Everyday Erinyes #255

 Posted by at 10:21 am  Politics
Feb 272021
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

As I’ve been saying, I have a number of articles saved regarding how white supremacy thinks, when it increases, how it expresses itself, and so on – and especially, what to do about it. I hope to get to all of them eventually. This is one of them. It’s about the conditions which tend to give rise to populism.

Since “populism” just means “people-ism,” and democracy is supposed to be government of, for, and by the people, you may wonder how this could be bad. But “populism” in politics has its own definition. And it turns out to be quite unfavorable to actual people.
================================================================

Populism erupts when people feel disconnected and disrespected

Trump supporters face off against counterprotesters at the Million MAGA March in Washington on Nov. 14, 2020.
Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Noam Gidron, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Peter A. Hall, Harvard University

American society is riven down the middle. In the 2020 presidential election, 81 million people turned out to vote for Joe Biden, while another 74 million voted for Donald Trump. Many people came to the polls to vote against the other candidate rather than enthusiastically to support the one who secured their vote.

While this intense polarization is distinctly American, born of a strong two-party system, the antagonistic emotions behind it are not.

Much of Trump’s appeal rested on a classically populist message – a form of politics evident around the world that rails against mainstream elites on behalf of the ordinary people.

The resonance of those appeals means that America’s social fabric is fraying at its edges. Sociologists refer to this as a problem of social integration. Scholars argue that societies are well integrated only when most of their members are closely connected to other people, believe that they are respected by others and share a common set of social norms and ideals.

Although people voted for Donald Trump for many reasons, there is growing evidence that much of his appeal is rooted in problems of social integration. Trump seems to have secured strong support from Americans who feel they have been pushed to the margins of mainstream society and who may have lost faith in mainstream politicians.

This perspective has implications for understanding why support for populist politicians has recently been rising around the world. This development is the subject of widespread debate between those who say populism stems from economic hardship and others who emphasize cultural conflict as the source of populism.

Understanding populism’s roots is essential for addressing its rise and threat to democracy. We believe seeing populism as the product not of economic or cultural problems, but as a result of people feeling disconnected, disrespected and denied membership in the mainstream of society, will lead to more useful answers about how to stem populism’s rise and strengthen democracy.

Anti-Trump demonstrators holding a sign saying 'Punch MAGA in the face' at a march in Washington, DC.
Trump supporters feel disrespected by mainstream culture. Here, an anti-Trump demonstration in Washington, D.C. on Nov. 14.
Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images

Not only in America

One Democratic pollster found that support for Trump in 2016 was high among people with low trust in others. In 2020, polling found that “socially disconnected voters were far more likely to view Trump positively and support his reelection than those with more robust personal networks.”

Our analysis of survey data from 25 European countries suggests that this is not a purely American phenomenon.

These feelings of social marginalization and a corresponding disillusionment with democracy provide populist politicians of all hues and from different countries with an opportunity to claim that the mainstream elites have betrayed the interests of their hard-working citizens.

Across all of these countries, it turns out that people who engage in fewer social activities with others, mistrust those around them and feel that their contributions to society go largely unrecognized are more likely to have less trust in politicians and lower satisfaction with democracy.

Marginalization affects voting

Feelings of social marginalization – reflected in low levels of social trust, limited social engagement and the sense that one lacks social respect – are also linked to whether and how people vote.

People who are socially disconnected are less likely to turn out to vote. But, if they do decide to vote, they are significantly more likely to support populist candidates or radical parties – on either side of the political spectrum – than people who are well integrated into society.

This relationship remains strong even after other factors that might also explain voting for populist politicians, such as gender or education, are taken into account.

There is a striking correspondence between these results and the stories told by people who find populist politicians attractive. From Trump voters in the American South to radical right supporters in France, a series of ethnographers have heard stories about failures of social integration.

Populist messages, like “take back control” or “make America great again,” find a receptive audience among people who feel pushed to the sidelines of their national community and deprived of the respect accorded full members of it.

Intersection of economics and culture

Once populism is seen as a problem of social integration, it becomes apparent that it has both economic and cultural roots that are deeply intertwined.

Economic dislocation that deprives people of decent jobs pushes them to the margins of society. But so does cultural alienation, born when people, especially outside large cities, feel that mainstream elites no longer share their values and, even worse, no longer respect the values by which they have lived their lives.

These economic and cultural developments have for long shaped Western politics. Therefore, electoral losses of populist standard bearers such as Trump do not necessarily herald the demise of populism.

The fortunes of any one populist politician may ebb and flow, but draining the reservoir of social marginalization on which populists depend requires a concerted effort for reform aimed at fostering social integration.

[Understand key political developments, each week. Subscribe to The Conversation’s election newsletter.]The Conversation

Noam Gidron, Assistant Professor of Political Science,, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Peter A. Hall, Krupp Foundation Professor of European Studies, Harvard University

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

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, the authors of this article recommend “fostering social integration” as a major project to safeguard our nation against future insurrections motivated by populism, but they don’t really have much to say on how to go about accomplishing that. I submit that public education is a major factor – and the fact that our system of public education has been so dramatically undermined over the last 40 years is a major contributor to the current dangerous populism. One aspect of becoming and being integrated into society is understanding how to know what people or kinds of people can be trusted, and which cannot. A good education can provide and strengthen that kind of discernment.

I also grant that it is extremely challenging to show respect toward people whose opinions and behavior have amply demonstrated they deserve none. But – they are still human being, and they do deserve to be respected as such, even with all their attempts to deny the same to others. It will require a lot of work – and a lot of self control.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share
Feb 072021
 

Meidas Touch – That “click” you hear when everything suddenly fits together and it all makes sense now.

Vox – Of course the time to think about this was in 2018 (and 2020). But anyone who missed that boat can learn from this. Almost 8 minutes, but what’s that as compared with the next ten years?

I just stumbled on this, so I have probably already missed some, and, not being on Twitter, will probably miss more. But I can at least share what a good thing this is!

The Standing Rock Tribal Council talks DAPL. Yes, there’s a petition. Wopila tanka.

Dr Jill – PSA for the Puppy Bowl XVII

I knew John Fugelsang was clever and witty – but I did not know he did puppets. Now I need to go see what else he does on video.

Beau – Canada and our First Amendment

Share

Everyday Erinyes #252

 Posted by at 10:28 am  Politics
Feb 062021
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

As I said lst week, I have a number of articles saved regarding how white supremacy thinks, when it increases, how it expresses itself, and so on. I hope to get to all of them eventually. This one is specifically about how violence is incite, which, in a word, is “indirectly.” A number of Republicans are “defending” Donald Trump** with the claim that he didn’t specifically tell his supporters to go kill people (they’re not using those words, but that’s the general idea.) Well, duh. Of course he didn’t. that’s not how it’s done. Here’s how it actually is done:
================================================================

Incitement to violence is rarely explicit – here are some techniques people use to breed hate

Dangerous speech is a toxic brew of emotion and age-old tropes.
Mihajlo Maricic / iStock via Getty Images Plus

H. Colleen Sinclair, Mississippi State University

As senators plan for an impeachment trial in which former President Donald Trump is accused of inciting his supporters to mount a deadly insurrection at the Capitol, global concern is growing about threats of violent unrest in multiple countries, including the U.S. The United Nations reports the proliferation of dangerous speech online represents a “new era” in conflict.

Dangerous speech is defined as communication encouraging an audience to condone or inflict harm. Usually this harm is directed by an “ingroup” (us) against an “outgroup” (them) – though it can also provoke self-harm in suicide cults.

U.S. law reflects the assumption that dangerous speech must contain explicit calls to criminal action. But scholars who study speeches and propaganda that precede acts of violence find direct commands to violence are rare.

Other elements are more common. Here are some of the red flags.

Firing up emotions

Adolf Hitler, dressed in a business suit, giving a speech.
Adolf Hitler addresses the crowd, September 1930.
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Psychologists have analyzed the speeches of rousing leaders like Hitler and Gandhi for their emotional content, assessing how much fear, joy, sadness and so on were present. They then tested whether the levels of emotion could predict whether a certain speech preceded violence or nonviolence.

They discovered the following emotions, particularly combined, could ignite violence:

  • Anger: The speaker gives the audience reasons to be angry, often pointing out who should be held responsible for that anger.
  • Contempt: The outgroup is deemed inferior to the ingroup, and thus unworthy of respect.
  • Disgust: The outgroup is described as so revolting they are undeserving of even basic humane treatment.

Constructing the threat

By studying political speeches and propaganda that have inspired violence, researchers have identified themes that can stir these powerful emotions.

Targets of dangerous speech are often dehumanized, depicted as fundamentally lacking qualities – empathy, intelligence, values, abilities, self-control – at the core of being human. Commonly, outgroups are depicted as evil, due to their alleged lack of morality. Alternatively, they may be portrayed as animalistic or worse. During the Rwandan genocide, Tutsis were referred to as cockroaches in Hutu propaganda.

To build a “story of hate,” a good guy is needed to counter the villain. So whatever dehumanizing quality is present in the outgroup, the opposite is present in the ingroup. If “they” are the Antichrist, “we” are the children of God.

Alleged past wrongdoings of the outgroup against the ingroup are used to position the outgroup as a threat. In cases of ongoing conflict between groups, such as between Israelis and Palestinians, there may well be examples of past wrongs on both sides. Effective dangerous speech omits, minimizes or justifies past wrongs by the ingroup members, while exacerbating past wrongs of the outgroup.

Competitive victimhood” is used to portray the ingroup as the “real” victim – especially if ingroup “innocents” like women and children have been harmed by the outgroup. Sometimes past acts of the outgroups are fabricated and used as scapegoats for the ingroup’s past misfortunes. For instance, Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany losing World War I.

A man with four huge machete scars across his face. Part of his ear is missing.
A survivor of the Rwandan genocide, 1994.
Scott Peterson/Hulton Archive via Getty Images

A particularly dangerous fabrication is when outgroups are accused of plotting against the ingroup the very deeds the ingroup is planning, if not actually committing, against the outgroup. Researchers coined the term “accusations in a mirror” after this strategy was explicitly described in a Hutu propaganda handbook following the Rwandan genocide.

Disengaging one’s moral compass

Effective dangerous speech gets people to overcome internal resistance to inflicting harm.

This can be accomplished by making it seem like no other options remain to defend the ingroup from the threat presented by the outgroup. Less extreme options are dismissed as exhausted or ineffective. The outgroup can’t be “saved.”

Simultaneously, speakers deploy “euphemistic labeling” to provide more palatable terms for violence, like “cleansing” or “defense” instead of “murder.” Or they may use “virtue-talk” to play up honor in fighting – and dishonor in not. After directing his followers to kill their children and themselves, cult leader Jim Jones called it “an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world.”

Sometimes, the ingroup suffers from an illusion of invulnerability and does not even consider the possibility of negative consequences from their actions, because they are so confident in the righteousness of their group and cause. If thought is given to life post-violence, it is portrayed as only good for the ingroup.

By contrast, if the outgroup is allowed to remain, obtain control or enact their alleged devious plans, the future looks grim; it will mean the destruction of everything the ingroup holds dear, if not the end of the ingroup itself.

These are just some of the hallmarks of dangerous speech identified through decades of research by historians and social scientists studying genocide, cults, intergroup conflict and propaganda. It is not an exhaustive list. Nor do all these elements need to be present for a speech to promote harm. There is also no guarantee the presence of these factors definitely leads to harm – just as there is no guarantee that smoking leads to cancer, though it certainly increases the risk.

The persuasiveness of a speech also depends on other variables, like the charisma of the speaker, the receptivity of the audience, the medium by which the message is delivered and the context in which the message is being received.

However, the elements described above are warning signs a speech is intended to promote and justify inflicting harm. People can resist calls to violence by recognizing these themes. Prevention is possible.

[Get our most insightful politics and election stories. Sign up for The Conversation’s Politics Weekly.]The Conversation

H. Colleen Sinclair, Associate Professor of Social Psychology, Mississippi State University

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

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, those of us (like everyone here) who already know this through our reading, our knowledge of history, our observation in our own lives, can be at a disadvantage when it turns out we need to explain it to people who think that, if you want someone to kill someone else, you just tell him (or her, but usually a him) so. I’m not really thinking of you are me trying to explain this to a friend or colleague or neighbor, but of the fact that our impeachment managers may very well – probably will – have to explain how this works to Republican Senators who are not just dense but wilfully dense. Our managers are all highly intelligent – I just hope intelligence doesn’t get too much in the way of understanding how those think who aren’t – and communicating with them.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share
Jan 302021
 

Meidas Touch – They’re not conservatives

Now This News – everything you wanted to know about the filibuster but were afraid to ask.

The Lincoln Project – Josh Hawley

Tweet from Corey (who, you may remember is one of Trae’s partners in WellRED Comedy)

The Alt-Right Playbook – Mainstreaming

Cats in Therapy

Beau “Let’s talk about Biden and oil jobs….” Some hard truth, suck it up information for those who should know better but often don’t

Share

Everyday Erinyes #251

 Posted by at 10:30 am  Politics
Jan 302021
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

I have a number of articles saved regarding how white supremacy thinks, when it increases, how it expresses itself, and so on. I hope to get to all of them eventually, but in looking them over, that this one stood out as being more related to “what can we do about it” than the others. A couple are about preventing it, but it’s a little late for that now, and a little early for future generations. So let’s look at one potential solution and see how effective it is – or isn’t.
================================================================

Does ‘deplatforming’ work to curb hate speech and calls for violence? 3 experts in online communications weigh in

Twitter’s suspension of Donald Trump’s account took away his preferred means of communicating with millions of his followers.
AP Photo/Tali Arbel

Jeremy Blackburn, Binghamton University, State University of New York; Robert W. Gehl, Louisiana Tech University, and Ugochukwu Etudo, University of Connecticut

In the wake of the assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, Twitter permanently suspended Donald Trump’s personal account, and Google, Apple and Amazon shunned Parler, which at least temporarily shut down the social media platform favored by the far right.

Dubbed “deplatforming,” these actions restrict the ability of individuals and communities to communicate with each other and the public. Deplatforming raises ethical and legal questions, but foremost is the question of whether it’s an effective strategy to reduce hate speech and calls for violence on social media.

The Conversation U.S. asked three experts in online communications whether deplatforming works and what happens when technology companies attempt it.

Sort of, but it’s not a long-term solution

Jeremy Blackburn, assistant professor of computer science, Binghamton University

The question of how effective deplatforming is can be looked at from two different angles: Does it work from a technical standpoint, and does it have an effect on worrisome communities themselves?

Does deplatforming work from a technical perspective?

Gab was the first “major” platform subject to deplatforming efforts, first with removal from app stores and, after the Tree of Life shooting, the withdrawal of cloud infrastructure providers, domain name providers and other Web-related services. Before the shooting, my colleagues and I showed in a study that Gab was an alt-right echo chamber with worrisome trends of hateful content. Although Gab was deplatformed, it managed to survive by shifting to decentralized technologies and has shown a degree of innovation – for example, developing the moderation-circumventing Dissenter browser.

From a technical perspective, deplatforming just makes things a bit harder. Amazon’s cloud services make it easy to manage computing infrastructure but are ultimately built on open source technologies available to anyone. A deplatformed company or people sympathetic to it could build their own hosting infrastructure. The research community has also built censorship-resistant tools that, if all else fails, harmful online communities can use to persist.

Does deplatforming have an effect on worrisome communities themselves?

Whether or not deplatforming has a social effect is a nuanced question just now beginning to be addressed by the research community. There is evidence that a platform banning communities and content – for example, QAnon or certain politicians – can have a positive effect. Platform banning can reduce growth of new users over time, and there is less content produced overall. On the other hand, migrations do happen, and this is often a response to real world events – for example, a deplatformed personality who migrates to a new platform can trigger an influx of new users.

Another consequence of deplatforming can be users in the migrated community showing signs of becoming more radicalized over time. While Reddit or Twitter might improve with the loss of problematic users, deplatforming can have unintended consequences that can accelerate the problematic behavior that led to deplatforming in the first place.

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that deplatforming, while certainly easy to implement and effective to some extent, will be a long-term solution in and of itself. Moving forward, effective approaches will need to take into account the complicated technological and social consequences of addressing the root problem of extremist and violent Web communities.

Yes, but driving people into the shadows can be risky

Ugochukwu Etudo, assistant professor of operations and information management, University of Connecticut

Does the deplatforming of prominent figures and movement leaders who command large followings online work? That depends on the criteria for the success of the policy intervention. If it means punishing the target of the deplatforming so they pay some price, then without a doubt it works. For example, right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter in 2016 and Facebook in 2019, and subsequently complained about financial hardship.

If it means dampening the odds of undesirable social outcomes and unrest, then in the short term, yes. But it is not at all certain in the long term. In the short term, deplatforming serves as a shock or disorienting perturbation to a network of people who are being influenced by the target of the deplatforming. This disorientation can weaken the movement, at least initially.

However, there is a risk that deplatforming can delegitimize authoritative sources of information in the eyes of a movement’s followers, and remaining adherents can become even more ardent. Movement leaders can reframe deplatforming as censorship and further proof of a mainstream bias.

There is reason to be concerned about the possibility that driving people who engage in harmful online behavior into the shadows further entrenches them in online environments that affirm their biases. Far-right groups and personalities have established a considerable presence on privacy-focused online platforms, including the messaging platform Telegram. This migration is concerning because researchers have known for some time that complete online anonymity is associated with increased harmful behavior online.

In deplatforming policymaking, among other considerations, there should be an emphasis on justice, harm reduction and rehabilitation. Policy objectives should be defined transparently and with reasonable expectations in order to avoid some of these negative unintended consequences.

Yes, but the process needs to be transparent and democratic

Robert Gehl, associate professor of communication and media studies, Louisiana Tech University

Deplatforming not only works, I believe it needs to be built into the system. Social media should have mechanisms by which racist, fascist, misogynist or transphobic speakers are removed, where misinformation is removed, and where there is no way to pay to have your messages amplified. And the decision to deplatform someone should be decided as close to democratically as is possible, rather than in some closed boardroom or opaque content moderation committee like Facebook’s “Supreme Court.”

In other words, the answer is alternative social media like Mastodon. As a federated system, Mastodon is specifically designed to give users and administrators the ability to mute, block or even remove not just misbehaving users but entire parts of the network.

For example, despite fears that the alt-right network Gab would somehow take over the Mastodon federation, Mastodon administrators quickly marginalized Gab. The same thing is happening as I write with new racist and misogynistic networks forming to fill the potential void left by Parler. And Mastodon nodes have also prevented spam and advertising from spreading across the network.

Moreover, the decision to block parts of the network aren’t made in secret. They’re done by local administrators, who announce their decisions publicly and are answerable to the members of their node in the network. I’m on scholar.social, an academic-oriented Mastodon node, and if I don’t like a decision the local administrator makes, I can contact the administrator directly and discuss it. There are other distributed social media system, as well, including Diaspora and Twister.

The danger of mainstream, corporate social media is that it was built to do exactly the opposite of what alternatives like Mastodon do: grow at all costs, including the cost of harming democratic deliberation. It’s not just cute cats that draw attention but conspiracy theories, misinformation and the stoking of bigotry. Corporate social media tolerates these things as long as they’re profitable – and, it turns out, that tolerance has lasted far too long.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]The Conversation

Jeremy Blackburn, Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Binghamton University, State University of New York; Robert W. Gehl, F. Jay Taylor Endowed Research Chair of Communication, Louisiana Tech University, and Ugochukwu Etudo, Assistant Professor of Operations and Information Management, University of Connecticut

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

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, there you have it. The clear consensu answer is “yes, but.” I am certainly intrigued by the type of social network described by Professor Gehl, but it does appear to require participants to accept facts and be willing to enter into rational discourse, which kind of eliminates the categories of people who need deplatforming the most. I don’t know what the solution actually is. It probably involves getting social media platforms not to function as profit-making activities, and good luck with that. But at least this is a start.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share
Jan 292021
 

Meidas Touch – Rubio

The Lincoln Project – “One of the people who organized this is well known for having worked with The Lincoln Project in the past. So – let’s have trial by combat!”

Now This News – AOC on present GOP House caucus

Really American

Puppet Regime

From Twitter (The 11th hour) No CC and I hate to spolt the punch line – I’ll email you, Nameless.

Beau on Biden and national security. It’s related to controlling the conversation (remember from the Alt-Right playbook a few days ago?)

Share
Jan 252021
 

It’s a tired/painful day here in the CatBox.  Due to Republicitis, I plugged the toilet so bad that it won’t plunge, and I had to call Maintenance to come snake it.  They should be here around lunch time.  Dang that’s embarrassing!  My Video Meeting yesterday turned out to be with volunteers only, but it was still a good time.  Yesterday, I was disappointed that Tampa Bay beat Green Bay.  I don’t like Tom Brady.  He deflates his balls and lives Trump**.  However, both my Chiefs and Nameless’ Chiefs won.  WWWendy is coming this evening.  Since Trump** is out, Oh Wow!  It’s Monday.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today’s took me 3:06 (average 5:28).  To do it, click here.  How did you do?

Cartoon:

Short Takes:

From Crooks and Liars: It’s no shock that both the campaign and the officials on the permit are all trying to erase their connections. From AP:

In a statement, the president’s reelection campaign said it “did not organize, operate or finance the event.” No campaign staff members were involved in the organization or operation of the rally, according to the statement. It said that if any former employees or independent contractors for the campaign took part, “they did not do so at the direction of the Trump campaign.”

At least one was working for the Trump campaign this month. Megan Powers was listed as one of two operations managers for the Jan. 6 event, and her LinkedIn profile says she was the Trump campaign’s director of operations into January 2021. She did not respond to a message seeking comment.

The AP’s review found at least three of the Trump campaign aides named on the permit rushed to obscure their connections to the demonstration. They deactivated or locked down their social media profiles, removed tweets that referenced the rally and blocked a reporter who asked questions.

“Shell companies and ‘dark money’ may hide details of Trump ties to DC protests,” OpenSecrets.org reports. But not all. For example, Open Secrets found that Powers was paid about $290,000 by Trump’s campaign while on its payroll from February 2019 through at least November 2020, according to FEC records.

 

This shows the degree to which the RNP (Republican Nazi Party) orchestrated the insurrection. The included video (above) is the best analysis of this I’ve seen.  It also shows how vicious they are.  RESIST the Republican Reich!!

From NY Times: Two days after the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, Jackson Reffitt’s father, Guy W. Reffitt, returned to the family’s home in Texas. He told his son that he had stormed the Capitol, according to an F.B.I. affidavit.

Then his father leveled a threat: If Jackson, 18, reported him to the police, he would have no choice but to do his “duty” for his country and “do what he had to do.”

In interviews with investigators, Jackson Reffitt said his father told him: “If you turn me in, you’re a traitor. And you know what happens to traitors. Traitors get shot.”

But he had already reported his father to the F.B.I. weeks before the riot.

How can anyone wield enough hate to say what Gut Reffitt said to his son?  Jackson deserves an award for his patriotism and courage. This demonstrates the degree to which the RNP (Republican Nazi Party) are pure evil and must be eradicated as a political entity.  RESIST the Republican Reich!!

From YouTube (a blast from the past): George Harrison – My Sweet Lord (Official Audio)

 

Ah… the memories! What a magnificent hymn!  And at last we have reason to rejoice!  RESIST the Republican Reich!!

Build the Future. It Belongs to YOU!

Share
Jan 242021
 

Meidas Touch

This is almost 9 minutes but it’s – amazing. It has no CC and I could not find it on YouTube or the CNN site with a search. There appears to be no way to activate captions.

It is available here with captions, but there appears to be no way to embed this.

Drew Morgan is the third member of WellRED Comedy, along with Trae and Corey

When I put up a video which referenced “The Alt-Right Playbook” I noted that it might be from an actual series – and it is. Here’s the introduction.

Beau – Kevin McCarthy should really try not to get under Beau’s skin. The results are not preety (at least not for Kevin.)

Republicans for the Rule of Law – the video I intended to include yesterday that didn’t get it. It was three days old yesterday, and it’s older today – and as I said it’s a bit confusing because the sound and the captions don’t match. But it makes a point.

OwlKitty. No CC because no dialog – just music and a purr

Beau on what will happen with the Coronavirus, numbers, vaccinations.

Share