Homelessness and Nazi Rallies

In my previous post I discussed how extremist groups have managed to elevate themselves to a semblance of respectability and find common cause with regular conservatives, in this one I will discuss how to best counter their propaganda.

We should all just stay away. That is the obvious solution to preventing the rise and spread of extremist groups in the United States. It is unlikely in this country that popular support for Neo-Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan could reach a proportion where they could take over the country, a la Nazi Germany. So with that in mind, the best way to prevent them from gaining any sort of mainstream foothold is to do what experts have recommended for years: ignore them. Without the massive counter-protest, which exacerbated and enflamed the violence, the extremist protestors would have gotten little press.

People want to resist, they want to do something to show their disapproval of neo-Nazis, but by doing that they’re playing directly in to their marketing strategy. For years advocates for homeless people have told citizens that the best way to prevent the scourge of panhandling in cities is to stop giving homeless people money. Without the incentive to panhandle the homeless are more likely to seek help and to leave commuters alone. Honest, good people contribute to the social problems of homelessness because of their impulses to help people, or to be seen as virtuous and moral. It is that same twinge of self-interested moralism that leads people to protest a Nazi rally.

I can’t help but think that if people weren’t going to post things on social media, they wouldn’t attend such rallies in such large numbers. Our society is obsessed with displaying each individual’s personal morality and virtue over communications technology, and because we are obsessed we can’t starve the beasts of extremism of what they crave most: exposure.

Coddling White Supremacists

Trump’s unsurprising and despicable refusal to name and condemn violent white supremacists at a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia demonstrate the composition of his political support. Trump’s statement condemning bigotry and violence did not mention the white supremacists who organized and headlined the event (which protested the removal of a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee). If he wanted to be sure to condemn the liberal groups protesting the white supremacists he could have done that as well, as long as he mentioned white supremacists by name, but he declined. During the campaign he similarly refused to disavow the support of white supremacist groups. This cannot be an accident. It is too obvious of a situation with too many political advisors knowing how it would be received if he did not condemn white supremacists to have been a mistake. There is now a trend of Trump engaging in this behavior, and there is only one plausible explanation. He does not want to lose the vociferous and strident support he receives from white supremacists and their fellow travelers, he just cannot name them as being amongst his supporters. Other supporters of Trump have started memeing and tweeting their theories defending the indefensible rally and the President’s indefensible response.

Various parts of Trump’s rabid internet following have decided that the event was a false flag operation by George Soros-funded groups to tarnish Republicans and conservatives. This kind of wild conspiracy-mongering was encouraged by Trump during his campaign and many of his close advisors in the White House have been spouting off similarly inane and insane conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately the decline of civil discourse in the United States has seen many liberals or Democrats accuse Republicans and conservatives of being “Nazis” or “racists.” Incidents like the one in Charlottesville make it clear that there are racists and Nazis supporting Trump but the previous (and current) hyperbole make it difficult to condemn and separate these groups from the main mass of his supporters.

As long as Trump himself continues to be the focus for support, his own cult of personality, then it will be hard to find a way to hold him accountable for his unethical and duplicitous behavior.

The Elders of Zion, Propaganda, and Emmanuel Macron

In the American and French presidential elections in the past year, hackers suspected to be working for the nation of Russia breached sensitive organizational information about the major political parties involved and leaked that information online to influence the electorates. In the case of the French email leaks there were suspected forgeries that attempted to make the leading, pro-EU candidate, Emanuel Macron to look like a criminal or otherwise dishonest person. What people may not know is that this is an old Russian trick with a new twist provided by the internet. Russia has been producing propaganda using forged documents for over 100 years – the first great example of which is an anti-Semitic document known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion released around 1900 in various publications and formats.

Background

Jews in Europe have long faced discrimination and violence. Jewish populations faced expulsion, violence, and oppression in countries throughout Europe as far back as the Middle Ages. Much of that oppression and violence was fomented by libelous and slanderous lies and nefarious motives being ascribed to the population. Russia, which at times encompassed modern-day Poland, had a large Jewish population, especially in what was referred to as the “Pale of Settlement.” The “Pale” was an area Jews were forced to live by the Russian government.

Russia under the Tsars was not a progressive country. Across Russia the serfs (peasants legally bound to the land in a feudal system) were freed over the course of the 1860’s – many years after the rest of Europe under the “liberal” Tsar Alexander II. Many of these policies were reversed by his successor Alexander III who was a deeply conservative and obdurate ruler. One of Alexander III’s favorite tactics for unifying the disparate people of Russia was to organize anti-Jewish riots, known as pogroms, a tactic approved by his successor, the ill-fated Tsar Nicholas II.

Secret Police

Tsar Alexander II established a secret police to monitor threats to rule of the regime known as the Okhrana in 1866. It was greatly expanded after Tsar Alexander II’s assassination in 1881. From the beginning the Russians used the Okhrana in a ruthless and innovative manner, especially when compared to the spy-craft and law enforcement instruments of other nations. Operatives created and directed organizations, establishing a “controlled opposition” with which the regime could collect and monitor individuals they considered political threats. Part of the operations of the secret police involved producing and disseminating various types of propaganda.

The Protocols

The Protocols purport to be the minutes of a meeting between a group of elite Jewish Rabbis detailing their plots to overthrow the world order and establish Jews as the rulers of every regime and every financial and social institution on Earth.

As a tool of persuasion, The Protocols have a record of success any corporation or political organization would envy. A corrupt and inept government found scapegoating an effective tactic, and no one was smeared with disloyalty, corruption, and conspiracy as effectively as the much-reviled Jewish communities of Russia.

The completed forgery of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was apparently disseminated as early as 1897 privately among members of the French aristocracy and was occasionally published in Russian newspapers in the years after.

Politically and socially active Orthodox Priests (closely allied with the Tsarist regime) published anti-Jewish screeds occasionally, and in 1905, an Orthodox priest named Sergei Nilus published the text in his book. Every new publication precipitated anti-Jewish violence in Russia, and certainly helped to turn attention from the corrupt and incompetent Russian government to “foreign” groups in the midst of the general populace.

A veil hangs between the authors of the document and the investigations of journalists and historians into its origins. Careful and painstaking scholarship has revealed enough about it to confidently say that much of the work was plagiarized and that it was a creation of the Okhrana. Stylistic critiques and information in the previously closed Russian archives points to members of the Okhrana writing and gathering the materials for the work, and then spreading it throughout Russia.

The wild success of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion would prove instructive to future Russian regimes. Matvei Golovinski (the likely author of The Protocols) a propagandist for the Okhrana working in France, worked for the new Bolshevik government after 1917. Continuity between the different organizations of the secret police in Russia, no matter the ideology or the leader of the regime in power, allowed institutional knowledge in disinformation and propaganda to be passed through to the present age. When the Internet opened up the world to the free flow of information Russia understood their opportunity to push conspiracy theories, misinformation, and propaganda onto populations around the world.

Conspiracy theories echo into our time as fears of the “deep state” and “the new world order” proliferates and finds succor in the lofty quarters of state power. In the United States and elsewhere people filled with hate, and crafty actors, such as the Russian state, are expertly spreading paranoia and distrust to persuade the world to serve their purposes.

Even now, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is taken as fact in some corners of the world and is endorsed as truthful by powerful leaders and communicators. Anti-Jewish conspiracy is alive and well and amplified by the Internet. Forgeries, conspiracies, and propaganda are tools wielded effectively by dedicated actors in the Communications Age. The first successful example may be The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Narcissism, Democracy, and Comey

On its face, it may seem that Donald Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey was perpetrated as a way to hinder the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russian intelligence services to win the election. I believe this is incorrect. Alternatively, it may seem that Comey’s dismissal was the result of poor and inconsistent handling of politically sensitive investigations. I believe this is also incorrect. Comey was fired for a simpler reason, he was becoming famous and not submitting himself to Donald Trump.

As a political calculation it is hard to justify the firing of Comey, knowing that it will likely have the opposite effect to that which was intended. Firing Comey will put pressure on Congress to ask for a special prosecutor and has the effect of making Trump look guilty.

The stated justifications for Comey’s firing are also nonsensical. Trump and his administration are clearly not upset that Comey was too easy on Clinton during the email investigation (especially not after the letter announcing a reopening of the investigation days before the election). It would only make sense to fire him now after revelations that he misstated some facts during his recent testimony before congress – but then firing was clearly planned before that testimony.

Trump’s narcissism overwhelmed good political sense. Outraged by Comey’s failure to be obsequious and obedient in the media, while at the same time making more and more public appearances, Trump’s ego would not allow a Comey to continue on as the director of the FBI.

As a trait, narcissism is beneficial to one’s career in modern American democracy. Certainly some level of egomania has always been present in every political regime to ever exist, but it is particularly well-suited to the constant campaigning and competition of our current system. Trump’s narcissism helped get him elected. His arrogance and shameless self-promotion make for good television and entertainment. Arrogance and shameless also insulated him in debates and made hijacking the spotlight easier. With his narcissism he was able to lie unthinkingly and repeatedly to the electorate and make outrageous promises. These same traits, risible in private life and advantageous in self-promotion and campaigning, are widely shared amongst other prominent American politicians – to a degree.

Barack Obama certainly had some degree of arrogance and ego, enough to think he should be the leader of the most powerful country on Earth. He also probably believed in his own legend; the media hype that enveloped him from his first announcement may have warped his view of himself and his ability to an extent. But Obama would never have made such a short-sighted political move to placate his envious ego. Obama, Bush, and Clinton may have made poor decisions out of arrogance, even poor political decisions. Comey’s public appearances, and refusal to say what Trump wished him to, may have been an irritant to the three previous presidents, but they never would have risen to the level of being able to wound their egos or to override larger political calculations.

Here we have a perfect example of how Trump is uniquely dangerous in the office of president and how he is also weak in the office of president. Trump just made a grave political error in firing James Comey, and he did it at the behest of his wounded pride. A man with that much power, who makes decisions based on his thin-skinned vanity, may make dangerous decisions on a whim (such as using military force or calling for radical political change). However, being so bogged down in the minutiae of his ego likely means that the fears of progressives and liberals that he will be able to radically alter the American system of government are unfounded.

Anyone so absorbed in preening and guarding their ego does not have time for the messy political processes of making serious changes to government or public policy. It is apparent that Trump has ceded foreign policy to the generals in his administration while ceding domestic policy to the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader. He spends his time looking for cheap photo-ops and obsessing over his media coverage.

It was widely known and reported during the campaign that Trump was thin-skinned and seemingly unaware and uninterested in the actual difficulties of governing. James Comey’s firing has exposed the gap between the “healthy” narcissists who may have preceded him as President and his own petty, all-consuming narcissism. While his ego may have helped him win office, it will also destroy the effectiveness of his administration.

Chris Christie’s Hilarious Ploy

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie immediately seized on the only thing he could find less popular than he is. After the United Airlines incident where a passenger was beaten and dragged off of an airplane because he refused to leave to make room for United employees, an incident which tanked United stock and lent itself to viral videos and internet outrage, Chris Christie sprung into action.
Christie was recently polled as the least popular governor in the nation after a disastrous year of criticism for his role in the “Bridgegate” scandal and declining performance reviews in his home state. Hoping to jump on top of the pile, he sent a letter to Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chou asking for the federal government to review regulations that govern airlines. He has since gone on to give interviews, like with the “journalists” on Fox & Friends, on the subject of how terrible United Airlines is and how poorly they treated that passenger.

It should be immediately obvious to everyone that this is a naked ploy to beat up on an unpopular company and industry at an opportune moment. Christie, who one can imagine sitting in his office, scanning youtube and facebook for viral videos, saw this as a way to burnish his reputation. Such a pathetic display of opportunism (as opposed to atttempting to regain the respect of his constituency through good governance) should be condemned. He should not be given a platform to piggyback on a viral incident of outrage for his own benefit – to make it seem like he’s standing up for the little guy.

Christie had a reputation (fair or not) for truth-telling, bipartisanship, and toughness. Now he has a reputation for vindictiveness, vanity, and cynicism. We can add to this dishonorable list a penchant for exploitation and opportunism.