Sacramento "peace" movement e-dialogue

Sacramento "peace" movement e-dialogue
by Dan Elliott plus members of Grns, SAPA, P&F Saturday, Jan. 15, 2005 at 1:04 PM
This is a longish "thread" of replies to replies to emails, starting with some intemperate remarks by yrs trly, as I realized just how bankrupt most of the generally accepted "leadership" of SAPA & the Sac "progressive mov't" actually is.

Additional prefatory note: Cres V's comments I found v. encouraging; I think he's on the right track & will arrive shortly. Both he & Pat Driscoll are likable & sincere -- but they bit on the Cobb snowjob, so until they get clear about that episode I can't get totally enthusiastic:)

Herewith the exchange from yesterday, starting with my reaction to finding the name Grantland Johnson and "progressive" used in the same sentence:


What a crack up! Good ol' Greedland Johnson posing as a "progressive"
again! Hahaha:))))))))))))))))

Lissen folks, take it from one of GJ's earliest supporters -- the man is a
total opportunist phony. All this "radical" crap is nothing but a snowjob.

Hey Grantland: ya wanna meet me in the Arcade Market parking lot some
afternoon & debate the issues? Or Hagginwood Park? 28th & R? In the morning
at the Oak Park food closet on 3rd Ave? How about in the middle of Seavy
Circle? (don't hold your breath, folks:)

You gotta hand it to him -- he's perfected the Arts of Politics in America:
All Things To All People.

But the fact that there are all these self-styled "progressives" ready to
jump in and promote another supporter of the War Machine and the War on the
Poor should make it pretty clear that the time has come to draw some lines:
We The Oppressed & our allies over here, and all the Dumbocrat phonies,
their stooges & their dupes over there.

As many of you may have noticed, I'm no longer participating in the SAPA
"vigils" at 16th & J, or any other specifically SAPA activities. Why?
Because of what Marx called "the alienation effect": my own labor was
reinforcing my own (& a lot of other people's) oppression. The local
so-called "peace movement" turns out in actual fact to be part of the War
Machine, a lightning rod attracting the energy of those newly turned-off by
the Wars & the War Machine, and then diverting that energy into channels
where it can be dissipated harmlessly.

There are two kinds of "Democrats", (and also two kinds of Greens): the
Charlatans, and the Dupes. Having spent a few years as a dupe myself I can
sympathize, but with the best interests of those currently burdened by these
illusions, as well as those of everybody else in mind, I can't avoid my
responsibility to try to help remove as many political "cataracts" as I can.
In other words I'm just trying to pull your coat, not punish you:)

My attitude toward the conscious charlatans is a little different; I'm in
favor of acupuncture, herbal remedies and Chi Gung whenever possible -- but
sometimes cancer requires surgery.

The fact is -- and Grantland can testify to this from his own experience --
that the Democratic party is in hock to the Zionist Entity, by which I don't
mean just the "state of isreal", but that and the so-called "US Jewish
Community" which by no means includes or represents all US Jews -- just most
of them -- including of course the Big Donors (Goldman Sachs, Ed Bronfman,
Dr Irving Moskowitz et al).

It happens that the Republican faction of the AIPAC crowd is running US
Security Policy at the moment -- but a change of the party controlling the
White Peoples House will not change the degree of influence wielded by
AIPAC, the JCRCs, Council of Presidents, Zionist Organization of America and
their accomplices.

Persons who would like to peruse scholarly documentation of the role of
these orgs and similar outfits are can check out the following:

-"Jews in America Today", by Lenni Brenner; also his two earlier and one
recent book on related topics, plus his webpage & other writings;

-"American Jewish Organizations and Israel" by Lee O'Brien, which is out of
print but still available -- it'll blow you mind:) The author is now a
high-level UN employee.

-Anything by Jeff Blankfort, a labor activist & writer from SF; a pal of
Tanya Reinhart among other folks.

For those lucky enough to read Arabic, check out the six-volume
"Encyclopaedia of the History of Zionism" by Dr. El-Wahad El-Messiri. (No, I
don't know Arabic but I've heard him lecture.)

So what we need to do is first separate ourselves from the DemocraticParty
half of the Imperialist Ideological & Political State Apparatus -- (the
roles are distinct but both Duopoly parties function in both areas). Next we
need to look closely at the Demogreen Machine which so effectively
implemented the Ruling Class strategy in the last election. (Yes, Nader has
to bear responsibility too -- with his turn toward the racist Reform Party
he revealed his feet of clay -- but that's not what bothered the Cobbos or
the tweedlecrat operatives who created all those phony "Green" chapters in
Texas:)

Let's be clear: Media Benjamin, Michael Lerner, and Cornel West are Enemy
Operatives. Some who follow or are influenced by them may be sincere dupes,
so let's not jump to conclusions about every individual. But these are
highly intelligent and experienced folks, just like Grantland. They need to
be exposed, not coddled.

While we're on the subject, it's obvious that 9/11 was basically a hoax,
another False-Flag op, in the tradition of Remember the Maine, the Reichstag
fire, Sacco & Vanzetti, Tonkin Gulf etc etc. But I think there is a species
of 911 entrepreneur whose aim is to make the 500 lb gorilla in the living
room invisible? By which I mean they are being tasked with the job of
diverting attention away from the role of Bipolar Zionism in determining
policy priorities for the US Military & Security establishment.

In other words, the US is now fighting a war for the interests of Israel,
for the Zionist vision of "Eretz Yisroel", and only secondarily for the
interests of US capitalists. But by coming up with this chicken-little tale
about "Peak Oil" (sic), certain parties are hoping to divert attention from
that obvious fact.

Now watch the name-calling start! Haha:)
----- Original Message -----
From: John Reiger
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 2:14 PM
Subject: FW: RE: Monday's meeting; forum next Wednesday


Hi Everyone,

I dawned on me that a lot of local progressives may not know what's
happening re: "The Monday Night Meeting." So I'm sending this to a wider
bunch of local folks (apologies for any duplications). And I'm sending it
bcc so they can opt out of this discussion with impunity.

To set the stage, last Monday night a group of local folks (30 or so) met
to consider what to do about the upcoming Congressional race. After
compiling a list of about 100 issues they thought a progressive candidate
ought to sign on to, Grantland Johnson was allowed to speak. I spoke
after
him. Some of us (non-Democrats) felt the meeting was then rushing toward
endorsing Grantland. Now another meeting is planned to listen to the
Democrat candidates.

Yours for a better tomorrow,
John C. Reiger
"Reiger for Congress" in 2005

Remember, regime change begins at home !
Impeach Bush and Cheney !





> [Original Message]
> Date: 1/14/2005 1:35:24 PM
> Subject: RE: Monday's meeting; forum next Wednesday
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Is the Sacramento progressive community a Democrat Party pressure group?
>
> Clearly there are many folks who actually believe that the Democrats can
be bent to the left. I wish them well. But if it were true we would be
seeing signs of it. Almost all the movement in the Democrat party in the
last two decades has been to the right. And they are still moving that
way.

>
> I believe in an inside/outside strategy for social change. Some folks
must work within the system. I don't believe they will be successful.
They haven't been so far. And they certainly will not be successful
without those of us who work outside the system. Someone has to stand
outside and say the Emperor is naked. The Emperor's court isn't going to
say it.
>
> We outsider are marginalized (by our own comrades even!) for not being
"electable," for not be "realistic," for being "too radical." Do you
really want an electable, realist who is not radical (in the dictionary
sense of going to the root of a problem)? If so, fine, support another
Democrat who will not immediately withdraw the troops from Iraq, who will
support NAFTA, who will not challenge our electoral system, who will not
be
"too radical."
>
> Don't invite Pat and me to your deliberations. Set up a separate ("but
equal," of course) forum for us to speak to the few folks who haven't
already signed on with Grantland, Deborah, or. . .
>
> About a century ago Eugene V. Debs said it all, "I'd rather vote for
something I want and not get it, than vote for something I don't want and
get it."
>
> Yours for a better tomorrow,
> John C. Reiger
> "Reiger for Congress" in 2005
>
> Remember, regime change begins at home !
> Impeach Bush and Cheney !
>
>
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > Date: 1/14/2005 12:47:32 AM
> > Subject: RE: Monday's meeting; forum next Wednesday
> >
> > All,
> >
> > If, as my good friend Maggie suggests, true progressive candidates
like
Pat
> > Driscoll and John Reiger are going to be banned from a "progressive"
forum,
> > I would suggest that ANY decision by the group to support or not
support a
> > candidate in this special election be delayed until John and Pat are,
in
> > fact, allowed to speak to the group as a whole. This would be
reasonable
> > and ensure that the group can make an informed decision and not be
coerced
> > - as was attempted last Monday - into joining a campaign they may
regret
> > later.
> >
> > I also caution against the mentality of focusing on the "electability"
of a
> > candidate rather than our values, to use a GOP term. It puts us
> > progressives in the same morally bankrupt position as those leading
the
> > major parties. It is a tactic that fails ethically, and frankly, fails
at
> > the polls judging by recent Democratic Party losses.
> >
> > It is also unfortunate that Democrats and even Democrat/Greens
continue
to
> > make the same mistakes. Many on this list bit the proverbial bullet
and
> > worked for Kerry, a VERY imperfect candidate who stated he would
invade
> > Iraq even knowing Bush lied about the reasons. He said that...and many
> > progressives still backed him. And we still lost. We're about to
make -
> > potentially - the same mistake again. We will work, organize and spend
our
> > last dollar for a, potentially, very flawed candidate.
> >
> > Just imagine - IMAGINE, as the Lennon song goes - if we had all put
our
> > hard earned dollars, walked multiple precincts and organized our
friends
> > and neighbors around a real progressive, like a Pat Driscoll or John
Reiger
> > last November? Many on this list voted for one of them, but how many
> > meetings were held - like the one Monday - to truly organize and work
for
> > these true progressives?
> >
> > I can tell you the answer - none.
> >
> > And, who's to say a third party candidate cannot win? Tell that to
Jesse
> > Ventura. To buy into the argument that it cannot happen is to give up,
and
> > become swallowed up by the same system we claim to oppose. Worse, in
an
> > effort to "win," we sacrifice our dreams and part of our conscience.
> >
> > All of that said, I don't want to rule out the fact that Grantland,
and
> > maybe even Doris Matsui, will be a true progressive. Grantland - who
has
> > accepted an invitation to discuss possibly amending his Iraq policy
with
> > Vets for Peace veterans - gave good answers to domestic policy
questions.
> >
> > But, on Iraq, the BIGGEST question, he failed the litmus test
miserably.
> > How ANY peace activist could consciously work for someone - as we were
> > asked, and almost bullied into doing Monday - who believes we need to
stay
> > in Iraq "until it is stable" (his answer the other night) is beyond
> > comprehension to me. Any hope you can persuade him, or any politician,
to
> > change their position once they are in office in a safe seat, is pure
> > folly. It doesn't work that way.
> >
> > Finally, the fact that Pat and John may go to a May general election,
and
> > therefore can be ignored now, is irrelevant. It may not get that far.
And,
> > if it does, what are you going to do then? Join forces with 1 of the 2
> > progressives that you ignored the first time around?
> >
> > So, one last time, I appeal to the progressive part of everyone's
souls
-
> > invite and welcome progressive candidates like John and Pat. Be
inclusive -
> > isn't that one of our buzz words in the progressive community? And do
not
> > exclude candidates simply because you believe, or have been told, they
> > cannot win. Because that is what the news media does by not covering
third
> > party candidates, and by not covering progressive activist causes. It
dooms
> > us to fail. Do we want to become like them?
> >
> > Maybe this forum is a small point. But, losing an election is far more
> > palatable to me than losing my heart and soul by ignoring progressive
> > candidates who speak the truth and dream the dream, and supporting a
> > politician who won't help stop the killing.
> >
> > Cres
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 10:42 PM 1/13/2005 -0800, Maggie Coulter wrote:
> > >I disagree with Cres, even though I am a registered Green. This
election is
> > >going to be won by a democrat and I would like to see if we can
support a
> > >progressive democrat but I feel like I and others don't have enough
> > >information to do that. We need the time now in this forum for
people to
> > >sort among the democrats. Two hours is not very long to go through
all the
> > >issues we want covered. Let us see how Deborah and Grantland
distinguish
> > >themselves from one another and from Doris. A future forum could
then
> > >invite other candidates.
> > >
> > >With all due respect, John is not a real candidate, he has not in the
past
> > >and is not now intending to run a campaign, so I don't think it is
fair
> > >really to either the voters or to the others who are running
campaigns
to
> > >have him in the same position. I agree with what I have heard John
say
> > >about issues and he is a fine speaker, but the purpose of this forum
is to
> > >assess the viable candidates, which he, by his own admission, is not.
> > >
> > >Pat did run a real campaign, which I helped on. However, Pat, unlike
> > >Grantland or Deborah, will have a chance to run up until the final
election,
> > >so while I support his getting his name on the ballot, I think that
this
> > >forum should be focused on the democrats.
> > >
> > >I don't think it is reasonable to compare John or Pat to Kucinich and
Dean,
> > >both of whom were democrats, that comparison would be more apt to
Grantland.
> > >
> > >I am not sure what the room size is where this forum is being held,
so
I
> > >think we need to clarify that before sending out lots of invitations.
The
> > >idea of this forum was to be a follow-up to Monday night, to see if
> > >progressive activists could unite behind a candidate. That said, if
it is a
> > >room that will seat a lot of people, then I could see trying to fill
the
> > >room, but hopefully with people who really intend to be involved in
the
> > >campaign in some way (endorsing or working for a candidate). Again,
I
think
> > >is just a first forum and that we should follow it up with a very
large
> > >public forum to which the public in general, and all candidates,
could
be
> > >invited.
> > >
> > >Maggie
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >Subject: Re: Monday's meeting; forum next Wednesday
> > >
> > >
> > >Dear All,
> > > I strongly agree with Cres. Especially, when, at 6:59 PM
1/13/5,
> > >
> > >>I would suggest it is important for those attending any forum to
hear
the
> > >>views of Reiger and Driscoll if for no other reason that to contrast
their
> > >>responses with those of the Democrats, and to provide a perspective.
The
> > >>progressive candidates' comment could also "influence" those of the
Dems.
> > >
> > > Unless we are looking at a swarm of Green and P & F candidates
(and,
> > >then,
> > >I'd want to figure out some new approach), I don't see the need to
restrict
> > >our
> > >discussion and ourselves.
> > >
> > > By the way, how private is this non-public mtg.? Can I invite
friends?
> > >Many?
> > > Also, if anyone is interested, I wrote up an email summarizing
the
> > >special
> > >features of the special election and how it's a great opportunity for
> > >progressives to elect one of us.
> > > Thanks, Darien
> > >>Friends,
> > >>
> > >>While I appreciate all the work being put into this, and I
understand
the
> > >>rationale for the forum to include only Democrats, I really believe
that to
> > >>exclude true progressive candidates - Pat Driscoll and John Reiger -
is a
> > >>mistake. I'm saying this as a matter of fairness, and as a
conscience
check
> > >>for all of us.
> > >>
> > >>I know our goal is to quiz Dems who we may not know as well - at
least re:
> > >>their issue positions, and the argument is made that there is no
need
to
> > >>have other progressive candidates because they CAN move on to the
general
> > >>election, if there is one. But, let's face it, the general election
will
> > >>only be a formality no matter which Dem wins in the primary.
> > >>
> > >>I would suggest it is important for those attending any forum to
hear
the
> > >>views of Reiger and Driscoll if for no other reason that to contrast
their
> > >>responses with those of the Democrats, and to provide a perspective.
The
> > >>progressive candidates' comment could also "influence" those of the
Dems.
> > >>
> > >>Finally, even if we have further candidate forums with the general
public
> > >>in attendance, by excluding fellow progressives from the mix now it
is at
> > >>once at least a little denigrating to them, and even to the rest of
us -
> > >>after all, inviting only Dems suggests that all of us are only
supporting
> > >>Dems in the primary (and that may not be the case, especially if we
silence
> > >>other progressive candidates).
> > >>
> > >>As I said, I understand the strategy behind this - I just find it
too
> > >>similar to the Dem Party rejecting a Dean option, or Kucinich option
by
> > >>freezing them out. Who's to really say our true option, primary or
general,
> > >>is, in fact, not a Dem at all? Electibility? Well, let's go back to
> > >>Dean/Kucinich. That should not be our driving force. I thought WE
were, as
> > >>progressives, beyond that.
> > >>
> > >>I very strongly suggest we not take that road, for whatever "good"
reason.
> > >>And instead, for logical and philosophical reasons, include ALL
> > >>progressives in any and all forums.
> > >>
> > >>Cres
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>At 03:26 PM 1/13/2005 -0800, Maggie Coulter wrote:
> > >>>This message is going out to those people who attended the ad hoc
> > >>>progressive group meeting on Monday. Attached are the issues we
put
up on
> > >>>the board, organized into categories (some of which could be
re-divided).
> > >>>
> > >>>In order to help all of us make a more informed decision regarding
the
> > >>>democrats that are running for Robert Matsui's seat, we are
organizing the
> > >>>first in a possible series of forums with the candidates on
Wednesday,
> > >>>January 19, 7-9pm at the YWCA (1122 17th). . This is not a public
forum,
> > >>>but rather for you all and other key progressive activists to hear
from
> > >all
> > >>>the democrat candidates themselves. This first forum will have
the
> > >>>democrat candidates. As was pointed out at the Monday meeting, the
Green
> > >>>and Peace & Freedom candidates will be able to be in both
elections,
but
> > >>>only the top Democrat vote getter goes on to the second election
(which
> > >will
> > >>>be held if no one candidate gets more than 51% of the vote). Note:
> > >>>Grantland Johnson has confirmed he will attend; Deborah Ortiz will
attend
> > >if
> > >>>she is running, and Doris Matsui has been invited.
> > >>>
> > >>>The idea for the forum is that the candidates would get questions
ahead of
> > >>>time. The folks below have volunteered to prioritize the questions
we
> > >raised
> > >>>on Monday, so please email them if you have comments on the
questions in
> > >>>their topic. If a topic is not covered, you can email your comments
to me.
> > >>>We will meet this weekend to pull the questions together so that we
can
> > >give
> > >>>them to the candidates before the forum.
> > >>>
> > >>>Pro choice - Katharyn
> > >>>Environment - Keith
> > >>>Foreign/military/trade policy - Maggie (& others)
> > >>>Affordable housing - Rachel, Evan
> > >>>Human/civil Rights - Eric & Keith
> > >>>Political - Karen & Peggy
> > >>>Labor - Eric
> > >>>Economic - Cres & Dave
> > >>>Health Care - Cres
> > >>>Education -
> > >>>
> > >>>Thanks.
> > >>>Maggie
> >
> > >>>
> > >>>Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachProgressive Position
Questions
> > >1.doc"
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
/- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
> > >
> > > "[Progressives & liberals] you must admit you are a victim.
Then,
> > > you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you
> > > must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that
> > > is being victimized. You don't do this by responding to their
de-
> > > mands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical
con-
> > > versation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You
also
> > > don't do this by going catatonic and resigned... Instead,
you
walk
> > > away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them,
who
> > > are hurting... You tell them what you've learned, and that
you
> > > aren't going to take it anymore. You stand tall...
> > > We have a mandate to be as radical and liberal and
steadfast
> > > as we need to be." Mathew Gross
> > > (from blog article on "The Politics of Victimization" -
> > > http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html)
> > > Darien De Lu * Sacra,, CA * 916/739-0860 * http://www.wilpf.org
> > > ________________________**!!**______________________/