree with Wright [even accepting the possibility that our government deliberately did too little about AIDS], and how many of us are miffed that Obama knuckled under and disavowed Wright. Of course coporate media will dis Wright, as they will anyone who is not afraid to speak what they think to be true [I almost wrote truth, but I didn't want to set up an argument about the nature of truth]. Wright is a vet, a patriot in the true meaning of the word. I find more in common with his speeches than any politician running for office. [Except, of course, when he rally goes out on a limb intellectually, talking about some mythical dude creator for which there is REALLY no evidence.]
I never miss Bill Moyer's show on PBS. He's like the lone voice of reason in an insane asylum. I like the way he speaks softly, but carries a big stick.
HI~SALLY~ Wright said Obama is a politician and does what politicians do and I'm a minister and do what ministers do. There was no malice in those words. He was not berating Obama or attempting to hurt Obama.
The way I understood him, Wright was explaining that it was perfectly alright for Obama to attend his church and to be his close friend and be a politician. He helped Obama a great deal when Obama was running for public offfice in Illinois.
Obama should have had a meeting of the minds before he did what he did, which only hurt his chances to win the Demo nomination. He screwed up. He also showed he has serious character flaws which had not been evident till then, nor were they of course mentioned by himself in his books about himself. We all have our personal flaws, but we don't all betray our friends to gain a higher position.
Why condemn a man who the vast majority thought was telling truths with one possible error in his words. Obama didn't have to say anythng, except he didn't agree with everything Wright said. Neither did I or many others, but overall Wright displayed that he is a fine an dhonest man with a high degree of character and he showed it. ______ Obama didn't.