• Women paint their clothes with red in protest against the J. Marion Sims statue in New York, known as the “father of modern gynaecology” the protestors highlighted the doctor performed painful surgeries on enslaved black women without consent or anaesthesia

    La statue a été déplacée en 2018

    New York City’s Public Design Commission voted unanimously on Monday to remove the statue of J. Marion Sims, a 19th century surgeon who conducted experimental operations on female slaves, from its place of honor in Central Park.

    It was the first decision to alter a prominent New York monument since Mayor Bill de Blasio called for a review of “symbols of hate” from city property eight months ago, in the wake of the white supremacist protest in Charlottesville, Va., that left one person dead.

    A commission that Mr. de Blasio created to make recommendations about how to evaluate the city’s monuments and other public images had proposed that the Sims statue be removed.

    The Parks Department will remove the statue, at 103rd Street, near the northeast corner of Central Park, at 8 a.m. Tuesday, according to Natalie Grybauskas, a mayoral spokeswoman.

    Déplacée pour la seconde fois mais toujours debout

    A bronze statue by Ferdinand Freiherr von Miller (the younger), depicting Sims in surgical wear,[42] was erected in Bryant Park, New York, in 1894, taken down in the 1920s amid subway construction, and moved to the northeastern corner of Central Park, at 103rd Street, in 1934, opposite the New York Academy of Medicine.[23][43] The address delivered at its rededication was published in the Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine.[44] This is the first statue erected in the United States in honor of any physician. The statue became the center of protests in 2017 due to Sims’ operations on enslaved black women.[45] Vandals defaced the statue with the word RACIST and painted the eyes red.[46] In April 2018, the New York City Public Design Commission voted unanimously to have the statue removed from Central Park and installed in Green-Wood Cemetery, near where Sims is buried.[43]

    #grand_homme #chirurgie #racisme #gynécologie #femmes

  • Neo-Nazis Bet Big on Bitcoin (And Lost) – Foreign Policy

    Several hundred white supremacists carrying tiki torches march through the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville on Aug. 11, 2017.
    Evelyn Hockstein/For The Washington Post via Getty Images

    How the far-right’s failed cryptocurrency gamble became a bad joke for the Christchurch killer.

    The neo-Nazi terrorist who takes credit for murdering 50 people in Christchurch, New Zealand, on March 15 released a manifesto. One of the claims inside it is that he did very well investing in cryptocurrency—specifically, a collapsed Ponzi scheme called Bitconnect.

    Like much of the shooter’s manifesto, the claim about cryptocurrency is almost certainly nonsense—thrown in to get the media to chase their tails as they try to make sense of a deliberately confusing stew of alt-right memes and neo-Nazi in-jokes.

    The reason it works as an in-joke is exactly because cryptocurrencies have become a favorite resource for the far-right—if rarely a successful one. White nationalists were known to be getting into cryptocurrencies during the 2017 bitcoin bubble, because PayPal kept cutting them off. The further joke is that Bitconnect is best known not for having helped its investors succeed but for taking them for millions, if not billions, of dollars. And Bitconnect started in 2016—but the shooter claimed to have made the money before he went traveling in 2010 or so.
    Bitcoin ideology is not a neo-Nazi ideology. However, bitcoin’s right-libertarian anarcho-capitalism is very much in range of far-right extremism, particularly in the degree to which both propagate “international banker” and Rothschild-style conspiracy theories, and there are social spaces where the two cross directly, such as the /biz/ cryptocurrency forum on 4chan.

    David Golumbia is the author of the 2016 book The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism. He documents the history of the ideas that went into bitcoin—such as long-running anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about “international,” i.e., Jewish, bankers—and how these extremist ideas are propagated by the subculture, even as present-day enthusiasts would utterly repudiate the ideas’ origins.

    I think only a small number of cryptocurrency users are out-and-out fascists or Nazis,” Golumbia told Foreign Policy. “But I also suspect that the proportion of fascists in that world is higher than it is in the general population. That’s due to the widespread presence of conspiratorial ideas in cryptocurrency communities. Many in cryptocurrency actively promote ignorance about what should be clear and uncontroversial facts about the world.

  • Bill to allow removal of Confederate monuments dies in subcommittee

    Tension filled the room Wednesday as a House subcommittee voted to kill a bill that would have let localities decide whether to remove or modify Confederate monuments in their jurisdictions.

    Del. David J. Toscano, D-Charlottesville, introduced House
    House Bill 2377, which sought to change the current law that makes it illegal to disturb or interfere with war monuments. His bill would have given cities and counties authority to remove Confederate or Union monuments. This is the second year Toscano has sponsored such legislation.

    “We give localities the ability to control the cutting of weeds. But we haven’t yet given them the control over monuments that might have detrimental effects on the atmosphere and the feeling of the community,” Toscano said. “If you weren’t in Charlottesville in August of 2017, it would be hard to understand all of this.”

    He said people across Virginia want the ability to decide what to do with the monuments in their towns.

    Toscano said the monuments were erected during the “lost cause” movement, which viewed the Confederacy as heroic and the Civil War as a conflict not over slavery but over “states’ rights.”

    He addressed a subcommittee of the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns. The subcommittee’s chair, Del. Charles D. Poindexter, R-Franklin, gave those on each side of the debate five minutes to state their case. With a packed audience filling the small committee room, each person had little more than one minute to speak.

    Supporters of Toscano’s legislation held up blue signs with messages such as “Lose The Lost Cause” and “Local Authority for War Memorials” printed in black ink.

    Lisa Draine had tears in her eyes as she spoke of her daughter, Sophie, who was severely injured when a white supremacist, James Alex Fields Jr., drove his car into a crowd of people demonstrating against racism in Charlottesville.

    Fields, who was sentenced to life in prison last month for killing Heather Heyer, was part of the “Unite the Right” rally protesting the city’s plans to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from a local park.

    “I couldn’t imagine that a statue had brought this to our town,” Draine said. “My daughter could have been your daughter.”

    A member of the Charlottesville City Council, Kathy Galvin, spoke in favor of the bill, citing the need for local legislators to have authority over the monuments.

    Matthew Christensen, an activist from Charlottesville, said it was an issue of “basic human decency” and the right of local governments. “They own the land, they own the statue, they should be able to decide what to do with it,” he said.

    Ed Willis, an opponent of Toscano’s bill, said it violates provisions in the Virginia Constitution prohibiting discrimination. “It’s painfully clear discrimination based on Confederate national origin is the basis of this bill,” he said.

    Like other opponents, Willis said his ancestors served in the Civil War. Some spoke of their families’ long heritage in Virginia and opposed what they felt was the attempt to sanitize or alter their history.

    Frank Earnest said he blamed the “improper actions” of the Charlottesville city government for the mayhem that took place in August 2017.

    “Just like the other socialist takeovers,” Earnest said, “it’ll be Confederate statues today, but don’t think they won’t be back next year to expand it to another war, another time in history.”

    The subcommittee voted 2-6 against the bill. Dels. John Bell and David Reid, both Democrats from Loudoun County, voted to approve the bill. Opposing that motion were Democratic Del. Steve Heretick of Portsmouth and five Republicans: Dels. Poindexter, Terry Austin of Botetourt County, Jeffrey Campbell of Smyth County, John McGuire of Henrico County, and Robert Thomas of Stafford County.

    Supporters of the bill met with Toscano in his office after the meeting. He said he knew the bill’s defeat was a “foregone conclusion.” HB 2377 was heard last in the meeting, giving little time for debate or discussion.

    People who want to remove the monuments asked Toscano, “How do we make this happen?”

    Toscano picked up a glass candy dish from his desk and placed a chocolate coin wrapped in blue foil in each person’s hand. This represented his desire for a Democratic majority in the House of Delegates, where Republicans hold 51 of the 100 seats.

    Toscano said he fought for years to get from 34 Democratic delegates to the 49 now serving. He urged the group to vote for those who share their concerns this November.

    “It’s all about the General Assembly,” he said.
    #monument #mémoire #monuments #USA #Etats-Unis #statue #histoire #Etats_confédérés #confédération #toponymie #paysage_mémoriel #guerre_civile #Charlottesville #Virginia #Virginie

  • Jawad Bendaoud propose une hausse des salaires de 3,1% et une prime de 1500 euros.
    Total condamné pour « menaces de mort » contre une victime des attentats du 13 novembre

    Amiante : vingt-deux enquêtes ouvertes par l’IGPN après les dernières manifestations
    Violences policières : la cour de cassation annule les mises en examen pour homicides et blessures involontaires.

    Prison à perpétuité pour Sarkozy après les violences de Charlottesville
    Un néonazi américain conseiller de l’ombre de Macron

    Smic et prime d’activité, des parents en détresse se forment à la non violence
    Face aux enfants tyrans : les annonces d’Emmanuel Macron en huit questions

    Affaire Fillon, le moteur de recherche Yandex révèle plus que ce qu’il veut cacher
    En floutant ses images satellites, Ladreit de Lacharrière condamné à huit mois de prison avec sursis.

    Brexit : il faut engager une révolution morale
    #UrgenceClimat : tout comprendre aux différents scénarios de validation de l’accord de sortie de l’UE.


  • Are Jared and Ivanka Good for the Jews? - The New York Times

    Jewish communities stand more divided than ever on whether to embrace or denounce Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.

    By Amy Chozick and Hannah Seligson
    Nov. 17, 2018

    On election night in Beverly Hills, Jason Blum, the hot shot horror-movie producer, was accepting an award at the Israel Film Festival. The polls in a string of midterm contests were closing, and Mr. Blum, a vocal critic of President Trump, was talking about how much was at stake.

    “The past two years have been hard for all of us who cherish the freedoms we enjoy as citizens of this country,” Mr. Blum said.

    That’s when the crowd of mostly Jewish producers and power brokers started to chant, “We like Trump!” An Israeli man stepped onto the stage to try to pull Mr. Blum away from the microphone as the crowd at the Saban Theater Steve Tisch Cinema Center cheered.

    “As you can see from this auditorium, it’s the end of civil discourse,” Mr. Blum said, as security rushed the stage to help him. “Thanks to our president, anti-Semitism is on the rise.”
    In the weeks after a gunman killed 11 people at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, in one of the most horrific acts of anti-Semitism in years, debates about the president’s role in stoking extremism have roiled American Jews — and forced an uncomfortable reckoning between Mr. Trump’s rhetoric and his daughter and son-in-law’s Jewish faith.
    Rabbi Jeffrey Myers greets Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump near the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh.
    Doug Mills/The New York Times


    Rabbi Jeffrey Myers greets Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump near the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
    Rabbis and Jewish leaders have raged on Twitter and in op-eds, in sermons and over shabbat dinners, over how to reconcile the paradox of Jared Kushner, the descendant of Holocaust survivors, and Ivanka Trump, who converted to Judaism to marry Mr. Kushner.

    To some Jews, the couple serves as a bulwark pushing the Trump administration toward pro-Israel policies, most notably the decision to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. To many others, they are the wolves in sheep’s clothing, allowing Mr. Trump to brush aside criticism that his words have fueled the uptick in violent attacks against Jews.

    “For Jews who are deeply opposed to Donald Trump and truly believe he is an anti-Semite, it’s deeply problematic that he’s got a Jewish son-in-law and daughter. How can that be?” said Dr. Jonathan D. Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University.
    Sign up for the Of The Moment Newsletter
    Self-care and social change. Relationships and advice. Beauty and health. Fame and fortune. Stories picked for you. Get the Of the Moment newsletter.

    Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump serve as senior advisers in the White House. At a time when Judaism is under assault — the F.B.I. said this week that anti-Semitic attacks have increased in each of the last three years — they are unabashedly Orthodox, observing shabbat each week, walking to an Orthodox Chabad shul near their Kalorama home in Washington, D.C., dropping their children off at Jewish day school and hanging mezuzas on the doors of their West Wing offices.

    After the Pittsburgh attack, Mr. Kushner played a key role in Mr. Trump (eventually) decrying “the scourge of anti-Semitism.” And Mr. Kushner helped arrange the president’s visit to the Squirrel Hill synagogue, including inviting Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador to the United States to accompany them. There, in Pittsburgh, thousands marched to protest what one organizer described as the insult of the Mr. Trump’s visit.
    Arabella Kushner lights the menorah as her parents look on during a Hanukkah reception in the East Room of the White House in 2017.
    Olivier Douliery/Getty Images


    Arabella Kushner lights the menorah as her parents look on during a Hanukkah reception in the East Room of the White House in 2017.CreditOlivier Douliery/Getty Images
    The White House has referenced Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump’s religion to dismiss accusations that Mr. Trump’s rhetoric has emboldened anti-Semites. “The president is the grandfather of several Jewish grandchildren,” the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, told reporters.

    Using the couple in this way has unnerved many Jews who oppose the president and say Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump violated the sacred, if sometimes unspoken, communal code that mandates Jews take care of each other during times of struggle. “I’m more offended by Jared than I am by President Trump,” said Eric Reimer, a lawyer in New York who was on Mr. Kushner’s trivia team at The Frisch School, a modern Orthodox yeshiva in New Jersey that they both attended.

    “We, as Jews, are forced to grapple with the fact that Jared and his wife are Jewish, but Jared is participating in acts of Chillul Hashem,” said Mr. Reimer, using the Hebrew term for when a Jew behaves immorally while in the presence of others.
    For Mr. Reimer, who hasn’t spoken to Mr. Kushner since high school, one of those incidents was the administration’s Muslim ban, which prompted members of the Frisch community to sign an open letter to Mr. Kushner imploring him “to exercise the influence and access you have to annals of power to ensure others don’t suffer the same fate as millions of our co-religionists.”

    Leah Pisar, president of the Aladdin Project, a Paris-based group that works to counter Holocaust denial, and whose late father, Samuel Pisar, escaped Auschwitz and advised John F. Kennedy, said she found it “inconceivable that Jared could stay affiliated with the administration after Pittsburgh” and called Mr. Kushner the president’s “fig leaf.”

    Those kinds of accusations are anathema to other Jews, particularly a subset of Orthodox Jews who accused liberal Jews of politicizing the Pittsburgh attack and who say that any policies that would weaken Israel are the ultimate act of anti-Semitism.
    Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner at the opening ceremony of the new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem in May.
    Sebastian Scheiner/Associated Press


    Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner at the opening ceremony of the new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem in May.CreditSebastian Scheiner/Associated Press
    “Jared and Ivanka are one of us as traditional Jews who care deeply about Israel,” said Ronn Torossian, a New York publicist whose children attend the Ramaz School, the same Upper East Side yeshiva where Mr. Kushner’s eldest daughter Arabella was once enrolled. “I look at them as part of our extended family.”

    Even some Jews who dislike Mr. Trump’s policies and recoil at his political style may feel a reluctance to criticize the country’s most prominent Orthodox Jewish couple, grappling with the age-old question that has haunted the Jewish psyche for generations: Yes, but is it good for the Jews?
    To that end, even as liberal New York Jews suggest the couple would be snubbed when they eventually return to the city, many in the Orthodox community would likely embrace them. “They certainly won’t be banned, but I don’t think most synagogues would give them an aliyah,” said Ethan Tucker, a rabbi and president of the Hadar yeshiva in New York, referring to the relatively limited honor of being called to make a blessing before and after the reading of the Torah. (Mr. Tucker is also the stepson of Joe Lieberman, the first Jewish candidate to run on a major party ticket in the U.S.) “I don’t think people generally honor people they feel were accomplices to politics and policies they abhor,” Mr. Tucker said.

    Haskel Lookstein, who serves as rabbi emeritus of the Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, the modern Orthodox synagogue on the Upper East Side that Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump attended, wrote in an open letter to Mr. Trump that he was “deeply troubled” by the president saying “You also had people that were very fine people, on both sides,” in response to the white nationalist riots in Charlottesville, Va.

    When reached last week to comment about the president’s daughter and son-in-law days after the Pittsburgh attack, Mr. Lookstein said simply, “I love them and that’s one of the reasons I don’t talk about them.”

    Talk to enough Jews about Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump, and you begin to realize that the couple has become a sort of Rorschach test, with defenders and detractors seeing what they want to see as it relates to larger rifts about Jewish identity.

    “It’s not about Jared and Ivanka,” said Matthew Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. “People look at them through the prism of their own worldviews.”
    Editors’ Picks

    The Adopted Black Baby, and the White One Who Replaced Her

    Stone Mountain: The Largest Confederate Monument Problem in the World

    They Survived a Massacre. Then the Lawyers Started Calling.
    From left to right on front row, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his wife Sara Netanyahu, Mr. Kushner, Ms. Trump, and the U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin at the opening ceremony of the new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem.
    Sebastian Scheiner/Associated Press


    From left to right on front row, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his wife Sara Netanyahu, Mr. Kushner, Ms. Trump, and the U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin at the opening ceremony of the new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem.CreditSebastian Scheiner/Associated Press
    Those worldviews are rapidly changing. One in five American Jews now describes themselves as having no religion and identifying as Jews based only on ancestry, ethnicity or culture, according to Pew. By contrast, in the 1950s, 93 percent of American Jews identified as Jews based on religion.
    As Jews retreat from membership to reform synagogues, historically made up of political liberals who were at the forefront of the fight for Civil Rights and other progressive issues, Chabad-Lubavitch, the Orthodox Hasidic group with which Mr. Kushner is affiliated, has become a rapidly-growing Jewish movement. The growth of Chabad correlates with fierce divisions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a small but growing contingent of American Jews who prioritize Israel above any other political or social issue.

    Mr. Kushner, in particular, has become a sort of proxy for these larger schisms about faith and Israel, according to Jewish experts. “There is a great deal of anxiety around the coming of the Orthodox,” said Dr. Sarna, the Brandeis professor. “Jared in every way — his Orthodoxy, his Chabad ties, his views on Israel — symbolizes those changes.”

    Mr. Kushner is the scion of wealthy real-estate developers and his family has donated millions of dollars to the Jewish community, including through a foundation that gives to settlements in the West Bank. Mr. Kushner influenced the Trump administration’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy, to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, and to shutter a Palestine Liberation Organization office in Washington.

    “You’d be hard pressed to find a better supporter of Israel than Donald Trump and Jared plays a role in that,” said Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary under President George W. Bush. Mr. Kushner is currently working on a Middle East peace plan expected to be rolled out in the coming months.

    Haim Saban, an entertainment magnate and pro-Israel Democrat, is optimistic about Mr. Kushner’s efforts. He said in an interview from his hotel in Israel that although he disagrees with some of Mr. Trump’s policies, “Jared and by extension the president understand the importance of the relationship between the U.S. and Israel on multiple levels — security, intelligence, but most of all, shared values.”
    That embrace has only exacerbated tensions with secular Jews who overwhelmingly vote Democratic and oppose Mr. Trump. According to a 2018 survey by the American Jewish Committee, 41 percent of Jews said they strongly disagree with Mr. Trump’s handling of U.S.-Israeli relations and 71 percent had an overall unfavorable opinion of Mr. Trump. (In response to questions for this story, a White House press aide referred reporters to an Ami magazine poll of 263 Orthodox Jews in the tristate area published in August. Eighty-two percent said they would vote for President Trump in 2020.)

    “To wave a flag and say ‘Oh, he’s obviously pro-Jewish because he moved the embassy’ just absolutely ignores what we know to be a deeply alarming rise of anti-Semitism and all sorts of dog-whistling and enabling of the alt-right,” said Andy Bachman, a prominent progressive rabbi in New York.
    President Trump praying at the Western Wall.
    Stephen Crowley/The New York Times


    President Trump praying at the Western Wall.CreditStephen Crowley/The New York Times
    In September, Mr. Kushner and his top advisers, Jason D. Greenblatt and Avi Berkowitz, hosted a private dinner at the Pierre Hotel on the Upper East Side. Over a kosher meal, Mr. Kushner, aware of concerns within the Jewish community that Israel policy had become an overly partisan issue, fielded the advice of a range of Jewish leaders, including hedge-fund billionaire and Republican donor Paul Singer and Mr. Saban, to craft his Middle East peace plan. “He called and said ’I’ll bring 10 Republicans and you bring 10 Democrats,’” Mr. Saban said.

    The undertaking will only bring more kvetching about Mr. Kushner. Indeed, some of Mr. Trump’s most ardent Jewish supporters have already expressed their displeasure at any deal that would require Israel to give up land.

    “I’m not happy with Jared promoting a peace deal that’s sending a message that we’re ready to ignore the horrors of the Palestinian regime,” said Morton A. Klein, the president of the Zionist Organization of America and a friend of Republican megadonor Sheldon G. Adelson.

    “But …” Mr. Klein added, as if self-aware of how other Jews will view his position, “I am a fanatical, pro-Israel Zionist.”
    Amy Chozick is a New York-based writer-at-large and a frequent contributor to The New York Times Magazine, writing about the personalities and power struggles in business, politics and media.

  • National Security Pros, It’s Time to Talk About Right-Wing Extremism

    Ask any of us who works in national security what to do about ISIS, and we’d have no problem pitching you ideas. Even if we lack expertise in the topic or don’t work directly on it, we’d still have opinions and thoughts, because we’ve been swimming in a sea of articles, op-eds, books, hearings, programs, and overall research and debate for years. But ask us about right-wing extremism, a violent ideology that’s killed more Americans than ISIS in the last decade, and most of us would pause — either because we were unaware of the problem or, worse, we were afraid to speak openly about it.

    So let’s talk about it now.

    Over the last decade, individuals and groups fueled by this virulent ideology have committed 71 percent of the known politically or religiously inspired killings in our country — that is, 274 of the 387 Americans murdered by extremists. Reports now indicate it was part of the recent murder of 17 school children and teachers in Florida, just as it was part of mass shootings that have happened everywhere from California to Charleston. It has not just hit inside the US, but has struck many of our closest allies, both causing near-tragedies and horrible massacres. It is not a new threat; it has killed hundreds of Americans in past decades. But it is growing in power and influence, worrisomely being stoked by foreign nations like Russia that wish our nation harm. It is a clear, present, and proven danger to the United States. Yet we find it awkward to talk about.

    There are many reasons why we have a hard time acknowledging the deadly threat from the cluster of groups that gather inside our country under the hateful flags of white nationalism, white supremacy, anti-government militia, and Neo-Nazism. One reason is to avoid appearing too partisan, a desire to be even-handed. There is irony in that we seek to avoid appearing biased, even when the threat espouses bias to the point of justifying hating and even killing their fellow Americans. So, after each episode of right-wing violence, we avoid talking about it, even to the point of reaching in the opposite direction. For instance, after these groups united to march on Charlottesville, culminating in the killing of a young woman, major U.S. papers ran more op-eds condemning the counter-protesters, who have yet to commit a mass killing, than those who committed the crime.

    I must pause here to pre-empt the inevitable “what-aboutism” — the kind of attempts to change the conversation that wouldn’t happen in an article on a group like ISIS. Yes, far-left violence is bad. (See how easy it is to write that? There’s no need to caveat violent extremists of any flag as “very fine people.”) But over the last decade, 3 percent of extremist killings in the U.S. have been committed by members of far left-wing groups — a fraction of the 71 percent by right-wing extremists and 26 percent by Islamic extremists. Those figures are the ADL’s, which documents them case by case. If you don’t like the ADL’s categorization, you could use the data gathered by colleagues of mine at the New America Foundation, which drew on the statements of law enforcement officials to determine motivation in the various attacks. That dataset shows that attacks by right-wing extremists outnumber those by left-wing groups more than 17 to one. Or you could use the one compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which since the rise of the “alt-right” in 2014, has documented 43 people killed and more than 60 injured by young men whose social media use evinced a similar ideology — and often a “lone-wolf” style familiar from other forms of terrorism. And this was before Parkland. In short, from a standpoint of scale, trends, and impact, we have a problem that shouldn’t require what-aboutism or ignoring the bulk of the problem. Nor is the “alt-left,” or “violent left,” a viable political movement. Certainly, it has not bled into the broader mainstream of party politics and key media outlets, nor held multiple armed standoffs after seizing government facilities, nor even paralyzed entire American cities in fear.

    We also have to admit that we are quiet about right-wing extremist violence out of calculation. The cost-vs.-gain equations that shape our choices are simply different from other topics. Compare the professional benefits to the potential risks of publishing an article, creating a college course, writing a book or dissertation, organizing a conference, hosting a speech, creating a university or thinktank project, funding a foundation program, etc., on right-wing extremism. It is not just that there is no great profit in it. It is that every one of these endeavors would be far more difficult, and would likely create far more headaches for us and our bosses, than a similar project on pretty much any other topic in our field.

    This isn’t to say there aren’t fantastic researchers on this topic; there are many, who have valuably shaped much of what we know about the issue. But we in the rest of the field must acknowledge that they’ve chosen a more professionally risky path than most of us, even though the very object of their study has killed more Americans over the last few years than essentially any other problem we are working on.

    The same problem plagues government. For an elected official, or, worse, a U.S. government employee, to speak about this threat carries proven political and professional risks; doing so has literally cost people their jobs. And that was before we had the first president in the modern era to express sympathy for and be celebrated by these groups.

    The result is that far-right extremism mirrors that of Islamic extremism in its forms, spread, and goals. The head of counter-terrorism policing in the U.K., which broke up four planned far-right terrorist attacks in just the last year, says both groups “create intolerance, exploit grievances, and generate distrust of state institutions.” But the politics of doing something about these two dangers are directly opposite. In America, it is politically savvy to talk strongly and repeatedly about terrorism and extremism, except the version of it that has killed the largest number of our fellow citizens over the last decade.

    Finally, we avoid talking about right-wing extremism because to do so invites personal risks and annoyances that, generally speaking, don’t much afflict other areas of security studies. These range from online harassment (via social networks that have become a breeding ground for it) to physical stalking and violence.

    I don’t have all the answers about what to do about the plague of violence fueled by right-wing hate groups. But I do know we’ll never find them as long as those of us interested in national security downplay and avoid it. It is long past time to start talking about a threat that is regularly killing our fellow citizens.
    #sécurité #sécurité_nationale #USA #Etats-Unis #extrême_droite #extrémisme #massacres #violence

    Over the last decade, individuals and groups fueled by this virulent ideology have committed 71 percent of the known politically or religiously inspired killings in our country — that is, 274 of the 387 Americans murdered by extremists.

  • Compilation de chansons contre #Donald_Trump :

    ELO#347 - Chansons anti-Trump
    Dror, le 7 novembre 2018

    #Musique #Musique_et_politique #compilation

    #Musique #Musique_et_politique #compilation #playlist #recension


    Anthony Hamilton - Donald Trump will Grab You by the Pu**y (2016)

    Pussy Riot - Straight Outta Vagina (2016)

    Pussy Riot - Organs (2016)

    Pussy Riot - Make America Great Again (2016)

    Ryan Harvey, Ani DiFranco & Tom Morello - Old Man Trump (2016)

    Aretha Franklin ne chantera pas pour Donald Trump
    Jazz Radio, le 15 decembre 2016

    Dee Snider - So What (2016)

    John Legend - Love Me Now (2016)

    John Legend - Surefire (2017)

    A New York, les jazzmen sonnent la charge contre Trump
    Eric Delhaye, Télérama, le 11 janvier 2017

    Dumpstaphunk - Justice (2017)

    Stone Foundation - Season of Change (2017)

    Lee Fields - Make The World (2017)

    Sheila E. - America (2017)

    Sheila E. - Funky National Anthem: Message 2 America (2017)

    Mavis Staples - If All I Was Was Black (2017)

    Mighty Mo Rodgers - Charlottesville Song (2017)

    Stevie Wonder, toujours en pointe, s’agenouille contre Donald Trump et la pauvreté
    Le Figaro, le 24 septembre 2017

    Eminem Rips - The Storm (2017)

    Rafeef Ziadah - In Jerusalem (2017)

    Miguel - Now (2017)

    Marc Ribot - Never Again (Muslim Jewish Resistance) (2017)

    Marc Ribot - Songs Of Resistance (2018)

    Avec par exemple:

    Marc Ribot, Steve Earle & Tift Merritt - Srinivas (2018)

    Sharon Jones - Tear It Down (2018)

    Trio Joubran & Roger Waters - SUPREMACY (2018)

    Janelle Monáe - PYNK (2018)

    Janelle Monae - Americans (2018)

    Childish Gambino - This Is America (2018)

    Madeleine Peyroux- Anthem (2018)

    Eric Bibb - What’s he gonna say today (2018)

    Ben Comeau - Donald Trump is a Wanker (2018)

  • À propos de BlacKkKlansman | Le cinéma est politique

    Alors que la presse et les critiques ont été largement unanimes pour saluer et promouvoir le dernier film de Spike Lee, BlacKkKlansman, Boots Riley a publié une critique du film sur Twitter le 18 août 20181, qu’il nous semble utile d’ajouter au débat. Nous en publions ici une traduction, avec son autorisation.

    Cette intervention de Boots Riley nous semble d’autant plus nécessaire que l’histoire de BlacKkKlansman, décrite comme ‘incroyable’, ‘improbable’, ‘si surprenante’ à longueur d’interviews et d’articles, est souvent présentée comme une histoire ‘vraie’ par les personnes qui défendent ou promeuvent le film – alors que le générique de fin dit bien qu’elle est ‘inspirée’ des mémoires du policier noir Ron Stallworth. Le nom de Jordan Peele, l’auteur et réalisateur de Get Out sorti l’année dernière, et l’un des co-producteurs de BlacKkKlansman, est aussi systématiquement invoqué et mis en avant pour ajouter au film un surplus de ‘validation’ anti-raciste.

    Dans une très longue et très complaisante interview pour le prestigieux magazine de cinéma du British Film Institute Sight & Sound2, Lee explique que son film se veut avant tout une sorte de manifeste méta-cinématographique, que son intention est d’intervenir pour changer le regard que le cinéma a pu porter sur les noirs – d’où les régulières références à l’histoire du cinéma que le film inclut. Ainsi, le gros plan (qui précède la conclusion et les images de la manifestation de Charlottesville en août 2017) qui montre la croix de feu reflétée dans l’œil d’un membre du Klan, se veut un symbole de ce que BlacKkKlansman dénonce : la manière dont l’histoire du cinéma a pu affecter le regard et contribuer à alimenter la haine jusqu’à aujourd’hui. Le texte de Boots Riley, nous semble-t-il, interroge précisément la portée de ce programme.

    • Réalisateur de Sorry To Bother You (2018)

      – une comédie surréaliste qui nous entraîne dans le monde macabre d’une boîte de télémarketing, et dont on ne sait pas encore pour sûr s’il sera distribué en France mais qui s’est fait remarquer aux États-Unis –, Boots Riley était jusque-là plus connu comme le membre principal du groupe de rap d’Oakland ‘The Coup’, et comme un militant communiste, anti-capitaliste et anti-raciste de longue date. Ses albums Kill My Landlord de 1993, Party Music
      de 2001, Pick a Bigger Weapon de 2006 ou sa collaboration avec Tom Morello (de Rage Against The Machine) pour former le Street Sweeper Social Club en 2009, et enfin Sorry To Bother You – l’album, avec son super morceau ‘Guillotine’ – en attestent. Boots Riley se sert ainsi très explicitement de sa musique comme d’un outil d’agitprop, alliant radicalité du propos et musique engageante. Car en parallèle il s’est particulièrement impliqué dans le mouvement d’Occupy Oakland en 2011 et surtout contre le transporteur céréalier et géant capitaliste EGT, et aux côtés des syndicats de dockers
      du port d’Oakland en 2012. Il s’est aussi mobilisé pour soutenir, notamment, les enseignants en grève à Chicago la même année, les employés de McDonald’s à Oakland en 2013, et plus récemment, la grève des prisonniers (qui travaillent souvent pour moins d’un dollar de l’heure), qui se sont mobilisés en nombre du 21 août au 9 septembre derniers contre la déshumanisation et la brutalité du système carcéral. Une grève historique qui, dans 17 États, a contribué à souligner et dénoncer les limites du 13ème amendement de la Constitution. Car si celui-ci a abolit l’esclavage il permet encore la perpétuation de l’oppression de pans entiers de la population, et de façon disproportionnée les Africain Américains, surtout depuis la Présidence Clinton et sa funeste loi ‘de lutte contre la criminalité’ de 19943

      Voilà d’où parle Boots Riley lorsqu’il intervient sur le film de Spike Lee.

      3 À ce sujet il est important de voir le documentaire d’Ava DuVernay 13TH

      , qui fait notamment intervenir Michelle Alexander et se fait l’écho de nombreux enjeux exposés son ouvrage de 2012, The New Jim Crow , ou encore Angela Davis, La prison est-elle obsolète ?

    • Voici quelques réflexions à propos de BlacKkKlansman.

      Ce texte contient des spoilers, donc ne le lisez pas avant d’avoir vu le film.

      Ceci n’est pas tant une critique esthétique d’un film formellement très maîtrisé qu’une critique politique de son contenu dans le contexte actuel.

      En préambule, je tiens aussi à dire, comme je l’ai tweeté la semaine dernière, que Spike Lee a eu une grande influence sur moi. C’est lui qui, il y a bien des années, m’a donné envie de faire des études de cinéma. Il est la première personne à qui j’ai envoyé une démo de ma musique quand il était à la tête du label 40 Acres and a Mule Musicworks, et il m’a inspiré en tant que critique culturel. Il n’a jamais mâché ses mots au sujet des films de Tyler Perry ou d’autres films qu’il pouvait voir et qui le mettaient en colère. Spike Lee ne mâche pas ses mots. Et même si, à mon tour, je vais exprimer ma déception, je garde la plus grande estime pour lui en tant que cinéaste. Je dois aussi ajouter que de nombreuses personnes qui ont contribué au film sont des personnes que je connais personnellement, que je trouve géniales et que je sais être pleines de bonnes intentions, et comme elles me connaissent, elles savent aussi que je ne vais pas mâcher mes mots.

      Tout d’abord, BlacKkKlansman n’est pas une histoire vraie. Qu’une histoire ne soit pas « vraie » n’est pas nécessairement un problème pour moi – le réalisme au cinéma n’est pas vraiment ce qui m’intéresse en ce moment – mais ce film est promu comme étant une « histoire vraie ». Or c’est précisément tout ce qui n’est pas vrai dans ce film qui permet de faire d’un flic un héros de la lutte contre le racisme. Lorsque j’ai commencé à formuler des critiques sur le film, on m’a répondu : « Mais c’est une histoire vraie ! ». Ce n’est pas le cas.

      Il s’agit d’une histoire fabriquée dont les éléments purement inventés visent à faire passer un flic pour un protagoniste de la lutte contre l’oppression raciste. Et ça sort au moment où Black Lives Matter s’est imposé dans les débats, et ce n’est pas une coïncidence. C’est loin d’être neutre.

      Voici ce que l’on sait :

      Le véritable Ron Stallworth a infiltré une organisation révolutionnaire noire pendant trois ans (et pas qu’à une seule occasion, comme nous le montre le film) et tous les documents du programme de contre-espionnage du FBI (COINTELPRO) qui ont été publiés dans le cadre de la loi d’accès à l’information (1966) nous informent sur ce qu’il a fait, à savoir : saboter une organisation politique noire radicale, et certainement pas dans le but de lutter contre l’oppression raciste. Les documents du COINTELPRO révèlent que ceux qui ont infiltré ces organisations pour la police ont œuvré à déstabiliser ces organisations en y provoquant des conflits internes, en agissant comme des dingues pour nuire à l’image du groupe, en suscitant des confrontations physiques, et en montant des coups pour faire en sorte que les militants de ces associations se fassent tuer par la police ou d’autres. Ron Stallworth appartenait à COINTELPRO. Le but du COINTELPRO était de détruire les organisations radicales, et en particulier les organisations révolutionnaires noires.

      Les documents du COINTELPRO nous montrent aussi que, lorsque les organisations suprémacistes blanches étaient infiltrées par le FBI et les flics, ce n’était pas pour les déstabiliser. Elles n’étaient pas déstabilisées, mais utilisées pour menacer et/ou attaquer physiquement les organisations radicales. Aucune directive n’a été donnée pour empêcher la montée des organisations suprémacistes blanches. Les directives étaient d’empêcher le développement d’organisations radicales anti-racistes. Les suprémacistes blancs ont été infiltrés par l’État pour être utilisés comme des outils d’oppression plus efficaces. Dans certains cas, c’étaient les flics infiltrés eux-mêmes qui élaboraient des stratégies et donnaient le feu vert pour des assassinats. C’est ce qui s’est produit lors des attentats qui ont frappé les églises proches du mouvement pour les droits civiques à Birmingham, lors des meurtres de leaders du mouvement au moment de la Marche de Selma à Detroit, comme lors du massacre de travailleurs membres du Parti communiste à Greensboro en 1979, entre autres. Voilà à quoi Ron Stallworth a participé, et il l’a fait dans ce contexte-là. Or les événements montrés dans le film ont tous lieu en 1979 et après.

      Stallworth a écrit ses mémoires pour se montrer sous un autre jour, mais voyons ce que nous savons d’autre.

      Stallworth et la police n’ont jamais déjoué aucun attentat à la bombe. Ce n’est pas dans ses mémoires. Cette histoire-là a été inventée pour le film afin de faire passer les policiers pour des héros.

      Aucun flic n’a jamais été dénoncé et/ou arrêté pour avoir dit, dans un bar et alors qu’il était soûl, qu’il pourrait bien abattre des noirs si ça lui chantait. Ça non plus, ça ne figure pas dans les mémoires de Stallworth. Cette scène a été inclut dans le film pour donner l’impression que Ron et la police se souciaient de combattre le racisme, comme si la police ne protégeait pas systématiquement tous les flics racistes ou responsables d’abus qui existent dans leurs rangs. Il s’agit d’une scène dans laquelle les forces de police toutes entières – leur chef et tout et tout – travaillent ensemble avec la petite copine révolutionnaire de Ron pour coincer un flic raciste isolé. Ça n’est jamais arrivé. Et ça ne risque pas d’arriver non plus, car quelqu’un qui dirait un truc aussi vague sous l’emprise de l’alcool ne pourrait pas être arrêté pour ça. Mais dans le film, la scène fait passer les flics pour de bons gars.

      Son collègue qui s’est chargé d’infiltrer le Klan n’était pas juif et n’est jamais passé aux yeux de personne pour juif. Il s’agit d’une invention qui permet juste de dramatiser encore plus l’affaire et de faire croire que les flics étaient prêts à se sacrifier. Si vous ajoutez cela à l’idée mensongère selon laquelle leur but était de combattre le racisme, ça vous les rend encore plus sympathiques. Ça veut dire, qu’en vrai, Stallworth n’a jamais eu besoin d’aller jeter une pierre par la fenêtre d’un membre du Klan pour sauver son acolyte, ni quoi que ce soit du genre.

      J’ai rencontré Kwane Ture en personne deux ou trois fois, et je l’ai entendu parler bien plus que ça. À l’époque où il a commencé à se faire appeler Kwane Ture, il venait de fonder la AAPRP (All-African People’s Revolutionary Party) et passait le plus clair de son temps en Afrique. La mission de l’organisation aux États-Unis était d’encourager l’émergence d’intellectuels révolutionnaires noirs. Pour cela, ils avaient constitué une liste de lectures particulièrement longue et des groupes de réflexion très poussés. C’est dans ce cadre-là qu’il est revenu aux États-Unis pour faire le tour des universités, rencontrer et parler à des étudiant.e.s noir.e.s. En 1989/90, à l’université d’État de San Francisco, j’ai participé à quelques séances de ces groupes de réflexion. Si vous aviez pris la peine de demander alors à Kwane Ture ce qu’il faudrait faire – comme le fait Ron Stallworth dans le film – il aurait répondu ce qu’il répondait d’habitude : « Étudie ! ». Mais faire dire à Ture quelque chose qui s’entend comme un appel à l’insurrection armée – ce qu’il ne prônait pas à l’époque aux États-Unis – fait passer ce groupe révolutionnaire pour bien plus dangereux qu’il ne l’était. En d’autres termes, ce film veut faire passer un agent du COINTELPRO pour un héros. Et tous les moyens sont bons pour arriver à cette fin.

      Avec ces morceaux d’histoire fabriqués de toutes pièces, BlacKkKlansman fait passer Ron Stallworth pour un héros et, avec lui, son collègue et les forces de police toutes entières. Si l’on met de côté tous ces éléments inventés et que l’on prend en compte tout ce l’on sait de ce qu’a vraiment été historiquement l’infiltration des groupes révolutionnaires par la police, et de la manière dont celle-ci a orchestré les attaques des organisations suprémacistes blanches contre ces groupes, alors Ron Stallworth est en vérité le méchant de l’histoire.

      Tout le reste n’est qu’un ensemble de choses invérifiables que l’ex-flic Ron Stallworth a écrites dans ses mémoires. On ne sait pas ce qui s’est passé parce que les « dossiers ont été détruits ». Il faut donc croire sur parole un flic qui a infiltré une organisation noire révolutionnaire pendant trois ans. C’est sans doute pour ça que l’ouvrage n’a pu être publié que par un éditeur spécialisé dans les livres écrits par des flics.

      À la fin du film, sa copine révolutionnaire lui dit qu’elle a du mal à accepter qu’il soit policier, et Stallworth – le gars qu’on vient de suivre tout le long, qu’on nous a rendu sympathique et dont on nous a fait croire qu’il avait risqué sa vie pour combattre le racisme – dit qu’il est pour la libération de sa communauté tout en étant policier. Sa position est confortée par tous les trucs inventés qu’on nous a raconté sur lui. Et juste à ce moment-là, illes entendent un bruit et la scène nous les montre aller voir ce qui se passe, armes à la main. Ils avancent ensemble le long d’un couloir – et on les suit grâce à un travelling qui porte la signature de Spike Lee et nous rappelle bien qu’il s’agit d’un de ses films, comme ceux qui nous ont montré Malcolm descendre la rue, ou suivre Dap à travers le campus en train de crier : « Réveillez-vous ! » – ils avancent, vers l’avenir, dans une composition parfaitement symétrique, pour combattre la croix de feu, symbole de la terreur raciste. Les flics et le mouvement révolutionnaire unis contre le racisme. C’est la pénultième scène avant que le film ne passe aux images récentes d’attaques de suprémacistes blancs. Ah mais bon sang non !

      Écoutez, on se débat avec le racisme, pas juste contre la terreur physique et des attitudes d’individus racistes, mais contre ce que le racisme veut dire en termes de discriminations salariales, d’accès au logement, à la santé et autres enjeux qui affectent notre qualité de vie : des questions très matérielles. Pour ce qui est des attaques physiques et de la terreur engendrées par le racisme ou sous-tendues par le racisme et les doctrines racistes, les personnes de couleur en font l’expérience quotidienne avant tout dans leurs interactions avec la police. Et pas seulement avec les flics blancs, mais aussi avec les flics noirs. Alors, que Spike Lee nous sorte un film basé sur une histoire qui fait passer un policier noir et ses collègues pour des alliés dans la lutte contre le racisme est vraiment décevant, pour le dire très gentiment.

      La plupart du temps, les appels à dénoncer les violences et meurtres perpétrés par la police et mis en lumière par le mouvement Black Lives Matter se sont vus contrés, à droite, par des : « Et que faites-vous de la violence des noirs contre les noirs ? ». Certains d’entre nous, comme Spike Lee, ont fini par y adhérer. Il y a deux ans j’ai écrit un article pour le journal britannique The Guardian sur le mythe de l’augmentation des violences des noirs contre les noirs en montrant, statistiques à l’appui, à quel point cette idée est fausse et comment le film de Spike Lee Chi-Raq contribue à l’alimenter. Les deux films disent pareillement : « Les noirs doivent arrêter de se prendre la tête sur les violences policières et se préoccuper de ce qu’ils se font entre eux – et puis, de toute façon, la police est aussi contre le racisme. »

      À présent, il commence à se savoir que Spike Lee a été payé 200 000 dollars dans le cadre d’une campagne publicitaire dont le but était « d’améliorer les relations entre la police et les minorités. » D’une certaine manière, BlacKkKlansman semble être le prolongement de cette campagne.

  • America’s Jews are watching Israel in horror
    The Washington Post - By Dana Milbank - September 21 at 7:25 PM

    My rabbi, Danny Zemel, comes from Zionist royalty: His grandfather, Rabbi Solomon Goldman, led the Zionist Organization of America in the late 1930s, and presided over the World Zionist Convention in Zurich in 1939. So Zemel’s words carried weight when he told his flock this week on Kol Nidre, the holiest night of the Jewish year, that “the current government of Israel has turned its back on Zionism.”

    “My love for Israel has not diminished one iota,” he said, but “this is, to my way of thinking, Israel’s first anti-Zionist government.”

    He recounted Israel’s transformation under Benjamin Netanyahu: the rise of ultranationalism tied to religious extremism, the upsurge in settler violence, the overriding of Supreme Court rulings upholding democracy and human rights, a crackdown on dissent, harassment of critics and nonprofits, confiscation of Arab villages and alliances with regimes — in Poland, Hungary and the Philippines — that foment anti-Semitism. The prime minister’s joint declaration in June absolving Poland of Holocaust culpability, which amounted to trading Holocaust denial for good relations, earned a rebuke from Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial.

    “The current government in Israel has, like Esau, sold its birthright,” Zemel preached.

    Similarly anguished sentiments can be heard in synagogues and in Jewish homes throughout America. For 70 years, Israel survived in no small part because of American Jews’ support. Now we watch in horror as Netanyahu, with President Trump’s encouragement, leads Israel on a path to estrangement and destruction.

    Both men have gravely miscalculated. Trump seems to think support for Netanyahu will appeal to American Jews otherwise appalled by his treatment of immigrants and minorities. (Trump observed Rosh Hashanah last week by ordering the Palestinian office in Washington closed, another gratuitous blow to the moribund two-state solution that a majority of American Jews favor.) But his green light to extremism does the opposite.

    Netanyahu, for his part, is dissolving America’s bipartisan pro-Israel consensus in favor of an unstable alliance of end-times Christians, orthodox Jews and wealthy conservatives such as Sheldon Adelson.

    The two have achieved Trump’s usual result: division. They have split American Jews from Israelis, and America’s minority of politically conservative Jews from the rest of American Jews.

    A poll for the American Jewish Committee in June found that while 77 percent of Israeli Jews approve of Trump’s handling of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, only 34 percent of American Jews approve. Although Trump is popular in Israel, only 26 percent of American Jews approve of him. Most Jews feel less secure in the United States than they did a year ago. (No wonder, given the sharp rise in anti-Semitic incidents and high-level winks at anti-Semitism, from Charlottesville to Eric Trump’s recent claim that Trump critics are trying to “make three extra shekels.”) The AJC poll was done a month before Israel passed a law to give Jews more rights than other citizens, betraying the country’s 70-year democratic tradition.

    “We are the stunned witnesses of new alliances between Israel, Orthodox factions of Judaism throughout the world, and the new global populism in which ethnocentrism and even racism hold an undeniable place,” Hebrew University of Jerusalem sociologist Eva Illouz wrote in an article appearing this week on Yom Kippur in Israel’s Haaretz newspaper titled “The State of Israel vs. the Jewish people.” (...)

  • The State of Israel vs. the Jewish people -
    Israel has aligned itself with one nationalist, even anti-Semitic, regime after another. Where does that leave world Jewry?
    By Eva Illouz Sep 13, 2018

    Orban, left, and Netanyahu, in Jerusalem in July 2018. DEBBIE HILL / AFP

    An earthquake is quietly rocking the Jewish world.

    In the 18th century, Jews began playing a decisive role in the promotion of universalism, because universalism promised them redemption from their political subjection. Through universalism, Jews could, in principle, be free and equal to those who had dominated them. This is why, in the centuries that followed, Jews participated in disproportionate numbers in communist and socialist causes. This is also why Jews were model citizens of countries, such as France or the United States, with universalist constitutions.

    The history of Jews as promoters of Enlightenment and universalist values, however, is drawing to a close. We are the stunned witnesses of new alliances between Israel, Orthodox factions of Judaism throughout the world, and the new global populism in which ethnocentrism and even racism hold an undeniable place.

    When Prime Minister Netanyahu chose to align himself politically with Donald Trump before and after the U.S. presidential election of 2016, some people could still give him the benefit of doubt. Admittedly, Trump was surrounded by people like Steve Bannon, the former head of Breitbart News, who reeked of racism and anti-Semitism, but no one was sure of the direction the new presidency would take. Even if Trump refused to condemn the anti-Semitic elements of his electoral base or the Ku Klux Klan, which had enthusiastically backed him, and even if it took him a long time to dissociate himself from David Duke – we were not yet certain of the presence of anti-Semitism in Trump’s discourse and strategies (especially since his daughter Ivanka was a convert to Judaism).

    But the events in Charlottesville in August 2017 no longer allowed for doubt. The neo-Nazi demonstrators committed violent acts against peaceful counter-protesters, killing one woman by plowing through a crowd with a car (an act reminiscent in its technique of terrorist attacks in Europe). Trump reacted to the events by condemning both the neo-Nazis and white supremacists and their opponents. The world was shocked by his conflation of the two groups, but Jerusalem did not object. Once again, the indulgent (or cynical) observer could have interpreted this silence as the reluctant obeisance of a vassal toward his overlord (of all the countries in the world, Israel receives the most military aid from the United States). One was entitled to think that Israel had no choice but to collaborate, despite the American leader’s outward signs of anti-Semitism.

    This interpretation, however, is no longer tenable. Before and since Charlottesville, Netanyahu has courted other leaders who are either unbothered by anti-Semitism or straightforwardly sympathetic to it, and upon whom Israel is not economically dependent. His concessions go as far as participating in a partial form of Holocaust denial.

    Take the case of Hungary. Under the government of Viktor Orban, the country shows troubling signs of legitimizing anti-Semitism. In 2015, for example, the Hungarian government announced its intention to erect a statue to commemorate Balint Homan, a Holocaust-era minister who played a decisive role in the murder or deportation of nearly 600,000 Hungarian Jews. Far from being an isolated incident, just a few months later, in 2016, another statue was erected in tribute to Gyorgy Donáth, one of the architects of anti-Jewish legislation during World War II. It was thus unsurprising to hear Orban employing anti-Semitic tropes during his reelection campaign in 2017, especially against Georges Soros, the Jewish, Hungarian-American billionaire-philanthropist who supports liberal causes, including that of open borders and immigration. Reanimating the anti-Semitic cliché about the power of Jews, Orban accused Soros of harboring intentions to undermine Hungary.

    Whom did Netanyahu choose to support? Not the anxious Hungarian Jewish community that protested bitterly against the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Orban’s government; nor did he choose to support the liberal Jew Soros, who defends humanitarian causes. Instead, the prime minister created new fault lines, preferring political allies to members of the tribe. He backed Orban, the same person who resurrects the memory of dark anti-Semites. When the Israeli ambassador in Budapest protested the erection of the infamous statue, he was publicly contradicted by none other than Netanyahu.

    To my knowledge, the Israeli government has never officially protested Orban’s anti-Semitic inclinations and affinities. In fact, when the Israeli ambassador in Budapest did try to do so, he was quieted down by Jerusalem. Not long before the Hungarian election, Netanyahu went to the trouble of visiting Hungary, thus giving a “kosher certificate” to Orban and exonerating him of the opprobrium attached to anti-Semitism and to an endorsement of figures active in the Shoah. When Netanyahu visited Budapest, he was given a glacial reception by the Federation of the Jewish Communities, while Orban gave him a warm welcome. To further reinforce their touching friendship, Netanyahu invited Orban to pay a reciprocal visit to Israel this past July, receiving him in a way usually reserved for the most devoted national allies.

    The relationship with Poland is just as puzzling. As a reminder, Poland is governed by the nationalist Law and Justice party, which has an uncompromising policy against refugees and appears to want to eliminate the independence of the courts by means of a series of reforms that would allow the government to control the judiciary branch. In 2016 the Law and Justice-led government eliminated the official body whose mission was to deal with problems of racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance, arguing that the organization had become “useless.”

    An illustration depicting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shaking hands with Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki in Auschwitz. Eran Wolkowski

    Encouraged by this and other governmental declarations and policies, signs of nationalism multiplied within Polish society. In February 2018, president Andrzej Duda declared that he would sign a law making it illegal to accuse the Polish nation of having collaborated with the Nazis. Accusing Poland of collusion in the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities would be from now prosecutable. Israel initially protested the proposed legislation, but then in June, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Polish prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, signed an agreement exonerating Poland of any and all crimes against the Jews during the time of the German occupation. Israel also acceded to Poland’s move to outlaw the expression “Polish concentration camp.” Moreover, Netanyahu even signed a statement stipulating that anti-Semitism is identical to anti-Polonism, and that only a handful of sad Polish individuals were responsible for persecuting Jews – not the nation as a whole.

    A billboard displaying George Soros urges Hungarians to take part in a national consultation about what it calls a plan by the Hungarian-born financier to settle migrants in Europe, in Budapest. ATTILA KISBENEDEK / AFP

    Like the American, Hungarian and Polish alt-right, Israel wants to restore national pride unstained by “self-hating” critics. Like the Poles, for two decades now, Israel has been waging a war over the official narrative of the nation, trying to expunge school textbooks of inconvenient facts (such as the fact that Arabs were actively chased out of Israel in 1948). In order to quash criticism, Israel’s Culture Ministry now predicates funding to creative institutions on loyalty to the state. As in Hungary, the Israeli government persecutes NGOs like Breaking the Silence, a group whose only sin has been to give soldiers a forum for reporting their army experiences and to oppose Israeli settlers’ violence against Palestinians or the expropriation of land, in violation of international law. Purging critics from public life (as expressed in barring the entry into the country of BDS supporters, denying funding to theater companies or films critical of Israel, etc.) is an expression of direct state power.

    When it comes to refugees, Israel, like Hungary and Poland, refuses to comply with international law. For almost a decade now, Israel has not respected international conventions on the rights of refugees even though it is a signatory of said conventions: The state has detained refugees in camps, and imprisoned and deported them. Like Poland, Israel is trying to do away with the independence of its judiciary. Israel feels comfortable with the anti-democratic extreme right of European states in the same way that one feels comfortable with a family member who belches and gossips, losing any sense of self-control or table manners.

    More generally, these countries today share a deep common political core: fear of foreigners at the borders (it must be specified, however, that Israelis’ fears are less imaginary than those of Hungarians or Polish); references to the nation’s pride untainted by a dubious past, casting critics as traitors to the nation; and outlawing human rights organizations and contesting global norms based on moral principles. The Netanyahu-Trump-Putin triumvirate has a definite shared vision and strategy: to create a political bloc that would undermine the current liberal international order and its key players.

    In a recent article about Trump for Project Syndicate, legal scholar Mark S. Weiner suggested that Trump’s political vision and practice follow (albeit, unknowingly) the precepts of Carl Schmitt, the German legal scholar who joined the Nazi Party in 1933.

    “In place of normativity and universalism, Schmitt offers a theory of political identity based on a principle that Trump doubtless appreciates deeply from his pre-political career: land,” wrote Weiner. “For Schmitt, a political community forms when a group of people recognizes that they share some distinctive cultural trait that they believe is worth defending with their lives. This cultural basis of sovereignty is ultimately rooted in the distinctive geography… that a people inhabit. At stake here are opposing positions about the relation between national identity and law. According to Schmitt, the community’s nomos [the Greek word for “law”] or sense of itself that grows from its geography, is the philosophical precondition for its law. For liberals, by contrast, the nation is defined first and foremost by its legal commitments.”

    Netanyahu and his ilk subscribe to this Schmittian vision of the political, making legal commitments subordinate to geography and race. Land and race are the covert and overt motives of Netanyahu’s politics. He and his coalition have, for example, waged a politics of slow annexation in the West Bank, either in the hope of expelling or subjugating the 2.5 million Palestinians living there, or of controlling them.

    They have also radicalized the country’s Jewishness with the highly controversial nation-state law. Playing footsie with anti-Semitic leaders may seem to contradict the nation-state law, but it is motivated by the same statist and Schmittian logic whereby the state no longer views itself as committed to representing all of its citizens, but rather aims to expand territory; increase its power by designating enemies; define who belongs and who doesn’t; narrow the definition of citizenship; harden the boundaries of the body collective; and undermine the international liberal order. The line connecting Orban to the nationality law is the sheer and raw expansion of state power.

    Courting Orban or Morawiecki means having allies in the European Council and Commission, which would help Israel block unwanted votes, weaken Palestinian international strategies and create a political bloc that could impose a new international order. Netanyahu and his buddies have a strategy and are trying to reshape the international order to meet their own domestic goals. They are counting on the ultimate victory of reactionary forces to have a free hand to do what they please inside the state.

    But what is most startling is the fact that in order to promote his illiberal policies, Netanyahu is willing to snub and dismiss the greatest part of the Jewish people, its most accepted rabbis and intellectuals, and the vast number of Jews who have supported, through money or political action, the State of Israel. This suggests a clear and undeniable shift from a politics based on the people to a politics based on the land.

    For the majority of Jews outside Israel, human rights and the struggle against anti-Semitism are core values. Netanyahu’s enthusiastic support for authoritarian, anti-Semitic leaders is an expression of a profound shift in the state’s identity as a representative of the Jewish people to a state that aims to advance its own expansion through seizure of land, violation of international law, exclusion and discrimination. This is not fascism per se, but certainly one of its most distinctive features.

    This state of affairs is worrisome but it is also likely to have two interesting and even positive developments. The first is that in the same way that Israel has freed itself from its “Jewish complex” – abandoning its role as leader and center of the Jewish people as a whole – many or most Jews will now likely free themselves from their Israel complex, finally understanding that Israel’s values and their own are deeply at odds. World Jewish Congress head Ron Lauder’s August 13, 2018, op-ed in The New York Times, which was close to disowning Israel, is a powerful testimony to this. Lauder was very clear: Israel’s loss of moral status means it won’t be able to demand the unconditional loyalty of world Jewry. What was in the past experienced by many Jews as an inner conflict is now slowly being resolved: Many or most members of Jewish communities will give preference to their commitment to the constitutions of their countries – that is to universalist human rights.

    Israel has already stopped being the center of gravity of the Jewish world, and as such, it will be able to count only on the support of a handful of billionaires and the ultra-Orthodox. This means that for the foreseeable future, Israel’s leverage in American politics will be considerably weakened.

    Trumpism is a passing phase in American politics. Latinos and left-wing Democrats will become increasingly involved in the country’s politics, and as they do, these politicians will find it increasingly difficult to justify continued American support of Israeli policies that are abhorrent to liberal democracies. Unlike in the past, however, Jews will no longer pressure them to look the other way.

    The second interesting development concerns Europe. The European Union no longer knows what its mission was. But the Netanyahus, Trumps, Orbans and Morawieckis will help Europe reinvent its vocation: The social-democrat bloc of the EU will be entrusted with the mission of opposing state-sanctioned anti-Semitism and all forms of racism, and above all defending Europe’s liberal values that we, Jews and non-Jews, Zionists and anti-Zionists, have all fought so hard for. Israel, alas, is no longer among those fighting that fight.

    A shorter version of this article has originally appeared in Le Monde.

    • Eva Illouz : « Orban, Trump et Nétanyahou semblent affectionner barrières et murs »
      Dans une tribune au « Monde », l’universitaire franco-israélienne estime que l’alliance du gouvernement israélien avec les régimes « illibéraux » d’Europe de l’Est crée une brèche au sein du peuple juif, pour qui la lutte contre l’antisémitisme et la mémoire de la Shoah ne sont pas négociables.

      LE MONDE | 08.08.2018 à 06h39 • Mis à jour le 08.08.2018 à 19h18 | Par Eva Illouz (directrice d’études à l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales)

      Tribune. Un tremblement de terre est tranquillement en train de secouer le monde juif. Lorsque le premier ministre israélien, Benyamin Nétanyahou, choisit de soutenir Donald Trump avant et après l’élection présidentielle américaine de 2016, certains pouvaient encore donner à ce dernier le bénéfice du doute. Certes, Trump s’était entouré de gens comme Steve Bannon dont émanaient des relents antisémites, certes, il refusait aussi de condamner sa base électorale sympathisante du Ku Klux Klan, mais personne n’était encore sûr de la direction que prendrait sa nouvelle présidence.

      Les événements de Charlottesville, en août 2017, n’ont plus permis le doute. Les manifestants néonazis commirent des actes de violence contre des contre-manifestants pacifiques (tuant une personne en fonçant dans la foule avec une voiture), mais Trump condamna de la même façon opposants modérés et manifestants néonazis.

      Le monde entier fut choqué de cette mise en équivalence, mais Jérusalem ne protesta pas. L’observateur indulgent (ou cynique) aurait pu interpréter ce silence comme l’acquiescement forcé du vassal vis-à-vis de son suzerain : de tous les pays du monde, Israël est celui qui reçoit la plus grande aide militaire des Etats-Unis.

      Cette interprétation n’est désormais plus possible. Il est devenu clair que Nétanyahou a de fortes sympathies pour d’autres dirigeants qui, comme Trump, front preuve d’une grande indulgence vis-à-vis de l’antisémitisme et dont il ne dépend ni militairement ni économiquement.
      Une statue à Budapest

      Prenons l’exemple de la Hongrie. En 2015, le gouvernement y annonça son intention de dresser une statue à la mémoire de Balint Homan, ministre qui joua un rôle décisif dans la déportation de 600 000 juifs hongrois. Quelques mois plus tard, en 2016, il fut question d’ériger à Budapest une statue à la mémoire d’un des architectes de la législation antijuive durant la seconde guerre mondiale, György Donáth....

  • Opinion | Is Boycotting Israel ‘Hate’? - The New York Times

    Opponents of the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement are involved in a dishonest branding campaign.

    By Joseph Levine
    Mr. Levine is a philosophy professor and a member of the Jewish Voice for Peace Academic Advisory Council.

    The debate over the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (B.D.S.) movement against Israel has been one of the most contentious in American political culture for more than a decade. Now, given the tumultuous and deadly events of the past several months, it is likely to heat up further.

    Casualties in the ongoing protests in Gaza, which began in March, continue to mount; nearly 180 mostly unarmed Palestinian protesters have been killed by Israeli forces, with more than 18,000 injured, according to the United Nations. Dozens of those deaths came in mid-May, as the United States took the provocative step of moving its embassy to Jerusalem. Tensions will surely spike again following last week’s decision by the United States to stop billions in funding to the United Nations agency that delivers aid to Palestinian refugees.

    B.D.S. began in 2005 in response to a call by more than 100 Palestinian civil society organizations, with the successful movement against apartheid South Africa in mind. The reasoning was that Israel, with its half-century occupation of Palestinian territories, would be equally deserving of the world’s condemnation until its policies changed to respect Palestinian political and civil rights. B.D.S. calls for its stance of nonviolent protest to remain in effect until three conditions are met: that Israel ends its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantles the wall; that Israel recognizes the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and that Israel respects, protects and promotes the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in United Nations Resolution 194.

    • The debate over the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (B.D.S.) movement against Israel has been one of the most contentious in American political culture for more than a decade. Now, given the tumultuous and deadly events of the past several months, it is likely to heat up further.

      Casualties in the ongoing protests in Gaza, which began in March, continue to mount; nearly 180 mostly unarmed Palestinian protesters have been killed by Israeli forces, with more than 18,000 injured, according to the United Nations. Dozens of those deaths came in mid-May, as the United States took the provocative step of moving its embassy to Jerusalem. Tensions will surely spike again following last week’s decision by the United States to stop billions in funding to the United Nations agency that delivers aid to Palestinian refugees.

      B.D.S. began in 2005 in response to a call by more than 100 Palestinian civil society organizations, with the successful movement against apartheid South Africa in mind. The reasoning was that Israel, with its half-century occupation of Palestinian territories, would be equally deserving of the world’s condemnation until its policies changed to respect Palestinian political and civil rights. B.D.S. calls for its stance of nonviolent protest to remain in effect until three conditions are met: that Israel ends its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantles the wall; that Israel recognizes the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and that Israel respects, protects and promotes the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in United Nations Resolution 194.

      Opposition to B.D.S. is widespread and strong. Alarmingly, in the United States, support for the movement is in the process of being outlawed. As of now, 24 states have enacted legislation that in some way allows the state to punish those who openly engage in or advocate B.D.S., and similar legislation is pending in 12 more states. At the federal level, a bill called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act would criminalize adherence to any boycott of Israel called for by an international agency (like the United Nations). The bill has garnered 57 Senate co-sponsors and 290 House co-sponsors, and may very well come up for a vote soon.

      While these bills certainly constitute threats to free speech — (a view shared by the ACLU) — I am interested in a more subtle effect of a fairly widespread anti-B.D.S. strategy: co-opting rhetoric of the anti-Trump resistance, which opposes the growing influence of racist hate groups, in order to brand B.D.S. as a hate group itself.

      In my home state of Massachusetts, for example, where a hearing for one of the many state bills aimed at punishing B.D.S. activity took place in July 2017, those who testified in favor of the bill, along with their supporters in the gallery, wore signs saying “No Hate in the Bay State.” They took every opportunity to compare B.D.S. supporters to the alt-right activists recently empowered by the election of Donald Trump. (Full disclosure: I am a strong supporter of B.D.S. and was among those testifying against the bill.)

      The aim of this activity is to relegate the B.D.S. movement, and the Palestine solidarity movement more generally, to the nether region of public discourse occupied by all the intolerant worldviews associated with the alt-right. This is an area the philosopher John Rawls would call “unreasonable.” But to my mind, it is the anti-B.D.S. movement itself that belongs there.

      There are two dimensions of reasonableness that are relevant to this particular issue: the one that allegedly applies to the B.D.S. campaign and the one I claim actually applies to the anti-B.D.S. campaign. Rawls starts his account of the reasonable from the premise of what he calls “reasonable pluralism,” an inevitable concomitant of modern-day democratic government. Large democratic societies contain a multitude of groups that differ in what Rawls calls their “comprehensive doctrines” — moral, religious or philosophical outlooks in accord with which people structure their lives. What makes a comprehensive doctrine “reasonable” is the willingness of those living in accord with it to recognize the legitimate claims of differing, often conflicting doctrines, to accord to the people that hold them full participation as citizens and to regard them as deserving of respect and equal treatment. We can label this dimension of reasonableness a matter of tolerance.

      The second dimension of reasonableness is associated with the notion of “public reason.” When arguing for one’s position as part of the process of democratic deliberation in a society characterized by reasonable pluralism, what kinds of considerations are legitimate to present? The constraint of public reason demands that the considerations in question should look reasonable to all holders of reasonable comprehensive doctrines, not merely one’s own.

      For example, when arguing over possible legal restrictions on abortion, it isn’t legitimate within a democracy to appeal to religious principles that are not shared by all legitimate parties to the dispute. So, while the personhood of the fetus is in dispute among reasonable doctrines, the status of African-Americans, women, gays and Jews is not. To reject their status as fully equal members of the society would be “unreasonable.”

      One of the essential principles of democratic government is freedom of thought and expression, and this extends to the unreasonable/intolerant as well as to the reasonable, so long as certain strict limits on incitement to violence, libel and the like are observed. Still, doctrines within the “tent of the reasonable” are accorded a different status within public institutions and civil society from those deemed outside the tent. This is reflected in the kinds of public support or reprobation representatives of the state and other civil society institutions (e.g., universities) display toward the doctrines or values in question.

      To put it simply, we expect what’s reasonable to get a fair hearing within the public sphere, even if many don’t agree with it.

      On the other hand, though we do not suppress the unreasonable, we don’t believe, in general, that it has the right to a genuinely fair hearing in that same sphere. For instance, after the white supremacist rallies in Charlottesville, Va., in August last year, students at my campus, the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, were greeted in the fall with signs plastered everywhere that said “Hate Has No Home at UMass.” This was intended to let the Richard Spencers of this world know that even if it may not be right or legal to bar them from speaking on campus, their message was not going to be given the respectful hearing that those within the tent of the reasonable receive.

      The alleged basis for claiming that B.D.S. advocates are anti-Semitic, and thus worthy only of denunciation or punishment, not argument, is that through their three goals listed in their manifesto they express their rejection of Jews’ right to self-determination in their homeland. This idea was put succinctly by Senator Chuck Schumer at the policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) in March, where he said, “Let us call out the B.D.S. movement for what it is. Let us delegitimize the delegitimizers by letting the world know when there is a double standard, whether they know it or not, they are actively participating in an anti-Semitic movement.”

      B.D.S. supporters are “delegitimizers,” according to Schumer, because they do not grant legitimacy to the Zionist project. Some might quibble with this claim about the B.D.S. goals, but I think it’s fair to say that rejection of the legitimacy of the Zionist project is fairly widespread within the movement. But does this constitute anti-Semitism? Does this put them outside the tent of the reasonable?

      To justify this condemnation of the B.D.S. movement requires accepting two extremely controversial claims: first, that the right to self-determination for any ethnic, religious or racial group entails the right to live in a state that confers special status on members of that group — that it is “their state” in the requisite sense; and second, that Palestine counts for these purposes as the rightful homeland of modern-day Jews, as opposed to the ancient Judeans. (I have argued explicitly against the first claim, here.)

      With regard to the second claim, it seems obvious to me, and I bet many others when they bother to think about it, that claims to land stemming from a connection to people who lived there 2,000 years ago is extremely weak when opposed by the claims of those who currently live there and whose people have been living there for perhaps a millennium or more.

      Remember, one needn’t agree with me in my rejection of these two principal claims for my point to stand. All one must acknowledge is that the right at issue isn’t obvious and is at least open to question. If a reasonable person can see that this right of the Jews to establish a state in Palestine is at least open to question, then it can’t be a sign of anti-Semitism to question it! But once you admit the B.D.S. position within the tent of the reasonable, the proper response is not, as Senator Schumer claims, “delegitimizing,” but rather disputing — engaging in argument, carried out in the public sphere according to the rules of public reason.

      But now we get to my second main point — that it’s the anti-B.D.S. camp that violates reasonableness; not because it is an expression of intolerance (though often it flirts with Islamophobia), but because it violates the constraints on public reason. Just how far the positive argument for the legitimacy of the Zionist project often veers from the rules of public reason is perfectly captured by another quote from Mr. Schumer’s speech to Aipac.

      “Now, let me tell you why — my view, why we don’t have peace. Because the fact of the matter is that too many Palestinians and too many Arabs do not want any Jewish state in the Middle East,” he said. “The view of Palestinians is simple: The Europeans treated the Jews badly, culminating in the Holocaust, and they gave them our land as compensation. Of course, we say it’s our land, the Torah says it, but they don’t believe in the Torah. So that’s the reason there is not peace. They invent other reasons, but they do not believe in a Jewish state, and that is why we, in America, must stand strong with Israel through thick and thin …”

      This quote is really quite remarkable, coming from one of the most powerful legislators in our democracy. After fairly well characterizing a perfectly reasonable attitude Palestinians have about who is responsible for the Holocaust and who should pay any reparations for it, Mr. Schumer then appeals to the Torah to justify the Jewish claim against them. But this is a totally illegitimate appeal as a form of public reason, no different from appealing to religious doctrine when opposing abortion. In fact, I claim you can’t find any genuine argument that isn’t guilty of breaching the limits of the reasonable in this way for the alleged right to establish the Jewish state in Palestine.

      This almost certainly explains why opponents of B.D.S. are now turning to the heavy hand of the state to criminalize support for it. In a “fair fight” within the domain of public reason, they would indeed find themselves “delegitimized.”

      Joseph Levine is a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and the author of “Quality and Content: Essays on Consciousness, Representation and Modality.” He is a member of the Jewish Voice for Peace Academic Advisory Council.

      #Palestine #USA #BDS #criminalisation_des_militants #liberté_d'expression #censure

      Et aussi à ajouter à la longue liste d’articles sur la confusion entretenue entre #Antisionisme et #Antisémitisme :

  • Portland Protest Shows New Far-Right Trend: Multiethnic Groups with Fascist Heroes Like Pinochet

    Democracy Now! continues their interview with A.C. Thompson, correspondent for Frontline PBS and reporter for ProPublica. His new investigation is titled Documenting Hate: Charlottesville. He...

  • « We Happy Few » la NASA repousse à dimanche le lancement de la sonde solaire dans une Angleterre pop
    Inégal et dispersé, Parker Solar Probe reste malgré tout un « trip » réjouissant

    Ligue 1 sous tension : un an après les violences de Charlottesville, le PSG découvre l’austérité
    Un rassemblement à Washington fait confiance à son centre de formation

    Glyphosate : les pesticides, une amnésie méconnue devant laquelle « nous ne sommes pas égaux »
    Hulot appelle à mener une « guerre » contre le « black-out alcoolique »

    Un homme vole un avion vide et s’écrase après le décollage d’une plaque en hommage à un couple homosexuel exécuté
    Etats-Unis : Un suspect en garde à vue pour la dégradation à l’aéroport de Seatle


    The history Mavis recalls from her early years touring with her family as The Staple Singers, the prejudice, ugliness and danger, well it’s all still here. In response, the singer has delivered If All I Was Was Black, ten songs about contemporary America today, a present day filled with ghosts of the past. “Nothing has changed,” Mavis remarked in early August, just days before neo-Nazis marched with swastika flags in Charlottesville, Virginia, as a young woman was murdered. "We are still in it.”

    #Mavis_Staples #bandcamp

  • No Fascists at HOPE

    On Saturday, 2600 and HOPE Conference organizers refused to remove fascist and white nationalist disruptors from HOPE 2018 — including a man who appeared to be carrying a concealed weapon and who bragged about marching in the #UniteTheRight white nationalist rally in Charlottesville. HOPE claims to provide a “harassment-free conference experience for everyone,” however, on multiple occasions when the fascist attendees were reported to security for intimidation and harassment, HOPE security refused to intervene and even defended their presence at the event. The fascist attendees menaced other conference goers, cornering them, following them down the street, and threatening them; one even called the police on a conference attendee in retaliation for grabbing his hat. Following numerous complaints, HOPE finally expelled one white nationalist (with a full refund), but allowed all of the other fascists to remain at the conference and intimidate attendees.

    HOPE’s Code of Conduct states that anyone can attend the conference “regardless of race, class, gender identity or expression, age, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, disability, sexual orientation, personal appearance, or education level, text editor choice, and other aspects.” But creating space for fascists obviates the possibility of free speech. White nationalists are interested in violence, not speech, and allowing them into our community creates a chilling effect on all other participants’ freedom of expression. This is especially true for people who belong to marginalized groups that fascists often target for violence, such as people of color, trans and queer folks, and people with disabilities. In the past, HOPE has been criticized for providing a platform to speakers accused of stalking and sexual assault. Will they also be known as an organization that allows space for Nazis and fascists as well?

    Due to the events that were witnessed today we, the undersigned, are vocalizing our anger and outrage at the organizers and security staff for refusing to remove these fascist disruptors. We are left without faith in the mechanism designed to protect our expression, community-building, and physical well-being. Let this document rest as a declaration of no confidence in HOPE’s code of conduct mechanism at the time of writing, and, more importantly, rejecting any instances of fascism, nationalism, racist dogma and symbolism in our space.


    Black Movement Law Project
    Digital Freedom Initiative
    Four Thieves Vinegar Collective
    Lucy Parsons Labs
    Technology Action Project


    AJ Bahnken
    Barrett Brown
    Benjamin Rupert
    Bill Budington
    Bryce Vickery
    Caroline Sinders
    Chelsea E. Manning
    Chelsea H. Komlo
    Cooper Quintin
    Harlo Holmes
    Jan C. Rose
    Matthew Finkel
    Micah Lee
    Mixæl S Laufer
    Nima Fatemi
    R. Fox
    William Gillis
    Yael Grauer

    and many more who have decided to remain anonymous.

    #antifa #Alt-Righ #hackers #hopeconf #2600

  • Democratic Candidate Who Criticized Israel Faces Charges of Anti-Semitism - The New York Times

    À cause d’un livre écrit en tant que journaliste il y a 27 ans, livre que le #new_york_times, dont l’objectivité envers #Israël est légendaire, avait jugé partisan et injuste à l’époque.

    WASHINGTON — On Monday evening, at the home of a retired rabbi in Charlottesville, Va., the Democratic nominee for the Fifth Congressional District of Virginia sat down with about 40 Jewish leaders to try to defuse Virginia Republican charges that she was a “virulent anti-Semite.”

    At issue was the candidate’s 27-year-old book, “Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship,” a broadside written by Leslie Cockburn, a journalist-turned-politician, with her husband, Andrew Cockburn, that was panned in several reviews as an inflammatory screed.


    When the book was published in 1991, a review in The New York Times described it as “largely dedicated to Israel-bashing for its own sake.”

    “Its first message is that, win or lose, smart or dumb, right or wrong, suave or boorish, Israelis are a menace,” the review said. “The second is that the Israeli-American connection is somewhere behind just about everything that ails us.”

    Ms. Cockburn told the group on Monday that she was being critical of government policy from a fact-based perspective, not out of animus toward Jews. In the interview, she said she was seeking the endorsement of J Street, a Jewish political group that has set itself up as a progressive alternative to other American Jewish organizations more uncritical of Israeli government policies.

  • The Mapping of Massacres in Australia | The New Yorker

    From New York to Cape Town to Sydney, the bronze body doubles of the white men of empire—Columbus, Rhodes, Cook—have lately been pelted with feces, sprayed with graffiti, had their hands painted red. Some have been toppled. The fate of these statues—and those representing white men of a different era, in Charlottesville and elsewhere—has ignited debate about the political act of publicly memorializing historical figures responsible for atrocities. But when the statues come down, how might the atrocities themselves be publicly commemorated, rather than repressed?

    #australie #aborigènes #massacres #cartographie #art

  • ‘The Daily’ Transcript : Interview With Former White Nationalist Derek Black - The New York Times
    (article du 22/08/2017, après les événements de #Charlottesville)

    Derek Black, a former white nationalist and a godson of David Duke, spoke with Michael Barbaro in an episode of “The Daily” that received a particularly intense response on Tuesday. In the podcast, Mr. Black describes his experience growing up in a white nationalist family, taking part in a radio show on his father’s website and how he turned on the white nationalist movement.

    This is an unedited transcription from the podcast. Please listen to the corresponding audio before quoting from it.

    #white_nationalism #white_supremacism

  • Israel This wasn’t supposed to happen at a conference on anti-Semitism -

    Jews are apathetic to suffering of other minorities, World Jewish Congress counsel tells a Tel Aviv conference, but gets lukewarm response from delegates

    Judy Maltz Dec 11, 2017
    read more:

    Many would argue that anti-Semitism is no worse than any other hatred. But it’s not every day that a top official at the World Jewish Congress tries to make that case – let alone suggest that Jews are apathetic to the suffering of other minorities.
    So when Menachem Rosensaft, the general counsel of the WJC, an organization dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, delivered remarks in this vein at a Tel Aviv conference on anti-Semitism on Monday, the audience was – needless to say – caught off guard.
    To really understand Israel and the Jewish World - subscribe to Haaretz
    “Anti-Semitism is sometimes referred to as the most pernicious hatred,” he told delegates. “I respectfully reject that characterization and any suggestion that anti-Semitism is somehow worse than other forms of bigotry.
    He continued: “I’m sorry, but the white supremacist ideology that holds African-Americans and Hispanics to be inferior to Caucasians is every bit as reprehensible as anti-Semitism. So are other kinds of discrimination and oppression on the basis of religion, race and nationality.
    Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter
    Email* Sign up

    “The hatred that resulted in the genocide of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica and of the Tutsi in Rwanda are no less evil than the hatred of Jews that resulted in pogroms and the Shoah,” he added.

    It wasn’t exactly what participants at “The Oldest Hatred Gone Viral” summit had come expecting to hear.
    Rosensaft, who teaches law at Columbia and Cornell, was a keynote speaker at the conference, sponsored by the WJC in cooperation with NGO Monitor, a right-wing organization that tracks the activities of anti-occupation and other civil society groups in Israel.

    Menachem Rosensaft, general counsel of the World Jewish Congress.Courtesy of the World Jewish Con
    Considered an international expert on genocide, Rosensaft suggested that Jews were not sensitive enough to the persecution of other minorities, in particular Muslims and African-Americans.
    “In our fight against anti-Semitism, we must never allow ourselves to lose sight of the fundamental reality: That precisely the same dangerous hatred used to incite violence – sometimes lethal violence – against Jews can just as easily be used against other minorities,” he said.
    Rosensaft said that Jews tend to focus too much on anti-Semitism from the left and ignore anti-Semitism on the right. “I am as concerned about neo-Nazis and white supremacists shouting ‘Jews shall not replace us,’” he said, referring to the violent rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August, “as I am by jihadists or BDS activists who deny Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
    “We do ourselves a disservice, in my opinion, when some of us focus our attention – primarily, if not exclusively – on the anti-Semitism generated by the anti-Israel left, while minimizing the impact of the bigotry and xenophobia emanating from the extreme right.”
    Rosensaft, a child of Holocaust survivors and considered a leading authority on the second generation, warned that Jewish apathy to the plight of others would cause others to be apathetic to the plight of the Jews.
    “If we do not recognize the suffering of others and the hatred directed against others, for what reason and on what basis can we expect others to look at the hatred directed against us and want to identify with us?” he asked.
    Rosensaft made his remarks during a special session devoted to the memory of Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, a renowned Hebrew University authority on anti-Semitism who died in May 2015.
    In the discussion that followed, members of the audience challenged Rosensaft for asserting that anti-Semitism was comparable to other forms of bigotry.
    Wistrich’s widow, Danielle, drew a large round of applause when she delivered the following statement, summing up the general sentiment among delegates: “I don’t think we Jews need to spend our energy, our money and our time to defend Arabs, because I think they have their own people to do that. I think it is good to be well meaning and wonderful to have a big heart, but let’s keep it for ourselves.”

  • ‘Black Identity Extremists’ and the Dark Side of the FBI | The Marshall Project

    Recent political developments have helped put the FBI in a favorable light. The agency and its leadership have been praised for its performance throughout the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Former director James Comey affirmed the agency’s fundamental goodness in a letter to his colleagues after he was relieved of his post President Trump.

    “I have said to you before that, in times of turbulence, the American people should see the FBI as a rock of competence, honesty, and independence,” wrote Comey. “It is very hard to leave a group of people who are committed only to doing the right thing.”

    While Comey might only have good things to say about the FBI, newly leaked documents suggest he shouldn’t. Despite the agency’s new, upstanding image, it might be back to its Hoover-era dirty tricks—if it ever really departed from them.

    Foreign Policy reported recently on the existence of a document that circulated within the FBI’s counterterrorism division. Just nine days before the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, it named a major threat to public safety: not organized white nationalists, but “black identity extremists.”

  • #Christiane_Taubira : « Le mythe français de l’égalité, un mythe noble, empêche de revenir sur le crime de l’esclavage » - Libération

    A l’occasion de la sortie du nouvel essai de l’Américain Ta-Nehisi Coates, « le Procès de l’Amérique », l’ex-garde des Sceaux, qui en a signé la préface, revient sur la question des réparations matérielles ou éthiques. Comme les Etats-Unis, la France doit s’interroger sur son histoire esclavagiste et coloniale qui abîme encore notre présent.

    #esclavage #racisme #xénophobie #états-unis

    • semi #paywall alors :

      Christiane Taubira : « Le mythe français de l’égalité, un mythe noble, empêche de revenir sur le crime de l’esclavage »
      Sonya Faure et Catherine Calvet, Libération le 6 octobre 2017

      A l’occasion de la sortie du nouvel essai de l’Américain Ta-Nehisi Coates, « le Procès de l’Amérique », l’ex-garde des Sceaux, qui en a signé la préface, revient sur la question des réparations matérielles ou éthiques. Comme les Etats-Unis, la France doit s’interroger sur son histoire esclavagiste et coloniale qui abîme encore notre présent.

      Après le succès d’Une colère noire (Autrement, 2016), l’écrivain et journaliste américain Ta-Nehisi Coates publie un nouvel essai, le Procès de l’Amérique. « Il est temps de laver notre linge sale en public »,écrit-il. Il est temps pour les Etats-Unis de se poser la question des réparations de l’esclavage et de la ségrégation. Dans son livre, Coates décrit précisément comment « le pillage d’hier a rendu le pillage d’aujourd’hui plus efficace » : les Etats-Unis ont bien une dette envers la communauté noire. Initiatrice de la loi reconnaissant l’esclavage comme un crime contre l’humanité, Christiane Taubira a signé la préface du Procès de l’Amérique. Nulle réparation matérielle n’effacera un crime si grand que l’esclavage ou la colonisation, prévient l’ancienne garde des Sceaux. Mais la France a elle aussi un devoir : permettre un débat rationnel et serein sur notre passé commun, dont les traces continuent de fragiliser le présent.

      Qu’est-ce qui, dans le livre de Ta-Nehisi Coates, vous a convaincue de le préfacer ?

      Avant tout, ce croisement inédit entre d’une part, la souffrance des gens, leurs combats, leurs désillusions, et d’autre part, le décryptage précis des dispositifs qui vont pénétrer des vies pour les démolir : Coates parvient à entremêler le savant et l’émotionnel. Le Procès de l’Amérique montre par quels mécanismes « la kleptomanie d’Etat », comme il l’écrit, a continué après la fin de l’esclavage, après même la ségrégation. Comment le pillage de la force de travail des Africains-Américains laisse encore des traces.

      Une colère noire a connu un grand succès en France. Nous scandalisons-nous de la situation américaine pour mieux s’aveugler sur la nôtre ?

      Je suis absolument persuadée qu’en France, des personnes sont capables, sans arrière-pensée ni calcul, d’avoir une vraie curiosité pour la société américaine. C’est à nous de nous appuyer sur ce que décrit Coates pour rappeler que la France aussi fut une puissance esclavagiste, dans des conditions très différentes des Etats-Unis. Aurait-elle échappé à toutes les séquelles de ce passé ? Non.

      La France aussi se serait livrée à « une épouvantable entreprise de brigandage d’Etat », comme vous le dites des Etats-Unis ?

      La traite négrière, l’esclavage, la colonisation : c’est du brigandage. Partout, l’appareil d’Etat s’est donné le droit d’émettre des règles violentes et inégalitaires. C’est l’Etat qui a organisé le commerce, créé les compagnies de monopoles et les comptoirs le long des côtes [qui, dès le XVIIe siècle, ont été un pilier de la colonisation, ndlr]. C’est l’Etat qui a décidé du régime fiscal avantageux, accordé des licences de navigation aux compagnies maritimes qui profitaient de la traite, c’est même l’Etat qui percevait une dîme sur le nombre d’esclaves baptisés. Oui, c’est un brigandage établi. Pourtant, chaque fois que ressurgit la question des réparations, le débat provoque une hystérie sans nom.

      Mais au fond, que signifie « réparer » de tels crimes ?

      La réparation n’est pas que matérielle. Elle est politique et éthique. Quel sens cela a-t-il de vivre ensemble et de faire comme si le passé n’avait laissé aucune trace ? C’est un non-sens. Il faut avoir du courage, dépasser des préoccupations immédiates. C’est une parole mesquine que celle qui décide que puisque cela me dérange, il n’y a pas lieu d’en débattre. Les aspects matériels que les réparations pourraient entraîner sont bien peu de chose. Car le crime de l’esclavage est irréparable. On ne répare pas les vies qui se sont achevées au fond de l’Atlantique ou de l’océan Indien. On ne répare pas ces enfants vendus séparément de leurs parents. La question est plutôt de savoir si nous sommes capables d’affronter le passé et d’en voir toutes les survivances dans le présent. Celles qui aujourd’hui cassent les relations dans la société, celles qui obstruent le regard que l’on pose sur l’autre. Abordons ainsi la question des réparations, et normalement la frayeur et l’hystérie devraient disparaître.

      Sommes-nous prêts ?

      Je ne sais pas si c’est possible mais c’est indispensable. Peut-on comprendre notre rapport aux banlieues sans regarder le passé ? Non. Sinon on est dans le fait divers, dans l’incident, l’inexplicable. Or tout est parfaitement explicable : cette incompréhension, ces rancœurs enfouies, cette peur qui pousse à réagir n’importe comment… Tout cela a un lien organique.

      Ce débat-là, les Etats-Unis le mènent plus que nous…

      L’urgence paraît plus forte aux Etats-Unis car les traces physiques et matérielles de l’esclavage sont là, sous les yeux de tous. La ségrégation n’est pas si ancienne. Dans un discours absolument sublime, à l’université de Cambridge en 1965, l’écrivain James Baldwin explique que la prospérité de l’Amérique repose sur sa sueur. Il dit « ma sueur », il ne dit pas la sueur de ses ancêtres. « My sweat, my free labour. » Ma sueur, mon travail gratuit. Il reste une mémoire vive sur la façon dont la loi organisait la domination, l’oppression, la séparation. Il reste une mémoire vive sur la tolérance de l’Etat, sa complaisance envers les crimes et les lynchages de Noirs. Il suffit qu’une parole « autorisée » soit suffisamment permissive, comme celle de M. Trump, pour que certains se lâchent à nouveau, comme à Charlottesville cet été. En France, poser la question des réparations demande un plus grand volontarisme car on peut faire semblant d’oublier que les colonies étaient des terres d’esclavage. On peut se glorifier de l’égalité avec « nos compatriotes d’outre-mer » - un terme toujours prononcé avec un trémolo dans la voix, un surcroît d’empathie, une espèce de démonstration impudique. Mais au quotidien, ces compatriotes d’outre-mer font l’expérience d’une citoyenneté différente. Et l’ancien empire colonial est de plus en plus visible sur le sol français, dans nos banlieues. On peut toujours tenter de fuir. Sauf qu’on est rattrapé par le passé. Je dis délibérément « on ». Car ou bien nous portons cela tous ensemble, ou bien nous faisons les mariolles : si je descends d’esclaves, vous descendez des maîtres, et nous n’aurons plus qu’à régler nos comptes. Je pense que c’est une impasse. Nous devons porter ensemble une histoire qui nous rattrape.

      Le 21 mai 2001, vous avez fait voter une loi dont le premier article reconnaît que la traite négrière et l’esclavage constituent un crime contre l’humanité…

      Et quelle violence nous avons alors subie ! Le sujet reste extrêmement sensible. Le mythe français et républicain de l’égalité - un mythe noble, à préserver bien sûr ! - empêche ce retour sur le passé esclavagiste et colonial. Je me souviens d’une émission de radio où un président d’association me reprochait de salir la France : « La France n’est pas esclavagiste, elle a aboli l’esclavage ! » hurlait-il. Oui, la France a aboli l’esclavage qu’elle pratiquait ! Le déni est partout, jusqu’aux autorités publiques qui ont célébré le cent cinquantenaire de la deuxième abolition de l’esclavage… sans rappeler qu’il y en avait eu une première en 1794. Parce qu’il aurait alors fallu dire qui avait rétabli l’esclavage dans les colonies françaises : le grand Napoléon. En France, on commémore l’abolition de l’esclavage, mais l’esclavage, on ne connaît pas ! Imposer que la journée du 10 mai devienne une journée en mémoire des traites, de l’esclavage et de l’abolition a été un combat. A quoi sert cette prudence inutile ? Quand vous construisez une société sur de la dissimulation, la rage enfle par en dessous. Dans le Procès de l’Amérique, Ta-Nehisi Coates dit qu’il est temps, aussi, « d’en finir avec la culpabilité blanche ». Débattre du passé est émancipateur. C’est ce qu’a très bien compris la ville de Nantes, qui fait la lumière sur son passé de ville du commerce triangulaire.

      Cette mémoire à vif, on en a eu un nouvel exemple avec la polémique sur les noms de rues et les monuments. Faut-il déboulonner les statues de Colbert ?

      Au pays qui se prétend le cœur des Lumières, sur ces sujets-là, la raison disparaît ! Il ne reste que l’affectif ! Pourquoi ne pourrait-on réfléchir au rôle de Colbert dans la rédaction du Code noir ? Ce qui ne veut pas dire que Colbert n’était que cela. Mais débattons ! Il ne s’agit pas de faire la chasse à d’éventuels coupables survivants, il n’y en a plus. Même les personnes qui portent le nom de grandes familles d’armateurs négriers ou esclavagistes ne sont pas concernées - mais si elles veulent nous ouvrir leurs archives, elles sont les bienvenues. Sans doute aurions-nous dû être capables de faire retomber la pression, de débattre, peut-être avec passion, mais de débattre. Oui, il faut, dans l’espace public, des rues et des bâtiments au nom de Nègres marrons, ces résistants qui, au péril de leur vie, décidaient de quitter la plantation et le régime esclavagiste. Le Code noir stipulait qu’à la première évasion, si vous étiez repris, on vous coupait l’oreille. La deuxième fois, on vous coupait le jarret. La troisième, vous étiez mis à mort. Qui énonçait cela ? La législation officielle. C’était le code de Colbert, dont l’article 1er chassait les Juifs !

      Au-delà du débat et de la reconnaissance officielle, quelles formes plus concrètes pourraient prendre les réparations ?

      Nous devons être prêts à regarder en face toutes les conséquences qui découlent, aujourd’hui, de ce passé. Des banques américaines, comme Lehman Brothers ou Morgan Chase, ont dû reconnaître qu’elles avaient possédé des esclaves ou accordé des prêts à des maîtres, dont la garantie était le cheptel d’esclaves. Certaines ont décidé de consacrer 5 millions de dollars - peu de chose par rapport à leur fortune - à des bourses pour des Africains-Américains. Quelle serait la dette de la France à l’égard des descendants d’esclaves ou des ressortissants des empires ? Si c’est insurmontable, on le dira. Mais l’essentiel aura été de s’y pencher. L’Etat étant profondément impliqué, il doit aussi pouvoir réparer par le biais, par exemple, de politiques publiques bien identifiées. Cette monstruosité économique qu’était l’esclavage a aussi produit une créativité culturelle phénoménale. Pourquoi ne pas consacrer des budgets à la mise en valeur des langues créoles, nées de la nécessité, en territoire esclavagiste, de se comprendre entre maîtres et esclaves ou entre esclaves venus de régions différentes d’Afrique ? Financer des études sur les expressions picturales, la littérature orale, les traces archéologiques, la toponymie, la pharmacopée de plantes que les esclaves ont développée pour se soigner ? Mettre en lumière tout ce patrimoine qui montre que cette période ne fut pas seulement une longue et interminable nuit de souffrance et de violence.

      LE PROCÈS DE L’AMÉRIQUE de TA-NEHISI COATES Ed. Autrement, 96pp., 12€.

  • The FBI’s New U.S. Terrorist Threat : ‘Black Identity Extremists’ – Foreign Policy

    As white supremacists prepared to descend on Charlottesville, Virginia, in August, the FBI warned about a new movement that was violent, growing, and racially motivated. Only it wasn’t white supremacists; it was “black identity extremists.”

    Amid a rancorous debate over whether the Trump administration has downplayed the threat posed by white supremacist groups, the FBI’s counterterrorism division has declared that black identity extremists pose a growing threat of premeditated violence against law enforcement.

    #Etats-Unis #sans_vergogne #terrorisme