I came across a reader letter today in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune that struck me as very interesting. The gist of it was that Trump is better for the liberal agenda in office than out of it. Every time he tries to work with Congress in pursuing the conservative agenda, he gets in his own way with something. Whether it's his child like behavior, another thread pulled in the Russian scandal or some other buffoonish gaff, nothing is getting done in Washington in terms of what the GOP wants. Isn't that a good thing?
I thought it about it for a while and realized there needs to be a cost benefit analysis performed. On the one had, the reader is right. Trump is the GOP's worst enemy in terms of policy change. Yet, the damage he is doing to our hegemony in the world is significant. Which is worse?
U.S. President Donald Trump would be required to notify U.S. lawmakers before creating a joint U.S.-Russia cyber security unit -- an idea that has drawn criticism across the political spectrum -- under legislation advancing in Congress.
The proposal, if it became law, would be the latest in a series of maneuvers by Congress that either limit the president’s authority on Russia matters or rebuke his desire to warm relations with Moscow.
A provision contained within the annual Intelligence Authorization Act and passed by the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee 14-1 would require the Trump administration to provide Congress with a report describing what intelligence would be shared with Russia, any counterintelligence concerns and how those concerns would be addressed.
It is crazy when lawmakers are forced to write preemptive legislation to prevent from Trump from catastrophically stupid blunders.
Since the stated goal of Trump and his supporters is to make liberals' heads explode, why give them what they want?
Consider Trump's recent pardoning of Joe Arpaio, the ex-sheriff of Maricopa county in Arizona. It was done with the specific and most adolescent intent of getting a rise out of liberals. So, the best thing to do is ignore it and counter with questions of how the president and his supporters are fulfilling their promises to the American people. Where's tax reform? Health care? What up with the wall?
Arpaio isn't sheriff anymore. He's 85 years old and not in the best of shape. Honestly, how much of an influence is he going to have on anything? Pardoning him really makes no difference in the grand scheme of things.
The best thing that the two thirds of the nation that does not support Trump can do is ignore him when he does stuff like this.
I ask this because, as someone who has voted for both Democrats and Republicans over the years, I still don't know. Actually, that's not true. I do know one thing you stand for and that's watching liberals' heads explode. Even that, though, isn't really standing for something. It's still being against something, in this case, liberals.
Being angry and yelling against _______________ seems to be what you are all about. You hate the media, Hollywood, elitists, globalists, immigrants (illegal or otherwise), multiculturalists, scientists, LGBTQ folks, career politicians, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, socialists, news outlets that don't agree with you/Trump, and all citizens of the United States that offer any criticism or the tiniest amount of contrary view to your tribe. Of course, this is what your dear leader is all about (being against a whole bunch of stuff) so it makes sense that you feel the same. But what does that say about you?
If someone's raison d'etre is to be against everything and stand for nothing, I think that's the very definition of cowardice.
So, take a stand. Pick a position and support it. I challenge you to do so without mentioning liberals, the media, the elite, the political class and all the other "ghouls" that you continually blame for our nation's problems. Stop bitching and do something. Consistent whining wears on people over time and you need to show the nation how you will lead, especially now that you control all three branches of government. I ask you again...
Recently the alt-right has been stirring the pot over the removal of Confederate monuments. There has also been a lot of discussion about renaming schools, roads and public buildings named after Confederates. And there are a lot of Confederate monuments: literally thousands, scattered mostly across the South, but also in states like New York, Idaho and Montana.
But how many statues are there of Union generals? Does anyone even know the names of any Union generals besides Ulysses S. Grant? Even I wouldn't remember him, except that he was also president and showed up in the Wild, Wild West TV show in the 1960s.
Sure, lots of things are named after Abraham Lincoln, but you can't really count them because he was president. Ditto for Grant. But the other generals who actually won the Civil War? Unless you're a Civil War reenactor or a history buff, most Americans have no idea who those other generals were.
Look at this list of Union Civil War commemorations. Most entries are for places named after Union figures, and most states have only a few. A lot of them are in the South. The Civil War is not a thing for most Northerners.
But every Southern state has dozens, and some hundreds, of Confederate memorials. Monuments to losers who betrayed their country and got their own people killed to perpetuate a corrupt and immoral system of slavery that benefited a tiny minority of wealthy elites.
The majority of Northerners view the Civil War as ancient history. We know we won, it's over and done. It was a bad time in our history that we shouldn't forget, but shouldn't belabor either. Let a century and a half of bygones be bygones.
White supremacists in the South have been unwilling to do that. They have spent the last century rewriting history by erecting monuments to the people who lost the war that tore this country in half, killing more than half a million Americans. They've whitewashed that treachery, reframing the root cause as "states rights" instead of slavery and white supremacy. They have tried to ennoble a bunch of immoral skinflints who thought they were better than the people they abducted from another continent, who they didn't want to pay for working their fingers to the bone in the fields.
If Donald Trump doesn't want to "destroy history" by tearing down statues to Confederate traitors, fine. Then he should erect a statue of Lincoln, or Harriet Tubman, or Sojourner
Truth, or a Union general, or an unknown Union soldier or slave right beside every one of those Confederate memorials. Then hang a sign around the neck of the Confederate traitor with a body count of the hundreds or thousands who died because that man betrayed the United States of America.
If Trump wants to remember our history, he should erect a memorial in
every place a crazed white mob lynched an innocent black man, or lynched a
white man for helping blacks, or lynched Union loyalists during the Civil War. That would mean building another five or ten thousand
monuments to the victims of racism and treachery.
But, no, that would be too divisive. It would stir up unpleasant memories. We don't want to wage the Civil War again.
Better to just move the Confederate memorials out of our parks and squares. Remove the Confederate flags from our state capitols. Put those symbols of a bygone age in dusty museums where the sins of our forefathers can be viewed dispassionately, without pride or shame.
I learned a lot at the barbershop today from the barber and some of the patrons. First, all black quarterbacks are bad because all they want to do is run around. Second, Fox News is the only station that tells it like it is. Third, Donald Trump is going to go down in history as the greatest president of all time. Fourth, ALL lives matter. Fifth, Colin Kaepernick should be banished from the Earth.
This morning we talked about how easy it will be for the Taliban, the Russians and Breitbart to get Trump to flip-flop on Afghanistan once things start to look ugly and people are blaming Trump. But let's look at Trump's plan (what little there is), and see if it holds water.
First of all, it's the same as Bush's and Obama's plan: don't lose. Rex Tillerson, Trump's putative secretary of state, admitted this in an unusually candid press conference. Addressing the Taliban, Tillerson said, “You will not win a battlefield victory. We may not win one, but neither will you.”
Now, this is probably true. It's always been true.
The war in Afghanistan will not end unless there is an all-out invasion, waged not by one country, but a huge international coalition with troops from NATO and Muslim countries, removal of the Taliban from Pakistan, a peace treaty agreed by all Afghan parties, Pakistan and India, followed by massive post-war intervention at every level of society, assistance from all the surrounding countries and a commitment to keep thousands of international peacekeeping troops (mostly Muslim) there for fifty or a hundred years, similar to what we did in Germany, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea.
Despite all his bragging about what a great deal maker he is, Trump is totally incapable of negotiating something that big and complex, much less understanding it. Instead he announced that he has given up on nation building. He's only going to kill terrorists. He's going to give our soldiers free reign to do whatever the hell they want in Afghanistan.
This will increase the number of civilian deaths and Afghan military casualties due to friendly fire. But every time we kill a civilian or a government soldier we make their families into Taliban sympathizers. Every time we kill an Afghan family, we motivate another Afghan soldier to shoot Americans eating lunch in the mess hall.
Trump's screw-'em-all attitude gave us the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which was likely the turning point in the Iraq War. In that debacle Americans tortured Iraqis in humiliating ways -- and took pictures of the torture, laughing the whole time. After Blackwater's slaughter of Iraqi civilians in Nissour Square there was no way that Iraq would trust our forces to stay in the country. George W. Bush could not convince the Iraqis to renew the status of forces agreement, and agreed to remove all American troops from Iraq by 2011.
Republicans blamed Obama for not trying hard enough to keep our troops in Iraq, but after Nissour Square the Iraqis refused to give American troops immunity to prosecution for civilian deaths. At home it was clear that the American people were tired of our troops dying in Iraq getting stuck between Iraqi Sunni and Shiite factions who keep trying to kill each other. So Obama did what Trump was screaming for him to do: pull out of Iraq.
Trump rightly criticizes Pakistan for giving Taliban terrorists refuge across the border in Pakistan. I have said for 16 years that this war will go on forever until Pakistan stops supporting the Taliban. The problem is that Pakistan has neither the will nor the ability to root out those terrorists. And it's not just because they're cowards and incompetent. They want Afghanistan in chaos. They have been playing both sides of this war since the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1979.
Back then it was the United States and Pakistan backing the conservative Islamic revolutionaries of the proto-Taliban and Osama bin Laden's proto-Al Qaeda organization. We fought to take down a modern secular government backed by Trump's pals, the Russians. Women used to wear miniskirts in Kabul before we started meddling there. With our help Afghanistan collapsed into the Middle Ages.
Pakistan is starting to align with China against the United States. China wants rare earth metals in Afghanistan to supply their manufacturing. Instead of getting Asian countries to side with us against the Chinese, Trump canceled the Trans-Pacific trade pact, driving them into China's orbit.
But the biggest mistake Trump made in his speech was to brag about how he's going to get India to "help" in Afghanistan. Trump doesn't seem to understand that the main reason Pakistan has been letting the Taliban run riot in Afghanistan for almost 40 years is that they're afraid India will gain a foothold there.
Now Trump stupidly announces that he's going to actively pursue Pakistan's worst nightmare: handing Afghanistan over to its arch-enemy, India, and surrounding Pakistan with a sea of Indian allies.
Trump must think this is a smart negotiating tactic that will trick Pakistan into kowtowing to us. They almost certainly see this as a total betrayal by the United States. But they can't be surprised. They've seen how incompetent Trump has been dealing with the people in his own political party: as a political negotiator he has proven to be an idiot who talks big and can't get anything done because he can't pay attention, has no knowledge of the issues, has no follow through and keeps screwing over his allies.
Then Trump threatens to cancel foreign and military aid to Pakistan, making us seem that much less reliable, giving them no reason at all to stick with us. He is driving Pakistan further into China's orbit.
On other fronts, Trump is weakening the United States by alienating our NATO allies, who have been a big part of the war in Afghanistan. Trump has spent the last year trashing NATO, bullying Australia and lashing out at Canada over NAFTA, threatening to cancel it.
Given Trump's self-admitted reluctant embrace of the mission in Afghanistan, how much political capital will our NATO allies invest in helping Trump in a war that he hesitated for seven months to continue, which his most rabid supporters don't want him to fight at all? Will they let him go hang when he asks for more help, or will they demand something outrageous in exchange?
Trump can't stay on message for two days, much less two years. When Afghanistan starts going to hell (again), and Trump starts taking heat for dead American soldiers, corrupt Afghan politicians, and Afghan allies who hold boys as sex slaves, does anyone believe he won't cut and run, like he has every other time the going gets tough?
I outlined the only path to success in Afghanistan above, but no one is interested in doing the right thing: everyone has their own agenda to undercut their enemies, including Trump.
In the end Trump's plan isn't even a half measure, it's a recipe for failure. Worse, instead of just failing, it will almost certainly backfire, worsening the conflict and drawing other combatants into the war, perhaps Russia, Iran and India. In the end Trump himself is almost certain to bail on it.
Then, as now, Trump will start blaming everyone else for his mistakes, issue snarky Twitter rants, and demand resignations. You can't run a war that way. Or a country.
Monday Trump announced his bold new Afghanistan plan: it was the same as Obama's plan and Bush's plan, which he had roundly criticized. But with less nation building and more killing. Trump threatened and bragged, the way he always does.
But he did one thing that he rarely does: admit that he changed his mind.
My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts. But all my life, I have heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office. In other words, when you are president of the United States. So I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle. After many meetings over many months, we held our final meeting last Friday at Camp David with my cabinet and generals to complete our strategy. I arrived at three fundamental conclusion about America's core interests in Afghanistan.
Now, imagine that you're the Taliban. You've watched Donald Trump for seven months, whining, bragging, complaining, tweeting. He calls reality "fake news." He attacks Mitch McConnell for not getting legislation passed, but without whom Trump cannot get any legislation passed. He praises the GOP's health care plan, then calls it mean. He promises a giant wall on day one and seven months on there's nothing there.
And then Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan march in Charlottesville, killing a woman and hurting 19 others, and -- speaking from his gut -- he says that many sides were responsible for the violence. Two days later Trump condemns the violence in a statement his aides forced him to read. The next day he backslides and says there were some very fine people on the Nazis' side. Then he whines about how no one likes his perfect words, none of which he meant or believed.
What does that teach the Taliban? That Trump is not loyal to the people or the institutions of the United States, or even his own allies. He flip-flops. He cannot stick to the script. He brags and whines, and talks tough but has no follow through or ability to get the job done. He has an overweening pride, but he's morally weak and cannot abide criticism. He's flabby and physically weak: the Taliban spend their lives fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan; Trump can't even walk up a hill in Italy.
Given all these character weaknesses a PSYOP campaign against Trump could defeat the United States in Afghanistan. Trump's flaws are so obvious that even the Taliban can see how to manipulate him. Maybe it'll be the Russians, who have already been helping the Taliban, to use the same tactics they used to elect Trump to defeat him in Afghanistan. Or maybe it'll be Breitbart and Bannon, who know even more about Trump's weaknesses.
It's easy: plant fake news on various outlets, such as Fox News, to convince Trump that his gut was right. As Trump showed last week, he cannot maintain discipline for very long.
Trump won't say how many troops he's sending to Afghanistan. They're not supposed to fight, just train Afghans. But they're still exposed: dozens of Americans have already been killed by Taliban infiltrators posing as Afghan army.
How will it play to Trump when Fox News starts reporting that Afghan soldiers are murdering Americans who are there to help Afghans? How long will it take Trump to turn on our Afghan allies, as he turned on Mitch McConnell, Jeff Flake and other Republican senators he absolutely needs to pass his agenda?
How long will it take Trump to repudiate his own decision to stay in Afghanistan, which he himself admitted goes against his gut, once people start blaming Trump for the same things Trump blamed Bush and Obama for? Bannon and the Trump groupies will shout "Trump was right in the first place!" and "Let Trump be Trump! Out of Afghanistan!"
What will happen when Steve Bannon, Sebastian Gorka and Stephen Miller start leaking dirt on the people who convinced Trump to stay on in Afghanistan? Will Trump start rage-tweeting about his generals and his chief of staff, undercutting them in exactly the same way he undercut Mitch McConnell?
How long will Trump stick to the plan when Breitbart starts quoting polls that say Trump is losing support among his base because of his decision to stay in Afghanistan?
To the Taliban -- and pretty much everyone -- Trump appears weak and stupid, flighty and inconstant. Disloyal and undisciplined.
The United States has the most powerful military in the world (even though we can't seem to stop our destroyers from getting rammed by cargo ships). But we have the weakest commander in chief this nation has ever seen.
This flag was captured at the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863. The First Minnesota Regiment suffered an 80% casualty rate to win it.
Virginia has asked for return of the flag for more than 100 years — and each time Minnesota has refused to return the hard-won symbol of victory. A president demanded return of Confederate flags, Congress passed a resolution ordering return of the flags, Virginians even threatened suit to get their flag back. And the answer has been the same: No.
In 1961, Virginia asked for the flag back to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Civil War, according to a Roanoke Times article. Minnesota said no.
In 1998, Virginia Civil War re-enactors asked for the flag and eventually threatened legal action. A Minnesota historian said: “Blood has been shed for that flag. . Who are we to return it?” And Minnesota Attorney General Hubert Humphrey III said that despite a 1905 order that Civil War relics be returned, Virginia had no right to it.
In 2000, when Virginia legislators requested the Southern Cross flag once again, Gov. Jesse Ventura said: “Why? We won. … We took it. That makes it our heritage.”
In 2002, the U.S. Army’s chief of military history even decided the wool flag should be housed in a Virginia military history museum. But the flag remained in Minnesota.
In 2003, Virginia officials — including Democratic Gov. Mark Warner — demanded the flag. Gov. Tim Pawlenty said in response: “They’re not getting it. … We believe it’s rightfully ours, and we’re not giving it back to Virginia.”
When you get Pawlenty, Ventura and Humphrey to band against you, there's no doubt that you're in the wrong.
The latest "worst week" for President Trump does seem a little different than the other ones in that some members of his party, the business world, and the military are abandoning him in terms of his "both sides are bad" comments last week in references to Nazis and the Antifa movement. It's not different for his supporters, though, as we see in this front page storyfrom the New York Times.
The Times has done a very good job of keeping the focus on Trump's supporters (the real problem) because they are the ones that put him in office. In looking at these folks in the piece, one can see why they still support him. They are very tribal and their tribe hates liberals and anyone they deem elitist. They are naive and are loathe to give an inch to the concerns of liberals. They feel to picked on and see Trump as their champion. They are experiencing the sunk cost fallacy i.e they are too emotionally invested to back out now.
I was particularly struck by the naivete of Parson Hicks, the young black woman who has failed in an epic fashion to see how her dear leader is emboldening Nazis. Worse, she seems to be cheering on his inability to reflect and take criticism. Her comments in this piece made me realize ignorance doesn't excuse guilt and complicity.
I LMAO when I read the comments from Larry Laughlin.
Larry Laughlin, a retired businessman from a Minneapolis suburb, compares Mr. Trump to a high school senior who could “walk up to the table with the jocks and the cheerleaders and put them in their place.” That is something that the “nerds and the losers, whose dads are unemployed and moms are working in the cafeteria,” could never do. Mr. Trump may be rich, he said, but actually belonged at the nerd table.
“The guys who wouldn’t like me wouldn’t like Trump,” he said. “The guys who were condescending to him were condescending to me. “I feel like I’m watching my uncle up there. Where me and Chuck Schumer — that’s like going to the dentist,” he added, referring to the Democratic leader in the Senate.
This goes back to a theory (now completely confirmed) that I had back when I posted on The Smallest Minority. These guys were bullied back in school and now the nation has to pay for their psychological trauma. Worse, they have hitched their wagon to a con man's star who has always been the guy who was at the elite's table and picked on the nerds. The fact that they are falling for this act illustrates just how fucking poor their judgement is.
The Chuck Schumer comment also confirms another one of points. Like adolescents, they don't want to be responsible and go to the dentist. Why on earth should we trust them with the security of this nation?
These people represent a very real danger to our country. I have no doubt that Donald Trump could, in fact, stand in the middle of 5th Avenue, shoot someone and get away with it. Many would call him a murderer and Trump's supporters? Their first reaction would be contrary. They would get angry at the liberal media for reporting fake news. They would blame the person Trump shot for being anti-American and elitist.
Hey, conservatives, Mike Pence looking more attractive these days?
The presidency of Donald Trump really went into the shitter this week as he all too willingly fell into the "Cult of Both Sides" defense of the Nazis and other white supremacists that were marching in Charlottesville, VA last weekend. Like the right wing bloggers and commenters that worship him, Trump tried to dodge the responsibility of fomenting racist assholes by making it seem like liberals are bad and stuff too.
This drew swift condemnation from many people across the political spectrum and Trump has grown increasingly isolated from his own party. Senator Corker from Tennessee recently questioned his competence and capacity to serve as president. Business leaders withdrew from his economic councils, ultimately causing their collapse. Steve Bannon was fired from his position as Chief Strategist. What does it all mean?
Not all that much when you take a look at the polls. The problem isn't really Trump and we need to start shifting away from him. The problem is his supporters. The polls show they are sticking with him even if the majority of the country is not. I saw a lot of liberals in my news feed delighted at Bannon being gone. Who cares? Bannon isn't the problem. Trump isn't the problem. They are merely playing to a need that's out there. This need is pretty fucking dark if you consider they are willing to excuse literal Nazis being emboldened and moving to act. So, what are our options in deal with these people?
The best option is to build a larger and sustaining coalition that buries them at the polls in EVERY SINGLE ELECTION, including the odd year, local elections. The only reason why they win is due to complacency. It has nothing to do with their message being more popular. They simply are better voters. The good guys need more and better voters.
The second best option is to let them fuck up in the sunlight. The age of social media means you can't really do anything anonymously anymore. Take a look at what happened to some of the marchers in last week's protests in Charlottesville. Or how about Crying Chris Cantwell? Most of these folks talk a good game but, in the final analysis, they are limp noodles. Don't try to ban them from your college campus or stop their open and lawful protest. Give them a mic and let them talk. Put them out in front of every major news organization on television and online. If good people are going to build larger and sustaining coalitions to stop them, they need to have a continual reminder about what we are up against.
Stop attacking Trump. That doesn't mean that you can't relay what he has done or said. Since he thrives on the attention, take it away from him and put it on the people that support him. They are going to be around a lot longer than he is. The good news is that there are more of us than there are of them. Let's use that advantage wisely.
After the terrorist attack in Charlottesville during protests over the statue of of Gen. Robert E. Lee, we've heard from the Nazis, Trump, the Baltimore City Council, and countless others.
The widely heralded meeting of the officers, (U.S and Confederate,) who took part in the battle of Gettysburg, to mark the operations of both armies on the field, by enduring memorials of granite, has proven, as many expected a great farce. But few of the prominent Northern officers were present and only two Confederate officers of minor grades. The Hotel man did not make as much as he expected, when he got up the idea.
Gen. Lee was invited and forwarded the following reply:
Lexington, VA., August 5, 1869.
Dear Sir--Absence from Lexington has prevented my receiving until to-day your letter of the 26th ult., inclosing an invitation from the Gettysburg Battle-field Memorial Association, to attend a meeting of the officers engaged in that battle at Gettysburg, for the purpose of marking upon the ground by enduring memorials of granite the positions and movements of the armies on the field. My engagements will not permit me to be present. I believe if there, I could not add anything material to the information existing on the subject. I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered. Very respectfully,
Your obedient servant, R. E. Lee.
The whole point of these monuments, most of which were erected 50 and 100 years after the Civil War, was not to record history, but to protest the advancement of the civil rights and glorify the cause of white supremacy by commemorating the men who enslaved African Americans.
This memorial, erected after the massacre of 150 blacks after a contested election in Colfax, LA, shows the true intent of the vast majority of Civil War monuments:
Donald Trump always talks about winning, winning, winning. Winning so much we'll get tired of winning (he must be exhausted with all the "winning" he's done in the last seven months).
But Trump isn't a winner: he's a loser's idea of a winner. He has a loser mentality, thinking that if he surrounds himself with ostentatious trappings of success he'll be a winner. But he's a terrible businessman who bankrupted six companies, a conman whose only ability is self-promotion. Trump succeeded because his daddy set him up
with an inheritance and some smart lawyers so he could always weasel out
a win somehow, screwing everyone else in the process.
Trump knows this, and it's why he acts like a loser even when he wins. After the election, he whined bitterly, like a sore loser, lying about the popular vote total and the size of his inauguration crowd. No matter his success, he carps about how unfair everything is, like a five-year-old who was forced to share his toys with his brother.
Trump says he loves winners, ripping into John McCain and implying that McCain was a loser for getting captured in Viet Nam.
So why is Trump tweeting about the "beautiful statues and monuments" of a bunch of Civil War losers? Confederate soldiers betrayed the United States to defend the corrupt, evil, doomed and losing institution of slavery.
The Confederate traitors whose statues are being taken down in the South were losers: they lost a war that killed half a million Americans. That blood is on their hands. Why would we keep statues of them?
Lincoln was gracious in victory: instead of imprisoning and executing the traitorous losers, he granted amnesty to all but the officers in 1863. For that act of kindness he was assassinated. Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, was paroled after two years in prison and went to Canada. President Andrew Johnson issued a pardon for all Confederates on Christmas day in 1868.
Trump has leapt to the defense of people who chant slogans of the Nazis. The Nazis were a bunch of losers, who fought a losing war against the world, propagating a losing creed that Aryans are superior to all others.
Even if you strip out the racist aspects of the alt-right, their goal is the same as another loser, apartheid-era South Africa: Richard Spencer, an alt-right leader, wants to create a separate white homeland for whites.
The alt-right are a bunch of losers who think they can't compete with women, Jews, Asians and African Americans. They say it themselves: "We've lost our country and we have to take it back." But instead of buckling down, working harder, going to college, studying longer, they march with torches, wearing symbols of lost causes -- swastikas and Confederate flags, rally around statues of Civil War losers and whine about reverse discrimination.
They want to kick their competitors out rather improve their own performance: they're admitting they can't win in a fair fight. Just yesterday Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist and former Breitbart editor, called white nationalists "a collection of clowns."
The fact of the matter is, rich white men run everything in this country: the presidency, the congress, the judiciary, state and local governments, police forces, the military, corporations -- everything, even the basketball and football teams on which African Americans are the majority.
The alt-right loves Trump because he's a kindred soul: they're a bunch of white male losers who can't make it in a country totally dominated by white males, and Trump's a born loser who stumbled into the presidency.
In the same way that Obama provided hope for blacks, and Hillary provided hope for women, Trump provides hope for born losers.
After several CEOs criticized Trump or quit his business advisory council (representing Merck, Intel, Campbell's Soup, 3M, Under Armour, three labor and nonprofit groups, and Walmart), Trump has thrown in the towel, disbanding the councils.
Rather than putting pressure on the businesspeople of the Manufacturing Council & Strategy & Policy Forum, I am ending both. Thank you all!
If ever there was a tweet on this account that Trump didn't write, this is it: polite, no sniping, and spelled correctly!
For a man who claimed that he was such a successful businessman, the dissolution of this council is a complete embarrassment. Being linked to some of the most reviled and violent organizations in world history -- the Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Confederacy -- is bad for business. And don't forget the FSB (the Russian security service), who helped Trump win the election through hacking and fake news.
It turns out that real businessmen have to worry about what their customers think of them. They can't afford to alienate 95% of the country to appease the stormtroopers and murderers that Trump thinks are very fine people.
In related news, the neo-Nazi pro-Trump propaganda organ The Daily Stormer lost its domain name when GoDaddy said it violated its policies. The site was briefly was registered by Google, which kicked them out, then it went with an .onion domain on the Dark Web (the marketplace for hit men, drug dealers and human sex traffickers), but now it has finally landed in Russia with a .ru domain.
What a surprise: the only place Trump's neo-Nazi propaganda mouthpiece can find to host it on the Internet is Russia. At least now the fact that it is fake news is implicit in its web address.
President Trump reverted Tuesday to blaming both sides for the deadly violence in Charlottesville, Va., and at one point questioned whether the movement to pull down Confederate statues would lead to the desecration of memorials to George Washington.
Trump categorically refuses to admit that all the alt-right marchers have evil intent: they denigrate the humanity and want to take away the rights of people they don't like -- Muslims, Jews, Mexicans, blacks, women, Democrats, liberals -- and forcibly eject many of them from this country. That's what "take the country back" means, Donald, and they mean it literally.
With his various statements it is now obvious that Trump either shares their goals, or he is going to great lengths to con them into believing that he shares their goals to use them as stormtroopers to keep his hold on power.
By doing this he condemns himself in the eyes of the vast majority of the country.
His statement is loaded with crap. Trump pretends that the white supremacists, neo-Nazis, Odinists and Confederate sympathizers were marching quietly peacefully to prevent the destruction of the statue of an American hero, General Robert E. Lee. If so, why were they shouting "Sieg Heil" and "Jew cannot replace us?" Why did they carry torches like angry villagers in a black-and-white horror movie from the Thirties? Why were they wearing helmets and body armor, carrying shields, clubs and automatic weapons?
Trump says that if we "change history" by getting rid of statues erected to honor traitors, George Washington will be next. It is preposterous to compare George Washington to Robert E. Lee. Both were slaveholders, yes. But Lee was a traitor to the United States and killed thousands of Americans. At a time when the country -- the entire world -- was dismantling the most evil institution mankind has known, Lee took up arms in rebellion to kill his fellow citizens.
Many of the Founding Fathers knew that slavery's days were numbered, and many wanted to abolish it outright in the 1770s. But they knew the South would never stand for it, and it was essential for the Union to remain whole if the Revolution was to succeed. It was a change that they knew would have to be addressed at a future time.
Sixty-four years after Washington was president, it was time for the institution of slavery to end: by then it had been dying for centuries. The Atlantic slave trade had been banned by the United States in the 18th century. Slavery was abolished across Europe in the late 18th and early 19th century. The Haitian slave revolt (1791-1084) showed that slavery's days were numbered, that it was impossible for modern societies to keep slaves: ultimately the number of guards required would outnumber the slaves. Mechanization and industrialization were making slave labor inefficient.
States throughout the north passed laws against slavery and indentured servitude throughout the early 19th century, and banned repatriation of escaped slaves. In 1820 slavery was banned in the United States north of the 36th parallel. Britain banned slavery throughout the empire in 1833. In 1845 the Royal Navy had a fleet of 36 ships dedicated to wiping out the slave trade. Even the Russians abolished serfdom in 1861.
But the American South kept slavery because the slave owners told poor whites that if the plantations lost their Negro slaves white southerners would have to take their place in the fields. Poor Southerners didn't fight the Civil War for God and country: they fought because they were being threatened with enslavement themselves. Plantation owners subverted the clergy to justify slavery with religious nonsense like the Curse of Ham.
It was only after the war that the South changed course and started making up excuses about states' rights being the just cause they were fighting for. Most of the Civil War monuments erected to honor and ennoble Confederate traitors were put up in the early and mid-20th century, coinciding with attempts to repress the civil rights of blacks.
With his conflicting statements on Charlottesville, Trump is just doing what he always does: create chaos. He says one thing, issues a statement contradicting it, makes a joke, reverses course, contradicts himself, sometimes in the same sentence. He says nothing and everything, hoping something will stick. This way, no matter who he's talking to later on, he can always claim that he said the thing he thinks they wanted to hear. He insults the intelligence of his listeners, thinking they won't remember what he said a month, a week, a day, an hour or a minute ago. Sadly, far too many people don't remember.
The guy is a con man, and a bad one at that: anyone listening to him talk should be able to tell that Trump is either lying or stupid.
But, ironically, the biggest reason Trump voters say they like him is that, "He tells it like it is." They, too, are either lying or stupid.
This is why Trump is always in such hot water, and why his popularity is in freefall. He never knows when to shut up, whether it's about Russia, or neo-Nazis, or women, transgendered military members, or the media, or North Korea. He seems to think that if he keeps yelling louder, nastier and more outrageous things, he will eventually bully everyone into submission.
A lot of the findings align with what we intuit about the alt-right: This group is supportive of social hierarchies that favor whites at the top. It’s distrustful of mainstream media and strongly opposed to Black Lives Matter. Respondents were highly supportive of statements like, “There are good reasons to have organization that look out for the interests of white people.” And when they look at other groups — like black Americans, Muslims, feminists, and journalists — they’re willing to admit they see these people as “less evolved.”
In general I am suspicious of making broad generalizations about a group of people and drawing conclusions about individuals from those stereotypes: that is the definition of racism and bigotry.
That being said, though, the study does underline a common thread of fascist and racist thinking over the centuries: that blacks, Jews, etc., are somehow “less evolved.”
The researchers had sliders allowing the subjects to rank how evolved certain groups are:
The alt-right's cumulative response ranked Muslims at 55.4, feminists at 57, blacks at 64.7, Democrats at 60.4, Jews at 73, and whites at 91.8. Yes, I agree, this is a totally bogus line of questioning: you can't really equate genetics (white, Arab, African) and social affiliation (Muslim, Democrat, feminist). But they're measuring attitudes here, not scientific reasoning.
What's interesting is that there is an actual measure of evolution: the percentage of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in a person's genome. Neanderthals and Denisovans were archaic hominids who lived in Europe and Asia and died out tens of thousands of years ago, after modern humans left Africa and colonized the rest of the world. Neanderthals are typically characterized as violent, ape-like brutes with beetled brows and subhuman intelligence.
It turns out that Neanderthals were not as primitive as they are portrayed:
their brains were as large as modern humans, they made comparable stone tools, and
they appear to have buried their dead ceremonially. They were less adaptable than modern humans, however, which is probably why they died out.
And, before they became extinct, Neanderthals interbred with modern humans. Not all humans. Just non-Africans. Whites have 2% Neanderthal DNA and some Asians have as much as 5% Denisovan DNA.
Africans have zero Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA -- they are 100% modern human, while those "ethnically pure" Northern Europeans Hitler ranted about are descended from the thick-skulled, hunched, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.
Does that mean whites are less evolved than Africans? Neanderthal ancestry has been linked to several diseases and psychiatric and mood disorders. However, Neanderthal DNA may have contributed tougher skin and better adaptation to high altitudes.
No, the presence of Neanderthal DNA has not condemned whites to subhuman status. Just as dark skin does not make Africans or aboriginal Australians dumber, or epicanthic folds make southeast Asians smarter. The genetics of human intelligence is extremely complex and variable, dependent on thousands of interacting genes, as well as epigenetics, nutrition, education, and exposure to environmental toxins like lead and pesticides -- not a few minor physical characteristics.
But since people mix terms like Muslim, feminist, Mexican, Democrat and European when they talk about how evolved someone is, let us charitably assume they are talking about culture or behavior, not genetic heritage.
"Primitive behavior" is aggressive, violent, murderous, unthinking, selfish and reactionary; motivated by coarse biological and emotional imperatives such as sex, greed and hunger, rather than cogent reasoning.
If you look at the behavior the alt-right (and Donald Trump) display, they are aggressive, greedy, violent, selfish, unreasoning, and motivated by sex -- manifested as antipathy towards women, since feminists are one of their hated groups -- frequently employing physical and verbal intimidation.
