White Supremacist/Nazi Rally In D.C. Is An Epic Failure

(Photo of white supremacist/nazi march  toward D.C. rally is by Al Drago in New York Times.)

This weekend marked the one year anniversary of the conflict in Charlottesville, when hundreds of white supremacists and nazis demonstrated. That led to a conflict with decent Americans, where one young woman was killed as a racist barreled his car through a crown of people demonstrating against the racists.

While most Americans considered that conflict in Charlottesville a travesty, the racists considered it a great victory. They got their agenda in all the media, and Trump even called them "good people". They decided to celebrate the anniversary of Charlottesville with a huge rally in D.C. in a park across from the White House. The rally would be both a celebration of their "victory" last year, and a showing of support for their white supremacist brother in the White House.

But those plans went awry -- BIGLY! The "huge rally" was attended by less than 50 white supremacists and nazis. NBC put the number a a couple of dozen. And that paltry number of racists was surrounded by several thousand people demonstrating against them. In the end, their rally had to be cut short, and they were escorted away by police protecting them from the huge crowd of anti-demonstrators.

The whole thing was a huge embarrassment for the white supremacists and nazis -- and that's a good thing. They need to know their vile views will not be allowed to spread in this country, even with a racist in the White House.

Does The Public Understand What "Alt-Right" Means ?

The charts above reflect information found in a new ABC News / Washington Post Poll -- done between August 16th and 20th of a random national sample of 1,014 adults, with a 3.5 point margin of error.

The top chart doesn't surprise me. It shows that a majority of the public (56%) disapproved of how Donald Trump handled the news from the Charlottesville protests, while 28% approved. That 28% are the true-believers, and would support anything Trump did. He could be filmed punching children in the face to steal their candy, and that 28% would be loyal to him.

But the bottom chart really concerns me. It shows that 50% of Americans say they oppose the "alt-right" movement, while 10% support it and another 41% say they have no opinion about it. Could it really be true that about half of the country either supports the burgeoning hate groups or don't have an opinion on them. Could they be that cavalier about hate?

I certainly hope not. I think it is more likely that too many Americans don't understand the term "alt-right". It does NOT refer to traditional conservative or right-wing ideals. It is a term invented by hate groups to disguise their racist, bigoted, and violent agenda. They want to make their hate more palatable to more people -- and it looks like that may be working.

We must make it clear to more people just what "alt-right" means. It refers specifically to a collection of hate groups (KKK, neo-nazis, white nationalists, white supremacists, etc.). We must not let hate hide behind this rather innocuous sounding terminology.

Associated Press Gives Guidance Of Use Of Term "Alt-Right"

I found this interesting, and thought you might also. It is the guidance the Associated Press (AP) has given to its own writers regarding the use of the term "alt-right".

For reference, here is the whole guidance on this topic, which has been updated to add “anti-Semitism” to the definition and a few other additions:

“alt-right”
A political grouping or tendency mixing racism, white nationalism, anti-Semitism and populism; a name currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasizes preserving and protecting the white race in the United States.Avoid using the term generically and without definition, because it is not well-known globally and the term may exist primarily as a public relations device to make its supporters’ actual beliefs less clear and more acceptable to a broader audience. In AP stories discussing what the movement says about itself, the term “alt-right” (quotation marks, hyphen and lowercase) may be used in quotes or modified as in the self-described “alt-right” or so-called alt-right.Depending on the specifics of the situation, such beliefs might be termed racist, white supremacist or neo-Nazi; be sure to describe the specifics. Whenever “alt-right” is used in a story, include a definition: an offshoot of conservatism mixing racism, white nationalism, anti-Semitism and populism, or, more simply, a white nationalist movement.When writing on extreme groups, be precise and provide evidence to support the characterization. Report their actions, associations, history and positions to reveal their actual beliefs and philosophy, as well as how others see them.Some related definitions:racism The broad term for asserting racial or ethnic discrimination or superiority based solely on race, ethnic or religious origins; it can be by any group against any other group.white nationalism A subset of racist beliefs that calls for a separate territory and/or enhanced legal rights and protections for white people. Critics accuse white nationalists of being white supremacists in disguise.white separatism A term sometimes used as a synonym for white nationalism but differs in that it advocates a form of segregation in which races would live apart but in the same general geographic area.white supremacy The racist belief that whites are superior to justify political, economic and social suppression of nonwhite people and other minority groups.neo-Nazism Combines racist and white supremacist beliefs with admiration for an authoritarian, totalitarian style of government such as the German Third Reich to enforce its beliefs.antifa Shorthand for anti-fascists, an umbrella description for the far-left-leaning militant groups that resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations and other events. Until the term becomes better known, include a definition in close proximity to first use of the word.“alt-left” A term that some use to describe far-left factions. See “alt-right” for usage guidelines.

Too many Racist Sympathizers In This Country

I have some good news and some bad news.

The good news is that 76% of Americans view the white nationalists (supremacists) negatively, 83% view the neo-nazis negatively, and 85% view the ku klux klan negatively. An overwhelming number of Americans dislike these groups and what that represent.

The bad news is that 7% view the white nationalists (supremacists) favorably, 5% view the neo-nazis favorably, and 6% have a favorable view of the ku klux klan. 5% to 7% may not seem like a lot of people -- until you consider the U.S. population is about 324 million, with about 240 million being adults. Take 5% of 240 million and you get about 12 million people.

Most of that 12 million are closet racists -- not the kind who will take to the streets and cause trouble. But they still are sympathetic to the racist views of the groups above, and their attitude helps to keeps racism and hate alive in this country.

The charts are made with info from a new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between August 13th and 15th of a random national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,291 registered voters), with a 3.1 point margin of error.

Trump Walks Back His Condemnation Of Racists/Nazis

(Cartoon is by Randall Enos at cagle.com.)

Last Saturday, Donald Trump disappointed most Americans when he failed to condemn racists, white supremacists, and Nazis who had gathered in Charlottesville Virginia. Instead, he spoke of many groups -- as though the hate groups were just one of many ordinary political groups in this country.

He was wrong. Racists like the KKK are evil. White supremacists are evil. Nazis are evil. And their political views are all unacceptable in this diverse nation of immigrants. Their views are anathema to a nation built on equality and rule of law -- because they want to put one group above all others. That is simply un-American, and it should have been an easy call for any president to condemn them.

It took a couple of days, but his aides in the White House finally convinced him he had not done enough, and that he needed to specifically condemn racists, white supremacists, and nazis. On Monday, he grudgingly did that -- and many, including leaders in his own party, breathed a sigh of relief.

But Trump's conversion didn't last long. In a short press conference on Tuesday, he walked back his Monday comments. Once again, he said there were good (and bad) people on both sides in Charlottesville. In other words, the racists and nazis were just as good as those who oppose racism and fascism. That's a shocking idea, especially coming from the country's leader.

Why would Trump do this? Why would he help the alt-right (the racists, nazis, white supremacists, etc.)? He did it because he agrees with them. He wants the same thing they want -- an authoritarian government and society controlled by whites. He will deny it, but all racists deny they are racist. They know that is not an acceptable label in this country. But claims don't make a person what they are -- actions do.

And Trump has a clear history of racism and bigotry -- from his banning Blacks from his real estate ventures to his speeches against groups during his campaign (Mexicans, muslims, etc.). He has not changed since becoming president. That was shown by his appointing several white supremacists to his White House staff (Bannon, Gorka, Miller) and appointing a known racist to be Attorney General.

Trump's actions show he is a racist and a bigot, and his words on Tuesday were taken by the alt-right as legitimizing their sick movement. Here's what racist David Dukes said after listening to Trump on Tuesday:

On Tuesday, Donald Trump gave away what little moral authority he had left. He has made it clear where he stands -- against common decency, equality, and the United States Constitution.

The Newest Congressional Lobbyist

The fool in the picture above is John Taylor Bowles. And that ridiculous get-up he's wearing is no bad-taste Halloween costume. He really is a Nazi and a racist -- and he's very proud of it. He ran for president in 2008 as the candidate of the American Nazi Party, and wore his uniform when he campaigned. he said of his presidential run:

 I did that as a sincere effort to show the rest of the National Socialists and white racialists that this is something we can do, and we should have been doing this a long time ago, and it can be done.

Now he is going to Washington in a different capacity. He has officially registered as a lobbyist for the American Nazi Party. He didn't say whether he would be wearing his uniform in the U.S. Capitol, but I suspect he'd better keep that in his closet if he wants to get anywhere near a congressperson (and I suspect they'll still treat him as though he was carrying a deadly communicable disease -- which , in a way, he is).

Here's what he said when asked why he registered as a lobbyist for the American Nazi Party, and what he would be lobbying for:

We have to practice what we preach. We tell people in this country that they need to get out there and practice their constitutional rights, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. But there's one we seldom use: the freedom to petition the government. So this is the tactic we're trying now, to start petitioning government. This is the first time anybody ever did in America it as a National Socialist. We're going to see if we can have a little bit of influence in Congress, and help them make decisions.


It depends on the issue. Whatever is hot at the time, I'll see what is a valid issue that I can address. Immigration is always a hot topic, but I'll tell you what, the number one issue for me is ballot access laws. They're terrible. It's easier to run for President of Iran than President of the United States.


I would love to know the name of any congressperson who is crazy enough to meet this fool -- let alone actually listen to what he has to say. I was going to say that he'll give lobbyists a bad name, but after some thought, I'm not sure anyone could do that.

Republicans OK With Racism - But Not Nazism

There has been a lot of buzz about the two pictures above on the internet lately.   In the top picture, Richard Iott (Republican candidate for the U.S. House from Ohio) poses in a Nazi uniform with some of his buddies.   He claims he was just participating in some war "re-enactment".   But it really upset his Republican buddies and they are trying to distance themselves from him as much as possible.   They don't want to be tarred as Nazis just before an election.

I have to admit it was a stupid thing for Iott to do.   Anyone who has lived in the United States for very long has to know that the huge majority of citizens in this country have no respect for the Nazis.   In fact, being called a Nazi is about the worst name an American can be called.   It's amazing that any politician with half a brain could get his picture taken wearing a Nazi uniform right before an election.

But the guy in the center of the bottom picture also put himself in a compromising position by dressing in a Confederate uniform and having his picture taken -- especially with a couple of African-Americans in "period dress".   The picture literally screams racism.   The White guy is South Carolina State Senate president Glen McConnell (a Republican).   But strangely enough, the Republican Party had no problem with the picture.

Many on the left have been taken aback at how the Republicans have such a problem with the top picture, but not with the bottom picture.   Isn't racism (and slavery) as despicable and evil as Nazism?   How can you detest one picture and defend the other?

Frankly, it doesn't surprise me at all.   I've lived in Texas all my life (except for three years in an Arkansas college) and I'm familiar with the recent history of the Republican Party in the South (including Texas).   When President Johnson cajoled and strong-armed Congress into passing the Civil Rights Acts of the mid-sixties, he knew he had done the right thing but he also recognized the political reality.   In fact, he told a cohort that the action would lose Democrats the South for a generation.

He was right.   White southern racists blamed President Johnson and the Democratic Party.   Before the laws were passed, the Southern States (and Texas) were one-party states - Democratic.   But after the laws were passed, white racists abandoned the Democratic Party in droves.   The Republican Party offered these racists a home, and because of this they became the majority party throughout the South.  

The Republican Party is still the home for racist Whites, and they can't afford to lose those votes.   That is why they talk of "Southern Tradition" and "States Rights" -- the terms that have been code words for racism since the sixties.   As a Texan, I would like to believe that Texas and the South are no longer racist -- but that is just not true.   Things are slowly changing, but racism is still far too strong in the region.   And the Republicans know that.

Repudiating the Nazi picture was easy.   Everybody hates the Nazis -- even Southerners.   But repudiating the picture of a Republican in a Confederate uniform is a different story.   It is the uniform of those who defended slavery and committed treason against the United States, and even today it stands (along with the Confederate battle flag) as a symbol of racism.   But you won't hear that from Republican politicians because it would cost them too many votes.   They may be racist votes, but to them all votes count the same at the ballot box.

The Republicans are interested only in retaining power in the South and using that "Southern strategy" to return to power in Washington.   If they have to do it with racist votes, then so be it.   That's why the bottom picture will never be criticized by Republican officials.    

Is Nazi/Arizona Comparison Valid ?

A few weeks ago, right-wingers in Arizona passed an anti-immigrant law that many believe is unconstitutional. The law would force the state's policemen to engage is racial profiling and would make it a requirement for citizens to carry identification (especially Hispanic citizens) or face up to six months in jail.

Since the law was passed there has been a storm of protest and even a boycott of the state. At least $10 million in convention money has been lost and it looks like that will climb. Many blogs (including this one) have made an analogy between Arizona right-wingers and the Nazi Party in Germany under Hitler. The right-wingers are horrified by the comparison and say it is unfair -- but is it?

A couple of days ago Arizona blogger cpmaz at Random Musings (a friend of this blog) wrote a post that looked at the comparison and whether it was fair. It is a well-written post and I urge everyone to go to his blog and read it. Here is part of what cpmaz had to say:

"Many of the more vocal opponents of Russell Pearce's SB1070 (the "show me your papers" law) have likened him, Governor Jan Brewer, and the other supporters of the law to the Nazis.

Brewer finds this analogy so offensive that it caused her to stick herfoot in her mouth, inflating her father's record of service during WW2 in order to bask in some reflected Nazi-fighting glow.
The analogy is such a powerful one that even Pearce himself has taken to "disavowing" any connections to white supremacists or Neo-Nazis.

While I understand the commentators' reluctance to give credence to the analogy (and also why Pearce and Brewer don't want to be equated to the greatest evil of the 20th, and perhaps any other, Century), it fits.

The Nazis started slowly, and legislatively, enacting a series of laws meant to demonize and isolate Jews and other "non-Aryans" from German society, economically, legally, and socially.

To whip up public support for the ever-stronger anti-semitic laws, the Nazis ratcheted up their rhetoric, blaming Jews for all that ailed Germany in the post-WWI era, economically, socially, and intellectually.

There were laws to remove Jews from Germany's civil service, restrict the number of "non-Aryans" in schools (both as students and as professors), forbid Jewish physicians from treating non-Jewish patients, and more, culminating in laws revoking the citizenship of Jews.

And that was just the start, when the Nazis were still attempting to put a civil face (of sorts) on their pogrom.

Here in 21st Century Arizona, the state's nativists, led by Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer (and Joe Arpaio and Tom Horne and Colette Rosati and Ron Gould and so many others), have trod a similar path, starting with laws restricting, underfunding, or even defunding English Language Learner classes in AZ's public schools, blocking the poor from taking advantage of public services and benefits unless they prove their U.S. citizenship first, banning ethnic studies courses,removing teachers with accents from classes, and the now-infamous SB1070 "show me your papers" law.

Now Pearce wants to follow up his recent successes with moves to deny citizenship to babies born to undocumented immigrant parents and to force the children of non-citizen parents to pay tuition to attend Arizona's public schools.

The laws, proposed and enacted, and the rhetoric both demonize and isolate Arizona's immigrant community, just as the Nazis' Nuremburg and eugenics laws did more than seven decades ago.

I understand the reluctance of many observers to accept the Nazi/SB1070 analogy - no one wants to believe that their friends and neighbors (or even themselves) are capable of great evil.

And to be sure, Arizona's nativists haven't racked up the body count the way that Germany's Nazis did.

Yet.

One should remember that the Nazis were in power for more than a decade before their "Final Solution" of assembly-line efficient genocide was fully up to speed; Jan Brewer ascended to the Governor's office less than a year-and-a-half ago.

And one should not confuse 'lack of time' with 'lack of desire.'"

I completely agree with what cpmaz had to say. Fascism does not come to a country instantly. It uses lies and fear to creep in. Let's stop this nonsense now before it gets worse.