The Atlantic / 'Hail Trump!': White Nationalists Salute the President ElectNote: I’ve put up a second blog post on what’s become of the US in the wake of the Groper-in-Chief’s election, so I’ve renamed this post accordingly. Now then … on with the original post:

It’s no secret that, among supporters of the Groper-in-Chief-elect, there are a lot of unsavory types — “unsavory” being the most generous adjective I can apply to such folks. I say this at the risk of sounding a little like Hillary Clinton and her “basket of deplorables” (cached) … which is more correct than many wish is the case, even if her assertion that fully “half” of the Groper-in-Chief-elect’s supporters meet that description is too high a proportion.

At any rate, it’s well known that the amorphous movement known as the “alt-right,” as well as even more reprehensible sorts of people, like Klansman David Duke (cached) have supported the Groper-in-Chief-elect and helped him win the White House.

While not quite as bad as the proverbial cross-burning Klan member or brawling neo-nazi skinhead, members of the alt-right definitely harbor a lot of vile notions, most of them predicated on white nationalism. Thrown in alongside that is a lot of paranoia and conspiratorialism, as well as misogyny and anti-semitism.

The Groper-in-Chief-elect’s connections with the alt-right are well-known. Perhaps the most important is that Steve Bannon, the chairman of his campaign and now his chief adviser, once ran the Web site Breitbart, which Bannon himself stated was “the platform of the alt-right” (cached). Really, it doesn’t get any clearer, or more definitive, than that.

But the unsavory nature of much of the the Groper-in-Chief-elect’s support goes beyond just a few “big names” (e.g. Duke or Bannon) who’ve either endorsed or worked for him. Perhaps no more worrisome exemplar of this can be found in video (courtesy of The Atlantic) from an alt-right conference in Washington (cached):

“Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”

That’s how Richard B. Spencer saluted more than 200 attendees on Saturday, gathered at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C., for the annual conference of the National Policy Institute, which describes itself as “an independent organization dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.”

Spencer has popularized the term “alt-right” to describe the movement he leads. Spencer has said his dream [cached] is “a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans,” and has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing.”

For most of the day, a parade of speakers discussed their ideology in relatively anodyne terms, putting a presentable face on their agenda. But after dinner, when most journalists had already departed, Spencer rose and delivered a speech to his followers dripping with anti-Semitism, and leaving no doubt as to what he actually seeks. He referred to the mainstream media as “Lügenpresse,” a term he said he was borrowing from “the original German”; the Nazis used the word [cached] to attack their critics in the press.

“America was until this past generation a white country designed for ourselves and our posterity,” Spencer said. “It is our creation, it is our inheritance, and it belongs to us.”

The Atlantic provides video of Spencer’s remarks, via Youtube:

Nothing I’ve read about Spencer suggests he’s stupid or clueless (cached), so I can only assume he was consciously appealing to Nazism while he spoke. As for his audience “hailing” the Groper-in-Chief-elect with Nazi salutes … all I can say is, that’s chilling.

Late addition: As the New York Times reports via Bloomberg, the Groper-in-Chief-elect has said he “disavows” this conference (cached), and he also supposedly disavows the alt-right. Not that it matters much to those present who gave him a Hitler salute. After all, one of their standard-bearers, Steve Bannon, will soon have his own office in the White House. Again, due to Bannon’s own admission of having run “the platform of the alt-right”, the nascent White House cannot logically claim no alliance with the alt-right. It just can’t. Period.

Photo credit: The Atlantic.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 1 Comment »

The Word: Truthiness (The Colbert Report, 10/17/2005) / Comedy Central, via GiphyJust a few days ago, the Oxford Dictionaries declared “post-truth” its “Word of the Year” for 2016 (WebCite cached article):

After much discussion, debate, and research, the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2016 is post-truth – an adjective defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’.

Events during 2016 apparently brought the notion of “post-truth” to light in an unprecedented way:

The concept of post-truth has been in existence for the past decade, but Oxford Dictionaries has seen a spike in frequency this year in the context of the EU referendum in the United Kingdom and the presidential election in the United States. It has also become associated with a particular noun, in the phrase post-truth politics.

The news media have reported on this declaration as a kind of revelation: “Post-truth” as a word has existed for some time, but the concept itself is one the media apparently only just now realized exists.

On the other hand, I’ve always known about it. I’ve only said for many years — here, in this very blog, in fact — that people generally are much less concerned with veracity than with whatever they can find which validates their feelings. In fact, “post-truth” is related to “truthiness,” made famous by Stephen Colbert back in 2005. And even then, the concept wasn’t new to me … or to a lot of other folks. “Post-truth” and “truthiness” explains why a lot of people buy into a lot of asinine, absurd, laughable bullshit and take it seriously. Because “it feels right” to them — and that’s all that fucking matters! Veracity? Who cares about that!?

Pretty much every religion on the planet can be explained as manifestations of “post-truth” attitudes. It also explains beliefs in the paranormal and assorted insane woo like hauntings, auras, chakras, Satanic ritual abuse, extraterrestrial abductions, Creationism, homeopathy, trickle-down economics, qi, and many other tropes too numerous for me to list here. They’re all rank bullshit, but they all have legions of loyal followers who will swear to their graves that they’re real — even though there’s not a fucking stitch of bona fide evidence supporting a single damned one of them!

What’s even worse than just the irrational belief in “truthy” bullshit, is the sanctimoniousness which often accompanies it. Skeptics and debunkers who insolently dare tell these folk their bullshit is bullshit, are condemned as hateful pricks who simply aren’t “open-minded” enough to “understand” or “experience” the (unfounded) “truth.” Who are these skeptics to run around telling people they’re wrong!? How dare they question people’s sincerity? Why, they’re trying to destroy people … or something.

Yes, it’s an exceedingly childish mindset. Nevertheless, a lot of people — most of them grown adults — love to engage in it, anyway.

In sum … anyone who wasn’t aware of “post-truth” prior to the election of Donald “it’s my own orange hair!” Trump, simply hasn’t been paying attention to how people think (or, worse, emote).

Call me unimpressed with media outlets reporting on the Oxford Dictionaries’ announcement as though they’re discovering something for the first time. They ought to have known all about “post-truth” long ago … even if the word itself wasn’t often used. It’s a very real human foible, one that people need to work to repair, rather than indulge. Yeah, people won’t like it … but too fucking bad. When they’re wrong, they should be told so, and it shouldn’t matter that they’re too immature to be corrected.

Photo credit: Comedy Central, via Giphy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Yes, We Live in a “Post-Truth” World

Praying Crusader / ModlicisekrizakNow that Donald “it’s my own orange hair!” Trump has been elected president, he’s begun assigning roles to the various men (many of specious character and/or ability) who supported his campaign. The transition process has turned out to be a clusterfuck, which should surprise exactly no one (WebCite cached article).

One of his appointees, retired general Michael Flynn, is an outspoken Neocrusader (i.e. a Religious Rightist who wants Islam banned in the US at the very least, and — if possible — eradicated from the planet). Among other things, the soon-to-be National Security Advisor as Right Wing Watch explains, he’s said that Islam isn’t a religion (cached):

In August, the Dallas Morning News reported that Flynn had delivered a speech to a Dallas gathering of the anti-Muslim group ACT for America, in which he had called Islam “a political ideology” that hides behind “being a religion,” and “a cancer.”…

“Islam is a political ideology.… It definitely hides behind this notion of it being a religion. And I have a very, very tough time because I don’t see a lot of people screaming ‘Jesus Christ’ with hatchets or machetes or rifles shooting up clubs or hatcheting, literally axing families on a train, or like they just killed a couple of police officers with a machete.”

Note: The original Dallas Morning News article referred to is no longer on the paper’s Web site, but an Archive.Org cached version is available.

RWW provides video of this event, via Youtube:

Flynn’s complaint that Islam isn’t a religion, but rather a political ideology, is an old one among Religious Rightists. By saying Islam isn’t a religion, the R.R. rationalizes outlawing that religion and robbing Muslims of their religious freedom. Their assumption that Islam could be abolished in the US if it’s found to be a political ideology and not a religion, is — of course — foolish, since in addition to religious freedom, we also have political freedoms. The R.R. could no more ban Islam-as-a-political-ideology than it could the ideology of Leftism (which it would very much like to do, but can’t).

What’s more, Flynn’s contention that Christians never kill based on their Christianity, is untrue: Christians can, and do, terrorize and kill in Jesus’ name. Almost a year ago, Robert Dear shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado (cached); he didn’t (as Flynn idiotically suggested) shout “Jesus Christ” while doing so, but he did mention “baby parts” after he was captured. As such, he was obviously motivated by the release of videos by a “pro-life” Religious Right group a few months prior. (Now, PP wasn’t actually selling baby parts, but sanctimonious pro-lifers don’t really care about facts. They only care about their outrage.)

As I’ve blogged many times before, these Neocrusaders view Islam as the chief rival of their own religion (which, for nearly all of them, is Christianity). Their “war” against it is basically just a form of religious one-upmanship … i.e. a way of pushing the narrative that their god is bigger than the Muslims’ god. By agitating against Muslims, they hope to “prove” the virtues of their own religion and make Muslims cave in to them.

As such, it’s all very childish, but this is the ideology that elected Donald “it’s my own orange hair!” Trump. So what can one expect?

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 1 Comment »

Church interior / Immaculate Conception Catholic Church San Diego Web siteLast I knew, the Roman Catholic Church’s position is that its parishes and clergy aren’t supposed to meddle in politics. Clergy are even prohibited from holding public office (something John Paul II reminded them of back in the early 1980s). Also, as non-profit entities, they’re legally forbidden, in the US, from campaigning (WebCite cached article).

None of that, unfortunately, means Catholic parishes never violate those policies or laws. Four years ago I blogged about an El Paso parish that campaigned against Barack Obama’s re-election. As the San Diego Union-Tribune reports, something similar just happened in a parish in that city (cached):

Between requests for prayers for the sick and a notice for an upcoming chastity luncheon, a newsletter from a Catholic church in Old Town that doubles as an election-day polling site included a flier that told parishioners they’ll go to hell if they vote for Democrats.

Two Sundays later, the message had changed: Satan was working through former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The Oct. 16 bulletin from the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church was stuffed with a flyer written in both English and Spanish that cited five legislative policies — support for abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, human cloning, and embryonic stem cell research — that will doom a politician and their supporters to eternal damnation.

“It is a mortal sin to vote Democrat … immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell,” the flyer said. It cited the five public policy issues from the “Voters Guide for Serious Catholics” and said that Democrats violate each of them, while Republicans cross none.

The diocese admits this flyer was given out in violation of Catholic policy and professed that they hadn’t done it:

The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego on Wednesday said the messages in the flier and bulletin do not reflect Catholic teaching or diocese policies, are inappropriate, and that voters should use their conscience to determine which candidates to support.

“It’s not a mortal sin to vote for Democrats, number one. And number two, the church doesn’t take positions on this, and we’re not going to,” diocese spokesman Kevin Eckery said.…

The diocese said the flier was not authorized by the parish, but it was somehow inserted into the Oct. 16 bulletin.

The problem with this “it wasn’t authorized” defense is that it happened twice, not just once; you’d think the parish priest(s) and staff would have been on alert for someone stuffing crap into their bulletins, after it had happened the first time. That it occurred a second time can only mean they are — at best — unconcerned about it, and — at worst — they approve of it.

As for Hillary being a Satanist by virtue of her links to Alinsky, I addressed that just this summer, when former GOP candidate Ben Carson trotted out that trope. I said then, and will repeat here, that Alinsky was no Satanist at all, and that Clinton was not his sycophant. Yes, it’s true that Religious Rightists despise Alinsky and many of them truly do believe him to have been a Satanist … but their belief, no matter how sincere it might be, cannot magically make that true. Because it’s not. And Clinton herself differed with Alinsky, to the point of refusing a job offer he made.

Although this is a blatant violation of the IRS code, I’m sure that feared agency will do nothing about this. At all. For decades they’ve consistently bent over for the Religious Right, and I have no reason to think they’re going to change, any time soon.

Photo credit: Immaculate Conception Catholic Church Web site.

Hat tip: Raw Story.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 1 Comment »

Bergen Catholic Chapel, via Bergen Catholic High School Web siteThe Catholic child-abuse scandal continues making news. This should be no surprise, given that it went on for decades at the very least (and in fact we have no reason to assume it doesn’t go back centuries), and was worldwide in scope, not to mention pervasive within the R.C. Church. The latest revelations to emerge describe abuse that took place many decades ago, as NJ Advanced Media reports, at a private Catholic school in New Jersey (WebCite cached article):

Eight more former Bergen Catholic High School students have come forward to accuse former staff members at the school of sexual abuse.

The eight have levied their allegations since it was revealed in August that the all-boys high school in Oradell had reached a $1.9 million settlement [cached] with 21 men who said they were sexually abused at the school.

The eight men, who are now between the ages of about 55 to 75 years old, say they were sexually abused when they were teens between the years of 1956 and 1977, said Mitchell Garabedian, a Boston lawyer who represented some of the previous alleged victims.

The timeframe of the alleged attacks is similar to the one provided by the other alleged victims who settled with the school. They had said they were abused between 1963 and 1978.

The school itself, not the archdiocese of Newark (in which it’s located) or the Edmund Rice Christian Brothers (the priests who staff it), reached the settlement with the victims. Apparently the archdiocese plays no role in the school’s administration, so — at least for now — they’re not involved.

Note that the Christian Brothers who run this school are part of the worldwide order of Christian Brothers who, back in 2003, filed suit to block the Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, and succeeded in preventing that body from releasing the names of abusive priests (cached). Despite that, the Christian Brother order figured prominently in abuse investigations in Ireland, and elsewhere.

At any rate, I expect Catholic apologists will repeat their old rationale for why they don’t think their holy Church or its clergy did anything wrong: The accusers are just in it for the money, and some of them — so far — were paid off. There was no abuse, they’ll say; accusers made it all up long after they left school, just to get some money for themselves and their attorneys.

While I agree money might motivate some accusers, the “profit motive” can’t explain all the accusations that have been leveled, around the world, for decades, nor does it account for the fact that many investigations — again, from all around the world — have substantiated that abuse did, in fact, take place, and moreover, that in a lot of cases the Church hierarchy did, in fact, cover it up and on occasion enable the abusers by moving them around.

I expect to hear more about this. I also expect to hear a lot more whining from Catholic apologists about how terrible it is that accusers are coming forward now and how terrible it is that some have already been paid off. It’s as though the victims somehow owe it to the Holy Mother Church to keep silent — forever — about the abuse they’d endured, because … well! … it’s the Holy Mother Church. Or something. Because for some reason, no one is supposed to say anything bad about the Holy Mother Church. Or something.

Photo credit: Bergen Catholic High School Web site.

Hat tip: Secular Web News Wire.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Priests Abused Kids Decades Ago in NJ Catholic School

SiegeOfAcre1291For almost a year now, I’ve said the movement I call “the Great Neocrusade” — i.e. an effort by fierce Rightists in the US to eradicate Islam from their precious “Christian nation” — turned violent. There’s been a lot of vigilante “justice” meted out, over the last year, to various Muslims (and to non-Muslims who were assumed to be Muslims). The Neocrusaders would say this is just a counter-Islamist-terror campaign, except for the fact that none of the victims were terrorists, and hadn’t said or done anything (aside from appearing Muslim) to make anyone suspect they were terrorists. They simply happened to cross the path of one or more sanctimoniously-enraged Neocrusaders.

The reality is that — notwithstanding events like the San Bernardino, Boston Marathon, and Ft Hood massacres — Islamist terror is still extremely rare in the US. Americans are more likely to fall prey to domestic, Right-wing terror, and vastly more likely to be victimized by ordinary, simple, mundane sociopaths not motivated by any religion or particular ideology at all. So really, there’s no reason for Neocrusaders to stomp around beating up on random Muslims — even if they view it as justified in order to save Americans from terrorism.

You’d be surprised where Neocrusaders are lurking. There are more of them than you think, and not just in cosmopolitan parts of the country (i.e. big cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc.) where one expects to find Muslims and other foreign faiths. They can be found even among the reserved, quiet, pious folk of “middle America.” An example of this, as KWCH-TV in Wichita KS reports, is a plot the feds recently broke up in the “heartland” town of Garden City, KS (WebCite cached article):

Acting U.S. Attorney Tom Beall says Curtis Allen, 49, Gavin Wright, 51, and Patrick Stein were all charged with domestic terrorism.

Beall said the three were planning to bomb an apartment complex and mosque in Garden City occupied by a Muslim community of about 120 Somali refugees.

Beall said the men planned to carry out the attack on Nov. 9, the day after Election Day.…

Beall said the men wrote a manifesto, which they wanted published after the bombing.

According to an affidavit, the were a part of a group called the Kansas Security Force and the Crusaders.

“These are militia groups whose members support and espouse sovereign citizen, anti-government, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant extremist beliefs,” read the affidavit.

Beall said the men’s arrest is a part of an eight month long investigation.

For the last year, the Right — led by GOP presidential nominee Donald “it’s my own orange hair!” Trump — has blustered and fumed over Muslim refugees living among us, and how horrifically dangerous they are. Supposedly. It’s only natural, after all, because isn’t it obvious that all Muslims everywhere are terrorists, bent on killing “infidels” wherever they may be? Wouldn’t it make sense, therefore — according to Neocrusaders’ thinking — that it’s better to kill them before they kill us?

Fortunately for the country, but unfortunately for the Neocrusaders, those Somali refugees in Kansas aren’t very likely to become terrorists … but sanctimonious Christianists don’t let little things like “facts” get in the way of their towering fury.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Feds Break Up “Crusaders'” Bombing Plot

Peter the Hermit Preaching the First CrusadeAs I’ve blogged quite a bit, the “violent Neocrusade” continues apace. That’s my name for an ongoing campaign by sanctimonious, Islam-hating Americans to (attempt to) purge their precious “Christian nation” of all of its Muslims. Their tactics amount to a kind of counter-terror: Since there are Muslim terrorists, Neocrusaders feel entitled to employ terror against Muslims in return.

The problem is, a lot of the time — in their ignorance — they end up picking the wrong targets. CBS San Francisco reports on the latest example of this phenomenon (WebCite cached article):

A Richmond man identifying as Sikh was attacked Sept. 25 in what he describes as a violent hate crime, the Sikh Coalition said Friday.

Maan Singh Khalsa, 41, was driving home from work at 9 p.m. when he was stopped at a red light near Hilltop Mall Drive in Richmond, half a mile from his home, according to the Sikh Coalition.

The article describes the attack, bolstered by a recorded 911 call. Accordingly, police have taken this report seriously, making two arrests and seeking three other men.

For some reason, many Americans confuse Sikhs with Muslims. But their religions are different — and very much so. About the only thing both religions have in common is that they’re monotheistic. Otherwise, they’re completely different. Islam is an Abrahamic faith that originated in what is now Saudi Arabia; Sikhism is a Dharmic faith founded in India. The former descends from the religion practiced by ancient Hebrews of the Levant; the latter descends from the Vedic faith practiced by Indo-Aryans. Americans, especially of the Neocrusading variety, are ignorant; when they see a Sikh man wearing a turban, they often think, “Muslim!” when in fact that assumption is usually false.

As I’ve said so many times when addressing the lunatic rage of Neocrusaders, I have to say: I get it. Really. I do! I capisce. Yes, there are Muslim terrorists in the world. Too many. They’ve attacked innocent Americans unjustly and savagely: At Ft Hood, the Boston Marathon, in San Bernardino, in Orlando, in Paris, and elsewhere. These — and many more such barbaric attacks around the world — are undeniable examples of how “the Religion of Peace” is no religion-of-peace at all. But, what Neocrusaders in the US don’t realize is that Americans are vastly more likely to be killed by ordinary, non-Muslim (and non-religious) sociopaths (cached), and also more likely to be killed by home-grown Right-wing and/or Christian terrorists, than by Islamist terrorists. The danger of Islamist terror is real, but it’s overstated, and the risk won’t appreciably be reduced even if Islam were outlawed tomorrow and every Muslim in the country deported. It just wouldn’t make a dent in the violence that occurs daily around the US.

The solution is for Neocrusaders to grow the fuck up, for the first time in their lives, and deal with their irrational fears, rather than lashing out like toddlers throwing a tantrum. There are ways to deal with the dangers that exist, without stomping around as part of a latter-day “People’s Crusade.” I should point out — as someone who studied the Middle Ages — that the original People’s Crusade didn’t end well for those who led and participated in it. American Neocrusaders would do well to take note of the rashness and irrationality of their medieval predecessors.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 1 Comment »