Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Was Rep. Steve Scalise targeted for his white supremacist views?

After Rep. Steve Scalise was the featured speaker at a Nazi event:
David Duke said Scalise was merely taking an opportunity to meet with “constituents.”
From the Washington Post we have this 2014 report on Congressman Steve Scalise:
House Majority Whip Scalise confirms he spoke to white supremacists in 2002

By Robert Costa and Ed O'Keefe
29 December 2014

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the House majority whip, acknowledged Monday that he spoke at a gathering hosted by white-supremacist leaders while serving as a state representative in 2002, thrusting a racial controversy into House Republican ranks days before the party assumes control of both congressional chambers.

Scalise, 49, who ascended to the House GOP’s third-ranking post this year, confirmed through an adviser that he once appeared at a convention of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, or EURO. But the adviser said the congressman didn’t know at the time about the group’s affiliation with racists and neo-Nazi activists.

“For anyone to suggest that I was involved with a group like that is insulting and ludicrous,” Scalise told the Times-Picayune on Monday night. The organization, founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, has been called a hate group by several civil rights organizations.

The news could complicate Republican efforts to project the sense of a fresh start for a resurgent, diversifying party as the new session of Congress opens next week. In the time since voters handed control of Congress to Republicans, top GOP leaders have been eagerly trumpeting their revamped image and management team on Capitol Hill.

Monday night, some Democrats were already raising questions about whether Scalise should remain in a leadership post.

“It’s hard to believe, given David Duke’s reputation in Louisiana, that somebody in politics in Louisiana wasn’t aware of Duke’s associations with the group and what they stand for,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro (Tex.), a rising star in the Democratic Party who is considered among the most prominent Hispanics in Congress. “If that’s the case and he agreed to join them for their event, then I think it’s a real test for Speaker Boehner as to whether congressman Scalise should remain in Republican leadership,” Castro said in a phone interview.

Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) called the news “a big deal.”

“Race still is, sadly, an ugly aspect of our politics,” he said by e-mail. “No politician should ever find himself/herself addressing a white supremacist organization except to tell them to go to hell.” Associates of House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) are monitoring the situation, and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s staff had no comment.
In 1999 when Steve Scalise was running against David Duke, he said in an interview that he embraced many of the same conservative views as David Duke, but that he was a far more viable as a candidate. MSNBC reported in 2014:

Rep. Steve Scalise: I might have attended white supremacist event

By Benjy Sarlin
29 December 2014

Majority Whip Steve Scalise says he abhors hate groups, but acknowledged on Monday that he may have spoken at a white supremacist conference led by the notorious former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in 2002.

“I didn’t know who all of these groups were and I detest any kind of hate group,” Scalise, the third highest-ranking Republican leader in the House, told the New Orleans Times-Picayune. “For anyone to suggest that I was involved with a group like that is insulting and ludicrous.”

WATCH: Top Republican addressed racist group in 2002

The interview came hours after Scalise’s office acknowledged that a report claiming that the Louisiana congressman spoke at a gathering of the Duke-run European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO) as a state legislator in 2002 could be accurate. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist organizations, has listed EURO as a “white nationalist” hate group.

According to NBC News, an aide to Scalise said it was “highly likely” the Congressman spoke before the group, but Scalise told the Times-Picayune he had no memory of the event in question. He blamed a combination overzealous campaigning and an overworked staff for his alleged appearance. More...

This talk by Arden Wells, then a candidate for Sheriff, points to collusion between David Duke and Steve Scalise to put Scalise in Congress:

In this interview with Smerconish, David Duke claims he doesn't know if Steve Scalise spoke at the 2002 meeting of the white supremacist organization he founded because he was in Moscow, Russia at the time:

Rachel Maddow
reported on the connection between the white supremacist Stormfront website and Steve Scalise on 6 January 2015:

Here are some choice comments from what people at Stormfront [the voice of the new, embattled White minority] are saying about the shooting today:

A normal White Nationalist just wants to be left alone.

We want to live our life, raise a family, and enjoy the fruits of our labor.

Leftists want to commit mass murder against anyone that disagrees with them.

When communists gain power they always commit mass murder.

If we will not defend our own White Children, then who will?
By certain accounts the gunman had asked earlier whether these were democrat or republican congressmen. There is zero doubt which of those two parties is the worst when it comes to issues we, and many in America care about. The poster applauded shooting at the better party, and was even happier it was possibly a white man who did it. How moronic is that?? He didn't even give a thought to the very high likelihood that the man was a far left nutjob that probably hates his own race like most white libtards. If he targeted republicans, the LAST possible explanation would be that he was some sort of white 'patriot'. Think about it.

And I would LOVE to see people like Pelosi fall over dead from a stroke or something. But to shoot them only strengthens the resolve of our enemies. Shooting the people slightly closer to our values? Utter stupidity.
The media constantly OPENLY supports the death of White people and endorses attacks on White conservatives. They called the Charleston church shooting terrorism but on CNN now they say they don't know the "motive" (even though the shooter said he wanted to kill as many republicans as possible). He will be coddled and they will push gun control.

Make an example out of this deranged leftist scum and we will have less issues like this. If Kathy ISIS Griffin was thrown in prison for pretending to behead the president this would not have happened.

Instead we have the MSM championing attacks on Whites and making them appear normal so the population is desensitised to this. They are making it easier for Whites to be killed with zero backlash.
This white supremacist is already the third most powerful Republican in Congress and now his position will be elevated as a result of the tragedy.

See also: Who is James T. Hodgkinson, the Alexandria shooting suspect?

UPDATE 1: Not that it is necessarily related but after this blog post was published, they are now mentioning Scalise white supremacist connections, if only to excuse them. This rabid white racist is being referred to as a "staunch conservative." It David Duke also now a "staunch conservative?" How about Adolph Hitler?

More, later...

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for my posts on the 2016 US Election
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Libya

BREAKING NEWS: Who is James T. Hodgkinson, the #Alexandria #shooting suspect?

As soon as I heard Rep. Ron Paul say the shooter may have been suffering from mental illness I knew the shooter was white, if he was a person of color, Paul would have blamed evil, not madness.

Now they are super quick about erasing a suspect's social media footprint as soon as he is identified. This puts them in charge of the suspects image after death.

Apparently, he was another one of these "Never Hillary" people, writing on his facebook page 25, July 2016 "You've been warned DNC. I will NEVER vote Hillary. A nomination for Hillary, equals a win for Trump. #NOTWithHer."

So we can assume he refused to vote for Clinton to stop Trump, and to stop his prediction from coming true. Now he is allege to have taken a terrorist act [ Why is the media not calling this a terrorist act? ] which will only strengthen Trump's hand.

The two screenshots below are from sites that have already been removed shortly after I started collecting them.

From his facebook page:
Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It's Time to Destroy Trump & Co.
We Don't Need or Deserve a Billionaire for President. There will Always be a Conflict of Interest. Millionaires are Bad Enough.
I want Bernie to Win the White House.

Here is his facebook page:

James T. Hodgkinson was a building contractor in Belleville, IL according to Buildzoom:

James T Hodgkinson in Belleville, IL holds a Home Inspector license (450000651) according to the Illinois license board.

Their BuildZoom score of 90 indicates that they are licensed or registered but we do not have additional information about them.

BuildZoom has not verified this license since its expiration date. If you are thinking of hiring James T Hodgkinson, we recommend double-checking their license status with the license board and using our bidding system to get competitive quotes.

Look here for updates throughout the day

Update 1:

Someone with a quick lineup pattern has already set up fake twitters account, notice both were started in June 2017 That is a date hard to fake without twitter involvement. Also they have no original tweets before today. They both have been created with the goal of promoting the image of Hodgkinson as violently anti-Trump. This leaves us with the questions of who was creating these fake accounts while I was writing this blog, and why were they created.

Now that his anti-Trump motivations are becoming clear, they are starting to call him a terrorist.

Update 2: It's Trump's Birthday today - is that just another coincidence?

One thing is clear, if the Cui Bono [who benefits] test is applied to this attack, James "Tommy" Hodgkinson didn't benefit, Trump announced that he died in the hospital. Neither did Bernie Sanders, his supporters or any in the anti-Trump, anti-white nationalist, camp. We will all be made to suffer for the crimes of Hodgkinson, assuming he really was the shooter.

So far the scariest thing about this whole affair is the suggestion that facebook statements such as "Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It's Time to Destroy Trump & Co." or calling the Trump Republicans the "American Taliban" should have been as enough to open an FBI investigation on him.

Certainly, hindsight is 20/20, but these statements can't normally be taken as the mark of an assassin. American Taliban  is a label that has widely and correctly applied to the right-wing of the Republican, as for example, this 2014 Truthdig piece The Rise of the American Taliban, or this YouTube video The Newsroom - Tea Party is the American Taliban by RagingScottish.

Whether there is more to this shooting than that which is being made obvious, or just an fortuitous opportunity for the rigthwing, this incident will be used to push congress further into Trump's fascist camp, and tt is already being used by the media to suggest a connection to the protests at townhalls and congress people's homes. Rep. Bost is already on MSNBC saying that he will have a sheriff's detail at his upcoming townhall meeting.

With regards to the Cui Bono question: It is those that want to chill free speech and put the kibosh on anti-Trump protests that stand to benefit from this attack. In anycase, this incident is a birthday present to Trump.

Update 3: It's a Small World After all.

As it turns out, I have one mutual facebook friend with Hodgkinson, of course I have about 2,500 facebooks friends. I have redacted the name of this friend who obviously is a Bernie Sanders/ Jill Stein Supporter, between us we have 399 mutual friends, shall we all now be targeted for our anti-Trump views.

Yesterday we witnessed a presidential cabinet meeting that featured the type of uncritical adulation and praise typical of that demanded by a fascist leader, and now this. Things are moving very fast at this point.

Update 4:
CNN just showed a screenshot they claimed was of Hodgkinson's facebook page, but it didn't look like what I captured above before it was taken down. The one CNN showed used a image of Bernie Sangers dressed up as Uncle Sam. Where did they get that screenshot?

Wolf Blitzer also claimed the statement "Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It's Time to Destroy Trump & Co." was a threat to kill Trump and should have been investigated, so we can see where this is going.

See also: Was Rep. Steve Scalise targeted for his white supremacist views?

More, latter ...

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for my posts on the 2016 US Election
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Libya

Monday, June 12, 2017

Did @DrJillStein collude with Putin to elect Trump?

Jill Stein in Moscow, December 2015
Sunday, on ABC News This Week with George Stephanopoulos‎, Senator Michael Lee twice emphatically stated:
There is no evidence of collusion between Russia and any presidential campaign.
Since, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Lee has expanded the question of Russian collusion beyond the Trump campaign to all the US president campaigns, maybe they should be investigating Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein to see if she coordinated with agencies controlled by Russian President Vladimir Putin to elect Donald Trump President of the United States.

This is not an insignificant question. We know that Jill Stein supporters in just three states, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, put Donald Trump in the White House when they casted a symbolic vote for Jill Stein, rather that voting to stop a white nationalist Putin fanboy from coming to power.

This data is from Politico [updated 22 Nov. 2016 - PA updated 2 Dec from ] :

Candidate Count % Michigan [16] Wisconsin [10] Pennsylvania [20]
Donald Trump 61,201,031 47% 2,279,805 1,409,467 2,955,671
Hillary Clinton 62,523,126 48% 2,268,193 1,382,210 2,906,128
Difference 11,612 27,257 49,543
Jill Stein 802,119 0.7% 50,700 30,980 49,678

Some observers will complain that it's unfair to say Jill Stein gave the election to Donald Trump because there were so many factors that contributed to his victory: Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate, in both senses; there were the Wikileaks dumps, and James Comey's contributions. This is also true, but the bottomline is that Donald Trump only won the presidency by a hair. In point-of-fact, he lost the popular vote, and only 88,412 votes in three strategic states gave him the electoral victory, so every straw bears the weight of the camel's broken back. If Jill Stein had withdrawn her candidacy, and recommended a vote against Trump, he wouldn't be president now. If the US Greens had adopted the recommendation of European and Russian Greens, he wouldn't be president now. Remember that in the wars to come.

We know that the Jill Stein campaign received support from the Trump campaign:

Although the extent of that support is still unknown; the reason for it is clear. The Trump campaign was trying to elect Donald Trump president and they knew every vote for Jill Stein put them closer to that goal. Putin must have been thinking the same thing. He knew as well as Sean Spicer that a snowball had a better chance of surviving Hell, than Jill Stein had of becoming president, but he also knew, as did the Republican strategists, that Jill Stein was winning votes from Hillary Clinton to a far, far greater extent than she was taking them from Donald Trump.

She didn't even try to win votes from Trump, or focus much fire on him. This should surprize those with a simplistic "Left-Right" view of our politics. In fact, she generally made the argument that Trump was actually the lesser of two evils with regards to military aggression and the war danger.  This is an area in which US Green Party propaganda has been tragically misleading, with new deaths caused by US soldiers under Trump's command in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Philippines. More than a thousand civilians were killed by US actions in March alone in Iraq and Syria.

Of her 10 December 2015 meeting with Putin, the US Green Party said:
Stein attended a dinner Thursday night, sitting at the table with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "While the objective of that dinner was not to engage in serious discussions, Putin did appear to respond in his formal remarks to the call for greater dialogue and collaboration made by myself and three other political figures on the foreign policy panel earlier that day."

Putin noted, "What I would like to say, something really unexpected, when I was watching this material. When I was listening to your comments, politicians from other countries, you know what I caught myself thinking about? I agree with them, on many issues."
Of course Putin agreed with many of the speakers at the gala, but the "unexpected" part was a lie; he had paid them to be there, according to multiple sources.
Stein continued, "Tomorrow I will meet with the foreign affairs chair of the Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament, to explore whether Russia would be receptive to a more collaborative approach to foreign policy that I have been talking about in my presidential campaign."
Some reports say the US is now killing more civilians than Russia, which is saying a lot, is that the "more collaborative approach to foreign policy" that Jill Stein was seeking?

Jill Stein at dinner with Putin and Trump campaign representative Michael Flynn
After her Moscow trip, two Russian environmental activists, Yevgenia Chirikova and Nadezhda Kutepova, criticised her visit and her support for Putin, as reported by RadioFreeEurope:
Russian Environmentalists Slam U.S. Green Party Candidate For Putin Comments

By Mike Eckel
6 September 2016
Two prominent Russian Greens have criticized the presidential candidate for the U.S. Green Party, saying her positions on President Vladimir Putin and his policies are “deeply shocking.”
In the letter posted to Chirikova’s Facebook page on September 6, the two activists disparaged Stein for a visit to Moscow last year in which she appeared at a forum sponsored by the state-run satellite television channel Russia Today, now known as RT.
A news release posted on Stein’s campaign website highlighted her attendance and her calls for more cooperation between Washington and Moscow, particularly regarding the five-year civil war in Syria. The statement closely echoes comments voiced by the Kremlin and Russian officials about U.S. policies in the Middle East, North Africa, and elsewhere. More...
On her facebook page Chirikova posted:
As environmentalists and human rights defenders, we often support Green candidates all over the world when they run for local, national or continental election. However, we are asking ourselves if we can support your candidature for the Presidency of the United States of America. We have carefully read your program and your website and we have to admit that we are deeply shocked by the position you expressed during your visit to Moscow and your meeting with Mr. Vladimir Putin.
After your visit to Moscow and your meeting with Vladimir Putin you said that “the world deserve[s] a new commitment to collaborative dialogue between our governments to avert disastrous wars for geopolitical domination, destruction of the climate, and cascading injustices that promote violence and terrorism.” We agree with you. But how can this new “collaborative dialogue” be possible when Mr. Putin has deliberately built a system based on corruption, injustice, falsification of elections, and violation of human rights and international law? How is it possible to have a discussion with Mr. Putin and not mention, not even once, the fate of Russian political prisoners, or the attacks against Russian journalists, artists, and environmentalists? Is it fair to speak with him about “geopolitics” and not mention new Russian laws against freedom of speech, restrictions on NGOs and activists, or the shameful law that forbids “homosexual propaganda”?

By silencing Putin’s crimes you are silencing our struggle. By shaking his hand and failing to criticize his regime you are becoming his accomplice. By forgetting what international solidarity means you are insulting the Russian environmental movement.

Dr. Stein, you still have several weeks before the elections in order to clarify your position on the anti-democratic and anti-environmental elements of Putin’s regime. We sincerely hope that our voices will be heard and that our questions will not go unanswered.

Best regards,
Evgeniya Chirikova
Nadezda Kutepova
Other European Greens also saw problems with the Stein's coziness with Putin. In an article titled Foreign Greens Think the US Green Party Needs to Ditch Jill Stein, published by Vice the day before the vote, Mike Pearl reported:
"Some of the points that Jill Stein makes are delusional, I have to say," Balthasar Glättli, a Green Party member of the Swiss National Council, told me. If he were in the US, he said, "personally, I wouldn't vote Stein. I would vote Hillary."

European Green Party member Reinhard Bütikofer, who serves on the European Parliament from Germany, told me some of Stein's remarks that Clinton would be more likely to start a nuclear war than Trump left him feeling "really astonished." Bütikofer is a member of one of the parties that coordinate internationally with the US Greens via a loose affiliation known as the Global Greens, but he described an overall need for the American Green Party to get more sensible.
In an attempt to excuse this US Green Party support for Putin and Jill Stein's attendance at the RT 10th anniversary gala, Louis Proyect, the unrepentant Marxist and Jill Stein supporter, wrote that as of 10 August 2016:
With respect to, it has published 105 articles in praise of Jill Stein so naturally she might have accepted an invitation to their conference.
So this Green Party supporter justifies Jill Stein's support for RT as a kind of quid pro quo. Why does he think Moscow was supporting Jill Stein in the first place? They certainly didn't think she could win.

The dossier compiled by ex-spy Christopher Steele about Trump's connection to Russia mentions Jill Stein and gives us Moscow's rationale behind the dinner with Putin:
Educated US youth to be targeted as protest (against CLINTON) and swing vote in attempt to turn them over to TRUMP
Kremlin engaging with several high profile US players, including STEIN, PAGE and (former DIA Director Michael Flynn), and funding their recent visits to Moscow
Since then, Michael Flynn has been forced to admit that he was paid $45,000, plus perks, by Russia for his attendance at the RT event. The Steele dossier says that Jill Stein was also paid by Russia for her attendance, but she has so far remained silent on this subject.

In its "Details" section, the Steele dossier associates Jill Stein with two other Americans that are currently being investigated for their suspicious ties to Putin, Michael Flynn and Carter Page, and puts her in the overall context of "the Russian operation":
4. Speaking separately, also in early August 2016, a Kremlin official involved in US relations commented on aspects of the Russian operation to date. Its goals had been threefold - asking sympathetic US actors how Moscow could help them, - gathering relevant intelligence; and creating and disseminating compromising information ("kompromat"). This had involved the Kremlin supporting various US political figures, including funding indirectly their recent visits to Moscow. S/he named a delegation from Lyndon LAROUCHE; presidential candidate Jill STEIN of the Green Party; TRUMP foreign policy adviser Carter PAGE and former DIA Director Michael Flynn, in this regard and as successful in terms of perceived outcomes.
I'll bet. They got their guy in the White House.

With regards to that "asking sympathetic US actors how Moscow could help them," I wonder if they approached Democracy Now, and what Amy Goodman's response was? Or did they feel they were already getting pretty much what they wanted without the additional expenditure?

Oliver Stone says to Putin in his new fanboy "Why would he lie?" interview that if Putin expressed a preference in the US presidential campaign, that candidate would go down in the polls, as he gives the thumbs down sign and Putin nods in agreement. Just as Sean Spicer knew that he could only go so far in his open support for Jill Stein without raising eyebrows, Putin knew that his open support for Donald Trump was not likely to help their common cause. He could, however, openly support Jill Stein as the radical alternative to Hillary Clinton to the tune of tens of millions of dollars through his Russian propaganda outlets Russia Today and Sputnik, and although a search for "Jill Stein" on the Sputnik website turns up 174 hits, Putin expressed his support for the Jill Stein assault on Hillary Clinton most directly and effectively through his main English language propaganda instruments RT and RT/America, formerly named and more generally known as Russia Today.

Mediaite says about RT:
RT, however, is not cool. Far from some quirky left-wing media company, it is fully the mouthpiece of the Russian government. Formerly just Russia Today, its outlets and subsidiaries around the world regularly spew 21st century agitprop with the express aim of advancing Russia’s strategic interests.
Sara Firth was a London based RT correspondent that decided to stop selling herself for Putin, and told the world on Twitter:

The 6 January report from Director of National Intelligence “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections,” when into some detail about RT:
RT America TV, a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United States, has substantially expanded its repertoire of programming that highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties. The rapid expansion of RT's operations and budget and recent candid statements by RT's leadership point to the channel's importance to the Kremlin as a messaging tool and indicate a Kremlin directed campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political protest. The Kremlin has committed significant resources to expanding the channel's reach, particularly its social media footprint. A reliable UK report states that RT recently was the most-watched foreign news channel in the UK. RT America has positioned itself as a domestic US channel and has deliberately sought to obscure any legal ties to the Russian Government.
It tries to position itself as an alternative to mainstream media, as if the prefered alternative to neoliberalism is fascism.
The Kremlin staffs RT and closely supervises RT's coverage, recruiting people who can
convey Russian strategic messaging because of their ideological beliefs.
It certainly was single-minded in its support for Jill Stein in the US presidential race.
According to [RT editor-in-chief] Simonyan, the Russian Government sets rating and viewership requirements for RT and, "since RT receives budget from the state, it must complete tasks given by the state." According to [ parent company TV-Novosti director] Nikolov, RT news stories are written and edited "to become news" exclusively in RT's Moscow office (Dozhd TV, 11 July; AKT, 4 October).
It is Putin's propaganda arm; there shouldn't be any confusion about that.
According to RT management, RT's website receives at least 500,000 unique viewers every day. Since its inception in 2005, RT videos received more than 800 million views on YouTube (1 million views per day), which is the highest among news outlets (see graphics for comparison with other news channels) (AKT, 4 October)
The Russian propagandists really excel in their use of cyberspace. Their use of python AI bots has changed the political landscape of social media.
According to Simonyan, RT uses social media to expand the reach of its political reporting and uses well-trained people to monitor public opinion in social media commentaries (Kommersant, 29 September)

According to Nikolov, RT requires its hosts to have social media accounts, in part because social media allows the distribution of content that would not be allowed on television (, 11 October)
One can only wonder how much of the RT budget of 2016 went towards promoting Jill Stein? Even 1.25% of the estimated $300 million the Kremlin spent in production and distribution for RT that year would have eclipsed Jill Stein's own campaign expenditures.
The Kremlin spends $190 million a year on the distribution and dissemination of RT programming, focusing on hotels and satellite, terrestrial, and cable broadcasting.
In addition to the Internet, RT has a large TV following.
RT states on its website that it can reach more than 550 million people worldwide and 85 million people in the United States; however, it does not publicize its actual US audience numbers (RT,10 December).
While most domestic US news networks like CNN, MSNBC and FoxNews must sell advertising to pay expenses and make money, the Russian government pays for all of RT's expenses. It is the Infomercial model turned into a "news network." BBC, Al Jazeera and France24 are all similarly situated, and while they all reported on the US election, none of them so actively promoted a single US presidential candidate.

Only one other major news outlet, Fox News, was so singlemindedly dedicated to the promotion of one candidate in the last US presidential election. At least Fox News is a US media company and spoke honestly about who they wanted to win. Putin backed the same candidate as Fox News; he did it by backing a loser as a spoiler.

If, after taking into account depreciation and inflation, a picture is still worth a thousand words, this graphic from the DNI report speaks volumes about the Russian social media footprint that was put at the service of the Jill Stein campaign:

According to the report, the Russian state is trying to hide behind a mask.
RT America formally disassociates itself from the Russian Government by using a Moscow-based autonomous nonprofit organization to finance its US operations. According to RT's leadership, this structure was set up to avoid the Foreign Agents Registration Act and to facilitate licensing abroad. In addition, RT rebranded itself in 2008 to deemphasize its Russian origin.
So RT America can disguise its foreign meddling in US elections as just another US corporate play.
RT hires or makes contractual agreements with Westerners with views that fit its agenda and airs them on RT.

Full Disclosure: I entered into a lucrative license deal with RT that allowed it to broadcast my film, Vietnam: American Holocaust on virtually all media for one year. When you do a contract with RT it gets very complicated, but it also becomes clear pretty quickly that it is really the Russian government that is calling the shots; the contract is made with TV-Novosti.

A case study: RT support for the Jill Stein campaign on YouTube

A search on YouTube for "rt america jill stein" turns up "About 5,570 results," 2,750 in the past year, and RT/America averages more than 5,700,000 views a month on YouTube alone! RT/America is just 1 of the 88 members of RussiaToday [note the parent YouTube organization has not changed its name], which in total get an average of more than 133 million monthly views on YouTube. RT is another member of this family with mostly English content, and favorable to Jill Stein, that has an average monthly viewership of more than 28 million, Ruptly TV is a third Jill Stein fan brand with more than 14 million monthly viewers.

These are all professionally produced videos, and they aren't cheap to produce, so even though YouTube pays Russia Today as much as $274,000 a year for those views on RT/America alone, sustaining the channel has to be costing the Kremlin millions, but since RT has an annual budget of over $300 million, it is still small potatoes to them.

There have been over 190,000 views in the top 10 of those 2,750 RT/America videos supporting Jill Stein's candidacy. The view totals for all those videos is likely to range into the tens of millions. Taking just this one example of RT videos for Jill Stein and extrapolating that across all RT platforms, which in the US include cable, satellite, and broadcast TV, radio and all social media, not just YouTube, but facebook, Instagram, and Twitter as well, it's easy to conclude that since the Jill Stein campaign only raised $3,713,170, Putin probably spent more on the Jill Stein campaign than the campaign spent on itself. If this is true, it means that votes for a US presidential candidate supported largely by Russian resources put Donald Trump in the White House.

Jill Stein admitted:
"We look to RT for access to the American public."
The website also played a big role in promoting the Jill Stein campaign. The eight images below represent just a tiny sample of the "About 416 results" Google finds for a search for "Jill Stein" on


Jill Stein has been as resolute as Donald Trump in not criticizing Putin, and everything she did during the election and since served Putin's strategic interests. Even her much hyped recount efforts in the three states she gave to Trump served to create doubt about the very voting systems the Russians failed to hack, while distracting our attention away from the "in your face" way that she has been an instrument of Russian influence in the US election. Her Putin promoted propaganda went a long ways towards convincing the American voters to elect the greater of the two evils.

One last question:

If Sean Spicer tweets Jill Stein, and she likes it, is that collusion?

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for my posts on the 2016 US Election
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Libya

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Did The Intercept burn the messenger?

The Intercept has spent the better part of the past year saying that there was no concrete evidence that Russia has been interfering with the US elections, so they must have had mixed emotions about receiving a leaked NSA document that strongly indicates that they have been wrong, and that the Russian government has been very active in attempting to subvert democracy in the United States. John Schindler, a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst, summed it up this way:
The substance of what The Intercept reported leaves no doubt that GRU made serious efforts last summer and fall to influence our election.
This leak was published only days after Russian President Vladimir Putin speculated that "patriotic" Russian hackers operating outside of government control may have interfered with the US election. The idea that Putin allows Russian hackers to make international mischief on their own, or that pro-Russian hackers would risk operating outside of government control, is simply unbelievable. Did these same "patriotic hackers" also cause the current Gulf States crisis without Putin's input?

Reality Leigh Winner
Within hours of The Intercept publishing the documents it would later claim "contain unproven assertions and speculation designed to serve the government’s agenda," the FBI announced the arrest of Reality Leigh Winner as the leaker. She said she was tired of hearing media outlets say there was no concrete proof of Russian hacking, so she send them some. Apparently it was that simple, and not very well thought out. She exhibited no tradecraft whatsoever. She made the copies on the company printer, she used her office computer to email The Intercept. Now they've got the scoop, and she is looking at ten years hard time.

Why she chose to send it to The Intercept is as yet unclear. It wasn't the wisest choice, apparently The Intercept didn't do a good job of protecting their source in this case. Today The Intercept is saying:
On June 5 The Intercept published a story about a top-secret NSA document that was provided to us completely anonymously. Shortly after the article was posted, the Justice Department announced the arrest of Reality Leigh Winner, a 25-year-old government contractor in Augusta, Georgia, for transmitting defense information under the Espionage Act. Although we have no knowledge of the identity of the person who provided us with the document, the U.S. government has told news organizations that Winner was that individual.
While The Intercept is claiming to have no knowledge of the source of the leaked documents, other sources say Winner was easily identified as the leaker because she didn't bother to hide her identity in email contacts with The Intercept. The US Department of Justice, in its AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ARREST OF REALITY LEIGH WINNER [I have made bold important selections to help you cut through the boilerplate.] states:


11. WINNER is a contractor with Pluribus International Corporation assigned to a U.S. Government Agency facility in Georgia. She has been employed at the facility since on or about February 13, 2017, and has held a Top Secret clearance during that time. As set forth in further detail below, on or about May 9, 2017, WINNER printed and improperly removed classified intelligence reporting, which contained classified national defense information and was dated on or about May 5, 2017 (the "intelligence reporting") from an Intelligence Community Agency (the "U.S. Government Agency") and unlawfully retained it. Approximately a few days later, WINNER then unlawfully transmitted the intelligence reporting to an online news outlet (the "News Outlet").

12. On June I, 2017, the FBI was notified by the U.S. Government Agency that the U.S. Government Agency had been contacted by the News Outlet on May 30, 2017, regarding an upcoming story. The News Outlet informed the U.S. Government Agency that it was in possession of what it believed to be a classified document authored by the U.S. Government Agency. The News Outlet provided the U.S. Government Agency with a copy of this document. Subsequent analysis by the U.S. Government Agency confirmed that the document in the News Outlet's possession is the intelligence reporting. The intelligence reporting is classified at the Top Secret level, indicating that its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably result in exceptionally grave damage to the national security, and is marked as such. The U.S. Government Agency has since confirmed that the reporting contains information that was classified at that level at the time that the reporting was published on or about May 5, 2017, and that such information currently remains classified at that level.

13. The U.S. Government Agency examined the document shared by the News Outlet and determined the pages of the intelligence reporting appeared to be folded and/or creased, suggesting they had been printed and hand-carried out of a secured space.

14. The U.S. Government Agency conducted an internal audit to determine who accessed the intelligence reporting since its publication. The U.S. Government Agency determined that six individuals printed this reporting. WINNER was one of these six individuals. A further audit of the six individuals' desk computers revealed that WINNER had e-mail contact with the News Outlet. The audit did not reveal that any of the other individuals had e-mail contact with the News Outlet.
So, based on this affidavit, and other sources, after The Intercept received the classified document, they made a color copy of it and took to it back to the NSA for authentication and redaction advice. Apparently this copy was of sufficient fidelity that it allowed the NSA to determine what printer the original had been printed on. From there, it was simply a matter of checking the logs to find out who had printed it out lately. That was only a handful of employees. They knew The Intercept had received it. Then, probably, they made two lists: 1) who recently printed the doc?, and who recently emailed The Intercept? And the winner can't make this stuff up;   this is real life.

According to the DOJ, they could trace the document because it "appeared to be folded and/or creased, suggesting they had been printed and hand-carried out of a secured space." How they could possibly determine that from a copy is beyond me. This is most certainly a cover story for the fact that most, if not all, color printers put something like a digital microdot or "watermark" on every page they print.

I first learn about this little secret back in the 1980s by just applying for a top secret printer development job with Xerox. They liked to brag that their color copies were so good, the government demanded they take these steps to stop counterfeiters from using them. That secret encoding has other uses as well, as the world is now learning. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has taken a leading role in exposing the use of these secret codes in printers. In 2008 they produced this video:

and this story:
Is Your Printer Spying On You?

Imagine that every time you printed a document it automatically included a secret code that could be used to identify the printer - and potentially the person who used it. Sounds like something from an episode of "Alias " right?

Unfortunately the scenario isn't fictional. In a purported effort to identify counterfeiters the US government has succeeded in persuading some color laser printer manufacturers to encode each page with identifying information. That means that without your knowledge or consent an act you assume is private could become public. A communication tool you're using in everyday life could become a tool for government surveillance. And what's worse there are no laws to prevent abuse.

The ACLU recently issued a report revealing that the FBI has amassed more than 1 100 pages of documents on the organization since 2001 as well as documents concerning other non-violent groups including Greenpeace and United for Peace and Justice. In the current political climate it's not hard to imagine the government using the ability to determine who may have printed what document for purposes other than identifying counterfeiters. More...
While The Intercept was careful to redact the information the NSA wanted removed before publication, they still reprinted this microdot information clear enough that knowledgeable people could spot and read them:
While it's good to know that your printer may be spying on you as a general principle, it is critical to know if you are printing anything you don't want traced back to you like, say, a ransom note, political flyer, or stolen NSA file. Winner can be forgiven for not knowing that; it would appear she did what she did for selfless reasons; and she will pay the price.

It's hard to feel so charitable about The Intercept. Given their staff and reputation, one would not expect them to be as naive as the 25 year old about the techniques used by our surveillance society, but whether in ignorance or bliss, it would seem that they took no effective measures to hide the source of the document before they showed it to the NSA. As John Schindler put it:

by showing NSA the purloined assessment, the inept muckrakers sealed Winner’s fate.
Those protective measures are not unknown to others who have travel these roads:
Schindler ends his Observer opinion piece NSA’s Latest Leak Debacle Explained by looking on the bright side, and then giving The Intercept the prize:
Regardless, Congress and the public have been energized by Reality Winner’s crime, and GRU cyber-meddling in our 2016 election is an issue which now must be addressed as a core part of KremlinGate. Perhaps that fact will comfort Winner in prison. But the real prize goes to The Intercept, which outed its golden source inside NSA in record time. Nobody in our Intelligence Community has ever been arrested for leaking spy secrets even before the leak goes public. That’s a record which seems likely to stand the test of time.
Schindler chalks up The Intercept's outing of their source to ineptitude. Maybe I am getting cynical in my old age, but I know how hard The Intercept worked to defeat Clinton last year and thereby elect Trump, and how protective they have been towards Poppa Putin. Catching this leaker quickly serves both Putin and Trump. Neither of them welcome this kind of leak; nor would the Intercept, for that matter, given their editorial line on the Russian hacking. All of this leads me to wonder: Did they just fumble the ball? Or did they intentionally burn the messenger?

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for my posts on the 2016 US Election
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Libya

Monday, June 5, 2017

@BillMaher didn't call anybody a nigger, MSM needs a grammar lesson

Watching the morning news on my day off, I saw many commentators correctly criticize President Trump for using a quote out of context in his racist twitter attack on London Mayor Sadiq Khan. While they were pretty uniform in pointing out the dishonest way that Trump used Mayor Khan's words, they also uniformly failed to identify it as a racist attack, but we all know the Mayor of London is being attacked by Trump because he is a prominent Muslim, they same way Trump has attacked a federal judge for having Mexican ancestry, and claimed a past US president was born in Kenya. We have a racist president. That is the simple truth of the matter.

When the news got to the scandal surrounding Bill Maher calling himself a "house-nigger," they refused to provide the context. Even the paper of record, the New York Times ran a piece by Wesley Morris, that never bothered to define the word, let alone, go into its history:
The flap over his language transpired during a weekend of more terrorism in London, and at the end of a week in which a racist spray-painted a slur on a LeBron James home in Los Angeles; and Portland, Ore., braced itself for a white supremacist rally. Mr. Maher’s incident seems fit for the basket labeled “Life’s too short.”

He didn’t commit a hate crime. He overstepped his privilege as a famous comedian. That’s all. But if he crossed a line, it’s one that, for white people, has never moved.
From The Washington Post we get this description of the incident that caused the flap:
He was exchanging small talk with Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, who represents Nebraska. “I’ve got to get to Nebraska more,” Maher said. “You’re welcome. We’d love to have you work in the fields with us,” the senator noted.

“Work in the fields? Senator, I’m a house n––––r,” Maher said.
Unlike the NY Times, the Post deemed it inappropriate to even to spell out the word, but neither did it provide the context or a definition. As a consequence, both papers, and virtually every other commentator I'm heard on this subject, has made a basic error in accusing Bill Maher of using the "n-word," when it point of fact, he didn't.

The word Bill Maher used was "house nigger," which is an open compound word. It has the same relationship to "nigger" as "ice cream" has to "ice" or "cream", "French fry," has to "fry", "land mine" to "mine", etc. If you were thirsty and I sold you a bottle of salt water, you would feel conned, and rightfully so. Not only is it illegitimate to use one part of a compound word to claim that word was used, it is bad grammar. I'm sorry to have to give grammar lessons to the likes of the New York Times and the Washington Post, but until I can beat a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, by showing the judge that I was wearing a belt, I will understand that Bill Maher did not use the word "nigger," he used the word "house nigger," which has another meaning entirely.

In this case context may be even more important that in the case of the President's tweets about the London mayor, because while the term "nigger" is most often used as pejorative racial term, especially when it is spray painted on someone's home, "house nigger" is not a pejorative racial term, it is a pejorative class term, generally used by those who see the "field niggers" as representing the best people in that equation. In other words, the derogatory character of the word "house nigger" attaches to the "house" part of this compound word, not the "nigger" part. No one in the media seems to get that.

What these Times and Post pieces failed to do, what all the MSM [that I have watched so far this AM] has failed to do, in fairness to both Bill Maher and their audiences, is to properly set the context or define the word, and you can not do that without reference to Malcolm X's famous speech about the house nigger and the field Negro. I have no doubt that is what Bill Maher was referring to, but the Times and Post don't mention it.

"House nigger" or "house Negro" are class terms that developed within the context of racial slavery, they can only be understood in relationship to their complement, the "field nigger" or "field Negro." One of the earliest references to these class categories was found in Report of the Committee of the African Institution. London: William Phillips, George Yard, Lombard Street. 1807:
A wretched old woman came to me a few days ago, to tell me she was compelled to work in the field. She was a favourite house-negro in her former master's family, and had nursed one of his children. Being ordered to throw a mixture of gunpowder and salt-water on the mangled bodies of the negroes whipped in the market-place, she refused, and incurred the displeasure of her master; and her intellects have since been evidently disordered.
Here we can clearly see that these 19th century Englishman considered "house-negro" to be one word because they hyphenated it in their written report. [ From this short passage it would appear that then they hyphenated many compound words that we now don't: salt-water, market-place. ]   With Bill Maher we are dealing with the spoken word, so the dishonest transcribers can write it anyway they want. If they were honest they would hear Bill Maher say "house-nigger," with a pause between the two phrases shorter than between individual words and would have accurately transcribed it as "house-nigger," but that would have ruined their whole game, wouldn't it?

Now as to the meaning of the word house-negro or house-nigger.

Since the categories of "House Negro" and "Field Negro" have only been used in association with the other, and since they have been used almost exclusively by African American people to describe African American people, they can't be understood as racial categories, only as class categories, or to put the matter more bluntly, as class differences within a group that has been socially isolated by national oppression. "House Negro" is not an exact synonym for "house nigger," and as metaphors they have much wider application that must not be lost because certain parts of words are banned,

The indispensable modern context in which to understand the concept of the house nigger and the field Negro is Malcolm X's "Message to the Grass Roots" on 10 November 1963.

Here an important a matter of definition should be clarified. Malcolm X makes clear in the first paragraph of his speech that he is speaking to all people of color, and that he identifies all non-white people as Negroes:
We’re her problem. The only reason she has a problem is she doesn’t want us here. And every time you look at yourself, be you black, brown, red, or yellow — a so-called Negro — you represent a person who poses such a serious problem for America because you’re not wanted.
It is therefore a racial term to the same extent and in the same way that "non-white" is a racial term. Ditto, the way he uses the word "black":
The white man knows what a revolution is. He knows that the black revolution is world-wide in scope and in nature. The black revolution is sweeping Asia, sweeping Africa, is rearing its head in Latin America. The Cuban Revolution — that’s a revolution. They overturned the system. Revolution is in Asia. Revolution is in Africa. And the white man is screaming because he sees revolution in Latin America. How do you think he’ll react to you when you learn what a real revolution is?
In this period, Malcolm X saw all people of color as being on the right side of the struggle and the "white man" or "white power structure" as being the oppressor, but we are particularly interested it what he had to say about contradictions among the people of color:
To understand this, you have to go back to what young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro — back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes – they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good ’cause they ate his food — what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master’s house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, “We got a good house here,” the house Negro would say, “Yeah, we got a good house here.” Whenever the master said “we,” he said “we.” That’s how you can tell a house Negro.

If the master’s house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, “What’s the matter, boss, we sick?” We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, “Let’s run away, let’s escape, let’s separate,” the house Negro would look at you and say, “Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?” That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a “house nigger.” And that’s what we call him today, because we’ve still got some house niggers running around here.
Malcolm's description of the house nigger hits too close to home for most of Bill Maher's critics to give it its due. That is why they failed to mention it.

Malcolm went on to describe the field Negro:
On that same plantation, there was the field Negro. The field Negro — those were the masses. There were always more Negroes in the field than there was Negroes in the house. The Negro in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers. In the house they ate high up on the hog. The Negro in the field didn’t get nothing but what was left of the insides of the hog. They call ’em “chitt’lin’” nowadays. In those days they called them what they were: guts. That’s what you were — a gut-eater. And some of you all still gut-eaters.

The field Negro was beaten from morning to night. He lived in a shack, in a hut; He wore old, castoff clothes. He hated his master. I say he hated his master. He was intelligent. That house Negro loved his master. But that field Negro — remember, they were in the majority, and they hated the master. When the house caught on fire, he didn’t try and put it out; that field Negro prayed for a wind, for a breeze. When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he’d die. If someone come to the field Negro and said, “Let’s separate, let’s run,” he didn’t say “Where we going?” He’d say, “Any place is better than here.” You’ve got field Negroes in America today. I’m a field Negro. The masses are the field Negroes. When they see this man’s house on fire, you don’t hear these little Negroes talking about “our government is in trouble.” They say, “The government is in trouble.”
When Malcolm X said "The masses are the field Negroes," he wasn't just talking about people with African heritage, he was talking about most of the people in the world. He made this very important distinction between the house-Negroes and the field-Negroes, so that he could explain what was really happening in the civil rights movement at the time. He then told how the famous 1963 March on Washington was corrupted by house-Negroes like Martin Luther King, Jr. His lessons are still very relevant today:
When Martin Luther King failed to desegregate Albany, Georgia, the civil-rights struggle in America reached its low point. King became bankrupt almost, as a leader. Plus, even financially, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was in financial trouble; plus it was in trouble, period, with the people when they failed to desegregate Albany, Georgia. Other Negro civil-rights leaders of so-called national stature became fallen idols. As they became fallen idols, began to lose their prestige and influence, local Negro leaders began to stir up the masses. In Cambridge, Maryland, Gloria Richardson; in Danville, Virginia, and other parts of the country, local leaders began to stir up our people at the grassroots level. This was never done by these Negroes, whom you recognize, of national stature. They controlled you, but they never incited you or excited you. They controlled you; they contained you; they kept you on the plantation.

As soon as King failed in Birmingham, Negroes took to the streets. King got out and went out to California to a big rally and raised about — I don’t know how many thousands of dollars come to Detroit and had a march and raised some more thousands of dollars. And recall, right after that ] Wilkins attacked King, accused King and the CORE of starting trouble everywhere and then making the NAACP get them out of jail and spend a lot of money; and then they accused King and CORE of raising all the money and not paying it back. This happened; I’ve got it in documented evidence in the newspaper. Roy started attacking King, and King started attacking Roy, and Farmer started attacking both of them. And as these Negroes of national stature began to attack each other, they began to lose their control of the Negro masses.

The Negroes were out there in the streets. They were talking about how they were going to march on Washington. Right at that time Birmingham had exploded, and the Negroes in Birmingham remember, they also exploded. They began to stab the crackers in the back and bust them up 'side their head' yes, they did. That's when Kennedy sent in the troops, down in Birmingham. After that, Kennedy got on the television and said "this is a moral issue." That's when he said he was going to put out a civil-rights bill. And when he mentioned civil-rights bill and the Southern crackers started talking about how they were going to boycott or filibuster it, then the Negroes started talkingロabout what? That they were going to march on Washington, march on the Senate, march on the White House, march on the Congress, and tie it up, bring it to a halt, not let the government proceed. They even said they were going out to the airport and lay down on the runway and not let any airplanes land. I'm telling you what they said. That was revolution. That was revolution. That was the black revolution.

It was the grass roots out there in the street. It scared the white man to death, scared the white power structure in Washington, D.C., to death; I was there. When they found out that this black steamroller was going to come down on the capital, they called in Wilkins, they called in Randolph, they called in these national Negro leaders that you respect and told them, "Call it off." Kennedy said, "Look, you all are letting this thing go too far." And Old Tom said, "Boss, I can't stop it, because I didn't start." I'm telling you what they said. They said, "I'm not even in it, much less at the head of it." They said, "These Negroes are doing things on their own. They're running ahead of us." And that old shrewd fox, he said, "If you all aren't in it, I'll put you in it. I'll put you at the head of it. I'll endorse it. I'll welcome it. I'll help it. I'll join it."

A matter of hours went by. They had a meeting at the Carlyle Hotel in New York City. The Carlyle Hotel is owned by the Kennedy family; that's the hotel Kennedy spent the night at, two nights ago; it belongs to his family. philanthropic society headed by a white man named Stephen Currier called all the top civil-rights leaders together at the Carlyle Hotel. And he told them, "By you fighting each other, you are destroying the civil-rights movement. And since you're fighting over money from the liberals, let us set up what is known as the Council for United Civil Rights Leadership. Let's form this council and all the civil-rights organizations will belong to it, and we'll use it for fund-raising purposes." Let me show you how tricky the white man is. As soon as they got formed, they elected Whitney Young as its chairman, and who do you think became the co-chairman? Stephen Currier, the white man, a millionaire. Powell was talking bout it down at Cobo Hall today. This is what he was talking about. Powell knows it happened. Randolph knows happened. Wilkins knows it happened. King knows it happened. Every one of that Big Six, they know happened.

Once they formed it, with the white man over it, he promised them and gave them $800,000 to split up among the Big Six; and told them that after the march was over they'd give them $700,000 more. A million and a half dollars split up between leaders that you have been following, going to jail for, crying crocodile tears for. And they're nothing but Frank James and Jesse James and the what-do-you-call-'em brothers.

As soon as they got the setup organized, the white man made available to them top public-relations experts, opened the news media across the country at their disposal, which then began to project these Big Six as the leaders of the march. Originally they weren't even in the march. You were talking this march talk on Hastings Street, you were talking march talk on Lenox Avenue, and on Fillmore Street, and on Central Avenue, and 32nd Street and 63rd Street. That's where the march talk was being talked. But the white man put the Big Six at the head of it; made them the march. They became the march. They took it over. And the first move they made after they took it over, they invited Walter Reuther, a white man; they invited a priest, a rabbi, and an old white preacher, yes, an old white preacher. The same white element that put Kennedy into powerロlabor, the Catholics, the Jews, and liberal Protestants; the same clique that put Kennedy in power, joined the march on Washington

It's just like when you've got some coffee that's too black, which means it's too strong. What do you do? You integrate it with cream, you make it weak. But if you pour too much cream in it, you won't even know you ever had coffee. It used to be hot, it becomes cool. It used to be strong, it becomes weak. It used to wake you up, now it puts you to sleep. This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it. They didn't integrate it, they infiltrated it. They joined it, became a part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. It ceased to be angry, it ceased to be hot, it ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. You had one right here in Detroit. I saw it on television, with clowns leading it, white clowns and black clowns. I know you don't like what I'm saying, but I'm going to tell you anyway. Because I can prove what I'm saying. If you think I'm telling you wrong, you bring me Martin Luther King and A. Philip Randolph and James Farmer and those other three, and see if they'll deny it over a microphone.

No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover. When James Baldwin came in from Paris, they wouldn't let him talk, because they couldn't make him go by the script. Burt Lancaster read the speech that Baldwin was supposed to make; they wouldn't let Baldwin get up there, because they know Baldwin is liable to say anything.
Most of the journalist that have been attacking Bill Maher "for using the n-word," are house-niggers for capitalism, so they have good reasons for confusing the subject while hiding the real class content of what he was saying. Anyway, the best thing about this little dustup caused by Bill Maher's gaffe is that it gives us an opportunity to revisit Malcolm X's very important "Message to the Grass Roots:"