Alt Right vs "Alt Left" Strategy of Tension in the USA?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Alt Right vs "Alt Left" Strategy of Tension in the USA?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:14 pm

Elvis » Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:16 pm wrote:The video Sounder posted above (which I did not find unreasonable) led me to this one:

(Skip to 8:10 for a description of the buses)
[img]TZ3jyrGB3VE[/img]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ3jyrGB3VE

My friend whom I trust dearly was there. She was not there to protest. She was not there to riot. She was there having lunch and taking in local culture. As she has done in the past for many weeks. Engaging in conversation with the locals. Ads were placed on craigslist Virginia looking for " paid protesters" from a service that provides crowds on demand. Who paid for this " service? " and why? Participants in this staged event arrived in Buses .Actors wearing BLM and KKK Shirts arrived TOGETHER. In the SAME BUS. They were armed with riot gear, shields, soda bottles full of concrete, condoms full of manure, urine and other substances.


The YouTuber "The Charles Patrick" seems like a reasonable guy (I watched another video of his about this) and his friend on the phone sounds pretty believable. So I guess someone is hiring fake protesters. The comments mention companies like "Crowd Source" who provide such services.

I for one am very curious who paid for this. I don't have any assumptions about who it is.

But we ought to be curious.


(My mind doesn't immediately go to "George Soros," I think that's a fairly facile attribution. I could probably get a grant from George Soros Foundation, or whatever it is, to "promote social justice through theater" and hire fake protesters with the money. I wouldn't tell George, of course.)


First to get this out of the way, it seems to me Sounder is a binary thinker bound by labels. Complaining about Soros while remaining blind to his right wing counterparts, the Kochs or the Merecers, as always. Moving on.

We don't know if the video guy is an FBI or another intelligence agency's agent. The woman on the phone has no idea what she saw and is utterly unreliable to bear witness.

Klan & BLM folk talking peaceably - it happened. I listened to 16 minutes, but no more. Provocateurs are present at many protests and have been for ages. Some have worked for the police, to show need for more funding and forces. The more I listened, the less convincing this was. He might just be some guy looking to make a few bucks from his youtube videos and is innocent of being anything more. The lady on the phone - a not too bright white woman, imo, who claimed to see something she actually didn't see: Nazis & BLM getting off of the same bus. (While buildings, trees and people blocked her view)

Do you really believe that anyone organizing such a false flag would be stupid enough to co-mingle such groups and have six buses unload their passengers publicly, where they would be observed? Maybe a few from a van on a side street, but six busloads across from a restaurant filled with people sitting outside? Get real!
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Alt Right vs "Alt Left" Strategy of Tension in the USA?

Postby DrEvil » Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:38 pm

Sounder » Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:32 pm wrote:
Fine if you think it doesn't, but the story was making the rounds although of course not on MSM.



norton wrote...
It's a weak desperate bullshit story that made the rounds of you and your weak-minded nazi-loving friends.


Hmmm..., weak, desperate and bullshit? It is evidence that the FBI uses mentally ill people to foment violence.

No, it is evidence that the FBI entrap people to justify their budget, and it isn't new to anyone who has spent some time here.

'your weak-minded nazi-loving friends' Really? They got you where they want you, using your lizard brain. Expressing reactive mind thoughts that shut down critical faculties, making YOU easily manipulated. .


"They got you where they want you"? Don't you mean you? You're the one shutting down critical faculties round here with your endless bullshit. People get pissed at you not because you're telling some hidden truth that we don't want to hear, but because your posts are stupid and simple-minded.

Case in point:
Sounder replied to norton:

How has your writing done anything to refute the thesis of the OP?


It's not our job to refute something that has no evidence to back it up, it's your job to supply the evidence, otherwise you're just throwing mud at the wall and hoping something sticks. You can't just throw out baseless accusations with no evidence and demand that others prove you wrong. If that was the case I could claim that you are a Nazi here to fuck up the forum, because I'm pretty sure other people have done so before, so it could be possible, and then demand that you prove that I'm wrong.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Alt Right vs "Alt Left" Strategy of Tension in the USA?

Postby Sounder » Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:43 pm

I do not like alt-right or alt-left because they both promote violence. I do not choose to hate either one because I see people as redeemable and able to change.

Because of Martin Luther King, Chuck Berry and earlier, jazz on radio, there was a change from racist verbiage being socially accepted to it being not acceptable at all.

This happened in only a few generations and it gives me faith in the idea that, despite all the haters, humans actually would like to get along better.

Show respect and it will be returned to you.


Good points Elvis.

I do think that instigators are shielded by the disbelief that they would do such things. Look at pedophiles, getting away with their activities because they use their position and other peoples inclination to look away.


Elvis wrote....
First to get this out of the way, it seems to me Sounder is a binary thinker bound by labels. Complaining about Soros while remaining blind to his right wing counterparts, the Kochs or the Merecers, as always. Moving on.

Kochs, Merecers, and all the other rich fucks that like to buy elections are scum.

Thanks for the 'seems to me', much better than you are nazi loving scum. (Paraphrase, as in a joke) Nope, not binary, not bound by labels and I am not the one throwing those around here.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Alt Right vs "Alt Left" Strategy of Tension in the USA?

Postby minime » Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:58 pm

Sounder » Tue Aug 29, 2017 4:43 pm wrote:Nope, not binary, not bound by labels and I am not the one throwing those around here.


Why does it not surprise me, that after a decade and thousands and thousands of posts, Whom has learned absolutely nothing about how you think. Could it be because he doesn't really read the posts. And of course he's not the only one. Madness, really...
User avatar
minime
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Alt Right vs "Alt Left" Strategy of Tension in the USA?

Postby Elvis » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:30 pm

Sounder wrote:Elvis never wrote....

First to get this out of the way, it seems to me Sounder is a binary thinker bound by labels. Complaining about Soros while remaining blind to his right wing counterparts, the Kochs or the Merecers, as always. Moving on.



I didn't do it! I think that was Dr. Evil who wrote that. "bwahahahaha" :P


Sounder wrote:I do not like alt-right or alt-left because they both promote violence.


Is "alt-left" an actual thing now? I thought it was "a pejorative neologism introduced by far-right online media in 2016."

Unlike the term "alt-right" (which was coined by those on the extreme right who comprise the movement), as noted by Washington Post writer Aaron Blake, "alt-left" was "coined by its opponents and doesn't actually have any subscribers".[1] According to George Hawley, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama, no such label has been adopted by any members of the progressive left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-left


Well, it's a "thing" on Wikipedia, anyway.


For the record, I'm a socialist, in the broad sense that has some meaning. I can't say I'm a "liberal" any more, "progressive" has a little better connotation, but now I just say I'm socialist.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7432
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Alt Right vs "Alt Left" Strategy of Tension in the USA?

Postby minime » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:47 pm

See what I mean?
User avatar
minime
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Alt Right vs "Alt Left" Strategy of Tension in the USA?

Postby mentalgongfu2 » Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:39 am

The story of protestors being bussed in by Soros or some other nebulous liberal "makes the rounds" in certain circles every time there is a protest involving anyone deemed liberal by those circles, and there is never any evidence beyond 1 or 2 alleged eyewitnesses who often are clearly biased and unreliable on the face.

Hell, ZH has posted pics of empty buses they cited as "-evidence" it had happened, though the photographer never managed to capture pics of people on the buses, let alone any indication they were paid protestors. They stories about craiglist ads make the rounds too, and suddenly people who deem themselves intelligent buy that as evidence too, apparently forgetting anyone can post a craigslist ad. I could go make a fake "hiring protestors" ad right now If I cared to waste my time.

Sadly, what passes for the left has now gotten hip to this and just repeats the allegations with the roles reversed for Trump rallies and such. Putting any stock in crap like that, without more than the claims of a couple admitted partisan as witnesses and a craiglist ad, is somehwere between ludicrous and just plain stupid, indeed.
"When I'm done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched. That's why I drink Orange Drink!"
User avatar
mentalgongfu2
 
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:02 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Alt Right vs "Alt Left" Strategy of Tension in the USA?

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:06 am

"Alt-Left" will be a slight plus if it displaces that other right-wing fantasy attack term, "SJW."
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15986
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Alt Right vs "Alt Left" Strategy of Tension in the USA?

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:21 pm

The Media Is Busy Creating a Left-Wing 'Threat' to Balance Out the Awful Racist Right-Wing Hordes Who Threaten Civil Society
We have to be vigilant about the coming smear project against Antifa.
By Thom Hartmann / AlterNet August 29, 2017, 2:26 PM GMT

In these dark days, an intergenerational warning is in order: Antifa folks – be wary. They are coming for you.

Some of us have seen this movie before. In my generation, when I was a teenage member of MSU’s SDS in the late 1960s, I remember the guy who was always yelling, “Kill the pigs,” and encouraging us to burn down the ROTC building on campus. In later years, I heard from old SDS colleagues that when they sued the police, they learned that the outspoken guy was a police officer and his friends were informants.

For my dad’s generation, the right-wing takeover of a protest movement happened in Germany generations ago, so most Americans don’t even recognize Marinus van der Lubbe’s name.

But the Germans remember well that fateful day eighty-four years ago - February 27, 1933. And many of them are looking at the confrontations in our streets and worrying.

It started when the government, struggling with questions of its own legitimacy and the instability of its leader, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. Historians are still debating whether the “terrorist” was a mentally incompetent young man maneuvered into place to take the fall for the crime, or was an actual communist ideologue (of limited intellectual means and probably schizophrenic; that seems to be one thing most agree on).

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the people claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted.

He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world.

His coarse use of language - reflecting his background of hanging out with disreputable sorts - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media.

He desperately wanted to be appreciated and loved by the “old money” crowd, but he also hated them because they had never accepted him and, deep down inside, he knew they never would.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike, and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," Hitler proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out German Parliament building, surrounded by national media.

"This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an “all-out war on terrorism” and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

And, he said, their fellow travelers – “communists” like the man who’d set the Reichstag on fire – needed to be tracked down and utterly destroyed.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianburg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus.

Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants and peek around without homeowners know it, if the cases involved terrorism.

To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Just like with America’s recent PATRIOT Act, the first version of which had sunset provisions, legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader who was so newsworthy.

Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was constantly talking up the threat of these “other people” among the German people, while armed gangs terrorized minorities and smashed windows in Jewish-owned businesses.)

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage.

He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his white countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will."

As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't put Germany First was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of the United Kingdom.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was supported by the power brokers of the most fervent of Germany’s Christian sects. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.

Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly the troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals."

He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the Homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader. He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the Homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at our disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection, as his central security office began advertising a “See Something, Say Something” program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors.

Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime. He began a campaign to discredit the press – he called them the Lugenpresse, or “Lying Press” (“fake news” in today’s vernacular). The phrase was repeated endlessly until all the free press was shut down in 1934. By 1935, all the radio stations and newspapers were owned by wealthy, hard-right friends of his regime.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the “leftist terrorists” lurking within the Homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas.

He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by liberals or Jews. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, and away from questions of his illegitimate rise to power.

To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will.

In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself.

The majority – the “silent majority” – of good Germans hated the leftists, Hitler and his friends in the right-wing press repeatedly told the people.

Those questioning him were labeled “communists,” "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the police and army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.

He spoke openly of his “love” for police and the military, and they, in turn, embraced him with fervor, redoubling the violence they wrought against peaceful protestors.

Hitler’s rise to power was largely on the backs of the labor and communist movements. They were his “enemies” first and foremost (although anti-Semitism had been part of his shtick from the beginning: his main attack was that the labor and communist movements were filled with Jews). And he largely destroyed them when he successfully sold the German people on the idea that “the left” were responsible for burning down the Parliament building, the 9/11 event of that day.

There’s little doubt in my mind – having lived through the era of COINTELPRO and the PATRIOT Act – that somewhere out there is a person who’s planning to commit an act of terrorism. It may be a dedicated but deluded left-winger, or, more likely, it’s a right-winger hoping to stir things up by pretending to be a left-winger. And Trump and his friendly “news” outlets are ready to use it.

Perhaps apocryphally, Mark Twain once noted that, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.”

There’s no shortage of examples of that rhyme, and given all the “mainstream” press now being thrown at the Antifa movement, it’s a sure thing that they’re going to be the Administration’s and the media’s next big boogeyman.

Somewhere out there is the next Marinus van der Lubbe, and Trump and his press are ready.

Look out.

http://www.alternet.org/activism/media- ... hordes-who


‘Antifa’ groups only help the hateful forces they claim to oppose

An anti-fascist demonstrator jumps over a barricade during a free-speech rally on Aug. 27 in Berkeley, Calif. (Josh Edelson/Associated Press)
By Editorial Board August 29 at 8:52 PM
THE LATEST symptom of America’s deepening political illness is the rise of “antifa” — short for “anti-fascist.” Clad in black and armed with clubs or pepper spray, these masked men and women style themselves the bane of neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klansmen and other extreme rightists wherever the latter may appear. Unlike the use of force by the state, which antifa activists abhor as a matter of vague but intense ultra-left ideology, their violence is righteous — according to them.

Antifa and like-minded offshoots smashed windows and set fires in Washington on Inauguration Day, and committed such crimes again in Berkeley, Calif., soon after, to disrupt a planned speech by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. They were seen pummeling alleged right-wingers in Berkeley this past weekend, including a man they pushed to the ground and then kicked and punched until a journalist intervened. Whether the victim was or was not an actual fascist is not clear — but antifa’s indifference to such details is. “There is a complete mob mentality here,” the Los Angeles Times’s James Queally reported from the scene. “People are randomly accusing random people of being Nazis.”

Exactly what kind of threat does antifa pose? We would not for a minute equate it to the menace of violent, ultra-right white-supremacist groups, which are enjoying an ugly renaissance bred, in part, by the succor President Trump has given to racial and religious intolerance. Nor does the antifa movement pose a clear and present danger to the broader political system, though it has shown a disturbing capacity for intimidating and confusing various officials in locales from Middlebury, Vt., to the West Coast. Portland, Ore., canceled this year’s Rose Festival parade because antifa-linked groups threatened to attack marchers from the local Republican Party.

Rather, antifa’s true danger is twofold: First, its violence does obvious and unjustifiable harm, both to free speech and to people and property; second, it tends to discredit, through association, the far broader peaceful movement against racism and hate. That movement must win if the United States is to flourish, and it can win only by upholding democratic norms and the rule of law, even in the face of everything the ultra-right may do to undermine them.

Accordingly, “no enemies on the left” cannot be the rule, at least not as long as antifa is around. These people proudly are not liberals or democrats, much less liberal Democrats. To the contrary, if anyone should have qualms about the way police retreated when 100 antifa members showed up in Berkeley on Sunday — if anyone should be urging police forces across the country to deal firmly but appropriately with them — it’s the peaceful marchers against racism in that town, whose message was drowned out by the far more vivid violence of their ostensible defenders in black.

Mr. Trump’s equation of white supremacists in Charlottesville with those who rallied against them was false and repugnant, but antifa activists’ deeds hardly promote the moral clarity necessary to isolate right-wing hate groups. Over time, such violence only benefits the very forces antifa purports to oppose. In terms of objective political impact, the group is badly misnamed: “Profa” would be more accurate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 9b7941c263
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Alt Right vs "Alt Left" Strategy of Tension in the USA?

Postby Heaven Swan » Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:04 pm

I'm in Europe with sketchy internet and not much time so not able to post much but here is a worthwhile, no, a dynamite article by Chris Hedges.

How ‘Antifa’ Mirrors the ‘Alt-Right’

By Chris Hedges
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47717.htm

Editor’s note: A Berkeley, Calif., rally organized by a right-wing group turned violent Sunday after arrival of a group that carried an anarchist banner.

August 29, 2017

Behind the rhetoric of the “alt-right” about white nativism and protecting American traditions, history and Christian values is the lust for violence. Behind the rhetoric of antifa, the Black Bloc and the so-called “alt-left” about capitalism, racism, state repression and corporate power is the same lust for violence.

The two opposing groups, largely made up of people who have been cast aside by the cruelty of corporate capitalism, have embraced holy war. Their lives, battered by economic misery and social marginalization, have suddenly been filled with meaning. They hold themselves up as the vanguard of the oppressed. They arrogate to themselves the right to use force to silence those they define as the enemy. They sanctify anger. They are infected with the dark, adrenaline-driven urge for confrontation that arises among the disenfranchised when a democracy ceases to function. They are separated, as Sigmund Freud wrote of those who engage in fratricide, by the “narcissism of minor differences.” They mirror each other, not only ideologically but also physically—armed and dressed in black, the color of fascism and the color of death.

It was inevitable that we would reach this point. The corporate state has seized and corrupted all democratic institutions, including the two main political parties, to serve the interests of corporate power and maximize global corporate profits. There is no justice in the courts. There is no possibility for reform in the legislative bodies. The executive branch is a dysfunctional mess headed by a narcissistic kleptocrat, con artist and pathological liar. Money has replaced the vote. The consent of the governed is a joke. Our most basic constitutional rights, including the rights to privacy and due process, have been taken from us by judicial fiat. The economically marginalized, now a majority of the country, have been rendered invisible by a corporate media dominated by highly paid courtiers spewing out meaningless political and celebrity gossip and trivia as if it were news. The corporate state, unimpeded, is pillaging and looting the carcass of the country and government, along with the natural world, for the personal gain of the 1 percent. It daily locks away in cages the poor, especially poor people of color, discarding the vulnerable as human refuse.

A government that is paralyzed and unable and unwilling to address the rudimentary needs of its citizens, as I saw in the former Yugoslavia and as history has shown with the Weimar Republic and czarist Russia, eventually empowers violent extremists. Economic and social marginalization is the lifeblood of extremist groups. Without it they wither and die. Extremism, as the social critic Christopher Lasch wrote, is “a refuge from the terrors of inner life.”

Germany’s Nazi stormtroopers had their counterparts in that nation’s communist Alliance of Red Front Fighters. The far-right anti-communist death squad Alliance of Argentina had its counterpart in the guerrilla group the People’s Revolutionary Army during the “Dirty War.” The Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) rebels during the war I covered in El Salvador had their counterparts in the right-wing death squads, whose eventual demise seriously impeded the FMLN’s ability to recruit. The Serbian nationalists, or Chetniks, in Yugoslavia had their counterparts in the Croatian nationalists, or Ustaše. The killing by one side justifies the killing by the other. And the killing is always sanctified in the name of each side’s martyrs.

The violence by antifa—short for anti-fascist or anti-fascist action—in Charlottesville, Va., saw a surge in interest and support for the movement, especially after the murder of Heather Heyer. The Black Bloc was applauded by some of the counterprotesters in Boston during an alt-right rally there Aug. 19. In Charlottesville, antifa activists filled the vacuum left by a passive police force, holding off neo-Nazi thugs who threatened Cornel West and clergy who were protesting against the white nationalist event. This was a propaganda coup for antifa, which seeks to portray its use of violence as legitimate self-defense. Protecting West and the clergy members from physical assault was admirable. But this single act no more legitimizes antifa violence than the turkeys, Christmas gifts and Fourth of July fireworks that John Gotti gave to his neighbors legitimized the violence of the Gambino crime family. Antifa, like the alt-right, is the product of a diseased society.

The white racists and neo-Nazis may be unsavory, but they too are victims. They too lost jobs and often live in poverty in deindustrialized wastelands. They too often are plagued by debt, foreclosures, bank repossessions and inability to repay student loans. They too often suffer from evictions, opioid addictions, domestic violence and despair. They too sometimes face bankruptcy because of medical bills. They too have seen social services gutted, public education degraded and privatized and the infrastructure around them decay. They too often suffer from police abuse and mass incarceration. They too are often in despair and suffer from hopelessness. And they too have the right to free speech, however repugnant their views.

Street clashes do not distress the ruling elites. These clashes divide the underclass. They divert activists from threatening the actual structures of power. They give the corporate state the ammunition to impose harsher forms of control and expand the powers of internal security. When antifa assumes the right to curtail free speech it becomes a weapon in the hands of its enemies to take that freedom away from everyone, especially the anti-capitalists.

The focus on street violence diverts activists from the far less glamorous building of relationships and alternative institutions and community organizing that alone will make effective resistance possible. We will defeat the corporate state only when we take back and empower our communities, as is happening with Cooperation Jackson, a grass-roots cooperative movement in Jackson, Miss. As long as acts of resistance are forms of personal catharsis, the corporate state is secure. Indeed, the corporate state welcomes this violence because violence is a language it can speak with a proficiency and ruthlessness that none of these groups can match.

“Politics isn’t made of individuals,” Sophia Burns writes in “Catharsis Is Counter-Revolutionary.” “It’s made of classes. Political change doesn’t come from feeling individually validated. It comes from collective action and organization within the working class. That means creating new institutions that meet our needs and defend against oppression.”

The protests by the radical left now sweeping America, as Aviva Chomsky points out, are too often little more than self-advertisements for moral purity. They are products of a social media culture in which each of us is the star of his or her own life movie. They are infected with the American belief in regeneration through violence and the cult of the gun. They represent a clash between the bankruptcy of identity politics, which produced, as Dr. West has said, a president who was “a black mascot for Wall Street,” and the bankruptcy of a white, Christianized fascism that produced Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions.

“Rather than organizing for change, individuals seek to enact a statement about their own righteousness,” Chomsky writes in “How (Not) to Challenge Racist Violence.” “They may boycott certain products, refuse to eat certain foods, or they may show up to marches or rallies whose only purpose is to demonstrate the moral superiority of the participants. White people may loudly claim that they recognize their privilege or declare themselves allies of people of color or other marginalized groups. People may declare their communities ‘no place for hate.’ Or they may show up at counter-marches to ‘stand up’ to white nationalists or neo-Nazis. All of these types of ‘activism’ emphasize self-improvement or self-expression rather than seeking concrete change in society or policy. They are deeply, and deliberately, apolitical in the sense that they do not seek to address issues of power, resources, decision making, or how to bring about change.”

The corporate state seeks to discredit and shut down the anti-capitalist left. Its natural allies are the neo-Nazis and the Christian fascists. The alt-right is bankrolled, after all, by the most retrograde forces in American capitalism. It has huge media platforms. It has placed its ideologues and sympathizers in positions of power, including in law enforcement and the military. And it has carried out acts of domestic terrorism that dwarf anything carried out by the left. White supremacists were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks in the United States from 2006 to 2016, far more than those committed by members of any other extremist group, according to a report issued in May by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. There is no moral equivalency between antifa and the alt-right. But by brawling in the streets antifa allows the corporate state, which is terrified of a popular anti-capitalist uprising, to use the false argument of moral equivalency to criminalize the work of all anti-capitalists.

As the Southern Poverty Law Center states categorically in its pamphlet “Ten Ways to Fight Hate,” “Do not attend a hate rally.”

“Find another outlet for anger and frustration and for people’s desire to do something,” it recommends. “Hold a unity rally or parade to draw media attention away from hate. Hate has a First Amendment right. Courts have routinely upheld the constitutional right of the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups to hold rallies and say whatever they want. Communities can restrict group movements to avoid conflicts with other citizens, but hate rallies will continue. Your efforts should focus on channeling people away from hate rallies.”

The Nazis were as unsavory to the German political and economic elites as Donald Trump is to most Americans who hold power or influence. But the German elites chose to work with the fascists, whom they naively thought they could control, rather than risk a destruction of capitalism. Street brawls, actively sought out by the Nazis, always furthered the interests of the fascists, who promised to restore law and order and protect traditional values. The violence contributed to their mystique and the yearning among the public for a strongman who would impose stability.

Historian Laurie Marhoefer writes:

Violent confrontations with antifascists gave the Nazis a chance to paint themselves as the victims of a pugnacious, lawless left. They seized it.

It worked. We know now that many Germans supported the fascists because they were terrified of leftist violence in the streets. Germans opened their morning newspapers and saw reports of clashes like the one in Wedding [a Berlin neighborhood]. It looked like a bloody tide of civil war was rising in their cities. Voters and opposition politicians alike came to believe the government needed special police powers to stop violent leftists. Dictatorship grew attractive. The fact that the Nazis themselves were fomenting the violence didn’t seem to matter.

One of Hitler’s biggest steps to dictatorial power was to gain emergency police powers, which he claimed he needed to suppress leftist violence.

What took place in Charlottesville, like what took place in February when antifa and Black Bloc protesters thwarted UC Berkeley’s attempt to host the crypto-fascist Milo Yiannopoulos, was political theater. It was about giving self-styled radicals a stage. It was about elevating their self-image. It was about appearing heroic. It was about replacing personal alienation with comradeship and solidarity. Most important, it was about the ability to project fear. This newfound power is exciting and intoxicating. It is also very dangerous. Many of those in Charlottesville on the left and the right were carrying weapons. A neo-Nazi fired a round from a pistol in the direction of a counterprotester. The neo-Nazis often carried AR-15 rifles and wore quasi-military uniforms and helmets that made them blend in with police and state security. There could easily have been a bloodbath. A march held in Sacramento, Calif., in June 2016 by the neo-Nazi Traditionalist Worker Party to protest attacks at Trump rallies ended with a number of people stabbed. Police accused counterprotesters of initiating the violence. It is a short series of steps from bats and ax handles to knives to guns.

The conflict will not end until the followers of the alt-right and the anti-capitalist left are given a living wage and a voice in how we are governed. Take away a person’s dignity, agency and self-esteem and this is what you get. As political power devolves into a more naked form of corporate totalitarianism, as unemployment and underemployment expand, so will extremist groups. They will attract more sympathy and support as the wider population realizes, correctly, that Americans have been stripped of all ability to influence the decisions that affect their lives, lives that are getting steadily worse.

The ecocide by the fossil fuel and animal agriculture industries alone makes revolt a moral imperative. The question is how to make it succeed. Taking to the street to fight fascists ensures our defeat. Antifa violence, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out, is a “major gift to the right, including the militant right.” It fuels the right wing’s paranoid rants about the white race being persecuted and under attack. And it strips anti-capitalists of their moral capital.

Many in the feckless and bankrupt liberal class, deeply complicit in the corporate assault on the country and embracing the dead end of identity politics, will seek to regain credibility by defending the violence by groups such as antifa. Natasha Lennard, for example, in The Nation calls the “video of neo-Nazi Richard Spencer getting punched in the face” an act of “kinetic beauty.” She writes “if we recognize fascism in Trump’s ascendance, our response must be anti-fascist in nature. The history of anti-fascist action is not one of polite protest, nor failed appeals to reasoned debate with racists, but direct, aggressive confrontation.”

This violence-as-beauty rhetoric is at the core of these movements. It saturates the vocabulary of the right-wing corporate oligarchs, including Donald Trump. Talk like this poisons national discourse. It dehumanizes whole segments of the population. It shuts out those who speak with nuance and compassion, especially when they attempt to explain the motives and conditions of opponents. It thrusts the society into a binary and demented universe of them and us. It elevates violence to the highest aesthetic. It eschews self-criticism and self-reflection. It is the prelude to widespread suffering and death. And that, I fear, is where we are headed.

Chris Hedges, spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than 50 countries and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, for which he was a foreign correspondent for 15 years.

This article was first published by Truth Dig -
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Alt Right vs "Alt Left" Strategy of Tension in the USA?

Postby Grizzly » Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:21 pm

Image
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Alt Right vs "Alt Left" Strategy of Tension in the USA?

Postby SonicG » Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:40 pm

Chris Hedges wrote, "The Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) rebels during the war I covered in El Salvador had their counterparts in the right-wing death squads, whose eventual demise seriously impeded the FMLN’s ability to recruit. "
I dunno...calling armed movements fighting for national liberation in countries "counterparts" to fascist death squad paid by the local representatives of global capital and trained by the CIA seems like a major rewrite of history. Criticism of antifa is fine but pretending there is some equivalence with the situation in Central or South America, where there were truly repressive fascist regimes, makes me tune out whatever else he is saying...People are really getting their panties in a bunch, claiming that some wayward youths, who maybe managed to make it through the cliff notes of Negri, want to play antifa dressup, piggybacking on the true discontent of the truly repressed...
"a poiminint tidal wave in a notion of dynamite"
User avatar
SonicG
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Alt Right vs "Alt Left" Strategy of Tension in the USA?

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:46 am

SonicG » 31 Aug 2017 01:40 wrote:Chris Hedges wrote, "The Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) rebels during the war I covered in El Salvador had their counterparts in the right-wing death squads, whose eventual demise seriously impeded the FMLN’s ability to recruit. "
I dunno...calling armed movements fighting for national liberation in countries "counterparts" to fascist death squad paid by the local representatives of global capital and trained by the CIA seems like a major rewrite of history. Criticism of antifa is fine but pretending there is some equivalence with the situation in Central or South America, where there were truly repressive fascist regimes, makes me tune out whatever else he is saying...People are really getting their panties in a bunch, claiming that some wayward youths, who maybe managed to make it through the cliff notes of Negri, want to play antifa dressup, piggybacking on the true discontent of the truly repressed...


Yeah, the article makes me question Hedges' motives.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6314
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Alt Right vs "Alt Left" Strategy of Tension in the USA?

Postby Heaven Swan » Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:51 am

Glad to see you back Stickdog. Always appreciated your comments. Always good to hear you too Sonic.

Quotes are from the Chris Hedges article:

"It was inevitable that we would reach this point. The corporate state has seized and corrupted all democratic institutions, including the two main political parties, to serve the interests of corporate power and maximize global corporate profits. There is no justice in the courts. There is no possibility for reform in the legislative bodies. The executive branch is a dysfunctional mess headed by a narcissistic kleptocrat, con artist and pathological liar. Money has replaced the vote. The consent of the governed is a joke. Our most basic constitutional rights, including the rights to privacy and due process, have been taken from us by judicial fiat. The economically marginalized, now a majority of the country, have been rendered invisible by a corporate media dominated by highly paid courtiers spewing out meaningless political and celebrity gossip and trivia as if it were news. The corporate state, unimpeded, is pillaging and looting the carcass of the country and government, along with the natural world, for the personal gain of the 1 percent. It daily locks away in cages the poor, especially poor people of color, discarding the vulnerable as human refuse."


I love his colorful descriptions, and what Chris is describing here seems spot on.

"The white racists and neo-Nazis may be unsavory, but they too are victims. They too lost jobs and often live in poverty in deindustrialized wastelands. They too often are plagued by debt, foreclosures, bank repossessions and inability to repay student loans. They too often suffer from evictions, opioid addictions, domestic violence and despair. They too sometimes face bankruptcy because of medical bills. They too have seen social services gutted, public education degraded and privatized and the infrastructure around them decay. They too often suffer from police abuse and mass incarceration. They too are often in despair and suffer from hopelessness. And they too have the right to free speech, however repugnant their views."


I like also that he recognizes the suffering of these people instead of stoking division.

"Street clashes do not distress the ruling elites. These clashes divide the underclass. They divert activists from threatening the actual structures of power. They give the corporate state the ammunition to impose harsher forms of control and expand the powers of internal security. When antifa assumes the right to curtail free speech it becomes a weapon in the hands of its enemies to take that freedom away from everyone, especially the anti-capitalists."


Does anyone really think that a few ragtag and rich kid so-called leftists dressed in black and carrying bats can take on and in any way win against the corporate state and military spy complex?

No. All they do is confuse and alienate potential supporters and hand the opposition an easy way to discredit popular movements.

"The focus on street violence diverts activists from the far less glamorous building of relationships and alternative institutions and community organizing that alone will make effective resistance possible. We will defeat the corporate state only when we take back and empower our communities, as is happening with Cooperation Jackson, a grass-roots cooperative movement in Jackson, Miss. As long as acts of resistance are forms of personal catharsis, the corporate state is secure. Indeed, the corporate state welcomes this violence because violence is a language it can speak with a proficiency and ruthlessness that none of these groups can match.'

“Politics isn’t made of individuals,” Sophia Burns writes in “Catharsis Is Counter-Revolutionary.” “It’s made of classes. Political change doesn’t come from feeling individually validated. It comes from collective action and organization within the working class. That means creating new institutions that meet our needs and defend against oppression.”


This is something to think about. I have gone to demonstrations to blow off steam and anger and to feel group solidarity. I tend to think that coming together in the streets to demonstrate opposition has value but I'm willing to give some thought to what he's saying.

"Street clashes do not distress the ruling elites. These clashes divide the underclass. They divert activists from threatening the actual structures of power. They give the corporate state the ammunition to impose harsher forms of control and expand the powers of internal security. When antifa assumes the right to curtail free speech it becomes a weapon in the hands of its enemies to take that freedom away from everyone, especially the anti-capitalists.

"Rather than organizing for change, individuals seek to enact a statement about their own righteousness,” Chomsky writes in “How (Not) to Challenge Racist Violence.” “They may boycott certain products, refuse to eat certain foods, or they may show up to marches or rallies whose only purpose is to demonstrate the moral superiority of the participants. White people may loudly claim that they recognize their privilege or declare themselves allies of people of color or other marginalized groups. People may declare their communities ‘no place for hate.’ Or they may show up at counter-marches to ‘stand up’ to white nationalists or neo-Nazis. All of these types of ‘activism’ emphasize self-improvement or self-expression rather than seeking concrete change in society or policy. They are deeply, and deliberately, apolitical in the sense that they do not seek to address issues of power, resources, decision making, or how to bring about change.”


I agree except that I do believe that, together with activism, healing and changing (improving?) oneself is valid and necessary. When the left has prevailed, the same sick, imbalanced, power and wealth obsessed elements have taken control and used left regimes to sneakily support the right or to form "left" totalitarian states.

Individuals need to deal with their internal contradictions and address their inner life or nothing will ever change.

Many in the feckless and bankrupt liberal class, deeply complicit in the corporate assault on the country and embracing the dead end of identity politics, will seek to regain credibility by defending the violence by groups such as antifa. Natasha Lennard, for example, in The Nation calls the “video of neo-Nazi Richard Spencer getting punched in the face” an act of “kinetic beauty.” She writes “if we recognize fascism in Trump’s ascendance, our response must be anti-fascist in nature. The history of anti-fascist action is not one of polite protest, nor failed appeals to reasoned debate with racists, but direct, aggressive confrontation.”

This violence-as-beauty rhetoric is at the core of these movements. It saturates the vocabulary of the right-wing corporate oligarchs, including Donald Trump. Talk like this poisons national discourse. It dehumanizes whole segments of the population. It shuts out those who speak with nuance and compassion, especially when they attempt to explain the motives and conditions of opponents. It thrusts the society into a binary and demented universe of them and us. It elevates violence to the highest aesthetic. It eschews self-criticism and self-reflection. It is the prelude to widespread suffering and death. And that, I fear, is where we are headed.


"The dead end of identity politics..." Love it, I do think we are segueing to a new place. Hallelujah

The last paragraph is poetry to my ears, except for the last sentence about the recent violence being a prelude to widespread suffering and death. Of course I hope he's wrong. Chris has witnessed so much in his travels in conflict zones and speaks from his own experience. Observing the current bleak, depoliticized landscape created and nurtured by capitalism and social manipulation on steroids doesn't inspire confidence,,,but in my daily interactions I do see many hopeful signs.
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Alt Right vs "Alt Left" Strategy of Tension in the USA?

Postby Sounder » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:33 am

"Street clashes do not distress the ruling elites. These clashes divide the underclass. They divert activists from threatening the actual structures of power. They give the corporate state the ammunition to impose harsher forms of control and expand the powers of internal security. When antifa assumes the right to curtail free speech it becomes a weapon in the hands of its enemies to take that freedom away from everyone, especially the anti-capitalists.

"Rather than organizing for change, individuals seek to enact a statement about their own righteousness,” Chomsky writes in “How (Not) to Challenge Racist Violence.” “They may boycott certain products, refuse to eat certain foods, or they may show up to marches or rallies whose only purpose is to demonstrate the moral superiority of the participants. White people may loudly claim that they recognize their privilege or declare themselves allies of people of color or other marginalized groups. People may declare their communities ‘no place for hate.’ Or they may show up at counter-marches to ‘stand up’ to white nationalists or neo-Nazis. All of these types of ‘activism’ emphasize self-improvement or self-expression rather than seeking concrete change in society or policy. They are deeply, and deliberately, apolitical in the sense that they do not seek to address issues of power, resources, decision making, or how to bring about change.”

Heaven Swan wrote...
I agree except that I do believe that, together with activism, healing and changing (improving?) oneself is valid and necessary. When the left has prevailed, the same sick, imbalanced, power and wealth obsessed elements have taken control and used left regimes to sneakily support the right or to form "left" totalitarian states.

Individuals need to deal with their internal contradictions and address their inner life or nothing will ever change.

Yes to this, of course. Lets get on it.

Chris Hedges is brilliant and sometimes confusing, same with Chomsky. But even brilliant people have their holes, so take what you can I guess.


Sounder » Tue Aug 29, 2017 4:43 pm wrote:Nope, not binary, not bound by labels and I am not the one throwing those around here.



Why does it not surprise me, that after a decade and thousands and thousands of posts, Whom has learned absolutely nothing about how you think. Could it be because he doesn't really read the posts. And of course he's not the only one. Madness, really...


Oh, not madness minime, people have good reason to resist and or belittle what I have to say. We all are heavily invested in our beliefs; yet do not seem to understand the implications of those beliefs. It is never pleasant to find ones God to be made out of straw.

As perhaps only minime knows, my main point low these many years is that until we collectively change our dominant narrative from a split model of reality to a continuum model, we will wallow in this death spiral.

The appeal in the earlier vid was that the presenter does some form of Buddhist reducing reactive mind practice. I like that sort of thing and my involvement at RI is another kind of reactive mind reduction practice. I have lots of reactive mind inclinations as it happens, like everybody else, however I find that it’s good practice to find other points of focus.

The current underpinning of our dominant narrative is what I call the Chemical Cure. Its success is measured by its ability to kill, from microbes on up.

How long can civilization survive based on premises such as these?

Our ‘problems’ are not about ‘left’ versus ‘right’, they are about economics and where and how we allow ‘profits’ to be found.

Current expressions of ‘world culture’, to try to stay away from pejorative words, effectively continue the western exceptionalist project of extermination of indigenous societies, in its subversion of local culture and small nation states.

Exceptionalists, whether from anti-fa or from alt-right, have that western style righteousness in common. Look to AD as a metric, he hates all the boogey men of his fellow conventional thinkers. Some revolutionary.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests