Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

The Slow Violence of American Fascism: Candace Owens at University of Pennsylvania



 
It’s hard to imagine a better example of just how far the far right will go to weaponize the first amendment to the ultimate ends of repressing dissident voices than Candace Owens’ appearance at University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), April 2019. While we might be tempted to merely point out that her race-baiting name-calling of ANTIFA as “the new KKK” is as historically false as it is morally obscene, the issues are actually far greater and they begin with University of Pennsylvania’s administration. I’d like to make an argument that may be as unpopular on the left as it plainly is on the right (despite the latter’s patent mendacity on this point) that I think makes clear some of the real issues with the presence of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) on college campuses—including my own—but also reveals something far larger and more menacing in scope, namely, the face of contemporary American fascism on the battleground of the university.

First, Candace Owens has a right to be invited and to speak at UPenn. And at any university campus. 

Second, university administrations have the crucial responsibility not merely to vet speakers, but to advertise for them honestly and forthrightly. I don’t know with what due diligence university decision-makers approached the possibility of Owens’ visit to U. Penn, but what I do know is that, if they’re like my own university when TPUSA tried to establish a chapter here, it didn’t extend much beyond a gander at the TPUSA website mission statement. UPenn’s advertising of the event suggests something less than what a cursory vetting would require. As I’ve shown, TPUSA’s mission statement is profoundly deceptive; it’s aim is to provide cover for university administrations who can use it to claim innocence if things go bad. It allows for universities to claim they’re giving equal time to conservative voices. The problem is that Candace Owens is not a conservative—not, at least, unless “conservative” now means “racist,” “anti-Semitic,” “misogynist,” and rabidly anti-Islam.

To invite Owens on the basis of the TPUSA mission statement is thus manifestly dishonest. Owens is not merely a “controversial” figure, and she is not a conservative. If UPenn wants to invite an Alt-Righter applauded by Paul Joseph Watson, Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, and Jeanine Pirro (less loved now by Ye), who actively promotes conspiracy theories, grotesquely distorts the history of slavery in America, claims that the Democratic Party is actually worse for African Americans than being commodified as human chattel, and is, according to Joshua Shanes of Haaretz, beloved by the Trump GOP because she “sells their brand of fascism,” fine. But UPenn has a critically important duty to tell us who Owens is, and advertise her appearance with the facts. They didn’t. 

Here are the facts. Candace Owens:
·     Is cited as the primary inspiration for a terrorist massacre of Muslims. 
·     Feels comfortable making an approving claim about Hitler’s “if he’d just remained with Germany” intentions. 
·     Is affiliated with a host of conspiracy theories whose ideological agendas are white nationalist, ethnostate racist, and nativist—including the absurd view that the Christchurch, New Zealand terrorist attack on a mosque was motivated by the “Left.”
·     Has tweeted images that include white genocide conspiracy theorists. 
·     Denies the historical reality of the Southern Strategy.
·     Promotes the “Democrat Party Plantation” conspiracy theory and the view that being a black Democrat is tantamount to selling oneself into slavery.

It’s no accident that Owens would come to U. Penn ready to take advantage of the opportunity to call ANTIFA the new KKK—however laughably contrary to fact and a text-book example of the fallacy of projection. Moreover, it takes little more than a perfunctory Google search to locate every bit of this list and so much more.  It’s simply morally incumbentof UPenn administration to inform its campus community what exactly “controversial” means, and to direct the sponsoring student organization, the College Republicans, to do the same. 

There are, in fact, two critical questions here:
1.    Did decision-makers at U. Penn perform their due diligence vetting Owens and TPUSA? If so, what governed their decision to give the green light to the College Republicans?  The right answer is “respect for first amendment rights.” But that respect absolutely is not permission to engage in false or misleading advertising. And that suggests that UPenn administration did not perform their due diligence, or at least that they didn’t follow up with council to the College Republicans about what honest advertising requires.

2.    If due diligence by UPenn was conducted, why do the College Republican advertising posters make it appear as if Owens is a conservative—that is, just another Republican sponsored by college Republicans? Why don’t they reflect some semblance of in just what “controversial” in her case actually consists? This Campus Reform (a far right hit machine whose raison d’etreis to harass, vilify, and silence professors) copy of the poster implies Owens is a patriot, and presumably a Republican. It quotes Kanye West’s earlier tweet, but it offers not even a hint of what a “conversation” with Owens might be about, or that some of the possibilities of that conversation may involve precisely the racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Muslim rhetoric for which she is known. Students becoming acquainted with Owens and TPUSA for the first time would have no idea from this misleading poster what #BLEXIT is really about. They might not be aware of Owens’s Tweet about Cesar Sayoc insisting that his multiple package bomb threat was a leftist conspiracy. They might not know about the McCarthy-esque Professor Watchlist.

Members of Philadelphia ANTIFA, of course, know exactly what Candace Owens is all about, and their protest was to make sure the public knew what Candace Owens and TPUSA is about. I do not condone the use of violence under any circumstances. Full stop. And ANTIFA committed no act of violence. To thus accuse ANTIFA of violence in this instance—to claim that that they’re the new KKK—is absurd not merely because they’rethe anti-fascists, but because the worldview actively promoted by Owens is both violent and fascist—indeed, violent precisely becauseit is so profoundly fascist.

Any rational person living through these dark times in the land of the free, home of the brave must recognize that the prohibition against violence does notmean that we’re not well over-due for a profoundly important discussion about what constitutes “violence.” About one thing I am perfectly clear: violence is not reducible to the street brawls of which Owens, standing high up on a park bench to make her #Blexit pitch over the ANTIFA gaggle, had not the slightest fear at UPenn—but which she’d apparently solicit to distract us from the violence to which she is a party:

Violence is a planet suffocated by toxic waste.Violence is a woman forced to carry to term the fetus of the father who raped her.Violence is the police brutality routinely condoned by the far-right.Violence is a white-supremacist terrorist massacre at a mosque, a church, a synagogue.Violence is a country that values its guns over its people.Violence is the wrenching of children away from their refugee parents.Violence is a million species on the brink of extinction.Violence is dying from treatable disease because of lack of access to health care.Violence is a president who actively solicits praise and approval from autocrats and butchers.Violence is a country whose institutions have been expropriated by kleptocrats.Violence is a future of a planet burnt down to the ground by unrelenting human excess and greed.Violence is the worldview personified by Owens, by Charlie Kirk, by Stephen Miller, by Sean Hannity, by Alex Jones, by Donald Trump.

Such a worldview is, in short, fascist: an ideologically informed essentially kleptocratic ideology that utilizes a wide array of violence “justified” to carry out an array of “theories”—conspiracy, eugenicist, patriarchal, “free market”—that insure the maintenance of a hegemonic class of beneficiaries defined by race, class, sex, and access to wealth and weapons. The goal of its mercenaries is to subvert democratic institutions and practices through the union of corporate ambition and state power. In its current incarnation in the United States, we’re witness to the institutionalization of fascist objectives both as de-regulative, for example, the gutting of environmental protections, and regulative—for example, the obscenely repressive “fetal heartbeat” laws recently passed in Georgia and Alabama, apparently endorsed by Owens: “Pro-choice = Murdering your offspring.” (Tweet, 5.12.19)

Violence does not characterize the small cadre of ANTIFA activists on scene at Owens’ arrival at UPenn. They yelled at her, in some cases obscenities. They filmed her. Some folks—don’t know whether they were with ANTIFA or not—filmed her and tried to ask her questions about the infiltration of TPUSA by KKK operatives. The video Owens provides does not include the leveling of any audible threats, nor does anyone accost her in any fashion.1In fact, Owens obviously feels perfectly safe. How do I know? She climbs on top of a park bench, presumably, to be able to garner greater attention. Had she felt in any way threatened, she would certainly not have made her person so fully vulnerable. But she did. She remains there for more than a full minute. Then she gets down, and walks slowly, chatting along the way, into the building, calling out ANTIFA as the new KKK. She’s clearly afraid of no one.

These facts, of course, in no way prevent the white nationalist website Breitbart from running an inflammatory headline “ANTIFA threatens Candace Owens event at University of Pennsylvania,” or from posting ANTIFA tweets aimed at “shutting down” the event.2Someone even tweeted something about throwing a tomato at her. We don’t see that in the video. But if so, is that OK? No.Candace Owens has the same right to safety we all do. The incalculable irony is that the worldview Owens actively espouses is guaranteed to insure a world—in fact, a planet—vastly less safethan the one where she feels secure enough to climb up on a park bench and chat with those closest to her instead of answering tough questions. But answering tough questions would require courage and honesty—not qualities Owens is known for, although she does have the “guts” to blame African Americans for slavery.3

The Breitbart click-bait piece also cites an incident from last Summer where Owens and fellow TPUSA chief Charlie Kirk were allegedly harassed out of a restaurant because, claims Owens, she is black. The point, of course, was to bolster the demonizing of ANTIFA as the new KKK. The problem is that it’s groundless. ANTIFA’s protest of Owens is because she promotes a worldview that’s consistent with conspiracy theory driven white nationalism—that she is in fact the racist, and nothing supports the claim that ANTIFA promotes a racist ideology. Quite to the contrary, in fact.

Fact is, Owen’s characterization of ANTIFA’S motives as racist is false, but it’s also simply mercenary. That the protesters at UPenn were pelleting her with questions about her support for white supremacist conspiracy theories makes pretty clear where they stand. I’m sure Owens isn’t deaf. In fact, I’m sure she knows that calling ANTIFA the new KKK is intended to distract us from Owens’ own courting of white nationalist figures. It affords her the opportunity to make the racist politics of TPUSA appear rational by comparison; it makes her the victim—a theater performance she has perfected and knows will be filmed. She knows her faux-martyrdom will be front-page at outlets like Breitbart. The irony, again, is that if Owens seems to be just fine standing up on that park bench, it’s not only because she knows she’s safe, but because she knows she’s staged an incident to promote a political agenda that, given its own dangerously faulty or false premises, will make the world profoundly unsafe for the very people she’s chatting with at that moment—especially young black men. That is violence.

And it’s no wonder at all that it’s not only Breitbart, but the full weight of the white supremacist blogosphere that exploits the UPenn event, including Campus Reform,4Powerline,5and One American News,just for example. 

What’s most disappointing, however, isn’t that far right conspiracy theory machines would come out swinging in defense of Owens. It’s not that Owens uses her TPUSA platform to demonize whatever gets in the way of her Alt-Right propaganda program. She not only calls ANTIFA the new KKK, The Democrat party a “plantation,” she also heaps scorn on sexual assault survivors like Christine Blasey Ford (“Lock her up”), says the Me Too movement “makes women look stupid,” calls feminist “manhaters,”7and supports criminalizing the constitutionally protected right to abortion, yet calls president Trump “the savior of the West,”8itself a dog whistle to white supremacists.

What’s most disappointing—and laughable—is that the UPenn College Republicans, smart young adults who should know better, defend her as “a clear pro-black figure,” “a powerful Republican voice that advocates for the black community,” and as a victim of “social ostracization because of different political beliefs,”9She is none of these. That Owens legitimately bemoans fatherlessness and the educational achievement gap in the black community as issues that need to be addressed more effectively is undermined (for anyone who does the research) not only by her support for a president whose policies are patently racist, but by her flatly false claim that affirmative action programs have not benefitted African Americans. Such a claim does, of course, support the far-right call to abolish such programs.10Let’s not be fools. Owens mixes in just enough legitimate argument to make her appear credible so that when she begins to roll out the bullshit, the conspiracy theories, and the patent lies, we’re already suckered. 

The UPenn College Republicans also applaud Owens for calling out “politicians who use fears of racism and exacerbate racial hatred for political gain” not apparently realizing that this is precisely the card Owens attempts to play against ANTIFA, or that it’s consistent with her particularly absurd CPAC claim that “racism doesn’t exist in America,” (although apparently an ANTIFA KKK does)—yet another otherwise incoherent position that supports the Alt-Right worldview with which she’s consistently associated.11Although the UPenn College Republicans insist that “a rudimentary knowledge of her [Owens’] personal history and #BLEXIT advocacy work reveals the ridiculousness” of claims that associate her with white supremacism, they neither bother to directly confront the mountainous evidence to the contrary, nor do they acknowledge that #BLEXIT is built on the unsteady sand of conspiracy theory and fear-mongering. 

None of this, however, is surprising given that the Breitbart piece aims to sucker its readers from the outset by comparing an incident that specifically demonizes a Democrat with Antifa, referring to the latter as a hoard. The Young Republicans don’t apparently get it that Owens deploys a strategy in her public speeches (well, not CPAC) similar to that of Charlie Kirk: in order to effectively utilize public presentation as a vehicle for recruitment, reserve it to topics and arguments that preserve the veneer (however thin) of conservatism, all the while sprinkling in dog whistles (ANTIFA is the new KKK) aimed at confirming the worldview of your Alt-Right base, and making sure to craft a carefully-coifed public persona that makes you look like the victim.  

And this all brings me back to where this essay began—with the right to free speech; with a right absolutely critical to a healthy democratic republic, a right that President Trump’s Trojan Horse of a free speech executive order would seek to quash. Candace Owens has a right to free speech. TPUSA should not be barred from giving speeches at universities. But university administrations have a solemn responsibility to be forthright with the campus community and the public about the violent worldview espoused by the speakers their student organizations sponsor. It seems this didn’t happen here. Indeed, had University of Pennsylvania or the UPenn College Republicans taken their responsibilities seriously, the non-violent protest would have been far greater—and the turnout of those ready to be suckered by Owens far fewer. And that would have been a first amendment success story.

Notes:

2.    Mastrangelo, Alana. “Report: ANTIFA threatens Candace Owens at University of Pennsylvania,” Breitbarthttps://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/15/report-antifa-threatens-candace-owens-tpusa-event-at-university-of-pennsylvania/
4.    Aminov, Joshua. “Philly ANTIFA promotes “shutting down” Candace Owens event.” Campus Reformhttps://www.campusreform.org/?ID=12110.
5.    Hinderaker, John. “Candace Owens fights the new KKK.” Powerline,https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/candace-owens-fights-the-new-kkk.php.
6.    One American News, “ANTIFA targets college guest speaking event featuring conservative activist Candace Owens,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8ze6ooie_w.
8.    Young, Cathy. “The trouble with Candace Owens,” The Bulwarkhttps://thebulwark.com/the-trouble-with-candace-owens/.
9.    University of Pennsylvania College Republicans. The Daily Pennsylvanian, “Why we invited Candace Owens to campus,” https://www.thedp.com/article/2019/04/candace-owens-conservative-turning-point-usa-antifa-ivy-league-upenn-philadelphia.
10.Richman, Jackson. “No, Candace Owens” blacks are actually better off today than in the 1940’s.” The Washington Examinerhttps://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/no-candace-owens-blacks-are-actually-better-off-today-than-in-the-1940s
11.Judge, Monique. “Candace Owens thinks racism is over because she has ‘never been a slave’.” https://www.theroot.com/candace-owens-thinks-racism-is-over-because-she-has-1833034080.



Friday, April 7, 2017

Trump's "Beautiful Babies" and the Profiteering Geopolitics of Death

"Beautiful little babies," he said.

It might be tempting to think that confronted with the carnage left of children's bodies by al Assad in Syria, President Trump has somehow grown into an adult, or emerged from his endless campaigning a decent human being capable of caring for some entity other than himself.

But this would be a grave mistake, and I fervently encourage my readers to resist this invitation to amnesia.

Indeed, we forget just what kind of self-absorbed reprobate Trump is at the cost of our own claim to moral agency.

And we need to remember that he is directly responsible for at least 261 deaths in  Yemin. 



Did the U.S. have a moral duty to respond to the likely chemical warfare attack?

Yes.

Should it have been through bombing an airfield?

Absolutely not.

This is so for at least three reasons:

1. This action will escalate the violence in Syria. al Assad will respond. It will be with violence. People will die. And we all know it.

2. The choice of action--cratering an air base near the scene of al Assad's act of atrocity--was a political calculation. And while this does not mean necessarily that it cannot have been an act of righteous retribution, the fact that there were and are far better alternative responses (see below) makes plain that this bombing was a calculated message to Putin--but far far more important to Xi Jinping of China  whose armies are far larger, and whose influence is far greater.

Indeed, were I vulnerable to conspiracy theories (and I'm not), I'd wonder about the incredibly fortuitous timing of the Chinese Premier's visit and the opportunity to flex this military muscle. To be clear--this isn't to suggest that Trump knew about al Assad's plans, but it is to suggest that the decision to engage in military action of any kind was surely even more attractive with Xi Jinping at the swanky Mar-a-Lago dinner table. 

That any of then could eat should give us pause.

But we'll set this aside.


3. Here's the alternative: 

Provide countries like Jordan the financial capacity and expertise to accommodate more refugees. Pursue this humanitarian objective aggressively and very publicly.

Announce immediately that the United States is prepared to take at least 100,000 Syrian refugees--particularly, but not exclusively, from the war torn regions of that benighted country.

Announce immediately that the Muslim travel ban has been rescinded.
 Establish a humanitarian aid arm of the president's cabinet devoted to helping refugees resettle in whatever country they have chosen.

Announce a new U.S. policy that the United States no longer bombs civilian populations--especially in Yemin, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria.


Announce the abandonment of drone strikes.
Announce a re-invigorated U.S. commitment to the reduction of greenhouse gases in light of the indisputable fact that one of the major factors in the Syrian Civil War was climate change accelerated drought.

It's an easy--easy--thing to clench our fists and denounce the killing of "beautiful babies." It's another to actually stand for decency, compassion, and justice. 

The courageous thing to do is to refuse to participate in perpetuating the very geopolitical violence that always demands an equally violent response.


The courageous thing to see is the global economic system and its multinational corporate kleptocrats that thrive on war.

But we're not going to open our eyes that wide. Why?

Because behind all the hand-wringing about "little babies" are the oligarchs, the nationalists, the white supremacists, and the kleptocrats--including Trump--who are poised like the vampires they really are to convert the bodies of the dead into the blood-money upon which they feed.

"Beautiful babies"?

Don't be fooled. Trump's response is no more about compassion--much less justice--than the response of his analogues in Syria and Russia.

What it is about is that collective psychosis of masculinity for whom torturous death offers the great aphrodesiac. 


What it's about are multinational money interests--weapons manufacture, fossil fuel extraction and transport, surveillance firms, communication technologies, the privatizing of clean water, the control of food security, the engineering of subjugation. These are the vampires surely salivating at their own Mar-a-Lagos over the capital conquest only geopolitical implosions of violence can offer.

"Beautiful babies"?


Hardly. Beautiful power. Beautiful profits. 
Beautiful perpetual war.

Wendy Lynne Lee

Friday, July 1, 2016

Some Thoughts on Violence, Nationalism, and Bigotry: 4th of July, 2016

-->

Photo Wendy Lynne Lee, 2015


To the editor:



It’s telling that the vote in the UK to leave the European Union is followed by calls for referenda elsewhere by nationalist, unfailingly far-right parties like France's National Front. Like our own "America First" pathology incarnated as Donald Trump, these “movements” pretend to be populist uprisings in defense of the working classes, but are in fact opportunistic exploitations of racist and xenophobic hornswaggle that, wrapped in the flag, suckers folks into voting not only against their own best interests but for a world that better resembles Game of Thrones than anything we’d want to leave to our kids. 
 
Then again, it’s not the Trumpster’s kids who’ll get their legs blown off in the next war—it’s yours.



In the face of unprecedented human migration, 65.3 million women, men, and children in 2015, decisions like BREXIT and the emergence of the ugly face of nationalist bigotry in the U.S., make it clear that the geopolitics of the planet are driven not by thoughtful deliberation, but by exploitable fear. 

To think that closing borders and building walls will protect us from terrorism is daft.  Indeed, quite the opposite is likely to be true in virtue of the fact that a world characterized by divided and competing fiefdoms, turf devoted only to their own version of “My country right or wrong!” is a world made very brittle by its own arrogant medieval territorialism.

 

The tremendous and sad irony of BREXIT, Trumpster-mania, and all forms of xenophobia is that none will have the slightest mitigating effect on the threat that endangers human life, indeed, all life, the most: climate change. We wring our hands over ISIS, all the while failing to see its biggest driver isn’t the religion that smug born-agains like Mr. Trump love to demonize; it’s the drought, flooding, loss of arable land, and lack of potable water caused by a human hubris that pours greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as if the planet’s capacity to recover is limitless. It’s the desperation that makes young men ripe for recruitment to their own religion’s version of self-righteous hatred. 

It’s the same staggering callousness to the lives of others that excuses the moral depravity of four Southern Columbia football jocks who beat animals to death for fun. Indeed, if we think that these upstanding young men are any different that the young bucks recruited by ISIS, we’re both blind and stupid. Both have been taught the appalling lesson that some life has value, and other does not.


 

Is it apples and oranges to compare a local story with international events? Hardly. What torturing nonhuman animals, demonizing “others,” sealing borders, and building moronic walls all have in common is a human chauvinism whose psychotic sense of unearned entitlement is going to burn the planet down—or, well, not the planet—just the ecological and existential conditions that make living worth the struggle. Laughable it is that we’ll risk even speedier dissent into 500 PPB just to drill the hydrocarbons we need to fuel the weapons of “the war on terror,” and in so doing create the conditions of more terrorism. 

Make no mistake about it: that lethal combination of arrogance and willful ignorance that excuses beating animals to death is not one whit different manifest as racism, misogyny, homophobia, religious intolerance, and bigoted nationalism. Exploited by those like Donald Trump or Boris Johnson to advance their own egomaniacal agendas, the ends are all the same: violence, suffering, and oppression meted out by those who think they have the right to make of “others” objects for their own use.  


Wendy Lynne Lee
Lightstreet, PA

590 words.


Saturday, June 25, 2016

The World Made Ever More Brittle by BREXIT

It is very telling that the vote in the UK to leave the European Union is followed by calls for referenda in France and the Netherlands--by their own nationalist far-right parties like France's National Front. 

The face of nationalist movements--like America's own "America First" incarnation in Donald Trump and Boris Johnson's "leave" campaign--are thinly veiled forms of racism and xenophobia wrapped in the flag. 

Even more surprising is that such movements would garner support in the UK--a union of countries whose societies reflect reason, great value for multiculturalism, and a deep sense of pride in their compassion for the plight of other peoples.

I understand that among the drivers that set BREXIT into motion is the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor in the UK. 

I understand that this is about class, and that there's a more complex story accompanied by decades of economic struggle and social injustice.

But what I also know is that what infuses the very bone marrow of nationalist campaigns like Trump's "America First!," France's National Front (Marine Le Pen), Belgium's Flemish Nationalist Party, and the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats is that fear of the "other" that, simmering just beneath the surface of legitimate discontent, readily becomes fodder for those who'd exploit it to their own geopolitical advantage.

In the face of unprecedented human migration--65.3 million women, men, and children in 2015--decisions like BREXIT suggest that the geopolitics of the planet are driven not by thoughtful deliberation--but by fear, bigotry, and the desperate attempt to save the thing that cannot be saved: the geographically bordered nation state.

To think that such decisions to close a border will protect from terrorism the turf on the other side is daft. 

Indeed, quite the opposite is likely to be true in virtue of the fact that a world characterized by divided fiefdoms--chunks of land devoted only to their own version of "Me First!"--is a world cancered by fissures and faultlines. 

It is a world made very brittle by its own arrogant and medieval territorialism.

What is the difference between the UK determining to leave the EU--and the psycho-maniacal Trumpster's promise to build a wall at the border of Mexico?

 Not really very much. 

Both aim to keep out the "other."

Both exploit shallow flag-waving patriotism to ends far more about privilege, and ethnicity, and money than about respect for country.

Both will make a very few of the already wealthy even richer.

Both will fuel the recruitment campaigns of terrorism. 

There's no doubt: the European Union is beset by many and serious problems. But these will not be solved by flag-waving claims to sovereignty--especially in a world set ablaze by climate change.
 
Especially at a time when the greatest and most profound issues the world faces demand unified global commitment--not the entrenchment of geographical borders antiquated by the hegemony of multinational corporations. 

BREXIT betokens a very sad day for the UK--and perhaps an even sadder day for the world.