​What a new U.S. civil war might look like

By Chris Arkenberg

Following an earlier 2017 survey, Foreign Policy’s Best Defense blog opened a poll about the likelihood of a second U.S. Civil War. However, framing it as a second civil war embeds numerous assumptions about warfare on U.S. soil that are based more on history than the current reality of how power acts in the world. The distinction is critical to effectively counter the emergence of networked violence in America.

It’s easy to imagine that a second civil war might proceed like the first: two institutionalized factions wielding state militaries against each other along prescribed strategic fronts. Generals would choose a side, those with the most troops and firepower at their disposal would claim victory. The outcome, we imagine, would likely be a winner-take-all restructuring of the United States.

But that’s not really how wars are fought in the 21st century. Indeed, much of the last century was about deconstructing the habits of large-scale, state-driven conventional warfare. As networks distribute power to the edges, warfighting shifts further away from a handful of monolithic forces and towards a diverse web of small actors. Warfare now often proceeds from ideologically and economically marginalized communities whose suffering and fear is wielded by cunning global actors. They become guerrillas, rebel factions, proxies, and insurgencies. Sometimes they look more like tribal conflicts composed along racial, religious, familial or economic lines, often on top of resource crises that push violence to become a necessary solution. But they are rarely simple two-sided conflicts.

To neglect this distinction risks missing the signs of coordinated disruption and violence. If we keep thinking in terms of opposed armies, we’ll fail to develop effective strategies for recognizing and containing networked, hybrid warfare.

For the United States, the shape of future homeland conflicts will be asymmetrical, distributed, and heterogeneous. A contemporary homeland conflict would likely self-compose with numerous dynamic factions organized by digital tools around ideological and affinity networks. It would likely be a patchwork of affiliated insurgency groups and their counterparts engaging in light skirmishes along the overlapping edges of their networks, mixed with occasional high-value terror attacks against soft and hard targets. Such groups are much smaller than conventional militaries and where they lack in firepower, they wield transgression. As in Charlottesville and Berkeley, the fronts are less territorial than ideological.

Furthermore, digital networks erode the boundaries of the state. Like the Islamic State and al Qaeda, any cell can browse the literature, claim allegiance in some far-flung burb, and start whipping up violence against their targets. Antifa and the Alt-Right are a hodge-podge of varying affinities loosely coupled under their respective brand names with local chapters coordinated across global networks. These are not top-down hierarchies. They’re agile and shapeless with the capacity to grow quickly then disappear.

“One simply cannot explain the speed and scale at which the Islamic State formed without that network effect,” Emile Simpson commented in another Foreign Policy article trying to augur the tremors of a new world war.

Just as we risk missing the signs of networked violence, thinking in terms of a classic civil war can blind us to the many actors working to disrupt the U.S. from within and beyond our borders.

Behind the extremists are often additional layers of benefactors and provocateurs: oligarchs, plutocrats, transnational criminal networks, and foreign powers wielding them on both sides towards their strategic goals. We’ve seen this with Russian-backed Facebook groups organizing right wing protests in the U.S., and in the increasing regularity of information warfare originating from Macedonian server farms, reclusive billionaires, and adversarial governments.

With these characteristics in mind we can envision what a modern U.S. civil war might look like. More sporadic and unexpected conflicts but with fewer deaths. Factions sprouting like mushrooms, taking different forms but coordinated across invisible networks. Waves of information warfare. Chaos and an accelerated bazaar of violence with a healthy immune response from the local and national authorities. The outcome (and probable goal) would likely be a fragmentation of the republic into smaller, more manageable alliances, though it may just as easily harden an increasingly authoritarian federal government. This is essentially how Russia waged its non-linear war against Ukraine.

To counter this emerging threat in America it’s critical to establish more formal practices for identifying and tracking domestic extremism — with an honest recognition that young, white males on both ends of the political spectrum are the most likely to commit violence. Likewise, we must formalize robust network analysis to map and track these distributed groups across their digital territories and to identify their backers, funders, and agitators. Finally, there needs to be a very serious conversation about how to regulate Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter as platforms for influence, instigation, propaganda, and recruiting.

For now, America is held in line by a strong rule of law and a good-enough economy that most people still have something to lose by choosing violence. But as our government and corporate leaders continue to deconstruct rule of law and economic opportunity, the norms degrade and the space for transgression becomes bigger. To FP’s poll, my gut says the likelihood of a second U.S. civil war in the next five years is between 20 and 40 percent but trending upward significantly.

Chris Arkenberg studies the interaction of disruptive technologies and complex systems. He is a technology analyst and strategist for Fortune 500, non-profit, and government clients. Among other roles, he’s been an advisor to the CTO of the Nature Conservancy, a visiting futurist with the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, a senior lecturer at the California College of the Arts, and a visiting researcher at Institute for the Future.

Pro-Russian insurgents occupy the Sloviansk city administration building on April, 14 2017. (Wikimedia Commons)


Some thoughts on how we might get from where we’re at now to a Second Civil War



You persuade your base that there is no other way but violence.

By Lt. Col. Robert F. McTague, U.S. Army (Ret.)

Best Defense office of Second Civil War affairs

If we have a second Civil War, trying to understand what is happening will feel more like Ukraine in 2014 than Virginia in 1861.

Our first Civil War was primarily about slavery, but that was in the context of social and economic models in the South that were ripe for extinction. The South’s reaction was to launch a last-ditch effort to maintain and prop up its way of life at all costs, so it was visceral and violent. 

Likewise, Trump’s election was an angry, defiant death throe, a angry cry against demographic and economic changes that are in fact irreversible. So, if you are a New Right strategist today — call them the Great Disruptors — the question is, how do you confront those inevitabilities?
First, you continue at the low level, with some really advanced, effective gerrymandering, as in Wisconsin. You continue to enflame working class whites, who have been ignored by the Democrats for decades. You also try to limit immigration and free trade as much as possible.

Even so, even as they do this, the New Right’s Disruptors know they can slow down changes to the nation, but they can’t stop them. So what’s the next step? You up the ante. You make it holy war. You persuade your base that there is no other way but violence. I believe many, perhaps most, of the members of Trump’s base will sign up for that.

Why? Because they will believe they are on the side of good, of right, of Americanism.

Many people in the South and heartland in general often think of themselves as patriotic, loyal Americans, more so than “liberals,” “Yankees,” “elites” and people from the North and urban areas. I know this well from two decades in the Army. Southerners nowadays, including Texans, often see themselves as the “realer Americans,” the people who really stand up for the country, who have a better feel for what it stands for.

How do you translate those feelings into tactics? Well, first, you don’t secede. Rather, you set the stage for yourself to be the big winner, the good guy. You make yourself “America” and make the “other guys” the troublemakers and secessionists. All you really are doing, you insist, is trying to make this country great again. Sound familiar?

You set out to marginalize your opposition. You declare that your enemies are the anti-American “elites,” concentrated in “Sanctuary Cities” that are economically thriving — and thumbing their noses are the rest of the country. They’re looking at you, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, Philadelphia, New York and Boston.


The bad news for Disruptors is, these elitist cities are also many of the US’s largest ports and financial centers. The good news: they are easy to isolate and disenfranchise.
If I were a truly Machiavellian New Right strategist, I’d focus my fire on the state of California. Make it The Other. Attack it relentlessly. Threaten its culture and power. Cut off water that flows into it from outside the state, essential to its people and agriculture. Ignore those nettlesome decisions from the 9th Circuit.
Think of how it would benefit the base if California somehow withdrew from the next presidential election, sat it out in protest. Sound crazy? It is, but it’s also exactly the kind of audacious reshaping of the American electorate these strategists need.

The Disruptors would accept violence as part of the equation. I don’t foresee set-piece battles between great armies, but I think they understand the strategy would involve persistent conflict that kills hundreds or even thousands on the way to achieving its aims. If they can get away with it with minimal bloodshed, great; if not, “so be it.”

In March, my totally unscientific hunch was a second civil war had less than a 20% chance of happening.  Now I’m guessing it’s closer to 40%. The revision is less a reaction to the current president or perceived deterioration of the political environment as it is a revision of my own understanding of “where we are.” I’ve lately become persuaded that our current leaders are nearly incapable of mediation, reconciliation, or compromise in much of anything, regardless of the stakes; nor do I expect that to improve. If anything, I expect it to worsen.

I now think that something akin to the scenario I’ve presented here is only a matter of time. Why? Because for the New Right, it is the only alternative to political extinction.  Soon, they will have no choice but to be bold, drastic and ruthless. We’d be foolish not to expect something real and violent as a result.

Robert F. McTague retired in 2016 as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army.  He did two tours in Iraq, and also served in Kuwait, Qatar, Korea, Croatia, Romania, and Turkey.  He completed two NATO tours as well.  He now makes his home in Bucharest, Romania.

Rumblings of a second Civil War: Some links

More information on a second Civil War.

“Roger Stone Predicts a Civil War if Donald Trump is Impeached,” Salon

“Georgia Governor Expects Lawmakers to Plunge into Civil War Debate Next Year,” AJC

“Alex Jones and Other Conservatives Call For Civil War Against Liberals,” Newsweek

“Savage: Civil War if Trump Taken Down,” Infowars

“Is America Headed for a New Kind of Civil War?” the New Yorker

“Our House Divided,” the New York Times

“Pro-Confederate Activists Held ‘Secession Day’ Event at Roy Moore’s Foundation Two Years in a Row,” CNN

The Last Days of a White World- Political Violence Is Inevitable In America

The last days of a white world

Sunday 3 September 2000

It was news and no news; the most significant milestone in one of the most profound changes to affect the US in the past century, and yet a non-event. Last week the US Census Bureau issued figures showing that non-hispanic whites made up 49.8 per cent of the population of California.

Anglo-Saxon whites are already a minority in Hawaii and the District of Columbia. Now they are an ethnic minority in the country’s most populous state, the one most usually identified with the American dream.

‘It’s my hope we can all see our state’s diversity as a cause for celebration and not consternation,’ said California’s lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamente, a Latino. Robert Newby, a white shop-owner who has lived in Los Angeles for 40 years, echoed his optimism: ‘This confirms what most of us have thought for years. I am happy for there to be more immigrants – by and large they work harder and have more money to spend.’

As recently as 1970, eight out of 10 Californians were white. Fuelled by immigration at its highest rate since the start of the last century, and higher fertility rates, the Asian and Latino populations of California have risen by almost a third since 1990. At the same time, with limited immigration and low birth rates, the population of non-hispanic whites has fallen by 3 per cent. By 2040, hispanics are expected to be the overall majority in the state.

Where California goes, the rest of America is predicted to follow. At present 72 per cent of the US population is non-hispanic whites; the US Census Bureau predicts they will become a minority between 2055 and 2060.

Not every one likes the new face of America. White far-right extremists predict the break-up of the union. Thomas W. Chittum, a New Jersey-based Vietnam War veteran, declared in his book Civil War Two, that the US, like Yugoslavia, will shatter into new, ethnically-based nations. ‘America was born in blood, America suckled on blood, America gorged on blood and grew into a giant, and America will drown in blood,’ Chittum warned.

 Image result for los angeles

The separatists have set up groups such as Americans for Self-Determination. One of the founders, Jeff Anderson, said: ‘We are suggesting the US be partitioned into states for blacks, whites, hispanics, and so on, along with multi-racial states for those who wish to continue with this experiment. Now is the time to begin such a multi-racial dialogue about separatism, before a storm of violent racial conflict erupts.’

The shifting sands of the US reflect wider – and highly controversial – changes elsewhere in the world. It is an area in which few demographers dare to tread for fear of being accused of racism. ‘You cannot quote me – a word out of place and I get crapped on from a very great height,’ said one academic. ‘Whatever you say you are deemed racist’.

The past millennium was more than anything the era of the whites. Just 500 years ago, few had ventured outside their European homeland. Then, with several acts of genocide clearing the way, they settled in North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand and, to a lesser extent, southern Africa.

But now, around the world, whites are falling as a proportion of population. The United Nations collects and produces a vast array of statistics on population, but produces none relating to race or ethnic origin. Indeed few countries collect their own figures on ethnicity – in Europe, only the UK and the Netherlands do.

However, the UN’s State of the World Population 1999 predicted that 98 per cent of the growth in the world’s population by 2025 will occur in lesser developed regions, principally Africa and Asia. The most significant reason for this is lower birth rates in rich countries: in 61 countries, mainly the rich ones, people are no longer having enough babies to replace themselves.

In its World Population Profile 1998, the US Census Bureau predicted that by the second decade of this century all the net gain in world population will be in developing countries. ‘The future of human population growth has been determined, and is being determined, in the world’s poorer nations,’ it said.

 Related image

The global centre of gravity is changing. In 1900 Europe had a quarter of the world’s population, and three times that of Africa; by 2050 Europe is predicted to have just 7 per cent of the world population, and a third that of Africa. The ageing and declining populations of predominantly white nations have prompted forecasts of – and calls for – more immigration from the young and growing populations of developing nations to make up the shortfall.

Last year net immigration to Britain reached 185,000, an all-time record. The Immigration Minister, Barbara Roche, recently announced plans to attract migrants to fill specific skills shortages, such as in the computer industry.

Last month Edmund Stoiber, the premier of Bavaria in southern Germany, called on Germans to have more babies as an alternative to more immigrants. ‘We are having too few children – to a worrying degree, the significance of which is scarcely recognised,’ he said. His calls echoed those of a fellow Christian Democrat who earlier this year stood on a platform of ‘Children not Indians’.

In Britain the number of ethnic minority citizens has risen from a few tens of thousands in the 1950s, to more than 3 million – or around 6 per cent of the total population. While the number of whites is virtually static, higher fertility and net immigration means the number from ethnic minorities is growing by 2 to 3 per cent a year.

One demographer, who didn’t want to be named for fear of being called racist, said: ‘It’s a matter of pure arithmetic that, if nothing else happens, non-Euro peans will become a majority and whites a minority in the UK. That would probably be the first time an indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority in its historic homeland.’

Lee Jasper, race relations adviser to the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, predicted a similar future, telling The Observer : ‘Where America goes, Europe follows 30 years later. There is a potential for whites to become a minority in some European countries.’

In Britain, that is almost certain to happen in London, and in the relatively near future. ‘At the moment ethnic minorities are about 40 per cent in London. The demographics show that white people in London will become a minority by 2010,’ said Jasper. ‘We could have a majority black Britain by the turn of the century.’

British National Party chairman Nick Griffin said: ‘I don’t think there’s any doubt that within this century, white people will be a minority in every country in the world.’ For Griffin, however, it is a major cause of alarm: ‘Every people under the sun have a right to their place under the sun, and the right to survive. If people predicted that Indians would be a minority in India in 2100, everyone would be calling it genocide.’

 Related image

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of the Foreign Policy Centre, who arrived in London from Uganda in 1972, said such fears are basically racist: ‘Only white people worry about this. It’s because for such a long time the world has been their own. To talk about it feeds a particular type of racism that says that blacks breed like rabbits. There is an underlying assumption that says white is right.’

She added: ‘There is a white panic every time one part of their world seems to be passing over to anyone else. But it’s foolish to panic about it. So what if we do become a majority? What difference does it make?’

For Alibhai-Brown, the decline of whites is a question of redressing the balance after they colonised much of the world. ‘The empire strikes back really. There was this extraordinary assumption that white people could go and destroy peoples and it would have no consequence. It astounds me,’ she said.

But present trends have little chance of redressing the injustices of history. Native Americans used to have the lands to themselves but are now less than 1 per cent of the US population, with little chance of becoming a majority again. The biggest growth is among Latinos (largely derived from Spain), and Asians, particularly from China and the Phillippines.

Jasper said the concerns of the British National Party are based on outdated ideas. ‘The racial mix of nations changes all the time. There is no way that ethnicity of blood can be tied to a specific geographic place in a global world. You can no longer look at ethnic states, saying that Germany is Anglo-Saxon and so on.’

Jasper felt the process would strengthen Britain. ‘Diversity strengthens a country. It makes it more exciting. We have hundreds of languages spoken, when we go out to eat we never eat English, we eat Thai or French or Indian. It makes London a very cool place to live and work.’

Nor does it seem likely that whites will become marginalised in terms of influences, even if their numbers decline. David Owen, of the Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations at Warwick Univer sity, said: ‘Population has never been the main determinant of influence – it’s wealth and income. White people still have their hands on most of the levers of military and economic power.’

Even so, Griffin warns that, as in Germany and the US, the rise of ethnic minorities will lead to a backlash. ‘It’s going to put race to the top of the political agenda,’ he said.

But that seems unlikely. Britain has far less of a track record of racism and right-wing extremism than other European countries. Alibhai-Brown insisted that rising numbers of ethnic minorities could even help reduce what racism there is: ‘The right-wing parties are growing in Somerset, not Brixton. The idea that more black people means more racism is not born out by the research. The more of us there are, it reduces racism.’

 Image result for los angeles 3rd world city
Related image

Back in California, in a land built by immigrants, Bustamente put a positive spin on the end of the white majority: ‘If there are no majorities, then there’s no minorities.’ In Europe, with its 40,000-year-old indigenous white population, the rise of a non-white majority may not be greeted with such equanimity.

• In the United Kingdom, the number of people from ethnic minorities has risen from a few tens of thousands in 1950 to more than 3 million now.

• In Italy, the birth rate is so low that, without immigration, the population is predicted to decline by 16 million by 2050.

• The United States government predicts that non-hispanic whites will become a minority in the country by 2055.

• The United Nations predicts that 98 per cent of world population growth until 2025 will be in developing nations.

• The population of Europe is expected to drop from 25 per cent of the world total in 1900 to 7 per cent in the next 50 years.

“The Last Days of a White World”

April 14, 2017

 

In September 2000, Anthony Browne penned a sobre report for the Observer newspaper entitled “The Last Days of a White World”. Browne, latterly an advisor to Boris Johnson during his time as London mayor and now head of the British Bankers Association, informed readers that “40,000-year-old indigenous white populations” of Europe were soon to become minorities in their own lands. The report is written with the objective restraint of a journalist who has held senior political and economic briefs at the BBC, The Times, The Daily Mail and The Spectator. Browne quotes liberally from Far Right nationalists, sitting politicians in the US and Germany, and black and Asian British journalists and commentators, each with different takes on the demographic changes brought about by South to North migration and divergent birth rates.

What Browne describes with seeming neutrality is what might now be familiar to people as the “White Genocide” meme prominent in far right online networks. Leftist professor George Ciccariello-Maher found himself the target of both online and mainstream media attacks when a tweet he made welcoming “White Genocide” was picked up and circulated, leading to a coordinated campaign of complaints being sent to Drexel university where he works. Leaving aside any judgement on the effectiveness of the satire, what we do learn from this case is that some liberals took the “white genocide” trope seriously, as a form of hate speech, rather than recognise the perversity of its construction, which amongst other things imagines the coming death of the “white race” at the hands of multiracial relationships and mass immigration.

Never one to miss an opportunity for self-promotion was “Alt-Right” Klansman, Richard Spencer, who immediately appealed to Drexel students to bring him in. Spencer has publicly called for a 50-year moratorium on “non-European” immigration to the United States, “[They] have got to go home again,” he said. “They can connect with their real identity… reconnecting with who you really are for a Mexican-American would be about being in Mexico. For an African, it would be about being in Africa.” What Spencer refers to as “race realism” states in common sense tones that everyone has somewhere they belong, that tightened controls on immigration and increased deportations – such as the recent “Muslim ban” – are good for immigrants too because they can only truly flourish in their “natural homes”. Such logic is redolent of the 19th Century Colonization Movement in the US which saw sending slaves and free black people born in America “back to Africa” as the only solution to the problem of racial slavery in America. Advocates of this popular cause included Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Lincoln, whose airbrushed histories have not been lost on the Spencer-affiliated journal, Radix, which has been at pains to point out that the Founding Fathers were all racists.

The naturalisation of arguments about the civilisational threat posed to the West by “Islamisation” or by immigration in general, while not couched in the most explicit lexicon of white nationalism, have nevertheless gained traction in recent decades among large parts of the right but also many liberals and even leftists. Often framed in a narrative of decline and decadence, the objects of critique are the same: “multiculturalism” and “cultural relativism” have led European nation-states to lose their identity and the continent itself to lose its moral fibre and grounding in Enlightenment principles, while the corrosive force of immigration and “globalism”, particularly of confident and aggressive Muslims, pulls it down from within.

Recent essays from environmentalist Paul Kingsnorth and former editor of Prospect magazine David Goodhart join the canon of writers announcing that they’ve been mugged by reality and left “the Left”, Goodhart for a “post-liberal” progressive racism and Kingsnorth for a sort of National Trust proto-fascism. Both men react against trends they ascribe to liberalism or the Left (which they conflate), try to position themselves as tribunes or translators of a “white working class revolt” and root their politics in a defence of place, culture and tradition – a benign nationalism to shield social cohesion (and, for Kingsnorth, “nature”) from the depredations of “globalism” and “multiculturalism”.

Alana Lentin and Gavan Titley have written about how the imagined “failed multicultural experiment” has been a vehicle through which to “launder” legitimised racisms via the language of religion, non/integration and culture (as if “race” and culture haven’t always been interlinked in the history of racism). Seeing as multiculturalism doesn’t refer to any clear and consistent state project, the term instead acts as a signifier. The “failure of multiculturalism” is a means through which to attack both immigrants who may yet come as well as those already here. The term “multiculturalism” thus becomes a mobilising point to undermine the reality of “lived multiculture” – i.e. the reality of human beings from different parts of the world sharing the same city or town.

Mobilising around this narrative schema was ex-EDL leader Tommy Robinson, after the recent attack on Westminster Bridge. He immediately showed up at the scene to garner mainstream publicity and indifferent journalists, hungry for filler, generously reciprocated. This was followed by the viral condemnation of a woman wearing a Hijab pictured walking past a wounded victim, based on a still image. Finally compounded up by the spectacular hyperactivity of the state, as the twelve people arrested in the days following the attack were all released without charge. Each terrorist attack, every concocted controversy about “freedom of speech”, proposed referenda to ban burqas, or minarets, or to leave the EU, is seized upon as an “event”. Political actions following these “events” and their endless mediation present opportunity structures for advancing racist causes and violence, to further cement ideas about what Islam is, who all Muslims are, why immigration is bad or how “political correctness” makes flaccid the institutions of nation and state.

Lentin and Titley call this tapestry of narratives “recited truths” – stories are constructed around what multiculturalism is, who it has benefited and how each Western country’s experience of its failings are cumulative and directly related. Every next “event” mobilises the last so that experiences of different (perceived-as-white) Western nation-states become unified by a civilisational threat narrative. This discourse is most prominently mobilised by populist racists like Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen as well as various journalists and academics, but this plane of thinking is far more ordinary than is conveniently perceived. David Cameron, liberal commentators, ex-leftists, Angela Merkel, all agree that “multiculturalism has failed”.

Lentin and Titley give us room to consider the pivotal importance of “multiculturalism”, not as a progressive virtue, but as an abstract obfuscation of race and class antagonisms, which has been repeatedly mobilised to advance nationalist sentiments. What we are witnessing today is the eclipse of coded racisms and the return of confident racists, though they did not come magically out of nowhere. The general incapacity of Western economies to manage a crisis that has its roots in the unraveling of post-war regimes of accumulation has left the door ajar to a far right international which mobilises all the racist configurations of the Western state for enhanced political manoeuvring. In this way, we tend to agree with Endnotes collective that the protracted crisis of capitalism we are facing is tied to a general inability of capital to absorb relative surplus populations thrown out of production by cyclical rounds of automation and deindustrialisation, since the crises of the 1970s. This is the material underpinning to Western national economies: financialisation and structural unemployment in the capitalist heartlands, accompanied by the political result, increasing authoritarianism. Central to politics in recent times has been a policing of the increasing precarity of the wage-relation itself, as a growing surplus of people begin to stand outside this relation, though continue to depend on the wage – or indirectly, debt – to garner a living. After the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, this tendency has merely deepened, rather than promise the abridgment of new social movements. Though how we got here is not always so clear and can be near impossible to understand under the intense hyperventilating of the news cycle.

In the British parliamentary sphere, specifically, resurgent social democracy remains embryonically attached to a robust faith in future rounds of capital accumulation, despite a general consensus from ultra left communists to Former US Treasury Secretaries that this is unlikely. In any case, the revival of capitalism is not desirable or possible, given the irrationality of a system based on blind producers responding to market signals, and the metabolic limits to this global contagion of commodity fetishism. The political armature of resurgent British social democracy, meanwhile, remains immobilised by the temporal scrum of spectacular media and moral sentiment, which is intensified by a commodity news form prone to short-winded assessment.

As we both reside in the shallows of the British imperial state, the British context is as good a place as any to tunnel into the dynamics of the present crisis of capitalism. Especially since after Brexit, the racialised character of the crisis has sharpened. Though we find little motivation to mourn the depressing features of the present through an obsessional critique of “evil” characters or sham governments, while hoping for better times through the spirit of times passed. Following up on the critical bearing Lentin and Titley develop through the ever-important mobilising object of “multiculturalism”, there is a need to recognise – and in what ways – fascism grows out of capitalism and liberalism, including the residue of its ‘progressive’ side, social democracy.

In this vein, we turn to the writing of Ambalavaner Sivanandan who in particular gives us a historical transition to understand how class antagonism is mediated by race. Thereby providing an essential starting point to unpack the peculiar British combine of racialised violence, bourgeois economics and imperial jamboree, which weedles itself into the half light of 2017.

In his writings on post-war labour, race and class, Sivanandan makes the British state a central focus of his analysis. The British state, unlike many other European states, could call on the migrant labour of British colonies and former colonies in the Caribbean and the Indian Subcontinent – to fill labour shortages, especially in public services, infrastructure and the most unappealing, gruelling jobs, which were not strongly affiliated to union memberships. Though as competition for work increased and working class communities were immiserated, they were also stratified by race. Sivanandan shows how the British Parliament responded by making settlement and citizenship progressively harder to obtain, ensuring the state management of racism became institutionalised, while political measures for “integration” and anti-discrimination were introduced to alleviate the effects.

Sivanandan notes a particular change in the form of post-war immigration from 1962 onwards, when the state restricted the admission of Commonwealth immigrants to those who had employment vouchers. This allowed the state new controls over the conditions of life for migrants, whose citizenship and rights to social welfare would then be tied directly to their capacity to labour. What Sivanandan noted as an “institutionalisation of race” opened up secondary potentials for super exploitation by landlords, bosses but also unions, which could more easily subordinate these lower tier workers to the priorities of institutional or individual self-preservation. This racialised tier of labour was then shaped through “race relations”, which intended to mitigate the economic need for flexible, seasonal and contractual migrant labour against racial antagonism between “indigenous” and “black” workers, including competition for work and housing.

The concept of “race relations” pointed to a consensus formed across Westminster parties that black people (Sivanandan refers to all colonised African and Asian peoples as “black”) were a problem and that immigration control was needed to limit their numbers (supposedly for the good of immigrants already in Britain). An example of this approach to “race relations” was a policy of 1965 stating that no school could have more than a third immigrant children making up its student body. Immigrant children were bussed to schools further away (“indigenous” kids were never bussed to other schools), making it clear that the state saw immigrant children as a problem which could be solved by ensuring their minority status through legislation and showing white parents that their prejudices were a priority. Increased restrictions were always accompanied by measures to encourage integration/assimilation as well as some to supposedly ward off discrimination. What Sivanandan returns to again and again during this period is how the state must balance its role of superintending cheap labour-power in the form of immigrants – cheaper because they grew up elsewhere and they were entitled to fewer rights and benefits, so they could be used up and thrown away – against the state’s need to maintain social control over labour in general. Two needs that didn’t always align.

The language and context of racism changes over the course of the 1980s and 1990s through new, more comprehensive policies to encourage “integration” and fostering the growth of a black middle class – though historical continuities from the 1960s racialisation of migrant labour persist. As a generation of migrants settled, and the children of migrants were then born in Britain, the relations of class society stratified racialised communities and new, more bourgeois, interpretations of antiracism also materialised. The dominant forms of antiracism in the 1970s and 1980s largely consisted of struggle against the state, the police, landlords, bosses, aimed at transforming social relations. State co-option of this period of rebellion and resistance through the language of “diversity”, individual social mobility and aspiration, initiated a decoupling of “race” from class, which had been relationally entwined for decades. A division between good and bad immigrants, violent policing of boundaries not to be transgressed and a constant process of separating new from settled waves of migration has since prevailed.

Against the grain of liberal democratic appeals to ‘post-racial’ unity, Sivanandan connected the era of “equal opportunities” – which Lentin and Titley examine through the signifier of “multiculturalism” –  to an intensification of the processes and logics of state racism, now trained upon different social groups. ‘Xenoracism’ for Sivanandan is a racism that coheres around newcomers and “don’t belongs” – the Greek “xeno” translating as alien or strange. New migrants and asylum seekers must prove their worth, economically, but also prove themselves worthy of the national imaginary. While towards the bottom of the pecking order, the Roma and unemployed or homeless migrants are priority targets for deportation.

As Arun Kundnani argues with great clarity in his book “The Muslims are Coming!”, the 9/11 event came to largely define this specific period of race relations and provided massive opportunities for pervasive narratives of nation and nationhood. Where once the Jew of the 19th and 20th centuries was the unwanted, unassimilable, rootless and rumoured-to-be disloyal subject of the European nation-state, the Muslim has become the hard target of state repression and surveillance. This doesn’t mean to say that the persistence of anti-blackness as the structuring lodestar of racism can be in any way minimised. Indeed, the most important contribution of Kundnani’s book is his appraisal of how Black Power movements in the 1960s and 70s were historically intertwined with people of Muslim faith. This history is obscured because after 9/11 it was impossible to be anti-capitalist and Muslim without also being suspected of being a terrorist. That represents the disciplinary principle of the “Prevent” policy operative in British schools, colleges and universities today, which promotes social cohesion, while obliterating whatever potential was left in these institutions for radical dissent, especially for people of colour. The Muslim label, abstractly conceived, acts as a signifier and cipher which substitutes “race” for religion, when in actuality the two are continually conflated. All the while police and state violence are meted out to black people in Western countries hugely disproportionately, citizen or not.

The divestment of “race” into a new legislature of different races and ethnicities, which ran parallel to the expansion of the service economy, was thought to be a sign that Britain could shed its colonial history and the “rivers of blood” of the bad old days, but only substituted this racial animus (to the extent that it actually did) with a repressed authoritarianism that demanded newcomers were to be both “tolerated” and relentlessly interrogated, or just silently deported in their thousands. Systematic Islamophobia and xenoracism was the reality of the “post-racial” consensus, especially post-9/11, cultivating spores of conspiratorial actors and “clash of civilisations” commentators – and their careers.

For UK parliamentary heavyweights after the financial crash, the unprecedented collapse of stable liberal oppositions in Europe ensured “immigration” became the central cross-parliamentary yardstick of competition. Against the consensus over austerity, which was something tautologically explained by the need to bring down the deficit, most at stake in Britain for parliamentarians of these years was immigration. Especially for a Labour Party hoping to stem their slide into obscurity. Underpinned by allusions to the “legitimate fears” of “working people”, the “progressive” side of this argument, coming from Labour shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, wanted an “honest conversation about immigration” to correct the past abuses of the system. Set against the fallacious premise that – in a country boasting a high technology border regime – “it is a serious problem that Britain still can’t count people in and count people out”, Cooper jealously attacked then Home Secretary Theresa May’s record on immigration figures, joining in with politicians of every stripe to prove herself tough enough to get the numbers down. This tit for tat of post-crash immigration duels has now completely unraveled, along with the duplicitous theatre of the Labour Party, leaving only the bare bones of the imperial corpus. Without apology or appeal to diversity, all that’s left is the giddy speculations of racist politicians and commentators accounting for the categories of bodies amenable to Brexit Britain.

The particular expression of political authoritarianism in Britain today, animated by nostalgia for imperialism and wartime national unity, should not distract from the historical relationship between race and class, state and capital, which writers such as Lentin, Titley, Sivanandan and Kundnani have helped to acutely dissect. Contemporary appeals to national unity and British sovereignty, alongside straw-man critiques of multiculturalism, however jingoistic, are actually proving necessary for the state to manage a protracted crisis of capitalism. The way Sivanandan describes the intersection between liberalism and fascism from the perspective of the 1960s, mediated through the abstract principle of “freedom of speech”, shows much of the language has changed, but the political mobilisation of race has been part and parcel of how British liberal democracy mediates class antagonisms:

“By invoking their democratic right to freedom of speech… by claiming equal TV time as the other electoral parties and by gaining ‘legitimate’ access to the press and radio – they would propagate the cause of denying others those freedoms and legitimacies, the blacks in the first place. They would move the whole debate on race to the right and force incoming governments to further racist legislation – on pain of electoral defeat.”  

In our introduction, we noted how Anthony Browne mourned the end of a European continent that had been “white” for 40,000 years. It is clear that Browne is no outlier or fringe operator, he has made a good career moving between media, political power and finance but always in mainstream institutions. His writings have been praised by the British National Party and sold on their website, before a career in mayoral politics and the financial sector. His assumptions are not special, however, but overlap with many of the logics at play in current political developments, which work by obscuring the historical passage of capitalism through colonialism. Indeed, Browne’s coded pre-9/11 foray into illustrations of “white genocide” anticipate post-crash far right electoral movements, which organise in much the same way, though without the same need for political restraint. There are however clear differences today. The most successful fascists can currently be found in the United States and they have been able to amplify fellow Anglophone satellites with much more veracity than the BNP could muster through sympathetic liberal establishment figures like Browne. Though unchanging, from Sivanandan writing in the late 1960s on the formalisation of the BNP and National Front to Nigel Farage and the “alt-right” Nazi youth, are the gamut of liberal media outlets willing and ready to give these views oxygen.

The far right have been sycophantically courted by journalists and an increasingly desperate petit-bourgeois commentariat, who stand tall on defence of free speech, or fabricate the human story behind the fascist. Seeing Richard Spencer get punched in the face (whilst doing yet another interview) was too much for some commentators, who could see nothing but leftist aggression. This immobilised spectacle of liberal culture not only extends the purview of fascist newscraft, but perhaps more importantly obscures the history of their ideas. The seductive entrée of nativist rebellion, irresistible for liberal commentary, fails to note the fundamental conformity of these movements, which merely seek to extrapolate, accelerate and proudly centre what seated parliaments have been doing for decades.

To the “race realist”, national borders aren’t scars of colonialism carved out by war, imperialism and revolution, they mark the boundaries of timeless bonds of blood, soil and culture. “Race”, for fascism, has no history: it is not ascribed by power, ideology, legal systems or labour relations. “Race” is a given, handed down through the ages, conferring social meaning and innate difference. The typical charge is that multiculturalism has fractured European societies, hasn’t sufficiently “integrated” newcomers and has allowed communities to become segregated, damaging social cohesion. But this evocation of social cohesion is a mythical conjuring. It summons up a society or community of the barely memorable past where gender, class, racial and spatial division never existed, whilst affirming racial difference through the historical categories of colonialism and bourgeois political economy.

What Marx referred to as the production of “relative surplus populations” – that is, labour relative to what capital needs, rather than ‘naturally’ surplus –  is an advantage and problem for capital. The perverse irony of the capitalist mode of production is that it is the supra-managers of capital – mostly white men – and the super-exploited – majority women, non-white –  that move around the most. The former to search out, dispossess and exploit the latter, before moving on when labour gets too riotous and thus expensive to manage.

For the imperial states, country-hopping capital is necessary to expand taxation and influence. Though what is specific about today is that the imperial nations are struggling to manage the people it doesn’t need in its own heartlands. As Sivanandan shows us, this was a regular problem for the British state in times of economic contraction, which demanded new innovations of state technology and policy that could more closely shape and regulate flows of migrant labour from the Commonwealth or balkanised European regions. But in a protracted crisis of capitalist accumulation, where green shoots never surface, except through releasing fictitious capital through pensions for property investment and tech speculation, the state must mediate the more general immiseration of the workforce. Against the expansion of a national prison population and the law and order ticket, invocations of nation, culture and the ‘death of multiculturalism’ then become crucial to mediate the political fallout of these economic contradictions. This labour problem is then reconciled by setting mutilated “natives” – be they workers, estate agents or Surrey brokers – against the degraded world of the strange and foreign.

The mythical cohesiveness of nation serves only as an imagined obverse to the particular focus of difference in the dominant frame – the racialised, the Muslim, the immigrant, the asylum seeker, are foregrounded as the antagonist of economic crisis and threat to stability. There is no non-reactionary vision of national cohesion in the context of political economy. As a simple priority, “lived multiculture” has to be defended, in thought as well as practice, which means every racist deportation fought, communities of resistance and solidarity deepened, and the borders enforced by state and capital exposed as divisions of who lives and who dies.

African American communist Harry Haywood wrote of “race” in 1930: “Race, as a social question, exist[s] only for the ideologists of the bourgeoisie and in the minds of those deluded by them.” [This ideology existed to imbue] “differences within the human species, such as color of skin, texture of hair, etc [with] social meaning,” [in order to claim] “the existence in nature of master and slave races.” Race is a category of bourgeois reality, but racism plays as salient a role as ever in ordering and dividing societies, and structuring global flows of capital and labour.

In the context of this systematic racialisation of capitalist crisis and an emboldening of the politics of white masculinity, racial/sexual/gender minorities are constantly in the dock for derailing supposedly general or universal political struggles in favour of their particular interests or individualism, as too preoccupied with identity or “virtue signalling”. The term “identity politics” is almost always accusatory. This characterisation erases the fact that these struggles for liberation or justice or recognition challenge the heart of the general (the state, prevailing modes of accumulation and reproduction) which are largely treated as objective facts of life. “Race”, which has been our main focus, is “depersonalised” and systemic, and yet, personifies human beings. This ‘identity’ is not freely appropriated by any one person; to be raced is an ascription reinforced from the outside. The need for such organisation of “races” results from a history of social control that the capitalist state has used to supplant class antagonism. While consistently, for decades, groups who are most marginalised and oppressed in Global North countries have been at the forefront of the most radical social struggles that have forced concessions from the state and challenged and troubled mainstream society in order to bring about change.

Contra perceptions in the West, Global South to North migration is actually very low owing to it being massively & lethally restricted. It must be considered low especially in the context of imperialist wars and climate change fuelling record levels of displacement and migration, the vast majority of which remains internal to the Global South. The production of relative surplus populations inherent to capitalist development, that sees both agricultural labour expropriated from access to means of subsistence as well as wage-labour functions being continually automated, are leaving growing sections of the global labour force only partially, casually or seasonally needed by capital, if at all. This tendency has proven to be highly gendered and racialised. The trends suggest that the crisis symptoms we are living through will only intensify and the catastrophic effects will be distributed as unevenly as the wealth has been abstracted from material life. To understand the causes and to struggle against them at their root will be the struggle of our lifetimes.

America ‘catches up’ with Third World democracies

Related image

Demonstrators gather to protest a day after President-elect Donald Trump’s victory, at a rally outside Los Angeles City Hall in Los Angeles, California, on November 9, 2016. Protesters burned a giant orange-haired head of Donald Trump in effigy, lit fires in the streets and blocked traffic lanes late on November 9 as rage over the billionaire’s election victory spilled onto the streets of US cities. From New York to Los Angeles, thousands of people in around 10 cities rallied against the president-elect a day after his stunning win, some carrying signs declaiming “Not our President” and “Love trumps hate.” / AFP PHOTO/ Read more at: https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000222981/america-catches-up-with-third-world-democracies

The just-concluded American poll and its aftermath has completely shattered the unspoken myth that certain conduct is exclusively the preserve of Third World and emergent democracies. Post-election violence, the use of foul language by politicians, taking advantage of divisions, intolerance to rival groups, aversion to defeat and pollsters-influence on elections have all been seen as idiosyncratic variables of Third World democracies – until Donald J Trump faced Hillary Clinton. Conversely, the respect for the will of the people, tolerance of rival supporters, emphasis on issues-based campaigns, decorum in politics and use of science-based predictions have long been associated with America, a country that has experimented with democracy for centuries. But yesterday’s images of thousands of enraged American citizens flooding the streets in protest to a largely credible electoral outcome – one in which the rival conceded before they were called – contradicted the very idea of democracy. unequivocal refusal The weeping and wailing at a White House night vigil on Wednesday night was a scene straight out of an African post-election moment, when people who peg all their hopes on an individual candidate are deflated by electoral outcomes.
Related image
Trump’s advance and unequivocal refusal to accept results unless he won was typical of Third World democracy candidates and their aversion to defeat. His preoccupation with epithets against Clinton at the expense of issues too! Third World democracies’ propensity to reward the crude at the expense of the sane or to extol vice in place of virtues showed itself clearly in the American election. For some people, the choice between Trump and Clinton was a more or less like the biblical choice between the Messiah and Barabbas the common thief. The crowds settled for the common thief and condemned their ultimate savior to die on the cross.
AGAINST GREAT ODDS
This presumption that the Barabbas narrative is the preserve of Third World countries has been shattered by the triumphal entry of Trump into the White House against great odds. Closely related to this is the Americans’ unbridled obsession with values in governance and its processes. Many Third World democracies – including Kenya – have blamed America for attempting to interfere with electoral choices on exterior considerations. Perhaps the greatest similarity between the conduct of the American polls and Third World democracy polls is the tendency to ignore the undercurrents driving the electorate whose end result turns out to be “democratic accidents” in the eyes of the establishment.

 

Political Violence Is Inevitable In America

The future looks like it has a lot of Balkanization and political violence in it.

 

October 14, 2017

 

Submitted by James Karlsson

 

The shooting in Las Vegas is part and parcel now of living in the West. Nowhere in the West is it more evident now than in America that the many racial and ethnic groups are fighting over a carcass. A dead bag of ideas and principles that has been festering since at least 1965.

The many ethnic and racial groups that comprise modern America are scavenging at this carcass in a desperate frenzy to grasp what resources from it that they can and as those resources begin to run out it will lead to confrontation and conflict.

The country is on the edge of a radical conflict that will change the very geopolitical and demographic makeup of the North American continent. The old America of 1965 is dead and it’s time her former peoples go their separate ways to forge a new existence apart from one another.

Related image

If the people who formerly used to call themselves Americans continue to fight over this carcass they will spark this aforementioned conflict and blood will be spilled. We see now that African Americans are ‘taking the knee’ to protest a country which they feel has treated them as second-class citizens throughout various points in history.

They have the right to feel this way.

According to PewSocialTrends.org nearly 43% of African Americans don’t believe America will make the changes necessary to give them equality. Meanwhile, affirmative action and massive welfare programs to re-distribute the nation’s wealth have remained in place for over half a century in an attempt to lift up Black America. Still, 66% of Blacks feel that they are treated less fairly when applying for a home loan and 75% are under the impression they are treated unfairly in the criminal justice system, a system which was purposely built to be the least biased in the world. Because of this perception of their situation, they have begun to demand change that not even they themselves believed  White Americans would give them.

Image result for los angeles 3rd world city

They have demanded and received segregated black only forms at: California State University, University of Colorado Boulder. At The University of Chicago, they also demanded segregated housing. Harvard is now holding separate black only graduation ceremonies and blacks are increasingly returning to the South. This does not make up a population unified with the ideas of America. This is a population disillusioned with a nation they never felt they were truly a part of, to begin with.

If the people who formerly used to call themselves Americans continue to fight over the carcass blood will be spilled.

At her conception, America was a White, Anglo-Protestant nation with values reflected in that historic population. White Americans are resoundingly in opposition to the things Black America is currently standing for. 70% of them watch the NFL, 60% intend to watch less of the NFL now that players are disrespecting their dead country. This view on disrespect stems from the massively different political views Whites hold with the non-White population of the country. Nearly 42% of whites think that on-demand abortion in the United States should be outlawed, while 62% of Black Americans support it, and the Hispanic population is split almost 50/50 on the issue according to Pewform.org. Politically they continue to buck the trend of the people of color in the United States.

If only White votes were counted, Trump would have gotten 369 electoral votes to Hillary’s 169 which is a huge departure from the 306 Trump to 232 Clinton which actually occurred as laid out by Brilliant Maps based on the electoral commission data.

White Americans hold different views from all other populations in the United States, and this wide difference in views among races is one of the primary reasons America withered and died. A custodial population who imports more mess and more violence, and persons with opposing views, can never maintain a healthy society.

The alien population of America: some 57,470,287 Hispanics, which constituted roughly 18% of the population in 2017 are yet another major driving force of future conflict.

Related image

The Hispanic population in the country highlights almost perfectly the balkanization of the physical geography of the United States. Hispanics do not live where Blacks live and Blacks do not live where Hispanics live. The Southwestern United States has a Hispanic population of over 35% in every state in the region, and less than a 4.8% Black population in the region as a whole. Conversely, the Southern States all have Hispanic populations of less than 10%, with Florida being the only notable exception to this at around 20%. In 2015 Hispanic Americans went from having a 29% negative attitude towards the United States to a sharp 65% in 2017 and 41% are concerned about their place in America. This is a problem that before 1960 hardly existed as their small population of 6.3 million represented only 3.48% of the population, now they occupy a staggering 18% and in the space of just 57 years, their population in raw numbers has increased nine-fold. This is compounded by the rather conservative estimate that they will represent over 30.2% of the population in 2040 or 132.8 million individuals.

A 128% increase in raw numbers.

These two groups, The Blacks and Hispanics will not treat Whites with kindness and generosity. They took what Whites from all around the planet had contributed to and created and they began to bleed it dry.  After the Las Vegas Massacre, it is obvious to most of us that the path

to peaceful reconciliation is gone, if it existed at all before that, and we must be ready for a time when it is not only one man with a gun aiming a concert.

These attacks will continue with the silence of the media and political class effectively sanctioning these kinds of actions as long as they are directed at Whites who vote the wrong way.

What can we white people do? WAR, we must take up arms against our governments, organize into guerilla units, and bring the systems down. We must attack infrastructure, power, water, transportation, and collapse the economy. The Nation we want to save, CANNOT be saved, the rot has spread to every institution of every nation, we do not have the time for a long march through the institution to remove the cultural Marxists as they retire or leave, we must hunt them down, and put rounds into their skulls. Get used to the idea of being called a criminal, a terrorist, and a murderer, If you want to save the white race, you will have to kill the nations, governments, and the people standing in our way.

Image result for right wing death squads

The Boomer Generation is a Generation of Complete Failure

Joe Jones
Daily Stormer
October 15, 2017

The Boomer generation is one of the largest groups responsible for our destruction as a civilization, probably only second to modern women.

Even then, that’s a close second.

Their continued failures and reckless actions put us all at risk.

We need to start rounding these people up.

Charlottesville Launches Broadside Against US Constitution

Hunter Wallace
Occidental Dissent
October 13, 2017

In the latest sign that the City of Charlottesville considers itself a sovereign nation with its own foreign policy as well as the authority to nullify the US Constitution, two new lawsuits have been filed in federal and state court against Unite the Right organizers.

The lawsuit alleges that Jason Kessler and a number of pro-White organizations conspired to hold a “Unite the Right Free Speech Rally” in Lee Park in the City of Charlottesville to protest the removal of the Robert E. Lee Confederate monument, the anti-White vitriol of Vice-Mayor Wes Bellamy and the violation of Jason Kessler’s civil rights by an anarchist street gang. The White Nationalist organizers are alleged to have made “incursions” into the sovereign nation of Charlottesville where they engaged in “hate speech” which caused severe emotional distress to several sheltered residents.

It gets even worse. The Unite the Right organizers, the Redneck Revolt counter-protesters and several unaligned Patriot groups were seen carrying guns in Charlottesville on August 12th which many residents found scary. The hate groups brought Confederate Battle Flags and American flags which are known symbols of white supremacy for the purpose of intimidating people of color. The public display of these archaic symbols and constitutional rights, including the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to bear arms by White males, has left the City of Charlottesville in a traumatized state to this day. The toxic masculinity that was on display on August 12th has caused the plaintiffs to experience severe chest pain and recurring nightmares resulting in economic hardship.

After a federal court ruled that the City of Charlottesville had to allow the “Unite the Right Free Speech Rally” to proceed, the City of Charlottesville had no choice but to defend its sovereignty against the hostile White Nationalist invaders. It nullified the federal court order by ordering its police force to stand down and cede control of the streets to a deputized anarchist vigilante force. The violence which resulted from their attacks was used as an excuse to declare an “unlawful assembly” in Charlottesville and a “state of emergency” by Gov. Terry McAuliffe in Virginia. In such a way, Charlottesville was able to rid itself of the so-called First Amendment of the US Constitution and preserve its own orthodoxy.

The plaintiffs allege that nearly two hours after the Unite the Right organizers and attendees had left Charlottesville in compliance with Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s “state of emergency” – which applied only to the White Nationalists, but not to the Antifa counterprotesters who were still parading through the streets at that time – Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer initiated telepathic contact with James Fields, Jr. from his residence in Lagos, Nigeria and through a transatlantic Vulcan mind meld caused Fields’s car to plow into the crowd resulting in the death of Heather Heyer from a heart attack.

In the months since the events of August 12th, the City of Charlottesville has continued to make progress toward riding itself of the bigoted heritage of the US Constitution:

1.) It has vandalized the Thomas Jefferson monument, shrouded the Robert E. Lee monument in a trash bag and voted to remove the Stonewall Jackson monument.

2.) It has indicted Unite the Right organizer Jason Kessler on a perjury charge in order to intimidate him into not filing a lawsuit against the City of Charlottesville.

3.) It has denied bail to political prisoner Christopher Cantwell on the grounds of “hate speech” which is a serious crime in the sovereign nation of Charlottesville.

4.) It has issued warrants for the arrests of White Nationalists who were in Charlottesville on August 12th who were forced to defend themselves after the Charlottesville Police stood down and were attacked by Antifa and Black Lives Matter counter-protesters as a result. The City of Charlottesville doesn’t think it is necessary to arrest anyone on the other side of that conflict though. The sovereign nation of Charlottesville has adopted a social justice system which weighs all violent crimes on the scale of wokeness. It is sometimes necessary and legally permissible to punch Nazis – wide latitude is granted on this point as anyone carrying a Confederate Battle Flag is also a “Nazi.”

5.) The sovereign nation of Charlottesville has declared itself a sundown town and allowed the anarchist street gang to chase people out of City Council meetings.

6.) Charlottesville has addressed the concerns of the community by allowing an anarchist mob to hijack and occupy City Hall whenever the mood strikes:

7.) Vice-Mayor Wes Bellamy has continued to tune out White people at City Council meetings:

Bellamy enjoys seeing “little white men and the look on their faces when they have to look up to you.”

The sovereign nation of Charlottesville, which Mayor Mike Signer labeled the “Capital of the Resistance,” does not recognize the authority of President Drumpf. It hopes that this new lawsuit against the Unite the Right organizers and various Patriot groups can be the coup de grace to the US Constitution. It might even prove to be a model that can be exported to other cities which want to chill the constitutional rights of so-called American citizens who cling to heretical moral values and voted for the wrong candidate in the 2016 presidential election.

America Slowly Wakes Up To The Fact That It No Longer Exists

We no longer have anything in common as citizens of the USA or EU. Once we did, because we were born of a common root and shared a culture, but now we are merely those who attend a legal, political and economic system.

Arising from our pursuit of ideology, the notion of America as merely a system flourished for some time, but now has died, raising doubt about the question of unity as a nation:

It was Sept. 11, 2001, that sent existential concerns slamming into American speech. But there was something new, something dissonant, in the way we began to use the word — a change meant to accommodate the idea that just 19 men might strike at a nation’s being. We’d been exposed to an event people found truly unimaginable, one that shifted their sense of the world and what seemed possible in it. And yet, disorientingly, day-to-day American life continued. No armies massed on the country’s borders. The nation felt itself plunged into momentous conflict, and yet so much of that conflict existed somewhere else — not just in remote places but in abstractions and arguments over what developments, far from any battlefield, would indicate that “the terrorists have won.”

…For white nationalists, an America in which minorities mingle and miscegenate and share power with whites is an annihilating, nation-ending danger; for others, America cannot be itself until that happens. For the conservative columnist and radio host Dennis Prager, writing for TownHall in July, “left-wing-dominated media and universities pose an existential threat” to Western civilization — not because they seek to raze cities and scorch the earth, but because they envision it in ways Prager declines to recognize as the thing itself.

Any nation in which “minorities mingle and miscegenate” is a genocide factory. It takes in ethnic groups, and spits out people of no ethnicity. This fits with the Leftist ideal of removing inner traits — intelligence, moral character, race, intuition, faith — and replacing them with an external trait, namely the social ideal encoded as prescriptive philosophy that is ideology, and since this is based on human preference (“social”) rather than feedback from reality, it is always wholly individualistic and manifests as egalitarianism, or the rule that no individual can be seen as lesser than another for understanding less of reality.

In other words, the individual demands to be aided by others, even if they have not made a contribution. Consider how this contrasts the roots of civilization:

For many researchers, our cruelty to “them” starts with our kindness to “us.” Humans are the only animal that cooperates so extensively with nonkin, and researchers say that, like big brains, group life is a quintessential human adaptation. (In fact, many think big brains evolved in part to cope with group living.) Studies of living hunter-gatherers, who may represent the lifestyle of our ancestors, support this idea. Hunter-gatherers “cooperate massively in the flow of every imaginable good and service you can think of,” says anthropologist Kim Hill of Arizona State University (ASU), Tempe, who has studied hunter-gatherers for 35 years. “Anything you need in daily life, the person next to you will lend you: water, sticks for firewood, a bow and arrow, a carrying basket—anything.”

Thus the group buffers the individual against the environment. “Our central adaptation is to group living,” says psychologist Marilynn Brewer of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. “The group is primary.”

A few elaborations: first, the group is not primary; social order is. The reason that hunter-gatherers — and really, people in every type of non-modern civilization — aid each other is that they are sharing a task, and it benefits all to have more hands on deck. People are a scarce resource, and if you are going to hunt, make shelter, prepare food, or otherwise support a society through productivity, mutuality within the group is essential because it makes each person more efficient through delegation of tasks and specialization of labor.

In order to support that, social order emerges. With social order, you have some leaders, and some whose judgment is generally respected, so you achieve both hierarchy and caste. In addition, the basic formula of civilization appears: those who are willing to contribute to productivity are to be aided; those who are free-loading, or subtracting productivity, are to be hated. In addition, the group needs to be xenophobic and paranoid about outsiders because for the group to establish its standards, values and genetics, no competing versions must exist nearby; realists recognize that every group wants to dominate all others unless sufficiently removed from them that the task of conquest entails much burden for little reward.

Even in the years after our hunter-gatherer days, which really might simply be termed a time of nomadic civilization, this principle applied. Those who contributed were aided; once wealth was abstracted into gold and later ownership of businesses or farms, a general notion arose that people should be compensated according to the degree of their contribution, which was measured in the ability to make intelligent leadership decisions more than labor-by-the-pound.

Leftism — individualism — emerged in reaction to that condition. The Leftist wants reward-before-productivity, and they want to remove the system by which people are measured for their abilities. This is the desire of the individual for pacifism; he wants to eliminate the possibility of being lowered by his own failure, whether in battle or in daily tasks in which he will either demonstrate a knowledge of reality or a lack thereof, and by that will be assigned a status somewhere in the hierarchy.

This reveals the great secret of the Left, which is that despite their method of collectivism, they are fundamentally malignant individualists of the type we normally call “parasites,” but ironically, it is not because they cannot contribute, but because they fear their contributions will be insufficient. In this lies the key to defeating them: when you give them other tasks to do in which failure is anonymized, then they have only positive gain because of the “opt-in” nature of this new pursuit, and their fear of failure is alleviated; ironically, a caste system does this by assigning them to roles in which only egregious failure is punished, which gives the 80% who are functional a position that requires very little effort to achieve and maintain, freeing them up to spend more time on the rest of life. Interestingly, it does this without requiring novel changes to society so that there are always new opt-in pursuits to join.

Once we understand that social order is the root of civilization, and that individualism opposes social order, it becomes clear why America has fragmented entirely: the Leftist vision — including diversity — divides us from the sense of mutuality through shared purpose, and replaces it with obligation, or assigned tasks under the threat of social disapproval and possibly ostracism if one fails to do them. With individualism, there is nothing left but power, control, commerce and the chanting mob calling for your head on a pike.

The position someone holds in society — defined by social status, rank and hierarchical level — then, contrary to appearances, grants people stability and freedom from control, where individualism, also visually paradoxically, leads to dominance, control and rule by commerce. Diversity came about as a Leftist social weapon against hierarchy, because if you erase race and ethnic group, obliterate heritage and values, and mangle faith, language and memory, you create equal identical people who can be molded much as we shape products in a factory.

With diversity, Americans no longer had the mutuality necessary for civilization. Black people would look over at white people and wonder if those people were acting for the benefit of their own group, and not for the shared group created of political, economic and social boundaries. As it turns out, blood will out; people act not only for their own race, but for their own religion, ethnic group, political leaning, caste, region and class. They will, for a time, act together for so long as it is perceived that they share a common purpose. However, this does not last, and so diverse societies quickly fragment or self-destruct through endless caste warfare.

Americans adopted diversity in its most recent form because they believed it would end class warfare caused by racial, ethnic and caste differences in ability because of the genetic differences between those groupings. The Left likes to tell us how these divisions are “social constructs,” but that is deceptive because all language is a social construct; we notice similarities between things, group them into a category, and give that category a name. When language is used well, it groups people by the right traits, and the time-honored use of ethnic terms suggest that is true; when language is used poorly, it reflects the needs of the person coining that language, and focuses instead on political or external characteristics of groups like ideology, for example.

Internal characteristics are useful because they cannot change. You cannot alter your genetic code, and if that ability ever becomes possible, those who take advantage of it will be viewed with suspicion; to alter your genetic code is to hate your roots, which means without exception that those roots were bad which means you are bad and trying to hide that fact. In the same way, those who hate their own race or ethnic group have some actual reason for that hatred, in contrast to whatever reasons they state, which is most likely that they are broken and hate their roots as a result. If your roots made you broken, you would hate them as well. Internal characteristics like race, ethnic group, caste, moral character, intelligence, class and intuition allow us to act in good faith within the context of mutuality.

In the 1990s, America finally got onboard with the diversity agenda, since we no longer had a real fight — against the Soviets — and were now focused on fighting each other, which we did by “keeping up with the Joneses” on an ideological level, since WW2 and the Cold War had shifted us from being an organic nation based on realism to being an ideological nation based on politics and economics. In 2008, this new diversity elected Barack Obama; in 2016, amidst a downpour of other anti-globalist actions worldwide, the Obama agenda was rejected because of the disasters it created, Soviet-style, in manic pursuit of ideology even when it contradicted reality.

For us this means a seemingly uncertain future, but even that is human pretense. We know what the future holds: it turns out that diversity was wrong, in the sense of being a policy based on unrealistic/incorrect principles, and therefore, it is ending. People are pulling away from each other not just by race, but by ethnic group, religion, caste, politics, region and class. Two hundred years after we began this experiment, we have our answer: civilization requires both genetic commonality and hierarchy for mutuality, or it self-destructs.

DOJ: Last Chance for Sanctuary Cities to Comply – The Political Battle to retake America is ONLY the beginning of what will become a civil war

by UPI

The Justice Department on Thursday sent out a “last chance” warning for several U.S. cities to comply with federal immigration laws, the latest step in a battle over so-called “sanctuary cities.”

The Justice Department has threatened to cut off federal funding to boost law enforcement in cities that do not comply with the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to identify and deport undocumented immigrants.

The cities cited by the Justice Department were New York, Chicago and surrounding Cook County, Ill., New Orleans and Philadelphia. Those cities were given a deadline of Oct. 27 to provide the Justice Department with documentation proving their existing laws and law enforcement practices are in line with federal immigration policy.

Two other jurisdictions, the state of Connecticut and Milwaukee County, Wis., heeded Justice Department warnings and reversed policies meant to shield undocumented immigrants from possible deportation. Additionally, the Justice Department said subsequent investigations found Miami-Dade County, Fla., and Clark County, Nev., where Las Vegas is located, were already in accordance with federal immigration law, though previously they had been listed otherwise.

Several U.S. cities and counties passed local laws or enacted procedures that prohibit law enforcement from notifying Homeland Security when an undocumented immigrant is identified or arrested. Critics have dubbed such places “sanctuary cities.” Proponents have argued that enlisting street-level police to enforce national immigration policy makes it harder for them to investigate and stop crimes, because undocumented immigrants won’t cooperate if they think they will be deported.

Justice Dept. gives 'last chance' for sanctuary cities to comply

A federal law known by the shorthand 1373 requires local police to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally for several days until investigators from Immigration and Customs Enforcement can intervene, even if the crime they’re accused of is minor, or no charges are filed.

Critics have also pointed out local compliance with 1373 can lead to jail overcrowding.

The Trump administration has said enforcing immigration law is vital to national security and crime reduction.

“Jurisdictions that adopt so-called ‘sanctuary policies’ also adopt the view that the protection of criminal aliens is more important than the protection of law-abiding citizens and of the rule of law,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “… I urge all jurisdictions found to be out of compliance in this preliminary review to reconsider their policies that undermine the safety of their residents. We urge jurisdictions to not only comply with Section 1373 but to establish sensible and effective partnerships to properly process criminal aliens.”

WATCH: Border Wall Prototypes Almost Complete

Border wall prototype construction enters its final days along the United States’ Southwest border in San Diego, CA.

President Donald Trump promised to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Prototype construction began last month, with crews given 30 days to complete their models.

Watch these latest construction videos from U.S. Customs and Border Protection:

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/embed/557173

Taken October 8, 2017

advertisement

Six companies were selected to build eight prototypes.

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/embed/557175

Taken October 7, 2017

Four models are made of concrete and four are made from other materials.

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/embed/557177

Taken October 6, 2017

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/embed/556174

Taken October 4, 2017

The construction site is located near the Otay Mesa Port of Entry.

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/embed/557179

Taken October 3, 2017

Once complete, the government will run a series of tests on each prototype, checking for anti-climbing, anti-breaching, and anti-digging capabilities, among other things.

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/embed/557183

Taken October 2, 2016

Amanda House is Breitbart News’ Deputy Political Editor. You can follow her on Twitter at @AmandaLeeHouse.

Five Illegal Alien MS-13 Members Charged in Maryland Woman’s Murder

Five illegal aliens who are part of the MS-13 gang were charged in connection with the brutal murder of a Maryland woman who was beaten to death and buried in June and unearthed in September.

Maryland authorities discovered the body of 21-year-old Jenni B, Rivera in a shallow grave on the outskirts of Annapolis, the Baltimore Sun reported. The victim was allegedly lured to her death and then beaten by Ervin Figueroa, Brenda Argueta, Ronald Mendez Sosa, Darvin Guerra-Zacarias, and Francisco Ramirez-Pena, all five members of the MS-13 who have immigration detainers on them. Each had varying degrees of participation with two carrying out the actual murder. 

The victim had been reported missing on June 28 as the case remained unsolved until an anonymous source led authorities to key evidence in the case. 

In response to the gang killing and other bodies discovered in the area, Tim Altomare, the police chief in Anne Arundel County, reached out to residents but disclosed little information in connection to the three victims he was referring to, nor to the gang activity. 

advertisement

“If you’re in fear, if you think a gang wants to hurt you, I’m begging you to come and talk to us,” Altomare said. “Your lives matter to us, it’s our job to keep you safe, we take it seriously, and we will move heaven and earth to get you the help you need if you need help to stay safe.”

The murders took place over the past three to five weeks in separate locations. Although the identity of the gang was not revealed, members of the community familiar with the investigation have identified the gang as MS-13. Anne Arundel County officials recently announced the creation of a gang task force, a combination of officers from the county and Annapolis, as well as FBI agents.

Law enforcement officials nationwide are targeting MS-13 members, many of which are illegal aliens with violent criminal records. In October 2012, the U.S. Department of Treasury labeled the group a “transnational criminal organization,” the first such designation for a street gang. Many law enforcement agencies are developing plans to fight the spread of MS-13 violence–but these problems are compounded by sanctuary policies that allow criminal alien gangs to gain a foothold on U.S. soil.

Robert Arce is a retired Phoenix Police detective with extensive experience working Mexican organized crime and street gangs. Arce has worked in the Balkans, Iraq, Haiti, and recently completed a three-year assignment in Monterrey, Mexico, working out of the Consulate for the United States Department of State, International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Program, where he was the Regional Program Manager for Northeast Mexico (Coahuila, Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Durango, San Luis Potosi, Zacatecas.)

Tancredo: Do You Miss America?

Columbus discovered America. Sadly, 525 years later, Americans can’t find it.

I miss America. Do you?

Now, I am not necessarily talking only about the good ole’ days when you could play outside till the street lights came on, and when you did play games there was a winner and a loser but no participation trophy. I am talking about something much, much more devastating to the national ethos. I am talking about the approaching end of patriotism, when loving the America put together by the founding fathers gets you branded as a racist, sexist, white supremacist, Islamophobe, homophobe and just plain stupid.

Twenty-first century America gives everybody something to rail against. For Antifa and the Democrats, it’s the mere semblance of things we were and, for conservatives, it’s the daily realization of so many things we have become.

Conservatives recall a time when you could actually trust the major organs of government, especially those tasked with the responsibility for keeping us safe. Remember when we believed the Department of Justice was actually on our side? Are you wondering what happened to the America where even your local police department seemed to actually be focused on catching the bad guys and was, for the most part, working in unison to protect law-abiding citizens? Who would have imagined a local police force standing down, as they did in Charlottesville, to let the mayhem escalate to the point where bloodshed turned into murder?

advertisement

Are you nostalgic for the America where a sanctuary city was a whimsical place where Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid found refuge? In 2017 America, it’s a place where murderers and rapists and child molesters can find safe harbor but only if they broke into the country to commit their crimes.

In 2017 America, a man rents a room in Las Vegas and the next thing you know, there are 59 dead and nearly 500 wounded. But a week after the event, you still don’t know his motives– whether he was a “ lone wolf” or a simple lunatic or a radicalized ISIS convert. Or was he a Trump-hater who was, as the shooter at the Republican baseball team practice, driven to mayhem by the persistent rantings of late night TV “comics” and a national press that is obsessed with fueling a coup and overturning an election?

Questions abound, and even when there are official “ answers,” too many Americans are skeptical. Truthfully, are there any folks out there who don’t harbor at least a modicum of reluctance to accept the “official” accounts of the horrific event? Can anyone blame those of us who remain leery?

Many of us look at the media reporting the same way thinking Germans and Russians must have looked at the daily emanations from their respective Ministries of Propaganda. Look at how our Ministry regurgitated the story that a video no one in Libya ever saw caused an attack on our people in Benghazi. Look at how the Ministry feeds the ludicrous narrative that Russia engineered Hillary’s defeat.

After all, for eight years we saw President Obama turn the U.S. Department of Justice into the lead agency in charge of “fundamentally transforming America.” We saw Obama’s first attorney general, Eric Holder, tell the nation he would not prosecute crimes committed by members of the New Black Panther Party. He was busted for gun running to Mexican cartels in an operation called Fast and Furious that ended up costing God knows how many lives — including that of a Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry. Holder refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court even though constitutionally, he was charged with the responsibility of enforcing federal laws. And the list goes on. Holder was followed into office by another wizard of weaponized bureaucracy, Loretta Lynch. Think tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton supposedly to discuss grandchildren — of which she has none. Or does the cover-up of the Clinton email scandal ring a bell? Do Americans think Obama’s appointee as head of the FBI, James Comey, is a paragon of virtue or a fabricating political hack?

Obama weaponized the EPA, BLM, and every agency under his control and encouraged them to go after anyone deemed a problem to the new progressive order. Case in point, a 77-year-old veteran by the name of Joe Robertson, who owned a small 200-acre ranch in Montana. In order to enhance the water supply for the volunteer fire department to which he belonged, he built a few stock ponds on his land, which is 60 miles from the nearest minimally navigable river and many miles from any creek tributary of the river. Yet, the Obama EPA said he had violated the federal rules implementing the Waters of the United States (“WOTUS”), a law aimed at protecting “navigable waterways.” After a hung jury in the first trial, a judge whom Robertson had criticized years earlier came out of retirement to preside over a new trial and deliver a conviction.

In November, disabled veteran Robertson, now 79, will finish a year-and-a-half prison term for a concocted pseudo-crime against Mother Earth. Oh, and incidentally, those Obama EPA “WOTUS” regulations used to prosecute Robertson are now being withdrawn by the Trump Administration.

And how about abusing the vast powers of the CIA to gather — or make up — incriminating evidence on the regime’s political opponents? Or using the nearest thing to an American Gestapo, the IRS, to target non-profit groups that need  “re-education”? Can anyone spell Banana Republic?

Patriotism and trust in government have deteriorated to dangerous levels. We have replaced the Rule of Law with the rule of bureaucracy. Americans no longer trust the government to tell the truth about anything — about abortion, crime, terrorism, or the government’s institutionalized violation of privacy and civil liberties. When a majority of citizens believe both the mainstream media and the government are telling lies every day, civic life declines to a poisonous competition between angry tribalism and corrosive fatalism, with no-win battles between hyper-activism and quiet cynicism.

Yes, I really miss America.

  • I miss the time when Hollywood produced movies that instilled pride in who we are.
  • I miss the time when citizenship meant something more than immunity from deportation, when the study of Columbus, Magellan, and Ponce De Leon inspired a sense of adventure, not a sense of shame.
  • I miss the time when the First Amendment was sacred and colleges were bastions of free speech.
  • I really miss Teddy Roosevelt’s America, a nation that heeded  his admonition that a nation made of people who refused to assimilate was not a nation at all but simply a “ polyglot boarding house.”
  • And I miss Ronald Reagan’s America when we had an uplifting rebirth of pride and self-confidence.

However, the political establishment’s depravity and corruption are resilient, and the historical roots and pillars of American greatness remain malnourished in our schools and colleges.

Although Obama is gone from the White House, his operatives still hold onto the reins of power and Trump’s team seems uninterested in dislodging them.

The president has some enormous challenges ahead of him, not the least of which is inspiring a rediscovery of the America our founding fathers fought so hard to establish. How will we ever recover America if we stop looking for it?

Where is Mighty Mouse when we really need him?

Criminal Attacker and Aspiring Rapper Crybaby Deandre Harris Charged for Charlottesville Assault

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
October 12, 2017

So do you remember that nigger who was attacking people at Charlottesville and then got his shit kicked in and posted pictures of himself on a GoFundMe and got like $150,000 and used it to buy a Mercedes and make rap videos?

Yes. That one there.

His name is Deandre Harris.

Well, he just got charged with assault because he actually started the fight. He was attacking people – after he chased them into a parking garage – and the people who beat his ass did so defensively.

The media is just fucking going nuts over this. Like completely losing their shit.

Because you aren’t allowed to defend yourself when you’re attacked by a black.

BBC:

A black man who was beaten at a far-right rally in Virginia has turned himself in to be formally charged in connection with the incident.

DeAndre Harris, who is accused of unlawful wounding at the 12 August Charlottesville protest, was released on an unsecured bond.

Photos and video of Mr Harris, 20, being attacked by white men at the event were widely shared online.

Two alleged assailants were charged with malicious wounding in September.

They did not get bond, by the way.

But many are incredulous that an African-American set upon by white attackers at a far-right demonstration could himself face a criminal case.

Another individual alleged that Mr Harris attacked him, prompting the arrest warrant to be issued on Tuesday.

Mr Harris’s lawyer, S Lee Merritt, said his client did nothing wrong and authorities did not have probable cause to prosecute him.

Mr Harris could face up to five years in prison and a $2,500 fine (‎£1,880).

The attorney said his client, a former special-education instruction assistant, suffered a concussion, a knee injury and a fractured wrist.

The assault also left him with a head laceration that required stitches.

“We find it highly offensive and upsetting,” Mr Merritt told the Washington Post newspaper, “but what’s more jarring is that he’s been charged with the same crime as the men who attacked him.”

Footage of the attack spread quickly on social media, showing at least five white men beating and kicking Mr Harris to the ground in an indoor car park next to the police station during the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville.

Mr Harris’ lawyer said his client was accused of wounding a man named Harold Ray Crews.

Video of the incident appears to show a scuffle between the two in which Mr Harris swings a torch at a man identified by US media as Mr Crews, who lunges at him with the pole of a Confederate flag.

Bull fucking shit he “lunges at him” – he was lunged at! They were trying to take Crews’ flag, and he is clearly pulling back, trying to keep his flag. “Lunging” is a forward fucking motion, kikes.

Washington Post didn’t show the video. The BBC isn’t showing the video.

Here it is.

That’s why he got his ass beat. Because he chased some guys into

Mr Harris’ attorney maintains the torch did not “make significant contact” with Mr Crews, who describes himself on Twitter as a “Southern Nationalist, Attorney”.

In the US, alleged crime victims can go to a magistrate after filing police reports.

The magistrate only needs probable cause based on the alleged victim’s testimony to grant an arrest warrant.

Mr Harris surrendered on Thursday a day after police charged a man identified as Jacob Scott Goodwin, 22, in connection with the car park brawl.

Police said Mr Goodwin, of Ward, Arkansas, could be seen on camera carrying a large plastic shield and kicking Mr Harris, who was on the ground.

Daniel Borden, 18, of Ohio, and Alex Michael Ramos, 33, of Georgia, were also charged with malicious wounding last month in connection with the attack.

They are political prisoners.

But in fact, no one should even be charged here. That would be the real shit – if you go into a violent confrontation or a situation where you have reason to believe could become violent and get your ass kicked – which every single person at Charlottesville did – the law should say “sorry, pal.”

But obviously, I agree with Crews filing a counter-complaint against Deandre, as this is the only way to prove the point and get our guys out of jail.

Anyway, there are a bunch of videos about this. And Hunter Wallace was on The Daily Shoah yesterday to talk about it. He is friends with Crews and knows the whole story well.