Wednesday, July 06, 2022

With Rising Book Bans, US Librarians Have Come Under Attack

Caustic fights over which books belong on the shelves have put librarians at the center of a bitter and widening culture war.



Martha Hickson, a librarian, said that when book ban attempts turned into personal attacks she became so stressed she couldn’t sleep and lost 12 pounds in a week.
Credit...Bryan Anselm for The New York Times


By Elizabeth A. Harris and Alexandra Alter

The reporters, who cover books and publishing for The Times, spoke to two dozen librarians and library associations across the country for this article.
July 6, 2022

Martha Hickson, a high school librarian in Annandale, N.J., heard last fall that some parents were going to call for her library to ban certain books. So at 7 p.m., when she and her husband would usually watch “Jeopardy!” she got comfortable in her recliner and turned on a livestream of the local school board meeting.

A parent stood up and denounced two books, “Lawn Boy” and “Gender Queer,” calling them pornographic. Both books, award winners with L.G.B.T.Q. characters and frank depictions of sex, have been challenged around the country and were available at the North Hunterdon High School library. Then the woman called out Ms. Hickson, who is the librarian there, by name, for allowing her 16-year-old son to check out the books.

“This amounts to an effort to groom our kids to make them more willing to participate in the heinous acts described in these books,” said the parent, Gina DeLusant, according to a video recording of the meeting. “It grooms them to accept the inappropriate advances of an adult.”

Ms. Hickson said the accusation left her sick to her stomach, with a tightness in her chest. “I was stunned,” she said. “I couldn’t believe it.”

As highly visible and politicized book bans have exploded across the country, librarians — accustomed to being seen as dedicated public servants in their communities — have found themselves on the front lines of an acrimonious culture war, with their careers and their personal reputations at risk.

They have been labeled pedophiles on social media, called out by local politicians and reported to law enforcement officials. Some librarians have quit after being harassed online. Others have been fired for refusing to remove books from circulation.

In many communities, putting books on the shelves has become a polarizing act and has “turned librarians into this political pawn,” said Ami Uselman, the director of library and media services for Round Rock Independent School District, in Texas.

“You can imagine our librarians feel scared,” she said, “like their character was in question.”

Librarians are taught to curate well-rounded collections that represent a range of viewpoints, especially on contentious topics, according to the American Library Association; they use award lists, reviews and other publications to inform their choices.

Addressing book challenges has always been part of the job, but efforts to ban books have spiked in recent months, reflecting a clash over whether and how to teach children about issues like L.G.B.T.Q. rights and racial inequality. The library association tracked 1,597 books that were challenged in 2021, the highest number since the organization began tracking bans 20 years ago.

Traditionally, concerned community members might approach the library staff to discuss a title. Parents could often prevent their children from checking out specific books, or if they thought a title should be removed from circulation, they could fill out a form to start a reconsideration process, where the book’s suitability would be reviewed by a committee.

These challenges would come from both the left and the right — there might be objections to L.G.B.T.Q. characters, or racial slurs in “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.”


Books whose suitability is being questioned at the North Hunterdon Regional High School library, in Annandale, N.J.
Credit...Bryan Anselm for The New York Times

Those quieter confrontations continue today, librarians said, but conflicts around books have drastically escalated. Now, the Proud Boys, an extremist group, might show up at a school board meeting because books are on the agenda, as they did last fall in Downers Grove, Ill. Last month, members of the Proud Boys disrupted a drag queen-hosted story hour for families in San Lorenzo, Calif., and an L.G.B.T.Q.-themed story time in Wilmington, N.C.

In Cabot, Ark., the local police department investigated a woman who said that if she had “any mental issues,” staff at a local school library would be “plowed down” with a gun, according to a police report. The police determined that the incident, which took place at a meeting of Moms For Liberty — a group that has pushed for book bans around the country — was not made in context of a threat and there was no need to file charges.

The Push to Ban Books Across America
Parents, activists, school board officials and lawmakers are increasingly contesting children’s access to books.Nationwide Efforts: Amid growing polarization, books exploring racial and social issues are drawing fire in different parts of the United States.
Most Targeted Books: Maia Kobabe’s graphic memoir “Gender Queer” was the most banned book in the country in 2021. Here are the other most challenged titles.
In Tennessee: A school board voted to ban the Holocaust novel “Maus” from its classrooms because it contains material deemed inappropriate.
Librarians Under Attack: As book bans explode across the country, librarians find themselves on the front lines of an acrimonious culture war, with their careers and reputations at risk.

Frequently, these battles are portrayed as liberal librarians defending left-wing books, but Carolyn Foote, a retired librarian and a founder of the group Freadom Fighters, which organizes to defend librarians, said the idea that everyone in the profession is liberal isn’t true, especially in a place like Texas, where she lives. For most librarians, she said, the issue is not one of politics but of professional ethics.

“It’s crushing,” she said of efforts to restrict access to certain books. “You know what your job is, you know what the best practices and standards are for your profession, and you’re being made to do things that you know violate all of that.”

Increasingly, the personal and professional integrity of librarians is also being called into question.

In May, a Republican state representative in Virginia Beach, Tim Anderson, filed a Freedom of Information Act Request to learn the identities of librarians at schools that had copies of books some parents complained included sexually explicit material.

“The question is, how are pervasively vulgar books getting into the schools?” he said in an interview. “Is it the librarians that are doing this?”

Some of the conflicts have gotten so heated that community members have tried to seek criminal charges against librarians. In Ms. Hickson’s district in New Jersey, a complaint was made to the Clinton Township Police Department about obscene materials in a library book. The Hunterdon County Prosecutor’s Office said none of the information it received indicated criminal conduct. In Granbury, Tex., a county constable opened an investigation about books available in a high school library after receiving a complaint.

Many librarians have quit — or lost their jobs — after clashes over books.

Suzette Baker was fired from her job at the head of Kingsland Library branch in Llano County, Tex., after she repeatedly refused to remove books as county officials had demanded, according to a lawsuit. The suit was filed this spring by residents against county officials, saying they violated the First Amendment by censoring books.

Among the titles officials wanted removed were “How to Be an Antiracist,” by Ibram X. Kendi, and “Between the World and Me,” by Ta-Nehisi Coates. Llano County officials and the county attorney did not respond to a request for comment.

Debbie Chavez, who worked as a librarian for 18 years, decided to leave the profession after a parent who met with her to discuss his objections to “Lawn Boy” recorded their conversation without her knowledge. Excerpts were posted on Facebook, and commenters called for Ms. Chavez to be fired and said she was “grooming children.” She received vicious messages on her school email, she said, and ultimately left her job as a high school librarian in Round Rock in March.

“It was so horrific to see that my words were being used as a rallying cry for the book censors, and to see that my conversation had been misrepresented,” she said. “And I was supposed to still get dressed and go to school and do my job.”

Tonya Ryals said that after seeing library staff suffer personal attacks, she asked herself, “do I want to live here?”Credit...Ian Thomas Jansen-Lonnquist for The New York Times

Tonya Ryals quit her job as the assistant director of the Jonesboro Public Library, in Craighead County, Ark., in February after her library board introduced a slate of new policies, including requiring board approval for every new book acquired for the children’s collection. The policies were voted down, but the vitriol she encountered online became too much, she said.

“There were comments about library staff, calling us groomers and pedophiles and saying we needed to be fired, we need to be jailed, we needed to be locked up, that all the books needed to be burned,” she said. “It got to a certain point where I thought, do I want to live here? Is this something I can subject myself to?”

Sometimes the books in question disappear from the shelves, even though library policies generally dictate that books should remain available until the challenge process is complete. Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the director of the office of intellectual freedom at the library association, said her office has received reports that some groups are checking out books they deem objectionable.

Libraries also face increasing pressure from legislators, who are crafting new laws and procedures intended to make it easier to remove books that are challenged. At least five states, including Arizona, Georgia and Kentucky, have passed laws that change the way libraries handle complaints about material, or the way library board members are appointed, according to EveryLibrary, a political action committee for libraries.

Many states have laws that shield teachers, researchers and librarians from prosecution so they can use educational materials that some might consider objectionable. Those laws are also being challenged.

Oklahoma recently passed a law that will remove exemptions for teachers and librarians “from prosecution for willful violations of state law prohibiting indecent exposure to obscene material or child pornography.”

To some librarians, the moment has been especially jarring because when pandemic restrictions were in place, they were hailed as heroes for delivering books and laptops to students at home. Now, said Audrey Wilson-Youngblood, a library services coordinator in Texas, librarians are seen by some as villains.

“It felt like a knife in my heart,” she said of allegations that library staff were doing harm to students. “That grief is what led me to make really difficult decisions, to make changes for myself and my family.”

Ms. Wilson-Youngblood resigned last month from her position at the Keller Independent School District because of the toll the stress was taking on her family. She had worked there for 19 years.

More on the Rise in Book-Banning Efforts


Sheelagh McNeill and Alain Delaqueriere contributed research.


Elizabeth A. Harris writes about books and publishing for The Times. @Liz_A_Harris

Alexandra Alter writes about publishing and the literary world. Before joining The Times in 2014, she covered books and culture for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she reported on religion, and the occasional hurricane, for The Miami Herald. @xanalter

A version of this article appears in print on July 7, 2022, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: As Parents Call to Ban Books, Librarians Are Cast as Criminals. 
UK
Brit-Kurd Nadhim Zahawi becomes Chancellor of the Exchequer amid minister resignations

By Amelia Isaacs 
on Thursday 7 July 2022

Rishi Sunak resigned nine minutes after Sajid Javid stepped down from the role of health secretary, kicking off ministerial upheaval in Parliament.

Image source: Nadhim Zahawi/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

At the time of writing, there have been 44 government resignations, including health secretary Sajid Javid and chancellor of the exchequer Rishi Sunak.

That number has no doubt gone up since, and Boris Johnson might even be out of office.

Nadhim Zahawi has taken over the role of chancellor from Sunak, though he too might already be out the door and have served the shortest term in the role of chancellor ever.

During a dramatic evening in Westminster triggered by the two cabinet ministers’ shock resignations, Zahawi, formerly the education secretary, was summoned to Downing Street at 9pm on Tuesday.

After about an hour of conversation behind the door of number 10, he emerged as the country’s new chancellor.

Rumours circulated that he threatened to resign unless he was given the position of chancellor ahead of foreign secretary Liz Truss, though he has since firmly denied this.

Rishi’s legacy

After more than two years in the role, Sunak leaves behind a legacy of close work with the fintech community.

While it may seem that each chancellor has become more ‘fintech-friendly’ than the last, in the face of covid, a cost-of-living crisis, Brexit and a war, Sunak arguably delivered on a number of fronts, at least for the finance sector.

Though he was by no means perfect, Sunak brought in a number of initiatives to help with covid, including loans of £80bn for businesses hit by the pandemic, more than 1.5 billion bounce back loans worth £47bn and the Recovery Loan Scheme that was bolstered by emergency support.

In total 1,670,939 loans were made through banks, neo banks and alternative lenders via the Bounce Back Loans Scheme, Coronavirus Business Interruption Loans Scheme and the Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loans Scheme.

In November 2021, Sunak unveiled a plan for new “once-in-a-generation” post-Brexit financial regulation.

He set out a vision of financial regulation focusing on “an agile and dynamic approach to regulation that supports the growth of the UK economy” and launched a consultation for proposals.

Sunak said in his resignation letter that he felt his approach to the economy was “fundamentally too different” to Johnson’s.

This came ahead of a speech that was due next week from both the PM and the chancellor to anchor a plan to show the government was taking control of the cost of living crisis.

Who is Nadhim Zahawi?

Member of Parliament for Stratford-upon-Avon since 2010, Zahawi was made education secretary in September 2021 and took over the role as chancellor on 5 July.

He was previously minister for covid-19 vaccine deployment and before that was parliamentary under-secretary of state for industry.

Before entering the world of government, he founded the market research company YouGov in 2000.

He stood down from the company to run for election five years after he floated the company on the London stock exchange and was name EY’s entrepreneur of the year in 2008.


What can we expect?

The question now stands whether Zahawi will change the direction of the economy.

It is difficult to say exactly where things are headed in these turbulent times, but it is thought that Zahawi might be entering the role with opposing intentions to those Sunak left with.

Making the morning broadcast rounds on Wednesday, Zahawi said that his focus is on “rebuilding the economy and growing the economy and bearing down on inflation”.

While he made no clear indication of what we can expect from him in what might be a very short-lived stint as chancellor, he did say “nothing is off the table”.

He also stressed an importance on “delivery, delivery, delivery” and ironically called for party unity.

Zahawi now has to balance preventing further political implosion of the government with a cost of living crisis and a potentially looming recession.

It is expected he will face a lot of pressure to cut taxes in an effort to revive the economy, and controversially he is entering the role as the second richest MP, second only to Sunak.

Will we see Zahawi continue the trend of increasingly fintech focused chancellors?

After suggestions that he was among a group heading to Downing Street calling for Johnson’s resignation, perhaps the more pressing question is whether Zahawi will hold the role long enough for us to find out.












Microsoft faces UK anti-competitive regulators over Activision acquisition

Once again, Europe may become a thorn in Microsoft's side as the United Kingdom launches a new and separate anti-competitive investigation into the company's bid to acquire Activision Blizzard by 2023.

According to a recent filing, the U.K.'s Competition and Markets Authority has launched an investigation into Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard as it looks to determine "whether the deal may harm competition - through higher prices, lower quality, or reduced choice."

With well over 120 acquisitions under its belt over the course of its 47-year lifespan, Microsoft is no stranger to the rigorous and scrutinizing process of gaining regulatory approval for its moves, and after announcing its $68B to acquire Activision Blizzard in late 2021, the company began prepping for a gauntlet of investigations and due-diligence measures by over 220 international bodies representing 130 plus different jurisdictions.

The news of the U.K.'s CMA investigation comes as no surprise to company, and follows a US led Federal Trade Commission probe, an Australian Competition & Consumer Commission inspection, and look from the Securities and Exchange Commision.

However, Microsoft seems publicly unphased at this point as corporate vice president and general counsel Lisa Tanzi put it,

"We will fully cooperate with the CMA's merger view. We expect and that's appropriate for regulators to take a close look at the acquisition. We have been clear about how we plan to run our gaming business and why we believe the deal benefits gamers, developers, and the industry. We’re committed to answering questions from regulators and ultimately believe a thorough review will help the deal close with broad confidence, and that it will be positive for competition. We remain confident the deal will close in fiscal year 2023 as initially anticipated.”

The U.K.'s CMA probe is slated to start today July 6, 2022, and run through July 20, 2022 with investigators combing through transactions, provisions and market analysis with an invitation to comment throughout the process. Ultimately, the CMA would like to render a phase 1 decision by September 1, 2022, but also notes the decision date is statutory and contingent on changes that may occur during the inquiry.

While Europe tends to be aggressively consumer-centric in its probes into anti-competitive practices and or behaviors, the news of the CMA investigation has done little to move investors in either direction leaving Microsoft's stock confidently in place as the company looks to have all probes and investigations concluded by summer 2023.

White-power violence inevitably comes for 'respectable' white people

John Stoehr
July 06, 2022
ALTERNET

Photo: Screen capture

There was another shooting massacre over the weekend, this one in Highland Park, a picturesque, affluent and majority-white suburb of Chicago, where mass violence of the kind experienced during a Fourth of July parade isn’t supposed to happen on account of Highland Park being picturesque, affluent and majority white.

Mass violence of this kind is supposed to happen in places like Philadelphia, which did experience a shooting during a fireworks display, sending hundreds of spectators fleeing, but that has gotten none of the attention that the Highland Park shooting has gotten on account of Philadelphia, which is majority Black, being where violence is supposed to happen on account of being majority Black.

Evidently, Robert E. Crimo III doesn’t get it.

The 22-year-old, who appears to be white, perched himself atop a building along the holiday parade route with a “high-powered rifle” to shoot into the crowd, killing six and wounding 40. Per the Post: “At least two long bursts of rapid gunfire left five people dead at the scene and sent hundreds of people fleeing in panic, leaving a wake of overturned lawn chairs, coolers and strollers. … One spectator, a father, put his young son in a dumpster for safety as he scrambled to find and shield other family members while bullets rained down.”

I’ll talk more about the shooter after the story has been reported out, although we learned on Tuesday that Crimo had planned the attack for weeks, USA Today reported. The details of his case don’t matter, however, as much as the larger contours they fit in. As I’ve said, all shooting massacres, in one way or another, are a violent reaction to the politics of liberal democracy making it possible to elect the first Black president, who then ceased being subject to the law and became instead the enforcer of it.

That’s impossible for people who see “the law” as the same as white.

So impossible, they feel crazy.

Shooting massacres are the result of “the natural order of things” being turned upside down in a country where “the law” is not the law so much as the law is a white man with a gun. In such an upside-down world, it’s only “natural” for some Americans (ie, usually white men who cannot and will not tolerate “their country” turned upside down) to seek “justice” by “taking the law into their own hands.”

This pattern has held steady since at least 2012, after the Sandy Hook massacre, when the Republicans made a permanent choice. They could do the truly conservative thing – enacting laws that would regulate the distribution of firearms for the purpose of promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty for all. Or they could recognize the obvious – that liberal democracy and the rule of law in the hands of a Black man had become the enemy.

The writer David Frum once famously said that "if conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”

That’s close, but more precisely: if the champions of white power become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon white power, nor will they only reject democracy.

They will go to war with it, replacing law and order with anarchy and chaos so that respectable white people doubt democracy, too.

Since 2012, the GOP has built on the structures of white power already in place in police departments around the country. (These structures are why cops can arrest Robert Crimo without incident, but shoot Jayland Walker 60 times, killing him, for no crime at all.)

They radically expanded the number of people with the authority to enforce the law by deputizing every white man willing to wield a gun. They got around the old constraints on law enforcement that were acceptable to respectable white people by resorting to vigilantism.

With easy access to guns, and permission to carry them virtually anywhere, Republicans created conditions for wave after wave of mass death that has for years been tearing apart civil society.

I don’t think the respectable white people who populate places like Highland Park are champions of white power. If choosing between a liberal Democrat and a fascist Republican, I’m confident they’d make the right choice. But respectable white people, who determine so much of the direction and scope of our national politics, are nonetheless the principal beneficiaries of white power. They are the property owners, the bourgeoisie, the social class elected officials turn to when charting a respectable position on any given issue.

As the principal beneficiaries of white power, respectable white people are more often than not insulated from or immune to the consequences of a political party’s decision to go to war with democracy. (It’s a one-sided war that involves “soft targets” like parades.) They are, that is, all the way up to when they are not.

I think that’s the case with the Highland Park massacre. White-power violence first came for immigrants, then Black Lives Matter, then LGBT-plus people. And now, those who had least expected it. “If this can happen here, I promise it can happen anywhere. This is the last place I would ever imagine something like this happening.”

Will respectable white people understand that the Republicans are responsible for the chaos and anarchy, for the upheaval of the established order? Or will they turn to the Republicans to protect them from the chaos and anarchy that the Republicans created?

Blaming 'the gun lobby' and the NRA for violence is a 'convenient fiction' to avoid offending white people

High school students in Minneapolis marching for gun control on February 21, 2018 (Wikimedia Commons).

John Stoehr 
June 02, 2022
AlterNet 

USA Today ran a frontpage story this morning about “the gun lobby” fattening its impact “far beyond the NRA.” It rounds up the various groups united in opposition to gun-law reform. Altogether, last year these organizations spent nearly $16 million on lobbying, a record.

The story was on the frontpage, because spending by “the gun lobby” is topical. The president, in mourning two teachers and 19 children shot to pieces in the Uvalde massacre, demanded the Republicans, especially in the Senate, stand up to “the gun lobby.” The USA Today report provided valuable context. There’s more here than the NRA.

I’m somewhat blind to numbers. I don’t usually pay attention to dollar amounts. Today, however, I happened to notice that while $16 million is a lot to normal people, to the very obscenely rich, who can spend such vast sums as to bend political reality in their favor, it’s pocket change.

As if to provide a point of comparison, another story in today’s paper was about Kremlin capo Andrey Melnichencko, who lost a super-yacht to international sanctions against Russia, but managed to save another. The former is worth $600 million. The latter is worth $300 million.

That’s serious money. Standing up to a “gun lobby” that’s spending a $16 million a year is one thing. A billion bucks, though, is another. One of these the Republicans can weather easily. The other would hurt so much you’d never ever again consider standing up to “the gun lobby.”

My point here is that the NRA and the others are not so powerful as to justify the Republicans’ stand against gun-law reform for the last decade. What’s driving them isn’t money so much as “gun culture,” which is a polite way of describing a white-power reaction to the forces of liberal democracy threatening the “natural order of things.”

A second point


The NRA etc. are not so powerful as to back conservative Senate Democrats into a corner. Joe Manchin, as well as three or four other Democratic senators, wouldn’t lose much by standing up to them.

Yet they have not.


I think they understand that “the gun lobby” is for them a convenient fiction. Instead of demanding that their respectable white constituents acknowledge the political advantages inherent in being respectable white constituents – by calling “gun culture” a manifestation of white power and by calling gun control a manifestation of liberal democracy – Democratic Senators can instead blame “the gun lobby” for Washington’s impotent reaction to a decade of murdered innocents.


Ditto for Joe Biden.


I would presume that the president knows perfectly well what I’m spelling out here: that blaming “the gun lobby” is doublespeak used to avoid offending white supporters steeped in, to paraphrase Neil Meyer, the deep American reverence for guns and mythological manliness.

That’s my second point. The same white-power impulses pushing the Republicans against gun-law reform are the same white-power impulses pushing just enough Democratic senators away from it. This framing is so dominant as to constitute our political reality, which is another way of saying that racism constitutes our political reality.

The result, as long as the Senate filibuster remains intact, is congressional impotence in the face of a decade of murdered innocents. The result is a country in which the pernicious dread and fear of terrorism anytime anyplace colonizes the American mind.


A third point


To their immense credit, my left-liberal brethren are empurpled with frustration and rage. They cannot accept and will never accept a present time that’s bound by the white-power parameters of the past.

That’s good. We must keep fighting.

But let’s not let the political advantages inherent in being white liberals blind us to the resilience of those deeply rooted political advantages. (I do not intend to explain to nonwhite liberals what they already know.)

Desperate for action of any kind, white liberals are loudly and in increasing numbers calling on Biden to lean harder on Joe Manchin and the other conservative Senate Democrats. Force them to take a stand against “the gun lobby,” they say. Force them to carve out an exception to the filibuster to pass a weapons ban and other reforms.

And if they balk, well, at least the base of the Democratic Party, when it comes time to vote in November, will know exactly who to blame.

As The Atlantic’s Molly Jong-Fast said Wednesday: “A win on guns would not only protect children; it would shore up Biden’s anemic poll numbers and excite the Democratic base. If Democratic voters don’t show up this fall, it will be because they’ve lost faith in Democrats’ ability to deliver. And yet, Democrats seem to be terrified to deliver.”

Molly is far from alone. White liberals have been calling on party leaders to do something in increasing numbers and with increasing volume. But due to their desperation (I’m being generous here), white liberals have not thought enough about the true character and deep history of the problem. “Do something” is a variation of “the gun lobby.”

It’s a convenient fiction.

We could and should demand that white liberals acknowledge the historic political advantages inherent in being white liberals. “Exciting the base” in November would therefore be a moot point. The base would already be crystal clear about who’s to blame and what. But that’s hard work, even for – perhaps especially for – white liberals.

Instead, it’s easier to demand party leaders do something, anything, saying if they don’t, the base of the Democratic Party won’t turn out.

Yet, as I said, the base should already know who’s to blame and what. That is, if it’s not blinded by the white-power impulses involved on account of benefitting from those very same white-power impulses. Blaming party leaders is the path of least resistance. It’s a convenient fiction white liberals use to avoid offending other white liberals.

In doing so, white liberals end up reinforcing a framing of the issue that’s so dominant as to constitute our political reality, which is another way of saying racism constitutes our political reality.

As long as the pernicious fear of terrorism anywhere anytime colonizes our minds, none of us, no one, is free. White liberals can choose freedom from history. They must start with themselves.

John Stoehr is a fellow at the Yale Journalism Initiative; a contributing writer for the Washington Monthly; a contributing editor for Religion Dispatches; and senior editor at Alternet. Follow him @johnastoehr.
SATANIC ARYANS
The US government just officially connected a neo-Nazi Satanist group to terrorism in court

Sarah K. Burris
July 06, 2022
RAWSTORY

Members of the National Socialist Movement (Neo-Nazis) during a 2010 
march to the Phoenix Federal building (John Kittelsrud/Flickr)

It has been two years since a Satan-inspired U.S. Army private tried to have his unit attacked by jihadi militants.

ARYAN'S IN SPACE

After being found guilty for three terrorism-related federal charges, Rolling Stone wrote that Ethan Melzer was part of the Order of Nine Angles sect based in the UK that holds neo-Nazi ideology and attempts to build a militaristic new social order. Their ultimate goal is to populate the Milky Way Galaxy with Aryan people. Prosecutors at the Justice Department argued that the Order should be considered to be a terrorist group like Al Qaeda.

Melzer is among the biggest fears of military and law enforcement leaders. He was an "insider threat" with the hope of acting against Americans. Questions have surfaced over the past several years about such threats from anti-government militia members and far-right extremists. The Jan. 6 attack on Congress alerted law enforcement to many police officers and military members who were willing to participate in an attempt to overthrow the government.

"The former soldier’s conviction is the first time American authorities have articulated and prosecuted actions driven by a Satanist sect that has inspired millenarian neo-Nazi domestic terrorists and led to several homicides overseas," said Rolling Stone. "British law enforcement is so alarmed by the noxious ideology that the Home Office is under pressure to formally ban the Order of Nine Angles as they have done to Al Qaeda, National Action, and other terrorist groups. The importance of Melzer’s case was signaled by the dozens of federal law-enforcement officers in plainclothes present in court last Friday to watch the disgraced G.I. plead guilty.

The Justice Department hopes that they can use the case to establish that the Order of Nine Angles is an extremist group linked to terrorism. In March, Republicans blocked a bill aimed to fully fund offices that focus specifically on domestic terrorism at the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the FBI.

"In both the presentation of Assistant U.S Attorney Matthew Hellman on June 24 and the expert testimony a month prior of Dr. Pete Simi, an academic specializing in right-wing extremism, a formal record was made not only of Melzer’s ties to the ideology, but specifics of its origins, influence on the contemporary far-right at large, practices and goals, and how the former soldier’s actions comported with the Satanist cult’s 'social Darwinist' principles, as Dr. Simi testified on May 24th."

Melzer's participation dates back to 2017 and the case put a heavy emphasis on his involvement with the group. Thus, the case officially connected the Order of Nine Angles to terrorism in the American court system "on par with the jihadis Melzer hoped would kill his fellow soldiers.


SEE 

BACKGROUNDER ON ORDER OF NINE ANGLES

Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity 

#FREEGRINER
Trial of WNBA star Brittney Griner sparks fears that Russia is collecting political pawns

Agence France-Presse
July 06, 2022

Brittney Griner of the United States in action with Sandrine Gruda of France at Saitama Super Arena during their Tokyo 2020 Olympic women's basketball Group B game in Saitama, Japan August 2, 2021.
© Sergio Perez, Reuters

As US basketball player Brittney Griner stands trial in Russia accused of drug smuggling, a growing number of other foreign nationals are also imprisoned in harsh conditions. Is Russia building a store of international prisoners to use as political pawns?

Detained American basketball player Brittney Griner made a direct appeal for her freedom in a handwritten letter to US President Joe Biden, delivered to the White House on July 4.

Griner has been held in Russian prison since February 2022 when the Russian Federal Customs Service said it discovered vape cartridges containing hashish oil in her luggage after she arrived on a flight from New York to Sheremetyevo International Airport in Moscow.

“I’m terrified I might be here forever,” Griner wrote, five months after she was first arrested. “Please don't forget about me and the other American detainees. Please do all you can to bring us home.”

Griner, 31, is one of the most decorated female basketball players in the US. She now faces a prison sentence of up to 10 years if convicted of drug smuggling charges, even though US authorities maintain that she has been “wrongfully detained”.

Some US commentators have denounced her hearing, which began on July 1, as a “show trial” and said that Russia is using Griner, who was arrested one week before Russia invaded Ukraine, as a political pawn.

“It’s a period of markedly heightened tension between Russia and the US,” says Ben Noble, associate professor of Russian politics at University College London. “The original detention of Brittney Griner may or may not have been politically motivated, but this certainly has become a politicized case.”
‘Humiliated as a human being’

Following the delivery of Griner’s letter, her wife, Cherelle Griner, told CBS Mornings on Tuesday that the basketball player was “probably the strongest person I know. That means she truly is terrified that she may never see us again. And, you know, I share those same sentiments”.

On Wednesday, President Biden called to tell Cherelle that his administration was working towards Brittney's release.

But the Griner’s fears are not unfounded ­– for months Brittney did not even have a trial date. This is common among detainees. Even though they are legally supposed to spend a maximum of two months on remand under Russian law, extensions are often granted. “A person could be sitting on remand for a very long time, while the investigator could be in no hurry to actually investigate,” says Natalia Prilutskaya, Amnesty International’s researcher for Russia.


In remand centers conditions are harsh and hostile. Cells are over-crowded, with poor bedding, limited shower facilities and shared toilets that often lack privacy. Detainees can be put in solitary confinement for offences as small as sitting on their bed at the wrong time. “It's a situation where you're humiliated as a human being,” Prilutskaya says.

The centers can also be dangerous. In 2021, more than a thousand leaked videos appeared to show Russian inmates being tortured.

At the end of this ordeal, there is little hope of a fair trial. “In almost 100% of cases the judge will go with what the investigation file says,” Prilutskaya says. “The Russian justice system has a very prosecutorial leaning, especially if there is some sort of political interest.”

Political pawns

Post-trial, those found guilty are sent to penal colonies where conditions are hardly better – forced labour, limited facilities, and lack of healthcare are common.

This is the situation that numerous other foreign detainees are now facing. Former US Marine, Paul Whelan, has been jailed in Russia since 2018, and is currently serving a 16-year sentence for espionage – a charge which he and US officials deny.

The war in Ukraine has offered a pretext for numerous other sentences. Four British nationals and one Moroccan were imprisoned after being captured in Ukraine and found guilty by Russian courts of fighting as mercenaries. Three of the group have been sentenced to death.

Meanwhile the Institute for the Study of War thinktank has warned that Russian forces have been increasing efforts to abduct and imprison Ukrainian citizens for use in prisoner exchanges.

It is hard to know exactly how foreign detainees are treated while imprisoned. “There are penal colonies where foreign nationals are held in conditions that probably are a little bit easier, but not necessarily,” says Prilutskaya. “Especially not if the authorities want to put pressure on a particular person or use them as a pawn.”

A growing rift

In Griner’s case, her status as a high-profile athlete could make her a particularly valuable political pawn that the US is keen to repatriate. “It may well be that she is being considered by the Russian political leadership as a possible candidate for a prisoner exchange,” says Noble. “There has been talk of swapping Griner for the Russian national Viktor Bout, who is a convicted arms dealer currently in prison in the US.”

A similar exchange was made in April 2022, when US citizen and former marine Trevor Reed was released in exchange for a Russian citizen being held in US prison on drug-smuggling charges. Reed was sentenced to nine years in prison for endangering the “life and health” of Russian police officers, a charge which he and US officials denied.

He was held for almost three years before being released, after what the White House described as “months and months of hard careful work”.

This slow approach may be now Griner and other detainees’ only hope, even though the White House pledged on July 5 to do “everything it can” to secure freedom for the basketball player and Whelan.

In the meantime, the most significant political impact of Griner’s case may be to deepen the rift between Russia and the West.

According to Noble, it is unclear whether Russian authorities intend to increase detentions of foreign nationals for political ends, but many may now fear a hostile welcome if they should travel there. In March 2022, US officials warned that Americans visiting Russia on business trips – particularly those working for companies implementing sanctions against Russia – were at risk of being arrested and held by authorities.

Noble says, “the case of Brittney Griner may well make foreign nationals think twice about stepping on Russian soil for fear that they too may suffer her fate”.
Indigenous Australian activists fight for ancient rock art
Agence France-Presse
July 06, 2022

First Nations advocate Raelene Cooper, pictured in an undated photo from Woop Woop Pictures, is one of the activists fighting to save 40,000-year-old sacred rock art in Western Australia - WOOP WOOP PICTURES/AFP


Two Indigenous Australian activists are fighting to save 40,000-year-old sacred rock art in Western Australia from pollution and plans for a major gas project.

Destruction in 2020 of Aboriginal rock shelters at Juukan Gorge by mining company Rio Tinto shocked the world, sparking condemnation, resignations, inquiries and promised reforms.

Now, First Nations women Raelene Cooper and Josie Alec warn the same could happen "in slow motion" at Murujuga, which lies about 1,300 kilometers north of Perth.

Alec and Cooper hope to garner global support by traveling this week from Australia's remote Pilbara region to Geneva to address the United Nations about their concerns -- particularly if gas giant Woodside's Scarborough project goes ahead.

Cooper told AFP that decay was already visible in the Murujuga rock art, which is sacred to the Indigenous custodians of the land and contains their traditional lore.

Alec said that due to industrial pollution "the rock art will disappear. We will have no rock art to show the world."

Woodside's Aus$16 billion (US$11 billion) Scarborough gas project would see 13 wells drilled off the coast of Western Australia to tap into a huge underwater reserve.

The company predicts that at full capacity, Scarborough will produce eight million tonnes of liquefied natural gas annually -- prompting a backlash from green groups over its carbon emissions potential.

Last month the Australian Conservation Fund launched a legal challenge against the Scarborough project, claiming it would create emissions extensive enough to harm the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef.

Cooper and Alec point out that Murujuga has also been nominated for a World Heritage listing, in part because of the cultural value of its estimated one million petroglyphs, or rock carvings.

Destruction of the rock art, Alec said, "will kill our stories. And it kills a very part of who we are."

"We already visibly see the decay... the patina on the rock art itself flaking away, and the images are starting to wear," Cooper said.

Save Our Songlines, a campaign launched by both women, links the degradation of the art to pollution from industrial production on the resource-rich Burrup Peninsula.
'Run out of time'

Chemicals such as nitrous oxide settle on the art, the campaign says, rendering it vulnerable to degradation when rain falls.

Woodside said in a statement that "peer-reviewed research has not demonstrated any impacts on Burrup rock art from emissions associated with Woodside's operations".

But Save Our Songlines points to a 2021 study from the University of Western Australia, which concluded that "with the currently recorded acidity levels, the rock patina and associated art will degrade and disappear over time".

Woodside dismissed that study as not including "any original research and consequently (it) does not enhance or expand the existing science".

But Alec and Cooper say they can see Murujuga, the land they have sworn to protect and care for, changing before their eyes -- from the rock art to the disappearance of plants and animals.

"There's something critically wrong," Alec said.

"And there's only one explanation for that, and that is the chemicals, the mining, the gas, the oil... they are creating destruction."

The pair hope that speaking to the UN's Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which provides expertise to the Human Rights Council, will see industry and government in Australia held to account.


They want First Nations custodians to be better consulted about new industry on their land -- noting that women have been sidelined in the approvals process.

They have also called for Murujuga to receive World Heritage listing next year, an acknowledgement that would grant more leverage to argue for the region's protection.

"The time is now, we've already run out of time," Alec said.


© 2022 AFP
ABOLISH SCOTUS
Reagan Solicitor General: Republicans expanding ‘slow-motion coup’ as they try to ‘repeal the 20th century’

Bob Brigham
July 06, 2022

Reagan White House Solicitor General Charles Fried
explained how Republicans are conducting a "slow-motion coup" during a Wednesday appearance on MSNBC.

"Our next guest was four years old when he fled Czechoslovakia with his family in 1939 to escape Nazi terror," MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell reported. "Twenty-two years later, he became a Harvard Law professor."

O'Donnell noted that now-Justice Samuel Alito worked for Fried and he testified at John Roberts confirmation that the nominee was "too smart a lawyer to overturn Roe vs. Wade."

O'Donnell noted a November op-ed Fried wrote for The New York Times titled, "I Once Urged the Supreme Court to Overturn Roe. I’ve Changed My Mind."

"To overturn Roe now would be an act of constitutional vandalism — not conservative, but reactionary," Fried wrote.


O'Donnell put an email on-screen that Fried sent to his producer.

"Unions, religion, second amendment, abortion, campaign finance, gerrymandering, regulation of elections. All this is an attempt in the last ten years or so to repeal the 20th century," he wrote. "The greatest threat next term: the 'independent legislature clause' case from North Carolina which would produce a slow-motion coup d'état."


Fried expanded on his analysis.

"What the court is going to have next term, they're gonna start in the fall on this issue and that is, when a state legislature picks electors, the state supreme court cannot do anything about it, because the constitution says that the regulation of electors is supposed to be done by the independent legislature," he explained. "Now, for decades, that has been understood to mean the whole legislative process in a state which includes, of course, the state supreme court."

He explained how such a U.S. Supreme Court ruling would make state gerrymandering of legislative districts even worse.

"North Carolina, which is the case involved, is a hideously gerrymandering," he explained. "The population is half registered Republican, half registered Democrat, but its 13-person congressional delegation is ten Republicans, three Democrats," he said. "And when the head of the legislative committee was asked, 'How did you do that? How come you did this?' 'Because we couldn't think of any way to get just two Democrats.' Now, this is what would be the coup d'état, because these gerrymandered state legislatures in all of the swing states – Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia — would then be able to send the electives -- the electors they choose, not the electors chosen by the people. and there is nothing that could be done about it."

In the over 50 years he has been at Harvard Law, he taught Criminal Law, Commercial Law, Roman Law, Torts, Contracts, Labor Law, Constitutional Law and Federal Courts, Appellate and Supreme Court Advocacy.


Watch below 

Reagan White House Solicitor General Charles Friedwww.youtube.com
 

US Supreme Court poised to allow a 'radically anti-democratic partisan' coup: columnist

Travis Gettys
July 06, 2022

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to put Republican-engineered election restrictions out of reach from state courts, which could hand the presidency to Donald Trump in a contested election.

The court's ruling in Moore v. Harper, which would decide whether the state Supreme Court can strike down North Carolina's partisan gerrymandered redistricting map, could validate the "independent state legislature" theory that animated Trump's last gasp to remain in power and benefit any GOP candidate who runs in 2024, wrote Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent.

"That has generated much discussion of how the theory could enable hyper-partisan gerrymandering," Sargent wrote. "But it could also enable more election subversion, which could dovetail with the looming Trump threat in combustible ways. Even if Trump doesn’t run, the tendencies he’s unleashed — Republicans are running for positions of control over election machinery while essentially vowing to treat future elections as subject to nullification — could be made more dangerous by the court’s ruling."

At least four justices have already signaled they're open to the theory, which has been debunked by recent scholarship, but could unleash legal chaos if a state legislature and governor passed a law before Election Day that would give them power to appoint whatever electors they wanted -- regardless of what voters decided.

“Under the theory, state constitutions could no longer serve as a check on a legislature that seeks to replace the voters’ voice with their own in selecting presidential electors,” said Helen White, counsel at the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy. “Those checks are robust after the election, but before the election, because this has not been done in modern history, we would be in relatively uncharted and radically undemocratic territory.”

No state legislatures went along with Trump's scheme in 2020, and some attempts since then have failed, but Trump-backed candidates such as Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano have endorsed the theory that electors can be appointed over the will of voters, who would be left with little recourse to challenge those results.

“One nightmare scenario is that a Republican state legislature, potentially with a Trumpist governor, passes a law saying the state legislature itself is the final canvassing board for the state,” said Matthew Seligman, an election law scholar. “Under the theory, state courts and state constitutions would place no constraints on such a radically anti-democratic partisan putsch."

The US Supreme Court’s illegitimacy is accelerating

United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh (screengrab).
ALTERNET
June 30, 2022

Apparently, Brett Kavanaugh made a promise to US Senator Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who says she’s pro-choice, that he would not vote to overturn Roe if appointed to the Supreme Court.

This is getting a lot of attention, because Collins is getting a lot of attention. She said she believed he wouldn’t go there. Then last Friday, he and five other justices went there, stripping half the country of half their social standing and legal status as free and equal citizens.

Since then Collins has been wiping the egg from her face.

READ MORE: Clarence Thomas 'said the quiet part out loud': Harris issues warning about future Supreme Court cases



His confirmation is getting attention for another reason. It came before the 2018 midterms. The conventional wisdom is that the confirmation of a credibly accused sexual predator nominated by another credibly sexual predator to a lifetime job on a court that would rule on Roe animated women to produce that year’s blue wave.

The conventional wisdom, on account of being conventional wisdom, seems to think last week’s Supreme Court ruling to strike down Roe will have the same, or similar, “Kavanaugh effect” on this year’s midterms. That’s to be seen. According to the AP, 1 million voters switched to the GOP. True, the switch occurred before Roe went down. Some might be Democrats voting in open Republican primaries. Even so, the news is nevertheless a reminder this year favors the GOP.

There’s another reason to focus on Justice Ilikebeer.

He was the beginning of the end of the court’s legitimacy.

Biden is listening

Legitimacy received little attention back in 2018. I felt pretty alone in making the case. (I was told that focusing on legitimacy was what the losing side does.) But current events have caught up to the idea. US Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, was forceful in telling Martha Raddatz on Sunday: “This court has lost legitimacy.”

They have burned whatever legitimacy they may still have had after their gun decision [Bruen], after their voting decision [Shelby County], after their union decision [Janus]. They just took the last of it and set a torch to it with the Roe v Wade opinion.

While all this is happening, the Democratic leadership, especially Joe Biden, is taking fire from the base of the party for not having a more forceful reaction to Roe’s death. Missouri Congresswomen Cori Bush, whom I take to be representative of the party’s progressive wing, said:
[Democrats] just aren’t fighting. When people see that, what’s going to make them show up to vote? We can’t just tell people, “Well, just vote — vote your problems away.” Because they’re looking at us and saying, “Well, we already voted for you.”

I think voting is the answer, actually, but that’s not going to stop people from demanding more from the Democratic leadership given that the party’s majority (women) has lost half its legal protections.

Fortunately, Biden is listening. This morning, he called on Senate Democrats to make an exception to the filibuster rule in order to codify Roe as well as other privacy rights, like same-sex marriage.

While the Congress gets to work, Reuters reported Wednesday, the Biden administration is planning to issue “a range of executive actions in the coming days.” The White House is “promising to protect women who cross state lines for abortions and support for medical abortion.”

Ignore or reform

So: On the one hand is a court whose rulings are being rejected increasingly by public opinion. On the other is a mad and madder base of the Democratic Party demanding more action from leadership. These energies could collide and break in unpredictable directions. Or they could conjoin to form two strategies for dealing with the court.

Ignore the court.


Or reform the court.

Constitutional scholar Eric Segall spelled out the first one for the Editorial Board. There’s going to be a time, he said, when one of the other branches of government, federal and state, will decide that this court is so far gone that its rulings should no longer be recognized.

For instance: New York Governor Kathleen Hochul could choose to ignore the court’s recent gun decision. Bruen overruled a state law requiring gun permit applicants to prove need. Bruen established a right to carry a gun except in “sensitive places” (to be determined). Hochul could keep enforcing its law as-is in the name of safety.

The other one is better, though.

If most people most of the time think of the court as out of touch, there’s nothing the court could do to stop the Congress from parlaying public opinion into legislation that expands the court, for instance.

Even Republicans are ignoring it

Republican state legislators are demonstrating for us that the Supreme Court is not only illegitimate but that its illegitimacy is accelerating.

According to the Post, Republican state legislators are “advancing plans to stop people in states where abortion is banned from seeking the procedure elsewhere.” The model legislation would give authority to private citizens to sue “anyone who helps a resident of a state that has banned abortion from terminating a pregnancy outside that state.”

The idea is to circumvent federal courts by doing what the Texas abortion ban did: deputize private citizens to act on the state’s behalf. That, in effect, would be a dramatic expansion of its police power.

Why does this make the case for reforming the Supreme Court?

Because it thumbs its nose at Brett Kavanaugh.

In a concurring opinion, he warned states that prosecuting out-of-state abortions would violate the right to interstate travel.

Well, tough cookies.

By outsourcing law enforcement to private citizens, Republican state legislators would create conditions in which there’s no government to sue. If no one has standing, federal courts have nothing to say. Even the Department of Justice might not have the power to stop them.

Not if, when

Republican state legislators are already ignoring the Supreme Court, because the court’s rightwing supermajority gave them permission.

After all, if the highest court is willing to throw out half a century of federal protection of the right to privacy, there’s no good reason for Republican state legislators to hold themselves to a higher standard – to accept as legitimate the legal restraints that Kavanaugh demanded.

The Supreme Court’s descent into illegitimacy is already accelerating to such a degree that reforming the court may soon seem unavoidable. As the president said this morning, the court is no longer a reliable source of law, stability and order. It has become a “destabilizing” force.

The question isn’t if.

It’s when.

Talk of secession in Texas means political violence is already here. Thanks to SCOTUS, there will be more

Blackboard with "Texit" written on it (Shutterstock).

ALTERNET
June 23, 2022

The Texas Republican Party issued its platform Monday. Among other terrible things, it called for the Lone Star State to secede from the US.

This was met with mixed reactions from liberals. On the other hand, some said great – good riddance! On the other, some said secession would mean the abandonment of people who are already on the margins of society. As my friend, the historian Thomas Lecaque said: “Every time you say ‘let them secede,’ slap yourself in your stupid overprivileged face.”

I think there’s a third perspective.

Right-wingers know they’re winning

Liberals do not, perhaps cannot, see that political violence is normal in this country. Political violence, in fact, is so ubiquitous that one could say it constitutes the political reality of the American experience. We all live inside white power. Serious challenges to it are met violently. There are always serious challenges to it. Political violence is always already normal.

Violent reactions to democracy, however, usually backfire, politically speaking, unless political conditions prevent them from backfiring.


I don’t know exactly what those conditions would be, but they surely involve polarization over the fundamentals of America – over whether it’s a white man’s country. When these conditions allow, political violence stops backfiring. First, it will be tolerated. Then, it will be encouraged.

That tells us something.

That the right-wingers are winning.


And they know it.

We have been tolerating subversive political violence since at least 2012. As I’ve argued, every shooting massacre is in one way or another part of the white-power reaction to Barack Obama’s historic twin victories. The GOP has since then gotten the public tied up in knots over the ins and outs of the Second Amendment. That’s deadlocked public opinion long enough to push political violence as a means of state-level social control.

Forward to 2022, after the J6 coup, to see the evolution from tolerating subversive political violence to encouraging overt political violence.

Indeed, as of this writing, the Supreme Court has issued a ruling that will encourage more overt political violence. In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court struck down a 108-year-old New York state open carry law, saying it was too restrictive of Second Amendment rights.

Eric Greitens, a Missouri Republican running for the Senate, made an ad in which he’s holding a shotgun and inviting voters to go RINO hunting. A GOP challenger to Nevada’s Democratic attorney general reportedly told a friend: "This guy should be hanging from a fucking crane.” Couy Griffin, a rightwing organizer with influence on Donald Trump, has often said that “the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.” The former president reportedly said hanging Vice President Mike Pence wasn’t a bad idea.

All of this is to say talk of secession does not come from nothing.

There is a context. That context features the evolution from subversive political violence to overt political violence. We should remember that.

Illinois Congressman Adam Kinzinger, an anti-Trump Republican, said that political violence is coming. So is a sustained period of democratic instability. But we’re already in that period. We have already seen the evolution from subversive political violence to overt political violence.

That’s why the Texas GOP now formally supports secession.

Talk of secession is a consequence of political violence – especially political violence that is now working in the Republicans’ favor.

Indeed, they appear to believe political violence not only doesn’t backfire anymore – it’s now a political asset. Whatever political violence the future holds will be an expansion of overt political violence that’s already here.

Secession-talk is a sign that they know they’re winning.

Refresh liberalism

As usual, liberals missed it.

They tend to think political violence is unusual, an interruption of normal life. There’s more to this thinking than the basic human longing for peace.

Unlike rightwingers – unlike anarchists, Marxists, communists, even some progressives – liberals do not seek out conflict, because liberals do not see politics as war by other means. Politics is about problem-solving.

To liberals, politics is about process, strategy and established rules and norms. And anyway, labeling peace as normal, and violence as abnormal, pits those encouraging violence against those favoring the status quo.

Which is to say, pits rightwingers against conservatives.

But in order to insist that political violence is abnormal, (white) liberals must pretend that white power is not the political reality we inhabit. By pretending white power has nothing to do with it, (white) liberals end up legitimating the status quo – which is, as I said, already politically violent.

Our precious norms won’t stop political violence.

They’re already politically violent.

Indeed, by insisting on preserving established rules and norms, liberals paper over the root problem, which is that white power constitutes our political reality. In this way, liberals, I think without meaning to, hasten rather than circumvent the destabilization of American democracy.

As I said, Kinzinger thinks that’s coming.

No, it’s here.

Liberals think they are addressing political violence. They think that by appealing to peace, law and order, they are seizing the advantage.

They aren’t.

The more they stick to “the rules,” the worse things get. Politics isn’t war by other means. It’s about problem-solving. But when liberalism’s solutions aggravate things, perhaps it’s time to refresh liberalism.

Secession, seschmession

As I said, on the one hand are those welcoming the Texas Republican Party’s support for secession. Good riddance, wrote the Post’s Dana Milbank. On the other hand are those saying no liberal should welcome such a thing, as the human tool of secession would be horrific.

Both sides are missing the political violence that has made talk of secession seem real, credible and plausible (though entirely illegal).

It’s that political violence we need to focus on.

We need to admit it’s here – that it’s been here.

And liberals need new ways of thinking about it.

Our freedoms have already been revoked

June 03, 2022
AlterNet 

The president spoke last night about the valley of the shadow of death in which the massacre of innocents recurs over and over. It was an especially graphic speech. At one point, Joe Biden informed viewers that parents of victims had to give authorities DNA samples for the purpose of identifying their kids. They were literally shot to pieces.

It was graphic for a reason, I think. Biden wanted to move Americans emotionally – to get us to think about the costs of freedom as much as freedom itself. If a majority of us conclude the costs supersede the principle, perhaps the most intransigent of Senate Democrats would support a carve-out of the Senate filibuster to pass gun-law reforms.

The Republicans won’t move. I am not waiting for Susan Collins to come around. Neither should you. I expect the Senate GOP conference to cling tight to the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Gun control is an infringement, they say, that revokes our freedom.

Our freedom has already been revoked.

Don’t kid yourself.

Over the Memorial Day weekend, according to a report Tuesday by the AP, multiple incidents across the United States “met a common definition of a mass shooting” – when four or more people are shot.

“Gunfire erupted in the predawn hours of Sunday at a festival in the town of Taft, Oklahoma, sending hundreds of revelers scattering and customers inside the nearby Boots Café diving for cover. Eight people ages 9 to 56 were shot, and one of them died.”

“Six children ages 13 to 15 were wounded Saturday night in a touristy quarter of Chattanooga, Tennessee.”

“Ten people were wounded, and three law enforcement officers injured, in a shooting incident at a Memorial Day nighttime street gathering in Charleston, South Carolina.”

“At a club and liquor store in Benton Harbor in southwestern Michigan, a 19-year-old man was killed and six” others wounded after “gunfire rang out among a crowd” early Monday morning.

“At least two incidents in Chicago between late Friday and Monday [happened], including one near a closed elementary school on the West Side in which the wounded included a 16-year-old girl”.

“In Arkansas, a 7-year-old girl was killed Saturday in a busy area near the Little Rock Zoo.”

“On Chicago’s South Side, the body of a young man slain at an outdoor birthday party lay on the sidewalk early Sunday, covered by a white sheet. His mother stood nearby, crying.”

Then there’s the latest mass shooting Thursday in Tulsa, Oklahoma. A patient bought a semiautomatic rifle shortly before murdering his doctor. A total of four are now dead, including the shooter.


In response, a physician wrote today: “I’m not exaggerating when I say that now, whenever a patient leaves irate or upset about something, I am going to be afraid that they’re going to come back with a gun.”

There is no reasonable definition of freedom that includes the fact that “over the last two decades, more school-aged children have died from guns than on-duty police officers and active-duty military combined,” Biden said last night. “Think about that: more kids than on-duty cops killed by guns, more kids than soldiers killed by guns.”

You are not free.

Don’t kid yourself.

Political violence


You, me and everyone we know are not free on account of the ubiquity of lethal firepower in a multitude of irresponsible hands creating conditions in which an open society cannot possibly remain open.

Amid the pernicious fear of arbitrary death, anytime and anyplace, individuals put themselves in a box to be safe and secure. Who needs a dictator to close a society when a society voluntarily closes itself?

The Republicans benefit from this.

Don’t believe it?

Ask them.

Last week, the Senate took a vote on debating – not passing – a domestic terrorism bill previously cleared by the US House. The vote to debate failed, 47-47. Every single Republican voted against it. The reason, per the AP, was that it “doesn’t place enough emphasis on combating domestic terrorism committed by groups on the far left.”

Think about that.

It’s an amazing confession, though inadvertent.

The Republicans are saying in so many words that they won’t support debating government action against far-right domestic terrorism groups without an equal and opposite commitment to government action against their far-left counterparts. Why vote that way?

Because if they voted against far-right groups, the Republicans would in effect, disarm themselves without getting something in return. Put another way, the Republicans benefit when members of a democratic society exhibit a pernicious fear of arbitrary death, anytime and anyplace. To vote against that is to vote against themselves.

The president, like everyone else, made a mistake last night by saying the liberties found in the Second Amendment are not absolute. If we’re talking about freedom in the absence of societal violence putting us all in a cage is a discussion that magnifies the power of societal violence.

Motive

The ubiquity of lethal firepower leads to widespread societal violence leads to this question: Why do we get hung up on questions of motive?

Every act of public violence is an act of political violence. The Republicans and their allies won’t concede to that reality unless concrete evidence makes the shooter’s motives abundantly clear, as was the case with Buffalo killer Payton Gendron’s “manifesto.”

That’s why it’s important to know that motive is irrelevant. Violence is like the covid virus – it’s contagious. A contagion has no reason to infect its host other than spreading. State Republicans have loosened gun laws such that America is now a virtual Petri dish of viral violence.

“For the last few years, a national movement involving more than 150 organizations and cities has been advocating the understanding of violence as a contagious and epidemic health problem,” wrote Gary Slutkin, an activist and researcher who said death begets death:
The movement’s efforts include educating the public to understand the people involved in violence as having a spreadable health problem that they contracted through exposure to violence. Hundreds of studies have now demonstrated this contagious nature – even across many types of violence.
The research shows that when an individual is exposed to violence as a victim or witness – in their community, at home or in war – they become more at risk of developing violent behaviors. The brain is picking up the violence it sees and copying it, much like the Aids virus replicates in a person.

The Republicans invest a lot in getting the American public to believe political violence is not normal (it is), but instead exceptional.

If the people believed it’s normal, they demand their freedom.

The Republicans fear that most.

Don’t kid yourself.

John Stoehr is a fellow at the Yale Journalism Initiative; a contributing writer for the Washington Monthly; a contributing editor for Religion Dispatches; and senior editor at Alternet. Follow him @johnastoehr.