>>> Jim heartfield <jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk> 04/26/99 06:51PM >>>
Charles' confidence that he is in the right is impervious to all evidence to the contrary.
((((((((((((((((
CB: Poppycock . I have responded to all the significant evidence. It is Jim Heartfield who is impervious to the repeated evidence that the murderers were Hitlerphiles and racists. The last time I responded to his irresponsible drivel, he was claiming the Nazi insignia were not necessarily related to racism, or some such stupidity.
))))))))))))))))))))))
He isn't concerned with what happened in Denver. He is only concerned in fulfilling his own pre-existing beliefs about what he thinks ought to be happening. ((((((((((((((
Chas.: Typical Heartfield racist slander. Heartfield is not concerned about racism. That is clear from his posts over the many months. Everytime racism comes up, he is hard at work trying to demonstrate that it is not racism. He constitutes a fifth column for racism within the left, such as it is.
What happened in Denver is over. The significance of it now is does it have implications for the rest of society ? Sure alienation of youth is a big problem in society. But the news media and powers that be are not interested in doing anything about the causes of youth alienation because it would mean getting rid of capitalism and capitalist values. That's the source of alienation and hatred in the youths in Denver and elsewhere. But as I said elsewhere, it is not a matter of either/or racism or youth alienation. It is both. The effort to say it is youth alienation but not racism is bizarrely contorted.
It is Jim Heartfield who is the dogmatic, rigid ideologue and who tries to force any factual situation into the procrustean bed of his phony "Marxism" which is really anti-Marxist and anti-humanist. He runs around trying to persuade that any crisis of classical capitalist social problems IS NOT REALLY A PROBLEM BUT AN IRRATIONAL PANIC. As I say, he never sees any real racism, but always a symptom of his dogma about false panics. This allows him to deny racism among Hitlerphiles.
((((((((((((((((
First reports suggested that this was a racist killing. Then it emerged that the vast majority of those killed were the same race as the killers - NO MATTER, the dogma must be upheld.
(((((((((((((((((
Charles: It is Heartfield with the false dogma that racism is rarely a problem. And it is Heartfield who sets out to enforce that dogma at every turn by sedulously trying to disprove the obvious.
The fact that many killed were white does not prove that the killers were not racists ,nor that their racism was not an integral part of their crazed philosophy. Most of the people Hitler and the Nazis killed were not Jewish. By Heartfield's ridiculously skeptical evaluation of situations for racism, thereby the Nazis weren't anti-Jewish. They just hated everybody. What kind of stupidity is that ? Timothy McVeigh killed mostly white people too. That doesn't make his admiration of Nazis unimportant as far as preventing future fascistic mass murders. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to demonstrate that racist thinking is integrally linked to thinking that is generally anti-human, anti-most white people. This is a basis for uniting blacks and whites around common concerns. Heartfield is not interested in this.
What left people should be doing is not trying disprove the widespread significance and influence of racism in the U.S. and Britain, promoting skepticism about racism, helping the enormous post-Reagan effort to deny racism as a major social phenomenon almost always implicated in any interaction between whites and oppressed races. Left people should be trying to demonstrate the interconnection of racism with the other problems of capitalism. Instead of trying to say it was youth alientation and not racism, socalled leftists should be developing the arguments to unite those who are against youth alienation with those who are against racism, based on the frequent interconnection of these phenomena and their common root in capitalist relations of production.
Heartfield and his kind do the work of the enemy.
((((((((((((((((((((((((
In response to the killings Charles demands the KKK be banned. The KKK had nothing to do with it.
((((((((((((((((((
Chas.: Here's a perfect example of Heartfield rightwing dogma. He wants to treat the KKK as a separate problem from Nazis. Rather than emphasizing their common fascistic racism, he tries to scatter the opposition to racism by a metaphysical emphasis on their differences. By the way, David Duke was a Nazis and a KKK. He understood their commonality.
Heartfield is not really interested in getting rid of racism, so he has no concern for struggling against racists in the most effective way. So, he would divide the struggle against racist fascists.
Frontline anti-fascist groups such as the Center for Democratic Renewal, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Anti-Defamation League analyze the KKK and Nazis as the same danger. Of course, there are neo-Nazi and neo-KKK organizations , and some of them merge Nazi and KKK themes. This is further evidence of the danger of Heartfield's idiotic conception of the nature of fascistic groups.
(((((((((((((((((((((
The inspiration for the group of adolescents that did the killing was Goth music like Manson, and films like Basketball Diaries - NO MATTER, the dogma must be upheld.
((((((((((((((((
Chas.: Lets be clear. It is Heartfield who is persisting in a theory of the situation that is in conflict with the obvious facts. So, it is Heartfield who is upholding deadheaded dogma despite the facts. So the hell what that they mixed in some Goth music with their fascistic racist themes ?
How ignorant ! Heartfield thinks that a similarity to Charles Manson distinguishes someone from fascists. Manson is an arch racist in prison; he was known for predicting a RACE WAR ! All that is is more EVIDENCE supporting my living, mentally active theory ( the opposite of Heartfield'd deadheaded dogmatic apologia for racism) that racism is often an element in the psyches of insane mass murderers.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((
It emerges that the group of which the two were members did not have an especial hatred for black students, but for high-achieving students.
(((((((((((((((((((
Chas.: No such damn thing has emerged except from the mendacious, coverup of the press with the assistance of deniers of racism like Heartfield.
The press coverup was exactly my original point. Heartfield tries to use the bogus coverup to bootstrap his dillusions about athe insignificance of racism in America.
((((((((((((((((((
The flirtation with right wing motifs is not part of a traditional racial ideology of the far right, but of a more indiscriminate misanthropic obnoxiousness - NO MATTER, the dogma must be maintained. (((((((((((((((((((((((
Chas: Here we have the real dogma , Heartfield's dogma of Reaganite racism denial. He must at all costs disprove the significance of racism despite people waving Nazi regalia in his face, committing the crime on Hitler's birthday. Heartfield deadheaded approach has to reduce these to the crackpot idea of innocent flirtation. Heartfield has to bend over backwards to get the perniciousness of the racism out of the situation.
What the hell does "the flirtation with right wing motifs is not part of a traditional racial ideology of the far right.." mean ? That the traditional racists don't flirt with right wing motifs ?? That is patently false. Traditional racists DO flirt with right wing motifs. Anyone who has been part of the left organizations that focus on the fascistic racists knows that they have right wing motifs. It is common sense that people who become fullfledged fascistic racists probably at some point "flirt" with these themes before getting into "a full relationship" with them. So, Heartfield does everything he can to deny the common sense probability that the student murderers here were in some stage of proto-fascistic racism. Instead of considering that most fullfedged fascists probably go through such a stage, and THAT is an important significance of this situation for spotting future poor souls who are in the process of becoming fullfledged fascists.
Heartfield, who doesn't really care about the victims of racist fascists, is more concerned about the liberty of youth to play around, flirt with fascist themes, than the enormous danger from those who graduate from flirtation to a full relationship with fascism. This all is premised on the bogus idea that racism and fascistic racism are not real problems in society. Concern about such is just a false panic in Heartfield's false dogma.
((((((((((((((((((((((
Buckminster Fuller said that the man with a hammer sees a world full of nails. That's Charles. He has one interpretation: it's race. It doesn't matter what the question is, the answer is race.
((((((((((((((((((((((99
Chas: Goebbels said if you keep repeating a lie , people will start to believe it. That's Heartfield. Keep saying that Charles is a dogmatist and somebody will agree with you.
There must be 1000 posts of mine on this list alone in which I explain issues and problems with other than race. As a matter of fact, often people have accused me of dogmatic Marxism. In other words, "THE" answer is CLASS. That fact alone demonstrates the mendacity of the above assertion. Just take the recent discussion of the wars on Iraq and Serbia. My explanation , for all to see, has emphasized imperialism and capitalism. Heartfield even accused me of vulgar materialism. That directly contradicts Heartfield lie above that my answer is always race.
The claim that my explanations of social phenomenon are simplistically always race is a bold fabrication, contradicted by evidence before everyone on this list.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
And woebetide anyone that disagrees with him: they must 'have a problem' with racism. Snidey, sneaky way of trying to smear those that disagree with you. If you don't agree with Charles then, by definition you 'have a problem' with race.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((
Chas.; Whereas if you disagree with Heartfield you are a dogmatist or a vulgar materialist or a panic monger. Heartfield hypocritically postures as if he doesn't bring woeful tidings to those who disagree with him. Check the archives or your memory for evidence of this hypocracy.
Anyone who has read what I say knows that I am very straightforward with my criticism. Heartfield doesn't seem to know what sneaky is.
I don't suffer fools like Heartfield gladly.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
This is the pseudo-psychological approach that thinks it is unnecessary to actually make an argument. It just assumes what is sets out to achieve. If you don't 'get it' then the problem is you: 'get with the program', Charles is saying. It's beneath him to actually say what he means, because that would mean engaging with what is being said. It's so much easier to suggest some kind of psychological short-coming is the explanation for why others would disagree.
(((((((((((((((((((((((
Chas: Speaking of arguing from no facts, I bet Heartfield cannot find one post in which I don't have a heavy political and economic component to my criticisms and explanations.
If anyone is a snob around here talking down to people , it is Heartfield
But of course here , Heartfield is begging the question. What is in dispute is whether racism is a widespread problem IN FACT. Other anti-racist activists and I have adduced great masses of evidence of that racism is widespread. I have done so to some extent, within the reasonable limits of e-mail, on this and other lists. Heartfield ignores all of this evidence and evidence production , and lies that I only make arguments without factual support. He hasn't refuted the mountains of evidence of widespread racism. He merely asserts as dogma that racism is not the problem we have proved with facts that it is.
The current dispute on Littleton is exactly a factual example. Heartfield's denial of the racism in fact in this case demonstrates his anti-factual method in general.
)))))))))))))))))))))))
But then there is the difficulty that these are real events - not a blank page on which any interpretation can be sketched. (((((((((((((((((((((((
Chas.: Yes, and these real events have an obvious theme of racism that Heartfield tries the ridiculous trick of interpreting out.
(((((((((((((((((((((
They do not fit into the preconceived schema that Charles has laid out for them. (((((((((((((((((((((
Chas.: "Preconceived schema" is a slanderous way of describing the very accurate generalization that racism is rampant in America. The facts of this incident demonstrate very well that generalization. Only a totally deluded apologist for racism like Heartfield would deny that.
(((((((((((((((((((((
It's too much effort to try to engage with what's new in this circumstance, so let's just pretend that it's the same as it ever was. To difficult to let the facts intrude, when you can pontificate about general trends etc etc. (((((((((((((((((((((((((
Chas.: Only the situtation is not new. It is as old as racism. It is not , as Heartfield wishes, a new situation for him to theoretically flirt with, in escape from the social problems of the real world.
(((((((((((((((((((((
Charles needs these events to be race murders. Who am I to refuse him this deeply felt need to believe? By all means hang on to that dogma if it gives you comfort. After all, those beliefs cannot change the events themselves.
(((((((((((((((((((((((
Chas.: Heartfield needs these events to be a firtation with racist themes that is not really racism , as anyone with good sense would see upon observing someone trying to cleanse Hitlerphiles of racism.
Charles Brown
In message <s72463dc.066 at mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>, Charles Brown <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes
>The problem with Jim H. and the others who argue like him on this thread is he
>thinks there is some problem of complaining about racism too much in this
>society or a problem of labelling non-racist events as racist. It seems to be
>part of his theme of fighting against "panics".
>
>But the problem in the U.S. and elsewhere is the complete opposite: Racism is
>covered up, understated, denied. The mass media certainly isn't overstating the
>racism in the current case. So the only ones Jim H is complaining about is those
>on this list who have complained about the mass media understating the racism.
>Jim is attacking a true non-problem - the over broadcasting of complaints about
>racism. He is a true ideological child of Reaganism/Thatcherism. They are so
>expert at finding false claims of racism and so weak at finding any real racism.
-- Jim heartfield