Make sure to “hide your power level”

Staff Host Account 0 1092 Article rating: No rating
Make sure to “hide your power level”

The ugliest instances of today’s far-right resurgence — Charlottesville, the Muslim ban, the Quebec City mosque shooting, the surge in hate crimes, etc. — often belie a more fundamental urge from which all such examples ultimately spring: an ever-breathing struggle to smuggle fascist, racist and discredited ideas back into the mainstream.

There are several ways to do this: electoral politics, attacking “political correctness,” online organizing, exploiting mass media, etc. But the single thread that runs through these methods — one that lies just beneath the sheer spectacle and cacophony of today’s politics — is simple, unadulterated deception.

Imagine for a moment that you’re an active alt-right figure trying to exploit the moment and have your 15 minutes of fame in the mainstream.

You’ve pushed the envelope enough that people are starting to ask you about your beliefs and the media is wondering how you feel about things like White supremacy. If you’re not careful, these questions might “out” your true opinions. And, so, pushed into a corner, you do what everyone seems to do when they’re in such a predicament: lie.

I don’t think that the printed word here is capable of demonstrating just how common, accepted and ubiquitous this kind of dishonesty has become. I don’t mean the dog-whistle politics that uses euphemisms like terrorism or immigration or crime to galvanize constituents who eventually absorb/interpret such terms through much darker, racist sentiments or emotions.

We’re way past that. What I’m referring to is much more straightforward. It’s what one particular, run-of-the-mill alt-right bro on 4Chan referred to once as “hiding your power level” (appropriated from a scene in the Japanese manga/cartoon “Dragon Ball Z”). 

In other words, keep your true, racist beliefs covert. Just lie about your opinions on whatever it is you’re asked about: race, gender, Muslims, Jews, etc. Don’t reveal your actual beliefs (i.e., how racist you actually are) until you’re sure that no one’s looking, the walls are soundproof and you’re among your “own people.” When asked, just say to the public that you’re not a racist.

Like Milo Yiannopoulos did plenty of times as he shot into mainstream fame (and fizzled out just as spectacularly) and a $250,000 book deal. Then, when he thought no one was looking, he had his Breitbart drafts edited and vetted by White nationalists and prolific racists.

Or like Faith Goldy, who says time and again that she’s not a White supremacist, but then showed up at a Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and spoke on a Daily Stormer-affiliated podcast.

And it’s not just the alt-right. John Derbyshire, considered a respectable conservative voice for years at the National Review — itself a mainstr

Official Conservatism vs. The “Loonie” Right

Staff Host Account 0 1009 Article rating: No rating
Official Conservatism vs. The “Loonie” Right

Observers who warn against increasing levels of radical, far-right activism in the U.S. and Canada are often met with a retort of “it’s just a few crazy people.” In other words, “It’s clearly just a few dozen losers on the corner with signs, so why panic?” These fringe characters, the argument goes, are so unacceptable to the mainstream that it’s inaccurate to see them as being in any way representative of a larger right-wing movement. And since they don’t constitute a larger threat, why worry?

Such a liberal interpretation of today’s troublesome status quo is worryingly naïve.

First of all, let’s take a second to remember that it doesn’t take 50, 20, 10, five or even a pair of determined nutcases to do real damage these days. It takes one. Critics of “Islamic terrorism” always note without fail how today’s technological and societal circumstances allows one—just one—nut job to do the damage that only armies could do centuries ago. Well, the same applies to far-right or alt-right nut jobs.

Almost exactly a year ago, it took one such murderer—Alexandre Bissonnette—to walk into a Quebec City mosque and shoot dead six Muslim men and injure 19 others. He wasn’t a trained tactician. He had no military or Special Forces background. But he was dedicated to his task and got his hands on a deadly weapon. That’s all it took.

Sticking with this example, how fair is it to point to such a killer—who was known for loving Trump and hating on refugees—as an extreme product of the prevailing political atmosphere?

Well, if we’re being honest, it’s totally fair.

Some in Quebec’s provincial legislature recognized the connection (and how bad it made them look) and offered an acknowledgement of the kind of rhetoric that might have contributed to such a toxic atmosphere. It’s a scary thing to remind oneself of from time to time, but an individual’s extremist actions are almost never carried out within some sort of sealed social vacuum. Human beings are connected, now more than ever, to the sociopolitical “ether” surrounding them.

Today’s atmosphere has facilitated a rise in xenophobia against minorities, from Muslims to Jews to the transgender community and so on. This shift in political climate, this increase in the public legitimization of so-called politically incorrect speech, constitutes the direction of today’s cultural wind.

Foremost among those whose job it is to gauge such winds are, of course, elected officials who rely on the voting public for legitimacy, support and a career. It goes without saying that, regardless of where one looks on the political spectrum today, politicians in North America and Europe are well aware of the far-right resurgence and are working to orient their public image according to it.

Sadly, this act of political orienting has too of

Protocols of the Elders of Mecca

Staff Host Account 0 453 Article rating: No rating

Fighting the Religious Right to Save the Johnson Amendment

Staff Host Account 0 447 Article rating: No rating
Fighting the Religious Right to Save the Johnson Amendment

This is the second part of a two-part series. Part one gives an overview of the Johnson Amendment and how it affects minorities in the United States.

Widely diverse tax-exempt organizations agree that President Donald Trump’s May 4 executive order is not about religious freedom or free speech. The National Council of Churches, the Islamic Society of North America, and more than 97 other religiously affiliated institutions joined the National Council of Nonprofits and the Independent Coalition Sector to protest the directive. They defend the Johnson Amendment as a matter of good policy because they largely believe the issue is about money: Opponents want to be able to freely use 501(c)(3) organizations to produce “dark money” groups through which politically motivated donors can secretly influence elections. The pro-Johnson Amendment groups also disagree with their opponents’ characterization of them as alien supporters of America’s decline. These pastors and other religious leaders believe diversity will ensure a strong America.

There are also a handful of organizations that are attempting to get the IRS to apply the tax code evenly. These include Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, American Atheists, the American Humanist Association, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), among others. Over the last decade, the latter has asked the IRS to investigate more than 70 situations in which it believed the tax code was violated. Notably, these include instances in which a North Carolina pastor urged his congregation to vote for Barack Obama and in which Hillary Clinton campaigned at churches that explicitly endorsed her during services. The FFRF has also sued the IRS for not enforcing the Johnson Amendment against religious institutions, arguing this lack of enforcement constitutes “preferential treatment” not provided other tax-exempt organizations.

Unlike the ACLU and others who insist Trump’s Executive Order was a pyrrhic conservative victory not amounting to much, the FFRF has filed another lawsuit. Arguably, this may have been pre-mature because of the Order’s vague and obfuscating language. But the FFRF was not short-sighted and, unlike the ACLU, did not describe the Order as “toothless” and “an elaborate photo-op with no discernible policy outcome.” Conservatives fully intend to limit — if not fully curtail — the ability of the IRS to evenhandedly enforce the Johnson Amendment.

Six weeks after the President’s Order, the House Appropriations Committee, which oversees funding for the government, added Section 116 in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill. This provision strips the IRS of funds to enforce the Johnson Amendment against churches or their auxiliary organizations if the IRS Commissioner approves. If the Commissioner does not approve, IRS investigators must obtain consent from the Commissioner for each investigation, and the IRS must notify relevant House and Senate committees before beginning any such investigation. There is now, belatedly, Read more

«January 2020»