Outside Agitators

US liberals are now aghast that a foreign country could interfere in some capacity with their right to run their own elections. While that may have been the case in some limited capability, local electoral riggings and voter disenfranchisement—as well as the wholly undemocratic process of the electoral college, which, for the second time in 16 years stole an election from the popular vote—were without a doubt the overwhelming factors. Yet MSNBC is not running nonstop coverage on the inequities in the US electoral system. And while the gears of war are churning among both the Right and the Center, the idea of payback being a mother never sits well. The US often and continually interferes in the elections of nearly every other country and directly or indirectly tries to overthrow the democratically elected (sometimes not, admittedly) leaders of other nations (most recently Venezuela  and Nicaragua), which disrupts their development and kills countless civilians. Liberals will sometimes acknowledge that while this may be true, two wrongs don’t make a right—yet no one is trying to dismantle the CIA or the ironically-named National Endowment for Democracy, the backdoor “humanitarian agency” USAID, the John Bolton-led and fiercely undemocratic NSA, NATO, or the IMF; instead, liberals are more likely to trust them now than before. But there’s more to this narrative, a deeply embedded American Exceptionalism that insists that America is united and ultimately good, and that any claims to the contrary are Whatabouttisms meant to divide us.

There are some notable similarities between the controversy surrounding Russiagate and the Civil Rights Movement: the accusation that agitation is not natural; that division and struggle is alien and therefore wrong; that America is an exceptional land where people are happy and know their place. This becomes exceptionally clear when we talk about many of the posts supposedly created by Kremlin-backed Russian bots or hackers that highlight racial strife. These tend to be in themselves based on anti-blackness, such as the palpable fear in this CNN shit-piece on black men taking self-defense classes. Or an Atlanta-based NPR reporter warning about a Black activist having done guest spots on Russia’s state-funded Sputnik Radio (which airs in DC[1]). The fact that NPR is also state-funded is apparently immaterial. On NPR’s Morning Talk, a reporter dismisses Black leftists and activists such as Anoa Changa and Eugene Puryear as agents of Russian influence:

Like RT, U.S. national security agencies say Sputnik [Radio] is part of Russia’s propaganda machine. The network gives Changa another platform to get her message out. She denounces what she calls racial injustice and oppression. These concerns fall in line with what experts call a key message of Russian propaganda – amplifying existing political and social divisions. [Emphasis mine]

Notice the terminology: “Russia’s propaganda machine”; “what she calls”; “Russian propaganda: amplifying… divisions”.

In the space of half a minute, this nationally-aired and revered National Public Radio show twice calls Black American activist Anoa Changa an agent of Russian propaganda.

Changa sees this tactic as erasure and harmfully racist:

As you can imagine, there isn’t much appetite for this kind of work in mainstream media. So I have my own podcast, and when I’m invited to speak to larger platforms, I do so, gratefully.

Recently, I took such an invitation and appeared as a guest on “By Any Means Necessary,” a radio show hosted by Eugene Puryear and Sean A. Blackmon on Radio Sputnik. Sputnik is a news agency established by the Russian government-controlled news agency Rossiya Segodnya. And yet Eugene, Sean, and their producer maintain editorial freedom in developing and producing their content.

I certainly maintain my independence when I go on their show, talking about the issues that matter to me. I do not consult with the Russian government before I speak my mind, nor do I care what they think about what I say. There aren’t a lot of mainstream platforms that give voice to left-wing Black activists, and Puryear and Blackmon do. On the most recent interview we discussed the glaring issues with Trump’s Economic Executive Order…

In four minutes, Kauffman [the NPR reporter] destroyed my credibility and my reputation, for the crime of not having access to the kinds of American state funded media that he, a white man, is freely given access to.

Fortunately, according to her own report, local activists and (somewhat surprisingly) more mainstream non-profits did not distance themselves from her, which is a testament of her own work as others have been harassed and blackballed for similar accusations.

For liberals to call for the return of Joe McCarthy is disgusting. This redbaiting and red scare has real, practical implications and harm. What’s telling about this new Red Scare is the connections between it and the anti-Black stench of “outside agitators”. It is an ethos that argues that Black people and other oppressed populations are and have been satisfied with a status quo that alienates, suppresses, and oppresses them. Further, the underlying assumption is that Black people could never think of organizing and taking action against their oppressors and would not think of defending themselves were it not for an alien and sinister force stirring up trouble.

Product of outside interference? Russiabot?

Of course these accusations of outside agitation sound familiar to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement. I would assume most liberals are familiar with the charges laid against the likes of not just King, SNCC, and the SCLC, but the local, often unheralded leaders, marchers, singers, corps. Which suggests that liberals are aware of what they’re doing, but just don’t care. Why else would they accuse Black and other oppressed and poor people of being idiotic and essentially satisfied with their positions, besides being shot down on the sidewalks while running away from cops, being denied basic protections while working, being run over by cars while marching in the streets? They would rather capitulate to regressive, anti-black standards and appease reactionaries in order to align against a supposed enemy[2] that they believe assisted a common enemy—a behemoth of horror, surely, but one who is primarily aided and abetted by these same standards of racism and status quo protection that the accused “Russian agents” are protesting against.

As long as liberals continue to individualize their resistance—fighting against personalities rather than against a pathological ideology which causes material harm—they will continue to cause rather than alleviate suffering. It’s almost like they do not seek liberation, but only softer chains.

——–

Note: This post originally appeared in the Patreon page, where you can find exclusive material and preview others. Please consider subscribing.

  ———–

[1] Disclaimer for what it’s worth: I have begun listening to Eugene Puryear’s By Any Means Necessary show via podcast. It’s good stuff, imo.

[2] Can we sometime talk about how Russia is a supposed enemy while Saudi Arabia actually had a part in attacking us? Russia wasn’t an official enemy at the time, nor is it now, strictly speaking. For that matter, how are Iran or Cuba enemies as they do not pose a threat to us and, if we’re counting human rights violations, that’s just fucking laughable coming from the United States.

Being as an Act of Political Defiance

The other day, biking home from a late night show downtown, I was able to travel most of the time outside of the downtown region on a bike path. For a few blocks, the road was completely torn up and I reluctantly traveled slowly on the sidewalk. Waiting for the light at a major intersection three miles from home, I decided to reward myself with the remnants of dinner, a coconut doughnut from DD. But the car full of doodbr0s (of which at least one was a d00d-t00tsie?) behind me wasn’t having it. In a bike path section which at this section doubles as a right turn section for motor vehicles, I was expected to get out of their way.

And go where? I do not know. It’s not that I couldn’t have squeezed somewhere else, but this was my space. I got there first and I was merely waiting for the light to change. They could not bare the thought of being blocked from their next batch of beer by a guy on a twenty pound bicycle who would not bow down immediately to the mighty car and the mighty bros who wielded such power. And so they made it abundantly clear that I did not belong on the road. They honked. They yelled and cursed at me to get out their fucking way and get off the fucking road. Repeatedly. I responded but never gave them the satisfaction of turning around. After all, the road is mine too and I shouldn’t have to suffer abuse because some drunk people think my existence is an inconvenience.

It wasn’t the first time that someone tried to run me off the road or what little space is accredited to me and other bike riders. Traveling home from work one day, I had a car of young dudes nearly run me off the road. In this case, since there is no bike path on this road, I was already as far to the right as I could get, but that still wasn’t enough. They honked fiercely and I moved further and further to into parked cars, fearing for my life. Then when they got right in front of me, they vocalized their dissent at my existence. “Get the fuck out the way.”

These two incidents in combination with daily interactions with cars and vans that come just a bit too close for comfort on roads and bridges remind me that bicycle riding is not safe because, despite what the government says, roads are not made for bicycles. Sure, Augusta Ave has a bike path while Pulaski Ave doesn’t. But neither are really for bicycles. I travel down one route all the way because finding acceptable bike paths adds an extra four miles, and much of that territory despite being labeled “bike-friendly” is anything but friendly to me or my bicycle – completely ripped up roads, a bridge without traction, stretches set apart on the map but not in reality, and really, really foul stenches. Even bike paths are just afterthoughts. The roads are made for heavy, fast-moving vehicles and bicycle use and bicyclists are merely an addendum. Our existence isn’t really welcome, and I see that and recognize that.

Bicycle Race – Toby Gaulke via Flickr

I’ve already noted some parallels between how I’m treated being a cyclist for commuting purposes and how a White/Cis/Hetero/Capitalist Class/Able-Bodied/Neurotypical Supremacy culture treats marginalized and oppressed people who buck the system. But what should be noted is that the roads aren’t made for us. They may make concessions, but at the frame of convenience, they will let you know who is in charge and who does not really “belong” in the routes of power and currency.

It seems that drivers will not recognize us until we speak up and loudly. Until we take their aggression back on them. Until we mobilize. For if they only see a few of us, they can run us off the road .

And yet, we are told that we are too loud, too abrasive, too much, too wonky, too naked. Whether or not we obey rules of the road that were not made for us and do not accept us, we are demonized and pushed to the margins.

So, what to do besides give up? Because existence for many is a means of political resistance to the dominant powers. We scream and make our presence known from the margins of the road that we are here, that we are not sacrificial lambs, that we are worthy of respect, safe spaces, rights, justice. Our collective anger is justified – as is our collective joy. We rally, we network, we write our lawmakers, we push, we embody and demand space on these roads. And our “complaining” (as some are wont to call it) is an act of prophecy and justice seeking.

#SorryNotSorry if you’re worried about what the “right time” is, but my body is not on your time and not yours to negotiate. And still, I ride.

Chicago Tuesdays: More Miguel Plugs

First, there’s this:

It had the look and the excitement of a political convention, and indeed it was: a convention of Chicago’s grassroots…

At the beginning of the New Chicago 2011 mayoral forum, held Tuesday evening at the UIC Forum, members took turns calling out their organizations from the podium, and in turn each section erupted in cheers.

It’s likely to be the largest crowd for a mayoral forum all season – well over 2,000 people — but for some reason, you won’t hear much about it in the city’s mainstream media…

In his opening statement, Del Valle drew the clearest line between his campaign and Emanuel’s, telling the audience, “You understand the need for a neighborhood agenda, not a downtown agenda, not a big business agenda, but a neighborhood agenda.”

When the candidates were asked about immigration reform, Del Valle drew the most sustained applause of the evening, attacking Emanuel as “the one individual most responsible for blocking immigration reform, as a congressman, as chief of staff,” continuing to a passionate crescendo over the rising cheers of the crowd: “How can we expect him to protect the residents of this city’s neighborhoods?”

He also made a clearest distinction with Emanuel’s program for schools: “We can’t continue to set up parallel systems of education, on one track selective enrollment, magnets and charters, on the other track neighborhood schools. It’s time to strengthen neighborhood schools.”

Then, here’s your key to the audio for this conference referenced here. And some great shots from the event can be seen here.

And here’s an interview with Dr. Quentin Young (a longtime hero, activist for equality, a big advocate for Harold Washington and single payer health care) on how Miguel can finish off Rahm in the qualifying race:

Q: What do you like about del Valle?
A: He’s atypically straight-laced, clean, effective and committed for a Chicago pol. None of the other candidates come close to Miguel for leadership both in the legislature [he was a state senator for 23 years] and as City Clerk. He hasn’t gotten rich; he doesn’t give favors. He was an early supporter of [Harold] Washington, and I think you can see in his style and politics—what Washington tried to do for the city…

Q: During the residency hearing, Rahm seemed so calm, so polite.
A: While Rahm conducted himself impressively, I don’t think he can withstand the give-and-take of the primary race. I think the part of him that I find politically unattractive—the boss mentality, “take no prisoners” attitude, will emerge.

Of course, the interviewer can’t keep his mind off of Rahm long enough to keep it positive. But, for my Single-Payer Health Care-focused mind, there’s some money right here:

Q: So what’s wrong with the new national healthcare plan?
A: It won’t solve any problems. Costs have risen since it passed and will continue to do so. Having a bill that squeaked through puts a break on serious reform. [Young blames Emanuel, “a powerful mobilizer of the Democratic vote,” for the three-vote margin in the House].

Q: Would you have been happier had no bill passed?
A: Yes, it would be better to have a clean slate.

How important is Dr. Young’s endorsement? It’s pretty big for progressives in the city. According to The Ward Room’s Edward McClelland:

Young, the former chairman of medicine of Cook County Hospital, is a healthcare activist who heads Physicians For a National Health Program, a Chicago-based non-profit that lobbies for a single-payer health care system. A Hyde Park acquaintance of Barack Obama’s, Young sat on the committee Obama created to draft a health care plan that would cover all Illinoisans. Young’s Movement roots go deep: he provided medical care to civil rights demonstrators in the South, and protestors at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. He also served as a physician to Martin Luther King Jr., Harold Washington and Studs Terkel.

The hits keep coming, of course. But without the big platform and name of an Obama staffer, without the resources of a millionaire politician intricately connected to big business who could pull ads out of his backside, with cold weather keeping people (like me) indoors, and with a huge gap that needs to be tightened within a few short weeks, can Miguel pull ahead to give Rahm a run for his money? I would like to believe so. All this positive media coverage only gives me more hope.

I mean, we’re talking about a Chicago pol who didn’t accept a security detail. I mean, how anti-Machine is that? We’re talking a pol in the 21st Century who isn’t taking money from mega-corporations or Chicago vendors. How gangsta anti-Machine is that? And what does the city need right now more than anti-Machine?

More here.