#you either vote against fascists or let them take over | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

maxisanangrywell · 1 month ago

Text

Okay, so. I've had to delete a ton of asks because of my Leftist Rant post which can be found on my page. A lot of them were rude, from both sides of the aisle, and I want to present you all with the fucking FACTS since people (Tiktok/Online leftists) think I'm making this shit up or being weak or a "nazi sympathizer".

So, let's proceed with the facts, shall we?

Nic Sumners, a 21-year-old cosmetic car repairman from Virginia, says he is pro-choice. But when he voted in the 2024 presidential election, he did so for Donald Trump.

Despite his personal beliefs, he says that Trump talks about the American people in a way that resonates with him, without—in his opinion—faulting him for his gender and sexual orientation.

“I’m a straight white man, and I feel like we take the blame for a lot of things,” Sumners says.

“Of course there are bad guys,” he adds, insisting he’s not one of them just because he voted for Trump. But what appealed to him about Donald Trump was that “his campaign was not coming after us. He was highlighting the American people, which we are. It doesn’t matter what color you are, what you may identify as. Since I wasn’t excluded, I resonated with it.” -- Galmour Article

Wow! Lookie there!! Oh, but there's more!

The macho energy of the Trump presidential run -- eschewing political correctness, "wokeness" or other forms of liberal handwringing -- won over plenty of Black men, despite the campaign's outright racism at times.

As Democrats embark on their postmortem, trying to figure out what went wrong, there won't be one simple explanation.

Among Black men under 45, about three out of 10 voted for Trump -- double the rate of the 2020 vote and blowing yet another hole in the Democrats' traditional base.

But "Black and Latino men could possibly overlook the racism of the Trump campaign because Trump appealed to their sense of machismo," Vigil offered. --

It's almost like what I was saying has truth in it, because surprise!!! I actually am in a very conservative family and talk to these people on a daily basis. Now my household, and immediate family is very left leaning with the exception of my brother. Everyone else, including AROUND ME is either far left or Trump supporters/conservatives.

Unlike you internet lefties, I don't live in an echo chamber and actually try to educate the people around me. While you're over there, complaining about being in a fuckig blue state, I'm here on the ground, talking to people and finding out WHY they didn't vote for Kamala. Each person says the same thing, it's largely not about abortion, or sexism or anything.

Young men felt PUSHED OUT by the Harris-Walz campaign, and Trump like the fascist his party is, picked up on that way to win. And he catered towards those men DESPITE the racism. And it fucking worked, we saw it fucking work in real time.

Am I asking you to grab a neo-nazi's hand and fucking sing kumbaya? No. Of fucking course not. Am I asking you to be kind and have the barest hint, the SEMBLANCE of fucking empathy? Yes. That's it, just be fucking KIND.

I don't know where most of you got this idea in your head that there needs to be a bloody violent revolution. That's not going to happen. If it does we will all be killed. Your glorification of violence will get you killed. Stand your ground in the face of hatred, but be fucking kind and educate those that cannot properly do it themselves.

You leave these people in these groups because they voted for that man, and guess what happens? They go further into it. They start believing it is truly them against the world. They don't break out of that. They go further, get more radicalized. That's when you have mass shooters. That's when you have those guys in ski masks walking down the fucking street waving a nazi flag.

It's not hard to understand, or wrap your mind around. If you did actual reading, if you did ACTUAL ground work, you'd see you can't just fucking cut them off like that and you should have been challenging their beliefs almost every fucking time they opened their mouths about it.

Is it exhausting? Fucking hell yes. It's emotionally and physically taxing. But you know what it does? Saves us from this shit that we're in now. Black women and Indigenous people have been doing this shit for ages. Now it's time for EVERYONE to fucking do it. Stop acting like a revolutionary, you're going to get us all fucking killed.

I'm so sick of this, genuinely. I feel like the smartest fucking person in the room sometimes because Hunger Games and Divergent mixed with the Handmaid's Tale has rotted your fucking brains. Read actual shit, like By any Means Necessary, Malcolm X. Or fucking Martin Luther King Jr. Angela Davis. Fascism in Big Business. Fucking ANYTHING. Read shit that was done by Nazi's, detailing their descent into fascism and how their entire family got swept into it and how they realized later they were the fucking issue.

Read shit from former KKK members, former Neo Nazis. You should be reading EVERYTHING. Not getting breakdowns on radicalization on people who have NEVER been radicalized. It's like someone rapping about being a black guy in compton while they live in Upstate New York as a White girl. They aren't speaking from THEIR lived experience. Of course they're going to fall into misinformation.

It's not fucking hard to be a kind person. You're not the mean girl or bullied nerd in highschool anymore. Grow the fuck up and be kind. Our very fucking humanity depends on it.

#maxisawell rambles #so sock of having this same convo 100 times #leftism #conservatives #nonbinary #gay #lesbian #wlw #nblw #queer #queer rights #black lives matter #land back

0 notes

lorbanery · 5 months ago

Text

There is no such thing as a morally pure politician that can get things done.

I'll take that even further: There's no such thing as a "morally pure" politician. Period.

Because there's no such thing as a "morally pure" person.

Because "morally pure" is a philosophical concept that cannot exist in reality where real people have to navigate the real world and have to interact with people and entities they find morally reprehensible, or didn't know they've done something morally reprehensible, or that may do something morally reprehensible in the future.

Sure, it's important to be informed about a politician's career history.

But that's clearly not the intention here. That little "Not to be a debbie downer" opening line makes it really clear from the start that the whole point of the post is to convince people that it's bad to support Walz.

And on top of that, like, none of you all know this man. I don't either, I've only been to MN once in my life. None of us know why he's made the decisions he did in his life or his career. But you sure are making wild conjectures, though, and it shows from the way all of those bullet points are framed. Nevermind that debunked reblog.

So let me ask this: What was the point of this post? Like, yes, to convince people it's bad to support the VP pick. But, like, why? What did you want to happen?

Harris isn't going to pick a different VP just because his popularity takes a dip on Tumblr.

If Walz does make some kind of statement about any of this it'll be because an actual news outlet brings it up.

I'll tell you what will and did happen, though.

It did provide a semi-legitimate-seeming platform for bad-faith actors to jump onto to add completely fabricated receipts, to make him look even worse.

And It will appear on the dashboards of other people with this same simplistic view of morality that any proximity to immoral acts and organizations is unacceptable, no matter the complicated nuance involved, and convince them to not vote, or to vote third party. Instead of the actual thing that will work: Voting for the only candidate that will keep the fascist party from gaining power.

Think before you make these callout posts. Really think, realistically, what it is they're actually going to accomplish, and what you want them to accomplish.

'Cause I'll tell you what, you best believe I am going to blame all of you moral high horse riders right alongside the fascists you're empowering if the fascists take over in the fall and start the process of destroying my family. If they make IVF illegal and destroy my chances of ever giving birth? If they rip our toddler away from our queer, trans asses? If they start endorsing violence against marginalized people?

That will be on your "morally pure" hands. Hope you can live with that.

Not to be a debbie downer but Tim Walz was in the military for 24 years, including during the Iraq war. He called the national guard on protestors following the George Floyd murder. He supports Israel. He's approved an oil pipeline across indigenous lands that break treaties.

It's weird to celebrate a man who goes against all leftist values

31K notes · View notes

solarbird · 4 years ago

Photo

[Original on Twitter] [transcript]

nnnNNGNGH I shouldn't be doing this so late but I keep not doing it so

OKAY. You know what's happening with Pence and the 25th Amendment, right?

Let's go over it real quick.

-----

He keeps (reportedly) going back and forth on yanking Trump via the 25th Amendment.

Really, he _really_ doesn't want to. He's already facing the base's wrath. This would push them even further over the top and so honestly I kinda get it. Shit's gonna be even scarier for him.

-----

But he knows he should. And the Democrats know he should. And this whole impeachment timetable, sure, some of it is legit rules issues.

But some of it is also trying to force him to go ahead and do it. Pull him out via the 25th Amendment - or we'll impeach. Again.

-----

Difference is: this time, the Senate will convict. I'm pretty sure. I think they're pretty sure too. Not sure about removal, definite on the "no more runs for president" part.

The fact that _this_ is happening is the _only_ reason Pence is still thinking about the 25th. As things fall apart, remember how we got here.

-----

If the possibility of imminent impeachment goes away, so will ANY talk of the 25th Amendment solution. The Senate GOP do _not_ want to have to take that vote. Not again, not with what's happened.

-----

It's either political suicide (defend the seditionist fascist) or political suicide _and_ personal danger (convict/disallow future runs for office).

That's the beast they've created.

That's not what it should be about, but it is.

-----

They have to make this choice, and of them, _for them_, the 25th Amendment is the _least_ personally damaging. They need to talk Pence and the remaining cabinet into removing Trump that way, to avoid the fallout from the trial.

-----

And that's the _politics_ reason why the Democrats need to be charging full-steam ahead on impeachment, and why _we_ need to be hammering the Democrats constantly not to let up.

I mean _constantly_. Hi, @RepDelBene - impeachment. NOW.

-----

Because I've seen too much of this crowd working for too long. If they can scuttle their way out of definite action? Most of them will.

This is one of those rare moments when nonstop bombardment - tweets, phone calls, email, whatever - can matter.

Do. Not. Let. Up.

-----

Because Tr*mp cannot be allowed to finish his term. He's got to go. 25th amendment or impeachment - or at least impairment against running again - these HAVE. TO. HAPPEN.

-----

Because either way, we've got a fascist insurgency now. The question is whether their orangefarbener Anführer is involved in 2024, and whether we get to do all this - all _this_ - again.

On top of everything else.

We can't have that.

Impeach. Remove. Now.

#politics #us politics #coup #coup attempt #failed coup

139 notes · View notes

swamp-world · 3 years ago

Text

anyways. if... (1968). how to talk about it. tired ramblings below the cut. again, big TWs for a lot of stuff.

im slowly in the process of rewatching it because i just havent had the time lately. it just...strikes me as such a strange film for what it is. i dont remember much, frankly. i remember the general idea, the general vibe, i think there was a lot i was too young to understand the first watch.

the first thing that comes to mind in this film is the idea of the school shooting. they didnt call it such, no, but that’s what we would call it today. as a film made in 1968, it’s morbid and horrendous that they created an event in an overdramatized film, clearly meant to be divorced from reality, clearly satirical in every way, and that by the end of the century, Columbine would happen, and within the 21st century, school shootings became a regular event in america. a cursory search shows that there certainly were instances of school violence before this (a man shot a student in a dorm; a principal shot colleagues, etc.) but none so sensationalized or arguably senseless as those in Brenda Spencer, as Columbine.

and that’s where this film walks a tightrope. there are multiple ways to see the film and all of them are true in at least part.

1. many will recognize malcolm mcdowell from his role in A Clockwork Orange. many will recognize that as a film that white american men tend to look to aspirationally instead of with horror, as it was designed. same vein as the matrix, fight club, the joker, etc. this movie is where he got a lot of his character inspiration from. and there’s definitely that same idea of the disillusioned loner who, if given a gun, can make enough of a revolutionary difference in a world that has wronged him

2. is this supposed to be a good thing? the film seems conflicted itself at times. the teachers are in the wrong, certainly. oh, that’s without question. it doens’t paint the violence as aspirational, i dont think. i do think that there’s this idea of a fictionalized, sensationalized and glorified revolution, fighting back against the school system and society

3. this was part of a “series” that was satirizing british school, healthcare, and capiatlism. make of that what you will.

4. it predates monty python as well but absolutely demonstrates much of the same humouor and influence and aims. i can’t explain the surrealness of it.

5. the disillusioned students aren’t disillusioned for no reason. the school system strips them of their character, reduces them to family names and no personality, turns a blind eye to abuse at the level of peers, encourages harmful hierarchies within the student body that involve active abuse and corporal punishment, and aims to produce machines instead of people. this is an understandable reason to be upset. it’s something we still grapple with today.

6. the context of the school shooting in the film absolutely must, for my intentions here, be separated as much as possible from our modern conception of the school shooting. the ones that we encounter in the modern world are certainly a product of the issues that the film brings up, but i want to do my best to look at it in its own time, as much as i am able to with my limited knowledge

7. the modern school shooter tends to be a “lone-wolf” domestic terrorist, and i will not hesitate to call them such. they tend to be incels, white, straight, young men who perceive themselves as being rejected by women, or who are motivated by alt-right and fascistic beliefs and goals. these are acts meant to inspire terror in those populations. i would certainly classify these as hate crimes, since that’s their primary motivation. in If... on the other hand, they are very clearly attacking the system of british education itself and the people who perpetuate it. (in a lot of situations, this isn’t inherently much different from the way that a lot of modern school shooters see themselves: important to consider.) rather than being violence deliberately directed at the students, it’s specifically on Speech Day, where parents, administration, faculty, etc. are all present. These are the people in power; these are the ones who send their children to these schools, who fund them, who run them, who allow, encourage, and enact the violence. it is not an aimless violence, nor is it a hate-motivated violence.

8. the shooting in the film is meant to be farcical and satirical. who would have imagined, in 1968, that this scene, meant to be the pinnacle of overdramatized and hyperviolent revolution in a satirical manner, not meant remotely to approach reality, would become something that people avoid watching because it has in fact happened to them? in 1968, who would have predicted Brenda Spencer, Columbine, Stoneman Douglas, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech? there was one significant school shooting in 1966, in Austin, that killed 28 and was the deadliest mass shooting for 18 years. but, and while this doesn’t diminish the violence, i want to emphasize that that took place at a university in america, not at a boarding school in england. the fundamental difference between the concept of adults, former military, gunning down 28 people; and a set of schoolchildren taking over the boarding school’s armoury and shooting at the headmaster, having been taught how to shoot those very guns on that very schoolground, is an extreme difference.

9. so, the shooting is designed to be an act of violence, targeting a system that the film paints as being actively harmful and deserving of a takedown, using the very weapons that the school taught them to use but never anticipated to have turned on them, and created in a farcical light: the idea that “this won’t happen, it’s too outrageous to be real”.

10. how do we take this these days? it seems, in many ways, like very little has changed. oh, corporal punishment isn’t practiced (or at least, not sanctioned, but certainly practiced). students are still molded to machine standard on the basis of class and aspirations spoon-fed to them by their parents. there’s still a significant divide between the working class and the capitalist class. there’s still rage simmering at the way that students have been abused by their schools. the violence that was seen as being overexaggerated at the time became a reality for a completely different set of revolutionary reasons, and the film balances the same tightrope as the matrix, as fight club, etc., between being commentary and satire that violent men will mark as aspirational and true rather than satirical and a warning

11. (that’s not to touch on the misogyny of the film)

this is apparently voted one of the best british films of all time, but that doesn’t mean much a lot of the time. it being a best voted doesn’t mean it’s popular or common or well known among people outside of britain, or outside of that generation; it doesn’t mean it was understood and received as intended.

the other thing i want to bring up about the film is the question of reality. the whole thing is so surreal and strange that the line between reality and imagination begins to blur regularly, but particularly near the end. there’s the question of whether this shooting actually happened in the film, or whether it was merely a twisted fantasy of mcdowell’s character. frankly, i would say that it doesn’t matter if it’s real, according to the movie or not. it genuinely doesn’t. this is what we as the audience see, and the intent is the same: either the boy is so driven to this violence that he actually does it, or he’s so driven to it that he fantasizes vividly about doing it. the point of it is still the same. it isn’t our job to know reality from fantasy; it’s possible that if it’s made up, the character himself isn’t aware of that. of course the film won’t make sense, it’ll be muddled and confusing and unrealistic, it’s satire and meant to bend the rules of reality to make a point. (those rules of reality included: schoolchildren do not use semiautomatic weaponry on their own schools. except for in texas, it does not happen.)

so what’s this to do with dark academia? let me answer that when it’s not 4am.

2 notes · View notes

dwestfieldblog · 4 years ago

Text

A VERY REMOTE ENGLISH TEACHER

Where meditations, rants, reverie and absent seizures cross over... closer to one gun with one bullet, the rose of ruby and the cross of gold...uff, and MENTACIDE IN THE TIME OF MASQUES. Although I have never suffered from the guilty masochistic torture of ‘pleasure anxiety’, Bacchus hath indeed drowned more men than Neptune. So I stopped drinking for 18 days to fool myself I was doing something positive and threw away enough things to be minimalist again. Arf. Beauty and/or function uber alles.

Been treading water for three years and trying not to drown...big round of one hand clapping for the former poet. Meanwhile, in this temporary world and perception I have created of it, I am looking at a very possible exile one way or the other...my ‘plan’...a long phased withdrawal or hasty retreat. My wish is to stay, but once I leave, it might well be very hard to return. Read as many metaphors as you want into that but in spite of my dislike of the conservatively minded Aristotle’s ‘either/or’ nonsense, there do indeed appear to be only two this time. And appear is the operative word. Appearances can be deceptive and emotions (unless raised and focused) cloud over what should be clear. Pain has a tendency to breed worry and fear too but let’s draw a veil over that for now eh? Suppress, suppress, release comes later...breathe deep and try not to cough, onward we go where the game gets rough...Just like Tom Thumbs Blues 65.

Remember Roman Protasevich...As Lukasenko himself said...‘Belarus stood at the edge of an abyss and I helped it take a step forward’. Look good on your tombstone that will Al. Fecking outrageous the Indian PM only admitted in May that covid was transmitted in the air. He needs removing... as do two thirds of all the other world leaders East and West. Hello Bollsanaro. People are very easy to manipulate when they’re are scared or angry...and right now the world majority are both. But, ‘there is a crack in everything... that’s how the light gets in’... and ‘things could change’, doesn’t have to be for the worse. It can take decades to realise this as actual truth, but still nice to read and try internalise the following last week.’The odds actually favour the optimists, since dissipate structures are more likely to evolve into more information rich (intelligent?) forms than into primitive or chaotic forms.’ All my friends bar my best one are optimists..Hello you:-)

Ever onward deeper downward with Orban in Hungary and his mission of ‘Christian values’, which involves a familiar routine of arresting, beating and disappearing dissenters in the name of Christ and taking over the universities to replace professors with those who understand on which side their bread is buttered. Decent judges long gone. Nice fascist communism...and ex soldiers in France and the Czech republic warning of civil war...

And now spiraling we go into the black hole vortex of Disaster capitalism, ‘Let the bodies pile high’. There’s gold in them thar ills....ISLAND PARANOIA and PERFIDIOUS ALBION! A country which demands a contract, agrees, signs to it and then refuses to honour it. We look worse than ridiculous, we look deceitful. Gentlemen, your places please. Boris Johnson is a clumsy, inept, disgraceful charlatan, con merchant and LIAR. A blustering master bullshit artist, the only decent thing about his recent secret wedding is that now he legally has one less bastard child.

Recently I read that British people are displaying signs of Stockholm syndrome...in that they dislike those who hold power over them and make the rules but during the time of pandemic, they are the ones who will release the saviour vaccine and get everything moving again. So rather than rocking the boat and daring to express dissent at the DIABOLICAL handling of the last 18 months, they have mostly kept quiet and voted for the same endlessly failing, corrupt and venal politicians who made a bad situation far worse. (That said, it bears repeating that there are a few million in the UK who didn’t quite understand that that the spread of a highly contagious airborne virus can be slowed by the wearing of masks/applying basic hygiene and even took offence at being told what should have made sense to any adult homo SAPIENS half capable of cogitating for themselves. Morons and scum. Same where you are?

By the way BBC...the colossal dearth of stories about the endless government failures in relation to Covid, death, corruption and the NHS...ever since they blackmailed you with threats of revoking the TV licence fee and got you to change Directors has been noted. Long may Have I Got News For You continue the satire and balance needed in a DEMOCRACY. Obey your public servants? Why, when they do not serve few but themselves? Power OF the people? Which ones...the mob? The same bleating pricks who follow populists?

Four eyed beanpole fop Rees Mogg, with his wonderful line that the benefits of Brexit will be seen ‘over the next fifty years’...well yes, that is why most people vote in democratic elections eh?...So they will be dead or ancient before the change they hoped for comes...and the politicians who lead them now, will have all long moved on to revolving door chairman of the board offshore limited liability company paradise. Bread today jam tomorrow fairytales. What I tell you three times is true.

O, but the English do so love to be told what to do by dumb posh boys who treat them like dirt. Some are forelock tugging and some are self flagellating middle class upper class wannabes who will never get there but still feel proud they are not street level proles. Doby the house elf alien hamster Michael Gove found guilty of breaking the law. Nothing. Internal inquiries run by those connected to the money changing hands find nothing illegal. Corruption for all to see...and ignore. ‘Well, what can we do?’ The uselessly inept serial failure Dido Harding to be in charge of the National Health Service? (she of the collapsed Woolworths, Talk Talk and the 22 BILLION pound loss of the Covid Track and Trace program where non working consultants/insultants, were paid 1000 pounds a day). American style privatisation is coming where only the wealthy or criminal can afford to be repaired and well. Sick.

Meanwhile, All our imported nurses out, and all the lobster red fat Spanish costa de la sol criminals back in. Great exchange, fair trade and forward thinking. The Kremlin are manipulating/supporting Scottish independence... I read years ago about their base in Edinburgh for Russia Today (the foul insert in The Daily Telegraph) and they were already encouraging it. Rees Smug has accelerated and supported their freedom with his snobbish utterances on countries in the UK other than England and their ‘foreign languages’. With every patronising, arrogant pronouncement, the Eton trifles fuel the fire in Scotland which has a long bitter history of being tortured, murdered and subjugated by their southern masters. Perhaps the chumocracy in Downing Street believe the Celts to be as easily cowed as the middle and working classes down south. Here’s hoping not. ‘Rebellious Scots to crush’? Not this time pal.

As for the future of Britain? A dystopian open prison where the lower social classes toil only at the pleasure of their masters. The higher caste getting richer and all others cast into a living Hell of debt, crime, and sickness. Serve until you die and be thankful we allow you to exist. Increasing in utter irrelevance to the world, other than as an example of how wrong a former democracy can go. This future started decades ago...its baobab roots truly deep now. Better education and critical thinking for the masses in the UK (or anywhere else) is highly unlikely now. Optimism huh? As long as I am not in England, I will still be able to tap into it, but once enclosed long term in the group mind there...trapped in a grey quagmire. Keep smiling...

Several weeks ago, I watched a video on YT of apparently English protestors running after the police in London, some attacking and throwing things, one pulling off the pandemic mask of an officer and all shouting abuse at the outnumbered cops who had to keep pulling back. As always, to get my caffeine rush of fury going, I read the comments and was surprised to see two or three from Chinese names. Almost all comments were against the government (fair enough) and dumb against the lock down, masks, vaccinations etc. Checking again, I saw the video had been posted by CGTN...a media company owned and run by the communist party in Beijing...and not one author of diatribes had mentioned this, nor speculated with a critical thought as to why such an organisation might enjoy turning people against their own democratically elected government (however mind rippingly foul and corrupt they are).

I copy pasted the Wikipedia paragraph about the company onto the page and hoped someone else would make the connection. I wouldn’t mind so much IF there were a credible and decent alternative other than the diseased populist poison for which the demonstrating goons chant. China really cares about the standard of democracy in Britain eh? Persuade your enemies to weaken themselves. Destroying countries by encouraging their ‘patriots’.

(That was written on the anniversary of Tienanmen Square...a few days later Xi Jinping gave a speech saying ‘...a lovable and respectable’ China must be presented to the world and must ‘expand its circle of friends’. Tell that to your teenage ‘dissidents’, Muslims, Falun Gong and Tibetans being tortured and brainwashed in prisons or being used for organ harvesting. Tell it to Hong Kong and Taiwan.)

Unholy America...against abortion and the pill, sex education’s not Gods will and in the Name of Christ they kill...if truth be known, we’ve failed the test...but Jesus was a Socialist and Republican conservatives hate them. The founding fathers of America were Very clear about separation of church and state with damn good Reason. Another part time Christian, Mike Pompeo wants to be president. Q Onan deepstorm morons/Kremlin stool pigeons aka POLEZNYYE IDIOTY continue to push for Trump and his Big Lie...He with the brain where ‘In the left, nothing is right and in the right, nothing’s left.’ Arf.

Over the last two decades, the dumb have been finding their voice and are now louder and prouder of their dumbass ignorance. 74 million in the US alone, their egos unable to retreat in the face of endless evidence to the contrary, they all double down. Like children sticking their fingers in their grimy ears sing songing ‘la la la can’t hear you’. 74 million versions of Eric Cartman, loud, proud and wrong. And uuff, Megan Markle, Majorie Taylor Greene, walking Picasso collage (bad car driver) Caitlin Jenner and Ivana Trump in politics...not exactly holding a proud lantern for women eh? I’d like to buy them for what they are worth and sell them for what they think they are worth. Not very PC?

That was the point. Could easily been written about all of the men written about here too. Next examples follow...

Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones compete for who can be as mentally ill as trump. The Miami school where the husband and wife directors told teachers not to return if they had HAD their vaccine shots because their proximity to students was interfering with menstrual cycles and uuuufff...The sickness of utter mind buggering stupidity. I had my first shot, now waiting to turn reptilian when the 5G masts triangulate my position. Fnord. Covid appears to be killing more overweight meat eating males than females...perhaps testosterone is not useful for the coming Race of non binary mutant hermaphrodites...and look out for the end of the Y chromosome, coming to a temporary universe near you...in 4.6 million years. Yes, really.

Glad Netanyahu is out at last, smug corruption is never a good look unless one is a rich criminal. Ha. The Promised land of Israel...If I was in court for serial murder, breaking, entering and stealing and then defended my actions by saying that God had told me to do it, would the Judge; A. Call for a psychiatric report, B. Disregard the statement as unprovable and pass the appropriate sentence, C, say Ok mate, you’re free to go, good luck to you. ? Moses had a good schtick.

The law is only to punish the poor, do you feel as if you suffer from empathy? Once you know, you no longer need to believe. What does ‘reality’ seem to be? The more certain you are, the stupider you get and belief is the death of intelligence. The machine is running the engineers. What is the definition of rationality...the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Nothing is, but thinking makes it so. Epicurus.

EVERYTHING NOT COMPULSORY IS FORBIDDEN.

The glamour illusion of the mass of pointless hot influencers needs a constant renewing of the Banishing Ritual as much as all the pigslop bile coming from Fox News and Sky. Bloody long haired commie liberal faggot they cry against any not identical to them. Some days I have only flamethrowers of hatred for these idiots. Other days...not exactly self doubt, just questions...most of us seem to believe our opinions are more valid when there are emotions connected to them. Including me. Again, this seems like a very weak version of ‘truth’, unless disciplined, channeled and focused to a certain end.

Life appears to exist in order to become via chaos.

Most of us are working only not to be homeless, some because of the joy in our chosen work regardless of finances. Until ‘reality’ kicks in the door...the bondage gets tighter when you struggle. How much hardship is the individual willing to endure these days by choice? Surrounded by a universe of distraction and destruction, Maya mewling for our attention. Five years of Trump, rampant populism and Brexit doing a Hexagram 23 on democracy, compounded by the pandemic...all on top of ‘normal’ daily life. The ego feeds and the immune system breaks down. Hard to ignore without being on a mountain or in a parallel dimension and emotion free other than compassion. But BY GODDESS IT CAN AND WILL BE DONE. Ladies of Life Nin Khursag, Isis, Kali, Aradia...Love one, Love ALL. At very least have respect for thyself but be not thou proud of thine arrogance nor thy suffering.

Or just Remember where you came from, what you were, seem to be and will become.

Heal, heal, more work to do, more love to give, more love to feel, Heal. Stay in drugs, eat your school and don’t do vegetables. Impose your own reality upon and through yourself, breathe, exhale, repeat, and continue, LOVE UNDER WILL. Experience and absorb but ‘It’s a house of tricks, ignore the world’’.

Stay well, be seeing you:-)

2 notes · View notes

duskdaumbreon · 1 year ago

Text

Well. That's *certainly* a way to interpret what I said. Not an accurate one, and certainly not even in good faith, but it's definitely a way to interpret it.

So, let's maybe look at the fucking facts instead of saying that I'm a fascist for... *checks notes* ....not wanting to be a victim of a genocide carried out on US soil by the GOP.

Right off the bat, you're ignoring that the US is a two party system. You have Democrats, and you have Republicans. That's realistically it. Sure, there's the Libertarians and Greens, but they barely get single seats in the House. They will not win an election anytime soon. I'd *like* for Greens or an actual leftist party to win, but, again, that's simply not going to happen as things sit right now. Since that's the case, there are only two relevant ways to vote, and anything else is throwing your vote away. You can try to primary Biden. It's unlikely, sure, but technically possible, and fairly safe to try. But here's the thing - it's either Dems win the next election, or we see the full, evil effects of Project 2025.

Is it technically possible for a third party to win? Sure. It technically is. We're also going on two fucking centuries of the system we have right now with absolutely no fucking sign of that changing. And, quite frankly, I'm not willing to gamble with the lives of over 140 million people, especially with such fucking awful odds.

So, yes. I will fucking advocate for damage control. I'll push for taking the lesser of two evils when no real fucking alternative exists and the alternative is death for hundreds of millions. That's not being a fascist or a liberal (neither of which I am, I'm a fucking leftist), it's called being realistic and not being a fucking dumbass that's willing to get every single person in the US who isn't a cishet white christian killed on the minuscule chance that a third party wins the presidency.

But, maybe I'm just missing something. Maybe there's some actual alternative you're seeing I'm not. So, go ahead, spill it. What's this special secret third option you have? Is it revolution? Is that your big, grand plan? Go ahead and let me know when you've figured out how to deal with the military just leveling a city block. Because it turns out that civilian guns do fuck all against a B-22. Or a tank. Or just about any other piece of heavy military equipment.

If you have an actual, real alternative that avoids the GOP carrying out a genocide, I'd love to hear it. Genuinely. If you can present a real alternative to voting for Dems that isn't just letting the GOP win or a revolution that'll just end with a few city blocks leveled, I'd genuinely love to hear it. Because, yeah. Better things are indeed possible, and we should push for them. But from what I'm seeing, there's only two realistic options in the short term. And I'm sure as fuck not going to just lay down and let the greater evil happen.

...Also, for what it's worth, Biden did at least secure aid to Gaza, even if he's also supporting Israel. That's sure as fuck more than any Republican would ever do. It definitely does not balance the scales at all, but, yet again, mitigating damage is far more important than gambling on a practically nonexistent chance of no damage at all.

Not blurring out this scumbags name because fuck these people. This the naked face of American liberalism. "If the Gazans are going to be slaughtered either way why not vote for the guy who at least won't target you? Lay down like a dog and beg for safety before the DNC because nothing better is possible." Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds and this is a case of exanguination.

2K notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 3 years ago

Link

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 5, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

Last night, in a speech to honor Independence Day, President Joe Biden used his administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic to defend democracy.

Biden urged people to remember where we were just a year ago, and to “think about how far we’ve come.” “From… silent streets to crowded parade routes lined with people waving American flags; from empty stadiums and arenas to fans back to their seats cheering together again; from families pressing hands against a window to grandparents hugging their grandchildren once again. We’re back traveling again. We’re back seeing one another again. Businesses are opening and hiring again. We’re seeing record job creation and record economic growth—the best in four decades and, I might add, the best in the world.”

The president was referring, in part, to the jobs report that came out on Friday, showing that the nation added a robust 850,000 non-farm jobs in June.

But he was also talking about how the United States of America took on the problem of the pandemic. Coming after two generations of lawmakers who refused to use federal power to help ordinary Americans, Biden used the pandemic to prove to Americans that the federal government could, indeed, work for everyone.

The former president downplayed the pandemic and flip-flopped on basic public health measures like masking and distancing. Unlike most European and Asian countries, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, the Trump Administration sidelined the country's public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, considered to be the top national public health agency in the world. Trump downplayed the seriousness of the coronavirus out of fear of hurting the stock market, and turned over to states the process of dealing with this unprecedented crisis. The U.S. led the world in COVID-19 deaths. More than 603,000 Americans have died so far.

When he took office, Biden had already begun to use the government response to coronavirus as a way to show that democracy could rise to the occasion of protecting its people. The day before his inauguration, President Biden held a memorial for the 400,000 who had, to that date, died of COVID-19. He put Dr. Rochelle Walensky, a renowned infectious disease expert, at the head of the CDC and reinstated the CDC at the head of the public health response to the pandemic. And he made vaccines accessible to all Americans. Fifty-eight percent of American adults have been fully vaccinated against coronavirus; 67% have had at least one shot. The U.S. has one of the highest vaccine rates in the world and is helping to vaccinate those in other countries, as well.

Biden recalled that the United States of America was based not on religion or hereditary monarchy, but on an idea: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all people are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights—among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

We have never lived up to that ideal, of course, but we have never abandoned it, either. Those principles, he said, “continue to animate us, and they remind us what, at our best, we as Americans believe: We, Americans—we believe in honesty and decency, in treating everyone with dignity and respect, giving everyone a fair shot, demonizing no one, giving hate no safe harbor, and leaving no one behind.”

But, he said, democracy isn’t top down. “Each day, we’re reminded there’s nothing guaranteed about our democracy, nothing guaranteed about our way of life,” he said. “We have to fight for it, defend it, earn it…. It’s up to all of us to protect the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the right to equal justice under the law; the right to vote and have that vote counted; the right.... to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and know that our children and grandchildren will be safe on this planet for generations to come… the right to rise in the world as far as your God-given [talent] can take you, unlimited by barriers of privilege or power.”

Biden’s speech recalled that of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on June 5, 1944, upon the fall of Rome during World War II. It was Italian leader Benito Mussolini who articulated the ideals of fascism after World War I, envisioning a hierarchical world in which economic and political leaders worked together to lead the masses forward by welding them into a nationalistic, militaristic force.

In his 1944 speech, FDR was careful to explain to Americans how they were different from the Italian fascists. He talked about “Nazi overlords” and “fascist puppets.” Then, in contrast to the fascists’ racial hierarchies, FDR made a point of calling Americans’ attention to the fact that the men who defeated the Italian fascists were Americans from every walk of life.

And then he turned to how fascism treated its people. “In Italy, the people have lived so long under the corrupt rule of Mussolini that in spite of the tinsel at the top—you have seen the pictures of it—their economic conditions have grown steadily worse. Our troops have found starvation, malnutrition, disease, a deteriorating education, a lower public health, all byproducts of the fascist misrule.”

To rebuild Italy, FDR said, the troops had to start from the bottom. “[W]e have had to give them bread to replace that which was stolen out of their mouths,” he said. “We have had to make it possible for the Italians to raise and use their local crops. We have had to help them cleanse their schools of fascist trappings….”

He outlined how Americans had anticipated the need to relieve the people starved by the fascists, and had made plans to ship food grown by the “magnificent ability and energy of the American people,” in ships they had constructed, over thousands of miles of water. Some of us may let our thoughts run to the financial cost of it,” he said, but “we hope that this relief will be an investment for the future, an investment that will pay dividends by eliminating fascism, by ending any Italian desires to start another war of aggression in the future….”

FDR was emphasizing the power of the people, of democracy, to combat fascism not only abroad but also at home, where it had attracted Americans frustrated by the seeming inability of democracy to counter the Depression. They longed for a single strong leader to fix everything. Other Americans, horrified by FDR’s use of the government to regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, and promote infrastructure, wanted to take the nation back to the 1920s and in so doing had begun to flirt with fascism as well.

As he celebrated the triumph over democracy in Italy, he was also urging Americans to value and protect it at home.

Biden, too, is focusing on how efficient his administration has been in combating the coronavirus to combat authoritarianism both abroad and at home. With its support for the Big Lie; congress members like Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ), who openly associates with white nationalists; and its attack on voting rights, the modern-day Republican Party is moving rapidly toward authoritarianism. But the former president botched the most fundamental task of government: protecting its people from death. In contrast, more than 60% of Americans approve of how Biden has managed the coronavirus pandemic, with 95% of Democrats approving but only 33% of Republicans in favor.

Biden’s approach appears to be helping to solidify support for democracy. A recent PBS Newshour/NPR/Marist poll showed that two thirds of Americans believe democracy is under threat, but 47%— the highest number in 12 years—believe the country is moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, that number, too, reflects a difference by party. While 87 percent of Democrats say the country is improving, 87 percent of Republicans say the opposite.

Biden conjured up our success over the coronavirus to celebrate democracy: “[H]istory tells us that when we stand together, when we unite in common cause, when we see ourselves not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans, then there’s simply no limit to what we can achieve.”

—-

Notes:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/07/05/remarks-by-president-biden-celebrating-independence-day-and-independence-from-covid-19/

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/07/02/june-jobs-unemployment-shortage/

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccinations-tracker.html

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/561513-67-percent-of-adults-have-received-at-least-one-shot-of-covid-19-vaccine

https://docs.google.com/document/d/162VvK8TyM_3xNJbZtd0vLcNiLuK1bzpV0zqcD8o0TuM/edit

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/2-out-of-3-americans-believe-u-s-democracy-is-under-threat

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Letters From an American #Heather Cox Richardson #history #fascism #democracy #WWII #1920 #COVID-19 #global pandemic #vaccination

1 note · View note

arcticdementor · 4 years ago

Link

Understanding what drives the revolution that is destroying the American republic gives insight into how the 2020 election’s results may impact its course. Its practical question—who rules?—is historically familiar. But any revolution’s quarrels and stakes obscure the question: to what end? Our revolution is by the ruling class—a revolution from above. Crushing obstacles to its growing oligarchic rule is the proximate purpose.

But the logic that drives the revolution aims at civilization itself.

What follows describes how far along its path that logic has taken America, and where it might take us in the future depending on the election’s outcome.

…

The U.S. Constitution had codified as fine a balance between the powers of the Many, the Few, and the One as Aristotle may have imagined by arming the federal government’s components, the States, and ordinary citizens (via the first ten Amendments as well as elections) with means to maintain the balance. Its authors, however, were under no illusions about the efficacy of “parchment barriers” to prevent interests from coalescing into factions against the common good. During the 19th century, interests and opinions in the South and the North coalesced into antagonistic ruling classes that fought the century’s bloodiest war. In the 20th, the notion that good government proceeds from scientific expertise, as well as the growing identity between big business and government, fostered the growth of a single nationwide Progressive ruling class. Between the 1930s and the early 21st century, the centralization of administrative power in this class’s hands did much to transform the American republic established in 1776-89 into an oligarchy.

…

The European tradition of government by experts reaches back beyond Napoleon and Hegel to royal techno-bureaucrats. Being essentially amoral, it treats transgressors as merely ignorant. It may punish them as rebellious, but not as bad people. That is why the fascists, who were part of that tradition, never made it as totalitarians. People—especially the Church—remained free to voice different opinions so long as they refrained from outright opposition. America’s growing oligarchy, however, always had a moralistic, puritan streak that indicts dissenters as bad people. More and more, America’s ruling class, shaped and serviced by an increasingly uniform pretend-meritocratic educational system, claimed for itself monopoly access to truth and goodness, and made moral as well as technical-intellectual contempt for the rest of Americans into their identity’s chief element. That, along with administrative and material power, made our ruling class the gatekeeper to all manner of goods.

Progressivism’s foundational proposition—that the American way of life suffers from excessive freedom and insufficient latitude for experts to lead each into doing what is best for all—is the intellectual basis of the oligarchy’s ever-increasing size, wealth, and power. The theme that the USA was ill-conceived in 1776-89 and must be re-conceived has resounded from Woodrow Wilson’s Congressional Government (1885) to the campaigns of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Barack Obama, and Joseph Biden: “listen to the scientists!” The criticism’s main point has been constant: America’s original conception validated the people’s right to live as they please, and made it hard to marshal them for Progressive purposes.

But the Progressive critique adds a moral basis: the American people’s indulgence of their preferences—private ease and comfort, focus on families, religious observance, patriotism—has made for every secular sin imaginable: racism, sexism, greed, etc. Because most Americans are racist, sexist, un-appreciative of real virtue or refinement (these are somehow rolled together), because these Americans resist knuckling under to their betters, America is a sick society that needs to be punished and to have its noxious freedoms reformed.

…

The moral class critique from above was always implicit. It largely stayed in the background of the campaigns for social improvement into which Progressives have led the American people ever since the 1930s, and especially since the 1960s. The ruling class chided Americans for insufficient commitment to education, to well-being for the poor and disadvantaged, to a healthy natural environment, and to public health, as well as for oppressing women, and, above all, for racism. The campaigns for remedying these conditions have been based on propositions advanced by the most highly-credentialed persons in America—experts certified by the U.S. government, whom the media treated as truth-telling scientists, their opponents as enemies of the people.

But each and all of these campaigns produced mostly the ostensible objectives’ opposites while increasing the numbers of the oligarchy’s members and their wealth and power, endowing them with socio-political clienteles as well as with levers for manipulating them. As its members’ powers grew, they developed a taste for disdaining independent Americans and acquired whips for punishing them.

…

Race (and sex, etc.) is yet another set of excuses for transferring power to the ruling class. The oligarchy is no more concerned about race than it is about education, or environmentalism, or sex, or anything else. It is about yet more discretionary power in the hands of its members, for whom not all blacks (or women, or whatevers) are to be advantaged—only the ones who serve ruling class purposes. In education, employment, and personnel management, co-opting compatible, non-threatening colleagues is the objective. As Joseph Biden put it succinctly: if you don’t vote for him, “you ain’t black.” A ruling class of ever-decreasing quality is a result.

…

I noted that this revolution’s logic leads to no logical end. That is because “the logic that drives each turn of our revolutionary spiral is Progressive Americans’ inherently insatiable desire to exercise their superiority over those they deem inferior.” Its force, I observed, “comes not from the substance of the Progressives’ demands,” but rather “from that which moves, changes, and multiplies their demands without end. That is the Progressives’ affirmation of superior worth, to be pursued by exercising dominance: superior identity affirmed via the inferior’s humiliation.” Affirmation of one’s own superiority by punishing inferiors is an addictive pleasure. It requires ever stronger, purer doses of infliction, and is inherently beyond satisfaction.

In short, the Progressive ruling class’s intensifying efforts to oppress those they imagine to be their inferiors is not reversible. It is far less a choice of policy than it is the consequence of its awakening to its own identity—awakening to the powers and privileges to which they imagine their superior worth entitles them. It is awakening to its deep resentment—indeed, to hate—for whoever does not submit preemptively.

Let there be no doubt: the ruling class’s focus on Donald Trump has been incidental. America’s potentates do not fear one pudgy orange-haired septuagenarian. They fear the millions of Americans whom they loathe, who voted for Trump, who gave his party control of House and Senate, and who will surely vote for folks these potentates really should fear.

…

The people who killed one another in 1861-65 respected each other as individuals and shared standards of truth, justice, and civility. But as our ruling class put the rest of America beyond the proverbial pale, what remained of friendship among the American republic’s components drained away.

By 2016, most Americans preferred either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders over ruling-class candidates for president. And of course, they increasingly despised one another. In short, the popular basis for constitutional restraint had ceased to exist on all sides. But mostly the ruling class, unaccustomed to outright opposition to its presumption of authority, deemed the voters’ recalcitrance to be illegitimate. That began the revolution’s active phase.

At that time, I wrote that, regardless of who won the upcoming election, the United States of America had crossed the threshold of a revolution, and that though no one could know how that would end, we could be sure only that the peaceful American way of life we had known could never return. Hilary Clinton’s or Donald Trump’s victory in the election would merely have channeled the revolution onto different courses. We would look back on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as relics from an age of moderation.

…

The oligarchy’s offensive to forcibly disable the voters began as a mere protest against—and explanation and excuse for—the 2016 elections’ outcome. But, as its identity unfolded according its logic of hate, one thing led to another.

Official and unofficial ruling class confluence in the Resistance turned the Democratic National Committee’s July 2016 throwaway lie that the Russians had hacked its emails into a four-year national convulsion about Trump’s alleged conspiracy with Putin. Ruling class judges sustained every act of opposition to the Trump administration. Thousands of identical voices in major media echoed every charge, every insinuation, nonstop, unquestioned. The Resistance made it official ruling class policy that Trump and his voters’ “racism” and a host of other wrongdoings made them, personally, illegitimate. In 2016 Hillary Clinton had tentatively called her opponents “deplorables.” By 2018 the ruling class had effectively placed the “deplorables” outside the protection of the laws. In any confrontation, the ruling class deemed these presumed white supremacists in the wrong, systemically. By 2020 they could be fired for a trifle, set upon on the streets, and prosecuted on suspicion of bad attitudes, even for defending themselves.

This happened because the Resistance rallied the ruling class’s every part to mutually supporting efforts. Nothing encourages, amplifies, and seemingly justifies extreme sentiments as does being part of a unanimous chorus, a crowd, a mob. Success supercharges them. The Resistance fostered in the ruling class’s members the sense that they were more right, more superior, and more entitled than they had ever imagined. It made millions of people feel bigger, and better about themselves than they ever had.

Ruling class violence started on inauguration day 2017 and grew unceasingly, at first an ominous background to all manner of bureaucratic, oligarchic, and media attacks on the election’s winners. But note well that the black-clad burners and looters were the very opposite of a proletariat and that, Marxist rhetoric aside, they never attacked the wealthy or the powerful—not Wall Street, nor major corporations, certainly not any government, never mind Google, Facebook, or Twitter, America’s most powerful monopolies, or corporate officials. Instead, they received financial contributions from these sources. The violent ones were as troops in the service of the powerful, out to crush the spirit of rebellious subjects. Some Marxists!

…

Most remarkable has been the unbroken consistency with which every part of the ruling class’s entourage joined the campaign while piggybacking its own priorities to it—to the complaisance of all the others. That is the meaning of “intersectionality.” Teachers’ unions, for example, conditioned returning to the classroom on the government banning charter schools; Black Lives Matter (BLM) claimed that “White Racism” must be treated as another public health menace. All other components supported them. All signified solidarity by demanding that all Americans wear masks outdoors, and that those who don’t be jailed. Meanwhile, they insisted that persons convicted of rape, robbery, and murder be released. The world turned upside down.

The riots that began depopulating America’s major cities in late May are intersectionality’s apotheosis. Since blacks commit homicides at five times and other violent crimes at three times the rate of whites, confrontations between black criminals and police are quotidian. Violent reactions to such confrontations are common. Any number of personalities and organizations, mostly black, have made fortunes and careers exploiting them, e.g. New York’s Al Sharpton. Increasingly since 2013 BLM has become the most prominent of these, founded as a project of a hardline Communist organization based in Cuba and funded lavishly and unaccountably by a high percentage of America’s major corporations. Its stated goals of protecting the black community against police brutality notwithstanding, it functions to mobilize black voters on the Democratic Party’s behalf. Along with Antifa, an organization of violent Marxists and anarchists, BLM organized the physical side of the ruling class’s campaign of intimidation against the American people.

The patently counterfactual claim that months of burning, looting and personal attacks by mobs professionally armed, marshaled, and effectively authorized are “mostly peaceful protests” doubly serves the ruling class by warning the victims that they are alone, can expect no help, and that even resenting the mobs is culpable.

Yet the riots may be intersectionality’s downfall because ordering people to tell each other things they know are not true is the most hazardous of political power grabs.

…

The major question overhanging our revolution is how all this has affected the Right side of American society. Since recognizing that the ruling class’s oligarchy surrounded them circa 2008, they sought to keep it at bay. In 2010 their Tea Parties elected the most heavily Republican Congress in a generation. But the Republicans they elected mostly joined the ruling class. Rather than voting for one of them—Mitt Romney for president in 2012—many stayed home.

Then in 2016, sensing that the barbarians were at the gates, they gave short shrift to whoever would not denounce Republicans as harshly as Democrats and elected the loudest denouncer, Donald Trump. By 2020, Trump notwithstanding, the barbarians had proved to be the gatekeepers. They cowed the deplorables, punished them to convince them that they are evil and isolated, deprived them of normal social intercourse, and made them dependent on media that pushed politically correct reality down their masked throats.

The deplorables are angry. But so what?

Why have conservatives mostly obeyed perverted authority? Did the ruling class succeed? Is the revolution over? A minority seem to believe that example may lead leftists once again to recognize their opponents’ equal rights. In short, they are conservatives who yearn to preserve something already gone. They are not yet revolutionaries for their own cause.

…

No one could know for sure how much the empowered oligarchy had cowered ordinary people’s resentment or inflamed it. The fact that some two thirds of respondents told pollsters that they are afraid publicly to voice their views suggests much.

Whatever may happen, it is safe to say that, on the Right side of American life, conventional conservatism is dead, as is political moderation.

…

When the American people vote on November 3, they—like the proverbial husband who walks in on wife in flagrante—will choose whether to believe what they are told or what their senses tell them.

The ubiquity, depth, and vehemence of the ruling class’s denigration of Donald Trump is such as to render superfluous any detailing thereof. Suffice it to note that not a day in four years has gone by without the news media hyperventilating or ruminating on some allegation of Trump’s wrongdoing or wrongbeing. For what? Again, the list of subjects is so exhaustive that it is easier to note that there is hardly any mortal transgression of which he has not been accused. Suffice it to say that, to the extent one depends on the media’s narrative, one cannot help but believe that Donald Trump is the enemy of all good things, that nothing he has done has been any good, that he is responsible for all that is bad.

…

Since 2016 the ruling class have had the luxury of acting as if the deplorables were lifeless punching bags. On November 3 they will find out to what extent that may not be so. Its leaders have already discovered that their “intersectional” entourages are not entirely controllable. After the election, the politicians bidding for leadership of conservatives will make Trump look like milquetoast. As the ruling class tries to suppress them, it will also have to deal with uncontrollable allies, whose violence will spur the conservatives to fiercer resistance.

…

The revolution long since destroyed the original American republic in the minds, hearts, and habits of a critical mass of citizens. They neither want nor are any longer able to live as Americans had lived until so recently. Loudly, they declare that the rest of us are racists, etc., unworthy of self-government. No one can undo that. Chances are against the undoing happening on its own. The longer we pretend to live under precisely the same laws, the likelier we will end up killing one another. We must not do that. And yet regional differences notwithstanding, we are mostly intermingled. Sorting ourselves into compatible groups is part of the American genius and tradition. More of that has been happening and more will happen yet. If we want to live in peace, as we should, we must contrive to agree to disagree to accommodate peace.

#angelo codevilla #the american mind

2 notes · View notes

pictureamoebae · 5 years ago

Note

idk how i'm supposed to reconcile my desire to not see the tories in office with my continually reinforced belief that labour leadership in general and jeremy corbyn in particular actively despise jewish people and wish me and my kind harm. there's been too many incidents, each one fouler than the last, over the past months. i want johnson out but i have no faith in the alternative's desire to keep me safe either and idk what to do

Politics.

A simple answer to a complex problem. And now a complex post to a simple question.

This will be very long, but I’m not going to put it behind a cut because it’s too important.

Nothing I say here will cut through to make you feel any more or less safe. What I want to do first is to say I do not doubt for one moment you have fears. Whatever I say next comes from as much a place of wanting you to be and feel safe as anything else. Please keep that in mind if you at any point think I’m attacking your deeply-held fears. I am not. If I’m attacking anything, it’s those who seek to weaponise your fears for their own gain.

While I continue, I’d ask you to keep asking these questions: who is saying things against Corbyn, what are their politics, what kind of world do they want to see, who do they want me to vote for, what are their interests (not as in, do they like music, but as in where do their political interests lie, how do they benefit from society under different governments)? These are good questions to ask when you hear any kind of political claim being made, whether it’s a manifesto pledge, a jibe at a political opponent, or an otherwise seemingly ‘neutral’ article in a newspaper. Everything is stated from a political position, no matter how hard someone works to hide that. And some people work very hard to hide it. Why?

First, I’ll talk about Jeremy Corbyn and his beliefs. You’ll have seen, no doubt, the picture of him being arrested for protesting against apartheid in South Africa? I’ll use this as a jumping off point because it’s in the news today. It’s emblematic of Corbyn’s lifelong approach.

One of the things that Corbyn’s supporters love about him in particular is that he’s a peacemaker. It’s also one of the things that frustrates us the most.

Love: because his approach to foreign policy has always been one of recognising the necessity of dialogue. It proves an easy stick to beat him with because it’s seen him working to bring all sides together in Northern Ireland (something the Conservative government at the time was also doing in their own way, along with others in Labour), or trying to diffuse tensions and encourage constructive talks in the Middle East, for example. It’s why he was so outspoken in his opposition to illegally invading Iraq (we hit upon one reason here why Tony Blair might have a personal interest in discrediting Corbyn: his involvement in Iraq would be under more scrutiny with a Corbyn-led Labour Party in charge). The list is endless, and he has been proven time and time again to be on the right side of history when it comes to his desire to make peace, not war.

Frustrates: because his natural desire to make peace sees him be far too conciliatory when it comes to both internal Labour Party matters and his approach to media hostility. Backing down on open selection (also known as mandatory reselection) will be seen as one of the biggest mistakes of his leadership in years to come. Time and time again he’s held out the olive branch because his opponents demand it, only to see them set fire to the branch, crush the ashes beneath their heels, and then turn around and say “pass us an olive branch”. One criticism we hear a lot is “Corbyn isn’t a leader”, and the only time I will ever agree that his leadership has been lacking is on this matter. He should have been more forthright and stood his ground. But such is the contradiction at the heart of what makes him the good person he is: that’s not his style. He’s a peacemaker.

Back to his arrest for protesting against South African apartheid. Corbyn served on the national executive of the Anti-Apartheid Movement that was “a British organisation that was at the centre of the international movement opposing the South African apartheid system and supporting South Africa’s non-White population who were persecuted by the policies of apartheid.” At the time, the Tories were pro-apartheid, and could even sometimes be found wearing “hang Nelson Mandela” stickers at their conferences and party events. Standing up so proudly against apartheid wasn’t a popular position to hold at the time. And yet he did it, because it was right.

In 1985 Corbyn was appointed national secretary of Anti-Fascist Action. I don’t know how old you are or your familiarity with British political history, but anti-fascist action in the UK has always centred around defending Jewish people from fascist groups and attack. In the 1970s he organised a demonstration against a National Front march through Wood Green. The National Front were on the rise in the 70s, and it’s seen as something of a golden era by today’s fascists in groups like the EDL who would take us back to that, and go beyond it, if they could. This is just one example of Corbyn directly putting his body on the line to defend Jewish people and others against fascists, following in the footsteps of his mother, who was at the Battle of Cable Street. In his role as parliamentarian, he signed numerous Early Day Motions condemning antisemitism, stretching back decades before he became leader, something that has been recognised in the Times of Israel. In 1987 Corbyn joined Jewish campaigners to stop the demolition of a Jewish cemetery by Islington Council (the demolition was, I note, supported by Margaret Hodge). More recently, in 2010, he petitioned parliament to help resettle Yemeni Jews fleeing from conflict.

There are countless other examples of his work to support Jewish people, as well as him being a friend to pretty much every other minority people you can think of. It’s not just empty words and platitudes, it’s real action, for decades.

Let me give you an extract from an ‘expose’ meant to discredit Corbyn, and tell me what you think of him after this:

“Dressed in a dirty jacket and creased trousers, Jeremy Corbyn arrived in Westminster as a new MP in the summer of 1983.

He immediately told friends that Parliament was ‘a waste of time’ with no relevance to his Islington constituents, especially the immigrant communities.

To meet them, he set up offices in the Red Rose Centre in Holloway where his door was always open to a tide of human misery: Cypriots, Jamaicans, Indians, Pakistanis, South Africans, South Americans, Somalis, West Saharans and Kurds all sought his help.

The procession of petitioners reinforced his conviction that Britain should allow unrestricted immigration – and offer the world’s destitute an open invitation to share our wealth.

In his opinion, all immigrant communities were victims of white imperialists, and the British state owed them a financial obligation. Anyone who disagreed was racist.”

This was intended as a ‘gotcha’ to prove to right wing readers what a dangerous man Corbyn is. They’re right, he is dangerous. Dangerous to fascists. Dangerous to racists. Dangerous to anyone who wants to take away your liberty, to anyone who wants to harm the vulnerable in society.

So how do we align all of this with what we’ve heard in the press over the past five years? Hopefully the extract above, which was printed in the Daily Mail, starts to make it clear what’s going on. Corbyn has always, throughout his career and before he was elected to parliament, fought tirelessly for peace, for reconciliation, for minority populations here and around the world, including Jewish people. Even before he became leader (outshining even Blair’s popularity at his height among party members), there were people of all political stripes who wanted to discredit him, not even necessarily because they disliked him, but because they despised what he stood for and continues to stand for.

We’re not just talking about people who want to be able to say and do racist things, but people who have an interest in our political and economic system continuing as it has so they can maintain their economic, social, cultural, and political power. It’s impossible to overstate how important and crucial this point is. It cuts to the heart of everything.

Look at this, from the Labour manifesto that was launched today:

Introduce a War Powers Act to ensure that no prime minister can bypass Parliament to commit to conventional military action. Unlike the Conservatives, we will implement every single recommendation of the Chilcot Inquiry.

Conduct an audit of the impact of Britain’s colonial legacy to understand our contribution to the dynamics of violence and insecurity across regions previously under British colonial rule.

Invest an additional £400 million in our diplomatic capacity to secure Britain’s role as a country that promotes peace, delivers ambitious global climate agreements and works through international organisations to secure political settlements to critical issues.

Establish a judge-led inquiry into our country’s alleged complicity in rendition and torture, and the operation of secret courts.

Issue a formal apology for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, and hold a public review into Britain’s role in the Amritsar massacre.

Allow the people of the Chagos Islands and their descendants the right to return to the lands from which they should never have been removed.

Uphold the human rights of the people of West Papua and recognise the rights of the people of Western Sahara.

Immediately suspend the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen and to Israel for arms used in violation of the human rights of Palestinian civilians, and conduct a root-and-branch reform of our arms exports regime so ministers can never again turn a blind eye to British-made weapons being used to target innocent civilians.

Reform the international rules-based order to secure justice and accountability for breaches of human rights and international law, such as the bombing of hospitals in Syria, the illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip, the use of rape as a weapon of war against the Rohingya community in Myanmar and the indiscriminate bombardment of civilians in Yemen.

We will work through the UN and the Commonwealth to insist on the protection of human rights for Sri Lanka’s minority Tamil and Muslim populations.

Appoint human-rights advisers to work across the Foreign Office and government to prioritise a co-ordinated approach to human rights.

Advocate for human rights at every bilateral diplomatic meeting.

There are an awful lot of consequences to carrying out these policies. For example, Tony Blair and David Miliband are implicated in rendition, and it stands to reason they will do everything in their power to ensure they aren’t brought to justice for it, or even exposed to scrutiny over it. On the matter of arms sales, not only does it have ramifications for one of the most profitable industries, it also cuts straight to the heart of how and why we choose the international allies we do, and the power relationships inherent in that. This isn’t just a disagreement of opinion, this is threatening to change how we’ve done international politics for a generation or more. It doesn’t get more serious than this. As far as anyone who has an interest in things staying as they are, he must be stopped, by any means necessary.

Let’s talk about antisemitism. Labour is a broad party that reflects a wide range of people and a wide range of opinions from all walks of life and from all corners of the country. It stands to reason that every opinion, thought, and position you can imagine exists in wider society will be found somewhere among Labour members, by virtue of it being a mass membership party. There are terfs in the Labour Party, there are racists in the Labour Party, there are homophobes in the Labour Party, there are sexists in the Labour Party, there are antisemites in the Labour Party – because there are all those kinds of people in our country. There are all those kinds of people in the SNP. There are all those kinds of people in the Tory Party. There are all those kinds of people in the Green Party. There are all those kinds of people in the Lib Dems. What it speaks to, primarily, is the work we have to do, as a country, to educate and counter those bigotries across society. Where they rear their head within the party they must be stamped out immediately. It must be made clear that a socialist party is no place for bigotry and hatred. I think I’ve made it clear above that Corbyn is not an antisemite, and in fact has spent his entire life fighting against antisemitism, including putting his body on the line.

It has become increasingly striking that, over the past five years, Labour has been held to a far greater standard than any other party when it comes to antisemitism or any other kind of bigotry. Boris Johnson’s comments about watermelon smiles and letterboxes get passing comment, Sayeeda Warsi saying that Islamophobia is rampant in the Tory Party and she doesn’t feel safe there is quickly swept under the carpet. Compare the endless months of hand-wringing over Labour’s discussions over adopting the IHRA working definition of antisemitism to the Conservative’s refusal to adopt similar recommendations by the Muslim Council of Britain over anti-Muslim bigotry.

Yesterday a prominent political journalist tweeted that a Tory candidate had been expelled for antisemitism, and in the same tweet she said that a chair of a local CLP (constituency Labour Party – CLPs are the local organising groups for each constituency in the country) had resigned. In the tweet she linked to a BBC article about the CLP chair resignation. Let’s look at what’s going on here. Firstly, she gave both of these news items the same weight by putting them together in the same tweet. Second, she only linked to the story about the CLP chair, suggesting that was the more important of the two. The CLP chair resigned not over antisemitism or anything like that, but because they were disgruntled at how the selection for their local parliamentary candidate went. If you’ve ever been to a CLP meeting you’ll know that everyone is disgruntled about something. It’s hardly national news. But of course, it is. Because it was decided at some point over the past five years that everything that happens in the Labour Party must be forensically dissected and assessed as a real blow to Corbyn, or proof that Corbyn is terrible. Whereas the real story, that a Tory candidate was expelled for antisemitism, is barely a footnote. Why? Keep asking why.

I don’t know what your opinions are about politics in the United States, or whether you follow it at all, but when asking ‘why?’ it might be useful to think about what’s happening over there and how it compares and contrasts to what’s happening over here. Think about the reaction to Ilhan Omar, the inherent anti-Muslim sentiment and racism in opposition to her, and the way her critics have tried to suggest she is antisemitic. Think about those progressives in the UK who support her and see it as ridiculous scaremongering with a political motive, and how some of those are the same people who throw as much invective at Corbyn as they can. Think about the differences in how progressive politics in the US and progressive politics in the UK are presented. Think about how the same accusations of antisemitism are made against Bernie Sanders, a Jewish man who is open about his support for Israel. Think about those things and ask whether, perhaps, the wider politics of those involved might be behind some of what’s going on.

I’ll end by telling you about me and where I live. I live in Stoke-on-Trent. We have three MPs across the city: Gareth Snell here in Stoke Central, Ruth Smeeth in Stoke North, and a Tory in Stoke South, who in 2017 very narrowly beat Rob Flello, who had been the Labour MP there for quite a while. Rob is a Catholic, and has centred his Catholicism in a lot of his politics. Ruth is Jewish, and has been one of the high profile voices to speak against Corbyn. Despite going to university with Gareth and my husband working with him for years in our previous MP’s office and being his close friend, I don’t know his religious affiliation, if he even has one. I disagree with all three of them on the basis of their politics.

I’m very glad Rob is no longer in the party, he was an embarrassment, and should have gone years ago. Rob used his Catholicism as an excuse to pursue some awful political positions (against abortion, for example), all the while being an enormous hypocrite (I won’t spill the tea about his personal life, it would be unbecoming). I think you’d agree that it’s possible for me to disagree with his politics, and to even discuss how they intersected with his version of Catholicism, without being bigoted towards Catholics or wishing them harm or wanting Catholicism to be wiped out. My mother is Catholic. (I’m forever grateful her and my dad decided not to assign me a religion, instead leaving it up to me. Their one moment of progressive thinking!)

I disagree with Gareth’s politics, despite as I explained my and my husband’s history of friendship with him, and will be eternally angry with myself for signing his nomination papers in 2017 when he was selected as our candidate to stand against Paul Nuttall of UKIP in the infamous Stoke Central by-election. What’s important here, in our relationship and out of it, is the politics. My anger isn’t at his life, his family, or whatever faith he does or does not hold, but rather at his deceit towards us in the CLP, and his awful, awful approach in parliament towards Brexit.

I disagree with Ruth’s politics, as does my husband, despite him campaigning very hard and being instrumental locally for getting her selected as the candidate for Stoke North back in the day. I disagree with her handling of Brexit, which follows the same line as Gareth’s. They’re both at risk of losing their seats at the election, and have calculated that by doing all they can to seem as though they are Brexit MPs they’ll claw back the support Labour has already lost to the Tories and Brexit Party, not realising that support left long ago and won’t come back just because they personally keep voting against the Labour whip. In the meantime they’re making it increasingly difficult for us to oppose no deal or Johnson’s hard Brexit. I also disagree with Ruth because she’s helped weaponise instances of antisemitism as a way to discredit the left. Just as I disagree with any MP who has done that, regardless of their ethnicity or religion. Because, as I have said before, it’s the politics that matter. Just as I can disagree with Rob, even on matters that centre his Catholicism, without it being an attack on Catholics, so too can I disagree with Ruth, even on matters that centre her being Jewish, without it being an attack on Jewish people. And this is where we get into the nuts and bolts of the thing.

I met Chris Williamson a while back, bumping into him at Derby train station. My husband knows him (he knows everyone in the Labour Party, social butterfly that he is), and so we went to say hi. It was the first time I’d met him. I was very clear that, despite my anxiety and hate of confrontation, were he to say anything diminishing antisemitism I was going to speak out. And I did, because he did. The weird thing about Chris is that he was long known as a wonderful anti-racism campaigner and a true friend of the vulnerable and minorities. Something twisted him. Over the past few years it’s like he decided to court controversy, to push as many buttons as he could, to see how far he could go, digging his heels in no matter the cost. I think he should have been kicked out a long time ago, once he made it clear he didn’t care about the damage he caused, either to the Party or to Jewish people, because he was on his own political crusade. I don’t believe he is personally antisemitic, but there comes a point where his actions speak louder than his words, and the effects of his behaviour might as well have an antisemitic root for the harm they cause. I’m glad he was finally kicked out, and I’m furious he’s standing as an independent, risking turning Derby North Tory at a time when the very people he says he cares about, the poor, the vulnerable, migrants, disabled people, need a Labour government more than anything else and cannot survive another five years of Tory rule.

The very real fears Jewish people hold have been weaponised by the right, who always try to seed fear over hope because it gets them votes, and likewise the whole resulting situation has been further exacerbated by people like Chris. I’m infuriated by it all, not least because I don’t doubt that a high proportion of British Jewish people genuinely are scared. But because of political interests and political positioning, their fears are being exploited and redirected away from where they should be to precisely where they shouldn’t. It should be clear to you from what I’ve posted above that you’d be hard pressed to find a non-Jewish MP who has worked more tirelessly than Jeremy Corbyn to protect and defend Jewish people against fascists, just as he has worked tirelessly to defend all minorities. At a time when the far right is on the march, burning synagogues, shooting gay people and Sikhs and Muslims, to have our attention diverted away to focus on the best hope we’ve had in generations to stop it is madness. It’s motivated by political interest, whether that’s on behalf of the Conservative party and general right wing politics (let’s not forget some important points here, like Stephen Pollard being a staunchly right wing Conservative supporter, or like Maureen Lipman announcing her ditching Labour not once, but twice – the first time being under Ed Miliband’s leadership (himself Jewish), because of his support for Palestinian rights). Politics is at the heart of it all.

Politics is at the heart of it all.

Politics is at the heart of it all, and just as working class people are used as pawns, pitted against migrants and having their fears about precarity and poverty and security weaponised to divert attention away from the real causes of their immiseration, so too are Jewish people being used as pawns, having their real fears exploited to discredit the only chance we’ll have in our lifetimes of defeating the right.

As I said at the start, I don’t expect what I’ve written here will make you feel any more safe. I hope it doesn’t make you feel any less safe. I just ask that you think about the politics of it all, and remember those questions I asked at the beginning: who is saying things against Corbyn, what are their politics, what kind of world do they want to see, who do they want me to vote for, what are their interests, how do they benefit from society under different governments? I ask you to remember that everything is stated from a political position, no matter how hard someone works to hide that. And that some people work very hard to hide it. Why?

Lastly, I want you to know that the very core of my politics is justice. Justice, empathy, fairness. I couldn’t be a socialist without those tenets at the centre of it all. Our world is burning. Our people are dying. This is all only going to get worse. Official figures are that 130,000 people have died unnecessarily as a direct result of Tory austerity. Those figures were released some time ago, so it is surely more now. Millions have already been displaced around the world as a result of the climate catastrophe. Millions more will be displaced, in ever more horrific events, over the next few years. As people have to move around the globe we will see increasing international tensions, bloody clashes, inhumane national policies aimed at keeping those people away, more bodies in trucks, more children washed up dead on beaches, more people killed in sectarian wars. If we continue to turn a blind eye to the rise of the right, we’re condemning millions to untold suffering. If we re-elect a Tory government we’re condemning millions to untold suffering. If we turn to centrism, a system responsible for that rise of the right, a system that has no answers and wants to simply manage things around the edges, we are condemning millions to untold suffering.

What kind of world do you want to see? What kind of world do those who disparage Corbyn despite his well-documented history want to see?

Politics. The simple answer to the complex problem.

31 notes · View notes