After six long days, the much-anticipated results of the “🔍Mr. GoFundMe’s GoFindHim Contest🔎” are in, and the winner is… 🥁

👏👏👏🎉Mr. GoFundMe himself, Tariq Nasheed! 🎉👏👏👏

And so, in typical Tariq Nasheed fashion, this means that—in the end—he gets to keep the prize bag all for himself. Tickets for the Meet & Greet are still valued at 30% of the net worth of the median black family in America.

Thanks to all who participated! #ADOS will now continue doing the work to change that last point.


Reading Jessica Aiwuyor’s “Understanding ADOS” and Failing to Understand

Because you know what irks me the most about it? Not that they’re lying; lying can always be forgiven; lying is a fine thing, because it leads to the truth. No, what irks me is that they lie and then worship their own lies.

— F. Dostoevsky


Regarding Jess Aiwuyor’s latest piece, Understanding ADOS: The Movement to Hijack Black Identity and Weaken Black Unity in America, I think the first thing that comes to mind is that I’ve read instruction manuals whose authors seemed to’ve had more interest in holding a reader’s attention than she does in this essay. And while it aspires to a kind of monograph on the American Descendants of Slavery movement, Understanding ADOS ultimately amounts to nothing more than a drowsy 27-pg. read in which the prevailing (and, honestly, at this point tiresome) misrenderings and baseless claims about #ADOS are tidily brought together into one undergrad-like capstone project.

In those twenty-seven pages, Aiwuyor manages to offer literally nothing new in terms of information about the movement, or actual evidence that would serve to substantiate the familiar allegations and assumptions that she is obviously eager to recapitulate to her audience of like-minded opponents of #ADOS. She just adds a scholarly sheen to them.

Topmost among these is, of course, the so-called ‘anti’-immigrant position of the group (the word ‘immigrant’ appears a total of 47 times throughout the report). According to Aiwuyor, ADOS was “created in 2016 to describe and distinctly separate Black Americans/African Americans from Black immigrant communities.” This is—for most commentators on #ADOS—proving to be the rhetorical pocket into which they most like to settle when lobbing invectives at the movement. And for obvious reasons. It’s somewhere between not being completely dishonest with their readers (indeed, ADOS was formed for purposes of distinguishing their group from black immigrants), but also not being anywhere near entirely truthful with them, either.

Because to be truthful with a reader would be to describe the reality that nearly half of black immigrants in the U.S. arrived here in 2000 or later (45%). More than half of those came after 2006. Almost 1/3 of black immigrants in the U.S. say they came here before 1990, while the rest say that they arrived in the ‘90s. And so when we talk about black immigrants, we are talking essentially about a group comprised of first and second generation families. And I think to the extent that we can all agree that—yes, absolutely—to be a black person in America is to obviously experience anti-black discrimination, we maybe need to ask ourselves if it’s really so unreasonable that ADOS feels that when it comes time for the government to settle up its debts for the country’s profiting off the institutionalization of antiblackness, there’s a very real difference between the amount owed for the material harms that have encompassed twelve generations of one people, and those that are largely confined to recent arrivals (and who, it should be added, elected to come here.)

Enter ADOS.

And one sort of just has to wonder about a mind like Aiwuyor’s which seems to so object to the idea of fairness that inheres in making these kinds of distinctions. Her eagerness to make that idea seem so hateful… All I know is that if I’m out to eat with a group of people and I order a few drinks and an expensive main course while my dinnermates opt for salad and lemon water, I absolutely want Aiwuyor at the table when the bill arrives and for her to be bringing that same energy, passion and conviction about making distinctions being a misguided and hateful thing to do. I mean, we all sat at the same table, right? Had basically the same experience? Sure. And if you say the analogy doesn’t work, then I don’t know if you’ve ever felt that special sort of resentment towards a person who—after such observably dissimilar and unequal experiences—has the temerity to suggest everyone go even. Now imagine just how pitched that resentment would be in the context of recompense for the oppression of American Descendants of Slavery when someone suggests—no, when someone demands—essentially that after centuries.

And but this is sort of precisely the thing, isn’t it? When you read these denunciations of #ADOS, you get the sense that it’s as if the last century and a half has not even happened. That the post-emancipation period in America did not constitute decades upon decades upon decades of public policy that essentially set up a pick and roll for white capital to power drive to the basket while leaving black people laid out on their backs on the court they built. And the fact is that when you compare the data on socioeconomic positioning upon arrival—and how, when adjusted for age, second generation black immigrants are upwardly mobile in terms of income and education—it is apparent that the difference in history and experience allows families of foreign-born blacks to curl that screen in ways that the native population simply cannot.

Including a works cited page on your anti-#ADOS screed isn’t going to change this. But reparations for ADOS will. And for all of Understanding ADOS’s pretense to moral authority and empiricism, it is, in sum, a thinly researched, blatantly deceptive and bloated opinion piece by a writer whose ahistorical sensibilities are symptomatic of a growing anxiety among an elite class of academics and beltway careerists whose entire fancy intellectual pedigree threatens to be exploded by the success of #ADOS. I guess I’d be freaking out, too.


Mr. GoFundMe’s GoFindHim Contest!


Tariq Nasheed has just announced the prize bag for any FBA who can find out who Paul Sowers is.

Prizes include: Free lifetime shipments of “Hidden Colors” DVDs; a discount timeshare in Haiti; a month of free ad space for your business on the MoorUs app (currently back in beta-testing); and 10% off the purchase of the “Meet & Greet Pass” for the 2020 FBA Conference in Atlanta, GA (venue TBA).*

* If contestant is able to verify that Mr. Sowers is in fact a fed and/or financier, discount offer for this item will be increased to 15%!

Total prize package value N/A. Prizes and Terms of Giveaway are subject to change without notice or liability.



Should Old Acquaintance Be Forgot: #ADOS and Tariq Nasheed at the Turn of the Decade

If only in our private lives could the close of a year bring with it such clarifying moments as 2019’s end appears to have presented to #ADOS…

Of course there’s always the idea of entering into the New Year free of the exceedingly toxic elements in one’s personal life. Or, if not an idea of, then at least a longing for. But rarely is the stroke of midnight on January 1 accompanied by such an explicit purge of the repugnant, an expulsion of the totally narcissistic, and the ridding of the grifters who all somehow managed to slip in past the gates earlier in the year.

Yet a glimpse of this phenomenon is precisely what the past week or so has offered anyone with an eye toward the #ADOS movement and #FBA (which, if the latter doesn’t want to refer to itself as a movement, then it can maybe be more appropriately described as the culture-identity racket being run by Tariq Nasheed; a hashtag which—now that #ADOS has scraped it off its hull—has resumed its barnacle-like existence adrift in the waters of black American empowerment, merely waiting to latch onto the next viable vessel).

There’s no need to recapitulate the intellectually numbing and adolescent-level pablum that Nasheed and many of his followers evidently cannot help but resort to when they are challenged inside a serious political space. The untroubled relationship to manufacturing and disseminating libel. There’s no need to point at the giant neon warning sign of having someone with such megalo-hustler instincts like Nasheed anywhere near an initiative that would involve massive resource redistribution within the nation. Or to spell out the larger implications for the reparations movement being in the hands of not only an unserious and puerile provocateur, but someone who has routinely proven himself to be fully incapable of speaking cogently to the issues most effecting the group that he claims he wants to uplift.

This is after all the same person who, when the native-born black community needed a clear and informed voice to properly articulate to Tucker Carlson and his audience of millions how the logic of American white supremacy is in fact nakedly on display in the project of importing foreign-born blacks into this country, could only respond by arching his eyebrow in a studied manner and asking the host: “So we don’t live in a system of white supremacy? Everybody’s lying, Tucker?”

That’s not missing your shot. That’s taking the ball, bouncing it off your face, and then placing it in the opponent’s basket for them, twice.

Because at that point you’ve not only freely given Tucker Carlson—one of the most execrable commentators to’ve ever been plopped down onto the American media landscape—the opportunity to easily tease out your lack of knowledge, but you’ve further allowed him to humiliate your group by getting away with asking a question calculated to disparage the very fact of their ongoing and unique oppression. How could white supremacy possibly be said to be alive and well in such a diverse America, asks an incredulous Carlson. To which Nasheed’s most astute rejoinder on national television is essentially “What? It’s not?”

How could Nasheed possibly allow Carlson the satisfaction of so relishing that moment—where the host just so clearly knows he has an intellectual plaything before him on the studio teleprompter—that he lets out a scoff which in it seems to in fact contain the entire arrogant, murderous and genocidal history of the very white supremacy that Nasheed just let him pretend no longer exists.

To do that is to completely excuse oneself from making any further contribution to the discourse. It is the type of thing that gives lie to the whole ‘FBA doesn’t do politics,’ which is said as if he imagines himself to even have any real choice in the matter. What the Tucker Carlson fiasco demonstrated is that he has no choice but to not do politics because he simply can’t move nimbly enough in that space to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. He might be able to tap into the emotion coursing through this thing and really slickly market the idea of what needs to be accomplished, but the revolution will not be merchandised. And if your response is “But, but #ADOS has t-shirts!” Yeah, and the people buying them and wearing them are doing so while attending local chapter meetings across the country, encouraging others to call their representatives about the most salient issues for their group, showing up at the Supreme Court, and just in general being extremely and obsessively politically active.

To this last point (which at least from my perspective is the most germane), the #ADOS movement offers something critical that #FBA simply does not: the opportunity for a unique form of allyship that—in terms of working towards realizing justice for the group—portends to be as instructive as it will be productive as it will be transformative.

Does #FBA have allies? Do they even want allies? Need them? What would these allies be allying together in the name of, anyway? Can #FBA do what it wants to do without allies? Can what it wants to do result in a marked shift in that group’s material condition? And, if #FBA is intent on remaining siloed off from the political, how would allyship actually function in effecting a kind of transformation? From which site of actual possibility? Or does a deliberate withdrawal from the political allow for merely something like this: a chest-beating assertion of foundational blackness while leaving untouched the very institutions that have always worked (and will absolutely continue to work) to deny that group its Americanness?

In looking at #ADOS there is no such uncertainty. It’s why the group puts the “A” in the acronym first. Because theirs is a political project of undoing that denial and asserting that it is they who made Americanness possible; that it is their exclusion from the idea of Americanness that sustains it, and it is their exclusion which has provided a way of being American in this country that we, in particular, as white people, have literally never not known and enjoyed. And to the extent that we have pursued a course of action that seeks to help radically alter that situation, our efforts have more entailed holding on way too tightly to that whiteness instead of a willingness to learn how to give it up; we’ve long avoided coming to terms with the fact that actual justice for anti-#ADOS discrimination necessarily means a rotation in the seat of power and a transference of advantage to where it has never gone but always should have been.

It’s very much an American project. Which means that we have to be a part of it, but also that our allyship is necessarily either a put up or shut up kind. And putting up means giving up whiteness. There can be no more equivocating on the matter of what it means to heal their group as we move on into 2020. And on now what will be the 401st year of white supremacy in America, let us recognize that, insofar as we profess to completely despise that miserable reign, then our fight is alongside #ADOS.

To a prosperous New Year.

Antagonists & Adversaries, The Russia Narrative

The Jester as Oracle: Lawrence Ross, #ADOS, and the Sad Spectacle of Making Continuously Wrong Predictions

Lawrence Ross was in The Root yesterday offering his readers a peek into what he believes will eventuate within the political and cultural landscape of America in 2020. Topping Ross’s list is the thoroughly unoriginal and demonstrably absurd idea that “Russia will amplify #ADOS”, and that—subsequently—the movement will “implode.”

I hadn’t realized that, when it comes to prediction making, Ross in fact has something of a history of publicly inflicting a great deal of abuse upon himself. So it seems, in light of these new projections of his, that it might be worthwhile to look back on some of his past efforts at prognostication and see how they’ve aged (spoiler alert: not well!).

Here’s Ross in early 2017, hunched over his crystal ball…

1. Donald Trump will create his own version of ‘African America,’ and his administration will promote them to death in ’17. Donald Trump and his white supremacist administration don’t mind working with black people, as long as those black people mimic their priorities. Black collaborators like Kanye, Omarosa, Dr. Ben Carson, et cetera, will be promoted as authentic voices within our community. And don’t be surprised if Trump uses black platforms like World Star to promote policies that hurt the black community. We must fight back against this by not being distracted by the subterfuge, and instead work to strengthen our communities against those skin folk who ain’t kinfolk.

Literally all that this ‘prediction’ claims to foretell is that a conservative administration will promote black conservative voices to help advance a conservative agenda. That’s it. Which is essentially the equivalent of making a ‘prediction’ about the outcome of a basketball game and saying, “I predict that the members of one team will pass the ball to their teammates in an effort to score points.”

Masquerading as apparent political insight, Ross’s ‘prediction’ unquestionably ranks as one of the most dim-witted statements in the history of political analysis. As far as the World Star thing goes, I sort of don’t even know where to begin. To my knowledge, the site hadn’t—back in 2017—exactly rushed to start churning out op-Eds in an effort to garner support for the Trump administration’s nakedly regressive tax policy, or his DOJ’s obvious suppression of civil rights, but I could be wrong. Content-wise, though, it looks like the most popular thing on the site that year was a clip from an episode of The Steve Wilkos Show called “I’m in High School and Need a DNA Test.”

2. One city will burn due to a police shooting. For the past five years, black folks have dealt with a constant assault of police violence, and the Trump administration intends on giving more power to the police. We’ve been told to “not jump to conclusions” but the formula of injustice has been the same with each case: Outrage. An appeal for calm. The justice system lets us down. And then the police declare that they’re the real victims. If Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was correct in that violence is the language of the unheard, then at least one city will hear the pain of black people in ’17. This is not a desire or a wish, but a rational prediction of what happens when the voices of black people are unheard and unvalued.

To predict that an urban area in America will respond with civil unrest over a police shooting is to predict that prepared TNT will explode when the detonator button is pressed. Again, what Ross was doing here is less an exercise in studied conjecture than simply stating the totally fucking obvious. Also, King didn’t say ‘violence’ is the language of the unheard; what he said was that riots are. There’s a difference, obviously, and it’s important. And while of course 2017 brought with it the absolutely maddening obscenity of a police officer being acquitted after murdering an unarmed black man, the city did not burn in the way Ross envisioned. No city did.

3. A major figure will emerge from college campus protests. In 2017, I suspect that college campuses will continue to erupt with protests against racism (I documented the history of campus racism in my new book, Blackballed: The Black and White Politics of Race on America’s Campuses, so you can read that to get an understanding of the issue), but what we’ll see is a young college student emerge as a galvanizing and charismatic leader. Everyone loves to dump on black millennials for being lazy or not focused, but I’ve visited enough campuses to know that’s not true. And watch … one or more will begin to lead, not just their fellow college students, but also the nation.

In 2017, college campuses will continue to be popular sites of dissent against the state’s ongoing efforts to further disempower marginalized groups. I further predict that oranges will continue to be used in the production of orange juice.

The fact that this man has been asked multiple times in the span of four years to weigh in on the possibility of certain eventualities in American politics and culture suggests that the only sure thing in our future is that—if we continue to allow pseudo-intellectuals like Ross a space to opine—we are going to really accelerate towards our society’s imminent collision with rock bottom. Alas, while colleges and universities (obviously!) remained highly politicized spaces in 2017, one struggles to come up with the national anti-racist figurehead that Ross declared would come forth from collegiate obscurity and lead the country down a path of profound reckoning.

4. A liberal black version of the Tea Party will challenge establishment black politicians. I have a feeling that black folks are tired of seeing the same ole black faces as their mayors, state representatives and congressional representatives. And if these pols think that they can trot out the same ole rhetoric while black folks feel the heel of the Trump administration, they’re greatly mistaken. Maybe it’ll be an offshoot of Black Lives Matter, or a new movement, but look for raucous town hall meetings and challengers to folks you thought would never lose. If I were in Congress, I might wanna dial back on those Congressional Black Caucus black-tie confabs.

Uh. Insofar as Ross was, in 2017, suggesting that we’d soon witness a bourgeoning movement of newly politicized black Americans intent on challenging a sclerotic old guard who—despite bearing a superficial likeness to the community they claim to represent, have in fact proven quite willing to sacrifice that community’s well-being for their own personal gain—then he is here describing #ADOS exactly. And isn’t it just so odd that the only prediction of Ross’s to 1.) actually qualify as a prediction, and 2.) actually manifest in some recognizable way here in the present, is the very prediction that he now, in 2019, says will ‘implode’? Isn’t it odd how the demands that Ross envisions being made upon the gatekeepers by this movement—which in 2017 he described with such an obvious sense of respect—he now characterizes as “loud and shit”, and “myopic, stupid, damaging [and] destructive”?

5. Donald Glover and Issa Rae will be the new thought leaders. With Glover’s Atlanta and Rae’s Insecure, look for 2017 to be the year where books, television, movies and the rest of the arts reflect a more subtle, nuanced and sophisticated look at what it means to be black in America.

These were his supposed ‘thought leaders’? Dude, I mean, Donald Glover is currently like helping Andrew fucking Yang sell merch in pop-up shops in downtown LA, and Issa Rae just opened a hipster coffee shop in La Brea where one can surely rack up a hefty bill on their turmeric lattes and free range chicken salads.

Ross is an embarrassment to earnest writers everywhere, and material like this is a total affront to thoughtful and intelligent discussion and analysis. My only prediction as we leave 2019 is that, in four years’ time, we will look back on Ross’s speculative flings and see (again) his deficiencies as a thinker confirmed. More importantly, though, the chorus of anti-ADOS voices continues to incorporate and swell with what are hands-down the most observably un-serious of voices. And it’s hard not to see how #ADOS won’t be able to easily continue differentiating itself as a sincerely committed and highly disciplined political force amid the cacophony of howling, scattered clowns who, at the end of the day, only really seem to want to open their mouths to receive little food pellets of acknowledgement tossed their way from colleagues and ‘woke-culture’ figures rather than to speak in favor of justice for the group that everyone is so obviously eager to just completely forget about. And while Ross casts his sights to the future in precisely this fashion, he and others like him would do well to bear in mind that history tends to have a very unforgiving way of dealing with charlatans who possess such revolting and contemptible motivations.


For fans of the literature of defeat, Cyrus Garrett’s forthcoming political memoir, The Lack of Profile Pics and Other Bot-Like Activity in My Mentions: Or, How I Shit the Bed with Getting Out the Black Vote, will be available for pre-order on Amazon in early 2021.


A Hard Slap in the Face from Captain Outreach


Anatomy of a Smear: Annotating Darren Sands’s Creative Non-Fiction About #ADOS

WASHINGTON — Democrats are getting increasingly worried that black Americans with an uneven voting history may tune out Democratic candidates in 2020, as fringe messaging campaigns and disinformation breed cynicism over what the party has done for black Americans.

Not until a full five paragraphs later does Sands more specifically describe what “black Americans with a uneven voting history” means. There, he refers to them as “marginal” and “sporadic” voters who are characterized by their non-participation during midterm elections and/or their not being unwaveringly partisan. What’s curious though is that—by these very criteria—black Americans with an uneven voting history seem to in fact be a shrinking presence within the overall black electorate. In the 2018 midterms, black voter turnout actually rose from where it had been in 2014 by 11 percentage points (51.4%), clearly indicating new and heightened political engagement within the group. Moreover, these voters overwhelmingly went for the democratic candidate (90%).

One can’t help but think, then, that what Democrats are actually “increasingly worried” about is a black voter turnout scenario akin to (or worse than) what the party witnessed in the 2016 presidential election, which—for the first time in 20 years—had declined to 59.6%.1 And while the DNC officials to whom Sands spoke are eager to blame “fringe messaging campaigns” for the possibility of such apathy resurfacing in 2020, it seems worth pointing out a very obvious fact that seems to be completely lost on them: the show of black voter indifference toward the Democratic Party in 2016 pre-dated the founding of literally every single one of the movements they cite in this article. This intro paragraph should probably read: Democrats are getting increasingly worried that 2020 candidates will be forced to actually deal with the natural outcome of the party’s decades-long tuning out of the community and its totally thankless attitude over what black Americans have done for it.

Democratic National Committee sources told BuzzFeed News the party is tracking a new set of loosely organized online movements that officials believe are trying to steer black voters away from the party or from voting altogether. The groups are varied in their approach, but share a common thread of deep suspicion of the Democratic Party and an apparent determination to seize upon the hypersensitive political moment in a country with a deeply troubled racial past.

If Sands is going to include this indirect quotation that he received from his sources at the DNC, then he should at least respect his readers enough to clarify the ways in which those sources are in fact openly lying to them here. It would require a minimum of effort on his part to look at these “loosely organized online movements” and see that—more than being “varied in approach”—the groups’ respective aims and strategies are honestly not even really comparable. From here, Sands could then transition into a much more detailed and honest (if that’s his thing, which it does not seem to be) assessment of what each of these movements actually stand for. And so instead of writing this…

“The party is paying particular attention to the American Descendants of Slavery, or ADOS, a group that believes reparations should be paid solely to Americans who can trace their lineage back to people who were themselves enslaved (the group had previously been under suspicion being made up of bots); Blexit, a new outfit led by young black conservatives arguing a vote for Donald Trump is a vote against widespread immigration and abortion standing in the way of black middle class family values; and Foundational Black Americans, an ADOS rival founded by independent filmmaker Tariq Nasheed.

…he could actually report this: That the DNC sources with whom I spoke identified “Foundational Black Americans” (FBA) as a movement is rather peculiar, since FBA seems to not only reject that label, but routinely emphasizes its deliberate lack of organizational infrastructure. Tariq Nasheed, an independent filmmaker affiliated with FBA, has stated multiple times that undertaking work in the political arena is very much extraneous to its main concerns, which hew exclusively toward the cultural aspects of native-born black life in the U.S. In contrast, “Blexit”—a new outfit led by young black conservatives—does have an explicit political agenda, but it is one that is so nakedly self-serving and contemptuous of black voters that Democrats should probably make reparations a centerpiece of the Party’s 2020 platform just for letting such a vulturous thing like “Blexit” materialize on the scene in the first place. The third movement (and the one to whom the party is paying particular attention) is American Descendants of Slavery, or #ADOS. Since its emergence into the mainstream of U.S. politics, #ADOS has faced allegations that it is made up of bots. These claims have thus far proven baseless, and—as the group has begun holding national conferences, showing up on the steps of the Supreme Court, gathering at town hall meetings, and establishing local chapters all across the country—to the extent one persists in promulgating this bot theory, one assumes the risk of publicly appearing mentally unwell. The movement’s demands include proposals that would greatly benefit all black Americans, but, at the core of their agenda is a call for the U.S. government to make restitution to the specific victims of the institution of chattel slavery and its unique and enduring legacy in America; namely, to those individuals who can trace their lineage back to their enslaved ancestors, and who as a group have been made to bear the particular burden of multigenerational material disadvantage that has been both covertly and overtly made to plague them for centuries.

Laying it out like this (which is to say, again, honestly), would have allowed Sands to circle back to the bit where he erroneously said these groups “share a common thread”, and re-word that part to more appropriately convey the truth that the only common thread they share is that they all involve black people in a country with a deeply troubled racial past. And one again can’t help but feel a deep suspicion that the Democratic establishment, in witnessing black Americans begin to think critically about its not-exactly-trivial-role in helping perpetuate those past injustices, is deliberately conflating and misrepresenting these movements in the public sphere in an apparent attempt to seize on the hypersensitive political moment and to get on with the business of exacting the expected performance of fealty from black voters at the polls while reminding them how grateful they should be for its efforts at symbolic progress.

“Democrats often repeat the refrain that the party would never take black voters for granted. Inside the party, though, political advisers think it’s likelier than not that most marginal voters (Obama voters who skipped the midterms) and sporadic voters (those who are harder to persuade) have had at least some exposure to an anti–Democratic Party message. In some cases, party officials said, black Americans’ dim view of the job Democrats have done governing in recent decades is colored by a grim economic outlook and uncertainty about the future.”

Democrats often repeat the refrain that the party would never take black voters for granted. But if current trends continue, Black America’s wealth is expected to completely bottom out in the next two decades. And because Democrats have had an obvious and influential hand in shaping the sorts of policies and circumstances that will have precipitated this extinction event, it seems virtually unthinkable that black voters would not take a dim view of the job that Democrats have done governing in recent decades. Maybe political advisers inside the party—rather than focusing so much on whether or not marginal and sporadic voters have been exposed to an anti-Democratic Party message—should instead seriously reflect on the ways in which the party has exposed the entire community to the anti-black messages it has been sending out now for decades.

“The new anti-Democratic groups want to appeal to black Americans with a populist message rooted in ethnic, cultural, and economic identity they say is untethered to the ‘Democratic plantation’ mentality, a political trope first used by black Republicans in the 1960s.”

And now, like then, it is still only the black Republicans whose messaging actually includes the phrase “Democratic plantation.” For Sands to lazily lump #ADOS in with such a glaringly dissimilar rightwing crusade is for him to now be directly insulting his own readers and surrendering any right to be regarded as anything even close to a serious journalist who might hold himself to even the most minimal of standards and ethics of the trade. It is motive-exposing to the maximum. While Blexit and FBA may want to appeal to black Americans with a populist message rooted in ethnic, cultural, and economic identity they say is untethered to the “Democratic plantation” mentality, Sands might want to at least hint at the fact that it’s very unclear how Blexit‘s out-of-the-frying-pan-and-into-the-fire approach will translate into any significant improvement in the group’s material condition. The same can, in a certain way, be said for a movement that supposedly abstains from staking out any territory in the political sphere. #ADOS differs from these in its determination to build group empowerment from within a site of possibility; a place where the group has actual political purchase. In this way, #ADOS is not ‘anti-Democratic’ so much as it is pro-reciprocity, pro-cooperation between a political party and its lifeblood.

“In interviews, black Democrats said the party itself is partly to blame: Party leaders had failed to further understand the voters who had boosted them at the polls.”

Perhaps, though, the more precise wording is ‘failed to respect’; Party leaders had failed to respect the voters who had boosted them at the polls. This, again, speaks to one of #ADOS’s most powerful assertions: Politics is an exchange. And so when DNC operatives who so clearly have misdiagnosed the root malaise of black voters, but who claim to be taking the challenge seriously and saying that they are now working on several black outreach efforts, then those efforts should absolutely be understood as the Democratic Party planning to reach out for the collars of the black community.

“National Democrats say they want to equip voters with a clear sense of what Democrats have delivered for black people, especially under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, said Cyrus Garrett, the DNC’s African American political director.

Six out of every ten black people in the U.S. have an immediate family member who was or is now incarcerated. Six out of every ten, in large part thanks to Clinton’s crime bill. And that giant wealth-erasing asteroid that is headed directly at black households in 2053 indisputably bears Obama’s signature. In other words, there arguably could not be two worse legacies to trot out in front of already disaffected black voters for a rose-colored glasses trip down memory lane, and one just sort of stares at their phone in bafflement at how Sands manages to let this fact slide without mention. Or, rather, one perhaps begins to understand something about Sands and his function.

‘We already know that [our] platform is aligned with what they need, but we need a way to communicate that more so that when people ask them what the Democrats have done, they can easily talk about it,’ Garrett said. ‘But we haven’t yet found the right language that makes the community feel as if we understand where they’re coming from and what’s actually happening to them. A lot of it is just listening to how they say it.’”

Or policy. Or you haven’t found the right policy. Except, of course, the right policy is directly in front of you, exactly where it has been now for almost a year, on ados101.com. All the “language” you will need is right there. “Where they’re coming from” and “what’s happening to them” is literally all right there. Stop making the needs of the community out to be some fucking great enigma, or like you need Rosetta Stone to be able to understand what black people are saying to you. It’s not language to make the community feel that The Democratic Party needs, it’s the courage to make it heal.

“The rapper and activist Talib Kweli, who has been an ardent critic of ADOS and Blexit and clashed at times with their leaders over the course of the past year, said he applauded the DNC’s recognition of their threat.”

Y’know, it’s funny. At some point during the writing of this article, Sands must have revisited some of his notes from his days as an undergrad journo student and found this rare gem buried somewhere in there: talk to sources and gather quotes. Although isn’t it strange how he somehow only managed to connect with Talib Kweli and two other individuals (one of whom has also ‘clashed’ with #ADOS, but who more specifically was one of the chief promoters of the ‘ADOS are bots’ theory), and yet he somehow could not find a single person from #ADOS with whom to speak? A single person who might have been able to turn his article into an actual act of reporting instead of an exercise in creative writing.

. N O T E S .

1. When they rammed a candidate through who embodied arguably all of the party’s most overt and covert anti-black tendencies and instincts.