It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Black Social Activist Cornell West calls out Obama as part of "the Oligarchy"

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   


West is a well-known Black university professor of African American Studies and Religion at Princeton University. According to Truthdig, he "did 65 campaign events for Obama, believed in the potential for change and was encouraged by the populist rhetoric of the Obama campaign, [but] now nurses, like many others who placed their faith in Obama, the anguish of the deceived, manipulated and betrayed. He bitterly describes Obama as 'a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it'" It sounds like West may have some problems with Obama having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize


link
(I know it is a blog but there are official links in the post)

As a fellow black American I am glad to see other stepping out and calling President Obama out on his failures to bring about the change many of his supporters believed in. I have had far to much experience with friends and family who ran to the polls so they could see the first black president. Many leaders in the African-American community are starting to see through Obama, and how he takes the black vote for granted. I only hope that more will wake up to the truth before the next election and realize that a candidate like Ron Paul has more in common with them that Obama does




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


Actually, I think it was the Afro-American community that already started seeing through Obama before the Caucasians did months after he won the elections.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


On a personal level, I feel that this guy is, if not racist, at least too egocentric. We were forced to read one of his books in a LITERATURE CLASS (not a black history class, a LITERATURE class), and the whole thing just put down every race but his own (no exaggeration here, read it if you don't believe me). I'm not racist at all...I just can't stand other people who shamelessly promote egocentric ideas.

But...It's honorable what he's doing. I'm glad to see that, although they share the same color, West doesn't cling to Obama on a no-matter-what basis. It's good to see more than just race as a factor. And this comes from someone who helped to vote Obama into office and still somewhat supports him.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Cornell West is brilliant. This is not the first condemnation he has made.

Too bad most people wont understand what he is saying.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by banandar123
 


I believe it, he has a very fiery "fight the power" rhetoric, but now that "the power" is black maybe he will turn down the racial commentary and start preaching that socioeconomic status bands us together against TPTB, and race is just another divide and conquer technique.

One can hope



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


I'm with you on every point you make in your post.

Please, though, please tell me and anyone else who is interested.....

What change were you looking for?? The definition of that "change" was not once offered by him, nor was it asked for by the media. In all seriousness, what were you and others who voted for him looking for?

I was no fan of the "W" presidency. The US has not has a great leader for many many years. Bush's invasion of Iraq and the patriot act along with it's subsequent loss of freedom and privacy ruined his legacy in my humble opinion.

We are rotting from the inside. Neither party offers anything to advance the cause of liberty and freedom. I fear our republic will not last much longer. May God help our grandchildren.

edit on 24-5-2011 by Hugues de Payens because: Editorial

edit on 24-5-2011 by Hugues de Payens because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Hugues de Payens
 


That's a good point. The whole "Change" thing was draped over every speech he made, without much mention as to what would actually be changed. But in hindsight, you have to admit that a campaign like the one he embraced is the perfect way to gain support and get elected, although maybe not re-elected since it has all long since died down due to his lack of deliverance.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by banandar123
 


Yea, I'm with ya, but ........his campaign had nothing of substance.....nothing. It was all "Hope and Change". BUT....a change to what was never once defined. If that's all we got, how could he be elected with out telling the nation into what he wanted to change us? Either he is a slick shyster, or we are a nation of apathetic, ignorant people, or both.


ETA: Maybe my last comment above is the reason the government feels like they can do what ever, to whom ever, when ever they feel like it. We have become sheep, and the idea of who works for whom has been inverted and perverted over time......see the top TJ quote in my siggy.



edit on 24-5-2011 by Hugues de Payens because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2011 by Hugues de Payens because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2011 by Hugues de Payens because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by banandar123
reply to post by Skerrako
 


On a personal level, I feel that this guy is, if not racist, at least too egocentric. We were forced to read one of his books in a LITERATURE CLASS (not a black history class, a LITERATURE class), and the whole thing just put down every race but his own (no exaggeration here, read it if you don't believe me). I'm not racist at all...I just can't stand other people who shamelessly promote egocentric ideas.

But...It's honorable what he's doing. I'm glad to see that, although they share the same color, West doesn't cling to Obama on a no-matter-what basis. It's good to see more than just race as a factor. And this comes from someone who helped to vote Obama into office and still somewhat supports him.


Hmmm registered in 2011.

And supports Administration.

What do you think about what he's saying? Is it true or false?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

This means civil disobedience, going to jail, supporting progressive forums of social unrest if they in fact awaken the conscience, whatever conscience is left, of the nation. And that’s where I find myself now"


"Supporting progressive forums"....While there can be some points of agreement between even Ron Paul and progressive Dennis Kucinich, Mr. Paul is not progressive. Mr. West cries out for progressive action, which I do not believe is the same as supporting Mr. Paul.

Putting collective pressure on politicians is not the same as backing a particular candidate. After the era of grassroots collective action, we've had three decades of corrupting corporate influences that tamped down on "unauthorized" collective action to get to where we are today. As I F Stone said, “Rich people march on Washington every day.”


And then there was the matter over Mr. Paul's newsletters...


But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

source

This article contains excerpts...here



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Hugues de Payens
 


Crickets.......pretty much what I expected cuz that's what I get when ever I ask that question.

Second line.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


Like I said, I support everything he says in the article. I just have a personal annoyance with him based on my first impression of him. But first impressions can be changed, and I hold no grudges against anyone.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Hugues de Payens
 


That's exactly what I meant in my post. The essence of "change" was draped over every speech and press release. His immaculate words, along with his relatively youthful appearance, were enough to draw many young people, admittedly including myself, into voting for him. The only real position he had during his presidential campaign was his plan to establish universal healthcare, and we all see how that has tuend out..



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Campaigns costs more money than a normal person can reasonably get a hold of if they are not rich.

A possibly not then either.

Which makes sure that every person running must bow to the oligarchy in some way.

To expect that any President, Congressman, Senator is going to change the oligarchy is to expect them to bite the hand that feeds them and keeps them fed. And to remain in that position afterwards to continue the fight.

I agree that an Oligarchy exists. Clearly. The illusion of many corporations even is just that...and illusion. The most defining ones are all owned by the same few, directly or indirectly. That makes the USA not a capitalist society, by an oligarchy through and through.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by banandar123
 


Well actually he ran on ending the afghan and Iraqi wars as well, and that was the sole reason I voted for him. Of course he turned around and sent more troops in and started an air war in Libya, but silly ole' me expected a politician to keep his word. This election I will do the same: that is vote for any candidate whose main priorities are ending foreign undeclared wars. The frontrunner right now is Dr.Paul.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


The question is: how do we separate the economic powers from the governmental ones? We may be too far gone already, but I would like to think we can always change course if enough people want too.

You are right, anyone involved in modern politics can only get there by being indorsed by corporations, which actually is not that bad in of itself. The problems come when most corporations are owned by a massive conglomerate (ie. monopoly). With true free market principles, swollen "too big to fail" corporations would of been replaced with a number of smaller ones, thus loosing the oligarchical grip. Unfortunately that did not happen, and now we lie one strong leader away from a fascist dictatorial nation.

It truly saddens me.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


Well hopefully you don't get burned this time around.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join