Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #922 The Trumpenkampfverbande, Part 5: Walkin’ the Snake with “The Donald” (The Underground Reich Comes Into Plain View, Part 3)

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained HERE. The new dri­ve is a 32-giga­byte dri­ve that is cur­rent as of the pro­grams and arti­cles post­ed by ear­ly win­ter of 2016. The new dri­ve (avail­able for a tax-deductible con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more.) (The pre­vi­ous flash dri­ve was cur­rent through the end of May of 2012.)

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself HERE.

This broad­cast was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

Serpent's Walk

Intro­duc­tion: Cement­ing our analy­sis of The Trumpenkampfver­bande, this pro­gram fur­ther devel­ops infor­ma­tion pre­sent­ed in FTR #921. As not­ed in that pro­gram Trump has gone a long way in main­stream­ing the rhetoric and ide­ol­o­gy of white suprema­cism. Hand­maid­ens in that effort are the media, who have been unfair­ly tough on Hillary Clin­ton while giv­ing Trump a pass on issues of vital impor­tance.

For­mer CNN host Soledad O’Brien attacked the cable news busi­ness has behaved irre­spon­si­bly in this elec­tion and pre­sent­ed a Ser­pen­t’s Walk-style plat­form for Nazi/white suprema­cist views: ” . . . ‘If you look at Hillary Clinton’s speech where she basi­cal­ly point­ed out that what Don­ald Trump has done — actu­al­ly quite well — has nor­mal­ized white suprema­cy,’ O’Brien explained to CNN host Bri­an Stel­ter on Sun­day. ‘I think she made a very good argu­ment, almost like a lawyer. Here are ways in which he has actu­al­ly worked to nor­mal­ize con­ver­sa­tions that many peo­ple find hate­ful. I’ve seen on-air, white suprema­cists being inter­viewed because they are Trump del­e­gates,’ she not­ed. ‘And they do a five minute seg­ment, the first minute or so talk­ing about what they believe as white suprema­cists. So you have nor­mal­ized that. . . . The for­mer CNN host argued that the ques­tion that jour­nal­ists should be ask­ing is if Trump is ‘soft­en­ing the ground for peo­ple — who are white suprema­cists, who are white nation­al­ists, who would self-iden­ti­fy that way — to feel com­fort­able with their views being brought into the nation­al dis­course to the point where they can do a five minute inter­view hap­pi­ly on nation­al tele­vi­sion? And the answer is yes, clear­ly,’ she said. ‘And there is lots of evi­dence of that.’ . . .”

thinkbignkickassMeinKampfO’Brien’s obser­va­tion dove­tails with our decades-long dis­cus­sion of the Nazi tract Ser­pen­t’s Walk. The back cov­er of that book sums up the essence of the tome: ” . . . It assumes that Hitler’s war­rior elite — the SS — did­n’t give up their strug­gle for a White world when they lost the Sec­ond World War. Instead their sur­vivors went under­ground and adopt­ed some of their tac­tics of their ene­mies: they began build­ing their eco­nom­ic mus­cle and buy­ing into the opin­ion-form­ing media. A cen­tu­ry after the war they are ready to chal­lenge the democ­rats and Jews for the hearts and minds of White Amer­i­cans, who have begun to have their fill of gov­ern­ment-enforced mul­ti-cul­tur­al­ism and ‘equal­i­ty.’ . . .”

Think about how the media is treat­ing Don­ald Trump–see the Soledad O’Brien analysis–and the way they are por­tray­ing Hillary Clin­ton is dra­mat­ic.

Waffen SS-clad World War II reenactors, in original photo used by Trump

Waf­fen SS-clad World War II reen­ac­tors, in orig­i­nal pho­to used by Trump

Paul Krug­man not­ed the grotesque media bias against Hillary Clin­ton and the soft ball treat­ment to which they are sub­ject­ing Trump, com­par­ing media han­dling of Al Gore ver­sus their kid glove cov­er­age of George W. Bush. We have not­ed the Hillary Clin­ton email non-scan­dal in FTR #906. (CORRECTION: Mr. Emory mis­spoke, say­ing that the “0.36 per­cent of Hillary’s e‑mails con­sti­tut­ed 12 e‑mails. The num­ber was 110, con­tained in a num­ber of chains. That is accord­ing to Mitt Rom­ney sup­port­er James Comey.) Now, we are being treat­ed to the Clin­ton Foun­da­tion non-scan­dal” . . . . Mean­while, we have the pre­sump­tion that any­thing Hillary Clin­ton does must be cor­rupt, most spec­tac­u­lar­ly illus­trat­ed by the increas­ing­ly bizarre cov­er­age of the Clin­ton Foun­da­tion. . . . Rais­ing large sums for a char­i­ty that saves the lives of poor chil­dren sounds like a pret­ty rea­son­able, vir­tu­ous course of action. And the Clin­ton Foun­da­tion is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For exam­ple, Char­i­ty Watch, an inde­pen­dent watch­dog, gives it an “A” rat­ing — bet­ter than the Amer­i­can Red Cross.

Now, any oper­a­tion that rais­es and spends bil­lions of dol­lars cre­ates the poten­tial for con­flicts of inter­est. You could imag­ine the Clin­tons using the foun­da­tion as a slush fund to reward their friends, or, alter­na­tive­ly, Mrs. Clin­ton using her posi­tions in pub­lic office to reward donors. So it was right and appro­pri­ate to inves­ti­gate the foundation’s oper­a­tions to see if there were any improp­er quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foun­da­tion “rais­es ques­tions.”

But nobody seems will­ing to accept the answers to those ques­tions, which are, very clear­ly, “no.”

Con­sid­er the big Asso­ci­at­ed Press report sug­gest­ing that Mrs. Clinton’s meet­ings with foun­da­tion donors while sec­re­tary of state indi­cate “her pos­si­ble ethics chal­lenges if elect­ed pres­i­dent.” Giv­en the tone of the report, you might have expect­ed to read about meet­ings with, say, bru­tal for­eign dic­ta­tors or cor­po­rate fat cats fac­ing indict­ment, fol­lowed by ques­tion­able actions on their behalf.

But the prime exam­ple The A.P. actu­al­ly offered was of Mrs. Clin­ton meet­ing with Muham­mad Yunus, a win­ner of the Nobel Peace Prize who also hap­pens to be a long­time per­son­al friend. If that was the best the inves­ti­ga­tion could come up with, there was noth­ing there. . . .”

Turn­ing to the eco­nom­ic foun­da­tion of Trump’s busi­ness dealings–he mar­kets him­self polit­i­cal­ly as a suc­cess­ful businessman–we ana­lyze the role of the remark­able and dead­ly Bor­mann group in the cor­po­rate and media land­scapes. In FTR #152, we high­light­ed the obser­va­tion of one banker that the Bor­mann net­work is the largest con­cen­tra­tion of mon­ey pow­er under a sin­gle con­trol­ling struc­ture in all of his­to­ry.

In FTR #921, we not­ed Deutsche Bank and the oth­er main fund­ing sources for Trump’s real estate deals have major con­nec­tions to the Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work. The pro­gram notes that Deutsche Bank was a major vehi­cle for Bor­mann net­work pur­chas­es of stock in major Amer­i­can cor­po­ra­tions, a dynam­ic that gives the Bor­mann group enor­mous lever­age with those U.S. com­pa­nies. By exten­sion it gives them major influ­ence in media affairs, through the exer­cise of adver­tis­ing and invest­ment pol­i­cy.

“. . . . When Bor­mann gave the order for his rep­re­sen­ta­tives to resume pur­chas­es of Amer­i­can cor­po­rate stocks, it was usu­al­ly done through the neu­tral coun­tries of Switzer­land and Argenti­na. From for­eign exchange funds on deposit in Swiss banks and in Deutsche Sudamerikan­ishe Bank, the Buenos Aires branch of Deutsche Bank, large demand deposits were placed in the prin­ci­pal mon­ey-cen­ter banks of New York City; Nation­al City (now Citibank), Chase (now Chase Man­hat­tan N.A.), Man­u­fac­tur­ers and Hanover (now man­u­fac­tur­ers Hanover Trust), Mor­gan Guar­an­ty, and Irv­ing Trust. Such deposits are inter­est-free and the banks can invest this mon­ey as they wish, thus turn­ing tidy prof­its for them­selves. In return, they pro­vide rea­son­able ser­vices such as the pur­chase of stocks and trans­fer or pay­ment of mon­ey on demand by cus­tomers of Deutsche bank such as rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Bor­mann busi­ness orga­ni­za­tions and and Mar­tin Bor­mann him­self, who has demand accounts in three New York City banks. They con­tin­ue to do so. The Ger­man invest­ment in Amer­i­can cor­po­ra­tions from these sources exceed­ed $5 bil­lion and made the Bor­mann eco­nom­ic struc­ture a web of pow­er and influ­ence. . . .”

In addi­tion, we note that cor­po­rate Ger­many is con­trolled by the Bor­mann net­work. “. . . Atop an orga­ni­za­tion­al pyra­mid that dom­i­nates the indus­try of West Ger­many through banks, vot­ing rights enjoyed by major­i­ty share­hold­ers in sig­nif­i­cant car­tels, and the pro­fes­sion­al input of a rel­a­tive­ly young lead­er­ship group of lawyers, invest­ment spe­cial­ists, bankers, and indus­tri­al­ists, he [Bor­mann] is sat­is­fied that he achieved his aim of help­ing the Father­land back on its feet. To ensure con­ti­nu­ity of pur­pose and direc­tion, a close watch is main­tained on the prof­it state­ments and man­age­ment reports of cor­po­ra­tions under its con­trol else­where. This lead­er­ship group of twen­ty, which is in fact a board of direc­tors, is chaired by Bor­mann, but pow­er has shift­ed to the younger men who will car­ry on the ini­tia­tive that grew from that his­toric meet­ing in Stras­bourg on August 10, 1944. . . What will not pass is the eco­nom­ic influ­ences of the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion, whose com­mer­cial direc­tives are obeyed almost with­out ques­tion by the high­est ech­e­lons of West Ger­man finance and indus­try. ‘All orders come from the share­hold­ers in South Amer­i­ca,’ I have been told by a spokesman for Mar­tin Bor­mann. . . .”

The grant­i­ng of adver­tis­ing con­tracts to media out­lets (print and broad­cast) is a major vehi­cle for Bor­mann-group-con­trolled cor­po­rate Ger­many to influ­ence jour­nal­ism. The polit­i­cal­ly selec­tive with­hold­ing of orders and adver­tis­ing con­tracts is a vehi­cle for polit­i­cal con­trol of jour­nal­ism exer­cised by Third Reich busi­ness dat­ing to the World War II peri­od. It was artic­u­lat­ed in a New York Her­ald Tri­bune arti­cle from May 31, 1940.  “. . . . As far as the Unit­ed States is con­cerned, the plan­ners of the World Ger­man­i­ca laugh off the idea of any armed inva­sion. They say that it will be com­plete­ly unnec­es­sary to take mil­i­tary action against the Unit­ed States to force it to play ball with this sys­tem. . . . Here, as in every oth­er coun­try, they have estab­lished rela­tions with numer­ous indus­tries and com­mer­cial orga­ni­za­tions, to whom they will offer advan­tages in co-oper­a­tion with Ger­many. . . .Cer­tain con­di­tions will have to be met. No orders will be tak­en from or giv­en by per­son­al­i­ties unfa­vor­ably regard­ed by the Nazis. No adver­tis­ing con­tracts will be placed with news­pa­pers direct­ed by or pub­lish­ing the work of pro-Ally or anti-Nazi edi­tors or writ­ers. . . .”

The tac­tic con­tin­ues to be exer­cised, as exem­pli­fied by the busi­ness deal­ings of the Quandt cor­po­ra­tion, man­u­fac­tur­ers of the BMW and Audi auto­mo­biles, and invest­ed with the oper­a­tions of Daim­ler and Volk­swa­gen as well. The firm is con­trolled by the heirs of Joseph Goebbels. In FTR #155, we not­ed that major per­son­al­i­ties in the Bor­mann net­work were the blood descen­dants of Third Reich lumi­nar­ies. ” . . . When­ev­er the books sec­tion reviewed some­thing about WWII or The Holo­caust (which was often), BMW pulled their ads for that issue. . . . They were just very sen­si­tive about it giv­en their his­to­ry. I was in the art dept so could­n’t tell you any details, it just became a run­ning joke: ‘Oh, Ben has reviewed anoth­er WWII book! Ad sales will be pissed!’ . . . ”

The pro­gram con­cludes with a tran­si­tion­al ele­ment to dis­cus­sion to be pre­sent­ed in FTR #923. In our ongo­ing analy­sis of Wik­iLeaks and “L’Af­faire Snow­den,” we have not­ed that the polit­i­cal foun­da­tion of these heav­i­ly over­lapped “ops” is the milieu of “The Paulis­tin­ian Lib­er­tar­i­an Orga­ni­za­tion.

The milieu of the “Alt Right,” Ron and Rand Paul, David Duke, the Lud­wig von Mis­es Insti­tute is the polit­i­cal envi­ron­ment that spawned Don­ald Trump. ” . . . . Trump’s style and posi­tions — endors­ing and con­sort­ing with 9/11 truthers, pro­mot­ing online racists, using fake sta­tis­tics— draw on a now-obscure polit­i­cal strat­e­gy called “pale­olib­er­tar­i­an­ism,” which was once quite pop­u­lar among some Repub­li­cans, espe­cial­ly for­mer pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Ron Paul. . . . But it was [Mur­ray] Rothbard’s found­ing of the Lud­wig von Mis­es Insti­tute in 1982 that enabled the fledg­ling polit­i­cal move­ment to estab­lish affin­i­ty with the neo-Con­fed­er­ate Lost Cause move­ment. Almost imme­di­ate­ly after its cre­ation, the Mis­es Insti­tute (head­quar­tered in Auburn, Ala.) began pub­lish­ing crit­i­cism of “com­pul­so­ry inte­gra­tion,” attacks on Abra­ham Lin­coln and apolo­gia for Con­fed­er­ate lead­ers. Insti­tute schol­ars have also spo­ken to racist groups such as the League of the South. Roth­bard even pub­lished a chap­ter in his book “The Ethics of Lib­er­ty” in which he said that “the pure­ly free soci­ety will have a flour­ish­ing free mar­ket in chil­dren,” although he didn’t spec­i­fy the races of the chil­dren who might be sold. . . . In the past few years, how­ev­er, it’s been reborn as the alt-right, as a new gen­er­a­tion of lib­er­tar­i­ans dis­cov­ered their hid­den her­itage and began embrac­ing racism and con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries. Many alt-right writ­ers trace their roots to Roth­bard. As one of them, Gre­go­ry Hood, put it, pale­olib­er­tar­i­an the­o­ries about race and democ­ra­cy “helped lead to the emer­gence [of the] Alter­na­tive Right.” Rothbard’s call for “sov­er­eign nations based on race and eth­nic­i­ty” is very sim­i­lar to beliefs Trump’s alt-right sup­port­ers express today. . . .”

It should sur­prise no one that Wik­iLeaks has emerged as the unof­fi­cial online dirty tricks branch of the Trump cam­paign.

Pro­gram High­lights Include:

  • Review of the links between UBS of Switzer­land, anoth­er Trump cred­i­tor, and the Bor­mann net­work.
  • Review of the grad­u­at­ed nature of the Ser­pen­t’s Walk tem­plate and com­par­i­son with what is going on today.
  • Review of the grow­ing Ger­man cor­po­rate con­trol of Amer­i­can media.

1. For­mer CNN host Soledad O’Brien attacked the cable news busi­ness has behaved irre­spon­si­bly in this elec­tion and pre­sent­ed a Ser­pen­t’s Walk-style plat­form for Nazi/white suprema­cist views: ” . . . ‘If you look at Hillary Clinton’s speech where she basi­cal­ly point­ed out that what Don­ald Trump has done — actu­al­ly quite well — has nor­mal­ized white suprema­cy,’ O’Brien explained to CNN host Bri­an Stel­ter on Sun­day. ‘I think she made a very good argu­ment, almost like a lawyer. Here are ways in which he has actu­al­ly worked to nor­mal­ize con­ver­sa­tions that many peo­ple find hate­ful. I’ve seen on-air, white suprema­cists being inter­viewed because they are Trump del­e­gates,’ she not­ed. ‘And they do a five minute seg­ment, the first minute or so talk­ing about what they believe as white suprema­cists. So you have nor­mal­ized that. . . . The for­mer CNN host argued that the ques­tion that jour­nal­ists should be ask­ing is if Trump is ‘soft­en­ing the ground for peo­ple — who are white suprema­cists, who are white nation­al­ists, who would self-iden­ti­fy that way — to feel com­fort­able with their views being brought into the nation­al dis­course to the point where they can do a five minute inter­view hap­pi­ly on nation­al tele­vi­sion? And the answer is yes, clear­ly,’ she said. ‘And there is lots of evi­dence of that.’ . . .”

“Soledad O’Brien Evis­cer­ates CNN: ‘You Have Nor­mal­ized’ White Suprema­cy with Shod­dy Trump Report­ing” by David Edwards; Raw Sto­ry; 9/04/2016.

For­mer CNN host Soledad O’Brien blast­ed the cable news busi­ness over the week­end for prof­it­ing off the hate speech that has fueled Don­ald Trump’s polit­i­cal rise.

Accord­ing to O’Brien, the media had gone through “con­tor­tions to make things seem equal all the time” when com­par­ing Trump to Demo­c­ra­t­ic nom­i­nee Hillary Clin­ton.

“If you look at Hillary Clinton’s speech where she basi­cal­ly point­ed out that what Don­ald Trump has done — actu­al­ly quite well — has nor­mal­ized white suprema­cy,” O’Brien explained to CNN host Bri­an Stel­ter on Sun­day. “I think she made a very good argu­ment, almost like a lawyer. Here are ways in which he has actu­al­ly worked to nor­mal­ize con­ver­sa­tions that many peo­ple find hate­ful.”

“I’ve seen on-air, white suprema­cists being inter­viewed because they are Trump del­e­gates,” she not­ed. “And they do a five minute seg­ment, the first minute or so talk­ing about what they believe as white suprema­cists. So you have nor­mal­ized that.”

“And then Don­ald Trump will say, ‘Hillary Clin­ton, she’s a big­ot.’ And it’s cov­ered, the jour­nal­ist part comes in, ‘They trade barbs. He said she’s a big­ot and she points out that he might be appeal­ing to racists.’ It only becomes ‘he said, she said.’ When in actu­al­i­ty, the fact that Don­ald Trump said she’s a big­ot with­out the long laun­dry list of evi­dence, which if you looked at Hillary Clinton’s speech, she actu­al­ly did have a lot of real­ly good fac­tu­al evi­dence that we would all agree that are things that have hap­pened and do exist. They are treat­ed as if they are equal.”

O’Brien insist­ed “that’s where jour­nal­ists are fail­ing: the con­tor­tions to try to make it seem fair.”

The for­mer CNN host argued that the ques­tion that jour­nal­ists should be ask­ing is if Trump is “soft­en­ing the ground for peo­ple — who are white suprema­cists, who are white nation­al­ists, who would self-iden­ti­fy that way — to feel com­fort­able with their views being brought into the nation­al dis­course to the point where they can do a five minute inter­view hap­pi­ly on nation­al tele­vi­sion?”

“And the answer is yes, clear­ly,” she said. “And there is lots of evi­dence of that.”

O’Brien observed that cable news out­lets were effec­tive­ly being reward­ed for bad behav­ior.

“So hate­ful speech brings a real­ly inter­est­ed, angry audi­ence,” she not­ed. “This is genius! We should do this more often. What shall we do when this elec­tion is over? We’re going to have to think about ways to real­ly rile peo­ple up, make them angry and divide them.”

“Because that is some­thing that cable news, frankly, and every­body can cov­er real­ly well,” O’Brien lament­ed. “So, I find it very frus­trat­ing. I believe he was over-cov­ered at the begin­ning.”

“Now, it is ‘he said, she said’ all the time. We have lost con­text. We actu­al­ly don’t even cov­er the details of some­thing. We just cov­er the back and forth of it. It’s fun­ny to watch if it weren’t our own coun­try and our own gov­ern­ment actu­al­ly oper­at­ing.”

2a. Com­pare, also, the back cov­er of Ser­pen­t’s Walk with the Trump phe­nom­e­non.

  Ser­pen­t’s Walk by “Ran­dolph D. Calver­hall;” Copy­right 1991 [SC]; Nation­al Van­guard Books; 0–937944-05‑X.

It assumes that Hitler’s war­rior elite — the SS — did­n’t give up their strug­gle for a White world when they lost the Sec­ond World War. Instead their sur­vivors went under­ground and adopt­ed some of their tac­tics of their ene­mies: they began build­ing their eco­nom­ic mus­cle and buy­ing into the opin­ion-form­ing media. A cen­tu­ry after the war they are ready to chal­lenge the democ­rats and Jews for the hearts and minds of White Amer­i­cans, who have begun to have their fill of gov­ern­ment-enforced mul­ti-cul­tur­al­ism and ‘equal­i­ty.’

2b.  The pro­gram notes the grad­u­at­ed nature of the takeover of Amer­i­can media by the Under­ground Reich.

  Ser­pen­t’s Walk by “Ran­dolph D. Calver­hall;” Copy­right 1991 [SC]; Nation­al Van­guard Books; 0–937944-05‑X; pp. 42–43.

. . . . About ten years ago, we swung a merg­er, a takeover, and got vot­ing con­trol of a super­corp that runs a small but sig­nif­i­cant chunk of the Amer­i­can media. Not open­ly, with bands and trum­pets. . . . but qui­et­ly, one huge cor­po­ra­tion cud­dling up to anoth­er one and gen­tly munch­ing it up, like a great, gub­bing amoe­ba.. . .. . . we have media psy­chol­o­gists, ad agen­cies, and behav­ior mod­i­fi­ca­tion spe­cial­ists work­ing on image changes. . . . Hard to get peo­ple to love death camps. . . . We don’t try. . . . We play those aspects down and stress the pos­i­tive ones instead: the effi­cien­cy and orga­ni­za­tion, the ded­i­ca­tion, and the hero­ism. Peo­ple will buy that. . . .

2c. Media bias in the cur­rent elec­tion cam­paign was com­pared with that of the 2000 elec­tion by Paul Krug­man.

“Hillary Clin­ton Gets Gored” by Paul Krug­man; The New York Times; 9/5/2016.

Amer­i­cans of a cer­tain age who fol­low pol­i­tics and pol­i­cy close­ly still have vivid mem­o­ries of the 2000 elec­tion — bad mem­o­ries, and not just because the man who lost the pop­u­lar vote some­how end­ed up in office. For the cam­paign lead­ing up to that end game was night­mar­ish too.

You see, one can­di­date, George W. Bush, was dis­hon­est in a way that was unprece­dent­ed in U.S. pol­i­tics. Most notably, he pro­posed big tax cuts for the rich while insist­ing, in raw denial of arith­metic, that they were tar­get­ed for the mid­dle class. These cam­paign lies pre­saged what would hap­pen dur­ing his admin­is­tra­tion — an admin­is­tra­tion that, let us not for­get, took Amer­i­ca to war on false pre­tens­es.

Yet through­out the cam­paign most media cov­er­age gave the impres­sion that Mr. Bush was a bluff, straight­for­ward guy, while por­tray­ing Al Gore — whose pol­i­cy pro­pos­als added up, and whose cri­tiques of the Bush plan were com­plete­ly accu­rate — as slip­pery and dis­hon­est. Mr. Gore’s men­dac­i­ty was sup­pos­ed­ly demon­strat­ed by triv­ial anec­dotes, none sig­nif­i­cant, some of them sim­ply false. No, he nev­er claimed to have invent­ed the inter­net. But the image stuck.

And right now I and many oth­ers have the sick, sink­ing feel­ing that it’s hap­pen­ing again.

True, there aren’t many efforts to pre­tend that Don­ald Trump is a paragon of hon­esty. But it’s hard to escape the impres­sion that he’s being grad­ed on a curve. If he man­ages to read from a TelePrompter with­out going off script, he’s being pres­i­den­tial. If he seems to sug­gest that he wouldn’t round up all 11 mil­lion undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants right away, he’s mov­ing into the main­stream. And many of his mul­ti­ple scan­dals, like what appear to be clear pay­offs to state attor­neys gen­er­al to back off inves­ti­gat­ing Trump Uni­ver­si­ty, get remark­ably lit­tle atten­tion.

Mean­while, we have the pre­sump­tion that any­thing Hillary Clin­ton does must be cor­rupt, most spec­tac­u­lar­ly illus­trat­ed by the increas­ing­ly bizarre cov­er­age of the Clin­ton Foun­da­tion.

Step back for a moment, and think about what that foun­da­tion is about. When Bill Clin­ton left office, he was a pop­u­lar, glob­al­ly respect­ed fig­ure. What should he have done with that rep­u­ta­tion? Rais­ing large sums for a char­i­ty that saves the lives of poor chil­dren sounds like a pret­ty rea­son­able, vir­tu­ous course of action. And the Clin­ton Foun­da­tion is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For exam­ple, Char­i­ty Watch, an inde­pen­dent watch­dog, gives it an “A” rat­ing — bet­ter than the Amer­i­can Red Cross.

Now, any oper­a­tion that rais­es and spends bil­lions of dol­lars cre­ates the poten­tial for con­flicts of inter­est. You could imag­ine the Clin­tons using the foun­da­tion as a slush fund to reward their friends, or, alter­na­tive­ly, Mrs. Clin­ton using her posi­tions in pub­lic office to reward donors. So it was right and appro­pri­ate to inves­ti­gate the foundation’s oper­a­tions to see if there were any improp­er quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foun­da­tion “rais­es ques­tions.”

But nobody seems will­ing to accept the answers to those ques­tions, which are, very clear­ly, “no.”

Con­sid­er the big Asso­ci­at­ed Press report sug­gest­ing that Mrs. Clinton’s meet­ings with foun­da­tion donors while sec­re­tary of state indi­cate “her pos­si­ble ethics chal­lenges if elect­ed pres­i­dent.” Giv­en the tone of the report, you might have expect­ed to read about meet­ings with, say, bru­tal for­eign dic­ta­tors or cor­po­rate fat cats fac­ing indict­ment, fol­lowed by ques­tion­able actions on their behalf.

But the prime exam­ple The A.P. actu­al­ly offered was of Mrs. Clin­ton meet­ing with Muham­mad Yunus, a win­ner of the Nobel Peace Prize who also hap­pens to be a long­time per­son­al friend. If that was the best the inves­ti­ga­tion could come up with, there was noth­ing there. So I would urge jour­nal­ists to ask whether they are report­ing facts or sim­ply engag­ing in innu­en­do, and urge the pub­lic to read with a crit­i­cal eye. If reports about a can­di­date talk about how some­thing “rais­es ques­tions,” cre­ates “shad­ows,” or any­thing sim­i­lar, be aware that these are all too often weasel words used to cre­ate the impres­sion of wrong­do­ing out of thin air.

And here’s a pro tip: the best ways to judge a candidate’s char­ac­ter are to look at what he or she has actu­al­ly done, and what poli­cies he or she is propos­ing. Mr. Trump’s record of bilk­ing stu­dents, stiff­ing con­trac­tors and more is a good indi­ca­tor of how he’d act as pres­i­dent; Mrs. Clinton’s speak­ing style and body lan­guage aren’t. George W. Bush’s pol­i­cy lies gave me a much bet­ter han­dle on who he was than all the up-close-and-per­son­al report­ing of 2000, and the con­trast between Mr. Trump’s pol­i­cy inco­her­ence and Mrs. Clinton’s care­ful­ness speaks vol­umes today.

In oth­er words, focus on the facts. Amer­i­ca and the world can’t afford anoth­er elec­tion tipped by innu­en­do.

3aWe review the pro­found rela­tion­ship of the Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work and Deutsche Bank:

Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile; Paul Man­ning; Copy­right 1981 [HC]; Lyle Stu­art Inc.; ISBN 0–8184-0309–8; pp. 139, 205.

. . . . When Bor­mann gave the order for his rep­re­sen­ta­tives to resume pur­chas­es of Amer­i­can cor­po­rate stocks, it was usu­al­ly done through the neu­tral coun­tries of Switzer­land and Argenti­na. From for­eign exchange funds on deposit in Swiss banks and in Deutsche Sudamerikan­ishe Bank, the Buenos Aires branch of Deutsche Bank, large demand deposits were placed in the prin­ci­pal mon­ey-cen­ter banks of New York City; Nation­al City (now Citibank), Chase (now Chase Man­hat­tan N.A.), Man­u­fac­tur­ers and Hanover (now man­u­fac­tur­ers Hanover Trust), Mor­gan Guar­an­ty, and Irv­ing Trust. Such deposits are inter­est-free and the banks can invest this mon­ey as they wish, thus turn­ing tidy prof­its for them­selves. In return, they pro­vide rea­son­able ser­vices such as the pur­chase of stocks and trans­fer or pay­ment of mon­ey on demand by cus­tomers of Deutsche bank such as rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Bor­mann busi­ness orga­ni­za­tions and and Mar­tin Bor­mann him­self, who has demand accounts in three New York City banks. They con­tin­ue to do so. The Ger­man invest­ment in Amer­i­can cor­po­ra­tions from these sources exceed­ed $5 bil­lion and made the Bor­mann eco­nom­ic struc­ture a web of pow­er and influ­ence. The two Ger­man-owned banks of Spain, Ban­co Ale­man Transat­lanti­co (now named Ban­co Com­er­cial Transat­lanti­co), and Ban­co Ger­man­i­co de la Amer­i­ca del Sur, S.A., a sub­sidiary of Deutsche Bank served to chan­nel Ger­man mon­ey from Spain to South Amer­i­ca, where fur­ther invest­ments were made. . . .

. . . . The [FBI] file revealed that he had been bank­ing under his own name from his office in Ger­many in Deutsche Bank of Buenos Aires since 1941; that he held one joint account with the Argen­tin­ian dic­ta­tor Juan Per­on, and on August 4, 5 and 14, 1967, had writ­ten checks on demand accounts in first Nation­al City Bank (Over­seas Divi­sion) of New York, The Chase Man­hat­tan Bank, and Man­u­fac­tur­ers Hanover Trust Co., all cleared through Deutsche Bank of Buenos Aires. . . .

3b. In FTR #‘s 919 and 921, we not­ed the par­tic­i­pa­tion of UBS in Trump real estate deals.

The pro­gram reviews the rela­tion­ship between Union Bank of Switzer­land, the Nazi I.G. Far­ben chem­i­cal car­tel and the Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work, eco­nom­ic com­po­nent of a Third Reich gone under­ground and per­pet­u­at­ed Mafia-like through its con­nec­tions to deci­sive­ly pow­er­ful eco­nom­ic and polit­i­cal inter­ests.

Note that UBS has helped cap­i­tal­ize the Thyssen indus­tri­al group with pro­found his­tor­i­cal, polit­i­cal and com­mer­cial links to the Bush fam­i­ly, as well as the Under­ground Reich.

Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile; Paul Man­ning; Copy­right 1981 [HC]; Lyle Stu­art Inc.; ISBN 0–8184-0309–8; pp. 160–161.

. . . .In 1948 a suit was to be filed by cer­tain minor­i­ty stock­hold­ers of Inter­han­del against the attor­ney gen­er­al of the Unit­ed States, as suc­ces­sor to the wartime Alien Prop­er­ty Cus­to­di­an, and the U.S. Trea­sury, for the return of 89 per­cent of GAF (the Amer­i­can branch of I.G. Far­ben), of a val­ue of $100 mil­lion plus $1.8 mil­lion seized in cash in 1942. Inter­han­del, through its Amer­i­can attor­neys, first filed an admin­is­tra­tive claim, which was denied. The suit then went to the Dis­trict Court for the Dis­trict of Colum­bia, then to the Supreme Court, and back to Dis­trict Court. The Swiss claim was based on the argu­ment that Inter­han­del was a Swiss cor­po­ra­tion, that it was not nor had it ever been an ene­my of the Unit­ed States, and that it owned the shares in ques­tion. The Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment rebut­tal was that Inter­han­del was the result of a con­spir­a­cy between the pri­vate bank of H. Sturzeneg­ger, for­mer­ly E.Greutert & Cie., and I.G. Far­benin­dus­trie of Ger­many and oth­ers “to con­ceal, cam­ou­flage, and cloak the own­er­ship, con­trol, and com­bi­na­tion by I.G. Far­ben of prop­er­ties and inter­ests in many coun­tries of the world, includ­ing the U.S.”

As the case dragged through the U.S. courts, Schmitz would have Inter­han­del cos­meti­cized even more. Charles de Loes, past pres­i­dent of the Swiss Bankers Asso­ci­a­tion, would be elect­ed chair­man, and the gen­er­al man­ag­er of each of the Big Three banks would be appoint­ed to the board. They would agree to this because the hon­or of Swiss bank­ing and its prin­ci­ple of bank­ing secre­cy would be at stake. In addi­tion, 25 per­cent of Inter­han­del stock would be reg­is­tered in the name of Union Bank, whose man­ag­er, Dr. Alfred Schae­fer, was of known integri­ty. The Swiss believed the asso­ci­a­tion of such a man of high bank­ing repute at Inter­han­del would impress Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment author­i­ties. But the Ger­man con­nec­tion would still be there. Not only Her­mann Schmitz, but also the bank­ing con­nec­tion of Union Bank of Switzer­land, Dr. Schaefer’s bank, and Deutsche Bank, which act­ed in con­cert on so many deals involv­ing not only I.G. Far­ben but also big Ruhr indus­tri­al­ists such as Thyssen A.G., the largest steel­mak­er in Ger­many. In Jan­u­ary 1978 these two lead banks, act­ing through the UBS-DBCor­po­ra­tion, an Amer­i­can firm of the Union Bank of Switzer­land and the Deutsche Bank of Ger­many, would be the finan­cial advi­sors for Thyssen A.G. in its $275 mil­lion cash takeover of the Budd Com­pa­ny of Troy, Michi­gan, a lead­ing U.S. man­u­fac­tur­er of auto com­po­nents, truck trail­ers, and rail cars. UBSDB Cor­po­ra­tion would also say that the West Ger­man com­pa­nies it rep­re­sent­ed were show­ing a “very sub­stan­tial inter­est in all sorts of Amer­i­can ven­tures, includ­ing merg­ers and acqui­si­tion.” . . . .

4. In con­nec­tion both with Trump’s real estate hold­ings and John P. Schmitz’s cor­po­rate work, we review the con­trol of Ger­man indus­try and finance by the Bor­mann net­work.

Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile by Paul Man­ning; Copy­right 1981 by Paul Man­ning; Lyle Stu­art Inc. [HC]; ISBN 0–8184-0309‑B; pp. 284–285.

. . . Atop an orga­ni­za­tion­al pyra­mid that dom­i­nates the indus­try of West Ger­many through banks, vot­ing rights enjoyed by major­i­ty share­hold­ers in sig­nif­i­cant car­tels, and the pro­fes­sion­al input of a rel­a­tive­ly young lead­er­ship group of lawyers, invest­ment spe­cial­ists, bankers, and indus­tri­al­ists, he [Bor­mann] is sat­is­fied that he achieved his aim of help­ing the Father­land back on its feet. To ensure con­ti­nu­ity of pur­pose and direc­tion, a close watch is main­tained on the prof­it state­ments and man­age­ment reports of cor­po­ra­tions under its con­trol else­where. This lead­er­ship group of twen­ty, which is in fact a board of direc­tors, is chaired by Bor­mann, but pow­er has shift­ed to the younger men who will car­ry on the ini­tia­tive that grew from that his­toric meet­ing in Stras­bourg on August 10, 1944. Old Hein­rich Mueller, chief of secu­ri­ty for the NSDAP in South Amer­i­ca, is the most feared of all, hav­ing the pow­er of life and death over those deemed not to be act­ing in the best inter­ests of the orga­ni­za­tion. Some still envi­sion a Fourth Reich. . . What will not pass is the eco­nom­ic influ­ences of the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion, whose com­mer­cial direc­tives are obeyed almost with­out ques­tion by the high­est ech­e­lons of West Ger­man finance and indus­try. ‘All orders come from the share­hold­ers in South Amer­i­ca,’ I have been told by a spokesman for Mar­tin Bor­mann. . . . 

5a. Again, a major ele­ment of dis­cus­sion on this blog has been the spawn­ing of the Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work from the polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic forces under­pin­ning Nazi Ger­many. Con­trol­ling the Ger­man core cor­po­ra­tions as well as pow­er­ful inter­ests around the world, the Bor­mann group is pre­em­i­nent on the world eco­nom­ic land­scape.

Not­ing that BMW and Audi are con­trolled by the heirs of Joseph Goebbels (whose stepchild inher­it­ed the Quandt indus­tri­al empire), A Bloomberg sto­ry notes that Mer­cedes-Benz also has sig­nif­i­cant cap­i­tal par­tic­i­pa­tion by the Quandts.

In a series of com­ments on a blog, there was an exchange about BMW with­hold­ing ads when Atlantic reviewed a book about the Holo­caust or WWII. BMW is owned by the Quandt firm, head­ed for years by Joseph Goebbels’ son-in-law.

To gain per­spec­tive on the bril­liant, far-sight­ed, thor­ough and alto­geth­er cyn­i­cal pol­i­cy real­ized by cor­po­rate Ger­many and the remark­able, dead­ly Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work that con­trols it, we recap Dorothy Thompson’s analy­sis of Germany’s plans for world dom­i­nance by a cen­tral­ized Euro­pean eco­nom­ic union. (In this, we can see the plans of pan-Ger­man the­o­reti­cian Friedrich List, as real­ized by the Euro­pean Mon­e­tary Union.) Ms. Thomp­son was writ­ing in The New York Her­ald Tri­bune on May 31, 1940! Her com­ments are repro­duced by Tetens on pages 92–93 .

Ger­many Plots with the Krem­lin by T.H. Tetens; Hen­ry Schu­man [HC]; 1953; pp. 92–93 [Sup­ple­ment­ed by excerpts from the orig­i­nal New York Her­ald Tri­bune arti­cle, obtained from the library].

“The Ger­mans have a clear plan of what they intend to do in case of vic­to­ry. I believe that I know the essen­tial details of that plan. I have heard it from a suf­fi­cient num­ber of impor­tant Ger­mans to cred­it its authen­tic­i­ty . . . Germany’s plan is to make a cus­toms union of Europe, with com­plete finan­cial and eco­nom­ic con­trol cen­tered in Berlin. This will cre­ate at once the largest free trade area and the largest planned econ­o­my in the world. In West­ern Europe alone . . . there will be an eco­nom­ic uni­ty of 400 mil­lion per­sons . . . To these will be added the resources of the British, French, Dutch and Bel­gian empires. These will be pooled in the name of Europa Ger­man­i­ca . . .”

“The Ger­mans count upon polit­i­cal pow­er fol­low­ing eco­nom­ic pow­er, and not vice ver­sa. Ter­ri­to­r­i­al changes do not con­cern them, because there will be no ‘France’ or ‘Eng­land,’ except as lan­guage groups. Lit­tle imme­di­ate con­cern is felt regard­ing polit­i­cal orga­ni­za­tions . . . . No nation will have the con­trol of its own finan­cial or eco­nom­ic sys­tem or of its cus­toms. The Naz­i­fi­ca­tion of all coun­tries will be accom­plished by eco­nom­ic pres­sure. In all coun­tries, con­tacts have been estab­lished long ago with sym­pa­thet­ic busi­ness­men and indus­tri­al­ists . . . . As far as the Unit­ed States is con­cerned, the plan­ners of the World Ger­man­i­ca laugh off the idea of any armed inva­sion. They say that it will be com­plete­ly unnec­es­sary to take mil­i­tary action against the Unit­ed States to force it to play ball with this sys­tem. . . . Here, as in every oth­er coun­try, they have estab­lished rela­tions with numer­ous indus­tries and com­mer­cial orga­ni­za­tions, to whom they will offer advan­tages in co-oper­a­tion with Ger­many.

Cer­tain con­di­tions will have to be met. No orders will be tak­en from or giv­en by per­son­al­i­ties unfa­vor­ably regard­ed by the Nazis. No adver­tis­ing con­tracts will be placed with news­pa­pers direct­ed by or pub­lish­ing the work of pro-Ally or anti-Nazi edi­tors or writ­ers.…

The Ger­man plan­ners pre­dict a stam­pede of the South to col­lab­o­rate with this sys­tem. This stam­pede will be fos­tered and direct­ed by their agents.”…

. . .”

5b. About BMW with­hold­ing adver­tis­ing mon­ey when The Atlantic ran sto­ries about World War II and/or the Holo­caust:

Lon­don­Lee (922)
I worked at The Atlantic when Wal­lace wrote a (ter­rif­ic) fea­ture for them about talk radio. Accord­ing to our man­ag­ing edi­tor he was a sweet­heart to deal with.

True: When­ev­er the books sec­tion reviewed some­thing about WWII or The Holo­caust (which was often), BMW pulled their ads for that issue. . . .

. . . They were just very sen­si­tive about it giv­en their his­to­ry. I was in the art dept so could­n’t tell you any details, it just became a run­ning joke: “Oh, Ben has reviewed anoth­er WWII book! Ad sales will be pissed!”

5v. About the Quandt cor­po­ra­tion and its con­trol by the heirs of Goebbels:

“Nazi Goebbels’ Step-Grand­chil­dren Are Hid­den Bil­lion­aires” by David de Jong; Bloomberg News; 1/28/2013.

In the spring of 1945, Har­ald Quandt, a 23-year-old offi­cer in the Ger­man Luft­waffe, was being held as a pris­on­er of war by Allied forces in the Libyan port city of Beng­hazi when he received a farewell let­ter from his moth­er, Mag­da Goebbels — the wife of Nazi pro­pa­gan­da min­is­ter Joseph Goebbels.

The hand-writ­ten note con­firmed the dev­as­tat­ing news he had heard weeks ear­li­er: His moth­er had com­mit­ted sui­cide with her hus­band on May 1, after slip­ping their six chil­dren cyanide cap­sules in Adolf Hitler’s under­ground bunker in Berlin. . . .

. . . Quandt was released from cap­tiv­i­ty in 1947. Sev­en years lat­er, he and his half-broth­er Her­bert — Har­ald was the only remain­ing child from Mag­da Goebbels’ first mar­riage — would inher­it the indus­tri­al empire built by their father, Guen­ther Quandt, which had pro­duced Mauser firearms and anti-air­craft mis­siles for the Third Reich’s war machine. Among their most valu­able assets at the time was a stake in car man­u­fac­tur­er Daim­ler AG. (DAI) They bought a part of Bay­erische Motoren Werke AG (BMW) a few years lat­er.

While the half-broth­ers passed away decades ago, their lega­cy has endured. Herbert’s wid­ow, Johan­na Quandt, 86, and their chil­dren Susanne Klat­ten and Ste­fan Quandt, have remained in the pub­lic eye as BMW’s dom­i­nant share­hold­ers. The bil­lion­aire daugh­ters of Har­ald Quandt — Kata­ri­na Geller-Herr, 61, Gabriele Quandt, 60, Anette-Ange­li­ka May-Thies, 58, and 50-year-old Colleen-Bet­ti­na Rosen­blat-Mo — have kept a low­er pro­file.

The four sis­ters inher­it­ed about 1.5 bil­lion deutsche marks ($760 mil­lion) after the death of their moth­er, Inge, in 1978, accord­ing to the family’s sanc­tioned biog­ra­phy, “Die Quandts.” They man­age their wealth through the Har­ald Quandt Hold­ing GmbH, a Bad Hom­burg, Ger­many-based fam­i­ly invest­ment com­pa­ny and trust named after their father. Fritz Beck­er, the chief exec­u­tive offi­cer of the fam­i­ly enti­ties, said the sib­lings real­ized aver­age annu­al returns above 7 per­cent from its found­ing in 1981 through 1996. Since then, the returns have aver­aged 7.6 per­cent.

“The fam­i­ly wants to stay pri­vate and that is an accept­able sit­u­a­tion for me,” said Beck­er in an inter­view at his Bad Hom­burg office. “We invest our mon­ey glob­al­ly and if it’s $1 bil­lion, $500 mil­lion or $3 bil­lion, who cares?” (Ital­ics added.) . . .

8. In a tran­si­tion­al ele­ment to the next program–dealing with Snow­den, Wik­iLeaks and the high-pro­file hacks–we note that Don­ald Trump’s ide­ol­o­gy and rhetoric are a devel­op­ment and ampli­fi­ca­tion of what we termed “The Paulis­tin­ian Lib­er­tar­i­an Orga­ni­za­tion.”  In FTR #‘s 755, 758 and 759, we have fur­ther devel­oped the rela­tion­ship between the Ron Paul milieu and WikiLeaks/Team Snow­den.

“Where Did Don­ald Trump Get His Racial­ized Rhetoric? From Lib­er­tar­i­ans“by Matthew Sheffield ; The Wash­ing­ton Post; 9/02/2016.

The inter­sec­tion of white nation­al­ism, the alt-right and Ron Paul

Hillary Clin­ton and her cam­paign have been going out of their way to make a sur­pris­ing argu­ment about Don­ald Trump: He’s not real­ly a Repub­li­can.

At the Demo­c­ra­t­ic con­ven­tion, sev­er­al speak­ers said Trump rep­re­sent­ed a com­plete break from the con­ser­v­a­tive tra­di­tions of the GOP. Last month, Clin­ton deliv­ered a sim­i­lar mes­sage in a speech link­ing Trump to the white-nation­al­ist polit­i­cal move­ment known as the “alt-right.” “This is not con­ser­vatism as we have known it,” she assert­ed.

Accord­ing to Clin­ton — and many con­ser­v­a­tive intel­lec­tu­als who oppose Trump — the con­spir­a­to­r­i­al, wink­ing-at-racists cam­paign he has been run­ning rep­re­sents a nov­el depar­ture from Repub­li­can pol­i­tics.

That’s not quite true, though. Trump’s style and posi­tions — endors­ing and con­sort­ing with 9/11 truthers, pro­mot­ing online racists, using fake sta­tis­tics— draw on a now-obscure polit­i­cal strat­e­gy called “pale­olib­er­tar­i­an­ism,” which was once quite pop­u­lar among some Repub­li­cans, espe­cial­ly for­mer pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Ron Paul.

For­mal­ly, Sen. Rand Paul (R‑Ky.) may be his father’s polit­i­cal heir. But there’s no ques­tion that the para­noid and semi-racial­ist mien fre­quent­ly favored by Trump orig­i­nates in the fevered swamps that the elder Paul dwelled in for decades. Most peo­ple who back Trump don’t do so for racist rea­sons, but it’s incred­i­ble how many of the same white nation­al­ists and con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists to whom Ron Paul once catered are now ardent Trump sup­port­ers. It’s because Trump and Paul speak the same lan­guage.

Main­stream lib­er­tar­i­ans have been ago­niz­ing over this lega­cy among them­selves for some time, hop­ing that either the elder or younger Paul would defin­i­tive­ly denounce the movement’s racial­ist past, but no such speech has ever come. Instead, the pale­olib­er­tar­i­an strat­e­gy con­coct­ed decades ago as a way to push for min­i­mal gov­ern­ment threat­ens to replace right-wing lib­er­tar­i­an­ism with white nation­al­ism.

* * *

The fig­ure whose ideas uni­fy Pauline lib­er­tar­i­ans and today’s Trump­ists is the late Mur­ray Roth­bard, an econ­o­mist who co-found­ed the Cato Insti­tute and is wide­ly regard­ed as the cre­ator of lib­er­tar­i­an­ism.

Nowa­days, many lib­er­tar­i­ans like to por­tray their ide­ol­o­gy as one that some­how tran­scends the left-right divide, but to Roth­bard, this was non­sense. Lib­er­tar­i­an­ism, he argued, was noth­ing more than a restate­ment of the beliefs of the “Old Right,” which res­olute­ly opposed the New Deal and any sort of for­eign inter­ven­tion in the ear­ly 20th cen­tu­ry. Many of its adher­ents, such as essay­ist H.L. Menck­en, espoused racist view­points, as well.

As mod­er­ate Repub­li­cans such as Dwight Eisen­how­er and “New Right” Chris­t­ian con­ser­v­a­tives such as William F. Buck­ley became more influ­en­tial with­in the Repub­li­can Par­ty in the 1950s and ’60s, the future cre­ators of lib­er­tar­i­an­ism grav­i­tat­ed instead toward the work of sec­u­lar anti-com­mu­nist thinkers such as econ­o­mist Lud­wig von Mis­es and nov­el­ist Ayn Rand.

There had always been some sym­pa­thy for racism and anti-Semi­tism among lib­er­tar­i­ans — the movement’s house mag­a­zine, Rea­son, ded­i­cat­ed an entire issue in 1976 to “his­tor­i­cal revi­sion­ism,” includ­ing Holo­caust revi­sion­ism. It also repeat­ed­ly ran arti­cles in defense of South Africa’s then-seg­re­ga­tion­ist gov­ern­ment (though by 2016, the mag­a­zine was run­ning arti­cles like “Don­ald Trump Enables Racism”). But it was Rothbard’s found­ing of the Lud­wig von Mis­es Insti­tute in 1982 that enabled the fledg­ling polit­i­cal move­ment to estab­lish affin­i­ty with the neo-Con­fed­er­ate Lost Cause move­ment.

Almost imme­di­ate­ly after its cre­ation, the Mis­es Insti­tute (head­quar­tered in Auburn, Ala.) began pub­lish­ing crit­i­cism of “com­pul­so­ry inte­gra­tion,” attacks on Abra­ham Lin­coln and apolo­gia for Con­fed­er­ate lead­ers. Insti­tute schol­ars have also spo­ken to racist groups such as the League of the South. Roth­bard even pub­lished a chap­ter in his book “The Ethics of Lib­er­ty” in which he said that “the pure­ly free soci­ety will have a flour­ish­ing free mar­ket in chil­dren,” although he didn’t spec­i­fy the races of the chil­dren who might be sold.

These and many oth­er con­tro­ver­sial views advo­cat­ed by Mis­es writ­ers make sense from a fanat­i­cal lib­er­tar­i­an view­point. But they also orig­i­nate in a polit­i­cal cal­cu­la­tion Roth­bard revealed in a 1992 essay lament­ing the defeat of Repub­li­can white nation­al­ist and for­mer Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in the 1991 Louisiana governor’s race by a bipar­ti­san coali­tion.

Expand­ing on themes raised two years ear­li­er by his long­time part­ner and friend Llewellyn “Lew” Rock­well, an edi­tor and fundrais­er for lib­er­tar­i­an caus­es, Roth­bard argued that Duke’s can­di­da­cy was vital­ly impor­tant because it made clear that the “old Amer­i­ca” had been over­thrown by “an updat­ed, twen­ti­eth-cen­tu­ry coali­tion of Throne and Altar” and its “State Church” of gov­ern­ment offi­cials, jour­nal­ists and social sci­en­tists.

Besides com­mend­ing Duke as an exem­plar of the kind of can­di­date he was look­ing to sup­port, Roth­bard also invoked the “excit­ing” for­mer sen­a­tor Joe McCarthy of Wis­con­sin — not because of his eco­nom­ic views but because he was a brash pop­ulist prone to doing errat­ic things. Rothbard’s descrip­tion of McCarthy seems eeri­ly sim­i­lar to the cam­paign that Trump has been run­ning:

“The fas­ci­nat­ing, the excit­ing, thing about Joe McCarthy was pre­cise­ly his ‘means’ — his right-wing pop­ulism: his will­ing­ness and abil­i­ty to reach out, to short-cir­cuit the pow­er elite: lib­er­als, cen­trists, the media, the intel­lec­tu­als, the Pen­ta­gon, Rock­e­feller Repub­li­cans, and reach out and whip up the mass­es direct­ly. … With Joe McCarthy there was a sense of dynamism, of fear­less­ness, and of open-end­ed­ness, as if, whom would he sub­poe­na next?”

To solve the prob­lem that few Amer­i­cans are inter­est­ed in small gov­ern­ment, Roth­bard argued that lib­er­tar­i­ans need­ed to align them­selves with peo­ple they might not like much in order to expand their num­bers. “Out­reach to the Red­necks” was need­ed to make com­mon cause with far-right Chris­t­ian con­ser­v­a­tives who hat­ed the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, dis­liked drugs and want­ed to crack down on crime.

All of these pale­olib­er­tar­i­an posi­tions were offered in Duke’s 1990 Sen­ate cam­paign and 1991 guber­na­to­r­i­al cam­paign. But they were also offered by anoth­er politi­cian Roth­bard admired: Ron Paul, the Lib­er­tar­i­an Party’s pres­i­den­tial can­di­date in 1988.

Roth­bard and Paul had known and worked with each oth­er in the 1970s, when they came to know Rock­well. Rock­well would work close­ly with both men, serv­ing as Paul’s con­gres­sion­al chief of staff until he left to found the Mis­es Insti­tute with Roth­bard.

Rock­well also was the edi­tor of a series of print­ed newslet­ters for both men in the ensu­ing decades. Paul’s pub­li­ca­tions became famous dur­ing his Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial cam­paigns. Their con­tro­ver­sial nature is no sur­prise, giv­en that Paul had coy­ly endorsed the pale­olib­er­tar­i­an strat­e­gy short­ly after it was devised.

Sold under var­i­ous titles, the high­ly lucra­tive newslet­ters fre­quent­ly stoked racial fears, sim­i­lar to what Trump has been doing this year, though they went fur­ther — one even gave advice on using an unreg­is­tered gun to shoot “urban youth.” Anoth­er issue mocked black Amer­i­cans by propos­ing alter­na­tive names for New York City such as “Zooville” and “Rapetown,” while urg­ing black polit­i­cal demon­stra­tors to hold their protests “at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”

The pub­li­ca­tions also repeat­ed­ly pro­mot­ed the work of Jared Tay­lor, a white nation­al­ist writer and edi­tor who is today one of Trump’s most promi­nent alt-right back­ers. Arti­cles also fea­tured anti-Semit­ic con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries and fre­quent rants against gay men.

Paul lat­er said he didn’t write the newslet­ters. But regard­less of their author­ship, the image they cre­at­ed made him attrac­tive to white nation­al­ists. Those sup­port­ers weren’t numer­ous enough to get Paul the GOP pres­i­den­tial nom­i­na­tion, how­ev­er, and pale­olib­er­tar­i­an­ism began fiz­zling out.

In the past few years, how­ev­er, it’s been reborn as the alt-right, as a new gen­er­a­tion of lib­er­tar­i­ans dis­cov­ered their hid­den her­itage and began embrac­ing racism and con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries. Many alt-right writ­ers trace their roots to Roth­bard. As one of them, Gre­go­ry Hood, put it, pale­olib­er­tar­i­an the­o­ries about race and democ­ra­cy “helped lead to the emer­gence [of the] Alter­na­tive Right.” Rothbard’s call for “sov­er­eign nations based on race and eth­nic­i­ty” is very sim­i­lar to beliefs Trump’s alt-right sup­port­ers express today.

In 2016, many, if not most, of the extrem­ists who for­mer­ly sup­port­ed Paul have ral­lied to Trump’s side. In 2007, Paul won an endorse­ment and a $500 cam­paign con­tri­bu­tion from Don Black, the own­er of Storm­front, a self-described “white pride” Web forum. Despite a tor­rent of crit­i­cism, Paul refused to return the mon­ey. This March, Black encour­aged his radio lis­ten­ers to vote for Trump, even if he wasn’t per­fect.

After Rand Paul came to the Sen­ate in 2011, and as he even­tu­al­ly began plan­ning his own pres­i­den­tial cam­paign, there was some spec­u­la­tion that con­ser­v­a­tives might be enter­ing a “lib­er­tar­i­an moment.” Things didn’t turn out that way. Instead, the Amer­i­can right seems to have entered a pale­olib­er­tar­i­an moment.

 

 

Discussion

21 comments for “FTR #922 The Trumpenkampfverbande, Part 5: Walkin’ the Snake with “The Donald” (The Underground Reich Comes Into Plain View, Part 3)”

  1. Regard­ing the move­ments and indi­vid­u­als that have paved the way for the rise of Don­ald Trump, Vice has a recent inter­view of Ann Coul­ter, the con­ser­v­a­tive pun­dit who has been open­ly call­ing for the GOP to ‘stop suck­ing up to His­pan­ics’ and stop try­ing to appeal to non-white vot­ers in gen­er­al and just focus on turn­ing out the white vote by pro­mot­ing what is essen­tial­ly a white nation­al­ist plat­form and world­view. Not sur­pris­ing­ly, she’s quite excit­ed about Don­ald Trump. Espe­cial­ly since it sounds like Trump basi­cal­ly con­ceived of his entire cam­paign strat­e­gy, like start­ing off his cam­paign shout­ing about Mex­i­can rapists, after read­ing Ann’s book about how Mex­i­cans are destroy­ing Amer­i­ca:

    Vice

    How Ann Coul­ter Cre­at­ed Don­ald Trump

    By Mitchell Sun­der­land

    Asso­ciate Edi­tor

    Sep­tem­ber 8, 2016

    It was an after­noon in ear­ly July, just before the Repub­li­can Nation­al Con­ven­tion, and Ann Coul­ter was sit­ting in the back of a baby-blue Mer­cedes SUV, speed­ing through Thai Town in Los Ange­les. Ray Bans cov­ered her eyes, a Louis Vuit­ton belt wrapped around her waist, and the sun lit her blond hair like a spot­light. As ABBA’s “Fer­nan­do” played over the car stereo, she sipped cof­fee out of a green straw and point­ed at a group of Lati­no peo­ple on the side­walk. “Look, there’s a Thai!” she remarked wry­ly. “More Thais!”

    She’s tak­ing me on what she calls the “Ann Coul­ter Tour of Los Ange­les Immi­grant Hot Spots.” In addi­tion to Thai Town, these “hot spots” include Kore­atown and Lit­tle Ethiopia—three his­toric eth­nic enclaves that Coul­ter claims have been flood­ed by His­pan­ic immi­grants. “We don’t have time for Comp­ton,” she told me, “but you’ll have to take my word for it.”

    The goal of the expe­di­tion, Coul­ter said, is to show me the over­whelm­ing effects that immigration—and specif­i­cal­ly, immi­gra­tion from Mexico—has had on South­ern Cal­i­for­nia neigh­bor­hoods. “They’re all Mex­i­can. This is diver­si­ty,” she said. “Wel­come to Thai Town! We’re gonna get a Thai taco. With any luck, we’ll get some Thai graf­fi­ti.”

    If this were any oth­er year, Coul­ter’s comments—indeed, the very idea of an “Ann Coul­ter Immi­gra­tion Tour” in the first place—would have seemed ludi­crous. But new rules apply in 2016: Coul­ter’s anti-immi­gra­tion posi­tions, out­lined in her 2015 man­i­festo Adios, Amer­i­ca: The Left­’s Plan to Turn Amer­i­ca into a Third-World Hell­hole, have been adopt­ed whole­sale by Don­ald Trump, pro­vid­ing the intel­lec­tu­al foun­da­tion for the Repub­li­can can­di­date’s sig­na­ture pol­i­cy.

    For bet­ter or for worse, that’s made Coul­ter one of the coun­try’s most influ­en­tial pol­i­cy minds. “Per­haps no sin­gle writer has had such an imme­di­ate impact on a pres­i­den­tial elec­tion since Har­ri­et Beech­er Stowe,” the Atlantic’s David Frum wrote about Coul­ter last Decem­ber.

    That influ­ence was con­firmed again last week, when Trump gave an immi­gra­tion speech detail­ing a ten-step plan very sim­i­lar to the ones Coul­ter out­lined in Adios, Amer­i­ca. The pro­pos­al includ­ed build­ing a wall—which Mex­i­co, of course, would pay for—ending the “catch-and-release” strat­e­gy to rid Amer­i­ca of “crim­i­nal aliens” and ban­ning immi­grants from coun­tries where the US is not able to com­plete thor­ough back­ground checks, as deter­mined by Trump.

    Like Coul­ter, Trump described new immi­gra­tion laws as vital to pro­tect­ing the liveli­hood and cul­ture of work­ing-class Amer­i­cans. “Immi­gra­tion law does­n’t exist just for the pur­pose of keep­ing out crim­i­nals,” Trump told an audi­ence in Phoenix, Ari­zona.

    “It exists to pro­tect all aspects of Amer­i­can life—the work­site, the wel­fare office, the edu­ca­tion sys­tem, and much else. That is why immi­gra­tion lim­its are estab­lished in the first place. If we only enforce the laws against crime, then we have an open bor­der to the entire world.”

    As Trump con­tin­ues to embrace her anti-immi­grant posi­tions, Coul­ter has in turn become an ardent evan­ge­liz­er for the Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial can­di­date. “I have been in heav­en since June 16—[the] Mex­i­can rapist speech,” she told me.

    She spent most of this past win­ter and spring telling any­one who would lis­ten to vote for Trump, run­ning what she calls her “shad­ow cam­paign” to get the real estate mogul elect­ed. For months, she’s been mak­ing bets with Trump doubters she encoun­ters at bars and parties—she claimed she won $5,000 from an assis­tant for one of the Koch broth­ers who bet Trump would lose the primary—but con­ced­ed it’s not a par­tic­u­lar­ly effec­tive way to elect a can­di­date.

    “I can’t keep cor­ner­ing the anti-Trump peo­ple indi­vid­u­al­ly at par­ties and bars and forc­ing them to make a bet,” she said.

    On August 23, she pub­lished a new screed, sub­tly titled In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awe­some! The book defends Trump as the “Great Orange hope,” mak­ing an impas­sioned case for the white pop­ulist nos­tal­gia he’s brought back into the con­ser­v­a­tive move­ment. It has become her 12th New York Times best­seller.

    “Peo­ple are say­ing it’s ter­rif­ic,” Trump tweet­ed the day the book was released, “know­ing Ann I am sure it is!”

    A lit­tle more than a year ago, before Trump announced his can­di­da­cy, Coul­ter thought her anti-immi­gra­tion rhetoric would ruin her career. She wor­ried Adios, Amer­i­ca would flop and pre­dict­ed tele­vi­sion net­works would ban her from the air for life. “I thought I would live under the Brook­lyn Bridge,” she said, look­ing back. “I knew it would be the end of my career.”

    Coul­ter had start­ed writ­ing about immi­gra­tion a few years ear­li­er, around the time that then pres­i­dent George W Bush was try­ing to pass an immi­gra­tion-reform bill that includ­ed a con­ser­v­a­tive plant to pro­vide undoc­u­ment­ed work­ers with a path­way to cit­i­zen­ship. In May 2007, Coul­ter wrote a series of attacks on the bill, under head­lines like “Import­ing a Slave Class” and “A Green Card in Every Pot.”

    “Americans—at least real­ly stu­pid Amer­i­cans like George Bush—believe the nat­ur­al state of the world is to have indi­vid­ual self-deter­mi­na­tion, human rights, the rule of law, and a robust demo­c­ra­t­ic econ­o­my,” she wrote at the time. “In fact, the nat­ur­al state of the world is Dar­fur. The freak­ish aber­ra­tion is Amer­i­ca and the rest of the Anglo-Sax­on world.”

    After that, at the end of her speeches—about Scoot­er Lib­by, gun rights, Oba­macare, what­ev­er the con­ser­v­a­tive top­ic of the day—she start­ed men­tion­ing immi­gra­tion. And the crowds would go wild.

    Adios, Amer­i­ca start­ed as a chap­ter, not a book. Reg­n­ery, the con­ser­v­a­tive imprint that pub­lish­es Sarah Palin, had giv­en Coul­ter a deal to write a dif­fer­ent book, but while doing research, she says she stum­bled across what she believed was a con­spir­a­cy to mask the true num­ber of immi­grants com­mit­ting crime in the coun­try. Con­vinced that the media, politi­cians, and gov­ern­ment sta­tis­ti­cians had pulled the wool over the coun­try’s eyes when it came to the real state of immi­gra­tion in Amer­i­ca, Coul­ter per­suad­ed her pub­lish­er to let her devote an entire book to the top­ic.

    The result­ing work laid out her immi­gra­tion views in detail, includ­ing alleged crime and pub­lic-safe­ty prob­lems Coul­ter attrib­uted to new immi­grants. It also out­lined a series of solu­tions that she pro­posed would fix Amer­i­ca’s bro­ken immi­gra­tion sys­tem: build­ing a wall, deport­ing undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants, and plac­ing a ten-year mora­to­ri­um on immi­gra­tion—all immigration—before imple­ment­ing a new entry process based on labor skills, rather than fam­i­ly pref­er­ence or per-coun­try visa caps.

    In short, it was a set of ideas remark­ably sim­i­lar to what Trump is propos­ing in his pres­i­den­tial cam­paign.

    When the book was done, Coul­ter start­ed send­ing out hard­cov­er copies anno­tat­ed with Post-It notes to Repub­li­cans that seemed like­ly to run for pres­i­dent. Then, short­ly before the book was pub­lished, her good friend Matt Drudge encour­aged Coul­ter to debate her ideas with Jorge Ramos, one of the coun­try’s most respect­ed His­pan­ic jour­nal­ists. So in May 2015, sev­er­al days before Adios, Amer­i­ca hit the shelves, Coul­ter appeared with Ramos in a Fusion tele­vi­sion spe­cial called “Ann’s Amer­i­ca.”

    “If you don’t want to be killed by ISIS, don’t go to Syr­ia,” Coul­ter told Ramos as they argued the points in her book. “If you don’t want to get killed by a Mex­i­can, there’s noth­ing I can tell you.”

    One view­er was appar­ent­ly Don­ald Trump. Short­ly after the spe­cial aired, Coul­ter says, one of his employ­ees emailed her ask­ing for an advance copy of the book. About a month lat­er, on June 16, 2015, Coul­ter woke up to see that her ideas had made an impact: Trump was run­ning for pres­i­dent, using an anti-immi­gra­tion plat­form ripped straight from the pages of her book.

    “[Mex­i­co is] send­ing peo­ple that have lots of prob­lems, and they’re bring­ing those prob­lems with [them],” Trump declared in his now-infa­mous announce­ment speech. “They’re bring­ing drugs. They’re bring­ing crime.”

    In the weeks fol­low­ing, Coul­ter kept hear­ing Trump men­tion talk­ing points she’d out­lined in her book, lis­ten­ing proud­ly as he blamed the hero­in epi­dem­ic on Mex­i­co and attacked cor­po­ra­tions for replac­ing Amer­i­can work­ers with for­eign­ers on H‑1B visas.

    “TRUMP READ IT!” Coul­ter crowed in an email to me this past March as I was work­ing on anoth­er sto­ry for Broad­ly. “Anchor babies, build­ing a wall, how many ille­gals are here (min­i­mum: 30 to 50 mil­lion), Mex­i­can rapists, immi­grant crime, the hero­in epi­dem­ic brought to us by Mex­i­co, H‑1B workers—all this is from Adios, Amer­i­ca! You might have found some of that else­where (if you looked real­ly hard), but the immi­grant crime wave, and specif­i­cal­ly the Latin Amer­i­can rape cul­ture, has nev­er been writ­ten about until ADIOS, AMERICA!”

    Coul­ter has described her oppo­si­tion to immi­gra­tion as being dri­ven by “cul­tur­al” rather than “racial” rea­sons; in short, she believes Lati­no and Mus­lim immi­grants come from coun­tries with cul­tures that advo­cate rape, mur­der, homo­pho­bia, and drug use, and there­fore pose a threat to both US secu­ri­ty and Amer­i­ca’s cul­tur­al iden­ti­ty. In prac­tice, of course, her ideas are vague­ly racial—and as some lib­er­al com­men­ta­tors have argued, out­ward­ly racist—calling for the preser­va­tion of Amer­i­can cul­ture as defined by decid­ed­ly white British and Dutch set­tlers.

    Like Trump, she sees immi­gra­tion as a threat to both the coun­try’s safe­ty and its nation­al iden­ti­ty, strik­ing a defi­ant­ly pop­ulist tone as she accus­es immi­grants of tak­ing jobs from work­ing-class peo­ple, pri­mar­i­ly African Amer­i­cans and the low­er-income white vot­ers who make up Trump’s base of sup­port.

    “Immi­gra­tion is nev­er going to affect George Soros or Rupert Mur­doch or Meg­yn Kel­ly or Rachel Maddow—it’s not com­ing to their neigh­bor­hoods,” said Coul­ter, who grad­u­at­ed from Cor­nell Uni­ver­si­ty and splits time between her res­i­dences in Bev­er­ly Hills, Man­hat­tan, and Flori­da. “They don’t know any­body who lost a job because of a bad trade deal. They don’t know any steel­work­ers, coal min­ers, and they don’t par­tic­u­lar­ly care.”

    This type of anti-immi­gra­tion pop­ulism isn’t exact­ly new. The ideas Coul­ter out­lined in Adios, Amer­i­ca had been bounc­ing around the right-wing blo­gos­phere and talk-radio cir­cuit since at least the 1980s, espoused by con­ser­v­a­tive pitch­fork-wield­ers like Pat Buchanan and more recent­ly by the white nation­al­ists and “iden­tar­i­ans” who post on web­sites like VDARE.

    “In terms of writ­ers and pun­dits, that was about it,” Coul­ter said in an email. “There were specif­i­cal­ly immi­gra­tion-con­cerned groups like Num­ber­sUSA and fab­u­lous mem­bers of Con­gress, like the saint­ed [Alaba­ma Sen­a­tor] Jeff Ses­sions, but those you could count on one hand.”

    It was the self-described “neolib­er­al” blog­ger Mick­ey Kaus, a promi­nent anti-immi­gra­tion writer from Cal­i­for­nia and close friend of Coul­ter’s, who first talked to her about the over­whelm­ing pres­ence of Lati­no immi­grants in Cal­i­for­nia. “No one need­ed to point it out to me—just vis­it [Cal­i­for­nia] some­time,” Coul­ter emailed. “Mick­ey, like most So[uthern] Cal­i­for­ni­ans, noticed it and did­n’t like it.”

    As we drove around LA in July, Coul­ter said the influx of immi­grants to California—particularly those from Mexico—had led to a cul­tur­al shift in one of her favorite states. Look­ing around the city, not­ing the Span­ish bill­boards, graf­fi­ti, and street cor­ners crowd­ed with Lati­no work­ers, she agreed. On our tour, she point­ed out things like Mex­i­can restau­rants in Asian neigh­bor­hoods and the afore­men­tioned graf­fi­ti, order­ing VICE’s pho­tog­ra­ph­er to only take pho­tos of her in front of signs in Span­ish.

    “This is the heart of Kore­atown,” she said at our first stop, a Mex­i­can restau­rant called Mex­i­can Vil­lage on Third Street. “I just looked up a ran­dom address in Kore­atown.” We drove past the restau­rant and toward a park­ing lot where a Lati­no woman in a pink shirt stood with her fam­i­ly.

    “We are going to dri­ve through, and you’ll see a lot of Kore­ans named Pepe,” Coul­ter added sar­cas­ti­cal­ly. “We are just going to dri­ve around to look at all the Kore­ans here in Kore­atown.”

    For the first two weeks of Trump’s cam­paign, Coul­ter said she tried not to get too excit­ed; she expect­ed him to back­track and ease up on his anti-immi­gra­tion rhetoric as so many Repub­li­can politi­cians had done before. When he didn’t—and even dou­bled down on his hard­line pro­pos­als, most notably the bor­der wall—Coulter and Trump’s then cam­paign man­ag­er, Corey Lewandows­ki, began cor­re­spond­ing with each oth­er.

    The pair stayed in touch via email for the first sev­er­al months of the GOP pri­ma­ry, with Coul­ter berat­ing Lewandows­ki about the need for Trump to stand firm­ly behind his immi­gra­tion plat­form. Accord­ing to Coul­ter, Lewandows­ki, who was fired from the cam­paign this past May, promised that the can­di­date would­n’t back down.

    Even after Lewandowski’s depar­ture, as the cam­paign moved past the Repub­li­can pri­maries, Trump seemed com­mit­ted to his anti-immi­gra­tion stance. Though he stu­dious­ly avoid­ed giv­ing specifics on any oth­er pol­i­cy plans, Trump con­tin­ued to spout out details about what he would do to curb ille­gal immi­gra­tion and pro­tect Amer­i­can bor­ders. And it worked: Con­ser­v­a­tive audi­ences ate up Trump’s mes­sage, hand­ing him the GOP nom­i­na­tion because of, rather than despite, his con­tro­ver­sial immi­gra­tion posi­tions.

    The nods to Coul­ter also con­tin­ued apace. Over the sum­mer, Trump announced an “expan­sion” of his ban on Mus­lim immi­grants, echo­ing ideas laid out in Adios, Amer­i­ca. And he got into a high-pro­file spar­ring match with Khzir Khan, the father of a slain Mus­lim sol­dier, who had crit­i­cized Trump at the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion, insin­u­at­ing that Khan’s wife stayed silent because of Mus­lim oppo­si­tion to wom­en’s rights. The con­tro­ver­sy, which dragged on for weeks, had Coul­ter writ­ten all over it.

    The result has been to fun­da­men­tal­ly change the way that the Repub­li­can Par­ty talks about immi­gra­tion, mov­ing Coul­ter’s ideas from the fringes of the con­ser­v­a­tive intel­lec­tu­al sphere to the cen­ter of the par­ty’s pol­i­cy plat­forms. And though Coul­ter her­self has remained some­what of a polit­i­cal out­sider, she has appeared with grow­ing fre­quen­cy on cable news shows and in radio inter­views and asked to trans­late Trump’s posi­tions on the issue that has brought them togeth­er.

    “Ann’s influ­ence has been huge and trans­for­ma­tive,” Kaus wrote in an email. “Basi­cal­ly Trump read it, and it prompt­ed his epic rant, which pro­pelled his can­di­da­cy from out of nowhere. Tin­der, spark. She under­stood that the MSM-sup­pressed crime news was an emo­tion­al and polit­i­cal point of out­rage.”

    ...

    So what will she do if Trump los­es? “First [write] a cook­book, and then mys­ter­ies,” she told me.

    And if he wins?

    “Oh my God, I won’t stop smil­ing! I’ll be so hap­py. I’ll dance a jig,” she said. “And the only job I want: FCC chair­man.”

    “As Trump con­tin­ues to embrace her anti-immi­grant posi­tions, Coul­ter has in turn become an ardent evan­ge­liz­er for the Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial can­di­date. “I have been in heav­en since June 16—[the] Mex­i­can rapist speech,” she told me.

    Yeah, Ann real­ly, real­ly likes it when peo­ple call Mex­i­cans rapists. Even if she thought you were a boor­ish vul­gar­i­an before, all you need to do is char­ac­ter­ize Mex­i­cans as rapists and, voila, she’ll write a book about how awe­some you are. She real­ly likes peo­ple who talk about Mex­i­can rapists:

    Talk­ing Points Memo Livewire

    Coul­ter: I Thought Trump Was ‘Boor­ish Vul­gar­i­an’ Until ‘Mex­i­can Rapist Speech’

    By Kather­ine Krueger
    Pub­lished Sep­tem­ber 13, 2016, 9:37 AM EDT

    One of Don­ald Trump’s most ardent and polar­iz­ing back­ers, the con­ser­v­a­tive writer Ann Coul­ter, said she thought the GOP nom­i­nee was just anoth­er “boor­ish vul­gar­i­an” until he launched his 2016 cam­paign with a “mag­nif­i­cent” speech call­ing Mex­i­can immi­grants “rapists.”

    “I prob­a­bly thought of him – until that mag­nif­i­cent Mex­i­can rapist speech – in the way a lot of the Nev­er Trumpers do,” Coul­ter told Politico’s Glenn Thrush on his pod­cast, out Tues­day. “He seemed like a – I don’t know, boor­ish vul­gar­i­an. I nev­er real­ly thought about him.”

    But once Trump put immi­gra­tion firm­ly at the cen­ter of his cam­paign, Coul­ter real­ized, “Wow, was I wrong.”

    Of course, Coul­ter detests the idea of Trump “soft­en­ing” his hard-line, build-the-wall stance on immi­gra­tion. But she was also in fre­quent con­tact with ex-cam­paign man­ag­er Corey Lewandows­ki.

    ...

    Coul­ter also fret­ted that Trump would imme­di­ate­ly back down when the going got tough, but was final­ly reas­sured when the real estate mogul rolled out his expan­sive plan to ban all Mus­lim immi­gra­tion to the Unit­ed States.

    “[Trump] came out for the Mus­lim ban on my birth­day, Dec. 8, my best birth­day gift ever. I final­ly emailed Corey and said, OK, I think he’s not back­ing down,” she said.

    “I prob­a­bly thought of him – until that mag­nif­i­cent Mex­i­can rapist speech – in the way a lot of the Nev­er Trumpers do”

    And just think, the entire Trump cam­paign might nev­er have tak­en off to become the future-destroy­ing force that it is today if Don­ald Trump had­n’t read Adios, Amer­i­ca and turned it into his cam­paign theme.

    It’s unclear what news lessons we can take from this oth­er than the fact that the Trumpian takeover of the GOP is simul­ta­ne­ous­ly a stealth-Coul­ter takeover of the par­ty too. Also, Don­ald Trump appar­ent­ly loves read­ing hor­ri­ble books. That’s seems like an increas­ing­ly impor­tant les­son to keep in mind.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 13, 2016, 3:00 pm
  2. Excel­lent series on Trump and insight­ful com­ment above.

    I’ve long thought that wind­bags like Coul­ter, Lim­baugh, et al served as kind of bell­weath­ers for fas­cist (I’m sor­ry — “con­ser­v­a­tive”) think­tanks and pol­i­cy research groups. For years, Lim­baugh talked about mod­i­fy­ing health cov­er­age to mir­ror auto insur­ance poli­cies. Lo and behold: the high-deductible plans of today.

    Sev­er­al years ago, Coul­ter wrote an arti­cle in which she yearned for the days when polit­i­cal can­di­dates were crowned in back rooms by men smok­ing cig­ars. Cit­i­zens Unit­ed gave her what she want­ed.

    There’s prob­a­bly a hun­dred more exam­ples of these loud­mouths test­ing the waters for oth­er poli­cies that have been or will be rammed down Joe Six­pack­’s throat. Hard for me to read/listen to these folks any­more, but it can be fruit­ful in this regard.

    Posted by Sampson | September 14, 2016, 5:27 am
  3. Is Peter Thiel head­ing to the Supreme Court? Accord­ing to two anony­mous sources, it’s def­i­nite­ly some­thing the Trump cam­paign is con­sid­er­ing giv­en Trump’s “deep love” for Thiel:

    The Huff­in­g­ton Post

    Don­ald Trump Wants Peter Thiel On The Supreme Court, Sources Say
    The eccen­tric bil­lion­aire endorsed Trump in a speech at the Repub­li­can Nation­al Con­ven­tion this sum­mer.

    09/15/2016 06:00 am ET | Updat­ed 5 hours ago

    Ben Walsh Busi­ness Reporter, The Huff­in­g­ton Post
    Ryan Grim Wash­ing­ton bureau chief for The Huff­in­g­ton Post

    Don­ald Trump has made it clear he will nom­i­nate Peter Thiel to the Supreme Court if he wins the pres­i­den­cy, Thiel has told friends, accord­ing to a source close to the Pay­Pal co-founder.

    Trump “deeply loves Peter Thiel,” and peo­ple in the real estate mogul’s inner cir­cle are talk­ing about Thiel as a Supreme Court nom­i­nee, a sep­a­rate source close to Trump told The Huff­in­g­ton Post. That source, who has not spo­ken to Trump direct­ly about Thiel being nom­i­nat­ed to the Court, cau­tioned that Trump’s offers often fail to mate­ri­al­ize in real life.

    It’s not clear whether Trump has indeed offered to nom­i­nate Thiel — only that Thiel has said Trump would nom­i­nate him and that Trump’s team has dis­cussed Thiel as a pos­si­ble nom­i­nee. Both sources request­ed anonymi­ty, giv­en that Trump and Thiel have each demon­strat­ed a will­ing­ness to seek revenge against par­ties they feel have wronged them. In Thiel’s case, he secret­ly financed law­suits against Gawker.com with the inten­tion of destroy­ing the pub­li­ca­tion. He suc­ceed­ed, and his role in the assault was only revealed in the final stages.

    Trump’s press sec­re­tary, Hope Hicks, denied that Thiel had been offered a seat on the Supreme Court or that the cam­paign was dis­cussing the idea. “There is absolute­ly no truth to this what­so­ev­er,” she told Huff­Post.

    “Peter hasn’t had any con­ver­sa­tions about a Supreme Court nom­i­na­tion and has no inter­est in the job,” said Thiel spokesman Jere­mi­ah Hall.

    Were Trump to actu­al­ly nom­i­nate Thiel, he would be by far the rich­est Supreme Court nom­i­nee of the mod­ern era, with an esti­mat­ed net worth of $2.7 bil­lion.

    Thiel is a ven­ture cap­i­tal­ist who co-found­ed the CIA-backed data-min­ing firm Palan­tir in addi­tion to Pay­Pal. He also start­ed a now-with­ered hedge fund and was the first out­side investor in Face­book. He is a Face­book board mem­ber and the chair­man of Palan­tir.

    Thiel attend­ed Stan­ford Law School and worked at Sul­li­van & Cromwell, a pres­ti­gious New York law firm, for sev­en months. If nom­i­nat­ed and con­firmed, he would be the first open­ly gay mem­ber of the Court.

    ...

    Trump released a list of 11 poten­tial Supreme Court nom­i­nees in May. The list, which con­sist­ed entire­ly of sit­ting state and fed­er­al judges with years of expe­ri­ence on the bench, wasn’t intend­ed to be defin­i­tive. Rather, it was a “guide,” Trump said, that was meant to be “rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the kind of con­sti­tu­tion­al prin­ci­ples I val­ue.”

    A gay tech bil­lion­aire who sup­ports mar­riage equal­i­ty, Thiel is a self-described lib­er­tar­i­an and pur­sues quixot­ic projects like gov­ern­ment-free sea colonies and infi­nite life exten­sion. He would be a rad­i­cal depar­ture from the nom­i­nees on Trump’s list, but his nom­i­na­tion would be in keep­ing with Trump’s will­ing­ness to make unortho­dox, con­tra­dic­to­ry deci­sions.

    Thiel is deeply con­ser­v­a­tive, how­ev­er, and his more fan­ci­ful ideas can some­times obscure his sup­port for broad­ly main­line Repub­li­can poli­cies and can­di­dates. Thiel has giv­en mil­lions of dol­lars in total to can­di­dates like Ron Paul, Ted Cruz and Car­ly Fio­r­i­na. Like Trump, Thiel’s core polit­i­cal belief appears to be that his finan­cial suc­cess val­i­dates his ideas.

    In a 2009 essay, Thiel wrote: “I no longer believe that free­dom and democ­ra­cy are com­pat­i­ble.” Part of the rea­son for that incom­pat­i­bil­i­ty, Thiel argued, was that women had gained the right to vote and that the gov­ern­ment some­times helps poor peo­ple.

    “Since 1920,” he wrote, “the vast increase in wel­fare ben­e­fi­cia­ries and the exten­sion of the fran­chise to women — two con­stituen­cies that are noto­ri­ous­ly tough for lib­er­tar­i­ans — have ren­dered the notion of ‘cap­i­tal­ist democ­ra­cy’ into an oxy­moron.” (He lat­er clar­i­fied his com­ments, say­ing he didn’t want to dis­en­fran­chise any­one.)

    In his 2014 book Zero to One, Thiel praised monop­o­lies, argu­ing that com­pe­ti­tion destroys val­ue rather than cre­at­ing it. He also wrote about apply­ing for clerk­ships with Scalia and Jus­tice Antho­ny Kennedy as a younger man. Both jus­tices ulti­mate­ly turned him down.

    “If only I got the clerk­ship, I thought, I would be set for life,” he wrote. “But I didn’t. At the time, I was dev­as­tat­ed.” Thiel explained that the rejec­tion helped set him on the path to becom­ing an investor.

    UPDATE: 12:50 p.m. — After this sto­ry was pub­lished Thurs­day morn­ing, Hall went beyond his ini­tial com­ments, issu­ing the fol­low­ing state­ment to Forbes and Huff­Post: “Huff­in­g­ton Post’s sources are lying. The truth is Peter hasn’t had any con­ver­sa­tions about a Supreme Court nom­i­na­tion and has no inter­est in the job.”

    Trump “deeply loves Peter Thiel,” and peo­ple in the real estate mogul’s inner cir­cle are talk­ing about Thiel as a Supreme Court nom­i­nee, a sep­a­rate source close to Trump told The Huff­in­g­ton Post. That source, who has not spo­ken to Trump direct­ly about Thiel being nom­i­nat­ed to the Court, cau­tioned that Trump’s offers often fail to mate­ri­al­ize in real life.”

    Is this a real sto­ry? The sources claim that Trump “deeply loves” Thiel, which would sug­gest Trump is capa­ble of deeply lov­ing any­one who isn’t him­self which cer­tain­ly rais­es ques­tions about the whole sto­ry. At the same time, embrac­ing Thiel would be an extreme­ly Trumpian in spir­it. They are quite sim­i­lar after all:

    ...

    Thiel is deeply con­ser­v­a­tive, how­ev­er, and his more fan­ci­ful ideas can some­times obscure his sup­port for broad­ly main­line Repub­li­can poli­cies and can­di­dates. Thiel has giv­en mil­lions of dol­lars in total to can­di­dates like Ron Paul, Ted Cruz and Car­ly Fio­r­i­na. Like Trump, Thiel’s core polit­i­cal belief appears to be that his finan­cial suc­cess val­i­dates his ideas.

    ...

    Yep, anoth­er quirky bil­lion­aire nar­cis­sist who does­n’t always fol­low the strict social con­ser­vatism of most of the GOP but is oth­er­wise a far-right nut job. That cer­tain­ly sounds like Trump!

    So when you con­sid­er how much Peter Thiel prob­a­bly reminds Don­ald Trump of Don­ald Trump, who knows, maybe he real­ly does love Thiel. Deeply.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 15, 2016, 2:44 pm
  4. Instead of retweet­ing a neo-Nazis tweet — the Trump cam­paign’s method of choice for dog whistling to the far-right — Don­ald Trump Jr. just blurt­ed out a ‘they’d send Trump to the gas cham­bers if he did what Hillary did’ neo-Nazi dog whis­tle him­self dur­ing an inter­view. It must be a slow day on Twit­ter for the neo-Nazis or some­thing:

    NBC News

    Don­ald Trump Jr. Clar­i­fies ‘Gas Cham­bers’ Remark

    by Ben­jy Sar­lin
    Sep 15 2016, 4:00 pm ET

    Don­ald Trump Jr. defend­ed remarks about the media “warm­ing up the gas cham­ber” on Thurs­day, clar­i­fy­ing to NBC News that he was refer­ring to cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment and not the gas cham­bers used by Nazis to mur­der Jews.

    “With­out the media, this would­n’t even be a con­test, but the media has built her up, they’ve let her slide on every indis­crep­an­cy, on every lie, on every DNC game, try­ing to get Bernie Sanders out of the thing,” the Repub­li­can nom­i­nee’s son said in a radio inter­view on 1210 WPHT in Philadel­phia Thurs­day. “If Repub­li­cans were doing that, they’d be warm­ing up the gas cham­ber right now.”

    The remark drew sharp crit­i­cism from the Anti-Defama­tion League, which advo­cates against hate speech.

    “We hope you under­stand the sen­si­tiv­i­ty and hurt of mak­ing Holo­caust jokes,” the orga­ni­za­tion tweet­ed at Trump from its offi­cial account. “We hope you retract.”

    ...

    Trump Jr. told NBC News’ Katy Tur that he stood by his point, but that he meant to refer to exe­cu­tions rather than the Holo­caust. He said he nor­mal­ly uses the phrase “elec­tric chair” to make the same point.

    The cam­paign fol­lowed up as well with a state­ment blam­ing the press for mis­in­ter­pret­ing his remarks.

    “The lib­er­al, dis­hon­est media is so quick to attack one of the Trumps that they nev­er let the truth get in the way of a good smear,” Trump spokesman Jason Miller said in a state­ment. “Don Jr. was clear­ly refer­ring to cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment to make the case that the media con­tin­ues to take words out of con­text in order to serve as the pro­pa­gan­da arm of the Hillary Clin­ton cam­paign — some­thing that’s only got­ten worse as Trump’s poll num­bers have improved.”

    In a state­ment pro­vid­ed by the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Com­mit­tee, Penn­syl­va­nia Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty chair Mar­cel L. Groen implied Trump’s “gas cham­ber” remark was a dog­whis­tle to anti-Semit­ic sup­port­ers, some of whom have used Holo­caust imagery to harass Jew­ish jour­nal­ists on social media.

    “It is hor­ri­fy­ing that Don­ald Trump Jr. thinks it is appro­pri­ate to casu­al­ly joke about the Holo­caust — and even worse, he is defend­ing it, say­ing it isn’t anti-Semit­ic,” Groen said. “My grand­par­ents died in Auschwitz, as did some of my aunts and uncles. They died in gas cham­bers. As a nat­u­ral­ized Amer­i­can cit­i­zen whose par­ents came to this coun­try after World War II, I ask Trump to stop try­ing to reach out to the worst of us; the big­ots and the anti-Semi­tes.”

    Trump Jr. and his father have retweet­ed extrem­ist users at var­i­ous points in the cam­paign, includ­ing an inci­dent in which the senior Trump tweet­ed an image of Clin­ton, a Star of David, and a pile of mon­ey, that report­ed­ly orig­i­nat­ed on a a racist Twit­ter account. Despite its appar­ent source, Trump claimed the image was a “sher­if­f’s star.”

    The com­ment came on a busy day for Trump Jr., who also drew atten­tion for con­tra­dict­ing his father’s excus­es on not releas­ing his tax returns.

    Don­ald Trump has said repeat­ed­ly that he won’t release any tax returns for him­self or his busi­ness — which breaks from four decades of prece­dent and could could keep poten­tial con­flicts in the dark — because of an ongo­ing audit.

    But his son con­tra­dict­ed him on Thurs­day, instead seem­ing to imply that the cam­paign feared the pub­lic might find polit­i­cal­ly dam­ag­ing infor­ma­tion.

    “Because he’s got a 12,000-page tax return that would cre­ate … finan­cial audi­tors out of every per­son in the coun­try ask­ing ques­tions that would detract from (his father’s) main mes­sage,” Trump Jr. told the Pitts­burg Tri­bune-Review in an inter­view pub­lished Thurs­day.

    Top­ping off the day, Trump Jr. also tweet­ed that “the new aris­to­crats are in DC” and tak­ing from “hard­work­ing Amer­i­cans,” a ref­er­ence that struck some observers as odd com­ing from the son of a bil­lion­aire whose father was also wealthy.

    ...

    “Trump Jr. told NBC News’ Katy Tur that he stood by his point, but that he meant to refer to exe­cu­tions rather than the Holo­caust. He said he nor­mal­ly uses the phrase “elec­tric chair” to make the same point.”

    He “nor­mal­ly” uses the phrase “elec­tric chair” to make the same point? Ok, so the ali­bi for why this was­n’t a neo-Nazi dog whis­tle is that Don­ald Trump Jr. has actu­al­ly been talk­ing about how Hillary lies to much she should be exe­cut­ed and he’s been talk­ing about that a lot. He just nor­mal­ly does­n’t nor­mal­ly refer to gas cham­bers to make that point. And while it’s true that Trump cam­paign sur­ro­gates have indeed been push­ing the ‘Hillary should be exe­cut­ed’ meme, there haven’t actu­al­ly been any reports of Don­ald Trump Jr. mak­ing that argu­ment. But he appar­ent­ly makes this argu­ment behind the scenes enough to have estab­lished a “nor­mal” way of phras­ing it and just acci­den­tal­ly used the term “gas cham­ber” while he was being inter­viewed.

    Yep, that’s his ali­bi, which means this is prob­a­bly a good time to remind our­selves that laugh­able ali­bis for neo-Nazi dog whis­tles are, them­selves, neo-Nazi dog whis­tles. So, of course that was his ali­bi. The Trump cam­paign just got a neo-Nazi dog whis­tle twofer.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 15, 2016, 7:39 pm
  5. Don­ald Trump just addressed the ‘Birther’ dis­in­for­ma­tion cam­paign he led for years that sud­den­ly became a cam­paign issue after Trump refused to say whether or not he believed Barack Oba­ma was born in the US dur­ing an inter­view yes­ter­day. For some unex­plained rea­son Trump’s sta­tus as the King of the Birthers was­n’t an issue before. But it is now. So Trump held a big press con­fer­ence with a bunch of vet­er­ans and retired gen­er­als where he clar­i­fied his ‘Birther’ stance. For about 30 sec­onds, dur­ing which he pat­ted him­self on the back for his good work con­firm­ing that Pres­i­dent Oba­ma was indeed born in the US and then pro­ceed­ed to blame the whole Birther thing on Hillary:

    US News & World Report

    Lies Upon Birther Lies

    Birtherism is back – don’t let Trump off the hook for it.
    Lies Upon Birther Lies

    By Robert Schlesinger | Man­ag­ing Edi­tor

    Sept. 16, 2016, at 12:35 p.m.

    If Don­ald Trump is talk­ing, Don­ald Trump is lying. He lied – lied – in assert­ing Fri­day that Hillary Clin­ton start­ed the birther move­ment of which he was the high­est pro­file mem­ber. He did­n’t apol­o­gize for lead­ing a racist witch-hunt and should­n’t be per­mit­ted to so quick­ly and men­da­cious­ly elide what for years was his sig­na­ture polit­i­cal issue.

    Trump had spent the cam­paign assid­u­ous­ly stonewalling on his birtherism until he gave a clas­sic non-response – “I’ll answer that ques­tion at the right time,” Trump told The Wash­ing­ton Post’s Robert Cos­ta on Thurs­day. “I just don’t want to answer it yet.” – and all of a sud­den it was a thing again. And with Trump pre­tend­ing to try to appeal to non­white vot­ers, he was forced to address the issue square­ly, or at least as square­ly as he is capa­ble of doing.

    So he blamed it all on Clin­ton. “Hillary Clin­ton in her cam­paign of 2008 start­ed the birther con­tro­ver­sy. I fin­ished it,” he said. This is – let’s be very clear – bull­shit.

    The Post’s Cos­ta called it a “wide­ly debunked claim that Clin­ton and her cam­paign had ques­tioned Oba­ma’s birth­place in 2008.” NBC News’ Chuck Todd, Mark Mur­ray and Car­rie Dann wrote Fri­day morn­ing that the charge “is untrue. While SUPPORTERS of Clin­ton stirred this con­spir­a­cy on the Inter­net, Clin­ton or her cam­paign NEVER said/suggested/insinuated that Oba­ma was­n’t born in the Unit­ed States.” And they cite The Wash­ing­ton Post from last year: “Clin­ton’s cam­paign, one of the most thor­ough­ly dis­sect­ed in mod­ern his­to­ry, nev­er raised ques­tions about the future pres­i­den­t’s cit­i­zen­ship.”

    So no, birtherism does­n’t have Hillary Clin­ton’s name on its birth cer­tifi­cate. And no, Trump did­n’t “fin­ish it” either. To the con­trary, he nur­tured it and pushed it until Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma him­self fin­ished it by releas­ing his birth cer­tifi­cate. And even after Oba­ma put out said cer­tifi­cate, Trump con­tin­ued to ques­tion whether it was real for years.

    Trump was no seek­er of the truth try­ing to get to the bot­tom of a mys­ti­fy­ing con­tro­ver­sy. He was – and is – a con artist hawk­ing what­ev­er lunatic non­sense serves his pur­pose of the moment.

    We’ll now undoubt­ed­ly be treat­ed to a stream of Repub­li­can hacks spread­ing the lie of the day; and we might even get some on-the-one-hand, on-the-oth­er-hand press cov­er­age duly not­ing that while yes Trump was a birther he says Hillary was too and her cam­paign denies it real­ly who knows where the truth lies. (MSNBC, to its cred­it, had a chy­ron just now not­ing that Trump’s claim was false.)

    And not for noth­ing, Trump played the media, dup­ing the cable “news” net­works into broad­cast­ing images of a stream of vet­er­ans prais­ing him for near­ly half an hour before he uttered two dis­hon­est sen­tences and then refused to take ques­tions. The Huff­in­g­ton Post’s Sam Stein summed it up per­fect­ly:

    ...

    But let’s stay focused on the nut of the issue: Trump spent years tout­ing a racist, crack­pot con­spir­a­cy. He only walked it back under polit­i­cal duress. And instead of apol­o­giz­ing for doing so, he exhib­it­ed pride over his role.

    ...

    “So no, birtherism does­n’t have Hillary Clin­ton’s name on its birth cer­tifi­cate. And no, Trump did­n’t “fin­ish it” either. To the con­trary, he nur­tured it and pushed it until Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma him­self fin­ished it by releas­ing his birth cer­tifi­cate. And even after Oba­ma put out said cer­tifi­cate, Trump con­tin­ued to ques­tion whether it was real for years.

    Anoth­er day, anoth­er wild­ly suc­cess Trump trolling oper­a­tion.

    Now we get to see if the media real­ly does engage in ‘on-the-one-hand, on-the-oth­er-hand press cov­er­age duly not­ing that while yes Trump was a birther he says Hillary was too and her cam­paign denies it real­ly who knows where the truth lies’ antics. After all, the more the press pro­tects Trump, the like­li­er Trump wins and the more fun press con­fer­ences like this the press can have in the future. And if there’s one this the press loves, it’s a Trump press con­fer­ence. Usu­al­ly. Although not quite this time. Why? Well, the press obvi­ous­ly loves to being a Trumpian co-troll and let­ting him get away with telling the Amer­i­can pub­lic almost any­thing unchal­lenged. But when the press itself is the tar­get of the trolling? That’s total­ly unac­cept­able:

    Talk­ing Points Memo Livewire

    ‘We Got Played’: CNN Goes Off On Trump’s ‘Rick Roll’ After Birther Deba­cle

    By Caitlin Mac­Neal
    Pub­lished Sep­tem­ber 16, 2016, 2:13 PM EDT

    After Don­ald Trump spent a mere 30 sec­onds address­ing Pres­i­dent Oba­ma’s birth­place dur­ing a 30-minute event that start­ed an hour late at his new hotel in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., the anchors at CNN tore into Trump and his atti­tude toward the press.

    Through­out Trump’s event and after he final­ly addressed his efforts to fuel the birther move­ment, the hosts and reporters at CNN called out the Trump cam­paign for mis­lead­ing the press and using the event to pro­mote his new hotel.

    As Trump let sev­er­al vet­er­ans and mil­i­tary offi­cials express their sup­port for him, CNN anchor Kate Bold­u­an lament­ed that the net­work had been wait­ing 20 min­utes for Trump to make the big announce­ment that his cam­paign had been promis­ing. Co-anchor John Berman chimed in to com­plain about the con­fus­ing sig­nals the press had received from the Trump cam­paign about the event.

    “To be clear, we have been told this event would be an event where Don­ald Trump would address his past traf­fick­ing in the birther issue, the notion that Pres­i­dent Oba­ma was not born in the Unit­ed States,” Berman said. “He opened the event mak­ing a plug for his hotel, it is a new hotel, so in a sense, you could say he was lever­ag­ing five years of birther con­spir­a­cy to pro­mote his hotel.”

    Jake Tap­per jumped in to com­plain that while the mil­i­tary heroes endors­ing Trump deserve respect, “It’s hard to imag­ine this as any­thing oth­er than a polit­i­cal Rick Roll.”

    (The term “Rick Roll” refers to an Inter­net bait-and-switch-meme in which a link promis­ing some­thing of note goes to a video of the Rick Ast­ley song “Nev­er Gonna Give You Up.”)

    “They told us some­thing was going to hap­pen and it’s not hap­pen­ing,” Tap­per said.

    After Trump final­ly made his brief state­ment — in which he also blamed the birther move­ment on Hillary Clin­ton, a nar­ra­tive that has been debunked — Bold­u­an again not­ed how frus­trat­ing the event was to cov­er.

    “That was it. That was it,” she said. “This start­ed at 11:04. And at 11:30 he came back to the micro­phone.”

    ...

    CNN then brought on John King, who trashed the way Trump maneu­vered the press.

    “So I real­ly don’t quite know what to make of that except for that we got played again by the Trump cam­paign, which is what they do. He got a live event broad­cast for, what, 20 some­thing min­utes,” King said. “We just got played.”

    “There you got after, what, four or five years of lead­ing a fraud­u­lent, reck­less cam­paign against the legit­i­ma­cy of the Unit­ed States Pres­i­dent, you got about, what, six or sev­en words from Don­ald Trump say­ing he’s decid­ed it’s over. I guess he gets to decide that,” he added.

    CNN’s Dana Bash also com­plained about how the press was treat­ed by Trump.

    “What they did was tease us that he was going to say some­thing, then as John said, played us by mak­ing sure that every­body who has an abil­i­ty to show Don­ald Trump actu­al­ly took 20 min­utes, or got 20 min­utes, of very impor­tant dec­o­rat­ed vet­er­ans prais­ing some­body who they think should be the next com­man­der-in-chief, which would not have been live on cable news oth­er­wise,” she said.

    CNN reporters also not­ed that the Trump cam­paign broke press pool rules after Trump made his state­ment. He only brought cam­eras with him on a tour of the Trump hotel, which kept reporters from ask­ing him fol­low-up ques­tions.

    In the next hour on the net­work, host Ash­leigh Ban­field con­tin­ued to bash Trump’s event, draw­ing com­par­isons to the way for­eign dic­ta­tors treat the press. She not­ed that Trump’s brief com­ments on his birtherism came just one day after he gloat­ed that reporters on his press plane were delayed and unable to ful­ly cov­er his ral­ly.

    “I can tell you, hav­ing cov­ered a cou­ple of dic­ta­tors in my life in oth­er coun­tries, cov­er­ing those cam­paigns is a bum­mer, because they don’t let you ask ques­tions either. So that’s why the Amer­i­can press, love them or hate them, are crit­i­cal to this democ­ra­cy,” she said. “You have to be able to ask peo­ple ques­tions if they’re going to lead you, and if they’re going to get your guns, your mil­i­tary, your nuclear codes. You have to be able to get to ask them ques­tions.”

    ...

    “What they did was tease us that he was going to say some­thing, then as John said, played us by mak­ing sure that every­body who has an abil­i­ty to show Don­ald Trump actu­al­ly took 20 min­utes, or got 20 min­utes, of very impor­tant dec­o­rat­ed vet­er­ans prais­ing some­body who they think should be the next com­man­der-in-chief, which would not have been live on cable news oth­er­wise”

    Well, at least now we have a gen­er­al mod­el for how to get the press out­raged at Trump’s out­ra­geous­ness:
    If Trump lies to and trolls the pub­lic non-stop, that’s total­ly cool. The media will be more than hap­py to assist with that kind of trolling as long as it’s the type of trolling that gets good rat­ings.

    But if Trump teas­es the press about a big event that they’re expect­ing to be a Clas­sic Troll Trump stream of con­scious­ness rat­ings bonan­za, and instead it’s a dif­fer­ent kind of trolling — a lame form of trolling tar­get­ing the press where Trump basi­cal­ly uses the event to pro­mote his new hotel and trots out a bunch of vet­er­ans oper­at­ing as trolling co-actors and unlike­ly to get great rat­ings — that’s just beyond the pale. Espe­cial­ly if the entire press corp does­n’t get to tag along dur­ing Trump’s hotel tour.

    Ok, it’s good to know where the line is with the press: The press is hap­py to be used in spread­ing Trump’s lies unchal­lenged. Just don’t lie to the press about the nature of the upcom­ing trolling they’re antic­i­pat­ing par­tic­i­pat­ing in. And def­i­nite­ly don’t exclude the press from the troll. Because at that point Trump will have a press prob­lem. It’s a sad line, but it’s good to know where it kind of exists.

    So at least the press is kind of pissed at Trump for play­ing them for chumps. Let’s see how many note the fact that one of the vet­er­ans who intro­duced Trump was a birther:

    Talk­ing Points Memo Muck­rak­er

    Trump Intro­duced By A Birther At Event Where He Walked Back Birtherism

    By Tier­ney Sneed
    Pub­lished Sep­tem­ber 16, 2016, 12:06 PM EDT

    A birther sup­port­er was among the Don­ald Trump back­ers who intro­duced the nom­i­nee at the Fri­day event where he attempt­ed to walk back his birtherism.

    Retired Air Force Lieu­tenant Gen­er­al Thomas McIn­er­ney was one of the mil­i­tary vets who spoke at the Trump Inter­na­tion­al Hotel in Wash­ing­ton D.C.

    But back in 2010, McIn­er­ney wrote an affi­davit that ques­tioned the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of Pres­i­dent Oba­ma’s author­i­ty, based on the “wide­spread and legit­i­mate con­cerns” about his birth records, TPM report­ed at the time.

    McIn­er­ney wrote the affi­davit in sup­port of Army Lieu­tenant Colonel Ter­rence Lakin, who was refus­ing to deploy to Afghanistan because he did not believe Oba­ma was a legit­i­mate pres­i­dent, cit­ing birtherism.

    ...

    Lakin was ulti­mate­ly con­vict­ed, impris­oned, and dis­charged from the Army.

    “McIn­er­ney wrote the affi­davit in sup­port of Army Lieu­tenant Colonel Ter­rence Lakin, who was refus­ing to deploy to Afghanistan because he did not believe Oba­ma was a legit­i­mate pres­i­dent, cit­ing birtherism.”

    That’s right, a retired gen­er­al who appeared to back Birther-based sedi­tion with­in the mil­i­tary. That’s one of the guys who intro­duced Trump today. It’s a pret­ty obvi­ous act of trolling. But it’s also an act of trolling that’s real­ly tar­get­ing the pub­lic, a class Trump troll that the media nor­mal­ly facil­i­tate, so it’s pre­sum­ably not news­wor­thy.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 16, 2016, 3:07 pm
  6. It looks like we’ve hit that phase in the ‘Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’-esque Trumpian news cycle that helps explain why the Trump cam­paign has been so enthu­si­as­tic about pro­mot­ing the “Hillary Clin­ton has [insert men­tal health issue of choice]” memes that the right-wing media and allies like Alex Jones have been push­ing for years, long before Hillary’s pneu­mo­nia scare. And yes, that would the “just how men­tal­ly ill is The Don­ald because he does­n’t seem to be in con­trol of him­self” phase in the ‘Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’-esque Trumpian news cycle:

    USA Today

    After peri­od of dis­ci­pline, Trump turns more aggres­sive

    David Jack­son, USA TODAY 4:59 p.m. EDT Sep­tem­ber 17, 2016

    Once again, the more dis­ci­plined Don­ald Trump is giv­ing way to the Twit­ter-wield­ing Don­ald Trump.

    After a stretch of more low-key cam­paign­ing, Trump is spend­ing the week­end under fire for com­ments about Hillary Clin­ton that seem to invite vio­lence against her, fight­ing with the media, and engaged in a dis­pute with a for­mer Repub­li­can defense sec­re­tary — all on top of a revival of the “birther” issue involv­ing Pres­i­dent Oba­ma.

    The Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial nom­i­nee is also vir­tu­al­ly tied with Clin­ton in recent elec­tion polls, and says vot­ers are respond­ing to his mes­sage about strik­ing back at eco­nom­ic decline, for­eign pol­i­cy tur­moil and spe­cif­ic issues like ille­gal immi­gra­tion.

    “A lot of peo­ple agree with me” on immi­gra­tion, Trump said dur­ing a speech Sat­ur­day in Hous­ton. “It seems every­body agrees. ... You almost say, what’s not to agree with?”

    Eric Schif­fer, an inde­pen­dent polit­i­cal con­sul­tant, said Trump seems to revert to more aggres­sive form when­ev­er he is doing well and his polls are up: “Some­thing hap­pens, and he seems to lose the dis­ci­pline that has helped him.”

    Trump engaged in more tra­di­tion­al cam­paign­ing Sat­ur­day, devot­ed in part to immi­gra­tion. Speak­ing in Hous­ton to The Remem­brance Project, a non-prof­it that accord­ing to its web­site “advo­cates for fam­i­lies whose loved ones were killed by ille­gal aliens,” Trump said that “not one more Amer­i­can life should be giv­en up in the name of open bor­ders.”

    The Hous­ton trip came a day after Trump sought to put the birther issue behind him, read­ing a brief state­ment say­ing he final­ly believes Oba­ma “was born in the Unit­ed States, peri­od.” After more that five years of claims that Oba­ma may have been born in anoth­er coun­try, Trump did not explain his change of posi­tion.

    Hours lat­er on Fri­day, Trump again raised the specter of vio­lence against Clin­ton. Claim­ing that his Demo­c­ra­t­ic oppo­nent oppos­es gun own­er­ship rights, Trump sug­gest­ed that her “body­guards” drop their weapons and dis­arm: “Take their guns away, she does­n’t want guns — take them, let’s see what hap­pens to her.”

    Clin­ton cam­paign man­ag­er Rob­by Mook called the com­ment “out of bounds,” and said “we’ve seen again and again that no amount of failed resets can change who Don­ald Trump is.”

    The Secret Ser­vice pro­tects both pres­i­den­tial nom­i­nees.

    The Clin­ton cam­paign and allies said this isn’t the first time Trump has linked poten­tial vio­lence to the Demo­c­ra­t­ic nom­i­nee. Last month, while dis­cussing Clin­ton, gun rights and the Supreme Court, Trump said: “If she gets to pick her judges, noth­ing you can do folks. ... Although the Sec­ond Amend­ment peo­ple, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

    Tak­ing on Twit­ter ear­ly Sat­ur­day, Trump explained his lat­est com­ment in terms of the right to bear arms: “Crooked Hillary wants to take your 2nd Amend­ment rights away. Will guns be tak­en from her heav­i­ly armed Secret Ser­vice detail? Maybe not!”

    Trump con­tin­ued to stay busy on Twit­ter Sat­ur­day, strik­ing back at for­mer Defense Sec­re­tary Robert Gates for point­ed crit­i­cism.

    Gates, appoint­ed to the Pen­ta­gon by Pres­i­dent George W. Bush and retained by Oba­ma, crit­i­cized both Trump and Clin­ton in a Wall Street Jour­nal op-ed on chal­lenges fac­ing the next com­man­der-in-chief. But while Clin­ton has “cred­i­bil­i­ty issues,” Gates wrote that Trump is in a “league of his own” and is unqual­i­fied for the job.

    “He has no clue about the dif­fer­ence between nego­ti­at­ing a busi­ness deal and nego­ti­at­ing with sov­er­eign nations,” Gates wrote. “A thin-skinned, tem­pera­men­tal, shoot-from-the-hip and lip, unin­formed com­man­der-in-chief is too great a risk for Amer­i­ca.”

    Trump counter-attacked by tweet­ing that “I nev­er met for­mer Defense Sec­re­tary Robert Gates. He knows noth­ing about me. But look at the results under his guid­ance — a total dis­as­ter!”

    The Repub­li­can nom­i­nee also expressed dis­plea­sure with the media in a string of Sat­ur­day tweets.

    For exam­ple: “@CNN just does­n’t get it, and that’s why their rat­ings are so low — and get­ting worse. Bor­ing anti-Trump pan­elists, most­ly losers in life!”

    For anoth­er: “Crazy Mau­reen Dowd, the wacky colum­nist for the fail­ing @nytimes, pre­tends she knows me well–wrong!”

    In recent weeks, the low­er-key Trump has engaged in out­reach to African-Amer­i­can vot­ers and to women vot­ers, two groups that give him low rat­ings in part because of involve­ment with “birther” attacks on Oba­ma.

    ...

    Less than two months before the Nov. 8 elec­tion, some ana­lysts see two Trumps: one who appeals to nation­al­ist con­ser­v­a­tives, anoth­er seek­ing to reach more mod­er­ate Repub­li­can sub­ur­ban­ites, par­tic­u­lar­ly women. Nicole Hem­mer, an assis­tant pro­fes­sor at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Vir­gini­a’s Miller Cen­ter, said it seems like he’s “telling peo­ple what they want to hear.”

    Hem­mer added: “I would guess we’re going to see these two Trumps through­out the rest of the cam­paign.”

    “Tak­ing on Twit­ter ear­ly Sat­ur­day, Trump explained his lat­est com­ment in terms of the right to bear arms: “Crooked Hillary wants to take your 2nd Amend­ment rights away. Will guns be tak­en from her heav­i­ly armed Secret Ser­vice detail? Maybe not!””

    Yep, Trump dou­bled-down on his Fri­day-evening “Hillary’s secret ser­vice should be dis­armed because she sup­ports greater gun control”-meme the next morn­ing. It’s clear­ly some­thing he’s stick­ing to, at least when he’s in Mr. Hyde mode.

    So is this a per­ma­nent new GOP meme? That politi­cians who pro­pose gun con­trol leg­is­la­tion should haven’t any sort of armed per­son­al secu­ri­ty, at which point the “2nd amend­ment peo­ple” would pre­sum­ably do their “2nd amend­ment” thing. There does­n’t appear to be any sort of GOP push back so it sounds like that’s the GOP’s gen­er­al posi­tion on this which sug­gests that talk they strong­ly sug­gests that Demo­c­ra­t­ic politi­cians deserve to be shot is now a fea­ture in our polit­i­cal land­scape. It’s not like it would be sur­pris­ing if the GOP pro­mot­ed this meme in its pre-Trump era, since, you know, they’ve been push­ing that meme for years. Just not their pres­i­den­tial nom­i­nees.

    Still, it’s pos­si­ble Dr. Jekyll Trump will change his mind at a lat­er phase in the Trumpian news cycle and walk it all back. Although, if the above obser­va­tion by the ana­lyst above, Eric Schif­fer, is accu­rate, we aren’t going to see Dr. Jekyll Trump reemerge until he starts slip­ping in the polls. Because when Trump thinks he’s ‘win­ning’, Mr. Hyde Trump reemerges:

    ...

    The Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial nom­i­nee is also vir­tu­al­ly tied with Clin­ton in recent elec­tion polls, and says vot­ers are respond­ing to his mes­sage about strik­ing back at eco­nom­ic decline, for­eign pol­i­cy tur­moil and spe­cif­ic issues like ille­gal immi­gra­tion.

    “A lot of peo­ple agree with me” on immi­gra­tion, Trump said dur­ing a speech Sat­ur­day in Hous­ton. “It seems every­body agrees. ... You almost say, what’s not to agree with?”

    Eric Schif­fer, an inde­pen­dent polit­i­cal con­sul­tant, said Trump seems to revert to more aggres­sive form when­ev­er he is doing well and his polls are up: “Some­thing hap­pens, and he seems to lose the dis­ci­pline that has helped him.”

    ...

    “Some­thing hap­pens, and he seems to lose the dis­ci­pline that has helped him.”

    That’s our Trump! The bet­ter he’s doing in the polls, the more unhinged and author­i­tar­i­an he gets. Isn’t a Trump pres­i­den­cy going to be fun?

    Inter­est­ing­ly, Josh Mar­shall also made the same obser­va­tion about Trump, but upon reflec­tion Josh thinks it might not actu­al­ly be Trump’s recent surge in the polls that brought out Mr. Hyde Trump. Instead, after look­ing at the time­line of events over the past few days, Josh comes to a dif­fer­ent con­clu­sion: On Wednes­day, hours before Trump gave his inter­view to Wash­ing­ton Post reporter Robert Cos­ta that brought the whole ‘birther’ issue into the spot­light after Trump refused to say whether or not he thought Pres­i­dent Oba­ma was born in the US, Trump appears to have suf­fered a psy­chic wound of sorts when he was put in his place by an African Amer­i­can female min­is­ter at a church in Flint, Michi­gan, Trump. As Mar­shall notes, Trump was clear­ly seething from the inci­dent and the emer­gence of Mr. Hyde Trump took place just a few outs lat­er. So, if Mar­shal­l’s the­o­ry is cor­rect, it’s not nec­es­sar­i­ly ‘win­ning’ that brings out Mr. Hyde. It’s the loss­es that bring Mr. Hyde Trump out, even minor loss­es for Dr. Jekyll Trump’s ego:

    Talk­ing Points Memo Edi­tor’s Blog

    The Fever Inside

    By Josh Mar­shall
    Pub­lished Sep­tem­ber 17, 2016, 10:53 AM EDT

    We’ve now seen one of those days which has become dark­ly famil­iar in the year of Trump. Trump is dom­i­nat­ed, put on the receiv­ing end of var­i­ous per­ceived insults and assaults. In this case, it was being coerced by cam­paign aides into final­ly giv­ing up the birther lie — which had to be addressed after the Wash­ing­ton Post inter­view and which I sus­pect they feared might blow up one of the debates. That was fol­lowed by a series of attacks from Hillary Clin­ton, a for once embold­ened press corps round­ly attack­ing Trump for the con­tent and man­ner of his “major announce­ment”, a furi­ous attack from mem­bers of the Con­gres­sion­al Black Cau­cus and a mix of out­rage and mock­ery from every­one from Barack to Michelle.

    The response was pre­dictable and rapid.

    Trump lives in a psy­chic econ­o­my of aggres­sion and dom­i­na­tion. There are dom­i­na­tors and the dom­i­nat­ed. No in between. Every attack he receives, every ego injury must be answered, rebal­anced with some new aggres­sion to reassert dom­i­nance. These efforts are often wild­ly self-destruc­tive. We’ve seen the pat­tern again and again. The Khans, Judge Curiel, Ted Cruz, vir­tu­al­ly every Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial can­di­date at one point or anoth­er, half the reporters who’ve cov­ered Trump. We can’t know a man’s inner thoughts. But we’ve seen action and reac­tion more than enough times to infer, or rather deduce, his instincts and needs with some pre­ci­sion.

    Not infre­quent­ly with Trump, there are moments between can­dor and ingen­u­ous trans­paren­cy in which he reveals him­self. One of the many came dur­ing the Khan deba­cle.

    I was vicious­ly attacked by Mr. Khan at the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Con­ven­tion. Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary vot­ed for the Iraq war, not me!— Don­ald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2016

    Almost every word in these three sen­tences are those of a pro­found nar­cis­sist. Last night’s out­burst — hint­ing again at the mur­der of Hillary Clin­ton — was basi­cal­ly inevitable. His teeth grit­ted admis­sion that Oba­ma was born in the Unit­ed States had to be matched by a new lie about Hillary Clin­ton. He actu­al­ly man­aged two. Trump pack­aged a nar­row fac­tu­al con­ces­sion into two new lies. What might have been an admis­sion or even an apol­o­gy was pre­sent­ed as a per­son­al vic­to­ry for which the coun­try and even Pres­i­dent Oba­ma should thank him.

    Trump is injured by attacks and slights as we all are. But for Trump they cre­ate an inner tur­bu­lence which forces an almost peri­staltic response. The inner equi­lib­ri­um must be reestab­lished. The salient fact about Trump isn’t his cru­el­ty or pen­chant for aggres­sion and vio­lence. It’s his inabil­i­ty to con­trol urges and dri­ves most peo­ple gain con­trol over very ear­ly in life. There are plen­ty of sadists and sociopaths in the world. They’re not remark­able. The scari­est have a high degree of impulse con­trol (ici­ness) which allows them to inflict pain on oth­ers when no one is look­ing or when they will pay no price for doing so. What is true with Trump is what every crit­ic has been say­ing for a year: the most obvi­ous and con­trived provo­ca­tion can goad this thin skinned char­la­tan into a wild out­burst. He’s a sev­en­ty year old man with chil­dren and grand­chil­dren and he has no self-con­trol.

    But there’s one part of the last few days that does­n’t quite match up to this pat­tern or at least not on first glance. The fuse for yes­ter­day’s deba­cle was lit late Wednes­day night when the Post’s Robert Cos­ta inter­viewed Trump on the tar­mac in Can­ton, Ohio in his pri­vate jet. Already in this inter­view, the trans­gres­sive, bel­liger­ent Trump was back after a few weeks of unchar­ac­ter­is­tic dis­ci­pline. I could see it the moment I read the copy.

    ...

    As I’m sure many of you did, the moment I read the piece I could tell the fever was back: stab­bing at the birther ques­tions, lash­ing out at Ander­son Coop­er, boast­ing that he would­n’t trim any sails or make any con­ces­sions. But why? Here was Trump, at the apex of what he’s man­aged to achieve in the cam­paign, draw­ing close to a tie with Hillary Clin­ton, lurch­ing back into Khan/Curiel mode. When I read it it struck me as sim­ply the truth of the man: feel­ing him­self ‘win­ning’ he was entire­ly unable to resist the urge to lash out, strike out at ene­mies with what felt like his regained pow­er, to regain dom­i­nance. He’s Trump; he’ll always give way to chaot­ic and self-destruc­tive rages. To do it when he was rid­ing high was­n’t a mys­tery to be explained but the most obvi­ous time. It’s the nov­el­is­tic fatal flaw.

    But reflect­ing on it, there may be more to the sto­ry. Only a few hours before that tar­mac inter­view, Trump was rebuked to his face with cam­eras rolling by an African-Amer­i­can woman. It may have been the bold­est rebuke Trump has received from a ‘civil­ian’ (not anoth­er can­di­date in a debate, or a jour­nal­ist in an inter­view) in this entire cam­paign cycle. She even placed her hand on him in call­ing him to account.

    “Mr. Trump, I invit­ed you here to thank us for what we’ve done for Flint, not give a polit­i­cal speech,” Tim­mons told Trump.

    “Okay. That’s good. And I’m going to go back onto Flint,” Trump replied before end­ing the speech a few moments lat­er.

    As usu­al, Trump’s reac­tion was char­ac­ter­is­ti­cal­ly meek in the moment. But inter­nal­ly he clear­ly seethed.

    Our report on the Pas­tor Tim­mons’ rebuke moved at 4:30 PM on Wednes­day after­noon. Costa’s arti­cle said the inter­view was “con­duct­ed late Wednes­day aboard his pri­vate plane as it idled on the tar­mac.” In oth­er words, Cos­ta inter­viewed Trump at most lit­tle more than 5 or 6 hours after Trump left Pas­tor Tim­mons’ church. Trump made a few com­ments after his Tim­mons encounter, claim­ing she was a Clin­ton sup­port­er who had set him up. They were the same kinds of pas­sive aggres­sive jabs that began his fisticuffs with the Khan fam­i­ly. But in all the rush of news of this unbri­dled week, they drew rel­a­tive­ly lit­tle notice. I can’t know, of course. But I sus­pect the fever real­ly broke out in that inter­view with Cos­ta back on his pri­vate plane and that the Tim­mons’ encounter was the spark.

    “Trump is injured by attacks and slights as we all are. But for Trump they cre­ate an inner tur­bu­lence which forces an almost peri­staltic response. The inner equi­lib­ri­um must be reestab­lished. The salient fact about Trump isn’t his cru­el­ty or pen­chant for aggres­sion and vio­lence. It’s his inabil­i­ty to con­trol urges and dri­ves most peo­ple gain con­trol over very ear­ly in life. There are plen­ty of sadists and sociopaths in the world. They’re not remark­able. The scari­est have a high degree of impulse con­trol (ici­ness) which allows them to inflict pain on oth­ers when no one is look­ing or when they will pay no price for doing so. What is true with Trump is what every crit­ic has been say­ing for a year: the most obvi­ous and con­trived provo­ca­tion can goad this thin skinned char­la­tan into a wild out­burst. He’s a sev­en­ty year old man with chil­dren and grand­chil­dren and he has no self-con­trol.

    That’s pret­ty clear at this point: Either Trump has a sev­er inabil­i­ty to con­trol is urges and ego. At least that’s how he behaves, although maybe he’s actu­al­ly remark­ably dis­ci­plined in act­ing like an unhinged per­son, which is pos­si­bly more dis­turb­ing since it would sug­gest he’s one of those ‘icy’ sociopaths with a high degree of dis­ci­pline but a com­plete will­ing­ness to act like an unhinged author­i­tar­i­an for polit­i­cal pur­pos­es. What exact­ly trig­gers the emer­gence of Mr. Hyde Trump is indeed a mys­tery:

    ...
    But there’s one part of the last few days that does­n’t quite match up to this pat­tern or at least not on first glance. The fuse for yes­ter­day’s deba­cle was lit late Wednes­day night when the Post’s Robert Cos­ta inter­viewed Trump on the tar­mac in Can­ton, Ohio in his pri­vate jet. Already in this inter­view, the trans­gres­sive, bel­liger­ent Trump was back after a few weeks of unchar­ac­ter­is­tic dis­ci­pline. I could see it the moment I read the copy.

    ...

    As I’m sure many of you did, the moment I read the piece I could tell the fever was back: stab­bing at the birther ques­tions, lash­ing out at Ander­son Coop­er, boast­ing that he would­n’t trim any sails or make any con­ces­sions. But why? Here was Trump, at the apex of what he’s man­aged to achieve in the cam­paign, draw­ing close to a tie with Hillary Clin­ton, lurch­ing back into Khan/Curiel mode. When I read it it struck me as sim­ply the truth of the man: feel­ing him­self ‘win­ning’ he was entire­ly unable to resist the urge to lash out, strike out at ene­mies with what felt like his regained pow­er, to regain dom­i­nance. He’s Trump; he’ll always give way to chaot­ic and self-destruc­tive rages. To do it when he was rid­ing high was­n’t a mys­tery to be explained but the most obvi­ous time. It’s the nov­el­is­tic fatal flaw.

    But reflect­ing on it, there may be more to the sto­ry. Only a few hours before that tar­mac inter­view, Trump was rebuked to his face with cam­eras rolling by an African-Amer­i­can woman. It may have been the bold­est rebuke Trump has received from a ‘civil­ian’ (not anoth­er can­di­date in a debate, or a jour­nal­ist in an inter­view) in this entire cam­paign cycle. She even placed her hand on him in call­ing him to account.

    “Mr. Trump, I invit­ed you here to thank us for what we’ve done for Flint, not give a polit­i­cal speech,” Tim­mons told Trump.

    “Okay. That’s good. And I’m going to go back onto Flint,” Trump replied before end­ing the speech a few moments lat­er.

    As usu­al, Trump’s reac­tion was char­ac­ter­is­ti­cal­ly meek in the moment. But inter­nal­ly he clear­ly seethed.

    ...

    So was it Trump’s surg­ing polls that brought out Mr. Hyde Trump or a pub­lic rebuke by an African Amer­i­can woman? Based on every­thing we know about the guy either seems plau­si­ble. Or how about both? Maybe he felt like he was win­ning, then he got pub­licly slight­ed, and the com­bi­na­tion of the two fac­tors cre­at­ed a sit­u­a­tion where he could­n’t help but but revert to form and start dog whistling polit­i­cal vio­lence again.

    The­ses are the kinds of psy­cho­log­i­cal mys­ter­ies that the Amer­i­can pub­lic, and the world, get to col­lec­tive­ly explore should Trump get elect­ed. If ‘win­ning’ brings out Mr. Hyde Trump, clear­ly the best way to make Trump act “pres­i­den­tial” (rel­a­tive­ly speak­ing) is to have him lose the race to become pres­i­dent. If, on the oth­er hand, minor wounds to Trump’s ego are the Mr. Hyde trig­ger, the obvi­ous solu­tion to keep­ing Trump in Dr. Jekyll mode is for the entire world to show him com­plete def­er­ence at all times. Oth­er­wise My. Hyde comes out to extract vengeance for the dam­age done to Dr. Jekyl­l’s dam­aged ego. Good to know!

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 17, 2016, 4:21 pm
  7. It looks like we have anoth­er Poke­mon Go. The one of more of a pre­cau­tion­ary tale since it’s about the pub­lic plans of the Alt-Right neo-Nazis and it’s unclear if they’ve car­ried through on those plans. But it’s also the kind of plan that sort of works sim­ply by talk­ing about the plan because it’s sim­ply a plan to spread real­ly bad ideas, as is typ­i­cal with so much of what the “Alt-Right” does these days (it’s a much milder phase than the phase that comes after their bad ideas lead them to high­er office). So it’s more of a cau­tion­ary pre­cau­tion­ary tale that we prob­a­bly should­n’t talk about but need to know about any­way:

    Voca­tiv

    Alt-Right Recruit­ing Kids With ‘Poké­mon Go Nazi Chal­lenge’
    Alt-right neo-Nazis are tar­get­ing kids as young as 10 years old with Pikachu dressed as Hitler

    By James King and Adi Cohen
    Sep 07, 2016 at 1:00 PM ET

    The racist fringe of the now-main­stream alt-right move­ment is seiz­ing on the pop­u­lar­i­ty of Poké­mon Go to recruit kids who con­gre­gate at “gyms” to play the mobile game, accord­ing to one of the group’s most out­spo­ken lead­ers.

    Andrew Anglin, the neo-Nazi word­smith behind the alt-right Dai­ly Stormer blog, post­ed a sto­ry on Tues­day about an “enter­pris­ing Stormer” (a fol­low­er of Anglin’s blog) who is find­ing Poké­mon Go gyms, which serve as bat­tle grounds for play­ers, and dis­trib­ut­ing recruit­ment fliers to kids with the hope of “con­vert­ing chil­dren and teens to HARDCORE NEO-NAZISM!”

    “The Dai­ly Stormer was designed to appeal to teenagers, but I have long thought that we need­ed to get pre-teens involved in the move­ment,” Anglin wrote in the blog post. “At that age, you can real­ly brain­wash some­one eas­i­ly. Any­one who accepts Nazism at the age of 10 or 11 is going to be a Nazi for life.” He added, “And it isn’t hard. It’s just a mat­ter of pulling them in. And what bet­ter way to do it than with Poké­mon fliers at the Poké­mon GO gym???”

    Anglin declined to iden­ti­fy the “stormer” behind the fliers by name, nor did he dis­close where these fliers have been distributed—saying only that it is in an “Amer­i­can town.” Voca­tiv could not find any media or law enforce­ment reports of neo-Nazis hand­ing out the fliers in any city. Nor could experts who mon­i­tor peo­ple like Anglin and groups like the alt-right.

    ...

    The fli­er fea­tures run-of-the-mill neo-Nazi propaganda—it rails on Jews, African-Amer­i­cans, and claims a “white geno­cide” is hap­pen­ing and white peo­ple need to stand up and pre­pare for the impend­ing race war. The first step, the fli­er explains, is elect­ing Don­ald Trump pres­i­dent. Step two is to “get active in the Nazi move­ment” because the “alt-right Nazis are the only ones who can save this coun­try from the kikes.”

    “Adolph Hitler was a great man,” the fli­er, under the title “Hey White Boy!” explains. “Just as you want to catch all the Poke­mon, he hunt­ed a dif­fer­ent type of mon­ster: Jews.”

    The alt-right move­ment isn’t new but made nation­al head­lines last month when Hillary Clin­ton gave a scathing speech link­ing Trump to the oft-racist move­ment. Alt-righters gen­er­al­ly fall into one of two cat­e­gories: those who dis­guise their racism as “white nation­al­ism” and don’t embrace the racist label in an effort to be tak­en seri­ous­ly, and those—like Anglin and his followers—who wear their big­otry on their sleeves, as Voca­tiv has pre­vi­ous­ly report­ed.

    Clinton’s speech came just days after a shake­up in the Trump cam­paign led to the appoint­ment of Stephen Ban­non, the for­mer head of the alt-right web­site Breitbart.com, as the CEO of the cam­paign. As Clin­ton men­tioned in her speech, Breitbart.com is respon­si­ble for white nation­al­ist pro­pa­gan­da like a sto­ry titled “Hoist It High And Proud: The Con­fed­er­ate Flag Pro­claims A Glo­ri­ous Her­itage,” and a sex­ist rant with the head­line, “Birth Con­trol Makes Women Unat­trac­tive And Crazy.”

    Anglin has cre­at­ed a PDF file of the fli­er so oth­er “storm­ers” can print them out and dis­trib­ute them at Poké­mon Go gyms and even pro­vid­ed a map show­ing the loca­tions of gyms across the coun­try.

    “These hotspots are packed,” he wrote. “No doubt, you’ll be able to hand-out a hun­dred in 30 min­utes easy if you live in a decent-sized urban area. Get in and get out. Take a bud­dy with you.”

    “The fli­er fea­tures run-of-the-mill neo-Nazi propaganda—it rails on Jews, African-Amer­i­cans, and claims a “white geno­cide” is hap­pen­ing and white peo­ple need to stand up and pre­pare for the impend­ing race war. The first step, the fli­er explains, is elect­ing Don­ald Trump pres­i­dent. Step two is to “get active in the Nazi move­ment” because the “alt-right Nazis are the only ones who can save this coun­try from the kikes.””

    A neo-Nazi fli­er for kids with a two-step process for prepar­ing for the impend­ing race war: Step 1. elect Don­ald Trump. Step 2. Get active in the Alt-Right Nazi move­ment.

    And then there’s the instruc­tions for the adult neo-Nazis: Go to these “Poke­mon Gyms” — ran­dom real-world loca­tions that play­ers go to in order to cap­ture the Poke­mon liv­ing there — and hand out these fli­er to kids. Specif­i­cal­ly to kids since their minds are much more vul­ner­a­ble and impres­sion­able:

    ...

    “The Dai­ly Stormer was designed to appeal to teenagers, but I have long thought that we need­ed to get pre-teens involved in the move­ment,” Anglin wrote in the blog post. “At that age, you can real­ly brain­wash some­one eas­i­ly. Any­one who accepts Nazism at the age of 10 or 11 is going to be a Nazi for life.” He added, “And it isn’t hard. It’s just a mat­ter of pulling them in. And what bet­ter way to do it than with Poké­mon fliers at the Poké­mon GO gym???”

    ...

    Anglin has cre­at­ed a PDF file of the fli­er so oth­er “storm­ers” can print them out and dis­trib­ute them at Poké­mon Go gyms and even pro­vid­ed a map show­ing the loca­tions of gyms across the coun­try.

    “These hotspots are packed,” he wrote. “No doubt, you’ll be able to hand-out a hun­dred in 30 min­utes easy if you live in a decent-sized urban area. Get in and get out. Take a bud­dy with you.”

    ...

    Did you hear that, par­ents? One of the Amer­i­can neo-Nazi lead­ers just encour­aged his fol­low­ers to con­gre­gate at Poke­mon Go “gyms” to give your kids fliers about to pre­pare for a race war by elect­ing Don­ald Trump and then join­ing the Alt-Right. Even if there haven’t been any reports yet of peo­ple actu­al­ly hand­ing out these fliers it seems like this would be more of a news sto­ry. Maybe it’s not con­sid­ered top­i­cal.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 17, 2016, 5:19 pm
  8. Anoth­er day, anoth­er neo-Nazi dog whis­tle from Don­ald Trump Jr.:

    Raw Sto­ry

    Trump Jr’s ‘Skit­tles’ tweet is based on two dif­fer­ent white suprema­cist memes — and Nazi pro­pa­gan­da

    Travis Get­tys
    20 Sep 2016 at 07:25 ET

    Don­ald Trump Jr. drew wide­spread con­dem­na­tion for com­par­ing Syr­i­an refugees to poi­soned can­dy — but his anal­o­gy isn’t a new one, and it’s based on two sep­a­rate white suprema­cist memes with roots in Nazi pro­pa­gan­da.

    Trump — the Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial candidate’s eldest son and a top cam­paign sur­ro­gate — tweet­ed the image Mon­day evening in an appar­ent response to the dump­ster bomb­ing over the week­end in New York City, which his dad inapt­ly linked to the refugee cri­sis.

    “This image says it all,” reads the text. “Let’s end the polit­i­cal­ly cor­rect agen­da that doesn’t put Amer­i­ca first. #trump2016,” accom­pa­nied by the offi­cial Don­ald Trump/Mike Pence cam­paign logo and slo­gan. The anal­o­gy isn’t new, and has been used for years by white suprema­cists to over­gen­er­al­ize about var­i­ous minor­i­ty groups. “It is often deployed as a way to prop up inde­fen­si­ble stereo­types by tak­ing advan­tage of human igno­rance about base rates, risk assess­ment and crim­i­nol­o­gy,” wrote Emil Karls­son on the blog Debunk­ing Denial­ism. “In the end, it tries to divert atten­tion from the inher­ent big­otry in mak­ing flawed gen­er­al­iza­tions.” A spokes­woman for Wrigley Amer­i­c­as, which makes Skit­tles, whacked Trump’s dehu­man­iz­ing com­par­i­son. “Skit­tles are can­dy. Refugees are peo­ple. We don’t feel it’s an appro­pri­ate anal­o­gy,” said Denise Young, vice pres­i­dent of cor­po­rate affairs. “We will respect­ful­ly refrain from fur­ther com­men­tary as any­thing we say could be mis­in­ter­pret­ed as mar­ket­ing.”

    Joe Walsh, a sin­gle-term con­gress­man from Illi­nois and now a right-wing talk radio host who’s been boot­ed from the air­waves for using racial slurs, bragged that Trump’s meme was near­ly iden­ti­cal to one he had tweet­ed a month ear­li­er.

    The anal­o­gy, which has been used on mes­sage boards and shared as social media memes, orig­i­nal­ly used M&Ms as the can­dy in ques­tion — but that changed after George Zim­mer­man gunned down Trayvon Mar­tin while the unarmed black teen was walk­ing home from buy­ing a drink and some Skit­tles.

    A Google image search of “skit­tles trayvon meme” reveals a hor­ri­ble boun­ty of cap­tioned images mock­ing the slain teenag­er, whose killer was acquit­ted after claim­ing self-defense under Florida’s “stand your ground” law.

    But the poi­soned can­dy anal­o­gy goes back even fur­ther, to an anti-Semit­ic children’s book pub­lished by Julius Stre­ich­er, the pub­lish­er of the Nazi news­pa­per Der Stürmer who was exe­cut­ed in 1946 as a war crim­i­nal.

    The book tells the tale of “the poi­so­nous mush­room,” and was used to indoc­tri­nate chil­dren in hate.

    “Just as poi­so­nous mush­rooms spring up every­where, so the Jew is found in every coun­try in the world,” the story’s moth­er explains to her son. “Just as poi­so­nous mush­rooms often lead to the most dread­ful calami­ty, so the Jew is the cause of mis­ery and dis­tress, ill­ness and death.”

    So Trump’s appalling anal­o­gy isn’t just uno­rig­i­nal and demean­ing — it’s actu­al­ly racist in four dif­fer­ent ways.

    ...

    “But the poi­soned can­dy anal­o­gy goes back even fur­ther, to an anti-Semit­ic children’s book pub­lished by Julius Stre­ich­er, the pub­lish­er of the Nazi news­pa­per Der Stürmer who was exe­cut­ed in 1946 as a war crim­i­nal.”

    So that was how the Trump cam­paign met Mon­day’s neo-Nazi dog whis­tle quo­ta. And then, of course, the cam­paign offi­cial­ly praised Don­ald Jr. for just ‘speak­ing the truth’:

    Talk­ing Points Memo

    Cam­paign Prais­es Trump Jr. For ‘Speak­ing The Truth’ In Skit­tles Tweet

    By Esme Cribb
    Pub­lished Sep­tem­ber 20, 2016, 4:11 PM EDT

    Don­ald Trump’s cam­paign released a state­ment Tues­day after­noon defend­ing his son Don­ald Trump Jr. as “a tremen­dous asset” amid back­lash to him post­ing a tweet com­par­ing Syr­i­an refugees to poi­soned can­dy.

    “Don Jr. has been a tremen­dous asset to the cam­paign,” Trump spokesman Jason Miller said in the state­ment obtained by NBC News. “Speak­ing the truth might upset those who would rather be polit­i­cal­ly cor­rect than safe, but the Amer­i­can peo­ple want a change.”

    In the state­ment, Miller also crit­i­cizes Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma’s plan to increase the num­ber of refugees to be admit­ted into the Unit­ed States in 2017, call­ing it “a dan­ger­ous pro­pos­al that will put Amer­i­can lives at risk.”

    Trump Jr.‘s anti-refugee tweet bor­rowed an anal­o­gy pop­u­lar among white nation­al­ists, with roots in Nazi pro­pa­gan­da. Iron­i­cal­ly, the image in the orig­i­nal post was tak­en by a pho­tog­ra­ph­er who says that he was a refugee him­self and would nev­er have grant­ed Trump Jr. per­mis­sion to use his work.

    ...

    “Don­ald Trump’s cam­paign released a state­ment Tues­day after­noon defend­ing his son Don­ald Trump Jr. as “a tremen­dous asset” amid back­lash to him post­ing a tweet com­par­ing Syr­i­an refugees to poi­soned can­dy.”

    Well, it is true that Don­ald Jr. has been “a tremen­dous asset” for the Trump cam­paign since no one, oth­er than per­haps Trump him­self, has been as aggres­sive­ly reach­ing out to the white nation­al­ist vot­er base as Don­ald Jr. He’s like the ener­giz­er-bun­ny of neo-Nazi dog whis­tles.

    It almost rais­es the ques­tion of where Don­ald Jr. learned to be such an effi­cient pro­mot­er of hate memes. He could have picked up the gen­er­al approach from his dear old dad, but a lot of this dog whistling requires an aware­ness of the online neo-Nazi meme-osphere that’s con­stant­ly chang­ing and get­ting updat­ed. Keep­ing up with that is like a dai­ly mis­sion, which might help explain the dai­ly dog whistles...Donald Jr. is sort of show­ing the world what new neo-Nazi meme he learned about that day.

    But it’s worth keep­ing in mind that the Trump cam­paign’s dai­ly dog whis­tles aren’t just demon­strat­ing to the world its grow­ing mas­tery of white suprema­cist code words and sym­bol­ism. The cam­paign is also demon­strat­ing to the world how to troll. It’s teach­ing by exam­ple. As opposed to folks over at The Dai­ly Stormer, who are now sim­ply writ­ing neo-Nazi troll instruc­tions:

    Voca­tiv

    Alt-Right Racists Teach New­bies How To Troll

    Racists are claim­ing a surge in inter­est in the alt-right since Hillary Clin­ton men­tioned the move­ment last week. In real­i­ty, peo­ple are more inter­est­ed in “Saved By the Bell”

    By James King
    Aug 30, 2016 at 5:43 PM ET

    Those on the alt-right’s most extreme fringe are try­ing to cash in on their moment in the spot­light after Hillary Clin­ton men­tioned the move­ment in a blis­ter­ing speech that effec­tive­ly put them on the map.

    Andrew Anglin, a promi­nent voice in the alt-right, is using Clinton’s speech as a recruit­ment tool to get mod­er­ate racists in the move­ment to align with more extrem­ist views. His blog, The Dai­ly Stormer, is an anti-semit­ic breed­ing ground for racist trolls that Anglin claims is the “most vis­it­ed alt-right web­site” in the world.

    “Now is the time to reach out to the mass­es to expo­nen­tial­ly increase our num­bers and fin­ish (((them))),” Anglin wrote in a post Mon­day; the triple paren­the­ses is alt-right code for Jews.

    Those in the alt-right move­ment gen­er­al­ly fall into one of two cat­e­gories: those who dis­guise their racism as “white nation­al­ism” and don’t embrace the racist label in an effort to be tak­en seri­ous­ly, and those who wear their big­otry on their sleeves. One of the trade­mark moves of those who fall into the lat­ter cat­e­go­ry is trolling peo­ple online in the com­ment sec­tions of blogs or news arti­cles, many of which use the Dis­qus com­ment­ing sys­tem. Dis­qus will often ban peo­ple who make racist or sex­ist com­ments from com­ment­ing on arti­cles. On Wednes­day, Anglin explained to his fol­low­ers ways to skirt a ban, and the prop­er way to troll as an alt-right racist.

    1) Your tar­get is the mil­lions of silent lurk­ers and NOT nec­es­sar­i­ly the com­ment-ors [sic].

    2) Do not get bogged down argu­ing with one or two peo­ple. Hit some­one once, then hit them again and no more. Move on, the goal is to make MANY com­ments, not to spend hours on a sin­gle stel­lar one. Remem­ber your silent audi­ence. Make them laugh. Win their admi­ra­tion. Give them a present (video, pho­to or link). Place your com­ments strate­gi­cal­ly with­in the top com­ments.

    3) If you see anoth­er red-piller, jump-in and offer sup­port: “Bril­liant”, “Wow. I nev­er knew that.” “100 per­cent cor­rect”, ” Exact­ly” , “Great link!”, Upvote him, etc.

    4) And this is cru­cial – Leave bread­crumbs back to the real Alt-Right. Links or videos that peo­ple can fol­low and learn for them­selves.

    Anglin claims that since Clinton’s speech, inter­est in the alt-right is “explod­ing” and the racist alt-right needs to “lead the mass­es to our ideas, for they are far supe­ri­or to any­thing that the Lunatic-Left could ever pro­pose.” Anglin did not respond to Vocativ’s request for an inter­view.

    ...

    “4) And this is cru­cial – Leave bread­crumbs back to the real Alt-Right. Links or videos that peo­ple can fol­low and learn for them­selves.”

    Wow, after read­ing that list of tips, and com­par­ing it to the Trump cam­paign’s over­all strat­e­gy for over a year now you have to won­der: Did the Trump cam­paign first learn how to troll the world by study­ing the Alt-Right, or is the Alt-Right learn­ing how to troll bet­ter after watch­ing the Trump cam­paign and that’s why their tech­niques are so sim­i­lar? Either way, the syn­er­gy is unde­ni­able.

    That’s a sum­ma­ry of Mon­day’s neo-Nazi dog whis­tle. We’ll see how Tues­day’s neo-Nazi dog whis­tle plays out.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 20, 2016, 1:22 pm
  9. One of the many grim ques­tions raised by the 2016 elec­tion cycle is whether or not the Trump cam­paign’s dai­ly dish of mul­ti­ple bare­ly hid­den neo-Nazi dog whis­tle trolling is...

    A. Pri­mar­i­ly intend­ed to max­i­mize his appeal to an elec­torate that rewards out­ra­geous behav­ior.

    B. Pri­mar­i­ly intend­ed to max­i­mize his appeal to an elec­torate that grav­i­tates towards “F*$# the Sys­tem” can­di­dates because they are sick and tired of the sta­tus quo by com­plete­ly obscur­ing from the dai­ly news cycle the dai­ly hints, signs and out­right pol­i­cy pro­pos­als that would make it clear that his pres­i­den­cy’s poli­cies would be like Bush on steroids, i.e. The cryp­to-Nazi can­di­date.

    C. Both A and B about about equal­ly.

    It seems like the answer is prob­a­bly “C”. There’s just so much syn­er­gy between the cryt­po-Nazi vibe and the GOPs end­less need to obscure its poli­cies.
    And assum­ing the answer is “A” or “B”, we should prob­a­bly expect the Trump cam­paign to actu­al­ly increase its usage of bare­ly-cryp­to-neo-Nazi antics. Why? Because Mike Pence may have just spilled the beans about the kind of ‘pop­ulist reform’ the Trump admin­is­tra­tion would bring by mak­ing it clear that it would be the kind of pop­ulist reform we would have got­ten dur­ing George W. Bush’s term in office if Dick Cheney actu­al­ly had the pow­ers of the pres­i­den­cy:

    MSNBC

    The Rachel Mad­dow Show/TheMaddowBlog

    Mike Pence’s VP role mod­el: Dick Cheney

    09/19/16 10:00 AM
    By Steve Benen

    In 50 days, Amer­i­cans will have a new vice pres­i­dent-elect, and the hon­or may go to Indiana’s right-wing gov­er­nor, Mike Pence. ABC News’ Martha Rad­datz talked to Don­ald Trump’s Repub­li­can run­ning mate b of the job.

    GOP vice pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Mike Pence said his role mod­el for the num­ber two spot is the last Repub­li­can to hold the job – Dick Cheney.

    “I frankly hold Dick Cheney in real­ly high regard in his role as vice pres­i­dent and as an Amer­i­can,” Pence said on ABC’s “This Week.”

    Let’s not brush past this too quick­ly, because Cheney’s tenure in nation­al office was one of the more impor­tant fias­coes in mod­ern polit­i­cal his­to­ry. Cheney’s time as vice pres­i­dent was marked by scan­dals, con­se­quen­tial lies, dead­ly mis­judg­ments, and rou­tine incom­pe­tence. This was a vice pres­i­den­cy of undis­closed loca­tions, a man who saw him­self as his own branch of gov­ern­ment, and an offi­cial who told a cor­dial sen­a­tor, “Go f*** your­self.”

    Cheney left office with a 13% approval rat­ing – rough­ly half the sup­port Richard Nixon enjoyed at the height of Water­gate.

    In pri­vate cor­re­spon­dence, for­mer Sec­re­tary of State Col­in Pow­ell described Cheney as an “idiot.”

    ...

    In the same ABC inter­view, the Indi­ana gov­er­nor added that, like Cheney, he hoped to be “a very active vice pres­i­dent.”

    If Trump’s Repub­li­can tick­et suc­ceeds, Pence is like­ly to be “very active,” indeed. In May, a lead­ing Trump sur­ro­gate report­ed­ly reached out to a senior advis­er to Ohio Gov. John Kasich ® about pos­si­bly serv­ing as run­ning mate. At the time, Kasich was told Trump’s vice pres­i­dent “would be in charge of domes­tic and for­eign pol­i­cy.”

    Pres­i­dent Trump would pre­fer to focus sole­ly on “mak­ing Amer­i­ca great again,” while his VP did all the sub­stan­tive work.

    It makes Pence’s Cheney admi­ra­tion that much more sig­nif­i­cant.

    “If Trump’s Repub­li­can tick­et suc­ceeds, Pence is like­ly to be “very active,” indeed. In May, a lead­ing Trump sur­ro­gate report­ed­ly reached out to a senior advis­er to Ohio Gov. John Kasich ® about pos­si­bly serv­ing as run­ning mate. At the time, Kasich was told Trump’s vice pres­i­dent “would be in charge of domes­tic and for­eign pol­i­cy.”

    Yes, the Trump cam­paign isn’t sim­ply a bare­ly-cryp­to-Nazi cam­paign. With Mike Pence dec­la­ra­tion that Dick Cheney is his role mod­el and Trump’s pre­vi­ous offers to let his VP “be in charge of domes­tic and for­eign pol­i­cy”, it’s also a bare­ly-cryp­to-Dick Cheney for Pres­i­dent cam­paign. Or, per­haps more accu­rate­ly, a bare­ly-cryp­to-Even Worse Than Dick Cheney for Pres­i­dent cam­paign of doom:

    MSNBC

    The Rachel Mad­dow Show/TheMaddowBlog

    Pence becomes the most far-right run­ning mate in mod­ern his­to­ry

    By Steve Benen

    07/15/16 12:39 PM—Updated 07/16/16 09:33 AM

    Don­ald Trump talked with Time mag­a­zine the oth­er day, and was asked about his impul­sive deci­sions and errat­ic instincts, but the Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial can­di­date waved off such con­cerns. “I’m a very sta­ble per­son,” he said. “I’m so sta­ble you wouldn’t believe it.”

    ...

    As for the Indi­ana gov­er­nor, reg­u­lar read­ers know I’ve fol­lowed his career pret­ty close­ly for many years, and we’ll have all kinds of detailed cov­er­age as the cam­paign pro­gress­es, but on this first day, I think it’s impor­tant to empha­size a foun­da­tion­al point: Mike Pence is almost cer­tain­ly the most right-wing vice pres­i­den­tial nom­i­nee of the mod­ern era.

    About four years ago at this time, Nate Sil­ver pub­lished an inter­est­ing analy­sis of Paul Ryan, who’d just been named to Mitt Romney’s tick­et. Nate wrote at the time, “Var­i­ous sta­tis­ti­cal mea­sures of Mr. Ryan peg him as being quite con­ser­v­a­tive. Based on his Con­gres­sion­al vot­ing record, for instance, the sta­tis­ti­cal sys­tem DW-Nom­i­nate eval­u­ates him as being rough­ly as con­ser­v­a­tive as Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Michele Bach­mann of Min­neso­ta. By this mea­sure, in fact, which rates mem­bers of the House and Sen­ate through­out dif­fer­ent time peri­ods on a com­mon ide­ol­o­gy scale, Mr. Ryan is the most con­ser­v­a­tive Repub­li­can mem­ber of Con­gress to be picked for the vice-pres­i­den­tial slot since at least 1900.”

    Nate added a chart, high­light­ing the fact that Ryan’s record put him slight­ly to the right of Dick Cheney, who was slight­ly to the right of Dan Quayle.

    But before Pence became gov­er­nor, he was a long­time mem­ber of Con­gress – which means we can turn to the same DW-Nom­i­nate sta­tis­ti­cal sys­tem to get a bet­ter sense of the Indi­ana Republican’s ide­ol­o­gy. And the data shows puts Pence well to Ryan’s right.

    In the 107th Con­gress (Pence’s first, cov­er­ing 2001 and 2002), for exam­ple, out of 435 mem­bers of the U.S. House, Pence ranked #428 – mean­ing that 427 mem­bers were to his left, putting the Hoosier on the far-right-wing fringe. The results were rough­ly the same in the 108th Con­gress and the 109th.

    By the 110th Con­gress, Pence was at #432, putting him to the right of near­ly every­one in the cham­ber. The results were rough­ly the same in the 111th Con­gress and the 112th.

    Let’s put this anoth­er way: dur­ing his con­gres­sion­al career, Pence wasn’t just more con­ser­v­a­tive than Paul Ryan. His vot­ing record also put him to the right of Michele Bach­mann, Todd Akin, Steve King, and even Louie Gohmert. That’s not an exag­ger­a­tion. Bach­mann, Akin, King, and Gohmert all had vot­ing records less extreme than Mike Pence.

    Indeed, the Indi­ana Repub­li­can devel­oped a rep­u­ta­tion on Capi­tol Hill as an inef­fec­tive extrem­ist who, despite 12 years in Con­gress, was lit­er­al­ly nev­er the chief spon­sor of a bill that passed into law.

    Now, Don­ald Trump wants to put him one heart­beat from the pres­i­den­cy.

    “Let’s put this anoth­er way: dur­ing his con­gres­sion­al career, Pence wasn’t just more con­ser­v­a­tive than Paul Ryan. His vot­ing record also put him to the right of Michele Bach­mann, Todd Akin, Steve King, and even Louie Gohmert. That’s not an exag­ger­a­tion. Bach­mann, Akin, King, and Gohmert all had vot­ing records less extreme than Mike Pence.”

    Uh oh. It’s going to take a lot of bare­ly-cryp­to-neo-Nazi dog whis­tle trolling to ensure the media is too dis­tract­ed to cov­er the ‘worse than Cheney’ issue the Trump cam­paign has on its hands. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, the kind of trolling required to dis­tract from a sto­ry this big that should­n’t be a prob­lem.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 20, 2016, 7:13 pm
  10. Since it does­n’t appear that Don­ald Trump Jr. has gen­er­at­ed a new neo-Nazi dog whis­tle con­tro­ver­sy yet today (he mere­ly defend­ing more of his more recent dog whis­tles today), per­haps it would be use­ful to have a quick review of Trump Jr’s Year of Alt-Right­ness. For­tu­nate­ly, Dig­by pro­vides with just such a review. It’s the kind of review that’s going to be par­tic­u­lar­ly impor­tant for a fig­ure like Don­ald Trump Jr. since, as Dig­by’s review reminds us, Amer­i­ca’s long nation­al Trumpian night­mare prob­a­bly isn’t going to end with Trump Sr.:

    Hul­la­baloo

    A chip off the old block

    by dig­by

    I wrote about Trump Jr for Salon this morn­ing:

    In the begin­ning of the 2016 cam­paign the only one of Don­ald Trump’s five chil­dren with a high pub­lic pro­file was his daugh­ter Ivan­ka who has her own celebri­ty brand just like her father’s. The two old­er sons were unknown to the gen­er­al pub­lic but they made quite a good first impres­sion when the whole fam­i­ly appeared on a CNN fam­i­ly spe­cial. They are all so attrac­tive and glam­orous that many peo­ple came to believe they were Don­ald Trump’s best fea­ture. Indeed, it was said that the fact he’d raised such an admirable fam­i­ly spoke so well of him that it smoothed some of the rough edges of his own per­son­al­i­ty. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, as peo­ple have got­ten to know them bet­ter, they’ve revealed them­selves to be as rough edged as dear old Dad, par­tic­u­lar­ly his name­sake, Don­ald Jr.

    For most of the pri­maries Trump proud­ly evoke his two old­er sons when he talked about the 2nd amend­ment, tout­ing their NRA mem­ber­ship and love of guns. It was a lit­tle bit shock­ing to see the ghast­ly pic­tures of their African big game kills includ­ing a hor­rif­ic shot of Trump Jr hold­ing a sev­ered ele­phant tail, but they seemed to oth­er­wise be pret­ty ordi­nary hard-work­ing busi­ness­men devot­ed to their fam­i­ly. For the most part they kept a low pro­file, serv­ing as the usu­al fam­i­ly props in a polit­i­cal cam­paign.

    When Don­ald Jr spoke to a white suprema­cist radio host in March it set off a few alarm bells sim­ply because his father’s extreme immi­gra­tion poli­cies had been so ecsta­t­i­cal­ly received by white nation­al­ist groups. But most chalked it up to inex­pe­ri­ence and let it go. Sure­ly Junior was­n’t as crude­ly racist as the old man who was report­ed to keep a book of Hitler speech­es next to the bed. But just a few days lat­er he retweet­ed a racist sci­ence fic­tion writer named Theodore Beale who goes by the han­dle of “Vox Day” claim­ing that a famous pic­ture of a Trump sup­port­er giv­ing a Nazi salute was actu­al­ly a fol­low­er of Bernie Sanders. The apple did­n’t fall far from the tree after all.

    At the GOP con­ven­tion in July, all four of the grown kids gave heart­felt speech­es about their Dad, even as they made clear through their child­hood anec­dotes that the only time they ever spent with him was at the office and it seemed that Junior in par­tic­u­lar had tak­en a more active role and was seen in a more seri­ous light. peo­ple were talk­ing about him as a mod­er­at­ing voice in the cam­paign.

    Right after the con­ven­tion, how­ev­er, he let out a deaf­en­ing dog­whis­tle that left no doubt as to his per­son­al affil­i­a­tion with the far right. He went to the Nesho­ba Coun­ty Fair in Philadel­phia Mis­sis­sip­pi, best remem­bered as the place where three civ­il rights work­ers were mur­dered in 1964. But it has spe­cial polit­i­cal sig­nif­i­cance as the site of Ronald Rea­gan’s famous “states’ rights” speech in 1980 where he sig­naled his sym­pa­thy for white suprema­cy by deliv­er­ing it at the scene of that hor­ren­dous racist crime. (The man who coined the term “wel­fare queen” was always a cham­pi­on dog­whistler.) Trump Jr went there to rep­re­sent and rep­re­sent he did. When asked what he thought about the con­fed­er­ate flag he said, “I believe in tra­di­tion. I don’t see a lot of the non­sense that’s been cre­at­ed about that.”

    Since then it’s been revealed that he fol­lows a num­ber of white nation­al­ists on twit­ter and he’s retweet­ed sev­er­al includ­ing a a psy­chol­o­gist who believes Jews manip­u­late soci­ety. And in the last cou­ple of weeks Junior has let his alt-right freak flag fly. First he got excit­ed about Hillary Clin­ton’s “deplorable” com­ment and proud­ly retweet­ed a pic­ture with the title “The Deplorables” that had been mak­ing the rounds fea­tur­ing Trump, Mike Pence, Rudy Giu­liani, Chris Christie, Ben Car­son, Eric Trump and Don­ald Jr along with con­spir­a­cy the­o­rist Alex Jones, right wing hit man Roger Stone, alt-right leader Milo Yia­nop­o­lis and white suprema­cist sym­bol Pepe the Frog. There’s no indi­ca­tion that any of them had a prob­lem with that but a lot of oth­er peo­ple found it to be reveal­ing, to say the least.

    A cou­ple of days lat­er Trump Jr stepped in it again, say­ing the media would be “warm­ing up the gas cham­ber” for Repub­li­cans if they lied and cheat­ed the way Hillary Clin­ton does. He claimed he was talk­ing about cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment but his asso­ci­a­tion with vir­u­lent anti-Semi­tes makes that claim ring a lit­tle bit hol­low.

    And then there was the Skit­tles inci­dent. Don­ald Jr tweet­ed out a deeply offen­sive image of a bowl of skit­tles with the words “If I had a bowl of Skit­tles and I told you three would kill you would you take a hand­ful? That’s our Syr­i­an refugee prob­lem.” It’s a ter­ri­ble metaphor, wrong in every way and Don­ald Jr took some heat for it. But it’s yet anoth­er win­dow into his asso­ci­a­tion with alt-right white nation­al­ism. That bad metaphor has been around in var­i­ous forms for a long time. In this coun­try it was usu­al­ly a bowl of M&Ms rep­re­sent­ing black peo­ple.. The peo­ple who traf­fic in this garbage fair­ly recent­ly changed it to Skit­tles because that was the can­dy Trayvon Mar­tin had bought on the night he was mur­dered by vig­i­lante George Zim­mer­man. Yes, it’s that sick.

    ...

    You hear pun­dits and com­men­ta­tors say­ing that Don­ald Trump is sui gener­is and his phe­nom­e­non won’t be recre­at­ed. They’re prob­a­bly right. But per­haps they are not aware that his son also has polit­i­cal ambi­tions and he is sim­ply a younger, bet­ter look­ing ver­sion of his father with much more hair. If alt-right white nation­al­ism is going to be an ongo­ing fea­ture of Amer­i­can polit­i­cal life, they have their leader. He is one of them.

    “You hear pun­dits and com­men­ta­tors say­ing that Don­ald Trump is sui gener­is and his phe­nom­e­non won’t be recre­at­ed. They’re prob­a­bly right. But per­haps they are not aware that his son also has polit­i­cal ambi­tions and he is sim­ply a younger, bet­ter look­ing ver­sion of his father with much more hair. If alt-right white nation­al­ism is going to be an ongo­ing fea­ture of Amer­i­can polit­i­cal life, they have their leader. He is one of them.

    Well, that was a help­ful sum­ma­ry. And, giv­en the actu­al con­tent of the sum­ma­ry, hor­ri­bly omi­nous too:

    Salon

    Yikes! Now Don­ald Trump Jr. says he would “love” to run for office “as a patri­ot”

    After his ques­tion­able speech to the RNC, Trump Jr. said he “would con­sid­er” run­ning once his kids fin­ish school

    Sophia Tes­faye
    Wednes­day, Jul 20, 2016 09:08 AM CST

    Call­ing it “one of the most thrilling moments of my life,” Don­ald Trump Jr. brushed aside bur­geon­ing con­tro­ver­sy sur­round­ing the sec­ond Trump fam­i­ly speech at the RNC in as many days while speak­ing with the Wall Street Jour­nal Wednes­day morn­ing.

    The old­est son of the Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial nom­i­nee said that while he still has “a lot to do in my own career,” he would seri­ous­ly con­sid­er fol­low­ing in his father’s foot­steps out of real estate and into polit­i­cal life.

    The 38-year-old New York­er said that “maybe when the kids get out of school I would con­sid­er it.” The father of five explained that he’d “love to be able to do it, as a patri­ot.”

    His seem­ing­ly pre­ma­ture flir­ta­tion with polit­i­cal office comes hours after he deliv­ered a major address to the RNC Tues­day evening — a speech that has already been flagged as a poten­tial sec­ond case of Trump fam­i­ly pla­gia­rism.

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/755601024908300288

    While Trump Jr. told Fox News’ Sean Han­ni­ty that “We [the Trump kids] all took a lot of pride. We all wrote the speech­es our­selves,” Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive colum­nist told Vox News that the appar­ent­ly lift­ed por­tions can’t be con­sid­ered pla­gia­rism because he wrote both the orig­i­nal col­umn and the Trump’s speech.

    ...

    So while he may not be a pla­gia­riz­er in the new con­ser­v­a­tive def­i­n­i­tion of the word (my col­lege pro­fes­sors always warned against recy­cling my own work for new cours­es) it looks like we may have anoth­er Don­ald Trump pop­ping up on the polit­i­cal land­scape very soon.

    “The 38-year-old New York­er said that “maybe when the kids get out of school I would con­sid­er it.” The father of five explained that he’d “love to be able to do it, as a patri­ot.”

    Yes, Don­ald Trump Jr. is clear­ly so enam­ored with the work he’s doing as the Trump cam­paign’s white nation­al­ist out­reach spe­cial­ist that he could end up being one of the per­ma­nent polit­i­cal fix­tures in US pol­i­tics. It’s a reminder that Don­ald Jr. isn’t just dog whistling neo-Nazis on a near dai­ly basis to help his dad’s cur­rent polit­i­cal ambi­tions. He’s help­ing his own future polit­i­cal ambi­tions too...assuming neo-Nazi dog whis­tles remains polit­i­cal­ly help­ful in the future when Don­ald Jr. plans on run­ning “as a patri­ot”. That, in turns, depends a lot on how suc­cess­ful the Trump cam­paign is this year at pop­u­lar­iz­ing the “Alt-Right”. Uh oh.

    So as we can see, Don­ald Trump Jr.‘s neo-Nazi dog whis­tles aren’t just hor­ri­bly repack­aged echoes of hor­ri­ble ideas from the past. They’re echoes back in time from our pos­si­bly hor­ri­ble future ideas too.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 21, 2016, 2:31 pm
  11. On the same day that Don­ald Trump lament­ed the lack of a “spir­it of togeth­er­ness” between black and white com­mu­ni­ties (dur­ing a speech in which he blamed Pres­i­dent Oba­ma for those racial ten­sions), it’s worth not­ing that we may have seen a kind of acci­den­tal high point in the Trump cam­paign’s African Amer­i­can out­reach. No, the high point obvi­ous­ly was­n’t that speech. The high point actu­al­ly hap­pened in response to a new low and is an appalling­ly low high point by high point stan­dards. But still, a high point may have just hap­pened.

    First, let’s take a look at that new low point we also saw today:

    The Guardian

    Ohio Trump cam­paign chair Kathy Miller says there was ‘no racism’ before Oba­ma

    Kathy Miller called the Black Lives Mat­ter move­ment ‘a stu­pid waste of time’ and said low African Amer­i­can vot­er turnout could be due to ‘the way they’re raised’

    Paul Lewis and Tom Sil­ver­stone in Youngstown, Ohio

    Thurs­day 22 Sep­tem­ber 2016 07.00 EDT

    Don­ald Trump’s cam­paign chair in a promi­nent Ohio coun­ty has claimed there was “no racism” dur­ing the 1960s and said black peo­ple who have not suc­ceed­ed over the past half-cen­tu­ry only have them­selves to blame.

    Kathy Miller, who is white and chair of the Repub­li­can nominee’s cam­paign in Mahon­ing Coun­ty, made the remarks dur­ing a taped inter­view with the Guardian’s Any­where but Wash­ing­ton series of elec­tion videos.

    “If you’re black and you haven’t been suc­cess­ful in the last 50 years, it’s your own fault. You’ve had every oppor­tu­ni­ty, it was giv­en to you,” she said.

    “You’ve had the same schools every­body else went to. You had ben­e­fits to go to col­lege that white kids didn’t have. You had all the advan­tages and didn’t take advan­tage of it. It’s not our fault, cer­tain­ly.”

    Miller also called the Black Lives Mat­ter move­ment “a stu­pid waste of time” and said low­er vot­er turnout among African Amer­i­cans could be relat­ed to “the way they’re raised”.

    ...

    Trump has repeat­ed­ly stum­bled in his push to attract black vot­ers, an effort that began with his dec­la­ra­tion last month that African Amer­i­cans have “noth­ing to lose” by vot­ing for him.

    His lat­est effort at out­reach involved a vis­it to a black church in Cleve­land on Wednes­day, when cam­eras cap­tured the Repub­li­can nom­i­nee chuck­ling after box­ing pro­mot­er Don King used the N‑word.

    Mahon­ing, the east­ern Ohio coun­ty where Miller is coor­di­nat­ing Trump’s cam­paign, is a his­tor­i­cal­ly Demo­c­ra­t­ic strong­hold that includes Youngstown, a for­mer steel city that has expe­ri­enced decades of eco­nom­ic decline.

    The coun­ty is reput­ed­ly “ground-zero” for dis­af­fect­ed white, work­ing-class Democ­rats who are drawn to Trump’s promise to boost man­u­fac­tur­ing by rene­go­ti­at­ing inter­na­tion­al free-trade agree­ments.

    Before the pri­maries, some 6,000 Democ­rats in Mahon­ing switched par­ty affil­i­a­tion to Repub­li­can, report­ed­ly to vote for Trump.

    Miller, a real estate bro­ker, said that the Democ­rats switch­ing over to her par­ty were most­ly old­er, white vot­ers.

    She said there were “some” African Amer­i­cans but played down their impor­tance, sug­gest­ing they were only a small por­tion of the pop­u­la­tion and do not tend to turn out in elec­tions in sig­nif­i­cant num­bers.

    African Amer­i­cans con­sti­tute 16% of Mahon­ing county’s pop­u­la­tion, which is larg­er than the state and nation­al aver­age.

    Dur­ing the past two pres­i­den­tial elec­tions, vot­er turnout in Ohio was actu­al­ly high­er among black peo­ple than white peo­ple.

    Miller, how­ev­er, sug­gest­ed low turnout among black peo­ple could be con­nect­ed to cul­ture. “I don’t think that’s part of the way they’re raised,” she said. “For us, I mean, that was some­thing we all did in our fam­i­lies, we all vot­ed.”

    Miller also dis­missed the racial ten­sions of the 1960s, when she said she grad­u­at­ed from high school. “Grow­ing up as a kid, there was no racism, believe me. We were just all kids going to school.”

    Asked about seg­re­ga­tion and the civ­il rights move­ment, she replied: “I nev­er expe­ri­enced it. I nev­er saw that as any­thing.”

    Miller added: “I don’t think there was any racism until Oba­ma got elect­ed. We nev­er had prob­lems like this ... Now, with the peo­ple with the guns, and shoot­ing up neigh­bor­hoods, and not being respon­si­ble cit­i­zens, that’s a big change, and I think that’s the phi­los­o­phy that Oba­ma has per­pet­u­at­ed on Amer­i­ca.”

    Miller dis­missed the sug­ges­tion that Trump was exploit­ing racist or prej­u­diced views among some vot­ers as “the media mak­ing stuff up”. Instead, she said of the Repub­li­can nom­i­nee: “He’s very will­ing to talk about issues that have nev­er been dis­cussed pub­licly.”

    When it was point­ed out that some peo­ple might find her remarks offen­sive, Miller replied: “I don’t care, it’s the truth.”

    “Miller added: “I don’t think there was any racism until Oba­ma got elect­ed. We nev­er had prob­lems like this ... Now, with the peo­ple with the guns, and shoot­ing up neigh­bor­hoods, and not being respon­si­ble cit­i­zens, that’s a big change, and I think that’s the phi­los­o­phy that Oba­ma has per­pet­u­at­ed on Amer­i­ca.””

    So that was a nice pre­view of what Amer­i­can His­to­ry text­books are going to look like in a few decades after our Trumpian rev­o­lu­tion. But we aren’t there yet. No, believe it or not, after giv­ing that rather eye-open­ing inter­view, the chair of the Repub­li­can nominee’s cam­paign in Mahon­ing Coun­ty — one of the Ohio coun­ties most impact­ed by elec­tron­ic vot­ing machine ‘mys­ter­ies’ in 2004 — did the unthink­able. She resigned!

    Yes, a Trump cam­paign offi­cial said some­thing mind-numb­ing­ly racist and actu­al­ly resigned as a result. Isn’t this a Trump cam­paign first? And, no, the mass res­ig­na­tion of the Trump Lati­no advi­sors who resigned in protest after that Trump sur­ro­gate warned about Taco Trucks on every cor­ner does­n’t count.

    So isn’t Miller’s res­ig­na­tion a first for the Trump cam­paign? If so, it sure looks like we’ve hit some sort of Trumpian race rela­tions high point sim­ply by dis­cov­er­ing that there real­ly is a line that can be crossed that will actu­al­ly lead to a res­ig­na­tion. Grant­ed, it might be a res­ig­na­tion that has more to do with the bad press that inter­view gen­er­at­ed as opposed to any pro­found dis­agree­ment between Miller and the Trump cam­paign. Still, even dis­cov­er­ing there’s a line at all is kind of sig­nif­i­cant. Behold our high point! We did it, Amer­i­ca! Togeth­er.

    And who knows, maybe this is just the first in what will a long string of res­ig­na­tions as the Trump cam­paign decides to purge itself of aggres­sive­ly racist sur­ro­gates. Or, you know, maybe not.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 22, 2016, 9:00 pm
  12. With the big first Clinton/Trump debate just around the cor­ner and Trump and Clin­ton in a vir­tu­al dead heat in nation­al polls, some pre­emp­tive winc­ing at the medi­a’s inevitable attempts to spin Trump into the White House — so we can have extra high rat­ings for the next four years while the world burns — is prob­a­bly in order. So here goes! *wince*:

    The New York Times
    The Con­science of a Lib­er­al

    The Fal­si­ty of False Equiv­a­lence

    Paul Krug­man
    Sep­tem­ber 26, 2016 3:51 am Sep­tem­ber 26, 2016 3:51 am

    If Don­ald Trump becomes pres­i­dent, the news media will bear a large share of the blame. I know some (many) jour­nal­ists are busy deny­ing respon­si­bil­i­ty, but this is absurd, and I think they know it. As Nick Kristof says, polls show­ing that the pub­lic con­sid­ers Hillary Clin­ton, a minor fib­ber at most, less trust­wor­thy than a patho­log­i­cal liar is pri­ma facie evi­dence of mas­sive media fail­ure.

    In fact, it’s telling that this debate is usu­al­ly framed as one of false equiv­a­lence and whether it’s a prob­lem. It’s a lot bet­ter to have this debate than a con­tin­u­a­tion of the unchecked media assault on Clin­ton. But it’s actu­al­ly much worse than that. The media haven’t treat­ed Clin­ton fibs as the equiv­a­lent of out­right Trump lies; they have treat­ed more or less innocu­ous Clin­tonisms as major scan­dals while white­wash­ing Trump. Put sim­ply, until the past few days the media have had it in for Clin­ton; only now, at the last moment or pos­si­bly after the last moment has the enor­mi­ty of the sin begun to sink in.

    Think about the Matt Lauer deba­cle. That wasn’t a case of false equiv­a­lence; a rough sum­ma­ry of his per­for­mance would be “Emails, emails, emails; yes, Mr. Trump, what­ev­er you say, Mr. Trump.” One can­di­date was repeat­ed­ly harassed over some­thing triv­ial, the oth­er allowed to slide on grotesque false­hoods.

    Or as Jonathan Chait says, the prob­lem hasn’t just been the nor­mal­iza­tion of Trump, it has been the abnor­mal­iza­tion of Clin­ton. Con­sid­er the AP report on the Clin­ton Foun­da­tion. An hon­est report would have said, “The foun­da­tion arguably cre­ates the pos­si­bil­i­ty of self-deal­ing and undue influ­ence, but we’ve looked hard and haven’t found much of any­thing.” Instead, the report played up meet­ings with a Nobel Peace Prize win­ner as being some­how scan­dalous.

    And it’s still hap­pen­ing, if not quite so relent­less­ly. We’re still see­ing reports about how some­thing Clin­ton did “rais­es ques­tions,” “casts shad­ows,” etc. – weasel words that allow reporters to write neg­a­tive sto­ries regard­less of the facts.

    I’ve com­pared this to what went down in the 2000 cam­paign; Nick com­pares it to what hap­pened in the runup to the Iraq war. Pick your anal­o­gy. But let’s use Nick’s exam­ple: actu­al­ly, the media didn’t do false equiv­a­lence in 2002. What they – alas, includ­ing this paper – actu­al­ly did was to breath­less­ly hype the case for war, report­ing as an inside scoop every­thing that Dick Cheney fed them, while freez­ing out crit­ics and skep­tics. The oth­er side was out there; McClatchy found plen­ty of insid­ers will­ing to say that we were being sold a bill of goods. But the skep­tics couldn’t get a word in edge­wise. Effec­tive­ly, the media were pro-war.

    And this time they have effec­tive­ly been pro-Trump – actu­al­ly anti-Clin­ton, but it comes to the same thing. I doubt that reporters or even edi­tors have thought of them­selves as try­ing to elect Trump; many of them will be hor­ri­fied if he wins. But they went all in on Clin­ton Rules, under which sneer­ing at and razz­ing a Clin­ton is con­sid­ered good for your career. It’s real­ly more like high school than high jour­nal­ism, but it may have hor­ren­dous con­se­quences.

    A lot depends on whether the same behav­ior con­tin­ues for the final stretch. If the media report on the debates the way they did in 2000 – if sub­stance is replaced by descrip­tions of Clinton’s facial expres­sions, her sighs, or how she “comes across,” while down­play­ing Trump’s raw lies, say hel­lo to the Trump White House. And his­to­ry will not for­give the peo­ple who made it pos­si­ble.

    “A lot depends on whether the same behav­ior con­tin­ues for the final stretch. If the media report on the debates the way they did in 2000 – if sub­stance is replaced by descrip­tions of Clinton’s facial expres­sions, her sighs, or how she “comes across,” while down­play­ing Trump’s raw lies, say hel­lo to the Trump White House. And his­to­ry will not for­give the peo­ple who made it pos­si­ble.”

    Yes, his­to­ry might not for­give the peo­ple who did what they could to make it pos­si­ble for a Trump admin­is­tra­tion to irre­versibly dam­age the course of his­to­ry and destroy the hopes and dreams of future gen­er­a­tions. But keep in mind that his­to­ry might not actu­al­ly be all that rel­e­vant in a post-fac­t/­post-his­to­ry Trumpian future. Destroy­ing the future does­n’t have to have future reper­cus­sions if you destroy the future so thor­ough­ly the future can’t remem­ber the past.

    So get ready for an abun­dance of media spin about how Don­ald “what good are nukes if we can’t use them” Trump won the debate because he did­n’t mur­der some­one on stage. As long as he wins, those who helped him win don’t have to wor­ry about their his­to­ry lega­cy because the future will already be lost. And just imag­ine the rat­ings Pres­i­dent Trump will gen­er­ate in the process. Hooray! *wince*:

    Talk­ing Points Memo Livewire

    Debate Com­mis­sion, Net­works Have No Plans To Fact-Check Can­di­dates Live

    By Esme Cribb
    Pub­lished Sep­tem­ber 26, 2016, 9:56 AM EDT

    In advance of the first pres­i­den­tial debate on Mon­day, the head of the Com­mis­sion on Pres­i­den­tial Debates as well as major net­works would not com­mit to fact-check­ing can­di­dates live.

    In a Sun­day inter­view with CNN’s Bri­an Stel­ter, the com­mis­sion’s exec­u­tive direc­tor, Janet Brown, said that she was not in favor of fact-check­ing by NBC anchor Lester Holt, who will mod­er­ate the debate Mon­day.

    “I don’t think it’s a good idea to get the mod­er­a­tor into essen­tial­ly serv­ing as the Ency­clo­pe­dia Brit­tan­i­ca,” Brown said. “I think per­son­al­ly if you start get­ting into fact-check­ing I’m not sure, what is a big fact, what’s a lit­tle fact, and if you and I have dif­fer­ent sources of infor­ma­tion, does your source about the unem­ploy­ment rate agree with my source?”

    While the com­mis­sion lets mod­er­a­tors decide how to respond, Brown added, she rec­om­mend­ed that they “facil­i­tate” fact-check­ing between can­di­dates rather than take an active role in doing it them­selves.

    Major net­works were also unwill­ing to com­mit to the chy­ron fact-checks they’ve tak­en to using to cor­rect can­di­dates in real time, accord­ing to a Mon­day report from Politi­co.

    Uni­vi­sion and Tele­mu­n­do told Politi­co that they were not plan­ning to fact-check can­di­dates on screen, cit­ing the rapid-fire edi­to­r­i­al and tech­ni­cal response required.

    NBC did not respond to Politi­co’s requests for com­ment.

    ...

    “In a Sun­day inter­view with CNN’s Bri­an Stel­ter, the com­mis­sion’s exec­u­tive direc­tor, Janet Brown, said that she was not in favor of fact-check­ing by NBC anchor Lester Holt, who will mod­er­ate the debate Mon­day.

    Yes, not only are most of the net­works avoid­ing live fact-check­ing — because that’s appar­ent­ly not some­thing news net­works are good at — but the exec­u­tive direc­tor of the Com­mis­sions on Pres­i­den­tial Debates does­n’t want the mod­er­a­tor to do any fact-check­ing either. The Pow­ers that Be clear­ly hate the world today. And the future. That’s too bad but it is what it is. Get ready Amer­i­ca! *wince*

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 26, 2016, 3:08 pm
  13. Giv­en the ongo­ing debate in the US how the nation found itself in a Trumpian exis­ten­tial cri­sis — which is much like the stan­dard exis­ten­tial cri­sis the US faces every pres­i­den­tial elec­tion from the very real pos­si­bil­i­ty of elec­tion a Repub­li­can pres­i­dent, but more orange and some­how more absurd than nor­mal elec­tion year — and giv­en how many of those ques­tions relate to the role the US media has played, or not played, in fuel­ing the rise of Trump, here’s an arti­cle that’s worth not­ing in that debate: Amer­i­can jour­nal­ism, as a pro­fes­sion, is still col­laps­ing, and with the plateau­ing of online jour­nal­ism job growth now under­way and no longer able to off­set the col­lapse in print jour­nal­ism, the col­lapse of US jour­nal­ism appears to be accel­er­at­ing:

    Colum­bia Jour­nal­ism Review

    Employ­ment pic­ture dark­ens for jour­nal­ists at dig­i­tal out­lets

    By Alex T. Williams
    Sep­tem­ber 27, 2016

    It prob­a­bly comes as no sur­prise that jobs for jour­nal­ists at news­pa­pers con­tin­ue to dis­ap­pear. But in a dis­turb­ing devel­op­ment, dig­i­tal news jobs that had been replac­ing some of the lega­cy posi­tions appear to have hit a plateau.

    Ear­li­er this year, the Bureau of Labor Sta­tis­tics released a chart show­ing the total num­ber of employ­ees work­ing in the news­pa­per indus­try is now low­er than those work­ing in the “inter­net pub­lish­ing and broad­cast­ing” sec­tor. Giv­en the strug­gles of the news­pa­per indus­try, and the increas­ing pop­u­lar­i­ty of “dig­i­tal native” news pub­lish­ers, such fig­ures may seem intu­itive. Yet it only cap­tures how many employ­ees work in these industries—not how many jour­nal­ists.

    With dig­i­tal native web­sites becom­ing more promi­nent, it is worth explor­ing how many jour­nal­ists work in this sec­tor and whether its growth is like­ly to off­set loss­es in the news­pa­per indus­try. Because the Amer­i­can Soci­ety of News Edi­tors (ASNE) recent­ly announced it will no longer esti­mate the size of the news­pa­per work­force, and no orga­ni­za­tion sur­veys dig­i­tal out­lets to mea­sure the size of its work­force, I sought out a new data source to explore these fig­ures.

    Based on my analy­sis of data from the Bureau of Labor Sta­tis­tics’ Occu­pa­tion­al Employ­ment Sta­tis­tics (OES) pro­gram, the num­ber of jour­nal­ists at dig­i­tal native pub­lish­ers has more than tripled in the past decade. This growth, how­ev­er, pales in com­par­i­son to the num­ber of jour­nal­ists laid off in the news­pa­per indus­try. And in recent years, the num­ber of jour­nal­ists at dig­i­tal-only pub­lish­ers seems to have actu­al­ly plateaued. With few­er jour­nal­ists work­ing today, reporters are becom­ing increas­ing­ly con­cen­trat­ed in coastal cities, inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ism and local state­house report­ing is declin­ing, and the ratio of jour­nal­ists to pub­lic rela­tions spe­cial­ists is widen­ing.

    Pre­vi­ous­ly, the Pew Research Center’s cen­sus of edi­to­r­i­al staff at dig­i­tal native news pub­lish­ers esti­mat­ed there were about 5,000 full-time staff mem­bers in 2014. This in-depth analy­sis pro­vides impor­tant insight, but it is unable to speak to lon­gi­tu­di­nal trends.

    ...

    Accord­ing to OES data, the num­ber of jour­nal­ists in the news­pa­per indus­try declined sharply in the past decade. Con­sid­er that in 2005, there were 66,490 news­pa­per reporters or edi­tors. In 2015, there were 41,400, a decline of 25,090 jour­nal­ists, or 38 per­cent. Dur­ing the same time peri­od, the num­ber of jour­nal­ists at dig­i­tal-only pub­lish­ers more than tripled, grow­ing from 3,410 to 10,580.

    Put anoth­er way, in 2005, for every one dig­i­tal-only jour­nal­ist, there were 20 news­pa­per jour­nal­ists. But due to steep job loss­es at news­pa­pers and sub­stan­tial growth at dig­i­tal native pub­lish­ers, that ratio changed sig­nif­i­cant­ly. In 2015, for every one dig­i­tal-only jour­nal­ist, there were four news­pa­per jour­nal­ists.

    ...

    Pew’s 2014 cen­sus not­ed a major­i­ty of employ­ees at dig­i­tal-only pub­lish­ers worked for 30 orga­ni­za­tions, many of which had grown con­sid­er­ably in the past few years. This sug­gest­ed that staff at dig­i­tal-only pub­lish­ers was grow­ing quick­ly. Giv­en the finan­cial strug­gles of the news indus­try, this was seen as an impor­tant and pos­i­tive devel­op­ment. But is that growth con­tin­u­ing?

    Accord­ing to OES data, the num­ber of jour­nal­ists at dig­i­tal-only pub­lish­ers grew each year from 2010 to 2013. Since then, how­ev­er, the esti­mat­ed num­ber of jour­nal­ists has plateaued, rang­ing from 10,240 to 10,580 in the past three years. These fig­ures com­ple­ment recent indi­ca­tors sug­gest­ing the eco­nom­ic mod­el for dig­i­tal-native pub­lish­ers may be in flux. In 2015, Buz­zFeed pro­ject­ed $250 mil­lion in rev­enue but gen­er­at­ed less than $170 mil­lion. Ven­ture fund­ing for media star­tups is the low­est since mid-2013. This year, lay­offs have been report­ed at Mash­able, Vice News, and Inter­na­tion­al Busi­ness Times.

    ...

    These pat­terns, even if inex­act, sug­gest impor­tant trends. Accord­ing to OES esti­mates, since 2005, news­pa­pers laid-off approx­i­mate­ly 25,000 jour­nal­ists, and dig­i­tal native pub­lish­ers hired about 7,000 jour­nal­ists. While the growth of dig­i­tal-only pub­lish­ers has cre­at­ed jobs for thou­sands of jour­nal­ists, it has not off­set steep job loss­es at news­pa­pers.

    Indeed, the com­bined num­ber of jour­nal­ists at news­pa­pers or dig­i­tal-only pub­lish­ers has declined sharply in the past decade. In 2005, there were 69,900 jour­nal­ists employed in these two indus­tries. In 2015, there were 51,980, a decline of 26 per­cent. As a result, Amer­i­cans have few­er jour­nal­ists to pro­vide news infor­ma­tion.

    This loss is impor­tant for four key rea­sons:

    1. Job loss­es in jour­nal­ism have not been even­ly dis­trib­uted. Between 2004 and 2014, the num­ber of news reporters in Wash­ing­ton, DC, and Los Ange­les actu­al­ly grew, while it stayed about the same in New York City. Relat­ed­ly, most dig­i­tal news out­lets are locat­ed in these major mar­kets. As a result, cit­i­zens out­side of these areas like­ly have few­er reporters act­ing as local watch­dogs and the media sys­tem is becom­ing increas­ing­ly con­cen­trat­ed in coastal cities.
    2. With few­er jour­nal­ists, but finan­cial pres­sure to adapt to low adver­tis­ing rates, papers and dig­i­tal out­lets are incen­tivized to focus on short­er arti­cles that cost less time and mon­ey to pro­duce. Reporters feel pres­sure to write sto­ries that get more clicks—and out­lets like the Ore­gon­ian and the now-defunct Gawk­er con­sid­ered using met­rics to help deter­mine how much reporters should be paid.

    In this eco­nom­ic envi­ron­ment, green­light­ing time-con­sum­ing, in-depth reports that may get less traf­fic than lighter-fare arti­cles has become increas­ing­ly rare. A recent report by Moth­er Jones in which a senior reporter worked four months as a cor­rec­tions offi­cer exem­pli­fies this ten­sion. The mas­sive 35,000-word report exposed cor­rup­tion in pri­vate pris­ons but con­ser­v­a­tive­ly cost $350,000 to pro­duce and only brought in $5,000 in ban­ner ads.
    3. Cov­er­age of local pol­i­tics is like­ly wors­en­ing. Accord­ing to the Pew Research Cen­ter, between 2003 and 2014, the num­ber of full-time news­pa­per state­house reporters declined by 35 per­cent. Sev­er­al experts quot­ed in the report believe the qual­i­ty of report­ing is dete­ri­o­rat­ing.

    Gene Rose, for­mer com­mu­ni­ca­tions direc­tor for the Nation­al Con­fer­ence of State Leg­is­la­tures, argued that “I think you’re see­ing few­er stories…The pub­lic is not being kept aware of impor­tant pol­i­cy deci­sions that are being made that will affect their dai­ly lives.” Like­wise, Bob­by Har­ri­son, the capi­tol bureau chief for the North­east Mis­sis­sip­pi Dai­ly Jour­nal, stat­ed that “As far as analy­sis and in-depth report­ing, I think there’s def­i­nite­ly less than there was 10 years ago.”
    4. As Robert McCh­es­ney and John Nichols have not­ed, cuts in jour­nal­ism are alarm­ing because when “edi­to­r­i­al staffs shrink, there is less abil­i­ty for news media to inter­ro­gate and counter the claims in press releas­es.” In oth­er words, we have few­er reporters objec­tive­ly writ­ing about pol­i­tics to counter “spin” from pub­lic rela­tions. Indeed, in 2004, the ratio of jour­nal­ists to pub­lic rela­tions spe­cial­ists was one to three. In 2014, for every jour­nal­ist, there were about five pub­lic rela­tions spe­cial­ists.

    Last year, a report from the Cen­ter for Pub­lic Integri­ty illus­trat­ed how inter­twined pub­lic rela­tions and pub­lic pol­i­cy are with one anoth­er. In 2012, for exam­ple, the Amer­i­can Petro­le­um Insti­tute paid $51.9 mil­lion to the pub­lic rela­tions firm Edel­man.

    Trade asso­ci­a­tions hire PR firms to craft mes­sages when they are fac­ing pub­lic scruti­ny and reg­u­la­tions: like whether frack­ing should be allowed in a state. As reporters try to inves­ti­gate and explain the mer­its of these pro­pos­als for cit­i­zens, jour­nal­ists are being out­num­bered and out­spent by the pub­lic rela­tions indus­try. Adding salt to the wound, the pay gap between jour­nal­ists and pub­lic rela­tions spe­cial­ists is widen­ing, forc­ing many jour­nal­ists to con­sid­er chang­ing careers.

    While the num­ber of out­lets and the vol­ume of con­tent con­tin­ues to expand, today we have few­er jour­nal­ists, less inves­tiga­tive or state­house report­ing, and the jour­nal­ists left stand­ing are becom­ing increas­ing­ly con­cen­trat­ed in coastal cities. The sit­u­a­tion would cer­tain­ly be more dire with­out dig­i­tal news out­lets like Vox Media, Vice Media, and Buz­zFeed—but it seems unlike­ly that such sites will off­set jobs and news cov­er­age lost in the news­pa­per indus­try.

    “Based on my analy­sis of data from the Bureau of Labor Sta­tis­tics’ Occu­pa­tion­al Employ­ment Sta­tis­tics (OES) pro­gram, the num­ber of jour­nal­ists at dig­i­tal native pub­lish­ers has more than tripled in the past decade. This growth, how­ev­er, pales in com­par­i­son to the num­ber of jour­nal­ists laid off in the news­pa­per indus­try. And in recent years, the num­ber of jour­nal­ists at dig­i­tal-only pub­lish­ers seems to have actu­al­ly plateaued. With few­er jour­nal­ists work­ing today, reporters are becom­ing increas­ing­ly con­cen­trat­ed in coastal cities, inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ism and local state­house report­ing is declin­ing, and the ratio of jour­nal­ists to pub­lic rela­tions spe­cial­ists is widen­ing.

    Yes, jour­nal­ism is dying and get­ting replaced by pub­lic rela­tions spe­cial­ists. Oh, and don’t for­get that being a jour­nal­ist is con­sid­ered one of the worst jobs in Amer­i­ca and has been for years.

    So might this all have some­thing to do with the rise of Trump or are Trump’s surge and the col­lapse of jour­nal­ism as a viable pro­fes­sion both symp­toms of some under­ly­ing col­lec­tive dys­func­tion that was going to hap­pen with or with­out the decline of jour­nal­ism? It’s one of those ‘chick­en and egg’ sit­u­a­tions: If the pub­lic actu­al­ly val­ued valu­able jour­nal­ism, jour­nal­ism pre­sum­ably would­n’t have declined and we could have had a media envi­ron­ment that actu­al cul­ti­vates in its audi­ence a desire for qual­i­ty analy­sis and the kind of mean­ing­ful dis­course that actu­al­ly leads to solu­tions and improves lives in a way that pre­vents the rise of some­one like Trump. But the decline in the pub­lic’s appetite for qual­i­ty jour­nal­ism did­n’t hap­pen in a vac­u­um. Fox News, right-wing talk radio, and the gen­er­al the right-wing/pro-cor­po­rate junk media real­i­ty-bub­ble media has been gath­er­ing steam for decades too. It’s as if we col­lec­tive­ly slit our intel­lec­tu­al wrists, just to get a taste, and then decid­ed it tast­ed real­ly good and asked for more. You do that long enough and you’re inevitably going to get so light­head­ed that elect­ing Orange Hitler sud­den­ly does­n’t seem like an exis­ten­tial cri­sis. It’s kind of hard to sus­tain high-qual­i­ty jour­nal­ism in that kind of envi­ron­ment.

    But regard­less of the role the decline of the jour­nal­ism indus­try has played in the rise of Trump, it’s pret­ty clear that the decline of the indus­try and the decline of Amer­i­ca’s polit­i­cal cul­ture and gen­er­al knowl­edge base isn’t stop­ping any time soon, Pres­i­dent Trump or not. Con­sid­er­ing the incred­i­ble mess­es these twin dynam­ics inevitably cre­ate for a nation at least there’s inevitably going to be lots of real­ly impor­tant sto­ries that need cov­er­ing. So at least the abun­dance of dis­as­ters that could have been avoid­ed with a well-informed pub­lic that but aren’t avoid­ed should hope­ful­ly turn things around for the indus­try. Dis­as­ters, even avoid­able dis­as­ters like a Trump pres­i­den­cy, are gen­er­al­ly good news for the news indus­try. Of course, if that’s how things worked we would already be in the mid­dle of jour­nal­is­tic gold­en age. So, yeah, maybe that’s not going to hap­pen.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 28, 2016, 6:57 pm
  14. Giv­en the rise of Trumpian politi­cians around the globe, here’s a look at how the Phillip­ines is deal­ing with its own Trump: Philip­pine Pres­i­dent Rodri­go Duterte, a politi­cian often seen as the Don­ald Trump of the Philip­pines, just likened him­self to Hitler and said he would be hap­py to slaugh­ter the coun­try’s 3 mil­lion drug users:

    Asso­ci­at­ed Press

    Duterte ‘Hap­py to Slaugh­ter’ Drug Sus­pects; Men­tions Hitler

    By jim gomez, asso­ci­at­ed press

    MANILA, Philip­pines — Sep 30, 2016, 3:34 PM ET

    Philip­pine Pres­i­dent Rodri­go Duterte raised the rhetoric over his bloody anti-crime war to a new lev­el Fri­day, com­par­ing it to Hitler and the Holo­caust and say­ing he would be “hap­py to slaugh­ter” 3 mil­lion addicts.

    Duterte issued his lat­est threat against drug deal­ers and users ear­ly Fri­day on return­ing to his home­town in south­ern Davao city after vis­it­ing Viet­nam, where he dis­cussed his anti-drug cam­paign with Viet­namese lead­ers and ways for their gov­ern­ments to fight transna­tion­al crimes, includ­ing ille­gal drugs.

    Duterte has said his pub­lic death threats against drug sus­pects are designed to scare them to stop sell­ing drugs and to dis­cour­age would-be users. But his lat­est remarks took that crime-bust­ing approach to a dif­fer­ent lev­el.

    He said he had been “por­trayed or pic­tured to be a cousin of Hitler,” with­out elab­o­rat­ing.

    Moments lat­er he said, “Hitler mas­sa­cred 3 mil­lion Jews ... there’s 3 mil­lion drug addicts. There are. I’d be hap­py to slaugh­ter them.”

    He was refer­ring to a Philip­pine gov­ern­ment esti­mate of the num­ber of drug addicts in the coun­try. His­to­ri­ans say 6 mil­lion Jews were killed by the Nazis under Hitler before and dur­ing World War II.

    Dur­ing the pres­i­den­tial elec­tion cam­paign ear­li­er this year and dur­ing the three months he has held office, the tough-talk­ing Duterte has threat­ened to drown drug sus­pects to fat­ten the fish in Mani­la Bay. He also threat­ened to exe­cute drug traf­fick­ers by hang­ing — because he did­n’t want to waste elec­tric­i­ty on them — until their heads were sev­ered from their bod­ies.

    While Hitler’s vic­tims were inno­cent peo­ple, Duterte said his tar­gets are “all crim­i­nals” and that get­ting rid of them would “fin­ish the (drug) prob­lem of my coun­try and save the next gen­er­a­tion from perdi­tion.”

    Ger­many’s gov­ern­ment slammed Duterte’s com­ments as unac­cept­able, and called in the Philip­pine ambas­sador to the For­eign Min­istry over the mat­ter.

    “It is impos­si­ble to make any com­par­i­son to the unique atroc­i­ties of the Shoah and Holo­caust,” said For­eign Min­istry spokesman Mar­tin Schae­fer in Berlin.

    World Jew­ish Con­gress Pres­i­dent Ronald Laud­er said Duterte’s remarks were “revolt­ing” and demand­ed that he retract them and apol­o­gize.

    “Drug abuse is a seri­ous issue. But what Pres­i­dent Duterte said is not only pro­found­ly inhu­mane, but it demon­strates an appalling dis­re­spect for human life that is tru­ly heart­break­ing for the demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly elect­ed leader of a great coun­try,” Laud­er said in a state­ment issued from Jerusalem, where he was attend­ing the funer­al of for­mer Israeli leader Shi­mon Peres.

    The U.S. State Depart­ment, which is look­ing to sus­tain its long­stand­ing alliance with the Philip­pines, called the com­ments “trou­bling.”

    “Words mat­ter, espe­cial­ly when they are from lead­ers of sov­er­eign nations, espe­cial­ly sov­er­eign nations with whom we have long and val­ued rela­tions with,” spokesman Mark Ton­er told reporters. He repeat­ed U.S. calls for Philip­pine author­i­ties to inves­ti­gate any cred­i­ble reports of extra-judi­cial killings.

    U.S. Sen. Ben Cardin, top-rank­ing Demo­c­rat on the Sen­ate For­eign Rela­tions Com­mit­tee, was more forth­right.

    “It is rep­re­hen­si­ble and frankly dis­gust­ing that a demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly-elect­ed leader is talk­ing about the mass mur­der of his own peo­ple, with Hitler’s Holo­caust as his inspi­ra­tion no less,” he said in a state­ment.

    Philip­pine Rep. Teodoro Baguilat won­dered if the pres­i­dent was sug­gest­ing that “it’s open sea­son now for all addicts, no more reha­bil­i­ta­tion, just kill them sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly like what the Nazis did with the Jews.” He expressed fears that Jew­ish busi­ness­peo­ple might boy­cott the Philip­pines.

    Also crit­i­cal was Phil Robert­son, Asia deputy direc­tor for Human Rights Watch, who said it was baf­fling why any­one would want to com­pare them­selves to “one of the largest mass mur­der­ers in human his­to­ry.”

    Robert­son said that in today’s con­text, Hitler would be accused of crimes against human­i­ty.

    “Is that what Duterte wants? Does he want to be sent to the inter­na­tion­al crim­i­nal court? Because he’s work­ing his way there,” Robert­son said.

    Amnesty Inter­na­tion­al said Duterte “has sunk to new depths” and urged gov­ern­ments around the world to con­demn his “extreme­ly dan­ger­ous out­burst.”

    A spokesman for Yad Vashem, the Jerusalem-based world cen­ter for Holo­caust research and com­mem­o­ra­tion, declined to com­ment on Duterte’s remarks.

    Duterte’s cam­paign promise to end cor­rup­tion and crime, espe­cial­ly ille­gal drugs, with­in six months of tak­ing office on June 30 car­ried him to an over­whelm­ing vic­to­ry in May’s pres­i­den­tial elec­tion.

    Since the vote, more than 3,000 sus­pect­ed drug deal­ers and users have been killed and near­ly 700,000 oth­ers have sur­ren­dered in his crack­down. Duterte has asked for a six-month exten­sion to fin­ish the job.

    His sup­port­ers and many Fil­ipinos exas­per­at­ed with wide­spread crime have wel­comed his tough approach, but a grow­ing num­ber of crit­ics, includ­ing U.N. offi­cials, the Euro­pean Union and the Unit­ed States, have voiced con­cerns over the wide­spread killings and human rights vio­la­tions.

    ...

    “Hitler mas­sa­cred 3 mil­lion Jews ... there’s 3 mil­lion drug addicts. There are. I’d be hap­py to slaugh­ter them.”

    Ok, so the Philip­pines’ new pres­i­dent is basi­cal­ly the Hitler for drug users. And he’s over­whelm­ing­ly pop­u­lar. Although, giv­en the par­al­lels between Duterte’s dec­la­ra­tion of open sea­son on drug users and the vio­lent drug crack­down that took place last decade in Thai­land, it’s worth keep­ing in mind that Duterte actu­al­ly declared open sea­son on drug users and basi­cal­ly any­one else since that the nature of the extra­ju­di­cial killings he’s unleashed...except for actu­al drug lords who will be fine:

    The Con­ver­sa­tion

    Duterte’s war on drugs: bit­ter lessons from Thailand’s failed cam­paign

    Sep­tem­ber 29, 2016 2.35am EDT

    Jan­ji­ra Som­bat­poon­siri
    Assis­tant Pro­fes­sor, Tham­masat Uni­ver­si­ty

    Aries Aru­gay
    Asso­ciate Pro­fes­sor of Polit­i­cal Sci­ence, Uni­ver­si­ty of the Philip­pines

    The body count from Philip­pine Pres­i­dent Rodri­go Duterte’s “war on drugs” is grow­ing by the day. While he’s not the first nation­al leader to con­done vio­lence and extra­ju­di­cial killings in the name of con­trol­ling illic­it drug use, Duterte would be wise to learn from South­east Asian his­to­ry on what works, and what doesn’t.

    Duterte’s pol­i­cy has already result­ed in more than 3,000 casu­al­ties, lead­ing to broad inter­na­tion­al con­dem­na­tion.

    The deaths have result­ed in either police oper­a­tions where sus­pects have resist­ed arrest or sum­ma­ry exe­cu­tions by unknown per­pe­tra­tors. Drug push­ers and users are vol­un­tar­i­ly sur­ren­der­ing to the police in huge num­bers, exact­ing a toll in the country’s already over­crowd­ed jail sys­tem. Nor are there enough drug reha­bil­i­ta­tion cen­tres to absorb many of them.

    Oth­er coun­tries have adopt­ed sim­i­lar poli­cies in the past — only to see them fail.

    Colombia’s drug war result­ed in the deaths of pow­er­ful mem­bers of drug car­tels, for instance, but also in sky­rock­et­ing lev­els of vio­lence, mar­gin­al­i­sa­tion, and human rights vio­la­tions.

    Thailand’s drug war

    The most salu­tary tale for Duterte comes from Thai­land. The drug war waged in the ear­ly 2000s by for­mer Thai prime min­is­ter Thaksin Shi­nawa­tra could hold impor­tant lessons for the Fil­ipino gov­ern­ment about the unfore­seen polit­i­cal con­se­quences of con­don­ing vio­lence in the name of con­trol­ling crime.

    Launched in 2003, Thaksin’s war on drugs bears sig­nif­i­cant sim­i­lar­i­ties to what’s hap­pen­ing in the Philip­pines. Like Duterte, Shi­nawa­tra was very pop­u­lar, man­ag­ing to lead a one-par­ty admin­is­tra­tion in a coun­try used to gov­ern­ment by coali­tion. This strong elec­toral man­date allowed him to take on his country’s gar­gan­tu­an and sys­temic drug prob­lem.

    As one of the world’s major tran­sit points for nar­cotics, drug-use had been com­mon in Thai­land since the 1950s. But in the 1990s, the use of metham­phet­a­mines (known in Thai as ya ba) start­ed to cause con­cern among Thai polit­i­cal elites.

    Most metham­phet­a­mines were pro­duced on the Thai­land-Myan­mar bor­der by eth­nic Burmese rebels, who used sales to finance their armed strug­gle. But the drug was large­ly con­sumed by the rur­al work­ing class Thais, due to its afford­able price.

    When the media began report­ing ris­ing metham­phet­a­mine use among young peo­ple, key polit­i­cal fig­ures, par­tic­u­lar­ly King Bhu­mi­bol Adulyadej and his privy coun­cil, expressed grave con­cern.

    A for­mer police lieu­tenant colonel him­self, Thaksin declared an all-out war against ya ba. Drug deal­ers were labelled ene­mies of the state, and after three months and 2,500 deaths, the prime min­is­ter pro­claimed vic­to­ry.

    Thailand’s war on drugs was car­ried out through col­lab­o­ra­tion between local gov­er­nors and police offi­cers. Gov­ern­ment offi­cials com­piled “black­lists” which led to arrests and, in many cas­es, extra­ju­di­cial killings. As the bod­ies piled up, the police claimed that most deaths result­ed from rival drug car­tels killing each oth­er to avoid betray­al by their accom­plices.

    The pres­sure on the police to mea­sure their suc­cess was para­mount, and it was defined by the body count. This met­ric rein­forced the exist­ing hier­ar­chy, already prone to abuse, cor­rup­tion and even com­plic­i­ty in the drug trade.

    Police tar­gets nor­mal­ly con­sist­ed of the “small fish” with­in the drug net­work (low-lev­el deal­ers, for instance, and hill tribe vil­lagers). Rarely did the lists con­tain drug lords them­selves but every death in the war count­ed as a step toward suc­cess.

    Accord­ing to an offi­cial inves­ti­ga­tion launched after the 2006 mil­i­tary coup that wrenched pow­er from Thaksin, 1,400 peo­ple out of the 2,500 killed as part of the war on drugs had noth­ing to do with drugs. And prof­itable drug routes from Myan­mar report­ed­ly remained intact, pro­tect­ed by the Myan­mar and Thai gov­ern­ment bureau­cra­cy and busi­ness elites.

    Despite the vio­lent and bloody crack­down, the Thai pop­u­la­tion large­ly endorsed Thaksin’s war. Pri­or to his down­fall in 2006, the prime min­is­ter was admired by both his sup­port­ers and crit­ics for his busi­ness-ori­ent­ed effi­cien­cy, pol­i­cy deci­sive­ness and resilience in the face of harsh crit­i­cism.

    The for­mer prime min­is­ter suc­cess­ful­ly con­trolled the dis­course of the war, even in the face of reports of human rights vio­la­tions. He claimed the drug war was nec­es­sary, and that Thais should turn a blind eye to the inevitable “col­lat­er­al dam­age” of his cam­paign. Pub­lic opin­ion sup­port­ed the cam­paign; some sur­veys showed sup­port of 97.4%.

    Lessons for Duterte

    Thailand’s expe­ri­ence shows that the real cul­prits at the top of the drug pyra­mid often escape extrale­gal approach­es to erad­i­cat­ing drug prob­lems with impuni­ty. After thou­sands of deaths, Colom­bia and Mex­i­co dis­cov­ered the same truth decades ago.

    Net­works of ille­gal drug sup­ply go beyond any one country’s sov­er­eign bor­ders. The Philip­pines is a pro­duc­er, a tran­sit point, and a con­sumer of nar­cotics. Each role requires spe­cif­ic poli­cies that involve the entire state appa­ra­tus, as well as civ­il soci­ety.

    The drug trade is a transna­tion­al threat; this means neigh­bour­ing states have to work togeth­er to fight. In this sense, Duterte’s plea for region­al coop­er­a­tion on ille­gal drugs is a step in the right direc­tion and should be sup­port­ed by oth­er ASEAN coun­tries.

    ...

    “Accord­ing to an offi­cial inves­ti­ga­tion launched after the 2006 mil­i­tary coup that wrenched pow­er from Thaksin, 1,400 peo­ple out of the 2,500 killed as part of the war on drugs had noth­ing to do with drugs. And prof­itable drug routes from Myan­mar report­ed­ly remained intact, pro­tect­ed by the Myan­mar and Thai gov­ern­ment bureau­cra­cy and busi­ness elites.

    Yes, over half of Thai­land’s war on drugs deaths had noth­ing to do with drugs and the drug lords were large­ly fine, which is prob­a­bly what we should expect for the Hitler of the Philip­pines’ extra­ju­di­cial mass mur­der pro­gram. Will the pub­lic care? It’s hard to see why. After all, giv­en the incred­i­bly vile and almost casu­al dehu­man­iza­tion of ille­gal drug users already embraced by the pop­u­lace, why would they care about the killing of addi­tion­al inno­cent peo­ple? Don’t for­get that Duterte jok­ing lament­ed about not get­ting invit­ed to a gang rape in his home town as he was cam­paign for Pres­i­dent and won! The Philip­pines is clear­ly in the thrall of some sort of blood lust and addict­ed to vio­lence and mur­der as a means of ‘solu­tion’ for deal­ing with its ille­gal drug using pop­u­la­tion (as opposed to, you know, human­iz­ing them and maybe rec­og­niz­ing it as a pub­lic health issue). One might even say the Fil­ip­pino soci­ety today, like so many oth­er soci­eties, is addict­ed to vio­lence and mur­der as the prob­lem-solv­ing solu­tion of choice. Except unlike a drug addict who at least knows what they’re addict­ed to, when a soci­ety gets addict­ed to vio­lence and mass mur­der it’s gen­er­al­ly not aware of it and unwill­ing to do any­thing about it. Yikes. That’s one scary addiction/public health issue.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 30, 2016, 2:54 pm
  15. The par­al­lels grew today between Don­ald Trump and the ‘Trump of the Philip­pines’ Pres­i­dent Rodri­go Duterte. So here’s a pair of sto­ries that, while not direct­ly relat­ed, both fol­low a theme which is, of course, a dis­turb­ing theme:
    First, video of a tes­ti­mo­ny Don­ald Trump made for his law­suit against a celebri­ty chef who with­drew from a planned restau­rant at one of Trump’s new hotels in the wake of Trump’s char­ac­ter­i­za­tion of Mex­i­can undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants as includ­ing a large num­ber of rapists dur­ing the open­ing speech of his pres­i­den­tial cam­paign.

    As one might expect, the ques­tion of whether or not Trump had actu­al­ly thought about the kind of dam­age his ‘Mex­i­can rapist’ com­ments might do to the planned busi­ness was brought up in the tes­ti­mo­ny. So did Trump plan on call­ing Mex­i­can immi­grants “rapists” before he gave his speech? Accord­ing to the video, yes. And did Trump think his com­ments might actu­al­ly hurt his planned busi­ness? No, he did not think about how his com­ments might affect busi­ness deals. Beyond that, he did­n’t actu­al­ly think they were offen­sive at all, cit­ing the fact that he won the GOP pri­ma­ry as evi­dence. He also felt the media was actu­al­ly dis­tort­ing his state­ment. And since Trump is con­fi­dent that most peo­ple agreed with his com­ments, he felt that, if any­thing, his ‘Mex­i­can rapist ‘com­ments should help the restau­rant, although he con­ced­ed that he did­n’t real­ly know if those com­ments would be neg­a­tive­ly received by His­pan­ics (or any­one who does­n’t like to hear hate speech from puta­tive pres­i­dents).

    So the guy who could eas­i­ly become the next Pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States did­n’t real­ly think that strong­ly sug­gest­ing a large num­ber of Mex­i­can undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants are rapists in his open­ing cam­paign speech might be neg­a­tive­ly received, even by His­pan­ics, and to this day still does­n’t feel it’s been neg­a­tive­ly received. If any­thing, they’ve helped the Trump ‘brand’. Also, the media has total­ly dis­tort­ed what he said so any neg­a­tive sen­ti­ments gen­er­at­ed his com­ments (which have become an over­ar­ch­ing cam­paign theme at this point) are basi­cal­ly unfair.

    So it does­n’t sound like Don­ald Trump does­n’t plan on say­ing the deplorable things he says. He plans on it. It’s just that those plans don’t include the pos­si­bil­i­ty that every­one won’t love what he says. It’s some­thing to keep in mind if you’re plan­ning on going into busi­ness with Don­ald Trump, espe­cial­ly now that he’s a high pro­file celebri­ty busi­ness­man. It’s also, of course, some­thing to keep in mind if you’re plan­ning on vot­ing for him:

    USA Today

    Video: Trump planned to describe some Mex­i­can migrants ‘rapists’

    David Jack­son, 4:34 p.m. EDT Sep­tem­ber 30, 2016

    Don­ald Trump tes­ti­fied in a law­suit this year that he planned to describe some Mex­i­can immi­grants as crim­i­nals and rapists dur­ing the 2015 announce­ment of his pres­i­den­tial cam­paign.

    “Yes,” a low-key Trump said dur­ing the June depo­si­tion when asked if he planned his remarks about Mex­i­cans, one of sev­er­al one-word answers he gave to ques­tions about his announce­ment speech of a year before. Asked if he wrote out the speech before­hand, Trump said “no.”

    The New York busi­ness­man also tes­ti­fied that he was refer­ring to “ille­gal immi­grants,” and he did not think about how his com­ments might affect busi­ness deals.

    Video of a June 16 depo­si­tion sur­faced pur­suant to the order of a Wash­ing­ton judge hear­ing a law­suit that the Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial nom­i­nee filed after a chef with­drew plans for a restau­rant at a new Trump hotel in light of his com­ments about Mex­i­cans.

    Trump’s lawyers tried to keep the depo­si­tion video under seal over con­cerns that polit­i­cal oppo­nents would use it in cam­paign ads.

    ...

    Dur­ing his June 2015 announce­ment speech, Trump said:

    “When Mex­i­co sends its peo­ple, they’re not send­ing their best. They’re not send­ing you. They’re not send­ing you. They’re send­ing peo­ple that have lots of prob­lems, and they’re bring­ing those prob­lems with us. They’re bring­ing drugs. They’re bring­ing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good peo­ple.”

    In deny­ing his com­ments were offen­sive, Trump cit­ed his suc­cess in the Repub­li­can pri­maries.

    “I’m run­ning for office. I obvi­ous­ly have cred­i­bil­i­ty because I now, as it turns out, became the Repub­li­can nom­i­nee run­ning against, we have a total of 17 peo­ple that were most­ly sen­a­tors and gov­er­nors, high­ly respect­ed peo­ple,” Trump said dur­ing the depo­si­tion.

    Trump also claimed the media dis­tort­ed his remarks: “I think the media is very dis­hon­est. But all I’m doing is bring­ing up a sit­u­a­tion which is very real, about ille­gal immi­gra­tion. And I think, you know, most peo­ple think I’m right.”

    That kind of pop­u­lar­i­ty would help a restau­rant suc­ceed, Trump tes­ti­fied — though his com­ments may dis­suade His­pan­ics from patron­iz­ing his estab­lish­ments.

    “It is always pos­si­ble,” Trump said. “I just don’t know. I mean, I don’t know how to answer that ques­tion. It’s pos­si­ble.”

    “It is always possible...I just don’t know. I mean, I don’t know how to answer that ques­tion. It’s pos­si­ble.”

    Yes, it’s pos­si­ble that his com­ments that strong­ly asso­ci­at­ed Lati­nos with rape could have dis­suad­ed His­pan­ics from patron­iz­ing Trump estab­lish­ments. It’s pos­si­ble but he’s not real­ly sure. He just does­n’t know how to even begin think­ing about it. But if you’re in busi­ness with him and dis­tance your­self after he makes those com­ments he’ll sue you. Still, he’s pret­ty what he said was actu­al­ly help­ful and well received. It’s bold lead­er­ship, folks! If you can’t see that it’s the medi­a’s fault.

    So that was the Trump-end of our pair of par­al­lel sto­ries. Now let’s take a look at the lat­est spin from Rodri­go Duterte’s admin­is­tra­tion over what exact­ly he meant when he com­pared him­self to Hitler and said would be glad to “slaugh­ter” 3 mil­lion drug users as part of some sort nation­al purifi­ca­tion scheme to “save the next gen­er­a­tion from perdi­tion”. Well, accord­ing to Duterte’s spokesper­son, Durterte was actu­al­ly reject­ing the Hitler label that cri­tiques were already using. Also, he still total­ly sup­ports his mass mur­der pro­gram, includ­ing the extra­ju­di­cial killings but plans to kill three mil­lion ille­gal drug users (alco­hol appar­ent­ly does­n’t lead to perdi­tion) is not at all com­pa­ra­ble to the slaugh­ter of mil­lions of Jews because the Holo­caust was intend­ed to kill off the Jews while killing mil­lions of drug users is actu­al­ly intend­ed to save the next gen­er­a­tion from going to hell. See, it’s not like the Holocaust...even though he made that direct com­par­i­son which is what trig­gered the lat­est out­cry in the first place. It’s the oppo­site!

    Philip­pine Dai­ly Inquir­er

    Palace: Duterte rejects com­par­isons with Hitler

    By: Gil C. Caba­cun­gan
    11:57 AM Octo­ber 1st, 2016

    Mala­cañang has bro­ken its silence on the firestorm cre­at­ed by Pres­i­dent Rodri­go Duterte’s remarks com­par­ing him­self to Nazi dic­ta­tor Adolf Hitler and that he would “be hap­py” exter­mi­nate 3 mil­lion drug addicts like the demagogue’s exter­mi­na­tion of Jews.

    In a brief radio brief­ing Sat­ur­day morn­ing, Pres­i­den­tial Spokesper­son Ernesto Abel­la clar­i­fied the Pres­i­dent did not in any way praise Hitler as a role mod­el in his remarks that he said were “oblique” or skewed expla­na­tions of what he meant.

    “The Philip­pines rec­og­nizes the deep sig­nif­i­cance of the Jew­ish expe­ri­ence espe­cial­ly their trag­ic and painful his­to­ry. We do not wish to dimin­ish the pro­found loss of 6 mil­lion Jews in the holo­caust that deep mid­night of their sto­ry as a peo­ple,” said Abel­la who did not enter­tain any ques­tion dur­ing the inter­view over state-owned DZRB radio.

    “The President’s ref­er­ence to the slaugh­ter was an oblique deflec­tion of the way he has been pic­tured as a mass mur­der­er, a Hitler, which is a label that he rejects,” said Abel­la.

    Abel­la, how­ev­er, stood by the President’s state­ment that the unre­solved killings of drug sus­pects by police and vig­i­lantes would have a pos­i­tive effect on the coun­try.

    “He like­wise draws an oblique con­clu­sion that while the holo­caust was an attempt to exter­mi­nate the future gen­er­a­tion of Jews, the so-called extra­ju­di­cial killings, round­ly attrib­uted to him, will nev­er­the­less result in the sal­va­tion of the next gen­er­a­tion of Fil­ipinos,” said Abel­la.

    ““He like­wise draws an oblique con­clu­sion that while the holo­caust was an attempt to exter­mi­nate the future gen­er­a­tion of Jews, the so-called extra­ju­di­cial killings, round­ly attrib­uted to him, will nev­er­the­less result in the sal­va­tion of the next gen­er­a­tion of Fil­ipinos,” said Abel­la.”

    Yes, in Duterte’s mind, the jus­ti­fi­ca­tions for the Holo­caust appar­ent­ly did­n’t include killing intense pro­pa­gan­da about how the Jews threat­ened future gen­er­a­tions. And when he com­pared him­self to Hitler and jus­ti­fied his mass mur­der cam­paign as some sort of sal­va­tion for the nation he was actu­al­ly draw­ing a direct con­trast the Holo­caust. Sure, that’s super believ­able.

    So that a glimpse at “oops, I did­n’t mean to say that hor­ri­ble thing (or imple­ment that hor­ri­ble pol­i­cy)) that’s not actu­al­ly hor­ri­ble and total­ly mis­un­der­stood” trend in glob­al lead­er­ship. While Duterte is obvi­ous­ly much more hor­ri­ble than Trump at this point since he’s actu­al­ly in pow­er already and actu­al­ly admin­is­ter­ing a mass mur­der cam­paign, it’s still hard to ignore the par­al­lels

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 1, 2016, 4:27 pm
  16. Guess which pres­i­den­tial can­di­date has a his­to­ry of drop­ping hints that they are a clos­et eugeni­cist. Just take one tiny lit­tle guess. Bet­ter yet, take a YUUGE guess:

    The Inde­pen­dent

    Don­ald Trump believes he has supe­ri­or genes, biog­ra­ph­er claims

    Repub­li­can nom­i­nee fol­lows ‘race­horse the­o­ry’ of genet­ics

    Car­o­line Mor­timer
    Fri­day 30 Sep­tem­ber 2016

    Don­ald Trump has been accused of believ­ing in the “race­horse the­o­ry” of genet­ics, which claims some peo­ple are genet­i­cal­ly supe­ri­or to oth­ers.

    In an inter­view for US TV chan­nel PBS, the Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial nominee’s biog­ra­ph­er Michael D’Antonio claimed the can­di­date’s father, Fred Trump, had taught him that the family’s suc­cess was genet­ic.

    He said: “The fam­i­ly sub­scribes to a race­horse the­o­ry of human devel­op­ment.

    “They believe that there are supe­ri­or peo­ple and that if you put togeth­er the genes of a supe­ri­or woman and a supe­ri­or man, you get a supe­ri­or off­spring.”

    The the­o­ry, known as eugen­ics, first emerged dur­ing the 19th cen­tu­ry and was used as a pre­text for the ster­il­i­sa­tion of dis­abled peo­ple until the prac­tice was dis­cred­it­ed after the Sec­ond World War.

    Adolf Hitler’s jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for the Holo­caust — in which 11 mil­lion peo­ple were killed, 6 mil­lion of them Jew­ish — was based on a sim­i­lar the­o­ry of racial hier­ar­chy.

    The PBS doc­u­men­tary fea­tured clips of Mr Trump on the cam­paign tri­al claim­ing that he “believes in the gene thing” and say­ing he had a “very high apti­tude”.

    It also ran footage of pre­vi­ous inter­views from the real estate mag­nate’s time as a real­i­ty TV star in which he shared his thoughts on the sub­ject, includ­ing a 2010 inter­view with CNN..

    He said: “Well I think I was born with the dri­ve for suc­cess because I have a cer­tain gene.

    “I’m a gene believ­er... Hey, when you con­nect two race hors­es, you usu­al­ly end up with a fast horse.

    “I had a good gene pool from the stand­point of that, so I was pret­ty much dri­ven.”

    Mr Trump has become noto­ri­ous for his brava­do on the cam­paign trail and claimed he could solve prob­lems that have plagued pol­i­cy­mak­ers for decades with ease because he is a “smart guy”.

    ...

    At a ral­ly in Wash­ing­ton, D.C. in Sep­tem­ber 2015, Mr Trump claimed that, if he became pres­i­dent, “we’ll win so much, you’ll get bored with win­ning”.

    “At a ral­ly in Wash­ing­ton, D.C. in Sep­tem­ber 2015, Mr Trump claimed that, if he became pres­i­dent, “we’ll win so much, you’ll get bored with win­ning”.”

    Yes, if Don­ald Trump, a self-declared genius, becomes pres­i­dent there will indeed be an abun­dance of win­ning. Sure, it will be the oli­garchs (you know, fel­low ‘win­ners’ like Trump) who will be doing the actu­al win­ning. And, of course, open eugeni­cists. There’s going to be no short­age of win­ning for them.

    But that does­n’t mean the nation as a whole won’t be win­ning too. It might not be the kind of prize any soci­ety actu­al­ly wants to win, but if the US actu­al­ly elects this bare­ly-cryp­to-Nazi to the high­est office of the land there will be win­ning for Amer­i­ca.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 4, 2016, 2:47 pm
  17. The Trump cam­paign was denied its request to use the use Inter­na­tion­al Civ­il Rights Muse­um as a cam­paign pho­to-op that would have shut the muse­um down for half a day. Big sur­prise that the folks behind the Inter­na­tion­al Civ­il Rights muse­um would­n’t be super psy­ched to have the Alt Right’s cham­pi­on use the muse­um as some sort of minor­i­ty out­reach prop, right? Well, there are a num­ber of Trump sup­port­ers who, if not sur­prised, were pret­ty enraged by it. Or maybe they just hat­ed the muse­um and want­ed an excuse to threat­en to shoot it up and burn it down. Either way, a bunch of Trump sup­port­ers are now threat­en­ing to shoot up and burn down the Inter­na­tion­al Civ­il Rights Muse­um:

    The News & Observ­er

    Trump denied use of NC civ­il rights muse­um

    By Rachel Cha­son
    Octo­ber 4, 2016 4:38 PM

    The Inter­na­tion­al Civ­il Rights Cen­ter and Muse­um in Greens­boro denied Don­ald Trump’s request to hold an event at the muse­um two weeks ago – and has faced retal­i­a­tion from his sup­port­ers because of it, accord­ing to the museum’s CEO.

    John Swaine said the Trump cam­paign was try­ing to plan the Repub­li­can nominee’s vis­it to the his­toric muse­um Sept. 20, the same day he cam­paigned in High Point and Kenans­ville. Swaine said that cam­paign staff asked to video­tape Trump walk­ing around the muse­um and request­ed that the muse­um shut down for five hours to accom­mo­date his vis­it.

    “We made it known to Mr. Trump’s cam­paign that we were not going to grant a request of sus­pend­ing our oper­a­tions so he could some­how try to legit­imize his ide­o­log­i­cal posi­tions,” Swaine told The News & Observ­er. “The land­mark is very impor­tant – it’s not just a polit­i­cal back­drop.”

    The muse­um is in the for­mer F.W. Wool­worth build­ing, the site of the 1960 lunch counter sit-in protest against seg­re­gat­ed eat­ing estab­lish­ments. The facil­i­ty seeks to com­mem­o­rate the his­toric sit-in and to pro­mote equal­i­ty today.

    Swaine said muse­um staff who spoke to a rep­re­sen­ta­tive from Trump’s team said he did not request a tour of the muse­um and seemed instead to want only a pho­to-op for the nom­i­nee. Swaine said that months are spent train­ing the museum’s tour guides, and that the muse­um does not allow “un-vet­ted” pre­sen­ters to act as guides.

    He said that since news of the museum’s deci­sion broke last week, muse­um staff mem­bers have received threats via phone calls and social media.

    “The callers were threat­en­ing to come over and burn down the build­ing and to shoot up the build­ing,” he said. “They’ve less­ened in fre­quen­cy this week, but they’re still com­ing in.”

    Swaine said callers have used foul lan­guage and racial epi­thets, and he said muse­um employ­ees are now record­ing the calls. But he also not­ed that he is appre­cia­tive of sup­port that has come via social media and in calls from across the nation.

    Kirk Bell, the com­mu­ni­ca­tions direc­tor for Trump’s North Car­oli­na cam­paign, wrote in an email that the cam­paign “is not com­ment­ing on this mat­ter.”

    Swaine said that as a pri­vate non­prof­it orga­ni­za­tion, the muse­um has a First Amend­ment right to con­trol its pub­lic mes­sages, adding that a church would not be “expect­ed to make its pul­pit avail­able to some­one advo­cat­ing against reli­gious belief.”

    The muse­um does allow high-pro­file cit­i­zens to take pri­vate tours, Swaine said, and would have done so for Trump had he asked. Swaine said that he has been con­tact­ed by a mem­ber of Hillary Clinton’s cam­paign about a pos­si­ble vis­it and added that the for­mer sec­re­tary of state would also be wel­come to take a pri­vate tour.

    U.S. Rep. G.K But­ter­field, who rep­re­sents Durham and large por­tions of north­east­ern North Car­oli­na, said Trump would “learn so much from tour­ing muse­ums that con­tain African-Amer­i­can his­to­ry and cul­ture.”

    “Instead of propos­ing con­struc­tive and legit­i­mate solu­tions that bring peo­ple togeth­er, Don­ald Trump has made the heart of his cam­paign about tear­ing good peo­ple apart,” said But­ter­field, a Demo­c­rat. “Our coun­try is bet­ter than that, and North Car­oli­na is bet­ter than that.”

    ...

    Speak­ing in High Point, Trump said he would cre­ate a new civ­il rights agen­da and fight for safe­ty in inner cities.

    “What do you have to lose,” Trump asked, address­ing African-Amer­i­can vot­ers who he said have been failed by Demo­c­ra­t­ic poli­cies.

    In Kenans­ville lat­er that day, Trump said: “We’re going to rebuild our inner cities, because our African-Amer­i­can com­mu­ni­ties are absolute­ly in the worst shape that they’ve ever been in before, ever, ever, ever.”

    But­ter­field not­ed in a state­ment after the speech that Trump appar­ent­ly “missed that whole civics les­son about slav­ery and Jim Crow.”

    ““The callers were threat­en­ing to come over and burn down the build­ing and to shoot up the build­ing,” he said. “They’ve less­ened in fre­quen­cy this week, but they’re still com­ing in.””

    Well, at least it sounds like the muse­um is record­ing all these threat­en­ing phone calls. It should make for a great exhib­it some­day.

    And in oth­er Trumpian civ­il rights news...

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 5, 2016, 6:15 pm
  18. With the Trump cam­paign in a new phase of its seem­ing­ly end­less melt­down that start­ed after the first Pres­i­den­tial debate and nev­er seemed to stop, a mass GOP defec­tion phase, one of the ques­tions we unfor­tu­nate­ly need to ask our­selves is what kind of impact a month-long Trump implo­sion that might have on the psy­che of his most fer­vent sup­ports. Sup­port­ers who have ful­ly accept­ed the notion that the only way Trump could lose the elec­tion is through some sort of rig­ging and fraud. The best case sce­nario would be some sort of actu­al soul search­ing and reflec­tion and abun­dant ask­ing of ques­tions like “how did we become so delud­ed?”

    That’s the best case sce­nario. And then there are the oth­er sce­nar­ios:

    Raw Sto­ry

    WATCH: Woman at Pence ral­ly calls for ‘rev­o­lu­tion’ if Hillary is elect­ed

    Erin Cor­bett
    11 Oct 2016 at 18:23 ET

    Dur­ing a Mike Pence ral­ly in New­ton, Iowa on Tues­day, one vot­er was up in arms over Hillary Clin­ton and the elec­toral process.

    Cit­ing Trump hys­te­ria that the elec­tions are going to be rigged and that there is a seri­ous chance of vot­er fraud at the polls, the vot­er named Rhon­da, who intro­duced her­self as being “on social media all day, every­day non­stop since last June” called for a rev­o­lu­tion if Hillary won the elec­tion.

    Rhon­da told Pence, “One of the biggest things I can tell you that a lot of us are scared of is this vot­er fraud. There’s a lot of us say­ing that when we go to vote, we’re gonna wear red. Our lives depend on this elec­tion, our kids futures depend on this elec­tion.” The room gen­tly applauds.

    She con­tin­ues, “And I will tell you, just for me, I don’t want this to hap­pen but I will tell you for me, per­son­al­ly, if Hillary Clin­ton gets in, I myself, I’m ready for a rev­o­lu­tion.” Pence quick­ly responds, “No, no don’t say that.”

    Pence’s estab­lish­ment pol­i­tics are show­ing, and they are the exact oppo­site of the Trump campaign’s mes­sage. Over the last year, Trump has reck­less­ly cir­cu­lat­ed the idea that this elec­tion is sure­ly rigged and that he alone can save the Amer­i­can peo­ple.

    The media is not on his side, the Clin­ton cam­paign is fight­ing him with insults, and the polls absolute­ly need to be mon­i­tored for vot­er fraud, accord­ing to Trump.

    ...

    If Trump goes down in Novem­ber, he’s tak­ing Clin­ton, the Repub­li­can par­ty, and the elec­toral process with him. On Tues­day, the GOP nom­i­nee went after House Speak­er Paul Ryan on Twit­ter call­ing him “weak and inef­fec­tive,” and slam­ming mem­bers of the Repub­li­can par­ty who have dropped their sup­port for him as “dis­loy­al.”

    He then tweet­ed how he was final­ly free of his “shack­les” and said he was going to “fight for Amer­i­ca the way I want to.” If that’s the case, then what has he been doing the rest of this elec­tion?

    One thing is for sure, if Trump is going to burn the GOP to the ground, then it’s Pence’s job to silence the rev­o­lu­tion.

    “If Trump goes down in Novem­ber, he’s tak­ing Clin­ton, the Repub­li­can par­ty, and the elec­toral process with him. On Tues­day, the GOP nom­i­nee went after House Speak­er Paul Ryan on Twit­ter call­ing him “weak and inef­fec­tive,” and slam­ming mem­bers of the Repub­li­can par­ty who have dropped their sup­port for him as “dis­loy­al.”

    It sure looks like Trump is aim­ing for a worst case sce­nario response on the part of his sup­port­ers if Trump expe­ri­ences what, to him, is the worst thing pos­si­ble for a win­ner like Don­ald Trump: los­ing and los­ing big. If that hap­pens, goad­ing the Trump base into burn­ing the coun­try down is pret­ty much the only ‘win’ he’ll have left and it’s pret­ty clear that he’s at least very tempt­ed to go down that route if he does indeed lose. Espe­cial­ly since, as we saw above, he’s already try­ing to burn the GOP down and basi­cal­ly suc­ceed­ing. Win­ning!:

    The Wash­ing­ton Post

    Trump declares war on GOP, says ‘the shack­les have been tak­en off’

    By Sean Sul­li­van, Robert Cos­ta and Dan Balz
    Octo­ber 11 at 8:26 PM

    Don­ald Trump declared war on the Repub­li­can estab­lish­ment Tues­day, lash­ing out at House Speak­er Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and oth­er GOP elect­ed offi­cials as his sup­port­ers geared up to join the fight amid extra­or­di­nary tur­moil with­in the par­ty just four weeks before Elec­tion Day.

    One day after Ryan announced he would no longer cam­paign on Trump’s behalf, the GOP nom­i­nee said as part of a bar­rage of tweets that the top-rank­ing Repub­li­can is “weak and inef­fec­tive” and is pro­vid­ing “zero sup­port” for his can­di­da­cy. Trump also declared that “the shack­les have been tak­en off” him, lib­er­at­ing him to “fight for Amer­i­ca the way I want to.”

    Trump called McCain “foul-mouthed” and accused him with no evi­dence of once beg­ging for his sup­port. The 2008 nom­i­nee pulled his endorse­mentpulled his endorse­ment fol­low­ing a Fri­day Wash­ing­ton Post report about a 2005 video in which Trump is heard mak­ing vul­gar com­ments about forc­ing him­self on women sex­u­al­ly.

    “I wouldn’t want to be in a fox­hole with a lot of these peo­ple, that I can tell you. ... espe­cial­ly Ryan,” Trump said in an inter­view with Fox News Chan­nel. He said if he is elect­ed pres­i­dent, Ryan might be “in a dif­fer­ent posi­tion.”

    In per­haps the most pierc­ing insult, Trump said his par­ty is hard­er to deal with than even Demo­c­ra­t­ic rival Hillary Clin­ton, whom con­ser­v­a­tives loathe. Yet he also released a new TV ad fea­tur­ing footage of Clin­ton cough­ing and stum­bling dur­ing a recent bout with pneu­mo­nia — sig­nal­ing that few issues are out of bounds for his scorched-earth cam­paign.

    “Dis­loy­al R’s are far more dif­fi­cult than Crooked Hillary,” he wrote for his more than 12 mil­lion fol­low­ers on Twit­ter, his pre­ferred plat­form for pick­ing fights. “They come at you from all sides. They don’t know how to win — I will teach them!”

    By back­ing away from Trump, Ryan and his allies were hop­ing to insu­late them­selves and their majori­ties on Capi­tol Hill from the bag­gage weigh­ing down the nominee’s flag­ging cam­paign. For many, the break­ing point was the 2005 video.

    But they are sud­den­ly deal­ing with anoth­er prob­lem: an impul­sive and bel­li­cose busi­ness­man with an army of loy­al sup­port­ers will­ing to exact ret­ri­bu­tion against elect­ed offi­cials they feel have aban­doned them. The rift could have pro­found ram­i­fi­ca­tions for the Repub­li­can Par­ty as a whole, shat­ter­ing any sense of uni­ty and jeop­ar­diz­ing its chances of hold­ing onto the Sen­ate and even, poten­tial­ly, the House.

    Trump’s barbs left some back­ers unset­tled, includ­ing Ben Car­son, the retired neu­ro­sur­geon who has been a Trump boost­er for months and an infor­mal advis­er.

    “Dr. Car­son has been unwa­ver­ing in his sup­port but the last 24 hours have made that sup­port very dif­fi­cult to main­tain,” Car­son advis­er Arm­strong Williams said in a state­ment.

    Car­son said in a brief inter­view that Trump “would be wise to praise Ryan rather than be at war with him. I keep try­ing to empha­size to him that the issues are where you win.”

    But many oth­ers ral­lied around Trump, includ­ing the Repub­li­can Nation­al Com­mit­tee. Its chair­man, Reince Priebus, was in close touch all day with Trump advis­ers and RNC strate­gist Sean Spicer was at Trump Tow­er in Man­hat­tan.

    Mica Mos­bach­er, a Trump fundrais­er and sur­ro­gate, said she was invit­ed to a fundrais­er next week for Ryan’s joint fundrais­ing com­mit­tee but is not going to attend or con­tribute because of the way Ryan has treat­ed him.

    “I don’t feel that Ryan is sup­port­ing our nom­i­nee and being a team play­er,” said Mos­bach­er, who is vow­ing not to give finan­cial back­ing to Repub­li­cans who have crossed Trump.

    Diana Orrock, a Repub­li­can Nation­al Com­mit­tee­woman from Neva­da, said she is not vot­ing for Repub­li­cans who pulled their sup­port Trump — includ­ing Rep. Joe Heck (Nev.), who is run­ning for a seat that is crit­i­cal in the bat­tle for the Sen­ate major­i­ty.

    “I think they have real­ly irri­tat­ed a lot of Trump sup­port­ers,” Orrock said of Heck and Rep. Cre­sent Hardy (R‑Nev.), who also rescind­ed his endorse­ment.

    For­mer House speak­er Newt Gin­grich, a Trump ally, said Trump should “use the enor­mous pow­er of social media” to mount a pres­sure cam­paign on waver­ing Repub­li­cans.

    “It’s time for him to send tar­get­ed mes­sages to each dis­trict and state and have Repub­li­can vot­ers ask their can­di­dates: ‘Are you going to help us defeat Hillary Clin­ton?’ And Trump should make it clear that the side effect of not help­ing Trump is elect­ing Hillary Clin­ton.”

    Trump spokes­woman Kat­ri­na Pier­son tweet­ed Mon­day that she could not keep her mobile phone charged “due to the mass vol­ume of texts from peo­ple” who plan to vote for Trump but not for oth­er Repub­li­cans on the bal­lot.

    Ryan said Mon­day that he would no longer defend or cam­paign with Trump. Dozens of oth­er Repub­li­can elect­ed offi­cials have gone even fur­ther, call­ing on Trump to leave the race in the wake of the 2005 video.

    “Paul Ryan is focus­ing the next month on defeat­ing Democ­rats, and all Repub­li­cans run­ning for office should prob­a­bly do the same,” Ryan spokesman Bren­dan Buck said in a state­ment respond­ing to Trump’s attacks Tues­day.

    Trump began his Twit­ter attacks Tues­day morn­ing in New York before jet­ting off to raise mon­ey in Texas and to host an evening ral­ly in Pana­ma City Beach, Fla. At a San Anto­nio fundrais­ing event, Trump tore into Ryan, whom he accused of “total dis­loy­al­ty to the par­ty.”

    “I think they for­got that there was an elec­tion because some­thing hap­pened in the last month where you didn’t see them, right?” Trump said of promi­nent Repub­li­cans who have not cam­paigned for him, accord­ing to audio of the fundrais­er obtained by the Texas Tri­bune. “You didn’t see them. I said, ‘Why aren’t they on the shows? Why aren’t they all over the place?’?”

    Trump cam­paign spokesman Jason Miller said the cam­paign was not pre­oc­cu­pied over whether con­gres­sion­al lead­er­ship is with the nom­i­nee.

    “Mr. Trump’s cam­paign has nev­er been dri­ven or fueled by Wash­ing­ton. It’s always been dri­ven by the grass roots and it will con­tin­ue to be,” Miller said. “What we want is every­one who wants to defeat Hillary Clin­ton to be on board. Any­one who’s con­cerned about the direc­tion of the coun­try.”

    A Ryan con­fi­dant said the House speak­er — the high­est rank­ing Repub­li­can in the coun­try — is try­ing to strike a care­ful bal­ance by turn­ing away from Trump but not offi­cial­ly with­draw­ing his endorse­ment.

    “He’s thread­ing a lot of nee­dles here,” said the con­fi­dant, who spoke on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty in order to speak can­did­ly. “He want­ed to make a clean break with Trump. So say­ing I won’t defend him and won’t cam­paign with him was his way of mak­ing a break. He was so repulsed by the tape. But there are still a lot of mem­bers in the con­fer­ence who don’t want to be at war with Trump’s vot­ers in their dis­trict.”

    Speak­ing on his radio show Tues­day, pop­u­lar con­ser­v­a­tive talk-show host Rush Lim­baugh said: “The Repub­li­can Par­ty has sided with its donors and its lob­by­ists, and this is why we’re where we are. The Repub­li­can Par­ty is in a predica­ment that it made itself. It made its own bed, and now they don’t want to lay in it. Now they want to run from the bed that they made.”

    ...

    A friend of Ryan, who was grant­ed anonymi­ty to speak freely, said the speak­er didn’t rush into his Mon­day deci­sion, but was delib­er­a­tive and thought­ful. In the end, there was no way to make every­one hap­py.

    “He’s just in a hard place, and Trump is rec­og­niz­ing that he’s in a hard place and push­ing the lever hard­er,” the friend said.

    ““Dis­loy­al R’s are far more dif­fi­cult than Crooked Hillary,” he wrote for his more than 12 mil­lion fol­low­ers on Twit­ter, his pre­ferred plat­form for pick­ing fights. “They come at you from all sides. They don’t know how to win — I will teach them!””

    Uh oh! “Dis­loy­al R’s” just got put on notice: sup­port Trump or he’ll teach you les­son. A les­son about win­ning. And since this is Trump, it’s going to be a form of win­ning that prob­a­bly involves destroy­ing all those “Dis­loy­al R’s”. The Trump­ster is los­ing and he pissed!

    So Don­ald Trump has added “Dis­loy­al R’s” to his offi­cial sh#t list. And there’s still a month left in this cam­paign which does­n’t even include the pos­si­ble post-elec­tion peri­od that could emerge if Trump refus­es to actu­al­ly con­cede defeat, which means that sh#t list could grow con­sid­er­ably. Espe­cial­ly if Trump declares the elec­tion rigged and invalid and the rest of the GOP does­n’t imme­di­ate­ly get behind him and try to cre­ate some sort of con­sti­tu­tion­al cri­sis that makes the 2000 elec­tion look like a fond mem­o­ry. Don’t for­get there could be a tied Supreme Court since the GOP won’t allow Oba­ma’s nom­i­nee to get a vote and replace Antonin Scalia. So if the GOP tries to chal­lenge the elec­tion in a way that comes down to the Supreme Court deci­sion, it real­ly could be tied at 4–4. That could be quite a cri­sis.

    Giv­en the grow­ing real­i­ty that Trump is going to adopt a full scale scorched-Earth pol­i­cy that char­ac­ter­izes not just the Democ­rats but ‘Estab­lish­ment’ Repub­li­cans too as ene­mies of the Amer­i­can peo­ple (and that’s basi­cal­ly his mes­sage at this point), one of the extreme­ly unfor­tu­nate ques­tions we need to also ask is what exact­ly that kind of sce­nario will do to the all those Trump sup­port­ers that may not be ready to ask Mike Pence about “rev­o­lu­tion” back­up plans if Trump los­es, but might be will­ing to con­sid­er­ing it. A sce­nario where ‘Estab­lish­ment’ GOP­ers like Paul Ryan might not have much sway with the Trumpian base. What hap­pens to all those sup­port­ers if Trump makes a call to arms or what­ev­er? We just might find out. And we just might find out that Trump’s white nation­al­ist ‘Alt-right’ base have been plan­ning on sup­plant­i­ng the ‘Estab­lish­ment’ all along:

    The Guardian

    ‘Call me a racist, but don’t say I’m a Bud­dhist’: meet Amer­i­ca’s alt right

    They present them­selves as mod­ern thinkers of extrem­ism. But the US far right, dis­cov­ers San­jiv Bhat­tacharya, have the same white suprema­cist obses­sions

    San­jiv Bhat­tacharya

    Sun­day 9 Octo­ber 2016 04.05 EDT

    Every few weeks, William John­son, the chair­man of the white nation­al­ist Amer­i­can Free­dom Par­ty (AFP), holds a lunch for mem­bers, the goal being to make Amer­i­ca a white eth­nos­tate, a project that begins with elect­ing Don­ald Trump. This week, it’s at a grand old French restau­rant called Taix, in Echo Park, Los Ange­les – an odd choice on the face of it. Echo Park is a trendy hood. It’s hip­ster and heav­i­ly His­pan­ic. In fact, giv­en the pre­dom­i­nance of Lati­no kitchen staff in this city, it may be wise to hold off on the Trump talk until the food arrives.

    “About three months ago,” John­son begins, “I was talk­ing to Richard Spencer about how we need to plan for a Trump vic­to­ry.” Spencer is anoth­er promi­nent white nation­al­ist – he heads the gener­ic-sound­ing Nation­al Pol­i­cy Insti­tute. “I said: ‘I want Jared Tay­lor [of Amer­i­can Renais­sance] as UN Ambas­sador, and Kevin Mac­Don­ald [an evo­lu­tion­ary psy­chol­o­gist] as sec­re­tary of health and Ann Coul­ter as home­land secu­ri­ty!’ And Spencer said: ‘Oh John­son, that’s a pipe dream!’ But today, he’d no longer say that, because if Trump wins, all the estab­lish­ment Repub­li­cans, they’re gone… They hate him! So who’s left? If we can lob­by, we can put our peo­ple in there.”

    Around the table five young men, rough­ly half Johnson’s age (he’s 61), nod and lean in. They all wear suits and ties, address the wait­er as “sir” and iden­ti­fy as the “alt right”, the much-dis­cussed nou­velle vague of racism. “Are you guys famil­iar with the Plum Book?” John­son asks. “It’s plum because of the colour, but also because of the plum posi­tions – there are 20,000 jobs in that book that are open to a new admin­is­tra­tion.”

    “So we need to iden­ti­fy our top peo­ple!” says Eric, one of the men at the table.

    “Just any­one with a col­lege degree!” John­son says.

    “Right.” Eric is prac­ti­cal­ly bounc­ing in his seat with excite­ment. “We need to get the word out. We are the new GOP!”

    It’s not every day that a brown jour­nal­ist gets to sit in on a white-nation­al­ist strat­e­gy meet­ing. But these are strange times. Racism is trend­ing. Like Brex­it, Trump has nor­malised views that were once beyond the pale, and groups like the AFP have grown bold. Their man’s stub­by orange fin­gers are with­in reach of actu­al pow­er, so maybe it’s time to emerge from the shad­ows at last.

    I first met John­son in May after he signed up as a Trump del­e­gate before being swift­ly struck off by the cam­paign when the press found out. He’s a sur­pris­ing fig­ure. An avid envi­ron­men­tal­ist, flu­ent in Japan­ese and, in per­son, not the bit­ter old racist I’d expect­ed but rather a jol­ly Mor­mon grand­fa­ther, bright eyed and chuck­ling, a Wind in the Wil­lows char­ac­ter. Eric is even more unex­pect­ed. Tall and impas­sioned, he came to racism via hyp­nother­a­py, of all things. He sells solar pan­els for a liv­ing and prac­tis­es yoga. Togeth­er with his friends Matt and Nathan, who are also here at lunch, he runs an alt-right fra­ter­ni­ty in Man­hat­tan Beach – “a beer and bar­be­cues thing”. They’re called the Beach Goys. “We’re start­ing a par­o­dy band,” he beams. “We’ve found a drum­mer!”

    Between them they rep­re­sent two poles of a racist spec­trum, young and old. And judg­ing from this lunch, it’s the mil­len­ni­als who are the more extreme. John­son wants white nation­al­ists to appear less mean and he finds the “JQ”, the Jew­ish Ques­tion, archa­ic. But Eric loves the mean­ness of the alt right. “We’re the troll army!” he says. “We’re here to win. We’re sav­age!” And anti­semitism is non-nego­tiable. In fact, he’d like to clear up a mis­nomer about the alt right, prop­a­gat­ed by the Bre­it­bart colum­nist Milo Yiannopou­los, who is often described, mis­tak­en­ly, as the movement’s leader. Milo casts the alt right as prin­ci­pal­ly a trolling enter­prise, ded­i­cat­ed to attack­ing lib­er­al shib­bo­leths for the “lulz”– there’s pre­cious lit­tle actu­al big­otry. But Eric insists oth­er­wise. Yes, they like to joke, they have memes, they’re just as fun­ny as lib­er­als – have I heard of their satir­i­cal news pod­casts, the Dai­ly Shoah and Fash the Nation? But make no mis­take, the racism is real. Eric espe­cial­ly enjoys The Dai­ly Stormer, a lead­ing alt-right news site, which is unashamed­ly pro-Hitler.

    What unites John­son and Eric is what they describe as “the sys­tem­at­ic brow­beat­ing of the white male” – name­ly all this talk of priv­i­lege, the Con­fed­er­ate flag, Black Lives Mat­ter and mansplain­ing. But beyond that, it’s the “loom­ing extinc­tion of the white race”. This is the lan­guage they use. Also: “Diver­si­ty equals white geno­cide.” The alt right loves to evoke geno­cide while har­bour­ing Holo­caust deniers. Their point is that white peo­ple are melt­ing away like the ice­caps, and they have a pri­mal dri­ve to stop it. In 2044, non-His­pan­ic whites will drop below 50% of the US pop­u­la­tion. “The gen­er­a­tion of the white minor­i­ty has already been born,” Eric says. “Look at South Africa and Rhode­sia. That’s where we’re head­ed. Total dis­en­fran­chise­ment.”

    ...

    Today, Eric still med­i­tates and prac­tis­es yoga. His weeks are spent like David Brent, as a trav­el­ling sales­man, dri­ving around meet­ing his solar ener­gy clients. His week­ends, how­ev­er, are all about the Beach Goys, which now has 15 mem­bers. Last week, they went on a hike to the Mur­phy Ranch in the Pacif­ic Pal­isades, a decrepit old prop­er­ty that was orig­i­nal­ly built as a refuge for Hitler after the war. Next week is their first band rehearsal. Eric’s going to play gui­tar and sing. And this is the future he wants – not a plum job with the Trump admin­is­tra­tion. “I don’t see myself as a bureau­crat,” he says. “I want to take the Beach Goys nation­al. I want to inspire peo­ple.”

    It could hap­pen. Trump has unleashed some­thing in Amer­i­ca. John­son won’t reveal the AFP’s mem­ber­ship num­bers – “Maybe we want to appear big­ger than we are?” – but Eric insists the alt right is on the march. “We’re grow­ing with every hash­tag, every BLM protest, every city that becomes a Detroit, or a Lon­don,” he says. “We’re every­where! We’re the guy next to you at yoga, the barista at Star­bucks...” It’s like Fight Club for suprema­cists, a deeply unset­tling thought (which is why Eric loves it).

    But his delight in being a secret Nazi detracts from the seri­ous­ness of it all, the white geno­cide stuff. He’s hav­ing too much fun. And I won­der, as we fin­ish our beers, if it will pass for Eric, this Nazi phase. He just doesn’t seem that threat­en­ing. Then he starts up about a race war, that old white-suprema­cist chest­nut. Because behind the trolling veneer, the alt right is more tra­di­tion­al than alt. What Eric believes is vin­tage racism, the same old wine in a new iron­ic cask. And Tony Benn’s words ring as true as ever: “Every gen­er­a­tion must fight the same bat­tles again and again.”

    “Our civil­i­sa­tion is at war and we need to secure our peo­ple,” Eric says. “We must seize pow­er and take con­trol. And the idea that we can do this peace­ful­ly is prob­a­bly not real­is­tic.”

    We get along well enough, Eric and I, but he has the same micro/macro dis­crep­an­cy as John­son. And at a macro lev­el, there is only despair and divi­sion. “I do not advo­cate vio­lence, but I will give my life for my blood… and for the hon­our of my ances­tors.”

    He thrums the tarot cards in his hands, his voice get­ting more ani­mat­ed. “We accept the game that’s being played. We accept that the lion and the gazelle are com­pe­ti­tion. But they don’t have to hate each oth­er. That’s just how we view it.”

    He shrugs. “It’s scary. The world is scary. This is not a game for chil­dren.”

    “We need to get the word out. We are the new GOP!”

    That’s the Alt-Right ral­ly­ing cry: We are the new GOP! And, to some extent at least, they’re cor­rect. They’re the Trump wing of the GOP and if Trump wins this civ­il war the Alt-Right real­ly is the new GOP. And if Trump los­es the elec­tion and does­n’t man­age to cre­ate some sort of con­sti­tu­tion­al cri­sis of “rev­o­lu­tion” by refus­ing to con­cede defeat, at that point win­ning that intra-par­ty civ­il war might be the only “win­ning” option Trump has left.

    Might the Trumpian Alt-Right suc­ceed and do to the GOP what the Tea Par­ty did not too long ago in the post-elec­tion peri­od after suf­fer­ing a bruis­ing loss? It seems pos­si­ble. Per­haps even prece­dent­ed.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 11, 2016, 8:22 pm
  19. With the elec­tion less than a month away and the Trump cam­paign in a seem­ing­ly unstop­pable down­ward spi­ral of self-inflict­ed injuries, it might be tempt­ing to breath a sigh of relief. But as Josh Mar­shall reminds us below, it’s not just elec­tion day that we need to be con­cerned about. It’s the day after elec­tion day that should be keep­ing you up at night:

    Talk­ing Points Memo Edi­tor’s Blog

    Dan­ger on Novem­ber 9th

    By Josh Mar­shall
    Pub­lished Octo­ber 12, 2016, 1:31 PM EDT

    I’ve been want­i­ng to dis­cuss this. But so much has been hap­pen­ing it keeps get­ting pushed back to the next day or the next post. Quite sim­ply, every­body needs to be pay­ing close atten­tion to what hap­pens on Novem­ber 9th.

    It now seems quite like­ly that Hillary Clin­ton will win the Novem­ber elec­tion and become the next Pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States. But Don­ald Trump has been for months push­ing the idea that the elec­tion may be stolen from him by some mix of vot­er fraud (by racial and eth­nic minori­ties) or more sys­temic elec­tion rig­ging by per­sons unknown. Polls show that large num­bers of his sup­port­ers believe this.

    Now, here at TPM we’ve been writ­ing and report­ing about the GOP’s ‘vote fraud’ scam going back almost 15 years. It’s a huge­ly impor­tant issue. But to date it has main­ly been used to heat up Repub­li­can vot­ers and dri­ve state-based vot­er sup­pres­sion mea­sures. After a decade-plus push­ing the idea, Repub­li­cans passed var­i­ous vot­er sup­pres­sion mea­sures in numer­ous states after the 2010 midterm elec­tion. But to date, the ‘vot­er fraud’ scam has nev­er been ful­ly weaponized as a way to dele­git­imize and even resist a spe­cif­ic elec­tion, cer­tain­ly not a nation­al elec­tion. As Rick Hasen explains here, Don­ald Trump is doing that now. And he is suc­ceed­ing in as much as he’s con­vinced sub­stan­tial num­bers of his sup­port­ers that if he los­es it will be because the elec­tion was stolen.

    It is a very, very dan­ger­ous step when a pres­i­den­tial nom­i­nee open­ly threat­ens to jail his oppo­nent if he wins. It’s no less dan­ger­ous when a can­di­date push­es the idea that an elec­tion will be stolen and lays the ground­work for resist­ing the result. That’s hap­pen­ing. It is dif­fi­cult to over­state the soci­etal ben­e­fit of being able to take it almost as an absolute giv­en and assump­tion that no mat­ter how intense and close-fought an elec­tion gets, vir­tu­al­ly every­one will accept the result the day after. Under­min­ing that assump­tion is of a piece with intro­duc­ing into the polit­i­cal are­na the idea that peo­ple who lose elec­tion might lose more than the elec­tion: loss of mon­ey, free­dom, or worse etc.

    ...

    I’ll put a pin in the dis­cus­sion for now. But this is some­thing to watch very close­ly as the next thir­ty days unfold. It is a very, very big deal. Trump has been mak­ing this argu­ment explic­it­ly for weeks. As I said, we’re had the vot­er fraud rack­et for years. It’s nev­er been weaponized like this As the pres­sure on him grows and his own anger mounts there’s every rea­son to think he’ll keep upping the ante.

    “It is a very, very dan­ger­ous step when a pres­i­den­tial nom­i­nee open­ly threat­ens to jail his oppo­nent if he wins. It’s no less dan­ger­ous when a can­di­date push­es the idea that an elec­tion will be stolen and lays the ground­work for resist­ing the result. That’s hap­pen­ing. It is dif­fi­cult to over­state the soci­etal ben­e­fit of being able to take it almost as an absolute giv­en and assump­tion that no mat­ter how intense and close-fought an elec­tion gets, vir­tu­al­ly every­one will accept the result the day after. Under­min­ing that assump­tion is of a piece with intro­duc­ing into the polit­i­cal are­na the idea that peo­ple who lose elec­tion might lose more than the elec­tion: loss of mon­ey, free­dom, or worse etc

    And that’s a big part of what makes Trump’s “I’m going to lose because they’re going to rig the elec­tion” talk so dan­ger­ous: it’s not just an unprece­dent­ed attempt to under­mine one of the most impor­tant social con­tracts that keep democ­ra­cy func­tion­ing — that we accept the results of the vote bar­ring some sort of actu­al evi­dence of mas­sive fraud — but it’s also “a piece with intro­duc­ing into the polit­i­cal are­na the idea that peo­ple who lose elec­tion might lose more than the elec­tion: loss of mon­ey, free­dom, or worse etc.” If Hillary wins, you’re going to lose every­thing. That’s the larg­er right-wing meme behind the Trumps “I can only lose if Hillary cheats” meme.

    And as the arti­cle below also reminds us, it’s not just the Trump cam­paign and Trump sup­port­ers push­ing these memes. For instance, take con­ser­v­a­tive colum­nist Kurt Schlichter, a Ted Cruz backer who still real­ly does­n’t appear to like Trump much at all and who pre­vi­ous­ly fret­ted over the fact that Trump did­n’t even know about the nuclear tri­ad. Well, while Schlichter may not be the biggest fan of Don­ald Trump, and while Schlichter is pre­dict­ing that a Trump loss will pri­mar­i­ly be due to Trump’s own fail­ings and not elec­tion rig­ging, he’s also call­ing for con­ser­v­a­tives to stop rec­og­niz­ing the valid­i­ty of a Demo­c­ra­t­ic pres­i­dent and wage a peace­ful ‘Con­ser­v­a­tive Insur­gency’. And if that does­n’t work they’ll be forced to go with the non-peace­ful ver­sion:

    Town­hall

    With Clin­ton We Will Be Under Occu­pa­tion In Our Own Coun­try

    Kurt Schlichter
    Post­ed: Oct 10, 2016 6:12 AM

    By the time you read this, we will know if Don­ald Trump pulled off a mir­a­cle and over­came his myr­i­ad per­son­al short­com­ings to win the sec­ond debate and maybe save his can­di­da­cy by hold­ing Hillary Clin­ton account­able for the lega­cy of fail­ure she intends to con­tin­ue. But more like­ly he will have spent the town hall excus­ing his lock­er room trash talk while the wife of a ser­i­al sex abuser stood smil­ing that Step­fordy smile as she watched him chase rhetor­i­cal squir­rels down into the sew­er.

    The anti-estab­lish­ment resis­tance chose a loath­some creep as their avatar to fight an even worse mon­ster; we could have had Cruz, but the GOP hat­ed him more. So here we are. Let’s face it – the com­bined force of the Wash­ing­ton elite, the brown-nose media, Hol­ly­wood, and an eager group of fas­cisty inclined lib­er­als ally­ing with dead­beats and wel­fare cheats will like­ly defeat the nor­mals for the pres­i­den­cy next month. And we nor­mal Amer­i­cans will be liv­ing under occu­pa­tion in our own coun­try for the fore­see­able future.

    They hate us, you know. Hillary and her corps of elit­ists hate those of us who refuse to sub­mit, who refuse to bow, who stub­born­ly insist on our rights and that our voic­es be heard. And they will glad­ly tell you that. We’re “deplorable.” We’re “irre­deemable.” We’re their ene­mies.

    Not fel­low cit­i­zens who dis­agree. Ene­mies, to be pun­ished and oppressed. Just ask them – aren’t shy about admit­ting it. They’re proud of it.

    These are the peo­ple who will prob­a­bly be rul­ing us for the next four years. And they are both too stu­pid and to hate­ful to under­stand the risk. They think they can cre­ate two sets of laws, one for them and one for us, and that no one will object. They think they can try to shut us up, and that we will just shrug and give in. They think they will be able to strip us of our lib­er­ty and our liveli­hoods and our dig­ni­ty and that we will just go along and accept their tyran­ny.

    They are play­ing with fire. And it’s not hard to imag­ine the ter­ri­ble con­se­quences of their fol­ly. In fact, I have, and if you read the reviews you’ll see many peo­ple have come to the same dark con­clu­sion.

    I want to be wrong. But I fear I’m not.

    The future is bleak – even if Trump mirac­u­lous­ly pre­vails over his gen­i­tal grab gab­bing and the worse stuff his ene­mies will be drop­ping down the road, the future is bleak because Trump is mere­ly a fire­wall against this par­tic­u­lar aspir­ing tyrant. The quest for tyran­ny won’t stop even if Hillary’s schemes are frus­trat­ed this Novem­ber. There’ll be anoth­er lib­fas­cist next time, and anoth­er.

    Trump won’t bring the foun­da­tion­al con­ser­v­a­tive change Amer­i­ca needs to sur­vive. He’ll mere­ly stop the bleed­ing for a few years until he goes away. What won’t change is the fact that the sys­tem is not mere­ly rigged; it is active­ly designed to sup­press and repress those who reject sub­ju­ga­tion by, and sub­mis­sion to, the lib­er­al elite. They do not want us to be, nor do they have any inten­tion of let­ting us be, free, unmo­lest­ed, and active par­tic­i­pants in our own gov­er­nance.

    So what do we do?

    We nev­er give up, we nev­er give in. Trump may lose, but Trump is irrel­e­vant to our strug­gle to main­tain our rights and free­dom. That fight must con­tin­ue even as Trump’s per­son­al fail­ings flush his chances down the com­mode.

    Under­stand that the left has no moral right to rule us. Hillary Clin­ton is just anoth­er super-white white col­lar crim­i­nal, except instead of buy­ing a par­don from the Clin­tons to escape jus­tice she called in favors owed to the Clin­tons. Her lep­rous claws infect and cor­rupt every­thing they touch. Comey’s vaunt­ed integri­ty is now a bit­ter joke; the FBI he heads is today under­stood to sim­ply be anoth­er catspaw to be used to pro­tect lib­er­als and pun­ish their ene­mies. The Depart­ment of Jus­tice has zero to do with jus­tice and is bare­ly even a depart­ment; it’s more of an annex of the Demo­c­rat par­ty. The IRS under­stands its job is to harass and oppress ene­mies of the regime under the col­or of law.

    Yes, “regime.” Amer­i­ca has devolved, and will devolve fur­ther, into banana repub­li­can­ism. Remem­ber, when your ene­mies are “irre­deemable,” then you have excused your­self from hav­ing to treat them as if they have the rights of “redeemable” cit­i­zens. You know, the cit­i­zens (and non-cit­i­zens) who redeem their votes and obe­di­ence for hand­outs and favors from Democ­rats.

    So what do we do?

    We refuse to give these bas­tards a sin­gle inch.

    We refuse to give them our respect or obe­di­ence. Let’s get our minds right here – the key to lib­er­al suc­cess is our con­sent and acqui­es­cence, and they will demand it based upon the lie that 2016 is a man­date for their pet­ty tyran­ny. It’s not. It’s a rejec­tion of a creepy buf­foon who got where he is sim­ply by being the only one who would stand up to the lies and the crony­ism. They can’t make us do any­thing, unless they send peo­ple with guns. And don’t count on fem­boy hip­sters in skin­ny jeans to be those guys.

    We have to sign off on our own sub­servience. So let’s not.

    Let’s find new lead­ers with a taste for vic­to­ry and no his­to­ry of loath­some­ness – though if Mitt can be smeared any­one can (and will) be. The GOP failed us by fail­ing to offer us a par­ty that would take up the man­tle of the Con­sti­tu­tion and actu­al­ly fight – the estab­lish­ment seems to fear vic­to­ry more than defeat. That left us a flawed clown as our stan­dard bear­er. Trump was the GOP’s fault, but let’s not fool our­selves. Any Repub­li­can would have been lied about and sav­aged as racist, sex­ist, and all the oth­er ists by the left and the media. The fix was always in.

    You will be lied to and told that Hillary won because Amer­i­cans yearn for her grat­ing brand of school­marm social­ism. That’s a lie. She will win only because Don­ald Trump is a ter­ri­ble per­son, and far too many Amer­i­cans will allow their decen­cy to be exploit­ed by the sup­port­ers of a ser­i­al sex abuser who has the whole media aggres­sive­ly cov­er­ing for her.

    When you have lost fair and square in a repub­lic with demo­c­ra­t­ic fea­tures, with your voic­es heard and your case pre­sent­ed and con­sid­ered, then you should con­sid­er the win­ner as legit­i­mate and give the appro­pri­ate respect to the office. But Hillary Clin­ton is mere­ly a felon excused from account­abil­i­ty by trans­par­ent cor­rup­tion. We have no moral oblig­a­tion to her or to her evil schemes. So when you hear that we should fall in line, you should laugh.

    Obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. Find the can­di­dates with the stones to say “No,” and elect them.

    She will seek to crush our free­dom of speech. So speak up more, and loud­er, and fear­less­ly. Nev­er apol­o­gize.

    She will seek to dis­arm us to make us vul­ner­a­ble and sub­servient. Buy guns and ammu­ni­tion, and cre­ate facts on the grounds that will frus­trate her uncon­sti­tu­tion­al fan­tasies.

    She will try to end run the Con­sti­tu­tion. Don’t coop­er­ate. You not only have no moral oblig­a­tion to sup­port uncon­sti­tu­tion­al acts but you have an affir­ma­tive duty to resist them. When on juries, stand firm for the law instead of par­ti­san prej­u­dice. If you’re a gov­ern­ment work­er, whis­tle-blow.

    ...

    The polite resis­tance of the Tea Par­ty was met with media and gov­ern­ment oppres­sion. The impo­lite resis­tance of the Don­ald Trump can­di­da­cy was met with media and gov­ern­ment oppres­sion. There is one last option on the table – we must resist with a peace­ful but res­olute con­ser­v­a­tive insur­gency designed to, over the long haul, retake our right­ful place as cit­i­zens and estab­lish our nation’s com­mit­ment to the Con­sti­tu­tion through polit­i­cal means.

    The alter­na­tive is to keep being pushed and pushed until the nor­mal and decent major­i­ty of Amer­i­cans can fall back no far­ther. And then real civ­il dis­or­der and con­flict will be near­ly inevitable because the dis­en­fran­chised will have no choice but to either sur­ren­der or begin to take steps out­side of the sys­tem as cur­rent­ly con­sti­tut­ed.

    No true Amer­i­can wants that. But no true Amer­i­can will con­sent to live on his knees either.

    “We refuse to give them our respect or obe­di­ence. Let’s get our minds right here – the key to lib­er­al suc­cess is our con­sent and acqui­es­cence, and they will demand it based upon the lie that 2016 is a man­date for their pet­ty tyran­ny. It’s not. It’s a rejec­tion of a creepy buf­foon who got where he is sim­ply by being the only one who would stand up to the lies and the crony­ism. They can’t make us do any­thing, unless they send peo­ple with guns. And don’t count on fem­boy hip­sters in skin­ny jeans to be those guys.

    So basi­cal­ly, if Hillary wins, Schlichter wants to the right-wing to just say “no, we won’t be fol­low­ing laws com­ing from lib­er­al elect­ed offi­cials any­more”, and try to cre­ate a Bundy-style armed show­down sit­u­a­tion. Except it won’t be a show­down on a ranch in Neva­da or a wildlife reserve in Ore­gon. It will be con­ser­v­a­tives every­where just refus­ing to rec­og­nize the valid­i­ty of the gov­ern­ment. And not because Trump los­es to rig­ging of the elec­tion but just because lib­er­als have no moral author­i­ty. That’s Schlichter’s mes­sage:

    ...
    Under­stand that the left has no moral right to rule us. Hillary Clin­ton is just anoth­er super-white white col­lar crim­i­nal, except instead of buy­ing a par­don from the Clin­tons to escape jus­tice she called in favors owed to the Clin­tons. Her lep­rous claws infect and cor­rupt every­thing they touch. Comey’s vaunt­ed integri­ty is now a bit­ter joke; the FBI he heads is today under­stood to sim­ply be anoth­er catspaw to be used to pro­tect lib­er­als and pun­ish their ene­mies. The Depart­ment of Jus­tice has zero to do with jus­tice and is bare­ly even a depart­ment; it’s more of an annex of the Demo­c­rat par­ty. The IRS under­stands its job is to harass and oppress ene­mies of the regime under the col­or of law.
    ...
    The polite resis­tance of the Tea Par­ty was met with media and gov­ern­ment oppres­sion. The impo­lite resis­tance of the Don­ald Trump can­di­da­cy was met with media and gov­ern­ment oppres­sion. There is one last option on the table – we must resist with a peace­ful but res­olute con­ser­v­a­tive insur­gency designed to, over the long haul, retake our right­ful place as cit­i­zens and estab­lish our nation’s com­mit­ment to the Con­sti­tu­tion through polit­i­cal means.

    The alter­na­tive is to keep being pushed and pushed until the nor­mal and decent major­i­ty of Amer­i­cans can fall back no far­ther. And then real civ­il dis­or­der and con­flict will be near­ly inevitable because the dis­en­fran­chised will have no choice but to either sur­ren­der or begin to take steps out­side of the sys­tem as cur­rent­ly con­sti­tut­ed.

    No true Amer­i­can wants that. But no true Amer­i­can will con­sent to live on his knees either.

    Yes, Schlichter does­n’t want a vio­lent insur­rec­tion (LOL!), he just sees no oth­er option. Because that’s how bad Hillary is. And not just Hillary but mod­ern Amer­i­ca in gen­er­al (he recent­ly wrote that a “Fall of Rome” sce­nario would be the best for Amer­i­ca).

    But at least Schlichter is just a right-wing colum­nist and now, say, and elect­ed offi­cial. Like, for instance, the gov­er­nor of Maine:

    Talk­ing Points Memo Livewire

    LeP­age Calls Oba­ma A ‘Dic­ta­tor’ While Clean­ing Up ‘Author­i­tar­i­an’ Com­ments

    By Esme Cribb Pub­lished Octo­ber 12, 2016, 1:33 PM EDT

    In a press con­fer­ence Wednes­day morn­ing, Maine Gov. Paul LeP­age ® cleared up that he meant to describe Don­ald Trump as “author­i­ta­tive” rather than “author­i­tar­i­an” in a Tues­day inter­view.

    “Instead of the word author­i­ta­tive, I used the word author­i­tar­i­an,” LeP­age told reporters, call­ing it a “mis­word.”

    He also dou­bled down on his crit­i­cism of Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma, who he called a “dic­ta­tor.”

    “I called him auto­crat­ic yes­ter­day, but let me be very clear,” LeP­age said, wind­ing up. “I believe the Pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca, Barack Oba­ma, is a dic­ta­tor.”

    LeP­age went on to praise Trump as “a very pow­er­ful per­son­al­i­ty.”

    The Maine gov­er­nor held the entire press con­fer­ence behind a podi­um adorned with Clin­ton-scan­dal-themed Russ­ian nest­ing dolls:
    ...

    “I called him auto­crat­ic yes­ter­day, but let me be very clear,” LeP­age said, wind­ing up. “I believe the Pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca, Barack Oba­ma, is a dic­ta­tor.”

    Yes, dur­ing a press con­fer­ence where Gov­er­nor LeP­age was clar­i­fy­ing what he meant when he pre­vi­ous­ly said, “We need a Don­ald Trump to show some author­i­tar­i­an pow­er in our coun­try and bring back the rule of law,” Gov­er­nor LeP­age assured us that he actu­al­ly meant to say “author­i­ta­tive pow­er”. Also, Oba­ma is a dic­ta­tor. So while LeP­age ran scared from his own words for some rea­son he was­n’t scared about insult­ing a man he claims to think is a dic­ta­tor. Imag­ine that.

    So that’s all part of why Novem­ber 8th, elec­tion day, might just be a pre­lude to the BIG con­test this elec­tion sea­son: what do we do if Don­ald Trump and the rest of the far-right just decide to not only declare the elec­tion invalid but declare Democ­rats and lib­er­al poli­cies in gen­er­al as some­how invalid too and some­thing peo­ple MUST oppose at all costs. In oth­er words, remem­ber that infa­mous meet­ing that took place in 2009 on the night Barack Oba­ma was sworn into office where a num­ber of GOP elect­ed offi­cials agreed to run a leg­isla­tive ‘insur­gency’ mod­eled after the Tal­iban? What do we do if the GOP has that same meet­ing after this elec­tion, but invite the rest of the pub­lic to fol­low them in their ‘insur­gency’? It’s a pret­ty big ques­tion.

    It’s also a reminder that there’s no law guar­an­tee­ing that A Hand­maid­’s Tale remains a tale.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 12, 2016, 3:14 pm
  20. It looks like Don­ald Trump has his rebut­tal ready for not just the cur­rent mael­strom of sex­u­al assault charges against him but all oth­er charges that might come out in the future: It turns out there’s a glob­al con­spir­a­cy of pow­er elites, not just a US elites but a glob­al elites, who are all con­spir­ing against Don­ald Trump and the Amer­i­can peo­ple. Along with the media. And they real­ly hate Trump because he rep­re­sents an exis­ten­tial threat to their glob­al con­spir­a­cy. There­fore, all of these sex­u­al assault alle­ga­tions you’re hear­ing about Don­ald Trump (and any­thing else about him that might come out going for­ward) are part of the glob­al con­spir­a­cy so just ignore them because they’re all lies:

    The Wash­ing­ton Post

    Don­ald Trump says there’s a glob­al con­spir­a­cy against him

    By Chris Cil­liz­za
    Octo­ber 13 at 3:18 PM

    Don­ald Trump has nev­er been one to shy away from embrac­ing con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries. This is the man who sug­gest­ed that Ted Cruz’s father might have been involved in the assas­si­na­tion of John F. Kennedy. Who insist­ed a mal­func­tion­ing micro­phone was the work of a media deter­mined to keep him from win­ning. Who spent five years “inves­ti­gat­ing” whether Pres­i­dent Oba­ma is a U.S. cit­i­zen. (Turns out he is!) Who sug­gest­ed that the death of Supreme Court Asso­ciate Jus­tice Antonin Scalia might have been the result of foul play. And who spec­u­lat­ed about the cir­cum­stances sur­round­ing the sui­cide of long­time Clin­ton con­fi­dant Vince Fos­ter.

    On Thurs­day in West Palm Beach, Fla., Trump — with his cam­paign reel­ing from rev­e­la­tions regard­ing lewd com­ments he made about women in 2005 and a series of alle­ga­tions of grop­ing — deliv­ered the lat­est iter­a­tion of his stump speech. It was an address that can be summed up in a sin­gle word: “Con­spir­a­cy.”

    Time and again dur­ing the speech, Trump cas­ti­gat­ed the media, the Clin­tons and the Clin­ton-media com­plex for what he described as a con­cert­ed attempt to not only smear him but to dis­en­fran­chise the voic­es of work­ing peo­ple across the coun­try.

    “For those who con­trol the levers of pow­er in Wash­ing­ton, and for the glob­al spe­cial inter­ests, they part­ner with these peo­ple that don’t have your good in mind. Our cam­paign rep­re­sents a true exis­ten­tial threat like they haven’t seen before,” Trump said.

    It’s a glob­al pow­er struc­ture that is respon­si­ble for the eco­nom­ic deci­sions that have robbed our work­ing class, stripped our coun­try of its wealth and put that mon­ey into the pock­ets of a hand­ful of large cor­po­ra­tions and polit­i­cal enti­ties,” Trump said.

    “This is well doc­u­ment­ed, and the estab­lish­ment that pro­tects them has engaged in a mas­sive coverup of wide­spread crim­i­nal activ­i­ty at the State Depart­ment and the Clin­ton Foun­da­tion in order to keep the Clin­tons in pow­er,” Trump said.

    “These attacks are orches­trat­ed by the Clin­tons and their media allies. The only thing Hillary Clin­ton has going for her­self is the press . . . with­out the press, she is absolute­ly zero,” Trump said.

    “This is a con­spir­a­cy against you, the Amer­i­can peo­ple, and we can­not let this hap­pen or con­tin­ue,” Trump said.

    Con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries — and those who ascribe to them — are bul­let­proof. Any­one who doubts their verac­i­ty is seen as part of the “them” in the “us vs. them” dynam­ic of the con­spir­a­cy the­o­rist’s world. Of course you would deny that the media and the Clin­tons are con­spir­ing to get Hillary elect­ed so she can pur­sue a glob­al­ist agen­da and destroy Amer­i­can jobs. You just can’t see the whole truth. Or maybe you don’t want to!

    ...

    Trump’s Flori­da speech con­firms that a bunker men­tal­i­ty has now seized the Trump cam­paign. It’s “us vs. them.” But there are too few “us” and far too many “them” to make it a viable elec­tion strat­e­gy.

    “This is a con­spir­a­cy against you, the Amer­i­can peo­ple, and we can­not let this hap­pen or con­tin­ue”

    Well, that set­tles that. Trump’s cam­paign melt­down is the result of a glob­al con­spir­a­cy and not a well-doc­u­ment­ed lega­cy of preda­to­ry lech­er­ous­ness that was going to pre­dictably come out soon­er or lat­er.

    So it looks like we can add “glob­al elite con­spir­a­cy” to the list of rea­sons Trump is going to give when he refus­es to con­cede defeat after the elec­tion and tries to start some sort of Trumpian insur­rec­tion. And since “glob­al elite con­spir­a­cy” has become syn­ony­mous with “Jew­ish bankers”, and since Don­ald Trump is the Alt-Right can­di­date and the “Jew­ish bankers” meme is one of their favorites, we now have to ask our­selves if the final stretch of this cam­paign sea­son is going to go full Storm­Front, with Trump declar­ing war on Illu­mi­nati Jew­ish bankers or some­thing, or if Trump keeps the “glob­al con­spir­a­cy” rhetoric as a very loud Storm­Front dog-whis­tle left to the audi­ence to inter­pret. Either way, the Alt-Right/S­torm­Front crowd is going to have no prob­lem deci­pher­ing want Trump is try­ing to say:

    Talk­ing Points Memo Edi­tor’s Blog

    Nation­al­ism Into the Abyss

    By Josh Mar­shall
    Pub­lished Octo­ber 13, 2016, 3:15 PM EDT

    Is it des­per­a­tion? The themes and instincts of the anti-Semit­ic rad­i­cals and extrem­ists his cam­paign stews in? A “glob­al con­spir­a­cy” of the polit­i­cal elites, inter­na­tion­al finance and the media who have “robbed our work­ing class, stripped our coun­try of its wealth and put the mon­ey in the pock­ets of a hand­ful of large cor­po­ra­tions and polit­i­cal enti­ties.”

    What­ev­er Trump is think­ing or means, the white nation­al­ists and neo-Nazis he’s acti­vat­ed will hear his speech with glee because he’s chan­nel­ing text book anti-Semit­ic con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries, with all the code words and emo­tion­al tenor. I gen­uine­ly don’t know how much of this he even under­stands or cares about. But his rage and anger is in tune with these move­ments. And he’ll cast about for the most coher­ent and res­o­nant sto­ry­line that cap­tures it. It does­n’t mat­ter what he thinks. It mat­ters what he does.

    It’s pos­si­ble these are sim­ply the tropes and sto­ry­lines of inter­na­tion­al Jew­ish con­spir­a­cies repur­posed with the Jews removed from the pic­ture. But it hard­ly mat­ters. The sub­strate of tra­di­tion­al anti-Semi­tism is just as tox­ic as what grows from it. These are the kinds of con­spir­a­to­r­i­al, revan­chist fan­tasies that spur vio­lence and attacks on the mun­dane ordi­nar­i­ness of democ­ra­cy itself.

    ...

    “It’s pos­si­ble these are sim­ply the tropes and sto­ry­lines of inter­na­tion­al Jew­ish con­spir­a­cies repur­posed with the Jews removed from the pic­ture. But it hard­ly mat­ters. The sub­strate of tra­di­tion­al anti-Semi­tism is just as tox­ic as what grows from it. These are the kinds of con­spir­a­to­r­i­al, revan­chist fan­tasies that spur vio­lence and attacks on the mun­dane ordi­nar­i­ness of democ­ra­cy itself.”

    And now we get to see where he takes this meme next. Was this speech an intro­duc­tion to the new cam­paign slo­gan or just a one off Trumpian rant? We’ll find out, but keep in mind that whether or not Trump him­self push­es the “glob­al elites are con­spir­a­cy against you and me” meme over the next few weeks, a huge chunk of Trump’s base already fol­low Trump’s lose media ally Alex Jones and there­fore this audi­ence has already heard those memes before and will con­tin­ue hear­ing them for the fore­see­able future. And you can be pret­ty sure they’re going to the Trump cam­paign is going to be direct­ing as much traf­fic as pos­si­ble to sites like InfoWars giv­en the tra­jec­to­ry of Trump’s cam­paign. So if your very con­ser­v­a­tive Trump sup­port­ing friend informs you that Barack Oba­ma and Hillary Clin­ton are pos­sessed by demons and that’s why we should­n’t rec­og­nize the out­come of the elec­tion, feel free to be pro­found­ly sad­dened, but don’t be super sur­prised.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 13, 2016, 2:24 pm
  21. The dates on Schlichter’s book “Con­ser­v­a­tive Insur­gency” read 2009–2041.
    Why 2041? Per­haps this is to call to mind the date of 1941. That was a dark and bloody year in Nazi-occu­pied Ger­many.

    Posted by Uncle Grody | October 14, 2016, 12:44 pm

Post a comment