emancipation, equality, and integration as capitalistic objectives or?

are these just the way the left has demonstrated its capitalistic culture? Perhaps something else..
Since am fairly immanently to visit Frankelinstine again 🙁 am checking the news there as I want to get a feel of whether or not am stepping into a bombing campaign..
Noticed a view by the new top israel of bank cahoona, that the group of people they name “israeli arabs” should have, in effect, less discrimination against them – because otherwise “israel” will suffer economically. (from a capitalist perspective..)

Does this not imply that in effect, the 20th century’s leftist efforts for integration, equality and emancipation of minorities and groups discriminated against was, in a effect, an effort to support and entrench capitalism?
It was not in intent.
However, I’d argue that perhaps the ability of a fair few people to perceive these processes as objectives, as being able to be encapsulated by, for example, laws – made it very capitalistic friendly. Hence we could get people like Blair & Clinton, & Fukuyama saying that we have reached a point of no need to press on with stuff like equality – because we already have It. As if the process of equality is a product..(??)

This actually makes me think there is a sort of similarity with art.. In the sense that art is a process – not a product – yet people rather treat art as an It with products/projects/objects..

gay barilla pasta boss comments and violence?

Seems like some people from gay communities call for boycotting Barilla pasta, for a pretty cool notion. The Barilla boss, does sound like a blasted rotten tomato with comments that seem to encourage legitimacy of prejudices against a minority.

I will def not get items from than brand – or linked to that brand – because it will feel awkward… However, I do not think its wise, nor clever – or am even unsure how this can be sustained.

The reason(??) i said that am not going to get anything linked to that brand is that in my mind, even if they say “sorry”, and change the boss, go on all 4 and yelp for forgiveness, and write PLEASE FORGIVE US all the way from Rome to Kemp-Town, I will not buy anything to do with them.
For me, this is just an excuse to tick off another capitalist entity from my possible shopping-list.

However, is this the case for people who say lets’ boycott them?
Is it not that if the boycott gets an apology and a change in a policy, the boycotters will happily stop their campaign, feel pretty chuved about themselves, and then re-aim their boycotting activities towards some other bigot?
For me, in a sense, its a practice of both accepting capitalism and, tacitly, bigoted behaviour.. (..as well as violence for resolutions..)

anti democratic discrimination in the name of democracy?

Where are Jews discriminated against, openly and with a cahooting state power?
Frankelinstine. (otherwise known as israel/palestine)
Where in Frankelinstine Jews are discriminated against in such a manner?
In the area zelot/fanatical/zionist/religious/secular-traditional israeli-jews seem to want to keep most – Jerusalem.
Where in Jerusalem such discriminatory activities take place?
In exactly the space that such big-other-heads gets filled with bog psychogeo beliefs from – where they want to imagine the temple was near to.

The notions above might be very disputable, however, I think the fact that a group of Jews is not being permitted to practice their beliefs freely, is not disputed.. I speculate that if in London, Bradford, Brazilia, Cairo, or else where, Jews – or any kind of religious people – where treated to abuse and denial of their right to practice their beliefs peacefully and without physically harming anyone – there would have been a huge out-cry.. (eg, the outcries that followed attempts to legislate for humane animal killing and outlawing circumcision practices in recent years..)

Another case.. Why would a group of people, in various states and cultures, in the vast majority of contemporary human societies – be denied a right afforded to other group, just because of sexual orientation? Indeed, I think it might be fair to question the democratic credentials of states, societies and cultures that allow such denials to be practised – because they are sexually discriminatory.

The link?
I think that both struggles, that of the Jewish women preying rights and of gay marriage rights – are sort of contemporary poor left overs of forgotten emancipatory freedom movements. The two struggles, unlike movements that questioned social, religious, cultural, political and economical orders, and attempted to energies processes for ever increasing equality and empowerment FOR ALL – the struggles of gay marriage and women praying rights is to accept the order already existing, to accept the culture of religious prayer/marriage – and simply asking to be accepted within it.
Both struggles – which I think should not be denied the rights they demand – are, imho, fail to question and produce a critique that energises democratic processes for all.
For example, the religious women do not struggle for greater emancipation of other religious groups, indeed any other group or individuals – to go around and practice stuff peacefully. That is not their agenda. They seem to demand a right to prey in a certain place, but not the right, for example, other jewish groupings to be accepted in the state that defines itself as jewish. Nor do they seem to wish affording the rights they demand, for free people, or muslims within the israeli state control, to roam and not be denied access into certain areas. (eg, certain areas in jerusalem are dangerous for free women to go into because they’ll get beaten up, or that muslims could go to the beach and not be made to feel un-wanted or in some sort of violent danger..
The gay rights people, like the religious women in jerusalem, do not struggle to question stuff. For example, if marriage is not afforded for gays, why not scrap it? Why not question the religious content? The contemporary relevance of the practice? Why not attempt to invent a democratic answer to democratic questions of marriage?
What about humans that want to marry animals, or in-animate objects, maybe, if marriage is something that should be afforded for all one2one living together arrangements of entities not from same family to begin with, then it should indeed be for all kinds of 121 unions?
In that sense, that these struggles are not for social change but of acceptance within the given order, and that these will be afforded for these limited groups – not others – it seems for me that we are witnessing struggles that are in and of themselves, discriminatory and anti-democratic.

Struggles for emancipation by various groups, like feminism, or indeed the afro-american struggles, and indeed that of jews, were/are not just for these specific groups. They are using these specific issues to shed wider lights and questions over social and cultural practices and processes. They are used to question economic and social structures – eg pay equality. They question voting rights – eg the suffrage was not just for women – but for ALL. Universal, unconditional suffrage.
Even when MLK had a little dream, it was for people of ALL skin colours..

violence dreams imagination in cycles?

Heard somewhere someone saying stuff to the effect of “the 1st step of violence is to change dreams”/imagination(?). ie, say there is a cultural dream of telling people not to say certain “rude” words, if I imagine/dream of a culture where such words/terms will not be censored, then by default am being violent towards the censoring folk. Reason being that I deny the propagation of their dream, am saying – there is a better/preferred dream, at least for me. In a sense, by dreaming/imagining differently, I might be violating the dream of others – even if its not yet out there on the streets because am questioning its legitimacy to be?

I like the idea because it emphasises the imagination, and how stuck we are within violence.. However, I am a bit hesitant because it seems to me that there are – could be – a few kinds here:
* the dream that denies yours. ie you are Not allowed to dream of censoring me.
* the dream that allows both of our dreams to evolve. ie my dream of an uncensoring culture is not because i want to deny your dream, but only its monopolistic element – and my dream isn’t denying that..

However.. We can say that the denial of monopolistic dreams is violent? I think this is a violent link, but not a whole.. I think religious people tend to feel it in the way of: “my freedom to be a religious killer is a straggle for equality!!” (eg the halal rules..)