The Little Führer

Moderators: DrVolin, Wombaticus Rex, Jeff

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:26 pm

Recipe: Make Pizza Great Again

Right-wingers are attacking a meal that represents our true greatness

Image
Our 45th President, circa 1991, appearing in a Pizza Hut advertisement.

When a far-right conspiracy theory involving the Clintons, pizza, and a supposed child sex-trafficking ring led to a shooting incident in December, I knew it was time to talk to The Indypendent’s readers about pizza.

When Edgar M. Welch, a 28-year-old father of two and certifiable moron, decided to investigate the “Pizzagate” conspiracy, he showed up at Comet Ping Pong in Washington. A trendy pizzeria and ping-pong parlor on the city’s leafy northwestern edge, it was the alleged hub of the Clintons’ child-trafficking operations. Like all great detectives seeking to expose criminal activity, he fired off his AR-15 the minute he walked in the joint. Luckily, no one was injured.

“I just wanted to do some good and went about it the wrong way,” Welch apologized after he was arraigned for assault with a deadly weapon. “The intel wasn’t a hundred percent.”

That is perhaps the understatement of the century. Comet Ping Pong is not alone. The conspiracy theorists claim that the words “cheese pizza” in leaked emails from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman, were code for “child pornography.” Roberta’s, an upscale pizzeria in Bushwick, has been the target of related threats.

“The more I dig those emails and new findings,” one online commentator remarked about Roberta’s, “the clearer it gets…. Most of those so-called elites made a cult out of pizza. Disturbing indeed.”

Anyone who has seen the photos of Donald Trump and Sarah Palin eating Famiglia’s pizza with knives and forks knows the elites wouldn’t even know where to begin making a cult out of pizza. They don’t even know how to eat it.

But it seems the forces of ignorance and bigotry that Trump has brought to the fore are not content with just going after Muslims and immigrants, women and gays. Like ISIS lopping the heads off the idols of ancient dynasties, they have launched an attack on pizza, a divine delight that represents what is truly great about our sad and confused nation.


https://indypendent.org/2017/02/21/reci ... reat-again
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:54 am

http://countervortex.org/node/15292

AMERICAN 'LEFT' ABETS TRUMP-PUTIN AXIS

by Bill Weinberg, Muftah

The United States is poised on the brink of a fascistic situation since the inauguration of Donald Trump. But the American left, logically the wellspring of resistance to the establishment of a fascistic order in the world's most powerful country, finds itself in a very compromised position.

With many Democrats denying the legitimacy of Trump's presidency on the basis of evident Russian manipulation of the election, it is a bitter irony that the most popular "progressive" voices are rushing to exonerate Moscow of meddling. Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and Jeremy Scahill are among those effectively seeking to exculpate Vladimir Putin, demanding the CIA show its "evidence," as if this—and not preparing to resist Trump—were the urgent priority. It also ignores the reality that Trump's toeing of the Moscow line on Syria, Ukraine and NATO (not to mention his fawning praise of Putin) strongly points to a quid pro quo.

Left-Right Convergence
In a recent piece for The Intercept, Greenwald called Trump "duly elected," and accused the President's critics of "using classic Cold War dirty tactics." In light of these words, protestations that Greenwald is merely warning the anti-Trump forces against playing of a poor card ring extremely hollow. Greenwald even appeared on Fox News with Tucker Carlson in December 2016 to dismiss the Russian hacking allegations as a "smear."

In an interview with Breitbart contributor Lee Stranahan that same month, Greenwald obligingly praised the "alt-right" organ as having "integrity and a sort of editorial independence that I think most media outlets on both the left and the establishment right utterly lack.” He added that Breitbart is "giving voice to people who are otherwise excluded," and hailed the site as "very impressive in terms of the impact they've been able to have." Greenwald of course massaged these statements with requisite interjections about how Breitbart contains content he "sometimes find[s] repellant." Unsurprisingly, and without delay, Breitbart (now practically an official mouthpiece of the Trump team) republished the interview as an act of self-praise.

But perhaps the most damning indictment of Greenwald's position is his defense of Julian Assange, the mastermind of WikiLeaks, which is now accused of having been the conduit for Democratic National Committee e-mails hacked by Russian intelligence. In a December interview with Italy's La Repubblica, Assange expressed his forgiving opinion on the imminent Trump takeover.

"Donald Trump is not a DC insider, he is part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities," Assange said. "It is a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States: change for the worse and change for the better." Whereas: "Hillary Clinton's election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the United States."

Greenwald in The Intercept then bashed The Guardian for portraying Assange's interview as "guarded praise of Trump"—which it was, despite Greenwald's transparent denials. And here's the proof of the pudding: Kremlin mouthpiece Sputnik spun it exactly the same way ("Assange: Trump Offers Chance for Change")—but approvingly! And Greenwald apparently has no problem with that!

In early January, Assange went one better in an unlikely interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, complaining of Obama and his intelligence agencies: "They are trying to say that president-elect Trump is not a legitimate president."

Asked by Hannity if the hacks originated with Russian intelligence, Assange replied: "Our source is not a state party, so the answer for our interactions is no." Even if his stilted and pretentious prose did not reek of equivocation, Assange's answer was a dodge: it merely raises the question of whether WikiLeaks' "source" had received the data from Russian intelligence.

Trump joyfully jumped on Assange's comments, tweeting: "Julian Assange said 'a 14 year old could have hacked Podesta' —why was DNC so careless? Also said Russians did not give him the info!" (CNN thankfully recalled that Trump told Fox News in a 2010 interview that Assange should be executed. When asked about WikiLeaks and its recent dump of diplomatic cables, he said: "I think it's disgraceful, I think there should be like death penalty or something.")

Left 'Legitimizes' Trump
What such defenders of Trump seem not to realize is that there are many reasons Trump is not legitimate, apart from the assumed Russian meddling cited by Rep. John Lewis. These include, but are not limited to, his open calls for violence against his opponents on the campaign trail, his blatant contempt for democratic norms, and his undisguised racism and xenophobia. The only thing arguably more disturbing than Trump's positions is that some icons on the "left" seem undisturbed by them.

The paradox of a "leftist" bloc cozying up to the Trump machine is not, however, surprising. It is part of a larger political convergence evidenced for years before the current bizarre climax. The Russian line on Syria and Ukraine, now embraced by Trump, has become practically the dominant position on the American and British "left."

In December 2015, for example, US Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, notoriously supped with Putin at a Moscow confab sponsored by Kremlin state media mouthpiece RT. Also at the dinner table was Donald Trump's then military advisor (now National Security Advisor), retired Gen. Mike Flynn—an ultra-Islamophobe who has called for the "destruction of Raqqa" to defeat ISIS, and even boasted that he is "at war with Islam" in an interview with The Intercept (of all places). This is strange company for Stein, who purports to represent a party committed to human rights, peace, and ecology. Indeed, Green parties across Europe assailed Stein for her schmoozing with Putin. So did persecuted Russian environmentalists.

Notably, Stein's viral YouTube statement from Red Square during the trip, filled with predictable "anti-war" rhetoric, had not a syllable of criticism either for Flynn or for her Kremlin hosts—who were then (as now) busy bombing Syrian towns and cities into rubble. She said the RT confab was "inspiring," and that Putin told her he "agree[d]" with her "on many issues."

Stein's silence on Russia's actions in Syria was hardly surprising. She and her campaign had often come to the defense of the Assad regime, even seeking to exculpate it of using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. Since her Moscow visit, Stein has regularly echoed the Moscow line, telling Vox in September 2016 that "Russia used to own Ukraine," and saying the idea of "Russian aggression" there is "highly questionable"—comments that reflect a dubious understanding of international law.

The following month, in October, Stein said that Clinton's plan for a no-fly zone in Syria could lead to nuclear war, and added that "it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia." Later that month, Trump seemingly lifted this talking point from Stein, telling Reuters: "What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria [apparently meaning the Assad regime]. You’re going to end up in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton.”

Again and again during the presidential campaign, we were told by voices on the "left" that Trump was the less dangerous candidate, because Clinton would start a world war—despite Trump's nuclear posturing and "bomb the shit out of 'em" rhetoric.

Red-Brown Politics
What explains this sinister convergence of the supposed "left" and the Trump-Putin right? Three explanations come to mind—and they each reveal very muddled and dangerous thinking.

The first is enemy-of-my-enemy thinking, the notion that we must support any side opposing or opposed by the US at a given moment. This is always an error—it has led "leftists" into such criminally idiotic positions as denying the Bosnia genocide. But it makes no sense whatsoever in this context. The US has not really opposed Assad (with more than increasingly equivocal words), and Trump is now the president—openly calling for complete betrayal of the Syrian rebels and giving Putin a free hand in Ukraine.

The second is a Cold War-nostalgist Russophilia that years for the days when Moscow claimed to lead world socialism. But this too gets the political context nearly backwards. If slavish adherence to the Moscow line was an error even back then, it is far less forgivable today. Putin's nascent dictatorship is far closer to fascism than to communism. Russia's brave and lonely anti-war dissidents are persecuted, along with feminists and gays. The Duma has just passed legislation decriminalizing domestic violence.

The third is the most sinister explanation: the emergence of what is called a "Red-Brown" politics in Europe, the notion of a left-fascist bloc against the West. Nearly 80 years after the Hitler-Stalin Pact, elements of the left are again making peace with fascism—pointing to the possibility of these sectors getting co-opted by Trumpism in the manner of Hitler's populist paramilitary force, the Brown Shirts.

It takes but the most cursory grasp of history to understand what a grave error this is. Things worked out poorly for the Brown Shirts in the end; they were crushed once they had outlived their usefulness to the Führer. The Hitler-Stalin Pact didn't work out too well either, as the German dictator betrayed his Russian counterpart with the surprise invasion of June 1941. However oleaginous Donald and Vladimir may be at the moment, it is easy to imagine the new American demagogue deciding to turn Moscow into the Trump Crater because Putin made an unflattering comment about the size of his fingers.

There are a few tendencies long at work on the left that render it vulnerable to such Red-Brown politics. One is the idea that the liberals are the "real" enemy because they are more insidious than the hard right, and lull the masses into complacency—always a fashionable posture of hard-left machismo.

Another is that, after the Iraq disaster, fear of "neocons" has driven much of the left into hands of paleocons—that faction of the policy elite that prefers "stability" under authoritarian regimes—and even the neo-fascists with which they overlap on the right. It is no surprise that that soft-on-fascism Pat Buchanan, reigning patriarch of paleoconservatism, currently has a piece on his website asking, "Is Putin One of Us?" Pat praises the Russian strongman for his "moral clarity" in opposing the decadence of the West.

This backlash against the neocons, with their hubristic dreams of Washington-directed "regime change," has led to an ironic "leftist" suspicion of authentic revolution. In Iran in 2009, as in Serbia in 2000 and Ukraine in 2014, and even in Egypt in 2011, many "leftists" in the West saw only Washington conspiracies in popular revolutions to bring down oppressive regimes. While across the Arab world, people put their lives on the line under the slogan "the people want the fall of the regime," for self-declared progressives in the West, "regime change" became the ultimate evil.

We may hope that a taste of actual authoritarian rule in Trump's America will serve to shake some leftists out of their enthusiasm for dictators. This particular chicken is rapidly coming home to roost.
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:26 am

RU Sirius's insanely psychedelic music video "Punching A Nazi"


https://youtu.be/mdcXwLkpRUY


Freak out to this insanely weird "Punching A Nazi" song and video by cyberdelic pioneer RU Sirius's Trippin' Coyotes/Creosote Cowboy! Performed by R.U. Sirius, Charlie Verrette, and Acatelysteleven. Musical Production: Daddy Phriday & Creosote Cowboy; Video by Daddy Phriday; with vocals from Cate Meiers Leggett; lyrics by R.U. Sirius (w. help from Acatelysteleven)


Image


https://boingboing.net/2017/02/27/ru-si ... chede.html
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:30 am

Mutations of Fascism: an interview with Enzo Traverso

Image


You use the term "post-fascism" to characterise today’s far Right movements. What does this term mean?

Enzo Traverso
: The idea of post-fascism firstly serves to characterise a political movement that is shot through with contradictions, and which has an evident fascist matrix — for that is its history, where it comes from — and in the Front National’s case a dynastic line of descent. There is an undeniable fascist hard core in the FN apparatus, its activist base, composed of neo-fascist militants of all generations. They are very active in the FN and hold onto a good part of the organisation. So there is a rift between the organisational reality of this party — or even its anthropological fabric — and Marine Le Pen’s discourse in the media or the public sphere, which is of a xenophobic, nationalist, anti-neoliberal tenor but also comes out of a social Right. Yet if the FN were a neofascist sect, or even a neofascist party, I do not think that it would be considered likely to appear in the second round of the presidential election, or even capable of being France’s biggest party. This party is thus clearly transforming, and it is trying to operate a process by which it dialectically transcends its fascist character — but without entirely rejecting it. So in order to fight this party, we have to understand what it has become.

But you also talk — as the title of your book indicates — of the "new faces of fascism"…

Post-fascism is a transitory phenomenon still in mutation, and this term clearly indicates what its matrix is. There is a big debate on "Trump and fascism" in the United States. But we cannot say that fascism is really the main force driving Trump. For her part, Marine Le Pen knows that that is where her party comes from! And that is why she is trying to adapt her nationalist and xenophobic discourse to the present context, including that of the European Union. Today, post-fascist movements advance a nationalism whose targets are no longer — as in the 1930s — other nations, and in particular European ones, but postcolonial immigration and Islam. This change of targets has a lot of implications because it allows the FN to present itself with a democratic and republican rhetoric. Taking Islam as its target, it characterises itself as the defender of Western values.

Indeed, you explain that while the FN tries to present itself as "just as republican as the others," this is not the case, including in the eyes of the traditional right…

There is a difference of nature, on account of the simple fact that the far Right has far more organic links with the ruling élites than the FN has. Today, this party is not the choice of the globalised ruling classes. Yet it today presents itself as the defender of democracies against the threats supposedly bearing down on it, particularly Islam, fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism. And even as the defender of equality between men and women, or of homosexuals! In my view, the fact that it can appropriate republican rhetoric can only stir up questions on the notions of republic and republicanism. There are a certain number of elements in the republican tradition that allowed for this transplant operation. We cannot defend the Republic as if it were a sacred, immaculate entity; for its history is contradictory and includes nationalism, colonialism, xenophobia and what may be a rather questionable conception of secularism [laïcité]. This should push us to cast a critical look at the history of the Republic, rather than adopt this history wholesale, in an uncritical fashion.

You speak of a "constellation" of post-fascist movements or formations. What holds it together, and what characterises its component parts?

I speak of a constellation because all these movements present a series of common characteristics, beyond the sometimes considerable differences between them. These characteristics first of all include xenophobia and Islamophobia, and then a rejection of globalisation in favour of a socially regressive and nationalist protectionism. But I speak of a post-fascist constellation also in the sense that these movements have sometimes very different ideological matrices and origins. Certain formations have an explicitly neo-fascist profile, such as Greece’s Golden Dawn, or the movements appearing in Eastern Europe these last two decades who seek to revive the nationalist tradition of the 1930s. Some movements in Western Europe like the FN have neo-fascist origins but are trying to evolve by changing their discourse; others have different roots but are converging with this same orientation. Such is the case of the Lega Nord in Italy, UKIP in Britain and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD)… While Trump is also a comparable case, unlike the FN, Lega Nord or AfD he has links with part of the world of finance.


More at: http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3112-mu ... o-traverso
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:13 pm

The Landing: Fascists without Fascism

Research & Destroy

The results of the election surprised us, without a doubt. This even as the right/left spectrum that had oriented us for more than two centuries fell into collapse: Hollande in France finally destroying the labor protections which had stood off the assaults of the right; SYRIZA discovering its socialist fate was to ignore heroically a national referendum against, so as to become an instrument of the European banking sector; the Brexit vote unfolding across a series of oppositions between classes, races, south and north, city and country, but with Labor and Tory providing no explanatory power whatsoever. Nonetheless we thought the long disaster would appear elsewhere and otherwise. But what surprised us the most was how many people still seemed to believe that the current interregnum, the long non-recovery, could last indefinitely. That the shaking would never begin, that the bomb was all fuse and no powder. This delusion finally proved deadly for the liberal panderers. In the infinite effusion of campaign blather, the only moment of truth on offer belonged to Trump, hidden in the cargo of his slogan Make America Great Again. We all understood, instantly, that this meant make America white again, male again, straight again, cis again, and so on. In the wake of the racist hatred of Obama and the anxiety provoked by the rise of a national movement opposed to the police privilege of shooting black kids, crude xenophobia seemed a timely play. Trump did so without shame. The shamelessness was part of the appeal. But these appeals were not truths; they were the open carry version of Southern Strategy. The truth was in admitting to the great congregation, as no candidate from either party had done previously in any significant way, that our best was behind us. We were not great, we were the wreckage of greatness. We had a greatness once, which was indexed punctually to the success of the great industries on which the nation rose. When the profit rate tumbled downhill, it took greatness with it. Things got worse for a lot of people.

This has been ongoing. In 2008, it was Obama who promised something different, first under the rubric of humanistic progress — the first black president! — and then formalistic “change” as such. The Republican party, contrarily, stood for continuity, conservatism, a steady hand, no surprises for its constituency, traditional values, and the like. The 2016 election is unique in the reversal of this ideological polarity; while Republicans have previously run as outsiders, never before have they seized the thematic of change as their own. Clinton found herself as the mouthpiece of continuity and conservatism, the steady-handed technocrat who would preserve America’s greatness as needed, here a coup, there a trade deal, everywhere a drone strike. The problem is that, in our era, what passes for the status quo is pure contradiction: it is things staying the same by getting worse. Such was the best promise Clinton could make.

Trump, however, was as forthright as a presidential candidate could be about the long crisis of hegemony unraveling. This far more than his boorishness was intolerable to many in his own party, as well as to the Democrats who might have owned this historical truth years ago. Trump blasts away the same to reveal the worse all at once, to announce the terrible century to come. It is Trump and his cabinet of horrors who have become the party of change, of the new. There is no avoiding it now.

In the preceding decades it must have been eerie to encounter the hysterical disavowal of what was each year a more obvious fact, year after year, election after election. The not-said, the unsayable. This must have felt particularly uncanny in the counties where the decline was a daily brutality, where industrial employment had given way not to tech or the service industries but to opioid addiction and, for the first time in national history, declining life expectancy. To imagine Trump’s victory, engineered via electoral college mechanics whose gyres and gimbals pivoted on the very voters whose lives had been annihilated by those decades, as separate from these developments would be an absurdity.

But this in and of itself does not imply that Trump could deliver the change he promised, particularly the change that these counties imagined. For if the catastrophe of Trump is not an inexplicable and sudden event but the outcome of a long transformation driven by underlying dynamics that are relatively immune to executive policy, a new executive is in the most limited position to reverse its course. Making the worst of a bad situation, however, might be more within reach.


...In his first few weeks, Trump has backgrounded the mainstream aspects of his plan and led by showcasing his commitment to the nationalist project: Muslim ban and border wall, steroid injections for the police forces. This is no doubt done in order to galvanize the most virulent members of his base, a bit of red meat for the red-blooded Americans scowling under their MAGA hats, but some large part is also pantomime. Many of the Executive Orders were statements of intention rather than actions, designed to show his commitment to the proto-fascist project without requiring him to put much weight behind it. They simulate absolute authority, as if he were already the kind of leader capable of remaking the country by fiat. But he’s not, at least not yet. And so his administration remains a sort of simulacrum of fascism; Trump is a Mussolini without his Italy. To become a true fascist, he will need loyal people at all levels of the government, as well as extra-governmental forces capable of doing the dirtiest work but also forcing the hand of bureaucrats and judges too loyal to the letter of the law. It is hard to see how he can garner such devotion except by giving people something more than empty rhetoric, fear-mongering, and fake news about fake news. He will actually have to put people to work and build infrastructure and increase their living standards, and to do this, he will have to tell the most rapacious billionaires to get with the program.

We now have some measure of both the challenges he might face in such attempts as well as the forces that might assist him. That there were a number of Customs officers willing to enforce his racist ban despite explicit interdiction from the courts is no doubt worrying; these people are the kernel of a force capable of remaking government service in absolutist directions. But for every one of these officers, there were just as many officials that were unwilling to carry out such orders, or who were openly opposed to them, often for practical more than ethical or political reasons. Trump as yet has no machine, no party institution, capable of making sure his commands are realized without obstruction. Furthermore, we’ve already seen capital begin to hold his actions at arm’s length, particularly Silicon Valley capital (a fraction of the ruling class highly likely to reject most protectionism, given its global domination of markets and its dependence on planetary supply chains). Resistance from such a powerful sector will be a strong and perhaps insuperable impediment to Trump, though it’s always possible many companies could be won over by various forms of corporate subsidy. If he cannot rally Google and Apple and Facebook to his cause, he will have a very hard time.

IV.

In the 20th century, radicals were often made accomplices to their own extermination through participation in popular fronts with liberal and opportunist lefts. What we see on the horizon is the uncomfortable prospect of radicals fighting alongside Google management, import-export capitalists, mainstream journalists, liberal politicians, and rogue factions of the CIA. Here, the theme of this essay returns: more than anything, liberal opponents of the regime want things to stay the same. Or rather, their desire is counterfactual: they want things to have stayed the same. They are partisans of the return to normalcy, the return to the normal that itself bred Trump and his ilk and will, if not destroyed, produce more of the same.

If things get bad enough, these people will give up on their political etiquette and accept the use of force, but if they do so they will wreck the world for a return to the bleak certitudes of the Obama years, and they will betray everyone who wants more. They will gladly endorse a military coup if it means Hillary for Prez, particularly if they can somehow disavow their violence as they have the ceaseless violence of the years before Trump’s onset. The question for radicals — which at this point need not mean the wild-eyed, the militant, but simply those shorn of the fatal fantasy of return — is how to act in the same field as such groups without subordinating oneself to them, how to betray them before they betray you. One cannot maintain separation from them but one must remain separate. One must stand alongside and apart, within and outside.

The last few years have been dominated by social movements such as Black Lives Matter and NoDAPL which, in particularizing the tactics and rhetorics of movements such as Occupy, managed to focus and radicalize them. And yet, these movements suffer the same scissions and founder upon the same false unifications that bedeviled their predecessor movements. Within Black Lives Matter, divisions between a college-educated and largely middle class activist layer and the thoroughly proletarian kids whose riots started the movement; at Standing Rock, divisions between pacifist elders astride the moral high ground and the more confrontational factions who derive from the militants of the 60s and 70s. There is perhaps no clearer example of this division, historically, than that found within western feminist movements, each wave featuring a faction oriented toward formal equalities and inclusion within capitalist society and another faction committed to something like abolition. In the present moment of antipatriarchal politics, impelled by Trump’s overweening misogyny, this split again presents itself in the gap between the large and pacific Woman’s March the day after the inauguration and the avowedly anticapitalist International Woman’s Strike planned for March 8th. Though the former has endorsed the latter, the divisions remain.

These are the internal splits which have persisted as something like an invariant within social movements; if they are historical artefact, its persistence spans the long history of liberal democracy. Trump represents the possibility of a weak unification of these movements. Things come to feel so dire — as we’ve seen, the production of this direness is central to Trumpism — that the factions within any social movement might be drawn to unite around his expedient eviction. The most pitiful and dangerous replacements will be offered as solutions, ‘ound which all will be pushed to rally. Once this is done, the militant factions will be systematically destroyed. The structural shaking, meanwhile, will continue.

But there is another set of possibilities. As we’ve seen, the splits internal to these movements are cut across by a split extending the length of western liberalism, between those who have yielded already to the logic of Anything But Trump, and those for whom the catastrophe retains its aura of possibility — between those who want a new president and those who want no presidents at all. In one sense, Trump’s unification of recent movements is possible in so far as he names an enemy common to them. He is the president of police murder and pipelines alike, of sexual assault and border walls equally. But this unification is weak, as we’ve said, because it in no way overcome the divisions internal to these movements. As such, the larger split provides an axial consistency to the splits within each particular social movement, allow each of them to see more clearly that their potential accomplice is not the less militant side of their own struggle but the more militant side of another. But these movements cannot really unify; their formally shared position on the militant side of the split does not equate to shared content, to some identity of ends. Their divisions do not line up cleanly with each other or with the broader social division.

Contrary to those who worry over any disunity, however, such slippages are in truth a necessity. They are the engine of duration, as they prevent the possibility of an early foreclosure of struggle which appears inevitably as the subordination of everyone to the common denominator of the popular front. The fraught interaction of these movements allows for new and newly intense dynamics of antagonism along previously invisible faultlines. In our reading of history, the path from movement to insurrection does not follow a straight line, does not occur through the simple aggregation and unification of existing groups, but instead involves centripetal, unifying forces as well as centrifugal, polarizing ones. The forces that unify on one level often divide on another. Divisions are, in other words, what allow for the possibility of success, not what obstruct it.

This is by no means to argue that people can do nothing to draw themselves together, to find accomplices and comrades, strategize about and prepare for future. But such organizations should remain flexible, open to forces that they might transform them, lest they become a mechanism for funneling people into previously prevailing and defunct political forms. In many of the futures we can see from here, the state will be both turbocharged and weak; its oppressive mechanisms will churn in higher gears without being highly functional, as jurisdictional and factional disputes proliferate. Civil war, as it approaches — and we are closer than most imagine — will not look much like two color-coded armies clashing on a plain, but like one state’s national guard carrying out orders another will not, the overriding of one branch by another, the spurning of electoral legitimacy, while at the level of daily life opportunities will open for dual-power organizations to step into the breach: workplace and neighborhood assemblies, rapid response networks for dealing with attacks and crises of all sorts, land and resource reclamation projects. As fissures within the state begin to yawn, these projects will become all the more vital. They need to be coordinated, of course, otherwise they are likely to be redundant or, worse, act at cross-purposes. But they certainly need not be centralized under a single organizing body; the value of dual-power institutions is that they are flexible and, given such flexibility, can permit the emergence of these productive divisions and subsequent reorganization around new projects. If we conceive of civil war and breakdown of the state as the upper limit of what’s possible in the next few years, then such institutions are indeed the way forward, as they will become indispensable as rallying points in such scenarios.


Excerpted from: https://researchanddestroy.wordpress.co ... t-fascism/
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:29 pm

Image


Memory & History: “What’s Left?”

Amassing numerous individual memories into a collective memory doesn’t necessarily improve their accuracy. Collective German memory of the second World War differed markedly depending on whether the Germans in question were Christian or Jewish, and was demonstrably inaccurate even concerning fundamental facts of record within and between these two groups. Whether individual or collective, memory must first be documented, then combined with primary and secondary sources in prescribed ways to constitute evidence for the events of history. Historical evidence is more accurate because of this process, but such evidence is not fact, and certainly not truth. Consider the interminable debates still raging around the Nazi Holocaust as to who and how many were killed, by what means where, even whether it happened at all, to determine the veracity of recorded history and its methods.

But first, when I use the word history I mean written history, not some Marxist abstraction with agency. We can argue endlessly about whether or not history demonstrates causality, pattern, or meaning; what it isn’t is capital “H” History with a life of its own. People make their own history, to paraphrase Marx, but not under circumstances of their own choosing. This brings me to my second point. History is clearly distinct from the current post-fact/post-truth thinking that says simply believing in something makes it so. Simply believing that crime in the US is exploding or that all Muslims are out to kill us or that America actually won the Vietnam war or that climate change is a hoax doesn’t make them facts, or true. And jumping off the top of a skyscraper while thinking you can fly doesn’t negate the reality of gravity. Finally, history is not some vast conspiracy where everything and everyone is connected and some cabal runs the show from behind the scenes. According to obsessed conspiracy theorists, history is governed more by design and the will of secret elites than it is by causality, pattern, and meaning. While history records many conspiracies as determined by the evidence, history doesn’t equal conspiracy.

So, what will history make of, and blame for Hillary Clinton’s electoral defeat? Bernie Sanders and angry BernieBros, Jill Stein’s third-party swing-state votes, the Clinton email Russian/Wikileaks hack, FBI Comey’s interference, last minute GOP-instigated voter restrictions, persistent sexism and the rising alt.right’s racism, the fake news smokescreen? The reasons are myriad, yet ultimately secondary. Clinton’s overconfident, complacent, and strategically bumbling campaign combined with the Democratic Party’s arrogant, top-down, corporate campaign management guaranteed her electoral defeat. Yes, Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million even as she lost the electoral college vote. But it’s bullshit to claim “he’s not my president” or “I want my country back.” That’s how the game of electoral politics is played in the United States, for better or worse. Instead of being sore losers, we need to transition from discussing the elections to where to go from here. Or “what is to be done,” to use a tired old leftist trope, since part of what we need to do is reevaluate the Left and leftist politics.

Ah, but before we can go forward, we need to sum up where we’ve been, or so the mainstream Marxist Left would have it. Summing up? The Left is endlessly summing up everything from the Russian Revolution onward and coming to fractious, diametrically opposed positions. Such summing up often paralyzes people into ceaseless rumination, keeping them stuck in thinking rather than in having them act. It would be far better to take people where they’re at, with whatever backgrounds and beliefs they have at that moment, and start them acting together. There’s much Marxist thinking (György Lukács, Martin Glaberman, Antonio Gramsci, et al) that “action precedes consciousness.”

As I write, mobilizations are under way for “no peaceful transition” to “stand up to Trump” and “make it ungovernable” on January 20, Inauguration Day. It would be nice if such protests could shut down Washington DC as was done in Seattle, 1999, around the WTO. I’ll be sure to cover events of that day next column. Just for comparison, in May of 1971, the May Day Tribe organized three days of mass protests and civil disobedience in the capitol against the Vietnam War intended to shut down the US government. Over 35,000 protesters participated, facing off against 10,000 federal troops, 5,100 Metropolitan Police, 2,000 DC National Guard and President Nixon’s internal security forces implementing combined civil disorder emergency measures. The protesters engaged in a variety of creative tactics (such as launching tethered helium-filled balloons to ward off low-flying helicopters), but the use of mass civil disobedience was stymied when troops secured major intersections and bridges ahead of time while the police roamed through the city firing tear gas and making mass arrests. In response to the police sweeps, protesters resorted to hit-and-run tactics throughout the city, disrupting traffic and causing chaos in the streets. Politicians were harassed and federal workers, who were not given the day off, had to maneuver through police lines and protest roadblocks. In all 12,614 people were arrested, including construction workers who came out to support Nixon, making it the largest mass arrest in U.S. history. Neither Washington DC nor the US government were shut down.

A friend who participated in the 1971 May Days was tear gassed, almost run down by a motorcycle cop while walking on the sidewalk, and ultimately arrested for civil disobedience. The DC jails were filled to overflowing, so he was housed in a fenced-in emergency detention center next to the DC Stadium (now RFK Stadium) and denied food, water, and toilets while in custody. He eventually had all his charges dropped as did all but 79 of his fellow arrestees. Thousands of protesters pursued a class action suit through the ACLU. In the end, the US Congress admitted the arrests were grossly illegal and agreed to pay financial compensation to those arrested as part of a settlement that set an historic precedent by acknowledging US citizens’ constitutional right of free assembly were violated by the government. My friend received a small check for his troubles over a decade and a half later.

Unlike May, 1971, when protesters had only DC residents and workers to contend with, Inauguration Day 2017 is anticipated to have 2 to 3 million people in attendance. The government’s police and military powers have been greatly expanded since Nixon’s day, as have urban disorder contingency measures, and the forces of law and order will be under Obama’s control until Trump takes the oath of office. I have no doubt that a willingness to protest Trump can fill the streets of DC, but not if those protests are dispersed and divided. So I predict that the protests will be contained, Trump will be inaugurated without incident, and the US government will not be shut down. I don’t think it’s likely that the independent @/ultraleft actions in Mcpherson Square Park, Workers World Party protest in Union Station, and ANSWER Coalition demonstration in Freedom Plaza will get out of control, let alone merge their separate events and run amok through the city, reprise Seattle 1999 in the nation’s capitol, or declare a Columbia Commune. If protests intended to go beyond run-of-the-mill 60s mass marches and demonstrations into mass nonviolent disruption couldn’t break the government in 1971, it’s unlikely that protest-as-usual and limited, targeted civil disobedience or even some streetfighting can do so now.

We’ll talk about how to go beyond ineffective protest into effective direct action, but I’ll first evaluate the present-day American Left in the next column or two.


Excerpted from:https://leftyhooligan.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/wwtyd-memory-history-whats-left-march-2017-mrr-406/
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:45 pm

Undoing Islamophobia

The moment is ripe to reverse anti-Muslim narratives

Hussein Ibish March 01, 2017

Image
Trump’s travel ban produced remarkable solidarity with the Muslim community.

As the Muslim American community is learning, sometimes the worst of times can also be the best of times. The era of Donald Trump presents a series of profoundly difficult, and in many ways unprecedented, challenges to the diverse, dispersed, extremely heterogeneous, and almost entirely politically unorganized Muslim American communities. But, since American Muslims have largely failed to take advantage of earlier opportunities (which, it’s true, were likewise quite well disguised as disasters) to deepen their collective identity and complete the process of mainstreaming their participation in American society and culture, there is a surprisingly compelling argument for greeting the current baptism of fire as a golden opportunity that cannot be squandered.

In some ways, of course, it’s been worse in the past. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were a social, cultural, and political earthquake for Muslim Americans. The metaphorical ground shifted under our collective feet suddenly, unexpectedly, and irrevocably. I was then serving as the communications director of what was, at the time, the largest national Arab-American organization, and all of us scrambled to adjust our expectations, rhetoric, and priorities accordingly. Most of the immediate damage was at the level of immigration, and noncitizens bore the brunt of the backlash.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Islam rated just slightly lower than Catholicism in American public opinion.

But over the ensuing few years, the steady and inexorable rise of Islamophobic narratives and political attitudes ensured that a climate of cultural hostility only grew, despite the obvious disinclination of Muslim Americans, with extremely rare exceptions, to display any sympathy with terrorist groups, let alone specific acts of violence. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Islam rated just slightly lower than Catholicism in American public opinion. By the middle of the decade, these ratings plummeted, and rampant bigotry was both on the rise and making inroads in the political mainstream, particularly within key elements of the right. Meanwhile, the Muslim-American community had virtually no organized presence at the national level, certainly none that was any better than what had been in place prior to 9/11. This meant, for better and worse, that we were entirely dependent on the goodwill of our fellow citizens.

These Islamophobic narratives eventually broke through into the cultural and political mainstream in the Trump campaign. Indeed, they were instrumental in the victory of a racist demagogue who showed a particular animus against Mexican immigrants and Muslims in general. Worse, President Trump has appointed a number of hateful ideologues to senior administration positions, such as Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Michael Anton, and Sebastian Gorka, and they wasted no time in crafting an anti-Muslim travel ban executive order so crude that it met with a series of mass protests at U.S. airports. In short order, it was blocked by the courts, and now awaits re-drafting from the Muslim-baiting Trump White House.

There is no doubt that the cultural and political mainstreaming of Islamophobia in the Trump era is profoundly alarming. But the moment is ripe with genuine possibilities for political organization and wider civic acceptance over the longer term. Muslim Americans now find themselves in roughly the same position as millions of other members of racial and ethnic minorities: targeted by the rhetoric of an intolerant administration and its fan base that derives much of its energy from hatred, scapegoating, and demonization. This means that the American Muslim community now possesses—unwillingly, no doubt—vital new opportunities for coalition building, and creating new modes of cross-racial and religiously plural solidarity. And this means, in turn, that American Muslims can mount new and sturdier grassroots and national cultural efforts to mainstream the community.

Moreover, in contrast to the aftermath of 9/11, while in this case the bigots wielding executive power in the White House have definitely tried to “come first for the Muslims” (or at least travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries—initially including even green card holders—plus all Syrian refugees), the worst excesses of the Trumpian assault on minorities will be clearly visited upon the undocumented, mainly from Mesoamerica. Already the horror stories of roundups, deportations, intentions to recruit a small army of 10,000 new immigration and 5,000 new border enforcement officers, and other dystopian realities are mounting daily.

Trump’s reticence in the face of anti-Semitic attacks in effect lends encouragement through faint condemnation.

As for religious hatred, naturally this cannot be restricted to the bashing of Muslims. Trump was consciously courted and coddled by the “alt-right”—a new euphemism for white nationalists and neo-Nazi racists—during his campaign. In office, the president persists in embracing, often implicitly but sometimes explicitly, these groups and individuals. It’s no surprise, then, that a wave of anti-Semitic hatred, no doubt egged on by what racist groups themselves described as “winking and nodding” from Trump, is sweeping the country. Jewish community centers face waves of bomb threat hoaxes and Jewish cemeteries are being vandalized across the country. But what can we expect when one of the final campaign ads by the new president reproduced the feel of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, illustrated with footage of three prominent Jewish financial figures? No one is naïve enough not to pick up on such crude anti-Semitic stereotyping, or to extrapolate from what it portends for other minorities. And in a continuation of the pattern, Trump has had to be forced, probably by his own daughter, into making the simplest of expressions of concern. This reticence in the face of a morally unconscionable form of bigotry in effect lends encouragement through faint condemnation.



Continues at: https://thebaffler.com/blog/undoing-islamophobia-ibish
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Thu Mar 02, 2017 8:44 am

So, What Was in the News Today?

Here are a few stories that we came across.

See if you could spot the theme.


Blaze at Toronto Islamic centre arson: Cops
Late-night fire at Islamic centre being investigated as arson
Police investigating after 2 Muslim men, copies of Qur'an, sprayed with urine
Swastikas found in York University classroom
‘N—ga lover’ sprayed by intruder across bedroom wall of Ontario girl dating black teen

And....
Concordia increases surveillance after bomb threat against Muslims

The last one is interesting in that the name echos that of the Council of Conservative Citizens, an infamous racist organization who's message inspired the murderer of nine men and women in Charleston, NC.

Image


http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.com/2 ... today.html
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:32 pm

4 March 2017

M103 Protests and Counter-Protests

We're in the process of collecting information about the Islamophobic protests that took place across the country today, paying particular attention to the counter-protests that opposed them. Thus far it would appear that in most cities, those who came out to support Muslim-Canadians and oppose the Islamophobes were in significant majorities in most cities; in Winnipeg, we've been told that counter-protesters outnumbers the anti-Muslim side by a factor of 10 to 1.


We plan as much as we can to include as many first hand accounts of those who participated in the counter-protests as we can.

Halifax:

Image


Looks like no one showed up to the Halifax M103 protest


Continues at: http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.com/2 ... tests.html
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Sun Mar 05, 2017 1:35 am

http://mystical-politics.blogspot.com/2 ... acist.html


More proof of Steve Bannon's racist worldview

More proof of Steve Bannon's profoundly racist worldview, from Huffington Post.

Another writer from Breitbart, Julie Hahn, who now also works in the White House, wrote an article in 2015 saying that, "All around the world, events seem to be lining up with the predictions of the book."


This Stunningly Racist French Novel Is How Steve Bannon Explains The World

Stephen Bannon, President Donald Trump’s chief strategist and the driving force behind the administration’s controversial ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries, has a favorite metaphor he uses to describe the largest refugee crisis in human history.

“It’s been almost a Camp of the Saints-type invasion into Central and then Western and Northern Europe,” he said in October 2015. “The whole thing in Europe is all about immigration,” he said in January 2016. “It’s a global issue today — this kind of global Camp of the Saints.” “It’s not a migration,” he said later that January. “It’s really an invasion. I call it the Camp of the Saints.” “When we first started talking about this a year ago,” he said in April 2016, “we called it the Camp of the Saints. ... I mean, this is Camp of the Saints, isn’t it?”

Bannon has agitated for a host of anti-immigrant measures. In his previous role as executive chairman of the right-wing news site Breitbart — which he called a “platform for the alt-right,” the online movement of white nationalists — he made anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim news a focus.

But the top Trump aide’s repeated references to The Camp of the Saints, an obscure 1973 novel by French author Jean Raspail, reveal even more about how he understands the world. The book is a cult favorite on the far right, yet it’s never found a wider audience. There’s a good reason for that: It’s breathtakingly racist.

“[This book is] racist in the literal sense of the term. It uses race as the main characterization of characters,” said Cécile Alduy, professor of French at Stanford University and an expert on the contemporary French far right. “It describes the takeover of Europe by waves of immigrants that wash ashore like the plague.” The book, she said, “reframes everything as the fight to death between races.”

Upon the novel’s release in the United States in 1975, the influential book review magazine Kirkus Reviews pulled no punches: “The publishers are presenting The Camp of the Saints as a major event, and it probably is, in much the same sense that Mein Kampf was a major event.”

Linda Chavez, a Republican commentator who has worked for GOP presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush but opposed Trump’s election, also reviewed the book back then. Forty years later, she hasn’t forgotten it. “It is really shockingly racist,” Chavez told The Huffington Post, “and to have the counselor to the president see this as one of his touchstones, I think, says volumes about his attitude.”

Image

The cover of this English translation of The Camp of the Saints calls it “a chilling novel about the end of the white world.”

The plot of The Camp of the Saints follows a poor Indian demagogue, named “the turd-eater” because he literally eats shit, and the deformed, apparently psychic child who sits on his shoulders. Together, they lead an “armada” of 800,000 impoverished Indians sailing to France. Dithering European politicians, bureaucrats and religious leaders, including a liberal pope from Latin America, debate whether to let the ships land and accept the Indians or to do the right thing — in the book’s vision — by recognizing the threat the migrants pose and killing them all.

The non-white people of Earth, meanwhile, wait silently for the Indians to reach shore. The landing will be the signal for them to rise up everywhere and overthrow white Western society.

The French government eventually gives the order to repel the armada by force, but by then the military has lost the will to fight. Troops battle among themselves as the Indians stream on shore, trampling to death the left-wing radicals who came to welcome them. Poor black and brown people literally overrun Western civilization. Chinese people pour into Russia; the queen of England is forced to marry her son to a Pakistani woman; the mayor of New York must house an African-American family at Gracie Mansion. Raspail’s rogue heroes, the defenders of white Christian supremacy, attempt to defend their civilization with guns blazing but are killed in the process.

Calgues, the obvious Raspail stand-in, is one of those taking up arms against the migrants and their culturally “cuckolded” white supporters. Just before killing a radical hippie, Calgues compares his own actions to past heroic, sometimes mythical defenses of European Christendom. He harkens back to famous battles that fit the clash-of-civilizations narrative — the defense of Rhodes against the Ottoman Empire, the fall of Constantinople to the same — and glorifies colonial wars of conquest and the formation of the Ku Klux Klan.

Only white Europeans like Calgues are portrayed as truly human in The Camp of the Saints.....

The white Christian world is on the brink of destruction, the novel suggests, because these black and brown people are more fertile and more numerous, while the West has lost that necessary belief in its own cultural and racial superiority. As he talks to the hippie he will soon kill, Calgues explains how the youth went so wrong: “That scorn of a people for other races, the knowledge that one’s own is best, the triumphant joy at feeling oneself to be part of humanity’s finest — none of that had ever filled these youngsters’ addled brains.”

The Camp of the Saints — which draws its title from Revelation 20:9 — is nothing less than a call to arms for the white Christian West, to revive the spirit of the Crusades and steel itself for bloody conflict against the poor black and brown world without and the traitors within. The novel’s last line links past humiliations tightly to its own grim parable about modern migration. “The Fall of Constantinople,” Raspail’s unnamed narrator says, “is a personal misfortune that happened to all of us only last week.”...
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:58 pm

Dogs, Licensed

S.Artesian


1. We’ve had “(put)in like Flynn,” and now we have “(put)out like Flynn.”

We have a new chief executive officer of the bourgeoisie’s state, who got his (political) start falsely claiming that his predecessor as CEO was not a US citizen, now whining about “fake news” when real information exposes his machinations as being exactly that, self-serving machinations.

We have Kellyanne Conway, everybody’s favorite neo-frau Goebbels, wailing on behalf of the non-victims of the non-existent massacre at Bowling Green vowing to never forget what never happened and to never not-let what never happened happen.

We have Mike Pence, emissary of the Koch Bros to the Empire, Genii of the Genii, cast the tie-breaking vote to seat Betsy DeVos as the Scribe of anti-Education; then flying off to Brussels to assure the EU that he had their backs, collective, 27 or 28 depending on how you count.

The various officials of the EU already knew that, which is why they kept looking over their shoulders

And…we have Steven Miller, dead behind the eyes, burnt to a crisp behind the contact lenses, flashing the new American sign language for the white power generation, “AYAK” and receiving back the thousands of tweets”AKIA,” at hashtag 1488 (standard messaging charges may apply).

Little Stevie, dead behind the eyes, burnt to a crisp actually, was engaging in his favorite role-playing game, “Nazi and Jew,” where he gets to play both, and at the same time. Abraham Gancwajch, presente! Gruppe 13, on the ready line.

We have Donald Trump– groper, locker-room linguist, developer, hotelier, casino owner, serial bankrupt, draft and tax avoider, wrecker–shaming and scooping the established media by being the first, if not only, to report on the wave of unchecked terrorism perpetrated by immigrants upon the body, particularly the blond and female bodies, of poor little Sweden: “Sweden? Who would have thunk?” said the Ancient and Honorable and Mirth-Provoking Imperial Wizard.

Indeed, who would have thunk?

Maybe Flynn, but he was no longer in. He was out.

At about the same time, those in charge of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) had to gird their loins and disinvite Milo Yiannopoulos (born Milo Hanrahan), advocate of man-boy love as long as it’s done in the proper restroom.

Richard Spencer, formerly of Duke University and Steve Miller’s campus big-brother, current Nazi drum-major, bought a ticket and showed up at the conference. Like Milo, he wasn’t allowed to join in the festivities. Unlike Milo, he hadn’t been invited.

CPAC couldn’t allow Spencer in. After all, this is Putin’s year.


Continues at: https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/dogs-licensed/
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:56 am

Since the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States and the international public’s response to it, you’d think America has suddenly become a hive of racists and fascists. This is not to suggest that Trump’s presidential campaign and subsequent victory hasn’t emboldened the far-right and white supremacists in the States: we’ve seen white nationalists attempt to intimidate Black Lives Matter protesters at Trump rallies; a sharp rise in armed anti-Muslim protests by right-wing extremists in places like Arizona, Atlanta, and elsewhere across America; and an anti-fascist protester shot and in critical condition by a Trump supporter at an alt-right Milo Yiannopoulos event on the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration. While we are correct to respond and respond fiercely to this wave of reaction, we need to be careful not to get swept up in the tide of liberal discourse that would have you think that Donald Trump is the Devil and if he is defeated then the people will be free! It goes without saying, Donald Trump is a vile, racist, misogynist, shit-stain and an authoritarian: but racism and white supremacy in America is nothing new - when Trump falls, who will replace him?

Rosa Soros, After the Fall
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:17 pm

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/rick ... ent-trump/


Rick Wiles: A Satanic Child Murdering Cabal Is Leading A Coup Against President Trump

End Times radio broadcaster and unhinged conspiracy theorist Rick Wiles dedicated his radio program yesterday to warning that a secretive pedophile ring is working to destroy President Trump before he can expose their murderous global network.

Wiles said that Trump is “besieged by a slithering cabal of seditious snakes” who are attempting to carry out a coup against him at the behest of the “perpetual war and pedophilia party that has ruled America since they assassinated John F. Kennedy in 1963.”

Wiles said that if Russia was responsible for leaking internal Clinton campaign emails, “then they deserve the highest citizenship award that this country can give anybody because they exposed the most vile, disgusting corruption I’ve seen in my lifetime.”

“It’s about pedophilia,” Wiles said:

They’re fighting like cornered animals to prevent their pedophile network from being exposed. … It’s about the darkest, most disgusting, vilest corruption you can imagine. And if the American people ever find out the truth about their politicians and their celebrities in Hollywood and their TV idols and their favorite TV anchormen and women, and they find out all these great famous people and they find out that they’re just child molesters—not only molesters, but child murderers, sacrificing children to Satan. When they find out, they will drag their bloody carcasses down Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C., with meat hooks! They’ll have meat hooks in their carcasses.
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:00 pm

Russian in hacking probe linked to alt-right stock fraud

Posted on March 6, 2017 by Daniel Hopsicker

Pavel ‘Red Eye’ Vrublevsky, a Russian businessman under investigation in the FBI’s probe of Russian hacking in the 2016 Presidential election, shared a business address in John Gotti’s former stronghold of Howard Beach, Queens with a company led by a Tampa Mobster convicted in the “alt-right” stock fraud ring run by Sarasota’s own Andrew Badolato, business partner and Breitbart collaborator of Trump advisor Steve Bannon.

In 2003-2004, Pavel Vrublevsky’s RE Partners LLC listed its business address as 158-49 90th St, a single family residence in Howard Beach the Russians shared with a company involved in pornography and cyber crime, Blue Moon Group Inc..

Image


Continue reading →
User avatar
American Dream
 
Posts: 16790
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 19 guests