Genuine anti-racist point of view? Is there some kind fo high council which decides this? My anti-racist point of view is as valid here are yours or anybody elses. I'm stating my analysis. I don't need to consult with anybody on this list to state my anti-racist viewpoint on the 9/11 conspiracy movement.
^^^^ CB: Let me see. Those who raise a question as to whether conspiracy hypothesizers who say it was not colored people who did are being racist by saying it was not colored people who did because colored people are not capable and intelligent enough to have flown the planes and gotten past the white intelligent services because the white intelligent services are smarter than all colored people, those who raise that question seem to be trying to gain support for their argument by attributing a racist element in the argument of conspiracy hypothesizers. Of course conspiracy hypothesizers don't say this is the reason they don't think it was colored people who did it. But their critics, like you, are saying that they are unconsciously or unstatedly doing this. You don't think they are knowingly being racist and hiding it , do you ? So, I presume you think they are unconscious of this racist component to their argument.
It just seems like you are trying to use racism to attack the conspiracy theorists who you are really against for other reasons. That's what I mean about a genuine anti-racist point of view. Seems like you would value the opinions of people who have a certain focus on racism because of their racial status.
So, go ahead and be a Lone Ranger anti-racist. Even the Lone Ranger probably would have sense enough to ask Tanto if he thought there was some racism occurring, just checking himself.
> CB: How many people of color do you know saying that ? ( Do you know any
> people of color ?)
I don't know any people of color. I live in a whites-only bubble world.
Jesus H. Christ, what is up with your comments? In a few minutes I'm going to go work at our new infoshop which sits in the middle of the African-American area of Kansas City. Our space sits on the "wrong side of Troost," with Troost being known as the racial dividing line in KC.
Not that any of this personal stuff matters to this conversation.
^^^^^ CB: Yea, you are right. I apologize. But still I'm responding honestly as to how I feel. I guess it does come down to feeling to some extent. Not so much feelings hurt, but more intuition or reflex. As a Black person, I have a lot of experience in reacting and deciding as to whether there is racism involved in a situation consciously or unconsciously. My reflexes tell me this is not a good example.
Let me say if you have some right wingers who are putting out conspiracy theories on 9/11 , I could see how they might have the racist trope you refer to. But I don't think the left conspiracy theorists do. That's my gut reaction. Some of the left c theorists are Black, so...
> I don't know anybody of color who thinks it's racist to question the
> official story. Not one person of color has said that to me. It's all
white
> people. Anytime it's all white people and no colored people saying
something
> is racist, a question should come up in your mind.
Which question should that be? Have you actually talked to all people of color? Since you are speaking for all of them, I'd like to know something about your polling methods.
^^^^^^
CB: Yes it is not a scientific sample. Plus, as I say, on this I go with my reflexes big time.
^^^^^^^^
> I don't consider the 9/11 event "intelligent", but besides that, I don't
> think that Arabs couldn't figure out how to fly airliners. That is not my
> position. My position is that the U.S. spook system very well may have
known
> about the attack in advance, and didn't stop it. In other words, my
position
> is entirely consistent with the notion that some Arabs _did_ in fact
> successfully, "intelligently" and "capably" fly the planes into the
> buildings.
Then you aren't spouting theories that I'm addressing.
^^^^^^ CB: On this and the below, my comments are not authoritarian or Stalinist, etc. because I have no material authoritiy over you. There's nothing wrong with me expressing sharp criticism of you for knocking left unity because it's email not some place where anybody is making you do anything. Since there is no Central Committee , just two individuals on email, why shouldn't I criticize you sharply, if that's my point of view. That's my individual point of view. You are fucking up by attacking other leftists who are not attacking you. And you are in unison with the _right_ at this particular moment, because those leftists are attacking the right, and you effectively are defending the right. That's my personal opinion , and so under an individualist philosophy I can say it.
> Either you are with us or you are against us?
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: That's correct. Left unity. Don't go off doing your own thing all the
> time, because united we win, divided we lose.
Wow! Now that's the smelliest bullshit I've heard on this list lately.
Fuck left unity. I'm all for destroying it if it means that people should self-censor their thoughts.
Fuck your motherfucking Central Committee.
> CB: Of course, off doing your own thing, dividing the left, playing right
> into the hands of the rightwing.
You should see how much they are paying me! I get more money from the right wing than David Horowitz!
Let me be the first to throw boulders through the windows of the glass house of "left unity." Especially if "left unity" means marching lockstep behind irrational thinking and cult movements.
Chuck0