Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics. Considering the interface of politics with psychology, cognitive science, social behavior, morality and history.
Etiquette
DP Etiquette
First rule: Don't be a jackass.
Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.
An interesting Washington Post opinion piece focuses on American public relations firms that work to clean up the images of powerful thugs and dictators throughout the world. These fine American companies prepare dark free speech, propaganda and lies for bad people who have done bad things. These fake bad people reputations make them look like good people who do good things. The propaganda is intended to deny or at least deflect public attention from the bad things the bad people did and usually still do. These services are popular with brutal dictators.
Saudi Arabia: The oil-rich kingdom deserves top rank here for the enormity of both the fees and the crime involved. .... Since Khashoggi’s death, some two dozen U.S. firms have picked up more than $73 million in fees for representing Saudi interests, according to reports they have filed with the Justice Department. Chief among them was the kingdom’s longtime main lobbying firm, Qorvis, which said in a statement at the time of Khashoggi’s disappearance that “we take the situation seriously” and would “wait for all the facts to become known.”
Meanwhile, the crown prince continues to have his reputation as a visionary world leader burnished with news releases like the one prepared in January by Edelman hailing Neom, the futuristic city the prince has ordered up on the Red Sea. (Edelman took in $6.7 million from the Saudis since Khashoggi’s murder before completing its latest contracts in January, according to Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, filings.) Or in a Hogan Lovells-produced release crediting the crown prince for “new efforts to combat extremist ideology and shut down hate speech.” This about a country that routinely makes female journalists the targets of misogynistic trolling campaigns.
China: Global rainmakers Squire Patton Boggs continue to represent Beijing’s interests in Washington for a retainer of $55,000 a month, according to the firm’s most recent contract, dated last July. The firm’s January filing with the Justice Department reported payments of $330,000 from the Chinese Embassy for the previous six months of work, which included advice on “U.S. policy concerning Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang and Tibet,” among other places where Beijing has been trying to muzzle dissidents, and “matters pertaining to human rights,” according to the firm’s latest filing with the Justice Department’s foreign-agent registration database.
The fine firm, Qorvis, said that “we take the situation seriously” and would “wait for all the facts to become known.” That is liar speak for “we could not care less who our client murdered or what the facts are because money talks and everything else walks, including truth and democracy. So buzz off, you busybodies. We have our free speech rights and we are going to use them any way we want.”
Good ole' public relations companies. What would we do without these fine patriots? Would God approve of these fine people and their hard work?
I very much want for the people of Afghanistan whatever most of them want. I presume that includes some degree of peace, reasonable stability in everyday life, some personal respect and some prosperity with some material goods in their lives. I have been looking for how the US withdrawal is playing out. All I am seeing is bad news and worse news. Where is the good news?
KABUL, Afghanistan — Powerful explosions outside a high school in Afghanistan’s capital on Saturday killed at least 50 people and wounded scores more, many of them teenage girls leaving class, in a gruesome attack that underscored fears about the nation’s future after the impending American troop withdrawal.
In recent weeks, the Taliban’s public statements have mostly been triumphal, leaving many fearing that the insurgents will try to seize power through a bloody military victory with the American and international forces gone.
Even if some peace deal were to be reached between the Afghan government and the Taliban, something that appears less likely each day, the result would still be that the Taliban’s brand of harsh Islamist strictures, including keeping girls out of school, could again become the mainstream.
KABUL — The Taliban has carried out a string of attacks near vulnerable provincial capitals across Afghanistan since May 1, a marked escalation in violence that officials say is a sign the group is testing for defensive weak points and assessing the government’s capacity to provide air support as U.S. and NATO forces withdraw.
A doctor in Helmand who watched the Taliban advance from Lashkar Gah said, “All the Taliban fighters did was stomp their feet, as if they were just kicking the dust off their boots,” before police abandoned some 10 checkpoints on the city’s edges. The doctor spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals.
The Afghan Defense Ministry did not respond to requests for comment.
ISTANBUL, Turkey — In a derelict house in one of the oldest quarters of Istanbul, a group of Afghan migrants were welcoming new arrivals — two teenagers who had survived the perilous two-month journey on the migrant trail from Afghanistan.
“Wherever there is money and food,” said Idris, 18, in April. “Wherever we can earn money to send back to our families who are hungry, we will stay.” He and several other Afghans gave only one name, since they were in the country without documentation.
More than 200,000 Afghans were caught entering Turkey illegally in 2019, many of whom were deported back to Afghanistan.
Afghans are the lowest in the pecking order of casual laborers who fill this teeming city of 20 million. As many as 200,000 are living in Turkey, according to refugee officials.
“The Taliban were getting closer to our village. That was the main reason,” said Najibullah Qarqin, 25, who worked as an electrician for four years on U.S. bases and diplomatic compounds. “This is why I am here, because of security.”
Afghans who worked for years on American bases in Afghanistan live in
Turkey in fear of deportation
Clothes hanging out to dry on a burnt-out upper floor
of a derelict building where more than 20 Afghan refugees live
-- the refugees tend to live packed into condemned housing in Istanbul
Afghan refugees' living quarters
One can only wonder how many of our former allies will be caught and killed and how many the US will take in before they are caught and killed. Maybe we will never know. Maybe all we will get is lies from our government, the Taliban and the Afghan government (as long as it lasts).
After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.https://t.co/CBpE1I6j8Y
I have spent a good deal of my professional life examining the nature and limits of free speech, and the regulation of harmful speech. It goes without saying that I’ve been watching events unfold in the United States with a keen sense of dismay. Since his defeat in last year’s US presidential election, Donald Trump has used social media to spread rumours concerning wide-spread voter fraud, promulgate wild conspiracy theories, and inflame hostility on the part of his followers — all culminating in a speech last week, during which the President incited anti-democratic mob violence at the US Capitol.
The descent into political violence in the United States is seriously concerning. But I have also been concerned at the media coverage of the Coalition’s response in Australia to the decision by Twitter to suspend Donald Trump’s account permanently, on the grounds that it violates their content standards by inciting violence and because his use of their platform poses the “risk of further incitement of violence.”
The decision taken by Twitter to “permanently suspend” Donald Trump’s account, and by other platforms to ban any online activity from the outgoing President until Inauguration Day, is being presented as a “free speech” issue. These measures are being covered as though Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or YouTube were somehow a little too eager to kick people off their platforms, or too willing to exercise forms of censorship.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is worth remembering that Facebook, Twitter, and Google have faced — and, indeed, for the most part resisted — calls for more than a decade to take decisive action against harmful speech on their platforms. They now have policies enabling the removal of content that violates their standards, but there is much to be done to improve the accuracy of their content removal, consistency in the application of their standards, and their ability to detect harmful speech online.
Harmful speech can take many forms. The most recent example is incitement to violence, but others include cyberstalking, doxxing, misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech. While it is appropriate that these social media companies have now taken the measures they have against Donald Trump, it is nonetheless sobering to consider that it took an eruption of mob violence against the central institution of American democracy to steel their resolve.
In other words, to reduce what has transpired over the past week to a debate over “free speech” or “censorship” is spectacularly to miss the point. The key issue is the incitement of violence — and that has received far too little attention in political commentary or media coverage. No free speech argument has ever suggested that its protections extend to the incitement of violence. There is no free speech protection for this speech, because it is evidently, immediately, and virulently harmful. (emphasis added)
One question that pops right up is what about harmful speech that is less evidently, immediately, and virulently harmful? What about decades of radical right disinformation, slanders, unwarranted fear mongering, crackpot conspiracy theory and other forms of dark free speech? All of that was a necessary prelude that paved the way for the ex-president to rise as fast and go as far as he did in damaging this country and its government and society.
The Federal Election commission has three Republicans and three Democratic commissioners. The commission decided in a closed-door meeting in February to not prosecute the ex-president. Two Republican commissioners voted to dismiss the case while two Democratic commissioners voted to move forward. There was one absence and one Republican recusal. The democratic "absence" is inexcusable.
Once again, our political system failed to vindicate and defend the rule of law and the American people.
The Federal Election Commission said on Thursday that it had formally dropped a case looking into whether former President Donald J. Trump violated election law with a payment of $130,000 shortly before the 2016 election to a pornographic-film actress by his personal lawyer at the time, Michael D. Cohen.
The payment was never reported on Mr. Trump’s campaign filings. Mr. Cohen would go on to say that Mr. Trump had directed him to arrange payments to two women during the 2016 race, and would apologize for his involvement in a hush-money scandal. Mr. Cohen was sentenced to prison for breaking campaign finance laws, tax evasion and lying to Congress.
“The hush money payment was done at the direction of and for the benefit of Donald J. Trump,” Mr. Cohen said in a statement to The New York Times. “Like me, Trump should have been found guilty. How the F.E.C. committee could rule any other way is confounding.”
The Republican commissioners who voted not to proceed with an investigation, Trey Trainor and Sean Cooksey, said that pursuing the case was “not the best use of agency resources,” that “the public record is complete” already and that Mr. Cohen had already been punished.
“We voted to dismiss these matters as an exercise of our prosecutorial discretion,” Mr. Cooksey and Mr. Trainor wrote.
Note the idiotic excuses the republicans gave, prosecuting the ex-president is “not the best use of agency resources,” that “the public record is complete.” That is absolute incoherent, partisan traitor republican bullshit. The "absence" of the democrat for something this important is also treason.
This exemplifies once again why I want regime change without republicans or democrats as major players. They had many chances to rule honestly and competently. They failed dismally and continue to fail dismally. The rule of law and civil liberties are under ferocious radical right attack and no major defense is on the horizon. The law is crumbling in the face of treasonous republican fascism and corruption and treasonous democratic complicity, dereliction of duty, incompetence and stupidity.
Once again, the American people and the rule of law are screwed by our corrupt, treasonous ex-president, fascist republican thugs and clueless incompetent democrats.
What is happening with the modern American radical right is complex. At least to me, the radical right movement is quite confusing. IMO, it has become openly authoritarian-autocratic, anti-democratic, anti-civil liberties and anti-rule of law. It is infused with what I see as a significant amount of racial and other sources of bigotry and arguably a lot of outright racism and racial hate. Christian nationalism seems to be an important ideology or mindset that is in play among many (most?) people on the radical right.
The following is a easy to read essay about the nature and origins of White Christian Nationalism and how it morphed over time into American White Christian Nationalism. The author, Philip Gorski, is a professor of sociology and religious studies at Yale University. He has written two books, American Covenant: A History of Civil Religion from the Puritans to the Present and The Disciplinary Revolution: Calvinism and the Growth of State Power in Early Modern Europe, so he seems to be knowledgeable about American history and religion. Gorski writes:
As one observer noted, the January 6 protesters seemed a motley crew: “country club Republicans, well-dressed social conservatives, and white Evangelicals in Jesus caps…shoulder to shoulder with QAnon cultists, Second Amendment cosplay commandos, and doughy, hardcore white nationalists.” One group erected a giant cross, another a wooden gallows. Someone waved a “Jesus Saves” banner, while another sported a “Camp Auschwitz” hoodie.
But the closer you look, the murkier things become. Christians waved Trump flags. The “Proud Boys” kneeled and prayed. One man, decked out as a cosplay crusader, clutched a large leather Bible to his chest with skeleton gloves. What looked like apples and oranges turned out to be a fruit cocktail: white Christian nationalism.
White Christian nationalism (WCN) is, first of all, a story about America. It says: America was founded as a Christian nation, by (white) Christians; and its laws and institutions are based on “Biblical” (that is, Protestant) Christianity. This much is certain, though: America is divinely favored. Whence its enormous wealth and power. In exchange for these blessings, America has been given a mission: to spread religion, freedom, and civilization—by force, if necessary. But that mission is endangered by the growing presence of non-whites, non-Christians, and non-Americans on American soil. White Christians must therefore “take back the country,” their country.
WCN is not just a story. It is also a political vision. Violence and racial purity are central to that vision. As Samuel Perry and Andrew Whitehead have shown, white Christian nationalists tend to favor a strong military and capital punishment and oppose gun control. WCN is thus strongly correlated with opposition to interracial marriage, non-white immigration, and affirmative action.
To understand how American Christianity became so entangled with racism and violence, we first have to trace it back to its scriptural roots. Those roots are dual. It turns out that WCN is not just one story, but two. The first is a promised land story. The New England Puritans saw themselves as the heirs of the biblical Israelites. They imagined themselves as a “chosen people,” and they came to see the “new world” as their “promised land.” And as their relationship with the natives shifted from curiosity to hostility, they began to see the Indians as “Canaanites,” who had to be conquered.
The second story is an end times story. Most Christian theologians read Revelation in allegorical terms, as a depiction of the moral struggles within the believer’s heart. But some interpreted the text more literally, as a description of bloody struggles to come. That is how many Puritan radicals read it, and they exported those ideas to New England.
The two stories gradually fused together during the Puritans’ wars with the Indians. Cotton Mather came to believe that the New World would be the central battlefield in the final struggle between good and evil. He placed himself and his brethren on the side of the good, and the Catholic French and their native allies on the side of evil. He likened the Indians to demons and viewed the killing of Indians as a blood sacrifice to an angry God. It was war that welded Protestantism and Englishness together in the New World.
But how did Protestantism and Englishness get entangled with whiteness? To answer that question, we need to shift our focus to Virginia. There, and elsewhere, the most common justification for the enslavement of kidnapped Indians and Africans was that they were “heathens.” But this argument broke down in the late-seventeenth century as some enslaved persons converted to Christianity and some white Christians sought to evangelize them. The problem was initially resolved by shifting the legal basis of slavery from religion to color: “Blacks” could be slaves; “whites” could not. It was then more fully resolved by creating a new theological basis for slavery. Perhaps the most influential was the “Curse of Ham.” Blacks were the descendants of Noah’s son, Ham, the argument went, and their color and enslavement were a result of the curse that Noah had called down on head.
It would be another century before WCN became American. Until the American Revolution, most colonists still considered themselves English. It was only after the Revolution that they began to think of themselves as “American.” Until that time, the term “Americans” was more often used to refer to the native peoples. So, one way that (white) Americans set themselves apart from their British “cousins” was by claiming to resemble (native) Americans. The American (man) was a little more savage, a little more violent than his English forebears. He was, in a sense, the true heir of the Indian who was (supposedly) disappearing, and the true inhabitant of the “frontier.” The white American had a trace of the red American in him.
WCN is what linguist George Lakoff calls a “frame.” A frame is like a bare-bones movie script. It “has roles (like a cast of characters), relations between the roles, and scenarios carried out by those playing the roles.” Like a movie, it can be made and remade, with new actors and modified scenarios. The “frontiersman” becomes an “Indian fighter” and then a “cowboy.” The scene shifts from Appalachia to Kentucky to Wyoming.
Trumpism is, among other things, the latest version of the WCN frame. Echoing the promised land story, Trump says he will “take back the country” from the outsiders and invaders who have taken control—immigrants and secularists, Muslims and Mexicans—and then restore it to its rightful owners: “real” (that is, white, Christian) Americans. Echoing the end times story, Trump paints the world in terms of us and them, good and evil, and hints at violent struggles to come. The first such struggle took place on January 6, 2021. It will not, I fear, be the last.
This post is extremely long and complicated, but it's packed with history and analyses of what amounts an urgent and grave political threat to American democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties. The following are comments and responses from a recent discussion here, How serious is the threat to democracy from liberalism and/or leftist extremism? The comments focus on the origins, scope and power of White radical right political groups and movements. My sincere thanks goes to the two commenters for sharing their knowledge, analysis and time.
COMMENT 1: The greatest threat for decades has been the far right "white power" movement. They have seized the moment during the past 4 years in that they see Trump as the best friend they ever head in the White House in living memory. But ultimately they are not as interested in the old GOP, bad as it was. They are interested in infiltrating it, taking it way beyond even where Trump was. The history of all this is long and complex, but here is a pamphlet on some of it by historian, Kathleen Belew, one of the foremost experts in this area. It was written right after the Jan 6 Insurrection. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b293370ec4eb7e463c960e6/t/601d5ff470e7aa457c145b52/1612537845784/White+Power+Versus+Democracy.pdf
I don't think most people in this country know how serious this movement is. It appears to be mainly small groups here and there, but that's an intentional illusion. Belew talks about how they employ the tactic of a "leaderless resistance," as this interview touches on from an interview she did in 2018 on Democracy Now! She and Elizabeth Neumann, who resigned from Trump's Homeland Security in April, have both warned that things are going to get worse unless/until we treat domestic terrorism as seriously as international. There's nothing close to an equivalency as far as leftist and/or Antifa (which really is NOT well organized. There have been very few deaths caused by Antifa, but the white supremacy/white power groups have been at it for decades now. Timothy McVeigh was not a lone wolf, but part of the network that includes various extreme groups as Belew discusses
(Btw, this NPR interview is from Sept. of 2020 -- before the election, or even before Trump said "Stand down and stand by" to the Proud Boys).
RESPONSE: To make it clear to people here, Belew's research includes these comments: The people who forced their way into the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021, intent on a show of force to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election, represent several strands of rightwing activism. There were ardent partisans of President Trump. There were people recently radicalized by fantastic QAnon conspiracy theories. But there was a third segment of this crowd, one that poses a substantial threat to democratic systems: participants in the organized white power movement.
The Capitol attack was not just a protest, and given the discovery of undetonated pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails, the fact that several people carried restraints, and the erection of a gallows, it is surprising that the body count was not higher. But we must recognize that this action was meant not to produce a high number of casualties but rather as a demonstration of power, intended to recruit and radicalize others to the cause. The white power movement is not new; it has long toiled to undermine American democracy, its institutions, and its people. Grasping the historical contours of the movement is essential to understanding its role in political violence—past, present, and future.
White power and militia movement activists now constitute the greatest threat of domestic terrorism in the United States, outstripping not only the relatively small casualty counts of leftist violence but also Islamist extremist violence.
IMO, Christian Nationalism exerts major power in the GOP. That ideology is White-centric and wants to exclude non-Whites as much as possible from government power and society generally. Does that mainstream republican influence significantly overlap with the organized white power movement? If there's not much overlap, how influential in the republican party is the White power movement?
My focus is on where power is and how it is exerted.
COMMENT 2: There's a lot of overlap. Belew just wants to be very precise in the labeling. She wants to locate the most dangerous and organized elements of the white supremacy movement at the farthest end of a spectrum that would certainly include many of the Christian Nationalist churches. But to be precise she wants to clarify that, strictly speaking, the organized white power movement is not "nationalist" if that means patriotic. They see the government as the enemy; the nation they want is not the one we have now. But members of what used to be called the "alt-right;" Christian Nationalists; Qanon followers; White Identitarian followers of Trump, et al.-- all these are seen as very good opportunities to recruit people who share some beliefs but are less extreme.
I think the pamphlet lays some of this out. In the 80s these groups declared a war with the US Gov't and adopted the tactic of "leaderless resistance" much like Islamic Jihad groups did more recently. It's decentralized so that attacks look like they are lone-wolf attacks merely "inspired" by radicals online. But that's by design. So, she explains, often these extremists are active in less extreme organizations where they can meet and recruit. But she rejects the word "nationalism" as she explains:
White power should not be confused with “white supremacy.” Although this certainly is a white supremacist movement, the activists I describe here are one very small and violent component of that broad and complex category. White power should also not be called “white nationalism,” which carries with it a distortion that threatens to contribute to public misunderstanding. That term may suggest merely an overzealous patriotism. But the nation in white nationalism since 1983 has not been the United States but rather a transnational “Aryan nation” that connects white people around the world. The interests of white nationalism were and are fundamentally opposed to those of the United States, at least insofar as the United States is imagined as an inclusive constitutional democracy. Nor should we confuse white power with the alt-right, a specific and recent subset of organizing, even though it has large overlaps with the white power movement. The alt-right is new, and is perhaps already outmoded; white power is decades, even generations, old. “White power”—which is also the most common phrase used by these activists in self-description—most accurately conveys this movement. “White supremacist extremism,” which has come into more frequent use in the aftermath of Charlottesville—especially among scholars who study this ground-swell outside of the United States—also conveys both its seriousness and its specificity but was not used by white power activists or their opponents in the earlier period.
I would also add that while many of the extremists may be, in their own minds, Christians, many others are neo-pagans who romanticize what they take to be "Aryan" or Nordic religions and customs. So, you get KKK type bigoted Christianity, like the founder of Aryan Nations practiced as the founder of his Church of Jesus Christ Christian https://www.splcenter.org/f..., and more recent versions racist Christianity. But then you get neo-pagan "anti-Christian" race-religions like Wotansvolk https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... Nevertheless, these people can work together to achieve their overriding goals. Certainly the white power movement has often expressed itself in terms of *their* odd, racist version of Christianity more than paganism/"heathenry" and non-theistic Neo-N@zsm. Here's an important example during the formative years of the post 60s White Power movement in the 80s and 90s (possible ties to the Oklahoma Bombing): https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... Many of today's more extreme White Christian Nationalists know about and are influenced by those earlier Christian Identity movements.
Note that Wikipedia, like many others DOES classify the terrorist who founded Wotansvolk as well as the terrorist organization "The Order" as a "White Nationalist." It's common to do so. Again, Belew thinks this has had the effect of misleading journalists and others who write about these groups. Unlike some bigots who want to see some version of the USA, perhaps one like the old South, these groups whether Christian, Pagan or non-theistic skinheads or whatever, have long rejected the USA in favor of either a white ethnostate or a pan-national white polity of some kind. So, she's saying the best trained and most dangerous, and in that sense most powerful white supremacists are hard core believers in destroying constitutional democracy and instituting a racial nation whether confined to part of North America or transnational.
But their power has much to do with their blending in with less extreme groups. So, with "leaderless resistance" many of them will be in the Bugaloo or Proud Boys. This doesn't mean every single member of the Proud Boys is part of this more organized White Power movement (though certainly *many* are). White Power radicals may go to a Christian Nationalist church, but not all the others that go are White Power extremists. They get around, network, recruit, subvert, etc. I'm sure they have already recruited many who fell for Qanon and whom they met at Trump rallies, and of course at the 1/6 insurrection. So, yeah, lots of overlap with various White Nationalist religion and the alt-right (if it's still called that). Mostly from the vantage point of recruiting those less extreme people to commit to actual terrorism against the USA when the time is ripe.
As for the GOP, Trump infamously reached out to the Proud Boys. His associate and mentor, Roger Stone, is in the habit of hanging out with some of these groups and using the Oath Keepers, and others, as body guards. Now, some of these gun-toting Trumpists like Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Lauren Boebert (as well as many Repubs holding office at local levels) have ties with some of these groups. https://www.nytimes.com/202... Others, who don't get involved directly, provide cover for these extremist congresspersons like MTG by saying they're good people, and the bad ones are Antifa. They even try to say Antifa were the real violent ones on 1/6 all dressed up as 3 Percenters, or Bugaloo, Proud Boys etc.
That's what I call the infiltration of the terror groups into what most people still see as a mainstream GOP. Fox is complicit too-- as are One America, NewMax, Breitbart et al. Look at Tucker Carlson who now doubles down with the blessings of Fox as he talks in the language of Replacement Theory (the evil Demoncrats are intentionally bringing docile immigrants in illegally so they can out vote "real American citizens" (rd. whites).
At this time, the terrorists are also using Vaccine paranoia to radicalize right wing conspiracy minded types as they did with Q people. At least that is what I have read. It's hard to really know exactly what is going on with these secretive organizations in real time. What we do know is they are there, dangerous, and have more influence and momentum now than at any time in recent history. As I've told you before, I really wish we would classify these groups as terrorist organizations formally like Canada. Right now the laws protect many of their activities. When terror does occur, we see mostly individuals treated like lone-wolf criminals. Thankfully, Trump isn't there in DC to enable and coddle these people, but Biden has to keep his promise which is to treat domestic terrorists much as we do international-- to get legislation passed that gives us the ability to counter the terrorists.
Hope that helps to answer the ? about power. It's hard to be precise because of the "leaderless" approach, but the Belew pamphlet is helpful. Also Belew and ex-Homeland Security official Elizabeth Neumann (herself a Republican who learned the lesson of Trump too late, but has drawn on Belew's work) appeared together on a Podcast discussing some of these issues: https://www.lawfareblog.com...
(This Lawfare podcast episode is from last Sept., before the election or the 1/6 insurrection.) Hope the links help.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT 2: Brilliant comment as always.
And, as always, I have an exception to draw. One of the central themes Belew draws out is, as you have described:
The interests of white nationalism were and are fundamentally opposed to those of the United States, at least insofar as the United States is imagined as an inclusive constitutional democracy.
The problem being of course that few such nationalists would consider the view Belew describes here of the US being "an inclusive constitutional democracy" as accurate. And of course if we limit ourselves to the state built by the Founders they'd have quite an argument in their case. Nationalism is not statism, and it was not a mistake that Germans seeking to establish a new German state on the foundations of a much older, mythical view of Germany called themselves National Socialists. By distinguishing between "nationalism" as "overzealous patriotism" on one hand, and an "Aryan nation" connecting whites around the world on the other I think she has failed to understand fundamentally how these terms relate to one another.
Patriotism is not a belief in the state, but rather in the fatherland, and represents a patriarchal perspective on blood and soil that was seized upon by fascists in Europe and elsewhere. It is far more in line with nationalism than statism, and no patriot nor any nationalist is truly committed to any actual international solidarity: it is the spirit or mythology of what German nationalism is or was, or of white "Europeanness" or more to the point, of Christendom which is the symbol around which they rally. It is certainly true now and has always been true of fascism that it incorporates anti-Christian tendencies within its ranks, which is to be expected of an anti-establishment movement. But the object will be now as it was then to co-opt religious authority, not destroy it.
These distinctions are not without difference, they are not semantic arguments which have no effect on our understanding of larger, systemic relationships. Consider the role of money: can we really expect that tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars would flow from wealthy benefactors to white nationalist groups if they thought the result would be the destruction of the means by which they have become so wealthy? I think not. Indeed, to hold the view Belew does is to logically array capitalists against fascism and white nationalism.
What's more, the "lone wolf" paradigm is telling in this regard: if a materialist and systematic view was held of domestic terrorism then it might lead to the kind of systematic and materialist view intelligence agencies hold of foreign terrorist organizations. How would intelligence offers expect their work to be received when they treat Facebook's support of Trump and far right wing politics the same way they would jihadi social networks?
The CIA was founded on an already old school view of the Great Game, which still dominates it and the State Department. Nationalist, authoritarian movements are easier to manipulate and offer greater "stability" than social democracies and other "populist" movements. This form of "practical politics", first known by its loan-word realpolitik and now broadly as merely "realism", gave us a century of Arabism, resulting in revolutions in Iran, Iraq, Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, and Islamic nationalism throughout the regions such intelligence efforts are most known for. How might we consider present domestic intelligence efforts to proceed in light of past "successes?"
But in Belew's narrative, such a question is not only irrelevant, it is impossible. We cannot evaluate it because we cannot consider "white nationalism" as a political project - it is a purely social concoction consisting primarily of dead-enders and racist nihilists. Hence there is no systemic problem even to address, only fires to put out as we find them.
I agree with most everything you argue in your comment, aside from the value of Belew's perspective. But I would counterpose your description of a "leaderless" white nationalist movement with the "leaderless" Zuccotti Park movement. Neither was in fact leaderless, but the latter was far closer to it in terms of practical influence: its slogans were mostly borrowed from the Soixante Huitard movement in Paris by Canadian students familiar with Guy Debord, of all people. It was a romantic movement from its inception which disappeared well before its most successful rhetoric about the "99%" became well known. There was very little money flowing into that "organization", which consisted mainly of tents and a motley crew of volunteers.
But the white nationalist movement is far more organized, and always has been. From pamphleteering white supremacists to pulpit pounding Christian nationalists, money and influence have always had a close relationship. When Reagan putatively kicked the Birchers out of the Republican Party, the Kochs labored for decades to put it back it in. Peter Thiel, a one time partner to Elon Musk and investor in Facebook and advisor to Zuckerberg, gave over a million to Trump's 2016 campaign. Facebook continues to be a major social media venue for white nationalists. The coffers of the white nationalist movement are lined with billionaires' donations.
On the question of power, then, it seems to me Belew's frame would have us ignore the core relationships of money and violence which define it.
RESPONSE TO THAT: You make some good points. First, I'm largely (in this particular post) sharing what I've read by Belew. Was I too uncritical of her terminology in doing so? Maybe. I agree with some of what you say about the proper use of terms like "nationalism" (though it does, in practice, encompass a broad range of meanings both within the academic and political realms) and "patriotism" (which also has a range of meanings). Shelves of books have been written on both concepts, so I won't argue here for any particular definitions.
I can, however, say that Belew admits she's using the term nationalism in a "non-technical way" because she thinks (mistakenly?) most Americans hear that term as a near-synonym of extreme, uncritical patriotism-- which she believes is how the Klan presented itself in the past, and how it was widely understood. The tie to the land and particular culture of the Antebellum South, she says, was pronounced, whereas today's movements are not only trans-regional within the nation-state here, but extend to far right movements in Europe, Ukraine and beyond, and have transnational ambitions. The nation of non-Jewish whites is not bound up in terms of a common territory with a single shared language or religion. It's not wrapped in red, white and blue as much of the bigoted but less extreme Christian Nationalism, for example, is. It's not limited to the cultural and territorial evocations of even a confederate flag, though such flags are welcome as subsidiary elements within the larger transnational vision. Here's an example of the sort of vision she is talking about taken from the website of one of the major Neo-Nazi militant groups, The National Alliance. Though barely operational now, this was one of the best organized white power groups, and its ideological influence is enduring:
We must have new societies throughout the White world which are based on Aryan values and are compatible with the Aryan nature. We do not need to homogenize the White world: there will be room for Germanic societies, Celtic societies, Slavic societies, Baltic societies, and so on, each with its own roots, traditions, and language. What we must have, however, is a thorough rooting out of Semitic and other non-Aryan values and customs everywhere. … In specific terms, this means a society in which young men and women gather to revel with polkas or waltzes, reels or jigs, or any other White dances, but never to undulate or jerk to negroid jazz or rock rhythms. It means pop music without Barry Manilow and art galleries without Marc Chagall. It means films in which the appearance of any non-White face on the screen is a sure sign that what's being shown is either archival newsreel footage or a historical drama about the bad, old days. — National Alliance website
In this 2019 congressional testimony, Belew claimed that a clear line was drawn in 1983 when the white power movement declared war against the Federal Gov't of the US, ushering in a new era for the movement. Because her opening statement to Congress is a concise overview of much that we are discussing, I'll quote it here in full. Maybe it will shed light on some of the points under consideration (e.g. why she avoids the term "nationalism" to describe this small but dangerous movement):
STATEMENT OF DR. KATHLEEN BELEW, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF U.S. HISTORY AND THE COLLEGE, THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Ms. Belew: Thank you. As one of the only scholars who has studied this troubling phenomenon deeply, and who has historical knowledge of its patterns and drivers as well as the gaps in our knowledge, I hope I can be of use in helping you understand this threat, and how it might be effectively contained. This is a dark and troubling history that leads to grave concern about the present moment, but also gives us reason to hope we'll be able to find solutions. I have spent more than a decade studying the white power movement from its formation after the Vietnam War to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and into the present. This movement connected Neo-Nazis, Klansmen, Skinheads, radical tax protesters, militia members, and others. It brought together people in every region of the country. It joined people in suburbs and cities and on mountain tops. It joined men, women, and children; felons and religious leaders; high school dropouts and aerospace engineers, civilians and veterans and active duty troops.
It was a social movement that included a variety of strategies for bringing about social change, both violent and nonviolent; however, its most significant legacies have evolved from a 1983 revolutionary turn when it declared war against the Federal Government and racial and other enemies. (emphasis added) The first of these strategies is the use of computer-based social network activism, which began in this movement in 1984, and has only amplified in the present. The second is an operational strategy called leaderless resistance, also from 1983-1984. This is most easily understood today as cell-style terrorism meant to bring about race war in which a network of small cells and activists could work in concert toward a commonly shared goal with no communication with one another and with no direct ties to movement leadership.
Now, this was designed to foil prosecution, but leaderless resistance has had a much more catastrophic impact in clouding public understanding of white power as a social movement. It's allowed the movement to disappear, making the violence these activists commit seem to be the work of quote/unquote, ``lone wolf actors and errant madmen.'' Those kinds of designations leave very little room for enacting policy beyond mental health initiatives which will not address the scope of this problem.
Indeed, understanding these acts of violence as politically motivated, connected, and purposeful represents a crucial first step toward a different response. The white power movement was and is a transnational movement characterized by the movement of ideas, people, weapons, money, and violent action across national boundaries. Furthermore, this is a movement that is dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States. This is not just overzealous patriotism or the claim that whiteness should be integral to the American Nation or the American character.
Indeed, after 1983, white nationalism in the United States is not interested in the United States when it talks about the Nation, but rather, the Aryan Nation. It hopes to unite white people around the world in a violent conquest of people of color. The interests of white nationalism were and are profoundly opposed to those of the United States. It is furthermore critical to understand the acts of mass violence carried out by this movement were not meant as end points in and of themselves, but were, instead, meant to awaken other activists to join in race war. They also represent more than individual crimes in an aggregate crime rate, because these actions worked not only to impact individuals, but to terrorize entire targeted communities.
Despite this clear and present danger to American civilians, at no point in our history has there been a meaningful stop to white power organizing. Even in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, which was a white power plot and the largest deliberate American mass casualty between Pearl Harbor and 9/11, there was no durable shift in public understanding, no major prosecution that hobbled the movement.
We have utterly failed to understand what this is or how to contain it. I can detail several attempts to do so by various entities, but the historical archive does offer us another possible response, which is truth and reconciliation projects that allow local communities to discuss racial tensions, identify areas of discord, and propose alternative interpretations of history and social inequality and more. Truly grappling with white power violence would involve a long look at the racial inequality foundational to many American communities.
However, such a process could not hope to succeed in the absence of real changes to our surveillance of white power activity and the prosecution of domestic terrorism. Because white power activity relies on fundamental misunderstandings at every level, ranging from the individual to the media to the courts to the law, the response would have to be broad and multifaceted. An interagency collaboration could address the many scales, including the global, at which white power violence currently operates. I find great hope in our conversation about violent domestic terror now under way in these chambers and in our Nation and I hope to be of service in resolving this. Thank you.
This movement lacks that geo-cultural specificity that many people, she thinks, link to the concept, Nationalism. That's her claim. I'm not sure she's entirely right, but the point is she admits that her distinction is one designed to bring out critical differences between the post-Vietnam militant white power movements and those of, say, the Jim Crow era in the south, where an "authentic and uniquely American way of life" is what was supposedly being touted. She notes that it was only in the 80s that the militant white power groups quite literally declared war on the USA. So it's not like the old Dixiecrats with their ties, often, to the Klan. Perhaps you might look at her book, Bring The War Home, and related articles yourself to evaluate the evidence she marshals to make this and related claims; and also to decide if her "non-technical" use of terms does more to clarify or to obfuscate the topic of the discussion.
As far as the money trail, I don't know of any major corporate lobbyists like the Kochs (whom you mentioned) contributing to these hard core white power groups. The Oath Keepers, Bugaloo, Proud Boys, and assorted Neo-Nazi groups do their own fundraising for the most part. Here's something on the topic from SPLC: https://www.splcenter.org/n....
RESPONSE: Thanks for the insightful comment.
Part of my objection to her work is in a way semantic: what you draw out as her distinction between academic and "political" or "non-technical" is clearly valid in the sense that populist responses to the word "nationalism" might not specifically align with academic usage. However, this does not imply contradiction. Because Americans might broadly conceive of "patriotism" as being supportive of the country does not relieve it of its historical context of relating to nativism and patriarchy, and indeed to the extent that the country is nativist and patriarchal, at a minimum offers tacit support for its populist usage being generally aligned with academic use.
But by drawing a hard line between the specific and general understandings, Belew denies the broader social and historical contexts in which these usages do align, and consequently implies academic usage is simply out of date. This suggests a profound misreading of the historicity of nationalism, patriotism, and white power.
Her testimony to Congress does not lessen my concern in this regard. She describes the "white power movement" as having formed after the Vietnam war, which is so obviously false we can only conclude she is referring to a particular strain of the white power movement. What strain? Presumably that which she says began in 1983 when the Movement declared war on the "Federal government" and other enemies. But there is hardly anything new in this, to the Vietnam war or Reagan's Morning in America.
Consider the words of Robert Welch, the Founder of the John Birch Society:
Actually we must choose between the civilization, the form of society and the expression of human life, as represented by John Birch, and their parallels as envisioned by Karl Marx and his spiritual successors. There is no middle ground...
To what extent has Marx and "spiritual successors" taken form in the US? Welch clarifies:
The whole canvas deals with Washington's visible will to win this cold war--for the Soviets. Perhaps the most alarming thing about current history in the making is the way Washington has become a part of the whole international conspiracy of which it is now another mecca second only to Moscow. And we have seen on every side, in a hundred different manifestations, the unceasing efforts of our Government to carry out all programs and take all steps required to bring about the merger of the United States with Soviet Russia and all of its satellites into a one-world Socialist government.
The emphases here are mine, but the emphatic equivalence of the "Government" with the "Soviets" is clear as of 1962 - see THE IDEOLOGY OF THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY by Max P. Peterson, the University of Utah, 1966.
I will not here impose on your time to mark the origination of the JBS and anti-communism in white supremacist, racist history here, except to point out that it was largely a Southern movement, and that Welch himself ( the Founder, as he called himself ) explicitly tied them together in exposing the secret "plot" to turn the South in to a "Negro Soviet Republic" as early as 1928.
Of course the JBS was itself only one manifestation of this larger movement, albeit contributed to and later led by Fred Koch. Fred Trump was likely a member of the KKK and supporter of US ties with the Nazis, and as such was, if not an outright contributor to, at least a fellow traveler with it. His son clearly learned the lessons Welch taught.
But the far more obvious counter-example to Belew's testimony is the Civil War itself, in which a white supremacist movement literally attacked the Federal government. If we uncritically accept her language, however, any connection either to the Slaveocracy or to the JBS is tenuous at best, and likely insupportable.
Thus in my view the most that can be said for Belew's distinction is not that the white power movement suddenly began to oppose the US federal government, which is obviously untrue. But rather that it began a campaign of actual violence.
Now it may be true that Koch money has never actually directly gone to white power militants. But to draw this as the primary distinction is to mark the same distinction those defending Trump's language do: they ( the Kochs, for instance ) never actually suggested violence, and language like "war" or "attack" was always merely metaphorical.
But whatever the responsibility we assign such language might be, the fact of actual violence by white supremacists against both blacks and the state between the Civil War and 1983 is irrefutable. Of course capitalist precursors to the Kochs made no attempt to hide their preference for violence, as the violence at Trinidad, Colorado for example can attest.
RESPONSE (added on 5/7/21 & 5/8 after initial post):
Her testimony to Congress does not lessen my concern in this regard. She describes the "white power movement" as having formed after the Vietnam war, which is so obviously false we can only conclude she is referring to a particular strain of the white power movement.
No. I think she is using the label/slogan "white power" accurately, and her chronology tracks relevant changes in the history of violent racist movements in the US. The label "White Power" was created in the 1960s during the Vietnam War and post-civil rights era, as she says, when the Am. N@zi Party leader, George Lincoln Rockwell, debating Stokely Carmichael, responded to his call for Black Power with one for White Power. (You can hear Carmichael's speech followed by the debate here if interested https://archive.org/details... ; shorter excerpts are also up on youtube ) Like the National Alliance statement of purpose I quoted in my last comment, and unlike the 2nd Ku Klux Klan (1915-42) "White Power" leaders like Rockwell, and others of his ilk, tolerated Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Slavs (whom Hitler called untermenschen/subhuman) and even Turks. No single language, nationality or homeland was given centrality, as is so often the case in the context of nationalism. Again, from the National Alliance, as quoted in my last comment:
We don't have to homogenize the White world. There will be room for Germanic societies, Celtic societies, Slavic societies, Baltic societies, and so on, each with its own roots, traditions, and language.
This is not a nationalist vision in any typical sense of that word (e.g. as defined by, say, Hans Kohn, Ernest Gellner, Anthony Smith, and other prominent theorists of nationalism). There is no insistence on a shared history and culture focused on a commonly cherished locale.
White Nationalism was first used as a term in the 1950s in an attempt to sanitize the White Supremacy associated with the Klan. Some racists starting in the 1990s called themselves White Nationalists *instead of White Supremacists* (see Belew, Rosenthal, and Clemmitt below). This attempt to play down the white supremacy in favor of nationalism is often rejected by those who study extreme and/or violent racist groups (and not just Belew). Some prefer White Supremacists, and Extremist or Militant White Supremacists for those who are organized, armed and engaged in domestic terrorism. Belew labels those groups the "White Power Movement." But she says she's fine with "extremist white supremacist" or "militant." She, along with several others, simply does not want to allow these bigots to deny their White Supremacy by using a more palatable term. Also, she correctly points out that the movement she covers is largely, *pan-nationalist.*" In some ways these groups are continuous with earlier violent white supremacist groups, as you point out. But in important ways (not just ideological but logistical, organizational and tactical ways of importance to law enforcement efforts) they are very different.
As political scientist, Lawrence Rosenthal, chair of Right Wing Studies at Berkeley points out, "nationalism is one of the most elastic concepts." Hence Trump would never call himself a white supremacist or member of a white power movement. Surely, that would spell career suicide. But a "Nationalist"-- one who signals an emphasis on White America-- the America to be "made great again," that's different. Such dog whistles are much more palatable. Marcia Clemmitt, writing about the racism in the alt-right a few years ago observed,
Alt Right groups do not use the term "White Supremacist." Many political analysts, however, argue that many in the alt-right are traditional white supremacists who have dropped the term because it fell out of public favor....The shift away from the 'White Supremacy' term began as early as 1994 when some members of the Ku Klux Klan and others realized that it made many people 'envision a certain kind of uncultured bigot,' said Michael Waltzmann, a professor of interpersonal and organizational communication at U of NC at Chapel Hill. Many adopted 'White Nationalist' as a substitute.
Clemmitt defines White Nationalism thus: "The belief that America was founded as a white [I would add Christian] nation, and should be kept that way."
White *separatism* is "a more extreme form of white nationalism; it advocates separation from other races either in a white ethno-state or a racially segregated society."
White Supremacy is "The view that whites are superior to all other races, and should dominate American society. (ibid; p. 3)
I would add that VIOLENT white supremacy of the kind Belew and Homeland Security are interested in, aims to achieve political domination here and elsewhere by means of *terrorism.* So, many scholars agree that the "all too elastic notion of nationalism," in these extreme cases, often serves as window-dressing for much dirtier stuff. I agree, though I don't want to get into all the diverse definitions of nationalism and patriotism.(There's an entire interdisciplinary area since the 80s or so called Nationalism Studies). So, keeping it simple but reasonable, I think the above distinctions are good heuristics for the study of the problem we're evaluating-- domestic terror (like that of Oklahoma City and 1/16) motivated by a belief in white supremacy. Many insiders in these movements, when not talking to the press (which is when they tend to use the term "nationalist") identify with and use the label "white power" and have done so since it was coined in the 60s.
Briefly, regarding history you discuss (obviously I can't go into great detail here)..
Belew is an historian. She is well aware of the long violent history of white supremacy in this country. She discusses it briefly in her book which is, however, focused specifically on the formation of the particular groups that have turned to domestic terrorism since the 70s, and their logistics, organization and structure continuing into the current moment.
What, then, is so different about post-60s violent white supremacist groups, or the white power movement (both labels refer to the same groups)?? What are some of the continuities and discontinuities characteristic of this abominable history?
1- The first Klan was a terrorist insurgent group that aimed to maintain the racial system of the south, despite Reconstruction. They were focused on retaining as much of the antebellum South as possible. Between 1870 and about 1915 they succeeded greatly, creating new hierarchies and forms of enslavement via the Black Codes etc. So, nobody denies this violence and terrorism aimed at dismantling the Federal protections of the Radical Reconstruction era. (Ida B. Wells captured this terrorism and devastation brilliantly in her essays and articles).
2-The 2nd Klan (approx. 1915-42) was less violent, and window-dressed (perhaps we should say'white-washed?') itself in jingoism and phrases like "100 percent American" (which meant white and Protestant-- the anti-Catholicism remained in this 2nd incarnation). Some understandably refer to *this* Klan as white nationalist, though that phrase came into currency only in the 1950s. Mostly in the South, but with fraternal chapters in the North as well. At its peak, in the 20s, perhaps 4 million or more white men were members. By the 40s it had pretty much fizzled out. This would be the Klan Fred Trump joined, if he ever did that.
3- Groups like the John Birch Society certainly combined anti-semitic conspiracy theories, anti-communist paranoia, and white supremacist ideology. But the group itself was not violent like the Klan. However, in the 1950s, they had ties to the violent White Citizens Council, which initially formed in response to Board v. Brown. It was the WCC that was responsible for the murder of Medgar Evers, and many other violent acts, though they claimed to be non-violent. This period, which you discuss, certainly has violent white supremacists, fighting against Civil Rights and Desegregation, a fight that was lost by the time the groups covered in Belew's book came about. So again, continuities and discontinuities.
4- By the 70s, you have a large and complex mixture of violent white supremacists (many using the term "White Power") found not just in the South, but the North. Not just in rural but also urban areas. Increasingly, they came to see the USA as an illegitimate nation-state. They adopted a bellicose posture to the gov't very different from the earlier jingoistic propaganda of the 2nd Klan, and segregationists like George Wallace, who often were accepted as patriots by much of mainstream white society. The newer groups did not necessarily think in terms of "making America great again" as the National Alliance statement I quoted makes clear. The concern was to save the white race from "genocide"-- whether Protestant or Catholic; Polish or German; and for some groups Turks were included. Jews, Blacks and Arabs were the main enemies. The US, which had emerged as "multicultural" was all but a lost cause. There has been a forging of logistical, political, financial and military ties between North American and European nations (now including Ukraine where many in the white power movement currently fight and get training, while making connections with the racists fighting there). Many of the Far Right racist parties in Europe have political, financial, cyber and other ties to organizations in the US.
With the arrival of Trump, and most significantly in the past year, the number of people in these groups has risen dramatically. It would be foolish to deny the historicity of white supremacy and violent racism of which they are the current manifestation. It would also be misleading to see them as those self-proclaimed white nationalists of the 1950s who mainly wanted to preserve Jim Crow America, not instigate a global insurgency like these newer groups.
Belew and other scholars are agreed that if the new groups have a single manifesto, it is the novel, The Turner Diaries, written by the founder of The National Alliance (whose mission statement I quoted in my last comment).
From Wikipedia:
The Turner Diaries is a 1978 novel by William Luther Pierce [founder of the above-mentioned terrorist group The National Alliance: https://www.splcenter.org/f...], published under the pseudonym Andrew Macdonald.[1] It depicts a violent revolution in the United States which leads to the overthrow of the federal government, a nuclear war, and, ultimately, a race war which leads to the systematic extermination of non-whites.[2][3] All groups opposed by the novel's protagonist, Earl Turner—including Jews, non-whites, "liberal actors", and politicians—are exterminated.[4]
The Turner Diaries was described as "explicitly racist and anti-Semitic" by The New York Times and has been labeled the "bible of the racist right" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[5][6] The book was greatly influential in shaping white nationalism and the later development of the white genocide theory. It has also inspired numerous hate crimes and acts of terrorism, including the 1984 assassination of Alan Berg, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the 1999 London nail bombings.
It is worth emphasizing that the war in that book starts in North America but spreads to become a World War, coming back to Belew's point about the transnational emphasis in this movement compared to earlier movements I discussed above.
(Note: Wikipedia like many journalists use the term white "nationalism" to describe the modern extremists of this era; but as discussed above, several noted historians, sociologists and political scientists have concluded that doing this plays into their own propaganda. If you don't like the 'white power' label-- which members often use of themselves-- Violent White Supremacists or White Supremacist Extremism would, I think, capture the focus on racist domestic terrorism that is the topic of this discussion and Belew's research). ------------------------------------------------------------- Insert 5/7:
-The following article, published on the Southern Poverty and Law Center website last year, discusses the latest phase of the White Power Movement in its embrace (for many of the groups) of so-called "Accelerationism," which is explained here: https://www.splcenter.org/h...
-Written after 1/6 the article linked below, published by the SPLC in February, 2021, takes the story up to the present in terms of the increased turn to accelerationism. Frightening stuff. We must, I think, change the laws and prosecute these groups AS domestic terrorists and not merely as individual criminals with full 1st Amendment protections. But that's a separate debate.
RESPONSE: One thing our conversation seems to be doing is highlighting differing possibilities regarding the historical context of this issue and thus the extent to which historical contexts continue to be relevant. You point out, quite correctly, that there are a number of historical discontinuities that Belew draws our attention to. But some of these discontinuities seem rather marginal. You raise the example of The Turner Diaries as an example of the post-Vietnam perspective of white supremacists in the US. I however see little new in this that was not already present in Mein Kampf, or even The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Obviously the ideology of "race war" is not new ( Charles Manson is but a relatively recent example ), and militant organizations have existed at the periphery of racist ideologues for literally centuries.
But are all these historical analogues merely coincidences, or are they echoes of fundamental, material commonalities?
In my view this question has direct bearing on the nature of the present problem and hence its solution, and it is precisely the question made impossible by Belew's rhetoric. You make the following argument, for example:
[ 1 ] White Nationalism was first used as a term in the 1950s in an attempt to sanitize the White Supremacy associated with the Klan...Belew says she's fine with "extremist white supremacist" or "militant" but, again, like many others, does not want to indulge the idea that this is a nationalist and non-racist movement. Indeed it is a violent, racist and, largely, *pan-nationalist* movement...
[ 2 ] Clemmitt defines White Nationalism thus: "The belief that America was founded as a white [I would add Christian] nation, and should be kept that way."
White *separatism* is "a more extreme form of white nationalism; it advocates separation from other races either in a white ethno-state or a racially segregated society."
White Supremacy is "The view that whites are superior to all other races, and should dominate American society...
[ 3 ] Wikipedia like many journalists use the term white nationalism to describe the modern extremists of this era; but as discussed above, several noted historians, sociologists and political scientists have concluded that doing this plays into their own propaganda. If you don't like the 'white power' label-- which members often use of themselves-- Violent White Supremacists or White Supremacist Extremism would, I think, capture the focus on racist domestic terrorism that is the topic of this discussion and Belew's research.
You rightly show that labels have both political and ideological components, as well as social import. But much of the debate you describe is itself situated in historical contexts: the 1950s [ 1 ] was an era in which the Socialist International was actively opposing Western capitalism, and the notion of "nationalism" was rooted in the debate after WW2 about the rise of fascism. To the left, "nationalism" is at the heart of fascism. By the McCarthy era the right had revitalized the label in opposition to Soviet imperialism and it has become ever since a more less sanitized label in American popular discourse. But because American audiences do not consider the word in light of Nazism does not relieve it of its fascist baggage.
Belew confounds this meaning by distinguishing between popular and academic usage, and then making academic references to its popular use. Only in this way can I understand your description of her preference to distinguish between "militant" and "nationalist and non-racist". [ 2 ] Nationalism is racist, by definition and through all historical examples that I'm aware of. Again, the insistence on this difference by Belew seems to be drawn from a conflation of "nation" and "state" and her tendency to view the "US" as based in multiculturalism. To oppose multiculturalism then is for her to oppose not just the government and state, but the people and nation.
The result of this conflation and confounding is that the elements common to white supremacists and fascists is excised from her history.
Consider this in view of your description of Clemmitt's characterization of nationalism, which depicts the view that "America was founded as a white [ and Christian ] nation, and should be kept that way." I think that's quite reasonable. But then the concept of separatism is invoked as an extreme form of nationalism, and supremacy as an extreme form of separatism. In fact nationalism necessarily relies on both, as the phrase "should be kept that way" implies: one cannot prefer to keep the US a white and Christian nation without also believing in the supremacy of white Christians and enacting racial segregation. Nationalism is not the least extreme of these views, it is the culmination of all of them.
Now when we return to the question of what to label the present problem, then the rejection of "nationalist" as a label is warranted only by Belew's ( and others ) rejection of the term based on its popular usage, but then why should we consider the uncommon and academic sounding labels such as "Violent White Supremacists or White Supremacist Extremism"? All white supremacism is extreme, and all supremacism is premised on violence, so what is to be gained here?
The only distinction in my view is the repudiation of the term "nationalism".
Part of what seems to drive the logic you describe is the fear of adopting the rhetorical usages white supremacists themselves promote. The old problem here applies: it is no insult to a fascist to call him a fascist. [ 3 ] But what happens when we refuse to call him such, and prefer instead a word such as "extremist" or, dare I say, "Republican"? We can bury the signifier, but not the signified.
If we allow that the signified here may refer to socio-political means with which we respond to material conditions, then burying the signifier ( ie, nationalism ) also buries the signified ( the relationship between race and land and political power ). Worse, denying this signification means breaking that relationship, such that concepts of race and land no longer bear on political power.
Now perhaps that's true. But if not, Belew's interpretation seems to me to be denying the antecedent: if nationalism does not refer to race and soil, and hence does not refer to racism, then white supremacist extremism ( or whatever ) cannot refer to nationalism. And if not nationalism, then all the lessons of the 20th century about its rise and defeat are not relevant to WSE. And if not nationalism because most ( white ) Americans have a more or less neutral or even positive view of the word, then questions about the present relationship between land and race and political power are not relevant, either.
Now I see no need to qualify the label we give this movement: the word fascist seems to capture all the relevant details. The failures of the present system are blamed on others in the Orientalist sense, with special emphasis on cabals of Jews and racial impurity of blacks. The mythical past offers solutions for the practical present, in which white "captains" of industry protect the working classes, and a leader which galvanizes the nation to repudiate the existing corrupted state and replace it with a pure representation of its Christian capitalist ideal. There's no less of Pierce than Hitler in that, or Rand for that matter - be it Rand Paul or Ayn Rand.
