#if you continue to use twitter going forward you may not be a nazi but youre still okay enough with them to hang out at their sides | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ruminativerabbi · 4 years ago

Text

Vulnerability

Vulnerability has a bad rep in our world. In fact, what we all long for is precisely the opposite: to feel invulnerable, impervious to incoming danger, safe and secure not only when we hide under our beds in the dark of night but when we are out and about in the world. But we—speaking of society as a whole but also of us ourselves as individuals—we may have moved a bit quickly in that regard and not sufficiently thoughtfully. Being paralyzed with fear about dangers that are highly unlikely to come our way—that kind of vulnerability is definitely something negative that all who can should avoid. But owning up to the vulnerability that inheres in the human condition itself is in a different category entirely. As this last pandemic year has taught us all too well, it is only a sign of maturity and self-awareness to own up to the degree to which we can fall prey to a virus so tiny that you’d need an electron microscope to see it at all and to behave accordingly. And waving away that danger as fake news because you don’t choose to acknowledge your own vulnerability is not a sign of courage or valor, but of lunacy born of a witch’s brew of foolishness, naiveté, and arrogance.

As I prepared myself for surgery last week, I was feeling exceedingly vulnerable. I lay in bed at night talking to my heart, asking why it wasn’t just doing its thing properly on its own, why it was intent on betraying me after all these years of me not burdening it by smoking cigarettes or consuming huge quantities of trans fat. Didn’t I deserve better? I certainly thought I did! But now that the whole procedure is behind me and I’m feeling healthy and fortunate to live in an age of miracles (and if having a non-functioning valve in your heart replaced without them having to open your chest and then being sent home the next day to recuperate doesn’t qualify as a miracle, then what would?)—now that all that is behind me, I see that intense vulnerability that I was feeling in the days leading up to last Thursday in a much less negative light. Yes, there are people who live in terror of an asteroid colliding with the Earth. (For NASA’s own statement about the likelihood of that happening, click here. We’re apparently good for at least the next couple of centuries.) But that’s not the kind of slightly obsessive vulnerability I want to promote as healthy and sane, but rather the kind that speaks not to fantasy but to reality. To the fact that our hearts are not made of steel and that our bones really do crack quite easily. To the fact that, despite all we do to suggest that the opposite is true, we are mortal beings lucky to be gifted with a few score years to wander the earth, to do whatever good we can, to leave behind some sort of legacy for our descendants to contemplate positively once we ourselves are no longer around to be contemplated in person. Feeling vulnerable because the human condition is vulnerability itself—that isn’t craziness or obsessivity, just an honest appraisal of how things are in this world we all share for as long as we do.

These were the thoughts I had in mind as I read the report in the paper the other day about people coming to shul last Shabbat on 16th Avenue in Boro Park last week only to be greeted by men gathered in front of the synagogue screaming “Kill the Jews” and “Free Palestine.” Which kind of vulnerable did those people feel, I wonder—the silly kind (because there weren’t that many hooligans in front of the synagogue, because the cops showed up almost instantly, because the bad guys didn’t actually have guns with them or bombs, and because they fled the scene once they realized how completely outnumbered they were about to become) or the wise kind rooted in a fully rational appraisal of how things are in this world we share with so many who seem to feel entirely justified in their bigotry and prejudice and who appear mostly to have no problem putting both on full display for all to admire? (For an account of the Boro Park incident, click here.) I’m hardly an alarmist who sees a pogrom around every corner. But, of course, it’s hardly an example of alarmism to be alarmed when truly alarming things happen. Maybe I’ve read too many books about Germany in the 1930s. Or maybe not.

We have entered into a new stage, a dangerous and upsetting one. At first, the stories appeared random. A twenty-nine-year-old man wearing a kippah was beat up in Times Square as he tried to make his way to a pro-Israel rally. Then, a day or two later, a group of thugs wearing keffiyehs invaded a restaurant on 40th Street and started spitting on patrons they suspected of being Jewish. Next we heard about people being attacked in the Diamond District on 47th Street, where it isn’t ever hard to come across some Jewish businesspeople or shoppers. Two days later we were back in Times Square, this time watching footage of a Jewish man being knocked to the ground and beaten in front of the TKTS buttke where they used to sell last-minute tickets to unsold-out Broadway shows when the theaters were open. Nor is this just a New York thing: the police in L.A. are currently investigating an attack on outside diners at a Japanese restaurant as an anti-Semitic hate crime that occurred the same day that a family of four was terrorized in Bal Harbour, Florida, by a group of men threatening to rape the wife and daughter and yelling “Die Jews” and “Free Palestine” at them. I could go on. There have been similar incidents in New Jersey, Illinois, Utah, Arizona, and several other states. And although I’m focused here mostly on American incidents, the rise in this kind of hate crime is not specifically an American phenomenon: we’ve read of similar, even worse, incidents just lately in London, in Germany, and in Italy.

The question is how to respond, not whether we should. The fantasy that complaining only makes things worse needs to be laid to rest permanently and irrevocably. (The Jewish community could learn a good lesson in that regard from Black America, where it was once also imagined that responding publicly to racism would only make things worse. It’s hard to imagine any Black citizens putting that argument forth today, yet I hear it from Jewish Americans regularly.) Nor can we allow ourselves the luxury of imagining that this dramatic uptick in anti-Jewish violence is “about” Israel. Israel’s recent war with Hamas was, in my opinion, entirely justified. I can see how people might feel otherwise, and even strongly so. But I know too much history—and specifically too much Jewish history—to indulge in the fantasy that anti-Semitism is “about” anything other than the hatred of Jewish people, Judaism, and Jewishness itself. No matter how many shows an actor appears in, he’s the same person under all of the costumes he gets paid to wear on stage.

I myself have lived a blessed life. Born just eight and a half years after the Nazis were murdering up to twelve thousand people a day at Auschwitz, I have hardly ever encountered real anti-Semitism directed directly at me personally. (And I speak as someone who spent several years living in Germany in the 1980s.) Nonetheless, sensitivity to anti-Jewish rhetoric and violence is the hallmark of my Jewishness, the foundation upon which my eager willingness to live my life as a public, fully-identified, and unambiguously-identifiable Jewish person rests. And that is why I am disinclined to wave away the latest series of anti-Semitic incidents in New York and elsewhere as a random set of creepy one-time events—nor would anyone describe that way who has ever read a book about the history of anti-Judaism or anti-Semitism. For people eager to dine at my table, I recommend Walter Laqueurs’s The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism: From Ancient Times to the Present Day as your appetizer, Léon Poliakov’s four-volume History of Anti-Semitism as your main course with a side serving of David Nirenberg’s Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition. For dessert, I recommend Deborah Lipstadt’s Antisemitism: Here and Now. I can promise you that you won’t be hungry when you’re done.

There have been encouraging signs too, of course. President Biden has spoken out sharply and strongly against the uptick in anti-Semitic incidents, calling them despicable and condemning them unequivocally as “hateful behavior.” We have heard similarly supportive rhetoric from Governor Cuomo, Mayor Di Blasio, Senators Schumer and Gillibrand. So that’s good. But will any of the actual sonim out to harm Jews hold back because of a presidential tweet or a senatorial press release? On the other hand, there were seventeen thousand tweets disseminated by Twitter last week that contained some version of the words “Hitler was right.” Just wait until they find out that the President considers them despicable!

I don’t mean to sound unhappy that supportive, unambiguous language denouncing anti-Semitism has emanated from the highest offices in the land. Just to the contrary, I am thrilled that our leadership has spoken out so boldly and clearly. But I also don’t imagine it will matter until it is deemed just as unacceptable to speak disparagingly about Jews in public as it is—at least in all places that decent people gather and live—to espouse hate-fueled violence against Black people or Asian-Americans, or any other American minority. And that will take—at least in some quarters—a sea change of attitude that can only be accomplished through the kind of ongoing educative process capable of moving society forward. How to do that, I’m not sure. But I am sure that that is the challenge the new normal has laid at our feet. And I am as sure about that as I am that these recent incidents, for all they come dressed up as part of the Israeli-Palestinian controversy, have nothing at all to do with Middle Eastern politics and everything to do with the unique place anti-Jewishness continues to occupy in Western culture as the one remaining version of bigotry to which otherwise normal and nice people can still openly subscribe without suffering much for their views. Or at all.

#anti-semitism #anti-Judaism #anti-Jewishness

1 note · View note

aion-rsa · 4 years ago

Text

Gina Carano Was Fired from The Mandalorian, But Should Cara Dune Live On?

https://ift.tt/2N0IeiI

Gina Carano deserved to be fired from The Mandalorian after months of posting dangerous online rhetoric that goes against everything Star Wars should stand for. After Carano used her Twitter bio to mock the common practice of users listing preferred pronouns, denying the gravity of the Covid-19 pandemic, posting election fraud conspiracy theories, refusing to show support for Black Lives Matter, and implying that being a right-wing conservative today was like being a Jewish person during the Holocaust, Disney finally did the right thing.

“Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children. Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views,” read her now-deleted Tik Tok post.

While Carano did return for The Mandalorian season 2, which wrapped just before the Covid lockdowns that seemingly triggered the actor’s toxic views on social media, Disney decided that it had seen enough. In a statement released on Wednesday night, a spokesperson for Disney said that Carano’s “social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.” The spokesperson also confirmed that Carano “is not currently employed by Lucasfilm and there are no plans for her to be in the future,” effectively putting an end to her time on The Mandalorian and Star Wars. Deadline also confirmed that Carano and her agency UTA have parted ways.

Two days later, Carano doubled down, announcing a new movie project with alt-right pundit Ben Shapiro’s conservative website The Daily Wire. She will develop, produce, and star in the movie, which will release exclusively to the site’s members, according to Deadline. Carano dubiously framed her next move as “a direct message of hope to everyone living in fear of cancellation by the totalitarian mob.”

But while Carano may see herself as a rebel fighting for the right to claim “freedom of speech” no matter how hateful or downright false her posts, there are also plenty of Star Wars fans who are relieved to see her jettisoned from the universe they love. While Disney should still be held accountable for how it failed John Boyega and Kelly Marie Tran, actors of color who faced racist attacks upon being cast in the Sequel Trilogy, and who were sidelined as the trilogy progressed, the company has done a much better job of late of showing where it stands on the issues. The company stood in support of The High Republic show host Krystina Arielle after she faced similar attacks. By firing Carano, Disney and Lucasfilm have taken a clear stance not only against bigotry but the kind of dangerous rhetoric that has become pervasive among a small but loud minority of the fandom (although I’d hardly call them actual “fans”).

THR learned from a source close to Lucasfilm that the studio had been “looking for a reason to fire her for two months” and that Carano’s Holocaust post was “the final straw.” According to the outlet, Lucasfilm had previously planned to have Carano star in her own Mandalorian spinoff, potentially Rangers of the New Republic, and considered making the announcement during its investor’s day event in December before that idea was scrapped due to her social media posts.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Does Carano’s firing mean that this is the end of her character’s time in Star Wars? While the end of Cara Dune’s storyline in The Mandalorian season 2 teased that there would be more to her journey as a mercenary turned New Republic marshal, for the moment, that adventure seems to have been cut short. That said, some fans are already wondering whether Cara’s life in the galaxy far, far away could continue without Carano.

A few people on Twitter have suggested that the character should simply be recast, with Lucy Lawless already positioned as a frontrunner among fans. The Xena: Warrior Princess and Battlestar Galactica actor and activist would be more than a suitable replacement for Carano and the kind of talent the Star Wars brand should want to work with. Not to mention that Lawless would bring the energy, grit, and physicality needed to play a tough-as-carbonite brawler like Cara.

Let's make #LucyLawless the new and improved #CaraDune! #TheMandalorian @Jon_Favreau @dave_filoni pic.twitter.com/xuqqM3SOea

— 𝕂ℝ𝕀𝕊𝕋𝕀𝔸ℕ 𝕆𝔻𝕃𝔸ℕ𝔻 (@kreshjun) February 11, 2021

But as nice as it is to dream of Lawless or another fan-favorite performer taking on the role of Cara Dune and continuing her story, Star Wars has traditionally been averse to recasting its characters to the point where the franchise would rather paste a questionable CGI version of Mark Hamill’s face on another actor’s head than cast someone new to play a younger Luke Skywalker. (Sebastian Stan, for example.)

Not that Lucasfilm hasn’t tried recasting before, such as when it brought on Alden Ehrenreich and Donald Glover to play pre-Original Trilogy versions of Han Solo and Lando Calrissian in Solo: A Star Wars Story, but that movie was a box office failure for the studio. While there are many reasons why that film failed, a few fans might tell you it’s because Harrison Ford and Billy Dee Williams weren’t in it. If history tells us anything, it’s that there’s a section of this fandom that does not like change.

That’s not to say Disney should go out of its way to pander to viewers who are resistant to change. Big franchises like Star Wars need to embrace change to stay fresh and better reflect audiences. And Disney certainly shouldn’t prioritize people who would be mad if anyone but Carano played Dune on The Mandalorian or Rangers of the New Republic. My point is that Disney would likely save itself a lot of grief by not doing anything else with the character at all. There’s no doubt that the path of least resistance for Disney would be to phase out the character completely, giving her a quiet off-screen exit, perhaps coupled with some brief exposition in season 3 regarding where she went. Done.

Is that fair to Cara Dune and the fans who see themselves in her? Cara quickly became a fan-favorite after her debut on the Star Wars live-action series as a fierce gun-for-hire who’s not quite a hero and is as prone to violence as Din Djarin but who will ultimately choose to do what’s right. Many have lauded Cara for the ways she breaks away from the “traditional mold” of female Star Wars characters who have come before, both in terms of her morally gray motivations and her buff appearance, which, as fans of The Last of Us II‘s Abby will tell you, remains a rarity in our entertainment.

How The Mandalorian Gave Fans a Different Kind of Star Wars Story

By Lacy Baugher

Why The Mandalorian Was Always Destined to Meet Luke Skywalker

By Ryan Britt

Unlike Leia, Cara is a former Rebel shock trooper from Alderaan who didn’t immediately fall in line with the New Republic, preferring the chaos and danger of living in the Outer Rim than joining up with the new galactic government, which she felt wasn’t doing enough to quell the ever-present threat of the Empire that had destroyed her home planet. She preferred to brawl in cantinas and make her own way in the galaxy sans an official allegiance or badge, a lifestyle rarely lived by Star Wars‘ women — at least on screen. (In that way, Cara has much more in common with breakout Marvel comic book character Doctor Aphra.)

Sure, some of these traits began to change, but the show took its time developing Cara’s character, and by the time she did join the Republic’s law forces in the Outer Rim, it was after she’d witnessed many of the atrocities committed by what was left of the Empire. And even with the badge, she did some things on her own terms, like helping Mando and friends rescue Grogu from Moff Gideon.

To many, Cara has been a unique character worth following for years to come, whether it be on more seasons of The Mandalorian or in an eventual spinoff. Fans could perhaps still get that opportunity off-screen were Lucasfilm to continue Cara’s story in the books or comics, as it has with many other characters for over 40 years. It might just take some waiting.

But the mere fact that many fans want to see Cara’s story continue without the toxic presence of the actor who originally brought her to life is a testament to the power of the character herself. Like the best Star Wars characters, Cara seems to have staying power, and perhaps she deserves to outlive Gina Carano’s time with the franchise.

To The Mandalorian‘s credit, there are many other great female characters to look forward to on the show, including Bo-Katan Kryze (Katee Sackhoff), Koska Reeves (Mercedes Varnado), and Fennec Shand (Ming-Na Wen), who will actually star in The Book of Boba Fett later this year. (Please bring back Frog Lady, too.) They’re fantastic characters with their own motivations and stories, and I’d love to see more of them in season 3, but not all female characters are interchangeable and the other women in The Mandalorian’s world cannot replace Cara’s unique contributions to the show. They cannot simply “fill a spot” left behind by the last female hero, a character who was one of our first introductions on the show.

There’s perhaps no obviously right answer or course of action when things are still so raw and production is moving quickly on the next year of Star Wars stories. Does keeping Cara in Star Wars also ultimately mean that Lucasfilm is acknowledging Carano’s legacy with the franchise? Maybe. But should a great character that people look up to and relate to be allowed to exist beyond the bad decisions of an actor or its creator? Probably.

We only know this for sure: if you never see Cara Dune again in Star Wars, you only really have Gina Carano to blame.

The post Gina Carano Was Fired from The Mandalorian, But Should Cara Dune Live On? appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3ahfyuC

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

1 note · View note

nickburn · 4 years ago

Text

Art and the Artist in EDH

Most Commander players enjoy constraints in deck-building. Constraints give our decks creative and strategic focus while providing a lens for personal expression. One only needs to look at a chairs deck once to understand that constraints can be interesting problems to solve as well as fun talking points at the table. We’re already well-versed in navigating the 100-card singleton restriction and the nuances of color identity and multiplayer politics. How we navigate them is a series of personal choices we ultimately have to make for ourselves.

With Wizards of the Coast deciding not to work with Noah Bradley or Terese Nielsen anymore, Commander players now have an interesting new conundrum to think over: should I continue to run cards with art by these creators? For me, I think it’s worth the time to take these cards out of my decks and find replacements. In other mediums, it can be harder to separate art from the artist, and even worthwhile to explore how some innovative or groundbreaking works were created by problematic people. In magic, though, the art is not just what sits between the card name and the type line: it’s all the pieces of the card, from the frame, to the flavor text, to the mechanics, coming together to form a cohesive whole. Bradley’s and Nielsen’s art, while objectively beautiful, is also now a negative reminder of the people that made it, and that reminder is not entirely cohesive with the messages the rest of the game should strive to communicate. Recently, some cards with racist depictions have even been completely removed from the game, and I hope WotC continues this trend going forward.

So how do we go about finding alternatives for cards with Bradley’s and Nielsen’s art that we may be running already? Well, I’m going to tell you which offending cards I found in my own decks and the suitable replacements I’ve picked for them. Hopefully, you’ll have an idea of what you’d like to do with your own builds after you see what I’ve done here.

I currently own six commander decks built around these commanders: Ayula, Queen Among Bears; Niv-Mizzet Reborn; Princess Twilight Sparkle; Grenzo, Dungeon Warden; Zedruu the Greathearted; and Gavi, Nest Warden. My first concern when examining the decks for Bradley or Nielsen art was the commanders themselves. Thankfully, none of my commanders were painted by them. A quick Scryfall search shows us that Nielsen has created art for seven legendary creatures, and Bradley does not have art on any commanders at present.

Thankfully, for the two Akroma’s, gorgeous alternate versions of the art do exist and are cheap to acquire in a variety of card frames (I think I personally prefer the Angel of Wrath art by Chippy anyway). For Hanna, Ship’s Navigator, we have to go all the way back to Invasion to find the original art. Basandra, Ertai, Sydri, and Thromok, though, do not have other versions yet. Hopefully, they will see reprints someday. For now, I wouldn’t begrudge anyone for running them, as they all have unique niches in their colors, and I’d never want to ask someone to give up their favorite commander. If you do run them, though, you may want to consider commissioning an alternate art version from an independent creator, if that makes you more comfortable with playing them.

So that leaves the other 99 for each of my decks. For Ayula, I found that I was running a basic Forest of Bradley’s and Hunter’s Insight by Nielsen. The Forest is trivial to replace, and I already have a Fifth Edition one by David O’Connor I want to use from a Starter Deck I recently picked up. Hunter’s Insight is a good draw spell for the deck, for sure, but there is no shortage of those in green now. I just happen to have a Heartwood Storyteller lying around (art by Anthony S. Waters), so I’m going to slot that in for the same draw function. It’s a creature to boot, so it can pick up the deck’s equipment, and it might even make me some friends around the table. Ayula’s not a particularly group hug-y deck, but it couldn’t hurt, since most of the deck is creatures anyway.

For my Niv-Mizzet Reborn/Maze’s End deck, I was happy to see that I don’t have to worry about replacing any of the Gates or Maze’s End itself. I did place an additional constraint on the deck of only including cards from Ravnica sets, so it already doesn’t have as much wiggle room. But the only card I found to take out was Transguild Promenade by Bradley. I do hope it gets a reprint someday, but it’s honestly not that good of a card. I was mostly running it for flavor anyway, so I don’t feel too bad about putting in a Novijen, Heart of Progress that I have instead (art by Martina Pilcerova). This card is not optimal for a five-color deck, but it is flavorful. And I can always find something else later.

Princess Twilight Sparkle was running Nielsen’s Swords to Plowshares and Bradley’s Winds of Abandon. I’m replacing Swords with the original Path to Exile, since it basically does the same thing and I’ve always loved Todd Lockwood’s art for it. It also helps my opponents find lands if they’re mana screwed, which feels a little better than just giving them some life. Winds of Abandon is a lot harder to replace, since it’s still a new card and I was really looking forward to playing it. I could definitely see it getting reprinted soon, though, so I’m sticking in a Kirtar’s Wrath (art by the prolific Kev Walker) as an alternative board wipe with some upside.

My Grenzo deck was running Bradley’s version of Forgotten Cave and Nielsen’s Darksteel Pendant. Luckily, I still have an original Forgotten Cave from Onslaught, so that was easy to replace. I have a soft spot for Darksteel Pendant since there aren’t that many Darksteel cards, so I do hope WotC reprints this obscure common someday. Scry is an all too common ability now, though, so there’s no shortage of options. I’m slotting in a Conjurer’s Bauble (art by Darrell Riche), since it’s cheap utility and getting things from the graveyard to the bottom of the library is actually super great for Grenzo.

I recently bought Approach of the Second Sun for my Zedruu build (my long-time favorite commander deck), so I’m the most sad to see this one go. The card has become a commander staple since it was printed, as it’s a great alternate win condition for white. It’s especially great in Zedruu, which doesn’t have many other ways to close out games. I’m replacing it with Sphinx’s Tutelage (art by Slawomir Maniak) as a way to mill someone out, although there’s really no replacement for Second Sun. I was going to take out Bradley’s Leyline of Anticipation in favor of another Fifth Edition card, Ray of Command, but then I realized Ray’s Fifth Ed. art was created by known neo-Nazi Harold McNeill, the artist behind the infamous Invoke Prejudice. So I’m going with Dack’s Duplicate instead (art by Karl Kopinski).

Finally, my newest deck is headed by Gavi, Nest Warden, which really likes to have Forgotten Cave and Lonely Sandbar to function. Since I don’t have another Forgotten Cave or Heather Hudson’s version of Lonely Sandbar at the moment, I’m just slotting in a Fifth Edition Mountain and Island (art by John Avon and J.W. Frost respectively). That just leaves Bradley’s Spirit Cairn to take out, which isn’t a particularly stellar card anyway. So another Fifth Edition card, Forget (art by Mike Kimble), is going in instead. It’s cool to have some targeted discard in blue, so it can either trigger Gavi or disrupt an opponent’s hand in a pinch.

And that’s all of my decks updated! Phew.

This is a game and a format I love and want to continue to share with others. I think that can only happen as long as the space we provide for new players is kind and inviting. Bigotry and harassment have no place in games or elsewhere. So by ditching some of these potentially-problematic symbols, my hope is that it makes Magic a little safer for everyone.

If you stuck with me this long, thank you for reading!

You can follow more of my thoughts on Twitter @NCBurnham.

Be kind and stay safe out there. <3

#edh #commander #magic #deckbuilding #art

2 notes · View notes

jewish-privilege · 6 years ago

Link

This has been a very difficult 24 hours for the Jewish community — and for America. What started as a normal Sabbath for Jews — a time to be with family and community, celebrate bar and bat mitzvahs, hold baby namings, pray to God — ended with news of the massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. This was the deadliest anti-Semitic attack in American history.

While the horror of this massacre is shocking, it is not entirely surprising.

At the Anti-Defamation League, we have been tracking and fighting anti-Semitism for over a century. And while Jews have enjoyed a degree of acceptance and achievement in the United States perhaps unrivaled in our people’s history, recent trends have been alarming.

While the overall trend in anti-Semitic incidents has been a downward one, last year we saw the largest single-year increase since the A.D.L. began this annual audit in 1979 — a 57 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents in 2017. These incidents include high-profile ones such as neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville, Va., chanting “Jews will not replace us,” physical assaults, vandalism and attacks on Jewish institutions.

Part of this sharp rise comes from a large increase in anti-Semitic incidents in grade schools and on college campuses, which nearly doubled for the second year in a row. The latest F.B.I. statistics corroborate what our researchers found: a 5 percent increase in reported hate crimes, with more than half of faith-based hate crimes — 53 percent — against Jews.

Feeding this upsurge in hate is the toxic soup of anti-Semitism found online. According to a report that the A.D.L. released just a day before the Pittsburgh attack, far-right extremists and the so-called alt-right have stepped up their efforts on social media to attack and intimidate Jews, and especially Jewish journalists, in the run up to the midterm elections. These radicals engaged in “Twitter bombing” of Jews, barraging our community with an estimated five million highly politicized and anti-Semitic tweets per day.

Social media creates its own realities for individuals, where people feed off the anonymity and tailor what they read and whom they speak with so that it can feel that everyone thinks and talks as you do. As much as this is distorting, it also can be empowering.

Similarly emboldening is when anti-Semitism and hateful rhetoric is elevated or tolerated, either through appropriating the anti-Semites’ rhetoric outright, “dog-whistling” to them, or allowing their hate to go unanswered. And this is what has accelerated over the past few years.

Anti-Semitism is being normalized in public life.

As you read this, there are television ads being run by mainstream political candidates and parties that invoke the specter of the Jewish philanthropist George Soros to instill fear in voters’ hearts. This year, there are a record number of right-wing extremists and bigots running for office. There are those — including the president of the United States — who rail against “globalists” that are ruining the country, a term those on the far-right use as code for Jews.

Earlier this year, a member of Congress, Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, invited a Holocaust denier to be his guest at the Capitol to watch the State of the Union. A council member in our nation’s capital, Trayvon White, claimed that the Rothschilds — a legendary Jewish banking family — controlled the weather. Neither of these elected officials was censured or disciplined by their respective bodies.

Over the past few weeks, another member of Congress, Representative Steve King of Iowa, endorsed a neo-Nazi for elected office and met with a far-right, anti-Semitic political party in Austria, and faced no consequences. Earlier this month, Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, called Jews “termites,” and too many leaders — many of whom have dedicated their lives to social justice — excused it, said nothing or continued to embrace him nonetheless.

These incidents seem small, but add them together, nurture them with silence and acquiescence, and what grows is the poisonous weed of anti-Semitism.

This must end.

All Americans — online and in their communities — and all responsible leaders from across our society must step forward and clearly denounce this hate. People of all faiths and ideologies must speak out clearly and forcefully against anti-Semitism, scapegoating and bigotry in our society.

If your candidate is attacking George Soros or the “globalists,” or a member of Congress from your party is embracing Holocaust deniers, you must stand up and tell them to stop.

If your allies in a range of social justice causes either explain away the anti-Semitism of the Nation of Islam by citing the good work they may do or justify demonizing the Jewish state of Israel and its existence, then they need to know that they can no longer be your ally.

If your favorite social media platform continues to refuse to remove anti-Semitic garbage from its site, then vote with your clicks and deactivate your account.

More than 100 years ago, the lynching of a Jewish factory superintendent, Leo Frank, in Marietta, Ga., shocked the Jewish community and the nation. It directly led to the formation of the A.D.L. to fight anti-Semitism.

The Pittsburgh massacre should be a similar shock to us today, waking us up to the anti-Semitism and hate in our midst and reminding us all that the fight against them must be diligently fought at every turn by each and every one of us.

[Jonathan A. Greenblatt (@JGreenblattADL) is the chief executive and national director of the Anti-Defamation League.]

#pittsburgh shooting #tree of life synagogue #hate crimes #antisemitism #white supremacy

97 notes · View notes

badmousestuff-blog · 6 years ago

Text

The problem with Free Speech (Script)

One day I was helping out with the Free Palestine stall on Church Street. About an hour in a young dude came up to me, and gave us the usual conservative drivel.

He told me that he couldn’t support the left, because to him we were against free speech. Right below me were flyers detailing the extent of Israeli war crimes against Palestinians, and how little the world still hears about their plight. He stated that he wasn’t interested in our campaign, and bid me farewell. For, of course we must have our standards.

(Rowan Atkinson speech)

There’s never been a more unshakeable dogma in my lifetime than that of Freedom of Speech.

The real test of a country’s standards is if it allows people to criticise one another, especially the regime. The foundation of Liberty and Freedom and Friberty, is the story of free expression, after all, if you want to know who has the power, just look at which group you’re not allowed to criticise. Right?

Well no, I’m here to say that Free Speech isn’t just some base, flatline, monolith from which all societies are to be judged like an angelical truth, its a political concept, thought up by human beings, subject to critique, and frankly is in great need of one.

Let’s start with something simple.

Your concept that Free Speech is good, is only possible if your opponent also agrees with you, i.e. they’re not going to kill you if you disagree.

So therefore if your opponent doesn’t ?? and will use aggression against you, then you can’t really argue for free speech can you?

The conditions around you need to be such that nobody is going to die.

Right, whats next, oh I gotta do the Hitler bit, right…

Y’know the story, Weiner Republic, Full suffrage, large democracy, massive instability and debt caused from the prior war, enter the Nazis, and the German Communist party. Yes everyone seems to forget that the Commies were there too, headed by Ernst Thalmann, and at their peak gained 16% of the vote in 1932. Whilst Ernst was forward in his Anti-Fascism, the Social Democrats, and their newspapers, didn’t seem to understand the concept of a united front, they refused to confront the Fascists in an effective manner and simultaneously denounced the KDP as being a bunch of Muscovites, sporting the famous Iron Front symbol, The third arrow originally meant Anti-Communism, mind.

The SPD’s failure to effectively confront Fascism aided Hitler’s rise to power, sent the KDP underground, and Ernst to 11 years in the hole, followed by a firing squad.

So don’t tell me free-speech exists in vacuum, it doesn’t. In this video we’ll ask the necessary further questions.

Who dictates the media, who controls which advertisements we see, which views are more profitable? Does the removal of speech in given scenarios serve a common good? And if the enlightenment was correct why did Liberalism fail in its mission?

(Rowan Atkinson)

This clip was one of the first main intro points for me as well as many others into the realm of Super Free Speech, and it’s strange looking back just how dated it is. It’s not like we didn’t have the arguments back then, but moreso that nobody really cared, we were all swept up in the dogma, to challenge free speech would be on the same level as strangling a baby.

Anybody can go around today and talk about the joy of free speech, but it means nothing to a person who has no power with that speech, Freedom to Beg? That's not a freedom; that’s institutionalised sadism.

I’m not a believer in Maslow’s hierarchy but hypothetically, this really wouldn’t go number 2, it’d be right down at number… 27. Why do I say this? Well in the words of some philosophy guy people say I look like, “No rights matter if you’re dead”.

Food, Water, Healthcare, and Housing. These are all things you need in order to survive, in other words fulfil the other things that we consider ‘rights’ - rights that are worth struggling for. And despite the fact that the millions end up dying from the lack of these rights, even when they’re universally agreed upon, ever notice how this struggle goes very very quiet… Suspiciously quiet.

Sargon on the Socialists

I wonder…??? I wonder why the left seems to be largely committed to these causes, it’s something you find scantly addressed in the middle and right spheres with the exception of private individual charity (OSCAR WILDE), and Carl may find himself wondering why it is that these ideologies can barely create a solid solidarity towards these topics.

You might be a Liberal and say “Yeah yeah, I support that too though” but fact remains there’s no confidence here.

I see no outpouring of condemnation coming from you when Politicians like Bolsonaro press forward their restrictive measures, unlike what you have to say about this powerless Redhead. Why is that?

Count Dankula, who interestingly I had a couple scuffles with a while back without realising it, last year taught his dog to do a Hitler Salute, and he got fined £800. Now that’s probably one of the most petty excuses for a sentencing I’ll admit, but again this isn’t about whether it was justified, it’s about people’s standards.

Dankula received enormous support from, well, everyone, and he’s now more famous than he ever previously was, enough to be at the forefront of the free-speech festival later that year, and even use his fame to help push the emergence of UKIP. This is attention that people would pay top dollar for, way more than £800. He should be proud that he got a court hearing.

Frankly, me and my colleagues didn’t really care about this whole thing too much, just ask my IWW friend who I was with when this all went down. What happened around the same time that did catch some of our attention though was the plight of the J20 protesters who got arrested back during Trump’s inauguration.

Some of these people are on the butchers list to serve 60 year sentences for standing against a president who’s, a real dick, like I get the whole Liberal opposition is fucking corny but still he’s a dick, they’ve all been dicks, he’s just continuing what every dick who ever stood on centre stage ever started, this is America, you think Bernie’s going to save you? You think reforming the democrats can change the number one imperialist power?

Apologies. If you’re at all concerned that I didn’t give a toss about Dankula’s pug joke, if you’ve ever had friends like him this stuff isn’t too surprising, I know these are highly political times but a guy who votes UKIP is really not our number one concern right now.

I didn’t give a toss, but I know somebody who did, Mike Stuchbury, who you’ll remember from his childish twitter ramblings and dealings with Watson. Who proclaimed that the left needs to stand with Free Speech, A free-speech that is largely in the teat of Right-leaning discourse.

Sargon who was there with him, earlier that year got de-platformed by lefty-liberals in his debate with Muke.

The dogma is enforcing itself here, the left is all supposed to throw up our hands in swich liquor, of which vertu engendered is the flour, and decide Whether we should allow freedom of speech to our enemies, or not allow it, when the actual thing we should be doing, is taking hold of the narrative and putting forward our own ideas as the new talking point of discussion, instead of fucking Nazi Pug.

“Hey, you, what gives you the right to determine the narrative?”

Thats a good question, the hegemonic propaganda of our status quo is already setting the narrative, Noam Chomsky “I’m bored bye”

How can I make this more interesting… Ah ha…

IT’S TIME FOR FILM THEORY!!1 WOOOO

The Pursuit of Happiness.

In 2006 Will Smith told the story of Chris Gardner, a black man who struggled through poverty, separation, and fatherhood whilst living in San Francisco.

He gets an internship with a sales company and despite having to put up with a lot, by the end of the film he passes and at this point, we’re supposed to feel happy and redeemed, but to those who’ve watched it (surely I’m not alone) was it really a happy ending?

I’ll say that I walked out of the viewing feeling very uncomfortable and sour, but why is that?

Well for starters, that Internship he got was a 6 month unpaid one, in the most expensive US city might have something to do with it.

Then he’s got to deal with his wife leaving him, then he’s got to take care of his son, then he loses his source of income, then he’s got to deal with eviction, sleeping rough, not sleeping at all, by the end of the movie sure he gets his redemption but the message of ‘when life gives you lemons, just keep getting pummelled with those lemons and don’t ask why’ ultimately seems hollow.

Contrast that a more traditionally Anti-establishment film which was made by a literal Communist, where the exploiters are treated as they should be and thats what comes across on screen, with surprise horse-dick, and while Happiness doesn’t treat them like saints, they sure don’t come across as devils either.

6 months of free labour he and 19 other people who did not make the cut that they are effectively giving away for free.

What about those other 19 people, who ever tells their story?

The way his superiors always act like total dicks pushing him around and getting him to be their lobby boy, they lost nothing. And now he’s going to work for them.

Is the message here supposed to be “Well if this guy can survive the moon falling on him, what the hell are you complaining about?” Actually yeah, I think that consciously or not, this is what’s being said… Don’t worry we’re getting to the point of all this.

The extent of exploitation is naked, yet in the way the movie is presented I’m inclined to agree to this, and take it into my home, and sleep with it.

Now name me as many pieces of media that regurgitate this same old theme of rags to riches through adversity, to look at the man on centre stage, yet pay no attention to the millions locked in a cage.

Sure, say it how you will, Art is merely what you make of it and there’s not necessarily any devious agenda being pursued at any time. That’s one perspective I guess, another might be that there’s no such thing as Art for Arts sake, it all gears itself to differing political lines.

In a society based on private, individual enterprise, it's no surprise that Art would also foster themes that would support society as the normal and natural, even if they appear on the surface as radical.

Case in point, well the entire Hollywood Catalog.

On the Waterfront is literally Mccarthyism on celluloid, The People vs Larry Flynt guises pornification and billionairedom with a story of libel and freedom of speech.

And ironically enough probably the worst offender is, well I’m gonna lose some of you now, Billy Elliot, the Movie.

In which 2/3rds of the way through Billy’s dad strike breaks as a way to pay for his son to go to a prestigious arts school, y’know rather than maybe having him stay and use his skills to improve, embolden and enliven the downtrodden community, rather than leaving it to die.

Jackie’s very sympathetic in his devotion towards his son, except Striking is caring for your family, you’re fighting for a better future, together, as one, and it’s thrown away in favour of a much more individualistic get out of your circumstances, go and live your dream.

Now I’ve read Lee Hall, I know he didn’t intend for this to come through, but he is also no more aloof than any of us, we’re all susceptible to this ‘Common Culture’.

Just see the way our ‘Common Culture’ infiltrates into how Communism is talked about, in 2015’s Trumbo. The Hollywood screenwriter who was blacklisted for 2 decades for being a member of Communist Party.

Could make for some groundbreaking stuff right?...

Well no, instead we’re left with a film that focuses entirely on freedom of expression, which is ironic because if they represented him truthfully it would’ve resulted in a much more nuanced movie.

All we get is a 2 minute scene talking about Communist ethics and god its done in the most sanitised, unradical, storybook tale way possible, that doesn’t in any possible regard represent who the actual Dalton Trumbo was.

“If a book or play or film is produced which is harmful to the best interests of the working class, that work and its author should and must be attacked in the sharpest possible terms.”

I think I have a case that profit incentives are steering the way in which media is presented…

We have no problem pointing out the subtle propaganda messages in Soviet children’s cartoons (Cheburashka) but reverse that onto our society, prepare for some awkward stares.

You may argue that none of what I’ve just spoken about here has anything to do with censorship of free expression but this is the problem, our notions of censorship are stuck firmly behind the Berlin wall, and thats far too simplistic not to mention outdated.

Undoubtably Coca-cola has a far greater reach of expression than I ever will be able to ascertain, what says who can speak on a public forum, decide the content of a documentary, of a publication, of a movie, or a political campaign?

If a book is blacklisted by all publishers for political reasons, what difference does it make having 1 publishing house or 100?

If 90% of the movie market alone is controlled by just 7 companies, what kind of advice is “Just start your own business”.

If we want to talk about the free flow of expression and information, what little are these flyers (Free Palestine) when Zionism has a whole nation, and 2 continents supporting it?

This is the kind of expression we’re dealing with today, not the voices of individuals, but of multinationals. The fact that we had in any way an outpouring of sympathies towards one of these companies, Sony, for having their movie The Interview possibly censored by DPRK agents is a testament to how lost in the plot we have become.

And if by chance the media cannot direct the status quo by monopoly, it brings out its tried and tested method.

Commodify it.

I present to you Guerrillero Heroico, this photograph was allowed such free spread not simply because its bloody badass, but because there was no IP designated upon it, by Korda’s intention as a Communist himself he agreed with the free-flow of art. And what did this result in at the behest of Capitalist Corporations? The pastiche of revolution, to be bought and sold many times over.

Take any form of media, word, an expression, it will be hoisted away, slapped on a shirt, and sold back to you at a handsome price. You cannot escape this.

The moment that this (my tattoo) becomes the new Che it loses all its power, resistance is reduced to at worst LARPing, at best Nerd Fandom, and the winners are the profiteers.

If profit is the aim of the game, the speech that is supported will inevitably favour that which nurtures the economy, not destroys it, unless in farce. Speech ain’t a level base of which a country is determined by, its an apparatus held by those that dictate the game.

This is why there is a necessity for us to control the narrative, control the message, because if we don’t, they’re still going to.

Obligations:

When armies with unequal numbers go into battle, a draw is a defeat for the lesser side.

Make believe it or not Radical Centrist politics have their political leanings as well, even if just by effect.

Look I like free speech, I love it, I’m a goddamn youtuber, but I’m not stupid, I know what’s coming, I know that groups would try and silence me if they could. That’s politics.

You might go “All we’re talking about is the legal sphere”. Firstly the legal is the political, pure ideology to say otherwise, but second it’s difficult for you to call yourself a fighter for free speech when as I’ve explained there’s sooo much more to it than simply the judicial.

Many proponents will even side-step the judicial boundaries anyway when monopoly becomes involved, and if I have to explain how Monopoly is not an externality of our system but an inherent part of accumulation then… sigh.

Strange how we’re usually all skeptical of an Economic Free Market but the Free marketplace of ideas unlocks your inner Libertarian.

Its when I see stuff like this that I begin wondering if this is all just a trend that will eventually die off when people realise the complexities of their circumstances. I remember just a few years ago how many Libertarians were speaking the merits of free speech until they discovered that methodological individualism wasn’t actually achieving their goals. I count down the days when Lauren Southern finally calls for limits on speech just like her limits on borders. After all freedom is not free it must be defended right?

And btw folks usually aren’t as brave to actively advocate limits so they’ll always present justifications, such as that these views are mental disorders, or they’ll destroy civilisation, or these people are Degenerates.

This is a historic moment in political discourse, at this point ultimately we’re interested in picking sides, and you’ll do this just as much as anyone will.

On the left we like to talk a lot about Left Unity. I’m not necessarily against the idea, but a lot of the time people make a religion out of it, glossing over the fact that many aspects of various factions (???) contradict. It might not be immediately obvious, but when push comes to shove these conflicts become very apparent. There are some principles in which each side certainly doesn’t see eye to eye.

“Politics is pervasive, everything is political and the choice to remain apolitical is usually just an endorsement of the status quo”

If it wasn’t obvious, I’m a Communist, yeah yeah say what you want, I believe in the liberation of those who do all the work through armed struggle based upon material conditions. I’m going to therefore be in favour of real mass culture, the stuff that gets people focused on achieving liberating aims instead of just appealing to markets. Its for this reason that I’m not interested in defending the views of right-wing nationalists, fascists, reactionaries… my enemies in other words, the ideas largely speaking which regress the people and they’re not interested in defending me either, wouldn’t expect them to.

If all you’re talking about is the centre, you’re gonna get flanked, sorry.

You might bump in when I denounce Dankula stating “His punishment showcases the system is at fault” and I would agree. This system is at fault, its been at fault since before our constitution was written, and it’ll never stop being at fault until you solve the contradictions.

Liberalism did fail, its ideals never came to fruition and that’s the reason why Socialists bring forth the praxis to achieve it, sometimes that’ll involve using words, sometimes it’ll involve lots and lots of guns, but let me tell you, you can’t always fight a war by playing nice, sometimes you have to use a diversity of tactics to achieve it.

Maybe we need 11 of them? (Shows book)

But thats more of a material answer and I know that most you don’t give a crap about some dead Chinese guy., but getting back to the original idea about responsibilities behind our speech, well, here’s something to think about.

So… here goes nothing.

If you’re a straight white male aged 11-16 in the UK and weren’t brought up to fit into the standard male dynamic, chances are you got picked on, sometimes a lot, sometimes that’s every day, not necessarily violence but words from numerous mouths are highly unnerving.

I did not have a particularly fun time adolescence. Every day was horrible, I never had a feeling going in that this would be exciting or, this would be a day where things would be different, everyday was a total black smudge with no end in sight.

Unlike other people, I never got to have a group that I fit into, so I had no escape, nothing to take my mind off things.

Looking back I don’t know why I bothered going in, I wasn’t getting amazing grades anyway.

When I went to Drama school and other clubs on the weekends and after school, I would also get picked on, but it wasn’t in spite, it was just general, friendly teasing. But there wasn’t a difference in my mind, because when you’ve had to deal with so much constant abuse, and paranoia, and humiliation 30 hours a week, it fucks you up.

So when Id say to the weekend buds “I dont like this” theyd go “Oh come on man its just a bit of fun, its okay, dont worry about it, its just a joke, its all okay”

Back then I didn’t have the nerve, I just put up with it, but if I could go back, Id say. No, actually its not Okay, because you don’t know for the life of me how much I have had to deal with this shit, to me that doesn’t come across like you’re being funny, like your laughing with me, it comes across like you’re a psychopath who wants to get pleasure out of my misfortune.

Of course the response to this would be obvious “Well what am I supposed to do? Just talk to you like a robot. You should just get over it, leave it in the past. Your making it harder for everyone” or some other faux-victimised response.

And sometimes y’know they might be right, maybe I should’ve not made worse a bad situation, but fact remains I still bleed.

To you, this is just having fun and games, to you and your other friends its normal, but to me its a threat.

Now today you can call me what you want I don’t care, I’m out of that place now and I’m all the better for it,

But even though some 7 or 8 years since then I’ve been able to recover, I still carry a hangover of it all, and it affected my decisions later on in life sometimes to a dire extent,

Its had the effect of making me feel both distrustful of people, and also like Im a burden to be around other people,

I never feel I should hang around for too long, I never want to take chances in friendship for fear I’ll embarrass myself, I say one thing out of tempo and suddenly flashbacks and an enormous shadow of mordor conjures over me. And I think most of all its been very difficult for me to express my emotions because I used to do it a hell of a lot.

Those 5 years were the single handed worst years of my life. And if you were at any point responsible for adding to that devastation and humiliation, then a large part of me wants to lash your goddamn skull inside out.

Because as trivial and generic as my story may be, that part of my life has been stolen from me, and those 5 years I will never get back.

So what’s the point of all this?

“Ossidents are sometimes surprised that, instead of buying a dress for their wife, the colonized buy a transistor radio. They shouldn't be, the colonized are convinced their fate is in the balance. They live in a doomsday atmosphere and nothing must elude them”

I want you to place the relatively minor experiences I received as a child, and translate those into other groups, victims of domestic abuse, victims of colonialism, racism, sexism, queer phobia. Like I said I’m out of that place now, but others aren’t, for many people they still live day to day in this ever pressing struggle, trying to just tell people “Please, just don’t do this”.

It’s not okay. But maybe together you’ll help me out with solving these problems?

My conclusion to this is simple,

Free Speech is not just something you can fling around to score political points, it doesn’t materialise simply because we all decide it should. If we want free-speech we need to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

We need to be sure that the conditions in society don’t proliferate toxic ideas that might even lead to the downfall of said society.

This very Tattoo that 90 years ago would’ve been Anti-Communist as hell has become a Pan-Left symbol against Fascism. Its living proof that with the correct methods the conditions of words, symbols, ideas can be resolved.

When class struggle subsides, when our social divides have been solved, when the conflict doesn’t oppose the existence of certain folks, then maybe, we can well and truly say that we can have free speech, and we’ll stand at a comedy show and yell “Yes, lets talk about those BEEP BEEEEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP” and be met with cheering applause from all sides. But until then, Don’t be a dick.

4 notes · View notes

kurogenesis · 6 years ago

Text

What can I say?

Certainly can’t say I didn’t see this coming. Well, might as well get down to it, eh, @adobsonartworks? (I do so wish I could actually tag you, maybe at least let you try to defend yourself). Fair warning, this post is going to get excessively wordy, as I am wont to do. So, first off, it’s a pity you’re so eager to just mash the block button when confronted with someone who disagrees with you. I didn’t even get the chance to see your response before you had blocked me on Twitter - hell, I didn’t even know you HAD responded before you decided to hammer that block button. Luckily for me I can see your response simply by not being logged in to twitter. You made the claim that men never get harassed off of twitter - and made the implication that your claim can be applied across all social media - when you yourself provided not one, but two examples - Ahmed Best and Jake Lloyd - being on the receiving end of harassment so brutal that it nearly drove the former to suicide and led the latter to gave up acting entirely.

And you’re awfully quick to turn around and dismiss something that happened 18 years ago, when you had made a comic about Star Wars related harassment campaigns just over a month ago. A comic that by the end of the month, you yourself said could be considered a failure because you had no profit to show for it - something you could have at least given an attempt to remedy. You have a Patreon - I’ve seen the page, that’s a nice 30 bucks a month you’re getting, and yes it was easy to figure out that you’re getting an average of less than two dollars per patron; you may not list the amount on the page, but your goals are still based on money, and you explicitly list $50 for the first goal - and I’ve heard you have a Kofi account, but I’ve never done anything with that site. If you wanted money, you could have easily linked either or both of them to that post - or any other artwork post - and I’m sure there would be people more than happy to throw some more cash your way. Clearly I struck a nerve by bringing that up. Which is a great way to transition into the real meat of the post; I just wanted to give the response I had been denied because you choose to turn with your tail between your legs rather than actually have a discussion. Can’t really stick to your request to remain “on topic” when you immediately excise me from the conversation. Anyway, let’s talk about you, sir. So far you’ve blocked me on Facebook after a back and forth about TotalBiscuit, on Tumblr after I sided with @the-specksynder against your opinion that punching Nazis is the way to go - you didn’t even bother to try and respond to that one - and now on Twitter after a brief back and forth on harassment. The only time I got even remotely nasty was calling you a “petulant little shit” at the beginning for the first of those three, and I will fully admit that’s because I was legitimately angry when I started that back and forth - raking the dead over coals like that is one of the few things that legitimately pisses me off. But that’s the kind of person you are. You’re not interested in debate or having your ideas challenged. You’re not interested in testing your worldview or adjusting it when someone suggests you might be wrong. I advised you to take a look at the RecastBatwoman hashtag, and based on some comments on Facebook - yes, I really can actually see all your public posts on there and on Tumblr, the only thing you’ve succeeded in doing is silencing critics - you did take me up on that, and for this I applaud you... but you proceeded to wrap the tinfoil fedora around your head ever tighter rather than consider that you might be wrong.

Looking over your history on the internet - your current history on Tumblr, Facebook, and Twitter, as well as your former Twitter and DA accounts, of which many screen shots exist - this is a pattern of behavior for you. And it’s one that runs deep, because you have never let yourself move on from the past (only claiming to when it is convenient for you to do so). You continually blame others for your own shortcomings rather than just own up to your mistakes and genuinely make an effort to change. I will be perfectly honest - if you genuinely made an effort to change yourself for the better, then I would forgiven you of your past mistakes. But that’s the core of your problem - you don’t try to grow. You don’t try to move forward. I don’t know at what point it happened, but at some point in your life you allowed your anger, your envy, your hatred, your negativity to claw its way into you and start dragging you down, further and further into the festering abyss. It’s why you think exclusively in sides, black vs white, the way a child does. It’s why you don’t believe your political opponents can genuinely change. It’s why you hold on to every little slight. You yourself have outright stated to - at least at one point - have kept a running list of those who have “wronged” you in some way, as if that is actually a healthy thing to do. It’s why you think of the world as such an evil, hate-filled place - because that’s all you can see any more.

You advocate violence against those you fear would destroy you - a show of force to cow them into submission. But while shock and awe may work for military warfare, the war you choose to wage is not one of bombs and bullets, but of ideas and beliefs. Such a war is won through changing the hearts and minds of those around you. You claim to want to fight hate - but the only tool you have is your own hatred - and just as you cannot extinguish a fire with more flame, you cannot destroy hatred with more enmity.

I suppose at the end of the day that’s the fundamental difference between you and me. Once a upon a time I was not so different from you. I was bullied, I was angry, I held contempt in my heart for so many things. I came to hold dearly to one side of the political spectrum, convinced that they could do no wrong. I can’t really pinpoint any one thing that changed it, but I let go of my hate and anger years ago. Do I still find myself getting angry and spiteful? Yeah, of course I do. I’m not perfect. But I don’t hold on to those feelings. I don’t let them consume me. Because I realized that we shape the world we live in. If we sow hatred and ugliness, we will reap hatred and ugliness. The only way to create a world of love and beauty is to go out and put a little love and beauty into it. Yeah, the world has a lot of awful to it. But we may as well give our best effort to do good, otherwise it will never be better.

I suppose I’ve let this get wordy enough, so I might as well wrap it up with a little quote from John Lennon - “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope someday you will join us, and the world will be as one.”

3 notes · View notes

stfudiscoinfernoed · 8 years ago

Text

Radicalization of White Men

A friend recently pointed me towards this thread on twitter where a man discussing how white supremacists had “recruited him” via the internet when he was younger. It’s a topic that doesn’t get discussed enough. I’ve transcribed the thread below for accessibility and readability reasons. It’s also really long, so I’ll be putting most of it under a read more.

Hey guys, I know I’ve been doing a lot of hot takes lately, but there’s something rather important I need to talk to you about. This is some personal shit and it’s been on my mind for years, but I’ve always been afraid to talk about it for fear of losing my friends.

I used to low-key subscribe to white nationalist views, back in my early 20s. Not going to make excuses for it, I should have known better. The reason I want to talk to you guys about it is that you - particularly my younger followers - need to know how these people recruit.

This is really difficult to talk about even though to the greatest extent it didn't affect my behaviour. Didn't start screaming epiphets. White nationalists are exceptionally clever in the way that they recruit people. It is a terrifyingly insidious process. I never even met the person who "converted" me in person. In fact, I'm fairly certain he doesn't even know that he succeeded.

We were talking through anonymous imageboards - britchan, britfa.gs, back in the days of the Chanology protests in 2008/2009. The initial moves might not seem like recruitment at all. He constantly, relentlessly insulted me, in a tremendously condescending manner. I was 20 and not particularly good at structuring my arguments, so he was able to easily tear apart almost any argument I put forward. Everything he said was drenched in pretentious melodrama. From an outside perspective it would've seemed comical and ridiculous. He literally referred to himself and his allies as "the forces of good." Anyone who disagreed with him was evil, intentionally malicious.

These behaviours weren't meaningless. They were meant to make people like me emotionally invested in the argument. I was meant to feel offended and affronted by his behaviour so that I wouldn't just disengage from the debate and stop listening to him. The more I lost arguments against him, the more insulting he got and the more desperate I became to "defeat" him.

Now, the vitally important to note about white supremacists is that not everything they say is a COMPLETE falsehood. This is the danger. White supremacists are very, very good at curating snippets of verifiably true information to support their arguments. They will present, for instance, the IQ statistics or crime rates of African Americans without any reasoning other than "they're black." Of course, there's a whole lot of context behind those figures. But that context takes more time to present than the statistics do. And if you try, they will misuse the principle of Occam's Razor. "That's all very complicated reasoning. There's a simpler answer."

We continued in this manner for a while. Then suddenly, the "recruiter" did a 180 turnabout in tactics and plotted a new course. All the insults stopped abruptly. Suddenly, he was saying things like "you're clearly a very intelligent individual. I can respect that." He explained very articulately the concept of cognitive dissonance, which was, of course, what I was feeling at that point. White nationalists are VERY fond of argumentum ad lapidem - dismissing an argument as ridiculous without explaining WHY it's ridiculous. The insults returned, but they weren't REALLY directed at me anymore. They were directed at "ridiculous" things like liberalism and equality. With the subtle implication that I, as an intelligent young (white) man should be able to see through all of these falsehoods.

There was an extensive use of motte and bailey arguments as well, whenever I started showing discomfort with a suggested course of action. What he really wanted, of course, was the removal of all non-white individuals from Britain. That was often implied or outright stated. But whenever I showed discomfort at this idea, he'd say "well of course we wouldn't evict legal residents, just the illegal ones." This sort of maleable, amorphous ideology is a very useful asset for white nationalist recruiters. You can't nail them down to a viewpoint. The white nationalist recruiter has some core beliefs they won't compromise on, but only he knows what they actually are. One day he'd express billious hatred for atheists, Jews and gays, and the next he'd discuss how Islam was a terrible threat to their rights. The recruiter lovingly, carefully tailors your understanding of what white nationalism "actually is" to your personal preferences.

Then there was the 2009 MEP elections, where he swore that the BNP would get 12 seats minimum. They got only 2. He vanished. Completely. I have, from May 2009 to this day, never knowingly spoken to him again. That, also, was by design. There was no closure. There was no "victory." There was no embarassed scratching of head or admittance of defeat. He just disappeared without a trace, and I never got to prove the supremacy of my ideas over his. THIS WAS BY DESIGN. Since I, in my own head, hadn't proved to him that he was wrong... I hadn't really proved to myself that he was wrong, either. So those ideas just sat and festered in my head. Ready for someone else to come along and continue where he'd left off.

See, it's useful for white nationalists that their ideology is somewhat difficult to discuss their ideas with anyone other than them. White nationalists are actually exploiting the stigma attached to racism for their own benefit. Recruitment targets are scared of it. They feel like they can't discuss the things that they've been told without being shunned for being racist. And white nationalists love that. They'll tell you that society is afraid of people discovering the truth of their ideas, and so will shut down debate on the subject. They set up this drip-feed of "true" information that cuts through society's "lies" and then when it starts getting good, they cut you off. So that if you want more of this "truth" you need to go to them and seek it out on their terms, in an environment they control.

They are the EXACT opposite of "it's not my job to educate you." They are OVERJOYED to show you all their painstakingly-curated information. And they will heap praise on you for having the perspicacity to see through society's "lies." You're welcomed like a long-lost brother. I never got to the point where I was hanging out on nationalist forums, or attending real life gatherings, or even insulting people online. I just had these ideas bouncing around my head, unrefuted, because I was too afraid of social censure to seek deprogramming. That's sort of a failure state for white nationalists, but not an unrecoverable one. They have ways of making you useful.

See, with that toxic shit in the back of my mind, it was in some subconscious ways affecting my ability to interact with others. I sometimes felt deeply uncomfortable interacting with people of other ethnicities because I'd have these intrusive thoughts in my head. And it made me vulnerable to another insidious tactic that they've developed and perfected in recent years - co-opting liberalism.

White nationalists have played dog-in-the-manger with a lot of ideas that are generally thought of as liberal in recent years. Free speech, freedom of expression - "listen, you may DISAGREE with white nationalist views, but don't they have a right to state them?" "If they censor white nationalists, who will they censor next? It could be your video games! It could be YOU!" In a horrifying twist of historical revisionism, they turned arguments used against the Nazis against people who opposed white nationalism. Hell, they've even made a brave effort at co-opting the concept of egalitarianism, painting themselves as the oppressed underclass. And all they needed was people like me, insecure people with a head full of cognitive dissonance, to make their arguments look respectable.

See, if white nationalists can't advance their views directly, they'll do it by proxy. Someone with hair, not covered in swastika tattoos. Someone like me. I’m a crossdressing liberal bisexual furry with a bunch of ethnically diverse friends. I COULDN’T be advancing a nationalist agenda, right? White nationalists love it when people like me do their work for them. It's so much more palatable than skinheads and jackboots.

God this is fucking hard to write. I was part of the GG movement for a while. Not that I think GG is actively white nationalist, despite all the other things it is/was/became. But it was that little splinter in my mind that kept me there for so long, the "what if society is trying to contol our viewpoints?" It stopped me from immediately seeing how toxic a lot of the people I was associating with were. That's not an excuse, incidentally. I'm not trying to diminish my responsibility for my own actions. I should've known better. It also didn't help that a lot of the people that opposed GG were and continue to be genuinely dreadful people.

That's a thing. That's always useful for white nationalists and other hate movements - moral failures on the part of the opposition. White nationalists love to paint any hypocrisy or failing by a specific adversary as hypocrisy or failing of their opposition as a whole. "This one anti-fascist turned out to be a paedophile, so that means all antifa are paedophiles!" When the people who you're up against are billious, spiteful and hypocritical, it can make you feel like you're on the side of good. This is why I'm slightly more cautious than most about the whole "punch a Nazi" thing. Avowed white supremacists? Sure, punch 'em. But you need to be careful around people who are on the fringes, who are having the same doubts and cognitive dissonance that I was. That was me, once. And I feel like there's pain in my life that could've been avoided if I felt safe to reach out to someone for help.

I lost a friend over this shit. That was @tornewuff. We only recently made up. I wish I'd told him all of this a lot sooner. I'm glad I had people like @hoodednomad and my age-old schoolfriends Peter and Julian to (verbally) slap some fucking sense into me. And I'm glad I got talking to @HYENAMISERY and reading his Twitter feed. He helped me understand a lot of stuff I didn't understand before.

The thing about all of this is I think I managed to stave off falling headfirst into ethnonationalism because I never WANTED it to be true. I think a lot of people who get fully into it are overjoyed to have a reason to hate people they already didn't like. I never wanted any of this bullshit to be true. I was terrified by the possibility that it was, and desperately wanted an out. One of my oldest friends was an Indian boy called Sanjay. I went to primary school with Muslims and Koreans. I never hated any of them. That's one of the most toxic things about white nationalism. It can make you have second thoughts about people you love. And there are some people who, like me, don't want all this hate to be true. They'll do anything for it not to be true. Show them it's not.

I had people there when I needed them, but it was a fucking close thing. Not everyone is as lucky as I am. Please, help them. It was a terrifying fucking experience writing this, and if you feel like you can't associate with me anymore, I understand. I don't want to believe that I hurt someone because of all of this, but if I did, I'm sorry. This is sort of my apology note. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I think I'm going to work out to blow off some of this nervous energy and then cry a little. Not gonna lie, I was worried coming out with all of this would ruin my reputation in the fandom. But then I felt like it was too important. People need to know this shit. Because there are a hell of a lot of emotionally lost young white guys (and girls, they recruit them too) (In fact the recruitment of white girls by white supremacists is ugly as sin. They LOVE to bombard them with rape statistics.)

#white supremacy #long post #not discourse

9 notes · View notes

anthonybialy · 8 years ago

Text

Anno Donaldi

There will be a post-Trump world just in case the during part is taxing your resolve. Imagining the calendar flipping more quickly than it can be turned helps on eternal days. Fast-forwarding is not just to fantasize, although you should do whatever's needed to get through the day. If they haven't run out of bourbon yet, it's likely the supply will remain constant.

At least we're already sort of there. The president who supposedly embodied toughness has been as limp as his silhouette Twitter fans. Getting outfoxed is a nice break from being embarrassing. Look on the bright side: an outsider president has stayed there. An irrelevant executive can't mess with us that much. Ineffectiveness is government at its best. Liberals should be pleased Trump isn't changing things that much. But they're indignant that no one's telling them how to live by law.

The shame will remain once the presidency ends. Both those who believed Trump would install a marble clad-utopia are cloaked in humiliation just like those swearing at the children of Republicans. It's nice that they share a common interest. Deciding that it's a moral imperative to be as obnoxious as possible is a reflection of the subway panhandler, not the commuter just trying to hear the podcast.

There's a hangover ahead, and protesters don't even enjoy intoxication. Coming down from the frenzy won't lead to shrewdness in retrospect. Maybe we can get them to be civil. Sure: and then get them to admit the Constitution contains nothing authorizing mandatory insurance.

For now, they must lose their freaking minds as melodramatically and publicly as possible. There's an emergency occurring, namely something not going how they wanted. The siren wails for as long as anyone else thinks differently. Dissent is a special occurrence which to liberals justifies enjoying fun moments like an ideological foe's death or thinking someone who votes differently deserved bullets. Join them so they respect you.

It's uncanny how special circumstances force them to unabashedly despise those who voted differently every time there's a Republican in office. If it's tiresome watching them throw a tantrum because someone might reverse one of their dreadful initiatives, imagine what it's like to be them. Absence of agony offers semi-relief. Their utterly pleasant collective demeanor hasn't improved since Nixon, although it as gotten far worse.

Constant hate isn't a virtue. Shake it up a bit. If there's ever a normal Republican with manners and a semi-conservative voting record, the figurative executive will still be Adolf Rumsfeld. Liberal replies are going to remain just as charmingly hateful, not to mention that they'll simultaneously continue their habit of declaring they tolerate everything that agrees with them. There are no learned lessons, which is why they believe what they do in the first place.

At least the unpleasantness is bipartisan. This is the era for changing the locks. Those who commandeered the party are steering now, which means they're responsible for the direction. Granted wishes are curses, they noted as the bumper dangled from the guardrail.

Republicans proving their revulsion for government by nominating the most distasteful option possible. But Democrats should be the ones learning, as they cope with a braggart claiming he can change everything by fiat. It's not fun when the other side tries, is it?

All this arguing obscures common goals, like deciding everyone else is a subhuman toxic sewer monster. The principled ideology of hating everyone who's deemed to not meet their standards is how the modern liberal flaunts tolerance. They're so pure that they won't even respect someone who helps them.

I've lost count of how often Trump makes up a policy to expand power like their precious previous leader. But he doesn't even have to commit the mortal sin of thinking everyone paying the same tax rate would be both fair and an enticement for advancement for them to treat him like a gun-owning coal miner.

While arguing over personality has been as much of a blast as expected, conservatives must remain focused on ideas. The cult of personality just doesn't seem constitutional. Prepare now to get back to actually having ideas deeper than noting one clod's unchallenged awesomeness. Of course, this doesn't mean the other ostensible side deserves support. You don't have to patronize Arby's because Subway is on the other side of the street and the walk signal's broken. Maybe make a sandwich at home instead of dining with the tasteless.

Get hated by newspapers and celebrities for the proper reasons. Dismay is normal for those who want to limit government despite getting blamed for the actions of a president out to expand it. Seek a nominee who ticks off liberals for more than his churlish demeanor.

Contemporary melancholy should be used as motivation, not an excuse to wallow. Prepare for them to despise us like Nazis who don't care about gas mileage. Irrational contempt based in thinking nobody can question daft progressive goals is normal. So, we may as well make them hate us for legitimate reasons. It'll make their nastiness justified in its repulsive way. Liberals are confused enough, so we may as well give them a hand. And they think they're the humane ones.

2 notes · View notes

a-wandering-fool · 6 years ago

Link

From the article:

==================

Apparently I’m not the only one who has noticed that social media platforms only escape direct legal responsibility for the content published on their web sites if they act as completely neutral parties who take no editorial action against content published on their web sites unless prompted to by a formal complaint.

When Digital Platforms Become Censors: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other tech giants say that they’re open forums. What happens when they start to shut down voices they consider beyond the pale?

If you rely on someone else’s platform to express unpopular ideas, especially ideas on the right, you’re now at risk. This raises troubling questions, not only for free speech but for the future of American politics and media. …

Now these companies are trying to have it both ways. They take advantage of the fact that they are not publishers to escape responsibility for the endless amounts of problematic material on their sites, from libel to revenge porn. But at the same time, they are increasingly acting like publishers in deciding which views and people are permitted on their platforms and which are not.

The thing is, it may pass First Amendment muster–as has rightly been pointed out by others, the First Amendment does not apply to corporations. (Though I find it deeply ironic how hard the Left is relying on corporations–for whom they have historic deep distrust–to censor messages for them.)

But that does not mean it necessarily passes muster with certain other laws–specifically Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which acts as a safe harbor for “information content providers” from the content published on their platforms, but only so long as those providers do not actively censor content on their platforms. Otherwise, those platforms are not “information content providers”, but “publishers” who are liable for all the content on their sites.

Nor does it pass anti-trust laws, which is the angle provided in the above article. After all, Alex Jones’ “InfoWars” is itself a media operation–and in competition with companies such as Facebook and YouTube, with CNN and MSNBC. And when one set of media companies shuts down another from the public square–that could be considered prior restraint of trade.

And while one could answer “well, if he really wants to be in the public square, he should do the same heavy lifting internet companies like Facebook has done”–that is a problematic answer itself. Because it suggests for any of us to want to speak our minds on the Internet, if what we want to say is unpopular or seen as hateful, only the extremely wealthy–those who can afford the thousands and thousands of dollars to set up an Internet trunk line and massive servers on multiple coasts–can speak.

I mean, this is the very argument the Left has been using for a while now in its opposition to Citizens United: that it permits a handful of very wealthy individuals and large corporations to monopolize the public square–and to drown out or eliminate alternate political viewpoints.

Or is it the Left only care about such things when it’s their voices who are not in ascendency?

And does this mean to the Left, freedom is like a trolly car: you keep riding it until you get to your stop–then you get off?

Worse–the Internet is corporations all the way down. After all, even if you can afford to spend the thousands of dollars a month for a dedicated trunk line–you still have to buy the trunk line from a Tier 1, 2 or 3 provider. And who is to say that a Tier 2 provider (such as Comcast) or a Tier 1 provider (such as AT&T) won’t be pressured to cut you off from the Internet for saying something people don’t like?

After all, that’s what happened to Pirate Bay, though they were cut off because they were clearly violating the law by pirating music, movies and software.

Without access to a Tier 1 or a Tier 2 provider, you’re left with… what? Running your own fiberoptic cables under the ocean and becoming a Tier 1 provider yourself?

Isn’t that the essence of the Left’s objection to “Citizens United” on steroids?

In the Left’s long march through the institutions a lot of wreckage has been left behind. We’re seeing colleges become jokes. We’re seeing newspapers and television news falling ratings and revenues. We’re watching many other institutions disintegrate–and the latest is seeing a lot of powerful Internet companies, protected by Sarbanes-Oxley from competition from young upstarts (to the point where to make money in technology today, you can’t just create a new idea–you must create an idea that one of Facebook, Apple, Google or Amazon will buy) sow the seeds of their own destruction.

And the reason why this “long march” simply does not work in the United States is because unlike Western Europe, whom the Marxists saw as an impediment to the socialist state they saw as the precursor to true communismand whose culture (of Christianity, authority, family tradition, sexual restraint and patriotism) needed to be destroyed–the United States was founded on the philosophical principles of the Freedom of Man:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And any agenda of “radical egalitarianism” proposed by the Left in the United States must deal with the real, fundamental and existential question “how is your ‘radical egalitarianism’ better than our devotion to individual liberty?”

As Calvin Coolidge noted in 1926 on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence:

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

It’s no wonder those who best embrace the Left’s assertions of “radical egalitarianism” in this country–the fools who join Antifa incorrectly believing–as the (Marxist) Frankfurt School believed–that the United States (having embraced Christianity, authority, family tradition, sexual restraint and patriotism) was ripe for a Fascist uprising similar to the National-Socialists of Germany in the run-up to World War II–are often historically ignorant and culturally blind.

Because unlike the rest of Western Europe, we have already embraced “radical egalitarianism.” Our Declaration of Independence is a declaration to the world of our belief in “radical egalitarianism”, in individualism, and in the supremacy of individualism over the State. Ours is already a country where cultures and governments bend to the needs of the individual, rather than the other way around.

Our governments print voting pamphlets in every native language spoken by the voting population rather than demands our populations learn English to participate in government. Our governments provide reasonable religious accommodation for all faiths and religions–permitting women to wear hijabs in their drivers licenses, for example–rather than going to war against women for wearing the wrong style of dress.

Our history is full of individuals practicing all lifestyles: a century ago we went through a “Christian Perfectionism” phase, where “Perfectionists” of all sorts created great communes to practice odd and interesting lifestyles. One of these “Christian Perfectionist” communities was the Oneida Community, who practiced “free love” (in fact, that’s where we get the term), and started a small company to fund their community which still exists today.

So when the “Antifa” shows up, to Americans they look like NAZI brownshirts but in another guise. We may look at a President Trump with trepidation–after all, every 4 to 8 years we replace the most powerful man in the free world with some inexperienced noob, and Lord knows what sort of chaos that may give rise to. But as radical individualists, the sort of “anti-fascism” being sold by a bunch of often aging radical Leftists does not look like progress.

It looks reactionary, not progress–like proceeding backwards to feudalism (the precursor of socialism), to a time when the world was organized as surfs under the thumb of their (Antifa) manor Lords.

So let the Left continue its long march through the institutions.

Some of these institutions desperately need tearing down and rethinking anyway.

Certainly Facebook has exceeded its usefulness, as has Twitter, and I welcome the next iteration.

Perhaps a more democratic solution based on a common protocol such as RSS,with a search directory that allows us to find our friends and subscribe to their individual feeds without the filtering of a profit-oriented Facebook who wants to rearrange our timelines and insert ads as they see fit.

I mean, hell; all you need is a discovery mechanism associated with RSS which allows an RSS publisher to automatically publish a directory of the RSS feeds of the people they’re subscribed to–and you’ve pretty much replicated Facebook’s “friending” process.

Hoist this on top of a peer to peer networking system with cryptographic handshaking to prevent governments and corporations from intercepting (and censoring) wire messages, and you now have a completely distributed replacement for Facebook–all built on open protocols, that can conceivably then allow individual developers to produce their own clients.

But I am not worried at all about our dedication to Individualism.

The world is moving towards individualism, after all–not away. Unless there is a very powerful authoritarian government on the doorstep of a weaker government, such as Russia chipping away at Ukraine or at Georgia, for most people we are moving towards greater individualism, towards greater individual responsibility and towards greater individual freedom.

Because everyone yearns to breathe free.

Even the Antifa folks yearn to breathe free. They only take the path they do because they’ve been taught that their brand of socialist-communist double-think is a freer path to greater individual autonomy than the alternatives they completely misunderstand. But then, it takes an academic (or a student of that academic) in order to be that fucking stupid.

==================

0 notes

badthingstrumpdidtoday · 8 years ago

Text

Bad Things Trump Did Today - March 9 - March 11, 2017

Image Credit: REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

March 9, 2017:

GOP leaders encourage bypassing Senate parliamentarian in order to kill ACA

Source: Politico, The Hill

A growing number of conservative lawmakers on Thursday urged GOP leaders to push the limits of how much of the health law they can reshape under a powerful procedural maneuver known as budget reconciliation — and to overrule the Senate parliamentarian if she doesn't decide in their favor.

Such a gambit would require the unlikely buy-in of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a noted institutionalist who earlier this year avoided talk of changing his chamber's rules to kill the ability to filibuster Supreme Court nominees.

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has reportedly been pushing for this, including during a recent dinner he had with Trump. Overrulling the parliamentarian would open up the door for additional modifications and additions to the newly introduced healthcare replacement, potentially including cuts to popular ACA features:

Cruz says that repealing the insurance mandate, which bars insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, and allowing people to buy plans across state lines will reduce the cost of health insurance and have a clear budgetary impact.

Medical malpractice tort reform, another idea popular with conservatives, could then also be included in the healthcare reform bill, Cruz said.

“Every one of these reforms has an enormous budgetary impact. An impact of billions of dollars if not hundreds of billions of dollars,” he said.

Senate Democrats rejected Cruz’s proposal as a direct violation of Senate precedent.

“Then anything could be subject to reconciliation,” said a senior Democratic aide. “You could authorize war with a simple majority and argue that it affects spending.”

The Hill provides additional coverage of this HERE.

Former security adviser Flynn confirms that he was working as a foreign agent while on Trump campaign

Source: The New York Times, MSNBC

Flynn filed papers on Tuesday confirming that he was working as a foreign agent while also campaigning for Trump during the election, specifically for a firm representing Turkish interests:

Mr. Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, registered as a lobbyist last year but did not file papers with the Justice Department registering as a foreign agent, providing a fuller understanding of his role, until Tuesday. While he did not work directly for the Turkish government, the firm that hired him, Inovo, is owned by a Turkish-American businessman with links to leaders in Ankara and asked him to work on an issue important to the government.

MSNBC provides addition video coverage of this HERE.

Contradicting claims otherwise from Trump, Mitch McConnell denies that Mexico will be paying for a border wall

Source: The Independent

Senate majority leader McConnell denied that Mexico would reimburse the USA for the construction of a border wall. This supports statements from current Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and former Mexican President Vincente Fox, both of whom rejected the idea that Mexico would pay for building the wall along the southern US border. The construction could cost as much as $20 billion:

The Senate Majority Leader's response during a Politico interview dashes the hopes of Republicans and taxpayers as to who will foot the mounting bill which could end up as much as $20 billion, according to various estimates.

Mr McConnell's remark also casts doubt on confident assertions made to the contrary by the President and House Speaker Paul Ryan, who recently said on MSNBC that there were "several ways" Mexico could pay up.

In January, the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that $120 per US household would be added to the national debt.

Senate panel approves Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, for full Senate vote

Source: Reuters, The Independent

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 12 to 9 to move Friedman’s nomination forward to a full Senate vote. The nomination of Friedman as ambassador to Israel demonstrates a marked disparity between the Obama and Trump administrations stance on Israel and Palestine:

Trump's selection of Friedman reflects his shift in policy toward Israel after years of friction between former President Barack Obama and Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu. Unlike Obama, Trump has wavered on the U.S. commitment to a two-state solution, long a bedrock of Washington's Middle East policy, and backed the embassy's relocation.

Friedman is also known for using inflammatory language against those with whom he has political disagreements. Democrats said his approach could risk security.

The Independent provides additional coverage of this HERE, as well as background on Friedman. Friedman has made several inflammatory statements in the past, including that Jewish people who support a dual state solution are worse than Nazi collaborators. That claim joins a list of others for which he drew criticism and anger:

Mr Friedman had been criticised for accusing Barack Obama and the entire State Department of anti-Semitism and for deriding the liberal Jewish group J Street as “kapos” - Jewish prisoners who helped the Nazis kill other Jews in the concentration camps.

Trump's State Department approves Saudi Arabia weapons sales that were previously blocked by Obama

Source: The Independent

The State Department has approved resuming the sale of weapons to Saudia Arabia, a deal that was blocked by former President Obama over concerns regarding human rights violations:

Saudi Arabia is leading a mostly Arab coalition targeting Houthi rebels in Yemen with air strikes.

An annual report by UN experts who monitor the conflict in Yemen, seen by Reuters, said the Saudi-led coalition had carried out attacks that "may amount to war crimes" — accusations Riyadh rejects.

Markedly, Hillary Clinton drew criticism from Trump during the election after the Clinton Foundation accepted Saudi money, which can be read about in Politico HERE. The Hill also reports HERE regarding business ties Trump has to Saudi Arabia.

The House GOP pushes bill that would allow employers to demand workers' genetic test results

Source: Business Insider

This bill would undermine laws designed to protect worker’s rights, as reported by Business Insider:

"What this bill would do is completely take away the protections of existing laws," said Jennifer Mathis, director of policy and legal advocacy at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, a civil rights group. In particular, privacy and other protections for genetic and health information in GINA and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act "would be pretty much eviscerated," she said.

Employers say they need the changes because those two landmark laws are "not aligned in a consistent manner" with laws about workplace wellness programs, as an employer group said in congressional testimony last week.

While employers are claiming that genetic test results are needed for workplace wellness programs, the bill would also result in employers being able to shift healthcare costs onto employees:

Rigorous studies by researchers not tied to the $8 billion wellness industry have shown that the programs improve employee health little if at all.

An industry group recently concluded that they save so little on medical costs that, on average, the programs lose money. But employers continue to embrace them, partly as a way to shift more health care costs to workers, including by penalizing them financially.

Trump to conservative leaders: If healthcare plan fails, I'll blame Democrats

Source: CNN

At a recent policy meeting, Trump went over his plan for gaining support for the proposed ACA replacement, including from Republicans who have been opposed:

As for prominent Republican opponents of the health care plan, Trump sounded optimistic.

On Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the President was effusive about his one-time primary rival.

"I love him. He's a friend. He's going to end up voting for it," the President told the group.

A source at the meeting was astonished as to how White House staff could have been so blindsided by the initial conservative opposition to the GOP plan.

"We telegraphed it for weeks," one tea party official at the meeting said.

March 10, 2017:

Sean Spicer broke a federal rule by tweeting about jobs report too soon after its release

Source: Los Angeles Times

Image source: Sean Spicer’s Twitter account

Spicer’s recent tweet commenting on a jobs report broke a federal rule originally introduced during Nixon’s administration as a way to protect the objectivity of economic statistics:

It didn't take long for some experienced jobs-report watchers to note that he had jumped the gun and violated a longstanding prohibition against executive branch officials publicly commenting on the report within an hour of its release.

Specifically, Spicer broke the Office of Management and Budget's Statistical Policy Directive No. 3, adopted in 1985.

"Except for members of the staff of the agency issuing the principal economic indicator who have been designated by the agency head to provide technical explanations of the data, employees of the Executive Branch shall not comment publicly on the data until at least one hour after the official release time."

March 11, 2017:

Breaking: Top cop of Wall Street, Preet Bharara, fired after refusing Trump's call to resign

Source: CNBC

Image source: Preet Bharara Twitter account

Bharara had a long history of fighting against corruption on Wall Street as a U.S. attorney, and was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009:

His removal leaves a void in the fight against corruption and Wall Street crime.

Bharara, 48, was preparing to try former aides and associates of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in a bid-rigging case. His office also has been investigating New York Mayor Bill de Blasio's campaign fundraising and the alleged sexting to a 15-year-old girl by disgraced former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner.

He also won a record $1.8 billion insider-trading settlement against billionaire Steven A. Cohen's SAC Capital Advisors, and handled major terrorism cases, including the conviction of and life sentence for Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad.

In a statement praising Bharara for his "integrity, tenacity, and commitment to rooting out wrongdoing," Democratic New York state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman blasted Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

"President Trump's abrupt and unexplained decision to summarily remove over 40 U.S. Attorneys has once again caused chaos in the federal government and led to questions about whether the Justice Department's vital and non-partisan work will continue under Attorney General Sessions, as it must," Schneiderman said.

Want to learn more about how we can stop more bad sh*t from happening?

Donate to charities dedicated to fighting against the Trump agenda.

Learn from former congressional staffers on best practices for making your representative listen to you.

Learn how to run for office or get involved in your local political party.

Attend peaceful political protests and know your rights as a protestor.

Support organizations dedicated to investigative journalism and protecting our First Amendment rights.

Be sure to follow for tomorrow’s Bad Things Trump Did Today.

#politics #bad things trump did today #bad things congress did today #march 2017 #donald trump #trump #presidential election #president trump #resist

16 notes · View notes

aion-rsa · 6 years ago

Text

Captain Marvel: How Did Nick Fury Lose His Eye?

https://ift.tt/2EXBafM

Captain Marvel finally reveals how the MCU version of Nick Fury lost his eye, a story long thought "classified."

facebook

twitter

google+

tumblr

Feature

Books

Mike Cecchini

Marvel

Mar 8, 2019

Captain Marvel

Samuel L. Jackson

nick fury

This article contains massive Captain Marvel spoilers. We have a spoiler free review of the movie here.

While Captain Marvel is thoroughly committed to establishing Carol Danvers and her place in the MCU, it’s also the closest thing to a Nick Fury origin story that Marvel Studios is ever likely to give us. Samuel L. Jackson is digitally de-aged to something roughly resembling his 1995 form to provide backup for Carol during her fish-out-of-water early moments back on Earth, and to serve as a suitably incredulous audience POV character as someone who has yet to encounter a proper superhero, let alone one who is kind of from another planet.

Throughout the movie, we learn details about Fury’s origin. Most of it aligns quite closely with the Nick Fury of the comics. While they do move his timetable forward a few years, all of the elements that make Fury who he is are present and accounted for in Captain Marvel. He achieved the rank of Colonel during the war (presumably Vietnam, as he says he went into the service right out of high school, and we see he was born in 1950), and after doing his combat time, he spent the rest of the cold war as a spy. That’s the same career track as the comic book Nick Fury, who began life as the headliner of a World War II comic called Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos (we’ve met the Howlers in both Captain America: The First Avenger and the still greatly missed Agent Carter) before he returned as Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD (where he was indeed a Colonel).

read more: Complete Marvel MCU Movies Timeline

The primary difference here is that the comic book Nick Fury was a product of World War II, where he even occasionally fought alongside Captain America, and his continued vitality in the present day was attributed to “the Infinity Formula.” There’s none of that in the movie, so the MCU Fury just joins the party a little later. Easy enough. The big screen Fury is also inspired more by Marvel’s Ultimate Comics version, the first time the character was portrayed as a black man (and one who was explicitly modeled on Samuel L. Jackson). But other than these little discrepancies, Nick Fury is the Fury we’ve always known and loved.

Well...until now.

You see, in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the story of how Nick Fury lost his eye had never been revealed until Captain Marvel. It had often appeared to be a sore subject, with Fury once responding that the story was “classified” when asked about it. In the comics, Fury lost that eye in expectedly heroic fashion, while Captain Marvel cooked up a slightly...different...story.

read more: Captain Marvel Comics History & Origin Explained

In the early Sgt. Fury comics, Nick still had both of his eyes. It wasn’t until he started appearing in “present day” Marvel continuity (despite being set during World War II, Sgt. Fury was published in the ‘60s) that he was depicted with an eyepatch. Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos #27 told how Nick caught some shrapnel from a Nazi grenade, which cost him the sight in his left eye. Keep in mind, the eye is still there, he just obscures the bad eye with his iconic eyepatch. Ultimate Nick Fury lost it during an attack on a convoy (which happened to be transporting Wolverine), and in that version of the story, his eye is completely lost, complete with similar scarring to what we see with MCU Fury.

So which of these tales of heroic self-sacrifice did the MCU choose to go with? Um...neither. Instead, the fan-favorite and unlikely marketing sensation Goose the Cat is the reason Nick Fury has to wear an eyepatch.

read more: Captain Marvel Ending Explained

Yes, that’s right. For all of Fury’s cat love, Goose wasn’t having it, and took a swipe at Fury’s eye. And whatever other multi-dimensional weirdness that a Flerken might contain, a scratch from his claws is enough to permanently damage Fury’s depth perception. It’s...a rather bold choice, and it seems like the right one in the moment. Like everything else involving Fury and Goose in the movie, it’s funny and unexpected. Nobody ever would have taken an avowed jerk like Fury as someone who loses his mind at the site of a cute kitty, right?

The MCU Fury is notoriously pragmatic, with what some might say is a pessimistic worldview, and who doesn’t always make fan favorite decisions to support the more brightly costumed Marvel heroes at all costs. Playing a historic injury like this for laughs may have robbed Marvel of an opportunity to add some much needed additional depth to Fury. Captain Marvel does an excellent job of presenting Fury for the first time as someone capable of forming real friendships with people he doesn’t give orders to, and his reactions to Goose are about as far from the “shadowy super spy” archetype as one can possibly get. Maybe the idea that what was needed was some good old-fashioned heroic self-sacrifice to complete the picture would be a little too simple in a standalone movie, but for a character whose presence has been felt through multiple movies (and a few TV episodes), some fans might be looking for a more traditional approach.

read more: Captain Marvel Post Credits Scenes Explained

While Fury’s friendship with Carol throughout the film feels genuine, and their mutual respect is earned on screen, had that injury been sustained in an attempt to protect innocents (whether Skrull or human) or to buy Carol time to complete a part of her mission, Carol’s post-credits “where’s Fury,” might carry even more weight than it already does. The idea of Fury undergoing horrific torture at the hands of the Kree (as Agent Coulson wrongfully speculates) to help others or suffering some kind of betrayal (at the hands of a Kree-sympathizing Skrull double agent?) might temper (and even explain) some of the character’s later, more prickly behavior. Although that might be exactly why he helps feed the mystery about the true nature of his injury.

read more: Complete Guide to Captain Marvel Easter Eggs

“The last time I trusted someone, I lost an eye,” Fury said in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Whoever would have guessed that the someone in question was an adorable feline-shaped Flerken named Goose?

from Books https://ift.tt/2J0A6Mo

#aion-rsa #Books

0 notes

regular-lord-reckoner · 8 years ago

Text

More thoughts on this AFI situation

And this is just for myself personally, but I’ve been thinking about this since yesterday and had plenty of time driving to work to mull it over, but for myself I think I am going to take a step back in terms of being a fan

I’m not saying I’m one of these people who’s gonna trash all my albums and burn all my posters and shit, but this situation, regardless of how you feel about it, is a bit of a clusterfuck

And honestly, just from the stand point of a fan it’s not that huge of a sacrifice because in terms of actual, musical content lately I’ve been underwhelmed and much prefer their earlier work, I’ve gravitated in the past few years to other artists that I listen to a lot more.

Regardless of how this situation goes down, they’re always going to have a special place in my heart, I can’t help that. I may look back on it and cringe, but I’m also not going to sit here and self-flagellate for having cared about something that was meaningful and helpful to me in the past and yeah, you bet your ass I’m gonna be goddamn disappointed and devastated if there turns out there’s validity to these accusations, absolutely, but it’ll still be necessary to withdraw my support because we can’t let that shit slide, even if it’s something we like or used to like

That being said, I’m still not sold and as I mentioned before, I think there’s some confirmation bias happening here in which there’s already this established problematic element, but now people are doubling back to try to connect even more things to the situation that may or may not actually have anything to do with it and some of which are honestly reaches, although I do understand where they’re coming from and I’m not saying there’s no basis whatsoever, just that I think some people are trying a little too hard to really turn this into a full-blown thing instead of just focusing on the issue at hand which is already a handful within itself

I really do sincerely hope Davey’s seeing some of this discourse and paying attention to the comments on Twitter and Instagram and will do the right thing going forward. Again, I’m not of the camp that thinks he’s using these symbols and imagery to be malicious and hateful and racist, but I could be mistaken it’s just not something I’ve seen in his behavior up until this point and perhaps that’s my own inability at recognizing problems and that’s something I’ll have to work on, but I have been trying to think back and honestly, I’m coming up short on this one.

I do think that the ultimate goal of this clothing line was to honor/represent the occult, alchemy, and witchcraft as well as having a nod to his well-established feelings about religion being thrown in there, but the problem therein that I’ve discussed at great length is that these images and symbols are not untainted and especially right now, right in this moment of history, it’s just not a good idea to be dredging them back up and using them, even if he’s inverting certain symbols as if to say “I’m turning this on its head, I’m disrespecting its hateful intention” it’s still there and it’s got an ugly meaning attached to it now and should best be left untouched, I think.

As I tried to point out to him on Instagram, it’s a mark of privilege to be able to play around with these symbols, regardless of the intent, because the fact of the matter is, they are capable of doing harm. I’m sure there have got to be other symbols, other imagery that doesn’t have these negative associations that could be used instead and that’s what I’m hoping for going forward although I have no plans whatsoever of supporting this business endeavor. And as for a silver lining, his track record with clothing lines is pretty dismal so if nothing else this one probably isn’t going to stand the test of time either and will be gone in a year or so, but even still, there needs to be accountability, there needs to be a direct addressing of these issues and it’d be nice if just...something was said or done directly rather than have a representative of the company come out with some vague ass post about how the intention was never to be affiliated with what it’s being accused of being affiliated with. Regardless, you can’t just say, “Oh, but that’s not what it’s about” and keep putting this shit out into the world and act like you’ve washed your hands of it, y’know?

So...yeah. Situation’s a clusterfuck. Whether or not it’s as bad as it’s being made out to seem, I don’t really know just yet and that may be me just hoping against hope that it’s not, but I do feel like I’ve tried to be objective here, I’ve tried to be somewhat fair, although I acknowledge that this may be one of those situations where there’s not really room for that.

And so ultimately, I am going to more so err on the side of caution and take a step back because this isn’t anything to be taken lightly, I do want to take shit with a grain of salt, I do want to keep my eyes open and I will remain skeptical in spite of where I’m standing because it’s not like it’s impossible. It’s not like these accusations are so far off the wall that they just don’t stick at all. I can see why people are drawing the conclusions they are and although again, I think it’s sort of an unfortunate culmination of problematic things, they are still problematic and they do still need to be addressed rather than swept under the rug and so I don’t want to do more harm than good by trying to assess both sides of the situation and ultimately that means I’m going to have to put my foot down to a certain degree

And if this situation continues to progress, if shit just really starts stacking up and it becomes clearer what’s going on here and if shit is blowing in the opposite direction of where I’m standing then I’ll own up to that and try to act accordingly and cut ties because that’s the right thing to do. At this present moment, though, I’m not quite there and that’s honestly probably a failing on my part. I understand why this is a hard line in the sand for some and I don’t blame anyone for bailing out right now, but like I said, from a personal standpoint, I’m not there just yet because even if they are still problematic in their own right, there are explanations apart from, “Well, clearly they’re out and out Nazis, obviously”.

#AFI #Davey Havok #EYOT #Despair Faction #A Fire Inside #long post #long-ish #actually kinda short for me #i am trying to do what i think is right here and i realize i'm probably still missing the mark #and in another day who knows i may be fully on board with the 'fuck these pieces of shit i don't want to hear it' train #because i get where that's coming from i get what they're saying #i could be wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong and just don't want to face up to that and that's shitty of me and i'll work on that #but right now my gut's telling me i'm where i need to be at this moment #it's important to be able to take a stand against this shit even if it's something we like/care about #and that's hard to do in any case #but especially with accusations as serious as these i just want to be certain before i fully take that plunge #and again that may be the completely wrong thing to do and if so i will try my best to get to that point then #right now i'm just not there though based off of what's in front of me

3 notes · View notes

leftpress · 8 years ago

Text

The New Reality

Reports from J20 in Seattle

This communiqué from comrades in Seattle comes to us as the night is ending there. They offer it as a partial report of the many events that transpired: some demoralizing, some inspiring, and some horrifying. Whatever their impact, all of these events are representative of what is to come: crystallized examples of this political and historical moment.

CrimethInc. Ex-Worker’s Collective | Jan. 21, 2017

The Day Begins

Seattle, bastion of West Coast liberalism and smug leftist exceptionalism, was very busy on Inauguration Day. According to the police, resistance began at 9:30 AM when “an unidentified person threw a rock through the windshield of a Bellevue Police Department officer’s vehicle” while it was parked on Capitol Hill.

The day of protests began with mass student walkouts at noon. Students from several local high schools and middle schools walked out and took the streets immediately. With hand-crafted banners, clever chants, and an air of rebellion, they blocked traffic and marched to Seattle Central Community College. Some students carried a giant banner against the new youth jail under construction.

The mood was raucuos and jubilant, with that particular joy that accompanies expressing rage, in the streets, with comrades.

Get your Latest News From The Leftist Front on LeftPress.tk → Help Us Gather News (Click for Details) ←

Unfortunately, that joyous and rebellious spirit was crushed, redirected, and preyed upon as soon as students reached their destination, a rally at Seattle Central. Socialist Alternative organizers jumped at the opportunity to recruit and fundraise. The creative signs and chants were quickly replaced by rote repetition, as chant sheets and identical pre-printed signs were handed out. Kshama Sawant, the local celebrity socialist on City Council, quickly took the stage to promote her party, Socialist Alternative, as the only way to resist Trump; she celebrated the spirit of resistance while her organizers did their best to prevent critical thinking and autonomous action while building their party apparatus. This strategy is identical to Socialist Alternative’s actions during the anti-war movement: creating student front groups, placing their signs in front, and claiming credit for the autonomous activity of students.

This is part of our new reality—the Left is already preparing for a return to the Bush years, building their membership lists and pretending to represent change while funneling people into the same ineffective electoral strategy that will never liberate us. It was disheartening, and unsurprising.

Westlake

The main event was planned for 5:00 PM, where an autonomous breakaway march was planned to diverge from the Socialist Alternative rally. Inspired by the activities on the East Coast earlier in the day, many of us hoped to seize this moment of popular anger and present other options and examples of fighting back. Against a rally and march that was primarily engineered to build a local politician’s career, anarchists hoped to offer direct action against the structures and the people that oppress us: banks, police, jails, and more.

Unfortunately, a large group was detained and attacked by riot police while en route to the rally. In the scuffle that ensued, many materials were seized, including the black flags intended to signify our presence and help other comrades find the bloc within a sea of signs. According to SPD, the seized items also included shields reading “Right Wing Scum, Your Time Has Come,” wooden poles, heavy pipes, flares, and hammers (we, of course, urge you not to take anything they report as the full truth).

This is an escalation by the Seattle Police; while they have been more than happy to attack anarchists indiscriminately in the past, until now they have not detained people and seized material prior to marches. They haven’t seized people’s flags since Mayday 2012, when the mayor declared a state of emergency and banned flagpoles from downtown.

This escalation of repression, on Trump’s first day of office, is a worrying sign of things to come.

Under-equipped and shaken, the band arrived at Westlake only to find yet another rally featuring Kshama Sawant as the personality of the hour. Her presence was announced to massive cheers, as “the woman who needs no introduction.” With the tone of a home game mixed with a populist rally, the entire event reeked of politicians and charismatic leaders. Faced with poor conditions, many comrades quickly redirected their attention to the University of Washington, where anti-fascists were demonstrating against alt-right misogynist, transphobe, and racist Milo Yiannoupoulos, scheduled to speak at Kane Hall.

Red Square

Red Square, the central plaza in front of Kane Hall, was awash with confusion and hostility when we arrived. Seeing hundreds of people spread out in the square, we were initially excited at all of the anti-fascists who had come to demonstrate—until we realized that most of them were Trump supporters, there to see Milo speak. Anti-fascists were partially blocking the stairs up to the entrance but were vastly outnumbered by a sea of mostly white, mostly male racists there to see Milo spread hate. A black bloc quickly assembled itself, growing to about 50 people, and helping to hold the line with reinforced banners and bodies. It was confusing, and chaotic; we are used to facing off with police, on terms that are familiar if frustrating. Some of us are used to facing off with explicit neo-nazi boneheads—also easy to recognize. But in the sea of college students around us, it was nearly impossible to tell who was a protestor and who was there to see Milo speak. Only the iconic red hats—many of which were gleefully liberated from racist heads and destroyed—and outright hostility in the form of pushing and shouting, clarified sides. This intermingling, along with the hands-off behavior of the police, made certain interventions difficult. Projectiles are dangerous if a crowd is mixed, and pushing a line forward into a group of unknown composition puts other potential comrades at risk. This was further complicated by conciliatory activists who placed themselves between banners and Milo supporters, determined to de-escalate situations and defuse conflict.

Despite these confusing dynamics, anti-fascists and anarchists were able to maintain a level of conflict and antagonism appropriate to the situation. Several shouting, red-faced men ended up covered in paint, and while no one as famous as Richard Spencer was attacked, there will certainly be many racists nursing black eyes and other injuries tomorrow. These scuffles were aided by long-held anarchist tactics: banners allowed people to attack and then retreat, a somewhat cohesive black bloc allowed comrades to take initiative and then disappear, and we were able to successfully keep fascists from penetrating our ranks.

It is worth dwelling for a moment on the crowd waiting to see Milo’s speech. While it was certainly mostly white, and mostly male, there were other genders and people of color mixed in. Some of Milo’s adoring fans were impressionable internet denizens, easily swayed by bombastic and “edgy” rhetoric; that said, some of them were dedicated racists and bigots: one person shouted “race war” repeatedly, and another loved to call people faggots. They regularly complained that their right to free speech was being attacked, and that there was no safe space for right-wing politics.

Given right-wing attacks on marginalized communities and Milo’s personal attacks on the concept of “safe spaces”, it is ironic that, when they are confronted by an angry and powerful crowd of anti-fascists, they cry about their lack of protection. Also confusing was their insistence that we were the Nazis, because we wouldn’t let them see their favorite fascist in person. Fortunately, few protesters present cared much about free speech for fascists at all, seeing instead the importance of shutting down fascists and preventing them from organizing. This is a welcome change after years of hearing liberals defend racists’ right to free speech.

This back and forth continued for awhile, until we heard a pop and people shouting “comrade down”. Many of us thought we had heard a concussion grenade go off, but gradually became aware that someone had been shot. While we are all anxious to learn more and discuss the context around our comrade’s shooting, we are primarily concerned right now with their wellbeing, and with the scope of the police investigation that will follow. What we do know, based on the SPD twitter, is that a suspect has turned himself in to the police. More details may follow in the future, and they may not.

This is the reality we now live in: it is somehow not surprising for a comrade to be shot at an anti-fascist demonstration.

We saw stabbings in Sacramento, and we’ve seen gun violence here. This is becoming the new normal, and that is unacceptable. As we are writing this, we are also hearing reports that someone drove through downtown Olympia tonight shooting at storefronts and shouting “Hail Trump!” In this context, it is worth thinking about how to protect and care for each other during actions, and otherwise. It is also vital that this kind of violence be passionately resisted and squashed; it is crucial to keep fighting.

The march from downtown arrived at UW shortly after the shooting, and numbers shifted dramatically in our favor. Many disappointed Milo fans left, unable to see their hero, despite the money they spent and the precious tickets they were carrying—some of which were ripped out of their hands. The talk was not completely shut down—some few people made it into the hall, and Milo spoke—but it was significantly disrupted, and the events prove that militant, uncompromising actions against fascists work. The more we disrupt their events, the more we make their hideous faces and odious politics public, the harder it is for them to organize, and the less space there is for fascist sentiments to become normalized.

Lessons and Concerns

1. Anti-fascism is an easy sentiment for people to get behind. This is good and bad. We noticed anarchist tactics and aesthetics spreading more easily to liberals and other radicals than anarchist politics and analysis. At one point we found ourselves holding a banner, side by side with others dressed in black, who rushed to inform us that Bernie would have won had the system been more fair. While we are thrilled that diverse people are willing to take militant action against fascists, it is also worth remembering that anti-fascism alone is not enough. We’ve seen where popular fronts leave anarchists: high and dry at best, and at worst in gulags or murdered.

2. The police and fascists are different kinds of enemies. We’ve gotten very used to fighting the police in Seattle—and they have gotten used to fighting us, unfortunately. They were remarkably hands-off tonight, with the exception of the equipment seizure, and were happy to ignore scuffles and fights between protestors and racist scum. While we never look to the police for protection, it is interesting and unsettling that, despite reports of an active shooter on a college campus, they were content to continue guarding the perimeter and not intervening. Most shootings on college campuses involve campus-wide lock-downs; this one garnered no visible police response. This is yet another reminder that the police cannot—and will never—protect us; only we can protect each other.

3. Guns are here, and the risk of gun violence—or stabbing—from white supremacists is real. We have to prepare for these risks, but we also know that specialized, armed militancy will lead toward isolation and increased risk. Our strength lies in the streets—in creating situations that are ungovernable, in making space for others to experiment with autonomy and direct action, and in preventing fascists from organizing. We are very aware of the threat of armed fascists, but are also certain that symmetrical warfare will end poorly for us—and for anarchism. There have certainly been historical moments when it made sense for anarchists to take up arms and go to the mountains—and perhaps people should prepare those skills, in case those times come again—but more often than not we see guns and specialized violence leading to marginalization and increased vulnerability to attacks by fascists and police alike.