#Democracy vs authoritarianism

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 10, 2022

Heather Cox Richardson

On Saturday morning, the day after Russian president Vladimir Putin’s birthday, a large explosion badly damaged the Kerch Strait Bridge linking Russia to Crimea. Completed in 2018, the Kerch Bridge is a symbol of Putin’s attempt to restore imperial Russia by attaching Ukraine to Russia after the 2014 invasion. The bridge is also a symbol of his corrupt regime, as Putin handed the contract for it to his close associate Arkady Romanovich Rotenberg, who completed it at a cost of close to $4 billion.

Although Ukraine has not claimed responsibility, and although the bridge is a clear military target, Putin promptly called the explosions a “terrorist attack aimed at destroying critical Russian civilian infrastructure.”

Today, Russia launched 84 cruise missiles at Ukraine, hitting civilian and critical infrastructure sites in at least four regions. Missiles hit the center of the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, during rush hour, inflicting maximum damage on civilian targets, and several regions are now without power. Putin claimed the attacks were retaliation for the attack on the Kerch Bridge, but Ukrainian military intelligence said in a statement that Russia had planned massive strikes on civilian infrastructure by early last week.

Also today, a Russian cyberattack hit websites for U.S. airports: not the airline or safety operations, just the websites. Those included, among others, New York’s La Guardia, Hartsfield-Jackson in Atlanta, Chicago’s O’Hare, Los Angeles International Airport, Des Moines International Airport, and St. Louis Lambert International Airport.

Russian president Vladimir Putin has been suggesting he would use nuclear weapons, but observers point out that while such threats must always be taken seriously, Putin is likely making such threats because he is losing his war in Ukraine, and losing it quite badly.

According to Deborah Haynes, a security and defense editor at Sky News in the United Kingdom, Sir Jeremy Fleming, who is the director of the U.K.’s intelligence and security agency, will say in a speech tomorrow that the Ukrainian forces are “turning the tide” against Russia. “The costs to Russia…in people and equipment are staggering. We know—and Russian commanders on the ground know—that their supplies and munitions are running out…. Russia’s forces are exhausted. The use of prisoners to reinforce, and now the mobilisation of tens of thousands of inexperienced conscripts, speaks of a desperate situation.”

Tonight, Forbes estimated that the missiles used in today’s strikes cost between $400 and $700 million, and it is highly unlikely Putin can replace them.

As if to illustrate Russia’s weakness, its influence in Central Asia and the Caucasus region has failed, destabilizing countries formerly under its sway. This opens the way for other influences there: earlier this week, Armenian prime minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev, whose countries have been engaged in a deadly border dispute since Russia got involved in Ukraine and could no longer protect Armenia, held peace talks with French president Emmanuel Macron and European Council president Charles Michel without Russian representatives present.  

Political scientist and former counselor in the U.S. State Department Eliot A. Cohen points out that as a former KGB agent, Putin always uses mind games, and suggests he is making nuclear threats to get allies to push Ukraine to negotiate. (Trump has offered to lead negotiations, and just last week, the Conservative Political Action Conference tweeted against further aid to Ukraine.)

Cohen adds that using nuclear weapons is not just about Ukraine and support for that country. China and India have no interest in seeing nuclear weapons normalized, and for Putin “to use nuclear weapons, many others—hundreds, if not more—have to go along,” Cohen notes. “The United States and other countries probably have the means to communicate to each and every one of them that they will personally pay a price if they do so, if not at the hands of Ukraine’s friends, then under a successor regime in Russia that will have to hold them accountable in order to be readmitted to the economy of the developed world.”

If Putin is trying to push Ukraine to the negotiating table, he is apparently throwing everything he can at the war without—so far—using nuclear weapons. On Saturday, after a series of talks with Belarus president Aleksandr Lukashenko, in which Putin urged him to join the war, Belarus officially accused Ukraine of preparing an attack against it. The threat seemed designed to force Ukraine to pull troops from its advance against the Russian forces in Ukraine to face soldiers from Belarus.

Russian money props up Belarus, and today, Lukashenko announced troop deployments with Russia, prompting Belarus opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya to warn members of the Belarusian military: “Don’t follow criminal orders, refuse to participate in Putin’s war against our neighbors.” The European Union immediately warned Belarus that Lukashenko’s accusations were “totally unfounded, ridiculous,” and “utterly unacceptable.” Peter Stano, E.U. foreign affairs spokesperson, told reporters: “[A]ll these steps, especially by the Belarusian regime, are against the will of the majority of the population and will be met with new and stronger restrictive measures from the side of the European Union.”

Indeed, the deadly attacks on civilians appear to have hardened the resolve of Ukraine’s allies. German defense minister Christine Lambrecht said that Germany will speed up its delivery to Ukraine of air defense systems that can protect entire cities. Originally promised by the end of the year, the systems now should be delivered “in the coming days,” Lambrecht said, since “[t]he renewed missile fire on Kyiv and the many other cities show how important it is to supply Ukraine with air defense systems quickly.”

The high representative of the E.U. for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell Fontelles, tweeted that he was “deeply shocked” by today’s attacks. “We stand with Ukraine,” he wrote, and added that “[a]dditional military support from the E.U. is on its way.”

In the U.S., Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a statement saying, “I am horrified by Russia’s depraved and desperate escalation against civilian infrastructure across Ukraine—including in Kyiv. I pledge to use all means at my disposal to accelerate support for the people of Ukraine and to starve Russia’s war machine.”

Menendez went on to condemn “the government of Saudi Arabia’s recent decision to help underwrite Putin’s war through the OPEC+ cartel. There simply is no room to play both sides of this conflict—either you support the rest of the free world in trying to stop a war criminal from violently wiping…an entire country off of the map, or you support him. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia chose the latter in a terrible decision driven by economic self-interest.”

Menendez called for a freeze on all aspects of U.S. cooperation with Saudi Arabia, “including any arms sales and security cooperation beyond what is absolutely necessary to defend U.S. personnel and interests…until the Kingdom reassesses its position with respect to the war in Ukraine.” This is a big shift in U.S. policy: the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can veto arms sales.

President Joe Biden spoke today with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and pledged “to continue providing Ukraine with the support needed to defend itself, including advanced air defense systems.  He also underscored his ongoing engagement with allies and partners to continue imposing costs on Russia, holding Russia accountable for its war crimes and atrocities, and providing Ukraine with security, economic, and humanitarian assistance.”

—

Notes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/01/cpac-ukraine-russia-tweet/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/putin-nuclear-weapons-threat-us-sanctions-military/671642/

https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/10/09/putin-urges-lukashenka-to-openly-join-the-war/

Arvydas Anušauskas @a_anusauskasInstead of a tactical nuclear weapon, Lukashenka is being activated. Yesterday Belarus officially accused Ukraine of preparing an attack against it. The goal is to withdraw as many 🇺🇦 forces as possible from the front to the border with Belarus.

6:00 AM ∙ Oct 9, 20223,961Likes784Retweets

Mark Hertling @MarkHertling“…a terrorist attack aimed at destroying critical Russian civilian infrastructure.”   The military or a Hague rep would say it’s actually a well-planned & precisely executed conventional attack on undefended &  valid strategic military targets.   Vlad might not recognize those max seddon @maxseddonPutin makes his first comments about the explosion on the bridge to Crimea. He says it's a "terrorist attack aimed at destroying critical Russian civilian infrastructure" and blames "Ukrainian secret services" for it. https://t.co/pqIeVndRis

6:10 PM ∙ Oct 9, 20227,072Likes1,009Retweets

Sam Sweeney @SweeneyABCA Russian cyber attack has hit the websites of multiple U.S. airports, including La Guardia, ATL, ORD, LAX and Des Moines. The attack is not affecting airport/airline/security operations, only airport websites. ATL says it just brought its website back up.

2:46 PM ∙ Oct 10, 20229,124Likes4,299Retweets

Ana 🗽🌻 @AnaSolitaria7@SweeneyABC @djrothkopf St. Louis Lambert as well, apparently.

flystl.comYou are being redirected...

2:58 PM ∙ Oct 10, 202226Likes5Retweets

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-10-10-22/h_a102b632458ead4f6ffa79918049f1a9

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-quickly-send-air-defense-systems-to-ukraine/a-63397544

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-10-10-22/index.html

Deborah Haynes @haynesdeborahNEW: Russia is running out of weapons for its war in Ukraine and the costs to the Kremlin are “staggering” in terms of soldiers and equipment lost, UK spy chief Sir Jeremy Fleming, head of @GCHQ, will say in a speech on Tuesday. 1/

10:02 PM ∙ Oct 10, 20227,114Likes1,489Retweets

https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/09/amid-ukraine-war-armenia-and-azerbaijan-fighting-risks-broader-conflict

https://www.nytimes.com/article/armenia-azerbaijan-clashes.html

Jay in Kyiv @JayinKyivWow. Armenia and Azerbaijan meet with EU's Michel and French President Macron WITHOUT Russia. Now that Putin has no military, Russia now means sh*t.

6:14 PM ∙ Oct 6, 20221,325Likes232Retweets

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/world/asia/russia-putin-soviet.html

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/10/07/statement-following-quadrilateral-meeting-between-president-aliyev-prime-minister-pashinyan-president-macron-and-president-michel-6-october-2022/

https://thehill.com/policy/international/3681547-belaruss-lukashenko-announcesi-troop-deployments-with-russia-amid-on escalations-in-ukraine/

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/10/10/eu-warns-lukashenko-of-sanctions-over-joint-grouping-of-troops-with-russia

https://www.dw.com/en/how-russian-money-keeps-belarus-afloat/a-58680063

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/10/readout-of-president-joe-bidens-call-with-president-volodymyr-zelenskyy-of-ukraine/

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/dem/release/chairman-menendez-statement-on-future-of-united-states-saudi-relationship

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/10/dems-rage-at-saudis-over-oil-cut-vow-to-block-weapons-sales-00061123

The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent⚡️Forbes estimates Russia's Oct. 10 missile strikes cost $400-700 million. Russia launched 84 cruise missiles and 24 drones all across Ukraine on Oct. 10, with an average total value of $400-700 million, according to Forbes.

9:37 PM ∙ Oct 10, 20223,618Likes751Retweets

https://www.stltoday.com/business/local/airport-websites-in-st-louis-other-cities-go-offline-cause-being-investigated/article_6bc4a95f-afe3-51e0-810f-e3054feb370c.html

Josep Borrell Fontelles @JosepBorrellFDeeply shocked by Russia’s attacks on civilians in #Kyiv and other cities in Ukraine. Such acts have no place in 21st century. I condemn them in the strongest possible terms. We stand with Ukraine. Additional military support from the EU is on its way.

9:16 AM ∙ Oct 10, 202222,529Likes3,766Retweets

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[From comments]

100Panthers

In the Texas Hold'em game of Democracy vs Authoritarianism, everyone is having to ante up as we get to the last cards. In the past many (Saudi Arabia, India, China, Belarus, Germany, Italy, Turkey, etc.) played footsies with both sides and bluffed. But Putin running out of money-weapons-armaments and losing the war is making all players ante up or fold. 84 missiles at $4.6-8.3M a piece sounds like the value of infrastructure destroyed per missile, not a winning strategy. The domestic game of Texas Hold'em for Democracy vs Authoritarianism, not many cards remain except to indict Trump. Will he be fully charged and convicted and in this process everyone will have to ante up, no more footsie by the Rubios, McConnells, Garlands, Cruzs, Grahams, Thomas, Cannons et al. Either the law applies to all, or not?! This moment is a pivotal time in history wherein the future of democracy abroad and domestically will be decided! Buckle up!

[t-jfh]

Illustration: Rebecca Chew/The New York Times

A Warning About Donald Trump and 2024

At the outset of this election year, with Donald Trump leading the race to be the Republican presidential nominee, Americans should pause to consider what a second Trump term would mean for the country and the world.

Opinion by the Editorial Board

The New York Times - January 6, 2024

•

•

Joe Biden and Donald Trump are headed for an election rematch in 2024.

(Photo: Matt Rourke/Associated Press)

America’s hell: A tyrannical Trump who can’t be conquered

With the disreputable Donald Trump challenging the disfavored President Biden, the 2024 race has become the embodiment of Oscar Wilde’s witticism about fox hunting: “the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.”

Opinion by Maureen Dowd

The New York Times - January 6, 2024

•

•

Attendees prayed during a Commit to Caucus event held by former President Donald J. Trump’s campaign in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in December 2023. Evangelical voters have long supported Republican candidates, but who identifies as an evangelical Christian has changed over the years. (Photo: Jordan Gale for The New York Times)

Trump Is Connecting With a Different Type of Evangelical Voter

They are not just the churchgoing, conservative activists who once dominated the G.O.P.

By Ruth Graham and Charles Homans

Ruth Graham, a Times religion reporter, and Charles Homans, who covers grass-roots politics, spoke to voters and pastors in nine towns and cities across Iowa.

The New York Times - January 8, 2024

•

•

President Biden’s visit to Charleston, S.C., was the second part of his two-stage opening campaign swing of the election year.

(Photo: Pete Marovich for The New York Times)

Biden Tries to Rally Disaffected Black Voters in Fiery Condemnation of Trump

The president visited Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., the site of one of the most horrific hate crimes in recent years, to denounce racism and extremism.

President Biden sought to rally disaffected Black supporters on Monday with a fiery condemnation of former President Donald J. Trump, linking his predecessor’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election to the nation’s history of white supremacy in what he called “the old ghost in new garments.”

By Peter Baker

The New York Times - January 8, 2024

•

[contemplatingoutlander]

"That 'republic not a democracy' slogan is especially dangerous because it persuades Republicans that democracy and democratic practices don't matter to a free society. It went from being a clever slogan to a justification for voter suppression, authoritarian practices, January 6, and everything else."

--Marque Tres, commenting on the NY Times column Mitt Romney Has It Half Right

[emperornorton47]

[zvaigzdelasas]

Asking for consistent rubrics is one of those demands that seems simple & insufficient but is ultimately undigestible for imperialism - that's also exactly why "whataboutism" as a canard is so effective

[unhelpfulfemme]

This may be a Bad Take but I think a lot less people would have issues with Padmé Amidala's RotS characterization if they realized that her role in that movie is largely symbolic and that Anakin's attitude towards her is meant to represent the inherent tension between liberty and security (which is clearly one of the main themes in a movie that has Anakin quote George W Bush as he falls to the Dark Side).

Padmé represents the best of democratic values: the capability to perceive everyone's inherent worth, the trust in state institutions, the morality, the benefits and drawbacks of resolving issues in a democratic manner and within the system (she often finds herself helpless in the face of corruption, for example). Padmé's ideals are the core of her character, to the point that she basically is her ideals. Basically, Padmé is to the Galactic Republic what Marianne is to the French Republic.

Now, you may have issues with a female character being used as a personification of a state or a political system, but not only is this a millennia-old narrative tradition, I also feel like you're probably barking up the wrong tree, because George Lucas LOVES using characters as symbols for abstract concepts: Luke as the Hero with a Thousand Faces, the Good vs. Bad Father dynamic with Obi-Wan and Vader, etc. This is completely on brand for the way George Lucas in particular constructs characters.

Even Padmé's most famous line, "So this is how Liberty dies," is indicative of this (and I love the concept of a former slave boy falling in love with Liberty herself).

Padmé dies because Liberty dies, not because she's a weak useless woman.

And Anakin's relationship to her potential death is very much... an indictment of reactionary politics and the War on Terror?

Anakin loves Padmé because she is fair-minded and understanding even when he doesn't deserve it, because she is tolerant, because she is kind, because she fights for justice, because she uplifts people. This is what he is in love with and what he is trying to preserve.

But in the face of nebulous threats, some real and some manufactured, he tries to save her by trampling all over what she stands for. And what she stands for is her. Therefore the very act of trying to save her is what ends up killing her, just like trying to keep your democracy safe by increasingly cruel and authoritarian measures inevitably kills it. Anakin claims that he loves her, that he's protecting her, but he is unwilling to listen to anything she has to say about it, just like plenty of people whose mouths are full of freedom but don't want to think about or apply the values that they are supposedly defending. What she believes no longer matters as long as she loves and comforts and uplifts him (and when she doesn't he goes into a rage).

Everything Padmé stands for, her very way of life and her very way of doing things, no longer exist at the end of RotS. She was becoming increasingly static and helpless during the movie because her way of doing things no longer works as the Republic becomes mired in cruelty and corruption, she cannot do anything but set foundations for an eventual rebellion and hope that a spark of hope survives. She can no longer survive in this new system, and it is in her nature to rather die than compromise herself in order to work within it. In a symbolic way, she quite literally cannot survive if she has to exist within it. She IS Liberty, and it would be a paradox if she survived. She dies and their children - another thing Anakin is fighting to protect, like many people who are "defending freedom" "for the children!!1!" - are made orphans, left to their own devices, forced to fight and rebuild things from scratch because she can no longer nurture them or protect them. This is a political metaphor y'all.

And in this reading, even Shmi's death ends up working better if you squint? Because even though Anakin's anger over her death stems from clear injustice and is fundamentally righteous, the fear and rage that this creates in him, and his inability to cope with it, is what directly causes him to both fear for Padmé's safety and to eventually smother her due to that fear. And to eventually become what he fears, killing Liberty, depriving himself of liberty in the process by becoming Sidious's blind slave, and literally destroying the future of an entire generation of (Jedi) children.

Now, I'm not saying that this makes a more psychological analysis of Padmé's character invalid or that this is the only role that she plays (for example, while Obi-Wan is the "good father figure" in ANH, he's clearly many different things across all the movies and clearly has an established characterization beyond that, and so does Padmé), but I think looking at it through this particular lens does make the choices made for her character less baffling and more indicative of the larger themes of the prequels.

[ftmtftm]

Genuine question. But how are radical feminists; women's rigths activist who are exactly trying to detect, address and attack the roots of the patriarcy and it's problems (the literal definition of radical, "By the root") to make the world a better place for women and girls, comparable to religious evangelicals, incels and actual Neonazis?

Dunno, correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked those 3 last groups and unlike actual radical feminists, not only they don't support but openly and actively despise and try to eliminate progresive ideals like homosexual rigths, reproductive rigths, end workfield innequality, among many others.

Context: This anon is in response to this post. I do want to apologize to anon up front, because I assumed they sent this ask in bad faith based on several other bad faith asks that have been sent to me in the past. They however, did ask this in earnest. I genuinely hope this is a valuable resource to you and anyone else this post crosses paths with.

Okay so there's a lot of things I want to get into here and it's gonna get long so I'm going to break it into chunks. We're gonna look at what political extremism is, what a rhetorical fallacy is, what Feminism is (broadly speaking) and then do a deep dive into the actual nitty gritty people and politics of Radical Feminism in opposition to other types of Feminism.

TL;DR - Radical Feminism is an extremist, female supremacist, hate movement. It has more in common with Political Right / authoritarian extremist movements than it does with any Politically Left / liberation based radical movements.

So let's start with examining political extremism. What is Political Extremism? In turn, what is Political Radicalism?

Political Extremism is a very broad category of belief and action that gets thrown around a lot. Most people just use it to mean "strong politics that exist outside the status quo" however, I'm more interested in the way Astrid Bötticher defines Extremism vs Radicalism. In her definitions (here) she essentially describes that "Political Extremism" tends to get applied to Right Wing leaning politics and "Political Radicalism" tends to get applied to Left Wing leaning politics. She states that there is a fuzzy line between the two (think about the application of the phrase "Go so far left you go right") but that finding ways to define and distinguish the two is still important to political discussion.

Bötticher describes that Radical Politics tend to have a focus on:

anti-violence/selective use of violence

building a positive future

democracy/emancipation

pro-human rights, specifically in the context of providing them to the under privileged

disrupting status quo without a total destruction of society/diversity

standing in opposition to Systemic Institutions and The Establishment

coexistent withdraw with society when existing in small numbers

universal morality - a moral system that applies to all

egalitarianism/sovereignty of the common people

ideas inspired and informed by philosophical movements, starting with the 18th century Enlightenment onward

In contrast she describes that Extremist Politics tend to have a focus on:

violence as a legitimate form of action

looking towards an idealistic past

anti-democracy/authoritarianism/intolerance for other ideologies

anti-human rights (specifically in the context of people outside their own ideology - my own addition)

reinforce status quo while closing society off from conversation and diversity

standing in opposition to Systemic Institutions and The Establishment and also anyone who disagrees with the Extremist dogma

provocation and disruption, even when existing in small numbers in society

particularistic (exclusive) morality - a moral system that only applies to the Extremist group

totalitarianism/authoritarian control

ideas inspired by fanatical, usually (but not always) religious ideas that claim to hold a monopoly on truth on the basis of their own vision (that last part is especially important)

As you can probably gather, under these definitions generally speaking one would define most progressive movements as Politically Radical and most regressive movements as Politically Extremist. The Feminist Movement is, by and large, a Politically Radical Movement. Our conversation doesn't end here though. We have a lot more ground to cover. This is just the framework.

So, now that we've established the characteristics of a Politically Extremist movement, let's delve into the rhetoric they use to assert those aspects of themselves.

What is a rhetorical fallacy?

Rhetorical Devices are an important part of not just politics, but every day life. We use them constantly - I'm using them now, you use them, everyone uses them. When I speak to you, the reader, and appeal to you directly I am invoking Pathos (Emotional Appeal) by creating an air of casualness - as though we are engaging in a conversation. When I give definitions, statistics, cite sources, I am invoking Logos (Logical Appeal) by showing there is traceable, factual, credibility to the things I am saying. When I say that I have been studying Political/Feminist/Philosophical Theory both academically and in my own free time for the last decade of my life I am invoking Ethos (Ethical Appeal) by asserting that I have put an immense amount of time and dedication into this topic to showcase my own credibility.

The important thing about Rhetorical Devices here is how they are applied - especially in political discussions. When applied incorrectly or maliciously Rhetorical Devices begin to fall into Fallacies.

Fallacies are errors, or tricks, of reasoning. The provided link is from a college writing textbook and I highly recommend reading it over if you're able (genuine shout out to LibreTexts for their efforts in making textbooks free and accessible to the public). It gives a good enough explanation of fallacies as a whole that I won't be going too in depth myself, so as not to distract from my main points.

The specific type of fallacies that I'd like to get into are Linguistic Fallacies (equivocation, amphiboly, combination of words, division of words, accent, and form of expression) because they are a type of fallacy that Political Extremists (and really? also most people in politics with weak argumentative skills) like to employ a lot to make their points seem stronger or to manipulate their image. Though it is not listed as a part of the six Linguistic Fallacies, I consider Etymological Fallacy to be a kind of Linguistic Fallacy, as it relies on the explicit dissection of language.

Political Extremists and other oppressive regimes often obscure their nature through carefully chosen linguistic descriptors that rely on fallacious intent. Early Nazis called themselves National Socialists when they were, in fact, not Socialists. The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is not a Democratic Republic for the People - it is a Dictatorship - and the Chinese Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is not Communist and China is not a Republic.

To obscure yourself behind intentionally chosen progressive sounding language to gain yourself more followers who simply say "Hey, Democracy and Socialism are good! Those guys must not be that bad!" or "Hey, I agree with women's rights and liberation! I think the world should be a better place for women and girls! Those Radical Feminists must be onto something!" is to rely on an intentional political obfuscation tactic that uses the Fallacy of Equivocation.

What is Feminism? What are the different schools of Feminist Theory?

A distinct and important part of Feminist Philosophy is quite genuinely - debating how to define Feminism and it's goals. Though they all follow similar themes, there are a lot of variant ways of defining this. Some definitions of Feminism include:

"The belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes." - Britannica / Merriam-Webster

"[The goal of feminism is] all genders having equal rights and opportunities." - International Women's Development Agency

"[Feminism is] the movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression." - bell hooks

Generally speaking though, Feminism places itself as a movement for the advocacy of Women as a Class of people, operating under the context of combating / eliminating gender and/or sex based oppression - depending on the Feminist school of thought you are looking at.

Allison Jaggar, feminist scholar, defined four types of Feminism in her 1983 book Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Those types are: Liberal Feminism, Marxist Feminism, Socialist Feminism, and Radical Feminism. These tend to be the schools of thought you see brought up most often today.

I, personally, however, think that it is worth recognizing that there are in fact more schools of Feminist thought than just those four. In particular Intersectional Feminism, which was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in her 1989 paper Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex, and Postcolonial Feminism which began to get its footing in 1984 with the publishing Audre Lorde's essay The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House (taken from a 1979 speech) and Chandra Talpade Mohanty's 1984 essay Under Western Eyes.

Postcolonial and Intersectional Feminism exist in direct critique of the Whiteness that was (and still is now) pervasive in Feminist Literature through the 60's-80's and into the beginning of the Third Wave of Feminism, which I will get into shortly.

Who is Radical Feminism by and for as a political movement? Who are the people creating the theory, past and present? Who are the people running the movement via theory, political organizations, and who are the faces of the movement? Who do they truly center?

Let's start with some basic Feminist history for a moment. The Feminist movement is broken into several waves. Presently, we are in what scholars are beginning to define as the Fourth Wave of Feminism, so let's briefly look at all four.

I want to state right off the bat that Feminism and feminist history as a whole is very US American and British centric. The First Wave of Feminism is defined by the Suffrage Movement and (White) Women gaining the right to vote in the USA in 1920. The Second Wave of Feminism is defined by the sexual liberation movement, the beginnings of Queer Theory, and the foundation of Radical Feminism as an organized political movement in the late 60's ('67~'68) on the coasts of the US and in England. The Third Wave of Feminism in the 90's is looser and exists as a dialogue between movements like the Riot Grrls, long standing Radical Feminists, and Feminists of Color (particularly Black Feminists) critiquing the Feminism of the previous few decades. The present Fourth Wave is currently being defined socially by social media usage and the MeToo movement and academically by its continuing recognition of Intersectional Feminist work.

I do think it is deeply important to note the racial dynamics at play here and address the fact that the Feminist Movement has also always been extremely White in many ways. This is not to discredit the work of Feminists of Color, but to say that their work, labor, activism, and theory often goes unrecognized by White Feminists. As previously mentioned, the First Wave of Feminism is largely defined by the Suffragette Movement and women's right to vote - however, Black Women and other Women of Color were not allowed to be fully included in this movement by White Suffragettes. Black Women did not receive suffrage until 1965 with the Voting Rights Act. This was just 2-3 years before the beginning of the Second Wave. I have written about this to a larger extent here so I won't be diving too deep in this ask, since we're already getting very long here.

So let's dive deeper into the Second Wave and Radical Feminist history. I would personally argue that the publishing of the SCUM Manifesto and Valerie Solanas' attempt on Andy Warhol's life is what kick started the Radical Feminist movement. I have talked about this to a larger extent here in relation to Political Lesbianism and really - I just don't want to retype an essay I've already written.

TL;DR - While the SCUM Manifesto may or may not have been satirical (Solanas went back and forth on this publicly) it was the first published work to describe ideas integral to Radical Feminist literature. It was born out of the same New York spaces as the rest of the Radical Feminist Movement and spread thanks to the New York gay newspaper, The Village Voice, and the publicity from Solanas' attempt at Warhol. Male Dominance Theory, the inherent violence of males, the idea that women are safer with other women than with men, the idea that lesbianism or celibacy are the only safe sexual avenues for women, etc. etc. were all published first in SCUM in 1968.

Ti-Grace Atkinson could, and should, be credited with the foundation of organized Radical Feminist politics in written works with her 1969 piece "Radical Feminism". She was an active defender of the SCUM Manifesto and Solanas - going so far as to get in trouble with NOW (The National Organization for Women) during her time as the organization's president for defending Solanas and attempting to involve Flo Kennedy in Solanas' legal defense (pay-walled article, unfortunately). While Solanas wanted no involvement with Atkinson, Kennedy, or NOW it's clear her ideas and actions deeply impacted them and other Radical Feminists. The events with Solanas inspired Atkinson to leave NOW and form the October 17th Movement, which then became the Radical Feminist group The Feminists.

If we look at other foundational Radical Feminists from the late 60's and 70's - Shulamith Firestone, Kathie Sarachild, Carol Hanisch, Roxanne Dunbar, Naomi Weisstein - they all also share one trait in common with Solanas and Atkinson beyond their politics. Whiteness. The only Woman of Color present so far in this history is Flo Kennedy, and Flo Kennedy was open about "Not feeling Black" and not really having community with other Black people. Her work definitionally was more Intersectional than Radical Feminist, however she dedicated most of her efforts to time in Radical Feminist spaces. Unfortunately as the linked book review begins to describe, like a lot of Feminist history, Flo's actual person-hood has been stripped from her work. She is often either used as a Token Black Radical Feminist or as a Token Black Intersectional Feminist in Radical Feminist Spaces, depending on where you look and who you ask.

I don't have the time nor space to do an entire history lesson on Radical Feminism, but suffice to say the works of the women I have previously mentioned very much inspired the works of more commonly cited, more modern Radical Feminist authors like Andrea Dworkin, Sheila Jeffreys, Julie Bindel, Catherine MacKinnon. Again, all White Women. You look to modern Radical Feminist and Women's Liberation activism and you see the same reflected in your average Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist as well as in the women in pop culture who are being celebrated by anti-trans Radfem spaces, like JKR and Kellie-Jay Keen / Posie Parker. Both of whom, by the way are actively buddy-buddy with conservatives and Neo-Nazi's. Shaun, the video essayist, has broken this down better than I can here (JKR) (Posie Parker).

Why talk about all of this? What is the relevance of political extremism and rhetorical fallacies in this conversation?

We began this essay (because, let's be real, that's what this is) discussing Political Extremism vs Political Radicalism so let's come back around to that and my claim that Radical Feminism is Politically Extremist, not Politically Radical now. Radical Feminists, like in this ask, have been in my ask box recently arguing that the "Radical" in "Radical Feminism" means "to the root" - like a mathematical root. That it means "Getting to the root of Patriarchy". However, I genuinely have not been able to find any such claim in any of my research. The "Radical" in "Radical Feminism" has always been used in the political sense of being "politically radical" in all of the reading and historical research I've done. Show me a legitimate source of this claim and I'll take it into consideration though.

I would like to breakdown Bötticher's list of traits of Extremism/Radicalism in relation to Radical Feminism now though, since we have established we are explicitly talking about Political Radicalism several times over.

1. violence as a legitimate form of action

Radical Feminism is founded on the idea that society needs to be completely dismantled in order to procure the safety of women. Be this by genocide, as SCUM suggests, or by a women led revolution as women like Firestone suggested there have always been roots of violence in Radical Feminism. Violence is a complicated topic in of its own right, which I've talked about my own feelings on here. I personally believe that the Radfem idealism towards violence and wanting to "flip" the violence of the Patriarchy back onto men - regardless of it is satirical or not - and the idea that violence begets violence falls under this category of Extremism, rather than under the category of Radicalism.

2. looking towards an idealistic past

I am of the opinion that the way Radical Feminism of the 60's and 70's idealized the Suffragettes and their work is a form of this. It is happening again now with the way modern Radical Feminists idealize the politics of Radfems of the 60's and 70's. There's this idealized version of Feminist history in Radfem spaces that completely ignores or denies the presence of Feminist authors that disagree with or criticize Radical Feminist thought. This happens generally via unwarranted assimilation (You see this happen a lot with theorists like Angela Davis, Audre Lorde, Judith Butler, and even Leslie Feinberg) or complete dismissal (you see this happen a lot with theorists like bell hooks, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Roxane Gay). You know the thing those authors have in common? They are all either Black or non-binary.

3. anti-democracy/pro-authoritarianism/intolerance for other ideologies

Current Radfem culture really hinges on dismissing anything Radfems disagree with as "Liberal Feminism" - referencing Jaggar's previously mentioned work. This is something I've noticed a lot in my own conversations with particularly young Radfems who are new to Feminism. There seems to be this idea that you can only be a pop culture-y, soft, liberal feminist OR a to the teeth, political radical feminist - with no thought for what might exist outside of that binary. Even Jaggar herself talks about Socialist and Marxist Feminism, which are in fact distinct Feminist movements in their own rights, and as previously mentioned Intersectional Feminism and Postcolonial Feminism, among many other types of Feminism also exist. To treat Feminism as though it was a binary dichotomy with a right answer is to fall under this category of Political Extremism.

4. anti-human rights (specifically in the context of people outside their own ideology - my own addition)

I've gone almost this entire post without going too in-depth on the subject of anti-trans rhetoric in Radical Feminism because that is, at least presently, something many, many other people have covered in the past. However, Radical Feminism as an ideology is in explicit opposition to the human rights of transgender individuals. This is not the post for that analysis, so I won't be getting into it to much deeper here. You can see my extended watching section at the bottom of this post if you're truly interested in this topic.

5. reinforce status quo while closing society off from conversation and diversity

Many Radfem spaces and a lot of Radfem literature tend to universalize the "woman" or "female" experience without consideration for the nuances and complexities of those experiences. Given the White American roots of Radical Feminism, I see this as an extension of the phenomenon of White Homogenization - which is the phenomenon related to the history of xenophobia towards groups like Irish and Italian immigrants and their subsequent assimilation into American White Identity once it was deemed convenient for White Supremacists. This is, in part why I would classify Radical Feminism as Female Supremacy. It's got all the makings of White Supremacist rhetoric thanks to the race of its founders, just twisted slightly to fit the means of White women rather than White people as a whole.

Radical Feminism constructs this status quo idea of universal womanhood and regularly shuts down conversations that question the authority of that experience, particularly in relation to Race, Ethnicity, Transgender Identity, and Intersex Identity.

6. standing in opposition to Systemic Institutions and The Establishment and also anyone who disagrees with the Extremist dogma

I feel like this one is self explanatory following the last few points about the universalism of womanhood and the way Radfem culture simplifies Feminist theory. Yes, Radical Feminism stands opposed to the Patriarchy and also it stands opposed to any other Feminist thought that might disagree with it to the point of ostracization, misindentification, and outright dismissal. The way many Radfems resort to pejoratives (as I've been experiencing in my ask box with an influx of asks calling me a tranny pooner among many other expletives I won't be posting) and dehumanizing language like calling trans people "TRAs" as a play off of "MRAs" is a good show of this.

7. provocation and disruption, even when existing in small numbers in society 8. particularistic (exclusive) morality - a moral system that only applies to the Extremist group 9. totalitarianism/authoritarian control

Grouping these three together mostly for the sake of brevity, as I've been working on this post for about 4 days and admittedly, I am getting exhausted exposing myself to rhetoric that fundamentally believes my own existence is incorrect and a bunch of other anons telling me to kill myself.

However, I do briefly want to take time here to address the fact that the way Radfems universalize womanhood ends up perpetuating this idea that women are inherently safer than men. That women, or females, are incapable of abuse because that's what men do. This separatism, this isolationism, is in of itself a breeding ground for abusive people to take advantage of others. These last three points are all three points that I think highlight the cult-like nature of Political Extremism. "Violence is good and justified when women do it to men because men are violent to women" type thinking. It preys on unresolved trauma - which I've briefly spoken about here. I could absolutely go into point 8 farther, and I have a lot more feelings about it that I'm getting into here - but I'm tired. I'll make another post another day and update this one when I do.

10. ideas inspired by fanatical, usually (but not always) religious ideas that claim to hold a monopoly on truth on the basis of their own vision (that last part is especially important)

This is one of the most important points in this list I think. A lot of Radical Feminism positions itself in a way that places itself and it's followers as arbiters of truth. If you disagree with Radical Feminism, you're a misogynist, you're a self hating female, you're wrong, you're ignorant, you hate women and support the Patriarchy. It's classic "Us vs Them" rhetoric.

I brought up rhetorical fallacies earlier as a primer to the fact that Radical Feminist rhetoric is full of rhetorical fallacies. Most specifically notably in this ask is the etymological fallacy of saying the "Radical" in "Radical Feminism" means "to the Root". "Woman = Adult Human Female" is also an etymological fallacy. Acting as though there are only two types of Feminism (Liberal vs Radical) is an argument based on fallacy. The list goes on, as most of the requirements for Bötticher's definition of Political Extremism rely on fallacy on the part of the Extremists because Extremism requires a skewed perception of reality based on the manipulation of facts.

That is all why I classify Radical Feminism as a Politically Extremist Female Supremacist Hate Group - especially modern Radical Feminism. That is why I classify it in the same extremist camp as Evangelicals, White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and Incels. They all rely on similar rhetorical tactics to further their goals:

"You are only safe with your own kind. You will only find strength with your own kind. Outsiders are the enemy and you cannot find sympathy or empathy for them, lest you become brainwashed."

What are the alternatives? How do we move forward from Radical Feminism?

One of the most important solutions I can offer, in my opinion, is the encouragement to go and do your own research into Feminism and Feminist history. A Radfem view is one of many, many possible Feminist approaches as I've discussed at length here. I personally think "good feminism" is well-rounded Feminism that takes an Intersectional approach to Institutions of Oppression. Essentially, Feminism that recognizes that the Patriarchy is only one aspect of the oppressive forces of the world and that it works in tandem with other systems to cause direct harm to the oppressed.

First and foremost - I keep a reading list on my blog. I need to go through and do some serious updating to it but what it currently has is still a good jumping off point. The list isn't just reading materials, but also includes talks and interviews and audio books, if those things are more accessible to you personally.

My personal favorite feminist thinkers are bell hooks, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Leslie Feinberg. Audre Lorde, Judith Butler, and Kate Bornstein are also excellent reads when it comes to theory. I'm also including some extended watching recommendations at the end of this ask because I know for many people watching a video or listening to a talk can be more accessible than academic text. I do however, recommend popping into my reading list and looking at the talks and interviews that I have listed there as well.

If you made it all the way down here? Holy shit - congratulations and thank you for reading all of this, regardless of if we agree on this topic or not. This was a pain in the ass to put together honestly and I'm real fucking tired. I'm gonna go spend a week getting high and listening to live music with my best friend now.

Just remember: Do what you want forever :)

Extended Watching (Interviews + Talks):

In Life: Interview with Kate Bornstein, Leslie Feinberg (captions recommended)

Leslie Feinberg in Buffalo, June 2, 2006

Leslie Feinberg Celebrating Stone Butch Blues at Charis Books 1993 (captions recommended)

Berkley professor explains gender theory | Judith Butler

Feminist icon Judith Butler on JK Rowling, trans rights, feminism, and intersectionality

Extended Watching (Video Essays):

JK Rowling's New Friends - Shaun (previously linked)

Keelie-Jay & the Neo-Nazis - Shaun (previously linked)

Social Constructs (or, 'What is A Woman Really?') - Philosophy Tube

Identity: A Trans Coming Out Story - Philosophy Tube

Transhumanism: "The World's Most Dangerous Idea" - Philosophy Tube

Autogynephilia - ContraPoints

Gender Critical - ContraPoints

[i-am-dulaman]

petition for that long rant on revolutions here, i really enjoyed the way you laid out your facts and explained the first rant and am not too good at reading theory myself (i am still trying tho) thanks!!

Okay okay so the problem with revolutions is they get messy. Real messy. You get counter-revolutionaries, moderates, extremists, loyalists, and everything in between. One revolution turns into 5, and even if your side wins, its almost guaranteed to have been tainted some way or another along the way.

Take the first french revolution. It started as civil unrest, the estates general initially called for reform of the french state into a constitutional monarchy similar to Britain. Even king louis XVI was in support of this. But extremists wanting a republic and counter-revolutionaries wanting absolute monarchy clashed and things became more and more chaotic and violent. Eventually the extremists won, the jacobin reign of terror ensued, and 10s of thousands of people were executed. Now don't get me wrong, i am all for executing monarchs and feudal lords, but look what happened a few years later; Napoleon used the political instability to declare himself emperor, a few more years later his empire had crumbled, and the monarchy was back with Louis XVIII.

Or take the 1979 iranian revolution. It started as protests against pahlavi, who was an authoritarian head of state and an American pawn. As the protests turned into civil resistance and guerilla warfare it took on many different forms. There were secularists vs islamic extremists. There were democrats vs theocrats vs monarchists. Etc. Through all the chaos, Khomeini seized power, held a fake referendum, and declared himself supreme leader and enforced many strict laws, particularly on women who previously had close to equal rights. Many of the millions of women involved in the revolution later said they felt bettayed by the end result.

Or the Russian Revolution. It started as protests, military strikes, and civil unrest during WW1 directed at the tsar. He stepped down in 1917 and handed power over to the Duma, the russian parliament. This new provisionary government initially had the support of soviet councils, including socialist groups like the menshiviks. But they made the major mistake of deciding to continue the war. Lenins bolsheviks were originally a very tiny group on the fringes of russian politics, but they were the loudest supporters of peace, so they gained support and organised militias into an army and thus began the russian civil war. Lenin won and followed through on his promise to end the war against germany, but its a bit ironic that they fought a civil war, that killed about 10 million people, just to end another war.

Im not saying any of these results were either bad or good. They all have nuance and its all subjective. But the point i am trying to make is that they get messy. The initial goals will always be twisted.

France wanted a constitutional monarchy, they got an autocratic emporer.

Iran wanted democracy and an end to American influence, and well they ended american influence alright but also got a totalitarian theocrat.

Russia wanted an end to world war 1 and got one of the bloodiest civil wars in history.

I cant think of a single revolution in history that achieved the goals it set out to achieve.

But again, im not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, just a warning against revolutionary rhetoric and criticisms of reformism. Sometimes revolution is the only option, when you're faced with an authoritarian government diametrically opposed to change, then a revolution may be worth the risk. But it is a risk.

But if you live in a democracy, claiming revolution is the only way is actively choosing both bloodshed and the risk of things going horribly wrong over the choice of peaceful reform.

So when i go online in some leftist spaces and see people claiming revolution in America or UK or wherever is the only way out of capitalism I cant help but feel angry.

I know our democracy is flawed, and reform is slow and can even go backwards, but we owe it to all the people who would die in a revolution to try reform first.

I know socialist reform is especially hard in our flawed democracy where capitalists own the media, but if we can't convince enough people to vote for socialist reform what hope do we have of convincing enough people to join a socialist revolution. Socialism is supposed to be for the people, but how can you claim your revolution is for the people if you can't even get the support of the people?

So what I'm trying to say is; if youre one of those leftists that are sitting around waiting for the glorious revolution, doing nothing but posting rhetoric online - at least try doing something else while you wait. Join your labour union, recruit your coworkers, get involved in your local socialist parties, call your local representatives (city council, senator, governor, member of parliament, whatever) and make your opinions known, push them further left, and keep pushing.

[short-wooloo]

I have thoughts on the constant assertion by thrawn stans that Dave filoni "retconned" him from being "morally gray" into just an evil villain

This claim mostly comes from perceived dissonance between thrawn's portrayal in Rebels/Ahsoka vs his portrayal in his novels

Ok, 1.

Rebels/Ahsoka and any other movie/show thrawn may appear in are higher canon, they are more canon then the books, if there's a contradiction between them, movie/show wins, or put simply, the movies/shows are canon to the books, but the books are not canon to the movies/shows, the books must fit with the movies/shows, not vice versa

And 2.

I think people entirely miss the point of the new thrawn trilogy

Aside from the fact that Rebels came first, and is thus the primary source for thrawn's characterization, the books are in the past tense (even the ones that are supposed to run parallel with the Rebels seasons, since they would have been written after those seasons were, any inconsistencies are the fault of the books)

They're prequels

Thrawn's characterization in them is who he WAS, his characterization in Rebels/Ahsoka/future high canon is who he became

You're not supposed to take away from the books that thrawn is a "morally grey but ultimately good character who dies bad things for good reasons" (and that "fIlOnI rEtCoNnEd tHrAwN"), the takeaway should be "look how far he's fallen, look at what he's become, look at what the empire turns people into, look at what constant rationalizations of "the ends justify the means" leads to, look at how the dark side can even corrupt and twist people who cannot use it"

Thrawn before he joined the empire was inclined to believe that democracy was bad and only by brutally forcing it can there be order and "peace", the chiss ascendancy is a xenophobic authoritarian military-oligarchy, it has a lot of common ground with the empire (and it's successor states)

And that brings us to what the empire is

In the empire, bad people are rewarded, you cannot get ahead without being so, tyranny, brutality, and ruthlessness are encouraged, it gets you promotions, authority, and favor of the emperor, it's a system designed to bring out the worst in people, good people in the empire end up powerless, dead, or they turn against it

And thrawn is a grand admiral, one of the highest ranks in the empire, the only people who definitely had more authority than thrawn were tarkin, Vader, and Palpatine

He could not have gotten there without committing to the empire and it's values

Maybe he did have a good reason for joining the empire, maybe he really did believe he was protecting his people

But that all rings hollow to the people who were oppressed by the empire that he supported

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

By Steve Corbin

According to a May 15 NBC News report, there are a multitude of issues that voters must discern about Joe Biden, Donald Trump and the independent presidential candidates before voting on Nov. 5. Logically, the importance of each issue differs between and among America’s 161.4 million registered voters.

One issue missing from the NBC News report that has become a focal point of the Biden camp, Make America Great Again Republicans and third-party candidates is democracy vs. authoritarianism. Specifically, on Jan. 20, 2025, will the duly elected and inaugurated president of the United States keep America as a democracy that dates back to the 1630’s in the New England colonies, or will it be the start of changing the country to authoritarian fascism?

If you’ve not heard of Project 2025, it’s very worthy of your independent investigation. Project 2025 is a playbook specifically created for Donald Trump and his supporters to use in the first 180 days of Trump’s 2025-29 presidential administration. The far-right extremism-based Heritage Foundation proudly takes claim for facilitating the creation of the 887-page turning-democracy-into-an-authoritarian-country document.

Project 2025’s two editors had assistance from 34 authors, 277 contributors, a 54-member advisory board and a coalition of over 100 conservative organizations (including the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Heartland Institute, Liberty University, Middle East Forum, Moms for Liberty, the National Rifle Association, Pro-Life America and Tea Party Patriots).

Project 2025 is a serious endeavor, if Trump returns to the White House, to make America a fascist country. After all, on May 20, Trump posted a video on his Truth Social media account depicting his 2025-29 administration as a “Unified Reich.” (Hitler’s Third Reich occurred from 1933 to 1945.)

Download the Project 2025 document (it's linked from this essay) so you can check out the disconcerting manuscript that tells Trump what specifically to do from Jan. 20 to July 18, 2025, to convert America into an authoritarian regime.

The 30 chapters of Project 2025 are a daunting read. Project 2025 proposes, among a host of things, eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, deploying the US military whenever protests erupt, dismantling the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, removing sexual and gender protected discrimination and terminating diversity, equity, inclusion and affirmative action.

Additional mandates include: siphoning off billions of dollars of public school funding, funding private school choice vouchers, phasing out public education’s Title I program, gutting the nation’s free school meals program, eliminating the Head Start program, banning books and suppressing any curriculum that discusses the evils of slavery.

Project 2025 also calls for banning abortion (which makes women second-class citizens), restricting access to contraception, forcing would-be immigrants to be detained in concentration camps, eliminating Title VII and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, recruiting 54,000 loyal MAGA Republicans to replace existing federal civil servants, and ending America’s bedrock principle that separates church from state.

A news story in Politico described Project 2025 as an authoritarian Christian nationalist movement and a path for the US to become an autocracy. Several legal experts have indicated implementing the 180-day manual would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers.

As noted earlier, Project 2025 is worthy of your independent investigation. So that you’ll be in-the-know as to what authoritarianism looks like, seriously consider reading one research-based book per month for the next five months as pre-election homework. Here’s my suggested reading assignment:

JUNE: "On Tyranny: 20 lessons from the 20th century," Timothy Snyder, 2017.

JULY: "Twilight of Democracy: The seductive lure of authoritarianism," Anne Applebaum, 2020. Chapters IV, V and VI get to the bottom line.

AUGUST: "Democracy Awakening: Notes on the State of America," Heather Cox Richardson, 2023.

SEPTEMBER: "Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America," Barbara McQuade, 2024. The 1,717 reference citations proves this is well researched and an honest read.

OCTOBER: "1984," George Orwell, 1949. Orwell’s novel shows Americans what life would be like under totalitarian and oppressive rule.

Reading even just one of these books will enable you to discern political candidate and party-based disinformation, misinformation and propaganda from truth, ready to vote on Nov. 5 and keep America a democracy.

[t-jfh]

Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin have their own reasons for ongoing war.

(Photo: ABC News, Reuters)

Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin have something in common – ongoing war is a distraction they need

In an increasingly troubled world, two men have a clear incentive to keep their wars going – Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin.

By global affairs editor John Lyons in Jerusalem

ABC News - 13 December 2023

•

[contemplatingoutlander]

How to cover an abnormal presidential race

Could the media coverage adhere closer to reality? Hard questions must be asked.

Jennifer Rubin offers a much needed road map as to how journalists should be covering an election between a politician who upholds democratic values (Biden) vs. a politician who is determined to undermine the Constitution and create a dictatorship (Trump). I wish mainstream journalists would follow her advice. Below are some excerpts, but you can use the gift🎁link to read the entire article.

The United States has never had an election in which: a felon runs for president on a major party ticket; a presidential candidate lays out a detailed plan for authoritarian rule; an entire party gaslights the public (e.g., claiming the president was behind their candidate’s state prosecution; pretending they won the last election); and, prominent leaders of one party signal they will not accept an adverse outcome in the next election. Yet, the coverage of the 2024 campaign is remarkably anodyne, if not oblivious, to the unprecedented nature of this election and its implications. [...] How could the coverage stick more closely to reality? Obsession with early polling that inevitably becomes meaningless after big events such as Trump’s conviction (stuff happens!) and that cannot yet gauge who is likely to vote should go by the wayside — or at least come with caveats and not drive coverage. What would be informative: A minute or two of unedited video showing Trump’s rambling, incoherent and deranged rants. Rather than merely “fact check” the nonsense blizzard, reports can explore the unprecedented nature of his rhetoric, illustrate the deterioration in his thinking and speech, and discuss how an obviously irrational and unhinged leader casts a spell over his devoted following. The media also can refuse to entertain laughable MAGA spin, such as claiming that Trump’s conviction will help him win the election.... When such incidents pop up, informative journalism would examine what else MAGA forces lie about (e.g., crowd size) and how authoritarians depend on creating a false aura of invincibility. When supposedly normal Republican officials parrot Trump’s obvious falsehoods and baseless accusations, interviewers must come prepared to debunk them. Republicans cannot be allowed to slide past hard questions about their election denial, false data points, baseless attacks on the courts and hypocrisy (the law and order party?). Treating Republicans as innocent bystanders in the democracy train wreck distorts reality. And instead of endless harping on President Biden’s age, some honest comparison between the disjointed, frightful interview responses from Trump and the detailed, policy-laden answers from Biden in Time magazine’s two interviews might illuminate the obvious disparity in acuity....There is simply no comparison between Biden, who talks in detail about policy, and Trump, who cannot get through a Newsmax(!) interview without sounding nuts. Likewise, treating Hunter Biden’s case (having nothing to do with the president) as though it were as significant as Trump’s criminal conviction betrays a lack of perspective and a hunger for clicks. Insisting this poses a problem or embarrassment for Biden amounts to amplifying MAGA spin. Finally, given voters’ misunderstanding of the economy, news outlets should focus on the results of Biden’s policies and the likely effect of his opponent’s shockingly inflationary plan. Focusing on the gap between public opinion and economic reality (to which coverage contributes) unwittingly reveals the media’s own shortcomings in educating voters. [emphasis added]

[itsmythang]

The stakes are no longer simply Democrats vs. Republicans. We've been pulled into a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism, between freedom and strongman tyranny. The 2024 general election is almost exactly one year from now. Know the stakes.

[spiderlegsmusic]

Future generations will look back on this time period like we do the dark ages. Religion, in its death throes, is fighting to make a comeback in relevance by banning women’s healthcare because they want more babies born whose health and well being they won’t contribute to.

And fuck you if you were raped and molested by a stranger or family member resulting in pregnancy. Even if you’re 12. You have to carry your rape baby, especially in Texas where we lead the nation in rape babies doubling the next highest state.

Like we view the dark ages

We have a depraved degenerate piece of shit subhuman claiming to be ordained by god, confirming that yes, religion is bullshit and just a way to control the superstitious masses. If god existed, it would in no way want to be associated with trump and would actively distance itself.

The fact that that traitor insurrectionist piece of shit is allowed to run for president after trying to overthrow the govt by force (jan6), bureaucratically(fake electors scam), and by extortion (the Georgia find me more votes scam), is beyond me.

The whole country saw what he did. It’s just that republicans have gotten sick of losing elections so now they embrace fascism. They will support trumps authoritarian autocratic dictatorship because it means they won’t lose anymore elections.

And we will just let him.

See, this election isn’t Trump vs Biden. The democratic challenger could be a flaming bag of shit, it wouldn’t change the stakes. Every year, people say this election is so important and they’ve been wrong. But this year they are correct. This isn’t Trump vs Biden. It’s dictatorship vs democracy. Trump wins and he’ll crown himself king for life. Anyone who opposes him will be thrown in prison. Listen to his speeches, he says the quiet part out loud. Everyone in his campaign is saying trump’s next term will be all about retribution. RETRIBUTION against those who wouldn’t allow him to steal the last election.

There is no love, no goodness in Trump. He’s an asshole to everyone. He quotes Hitler and counts Putin, Kim, and the Hungarian dictator Orbàn as friends. He’s a scumbag using religion to solidify his cult status over the simpleminded racists who support him. He’s not a christian, he’s not friendly and he thinks Hitler did good things

Even if you hate Biden, it’s not him you are voting for by voting for him. You’re voting for a continuation of democracy, which may be battered by things like horrible Supreme Court rulings (citizens united, repealing Roe v Wade, corporate personhood) but it’s better than a Trump led dictatorship. Once democracy is gone, it’s never coming back without war and death. Is this what you want? Do you think you will survive bombs hitting your neighborhood, your apartment building? Ask people in Ukraine what that’s like.

It’s not Biden vs Trump. It’s dictatorship vs democracy. It’s black and white, no shades of gray. If trump wins, you will never vote in a meaningful election again. And if you or anyone you know complains, they will disappear. Those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it. And history is repeating itself. Hitler won by one vote. Trump won in 2016 despite getting fewer votes because of the electoral college. And if he loses again, he’ll pull the same shit as in 2020, but more forceful.

Keep trump out of the White House.

For fucks sake!

[hillaryisaboss]

“If it is your personal belief, based on whatever, that there is no legitimate basis for abortion — even if you're in the hospital and you're bleeding out, even if you're told that you have cancer and chemotherapy is necessary and therefore an abortion is necessary — no matter what, you get to make that decision. I might not agree with it, but you get to make that decision.

But you, and those who support your particular point-of-view, cannot dictate that decision to every other woman.

In a pluralistic democracy like ours, the court in Roe v. Wade said the government is not going to make this decision.

If these Supreme Court justices and the very extreme Republicans who support them really cared about children, why don't they support health care for every pregnant woman in our country? Why do they let a big state like Texas deny health care, because they won't expand Medicaid, to mothers who want to have their children? And they therefore have the highest rate of maternal mortality in America.

Why don't they support child care, so that, if a mother is going to be forced to give birth to a child, that mother will be able to support herself and her child because she will be able to go out and work. And the list goes on.

This is not, at the end of the analysis, about anything other than controlling women with some kind of patriarchal view of society that they want to impose on the rest of us.

Democrats need to be willing to point out the extremism that has captured the Republican Party and to make it clear this is not about special interest groups. This is not about one group of Americans vs. another. This is about the rise of authoritarianism within our own country.

This is a direct attack on our democracy.

Americans took for granted that, despite opposition to reproductive choice, it would not go away.

There was a complacency, an acceptance.

During the 2016 campaign, I gave speeches about this. I talked about the dangers that would be posed to this right and other rights if my opponent were elected, because of the promises he'd made to the extreme factions within the Republican Party.

And, honestly, people didn't believe me.

Their attitude was, oh, that sounds really farfetched. That will never happen.

Oftentimes, in politics, the entrenched status-quo position is not as vigorously defended as the opposition position. And so those who wanted to overturn Roe, those who wanted to turn the clock back, were very motivated. And those who said, oh, well, that's settled law, including people sitting on the court, when asked in their confirmation hearings, gave every reason to reassure the American public — telling us they follow past precedent.

Either they have had some kind of brain change, or they were deliberately misleading the American people.

So, yes, the energy was on the side to overturn. Now I hope that energy will shift to the side of those of us who want to protect the progress we have made.

This is a direct assault on the dignity, rights, and even lives of American women.

It is heartbreaking to see this court dominated by extremists who do not represent the majority of Americans, men and women, who believe that this is a right that women should have — doing all they can to set the clock back.

This is the first time, perhaps, that I'm aware of, that a right will actually be taken away.

So, what can be done?

There has to be a recognition that, as horrible assault as this is on women's rights, it is perhaps only the beginning of this court trying to undo so much of the progress of the last 50 years.

Now saying there is no right to privacy — that Roe was decided wrongly.

Roe followed a case called Griswold, which struck down a law prohibiting married heterosexual couples from having access to contraception.

It served as the basis of decriminalizing consenting sexual behavior between gay people who were adults and able to express their own feelings toward one another. It certainly underpins gay marriage. So, this is a real threat to our democracy, not just to the rights of women.

I don't care what political party or religion you are — the question is, who decides?

Is the government going to be in your bedroom?

Is the government going to be making these decisions?

We're only at the beginning of this terrible travesty that this court has inflicted on us.

The ultimate goal of the decision is truly to erase the progress that women have made from the last 150 years.

There are so many things about it that are deeply distressing, but women are going to die.

Women will die.

These justices were selected for this very purpose.

You’ve got to give the other side lots points for their relentlessness, their total commitment to getting what they want done, regardless of who is hurt by it and regardless of who is stripped of rights.

Everybody now understands that this is not necessarily the only effort that we're going to see this court undertake to turn back the clock on civil rights and gay rights and women's rights beyond abortion.”

—Hillary Clinton

[ritchiepage2001newaccount]

Project2025 #CorpMedia #Oligarchs #MegaBanks vs #Union #Occupy #NoDAPL #BLM #SDF #DACA #MeToo #Humanity #FeelTheBern

JinJiyanAzadi #BijiRojava Project 2025: A blueprint to end democracy, multiculturalism, and even recreational sex

Former President Donald Trump is running on a number of frightening policies, but he isn’t the boogeyman — he’s just the boogeyman’s chosen tool for the current moment. If he doesn’t win the presidential election in November, the septuagenarian facing 91 felony charges who eats poorly and doesn’t exercise eventually won’t be around, and someone else will rise up to take his place. And whoever that person is will be the one to usher in a frightening new America led by an authoritarian Christofascist government…