1) For some reason, folks on the right have extremely short memories when it comes to acts of right-wing political violence. This is especially the case when they are in the middle of a propaganda campaign to make "the left" look violent. A long thread with lots of pix follows.
2) Now, what many of them are actually talking about is street violence specifically. But of course, that means they're completely oblivious to their own behavior in that regard.
3) However, when it comes to a propensity for actual political violence directed at their opponents – or at victims they have targeted for various reasons – there really is a huge difference.
1) There’s been a lot of handwringing in the media pundit corps and centrist politicians these days about the loss of comity, post-Kavanaugh. And then Donald Trump made them all look absurd with his remarks at his rally last night. Thread follows.
2) 'You don't hand matches to an arsonist and you don't give power to an angry left-wing mob, and that's what they've become. Democrats have become too extreme and too dangerous to govern. Republicans believe in the rule of law, not the rule of the mob.' huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-de…
3) This is a remarkable moment in American politics: The President of the United States just declared an entire political party fundamentally illegitimate. And the media are treating it as just another of Trump’s crazy things.
Hm. Well, at some point, both Tucker Carlson and the Washington Post reporter might figure out that the Hatewatch Headlines are not a "list." They are a daily compendium of headlines related to extremism from around the world.
The @splcenter does indeed create lists. It has a map of listed hate groups, and it lists various kinds of extremists, including some far-right groups who do not qualify as hate groups, such as militia/Patriots.
1) Yesterday I ended discussion with an interlocutor who became abusive (life is too short to converse with shitheads) after I told him that, in my view, libertarians often are some of the worst authoritarians. So let me explain. Long thread follows.
2) I’ll agree that the notion of libertarian authoritarianism seems counterintuitive. After all, it’s a worldview predicated on enshrining individual liberty as the highest possible social and political value. But it nonetheless is proving a massive gateway to authoritarianism.
3) Perhaps the single greatest indicator of this is the way libertarians have lined up in support of Donald Trump, who is the most authoritarian personality in the history of the American presidency, resembling nothing so much as a Banana Republic dictator in his ruling style.
This is why I believe there needs to be a house-cleaning at PPB; it's unacceptable to have a police culture that is explicitly and unapologetically contemptuous of the citizens they're hired to protect. Can I rope in my other PDX buds to talk about this? @areidross@jason_a_w
A big part of the problem, right off the bat, is that the vast majority of these officers do not live in Portland proper. They live in the suburbs and exurbs. I spend time in Gresham. They hate libruls there and watch Fox 24/7. Big cultural difference.
But a lot of the reason they don't live there is because they can't afford it on a cop's salary. PPB doesn't pay well enough for people on its salaries to live within the city limits. That's a problem, I think.
1) OK, let's try to keep 'antifa' and their violence in perspective, can we? And I say this as someone who’s been assaulted by Black Bloc activists on various occasions for the sin of being a journalist carrying a camera, mostly while covering alt-right ‘free speech’ events.
2) I can't say I am even remotely a fan of the antifascists' _tactics_. I also happen to believe that giving the fascists violence is what they want, and that any violence at all should be purely defensive. I believe mockery is infinitely more effective and more persuasive.
1) I’m amused to see @JonahNRO scrambling for higher ground amid the insane tide of nutjob conspiracism that has overtaken the Right in the age of Trump. Amused, because Goldberg had no small role in conjuring up that tide, and still does. Thread follows.
2) In addition to his role as editor of National Review’s online presence, Goldberg also has been living, ideologically speaking, from his book written a decade ago, ‘Liberal Fascism.’ I had a brief to-and-fro with him regarding its veracity at the time:
3) I also organized a group of historians who actually specialize in fascism and put their essays together in a project at History News Network, to which Goldberg also responded (see links to all pieces at bottom of this intro):
As he says, these are remarks straight out of historical white supremacist ideology. Let’s go a little deeper.
2) He particularly notes that this upwelling of white supremacy ultimately resulted in the passage in 1924 of the National Origins Act, subsumed under the broader 1924 Immigration Act, whose second component was the complementary Asian Exclusion Act.
I encountered this problem with historians first when confronting Malkin's 'In Defense of Internment' and then with Goldberg's 'Liberal Fascism': It's considered unseemly and beneath the dignity of the academy to even acknowledge, let alone engage, such polemicists.
Fortunately, in Malkin's case I found an able ally in law prof Eric Muller. In Goldberg's, I managed to assemble a team of historians at History News Network (scroll to the bottom of the intro to see links to the entire series):
In any event, I am extremely grateful to historians and other academics who understand they are vitally needed in confronting the tide of deliberate falsification, not just of history but of all kinds of streams of vital information, we are currently enduring, esp. @KevinMKruse
I have come to believe that any journalist who defends the murderous Putin regime and attempts to normalize its behavior and actions is betraying his/her profession and colleagues. Journalists' lives should not be at risk for reporting on their governments' behavior. Period.
Oh, and people who attempt to claim variously that (a) Russia did not attack our democracy by interfering with the 2016 election, or (b) even if it did, it was just normal international stuff and thus no big deal: You are tools. And you don't care about democracy.
I do find it bizarre, though, that these same defenders of Putin's regime from alleged anti-imperialist motives fall silent when confronted with the very real facts about the Russian sponsorship of far-right white-nationalist politics throughout Europe. nbcnews.com/news/world/eur…
2) Take sovereign citizens for example. These people actually murder police officers (nine since 2008, with 12 more injured in a total of 16 incidents) because they believe their ideology exempt them from law enforcement. That ideology is in fact a close cousin of the alt-right.
3) This post has a complete list of those incidents:
1) Actually, it would probably take me all day just to compile for you all the acts of radical-right violence that have occurred in the past four years alone. So let's just run through some of the more notorious lowlights, which you seemingly have dropped down the memory hole.
This mother and her grief -- only the latest gut punch as we watch our Southern Resident killer whales slowly starve to death -- are the face of the Trump administration's war on endangered species. seattletimes.com/seattle-news/a… via @seattletimes
2) Anyone who still wishes to delude themselves into believing we will ever be able to persuade any elected Republican, and particularly those in this administration, to take any action other than to actively harm this population needs to wake up.
3) Not just Trump, but Republicans in general are placing the Endangered Species Act under attack.
1) I’d like to start a thread chiming in on the marvelous deconstruction of @DineshDSouza and his thesis that the Southern Strategy and subsequent party switch in the 1960s and ‘70s is a myth, courtesy of @KevinMKruse and Co. Consider this a kind of return to the present.
2) As @KevinMKruse, @rauchway and @HC_Richardson have all demonstrated, D’Souza’s historical claims are afactual, absurdly so. The facts he cites are all predicated on the historical reality: prior to the 1930s, the Democratic Party was home to the USA’s most conservative voters.
3) Indeed, the Klan (to which D’Souza oft returns) was linked closely to Democrats both in the 1870s and in the 1920s because that was the party of white Southern conservatives. But like Jeffrey Lord, he cannot credibly claim that it was thus in any regard “left wing”:
1) Long thread on Japanese internment and Korematsu v. United States, apparently overturned officially by the Supreme Court today. Today’s ruling was actually problematic, since it strangely mischaracterized the original ruling in 1944. Here’s the passage:
2) Note that I underscored the line “solely and explicitly on the basis of race,” which is how Chief Justice Roberts herein describes the Korematsu ruling’s basis. But that simply was not the case with this ruling.
3) Korematsu, of course, is vital to our understanding of the one episode in American history where we did actually round up citizens and put them in concentration. Appallingly, the court found it all constitutional.
1) Today's tweet from El Presidente referencing how immigrants "infest" the nation suggests we all need a reminder in how eliminationism works. Let's begin with a basic definition.
2) Eliminationism is the belief that one's political opponents, or the object of their political ire are a cancer on the body politic that must be excised, either by separation from the public at large, through expulsion or outright extermination, to protect the nation's purity.
3) The result of eliminationist rhetoric and politics is a culture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas, pursuing instead the outright elimination of the supposed threat and/or the opposing side. Genocide is its apotheosis.
1) Let's talk, a la Kevin Williamson, about how the mainstream media censors journalists whose views it finds inconvenient and uncomfortable. As we saw over the weekend, what genuinely horrifies the Establishment press is anything that speaks real truth to power.
2) They’re also afraid of anything (Hello, Ms. Wolf) that confronts and attacks the tide of authoritarianism that is drowning our democracy, mainly because of the authoritarian backlash they will receive. They have been conditioned to respond this way for years.
3) The primary conditioning is practically embedded into American newsroom ethos: namely, a stark raving fear of being accused of “liberal media bias.”
1. Most of the discussion I have seen of the ramifications of the unfolding Russian-assault-on-democracy story has tended to focus almost entirely on the relatively limited and ultimately secondary considerations it raises.
2. These prominently include the extent of its effects on the outcome of the election, or whether the evidence establishes collusion on the part of the Trump campaign, or how deeply Russian influence extends into the administration.