#and the typical attitude of the russian liberals

[swamp-cats-den]

.

[mariacallous]

Despite a nationwide labor shortage, Russian governors are actively taking measures to restrict economic migration. Since the start of the year, nearly 20 regions have imposed work restrictions on foreigners, and in July, the State Duma passed a package of three laws creating a “special deportation regime” that sharply limits migrants’ rights. Russian police have also ramped up raids on migrant communities, while politicians increasingly inflame negative sentiments toward labor migrants. Meduza spoke with Kremlin insiders and government officials for insight into why the Russian authorities are escalating anti-migrant rhetoric and how this relates to the war in Ukraine and issues at home.

In the wake of the March 2024 terrorist attack at Moscow’s Crocus City Hall, which was allegedly perpetrated by Tajikistani nationals, Russian media outlets have regularly covered police raids on businesses suspected of employing illegal migrants. The typical TV segment shows bewildered workers being herded into buses by police, who then report on the number of “illegals” apprehended.

The head of Russia’s Investigative Committee, Alexander Bastrykin, has called on the State Duma to tighten migration legislation and even openly refers to it as the “State Dura” (“State Fool”) for its inaction. Systemic “opposition” figures, such as Sergey Mironov, the leader of the A Just Russia – For Truth party, also actively employ anti-migrant rhetoric. For instance, Mironov has claimed that residents of Russian-occupied Mariupol complain about “migrant workers” who “live by their own laws and ways.” Leonid Slutsky, the head of the right-wing nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, introduced a bill to the Duma that would ban migrant families from entering Russia.

Meanwhile, the number of Russian regions where governors prohibit migrants from working in specific sectors is increasing. In the Moscow region, migrants are no longer permitted to serve food or sell alcohol and tobacco. In the Chelyabinsk region, the ban extends to all areas of trade and automotive services.

A political strategist who works with the Putin administration told Meduza that Russian authorities are deliberately drawing attention to the fight against migrants to distract public attention from other issues — primarily the war and rising prices. A high-ranking official from a region that has already imposed work bans on migrants echoed the sentiment.

“There’s a classic set of topics that can easily distract people from truly important agendas,” explained the political strategist. “One of them is the migrant issue, and it’s quite straightforward to pull off: tell a story about a conflict involving migrants, a confrontation with local residents, then show how security forces resolve the issue by searching for illegals and deporting them. It builds up tension and then releases it.”

The strategist noted that many Russians have negative attitudes toward migrants, and residents of certain areas, especially in the Moscow region, consider them one of the main problems facing society. This is partially corroborated by sociological surveys: in 2024, 52 percent of respondents in a VTsIOM (Russian Public Opinion Research Center) poll said they wanted to restrict the entry of labor migrants and their families into Russia. In comparison, in 2023, 40 percent viewed labor migration as a negative phenomenon.

The anti-migrant issue “really works well to distract from other problems,” agreed a source close to the Kremlin. However, he said that the tactic is “not easy to implement”:

The question is a sensitive one. Many Russians believe that migrants are taking their jobs — and behaving badly, disrespecting [the locals]. It’s important not to overdo it, not to escalate things too much, so there aren’t pogroms. And steps like raids and work bans are seen positively. It shows that the authorities are doing something.

The “delicacy” of the topic is evident in how it’s covered by state and state-affiliated media. An employee from a pro-government media outlet told Meduza that news about crimes committed by migrants gets plenty of traffic, but the topic shouldn’t be overly emphasized. “A report on the facts is enough,” he explained. “Although if you continue [to delve into each individual story], interview locals, look for details, you can really rack up [views].”

The Kremlin advises officials to proceed carefully as well. A source close to the presidential administration and another near the government noted that the authorities aren’t at all opposed to governors imposing restrictions on migrants in their regions. But they do insist on one condition: the measures shouldn’t harm the local economy. In other words, while the authorities aren’t ready to adopt anti-migrant laws at the federal level, they still want to show society that they’re addressing the “problem.”

Both sources noted that those at the helm of Russia’s security forces are advocating for even stricter restrictions on migrants, viewing them as one of the main sources of terrorist threats in the country. “Banning everything simplifies their work. But many sectors can’t function without migrants — especially construction. Here, they’ll hold off on restrictions as long as possible,” said the source close to the government.

Indeed, the Russian economy is facing a labor shortage. The government regularly reports worker shortages across a wide range of industries, and the official unemployment rate in the country is at a record low of 2.6 percent.

Despite this, neither Meduza’s sources close to the Kremlin nor those in the government expect to see a reduction in the level of anti-migrant rhetoric from the authorities anytime soon, because the topic is politically advantageous.

One government source sees this as a serious problem:

Who will work in areas where Russians don’t want to? The outflow of [migrant workers] is already happening due to the ruble’s unfavorable exchange rate and [people’s] fear of being sent to the front. Restrictions and campaigns [against migrants] will only increase it. There is no adequate replacement [for those coming from Central Asia], although there are attempts to bring in [workers] from Latin America and Africa. But that’s on a different scale, and there’s still discontent [among Russians] — many feel that newcomers are taking something away from them.

[anton-rasputin]

Hi! My sister is doing research on propaganda in Russia and she'd like to ask some questions and talk to an actual Russian person. Unfortunately she has had great difficulty finding someone and the deadline is tomorrow. If that is too short notice, I completely understand!

If you do have time, could you answer the following questions:

How do you experience propaganda in Russia?

Do you notice is, does it influence you or your friends/ family?

What is your opinion?

How do you experience living in Russia with propaganda/influence etc.?

Anything related to propaganda would be fanatastic!

Kind regards,

RoMythe (Robin)

Well, hello

I will be happy to answer these questions, because it is really important and you need to know about it.

▫️I have the most negative attitude to our propaganda. This stuff affects all spheres - from politics to the most ordinary household. The authorities (and their vile mutts at their beck and call) blatantly lie to ordinary people about everything. And unfortunately, this lie is very, very effective. It starts from the school bench. I'm one of the few who have understood this since childhood.

Yes, it affects my family. In Russia, there has long been a cult of hatred for the United States and the European Union, for their values (about which, by the way, there is also a lot of nonsense). My family believes that they want to seize Russia.

When the war with Ukraine began - and this, I note, has been going on since 2014 - there was a lot of rubbish on TV about this country. Ordinary Russian citizens were brought up with a persistent hatred of Ukrainians in the manner of the attitude of Germans to Jews during the Second World War.

My friends, fortunately, were not subjected to such propaganda. At least the ones I'm close enough to. Alas, I can't say the same about my family. This is the most typical picture - these people hate all NATO countries, hate everything connected with it. They firmly believe that Russia is "just defending itself from the terrible influence of the Western world". Well, fuck.

My opinion on this? I fucking hate this shit. It's good that I live alone now. I always tried to convey truthful information, but in response I received "you have been subjected to Western propaganda." Ironic.

▫️For those who know how to think and analyze - life in Russia is a living hell. There are many uneducated and aggressive people in the country who live like animals, in poverty and drunkenness, but still continue to love Putin and believe that everything is fine. Their favorite slogan is "others are jealous of us."

Peaceful protests and single pickets are aggressively suppressed by law enforcement agencies. People are fined and jailed for telling the truth. Politicians with a liberal and peace-loving position are being killed (I strongly recommend reading about Boris Nemtsov and Alexei Navalny).

Fascism reigns in all points, and this is a fact.

That's all. Of course, I can talk about a lot of details for a very long time and give many examples. But in that case, I'll have to release a whole book.

And thank you for the questions,

Anton

[zwischenstadt]

Liberals continued to look to the Soviet Union as a model, but what they now sought to emulate was not its ideology, but rather its ability to transcend the narrow limits of ideology.  They believed that if Americans could only abandon their sectarian anti-communism to the same extent that the Soviets had abandoned their sectarian commitment to Communist ideals, then practical men of affairs in both countries could join to guarantee international cooperation in the postwar world.

American goodwill toward Russia did not necessarily entail any change in attitude toward domestic Communists.  Kenneth Crawford suggested in the New Republic that the Russians could substantially aid the cause of anti-fascist unity by cutting all connections with the ‘irritating connivers who run the Community Party of the United States and who continue to bask in reflected Russian glory.’  Vice-President Henry Wallace, among the strongest proponents of the administration of close ties with the Soviet Union, confided in his diary that ‘a typical American Communist is the contentious sort of individual that would probably be shot in Russia without a ceremony.’  His wistful tone suggested some regret that American policymakers were unable to resort to such straightforward measures.

-Maurice Isserman, Which Side Were You On? The American Communist Party During the Second World War

lol

[woman-loving]

I can’t remember if I posted about it here or not, but the key insight I got from “It was a Dark and Stagnant Night (‘til the Jadids Brought the Light): Clichés, Biases, and False Dichotomies in the Intellectual History of Central Asia” by Devin DeWeese was that proposals to return to the “original” views of a (religious) tradition, as represented by texts, involve rejection of other sources of authority on that tradition which may be legitimate. And that, actually, it’s not a neutral intellectual position to accept that only a narrow selection of “original” texts are the truest sources of authority for what that tradition is or should be about. The article also challenged the dichotomy between “fundamentalism” and “modernity,” and re-stated the argument that fundamentalism is a “modern” phenomenon (while also pointing out some limitations of that argument in the Islamic case).

This author had an unfortunate tendency to speak in long, rambling sentences (unlike anyone you know here), but these were some passages that I liked:

Among the false dichotomies that ought to be highlighted in connection with Jadidisim, and with ‘Islamic modernism’ more broadly, is the opposition often posed between ‘modernity’ and ‘fundamentalism;’ it has been some 30 years since Martin Marty’s ‘Fundamentalism Project’ underscored the realization that the quintessentially ‘modern’ form of religion is fundamentalism, with its textuality, its call for individual engagement with textuality, its quantification of commitment, and its rejection of cumulative tradition sanctioned by communal endorsement rather than by scriptural literalism. Fundamentalisms, in short, far from being throwbacks to a ‘medieval’ past or relics of old-fashioned ‘tradition,’ reflect the actualization, in religious spheres, of many of the features said to be characteristic of ‘modernity.’[36]  Whether we accept, that is, the coherence and historical force of ‘modernity,’ or question the substantiality or usefulness of that category, we must acknowledge that religious fundamentalisms overlap significantly with what is usually said to define ‘modernity;’ this overlap in itself may highlight the problems with that concept, which even in its ‘academic’ definitions is typically framed in terms of a diminishing role for religion—a phenomenon relegated to the ‘pre-modern’ or ‘traditional’ world prior to the advent of modernity.[37]

The term ‘fundamentalism,’ of course, is used promiscuously today, but its ‘original’ religious sense, in Protestant Christianity, of stressing a reliance on literally-interpreted foundational scriptures and a rejection of intervening cumulative tradition, fits the Wahhābīs and Salafists as well; as discussed further below, it also fits the religious profile of the Jadid critique.

To be sure, the Wahhābī version of the fundamentalist emphasis on “sola scriptura” (as in the Reformation slogan) had roots in a long tradition represented by Ḥanbalī jurisprudence and by such figures as Ibn Taymīya, and in this regard one may object with some reason that it hardly belongs to ‘modernity,’ however that fuzzy concept might be plausibly defined; nevertheless, it is not accidental that the growing appeal of Salafist thought coincided with the Muslim world’s encounter with the West and with 20th-century ‘modernity,’ and in terms of attitudes toward the sources of religious authority, Muslim currents that are variously labeled ‘reformist,’ ‘fundamentalist,’ ‘modernist,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘rigorist,’ or ‘puritanical’ should be recognized as having much more in common than is sometimes acknowledged. We may with reason distinguish the goals of Muslim ‘modernists’ from those of Wahhābīs, Salafists, and others, but they share, among other things, a rhetorical dismissal of communal tradition, an emphasis upon the individual as the vehicle for change, and the conviction that ‘real’ Islam can be based solely on a ‘minimalist’ scriptural foundation.

---

To some extent this effort to distance the Jadids from Muslim ‘religious’ thought reflects the narrow, Protestant-style understanding of what ‘religion’is that prevails in Jadidocentric scholarship (and in much other scholarship on Islam in the Russian and Soviet contexts); in any event, the ‘genealogy’ of this effort goes back still further, all the way to Alexandre Bennigsen. In Islam in the Soviet Union (1967), by Bennigsen and Lemercier-Quelquejay, the authors insist that the initial phase of the Jadid program, which they call ‘religious reform,’ “sought to break with conservative traditionalism and, without repudiating what was fundamental, to render Islam capable of surviving in a modern world dominated by reason and the spirit of criticism.”[48] The key word here, by the way, is not “conservative” or “traditionalism,” but “fundamental;” it reminds us that there is much to religion that is not really important or even essential to it, and it thus reminds us that ‘reform’ will—indeed, must—entail a process of stripping things away from religion, leaving only what is “fundamental.” The specifics of what must be stripped away—and in the ‘developmental’ sequence proposed by the authors, this stripping away is necessary so that script reform, school reform, and political nationalism can follow—become clear as the authors continue: “narrow dogmatism;” “obscurantism;” “traditional theology;” “blind obedience to traditional authorities (taqlid);” and obstruction of “the right of every man to find in the Quran and the Hadith a reply to all religious questions.” The latter point, of course, sounds vaguely democratic, even revolutionary: mufassirs of the world, unite! It is Ibn Taymīya’s program, of course, and contemporary Salafists’, and, for that matter, Luther’s as well; but what is most telling is the absence of any explanation that the important ‘innovation’ here lay not in talking of “the right of every man,” but in talking only about “the Quran and the Hadith” as the sources to be mined in seeking answers to those “religious questions.” Portraying what was, and is, a restriction of religious authority (to the Ḥanbalī minimum) as an expansion of it, to “every man,” is only one small example of the misconstrued context, or the partisan bias, in such discussions, but it is worth noting nonetheless. [...]

---

In the end, whether we acknowledge that the Jadid ‘reform’ program criticized ‘innovations’ and ‘superstitious accretions’ to the pristine core of ‘real’ Islam as part of their engagement with essentially religious issues, or insist that they did so merely as an opportunistic evocation of religious rhetoric in the service of a ‘secularizing’ mission, may be secondary to the broader problem entailed by either stance, which brings us back to the problem of bias: to point out the Jadids’ critique of ‘innovations’ and ‘accretions’ is one thing, but to take their side in that critique, explicitly or implicitly, is utterly irresponsible in scholarly terms. Where the admirers of the Jadids go astray—and indeed, where they do a serious disservice to scholarly understanding—is in failing to explain to their readers that substantial currents in Muslim religious thought, both in the past and at present, understand those ‘accretions’ as perfectly legitimate and indeed laudable facets of Muslim religiosity, or that the rhetoric of ‘purifying’ Islam of harmful ‘additions’ may equally be seen as ‘subtracting’ those legitimate facets from Muslim practice—indeed, from a viable religious vision with a rich intellectual tradition and deep social roots.

Instead of offering such an explanation and properly contextualizing the Jadid critique, however, Jadidocentric scholarship has simply assumed their critique was in defense of Islamic legitimacy (if not of ‘modernity’), that what they criticized was self-evidently a departure from ‘true’ Islam, that in their time only  the Jadids had the proper sense of Islamic rectitude, and that outside their circles all was innovation and corruption. These stances are utterly indefensible, historically and culturally; if Jadidocentric scholars have adopted them out of ignorance of ‘the other side,’ or through unfamiliarity with the body of sources that could articulate that other side, we might simply explain the biases of Jadidocentric scholarship as the unfortunate byproducts of the failure to bridge gaps in disciplinary or linguistic or ‘area’ training—though explaining them in this way does not amount to excusing them. Whatever the reasons, however, the unavoidable conclusion—namely that wittingly or unwittingly, Jadidocentric scholars have blithely adopted one side in a religious debate—is reason enough to seriously question their scholarship.

[douglashonorscollege]

Burn the House Down

essay by Olivia McDougall ⌂

IT WAS 2006 in the heart of New York City. The New York Knicks failed to make the play-offs for the third consecutive year. President George W. Bush’s approval rating had hit at an all-time low. Panic! at the Disco released “I Write Sins Not Tragedies” and Justin Timberlake performed “SexyBack” on the MTV Video Music Awards—hosted by Jack Black—at Radio City Music Hall. For the American people, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times… and three young kids were out pursuing their dream in the streets of Manhattan.

Adam, Ryan, and Jack Metzger were trying their hand at busking in Central Park and Washington Square. The youngest at nine years old, Jack led vocals while his older brothers backed him with instrumentals. The boys played covers of songs old and new, anything to get enough money for new instruments with which to experiment. The brothers spent many years on street corners serenading strangers, earning their 10,000 hours. In the following years, when YouTube started gaining traction, the boys put up videos of their covers: more and more inventive spins on pop songs. Jack and Ryan also started trying their hand at writing, directing, and acting in their own little sketches for video content. At that time, the boys had very few followers, but nonetheless continued to play, to save up, to buy more equipment, to make more music.

As they grew, the boys were exposed to their parents’ old records and the sounds of a very different generation influenced their style. The Beach Boys; the Beatles; Peter, Paul, and Mary among many others inspired them, but more contemporary artists like Kanye West also came into play. Later, while eldest brother Adam pursued his degree at Columbia University, the younger two brothers took note of sampling—the music trend of artists taking sound clips and reusing them in their songs. Jack mentioned to his brotherhow cool it would be if someone sampled Spongebob Squarepants on a track.

“Well, why don’t we do it?” was Ryan’s reply.

In spring of 2013, the brothers, naming themselves AJR after their own initials, released a video of their first single “I’m Ready.” The song sampled the popular Spongebob catchphrase, and became a classic, upbeat, dance-floor pop song. The brothers sent the link to their video to several celebrities over Twitter, until famous singer-songwriter Sia noticed them and passed it along to her manager. The song was then commercially released that summer and began to see regular radio play, and the band was labeled as the next up and comers in the music scene.

After “I’m Ready,” AJR released a five song EP of the same name. Their first song continued to grow, receiving millions of views on YouTube and going platinum in Canada and Australia. The brothers continued to create music (and go to school; the eldest was only in his early twenties at this time), releasing another single and EP titled Infinity in 2014. The majority of the band’s music was pop songs, easy to listen to with familiar rhythms and lyrics of love and youth. Remarkably, the boys chose to mix and record all their own music in their NYC apartment living room, instead of paying for studio time. Paying homage to their workspace and independence, the band released their first album Living Room in 2015. Except for some bouncier, odd-duck tracks like “Big Idea” and “Thirsty,” most of the songs fit the same earlier patterns of the pop genre. However, in 2016, the band experienced the shift that would change their music career forever.

Before the What Everyone’s Thinking EP came out, AJR had little recognition beyond their break-out hit. However, the tracks on the latest EP sounded entirely evolved from the brother’s previous style. The lyrics were brimmed with honesty, abandoning the emptiness of many other pop tunes. The boys sang about missing out on their friends while pursuing their dreams, about being unsure about what love means, about not trying so hard to be cool, about being human. Their style of composition had also matured. The band would release videos on how they made their songs, revealing that they took whatever strange sound they could make and mix it however they could to make it new and interesting. They had people who were not musicians or artists, such as their ever supportive father, come in and sing to add a new dimension to their songs. They used something they called “spokestep,” a technique of recording a someone singing, then cutting it up over a beat in editing. They continued to utilize sampling, taking bits of anything from Fountains of Wayne to yodeling competitions. The EP was well-received with hundreds of messages from fans who deeply related to the music. This was all the push the brothers needed to keep writing freely, and not what they thought would sell.

On June 9th, 2017, the three brothers dropped the album that would unknowingly launch their music career to a unimaginable level. Several songs on the album made it to regular radio play, giving the band more recognition and growing their dedicated fan base. The Click clearly communicated AJR’s desire to get real in their music, with songs about the detached feelings of growing up or distaste toward the typical party scene. One of their most successful songs, “Sober Up,” featured Weezer’s Rivers Cuomo and paved the way for more collaborations with artists such as Steve Aoki and Lil Yachty. The band had been on tours before, playing small venues where the opener drew more fans than they, but now they began to sell out everywhere. The kids who had been playing to no one on street corners now began to sing for thousands.

Shortly after their album The Click debuted, AJR announced that they had been asked to create the theme for Supersize Me 2: Holy Chicken, a documentary attempting to expose the fast food industry’s lax safety regulations. The band had been asked to write for other people before, but never for a movie. The theme song, “Burn the House Down,” would live to surpass its original purpose and become the honest encapsulation of the political attitudes of its time. “Burn the House Down” expresses the band’s indecision to either “keep things light” or to get involved in important issues. The song, with compelling lyrics such as “Or should I march with every stranger from Twitter to get shit done? / Used to hang my head low / Now I hear it loud / Every stranger from Twitter is gonna burn this down” further cemented the band’s dedication to revolution and their abandonment of passivity. The song called out deception plaguing the media cycle and public affairs, and the need to burn it all down in order to expose the truth.

*   *   *

The election of Donald Trump in 2016 acted as a catalyst for various protest movements around the country. Marches have occurred on the White House doorstep since the signing of the Constitution, but the Trump administration triggered a marked influx. Beyond Washington, protests like the Women’s March and National Pride March were seen nation-wide. People from all over rallied together to advocate for science and evidenced-based policies, for immigrant’s rights and racial justice, for transparency over Russian involvement in elections, and even for the publication of Trump’s tax returns. People, especially those liberal-leaning, felt that their voices weren’t being heard and that the President was not reflective of their values. Change in politics is gradual and incremental, but it felt like everyday a new injustice was being thrown at the American people. Families were being separated at the border, more evidence that Russia swayed the 2016 election came to light, allegations of sexual abuse from the President were revealed, racism, sexism, and hate seem to run rampant and unchecked, and overall many people felt disheartened and disgusted with the state of the nation. So, with the power of social media, users of popular sites such as Facebook and Twitter planned protests. The marches drew thousands of people together, uniting many for a common cause. Today’s youth, often labeled as lazy and entitled, came together in the March for Our Lives, an empowering result from one of many tragic school shootings. High-schoolers fed up with feeling unsafe on their campuses advocated for stricter gun control laws and led the biggest youth rally since the Vietnam War, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of people. Americans refused to take anything sitting down and demonstrated their needs loudly to those in charge.

The effectiveness of these protests is a tricky one to determine, as many perceived different goals for the marches. Some believe getting people out on the streets and building a community of like-minded people is a strong start, but others think success is nothing less than immediate change and tangible evidence that they have been heard. Further, some argue that current protests lack the solid political backing that are required to enact true change, and that the marches will never be as powerful as they mean to be without that factor. However, even though many of the things modern protests have demanded have yet to come to fruition, it does not necessarily mean the marches have been for naught. Many of the marches throughout history that today are viewed as world-shattering did not see the change they were fighting for immediately. Politics take time, and the justice and change in policies the people demand to see might still be a long time coming. However, it is necessary to take up the fight, for the people to demonstrate that enough is enough.

Protest songs in the past like “Fortunate Son” by Credence Clearwater Revival or “The Times They are A-Changin” by Bob Dylan rallied people for their cause, stoking the flames of change in hearts across the nation. Music was a way for artists to contribute to the fight, giving a voice to those silenced and reflecting the opinions of the oppressed or wronged. Protest songs today have the same effect, uniting thousands to sing in one voice and empowering movements. “Burn the House Down” provides a battlecry for a whole new generation of people. It is a warning of accountability for those in the corrupt establishment; the harbingers will burn it down.

Works Cited “Burn the House Down” Music Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnyLfqpyi94 AJR Zach Sang Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQnXGsKwaIU&t=1725 Recent Marches Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rallies_and_protest_marches_in_Washington,_D.C.#2018 Supersize Me 2 Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me_2:_Holy_Chicken! Article on political protests, bustle.com: https://www.bustle.com/p/do-political-protests-actually-change-anything-29952 2006 NYC Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2006_in_New_York_City AJR Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJR_(band) One of AJR’s “How We Made THE CLICK” Vidoes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YWj3DAo6xM  ∎

More on Olivia ~ Minerva’s Owl Homepage

[canchewread]

Editor’s note: this is going to be a very different sort of book review article than the ones I usually write; namely in that the main essay doesn’t include an actual book review.

For those of you who are curious - “Permanent Record” by Edward Snowden is an enjoyable read which I have no regrets about buying, even in hardcover. Although it’s true that there are no “new” revelations about the NSA mass surveillance program and part of the story Snowden is telling has already been told from the perspective of other people involved in the later stages of the tale, I disagree with the idea that the book presents “no new information.” The author’s impassioned arguments about the need to alter the fundamental functions and purpose of the internet, his clear insight into the reasons why online privacy rights were now as fundamentally essential to a free society as our already recognized rights and freedoms and finally the exposure of the thoughts, motivations and overall rationale that finally pushed Snowden to leak evidence of the NSA mass surveillance program are all fundamentally “new” bits of information - they just aren’t leaks.

All in all I’d say it’s a good book but it’s still a biography and as such you can probably afford to wait for the softcover, unless the CIA finds a way to ban it before then.

---

The Casualties of Cacophony

As those of you who read my post on Can't You Read yesterday already know, I recently purchased the new Edward Snowden biography and I've been reading it during smoke breaks for the past three days.

After hearing from numerous reviewers that the book contained "no new information" my primary motive here was personal enjoyment but even just the act of buying the book itself was telling me a story I wasn't listening to and wouldn't understand until this weekend. I'll explain:

On the day the Permanent Record was released in the country I'm staying in right now, I went out to my local bookstore to purchase it with tampered expectations and yet still, a certain amount of hopeful expectation.

Now before I continue further here I should mention that Americans who do not travel abroad are largely unaware of the tremendous amount of influence U.S. political media and ideological thought have over the (largely) white majority of the West in general and most Five Eyes countries in particular. Furthermore this influence is typically divided along the exact same "culture war" political lines that exist in the United States, although the degree to which they incite passions often varies from region to region - the average Canadian "conservative" cannot afford to be as rabid about opposing gun control laws as the average American "conservative" because culturally the idealized tradition of gun ownership does not exist there - but the idea, even without its systemic reinforcement, does.

I mention this because my local bookstore can be said to have a distinctly Americanized "liberal" set of sensibilities and ideas; although they would likely object to that statement as all Canadians vociferously object when you compare them to Americans. This is reflected in the "balanced" book selections on the shelf (which overwhelmingly consists of mainstream liberal, or conservative writers/thinkers and or Canadian authors) and in the sensibilities of the staff, management, and ownership I’ve encountered while shopping there; all of which were (as far as I can tell) fundamentally identical to those of your average white American Democrat.

I don't say any of these things to disparage them; the shop is a small, single-proprietor business and it's hardly surprising to anyone who understands class dynamics that a petite-bourgeoisie bookstore in a rural "conservative area" isn't going to be a hotbed of left wing thought or ideology. 

Yet despite all of this, I found myself somewhat shocked when the clerk behind the counter informed me that the stored hadn't ordered any copies of Ed Snowden's new biography - so much so that I did a double take. I asked again, if only to confirm that it wasn't a question of U.S. Government censorship or the fact that I was in a country that wasn't home so the release dates had changed - no, they simply hadn't ordered it.

For my part I assumed that was a careless mistake, after all even mainstream liberals had celebrated Snowden as a heroic whistleblower when the results of his revelations were appearing in corporate "liberal" news publications like the Washington Post and The Guardian. At that point (and while still not connecting the dots) I asked the store to order me a copy and helpfully suggested that they might want to order several copies for their shelf as this was the first time to my knowledge that Snowden would be presenting his own thoughts about one of the more important scandals and abuses of government power in our lifetime.

Then I innocently went on my way and back to my busy life for a week until the book finally arrived. As it turned out (and at my insistence) they'd ordered two copies, one of which was mine.

This decision would continue to baffle me for several long hours after I left the bookstore and indeed, none of it would start to make sense until I actually started reading Snowden's book - and with that act, found that the flood of memory about the NSA mass surveillance leaks and the political circus surrounding it, came rushing back to my mind like a raging river of madness and deceit.

There is, especially for the scholar, something altogether terrifying about reading something that you already knew and realizing, as you're in the very act of reading it, that you had for all intents and purposes forgotten something important that you were never supposed to forget. After all you can’t rightly analyze society without analyzing the history that helped shape that society, and you certainly can’t analyze history that you don’t even remember.

This creeping and altogether horrifying feeling of morally inexcusable “forgetting” became my constant companion as I reviewed Snowden's work, in his own words, while reading Permanent Record. I'm not just talking about the NSA spying and online data collection programs either; those I readily remembered, although I can't necessarily say the same for the public at large around me. As Snowden recounted James Clapper lying under oath to Congress, the (now all but completely deposed) wave of Democratic Socialist governments that opposed American internet surveillance and even the U.S. government’s efforts to trap the author in Moscow so he wouldn't fly to Ecuador, I slowly realized what I'd forgotten.

I'd forgotten the sheer breadth and open brazenness of the Pig Empire's war on not just privacy, but the truth. A war conducted not just against the whistleblowers and those rare few souls in the media who would seek to help them expose abuses, violations and atrocities conducted by our governments and the ruling classes of our societies, but also on each of us, on our own feelings, our own memories and dare I say it, our own psychological well-being. A war we are all losing as I write this to you today.

To understand what I mean by that however we’re going to have to go back to the bookstore and answer the question I should have been asking the day I tried to buy a copy of Permanent Record I the first place. That question is of course “what changed?” If only six years ago, Edward Snowden was a hero in liberal media (The Guardian U.S., the Washington Post) for exposing mass surveillance and abuses by the NSA and various arms of U.S. intelligence, why was I getting a weird side-eye for even asking about the book in an ostensibly “liberal” bookstore – especially in Canada?

While I won’t claim to be psychic, I think it’s fair to say that what have largely changed are mainstream liberal attitudes towards leaks, whistleblowers and the larger American national security state. Somewhere in the culture war-fueled anger about losing the 2016 U.S election, among stories of malignant foreign hackers, Hillary’s leaked emails, the Russianization of Wikileaks, the demonization of Julian Assange, the lionization of Barack Obama and a new fascist president’s ongoing war with “true liberal patriots” in his own FBI and CIA, the original signal had been lost. More accurately, the past on some deep and purely emotional level in the larger liberal zeitgeist had been replaced with a new communal understanding that my alienation from mainstream liberal thought had prevented me from recognizing until now. The word ‘replaced’ rather than ‘forgotten’ is important here because due to social pressures and the normal human tendency to forget our own embarrassing mistakes, the memory of Snowden’s time as a brave hero in the liberal reckoning is at best extremely hazy and more often than not, completely gone from the minds of most observers.

To the clerk behind the counter I wasn’t asking for a biography about a heroic whistleblower, but instead a bound volume of lies written by a traitor whose very existence represented a threat to their now-entrenched image of the iconic and canonized last liberal President (Barack Obama) and whose “decision” to hide from “justice” in the now thoroughly hated Russia proved where his true allegiances had always lain. Besides, even if in some unlikely event Snowden was innocent and Obama had gone after the wrong guy - leakers and traitors represent a grave threat to our beloved intelligence agents who are, as you all know from hours of repetition on Rachel Maddow, the only thing standing between everything you love about America and the sinister iron grip of Vladimir Putin.

From the mainstream liberal perspective I might as well have been asking them to fetch me a copy of the latest work by Lee Harvey Oswald at that point. Nothing about Snowden or his earth-shattering leaks had changed, but because the larger feelings about Snowden had been altered, both the leaked information and the author himself were now perceived in a new and wholly less favorable light.

In the often quoted but rarely understood science-fiction novel about authoritarian states entitled 1984, author George Orwell’s central character Winston chillingly observes that “who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the past.”

What Orwell meant by this is that the powers of the day control our understanding of, perceptions about and feelings towards the past and in doing so can have a tremendous amount of influence on our actions in the future. Of course in his novel the Ingsoc government had absolute control to write and re-write the historical record of society but the author was also engaging a metaphor that cast light on the nature of this truism in even a “liberal democratic” nation like Britain in the late 1940’s. It is not enough to simply acknowledge that “history is written by the victors” but one must also be aware that the writing and analysis of our society’s historical record (which is often conducted in real time by the news media) is largely conducted by upper class writers who are ultimately employed in the service of some aspect of establishment power or another – whether we’re talking about mainstream corporate media companies, the American government itself or the elite educational institutions that churn out historians, journalists and the general class of television punditry.

At this point you might find yourself protesting that despite their upper class backgrounds, the media, publishing houses and academic institutions don’t work for the government and in some broader sense that’s true, but in terms of the facts on the ground in the war against truth, it’s also hopelessly naïve. Setting aside the obvious reality that corporate media and elite educational institutes are themselves part of what any sane person would identify as “establishment power” the fact is that the American government does actively seek to influence the records of our past, both in real time and in its own files.

We know from revelations like “Operation Mockingbird” and the periodic unmasking of intelligence agency employees in the public eye that at least some of “the news” is directly written by folks with very clear ties to U.S. intelligence. From incidents like the Valerie Plame Affair, we know that the government sometimes purposely leaks top secret information to the media for its own nefarious purposes. We know that official government sources and interpretations of events are almost invariably broadcast unaltered and without serious challenge in mainstream media outlets - how many stories in the past month have you read that contained information from “a senior administration source” or “an undisclosed official at the State Department?” I’ll bet it’s happened significantly more times than you’ll remember.

This reinforcement of the establishment line even filters all the way down to your local news, where police department summaries of “officer involved shootings” are routinely broadcast as if they were the established facts of the case with few, if any questions asked about whether or not the department might be somehow motivated to lie about why some cop shot someone in broad daylight, again.

Not sinister enough for you? Okay, how about the Bush administration’s decision to retroactively classify thousands upon thousands of government documents and legal opinions that had already been released to the public, thereby effectively erasing America’s own arguments against the illegal activities the administration engaged in - like mass surveillance, extraordinary rendition (read: kidnapping) and the now rarely-mentioned and almost forgotten CIA torture program? Sort of puts the now infamous Karl Rove quote “we're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do” into a new and terrifying perspective, doesn’t it?

Please keep in mind that these are only the direct ways the state, virtually any Pig Empire state, influences the media and thereby our collective real-time record of history; there are quite literally a myriad a indirect ways the state influences the media you consume as well. A good example might be simple access to the information a journalist needs to write stories; if a news outlet is consistently critical of the government and skeptical of the claims made by its officials, how long do you think they’ll keep getting off the record statements, leaks and interviews from people aligned with that government? How about the right-leaning billionaires who own modern media companies, do you think they align with the interests and power of the government? Well they probably should in America at least - thanks to the magic of corporate lobbying and Citizens United they own most of the politicians who work in that government after all. Once you realize that Jeff Bezos owns both the Washington Post and Amazon, the latter of which currently has the cloud computing contract for the CIA, the idea that you can separate establishment power in the state, from establishment power in the private sector (even in private media) starts to look more than just a little bit obtuse.

Of course as Michael Parenti discussed at length in his still spectacular 1986 work “Inventing Reality: the Politics of the Mass Media” not even a corporate news outlet can lie away some stories without irreparably damaging their credibility. Presented with the opportunity for a scoop, irrefutable evidence and public outcry bolstered by outrage among even the average “liberal” voter the corporate media was forced to turn against their own political allies and go along for the ride on the “Edward Snowden is the greatest hero of our time” train - although not without fastidiously printing government lies and denials as if they were fact in the very same articles that proved Snowden’s accusations.

Over time however and under the relentless crushing weight of op-ed after op-ed, an edit here, an omission there, one tiny smear and suggestive bit of framing at a time and the story starts to change. You can’t actually alter history but by subtly washing Snowden’s story in the ongoing smears against Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and other whistleblowers while casually omitting the subject or context of the author’s still mindbogglingly important revelations, you can start to change feelings about the past and the rest is basically a self-reinforcing cycle with a highly predictable outcome.

Memories of complex technical information about online surveillance fade, and the constantly reinforced feeling that leakers and whistleblowers are harming our brave and decidedly “anti-Trump” intelligence agencies in their battle against the dastardly Russian menace and Vladimir Putin, takes their place - until one day, just over six years after Edward Snowden risked his life and freedom to blow the whistle on an ever growing American police state, some clerk at a small town liberal bookstore is eyeing you up as a potential terrorist when you ask about purchasing the Snowden biography in broad daylight.

Understood in that light, perhaps the most alarming thing about Orwell’s quote as spoken by Winston in 1984 is the fact that the author didn’t know about and had no way of conceiving of the internet. Here after all is an environment where editing the record of the past is as easy as pulling down one article and publishing a new one under the same URL as before - and if you don’t think that is happening online, even in stories published by major news corporations you simply haven’t been paying very much attention.

Nor could Orwell have imagined that between social media, the comments section and twenty-four hour cable news programming, we would create a media environment that intrinsically favors outrageous or controversial lies over “boring” and nuanced truths. He could not have predicted that eventually the average American media consumer would become so bombarded with marketing, propaganda and contradictory information that all too often the facts of current events would be lost, replaced only by a wave of vague and hard to pin down emotions that in turn color the observer’s future observations - even observations about the now forgotten facts themselves.

One man however did see it coming and long before the internet existed in its present form - Canadian professor and communication theorist Marshall McLuhan. Combining his study of the effects advertising had on society with some alarmingly prescient observations about the fundamental ways “electronic media” was altering man’s relationship with the world, McLuhan predicted a society totally immersed in a cocoon of endless media content which served more to inspire feelings and emotions than to inform - an idea partially captured in his most famous phrase “the medium is the message.” In the case of ongoing Snowden coverage in the mainstream media, the contents of the stories themselves (and indeed, the author’s act of heroism on behalf of global society) have clearly taken a backseat in favor of defending the national security state and establishment power as a whole over time.

Although this probably isn’t what McLuhan ultimately meant by his famous phrase one can certainly say with a certain amount of bitter irony that in the Snowden story at least, the medium has indeed become the message - the problem is that the medium, corporate liberal media that directly influences mainstream liberal attitudes and opinions, doesn’t like the message our intrepid whistleblower delivered and now after years of subtle propaganda, neither do most of the people consuming that media.

Perhaps the saddest part of it all is that reading “Permanent Record” makes it clear that Snowden himself has almost no idea that this massive cultural shift in attitude towards him has even occurred. Frankly, how could he? Trapped in exile, he didn’t directly experience the slow and often subtle media reconstruction of public confidence in the national security state over these past six years. Having been purposely shut out by both the American government and the mainstream media, Snowden was unable to participate effectively in the ongoing discussion around whistleblowers and the demonization of leaks. In far away Moscow it may not have even occurred to him that hostile feelings towards Julian Assange on behalf of newly-anointed liberal saint Hillary Clinton would poison the liberal discourse towards all other “leakers” like himself.

In some ways the war against truth as it pertains to Edward Snowden has already been won by the national security state. Sure the author’s leaks promoted some legal restrictions on the NSA’s power but even Snowden openly admits that this isn’t nearly enough to effectively stop government mass surveillance. Indeed, Snowden himself and a few of the more famous journalists who told his story are really the only triggers that jog the public memory left in this story. The author exists as a living reminder that freedom and democracy are a sham in a post-internet world and that’s why he will never be pardoned and never be allowed to return home so long as this establishment remains in power - not just the government, but the whole corrupt oligarchy and all of its elite corpse merchants.

All wars, even propaganda wars, have causalities.

- nina illingworth Independent writer, critic and analyst with a left focus. You can find my work at ninaillingworth.com, Can’t You Read, Media Madness and my Patreon Blog. Updates available on Twitter, Mastodon and Facebook. Chat with fellow readers online at Anarcho Nina Writes on Discord!

[bloojayoolie]

Bad, Future, and I Bet: The five stages of red-pill 1. Generic conservative: The generic conservative realizes something about society doesn't quite sit right with him, there is a "gut feeling" that "something is wrong" with the way people conduct themselves in terms of behavioral norms, moral standards and so on. However, he is unable to articulate his opposition to liberalism outside of a liberal context and accepts liberal principles such as a belief in the moral goodness of equality as taken for granted, so liberals generally run rings around him Typical argument: "First gay marriage, what next? Pedos marrying kids? Bestiality?" Typical liberal response: "Slippery slope fallacy much? They said the same thing about black people being allowed to vote 2. Libertarian: The libertarian takes his opposition to liberalism and tries to establish a philosophical foundation for most "generic conservatives" do not merely voice their opposition to the perceived speaking, the libertarian takes this sm impracticality of liberal plans, economic tep further and l framework of one based around economic freedom t degree, he is capable of attacking the current system effectively, but utterly ineffective in challenging it morally or ethically since libertarianism tends to adopt a non-interference attitude to ethics and Typical argument: "You do not right have to right to appropriate other people's wealth. Taxation is theft. Typical liberal response: "Tell that to the Scandinavian states that achieve so much with high tax rates. I bet you believe in creationism too." 3. The radical right Most people on the right stop at stage 2 of the red pill process, those who dig deeper go further however start to realize that something isn't quite right about libertarianism's general refusal (outside of people like Hoppe) to take a moral stand against degeneracy. This leads them to unorthodox political philosophies that stand well beyond the pale of acceptability, such as fascism. For the first time in their lives, they start to articulate moral and ethical opposition to liberal principles rather tha pical argument: "if you import third world people, you import third world problems. We need to act for our people and our Nation, not for Jews, Blacks or Hispanics res 4. Traditionalism: efourthstage is traditionalism. The red-pilled individ soteric (by present day ra ards ua erarc rea entire trajectory for the past two centuries s Revolt of 1789 has been disastrous. Typically the traditionalist will identify with traditional modes of European government IC ical arqument: simply point out the error of principle that has provided the foundation of this constitution and that has led the French astray since the first moment of their revolution. ons like its predecessors, has been drawn up for Man. Now, there is no such thing in the world as Man. In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc. I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life. If he exists, I certainly have no This constitution is capable of being applied to all human communities from China to Geneva. But a constitution which is made for all nations is made for none: it is a pure abstraction, a school exercise whose purpose is to exercise the mind in accordance with a hypothetical ideal, and which ought to be addressed to Man, in the imaginary places which he inhabits.. What is a constitution? Is it not the solution to the following problem: to find the laws that are fitting for a particular nation given its population, its customs, its religion, its geographical situation, its political relations, its wealth, and its good and bad Now, this problem is not addressed at all by the Constitution of 1795, which is concerned only with Man. Typical liberal response: Imao so u think women shouldn't vote 'n shiet? Get with the times grandpa xD It's 2016, not 1816 5. Hoppean Libertarianism The fifth and final stage of the red pill is Hoppe libertarianism. Realizing the traditionalist morals of old would not be sufficient to guide a modern society, not to mention its penchant for coercion, the red-pilled individual will seek guidance in the works of Austrian economist Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Alas, Dr Hoppe's works on why monarchy is better suited to protect individual rights than democracy will certainly capture the attention of the now-traditionalist 4th-stage-pilled individual. Even more, Dr. Hoppe's conclusions that there can be no tolerance towards democrats, socialists, communists or any other collectivist mindset in the free society will seduce the red-pilled individual into realizing a world composed of thousands of different privately-owned microstates would usher in a prosperous and glorious age Typical argument: "Predictably, under democratic conditions the tendency of every monopoly to increase prices and decrease quality - will be only more pronounced. Instead of a prince who regards the s private property, a temporary caretaker is put in charge of the country. He does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his and his proteges' advantage. He owns its current use usufruct but not its capital stock. This will not eliminate exploitation. To the contrary, it will make exploitation less calculating and carried out with little or no regard to the capital stock, i short-sighted. Moreover, the perversion of justice will proceed even faster now. Instead of protecting pre-existing private property rights, democratic government becomes a machine for the redistribution of xisting property rights in the name of illusory social security A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person but falls instead into the same moral category a domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good, or to be enjoyed as a "free good") or the wild and dangerous one (to be fought as a pest). On the other hand, there are members of the human species who are capable of understanding the [value of the division of labor] but...who knowingly act wrongly... [Blesides having to be tamed or even physically defeated [they] must also be punished... to make them understand the nature of their wrongdoings and hopefully teach them a lesson for the future imal of either the harmless sort (to be Private property capitalism and egalitarian multiculturalism are a cultural conservatism. And in trying to combine what cannot be combined, much of the modern libertarian movement actually contributed to the further erosion of private property rights (just as much of contemporary conservatism contributed to the erosion of families and traditional morals). What the countercultural libertari that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social "discrimination" and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multicultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. In other words, libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives ely a combination as socialism and iled to recognize, and what true libertarians cannot emphasize enough, is ilies, authority, communities, and social ranks are the empirical-sociological concretization of the abstract philosophical-praxeological categories and concepts of property, production, exchange, and contract. Property and property relations do not e apart from families and kinship relations." Egalitarianism, in every form and shape, is incompatible with the idea of private property. Private property implies exclusivity, inequality, and difference. And cultural relativism is incompatible with the fundamental-indeed foundationalfact of families and intergenerational kinship relations inship relations imply cultural absolutism. Typical liberal response: None. This degenerate would've already been employed as a consumer good or been physically removed from society

[thinkveganworld]

CIA believes it should run the country.

This is the bulk of an article I wrote years ago on the fact that CIA thinks it should run the country without regard for democracy and without input from the American people.  This article shows CIA has expressed contempt for democracy, idealism and the U.S. public.  That attitude continues today as current CIA operatives try to swing elections here and abroad, undermine  civil liberties and erode what little power the people have. Who runs the country? High level CIA officials have said the CIA, and not the president or other elected officials, should run the country and world affairs. The late Robert Parry was a Newsweek correspondent from 1987 to 1990. He broke the Iran-Contra story, has been a reporter for PBS Frontline and is the author of Lost History and Fooling America. In his 1992 book, Trick Or Treason, Parry discusses his interview with  old-time CIA officer Miles Copeland.  Parry discovered that Copeland strongly supported George H. W. Bush, who was CIA director in 1976, but distrusted Jimmy Carter because he found Carter’s idealism contemptible. Copeland told Parry: “The way we saw Washington at that time (1980) was that the struggle was really not between the left and the right, the liberals and the conservatives, as between the Utopians and the realists, the pragmatists. Carter was a Utopian. He believed, honestly, that you must do the right thing and take your chance on the consequences. He told me that. He literally believed that.” Parry writes: “With those words, Copeland’s voice registered a mixture of amazement and disgust, as if he were talking about a hound dog that wouldn’t hunt. To Copeland and his CIA friends, Carter deserved respect for his first-rate intellect, but only contempt for his idealism.” Copeland and his CIA friends supported Bush in part due to his year as CIA director. Parry writes: “That, plus Bush’s schooling at Yale, a primary CIA recruiting ground, and membership in secret clubs like Skull and Bones, made the president a trusted figure to CIA veterans. I had been told that ‘Bush for President’ signs had been plastered on walls all over the CIA in 1980. Copeland was so personally impressed with Bush’s year as director that the CIA old-timer founded an informal political support group called 'Spooks for Bush.’” Another retired CIA man, Patrick E. Kennon, expressed the CIA’s view that CIA should run the country. Speaking about democratic elections in his 1995 book The Twilight Of Democracy, Kennon says: “Those societies that continue to allow themselves to be administered by individuals whose only qualification is that they were able to win a popularity contest will go from failure to failure and eventually pass from the scene.” The book’s sleeve notes describe Kennon’s typical CIA-man view: “Why have the most successful governments disdained the ideals of America’s founding fathers in favor of the sometimes cruel efficiency of authoritarianism? Because, Kennon asserts, the world has become so complicated, and the pace of change so rapid, that only highly trained, anonymous technocrats invested with enormous authority are capable of guiding a nation’s affairs. To trust unskilled politicians, vulnerable to corruption and ignorant of the most basic rules of governing, with the fate of a nation is, in Kennon’s view, the height of folly.” Both Kennon and Copeland repeatedly express contempt for democracy and idealism and support for a CIA-run country. Robert Parry writes that Miles Copeland shook his head from side to side in dismay as he lamented: “Carter believed in all the principles that we talk about in the West. As smart as Carter is, he did believe in Mom, apple pie, and the corner drugstore. And those things that are good in America are good everywhere else.” Copeland stated, “Carter, I say, was not a stupid man,” but added Carter’s greater weakness was that “he was a principled man.” Copeland said that during the Iranian hostage crisis, neither the CIA nor the Iranians wanted Carter to get credit for the release of the hostages. Both the CIA and the Iranians preferred Reagan get credit. Copeland insisted there was no formal CIA deal with the Iranians to delay releasing hostages until Reagan took office, but just “a mutuality of interests.” When Parry asked Copeland how the CIA and Iranians came to agree to deny the hostage release to Carter, Copeland “only assured me that there were people deep inside the intelligence community who understood what had to be done for the good of the United States. He called the professionals 'the CIA within the CIA.’” Parry hoped to interview Copeland in the future to ask which individuals of the “CIA within the CIA” passed on  hostage messages. He wanted to ask why Copeland’s CIA friends were so sure the hostages would be released after Carter’s defeat. Copeland died on January 14, 1991, before Parry had the chance to do a follow up interview. When CIA representatives like Copeland and Kennon say the CIA is more qualified to run the country than are elected representatives, do they take into account the many CIA atrocities, including assassinations of democratically elected world leaders – atrocities that have become a matter of public record, acknowledged by CIA officials? When Copeland and Kennon speak of CIA concern for “the good of the United States” or protecting U.S. citizens, do they take into account the CIA’s own admitted abuses of U.S. citizens, including the CIA’s infamous MKULTRA program? Copeland spoke to Parry about controlling public opinion in Iran, about turning the crowds around, shifting public support from one dictator to another. Copeland said because Khomeni’s supporters in 1979 totaled over a million people, the CIA couldn’t shift public opinion. Copeland said, “You don’t turn a million people. You can’t do it.” He said the CIA might have saved the shah from the Khomeni supporters except for Carter’s despised idealism. To Copeland and his CIA friends’ disgust, Carter criticized the shah for using torture and murder to keep Iranian citizens down. Copeland said: “There are plenty of forces in the country we could have marshaled. We could have sabotaged [the revolution]. But we had to do it early. We had to establish what the Quakers call 'the spirit of the meeting’ in the country, where everybody was thinking just one way. The Iranians were really like sheep, as they are now.” The CIA doesn’t confine its contempt for average citizens to Iranians. Apparently the CIA also sees American citizens as “sheep” and American public opinion as something the CIA must “manage” for the good of the country. Robert Parry’s Fooling America shows how the Reagan-Bush-era CIA pulled out all stops to control public opinion and the American press regarding Iran-Contra. Walter Raymond, Jr., served as the CIA’s chief propaganda and disinformation specialist before moving to the National Security Council in 1982. As top CIA officer assigned to the Reagan White House, Raymond helped manipulate public opinion by portraying the Sandinistas as “black hats” and the Contras as “white hats.” Parry writes: “As for the questionable legality of a CIA director assisting in a campaign to influence the American people, Raymond explained that [CIA Director William] Casey undertook those actions 'not so much in his CIA hat, but in his adviser to the president hat.’” Raymond, Copeland and Kennon typify the CIA view: Democracy should be superseded by a CIA-run government (complete with torture and assassinations) and the American people are “sheep” to be manipulated toward that end.  

Today CIA has managed to convince many Americans via its advanced propaganda techniques that the “Russian hacking” story is true and that we should fear “Russian trolls” and embrace a new Cold War and McCarthy-like mentality.  Are their propagandists right in taking the public for easily manipulated fools?  If we’re to prove them wrong, the people need to do more independent reading, learn to listen to well-informed sources with a record of truth telling and integrity, and use logic and good critical thinking skills to distinguish propaganda from fact.  Average citizens need to care about the truth and pass it along to others when they find it.

[salsa-and-light]

I’ll weigh in.

“Banning Gay Rights”

Christian opinion on homosexuality is divided but it is exceedingly rare to find people who want to remove human rights for gay people. Even marriage rights are quickly becoming a non-issue for Anti-gay Christians.

Of course it’s also worth mentioning that there are many queer Christians and Republicans.

So Queer Americans now get to to chose their politics based on their beliefs instead of their survival.

#lovewins

“Subjugating Women”

Most Christian Conservatives are women. Those are also the women most likely to be armed so this is a bit silly.

“Stopping abortion”

Opinions are once again divided among most groups of people. But using this as a point of comparison for the Taliban seems a bit dishonest especially consider America has much looser regulation of abortion that EU countries where Abortions happen almost exclusively in the first trimester.

Which is to say that some of the greatest points of controversy for Abortion in America(i.e. late term abortions) would also be be points of controversy is most of the world.

“Using propaganda”

This Venn diagram is propaganda what’s your point.

“Undermining science and democratic elections.”

American liberals said that the 2016 election was fraudulent American conservatives said that the 2020 election was fraudulent. This is one of those situations where it actually is both sides.

Although the accusations in 2016 also came with a side of propping up Russian xenophobia.

“Stopping vaccines”

As for science I will remind you that everyone was suspicious of the Covid vaccine at some point and the American demographic with the highest vaccination rate are the elderly which skew conservative.

American liberals didn’t trust the vaccine under Trump and American conservatives don’t trust it now, maybe we just need to accept that everyone is petty and single-minded.

“Melding Church & State”

This is one point where I actually do have strong political opinions.

Melding of Church and State is a theocracy, people being elected to office with religious views is not a violation of civil liberties. They’re still elected it doesn’t really matter why they have their beliefs only that they’re legal and supported by the voters.

“Hating other Faiths”

Once again this is a silly comparison because the Taliban commits religious genocide, whereas the worst that a typical Christian will do is tell you you’re going to hell.

That’s definitely bad, and an immoral degradation but it’s not massacre bad.

That being said, that is not the typical attitude of American Christians.

I myself went to a Christian University in America where all students were required to take classes on other religions and schools of philosophical thought; this includes trips to various places of worship for other faiths.

I’ll admit that my Vietnamese is basic and my Arabic and Hindi are nonexistent so I might not have learned everything I could about Buddhism, Islam & Hinduism but it’s far from hatred.

“Religious laws”

Once again this isn’t a point for comparison because as long as you don’t break a religious law like murder(that’s also a religious law) no one’s going to do anything to you.

Whereas the Taliban..

..

I get it, there are some legitimate criticisms to make of Conservatives, Christians, conservatives Christians and more.

That’s not a fight I’m trying to wade into.

I’m not even going to say that the Taliban comparison is useless, but if you’re not going to treat your opposition with the same nuance and tact that you expect to be treated with you’re not going to change anything, except perhaps to make the conflict worse.

Criticism is much more impactful when it’s true.

[crimethinc]

Notes on Anti-Fascist Self-Defense Training: 10 Lessons from the Russian Anti-Fascist Experience

The Trump presidency has seen a boom of fascist organizing and anti-fascist resistance in North America. Strategies and tactics that originally developed in the European context have spread around the USA. Meanwhile, in Russia, both Nazi violence and anti-fascist activity have died down to a mere fraction of what they were at the peak of the years of confrontation, 2002-2011. In the following text, a participant in the Russian anti-fascist movement suggests some conclusions about how to train for anti-fascist confrontations.

In publishing this perspective, we aim to facilitate dialogue between those fighting fascism in a variety of conditions all around the world. We believe it is crucial for anti-fascists to learn from history and from each other’s experience. If the Russian model for anti-fascist action reached its limits based on internal factors, as described below, we should take care not to reproduce those elements in our own organizing. Likewise, we encourage readers to bear in mind the political, social, and legal differences between the Russian and US contexts; you’ll do no one any good by ending up in prison on weapons charges unless the alternative would have been even worse. In the long run, fascism won’t be defeated simply by individual courage or force of arms, but by building a broad-based, participatory movement that addresses the social and economic problems fascists capitalize on to recruit for their organizations.

Antifascist Attitude, a documentary made in 2008. Click on the option for English subtitles.

Introduction from the Author

Unfortunately, this text cannot go into detail about the history of Russian anti-fascism. That text has yet to be written. You can get a general sense from two texts that appeared between 2009 and 2011, before it was obvious that the situation was about to change:

Antifa in the Wild East—Internet Warrior Sets the Record Straight

Notes of a Co-Conspirator

There are a number of reasons why both fascist terror and anti-fascist organizing have drastically diminished in Russia over the past decade. First of all, Russian society is less dysfunctional. During the economic crisis of the 1990s, entire communities were devastated due to drugs and crime; people born in the 1980s were among the most affected. When this generation reached their twenties in the following decade, they were prone to violence and mayhem. Almost all the major Nazi terrorists were born in the 1980s. Since then, the majority of those still alive and not in prison have settled down somehow.

The police are also taking fascists and anti-fascists more seriously. A decade ago, you could bribe beat cops to get out of trouble; sometimes you could even bribe officers of the FSB (the successor to the KGB). Nowadays, beat cops contact the Center of Counteraction Against Extremists (E-Center) or the FSB, and they do not accept bribes anymore. The government has also heavily suppressed the football hooligan subculture, which used to be the biggest youth subculture in Russia.

A third reason is changing fascist strategies. Russian fascists have oscillated between organizing wide mass movements and underground terror. In the 1990s, Barkashov’s party Russian National Unity boasted hundreds of thousands of supporters; by the late 2000s, nothing remained from those days and fascists were concentrating on underground terror cells. The most prominent of those was the Fighting Organization of Russian Nationalists (BORN), the speciality of which was high-profile murders, including those of anti-fascists Ivan Khutorskoy, Fyodor Filatov, Ilya Dzhaparidze, Stanislav Markelov, and Anastasia Baburova.

Murals depicting anti-fascists murdered by Russian fascists.

All the known BORN members have been dead or imprisoned since 2013. During the cycle of protests against election fraud in 2011-2012 and Alexei Navalny’s rise to prominence on an anti-corruption and anti-immigrant platform, fascists rediscovered their lost hope of building a mass movement and joined liberals and leftists in mass demonstrations—not without occasional fights with anti-fascists, however. New terror groups still occasionally emerge, such as the group around 20-year-old Pavel Vojtov, which murdered at least 15 homeless people in the Moscow area from 2014 to 2015. But this is nothing compared to the situation of the previous decade.

The last major Nazi attack on an anti-fascist concert was in summer 2010, when a group of Nazis aiming to assault a show by Moscow Death Brigade dispersed after warning shots were fired with a shotgun. The arms race had reached its logical conclusion; both anti-fascists and fascists lost interest in attacking the gigs of their opponents.

After the collapse of the movement against election fraud, the fascist movement was in a crisis, just as the rest of the opposition was. The war in Donbass (a region in eastern Ukraine torn by a Russia-backed insurgency) was another devastating blow, as Nazis were bitterly arguing about which side of the conflict to support. Eventually, both Nazis and anti-fascists ended up fighting in both sides of the front. Even anarchists have failed to reach a common position about the war in Donbass.

In a way, Russian anti-fascists had achieved a victory, as the movement was always organized around the goal of defending shows, not combating racism in Russian society in general. Since Nazis do not come to shows anymore, there is little organized anti-fascism left.

Because of all these factors, racist violence has dropped dramatically in Russia. According to SOVA center statistics, there were 692 incidents in 2007 and 93 in 2016—a whopping 86% drop. The real drop might be even more, as readiness to report crime grows as crime drops.

The reasons for the rise and fall of fascism and anti-fascism in Russia were rather local; there are probably not many universal lessons to draw from this. However, we can offer some notes regarding the practice in the streets.

The following suggestions are drawn from the experience of those years in Russia. All of this is basically common sense, but judging from what I’ve read online lately, some people may still benefit from these suggestions.

Note that self-defense in this text refers also to precautionary offense, as you cannot expect a state of peace with fascists to last indefinitely.

A video from the classical Antifa era—2006 in Moscow, when the police were not particularly interested in what occurred in street confrontations between fascists and anti-fascists.

1. When it comes to physical confrontations, there is a strict hierarchy of tools.

A blunt weapon almost always wins against bare hands. A sharp weapon almost always wins against blunt weapons. A gun always wins against knives.

This hierarchy of tools is much more important than any disparity in size and strength; it also erases most disparity in skills. With a sharp weapon, you can easily defeat an unarmed opponent twice as heavy as you. Take this into account if you are small and weak.

Because of this…

2. There is no universal practice of self-defense.

The appropriate practice of self-defense depends completely on the cultural and legal context. For example:

-In Western and Central Europe, confrontations usually involve bare hands, sometimes blunt weapons. Most of these countries have a cultural aversion to using sharp weapons, although knives are sometimes drawn. Guns are almost never used, as firearm ownership is strictly regulated.

-In Greece, the mere possession of sharp weapons is heavily penalized. As a consequence, confrontations typically involve blunt weapons.

-In Finland, carrying knives is not unusual, and you should be prepared for the possibility that your opponent will be carrying one. Guns are also more available than in the rest of the Europe.

-In the USA, gun regulations are lax. You should operate under the assumption that your opponent may be carrying one.

-In Russia, the cultural framework is fluid. According to tradition, conflicts should be solved with bare hands, and gun legislation is rather strict. However, due to the escalation of conflict between 2002 and 2011, trauma guns and knives replaced fists; then shotguns replaced trauma guns and knives. Shotguns created a balance of terror and confrontations died out for the most part. Because of cultural and legal pressures, both of these shifts took a few years.

Antifa was born in Germany and originally spread in Western and Central Europe, but the practice of fighting barehanded is not applicable in places where the cultural and legal framework does not confine confrontations to those terms. There is no sense in training in unarmed self-defense if your opponent is likely to carry a blunt weapon. There is no sense training in self-defense with blunt weapons if your opponent is likely to carry a sharp weapon. If your opponent is likely to carry a gun, there is no sense training in self-defense with sharp weapons.

In addition to cultural and legal frameworks, scenarios also matter. I read an article about anti-racists setting up a powerlifting gym in the USA in order to be prepared for confrontations with racists and sexists in the streets and clubs. However, lifting weights is of very little use if you expect to confront a fascist demonstration. If the scenario is confronting a random racist, sexist, or homophobe in the street or serving as a bouncer at a benefit party, appearing big enough may solve the problem without violence.

This brings us to our next point…

3. Understand your priorities.

Unless you are a teenager or 20-something and plan to be a self-defense professional, you should prioritize. You cannot prepare for all scenarios; you should pick a few of them. Even if you do not have studies, a job, or a family now, you are likely to have any or all of them during the next 10 years that it will take you to become a universal expert.

You have a choice to make. If you expect to face unarmed opponents, train in unarmed self-defense. If you expect to face armed opponents, figure out how to survive the situation. If you only expect to face random harassers or drunken assholes at parties, you may lift weights. But most likely, you wont be able to prepare for all of these scenarios. Concentrate on what is most likely to keep you alive and healthy.

Therefore…

4. Do not train in Mixed Martial Arts.

Or at least do not concentrate on grappling, unless you only plan to be a bouncer and you do not anticipate any serious confrontations. This goes for anything related to ground fighting, including Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and wrestling.

If you have to fight against several opponents and you go to ground with one of them, someone will kick your head or stab you in the back. If you want to stay alive, you never want to go to ground in any serious situation. You should know something about holds, but spending years studying the complex art of grappling makes no sense if the goal is to survive in the streets.

I always feel sad when I read about anti-fascists training in MMA. Obviously, it is a beautiful form of art. However, it has little to do with the kind of self-defense you may need in political confrontations. Yes, anti-fascist MMA tournaments have been organized in the former Soviet Union since 2009, but this choice is not due to street realities but due to culture. Pulling a knife is considered disgraceful; this is why people kept training and competing in MMA even when everyone was already carrying a knife or a trauma gun.

Avoid any fancy Japanese or Chinese technique with a thousand-year-old noble tradition unless studying it is your chief goal in life. These arts were developed for the purposes of a professional caste in feudal times; they require years of full-time study to master and involve impractical and outdated weapons. If you are landed gentry, perhaps you can afford to become a samurai. Otherwise, that is unlikely.

You know best what to do with your own life. Mastering Kwan Dao or Katana might be just as fascinating as mastering model train collecting. But in the streets, all three of those options are comparably useful unless you always carry a Kwan Dao or Katana with you.

If you have a job or other demanding commitments in your life, you haven’t studied martial arts since childhood, and you do not possess natural talent, you should concentrate on learning the most essential and rudimentary skills. If you expect to face an opponent in an unarmed confrontation, the first thing to learn is how to deliver kicks and punches. Muay Thai is good for this. If you live in an area where it is more likely that you will find yourself in a scenario involving blunt and sharp weapons, I recommend Filipino martial arts such as Kali or Escrima—and nothing else. If you live in an area where everyone has a gun and issues are likely to be resolved through confrontations with firearms, just get a gun and learn how to use it.

And also…

A video summarizing the first No Surrender anti-fascist mixed martial arts tournament in Moscow in October 2009. The chief referee, Ivan Khutorskoy, was murdered by BORN the following month.

5. Be prepared to use your weapon.

Even in countries where there are strict cultural norms or laws against weapons, they are sometimes used. Sticks and stones are everywhere; your opponent will probably find one if he is really in trouble. There is no country in which you should concentrate only on unarmed training.

Even if you do only prepare for unarmed confrontation, you should think about how to protect your knuckles. You are not going to go around with boxing gloves—nor would you want to use them in a serious confrontation, anyway. But if you break your hand with your first punch, you are in trouble. You should think about this. Always be prepared to protect your knuckles.

And when you train with weapons…

6. Do not spend much time studying disarming techniques.

Most likely, you will never have the opportunity to use them. Attempting to disarm a person of any weapon is always extremely dangerous. You should only try it if your opponent is obviously drunk and inexperienced and there are no other opponents around. Otherwise, you should not attempt to disarm someone, but rather, use your own weapon instead. If you don’t have a weapon of your own and there is no way to escape… you’re probably in trouble.

But besides training…

7. Be prepared to use what you have learned.

There is no point training in Filipino martial arts if you do not carry a weapon with you. It is pointless to do target practice if you don’t carry a gun. When you have learned your art, you should always carry your weapon anywhere that you expect you may be involved in confrontations—and sooner or later, even where you do not expect them. If you are not able to do this, you should be prepared to deal with confrontations without your weapon.

8. What about running away?

Self-defense gurus often say, “First of all, you should attempt to run away.” This is often good advice—but not always. First, it is always easier to catch someone than to run away, so it only makes sense to run if you believe that you are faster and you know your escape route. Second, you may not be the only one whose life and health is at stake. What if you are able to escape, but that would mean leaving your comrade to face your adversaries alone?

Obviously, it is a good idea to stay in good shape and do cardio training. Almost any street confrontation requires stamina and at least a bit of running. But you should be prepared for situations in which running away is not an option.

But even if gurus sometimes give bad advice…

9. Always train with professionals.

Or at least study under very experienced trainers. It might be nice to hang around and practice with your friends from time to time, but in order to learn something and to develop your skills, you have to join a serious group.

Yes, many trainers and people in clubs are assholes. Both trainers and regular students might be unfriendly, unsupportive, sexist, or otherwise insensitive. However, the people you’re likely to face in street confrontations will not be nice, either.

I’m not saying that you should pay to participate in a class that is almost unbearable. If the other people are such assholes that you can’t concentrate on the exercises, it’s not worth the money. But any major city has plenty of options; if one trainer or club doesn’t suit you, look for another one. You should only train exclusively alone or with friends if there really is no other choice.

However, although it is better to train with professionals, a professional trainer is probably not the best person to seek life advice from. If you ask your trainer how you should train and how much, she or he will probably answer that you should train six days a week and go to a competition on the seventh. Perhaps you only want to train to win in the streets, or at least to stay alive out there. Your trainer will probably have different life priorities than you. Not every anti-fascist has to be a professional trainer or fighter. If the art of your choice can only be useful after you’ve been practicing it three times a week for five years, it’s not a good choice. One of the stupidest choices I made in my life was to train in ancient varieties of kung-fu for years. I never had enough time or skills achieve anything in them.

And at last of all…

10. Practice sparring in every training.

Only sparring can prepare you for serious confrontations. You should practice with many different rules and many different scenarios, such as one person against many people and many people against many people. You should train to draw your weapon fast. Do this in every training, even if you’re a beginner. If your trainer does not understand importance of sparring, change classes.

Don’t take it too hard, as you don’t want to have CTE. But don’t take it too easy either.

-Cloudbuster

I would like to thank Jew Bear, xAx, and CrimethInc. agents for valuable comments.

An example of football-hooligan-style fighting. In 2010, Arsenal Kiev, known for its anti-fascist fans, played Karpaty Lviv, which was known for its fascist fans, in Lviv. Many anti-fascists from Russia came to support Arsenal. Arsenal fans managed to stand their ground, although outnumbered more than 2 to 1.

[pinkspaceclub]

Worst and Most Dangerous Gay Countries in the World

This week we are pleased to present a guest post by Talon Windwalker, a contract writer traveling the planet together with his son. Talon is an expert in longterm family travel and LGBTQ travel. His website, 1Dad1Kid, chronicles their journey, and his food blog Travels4Yum will cause you to drool.

I’ve been traveling full time, as a queer single dad, with my son for five years thus far . I’m often asked: “Where’s his mom?” I usually just respond with the safest explanation that there's no mom. However, that, understandably, generally results in some confusion and more questions. So many times I’m tempted to only respond “I’m gay.” Unfortunately, that isn’t always the safest thing to announce. People within the LGBTQ travel community have some unique challenges the typical person doesn’t need to consider. While there has been a surprising increase in rights for the community over the last decade, that's only the reality during a relatively small a part of the planet . One country removes the last legal vestiges of inequality and another promotes a bill to “kill the gays.” A queer couple, especially a gay one, has got to wonder if posing for a bedroom with one bed will get them into trouble. Can they walk down the road while holding hands without worrying of being subsequent headline? Do they desire they have to “act more straight” during a locale? If something happens to a part of a marriage , will that relationship be legally recognized? The recent case of the married British gay couple who were on their honeymoon in Australia reaffirmed this as a legitimate concern. one among them, tragically, died, and since Australia doesn't recognize couple the death certificate listed his husband as “never married.” Imagine the nightmare of not only losing your spouse, especially as a newlywed, but not having the ability to navigate the varied legal obstacles because your marriage isn't recognized. In order to list the simplest and worst places for LGBTQ travel, I considered various factors including: Existing laws and up to date court decisions Experiences of fellow queer travelers Reliable travel alerts specifically focused on the LGTBQ community Results of social experiments Travel resources indicating “welcoming” countries. It is important to notice that even in queer-friendly regions, there could also be areas that are less welcoming and open-minded. for instance , large cities tend to be more accepting of diversity than small rural communities. additionally , some cities have “gay villages” which are LGBTQ-majority neighborhoods that are much safer than other areas of the town . Gay males tend to experience more problems than lesbians. Some laws explicitly target males while saying nothing about lesbian-related acts. In many cultures, it isn’t considered odd for 2 women to share a bed or to be affectionate publicly . Generally speaking, women will have fewer concerns as a same-sex couple. Of course, they will produce other issues to affect . Best Places for LGBTQ Travel gay travel Spain This was, at first, a touch of a surprise for me; considering how heavily Catholic the country is. However, equality may be a big concern for Spaniards, and in 2005 the govt legalized couple against the strong protestations of the Vatican. This move was supported by a minimum of 66% of the population. Spain is home to some well-known queer hotspots like Sitges and Ibiza. However, Barcelona and Madrid even have thriving LGBTQ communities and activities. In 2012, the ecu Union conducted a survey across all of its member states regarding attitudes toward LGBTQ issues. Spain ranked alright . Last year, a social experiment was conducted in Madrid with encouraging results. Queer couples should feel comfortable being like all other couple while visiting most of Spain. Iceland This country is usually rated because the most egalitarian nation on the earth . The capital’s annual Pride events are attended by an outsized number of the straight community. In a minimum of one year, the mayor (who is heterosexual) even wearing drag to open the festival. At least one prime minister was an “out” lesbian who married her partner shortly after the law changing the definition of marriage to gender neutral went into effect. Violent crime may be a rarity in Iceland, and hate crimes are even more rare. South Africa Once an area known for horrendous racism and intolerance, South Africa has adopted a really liberal constitution and was the 5th country within the world to legalize couple (and the 2nd country outside of Europe). LGBTQ travelers routinely speak of feeling safe within the country, and Cape Town has become a well-liked destination for same-sex weddings. Mexico City and Oaxaca, Mexico The Mexican culture features a strong “live and let live” attitude; however, Mexico City and Oaxaca are known for being welcoming cities. Recently, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that couple may be a constitutionally protected right which helps to point out that things are changing during this wonderful country. While smaller cities/less-known destinations might not offer many legal protections, generally speaking LGBQT people are pretty safe. Public displays of affection (PDA) are often frowned upon, but that applies to heterosexuals also . Hate crimes toward members of the queer community are quite unusual. Canada This North American country was among the primary within the world to legalize couple . While there are some areas that are more conservative, generally speaking LGBTQ people can feel safe traveling throughout this massive nation. Many large cities have gay villages, and Canadians are famous for being kind and welcoming. Toronto and Vancouver especially are noted as being extremely queer friendly. New Zealand Kiwis are a number of the friendliest and most welcoming people within the world, but they were a touch slow to hitch the opposite nations recognizing couple . When their parliament passed the law, though, they collectively began singing a Maori love song to commemorate the instant . As if people needed more reasons to like New Zealand! It is one among the safest countries to go to for everybody , including LGBTQ people. A queer couple walking while holding hands might encounter some people congratulating them but generally won’t need to affect homophobia. Portugal This wonderful country doesn’t often receive the eye it deserves, which is particularly true for LGBTQ travelers. The Portuguese people are fairly friendly and welcoming, and it warmed my heart to ascertain people actually encouraging a gay couple during another recent social experiment. Personally, i might like to see more people include Portugal in their travels. Worst Places for LGBTQ Travel gay travel2 This list might be really long, unfortunately. rather than listing all the countries that would pose potential problems for the queer traveler, I’ve focused on the foremost unsafe ones. Russia This country has taken homophobia to extremes. After enacting a law labeled as an “antipropaganda” measure against promoting homosexualty as a “normal” lifestyle, the Russian LGBTQ community experienced a drastic upswing in violent hate crimes. For the foremost part, police have appeared to be supportive of those crimes, rarely intervening even during attacks. Not satisfied with their level of overt hatred, the legislature recently tried to pass laws against same-sex couples showing any public displays of affection and/or “coming out” publicly. Surprisingly, those attempts (which specifically excluded females) failed, but it might be almost stunning if the law isn’t revisited at a later date. People have also been attacked for merely “appearing gay.” Uganda This African country is excessively homophobic. an effort to pass a law calling for members of the LGBTQ community to be executed was changed from “kill the gays” to “jail the gays.” Fortunately, that was annulled by the courts; however, lawmakers haven’t given up trying to pass legislation that might provide punishments for “unnatural acts” which might include homosexuality. Nigeria Nigeria seems to be in an unspoken battle with Uganda on which country are often more homophobic. There are multiple news stories covering mob attacks on suspected queers, even pulling them from their homes and beating them within the streets. On many of those occasions, the police have joined in on the attacks. Jamaica This island is documented for being laid back and enjoying a celebration lifestyle. However, when it involves LGBTQ people, all bets are off; particularly if you’re male. Sex between men is against the law during this country, and therefore the laws are often firmly enforced. The government is understood for supporting violence against gays, so if you’re a victim of a violent hate crime don’t expect to receive any assistance from local officials. Lithuania As a part of their European Union membership, this Baltic nation had to entrench some protections in their laws. However, the overall attitude toward LGTBQ people remains poor. Any sort of public event, like Pride, is usually amid violent protests. Legal protections here shouldn’t be considered as encouraging to queer travelers. While those protections could also be “on the books,” it doesn’t mean they're enforced, and police are generally known for being very lackadaisical and uncaring in their response to victims. Egypt Gay sex isn't specifically outlawed in Egypt; however, people are often arrested and convicted under morality laws which give for up to 17 years of imprisonment (with, or without, hard labor and fines). It is not uncommon for people of an equivalent gender to carry hands or walk arm-in-arm, numerous same-sex couples find these sorts of PDA to be relatively safe. However, as a foreigner you would possibly draw unwanted attention, so caution would be advised. Arrests at suspected gay gatherings aren't uncommon. While Muslim males are more likely to receive harsher treatment, all visitors are often subjected to an equivalent laws and punishments. Should I Avoid These Countries? This is a standard question with no, solid, one-size-fits-all answer. It really comes right down to individual choice. One has got to consider the potential risk factors, also as personal ethics. a number of us feel that giving our mighty tourist dollar to a rustic that encourages violence towards us may be a rather foolish, or unethical, decision. However, there's also a legitimate argument to be made that, by visiting and spending time in these places, we help “normalize” being LGBTQ. The best advice I can give is to be informed about the place you’re considering for travel and to honestly evaluate the risks versus benefits. Also consider the mood you would like for your trip. for instance , is that this a romantic getaway? Well, perhaps specialise in one among the simplest places to go to where you'll relax and be yourselves. TL;DR When it involves travel, like many things in life, only you recognize what works best for you. When considering LGBTQ travel, the subsequent countries stand out: Safest & most welcoming: Spain Iceland South Africa Mexico Canada New Zealand Portugal Most dangerous & unwelcoming: Russia Uganda Nigeria Jamaica Lithuania Egypt

Iran

Morocco

[aftaabmagazine]

Home After 20 Years: Travel to Herat

words and photos By Fariba Nawa 

From the 2001 issue of Afghan Magazine | Lemar-Aftaab

Journalist Fariba Nawa traveled to her hometown in 2000 which was then under Taliban rule. Here is her story. 

Flies buzzed and circled around my face. I swatted them away with my hands as I slowly looked up to a dozen men watching me. Standing in line at the Iranian border waiting to cross into my hometown Herat, Afghanistan, the men stared at my face and hands - the only bared parts of my body. My hair and the rest of my body were covered in observance of Iran's dress code for women.

Keeping my eyes to the floor to avoid the ogling, the Iranian border agent called my name. My hands trembled as I handed him my Afghan passport - perhaps the least useful travel document in the world. In a matter of minutes, I would be home again after nearly 20 years. I was eight years old the last time I crossed the Silk Route. The desert I was about to cross was the frontlines of war. My parents, sister and I walked as donkeys carried our belongings for six hours until we reached safety in Iran.

My family fled Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion in 1981. We escaped to California where I grew up.

As an adult, I am Americanized but Afghanistan is in my heart and memories. I visualized returning to my grandfather's orchard home, where I used to play with my cousins and eat the sundry of fruits we picked from trees. The 5-acre home was a sanctuary from my parents' neighborhood where the boom of rockets and bullets echoed in our backyard.

The Afghan-Soviet war has turned into a civil war now as Afghans struggle to survive in the wake of more United Nations sanctions. One of the poorest countries in the world, Afghanistan is facing a severe drought as well as the threat of starvation. The Taliban, the militia ruling the majority of the country, enforce a strict code of law. In the name of religion, they forbid women from going to school or working in most fields and force men to pray. Women must travel with a male kin and wear a burqa, which covers the body like a tent with only a mesh for sight. Men must sport long, scraggly beards. This was the Afghanistan I was about to enter.

My cousin's best friend was my rented male kin or mahram traveling with me. Mobin was a merchant who traveled across Iran and Afghanistan, selling buttons and lace to survive. He saw his wife and 18-month-old son in Herat one week out of every month. Shrewd and experienced on the road, Mobin promised to take me from Iran to Afghanistan and finally back to Pakistan, where I worked as a freelance journalist.

With my American passport hidden under my bra, I held my breath as we passed Taliban customs. We rented a taxi with two other women. Mobin was also their mahram. The Taliban banned music, but the taxi driver popped in the latest Afghan folk songs and increased the volume as we headed toward Herat. An ancient city once known for its art and culture in Central Asia -- now it is the only Afghan city with a running economy.

The station wagon rolled up and down on the sand dunes. I took out my journal and wrote under my black coat. Every time a man appeared in the distant, the other women and I covered our faces with the edge of our headscarves.

"Don't worry. The Taliban are scared of women," Mobin said.

"They usually stop cars with men. The ones with women, they turn their heads."

We decided to don the burqa once we reached the city. In disbelief, I closed my eyes, smelled the air and listened to the folk singer, who had recorded his music in Virginia. The singer lamented that he was distant from his homeland. But I was finally home.

Two hours later in pitch dark, we entered the gates of the city. My heart was throbbing. The adobe, high walls hid the houses, but downtown was lit up in neon-colored lights. Men rode their bicycles on the unpaved roads. It was 10 p.m., and there was not a woman in sight.

[caption: A shrine in Herat.]

The taxi stopped in front of Mobin's house, I stepped down and kissed the ground, then looked up at the sky. The fall breeze blew the dust in my eyes, but I could still see the constellations, shooting stars and the moon. That's the closest I have gotten to euphoria.

The people I knew in Herat were distant relatives with the exception of my step-grandmother, who still lives on our land. My mother's uncle was the only one who knew I was coming because he was one of the few owners of a telephone. I stayed with his two wives and their children. They were fairly well off and rebellious. Disobeying the Taliban's ban on music and television, a satellite dish propped up on their porch, a television and musical instruments in the basements. My five female cousins, mostly teenagers, did not clandestinely go to home schools as did some girls. They did their house chores and learned to read the Koran from a religious teacher for an hour a day while their 15-year-old brother attended public high school and took English courses.

This family's attitude toward the Taliban was typical of other Heratis. They have accepted the limitations in exchange for peace. However, they want Ismail Khan back in power. While warlords, once freedom fighters against the Russians, fought each other, Ismail Khan began to develop Herat, and he was still corrupt but better than the Taliban, my relatives said.

[caption: Few of the minarets built during the 15th century Timurid Empire are still standing. Others were toppled during the past 20 years of war.]

The ruling militia has instilled a chilling fear in Afghans, especially women. Since Herat is the Taliban's base for money, they give its residents more leeway to break the law. Heratis take advantage, but they go about it in a schizophrenic manner. My cousins would drum on their tambourines at midnight, cursing the Taliban as they sang. The next day, the girls whispered in conversation, afraid the Taliban were coming to get them. One way of appeasing the Taliban was to invite their ringleaders to parties where they joined in the festivity.

I kept a low profile, not asking too many questions and staying inside most of the time. I fit in surprisingly well despite my liberal ideas and informal mannerisms. My relatives assumed I had forgotten the Persian language and Islam, both of which I have kept.

[caption: One of the sarachas; strangers live in my family home now.]

On the second day of my journey, I bravely put on the burqa like my mother used to and hit the streets for the first time with my cousins. I walked slowly embarrassed that I might trip on the flowing fabric. There is an ironic power in being invisible. Men in public noticed my ankles and hands, but they did not look at my eyes watching them. I stared at their expressions and actions, reading them without the interruption of their gaze.

We first rode a decorated Toyota Corolla taxi, then a horse wagon to reach my family home. I knocked at the old brass gate. A child opened the door and led me to my grandmother. She was praying. I lifted the front of my burqa as she turned her head. My grandmother, 70, screamed in disbelief like I was a ghost. She passed out for a few seconds before hugging me and sobbed on my shoulders.

[caption: Our four-acre house in Herat was sold and divided into four small homes. This is the doorway leading to one of the sarachas.]

The next few days passed so quickly in glee. I went shopping, visited shrines and my school where I stopped attending after I witnessed a bomb kill my second-grade classmates 19 years ago.

On the seventh day of my trip back to Herat, I stepped into the orchard home, saving the best for last. I threw my burqa on the ground and sprinted toward the living quarters, hearing my family's laughter inside the hallways.

[caption: My cousin Ehsan, 16, stands in front of Gazergah where renowned Sufi poet Khwaja Abdullah Ansary is buried.]

But there was no one and no laughter. The doors of the 11 rooms were locked shut, some of their windows broken. I ran out to the field, frantically looking for the mulberry and pomegranate trees where we had picnics.

I found the trees but no harvest due to the drought. The entire place seemed much smaller. I kept running into walls. Then I recalled that my uncles sold three acres of the land a few years ago. My happy nostalgia turned into despair. I climbed the roof overlooking the city, buried my face in my hands and wept.

[caption: My maternal grandfather's orchard where all my happy memories of Afghanistan live. The orchard yielded little harvest because of the drought in the last couple of years.]

The tears were a catharsis, an acceptance of the past as past. My distance from Herat for these 20 years had left a void in me. I was missing something as I had lived my comfortable Western life in San Francisco. But 10,000 miles away, leaning at the edge of my childhood roof, I felt a sense of completion, that I was coming back full circle, fulfilling a spiritual journey. 

About Fariba Nawa

Fariba Nawa, an award-winning Afghan-American journalist, covers a range of issues and specializes in women’s rights and conflict zones. She is based in Istanbul, Turkey and has traveled extensively to the Middle East, Central and South Asia. Visit Her Website

[newsnigeria]

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/politics/tulsi-gabbard-phenomenon/

The Tulsi Gabbard phenomenon as a diagnostic tool

[This column was written for the Unz Review]

Ever since Tulsi Gabbard announced that she will be running for President in 2020 her personality and candidacy have been a subject of heated debates and after I posted a rather small message from her, I have been getting panicked emails warning me that she is a fake and that I should not “jump on her bandwagon” or otherwise endorse her.

So, first and foremost, I am not – repeat NOT – endorsing her in any way shape or fashion.

However, I do find her and what is taking place around her extremely interesting and I want to look at it a little closer.  This won’t be a review or analysis of her ideas, political platform or chance of getting elected.  Neither will I try to read her mind and do what so many other folks are doing and confidently declare that I know what her true values, ideas or plans are.  I don’t.

But there are a few things which can already be observed about her which I want to comment on.

Ask yourself: why do liberals hate this lady?

First, one might imagine that she would be the *dream* candidate for the Democratic Party: she is a female, she is not White, she has impeccable “patriotic” credentials, she is obviously both very good looking and very smart, she does not have any skeletons in her past (at least none that we know of for the time being) and she is not associated with the notorious Clinton gang.  So what’s there not to like about her if you are a Democrat?

Well, as we all saw, the putatively “liberal” legacy Ziomedia hates Tulsi Gabbard with a passion.  Maybe not as much as that legacy Ziomedia hates Trump or Putin, but still – the levels of hostility against her are truly amazing.  This may seem bizarre until you realize that, just like Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard has said all the right things about Israel, but that this was not nearly “enough” to please the US Ziolobby.  Check out the kind of discussions about Gabbard which can be found in the Israeli and pro-Israeli press:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-tulsi-gabbard-the-pro-assad-iraq-war-vet-critical-of-israel-loved-by-adelson-evangelicals-1.6831029

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Democratic-presidential-contender-Gabbard-supports-and-criticizes-Israel-577149

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Ex-KKK-head-David-Duke-praises-Tulsi-Gabbard-because-she-wont-put-Israel-first-579917

https://www.timesofisrael.com/democrat-gabbard-who-slammed-israel-for-live-fire-use-in-gaza-to-run-in-2020/

https://www.jns.org/record-at-a-glance-hawaii-rep-tulsi-gabbard-on-the-middle-east-in-her-bid-for-president/

https://www.jta.org/quick-reads/rep-tulsi-gabbard-who-met-syrian-president-bashar-assad-announces-2020-presidential-bid

This is just a small sample of what I found with a quick search.  It could be summed up “Gabbard is not pro-Israel enough”.  But is that really The Main Reason for such a hostility towards her?

I don’t think so.

I believe that Gabbard’s real “ultimate sin” is that she is against foreign wars of choice.  That is really her Crime Of Crimes!

The AngloZionists wanted to tear Syria apart, break it up into small pieces, most of which would be run by Takfiri crazies and Tulsi Gabbard actually dared to go and speak to “animal Assad”, the (latest) “New Hitler”, who “gasses his own people”.  And this is an even worse crime, if such a thing can even be imagined!  She dared to *disobey* her AngloZionist masters.

So, apparently, opposing illegal wars and daring to disobey the Neocons are crimes of such magnitude and evil that they deserve the hysterical Gabbard-bashing campaign which we have witnessed in recent times.  And even being non-Christian, non-White, non-male and “liberal” does not in any way compensate for the heinous nature of “crimes”.

What does this tell us about the real nature of the US society?

Appeasing *never* works with the Neocons

It is also interesting to note that the most vicious (and stupid) attacks against Gabbard did *not* come from “conservative” media outlets or journalists.  Not at all!  Most of the attacks, especially the more vicious ones, came from supposedly “liberal” sources, which tell us that in 2019 USA “liberals” do not refer to folks with liberal ideas, but to folks who are hell-bent on imperialism and war; folks who don’t care one bit about any real “liberal” values and who use a pseudo-liberal rhetoric to advocate for war outside the USA and for a plutocratic dictatorship inside the USA.

As for Gabbard herself, she already managed to publicly back-peddle to one obnoxious lobby (the homo lobby) on the issue of marriage (see here, here, here and here) and I fully expect her to cave in to the Zio-lobby just like Trump has been doing every day since he made it to the White House.  Apparently, US public figures like Gabbard and Trump still don’t understand the simple fact that NO amount of grovelling will EVER appease the Neocons or the Ziolobby (see here for a perfect example of that attitude from Commentary).

[Sidebar: this entire business about Rep. Ilhan Omar also illustrated something very crucial to Donald Trump’s personality.  Let me explain:

A typical “lowered” “rooster” (and no, in Russia they are not Presidents!)

In the bad old days of the Soviet Union, one of the tricks used by the prison/camp administration to break a prisoner (be he political or not) was to stick him into a cell with the so-called “roosters”.  In the slang of the Russian criminal underworld, the “roosters” are the very lowest category of prisoners (in what is a rather complex hierarchy): “roosters” are either homosexuals, rapists, child molesters or men who have been down-ranked (“lowered” in slang) to that status as a punishment for some kind of action which the criminals consider reprehensible (like interacting with other “roosters”, mistakenly sitting down next to one, not repaying a card-debt, etc.).  I won’t go into all the details here, but suffice to say that one thing which was well known in the Soviet jails/camps is that somebody who has committed some kind of trespass can be “lowered” to the status of “rooster” and that the prison/camp administration often uses these man as “combat roosters” – they send them to attack and even rape some prisoner who needs to be broken.  And, needless to say, after you have been raped by such “roosters” you yourself get that status for the rest of your life.

Trump wants her to resign from Congress

What Trump did in the case of Rep. Ilhan Omar is act like a “lowered combat rooster”, sent to abuse somebody else on the behalf of the prison/camp administration.  Of all people, Trump ought to know that accusations of anti-Semitism are absolutely, total hogwash. This is just a verbal whip used by AIPAC/ADL/etc to beat up their opponents.  In fact, all Omar did was to say on Twitter  that some members of Congress support Israel because they are collecting money from Jewish groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).  Duh?!  Is that really news to anybody?  Even Trump himself mentioned that during this campaign.

By the way, check out how Rep. Ilhan Omar grills that sorry SOB Abrams here: http://thesaker.is/rep-ilhan-omar-vs-elliott-abrams/ .  This young lady clearly has more courage and integrity that all her colleagues taken together!

But the Neocons have now “lowered” Trump to the status of “rooster” and he now is acting like a willing “combat rooster” for those who “lowered” him to that status, which makes Trump the worst and most despised kind of “rooster”: one who willingly serves his own rapists.  See for yourself:

The amazing thing is that Trump seems to be  completely oblivious to how utterly dishonorable, spineless, subservient, weak and cowardly he looks every time he tries to so crudely brown-nose the Neocons.  Apparently being a narcissist does not include the ability to be aware of how others might see you.]

In fact, one of two things are most likely to happen next:

Tulsi Gabbard remains true to her ideals and views and she gets no money for her campaign

Tulsi Gabbard caves in to the Neocons and the Deep State and she become another Obama/Trump

Okay, in theory, a third option is possible (never say never!) but I see that as highly unlikely: Tulsi Gabbard follows in the footsteps of Trump and gets elected in spite of a massive media hate-campaign against her and once she makes it to the White House she does what Trump failed to do and appeals directly to the people of the USA to back her in a ruthless campaign to “drain the swamp” (meaning showing the door to the Neocons and their Deep State).  This is what Putin did, at least partially, when he came to power, by the way.  Frankly, for all her very real qualities she does not strike me as a “US Putin” nor does she have the kind of institutional and popular backing Putin had.  So while I will never say never, I am not holding my breath on this one…

Finally, if Gabbard truly is “for real” then the Deep State will probably “Kennedy” her and blame Russia or Iran for it.

Still, while we try to understand what, if anything, Tulsi Gabbard could do for the world, she does do good posting messages like this one:

I don’t know about you, but I am rather impressed!

At the very least, she does what “Occupy Wall Street” did with its “1%” which was factually wrong. The actual percentage is much lower but politically very effective.  In this case, Gabbard speaks of both parties being alike and she popularizes concepts like “warmongers in ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage and new places for people to die“.  This is all very good and useful for the cause of peace and anti-imperialism because when crimethinkconcepts become mainstream, then the mainstream is collapsing!

The most important achievement of Tulsi Gabbard, at least so far, has been to prove that the so-called “liberals” don’t give a damn about race, don’t give a damn about gender, don’t give a damn about minorities, don’t give a damn about “thanking our veterans” or anything else.  They don’t even care about Israel all that much.  But what they do care about is power, Empire and war.  That they *really* care about.  Tulsi Gabbard is the living proof that the US Democrats and other pretend “liberals” are hell bent on power, empire and war.  They also will stop at nothing to prevent the USA from (finally!) becoming a “normal” country and they couldn’t care less about the fate of the people of the USA.  All they want is for us all to become their serfs.

All of this is hardly big news.  But this hysterical reaction to Gabbard’s candidacy is a very powerful and useful proof of the fact that the USA is a foreign-occupied country with no real sovereignty or democracy.  As for the US media, it would make folks like Suslov or Goebbels green with envy.  Be it the ongoing US aggression against Venezuela or the reaction to the Tulsi Gabbard phenomenon, the diagnostics concur and we can use the typical medical euphemism and say with confidence: “the prognosis is poor”.

The Saker

[6dogs9cats]

Today we live in a polling bubble – surveys taken from the perches in New York, Washington and Los Angeles may be obscuring rather than illuminating many of the underlying views and trends of the American electorate. How else can one explain that although many polls showed a close race last November, almost no one (myself included) predicted a lopsided victory for Donald Trump in the Electoral College. Most media analysts and modelers concluded a Hillary Clinton victory was in the bag. One Princeton professor even agreed to eat a bug if Trump won. As President Trump enters his 100th day, several of the same organizations are using their polls to proclaim that he has had the worst start of any modern president and the worst ratings of a president at this time in his presidency. While Trump is no FDR when it comes to forming a political coalition, a fairer reading of the polls and the election results shows his performance is probably 5 or 6 points better than is being touted and that his base of support with which he won the election remains intact. There are several reasons for this mismatch between likely reality and the interpretations we are seeing. Most polls have moved away from voters or likely voters to U.S. adults with no screen for registration or even citizenship. And the questions often focus on storylines and narratives critical of Trump. Rarely are they written from the perspective of having missed the major swings and economic discontent that upended the election. The current crop of stories also sets Trump ratings expectations, as though America went through the typical process of coming together around the winner. Instead we had recounts, Russian conspiracies, investigations and rallies unlike any seen after any election. The country was sharply politically divided on Election Day and remains that way today. That is the backdrop of any realistic assessment of what is happening in America. But there are some facts and trends that are being missed in the polls. First, Trump is likely NOT at 40 percent approval with the American electorate. He is likely higher. Trump got 46.1 percent of the popular vote, several million votes less than Clinton did, but neither candidate got a majority. Six million voters opted for a libertarian candidate and most of those votes would never go to a liberal Democrat. And when all of the congressional votes were tallied, Republicans got 3 million more votes than the Democrats and won a majority of both the popular vote and of the seats in Congress. The recent special election in Georgia came out about the same as the Trump/Hillary vote, with Republicans nosing out Democrats. As The Washington Post poll reported, a replay of the Trump/Hillary race would today come out more for Trump than Hillary. So what is the disconnect between polls that show his job rating at 40 and the electoral results? The major network polls all now report “U.S adults” as the sampling frame, not people who voted in the last election or expect to vote in the next one. The non-voters include 11 million undocumented aliens and a lot of folks who liked neither candidate and stayed home, as well as younger people who have lower rates of participation. These polls should not be confused with the views of the American electorate. If you look just at the past voters, Trump is holding his base – The Washington Post said that 94 percent of Trump voters approve of the job he is doing. That would be 43.1 percent of the voting electorate. Trump then conservatively gets 10 percent approval from the remaining voters (30 percent from voters to other candidates and 8 percent among Clinton voters) which would give him another 5 percent or about 48 percent approval among the group that voted in the last election. That’s a more realistic assessment. And attitudes towards the economy are surging, which is usually good news for whoever occupies the White House. Third, the media echo chamber has, I think, made it more difficult for people to express their political views, especially to live interviewers. With the growing gender gap, I’m not sure most men are even telling their spouses or partners what their real views are on the president. In a recent Harvard Harris poll we did, only about 60 percent in the country now feel free enough to express their views to friends and family. Consequently, it's no surprise that polls done online show a consistently better picture for Trump than most live interviewer polling, and today reaching America through the phone is an increasingly difficult task compared to new methods available through the internet. But another piece of this polling bubble is also created by the narrow questioning in many of the polls. Many of the hot-button issues and expressions Trump uses are rarely if ever polled compared to questions about Russian election interference. No major poll in five years had polled on the support for local law enforcement contacting immigration authorities when they arrest someone, for instance. While many polls have picked up the genuine sympathy Americans have for “Dreamers” or for those who work hard and pay taxes, none of the polls examined what they think should be done with undocumented aliens who are arrested for crimes, or the deep support out there for something like Kate’s law. Trump campaigned on a unique set of issues that indicted bad trade deals for economic dislocation, supported the police over the Black Lives Matter movement, called for making NATO members pay their fair share, and deporting criminal undocumented aliens. He called for repeal and replacing ObamaCare, lower taxes, more immigration police and a border wall paid for by Mexico. You will find plenty of polling on what a bad idea Americans think the wall is and on the “Muslim ban” (often without even mentioning security), but where is the polling on the rest of his themes and messages? On the power of “Buy American, Hire American”? On tax cuts to stimulate jobs? In the end, Trump had a fairly powerful message that spoke to a lot of voters. He is now attempting to turn that message into policy. So far, the results have been mixed. The Ryan healthcare plan was neither fish nor fowl and didn't immediately lower premiums, making ObamaCare look better. The executive order on immigration was a Steve Bannon-led disaster. But despite these two clear setbacks, we should not be too quick to dismiss and trivialize the overall power of the rest of his message. That was the ultimate mistake of 2016 and the polling bubble: The election turned not on Hollywood Access or Huma Abadein’s laptop, it turned on serious issues too easily dismissed by polling focused on Trump’s temperament, conflict of interest, tweets and Russian conspiracies. And because none of the pollsters or analysts saw it that way, they concluded that Trump, the developer/entertainer, could not possibly win even if the polls had in fact tightened up. So as we enter the second hundred days, Trump has not crossed the 50 percent mark to expand his base, but he is also not down at 40 percent. On key issues he has a lot of support, especially when it comes to America being taken advantage of by its allies and trading partners, failing to stand up to its red lines, and the need for change that drains the corruption and gridlock of Washington. Don’t let the polling bubble obscure the fact that the forces – pro and con – that produced the surprise upset last November are just as powerful today. IT'S NOT TRUMP, well it is but MOSTLY, It's his supporters and mostly the people who see Bernie as the "only" person who has the answer "to everything" even when his actions or votes have done otherwise. When the majority in this country are Bystanders and 70% of the millennial generation refuses to vote, be involved or care about the future....it's a anarchists recipe for disaster.

[readbookywooks]

The Prosecutor's Speech. Sketches of Character

IPPOLIT KIRILLOVITCH began his speech, trembling with nervousness, with cold sweat on his forehead, feeling hot and cold all over by turns. He described this himself afterwards. He regarded this speech as his chef-d'oeuvre, the chef-d'oeuvre of his whole life, as his swan-song. He died, it is true, nine months later of rapid consumption, so that he had the right, as it turned out, to compare himself to a swan singing his last song. He had put his whole heart and all the brain he had into that speech. And poor Ippolit Kirillovitch unexpectedly revealed that at least some feeling for the public welfare and "the eternal question" lay concealed in him. Where his speech really excelled was in its sincerity. He genuinely believed in the prisoner's guilt; he was accusing him not as an official duty only, and in calling for vengeance he quivered with a genuine passion "for the security of society." Even the ladies in thee audience, though they remained hostile to Ippolit Kirillovitch, admitted that he made an extraordinary impression on them. He began in a breaking voice, but it soon gained strength and filled the court to the end of his speech. But as soon as he had finished, he almost fainted. "Gentlemen of the jury," began the prosecutor, "this case has made a stir throughout Russia. But what is there to wonder at, what is there so peculiarly horrifying in it for us? We are so accustomed to such crimes! That's what's so horrible, that such dark deeds have ceased to horrify us. What ought to horrify us is that we are so accustomed to it, and not this or that isolated crime. What are the causes of our indifference, our lukewarm attitude to such deeds, to such signs of the times, ominous of an unenviable future? Is it our cynicism, is it the premature exhaustion of intellect and imagination in a society that is sinking into decay, in spite of its youth? Is it that our moral principles are shattered to their foundations, or is it, perhaps, a complete lack of such principles among us? I cannot answer such questions; nevertheless they are disturbing, and every citizen not only must, but ought to be harassed by them. Our newborn and still timid press has done good service to the public already, for without it we should never have heard of the horrors of unbridled violence and moral degradation which are continually made known by the press, not merely to those who attend the new jury courts established in the present reign, but to everyone. And what do we read almost daily? Of things beside which the present case grows pale, and seems almost commonplace. But what is most important is that the majority of our national crimes of violence bear witness to a widespread evil, now so general among us that it is difficult to contend against it. "One day we see a brilliant young officer of high society, at the very outset of his career, in a cowardly underhand way, without a pang of conscience, murdering an official who had once been his benefactor, and the servant girl, to steal his own I O U and what ready money he could find on him; 'it will come in handy for my pleasures in the fashionable world and for my career in the future.' After murdering them, he puts pillows under the head of each of his victims; he goes away. Next, a young hero 'decorated for bravery' kills the mother of his chief and benefactor, like a highwayman, and to urge his companions to join him he asserts that 'she loves him like a son, and so will follow all his directions and take no precautions.' Granted that he is a monster, yet I dare not say in these days that he is unique. Another man will not commit the murder, but will feel and think like him, and is as dishonourable in soul. In silence, alone with his conscience, he asks himself perhaps, 'What is honour, and isn't the condemnation of bloodshed a prejudice?' "Perhaps people will cry out against me that I am morbid, hysterical, that it is a monstrous slander, that I am exaggerating. Let them say so - and heavens! I should be the first to rejoice if it were so! Oh, don't believe me, think of me as morbid, but remember my words; if only a tenth, if only a twentieth part of what I say is true - even so it's awful! Look how our young people commit suicide, without asking themselves Hamlet's question what there is beyond, without a sign of such a question, as though all that relates to the soul and to what awaits us beyond the grave had long been erased in their minds and buried under the sands. Look at our vice, at our profligates. Fyodor Pavlovitch, the luckless victim in the present case, was almost an innocent babe compared with many of them. And yet we all knew him, 'he lived among us!'... "Yes, one day perhaps the leading intellects of Russia and of Europe will study the psychology of Russian crime, for the subject is worth it. But this study will come later, at leisure, when all the tragic topsy-turvydom of to-day is farther behind us, so that it's possible to examine it with more insight and more impartiality than I can do. Now we are either horrified or pretend to be horrified, though we really gloat over the spectacle, and love strong and eccentric sensations which tickle our cynical, pampered idleness. Or, like little children, we brush the dreadful ghosts away and hide our heads in the pillow so as to return to our sports and merriment as soon as they have vanished. But we must one day begin life in sober earnest, we must look at ourselves as a society; it's time we tried to grasp something of our social position, or at least to make a beginning in that direction. "A great writer* of the last epoch, comparing Russia to a swift troika galloping to an unknown goal, exclaims, 'Oh, troika, birdlike troika, who invented thee!' and adds, in proud ecstasy, that all the peoples of the world stand aside respectfully to make way for the recklessly galloping troika to pass. That may be, they may stand aside, respectfully or no, but in my poor opinion the great writer ended his book in this way either in an excess of childish and naive optimism, or simply in fear of the censorship of the day. For if the troika were drawn by his heroes, Sobakevitch, Nozdryov, Tchitchikov, it could reach no rational goal, whoever might be driving it. And those were the heroes of an older generation, ours are worse specimens still...." * Gogol. At this point Ippolit Kirillovitch's speech was interrupted by applause. The liberal significance of this simile was appreciated. The applause was, it's true, of brief duration, so that the President did not think it necessary to caution the public, and only looked severely in the direction of the offenders. But Ippolit Kirillovitch was encouraged; he had never been applauded before! He had been all his life unable to get a hearing, and now he suddenly had an opportunity of securing the ear of all Russia. "What, after all, is this Karamazov family, which has gained such an unenviable notoriety throughout Russia?" he continued. "Perhaps I am exaggerating, but it seems to me that certain fundamental features of the educated class of to-day are reflected in this family picture -only, of course, in miniature, 'like the sun in a drop of water.' Think of that unhappy, vicious, unbridled old man, who has met with such a melancholy end, the head of a family! Beginning life of noble birth, but in a poor dependent position, through an unexpected marriage he came into a small fortune. A petty knave, a toady and buffoon, of fairly good, though undeveloped, intelligence, he was, above all, a moneylender, who grew bolder with growing prosperity. His abject and servile characteristics disappeared, his, malicious and sarcastic cynicism was all that remained. On the spiritual side he was undeveloped, while his vitality was excessive. He saw nothing in life but sensual pleasure, and he brought his children up to be the same. He had no feelings for his duties as a father. He ridiculed those duties. He left his little children to the servants, and was glad to be rid of them, forgot about them completely. The old man's maxim was Apres moi le deluge.* He was an example of everything that is opposed to civic duty, of the most complete and malignant individualism. 'The world may burn for aught I care, so long as I am all right,' and he was all right; he was content, he was eager to go on living in the same way for another twenty or thirty years. He swindled his own son and spent his money, his maternal inheritance, on trying to get his mistress from him. No, I don't intend to leave the prisoner's defence altogether to my talented colleague from Petersburg. I will speak the truth myself, I can well understand what resentment he had heaped up in his son's heart against him. * After me, the deluge. "But enough, enough of that unhappy old man; he has paid the penalty. Let us remember, however, that he was a father, and one of the typical fathers of to-day. Am I unjust, indeed, in saying that he is typical of many modern fathers? Alas! many of them only differ in not openly professing such cynicism, for they are better educated, more cultured, but their philosophy is essentially the same as his. Perhaps I am a pessimist, but you have agreed to forgive me. Let us agree beforehand, you need not believe me, but let me speak. Let me say what I have to say, and remember something of my words. "Now for the children of this father, this head of a family. One of them is the prisoner before us, all the rest of my speech will deal with him. Of the other two I will speak only cursorily. "The elder is one of those modern young men of brilliant education and vigorous intellect, who has lost all faith in everything. He has denied and rejected much already, like his father. We have all heard him, he was a welcome guest in local society. He never concealed his opinions, quite the contrary in fact, which justifies me in speaking rather openly of him now, of course, not as an individual, but as a member of the Karamazov family. Another personage closely connected with the case died here by his own hand last night. I mean an afflicted idiot, formerly the servant, and possibly the illegitimate son, of Fyodor Pavlovitch, Smerdyakov. At the preliminary inquiry, he told me with hysterical tears how the young Ivan Karamazov had horrified him by his spiritual audacity. 'Everything in the world is lawful according to him, and nothing must be forbidden in the future - that is what he always taught me.' I believe that idiot was driven out of his mind by this theory, though, of course, the epileptic attacks from which he suffered, and this terrible catastrophe, have helped to unhinge his faculties. But he dropped one very interesting observation, which would have done credit to a more intelligent observer, and that is, indeed, why I've mentioned it: 'If there is one of the sons that is like Fyodor Pavlovitch in character, it is Ivan Fyodorovitch.' "With that remark I conclude my sketch of his character, feeling it indelicate to continue further. Oh, I don't want to draw any further conclusions and croak like a raven over the young man's future. We've seen to-day in this court that there are still good impulses in his young heart, that family feeling has not been destroyed in him by lack of faith and cynicism, which have come to him rather by inheritance than by the exercise of independent thought. "Then the third son. Oh, he is a devout and modest youth, who does not share his elder brother's gloomy and destructive theory of life. He has sought to cling to the 'ideas of the people,' or to what goes by that name in some circles of our intellectual classes. He clung to the monastery, and was within an ace of becoming a monk. He seems to me to have betrayed unconsciously, and so early, that timid despair which leads so many in our unhappy society, who dread cynicism and its corrupting influences, and mistakenly attribute all the mischief to European enlightenment, to return to their 'native soil,' as they say, to the bosom, so to speak, of their mother earth, like frightened children, yearning to fall asleep on the withered bosom of their decrepit mother, and to sleep there for ever, only to escape the horrors that terrify them. "For my part I wish the excellent and gifted young man every success; I trust that youthful idealism and impulse towards the ideas of the people may never degenerate, as often happens, on the moral side into gloomy mysticism, and on the political into blind chauvinism - two elements which are even a greater menace to Russia than the premature decay, due to misunderstanding and gratuitous adoption of European ideas, from which his elder brother is suffering." Two or three people clapped their hands at the mention of chauvinism and mysticism. Ippolit Kirillovitch had been, indeed, carried away by his own eloquence. All this had little to do with the case in hand, to say nothing of the fact of its being somewhat vague, but the sickly and consumptive man was overcome by the desire to express himself once in his life. People said afterwards that he was actuated by unworthy motives in his criticism of Ivan, because the latter had on one or two occasions got the better of him in argument, and Ippolit Kirillovitch, remembering it, tried now to take his revenge. But I don't know whether it was true. All this was only introductory, however, and the speech passed to more direct consideration of the case. "But to return to the eldest son," Ippolit Kirillovitch went on. "He is the prisoner before us. We have his life and his actions, too, before us; the fatal day has come and all has been brought to the surface. While his brothers seem to stand for 'Europeanism' and 'the principles of the people,' he seems to represent Russia as she is. Oh, not all Russia, not all! God preserve us, if it were! Yet, here we have her, our mother Russia, the very scent and sound of her. Oh, he is spontaneous, he is a marvellous mingling of good and evil, he is a lover of culture and Schiller, yet he brawls in taverns and plucks out the beards of his boon companions. Oh, he, too, can be good and noble, but only when all goes well with him. What is more, he can be carried off his feet, positively carried off his feet by noble ideals, but only if they come of themselves, if they fall from heaven for him, if they need not be paid for. He dislikes paying for anything, but is very fond of receiving, and that's so with him in everything. Oh, give him every possible good in life (he couldn't be content with less), and put no obstacle in his way, and he will show that he, too, can be noble. He is not greedy, no, but he must have money, a great deal of money, and you will see how generously, with what scorn of filthy lucre, he will fling it all away in the reckless dissipation of one night. But if he has not money, he will show what he is ready to do to get it when he is in great need of it. But all this later, let us take events in their chronological order. "First, we have before us a poor abandoned child, running about the back-yard 'without boots on his feet,' as our worthy and esteemed fellow citizen, of foreign origin, alas! expressed it just now. I repeat it again, I yield to no one the defence of the criminal. I am here to accuse him, but to defend him also. Yes, I, too, am human; I, too, can weigh the influence of home and childhood on the character. But the boy grows up and becomes an officer; for a duel and other reckless conduct he is exiled to one of the remote frontier towns of Russia. There he led a wild life as an officer. And, of course, he needed money, money before all things, and so after prolonged disputes he came to a settlement with his father, and the last six thousand was sent him. A letter is in existence in which he practically gives up his claim to the rest and settles his conflict with his father over the inheritance on the payment of this six thousand. "Then came his meeting with a young girl of lofty character and brilliant education. Oh, I do not venture to repeat the details; you have only just heard them. Honour, self-sacrifice were shown there, and I will be silent. The figure of the young officer, frivolous and profligate, doing homage to true nobility and a lofty ideal, was shown in a very sympathetic light before us. But the other side of the medal was unexpectedly turned to us immediately after in this very court. Again I will not venture to conjecture why it happened so, but there were causes. The same lady, bathed in tears of long-concealed indignation, alleged that he, he of all men, had despised her for her action, which, though incautious, reckless perhaps, was still dictated by lofty and generous motives. He, he, the girl's betrothed, looked at her with that smile of mockery, which was more insufferable from him than from anyone. And knowing that he had already deceived her (he had deceived her, believing that she was bound to endure everything from him, even treachery), she intentionally offered him three thousand roubles, and clearly, too clearly, let him understand that she was offering him money to deceive her. 'Well, will you take it or not, are you so lost to shame?' was the dumb question in her scrutinising eyes. He looked at her, saw clearly what was in her mind (he's admitted here before you that he understood it all), appropriated that three thousand unconditionally, and squandered it in two days with the new object of his affections. "What are we to believe then? The first legend of the young officer sacrificing his last farthing in a noble impulse of generosity and doing reverence to virtue, or this other revolting picture? As a rule, between two extremes one has to find the mean, but in the present case this is not true. The probability is that in the first case he was genuinely noble, and in the second as genuinely base. And why? Because he was of the broad Karamazov character - that's just what I am leading up to - capable of combining the most incongruous contradictions, and capable of the greatest heights and of the greatest depths. Remember the brilliant remark made by a young observer who has seen the Karamazov family at close quarters - Mr. Rakitin: 'The sense of their own degradation is as essential to those reckless, unbridled natures as the sense of their lofty generosity.' And that's true, they need continually this unnatural mixture. Two extremes at the same moment, or they are miserable and dissatisfied and their existence is incomplete. They are wide, wide as mother Russia; they include everything and put up with everything. "By the way, gentlemen of the jury, we've just touched upon that three thousand roubles, and I will venture to anticipate things a little. Can you conceive that a man like that, on receiving that sum and in such a way, at the price of such shame, such disgrace, such utter degradation, could have been capable that very day of setting apart half that sum, that very day, and sewing it up in a little bag, and would have had the firmness of character to carry it about with him for a whole month afterwards, in spite of every temptation and his extreme need of it! Neither in drunken debauchery in taverns, nor when he was flying into the country, trying to get from God knows whom, the money so essential to him to remove the object of his affections from being tempted by his father, did he bring himself to touch that little bag! Why, if only to avoid abandoning his mistress to the rival of whom he was so jealous, he would have been certain to have opened that bag and to have stayed at home to keep watch over her, and to await the moment when she would say to him at last 'I am yours,' and to fly with her far from their fatal surroundings. "But no, he did not touch his talisman, and what is the reason he gives for it? The chief reason, as I have just said, was that when she would say' I am yours, take me where you will,' he might have the wherewithal to take her. But that first reason, in the prisoner's own words, was of little weight beside the second. While I have that money on me, he said, I am a scoundrel, not a thief, for I can always go to my insulted betrothed, and, laying down half the sum I have fraudulently appropriated, I can always say to her, 'You see, I've squandered half your money, and shown I am a weak and immoral man, and, if you like, a scoundrel' (I use the prisoner's own expressions), 'but though I am a scoundrel, I am not a thief, for if I had been a thief, I shouldn't have brought you back this half of the money, but should have taken it as I did the other half!' A marvellous explanation! This frantic, but weak man, who could not resist the temptation of accepting the three thousand roubles at the price of such disgrace, this very man suddenly develops the most stoical firmness, and carries about a thousand roubles without daring to touch it. Does that fit in at all with the character we have analysed? No, and I venture to tell you how the real Dmitri Karamazov would have behaved in such circumstances, if he really had brought himself to put away the money. "At the first temptation - for instance, to entertain the woman with whom he had already squandered half the money - he would have unpicked his little bag and have taken out some hundred roubles, for why should he have taken back precisely half the money, that is, fifteen hundred roubles? Why not fourteen hundred? He could just as well have said then that he was not a thief, because he brought back fourteen hundred roubles. Then another time he would have unpicked it again and taken out another hundred, and then a third, and then a fourth, and before the end of the month he would have taken the last note but one, feeling that if he took back only a hundred it would answer the purpose, for a thief would have stolen it all. And then he would have looked at this last note, and have said to himself, 'It's really not worth while to give back one hundred; let's spend that, too!' That's how the real Dmitri Karamazov, as we know him, would have behaved. One cannot imagine anything more incongruous with the actual fact than this legend of the little bag. Nothing could be more inconceivable. But we shall return to that later." After touching upon what had come out in the proceedings concerning the financial relations of father and son, and arguing again and again that it was utterly impossible, from the facts known, to determine which was in the wrong, Ippolit Kirillovitch passed to the evidence of the medical experts in reference to Mitya's fixed idea about the three thousand owing him.