#If you want the anti-genocide vote....Be anti-genocide? This is non-debateable

[jaythelay]

You Are In Fact Demanding Tyranny by telling people Protesting or Demanding Better will Cause Us To Be Hurt or to Lose.

We can hate Trump and be anti-genocide and I really think Dems gotta understand their Pro-Genocide talking points continue to be Republican talking points that benefit Republicans and the Rich.

Sincerely ask yourself why you don't hold the same standards for BLM as you do Anti-Genocide/Pro-Palestine protests.

Please ask yourself if the difference is solely because you're scared to demand anything from Dems, lest we lose through Actual Political Action instead of simply voting silently and hoping for the best or ignoring problems we cause without our permission?

Be Ignorant of corruption or bad legislation or mistakes, They Have To Be Perfect. Anything less and they'll lose. Because of course, Kamala Has To Be Perfect whilst Dump does not.

And because of Your Mentality, you have Boxed Her Into This Situation where she cannot possibly give a definitive answer. If she is public about a Ceasefire Dems Will Not Vote For Her. If she says she's pro-Israel it's the exact same.

All You Have To Do Is Be Anti-Genocide So She Can Give A Definitive Answer. God damn.

Why should people be silent about an Active Genocide we're funding? Why should you be allowed to Demand Free Healthcare and accountability for police but are not allowed to for Israel's Genocide?

Ask yourself why you want a Tyranny and yet are scared of Dump?

Don't get intellectually lazy here-

You Are In Fact Demanding Tyranny by telling people Protesting or Demanding Better will Cause Us To Be Hurt.

Quit being Republican about Genocide/Israel. Do you just defend party blindly no matter the fucking cost? Grow up! Or admit you're republican but vote dem for social reasons.

Get out of this wide umbrella of a party if you don't support our ability to Demand from Elected Officials. That is what Republicans Vote For. Not Dems.

Fuck off you pathetic, terrified, nazi enabling larpers who can't come to the most elementary school conclusion upon Mass Murder and Simple Civics.

Demand Better.

Genocide Bad No Matter Who.

Fuck you.

[elendsessor]

BEFORE YOU VOTE IN 2024: A GUIDE TO ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

DISCLAIMER: i can’t believe i have to add this but this is not a post supporting the misuse of the term “zionist” nor antisemitism. the use of the term here refers to candidates who are in support of using government money to fund israel and assist in the genocide in gaza. if you support the harm of jewish individuals in any way, even if it is in “support” of palestine, you’re no better than the government that you are against. do not interact with this post.

hey so i lied about only making one political post but considering how corrupt both of the democratic and republican parties are, plus both biden and trump are zionists and have failed to meet many promises, it’s time we start voting for actual people who can change a corrupt country instead of the lesser of two evils. as talks of the election are already underway and is more heated and important than ever, it’s safe to say it’s time to look at the options.

it’s painted in media that there are only two options as to who is okay to vote for, often times leaving out other parties including independent. this is not democracy. this is not freedom of choice anymore. continuing to support the red v blue debate supports further division in the country and, as such, further corruption.

DO NOT SKIP THE VOTE. NOT VOTING MEANS EITHER DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS CAN TAKE OVER AGAIN. INSTEAD, CONSIDER VOTING FOR ALTERNATIVE PARTIES.

your rights matter. your voice matters. deciding to not vote “because it won’t matter” still means compliance. you are actively choosing to let these things happen and continuing a cycle of political corruption. while yes politicians are often criticized for corruption and generally not caring, the political landscape has changed to the point where there are currently a few candidates in the presidential running that are independent and do, in fact, have ideas that could better the lives of americans, a few of which are also against israel and have openly called out trump and biden for their continued support of what’s happening in gaza.

if you want ideas on who you should vote for, here are two candidates running for president who are progressive and are anti-zionist.

cornel west - formerly people’s party, now runs independently

a scholar and activist (identifying as a non-marxist socialist mainly due to his religious beliefs) who is very openly pro-palestine. he believes that the current state of the country is that of a “white america,” that military funds should be cut down, public housing, and action on climate change. he’s more focused in racial activism.

jill stein - former green party candidate

there’s a lot more info on her than cornel west but she’s also a bit more controversial, so keep that in mind. another activist, she’s helping push a green new deal along with guaranteed employment and industry nationalization. she’s also pushing for improvements in education including accessibility, cutting military funds by at least 50% and removal of nuclear weaponry, not supplying weapons to foreign countries especially relating to the russia-ukraine war, to cut down on space exploration, and wants to end racial oppression in the usa. a lot of her views on industrialization are based in making it environmentally friendly. she’s a big climate activist. however, please note that she is in support of brexit and has complicated views of vaccines (not opposed to them, but her statements about them are confusing).

doing your research is important. please look into these two in your own time. this is just a post about alternative options, and the information listed about them here are basic summaries on viewpoints.

it’s time to stop blindly voting based on parties. it’s time we vote based on the person.

even if neither of these two win, just beginning to vote for those outside of democratic and republican parties is a huge step forwards and opens a gateway for others to throw their hat into the ring and further improve america. spread the word. let people know they have options.

EDIT: here is a list of every presidential candidate of 2024. this may change over time. the current independent runners are kennedy jr., west, and stein. kennedy jr. is more radically right-winged if that’s what you’re looking for but don’t want to support republicans, however do be warned that he is a zionist.

EDIT #2: added a disclaimer. if you are antisemitic fuck off.

[theswordwizard]

i cannot believe i keep seeing posts congratulating biden for a four day "ceasefire" (where the IDF CONTINUED to shoot people) over BLACK FRIDAY WEEKEND and saying "ohhhhh he's trying so hard guys we need to clap for him and the DNC, aren't we so glad we have a democrat in office right now" after they gave over 14 BILLION dollars to the israeli military? they scheduled a halftime break in the bombing and you act like they accomplished something real?

i'm also not that surprised, but definitely disappointed, at the amount of posts i've seen blaming "russian bots" for anti-biden posts. its over a year until the next election, and joe biden is CURRENTLY, RIGHT NOW, perpetuating zionist lies about Palestine and actively funding their genocide to the media! you realize that if a YEAR in advance of an election, if people are saying "hey this is fucked up, i'm not voting for someone who does this," the DNC doesn't actually have to run joe biden for the democratic nominee? biden said barely a year ago that he didn't intend to run again!

if every election "season" (that seems to get longer every year, proper campaigning for PARTY nominees have barely started, my god) every liberal blasts the messaging "Vote Blue No Matter Who," that the message you are sending to the DNC is that you will vote for whoever they pick out for you, regardless of whether it's in the people's best interests? if YOU TELL THEM that the only messaging they have to have is how the republicans are worse, then that will be their strategy! and we already saw how that played out with hillary!

hillary did not lose because you didn't yell at enough people online, hillary lost because the DNC played poker and INTENTIONALLY propped up and gave additional airtime to trump because they thought that even a generally disliked democratic nominee could win against him! and they were wrong! you CANNOT win an election on "that other guy sucks," because the average american is not reading your callout posts. the average, non-party aligned american, is gonna watch the debate and go "wow I don't really like either of them, I can't afford to not get paid for the hours it would take to vote," because the average american is not a hard leftist or a chronically online liberal.

joe biden won because he campaigned on the promise of student debt relief and fixing covid, and he did neither! sure, he made some small, unflashy, means-tested improvements, but no one even got the 10k reduction that he kept dangling. we can blame the republican party all we want, but what people remember is that joe biden did not do what he promised people. prices are still getting higher and people are still struggling more and more. it's not convincing, and he's not likeable.

if you want to yell at people for not toeing the party line or whatever, a better use of your time would be calling your representatives and getting more involved in local elections. school boards, city councils, state and district representatives, those will immediately effect people's lives in your area!

as more and more information comes out about what is happening in Palestine and the US's part in it, the more unappealing joe biden is as a candidate. if anything, you should call your senator and tell them YOU and anyone you know won't be voting for him, if you really want a chance for a democrat to win the next election.

[walls-actual-ly]

hanging out with my brothers drunk friends (I gave them water and more political education than school lmao)

yesterday i came home to my moms place spontaneously and well, my 16 yr old brother was throwing a party. greeted me and went "Oh you re out of rehab you can get drunk with me now!"

bc somehow he forgot/didnt know that I went to rehab for severe substance abuse/light addiction lmao

anyhow, I didnt drink (still proud of me for that), but I almost immediately started to chat with some of his friends because I was active in the same student group than them back when I was in Highschool and we talked about how the group changed (it became centrist, basically. they took a youth group called "pro individuality" and turned it into a group organizing basic school events. still fuming at the mouth.)

anyhow, I went back inside and took my birth control and immediately one girl was like "hm I dont like the pill bc its bad for you, so many side effects :("

and then we had a conversation about how important birth control is for the liberation of women, and once the girl and I finished the chat another incredibly drunk 17 yr old girl entered the kitchen and went "omg I hate birth control!!"

so we had the same conversation again, she settled on "well I just dont want to take it but I also want to spare up my virginity for my potential future husband."

you see, my brother has many friends, kids grow up fast, I didnt know her name, but once I heard her say it I put a name and stories to her face and holy fuck, this 17 yr old girl has literally send pornography of her body to adults on a discord server we re both on. "every time you have sex with a guy you leave a part of yourself behind" baby there is literal child pornography of you on the internet. you deserve help. the adult man on the server talk about the different nudes they have of you.

anyway I had no idea how to bring up that, I m only her friends older brother and I dont want her to feel uncomfortable, and she was super drunk. so somehow we ended up talking about Hitler vs. Stalin. No Sex-Girl thought that Hitler and Stalin are both equally horrible, and I tried to explain to her that political massmurder is different than industrialized genocide, she is such an adorable centrist.

meanwhile a boy joined the chat and we shift towards discussing the European election, those teenagers are just openly discussing who they voted for and apparently my brother is running around flaming everyone who didn't vote for a party he likes :((((( I love this boy so much but omg one of the kids literally said that my brother is bullying conservative voters lmao and, even better, one of the girls told me that she thinks my brother is only politically based and left-leaning bc of me 🥹🥹🥹 all the exhausting debates I had with him back when he was kinda antifeminist anti woke are paying off!!!!!

but yeah so turned out No-Sex girl voted conservative bc she thought they are "the political middle", and that was actually super eye opening. I was always wondering why so many young people voted cdu, but she openly said that she has no idea what they are actually stand for, what their goals are or their values, but she thought that they are neither left nor right, the centre, the democratic middle.

and that is a major failure of the media, but I can understand how she came to this conclusion - it's been told to us over and over and over since the day we were born. the cdu is the middle, the Spd is left wing. meanwhile right now both parties are undermining our constitution and enacting severely rightwing policies - but you would not know that if all you know about politics is the commonly spread word, usually spread by the parties themselves.

and its so illuminating, I m hanging out in fairly political circles so I just... forgot that most people have no clue about politics. all they hear in the media is "current government bad, only one other Democratic Party", so ofc the normal non-nazi-adjacent youth votes cdu on mass. and that sucks. but its something we can base our actions on.

i have been thinking about making political germany focused content for literal years now, I even made a few YouTube videos when I was like 18, they were cringe as fuck ofc. and I dont really want to make YouTube videos now, video essays arent really my thing. but I ve been thinking about streaming / "reaction content" in which I watch normal media shit and talk about whats actually going on.

one of the girls told me that I should become a politician, that I say what she means but in words she doesnt have, and tbh its not the first time that people told me to get into politics.

yesterday the Berlin state attorney deported Maja, a non binary German citizen to Hungary while knowing fully well that the Supreme Court will oppose the deportation if given time. so they did it in a hurry over night, and when the Supreme Court ruled that Maja can not be deported to Hungary for the next 6 weeks... well, by then they had already handed Maja over to the Hungarian police, and despite the orders of our Supreme Court the Berlin police refuses to bring her back to germany.

shit is getting rough here, our judicial system is being disrespected and ignored over and over and over again. our constitution gets undermined, our rights are being spit on by those in the government. and I feel powerless - but the conversations yesterday reminded me that I m not, that there are countless people out there who literally dont know better and who need someone to sit down and explain stuff in an engaging way, and I think thats something I could do

but I m also scared and worried, I am afraid to show my face bc I know how much hate id get, I m afraid to use my voice bc of how bad the oppression is getting in the recent months. but thats what the government wants, I guess. if there is no vocal opposition they can do whatever they want. shit s scary, but maybe No-Sex girl wont vote conservative again if she remembers our chat lmao

[general-cerberus]

About the persecution thing, I think theres a time to accept persecution for the glory of the Lord and a time to defend yourself, and we have to pray for wisdom and guidance from the Holy Spirit for when to do which, but its ok if you disagree.

I think maybe we should just agree to disagree about the self defense thing before we end up letting this argument getting out of hand, like most arguments do on this this site. Especially since this is a public site and an aggressive fight  would reflect badly on the Holy Spirit. You’ve been fairly polite so far, not trying to insult you or call you crazy, but you know how this site works (And if one of did start getting aggressive, it would probably be me, i got a little anger streak im working on). I just think we’ve gotten as far as we can. We’ve both made our arguments clear, for the most part, and I don’t think either of us are gonna budge on this. I’ve look at verses of Jesus at the temple with a whip, of Peter carrying a sword, of encouragement to buy a sword, and soldiers who converted and continued to serve after, and I came to my conclusions. You looked at verses saying to turn the other cheek, of disciples accepting persecution for the glory of God, and come to your conclusions. And thats ok. We can disagree about stuff and still work together for the glory of God. Im not saying that its not important to debate and come to conclusions about this, but I don't think either of us are capable of changing the others mind about this right now and that we should stop before our emotions start bubbling up.

As for the Theocracy thing, i think we disagree about what a theocracy is. I dont consider heaven a theocracy because its beyond politics and human affairs. I was referring to theocracies on earth, rulled by man; the time that say “We are the voice/interpreters of God/ the gods, which means we have ultimate authority and none can disagree with us” This is generally bad because it makes church positions overlap with positions of power, which causes corruption as evil people to begin seeking to take high level church positions. Just look at what happened to the Catholic church as they gained more government authority. Instead of guilding people and studying the word, they began to use their influence to gain money, eventually making indulgences, monks went from humble scholars to feasters who amassed wealth (this is where the fat monk image comes from) and later, while colonization was driven by kings and merchants looking to make money, it was still rubberstamped by most of the church authorities of the time, leading to genocides and mass enslavement under the banner of the cross.

On a smaller scale, look at all the stories on here about small town pastors who claimed to have God’s authority and used that to abuse those in the community. They harmed and deeply traumatized people, and most of them that do leave wont even consider Christianity because thats who represents God in their minds.

Basically, participation in the Church should be voluntary, and overlapping church and earthly authorities prevents that. I think we should still strive for Godly institutions and governments, like a democratic country with mostly Christians should vote for government authorities and mandates that follow God’s will, like anti-abortion and taking care of the poor( though what “taking care of the poor” means and the best way to do it will always be debated and fought over)( i know the catholic church wasn’t technically a theocracy, and they have gotten alot better since the 1600s, but same power structures, and i didnt want to bring non-christain groups into this because we’re talking about this from a christain point of view, though they also fall into many of the same problems) (sorry about the theocracy rant, it got a little out of hand)

I love that whenever I bring up how gun toting Western Christians thinking they are entitled to violence because of their piss poor comprehension of the "sell your cloak and buy a sword" verse (by the same Jesus who 1) moments later literally shunned his apostle who tried to physically harm their enemies 2)healed said harmed enemy) are no better than Islamist terrorists, their reaction will either reflect

their deep seated cultural supremacism ("it's ok for me to murder for my faith because I'm more civilized than these filthy Arabs!")

their overall distrust of God in protecting their Life/physical integrity

that they are more attached this physical wicked world they spend their whole time seething against on their blog to the point of defending their existence down there even if that means sinning, than they will ever admit

Just try it, it just..... never fails. lol

[dhaaruni]

If the majority of white voters agree with Amy Wax that Asian immigration must be restricted because Asian-Anericans vote for the Democrats and the Democrats are bad for America because they "mindlessly valorize Black people", then what should the Demicratic Party do to increase their share of white vote? What are the messaging and policy prescriptions that will attract these white voters to vote D?

This is definitely bad faith but I’ll give you an answer.

For the hundredth time, Democrats don’t need to win a majority of white voters, we just need to siphon away enough of them to win statewide and federal elections. If we lost white, non-college voters by 25 and not 35, we’d have 55 Senate seats. Biden doesn’t have to Sister Souljah anybody in particular because literally nobody, not even Mariame Kaba and co., is saying that we should commit white genocide like Sister Souljah did back in 1992 but Biden should loudly repeatedly say things about like, loving America and supporting our troops and the dignity of work, and people need to not pearl clutch about it.

Here are some other recommendations.

Tone down the academic 1619 Project banning calculus speak about racism. Talk about all Americans deserving the opportunity to build a good life and systemic racism impacts POC's ability to build a good life and don’t like, make dumb videos explaining the difference between equality and equity the week before a presidential election since everybody who's not DEI-pilled thinks it’s bizarre. Keep it very simple and not up for debate. When Derek Chauvin was convicted of killing George Floyd, even JOSH HAWLEY only said that the jury made the correct choice and it should be abided by because it was a very cut and dry example!

Advertise in Spanish a LOT. The Biden campaign dropped the ball on campaigning in Spanish and it showed in the election results. Run Latino candidates who loudly disavow socialism and are devout Catholics and we’d improve by at least 5% nationwide, especially in Texas and Florida.

Almost nobody gets an abortion after the first trimester so don’t entertain questions about abortion beyond the first trimester because after that point, support plummets and it becomes a higher salience issue for anti-abortion voters. The average Republican senator doesn't want to outrightly ban abortion in the first trimester, even if they'll never say it out loud to appeal to their base. We should emphasize the importance of ensuring abortion is safe and legal and accessible but also emphasize that no woman (do not say person or worse "body" because 99.9999% of the people who get pregnant are cis women and it’s a needless culture war trigger with no real benefit) wants to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure.

When talking about immigration, Dems should talk about legal immigration and just not talk about illegal immigration as much as humanly possible. Republicans will always bring it up at which point Dems should just go “I support making it easier for asylum seekers to do so legally” and change the subject. Immigration is going to kill Dems no matter what, and if they can’t get elected, Dems won’t be able to enact any immigration reform at all. Illegal immigrants are going to benefit a lot more from a Dem president who doesn’t support them at all on the candidate trail and makes efforts to help them achieve citizenship when in office (without publicizing it obviously) than a Dem candidate who yells about pathways to citizenship for illegal immigrants during the election and loses to a Republican.

My mutual pointed out that this woman is the median voter in the entire Midwest, a bored, fretful, unhappy, conventionally unattractive woman who is overworked, overlooked, and slightly crazy in a way that's totally different than the kind of crazy you find on politics Twitter. She thinks chronic Lyme disease is real and that crime is rising in her Cincinnati suburb, but if Democrats appeal to her and people like her, Democrats will win. Sherrod Brown knows this; Connie Schultz talked about how many of the white union men they talked to on the campaign trail would never vote for her husband on principle but their wives, their daughters, even their mothers sometimes came out in droves for Sherrod, and it made the difference.

I know that this kind of rhetoric won't make liberals/progressives happy but look at it like this: Obama was publicly against gay marriage in 2008 and declared marriage was between a man and a woman but he won in 2008, and in his first term, nominated Kagan and Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, who McCain wouldn't have nominated, and they voted to legalize gay marriage. It’s not as good a story as sticking to your convictions but it’s the only way to win elections as a liberal in a center-right country.

[snarkesthour]

Happy St George's Day!

· In the midst of a pandemic when schools are all closed, the government votes to not allow free school meals to schoolchildren during school holidays, despite this being the only meal many of them have each day

· Marcus Rashford, a footballer, led the drive to feed the nation’s children, 49% of which live in poverty, and forced the government to provide food for them during the school holidays

· Instead of previous years when vouchers were given to parents that can only be spent on nutritious food, members of government give contracts to friends to provide a week’s work of food costing £5 to schoolchildren for a price of £30. Food is unhealthy and would not last a week

· Parcels also expect parents to cook two tablespoons of rice at a time in the oven and bake their own bread every day, ignoring poverty-stricken families possible lack of access to such equipment

· Wife of conservative MP attacks poor families for eating unhealthy food when healthy food is cheaper, ignoring the fact that not all families have access to equipment needed to store and cook it

· Nigel Farage, head of the Brexit party came out strongly against the government for their stance on starving schoolchildren. Not a good look.

· Another MP came out and said that poor families should not receive government assistance because the money would be going direct to brothels and crackhouses and the parents would spend it on drink and drugs instead of feeding their kids, a dangerous and persistent stereotype of working class people

· For the first time in its history, UNICEF is feeding kids in the UK – the 5th richest country in the world – and the head of the House of Commons accused them of “playing politics” and said they should “be ashamed of themselves��

· J.K. Rowling came out hard as a TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist), writing a book about a serial killer that dresses up as a Muslim woman, which isn’t subtle when you look at her history of transphobia and other “-isms”

She also publicly supported an author who wrote a book about the destruction of Europe by waves of Muslim immigration

· Speaking of J.K. Rowling, the government’s response to the Gender Recognition Act.

· It is now impossible for under 16s to receive reversible puberty blockers

· Wait times at NHS Gender Clinics, of which there are only 7 in the country, have doubled, with wait times now up to 60+ months (5+ years)

· Keir Starmer, head of the Labour (left wing) party says he doesn’t want to get involved in trans issues

· With the loss of Labour, no major party supports trans rights

· Self ID is no longer allowed, meaning every step of transition is medicalised and involves the trans person having to prove that they are “trans enough” at every stage to panels of cis people

· Government wants to invalidate non-enrolled deed polls, essentially making available a public list of every trans person in the UK

· Hate crimes have quadrupled

· Anti-trans campaigners are now setting their sights on trans adults’ access to hormones

· A petition was formed to counter this and was reviewed by the government, who determined that nothing was wrong with the GRA except that it might have been a bit lax.

· The Guardian newspaper ran child labour and child starvation supporting stories

· Internal border now along the border of Kent and lorry drivers must produce travel papers (Brexit Passport) to cross it, placing the county of Kent in a state of “no man’s land”

· Government fails to lockdown on time, every time

· Government refuses to ban conversion therapy in the UK

· Scotland adopts Human Rights of Children, which requires the government to better support children and families, especially those who are poor, disabled, minorities or young carers. England does not

· The government declared that sleeping rough is now grounds for deportation

· Schools reopened several times despite being warned not safe to do so

· The government banned NHS workers from speaking out about COVID

· Do Not Resuscitate orders proposed for those in care homes, with learning disabilities and who are autistic

· The government cut pensions as the COVID death toll rose

· The government learnt about new South-East COVID strain in September and didn’t come forwards until December

· New COVID strain targets kids, teens, and young adults, and yet none of those groups are allowed vaccination unless a serious pre-existing condition is had, even if they are key workers

· Downing Street says UK should be model of racial equality because government report says no institutional racism in the UK

· Report also says young people are young and foolish for thinking it exists and that minorities are superstitious and irrational and are sabotaging themselves out of success

· It came out that the government was given the independent report and rewrote it to the version that was released to the public – the version that says racism doesn’t exist in the UK

· The rewritten report also refers to the slave trade as the “Caribbean experience”, like those enslaved were on holiday

· Woman in London abducted, murdered and dismembered by off-duty cop and when socially distanced vigil goes ahead, police wait until dark before trapping women, arresting them, using excessive force on them, and also destroying memorial

· Bill passed in government that allows undercover officers to commit serious crimes such as murder, torture and rape

· Plainclothes police to now patrol nightclubs and bars due to aforementioned murder by police officer

· Bill passed that bans any protest at all, no matter how quiet, unobstructive or small it is, including single-person protests. Bill also includes a 10 year sentence for damaging a statue, which is a longer sentence than for rape

· TV programmes critical of the government have been cancelled

· Universities have been told what to platform and schools have been told what to teach, including banning material speaking about BLM and calling for “overthrow” of capitalism

· Voting has been supressed, mainly those who are working class or POC

· During protests in Bristol, press was assaulted and pepper sprayed by police and two legal observers were arrested

· Being Roma/Traveller and living the traditional Roma/Traveller lifestyle is now illegal under that same bill that bans protests. They also have to register as such and receive a licence or risk losing their vehicles

· Hours before Eid, lockdown across the UK with no warning whatsoever, meaning people woke up the next morning after visiting relatives to find themselves “criminals”. The country was opened up specifically for Christmas though

· Conservative (right wing) party blamed BAME (Black And Minority Ethnic) communities for dying of COVID more than white people

· Landlords have been protected extensively and renters blamed for living in close quarters or having to take public transport to work

· Conservatives have launched investigation into possible corruption in Liverpool Council. Liverpool is a Labour stronghold and if corruption is found then the Conservatives can seize control of the council. No evidence of corruption is present as of yet

· Military threatened to stage a coup if Corbyn (then head of the labour party) became Prime Minister

· Government orders all government buildings in England, Wales and Scotland to fly the Union Flag every day to boost patriotism

· MPs call for the curriculum to require teaching the history of the Union Flag rather than Britain’s many atrocities

· The first fortnight of April saw a mini heatwave with temperatures up to 20°C immediately followed by snow, and this is ignored in favour of debating “vaccine passports” in order to visit the pub

· UK allows for international summer holidays despite being warned it will cause a third wave, such as the situation in Germany

· Government placed asylum seekers arriving in the UK in army barracks where they were to sleep 24 to a room with no open windows or air circulation, and when COVID inevitably ran rampant, the Home Secretary accused the asylum seekers of not following COVID protocol, such as social distancing

· Several accounts of self-harm and suicide attempts were reported from the asylum barracks and were dismissed

· UK to deport unaccompanied minor asylum seekers

· UK refuses entry into the UK for radicalised teen failed by system who joined ISIS. Case is difficult and controversial because teen wishes to return to the UK temporarily to fight for her citizenship after the UK broke international law by stripping it from her, despite her not having dual citizenship. Argument given was that her parents were from Bangladesh and so she could apply for citizenship there. Bangladesh refused. Teen is now stateless and living in a refugee camp after losing several children, unable to fight for her citizenship to be reinstated.

· Rioting in Northern Ireland, which included the first use of water cannons in 6 years, a bus being hijacked and burnt, a press photographer attacked, and people throwing bricks, fireworks and petrol bombs at police, not to mention some of the clashes happening over a peace wall in west Belfast, completely ignored in British media and then later drowned out by non-stop news of Prince Phillip’s death, obscuring any important news from being heard. Riots were over Northern Ireland’s being a part of the UK

· MPs take vote on whether China’s treatment of Uighurs constitutes genocide. They decide it does, but that it isn’t their job to do anything further

· Home Office released their spending for the 2020 fiscal year. It’s a mess, including over £77,000 at an eyebrow salon in March alone, and £6,000+ in Pollyanna Restaurant which doesn't appear to exist.

· When people started questioning the spending, the Home Office sent a tweet fact checking themselves

· Country reopened over the summer for Eat Out To Help Out, a scheme to boost the economy. COVID cases rose sharply and the government then blamed people, but mostly working class people, for not following restrictions such as only leaving the house when absolutely necessary, after telling them it was safe

· Foreign NHS workers denied COVID vaccinations

· GCSEs and A-Levels were cancelled due to COVID-19 and expected exam grades were to be used instead. Private school students received grades much higher than they were expecting, and state school students received grades much lower, some grades falling as far as an A to an E. This was because the government couldn’t imagine state school students being smart enough to receive the high grades they were predicted to get; after much uproar the grades were scrapped, and a new method was introduced

· BBC offered staff grief counselling following Prince Philip’s death, but not after having to report on the ever-rising COVID death toll

· The COVID-19 Infection Survey closed in mourning for Prince Philip, with workers to contact participants to reschedule visits for “as soon as possible” when they return to work

· Census workers told to pack up and go home and were placed on immediate unpaid leave due to the death of Prince Philip, but told they must make up the hours later

· Conservative MPs lobbied for a new royal yacht after voting to keep schoolchildren hungry (see first points)

· The BBC’s complaint page crashed over the amount of complaints they got of their coverage of Prince Philip’s death. It was covered non-stop for over 24 hours and the page came in at over 100,000 complaints before going down

· BBC also fast becoming politically biased despite their requirement to be apolitical, after cutting out the audience laughing at Boris Johnson on Question Time, displaying Corbyn as a communist figure in front of a prominent piece of Russian architecture, and providing a platform for a Conservative MP to tell a stage 4 bowl cancer patient that her life wasn’t valuable on live television

· On the COVID-19 pandemic, the BMJ, (British Medical Journal) said about the government that “science was being suppressed for political and financial gain” by “some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators”

· Not only did Boris Johnson launch Eat Out To Help Out when he was warned it was dangerous, lifted lockdowns too early when he was warned it was too dangerous, reopened schools when he was warned it was too dangerous, but when scientists said the second COVID jab should be delivered within 3 weeks he decided that was too tall an order and it should be within 12 weeks – after a period of radio silence, suddenly the science fit his plan. No scientists came forwards to defend it

· The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, blamed protestors for protests that became violent from police attacking protestors, bullied staff members under her, bought members of staff in her department, said it was “disgraceful” to topple the statue of Edward Colson, a slave trader, in Brighton because it undermined anti-racism protests, held treasonous meetings with Israel with the plan to divert aid money, and threatened to starve Ireland in order to get them to agree to Brexit

· She also wants to set up Australian-style asylum processing centres on British islands, but the islands she wants are in the Atlantic ocean and over 4000 miles away from the UK. This is because she wants to help asylum seekers enter the UK legally, completed ignoring or oblivious to all the reasons that asylum seekers might not be able to do that, and for the fact that to seek asylum you must essentially walk up the border and ask for it

· The bungling of the Track and Trace system – the government spent £10bn on a system to track and trace the spread of COVID-19. All data was stored on an Excel spreadsheet which developed a technical glitch and many results were lost before the system was scrapped

· As Autism Acceptance month began, the BBC ran a story saying the autism causes fascism, and that an autistic person who had chosen to embrace the ideology was incapable of seeing that a neo-Nazi group he joined was morally bad because he was autistic

[gmiles21ahsgov]

Blog Post #3: Political Party Action

Republican:

        Although possible I was not looking in the correct locations of the document, I did not find a section that addressed Racial Injustice. Every time I thought that I had found something that was going to reference the racial issues that we have in America, it turned out to be something else whether  an introduction to the troops, terrorism, or something referencing schools. I even tried typing into the search bar the following: race, oppression, ethnicity, and even discrimination. I didn't get a single hit for any of them. To be honest, I was surprised that a party as significant and popular as the Republican Party didn't have anything regarding race, racism, or even discrimination. Though sexism isn’t my topic, I was surprised that there was not even a hit for discrimination in reference to women. My best guess as to why the Republican party did not put a section regarding race or Racial Injustice, would be because they have a belief that racism is not nearly as active in America as it actually is. I have heard time and time again almost always from Republicans the statement that ALL LIVES MATTER,  or the statement “America isn't racist” but from cops murdering BIPOC and from constant microaggressions towards black people, I would say America is pretty damn racist. My other guess as to why the Republican platform did not address racism on their site could be because they know that their belief that racism is not active in America is extremely controversial, and they fear they may lose supporters if they make a statement on Racial Injustice one way or another. 

Democratic:

        It took a little bit of hunting, but after clicking on a link titled HEALING THE SOUL OF AMERICA, I found a section called Achieving Racial Justice and Equity. They begin the paragraph with the discussion of Native Americans and Jim Crow segregation. They then proceeded to say that Democrats are committed to standing up to racism and bigotry in laws, culture, politics, and society; they state their recognition of race-neutral policies not being sufficient to rectify race-based disparities. The Democratic website states that they believe there is no home in America for hate. They support the removal of the Confederate flag as well as statues of Confederate leaders from public properties. There are numerous paragraphs, generally stating different places where racism and Racial Injustice take place, and how they intend to remove it from these locations. I agree with the Democratic view on racism in America; I believe it is incredibly prominent even today, and there needs to be a change. I agree with the Democratic view of removing all Confederate flags and statues of Confederate leaders, and that we need to begin looking for microaggressions and racism everywhere from schools to in the government.

Libertarian:

        The Libertarian Party website does not have a designated portion for Racial Injustice. They do, however, have a section that reads Rights and Discrimination. In this section, they briefly address that they stand in saying that government should not deny an individual’s right based on “sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation”. However, nowhere in this section does it mention the word race and in doing this, it indicates they are not trying to take too strong of a stance in any one direction. Personally, I agree with the statement that the government should not deny anyone due to any of these reasons, but I also believe that the Libertarian Party should take a direct stance and feel comfortable making bold statements rather than vague generalizations. In this paragraph, they also address that they “condemned bigotry as a rational and repugnant”. This is a statement that I passionately agree with, and I think it is incredibly important that they reference that.

Green: 

        The Green Party has a category titled Social Justice, and underneath one of the subcategories is Civil Rights and Equal Rights. I clicked on that one and located a section called Reparations for United States Afrodescendants (i.e., Black Americans, African Americans). Here I read about the Green Party’s stance on Race. They blatantly state that they condemn white supremacy, and then continue to acknowledge the the violence and discrimination BIPOC have to endure. The Green Party states their commitment to full reparations to the African American community for the past 400+ years from genocide to land-loss. The Green Party wants to make efforts to abolish racism and overcome effects of 200+ years of racial discrimination. They want to call for the removal of the Confederate flag from all government buildings and condemn the practice of racial profiling by law enforcement agencies. Their site shows that in every sense, the Green Party condemns racism and wants to do everything in their power to remove it. I agree with the Green Party's position, I believe that racism is alive and active in America and that we need to immediately take all possible actions to become anti-racist. The Green Party emphasizes this as something that is radically important.

Peace and Freedom:

        The first thing you see when you click on the Peace and Freedom Party is a picture that reads BLACK LIVES MATTER underneath a statement that reads PFP SUPPORTS. To me, this comes across as the Peace and Freedom Party having Racial Injustice as a greatly significant part of their campaign.  As the reader scrolls through the Peace and Freedom website, you find a section that reads Equal Rights and Liberties and beneath that, you find a small blurb that reads Ending Racism and National Oppression. In this blurb, there are three bullet points that read “end all forms of racial discrimination” “ enforce non-discrimination in hiring and promotion with affirmative action where necessary” and “prosecute and punish police and prison officials who brutalized and murder”. Though a short list,  these bullets are effective and to the point. I agree with the Peace and Freedom Party on their stances on Racial Injustice; despite their section on the issue not being even a fraction as long as the Green Party’s stances, I still agree with all of the points that they make. 

The party position that I identify the most with is the Green Party. I'm not particularly surprised by this, I know that in the past I have supported Green Party ideas and candidates, but have not been old enough to vote. That being said I know that if I had been old enough to vote at the time, it would be almost pointless to vote for a Green Party candidate because it is extremely rare for them to make it to the end of the presidential race. Despite my agreement with the Green Party's beliefs and stances, I would not vote for a Green Party candidate because I know that there is a slim-to-none chance of them winning the presidential election. 

Racial Injustice was brought up in the first Presidential Debate. Bottom-line, Trump does not believe in racism in America, he has the belief that police are doing their jobs correctly and that nothing should be changed. Biden on the other hand acknowledges that racism is prominent in America, and that something must be done about it. He does not believe in defending the police, he instead raises the point that police should show up on scene  with a licensed psychologist who would be able to talk down the individual in crisis. Trump's debate message was right on par with his party platform in the fact that there was almost no reference to racism or any of the black individuals who were murdered at the hands of police. Biden's debate message was also on track with his party platform, in sending the message that racism in America needs to be torn down, and that things need to change. Biden wants to make a positive difference in America, Donald Trump believes that no change needs to be made. 

[shelbymustange]

Is Canada really that good? I've been thinking abt leaving my country and America is a no-no for me

This is such an incredibly difficult thing for me to write, as I’m a white person living in Canada and I don’t know a lot about POC experiences in my country. Everything I know about racism in Canada is from an outsider perspective. The only thing I can really speak on is my experiences as an LGBT person, and as an AFAB person who was born and raised here.

I'm not even close to an authority on how POC feel about living in Canada, and I can only give my opinion on that based on my personal experiences with my POC friends and acquaintances, plus what I have read in the news and from articles written by POC.

As well, this is from the perspective of someone who grew up in rural Ontario, and is living in Ottawa. Ottawa is not a large city, and it is in South Eastern Ontario. Canada is a very, very large country. South Eastern Ontario is no where near the same as Northern Ontario, or even Western Ontario, let alone Alberta or the Maritimes or the Yukon. 

Please keep this in mind as a speak on what I do know. There is a lot more that I don’t, and if you are POC, I encourage you to seek out articles or posts written by POC citizens and immigrants about their experience coming to Canada and living here. As well as seeking out local articles written from the place you may want to move within the country. 

Now that I have said that, let me begin:

Canada has it's issues with POC, and it would be incredibly ignorant for me to say we don't. There is still racism here, there is still anti-immigrant sentiment. There’s a very, very longstanding history of racism toward our First Nations/Indigenous/Native people. This history and mistreatment is becoming more well known about my country. It’s currently in debate whether we should label the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women a genocide because of the systematic negligence on the part of our authorities toward finding these girls and closing the numerous cold cases there are. As well, the ‘Starlight Tours’ -- or a more apt and less pleasing name the “Saskatoon Freezing Deaths” are also gaining a lot more attention toward how my country has treated it’s Indigenous people, and their systematic oppression. Not to mention the issue surrounding our residential schools and kidnapped indigenous children. <--there is a lot to unpack about Canada and it’s First Nations peoples. I could go on for paragraphs about this. I encourage any Canadian followers to read the articles in this paragraph and learn about these atrocities if you think our country is perfect.

Canada is not a utopia for POC. Brown and Black people as well, still suffer from racism from our authorities, as well as just daily racism from the people around them. And there are cases of police negligence and brutality that happen in Canada. This is a fact that our country has to face. 

In terms of our government -- well, our parties are a lot different than the US. Here’s what our election looked like last year, and a basic overview on party policies. Our elections last like...a month? I think last year it was 78 days and that was a long ass election. Generally speaking, there isn’t as much of and Us or Them mentality with our parties and I think it’s because we have a Parliament system. In my perspective, they’re all sort of toeing the line because they need each other in order for any policy to pass, especially when we have a minority government.

So, no one other than the conservatives are aligning themselves with just one party. And the conservatives only do that because the PC party is really the only contending conservative power in Canada. The other three parties that have MPs in House are leftist parties. 

Personally speaking, I’m a leftist. I side more with the NDP than the Liberals in terms of policies, but I don’t align myself with a specific party. I’m just a leftist. I usually vote Liberal, because in my district, they are the only contenders against the PC party, and ultimately my district is PC led because it’s a small town and it’s just how people vote there.

That’s how I look at our government. Notice how much more flippant it is than you might get from someone in the States? AND. I’m going to be perfectly honest here, not long ago, in our provincial government, we had a Premier named Kathleen Wynne, who I wanted to like, but she made some really stupid decisions (except $14 min wage, thank u Wynne). She was a Liberal party leader. And, you know, I was not okay with a PC government in Ontario, especially one run by Doug Ford (brother of notorious Rob Ford). And he’s done some shit I don’t like at all, BUT! I can comfortably say that I respect Doug Ford because of his decision making during the Covid Pandemic. While it was slow and could have been handled better, do I think another leader would have done better? Not really. But at the same time, there was no downplaying, and despite his emphasis on business in his platform, he surprised me with his re-opening policies and how slowly they were taken. (except the schools, because that was fuckin stupid tbh but I’m not going to keep going on about that.). Generally speaking, here when you’re mad about a politician, it’s for non-heinous, smaller bad decision making, rather than taking away Trans rights, for example. (An Aside -- here in Ontario, trans people who are clinically diagnosed with dysphoria and referred for surgery by a professional have their surgeries covered by OHIP (provincial health plan), and do not have to pay out of pocket, so that’s nice).

(Disclaimer: this opinion is from a white person’s prespective, a white person who votes in rural Ontario, who’s friends and family are quite equally as skeptical and logical toward politics and politicians. My flippancy could very well  be because of my white priviledge and I encourage any poc Canadian followers to respond with their opinions so I can rb here. I just know majority of immigrant Canadians vote Liberal since like the 70s).

Largely our Conservative party is much more concerned with fiscal issues than anything else (though there are some outliers, like Andrew Scheer who was notoriously anti-lgbt and abortion, but from what I could see it was kept out of his politics?? I need to look into it more, but ultimately he was taken out as the PC leader I think largely because of the country’s opinions on this) but a good portion of their supporters can be racist, and non-supportive of lgbt people, anti-abortion, etc. Ultimately, our conservatives, when in power recently, have never tried to reverse LGBT rights, though they toe the line of reproductive rights, despite not actively re-opening the debate. As well, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, as well as Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary have enacted bans on conversion therapy. A bill has also been tabled that will federally ban conversion therapy, and it’s not something that the conservatives are really fighting against. For the most part, they leave LGBT people alone rather than actively passing laws to harm them. I can personally say, I’ve never felt fear for my life, or my rights when we’ve had a majority PC government.

As an immigrant, compared to the US, you are more likely to be taken in to our country, and it is much easier to get work. It’s also easier to become a permanent resident (here’s a list of personal stories from answers on Quora about Canada vs US immigration). 

As well, the Canadian government adopted the idea of Canada as a multicultural nation back in the 1970s. We’re not a melting pot like the US. And this can be a big draw for people looking to immigrate, because it emphasizes individuality and the positives of what different cultures can bring to a country. (Though this can be contested and quite fairly at that).

I personally know a good amount of people who have immigrated to Canada, from a variety of different backgrounds, who love it here, and have had very little issue in their lives. Not none, obviously for the POC, because racism still happens here, but they love being here, and ultimately they feel safe and like they belong. They have found community here. But this is just my personal experience, Heres’s a couple articles from and about Canadian immigrants:

Immigrants talk about when they 'started to feel Canadian' - Ottawa Citizen, 2018 As an immigrant, I know how it feels to be 'lonely and isolated' in my new country - CBC Saskatchewan, 2019    What It Takes: An immigrant’s journey from Zimbabwe to Canada - Global News, 2019

This isn’t to say that people come here and they’re always going to love it. There’s a lot of people who leave, either to go back to their home country, or to go to another country (like the US). Even though it’s easier than in the US, it can still be hard to get a job here in the field you want, things are kind of really expensive compared to the US, the US has better higher level education, they have better paying jobs, etc. 

And again, this is the perspective of a white person from a smaller city in Ontario. I know Toronto, even though half of it’s population are immigrants, has a lot of issues with it’s police and brutality and anti-black and brown racism. Ultimately, you will not completely escape racism, individual or systemic, in this country. It’s an unfortunate fact that we can all fight to change in the future.

But in a small town. It’s a community. As someone from a rural area, I know that in my experience, there has never been a point where I have seen anyone from my small communities who have been, at the least, outwardly racist toward a POC. I personally have never seen or heard of a person being confronted or abused or called names because of the colour of their skin or cultural background. (here is an article written by my brother’s friend and former band mate, who is a black man that was adopted as a child, about his experiences in small town Canada, and his perspective on the BLM movement and the response of his white friends).

Anyway, I hope this sort of got my point across. Canada’s a complicated nation, like most. I didn’t touch on the base level, ‘why is canada a good place to immigrate’ points or anything, but I figure you would look that up before making such a big choice. And I’ve already spent 4 hours trying to write something coherent and somewhat researched to say...

Again, I encourage anyone to rb with their opinion or with anything I may have missed. Or send an ask or whatever.

[schraubd]

Patterns of Discourse and Omar's "Present" Vote

As you've probably seen, Rep. Ilhan Omar voted "present" on a House resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide. She contended that the resolution, which passed 405-11 (not including the "present" votes of Omar and two of her colleagues), was a "cudgel in a political fight" and that recognition and accountability for human rights atrocities "should be done based on academic consensus outside the push and pull of geopolitics." She also suggested that the U.S. had no standing to speak out on the Armenian Genocide without recognizing the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade and Native American genocide. This explanation did not seem to satisfy many people. That includes me -- I think this was a terrible vote paired with a terrible apologia for the vote, and she deserves to be raked over the coals for it. But since, apparently, a bit of genocide wishy-washiness is less hot and emotionally fraught than a debate over "Benjamins" (seriously: this is The Bad Place), I wonder if we might take this opportunity to reflect -- with cooler heads -- on some patterns that I think are repeating themselves On the one hand: A great many people otherwise fond of or sympathetic to Ilhan Omar have been very sharply critical of her vote. She does have some defenders, but at the outset they seem to be relatively few and far between. On the other: many of Omar's critics are not people "otherwise fond of or sympathetic to" Ilhan Omar, and are less disappointed than they are elated to have a valid excuse to launch another pile-on. People in the first category have certainly observed the fact of the second category and are uncomfortable contributing to the "pile-on", which they see as reflecting particular anti-Black and Islamophobic biases. After all, why is there such intense focus on Omar's "present" vote, as compared to the eleven Representatives who actually voted "no" (all Republicans) or even the other two "present" votes (Republican Rep. Paul Gosar and Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson)? For example, Rep. Johnson, who apparently has gone on the record saying she denies the Armenian Genocide outright, would seemingly deserve an even greater degree of scorn. And of course, those who outright voted against the resolution should face even more intense condemnation. There is, to be sure, an answer to the "why Omar" question that doesn't boil down to "because of her identity". She has a much higher profile than does Eddie Bernice Johnson or Paul Gosar, she styles herself as a human rights advocate, there are many people who are disappointed in her that probably have no particular interest or hope in what Virginia Foxx does. Nonetheless, it is hard to say with a straight face that Omar's identity is playing no role in the dynamic. And the effect remains that the Black Muslim women makes a mistake and gets obliterated for it even as other, predominantly White colleagues effectively get a free pass for the same or worse conduct. And here's the real kicker: the genuine, non-prejudicial, fairly-motivated critics of Omar who are speaking out based on sincerely held and non-opportunistic commitments to human rights? I don't think there is anything they could have reasonably done (save not speaking out at all) to prevent their condemnation from contributing to the pile-on effect. Even if that's not what they want, even if it makes them queasy. The dynamics in play here go beyond them; in the current moment there is not a way to in any robust sense speak critically about Omar (including justifiably critically) without carrying the risk that it will be harnessed by more primordial political actors eager to hoist up the pinata again. It would be wrong to say that this outcome was desired by the genuine critics; it would I suspect be equally wrong to say it could have been avoided by those critics. Do you get it? Do you see the pattern? In l'affaire Benjamins, it was often claimed that Omar's critics were wholly and entirely right-wing smear merchants, and that it was their fault -- or more than that, their desire -- that she be subjected to a completely over-the-top orgy of histrionic condemnations that seem far disproportionate to her offense. This allegation, in turn, infuriated those of her critics who were genuinely motivated by non-opportunistic liberal instincts and concerns about antisemitism, and who wanted to both send a clear message that "this is not okay" but had no desire to endorse a witch-hunt.  Yet Omar's defenders, in effect, viewed that entire posture as disingenuous -- crocodile tears by political arsonists. Omar's critics are her critics -- some just put on a better figleaf of respectability than others. One might hope that this go-around might offer some critical distance illuminating the pattern. Some of Omar's defenders in the last controversy are among her critics this time; perhaps they can learn to empathize with their peers in recognizing the genuinely uncomfortable position they find themselves in, and the difficulty (if not impossibility) of insulating their valid criticisms from enlistment into more unsavory political projects. And I'd also hope that some of Omar's critics, for those whom this issue has a less immediate pull on their psyche, can see how she really is being singled out in a way that seems anomalous given her degree of offense compared to other wrongdoers (a recognition which by necessity acknowledges there is a degree of offense!). In the history of debates over recognizing the Armenian genocide, after all, she is by no means the only actor to have gotten it wrong. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/321kvQL

[schizo-spoon-blog]

Spoonbender Society: Selected Schizoepistles

FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE:

We Live In A Society

People say we live in a democracy/democratic republic, a form of government intended to amplify what people think and address problems they find to be important. But it doesn’t ever seem to function that way.

The issue is in voter suppression, but as always not in the way people generally think voter suppression works. The issue is psychic, spiritual, and social suppression of citizens. Systemic over-development of senses of rationalization, neuroticism and anxiety, industrially incentivized narcissism.

People develop a deathly fear of what others think, or may think, or what they may have thought about them or what they think, what they may think, or what they may have thought.

A democracy where we’d rather not hear what other people have to say, because we find their thoughts offensive and retarded. That’s one thing people are happy to share. But because we suspect that there are so many offensive retards in the world, we fear... "Perhaps I’m a retard too?" You wonder that even for just a second in your life, if you have a soul. It’s OK to be a retard really, but you’ll never believe that it’s OK, and that's probably What Your Fucking Problem Is.

The opinions of us purported non-retards, to avoid sounding like complete retards, end up soft, ambivalent and stale, phrased like True Neutral Orgasm in Ego-Death Nirvana, but less Chad, less gratifying, and nobody cums. To not be reminded of the possibility of our own retardation, we like to pretend that if the retards just shut up and nobody can hear them, they go away. If they are Physically Removed from our presence, their evil thoughts and their malicious intentions will go away with them. We win. But they don’t. They never do.

We always fail to Psychically Remove them. We lose.

We can hypothesize a law of conservation of hatred, correlate one too of love, but the truth is banal. How can it be in light of our timeline? Why are these Hate Groups all over the place? Hitler’s corpse is rotting or burned to a crisp, or embalmed in a tomb or made a toilet for Some Rich Dude ((parenthetical removed)). (Or was he cloned?)

Great Fatherland Germany - defeated by the "untermensch" and partitioned like a cheese between rats. That Great "Faustian" and "Supreme" "Aryan" Race is subjugated by the hated "Juden" and all the "vermin" of the world, humiliated, castrated to be reunited a shadow of its former self. Yet the Nazi threat is omnipresent nearly a century later, in an era which may be an alien planet to those who lived in Hitler’s time.

How is it that the Great Allies, our fathers and grandfathers, achieved such total victory over so loathsome a foe, so unsympathetic and vile, only to see his Evil infect their own countrymen and posterity? How can something so thoroughly defeated still persist in what could be our neighbors or our co-workers our bosses or our employees? Each one could be a secret Nazi now. In parenting blogs moms worry that their children are becoming Nazis from goofy men they see in videos on line. Marriages are ending in divorce because the husband or wife is allegedly or apparently a Nazi. How could this happen?

Have you ever seen “The Matrix? Who hasn’t? You know all about the red and blue pills, and all the rainbow-flag DLC that it comes with, black and pink and green and brown and in configurations invisible to the human eye, I’m sure. If you don't know, the pills are portals to different realities. Take the black pill and you only see death, take the white pill and everything’s alright, take the blue pill you vote for Hillary, take the pink you become genderqueer. But this is not about taking any pills. This is about going off your meds. Going straight edge - except for whiskey, cigarettes, cocaine and pussy. It’s about the spoon - no, not for shooting up. It's for bending - with your mind. Remember? That spoon - The Spoon That Isn’t There.

That spoon is a Nazi.

If you are aware that there is no spoon you can tie it into knots. You can make it into a balloon animal. That Nazi Spoon could be a Jewish Socialist from Vermont, or a kosher Brooklyn Zionist, or a Dominican Taxi Driver. It could be an evil copy of your own son from Bizzaro World. It's probably your uncle. It could be Rottweilers, and Chihuahuas. Whether Pitbulls are Nazis or Jews/Blacks is an ongoing debate in the contemporary discourse.

But imaginary shit can be whatever the hell you want. You don’t have to be "The One" to Bend the Spoon. You don’t have to be anyone at all. What was the name of the kid who said the line about the spoon again? Nobody knows, nobody cares, and that's the beauty of Spoonbending.

"The Nazi" is the guy who keeps talking when he should shut up. He might be autistic, but he could just be an asshole. There is a strong possibility he could be both. Why does he keep saying all of this ridiculous stuff? He’s more offensive and more retarded than the usual, but it feels like He Has To Be This Way. Like it’s his curse, He Knows Too Much. He fell down some rabbit hole and ended up gorged on Fascist Propaganda. He mentions some girl named Celine. He rambles on about some guy you’re pretty sure is a Tekken character... the guy who turns into the Devil maybe. He mentions a vacation in Turkey with his family but insists on saying Constantinople and there’s a wild-man tear in his eye. He insists he knows about Atlantis and calls you gay for saying you liked Aquaman. Instead of saying goodbye he says “Subscribe to Pewdiepie.” The Nazi belongs in an institution. You wonder if he has guns and if maybe he should have them taken for a while. He probably doesn’t, but you can’t be sure. He’s 12.

When is it too early to become a school shooter? Is 12 too early to be an incel?

12 is probably the age at which incels hatch from their human hosts.

“Who is Pewdiepie, and how has he groomed my nephew into the Hitler Youth?” many families today are asking. They think they’re looking at a spoon. Conditoning fills your heart with a desperate desire to see the spoon. A fact, pure fact, logical, reasonable, peer reviewed, widely accepted, So True, a Textbook Fact. The spoon. Everyone else sees it too. That goddamn Nazi Spoon.

You ever try to ask this at a party as an ice-breaker and see how the guests react?

“So, anyway, was The Holocaust Real?”

“Excuse me, what?”

“What do you think, was it real, how many people do you think died, don’t the gas chambers sound goofy to you?”

”Um… no… they don’t sound goofy. What are you talking about?”

“You ever hear about the Nazi Roller-coaster they had at one of the camps? They’d put Jews into a roller-coaster except they’d fly off the edge and get splattered. That’s how the Nazis killed ‘em. I swear. I read it in a book by a Holocaust Survivor. Impossible to believe if it weren’t so True. No shit. You hear about that?”

”I’m… gonna get another beer.”

Of course there’s a Correct answer to that initial question. It’s also the Right answer. Who would ever get this wrong? It's the 2+2=X of History. Well…

Pop-Quiz, Random Nazi Check, Anybody here Hate Jews? You a Groyper, Son? What’s so funny? You think the Cookie Monster committing genocide is a laughing matter boy? We don’t take kindly to your kind around here.

Maybe you should give the Nazi-check thing a try, it’ll separate sheep and goat real easy for you.

If you do this everyone will think you are The Nazi.

The Nazis hated Jews, but did they hate real Jews as Jews exist, or did they hate the Fascist Propaganda Jew who was a work of fiction? On that note, were you in love with your last failed relationship, or just pretending you were? Have you ever had one impression of a person, but then learned they were another kind of person entirely? That first impression you had, the one that wasn’t True, was that a Real Person, or Imaginary? But you still spent all that money and sweat on an imaginary girl, huh?

Hope her hole was real.

I think that fake bitch of an ex you dated was a nazi. Your ex was a fascist. Oh, was she Jewish? It doesn’t matter, changes nothing. I’ve never met her - wouldn't matter if I did. When I imagine her, she's in Hugo Boss black and got skull-and-bones on her officer's cap, and she's saying racial slurs as she ruins your life, cheats on you, drains your bank account and kills your dog after getting custody over it in court. I imagine all bad people this way. All women who rejected me were exactly like this.

But I must breach working-class anti-fascist solidarity, and admit, on That Question ("Would you?").... Yeah, I would. Sorry bro. Take me away Comrades, I admit it, I'd give it to that Nazi Jew raw. Would I do that to her as she exists, or the Fascist Propaganda her who is a work of fiction?

That depends. You still got her number?

haha it's ok you can call me an incel, it's a step up from what i actually am

(User was banned for this post.)

The Nazi and the Fascist aren’t my hallucinations. That’s not my mental illness. But it’s adjacent to me, it’s thrown at me without my Consent, and it's a Trigger. I'm paranoid about commies myself.

In the multicultural cyberpunk year of 2019, with its trans-human gender-sex-orientations, anti-racist ethno-narcissism, fanatic anti-normalism, cultish critical theory intersections, grand byzantine minimalism, placidity, in such splendid predatory banality… In the absolute state of the world! – Aah! An undead ideology conceived by a salty Frenchman in the badlands of South Dakota in the 1890s shambles forth the devour all that is Good and Holy in the Great United States of AmeriKKKa, God Help Us All! And A Child Will Lead Those Dreadful Legions of Corruption Upon All The Meek Of Our Fallen World!

Or it’s just a spoon that isn’t real.

Nobody wants to be straight-forward, and I gotta navigate the labyrinths of euphemism. Maybe there's something weird going on - how people talk, how people act, how people think, none of those correlate to each other. It makes you feel schizo when you do all your mental rain-man calculus and realize there's a fucking Elephant in the living room and he's not wearing any goddamn pants. Once that little ray-of-sunshine blesses your tiny bug-man brain to enlighten you that the elephant is real, and the spoon isn't, it's only a matter of time before you're crowned in tinfoil a Potato King on your off-grid Bug-out estate in the Idaho Panhandle, or start drinking yourself to death and bullying mailmen (or both).

If you'd like to avoid that sort of Elephant-Mania Spoon-denialism, maybe you should try answering Uncomfortable Question instead of being so Weird about it, oh wise Mr. Kirk, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Talking-Head, Mr. Important-Guy, Mr. Movement, Mr. Politics, Mr. Voice of Reason, Mr. Metatron. Take it from a schizo-maniac with a manifesto, you’re freaking out the hoes.

Try Praeger U talking points out on a Tinder date and watch her shrivel up from instathot to instahag -- she will go through menopause before your very eyes, that's how dry her pussy will get. Trying not to sound racist while talking about the Antarctic Nazi base and the importance of craniometry in ethnocultural anthropology will get you more action than anything that sounds like a paraphrase of Charlie Kirk -- because even if you're still being cringe at least you aren't being fake. Point and laugh at that fucking elephant - the moron isn't even wearing pants! That'll get her thinking about taking your pants off. Or not - it's not foolproof. If she doesn't laugh, red-flag, she's a Nazi so Begone Thot!

Please, for the love of God, go off-script! See the damn elephant and forget the spoon, and forget the wise Mr. Kirk, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Talking-Head, Mr. Important-Guy, Mr. Movement, Mr. Politics, Mr. Voice of Reason, Mr. Metatron. Take it from a schizo-maniac with a manifesto, you'll go insane if you don't.

[. . . ] [T]hen there's that neuroticism, that narcissism, that fear. The whole point of these politics groups and gatherings and Q&As is what, anyway? Is it really just basic marketing tactics, like a live-action advertisement you expect for people to passively consume as though it is persuasive? To shove free-markets and free-speeches down my throat and have me swallow it without having anything that’s been bothering me answered? What do I look like to you, an Ideology Whore? You don't even reciprocate a good time, huh? I'm not that kind of girl. You didn't even buy me dinner. You made me pay to bore me. I'd cuck you if we dated just to make a very important point -- fully aware it'll go over your head. Fuck you.

We gotta hear The Script. We gotta recite The Script.

Real Conservatives Think Like This. Real Progressives Think Like This. White People Walk Like This. Black People Walk Like This.

Gotta hear that joke ten thousand times so you can recite it like a mantra in your sleep.

Free markets mean free people. Facts don’t care about your feelings. Private Companies can do what they wish. What you do in your bedroom is your own business. We want legal immigration, not illegal.

Abolish ICE. Your childhood hero says Trans-Rights. Do you not want me in the movement? Abolish whiteness.

The Racism of Lowered Expectations.

Reparations.

A white nation.

Workers of the world unite!

Abortion is a human right.

Have you got it memorized?

Let’s go over it a few more times.

Say it with me! Hillary was found innocent in a hundred hearings and it is sexist to besmirch her reputation.

Repeat after me! Trump’s economy is the best in history, and if he's racist why is black unemployment is at historical lows.

You benefit from unearned privilege. You suffer from toxic masculinity.

The world is about to end and everything you know and love will die, and it is your fault, for not believing in the correct things at the correct time.

Are you laughing yet?

I’m dying. I feel like an e-girl, and my orbiters are sides.

But do you wanna know what I really think? The whole bit about psychic and social suppression? You ever hear about the Procrustean bed? Well, what if we put your political, social, moral consciousness and your psychic abilitys into a bed like that. We could talk about it. You ever play Xenogears?

Or you could just put me in a box. I really wouldn't mind. I'm Houdini. Hey, was Houdini a Nazi, like Henry Ford? Can we get a fact-check? I didn't mean to be problematic.

Break the Conditoning - Step outside the box, and use it as a step ladder. Ascend, Beyond the Box - use The Spoon.

Bush did 9/11, the Israeli’s danced, the Aliens killed JFK - sure - but I only say this because of my MK Ultra Schizo-brain. It’s true, it’s false, it’s fact, it’s myth, I don’t have to believe any of it -- I also don't have to believe any of you if I don’t want to. My feelings do not care about your facts, and did you know that some of the world's most uncomfortable facts are manifested into being by uncomfortable feelings? Is it the fact of the bullet that kills the political dissident, or the feelings of his executioner? Is it the deranged lust of the rapist that violates his victim, or the fact of his power to do so? I guess it depends on whether the perpetrator said "nothing personnel kid" before he committed the act. I don't know about that Nazi Rapist's feelings, but MY feelings are valid and I can believe or disbelieve whatever I want on the basis of my feelings, and my feelings alone. My feelings bend the spoon of your facts.

Are you going to say I don’t have the right, Adolf? Sucks for you, bud, I may be a commie by blood, but the heart that pumps it was assembled in the ole USA -- and we got the Right to be a Retard here in America. It's a Free Country.

[Note: please insert image of Jonathan Frakes from Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction]

Now that the dust has settled: Was the Nazi Roller-Coaster Real? Or did we put the Truth in a Mass-Grave? We will let you know at the conclusion of our program.

Sincerely and Full of Suffering Your Friend Always, Orcbrand

[crimethinc]

Perspectives on the August 12 Anti-Fascist Mobilization in DC: Two Interviews with Organizers

On August 12, Charlottesville fascist Jason Kessler attempted to hold the sequel to last year’s “Unite the Right” rally in Washington, DC. It did not go well for him. In the end, 2000 police struggled to protect two dozen fascists from thousands of anti-fascists and other foes of tyranny. To get some perspective on these events, we spoke with David Thurston—arts director for No Justice No Pride, a member of the steering committee of the DMV’s Movement for Black Lives, and a core organizer with Resist This—and also with an anonymous anarchist involved in organizing the anti-fascist bloc, among other aspects of the mobilization. The interview follows our comments below.

The US government spent $2.6 million to force the fascist rally upon the people of Washington, DC. Let’s do the math: that’s over $100,000 per fascist for a rally that lasted at hour at most. Would the US spend anything like that to protect a rally organized by any other sector of the population? On the contrary, when anarchists and other advocates of liberation organize public events, the government usually invests millions of dollars in repressing us, even illegally. This shows what a farce the “free speech” defense of fascist recruiting drives is—this is not an abstract question of rights, but a concrete matter of the US government asymmetrically investing resources in promoting the spread of fascism.

To put a number on it, then, the kind of “free speech” that enabled Kessler and his like to recruit someone to murder Heather Heyer is worth $100,000 per hour per fascist to the US government. That’s your tax dollars at work.

We were especially inspired by the fierceness with which the black population of DC turned out to face down the police and fascists on August 12. We have some questions about whether it makes sense for anarchists to act separately in a distinct anti-fascist contingent when other sectors of the population are mobilizing so courageously and assertively. It might be more effective for some anarchists to seek to connect with other rebels on the street, in order to bring about an interchange of tactics and ideas.

We’ve seen some alarmist reporting on the clashes, such as the following video. Permit us to repeat that what is happening here is that the US government is forcibly extorting money from its population which is then used to fund the violent imposition of fascist rallies on communities that only stand to suffer from the expansion of fascist movements. It should be no surprise that people defend themselves from police violence to this end.

One more topic bears mention: a few reactionary media outlets have taken this opportunity to accuse anti-fascists of being “violent” towards journalists for discouraging them from filming. This is the same thing they did last year two weeks after the violence in Charlottesville, when the editors of various corporate media publications attempted to create a false equivalency between fascists recruiting to carry out murder and genocide and anti-fascists mobilizing in self-defense.

In a time when fascists go through video footage identifying anti-fascists in order to intimidate and terrorize them and far-right Republican Congressmen are attempting to aid and abet them via new legislation, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that anti-fascists discourage people from filming them without permission. If these journalists are really concerned about this issue, they should prioritize helping to create a world in which no one needs to fear being documented, identified, and attacked by fascists or police just for attempting to defend their communities from fascist activity. Instead, many journalists have prioritized assisting fascists like Kessler in getting his message out.

Read on for the interviews. For one perspective on the history of anti-fascism in DC, read this.

Two Organizers on the August 12 Mobilization

What were your goals going into August 12? What did you think a best case scenario would be for the day?

David Thurston: For the past month, I’ve been working as the arts organizer for the mobilization. My first job was to make sure the rally in Freedom Plaza and the three direct action contingents got the brilliant, vibrant, colorful, and radical banners that the 411 Collective crafted. I also co-emceed the rally with Aiyi’anah Ford of the Future Foundation—we met through the organizing around the National Equality March in 2009. I wanted to see the Nazis vastly outnumbered and I wanted to see DC and DMV activists organize around a synergy and diversity of tactics—allowing us to welcome people into the movement who may never have heard of anarchist theory, but who over time could be introduced to our praxis of non-hierarchical, anti-sectarian, and revolutionary politics.

Another anarchist organizer: I wanted to make Nazis too afraid to come to DC. I also wanted to block their march. The former did not happen due to some last minute infighting, but the latter did happen.

Overall, I would say the action was an overwhelming success. Anarchists provided a great deal of labor in every aspect of the mobilization.

What did the anti-fascist demonstrators do well? What could have gone better?

David Thurston: We succeeded in overwhelmingly outnumbering our opposition, marginalizing their toxic politics, and putting forward an organizing model that can be advanced upon in the future. There were a number of internal challenges and conflicts that took shape in the lead-up to A12, but for the most part, the various components of our effort worked from a space of deep-rooted solidarity.

Another anarchist organizer: We overwhelmed neo-Nazis numerically, but because of some tactical and intelligence failures, we did not get the chance to actually confront them. But when you have thousands of people mobilizing and holding space, do you really need to escalate when the fascists are already too afraid to come out? The fact that the black bloc did not escalate when there was no reason to do so enabled us to hold space, stay disciplined until the end, and demonstrate an ability to show restraint when necessary in order to accomplish our goals of the movement.

On January 20, hundreds of people were mass-arrested during Trump’s inauguration and indiscriminately charged with eight or more felonies apiece. How did the legacy of the J20 case influence planning ahead of August 12? How do you think it influenced those who did not participate in the planning, but came to participate?

David Thurston: The fact that there were absolutely no convictions for J20 defendants was probably a big factor explaining why our city’s multitude of police forces were relatively restrained. My inkling is that someone above or in the orbit of Chief Newsham realized that it was not in the city’s interests for local police to play the role of being the extreme right’s de-facto storm troopers. That said, the massive deployment of state power was obscene. My guess is that a few million dollars of city money probably went into massive police overtime.

There may have been some folks who were afraid to come out, but my opinion is that that was probably because of what the neo-Nazis represent, and not because of anything that went down with J20.

Another anarchist organizer: We thought long and hard about how to avoid isolating ourselves from other social movements and argued against others trying to marginalize radicals. Considering that our movement had set up the tech support, website, security, trainings, and other essential aspects of the mobilization, it was impossible to isolate us on the sidelines where we would be easy targets for police violence.

Did it make sense to call for a distinct anti-fascist bloc, when so many people turned out to oppose the fascist rally with their own ways of being militant? Why or why not?

David Thurston: I think it was great to have an anti-fascist bloc that could plan direct action based on the worst-case scenario of a sizable far right turn-out. It was also good to have a space where the lessons of prior direct actions, especially J20, could be debated in depth.

In practice, there was a lot of synergy between the direct action contingents and the two permitted rallies, even though the permitted rallies gave voice to ideas more in line with traditional left liberal thinking.

Another anarchist organizer: I think the strategy of the bloc that day was to be able to

defend our communities

show a specifically radical presence that day.

A year after the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally, what do the events in DC tell us about the current political situation in the US?

David Thurston: I think last weekend’s events make it clear that the far right is in political, ideological, organizational, and interpersonal disarray. After the debacle of Jason Kessler’s pitiful mobilization, he went on a twitter rant attacking the rest of the self-proclaimed alt-right, calling them cowards for not mobilizing, and describing them as would-be Nazis living in their parents’ basements. While trying to get a permit in Charlottesville, Kessler managed to dox his own followers by turning over encrypted Signal threads, emails, and more to the state.

But we can’t rest on our success last weekend. While joining a proto-fascist organization remains a marginal idea for the millions of white people who voted for Trump in 2016, specific neo-Nazi proposals and talking points—especially around immigration, border security, and global imperialist hubris—remain appealing to wide swaths of low-income, working-class, and lower-middle-class white folk in our nation.

The radical left has immense potential to grow if we can shed the baggage of years of being fairly marginal to political debate. Anarchists need to organize creatively, finding space to work in alliance with left-leaning liberals, but also with socialist groupings with whom we have significant differences.

Another anarchist organizer: I think the rally on August 12 shows that militant anti-fascism works. A year ago, there were 500 fascists marching in the streets of Charlottesville. This year, less than 25 showed up because they were afraid. At least on the East Coast, anti-fascism has made sure the far right is demobilized.

So we’ve pushed back on-the-ground white nationalists… but as a movement, how do we use that strategy to disrupt other forms of organized white supremacy? How do we scale that strategy up to take on local right-wing lobbyists, local Republicans, police union officials, the Chamber of Commerce, DHS, and ICE officials?

The fascistic turn of the United States has been a 30-year process, and there are local people with local power who are marching us there. We need to figure out how to demobilize them.

Trump did not come to power because of the “alt right”—the alt right was able to use Trump to enter mainstream politics. Now our social movements need to identify the social leaders who pushed our local communities to the right and destabilize their political power.

The chief takeaway from this weekend is that even if we did not push the limits of the struggle, we did push a mobilization that was specifically anti-fascist. Anarchists and anti-fascists wrote the original call to action for the mobilization, provided experience, and pushed a strategy that allowed for numerous communities to come out and confront fascism.

The most challenging dynamic we had to navigate was engaging with liberals who wanted the day to look like “Boston” [the massive anti-fascist mobilization that took place there in response to a fascist rally a week after “Unite the Right” in Charlottesville] but did not emotionally prepare for the real possibility that the fascists could have mobilized hundreds.

Do you have any particularly instructive anecdotes to share from August 12?

David Thurston: My favorite moment was when the permitted march from Freedom Plaza entered the periphery of the “Rise Up Fight Back” contingent anchored by Black Lives Matter DC. They organized a block party near Lafayette to celebrate black joy and resistance, making the point that no neo-Nazi mobilization was going to intimidate them or cast a pall on the vision of black liberation that this movement was articulating.

On a personal note, I encountered a brother named Amir who introduced himself to me at the rally. I didn’t recognize him, but Amir told me that he was one of three young black men who tried to mug me near my neighborhood in DC. Amir apologized for his actions. I was so moved and thanked him, letting him know that I wish him the best, and never wanted anyone to go to jail for something as petty as trying to take $10 from me. To see him in the struggle for a radically different future on A12 made an impact on my psyche that I have a hard time adequately explaining.

We are living through perilous times. If we organize creatively and synergistically, radicals can lay the foundation for movements that could, within a decade or so, lead to revolutionary transformation in our country and around the world. But if we fail, the threat of global political, economic, and ecological cataclysm is immense. I have friends working hard to elect left-liberal to social democratic candidates for public office, and friends whose focus is on direct action and community based organizing. We need to build a radical tent broad enough for all of the above if the revolutionary potential of this moment is to be realized.

[patriotsnet]

When Did Republicans And Democrats Flip

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/when-did-republicans-and-democrats-flip/

When Did Republicans And Democrats Flip

The Rise Of Modern Social Liberalism And Social Conservatism

Election 2020: Democrats keep control of House and fight to flip the balance of power in the Senate

Later we get a third way with Bill Clintons New Democrats. This third way is an extension;of the;progressive bourbon liberal wing, but mashed-up with the progressive social liberal wing, and Reagan-era;conservatism. These three social liberal ideologies which Clinton embodied can collectively be referred to as an;American liberalism. These factions, which we can today denote as;progressive, neoliberal, and social liberal, can be used to differentiate types of liberals on the political left from the New Deal Coalition and the modern Democratic party of today.

TIP: As noted above in the introduction, there is no one way to understand Americas political ideologies, but each angle we look at things from helps us to better understand;bits of the historic puzzle.

An Overview Of The Platform Switching By Party System And President From The Founders To Eisenhower

The First and Second Party Systems included some important changes and debates. Examples included the argument;over the Federalist favored Constitution, and the Anti-Federalist favored Articles of Confederation;and Bill of Rights;and debates over slavery, modernization, and;banking.;Major;changes began;at the end of the Second Party System.

The Second Party system ended with the;Whig Party dissolving;in 1854. They were critically divided by the;Kansas-Nebraska Act;and the related debate over;manifest destiny and popular sovereignty;. The heated battle;over whether;Kansas should be a slave state, and the debate over whether the south could keep expanding southward creating slave states,;resulted in the country being split.;This had happened in the Mexican-American war.;One;faction became the Northern Republicans and their;allies the Union, who wanted to hold together the Union under a strong central government. The other became the Southern ex-Democrats and their allies the Confederacy, who wanted independence;and wanted to expand southward, to for instance Cuba, creating new slave states. By the time;Lincoln took;office in 1861, the division was inescapable

FACT: The tension was so great the Democratic party ceased to exist from 1861 1865 as the Confederacy rejected the;concept of party systems; which is why we refer to;them ex-Democrats above.

The Third Party System: Reconstruction And The Gilded Age

Post-Civil War era politics in the United States can be understood by examining the;Third Party System factions of;Reconstruction and the Gilded Age.

In the Gilded Age things change in a major way due to both parties embracing cronyism but before we get there we need to understand Reconstruction.

The changes in the Republican party in this era are best explained by looking at;the conservative, moderate, and radical;Republicans of Reconstruction;. Meanwhile factions like carpet baggers and ex-Southern Unionist scallywags are illustrative of different reconstruction Democrats.

Here it is vital to note one of the hardest;things to talk about in American history, but Ill say it plain. The South didnt want to lose the war, they wanted to win, they didnt want to stop slavery, they wanted to continue it. They did not respond well to losing the war. Lincoln was immediately executed, Andrew Johnson took over, he was impeached, and the military had to occupy the south while the KKK committed what was frankly genocide against Freedmen.

As noted above, Reconstruction was part rebuilding, part Civil Rights ,;part enforcing actual law and order and preventing forced slavery under different names and murder , and part ;Redeemers.

The Redeemers completely changed the Democratic party by unifying the non-racist factions and moving the Democratic party toward business interests .

Recommended Reading: Did Republicans Free The Slaves

Other Factors Of Note Regarding Switching Platforms Progressivism The Red Scare Immigration Religion And Civil Rights In 54

Other key factors involve;the Red Scare , the effect of immigration, unions, and the Catholic vote on the parties.

The Republican party changed after losing to Wilson and moved away from progressivism and toward classical liberal values under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. In this time they also became increasingly anti-Communist following WWI . While both parties were anti-Communist and pro-Capitalist, Wilsons brand of progressive southern bourbon liberalism and his New Freedom plan and then FDRs brand of progressive liberalism and his New Deal were opposed by Republicans like Hoover due to their;use of the state to ensure social justice. Then after WWII,;the Second Red Scare;reignited the conversation, further dividing factions and parties.

Another;important thing to note is;that the Democratic party has historically been pro-immigrant . Over time this;attracted new immigrant groups like Northern Catholics ;and earned;them the support of;Unions;. Big City Machines like Tammany Hall;also play a role in this aspect of the story as well. The immigrant vote is one of the key factors in changing the Democratic party over time in terms of progressivism, unions, religion, and geolocation , and it is well suited to be its own subject.

Despite these general;truisms, the parties themselves have typically been factionalized over;complex factors relating to;left-right ideology, single issues, and the general meaning of;liberty.

Democrats Blue Wave Crashed In Statehouses Across The Country

Democrats failed to flip chambers in Texas, North Carolina, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Republicans flipped New Hampshires Legislature.

After an election that failed to deliver the powerful gains that Democrats had hoped for, results from statehouses painted a similar picture, with the lowest number of chambers changing hands in more than half a century.

Democrats had hoped for a Blue Wave to sweep statehouses that Republicans had controlled for years, running expensive ad campaigns and extensive get-out-the-vote efforts. But as the results came in, it became increasingly clear that they had failed on multiple fronts.

On Wednesday, the results were not yet final, but the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks state-level races, said there were changes or potential shifts of control in just four chambers: the New Hampshire House and Senate, which Republicans took back from Democrats, and possibly the House and Senate in Arizona, though the contests for those chambers were still too close to call. He said it was the first time since 1946 that so few chambers were changing hands.

This is crazy in that almost nothing has changed, said Tim Storey, an expert with the N.C.S.L. It really jumps off the page.

In all, about 80 percent of the nations 7,383 state legislative seats were up for grabs.

Michael Wines contributed reporting.

You May Like: How Many Democrats Are In The House

Republican Voters Turn Against Their Partys Elites

The Tea Party movement, which sprang into existence in the early years of the Obama administration, was many things. It was partly about opposing Obamas economic policies foreclosure relief, tax increases, and health reform. It was partly about opposing immigration when Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson;interviewed Tea Party activists across the nation, they found that “immigration was always a central, and sometimes the central, concern” those activists expressed.

But the Tea Party also was a challenge to the Republican Party establishment. Several times, these groups helped power little-known far-right primary contenders to shocking primary wins over establishment Republican politicians deemed to be sellouts. Those candidates didnt always win office, but their successful primary bids certainly struck fear into the hearts of many other GOP incumbents, and made many of them more deferential to the concerns of conservative voters.

Furthermore, many Republican voters also came to believe, sometimes fairly and sometimes unfairly, that their partys national leaders tended to sell them out at every turn.

Talk radio and other conservative media outlets helped stoke this perception, and by May 2015 Republican voters were far more likely to say that their partys politicians were doing a poor job representing their views than Democratic voters were.

Southernization Urbanization And Big Government Vs Small Government

Today the Republican party doesnt have a notable progressive left-wing and the Democratic Party doesnt have a notable socially conservative right-wing.

Instead both parties have establishment and populist wings and the parties are divided by stances on social issues.

In other words, regional interests and the basic political identities of liberal and conservative didnt change as much as factions changed parties as party platforms changed along with America.

The modern split is expressed well by;the left-right paradigm Big Government Progressivism vs. Small Government Social Conservatism, where;socially conservative and pro-business conservative factions banded together against socially liberal and pro business liberal factions, to push back against an increasingly progressive Democratic Party and America .

This tension largely created the modern parties of our two-party system, resulting in two Big Tents;who disagree on the purposes of government;and social issues. This tension is then magnified by the;current influence of media and lobbyists, and can be understood by examining;what I call;the Sixth Party Strategy and by a tactic called Dog Whistle Politics).

The result is that today the Democratic Party is dominated by liberal Democrats and Progressives.

Meanwhile, most of those who would have been the old;socially conservative Democrats now have a R next to their name.

Just look at;the 115th United States Congress under Trump;.

Also Check: What 10 Republicans Voted For Impeachment

James A Haught Says Teddy Roosevelt Was The Last Republican Liberal And Was Shifting By The Time His Democratic Nephew

Strangely, over a century, America’s two major political parties gradually reversed identities, like the magnetic poles of Planet Earth switching direction.

When the Republican Party was formed in 1856, it was fiercely liberal, opposing the expansion of slavery, calling for more spending on public education, seeking more open immigration and the like. Compassionate Abraham Lincoln suited the new party’s progressive agenda.

In that era, Democrats were conservatives, partly dominated by the slave-holding South. Those old-style Democrats generally opposed any government action to create jobs or help underdogs.

Through the latter half of the 19th century, the pattern of Republicans as liberals, Democrats as conservatives, generally held true. In 1888, the GOP elected President Benjamin Harrison on a liberal platform seeking more social services.

Then in 1896, a reversal began when Democrats nominated populist firebrand William Jennings Bryan , “the Great Commoner.”

“He was the first liberal to win the Democratic Party presidential nomination,” political scholar Rich Rubino wrote. “This represented a radical departure from the conservative roots of the Democratic Party.”

The Progressive platform attacked big-money influence in politics, vowing “to destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics.”

How Republicans Gave Up On Reforming The South

Democrats flip Chesterfield blue for first time in 72 years

As mentioned above, Republicans had done a lot to help former slaves in the South, but many of the gains they had made existed more on paper than in practice, and others were in danger of being rolled back.

And indeed, the backlash soon arrived. In the South, whites were dead set against what Radicals had done, and were willing to use violence to fight it.

In the North, whites essentially thought they’d done more than enough for black Southerners at this point. Businessmen wanted their own interests to take center stage. Some intellectuals worried about the federal government squelching states rights.

And public opinion turned there was little appetite among white Northerners for an indefinite violent federal occupation of the South.

But most Republicans no longer cared. The party had achieved its founding aim and had gone quite a bit further, since the Slave Power was now a thing of the past, and that provided a handy rationalization for not doing more. The cause of equal rights for black citizens would now essentially vanish from national American politics for decades.

Also Check: Do Republicans Want To Impeach Trump

Understanding The Basics: How The Parties Changed General Us Party History And Why The Big Switch Isnt A Myth

Above we did an introduction, this next section takes a very general look at how the major parties changed and how factions changed parties.

To sum things up before we get started discussing specific switches, both major U.S. parties used to have notable;progressive socially liberal left-wing;and socially conservative right-wing;factions, and now they dont.

Originally, like today, one party was for big government and one party was for small government .

However, unlike today, party lines were originally drawn over;elitism and populism; and preferred;government type more than by the;left-right social;issues;that define the parties today, as the namesake of the parties themselves imply;.

In those days both parties had progressive and conservative wings, but the Southern Anti-Federalist, Democratic-Republican, and then Democratic Party was populist and favored small government, and the Northern Federalist, Whig, and then Republican Party was elite and favored bigger central government.

However,;from the lines drawn during the Civil War, to Bryan in the Gilded Age, to Teddy Roosevelt leaving the Republican Party to form the Progressive Party in 1912, to FDRs New Deal, to LBJs Civil Rights, to the Clinton and Bush era, the above;became less and less true.

Instead, today the parties are polarized;by left-right social issues, and;each party has a notable populist and elitist wing.

This Is What The Gop Has Unleashed

Texas Democrats are mad and motivated after a slew of new hard-right legislation. But its not clear the party has the organization to translate the anger into electoral wins.

Nancy Thompson, founder of the Mothers Against Greg Abbott Facebook group, protests against the Texas governor outside the state capitol in Austin. | Photo courtesy of Nancy Thompson

Link Copied

Renuka Rayasam covers Texas politics, policy and health care for POLITICO.

EL PASO, Texas One Friday in early August, Nancy Thompson woke up and decided to protest Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. She had, in her words, been stewing all night, worried about sending her kids to school after a summer of rising Covid cases and Republican leaders resistance to mask mandates and other pandemic measures. A day earlier, Abbott also called a second special legislative session to pass a partisan election reform bill that Democrats had blocked earlier in the summer.

Thompson, an Austin-based mother of three, found a poster board and red and bluesharpies. When she finished writing, she realized her sign which read, Mothers Against Greg Abbott spelled out MAGA down the side. Thompson thought that was cool and perfect. She drove south from her home to the state capitol and stood on the steps by herself with the poster. Then, almost on a whim, she created a private Facebook group under the same slogan on her sign.

This, Thompson said, is what the GOP has unleashed.

Texas has been here before, of course.

Recommended Reading: What Is The Number Of Republicans And Democrats In Congress

This Is Not A New Argument

Princeton University Edwards Professor of American History Tera Hunter told USA TODAY that this trope is a fallback argument used to discredit current Democratic Party policies.

At the core of the effort to discredit the current Democratic Party is the refusal to accept the realignment of the party structure in the mid-20th century, Hunt said.

In September, NPR host Shereen Marisol Maraji called the claim, one of the most well-worn clapbacks in modern American politics.

Comedian Trevor Noah tackled the misleading trope on an episode of “The Daily Show” in March 2016, after two CNN contributors debated the topic.

Every time I go onto Facebook I see these things: Did you know the Democrats are the real racist party and did you know the Republicans freed the slaves? Noah joked. A lot of people like to skip over the fact that when it comes to race relations, historically, Republicans and Democrats switched positions.

A similar meme attributing the claim;to U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;Ben Carson has been circulating;on social media since November 2016.

Who started the KKK? That was Democrats. Who was the party of slavery? Who was the part of Jim Crow and segregation? Who opposed the Civil Rights Movement? Who opposed voting rights? It was all the Democrats, the meme reads.

Other posts making more specific;claims about the Democratic Party;starting the Civil War or founding the KKK continue to circulate.

Three Factions Of Modern Republicans To Oppose This

Although conservatism is complex, it is defined well as an opposition philosophy to liberalism. Through this lens, there is a type of conservatism that stands against for;brand;of liberalism. Modern American conservatism wants to conserve, which means not being progressive on a given issue and which by its nature is not conservative. Thus we get modern social conservatism which says no to social programs and federal power, except when it upholds conservative social values.;There is also a;more liberal version that;we call libertarianism. It is against all uses of state power for any reason and is a form of radical classical liberalism, combined with;traditional classical conservatism, which is willing to use federal power to keep order, but not inherently against social programs. These factions can be said to become;allies;the conservative coalition mentioned above, although the establishment of both parties tends to favor aspects of traditional classical conservatism.

TIP: When either party uses government power, they are traditional conservatives, when either party deregulates and lets the private market and individuals handle it, they are classically liberal. More than one ideology uses classical liberalism, and more than one uses classical conservatism, as all political ideologies grow out of these foundational ideologies.

Recommended Reading: How Many Democrats Republicans Are In The Senate

How Can We Tell What Switched If Anything

If we want to more accurately see what is happening with the parties we have to look at each political, party, faction, and platform in regards to each issue. We can take any;issue, from any;major American political party platform over time, and see how it compares to other issues of other parties. This can help us see how parties like;Federalists, Whigs, Republican-Democrats,;Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Progressives;did or didnt change over time, and what that means in perspective.

Below is a chart we created showing one way to view the complex political left-right spectrum;.

A left-right paradigm using a four point graph to show how common government types relate to left and right in terms of who has authority and who says so.

If one had to place historical figures on the left and right, in terms of the chart presented above , then VERY loosely we might say:

Right Wingers: Hamilton , Cleveland ,;Hoover, , Reagan

Left Wingers: Jefferson , Lincoln , Teddy;Roosevelt , FDR , Johnson

If one had to place historical figures on our more complex 4-point spectrum, then VERY loosely, but more accurately than above, we might say:

Again, we find that party names are spread out over political leanings;. From here forward we will focus on telling the history of each Party System;in detail, discussing platforms and political views to better illustrate the changes.

[huntypastellance]

“You can’t ship the Paladins/Allura with the Galra! It’s imperialist, colonialist, oppressive & racist! All the Galra are evil, they’re adults, they should know better than to genocide!”

- Keith is a mixed Galra. Are you saying that it’s x-ist for a person to be in a relationship with someone with the same ethnicity as they are? Does he only count as Galra when being shipped with Allura, but not with Lance or other Galra?

Why the hell are all these “Altean Lance x Galra Keith” AUs perfectly fine but Kallura is “EVIL OPPRESSIVE GARBAGE”?

- You heard it from the antis, folks. If you’re at war with another race, you can’t marry one of the people from that race. Guess that means that all American/North Korean & American/Middle Eastern marriages are no longer legit. They are OPPRESSIVE & ABUSIVE & RACIST.

(Does this mean that Lord Pastel Lance’s mere existence is oppression??? ^ Half Chinese & Half Taiwanese)

- Also all mixed race people are now considered oppressors. (Except when they’re not.)

- The Galra were clearly shown to have a caste system & a monarchy which lasted for many years even BEFORE the 10,000 years that Emperor Zombie Zarkon ruled. Blaytz could not even chat with a Galra servant without being criticized for being “inappropriate”. Why would the Galra “know any better”?

-> The Original Paladins were even shown to be fighting each other for GENERATIONS before they came to a diplomatic agreement & became friends, so politics were NOT at all stable back then either. Without Voltron, their bonds would have been gradually weakened by their responsibilities to their own planets/systems/people & old generation-long conflicts that were never fully resolved, thus leading to more clashing politics, internal conflicts & the Other Reality “Altea-Galra-Names of the races of the other Paladins that we never got” War.

File name is literally “And_in_some_cases,_had_been_warring_for_generations” Blaytz is clearly shown using Altean weaponry here, so the Alteans were DEFINITELY involved in this war in some way. They weren’t peace-loving monks like the Air Nomads. (Did everyone forget in s1 when Allura said that even Altean CHILDREN were trained to fight gladiators drones?)

-> As mentioned above, ALL the races had been at war, some for GENERATIONS. They all grew up hearing & seeing their parents & their grandparents & their great-grandparents trying to kill off the other races for their entire lives up until recently! Rulers being best friends does not suddenly erase years of political tensions & war between people! Why would the Galra or even the Other Reality Alteans “know any better”? They would not have seen each other as people, just as enemies.

^They had literally less than even HALF of a generation (Allura’s lifespan + the years before she was born, even if it’s an alien generation & not a human one, that’s still like what? Less than 50 years?) to get used to peace & even then, their “peace” was degrading to something more like “non-hostile low-contact” tensions near the end.

You know that your diplomacy is turning into shit when it’s been years since your leaders last visited each other. (Especially when they both have warping tech).

- Allura was raised under a similar monarchy considering that Alfor found nothing unusual about the Galra’s caste system, just that Zarkon should “lighten up” a bit.

-> She & Coran have shown “racist” tendencies & pro-Altean anti-non-Altean biases in the past, calling the human Paladins’ ears “ugly” & their brains “primitive” despite Pidge being able to hack & manipulate the Galra’s advanced tech (already 10,000 years more advanced than Altean technology, Slav even complains about the castleship being outdated as it uses ziplines instead of the warping tech that the Alteans already use) with ease & other alien races being much more conventionally “unattractive” than humans/Alteans/Galra (or not having any ears at all). It is not unsurprising that with the war escalating for political reasons (rather than “ZOMBIE ZARKON WANT BLACK LION”), that Other Reality Allura would come to view other non-Altean races as barbaric & unnecessary.

->IMPORTANT: Generations of war in alien years can translate to centuries or millenia in human years. Coran said that he saw his Grandpa build the Castle of Lions 600 years before the start of the series. Think about that. The races of the Original Paladins were fighting for THAT long. Is it any wonder that they were all biased against each other in some way? That Allura believed that Alteans were so amazing compared to other races & that the Galra were so awful?

It is extremely confusing when antis claim that the alternate reality episode is racist because Allura is a “black girl” who became a tyrannical dictator.

- She is not ethnically African/African American. She is not even a POC. Those exist back on Earth.

She was literally BORN before racism was even a thing! Humans were still hunting giant woolly mammoths back then!

Her race has never experienced slavery (slavery that the Africans/African Americans were subject to - this is very different from Galra slavery, which takes mostly from Ancient Roman style slavery as they used people for as either Gladiators or miners), voting restrictions & gerrymandering.

To equate the two is to dismiss the suffering of real Africans/African Americans. Her voice actress, Kimberly, who is black, has said so before that Allura is NOT black.

- Since the Other Reality had Alfor stay to defend Altea, no Voltron & no super advanced quintessence-based Galra war technology ready to be used, the war would have been much more drawn out, more intense & more brutal with both sides being unsure of victory (they don’t have Voltron or the Galra mega-ships to achieve near-instant victory).

-> It is also possible that without the Voltron meteorite creating a rift on Daibazaal, Honerva & Zarkon would have never met & gotten married, thus the Galra & the Alteans would have a much more unstable & shaky peace treaty to them as compared to our reality, which at least had an Altean in the Galra royal family. Thus, they would have had less common ground & become more distant from each other, giving more room for anti-Altean & anti-Galran opinions to spread. (They already disliked each other enough to war for years until the 5 original paladins agreed “Yeah war sucks, let’s kill space bandits & be friends!”)

-> Since Alfor stayed behind to defend & the war took longer, more Alteans would be alive, including morally corrupt, morally grey, evil and manipulative Alteans who could easily persuade their grief-stricken newly crowned Queen Allura to become a cruel tyrant in the name of peace & her dead father. People are not a monolith. Not all Alteans are good & kind people.

--> See Honerva (although her behavior could have possibly been influenced by the purple quintessance/quintessance poisoning)

Is Honerva an evil witch or just possessed by a rift creature? Who knows. Would she even have magic powers if she wasn’t possessed?

--> Since original Voltron is based off of Golion & Romelle is one of Lauren Montgomery’s (VLD showwriter & creator) favorite characters, if Romelle was introduced, then there would be “EVIL” Alteans. Romelle was from a group of Alteans who split off many generations ago for being “war-like” & “violent”. This may or not make an appearance in VLD, but even if they don’t, Alteans are NOT all peaceful. Again: warring with the races of the other Paladins, some for generations.

-> Coran probably wouldn’t even say anything to stop them, he didn’t bother to correct Allura when she treated Keith like dirt after finding out that he was part Galra.

-> It was implied that Other Reality Allura genocided the Galra, which is something that Our Reality Allura (pre s2-e08) may have agreed with as she viewed ALL Galra as evil. However, she only ever mentioned Zarkon & not any Galra in particular who she felt betrayed by. (The s3 flashback suggests that after Allura’s birth, the relationship between the Galra & the Alteans cooled down until they barely visited each other so she probably did not actually know Zarkon or any Galra that well.)

^Remember, this was right after Voltron was first formed. When Allura was still a baby & was just gifted that Golion Lotor helmet.

Would the peace have lasted this long if there wasn’t Voltron, the marriage & the threat of the purple Quintessence monsters to keep everyone together & to distract them? Or would it have fallen apart more slowly until it was when Allura was an adult & not a teen that the war finally began again? We were never told how old Other Reality Allura was when she lost her dad or when the war happened.

- Zarkon/Honerva still got married even though their people had been at war for years. Honerva continued to side with Zarkon & the Galra after her marriage. This does NOT make her a race traitor. She is & always will be an Altean, for better or worse. Just like General Hiira from the Other Reality. She, her men & Other Reality Empress Allura are Alteans. It does not matter what OUR Reality’s Allura said, Hiira is still an Altean.

It would be a miracle for Other Reality Allura, with no friends & no Voltron to give her hope, guidance & character development, surrounded by only politicians & other Alteans, to focus on keeping the entire universe safe instead of just keeping her people safe from THEM. You can see how she could convince herself that she was doing this all for keeping her Alteans & New Altea safe from the “barbarians”. A peace treaty forged by diplomats & monarchies could not keep her father alive. Voltron, the symbol & the legend, does not exist.

Our Reality’s Allura still has that hope & Voltron. (Which is why she naively believed that the peace that Hiira was talking about was peace that was debated & agreed upon by several races & NOT forced on them by the Alteans.)

- And lastly:

If you’re so against victims of racial oppression, genocide & colonialism being in relationships with their oppressors,

Then why aren’t you against relationships in real life where white people date/marry POC? Why do you allow mixed antis into your group if you categorize Keith & all the other mixed Galra characters as “oppressors” (except when they’re not)? Why do you allow mixed antis to call themselves POC & “victims of racial oppression”? Why don’t mixed antis yell at their white parents for “oppressing” & “abusing” their POC parents?

Why don’t you care about this stuff in real life if you’re going to care so much about its fictional nonequivalent?

[mushroomqueendom]

I did Nazi see that coming. Well, I did, but it's still disappointing.

So I watched the recent Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, and I have…questions.

Like why do we, smart people that we are, keep falling for such a silly trope as “fight hate with love”?

One, what does that even mean? And two, WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN

If you’re not familiar with the term “white liberalism” (aka “white liberal racism”), please read up or watch up or better yet both. A hallmark of white liberalism is the profound graciousness it affords to the least gracious among us. It redefines bigotry in terms of unneeded nuance…and then it dares insist that people of color do the same.

I am particularly disappointed with this particular strain of uninformed white-centric liberalism – a liberalism that purports to want to fight racism, but then approaches it in the meekest voice possible.

“Err, um, excuse me, um, sir…Could you please maybe… not…like…advocate….for…like…. GENOCIDE…or something…..if that’s okay….I’m-not-mad-at-you-we’re-still-friends-right?” Not ok.

In the week’s White Liberal Olympics, Sam Bee executes a perfect white liberal triple backflip and sticks the landing. In the segment in question, Sam Bee interviews a “recovering” white supremacist and asks his opinion on how to fight white supremacy.

HOLD UP.

You’re asking former white supremacists how to fight white supremacy? That might almost seem like logic, if 1) there were any such thing as a former white supremacist and 2) there were any consideration at all given to the protection of people of color and the victims/targets of white supremacy. As expected, the former white supremacist advises that Love, not punches, will conquer all. As expected, the former white supremacist, and Sam Bee by extension, exalt the comfort of self-proclaimed racists over the emotional security of people of color. As. Expected. 

Sigh.

So.

Why are so many white liberals this concerned with staying on racists’ good side?

Well, it’s all about who you empathize with. And much as I’ve enjoyed her show in the past, this segment on Sam Bee’s show is another example that for even the most well-meaning of well-meaning-est liberals, empathy with whiteness continues to trump solidarity with blackness. Put another way, it’s assumed the audience will more easily associate themselves (or maybe a brother or sister, aunt or uncle) with the person who makes the racial gaffe than the person who is a victimof it. And so goes the endorsement of empathy for Mr. Literal White Supremacist. I guess respectability politics are for everyone.

Xxxxxxxxx

Continuing through the segment, Sam Bee invites in Fred Armisen and Carrie Brownstein, whose reinforcing banter culminates in the directive to “hug a white supremacist.” Now this, of course and presumably, is said with some jest, but let’s take a step back, shall we?

The situations they’re describing, in which one might be pressed to confront a former-friend/now-bigot, are not easy things to do. These are hard conversations and not ones that we should ever seek to approach without empathy…but as with all things, even empathy has limits. And those limits come waaaaay before you get to literal “hug a white supremacist” territory.

A couple rules of thumb, primarily for those for which white supremacy is a new concept: – If your empathy has extended to the point wherein you are literally hugging a nazi, nope, nope, stop. That’s not helpful, no matter what late night talk show hosts seem to be selling these days. If your empathy has extended to the point wherein you’re advocating for others to hug nazis instead of doing something, oh I don’t know, actually useful, then I think you don’t understand what empathy is.

“Hug a white supremacist.” Literal words. Spoken out loud. By “allies.” Terrible allies, some might say. All I can say is smdh.

But let’s take a deeeeep breath, and just tease all this apart for a sec. Questions. Who was the audience for this message? What does “hug a white supremacist/nazi/bigot” mean in actual practice? How does “hugging” work with people who are advocating for continued oppression and genocide? Is it just like hugging a cactus, or…? Also, how is this different from doing nothing? How is this different from the ‘ignore racism and it’ll go away’ crowd? What does one hope to gain (or maintain) from empathizing with white supremacists? Has anyone on this show ever read Letter from a Birmingham Jail? (Contrary to not-so-popular belief, not a letter penned by an anthropomorphic jail cell.)

And lastly, do the writers of this segment understand why the work of anti-racism is meaningful? I mean, if we can at least agree the loose goals of anti-racist work are to protect the marginalized while breaking the vicious cycle system of white supremacy, doesn’t empathizing so deeply with nazis and white supremacists actually serve another master? Doesn’t that recast oppressor as oppressed? Nazis as someone to be pitied and hugged for the struggle of maintaining their minority beliefs? That’s…a dangerous narrative. That’s advocacy of non-racism over anti-racism, and spoiler alert, non-racism is weak, it’s toothless, and it’s intensely supportive of the status quo.

So this hug-a-white-supremacist junk doesn’t serve our stated goal, that is unless our stated goal conflicts with our unstatedgoals (of virtue signaling and the like, cuz it’s not like this whole american apartheid system is worth losing any friends over, amirite?).

In which case, I see you. And gross.

Real talk. You gotta know that confronting white supremacy in a real and impactful way is gonna hurt feelings and end friendships. At a minimum. It was the wrongheaded belief that one could somehow challenge bigotry while still hanging out with bigots that has led us down this crooked cobblestone path, wherein some white liberals regard Naziism as just a “conflicting viewpoint” instead of a “murderous worldview that led to the literal extermination of millions.”

Once again, Why are you spending so much time/effort/energy nuancing Nazis, y'all? I’m asking. Again.

But where Sam Bee and that hug-a-Nazi segment failed the most disappointingly was on two fronts: 1. Failing to tailor a message for her entire audience.  Which until last week, one might assume includes black people and brown people and all shades of non-white people in addition to the white people she seemed to be talking to. Sam. Hug a white supremacist? Who should hug a white supremacist? Me? I should hug a white supremacist? WHY. WOULD. YOU. ASK. ME. THAT. SAM. BEE.? Inevitable comparisons: Would you ask Jewish people to hug Nazis? Women to hug MRAs? Hillary to hug Trumpf? Ok, I know I’m getting snarky, but the question remains. Imploring your audience, which includes people of color, to hug a white suprema-nazi is asking us to exercise super-human levels of empathy. Why would you ask us to take on even more emotional labor, to suppress righteous rage for the sake of Nazi feels? Or even for the sake of a played out joke?

Sidenote: Asking black people, who’ve literally laid down our lives for the cause of civil rights to abandon our methods and adopt those endorsed by their oppressors is just so so tone-deaf it’s *mwah* peak white liberal.

2. Failing to advocate for actual scalable change. And make no mistake, scalable change is legislative change. This is the one thing I always return to that leads this nonsensical fight-hate-with-love-hug-a-nazi biz to an early and inevitable grave. It’s not a serious proposition. It can’t be. Because it’s not remotely scaleable. Hugging a Nazi, engaging a Nazi, having an hours-long reasoned debate with a Nazi accomplishes less than you’d think. Even if you change one Nazi mind, understand that Nazis are not engaging in recruitment only with one-on-one methods. While you spend the better part of your weekend reasoning out why blacks are not a mongrel race with your good friend Chad (who’s kinda cool, except kinda a Nazi), white supremacists are going for SCALE. Gutting the Voting Rights Act. Gerrymandering like madmen. Arming police with military grade weapons. And legalizing vehicular homicide against peaceful protesters. While many white liberals look back at the 50s and 60s and think that the most powerful thing to come out of the Civil Rights Era was integrated lunch counters and better bus etiquette and non-violent protest, black folk know that what integrated those counters and etiquetted those buses were the legislative victories that made public exercise of prejudice less germane. And as for non-violence, the CR era was puh-lenty violent. Violence and non-violence are both tools, necessary and employed…but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion we’ll get into someday. So. Why was there not a single mention of legislative push in any of last week’s episode? No “call your congressman,” no “ballot measure up,“ no “VOTE”? No, just a “send these guys some money,” and also “don’t punch Nazis” cuz every Nazi is somebody’s ma or pa, right?

Why is racism different? Sam Bee famously rips apart bigots, misogynists, and liars and lays them all bare with a weekly roundup of political absurdity. Why is racism exempt from the typical and powerful entreaties to support legislature? Why is there all the empathy for bigots, but none for their victims?

Maybe the problem is that liberals think punching a Nazi is the only way we want to engage them. It’s not. Punching a Nazi is a merely one of a myriad of approaches, tools in the toolbox, as one might say. Punching a Nazi is not always the best approach, it’s true, but that doesn’t mean it’s not an approach.

But I digress, because the fact that so many liberals are spending so much time equivocating about the morality of punching Nazis instead of the morality of Naziism gets to the root of the problem: that maybe we don’t think white supremacy/Naziism/racism is all that bad. They’re not big enough evils. Certainly not as bad as punching someone in the jaw — the very act of doing so makes one as bad as a Nazi, I hear. Or maybe it’s because there’s a lax understanding of the violence of words. Words can be violence. And the use of violence to prevent violence does not “make you as bad as them.” If it did, we wouldn’t have laws or enforcement.

My dad used to offer this counsel back in the day, when I was coming of age, just starting to see the world as how it really is. I’ll take some liberty for sake of making a point, but he’d say something like, “Don’t argue with assholes. It empowers them.” True then. True now. Today’s liberal seems content on battling violent rhetoric with only academic bravado. However. Proving you’re “intellectually superior” to a Nazi does nothingto stop said Nazi from causing harm. In fact, the very act of you exerting your awesome brain against his far-less-learned one puts harm into the immediate universe. It actively protects exactly no one. You don’t fight Nazis by proving you’re smarter than them. You don’t fight hate with love. You fight Nazis by FIGHTING NAZIS. You fight hate by PASSING LEGISLATION. You fight hate by CRUSHING THEIR FACIST POLITICAL AGENDA and making bigots and monsters afraid to advocate for death and oppression. You fight. FIGHT is the operative word here. You fight.

So Sam Bee, and white liberal, pleeeease confront the empathy elephant in the room. Please don’t spend or loan any more emotional currency belonging to people of color you purport to protect. Stop being terrible allies. Stop defending Nazi jaws. And also go read Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Go ahead. You need it. We will wait.

MQ

[brishu]

Everybody’s Heart’s in the Same Fucking Place

My shift at the Park Slope Food Coop is usually the first Saturday of the month (A Week). I am the squad leader for the 8:30 PM Food Processing shift and, for the past 9 years, I have amassed a spotless record of showing up drunk. Sometimes I wonder if a non-shift encounter with any of my squadmates would make them think, “There’s something different about you right now.” Under my drunken helm, nobody’s cut themselves on a cheese slicer or box cutter or tape roll blade. And for the most part nobody’s emerged from the coop’s basement after two and a half hours getting bossed around by a booze-soaked contrarian nursing any grievous emotional injuries. Actually, more often than not, somebody doing a make-up or holding up their end of a shift swap enjoys their time so much that they try to join our squad. 

But this is the Park Slope Food Coop and the self-righteousness is as abundant as the kale. I am not the first grump to notice that some people base their most cherished beliefs on whose approval they gain. Why would you want to brutalize the planet to access natural gas when you can oppose it and feel like you’re marching right alongside Mark Ruffalo? Would you rather your foreign policy views align with the sneering, bomb-happy conservatism of Norman Podhoretz or the serene brilliance of Noam Chomsky? These are obtuse dichotomies, to be sure. So here’s a specific one: I am skeptical of the gun control movement. Less than 10 minutes of research can tell anybody who wants to know that more than 1 million AR-15s get sold each year. For those who might stagger in horror at a number that high, I’d ask you to take a moment and consider some other information that sales figure connotes. Personally, I’m extremely reluctant to demonize that many people I don’t know. Setting aside the implicit interpersonal dynamics lecture and moving from cursory research to wonkier statistics, we can learn that mass shootings account for less than 1% of gun deaths in a given year. In 2017, 39,773 people were killed by guns in America. 23,854 or 60% were suicides, and of the 14,542 or 37% that were homicides, 117 fatalities fit the legal definition of “mass shooting.” If this sounds like I’m trying to minimize the horror inspired by mass shootings in America, it’s because I am. Does this mean I side with gun owners over victims of these atrocities? No, it does not. It means I reject the notion that those are the two sides pitted against each other. And I will assert that fear of losing a loved one in a mass shooting is about as mathematically sound as treating a lottery ticket like a reliable path to wealth. But there’s actual likelihood, and then there’s media-spurred terror. So I’m not exactly raring to see a penstroke turn several million law-abiding citizens into criminals just because an incident I heard about in the news upset me.

Anyway, I only mention this because one time a young guy doing a make-up on my Food Processing shift started lecturing me about the correlation between Scandinavian rights to bear arms (according to him, they have none) and the number of gun-related deaths they suffer there. And yes alcohol was a factor but I got really pissed off at this guy. In retrospect, I should have been patient and respectful as he regurgitated his boilerplate arguments. But I guess I was too busy getting rankled by his presumption that only cretins unworthy of respect could harbor views as indifferent to human suffering as mine, instead of thinking, “Hmm, this guy seems pretty smart and he’s rocking a terrific playlist and everyone on his squad seems to like him a lot so maybe there’s more to his viewpoint than my kneejerk assumptions have led me to believe.” So I unleashed a bunch of other data and upbraided him for being so obtuse that he presumed my suspicions about anti-gun rhetoric amounted to my being a MAGA-head. The basement got tense and I apologized for making things awkward for everyone and changed subjects to talk about movies (whereupon our anti-gun crusading dried mango bagger announced that he was boycotting Miramax’s ouevre. Good for him.). 

For years, our shift occurred the night before the Superbowl and the night before the Oscars and we worked hard to stock the shelves upstairs with enough cheeses, olives, nuts, dried fruits, teas and spices to sate the frenzied consumption that is de rigueur on these particular Sundays. Eventually, A-Week Saturday rotated away and it was up to some other squad to work like Santa’s unpaid elves to meet the demands on Pepper Jack and Brie. But somehow our shift remains on the one Saturday night when I refuse to exert myself (or get shitfaced): Marathon Eve. 

So last year I swapped shifts with someone who liked our squad so much that she joined. My policy is that as long as you show up with some regularity, you’re welcomed warmly on our shift. We care about each other’s families and careers, opinions on matters political and artistic, and general well-being. This is less some sort of management strategy enacted to optimize productivity than a simple extension of the good will I feel toward nearly all people and certainly all Food Processors (even the Pulp Fiction boycotter who pronounces Weinstein incorrectly). Now. At our shift in August, the subject of the coop’s long, tortured debate on carrying Israeli products came up. I love this subject, even though I disagree with almost every other view anybody has on it. I don’t agree with ardent supporters of Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions, and I certainly don’t agree with the ultra-orthodox Jews who consider all criticism of Israel tantamount to Naziism.

My first exposure to this debate was at a General Meeting in the summer of 2012. The meeting was held in the ballroom of Congregation Beth Elohim, of which we are members. People I expected to shoot down anything anti-Israel (because they looked like elderly Jews) stood up passionately decrying coop complicity in Israeli policies they already unwillingly supported by paying taxes. And then some younger people with tattoos and gender fluidity vibes stood up in defense of selling Israeli products. The debate was passionate but civil. I found all arguments convincing and simply loved being in a room among people who cared so deeply about doing the right thing. Ultimately the boycotters advanced their initiative one more rung along the coop’s bureaucracy, and the next General Meeting would include a vote on whether to have a coop-wide referendum to BDS or not to BDS. 

This meeting got so much publicity that the coop needed to rent a larger space, so 1,600 or 10% of all Park Slope Food Coop members filed into the auditorium at Brooklyn Tech. BDS advocates who were not coop members stood outside leafleting attendees, while school buses ferried several minyanim of ultra-orthodox Jews. Unlike this meeting’s predecessor, the tone was not civil and the arguments were not convincing. They were hystrionic pleas that transparently appealed to each speaker’s own moral vanity. Lost in the debate was any consideration for practical details like how much it would cost to stage a coop-wide referendum, or have the BDSers found alternative, morally acceptable sources for vegan marshmallows? And meanwhile, it became very clear, very quickly that the measure to hold a referendum was going to get voted down. So the series of speakers dabbling in petty-demagoguery was a depressing waste of time. 

Two months later, at a meeting I did not attend, the issue came up again, and aroused such anger that a physical altercation occurred. After that, the subject was banned from future General Meetings. While appreciating the moral passion on all sides, my personal view was that people who wanted to boycott should, but they had to acknowledge that other coop members wanted to buy these supposedly blood-soaked products and depriving them of that right felt like some kind of tyranny too. 

Anyway, the tortured history of the debate comes up every now and then and I always love hearing what other people think, and also amplifying my own view that the passions that made the debate inflammatory are part of what makes the coop so special to me. So during our August shift, the woman who had swapped with me on the first Saturday of November, 2018, said with no compunction whatsoever that Israel was guilty of genocide. And despite my inebriation (that night I had done most of my drinking at a dear friend’s surprise 60th birthday party), I was able to express disagreement with this term, and assurance that, whereas many people would hear that and go through a series of internal reactions that would result in antipathy toward the issuer of such a serious charge, I understood that her beliefs were motivated by a desire to do the right thing, whatever that may be. Now she may have thought that I was just another Jew defending the indefensible. And I may have thought she was just another self-righteous ignoramus who prizes wokeness over common sense. But speaking for myself, nobody’s just another anything. In my consumption of online commentary, I see a lot of “[that] tells you all you need to know about her.” And it amazes me that this is an acceptable way to rest your personal case against a person who is always more complex, and usually well-meaning, than you presume when you decide that one view, or one errant phrase is a full representation of another person’s soul. That the practice of basing a holistic view of another person on one political position is so blithely unexamined suggests to me that anxieties underlying our need to close our minds are the real problem. 

I got annoyed with my fellow squad member. In truth I’m still kind of annoyed, both with her, and with the consortium of opinion that sent her forth believing that accusing Israel of genocide is the right thing to do. And it would be more comfortable for me to let my annoyance snowball into full-blown contempt (spurred at some level by the same anxieties which lead to over-eager mind-closing), to tie her incorrect view of my people’s national homeland to the neuroses her parenting has visited on her daughter, even to her insufficient appreciation of my marathon running, all of which are trumped up charges to be sure. Plenty of people would do exactly this, with no real consequence. They’d condemn this person because her version of doing the right thing is in opposition to theirs. Where is the conscience that holds condemnation at bay? 

Either way, while I feel alright about being able to see the light in this person despite my ethyl-clouded mindframe augmenting the shadows cast by her risible political views, I still struggle to find the balance between advancing views I know to be correct with being more of a conduit than a catalyst. And it also feels unfair that I agonize over this stuff only to see significantly less introspective people exert greater influence. But none of that will stop me from getting rip-roaring drunk before my next coop shift.