Racist Suspect Patriots Owner Criticizes Trump for Rant ['We Would Prefer for Their Chains to Remain Invisible']
/
From [HERE] Racist suspect New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft on Sunday said he was “deeply disappointed” in President Trump’s “tone” when he criticized NFL players who kneel during the national anthem. “There is no greater unifier in this country than sports, and unfortunately, nothing more divisive than politics,” Kraft said, praising his players and applauding efforts to “peacefully affect social change and raise awareness in a manner that they feel it most impactful.” The statement is notable because Kraft supported Trump and has been friendly with him for years. [MORE]
Racist idiot Trump is the opposite of what Neely Fuller refers to as the "refinement of the racism/white supremacy system." Racism is a power group dynamic, a white over Black system of vast unequal power. Sophisticated racists can exercise greater power us when we are manipulated, deceived and/or consensually participate in the arrangement. When our chains are visible the masters are less efficient. Dr. Amos Wilson describes different types of power as follows;
"Power, whether as "power to" or "power over," manifests itself in a variety of forms or types. We shall briefly define certain types or forms of power and their relevance to White racist domination and exploitation of Blacks and to the necessity of Blacks to develop the power to end such domination and exploitation.
Force as Power
Power as force involves the exercise of biological and physical means to prevent another person or group from doing what he or it prefers to do or "to get something to happen to the [person or group] that [he or it] would prefer it did not" (Wartenberg). The force utilized may involve "the infliction of bodily pain or injury including the destruction of life itself, and the frustration of basic biological needs."6 It may also involve the construction of human and physical obstacles to constrain or restrict the freedom and range of movement of another person or group.
Force may be utilized instrumentally rather than directly, to achieve certain ends. The instrumental use of force may involve its use to inhibit or destroy another person's or group's ability to develop and mobilize his or its human and material resources which might be used against the interests of the powers-that-be. The strategic and tactical purpose of instrumental force is to limit or eliminate the subordinate individual's or group's capacity to act in certain ways. Instrumental force may be used to establish in the mind of the subordinate person or group the power holder's capability and willingness to use force as an instrument of punishment for non-compliant behavior on his or its part. It also may be used as a means of motivating the non-complying party to return to or to re-establish a pre-existing power relation.
Force, per se, rather than being utilized as the primary and exclusive means of exerting power over another may serve more to reinforce or "back up" other forms of power relations (to be discussed below). That is, "force, although a reality in many social situations, achieves its full scope by undergirding other types of power" (Wartenberg). In so-called advanced societies like the United States, force is more likely to be applied as the "final persuader or arbiter" when compliance is not attained by other means.
Force as Inefficient Power — In the context of the modern nation-state, the use of force as the primary regulator of social and power relations, as the primary means of achieving the results desired by power-holders is more often than not, inefficient, counter-productive and fraught with onerous complexities and unintended outcomes. It is also often socially, economically and materially costly to exert and maintain. Wrong perceptively notes, as follows:
Force is more effective in preventing or restricting people from acting than in causing them to act in a given way . . . Force can achieve negative effects: the destruction, prevention or limitation of the possibility of action by others. But one cannot forcibly manipulate the limbs and bodies of others in order to achieve complex positive results: the fabrication or construction of something, the operation of a machine, the performance of a physical or mental skill.
Wartenberg further notes:
Force is uneconomic for a number of reasons. In the first place, it / requires that the dominant agent make some physical effort in order/ to keep the subordinate agent from doing what she would otherwise do ... As a result, maintaining the use of force requires a constant expenditure of energy by the dominant agent....
Force is also uneconomic because it inherently occasions resistance ... it is always perceived by those over whom it is used as a hostile presence, an alienating experience that restricts their ability to act. Because of this it engenders a dynamic of resistance in those over whom it is exercised
. . . .[Thus], force by itself is less effective as a means of power than is often assumed [Emphasis added]
The problematics of using unadorned force as the chief instrument of power utilized by a dominant group to achieve complex social-material ends with economic efficiency and the barest minimum of social disruption, motivates that group to develop and apply more subtle forms of power. These will be discussed below. However, at this juncture we should note that current forms of domination of Continental, Caribbean, North, Central and South American Afrikans, respectively, by Europeans, is secured by more subtle and efficient means of political control than by the use of oppressive physical force. Consequently, the "independence" of Afrikan countries and former Caribbean colonies and the social "assimilation" of Afrikan Americans into the mainstream of White America by no means represent the lessening of European and Euro-American domination of or a fundamental change in the nature of European and Afrikan power relations in favor of the Afrikans, as persons so erroneously assume. Quite to the contrary, these historically apparent social/political changes instead represent the increased subtlety and efficiency of European domination of Afrikan peoples. It should be noted that the ability to use physical/militaristic force as the final arbiter of power relations still lies overwhelmingly in the hands of Europeans and EuroAmericans. It is this "force differential" that Afrikans across the Diaspora must in some way resolve, neutralize or frustrate if they are to gain true parity with Europeans and EuroAmericans and indeed gain their liberation from European domination.
Psychic Violence — The most powerful obstacle against the liberation of Afrikan peoples from White domination and exploitation is not the ability of Whites to use superior military or police firepower or their threat to use it against Afrikan insurgency, but is their ability to engage in unrelenting psychopolitical violence against the collective Afrikan psyche. It is the White monopoly on psychic violence and their devastatingly ingenious use of it against the minds of Afrikan peoples which represent the greatest threat to Afrikan survival. Wrong insightfully points out the nature of this form of violence:
[T]here is a form of conduct, often described as psychic, psychological or moral force or violence, which does not fit readily under the rubrics of any of the other forms of power. If physical violence involves inflicting damages on the body of a person, how is one to classify the deliberate effort to affect adversely a person's emotions or his feelings and ideas about himself by verbally, or in other symbolic ways, insulting or degrading him? If. . . power includes the production of purely mental or emotional effects and is not confined to the eliciting of overt acts, then the psychic assault of, say, a nagging, browbeating spouse or parent, the defamation of the character of a political foe or even of an entire group, constitute exercises of power
. .Damage to the psyche is surely as real as damage to the body . . . It is plainly not true that 'sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me'. Psychic violence, in which the intended effect of the perpetrator is to inflict mental or emotional harm, is continuous with physical violence.
The ultimate force in the world is the force of mind. When that force is defeated all is lost.
Dominant Whites have used words and symbols to violently and unrelentingly attack oppressed Blacks in a thousand and one nefarious ways, including the projection of dehumanizing stereotypes and caricatures of them; the falsification of their history and culture; the miseducation of Blacks; and the engaging in chronic derisive media attacks on their morals, behavior, intelligence, ways of life, sexuality, physical features, motives and values.
The final end of the violent White-instigated psychic assaults against the collective psyche of Blacks is to induce in them states of false consciousness, self-alienation and self-hatred so as to irreparably impair their capacity to overthrow their White oppressors through the mobilization of their human and material resources.
False consciousness, self-alienation and self-hatred are conjoining states of mind which motivate oppressed Blacks to engage in continuing self-defeating, self-destructive assaults against their own interests and against themselves. Consequently, by these means Blacks are unwittingly manipulated into forming alliances with their oppressors and exploiters in disempowering themselves and in empowering those who dominate and exploit them all the more.
Coercion as Power
The instrumental use of force or the threatened use of force by the power holder to attain the compliance of another is often referred to as coercion. Coercion is therefore a form of power. It is of the utmost importance to note as did Wrong that "a coercer may succeed without possessing either the capability or the intention of using force, so long as the power subject believes he possesses both" [Emphasis added]. That is, the coercive power of the power holder may rest significantly less or not at all on his actual capacity to harm the subject, but may rest more or less completely on the subordinate subject's belief that the power holder can do so. This perspective, commonly referred to as "bluffing," allows us to recognize the fact that in many instances power holders exercise power over their subjects because of the subjects' misperceptions and misunderstandings, or false beliefs about the power holders' ability to restrict their options or possibilities. Wartenberg refers to this situation as the Oz Phenomenon, "for it shows that agents are able to coerce other agents by acting upon their beliefs rather than by controlling their action-environment directly." He further contends
that coercive power relations can be brought into existence by means of the subordinate agent's false understandings about the ability of the dominant agent to harm him. This is an important source of power for a dominant agent so long as her ability to realize her threat is not questioned [and challenged].1 [Emphasis added]
While the ability of the dominant agent to coerce the subordinate subject may rest heavily on the subject's exaggerated misperception of the dominant agent's actual capacity to do him harm, equally and often of greater importance, the ability of the dominant agent to coerce the subject may rest on the subject's misperception and underestimation of his own capacity to successfully thwart the coercive or punitive actions of the dominant agent. The often anemic self-concept of subordinate persons and groups, their low self-esteem, their ignorance of their actual strengths, are more the causes of their subordination than is the actual strength of their oppressors.
The long history of White American domination of Black Americans — which has been enforced and reinforced by the use of physical force and violence, psychic violence and coercive power — has in effect convinced the majority of Blacks that Whites are invincible. Moreover, this history has undermined the self-confidence of most Blacks, narrowed their vision of their possibilities and power, restricted their aspirations to the narrow confines of racial accommodation and assimilation, to being the paternalistic recipients of White sympathy rather than expanding their aspirations to include the overcoming of White power and achieving full, unfettered self-liberation. The unending maintenance of this self-defeating state of mind in Blacks is the fundamental objective of White power and the keystone upon which the infrastructural facade of White power rests. [MORE]
