Wednesday, November 30, 2016

White supremacy's inferiority complex

11/30/2016


"Hail Trump". "Lugenpresse". Nazi salutes. The United States and the wider world reacted with shock when footage emerged of a fascist speech by the poster boy of the so-called "alt-right" movement, Richard Spencer, given right in the heart of Washington, DC.

Loaded with racism and dehumanization, the "alt-right" leader declared: "To be white is to be a striver, a crusader, an explorer and a conqueror. We build; we produce; we go upward."

In his rhetoric, he echoed "manifest destiny", a 19th-century belief justifying the white European conquest of America. "We are the pioneers of the world; the advance-guard, sent on through the wilderness of untried things, to break a new path in the New World that is ours," Herman Melville, the author of Moby Dick, wrote in White Jacket.

But today's white nationalism is unlike the cocky white supremacy of the 19th century, when the West pretty much ruled large swaths of the world and required an ideology to justify its global dominance. In place of the white man's burden of yore, many whites, especially men, now feel they are regarded as the burden.

Adopting the language of the oppressed

Behind the veneer of entitlement and thin crust lies a serious inferiority complex. "No one mourns the great crimes committed against us. For us, it is conquer or die," Spencer lamented, echoing the Islamic extremists the Christian right so despises. "We are not meant to live in shame and weakness and disgrace."

And Spencer is not alone. In a recent tweet, David Duke, the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan demanded that the Senate "stop the massive institutional race discrimination against whites".

The far-right movement in the US and Europe, as well as mainstream conservatism - to a lesser degree, seems to have appropriated the language of oppression and subjugation more common among the formerly enslaved and segregated African-Americans, or subject populations who lived under colonial rule, uncommon among a cultural collective still perched at the top of the human power hierarchy.

In societies whose superior technologies have for centuries visited mass slaughter upon weaker populations across the planet, there is now talk of a "white genocide" - a paranoid theory that there is a conspiracy to wipe out the white race through immigration and multiculturalism.

A recent variation on this is the conspiracy theory that the refugees flooding into Europe are not desperate civilians fleeing war, but part of an invading army bent on the destruction of Western civilization. This supposed phenomenon has been called "jihad by emigration" - a term coined by the creator of the far-right Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer.

But beyond the white privilege of the 'old boy' network, there is the aspirational privilege of underprivileged whites. Like the patriarchy and the class system, race primarily serves the top dogs, not the lower classes.

But what is driving this sense of victimhood among white extremists? After all, objectively speaking, whites remain dominant within their own societies and their countries still exercise a huge amount of global hegemony, especially the US.
"White supremacy is still dealing with the aftermath of the anti-racist struggles of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, spearheaded by the black liberation movement, as well as the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles across the global south," Matthew Lyons, an independent researcher into fascism, told me.

"Most lynchings in the US in the 19th and 20th centuries took place [when] white privilege and power was being eroded," Barry Van Driel, vice-president of the International Association for Intercultural Education, explained to me. "That leads to identifying with an authoritarian and strong white leader to protect white interests."

'White lash'

Known popularly as a "white lash", this phenomenon saw the US swing from electing its first African American president, the most visible symbol of the advance of civil rights, to electing arguably its most unqualified white candidate ever.

Donald Trump epitomizes the truism that hell hath no fury like a middle-aged white man scorned. Raised with a diamond-encrusted golden spoon in his mouth, Trump believes it is his inalienable right to be a master of the world; he is less neo-Nazi, more neo-narcissist.

Imagine how galling and frustrating it must have been for Trump that an unknown black senator became president before him - and to the adulation of the liberals, to which Trump had once belonged, who sang Obama's praises at a rock concert.

Even now that he is president-elect, Trump cannot emerge from under the shadow of his rock star predecessor, whom the liberals regard as a mixture of cool intelligence and vision.

But beyond the white privilege of the "old boy" network, there is the aspirational privilege of underprivileged whites. Like the patriarchy and the class system, race primarily serves the top dogs, not the lower classes. In fact, racial supremacy has been used since its invention to control the anger and frustration of ordinary and poor whites in two ways.

Firstly, although many whites have always been almost as economically disadvantaged as other "inferior" groups, their sense of belonging to the "superior" group helps distort their subordinate reality and absorb their frustrations.

Secondly, when these frustrations threaten to bubble over, this illusion of superiority helps to channel anger away from the real authors of white underprivileged towards softer targets, namely "inferior" ethnic, religious and racial groups.

This is what the fascists and Nazis in Europe expertly did in the first half of the 20th century, to devastating effect. Moreover, in its efforts to recapture an idealized and distorted "golden age" before "decay" set in, white supremacy bears striking similarities to supremacist Islamist and militant discourse.


As unchecked neoliberal economics creates a growing underclass of unemployed whites in the US and many parts of Europe with no prospects, the conditions are ripe for the rise of a similarly delusional and destructive white nationalism that can potentially wipe out everything multicultural progressives hold dear and lead to large scale conflict.

Donald Trump Proposes Two Illegal Responses to Flag Burning

by ARI MELBER , FRANK THORP V and MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR
NOV 30 2016

As the incoming head of the federal government, Donald Trump's words matter.

When a president-elect advocates two blatantly illegal punishments for Americans engaged in free speech, as Trump did Tuesday morning, it is significant. Trump's unusual statement has an immediate impact on civic norms and the political climate, regardless of whether one views it as a ploy for attention or a deliberate step towards illegally cracking down on free speech.

"Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag," Trump wrote on Twitter, "if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!"

There are no criminal consequences for flag burning, however, because the Supreme Court has twice ruled that flag burning is a type of political expression. That means it is protected from government punishment by the First Amendment, regardless of what Congress or the president thinks.

Legal experts say it's not a close call.

"This is protected speech," said Columbia law professor David Pozen. "The Supreme Court struck down flag burning laws."

While Trump's remarks did not cite any actual acts of flag burning, the topic was a major legal and political controversy in the late 1980s. The issue came before the Court twice, in fact, because Congress and state legislatures separately tried to ban flag burning.

Pozen, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and Judge Merrick Garland, emphasized the flag cases are settled law.

"It's very hard to imagine the Court overturning them now," he tells NBC News.
While it is flatly unconstitutional to jail a citizen for burning the flag, Trump's suggestion of stripping citizenship in response is even more extreme.

Asked if such a punishment has been contemplated for acts of political dissent, constitutional law professor Frederick Lawrence told NBC News, "First time I've ever heard of it."

"It's disturbing to suggest we should punish speech we disagree with," said Lawrence, a visiting professor at Yale Law School, adding that it is especially concerning coming from "the ultimate head of the federal government."

It is unconstitutional to strip citizenship for most crimes, and the Supreme Court has overruled attempts to do so for more grave matters than flag burning.

In a broad 1958 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the government could not revoke citizenship as punishment for desertion.

"The deprivation of citizenship is not a weapon that the Government may use to express its displeasure at a citizen's conduct, however reprehensible that conduct may be," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren.

The case struck down such an effort as a violation of the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, noting the repressive instinct to strip citizenship is a "form of punishment more primitive than torture."

The only way an American citizen can lose citizenship, under federal law, is by taking explicit action to "voluntarily" show intent of "relinquishing" citizenship.

Examples include formally declaring allegiance to another state, renouncing citizenship before a U.S. consular officer while abroad, or taking violent action to overthrow or "levy war against" the United States.

While Trump's proposed responses to flag burning are legally extreme, public criticism and condemnation for flag burning has long been widespread and bipartisan.

In 2006, 65 senators voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. That effort, which failed to reach the supermajority required for amending the Constitution, did not mention jail time or revoking citizenship as a punishment. The measure was backed by most Republicans and a third of the Democratic caucus, while prominent Democrats like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer opposed it.

As an alternative, Clinton proposed legislation to ban flag burning designed to "promote violence." The symbolic legislation was legally redundant, since incitement is already a crime, regardless of the presence of a flag.
Burt Neuborne, a civil liberties lawyer who defended flag burning in several prominent cases, said that while the right to burn the flag is now a nonpartisan legal "consensus," it remains ineffective in the court of public opinion.

"It is not an effective way to protest," he told NBC News. "It outrages more people than it engages, and ends up being counterproductive, but it is legally protected."

On Tuesday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said he agreed with the high court on the issue.

"The Supreme Court has held that that activity is a protected First Amendment right, a form of unpleasant speech," said McConnell. "And in this country we have a long tradition of respecting unpleasant speech. I happen to support the Supreme Court decision on that matter."

Meanwhile, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, told NBC News Tuesday evening that "I would hope I could restrain myself but I'd probably want to beat the crap out of 'em," if he saw someone burning a flag.

Manchin said he supports the First Amendment, and wouldn't say that he would like to make burning the flag illegal, but said if someone wants to the burn the flag in West Virginia they should instead "just leave."


"If you don't like us, if you're that upset with the flag that represents the greatest country in the world, leave," Manchin said, "Just leave. Don't burn the flag just leave." 

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Undocumented immigrants face deportation under Trump

Aljazeera
11/29/2016

Undocumented immigrants in the US face an uncertain future with the coming Trump presidency.

Hundreds of thousands of young immigrants living in the United States illegally have willingly come out of the shadows and identified themselves to the Obama administration on the promise that they would be safe from deportation and allowed to work.

Some may now regret that decision as President-elect Donald Trump has promised to immediately scrap the program that protected them.

If he does, it is not clear whether he would take action against the more than 741,000 participants of the amnesty program. But if he decides to pursue them, the government now has their addresses, photographs and fingerprints.

Nancy Villas, 20, was among the first to apply for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in the summer of 2012, waiting in line for hours at a sign-up site at Chicago's Navy Pier.

Since then she has been working part time at a child-care centre to pay for college classes. Now she is worried that she may eventually be forced to return to Mexico, a country she left when she was nine years old.

"I knew it was the only way to have better opportunities," Villas said. "I took the risk without thinking that somebody would want to take it away."

Potential deportations under Trump

Trump made illegal immigration the cornerstone of his campaign, promising to build a massive wall along the Mexican border and deport millions of people living in the country illegally.

Once he takes office, Trump can almost immediately rescind the promised protection and can probably make the accompanying work permits void.

But there is little to suggest that he would move swiftly to deport participants in the program. In a post-election interview with CBS' 60 Minutes, Trump said that he would focus initially on criminal immigrants living illegally in the US. He said that could be about

Mark Krikorian, executive director for Center For Immigration Studies, said the fears of  participants in the program may be overblown.

"Unless there's a crime issue, or something specific that's going to draw attention to an individual, I can't see how they'd be a priority," said Krikorian, whose think-tank describes itself as low-immigration, pro-immigrant.

President Barack Obama initiated the program to shield young immigrants from deportation , some of whom don't even remember their native countries.

It didn't give the immigrants legal status, only "deferred action" - meaning they wouldn't face deportation while they participated. Also, there was never a guarantee that it would last beyond Obama's term as president.

Inclusion v 'illegal amnesty'

John Sandweg, who helped craft the program, said the White House and the Department of Homeland Security considered that a future president could end it. But at the time, he said, it appeared that revoking already approved protections would be politically difficult.

"These are the kinds of kids you should bring out of the shadows," said Sandweg, a former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "I don't think anyone envisioned a President Trump when this was created."

Trump wasn't subtle about his opposition to the program.

He called it an "illegal amnesty" and promised to "immediately terminate" it. Since winning office, Trump has said that he will nominate immigration hardliner Senator Jeff Sessions as attorney general. 

When the program started, the Obama administration suggested that application files would not generally be used for enforcement efforts. US Citizenship and Immigration Services addressed the concern in its published "frequently asked questions", saying that information would be shared with enforcement officials only if someone "meets the criteria" for deportation proceedings.

But revoking the deportation protection would make those young immigrants almost immediately eligible to face deportation.

Sandweg said going that after participants would be a massive logistical undertaking that would only worsen backlogs in an already overburdened immigration court system in which many wait years for a final decision.


Adding about 750,000 to the court system "would do nothing for public safety," Sandweg said.

Lufthansa Pilots on Strike Again, 816 Flights Canceled

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
NOV. 29, 2016

BERLIN — Pilots at German airline Lufthansa are on strike again after a two-day break in their campaign of walkouts.

The company has canceled 816 short-haul flights scheduled for Tuesday. The walkout by the Cockpit union is to be followed Wednesday by a strike hitting both short-haul and long-haul services.

Lufthansa has canceled 890 flights scheduled Wednesday.

The strikes follow four consecutive days of walkouts last week. Lufthansa and Cockpit are far apart in a pay dispute that has dragged on for more than two years.

Lufthansa on Monday failed to persuade a Munich court to issue an injunction blocking the latest strike. The company says that around 82,000 passengers will be affected by Tuesday's walkout and 98,000 by Wednesday's.




======================================

We support Lufthansa Pilots Union

Monday, November 28, 2016

Trump still facing concerns about white supremacists

Bill Barrow and Jonathon Lemire
11/28/2016

Donald Trump's disavowal this past week of white supremacists who have cheered his election as president hasn't quieted concerns about the movement's impact on his White House or whether more acts of hate will be carried out in his name.

Members of the self-declared "alt-right" have exulted over the Nov. 8 results with public cries of "Hail Trump!" and reprises of the Nazi salute. The Ku Klux Klan plans to mark Trump's victory with a parade next month in North Carolina. Civil rights advocates have recoiled, citing an uptick in harassment and incidents of hate crimes affecting blacks, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, gays, lesbians and other minority groups since the vote.

The president-elect has drawn repeated criticism for being slow to offer his condemnation of white supremacists. His strongest denunciation of the movement has not come voluntarily, only when asked, and he occasionally trafficked in retweets of racist social media posts during his campaign.


Further, Trump has named Stephen Bannon, the conservative media provocateur who shaped the final months of Trump's campaign, as a White House chief strategist who will work steps from the Oval Office. Bannon's appointment has become as a flashpoint for both sides.

Trump's detractors and his "alt-right" supporters broadly agree on one thing: It may not even matter what Trump himself believes, or how he defines his own ideology, because his campaign rhetoric has emboldened the white identity politics that will help define his administration. "Alt-right" is an offshoot of conservatism mixing racism, white nationalism and populism.

"Those groups clearly see something and hear something that causes them to believe he is one who sympathizes with their voice and their view. ... Donald Trump has to take responsibility for that," said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, a black Democrat. He was among 169 members of Congress who signed a letter opposing Bannon's White House appointment.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer said he believes Trump, Bannon and the "alt-right" are "all riding in the same lane." Spencer explained that neither Trump nor Bannon is a movement "identitarian," Spencer's preferred term for his racially driven politics. But Spencer said Trump's election validates Spencer's view that America must reject multiculturalism and "political correctness" in favor of its white, Christian European heritage.

Spencer's group, the National Policy Institute, drew headlines for its recent gathering where some attendees mimicked the Nazi salute as they feted Trump. Spencer told The Associated Press the salutes were "ironic exuberance" that "the mainstream media doesn't get."

But at the Anti-Defamation League, which tracks incidents of anti-Semitism, Oren Segal said it is part of a disturbing postelection atmosphere tied to Trump's 17-month campaign.

Before, Segal said, it wasn't surprising for the ADL to get calls about a swastika, the Nazi insignia, defacing public or private property. "What's surprising now," he said, "are the references to the campaign" in the incidences. "'Make American White Again' ... 'Go Trump' with the swastika," he said. "That is unique."

Trump was asked about the rash of incidents during a postelection interview on CBS' "60 Minutes." Trump said he was "saddened," and he looked into the camera and said, "Stop it." But Trump has steadfastly defended his hiring of Bannon, who previously led Breitbart News and in July described it as a "platform for the alt-right" — just a month before he took the job running the Republican nominee's campaign.

Jared Taylor, editor of the white supremacist magazine "American Renaissance," said Trump bears some responsibility for his pitched rhetoric, which included describing Mexican immigrants as "rapists" at the outset of his campaign and proposing a ban on all Muslim immigrants. But Taylor said Trump is still unfairly maligned as a white supremacist and racist because he "cares about Americans already here."

But white supremacist imagery was a common sight at Trump rallies. Pepe the frog, a cartoon character appropriated by the white supremacist movement on social media, appeared on dozens of T-shirts and signs. The "Make America Great Again" motto was seen by some as a call back to the nation's simpler, whiter, past. While Trump's campaign never actively courted votes from the movement, it did recognize the long-term fears that some whites feel about immigration.

Taylor insisted, "There's nothing Ku Klux Klan about any of this."

But, in fact, Trump drew Klan backing.

As part of his prolific Twitter use, he has retweeted white nationalist accounts and a famous quote of Benito Mussolini, the 20th century fascist leader of Italy, saying "It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep." In February, Trump declined to repudiate former Klan leader David Duke during a CNN interview. Afterward, Trump blamed the move on a faulty earpiece, only to come back days later and offer an explicit condemnation.

He has several times fallen back on the excuse of merely retweeting when asked about his controversial social media behavior. In February, he retweeted a message from the account of a neo-Nazi, which came shortly after he retweeted false crime statistics that dramatically overstated the number of whites killed by blacks.

"Bill, am I gonna check every statistic?" he asked Fox News host Bill O'Reilly at the time. "All it was is a retweet. It wasn't from me."

While Trump is quick to blast his foes on Twitter — in recent days that includes The New York Times and the cast of the Broadway musical "Hamilton" — he has yet to proactively condemn racist acts his win has inspired. His eldest son, Don Jr., has used Twitter to liken Syrian refugees to a poisoned bowl of Skittles candy, and he has posted images of Pepe. And Trump's rise to political celebrity came as he peddled the falsehood that the nation's first black president, Barack Obama, was born in Africa, not in the United States.

In an interview last week with The New York Times, Trump did denounce the white supremacist movement when asked, saying "I condemn them. I disavow, and I condemn." But he has yet to convene the traditional news conference held by a president-elect in the days after winning where he could potentially face more pointed questions about it.

The ADL's Segal called Trump's answers when questioned an important step to "allay any illusions" white supremacists have about their place in a Trump administration.

But Ben Jealous, a former national president of the NAACP, went a step further, saying Trump should "pull a George Wallace." The segregationist Alabama governor ran for president on white identity politics but years later publicly apologized for his views.


Trump "shouldn't just disavow the worst behavior of others," Jealous said, "but take accountability for the worst behavior he's engaged in himself."

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Hackers are holding San Francisco’s light-rail system for ransom

Nov 27, 2016

‘You Hacked, ALL Data Encrypted’

San Francisco Municipal Railway riders got an unexpected surprise this weekend after the system’s computerized fare systems were apparently hacked. According to the San Francisco Examiner, the MUNI system had been attacked on Friday afternoon.

MUNI riders were greeted with printed "Out of Service" and "Metro Free" signs on ticket machines on late on Friday and Saturday. MUNI first became aware of the intrusion on Friday, according to the Examiner.

Computer screens at MUNI stations displayed a message: "You Hacked, ALL Data Encrypted. Contact For Key(cryptom27@yandex.com)ID:681 ,Enter." MUNI Spokesman Paul Rose spoke to the Examiner and noted that his agency was "working to resolve the situation," but refused to provide additional details.

Reached by email, the hacker confirmed he was seeking a deal with MUNI to undo the damage:

we don't attention to interview and propagate news ! our software working completely automatically and we don't have targeted attack to anywhere ! SFMTA network was Very Open and 2000 Server/PC infected by software ! so we are waiting for contact any responsible person in SFMTA but i think they don't want deal ! so we close this email tomorrow!

In September, Morphus Labs linked a hacker by the same name to a ransomware strain called Mamba, which employs tactics similar to those demonstrated against MUNI.

This isn’t the first California organization to face such an issue: earlier this year, Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center discovered that its files were being held for a $3.6 million ransom. Ransomware attacks typically occur when a malicious file is downloaded onto a computer and executed. Once a victim pays the demanded ransom, the files will be decrypted.


Representatives of MUNI did not immediately responded to a request for comment. We’ll update this post if we hear more.

Trump’s bogus claim that ‘millions of people’ voted illegally for Hillary Clinton

November 27, 2016

“In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”
—President-elect Donald Trump, in a tweet, Nov. 27, 2016

Angered by demands for a recount in the three states that gave him an electoral college victory, President-elect Trump made a bold but unsubstantiated assertion in a tweet — that “millions of people” voted illegally in the presidential election. He suggested they voted for Hillary Clinton, who now leads in the popular vote by 2.2 million votes, and thus he actually also won the popular vote.

Winning the electoral college is all that counts in the presidential race. But losing the popular vote by such a substantial margin apparently gnaws at Trump. Is there any basis for his claim?

The Facts

The simple answer is no. This is a bogus claim with no documented proof.

Our colleagues at snopes.com and PundiFact have already examined this claim, back when it was hot in the right-wing blogosphere, not a statement made by a future U.S. president. The whole thing started with a few tweets by a self-described conservative voter fraud specialist, Gregg Phillips.

These claims were then picked up by such purveyors of false facts as Infowars.com, a conspiracy-minded website that, among other things, claims that no one actually died in the Sandy Hook shootings. One article described Phillips as being affiliated with voterfraud.org but in reality he claims to be founder of votestand.com, supposedly an app that detects vote fraud. Phillips also has claimed that Obamacare is the “biggest voter registration fraud scheme in the history of the world” because it provided opportunities for voter registration.

In any case, Phillips made this claim — and then has refused to provide any evidence to back it up, even though reporters have asked:

“He said he has chosen not to release more information because he is still working on analyzing the data and verifying its accuracy,” PundiFact reported. “Phillips would also not say what the data is or where it came from, or what methodology he used.”

It’s certainly rather odd that Phillips would make such a claim before he had verified whether it was true. He did not respond to a query from The Fact Checker after Trump tweeted, though he gleefully celebrated anger at his claim.

Back when Trump was trailing in the polls and was threatening to dispute the election results because the system was “rigged,” we’ve previously given Trump Four Pinocchios for making a number of bogus claims about alleged voter fraud.

Among other things, Trump falsely asserted that illegal immigrants were tipping the results in elections, based on a misinterpretation of disputed data. Even the researcher who produced the data said his findings were being taken out of context by Trump: “Our results suggest that almost all elections in the U.S. are not determined by non-citizen participation, with occasional and very rare potential exceptions.”

A representative of the Trump campaign did not respond to a request for evidence of Trump’s claim. It’s worth noting that, unlike Trump, Phillips claims that he does not assume that all of the alleged illegal votes were cast for Clinton.

The Pinocchio Test

Simply put, there is no evidence that “millions of people” voted illegally in the election.

Now that Trump is on the verge of becoming president, he needs to be more careful about making wild allegations without little basis in fact, especially if the claim emerged from a handful of tweets and conspiracy-minded websites. He will quickly find that such statements will undermine his authority on other matters.


Four Pinocchios