POLARIZ 4

7 23 bad code on 3? error

SEE TAG POLR

see xian WAR ON XIAN XIAN NAT’L SATAN DEMONIZATION CULT WAR WHITE GREIVANCE

SEE VIOLENCE 5 POLITICAL KIRK SHOOT 9 25

see gerry

see voter suppress

see fox hype fear xeno immigrant racism violent crime

see soc media ALGORITHM, SECTION 230 GALLOWAY TWIT MUSK

see gingrich lang memo--> POLARYSIS // CHECKS BALANCE SURRENDER

see demonization/ enemy / traitor / satan / commie spiritual war /satan

see retaliation swim pool filled, i will take pain as long as you hurt THEM more

SEE VERMIN ELIMINATIONALIST RHET HYPE

see violent rhetoric violence 4 civil war

see rubber reverse projection IDENTITY VICTIM

see tribalism us vs them

aha doh see inequality

ISLAMOPHOBE

ROBT ~?

AN 5 26

I keep hearing that one of America’s biggest problems is we’re “divided and polarized.” For example, New York Timescolumnist David French: “We’ve known for a long time that America is deeply polarized, and we’ve known the problem is only getting worse.”

This is bull----. The problem is notthat we’re divided and polarized.

The problem is that a significant portion of America is buying Trump’s violent, hateful, lawless crap. Some of those buying it are white supremacists. Others are conservative fundamentalist Christians. Others are xenophobic nationalists.

I feel compassion for those who’ve been seduced into supporting Trump after being brutalized and mistreated for years by employers, big corporations, Wall Street, and America’s oligarchs. As I warned 32 years ago, widening inequalities of wealth, income, and opportunity would eventually persuade some on the losing side to support a demagogue.

But an explanation for why some of Trump’s followers have bought into his neofascism isn’t a justification for them to do so. And it’s certainly no reason for us to put aside our differences and compromise with them.

As you undoubtedly know, Trump has created a violent police state inside America. He is conducting an illegal war abroad. He has usurped the powers of Congress and defied court orders. He is taking bribes. He’s criminally prosecuting his enemies and pardoning his criminal supporters (he has even set up a slush fund to compensate them). He has gotten his Justice Department to immunize him and his family from any future tax audits. He is silencing critics. He is fomenting racism and bigotry.

None of us should fall for the false equivalency between this, and opposition to it. The contest today is notbetween “right” and “left,” as the two sides have traditionally been understood in America. It’s not even between “Republicans” and “Democrats,” as we’ve defined the two major parties over most of the past century.

No, the contest today is between democracy and authoritarianism. It’s between tolerance and bigotry. Between a multiracial, secular, inclusive society and one that believes in white Christian nationalism. Between the rule of law and neofascism.

The two sides in this contest do not merit equal weight. If we are going to have a decent society, the nation must come down on the former side.

As long as Trump has followers who support his bigotry, racism, corruption, and violence, the nation will remain divided and polarized. That is necessary and proper.

We shouldn’t “reach out, or “meet halfway,” or “find middle ground,” or “split the difference,” or any other of today’s hackneyed expressions for putting aside what divides us and agreeing.

Generations of Americans fought and died for the ideals of democracy, freedom, social justice, the rule of law, and equal opportunity. We have never fully achieved them, but they remain our ideals. Tomorrow we celebrate Memorial Day to honor those ideals and the memories of those who died for them.

There cannot be, must not be, any compromise with neofascism.

---

AN 5 26

For years, scientists have researched whether there is any connection between genetic intelligence and political preference, yet the results were contradictory. By incorporating class into the research, however, one researcher has found a startling and consistent pattern: Intelligent people are inclined to be left-wing economically if they were born poor and right-wing economically if they were born wealthy.

“In this study, I argue that this puzzle can only be understood from a gene–environment interaction (GxE) perspective,” wrote Uppsala University's Department of Government researcher Rafael Ahlskog in the journal Political Psychology. “Drawing on traditional theories of political preference formation, I argue that genetics associated with cognitive performance should cause more left-wing economic preferences if you grow up in relative poverty, but more right-wing economic preferences if you grow up affluent. Utilizing variation in a polygenic index (PGI) of cognitive performance within dizygotic twin pairs, coupled with unique register data on economic conditions for the twins, their parents, and their childhood neighborhood, I show that the causal effect of the PGI on economic conservatism is zero on average, but indeed sizable and sign-discordant by class background.”

Ahlskog added, “The GxE perspective thus has wide-ranging implications for future research attempting to integrate genetic methods into political psychology.”

In short, while intelligence does impact a person’s political preferences, smart people will lean toward conclusions that are perceived as providing the most benefit to their specific class, regardless of its specific ideological content.

To learn this, Ahlskog decided to study a large sample of fraternal twins born between 1943 and 1958 and studied by the Swedish Twin Registry (Zagai et al., 2019).

“The twins have also been connected to rich registry sources for things like education and income, as well as to the intergenerational registry, allowing the addition of the same register variables for the parents of the twins,” Ahlskog added. “A separate full population register dataset has been used to obtain information about context/neighborhood [socioeconomic index].”

Despite its robust source base, the study is not without its limitations.

“he genetic predictor is a noisy measurement that only captures a fraction of the actual heritable traits for cognitive performance,” reported PsyPost's Karina Petrova on Wednesday. “Comparing genetic differences within local twin pairs amplifies this measurement noise even further. As a result, the reported effects are likely much smaller than the actual biological impact.”

Petrova added, “The geographical and historical realities of the respondent group also matter. The individuals in this sample grew up in Sweden during the middle of the twentieth century, a period defined by the rapid expansion of the modern welfare state. Class-based politics and labor movements were highly salient in their daily lives.”

This is not the first study to demonstrate a link between intelligence and political ideology. A February study in the journal Intelligence studied 7,000 third-grade students by determining their IQs, following up with the high IQ and non-high IQ students six years later to confirm their IQs and then do so again 35 years later to assess their political views. It found that non-gifted men were more likely to be conservative than gifted men, while for women there was no difference between IQ groups and their political views.

On a related note, an April study published in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin revealed that among 1,600 people dating online, liberals overwhelmingly and disproportionately were likely to rank men who supported right-wing conspiracy theories about vaccines and election denial to be less intelligent than those who did not. Liberals were also found to reject conservatives at much higher rates than conservatives rejected liberals.

“Disclosing conspiracy beliefs in online dating profiles undermines impressions of warmth, intelligence, and trustworthiness, which are important for online dating success,” the authors wrote in their conclusion. “Right-wing conspiracy beliefs were particularly stigmatized, with liberals being harsher in their judgments and conservatives showing greater leniency.”

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjuD0nACraM

It's Not Both Sides. It Never Was.

Takes™ by Jamelle Bouie

74.3K subscribers

April 22, 2026.

Around 2012, two veteran Washington analysts — Thomas Mann of Brookings and Norman Ornstein of AEI — published a book arguing that American political dysfunction wasn't a "both sides" problem.

They argued that the Republican Party, had veered hard to the right, abandoned norms of fair play, and embraced a winner-take-all politics aimed at delegitimizing the opposition. Washington largely ignored them. More than a decade later, their diagnosis looks not just correct but understated.

Democrats have moved left on economics and culture — that's real — but they remain committed to elections, democratic norms, and governing for the whole country. The Republican Party, meanwhile, has gone completely off the rails, exemplified by the rise of Donald Trump.

To frame the core problems in American politics as a question of "both sides" is a failure of basic observation. One party is trying to preserve American democracy. The other isn't.

...

If you want more of my work you can read me over at the New York Times or subscribe to my podcast Unclear and Present Danger on the political and military thrillers of the 1990s.

https://www.nytimes.com/by/jamelle-bouie

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...

---

an hmmn

3 26

America is increasingly divided, politicians and social media say, but a new report digs beneath the surface of society to reveal what may be a “big lie.”

According to Axios‘ Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen, most Americans “are too busy for social media, too normal for politics, too rational to tweet. They work, raise kids, coach Little League, go to a house of worship, mow their neighbor’s lawn — and never post a word about any of it.”

Those Americans are the silent majority, Axios says.

“Most Americans are patriotic, hardworking, neighbor-helping, America-loving, money-giving people who don’t pop off on social media or plot for power,” they write. “The hidden truth: Most people agree on most things, most of the time. And the data validates this, time and time again.”

VandeHei and Allen point the finger at “the terminally online news junkies,” and say that they are the ones “who are detached from the actual reality.”

To prove their point, they note that “four out of five Americans don’t use X, and therefore don’t see what you see.”

“Pew Research Center found last year that only 21% of U.S. adults use X, and just 10% visit it daily. The loudest platform in politics reaches barely one in five Americans.”

Perhaps even more surprising, they say: “Did you know that during most hours of most prime-time nights, less than 1% of the country watches Fox News, CNN or MS NOW, combined?”

“Maybe,” they suggest, “it’s the very people on these platforms who are the crazy ones,” and “maybe, most people are simply normal, sane, real.”

Further making their case, they point out that Americans gave $592.5 billion to charity in 2024, more than 75 million Americans volunteer each year, three out of four Americans “gave money to a religious or other nonprofit organization in the past year, and 63% volunteered their time.”

VandeHei and Allen conclude by saying, “The next time your screen tells you America is broken, close it. Walk outside. Talk to your neighbor. Coach the team. Go to the town meeting. That’s the real America — and it’s a hell of a lot better than the one being manufactured for clicks, clout and cash.”

---

root cause SYS DEGRAD SCOTUS CU an 1 26

gingrich lang memo--> POLARYSIS // CHECKS BALANCE SURRENDER

All of the dysfunction in Congress is coming from decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court ushered in, and it is completely changing the face of American government, a legal scholar explained.

Writing for The Atlantic on Tuesday, Stanford Law School fellow Duncan Hosie said that there are two key rulings that have resulted in the downfall of Congress.

"These dynamics share a root cause: the partisan polarization that has reshaped American politics over the past four decades," wrote Hosie. "But the connection is deeper and more complex than that. Whereas polarization weakened Congress, it emboldened the Court to dismantle laws and, in the process, undermine Congress’s ability to make laws at all, reinforcing Congress’s sclerosis."

The first began during the "Newt Gingrich revolution," he argued, with "rising partisanship and institutional upheaval."

Sorting members into "distant ideological camps and normalizing scorched-earth tactics" led to absolutist politics and made bipartisan politics for the greater good rare. Instead, ideological battles were launched with Supreme Court nominees with a litmus tests for partisan purity over reasonable interpretations of the law. Even justices below the High Court have become partisan as "Republican appointees began consolidating its authority at Congress’s expense."

Under Chief Justice John Roberts, Hosie said, the Court has canceled "congressional constitutionalism." Laws passed such as the Voting Rights Act, the Affordable Care Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act and campaign finance regulations have all be undermined by the Roberts cCurt.

The latter took a hit with a collection of decisions, such as Citizens United (2010), that "dismantled Congress’s two most significant efforts to regulate private money in public elections, eroding the safeguards that protect elections as conduits of public opinion," Hosie wrote.

There's a chance one case this year could make such issues even worse. The Roberts Court "dismantling" key laws "has left Congress more detached from its electorate, diminishing its claim and role as a representative authority."

Deregulating campaign finance laws has turned politics into such a huge undertaking that lawmakers and candidate spend more time trying to raise money than they do making direct contact with voters, conducting legislative oversight or fostering bipartisanship, the legal scholar said.

"Empiricalstudies confirm that reliance on large donors depresses participation in time-intensive legislative activities — things such as bill sponsorship, floor debate and committee work," Hosie wrote. "It simultaneously redirects lawmakers’ attention toward courting high-net-worth donors and away from talking to people in their districts."

The second issue is gerrymandering. Partisan legislatures draw maps that make congressional districts more one-sided. It then ensures that members of Congress appeal to the most extreme factions of their electorate.

Hosie called the court's ruling in "Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) [the most] entrenched electoral distortion in American politics. The Court has since doubled down. Last month, Justice Samuel Alito defended Texas’s gerrymandered maps on the grounds that they reflected 'partisan advantage pure and simple' — an unabashed apologia for a practice destructive to democracy."

Drawing congressional maps to craft "safe seats" means the ideologues win. That can "marginalize moderate voices," he explained. It reduces any incentive for compromise and accountability.

These rulings have ultimately reduced the power of Congress and expanded that of the judiciary branch that was meant to be equal under the Constitution. "Substantively, it has redefined what the Constitution forbids, preemptively removing entire policy domains from democratic deliberation before voters and lawmakers can even weigh in," Hosie closed.

*Read more here.

---

AN 2 26 TCONV

A new study published today in Nature has found that X’s algorithm – the hidden system or “recipe” that governs which posts appear in your feed and in which order – shifts users’ political opinions in a more conservative direction.

Led by Germain Gauthier from Bocconi University in Italy, it is a rare, real-world randomised experimental study on a major social media platform. And it builds on a growing body of research that shows how these platforms can shape people’s political attitudes.

Two different algorithms

The researchers randomly assigned 4,965 active US-based X users to one of two groups.

The first group used X’s default “For You” feed. This features an algorithm that selects and ranks posts it thinks users will be more likely to engage with, including posts from accounts that they don’t necessarily follow.

The second group used a chronological feed. This only shows posts from accounts users follow, displayed in the order they were posted. The experiment ran for seven weeks during 2023.

Users who switched from the chronological feed to the “For You” feed were 4.7 percentage points more likely to prioritise policy issues favoured by US Republicans (for example, crime, inflation and immigration). They were also more likely to view the criminal investigation into US President Donald Trump as unacceptable.

They also shifted in a more pro-Russia direction in regards to the war in Ukraine. For example, these users became 7.4 percentage points less likely to view Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy positively, and scored slightly higher on a pro-Russian attitude index overall.

The researchers also examined how the algorithm produced these effects.

They found evidence that the algorithm increased the share of right-leaning content by 2.9 percentage points overall (and 2.5 points among political posts), compared with the chronological feed.

It also significantly demoted the share of posts from traditional news organisations’ accounts while promoting or boosting posts from political activists.

One of the most concerning findings of the study is the longer-term effects of X’s algorithmic feed. The study showed the algorithm nudged users towards following more right-leaning accounts, and that the new following patterns endured even after switching back to the chronological feed.

In other words, turning the algorithm off didn’t simply “reset” what people see. It had a longer-lasting impact beyond its day-to-day effects.

One piece of a much bigger picture

This new study supports findings of similar studies.

For example, a study in 2022, before Elon Musk had bought Twitter and rebranded it as X, found the platform’s algorithmic systems amplified content from the mainstream political right more than the left in six out of the seven countries.

An experimental study from 2025 re-ranked X feeds to reduce exposure to content that expresses antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity. They found this shifted feelings towards their political opponents by more than two points on a 0–100 “feeling thermometer”. This is a shift the authors argued would have normally taken about three years to occur organically in the general population.

My own research offers another piece of evidence to this picture of algorithmic bias on X. Along with my colleague Mark Andrejevic, I analysed engagement data (such as likes and reposts) from prominent political accounts during the final stages of the 2024 US election.

Our findings unearthed a sudden and unusual spike in engagement with Musk’s account after his endorsement of Trump on July 13 – the day of the assassination attempt on Trump. Views on Musk’s posts surged by 138%, retweets by 238%, and likes by 186%. This far outstripped increases on other accounts.

After July 13, right-leaning accounts on X gained significantly greater visibility than progressive ones. The “playing field” for attention and engagement on the platform was tilted thereafter towards right-leaning accounts – a trend that continued for the remainder of the time period we analysed in that study.

Not a niche product

This matters because we are not talking about a niche product.

X has more than 400 million users globally. It has become embedded as infrastructure – a key source of political and social communication. And once technical systems become infrastructure, they can become invisible – like background objects that we barely think about, but which shape society at its foundations and can be exploited under our noses.

Think of the overpass bridges Robert Moses designed in New York in the 1930s. These seemed like inert objects. But they were designed to be very low, to exclude people of colour from taking buses to recreation areas in Long Island.

Similar to this, the design and governance of social media platforms also has real consequences.

The point is that X’s algorithms are not neutral tools. They are an editorial force, shaping what people know, whom they pay attention to, who the outgroup is and what “we” should do about or to them – and, as this new study shows, what people come to believe.

The age of taking platform companies at their word about the design and effects of their own algorithms must come to an end. Governments around the world – including in Australia where the eSafety Commissioner has powers to drive “algorithmic transparency and accountability” and require that platforms report on how their algorithms contribute to or reduce harms – need to mandate genuine transparency over how these systems work.

When infrastructure become harmful or unsafe, nobody bats an eye when governments do something to protect us. The same needs to happen urgently for social media infrastructures.

Timothy Graham, Associate Professor in Digital Media, *Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

---}:

---

Scott Galloway on TikTok, Musk, and the Radicalization Pipeline | Best of Lincoln Square

959 views Premiered 3 hours ago #politics #lincolnsquare #democracy

:{Scott Galloway lays out the real fix for social media: end legal cover for algorithmic amplification, force competition, and age-gate the platforms that harm kids. Then he explains why TikTok (and Elon’s Twitter) supercharge polarization and radicalization. Published Sept 25, 2023. Watch the original video: [ • Society's Negative Impact On Young People ...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYMBB_WaQeI[]

(https://youtu.be/eO04Hp6Minw)

Remove Section 230 for algorithmic amplificatio Break up big tech (competition as “oxygen” Age-gate social media for minor Why TikTok is uniquely dangerouS Influence at scale: “CCP owning everything” analog The attention economy (and why it’s overpowering TikTok’s growth + why numbers may be understate Radicalization pipeline + Musk’s Twitter}:

---

AN 2 26

After being introduced as the “Greatest of All Time,” President Donald Trump used his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast to launch a partisan attack on Democrats.

“I don’t know how a person of faith can vote for a Democrat,” he told the largely conservative Christian audience. “I really don’t.”

“And I know we have some here today, and I don’t know why they’re here, because they certainly don’t give us their vote,” he complained.

Trump then turned his sights onto voter ID.

“I certainly know that we’re not gonna be convincing them to vote for a little thing called voter ID,” the president said of Democrats.

“It polls at 97 percent,” he alleged. “And even the Democrats, the people, the voters, are at 82 percent for voter ID, but the leaders don’t want to approve it.”

“It’s polling at over 90 percent,” he claimed.

According to the Pew Research Center, majorities of both parties support voter ID, with an average of 81 percent.

Trump then attacked Democrats, alleging, “they cheat.”

He also praised himself, saying, “I’ve done more for religion than any other president,” and declared, “not too many presidents have done too much for religion.”

“They want to be neutral or against. You know, the Democrats are against” religion, he charged.

---

NYT columnist David Brooks didn't mean any of it

New York Times columnist David Brooks sits next to Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google, in this image from the U.S. Justice Department’s file of late financier Jeffrey Epstein, released by the House Oversight Committee Democrats in Washington, D.C., U.S., on December 18, 2025. House Oversight Committee Democrats/Handout

:{John Stoehr December 24, 2025

David Brooks, the conservative columnist who is beloved by liberals, wrote last month that the Democrats make too much of the Epstein story. He said they’re acting as conspiratorially as the Republicans.

Brooks said he was “especially startled” to see leading progressives characterizing all elites as part of “the Epstein class.” If he were a Democrat, he said, he’d be focused on “the truth”: “the elites didn’t betray you, but they did ignore you. They didn’t mean to harm you.”

Brooks went on to say: “If I were a Democratic politician … I’d add that America can’t get itself back on track if the culture is awash in distrust, cynicism, catastrophizing lies and conspiracymongering. No governing majority will ever form if we’re locked in a permanent class war.”

Sounds noble, but he didn’t mean any of it.

Last week, it was discovered that David Brooks had palled around with Jeffrey Epstein. Pictures of him were part of a trove released by the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee. It was deduced that they were taken at a 2011 “billionaires dinner.” A 2019 report by Buzzfeed identified Brooks, among others, along with Epstein, who had pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for sex just three years prior.

Buzzfeed: “In 2011, after Epstein had been released from a Florida jail, it was an exclusive gathering, dominated by tech industry leadership. A gallery of photos taken at the event by Nathan Myhrvold, formerly Microsoft’s chief technology officer, named 20 guests, including just one media representative: New York Times columnist David Brooks.”

While defending Brooks, the Times inadvertently confirmed Epstein's presence at the dinner. “Mr. Brooks had no contact with [Epstein] before or after his single attendance at a widely-attended dinner.”

Sure, but Brooks knew Epstein was there. If he didn’t know about his crimes, which is doubtful, he still chose to write a column warning the Democrats against waging “permanent class war” without disclosing his non-trivial association with the namesake of “the Epstein class.”

It’s bad faith, up and down.

“I think that's what we get when (very) wealthy people are shaping opinion,” said Denny Carter, publisher of Bad Faith Times, a newsletter. “We can never really know the depths of their conflicts of interest, whether it's covering for a known pedophile ringleader or promoting a cause or politician or company that will benefit them financially.”

In 2023, Denny wrote a piece highlighting the importance of bad faith, which is to say, if you don’t put it at the center of your thinking about rightwing politics, you’re going to be very, very confused. He wrote:

“Republicans today support women’s sports (if it means barring trans folks from participating). They love a member of the Kennedy family. They’re skeptical of Big Pharma. They hate banks. None of it – not a single part of it – makes any sense unless you understand bad faith.”

They never mean what they say.

Denny brought my attention to that two-year-old piece by reposting it. I immediately thought of Brooks. Scolding the Democrats about demonizing “the Epstein class” while fraternizing with “the Epstein class” (it was a “billionaires dinner,” for Christ’s sake) – that’s the kind of behavior you might expect from a man who’s ready to betray you.

“You see these op-eds about supporting the fossil fuel industry and continuing to accelerate climate collapse in the guise of electoral advice for Democrats without having any idea if the writer means what they're saying or has some financial stake in promoting Big Oil and its various subsidiaries,” Denny told me in a brief interview. “You assume good faith among these writers and influencers at your own peril.”

In a 2023 piece you recently reposted, you said the world is upside down. The right loves Russia. The left hates Russia. This is confusing for those of us who remember 20 years ago. What happened?

This one, I think, is pretty straightforward. The right despised the collectivism inherent in Soviet ideology and the left was curious about how it might look in action. The fall of the USSR (eventually) led to a totalitarian fascist Russian state ruled by a vicious dictator who used religion and "traditional values" as a weapon against his many enemies, or anyone who dared promote democracy in Russia.

Listen to Putin and you'll hear a Republican babbling about “woke” this and “woke” that and positioning himself as the last barrier between so-called traditional society and some kind of far-left hellscape.

It's the same script every modern fascist leader uses, and it appeals very much to Republican lawmakers and their voters. You sometimes read stories about Americans fleeing to Russia to escape the “woke” scourge, only to deeply regret it. That's always funny or tragic, depending on how you look at it.

You say bad faith explains the upside-downness, but you also suggest the center has not held -- that social fragmentation brought us here. You even cite David Bowie. How did you come to that insight?

I've been a Bowie superfan for a while now, and like a lot of folks who spend too much time online, I've seen the viral clip of Bowie explaining the world-changing potential of the internet way back in 1999.

He was right on a few levels, but most of all he identified the internet's potential for destroying any sense of commonly held reality. Here we are today, a quarter century later, trying to operate in a political world in which there are a handful of different realities at any one time.

A traitorous right-wing mob tried to overthrow the US government in 2021. We all saw the footage. We all know what happened. Yet there are tens of millions of Americans who believe January 6 did not happen or was in fact a walking tour of the US Capitol.

We can't even agree that there was a coup attempt orchestrated by the outgoing president because social media took that event, broke it into a million pieces, and allowed bad actors to piece it back together to fit a politically convenient narrative. I wrote about it here.

You suggest that simply telling the truth won't fix things. Why?

I don't mean to sound cynical but if we've learned anything over the past decade of small-d democratic backsliding, it's that the truth doesn't mean anything anymore because of the societal fragmentation created by social media. There is no truth. We can choose our own adventure now because our phones will confirm our priors about what happened and why.

Pro-democracy folks in the US can't rely on facts and figures to win the day. They won't. The Harris campaign reached a highwater mark in August 2024 when they were ignoring facts and figures and coasting on vibes. It was a heady time because it seemed like Democrats had finally learned their lesson: good-faith “Leslie Knope” politics [facts will win the day] has no place in the modern world, if it ever did.

The right has a gigantic media complex and it's getting bigger. Twitter, CBS News and soon perhaps CNN -- all are right-coded or soon could be. Are you seeing recognition among liberals and leftists that this imbalance is unsustainable? If so, what's the plan?

Look, there are plenty of pro-democracy folks in the world with more money than they could spend in 50 lifetimes. A little bit of that money could go a long way in establishing pro-democracy media outlets that operate as propaganda outlets for the kind of liberalism that has been washed away by the right's capture of the media. Democracy needs to be sold to Americans just as fascism was sold to them, first in the seedy corners of the internet, then on Elon Musk's hub for international fascism, then in mainstream outlets run by people cooking their brains daily on Musk's site.

I'm not sure of a specific plan. I'm just a blogger. But people are awash in fascist propaganda 24 hours a day on every major social media site. It has ruined a lot of relationships and radicalized Americans who spent most of their lives ignoring politics as the domain of nerds.

There has to be a flood of pro-democracy messaging in the media and that can't happen without billions being invested in a massive network of outlets that can effectively push back on the right's unreality.

I wrote about the selling of democracy here.

The meaning of "elites" is central to the fascist project. As defined by David Brooks, they are educated liberal-ish people who drive Teslas, or used to. With an affordability crisis underway, liberals and leftists have a chance to redefine "elites" for the long haul. Thoughts?

I think engaging the right on the meaning of "elites" is probably a road to nowhere. They will label as "elite" anyone who has ever read a book or graduated from college. I would say the left can and should point out the vast gulf between real populism and fake right-wing populism. Media outlets, of course, have conflated these two because the media assumes everyone in politics is operating in pristine good faith.

But pointing out that Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are real populists while Trump and his lackeys talk a big populist game while selling the country for parts to their golf buddies and business associates could offer people real insight into what it means to be on the side of the working person. Barack Obama has toyed with the idea of rejecting Trump as a populist; I think every pro-democracy American needs to push back harder on that label because it's disingenuous and a powerful tool for fascist politicians who have nothing if they don't have at least some working-class support.

---

note victim lurk, // trump i will get in trouble for saying truth lost pals

Mario Murillo Says 'You Are Full Of The Devil If You Vote For Any Democrat'

12/04/2025 rww

Kyle Mantyla

On Wednesday night's episode of the "Fire Power" program, co-host Mario Murillo, a far-right evangelist, faith healer, and full-blown MAGA cultist, declared that anyone who votes for any Democratic candidate in the 2026 midterm elections is "full of the devil."

"What I really am excited about," Murillo declared, "is there's an intersection of when the political and the spiritual unite; when men of God, women of God are willing to, in their pulpit, to call out sin and political corruption and take a stand on all the issues, take a stand against the Democratic Party."

"You cannot help Donald Trump until you recognize that the Democratic Party has sold its soul to Satan and is now categorically working to destroy the United States of America," he continued. "We don't have a two-party system; we've got good and we've got evil."

"Folks, the midterm elections are coming up," Murillo added. "It's unfathomable to me that we would ever allow the Democrat majority. ... I literally campaigned for Donald Trump in the last election. I lost a lot of friends. A lot of doors were closed to me. But this midterm, I'm going to be shouting it from the rooftop that you are full of the devil if you vote for any Democrat. You are literally spitting on the grave of the apostles, if you, in any way, shape, or form, have anything to do with voting for [Democrats] or not voting. If you decide to stay out, you're as guilty as voting for a Democrat."

"I'm going to get in trouble for saying that," Murillo proclaimed, "but I know with all my heart, this midterm, more than any other election, is life and death."

---

---}:

RWW

10/29/2025

Kyle Mantyla

Eric Metaxas declares that Zohran Mamdani is "about as wicked a figure as we have ever seen": "I don't think I have ever seen anyone as nefarious, as wicked as Mamdani. He's frightening."

Joshua Haymes asserts that "a woman’s job is home-making": "When they neglect or reject this calling, not only does it make them miserable in the long run, it literally destroys society."

Shane Vaughn proclaims that there are "two types of Americans": "In America, we have devout Americans that believe in the ideals, and then we have liberals who do not believe in those founding ideals. That's why we say of those liberals, they are not American."

Lauren Witzke says that "TPUSA is where it is currently thanks to Nick Fuentes and the groypers steering Charlie in the right direction": "Others can try and deny it, but TPUSA and Charlie's views have evolved over time thanks to Nick."

Finally, speaking of Fuentes, he brags that following his interview with Tucker Carlson, "I am no longer the radical on the outside; I'm actually the leader on the inside."

---

MMA

October 28, 2025, edition of Fox News' Jesse Watters Primetime

JESSE WATTERS (CO-HOST): Sometimes when you get hit in the head so hard that you go into a coma, you wake up and people have to reteach you the English language. They have to reintroduce you to your family. That's how I feel like dealing with Democrats.

There are concepts that have kept civilizations thriving for thousands of years: border walls, different bathrooms, asylums. And it's like, we're trying to teach basic things to Democrats and they're not going along with it. It makes me feel like they want civilization to collapse. And civilizations have collapsed. There's no guarantee that the American civilization is going to continue to thrive and survive. If you have people, a faction of this country, dead set on tearing it down by releasing criminals, by destroying gender, by destroying the English language, you will have Rome.

And that's what you're facing with these people. And that's why Charlie Kirk talked about trying to save Western civilization. We're fighting each other. We're not really fighting China, we're kind of fighting Russia. We're really fighting Americans who want to destroy the country.

---

October 29, 2025, edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show

CALLER (GUEST): I understand all the people that are trying to leave states like New York, California, Illinois. I'm just hoping that they don't bring their politics with them.

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): I say that all the time. If you're going to move to Florida, Texas, the Carolinas, Tennessee, don't bring your idiotic left-wing radicalized policies with you and destroy the state you're moving to. There ought to be a political litmus test, seriously, because those states are thriving.

My free state of Florida is thriving. I mean, now they're going to put a referendum on the ballot to reduce property taxes because they've gone up exponentially since Covid, and if they cap that, forget it. I mean, Florida is golden, good to go. They've dealt with the insurance issue that's been a problem down here, and that's going to get better. So, you know, every state has their issues, but law and order is real down here.

MMA

---

RWW

10/24/2025

Kyle Mantyla

David Peisner @ Rolling Stone: A Company Is Building Communities for Right-Wing Christians. Some Neighbors Aren’t Happy

“Are you fed up with crime, corruption, and wokeness in your big, blue city?” says RidgeRunner CEO Josh Abbotoy. “Move here”

Liliana Segura @ The Intercept: The Absurd Prosecution of a Man Who Posted a Charlie Kirk Meme

Larry Bushart Jr. posted trolling memes on a Facebook thread about a vigil for Kirk. He’s been in a Tennessee jail ever since.

Liza Featherstone @ The New Republic: Trump’s Crusade Against Critics Is So Much Worse Than “Cancel Culture”

The liberal cancel culture of yesteryear is indeed regrettable. But let’s not succumb to bothsidesism.

Kate Riga @ Talking Points Memo: Trump Isn’t Waiting for the Insurrection Act To Turn the Military on American Citizens

President Trump teases his backup plan to use the military against Americans in blue cities on a near weekly basis.

Catherine Bouris @ The Daily Beast: Steve Bannon Reveals ‘There’s a Plan’ for Third Trump Term

Bannon divulged that there are “many different alternatives” for securing a third term for Trump.

Dan McClellan: Is biblical slavery more compassionate?

---

prompted by no kings fail? mamdaNi?

mma

10/23/2025

Peter Montgomery

President Donald Trump has launched a new “Anti Communist Club,” a fundraising gimmick that doubles as a smear campaign against his political opponents, who he calls communists and the “radical left.”

The message sent to Trump supporters makes a mockery of MAGA leaders’ recent disingenuous warnings about the dangers of divisive rhetoric:

After careful consideration, I want to present you with the ANTI-COMMUNIST CLUB Membership! It’s the highest honor I can bestow upon such an important supporter who DESPISES the radical left!

This membership is not just for anyone; YOU qualified because your profile showed you HEAVILY DESPISE known Communists like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and AOC!

Trump’s message says that would-be members must “PROVE you’re a TOP MAGA PATRIOT, and not a slimeball communist” by answering a few questions. The questions in Trump’s quiz lay the groundwork for justifying attacks on freedom of speech and academic freedom in pursuit of his “anti communist” mission. In addition to a couple questions about China, the quiz includes these:

Do you AGREE that Communism has NO PLACE in the United States of America?

YES – It’s evil and un-American

NO – I side with the Radical Left (disqualifies membership)

Do you SUPPORT President Trump’s plan to BAN Marxist indoctrination in schools and universities?

YES – Save our children

NO – Let the Left brainwash them

Should anyone caught BURNING the American flag be PUNISHED?

YES – 100%

NO – Free speech for Communists

Do you AGREE that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris pushed a SOFT COMMUNIST AGENDA on our country?

Absolutely

Not sure

No – I trusted them (disqualifies membership)

Would you SUPPORT President Trump declaring a National Anti-Communist Day to honor those who fought tyranny?

YES

NO

Which slogan BEST represents YOU?

GOD, GUNS, FREEDOM

COMMUNISM, CHAOS, CONTROL

Donations sent by MAGA supporters who want to join Trump’s new “club” go to Never Surrender Inc., Trump’s leadership PAC, which reported nearly $40 million cash on hand at the end of June.

---

:REALLY GOOD ANALYSIS

AN 10 25

A grim-faced President Donald J. Trump looks out at the reader, under the headline “LAW AND ORDER.” Graffiti pictured in the corner of the White House Facebook post reads “Death to ICE.” Beneath that, a photo of protesters, choking on tear gas. And underneath it all, a smaller headline: “President Trump Deploys 2,000 National Guard After ICE Agents Attacked, No Mercy for Lawless Riots and Looters.”

The official communication from the White House appeared on Facebook in June 2025, after Trump sent in troops to quell protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Los Angeles. Visually, it is melodramatic, almost campy, resembling a TV promotion.

The post is not an outlier.

In the Trump administration, White House social media posts often blur the lines between politics and entertainment, and between reality and illusion.

The White House has released AI images of Trump as the Pope, as Superman and as a Star Wars Jedi, ready to do battle with “Radical Left Lunatics” who would bring “Murderers, Drug Lords … & well-known MS-13 Gang Members” into the country.

Most recently, on the weekend of the No Kings protests, both Trump and the White House released a video of the president wearing a crown and piloting a fighter jet, from which he dispenses feces onto a crowd of protesters below.

Underpinning it all is a calculated political strategy: an appeal to Trump’s political base – largely white, working-class, rural or small-town, evangelical and culturally conservative.

As scholars who study communication in politics and the media, we believe the White House’s rhetoric and style is part of a broader global change often found in countries experiencing increased polarization and democratic backsliding.

White House style

In the past, national leaders generally favored a professional tone, whether on social or traditional media. Their language was neutral and polished, laced with political jargon.

While populist political communication has become more common along with the proliferation of social media, the communication norms are further altered in Trump White House social media posts.

They are partisan, theatrical and exaggerated. Their tone is almost circuslike. The process of governing is portrayed as a reality TV show, in which political roles are performed with little regard for real-world consequences. Vivid color schemes and stylized imagery convert political messaging into visual spectacle. The language is colloquial, down-to-earth.

Just as other influencers in a variety of domains might create an emotional bond by tailoring social media messages, content, products and services to the needs and likes of individual customers, the White House tailors its content to the beliefs, language and worldview of Trump’s political base.

In doing so, the White House echoes a broad, growing trend in political communication, portraying Trump as “a champion of the people” and using direct and informal communication that appeals to fear and resentment.

Trump White House social media makes no effort to promote social unity or constructive dialogue, or reduce polarization – and often heightens it. Undocumented immigrants, for example, are often portrayed as inherently evil. White House social media amplifies dramatic, emotionally charged content.

In one video, Trump recites a poem about a kind woman who takes in a snake, a stand-in for an immigrant who in reality is a dangerous serpent. “Instead of saying thanks, that snake gave her a vicious bite,” Trump recites.

Talking to the base

While some scholars have called the White House social media style “amateurish,” that hasn’t resulted in change.

The lack of response to negative feedback is partially explained by the strategic goal of these communications: to appeal to the frustrations of Trump’s deeply disaffected political base, which seems to revel in the White House social media style.

Scholars identify a large number of these voters as “the precariat,” a group whose once-stable, union-protected jobs have been outsourced or replaced with low-wage, insecure service work. These workers, many former Democrats, can no longer count on a regular paycheck, benefits or work they can identify with.

As a result, they are more likely to support political candidates whom they believe will respond to their economic instability.

In addition, many of these voters blame a breakdown in what they perceive as the racial pecking order for a loss of social status, especially when compared with more highly educated workers. Many of these workers distrust the media and other elite institutions they feel have failed them. Research shows that they are highly receptive to messages that confirm their grievances and that many regard Trump as their champion.

Trump and the White House social media play to this audience.

On social media, the president is free to violate norms that anger his critics but have little effect on his supporters, who view the current political system as flawed. One example: A White House Valentine’s Day communication that said “Roses are red, violets are blue, come here illegally, and we’ll deport you.”

In addition, Trump and the White House social media use the president’s status as a celebrity, coupled with comedy and spectacle, to immunize the administration from fallout, even among some of its critics.

Trump’s exaggerated gestures, over-the-top language, his lampooning of opponents and his use of caricature to ridicule whole categories of people – including Democrats, the disabled, Muslims, Mexicans and women – is read by his political base as a playful and entertaining take down of political correctness. It may form a sturdy pillar of his support.

But prioritizing entertainment over facts has long-term significance.

Trump’s communication strategies are already setting a global precedent, encouraging other politicians to adopt similar theatrical and polarizing tactics that distort or deny facts.

These methods may energize some audiences but risk alienating others. Informed political engagement is reduced, and democratic backsliding is increasingly a reality.

Although the communication style of the White House is playful and irreverent, it has a serious goal: the diffusion of ideological messages whose intent is to create a sense of strength and righteousness among its supporters.

In simple terms, this is propaganda designed to persuade citizens that the government is strong, its enemies evil and that fellow citizens – “real Americans” – think the same way.

Scholars observe that the White House projection of the often comical images of authority echoes the visual style of authoritarian governments. Both seek to be seen as in control of the social and political order and thereby to discourage dissent.

The chief difference between the two is that in a deeply polarized democracy such as the U.S., citizens interpret these displays of authority in sharply different ways: They build opposition among Trump opponents but support among supporters.

The rising intolerance that results erodes social cohesion, undermines support for democratic norms and weakens trust in institutions. And that opens the door to democratic backsliding.

Andrew Rojecki, Professor of Communication, University of Illinois Chicago and Tanja Aitamurto, Associate Professor of Communication, *University of Illinois Chicago

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

---

AN 10 25 RUPAR

Eric Trump’s controversial remarks — declaring that his father is guided by God and praising what he describes as a divinely orchestrated series of events leading America to this moment — are being blasted by a group of hundreds of national security experts.

“I can’t tell you how many things are lining up,” the President’s son told right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson.

“I mean, think about the fact that this book came out on Charlie Kirk’s birthday, on the same day as we have peace in the Middle East,” he said, of his new book. “You know, I mean, so many different factors are all coming together at once in the most unthinkable, unbelievable journey.”

“Look how much better humanity and our world is,” under Trump, he claimed.

“You know, we’re saving Christianity. We’re saving God, we’re saving the family unit. We’re saving this nation. I mean, you know, DEI is out the window, Benny. You know, I mean, you no longer have Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem,” Trump continued. “You no longer have Budweiser going, woke as h–, all of this is dead.”

IFrame Content

Trump claimed a resurgence in church attendance, and “a return to people, you know, valuing their children, and valuing society, and believing in the white picket fence, and what the American dream represents, and what the American dream stands for, and American exceptionalism, and peace around the world, and that people can coexist with one another without having to, you know, pick up arms and destroy each other for no reason whatsoever, other than, you know, incompetent, and, you know, and egotistical governments.”

“It’s a beautiful time, and he will go to heaven for all of that,’ he said of his father. “God absolutely guided this journey.”

The Steady State, a group of over 330 former national security officials, slammed the Trump scion’s remarks.

“Eric Trump is not talking politics,” they wrote. “Instead, he’s declaring a new moral order.”

“Framing Trump as God-guided and destined for heaven, he claims America has been ‘saved’ from DEI, protest, and pluralism. This is prophetic, authoritarian language,” they warned.

“Dissent becomes evil, and their victory becomes divine destiny.”

Former Obama head speechwriter turned political commentator Jon Favreau remarked, “We’ve moved rather quickly from ‘God saved Trump’ to ‘Trump is saving God,’ which I guess is the foundation of the new MAGA religion?”

Author Jennifer Erin Valent, winner of a Christian writers’ award commented, “No one ‘saves’ God. Every Christian should know that and be repulsed by the very assertion.”

---

DEMONIZ

AN 10 25 THOM

...Stephen Miller told us, when talking with Sean Hannity on Fox “News” in August, what that reason is, what their ultimate goal will be:

“The Democrat [sic] Party does not fight for, care about, or represent American citizens. It is an entity devoted exclusively [his emphasis] to the defense of hardened criminals, gang-bangers, and illegal, alien killers and terrorists. The Democrat Party is not a political party. It is a domestic extremist organization.”

---

AN 10 25

Most of us, whether we admit it or not, engage in a great deal of passive scrolling through social media daily.

And while the platforms have proliferated for years, experts are only now beginning to demonstrate their full impact on our attention, mental health, spending habits and politics.

Despite the benefits, social media is also creating new problems. A pressing concern is the dissemination of misinformation by political extremists, a trend amplified by the unprecedented reach of platforms like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter). When it comes to issues like immigration, many activists, experts and pundits point to social media as a vehicle for the spread of prejudice, conspiracy theories and false claims targeting immigrant and minority populations.

Even before launching his 2016 presidential bid, for example, Donald Trump used Twitter to share messages attacking immigrants and ethnic minorities with millions of people, giving him the power to dominate news cycles and shape public policy.

Does social media make people more xenophobic?

Polarizing platforms

For decades, scholars studying how people consume information about immigration have argued that print and TV news stories often portray the economic and social impact of immigration negatively.

Studies on major American newspapers and news stations show that traditional media coverage has encouraged prejudice toward Latin American immigrants and Muslims.

Does social media follow this trend? Social scientists are beginning to disagree.

Some scholars point to racist and anti-immigration messages on social media as evidence that platforms like Facebook, X and Reddit encourage users to speak freely without the constraints of social norms to a broad and diverse audience.

Other studies argue that social media creates uniquely polarizing environments where users organize themselves into political tribes that fight one another using aggressive dialogue. Even in Canada — a country often touted as pro-immigration — social media has allowed users to attack immigrants and minorities.

Users’ attitudes, however, may matter more than the specific platform.

Politically aggressive users

Recent studies from the United States and Western Europe show that social media attracts politically aggressive users who often do most of the talking in heated online conversations.

Based on my recent research on Canadian X users, I found similar results. I analyzed roughly 13,000 English-language posts discussing immigration and Canada’s housing crisis in 2023. Unsurprisingly, I discovered that many users blamed immigrants for a lack of affordable housing, including influencers with tens of thousands of followers.

In August 2023, discussions about housing on X peaked, with 3,638 posts mentioning both immigration and housing. This significant increase in online conversation coincided with federal government’s public comments linking international students to the housing crisis. The data supports the idea that Canadians were actively discussing the housing crisis in relation to immigration during this time.

Does this mean that Canadian X users are now seething with hatred for immigrants? While some are, a closer look reveals the partisan nature of these posts.

When I examined users’ identities and networks, it became clear that their anti-immigration messages were often a means of criticizing Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government. In other words, right-wing users (with large and small followings) were chiefly responsible for creating and sharing these posts, including People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier.

For instance, Fringe Albertan (about 2,500 followers in August 2023) posted in response to a post by Rebel News:

“@RebelNewsOnline Its a lie! Typical Liberal. Hes lying bc Canada is a UN member, and as a member, has signed onto an immigration pact to flood Canada with migrants, destroying our economy, social network, housing, and culture. #EndUNMembership @UCPCaucus @CPC_HQ @Buffalo_AB @BuffaloPartySK”_

Similarly, lloyd (about 50 followers at the time) posted in response to a post by CTV News:

“@CTVNews Thanks CTV News it’s no wonder why they are leaving as Canada is so poorly governed ! Housing shortage when Immigration brings millions of Migrants and never checked to see how many homes they had and shortage worst ever for Canada! Worst blunder in Canadian History! HELP.”

Right-wing social media users significantly contributed to public discourse blaming immigrants for Canada’s problems.

Some might argue polarizing content is simply a reflection of free speech.

This is true to some degree, but recent studies suggest online polarization can also threaten free societies. Algorithms designed to focus users’ attention on threats and conflict can reliably make users engage with content; this is what makes social media platforms potentially dangerous. Fortunately, users are far from powerless.

Reducing online polarization

While figures like Trump show that social media can be used to spread prejudice to mass audiences, it also matters that users often self-select into networks they like.

New studies make clear that users’ socio-political context, partisanship and behaviour seem to matter as much as the platform itself.

It turns out both platforms and users are responsible for online polarization.

What can we do about social media platforms?

Ultimately, we need socially responsible online platforms that focus less on producing outrage and division to attract users. This means including researchers, governments and civil society in designing social media interfaces and algorithms to establish reasonable community standards for sharing information and regulating users’ behaviour.

But we cannot wait for politicians to solve this problem. Even if we get platforms that focus less on outrage, trolls will still exist.

Social media’s rapid pace and the lack of consensus over online behaviour create ethical dilemmas for users everywhere. For example, many people passively scroll and react to content they skimmed, but if conflict arises later in the thread, many users are unsure how to respond or whether they should respond at all.

To see less polarizing social media content, we need to both consciously choose what platforms we wish to join (and why), and we need to cultivate better ways to handle online conflict.

Nicholas A. R. Fraser, Senior Research Associate , *Toronto Metropolitan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

---

AN 9 25

Last week's murder of MAGA activist Charlie Kirk has prompted President Donald Trump to use him as a "symbol" to promote his own "political religion," according to a historian and journalist.

In a Tuesday essay for Religion News Service (RNS), former Harvard University professor Mark Silk lamented that Trump was using the shocking public killing of Kirk as an excuse to crack down on his ideological opponents, and accused the president of creating a "political religion" centered around hate and division. He contextualized Trump's response to Kirk's murder in former President Abraham Lincoln's reflection that in the wake of tragedies, presidents should speak "with malice toward none, with charity for all ... to bind up the nation’s wounds."

"Trump has, unsurprisingly, done nothing of the sort in this time of crisis, transgressing civil religious norms with utter self-awareness," Silk wrote.

In his RNS essay, Silk reminded readers that during an interview with Fox & Friends, Trump passed up an opportunity to be a uniter and instead said he "couldn't care less" about bringing the country together. Silk contrasted Trump's approach with that of Italian historian Emilio Gentile, who said that government should seek to create a "civil religion" that is built on "a plurality of ideas, free competition in the exercise of power and the ability of the governed to dismiss their governments through peaceful and constitutional methods."

IFrame Content

"In place of a civil religion that sacralizes the political system to include those with whom we disagree, Trump has embraced a political religion that excludes them — one that, as Gentile put it, 'is intolerant, invasive, and fundamentalist, and ... wishes to permeate every aspect of an individual’s life and of a society’s collective life,'" Silk wrote.

Silk also drew a parallel between Trump's response to Kirk's death with the 1930 death of far-right German paramilitary leader Horst Wessel. After Wessel was shot, his death became a rallying cry for the far-right movement in Germany that led to World War II. Silk worried that Trump's actions were making Charlie Kirk into an American Horst Wessel, to be propagandized for today's far-right movement in the United States.

HIGH RANKING? SS ? OFFICERS SWORN IN ON FLAG WITH HIS BLOOD ON IT?

"Today, the canonization of Charlie Kirk proceeds apace. Tributes to him as a stalwart of free speech rights have come from expected and unexpected quarters, even as some are fired from their jobs for daring to criticize him. There are songs celebrating him as a martyr to a great cause," Silk wrote. "He is fast becoming the Horst Wessel of Trump’s political religion."

Click here to read Silk's essay in full.

---

an 9 25

The fatal shooting of prominent conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Sept. 10, 2025, has brought renewed attention to the climate of political violence in America. Kirk’s death reflects a sizable increase in threats against officeholders and politicians at the local and federal level.*

*Alfonso Serrano, a politics editor at The Conversation, spoke with University of Massachusetts Lowell scholar Arie Perliger after Kirk’s shooting. Perliger studies political violence and assassinations and spoke bluntly about political polarization in the United States.

Serrano: What were your initial thoughts after Charlie Kirk’s fatal shooting?

Perliger: It was a bit unusual that the attack was not against an elected official. Rarely have we seen political assassinations that are aimed at the nonprofit political landscape. Usually those people are not deemed important enough.

Secondly, and it’s something I see a lot in my research, political assassinations come in waves. We see that not only in the United States but other countries. I’ve looked at political assassinations in many democracies, and one of the things I see in a fairly consistent manner is that political assassinations create a process of escalation that encourages others on the extreme political spectrum to feel the need to retaliate. And that is my main concern. That this process creates legitimization and acceptance, that it provides the sense that this is an acceptable form of political action. This will not end here.

In 2024, there were two attempts to assassinate Donald Trump. Then, in early 2025, the residence of Gov. Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania was firebombed on Passover, and within months the U.S. witnessed the killing of Minnesota state lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, among other acts of political violence. The U.S., of course, is not immune to political violence, as we saw in the 1960s. But what stands out about this latest wave?

The data shows that there’s a substantial increase in the level of threats against officeholders at the local and federal level. What’s different now is we see an increased support in political violence from both sides of the political spectrum. Consistently, almost a quarter of the public is willing to support political violence in some form, or see that as a legitimate form of political action.

And as we see an increased political polarization, and the increased demonization of political rivals, we see the decline and disappearance of political discourse and policymaking. The bipartisan political process in Congress in the past few years has been almost nonexistent. And that spills over to the public, where the other (political) side is seen as a one-dimensional figure that is a threat.

We’ve had political polarization in the U.S. in the past, but usually it was around a specific issue like civil rights in the 1960s and the Vietnam War. But this time there is no specific issue that we can say, “If we solve this, we solve the political polarization.” The problem is that there’s no space for convergence from both sides where they can work together, so there’s no bridges they can rely on to come together.

Does it strike you that Kirk’s assassination occurred on a college campus? It seems as if college campuses have become a flash point of violence in the U.S.

Campuses are becoming more and more contentious spaces. They were always intellectual hubs where political views were debated intensively. Activism was always part of campus life. But what we’ve seen in the past year is that campus life has become in some cases more violent. And the fact that Kirk was killed on a campus is, I think, heartbreaking because campuses symbolize a place where you can engage in political debate in a way that encourages intellectual exploration.

What’s happened in the past year is that campuses are not those spaces anymore. Yes, we still see political activism, but it’s the activism that doesn’t leave any room for actual debate. It’s just two sides that are completely hostile to each other and unwilling to hear each other.

Trump on Wednesday night blamed the media and the “radical left” for language used to describe people like Kirk. He said this rhetoric is “responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today.” Any thoughts?

I agree that language and rhetoric impact people’s behavior. I’ve seen that again and again in my studies, that the discourse of political figures impacts the way people think of the legitimacy of violence. Of course, we need to understand the context here, which is that Trump himself was willing to pardon thousands of people who engaged in political violence.

So, on the one hand, I agree with him that political leaders should be responsible for how they discuss political issues. It’s important for them to convey that political discourse can be constructive. However, we need to acknowledge that our own government, in many cases, sends signals that provide encouragement and support that legitimize violence. I think it’s important for politicians on both sides to be consistent in understanding that the way they discuss their political rivals is important.

You’re an expert on the history of political assassinations. How do countries untangle themselves from waves of political violence?

Political leaders need to insist on working together. There are lots of policy areas where politicians can work together. When we see that people can work together within the political system, that sends an important message, that there is a space where we can work together. The second thing is trying to think about how the U.S. can restructure part of the political process to ensure that there is a real competition of ideas, to incentivize a constructive, productive approach that will legitimize those who are willing to engage in constructive policymaking.

Any last thoughts?

As part of my work, I track the most extremist online social media accounts, and what we see right now is a strong sense that this assassination is being celebrated by parts of the left. And that has created an escalation of language from those in the extreme right social media ecosystem. There is much more willingness to discuss issues of retaliation, an actual civil war.

And that’s my biggest worry. If you look at social media, what we see is that both sides embrace this kind of rhetoric that really concerns me. More than ever, I’ve seen calls for retaliation and a strong sense that the other side is unwilling to show any sympathy to what happened. Emotions are running very high, and I’m very worried about what may happen in the next few weeks.

Arie Perliger, Director of Security Studies and Professor of Criminology and Justice Studies, *UMass Lowell

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

---}:

an 9 25

In anarticle for *Politico*published Sunday,reporters Jessica Piper and Aaron Pellish noted that while politically motivated violence in the United States is increasing — targeting everything from state governors to Supreme Court justices — each new attack is leaving less of an imprint on the public consciousness, as Americans grow quickly desensitized to such incidents.

Piper and Pellish noted that though threats and violent acts continue to rise in frequency and severity, the attention they command, both in media coverage (newspaper front pages) and in public interest (as measured by Google searches), is waning rapidly.

They added that even shocking events like the recent assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk or the shooting of legislative figures grab headlines but slip out of view much faster than similar incidents in previous years.

This pattern, they warned, suggests a kind of civic immune system building up: exposure to political violence reduces the emotional and cognitive reaction it elicits.

"Each attack may seem shocking, but the incidents are leaving less of a mark on the national consciousness," the report said.

IFrame Content

Experts cited in the article say that when people see violence repeatedly, their early shock begins to dull, and the societal impulse to demand change fades.

Matt Dallek, a political historian at The George Washington University, told Politico: "You’d have to go back to the pre-Civil War era to find a similar level of threat and acts of physical violence against lawmakers."

They also pointed out that the scale and targets of political violence have expanded — books, social media, incendiary rhetoric, threats, even arson — moving well beyond rare, exceptional events.

Yet despite this escalation, the public's heightened exposure seems to be breeding a kind of passive normalization rather than resistance.

---

trump manta post kirk shoot

AN 9 25 CLAIM NO SUPPORT

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller was Vice President JD Vance’s guest on Monday’s edition of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” just days after the right-wing political commentator was assassinated. The suspected gunman’s motives and political beliefs remain unclear, but the vice president pinned the blame for Kirk’s murder on “left-wing extremism.”

“While our side of the aisle certainly has its crazies,” Vance declared, “it is a statistical fact that most of the lunatics in American politics today are proud members of the far-left.”

IFrame Content

The vice president did not define “lunatics,” but statistics from the Cato Institute show that the vast majority of political violence comes from the far-right.

Guest-hosting for the late organizer and activist, Vice President Vance viewers, “I wanted to zoom out and talk with Stephen [Miller] a little bit, and talk about all of the ways that we’re trying to figure out how to prevent this festering violence that you see on the far-left from becoming even more and more mainstream.”

IFrame Content

The vice president—who placed blame at least in part on the left for Kirk’s death—said, “we have to talk about this incredibly destructive movement of left-wing extremism that has grown up over the last few years, and I believe is part of the reason why Charlie was killed by an assassin’s bullet.”

“We’re gonna talk about how to dismantle that,” he continued, “and how to bring real unity, real unity that can only come when we tell the truth and everybody knows that they can speak their mind about the issues of the day without being cut down by a murderer’s gun.”

Miller, who is considered by many—including some highly respected conservatives—a skilled propagandist, on Friday spoke out against what he called left-wing violent extremism.

IFrame Content

“I’ve not shared with anybody, but the last message that Charlie Kirk gave to me before he joined his Creator in heaven was, he said that we have to dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence.”

“That was the last message that he sent me before that assassin stole him from all of us.”

“And we are gonna do that,” Miller vowed. “Under President Trump’s leadership, I don’t care how—it could be a RICO charge, a conspiracy charge, conspiracy against the United States, insurrection—but we are going to do what it takes to dismantle the organizations and the entities that are fomenting riots, that are doxing, that are trying to inspire terrorism, and that are committing acts of wanton violence.”

IFrame Content

“It has to stop,” he declared, “and my message is to all of the domestic terrorists in this country spreading this evil hate? You want us to live in fear? We will not live in fear, but you will live in exile. Because the power of law enforcement under President Trump’s leadership will be used to find you, will be used to take away your money, take away your power, and if you’ve broken the law, to take away your freedom.”

---

DEFUND LEFT SOROS PAID PROTESTERS

mma

On the killing of Charlie Kirk, political violence, and the right’s response

Written by Matt Gertz

Published 09/12/25

Charlie Kirk, a powerful right-wing activist, popular podcaster, and close friend and ally to President Donald Trump, was shot and killed while speaking at a college in Utah on Wednesday. Politicians of both parties and commentators across the spectrum, including myself, have responded with condemnations of the act as both the tragic murder of a young husband and father and an act of political violence that must be anathema if we hope to preserve our country as a liberal democracy.

Rational people on all sides of the political spectrum abhor political violence and want to ratchet down the temperature, but this requires an honest assessment of what is happening: There have been far too many cases of political violence in recent years, and the targets are not limited by party, ideology, or creed.

Yet within the right-wing media bubble, long before there was even a suspect in custody, commentators cited Kirk’s killing as proof the left is at war with them. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) on Thursday called out right-wing pundits who took Kirk’s death “as an opportunity to say we're at war so that they could get some of our conservative followers lathered up over this.” He added: “It seems like a cheap, disgusting, awful way to pretend like you're a leader of a conservative movement.”

Tillis cited two commentators in particular, but such rhetoric has been a staple throughout the right-wing media ecosystem since news broke that Kirk had been shot. It is what right-wing audiences are hearing right now — and what they have been hearing, to one extent or another, for quite some time.

“They are at war with us!” Fox News star Jesse Watters said on The Five, his network’s most-watched show, shortly after Kirk’s passing was announced.

“Whether we want to accept it or not, they are at war with us,” he continued. “And what are we gonna do about it? How much political violence are we going to tolerate? And that’s the question we’re just gonna have to ask ourselves.”

“THIS IS WAR,” posted Libs of TikTok. “Civil war,” was Andrew Tate’s take. “This is war,” commented Ian Miles Cheong. “This is a war, this is a war, this is a war,” Alex Jones said on his livestream. According to Steve Bannon, “We are at war in this country.” “We’re not supposed to say this,” posted Shaun Maguire. “But the truth is we’re at War.”

Many on the right were Kirk’s friends and are mourning his death. Some of them may fear for their own safety. But the narrative they have constructed relies on ignoring the recent spate of attacks targeting Democrats, the gruesome contemporaneous response to those attacks from some of the most influential voices on the right, and the chorus of Democratic officials who have condemned Kirk’s assassination.

There is no war, no righteous, violent struggle between a “left” and a “right.” A man was killed. His killer deserves to be brought to justice. Turning that into a “war” can only make the situation worse.

Terrorists have targeted political leaders of both parties

It is not true, as Eric Trump and both claimed in right-wing media interviews since Kirk’s slaying, that violence is “only going one way,” or, as right-wing radio host Dana Loesch put it on Watters’ prime-time show, that “it's not the right killing the left, it's the left killing the right.”

It seems both pointless and morally inappropriate to try to weigh attacks against one another to determine who has it “worse,” but it’s impossible to have a conversation if we can’t agree that political violence goes both ways.

The ideology of people who attack political figures doesn’t always map neatly onto a political party, in no small part because the assailant typically suffers from some form of mental illness. But Democrats have certainly been the targets of political violence in recent memory: In October 2022, a man broke into the home of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seeking to kidnap her, and brutally assaulted her husband, Paul. In June, an assassin allegedly murdered a Democratic state legislator and her husband and wounded a second and his wife in Minnesota. Last month’s lethal attackon the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by someone who authorities say “wanted to send a message against COVID-19 vaccines” should also be placed in this category.

It’s worth revisiting how right-wing media covered those domestic terror attacks, as it speaks to how its audience likely interprets them in an increasingly fragmented media landscape in which people can pick and choose news sources that confirm their biases.

After a man broke into the Pelosi residence and attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer, MAGA influencers claimed based on effectively no evidence that the attacker, who turned out to be a deranged individual steeped in right-wing fever swamp conspiracy theories, had actually been let into the speaker’s house by her husband for the purposes of sex and subsequently attacked him as part of a lovers’ quarrel.

Donald Trump Jr. posted a photo of a pair of briefs and a hammer on a bed with the caption: “Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready.”

For months afterwards, Fox hosts including Watters alluded to such wild claims on their nationally broadcast programs, undeterred by body camera footage from the scene of the attack or basic human dignity.

Prominent MAGA social media influencers likewise responded to the Minnesota shootings by spinning up a false profile of the killer — in reality a Trump supporter who railed against abortion and the LGBTQ community — as a far-left supporter of Gov. Tim Walz. Laura Loomer and Mike Cernovich even suggested Walz might have orchestrated the attacks as political hits.

Fox’s right-wing propagandists, meanwhile, all but buried that story. There were no soul-searching reflections about political violence targeting the left on the programs of Watters, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, or Greg Gutfeld — instead, discussion on those shows the week after the attacks was limited to correspondent reports and headline reads. The week after the CDC shooting, those programs didn’t cover it at all.

Looking further back, the leading lights of the right-wing media aggressively sought to minimize and sanitize the Trump mob’s assault on the U.S. Capitol in 2021, and they alternatively blamed “incivility” from the left for a Trumpist sending mail bombs to a host of left-wing and Democratic targets and suggested those attacks were a “false flag.” And that’s to say nothing of other attacks apparently fueled by right-wing extremism that targeted Jewish, Latino, and Black Americans in Charleston, South Carolina; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Buffalo, New York; and El Paso, Texas.

If you downplay right-wing violence against left-wing targets, it’s much easier to convince your viewers that the violence is all going in the other direction.

### MAGA wants “the Left” to be “crushed with the power of the state”

While the repeated declarations that they are at “war” with a murderous left are obviously corrosive, there have not been widespread direct calls for retaliatory violence from prominent right-wing media figures. But many are urging President Donald Trump, his administration, and congressional Republicans to respond with widespread political repression of the left and the Democratic Party.

“We can honor him [Kirk] and honor his memory and make it a living thing that we use this to take down the apparatus that's well-funded that is at the core of this anti-Americanism,” Steve Bannon said on his streaming show Friday. “It has to be a all-of-government approach. ... Let's go kick down some doors and perp walk some folks today.”

Laura Loomer, a conspiracy theorist and streamer who has Trump’s ear and regularly gets federal officials fired for insufficient demonstrated fealty to the president, declared Wednesday, “It’s time for the Trump administration to shut down, defund, & prosecute every single Leftist organization.” She later added: “All of the Leftist groups that pay for these radical protests need to be prosecuted. … More people will be murdered if the Left isn’t crushed with the power of the state.”

MAGA influencer Mike Cernovich demanded “congressional hearings now” on Wednesday, which he said should include “every billionaire funding far left wing extremism,” naming George Soros, Bill Gates, and Reid Hoffman. He also called for “massive RICO investigations now” to scrutinize “every dollar” and tagged Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel.

Former GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters echoed Cernovich, adding, “Either we destroy the NGO/donor patronage network that enables and foments” violence, “or it will destroy us.”

Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist, posted Wednesday that “the Democrat party is a domestic terrorist organization” and “terrorist Democrats will not stop. … And until they are stopped—until every single nutjob inciting this madness and cheering it on is held accountable and removed from civil society—it will not stop.” His outlet published a piece which declared that Democrats “need to be treated like the domestic terrorists they are.”

“The last time the radical Left orchestrated a wave of violence and terror, J. Edgar Hoover shut it all down within a few years,” Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo said. “It is time, within the confines of the law, to infiltrate, disrupt, arrest, and incarcerate all of those who are responsible for this chaos.”

YouTuber Benny Johnson claimed that “the modern Democrat party is a terrorist organization” and that the left-wing movement must be “ripped root and stem from our American republic and thrown into the fire where it belongs.”

Some are even suggesting that because the threat to the right is so clear, if Republican leaders don’t respond with such steps, the result will be some on the right taking matters into their own hands.

Davis posted on Thursday that if congressional Republicans don’t take “proper action” to protect “a population being hunted for sport,” then the result would be “improper reaction,” which he described as “a response that cannot be contained once it is out.”

Likewise, Cernovich wrote: “I’m choosing my words mindfully, don’t twist them. This is a prediction, not a preference. If Congressional GOP and Trump don’t act swiftly and ferociously, there will be retaliatory actions due to lawful means not being used. This is always what happens. RICO these fucks now!”

Trump appears to be responding to these demands for political retribution.

### The elephant in the room

It is impossible to have a rational conversation about topics like lowering the political temperature and pushing back against the spread of political violence when the president of the United States is interested in those issues only as a cudgel against his political opponents.

On Wednesday evening, the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal urged Trump, himself the victim of two assassination attempts, to take advantage of “an opportunity for leadership” by seeking to lower the tenor of political rhetoric.

Any other president would not need to hear such advice — but Trump’s previous responses to attacks on Democratic targets demonstrate his lack of interest in bringing the country together. He mocked the brutal assault against Pelosi, said following the Minnesota shooting that it would be a “waste of time” to call Gov. Tim Walz because he is “so whacked out,” and completely ignored the CDC attack.

In an Oval Office address a few hours after Kirk was killed, Trump characteristically ignored the Journal’s counsel. He offered a testament to Kirk’s life and promised that the shooter, who at that point had not been publicly identified or taken into custody, would be brought to justice.

But he also attributed blame far beyond the person who took Kirk’s life, saying that the “rhetoric” of “the radical left” was “directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today.” He went on to promise that his administration would go after the individuals and organizations he said “contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence,” adding that “radical-left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives.”

Trump did not name the targets of the action he promised to carry out. But a “straightforward reading of his rhetoric,” as The Atlantic’s Jonathan Chait noted, is that “the president of the United States is treating the political opposition as accessories to murder and threatening to use the full power of the government to attack it.”

On Friday, Fox & Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt pointed to “radicals” on both the right and left and asked the president, “How do we fix this country? How do we come back together?”

Trump’s response made clear that he is uninterested in doing so. He excused “radicals on the right” as people who “don’t want to see crime,” saying, “They don't want these people coming in, we don't want you burning our shopping centers, we don’t want you shooting our people in the middle of the street.”

“The radicals on the left are the problem, and they are vicious and they are horrible and they are politically savvy,” he added, before running through a litany of grievances with his critics.

That message is echoing across MAGA media, a powerful information apparatus with a rare and unmediated grasp on its audience. It will fuel more vitriol, making it harder, not easier, to have honest conversations and reduce the threat of political violence in this country.

---

facebook-algorithm-favours-polarising-politics-helps-bjp

AL JAZ

...Advantage, dominant and polarising party

“The primary interest of a platform like Facebook is to maximise the engagement and duration that users spend on its platform, so that it can sell more advertising,” says former political consultant Singh. “Due to this, the Facebook algorithm often ends up promoting the most outrageous and inflammatory content that would get emotional responses from users.”

A study by researchers at Northeastern University, the University of Southern California and non-profit tech justice organisation Upturn in the US showed in December 2019 that Facebook’s ad-delivery algorithm promotes political polarisation.

“For campaigns, such delivery may inhibit them [politicians] from reaching beyond their existing ‘base’ on Facebook, as getting ads delivered to users the platform believes are not aligned with their views may become prohibitively expensive,” the study said.

In effect, Facebook encourages putting blinkers on its users by diminishing access to diverse views through its pricing algorithm. So, in India, anyone Facebook infers to be inclined towards pro-Hindutva politics and Prime Minister Narendra Modi can be targeted at a lower price if the content of the advertisement also eulogises the two. But it would be more expensive to show the same audience the advertisements that disparage pro-Hindutva politics and Modi.

...

---

MMA

---

AN 6 25

Just one day after a widely criticized, multimillion-dollar military parade marking both the U.S. Army’s birthday and his own—and amid millions attending thousands of nationwide “No Kings” protests—President Donald Trump announced on Sunday night a new crackdown targeting undocumented immigrants exclusively in Democratic-led strongholds, declaring that blue cities “are the core of the Democrat Power Center.”

Some critics also note that the move comes after a suspect, reportedly a Trump supporter, allegedly assassinated a Democratic Minnesota lawmaker and her spouse and gravely shot and wounded another Democratic lawmaker and his spouse on the same day as the anti-Trump rallies in all 50 states.

In a 400-word Sunday night “order” on social media, President Trump claimed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents (ICE) every day face “threats from Radical Democrat Politicians,” as he announced “the single largest Mass Deportation Program in History,” before baselessly claiming voter fraud.

“Every day, the Brave Men and Women of ICE are subjected to violence, harassment, and even threats from Radical Democrat Politicians, but nothing will stop us from executing our mission, and fulfilling our Mandate to the American People. ICE Officers are herewith ordered, by notice of this TRUTH, to do all in their power to achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest Mass Deportation Program in History,” the President wrote.

IFrame Content

“In order to achieve this, we must expand efforts to detain and deport Illegal Aliens in America’s largest Cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside,” Trump continued. “These, and other such Cities, are the core of the Democrat Power Center, where they use Illegal Aliens to expand their Voter Base, cheat in Elections, and grow the Welfare State, robbing good paying Jobs and Benefits from Hardworking American Citizens. These Radical Left Democrats are sick of mind, hate our Country, and actually want to destroy our Inner Cities — And they are doing a good job of it! There is something wrong with them. That is why they believe in Open Borders, Transgender for Everybody, and Men playing in Women’s Sports.”

Critics blasted the President and issued warnings.

“This is illegal on so many levels,” charged John Jackson, a former trial lawyer. “He’s declaring war on specific areas based entirely on their voter registration, which is a form of speech and protected political choice. It’s ‘vote Republican or I will punish you.’ Incredible. Out in the open. Lawless.”

“2 implications of Trump specifically targeting immigrants in Democratic cities: He’s NOT going after immigrants in places where they are least welcome,” observed former Washington Post editor Robert McCartney. “He IS doing what’s most likely to provoke backlash. We conclude that his goal is not to ‘solve’ the problem but to stir chaos.”

“This is the politicization of law enforcement. It’s not about ‘immigration,’ it’s about demonizing cities, harming political enemies and winning elections,” declared The Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum. “Also, those are the cities that had the biggest No Kings protests.”

Pointing to Trump’s full screed, political strategist Rachel Bitecofer noted, “Please go study how the Nazis talked about the Jews to whip the public up into accepting restricting them from society, deporting them, and ultimately murdering them. It will sound a lot like this.”

“Trump is going after Blue cities based on nothing more than the crazy, conspiratorial voices in his head,” wrote Melanie D’Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health. “He’s already violating our 1st, 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments, and deploying the U.S. military against citizens in L.A. This is what authoritarianism looks like.”

“He’s openly admitting that he’s politicizing law enforcement,” observed Chuck Todd, the former NBC News Chief Political Analyst and “Meet the Press” moderator. “This will not help ICE’s image because he’s asking them to perform a political task. Throw in the decision to shield the red states from law enforcement and he’s clearly hoping to provoke an angry response. At a moment when we need a president to de-escalate, he does the opposite.”

“Trump’s ugly plan is clear: Incite violence in blue cities & blue states only, and then put the military on the streets in those blue cities & blue states only,” warned former Tea Party GOP Congressman Joe Walsh, now a Democrat and political commentator. “Everything he does is meant to divide us. He is the absolute worst of us.”

“This sort of dehumanizing language about political opponents is exactly what leads to the horrific shootings we saw yesterday, wrote MeidasTouch News. “Disgraceful and dangerous.”

“One of his crazed supporters just assassinated a Democrat and he continues to instigate division and hatred, noted Arizona Democratic state Senator Analise Ortiz. “We need an adult in the White House, not a dictator hell bent on escalating tensions and political violence.”

Progressive media outlet The Tennessee Holler wrote that “the president posting that Dems are ‘sick of mind’ and ‘hate our country’ immediately after 2 Dem lawmakers and their spouses were shot in their homes is the opposite of leadership. Gas on the fire.”

“A US president is supposed to be the president of all the people,” wrote retired Professor of Law Anne Arbor. “This man instead foments hatred of his own political party against his political opponents. This statement verges on a declaration of civil war against half the country.”

---

---}:

WTF?

April 9, 2025, edition of Fox News' The Five

JESSE WATTERS (CO-HOST): We didn't want to kill Barack Obama, we just didn't think he was legally qualified to be president because of where he was born. And then Hillary, we didn't want to kill, we were just so afraid of her, we thought she'd kill us first.

But we do this in other countries. The CIA literally uses the same exact propaganda to stir up cultures in other countries to topple dictatorships we don't like. Now, we're doing it in our own country, and it's like almost working.

---

an 3 25

In the 2024, voters who helped put Donald Trump back in the White House ranged from hardcore MAGA Republicans to swing voters and independents — some of them 2020 Joe Biden voters — who blamed the Biden Administration for inflation. The economy was a major concern of Biden-to-Trump voters, and the term "buyer's remorse" is being used in connection with swing voters and independents who now regret voting for Trump and are worried about steep new tariffs or possible cuts to Social Security.

But diehard MAGA voters have no regrets about voting for Trump. In a conversation published by the New York Times' opinion section on March 21, four conservative columnists — David Brooks, David French, Bret Stephens and Ross Douthat — lay out some reasons why those voters continue to be diehard Trump supporters.

The writers aren't promoting Trump's policies during the conversation — French, in fact, is very much a Never Trump conservative — but rather, are explaining the president's unending appeal to his hardcore MAGA base.

Brooks cited **:{"brokenism" as a key reason for their support. The columnist describes "brokenism" as "the idea that everything is broken and we just need to burn it all down."}:

Brooks told his Times colleagues, "Personally, I think some things are broken and some things are OK, but most of my Trump-supporting friends are brokenists. They get this from media consumption."

French, who is a scathing critic of Trump but also has major complaints about the left, interjected, "In addition to the brokenism that David talks about, there's a strong undercurrent of raw animosity in our politics. Republicans and Democrats have very negative views of each other, and many Republicans, sadly, want their opponents to suffer. They're actually happy to see people lose their jobs or to see nonprofits lose funding if those people are perceived as part of the 'deep state' or RINOs. So, yes, Republicans want a disruptive president, but who's being disrupted really matters — and if it's the government or institutions that many Republicans believe are hostile to them, then Republicans are just fine with the pain."

French added, "Many Republicans dislike foreign aid. Or loathe elite universities. Or hate big liberal law firms. Students and professors at elite universities have a long track record of targeting the free speech rights of their conservative colleagues, and Republicans are rationalizing their own constitutional violations as fighting fire with fire."

According to Brooks, diehard MAGA voters enjoy seeing him target institutions they feel excluded from.

Brooks told French, Douthat and Stephens, "I'd offer up one more word for consideration: 'exclusion.' Progressives really have spent the last few decades excluding conservative and working-class voices from a lot of institutions. Trump has gone after these institutions big time — the universities, the Department of Education, the State Department. Of course, the MAGA crowd feels justified revenge."

Douthat alluded to the fact that Trump's strongest support continues to be within the MAGA movement.

Douthat told his colleagues, "First, I would stress that Trump is not terribly popular, and undoubtedly will become less so if the stock market trends down and recession fears mount. He has a commanding position within his party, but even at his apotheosis, his approval ratings barely got over 50 percent. Second, Americans lived through the first Trump term, when sky-is-falling rhetoric was commonplace, but the average American did not experience a crisis until COVID hit."

*Read the full New York Times article at this link (subscription required).

===

Right-wing media cheer Trump's anti-Christian bias task force after years of laying the groundwork

Right-wing commentators have spent years claiming that the Biden administration was “waging spiritual warfare against Christianity” and that “the left wants to drive Christians out of the public square”

Written by Payton Armstrong

Published 02/27/25 mma

A task force created by President Donald Trump to eradicate alleged “anti-Christian bias” is drawing praise from right-wing media figures — some of whom have spent years baselessly claiming that Christians are a persecuted group in the United States, even though experts say there’s no such widespread bias.

Right-wing commentators celebrated Trump’s task force as “a cultural resurgency” and declared that “this is the counter-revolution against their color revolution that occurred in the summer of 2020.”

In one instance, Christian nationalist media figure Lance Wallnau joined Steve Bannon’s podcast to praise the task force as the first step in the “recapturing of institutions,” naming education, media, business, and government among the institutions he wants to infuse with “the ideas of Western civilization, which is the ideas of Christian civilization.” This appears to be a reference to the Seven Mountain Mandate popularized by Wallnau, which instructs Christians to impose fundamentalist values on American society by conquering the “seven mountains” of cultural influence in American life: government, education, media, religion, family, business, and entertainment.

Experts have argued “there is no widespread anti-Christian bias in our society" and that Trump’s anti-Christian bias task force is actually “enshrining Christian privilege in our society.”

Trump issued an executive order on “eradicating anti-Christian bias,” but experts say “there is no widespread anti-Christian bias in our society”

Trump first announced the task force during a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in early February, saying it will “protect Christians” and bring “our country back together as one nation under God,” and he later issued an executive order listing examples of supposed bias under the Biden administration.The executive order — titled “Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias” — claimed that “the previous Administration engaged in an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses.” The executive order claimed, “The Biden Department of Justice sought to squelch faith in the public square by bringing Federal criminal charges and obtaining in numerous cases multi-year prison sentences against nearly two dozen peaceful pro-life Christians for praying and demonstrating outside abortion facilities.” The Hill, [2/6/25; White House, 2/6/25]

The Associated Press reported that “critics said Trump is claiming to see persecution in distorted case descriptions, a calendar coincidence and other situations that, while raising concerns, don’t add up to a pattern.”As noted by the Associated Press, “Christianity is by far the largest faith in America, and Christian conservatives have a strong grip on the levers of government.”}: The Associated Press, [2/13/25]|

- On CNN, religious extremism expert Matthew Taylor argued “there is no widespread anti-Christian bias in our society,” noting that claims of anti-Christian persecution can “become a pretext for them persecuting actual minority groups.”Taylor urged that “we need to recognize that there is no widespread anti-Christian bias in our society,” and said, “It's striking that given the widespread realities of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and as you said, mosques and synagogues tend to have more attacks than churches per capita, there's no task force on rooting out anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Instead, this is enshrining Christian privilege in our society.” CNN, *CNN Newsroom*, [2/9/25]

- Multiple Republican-led states have moved to require Bible instruction or a display of the Ten Commandments in all public schools.Last year, Louisiana became the first state to require all public schools to display the Ten Commandments. Soon after, Oklahoma’s state superintendent directed all public schools to teach the Bible, including the Ten Commandments, and conservative media figures promoted the policy as a way to “impose Christian values” and encouraged other states to follow suit. At the start of the 2025 legislative session, Alabama Republican lawmakers proposed mandates to display the Ten Commandments in public schools and give students the “opportunity to participate in daily prayer” or risk losing some state funding. PBS, [6/19/24; New York Times, 6/27/24; Media Matters, 7/8/24; AL.com, 2/15/25]

- Right-wing media and extreme anti-LGBTQ groups have a long history of conflating criticism of anti-LGBTQ positions with anti-Christian hostility.They’ve said that Democratic senators have anti-Christian bias for questioning federal judicial nominees’ anti-LGBTQ statements or ties to bigoted groups, and they’ve described basic legal protections for LGBTQ people as anti-Christian. Media Matters, [11/8/19, 5/20/14]

### During the Biden administration, right-wing media personalities baselessly claimed Christians were targeted by the government and “the left”

* When Transgender Day of Visibility coincided with Easter in 2024, right-wing media figures — especially on Fox News and Newsmax — claimed that the Biden administration was attacking Christians.Right-wing media used the day to warn Christians that they were under attack after Biden’s statements recognizing Transgender Day of Visibility, with Fox’s Jesse Watters arguing that Biden is “waging spiritual warfare against Christianity.” Between Fox and Newsmax, the networks combined aired more than 4 hours of coverage and nearly 80 segments, slamming Biden for his “demonic” remarks which they said amounted to an “attack on Christian faith.” Media Matters, [4/2/24, 4/2/24]

- On his network, former Fox News star Tucker Carlson hosted anti-abortion protester Paul Vaughn — who was arrested for blocking access to a clinic — and falsely claimed that Vaughn was facing prison time for merely singing hymns and praying.Carlson said that Vaughn “had dared to pray and sing hymns in the hallway of an abortion clinic. In other words he did what the Biden administration really fears, he prayed. And for doing that, he faces 11 years in prison.” USA Today fact checked Carlson’s claim, noting that: “Vaughn was arrested for physically obstructing access to an abortion clinic, not for praying,” highlighting that “the law in question explicitly protects First Amendment speech and also includes language ensuring free access to houses of worship.” [Tucker Carlson Network, *Tucker Carlson [vid] Uncensored,; USA Today, 4/1/24]

Carlson again falsely claimed that Vaughn was facing felony charges “from the Biden administration for praying at an abortion clinic and daring to sing hymns,” adding that “from the perspective of the people who run the country there’s really just one enemy, and that’s faithful Christians.”During a Tucker Carlson Uncensored clip posted on X, Carlson said: “If you’re interested in who they really hate, well, look at what's happening. So Christian churches across the country have been burning and no one in the government is doing anything about it}:. Look at how Christian churches were treated during Covid … we talked the other day to a guy who is facing 11 years in prison, federal felony charges from the Biden administration, for praying at an abortion clinic and daring to sing hymns. So if you are a faithful Christian — not a fake Christian, David French Christian, but an actual Christian, of the kind this country has always had, of the kind this country was created to harbor actually — you are seen as an enemy by the people who run it.” Twitter/X, [4/18/24]|

Fox host Laura Ingraham repeatedly lamented the supposed anti-Christian bias of the Biden administration, including in an interview with Vaughn where she suggested that “singing hymns and peacefully expressing your traditional Christian beliefs can get you thrown behind bars.” During the interview, Ingraham’s show displayed a chyron that read: “Liberals fighting to wipe out Christian values.}:” FoxNews.com, [1/31/24]|

- Ingraham also complained that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland was not addressing a “growing anti-Christian bias in the United States and criminal activity geared towards Christians.” The chyron read “to the left, Christians are the emerging enemy” and Ingraham claimed that “pro-life centers across the country” and “churches have been attacked,” adding that to the left, “if you’re a Christian, a bible-believing Christian, you’re a terrorist.” Fox News, *The Ingraham Angle*, [3/29/23]

Following a deadly shooting at a Christian private school in Nashville, Tennessee, Ingraham claimed the Biden White House and “the left” had been “ginning up anti-Christian sentiment” by allegedly teaching kids “to treat Christians as haters and mortal threats to their existence.”Ingraham told her audience: “Isn’t it also the case that the left in America — and even this White House — is ginning up, without saying the words necessarily, but ginning up anti-Christian sentiment by referring to trans activists as heroes and their bravery for standing up against the intolerant class, the haters. So these kids are learning to treat Christians as haters and mortal threats to their existence.”}: Fox News, *The Ingraham Angle*, [4/11/23; Media Matters, 4/12/23]|

Sean Davis, CEO of The Federalist,}: argued that by charging anti-abortion protesters under the FACE ACT, “the Biden regime clearly desires to make being a pro-life Christian a crime.” As documented by Media Matters, anti-abortion figures baselessly accused the Biden Department of Justice of weaponizing the FACE Act against protestors convicted of harassment at abortion clinics. Twitter/X, [6/21/24; Media Matters, 6/11/24]|

### Right-wing media spent years launching hyperbolic accusations of Christian persecution, especially amid growing LGBTQ inclusion

When the European parliament displayed an LGBTQ Jesus, Steve Bannon lamented that “the Judeo-Christian West” is “anti-Christian by its leadership,” suggesting there will be “Diocletian” level persecution.He warned: “If you're prepared to accept it, it's going to get first-century Rome anti— it's going to get Diocletian. You're going to get to Diocletian anti-Christian and you're going to get there pretty quickly.” Real America’s Voice, *War Room*, [5/5/23; FoxNews.com, 5/7/23]

While hosting Jack Phillips — a Colorado baker who had been sued for refusing to make a trans-themed cake — Fox’s Laura Ingraham declared that “the left wants to drive Christians out of the public square.”}:Ingraham added: “You don't even have a right to have a small business if you're a Christian today. You certainly don't have any conscience right, you have no religious rights, you have no First Amendment rights, if you clash with what they believe to be, you know, the supremely protected among us.” Fox News, *The Ingraham Angle*, [1/30/23; Associated Press, 10/8/24]|

Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk has relentlessly claimed that Christian values in the U.S. are under attack, claiming that they could be thrown in prison.}:At a 2023 TPUSA pastor’s summit, Kirk warned pastors that “if we continue theological disputes and don't focus on liberty, then we're going to be having those theological disputes from prison.” Ahead of the 2024 election, Kirk claimed that pro-choice Democrats would “create a secret police that will audit, intimidate, raid every single” pregnancy center in the U.S., saying that when that happens, “we'll be like, wow, I really wish that we Christians would have bought ourselves a little more time so that our nonprofits, our leaders, wouldn't go to federal prison.” NPR, [10/24/24; Media Matters, 4/27/23; Real America’s Voice, The Charlie Kirk Show, 8/16/24]|

Tucker Carlson suggested that the “trans movement is targeting Christians,” citing the Covenant school shooting.Carlson claimed that “the trans movement is the mirror image of Christianity and therefore its natural enemy,” d}:eclaring that “Christianity and transgender orthodoxy” are on a “collision course” and claiming that “one side is likely to draw blood before the other side.” Rolling Stone, [3/28/23]|

On Fox News, Oklahoma state superintendent Ryan Walters lamented that a Harris/Walz administration would “trans the kids“ and “push all faith out of the public square,” as now-White House faith director Paula White-Cain bragged that Trump was “promising in his second term to do even more for Christians as he shares the same values.”White-Cain called for national “revival” and “turning our hearts back to God” and Walters declared that a Harris/Walz administration would be the “most anti-Christian administration in American history.”}: FoxNews.com, [8/10/24; Religion News Service, 2/21/25]|

On Sebastian Gorka’s Salem Media podcast, Breitbart’s}: Thomas Williams said that the U.S. is a “post-Christian society, but in many ways an anti-Christian society.”Gorka — who is now the counterterrorism chief in Trump’s administration — replied, “right,” and Williams added, “We are a Judeo-Christian nation by its foundation, and in the value system that understands what the family is, what society is.” Salem Media, *America First with Sebastian Gorka*, [6/14/23; CBS News, 1/7/25]|

* Fox host Emily Compagno labeled the U.S. an “anti-Christian, anti-Judeo-Christian society.”Compagno cited backlash to a graduation speech from Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker that reportedly attacked the LGBTQ community and told “women to forget about a career and serve their man instead.” Fox News, *Gutfeld!*, [6/11/24; OutSports, 5/13/24]

Former Trump DOJ official Jeff Clark told Bannon that a second Trump administration needed a “beefed up” religious liberty task force to fight anti-Christian sentiment in the U.S., citing a story he heard about a “school district that was prohibiting bus drivers even from wearing Christmas regalia.” }:Responding to a campaign speech where Trump pledged to create an anti-Christian bias task force if elected, Clark said: “That's wonderful to announce, especially in an increasingly anti-Christian world. I mean, I'd seen a story about a school district that was prohibiting bus drivers even from wearing Christmas regalia to entertain the students a little bit. I mean things have gone into bonkers land. And look, in the first Trump term, we did have a religious liberty task force. And I think we need an even more beefed up one.” Real America’s Voice, *War Room*, [12/20/23; Fox News, 12/19/23]|

### Right-wing media heaped praise on Trump’s task force, celebrating Trump “proudly defending our heritage as inheriting the values of the Bible”

Charlie Kirk applauded the task force’s creation, declaring that “this is the counter-revolution against their color revolution that occurred in the summer of 2020.” He said, “We are proudly defending our heritage as inheriting the values of the Bible,” adding, “This is a cultural resurgency. No longer should you be afraid to share your faith. No longer should you be afraid to share your political values. This is the counter-revolution against their color revolution that occurred in the summer of 2020, and it is ascendant.” Real America’s Voice, *The Charlie Kirk Show*, [2/6/25]

- On her show, Ingraham celebrated that “we have a president who believes our nation has a divine destiny” and displayed a chyron declaring: “Trump restores faith in America.”Ingraham then hosted a teacher, Marisol Arroyo-Castro, who claimed she had been suspended for having a crucifix in her classroom. Ingraham told Arroyo-Castro that “they see you and your presence as a threat,” and said, “I don’t think it’s constitutional.” Fox News, *The Ingraham Angle*, [2/6/25; CT Insider, 1/30/25]

- Praising the task force announcement, right-wing commentator Michael Knowles said, “I love that he [Trump] is saying anti-Christian hostility, anti-Christian bias in the government” rather than “squish Republicans” who say “we want to just generally and universally speaking protect all religions.”Knowles elaborated, saying, “There aren't really threats against all general religions kind of broadly, man. That's not the problem. America wasn't founded on the principles of just kind of all the religions generally, universally, man. The specific problem that we saw explode during the Biden administration was bias against Christians. … That's the problem that has to be addressed, and that's the specific problem Trump is addressing, and I love it.” Daily Wire, *The Michael Knowles Show*, [2/7/25]

Steve Bannon celebrated the announcement and hosted media figure Lance Wallnau —}: a “prophet” and self-described Christian nationalist — with the two discussing right-wing Christians’ “recapturing of institutions” including “education, of media, of business, of government.”Bannon and Wallnau discussed how the task force can be used “to seize the institutions of the federal government” with “the ideas of Western civilization, which is the ideas of Christian civilization.” Wallnau said that “there are three arteries that make this happen: legislation, litigation, and the shaping of public opinion,” adding, “because people like you, as long as we can shape the public opinion, the secret sauce is you've got to work with the awakening that's happening and move with it in such a way that you litigate and you legislate, but never get too far ahead of public persuasion.” Real America’s Voice, *War Room*, [2/7/25; Media Matters; 9/27/24; Rolling Stone, 9/29/22]|

Video

Citation

From the February 7, 2025, edition of Real America's Voice's War Room

After Trump’s speech announcing his intent to create a task force, Bannon suggested that the president needs to “make sure they're going throughout the government because the administrative state is absolutely anti-Christian,” claiming that “the deep state is demonic.” Real America's Voice's chief White House correspondent Brian Glenn added, “Certainly we have seen how demonic this previous administration has been in terms of allowing religious freedom.” Real America’s Voice, *War Room*, [2/6/25]

Fox host Jeanine Pirro praised the task force’s creation}: and attacked the FBI and the Biden administration for supposedly targeting Catholics, a claim that was found to be baseless after an internal investigation.Pirro noted that Trump “went to two prayer breakfasts this morning and he talked about eradicating anti-Christian bias,” and complained about “when the FBI director Christopher Wray came out and really told us no one at the FBI was targeting Christians and Senator Hawley came out and they found that leaked memo that the FBI was investigating Catholics and priests were gone to so they could then inform on parishioners who were considered domestic terrorists.” The New York Times reported that “Republicans claimed the bureau’s memo was evidence of an anti-conservative strain among F.B.I. ranks, but an internal investigation failed to uncover any ‘malicious intent.’” Fox News, *The Five*, [2/6/25; New York Times, 4/18/24]|

### Trump and his MAGA allies increasingly embrace extreme prophetic media

05/30/24

### Trump scheduled to address right-wing media “prophets” and pastors who claim he’s “anointed to be King”

10/18/24

### Oklahoma state superintendent says pastor and right-wing commentator suggested his new Bible mandate in public schools

07/08/24

longnow

Thursday, March 27, 02025

Ezra Klein & Derek Thompson

Ezra Klein, New York Times columnist, podcast host, and author of Why We're Polarized and Derek Thompson, NPR news analyst, podcast host, and author of Hit Makers, present their new book Abundance, a paradigm-shifting call to rethink big, entrenched problems that seem mired in systemic scarcity: from climate change to housing, education to healthcare.

AHA NOT ME THIS IS BASIC POLARITY NOW

INK 1 25

...

And that brings us to an open question — or, rather, questions:

What does society still need from social media, and from digital platforms in general? Are they actually meant to take — are they even capable of taking — the place of the public square, functioning as a digital commons? Or can it just be a place to nerd out on niche interests and connect with friends? And can any of that coexist with the business interests that drive the platform owners? Does anyone really want an everything app that covers it all, from banking to gaming? Should any digital platform really try to be everything to everyone?

And why are they in the business of arbitrating the public trust anyway, even if that’s to establish the definition of what’s neutral? If, as polling suggests, we don’t trust institutions anymore — the media, government agencies, elected leaders, the courts — who do Americans trust? Who is the proper arbiter of the public trust?

===

AHA NOTE THE WORD HAS BEEN MISCONSTRUED!

rww 1 235

01/10/2025

Kyle Mantyla

From the moment Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, far-right evangelist Mario Murillo steadfastly refused to accept the results, even going so far as to declare that refusing to accept Biden's presidency was a test of loyalty to God.

Throughout the Biden administration, Murillo became increasingly radical, proclaiming that "the Democratic Party is of Satan" and that President Biden and Vice President Harris were under demonic control. Leading up to the 2024 election, Murillo partnered with fellow dominionist Lance Wallnau and the America First Policy Institute to drive up turnout for Trump among conservative voters.

During the latest episode of his "Fire Power" program, Murillo continued to spout extremist rhetoric, declaring that with Trump set to return to the White House, Christians must recognize that their political enemies are "monsters" and thus prepare themselves to have "the stomach for war" necessary to destroy them.

"Remember what your enemy has done to you," Murillo proclaimed. "Remember what he's done to your children. Remember what he's done to your freedom. Why is that important? Because we are not finished, folks. This is not the final victory for the American way of life; this is just the beginning."

"Donald Trump entering the White House is step one in a long, protracted cultural war," he continued. "And the body of Christ has got to have the stomach for war and the fire in its belly to finish it. And the only way they're going to keep that fire going is by understanding what monsters these people really are."

"They are monsters," he reiterated.

"You're spot on," agreed co-host Todd Coconato. "They're demonized. Let's just be real. They're demonized. How much [more] blunt can we be?"

===

AN 2 25

Trump was able to be elected president a second time partly by mobilizing his base of Christian nationalists. This anti-Democratic group has an “us vs. them” mentality, believing that America is on the verge of an apocalypse and that they are being persecuted. In her new book, "Money, Lies, and God: Inside the Movement to Destroy American Democracy," journalist Katherine Stewart investigates this voter base. Salon published an interview with her Tuesday.

This subculture, Stewart argues, believes America should move past democracy. “They believe the U.S. is not founded on principles, but on a specific religious and cultural heritage,” she said. “They argue America is on the brink of an apocalypse, owing to the rise of equality and what they call ‘wokeness.’ They argue democracy, as a system, isn't sufficient to meet the ‘challenges’ of feminism and equality. They believe the democratic rules no longer apply, because we're facing this absolute apocalypse of equality. They want an authoritarian leader who puts himself above the law, who's going to seize the reins of power and scrap the rule of law in favor of the iron fist.”

One of the three major tenants of this mindset is the belief that the country is nearing an apocalypse.

“This is what authoritarian leaders do,” she explained. “Christian nationalism is not just an ideology. It's also not just a political movement. It's a mindset… First is ‘us versus them’ or ‘pure versus the impure,’ or those who properly ‘belong’ in the country, and those who do not. Second, there's a sense of persecution. They claim white conservative Christians are being persecuted more than any other group in society. Third is the sense that we're facing an apocalypse. They share this view with the new right. It's always, ‘If we don't win this election, we're gonna go under the control of the Illuminati and the devil's gonna be controlling us for hundreds of years. So it's any means necessary to ‘save’ us from this terrible fate.”

“Those three ideas,” she continued, “clear the way for the acceptance of an authoritarian leader, someone who doesn't respect the rules, who will punish their enemies, and who will suspend the rule of law. If you look at what's happening in our politics today, you can see it playing out before our eyes. In the first weeks of the Trump presidency, we're seeing a version of Project 2025. They've been telling us for a long time they're going to smash the institutions that safeguard our democracy. That's what they're doing.”

But the members of this group have been “colossally misinformed.”

“Many of these supporters don't recognize that American democracy might be destroyed. Some don't care. They think it's more important to put a strong man in power to demolish the supposedly dangerous radical left. But whether they don't care or don't know, it's because they've been colossally misinformed. That's how they rationalize their choices at the ballot box. And I would have to say this is not just about Trump. Authoritarianism loves a misinformed public. The anti-democratic movement has funded this massive propaganda campaign that has led us to where we are today,” she said.

Here is an excerpt from the book, published by Rolling Stone:

“Power has not softened the base of this movement. It’s not just blood that they’re after; they want a show. This is the thing that Trump surely understands best. Policy simply doesn’t matter. You can kill off grandma through vaccine denial, take away health insurance, bust unions, drive up inflation, and reward your billionaire friends with policies that benefit their bloated bottom lines. None of that matters as long as you give the people the pleasure of a good performance, where they can project their frustrations and resentments on the targets they have been trained to hate.”

---

no lnx

What’s Wrong With the Meritocracy

By Arlie Russell Hochschild

Published Sept. 15, 2020

THE TYRANNY OF MERIT

What’s Become of the Common Good?

By Michael J. Sandel

In an eighth-grade math class at Pacific Palisades junior high in the late 1960s, Michael J. Sandel’s teacher seated students in precise order according to their grades. As their G.P.A.s shifted with the dramatically announced results of every quiz, so did the seating. “I typically shuttled between the second desk and the fourth or fifth,” Sandel recalls, and at age 14, “I thought this was how school worked.”

“The Tyranny of Merit” is like a brilliant response to that misguided but well-meaning math teacher from the viewpoint, as it were, of a kid in some back-row seat of any classroom in a Rust Belt, prairie town or inner-city school in America. What do grades and degrees tell us, Sandel asks, about the widening gap between rich and poor, proud and humiliated, trusting and suspicious, opponent and devotee of Donald Trump?

Some have called Sandel a “rock star moralist.” Without guitar or shiny shirt, the soft-toned but hard-hitting Harvard philosophy professor has packed St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, the Sydney Opera House in Australia and a 14,000-seat outdoor stadium in Seoul, South Korea.

One reason, perhaps, is that many of us need what he does so well: help us grapple with the unexpected and uncomfortable questions that history delivers us. Is it OK for parents to try to make a genetically perfect child (“The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering”)? Is it OK to pay your kid to read (“What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets”)? Now, in his new book, he asks: Is it OK to claim that our fine grades and degrees are all our own doing, so that we owe little or nothing in return?

What, he wonders, if the highly educated harden into a hereditary aristocracy? And what if this occurs under a flag of fairness, during a time when B.A.s and higher degrees are ever more closely tied to income and prestige? Let’s set aside the case of rich parents who bribe corrupt officials or donate huge sums to get their child into a good college. Let’s focus instead, Sandel writes, on the inequity that creeps in without breaking any rules. At Princeton and Yale, for example, more students come from families in the top 1 percent of income than from the bottom 60 percent. Two-thirds of students in all the Ivy League schools come from families in the top 20 percent. This is very largely because of the head start woven into upper-income life itself: engaging dinner conversation, better schools, private tutors, foreign travel.

Sandel is not about guilt-tripping anxious parents of front-row kids; they’re suffering too, he says. But the credentialed have come to imagine themselves as smarter, wiser, more tolerant — and therefore more deserving of recognition and respect — than the noncredentialed. One reason for this, he suggests, lies in our American “rhetoric of rising.”

Both rich and poor parents tell their kids, if you try hard enough, you can achieve your goals. For the upper strata, things may work out, but for the downwardly mobile blue collar and poor, there’s a Catch-22. If they fail to reach their goals — which a torpid economy almost guarantees — they blame themselves. If only I could have gotten that degree, they say. Even the poorly educated, Sandel notes, look down on the poorly educated.

Donald Trump has reached out to this group with open arms — “I love the poorly educated.” He has harvested their demoralization, their grief and their shame, most certainly if they are white. But, Sandel notes, two-thirds of all American adults lack four-year degrees. And in the wake of automation, in real wages, the white man without a B.A. earns less now than he did in 1979. The dignity of his labor has steeply declined. And since 1965, high-school-educated men in the very prime of life — 25 to 54 — have been slipping out of the labor force, from 98 percent in 1965 to 85 percent in 2015.

Of all Americans whose highest degree is a high school diploma, in 2017 only 68 percent worked. And with rising deaths of despair, many are giving up on life itself. So you who are highly educated, Sandel concludes, should understand that you’re contributing to a resentment fueling the toxic politics you deplore. Respect the vast diversity of talents and contributions others make to this nation. Empathize with the undeserved shame of the less educated. Eat a little humble pie.

But we are left with an important issue Sandel does not address: the targeting by the right wing of colleges themselves. This isn’t new: Running parallel to the rise of the meritocracy in America has been a suspicion of the egghead who can’t skin a rabbit, build a house or change a tire. As the historian Richard Hofstadter observed in “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life,” and Tocqueville before him, many Americans have valued not simply the cultivated intelligence of heroes in a culture of merit but also the creative genius of the “common man” in a culture of survival.

Today this has taken a shockingly partisan turn. For the first time in recent history, the less education you have, the more you lean right and distrust higher education itself. In a 2019 Pew survey, 59 percent of Republicans (and Republican-leaning independents) agree that “colleges have a negative effect on the way things are going in the country these days,” whereas only 18 percent of Democrats (and those leaning left) agree.

So now’s a good time for both sides to sit down for a very serious talk, with “The Tyranny of Merit” required reading for all. And invited from inner-city, suburban and rural schools across the land should be those who warmed seats both in the front row and in the back.

Arlie Russell Hochschild’s most recent book is “Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right.”

THE TYRANNY OF MERIT

What’s Become of the Common Good?

By Michael J. Sandel

288 pp. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. $28.

A version of this article appears in print on Nov. 22, 2020, Page 19 of the Sunday Book Review

msnbc divide not left right, not quite college vs not but fact vs not

dean col sch jrnl on drones 12/24?

===

AN 12 24 THE CONV

“I am definitely not following the news anymore,” one patient told me when I asked about her political news consumption in the weeks before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

This conversation happened around the time I talked with a local TV channel about why we saw fewer political yard signs during this year’s election season, compared with past ones.

I am a psychiatrist who studies and treats fear and anxiety. One of my main mental health recommendations to my patients during the 2016 and 2020 election cycles was to reduce their political news consumption. I also tried to convince them that the five hours a day they spent watching cable news was only leaving them helpless and terrified.

Over the past couple of years, though, I have noticed a change: Many of my patients say they either have tuned out or are too exhausted to do more than a brief read of political news or watch one hour of their favorite political show.

Research supports my clinical experience: A Pew research study from 2020 showed that 66% of Americans were worn out by political stress. Interestingly, those who are not following the news feel that same news fatigue at an even higher percentage of 73%. In 2023, 8 out of 10 Americans described U.S. politics with negative words like “divisive,” “corrupt,” “messy” and “polarized.”

In my view, three major factors have led Americans to exhaustion and burnout with U.S politics.

Donald Trump supporters argue with anti-Trump protesters in New York City in 2017. Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

1. The politics of fear

In my 2023 book, “AFRAID: Understanding the Purpose of Fear, and Harnessing the Power of Anxiety,” I discuss how American politicians and major news media have found an ally in fear: a very strong emotion that can be used to grab our attention, keeping us in the tribal dividing lines and making us follow, click, tap, watch and donate.

Over the past few decades, many people have felt a strong push for tribalism, an “us vs. them” way of seeing the world, turning Americans against one another. This has led to a point where we are not just in disagreement with each other. We hate, cancel, block and attack those who disagree with us.

2. People live in information bubbles

It can feel like Fox News and MSNBC commentators are talking about Americas from two different planets. The same is true when it comes to different social media feeds.

Many people are part of social media communities that are closed to the world outside their homes and familiar social circles. Based on people’s political views and what they search for or watch and read, social media algorithms feed them content where everybody talks and thinks alike. If you hear about the other side, it is only about their worst attributes and behavior.

The disconnect is so wide that people are not even able to comprehend the thinking of those from other perspectives and find their logic or political beliefs unfathomable.

Many Americans have gotten to the point of believing that the other half of Americans are, at best, unintelligent and stupid; and at worst, immoral and evil.

3. People’s political opinions have become their identities

There was a time in American politics where two politicians or two neighbors could disagree, but still believe that the other person was fundamentally good.

Over time, and more so since the early 2000s, this ability to connect despite political beliefs has decreased.

The majority of both Democrats and Republicans said in a 2022 Pew Research survey that someone’s political ideas are an indicator of their morality and character.

This 2022 Pew survey also shows that partisan animosity extends to judgments about character: 72% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats said they believe members of the opposing party are more “immoral” than other Americans.

This is evident in day-to-day conversations of members of both political tribes: “How can I be friends with someone who wants to kill babies,” or “How can I talk to someone who is OK with women dying in a corner of a clinic parking lot”. We can no longer see someone’s political affiliation in the context of their humanity at large.

Too much news consumption can lead to people feeling helpless and burned out, research shows. iStock/Getty Images Plus

What psychology and neuroscience say

Fear as a deeply ingrained survival mechanism takes priority over other brain functions.

Fear guides your memories, feelings, attention and thoughts, and can cause you to keep watching, scrolling and reading to monitor this perceived threat. Positive or neutral news could then become uninteresting because it is not important in your survival response. That has been the key to a person’s deep engagement with the fear-based political news.

But too much fear does not keep someone engaged forever. That is because of another survival mechanism – what’s called “learned helplessness.”

In 1967, American psychologist Martin Seligman exposed two groups of dogs to painful shocks. Dogs in group 1 could stop the shock by pressing a lever, which they quickly learned to do. But the dogs in group 2 learned that they could not control when the shock starts and stops.

Then, both groups were placed in a box divided into two halves by a small barrier, and shock was applied to only one side of the box. Dogs in group 1 – who had learned how to stop the shocks in the earlier experiment – quickly learned to jump over the barrier to the shock-free side. But dogs in group 2 did not even attempt to do so. They had learned there is no point in trying.

This experiment has been replicated in different forms with other animals and humans with the same conclusion: When people feel they cannot control the painful or scary situation, they just give up. During such experiences, the brain’s fear region – called the amygdala – is hyperactive. Meanwhile, emotion-regulating brain areas like the prefrontal cortex decrease in activity under these circumstances.

Learned helplessness also means the brain mechanisms commonly involved in regulating anxiety and depression don’t function as well.

When working with patients who have suffered from long periods of intense anxiety, fear, trauma and exhaustion, I see learned helplessness showing up in the form of depression, loss of motivation, fatigue and lack of engagement with the world around them.

The COVID-19 pandemic, more than a decade of intense political stress, polarizing social media and wars across the world, as well as public disillusionment with U.S. politics and media, have led, I believe, to many people experiencing burnout and learned helplessness.

If you feel politically exhausted, you are not the problem. Feel free to tune out from the noise.

Arash Javanbakht, Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Wayne State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

---

INSURRECTION TERM

THE CONV AN 11 24

...

Attack ads that feature phrases like this don’t necessarily win elections.}:}:

But gender identity was a nonstop talking point at the dozen or so MAGA events I attended ahead of the election. Speakers there constantly mocked the use of nonbinary pronouns and blasted the “radical left” for “transgender insanity.” This “insanity,” in their view, includes issues such as transgender people using bathrooms that match their gender identity and participating in sports competitions.

The word “equity” – along with related terms such as “diversity,” “critical race theory,” “social justice,” “privilege” and “DEI,” short for “diversity, equity and inclusion” – can also anger a Trump supporter.

They associate these words with a “woke” or even “communist” agenda that they think the “radical left” is trying to impose on them.

While some people think that these terms speak to efforts to recognize that groups of marginalized people, including people of color and women, have long faced discrimination, many Trump supporters think that related “woke” policies threaten their free speech and individual and family rights.

‘Racist’

Trump supporters were called “deplorables” by former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016.

But my interviews and observations show that no word, not even “fascist,” stings Trump supporters as much as being called a “racist,” an accusation that is widely used against them.

As Matt Schlapp, the head of the conservative group Conservative Political Action Committee, which runs the annual CPAC conference, laments in a book, “There is no way to escape its putrid stink.” The “racist” label, Schlapp explains from experience, shames, stigmatizes and makes a person afraid to speak.

More broadly, the use of “racist” and related terms plays into many Trump voters’ perceptions and anger that Democrats are elitist liberals who they think look down upon and even hate them.

Trump and Republican influencers frequently play on this resentment. Trump, for example, wore an orange and yellow safety vest as he sat in a garbage truck after Biden referred to them as “garbage.” Trump’s supporters soon started wearing vests and even garbage bags to his preelection events to show their support for Trump.

No one, however, wore a shirt to a Trump rally emblazoned with the word “racist.”

...

11/14/2024 rww

Kyle Mantyla

MAGA cultist Lance Wallnau says the election results provide a "spiritual heat map" showing where all the demons are concentrated. Spoiler: It's the blue areas.

===

mma

Trump ally Wayne Allyn Root: Democrats may undertake “a false flag mass shooting or supposed domestic terrorist attack” to stop Trump

10/30/24

===

an 9 24

In Springfield, Ohio, Haitian immigrants have been fearing for their safety after former President Donald Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), promoted the racist and debunked conspiracy theory that Haitians in the area have been kidnapping residents' dogs and cats and eating them.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and Springfield Mayor Rob Rue, both conservative Republicans, have said there's zero truth to the claim. And DeWine praised Haitian immigrants in Ohio as "great workers" and "a boost to the economy."

The Washington Post's Catherine Rampell, in her September 24 column, cites the bogus claims about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Ohio as a troubling example of the way in which MAGA rhetoric echoes the "blood and soil" themes that fascist dictators used in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s.

READ MORE:[This far-right MAGA candidate is exposing Trump’s Project 2025 lies

The columnist cautions that in many cases, "equating a political figure with fascists sounds absurd" and is "so over the top." But in Trump's case, she warns, it's accurate.

"In recent weeks," Rampell explains, "the Republican presidential nominee and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (Ohio) have ramped up their baseless claims about violent invasions from impure foreigners, echoing 'blood and soil'-style rhetoric deployed nearly a century ago. At a rally this past weekend in North Carolina, Trump declared that 'a vote for Kamala Harris means 40 or 50 million more illegal aliens will invade across our borders, stealing your money, stealing your jobs, stealing your life.' Chillingly, he added that migrants were already 'attacking villages and cities all throughout the Midwest.'"

Rampell continues, "This followed earlier remarks in Arizona, in which he alleged that 'young American girls' are 'being raped and sodomized and murdered by savage criminal aliens.' Vance has likewise baselessly accused Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio of not only butchering and eating people's pets, but also, of killing people."

The columnist notes that before Vance became a Trump ally, he described him as "America's Hitler."

"Lest Trump's fascist echoes be too faint for Vance to hear these days, the former president occasionally cranks up the volume with antisemitic tropes," Rampell observes. "For instance, he accused American Jews of voting for 'the enemy' and agreed with a radio host that Vice President Kamala Harris’s husband, Doug Emhoff, is a 'crappy Jew.' Debates over 'good' and 'bad' Jews rarely end well for Jews."

READ MORE:['Are you trying to lose the election?' Haley rips Senate candidate for remark about women

---

rubber reverse post assassination rnc unity theme -->

an 7 24

Despite Donald Trump’s promise of “Uniting our Nation,” top Republicans kicked off the 2024 Republican National Convention Monday with attacks on LGBTQ Americans, at times invoking religion, to raucous applause and approval from the GOP delegates.

“This fringe agenda includes biological males competing against girls and the sexualization and indoctrination of our children,” declared U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), a common right-wing attack on transgender children (video below). The GOP delegates, who hours before had pumped their fists in the air and chanted “Fight! Fight! Fight!” were quick to respond to Johnson’s denigrations with waves of booing.

“Today’s Democrat agenda, their policies, are a clear and present danger to America, to our institutions, our values and our people,” Johnson continued. “Democrats have forgotten American families. They’ve abandoned the hard-working middle class. But with President Trump and Republicans, those forgotten Americans are forgotten no more.”

IFrame Content

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), a self-avowed Christian nationalist, declared Trump the “founding father of the America First movement,” and said, “I thank God that His hand was on President Trump” during the assassination attempt that took the life of a 50-year old retired fire chief sitting behind him.

“The establishment in Washington has sold us out,” Greene went on to say. “They promised unity and delivered division. They promised peace and brought war. They promised normalcy and gave us Transgender Visibility Day on Easter Sunday,” she charged, another common right wing attack that ignores Easter Sunday is on different days each year.

After the crowd booed, she continued.

“And let me state this clearly: There are only two genders,” Greene declared, raising her her hand with two fingers up. “And we are made in God’s image. Amen.”

“And we won’t shy away from speaking that simple truth, ever.”

At the end of her speech, Greene vowed, “as God as my witness, He will finally give us the country we deserve. Because Donald John Trump is the leader American deserves. God bless the American people. God bless President Trump, and God bless the United States of America.”

---

an 7 24

the FBI has been conducting a thorough investigation of Thomas Matthew Crooks, the 20-year-old gunman who attempted to assassinate presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on Saturday afternoon, July 13.

Crooks, who was killed by U.S. Secret Service agents, didn't have a strong online presence. The gunman was a registered Republican, yet made a small donation to a progressive group. And his motivations for the Butler attack remain a mystery.

During an appearance on The New Republic's podcast, journalist/author Zack Beauchamp warned that the horrors of July 13 could be followed by more violence in the weeks and months to come.

When host Greg Sargent noted fears that the United States could be facing a long, protracted period of political violence comparable to The Troubles in North Ireland, Beauchamp explained, "The issue is that political violence…. tends to emerge out of a sense that the system is failing. Whoever the person is, whatever their grievances are, whatever their cause is, they feel — in addition to being kind of an angry, resentful person, just on an individual level — that their grievances aren't being articulated and can't be addressed by the political system."

Beauchamp continued, "The issue we have in the United States right now is that due to our extreme polarization, there are people — a small minority of people…. a sizable minority nonetheless, who express willingness to take matters into their own hands because: (A) They feel frustrated by the system, and (B) They hate he other side so much, so fundamentally and see them as an enemy, an existential threat… They believe violence might be justified."

Sargent pointed out that no possible motivations on Crooks' part have been identified and that he could end up being like John Hinkley, Jr., who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

The delusional Hinkley suffered from extreme mental illness and did not act for political reasons, but rather, believed he was in love with actress Jodie Foster and thought he was trying to win her affections. Foster was horrified.

Sargent, warned, however, that some Republicans are making the "preposterous" claim that President Joe Biden and other Democrats are "to blame" for the attempt on Trump's life.

Beauchamp responded that Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) and other "really prominent" figures "in the conservative world" were "talking in the way that you describe."

"The thing is: even if we end up in a John Hinckley-type scenario or the shooter had some type of inexplicable motivation…. it might not matter," Beauchamp told Sargent. "What happens is once an event gets fed in the partisan maelstrom, it gets surfaced and recycled as: the other side is to blame for this. It's their fault. And it's particular true when elites push that narrative."

*Listen to Greg Sargent's full interview with Zack Beauchamp for The New Republic at this link or here.

---

===

an 5 24

rr despite the popularity of the recent movie “Civil War,” we’re not on the verge of a second one. But we areseparating into so-called “red” and “blue.” And if Trump is reelected president, he’ll hasten the separation.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision to reverseRoe v. Wadeleft the issue of abortion to the states, one out of three women of childbearing age now lives in a state that makes it nearly impossible to get an abortion.

And while red states are making it harder than ever to get abortions, they’re making it easier than ever to buy guns.

Red states are also banning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in education. Florida’s Board of Education recently prohibited public colleges from using state and federal funds for DEI. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed a law to require that all state-funded colleges and universities close their DEI offices.

Red states are suppressing votes. In Florida and Texas, teams of “election police” have been created to crack down on the rare crime of voter fraud, another fallout from Trump’s big lie.

They’re banning the teaching of America’s history of racism. They’re requiring transgender students to use bathrooms and join sports teams that reflect their sex at birth.

They’re making it harder to protest. More difficult to qualify for unemployment benefits and other forms of public assistance. Harder than ever to form labor unions.

They’re even passing “bounty” laws — enforced not by governments but by rewards to private citizens for filing lawsuits — on issues ranging from classroom speech to abortion to vaccination.

Blue states are moving in the opposite direction. Several, including Colorado and Vermont, are codifying a right to abortion. Some are helping cover abortion expenses for out-of-staters.

When Idaho proposed a ban on abortion that empowers relatives to sue anyone who helps terminate a pregnancy after six weeks, nearby Oregon approved $15 million to help cover the abortion expenses of patients from other states.

Maryland and Washington have expanded access and legal protections to out-of-state abortion patients. California has expanded access to abortion and protected abortion providers from out-of-state legal action.

After the governor of Texas ordered state agencies to investigate parents for child abuse if they provide certain medical treatments to their transgender children, California enacted a law making the state a refuge for transgender youths and their families.

Blue states are also coordinating more of their policies. During the pandemic, blue states joined together on policies that red states rejected — such as purchasing agreements for personal protective equipment, strategies for reopening businesses as Covid subsided, even on travel from other states with high levels of Covid.

But as blue and red states separate, what will happen to the poor in red states, disproportionately people of color?

“States’ rights” has always been a cover for racial discrimination and segregation. The poor — both white and people of color — are already especially burdened by anti-abortion legislation because they can’t afford travel to a blue state to get an abortion.

They’re also hurt by the failure of red states to expand Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, by red state de factosegregation in public schools, and by red state measures to suppress votes.

One answer is for Democratic administrations and congresses in Washington to prioritize the needs of the red state poor and make extra efforts to protect the civil and political rights of people of color in red states. Yet the failure of the Senate to muster enough votes to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, let alone revive the Voting Rights Act, suggests how difficult this will be.

Blue states could spend additional resources on the needs of red state residents, such as Oregon is now doing for people from outside Oregon who seek abortions. And prohibit state funds from being spent in any state that bans abortions or discriminates on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender.

California already bars anyone on a state payroll (including yours truly, who teaches at Berkeley) from getting reimbursed for travel to states that discriminate against LGBTQ+ people.

Where will all this end?

If Trump is elected this November, the separation will become even sharper. When he was president last time, Trump acted as if he was president only of the people who vote for him — overwhelmingly from red states — and not as the president of all of America.

Recall that during his presidency, he supported legislation that hurt voters in blue states — such as his tax law that stopped deductions of state and local taxes from federal income taxes.

More than 4 in 10 voters believe that a second civil war is likely within the next five years, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted April 21-23.

Red zip codes are getting redder and blue zip codes, bluer. Of the nation’s total 3,143 counties, the number of super landslide counties — where a presidential candidate won at least 80 percent of the vote — jumped from 6 percent in 2004 to 22 percent in 2020.

Surveys show Americans find it increasingly important to live around people who share their political values. Animosity toward those in the opposing party is higher than at any time in living memory. Forty-two percent of registered voters believe Americans in the other party are “downright evil.”

Almost 40 percent would be upset at the prospect of their child marrying someone from the opposite party. Even before the 2020 election, when asked if violence would be justified if the other party won the election, 18.3 percent of Democrats and 13.8 percent of Republicans responded in the affirmative.

We are becoming two Americas — one largely urban, racially and ethnically diverse, and young. The other, largely rural or exurban, white and older.

But rather than civil war, I see a gradual, continuous separation — analogous to unhappily married people who don’t want to go through the trauma of a formal divorce.

America will still be America. But it is fast becoming two versions of America. The open question is the same as faced by couples who separate: Will the two remain civil toward each other?

*Robert Reich is a professor at Berkeley and was secretary of labor under Bill Clinton. You can find his writing at https://robertreich.substack.com/.

===

mma 5 24

right-wing media figures have spent the last year hyping the potential for mass political violence and baselessly asserting the 2024 election will be stolen. In a new interview with Time magazine, former President Donald Trump appeared to give fuel to both of those trends.

In the interview, Trump refused to condemn or discourage any future violent actions by his supporters if he loses the general election in November. When asked by Time whether he was concerned about political violence following the election, Trump responded: “I think we're gonna have a big victory. And I think there will be no violence.” Time later followed up, asking, “What if you don’t win, sir?”

“Well, I do think we're gonna win,” Trump responded, adding, “I don't think they'll be able to do the things that they did the last time, which were horrible.”

“And if we don't win, you know, it depends,” he said. “It always depends on the fairness of an election. I don't believe they'll be able to do the things that they did the last time. I don't think they'll be able to get away with it.”

Trump has long pushed election denialism and is currently facing charges for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, including attempting to prevent certification of the results during the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. He has also been open in his embrace of street vigilantism, famously instructing far-right extremist gang the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” following large-scale anti-racist demonstrations in the summer of 2020.

Beyond Trump’s own comments, consumers of right-wing media have been fed a steady diet of commentary that normalizes political violence, making it appear inevitable. In one particularly clear example from March, BlazeTV’s Steve Deace said, “I think there will be violence after the election regardless of the outcome,” and wished that “Trump had acted the way we wanted him to in the summer of 2020” by cracking down harder on the left-wing protests, predicting that it “would have rallied people that were either on the fence and sick of all that crap or inspired his own base all the more.”

These right-wing fantasies about large-scale violence often take the form of claiming the United States is headed toward another civil war as a result of left-wing provocation.

Last August, on the same evening that Trump surrendered to authorities in Georgia on charges he’d acted to overturn the state’s 2020 election results, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin appeared on Newsmax.

“I think those who are conducting this travesty and creating this two-tiered system of justice and I want to ask them, ‘What the heck? Do you want us to be in civil war?’ because that's what's going to happen,” Palin said. “We're not going to keep putting up with this."

Palin agreed with the host that “we need to get angry,” adding, “We do need to rise up and take our country back.”

The same month, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was asked a question about whether right-wing activists should form militias, and responded by warning that “the bad guys are trying to provoke us into a civil war.” He then advised the audience that “you need to have systems and backup plans of self-sovereignty [if], God forbid, our entire society falls apart and/or our government becomes even more tyrannical and authoritarian,” concluding, “That's why we have the Second Amendment."

Trump and right-wing media are in a feedback loop, each feeding the other's fantasies about impending political violence and rigged elections.

In October, Daily Wire host Micheal Knowles argued that a judge’s decision to allow a challenge to Trump’s candidacy based on the 14th Amendment meant that “we are dangerously close to the conditions that we were at in 1860."

“And I'm not one of these catastrophists who says that we're always going to be on the brink of civil war, and we're all gonna — I'm certainly not encouraging civil war by any means,” Knowles said. “But it could happen. … Civil wars happen. And the liberals would appear to be cultivating the conditions to make it much more likely."

January saw right-wing media figures turn the civil war rhetoric on overdrive after the Supreme Court allowed the Biden administration to remove razor wire Texas state authorities had placed along the U.S.-Mexico border.

On his January 23 show, Kirk said that if Texas ignored the ruling, “some people would say, ‘Well, that's the seeds of a civil war,’” adding, “By the way, I'm all on board."

In the same episode, Kirk told his audience: “Native-born Americans, you better buy weapons, everybody. Have a lot of guns at your disposal. I would never leave your home without a weapon. It's the new country we live in. It is Mad Max. Biden is creating Mad Max. You're on your own."

The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh argued that “the solution is obvious, which is that red state governors will need to ignore the Supreme Court,” warning ominously that “the last civil war was unimaginable until it wasn't. That was a lesson this country learned in the middle of the 19th century. And if the Biden administration is somehow still in office after this next election, then just as abruptly, we might have to learn it again.”

Walsh’s then-colleague Candace Owens similarly claimed, “We are edging very closely to a civil war."

Even when right-wing figures aren’t normalizing civil war rhetoric or rationalizing mass violence, they extoll the virtues of breaking the law on behalf of the MAGA movement.

In March, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon told attendees at a right-wing activists conference, “You have to be prepared to go to prison” in order “to take on the deep state.” Just days later, Kirk defended a Turning Point USA activist charged in the January 6 Capitol riot, calling the case “typical Soviet-style indictment BS” and promising, “I'm gonna keep on standing behind her.”

“These are modern day hostages that are being held by this regime,” he added.

In the Time interview, Trump said he would “absolutely” consider pardoning the more than 800 people who have been sentenced for their role in January 6, who he has also referred to as “hostages,” “political prisoners,” and “patriots.” (Earlier this month, a group of Proud Boys appeared outside a Trump rally in North Carolina, with one member holding a sign demanding the release of January 6 prisoners.)

Another key aspect of Trump’s Time interview is his false insistence that the 2020 election was fraudulent, and that the only way he could lose in November is also rigged against him.

Here again Trump has myriad allies in right-wing media. In January, Fox News was already casting doubt on the 2024 election, with host Laura Ingraham baseless claiming, “The Democrats are going to stop at nothing” to win, including trying “to game the system or yeah, maybe even cheat.”

Bannon frequently makes the same accusations. Just in the last few months, he’s said that Democrats need “phony fake voters” to win and claimed, “The only way they defeat Trump is they steal it.” In March, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones appeared on Bannon’s podcast and declared, “We know they are publicly trying to steal this election again.”

For his part, Kirk recently hosted an entire conference devoted to election denialism with the expressed purpose of “competing right up against” the Republican National Committee, which was holding a winter meeting in the hotel next door.

All of these comments together create a media environment where consumers of conservative news are prepared to reject the outcome of the November election if Trump loses. Those same audiences have been primed to expect — or potentially engage in — right-wing vigilantism following a Biden victory.

Last July, a poll from The Associated Press found that “only 22% of Republicans have high confidence that votes in the upcoming presidential election will be counted accurately compared to 71% of Democrats, underscoring a partisan divide fueled by a relentless campaign of lies related to the 2020 presidential election.” Separately, a March poll from PBS found that “28% of Republicans strongly agree or agree that Americans may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track.” (That number was 12% for Democratic voters.)

Trump and right-wing media are in a feedback loop, each feeding the other's fantasies about impending political violence and rigged elections. The Time interview makes clear that Trump will continue to pour fuel on this fire.

---

PREVIOUSLY REFERRED TO DARK DIRTY MIGRANTS? NAZIS AT CPAC 2 24

At CPAC, Steve Bannon says Trump will "drive the vermin out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue | Media Matters for America

---

lankford censured just for talking to dems

Here are the details of the new bipartisan border security bill Trump doesn’t want passed - Alternet.org

---

an 12 23

one of the few foreign correspondents to be granted personal access to Adolph Hitler and his inner circle in the dark winter of 1933 was Welsh journalist Garreth Jones. Assigned by his home paper, the Western Mail,to cover Hitler’s push to absolute power, Jones accompanied the newly appointed chancellor and his entourage to Frankfurt for a massive political rally that was held on March 2 of 1933.

*This article originally appeared on Truthdig.

Jones’ eyewitness account of the event is bone-chilling because it looks so much like what we are seeing today at Trump rallies.

“For eight hours, the biggest hall in Germany has been packed with 25,000 people for whom Hitler is the savior of his nation,” Jones began his story. “They are waiting, tense with national fervor…I have never seen such a mass of people; such a display of flags up to the top of the high roof, such deafening roars. It is primitive, mass worship.”

Then Hitler took the stage to a “roar of applause and the thumping and the blare of a military band and the thud of marching feet.” Hitler, Jones observed, “is … a master in repeating [his] leitmotiv in many varied forms, and the leitmotiv is: ‘The republican regime in Germany has betrayed you. Our day of retribution has come.’”

As a form of political behavior, discourse and ideology, Trump and the MAGA movement are clearly fascist.

The rally closed with Hitler’s pledge to “complete the work which I began fourteen years ago as an unknown soldier, for which I have struggled as leader of the party and for which I stand today as Chancellor of Germany. We shall do our duty.”

“Again,” Jones wrote, “the hall resounds.”

Three weeks later, Hitler secured passage of the Enabling Act, bringing the Weimar Republic effectively to an end.

Flash forward some 90 years and you can hear echoes of Hitler’s Frankfurt address in the persistent messaging of Donald Trump. Speaking at the ultra-right Faith and Freedom Coalition’s 14^th annual “Road to the Majority” conference in Washington, D.C. on June 24, the former president proclaimed:

In 2016, I declared: I am your voice. Today, I add: I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.

Trump delivered a similar message earlier in June, telling an audience of enraptured supporters in Columbus, Georgia, that he was being persecuted by federal and state prosecutors. He insisted that the “deep state” was also out to get those who followed him. “In the end,” Trump complained, “they’re not coming after me. They’re coming after you — and I’m just standing in their way.” This was the usual stuff of Trumpian spectacle. In a rambling tirade delivered on Veterans Day in New Hampshire, Trump vowed to “root out…the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.”

Trump’s fixation on Hitlerian imagery, memes and tropes is not an accident. The orange-haired demagogue has had a longstanding fascination with Hitler. According to a 1990 Vanity Fair article, Trump’s first wife Ivana, who died last year, told her divorce attorney that the former president kept a compilation of Hitler’s speeches in a cabinet by his bed. Wall Street Journal reporter Michael Bender remarked on Trump’s interest in Hitler in his book on the 2020 presidential campaign, “Finally We Did Win This Election.” Bender writes that Trump told his then-chief of staff Gen. John Kelly during a 2018 trip to Europe that “Hitler did a lot of good things,” particularly for the German economy. (Trump vehemently denied Bender’s account.)

The cult-like bond between the movement leader and his most ardent followers, a bond characterized by pledges of mutual aid, threats of revenge and shared delusions of victimization, is one of the bedrock features of fascism. This was graphically illustrated by the ascent to power of the two pillars of 20 ^th-century fascism, Hitler and Bennito Mussolini, whose personal style Trump is often said to emulate.

“Mussolini put his hands on his hips, thrust his chest, jutted his lower jaw,” Jonathan Blitzer wrote in a 2016 New Yorker article that profiled the work of New York University history professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat, one of the fore most authorities on fascism. “It’s all about showing that he cannot be contained,” Ben-Ghiat told Blitzer. “It was the same with Mussolini.”

“I’ve been studying cult leaders for a hundred years’ worth of them,” said Ben-Ghiat in an appearance on Democracy Now last June. Trump “has all the signs. He is not a conventional politician of either the Democratic or Republican [Party]… He is a cult leader. And the GOP has long been…submissive to him. He put them under an authoritarian discipline, and then he made them complicit. And this is what corrupt, violent authoritarians do. They make you part of their crimes.”

As I have written before in this column, fascism is an emotionally loaded and often misapplied term. But if understood correctly, it can never be dismissed as a vestige of the past. As a form of political behavior, discourse and ideology, Trump and the MAGA movement are clearly fascist. There is no longer room for debate.

Fascism has deep roots in the United States, from the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, to the rise of the German-American Bund in the 1930s, to the ascendance of Depression-era demagogues, and, fast-forward almost a century, the election of Trump in 2016.

There’s a long-running class factor in the current of American fascism. University of London professor Sarah Churchwell’s June 2020 essay in the New York Review of Books exactly nails it when she quotes rabbi Stephen Wise: “The America of power and wealth is an America which needs fascism.”KPFA? POD? 12 23 WHEN INEQUALITY GETS TERMINALLY SKEWED Fascism is last/only defense

Churchwell’s essay, fittingly titled, “American Fascism: It Has Happened Here,” offers a working definition of fascism. She notes that while fascist movements differ from nation to nation, they are united by “conspicuous features [that] are recognizably shared.” These include:

*“[N]ostalgia for a purer, mythic, often rural past; cults of tradition and cultural regeneration; paramilitary groups; the delegitimizing of political opponents and demonization of critics; the universalizing of some groups as authentically national, while dehumanizing all other groups; hostility to intellectualism and attacks on a free press; anti-modernism; fetishized patriarchal masculinity; and a distressed sense of victimhood and collective grievance. Fascist mythologies often incorporate a notion of cleansing, an exclusionary defense against racial or cultural contamination, and related eugenicist preferences for certain ‘bloodlines’ over others.”

If he is reelected next year, Trump could make the January 6 coup attempt look mild. The Washington Post and Politico have reported that Trump and his allies on the extreme right hope to transform the federal government into a virtual presidential dictatorship. Trump and his allies, states Politico, are “collecting the ingredients and refining the recipe for an authoritarian regime.”

The fear is that Trump will invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to deploy the military. This vision of horror includes Trump in the Oval Office using his immense power to quash civil unrest and dismantle civil service protections for government workers in order to secure their loyalty. And all this while weaponizing the Justice Department to do his bidding.

The New York Times warns that a second Trump term will be especially dire for undocumented immigrants, with mass arrests and the construction of detention camps on a scale not seen since the racist “Operation Wetback” of the Eisenhower era. The Times also reported that Trump plans to cancel the visas of foreign students who participated in anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

Fascism thrives in moments of widespread social anxiety and moral panic, when large segments of the population are persuaded that liberal democracy no longer serves their interests. We are living in such a moment now. The urgency we face cannot be understated.

---

Fox News’ Jesse Watters reacts to the Colorado Supreme Court ruling: "The left wants violence" | Media Matters for America

JESSE WATTERS (HOST): Every time Trump's arrested, he becomes more powerful in the eyes of the voters. What's going to happen when they take him off the ballot? They're turning Trump into the greatest political underdog America's ever witnessed. They're setting up the greatest comeback story in American political history.

They say they're protecting us from danger, but Trump's not a danger to us, he's a danger to them. And Americans are starting to ask themselves why. It feels like the left wants violence, because that's where this is going. We're being baited so their actions are justified. That's how it feels. The more the left overplays their hand, the scarier this gets.

---

AN 11 23

For a brief moment in the summer of 2023, the surprise No. 1 song “Rich Men North of Richmond” focused the country’s attention on a region that often gets overlooked in discussions of the U.S. economy. Although the U.S. media sometimes pays attention to the rural South — often concentrating on guns, religion and opioid overdoses — it has too often neglected the broad scope and root causes of the region’s current problems.

As economic historians based in North Carolina and Tennessee, we want a fuller version of the story to be told. Various parts of the rural South are struggling, but here we want to focus on the forlorn areas that the U.S. Department of Agriculture refers to as “rural manufacturing counties” — places where manufacturing is, or traditionally was, the main economic activity.

You can find such counties in every Southern state, although they were historically clustered in Alabama, Georgia, North and South Carolina, and Tennessee. And they are suffering terribly.

Yes, the South is actually in crisis

First, let’s back up. One might be tempted to ask: Are things really that bad? Hasn’t the Sun Belt been booming? But in fact, by a range of economic indicators — personal income per capita and the proportion of the population living in poverty, for starters – large parts of the South, and particularly the rural South, are struggling.

Gross domestic product per capita in the region has been stuck at about 90% of the national average for decades, with average income even lower in rural areas. About 1 in 5 counties in the South is marked by “persistent poverty” — a poverty rate that has stayed above 20% for three decades running. Indeed, fully 80% of all persistently poor counties in the U.S. are in the South.

Persistent poverty is, of course, linked to a host of other problems. The South’s rural counties are marked by low levels of educational attainment, measured both by high school and college graduation rates. Meanwhile, labor-force participation rates in the South are far lower than in the nation as a whole.

Unsurprisingly, these issues stifle economic growth.

Meanwhile, financial institutions have fled the region: The South as a whole lost 62% of its banks between 1980 and 2020, with the decline sharpest in rural areas. At the same time, local hospitals and medical facilities have been shuttering, while funding for everything from emergency services to wellness programs has been cut.

Less wealth, less health

Relatedly, the rural South is ground zero for poor health in the U.S., with life expectancy far lower than the national average. So-called “deaths of despair” such as suicides and accidental overdoses are common, and rates of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and stroke are high – much higher than in rural areas in other parts of the U.S. and in the U.S. as a whole.

Manufacturing counties in the rural South are particularly unhealthy. Residents there die about two and a half years younger than the average American, which to demographers is a staggeringly high differential.

These things, of course, didn’t happen in a vacuum. The Obama-era Affordable Care Act encouraged states to expand Medicaid coverage, but Southern states largely refused to do so. That left large portions of the low- and lower-middle-income population in the rural South uninsured. This has pushed many medical facilities in the region into a death spiral, as their business models — predicated on governmental insurance of one kind or another — became untenable.

Given all this, is it any wonder that rates of upward mobility in the rural South are among the lowest in the country? Alas, probably not — certainly not to residents of rural North Carolina, a state where more than half of its counties lost population between 2010 and 2020.

It wasn’t always this way

Although some people think that these areas have forever been in crisis, this isn’t the case. While the South’s agricultural sector had fallen into long-term decline in the decades following the Civil War — essentially collapsing by the Great Depression — the onset of World War II led to an impressive economic growth spurt.

War-related jobs opening up in urban areas pulled labor out of rural areas, leading to a long-delayed push to mechanize agriculture. Workers rendered redundant by such technology came to constitute a large pool of cheap labor that industrialists seized upon to deploy in low-wage processing and assembly operations, generally in rural areas and small towns.

Such operations surged between 1945 and the early 1980s, playing a huge role in the region’s economic rise. However humble they may have been, in the South — as in China since the late 1970s — the shift out of a backward agricultural sector into low-wage, low-skill manufacturing was an opportunity for significant productivity and efficiency gains.

This helped the South steadily catch up to national norms in terms of per-capita income: to 75% by 1950, 80% by the mid-1960s, over 85% by 1970, and to almost 90% by the early 1980s.

Although today the rise of the Sun Belt is often associated with, if not attributed to, climate, low housing costs and the growth of the South’s booming metropolitan areas, all those rural sweatshops and humble-looking processing sheds opening up in the early postwar era mattered a lot. They elevated the living standards of countless once-desperate and impoverished farmers.

The origins of the rural crisis

By the early 1980s, however, the gains made possible by the shift out of agriculture began to play themselves out. The growth of the rural manufacturing sector slowed, and the South’s convergence upon national per capita income norms stopped, remaining stuck at about 90% from then on.

Two factors were largely responsible: new technologies, which reduced the number of workers needed in manufacturing, and globalization, which greatly increased competition. This latter point became increasingly important, since the South, a low-cost manufacturing region in the U.S., is a high-cost manufacturing region when compared to, say, Mexico.

Like Mike Campbell’s bankruptcy in Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises,” the rural South’s collapse came gradually, then suddenly: gradually during the 1980s and 1990s, and suddenly after China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in December 2001.

Between 2000 and 2010, for example, manufacturing employment in North Carolina, one of the South’s leading manufacturing states, fell by about 44%. Starting a bit earlier — in 1998, when the Asian currency crisis squeezed Southern manufacturers — we find that the Tar Heel State lost 70% of its manufacturing jobs in textiles and 60% in furniture between then and 2010.

Other states in the South’s “manufacturing belt,” such as South Carolina and Tennessee, lost about 40% of their manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010. Although they have recouped some jobs since then, not one Southern state has as many manufacturing jobs as it did a generation ago. And most of the job growth in the southern manufacturing sector in recent decades has taken place in or near big cities.

The proportion of craftsmen and factory workers in the rural Southern labor force fell from 38% in 1980 to a little over 25% by 2020 — a trend that was particularly striking in rural manufacturing counties.

Factory jobs there increasingly gave way to low-level service-sector gigs, which generally paid less. As a result, median income per capita in rural manufacturing counties in the South has stagnated and is much lower than in rural manufacturing counties elsewhere in the U.S.

The first step is recognizing there’s a problem

Those parts of the rural and small-town South that were once heavily involved in manufacturing are in economic crisis today.

One might argue that the current mess is a legacy effect of the South’s historical dependence on a low-skill, low-cost growth “strategy” — beginning with slavery — that privileged short-term economic gains over patient investment in human capital and long-term development. That’s a big claim about a larger, more complex story.

For now, our aim is simply to call attention to the problem. One must first acknowledge it before there can be any hope of a remedy. Until then, the inhabitants of such areas will remain feeling, as the Southern writer Linda Flowers vividly put it, “throwed away.”

Peter A. Coclanis, Professor of History; Director of the Global Research Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Louis M. Kyriakoudes, Director, Albert Gore Research Center and Professor of History, Middle Tennessee State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

---

Newsmax host: "I believe any conservative or any Republican should not do business in a blue state" | Media Matters for America

---

an 10 23

a British journalist and academic is warning that because the Republican Party and its members are cementing belief in Trump's big lie about the 2020 election in its national identity, democracy is at risk.

In an essay for the Guardian, Peter Pomerantsev — a senior fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University — opined that the recent election of Rep. Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) as the next Speaker of the House is a sign that the GOP is embracing election denialism as part of its core identity. Pomerantsev added that adherence to lies is a typical tactic of some of the world's most authoritarian governments.

"Agreeing to Trump’s claims about the rigged election is the absurdity you have to pledge allegiance to in order to show you belong to the tribe. It ensures your fealty by making you complicit," Pomeratnsev wrote. "For anyone who has lived in authoritarian regimes, it’s a familiar sight."

To illustrate this point, Pomerantsev noted that even though Johnson had unanimous support from his caucus in the speaker's race, many Republicans "have admitted both publicly and privately that the elections were, in fact, not falsified."

"Yet when journalists faced a gaggle of Republican congressmen and questioned Johnson’s record on this blatant lie, his colleagues jeered and he mockingly said: “Next question” – as if the facts were irrelevant here," Pomerantsev wrote. "And in a sense, they are."

Pomerantsev's essay elaborated that because Republicans have to believe in a claim they privately know is false in order to maintain power, right-wing media must follow suit in order to sate the tribalist nature of their audience. Because of this, he argues, "it will be hard to fact check our way out of this situation."

"The issue can’t simply be resolved by “trusted” sources, even those on the far right, who can communicate the truth about the election to Trump supporters. Instead, sources only become trusted if they agree to the lie," he wrote. "Pledging loyalty to the 'big lie' is more about identity than knowledge – and to fight it entails understanding the need for belonging and meaning it fulfills."

"Authoritarian propaganda can give the illusion of status and at its extremes a sense of supremacy to compensate for the lack of real agency," he added.

Click here to read Pomerantsev's essay in full.

---

aha doh see inequality

an no lnx orig

Thom HartmannAugust 27, 2023

America is rapidly bifurcating — becoming two nations — and one of the main drivers of the process is a federal system that encourages Red states to mooch off Blue states, using essentially stolen tax money to reinvent the old Confederacy, “own the libs,” and wage “war on woke.”

Most Red states have become oligarchic white supremacist medieval-like fiefdoms with obscene levels of often multigenerational wealth at the top, extreme poverty at the bottom, and working people, women, and minorities kept in subordinate roles through explicit government and corporate policy.

:{:{}:

In this, these Red states are following the once-classic European and later Southern US tradition of a patriarchal, hierarchical society run by male kings, nobles, plantation masters, and wealthy churchmen, with all the work done by serfs, slaves, women, or impoverished wage-slaves.

Frederick Douglass, who was born into Southern slavery, described the South as “a little nation by itself, having its own language, its own rules, regulations, and customs.”

Fewer than 2000 families — six-tenths of one percent of the Southern population — owned more than 50 enslaved people and ruled the oligarchy that we call the Confederacy with an iron fist. The 75 percent of white people in the South during that era who did not own any enslaved persons generally lived in deep poverty.

Women had no rights, queer people were routinely tortured and murdered, education for both enslaved Africans and poor whites was generally outlawed, religious attendance was often mandated, and hunger and disease stalked all but those in the families of the two thousand morbidly rich planter dynasties.

Modern-day Red states are doing their best to recreate that old Confederacy, right down to state Senator Kathy Chism’s new effort to return the Confederate battle flag to Mississippi's state flag. Ron DeSantis and Mike Pence have both emphasized their presidential pledges to restore the names of murderous Civil War traitors to American military bases, celebrating their armed defense of the “values” of the Old South.

Today’s version of yesteryear’s plantation owners are called CEOs, hedge and vulture fund managers, and the morbidly rich.

They use the power of political bribery given them by five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court — with Clarence Thomas’ tie-breaking Citizens United vote on behalf of his sugar daddy Harlan Crow — to lord over their Red states, regardless of the will of those states’ citizens.

Working people in Red states are kept in poverty by “Right to Work for Less” laws based on the GOP’s 1947 Taft-Hartley Act (passed over Harry Truman’s veto), deprived of healthcare by their governors’ refusal to expand Medicaid to cover all low-wage working people, and draconian cuts along with byzantine bureaucratic obstacles to getting state aid ranging from housing support to food stamps to subsidized daycare to unemployment insurance.

Women are returning to chattel status in Red states, the property of their fathers or husbands, their bondage enforced by bounty systems and the threat of imprisonment should they try to assert agency over their own bodies.

Multiple Red states have outlawed teaching the actual history of slavery, Jim Crow, and the ongoing violence and persecution suffered by racial, gender, and religious minorities. Many are using government tax revenues to subsidize typically-all-white “Christian” religious schools, a trend spreading across Republican-controlled states like an out-of-control fungus.

Almost a dozen GOP-controlled states have passed laws criminalizing protests against Republican policies, and, writes The Atlantic quoting the International Center for Non-for-Profit Law, “several of those states have simultaneously provided civil or criminal protection for drivers who hit [and kill] protesters…”

Others have banned books and fired teachers who dare discuss diversity or basic sex education. Many, as I wrote here yesterday, are withholding state funds from banking and investment institutions that consider the environment, social justice, or governance on behalf of the working class and the poor (ESG) when making business decisions.

Climate change, they’ll tell you as they take campaign funds from the fossil fuel industry and the billionaires it’s created, is a hoax perpetrated by liberal scientists who are somehow “getting rich” by warning the world of its consequences.

Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis no longer rule the South on behalf of the notorious “2000 families” but their spiritual heirs, today’s Red state governors, would make them proud with their restrictions on voting, encouragement of armed white supremacist vigilantism, and state tax subsidies for American oligarch billionaires and theircorporateempires.

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp — whose family, investigative reporter Greg Palast discovered, was the first to bring enslaved Africans to Georgia— famously signed a law codifying 10-hour voting lines in Black neighborhoods and giving his state the power to throw people off voting rolls without justification in a closed-door ceremony before a painting of one of the 2000 families’ Georgia slave plantations.

It’s said that Red states are trying to take us back to the 1950s. In fact, most are shooting for the 1870s, when women were the property of their husbands, poor children worked 12-hour days for pennies, queer people were invisible, and Black, Asian, Native American, and Hispanic people could be murdered with impunity.

On the other hand, Blue states have embraced 21st-century values of inclusiveness, tolerance, education, healthcare, a clean environment, worker’s rights, higher minimum wages and unionization, gun safety, paid sick leave, and are working to override the electoral college to bring democracy to the race for president.

Most have enacted gun control laws that often include assault weapon bans, outlawed forced “captive audience” union-busting meetings, expanded drug treatment programs, decriminalized marijuana, strengthened abortion rights protections, raised their minimum wages, and are moving quickly to green their economies to mitigate climate change.

They’re offering protections to asylum seekers, women seeking medical care, and transgender individuals fleeing overt persecution in Red states. They celebrate gay marriage and honor the holidays of religious minorities. Women and racial minorities make up large parts of their legislative bodies and occupy many of their governor’s offices.

In this, Blue states are following the vision and values laid out by several of America’s Founders who helped create the first nation in world history espousing the idea that nobody should have to live in poverty and an important role of government was to prevent people from falling through the cracks.

Thomas Paine, for example, laid out a proposal for what we today call Social Security in his pamphlet Agrarian Justice, and Thomas Jefferson created the nation’s first totally free university (the University of Virginia). Half the delegates to the Constitutional Convention spoke against slavery as a curse against our nation’s ideals, although it took a bloody war to end that “peculiar institution” held so tightly in the grip of the 2000 families.

Even in the first years of our republic, the founding generation understood that caring for the public good was an essential function of government, as referenced in the preamble to the Constitution. President George Washington signed the first legislation providing federal funds for poorhouses that including food, clothing, shelter, and medical care along with job training.

Three decades later, when the legislation was up for renewal, President James Madison (the “Father of the Constitution”) vetoed a provision proposed by Southern states that would have cycled those revenues through local churches, writing in his veto message that federal funding of churches — even for charitable antipoverty purposes the government supported — “would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.”

So, how did we get here and what can we do about it?

Ironically, it turns out that Red states are able to carry out their campaign of reviving the old Confederacy and its values of patriarchy, hierarchy, and wage slavery in large part because Blue states are subsidizing them.

While Donald Trump carried 2,497 counties in the 2020 election compared to Joe Biden’s 477 counties, the Blue counties Biden carried generated a total of 71 percent of the nation’s economic activity.

:{:{}:

The fiscal health of Blue states and counties — along with widespread Red state poverty exacerbated by Red State tax breaks for the morbidly rich — accounts for the bizarre reality that Blue states are subsidizing the brutal and retrograde policies of Red states.

A March 2023 report from the Rockefeller Institute lays out how glaring this appropriation of Blue state revenue is by the Red states. In just New York, for example, they write that over a five-year period:

“New York taxpayers have given $142.6 billion more to the federal government than New York residents have received back in federal spending.”

:{:{}:

As the Associated Press summarized in an article titled AP FACT CHECK: Blue high-tax states fund red low-tax states:

:{:{}:

“Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71.

:{:{}:

“Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents.

:{:{}:

“California fared a bit better than other blue states. It received 96 cents for every dollar the state sent to Washington.”

When the Biden administration tried to just slightly slow down the Red state gravy train, specifying in the American Rescue Plan that the subsidies to the states for helping people who lost their jobs due to Covid could not be misappropriated and redirected to tax cuts for local billionaires, their politicians — dancing to the tune of their in-state oligarchs — went ballistic. As Forbes documented:

“So far, a total of 18 red states are plaintiffs in five separate lawsuits challenging a provision in the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Biden signed into law last month which says that state governments cannot use any of the $350 billion in federal pandemic relief funds coming their way to ‘either directly or indirectly offset a reduction’ in their net tax revenue resulting from state tax cuts.

“In a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, 21 Republican state attorneys general described it as ‘the greatest attempted invasion of state sovereignty by Congress in the history of our Republic.’”

Federal policy fails to equalize revenue flowing to Red states against the tax money they send Washington DC. This loophole in US tax law is driving this bizarre process where citizens in Blue states are forced by law to pay for all-white “Christian” academies, enforcement of abortion restrictions, persecution of asylum seekers and immigrants, and political attacks on queer people.

Red state “welfare queen” governors and legislatures are going to happily continue this grift as long as we let them get away with it. Congress should pass legislation mandating that Red state revenues to DC must at least match 90 percent of the money they get back; 100 percent would be better, and help hugely with our nation’s budget deficit.

It’s time to end Red state welfare!

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

The strange truth about the pro-slavery origins of Christian nationalism in the United States ›

'You're unemployable': Matt Gaetz shamed for tying 'rigorous work requirements' to the debt ceiling ›

Republicans can’t stop won’t stop hating the poor ›