Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #1000 “In Politics, Nothing Happens by Accident”: Weaponized Feminism and the #MeToo Movement, Part 3 (The Crucible, Part 2)

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained HERE. The new dri­ve is a 32-giga­byte dri­ve that is cur­rent as of the pro­grams and arti­cles post­ed by the fall of 2017. The new dri­ve (avail­able for a tax-deductible con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more.)

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself HERE.

This broad­cast was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.


“A lib­er­al’s idea of courage is eat­ing at a restau­rant that has­n’t been reviewed yet.”–Mort Sahl.

Intro­duc­tion: In this pro­gram, we con­tin­ue analy­sis from FTR #‘s 998 and 999, high­light­ing the appar­ent use of weaponized fem­i­nism to destroy tar­get­ed polit­i­cal fig­ures.

Of con­sid­er­able inter­est in this regard are the founder and lead­ers of the Wom­en’s March. Bob Bland–her actu­al name–is the founder of the Wom­en’s March. Her appar­el com­pa­ny also land­ed a mul­ti-mil­lion dol­lar Pen­ta­gon con­tract for the devel­op­ment of “wear­able tech!” Icon­ic lefty lead­ers would NOT be the recip­i­ents’ of such largesse UNLESS they were insid­ers!

Bob Bland also appoint­ed Lin­da Sar­sour (whose last name trans­lates “cock­roach”), who has been an ardent defend­er and close asso­ciate of Ras­mea Odeh, a con­vict­ed ter­ror­ist who was a mem­ber of the Pop­u­lar Front For the Lib­er­a­tion of Pales­tine, one of the Mus­lim ter­ror orga­ni­za­tions that enjoyed the sup­port of Fran­cois Genoud.

Fur­ther­more Bland, Sar­sour and co-Wom­en’s March lead­ers and Bland appointees ALL stood up for Louis Far­rakhan after a ven­omous anti-white and anti-Semit­ic speech. With Sar­sour man­i­fest­ing a pro-ter­ror link (Odeh/PFLP) and all of the lead­ers sup­port­ing Far­rakhan, the posi­tion­ing of sin­cere, albeit naive, par­tic­i­pants in the Wom­en’s March­es as sub­ver­sives and/or at the least of an odi­ous polit­i­cal stripe is achieved!

In addi­tion to behav­ing very sus­pi­cious­ly with regard to the mur­der of Mal­colm X, the man whose man­tle he assumed and whose mur­der Far­rakhan (then known as “Louis X”) pub­licly called for, Far­rakhan has been an apol­o­gist for the con­tin­ued enslave­ment of black Africans in Sudan and Mau­ri­ta­nia by Arabs. Far­rakhan is also one of the icon­ic fig­ures to the fas­cist Third Posi­tion.

Much of the pro­gram revis­its the blood­less, polit­i­cal assas­si­na­tion of Sen­a­tor Al Franken. Elect­ed by the peo­ple of Min­neso­ta to rep­re­sent them in the Sen­ate, he was removed by a Cru­cible-like cho­rus of social media-dri­ven hys­te­ria, giv­en momen­tum by a Japan­ese-based army of twit­ter bots financed by an as yet unknown, very wealthy indi­vid­ual or orga­ni­za­tion.

Sig­naled by long-time GOP (and Trump) dirty trick­ster Roger Stone and imple­ment­ed by an obvi­ous­ly staged, gag pho­to of Franken mock­ing­ly grop­ing right-wing camp fol­low­er Leann Twee­den, the polit­i­cal will of the peo­ple of Min­neso­ta was com­plete­ly neu­tral­ized by an obvi­ous polit­i­cal gam­bit.

It’s worth not­ing that Tom Arnold, who appears to be long-time friends with Twee­den, issues a string of tweets back on Decem­ber 7, the day Franken resigned, where he assert­ed that Roger Stone and John Phillips (Tweeden’s part­ner at KABC) are long-time friends and were def­i­nite­ly manip­u­lat­ing Twee­den.

Specif­i­cal­ly, he asserts in the tweets that:

1. John Phillips and Roger Stone are pals and they coached her for weeks. “I’m dis­ap­point­ed with my friend Leeann Twee­den. Her part­ner at KABC John Phillips is a Roger Stone pal & they coached her for weeks to bring Al Franken down. I’d hoped she’d use her voice to speak out for all women again preda­tors like Roy Moore & Don­ald Trump but she’s a birther [like Don­ald Trump–D.E.]”— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

2. The only truth behind the alle­ga­tions is the infa­mous pho­to. The rest was cre­at­ed by Stone and Phillips. “I’ve gone to bat for Leeann 100 times this last month hop­ing she’d at least reveal her whole truth too but she ghost­ed me. I know every sin­gle detail of this polit­i­cal manip­u­la­tion. KABC should lose their license. Pro­mot­ing a fraud is a fed­er­al offense & FCC vio­la­tion.” https://t.co/QY1Cxne5tw— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

3. Arnold has proof of this. “To put a but­ton on this the only truth about my old pal Leeann Tweeden’s Al Franken sto­ry was the pic­ture. The rest was cre­at­ed by KABC col­league & fel­low Trump sup­port­er John Phillips & his bud Roger Stone who coached Leeann for weeks to take Al down. Mis­sion accom­plished.”— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

4. He appar­ent­ly got a bunch of “Take down Al” cor­re­spon­dences of Roget Stone & Co sent to him by some­one. “Since I didn’t get all of Roger Stone & Co ‘Take down Al’ cor­re­spon­dences until late last night I thought it was very nice & brave of Leeann to respond to my tweets by call­ing me & shar­ing her beat by beat expe­ri­ence hon­est­ly & open­ly for the first time so I could share them too.” https://t.co/cD71cGIrU2— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

Before recap­ping Louis Far­rakhan’s behav­ior vis a vis the Mal­com X assas­si­na­tion, we note that John Cony­ers employed icon­ic civ­il rights activist Rosa Parks as his admin­is­tra­tive assis­tant for more than 20 years. That alone would have made him a tar­get.

Alt-right blog­ger Mike “Misog­y­ny gets you laid” Cer­novich sig­naled Cony­ers’ removal.

1. Regard­ing the role Roger Stone played in the release of the Leeann Twee­den alle­ga­tions against Al Franken, it’s worth not­ing that Tom Arnold, who appears to be long-time friends with Twee­den, issues a string of tweets back on Decem­ber 7, the day Franken resigned, where he assert­ed that Roger Stone and John Phillips (Tweeden’s part­ner at KABC) are long-time friends and were def­i­nite­ly manip­u­lat­ing Twee­den.

Specif­i­cal­ly, he asserts in the tweets that:

1. John Phillips and Roger Stone are pals and they coached her for weeks. “I’m dis­ap­point­ed with my friend Leeann Twee­den. Her part­ner at KABC John Phillips is a Roger Stone pal & they coached her for weeks to bring Al Franken down. I’d hoped she’d use her voice to speak out for all women again preda­tors like Roy Moore & Don­ald Trump but she’s a birther [like Don­ald Trump–D.E.]”— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

2. The only truth behind the alle­ga­tions is the infa­mous pho­to. The rest was cre­at­ed by Stone and Phillips. “I’ve gone to bat for Leeann 100 times this last month hop­ing she’d at least reveal her whole truth too but she ghost­ed me. I know every sin­gle detail of this polit­i­cal manip­u­la­tion. KABC should lose their license. Pro­mot­ing a fraud is a fed­er­al offense & FCC vio­la­tion.” https://t.co/QY1Cxne5tw— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

3. Arnold has proof of this. “To put a but­ton on this the only truth about my old pal Leeann Tweeden’s Al Franken sto­ry was the pic­ture. The rest was cre­at­ed by KABC col­league & fel­low Trump sup­port­er John Phillips & his bud Roger Stone who coached Leeann for weeks to take Al down. Mis­sion accom­plished.”— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

4. He appar­ent­ly got a bunch of “Take down Al” cor­re­spon­dences of Roget Stone & Co sent to him by some­one. “Since I didn’t get all of Roger Stone & Co ‘Take down Al’ cor­re­spon­dences until late last night I thought it was very nice & brave of Leeann to respond to my tweets by call­ing me & shar­ing her beat by beat expe­ri­ence hon­est­ly & open­ly for the first time so I could share them too.” https://t.co/cD71cGIrU2— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

5. Arnold then tweets that he got off the phone with Twee­den, and that Twee­den claims she didn’t know Stone was involved until after he tweet­ed about Franken’s “time in the Bar­rel”.

6. Twee­den also told Arnold that Sean Han­ni­ty saw the pho­to in 2007 and begged her to go on his show but she wasn’t com­fort­able with that. Twee­den has been show­ing the pic­ture to peo­ple for years.

7. Twee­den told Arnold she was sur­prised that the peo­ple at KABC shared her sto­ry about Franken before she did. And that she is very dis­tressed by the whole sit­u­a­tion and nev­er want­ed Franken fired. Arnold accepts this.

Assum­ing the accu­ra­cy of Arnold’s state­ments, they sug­gest two gen­er­al take­aways: the pho­to of Franken and Twee­den was known to exist by peo­ple like Sean Han­ni­ty for at least the last decade. And Twee­den clear­ly had peo­ple (like Han­ni­ty) who want­ed her to release it for at least the last decade.

So while it’s unclear how much Twee­den was active­ly work­ing with Stone before the release of this sto­ry, it’s prob­a­bly the case that she wasn’t inclined on releas­ing that pho­to (since she had many years to do it while Franken is a Sen­a­tor) which sug­gests that this Stone net­work of peo­ple who final­ly got her to do it MAY have made one hel­lu­va offer.

If Arnold’s asser­tions are true, one might also ask the ques­tion about whether or not Twee­den’s com­plic­it silence in this mat­ter was cement­ed with a threat against her and/or her fam­i­ly?

“Al Franken: Hol­ly­wood Weighs In On Res­ig­na­tion; Tom Arnold Says Franken Accuser Was “Manip­u­lat­ed”” by Greg Evans; Dead­line Hol­ly­wood; 12/07/2017.

With belea­guered Sen. Al Franken answer­ing the will-he-won’t‑he ques­tion — he did — today at 11:45 am ET, Hol­ly­wood seems more divid­ed over the issue than even Franken’s Sen­ate com­padres. While a crit­i­cal mass of fel­low Democ­rats demand­ed Franken’s res­ig­na­tion, some celebri­ties and TV pun­dits aren’t so sure.

“Franken bul­lied out of office,” tweet­ed play­wright Eric Bogosian, adding, “Democ­rats eat their young.” Bil­ly Bald­win, mean­while, tweet­ed a list of harassers from Hol­ly­wood, the media and the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty who’ve lost their jobs, while Trump and Moore remain stand­ing. “The GOP is a dis­grace,” he wrote.

“I hope this is fake news,” tweet­ed Rosie O’Donnell, in all caps, about Franken’s expect­ed res­ig­na­tion ear­li­er. Said singer-turned-activist Clay Aiken, “Democ­rats are sit­ting there in the Sen­ate think­ing that by forc­ing Franken to resign, they are tak­ing a stand and show­ing Democ­rats have a zero tol­er­ance for sex­u­al harass­ment. That will NOT be the les­son learned here.”

See all tweets below.

“The Dems are always ready to dump one of their own,” tweet­ed Bette Midler. “The GOP stand behind every child moles­ter and every harass­er, includ­ing POTUS. As unpleas­ant as it is to face, that’s polit­i­cal sui­cide.”

But none of the com­ments are as point­ed (or lengthy) as a string of tweets by actor Tom Arnold, who says that his friend Leeann Twee­den – the first of Franken’s accusers, whose pho­to of Franken smirk­ing­ly mim­ing a breast grope – has been “manip­u­lat­ed” by Roger Stone, among oth­ers, for polit­i­cal pur­pos­es, and that he has proof that Tweeden’s sto­ry was used as “part of a larg­er smear cam­paign against Franken. “It’s a dis­ser­vice to vic­tims,” Arnold tweet­ed, using the #MeToo hash­tag (Arnold has said he was molest­ed as a child).

After first Arnold sug­gest­ed that Twee­den was some­how in on the Stone plan, but then tweet­ed that he had spo­ken to Twee­den and that she did not know the “peo­ple with bad inten­tions” who got involved in the reveal of her claims. (See Arnold’s tweets at bot­tom of this post).

Here’s a sam­pling of Hol­ly­wood & Belt­way opin­ions on Franken’s res­ig­na­tion. . . .

I’m dis­ap­point­ed with my friend Leeann Twee­den. Her part­ner at KABC John Phillips is a Roger Stone pal & they coached her for weeks to bring Al Franken down. I’d hoped she’d use her voice to speak out for all women again preda­tors like Roy Moore & Don­ald Trump but she’s a birther [like Don­ald Trump–D.E.]— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

I’ve gone to bat for Leeann 100 times this last month hop­ing she’d at least reveal her whole truth too but she ghost­ed me. I know every sin­gle detail of this polit­i­cal manip­u­la­tion. KABC should lose their license. Pro­mot­ing a fraud is a fed­er­al offense & FCC vio­la­tion. https://t.co/QY1Cxne5tw— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

To put a but­ton on this the only truth about my old pal Leeann Tweeden’s Al Franken sto­ry was the pic­ture. The rest was cre­at­ed by KABC col­league & fel­low Trump sup­port­er John Phillips & his bud Roger Stone who coached Leeann for weeks to take Al down. Mis­sion accom­plished.— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

I’m #MeToo & don’t doubt any oth­er woman but the Leeann Twee­den-John Phillips-Roger Stone lies & set up of Al Franken were part of a larg­er smear cam­paign against Al ini­ti­at­ed at the same time Leeann came out at KABC. I have proof. Leeann knows it. It’s a dis­ser­vice to vic­tims.— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

Just got off the phone with my old friend @LeeannTweeden & here’s what i now know. She didn’t know Roger Stone was involved until after he tweet­ed about Franken’s “time in the Bar­rel” Han­ni­ty saw the pic in 2007 & begged her to show it but she wasn’t com­fort­able. Leeann’s not— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

(2) With pal Hannity’s sup­port of Roy Moore which is why she hasn’t done show. She was shocked when i read Roger Stone dirty tricks Franken smear emails. Sur­prised that folks at KABC shared her Franken sto­ry before she did. Nev­er want­ed Al fired. Relieved oth­ers came for­ward.????— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

(3) @LeeannTweeden had no idea KABC John Phillips & Roger Stone were hard right swingin bud­dies. Is it pos­si­ble to be polit­i­cal­ly manip­u­lat­ed with­out knowin it? Yes. Is it pos­si­ble 2 peo­ple could expe­ri­ence the same pic­ture & stage kiss with oppo­site feel­ings? 100% I believe her.— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

She was def­i­nite­ly dis­tressed tonight https://t.co/Dte4BKFDkp— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

Since I didn’t get all of Roger Stone & Co “Take down Al” cor­re­spon­dences until late last night I thought it was very nice & brave of Leeann to respond to my tweets by call­ing me & shar­ing her beat by beat expe­ri­ence hon­est­ly & open­ly for the first time so I could share them too. https://t.co/cD71cGIrU2— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

Pic­ture isn’t fake. It’s bad. Leeann’s shown it to peo­ple for yrs. Han­ni­ty want­ed her to share it 2007. She wasn’t com­fort­able. In 2017 peo­ple with bad inten­tions got involved. Says she didn’t real­ize they were who they were. Leeann was grate­ful to tell sto­ry & move on. The End? https://t.co/jEYfNluLz7— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

I’m not defend­ing him. I just want­ed full dis­clo­sure. I always believe the women. There are some bad men try­ing to take advan­tage of both Leeann & Al on this one. https://t.co/vP83VxTpxs— Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) Decem­ber 7, 2017

2. In FTR #998, we high­light­ed the removal of John Cony­ers, Con­gres­sion­al crit­ic of the Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion, one of the founders of the Con­gres­sion­al Black Cau­cus, and senior mem­ber of the House Judi­cia­ry Com­mit­tee (which helps vet Pres­i­den­tial judi­cial appoint­ments.)

Cony­ers’ removal was sig­naled and abet­ted by Alt-Right blog­ger Mike Cer­novich, a doc­u­ment­ed misog­y­nist who famous­ly observed that: “Misog­y­ny gets you laid.”

One of Cony­ers’ long-time female staffers–his admin­is­tra­tive assis­tant for more than two decades–did not accuse him of sex­u­al harass­ment. That staffer was Rosa Parks, whose refusal to go to “the back of the bus” sig­naled the mod­ern civ­il rights move­ment.

Cony­ers’ employ­ment of Rosa Parks by itself would have been enough to get him tar­get­ed by the far right.

“1965: Rosa Parks Hired as a Sec­re­tary to John Cony­ers” added by Kevin Rogers; World His­to­ry Project.

She lost her job at the depart­ment store, and her hus­band quit his job after his boss for­bade him from talk­ing about his wife or the legal case. Parks trav­eled and spoke exten­sive­ly. In 1957, Ray­mond and Rosa Parks left Mont­gomery for Hamp­ton, Vir­ginia; most­ly because she was unable to find work, but also because of dis­agree­ments with King and oth­er lead­ers of Mont­gomery’s strug­gling civ­il rights move­ment. In Hamp­ton, she found a job as a host­ess in an inn at black Hamp­ton Insti­tute. Lat­er that year, after the urg­ing of her broth­er and sis­ter-in-law, Sylvester & Daisy McCauley, Rosa Parks, her hus­band Ray­mond, and her moth­er Leona McCauley, moved to Detroit, Michi­gan.

Parks worked as a seam­stress until 1965 when African-Amer­i­can U.S. Rep­re­sen­ta­tive John Cony­ers hired her as a sec­re­tary and recep­tion­ist for his con­gres­sion­al office in Detroit. She held this posi­tion until she retired in 1988.[25] In a tele­phone inter­view with CNN on Octo­ber 24, 2005, Cony­ers recalled, “You treat­ed her with def­er­ence because she was so qui­et, so serene — just a very spe­cial per­son ... There was only one Rosa Parks”.[32] Lat­er in life, Parks also served as a mem­ber of the Board of Advo­cates of the Planned Par­ent­hood Fed­er­a­tion of Amer­i­ca.

U.S. Rep. John Cony­ers, the Detroit Demo­c­rat who is the senior mem­ber of the House Judi­cia­ry Com­mit­tee, was elect­ed to Con­gress in 1964, the year the Civ­il Rights Act was passed. He imme­di­ate­ly hired Rosa Parks as a mem­ber of his staff.
Parks, whose polit­i­cal views mir­rored those of the out­spo­ken Cony­ers, would remain on the con­gress­man­’s staff until her retire­ment in 1988.

Parks would remain close to Cony­ers, who recalled the oth­er day that, when Nel­son Man­dela vis­it­ed Detroit in 1990, the pair joined the South African leader on stage. Man­dela got the crowd to join him in chant­i­ng “Rosa Parks!” Cony­ers said that day with Man­dela caused him to rec­og­nize a sim­ple truth: “Rosa Parks is world­wide.”

Yet the icon was also a warm and gen­er­ous human being. Thus, when Rosa Parks died, Cony­ers explained, “Amer­i­ca lost a liv­ing leg­end; and I, along with count­less oth­ers, lost a friend.”

As a token of his respect for his for­mer aide’s accom­plish­ments, Cony­ers always referred to her as “Mrs. Parks.” But there was noth­ing for­mal about their friend­ship.

She regard­ed him as the most impor­tant polit­i­cal leader in the many strug­gles that she waged–not just for civ­il rights but for peace, eco­nom­ic jus­tice and, in par­tic­u­lar, an end to the death penal­ty.

The con­gress­man regard­ed “Mrs. Parks” as some­thing akin to a sec­u­lar saint, as his warm reflec­tion on her pass­ing makes abun­dant­ly clear: We all knew that Mrs. Parks was frail. We always feared this moment, and now it is here. The extent to which she will be missed can­not be dig­ni­fied with words.

She and her hus­band moved to Detroit in 1957, and I think it is fair to say we bond­ed right away. Mrs. Parks was there with me at the begin­ning of my career as a Con­gress­man in 1965 and worked for me as my admin­is­tra­tive assis­tant for next 20 years until her retire­ment in 1988. I am there­fore one of the lucky few who have had the priv­i­lege of being able to call her my col­league, as well as my friend.

As the moth­er of the new civ­il rights move­ment, she left an impact not just on the nation, but on the world. And while she was an apos­tle of the non­vi­o­lence move­ment, Mrs. Parks nev­er saw her self that way. She nev­er sought the lime­light and was nev­er real­ly a polit­i­cal fig­ure at all. It was impor­tant to her that peo­ple under­stand the gov­ern­ment and to under­stand their rights and the Con­sti­tu­tion that peo­ple are still try­ing to per­fect today.

Mrs. Parks will endure in my mem­o­ry as an almost saint-like per­son. And I use that term with care. She was very hum­ble and soft-spo­ken, but inside she had a deter­mi­na­tion that was quite fierce. You treat­ed her with def­er­ence because she was so qui­et, so serene.

There will only ever be one Rosa Parks...”
And there will only ever be one John Cony­ers.

3a. We turn next to the orga­niz­ers of the Wom­en’s March. Lin­da Sar­sour has been a staunch defend­er of Ras­mea Odeh, a con­vict­ed ter­ror­ist who was a  mem­ber of the Pop­u­lar Front for the Lib­er­a­tion of Pales­tine, one of the Pales­tin­ian groups that was the ben­e­fi­cia­ry of the ser­vices of Jacques Verges and Fran­cois Genoud, heir to the col­lect­ed lit­er­ary works and polit­i­cal last will and tes­ta­ment of  Adolf Hitler, Mar­tin Bor­mann and Joseph Goebbels.

There is detailed dis­cus­sion of this in FTR  #453, among oth­er pro­grams.

“Ras­mea Odeh and Lin­da Sar­sour Slam ‘Zion­ists’ at Jew­ish Voice for Peace Sum­mit” by Mar­cy Oster; For­ward; 4/3/2017.

A Pales­tin­ian woman who is being forced to leave the Unit­ed States for not telling immi­gra­tion author­i­ties that she was impris­oned in Israel for two ter­ror attacks told a U.S. Jew­ish group that they must stop the “Zion­ists” from their “land grab.”

Ras­mea Odeh was the keynote speak­er on Sun­day in Chica­go at a sum­mit of the Jew­ish Voice for Peace, a group that backs the Boy­cott, Divest­ment and Sanc­tions move­ment against Israel.

Odeh, 69, accept­ed a plea bar­gain last month that forces her to leave the coun­try and strips her U.S. cit­i­zen­ship. She had been fight­ing in the courts for years.

Also speak­ing at the con­fer­ence was the Pales­tin­ian-Amer­i­can activist Lin­da Sar­sour, who raised hack­les among lib­er­al Amer­i­can Jews recent­ly by say­ing that those who iden­ti­fy as Zion­ist can­not be fem­i­nist because they are ignor­ing the rights of Pales­tin­ian women. . . .

. . . . In 1970, Odeh was sen­tenced to life in prison for two bomb­ing attacks on behalf of the Pop­u­lar Front for the Lib­er­a­tion of Pales­tine and spent 10 years in prison before being released in a pris­on­er exchange in 1980. . . .

3b. Louis Far­rakhan weighed in on the #MeToo move­ment and its Hol­ly­wood man­i­fes­ta­tions, putting his own spin on the phe­nom­e­non:

“Jews were respon­si­ble for all of this filth and degen­er­ate behav­ior that Hol­ly­wood is putting out turn­ing men into women and women into men. White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Far­rakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cov­er off of that Satan­ic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through,”
-Louis Far­rakhan, 3/18

Three of the four lead­ers of the Wom­en’s March (Car­men Perez, Tami­ka Mal­lo­ry, and Lin­da “Cock­roach” Sarsour[her name trans­lates “cockroach”–D.E.) are easy to doc­u­ment as there has been a some out­cry over Mallory’s atten­dance at a Far­rakhan ral­ly last week, cou­pled with Sar­sour and Perez’s pre­vi­ous engage­ments with Dear Leader.

Amer­i­can media cov­er­age has been lim­it­ed, though it is quite the hot top­ic on social media, with even some of the worst “social jus­tice war­riors” real­iz­ing that hook­ing up with Far­rakhan is a bridge too far. The fourth mem­ber of the core is stand­ing strong­ly behind the Far­rakhan Three, and has some very inter­est­ing ties of her own…

“Women’s March Lead­ers Refuse to Con­demn Far­rakhan After Anti­se­mit­ic Speech” by Daniel J. Roth; Jerusalem Post; 3/3/2018.

High-pro­file lead­ers of the pop­u­lar Women’s March move­ment are refus­ing to con­demn an anti­se­mit­ic speech Louis Far­rakhan deliv­ered last week.

Accord­ing to the Anti-Defama­tion League, promi­nent Women’s March fig­ures Tami­ka Mal­lo­ry, Car­men Perez and Lin­da Sar­sour have failed to speak out against the Nation of Islam leader after he described the Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ty as his “ene­my” dur­ing a speech at the 2018 Saviour’s Day event in Chica­go

“In the audi­ence at last weekend’s con­fer­ence was Tami­ka Mal­lo­ry, one of the lead­ers of the Women’s March, who got a spe­cial shout-out from Far­rakhan and who reg­u­lar­ly posts lauda­to­ry pic­tures of him on her Insta­gram account as does Car­men Perez, anoth­er leader of the March,” the ADL said.

“Lin­da Sar­sour, anoth­er March orga­niz­er, spoke and par­tic­i­pat­ed at a Nation of Islam event in 2015. Her most notable response to his incen­di­ary remarks this year was a glow­ing post on Perez’s Face­book page to praise Farrakhan’s youth­ful demeanor.”

Perez refused to denounce the 84-year-old’s anti­semitism and instead retort­ed: “There are no per­fect lead­ers.” Mal­lo­ry and Sar­sour failed to respond to a request for com­ment by The Jerusalem Post.

…Aman­da Berman, head of the New York City branch of the pro­gres­sive Zioness Move­ment, said she was dis­mayed that an orga­ni­za­tion devot­ed to social jus­tice and tol­er­ance had failed to speak out against such bla­tant big­otry.

“No one expects pro­gres­sive lead­ers – who are humans – to be per­fect. We expect them to be inher­ent­ly good, as opposed to pro­found­ly racist. It would be absolute­ly unac­cept­able to Mal­lo­ry, Perez and Sar­sour if any oth­er leader made heinous, big­ot­ed com­ments like this about their respec­tive com­mu­ni­ties, and there­fore iron­ic and hyp­o­crit­i­cal beyond words that they con­tin­ue to align them­selves with some­one with such deeply held, hate­ful world­views,” Berman said.

“Either the Women’s March lead­ers endorse the vil­i­fi­ca­tion of the Jew­ish peo­ple or they don’t – and if they don’t, why do they so vehe­ment­ly refuse to unequiv­o­cal­ly con­demn it? This episode only reaf­firms the Zioness Movement’s com­mit­ment to acti­vat­ing and empow­er­ing new lead­ers in the fem­i­nist move­ment who show up to fight for the civ­il and human rights of all peo­ple, not just some peo­ple,” she added.

Speak­ing to thou­sands of fol­low­ers, Far­rakhan railed against the US Jew­ish community’s sup­posed influ­ence over the media, an anti­se­mit­ic trope that has long been a pop­u­lar talk­ing point for the black nation­al­ist leader.

In one part of the address, Far­rakhan said that the “Jews were respon­si­ble for all of this filth and degen­er­ate behav­ior that Hol­ly­wood is putting out turn­ing men into women and women into men.”

“White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Far­rakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cov­er off of that Satan­ic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through,” Far­rakhan added.

Sav­iours’ Day is a hol­i­day of the Nation of Islam com­mem­o­rat­ing the birth of its founder, Wal­lace Fard Muham­mad.

Oth­er notable remarks made by Far­rakhan dur­ing the his speech in Chica­go includ­ed the notion that Jews are part of “the Syn­a­gogue of Satan”; that the “white peo­ple run­ning Mex­i­co” are Mex­i­can-Jews; that Jews con­trol var­i­ous coun­tries includ­ing Ukraine, France, Poland and Ger­many where they take advan­tage of the mon­ey, the cul­ture and the busi­ness; that Jesus called Jews “the chil­dren of the dev­il”; and “when you want some­thing in this world, the Jew holds the door.”

He also claimed that Jews con­trol the US gov­ern­ment and the FBI and use mar­i­jua­na to fem­i­nize black men.

In an appar­ent response to the con­tro­ver­sy, Mal­lo­ry post­ed to Twit­ter on Fri­day evening: “Fam­i­ly… thank you for lov­ing me and for know­ing the truth about who I am. My work speaks for itself… my words have been clear… my love for peo­ple is deep. What­ev­er else they say about me is a LIE. [This is disin­gen­u­ous, in that it implies that Mal­lo­ry did not attend a Far­rakhan event.Thank you for con­tin­u­ing to hold me up. I stand on my rep­u­ta­tion!”

…The ADL not­ed that in recent years, Far­rakhan has embarked on a wide-rang­ing anti-Jew­ish cam­paign, which has fea­tured some of the most hate­ful speech­es of his career.

“He has repeat­ed­ly alleged that the Jew­ish peo­ple were respon­si­ble for the slave trade as well as the 9/11 attacks, and that they con­tin­ue con­spire to con­trol the gov­ern­ment, the media, Hol­ly­wood, and var­i­ous black indi­vid­u­als and orga­ni­za­tions,” the orga­ni­za­tion said.

Despite Farrakhan’s dis­po­si­tion toward the Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ty, the New York native has been able to gar­ner sup­port from well-known politi­cians and pub­lic offi­cials over the years.

US Rep. Dan­ny Davis (D‑Illinois) recent­ly praised Far­rakhan as “an out­stand­ing human being.” He lat­er told the ADL that he was mis­quot­ed and insist­ed he rejects anti­semitism in all forms.

US Reps. Max­ine Waters and Bar­bara Lee of Cal­i­for­nia, Al Green of Texas and William Jef­fer­son of Louisiana have also been cap­tured embrac­ing Far­rakhan, with a video post­ed to YouTube in 2009 show­ing them coor­di­nat­ing a response to Hur­ri­cane Kat­ri­na.

4. More on Far­rakhan and the Wom­en’s march co-chairs from The For­ward.

“Memo to the Left: Denounce Anti-Semi­te Louis Far­rakhan” by Elad Neho­rai; The For­ward; 3/2/1018.

…So it was dis­may­ing that a leader of the left would coun­te­nance his words, show up at his speech and take a pho­to with him. And yet this is what leader and co-chair of the Women’s March, Tami­ka Mal­lo­ry, did this week.

It would be one thing if Mal­lo­ry lat­er denounced Farrakhan’s hate­ful words, if only because anti-Semi­tism is so taboo that even clos­et anti-Semi­tes under­stand they must hide it.

But she did not. Rather, she proud­ly shared a video and pho­to of her atten­dance on Insta­gram. Not only that, in an appar­ent response to the (very lim­it­ed) out­rage about her atten­dance, she tweet­ed an anti-Semit­ic dog whis­tle:

This is the kind of dog whis­tle that even humans can hear. Mallory’s claim that she has the same ene­mies as Jesus only days after being crit­i­cized for her atten­dance at an anti-Semit­ic speech is a clear ref­er­ence to one of the old­est anti-Semit­ic tropes of all time, used to jus­ti­fy unimag­in­able mas­sacres through­out the ages: that Jews are the ene­mies of Chris­tian­i­ty.

Let’s be clear: These are the words of an anti-Semi­te. The only oth­er pub­lic state­ment she’s made about the event was in response to a tweet by Tal­ib Kweli where he also proud­ly claimed his sup­port for Far­rakhan. Mallory’s response? “My broth­er! Love you, Tal­ib!”

Mal­lo­ry had the chance to clar­i­fy her atten­dance, to claim that per­haps there was some expla­na­tion besides hatred that would moti­vate her atten­dance at this speech, and her proud shar­ing of images from it.

Instead, she has dou­bled down, and proud­ly.

Oth­ers who are part of the Women’s March lead­er­ship have not said a word. Lin­da Sar­sour has been notably silent, as has Car­men Perez, both co-chairs of the move­ment.

Worse, instead of an out­cry from the left of the sort Steve Ban­non has got­ten, there has been a bizarre silence from lead­ers of oth­er social jus­tice orga­ni­za­tions, includ­ing Jew­ish ones.

Now is not a time to mince words: The left’s silence in this instance sig­nals their com­plic­i­ty in anti-Semi­tism. They are allow­ing naked, open big­otry to grow in front of them with­out a word of protest.

In fact, when CNN’s Jake Tap­per tweet­ed crit­i­cism of Mallory’s atten­dance, he was him­self crit­i­cized on the grounds that Mal­lo­ry is not impor­tant enough to cas­ti­gate.

This is both false and insid­i­ous. It’s false because Mal­lo­ry is the head of one of the most main­stream activist orga­ni­za­tions in Amer­i­ca. The orig­i­nal Women’s March broke records for atten­dance for sin­gle-day demon­stra­tion in the US. It has tak­en on an even big­ger role thanks to the #MeToo move­ment. It is one of the strongest, most impor­tant voic­es in left wing activism (as it should be).

Mallory’s role, then, is not a fringe leader of some small move­ment but the leader of a cul­tur­al pow­er­house. And it is trib­al­ism that has silenced the left on her behalf. Moral­i­ty should be guid­ing our posi­tions, not the rel­a­tive pow­er of oth­ers or what “side” they are on. To accept hatred among our own because it is con­ve­nient or because it is less dan­ger­ous in our minds than the oth­er side’s hatred is an amoral, trib­al, strate­gic deci­sion rather than a moral one.

Ulti­mate­ly, anti-Semi­tism is evil, as is racism, xeno­pho­bia, homo­pho­bia, Islam­o­pho­bia, and every oth­er hate that takes groups of peo­ple and turns them from indi­vid­u­als into mas­sive globs of ene­mies to be destroyed. It is infu­ri­at­ing that anti-Semi­tism is not tak­en as seri­ous­ly as these oth­er forms of big­otry. But it also expos­es a seri­ous moral fail­ing on the left that threat­ens the very integri­ty of its col­lec­tive soul.

Tami­ka Mal­lo­ry has not just gone to see a man ooz­ing of such hatred speak. She has pub­licly endorsed him. She has refused to back down for her atten­dance. She has refused to denounce his words. She has com­posed her own anti-Semit­ic dog-whistling com­ment. And she has thanked oth­ers for sup­port­ing her atten­dance.

It is our job to speak up, not because she is pow­er­ful (which she is), and not because she is influ­en­tial (which she is) and not because if we don’t speak up, the hatred will spread (which it will). We – and every­one else on the left — must speak up because it is the right thing to do.

5a. The leader of the Wom­en’s March is worth not­ing: a woman named Bob Bland. What her orig­i­nal name was is not read­i­ly avail­able, how­ev­er she hails from North­ern Vir­ginia orig­i­nal­ly (what part, we won­der) is appar­ent­ly a born-again Chris­t­ian and select­ed Far­rakhan defenders/associates Sar­sour, Mal­o­ry and Perez as co-chairs of the march.

Bob Bland”; Wikipedia.

. . . . Bland orig­i­nat­ed the idea of the Wom­en’s March on Wash­ing­ton and asso­ci­at­ed inter­na­tion­al march­es held after the inau­gu­ra­tion of Don­ald Trump. Bland tapped Lin­da Sar­sourTami­ka Mal­o­ry, and Car­men Perez as co-chairs in order to give the march a diverse lead­er­ship team. . . .

5b. In addi­tion to pro­mot­ing Far­rakhan defend­ers Sar­sour (an advo­cate for PFLP vet­er­an Odeh, part of “Team Genoud”), Mal­lo­ry and Perez to posi­tions of lead­er­ship in the Wom­en’s March, Bob Bland­’s appar­el com­pa­ny has land­ed a mul­ti-mil­lion dol­lar Pen­ta­gon con­tract for the devel­op­ment of “wear­able tech.” Icon­ic lefty lead­ers would NOT be the recip­i­ents’ of such largesse UNLESS they were insid­ers!

“Man­u­fac­ture New York Blos­soms in Brook­lyn” by Arthur Fried­man; Wom­en’s Wear Dai­ly; 5/10/2018.

…Last month, MNY became part of the U.S. Depart­ment of Defense and Mass­a­chu­setts Insti­tute for Technology’s sweep­ing $315 mil­lion pub­lic-pri­vate project called the Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Fibers and Tex­tiles Man­u­fac­tur­ing Inno­va­tion Insti­tute aimed at keep­ing the coun­try at the fore­front of fiber and tex­tiles inno­va­tion. It will be locat­ed at MIT’s Sloan School of Man­age­ment in Cam­bridge.

Under the ban­ner Advanced Func­tion­al Fab­rics of Amer­i­ca, the con­sor­tium com­pris­es firms from sev­er­al indus­tries and fields, includ­ing fash­ion groups VF Corp., New Bal­ance and Nike and tex­tile man­u­fac­tur­ers Mil­liken & Co., Buh­ler Qual­i­ty Yarns and Inman Mills. The project also encom­pass­es 52 com­pa­nies and 32 uni­ver­si­ties, col­leges and oth­er schools, includ­ing the Fash­ion Insti­tute of Tech­nol­o­gy.

In the New York region, FIT is part­ner­ing with MNY to launch and host skills-based train­ing and reg­is­tered appren­tice­ship pro­grams across the fash­ion tex­tile man­u­fac­tur­ing sup­ply chain, includ­ing Advanced Func­tion­al Fab­rics of Amer­i­ca tech­ni­cal project par­tic­i­pants.

MNY’s Bland will serve as the deputy direc­tor of appren­tice­ships and intern­ships and will estab­lish a region­al train­ing hub for New York.

… Bland not­ed that MNY start­ed with women’s wear and now has a wide range of prod­ucts, from yarn pro­duc­tion to bridal design and man­u­fac­tur­ing.

“Now that we’re part of the con­sor­tium that just won the $75 mil­lion grant from the [Depart­ment of Defense] that’s result­ing in a for­mal part­ner­ship between us and the Fash­ion Insti­tute of Tech­nol­o­gy, where over the next five years we’re going to be build­ing a com­plete­ly unprece­dent­ed work­force train­ing pro­gram for local Sun­set Park res­i­dents that’s at the con­ver­gence of tra­di­tion­al fash­ion man­u­fac­tur­ing and wear­able tech­nol­o­gy,” Bland said. “So this is going to cre­ate a whole new class of jobs that nev­er exist­ed before — areas like pro­gram­ming, machine tech, user expe­ri­ence in mak­ing a gar­ment or pro­duc­ing fab­rics.”

5c. Since the recent out­rage over Women’s March/Farrakhan, Bland has hard­ly called out her col­leagues. No, she is back­ing them full tilt.

Bob Bland‏Verified account @bobblanddesign 19h19 hours ago

It is our duty to work with­in our com­mu­ni­ties to trans­form people’s hearts and minds, like @TamikaDMallory does. Out­siders can­not inspire the same dia­logue to end prej­u­dice as those who have spent their lives build­ing authen­tic rela­tion­ships.

.@TamikaDMallory being held direct­ly account­able for the words of any man is misog­y­nis­tic and doesn’t take into account her tire­less work over the last 20 years, or her own words in sup­port of Jew­ish and LGBTIAQ+ com­mu­ni­ties.

For the last year, I have spent time deeply lis­ten­ing to Black women and com­mu­ni­ties, par­tic­u­lar­ly those suf­fer­ing from pover­ty, addic­tion or incar­cer­a­tion. I con­sis­tent­ly hear sto­ries of the Nation of Islam being there when was no else cared.

…I stand with @TamikaDMallory , this day and every day, because I have wit­nessed her tire­less work to uplift the most mar­gin­al­ized, not just in the Black com­mu­ni­ty, but in every com­mu­ni­ty we have com­mit­ted to serve.”

6a. In FTR #21 (“Louis Far­rakhan and the Pol­i­tics of Mur­der”), we explored  Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s sus­pi­cious behav­ior vis a vis the assas­si­na­tion of Mal­colm X, the man whose man­tle he has assumed. We play and excerpt from that show.

The descrip­tion for FTR #21:

Draw­ing on infor­ma­tion from the book The Judas Fac­tor: The Plot to Kill Mal­com X by Karl Evanzz (Thunder’s Mouth Press, hard­cov­er, copy­right 1992), the pro­gram focus­es on the behav­ior and rhetoric of Nation of Islam leader Louis Far­rakhan with regard to both the assas­si­na­tion of Mal­com X and the mur­der of mem­bers of a group of dis­si­dent mus­lims. Hav­ing pub­licly called for Malcom’s elim­i­na­tion, Farrakhan’s move­ments and actions in the time peri­od sur­round­ing Mal­com X’s assas­si­na­tion raise sig­nif­i­cant ques­tions con­cern­ing his procla­ma­tion of inno­cence in con­nec­tion with the killing. Equal­ly dis­turb­ing is the descrip­tion of the delib­er­ate and bru­tal exe­cu­tion of mem­bers of a break­away Mus­lim group. Many of the vic­tims were chil­dren. Far­rakhan (then known as Louis X) uti­lized the killing as a veiled warn­ing of what would hap­pen to those who opposed the agen­da of then NOI head Eli­jah Muham­mad.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: Texas right-wing bil­lion­aire H.L Hunt’s fund­ing of the Nation of Islam (one of the points of crit­i­cism of the NOI by Mal­colm X that led to the lat­ter’s split with Eli­jah Moham­mad; Eli­jah Moham­mad’s belief that Far­rakhan would be a good choice to take over Mal­colm X’s role with­in the orga­ni­za­tion; Louis Far­rakhan’s net­work­ing with white suprema­cists; Louis Far­rakhan’s posi­tion as an icon­ic fig­ure for the fas­cist Third Posi­tion. (Record­ed in the fall of 1995.)

6b. A New York Times arti­cle about the parole of one of Mal­colm X’s killers dis­clos­es that Far­rakhan named anoth­er of the assas­sins to be chief of secu­ri­ty for the Harlem mosque one head­ed by Mal­colm X!

“Killer of Mal­colm X Gets Paroled” by Andy New­man and John Eligon; The New York Times; 3/20/2010.

After being turned down for parole 16 times, Mal­colm X’s only con­fessed assas­sin is about to gain his free­dom.

Thomas Hagan has been held since moments after shots rang out in the Audubon Ball­room in 1965. He has been on work release for more than two decades, but he still spends two days a week locked up at the Lin­coln Cor­rec­tion­al Facil­i­ty on West 110th Street in Man­hat­tan. . . .

. . . Two oth­er men, Muham­mad Abdul Aziz (then known as Nor­man 3X But­ler) and Kahlil Islam (then Thomas 15X John­son), were also charged with the mur­der. They main­tained their inno­cence. Mr. Hagan did not, tes­ti­fy­ing at his tri­al in 1966 that he was respon­si­ble for the mur­der and that his co-defen­dants were inno­cent. . . .

. . . Mr. Aziz was paroled in 1985, and in 1998 was named by Louis Far­rakhan to be chief of secu­ri­ty for the Harlem mosque that Mal­colm X once head­ed. . . . [Ital­ics are mine–D.E.]


4 comments for “FTR #1000 “In Politics, Nothing Happens by Accident”: Weaponized Feminism and the #MeToo Movement, Part 3 (The Crucible, Part 2)”

  1. Indeed there will only ever be one Rosa Parks. It should be not­ed before John Cony­ers hired her
    as a sec­re­tary in 1965, and before she was a seam­stress and even before her leg­endary actions in the
    Mont­gomery Bus Boy­cott, Ms. Parks had anoth­er posi­tion, anoth­er impor­tant role to play.

    In 1944 Rosa Parks was the pri­ma­ry sex­u­al assault inves­ti­ga­tor for the NAACP. Hav­ing suc­cess­ful­ly
    fought off an attack­er who tried to rape her in 1931 (“I was ready to die but give my con­sent nev­er.
    Nev­er, nev­er”} Parks was def­i­nite­ly qual­i­fied to trav­el to Abbeville Alaba­ma to inves­ti­gate the
    kid­nap­ping and rape of Recy Tay­lor by six white men after she left church.


    Two recent doc­u­men­taries “The Rape of Recy Tay­lor” and“Did you Won­der Who Fired the Gun” touch on
    the coura­geous activism of Rosa Parks in this ear­li­er hor­ri­fy­ing inci­dent in Alaba­ma.
    And so it is more than sad­ly iron­ic that con­gress­man Cony­ers was removed from office over sex­u­al
    harass­ment accu­sa­tions, although I’m cer­tain the irony is lost on Nazis and white suprema­cists.
    Or is it?

    Posted by Dennis | March 19, 2018, 1:18 am
  2. Now that Brett Kavanaugh has ascend­ed to the Supreme Court it appears that an accom­mo­da­tion has been reached between the
    Under­ground Reich and one of its semi-autonomous com­po­nents the Deep State. The rift over the errat­ic pres­i­den­cy of Don­ald Trump
    has been smoothed over at least for the time being. The long term eco­nom­ic and legal goals of fas­cism in Amer­i­ca are more impor­tant
    than who’s occu­py­ing the Oval Office.

    When Trump phoned George W. Bush in Sep­tem­ber he was like­ly told Kavanaugh will be in good posi­tion to main­tain secre­cy regard­ing
    the dirty mis­deeds of both Repub­li­can admin­is­tra­tions; domes­tic spy­ing and rendition/torture on the one hand, Deutsche Bank and the
    Trump family/Anthony Kennedy family/Peter Thiel con­nec­tions on the oth­er hand. Kavanaugh will let sleep­ing dogs lie was like­ly the
    dis­cus­sion dur­ing that phone call, in so many words, as Kavanaugh worked in the Bush White House. The Bush fam­i­ly, Karl Rove, Con­doleeza
    Rice all want­ed to see Kavanaugh con­firmed. And Trump wants a Supreme Court that can block his impeach­ment. Kavanaugh is Trump’s
    stay out of jail card.

    Rove recalled Kavanaugh­’s time as staff sec­re­tary in the Dubya Bush White House “every doc­u­ment that goes to the pres­i­dent on a pol­i­cy
    issue has to pass through the hands of the staff sec­re­tary and he has to be the per­son who asks peo­ple tough ques­tions about what they
    are try­ing to say in that doc­u­ment and helps edit it.” (Shane Crouch­er Newsweek Oct 17/18). There are also chum­my pho­tos of Rove and
    Kavanaugh arm in arm wear­ing navy blue blaz­ers and kha­ki pants.

    For­mer right wing oper­a­tive David Brock (Blind­ed By The Light) rem­i­nisced about his days with a group of young hard right ide­o­logues
    that includ­ed Kavanaugh, Matt Drudge and Fox media fig­ures Tuck­er Carl­son, Ann Coul­ter and Lau­ra Ingra­ham. “In a rough divi­sion of
    labour, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer, one of the sharp young minds recruit­ed by the Fed­er­al­ist Soci­ety to infil­trate the fed­er­al
    judi­cia­ry with true believ­ers.” (NBCnews.com Sept. 7/18)

    The fas­cist fifth col­umn that con­trols the GOP and exerts influ­ence over senior Demo­c­ra­t­ic lead­ers like Nan­cy Pelosi (FTR #673) and
    White Russ­ian Diane Fein­stein has suc­cess­ful­ly weaponized the #Me Too move­ment to con­sol­i­date con­trol over the judi­cia­ry and per­haps
    the Novem­ber mid-term elec­tions as well.
    There are many dubi­ous actors in this Supreme Farce and lots of blame to go around from show-boat­ing pugna­cious attor­ney
    Michael Ave­nat­ti to Demo­c­ra­t­ic sen­a­tors and their pecu­liar dis­or­ga­nized strat­e­gy dur­ing the con­fir­ma­tion hear­ings. The Dems were
    inef­fec­tive con­nect­ing Kavanaugh­’s mul­ti­ple exam­ples of per­jury regard­ing the hacked/stolen emails belong­ing to Sen­a­tor Patrick
    Leahy and his per­jured tes­ti­mo­ny regard­ing Chris­tine Blasey Ford’s sex­u­al assault alle­ga­tions.

    Trumps’ diehard maga/birther dolts don’t care about sex­u­al assault, whether it’s com­mit­ted by judi­cial nom­i­nees or Trump him­self.
    Democ­rats who forced Al Franken and John Cony­ers to resign don’t get this fact.
    Unfor­tu­nate­ly the expect­ed Novem­ber Blue Wave is like­ly a chimera that will dis­solve into a Red Riv­er of GOP gains in the House.

    Posted by Dennis | October 7, 2018, 7:26 pm
  3. @Dennis–

    NEVER for­get that Al Franken was on the Sen­ate Judi­cia­ry Com­mit­tee!

    His ques­tion­ing would have been a good deal more sub­stan­tive and inci­sive than that of hacks like Kamala Har­ris and Cory Book­er.

    Leann Twee­den is a birther, accord­ing to her friend Tom Arnold.

    On the same USO tour on which Franken staged the obvi­ous gag pho­to­graph of him pre­tend­ing to grab Leann Twee­den’s breasts (while she was wear­ing a flak jacket–not exact­ly Vic­to­ri­a’s Secret fare), Leann Twee­den is grab­bing a male per­former’s a**.

    WHY was that not sex­u­al harass­ment? Have there been any calls for Leann Twee­den to resign her posi­tion with KABC radio in Los Ange­les?

    Franken said he would wel­come an inves­ti­ga­tion of the charges against him.

    There was NONE!

    His polit­i­cal lynch­ing was–as I said in FTR #999–like Arthur Miller’s “The Cru­cible.”

    That was a para­ble, com­par­ing McCarthy­ism with the psy­cho-sex­u­al hys­te­ria of ado­les­cent young women in the Salem Witch Hunts and tri­als.

    The #MeToo crowd deserves a lot of the blame for the ele­va­tion of Kavanaugh.

    In my opin­ion, the #MeToo move­ment is a psy-op and is at one with the Wom­en’s March.

    The orig­i­na­tor of the Wom­en’s March is Bob Bland.

    (John­ny Cash wrote and sang about “The Boy Named Sue”–well this is the Girl Named Bob!)

    Short­ly after mint­ing the Wom­en’s March and anoint­ing lead­ers like Lin­da Sar­sour, who is asso­ci­at­ed with PFLP ter­ror­ists and was high­ly vis­i­ble in the Kavanaugh hear­ings, The Girl Named Bob’s appar­el com­pa­ny was award­ed a lucra­tive Pen­ta­gon con­tract.

    Now, that does NOT nor­mal­ly hap­pen.

    Note the high pro­file in the jour­nal­is­tic out­ing of #MeToo tar­gets of Ronan Far­row.

    Far­row worked for the State Depart­ment with a spe­cial­ty in Afghani and Pak­istani affairs. He may well be a spook.

    By the way, Lin­da Sar­sour’s pals the PFLP, were pro­teges of Fran­cois Genoud.

    Mia Farrow–Ronan’s mother–said he may well be the child of Frank Sina­tra. There is a strong phys­i­cal resem­blance.

    Accord­ing to his daugh­ter Nan­cy in a book she authored, The Chair­man of the Board had worked as a couri­er for the CIA.

    Pret­ty sor­ry stuff. all in all.



    Posted by Dave Emory | October 8, 2018, 6:52 pm
  4. A few weeks ago, this arti­cle caught my eye. I was sur­prised to see an anti-Trudeau piece on CNN.com and gave it a read. Most­ly it’s a bor­ing recap of things Trudeau may or may not have done wrong with COVID. But in read­ing it, I felt a strong agen­da com­ing from the piece. Byline? Michael Boci­urkiw! He has crit­i­cized Trudeau a lot (reminder: Boci­urkiw is Ukrain­ian-Cana­di­an), some­times from the Left, some­times from the Right. I real­ly don’t know what that is about in the end, but it got me curi­ous as to what he has been up to since we last saw him run­ning inter­fer­ence on the plane crash in Ukraine.


    (side note: one thing I find amus­ing about Boci­urkiw is that he calls him­self a “human­i­tar­i­an” on var­i­ous pieces and social media pro­files. “Human­i­tar­i­an” is a label that OTHERS put on you… nobody calls them­selves a human­i­tar­i­an unless they are a nar­cis­sist.)

    Turns out that one sub­ject he has focused on in the past year is the sit­u­a­tion of women in Papua New Guinea.


    “World lead­ers — includ­ing my own self-avowed fem­i­nist prime min­is­ter, Justin Trudeau — who gath­ered there last Novem­ber for the 26th APEC Eco­nom­ic Lead­ers Meet­ing, squan­dered an oppor­tu­ni­ty to shine light on the shame­ful sit­u­a­tion. Instead, the group of most­ly male lead­ers squab­bled over the para­me­ters of a dig­i­tal future, with scarce­ly a word men­tioned in the final state­ment about women. I won­der if the lead­ers even noticed that there’s not a sin­gle woman in Papua New Guinea’s par­lia­ment, and that it has just a few female may­ors.

    Had the APEC lead­ers trav­eled beyond Port Mores­by, they very like­ly would have detect­ed a seething under­cur­rent of vio­lence against women. In the high­lands — parts of which are still recov­er­ing from an earth­quake in Feb­ru­ary 2018 and are inac­ces­si­ble to out­siders — hun­dreds of women and chil­dren have been caught up in the chron­ic trib­al con­flict that has gripped the regions for decades. Even with­in the walls of their own homes, where they are meant to be safest, women rou­tine­ly face part­ner vio­lence. Accord­ing to Human Rights Watch, more than two-thirds of women in the coun­try have expe­ri­enced gen­der-based vio­lence.”

    NOTE: Much of what Boci­urkiw writes in this piece is cor­rect and I have no argu­ment with. How­ev­er, I just don’t trust the guy. This next sec­tion tips off that he real­ly doesn’t know much about Papua New Guinea. The tribes in the “iso­lat­ed high­lands” are some of the most prim­i­tive in the world, and many should have been left alone and kept from West­ern con­tact.
    West­ern­ers aren’t going to fix this stuff any time soon.

    Also, a phrase like “some of the sto­ries I heard bor­der on extreme bru­tal­i­ty” is both a tease and an under­state­ment. Weasel words that Orwell would have loved. How does one “bor­der” on “extreme bru­tal­i­ty”. And the sto­ries he relays ARE extreme­ly bru­tal, there is no “bor­der­ing”.

    “In the iso­lat­ed high­lands, parts of which are no-go areas due to spo­radic trib­al vio­lence, some of the sto­ries I heard bor­der on extreme bru­tal­i­ty. It is a region where sor­cery and ancient tra­di­tions con­spire to cre­ate a dan­ger­ous sit­u­a­tion for women.
    Sis­ter Lore­na Jenal, a Catholic nun and coun­selor in the Arch­dio­cese of Men­di, attribute the grow­ing trend in vio­lence against women to the break­down in tra­di­tion­al trib­al author­i­ty that used to medi­ate dis­agree­ments peace­ful­ly. Add to that the avail­abil­i­ty of drugs and home­made alco­hol for men — many women told me they are beat­en when their spous­es come home under the influ­ence — and the sit­u­a­tion appears extreme­ly bleak. “

    NOTE: Bociurkiw’s focus on Papua New Guinea is almost entire­ly about women’s issues. How­ev­er, he neglects to men­tion oth­er news items from the past year in PNG, a coun­try that has been large­ly ignored by the West for decades. Why would some­one like Boci­urkiw all of a sud­den become a cru­sad­er for women’s rights in PNG of all places? Let’s take a look at some oth­er recent news sto­ries…

    The Boci­urkiw arti­cle was from July ’19, this is from May of the same year.


    By Tom West­brook, Jonathan Bar­rett, Son­ali Paul
    SYDNEY/BRISBANE (Reuters) — Papua New Guinea’s new prime min­is­ter pledged on Thurs­day to “tweak and turn” laws gov­ern­ing how nat­ur­al resources are extract­ed to help lift the vast South Pacif­ic arch­i­pel­ago out of pover­ty.
    James Marape, a for­mer finance min­is­ter who became leader after win­ning a vote in par­lia­ment, put some of the world’s biggest resources com­pa­nies on notice over a per­ceived lack of wealth flow­ing from their projects back to com­mu­ni­ties.

    Marape, who hails from PNG’s poor but gas-rich high­lands, had even quit the gov­ern­ment in April after ques­tion­ing a deal with France’s Total, which allows it, Oil Search Ltd and Exxon­Mo­bil Corp to begin work on a $13 bil­lion plan to dou­ble gas exports.

    He rode a wave of dis­con­tent over how tax­es and roy­al­ties from a $19 bil­lion Exxon-led LNG project were delayed and dis­trib­uted, among oth­er projects, into the top office.

    “At the moment our resource laws are out­dat­ed ... we will look into max­i­miz­ing gain from what God has giv­en this coun­try from our nat­ur­al resources,” he said in his first address to par­lia­ment as prime min­is­ter.

    “I have every right to tweak and turn resource laws for my coun­try, then it will empow­er my cit­i­zens as well,” he told the cham­ber to cheers and applause.

    “I tru­ly want this coun­try to be the rich­est black Chris­t­ian nation on the plan­et,” he added.
    …PNG also hosts sig­nif­i­cant gold mines oper­at­ed by New­crest Min­ing and, sep­a­rate­ly, Bar­rick Gold and Zijin Min­ing Group. New­crest, which runs the Lihir oper­a­tion and is also devel­op­ing one of the world’s largest untapped gold reserves in a joint ven­ture with South Africa’s Har­mo­ny Gold, said it looked for­ward to work­ing with Marape’s gov­ern­ment.

    …Polit­i­cal insta­bil­i­ty is not unusu­al in PNG, but Marape’s res­ig­na­tion from cab­i­net in April tapped into grow­ing con­cern over gov­er­nance and resource ben­e­fits not reach­ing the poor.

    …After he was sworn in, Marape told a news con­fer­ence he would focus on “tak­ing back our econ­o­my” and pro­posed an over­haul of min­ing, forestry and fish­ing laws.

    He said any changes to laws would not be ret­ro­spec­tive.
    “We are not here to break legal­ly bind­ing project agree­ments,” he told reporters when asked if he would con­sid­er review­ing the Exxon LNG deal.

    But he added: “If we find any project agree­ment ... that has not ful­ly com­plied with pro­scribed pro­vi­sions of law, then we are open to review­ing and scru­ti­niz­ing them.”

    …the polit­i­cal uncer­tain­ty has knocked almost 6% from shares in Oil Search, an Aus­tralian part­ner in large LNG projects in PNG, since the chal­lenge to O’Neill gained trac­tion last week.
    Oil Search shares climbed in ear­ly trade, but turned neg­a­tive after Marape’s elec­tion to close down 0.3 per­cent in a broad­er mar­ket that also closed low­er.”

    NOTE: Yeah, PNG has a LOT of nat­ur­al resources to tap into. While it is sad to see such a place suc­cumb to envi­ron­men­tal destruc­tion, it is only fair that the peo­ple of PNG gain wealth from the exploita­tion of those resources. ( In my opin­ion, like the Ama­zon, PNG’s over­all val­ue cul­tur­al­ly, bio­log­i­cal­ly, anthro­po­log­i­cal­ly, etc. com­plete­ly out­weigh any short-term cor­po­rate gains in terms of ben­e­fit to human­i­ty.)

    Now, let’s fast for­ward to Decem­ber, 2020, and see how things have worked out for Mr. Marape and his efforts to carve out more fair deals for his coun­try with the glob­al resource titans.


    “…Papua New Guinea pol­i­tics has descend­ed into fresh chaos, with the supreme court throw­ing out the country’s bud­get and demand­ing par­lia­ment return to work.
    Prime min­is­ter James Marape – just days out­side the 18-month grace peri­od afford­ed to new gov­ern­ments in which they can’t be top­pled in par­lia­ment – faces a seri­ous chal­lenge to his lead­er­ship, with par­lia­ment instruct­ed to resume on Mon­day.
    But he has insist­ed he will not resign and has told his chal­lengers “there is no vacan­cy in the office of PM… bring your vote of no-con­fi­dence on”.

    The shift­ing sands of alle­giances – and the dra­mat­ic rever­sals of for­tune so far – make the next devel­op­ments wild­ly unpre­dictable.
    And the polit­i­cal upheaval, always unwel­come, comes at an acute­ly test­ing time for PNG, with the coun­try still com­ing to grips with Covid-19 out­breaks across the arch­i­pel­ago, and man­ag­ing a severe­ly strait­ened bud­get.
    Marape’s grip on pow­er was chal­lenged last month when dozens of gov­ern­ment mem­bers, includ­ing sev­er­al min­is­ters, aban­doned him to sit on the oppo­si­tion bench­es, seiz­ing con­trol of par­lia­ment and sus­pend­ing the bud­get sit­ting.
    Crit­ics have accused him of under-deliv­er­ing on promis­es around cor­rup­tion reform and eco­nom­ic devel­op­ment, and of lead­ing a gov­ern­ment of emp­ty slo­gans such as “take back PNG” or promis­ing to make PNG “the rich­est black Chris­t­ian nation” on earth.
    Marape was also crit­i­cised for fail­ing to arrest those respon­si­ble for a mas­sacre in Tari last year, in which 18 women and chil­dren were killed, despite promis­es that trib­al vio­lence and sor­cery killings would be stamped out. His sup­port for an abortive but expen­sive deep-sea min­ing project in the Bis­mar­ck Sea, and his attempt to nation­alise Porg­era mine, were also held up as sig­nif­i­cant fail­ures.”

    NOTE: The kind of vio­lence Boci­urkiw was dis­cussing in 2019 has been going on for a very long time, yet for some rea­son the West­ern media has found it inter­est­ing at the exact same time that a Prime Min­is­ter is stand­ing up to West­ern cor­po­rate pow­er. Note that he was even try­ing to nation­al­ize a mine. What a coin­ci­dence! And, of course, Chi­na is very inter­est­ed in PNG and that by itself would make it more inter­est­ing to the West­ern pow­er elite.


    “China’s plan to build a fish­ing facil­i­ty on a Papua New Guinean island could have gone large­ly unno­ticed.
    The 527 mil­lion kina (US$146 mil­lion) project is one of a long list of Chi­nese over­seas invest­ments in devel­op­ing coun­tries planned under the Belt and Road Ini­tia­tive, China’s multi­bil­lion-dol­lar plan to build inter­na­tion­al links through invest­ment and infra­struc­ture.
    The idea is to build a “com­pre­hen­sive mul­ti­func­tion­al fish­ery indus­tri­al park” project on Daru Island and in mid-Novem­ber, the two coun­tries signed a mem­o­ran­dum of under­stand­ing to go ahead with the concept.If it is built, the project could help Papua New Guinea max­imise its com­mer­cial fish­ing capac­i­ty in the area, with a Chi­nese-built plant serv­ing as a hub for fish­ing boats and pro­cess­ing catch­es.
    But the com­plex would also be just 200km (125 miles) or so from the Aus­tralian main­land.
    And as rela­tions between Bei­jing and Can­ber­ra descend to their low­est lev­els in decades, a fish­ing com­plex is more than just a fish­ing com­plex.
    The sign­ing of the MOU in Novem­ber came just five months after Chi­na gave dozens of Papuan com­pa­nies per­mis­sion to export their seafood prod­ucts direct­ly to the Chi­nese mar­ket instead of send­ing via Hong Kong or Sin­ga­pore for clear­ance.

    Yu Lei, chief research fel­low at Liaocheng University’s Research Cen­tre for Pacif­ic Island Coun­tries, said Chi­na inter­est in the fish­ing indus­try was not restrict­ed to Papua New Guinea – it extend­ed through­out the region to give Chi­nese con­sumers more choice.
    Yu said that inter­est had gen­er­al­ly been appre­ci­at­ed by the island com­mu­ni­ties.

    “There are many Chi­nese fish­ery projects like this in the Pacif­ic. This actu­al­ly says a lot about how Pacif­ic Islands wel­come Chi­nese invest­ment in help­ing them improve their econ­o­my,” he said.
    But Yu also said Chi­na was not the biggest play­er in the mar­ket.
    “China’s demand for PNG’s major fish­ery export, which would be tuna, is still far less than Japan and the US,” he said.

    Even so, the Daru Island project has def­i­nite­ly caught atten­tion in Aus­tralia, the dom­i­nant pow­er in the region.

    An arti­cle pub­lished by the Aus­tralian Strate­gic Pol­i­cy Insti­tute this week said it was not in the country’s strate­gic inter­ests to have a major Chi­nese gov­ern­ment resource explo­ration project on its north­ern doorstep.
    While the plan to build the fish­ing facil­i­ty offers lit­tle detail, it is a clear sign of Beijing’s con­tin­ued inter­est in Papua New Guinea and the Pacif­ic Islands region despite pre­vi­ous hic­cups. It also sits against the back­drop of Canberra’s increased com­mit­ments to Pacif­ic Island nations under its “Pacif­ic Step-Up” ban­ner, which pledges to start “a new chap­ter in rela­tions with our Pacif­ic fam­i­ly”.

    …Michael Fabinyi, who research­es fish­eries gov­er­nance in the Asia-Pacif­ic region at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Tech­nol­o­gy Syd­ney, said Chi­nese over­seas fish­ing and aqua­cul­ture inter­ests were often close­ly linked with strate­gic inter­ests.

    “This can be seen both in terms of soft pow­er – for exam­ple, invest­ments in fish­eries and aqua­cul­ture in coun­tries par­tic­i­pat­ing in the Belt and Road Ini­tia­tive – and in terms of hard pow­er – for exam­ple, using armed fish­ers – the mar­itime mili­tia – in dis­put­ed waters of the South Chi­na Sea,” Fabinyi said.

    How­ev­er, China’s inter­est in Papua New Guinea, the biggest island coun­try in the Pacif­ic, extends into oth­er areas.
    Accord­ing to ANU researcher Sarah O’Dowd, at the end of 2018, of the 15 Chi­nese invest­ments of over US$100 mil­lion in Papua New Guinea, 60 per cent were in trans­port, real estate and met­als.

    For­mer­ly admin­is­tered by Aus­tralia, Papua New Guinea has increas­ing­ly turned to Chi­na for financ­ing.
    In Novem­ber 2018, not long after Papua New Guinea signed up for the Belt and Road Ini­tia­tive, Chi­nese Pres­i­dent Xi Jin­ping made a state vis­it and promised US$300 mil­lion in con­ces­sion­al loans.

    Despite this, eco­nom­ic ties have not flour­ished, with loans report­ed­ly not mate­ri­al­is­ing and chal­lenges in some of the huge projects.

    In August last year, Papua New Guinea failed to receive urgent finan­cial sup­port from Chi­na
    to prop up its bud­get. The request was first made pub­lic in a state­ment by Prime Min­is­ter James Marape, but lat­er with­drawn after a meet­ing Chi­nese ambas­sador Xue Bing.
    Aus­tralia lat­er agreed to loan US$332 mil­lion in direct fund­ing to be paid back with a 2.5 per cent inter­est rate.
    Anoth­er major ini­tia­tive that did not go to plan was Chi­nese tech giant Huawei Tech­nolo­gies’ project to build an under­sea inter­net cable con­nect­ing the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and Aus­tralia. Aus­tralia stepped in to fund and com­plet­ed con­struc­tion of the cable last year.

    Ian Kem­ish, a for­mer senior Aus­tralian diplo­mat who stud­ies Papua New Guinea, said that after see­ing many Chi­nese deals fall through he was not con­vinced the lat­est Chi­nese fish­eries project would “actu­al­ly trans­late into any­thing con­crete” .

    “I have yet to see a Chi­nese enti­ty invest the resources required to suc­cess­ful­ly engage stake­hold­ers in Papua New Guinea or the Pacif­ic in a sus­tained way,” Kem­ish said.
    “There tends to be a ‘top down’ assump­tion by Chi­nese organ­i­sa­tions that suc­cess­ful imple­men­ta­tion will fol­low if agree­ments are made at the high­est lev­el. This is wrong.
    “In fact, PNG and oth­er Pacif­ic cul­tures oper­ate on a con­sen­sus-based approach, where indi­vid­ual landown­ers and oth­er local stake­hold­ers will reject deals made at the nation­al lev­el if they have not them­selves been con­sult­ed, and if there are no clear local ben­e­fits.”

    NOTE: The Guardian is very gen­er­ous to Mr. Kem­ish here by leav­ing out some bio details. Ian Kem­ish was a 25 year Aussie diplo­mat and at one point Ambas­sador to Ger­many and Switzer­land. He was also a for­mer C‑level offi­cer at New­crest min­ing in PNG, and before that worked for Exxon! He isn’t just some unbi­ased aca­d­e­m­ic, he is an oil and mine guy specif­i­cal­ly with ties to PNG.

    Also, the Guardian either com­plete­ly dis­torts or just didn’t research the Huawei inter­net cable sto­ry. My vote is “dis­tort” as this was not a hard sto­ry to find. Basi­cal­ly, the Aussie gov­ern­ment put pres­sure on PNG and BLOCKED the cable as they thought the Huawei plant would be a spy­ing cen­ter. Per­son­al­ly, I don’t think that is off base giv­en Huawei’s his­to­ry ( I didn’t agree with their offi­cials get­ting arrest­ed, but yeah, they use their chips to spy and their chips are all over the West just like our chips are all over our ene­mies hard­ware.). How­ev­er, it is a dis­tor­tion (and rather racist, in my opin­ion) to treat that sto­ry as “oh, well, you nev­er know what you’re going to get when you go into busi­ness with those wacky, inscrutable Chi­na­men!” Leav­ing out the West­ern pres­sure to get PNG to reject Huawei is inten­tion­al by the Guardian, in my opin­ion, and very telling of this sup­pos­ed­ly “lib­er­al” Eng­lish paper.

    Why am I post­ing this on a sto­ry about Weaponized Fem­i­nism? Well, because there is no way that Jolie/Stoltenberg and NATO craft­ed a doc­u­ment out­lin­ing the use of mal­treat­ment of women as a casus bel­li with no inten­tion of using it as exact­ly that! All the Wein­stein, Franken, Judge Roy Moore, Hol­ly­wood stuff is col­lat­er­al dam­age and a sideshow in com­par­i­son to #metoo’s rela­tion to the “Great Game” of the Earth Island.

    How­ev­er, there is a prob­lem in using “weaponized fem­i­nism” in the place that the US has been involved in the most con­flict in recent years: the Islam­ic World. With only one excep­tion (Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and he was “for­mer” Tal­iban), in every con­flict the West has backed the MORE jihadist and sex­ist side! Koso­vo, Iraq, Syr­ia, the Arab Spring coun­tries, none have seen great gains for women after US mil­i­tary involve­ment. We want the Mus­lim Broth­ers in charge of faux democ­ra­cies. And we don’t care that much what hap­pens to their women. It would be a hard sell to Amer­i­cans to say “we are sup­port­ing the Al Nus­rah Front to sup­port wom­en’s rights”. Not even the dimmest of Neo-Cold War­riors would fall for that.

    But in Papua New Guinea? Sure, why not? I still view this as spec­u­la­tion, but it is clear to me that there is increas­ing Great Pow­er con­flict over PNG on the hori­zon, and I would not be sur­prised to see that country’s treat­ment of women to become a fac­tor in some man­ner.

    Posted by CinqueAnon | December 30, 2020, 7:25 pm

Post a comment