#if it comes out later that that protestor DID in fact say something anti-semitic then I'll backtrack but this chant is in no way hate speec

[paris-geller-was-straightwashed]

I feel like I'm losing my fucking mind.

while the absolute horror continues to bombard palestine - the nonstop bombings, the dead bodies in the street and trapped under rubble those living can no longer get to, the restriction of health care, newborn babies left to die, starvation and thirst, literal sewage in the streets spreading disease, all of this in gaza and even in the west bank, the increased bombings there and raids - daily, meanwhile, here in canada, we apparently have nothing fucking better to do then arrest people for using pro-palestine chants under the guise of it being hate motivated.

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK

I wish this was a fucking joke, but no. a protestor in calgary was arrested for using 'from the river to the sea, palestine will be free.' apparently the cops stopped by to 'inform' the protestors what chants were allowed and what were ~no no's~ which included 'from the river to the sea', and when a protestor used it anyway (because it's NOT FUCKING HATE SPEECH) they arrested him. for calling for the freedom of people under an occupation.

this is canada, supposedly one of the most free places to be (built atop the blood of indigenous people but anyways). but with pro-israel propaganda and the weaponizing of anti-semitism being repeated by our media and leaders, shit like this happens.

someone tell me right now where in the phrase 'from the river to the sea, palestine will be free' there is a call for an extermination of jewish people. look me in the fucking eyes and try to find where in that call for freedom it shows hatred for jews. this is fucking pathetic. this is a call for freedom. this is a call for liberation of a people who've been oppressed and assaulted for years, since before both my 60+ parents were born. this is a call for them to be able to walk freely within their own homes, within their own land, to be able to control their own lives. liberation for their safety and for their children, from the constant risk of arrest, assault and raids by the israeli army.

this is about ending an occupation, not the jewish people & their way of life.

many new sites like cbc and global reported on this as well as others; the global article also interviewed a jewish man, who claimed the chant was anti-semitic. it mentioned that he was the president of an organization called 'Federation CJA' - one google search of their website, and wouldn't you fucking know it, they're in partnership with israel, from 'birthright' trips to allowing you to send goddamn postcards to their poor, sad soldiers who're exhausted from bombing innocent civilians all day.

so while we sit here in safety, humming over think-pieces about whether a demand from an exhausted people to finally let them be free secretly means slaughtering every person of another marginalized group in site, the death toll in gaza has gone above 11,000.

of all the fucking absurd things canadians could be talking about right now, this has to take the first-place blue ribbon.

frankly, what this does mean at least, is one thing - when the occupier starts crying because the people they've trampled on for years demanded they stop & it hurt their feelings, it means they're scared. it means that the marches and support are working. when the oppressors start weaponizing language used for liberation and claim it's a cry to hang them from the gallows, then they're getting desperate. it's a reminder to us all to keep pushing and fight for a liberated palestine.

from the river to the sea, palestine will be free

(I s2g if any zionists come in my notes trying to claim some bs that is just the regurgitated rhetoric of the propaganda you've swallowed it's on fucking site I will block you).

[rosecierraw]

Well, That Wasn’t Very Persuasive

Lawyers are in the persuasion business. Whether we are trial lawyers standing before juries, appellate lawyers, commercial lawyers negotiating a deal, or pretty much anything else.

Advocating is kinda what we do. Marshal the facts and apply it to the law and say, “See? This is why you should do…” Finding the exact right facts and the exact right law — and, of course, the exact right audience — is part of the secret sauce of success.

And then there are persuasion failures. Ad hominem attacks, for example, merely expose a person as bereft of competent argument. Purely emotional arguments by the unduly passionate are, of course, a classic. So is shooting the messenger. And only fools would deliberately try to piss off the people or groups they were trying to persuade, or make the arguments in the wrong place.

These dos/don’ts are second nature for most of us, and it leaves many lawyers just shaking their heads when we hear people bringing on the stupid as they violate what we see as simple rules, be it at a cocktail conversation or on Twitter.

With that in mind, I bring to you a colossal failure in persuasive argument that I witnessed while trying to get to my office Friday in Manhattan. It was a demonstration where roughly 100 college students thought it would be a keen idea to stop all traffic on Third Avenue in Manhattan between 44th and 45th streets, stretching hand to hand both across sidewalks and street to obstruct pedestrians and cars.

For those unfamiliar with the area, this is a broad and heavily travelled avenue running uptown just after traffic empties out of the Queens-Midtown Tunnel into the heart of midtown Manhattan. So a blockage just upstream of this point will seriously back traffic up, both on the avenue and the side streets, and quickly affect many thousands of people.

Which tends to piss people off. Making matters worse was that no one in the protesting group, calling itself IfNotNow, thought to even hand out literature to folks who wee walking by, or stuck in their cars, so they would know what the hell the protestors claimed to be so pissed about.

But they did wear shirts and hold signs with a stylized Star of David on them and slogans that said something about Birthright Israel.

So the only thing folks would know was that a bunch of Jews were obstructing their daily commute. That is the only thing they would know.

Now the vast majority of Jews know what Birthright Israel is — a free 10-day trip to Israel for Jews between 18-26, designed to strengthen Jewish identity. It’s a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. Over 500,000 young Jews have taken this free trip. And it’s deliberately apolitical.

But most non-Jews haven’t a clue as what this charitable foundation is. And those stuck in traffic who could see what was going on knew only that a bunch of Jewish students were stopping them from doing what they had come to Manhattan to do.

In other words, the organizers had not only violated one of the first rules of persuasion but may have added to the climate of anti-semitism by pissing all over people that just wanted to get to work. (They were damn lucky, I might add, for the benevolence of New Yorkers, for anyone in a hurry that was in the front line of cars that morning could have just let their car slowly roll toward the arms outstretched across the avenue and slowly pushed them away — a recipe for disaster since the cops hadn’t arrived.)

Pedestrians, to get to where they were going, were forced to take a long walk around by going over to Second Avenue or Lexington, or as some did, wrench apart the clasped hands of youth and physically push their way through. Which some did. Because New Yorkers.

Their argument, to the extent you can even call it that, and which I could only find out later because they didn’t bother to have any literature for those who might be interested, was that they wanted this massive private charitable organization to focus on politics of the almost-100-year-old conflict with Palestinians. The protest location was picked because the office of Birthright Israel was located there. In addition to blocking the building entrance, they elected to also tie up the east side of midtown.

Birthright Israel, of course, doesn’t set Israeli policy. It isn’t the government, or even a political party. The protest was very much yelling and screaming at the wrong people.

The NYPD arrested 15 of the protestors for disorderly conduct after repeated warnings to leave.

Birthright Israel, in turn, put out a statement telling the protestors to go shit in a hat and pull it down over their ears:

“We do not respond to threats and demands from political activists leveraging our long-standing good reputation in order to advance their agendas.”

So, in sum, the protestors managed to do the worst thing that they could do — they pissed off non-involved people potentially making anti-semitism worse, and did so while aiming at the wrong target.

And that is how not to persuade people to your issue, whatever your issue might be.

Well, That Wasn’t Very Persuasive published first on http://fergusonlaw.blogspot.com

[xtruss]

Since 9/11, US Muslims Have Gained Unprecedented Political, Cultural Influence

— By Steve Friess | 09/01/21

It's been an impressive 2021 so far for Muslim Americans. The U.S. Senate, that bastion of partisan gridlock, overwhelmingly confirmed the nation's first Muslims as a federal district court judge and to chair the Federal Trade Commission. Legislatures in five states swore in their first Muslim members, including a nonbinary, queer hijab-wearing representative in, of all places, Oklahoma. Three Detroit suburbs are poised this fall to elect their first Muslim mayors. The New York Jets tapped Robert Saleh as the first Muslim head coach of any American pro sports team. CBS premiered, then renewed The United States of Al, the first broadcast network sitcom with a Muslim lead character. And Riz Ahmed, star of Sound of Metal, became the first Muslim nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor.

"Everywhere I look, I see firsts happening," says MLB Tonight sportscaster Adnan Virk, who in 2012 became the first on-air Muslim host on ESPN.

As the 20th anniversary of September 11 approaches, the recent rise of many Muslim Americans to positions of power and influence—in Washington and in statehouses, on big screens and small ones, across playing fields and news desks—is a development that few in the U.S. would have predicted two decades ago, Muslims included. In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks by the radical Islamic sect Al-Qaeda, anti-Muslim hate crimes exploded and the ensuing global "war on terror" to root out jihadists created a "climate of discrimination, fear and intolerance," as one think tank described it, that surrounded people of Islamic faith in this country and lasted for years. Then, just as heightened anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. seemed to be subsiding, Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 on an agenda overtly hostile towards Muslims, and revved it up again.

It is the experience of coming of age in this post-9/11 environment, experts say, that drew a new generation of young Muslims to activism, and motivated them to use their voices in political and cultural arenas to debunk misinformation. That they've found a receptive audience beyond the Muslim community suggests to some observers that many Americans now understand that the anti-Islamic rhetoric they've been served in recent years is based on myths and untrue. As Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who in 2007 became the first Muslim sworn in as a member of Congress, tells Newsweek, "The haters have been proven to be liars."

Maybe. But trend data suggests the answer is not that simple and anti-Islamic sentiment remains a factor 20 years after 9/11. Anti-Muslim hate crimes, for instance, are second only to anti-Semitic incidents, FBI statistics show. And in a Gallup poll, one-third of Americans, and a full 62 percent of Republicans, said they'd never vote for a Muslim candidate for president, by far the least support for people of any religion in the survey.

Anti-Islamic sentiment remains a factor 20 years after 9/11. President Donald Trump's ban on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries didn't help (here, protestors make their feeling about the ban known). Jack Taylor/Getty

Is the recent rise of Muslim Americans to positions of prominence a temporary surge forged during the backlash of the Trump era or a permanent change in American consciousness? Are the constant, often viciously personal attacks on Representatives Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan—the most famous Muslims in American politics as well as two of the nation's most strident progressives—a last gasp of Islamophobia or proof that, in some quarters at least, it's never going away? If, in fact, the political and cultural shift toward Muslims has staying power, what will the impact be?

The answers are still unfolding. "Muslims are becoming more a part of the American tapestry, but they are still a marginalized group," says political scientist Youssef Chouhoud of Christopher Newport University in Newport News, Virginia. "The question now is, OK, so you have these Muslims in public office, in the public eye, on commercials, on TV shows. But does it stick? That's TBD."

Identity Forged in Adversity

When the attacks by Al-Qaeda occurred 20 years ago, the makeup of the Muslim community in the U.S. was much different than it is today: significantly smaller, older, more conservative, less organized, and made up of more Black Americans and far fewer recent immigrants.

In 2001, roughly 1 million Muslims lived in the U.S., according to the Association of Religious Data Archives, versus 3.5 million recently. As a group, they formed a solid Republican voting bloc, with the immigrant community in particular drawn to the GOP's messages of self-reliance, small government and conservative social policies on issues like abortion and gay rights. George W. Bush won 72 percent of Muslim votes in 2000, according to the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR; other polls put the figure lower by still showed a big GOP tilt. After 9/11 that support plummeted, with just 7 percent backing Bush in his 2004 face-off with Democrat John Kerry.

Party affiliation wasn't the only shift among Muslims in the U.S. in the post-9/11 years. Before the attacks, Muslim Americans seldom saw themselves as a single community bound by a common faith as much as a disparate collection of distinct ethnic groups—Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Pakistani and Egyptian among many others—that kept to and fended for themselves, says Niloofar Haeri, chair of Islamic Studies in the anthropology department at Johns Hopkins University. The other large bloc of Muslims in the country were Black Americans who saw the Islam of Malcolm X and boxer Muhammed Ali as both a religion and a political identity used to advocate for the poor and marginalized. That application of the faith, says Haeri, unsettled many immigrant Muslims who came to the U.S. to escape theocracies.

Many Black Americans saw the Islam of Malcolm X (pictured here) and boxer Muhammed Ali as both a religion and a political identity used to advocate for the poor and marginalized. Michael Ochs Archives/Getty

Then came the ferocious backlash after the September 11 attacks, marked by a wave of physical and verbal assaults on Muslims and anyone who "looked" Muslim. According to the FBI, there were 28 reports of anti-Muslim hate crimes in 2000; in 2001, that number had climbed to nearly 500. Although then-President George W. Bush had initially urged people not to take out their fear and anger Muslim Americans, his administration later went on to surveil mosques and college Muslim organizations looking for terrorists and invaded Iraq in 2003 on later-debunked claims of involvement with Al-Qaeda and plans to build weapons of mass destruction. Many Christian religious leaders during this period made harsh anti-Islamic remarks as well.

Conservative politicians also spent several campaign cycles in the post-9/11 period ginning up public fear that Muslims wanted to impose Sharia in America—that is, turn religious strictures of Islam into laws akin to those of some Middle Eastern theocracies. "For a while Republicans were all about banning Sharia law, which doesn't exist anywhere in America that I'm aware of," Ellison says. "In another way, every Muslim does 'Sharia law' every day. When I pray, that's Sharia. When I fast for Ramadan, that's Sharia. When I don't eat pork, that's Sharia. And these are the people who say they defend religious freedom."

All of this stoked fear of unwarranted reprisals among Muslim Americans and helped forge a generation of young activists who are now winning political office from city council to Congress, Chouhoud says. By 2007, 84 percent of 12- to 18-year-old Muslim Americans said they had experienced at least one act of anti-Islamic discrimination in the prior year, a New York University study found. In 2009, more than 82 percent of Muslims in the U.S. reported feeling unsafe, an Adelphi University survey found.

Muslim Americans faced a choice: Grin and bear it or band together and respond, Haeri says. "One of the most consequential changes that happened in various Muslim communities post-9/11 was that those Muslims who were not religious and did not identify as Muslim before 9/11 were suddenly being treated as Muslims whether they wanted to be or not and were asked questions about Islam," Haeri recalls. "Muslim communities filled with newly self-identifying Muslims. There was a lot of soul searching: Why are we shunning this heritage entirely?"

Meanwhile, more religious Muslim Americans, especially the ones who fled autocratic regimes and failed economies, baffled over questions about their patriotism. "We had to redefine ourselves and push back against injustice—from our country, from the government, from the media, from popular culture," says Nihad Awad, co-founder and executive director of CAIR. "We felt the pain about 9/11 that everyone felt but more pain than many because we were blamed for what happened—something we had nothing to do with."

Adversity fused a far-flung gaggle of nationalities into a coalition of necessity, says Democratic Representative Andre Carson of Indiana, who in 2008 became the second Muslim elected Congress. "This role was paved decades ago by the indigenous African-American Muslim community, but 9/11 allowed the immigrant Muslim community to see that the African-American Muslim community was right all along in calling out racial injustices, calling out governmental excess as it relates to violations of civil liberties and spying on fellow U.S. citizens," says Carson, who is Black.

At the same time, throughout the Bush and Obama years, the pace of immigration to the U.S. from Muslim-majority nations in the Middle East, Asia and Africa surged. Between 2002 and 2016, the number of Muslim refugees accepted into U.S. rose 627 percent—from about 6,000 a year to almost 40,000—which, along with the highest birth rate of any religious group, caused the sharp increase in the Muslim population. The influx has since stopped, as the Trump administration cut the number of refugees accepted into the U.S. to an all-time low of fewer than 12,000 in total, almost all of whom were Christian, according to State Department data.

During the period, Muslim visibility in everyday life increased for many because of where they live now: the suburbs. Nearly half of mosques are now in bedroom communities outside major cities, up from 38 percent in 2010, according to a July report from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, which researches trends in American Muslim life. At the same time, the actual number of mosques rose dramatically, more than doubling from 1,209 to 2,769 since 2000.

The number of mosques in the U.S. has more than doubled, to 2,769, since 2000. Here, an outdoor prayer event at Masjid Aqsa-Salam mosque, Manhattan's oldest West African mosque. Spencer Platt/Getty

"The age-old pattern of immigrants achieving financial success and moving away from cities seems to be repeating itself in the American Muslim community," ISPU notes.

By the election of Trump, who as a candidate in 2015 called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," the American Muslim community was bigger, brasher and uniformly unwilling to roll over. Indeed, observes MSNBC anchor Ali Velshi, Trump's effort to ostracize Muslims, and a subsequent rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric and hate crimes to levels not seen since 2001, lit a spark.

"Something is happening right now," says Velshi, who is believed to be the first Muslim to helm a cable network news program. "It feels like a flourishing of Muslims across industries and across platforms."

Running While Muslim

The arc of Sadaf Jaffer's adult life—from college freshman at Georgetown during 9/11 to the nation's first female Muslim mayor in 2019—offers a useful road map of what has happened to Muslims in U.S. politics over the past two decades and, particularly, recently.

The 38-year-old, who was born in Chicago to immigrants from Pakistan and Yemen, had planned to be a U.S. diplomat and interned at both the State Department and the Marine Corps. But she became increasingly distressed by the anti-Islam sentiment rising across the U.S. and, in 2007, shifted her focus, enrolling at Harvard to pursue a doctorate in philosophy focused on Islamic cultures in South Asia. Her goal: "Understanding Muslim societies better so I could teach about Muslim societies in their complexity."

By 2017, she was a professor at Princeton University so alarmed by the election of Donald Trump that she decided to go into politics by running for a seat on the Montgomery Township Committee, the governing council for a wealthy, fast-growing New Jersey burg of 24,000 residents about 20 miles north of Trenton. Even on such a small scale, the notion terrified her family. "My parents told me, 'Shouldn't we lie low and not draw attention to ourselves right now?' but I felt like if we don't stand up for our rights now, who's to say that we'll even have rights moving forward," Jaffer says.

Jaffer won that seat and, in 2019, was elevated to mayor. Her status as the nation's first female Muslim mayor, she says, was blared in foreboding tones across pro-Trump news sites and Twitter. "That caused an avalanche of hate mail—violent ones, too, about how all of us should be removed from the planet," she says.

It didn't deter her from seeking higher office. This June, she won the Democratic nomination for a seat in the New Jersey Assembly; if she wins this fall, she'll be the first Muslim (and first Asian American) in the Garden State's legislature. She is bracing for some anti-Muslim sentiment but also views her campaigns as a chance to debunk constituents' misconceptions about Islam.

"Those person-to-person connections are really important," she says. "They're about getting to know people as human beings."

If Jaffer wins, she'll follow on the success in the 2020 election that brought the first Muslim legislators to capitols of Delaware, Oklahoma, Colorado, Florida and Wisconsin, and the first re-election of Omar and Tlaib. There are other firsts likely to come this fall too; the top vote-getters in the August primaries for mayor of Detroit suburbs Dearborn, Dearborn Heights and Hamtramck—enclaves with large Muslim populations—were all Muslims.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi administers the oath of office to members earlier this year, including Representatives Andre Carson, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, three of only four Muslims who have served in Congress. Erin Scott/Getty

In all, a record 170 Muslim candidates were on ballots in 28 states in 2020, up from 57 in 2018, and 62 of them won. Exit polling showed that more than 1 million Muslims voted last year, also a record.

"When Trump won, it was a wake-up call for the community," says Wa'el Alzayat, the CEO of Emgage, an organization promoting civic engagement among Muslim American communities.

Also notable: Almost all of these winners are Millennials; Tlaib, at 45 and slightly older than that cohort, is an exception. And most of these Muslim politicans report being the target of some form of anti-Islam sentiment while running.

"They sent out emails connecting me with Ilhan Omar and accusing all the Muslim candidates running across the country of being Islamist or Jihadists," says Delaware state Representative Madinah Wilson-Anton, 27, who ousted a 20-year Democratic incumbent in 2020 to become her chamber's first Muslim. "I was door-knocking and someone was like, 'Go back to your country.'"

Wilson-Anton is not the only Muslim candidate whose religion is used by opponents as grounds to call their qualifications for office into question. In June, GOP Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia sent a fundraising email attacking Omar as a "terrorist-supporting member of the Jihad Squad." Sam Rasoul, the first Muslim to run for lieutenant governor in Virginia, was asked in May by a debate moderator whether he could reassure voters he would "represent all of them, regardless of faith or beliefs." And Joe Biden's nominee for deputy administrator of the Small Business Administration, health care executive Dilawar Syed, is in confirmation limbo after two GOP senators objected to the fact that he is on the board of Emgage, the Muslim nonprofit. (He says he'll resign if confirmed.)

In each of these recent cases, though, a broad spectrum from various religious and ideological groups have joined Muslims to object to how the candidates are being treated. An opponent of Rasoul's, for instant, lambasted the debate moderator from the stage for asking the question and social media scorn was so swift that an anchor for the TV station, WJLA, apologized that night on the air. In Syed's case, several Jewish groups are rallying to his side.

"Overall," says Emgage CEO Alzayat, "things are moving in the right direction."

People protest the Muslim travel ban outside of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC on June 26, 2018. Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty

A Growing Impact

In office, many of these legislators can point to measures influenced directly by their Muslim backgrounds. Wilson-Anton in June pushed through a new law requiring schools to excuse student absences for religious observances such as Muslim or Jewish holidays. Saqib Ali, who at age 31 in 2006 was elected Maryland's first Muslim state legislator, co-sponsored a law with a Jewish colleague allowing for the licensure of funeral directors who do not embalm bodies because observant members of both faiths do not do so. After someone left a slab of pork on a Muslim family's car in her town, Jaffer started the Montgomery Mosaic, a monthly series of community-wide events to combat hate crimes.

More broadly, Chouhoud says, having more Muslims in the halls of power has changed some conversations. In May, when violence erupted between Israel and Palestine, for example, several Democratic leaders in Washington expressed concern about Israel's aggressive response and the plight of Palestinians. That, he says, was due in part to the activism of Omar and Tlaib. "It's pretty undeniable that the presence of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib in Congress has given voice to opinions that other Congresspeople in the past have either shied away from or found to be outside of the bounds of what they can actually say, even if they personally held those positions," he says.

Indeed, the congresswomen, both of whom declined Newsweek's requests for interviews, are considered inspirational trailblazers by many within the American Islamic community who see them exploding myths about Muslim women being docile and submissive, Haeri says. Even their differences—Omar wears a hijab, Tlaib is famous for her penchant for swearing—shows "the diversity of Muslim women in a way that surprises and educates a lot of people," Haeri says.

Democratic Representatives Rashida Tlaib of Michigan (left) and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota are considered inspirational trailblazers by many within the American Islamic community. Tom Williams/Getty

Virtually every Muslim elected to state legislatures—and all four who have ever been elected to Congress—are progressive Democrats; Carson, the Indiana congressman, was among the first elected officials to endorse Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist, for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. Sanders held firm to that support four years later; a CAIR survey in February 2020 found 39 percent of Muslim Democrats supported Sanders versus 27 percent for Biden. For many Americans, this alignment defies well-worn stereotypes about Muslims as extreme social conservatives who would not support a pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ Jewish candidate.

Yet the Omar-Tlaib approach is offensive and troubling for some politically conservative Muslims, who object to what they say is an underlying message that Muslims are badly-treated victims of bias. "The experience of American Muslims is one that's overwhelmingly positive," says Omar Qudrat, 40, of California who in 2018 was the first Muslim to win the GOP nomination for a seat in Congress. (He lost by 23 points.) "Many of us reject the victimhood narrative. Do we have problems? Absolutely. But it would be tragic for any young American Muslim to believe all they amount to is being a victim of this great country."

Qudrat and prominent Muslim conservative Zuhdi Jasser defend Trump's policies as being in the interest of national security and praise him for brokering treaties between Israel and Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. "I'm not embarrassed of my faith," says Jasser, a Phoenix physician appointed by Republican Senator Mitch McConnell in 2012 to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. "But I understand the mindset of a country that was attacked. Those wounds are still very deep."

Gold medalist, Dalilah Muhammad of the United States, poses on the podium during the medal ceremony for the Women's 400m Hurdles on Day 14 of the Rio 2016 Olympic Games at the Olympic Stadium on August 19, 2016 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. David Ramos/Getty

There is an audience for this view: Trump modestly increased his share of the Muslim vote in 2020 to 17 percent from 13 percent in 2016, CAIR reports.

"Muslims are still a relatively socially conservative population," Chouhoud says. "Certain values and priorities do overlap between Muslims and Republicans. It's just that there's the sense that there is no place for Muslims within the Republican Party."

Jasser maintains the GOP is not as anti-Muslim as progressives believe, citing the confirmations earlier this summer of Lina Khan to chair the FTC and Judge Zahid Quraishi to the federal bench, by wide bipartisan margins. Awad, of CAIR, counters by citing Republican opposition to other Muslims nominated by Biden for positions within the administration, such as Reema Dudin as deputy director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, and the long GOP-led delay on Syed's bid for an SBA post.

"To dismiss the rest of the Muslim community's concerns about discrimination, they must be living on the moon," Awad says. "I have not met a Muslims since 9/11 who has not experienced some form of discrimination."

Alzayat of Emgage, for one, hopes the GOP does, in fact, become more hospitable. "There will come a day when we have Muslim Republicans running, Muslim Democrats running, Muslim independents running, and they can have healthy disagreements about policies," Alzayat says. "That would be good for the community and good for democracy."

The Stars and the Crescent

This moment of ascendence for American Muslims is not only about political achievements. Popular culture, too, is seeing a sharp increase in Muslim representation, and the two trends feed each other. Movies and television offer familiarity that helps fuel acceptance, allowing many non-Muslim Americans who don't personally know anyone who practices Islam to see Muslim characters woven into the fabric of everyday life.

"It's an opportunity to create greater empathy for and less prejudice towards Muslims off-screen," says Arij Mikati of Pillars Fund, a Muslim philanthropy that next year will award $25,000 grants to 10 Muslim TV or movie storytellers.

Among those helping to drive this new level of cultural visibility: Ramy Youssef, who won a Golden Globe and a Peabody Award in 2020 for Ramy, a half-hour Hulu dramedy about a first-generation Muslim-American millennial struggling with his faith. Also in the cast for the show's second season was Mahershala Ali, the first Muslim actor to win an Academy Award, for his supporting roles in Moonlight (2016) and Green Book (2018). Disney+ is due this fall to drop Ms. Marvel, introducing Marvel's first Muslim superhero, a shapeshifting, bubble-gum-chewing Pakistani-American teen from New Jersey. And there are past and present recent series like Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj and United States of Al, a CBS sitcom about a U.S. war veteran who helps his Afghan interpreter move to Ohio.

The Netflix series "Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj" is one of a number of shows that helped to bring Muslim actors and storytellers a new level of cultural visibility. Matt Doyle/Getty

Jaffer, the Montgomery Township mayor, says she's also noticed greater Muslim visibility on kids' shows like Sesame Street and Peg Plus Cat, and it's extended to her daughter's first-grade classroom, where the teacher this spring read a book about Ramadan to students. "Those things seem like little victories, that our celebrations are being recognized as part of America,'" she says. "It's nice, because as a child, I had to explain everything. Just imagine asking a six-year-old to answer, 'What is Christmas?'"

Some Muslim actors and celebrities say they try to advance the ball, talking openly about their faith and cultural identity when asked—or not asked. Adnan Virk, while still at ESPN in 2016, recalls being asked to help anchor coverage after boxer Muhammed Ali died. "One of our producers called and said, 'Hey, we don't know anything about Islamic funerals. Could you come in?'" Virk recalls. "That made sense. They wouldn't know. Open casket, closed casket? What prayers are they reciting? Why is he draped in white? That was a cool moment."

Comic Negin Farsad, a frequent panelist on the NPR quiz show Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!, says she takes "any occasion I can when it fits organically in the joke to make mention of being Muslim. I do that to let people know that one of their favorite radio comedy shows has a Muzz on it and it's cool."

And MSNBC's Velshi says he intentionally tries to bring on guests and experts who are Muslims and of other marginalized communities to talk about topics unrelated to their identities. "It's the simplest thing in the world to do to break down barriers, to cause people to open their minds," Velshi says. "I want my roster of guests to look like the full breadth of America. Familiarity breeds understanding."

But while there are undeniably more Muslims in higher visibility and breakthrough roles, experts in and outside of the American Islamic community note that the numbers and depictions still don't come close to fair representation. A USC Annenberg study this June of 200 popular global movies from 2017 to 2019 found that just 1.1 percent of the speaking characters in U.S. films and 1.6 percent overall were Muslim, still frequently stereotyped as outsiders, threatening or subservient, particularly to white characters.

"More than half of the primary and secondary Muslim characters were immigrants, migrants, or refugees, which consistently rendered Muslims as 'foreign,'" says Al-Baab Khan, one of the study authors. "Film audiences only see a narrow portrait of this community, rather than viewing Muslims as they are: business owners, friends and neighbors whose presence is part of modern life."

Islamic Center Of America on July 17, 2014 in Dearborn, Michigan. Raymond Boyd/Getty

A Long Road Ahead

The challenges Muslim Americans face in popular culture in many ways mirror the political environment: The gains are real, increasingly visible and more prominent, but for now at least, still relatively modest—and, Muslim activists worry, too easily at risk of being erased.

They point out, for instance, that there's never been a Muslim in the U.S. Senate, elected as governor or appointed to a Cabinet position. Another major terrorist attack involving extremist Muslims, a successful White House comeback for Trump or the election of a similarly-minded candidate could once again sour public opinion or create new dangers.

"Trump was able to capitalize on bigotry, on ignorance and racism, on fear," said CAIR's Awad. "He mobilized it, weaponized it, made it official. His impact is still with us. And he might come back."

Still, the progress thus far has Muslim leaders cautiously optimistic and thirsting for more. Haeri hopes to see more taught in schools about Islam's history, noting the contributions of Muslim scientists and artists are absent from the education of most American children. Carson, the Indiana congressman, looks forward to the day he can donate to the first Muslim to run for president. Farsad just wants better roles to play. "I'm both ashamed and unashamed to admit that I have auditioned for the wife of a terrorist," she says. "That's what was available."

"We've been so underrepresented for so long, we're just working to even out the odds," Emgage's Alazayat says. "The question is not, 'Wow, look at how much we've done.' We should expect more."

[larktb-archive]

Whenever I go to block a racist I've been seeing a post that claims that revolutions dont work and peaceful protests do.

These are the examples said post uses:

These are all fucking terrible examples to use and I'm gonna go in order of worse to best which isn't saying much.

Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace

Yes this did in fact end the civil war. But no one denied that peaceful protests can make momentary symbolic changes such as ending a war or gaining a country its independence. This does often happen and you can list off dozens of countries wherein there has been a peaceful response to violence which has seemingly brought about an end to that violence I should know this because after all I come from the best known example of that happening aside from India (and I'll come back to my home country eventually). The problem with saying this is that it ignores the aftermath of the "peace" and whether or not it made enough of a difference in peoples lives for it to matter; even though external visible violence has been quelled, other covert forms of violence stay in place.

Liberia is a good example of this because of one major issue in Liberia: Corruption. Millions of USD are lost every year due to members of the government pocketing the money for themselves to the extent where, according to Transparency International, Liberia is 137 out of 180 and 53% of public service users had paid a bribe within the year of 2019. Interestingly enough the OP of that post calls China and Cuba corrupt despite the fact that Cuba is 60th and China is 80th. But I guess what happens after the revolutions is successful only matters when you're talking about places you dislike.

This corruption has lead to protests in 2019 and 2020, wherein police used tear gas to disperse peaceful protesters. Something to note is the minister of informations accusation of the protests being caused by outside elite forces. Rings a bell but I'm not sure from where.

Now one of the reasons Liberia is so corrupt is because of the lack of punishment against the main actors of the civil war, in spite of the trc listing out 100+ perpetrators and recommending that they be dealt with.

Then president, Ellen Sirleaf Johnson, was on this list and has admitted that she backed the civil war. She went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize.

Jasmine Revolution

Around 79% of people in post revolution Tunisia think the country is "going in the wrong direction", 29% of people would not vote with 48% not knowing who they would vote for, 81% said they don't feel close to a political party, 57% said they aren't interested at all in elections, only 20% believed elections would be free and fair, 45% said they disapprove of the current president, 71% said the government isn't addressing the needs of the youth, 50% of people said the government struggles with preventing political violence and I could go on and on.

But this is only 1 study with a very small sample size so by itself it's not a lot.

But when you compound that with a corruption index of 74, an unemployment rate of 15% (compared to Vietnam and Cubas horrible 3% rate and Chinas 6% rate), ~100,000 skilled workers leaving the country and a slowly increasing number of asylum applicants leads me to think that the data is not unfounded.

Suicide and murder rates also increased after the revolution, with cases of self immolation increasing threefold, such as with the case of Abderrazak Zorgui, who's death sparked protests which turned violent after the police were sent in to quell them.

At least 800 Tunisians went to fight for Isil and that's only counting those who came back from Syria. For comparison 900 returned to Turkey and 760 returned to Saudi Arabia.

Much like Liberia there has not been any justice, with the government instead introducing a law granting amnesty to former members of the dictatorship in Tunisia. A constitutional court was supposed to be set up in 2014 to speed up this process. 6 years on it still hasnt been set up.

Rose Revolution

Now this one is interesting. Georgia has a corruption ranking of 44, its unemployment rate of 11%, although higher than the corrupt, evil nations of Cuba and Vietnam isn't terrible and its Gini Coefficient is 36.4 which is pretty average.

So what's wrong with this one?

Well for starters four years after the Rose Revolution, Georgian protestors once again took to the capital to protest against the increasing amount of power, President Saakashvili, who led the Rose Revolution, was gaining.

To be more specific in 2004, legislation was passed to give him the right to dissolve parliament and in 2006 local elections were manipulated so that the government would dominate local legislatures.

And what's that? The president of Georgia blamed outside Russian influence on the protests and sent in police with tear gas and water cannons? That seems weirdly familiar familiar. Where have I heard that one before.

Here is a quote from a leader of a peaceful revolution after peaceful protests against him took place: "Everyone has the right to express disagreement in a democratic country. But the authorities will never allow destabilisation and chaos".

Interesting how after he was put in power, suddenly peaceful protest is the work of Moscow and needs to be controlled by police. Funny that. But this is totally a successful revolution guys!

And how many protests happened after this one? 3, not including the anti-homophobia protest. I think if you need to protest against the government every few years to the point where people keep calling each new protest, the Rose Revolution 2.0, your 1st revolution wasn't that successful.

Womans Suffrage

But before I talk about the relatively well off post-Soviet nations let's just do a assessment of the absolutely dumb as fuck idea that the Suffragists were more effective than the Suffragetes despite the Suffragists making no progress in the 40 years they existed prior to the branching off of the Suffragettes.

Now some historians do agree that the Suffragettes more violent methods did begin to turn men away from granting womens suffrage during their later years. Less concrete is the idea that this outweighs the net positive they had on the movement for womens suffrage.

In fact heres a contemporary source from 1906 praising the suffragette movement:

"I hope the more old-fashioned suffragists will stand by them. In my opinion, far from having injured the movement, [the Suffragettes] have done more during the last 12 months to bring it within the region of practical politics than we have been able to accomplish in the same number of years"

Who said that? Millicent Fawcett? Oh clearly she's just biased towards suffragettes?

But even if I gave evidence that the Suffragettes were indeed more effective than the Suffragists, you could easily find an opposing argument and vice versa. Ww1 happened and in the end that swift change of culture is what gave women their rights to vote (or at least the wealthy).

What can be argued is the historical reasons of why the Suffragettes became even more violent in 2nd decade of the 20th century leading to more guerrilla warfare like tactics being deployed such as arson.

Black Friday happened. Was a protests against the government caused by then Prime Minister Asquith, reneging his promise to put a bill granting womens suffrage through parliament. This protest started off as peaceful and ended up with women being physically and sexually assaulted by the police and counterprotesters with there being accusations of plain clothes police officers inciting this violence. Do I even have to say it?

In order to avoid further molestation, the Suffragettes stopped doing large gatherings with each other and went "underground" so to speak getting more and more violent.

What we should recall is the fact that prior to this Emmeline Pankhurst told the Suffragettes to stop all operations and renewed them after this traumatic event.

Prior to the suffragettes emergence the fight for women's rights had been by in large ignored by the public and it was only after their emergence that this became an issue in the forefront of the public's mind.

For a more nuanced view:

"Viewing the militant movement from the second half of the twentieth century, it is difficult to argue that violence does not ‘pay off’.   [The history of independence of the colonies, and Civil Rights campaigns in the USA shows that violence can succeed.]   It may be that suffragette violence after 1912 fell between two stools, being inadequate to force the government but sufficiently destructive to antagonise public opinion.  This writer [i.e. Constance Rover] is of the opinion that, as the events turned out, militant tactics helped the women's suffrage movement until 1912, but after that date were harmful.   This does not mean that militancy was necessarily a foolish policy.   With hindsight, one can conclude that militancy failed in the last two years before the war, but with the experience of rebellion we have had since, one cannot conclude that militant tactics are an unsuccessful means of obtaining an objective such as enfranchisement..."

- Constance Rover 1967.

I use the quote in specific because it calls the civil rights movement violent. And was written a year prior to the end of the movement. It's almost as if the movement has been whitewashed by liberals to be a completely non-violent effort or something.

Singing Revolution and Velvet Revolution

I'm putting both of these together as these states are all former Soviet nations who have became arguably more successful than others like Moldova, Bulgaria and the aforementioned Georgia.

Now in the post-Soviet Baltic states, there are a large list of things i could talk about. The high suicide rates, the mass exodus leading to a quarter of the population in each nation leaving them, the large amount of people at risk of poverty, high incarceration rates, the gutting of labour laws, the rise of anti-semitism and the glorification of Nazis within their societies all come to mind. Some of these also apply to Czechia and Slovakia.

I could talk about specific events such as the Gorilla scandal, the murder Jan of Kuciak literally everything concerning Czech prime minister Babiš and the large proportion of Soviet Nostalgia in both Czechia and Slovakia (1/3 in the former and 1/2 in the latter).

I could mention protests that have taken place after these revolutions leading to the usage of rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse protesters who were acting non-violently. But I'd be repeating myself so I'm leaving it at that.

"But Lilly" you might say, "that doesn't necessarily disprove OPs point that these protests were successful, they did after all achieve their goals of 'political revolution/ending war/gaining womens suffrage".

And that's true. But...

TL;DR

OP used these as examples to contrast against so called failed violent revolutions with OP using violent revolutions like Vietnam, Haiti, Cuba, China, the USSR and the French Revolution as examples of failed revolutions. Anyone with a brain knows these revolutions absolutely succeeded in their short term goals of political change. There is no Tsar anymore, Cuba and Vietnam are still socialist, the aristocracy of france were decapitated, Haitians arent slaves and China has no emperor.

So where does the problem with these revolutions lie? Well according to OP:

... of course as we've just seen the so called successful peaceful revolutions are also poverty-ridden, corrupt and unstable with problems years later so what's the actual difference? There is none (aside from the historical revisionism of socialist states but that's beside the point), it's just hypocrisy and an incredibly silly gotcha to those currently arguing for violent protest.

I could continue and talk about how Haiti collapsed because of sanctions from racist countries who wanted to punish Haiti for fighting against their white masters, how Vietnam was practically always in war throughout the 20th century and how its stabilized since the end of the Viet-Khmer war, how Cuba infinitely improved the lives of all Cubans and was far more humanitarian than any western nation at the time, how the USSR and communist China turned Russia and China from poor feudal states to economic powerhouses which were far more equal in nature than the US.

But this post is way too long and I don't want to have to read through another dozen sources written by anti-communists liberals again.

Edit: the conclusion didnt save properly (thanks tumblr)

To end I'll say that the major problem with non-violent protests that is shared by every single one of these examples (apart from womens rights) is the lack of punishment towards those who caused the problems the people were protesting against. This means that said people can become president or a member of the government without any impediment and those people continue to be corrupt. From Ellen Sirleaf Johnson to Mikheil Saakashvili to the Tunisian government to Andrej Babiš. On the other hand violent revolution makes sure that those who war complicit in the crimes of the past are not able to usher in the crimes of the future, even if others eventually do.

The thing about that is progress has still been made, and even if they begin to reverse some of the gains that had been made they cant reverse all of them. With non-violent revolutions there is no change except for the ways that those in power step on the working class being more covert than overt.

You can decide which you prefer.

[newsnigeria]

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/inside-the-yellow-vests-what-the-western-media-will-not-report/

Inside the Yellow Vests: What the Western media will not report

 by Ollie Richardson for Ooduarere.com

Disclaimer: if you think that Soros/Russia/America/Illuminati is behind the Yellow Vests or some other batsh*t nonsense, then please stop here. This article isn’t for you. Cat videos on YouTube are maybe more appropriate.

While the Yellow Vests (Gilets Jaunes) protests actually began on 17.11.18, I think most are aware that frustration with the government has been building for many, many years. Sarkozy certainly played a big role in this. Deep-rooted contractions have been left unaddressed while offshore accounts were filled up. Without wanting to dedicate a lot of space to the details of each French government since the last massive riots in 1968, I think it is easier to proceed from the fact that France has been essentially occupied by America for decades. For me personally, this helps to explain a lot.

In Russia there is the word “народ”. The closest translation of this into English is “nation”, but actually it doesn’t really convey the sense. We’re talking about fraternal relations amongst peoples that are indistinguishable from kindred ones. And it’s understandable why this concept doesn’t exist in the West. Or at least, I’ve never seen it. When America landed on Omaha beach in 1944 it sure didn’t have the best interests of France at heart. And the quick formation of NATO in 1949 testifies to this. America succeeded to create a loyal bloc in synchronisation with the USSR’s withdrawal from Europe (by the way, talk about “Soviet occupation” is vulgar NATO propaganda). Normandy was bombarded by US aviation in an act of national subjugation. This is also psychological warfare.

After all, it’s no coincidence that as of this very moment Japan – nuked by America – is the No. 1 most indebted country in the world. Africa is another story; the people were stripped of their identity and turned into automated plantation workers for the “civilised” West. This helps to explain why French TV broadcasts American movies, American series, American music, etc on a loop. Or at least until recently. I have noticed that there has been a slight reduction in the last year, but there is still predominance all the same. On TV there is a focus on violence. Children’s cartoons consist of almost endless aggression. Everything is done to create lines of division and pit X against Y. This doesn’t benefit France or Europe, but it does benefit the USA and its EU project. Why? Because how else can American… sorry… NATO military objects be planted on European soil and aimed at Russia? Most French people believe that the USA was a liberator in WW2, and that nuking Japan was justified. The TV reinforces these ideas also on a loop.

If you try to challenge someone who thinks such things, you will be on the receiving end of the 3 stages of denial. The creeping annexation of French sovereignty reached its peak in 1999, when the Euro (€) replaced the franc. The standard of living has worsened ever since. After this, French agricultural produce lost its place in its own country to Spanish agriculture (Spain is now an IMF slave), which is riddled with pesticides. As a result, French produce is now much more expensive. Fruits and Vegetables? Extortionate. Sadly, French produce is also a victim of Bayer/Monsanto (hence why the Yellow Vests recently attacked the HQ).

I will come back to this topic later, but I have given one early example of the consequences of US occupation. Has it brought anything good? In my opinion, no. Living became dependent on credit. Car adverts on TV infinitely promote debt and unaffordable lifestyles. Part of the parcel of US occupation is being dragged into violations of international law. France played a major role in bombing Yugoslavia and trafficking organs (Bernard Kouchner was heavily involved). It helped to carve the region up and illegally create Kosovo’s “independence”. France helped America invade Afghanistan (invading Iraq didn’t receive enough public support) in Operation Enduring Freedom (nice name, haha). France (Sarkozy) helped America use Georgia as a battering ram against Russia. France was the ringleader in the evaporation of Libya. France helped arm terrorists in Iraq and feed Al Qaeda, which later resulted in the birth of ISIL/ISIS. France helped AFRICOM send weapons from Libya to Syria. France is permanently in Africa, helping the IMF pillage sovereign nations like Mali.

France helped Al Qaeda/ISIS in Sy-Raq unconditionally in the media space and with financing. France helped Riyadh send Yemen back to the Stone Age. France helps Israel massacre Palestinians. France (using Bernard-Henri Lévyas the middle man) helped America overthrow Yanukovych in Ukraine and unleash civil war.

France has consistently parroted America’s anti-Russia propaganda on Skripal, MH-17, Crimea, Trump “collusion”, etc. And now France helps America bring Venezuela to its knees. Does absolutely any of this benefit France or the French people? No? Then whom does it benefit? The IMF. NATO. Jacob Rothschild (I am “anti-semitic”, yes). Apartheid Israel. Lockheed Martin. Raytheon. Boeing. Goldman Sachs. JP Morgan. Disney. Kelloggs. Qatar. Saudi Arabia. Banderists. Wall Street. Soros. Clinton. AMERICA.

Now with this important background information on the table, we will move on to the topic of the Yellow Vests. The initial spark of the protests is the El Khomri law, which essentially robbed employees of their rights. Read more about it here. And guess what? Yes, on March 15th the EU condemned this law. I.e., 18 weeks of protests could’ve been avoided long before this dumb globalist law was adopted. But nope – giving workers a fair exchange for their labour doesn’t fill up offshores.

The next scandal that incensed people is the Benalla affair from July 2018. Summary: Macron’s best buddy Alexandre Benalla (some say he’s his boyfriend) violated the law and assaulted a May Day protestor. He then broke the law on diplomatic passports. This particular scandal is never-ending, and, predictably, no punishment has yet arrived. The media even tried to link it to Russia. However, when a Yellow Vest (boxer) acts in self-defence against over-aggressive riot police, he is instantly given a jail sentence.

The tipping point was Macron’s 23% diesel fuel tax, which he wanted to implement at the very beginning of 2019. This resulted in 300,000+ protestors mobilising in November 2018 – also known as Act 1 of the Yellow Vests. The government did not respond and pretended nothing was happening.

Thus, Act 2 was called, which was even more violent. But again, no reaction from Macron followed. Act 3 happened, and then Macron bluffed – he claimed that the fuel tax hike would be postponed. Then a bit later he announced it had be fully scrapped (a ploy since in early 2019 he started to promote a “carbon tax”). It was only after act 4 that Macron did something. But all he did was increase the minimum wage by a measly €100. Ironically, it became the most-viewed political speech in France’s history. The Yellow Vests collectively shook their heads and continued to protest.

Before Act 5 there was the Strasbourg “terrorist attack”. I use inverted commas because I believe it was government orchestrated to try to end the protests. Macron let the perpetrator – who was known to police – walk around a free man BEFORE THE ATTACK when there were chances to detain him. He had also been detained multiple times before and had over 30 criminal offences on his account. An innocent “terrorist attack” is was not. Act 6 and 7 were pretty calm and by this point Macron felt like he had managed to quell the movement. Then there was the boxer scandal of Act 8, which the media milked dry.

After Act 9 Macron announced the start of the pathetic “grand debate”, which ended up lasting 1 month. The aim? To buy time and hope that support for the Yellow Vests will drop. Propaganda TV channels were selling this “debate”, which has now ended, as “a new stage of democracy”. In reality, it was a re-run of Macron’s electoral campaign and simultaneously his campaign for May’s EU elections. A PR technology, or a monologue.

Act 10 took place relatively calmly. Then during Act 11 Macron’s goons fired a “flashball” at the face of a prominent YV – Jérôme Rodrigues. All testimonies and proof show that it was a deliberate act. As a result, Jérôme lost the use of his right eye.

Act 12 was mostly about condemning police violence and was dedicated to Jérôme. Act 13 involved a Yellow Vest’s hand being blown off by a grenade. The media never told people that these dispersal grenades are loaded with TNT. They never showed the footage, and referred to the incident as a “minor injury”, even blaming the protestor for approaching the grenade.

Act 14 is when the Zionist rat Alain Finkielkraut was “greeted” by the Yellow Vests, after which the media started screaming “anti-semitism” non-stop. I couldn’t watch the TV for days after this, the level of social engineering was vomit-inducing. In essence, every channel tried to say that all Yellow Vest protestors are supporters of the Holocaust.

Act 15 and 16 were different in the sense that the Yellow Vests decided to stop declaring their protests and instead did unsanctioned marches. Sadly, this tactic didn’t have much success since the police set up wedges and managed to squeeze and paralyze the Yellow Vests. It started to resemble sheep being herded by the police in the streets.

Act 17 was supposed to be a 3-day sit-in in Paris. Sadly, on the Friday the police already thwarted the plans and prevented the creation of a tent camp under the Eiffel Tower. The march on the following Saturday was halted quite easily by the police (I was with the Yellow Vests when they were cornered by CRS).

This was actually a good thing because it made the Yellow Vests return to their roots, when they were most effective. It was understood that the format of protests had to change since it had become stale and easy for the police to stop. The initial plan for Act 18 was to encircle the Elysee Palace from 4 directions with mass mobilisation.

At the last minute (10 a.m. on Saturday morning) a curveball was thrown at Macron, and all the Yellow Vests gathered on the Champs Elysees. You know the rest: the most violent protest since Acts 1 and 2. See my Facebook album below for more about this:

Now that I have done a basic chronology (I only mentioned the most important events, most of which happened in Paris), I will now answer some questions posed to me and then speak my mind about all of this.

Question: “How many people showed up for Act 18 in Paris?”

My answer: I don’t know exactly, but it was similar to Acts 1 and 2, so at least 10,000. The Police syndicate says 290,000 protested across the country, while the propagandist Interior Ministry says 14,000 (haha). The riot police (CRS) stood no chance anyway, the Yellow Vests’ anger was like an erupting volcano.

Question: “To your knowledge, did this occur in other French cities?”

My answer: It happens in all the major cities. Toulouse always has a big attendance, as does Nantes. There is the blocking of toll roads, roundabouts, airports, etc too.

Question: “Why is there almost zero coverage of this across all US news outlets?”

My answer: Because it exposes the “democracy” scam and makes “partners” like Ukraine sh*t their pants, since they realise that it is their throat that the Anglo-Saxons will cut next.

Question: “Do you experience any degree of organisation among protesters or is it still merely people gathering, walking around and going home again?”

My answer: There is central organisation, yes. The police try their best to set up traps, but the YV communicate all observations internally. I’ll give an example: on the night of March 15th the police were patrolling all the highways that lead into Paris. So, a large communiqué was distributed among Yellow Vests informing what routes they are on and at what times. The same for the metro station closures.

Question: “Do you believe there are other groups among protesters who bring more violence into protests than there has been before? Or in other words, have protesters been infiltrated in order to discredit them?”

My answer: For Act 18 there was solidarity. But for the early acts the Yellow Vests weren’t too comfortable with the “black block” being present, because they didn’t want to be labelled by the media as demolishers/hooligans. But the Yellow Vests soon learnt that the media will demonise them if they are peaceful all the same, so it’s better to not play Macron’s game. There are times when the police have worn a Yellow Vest and pretended to be protesters. There are also plain-clothes cops walking around too. Also, there are cops who pretend to be “black block”. So yes, there is infiltration. But nothing could stop what happened on the 16th. The picture below taken by the Reuters photographer is from March 16th (Act 18) in Paris – it shows an incognito cop wearing a Yellow Vest:

Question: “What is your estimate of % backing in the french population towards the GJ.”

My answer: The media/entertainment brainwashing machine has done a lot of damage over the years. I’d say for every 3 people there is 1 supporter. This is still good considering the circumstances – non-stop demonization on the TV.

Question: “Are law enforcement, police & institutions follow or is there dissent also among them?”

The Yellow Vests are rather perplexed as to why the police don’t defect more. There is a problem with suicide among officers, and they are under funded. Some syndicates are pro-YV. In general the police like to be robbed by Macron – Stockholm syndrome.

Now I will voice a few thoughts.

Let’s speak about what happened on the 16th (act 18) in more detail. I arrived at the Champs-Élysées at around 10:15. I immediately noticed how the riot police (CRS) had cut the avenue in half with a row of trucks, like during act 17. But about 10 minutes later they moved the trucks and the water cannon into the side streets so that they were facing the avenue, as opposed to being in it. This was odd. It was as if they had handed the avenue to the YV on a silver platter without resistance. Perhaps a cauldron was more preferred instead of linear clashes. The first clashes happened near the Arc de Triomphe. Paving stones/rocks were being thrown at the trucks and EU tanks that were parked there. There was an endless screen of tear gas. No shop smashing had happened yet.

It must be understood that after the first few acts, Macron gave the order to use a stronger formula of tear gas. And normally there are mobile anti-terrorism units (BAC) on standby ready to chase the Yellow Vests and detain them. There was no BAC at all on the Champs-Élysées, probably because they would have been battered. After an attempt to go down one of the streets perpendicular to the AdT failed (police blocked it), everyone returned back to the AdT and then headed down the Champs-Élysées. It was here that the smashing began. There were police blocking every side street, launching tear gas every 30 seconds. In one of the videos I filmed you can see why CRS preferred to stand at a distance. They stood no chance. I am confident that a cop could’ve died at this moment if they hadn’t retreated. The rocks were coming down on them like artillery. By the way, I have debunked the Fouquet false flag here – the media is yet to admit the truth, instead preferring to pin the blame on the Yellow Vests.

It reminded me a lot like Maidan in the sense that the cops were sitting ducks, and it felt like nothing could disperse the protestors. The YV took the Champs-Élysées and all the police could do was to try to herd people around like sheep via tear gas. The saving grace for the police was that the YV managed to break free down a side road and thus left the Champs-Élysées. The 2-hour riot across 2km began, down street after street. The “Black Block” was smashing things left, right, and centre. There were many things I didn’t film because I didn’t want to get on the wrong side of them. Last thing I needed was a smashed phone because they suspected I was an undercover cop (like Benalla). Shoppers and tourists simply watched with their jaw on the floor.

The police car incident was pretty crazy. They found an abandoned police car in the street, smashed it and torched it. Then within seconds the police helicopter above gave a tip off and cops on bikes arrived. The mad scramble to escape was frantic.

When I went into a regular shop to buy food, the “Black Block” arrived and started to smash the one next door. The shop owner closed the shutters in a hurry and didn’t let me leave for 5 minutes. Finding the column again wasn’t hard – I just followed the trail of smashed glass.

Now I will speak about the “Black Block”. They are just the typical urban types who are impoverished, have poor education, and are maximally frustrated. I sympathise with them, since France’s record of colonisation is appalling, and Macron does nothing to give them hope.

There are some districts of Paris that not even the police dare go to. The gangs there throw Molotov cocktails at cop cars even when the cops are inside. “No-go zone” is an understatement. There are places where the use of assault rifles to settle scores is normal. A key thing that happened in the buildup to act 18 is described here. As a result, the streets of Grenoble were a war zone for 3 consecutive nights because of this case of police brutality.

I don’t agree with giving them a label either. At the end of the day, they are French citizens who are victims of the government’s social genocide policy. They are the lost generation who can only expect to be slaves for the elite. They are human beings too, and shouldn’t be dehumanised, which is the media’s main tactic against the Yellow Vests. The Yellow Vests have not declared unification with the Black Block, and they probably won’t, since the media will milk it, but it’s clear now that the Yellow Vests need a power wing (силовое крыло). On the 16th the “Black Block” and YV worked together because they are both in survival mode. They both are against Macron/the system and they both understand that being “peaceful” whilst the government continues to pillage, physiologically torment, and liberalise/globalise the “plebs” is like grabbing your ankles and handing Macron the Vaseline.

Macron’s adoption of the so-called “anti-casseur” law (read more here) was a pathetic attempt to indirectly ban protests. The media likes to label all Yellow Vests as “hooligans”, so that the ultra-liberal Macron voters make more noise against the Yellow Vests. As I said, the Yellow Vests tried the peaceful route, and it was like pissing in the wind. Ironically, Macron cancelled the fuel tax hike and increased the minimum wage when the Yellow Vests were violent back in November/December. He thought that the YV’s had ran out of steam because of the “grand debate”. He was very wrong. Is violence “correct”? The problem is that the media uses images to evoke emotional reactions. Does the media ever show the Macron regime looting people’s taxes and pensions? No. Do they show French weapons being used to massacre Syrian children? No. Do they highlight absolutely anything that they should if they truly worked for the people? No. They work for oligarchs and lobbies exclusively.

Macron and his neoliberal predecessors created “violence” as a rule of engagement, and not the Yellow Vests. Do the Yellow Vests have any other choice now? The cost of living gets worse and worse, so what should they do, bearing in mind that ISIS repatriated children receive better care? They should try to change things through the ballot box? Doesn’t work, please refer to Catalonia. So what will now happen? In the near future: more large protests are in the works; May Day is coming up, so expect something big planned for this day; mass walk outs are possible; other effective acts of disruption that I will keep secret will also take place. The media will continue to brand the Yellow Vests as hooligans who are bad for business. Thus, the Yellow Vests will become more and more militant. Macron might try a weak tax cut as a “concession”, but he might as well not bother, since it won’t change anything.

There are EU elections in May too, which the Yellow Vests want to sabotage and prevent Macron’s party from gaining votes. It hasn’t yet been decided what the best course of action is here, but it’s agreed that blank ballot papers is a bad idea. In the more longer term: if things remain on the current trajectory, then a civil war is on the cards. This is not a conflict on ethnic grounds. This clash concerns the system of governance. What the Yellow Vests want is so radically different from neoliberalism and the EU. It’s like applying the handbrake/e-brake suddenly whilst traveling down the highway. Perhaps at first the Yellow Vests thought that a few violent protests would achieve the goals, but over time they started to realise the severity of the situation. Act 18 testifies to this – a sudden release of energy in order to keep the movement alive, to combat Macron’s aggressive PR technologies (now the media is talking about the Yellow Vests again, albeit in a twisted way). Things like “RIC” and “Frexit” are merely concepts at the moment. Implementing the former is difficult since the parliament is designed in such a way to prevent the decentralisation of power. The latter depends on the implementation of the former.

Ultimately, this is an example of fourth generation warfare. In principle, it is a civil war already – in the framework of late-capitalism/liberalism. If to apply Gestalt theory, then the speed at which information is communicated and industrial processes take place is the only reason why it looks like just a “protest” on a Saturday and not a permanent war. In reality French society is as fragmented as, for example, society is in Sudan. And events in Syria-Ukraine-Venezuela-Iraq-Yemen-etc act as an added boomerang that is returning back to France rapidly, haunting it every Saturday.

The Yellow Vests represent this loss of synchronicity within the EU engine. When Trump was elected the rolling back of globalism started to increase its speed. Macron is trying to reverse this process. For example, he is about to privatise the airports. An added complication is that the Yellow Vests don’t like party politics and thus will not vote for Le Pen, who they consider to be a product of the system. So we have an impasse like the one in the UK, where the will of the people counts for nothing, and society is ultra-fragmented. This is the consequence of the S-400 deployment in Syria. It caused the Western bloc to fragment (since the survival of the capitalism depends on looting the wealth of other nations), and thus the ship is now taking on water. But should the YV try to take the helm and save it? My answer: one cannot build a new system without completely demolishing the old one. France failed to do this in the previous revolutions. Feudalism persisted. Thus, the contradictions rise to the surface again. However, back then they didn’t have the EU and US nuclear weapons to deal with.

My conclusion is that most French people are completely unaware of the reality that the country now exists in, and think that they can continue their lives as normal. They consider that the Yellow Vests are terrorists, and have already subconsciously dehumanised them. They put their heads in the sand as a protective mechanism, because they do not want to take responsibility for their own destinies and prefer somebody else to do everything – childishness that was imposed on France by America. After all, Macron’s fellow Anglo puppet, Adolf Hitler, walked around Paris freely, without any resistance. This didn’t happen in Moscow. But with the creation of RT France, which becomes exponentially more popular, there is at least one beacon of light. I know that the Yellow Vests have chosen RT and Sputnik as their default choice for mass information consumption, and I know that propagandists like BFM, CNEWS, LCI, FranceInfo, France24, etc are sweating in anticipation of their viewership reducing to zero. This means that the decades-old Anglo-Saxon tools of hegemony are losing their effect and the Overton window is receiving an overhaul.

With the national/global (Western) economic situation becoming more and more dire, with more and more migrants increasing the already crippling load on the tax payer’s back, and poor education producing zombie youth, the situation is going to explode sooner or later. How badly? This is the million € question. As is said by the Yellow Vests: On Lâche Rien!

I shall end this article with the statement made by the Yellow Vests after the violent March 16th protest, which I translated and published here.

#MacronDemission