#So not only are the nationalists seeing their kids be influenced by Western media and stuff

[alchemistdetective]

((Hoyo really put the concerns of some of the elders in Modern Day China here, good gosh

A bit of China talk under the tags))

[bountyofbeads]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/on-parenting/do-you-have-white-teenage-sons-listen-up-how-white-supremacists-are-recruiting-boys-online/2019/09/17/f081e806-d3d5-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true

This is a MUST READ for every parent of a white teenage son. Neo-Nazis, especially Andrew Anglin of the "Daily Stormer" Neo-Nazi website. Below is an article about how they are targeting young white males.

I also have a thread preceding the article from the Southern Poverty Law Center that tracks these hate groups and what you should be on look out for as a parent. (This article relates to the previous article I posted on a young woman who sued the Neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin for violating her civil-rights.)👇

"Neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin intentionally targets children — some as young as 11, the age of one of Joanna Schroeder’s sons when she learned he was looking at white supremacist propaganda on the internet."

"Targeting young, impressionable minds - he said on a podcast in 2018 - means skipping the often lengthy “redpilling process,” a euphemism on the far right for gradually brainwashing people to embrace increasingly radical, hateful ideas." https://t.co/Y3sVHcioOJ

"Hateful rhetoric online can turn into violence in real life. The gunmen involved in the white supremacist shootings in #Pittsburgh, #Christchurch, #Gilroy & #ElPaso were all active in online forums, where they shared hateful messages before the attacks."

“Social media platforms have a tremendous impact because of their ability to amplify extreme ideas from the fringes.” — SPLC’s Heidi Beirich

"That’s why we’re encouraging tech companies to #ChangeTheTerms in order to combat hate & extremism online." https://t.co/pUGfzl954y

Parents can help children learn to identify the hate they see online, like Joanna Schroeder did, by discussing it with them. “I told them, ‘They’re trying to get you to believe something that, if you think about it, you really don’t believe.’”

https://t.co/gnovx3kWCh

“All kids need positive mentoring, and if we fail on that, then there are people out there who are only too happy to mentor them into violence.” — Alice LoCicero, clinical psychologist, Society for Terrorism Research https://t.co/96uObPU4dV

‘Do you have white teenage sons? Listen up.’ How white supremacists are recruiting boys online.

By Caitlin Gibson  | Published September 17, 2019, 9:00 AM EDT | Washington Post | Posted September 21, 2019 2:35 PM ET |

At first, it wasn’t obvious that anything was amiss. Kids are naturally curious about the complicated world around them, so Joanna Schroeder wasn’t surprised when her 11- and 14-year-old boys recently started asking questions about timely topics such as cultural appropriation and transgender rights.

But she sensed something off about the way they framed their questions, she says — tinged with a bias that didn’t reflect their family’s progressive values. She heard one of her sons use the word “triggered” in a sarcastic, mocking tone. And there was the time Schroeder watched as her son scrolled through the “Explore” screen on his Instagram account and she caught a glimpse of a meme depicting Adolf Hitler.

Schroeder, a writer and editor in Southern California, started paying closer attention, talking to her boys about what they’d encountered online. Then, after her kids were in bed one night last month, she opened Twitter and began to type.

“Do you have white teenage sons?” she wrote. “Listen up.”

In a series of tweets, Schroeder described the onslaught of racist, sexist and homophobic memes that had inundated her kids’ social media accounts unbidden, and the way those memes — packaged as irreverent, “edgy” humor — can indoctrinate children into the world of alt-right extremism and white supremacy.

She didn’t know whether anyone would pay attention to her warning. But by the time she awoke the next morning, her thread had gone viral; as of Sept. 16, it had been retweeted more than 81,000 times and liked more than 180,000 times. Over the following days, Schroeder’s inbox filled with messages from other parents who were deeply concerned about what their own kids were seeing and sharing online.

“It just exploded, it hit a nerve,” she says of her message. “I realized, okay, there are other people who are also seeing this.”

Over recent years, white-supremacist and alt-right groups have steadily emerged from the shadows — marching with torches through the streets Charlottesville, clashing with counterprotesters in Portland, Ore., papering school campuses with racist fliers. In June, the Anti-Defamation League reported that white-supremacist recruitment efforts on college campuses had increased for the third straight year, with more than 313 cases of white-supremacist propaganda recorded between September 2018 and May 2019. This marked a 7 percent increase over the previous academic year, which saw 292 incidents of extremist propaganda, according to the ADL.

As extremist groups have grown increasingly visible in the physical world, their influence over malleable young minds in the digital realm has become a particularly urgent concern for parents. A barrage of recent reports has revealed how online platforms popular with kids (YouTube, iFunny, Instagram, Reddit and multiplayer video games, among others) are used as tools for extremists looking to recruit. Earlier this year, a viral essay in Washingtonian magazine — written by an anonymous mother who chronicled a harrowing, year-long struggle to reclaim her teenage son from the grips of alt-right extremists who had befriended him online — sparked a flurry of passionate discussions and debates among parents across social media.

Parents wanted to know: What was happening to their kids? Why was it happening, and how could it be stopped?

They were raised to be ‘colorblind’ — but now more white parents are learning to talk about race

For extremist groups, the goal is hardly a secret; the founder and editor of the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer has openly declared that the site targets children as young as 11.

“This is a specific strategy of white nationalists and alt-right groups,” says Lindsay Schubiner, program director at the Western States Center, a nonprofit focused on social, economic, racial and environmental justice. Schubiner co-authored a tool kit published by the center this year that offers guidance to school officials and parents who are facing white-nationalist threats in their communities.

“White-nationalist and alt-right groups use jokes and memes as a way to normalize bigotry while still maintaining plausible deniability,” Schubiner says, “and it works very well as a recruitment strategy for young people.”

Schroeder saw this firsthand when she sat down with her kids to look at their Instagram accounts together.

“I saw the memes that came across my kids’ timelines, and once I started clicking on those and seeking this material out, then it became clear what was really happening,” she says. With each tap of a finger, the memes grew darker: Sexist and racist jokes (for instance, a looping video clip of a white boy demonstrating how to “get away with saying the n-word,” or memes referring to teen girls as “thots,” an acronym for “that ho over there”) led to more racist and dehumanizing propaganda, such as infographics falsely asserting that black people are inherently violent.

“The more I clicked, the more I started to see memes about white supremacy,” Schroeder says, “and that’s what was really scary.”

That pattern of escalation is familiar to Christian Picciolini, an author and former neo-Nazi who left the movement in 1996 and now runs the Free Radicals Project, which supports others who want to leave extremist movements.

“Youth have always been critical to the growth of extremist movements, since the beginning of time. Young people are idealistic, they’re driven, they are motivated, and they’re not afraid to be vocal. So if you can fool them into a certain narrative that seems to speak to them, then that’s the growth of your movement,” he says. “And I’ve never seen an extremist movement grow as fast as I have in the last 10 years.”

Most of the people who contact Picciolini looking for help — anywhere from 10 to 30 per week, he says — are “bystanders,” people who are scared that someone they know or love is a white supremacist. And most of those bystanders are parents of teens and young adults.

[englishchinesetranslations]

Wu Haiyun

Chinese public intellectuals have traditionally taken on the responsibility of acting as whistleblowers who call out egregious faults in the system. However, they are no longer as highly respected as they used to be, at least in cyberspace. Today, they are commonly referred to as gongzhi on Chinese social media — a term that has recently become thought of as derogatory.

One user on Weibo — China’s largest online microblogging platform — recently published a particularly contemptuous post declaring that the country’s biggest challenge was “not foreign military power, but the ubiquitous condescension from public intellectuals.” Another user also lambasted established literati, stating: “Real patriots see the continuous progress China is making. Those traitors call themselves public intellectuals, but they are only clinging to the past, or fabricating negative information.”

The majority of today’s public intellectuals are over 40 years old. They grew up in the 1980s, a time when Chinese society, having just emerged from the tumultuous 10 years of the Cultural Revolution, looked toward the West as a paragon for reform. For many intellectuals, Western political models still inform the standard by which the success of reform in China is judged.

However, the country’s most active internet users were only born in the ’90s. Growing up, they have witnessed China’s economic development and transformation into a geopolitical power, and have become more assertively nationalistic than their predecessors. Many of those have traveled to Europe or the U.S. during their formative years, and hold a more nuanced view of the West that accounts for the shortcomings of its political systems and contrasts with the liberal paradise so vaunted by the previous generation. As a result, instead of worshipping the West, they are more inclined to defend China.

By and large, public intellectuals are depicted on social media as people in thrall to Western culture — particularly the United States — who may also view China as a hopeless basket case unable to overcome the problems inherent in its sociopolitical system. Based on these generalizations, countless internet jokes have been shared that mock public intellectuals for their so-called pro-U.S. and anti-China stances.

One joke imagines a scenario in which a group of American children are horsing around on a bus. An intellectual smiles at their tomfoolery and says: “Look at those lively kids! Children who come out of the Chinese education system are usually so dull.” Later, the same intellectual catches sight of a group of Chinese children doing the same thing. Disappointed, he laments: “This reflects the poor character of the Chinese people! This is a public place! The parents should set a good example for their kids. It just goes to show how low the standards of Chinese parents are.”

Just over a decade ago, public intellectuals were still highly revered in Chinese society. The term gongzhi was first introduced to the public domain by the then newly-established magazine Southern People Weekly. An article published in September 2004 entitled “China’s 50 Most Influential Public Intellectuals” defined those included in the list as well-known academics and professionals, public activists, and idealists with an exceptional ability to think critically and examine social morality.

In my opinion, there are two reasons why public intellectuals have been stigmatized in the last decade or so. First, the expansion of social networks on the Chinese internet has given public intellectuals unprecedented influence. However, in this case the internet is a double-edged sword, and it has also made it easier than ever for users to gain recognition. The result has been an upsurge in self-styled public intellectuals with often questionable credentials.

Back in 2004, the majority of inclusions in the Southern People Weekly list were distinguished scholars such as historians Yuan Weishi and Zhu Xueqin, and writer Wu Si. Nowadays, however, the definition of gongzhi has been expanded to represent practically any public figure who holds a liberal political position, regardless of the logic behind their opinions.

In fact, some online intellectuals have already revealed their knowledge and moral standards to be far from watertight. In October 2016, for example, civil rights commentator Yao Bo — better known by his Weibo account name, Wuyuesanren, which has over 2 million followers — posted: “As a middle-aged man with a certain degree of experience and wealth, I truly believe that I can date any good-looking girl I like.” Yet such misogynistic remarks are hardly in keeping with the brand of gender equality he claims to espouse. At around the same time, a photo circulated online in which a student was shown apparently prostrating himself before renowned novelist Zheng Shiping, better known by his nom de plume, “Yefu.” Zheng, who has always professed to be liberal-minded, attempted to brush off the incident, saying: “I am a liberal, but I am also a cultural conservationist.” For the kowtowing student at his feet, however, such a statement likely had a contradictory ring to it.

Second, many established public intellectuals have yet to find the most efficient way of communicating with China’s most active internet users. Unaware of the generation gap between them and their web-savvy followers, their online behavior can sometimes prove provocative for social media users.

From the outset, public intellectuals failed to grasp the nature of opposition voices on the internet. Instead, they derided them with the term wumaodang, or “fifty-cent party,” likening them to the Chinese government’s hired forum posters who allegedly earn 0.5 yuan ($0.07) for each pro-government comment. Internet patriots, predictably, found such a moniker insulting.

Despite realizing that not all online patriots are hired guns, public intellectuals continue to treat them with contempt. In 2016, the term “little pinko” began to be used against vociferously nationalist online groups. The term was co-opted by some academics, who even went on to sneer at patriots for being “ignorant little girls.” The irony of the liberal literati class resorting to such misogynistic mudslinging was not lost on the pinkos themselves.

What established intellectuals did not recognize is that by lowering themselves to the point of merely labeling those who hold opposing views, they polarized the debate and focused attention away from the real issues. In addition, intellectuals left themselves, in turn, at risk of being labeled. This is exactly what happened, as the word gongzhi has since been commandeered by online patriots as a term of abuse.

Today’s internet users often express distaste at the manner in which established public intellectuals broadcast their ideas. To the younger generation, an irrepressible aura of elitism shrouds those who use the web to preach a condescending discourse more suited to the ’80s than today. Far from winning the respect of young netizens, such loftiness is, in their minds, merely worthy of mockery.

Creaking under a tirade of resentful invective, online discourse today is rarely strong enough to support reasonable debate for very long. What is at play here is a power struggle between so-called establishment intellectuals driven by an obsolete form of idealism and new groups of well-coordinated, vociferous internet commentators unwilling to tolerate any anti-patriotic sentiment. Established public intellectuals should understand that by contributing to the polarization of public discussion, they are pushing young people to think in extreme terms. Surely the most liberal approach would be for intellectuals to assert themselves in more nuanced language, putting forth their arguments in patient, polite, and tolerant terms.

[zloyodessit]

Minsk protests: Overview of second attempt to topple Lukashenko

Yesterday, Russian Telegram channels reported even earlier than Svetlana Tikhanovskaya's own press secretary that the pseudo-leader of the Belarusian "opposition" would refrain from taking part in protests scheduled for August 10 to contest election results. Meanwhile, Tikhanovskaya, who appeared to be long time ruler Alexander Lukashenko's main rival, took business class to fly off to Lithuania.  Hee fleeing was not due to the purported  fear of persecution by the totalitarian government - it was because she had already played her role at the current stage, and now a popular uprising was required with no one at its helm. An angry mob without a leader...  However, it should be noted that the angriest part of that mob suspiciously seems to be rather well organized.

But if the housewife-wannabe-president's decision to flee the country is part of the game, then who has been spinning the flywheel of protests, which, on the one hand, appeared pretty mediocre in terms of efficiency, and on the other, made people discuss them, even beyond the borders of the country's immediate neighbors?

Yesterday, on August 10, Russian President Vladimir Putin and a number of high-ranking Russian officials congratulated Alexander Lukashenko on his reelection win.  Many saw the gesture as Moscow's support  support for Lukashenko, but only the blind-deaf-mute didn't notice what kind of hybrid game had been unfolding between these "allies" over the past few years.  The year of 2019 was especially telling, when Russian ambassador was expelled, while military attachés were also declared personas non grata and spies were nabbed.

Therefore, Putin's greeting, which gave a green light to the GRU military intelligence to go for sowing chaos in Belarus, is rather about cunningly "embracing a foe".  At the same time, the Kremlin needed such a friendly gesture to further destabilize Belarus, after realizing that their puppet Tikhanovskaya would not succeed in bringing a critical mass of people to the streets.  Over the past two days, this fact became obvious.

Throughout Monday, August 10,  Russian Telegram channels would urge Belarusians to protest.  And they did.  They took to the streets in numbers that surprised even the organizers themselves, who doomedly emphasized that with such crowds would not be enough to seize a police station, let alone overthrow the president.

But these decadent tones immediately changed, because if the numbers are failing, media are still able to draw a nice picture for the masses.  And, as I already wrote yesterday, a symbolic sacrifice was needed.  A bit earlier, such sacrifice didn't work out too well after some local lunatic just threw himself himself under a paddy wagon, but on August 10 everything could have turned out differently ... But it didn't, either, of which I'll write in a second.

In the meantime, we should recall the words of a senior analyst with the Vilnius Institute for Political Analysis, Marius Laurinavičius, that it is important for the Kremlin to provoke an escalation of protests, violence against activists, and the subsequent compromising of Alexander Lukashenko in the eyes of the West, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to maneuver towards Europe and the United States.

Therefore, it's no surprise that German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, known for his loyalty to Moscow (remember how fiercely he defended Nord Stream 2, grumbling, literally: “No one will disrupt the project!”) before flying to Moscow to meet his counterpart Sergei Lavrov, noted the need to impose sanctions against Alexander Lukashenko.  So yes, no surprise here that it was this German leader who was the first to have his say on the Belarus unrest.  But let's not get distracted and move on...

It is vital, and I would even say strategically important, for Russia to radicalize protests in Belarus.  Just like it was in France with the Yellow Vests movement, who were radicalized through the National Front led by Marine Le Pen, some of whose members fought in Donbas alongside Russian occupation forces.  This was also the case in Catalonia, during the pseudo-referendum on the region's independence.  This is happening now in the U.S., where the BLM movement is being fueled by Antifa radicals.  Practically in all elements of radicalization, from France to the United States, there is a distinctive Russian trace, which manifests itself either in funding or combat training of militants partaking in riots.

In Minsk yesterday, as well as the day before yesterday, athletic youths came to the fore, acting in a well-coordinated manner.  Football fans and hooligans - certainly not professors, librarians, poets or architects.  A standard mass of combat-ready men ready to jump on riot police shields without thinking about the consequences for their health and, moreover, for the future of their country.

But, for a colorful picture to be broadcast on Russian Telegram channels 24/7, it is quite enough.  Western audiences, who saw the Yellow Vests, Catalonia, and BLM, never learned to separate the wheat from the chaff.

So what do we see in the end?  The opposition leader could not stand the test of the battle and fled, leaving her supporters alone confronted by the totalitarian Lukashenko.  Indeed, she's Mandela or Gandhi. Unfortunately, this political novice seems likely to be easily intimidated even by a phone call.

When Tikhanovskaya was safely abroad, those athletic guys with knowledge of urban riot, pursued with radicalization of a moderate protest, which we saw yesterday.  Of course, these tiny "barricades" and the "mighty bunch" of college kids, who found themselves without parental supervision, looked ridiculous, but the problem is that the West empathizes with such weak protesters standing up against authoritarian governments. And when these kids are led by their trained instructors to confront riot police... this is exactly wherethe blood is shed and symbolic sacrifices  sacrifices are made for the live broadcast.

Incidentally, once again I can't but mention full media support of the unrest in Minsk, provided by Telegram channels and outlets affiliated with the GRU, which did not hesitate to spin manipulation and disinformation.  And to give this coverage the "Western undertone" these Telegram channels are moderated from Eastern Europe, such as Nexta - from Poland, while hosting lots of Russian propaganda content a la Russia Today.  Also, yesterday's arrest of Semyon Pegov, a Russian propaganda pundit and supervisor of the WarGonzo Telegram channel, who came into a spotlight during the occupation of Crimea and Donbas, said more than enough on who's really in charge of the Belarus protest wave potential.

But since we mentioned symbolic sacrifices, yesterday Russian information platforms did try to come up with a Belarusian "George Floyd".  After the guy crushed by a paddy wagon, another  local man, who died on the barricades, was put on the pedestal of such symbolic sacrifice. It turned out though that he died after an explosive device he was trying to hurl at police exploded in his hands.

Well, this option seems to be even worse to hail as a victim of totalitarian government.

Actually, the second day of protests in Minsk was no less lively, but less massive than expected.  The rallies began to exhaust themselves as early as on their second day, so a new reactionary element is needed to revive it.  Time will tell whether they will continue to cultivate the idea of a symbolic exercise or will they use some kind of “exrernal influence”, such as a “Ukrainian trace”.

At least, our local troublemakers, who call themselves nationalists, while in fact being no one but call boys for provocations, have already joined the information campaign to support the Belarusian protest.  Therefore, it is possible that it is these leaders of the hybrid front that will breathe a second wind into the exhausted GRU project.

https://medium.com/@zloyodessit2.0/minsk-protests-overview-of-second-attempt-to-topple-lukashenko-c02e243ffa8

[epistolizer]

Hit & Run Commentary #124

Joe Biden insists that the only thing making his history of tactile constituent interactions wrong now yet appropriate at the time are changing social norms.  So what he is saying is that such behavior and even much worse will be perfectly acceptable when America falls to Islamist radicals because of the failure to crack down at the border because of similar multiculturalist drivel.  If one wants to hold that Biden’s actions are always wrong, one can only appeal to an absolute and transcendent morality, the only legitimate of which is found in traditional Christianity.  

Pundit Matt Bai warns in a column titled “Stephen Miller Stokes Trump’s Nationalist Vision”. So would he prefer an internationalist alternative? That would mean America’s future would not necessarily be determined by those holding to traditionalist conceptions of human freedom and constitutional liberty.  Rather, just as much say would be granted to those that value perpetuation of the regulatory bureaucracy at the expense of the individual and even to some thinking that those not holding to particular conceptions of God or even notions of dress deemed acceptable by anyone with a lick of common sense should be eliminated in the most brutal ways imaginable.  

Did those now tossing a fit that Turning Point USA  functionary Candace Owens allegedly glossed over Hitler’s atrocities get similarly jacked out of shape over a Chairman Mao ornament adorning a White House Christmas tree during the Obama regime?  Unlike anyone connected with the decoration of that particular sprig of Yuletide foliage, Candace Owens is a private citizen. Mao killed more than Hitler. Or are Chinese lives not as valuable as Jewish ones? Do those outraged at Candace Owens get as worked up when they see youth inspired to advance the cause of world Bolshevism often at the behest of their tenured pedagogues wear Che Guevara shirts?  For that particular figure was quite explicit in regards to his disgust for Black people.  

If migrants from beyond America’s borders only enhance the nation and, contrary to what President Trump insists, are not criminals but only truly remarkable people of robust health, why are the advocates of open borders and sanctuary cities less than enthusiastic about the opportunity the President is allowing these jurisdictions to add this diversity to their own regional distinctiveness? Interesting how when it is the backyards of radical multiculturalists on the line that they become as territorial as any member of the Tea Party or Minuteman movements. 

If the undocumenteds are not wanted in sanctuary cities, isn't that proof these jurisdictions are not in a warped fashion about the well being of the migrants but rather about the virtue signalling of the subversives undermining border security in this fashion?  

Did any of those now bellyaching how criticism of Lady Mao  (aka Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) leads to an uptick in death threats ever come out with as much righteous indignation in opposition to the Antifia insurgents that insinuated bodily harm to the wife of Tucker Carlson while pounding on the family’s door?  

President Trump is reportedly not too pleased that Fox News held a town hall with Bernie Sanders.  Though the President is allied with a number of pundits on the network, he does not deserve so much influence over that particular media outlet so as to determine programming content.  If anything, Fox News and Senator Sanders are to be commended for sharing a willingness to appear in the same venue despite profound ideological differences.  

In detailing the origins of the Islamist front group CAIR, Representative Ilhan Omar said the organization “was founded after 9/11 because they recognized some people did something, and that all us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.” To remind people exactly what that something was, the New York Post graciously published an edition with a cover photo of the jetliner flying into one of the World Trade Center towers. For this act of responsible and accurate journalism, the newspaper has been accused of “dangerous incitement”. So if it is now unacceptable to reference documented events for fear that such might instigate hatred against Muslims, does that mean Black History Month should be similarly downplayed since a significant reason for that commemoration is to agitate animosity against Whites?  

If a medication for excessive underarm perspiration is advertised as also causing urinary retention, inability to regulate body temperature, and blurred vision, I think I’ll just settle for the sweaty armpits.  

If Donald Trump legitimately wrote off nearly a billion dollars in losses, isn’t this an instance of “Don’t hate the player, hate the game”? Shouldn’t even greater ire be directed towards the legislators and regulators that set up such system in the first place?  

Too bad PETA is not as concerned about lowering the euthanasia rates in their shelters as they are about expunging the English language of phrases such as “opening a can of worms” or “letting the cat out of the bag”.  

One can understand conservatives standing against transgenders infiltrating women’s sports. But how are these Fox News pundits jacked out of shape over these types getting business set asides intended for women much different than Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson begging for Affirmative Action and assorted handouts for minorities? If true to their convictions, shouldn’t they oppose someone being granted a beneficence for an occupation where it does not matter whether you’re   reproductive orifice is an outie or an innie? By insisting that women should be the beneficiaries of these sorts of programs, isn’t that an admission that women are not as good at business as men? If the response is that private corporations should be allowed to lavish benefits upon whomever they please, do these voices then intend to advocate similar set asides be lavished solely upon men or at that point do they intend to rampage in the street?  

Nancy Pelosi is outraged that President Trump believes merit should play a key role in immigration decisions. The Speaker countered that, throughout American history, most immigrants did not arrive with merit. But neither were they lavished with extravagant government handouts and benefits for simply arriving here. Many were even denied entrance for failing to comply with explicit health guidelines.  

Lady Mao, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, laments that the Alabama abortion law forces a woman to be pregnant against her consent. How is that different than child support laws which make men pay against their consent?  

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pitched a fit that Game Of Thrones was obviously written by men because the ultimate victor apparently wasn’t a women. Interesting you heard no complaints from her about the gratuitous unnecessary sex scenes for which the drama is infamous that do not likely comply with MeToo rigors regarding consent and disparities of gender power or assorted related drivel.  

Regarding those that do not want the women that get abortions punished. Do they intend to similarly coddle fathers delinquent in meeting their child support obligations?  At least those neglected kids are still alive.  

Given that the debt is on the verge of surpassing the entire worth of the U.S. economy, irrespective of party, where exactly are the funds for infrastructure investment supposed to come from?

Migrant hordes are being released by literal busloads into American cities. That’s certainly a much more effective policy upholding national security than a wall built around the border.  

It was said in a sermon that perhaps an individual does not have wealth because God cannot trust you with it.  This means wealth might cause an individual to fall into sin. Relatedly, could it also be said that God does not want certain churches to increase in terms of attendance numbers because such could similarly go to the head of a particular pastor or congregation?

In manipulative propaganda disguised as a razor blade commercial, a transgendered is admonished that shaving is about confidence.  Actually, shaving is nothing more than the removal of facial hair to comply with grooming standards imposed as social norms either by employers and members of the opposite sex or preferences of individual appearance and comfort.  

Regarding steak and cheese Hot Pockets advertised as "high protein" as if the customer is being done a favor. Aren't steak and cheese high protein to begin with?  

If humor is to be devoid of racial reference as epitomized by the tolerancemonger outrage now directed towards the cinematic classic “Blazing Saddles”, where is the sustained ongoing protest against the Comedy Central series “The New Negroes”?  

Regarding the presidential contenders jacked out of shape about Biden working with segregationists in the past.  Are they as outraged over their supporters that wear Che apparel or Representative Omar’s links to radical jihadists?  

In Taylor Swift’s propaganda video in favor of the Equality Act, those opposing her endorsement of wanton licentiousness are depicted as unenlightened hayseeds and trailer park trash.  Islamists take an even harderline stance against the acts of carnality depicted in the video. An activist number go far beyond touting protest signs to commit what Westerns would consider unconventional forms of capital punishment such as the tossing of the accused off multistory buildings .  As such, does this naive minstrel intend to produce a video ridiculing those of this additional religious persuasion that wear distinctive apparel such as burkas, hijabs or keffiyehs?  

By Frederick Meekins

[elizabethleslie7654]

The Problem of Notables

buy jewelry with free shipping

Tweet

This article was originally published on the TRS blog.

by Alex McNabb

The far-right has been plagued for years by a problem many are aware of but too few are capable of articulating with any nuance. There have been a few clumsy memes and some grumblings about the worst of the bad actors, and precious little else. I’m talking of course about the toxicity and stumbling blocks created by the various narcissistic grifters that glom onto broader political movements like so many egomaniacal barnacles on the hull of a vastly larger ship. Like any infestation of parasites, they drag down the host and divert limited energies into unproductive directions. How can you develop influence over political outcomes if your “leaders” are just siphoning off resources and attacking each other more than the real enemy?

History is just repeating itself again though, and a veteran of the Algiers Putsch named Dominique Venner wrote about this over 50 years ago in an essay called “For a Positive Critique“. I consider the writing to be a seminal treatise that accomplishes exactly what the title suggests: It’s a check-list of pitfalls for right-wing nationalistic movements to avoid. He even specifically names the type of archetype causing these problems, referring to them as “Notables”.

What is a “Notable”?

Venner draws a strict distinction between “notables” and “militants”. Militants are the rank and file footsoldiers of any political movement, the boots on the ground, the ones that actually get shit done. The militant is committed to achieving tangible political goals and is guided by an over-arching doctrine. He doesn’t follow a man, he follows an idea.

The “notable” on the other hand is simply a highly visible person who makes all the right noises. He isn’t someone that’s risen into his position in the limelight through hard work; this is an “idea man”, and an opportunistic one at that. Notables are self-aggrandizing narcissistic conmen not altogether different from aspiring cult-leaders. How many of their beliefs are genuine and which number are simply the exponent of calculating which buttons to push for maximum attention is a subject ripe for speculation.

I think our modern internet age and social media environs increasingly favor the ascendance of these characters by providing them with a ready platform and access to willing sycophants. Any idiot with a microphone and webcam can now start collecting upvotes from credulous political partisans desperate for “content”. There are plenty of decent individuals out there exploring right-wing issues purely out of their passion for the subject, but these creators generally aren’t going out of their way to cause problems.

Characteristics of the Notable

Notables are fortunately not that difficult to identify and separate from the honest community members. I think there’s a few dead give-aways that should make you intensely suspicious of any public figure exhibiting these traits.

1. Lack of real world accomplishments.

A notable usually doesn’t “do things”, they “say things”. They’re good at saying things; they have a lot of “verbal virtuosity” and stage presence. Your average E-celeb is just someone with the free time to live-action shitpost about controversial rightwing political topics. A significant proportion of them are relatively young, unmarried, childless and just stumbled into 5 minutes of YouTube fame. They tend to lack the sorts of careers that would distract them from camping out in the most active areas of the online map, always looking to increase their audience while simultaneously e-begging for a big enough revenue stream to make adult obligations irrelevant. Leaders start organizing people in the real world, notables engage in mythomania and talk of revolutions that will never come. Does anyone wanna follow a guy that’s never even worked an actual job?

2. Disregard for their own followers and fellow travelers.

As Venner states in his essay, the Notable believes the “militants are an inferior class”, and “are only the rank and file to be used for political struggles”. There are sadly enough literal examples of this type of thinking in alt-right politics among would be “leaders”. To these careerists their audience is an expendable resource to be burned whenever it is convenient to them. They are not personally invested at all in the sorts of people giving them a platform beyond the most short-sighted material benefits and attention. Individuals that should be viewed at least nominally as allies are verbally assaulted, “doxxed” or otherwise discarded as “enemies” for any perceived slight, no matter how minor. The underlying dogma is that their fragile egos matter more than any over-arching political aims or goals.

3. Immoral behavior.

Notables are capricious narcissists. Like any garden variety dirtbag, they’re slaves to the basest of human impulses. Womanizing, embezzling, disloyalty, substance abuse, cowardice, and general shittiness dominate their most visible traits. Unsurprisingly, when caught in some misdeed, these are also the first to snitch and roll over to the police. These are the types of greaseballs that bemoan the loss of morality in western society before trying to seduce their “best friend’s” wife. Beyond the usual assortment of skeletons in anyone’s closet, these types have veritable graveyards full of the bones of a lifetime of underhanded back-stabbing and conscience-free living. If they mistreat their own friends, romantic partners and family, then how can you expect them to do any less to allies and followers in a political movement?

4. Inability to evaluate their own audience.

A more nuanced tell is the notable, like any real narcissist, can burn any level of human garbage to fuel his own ego. All fans are equally valuable regardless of how demonstrably unstable and toxic these demographics might be. A notable doesn’t care if he’s followed by a 15 year old edge-poster or a middle class married man with 5 kids, so long as his ego is being stroked, it doesn’t matter who does the stroking. To the Notable, the adoration of a kissless, forever-alone incel is a heady intoxicant capable of propelling him to dizzying heights of hubris. Sycophancy over substance is the rule, not the exception to the Notable’s cloister.

5. Theatrical revolutionaries

While Venner uses this term generally to refer to any LARPer living out their personal fantasies, one should be on guard in particular against “leaders” that insist on “dressing in a costume called a uniform”. These are profoundly unserious people that have confused a political movement with a Neo-Nazi version of Comic-Con. Dressing up like Hollywood villains is a great way to convince everyone you’re either a clown or a provocateur on the Federal payroll.

This has to stop

All of this matters because of the very real damage these grifters inflict on our fledgling right-wing movements. By engaging in unceasing purity spirals and infighting, these maniacs drive away reasonable, normal human beings capable of generating real political capital. I believe these pathological tendencies are worsened by the online echo-chambers where ego-maniacal leaders and their dysfunctional followers can insulate themselves into thoroughly self-destructive trajectories. Any self improvement is sacrificed for the soothing of individual egos. Overall success has been hamstrung over and over by the crab-bucketing of jealous narcissists more worried about their own self-aggrandizement than cooperating with their peers.

These are the team-killers, the griefers that ruin cohesiveness and collective strength because they’d rather see it all burn than watch someone else take the glory. How many times has a personal beef or spergcel hatred of a particular figure lead to an outcome that effectively set the broader movement back as a whole? Have we not seen entire organizations destroyed by short-sighted, shameful behavior from the leadership? Is it worth it to tolerate someone that will inevitably betray his friends? It’s time to put our hard-earned lessons to work and leave the Notables behind as we move forward into an increasingly perilous time in global politics.

To do that we must demand more from a leader than simply being a posturing mouth-piece. The leader must work for us as an avatar of our collective will, someone willing to sacrifice their own petty ego for the good of the whole. They are responsible for the lives of many and must act like it. “Leading by example” isn’t just a trite catch-phrase; anyone in this position should be an inspiration, not a cautionary tale.

Stop giving oxygen and audiences to swindlers; just let that bad fruit wither on the vine.

“Zero plus zero always equals zero. The addition of mythomaniacs, plotters, nostalgics, careerists, and “nationals” will never yield a coherent force. Preserving the hope of uniting the incapable is to persevere in error. The few elements of value are paralyzed by the cranks that surround them.”

-Dominique Venner

Tweet

MY FAVORITE ACCESSORIES

from LIZ FASHION FEED https://ift.tt/2yiHE5h via IFTTT

[recentnews18-blog]

New Post has been published on https://shovelnews.com/orban-is-a-clever-anti-semite-corbyn-is-a-stupid-one/

Orban Is a Clever anti-Semite. Corbyn Is a Stupid One

I had dozens of conversations last week with Hungarian Jews on anti-Semitism. The overwhelming majority of those I met in Budapest are convinced that Prime Minister Viktor Orban, visiting Israel this week, has been appealing to the anti-Semitic instincts of Hungarian nationalist voters.

They see it in the way his government has sanitized and venerated the record of the fascist Horthy regime and in the nation-wide smear campaign against the “global capitalist” Holocaust survivor George Soros which has been going for nearly three years.

But at the same time they have been at pains to emphasize that “personally” they feel perfectly safe as Jews in Hungary. Anti-Semitic incidents are down and the media, regulated by the government, has largely been cleansed from the once prevalent negative references to Jews. The only overt anti-Semitism they encounter is usually in the shape of non-politically-correct and ignorant remarks.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban speaks during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at the Prime Minister’s office in Jerusalem. July 19, 2018Debbie Hill/AP

But the majority of Jews in Hungary, and the official leadership of the community, still believes that the government-funded anti-Soros campaign blatantly uses anti-Semitic imagery and their requests that it be stopped have been repeatedly ignored. So has anti-Semitism under Orban got worse or better?

I constantly find myself asking the same question about Britain, the country of my birth. These things weren’t measured when I was a kid there in the late 1970s and early 80s, but I remember a great deal of anti-Semitic graffiti and vandalism, even in the Jewish neighborhood where we lived, and across the country there was more violence from the fascist hard-right, and anti-Semitic chants were the norm at football matches. It hasn’t disappeared – but it’s no where near as bad nowadays.

Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter

Please wait…

Thank you for signing up.

We’ve got more newsletters we think you’ll find interesting.

Click here

Oops. Something went wrong.

Please try again later.

Try again

Thank you,

The email address you have provided is already registered.

Close

But in the last three years, since Jeremy Corbyn was elected the leader of the Labour Party, barely a week goes by without another anti-Semitic scandal at the heart of Britain’s largest (in terms of numbers of paid-up members) political party.

There have been two kinds of scandals. Either it has been party members, of all levels, coming out with the most odious statements about Jews, sometimes only barely veiled by using the words “Zionists,” “bankers” and “the lobby.” There was one thing all those members had in common – they were all diehard supporters of Corbyn.

The other kind of incident were the periodic revelations of Corbyn’s own participation in events with Jew-haters and Holocaust-revisionists, his support of them (sometimes tempered with his excuse that “I knew they did good work, I wasn’t aware of other things they said,”) and his membership of real-life and online groups where anti-Semitic statements were routinely aired.

I’ve never quite been able to work out whether Corbyn is an anti-Semite himself. But this week, Margaret Hodge, a veteran Labour parliamentarian and party member of fifty years’ standing called him “a fucking anti-Semite and racist” to his face. The normally mild-mannered Hodge has known Corbyn as a colleague throughout his political career, so I think we should maybe take her word for it.

The reason for Hodge’s outburst was the decision by Labour’s National Executive Council, dominated by Corbyn and his supporters, to reject the International Holocaust Remembrance Authority’s (IHRA) official definition of anti-Semitism and adopt instead guidelines favored by the hard-left of the party.

To be honest, I’m not a huge fan of defining anti-Semitism. I think I know what it is when I see it. You can go online and read elsewhere about the various merits and flaws of the IHRA definition.

Vans with slogans aimed at Britain’s Labour Party are driven around Parliament Square ahead of a debate on antisemitism in Parliament, in London, April 17, 2018. HANNAH MCKAY/ REUTERS

But what you need to know right now is that the IHRA definition has been adopted by successive British governments, and more important, the British legal system and the overwhelming majority of British Jewish organizations and communities.

This week, an unprecedented list of 68 prominent British rabbis, spanning the range from female progressives to Hasidic ultra-Orthodox, signed a letter beseeching Labour to adopt the IHRA definition. But Corbyn’s team refused.

So the British Labour Party now officially allows within its ranks anti-Semites who could be prosecuted by the authorities. And it is now the second major political party in Europe, along with Orban’s Fidesz, to reject the definition of anti-Semitism as understood by the very people it is directed against, the local Jewish community.

I’m really not sure how best to define anti-Semitism. It’s the most ancient hatred which has proved extremely adept in evolving to life in the feverish conspiracy theory marshes of the internet. It’s the template for all hatred towards minorities but also unique in the way it sees Jews as both inferior and all-powerful.

Anti-Semitism is both the socialism of fools and the most evil form of nationalism. Which is why those on the both the far-left and far-right are particularly susceptible to it. And it can masquerade equally as being, “Just criticism of Israel” and as, “How can you call me an anti-Semite, I love Israel?”

Supporters of Orban, including some Jews like Netanyahu, strenuously deny he is anti-Semite. They point to his support for Israel (not exactly Israel, more like Netanyahu’s policies) and insist that Soros, while being Jewish, is a malicious influence on global politics and that there is nothing anti-Semitic about the campaign against him.

Similarly, Corbyn has his Jewish supporters, who are convinced that a man who claims to have fought racism all his life (racism for Corbyn has usually consisted of the policies of western and western-supported governments; he’s blind to racism in regimes with which he’s more sympathetic), can not be considered an anti-Semite.

As a journalist and freedom-of-speech fanatic, I don’t want anyone else defining for me what is or isn’t anti-Semitism. But political leaders and parties need to be held to definitions and the one rule they have to abide by is anti-Semitism-is-whatever-most-of-its-potential-targets-and-victims-say-it-is. Orban and Corbyn refuse to do so.

Egyutt (Together) opposition party activist removes a government billboard displaying George Soros and his ‘plan’ to settle a million migrants in Europe per year. Budapest, Hungary, October 5, 2017 Bernadett Szabo/ REUTERS

Who is worse? Orban or Corbyn? I don’t know what either of them actually feel in their heart and mind towards Jews, but both are certainly enablers of anti-Semitism.

From all available evidence, Corbyn is a stupid anti-Semite. Blinkered by his outdated dogma from perceiving it among his allies, and within the hateful environment in which he has been immersed his entire adult life. He has convinced himself it is all legitimate anti-capitalism, anti-Zionism and anti-imperialism.

Orban, on the other hand, is a clever anti-Semite. He has a keen understanding of European history and politics, and knows exactly which buttons to push, how far to go and how to cover himself.

Who is worse? The devious or the deluded? History proves that both sorts of anti-Semite can cause terrible damage.

Only one thing I can say for certain about anti-Semitism is that the best antidote to it is liberal democracy, moderate politics, and – for all the derision it now attracts from young firebrands and aging ideologues alike – centrism.

Orban’s nationalist government has engendered hatred towards Muslims and migrants. The diehard supporters of Corbyn’s radical socialism are now focusing their hatred on Jews, but two years ago, when a lesbian parliamentarian led the challenge to his leadership, there was an outbreak of misogyny and homophobia.

Hatred, both overt and latent, not just of Jews, but of all minorities, of women and members of the LGBT community is always more prevalent on both the far-left and far-right fringes of politics. That is where hate and anger rule.

Source: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/.premium-orban-is-a-clever-anti-semite-corbyn-is-a-stupid-one-1.6292393