The Little Führer

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Sat Dec 26, 2015 12:02 pm

https://itsgoingdown.org/trumpism-pt-4- ... evolution/

TRUMPISM, PT. 4: CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION, OR MISSING THE TREE FOR THE FOREST

December 25, 2015
Originally posted to It’s Going Down
by Alexander Reid Ross


On October 21, a former plumber from Connecticut named William Celli posted to his Facebook that he was delighted to see Donald Trump on TV, saying, “this guy[‘]s a great point man[.] I’ll follow this MAN to the end of the world.”

Celli is not simply enthused to follow leaders, but Trump is a point man, the guy to have up front calling the shots and making the decisions. He’s above all else a man, a patriarch who should be followed with the devotion of a kind of prophet—to the end of the world.

Just shy of two months later, on the same day that the New York Times released a report showing a tripling in violence against Muslims after the Paris and San Bernadino attacks, a neighbor telephoned in a tip to the Richmond, California, police about a bomb. After three days, the police finally responded, finding a small bomb-making enterprise on Celli’s premises plausibly made with the intent to attack the local Muslim community.

This kind of xenophobic and racist violence (and the threat of violence) has underwritten the Trump campaign like a bad check that was cut on the night that two brothers in Boston, Scott and Steve Leader, brutalized and urinated on a homeless Latino man in August. After the crime, Scott Leader declared, “Donald Trump was right; all these illegals need to be deported.”

In the midst of a quantifiable, if not palpable, increase in violence and white terrorism, Donald Trump has been the loudest spokesperson for the restriction of human rights against Muslims in the US. Is it therefore possible to connect Trump’s campaign to the increase in white supremacist violence, which has reached mass movement-level proportions?

What separates Trump and other populists from definitive fascism is, for some scholars, the problem that they do not appear to call for a national rebirth on the basis of an anti-democratic revolutionary movement. Aside from leftist pundits like Noam Chomsky calling Trump and the GOP a “radical insurgency,” however, there is more evidence that even the right wing is refusing to turn a blind eye to Trump’s revolutionary leanings.

Earlier this year, journalist Doug Schoen cast Trump as the leader of a new “conservative revolution” in a key article for Forbes. Schoen is not dreaming. In 2012, Trump audibly called for revolution via Twitter after Obama’s re-election. To get a sense of what “conservative revolutionaries” think of Trump today, a visit to paleo-conservative and white supremacist sites like Vdare and Alternative Right, among other neo-fascist sites, is instructive.

On Vdare, paleo-conservative Pat Buchanan states that Trump is a challenge to “the regime”: “the Trump constituency will represent a vote of no confidence in the Beltway ruling class of politicians and press.” Striking the revolutionary chord, Buchanan continues, “People are agitating for the overthrow of the old order and a new deal for America. For there is a palpable sense that the game is rigged against Middle America and for the benefit of insiders who grow rich and fat not by making things or building things, but by manipulating money.” Here, Buchanan distinguishes the producers from the parasites, ending the passage with a gesture to corporatist producerism, “Americans differentiate the wealth of a Henry Ford and a Bill Gates from that of the undeserving rich whose hedge fund fortunes can exceed the GDP of nations.”

So Buchanan states that Trumpism looks to a “new deal” for white america as an overthrow of the old order led by an entrepreneurial class, characterized by the vicious anti-Semite, Henry Ford, and his apparent successor, Bill Gates, who Trump says he will call on to “close that internet up.”

According to Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) Mark Potok, Trump is similar to Buchanan in many ways: “There is no question we have not seen anything like this since Pat Buchanan. Those two have a lot in common. I am not sure if Trump views himself as a white nationalist, but he has white nationalist positions. When he calls Mexicans rapists and murderers, he is dog-whistling in a very clear way to this far-right constituency… In some ways Trump has taken an even more extreme position than many white nationalists. I have never heard of white nationalists call for the deportation of the U.S. citizens born to people who came here illegally.”

When Trump entered the presidential elections of 2000 under the guidance of Roger Stone, he would point the finger at Buchanan, ironically identifying his base as fused with fascists, perhaps not thinking that in just over a decade, he would be running an even more extreme campaign with an even more conspicuous fascist base and the support of Buchanan, himself.

When the SPLC draws parallels between Trump and Buchanan, and the conservative opinion is that Trump is a “conservative revolutionary,” claims of fascism start to seem more canny. The Stormfront crowd is certainly not afraid to cross over to Trump’s side. In fact, Stormfront has been forced to expand their servers in order to host the 30-40% increase in traffic related to Trump’s outbursts making it quite clear who the subject of Trump’s internet censorship would be. Responses generally range from “Hail Trump!” to claims that he may be a Gorbachev-type reformer who leads to the destruction of the union. Either way, the idea is that Trump is a step toward a white nationalist revolution—in other words, neither he is co-opting them, nor they are co-opting him, but the two are engaged in a hybrid movement or trend.

Complexity and Hybridization

In his recent article, Matthew Lyons provides incisive insight regarding Trumpism. At the outset, he notes that if observers accused Bernie Sanders of being a step toward full communism, most people would probably laugh. Similarly, Trump, he claims, is not fascist, but is interconnected to fascism through populist right wing politics.

Significantly, Lyons brings up David Neiwert’s article “Donald Trump May Not Be a Fascist, But He is Leading Us Merrily Down That Path,” in agreement with the soundness of its logic. Trump is “creating the conditions that could easily lead to a genuine and potentially irrevocable outbreak of fascism.” Then, Lyons remarks on my latest article, “Trumpism, pt. 3: Propaganda of the Deal,” rejecting the notion that Trumpism contains an “inherent tendency to move toward fascism.”

It seems a bit strange that Lyons agrees with Neiwert and then disagrees with me with regards to what are, at bottom, similar points. While Neiwert claims that Trump creates the conditions for fascism to emerge, my position is that Trumpism maintains “an important and necessary stage of fascism.” My perspective on Trump, to put it succinctly, is that he mobilizes a “conservatism with fascist trappings” to garner the popular support of Middle American Radicals, which brings him closer to the fascist “revolutionary” side than the conservative position advanced by someone like Jeb Bush.

Lyons notes that Trump may be courting white nationalists, and vice-versa, but his fascist bona fides are negated by the absence of both a stylized popular mobilizations in the fashion of Hitler’s Nuremberg rallies and some kind of brownshirt or blackshirt paramilitary force. Yet fascists have emerged in the political scene without such qualities. The Italian Social Movement never really had a kind of mass movement that would hold a candle to Trump’s gigantic rallies. Nor did they have a paramilitary grouping. Yet they were unquestionably and avowedly the political continuation of Mussolini’s Republic of Salò. Closer to the mark, David Duke’s Populist Party never retained either a mass movement or a paramilitary force, and the party itself could even be characterized as “radical right” rather than explicitly fascist; however, both Duke and his handler, Willis Carto, were undeniably fascists.

Moreover, the notion of paramilitaries with armbands has been out of fashion among US fascists since William Pierce’s National Alliance, which advocated a militant clandestine resistance that fed into what would become known as “leaderless resistance,” as proposed by Texas Knights of the Klan leader Louis Beam. While Trump does not entertain a “brownshirt” following, he is a party to an influx of “lone wolf” or “leaderless resistance” attacks on Muslims, immigrants, and people of color in general, such as the recent roughing up of a protestor as an audience member shouted “sieg heil.” Trump finds himself in a two party system where the Republican Party maintains a platform (barely) closer to his own ideology, so he is radicalizing a party that has never needed Trump to create the conditions for fascism, as exhibited by the Tea Party in 2009. Trump is not simply creating the conditions for fascism, his coming to prominence amid the “birther” controversy would suggest that his campaign is actually a product of those conditions.

The Leader as Outsider

Part of what makes Trump “revolutionary” to conservatives is his outsider status. He’s a billionaire from New York City, and some of his politics lean toward liberalism. His previous presidential effort came under the Reform Party, and in 2012, he supported both the Republican and Democratic Parties financially. He is more of a leader in the syncretic sense of populism, bringing together different constituents by hybridizing their ideas. As scholar Constanin Iordachi writes, “in politics in particular, the fluid nature of ideologies, the dynamics of the political process, and the multiple social-political factors that generally shape the nature and outlook of political regimes generate hybrid outcomes.”

This is why, as opposed to Lyons’s premise that fascists “are absolutists who demand ideological purity,” Mussolini insisted into the 1920s that Fascism was a heretical and heterodox ideology priding itself on its inconsistencies and contradictions, which has carried over to the more recent “Anarchist Heretics Fair” put on by National Anarchist Troy Southgate. Despite his radical and revolutionary background, Mussolini presented himself as a sincere parliamentarian who wanted to “return to the constitution” in the early 1920s, allowing even the prime minister Luigi Facta to believe Fascism might be controlled through the political process. Only years later, beginning in roughly 1927, and forming through the vast programmatic transformations that took place up to 1935, would Fascism actually harden into a totalitarian ideological “orthodoxy.” This is largely because ideological fluidity is crucial to fascist leadership, as the fascist leader navigates “popular tides and currents” while plotting the course to the destination of a totalitarian “new state.”

“Although people often use the term fascism interchangeably with dictatorship,” Lyons writes, “most dictatorships aren’t fascist, because they’re all about preserving the old order rather than creating a new one, and they generally don’t involve any real populist mobilization.” Yet, as António Costa Pinto and Aristotle Kallis note, the line between dictatorship and fascism must be rethought: “the historiography of fascism and inter-war dictatorship needs to look beyond previously assumed conceptual dichotomies and accept the challenge of embracing complexity.” For instance, Lyons claims that the fascists of the Legion of the Archangel Michael were “co-opted into” the Antonescu regime of Romania in 1940, implying that the Legion was a submissive part of what was essentially a “conservative authoritarian” system. The reality of compromise is more complex, Iordachi argues.

The Legion, also known as the Iron Guard, had always had an “outsider” relationship with the Romanian state. When Antonescu’s military establishment overthrew the King and invited the Iron Guard to form a National-Legionary State, the groups manifested a different model of power sharing as part of a “fluid” process of inheritance and continuity. In fact, it was the Legion’s leader Horia Sima’s refusal to submit to Antonescu’s similar doctrine that resulted in the purging of the Iron Legion and return to a simple, “conservative authoritarian” state.

The complex hybridizations between conservative dictatorship and fascist regimes must be examined closely to find the grey areas in which neither descriptions function to precisely define the terms on their own. Similarly, with Trump’s campaign, the fascist connections that Lyons points out are actually vital to understanding the general character. Otherwise a vague argument of one side overdetermining the other tends to dominate without an eye to clear and consistent movement building.

The “Old Order”

The tricky thing about Trump’s hybridization is that, as Buchanan declares, his platform explicitly seeks an “overthrow” of the “old order” and preservation of the traditions that he views as smoldering within the dying embers of the white American spirit. The “old order” for Mussolini was embodied by prime minister Giolitti, and really less than 30 years “old.” Although Mussolini did link Giolitti to the older tradition of liberalism, he harkened back to the leadership of Mazzini and the continuation of the Resurgimiento, which had only officially ended fifty years before Mussolini took power.

For Hitler, the “old order” was Weimar Germany, which was not even 15 years “old” when Hitler took power. Instead, Hitler looked to the Kaiser system established by Bismarck and Wilhelm I less than 50 years before he transformed the German Workers Party in the Nazi Party, although his greatest idol was Frederick the Great who lived during the 18th Century, 150 years before Hitler effectively created the Nazi Party.

Similarly, one could argue that Trump’s “old order” is that of Civil Rights, stretching back roughly fifty years ago to the reforms of the Johnson and Nixon eras. Unlike the right wing populist George Wallace, who wanted to maintain the status quo, Trump uses the same ideological tilt of “energy” as classic Fascism in his rejection of the “political functionaries” of the “old order,” claiming that black people and women lack the same kind of energy that Trumpism provides.

However, Trump’s desire to “make America great again” also hinges on the elimination or at least circumvention of the 14th Amendment, which finally acknowledged equal rights for all US citizens after the Civil War in 1868, roughly 150 years ago. Trump’s vision of national renewal, then, returns to the traditions of the unreconstructed South that purportedly ended in the 1960s and 1970s is this kind of “dog whistle” to the Klan and fascist groups that have always upheld segregation and a racialized caste system as an ultimate ideal.

When is a Revolution a Counter-Revolution?

Aside from openly calling for revolution on at least one occasion, Trump’s attempts to use the electoral process as a tool to overthrow the present establishment of “career politicians” and institute a rebirth and renewal of national greatness is typical of fascist politics.

Pierre Taittinger, the leader of the inter-war French fascist group Jeunesses Patriotes (Young Patriots), put the platform squarely in 1926: “It is not the right to vote that is killing our country, it is the fact that good people are not making use of it. The vote is an imperfect arm, but it is an arm. We concede nothing to our adversaries, either in the streets or at the ballot box.”

Similar sentiments were proclaimed by Mussolini up to 1925, and Nazi propaganda up to 1933. Furthermore, these groups did not openly declare totalitarian intent from the start. They hedged in order to retain support from both conservative and liberal (parliamentarian conservative) sources.

This is, of course, a long-standing tradition, which is why successors to the Nazis and Fascist Party—the Socialist Reichsparty, the Italian Social Movement, and of course the US’s Populist Party—all cast their lot with elections. None of these parties had a particularly impressive “mass movement”—at least not coming close to the size of Trump’s campaign. Nor have they proven particularly revolutionary. When David Duke won a seat in the Louisiana State Senate, he did not call for “revolution,” but took gradualist steps to make life much harder for non-whites. Although nobody doubts that Duke is a fascist, he ran a right wing populist campaign; the two are commensurate, and in fact the latter too often provides cover for the former as a hybridized position of fascist creep. Creating a sharp distinction ignores the pesky details.

So the question of whether or not Trump and his violent mass movement is fascist often hinges on the regrettable terms of “revolution.” Part of the dubious nature of the term “revolution” is that the actual outcome of fascist authority was incredibly conservative in terms of labor and social welfare. Taxes on businesses were lowered, wages depressed, the length of the work day increased, food consumption declined, infant mortality rose, and at least until 1935, big businesses had relatively free reign over the economy. For all the rhetoric about syndicalism and socialism, the social wage was slashed, and a conservative emphasis on work and patriarchy ruled.

It is easy to overemphasize the “revolutionary” or even “leftist” elements of fascism in search of an ideal type based on a mixture of ideological doctrines and observable totalitarian outcomes, while accidentally placing ideology and doctrine before the real process. Still, Trump is in favor of unions in managements’ pockets, says he’ll tax the rich, runs a modernist corporation, and his campaign circulates around his virility and power—characteristics that run against the grain of traditional conservatism and in parallel with more fascist-type leader complexes.

Totalitarian Social Engineering

As for totalitarian social engineering projects, how could the halting of Muslim immigration and deportation of 11 million people on the basis of their immigration status and country of origin (they likely won’t be deporting Irish people behind on their visas) be perceived as anything but one of the most totalitarian schemes of social engineering? The only stage beyond mass deportation is genocide, plain and simple. How does Trump intend to locate 11 million undocumented people? Does he hope to bring SB-1070, the notorious “papers please” law sponsored in the Arizona state legislature by Russell Pearce, a man who once sent a white nationalist National Vanguard article about Jewish control over media to his constituents? House to house raids from coast to coast like Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, who has managed to weather federal investigations without appearing to alter his strategy?

Beyond the total violation of human rights required to locate 11 million undocumented people, one does not simply deport 11 million people without sophisticated infrastructure and agency coordination. Airplanes? Buses? Trains? Cattle cars? Whoever could imagine such a horrific enterprise, its immense amount of sophisticated and banal planning, would also employ new human and developmental resources that would not simply dissipate into thin air once the task is accomplished. The very act of the mass deportation would produce a kind of collaborative infrastructure and police effort that would require totalitarian integration.

This is not to say that the US is not an enormous project of social engineering, because that’s what colonies are. What would distinguish mass deportation in the US today from, say, the Trail of Tears, internal colonization, and the Japanese internment camps would likely simply be a new internal process of militarized bureaucracy adding to the weight and capacity of state repression. Yet given the fact that the US’s internal colonization process helped inspire Hitler’s totalitarian project in the first place, and that Trump’s desire for the restoration of a former glory by overthrowing the “political operatives” and establishing an essentially “new” order (in the words of Buchanan), complexities begin to arise.

Ordinarily, mass deportation is accompanied by acts of state violence against those who remain associated with the “gangrene” or “disability” keeping greatness and virility from truly manifesting. There is always auxiliary repression of activists and advocacy organizations attempting to halt the separation of families and the tearing apart of communities. Deportations are also generally accompanied by unofficially sanctioned vigilante or paramilitary violence against both targeted populations and those connected to them. As an example, the National Socialist Movement activist JT Ready remained quite close to the former president of Arizona’s State Senate and sponsor of SB-1070, Russell Pearce, who he called his “father figure.” Yet SB-1070 did not drastically increase deportations, it just dramatically increased the ratio of deportations of those who were caught for non-criminal offenses. In short, it was simply a measure of terror against a population used to tear law abiding mothers away from their children during routine traffic stops. Even SB-1070 is, then, watered down compared to what Trump is proposing.

Is it not illustrative that Trump’s deportation plan was actually developed by a white nationalist Tanton Network, before he got around to integrating it into his platform? Is it not suggestive that white nationalist Richard Spencer calls it “peaceful ethnic cleansing“? This is, at best, the grey area where interconnection to the fascist movement through the radical right becomes more like hybridization.

Missing the Tree for the Forest

Lyons accurately states, “even if we assume that Trump wants to outlaw elections, shred the Bill of Rights, and make himself president for life, that doesn’t make him a fascist.” Yet if we acknowledge that Trump explicitly called for a conservative revolution, leads a violently racist and anti-leftist mass-movement to roll back Civil Rights, uses white nationalist policy positions, enlisted Roy Cohn and Roger Stone as lawyer and consultant, respectively, and kept a book of Hitler’s speeches by his bedside, perhaps it becomes more necessary to acknowledge the complexity and hybridity discussed by Costa Pinto, Kallis, and Iordachi.

So the claim, in the final analysis, that Trump’s campaign is interconnected to fascism, but that Trump, himself, can remain pure and clearly describable as “not fascist” seems inconsistent. To detach the proximity between Trumpism and people like the Leader brothers or Celli so cleanly seems like an error. And that’s the main point: the radical right is not as simple as a cluster of autonomous ideologies perfectly honed and starkly differentiated. Those autonomies do exist, but there is more grey area within something like a consolidated mass movement, which is given direction and form by a leader.

So while it’s convenient to place the viewable field under the grouping of “interlinked” but distinct ideologies of the radical right, when neo-fascist roots start to show, too often the vagueness of the “radical right” obscures the particularities being faced, and occludes more precise understandings. In effect, a particular species of tree (fascism) is labelled a forest (radical right populism). Although Trumpism may be more comparable to “conservatism with fascist trappings,” he remains a kind of “outsider” to the conservative movement. The presence of palingenetic ultranationalism characterized as “revolutionary” by conservatives, as well as a genealogy of connections to the Americanism of Cohn and Stone, indicate that the more Trump’s hateful ideology spreads, the more what are considered fascist trappings today will become generalized and hegemonic in a new political era.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:40 pm

"Missing the Tree for the Forest" is a good phrase to summarize this thread, which has been continually de-volving from an interesting look at the forest, to a collection of trite clickbait about a tree with a combover.

Funny how "boring" and "dumb" are such close companions.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:44 pm

ALL THE NEWS YOU DIDN’T EVEN KNOW WAS GOING DOWN

As we enter into 2016, the brutality of the police and their continued murder spree shows no signs of letting up. Some police associations have thrown their support behind Trump in an apparent bid for protection from the State against potential reforms. The continued baseline of policing seems to be extreme force without fear of reprisal. Navigating and acting within this terrain is pivotal, both in terms of engagement within revolt when it breaks out and also in building capacity within our neighborhoods and cities against the police.

There has been much written and done in regards to police terror, but often we are too removed or silent when it comes to organizing and action happening behind prison walls. This is why this year, as Black December was called, it has been exciting to see the growth of anti-prison projects which involve prisoners at the forefront. Such projects include the Missouri Prison Newsletter, the Incarcerated Worker, Wildfire, and in the ongoing activity of social struggles such as the fight to abolish solitary confinement. With hunger strikes, riots, and work stoppages taking place throughout North America, we are excited about the possibilities of continued connections and relationships formed.

But while we see possibility in struggles against white supremacy both on the streets and behind the bars, we also are seeing an increase of both the autonomous far-right (from militia groups like the Oathkeepers to white nationalists such as the Traditionalist Youth Network) along side the expanding fascist creep in the mainstream, as evidenced by Trump’s campaign. While discussion of widening fascist activity is something we have talked about much in the past here, it’s worth restating that not since the 1990s has the racist far-Right felt so comfortable in the streets. From neo-Nazis protesting in support of the cops in Olympia, KKK and NSM members rallying in South Carolina, to racist Patriot movement supporters shooting at Black Lives Matter demonstrators in Minneapolis, the Right has been emboldened like never before in recent history.

But we have to remember that outside of demonstrations in the big cities, we have a lot of work to do. White nationalist groups try to makethemselves appear to be the saviors (move over Leninists!) of the white poor and working-middle classes in the US. While reading the history of fascism will show that it is an anti-working-class movement that aspires to build ‘cross-class solidarity‘ in order to take the reigns of production away from the ‘capitalists’ and the State from the ‘Marxists,’ this is still a story that has the potential to gain adherents within the wider population.

This is why Trump’s campaign has been successful, because it has coupled anger over jobs (directed at immigrants) and fears of terrorism (pointed at Muslims). At the same time, Trump, a billionaire who has attacked workers of every color left and right, will continue the same economic policies which have lead to a rampaging class war in the US that has increased the wealth gap between rich and poor while production and profits for the wealthy elite (like Trump) have skyrocketed and wages have stagnated and poverty has increased.

But within these statistics are real flesh and blood people, including many whites. By and large unseen or unmentioned in the mainstream media and culture, poor and working-class whites are often made to feel left behind; with only their racial caste position to feel any sense of purpose or position in the world. Ideologies like white nationalism are attempting to speak to and organize within this reality; and they have centuries of racism, patriarchy, homophobia, and colonialism on their side.

But we also have tools on our disposal as well. We have a long history of working-class insurrectionary activity which has attacked the State, capital, and white supremacy. We also can look to various anarchist groups which have organized within poor and working-class white (among others) communities and learn from their previous activity, as well as large scale campaigns in places like Appalachia against Mountain Top Removal. In short, on the anti-fascist front, we face two battles. Both physically against the far-right, but also in the communities they seek to connect to. Any serious struggle must take both facets on with full force.



Image


https://itsgoingdown.org/news-didnt-eve ... -year-end/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:36 am

http://threewayfight.blogspot.com/2016/ ... -back.html

Fascist revolution doesn’t turn back the clock: a reply to Alexander Reid Ross on Trump

By Matthew N Lyons | Wednesday, January 06, 2016

Part 4 of Alexander Reid Ross’s series on “Trumpism” on the website It’s Going Down is largely a reply to my piece “Trump’s impact: a fascist upsurge is just one of the dangers.” Reid Ross makes some valid criticisms and other good points, but he also he misrepresents my position and fails to address my main criticism of his.

In “Trump’s impact” I argued that Donald Trump’s campaign embodies important elements of fascist politics, has fomented racist and Islamophobic bigotry and violence, and promotes many themes that help organized fascists do their work. I also argued more generally — as I’ve argued for years — that it’s a serious mistake to treat fascism as radically separate from other forms of right-wing populism and authoritarianism. So I’m mystified by statements such as the following, near the end of Reid Ross’s article:
“the claim [by Lyons]… that Trump’s campaign is interconnected to fascism, but that Trump, himself, can remain pure and clearly describable as ‘not fascist’ seems inconsistent. To detach the proximity between Trumpism and people like the Leader brothers [who assaulted a Latino homeless man in Boston in August] or [William] Celli [a Trump supporter who apparently set up a bomb-making enterprise in his home] so cleanly seems like an error. And that’s the main point: the radical right is not as simple as a cluster of autonomous ideologies perfectly honed and starkly differentiated.”

This is a total distortion of my words. I didn’t make any of these “pure,” “clean,” or “starkly differentiated” dichotomies, but in fact argued squarely against them.

In “Trumpism, Part 4,” Reid Ross emphasizes the “gray area” and “hybridization” between fascist and non-fascist forms of right-wing populism. In itself, this isn’t that different from my argument that Trump’s campaign displays a mix of fascist and non-fascist characteristics. Where we disagree, as I wrote in “Trump’s impact,” is that I think it’s a mistake to see such mixed political initiatives as having an inherent tendency to move toward full-fledged fascism. This was my one direct criticism of Reid Ross, but in a 3,800-word reply he never addresses it. He finds it strange that I disagreed with him while endorsing David Neiwert’s "similar" approach, but the key difference is that Neiwert made no such claims about inherent tendencies.

Reid Ross only considers his gray areas as stages in the “creep” toward fascism. He offers no framework for addressing other potential outcomes, such as the possibility that Trump’s campaign might lead more white nationalists to work within the existing system. This narrow focus is strategically dangerous, because it limits our ability to understand and respond to multiple possible threats.

I agree with Reid Ross that Trump’s campaign might develop into a more consistently fascist initiative. But it’s more likely that Trump will remain a champion of increasing repression and ethno-religious scapegoating within the existing political framework — which is plenty bad enough. Look at past history: before Trump, there were three major presidential candidates over the previous half century — George Wallace, Pat Robertson, and Pat Buchanan — whose politics resembled fascism to significant degrees. All of them inspired and emboldened far rightists, but all of them ultimately remained loyal to the established order and helped make it worse. Given these precedents, the burden of proof is on Reid Ross to explain why he’s confident that Trump will develop differently.

On a secondary level, I have to concede certain points to Reid Ross. He is right that fascist movements don’t necessarily involve an organized paramilitary force, and it was a mistake on my part to suggest that they do. Also, I overgeneralized when I wrote (paraphrasing Neiwert) that fascists are “absolutists who demand ideological purity.” As Reid Ross points out, in Italian Fascism’s early years Mussolini embraced ideological “inconsistencies and contradictions.” I would argue this was largely calculated bravado on Mussolini’s part as he worked to weld multiple factions into one movement, and that his ideology was already significantly more thought out and committed than Donald Trump’s. But it’s true that fascist movements don’t or can’t always demand ideological purity from their followers.

On the issue of fascist populism, Reid Ross misunderstands my argument that “fascism seeks to actively and permanently mobilize large masses of people.” I didn’t mean that initiatives don’t qualify as fascist if they don’t succeed in building a mass movement. I meant fascists try to get people involved in active, ongoing activities (not just call them out as occasional spectators at campaign rallies) both to mobilize support and enforce control. This type of mobilization isn’t unique to fascism, of course. If you want an example, look at the Christian right, which has painstakingly built an elaborate organizational web, based at the level of church congregations and living room prayer circles. Again, I see no efforts along these lines from the Trump campaign.

Replying to my argument that Trump isn’t fascist because he doesn’t advocate a right-wing revolution, Reid Ross asserts that Trump does indeed have “revolutionary leanings” because (a) some conservatives say or imply that he does, (b) he called for “a revolution” after Obama’s 2012 re-election, (c) Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center says that Trump is in some ways more extreme than many white nationalists, and (d) implementing Trump’s proposal to deport 11 million people would require a massive project of “totalitarian social engineering.”

I guess it depends what we mean by revolution. To me, a fascist revolution goes far beyond events like the “Gingrich Revolution” of 1994 (in which Republicans gained control of Congress for the first time in decades) or even the “Reagan Revolution” of the 1980s (which dramatically reduced the welfare state, transferred billions of dollars from lower- and middle-income people to the wealthy, and intensified U.S. attacks on leftist and popular forces worldwide). Fascism is revolutionary in the sense that it
“implies an effort to bring about a fundamental, structural transformation of the political, cultural, economic, or social order. Fascism seeks, first of all, to overthrow established political elites and abolish established forms of political rule, whether liberal-pluralist or authoritarian. Second, fascists also attack “bourgeois” cultural patterns such as individualism and consumerism and aim to systematically reshape all cultural spheres — encompassing education, family life, religion, the media, arts, sports and leisure, as well as the culture of business and the workplace — to reflect one unified ideology. Third, some (not all) forms of fascism promote a socioeconomic revolution that transforms but does not abolish class society — as when German Nazism restructured the industrial heart of Europe with a system of exploitation based largely on plunder, slave labor, and genocidally working people to death.”

Fascism’s revolutionary vision invokes an idealized image of the past, but it does so in the service of creating a new order, not just restoring old traditions. Yes, as Reid Ross tells us, Italian Fascists “harkened back” to the 19th-century Risorgimento (as well as the glory days of Ancient Rome), but they envisioned a forward-looking industrial society where capitalists and workers would work together for the good of the nation. Yes, Hitler “looked to” the military greatness of Germany’s Second Reich and Prussia’s Frederick the Great (as well as the paganism of ancient Germanic tribes), but he wanted a new, racially pure settler-colonial empire and had no interest in restoring the monarchy or deferring to the old Junker aristocracy.

Similarly, it’s not true that white nationalist far rightists in the U.S. “have always upheld segregation and a racialized caste system as an ultimate ideal.” Actually most of them moved beyond old-style segregationism decades ago, toward newer visions, such as creating a white separatist enclave through secession, dividing the entire U.S. into apartheid-style racial homelands, or exterminating Jews and people of color entirely. Compared with these ideas, Trump’s proposals to make (white) America great again represent a much more limited challenge to the established order. His most extreme structural proposal, abolishing birthright citizenship, would intensify racial and national oppression, but unfortunately this change is all too compatible with liberal “democracy” as practiced everywhere outside the Americas.

It is true, as Reid Ross argues, that deporting 11 million people would involve a big expansion of the state’s repressive apparatus. This would be disastrous in all kinds of ways, but it would not require any fundamental break with the existing institutional framework. In the 1950s (under moderate Republican Dwight Eisenhower) the federal government rounded up an estimated 1.1 million people through the odiously named “Operation Wetback” deportation program. In the 1930s (under liberal Democrat Franklin Roosevelt), upwards of one million Mexicans and Mexican Americans were deported, when the U.S. population was about 40 percent of what it is today. Trump’s proposal is bigger than these precedents, but it’s not qualitatively different.

Alexander Reid Ross accuses me of obscuring Donald Trump’s fascist particularities under the vague category of right-wing populism — of “missing the tree for the forest.” But a forest has many trees, and Trump’s candidacy points to different kinds of threats — some at odds with the established political order, others loyal to it. If we only see one threat we will be in trouble.





American Dream » Sat Dec 26, 2015 11:02 am wrote: https://itsgoingdown.org/trumpism-pt-4- ... evolution/

TRUMPISM, PT. 4: CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION, OR MISSING THE TREE FOR THE FOREST

December 25, 2015
Originally posted to It’s Going Down
by Alexander Reid Ross


On October 21, a former plumber from Connecticut named William Celli posted to his Facebook that he was delighted to see Donald Trump on TV, saying, “this guy[‘]s a great point man[.] I’ll follow this MAN to the end of the world.”

Celli is not simply enthused to follow leaders, but Trump is a point man, the guy to have up front calling the shots and making the decisions. He’s above all else a man, a patriarch who should be followed with the devotion of a kind of prophet—to the end of the world.

Just shy of two months later, on the same day that the New York Times released a report showing a tripling in violence against Muslims after the Paris and San Bernadino attacks, a neighbor telephoned in a tip to the Richmond, California, police about a bomb. After three days, the police finally responded, finding a small bomb-making enterprise on Celli’s premises plausibly made with the intent to attack the local Muslim community.

This kind of xenophobic and racist violence (and the threat of violence) has underwritten the Trump campaign like a bad check that was cut on the night that two brothers in Boston, Scott and Steve Leader, brutalized and urinated on a homeless Latino man in August. After the crime, Scott Leader declared, “Donald Trump was right; all these illegals need to be deported.”

In the midst of a quantifiable, if not palpable, increase in violence and white terrorism, Donald Trump has been the loudest spokesperson for the restriction of human rights against Muslims in the US. Is it therefore possible to connect Trump’s campaign to the increase in white supremacist violence, which has reached mass movement-level proportions?
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:41 pm

I guess this fits here better than anywhere else:


http://idavox.com/index.php/2016/01/10/ ... for-trump/

Now The Boneheads Are Robocalling Iowa Voters For Trump

Image
White Supremacist American Freedom Party endorses Trump - even though they are also fielding a candidate themselves!

On the same week that the White supremacist publication American Renaissance announced its 2016 conference outside Nashville, its editor joined with a contemporary and a Filipino-American pastor in a robocall to Iowa voters, urging support for presidential candidate Donald Trump in the Feb 1 caucuses in that state

On Friday, the American Freedom Party, a White supremacist political party, announced in a press release that its chairman, William Johnson Johnson, via his newly-established American National Super PAC, began the campaign, urging Iowans to either caucus for the billionaire real estate developer or urge their Republican friends to do so. Johnson speaks in the robocall, calling himself “a farmer and a white nationalist”, and is also joined by Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance. “We don’t need Muslims,” he says in the call. “We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump.”

In June, Taylor acted as spokesperson for the Council of Conservative Citizens after it was revealed that they were an inspiration to Dylann Roof, who allegedly shot and killed nine African-American churchgoers at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC.

Reverend Ronald Tan, a Filipino-American pastor of the Assemblies of God Christian Church of Carson, CA also appears on the call to support Trump. “First Corinthians states: God chose the foolish things of this world to shame the wise and God chose the weak things of this world to shame the strong,” he says. “For the Iowa caucuses, please support Donald Trump. He is courageous and he speaks his mind. God Bless.”

Johnson and Rev. Tan have been working together for several years. In 2008, they mounted a failed write-in campaign to remove six Latino judges from the Los Angeles Superior Court, targeting them because Tan felt they would be easier to defeat, especially if he was successful in recruiting other Filipinos to run. “When you’re running against a Caucasian, it’s kind of hard,” he told the Los Angeles Times in an interview. “As Filipinos, our names are almost the same as Hispanics, so that puts us on co-equal ground.” Johnson, who was also running for city attorney at the time, had also submitted his name for a bid for a judge’s seat. Both efforts failed.

According to the Freedom Party’s press release, He and Johnson are co-hosting a radio program that will be broadcast in Iowa from Jan. 12-22. Meanwhile, Taylor’s American Renaissance announced earlier in the week that its fifth conference at the Montgomery Bell Park Inn in Dickson, TN will take place May 20-22. In their announcement, Trump was cited as one source of hope for racist White people in the upcoming year “Donald Trump says what millions of Americans have thought for years–and is much too popular to be silenced,” the announcement read. “Ann Coulter’s Adios, America! sounds the alarm against Third-World immigration–and is a huge best-seller. An Alt Right of young, cocky pro-whites terrifies liberals and conservatives alike. And a Muslim invasion is giving new life to the European ‘extreme right.’”

The blog Talking Points Memo says they were given a recording of the call by Iowa resident Dave Dwyer, who said in a phone conversation, “I’ve lived in Iowa a long time and I’ve never seen anything like this.” They also tried to reach a Trump spokesperson for comment but they did not respond. Trump’s popularity among White supremacists has been prominent on various hate blogs and websites, and there has been several instances where people have shouted “White Power!” and “Seig Heil” at Trump rallies, often with little response from Trump himself.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:46 am

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-com ... y-year-war

The Far-Right Revival: A Thirty-Year War?
BY EVAN OSNOS


Image
Confederate-flag sympathizers rallying at Stone Mountain Park, in Stone Mountain, Georgia, in August, 2015.

In the winter of 1999, the Kansas City Star asked several local dignitaries and writers to herald the upcoming century by writing predictions, replicating an exercise that the paper had conducted a hundred years earlier. Some of the Victorian-era predictions had proved pleasingly prophetic: “the rays of the sun will be bottled up and made to do the bidding of man.” Others, less so: “there will be no great war in the twentieth century.”

This time around, one of the invitees was Leonard Zeskind, a Kansas City-based researcher of the American far-right, who had recently been awarded a “genius” grant by the MacArthur Foundation for decades spent in immersive study of extremism and racism. Zeskind, the director of the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights (IREHR), did not offer soothing sci-fi imaginings. He wrote, “Two hundred years after this country fought a civil war to ensure that black people were officially citizens, and a hundred years after a second battle ensured blacks enjoyed the rights of that citizenship, race will once again divide Americans. And this time white people will lose the prerogatives of majority status.” Demographic projections hold that non-Hispanic whites will become a minority around 2050, Zeskind noted. America has always changed, of course, and this shift brings with it the potential of a diverse, dynamic, and flourishing culture. At the same time, Zeskind predicted, a significant number of white Americans would likely mobilize to retain their political and economic influence. “If the past is prologue, a bitter conflict will begin mid-century and continue a full generation,” Zeskind wrote.

“Well, that part has snuck up on us quicker than I thought,” Zeskind told me recently. I had begun reading his work last summer, inspired by a flurry of events: In June, Donald Trump had unveiled a Presidential campaign that singled out Mexican immigrants as a threat (“They’re bringing crime, they’re rapists”) and inveighed against political correctness. (A few months later, Trump would call for a ban on Muslims entering the United States.) Also in June, a young white supremacist killed nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, and state lawmakers were preparing to remove the Confederate flag from public buildings. The prospect of its removal had galvanized America’s far right. A group calling itself the Conservative Response Team placed robocalls to South Carolina residents, warning them, “Just like ISIS, Obama’s haters want our monuments down, graves dug up and school, roads, towns and counties renamed. They’ve even taken ‘Dukes of Hazzard’ off TV. What’s next?”

Since then, the American far right—a diverse, sometimes contradictory landscape of radical ideologies—has flourished. If its opening days are any indication, 2016 may prove to be the far-right’s most prominent moment in years, fed by a range of factors, including its opposition to the Black Lives Matter campaign, and, above all, Trump’s candidacy. American white nationalists who were, initially, unsure what to make of a New York billionaire like Trump have embraced him unreservedly. Less than three weeks before the Iowa caucuses, voters there last week received a robocall that featured the voices of several white nationalists, including author Jared Taylor, who said, “We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump.”

Meanwhile, elsewhere on the far-right frontier, anti-government gunmen have occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, in Oregon, since January 2nd, drawing members and ideas from several movements, including Wise Use (opposed to environmental regulation), Patriots (opposed to federal overreach, which they associate with tyranny), and Sovereign Citizens (opposed to the Fourteenth Amendment, with origins in white nationalism.) J. M. Berger, a fellow with George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, calls it a “gumbo of diverse grievances and beliefs.” Berger, like other specialists, believes that the Malheur occupation is self-reinforcing, “as people from different groups and movements get to know each other face to face and build trust.”

The far-right revival has largely caught the American public by surprise, but it should not have. After Timothy McVeigh, a supporter of the Patriot movement, carried out the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, in 1995, killing a hundred and sixty-eight people, including nineteen children, domestic radicalism declined. But the McVeigh stigma around the Patriots was not permanent. By 2009, Daryl Johnson, a domestic-terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, was warning that a slumping economy and the election of the first black President was being used to fuel anti-government sentiment and “the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone-wolf extremists.” But his report, titled “Right-Wing Extremism,” attracted fierce criticism from Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators, who said it unfairly described legitimate grievances. Johnson’s unit at D.H.S., the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, was dismantled in the years after the 2009 report. Johnson, now a security consultant in Washington, told the Times last week, “The same patterns that led to the growth of the antigovernment groups in the 1990s is being played out today. D.H.S. should be doing more.”

Since that unit was shut down, the far right has found new reasons to rise and attract support. The killing of Trayvon Martin, in 2012, by a self-appointed neighborhood watchman, and the protests surrounding his case, caught the attention of white nationalists. Devin Burghart, the vice-president of IREHR, Zeksind’s group, told me that, however irrationally, “The mobilization of a black community intensified the fear among white nationalists.” In response to Black Lives Matter, skinheads staged counterprotests in Olympia, Washington; St. Louis; Cincinnati; and elsewhere. “It has, in no small part, gotten them offline and back onto the streets to start reëngaging in the street battles, which is something we had not seen a lot of during the Obama years.”

White nationalists look at recent American history and see, from their perspective, a series of insults, some well-known, others obscure. They bring up the Duke lacrosse case, in which three white athletes were falsely accused, in 2006, of assaulting a black woman; they seethe over Obama’s criticism of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, police for acting “stupidly” after officers arrested Henry Louis Gates outside his own home; they even point to the moment, in 2009, when Kanye West interrupted Taylor Swift at the MTV Video Awards to say that the award should have gone to Beyoncé. It was, in their view, one in a series of turning points.

For a while, the Tea Party channeled some of that frustration. Tea Party leaders denounced racism, but their rallies contained posters that depicted Obama as an African witch doctor and a character from “Planet of the Apes.” The politics of loss—of desperation and decay and failure—was embedded in the movement’s slogan: “Take it Back.” The Tea Party faded somewhat, even as a raft of candidates it supported entered Congress, but Zeskind, the author of the prediction, never expected it to remain in abeyance. “Nature abhors a vacuum,” he told me. “What is happening is a big change. I don’t know for sure, but my sense is that the White Nationalist movement is ready to take a swing up.”

Burghart, his colleague, is bracing for a long struggle about the definition of America. He said, “This question, about who and what we are as a nation in the twenty-first century, is going to be the defining question for millennials and the generation that comes after that. As we go through these demographic changes, that is the question that we are going to face, whether or not we can truly live up to our democratic ideals.” He saw the taking down of the Confederate flag, and the protests it provoked, as merely the first skirmish. “This round was one of the first early battles in a much larger conflict that’s going to go on over the next thirty years.”
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:36 pm

Image


WHITE NATIONALIST AMERICAN FREEDOM PARTY RUNNING DONALD TRUMP SUPER PAC


People may have noticed an aggressive shift in Republican Party politics with the inclusion of Donald Trump, and we aren’t talking about the Sarah Palin endorsement. Iowa voters recently got a series of “robocalls” telling them to vote trump. The calls featured the voice of Jared Taylor of the white nationalist organization, American Renaissance.

“I’m Jared Taylor with American Renaissance,” Taylor says. “I urge you to vote for Donald Trump because he is the one candidate who points out that we should accept immigrants who are good for America. We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump.”


http://antifascistnews.net/2016/01/21/w ... super-pac/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:14 pm

It's all connected:


ALERT! American Renaissance to Hold 2016 Conference in TN State Park Again

ImageIn the past year since the last American Renaissance conference, its editor Jared Taylor has been somewhat busy. He became the spokesperson for the Council of Conservative Citizens in the wake of the Dylann Roof shooting, and he has been championing the presidential campaign Donald Trump in robocalls and articles on his website. He has also been using Trump’s candidacy as a rallying point for his fellow White supremacists, writing recently that he “may be the last hope for a president who would be good for White people.” So he is seriously feeling his oats as he promotes the 2016 American Renaissance Conference to be held once again at the Montgomery Bell Park Inn in Dickson, TN on May 20-22, 2016. In the announcement he writes:

“Donald Trump says what millions of Americans have thought for years — and is much too popular to be silenced. Ann Coulter’s Adios, America!sounds the alarm against Third-World immigration — and is a huge best-seller. An Alt Right of young, cocky pro-whites terrifies liberals and conservatives alike. And a Muslim invasion is giving new life to the European ‘extreme right.’ Are whites finally waking up? Are we reaching critical mass? Come join activists and leaders from Europe, America, and South Africa for a celebration of our world brotherhood of Europeans.”


But there’s a reason why he is hiding in the woods of Tennessee again this year: It’s as far away from those that would shut him down if they get the chance. The biggest fear of any AmRen attendee is those that oppose them and what they would do if they were proactive against their efforts. It has shut down their conferences two years in a row, caused a Council of Conservative Citizens conference in Nashville proper to get shut down only a few months after AmRen took place, and they are so afraid of the repercussions that they have even gone to other White supremacist conferences wearing Groucho masks so they wouldn’t be identified! In year’s past, including last year there was an anti-fascist conference held to counter the AmRen conference and it remains to be seen if such an event will be held this year. The Montgomery Bell Park is a State Park and its facilities are open to the public, so Jared Taylor & Co. cannot make anyone leave. So we will keep you posted of any events being planned around opposing this year’s conference.



http://idavox.com/index.php/event/alert ... ance_id=10
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:41 pm

Heimbach's homeboy:

ImageMatt Parrott

Matt’s a little hard to nail down. He’s a friendly fascist. Publicly he claims it’s not about hate. It’s about being proud of one’s culture and traditions. Here’s Matt when speaking outside the white supremacist community:

MP: I’m Matt Parrott with the Hoosier Nation. We’re actually a white advocacy group.
Man: A white advocacy group? What’s that?
MP: We’re not anti-black!
Man: A white advocacy group? Does that mean that you’re racist?
MP: I guess it would depend on how you define ‘racism’.
Man: You define it for me.
MP: I would ‘define’ racist as someone hates or treats unfairly a person because of their racial or ethnic background.
Man: Do you do that?
MP: I do not do that.
Man: So what is a white interest group?
MP: We’re looking out for working-class white folks.
Man: Just white folks?
MP: Ya… We’re not against black people
!


He often claims to be a white separatist, though when one examines his writing and public speeches he proves the old truism that no such thing exists. White separatist is simply a term that white supremacists use to disguise their bigotry as is typical of their inherent cowardly nature.

Here are some examples of Matt Parrott not being racist:


There are worse things than urinating on corpses.” Matt Parrott in an article on Counter-Currents arguing that soldiers pissing on dead Muslims just isn’t that big of a deal. Seriously? You dedicated the time necessary to write an entire article rationalizing this? But don’t worry, he’s not racist…

Without a deeply rooted inter-generational tradition to inculcate and enforce racial hygiene, interracial marriage will become routine and the race will die out.” Matt Parrott in an article on the Occidental Observer. Enforcing racial hygiene huh? Where have I heard that before? But don’t worry, he’s not racist…

When they’re treated by the invasive Mexicans with the contempt that Mexicans treat Blacks in Mexico, they’ll pine for the days when they were fussing with Whites over water fountains and bus seats.” Matt Parrott in an article on Hosier Nation in which he argues that African-Americans should hate Mexicans cause they’re gonna take their jobs or something. But don’t worry, he’s not racist…

Our true enemies are the Jews and corporate cronies at the helm of Western Civilization.” Matt Parrott in an article on Counter-Currents. But don’t worry, he’s not antisemitic…

Which had a more damaging long-term effect: The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima or the migration of Black people to Detroit? Find one natural disaster, military act, or policy decision which is a greater threat to a city’s safety and prosperity than the immigration of Black people.” Matt Parrott in a Hoosier Nation speech in Kokomo. But don’t worry, he’s not racist…

This new wave of immigrants is different in a way that our European immigrant forefathers were not. They’re racially different. Their predispositions are so different from us that they—as a group—can’t assimilate.” Matt Parrott in that same speech in Kokomo. I guess he was on a roll that day. But don’t worry, he’s not racist…

“If Indy’s Black community hadn’t grown like a cancer and swallowed the neighborhood around it, the Keystone Towers would still stand.” Matt Parrott in an article on Hoosier Nation in which he describes the mundane act of demolishing an abandoned building from the perspective of a crazy man who sees everything around him as evidence of anti-white genocide. I’m not sure this one should be included. It’s just too insane. I’m pretty sure this is some kind of creative writing exercise or performance art or something. So don’t worry, he’s not racist…

Thousands of our children throughout America are being abused in unspeakable ways by the non-White groups we cheerfully tolerate. These sex slavery rings are (as far as I know) exclusively non-White.” -Matt fucking Parrott in an article on Hoosier Nation in which he proclaims that only minorities are capable of trafficking children for sex. I find it hard to believe that someone who spends as much time combing news headlines for anti-white building demolitions as this guy hasn’t ever heard of Warren Jeffs or the Catholic Church. Not to mention the fact that most prison nazis are chomos. But don’t worry, he’s not racist…

The new Civil Rights ‘retard’ is Chaz Bono, the White millionaire whose defect is thinking she’s a dude and being empowered by her wealth to actualize that psychological condition through mutilating her genitals.” Another of Matt’s gems from an article on Hoosier Nation. But don’t worry, he’s not a heterosexist bigot…



ImageIn Matt’s delusional world, he isn’t racist. Everyone else, from MLK to antifa are though. In Matt’s world, the police are sympathetic to the antifascist cause. In Matt’s world, it’s antifascists that have politicians in our pockets and big money at our dispense. Matt lives in his own paranoid never-ending opposite day where those who support equality are fascists and he is a civil rights activist.



http://indianaantifa.org/?page_id=108
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:40 am

The New Faces of Populism

Posted on January 25, 2016 by edmundberger

The Left Flank has a new piece on what they dub the “Trump Paradox” that tries to draw our attention to a Donald Trump that deviates from his usual depiction as a bellicose proto-fascistic. Without ignoring the more extreme positions through which he draws most of his attention (illegal immigration, namely), the Left Flank points out that he appears to have a strong support base in GOP voters who identify as moderate or liberal-leaning. Indeed, many of his policies reflect those that might appear equitable to those on the left: protectionist trade policies to shore up a crumbling manufacturing base and promote job growth, large investments to alleviate our shoddy infrastructure, subsidies for education and health.

So why the right-baiting, Left Flank asks?

But why does he not use other — that is, less racialised — issues to make his pitch? Firstly, because illegal immigration and Islamist terrorism have long been issues dominated by politicking, spin, and hypocrisy, but which politicians have failed to find solutions to (for example, “pro-immigrant” Obama deports more people annually than any previous US president). Thus, such issues give Trump concrete examples with which to make his more general claims about the weakness of the political class. Secondly, with issues this politically charged the possibility of attracting attention by causing an uproar is simply too good to pass up. Finally, Trump is running for the Republican and not the Democratic nomination, so he has to appeal to the debates that have caused havoc within that party. Nevertheless, the intractability of these issues means that voters are likely to hold contradictory positions on them and so it is the political decisiveness of Trump’s position rather than his (often contradictory) policy detail that will stand out.

Good for the Left Flank for bringing a more complex dimension to the ongoing American political circus. Unfortunately for the Left Flank, however, the position they advance is a rather weak analysis. Yes, Trump is taking advantage of political discontent, and probably doesn’t believe in the full range of vitriolic he spills out on the daily. It’s instead the notion that his full range of positions are bound up contradiction that is faulty.

Consider the following quotes:

… despite the academic consensus that free trade is win-win for all, free trade is not free.

Undeniably, free trade has been a bonanza for the top 1 percent and many among our top 10 percent. As U.S. manufacturers shut down scores of thousands of U.S. factories to finance new plants in Asia, their production costs plummeted. Wages and benefits for Asians were, and are still, but a fraction of those of American workers.

After having shifted production overseas and dramatically lowered costs, U.S. transnationals saw a surge in profits. These were used to push corporate salaries into the stratosphere, increase dividends to shareholders, and keep the Washington lobbyists working the Hill day and night for fast track and free trade. And the lifestyle of our corporate elites changed. Where their fathers walked sooty factory floors in smokestack towns in World War II, these masters of the universe fly Gulfstream Vs to Davos and Dubai to dine with titled Europeans, Saudi princes and Chinese billionaires.


These may sound like they come from the pages of Mother Jones, The Nation, or Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine, and they may sound like something you’d hear at a Sanders’ rally. Quite the contrary: they’re from a 2014 article published in The American Conservative, written by Pat Buchanan.

For the unfamiliar, Buchanan (who recently declared that “Trump is the future of America”) ran for president under the mantle of the Republican Party in 1992 and 1996, before departing the Republicans to run again as the candidate for the Reform Party of the United States. The Reform Party, which had been founded in 1995 by Ross Perot (who had rocketed to the political limelight a few years prior for his opposition to the NAFTA free trade deal), went through considerations for several other candidates before landing on Buchanan – including Ron Paul and Donald Trump. In 2004, the Reform Party candidate would Ralph Nader, a clear illustration of the deviation from the traditionally-held political coordinates by this coterie of individuals.

Buchanan’s positions are very similar to those we see today espoused by Trump and his followers: a strong suspicion towards free trade, calls for a more isolationist foreign policy, anti-immigration, shades of racism (he fell under fire, for example, by flirting with Holocaust denial), and more general social conservatism. While these might sound contradictory and scattered across the left-right political compass, they all in fact sit quite cozily together under the rubric of paleoconservatism. In the contemporary era, paleoconservatism’s most stalwart defender – and primary theorist – was Samuel T. Francis, himself known for his opposition to neoliberal capitalism, extreme nationalist, an unrepentant racism (in one instance going so far as to castigate humanist philosophy as a “war against the white race”). Here is he on Buchanan’s 1992 president campaign:

[Buchanan] appealed to a particular identity, embodied in the concepts of America as a nation with discrete national political and economic interests and of the Middle American stratum as the political, economic, and cultural core of the nation. In adopting such themes, Mr. Buchanan decisively broke with the universalist and cosmopolitan ideology that has been masquerading as conservatism and which has marched up and down the land armed with a variety of universalist slogans and standards: natural rights; equality as a conservative principle; the export of global democracy as the primary goal of American foreign policy; unqualified support for much of the civil rights agenda, unlimited immigration, and free trade; the defense of one version or another of “one-worldism”; enthusiastic worship of an abstract “opportunity” and unrestricted economic growth through acquisitive individualism; and the adulation of the purported patron saints of all these causes in the persons of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr.


This “particular identity” that he refers to is what he calls the “Middle American Radicals”, a class of disaffected middle class Americans who adhere to traditionalist values, oppose ‘big government’, and reject the forces of big business. Today this concept is very much alive, and is being rearticulated by Trump as the “Silent Majority” who are “fed up with what’s going on.”

Francis was by no means the founder of the paleoconservative ideology, which in fact stretches quite far back in American political history: antecedents can be found in the John Birch Society during the 1950s, right-wing groups that opposed American entry in World War 2 in the 1930s, and Huey Long’s southern populism that opposed the New Deal policies. Prior to these, it can be traced back to producerism, which in Chip Berlet’s account

begins in the US with the Jacksonians, who wove together intra-elite factionalism and lower-class Whites’ double-edged resentments. Producerism became a staple of repressive populist ideology. Producerism sought to rally the middle strata together with certain sections of the elite. Specifically, it championed the so-called producing classes (including White farmers, laborers, artisans, slaveowning planters, and “productive” capitalists) against “unproductive” bankers, speculators, and monopolists above—and people of color below. After the Jacksonian era, producerism was a central tenet of the anti-Chinese crusade in the late nineteenth century. In the 1920s industrial philosophy of Henry Ford, and Father Coughlin’s fascist doctrine in the 1930s, producerism fused with antisemitic attacks against “parasitic” Jews.




https://deterritorialinvestigations.wor ... -populism/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:03 pm

Another winner:


Thomas Buhls


ImageName: Thomas Buhls
Date of Birth: 06/06/1983
Ideology: White Supremacist
Address: Bloomington, IN

Affiliations:
(Honorable Discharge) United States Marine Corps: Sergeant
(KKK) Knight’s Party: Veteran’s League Coordinator
(Destroyed) Indiana University White Student Union: Founding Member
Traditionalist Youth Network: Founding Member, Officer

Thomas Buhls is a white supremacist activist operating in Indiana. Buhls began his activism after returning from active duty in the United States Marine Core. Buhls was an organizer for the Knight’s Party (KKK) while still a member of the Marines. After his discharge from the armed forces, Buhls stepped up the visibility of his white supremacist recruiting and organizing.

In May 2011, Thomas was arrested by police in Martinsville, IN where he was living at the time. He was charged with littering after he dropped copies of The Crusade, the Knight’s Party’s Newspaper, on the property of a business owner who didn’t want the trash at her business. The littering charges were eventually dismissed. A counter-suit was filed on Buhls behalf with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union which was eventually successful in winning a small punitive reward for Buhls.

It was near this time that Buhls enrolled at Bloomington’s Indiana University within the Continuing Studies program. Here Buhls began an unsuccessful recruitment campaign on the streets of Bloomington, Indiana. When protesters under the “Occupy Wall Street” banner began occupying People’s Park near the university, Buhls began distributing KKK literature to young people in the vicinity of the “Occupy Wall Street / Occupy Bloomington” encampment. A pattern of cat-and-mouse games with local anti-racists was established at this time. Buhls began taunting HARM and other organizations he perceived as threats to his white supremacist recruiting (feminist, Jewish, Code Pink…) through online media as well as crude graffiti in downtown Bloomington.

In April 2012, Buhl’s called for a Klan Rally on the court house lawn of Bloomington. Only three others showed up besides Buhls, but they left immediately after correctly assessing that there were not enough police to ensure the safety of the four white supremacists against the fifty antifa and twice as many non-affiliated liberal protesters. There were unconfirmed reports of an altercation between Buhls and several protesters, but no arrests were made. Buhls eventually asked for a police escort after being driven away by the angry mob.

The local media responded to the incident by giving Buhls a microphone to speak into. The local newspaper, Bloomington Herald-Times, gave Buhls a guest column without disclosing his membership in the KKK. The paper also issued an editorial justification for giving a klan recruiter a guest column entitled, “Why Allow Space For Unpopular Speech?” written by Bob Zaltsman . The paper gave no space to anarchist groups which organized the counter-protest against Buhls. Additionally, Buhls status as a part-time student allowed him access the Indiana University student newspaper, The Daily Student. Over the next couple years, Buhls would be granted several guest columnist articles at the school paper as well.

Emboldened by the support of the local media, Buhls intensified his street recruiting. Buhls presence on the streets of Bloomington was apparently met with resisitance. According to local newspapers, police were looking for suspects in an assault against Buhls. Buhls has also made allegations through various white supremacist media outlets that he has been repeatedly assaulted while carrying out his street organizing, but these reports have not been confirmed.Image

By this time Buhls was much better connected within the white nationalist scene. With the help of his new friends, Matthew Heimbach and Matt Parrott, Buhls set out to establish the Indiana University White Student Union. The three duped a young student into founding the organization. Much less dedicated than the older white supremacists who had recruited him, the student quickly sold out his fellow members to the Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement. The group was promptly destroyed.

At this time Buhls, Parrott, and Heimbach reformulated their strategy for attracting youth to white supremacy. Having failed in establishing an implicitly white supremacist group, they decided to form and explicitly fascist youth organization which they named the Traditionalist Youth Network or Trad Youth.

Buhls is still active in Trad Youth in which he is an officer. He has ready access to firearms and carries some form of personal protection on his person at all times.

In his own words:
I feel it’s kind of silly to argue about the definition of racist,” Buhls said. “I’ll tell you straight up, of course I am.” (from OpposingViews.com ‘Indiana U. Student Activist Thomas Buhls Declares Self A Racist’ by Johnathon Vankin)

My ultimate goal would be to see another white ethno-state emerge — a state comprised of and built for exclusively white people.” (from Indiana Daily Student Nov 8 2013, Student activist promotes ‘traditionalism’ by Mary Katherine Wildeman)

Traditionalism promotes the idea that we should all strive to fulfill our most basic stations in life, and part of that means respecting the inherent functions of our body. A woman should strive to fulfill those stations in life which are unique to herself as a consequence of her body.” (from TradYouth.org Thomas Buhls ‘Traditionalist Feminism’)

The TEA Party conservatives are drifting into white Niggerdom.” (from TradYouth.org Thomas Buhls ‘The GOP and their niggers”)


http://indianaantifa.org/?page_id=463
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:52 pm

Tulsa-area high schoolers among protesters booted from Trump rally

Image
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks while Tulsa high schools students hold up a protest sign during his rally at the Mabee Center on Wednesday.


With their protest sign — a sheet carrying the words “Trump Makes America Hate Again” — tucked away deep in one of their shoes, a group of high school students nervously made their way into the center pit at the Mabee Center for Donald Trump’s rally on Wednesday.

More than a dozen students from Booker T. Washington, Edison and Bishop Kelley high schools were among the protestors who showed up at the rally.

Noah Miracle, a Booker T. junior, said the group went because they think it is important to stand up for what they believe in.





http://newsok.com/article/5474151
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:17 pm

https://itsgoingdown.org/trumpism-pt-5- ... very-time/

Image


TRUMPISM, PT. 5: … OR GET CRUSHED EVERY TIME

January 22, 2016
Originally posted to It’s Going Down
by Alexander Reid Ross

When the USA Freedom Kids took the stage in Pensacola, Florida last week, their strangely off-center routine smashed headlines around the world. Some unsettling combination of off-center choreography, the arrhythmic clapping of the apparently hypnotized crowd, and the brutal lyrics lip-synched by young girls had people throughout the US wondering whether or not they could support the idea, “Deal from strength or get crushed every time.

Immediately, social media erupted with scornful comparisons to the Hitler Youth and Kim Jong-un. Sadly, the USA Freedom Kids paled in comparison to the rigidly choreographed motions of their totalitarian counterparts, but it would seem that Florida is giving it the best its got.

The next grand event of the Trump campaign came with the rant of Sarah Palin as she endorsed Trump’s candidacy. Palin’s reactionary version of slam poetry seemed to indicate that she wanted to make a youthful, hip invitation to her new life with Trump. The strange rhyming appeared almost a competitive gesture to step out of the shadow of the USA Freedom Kids—a feat nobody could call unsuccessful.

And finally, not to be outdone by the public displays of patriotism, force, and Antigone complexes gone wild, the behind-the-scenes shadow boxing of the white nationalist movement upped the ante by spearheading a Super PAC in the great state of Iowa. Robocalls from the American Third Position… er… I mean… American Freedom Party (AFP) stress to potential voters the urgency of white working class support for Trump.

That’s right. Jared Taylor, the head of American Renaissance, is currently urging voters to pitch in and vote for Trump, “because he is the one candidate who points out that we should accept immigrants who are good for America. We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump.”

In truth, however, this was only one small step removed from a couple weeks ago, when the co-chair of Vermont’s “Veterans for Trump” group Jerry DeLemus opted to join the Malheur Rebellion. Within a day, DeLemus was quoted in major news sites as complaining of psy-ops campaigns against the Patriots holed up in the Wildlife Refuge. It’s only a matter of time before he’s joined by a counter-psy-ops mission led by USA Freedom Kids.

The Old and the New

Of course, this is nothing particularly new for US politics. If we turn the page back to George W. Bush, as I mentioned in Part 2, we find that his campaign enlisted the support of Roger Stone to block the recount in Florida in 2000. However, I failed to mention that during that same campaign, former Knights of the Klan hierarch and current administrator of Stormfront, Don Black, provided “bodies for the pro-Bush protests, and his Web site proudly announced their participation,” at one point driving Reverend Jesse Jackson off stage with disruptions from the audience.

Furthermore, if Woody Guthrie’s recently released writings about his landlord, the Donald’s dad, Fred Trump, seem bad, George W.’s grandfather’s fascist-funding financial adventures are far more important. Turning the page further back to the populist campaign of George Wallace, two Klan leaders in the South were reportedly under the payroll, and the Youth for Wallace wing, along with the American Independent Party itself, broke away into fascism under the control of Willis Carto and his cronies.

However, to truly understand fascism and its role in US politics, we have to go beyond even Carto, himself, whose famous “Cultural Dynamics” essay outlined the acceptable forms of fascist discourse in the postwar period by circumscribing racism within the terrain of cultural relativism. Carto never sought to break down the constitution or “overthrow” the entire edifice of the US government; in fact, just like Trump, he defended the constitution, and sought to insinuate his Yockeyist ideals within the judiciary, legislative, and executive branches of the state.

The Out and the In

Carto’s attempts to weave fascism into the fabric of mainstream conservative discourse were inspired by Lawrence Dennis, a savant who turned from democracy after bringing the marines into Central America to quell the Sandino rebellion in Nicaragua. Dennis’s shift to fascism was indeed a cultural shift toward something he felt would accommodate US interests better than democracy, since the latter appeared unconscionable to the sensibilities of wealth and grandeur. Furthermore, democracy did not prevent oppression, Dennis believed, but strengthened the hand of oppression by maintaining de facto ruling elites who could simply transform the laws whenever it suited their desires.

For Dennis, fascism was simply a way of squaring the circle, of rejecting the commonplace entreaty to the “out-elite” to join in with the games of the “in-elite,” instead cajoling the “in-elite” to follow the “out-elite” toward a new outright embrace of the politics of organic leadership through energetic action and strong will.

“Fascism attaches importance only to the guarantee afforded by a spirit of discipline by a consciousness of national solidarity, by a certain sense of noblesse oblige, and by the logic of self-interest under a given set-up for those who have power,” Dennis would write in his hopeful tract, The Coming American Fascism.

“Fascism, in other words, so far as the control of the élite in the national interest or the protection of the people is concerned, pins its faith on character, rather than on codes or on the training and spirit it gives the élite, rather than on the policeman it might put over them. Broadly speaking, the in-élite, as a whole, can be controlled or disciplined only by forces within themselves.”

So for Dennis, fascism represented practically a humane turn, a turn of conscience for the elites to admit the control they already maintain over the system, and use that openness to control themselves in the national interest, rather than playing selfish games abroad. At this time in US history, the question of the merits of eugenics, Jim Crow, and xenophobic policy did not merit a discussion—all the intellectual weight of academia and public policy grounded itself on racism.

It is in this tendency of US history, so importantly transformed through the workers’ struggles of the early postwar period and the later Civil Rights movement, that Carto’s own position focused on the decline of Western culture and values. Carto’s ideology rested on what his biographer George Michael describes as “an apartheid type of fascism in which the world should consist of racially separate nations,” and it is this same form of fascism to which people like Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer of the American Policy Institute adhere.

This rings true in antifascist thinker Matthew Lyons’s response to my last piece, in which he takes option with my claim that fascists have always supported segregated caste structure in the US. My phrasing conflated white nationalism with Jim Crow segregation, and while fascists did support segregation up to 1968, the loss of Wallace and the capitulation of Nixon led to much sharper distinctions outlined by Michael in the above quote. However, the attempts by Carto to mount a fascist intrigue into conservatism to change the US from within is not accounted for in the attempts at defining “revolution” in terms of fascist movements, and bears deeper inquiry into the guidelines by which we understand both.

No Scrubs

I once had an unfortunate run-in with Taylor. After penning a piece about the “Fascist Internationale” brewing in Russia, Taylor sent my publisher a rather strongly worded email. I had used from the European New Right “theorist” Guillaume Faye in which he said that “worse than the Jews are… Jews in the mind.” Taylor insisted that the quotation did not occur, and instructed my publishers to view the video of the speech given at American Renaissance in 2005 available at their website. After my publisher dutifully followed up, he wrote to me saying that he had not been able to find the quote. I wrote back expressing my surprise, since the quotation clearly arises in the version of the talk available on Youtube. It appeared that the site scrubbed the quotation, and Taylor attempted to pass a “clean” version off to my publisher to get me into trouble. What can one expect from a guy who makes Robocalls for Trump?

The point is that the line between respectability and racism, US politics and fascism has been extremely blurry for a long time. However, if in 2000 most of us on the left agreed with journalist David Neiwert that Bush, Jr., was not fascist, per se, but was bringing the US closer to that reality, today that stance seems a bit more off-putting.

In his recent piece, Lyons agrees that lines have been blurred between what is known as the “radical right” and fascism. However, Lyons centralizes the point that “it’s a mistake to see such mixed political initiatives as having an inherent tendency to move toward full-fledged fascism.”

As long as the line is blurry, there will remain an element of respectability in politics that will maintain the conventional system. Trump’s own “épater la bourgeois” (shock the bourgeois) style serves to re-enforce the rowdiness and violence of his political stance, but Lyons is correct in noting that its challenge to the system is one within an ostensibly democratic milieu.

However, do Dennis’s words not ring a bell in Trump’s “out-elite” style? Isn’t Trump still playing the role of outside elite, coaxing both citizen and government, alike, to do what they want, to exercise their power beyond the strictures of the “system,” and to break the mold not only through a practice that “pins its faith on character, rather than on codes”? As opposed to Bush, whose folksy populism was always in the character of corporate managerial pandering, Trump’s beliefs in “self-interest” and elitism are directed at a white working class that is fed up with the business class.

Stopping Fascist Steps

That Trump has not clarified whether or not the “deportation force” he would use to implement his proposed deportation plan would involve irregular or volunteer enforcers indicates that the presence of fascism in the US through militias would be empowered like never before to carry out the kind of social engineering not seen in the US since the internal colonization process euphemistically referred to as “Indian removal.”

And this is precisely the point. When we discuss US politics, our scope of legitimacy and respectability tends to fall within the last fifty years—since the Civil Rights Act, for example—and for good reason. The idea of Lebensraum had direct links to Hitler’s idealization of US Manifest Destiny. He believed that the conquest of Poland and then lands further to the East manifested a kind of conquest over the inferior peoples, toward an Aryan mission of resettling, and furthering the European idea. Indeed, going further back, the man who coined the term “national socialist,” Maurice Barrès declared that the first national socialist was a Frenchman named Marquis de Morès who was intensely interested in the Wild West to the point of briefly venturing into the ranching industry in the Badlands.

To augment the familiar phrase, We should not talk about fascism if we are not willing to also discuss US history before 1941 (or Japanese internment, for that matter). One could argue that fascism is a kind of force majeure—the inevitable effect of colonialism, through which Europe effectively colonized itself by attempting to consolidate power over the social and economic under the “national community.” It is perhaps in this context that fascism falls under the narrative of what Roger Griffin calls the “palingenetic ultranationalism,” or the rebirth of a mythical roots of the nation. In this sense, while fascism does rely on various “out-elites,” it also requires a faltering middle class concerned about the rise of organized labor, on one hand, and a xenophobic working class anxious over losing their privileges to foreigners and other disenfranchised populations, on the other.

So Lyons and I agree in the end (I think) that Trump bears important fascist trappings, but the power of movement toward something like “full fascism” is not necessarily all there. In fact, I would argue that it doesn’t have to be. Fascism, in my opinion, and in the opinions of many formative thinkers of fascism, is more like a process, a dynamic, than something that can actually reach a complete or pure form. Already in its first manifestations, fascism manifested a development of colonialism and imperialism (as so many, including Hannah Arendt, have aptly pointed out).

Trump’s candidacy falls, in no small part, within the fascist tradition, and his maneuvers—particularly his deportation plan—show that his presidency would make vital steps toward fascism. As antifascists, we should act against him and his program, and in favor of emergent communities linked to Black Lives Matter and local efforts to build sustainable networks in order to make sure we don’t find out how far Trumpism is able to go.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:22 pm

Donald Trump Supporters Are White and Scared

Image

It is the end of January and soggy, abandoned suede couch Donald Trump is still leading in the polls. Who is doing this? Stupid America. Why are they doing it? Because they are scared.

A team of hardened CNN reporters spoke with over 150 Trump supporters and undecided rally attendees in 31 cities to understand why this anthropomorphic STD had seen such massive success. The answer will not surprise you.

Scared of Immigrants

“The people that are coming here from China, Indonesia and all of them countries, they’re getting pregnant and coming here and having babies,” said Paul Weber, an Iowan who described himself as “kind of a redneck”: “They get everything and the people that were born here can’t get everything.”

“I come home and someone’s occupying my house and they’re eating my food and then they’re taking the kids from my bed; they’re taking the money out of my pocket,” said Deena from South Carolina, probably speaking figuratively. “Why should we have to support someone else and then make our kids suffer, our families suffer?”

Scared of Muslims

“Islam is traced patrilineally. I am a Muslim if my father is Muslim. In that sense, it is undeniable that Barack Obama was born a Muslim,” said Michael Rooney, a respiratory therapist. “It is true that [Obama] now identifies as a Christian in the same sense that Bruce Jenner identifies as a woman.”

“Islam is not a religion. It’s a violent blood cult, okay?” said 68-year-old veteran Hoyt Wood. “All they know is violence, that’s all they know.”

Scared of Being Treated Like Donald Trump Treats Minorities

“It seems like we really go overboard to make sure all these other nationalities nowadays and colors have their fair shake of it, but no one’s looking out for the white guy anymore,” said North Carolinian white man Rhett Benhoff.

“White Americans founded this country,” said South Carolinian Patricia Saunders. “We are being pushed aside because of the President’s administration and the media.”


http://theslot.jezebel.com/donald-trump ... 1755428063
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby kool maudit » Fri Jan 29, 2016 6:24 am

I don't really know why, but I am going to engage with this post – the most recent of seven or eight articles posted without commentary or discussion.

The Jezebel article is a class signifier, AD. I don't know how you can't see that. It's a sneer. I imagine National Review going into Brownsville in 2008 and getting quotes from underclass Obama supporters.

Beyond that, at what point did you think white people would begin to speak of themselves as an interest group? Later?

I know, I know – they shouldn't. I just read the "White People Pro Tips" thread. They should do that stuff instead.

But given, you know, people and how they act and the history of surplus civilization going back to Ur... I don't see the pro tips as particularly realistic. As a subculture? Sure. It'll attract a set. As an ethnic strategy contending with others (remember: people) in a big roiling world? It seems unlikely.

The best hope for the pro tips set is for this sort of stuff to capture a large enough share of high-education whites so as to allow them to occupy ( :o ) the key institutions in the space of a generation and hand them over to other ethnies before the doctrine loses favour (it requires a sort of deferential/submissive approach and temperament, so its appeal has limits). Then the whites can exist as a prole class with exceptions here and there (maybe lingering on as auctioneers and real estate agents and apartment doormen – positions where anachronistic references flourish),

Failing that, European-descended people will probably continue to do as Europeans have historically done with the pro tips being remembered as a curious doctrine from before the war/financial collapse (I am picturing 1945-2020 or so being remembered as a sunny, funny day). It's actually not that different from what most surplus civilization peoples do, but they had a very good run at the dirty old game for about seven centuries and made enemies. It happens, I guess. Who would have thought the Assyrians would turn into a small group of Christians fighting for their lives on the outskirts of what was once Nineveh?
kool maudit
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests