#dangerous communist propaganda

[dangerouscommiesubversive]

"The creator definitely didn't put that much thought into it" well then clearly someone else has to and I think I'm the weirdo for the job

[schlock-luster-video]

On October 3, 1986, Top Gun debuted in the United Kingdom.

[fozmeadows]

There's a lot of conversations to be had around the current influx of Americans to Xiaohongshu (RedNote/Little Red Book) ahead of the TikTok ban, many of which are better articulated by more knowledgeable people than me. And for all the fun various parties of both nationalities seem to having with memes and wholesome interactions, it's undoubtedly true that there's also some American entitlement and exoticization going on, which sucks. But a sentiment I've seen repeatedly online is that, if it's taken actually speaking to Chinese people and viewing Chinese content for Americans to understand that they've been propagandized to about China and its people, then that just proves how racist they are, and I want to push back on that, because it strikes me as being a singularly reductive and unhelpful framing of something far more complex.

Firstly: while there's frequently overlap between racism and xenophobia, the distinction between them matters in this instance, because the primary point of American propaganda about China is that Communism Is Fundamentally Evil And Unamerican And Never Ever Works, and thinking a country's government sucks is not the same as thinking the population is racially inferior. The way most Republicans in particular talk about China, you'd think it was functionally indistinguishable from North Korea, which it really isn't. Does this mean there's no critique to be made of either communism in general or the CCP? Absolutely not! But if you've been told your whole life that communist countries are impoverished, corrupt and dangerous because Communism Never Works, and you've only really encountered members of the Chinese diaspora - i.e., people whose families left China, often under traumatic circumstances, because they thought America would be better or safer - rather than Chinese nationals, then no: it's not automatically racist to be surprised that their daily lives and standard of living don't match up with what you'd assumed. Secondly: TikTok's userbase skews young. While there's certainly Americans in their 30s and older investigating Xiaohongshu, it seems very reasonable to assume that the vast majority are in their teens or twenties - young enough that, barring a gateway interest in something like C-dramas, danmei or other Chinese cultural products, and assuming they're not of Chinese descent themselves, there's no reason why they'd know anything about China beyond what they've heard in the news, or from politicians, or from their parents, which is likely not much, and very little firsthand. But even with an interest in China, there's a difference between reading about or watching movies from a place, and engaging firsthand, in real time, with people from that place, not just through text exchanges, but in a visual medium that lets you see what their houses, markets, shopping centers, public transport, schools, businesses, infrastructure and landmarks look like. Does this mean that what's being observed isn't a curated perspective on China as determined both by Xiaohongshu's TOU and the demographic skewing of its userbase? Of course not! But that doesn't mean it isn't still a representative glimpse of a part of China, which is certainly more than most young Americans have ever had before.

Thirdly: I really need people to stop framing propaganda as something that only stupid bigots fall for, as though it's possible to natively resist all the implicit cultural biases you're raised with and exist as a perfect moral being without ever having to actively challenge yourself. To cite the sacred texts:

Like. Would the world be a better place if everyone could just Tell when they're being lied to and act accordingly? Obviously! But that is extremely not how anything actually works, and as much as it clearly discomforts some to witness, the most common way of realizing you've been propagandized to about a particular group of people is to interact with them. Can this be cringe and awkward and embarrassing at times? Yes! Will some people inevitably say something shitty or rude during this process? Also yes! But the reality is that cultural exchange is pretty much always bumpy to some extent; the difficulties are a feature, not a bug, because the process is inherently one of learning and conversation, and as individual people both learn at different rates and have different opinions on that learning, there's really no way to iron all that out such that nobody ever feels weird or annoyed or offput. Even interactions between career diplomats aren't guaranteed smooth sailing, and you're mad that random teenagers interacting through a language barrier in their first flush of enthusiasm for something new aren't doing it perfectly? Come on now.

Fourthly: Back before AO3 was banned in China, there was a period where the site was hit with an influx of Chinese users who, IIRC, were hopping over when one of their own fansites got shut down, which sparked a similar conversation around differences in site etiquette and how to engage respectfully. Which is also one of the many things that makes the current moment so deeply ironic: the US has historically criticized China for exactly the sort of censorship and redaction of free speech that led to AO3 being banned, and yet is now doing the very same thing with TikTok. Which is why what's happening on Xiaohongshu is, IMO, such an incredible cultural moment: because while there are, as mentioned, absolutely relevant things to be said about (say) Chinese censorship, US-centrism, orientalism and so on, what's ultimately happening is that, despite - or in some sense because of - the recent surge in anti-Chinese rhetoric from US politicians, a significant number of Americans who might otherwise never have done so are interacting directly with Chinese citizens in a way that, whatever else can be said of it, is actively undermining government propaganda, and that matters.

What it all most puts me in mind of, in fact, is a quote from French-Iranian novelist and cartoonist Marjane Satrapi, namely:

“The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.”

And at this particular moment in history, this strikes me as being a singularly powerful realization for Americans in particular to have.

[dailyrothko]

No, the Popularity of Abstract Art is Not the Result of a CIA PsyOp

If you are unlucky enough to move around the internet these days and talk about art, you’ll find that many “First commenters” will hit you with what they see as some hard truth about your taste in art. Comments usually start with how modern art is “money laundering” always comically misunderstanding what that means. What they are saying is that, of course, rich people use investments as tax shelters and things like expensive antiques and art appraised at high prices to increase their net worth. Oh my god, I’ve been red-pilled. The rich getting richer? I have never heard of such a thing.

What is conveniently left out of this type of comment is that the same valuation and financial shenanigans occur with baseball cards, wine, vacation homes, guitars, and dozens of other things. It does indeed happen with art, but even the kind that the most conservative internet curator can appreciate. After all, Rembrandts are worth money too, you just don’t see many because he’s not making any more of them. The only appropriate response to these people who are, almost inevitably themselves, the worst artists you have ever seen, is silence. It would cruel to ask about their own art because there’s a danger they might actually enjoy such a truly novel experience.

When you are done shaking your head that you just subjected yourself to an argument about the venality of poor artists plotting to make their work valuable after they died, you can certainly then enjoy the accompanying felicity of the revelation they have saved to knock you off your feet: “Abstract art is a CIA PsyOp”

Here one must get ready either to type a lot or to simply say “Except factually” and go along your merry, abstract-art-loving way. But what are the facts? Unsurprisingly with things involving US government covert operations, the facts are not so clear.

Like everything on the internet, you are unlikely to find factual roots to the arguments about government conspiracies and modern art. The mere idea of it is enough to bring blossom for the “I’m not a sheep” crowd, some of whom believe that a gold toilet owning former president is a morally good, honest hard-working man of the people.

The roots of this contention come from a 1973 article in Artforum magazine, where art critic Max Kozloff wrote about post-war American painting in the context of the Cold War, centering around Irving Sandler’s book, The Triumph of American Painting (1970). Kozloff takes on more than just abstract expressionism in his article but condemns the “Self-congratulatory mood”of Sandler’s book and goes on to suggest the rise of abstract expressionism was a “Benevolent form of propaganda”. Kozoloff treads a difficult line here, asserting that abstraction was genuinely important to American art but that its luminaries, “have acquired their present blue-chip status partly through elements in their work that affirm our most recognizable norms and mores.”

While there were rumblings of agreements around Kozloff’s article of broad concerns, it did not give birth to an actual conspiracy theory at the time. The real public apprehension of this idea seems to mostly come from articles written by historian Frances Stonor Saunders in support of her book, “The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters” (New York, New Press, 2000). (I have not read this 525 page book, only excerpts).

The gist of Ms. Saunders argument is a tantalizing, but mostly unsupported, labyrinthine maze of back door funding and novelistic cloak and dagger deals. According to Saunders, the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), an anti-communist cultural organization founded in 1950, was behind the promotion of Abstract art as part of their effort to be opinion makers in the war against communism. In 1966 it was revealed that the CCF was funded by the CIA. Saunders says that the CCF financed a litany of art exhibitions including “The New American Painting” which toured Europe in the late 1950s. Some of this is true, but it’s difficult, if not impossible, to know the specifics.

Noted expert in abstract-expressionism, David Anfam said CIA presence was real. It was “a well-documented fact” that the CIA co-opted Abstract Expressionism in their propaganda war against Russia. “Even The New American Painting [exhibition] had some CIA funding behind it,” he says. But the reasons for this are not quite what the abstract art detractors might be looking for. After all, the CCF also funded the travel expenses for the Boston Symphony Orchestra and promoted Fodor’s travel guides. More than trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes, it was meant to showcase the freedom artists in the US. enjoyed. Or as Anfam goes on to say, “It’s a very shrewd and cynical strategy, because it showed that you could do whatever you liked in America.”

For what it’s worth, Saunders’s book was eviscerated in the Summer 2000 issue of Art Forum at the time of its publication. Robert Simon wrote:

“Saunders draws extensively on primary and secondary sources, focusing on the convoluted money trail as it twists through dummy corporations, front men, anonymous donors, and phony fund-raising events aimed at filling the CCF’s coffers. She makes lengthy forays into such topics as McCarthyism, the formation and operation of the CIA, the propaganda work of the Hollywood film industry, and New York cultural politics—from Partisan Review to MoMA to Abstract Expressionism. Yet what seems strangely absent from Saunders’s panoramic history, as if it were a minor detail or something too obvious to require discussion, is the cultural object itself: The complex specifics of the texts, exhibitions, intellectual gatherings, paintings, and performances of the culture war are largely left out of the story.”

Another problem with the book seems to be that Saunders is an historian but not an art historian. For me, I sensed an overtone of superiority in the tale she’s spinning and most assuredly from those that repeat its conclusion. The thinly veiled message of some is that if it were “Real art” it would not have had be part of this government subterfuge. The reality is very different. For one thing, most of us know it is simply not true that you can make people devoted to a type of art for 100 years that they would sensibly hate otherwise. Another issue is that it’s quite obvious none of the artists actually knew about any government interference if there was any. Pollock, Rothko, Gottlieb and Newmann were all either communists or anarchists. Hardly the group one would recruit the help the US government free the world of communism. Additionally, this narrow cold war timeline ignores a huge amount of abstract art that Jackson Pollock haters also revile and consider part of the same hijacking of high (Frankly, Greek, Roman, or Renaissance) culture. If you look at the highly abstract signature work of Piet Mondrian and observe the dates they were painted, you’ll see 1908, 1914, 1916. This is some of the art denigrated as a CIA PsyOP, 35 years before the CIA even thought about it. Modern art didn’t come from nowhere as many would have you believe to discredit its rise. There was Surrealism, Dada, Bauhaus, Russian futurism and a host of other movements that fueled it.

Generally, people like to argue. On the internet, “I don’t like this” is a weak statement that always must be replaced by “This is garbage” or my favorite, “This is fake.”

It’s hardly surprising that the more conservative factions of our society look for any government involvement in our lives to explain why things are not exactly as they wish them to be, given the (highly ironic) conservative government-blaming that blew up after Reagan. In addition, modern fascists have always had a love affair with the classical fantasy of Greece and Rome. Both Mussolini and Hitler used Greece and Rome as “Distant models” to address their uncertain national identity. The Nazis confiscated more than 5,000 works in German museums, presenting 650 of them in the Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art, 1937) show to demonstrate the perverted nature of modern art. It featured artists including Marc Chagall, Max Ernst, Wassily Kandinsky, and Paul Klee, among others. The fear of art was real. It was the fear of ideas.

To a lot of people on the internet just the mentioning a “CIA program” is enough to get the cogs turning, but as with many things, the reality of CIA programs and government plots is often less than evidence of well planned coup.

The CIA reportedly spent 20 millions dollars on Operation Acoustic Kitty which intended to use cats to spy on the Kremlin and Soviet embassies. Microphones were planted on cats and plans were set in motion to get the cats to surreptitiously record important conversations. However, the CIA soon discovered that they were cats and not agreeable to any kind of regulation of their behavior.

As part of Operation Mongoose the CIA planned to undermine Castro's public image by putting thallium salts in his shoes, which would cause his beard to fall out, while he was on a trip outside Cuba. He was expected to leave his shoes outside his hotel room to be polished, at which point the salts would be administered. The plan was abandoned because Castro canceled the trip.

Regardless of your feelings on this subject or how much you believe abstract art benefited from government dollars, Saunders herself quotes in her book a CIA officer apparently involved in these “Long leash” influence operations. He says, “We wanted to unite all the people who were writers, who were musicians, who were artists, to demonstrate that the West and the United States was devoted to freedom of expression and to intellectual achievement, without any rigid barriers as to what you must write, and what you must say, and what you must do.” Hardly the Illuminati plot we were promised.

In 2016, Irving Sandler, author of the book that started Kozloff tirading in 1973, told Alastair Sooke of The Daily Telegraph, “There was absolutely no involvement of any government agency. I haven’t seen a single fact that indicates there was this kind of collusion. Surely, by now, something – anything – would have emerged. And isn’t it interesting that the federal government at the time considered Abstract Expressionism a Communist plot to undermine American society?”

This blog post contains information and quotes sourced from The Piper Played to Us All: Orchestrating the Cultural Cold War in the USA, Europe, and Latin America, Russell H. Bartley International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Spring, 2001), pp. 571-619 (49 pages) https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20161004-was-modern-art-a-weapon-of-the-cia https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/8/2/article-p127_127.xml?language=en https://www.guggenheim-bilbao.eus/en/learn/schools/teachers-guides/the-dark-side-of-classicism https://www.artforum.com/features/american-painting-during-the-cold-war-212902/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html https://www.artforum.com/columns/frances-stonor-saunders-162391/ https://www.artforum.com/features/abstract-expressionism-weapon-of-the-cold-war-214234/ Mark Rothko and the Development of American Modernism 1938-1948 Jonathan Harris, Oxford Art Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1988), pp. 40-50 (11 pages)

[hexhomos]

have u seen that artists r getting death threats on twitter over hc viktor as russian 😭

I have seen a literal friend of mine get stupidly angry comments from new age arcane fans who swear up and down he's been czech all his life and it truly boggles the mind. that's straight up not true. Viktor was created as a russian communist caricature by an american corporation. he was "villainous crazy russian guy" for twelve years, the funny harry lloyd czech impression only started out 3 years ago. We're just doing cold war propaganda all over again now???

viktor being russian =/= liking the ghoulish russian government. You aren't giving Putin an endorsement, you're drawing a cartoon faggot //russian immigrant allegory// who would get deported by the CIA during the first red scare. Viktor can be russian. there's gay and trans and disabled russian people who are discriminated against & very much at risk at at a home country that is hostile and controlling towards its own citizens, and when they try to get out of that oppressive environment there's all these preloaded notions painting them as "untrustworthy" or "inherently shady" thanks to the Russian Enemy american popculture slop archetype.

My own country has gone through decades of horrific dictatorship before! Through the hands of our own military forces and highly aided by the USA, profiting off our misery! Should our people as a whole be conflated with the military troops that abducted protesters into death-torture camps? Should our people as a whole be represented by the worst geriatric nationalistic bigots who can plant themselves in power? Is this how we look at the whole world? This is a dangerous line of thought. I get that a lot of arcane fandom is young but that is a rightwing calling card line of thought. If we're all to be represented exclusively by a sum of our Leading Cops, we're deep in the muddy shit. I don't even like these pigs in a good day. If you're an american saying this, especially? LOOK AT YOUR OWN FUCKING TROOPS. YOU'RE THE IMPERIAL CAPITAL. IT'S YOU.

It also stands out to me that viktor league of legends was perfectly fine as crazy evil russian stock villain n.99999 for 10+ years, but as soon as he gets an adaptation that depicts him as empathetic/altruistic and well intentioned all the way through, humanized like a proper human being... the americans in charge conveniently drop the 'russian' part of his persona. (but oh, they keep the red scare stuff. and they keep the stuff about communism being a path to certain evil, they just cut out the russian identification, so people have a harder time criticizing it.) I don't think that is a neutral decision, and its not one I'm interested in reproducing.

It's completely fine to have your own hcs, but I don't like the shallow conversations around this. Viktor isn't a representation of the russian government; but he is, fundamentally, a byproduct of how american propaganda rules the entire world and defines who gets to be alienated as the villain forever. We used to see this with china A LOT as well (still do!), and it only changed after a whole lot of effort, be it by chinese immigrants or the proliferation of media depicting them as whole, multifaceted people, distanced from the american-made boogeymen. The common citizen is not my enemy. It shouldn't be yours either.

[an-ivy-covered-summer]

i know this will be a controversial statement for some people on this website, but you guys need to understand that being a radical communist with zero awareness of the nuance of living on planet earth is really not very different from being an alt-right extremist.

if you’re past the point of using logical thinking and understanding that societies and politics are complex and can be wildly different from one place to another, you’re just a fanatic, in spite of the place in the spectrum you place yourself on. you’re too swayed and brainwashed by propaganda. you’re just a blind fanatic, and your agenda becomes dangerous for real people living in the real world.

[effervescent-experience]

On the TikTok Ban

Hello, everyone. This is not my usual content. However, as a leftist and someone who has been on the app for a while, I feel that I should address the potential TikTok ban on January 19th and why it doesn’t sit right with me at all. 

I believe that the ban is bad. This is somewhat of a polarizing statement, but I genuinely think that banning TikTok would be unconstitutional because it would undermine American users’ First Amendment rights by preventing freedom of speech and expression. The ban would eliminate a significant facet of popular culture, limit how people can make money to provide for themselves and their families, and prevent citizens from accessing a major news source (I’m not saying you should get all of your news from TikTok, but it does help to bring surface level awareness about issues so people can go out and learn more about them). Doing this on speculation is wrong and will significantly prevent communication and the exchange of information that has become vital in society. 

Speculation and National Security Threats: 

The concern about TikTok comes from its owner, ByteDance, headquartered in Beijing and is therefore legally obligated to “turn over data to Chinese authorities on request.” This would mean that sensitive information about American users could be directly accessed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which could lead to the spread of deliberate misinformation and more sophisticated foreign monitoring of online activity (Espada and Popli par. 3-5). 

To this, I would respond that there is already extreme amounts of misinformation on TikTok within U.S. borders - sensationalist content without actual evidence is an issue. Especially around elections, natural disasters, or events that may trigger an emotional response, there seems to be an uptick in misinformation and disinformation, as people create false news and others repeat what they see because they believe it to be true. Recently, we have seen this with the fires in California and all of the AI videos. This aligns with my point because any foreign misinformation, political propaganda, or sensationalist content would likely be more extreme than but still comparable to the lies already spread on the app for the sake of garnering more views. I cannot deny that political propaganda is dangerous, nor can I deny that the idea of being monitored is extremely frightening, but skeptics and well-informed audiences will do the work to fact-check such content. 

The Spread of Information: 

Because I am not an influencer, my biggest personal gripe with banning TikTok is that it would prevent easy and immediate access to all types of information. Like the internet, TikTok is an incredibly vast information collection about nearly every topic. Look up anything, and you will quickly find infodumps, tutorials, and a large crowd of people who can answer your questions. I was working on an embroidery project yesterday and needed to know how to do a particular stitch. Within thirty seconds, I had my answer and could return to work, saving much more time than if I had gone to Google or this website to ask the same question. 

It’s much more serious than arts and crafts questions, however. On TikTok, people can better understand important events that people in their “real lives” are not offering explanations for. At least for me, this allows for a much more complete account of the event from numerous perspectives, many of which are likely different than my own. Instead of knowing about the event but only understanding how it impacts me, I can form my opinion with reliable firsthand accounts from others and consider how it impacts everyone, not just myself. As a global community, this is invaluable; understanding each other prevents stigma and the pushing of only one narrative. Banning TikTok would eliminate this, leading to a much less knowledgeable audience and self-centered takes on world events. 

Influencers and Creative Spaces: 

This is also an extremely concerning facet of the potential TikTok ban for me. Although I am not an influencer, I understand that thousands of people make their living from TikTok and have no other form of income. I support this fully and think it’s great that people can live comfortably by doing what they love. This is why it’s exceptionally alarming to me to think that if TikTok is banned, these people will be wholly cut off from their careers. Digitally or not, that is not fair to do to someone, though society does not care about that. Twitter user (I am not calling it X because fuck Elon Musk) Spirituali_tea wrote, “So who’s gonna tell the Biden administration that some of us have built our literal careers on TikTok, and if it gets banned, we will actually have nothing?”.

TikTok also serves as a source of income for displaced families, people rebuilding after natural disasters, medical bills, and everyday necessities. For those who say that these creators should “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” and get a “real job,” some people simply cannot because they are disabled, homeless, or otherwise displaced or marginalized. It is unfair that we should be so limited in a society so diverse. People rely on this app; if it is taken away, they will be left with nothing. I’ll repeat it: that’s just not right. 

Additionally, people in creative spaces use the app to promote themselves, bring awareness to their content, and make money. Without it, small businesses and creators will likely get less exposure, meaning some people can no longer do what they love. Artists will likely lose the fanbases they’ve built and a source of income. TikToker la.fumettisa shared a video with the caption, “heartbroken over the imminent TikTok ban, loss of community and income for my small business,” and Tiktoker dollrust0 wrote, “I know it’s just a TikTok ban, but it’s hard not to be sentimental about losing what has essentially been my digital diary for years. I felt seen.” TikTok is an essential platform for artists, creative types, and people who, like dollrust0, want to feel seen.

As someone who loves to write and make things but has chosen not to do it professionally, I find this fucked up to the highest degree. Society encourages art yet takes every opportunity to limit it when done professionally. How will artists bring attention to what they do? How many beautiful, amazingly talented people will we miss out on if the ban goes through? I love engaging with people on TikTok, and as a small creator on other platforms, the thought of losing everyone I have met or interacted with makes me unbelievably sad. 

The Potential Power Struggle and Precedent:

Because the legislation around the bill dictates that the app can stay un-banned if it is bought by someone else within a year, there is a potential that someone who has bought other platforms or shown interest in it could buy TikTok, allowing them to control the flow of information in the United States and narrative pushed out to the masses regarding political events, natural disasters, and controversial topics. Like misinformation, there is extreme danger in only one narrative being told. It prevents the varied perspectives I mentioned earlier and allows the people in charge to guide the opinions of American TikTok users (170 million people, by the way) to garner support for their ideals. This is where a ban such as this becomes dangerous and sets a precedent for censorship in that it allows the government to interfere with the speech and writing created by the people.

In a conversation with NBC News, “cyber-diplomat” Chris Painter, who has worked with the Obama administration, says, “If the U.S. was certainly trying to shut down a social media platform or something because they didn’t like what was being said on it, absolutely our moral authority would disappear…it sends the message that this is acceptable…obviously that deserves an outcry (Collier par. 14-16).” The proposed ban directly infringes on the American right to freedom of speech and the press, whether the Supreme Court rules it to be this way or not. If the ban goes through, we will see this again, potentially sooner than we would like. If it can be bought, it is under threat. 

Conclusion:

Again, I must assert that the looming ban on TikTok is terrible for various reasons. I am wholeheartedly against it for the threat it poses to Free Speech and its similarities to authoritarian control tactics seen with fascist governments. TikTok is about more than dancing or brain rot. It is vital to spreading information and interconnection between people worldwide, bringing people together around common interests. People use it to make their lives easier and, in some cases, possible. For the government to make such an issue of one app based on speculation when the threat of large-scale war is immense, California is burning, climate change is worsening, gun violence is rampant, and people are dying because they don’t have the basic resources they need to live is, quite frankly, extremely scary.

It is incredibly disheartening to think that our leaders care more about a “silly dancing app” (TikTok user not_tgg) than all of the loss and devastation in the world. Writing does not seem nearly enough to compensate for what is at risk, but we must be aware of what is happening. I’ll leave you with a quote from whistleblower Edward Snowden: “Your rights matter because you never know when you’re going to need them.”

References: 

Collier, Kevin. "A TikTok Ban Could Embolden Authoritarian Censorship, Experts Warn." NBC News, 17 Mar. 2024. NBC News, www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tiktok-ban-embolden-authoritarian-censorship-experts-warn-rcna143476. Accessed 12 Jan. 2025.

Espada, Mariah, and Nik Popli. "Why the U.S. and Other Countries Want to Ban or Restrict TikTok." TIME. TIME, time.com/6263851/why-us-wants-to-ban-tiktok/. Accessed 12 Jan. 2025.

I have fact-checked all of the information in here to the best of my abilities and would never deliberately spread misinformation, but please correct me if I missed or should add anything. Feel free to reply, but please be polite, even if we share different opinions.

[contemplatingoutlander]

DECODING FOX NEWS

The propaganda in this one Fox News segment is astounding, and succinctly sums up the alternate reality that right-wing media have constructed regarding Biden and Trump.

Mollie Hemingway, the editor-in-chief of the right-wing media outlet The Federalist, does four things in this video:

She ignores the history of the Trump family's financial corruption, both during his administration and shortly afterward (when Jared was given control of investing $2 billion by the Saudis).

She implies that the repeatedly debunked Burisma claim against the Bidens is true.

She implies that all the indictments against Trump are due to the Biden administration's attempts to "persecute" Trump for standing up "for the people" to the "corrupt" Biden regime.

She likens the indictments to what happened in the past in communist regimes, where people like the Czech Republic's Václav Havel had been persecuted but later became presidents.

Below is a breakdown of the video:

HEMINGWAY: Also does, though, is it shows us what we're dealing with as our country. We've had a lot of people who have become political leaders and become incredibly wealthy.

HEMINGWAY: Joe Biden spent 50 years in public service and his family all has bank accounts where they take money from foreign people. They go to public service, and they come out much better.

HEMINGWAY: You have with President Trump one of the first and only people to actually stand up against that corrupt regime.

HEMINGWAY: Seeing the persecution that comes associated with it, which also kind of makes the case for him, because people see that if you go along with the regime, good things happen to you. If you stand on behalf of the people, they will try to destroy you.

HEMINGWAY: So there's like a weakness that's shown here in the same way you think of like the... what the communists used do to their political opponents. They would imprison them.

HEMINGWAY: After communism ended, some of those people became presidents and leaders like Václav Havel in Czech Republic because people knew they were persecuted and imprisoned because they were they were opposing a corrupt regime.

If any of Trump's indictments end in conviction, dangerous civil unrest may very well occur--likely in part because of the kinds of false, wreckless statements that Fox News contributors like Mollie Hemingway have made repeatedly.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 16, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 17, 2024

Two Fox News Channel interviews bracketed today: one this morning with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in front of an audience of hand-picked Republican women in Georgia, the other by Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris with host Bret Baier. Together, the two were a performance of dominance. 

FNC billed Trump’s so-called town hall as a chance for female voters, a demographic that is swinging heavily to Harris, to ask Trump about issues they care about. But Hadas Gold and Liam Reilly of CNN reported that FNC had packed the audience with Trump supporters. The first question came from the president of the Fulton County Republican Women, though she was not identified as such. FNC then edited the broadcast to cut out remarks in which the attendees expressed support for Trump. 

It seems unlikely that Trump attracted any new voters by speaking to an audience of loyalists audibly cheering him on.

After Trump refused to debate her again, Harris voluntarily moved into his right-wing territory, agreeing to an interview with FNC host Bret Baier. In that interview, Baier reframed right-wing talking points as questions, essentially giving Trump a second shot at a debate. Baier kept talking over the vice president’s attempts to answer—even putting out a hand to interrupt her—in a stark contrast to FNC’s deference to Trump. Harris asked him to let her reply, and then answered his questions, sometimes testily, usually turning them into opportunities to contrast her own candidacy and record with Trump’s. 

Control of the interview changed abruptly when Harris called out Trump for referring to the “enemy within” and talking about using the American military against those he considers enemies. Baier used that opportunity to show a clip of Trump saying he wasn’t threatening anyone, but the clip was edited to remove his threats against “sick,” “evil,” “dangerous” “Marxists and communists and fascists” including Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) and “the Pelosis”—presumably former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her husband, who was attacked by a man with a hammer in 2022 by a man who wanted to force Nancy Pelosi to renounce the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. 

Harris had had enough propaganda.

“Bret, I'm sorry, and with all due respect, that clip was not what he has been saying about the enemy within that he has repeated when he’s speaking about the American people. That's not what you just showed…. You and I both know that he’s talked about turning the American military on the American people. He has talked about going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him. This is a democracy. And in a democracy, the president of the United States in the United States of America should be… able to handle criticism without saying he’d lock people up for doing it. And this is what is at stake, which is why you have someone like the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying what Mark Milley has said about Donald Trump being a threat to the United States of America.” 

Simply by going on the right-wing network, Harris was demonstrating dominance. Then, by answering as thoroughly as she did, she undercut the right-wing narrative that she is stupid and inarticulate. By calling out the FNC for deliberately misleading its viewers, she took command. Baier, rather than Harris, was the one doing the post-interview spinning.

Writer Peter Wehner, who worked for presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, wrote: “Bret Baier has rarely looked as bad (or tendentious) as he did in his interview with Kamala Harris. On the flip side, this was one of her best interviews. She dominated Bret. All in all it was quite a bad day for MAGA world's most important media outlet.”

In between the two FNC events were two others that also told a story, this one about how the Republican Party’s descent into MAGA is creating a new political coalition to defend American principles.

Trump held a town hall with undecided Latino voters moderated by Mexican journalist Enrique Acevedo for Univision. Members of the audience asked excellent questions: how would he bring down household costs, who would take the jobs left behind by undocumented workers if Trump deported them and how much would that drive up food costs, why Trump took so long to stop the January 6 rioters, if he had caused deaths during the pandemic by misleading Americans, and if he agrees with his wife, Melania, about protecting abortion rights. 

But Trump did not answer the questions, instead regurgitating his usual talking points. He promised to produce more oil and gas, called undocumented immigrants criminals, repeated the lie about Haitian migrants eating pets, and, after notably referring to the January 6 rioters as “we” and law enforcement officers as “the others,” called January 6 “a day of love.” The audience did not appear convinced.

Meanwhile, Vice President Harris joined more than 100 Republicans in Pennsylvania, near the spot where George Washington and more than 2,000 Continental soldiers crossed the Delaware River on Christmas night 1776 to surprise a garrison of British soldiers at Trenton, New Jersey, where they won a strategic victory. 

Harris noted that those gathered were also near Philadelphia, where in 1787 delegates from across the country gathered to write and sign the U.S. Constitution. 

“That work was not easy. The founders often disagreed. Often quite passionately. But in the end, the Constitution of the United States laid out the foundations of our democracy, including the rule of law, that there would be checks and balances, that we would have free and fair elections and a peaceful transfer of power. And these principles and traditions have sustained our nation for over two centuries, sustained because generations of Americans, from all backgrounds, from all beliefs, have cherished them, upheld them, and defended them. 

“And now, the baton is in our hands,” she said. [A]t stake in this race are the democratic ideals that our founders and generations of Americans before us have fought for. At stake in this election is the Constitution of the United States…its very self.” 

Harris welcomed the Republicans in the crowd, saying that everyone there shared a core belief: “That we must put country before party.” The crowd chanted, “USA, USA, USA.” 

Harris noted that many of the Republicans on stage had taken the same oath to the Constitution that she had. “We here know the Constitution is not a relic from our past, but determines whether we are a country where the people can speak freely, and even criticize the president, without fear of being thrown in jail, or targeted by the military. Where the people can worship as they choose without the government interfering. Where you can vote without fear that your vote will be thrown away. All this and more depends on whether or not our leaders honor their oath to the Constitution.”

Trump, she pointed out, tried to overturn the will of the people expressed in a free and fair election, has vowed to use the military to go after any American who doesn’t support him, and has called for the “termination” of the Constitution. “It is clear,” she said, “Donald Trump is increasingly unstable and unhinged, and he is seeking unchecked power.” Trump, she said, “must never again stand behind the seal of the President of the United States.”

“And to those who are watching,” she said, “if you share that view, no matter your party, no matter who you voted for last time: There is a place for you in this campaign. The coalition we have built has room for everyone who is ready to turn the page on the chaos and instability of Donald Trump.”

“I pledge to you to be a President for all Americans. And I take that pledge seriously.”

She reiterated her promise to appoint a Republican to her cabinet and to establish a Council on Bipartisan Solutions to strengthen the middle class, secure the border, defend our freedoms, and maintain the nation’s leadership in the world. She noted that the country needs a healthy two-party system, and described how the Senate Intelligence Committee left partisanship at the door. It “was “country over party in action,” when she sat on the committee, she said, “[s]o I know it can be done.”

“[O]ur campaign is not a fight against something,” she said. “It is a fight for something. It is a fight for the fundamental principles upon which we were founded, It is a fight for a new generation of leadership that is optimistic about what we can achieve together—Republicans, Democrats, and independents who want to move past the politics of division and blame and get things done on behalf of the American people.

“[W]e are all here together this beautiful afternoon because we love our country…and we know the deep privilege and pride that comes with being an American and the duty that comes along with it…. Imperfect though we may be, America is still that ‘shining city upon a hill’ that inspires people around the world. And I do believe it is one of the highest forms of patriotism to fight for the ideals of our country.”

“So, to people from across Pennsylvania, and across our nation, let us together stand up for the rule of law, for our democratic ideals, and for the Constitution of the United States. And in twenty days, we have the power to chart a New Way Forward, one that is worthy of this magnificent country that we are all blessed to call home.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[everything-is-crab]

My favorite thing (/s) about Pro Israel folks and the people focusing so much on the recent Hamas attack is how great they're at spreading blatant lies.

You see them post something about what Hamas or Palestinians did to Israelis and through fact checking it's revealed it's the other way round 😂

People linking wikipedia, bbc....and other Western media links.....as their "sources"

Like wow, I didn't know you guys were this dense. Even some of the people I respected on here seem to be affected immensely by propaganda. US and other Western countries have not only supported but also funded Israel's apartheid regime and even now it's doing the same.

I was brainwashed by radfems too with their "rape is never okay". Many radfems sure do know how to manipulate you using your class consciousness as women to be blind to other oppressive systems or distort facts.

There's no proof any of the kidnapped women being raped. And yet most radfems are speaking about nothing but that. They aren't even speaking about the constant suffering and rape of Palestinian women by IDF (including many Israeli women as perpetrators).

I remember that I started reading more about this issue in 2021 when some IDF attack killed many Palestinians in a mosque. Don't remember the details well. It's been a while. And I wasn't on Tumblr then but I do remember that mainstream media did not give a shit about it. And now suddenly the anti terrorism sentiment of Pro Israel countries and even people who supposedly support Palestinians has chosen to rise again.

Very convenient timing for you.

One thing I will tell you is to remember that the conditions colonizers force on the colonized make it hard for the colonized to rely on any ideal form of resistance. Hamas is not the only group for Palestinian resistance. There are others but this is the large one today. Before there used to be better secular ones but they were all squashed cause Israel created Hamas. And there have been peaceful protests and everything. Israel killed the people who protested and the soldiers laughed when they were done. Where was this global outrage then?

Sm of relying for information on media leaning towards Israel and yet so many of you are missing this fact out. This is what colonizers always do. Read history of as many colonized countries you can. And you will find out that colonizers, while they were generally against opposition of the colonized's liberation, funded the anti-leftist, anti-communist/nationalist or religious extremists or/and the ruling class of the colonized society in their national liberation movement.

They help in squashing other more dangerous (from a colonizer's pov) national liberation movements. Nothing better than reducing your enemies to extremists. The British did that in my country too. Talked a lot about how horrible our society is but politically and economically supported the ruling class that created and perpetrated those issues. And some European women and children died in some isolated protests or riots as well during colonial era. But obviously it was nothing compared to the number of people that died on my side than the colonizers'.

So don't be surprised when people see Hamas as a necessary means or don't entirely oppose as part of Palestinian liberation. No sane person actually "supports" Hamas. But it is what is. It's Israel's own creation. Palestinians are left with no options. You're linking ngos supported or created by Israelis and other dumb shit as "an alternative". But colonization can't be won over through ngos lmao. Heck, ngos can't even actually make a lot of changes in human rights in areas that aren't war torn cause of corruption. You expect it to work for Gaza? Please

If Israel or anyone wants Hamas to stop then they should simply give up their brutal settler colonialism and not oppose any leftist org or movement formed by the Palestinians even after ending apartheid and everything. There's no other alternative except this. And if you haven't learnt your lesson yet, then don't support any "intervention" by USA or some other genocidal country.

Ik for a fact you people wouldn't support my country's decolonization if you lived back then. Cause the national liberation movement in my country was dominated by religious, anti communist and ruling class as well. And I, as a female bisexual from an oppressed caste will never ideologically support the people who led national liberation in my country. And yet ik they were necessary in the path to independence cause the British let only them have any power in the country. The two opinions can co exist.

You guys are so focused on opposing the ideology of Hamas and how they're bad for Palestinians themselves, you are forgetting Hamas is legally recognized as terrorists by many powerful Western/west-allied countries around the world and are actively funding and supporting Israel's genocide against Palestinians.

It's funny how the same people unconditionally support Ukraine in the war, including Ukraine itself. Even though US, UK, France and other countries are supporting Nazis in the Ukrainian military to fight against Russia.....

And I am not "supporting" Hamas or killing of cilivians....but I am just analyzing the history and politics behind this issue that is hugely ignored.

Radfems are reblogging that dumb addition by female-malice about an unbacked conspiracy theory about Iran,completely removing any accountability or responsibility of the states of "Israel". There's a conspiracy theory that Israel planned this attack as well. And yet I haven't see any pro Palestine leftist spread that theory presenting it as a fact rather than a speculation. Genuinely you guys are just racist and don't want to hold Israel actually accountable apart from a little side remark.

Everytime I see such false claims, misinformation, unproven conspiracy theories I check what sources the person has to provide or which sources are reporting that. And it's some damn Western news outlet every time. Every fricking time.

Ignoring what Israel PM is doing to the civilians in Gaza right now.....in favor of getting into online discourse about "so it's okay to kill/rape innocent people?" Plain evil

You do realize most of the world is revolting against that now? That powerful international forces are incentivizing this attack to commit further atrocities against civilians in Gaza? It's not a time to debate whether the attack was okay or not, it's time to speak about how the Israeli PM and rest of the world is choosing to respond to it.

I was going to write a respectfully worded post about this. But I won't. Cause I am not some extraordinary independent journalist or anything. I am not even in majoring in any social science or history subject. But it wasn't that hard for me to get around the misinformation from msm. And I am from a country that is and has been pro Israel and very great at spreading propaganda through msm.

I saw one radfem say in response to question of Palestinian women's suffering that "how are we supposed to know what's happening to them? I am not seeing any posts on my dash about it". Good to know your dumbass relies on Tumblr posts for misinformation.

I have been incredibly busy so not made any posts about this issue. But I think that's what I am going to keep reblogging and posting about for a while now. So don't hesitate to filter tags or click the unfollow button if this irritated you. Cause there's more to come.

[dangerouscommiesubversive]

I think a really good relationship dynamic is when one partner is an entirely absurd person and the other partner's perpetual thought process is, "I adore you. Why are you like this? I'm going to kiss you at such length and with such fervor that you'll get disoriented and stop being like this for five minutes and I can rest, for fuck's sake."

[schlock-luster-video]

On May 19, 2020, Top Gun was released on 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray in the United States.

[corvidcentral]

Nora SoSu ref!! I love her (she has been put through the wringer)

More lore below cut v

Like I said she was an extremely talented criminal defense lawyer. She almost always won the cases she was assigned to, and if she didn’t win, she managed to get her clients sentences dramatically reduced. Closer to her maternity leave, however, she picked up a case where someone was falsely accused of being a communist.

(In universe, Fallout has a LOT of anti-communist/red scare propaganda hence this)

She won the case, but her “credibility” instantly tanked, as no one wanted a “commie” defending them. So she was basically bottlenecked into defending communists or people accused of such. She, being one of the top lawyers, won almost all of them, and sent several companies into bankruptcy after settlements were paid, but this made her nationally hated. Her name was in newspapers often, smearing her name and her skills, which often went hand in hand with racist/bigoted rants from these publications

She “retired” after becoming pregnant with Shaun, both because Nate asked her to, and because it was becoming far too dangerous for her to keep at her practice. So she was a sahm until the Great War, upon which the canon events of FO4 happen

She becomes extremely anxious and depressed after being released, and while she does immediately start looking for Shaun, she also begins to look for things that distract her as well, eventually resulting in her appointment to the Minutemen’s General as well as becoming a Railroad member. As stated she does NOT like the Brotherhood, and they make her anxious with their similarities to the American Army (she also doesn’t particularly like Danse, not through any fault of his own, just that he reminds her too much of Nate).

She does find Kellogg and. Punches him to death. It’s cathartic for her, in a way.

I don’t have a solid grasp on what happens after that, but I do know that she chooses to evacuate + blow up the Institute, and that she tries to bring Father with her, but he tells her to take Synth Shaun in his place. SShaun is also a fun concept to play w/ I do have some lore for him

I will say she is friend with Nick, one because they’re both pre-war (on technicality), and two because they actually both knew of each other. Nora often defended people Nick arrested, so they’d see each other on court, and because they were both in the paper often (Nora for the Commie’s Lawyer thing, Nick for the Eddie Winter’s case). They’re. Super shocked and a little disturbed to see the other after “meeting again” but they do become decent friends once they get over their heebies :3

[straightlightyagami]

I have not yet seen any posts about this so: The USA congress recently passed a bill legally requiring anti-communist propaganda in school. Please do read the full text, and don’t let them put this into effect quietly. some especially revealing excerpts from the text:

(2) To ensure that high school students in the United States— (A) learn that communism has led to the deaths of over 100,000,000 victims worldwide; (B) understand the dangers of communism and similar political ideologies; and (C) understand that 1,500,000,000 people still suffer under communism.

Only the most accurate historical data!

The independent entity created under section 905(b)(1)(B) of the FRIENDSHIP Act (40 U.S.C. 8903note; 107 Stat. 2331 note), also known as the “Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation”, shall—

From only the most reliable sources!

(1) develop a civic education curriculum for high school students that— (A) includes a comparative discussion of certain political ideologies, including communism and totalitarianism, that conflict with the principles of freedom and democracy that are essential to the founding of the United States;

Freedom and democracy! (for the land-owning white colonizer men.)

(B) is updated periodically to ensure the curriculum includes both past and present communist and totalitarian regimes, with a focus on— (i) ongoing human rights abuses by such regimes, such as the treatment of Uyghurs in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) by the People’s Republic of China; and (ii) aggression by such regimes against democratic nations and democracy, such as actions taken by the People’s Republic of China to deter pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong and the increasingly aggressive posture by the People’s Republic of China toward Taiwan, a democratic friend of the United States.

Aaaaaaaand to the surprise of no one this is just a tool to further the red scare 3 (+cold war 2) agenda and manufacture consent for war with China.

[gay-disabled-characters-showdown]

LGBTQ+ Disabled Characters Showdown Round 3, Wave 2, Poll 5

A character being totally canon LGBTQ+ and disabled was not required to be in this competition. Please check qualifications and propaganda before asking why a character is included. 

Check out the other polls in this wave and prior here.

Kim Kitsuragi-Disco Elysium

Qualifications:

Visually impaired

Propaganda:

I dunno man. He's Kim Kitsuragi. There's nothing I can say about him that hasn't already been said. He's quiet and reserved and uncomfortable with emotions. He's a self-proclaimed Torque Dork who loves his car like a child. He listens to heavy metal music. He's a centrist. He's a homosexual. He's consistently given shit by everyone around him for his race, his sexuality, and his disability, and he's taught himself to respond to it with cold professionalism. He dresses in historical communist pilot cosplay. I love him with my entire heart.

Geordi La Forge-Star Trek: The Next Generation

Qualifications:

He is blind, canonically, and also [has] chronic headaches as a result of the visor he wears. He was actually originally conceptualized as gay, but never written as such because every Trekkie's nemesis, Rick Berman, took over the production of TNG after Roddenbury left. Every single heterosexual romance written for him is atrocious, and his closest non-familial relationship is with a man, Data. Said relationship is often interpreted as romantic or queerplatonic in nature by fans.

He is blind (uses a VISOR that lets him see the electromagnetic spectrum) and was intended to be gay before one of the producers decided not to let him be (thousand curses on Rick Berman)

Propaganda:

He is so wonderful and I love him so so so much. OK. Okay. So Geordi's main traits are that he is an incredibly dedicated and talented engineer, a ridiculously friendly and charismatic person, and very loyal & stubborn when it comes to the people he loves. He has, on two separate occasions, successfully made friends with a member of a hostile alien faction just by spending a few days with them (Hugh, Bochra). When his mother goes missing and he starts getting communications from an entity claiming to be her, he disobeys orders and puts himself in danger in an attempt to save her. Similarly, in The Most Toys, when Data is kidnapped by Kivas Fajo, he refuses to believe that Data made an error in piloting a shuttlecraft that resulted in his death, and through rigorous investigation, finds out what really happened and is able to get the Enterprise to rescue him. (This episode bears incredible similarity to an episode in Star Trek Deep Space Nine, wherein Keiko does the exact same thing when her husband Miles is falsely reported as dead, so in that parallel, Geordi and Data are directly analagous to a married couple). Geordi's disability is presented in one of the best ways I have seen in media from the 80s-90s. His disability is a part of his character, but never his defining trait, and in several episodes he stresses that he doesn't resent being blind, as it is part of who he is. In fact, there's even an episode where he is placed in direct thematic opposition to a eugenicist society that terminates all disabled zygotes. He was originally conceptualized as gay by Roddenbury, but was never written as such (partially due to Rick Berman's influence). However, all of his canon heterosexual romances are unspeakably terrible, and his closest onscreen relationship is with Data. This relationship is interpreted by many to be romantic or queerplatonic in nature.

He's so cooool!! He's the chief engineer on the enterprise, he's so kind, and his relationship with the android Data is one of the best on the show and is my favourite in all of Star Trek

Anything Else?:

The actor who played him, LeVar Burton, is a vocal ally and has expressed support for his gay daughter in interviews :).

Geordi is awesome

The qualifications and propaganda paragraphs correspond, @convenient-plot-device is the first submitter, @autisticiantojvnes is the second.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Daniel Villarreal at LGBTQ Nation:

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has adopted former President Donald Trump’s platform for the Republican Party. The new platform removes the party’s opposition to same-sex marriage — though conservatives have signaled that they’d like to overturn it — and also "softens" conservative opposition to abortion and in vitro fertilization (IVF), two issues that Republicans worry could hurt them in the November election. The platform’s anti-transgender goals, numbered 16 and 17 among its 20 goals, are stated thus: “Cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children,” and “Keep men out of women’s sports.” Chapter 9, Section 5 of the platform promises to “end Left-wing gender insanity,” stating, “We will keep men out of women’s sports, ban Taxpayer funding for sex change surgeries, and stop Taxpayer-funded Schools from promoting gender transition, reverse Biden’s radical rewrite of Title IX Education Regulations, and restore protections for women and girls.”

[...] The platform also echoes the Republican opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in schools by promising to “expose politicized education models.” The platform also promises to “restore Parental Rights in Education”, a dog whistle for opposition to anti-racist and LGBTQ+-inclusive education. Anti-LGBTQ+ groups like Moms for Liberty and Leave Our Kids Alone have functioned under the banner of “parents’ rights.”

“We trust Parents’ Knowledge and Skills, Not CRT [critical race theory] and Gender Indoctrination,” the platform states. “Republicans will ensure children are taught fundamentals like Reading, History, Science, and Math, not Leftwing propaganda. We will defund schools that engage in inappropriate political indoctrination of our children using Federal Taxpayer Dollars.” As for higher education, the platform promises to “fire Radical Left accreditors … restore Due Process protections, and pursue Civil Rights cases against Schools that discriminate.” The line about accreditors may refer to the College Board, an organization that gives high school students a chance to pre-earn college credits through Advanced Placement (AP) tests. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) publicly criticized the board last year and tried to get it to drop AP test questions on racial justice movements and queer theory — he failed. The platform repeatedly mentions that Leftists should be removed from government. It also promises, “Republicans will use existing Federal Law to keep foreign Christian-hating Communists, Marxists, and Socialists out of America. Those who join our Country must love our Country. We will use extreme vetting to ensure that jihadists and jihadist sympathizers are not admitted.”

The GOP’s proposed platform contains several anti-trans items, such as keeping trans women out of women’s sports, de facto support for bans on gender-affirming care, support for forced outing policies under the guise of “parental rights”, and pushes the lie that trans people are a “danger” to women and girls.