#oppose trump's dictatorship agenda | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

eowyntheavenger · 2 months

Note

https://www.tumblr.com/themythicalcodfish/740908064020086784

Too many leftists act like evangelical Christians imo. All of this posturing about Biden boils down to people not being able to tolerate the idea of having to actually dirty their hands and accept moral compromises to actually achieve anything. Not even if it's literally the only thing standing between a chance to actually make some real change, vs outright destruction of democracy and sanity in the name of a dictatorship that will come after EVERYONE.

The Republicans, as vile as they are, understood this implicitly. They caterwauled and threw fits over their candidates when they weren't vile enough, but they still voted year after year, decade after decade to put their fascists into positions of power for over 5 decades. And now because of that work, they're on the cusp of possibly overthrowing democracy and destroying our world for their own hateful agenda.

Meanwhile, tell a supposed online leftist that they need to work for years to even see any chance of progress, especially given just how far behind we are and fighting against far Right oppressors all the way, and they'll throw in the towel and demand immediate fixes without any idea of HOW to even achieve that goal given how dysfunctional society is.

Or worse, basically advocate for a left wing version of a dictatorship, because their worldview is just as maddeningly black and white as the people they claim to oppose. All or Nothing, let the people they see as their enemies suffer, and demand absolutes from the people they see as lesser than themselves.

Very well said! I had a debate recently with one of these anti-voting people and they hit me with the usual arguments:

1) Voting "doesn't work" (idiotic).

2) Trump and Biden are the same (idiotic).

3) Not voting, or voting third party, constitutes a "protest" somehow (oh my god so idiotic).

We kept debating, and when I brought up the fact that Trump is a threat to democracy, they genuinely asked me why if Trump is such a threat Biden can't just "get rid of him." Just…WOW. As much as I want Trump gone, NO, we cannot just have the current president "get rid of" his main political opponent. Like do you support democracy or not? Well... in the case of these anti-voting freaks, the answer IS in fact no.

So this person, who’d been swearing up and down that voting for Biden = supporting genocide, actually turned around and said they’d support Biden if he could “get rid of Trump.” Which actually shows they KNOW Trump is worse. It’s exactly like you said, they don’t want to dirty their hands. If someone else would just get rid of Trump they’d support it, but they won’t lift a finger to do the one thing (voting blue) that has the best chance of keeping him out of office.

#asks #they're basically accelerationists #US politics #my post

8 notes · View notes

garudabluffs · 1 year

Text

March 17, 2023The International Criminal Court today issued an arrest warrant for Russian president Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, Putin’s commissioner for children’s rights, for war crimes: kidnapping Ukrainian children and transporting them to Russia.

March 17, 2023 Heather Cox Richardson

23 hr ago The international assessment that Putin and one of his top officials have personally engaged in war crimes drives another wedge between Putin and the rest of the Russian people as over time his inability to interact successfully with the rest of the world will have growing consequences for the people at home..."

"Right-wing figures frustrated by the secular values of democracy—religious freedom, companies that respond to markets without interference by the state, academic freedom, public schools, free speech, equality before the law—want to restore what they consider human virtue by using the state to enforce their values." =fascism

"When Trump said, as he did yesterday, that “the greatest threat to Western civilization today is not Russia,” he was echoing this ideology to mobilize his followers (even though his concerns are probably less to do with civilization than with his legal issues). His call for firing “deep staters” and reconstituting “the State Department, the defense bureaucracy, the intelligence services, and all of the rest” is an explicit call to radicalize our government."

"Meanwhile, CNN’s John Miller, as well as journalists from many other outlets, reports that sources in law enforcement are telling them that “senior staff members from the Manhattan district attorney’s office, the New York State Court Officers—who provide security at the state Supreme Court building in lower Manhattan—and the New York Police Department” have been meeting all week to prepare for a possible indictment of the former president, as early as next week."

READ MORE https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/march-17-2023/comments

522 Comments

"The Iraqi author Sinan Antoon told me this in 2021: “No matter what — and I say this as someone who was opposed to Saddam’s regime since childhood and wrote his first novel about life under dictatorship — had the regime remained in power, tens of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive today, and children in Fallujah would not be born with congenital defects every day.”

'What does this have to do with Ukraine? For months, U.S. and European officials have cast the conflict in Ukraine in stark moral terms. If Putin can succeed with a war of aggression across his borders, the argument has gone, then a dark agenda of territorial conquest and might making right wins out. President Biden has framed the contest as a clash between “all democracies” and Putin’s authoritarian project. Last November, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin described the collective efforts of Ukraine’s Western allies as a reflection of “how much countries around the world value and respect the rules-based international order.”

'The legacy of Iraq undermines this rhetoric. For many people in the Middle East and elsewhere in the global South, the U.S. invasion is the most glaring recent episode in a long history of Western meddling and U.S. hypocrisy on the world stage. For officials in China and Russia, de facto adversaries of the United States, the Iraq War is an easy precedent to put forward to shoot down Washington’s talking points, no matter how self-serving and cynical that may be.'

“U.S. officials frequently invoke [the rules-based order] when criticizing or making demands of China,” noted Paul Pillar, a veteran former U.S. intelligence officer. “In no way can the offensive war against Iraq be seen as consistent with respect for a rules-based international order, or else the rules involved are strange rules.” (Sorry that gifted link is not available)."

#Putin war criminal Trump lobbyist

0 notes

radicalurbanista · 4 years

Photo

there is one possible good outcome of this year that I’ve been thinking about a lot

It requires a lot of action before and after the election and a focused political strategy for the next few election cycles. It will have to meet certain conditions at critical times, but if it does, it could mean the end of the republican party the passage of Medicare for All and a Green New Deal, and a labor party. Basically, it depends on splitting the Democratic party after ensuring Democrat control of Congress and the White House, DSA expansion, and eliminating the electoral college.

1) Circa the 2020 election

Biden wins the electoral college

This is almost completely dependent on white moderates in swing states voting for Biden and on massive protests during what will likely be a highly contested legal battle for the presidency. The protests are to show leaders that we reject any legitimacy of another trump term. Protests against trump will face even more violence at the hands of police and their conspiring with white nationalists. There is still the possibility of a coup. But voting alone will not ensure trump’s removal from office, everyone needs to be out in the streets and organizing strikes and protests. It will be a lot easier than stopping trump after he’s secured a second term. If this fails, protesting conditions will become even more hostile, and Americans will see no relief from the economic depression or pandemic. The U.S. may end as a dictatorship, but I have no idea when.

Democrats take majority control of the senate

This is essential as well. There are many senate seats this year where Republicans could be replaced by Dems. Here is a more thorough guide on who could be unseated. This will help with passing bills that Dems agree on. The more the better. Without this, splitting the party won’t be possible yet.

Democrats expand control of the House

This will make splitting the Dem party easier.

DSA (Democratic Socialists) expand control at the local and state level

The emergence of DSA to a national party requires many more wins at the local level. This will give them the chance to become the left-wing national party. 50% of Democrat voters support socialism, and that’s pre-pandemic and pre-depression. It is these voters who will be attracted to the DSA as they grow.

Democrats expand control in state legislatures

Once the census results are in and states have to redistrict, Democrat-controlled state legislatures will likely produce less gerrymandered conservative districts. This will secure more representational elections for the next decade.

2) Before the 2022 election

Eliminate the electoral college

This is another very difficult part. Conservative Dems (like Biden) oppose eliminating the electoral college. His current views may not matter once the DNC tells him to do otherwise. It will likely be moderate and left Dems who push this agenda forward, as it is within the best interest of the Dem party to make the popular vote chose the presidency. National support for it may also be higher than ever after the election, meaning more pressure on Dems to act while they can. If the electoral college is eliminated, Republicans will lose their chance at winning the presidency again, meaning trump 2024 won’t be possible

Begin major canvassing for M4A, GND, police defunding, and abolishing ICE

Once Dems control Congress and the White House, the left can be more on the political offense rather than defense. The DNC opposes Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, but support for them will only likely increase as more people die from COVID-19, suffer under medical debt, face record breaking unemployment and evictions, and climate crises continue to destroy areas. These bills are popular, and the DSA supports them, which will give them leverage in winning more elections and even in poaching Democrat representatives like Bernie and AOC. Support for abolishing ICE and the police are only likely to grow thanks to continued BLM organizing.

Counter Republican campaigns at the state and local levels

Republicans are unified, backed by money, and think long-term, but this election is different because their only platform is supporting trump. Should they lose the White House and Congress, and lose the electoral college, they will have to create a whole new base and platform goals to win a national election ever again. Local organizers will have to counter republican strategies at the local and state levels in hopes of killing the party. Republicans might be able to find a way to attract half of the voter base again, but they might also be clinging too tightly to racism, which, although strong, is no longer enough to win the presidency through popular vote. They could also lose southern state control as cities like Atlanta and Houston grow and their voters flip the state blue.

3) Circa the 2024 election

Enter the DSA into national elections

If the electoral college is gone and the DSA was won more local and state seats in 2020 and 2022, the DSA has a chance to enter national elections. As a popular left-wing party and with the decline of the republican party, the DSA can now attract left-wing previously “captured” by Dems. They may likely not win the presidency, but the DSA will force Dems to be the nation’s right-wing party and become the left-wing party in doing so. Formerly republican voters will likely switch to Dems as the Democratic party becomes more conservative and if republicans no longer have a chance at winning national elections.

Center campaigns around major bills not yet passed (M4A, GND, police defunding, and/or abolishing ICE)

This keeps important issues relevant and keeps Dems on the defense as to why they won’t pass the bills.

4) After

Continue building revolutionary potential now that the two national parties are welfare capitalism/socialism-lite and neoliberalism.

The DSA will likely capture much of the working-class vote, Millennials and Gen Z, and POC. If republicans are still around, their goal will be to find a new way to split the working class vote, likely requiring collaborating with Dems. However, their old strategy of splitting by rural/urban may no longer work. Businesses will do everything they can to stop a party from representing workers: it’s why the parties realigned after the New Deal.

This is all possible and will offer actual harm reduction to the working class for the first time since the 70s. None of it will be possible without massive organizing and protest efforts on the ground. None of it will be possible without strong interracial ties and community building. Voting is essential, but it’s the bare minimum and inadequate alone. During this period, BLM and new leftist movements could grow, we could see a militant left party to further curb U.S. domestic authoritarianism. We could see national policy that interferes less in the Global South. We would likely see increased protections for workers, a redistribution of wealth, and new public infrastructure. We could even see the end of the U.S. by the close of the decade, or at least how it would finally happen.

I’m happy to explain any point further, but I thought I’d put my degree to use and share a possible political strategy for the next decade that could use protest and direct action with electoral politics to end U.S. dominance and global capitalism while making the conditions for final stages of revolution less hostile. The next decade will be turbulent regardless, but would this ^^^ is the best way for that turbulence to lead to liberation.

#essay #politics #strategy #social policy #text #US #biden #green new deal #medicare for all #DSA #defund police #blm #party realignment #DNC #long post #revolution

250 notes · View notes

mariemoret · 4 years

Text

Archbishop Viganò warns Trump about ‘Great Reset’ plot by globalist elite to ‘subdue humanity,’ destroy freedom

October 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – His Excellency Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has written yet another open letter to President Donald J. Trump. Read it in its entirety below. It is available in PDF by clicking here. Read it in Italian here.

***

OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DONALD J. TRUMP

Sunday, October 25, 2020

Solemnity of Christ the King

Mr. President,

Allow me to address you at this hour in which the fate of the whole world is being threatened by a global conspiracy against God and humanity. I write to you as an Archbishop, as a Successor of the Apostles, as the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America. I am writing to you in the midst of the silence of both civil and religious authorities. May you accept these words of mine as the “voice of one crying out in the desert” (John 1:23).

As I said when I wrote my letter to you in June, this historical moment sees the forces of Evil aligned in a battle without quarter against the forces of Good; forces of Evil that appear powerful and organized as they oppose the children of Light, who are disoriented and disorganized, abandoned by their temporal and spiritual leaders.

Daily we sense the attacks multiplying of those who want to destroy the very basis of society: the natural family, respect for human life, love of country, freedom of education and business. We see heads of nations and religious leaders pandering to this suicide of Western culture and its Christian soul, while the fundamental rights of citizens and believers are denied in the name of a health emergency that is revealing itself more and more fully as instrumental to the establishment of an inhuman faceless tyranny

A global plan called the Great Reset is underway. Its architect is a global élite that wants to subdue all of humanity, imposing coercive measures with which to drastically limit individual freedoms and those of entire populations. In several nations this plan has already been approved and financed; in others it is still in an early stage. Behind the world leaders who are the accomplices and executors of this infernal project, there are unscrupulous characters who finance the World Economic Forum and Event 201, promoting their agenda.

The purpose of the Great Reset is the imposition of a health dictatorship aiming at the imposition of liberticidal measures, hidden behind tempting promises of ensuring a universal income and cancelling individual debt. The price of these concessions from the International Monetary Fund will be the renunciation of private property and adherence to a program of vaccination against Covid-19 and Covid-21 promoted by Bill Gates with the collaboration of the main pharmaceutical groups. Beyond the enormous economic interests that motivate the promoters of the Great Reset, the imposition of the vaccination will be accompanied by the requirement of a health passport and a digital ID, with the consequent contact tracing of the population of the entire world. Those who do not accept these measures will be confined in detention camps or placed under house arrest, and all their assets will be confiscated.

138 notes · View notes

whiterosebrian · 3 years

Text

Letter to President Joe Biden

First and foremost, I simply wrote this letter to add my own bit of pressure, however small it might be, on a mainstream politician to go beyond business as usual within a liberal-democratic state. I did consider posting this to my webpages, but I was also aware that doing so could come off as performative—or legitimize right-wing sneers at “virtue-signaling”. Ultimately, I decided to go ahead and do so for two reasons. First, I wanted to publicly stand with indigenous peoples. Second, I wanted to offer a template for other people to write similar letters to President Biden. The letter that I will mail as a hard-copy is as follows.

Mister President,

I congratulate you on your election as President of the United States of America. In light of an attempted coup, I also congratulate you on a successful inauguration. I for one voted for you in hopes of preventing a potential neo-Confederate fascist dictatorship from taking hold and endangering even more lives. I for one also have openly talked on social media about the need to address deeper issues than a wannabe strongman. Donald Trump’s administration was simply a symptom of a very bad system. That system is a system of putting profits over people and environment.

I understand that you passed an order stopping the construction of a particularly controversial pipeline. That is a step in the right direction—but nothing more. I understand that other pipelines have still been approved. I understand that they will cut through the lands of indigenous communities and potentially wreck their environments.

Particularly since I’m not indigenous, I know that writing about indigenous spirituality risks falling into the stereotype of the Magical Indian. I will still write about what is evidently common across the spiritualities of indigenous peoples. That should provide further context for the need to protect their lands. Furthermore, I follow a number of indigenous activists, artists, and spiritualists on social media from different nations, so I am confident that I have at least a decent grasp on generalized indigenous spirituality.

Many indigenous peoples have animistic beliefs—to simplify, they view their world as teeming with spirits, often embodied in the land itself. Indeed, the land itself is seen as a precious gift from the Earth, with some sites being especially sacred. The most prominent example is Six Grandfathers; Lakota have objected to carving big fat heads on it and want it back. I bring up animism to point out wisdom which indigenous activists are more than eager to share (even if they keep their specific religious practices to themselves to protect their cultures in the face of attempted extermination and ignorant appropriation). They want all of us to regain respect and even honor for the lands on which we live so that all of Earth’s denizens can live.

More than once I have seen a figure cited on the internet regarding indigenous peoples and biodiversity. Indigenous peoples make up a very small percentage of the total population of the world. However, the vast majority of the world’s biodiversity is in their hands. That in itself should be a compelling reason to cooperate closely with indigenous people. They know their lands more deeply than the settlers. They know the cycles of life and processes of life and intricacies of life very deeply as well. Their cultures, which have been imperiled by imperialism past and present, are tied to their lands. Upholding indigenous rights goes hand-in-hand with protecting the environment.

Furthermore, you should recall that indigenous voters were crucial to your electoral victory. They knew that an extended Trump administration could possibly be an existential threat. They put themselves through trials almost as harsh as Black voters who navigated the various means of voter suppression. They expect you to help them.

Allow me to offer an aside. Since you clearly take right-wing extremism far more seriously than the previous president (which may be an understatement in regards to him), you may have heard fleeting references to racist neo-pagans who call themselves Odinists or something similar. They claim a spirituality of upholding their twisted vision of the natural order. I myself am a neo-pagan who opposes the likes of Odinists. I don’t want to make this letter about me—I mention that to further contextualize where this letter is coming from. Traditional spiritualities around the world place a stress on reverence for nature and see divinity and mysticism within it—such is evident even in dead religions that have only recently begun to come back to life. Addressing the white-nationalist appropriation of pre-Christian spiritualities is far beyond the scope of this letter. For now, I’ll simply mention the many neo-pagans who venerate nature and want to care for it even as they reject fascism.

You have stated intentions of working with progressives on the Green New Deal, or massively transitioning from fossil fuels to solar and wind energy. That in itself may be a worthy cause, as climate change is the most pressing environmental problem. However, that transition needs to be handled carefully. The process of mining for materials to build a new energy infrastructure could severely damage the lands where such mining takes place and displace their peoples.

I can accept that railing against “big government” is too often a smokescreen for a callously pro-corporate agenda. I do know that there is a place for “big government” in protecting people. That’s the thing—government should serve people on the ground, not corporations. Corporations are willing to do whatever they think will enhance their bottom lines. Corporations can very easily capitalize on a Green New Deal to fatten their profits as much as possible when that becomes feasible. Yes, I know that rightists will cynically (and lazily) ape anti-corporate rhetoric when companies promote anything and everything remotely liberal, but the danger of relying on corporations remains.

Many activists desire to rebuild their communities to be more livable, more inclusive, and in greater harmony with nature. The government should enable them to do so. Infrastructures should serve human living, not the other way around. Humans are not meant to be ripped apart from plants, animals, and landscapes, but rather relations should be repaired. Doing so will require massive reviews of economics, industry, urban planning, and government. That task is far beyond any one well-intentioned governing body.

Progressives voted for you reluctantly because they consider you a garden-variety politician serving capitalistic and colonial interests. I challenge you to prove them wrong. I urge you to do more than just return to a liberal-democratic normalcy (which is understandable after Trump and his fellow-travelers destabilized a liberal democratic state). I urge you to pay closer attention to the original inhabitants of Turtle Island. They cry out for restorative justice. They warn of the dangers of business as usual under the dominant system, which is unsustainable. They invite all of us to reconcile with them and the Earth itself.

No, I dare not pretend to have solid proposals. That is something for you to figure out in direct collaboration with indigenous activists. I am simply a common man on the street trying to make myself helpful to vulnerable people and the environment. I hope that I am doing my part by pointing you to indigenous activists, their lands, their pains, their spiritualities, their voices, and their desire to see the whole Earth thrive.

#us politics #support indigenous people #indigenous sovereignty #indigenous people #environment #nature #joe biden #politics #spirituality #animism #land back #environmentalism #president biden #indigenous rights #president joe biden

13 notes · View notes

leviathangourmet · 3 years

Link

Back in 2008, American Enterprise Institute fellow Jonah Goldberg wrote the bestselling Liberal Fascism. With America’s entire political and media establishment claiming “right-wing extremism” as the most urgent national security issue, Goldberg’s book has more relevance today than when it was written.

Only slightly outside the mainstream, the far-Left press is explicit in its references to right-wing “fascism.” From the Daily Beast in January, “Donald Trump Is Leaving, but American Fascism Is Just Getting Its Boots On.” From Open Democracy, also in January, “Donald Trump’s Insurrection is the beginning of years of street violence.” And just in from the high-minded journal Foreign Policy, “Trump’s movement is a uniquely American fascism, built on a century of American imperialism.”

How is it that “Trump’s movement” can be the target of so much fearmongering and growing repression, when tens of thousands of black-clad Antifa and Black Lives Matter protesters have invaded the streets of countless American cities for over a year with rioting, looting, and beat-downs? Early on, Goldberg’s book made the claim, backed up now by ample evidence, that the Right has no monopoly on fascist violence.

Here is Goldberg’s definition of fascism:

“Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the ‘problem’ and therefore defined as the enemy. I will argue that contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism.”

The book, which is scrupulously researched, describes the economic and political history of fascism, making the case that European fascism was originally a left-wing, socialist, populist movement, and thus the American counterparts of the European fascists were the Progressives.

Fascism is typically equated with anti-Semitism, militarism, dictatorship, demagoguery, genocide; all those phenomena historically associated with the extreme right-wing. But as Goldberg patiently explains, over and over, while one variant of fascism may have embodied all of this evil, it doesn’t change the fact that the modern political Left has the same intellectual roots as Europe’s fascists who emerged in parallel with American progressives about 100 years ago.

Around the time Goldberg’s book came out, a pioneering philanthropist in Sacramento, California, named Charles Goethe, who had founded the local university and donated large tracts of land for parks and schools, had his name systematically expunged from local history. He was an early victim of what we now call “cancel culture.” His crime? Notwithstanding his social consciousness and generosity, Goethe believed in eugenics. But the well-meaning people busily demonizing Goethe today ignore the fact that Goethe, who was born in 1875, was a progressive, and virtually all progressives believed in eugenics. And they were the intellectual counterparts of the European fascists.

A few years ago I watched a German-language version of the movie “Titanic,” released in late 1943. Watching the movie, I was struck by how obviously the plot was slanted to demonize wealthy profiteers; the villains were well-heeled capitalists whose desire to make a few extra dollars of profit spelled doom for the passengers on the Titanic. This was dissonant to me. Weren’t the fascists right-wing? Weren’t they the ultimate capitalists? This is a common misconception.

The Nazis were socialists—national socialists, but socialists nonetheless. They believed in a partnership of government and industry for the purported benefit of the working man. And their economic model was ominously similar to what is manifesting today in America—egged on as much by unwitting liberals as by errant conservatives. Neither wing has a monopoly on enabling behaviors to create this “third way” economic model—known variously as corporatism, socialism, or economic fascism.

Just as fascism is a widely debated, widely misunderstood term, liberal is also a word that has two meanings. Goldberg describes how the terms “liberal” and “conservative” acquired their modern definitions:

“In the past, liberalism had referred to political and economic liberty as understood by enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Adam Smith. For them, the ultimate desideratum was maximum individual freedom under the benign protection of a minimalist state. The progressives, led by Dewey, subtly changed the meaning of this term, importing the Prussian version of liberalism as the alleviation of material and educational poverty . . . for progressives liberty no longer meant freedom from tyranny, but freedom from want . . . classical liberals were now routinely called conservatives, while devotees of social control were called liberals.”

If the rise of leftist street violence over the past year, in the service of an ostensibly liberal political agenda, validates Goldberg’s arguments, the “climate emergency” integral to today’s “great reset” is further evidence of his relevance. As Goldberg writes:

“The most tangible fascistic ingredient [of environmentalism] is that it is an invaluable ‘crisis mechanism.’ Al Gore constantly insists that global warming is the defining crisis of our time. Skeptics are called traitors, Holocaust deniers, tools of the ‘carbon interests’ . . . the beauty of global warming is that it touches everything we do—what we eat, what we wear, where we go. Our ‘carbon footprint’ is the measure of man.”

True to the economic model of fascism, the measures being advocated supposedly to combat global warming are the biggest gift to the “corporatists” in the history of the world. The powerful vested interests that constitute the “alarm industry” are the ones who, ironically, anyone who truly believes in individual rights and property rights should be worried about.

What is “the religion of the state?” It would be, at any cost, to fight racism, climate change, and wear your mask. That religion, increasingly enforced in the streets by thugs, endlessly blasted into our minds by corporate media, is the fascism of our time. A thoughtfully written article in the leftist journal Counterpunch makes the case that fascism and liberalism are false oppositions because they’re just two sides of a common capitalist coin. The author claims that “capitalist crimes” are only properly opposed by Communism.

Nice try. It is true that fascism preserves a role for mega-corporations to serve as junior partners to the state, but fascism’s shared affinity with Communism to brutally repress dissent is the more salient commonality.

It really doesn’t matter if they fall under the ideals of true conservatism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, or even enlightened conventional liberalism—the values of individual freedom, free markets, private property, and limited government are under attack in America. The “green” fascism of environmental extremists, along with the “antiracist” fascism of Antifa and Black Lives Matter, are being given cover and credibility by corporate interests.

It is the Left, not the Right, that informs America’s 21st-century version of fascism.

#fascism #authoritarianism #cancel culture #communism #socialism #neo-liberalism #politics #totalitarianism #article #intersectionality #antifa #anti-racism #antifascist #capitalism

6 notes · View notes

fapangel · 4 years

Note

What is your counterargument to "Americans have no culture"? Serious long-form answer, no imageposts.

As a Greek-American, I have a unique perspective on this; because I can compare American culture to my ancestral culture; the culture; the culture that gave the world mathematics, natural science, medicine and works of literature that are still mandatory courses of study for high school students world-wide. A culture so vibrant that the Romans themselves just Romanized the names of our Gods and eagerly adopted them as their own; not so much adopting our culture as merging our enlightened ideas of intellectual pursuit with their pragmatic, down-to-earth engineer’s mindset to build works of architecture still revered today for their beauty, functionality and longevity.

And all that glorious, beautiful culture has done Greece diddly squat.

Look at it. Look at Greece; a nation impoverished, mocked and maligned; a nation that’s become the Mexico of Europe. That’s not a joke; back in the 70s the rail line between Greece and Germany was called the “Athens express” for how many Greek migrant workers rode it. The EU’s One Currency To Rule Them All guaranteed that someone in the bloc, unable to devalue their currency to manage changes in the global market, would emerge the loser, and once again it was Greece. The Greeks only participated in the 1930s Olympics because wealthy Greeks in America took up a collection and sent it over to them, and Greeks in America are still better off than they are in the homeland. Greece, the nation that invented democracy, soon forgot how to use it; they were ruled by a military dictatorship from 67 to 74 in a tragicomic reversion to the spasms of tyranny that sometimes gripped Athens in Classical Antiquity. Their civil government denies them many important rights; such as firearms ownership, and is only held in check by a combination of Greek’s inborn anarchist spirit and a woefully incompetent civil government that makes Italy’s civil service look like the fucking Swiss. Building a house in Greece is sometimes tantamount to filing a lawsuit due to this. And that’s to say nothing of the “anarchists,” i.e. the fucking communists who still firebomb the occasional building and contribute to a constant, low-level civil unrest significantly worse than anything antifa has managed stateside.

So tell me, if you can - what has Greece’s vaunted “culture” done for it? What has it done for Greece, with its worm-riddled civil government, its impoverished people, with hoards of Middle Eastern refugees that Europe refuses to deal with? What has it done for Greece, having married into the globalists wet dream of a Unified European State, only to find that it was the designated loser? What has it done for Greece, which, having forfeited its economic independence to the globalist agenda, then finds itself left to defend itself with what little GDP it has left for military expenditures, now that Germany has gutted its own army, France still doesn’t give a single begotten fuck about alliances that don’t immediately impact their own interests, and the UK is worried about scraping the cash together just to defend themselves? Pray tell, what, exactly, does Greece have that America does not?

America has media empires that resound across the world; the reach of Hollywood is vast. Donald Duck, Porky Pigs, Bugs Bunny are recognized from the Mongolian steppes to the savanna of sub-Saharan Africa. Our cultural influence on the globe is so mighty that Buick is still a big fucking deal in China, despite the globalists having willingly given away our role as world manufacturer to China itself, for the Chinese remember the impoverished days when the Party big-wigs all rolled around in American-built Buicks. American culture is a unique cultural attitude towards violence where a finger-poke counts as assault in many jurisdictions, but lays the necessary groundwork for the only country of its size on Earth where most people have the right to carry a loaded weapon on their person for the purpose of self defense. American culture is a strain of individualism matched only by its innate suspicion of government; a frontiersman attitude, not an inability to work together, as alt-right collectivists allege, but a pragmatic mindset that says nobody is coming to help you, or even nobody is going to help you in time, and thus frees people to help themselves.

Even the comforts of our modern age cannot dull this; as it is written too deeply in the structure of our laws and the stories of our national mythos; the default reruns on daytime broadcast TV around here are old Westerns like Bat Masterson or Rawhide. One of the most incisive observations of Japanese culture I’ve ever seen I found in The Atlantic of all places; the commentary on how Japanese TV is always played in the background, a passive venue for programming responses that people then execute, word for word, at social events, as the author grouses towards the end. The American version is nowhere near as deliberate, of course; just our culture’s older mythos being churned up like a cow chewing her cud, but it’s there - and it’s all cowboy western ass-kicking or, at night, 80s action-movie asskicking. We mine it because that’s all there is to mine, from the bottom up.

And what are the effects on Americans? If you strip away innate advantages of provenance and wealth? If you deny him his technology and money and pit him against enemies of homogeneous ethnicity and Strong Ancient Cultures, rifle to rifle, bayonet to bayonet, hand to hand? What emerges then?

You find the men who took the Omaha and Utah beacheads with only rifles and grenades, after half their armored support floundered in the channel, preparatory bombardments missed their mark, and American faith in technology and firepower overall failed, and miserably.

You find the Marines who held Edson’s Ridge against the Japanese, emerging victorious from brutal hand-to-hand combat in the dark.

You find dead men walking who refuse to stop fighting until their last round and their last breath.

In short, you find victors. Of the governments who’ve opposed us, many no longer exist - and yet we are still here.

So where, exactly, am I supposed to detect America’s alleged lack of “culture?” The performance of our society in total war has been superlative; even our most astounding fuck-ups demonstrate just how bad an idea it is to piss us off. We have a national mythos of our own, complete with great heroes and their noble quests. We have icons and monuments built by our own hand, often to venerate those heroes. We have our own land; one we had to fight for, bleed for, and tame, one that is ancient and filled with natural wonders of staggering scope and beauty. And we have the same collectivists and fifth-columnists and globalists that Europe has, except they hold less sway here, despite the much-vaunted Culture of Europe’s ancient nations and peoples.

So where is the tell-tale? Where is the casual link between America’s fortunes and her alleged “lack of culture?” For that matter, where is the casual link between Europe’s cultures and their fortunes? Where is the evidence? What even is the point of that phrase, “America has no culture?”

The truth is that there is none; it is empty sloganeering of the “just asking questions” kind; trading entirely on trolling witless neoliberals incapable of defending the inconsistencies in their own platforms due to their inability to acknowledge reality. The alt-right never has to defend their platform as a coherent theory, because their only detractors are either fellow collectivists who share their basic premises and care nothing for critique, as they are of the out-group to them - a different collective - and thus not even human. With the lolbertarians trivially easy to keep on the defensive, that leaves nobody, nobody at all, as the actual constituency of the GOP, that have rallied behind Trump would’ve been called centrists thirty years ago and want nothing to do with collectivism, no matter what collective it claims to defend.

The vast majority of them are full of shit, and it is not hard to prove it.

79 notes · View notes

pamphletstoinspire · 3 years

Photo

Archbishop Vigano’s Warns Trump About ‘Great Reset’ Plot

Open Letter To The President Of The United States

DONALD J. TRUMP

Sunday, October 25, 2020

Solemnity of Christ the King

Mr. President,

Mr. President, I imagine that you are already aware that in some countries the Great Reset will be activated between the end of this year and the first trimester of 2021. For this purpose, further lockdowns are planned, which will be officially justified by a supposed second and third wave of the pandemic. You are well aware of the means that have been deployed to sow panic and legitimize draconian limitations on individual liberties, artfully provoking a world-wide economic crisis. In the intentions of its architects, this crisis will serve to make the recourse of nations to the Great Reset irreversible, thereby giving the final blow to a world whose existence and very memory they want to completely cancel. But this world, Mr. President, includes people, affections, institutions, faith, culture, traditions, and ideals: people and values that do not act like automatons, who do not obey like machines, because they are endowed with a soul and a heart, because they are tied together by a spiritual bond that draws its strength from above, from that God that our adversaries want to challenge, just as Lucifer did at the beginning of time with his “non serviam.”

Many people – as we well know – are annoyed by this reference to the clash between Good and Evil and the use of “apocalyptic” overtones, which according to them exasperates spirits and sharpens divisions. It is not surprising that the enemy is angered at being discovered just when he believes he has reached the citadel he seeks to conquer undisturbed. What is surprising, however, is that there is no one to sound the alarm. The reaction of the deep state to those who denounce its plan is broken and incoherent, but understandable. Just when the complicity of the mainstream media had succeeded in making the transition to the New World Order almost painless and unnoticed, all sorts of deceptions, scandals and crimes are coming to light.

Until a few months ago, it was easy to smear as “conspiracy theorists” those who denounced these terrible plans, which we now see being carried out down to the smallest detail. No one, up until last February, would ever have thought that, in all of our cities, citizens would be arrested simply for wanting to walk down the street, to breathe, to want to keep their business open, to want to go to church on Sunday. Yet now it is happening all over the world, even in picture-postcard Italy that many Americans consider to be a small enchanted country, with its ancient monuments, its churches, its charming cities, its characteristic villages. And while the politicians are barricaded inside their palaces promulgating decrees like Persian satraps, businesses are failing, shops are closing, and people are prevented from living, traveling, working, and praying. The disastrous psychological consequences of this operation are already being seen, beginning with the suicides of desperate entrepreneurs and of our children, segregated from friends and classmates, told to follow their classes while sitting at home alone in front of a computer.

In Sacred Scripture, Saint Paul speaks to us of “the one who opposes” the manifestation of the mystery of iniquity, the kathèkon (2 Thess 2:6-7). In the religious sphere, this obstacle to evil is the Church, and in particular the papacy; in the political sphere, it is those who impede the establishment of the New World Order.

As is now clear, the one who occupies the Chair of Peter has betrayed his role from the very beginning in order to defend and promote the globalist ideology, supporting the agenda of the deep church, who chose him from its ranks.

Mr. President, you have clearly stated that you want to defend the nation – One Nation under God, fundamental liberties, and non-negotiable values that are denied and fought against today. It is you, dear President, who are “the one who opposes” the deep state, the final assault of the children of darkness.

For this reason, it is necessary that all people of good will be persuaded of the epochal importance of the imminent election: not so much for the sake of this or that political program, but because of the general inspiration of your action that best embodies – in this particular historical context – that world, our world, which they want to cancel by means of the lockdown. Your adversary is also our adversary: it is the Enemy of the human race, He who is “a murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44).

Around you are gathered with faith and courage those who consider you the final garrison against the world dictatorship. The alternative is to vote for a person who is manipulated by the deep state, gravely compromised by scandals and corruption, who will do to the United States what Jorge Mario Bergoglio is doing to the Church, Prime Minister Conte to Italy, President Macron to France, Prime Minster Sanchez to Spain, and so on. The blackmailable nature of Joe Biden – just like that of the prelates of the Vatican’s “magic circle” – will expose him to be used unscrupulously, allowing illegitimate powers to interfere in both domestic politics as well as international balances. It is obvious that those who manipulate him already have someone worse than him ready, with whom they will replace him as soon as the opportunity arises.

And yet, in the midst of this bleak picture, this apparently unstoppable advance of the “Invisible Enemy,” an element of hope emerges. The adversary does not know how to love, and it does not understand that it is not enough to assure a universal income or to cancel mortgages in order to subjugate the masses and convince them to be branded like cattle. This people, which for too long has endured the abuses of a hateful and tyrannical power, is rediscovering that it has a soul; it is understanding that it is not willing to exchange its freedom for the homogenization and cancellation of its identity; it is beginning to understand the value of familial and social ties, of the bonds of faith and culture that unite honest people. This Great Reset is destined to fail because those who planned it do not understand that there are still people ready to take to the streets to defend their rights, to protect their loved ones, to give a future to their children and grandchildren. The leveling inhumanity of the globalist project will shatter miserably in the face of the firm and courageous opposition of the children of Light. The enemy has Satan on its side, He who only knows how to hate. But on our side, we have the Lord Almighty, the God of armies arrayed for battle, and the Most Holy Virgin, who will crush the head of the ancient Serpent. “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Rom 8:31).

Mr. President, you are well aware that, in this crucial hour, the United States of America is considered the defending wall against which the war declared by the advocates of globalism has been unleashed. Place your trust in the Lord, strengthened by the words of the Apostle Paul: “I can do all things in Him who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13). To be an instrument of Divine Providence is a great responsibility, for which you will certainly receive all the graces of state that you need, since they are being fervently implored for you by the many people who support you with their prayers.

With this heavenly hope and the assurance of my prayer for you, for the First Lady, and for your collaborators, with all my heart I send you my blessing.

God bless the United States of America!

+ Carlo Maria Viganò

Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana

Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America

#great reset plot

7 notes · View notes

tinyshe · 3 years

Text

Justin Trudeau confirmed he’s signing Canadians up for the communist agenda known as ‘The Great Reset’.

In a September video conference for the United Nations, Trudeau declared Canada’s participation in the ‘Reset’ and the U.N. 2030 initiative. While the video is more than a month old, Trudeau’s comments went mainstream this weekend after a twitter user highlighted the controversial statement.[article dated 2020 Nov 16]

“This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset,” said Trudeau. “This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts, to re-imagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change.”

“Building back better means getting support to the most vulnerable while maintaining our momentum on reaching the 2030 agenda of sustainable development and the SDGs (UN Sustainable Development Goals).”

Trudeau’s comments are a confirmation of what many Canadians have feared since an alleged leaked letter from the Prime Minister’s Office went viral last month.

The letter, which you can read here, claims to outline a difficult next 12 months for Canada highlighted by stricter lockdowns, internment camps and a forced debt-reset program in which all debts are erased in exchange for forfeiture of all property and assets.

The ‘Reset’ was once considered a conspiracy theory but evidence of it being a very real rollout of a communist agenda for Western countries has surfaced in recent months.

The movement has been widely promoted by the World Economic Forum throughout 2020 under the name ‘The Great Reset’. It is also widely known as the United Nations 2030 agenda.

The agenda, under the façade of sustainable development and equality, calls for the end of private property/assets, the urbanization of society, end of single-family homes, rationing of food and water, depopulation of the planet, creation of a one-world government to replace nations and much more.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano recently called the reset a “health dictatorship” in an open letter to USA President Donald Trump which you can read more about here.

Trump, who has opposed the ‘Reset’ since taking office in 2017, has been attacked non-stop by politicians and media. Many believe he is the target of these attacks because of his opposition to the plan.

https://freenorth.news/2020/11/16/trudeau-confirms-hes-all-in-on-great-reset-communist-agenda-for-canada/ is the hotlink to this article where there is also video

2 notes · View notes

robert-c · 4 years

Text

Strategies, Tactics and Some (Unfortunate) Common Ground Between Right and Left

The Right wants to keep the status quo and therefor uses legal strategies and tactics to thwart change by law or court rulings. They energize their “base” by creating laws to “combat” perceived changes by the Left; for example, putting forward “bathroom laws”, which would be virtually impossible to enforce, and are essentially unnecessary in any event.

The Left, too often, takes the bait on these provocations and devotes too much of its energy to these set matches which the Right has carefully chosen to put fear and upset into their base. While these ridiculous wastes of legislative resources should be called out for what they are; letting the Right control the items up for discussion plays right into their hands.

Let’s get down to basics. The true and best objective of Progressives, aka “the Left”, is that people deal with others without regard to their race, gender, religion, national origin, etc. or any other factor not relevant to the nature of their interaction. It would be wonderful if there didn’t need to be laws to enforce that idea, but until people’s minds are in agreement, they will probably be needed for all public interactions.

However, instead of working exclusively to pass laws protecting these rights, we should be spending our time “educating” and making the public more comfortable. There is a right time for such legislation, and it is after a significant number, if not a majority, of people are already on board. Finding that timing is critical, and I have no magic crystal ball to tell me when is right. I do think that what fractures and weakens the Left is the idea that we must always be pushing for a specific legislative agenda.

Gay marriage became a fact AFTER enough gay people came out of the closet so that a large number of people could know that they already knew people who were gay, and who didn’t fit some reviled stereotype created by the Right. The landmark civil rights laws passed when people got a chance to see how mindlessly violent the southern racists were in Selma and Birmingham and other places. And no, it will never be fast enough to suit me or others who want to see these changes, but they can’t be force fed with a legislative agenda. As long as the ideas and ideals of the Left are being heard, progress is being made.

That is why it is important to vote for Biden, even if you don’t feel your particular agenda is being met with him.

Trump has made it clear in several Tweets that he thinks disagreeing with him (or calling him a liar) is “illegal”. Let’s not give him the chance to make that a fact.

The unfortunate common ground between the Left and the Right are those “purists” who brook no compromise and adopt an “all or nothing” attitude. All of their philosophical arguments in favor of this extreme consistency of thought might work well in a debate contest – but in the real world it only helps the forces opposed to change.

The Right essentially opposes all fundamental change, so it is easier to attract a base that is fearful of change. Even if some of the individuals might be open to some change, chances are that there are more changes they would not like to see, and so they cast their lot with those in favor of NO change; it seems the safer bet to them.

But the rigid Left elements not only alienate those who have other agendas for change that aren’t encompassed in a particular belief, but also those who merely disagree on tactics. Again, the Left is NOT a single, cohesive and comprehensive ideology.

This sort of absolutism in belief provides both extremes with a sense of certainty that is very comforting. Sorting out the nuances of right and wrong in everyday situations is hard work, requiring lots of thought and even empathy. It’s so much easier if you have a simple, rigid, absolute to cling to, eliminating all need for thought or compassion.

“Compromise” for the Left does NOT betray its goals and objectives, but rather is a step along the way. The Right understands that, and THAT is why they are unwilling to compromise. They understand that it is to their disadvantage, and to the advantage of Progressives.

So my Progressive/Left, friends, let’s not let the extremists and their legislative strategies hijack the progress we can make. We need to keep our ideas out there, even if they won’t be enacted fast enough to suit us. We are truly on the brink of a dictatorship, in which the very mention of our ideas would be criminalized. We have a president who is cozy with absolute tyrants (Putin and Kim Jong Un), who has said perhaps one day the US will adopt a “president for life” model (said to Kim Jong Un), who has talked about a third term for his presidency, who has undermined checks and balances on the president’s power (firing inspectors general, encouraging staff to ignore subpoenas from Congress, etc.), used the presidency to enrich himself personally (increased fees at his golf clubs once he was elected, foreign dignitaries staying at his hotels, etc.), and more too numerous to list here.

I understand if you think there is little point to your vote. I can even appreciate wanting to cast a vote for the Libertarian or Green Party if those are closer to your personal philosophy. However, the political reality is those candidates will not be elected and can only serve to narrow the margin between Trump and Biden.

Trump must be defeated by a landslide to give him no cover for claiming the election is invalid.

I used to wonder how those Latin American countries ended up with such awful dictators. At last I’ve seen how, and it is truly frightening.

#extremists #fascist dictatorships #election 2020

4 notes · View notes

msclaritea · 4 years

Text

"The United States Senate should reject the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

We believed it was wrong for the Senate to consider this nomination in the first place given the precedent set four years ago when Justice Antonin Scalia died in February, nine months before the election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to even hold hearings on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, saying repeatedly that the American people should have a say in the matter. This year, when the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg created a vacancy less than nine weeks before Election Day, McConnell has seen fit to ram through the nomination.

The hypocrisy is rank, and it is impossible to see how rushing this nomination will be good for our democracy. The enmity caused by the Republicans' shameful double standard will not soon dissipate, not when lifetime appointments are at stake.

Barrett is not responsible for McConnell's behavior, but she has allowed herself to be a vehicle for his agenda and that of President Donald Trump. She could have phoned the White House and asked not to be considered for the nomination: Barrett is only 48 years old and there will be other vacancies.

"Many on the faculty are strongly opposed to the process by which Judge Barrett is being pushed through by the president and the GOP, especially on the eve of this presidential election," stated an open letter signed by over 100 faculty at the University of Notre Dame, where Barrett attended and taught at the law school.

Her willingness to become a collaborator, complete with the required adoring look at the president at the super-spreader event at which she was nominated, is not enough to justify a negative vote, but it set the table.

What disqualifies Barrett is the extreme moral relativism she displayed in her confirmation hearing. Not so long ago, moral relativism was the war cry of cultural conservatives, at least since then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger enounced the "dictatorship of relativism" at the last Mass before the cardinals entered the conclave of 2005 from which Ratzinger emerged as Pope Benedict XVI.

For example, after acknowledging that COVID-19 is contagious and that smoking causes cancer, she declined to affirm that climate change is happening, Barrett called the issue of climate change "a very contentious matter of public debate." Is that true? It is certainly the case that Trump is not sure what, if anything, he makes of climate change.

But let's be clear: Denying climate change is not that far from QAnon conspiracy theories. If Barrett really has doubts on the subject, she is not intellectually qualified to serve on the bench, and we suspect she knows that. She was simply willing to embrace moral relativism rather than risk a nasty tweet from the man who nominated her.

When Sen. Kamala Harris asked her a direct question — "Prior to your nomination, were you aware of President Trump's statement committing to nominate judges who will strike down the Affordable Care Act? And I'd appreciate a yes or no answer" — Barrett said she could not recall.

Really? You would think that in the days leading up to her nomination, Barrett would have followed closely, or been briefed upon, what the president did and did not say about his criteria in selecting a judge.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar asked Barrett if she thought it was against the law to intimidate voters at the polls and, even more strangely, Barrett refused to affirm that it was. Originalists like to claim that their method of interpreting the Constitution is the only method that genuinely honors democracy, but how is that possible if intimidation of voters is permitted?

This leads to the most repugnant realization about Barrett's relativism: In her commitment to originalism and textualism, she claims not to be interpreting the law or the Constitution at all. In her worldview, the Constitution is virtually a self-interpreting text. If that were so, why would we need judges?

In fact, in claiming that the meaning of the Constitution is fixed, and she can discern it, Barrett is actually doing exactly what she said she would never do. "As I said before, it is not the law of Amy, it is the law of the American people," she said.

But, unlike the brilliant scholar Barrett will replace when confirmed, who accepted other ways of interpreting the Constitution, the logic of Barrett's originalism is that Ginsburg's legal theories were not just different but were illegitimate. Barrett's relativism, like the man who nominated her, is on steroids.

We are glad that most commentators and virtually every question in the formal hearing avoided discussing Barrett's religion, even if her membership in a patriarchal covenanted community raises some legitimate concerns.

We at NCR do not like the prospect of five of the six conservative justices being Catholic and worry what that says about our church. In America, however, there are no religious tests for office and no senator should oppose Barrett on account of her religion.

It is her bad faith in discussing the law that warrants disqualifying her. About the evils of climate change, access to health care and voter intimidation, Americans deserve better than a relativist dressed in originalist drag. The Senate should vote no on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett."

#Amy Coney Barrett #Unfit for our times #Call the Republicans up for reelection #Add pressure #BidenHarris #2020 #LBGTQ Rights #Healthcare #Voting #Gerrymandering #Same Sex Marriage #Adoption

1 note · View note

allthebrazilianpolitics · 6 years

Text

How Brazil’s presidential election could eff up the planet for everyone

As the vast Brazilian rainforest steadily dwindles, so do our chances of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. And with the possible election of Jair Bolsonaro, the so-called “Trump of the Tropics” and far-right frontrunner in the Brazilian presidential election, a crucial part of the planet’s carbon emission-curbing toolkit might be in jeopardy.

Bolsonaro has indicated he may open Indigenous areas up to mining, even potentially introducing a paved highway through the Amazon. The environmental impact of those policies would be “the biggest threat to the Amazon since Brazil was under a dictatorship,” said Doug Boucher, Scientific Advisor for The Union of Concerned Scientists’ Tropical Forests and Climate Initiative. “It’s a threat to the climate of the entire planet.”

He has a long track record of opposing an environmental agenda. He’s against taking action on climate change at all, pledging to follow President Trump’s lead by jettisoning the Paris Climate Agreement.

He has criticized the Brazilian government’s commitment to preserving vast swaths of the Amazon for Indigenous people, promising that he will “not to give the Indians another inch of land.” Moreover, Bolsonaro has allied himself with the right-wing ruralista bloc, which represents the interests of agribusinesses and large landholders, and has been trying to strip away environmental protections against deforestation for many years. He has promised to scrap the country’s Environment Ministry altogether, putting it under the scope of the Agriculture Ministry, which is led by agribusiness.

In many ways, Bolsonaro, an ex-army captain, seems to want to revert to the Amazonian policies that Brazil employed during the years of the South American nation’s dictatorship.

#brazil #brazilian politics #jair bolsonaro #environmentalism #eleições 2018 #brazilian elections 2018 #environmental justice #climate change #global warming #mod nise da silveira

336 notes · View notes

antoine-roquentin · 5 years

Link

ASAD ABUKHALIL: Well, first of all, I need to say that it’s quite ironic for the mainstream media, especially the Washington Post, which has been invoking lofty ideals about democracy as a slogan of it — even though it’s owned by the wealthiest man in the world — has been speaking in the name of democracy, and yet has been serving as the mouthpiece for the intelligence apparatus.

Mainstream media, the Post and others, imply very directly that the president of the United States has to do whatever dictates from the military and intelligence apparatus, as if this is the chain of command. I mean, it is the president of the United States who should subordinate the military intelligence agencies to its role as somebody who is elected by the United States, the American public, and so on.

However, I think because the Washington Post in particular has been a mouthpiece of the intelligence service, particularly the CIA, it should be said that there is an agenda for the CIA on this. And I’m glad you quoted John Brennan. As you know, John Brennan, before he became CIA director, was the Middle East and the CIA — and he was CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia, where he cultivated very close ties with the royal family.

There is nothing about the need for accountability in the CIA leaks which wants to bring down Mohammed bin Salman. This is all about choosing between the various lousy princes.

As you know, Mohammed bin Nayef was ousted last year by Mohammed bin Salman, his cousin. He was the choice for the intelligence agencies and the FBI, because this man, when he was deputy to his father, the minister of interior for many years, was a very close ally — client, you should say — of the U.S. government and its intelligence agency.

Mohammed bin Salman was unknown. It’s not somebody that they know for a long time. But far from wanting great accountability for the murder of Khashoggi, as if the intelligence agencies are really up in arms about the death of anybody in the Middle East, this is about worrying about the future of the Saudi regime.

In other words, I feel that Donald Trump wants what is best for his administration. He has somebody, he has Mohammed bin Salman, as he best can have him. He is holding him by the neck. And if he survives, he — Mohammed bin Salman — will be greatly indebted to Trump, and to Netanyahu, because those two stood by him and kept him afloat. And because of that situation, Mohammad bin Salman will be obligated to make so many concessions — political, military, and financial — to the United States, and even to Israel. Some of it would be more direct now. Perhaps he would even visit the Israeli occupation state.

On the other hand, the intelligence agencies, I think, my reading, is that they do not think that Mohamed bin Salman is capable of steering the regime in a direction that is more in the interest of the stability of the regime. As a result they would rather make a change in order to save the regime. They worry that bin Salman is too reckless, and his thinking is ruled too precarious, which endangered American interests in that region.

BEN NORTON: There’s a lot to respond to there. I want to talk first, before we talk about the tension within the royal family — you mentioned Mohammed bin Nayef, who was slated to be the next king and was replaced by Mohammed bin Salman. Before we get to that, though, let’s talk a bit about the relationship between the CIA and Saudi Arabia.

As you mentioned, John Brennan, the former director, had a longstanding tie to Saudi Arabia, worked a lot in the kingdom. And of course, I mentioned the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, in which the CIA worked with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to arm Islamist extremists to fight against the Soviet Union, and the Afghan government backed by the Soviet Union.

We also saw in Syria that the CIA worked with Saudi Arabia to arm and train rebels, many of whom were also Salafi-jihadist extremists. So this relationship continues to this day. It’s a very close one.

So can you talk a bit more about the relationship between the U.S. intelligence services and Saudi Arabia, and maybe the different figures aside from Muhammad bin Salman and what their roles have been in the CIA? Because there is speculation that Jamal Khashoggi himself might have been a CIA asset.

ASAD ABUKHALIL: Well, I mean, I do not know about that. But I’m glad in your introduction you accurately — contrary to the way the media refer to the past of Jamal Khashoggi — accurately described his background. Jamal Khashoggi, it should be said over and over again, was part of the establishment and the propaganda outlets of the Saudi regime for many years.

This is a man who’s been made by Human Rights Watch and mainstream media as if he’s a longtime critic of the Saudi government. This is a man who spent a career making money from being a propagandist for the Saudi royal family, and moving between one prince and another.

And in fact, he only fell in trouble — he did not count on democracy. He counted on the wrong prince, which is the Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who fell out of favor in this new regime in Saudi Arabia. And as a result he was in trouble himself, and he fled.

And he suddenly discovered the love of democracy and freedom in the United States, in the really lame articles he’s been writing for The Washington Post, which reads to me as being heavily edited by his editors over there, which is fine.

I should also say that Jamal Khashoggi was very mild in his criticism of the Saudi regime. He did not in any way call for an overthrow. He always committed himself to the preservation of the monarchy, and even played, he even played on the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. This is left unmentioned in the media coverage.

So John Brennan himself — and this is a graduate of the Obama administration — suddenly now they are now posing as advocates of democracy in the Middle East when they themselves were characteristic of every administration since World War II; have been advocates of dictatorship and despots throughout the region.

In fact, propaganda brochures that I have seen in Arabic, produced by the Saudi regime, have quotations from John Brennan in praise of the Saudi regime and American-Saudi relations. And if you look now on social media to the graduates of the Obama administration, the various functionaries, you will see now that they are pretending as if Trump suddenly changed the course of American foreign policy and made it not in any way pay too much attention for democracy.

If you look at the agenda or the record of the Obama administration it doesn’t differ at all from the Trump record. If anything, Trump is more honest than the duplicitous Obama administration. And in fact, in Ben Rhodes’ book about Obama’s foreign policy, John Brennan himself is quoted as opposing any change for democracy in Egypt and for standing up to the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak. And he made the old classical colonial point that “Arabs are not ready for democracy.”

So in that sense the military intelligence apparatuses basically have various intelligence agencies in the Middle East that they basically work at their pleasure. So they have a great relationship with them. Sometimes they are paid by them, like in the case of Saudi Arabia. Or sometimes they pay them, as in the case of Egypt and Jordan, where the intelligence agencies there are subcontractors of the CIA and the various intelligence agencies.

And it is, in fact, for this reason that the American intelligence agencies were caught totally by surprise with the Arab uprising in 2011; because they relied too much on the advice and wisdom of intelligence agencies in Jordan, Egypt, and elsewhere that they pay a lot of money for, in order to provide them with work that perhaps they were too lazy to do on their own.

BEN NORTON: And then, finally, let’s talk a bit — you mentioned earlier Mohammed bin Nayef — let’s talk about the internal dynamics. Mohammed bin Nayef, who was supposed to be the original crown prince; he was supposed to replace the current king, King Salman, who is likely senile. Mohammed bin Salman took his place, took Mohammed bin Nayef’s place.

MBN was the interior minister. He oversaw the so-called “counterterrorism” program inside Saudi Arabia. He also studied in the U.S., and he trained with the FBI. In 2015, in this kind of ceremony, when he was appointed crown prince, he visited with Obama in the White House. It was very clear that NBN was the U.S. man, who was going to be the next king.

Also, you’ve mentioned before in a previous interview here at The Real News that Khashoggi was very close to Turki bin Faisal, as well. Turki bin Faisal was the head of Saudi intelligence; he was the Saudi ambassador to the United States. And when he was here in the U.S., Khashoggi was actually his spokesperson.

So can you talk about who the U.S. and the CIA potentially — of course, this is largely speculation — but who they would prefer to have over MBS? It seems to me that they want to go back to MBN. Do you think that’s one of the main reasons?

ASAD ABUKHALIL: You’re absolutely right. And I want to say that — just one minor correction. Mohammad bin Nayef did study in Portland for college, but he did not graduate. Most Saudi royal princes study in the United States, but they never bother to graduate, for some reason. In fact, and this is scandalous, in my opinion, Turki al-Faisal is now a professor at Georgetown University. This man studied at Georgetown University in the 1960s at the School of Foreign Service, but he never graduated. He in fact was awarded a degree that he did not earn only many years later thanks to the generous donations he and his family made to the university.

As far as Mohammed bin Nayef is concerned, you are right in mentioning that he studied in the United States because, this has become very clear in many Western media writings. They really like princes who study in the United States. They assume that they are much easier to do business with, for some reason. And one of the complaints that I have read, I think even in Thomas Friedman’s article, as annoying as they are on the eyes, that Mohammed bin Salman is somebody who did not study in the United States.

Well, I think the preference has been very clear for many years that Mohammed bin Nayef is their choice. It is not that Mohammed bin Salman has been unreliable, or he has not been loyal. But they worry that by his recklessness and impulsiveness he may jeopardize the very security of the Saudi royal family. This is something that was missing of the coverage.

So I think the CIA’s interest is that they are really worried about the precariousness of the Saudi regime. More than ever, in a long time of contemporary history of the regime, maybe the first time since the 1960s, early 1960s, when the regime was really in trouble with the rising tide of Nasserism, there is a real danger about the cohesiveness of the royal family and the stability of the regime.

Because for this reason, I think that the CIA and other intelligence agencies of the U.S. government, and the military, would rather have any other prince. It doesn’t have to be Mohammed bin Nayef. But this guy in particular [Mohammed bin Salman] has proven to be too adventurous, too troublesome. And sometimes he seems to act on his own. And that really worries the United States. Not so much out of concern about the people of Yemen, or about about the plight of journalists who may be killed by this prince. But it’s more about the stability of the region due to his action over there.

46 notes · View notes

itsparry · 5 years

Text

Activism and Protest

In the recent years or even now, protest and activism have always been the ways to reform the society no matter in the real life or in the social media. The question is, how do they affect the society? Even though these terms are being heard widely, what exactly are these two means? What kind of important roles do they play in the society? To that, we need to have a better understanding of what these two are.

What are the differences between activism and protest?

Let’s talk about the activism first before we move into the protest. According to Martin (2007), activism goes beyond what they called the conventional and routine on behalf of a cause. It plays an important role in ending slavery, challenging dictatorships, protecting workers from exploitation, protecting the environment and more from what happened before. It is what we call a revolutionary movement that change the system of a society from a bottom up social revolution approach. Meaning to say, people oppose to something with a crowd by acting, so they could hope of topple over the unjust and unfair from the society. On the other hand, the purpose of protest is emphasizing on an issue which brought attention to many people (Weiss, 2017). In short, both activism and protest work the same way but with different method. According to Resnick (2017), Fabio Rojas, a sociologist at Indiana University said that, the effects of activism and protest depends on the power of people’s influential to the powerful people to make the decisions, and if they can’t, they fail.

Social Media as the heart of protests

As social media growing strongly and widely, it quickly becomes a place where political issues are widely regard to many people. At a time, it also becomes a place where civic-related activities are being engaged in there (Anderson, Toor, Ranie & Smith, 2018). The most famous example of activism that can be seen was the “Me Too” movement which aims to raise the awareness for sexual harassment and assault. Besides, the protest of “Black Lives Matter”, which was born in 2013, when a policeman shot an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, was responded by a California activist to jury’s decision on Facebook with a statement goes by: “Black people. I love you. I love us. Our lives matter.” Hence, the hashtag of “Black Lives Matter” was born and the protests continue to grow strongly (Tedeneke, 2016). The #BlackLivesMatter hashtag has comes to its fifth anniversary of the use to bring a cause using social media platforms as it was the most sustained efforts (Anderson, Toor, Ranie & Smith, 2018).

In conclusion, the willingness to participate in activism or protest differ from each person whether in real life or have an anonymous identity on social media. However, even with the power of the existing social media, we cannot get carried away by using the prominent effects of social media to regard the downfall of a leader. Otherwise, this could be the misuse of social media to spread the bad information to all, resulting the social media to be a lethal weapon.

Reference

Anderson, M, Toor, S, Rainie, L & Smith, A. (2018). Activism in the social media age. Retrieved from https://www.pewinternet.org/2018/07/11/public-attitudes-toward-political-engagement-on-social-media/

Martin, B. (n.d.). Activism, social and political. Retrieved from https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/07Anderson.html

Resnick, B. (2017). 4 rules for making a protest work, according to experts. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/31/14430584/protest-trump-strategies-experts

Tedeneke, A. (2016). The Black Lives Matter movement explained. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/08/black-lives-matter-movement-explained/

#week 6 #mda20009 #activism and protest #blog

4 notes · View notes

crimethinc · 5 years

Text

Take Your Pick: Law or Freedom–How “Nobody Is above the Law” Abets the Rise of Tyranny

We saw you last night among thousands of other anti-Trump demonstrators around the US. Their signs proclaimed, “No one is above the law.” You were the one with the sign reading “I love laws.” We need to talk.

Really, this is what gets you into the streets? Trump’s goons have been kidnapping your neighbors, preparing to block your access to abortion, openly promoting “nationalism,” calling the targets for lone wolf assassins who send mail bombs and shoot up synagogues—and your chief concern is whether what they’re doing is legal?

And if Trump and his cronies were to change the laws—what then?

If you’re trying to establish the foundation for a powerful social movement against Trump’s government, “no one is above the law” is a self-defeating narrative. What happens when a legislature chosen by gerrymander passes new laws? What happens when the courts stacked with the judges Trump appointed rule in his favor? What will you do when the FBI cracks down on protests?

If everything that put Trump in a position to implement his agenda were legal, would you be at peace with it, then? When some nice centrist politician takes office after him, but the police keep enforcing the policies he introduced and the judges he appointed keep judging, will you withdraw from the streets? Come to think of it, where were you under Obama when people were being imprisoned and deported by the million? Perhaps you have no problem with millions of people being imprisoned and deported as long as no one colludes with Russia or talks over a journalist?

We saw other protesters with signs entreating us to “Save Democracy.” Didn’t democracy inflict Trump on us in the first place? Isn’t it democracy that just brought Bolsonaro to power in Brazil—a racist, sexist, and homophobic advocate of the Brazilian military dictatorship and extrajudicial killings? If democracy enables outright fascists to legitimize their authority rather than having to seize power by force, what’s so great about it, exactly?

If “no one is above the law,” that means the law is above all of us. It means that the law—any law, whatever law happens to be on the books—is more valuable than our dearest desires, more righteous than our most honorable aspirations, more important than our most deep-seated sense of right and wrong. This way of thinking prizes group conformity over personal responsibility. It is the kiss of death for any movement that aims to bring about change.

Social change has always involved illegal activity—from the American Revolution to John Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry, from the sit-in movement to the uprising in Ferguson. If not for the courageous deeds of people who were willing to break the law, we’d still be living under the king of England. Many of us would still be enslaved.

That is what makes your cheerleading for the FBI so chilling. You’re familiar with COINTELPRO, presumably, and many of the other ways that the FBI has set out to crush movements for social change? Imagine that your best-case scenario plays out and the FBI helps to orchestrate Donald Trump’s removal from power. What do you think that the FBI would do with all the legitimacy that would give them in the eyes of liberals and centrists? It would have carte blanche to intensify its attacks on poor people, people of color, and protesters, destroying the next wave of social movements before they can get off the ground. Nothing could be more naïve than to imagine that the FBI will focus on policing the ruling class.

The greatest peril we face is that Trump’s government will be replaced by a centrist government that will continue most of the current administration’s policies without violating any rules or norms. The more Trump’s regime is described as exceptional, the easier it will be for the next administration to get away with the same activities. In the long run, the system is at its most dangerous when it does not outrage people.

Mobilizing to support an FBI Director in response to the firing of one of the most racist Attorney Generals in living memory—this is the same “lesser of two evils” argument some have made for voting taken to its logical extreme; this approach guarantees that we will be reduced to advocating for the second worst of all possible evils. Firing Jeff Sessions helps Trump evade Mueller’s investigation, yes, but let’s be clear—men like Sessions, Trump, and Mueller do the most harm in the course of carrying out their official duties in strict observation of the law.

What Gives the Law Legitimacy in the First Place?

In the feudal era, when kingly authority was thought to be bequeathed by God and laws were decreed by kings, it was at least internally consistent to hold that everyone had a sacred duty to obey them. Today, this assumption lingers as a sort of holdover—yet without any rational basis. Certainly, the law decrees that no one is above it, but that’s just circular reasoning. What obliges us to regard laws as more valid then our own personal ethics?

Partisans of democracy like to imagine that laws arise because of their general utility to the population as a whole. On the contrary, for most of the history of the state, laws were decreed by monarchs and dictatorships—and only existed on account of their utility to rulers. Sovereignty itself is a fundamentally monarchist metaphor. If we no longer believe in the divine right of kings, that undermines any inherent claim that laws could have on our obedience. Rather than blindly complying, we have a responsibility to decide for ourselves how we should act. To cite Hannah Arendt, “No one has the right to obey.”

The law masquerades as a sort of social contract existing for everyone’s benefit. But if it’s really in everyone’s best interest, why is it so hard to get people to abide by it? The truth is, neither the powerful nor the oppressed have ever had good cause to obey laws—the former because the same privileges that enable them to write the laws release them from the necessity of observing them, the latter because the laws were not established for their benefit in the first place. It shouldn’t be surprising that a billionaire like Trump does not obey the laws. What’s surprising is that you still think that the rest of us ought to.

What’s the difference between the illegal activity of a Donald Trump and the illegal activity of a person who engages in civil disobedience? If “no one is above the law,” then they’re both equally in the wrong. No, the real distinction between them is that one is acting for selfish gain while the other is attempting to create a more egalitarian society. This is the important question—whether our actions serve to reproduce hierarchies or undermine them. We should focus on this question, not on whether any given action is legal.

What we are seeing today is the fracturing of our society. The peace treaties that stabilized capitalism through the second half of the 20th century are collapsing, and members of the ruling class are adopting rival strategies to weather the crises ahead. On one side, nationalists like Trump are betting on chauvinism and brute force, preparing to make the best of it as society splinters into warring groups. On the other side, centrist technocrats want to present themselves as the only imaginable alternative, using the specter of Trump and his kind to justify their own quest for authority. When they get back into office, you can bet that they won’t turn down any additional power that Trump has vested in the state. Your advocacy for “the rule of law” is music to their ears. And, of course, whatever additional power and legitimacy they concentrate in the state will be passed on to the next Trump, the next Bolsonaro.

Each side aims to instrumentalize the discourse of law and order in order to outflank the other in the battle for power. This isn’t new; it’s as old as the state itself. Immediately after the confirmation of Kavanaugh, you’re a sucker to imagine that the law represents some sort of social consensus rather than the edicts of whoever happens to control the institutions. To fetishize obedience to the law is to accept that might makes right.

To march under the banner “no one is above the law” is to spit in the faces of all those for whom the daily functioning of the law is an experience of oppression and injustice. It is to reject solidarity with the sectors of society that could give a social movement against Trump leverage in the streets. It is to assert the political center as a discrete entity that holds itself apart—that views both Trump and the social movements that oppose him as rivals to its own power. Finally, it is to legitimize the very instrument of oppression—the law—that Trump will eventually use to suppress your movement. Remember “Lock her up”?

You have to ask yourself some important questions now. Do you love laws—or justice? Do you love rights—or freedom?

If it’s laws you believe in, you’re on the right track. Just don’t have any illusions about what it means to value the law above everything else. If it’s justice you want, on the other hand, you need to be prepared to break the law. In that case, you need a totally different narrative to explain what you’re doing.

If it’s rights you’re after, you’ll need a government to grant them, protect them, and—inevitably—take them away when it sees fit. Whenever you use the discourse of rights, you set the stage for this to occur. There are no rights without a sovereign to bestow them. On the other hand, if you love freedom, rather than vesting legitimacy in the government, you’d better make common cause with everyone else who has a stake in collectively defending themselves against invasive efforts to impose authority, whether from Trump or his Democratic rivals.

From the anarchist perspective, all of us are above the law. Our lives are more precious than any legal document, any court decision, any duty decreed by the state. No social contract drawn up in the halls of power could provide a basis for mutually fulfilling egalitarian relations; we can only establish those on our own terms, working together outside any framework of imposed responsibilities. The law is not our salvation; it is the first and greatest crime.