- Spitfire List - http://spitfirelist.com -

FTR #928 The Trumpenkampfverbande, Part 7: Locker Room Eclipse, Part 2

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained HERE [1]. 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 [2].

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE [3].

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE [3].

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself HERE [4].

This broad­cast was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment [5].

NB: This descrip­tion con­tains mate­r­i­al not con­tained in the orig­i­nal broad­cast. Much of this will be high­light­ed at greater length and in greater detail in our next pro­gram.

thinkbignkickass [6]MeinKampf [7]Intro­duc­tion: Con­tin­u­ing dis­cus­sion and analy­sis from our last pro­gram, we note that the focus on Don­ald Trump’s abu­sive atti­tude and behav­ior toward women has eclipsed oth­er, more far-reach­ing con­sid­er­a­tions. As the num­ber of female accusers of Trump has grown and received increased media play, Trump coun­tered with a thin­ly-veiled nod to the “inter­na­tion­al Jew­ish con­spir­a­cy” meme, accus­ing [8] Hillary Clin­ton of being allied with “bankers,” the “media estab­lish­ment” and “elites.” ” . . . . The speech was hinged to the orig­i­nal pur­pose of his cam­paign: to trade on the resent­ments of a restive rem­nant of white America—angry white men and the women who love them—and set the stage for may­hem in the wake of his like­ly elec­toral defeat. This was not your stan­dard, off-the-cuff Trump rant. This was a script­ed speech, deliv­ered with a teleprompter. It was craft­ed. It fea­tured the key words of right-wing com­plaints: “sov­er­eign,” “glob­al bankers” and “slan­der.” Real­ly, it came right out of a Nazi pro­pa­gan­da play­book. And when one con­sid­ers the themes com­mon between Nazi pro­pa­gan­da films and the films made by top Trump cam­paign staffers Stephen K. Ban­non and David Bossie (as ana­lyzed by Alter­Net [9]), we should hard­ly be sur­prised. . . . The agen­da of the “media estab­lish­ment,” Trump said, was to elect “crooked” Hillary Clin­ton, in the ser­vice of “spe­cial glob­al inter­ests rig­ging the sys­tem.” There are a lot of ways in the land of Wingnut­tia to tele­graph that your tar­get is Jews, and these are two of them. Remem­ber them: You’ll be hear­ing a lot in com­ing days about the “media estab­lish­ment,” “glob­al spe­cial inter­ests,” oh, and “bankers.” . . . .”

The New York Times fea­tured one news analy­sis piece [10] and one op-ed [11] col­umn on the same day (10/15/2016) that not­ed the thin­ly-veiled, Hit­ler­ian anti-Semi­tism con­tained in Trump’s rhetoric.

As we have not­ed in the past, the Trumpenkampfver­bande is the man­i­fes­ta­tion of the Under­ground Reich as a broad-based, mass move­ment. Regal­ing his fol­low­ers with state­ments [12] about the elec­tion being rigged, Trump is set­ting the stage [13] for the move­ment that has coa­lesced around him to move for­ward. ” . . . . 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. [14] . . .”

Going for­ward, the Trumpenkampfver­bande will be pro­pelled, in part, by what we feel will be an accel­er­at­ing pro­gram of “lone-wolf,” lead­er­less-resis­tance acts of vio­lence and ter­ror. In effect, the Trumpenkampfver­bande is set­ting the stage for ongo­ing war­fare in this coun­try. Trump has been “dog-whis­tle” “main­stream­ing” the sov­er­eign cit­i­zens move­ment [15] as well. “ . . . . I watched his speech Thurs­day, and if I closed my eyes, I could smell the camp­fire smoke at the Mal­heur refuge and feel the Ore­gon win­ter wind on my face. Here were the con­spir­a­cies, the ref­er­ences to the shad­owy inter­na­tion­al cabals, the whis­pers about the ille­git­i­ma­cy of the Depart­ment of Jus­tice and the Tri­lat­er­al­ist coopt­ing of the FBI. It was like lis­ten­ing to an immod­est Ammon Bundy. We have to pro­tect our­selves from not just the gov­ern­ment (because it is only a pawn) but from the peo­ple who real­ly run it. We should be watch­ful, resilient, ready—and though he is reluc­tant, he will sac­ri­fice him­self, for he is the only one who can save us from the ter­ror. Don­ald Trump shout­ed out every fevered dystopi­an fan­ta­sy I heard on the refuge . . . . I was out­raged by Trump before. But now I am wor­ried. . . . Thurs­day, Don­ald Trump trav­eled a step fur­ther down the path of mil­i­tant right-wing rev­o­lu­tion. It wasn’t a call to arms, exact­ly. But it was far past the point of com­fort. . . .”

It remains to be seen what hap­pens after the elec­tion, but some have already moved in the direc­tion of ter­ror: ” . . . . The feds arrest­ed three mem­bers of a right wing mili­tia for alleged­ly plan­ning to det­o­nate explo­sives at an apart­ment com­plex in Gar­den City, Kansas, with Soma­li Mus­lims specif­i­cal­ly the tar­get, law enforce­ment announced at Fri­day. . . . The attack was alleged­ly planned for the day after Elec­tion Day, law enforce­ment said at a press con­fer­ence. . . .”

Iron­i­cal­ly, even as Trump accus­es Hillary Clin­ton of being a pawn of “elites,” his deputy cam­paign–David Bossie [9]–chair­man is the head of Cit­i­zens Unit­ed. It was that orga­ni­za­tion that filed the law­suit paving the way for the Supreme Court deci­sion per­mit­ting the ultra-rich to donate vir­tu­al­ly unlim­it­ed amounts of mon­ey to polit­i­cal cam­paigns in the U.S. Bossie and Trump cam­paign chair­man Steven K. Ban­non have chan­neled Hitler, Goebbels and Leni Riefen­stahl: ” . . . . The late Andrew Bre­it­bart, founder of the web­site Ban­non went on to lead, called Ban­non the “Leni Riefen­stahl of the Tea Par­ty move­ment [16]”—a ref­er­ence to the infa­mous cre­ator of Nazi pro­pa­gan­da films. While insist­ing [17] to a Wall Street Jour­nal reporter in 2011 that his work isn’t pro­pa­gan­da, Ban­non went on to cite Riefen­stahl among his main influ­ences. . .. Ivana Trump, the candidate’s first wife, told Van­i­ty Fair in 1990 that her hus­band kept a copy of Adolf Hitler’s My New Order [18], a col­lec­tion of speech­es that dis­play the Nazi dictator’s excep­tion­al abil­i­ty to manip­u­late real­i­ty, in a cab­i­net near his bed. . . . . The Nazi regime pro­duced a mas­sive amount of pro­pa­gan­da; it had an entire Min­istry of Pub­lic Enlight­en­ment and Pro­pa­gan­da, head­ed by Joseph Goebbels. A cen­tral tech­nique of Nazi pro­pa­gan­dists, accord­ing to the U.S. Holo­caust Memo­r­i­al Muse­um, was to cast Jews as out­siders and dan­ger­ous ene­mies of the Reich, ‘‘sub­hu­man’ crea­tures infil­trat­ing Aryan soci­ety.’ . . . In her analy­sis of Riefenstahl’s ‘Tri­umph of the Will,’ Price not­ed that ‘per­haps most crit­i­cal­ly, Germany’s come­back is por­trayed as well under­way; the view­er need only jump aboard. What is being said implic­it­ly is that there is no alter­na­tive.’ In ‘Bat­tle for Amer­i­ca,’ Ban­non and Bossie fol­low the same for­mu­la, posit­ing the Tea Par­ty move­ment as the band­wag­on to jump on. But the for­mu­la isn’t the only thing about the film that car­ries echoes of Goebbels: a researcher and coun­sel for the film was white nation­al­ist Robert Van­der­voort [19]. . . .”

In our next pro­gram, we will be look­ing at some of those abroad who are allied with Trump, as well as return­ing to the sub­ject of his benign pub­lic pos­ture toward Putin/Russia/Ukraine/Crimea. Some of those sub­jects are touched on in the lat­ter part of this broad­cast.

Pro­gram High­lights Include:

1a. Where­as most of Don­ald Trump’s Nazi dog-whistling has been tweet­ing, some of it in the wee hours of the morn­ing, his recent speech accus­ing Hillary Clin­ton of being a co-con­spir­a­tor of “inter­na­tion­al bankers” and “the media estab­lish­ment” was read from a teleprompter.

The delib­er­ate nature of the talk is sig­nif­i­cant, giv­en that Trump is chan­nel­ing Hitler and com­mu­ni­cat­ing thin­ly-veiled anti-Semit­ic themes to his sup­port­ers.

“In Nazi-Like Speech, Trump Responds to Sex­u­al Assault Claims With Broad Con­spir­a­cy The­o­ry Designed to Foment May­hem” by Adele M. Stan; Alter­Net; 10/13/2016. [8]

It would be tempt­ing to label as “unhinged” the speech Don­ald Trump deliv­ered in West Palm Beach on Thursday—a speech in which he dog-whis­tled a world­wide con­spir­a­cy against him (with­out actu­al­ly utter­ing the word “Jews”) and dis­par­aged the appear­ance of women who have accused him of sex­u­al assault and trans­gres­sions.

But it was not unhinged. The speech was hinged to the orig­i­nal pur­pose of his cam­paign: to trade on the resent­ments of a restive rem­nant of white America—angry white men and the women who love them—and set the stage for may­hem in the wake of his like­ly elec­toral defeat.

This was not your stan­dard, off-the-cuff Trump rant. This was a script­ed speech, deliv­ered with a teleprompter. It was craft­ed. It fea­tured the key words of right-wing com­plaints: “sov­er­eign,” “glob­al bankers” and “slan­der.” Real­ly, it came right out of a Nazi pro­pa­gan­da play­book. And when one con­sid­ers the themes com­mon between Nazi pro­pa­gan­da films and the films made by top Trump cam­paign staffers Stephen K. Ban­non and David Bossie (as ana­lyzed by Alter­Net [9]), we should hard­ly be sur­prised.

Trump began with an attack on the New York Times (whose major­i­ty own­ers are a Jew­ish fam­i­ly), which he said was engaged in a con­spir­a­cy of glob­al pro­por­tions with the Clin­tons, inter­na­tion­al bankers and major cor­po­ra­tions, all to stop him from win­ning the pres­i­den­cy.

“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. This is not sim­ply anoth­er four-year elec­tion. This is a cross­roads in the his­to­ry of our civ­i­liza­tion that will deter­mine whether or not we, the peo­ple, reclaim con­trol over our gov­ern­ment,” Trump told a cheer­ing crowd. A few beats lat­er, he said, “We’ve seen this first­hand in the Wik­iLeaks doc­u­ments in which Hillary Clin­ton meets in secret with inter­na­tion­al banks to plot the destruc­tion of U.S. sov­er­eign­ty in order to enrich these glob­al finan­cial pow­ers, her spe­cial inter­est friends and her donors.”

He then went on, at great length, describ­ing what he alleged was coor­di­na­tion between the New York Times and the Clin­ton cam­paign, not­ing the newspaper’s Wednes­day night report detail­ing alle­ga­tions by two women [26] who said Trump had sex­u­al­ly accost­ed them. Of course, he con­tend­ed the women were liars. He also offered a dis­qui­si­tion on pre­vi­ous New York Times pieces about his behav­ior with women. It was all a grand con­spir­a­cy, he said, not just against him, but against the Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca.

The agen­da of the “media estab­lish­ment,” Trump said, was to elect “crooked” Hillary Clin­ton, in the ser­vice of “spe­cial glob­al inter­ests rig­ging the sys­tem.” There are a lot of ways in the land of Wingnut­tia to tele­graph that your tar­get is Jews, and these are two of them. Remem­ber them: You’ll be hear­ing a lot in com­ing days about the “media estab­lish­ment,” “glob­al spe­cial inter­ests,” oh, and “bankers.”

“Any­one who chal­lenges their con­trol,” Trump con­tin­ued, “is deemed a sex­ist, rapist, xeno­phobe and moral­ly deformed. They will attack you. They will slan­der you. They will seek to destroy your career and your fam­i­ly. They will seek to destroy every­thing about you, includ­ing your rep­u­ta­tion. They will lie, lie, lie, and then again they will do worse than that. They will do what­ev­er is nec­es­sary. The Clin­tons are crim­i­nals. Remem­ber that, they’re crim­i­nals.”

When the crowd began chant­i­ng, “Lock her up!” Trump chimed in, “So true. Hon­est­ly, she should be locked up. She should be. Should be locked up.”

Of his accusers, Trump told his audi­ence to have a good look at them, imply­ing they weren’t good-look­ing enough to have attract­ed his atten­tion. Of the women inter­viewed by the New York Times, Trump said, “You take a look at these peo­ple. You study these peo­ple and you’ll under­stand also. The claims are pre­pos­ter­ous, ludi­crous, and defy truth, com­mon sense and log­ic.”

Speak­ing of Natasha Stoynoff, the Peo­ple mag­a­zine writer who Wednes­day night pub­lished an arti­cle [27] detail­ing what she said was an assault by Trump against her at his Mar-a-Lago home, Trump said, “Take a look. You look at her. Look at her words,” he said. “You tell me what you think. I don’t think so. I don’t think so.”

Trump went on to say he has evi­dence to refute the claims made against him in the New York Times report, evi­dence he would reveal “at an appro­pri­ate time.” He also promised to take down the Times—put it out of business—with a law­suit he is prepar­ing against the news­pa­per. It is telling that one of his big sup­port­ers is Peter Thiel, who took down Gawk­er by back­ing Hulk Hogan’s pri­va­cy-vio­la­tion law­suit against the web­site.

Per­haps most chill­ing in all of the hate-stok­ing and con­spir­a­cy-mon­ger­ing Trump demon­strat­ed Thurs­day is his asser­tion that “this is war”—that the “media estab­lish­ment” and the Clin­tons are engaged in a con­spir­a­cy that is mak­ing war on the Amer­i­can peo­ple “no mat­ter how many lives they destroy.”

“For them, it’s a war,” Trump said. “And for them, noth­ing at all is out of bounds. This is a strug­gle for the sur­vival of our nation.”

Trump has learned well from his white nation­al­ist friends. After all, the guy who like­ly wrote Thursday’s script—Trump cam­paign CEO Stephen K. Bannon—is the one who boast­ed of pro­vid­ing “the plat­form for the alt-right,” that anti-Semit­ic, misog­y­nist move­ment from which Trump has derived such suc­cor.

With Thursday’s speech, Trump has bald­ly laid out his true agen­da: a post-elec­tion insur­rec­tion.

1b. Two sep­a­rate columns in the same edi­tion of The New York Times (10/15/2016) not­ed the Hit­ler­ian, anti-Semit­ic code-words used by Trump.

“Trump’s Bar­rage of Heat­ed Speech Has Lit­tle Prece­dent” by Jonathan Mar­tin; The New York Times; 10/15/2016. [10]

. . . . “Hillary Clin­ton meets in secret with inter­na­tion­al banks to plot the destruc­tion of U.S. sov­er­eign­ty in order to enrich these glob­al finan­cial pow­ers, her spe­cial inter­est friends and her donors.”

— Mr. Trump at a ral­ly on Thurs­day in West Palm Beach, Fla.

Mr. Trump veers dan­ger­ous­ly close to the ter­ri­to­ry of “The Pro­to­cols of the Elders of Zion,” a fab­ri­cat­ed anti-Semit­ic text, in dis­cussing the Wik­iLeaks hacks that revealed some of Mrs. Clinton’s speech­es to finan­cial insti­tu­tions. . . .

1c. From the same New York Times (10/15/2016) edi­tion as the above analy­sis by Jonathan Mar­tin:

“How Dic­ta­tor­ships Are Born” by Roger Cohen; The New York Times; 10/15/2016. [11]

. . . . Just to make his pedi­gree clear, Don­ald Trump [28] is now sug­gest­ing [29] that Hillary Clin­ton “meets in secret with inter­na­tion­al banks to plot the destruc­tion of U.S. sov­er­eign­ty, in order to enrich these glob­al finan­cial pow­ers, her spe­cial inter­est friends, and her donors.”

What was it the Nazis called the Jews? Oh, yes, “root­less par­a­sites,” that’s it. . . .

2a. Trump is posi­tion­ing what we have termed “The Trumpenkampfver­bande” to con­tin­ue after elec­tion day as a broad-based, fas­cist insur­rec­tion:

“Don­ald Trump Is Set­ting the Stage to Nev­er Con­cede the 2016 Elec­tion” by Chris Cil­liz­za; The Wash­ing­ton Post; 10/14/2016. [12]

Don­ald Trump nev­er accept­ed los­ing in his busi­ness life. Even when he very clear­ly lost. He sim­ply declared vic­to­ry and moved on. (If you don’t believe me, watch PBS’s ter­rif­ic “The Choice 2016.” [30])

His rhetoric over the last 10 days sug­gests he is prepar­ing to fol­low that very blue­print in Novem­ber. Over and over again of late, Trump has indulged in the idea of a broad-scale glob­al con­spir­a­cy [31] being orga­nized to keep him from being elect­ed. And he has repeat­ed­ly used lan­guage describ­ing the elec­tion as “rigged” by a Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty and com­plic­it media play­ing dirty pool.

At a ral­ly on Fri­day in Greens­boro, N.C., Trump leaned into his “rigged” premise.

“This whole elec­tion is being rigged,” Trump told the roar­ing crowd. “The whole thing is one big fix. One big ugly lie. It’s one big fix.”

Giv­en that rhetoric, it’s dif­fi­cult for me to imag­ine that in 25 days time, if he comes up short to Hillary Clin­ton, Trump will sim­ply con­cede the elec­tion. He is active­ly foment­ing the idea that the results on Nov. 8 will be invalid no mat­ter what they say because of the “rigged” nature of the whole process. He is prim­ing the pump among his sup­port­ers to nev­er accept that he actu­al­ly lost but instead had it stolen from him by the Demo­c­ra­t­ic-media com­plex, which couldn’t deal with the truths he was telling.

Trump, despite the hopes of many Repub­li­cans, isn’t going to sim­ply dis­ap­pear on Nov. 9. This is some­one whose entire life has been in pur­suit of an ever-big­ger spot­light. Trump now has the biggest spot­light in the world on him. He isn’t the sort to will­ing­ly walk off the stage at the moment he has achieved what he’s always want­ed. And so, whether or not Trump actu­al­ly believes the elec­tion is rigged against him (it’s not!), he has sev­er­al self-serv­ing rea­sons to con­tin­ue to push the idea to and through Elec­tion Day.

Trump, I think, has two options for his future in pol­i­tics, assum­ing he los­es this fall. The first is that he works to keep his bloc of vot­ers togeth­er post-elec­tion and forms some sort of con­ser­v­a­tive alter­na­tive third par­ty that aims to bash Repub­li­cans and Democ­rats in rough­ly equal mea­sure. The oth­er is that he starts a con­ser­v­a­tive media/broadcasting com­pa­ny in an attempt to mon­e­tize the loy­al­ty his sup­port­ers have for him and the anti-elites, anti-par­ty mes­sage he has been push­ing through­out the cam­paign.

Nei­ther of those options is served by acknowl­edg­ing defeat at the hands of Clin­ton and shuf­fling off. Both are made more appeal­ing — from a com­mer­cial per­spec­tive — by nev­er con­ced­ing, by insist­ing that the race wasn’t lost, it was tak­en.

Trump has shown that he is a mas­ter of griev­ance pol­i­tics in this race. He now seems to be set­ting up the great­est griev­ance of all for the vot­ers who sup­port him: that their votes don’t mat­ter because Hillary Clin­ton and all of her media enablers have already deter­mined the out­come of this elec­tion.

2b. There has been a con­sid­er­able amount of cov­er­age of Don­ald Trump’s thin­ly veiled exhor­ta­tion for his pro-2nd Amend­ment fol­low­ers to shoot Hillary Clin­ton. Trump is also encour­ag­ing his fol­low­ers to show up at polling places to guard against the [fraud­u­lent] prospect of vot­er fraud. Many see this as an exhor­ta­tion to vio­lent­ly intim­i­date minor­i­ty vot­ers. If Trump los­es, it will be inter­est­ing to see how those fol­low­ers who have been regaled that the elec­tion is “rigged,” will act.

The bet­ting mon­ey, here, is that we will see a sig­nif­i­cant uptick in rightwing ter­ror and mur­der, much of it the “lone-wolf/lead­er­less resis­tance” vari­ety for which Glenn Green­wald [32] ran legal inter­fer­ence.

Again, the point is that the Trumpenkampfver­bande is not going away. Whether led by a Don­ald Trump, Jr., who eschews his father’s lock­er-room ban­ter, or some­one else, the Under­ground Reich is mov­ing above ground.

“Dan­ger on Novem­ber 9th” by Josh Mar­shall; Talk­ing Points Memo Editor’s Blog; 10/12/2016. [13]

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. [14]

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.

3. Now that Don­ald Trump has for­mal­ly incor­po­rat­ed “inter­na­tion­al banker” con­spir­a­cies against him and the Amer­i­ca peo­ple [33] into the dai­ly Alt-Right nar­ra­tive that fuels his cam­paign and repeat­ed­ly assert­ed that the elec­tion is all rigged by these elites and maybe the out­come shouldn’t be respect­ed [34], here’s a reminder he’s not just main­stream­ing the Alt-Right/­neo-Nazi world­view [35]. Giv­en the enor­mous amount of over­lap between the Alt-Right’s far-right foun­da­tions and those of the sov­er­eign cit­i­zen move­ments, Trump is [36]also [37]main­stream­ing Cliv­en Bundy [15]:

Like Trump, sov­er­eign cit­i­zens want “law and order” too. Remem­ber the ‘cit­i­zen com­mit­tees’ set up to try and hang pub­lic offi­cials [38]. That’s sov­er­eign cit­i­zen “law and order.” Increas­ing­ly, it is Trumpian “law and order, [39]” as well.

“Trump’s Speech: Dog Whis­tles to the Sov­er­eign-Cit­i­zen Set” by Lin­da Tira­do; The Dai­ly Beast; 10/13/2016. [15]

Trump’s Thurs­day speech marked a turn­ing point. There is now no sce­nario in which this coun­try repu­di­ates him and mere­ly goes about its busi­ness.

It’s easy to for­get how sil­ly most peo­ple thought Don­ald Trump was, all the way back in Jan­u­ary. It was before any pri­maries or cau­cus­es. Trump led in most polls, but peo­ple still couldn’t real­ly quite believe that peo­ple were actu­al­ly going to vote for him.

I spent much of that month at the Mal­heur Nation­al Wildlife Refuge, report­ing for The Dai­ly Beast [40] on the mil­i­tants who had tak­en it over. In the inter­ven­ing months, Trump has mor­phed from a vague joke or a thumb in the eye of the estab­lish­ment, depend­ing on your point of view, to a fas­cist mega­lo­ma­ni­a­cal wreck of a can­di­date who is unlike­ly to be elect­ed because he is fun­da­men­tal­ly inca­pable of see­ing past his own nose.

I watched his speech Thurs­day, and if I closed my eyes, I could smell the camp­fire smoke at the Mal­heur refuge and feel the Ore­gon win­ter wind on my face. Here were the con­spir­a­cies, the ref­er­ences to the shad­owy inter­na­tion­al cabals, the whis­pers about the ille­git­i­ma­cy of the Depart­ment of Jus­tice and the Tri­lat­er­al­ist coopt­ing of the FBI.

It was like lis­ten­ing to an immod­est Ammon Bundy. We have to pro­tect our­selves from not just the gov­ern­ment (because it is only a pawn) but from the peo­ple who real­ly run it. We should be watch­ful, resilient, ready—and though he is reluc­tant, he will sac­ri­fice him­self, for he is the only one who can save us from the ter­ror.

Don­ald Trump shout­ed out every fevered dystopi­an fan­ta­sy I heard on the refuge, with the excep­tions of Agen­da 21 and abor­tion as pop­u­la­tion con­trol. “They con­trol the Depart­ment of Jus­tice,” he said. “They have essen­tial­ly cor­rupt­ed the direc­tor of the FBI.” “This is a con­spir­a­cy against you, the Amer­i­can peo­ple, and we can­not let this hap­pen or con­tin­ue. This is our moment of reck­on­ing.” This is pre­cise­ly the log­ic that led a few hun­dred peo­ple to take up arms against the gov­ern­ment in Ore­gon, though at least Ammon Bundy start­ed with a rea­son­ably legit­i­mate premise. Don­ald Trump doesn’t even have two Amer­i­cans jailed twice for the same crime to legit­imize his quest.

What he has is a small but grow­ing fringe that talks about We the Peo­ple instead of Amer­i­cans. We have already seen the vio­lence at his ral­lies, we have seen the vicious street attacks, we have wor­ried about the rise of the right. What I have not until Thurs­day heard was some­thing that spiked my nativist upbring­ing, words deliv­ered in a very par­tic­u­lar order that made me want to go buy anoth­er rifle and check my food stor­age.

I was raised among white peo­ple, sent to an ele­men­tary school in which there were no black kids, and then moved to the moun­tains of Utah for high school, where the neo-Nazis recruit­ed at illic­it drink­ing par­ties because kids who would have a beer were already dis­af­fect­ed in an over­whelm­ing­ly Mor­mon cul­ture. There is a part of me that remem­bers the cod­ing, the tones, remem­bers the fear that the gov­ern­ment might come and mas­sacre us again as they had in times not that long ago. I reject it vio­lent­ly, but you don’t ever for­get what you were raised to believe even if you learn bet­ter.

It would take a lin­guist to comb through that speech and parse out which words came from where. I am only a writer steeped in the lan­guage of right-wing rev­o­lu­tion. I was out­raged by Trump before. But now I am wor­ried. There is no sce­nario in which this coun­try repu­di­ates him and then goes about its busi­ness; we allowed his rise and we have embold­ened the peo­ple that we ignored for so long. We have three weeks to go yet, more scan­dals and reac­tions and fear and ter­ror, and at the end of it, we will have an unknow­able num­ber of peo­ple who will absolute­ly and with­out ques­tion think that Hillary Clinton’s elec­tion is an unmis­tak­able sign that it is time for the gov­erned to with­draw their con­sent.

Not a major­i­ty; not even many, com­pared to the mil­lions of peo­ple who live in Amer­i­ca. But enough. Thurs­day, Don­ald Trump trav­eled a step fur­ther down the path of mil­i­tant right-wing rev­o­lu­tion. It wasn’t a call to arms, exact­ly. But it was far past the point of com­fort.

4. It is note­wor­thy that a Kansas mili­tia was caught plan­ning attacks on a local Soma­li com­mu­ni­ty, and any­one sup­port­ive of that com­mu­ni­ty, the attack for the day after elec­tion day [41]:

“Feds: Right Wing Mili­tia Plot­ted Nov. 9 Attack On Soma­li Immi­grants In Kansas” by Tier­ney Sneed; Talk­ing Points Memo Livewire; 10/14/2016. [41]

The feds arrest­ed three mem­bers of a right wing mili­tia for alleged­ly plan­ning to det­o­nate explo­sives at an apart­ment com­plex in Gar­den City, Kansas, with Soma­li Mus­lims specif­i­cal­ly the tar­get, law enforce­ment announced at Fri­day.

The men were Cur­tis Allen and Gavin Wright, both 49, and of Lib­er­al, Kansas, and Patrick Eugene Stein, 47, of Wright, Kansas, accord­ing to a Depart­ment of Jus­tice press release. Their arrests Fri­day morn­ing were first report­ed by CBS News [42].

The attack was alleged­ly planned for the day after Elec­tion Day, law enforce­ment said at a press con­fer­ence.

They are fac­ing domes­tic ter­ror­ism charges, which, if they are con­vict­ed, could result in a max­i­mum sen­tence of life in fed­er­al prison, law enforce­ment said.

“These charges are based on eight months of inves­ti­ga­tion by the FBI that is alleged to have tak­en the inves­ti­ga­tors deep into a hid­den cul­ture of hatred and vio­lence,” Tom Beall, the act­ing U.S. Attor­ney for Kansas, said. “Many Kansans may find it as star­tling as I have that such things could hap­pen here.”

The inves­ti­ga­tion uncov­ered stock­piles of firearms and explo­sive mate­ri­als, as well as a man­i­festo, Beall said.

“One of them said, ‘The bomb­ing would wake peo­ple up,’” Beall said.

The sus­pects alleged­ly planned to attack the hous­ing com­plex, where approx­i­mate­ly 120 peo­ple live and where one of the apart­ments was used as a mosque, the offi­cials said. They were part of a mili­tia group that called itself The Cru­saders, accord­ing to law enforce­ment.

They also con­sid­ered tar­get­ing church­es and pub­lic offi­cials who sup­port­ed the Soma­li com­mu­ni­ty, as well as the land­lords that rent­ed to the immi­grants, the offi­cials said.

5. An Alter­net piece com­pares movies made by the chair­man and deputy chair­man of Trump’s cam­paign to Nazi pro­pa­gan­da films, those of Leni Riefen­stahl, in par­tic­u­lar. It is note­wor­thy that David Bossie, the deputy chair­man of Trump’s cam­paign is the pres­i­dent and chair­man of Cit­i­zens Unit­ed, the orga­ni­za­tion whose law­suit opened the door to the vir­tu­al­ly unlim­it­ed fund­ing of Amer­i­can elec­tions by the ultra-rich.

How alto­geth­er iron­ic that Trump is point­ing the accus­ing fin­ger at Hillary Clin­ton for being a tool of the monied inter­ests, when he has Bossie as the num­ber 2 man on his cam­paign!

“Trump Cam­paign Lead­ers Made Movies Com­pa­ra­ble to Nazi Pro­pa­gan­da” by Alex Kotch; Alter­net; 10/06/2016. [9]

. . . . .Ear­ly on, Trump court­ed the far right, retweet­ing posts from the Twit­ter accounts of white suprema­cists. He also received sup­port from some he appar­ent­ly didn’t court, win­ning praise from the likes of for­mer KKK leader David Duke, and even made the Cal­i­for­nia bal­lot as the nom­i­nee of a racist polit­i­cal par­ty [43].

See­ing how Steve Ban­non had craft­ed Bre­it­bart News, the right-wing web­site he ran, into a hub for young white nation­al­ists (the “alt-right”) to bat around con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries, Trump tapped Ban­non on August 17 to be his cam­paign CEO. As exec­u­tive chair­man of Bre­it­bart, Ban­non pub­lished decep­tive [44] and man­u­fac­tured [45] sto­ries to aid the right wing, and in the pres­i­den­tial cam­paign treat­ed his media com­pa­ny as a sur­ro­gate for Trump.

On Sep­tem­ber 1, Trump chose David Bossie [46], pres­i­dent and chair­man of the right-wing non­prof­it Cit­i­zens Unit­ed, as his deputy cam­paign man­ag­er. Bossie has pro­duced 25 films with Cit­i­zens Unit­ed Pro­duc­tions. Some of these films fea­ture Ban­non as writer, direc­tor and exec­u­tive pro­duc­er.

It was Bossie’s group whose name came to define the unlim­it­ed flow of cor­po­rate and union cash into elec­tions, thanks to the Supreme Court’s deci­sion in the 2010 case Cit­i­zens Unit­ed brought against the Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion. At issue was an anti-Clin­ton Cit­i­zens Unit­ed pro­duc­tion called Hillary: The Movie, which the FEC had deemed a cam­paign adver­tise­ment sub­ject to reg­u­la­tion based on cam­paign finance law. (The movie was pro­duced for air­ing in the 2008 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion, when many expect­ed Hillary Clin­ton to be the Demo­c­ra­t­ic nom­i­nee.) Now Bossie has joined Ban­non, his long­time team­mate, to run Trump’s cam­paign of lies and fear-mon­ger­ing against Clin­ton.

Accord­ing to the Wash­ing­ton Post [46], Bossie’s job in Trump World is “craft­ing attacks against Demo­c­ra­t­ic pres­i­den­tial nom­i­nee Hillary Clin­ton, min­ing past con­tro­ver­sies involv­ing her and for­mer pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton, and cul­ti­vat­ing Trump’s bond with con­ser­v­a­tive activists.” Bossie has hound­ed [47] the Clin­tons for decades, begin­ning in the ear­ly 1990s, when he dug up dirt about Bill Clin­ton when he was still gov­er­nor of Arkansas. A few years lat­er, U.S. Rep. Dan Bur­ton (R‑Ind.) hired Bossie to inves­ti­gate Clinton’s 1996 cam­paign fundrais­ing, a post he was lat­er forced to resign. Bossie went on to write a book that blamed the Clin­ton admin­is­tra­tion for the ter­ror­ist attacks of Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001, and to pro­duce Hillary: The Movie with Cit­i­zens Unit­ed. This year, the group sued the State Depart­ment for emails and oth­er records of those who served as aides to Hillary Clin­ton while she was sec­re­tary of state. Bossie is tak­ing a leave of absence from Cit­i­zens Unit­ed dur­ing the cam­paign, and also retir­ing from the Defeat Crooked Hillary super PAC, which he found­ed this June.

Bossie and Trump are no strangers; in 2014, Trump’s foun­da­tion donat­ed $100,000 [48] to the Cit­i­zens Unit­ed Foun­da­tion, the same year that the group filed a law­suit against New York Attor­ney Gen­er­al Eric Schnei­der­man, who was suing Trump over the fraud­u­lent prac­tices of Trump Uni­ver­si­ty.

Some have wagered that Trump, along with Ban­non and for­mer Fox News chief Roger Ailes, is plan­ning a new, post-elec­tion media empire [49], which could help his brand whether he wins or los­es. Some think Trump doesn’t want to win the elec­tion, but the hir­ing of Ban­non and Bossie may show that Trump, one of the world’s loud­est ego­ma­ni­acs, thinks he deserves the White House and knows the only way to win it is through pro­pa­gan­da that rein­forces his giant moun­tain of fab­ri­ca­tions, con­spir­a­cies, racism and sex­ism.

The late Andrew Bre­it­bart, founder of the web­site Ban­non went on to lead, called Ban­non the “Leni Riefen­stahl of the Tea Par­ty move­ment [16]”—a ref­er­ence to the infa­mous cre­ator of Nazi pro­pa­gan­da films. While insist­ing [17] to a Wall Street Jour­nal reporter in 2011 that his work isn’t pro­pa­gan­da, Ban­non went on to cite Riefen­stahl among his main influ­ences, along with Sovi­et film­mak­er Sergei Eisen­stein and pro­gres­sive doc­u­men­tar­i­an Michael Moore.

Ivana Trump, the candidate’s first wife, told Van­i­ty Fair in 1990 that her hus­band kept a copy of Adolf Hitler’s My New Order [18], a col­lec­tion of speech­es that dis­play the Nazi dictator’s excep­tion­al abil­i­ty to manip­u­late real­i­ty, in a cab­i­net near his bed. “Per­haps his pos­ses­sion of Hitler’s speech­es mere­ly indi­cates an inter­est in Hitler’s genius at pro­pa­gan­da,” mused Marie Bren­ner, author of the arti­cle.

The Nazi regime pro­duced a mas­sive amount of pro­pa­gan­da; it had an entire Min­istry of Pub­lic Enlight­en­ment and Pro­pa­gan­da, head­ed by Joseph Goebbels. A cen­tral tech­nique of Nazi pro­pa­gan­dists, accord­ing to the U.S. Holo­caust Memo­r­i­al Muse­um, was to cast Jews as out­siders and dan­ger­ous ene­mies of the Reich, “‘sub­hu­man’ crea­tures infil­trat­ing Aryan soci­ety.”

Karen Eliz­a­beth Price, a film­mak­er who teach­es cours­es on doc­u­men­tary film at Duke Uni­ver­si­ty, told Alter­Net via email that “most suc­cess­ful pro­pa­gan­da films appeal to some­thing that already exists in the viewer—perhaps only as a feel­ing or germ of an idea—and help to ‘fill in the blanks.’” After Ger­many had to con­cede ter­ri­to­ries and accept blame for World War I and then was hit by the Great Depres­sion, peo­ple felt wound­ed and demor­al­ized. In Riefenstahl’s Tri­umph of the Will, which some regard as the great­est pro­pa­gan­da film of all time, “a solu­tion to that despair is pre­sent­ed in the form of a patri­ot­ic sav­ior [in this case, Adolf Hitler] already hard at work, promis­ing to restore Ger­many to its for­mer pow­er and glo­ry,” said Price.

To explore, in the con­text of pro­pa­gan­da-mak­ing, the kinds of elec­tion nar­ra­tives we’re get­ting from Trump and his lat­est cam­paign ros­ter, I suf­fered my way through three movies pro­duced by Cit­i­zens Unit­ed: Bor­der War: The Bat­tle Over Ille­gal Immi­gra­tion (2006), which had Ban­non and Bossie as exec­u­tive pro­duc­ers; Bat­tle for Amer­i­ca (2010), with Ban­non as writer, direc­tor and pro­duc­er and Bossie as exec­u­tive pro­duc­er; and Occu­py Unmasked (2012), writ­ten and direct­ed by Ban­non with Bossie as exec­u­tive pro­duc­er and fea­tur­ing Andrew Bre­it­bart.

All three Bannon/Bossie films cen­ter on an ene­my, either “ille­gal” immi­grants, “rad­i­cal lib­er­als” (a cat­e­go­ry that in these films includes Oba­ma and the Clin­tons), or the Occu­py Wall Street pro­test­ers. To exag­ger­ate the dan­ger of these pur­port­ed ene­mies and gar­ner sup­port for those the movies present as America’s defend­ers, each film uses var­i­ous pro­pa­gan­da tech­niques includ­ing omis­sions, jux­ta­po­si­tion, false asso­ci­a­tions, decep­tive­ly edit­ed footage, stereo­typ­ing and rep­e­ti­tion, all to appeal to view­ers’ fear and prej­u­dice. In two of them, the film’s heroes are framed as bat­tling a cor­rupt or inept polit­i­cal estab­lish­ment.

‘Bor­der War: The Bat­tle Over Ille­gal Immi­gra­tion’

The pur­pose of “Bor­der War” is clear­ly to cast undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants as threats to Amer­i­can cit­i­zens. The film, from 2006, takes us to Nogales, Ari­zona (a town on the Mex­i­can bor­der), and South­ern Cal­i­for­nia, fol­low­ing five char­ac­ters, four of whom have antipa­thy for undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants: a bor­der patrol agent whose par­ents emi­grat­ed legal­ly from Mex­i­co; a con­gress­man who wrote a bill [50] to build a wall across the U.S.-Mexico bor­der and sta­tion guards all along it; a woman whose hus­band, a sheriff’s deputy, was killed by an undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grant he had stopped; a Mex­i­can-Amer­i­can woman who was molest­ed by undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants and whose nephew was killed by one. In an attempt to feign bal­ance, also includ­ed is an orga­niz­er for immi­gra­tion reform who found­ed a group that pro­vides water and food to immi­grants cross­ing the U.S.-Mexico bor­der.

The selec­tion of these sub­jects alone makes clear the film is hard­ly a doc­u­men­tary but more a selec­tive argu­ment against undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants. From the begin­ning, bor­der crossers are depict­ed as dan­ger­ous; an ear­ly scene con­tains footage of the after­math of a shootout between “rival gangs of coy­otes,” or peo­ple whom aspir­ing immi­grants pay to shep­herd them across the bor­der. Blood pools beneath a dead traf­fick­er, wrecked cars lie in ditch­es, and U.S. Rep. J.D. Hay­worth refers to those involved in the inci­dent as “ille­gals,” while threat­en­ing music under­scores his com­ments.

Through­out the film, efforts to brand undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants as crim­i­nals abound. A ranch own­er near the bor­der recounts many undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants leav­ing trash, which he says cat­tle eat and die from, on his land. Once some migrants “butchered a young calf,” he says. A woman says her hos­pi­tal in Dou­glass, Ari­zona, closed because it lost mon­ey treat­ing undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants who couldn’t pay. A news broad­cast details a drug-smug­gling tun­nel that runs from Agua Pri­eta, Mex­i­co to Dou­glass, Ari­zona.

Lupe Moreno, whose nephew was killed by an undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grant, is part of a group called Min­ute­man, a cadre of vig­i­lante bor­der patrollers labeled a “nativist extrem­ist group [51]” by the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter. The film doesn’t both­er to explain much about the group because if they did, they’d have to acknowl­edge its dis­turb­ing his­to­ry and ties to neo-Nazis [52] and white suprema­cists.

One scene shows com­pet­ing ral­lies, one in favor of rights for the undoc­u­ment­ed and anoth­er for strict immi­gra­tion enforce­ment. At the lat­ter ral­ly, Min­ute­man co-founder Jim Gilchrist, who was run­ning for Con­gress at the time, spoke. In an inter­view there, Gilchrist claims that at the oth­er ral­ly, “[t]here’s not one Amer­i­can flag out there;” how­ev­er, he says that in the pro-immi­grant demon­stra­tion, a “com­mu­nist flag” and an anar­chist flag flew. Gilchrist was run­ning for office as a mem­ber of the Amer­i­can Inde­pen­dent Par­ty, the seg­re­ga­tion­ist par­ty of George Wal­lace. This par­ty, based in Cal­i­for­nia, has actu­al­ly put Trump [43] on the pres­i­den­tial bal­lot in that state this year.

On his 2006 cam­paign web­site [53], Gilchrist claimed, “Although some [ille­gal immi­grants from Mex­i­co] pre­sum­ably have good inten­tions, at least twen­ty per­cent (20%) of south­ern bor­der-crossers are known crim­i­nals, drug deal­ers, sex traf­fick­ers, and gang lords.”

Chris Sim­cox, Min­ute­man co-founder, makes an appear­ance. He’s now in jail [54]for child molesta­tion.

Footage of pro­test­ers with ban­danas cov­er­ing their faces appears, some wear­ing all black, some yelling at mount­ed police, over brood­ing music that per­vades the film.

“We are in a bat­tle right now,” says Moreno. “We’re in a bat­tle for this nation.”

Moreno met [55] with Trump last year, and Bre­it­bart News was hap­py to spread the word. Unsur­pris­ing­ly, Gilchrist endorsed Trump [56] in 2015.

The film fea­tures many inter­views but few facts. In one of the only scenes to include a sta­tis­tic, an uniden­ti­fied agent from California’s Los Ange­les Coun­ty tells a crowd gath­ered for what appears to be a law enforce­ment memo­r­i­al for a sheriff’s deputy shot to death by an undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grant: “There are 801,000 sit­u­a­tions where peo­ple have been mur­dered in the state of Cal­i­for­nia.” It’s unclear what kind of sit­u­a­tions he’s talk­ing about and over what peri­od of time, but even so, that’s an insane­ly high fig­ure for any record of mur­ders in the state. Then he says: “Add up the oth­er bor­der states, now we’re up to 3,000.” If per­chance he mul­ti­plied the real stat for Cal­i­for­nia by 100,000, Cit­i­zens Unit­ed didn’t both­er to clar­i­fy or fix his error.

No jour­nal­ists or researchers were inter­viewed for “Bor­der War.” Ten years after the film was made, the anti-estab­lish­ment and “law-and-order can­di­date” Trump has made a promise to build that wall a sig­na­ture talk­ing point.

‘Bat­tle for Amer­i­ca’

“Bat­tle for Amer­i­ca,” a 2010 ode to the then-nascent Tea Par­ty, is more overt­ly pro­pa­gan­dis­tic than “Bor­der War.” The film devotes 30 min­utes to estab­lish­ing the ene­my (the “rad­i­cal left,” pur­port­ed­ly led by Oba­ma), anoth­er 20 min­utes to the nation’s prob­lems (osten­si­bly caused by America’s impend­ing “Euro­pean social­ist mod­el,” the poor econ­o­my and inter­na­tion­al rela­tions and ter­ror threats) and the final half hour to the cel­e­brat­ed brav­ery of Tea Par­ty activists and the cru­cial 2010 elec­tions. It’s all nar­rat­ed by a host of right-wing ide­o­logues includ­ing Dick Mor­ris (also host of “Hillary: The Movie”), Lou Dobbs, Ann Coul­ter and found­ing Bre­it­bart News edi­tor Michael Fly­nn.

“We’re being asked to choose right now whether or not the Unit­ed States is going to con­tin­ue to be a cul­ture of free enter­prise envi­sioned by our found­ing fathers or whether or not we’re choos­ing a new cul­ture, a Euro­pean-style cul­ture of social democ­ra­cy,” says Arthur Brooks, pres­i­dent of the Koch broth­ers-fund­ed Amer­i­can Enter­prise Insti­tute.

Employ­ing a repet­i­tive, syn­the­sized and dra­mat­ic orches­tral score and a remark­able amount of stock footage, the film often flut­ters between what Ban­non and Bossie see as good and evil: for instance, footage of Mus­lims pray­ing as for­mer Rep. Dan Lun­gren (R‑Calif.) warns of “ter­ror­ists out there that want to kill us,” then the Stat­ue of Lib­er­ty; a Pales­tin­ian ral­ly and 9/11 wreck­age fol­lowed by images of the flow­ing Amer­i­can flag and U.S. troops on the march.

The movie doesn’t hold back from race-bait­ing, often show­ing clips of black peo­ple char­ac­ter­ized as hav­ing bad inten­tions. Besides Oba­ma, the film depicts as the ene­my New York Rep. Char­lie Rangel, Cal­i­for­nia Rep. Max­ine Waters, Michi­gan Rep. John Cony­ers, South Car­oli­na Rep. James Clyburn, Flori­da Rep. Alcee Hast­ings, Mis­sis­sip­pi Rep. Ben­nie Thomp­son (“a rad­i­cal if there ever was one,” says Mor­ris), activist Van Jones—and even Harvard’s Hen­ry Louis Gates (shown hav­ing a beer with Oba­ma, Joe Biden and the police sergeant who arrest­ed him at his own home). There’s even a clip of a young black woman rejoic­ing at Obama’s inau­gu­ra­tion; it’s clear that the film­mak­ers do not intend the view­er to share in her jubi­la­tion.

List­ing the many prob­lems they have with Amer­i­ca under Oba­ma, the far-right nar­ra­tors bemoan what they claim is Amer­i­cans’ depen­dence on gov­ern­ment, the failed stim­u­lus and the president’s pur­port­ed “apol­o­gy tour”—replete with footage of burn­ing flags; Mus­lims in tra­di­tion­al dress; Mah­moud Ahmadine­jad, then pres­i­dent of Iran; the social­ist Hugo Chávez, then pres­i­dent of Venezuela; and aged video of Fas­cist troops march­ing in per­fect syn­chrony. Amidst the sea of most­ly unre­lat­ed footage, the hosts make absurd claims; for exam­ple, one asserts that expand­ing Med­ic­aid would “move pri­ma­ry care into the emer­gency room,” when the real­i­ty is just the oppo­site.

In the final third of the film, Ban­non lauds the Tea Par­ty, intro­duc­ing uplift­ing, trum­pet-heavy music and shots of seem­ing­ly all-white Tea Par­ty ral­lies where so-called patri­ots smile, cheer and wave flags, char­ac­ter­ized as stand­ing against social­ism and fight­ing for free­dom. In the last seg­ment, “How We Win,” the music shifts, and Newt Gin­grich, Dobbs, Coul­ter and oth­ers talk about “an unchecked, unstopped, unlim­it­ed Oba­ma rad­i­cal­ism” and how “the last, best hope of the world is at stake” in the 2010 elec­tions, over images of the doomed Titan­ic, burn­ing forests and col­laps­ing ice­bergs. Only the Tea Par­ty patri­ots can save Amer­i­ca, “where free­dom can flour­ish,” by vot­ing for lib­er­ty-lov­ing con­ser­v­a­tives.

In her analy­sis of Riefenstahl’s “Tri­umph of the Will,” Price not­ed that “per­haps most crit­i­cal­ly, Germany’s come­back is por­trayed as well under­way; the view­er need only jump aboard. What is being said implic­it­ly is that there is no alter­na­tive.” In “Bat­tle for Amer­i­ca,” Ban­non and Bossie fol­low the same for­mu­la, posit­ing the Tea Par­ty move­ment as the band­wag­on to jump on. But the for­mu­la isn’t the only thing about the film that car­ries echoes of Goebbels: a researcher and coun­sel for the film was white nation­al­ist Robert Van­der­voort [19].

‘Occu­py Unmasked’

Just two years after mak­ing a film lion­iz­ing the “grass­roots” Tea Par­ty, Ban­non and Bossie made a hit piece on anoth­er protest move­ment, this one com­posed of peo­ple con­cerned about income inequal­i­ty and angry at the big banks that wrecked the glob­al econ­o­my.

Nat­u­ral­ly, the pro­pa­gan­da duo resort­ed to its go-to method when mak­ing “Occu­py Unmasked”: depict­ing a war between a vicious ene­my and strong, patri­ot­ic Amer­i­cans. It’s a brash film with one obvi­ous goal: to dis­cred­it the Occu­py Wall Street move­ment and thus pre­vent con­ser­v­a­tives from car­ing about the country’s mas­sive wealth dis­par­i­ty.

The film opens with a suc­ces­sion of TV news clips about the nation­al debt, splic­ing select­ed seg­ments togeth­er over a sus­pense­ful sound­track in order to dra­ma­tize the “debt cri­sis.” We see an image of Oba­ma with the words “an orga­niz­er” float­ing next to him. Lib­er­als, as in “Bat­tle for Amer­i­ca,” are labeled as rad­i­cals ready to destroy Amer­i­ca as we know it. In fact, the movie has three acts, named after Bannon’s char­ac­ter­i­za­tion of strate­gies in Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Rad­i­cals,” a guide for com­mu­ni­ty orga­niz­ers hailed by the left and scorned by the right. (Iron­i­cal­ly, how­ev­er, Tea Par­ty orga­niz­er Dick Armey and oth­er con­ser­v­a­tives used some of Alinsky’s tac­tics [57].) Ban­non frames Occu­py as an anar­chist group—even the “a” in “Occu­py Unmasked” is the anar­chist symbol—representing “the orga­nized left,” which is said to be set on secur­ing gov­ern­ment hand­outs.

The late Bre­it­bart him­self is the nar­ra­tor, estab­lish­ing this war as “the bat­tle for the soul of Amer­i­ca.”

“Occu­py Unmasked,” like Ban­non and Bossie’s oth­er films, uses strange, unre­lat­ed footage, often involv­ing peo­ple of col­or, and sets up black peo­ple as a rep­re­sen­ta­tion of evil. While defam­ing Occu­py in an extend­ed open­ing of the film, they inter­sperse news clips and footage of pro­test­ers with unre­lat­ed clips of a dark-skinned snake charmer, all while splic­ing in clips of “rad­i­cals” includ­ing Van Jones (“of the far left group, Col­or of Change”), Prince­ton pro­fes­sor Cor­nel West and actor Whoopi Gold­berg.

Next comes anoth­er com­mon pro­pa­gan­da tac­tic: using anec­dotes to make a gen­er­al argu­ment. Ban­non shows an inter­view with one Occu­py pro­test­er who men­tions drugs; he extrap­o­lates that the Occu­piers only want­ed to “cre­ate their own Wood­stock” with wide­spread drug use and sex. One woman says that sex­u­al assault occurred, so Ban­non por­trays Occu­py campers as a mob of rapists. “There’s rap­ing and there’s pil­lag­ing and there’s poop­ing,” spouts Bre­it­bart.

While “black bloc” anar­chists were a pres­ence at Occu­py, they by no means rep­re­sent­ed the move­ment as a whole, and pro­gres­sives crit­i­cized [58] them. But Ban­non shows count­less clips of pro­test­ers wear­ing all black and cov­er­ing their faces, clash­ing with police, com­mit­ting van­dal­ism or march­ing while hold­ing black flags. Bre­it­bart says the pro­test­ers are social­ists who want to over­throw the gov­ern­ment and cre­ate ten­sion with the police.

No one inter­viewed on cam­era is a non­par­ti­san jour­nal­ist or researcher, yet Ban­non and Bossie present their com­men­ta­tors as author­i­ties, fail­ing to dis­close their ties to Bre­it­bart News. Pam Key, who worked at Glenn Beck’s The Blaze (she now writes for Bre­it­bart News) and is known for mak­ing mis­lead­ing videos [59], says, “These peo­ple have set off a pow­der keg, and what is gonna hap­pen, nobody knows … It has the poten­tial of becom­ing incred­i­bly vio­lent.” She claims Occu­piers planned their vio­lence “in tents at night with drugs and weapons.”

Oth­er guests include Mandy Nagy, known online as Lib­er­ty Chick, who was a writer and researcher for Bre­it­bart News; Bran­don Dar­by, who once served as an infor­mant for the FBI on left-wing pro­test­ers (he now man­ages Breitbart’s Texas ver­ti­cal); Chris­t­ian Hart­sock, a Bre­it­bart colum­nist who has worked with James O’Keefe on mis­lead­ing sting videos against ACORN and teach­ers’ unions; and David Horowitz, an author and speak­er whom the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter con­sid­ers an anti-immi­grant [60] and anti-Mus­lim extrem­ist and who fre­quent­ly writes for Bre­it­bart.

Bre­it­bart him­self takes aim at the very con­cept of com­mu­ni­ty orga­niz­ing, paint­ing it as the dark province of bad peo­ple. “Com­mu­ni­ty orga­niz­ing is not the Amer­i­can peo­ple get­ting togeth­er to help your next door neigh­bor put food into the cup­board,” he fumes. “Com­mu­ni­ty organiz[ers] are rad­i­cals, anar­chists, social­ists, com­mu­nists, pub­lic sec­tor unions who are hell-bent on a nihilis­tic destruc­tion of every­thing that peo­ple in Amer­i­can care for.”

In the sec­ond seg­ment, “The Issue Is Nev­er the Issue,” Dar­by and Horowitz relate Occu­py to com­mu­nism and social­ism as the movie shows a flur­ry of clips of Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stal­in, Fidel Cas­tro, the Black Panthers—and images of dead and starv­ing peo­ple. “Peo­ple who were in the left, like the Pan­thers, could be killers, and they would be pro­tect­ed by the rest of the left,” states Horowitz.

The film then plunges into full-on con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries, claim­ing there was a “secret coun­cil” lead­ing Occu­py that no one knew about; that Hillary Clin­ton and Oba­ma are out to destroy Amer­i­ca because of the “direct line” from Alin­sky to both of them.

The finale, fea­tur­ing a mix of cliché Hol­ly­wood orches­tral film music and elec­tron­i­cal­ly pro­duced indus­tri­al met­al, some­how ratch­ets up the alleged dan­ger of Occu­py, even throw­ing in scenes of Greek pro­test­ers hurl­ing bombs in Athens, because, hey, why not? “There’s def­i­nite­ly a mas­sive desire to sort of bring the vio­lence of Europe over to Amer­i­ca,” claims Key.

Unlike many pro­pa­gan­da films, this one doesn’t offer a glimpse of an Amer­i­ca freed from evil, or a dis­tinct enti­ty that will fight them and win, except per­haps Bre­it­bart him­self, shown yelling at pro­test­ers, “Behave your­self!” and “Stop rap­ing peo­ple!”

Now, Ban­non and Bossie, this estimable pair of pro­pa­gan­da pur­vey­ors, are Trump’s best hope in his decep­tive media cam­paign. Trump’s cam­paign ads [61], as well as the con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries [62] he and his sur­ro­gates ped­dle, would seem to bear their imprint.

What an alliance: A candidate—the orig­i­nal birther, known for cre­at­ing base­less con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries, as well as busi­ness fraud, pay-to-play pol­i­tics and using his “char­i­ta­ble” foun­da­tion stocked with oth­er people’s mon­ey to pay off his company’s court settlements—and the mas­ter­minds behind some of the nation’s most shame­less far-right pro­pa­gan­da. They’re all work­ing togeth­er to put a sociopath in the White House.

6a. The con­clud­ing por­tion of the pro­gram intro­duces points of infor­ma­tion that will be dis­cussed at greater length and in greater detail in the next pro­gram.

One of Trump’s most vocal and vis­i­ble sup­port­ers abroad has been Nigel Farage head of the UK Inde­pen­dence Par­ty and a pri­ma­ry archi­tect of the “Brex­it.”

“Obscene Don­ald Trump Com­ments ‘Alpha Male Boast­ing;” BBC [22]; 10/09/2016.

Obscene remarks made about women by US pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Don­ald Trump were no more than “alpha male boast­ing”, Nigel Farage has said.

The UKIP inter­im leader told Fox News the remarks were “ugly” but some­thing “if we are being hon­est that men do”.

Mr Trump’s remarks, made 11 years ago, have led at least 33 senior Repub­li­cans to with­draw their sup­port from his pres­i­den­tial bid. . . .

6b. Inter­est­ing, and pos­si­bly sig­nif­i­cant, is the fact that Farage has a Ger­man wife. In oth­er cir­cum­stances, this might well be insignif­i­cant. In the world of clan­des­tine oper­a­tions, how­ev­er, a wife or para­mour can be a case offi­cer and/or pay­mas­ter.

In this con­text, we note that Britain’s unwill­ing­ness to con­tribute forces to a Ger­man-dom­i­nat­ed, all-EU mil­i­tary struc­ture that was a sig­nif­i­cant ele­ment in gen­er­at­ing sym­pa­thy for the Brex­it in British pow­er elite cir­cles.

We won­der if Farage may have been car­ry­ing water for the Ger­mans in this regard. Cer­tain­ly, the Brex­it removed a sig­nif­i­cant obsta­cle to the all-EU army. The Brex­it fig­ures to dam­age Britain in the years to come. Was the intent of Farage’s move­ment to deal a sig­nif­i­cant blow to one of Ger­many’s most effec­tive oppo­nents in the Sec­ond World War?

“Alleged Sight­ing of Farage at Ger­man Embassy Sparks Cit­i­zen­ship Spec­u­la­tion” by John Hen­ley; The Guardian; 8/16/2016. [23]

A report­ed sight­ing of Nigel Farage queu­ing at the Ger­man embassy has prompt­ed fevered, but prob­a­bly inac­cu­rate, spec­u­la­tion on social media that the Euroscep­tic for­mer Ukip leader could be apply­ing for dual cit­i­zen­ship.
A spokesman said he could not con­tact Farage – whose wife, Kirsten Mehr, is Ger­man – so was unable to con­firm whether he had even been at the embassy on Mon­day when a Face­book user report­ed see­ing him.
“There is absolute­ly noth­ing at this point to cor­rob­o­rate that he was actu­al­ly there,” the spokesman said. “So far, all there is to sug­gest this is one Face­book post. Since when does one Face­book post make a sto­ry?”
Sources close to Farage sub­se­quent­ly said the sug­ges­tion he might be apply­ing for dual nation­al­i­ty was not true. . . . .

 

7a. Trump has also received the sup­port of the mer­cu­r­ial, bom­bas­tic Russ­ian fas­cist Vladimir Zhiri­novsky, whose polit­i­cal career was launched with the finan­cial assis­tance of Ger­hard Frey, a promi­nent Ger­man Nazi.

“Putin Ally Tells Amer­i­cans: Vote for Trump or Face Nuclear War” by Andrew Osborn; Reuters; 10/12/2016. [20]

Amer­i­cans should vote for Don­ald Trump as pres­i­dent next month or risk being dragged into a nuclear war, accord­ing to a Russ­ian ultra-nation­al­ist ally of Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin who likes to com­pare him­self to the U.S. Repub­li­can can­di­date.

Vladimir Zhiri­novsky, a flam­boy­ant vet­er­an law­mak­er known for his fiery rhetoric, told Reuters in an inter­view that Trump was the only per­son able to de-esca­late dan­ger­ous ten­sions between Moscow and Wash­ing­ton.

By con­trast, Trump’s Demo­c­ra­t­ic rival Hillary Clin­ton could spark World War Three, said Zhiri­novsky, who received a top state award from Putin after his pro-Krem­lin Lib­er­al Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty of Rus­sia (LDPR) came third in Rus­si­a’s par­lia­men­tary elec­tion last month.

Many Rus­sians regard Zhiri­novsky as a clown­ish fig­ure who makes out­spo­ken state­ments to grab atten­tion but he is also wide­ly viewed as a faith­ful ser­vant of Krem­lin pol­i­cy, some­times used to float rad­i­cal opin­ions to test pub­lic reac­tion. . . .
. . . . Zhiri­novsky likes to shock lib­er­al pub­lic opin­ion and he has fre­quent­ly heaped scorn on the West, which he and oth­er Russ­ian nation­al­ists regard as deca­dent, hyp­o­crit­i­cal and cor­rupt­ed by polit­i­cal cor­rect­ness.

His com­bat­ive style, rem­i­nis­cent of Trump’s, ensures him plen­ty of tele­vi­sion air time and mil­lions of votes in Russ­ian elec­tions, often from the kind of blue-col­lar work­ers who are the bedrock of the U.S. Repub­li­can can­di­date’s sup­port.

Zhiri­novsky once pro­posed block­ing off most­ly Mus­lim south­ern Rus­sia with a barbed wire fence, echo­ing Trump’s call for a wall along the U.S. bor­der with Mex­i­co.

Zhiri­novsky, who said he met Trump in New York in 2002, rev­els in his sim­i­lar­i­ties with the Amer­i­can busi­ness­man — they are the same age, favor coarse, some­times misog­y­nis­tic lan­guage and boast about putting their own coun­try first. Zhiri­novsky has even said he wants a DNA test to see if he is relat­ed to Trump. . . .
. . . .In oth­er com­ments that have delight­ed Moscow, Trump has ques­tioned the val­ue of NATO for Wash­ing­ton, has spo­ken ambigu­ous­ly about Rus­si­a’s 2014 annex­a­tion of Ukraine’s Crimea and sug­gest­ed that the Unit­ed States under his lead­er­ship would adopt a more iso­la­tion­ist for­eign pol­i­cy. . . .

7b. In an excerpt from FTR #94 [21] (record­ed on 5/05/1998), we note that Vladimir Zhiri­novsky’s polit­i­cal career received fund­ing from Ger­hard Frey, who was very close to Rein­hard Gehlen and whose anti‑U.S./anti-NATO polit­i­cal stance res­onates with Don­ald Trump’s rhetoric. It was Frey whose Deutsche Nation­al Zeitung and Sol­dat­en Zeitung first pub­lished the dis­in­for­ma­tion that Lee Har­vey Oswald fired at Major Gen­er­al Edwin Walk­er. (Sup­pos­ed­ly this was first dis­closed to the War­ren Com­mis­sion in ear­ly Decem­ber of 1963. Frey pub­lished it in his paper on 11/29/1963!

Note that Frey’s anti-Amer­i­can and anti-NATO views dove­tail with the geopo­lit­i­cal goals artic­u­lat­ed in the Buerg­er Zeitung’s “Open Let­ter to Stal­in,” high­light­ed in FTR #918 [63].

8a. Again, in FTR #‘s 918 [63] and 919 [64], we explored the Buerg­er Zeitung’s “Open Let­ter to Stal­in,” a gam­bit that we feel cor­re­sponds well to Don­ald Trump’s rel­a­tive­ly benign com­ments bout Putin/Ukraine/Crimea etc. In addi­tion to the “all things Steuben” ori­en­ta­tion of Trump advi­sor Joseph E. Schmitz, we note Don­ald Trump’s links to the Steuben Soci­ety milieu.

“Don­ald Trump;” wikipedia. [24]

. . . . Trump has said that he is proud of his Ger­man her­itage; he served as grand mar­shal [65] of the 1999 Ger­man-Amer­i­can Steuben Parade [66] in New York City.[12] [67][nb 1] [68]. . . . .

8b. More about the con­tem­po­rary Trump/Steuben Soci­ety con­nec­tion:

“NY Restau­rant Takes Down Trump Pho­to Amid Yelp Com­plaints” by Sarah Tisinger; WQAD.com; 8/5/2016. [25]

. . . . “He is also very involved with the Steuben asso­ci­a­tion and wished us luck when we opened the restau­rant 8 years ago with that pic­ture. Does not mean we sup­port his views. . . .