The Little Führer

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Little Führer

Postby The Consul » Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:35 am

You know those little flags you can put in cakes? You can slip off the "flag" and put it back on upside down. Then, on 1/20/16, right as Hotel Guy gets up to give his speech, light it on fire. Here, there, anywhere, everywhere. For those who say the Nazis aren't really out there....out here, where I live, a group of high school kids met at capitol steps to protest Hotel Guy's bigotry. A group of mostly middle aged dumb fuck asshole bikers showed up to try to intimidate them. When asked why they were there they answered: "we are here to protect the flag in case anyone tries to burn it." Didn't scare the kids. This time.

100 years ago They tortured & killed Frank Little because he wouldn't kiss the American flag. If you think for one second this is not the "America" that we are going back to make great again, good luck.
" Morals is the butter for those who have no bread."
— B. Traven
User avatar
The Consul
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Ompholos, Disambiguation
Blog: View Blog (13)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:01 pm

Leader Of Party Founded By Nazis Claims He Met With Trump’s National Security Adviser

“This is not just any opposition party: It is one with Nazi sympathies,” a former state department official said.

The head of Austria’s anti-immigrant Freedom Party, which was founded after World War II by former Nazis, claimed in a Facebook post this week that he met with Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, Donald Trump’s pick to serve as his national security adviser.

The alleged meeting between Flynn and Heinz-Christian Strache, which was first reported by The New York Times, took place several weeks ago, according to Strache. In his posting about it, Strache also announced signing a “cooperation pact” with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

A Trump spokeswoman didn’t respond to a request for comment, but an anonymous transition team official told CNN the meeting didn’t happen. The Austrian embassy declined to comment.

Although the Times story focused on the Russia pact, the alleged Flynn-Strache meeting would be at least as significant. Austrians’ support for far-right parties has increased significantly over the past 15 years. Strache’s Freedom Party received 35 percent of the vote in the first round of the race for Austria’s ceremonial presidency, before narrowly losing a runoff earlier this month.

“This is not just any opposition party: It is one with Nazi sympathies,” said Daniel Serwer, a former state department official who’s now a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. “Nor is Flynn any national security adviser. He is a documented conspiracy propagator. His long-term strategy colleague, Steve Bannon, is an ethnic nationalist and anti-Semite. The president-elect is an anti-Muslim and anti-immigration bigot.”

There’s no doubt that Strache, who worries about “inverse racism, “Austrian youths” being “beaten up in discos” and the “risk of Islamization,” has a lot in common with Flynn, who has also warned of the dangers of Islam and called the religion a “cancer,” and Trump, who called for banning all Muslims from visiting the U.S.

Although they’re proud of their positions on immigration and Islam, Strache and Flynn have denied that they’re anti-Semitic.

The Freedom Party’s first leader was Anton Reinthaller, who supported the Nazi party as early as 1928 and later served as a Nazi government official. Reinthaller was a member of the SS, the Nazi paramilitary organization-turned-secret police that executed much of the Holocaust. Although there’s no clear evidence that Reinthaller was directly involved in the shooting, gassing and torture of millions of Jews, Roma, communists, gay people and others, he served in the government that carried it out and did nothing to stop it.

Here’s a photo of him with Hitler during the Reichstag meeting about Germany’s annexation of Austria:


Image
Hitler addresses the Reichstag in Berlin in 1938. Anton Reinthaller is in the first row, fifth from left, according to a caption provided by Getty.


More at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tru ... ebb78af7c2
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Sat Dec 24, 2016 9:14 am

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:45 am

http://countervortex.org/node/15176#comment-453902

Julian Assange: give fascism a chance

Submitted by Bill Weinberg on Mon, 12/26/2016 - 03:12

Kremlin mouthpiece Sputnik notes with glee that Julian Assange crowed in an interview with Italy's La Repubblica in which he expressed his opinion on the imminent fascist takeover of the United States: "Donald? It's a change anyway"

"Donald Trump is not a DC insider, he is part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities," he said. "It is a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States: change for the worse and change for the better."

Whereas: "Hillary Clinton's election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the United States."
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:30 am

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:00 am

https://antifascistnews.net/2016/12/24/ ... e-fascist/

Image

TRUMP THE FASCIST

DECEMBER 24, 2016

Note: This article is republished from its original location, published first August 25th, 2015. We think that it continues to be important now seeing Trump heading into the White House.

by Alexander Reid Ross


The White Power Candidate?

An impressive amount of light is being shed on the current presidential candidates, and Donald Trump in particular, revealing the ugly face of fascism in the US. In late June, the most popular US neo-Nazi news website, The Daily Stormer, fully endorsed Trump. Editor of The Daily Stormer Andrew Anglin writes, “[Trump] is certainly going to be a positive influence on the Republican debates, as the modern Fox News Republican has basically accepted the idea that there is no going back from mass immigration, and Trump is willing to say what most Americans think: it’s time to deport these people. He is also willing to call them out as criminal rapists, murderers and drug dealers… I urge all readers of this site to do whatever they can to make Donald Trump President.” A particularly high amount of attention has been placed on the fact that someone in the audience shouted “White power!” at Trump’s recent speech in Alabama, but what did Trump actually say during that speech?

To the tune of “Sweet Home Alabama,” Trump struts to the stage at the stadium in the majority-black city of Mobile—a Northern businessman in one of the major port cities in the Gulf of Mexico with a significant Civil War history. He seems to handle himself with all the bravado it takes for a white man from Queens, New York, who the Nation has likened to an oligarch, to ramble through what seemed like a largely ad-libbed speech for fifty minutes before an all-white crowd of an anticipated 40,000 Southerners.

The speech begins with Trump comparing himself to Billy Graham, a leader of the Moral Majority who took cues from the infamous “Jayhawk Nazi,” Gerald Winrod. By minute two of his speech, Trump declares that just last week, a 66 year-old woman was “raped, sodomized, tortured, and killed by an illegal immigrant. We have to do it. We have to do something. We have to do something.” The crowd erupts in enthusiastic applause. The US, according to Trump, is immediately beset on all sites by immigrants who pose a clear and present danger to the security of each and every white, God-fearing American citizen—“The people that built this country. Great people.”

In true populist fashion, Trump calls himself a “non-politician,” insisting that he served jury duty recently, and refused to put “politician” as his occupation. He is an outsider, the common man like us. “I know the game,” he tells us. He doesn’t rely on lobbyists, because he’s “built a great business.” Trump shifts his focus to a celebration of Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who walks onto the platform for a cameo appearance with his very own “Make America Great Again” baseball cap. Those hats are “hotter than pistols,” speaketh the Trump (“They’re made in America,” he reassures us). Sessions has declared that the opinions of climate scientists offend him, so in Trump’s world, he’s one of the good guys. Trump, however, is an unconventional leader, not a politician. In his speech, he calls for expedited elections. “Can we do that?” And then in his best manbaby impression: “I don’t wanna wait!”

Returning to the Pre-Reconstruction South

Someone brandishes an “original” copy of The Art of the Deal, one of Trump’s books, and he goes gaga; “That’s when they used real paper, right?” The crowd accepts the triumph of the paper mill—a great irony given the forest fires currently raging through millions of charred acres of Pacific Northwest rainforest, choking the air of hundreds of thousands of people. Unlike Portland, Oregon, however, the only scent of scorched earth in Mobile, Alabama, is that strange whiff of pre-Civil War nostalgia that still musters a tear for Old Dixie.

After insisting that “We’re going to build a wall” and warning that “seven and a half percent of all births are from illegal immigrants,” Trump rapidly moves on to issues of revitalizing the South by rescinding the Fourteenth Amendment. “The Fourteenth Amendment, I was right on it, you can do something with it, and you can do something fast.” What is Trump’s target here? The Fourteenth Amendment is the civil rights amendment drafted after the Civil War out of a compromise between supporters of abolition democracy and Northern industrialists who disliked the idea of racial equality. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This amendment established the basis of citizenship and the right to vote for black people in the South. Before the amendment, a politician who supported Reconstruction by amendment named Alfred Ronald Conkling declared, “[the] emancipated multitude has no political status. Emancipation vitalizes only natural rights, not political rights. Enfranchisement alone carries with it political rights, and these emancipated millions are no more enfranchised now than when they were slaves. They never had political power. Their masters had a fraction of power as masters.” The Fourteenth Amendment sought to enfranchise black voters, and to be treated “like Magna Charta as the keystone of American legislation,” in the words of one of its framers. Still, the Fourteenth Amendment came as a compromise to afford blacks various rights without engineering a far more liberatory, systemic undertaking.

By opposing the Fourteenth Amendment, Trump represents the nefarious tradition of Northern Republicans who split with the Reconstruction-era movement to spread equal rights to all citizens of the US. These industrialists sided with Southern racists to undermine Reconstruction through extreme violence, sparking the menace of the Ku Klux Klan. Agreeing with Southern Democrats that those who believed in public education and abolition democracy were mere “carpetbaggers” and “scalliwags,” these Northern industrialists turned their backs on Southern black voters and the project of Reconstruction, which ended finally in 1876 when Rutherfurd B Hayes won the election by agreeing to withdraw US troops from the South and allow “states rights” governance. As historian Leonard Zeskind explains in Blood and Politics, the history of resistance against Reconstruction marks an important tradition for white supremacists, from the anti-civil rights movement to Humphrey Ireland (also known as Wilmot Robertson and Sam Dickson) to David Duke, who would have won the race for Governor of Louisiana but for the black vote. A former Imperial Wizard of the Knights of the Klan, Duke supports Trump for president, saying “he’s certainly the best of the lot,” and he “understands the real sentiment of America.”

Trump does not even have to mention black voters in the South; he merely points to the stopgap measures of the Reconstruction period as the problem that keeps the US from returning to its former glory. This position is presented on Trump’s new baseball caps, which proudly state, “Make America Great Again.” This sort of American Renaissance would occur by expelling immigrants and returning to pre-Reconstruction South. It is only after establishing these points that Trump moves to the global trade question, which he simplifies largely to the field of US-East Asia geopolitics.

“I’m a Free Trader”

The Chinese have stolen America’s future, Trump bleats, and it’s the US’s fault for allowing them to do it. The political careerists in power must be thrown out, and replaced with Trump’s “killers,” “mean” guys, economic hit men who know how to broker big, merciless deals with the Chinese. Trump presents himself as a “free trader,” but also states that he will reverse the economic order by applying a 35 percent import tax on all imports from Mexico to keep Ford and Nabisco in the US. This position of tariffs within free trade systems seems to fall close to what Nuremberg prosecutor Franz Neumann, in referring to the Nazi Party, called “a perverted liberalism.”

Most evident in his economic platform is Trump’s willingness to take shots at companies who have run afoul of his propaganda enterprise in the past. Trump tells us that Sony “has lost its way. Prices are too high,” which may have less to do with Sony’s balance sheet, and more to do with the feud that he got into with Sony late last year when Trump insisted that the multinational corporation based in Japan has “no courage, no guts” after they withdrew the film, “The Interview,” due to threats from hackers. The row went as far as Trump calling for Amy Pascal to quit her position of co-chairman due to “stupidity issues” when news came out that she consulted with Al Sharpton.

As he expands on his ideas, Trump’s outlook on international relations seems increasingly informed by similar personal beefs. He claims to appreciate the Saudis for spending tens of millions of dollars on real estate with him. However, he claims that “they wouldn’t be there without our protection.” Similarly, we receive little in exchange for “28,000 troops we have at the border between North and South Korea,” except for that “they take our trade. We loose a fortune with them. We loose a fortune with China.”

Confronting the flight of support from his campaign after he made racist remarks, Trump declares that he is suing Univision for $500 million after the Mexico-based media company for dropping Miss USA, which Trump co-owns: “I want that money!” He regrets, he tells the audience, that Univision’s audience will miss the beautiful women of Miss Universe (“summer girls, but beautiful,” he tells the audience, stealing a line from the late-’90s boy band, LFO). Trump tells us that he is “not bragging” when he gloats that he has over $10 billion dollars with an income over $400 million. “I want to put that energy,” he explains, into the American public. His main points are to “make our country rich, and to make our country great again.” How can we do the latter without doing the former? It is at this point, which would appear to many to be one of the more innocuous moments, that an audience member begins to shout, “White Power!” A cry which Trump seems to hear, but does not acknowledge (according to some reports, the slogan was heard more than once).

Flogging the Middle Class

In pinball fashion, Trump returns to China, which he claims is taking our jobs. “It’s almost as though they want us to just die,” he tells us with a faltering timbre in his voice. They’re his friends—those Japanese bankers who pay Trump rent—they’re “really smart,” but “we have dummies” who are “incompetent.” At the devaluation of the Chinese Yuan, Trump tells us that he hears “a sucking sound”—that noise discovered by Ross Perot in Mexico while NAFTA was in the works in 1991.

Like Perot, Trump makes a number of homages to the middle class. “I didn’t like ties so much, because they were made in China,” he tells the crowd, eliciting jocular approval. In other interviews, Trump has declared his disdain for hedge fund managers gutting the middle class, and called Hillary Clinton a “running dog.” Since Trump is independently wealthy, while Clinton is worth a mere $32 million, his candidacy is untainted by the special interest lobbyists in Washington, DC. “We’re a debtor nation,” the crowd is told, because the US does not negotiate well on the international stage. To fix this, Trump would use the “smartest, toughest, meanest, in many cases the most horrible human beings on earth. I know them all. They’re killers. They’re negotiators… I would put the meanest, smartest—we have the best people in the world, but we don’t use them, we use political hacks, diplomats[.]” Trump discusses his friend, Carl, who he characterizes as making “blood coming out of [his enemies’] eyes from hatred.” This macabre image was minted by Trump earlier this month in reference to his own feud with FOX’s Megyn Kelly, during which he stated that “there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her—wherever,” because she was so angry.

With these men in his charge, Trump declares, “I will rebuild our military. It will be so powerful that we won’t even have to use it. Nobody is going to mess with us.” Chants of “USA!” break out, and Trump silences the chorus with a jeremiad about “our vets” for whom “the senators up in Washington… have done nothing.” Responding to a commentator and referring to his standing in the polls, he insists, “We are tired of the nice people. I won on the economy; I won on jobs; I won on leadership by massive numbers. I won on all these categories. I said, ‘Why do we need an election? We don’t need an election. These are such important categories.’”

It’s in the Genes

In the final ten minutes, Trump surpasses all prior excesses. Describing a friend of his who “comes from a good family,” Trump asks the audience, “do we believe in the gene thing? I mean, I do.” A cry of “Yes!” comes from the stadium. Recalling the old eugenics comparison of stockbreeding, Trump states, “They used to say that Secretariat produces the best horses.” As Trump then goes through a list of accomplishments, including best-selling books and the show The Apprentice, he sticks his chin out in a move that can only be compared with a Mussolini. Trump then informs us that Generals Patton and MacArthur “are spinning in their graves,” because “we can’t beat ISIS.” Presumably, if anybody could “fire” ISIS, it would be the star behind The Apprentice.

At the end of the speech, Trump attunes his audience to anxiety: “We’re running on fumes. We’re not going to have a country left. We need to have our borders. We need to make great deals.” Regarding deals, Trump returns to the issue of Israel for which he asserts his love, but seems to believe is being abandoned by the US. Like numerous reactionary politicians, Trump avoids open anti-Semitism, throwing his support behind Israel while periodically getting in trouble with veiled anti-Semitic jokes like his recent gaff against Jon Stewart. He seems horrified that Iran “are doing their own policing.” This is “so sad,” he states, and then switches up the pace with one simple word: “Obamacare,” eliciting prompt roars of disapproval from the crowd.

After declaring his intention to rescind Obamacare, Trump begins to stump about “women’s health issues” bring about a couple of interesting minutes of awkward discomfort from the audience. He promptly switches to the lack of spirit, jobs, anything, and declares, “I am going to be the greatest jobs president that God ever created… The American dream is dead, and I am going to make it bigger, stronger, and more powerful than ever before… And you’re going to love it, and you’re going to love your president.” As Trump steps away from the podium to the tune of Twisted Sister’s “We’re Not Going to Take It” having apparently reanimated a Frankensteinian monstrosity, he seems confident, and the crowd wildly applauds.

Analyzing the Speech

If we assess Trump’s political platform based on Cass Mudde’s rubric of the “populist radical right,” we can see both nativism and welfare chauvinism as the most important characteristics. If nativism is the emphasis on citizenship that traces familial lineage beyond simple birthright, and welfare chauvinism is the increase of the social wage for native citizens, then we’re inside Trump’s ballpark. While Trump is certainly a right-wing populist, there is more to his politics.

There can be no denying that Trump is nativist—in fact, he openly brags about mainstreaming the term “anchor baby,” forcing Jeb Bush to use it in order to keep up with xenophobia. However, Trump’s demonstration of a “free trade” platform with restrictive tariffs is anything but consistent, and he seems to paper over the awkward split with returns to the gimmick of “killer deals.” Tariffs would encourage companies to build factories in the US, he claims, putting more money and jobs into the working class, but would taxes go to public health care? Trump seems to indicate that increased revenue would go to the military, rather than the social wage. The military would then leverage its protection of Saudi Arabia and South Korea for financial support—in short, a protection racket. So the description of “welfare chauvinism,” or generating social programs for “native citizens” only, seems to be a stretch. Instead, Trump’s interesting mix of personalization of economic order and increased protectionism within a liberal, “free trade” framework seem to move more in kind with Mussolini’s framework.

“[Fascism] is not a matter of assembling any old government, more dead than alive,” Mussolini wrote. “It is a question of injecting into the liberal State— which has fulfilled tasks which were magnificent and which we will not forget—all the force of the new Italian generations[.]” This seems to keep with Trump’s insistence that he wants “to put that energy” of his own personal genius into the system that “is running on fumes.” Competitors like Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are “low-energy people” and black youths have “no spirit,” but Trump is resilient and his cadre are high-impact killers.

When told that the two Boston men who urinated and beat a houseless Latino man with a metal pole were inspired by his words (“Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported”), Trump responded, “I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate.” He later tweeted that “We need energy and passion, but we must treat each other with respect. I would never condone violence.”

Although he claims to disavow violence, Trump’s repeated calls for exceptions from the ordinary juridical order echo the famous fascist “state of exception.” He calls on the crowd to support his impulse for extra-parliamentary aims, such as holding the elections early or not even holding elections at all, because “We are tired of the nice people.” Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, he insists that we can “do something fast.” These impulses, matched with his personalization of economic policy, mark an important kind of leadership principle focused on his own gimmick of “deal making,” which only “the smartest, toughest, meanest, in many cases the most horrible human beings on earth” can understand. Trump would replace the incompetent “political hacks, diplomats” currently in power with his own energetic, vigorous, and ruthless crew. This rhetoric is mirrored by the words of important early fascists like Giovanni Papini—“those who hold power are of three types: the old, the incapable, the charlatans.” Trump’s people are virile and impressive, like Trump, himself. They evoke “blood coming out of her eyes from hatred.” And most of all: they want to help “make America great again.”

Holy Palingenesis, Batman!

Although there are numerous characteristics of fascism, many of which are contradictory, a minimal definition is provided by Roger Griffin: palingenetic ultra-nationalist populism. In lay terms, that means a kind of ultra-nationalist politics that calls for a rebirth of a former glory of the State. If “make America great again” holds as its referents the following:

1) Xenophobic focus on high immigrant birth rates and roving migrants raping and sodomizing elderly women;
2) Anti-Asian economic stance calling forth the image of intelligent-but-thieving Asian nations;
3) Anti-Civil Rights position decrying the unconstitutional burden of the Fourteenth Amendment;
4) A strange focus on genetic, familial heritage;
5) Anti-plutocratic politics coming from an oligarch;
6) Militaristic protectionism masquerading as liberalism; and
7) A political rhetoric devoted to energy and coming “back from the dead”


then it lands quite clearly in the tradition of ultra-nationalism known as “Americanism.” Each of these reference played its own special role during the 1960s backlash against the Civil Rights and labor movements, which after the election of Richard Nixon moved from political participation through the Wallace campaign of 1968 into various critical fascist organizations like the National Alliance and Liberty Lobby.

Is Trump a paleo- or neo-conservative? Not really. Is he a leftist? Absolutely not. But in his syncretic platform, he takes planks from both sides, from economic protectionism and anti-plutocracy to anti-immigrant and anti-civil rights rhetoric. Is he nostalgic for a bygone era? Yes, he is expressly nostalgic for that era that passed away with the Fourteenth Amendment and Reconstruction. Trump does not so much have an ideological position as a position of personal force and energy. He seeks “passion” for a new regime to beat the stale one and fill the existing system with renewed energy by eliminating the specter of rapist migrants given carte blanche by civil rights, and of course, making great deals.

Hence, while noting the complexity of fascist movements throughout history, it would be accurate to characterize Trump’s candidacy as lying within the “Americanist” tradition of fascism. Americanism began with the “America First” anti-interventionist group whose spokesperson was Charles Lindbergh, and continued through the American National Socialist Party under the leadership of George Lincoln Rockwell. While the American Nazi Party wore armbands, carried swastikas, and looked like brownshirts, the Americanist movement moved into a more astute appraisal of US politics forwarded by William Pierce and Willis Carto after the 1968 Wallace Campaign. America and Americans First has since been the banner of multifarious fascist groupuscles in the US, including JT Ready’s National Socialist Movement in Arizona. Although he may be stumping for this tendency without being fully aware of it, Trump may just be the most quintessentially “White Power” candidate that the Republican Party has seen for some time.

***

Alexander Reid Ross is a journalist and researcher based in the Pacific Northwest. He edited the anthology “Grabbing Back: Essays Against the Global Land Grab” (AK Press, 2014) and his forthcoming “Against the Fascist Creep” is due out soon also through AK. He is currently a lecturer in the Geography Department at Portland State University.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:12 am

Trump, fascism, and the construction of "the people": An interview with Judith Butler

Donald Trump did not campaign in poetry or in prose — as in the old saying coined by Mario Cuomo — but, like all fascist leaders, in argot. He invented his own sociolect, a mix of jokes, funny faces, scatological allusions, complaints, slogans and imprecations. His rhetoric corresponds to a sort of ‘branding’ based on exclusion. He communicates less by structured discourse than by signals, an amalgam of slogans and insults brandished as a massive weapon for delegitimising minorities. How would you analyse Donald Trump’s slogan in The Apprentice — "You’re Fired"?

Once again this language act presumes that he alone is able to deny people their employment, their position or their power. So part of what he succeeds in doing is to communicate a sense of power that he has in fact delegated to himself. That is precisely what language-acts like the one you mention constitute. We should also bear in mind that the anger against cultural elites is taking the form of anger against feminism, against the civil rights movement, against religious and cultural diversity. These different causes appear as so many "superego" constraints weighing down on racist and misogynist passions.

What Trump has done is to "release" the hatred against social movements and against anti-racist public discourse. With Trump, everyone is free to hate. He put himself in the position of a man prepared to run the gauntlet of public condemnation for his racism and sexism — and he survived it. His supporters also want to be unashamed in their racism, hence the sudden increase in hate crimes in the streets and on public transport immediately after the election. People felt "free" to bark their racism as they saw fit. So given that, how can we free ourselves of this "liberator" Trump?

If we concentrate too much on rhetoric we risk forgetting a second dimension: the very great "corporeity" of his performances at rallies or talk shows. It is not worth saying anything more about his haircut and his "orangeness," but beyond that there is also the way he moves his hands and his mouth, a mannerism expressed in zany face-pulling, overblown gestures, a form of over-exhibition of his body, particular to the universe of tele-reality. Surely the naked statues of Trump that spread across public squares in cities around America sanctioned a sort of kitsch sacrality, aiming at a sort of hateful contagion, a corporeal provocation… Seeing this I thought of a line from Kafka, "One of the most effective means of temptation that Evil possesses is the challenge to struggle against it." How would you analyse this "reality TV" character breaking through onto the political stage?

It seems clear that the presidency has increasingly become a media phenomenon. One question is how many people treated the vote as they would a decision on Facebook: like whether or not to click "Like." Trump occupies screen space, becoming a threatening figure. We saw this in the satire of Trump on Saturday Night Live where Alec Baldwin wanders around the stage, apparently preparing to attack Hillary from behind. This kind of threatening, imminent power also draws on his acts of sexual harassment. He goes where he wants, says what he wants, and takes what he wants. So even if he is not charismatic in the traditional sense of the term he does gain personal power and stature by occupying the screen like this.

In this sense, he gives off the image of someone who breaks the rules, does what he wants, rakes in money, and has sex when — and with whom — he wants. Vulgarity fills the screen, just as it wants to fill the world. And a lot of people are very happy to see this disturbing, unintelligent guy parading around as if he was the centre of the Earth and winning power thanks to this posture.

Having been accused of lying, Trump defended himself by saying that he practised what he called "truthful hyperbole," "an innocent form of exaggeration — and a very effective form of promotion." European media are increasingly using the expression "post-truth politics" to designate the blurring of true and false, reality and fiction that Hannah Arendt described as a property of totalitarianism. In this view, social media have created a new context characterised by the appearance of independent news bubbles, creating a sort of news echo-chamber allowing for the wildest rumours, conspiracy theories and lies to spread. Indeed, it is inaccessible to media fact checking. During his campaign Trump was able to address his little republics of resentment via Twitter and Facebook, and federate them into an over-excited "wave." What do you think of this concept of "post-truth politics"?

In a certain sense I can’t believe that these are Trump’s own words. They seem like the words of someone trying to normalise and even applaud his cavalier relationship with the truth. I am not sure that we are indeed in a post-truth situation. It seems to me that Trump attacks the truth and is unashamed of the fact that he does not back up his statements with proof or show any logic in what he says. His statements are not totally arbitrary, but he is prepared to change his position at will, in function of the opportunity that presents itself, his impulses or the useful effect this change will have. For example, when he said that once he became president he would "throw Hillary in jail" he was acclaimed by those who hated her; it even allowed them to hate her even more.

Of course, he does not have the power to "throw her in jail," and even as president he would not have the power to do so, without a long criminal procedure and a court judgment. But in that moment itself he was above any legal procedure, exercising his will as he wished, modelling the form of tyranny that is not really concerned with the question of whether she has committed a criminal infraction or not. Thus far the evidence suggests that this is not the case. And there is nothing to support his allegations that Hillary Clinton only won the popular vote because millions of "illegals" voted for her. But in the moment, even as he exposed his own narcissistic wound, he sought to delegitimise the popular vote.

At the same time, he totally rules out the idea that the votes for himcould have been illegal. In a sense it matters little if he contradicts himself or if he is obviously rejecting only those conclusions that diminish his own power or popularity. Both brazen and wounded, this narcissism and this refusal to submit to proof and logic make him even more popular. He lives above laws, and that is how a lot of his supporters would like to live too.

In Excitable Speech you analyse the verbal violence of homophobic, sexist or racist discourse whose goal is to break and exclude the people to whom it is addressed. You also show that this verbal violence’s goal is to redraw the boundaries of a people. This means a discursive operation to exclude, trace, and delimit, but also to configure — bringing the emergence of the homogeneous, monochrome, heterosexual shape of a fantasy people. Nonetheless, you also explain that this performance can be turned back on itself, and open the space for a political struggle and a subversion of identities. What do you think are the levers that can bring this about?

Perhaps we ought to see xenophobic nationalism as a means of affirming and defining "the people." There was support for Trump among economically disadvantaged citizens as well as among those who think they have lost their white privilege. But a lot of well-off people also voted Trump, having been persuaded that more markets would open up and that they could get richer. We can concentrate on his discourse, and that is indeed something important, but it is not the only thing that attracted people to him.

However, I think that the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren was right to respond to his insulting comment about Hillary Clinton — "she’s a nasty woman" — by replying, "Get this, Donald. Nasty women are tough, nasty women are smart, and nasty women vote, and on November 8, we nasty women are going to march our nasty feet to cast our nasty votes to get you out of our lives forever." Without doubt that was a thrilling moment of public feminism, though it evidently was not enough.

Since 2011 we have seen the international emergence of assemblies like Occupy, the Indignados, Nuit Debout, the Arab Spring… In your most recent book, Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly, you analyse the conditions of these movements’ appearance and their political implications, extending your analyses of political performance. You write that when bodies assemble they take on a political expression, which is not reduced to these actors’ demands or the discourse they advance. What forces prevent or make possible this kind of plural action? What is their democratic character?

While demonstrations and assemblies often do not suffice to produce radical changes, they change our perception of what "the people" is. And they affirm the fundamental freedoms that belong to bodies, in their plurality. There can be no democracy without freedom of assembly, and there can be no assembly without freedom of movement and meeting. Mobility and bodily capacities are thus presuppositions of this freedom. The public demonstrations against austerity and precarity present in the street, in the public eye, the bodies of individuals who themselves suffer from a loss of class position and a feeling of civic degradation. They thus affirm collective political action by assembling, in their own way.

So while we might think of parliamentary assemblies as an integral part of democracy, we can also understand extra-parliamentary assemblies’ power to change the public understanding of what the people is. Especially when those who are not meant to appear do appear, we see that the "sphere of appearance" and the powers controlling its borders and divisions are presuppositions of any discussion of what "the people" is. I agree with Jacques Rancière in this regard.

Michel Foucault analysed the democracy of fifth to fourth century BC Athens as simultaneously a discursive problem, the paradox of "speaking truth" in a democracy (parrhesia is perverted) and as a displacement of the "stage" of politics, from the "agora" to the "ecclesia" — namely from the city of citizens to the court of the sovereign. Can we consider the development of these new democratic stages appearing since 2011 as the agora’s revenge on the ecclesia?

Fundamentally, speaking truth to power is not an individual act. Speaking truth to power means appropriating power by speaking in this way. And it means that power structures can be reused or redeployed in the service of the "responses." We can thus consider the speaking subject as a speaking individual. This is an anonymous and changing position that can potentially involve a certain number of people. But before asking what speaking truth to power means we have to ask who can speak.

Sometimes the mere presence of those who are meant to stay mute in public discourse manages to break these structures. When undocumented migrants assemble, when the victims of expulsion meet, when those who suffer unemployment or drastic reductions in their pensions meet, they inscribe themselves in the imagery and discourse of the representation of what the people is, or should be. Of course they do make specific demands, but assembling is also a means of making a demand with one’s body, a corporeal demand on public space and a public demand on political authorities.

So in a sense we first of all have to "break and enter" into discourse before we can speak truth to power. We have to break the constraints on political representation in order to expose its violence and oppose its exclusions. As long as "security" continues to justify the banning and dispersion of protests, assemblies and encampments, security serves to decimate democratic rights and democracy itself. Only mobilisation on a large scale, what we might call an embodied and transnational form of courage, will succeed in defeating xenophobic nationalism and the various alibis that today threaten democracy.


More at: http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3025-tr ... ith-butler
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Fri Dec 30, 2016 2:02 pm

http://insurgentnotes.com/2016/12/letter-from-italy/

Letter From Italy

DEC 28, ’16 11:40 AM

I apologize for the delay in my answer. I agree with your analysis. And yes, people who voted for Trump are not our enemies. They are the enemies of the liberal left. By the way, we are their enemies as well.

There is an increasing sense of dissatisfaction with the present that manifests in terms of people’s anger, anxiety and the loss of faith in any rational account of the present-future. I wrote a few years ago something about the asynchronicity of the temporality of the financial market and the one of the state. I thought that the state’s attempt to synchronize out-of-synch temporalities would have pushed the state to accelerate its decision-making processes and therefore to introduce new forms of authoritarianism.

Trump’s victory makes me think that there is something more. The nation state, whose original function was to reduce uncertainties and control the instability of the market, is no longer able to fulfill its role. Clinton claims that everything is under (rational) control and the state can (rationally) provide for a better future. People who lost their jobs and houses during the crises are angry, afraid, and know that the state is like a small boat in the storming ocean of financial markets. And they feel that nothing is rational in our present.

Trump does not say that the nation state is going to fall apart. He accuses the politicians and the establishment instead, and he seeks to keep the state alive by strengthening and concentrating its primordial functions: control of the borders, national identity, security in terms of police… In order to do this, Trump mobilizes not the ideal of a better future, which is empty and uncertain, but the huge emotional energy of the past: let’s make America great again! The alternative to Trump was not Clinton. And the alternative to Clinton was not Trump. They are the two sides of the same problem. That is the crisis of the nation state and people’s increasing dissatisfaction with representative democracy—a dissatisfaction that Trump can temporarily orient towards the establishment. The current crisis, I think, opens up a new field for political experiments beyond the false alternatives, which Trump and Clinton represent.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:42 pm

https://indypendent.org/2016/12/19/how- ... -heartbeat

How to Topple a Wall with a Heartbeat

Image

BY NICHOLAS POWERS
DECEMBER 19, 2016


"He won with a metaphor.” I pressed my hands against the air as if touching a surface. “He won with the image of a wall.” They looked at me, waiting for words to strike like a flint on reality, to spark a flash and make everything briefly visible.

“We’re scared.” I walked to the stage’s edge. The audience was sparse but a classic New York crowd. A mix of everyone. A trio of Indian friends sat behind a Latino family. On the other side, a Caribbean couple cuddled next to Muslim women. Students sat side by side with tourists. They came to the Nuyorican Café for a poetry slam. Its high brick walls and theater lights cast us in an otherworldly glow, as if we held service in a grungy art temple.

“A year ago he was a joke,” I said. “But as he rose, he upended what we took for granted as basic human decency. And now this creature from the Black Lagoon of Capitalism is our fucking president.” Grunting like a movie monster, I reached for the young man in the front row. He laughed while ducking my hands.

I stood back up and repeated, “We’re scared.” Lowering my voice, I reached for the fear coiled in their guts, to pull it out into open air. “A man who told the nation, we are criminals, rapists and terrorists has been given the power to destroy us. He was given this power by our neighbors. He sold them an image of a wall. A wall against us.”

The Vanishing Game

“Are you scared about Trump?” I asked Abdah. He smirked, put my coffee and egg roll in a bag, then stopped to think. The bodega bell rang, neighbors came in, waved hi. Everyone knew Abdah and the Yemeni crew who worked the store. But did they care that he could be deported? Or put on a Muslim registry?

“I don’t think about him much,” he shrugged. “I know I should but … politics … it’s another world. I just am here.” He tapped the counter. “I work, go home, sleep, maybe girlfriend, come to work, go home, sleep.”

“The Muslim registry?” I asked. “Deportation?”

He shook his head and looked from my questions to the next customer. I said goodbye and walked to the train station. If another terrorist attack happens, will a roundup begin? How deadly will Trump’s scapegoating become? Who will disappear from our lives? Will it be my neighbors? Will it be my students or friends?

Since the election, I think about the undocumented workers in my life. I know their names. I trade jokes with them in the morning. I see them wake up early for work. I ask them for coffee and breakfast. I get out of their way as they haul concrete into construction sites, working themselves raw for a dream.

I imagine ICE teams showing up to handcuff the men, faces tight with rage and shame and fear. How would we feel as the police arrested them? Would we silently wonder, who will they come for next?

I think about the Muslims in my life. I say hi to the North African men spilling out of the mosque on Bedford and Fulton. I banter with Muhammad at the internet café as he prints my poems. I teach and read the papers by young women who wear hijabs and write about straddling two worlds.

What if a Muslim registry is instituted? What if they received a phone call, an email, a letter telling them to report to a station? Would we be ashamed as they were branded with this public mark? Would we express our regret even as we wonder, who will they come for next?

These questions circled me as I arrived at my department. The secretary motioned me over to her desk. “Did you see this?” She held out a leaflet. I took it and read on one side a Conservative manifesto. On the other side in big, bold letters: “Trump has won! America is Great Again! We are watching you, professor!”

“He found it on his desk before class.” She lowered her voice. “He hasn’t told anyone yet. He’s going to ask the dean what to do.”

“Can I copy it?” I held the leaflet so tight, it nearly ripped. She said yes. I took it to the machine, put it on the glass screen, watched the light flash underneath. Walking to my office, I turned it over and over in my hands like the script to a horror movie. I read it slowly, carefully — We are watching you!

The Liberal Elite

My office is lined with articles, my college degree and Ph.D. On the shelf are books and class hand-outs. All of it useless. All of it like a wall of privilege that left me cut off from the real world.

“We are the most incompetent, liberal elite ever,” I said to no one, said to the world, said as if to apologize. I had taught college for a decade and was used to the prestige. But I was just a token minority in the academy, who jumped at the chance for status and security. Now I felt stupid, empty and small.

“Liberal comedians could not stop Trump,” I plucked the degree off the wall and threw it.

“Liberal journalists could not stop Trump,” I ripped an article off the wall and tossed it.

“Liberal professors. . .” I heard a knock on the door. It was Vick, my student advisee doing his thesis on Orwell’s novel 1984.

“Oh, I thought you were talking to someone.”

“Just myself.”

“Must’ve been an intelligent conversation,” he said with a smile. He had shaggy hair, a long nose and deep perceptive eyes. He’d drop random Bill Maher lines in class and the other students would turn and look around as if to say what-are-you-talking-about? We went over his thesis draft. I told him it was heavy on political analysis. I asked how 1984 fit with dystopian literature, how it repeated or revised the genre’s tropes.

“The elimination of critical thinking by eliminating language is one,” he said. “To force the human into a cog role in the social machine. But the other theme is romance, how people can express themselves outside the rule of the one party state. Expression is how the self grows and when they express their love for each other, they grow beyond the party’s control. My main critique is that Orwell doesn’t balance it out with the party’s appeal. Like why would anyone vote for, join or support a techno-fascist state? My thesis is that when people are scared, they turn to anyone who can offer them a semblance of order, even if it is at the price of their freedom or well, you know, other people’s freedom. We can see that today with the election of Trump.”

I blinked, began to say something and then just looked at him, as if to say what-are-you-talking about? He smiled and bobbed his head in a happy, goofy way, then looked curiously at the floor, reached down and handed me back my degree.

Human Writes Day

Walk. Run. Walk. Run. The Nuyorican Café was a block away. Start time for the poetry slam was in a few minutes. I dashed through the door into a near empty hall. The staff had sheepish smiles, as if to say sorry, no one showed up.

The few people there smiled faintly as they looked for a polite way out. I was going to cancel the event when a trio of Indian friends and a Latino family came in. I told them, “Let’s huddle in the front like around a campfire.”

Did they want a quick poetry workshop, like quick-quick? They said sure. They were curious about what could happen. I was too. So I told them, I felt lost since the election. The world I thought existed, didn’t. And how did they feel?

“I don’t like this talk of walls,” the Latino father said. “How they don’t let the refugees in.” His daughter looked at him as if seeing him for the first time. We were all seeing something. I walked away from the microphone and said, “Our new president. He won with a metaphor. He won with an image of a wall.”

In the back, the door opened and latecomers ambled in. It was a group of young men, stylish hair, stylish clothes, who looked around at the hushed crowd and then at me, weirded out by the intensity.

“We’re in a group therapy session,” I said. People in the rows laughed. “We’re talking about walls. You have any walls you want to break down?” I rubbed my chest. “In here, bro, in here.”

He smiled, shook his head. “I like my walls.” Everyone laughed hard.

“Yes we do,” I teased. “I have mine. I have my ideology. It’s like a religion for me. It protects me. I don’t know what it’s like to live without politics. It’s a good wall that became bad because I’m beginning to hate people I’ve never met because of who they voted for.”

I waited a second, wondering how I could put all this back in. “Who knows someone who could get deported?” I asked. Nearly, half of the crowd raised their hands.

“Okay,” I blew out a long sigh. “Who knows someone who’s Muslim?” More raised their hands. The door opened and again more people came in. I waved them over to the empty seats up front.

I made a stacking motion with my hands. “America was told it needed a wall to keep itself safe. So let’s write a poem about walls. They are a consistent theme in art from the wall of Troy in the Iliad to Pink Floyd’s The Wall. They play one of two roles. A good one, keeps what’s sacred safe. It protects the family, keeps the raging flood at bay. A bad one imprisons us, blocks us from doing something or becoming someone.”

More people came in and I pointed at empty seats. “So write about what are the walls, good and bad in your life.” They pulled out notepads, opening them like a chain of dominoes through their laps.

The two Muslim women finished. I pointed to them and the one who wore the hijab touched it and said, “This is a good wall. I feel protected by it. Even when people stare, it protects me.”

Her friend looked around and touched her cheek. “My makeup is a good wall. I don’t want people to see me without it.”

The Caribbean lady, who sat with her boyfriend, leaned over to high-five, mouthing, “Neither do I.”

Her boyfriend said, “My bad wall is my self-image. It blocks me, I think, from being more, from growing … I don’t know what I’m saying.” His girlfriend put her arm around him. I let him know it was okay and pointed to the Indian man in the back. “When I go home,” he said, “I like that my language is my wall, I feel good inside it. But when I am outside of it, I speak outside myself, if that makes sense.”

More people came in and felt the intense openness and quietly sat down. One after the other, the workshop group talked about the walls they needed, the walls they hated, the walls they were given as children and that seemed to grow up with them, always too high to scale. Their voices shone in the air.

The girl who wore the hijab asked to read her poem. I invited her to the stage. She faced the audience, now a fully packed hall, mesmerized by the alchemy of art. She touched her hijab and looked at me. “It’s about … how a good wall can become bad.”
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Mon Jan 02, 2017 9:08 am



http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.com/2 ... -odin.html





Soldiers of Odin, Europe’s Notorious Anti-Immigration Group, Beginning to Form Cells in Canada

Image

While the group publicly states that they are not a racist group, in the group's closed Facebook page, anti-Islamic sentiment is strong and makes up the vast majority of posts.

A post in the Alberta chapter's Facebook group was an article about the arson of a mosque in San Bernardino: Three comments below it read "Good work," "Only 20,000 more to go," and "Hopefully it was full."

Two of the specific points in the Canadian charter, section 14 and 16, specifically outlaw racism and "religion bashing." It goes on to say "once you put on the Odin's Head you leave it all at the door and can pick it up when you take off the Odin's Head."

The Finnish chapter has said that personal views aren't of concern to the group as long as members follow the rules.

The people behind the website "Anti-racist Canada" found that several members, including higher-ups in some chapters, either are, or have ties to, white supremacists—some are connected to Blood & Honour and the Creativity Movement.

Amira Elghawaby of the National Council of Canadian Muslims explains that this isn't the first time that a foreign anti-immigration, or anti-Islamic, group has come to Canada and tried to establish itself. She references the anti-Islamic group Pegida that came here but couldn't find any traction. She says that "gives a lot of Canadians a lot of hope."

Elghawaby cites stories like the Ontario community of Peterborough rallying around the Muslim community after a mosque was torched, and people gathering to clean up after someone spraypainted "Go Home" on a local mosque in Cold Lake, Alberta.

"I think there are positive stories all around us but... there's a negative sentiment," said Elghawaby. "An Angus Reid poll came out last March that showed 44 percent of Canadians held a negative view of Muslims. That is a significant number of Canadians."

"They're a minority, but they're a sizable minority."



https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/sold ... -in-canada
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Wed Jan 04, 2017 8:43 am

a crisis of democracy or of liberalism?

Welcome to 2017. It will be just like 2016. Only more so. This will be the year in which Donald Trump formally enters the White House, and Theresa May (probably) begins Brexit negotiations, in both cases giving institutional form to the two most startling election results of last year. It will be the year in which elections in Germany, the Netherlands and France, and possibly Italy, are likely see rightwing populists gain ground, even triumph.

In the Netherlands, Geert Wilder’s anti-immigration, anti-Muslim Party for Freedom (PVV) is ahead in the polls, and may help form the government after elections in March. In France, in May, Marine Le Pen of the far-right Front National should reach at least the second-round run-off in the Presidential elections, and may win. In Germany, Angela Merkel could possibly hang on as Chancellor after elections in September. But the far-right AfD will almost certainly have dozens of seats in the Bundestag.

And, so, 2017 will also be the year when fears for the future of liberal democracy will reach a new pitch. Such fears will, however, be only half justified. Democracy, on the surface at least, is in rude health. It is liberalism that is in trouble.

Democracy does not require that the ‘right’ result be delivered every time. Indeed, were the ‘right’ always to delivered, it would indicate not the success, but a failure of democracy. The whole point of the democratic process is that it is unpredictable. The reason we need democracy is that the question of what are ‘right’ policies or who is the ‘right’ candidate is often fiercely contested. Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen may be reactionary, and their policies may help unpick the threads of liberal democracy. But their success reveals a problem not with democracy but with politics.

We have become so accustomed to talking about ‘liberal democracy’ that we often forget that there is an inherent tension between liberalism and democracy. At the heart of liberalism stands the individual. Classically, liberals held that any official restraint placed on an individual’s liberty had to be both justified and minimal. Liberals, however, fear also the masses, worrying about ‘mob rule’ and the ‘tyranny of the majority’ as threats to the liberty of the individual. For all the distaste for state restraints, many liberals have increasingly looked to state institutions as means of checking the power of the many. This has inevitably led to ambivalence about the virtues of democracy.

With the end of the Cold War, many liberals expected the tension between liberalism and democracy to be resolved. Liberal institutions, they imagined, could concentrate on governance and the enactment of the ‘right’ policies, while, freed from dreams of socialism, the masses could simply become the electorate, exercising their democratic right at elections, and enjoying the benefits of technocratically-shaped governments.

In fact, the opposite has happened. The tension between liberalism and democracy has become far sharper. Many liberals insist that the only way of defending liberal values is by insulating them from the democratic process. Many who feel politically voiceless in this new world believe they can only assert their democratic voice by challenging liberal values. It is this polarization between liberalism and democracy that created the tumult of 2016, and will create the even greater tumult of 2017.

Image
LS Lowry's Returning from Work, 1929.

Democracy is not just about placing a cross on a ballot paper. It is fundamentally about the contestation of power. We might vote as individuals in the privacy of the polling booth, but we can only defend democracy, and assert our political voice, by acting collectively. This requires a robust public sphere, and a democracy that is contested as much in the streets and the workplace as in the polling station. This is the real problem with democracy today. It is not that the events of 2016, and possible events of 2017, show a failure of democracy, but that while people have been able democratically to express their disaffection with the political elite, the erosion of the power of labour organizations and social movements has helped weaken democracy in a broader sense by limiting the possibilities of real social change.

At the same time, the decline of these organizations has encouraged a shift in power away from democratic institutions, such as national parliaments, to non-political institutions, from international courts to central banks. Many liberals view this as ensuring good governance and protecting important policies from the vagaries of the democratic process. Many on the left, no longer rooted in old-style class politics, have welcomed this shift, seeing transnational organizations, such as the EU, as key vehicles for social change. Many sections of the public, however, have been left feeling as if without a political voice.

Having lost their traditional means through which to vent disaffection, and in an age in which class politics has little meaning, many working class voters have come to express themselves through the language of identity politics; not the identity politics of the left, but that of the right, the politics of nationalism and xenophobia, that provides the fuel for many populist movements.

Critics of liberalism have long recognized that its fundamental flaw is that humans do not live merely as individuals. We are social beings, and find our individuality and discover meaning only through others. Hence the importance to political life not just of individuals but also of communities and collectives.

Politically, the sense of the collective has been expressed in two broad forms: the politics of identity and the politics of solidarity. The former stresses attachment to common identities based on such categories as race, nation, gender or culture. The difference between leftwing and rightwing forms of identity politics derives, in part, from the categories of identity that are deemed particularly important. The politics of solidarity draws people into a collective not because of a given identity but to further a political or social goal. Where the politics of identity divides, the politics of solidarity finds collective purpose across the fissures of race or gender, sexuality or religion, culture or nation. But it is the politics of solidarity that has crumbled over the past two decades as the left has declined. For many, the only form of collective politics left is that rooted in identity. Hence the rise of identity-based populist movements.

Such movements often link a reactionary politics of identity to economic and social policies that once were the staple of the left: defence of jobs, support for the welfare state, opposition to austerity. Consider next year’s French Presidential elections. The two candidates likely to make it through to the second round are the centre-right François Fillon and the far-right Marine Le Pen. Fillon is socially conservative and economically ‘liberal’. He wants to crush what remains of the French ‘social model’, cutting state expenditure and slashing workers’ rights. It is Le Pen who poses as the champion of the working class, hostile to austerity and supportive of the welfare state.

Image


Continues at: https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2017/0 ... iberalism/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:39 am

The politics of oppression

by Mumia Abu-Jamal

Most presidential elections concentrate on the candidates – their views, positions and, perhaps more importantly, their persona.

Of course, we don’t really know these people, but thanks to modern communications, we think we do. They are, in reality, familiar strangers.

We see them in commercials or on televised interviews.

But the real object in a political democracy should be the people, for without voters, how can there be elections? Average people are often ignored, while the rich are courted like lovers.

What few pay attention to isn’t just average people, but the true nature of politics.

For the rich and powerful, they perform transactional politics or, to simplify, they treat their votes as part of a transaction – and demand, “For my vote, I want X.” For poor and working-class people, they practice affective (or emotional) politics. That means they vote on how a candidate makes them feel.

Being poor and thought powerless, they demand nothing, for they feel unworthy to make demands. They want help, not power.

Thus, class consciousness informs political systems, and the poor are forever disappointed by the politicians they’ve voted for.

That’s because they vote for who they like, not what that candidate has promised them.

This politics of betrayal has left many feeling like they can’t trust any politician, for they’ll only lie, get in and do what they want anyway, right?

Why? Most people demand nothing. Why are we surprised when we get nothing?

Affective politics is for children. Transactional politics makes demands, which, if not met, exact political consequences.


Continues at http://sfbayview.com/2017/01/the-politi ... ppression/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:27 pm

https://abolitionjournal.org/trump-the- ... apitalism/

Image

Trump: The Neo-Authoritarian Tendency & the Ephocal Crisis of Capitalism

by Luis Arizmendi

(1/4/17 – Part 1 of a 7-part essay. Translated from Spanish by Jaime Amparo Alves.)


The new century has begun intensifying an epochal crisis of capitalism. This is a crisis much broader than the long and the great depressions of the 19th and 20th centuries. The crisis of financial surplus that hit the global economy at the beginning of the 21st century unveiled an international crisis of surplus production. No doubt this is a phenomenon that cannot be reduced to a mere cyclic crisis of capitalist overaccumulation. We are witnessing an epochal crisis that converges with multiple and globally diffused crises. The current crisis inaugurates a new era in global capitalism but its origins can be regarded as the result of cumulative crises that did not begin now, and that will not go away anytime soon. Convergence of crises: the worldwide food security crisis began in 2007; poverty became a global phenomenon in the 1990s; and a decade later when the World Bank introduced mechanisms of measuring and designing programs to fight hunger, the UN began to refer to the urban crisis defined as the “challenges of slums.”The current global environmental crisis began in 1972, if one takes as reference the Club of Rome’s report on economic growth. Finally, the ‘climate change crisis’ follows a historic pattern that indicates a serious and continuous destabilization of global production. If we want to understand the historic meaning of Donald Trump’s election, we must take into consideration such epochal crisis and its global trends.

At the turn of the 21st century, two different tendencies tried to make sense and intervene in the crossroads in which global capitalism finds itself. A trend, which can be labeled as truly representative of 21st century liberalism, has advocated for a global fight against hunger, poverty, environmental risks, energy and human rights crises with state interventions. This approach reasons that we have gone too far and that capitalist accumulation will face unimaginable destabilization if this trend continues. A second tendency challenges 21st-century liberalism. This neo-authoritarian tendency denies the seriousness of the planetary crisis and instead argues for the maximization of accumulation even at the expense of deepening the destruction of life and civilization.

Donald Trump’s project of capitalism is not liberal nor is it merely neo-Keynesian or protectionist. His proposal to increase the living standards of the American working class is built on the back of ethnic groups that include most of the international working class. His proposal for a peace agreement between the United States and Russia will generate a new geopolitical order to the 21st century. If on the one hand, this strategic proximity neutralizes the risks of a war between the world’s nuclear powers, on the other hand it indicates the triumph of the military nuclear power. Trump’s accession to power will negatively impact much beyond 2017-2020. It will affect life on the “blue planet” for the next ten thousand years. His preference for an energy model based on oil and gas will severely intensify global warming to the point of climate collapse. With this energy pattern comes wars to take control over fossil fuels, the devastation of the most environmentally vulnerable countries, and eco-migrations due to disputes over water and natural resources.

“Make America great again” is a slogan that represents an unquestionably confused and intransigent project of reconfiguration of the US-led capitalist system and the restructuring of US global hegemony. Trump’s aims are not only to integrate the US working class, but also to push forward an authoritarian integration of this group in the government’s efforts to maintain its global influence. He sponsors escalating political violence as response to the present economic crisis. Donald Trump’s capitalism personifies the neo-authoritarian tendency of capitalism in the 21st century.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Thu Jan 05, 2017 2:19 pm

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Little Führer

Postby American Dream » Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:18 pm

German police quash Breitbart story of mob setting fire to Dortmund church

Country’s politicians warn against fake news after Breitbart website said group chanting ‘Allahu Akbar’ vandalised church on New Year’s Eve

Image
Police officers patrol the Dortmund Christmas market. The police chief judged the night as ‘rather average to quiet’, in part thanks to a large police presence.

German media and politicians have warned against an election-year spike in fake news after the rightwing website Breitbart claimed a mob chanting “Allahu Akbar” had set fire to a church in the city of Dortmund on New Year’s Eve.

After the report by the US site was widely shared on social media, the city’s police clarified that no “extraordinary or spectacular” incidents had marred the festivities.

The local newspaper, Ruhr Nachrichten, said elements of its online reporting on New Year’s Eve had been distorted by Breitbart to produce “fake news, hate and propaganda”.

The justice minister of Hesse state, Eva Kühne-Hörmann, said that “the danger is that these stories spread with incredible speed and take on lives of their own”.

The controversy highlights a deepening divide between backers of German chancellor Angela Merkel’s liberal stance toward refugees and a rightwing movement that opposes immigration, fears Islam and distrusts the government and media.


More at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... und-church
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests