#insurrection should have consequences | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

reasonsforhope · 6 months

Note

I keep seeing news about charges and what-not being piled onto Trump, and all I can keep saying to myself is "but is he going to experience one (1) single consequence of this?" So... is there any iota of a hope that something could come of this circus that will make the slightest ding in his capacity to run in 2024?

So, the answer to this is a bit complicated - partly because there are a lot of factors and a long time scale, and partly because it depends on how you define "consequences"

If you mean "any serious consequences at all," good news, that has already happened!

If you need to catch up on the whole "cases against Trump" situation, read this: The Cases Against Trump: A Guide. Via The Atlantic, November 1, 2023

1. The New York Fraud Case

A judge has ordered that the Trump Organization must be dissolved in a ruling that is being widely described as a "corporate death penalty." This is an incredibly rare ruling, and a huge deal.

The details will take a while to hash out - currently, Trump's kids are in the middle of testifying in a trial for this fraud case, but it's not to determine whether he's guilty - only the extent of the damages and the outline of how the org will be dissolved. It's extraordinarily unlikely Trump will be able to get out of this one. And high up on the list of things he's probably going to lose? Trump Tower itself.

Now, admittedly, this actually isn't because of, you know, the whole attempted coup thing. It's because the Trump Organization's finances were built on decades of absolutely massive fraud - including the very wealth that Trump lied about in order to explain why people should vote for him.

Oh, and let's not forget that in this case, Donald Trump spent weeks absolutely shit talking the judge to try to "poison the jury pool" (make sure that people on the jury would go in with a negative opinion of the judge already). ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT THERE IS NO JURY IN THIS CASE because his attorneys forgot to request one, so the sole arbiter of his fate is the judge he just spent weeks absolutely slandering in an attempt to win over the jury! And all else aside, judges very infamously do not like being insulted

Oh yeah, and the prosecutors are seeking a permanent ban on Trump doing business in the state of New York

Fraud trial explainer (New York Times, no paywall) Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x

2. 14th Amendment Lawsuit

Okay so I did all the other sections first, then came back and wrote this one. It's shorter because of that, and because this issue is a lot newer and doesn't have nearly as much legal stuff or investigations going on yet.

What's happening here is that several states have people who are filing petitions and lawsuits to try to get Trump taken off the ballot for the 2024 election, under the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War and bars anyone who has committed insurrection from holding office.

So far (as of the first week of November, there are cases to kick Trump off the ballot in about 20 states. Oral arguments have started in Colorado and Minnesota.

Basically, my take on the short version is that this could happen, but we'll have to wait at least a few more months to see how likely it is.

However, even if it does go through, Trump would only be kicked off the ballot on a state by state basis. So, if Colorado kicks him off the ballot, he'll still be on the ballot in the other 49 states, and the process would have to be repeated in each one. Still, even if it was just one state, that could be a big deal, voting-wise - and if he gets kicked off the ballot in more than a couple states, he might not end up being the Republican nominee anymore, given the size of that disadvantage.

Correction, 6 min after posting: It's expected that if Trump DOES get kicked off the ballot in any state, the Supreme Court will hear the case and weigh in. The decision would be binding for all states. Supreme Court probably unlikely to ban Trump from the ballot since they cheated their way into a conservative supermajority and 3 of them are Trump appointees

Explainer: Trial to kick Trump off the ballot in Colorado Explainer: Strengths and weaknesses of cases to kick Trump off the ballot Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x

3. The Classified Documents Case

So, the fraud case above is actually a civil case (that is, not a criminal case). The classified documents case, however, is a criminal case, and it's arguably the one most likely to lead to legal and political consequences for Trump, in large part because everything's very clear cut.

Like, Trump has literally admitted he retained classified documents on purpose - which is super against the law! Trump is just arguing a variety of nonexistent technicalities for why that law doesn't apply to him. But he did it! We know he did! We have photos of classified documents stored in the Mar-a-Lago bathroom! We have testimony from the employees he ordered to secretly move the boxes before the FBI probe. We have records proving he asked Mar-a-Lago's IT guy about erasing the surveillance footage of the move! We even have proof that a) he stole nuclear secrets, and b) a recording of him waving around the "plans of attack," bragging about them to other people!

All super damning.

(Post continues below, at length; sources at the end of each section.)

And another thing that's extremely key: Trump is charged in this case with violating the Espionage Act. And the Espionage Act explicitly does not give a single fuck about why you retained documents, or whether there's any proof you intended to show anyone. Any and all hoarding of national defense documents is illegal under the Espionage Act - EVEN if they're not classified, which is great since "I declassified them with my brain" (not how it works) is Trump's main defense here.

So, this case is basically the surest criminal conviction - and the most likely to have electoral consequences. Partly because Republicans, as few issues as they care about, generally are security hawks - "Trump stole nuclear secrets and showed them to people" is giving Repubs pause in a way that the insurrection just isn't, probably esp in the military and ex-military demographic.

Trump could also serve jail time if convicted in this case (which again he probably will be).

However, violating the Espionage Act doesn't ban you from running for or holding public office, which imho seems like a pretty major oversight.

Classified documents case explainer Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x

4. The Insurrection

So, this is where things get really complicated, because the case is complicated and so many things about it are so unprecedented.

There are two different cases here: a criminal case in the state of Georgia and a federal criminal case (that's the one run by Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is also running the classified documents case).

I definitely can't summarize all of this huge situation here, but here's some key points re: whether there will be legal consequences:

I actually have a pretty high level of trust in Jack Smith, in large part due to his record: he's serving as special prosecutor while on sabbatical from his normal job of prosecuting war crimes at the Hague. And he's specifically been prosecuting war crimes from the wars and genocides in former Yugoslavia in the 80s and 90s. That specifically gives me a lot of confidence because - as someone whose family is from the region - I think it's a really strong demonstration of his abilities. It means he has a lot of experience prosecuting high-level government and army officials, in a complicated, multi-year, multi-war conflict, where there were way more sides and factions than we have, along with way less documentary evidence (bc 90s), and a lot of history of political corruption and coverups. I find that really reassuring, especially the "experience prosecuting high-level government and army officials" thing in a situation with, shall we say, extremely contested and variable national leadership, during the course of multiple civil wars

"Schwendiman compared it to prosecuting Kosovo’s equivalent of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton. “If you indict these people, you’re saying, ‘The founding fathers of Kosovo have committed atrocities, and I’m ready to prove it, in an independent court, with independent judges and rules that apply to everyone.’” And that was Kosovo's founding president. So yeah, I think Jack Smith can handle Trump. Source

Okay now to the points you might have actually heard of lol

The Georgia case is a state level case, which means that no matter what, Trump can't pardon himself in that case

The Georgia case is also charging Trump under the RICO act - aka the rackeeting act, usually used to prosecute organized crime. And convictions under the Georgia RICO Act come with MANDATORY jail time

I think the evidence here is pretty compelling, see: the congressional Jan 6 hearings

There is a pretty high chance that, in a massively unusual step, filming will be allowed inside the trial/hearings. This is HUGE, especially because Trump supporters would actually be watching it too (unlike, generally, the congressional hearings), and that evidence all laid out looks really goddamn bad

Also, if yesterday's fraud trial testimony is any indication, Trump is likely to end up yelling and screaming at the judge, etc. in the trial, which is going to look wildly unprofessional

The federal trial will be taking place in Washington DC, where it should be very doable to get a jury that isn't stuffed with Trump cronies (unlike, say, if the case was brought in Florida)

Trump has attempted witness tampering on a lot of occasions, and tried to poison the jury pool, and he got caught so now he's under a gag order that restricts what he can say re: both of those.

Important note: Jack Smith has brought the narrower of two possible cases against Trump. He's filed against Trump with several conspiracy charges, including "conspiracy against rights," which was historically created to prosecute the KKK for racial terrorism

However, Jack Smith did not actually charge Trump with inciting an insurrection. There are a lot of possible reasons for this, but it mostly boils down to the fact that "inciting an insurrection" is significantly less objectively provable, in this case, esp since "insurrection" isn't actually defined in the relevant law

So, Jack Smith has traded a broader case (the one including insurrection charges) for a case that is much simpler and quicker to argue, and that he's sure he can prove

Jack Smith absolutely knows that he has an effective deadline of November 2024 (aka the next election, because a Republican president would shut down the investigation immediately), and he's planning accordingly

Look. Federal prosecutors - and the prosecutors in Georgia and the other NY case, for bribery of porn star Stormy Daniels - would not be bringing these charges if they did not feel sure they would win. Democracy aside, if any of them lose their cases? That is almost guaranteed to end their careers. So they have a very vested self-interest in only taking on what they are absolutely sure they can prove

The judge in the federal Jan 6 trial is the judge who has given the harshest sentences against any of the Jan 6 rioters, and she is the only judge to have sentenced rioters to more time than the prosecutors asked for

Jan 6 charges against Trump, explainer Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x

A Very Hot Take: It might not be a bad thing that Trump is still allowed to run

So, this is my personal take on the situation - I acknowledge that it's a very hot take on the Left, and that I might well be wrong about this. I might be totally misreading the field here. But I genuinely do think that Trump being the Republican candidate for president could be a good thing, and in fact I'll genuinely worry significantly more if Trump isn't the Republican nominee for president.

The why all basically comes down to this: I think Trump will be easier to defeat in the 2024 general election.

Again, look, I may totally be misreading this, and that would be really bad, but here are my thoughts:

Trump is super popular with the far right base - but that same strength makes him a huge liability in the general election. You CAN'T WIN a presidential election without the support of independents and moderates (including "moderates"). This is a really common problem for Republican candidates, actually: the more they move to the right to win the core Republican base, the more they risk hurting their chances in the general election

Independents and moderate Republicans - again, who Trump needs to win with to get the presidency - are significantly more likely to care about, you know, all the stealing classified documents and committing treason things

I can't think of anything that will guarantee people on the left get their asses to the polls better than "Vote or Trump is president again." A lot of the time, with someone who hasn't been president before, voters can lie to themselves and go "Oh it won't be that bad once he's in office," esp among moderates. But now we have proof that isn't the case!

Look, I don't know if Trump is getting dementia or what, but his faculties really do appear to be declining. They'll likely be significantly worse in another year - his speeches are already way worse than there were in 2016. He just can't track what he's saying well enough anymore. This makes it harder for him to make his case to the electorate

He's also the only actual Repub candidate that's about the same age as Biden - which will do a lot to stop the Right from using Biden's age as an effective weapon to get a Repub in office

Honestly, my biggest worry is that DeSantis will be the Republican nominee. I am way more scared of Biden vs. DeSantis than Biden vs. Trump.

Reasons I would absolutely rather Biden face Trump than DeSantis include: DeSantis is way younger and he has way less baggage. Because he hasn't been president yet, voters can do that self-delusion thing that he won't be that bad - that he'll be better than Trump - and that unlike Trump's, his plans will work. People on the left and in the center often don't know who he is yet, and there's not such a huge current of electoral energy to get them to the polls. And most of all - unlike Trump, DeSantis is actually smart. And as part of that, he is capable of a deep and absolutely premeditated cruelty that Trump just doesn't have the attention span or the patience for. Biggest example: actually literally kidnapping undocumented immigrants and sending them to Martha's Vineyard, and all the awfulness that went along with that, including the part where he started a goddamned trend.

Nikki Haley I'm less worried about because her core support base - conservatives - is also the country's core support base for misogyny. I hate to be glad about misogyny, but it genuinely would make it harder for her to turn out ultraconservative votes, especially evangelicals.

Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x

So, yeah, all told I don't actually have "Trump still gets to run for president" super high on the list of things I'm worried/mad about.

Also worth saying that we don't want just being indicted (aka charged with a crime) to disqualify people from running for office, because then all Republicans (or anyone) would have to do to disqualify an opposing candidate is find literally any excuse to charge them with something

But back to your original question! I genuinely DO think he'll face legal consequences, and I genuinely DO think he'll probably face jail time. Which obviously I am rooting for very hard

379 notes · View notes

contemplatingoutlander · 5 months

Text

Why are U.S. courts afraid of the 14th Amendment? Because it’s radical.

"The 14th Amendment has once again proven too bold for the judges empowered to interpret it. Political forces are at play again, this time fearful of a backlash if Trump is removed from the ballot. As this case makes its way through the appellate process and, most likely, to the Supreme Court, it should be understood in the context of how the timidity and unwillingness of judges to acquiesce to the judgment of the 14th Amendment’s framers effectively derailed our democracy’s promise after Reconstruction and until the mid-20th century. We must ensure that it does not do the same in the 21st."

--Sherrilyn Ifill, visiting professor, Harvard Law School

This is an important article about why the 14th Amendment was written and why judges are afraid to use it to ban Trump from running for office. Consequently, this is a gift🎁link so people can read the entire article even if they don't subscribe to The Washington Post.

Below are some excerpts.

Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s decision that Trump engaged in insurrection but is nevertheless qualified to run for office is emblematic of the often outright resistance courts have shown to the 14th Amendment’s guarantees and protections. This instance applies to Section 3, which bars any participant in a rebellion against the government of the United States from holding public office. But almost from its inception, all the amendment’s radical provisions have inspired fear and timidity in jurists of every stripe. I use the word “radical” deliberately. The 14th Amendment was conceived of and pushed by the “Radical Republicans” in Congress after the Civil War. They were so named because of their commitment to eradicating slavery and its vestiges from American political life. A number had been abolitionists, and all had seen the threat that white supremacist ideology and the spirit of insurrection posed to the survival of the United States as a republic. Although the South had been soundly defeated on the battlefield, the belief among most Southerners that insurrection was a worthy and noble cause, and that Black people — even if no longer enslaved — were meant to be subjugated to the demands of Whites, was still firmly held. The 14th Amendment was meant to protect Black people against that belief, and the nation against insurrection, which was understood to constitute an ongoing threat to the future of our country. Frederick Douglass, the formerly enslaved abolitionist who rose to become one of the most prominent voices of the Reconstruction period, had no illusions about the persistence of the “malignant spirit” of the “traitors.” He predicted that it would be passed “from sire to son.” It “will not die out in a year,” he foretold, “it will not die out in an age.” [color emphasis added]

I encourage you to read the full article, which goes into detail about how the US judicial system has been afraid to actually adhere to both the spirit and letter of the 14th Amendment, and in so doing has done a major disservice to Black Americans for well over a century, and to our nation as a whole.

#14th amendment #section 3 #us judicial system #insurrectionists barred from holding political office #trump #racism #sherrilyn ifill #the new york times #gift link

144 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 3 months

Text

Right now is the time to get involved in the defeat of America's most dangerous enemy since the Cold War.

The traditional election season, starting on Labor Day, is a thing of the distant political past. And considering the magnitude of the threat to democracy, even waiting for the end of the primary season may be too late.

The worst president in our history is, arguably, stronger within the leadership ranks of the Republican Party than he has ever been. He is now the most dangerous presidential candidate in U.S. history. As a consequence, the great question before the rest of us is whether enough of us are ready to do whatever is necessary to defeat this threat as we have all those that have come before. Sadly, there is reason to believe that this time we may not meet the challenge. Right now, Donald Trump is one of two people who could be our next president. The race, at the moment, between him and President Joe Biden, is too close to call.

The people with their heads up their ass over Biden's age are either hypocrites or dissemblers. On Inauguration Day 2025, Donald Trump will be 95.66% of Joe Biden's age. And Trump will also be older in January of 2025 than Biden was upon assuming office in 2021. Biden may have a lifelong stutter but he is still grounded in reality in a way the narcissistic nepo baby Donald Trump never was.

Joe Biden by any objective metric has been one of the most successful presidents in modern U.S. history. He has led the creation of more major legislative initiatives benefiting the American people than any president in 60 years. He oversaw the creation of more than 14 million jobs during his first three years in office. He has brought down inflation and reduced the prices of vital medicines to affordable levels. He has restored American leadership worldwide, expanded our vital alliances like NATO, and stood up to our enemies. All presidents face challenges and make missteps. But it is hard to deny that in the wake of the U.S. economic recovery, the passage of the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the CHIPs and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, the expansion of NATO, and the creation of new Indo-Pacific alliances, Biden’s record is formidable. That a president with this record is in a horse race with a candidate who is a menace to the country, who led an insurrection, who is a pathological liar whom courts have found to be a fraud and a rapist, and who has no real ideas, no credible policy proposals, no record of actually ever achieving anything for the American people is chilling.

In normal times, over 40% of US voters would NOT pick a notorious sex offender for president. But these are not normal times.

You would have thought that the sight of mobs carrying Trump flags and weapons and chanting for the death of Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021, would have been alarm enough. You would have thought the same of Trump’s Access Hollywood tape, in which he confessed his impulse to abuse women. You would have thought the two dozen women who accused him of abuse would have had that effect. Even if none of those things were quite warning enough, you would have thought the findings in the E. Jean Carroll case would have been enough. After all, respected federal judge Lew Kaplan wrote, “The fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused—indeed, raped—Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established and is binding in this case.” It should have been enough. But so far, it has not been.

And who would have thought that the party of Ronald Reagan is now led by a stooge of the Evil Empire?

You would have thought that Trump reaching out on national television to our Russian adversaries for aid during the 2016 campaign would have been enough. You would have thought the conclusive findings of every major U.S. intelligence agency that Russia sought to aid Trump’s campaign would have been enough. You would have thought that Robert Mueller’s finding 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice by Trump would have been enough. You would have thought Trump kowtowing to Vladimir Putin and taking his word over that of our intelligence and law enforcement communities would have been enough. You would have thought his illegally withholding aid to Ukraine to seek dirt on Joe Biden would have been enough. You would have thought his impeachment for that would have been enough.

Are you willing to spend more time and money than in previous election cycles to end a major threat to Western democracy and to undermine homegrown fascism for at least the rest of this decade?

So, ask yourself, is that enough to make you do more than you have done? Is that enough to commit for the next 10 months to do more than you have ever done during an election year? To give more? To canvas more? To spread the word more? To help get voters to the polls? To ensure every member of your family, your friends, your co-workers do the same? The stakes are too high to do less than everything you can.

I rarely quote Margaret Thatcher and would probably disagree with at least 90% of her views. But she did know something about winning elections and combating the USSR. If she was good for just one thing, it's for this observation in a speech made in her retirement.

[N]o battles are ever finally won; you have to go on winning them by example and by being prepared to defend your way of life against those who would attack it.

If we learn just one thing from the Trump threat, it's that we can never rest on our past laurels. A slacker democracy is one which will not outlast a determined demagogue.

Civic involvement by pro-democracy citizens is absolutely necessary to maintain freedom.

#democracy #threat to democracy #donald trump #democracy vs. totalitarianism #trump is a tool of russia #trump is a sex offender #if you hate freedom vote for trump #register and vote #vote blue no matter who #support democratic candidates #the biden administration's economic growth programs #civic involvement #david rothkopf #bernard l. schwartz #election 2024

62 notes · View notes

juana-the-iguana · 6 months

Text

Navigating media during war

Here are some tips to navigate the conflict without a paid subscription. Disclaimer, I am based in the United States and this advice is for people in the US. These tips may apply for all wars, but I wrote this with the Israel-Hamas conflict in mind.

My qualifications: I am a reporter who has worked on both local, state, national and international stories. I have covered breaking news, and have done enterprising news and investigative journalism. I will graduate with a MA in Journalism in a month.

Reasons to question my authority: I have less than five year of professional experience. I have never reported on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or anywhere else in the Middle East. I speak neither modern Hebrew nor Arabic.

Moving on:

The best tip I can give you is pick a few good news sources and wait two days after any given event or incident before claiming to understand what happened.

In the United States, our news industry is incentivized toward breaking news, which means that organizations sometimes air information without having time to thoroughly fact check it. This becomes especially evident in times of war, when it is hard to obtain information and even on-the-ground reporters don't have the full picture of what's happening.

You are not going to find a perfect news organization. They're all going to fuck up in some capacity. If you have a strong stance on this issue, you're going to be more sensitive to those mistakes and real or perceived biases. (And, for the record, it is possible for one organization to hold multiple biases depending on the time of day, presenter and facet of the war being discussed.) That's why it is genuinely important to consume multiple news sources.

So if you're wondering why I chose these sources it's because a) they're free, b) they issue corrections when they're wrong and c) they do not engage in disinformation.

In no particular order: BBC, Reuters, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, AP. You should not rely on only one of these. You should fact-check these against bias sources that don't outright lie.

Now onto the sources you should avoid. Let's get into disinformation: What is it?

Disinformation is the intentional spreading of false information. It's lying. Misinformation is inaccurate information that is spread around, but not done with malice.

All news organizations have misinformation at some point. You should NEVER trust a news organization that engages in disinformation, about anything, unless several years have passed, the people responsible for the disinformation have been thoroughly purged from the group and they cite every goddamn thing they said.

The two big organizations I recommend avoiding because they engage in disinformation are Fox News and Al Jazeera.

Fox News lied about the 2020 election in the United States and actively contributed to an attempted insurrection. Al Jazeera is an arm of the Qatari state and has lied repeatedly about, well, just about everything of interest to the Qatari government, but especially Israel. They have made several highly consequential lies in this ongoing conflict that have had tangible, catastrophic consequences on the entire globe.

Advocacy groups are not news outlets.

Also, don't trust terrorist organizations. Yes, the UN, WHO, Amnesty International and pretty much every NGO under the sun and the vast majority of news organizations cite them, but that's not because they're reliable, it's because they're the only group releasing information from Gaza.

You shouldn't take the IDF at face value either, but if what the IDF is saying is verified by the US, EU and/or other reliable, third parties, then that information is probably true.

No news source is perfect. That's just a fact. I cannot stress the importance of looking at multiple sources.

Here are some things to look out for when watching/reading the news.

- If a news source is attributing facts to two different sources, ask yourself, "why?" Information is hard to come by. Sometimes one source doesn't report everything you want to know. But sometimes you know your source is unreliable, you don't have any alternatives, so you want to distance yourself from that. What does this look like?

You might see people cite two sources to report death counts in Gaza: the Palestinian Health Ministry, which is run by Hamas, and Save the Children which analyzes information about the number of children killed. Save the Children gets the estimated number of deaths from Hamas.

- Does it make sense to have this information at this time? If there was an explosion and a government states that 500 people died in it, well, how much time did it take them to count those bodies? Does that sound feasible?

- When you're listening to eye-witness interviews, do their perspectives or narratives match up with the physical scenes you are seeing? They might not be lying, it could be a miscommunication, but for the context it is presented in, it might not be accurate.

Language to look out for:

Occupation, blockade, siege, war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, ethnic cleansing, legitimate military targets and apartheid are all distinct things. All of them, with the exception of apartheid, have specific legal definitions. If people are using these things interchangeably, maybe they're sharing opinions. That doesn't mean that what they're saying isn't valuable, but it does mean that you probably shouldn't cite them when debating international law.

Now let's elaborate on "occupation" for a second. Egypt occupied Gaza from 1949 to 1967. Then Israel occupied Gaza until 2005. In 2007 Israel started the blockade on Gaza and last month, after the 10/7 massacre, they started a siege. As noted above, these are distinct things.

If people are talking about occupation or settlements in the context of this conflict it means either one of four things:

- They are talking about the West Bank, which is under occupation and where settlements do exist

- They are talking about the history of Gaza pre 2005

- They do not know that Gaza isn't under occupation and that there are no longer settlements there (which means that they are not an informed source)

- Or they assume the entire Israeli state is occupying Palestine which, whether you like it or not, is not factually or correct

Just because something feels wrong doesn't mean it is illegal. Occupations, blockades, sieges, the use of white phosphorous and bombing areas where you know there are civilians are all legal in certain contexts.

Legality might not matter to you personally, but when you're watching the news and trying to assess who is sharing facts and who is sharing opinions, you should keep this in mind.

Other notes:

- Rockets need fuel. Ventilation systems in tunnels need fuel.

- Movies and tv shows are filmed in Gaza and the West Bank. If you see a photo of someone in a body bag texting or women laughing while painting a baby doll red, it might be a behind-the-scenes video from one of those things.

- There are a lot of AI generated pictures being used, especially in propaganda. Count fingers, arms, legs and look at backgrounds to see if what you are seeing makes sense. But for the love of god, if you don't like something, that doesn't mean it's AI.

- There are a lot of photos circulating from past wars. Be careful before you reblog. Reverse Google image search is your friend.

- If you are not sure if something is real or not, wait a week. If the US, EU and dozens of journalists say it is true, believe it.

Finally, social media. When is it appropriate to use social media for news?

News aggregates are usually okay. I'm talking places like r/worldnews. They are pulling from other news organizations, so they can repeat those flaws, but they give you a mix of headlines from multiple sources. And they'll very often post large parts, if not the entirety, of articles from sources from the New York Times, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal that have paywalls in the comments. But also beware the comments because they can be disgusting.

Social media is also very good for sharing the individual human experience. The issue with that is that you can't always vet the person on camera or being spoken about, so they could be lying, spreading misinformation and it isn't the whole picture.

This needs to be said again and again: social media dehumanizes people. You know this, but you will fall victim to it anyway. Your algorithm will do its best to show you the best versions of the people and groups you like, and the worst versions of the people and groups you don't like to make you feel justified in adopting dehumanizing beliefs.

For anyone interested, I'm going to update the list of news sources I think are trustworthy in the next few days. I've found a few small, independent and/or foreign outlets that use open source intelligence (OSINT) in their reporting and they seem pretty reliable to me, but I want to vet them a bit further.

EDITED: Removed the name of a news organization that I previously said I thought was reliable. They did not issue a correction after uncritically repeating Hamas's lie that the al-Ahli hospital parking lot bombing was an Israeli airstrike that killed 500 people, and spent days repeating these false claims as if they were fact.

#israel #palestine #i/p #hamas #media literacy #journalism

48 notes · View notes

psychoanalysisandchill · 5 months

Text

Frankenstein’s monster – the wounded inner-child as saboteur

I had read almost the entirety of the novel, frustrated by the lack of material to psychoanalyse, until – in a moment of eureka - it suddenly dawned upon me; Frankenstein’s monster is merely a split part of his psyche which he is in conflict with and cannot seem to integrate. The monster is a product of Frankenstein’s vivid imagination, but ultimately an integral part of himself.

From the mysterious appearances of the monster, to the fact that few lived to tell about his existence and his endless yearning to fulfil his need for companionship leading to a desperate series of wicked and vengeful sabotage – I reread the novel through my freshly acquired lens and it all made perfect sense. Therefore, one should read the following psychoanalysis of the novel with the above principle in mind: monster as split part of Victor Frankenstein’s psyche.

Part 1: Puer Auternus – inflated by the psychic forces of the unconscious

With ardent zeal Victor Frankenstein enters university at Inglostadt, embodying the Puer archetype possessed by a naiveté which resembles the folly of a delinquent child. Upon his arrival, he dialogues with professor Krempe and with a hint of arrogant contempt tinting his words, he proudly announces his familiarity with the works of Paracelsus and Agrippa. Krempe, flabbergasted in return, gasps and wastes no time to enlighten Victor that his undertakings have been a waste of time. An oedipal drama between a prideful Puer and an ossified Senex plays itself out in their disagreeable interaction charged with foul contempt.

The birth of paradigm shattering inventions happen when a Puer Auternus on the loose commences himself with sedulous passion to his fresh, imaginative but also rather folly ideas. Indeed, the Senex, with his dry, dogmatic orthodoxy, is never the carrier of new, eccentric invention that defy the laws of nature and require a reconsideration of the established models of reality.

For a genius to fulfil his prophecy, he has to risk being somewhat of a fool in the eyes of the orthodoxy - in Frankenstein’s case: professor Krempe- after all, folly is merely the shadow side of genius, as genius borders on insanity and belongs to the domain of the absurd, without a hint of imaginative folly there is no creek through which genius could flow into the light of consciousness in order to actualize itself.

“…I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation. I closed not my eyes that night. My internal being was in a state of insurrection and turmoil…” (p. 40)

The psychic inflation running through his nervous system has rendered his personality megalomanic.

“No one can conceive the variety of feelings which bore me onwards, like a hurricane, in the first enthusiasm of success… A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child completely as I should deserve theirs.” (p. 46)

With childlike passion, the Puer archetype consumes himself in omnipotent fantasies, like Peter Pan he flies and is seldom rooted in the oppressive soil of reality, blinding him of the dire consequences his actions may have. In reality, all is oppressive and in the imagination, all is jolly, without imagination as the ultimate coping mechanism the Puer’s folly would never border on the absurd and touch genius. Indeed, in the above passage Frankenstein sounds deluded, such is also the nature of religious ecstasy, it’s totalistic in scope and transcends the humility and reason of the down-to-earth average joe.

“My limbs now tremble, and my eyes swim with the remembrance; but then a resistless and almost frantic impulse urged me forward; I seemed to have lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit.” (p. 47)

It is clear that Frankenstein has been blinded by his ambitious zeal and wishes to become god himself, a deep layer of the unconscious has been triggered and is possessing him. In his naiveté, he fails to relate to this fervent force as a phenomenon greater than himself and becomes unconsciously possessed by it through the process of identification with it.

Part 2: Loss of innocence – birth of the avoidant personality and wounded inner-child.

“I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.” (p. 50)

The birth of the monster marks the loss of innocence for Puer Frankenstein, the ardent zeal of his religious ecstasy is replaced with wretched horror as he descends from the high heavens to the pits of hell. He has ventured into the abyss of the unconscious, nose-dived into the land of the unknown with his folly naiveté as his sole companion. Having bitten the forbidden fruit, now comes the moment in which he has to pay for his expansion of consciousness with the loss of his Puer innocence as the reality principle has caught up to him.

“Mingled with this horror, I felt the bitterness of disappointment; dreams that had been my food and pleasant rest for so long a space were now become a hell to me; and the change was so rapid, the overthrow so complete!” (p. 52)

Overwhelmed by the sudden rapid shift of his state of mind, the innocent child deals with the traumatic event through splitting his consciousness: the monster coming to live and gaining personal autonomy, marks the moment in which the psyche has become split as the conscious personality cannot bear to face that wretched part of himself so he forcefully gets repressed and disassociated into the depths of the unconscious, where he lives on autonomously, yet unintegrated. Frankenstein’s monster is analogous to the inner-child ignored by an avoidant adult whom much rather abandons the child than to provide it the companionship it so desperately needs.

Part 3: The first reunion between split parts – An opportunity for reconciliation

“Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous,” (p.96) the monster warns, or rather pleads upon their first dialogues encounter. It isn’t by chance that the encounter manifests in nature, far from the confines and constraints eponymous to civilized society. When man dwells in the liberty of nature long enough, the ego barriers loosen and from the abyss of the shadow unconscious content resurfaces, finding its way to the center stage of consciousness, illuminated by its luminous light.

“Begone! Relieve me from the sight of your detested form,” (p. 97) Frankenstein hurls back. The initial resurfacing of a split sub-personality, the monster as wounded inner-child, is always met with horror and apocalyptical protest by the conscious personality, however reason assists in establishing a frail, but much needed, union between two split parts as the monster and Frankenstein gravitate towards each other:“I weighed the various arguments that he had used and determined at least to listen to his tale,” (p. 98) Hearing the pleas of the wounded inner-child and approaching it with reason and curiosity become the foundation on which the laborious undertaking of integration can take place.

As the monster tells his tale Frankenstein learns how he has been the eager voyeur of a tiny family - described as the cottagers - damned by unfortunate circumstances. The wounded inner-child of the avoidant personality tends to spectate from a distance so as not to get burned twice by the unjust vengeance of lovers from the past. Yet their deepest yearning is that of unconditional companionship, but the avoidant personalities conviction that his wounded inner-child is cursed by irredeemable hideousness hinders him from authentically relating to his surroundings.

“His words had a strange effect upon me. I compassionated him and sometimes felt a wish to console him, but when I looked upon him, when I saw the filthy mass that moved and talked, my heart sickened and my feelings were altered to those of horror and hatred.” (p. 148)

The dialectic plaguing Frankenstein’s psyche isn’t Hegelian in nature as it never reaches the point of synthesis throughout the novel. Adam yearns for his Eve as the monster demands of his creator a companion resembling his own hideous form, wounded inner-child sees his anima in equally wounded girls, but the avoidant personality could never admit to harbouring fancy for somebody as hideous as he believes himself to be. Instead he “might claim Elizabeth and forget the past, in my union with her” (p. 156)

Part 4: Failure to reconcile and integrate – the inner-child metamorphosis into saboteur

Frankenstein proofs himself treacherous as he destroys the female monster he had promised his original creation. Herein lies the great tragedy of the avoidant personality inability of providing his wounded inner-child with companion, not even that of an equally hideous monster, thus the monster commands in response “You are my creator, but I am your master; - obey!” (p. 171)

What follows is an exchange enflamed with fiery conflictual insults and threats. The hopes of reconciliation between the psychic parts are to be found in the ashes of their exchange and since the avoidant personality has gained awareness of the inner-child, disassociating him to the depths of the unconscious is no longer possible, from here on the monster/inner-child will lurk in the land of the subconscious and act as saboteur as he leaks into the domain of consciousness and temporarily disrupts the will through violent acts of possession.

Indeed, it is Frankenstein that is accused of the murder of his friend Clerval whose dead body is found on the beach. “I am the cause of this - I murdered her. William, Justine, and Henry – they all died by my hands.” (p. 190) but rather than actual murders the death of Frankenstein’s beloved are symbolic for the death of precious relationship brought about by the uncontrollable rage tantrums of a saboteur, pouring through the creaks of a ruptured psyche. Indeed, the monster appears in mysterious ways, particularly on his wedding night, as Frankenstein is pre-occupied with “inspecting every corner that might afford a retreat to my adversary” (p. 201).

Yet his dear Elizabeth is murdered moments after retiring to their bedroom. A mere moment of the avoidant personality dropping his guard is enough for the wounded inner-child to gush through from the tear in his psyche and sabotaging his most treasured union.

“As I heard it, the whole truth rushed into my mind, the motion of every muscle and fibre was suspended; I could feel the blood trickling in my veins and tingling in the extremities of my limbs.” (p. 201)

With every encounter with the monster Frankenstein grows more restless, the great psychic split plagues the body and makes itself known in physical symptoms. “A fever succeeded to this. I lay for two months on the point of death” (p. 181) The greater the avoidance the more severe the physiological deregulation becomes.

Great neuroticism plagues him as he regains control and witnesses the carnage brought about by his inner-saboteur. “Nothing is so painful to the human mind as a great and sudden change,” (p. 203) Every time the saboteur emerges and ruins a relationship dear to him he loathes his existence and despises the change brought about by his behaviour, to which he feels victimized.

Part: 5 The vengeance of revenge

It is solely revenge which clouds Frankenstein’s mind as he chases the monster around the world. Frankenstein remains blinded about the proper manner in which one should confront the shadow and turns towards it with the hopes of destroying its content – there is no salvation in self-loathing. He joins his inner-child in the seventh circle of Dante’s inferno as he rises against himself and seethes with violent ardour.

“…a well-known and abhorred voice, apparently close to my ear addressed me in an audible whisper, “I am satisfied miserable wretch! You have determined to live, and I am satisfied” ” (209)

The monster, solely appearing in a sonic form, deepens the mystery of its supernatural nature, alluding to the possibility that it perhaps has no existence outside of Frankenstein’s imagination. When he does become visible he is described as “ghastly and distorted” and hastes away “with more than mortal speed.” (p. 210) It has, however, succeeded in making Frankenstein miserable, thus there is intimacy between them, but it’s nature is deeply disagreeable and violent.

Part: 6 Reflections and death – failure to integrate

“Despondency rarely visited my heart; a high destiny seemed to bear me on, until I fell, never, never again to rise.” (p. 219)

At the end of life, when all has been ruined and the avoidant personalities demise has actualized, there remains nothing but the bitter aftertaste of frustrations. Waton offers of friendship is rejected with the excuse that new friendship may never substitute the old ones, but Frankenstein is so pre-occupied with the destruction of his inner-child that he is rendered incapable of relation.

Frankenstein’s death marks the moment at which the conscious personality becomes disarmed from his defence mechanisms and the wounded inner-child experiences a cathartic emergence into the light of consciousness, for the first time, without resistance. Waton enters his cabin and witnesses the monster towering over the lifeless corpse of his creator. He will be the sole witness whom will live to tell since the cottagers, the inner-child has no reason to sabotage anymore as the avoidant personality has died and his own death looms around the corner. The monster’s final words retell a tragedy of shattered hopes and innocence lost too soon. With every utterance, his remorse is made known, he agrees with Waton when being accused of being a wretch and announces his plans for suicide.

Disappointment is the ultimate destiny for every wounded inner-child who remains unacknowledged by his creator. Whilst Frankenstein admits at his moment of death that he “created a rational creature and was bound towards him to assure, as far as was in my power, his happiness and well-being” (p 225) he fails to realize that he could’ve fulfilled the monster’s wish for happiness through offering him his own companionship and held on to the erroneous view that only the construction of a female counterpart would’ve been a viable solution to the monster’s yearning.

Shelley, M.W. (2018) Frankenstein: Or the modern prometheus. London: Vintage.

#psychoanalysis #carl jung #frankenstein #frankenstiensmonster #mary shelley #english literature #freud #psychology #gothic #goth aesthetic #romantic goth #gothic style #inner child

42 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 14 days

Text

Traversing a century of revolution, counter-revolution, and regime change in Iran, Arya Zahedi traces out the social, political, and ideological tensions that continuously push the country toward the brink of insurrection.

***

It has been forty-five years since the mass revolution that overthrew the dictatorship of Muhammad Reza Shah and led to the establishment of the Islamic Republic. And it has been over a year now since the 2022 murder of Jina “Mahsa” Amini by the “guidance patrol” set off an insurrectionary uprising large enough to draw comparisons with the revolution of 1979.[1] While talk of the imminent fall of the Islamic Republic now seems premature, the situation is far from the image of order and stability that the state would like to put forth. The past year has seen the state respond with great repression, including show trials ending in executions for participants in the riots. Workers from a variety of sectors have been sacked. As the anniversary of the uprising approached, families of those killed during the riots and those executed were forbidden to hold commemorations. Yet actions continue nationwide. Strikes and demonstrations have been constant, while violent confrontations in the provinces have continued to recur, albeit at a lower degree of intensity. Far from being a sign of strength, the severity of the repression demonstrates just how fragile the situation remains.

Anyone can see that last year’s uprising was about much more than dress codes. It was a product of deep contradictions within the system itself. Revolts have occurred in Iran every year for the past decade. While much of this turbulence is rooted in the particular system in Iran, it must also be situated within the more general social crisis of the global capitalist system. The social causes that provoked last year’s explosion are still present, forming a crisis that cannot be overcome and will, in all likelihood, only become more severe. Not only have such explosions become more frequent, they also are increasing in both scope and depth. Nevertheless, the latest explosion was indeed a turning point. Previously distinct sources of discontent and issues of importance have begun to flow together into a single stream, allowing the totality of the system to be called into question. Whether the Islamic Republic will survive another year or ten years, no one can predict. What is certain is not only that another explosion is inevitable, but that an authentic revolutionary movement and culture has meanwhile reawakened and now exists in Iran today. What we are seeing are not isolated, spontaneous, or random explosions, but a response to the profound alienation and dispossession of an ever-larger mass of people. It may not have the formalities of revolutionary movements of the past, but perhaps we should let some of those go.

The current revolutionary struggle is not only important to the future of Iran but will have consequences for the wider region. As it was during the last decade of the Shah’s regime, the Islamic Republic has grown to be an important participant in inter-imperialist rivalries. As present conflicts in the Middle East threaten to generalize into a broader war, it is important to understand the Iranian regime, what constitutes it, and how it relates to the broader imperialist orbit. At the same time that it is engaged in a revolutionary struggle against “its own” government, the Iranian working class is caught in the crossfire of a potential inter-imperialist war. As the so-called “proxy wars” between Iran and the US/Israel (of which the assault on Gaza is but one theater) threaten to generalize into a broader war, the revolutionary struggle takes on importance for not just Iran but the entire politics of the region, just as the events in the surrounding region impact what goes on inside Iran.

While imperialism is often discussed in relation to Iran and the Middle East, this is usually framed in a unidirectional manner, concerned primarily with external domination. Less attended to is the relation between external imperialist domination, on the one hand, and the internal class conflicts, on the other. But it is precisely this relation between the internal and external that proves most illuminating.

13 notes · View notes

alwaysbewoke · 2 years

Text

a little while ago on twitter the idea was spreading that if this was lebron james he would have been back already. that's stupid. had this been lebron james, it would have been worse because the united states and russia are not on good terms and moreover the united states is actively resisting russia as they go to war with ukraine. unlike when trump was president (who was kissing putin's ass) biden is not. therefore any opportunity russia can use to hurt us, they will. the fact that she's a high-profile black woman is just a plus for them because they know that arresting her, jailing her will flare up many levels of tension in america including racial. and they can use that to their advantage in many ways. so would this happen to a white person? we already know the answer is yes because it already has but that person isn't a high-profile athlete therefore it didn't make the news. would this happen to a high-profile white athlete? yes. would this happen to a high-profile black athlete? absolutely. cuz the point is to embarrass, harm, and riled shit up against biden. if russia got their hands on lebron james in the exact same circumstance, they would be dancing behind doors because he is the highest-profile athlete plus he's black plus he's a liberal. they would be parading him around. it would be crazy.

never forget that one of the principal goals of russia is to always embarrass america because america is a democracy (kinda) while russia is a communist country. so russia is always looking for opportunities to point at america and say "hey look at this thing called democracy and how bad and weak it is, we don't want to be like that." so this becomes just another opportunity for them to do so. all that being said biden got to do what he's got to do to get her back. and for all the people who are like "she commit a crime so she has to pay the consequences," these are the same people who think all those (mosty white) ppl who try to commit an insurrection on january 6th are heros who should be let go and that chick ashli babbitt or whatever her name is is a martyr. so fuck them.

241 notes · View notes

itisiives · 2 months

Text

The Jan 6th charges (should) have set a precedent that using implications and half-truths to rile up your audience, who consequently then commit a violent terrorist act and bar people from practicing their constitutional right and pursuit of happiness does, indeed, mean that you have committed a crime of inciting violence.

So, why don't we have more people reporting Chaya Raichik, of LibsofTikTok, to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for inciting her followers to send bomb threats to elementary schools because a teacher had a rainbow flag and/or taught their students to say no to sexual predators?

(And bragged about inciting her followers to do so.)

(And report her to the FBI for her involvement in the Jan 6th insurrection)

#leftist #leftism #stochastic terrorism #chaya raichik #predator alert #lgbtqia #child endangerment #progressives #progressivism #antifa #anti fascism #of course she's also a zionist #israel

6 notes · View notes

sasquapossum · 2 years

Text

I think people don't fully appreciate how important it is to nail Alex Jones's hide to the wall for his unconscionable behavior around Sandy Hook, and other shenanigans that have followed. I'll try to explain.

Misinformation and silly conspiracy theories are the biggest threat to our lives, because they're behind most of the other threats - insurrection and ensuing dictatorship, climate-change denial, vaccine denial, etc. I say "silly" because many of these theories don't pass the most basic smell test, and even their promoters don't really seem to believe them ... which brings us to Alex Jones. He and his outlet Infowars have been the single biggest promoter of these conspiracy theories for over a decade. Bigger than Trump in many ways, and indeed not unrelated to how Trump became president. And it's all so obviously cynical - just a way to sell ads and sponsorships and speaking engagements. He is the symbol and prime example of this business model, movement, mental disorder, whatever you want to call it. Taking him down hard will send a strong signal to all who would follow or imitate him. It will change their risk/reward calculus, and hopefully make the tidal wave of bullshit a bit smaller.

Among the many conspiracy theories Alex Jones has peddled is that the horrific mass killing at a Sandy Hook Elementary School was a "giant hoax" perpetrated by enemies of the Second Amendment (i.e. anyone other than gun fetishists). This resulted in several lawsuits from bereaved parents for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. He lost one in 2019, but only had to pay $126K. Estimates of his net worth usually place it above $250M, so that's not even a scratch. A couple of days ago, he lost another case for $4M in direct damages and $45M punitive. That is going to hurt. It won't ruin him, not by a long shot, but it's enough for him to notice.

Here's what I think is the sleaziest part, and also what might make this case so important. The latest suit is technically against his company, Free Speech Systems (gag). FSS, of which he is sole owner and sole beneficiary, used to have assets of $70M. However, over the last couple of years, as it seemed increasingly likely that he'd lose this case, Jones has drained $62M of that into his own personal pockets. Now FSS is going to declare bankruptcy, stiffing the plaintiffs and the courts. I think this is the most blatant such dodge I've ever seen ... but far from the only one. The core concept of a corporation (at least in the US) is limited liability - only the corporation's own assets are at risk when liability is incurred. The owners' and officers' personal assets are immune - even when they make all the decisions and reap all the benefits and the corporation is to any sane mind no more than a hat they wear sometimes.

There is a principle of "piercing the corporate veil" to deal with exactly the kind of trickery Jones is attempting, but it's rarely even tried because it's even more rarely successful. However, if Jones is found to be personally liable for his - and make no mistake it is completely his - company's actions, that will be absolutely huge. The effect on plutocrats' (mostly correct) belief that they're immune from all consequences just because they filled out some paperwork to create a corporation will be even more seismic than the effect on misinformation merchants. It's a sorely needed corrective to one of the worst aspects of US-style capitalism. Anyone with an ounce of decency should be hoping that Alex Jones will not only end up paying the current $50M but more penalties as well for his attempted fraud. He must be ruined so that the lesson will be fully taught.

#us politics #long post

113 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 9 months

Text

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

August 2, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

AUG 3, 2023

There have been more developments today surrounding yesterday’s indictment of former president Trump for conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding as he tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election and install himself in office over the wishes of the American people.

Observers today called out the part of the indictment that describes how Trump and Co-Conspirator 4, who appears to be Jeffrey Clark, the man Trump wanted to make attorney general, intended to use the military to quell any protests against Trump’s overturning of the election results. When warned that staying in power would lead to “riots in every major city in the United States,” Co-Conspirator 4 replied, “Well…that’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.”

The Insurrection Act of 1807 permits the president to use the military to enforce domestic laws, invoking martial law. Trump’s allies urged him to do just that to stay in power. Fears that Trump might do such a thing were strong enough that on January 3, 2021, all 10 living former defense secretaries signed a Washington Post op-ed warning that “[e]fforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory.”

They put their colleagues on notice: “Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.” Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo recalled today that military leaders told Congress they were reluctant to respond to the violence at the Capitol out of concern about how Trump might use the military under the Insurrection Act.

Political pollster Tom Bonier wrote: “I understand Trump fatigue, but it feels like the president and his advisors preparing to use the military to quash protests against his planned coup should be bigger news. Especially when that same guy is in the midst of a somewhat credible comeback effort.”

On The Beat tonight, Ari Melber connected Trump Co-Conspirator John Eastman to Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Just before midnight on January 6, 2021, after the attack on the U.S. Capitol, Eastman wrote to Pence’s lawyer to beg him to get Pence to adjourn Congress “for 10 days to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations, as well as to allow a full forensic audit of the massive amount of illegal activity that has occurred here.” On the floor of the Senate at about the same time, Cruz, who voted against certification, used very similar language when he called for “a ten-day emergency audit.”

An email sent by Co-Conspirator 6, the political consultant, matches one sent from Boris Epshteyn to Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, suggesting that Epshteyn is Co-Conspirator 6. The Russian-born Epshteyn has been with Trump’s political organization since 2016 and was involved in organizing the slates of false electors in 2020. Along with political consultant Steve Bannon, Epshteyn created a cryptocurrency called “$FJB, which officially stands for “Freedom. Jobs. Business.” but which they marketed to Trump loyalists as “F*ck Joe Biden.” By February 2023, Nikki McCann Ramirez reported in Rolling Stone that the currency had lost 95% of its value.

Since the indictment became public, Trump loyalists have insisted that the Department of Justice is attacking Trump’s First Amendment rights to free speech. Indeed, if Giuliani’s unhinged appearance on Newsmax last night is any indication, it appears that has been their strategy all along. Aside from the obvious limit that the First Amendment does not cover criminal behavior, the grand jury sidestepped this issue by acknowledging that Trump had a right to lie about his election loss. It indicted him for unlawfully trying to obstruct an official proceeding and to disenfranchise voters.

Today, Trump’s former attorney general William Barr dismissed the idea that the indictment is an attack on Trump’s First Amendment rights. Barr told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins: “As the indictment says, they're not attacking his First Amendment right. He can say whatever he wants. He can even lie. He can even tell people that the election was stolen when he knew better. But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy. All conspiracies involve speech. And all fraud involves speech. Free speech doesn't give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy.”

Rudy Giuliani has his own troubles in the news today, unrelated to the attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. His former assistant Noelle Dunphy is suing him for sexual harassment and abuse, and new transcripts filed in the New York Supreme Court of Giuliani’s own words reveal disturbing fantasies of sexual domination that are unlikely to help his reputation. (Historian Kevin Kruse retweeted part of the transcript with the words, “Goodbye, lunch.”)

The chaos in the country’s political leaders comes with a financial cost. According to Fitch Ratings Inc., a credit-rating agency, the national instability caused by “a steady deterioration in standards of governance over the last 20 years” has damaged confidence in the country’s fiscal management. Yesterday it downgraded the United States of America’s long-term credit rating for the second time in U.S. history.

Fitch cited “repeated debt-limit political standoffs and last-minute resolutions,” “a complex budgeting process,” and “several economic shocks as well as tax cuts and new spending initiatives” for its downgrade. The New York Times warned that the downgrade is “another sign that Wall Street is worried about political chaos, including brinkmanship over the debt limit that is becoming entrenched in Washington.”

The timing of the downgrade made little sense economically, as U.S. economic growth is strong enough that the Bank of America today walked back earlier warnings of a recession. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen noted that the key factors on which Fitch based its downgrade had started in 2018 and called the downgrade “arbitrary.” The editorial board of the Washington Post called the timing “bizarre.” But the timing makes more sense in the context of the fact that House Republicans could not pass 11 of 12 necessary appropriations bills before leaving for their August recess.

The White House said it “strongly disagree[d]” with the decision to downgrade the U.S. credit rating, noting that the ratings model Fitch used declined under Trump before rebounding under Biden, and saying “it defies reality to downgrade the United States at a moment when President Biden has delivered the strongest recovery of any major economy in the world.” But it did agree that “extremism by Republican officials—from cheerleading default, to undermining governance and democracy, to seeking to extend deficit-busting tax giveaways for the wealthy and corporations—is a continued threat to our economy.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Trump indictment #political #Letters From An American #Heather Cox Richardson #conspiracy #Trump Indictment #co-conspirators

10 notes · View notes

just-a-silly-little-whumper · 10 months

Text

BTHB: Interrogation

Masterpost | Read on Ao3

Minh and Ivetta have a brief conversation.

Contains: Manhandling, minor choking

~~~

A knock at the door caused Minh to look up from her reading. She frowned; they weren’t expecting anyone, and Olivia shouldn’t be back from the market yet. The town was quiet too, and while the knock wasn’t urgent and she thought she would have heard shouts if anything had happened, that wasn’t guaranteed. Hoping it was just something minor, she closed her book and rose to see who it was.

Her uncertain curiosity was replaced with dread the moment she opened the door. Instead of her wife or any of her neighbors, she was greeted with the sight of Ivetta Vernier, Lord Denholm’s brutally efficient second in command. Ivetta didn’t say anything, instead shouldering her way inside and roughly closing the door inside her.

“Wha— Hey!”

“Minh Le,” Ivetta said curtly, as though she hadn’t just barged into Minh’s home. The behavior was typical of the kind of entitlement shown by Lord Denholm and his retainer. She quickly glanced around the small cottage. “Is your wife home?”

“No,” Minh said, ignoring the way her heart still fluttered at hearing Olivia be called her wife. "Why are you here, Vernier?”

“Hm. Where is she?”

“Shopping.”

“I see.” Ivetta took a step forwards, more firmly into Minh’s space. Minh stood her ground, staring up at the other woman. “You two are out and about far more often than you should have any need to. What are you doing? ‘Shopping?’”

It took a great deal of willpower not to visibly react. How did she know? Was she watching them, or was someone giving her information on them? It had to be the former; no one in the village would sell them out, would they? She shrugged lightly. “Visiting friends, helping neighbors.”

One thing that the resistance efforts had learned long ago was to avoid telling outright lies whenever possible. They were too hard to keep track of, too easy to prove false, and though no one could confirm it, old man Zachariah swore that Lord Denholm could sense falsehoods. Generally, just giving minimal information was best.

That evidently wasn’t enough for Ivetta today, though. The other woman grabbed the front of her shirt and roughly shoved her into the wall. Minh grunted at the impact. “I’m not in the mood for games,” she said coldly. “You two are sowing seeds of insurrection. You’d best tell me who you’re colluding with and what you’re planning.”

Panic would have been easy, but Minh didn’t panic. She couldn’t afford to. “I told you, I was just visiting friends. I can’t help you with anything else. Unless I missed a decree that we’re not allowed to have social lives anymore?”

The jab was a gamble; either it would serve to redirect Ivetta’s attention, even slightly, or it would only escalate the situation more. But even Minh couldn’t help her pettiness sometimes.

Ivetta shifted, pressing Minh further into the wall and bringing her forearm up to put pressure on Minh’s throat. “Something like that could be arranged. Or you could tell me what I want to know, and I can let you off easy.”

Minh held back a laugh. “There is no easy here,” she said past the weight on her throat.

At that moment, the door opened. Minh saw her wife out of the corner of her eye, looking fretful.

“Minh!” Olivia stomped forward, recklessly placing a hand on Ivetta’s shoulder and attempting to wrench her away. Surprisingly, Ivetta went easily, and Minh eased off the wall. “What’s going on here?”

“Olivia Kesby. I was just asking your wife about your frequent excursions. Is there anything you’d like to say on the matter?”

There was fire in Olivia’s eyes, but her voice was flat when she said, “There’s nothing to tell.”

“Hm.” The sudden shift between aggressive and calm was still disorienting, even after witnessing it so many times. “You know there will be consequences if we find out you’ve been hiding something.”

“Of course,” Minh said, matching Ivetta’s sudden calm. Olivia reached out to take her hand. “Is that all?”

There was a pregnant pause. “One more thing. You two invited the sorcerers to your wedding. What can you tell me about them?”

Minh frowned. She had gotten the impression that Lord Denholm had known more about them than she and Olivia did. “There’s not much to tell. They were in the area, so we invited them. They seemed pleasant enough.”

“And did either of them cast anything for you?”

“Plenty, when they were fighting you and Lord Denholm,” Olivia said shortly.

“I see.” Ivetta’s expression was as blank and unreadable as ever. “I will be taking my leave, then. Farewell.”

They watched her leave. Minh closed the door behind her, then rested her forehead against the wood and took a moment to breathe in relief. That could have gone so much worse.

“Minh, are you alright?”

“I’m fine. She didn’t hurt me. Just wanted to scare me, I think.” Minh turned back to look at Olivia. “You’re home early. And… did you actually do any shopping?”

Olivia blushed a bit, looking to the side. “I, uh, got a bad feeling, so I came home. I thought I was just being paranoid, but I guess not.”

Minh smiled softly. “Well, I’m glad you did. Just be careful. Putting hands on Ivetta like that could end really badly.”

“She put hands on you first.”

“Yeah.” It could have gone so much worse. “She suspects us. We’ll probably be under surveillance, if we’re not already. We’ll have to be careful.”

“Asshole,” Olivia muttered. “Things were already hard enough. Can’t have shit in the valley.”

That made Minh laugh. Olivia cracked a smile in response; her wife had been trying to make her feel better. Well, it worked. “Hopefully not forever. Right?”

“Right. Now, can you come with me to actually get the shopping done? I, uh—”

Olivia didn’t want Minh to be alone again, did she? Sweetheart. “Of course. Let’s go.”

#flicker in the dark #silly writes #whump #whump writing #minh le oc #ivetta vernier oc #olivia kesby oc #manhandling #choking #bad things happen bingo #bthb

9 notes · View notes

wilderhazard · 1 month

Text

.... we’re all fucked up to some degree because it’s impossible to reconcile the ideals of academe with its reality. The only happy people are the abusers, the bullies, and the sexual predators, and they’re all inherently miserable. Many of us enter the field with dreams of a meaningful existence, of making a difference, and are then systematically ground down by the social and economic hardships of the profession. In these conditions, the ideological cliquishness within the profession begins to make sense. It’s helped along by a power structure that rightly sees the self-professed scholar-activist as unthreatening. Certain truisms and devotions prevail because they arise from an insidious pressure to conform. If every professor you know seems to have the same take on Venezuela or Ukraine or China—the take that just so happens to align with State Department boilerplate—then it’s not a funny coincidence. Those professors auditioned and were consequently selected for the task, just as they now select the younger generation to maintain a uniformity of thought that suits their class interests. I had no idea how ideologically stunted I was until leaving the profession. Everything I took to be common wisdom was in fact a painstaking ritual of complaisance. How eager I was to discourse about faraway places, about the proper way to run a government, about how the natives should conduct an insurrection. A lot of academics are filled with unacknowledged messianism that looks grotesque once you learn to recognize it. They won’t support any old revolution, any slapdash movement for Indigenous sovereignty, any third-rate anti-imperialist in the Global South. They have standards. And whose interests do those reverent standards end up serving? Why, that’s entirely the wrong question.

Steve Salaita has a memoir out!

#steve salaita

2 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 2 years

Text

Near the end of the Jan. 6 Committee’s final meeting before the midterm elections, the panel took an historic, unanimous vote on Thursday to subpoena former President Donald Trump, demanding he testify about his failed plot to stay in power after losing the 2020 election.

The subpoena marks the first time a congressional panel has directly targeted the nation’s ex-Commander-in-Chief, and it underscores how high the stakes are in the ongoing investigation of the Jan. 6 insurrection.

“He led an effort to upend American democracy that directly resulted in the violence of January 6th. He tried to take away the voice of American people. He is the one person at the center of the story of what happened… we want to hear from him,” said Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS).

“This is a question of accountability to the American people. He is required to answer for his actions, he is required to answer for those police officers who put their lives and bodies on the line,” he added, noting that this was as “serious and extraordinary action.”

Neither Trump’s office nor his top lawyers on these matters responded to a request for comment on Thursday.

Should Trump ignore the subpoena, he faces the same threat of a criminal prosecution for “contempt of Congress” that led to a federal conviction against another MAGA ally: former senior White House adviser Stephen Bannon.

However, consequences for witnesses refusing to testify have been applied unequally. For example, even though Congress held former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt, the Department of Justice appears uninterested in actually pursuing charges over the House vote. Trump ignoring a subpoena could result in charges, but it also could result in nothing.

For months, the Committee has publicly presented evidence that Trump engaged in frivolous lawsuits to overturn the election, intimidated state officials to erase Joe Biden’s lead in the 2020 election, ignored evidence that he lost fairly, and knew his loyal mob in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021 was armed and seething when he sent them to march on the Capitol building where they attacked Congress. But throughout the panel’s nine public hearings, one voice has been conspicuously silent: Trump himself.

The closest the panel has come was when it played outtakes from Trump’s video addresses during and after the attack on the Capitol, revealing a President who simply refused to concede and still wanted to rile up his enraged followers.

The decision to subpoena the former President—who will likely ignore it—is an aggressive tactic that could go two very different ways. If the president refuses to show up and the full Congress refers the matter to the Department of Justice, prosecutors could refuse to take up the case and embolden resistant witnesses. Otherwise, Trump faces a prosecution similar to the year-long case that will end next week when a federal judge sentences Bannon.

Thursday’s subpoena came from one of the few Republicans who is furthest removed from the party’s loyalty to Trump’s MAGA movement: Co-Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY).

“We must seek the testimony—under oath—of January 6th’s central player,” she said. “At some point the Department of Justice may well unearth facts these witnesses are concealing. But our duty today is to our country, to our children, and to our Constitution. We are obligated to seek answers directly from the man who set these events in motion.”

#us politics #news #donald trump #house select committee #capitol riot #capitol riot investigation #2022 #rep. liz cheney #rep. bennie thompson #mark meadows #steve bannon #subpoenas #Congressional subpoena #contempt of congress #2020 election #the daily beast

50 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 29 days

Text

Contrary to what is often believed, affinity between comrades does not depend on sympathy or sentiment. To have affinity means to have knowledge of the other, to know how they think on social issues, and how they think they can intervene in the social clash. This deepening of knowledge between comrades is an aspect that is often neglected, impeding effective action.

One of the most difficult problems anarchists have had to face throughout their history is what form of organisation to adopt in the struggle.

At the two ends of the spectrum we find on the one hand the individualists who refuse any kind of stable relationship; on the other those who support a permanent organisation which acts on a programme established at the moment of its constitution.

Both of the forms sketched out here have characteristics that are criticizable from an insurrectional point of view.

In fact, when individualists single out and strike the class enemy they are sometimes far ahead of the most combative of the class components of the time, and their action is not understood. On the contrary, those who support the need for a permanent organisation often wait until there is already a considerable number of exploited indicating how and when to strike the class enemy. The former carry out actions that turn out to be too far ahead of the level of the struggle, the latter too far behind.

One of the reasons for this deficiency is in our opinion lack of perspective.

Clearly no one has a sure recipe that contains no defects, we can however point out the limitations we see in certain kinds of organisation, and indicate possible alternatives.

One of these is known as “affinity groups”.

The term requires an explanation.

Affinity is often confused with sentiment. Although not distinctly separate, the two terms should not be considered synonymous. There could be comrades with whom we consider we have an affinity, but whom we do not find sympathetic and vice versa.

Basically, to have an affinity with a comrade means to know them, to have deepened one’s knowledge of them. As that knowledge grows, the affinity can increase to the point of making an action together possible, but it can also diminish to the point of making it practically impossible.

Knowledge of another is an infinite process which can stop at any level according to the circumstances and objectives one wants to reach together. One could therefore have an affinity for doing some things and not others. It becomes obvious that when one speaks of knowledge that does not mean it is necessary to discuss one’s personal problems, although these can become important when they interfere with the process of deepening knowledge of one another.

In this sense having knowledge of the other does not necessarily mean having an intimate relationship. What it is necessary to know is how the comrade thinks concerning the social problems which the class struggle confronts him with, how he thinks he can intervene, what methods he thinks should be used in given situations, etc.

The first step in the deepening of knowledge between comrades is discussion. It is preferable to have a clarifying premise, such as something written, so the various problems can be gone into well.

Once the essentials are clarified the affinity group or groups are practically formed. The deepening of knowledge between comrades continues in relation to their action as a group and the latter’s encounter with reality as a whole. While this process is taking place their knowledge often widens and strong bonds between comrades often emerge. This however is a consequence of the affinity, not its primal aim.

It often happens that comrades go about things the other way round, beginning some kind of activity and only proceeding to the necessary clarifications later, without ever having assessed the level of affinity required to do anything together. Things are left to chance, as though some kind of clarity were automatically to emerge from the group simply by its formation. Of course this does not happen: the group either stagnates because there is no clear road for it to take, or it follows the tendency of the comrade or comrades who have the clearest ideas as to what they want to do while others allow themselves to be pulled along, often with little enthusiasm or real engagement.

The affinity group on the other hand finds it has great potential and is immediately addressed towards action, basing itself not on the quantity of its adherents, but on the qualitative strength of a number of individuals working together in a projectuality that they develop together as they go along.

From being a specific structure of the anarchist movement and the whole arc of activity that this presents — propaganda, direct action, perhaps producing a paper, working within an informal organisation — it can also look outwards to forming a base nucleus or some other mass structure and thus intervene more effectively in the social clash.

4 notes · View notes