Russian Conspiracies- a New Brand of McCarthyism?

Joseph McCarthy was a republican when he began his immoral and oppressive crackdown on left-wing thinkers in the US. What many seem not to know, however, is that McCarthy enjoyed support from the democrats as well. Before McCarthy even started, democratic president Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9835, which removed government employees deemed unloyal to the United States. Grounds for removal included:

             "Membership in, affiliation with or sympathetic association with any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons, designated by the Attorney General as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means." [1]

The congressional committees tasked with exposing and charging communists were often headed or staffed with democrats. For instance, after McCarthy stepped down from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations democrat John McClellan took over as chair, and Robert Kennedy was appointed as chief council [2]. Under McClellan the committee went after labor unions, leading to the Landrum-Griffith act, which barred communists from serving in leadership positions in unions [3].

I fear we are heading towards a similar situation. In my last post, I discussed the movement towards censorship, which is supported by both liberals and republicans. The EU resolution to counteract Russian propaganda was proposed by Anna Fotyga, a member of the right-wing Law and Justice party in Poland. But in the US the attack on Russian Media is widely led by the democrats, claiming that Russia was rigging the election through revealing the inner workings of the democratic party [4]. While Russian media is obviously not impartial, some liberals have begun condemning anyone who lends credibility to anything from Russian media sources.

Propornot, a group that refuses to reveal their identities or methods, has compiled a list of news organizations that are helping Russia's propaganda effort, intentionally or unknowingly. This list includes many alt-right websites largely devoid of evidence or sources, but it also includes many well-regarded, trustworthy left-wing publications, such as Truthdig and Naked Capitalism. They even list wikileaks, an organization which has done nothing but spread valid leaked documents [5]. This is far worse than just an irrelevant group of wackos condemning valid media, because now the Washington Post has run an article using this group's 'research' as a source [6]. This is fake news. This is propaganda.

If the liberals turn on the far left as they have throughout history, Trump-like leaders will continue to emerge. If we want to move forward, the fear-mongering has to stop, and liberals need to admit that neoliberal policies are how we got Trump. I don't mean to assign blame, as I think that's counterproductive. I do mean to push people to look at the causes of the fascist right's success, and to look at the rampant corruption and corporatism of their own party.

[1]: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/executive-order-9835/
[2]: http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/psihistory.htm?attempt=2
[3]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1120618?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
[4]: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/02/opinions/kremlin-trying-to-rig-election-nimmo-opinion/
[5]: http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html
[6]: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/washington-post-blacklist-story-is-shameful-disgusting-w452543

Censorship With Good Intentions Will End Badly

Censorship is not a quality of a free society. It also rarely goes with left wing politics, as it usually goes hand in hand with the oppression that leftists fight. Currently there are some disturbing calls for censorship coming from the left. The EU just passed a non-binding resolution to counter Russian and Islamic terrorist propaganda [1], and many are calling for Facebook and Google to do something about the fake news that was shared on social media throughout this election.

I'm not going to argue the morality of actually trying to censor fake information- I think it's generally wrong but that would be a lengthy philosophical argument. However, I will argue that these two methods of attempting to filter false information are not going to only counteract fake news, but will also be aimed at certain valid viewpoints. I would be fine with attempting to distribute correct information to counteract the false information, but that would require an unbiased group to provide corrections, and the EU and corporations certainly aren't unbiased.

Russian media has a variety of viewpoints depending on the show or paper. Many of the RT America writers and Lee Camp are very left wing. They may have selective coverage, but I have not seen anything stated as fact that they can't back up. They also don't just spread fake news- when one of Sputnik's editors, Bill Moran, accidentally published a factually incorrect article he apologized profusely and was promptly fired. He was a bit overworked, and had attributed an attached article to the sender of an email, making it appear that Sidney Blumenthal had criticized Clinton's handling of the Bengazi situation. Afterwards, he attempted to make things right, explaining that it was a personal error. The individual who had written the article he had misattributed to Blumenthal, Kurt Eichenwald, attempted to stop him, alleging that the article was intentionally incorrect Russian propaganda. Eichenwald offered to help Moran find a new job if he remained silent, and if Moran spoke on the issue Eichenwald threatened to attack his credibility [2].

This shows a willingness to make up a Russia conspiracy where there is none. I'm not saying that Russian news agencies don't have an agenda, but I will say they don't, to my knowledge, intentionally publish factually incorrect news. I also think these attacks display a hypocrisy. Major American news sources have been publishing misinformation throughout the election cycle. On CNN, an anchor claimed it was illegal to possess the Wikileaks emails unless you were a journalist [3]. The Washington Post recently published an article on inaccuracies and bias within RT, which ironically was full of unsubstantiated claims (I know this is an RT link, but they back up their statements) [4]. Many reporters from a variety of news organizations were found to be working closely with Clinton's campaign, via leaked emails [5]. This is just a small selection of these issues, which present a troubling view of corporate media, and their intentions.

On The Intercept, a news organization I regard with some respect, a normally rational and forward-thinking columnist has called for Facebook to self-regulate when it comes to fake news [6]. This is a frightening prospect. Self regulation of corporations does not work, as corporations are driven by profits. The interests of CEO's rarely fall in line with the interests of the working class. What's happened when industries have self-regulated previously? Financial crashes [7], big tobacco avoiding safety warnings and thus killing millions [8], health care prices skyrocketing (remember Martin Shkreli?) [9], and Pharmaceutical industries misleading patients [10] to name a few. Zuckerberg has vowed to go after fake news in a variety of ways [11], but I don't think their methods of determining what is fake will be adequate. In many issues Americans have a very biased perspective of what is fake- just look at most Americans' view of the Syrian situation. Assad may be an oppressive tyrant, but the resistance is partially composed of right wing Islamist militants, such as the Muslim Brotherhood [12]. Would this censorship be used against the mainstream US media organizations I mentioned earlier as well?

The EU's declaration isn't concrete, which makes it hard to point out specific faults. The intention to go after Russian media is alarming though, as the EU is hardly an unbiased organization, regularly supporting corporate agendas (for instance [13]). And their history when it comes to propaganda is not far above that of the US, just look at the British government's anti-communist propaganda from the '40s and '50s [14]. Furthermore, Ukraine passed a law in 2015 banning communist and national socialist propaganda. The EU recommended that they revise this law, but also claimed that it "pursue[d] a legitimate aim" [15]. Anger over fake news stories spread by the alt-right is understandable, but we need to counteract it without government or corporate intervention. Censorship from corporations and corporate-influenced governments is not something we on the left should endorse, regardless of the legitimate problems with fake news from right-wing organizations.

[1]: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20161118IPR51718/meps-sound-alarm-on-anti-eu-propaganda-from-russia-and-islamist-terrorist-groups

[2]: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/10/did-newsweeks-kurt-eichenwald-use-threats-and-brib.html

[3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/?utm_term=.a56dbbce8961
[4]: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/368180-fake-news-washington-post/
[5]: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/
[6]: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/10/facebook-im-begging-you-please-make-yourself-better/
[7]: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-self-regulation-of-the-financial-system-wont-work/
[8]: http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/78(7)902.pdf
[9]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/12/taking-on-the-drug-profiteers
[10]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150217144321.htm
[11]: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/19/technology/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-fake-news-election/
[12]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9450587/Muslim-Brotherhood-establishes-militia-inside-Syria.html
[13]: https://off-guardian.org/2016/08/23/european-commission-serving-a-corporate-agenda/
[14]: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/26637/1/08806632.pdf
[15]: http://uatoday.tv/news/venice-commission-ukraine-law-banning-communist-nazi-propaganda-not-comply-with-eu-standards-557297.html

The November 20 Bridge Standoff

If you look at the temperature in Cannon Ball, North Dakota last night you’ll see that it was hovering around 23 degrees Farhenheit for most of the night. Protesters were out all night, fighting against the DAPL, as they have been for months now. As if this cold wasn’t hard enough to withstand, they were attacked by police, with rubber bullets, tear gas, an LRAD cannon (tested, but not used in any of the video I watched), mace, percussion grenades, and a water cannon. Yes, a water cannon in freezing weather. After watching Kevin Gilbertt’s live videos for much of last night, there were a few things I learned. I'll cite the time each event occurs/is noted in the 30 minute shortened video I compiled.

Mainstream media has failed us, and their replacements are under attack:

3 drones belonging to Digital Smoke Signals were shot down (29:35). The FAA has issued a no fly zone for private aircraft, including drones, in the area of the protests [1]. You may remember when Shailene Woodley was singled out and arrested, while obeying orders to move [2]. Many thought it was likely that this was a way to silence her live videos, as many were watching the situation unfold on her streams. Protesters have claimed authorities jammed cell phone signals at some points, this has been disputed, and the problems may be due to spotty coverage. However, the coincidence that those problems occurred when police began breaking down a protester camp seems suspect. Even if the latter two claims are incorrect, the no fly zone is only to attack the protester's communication with the outside world. The protesters are flying drones with video, not missile systems, and they pose no threat to the police, apart from the threat that their actions will become public.

Protesters' lives and well-being are in immediate danger:

There have been a number of health issues. One person required CPR, twelve people have gone to the ER, and at least 100 people were transported back to the main camp from injuries related to tear gas or the cold temperature and water (29:48). There is also a claim that a man was severely injured by a bean bag round, with his skull exposed, attested to by more than one protester (22:24).

They are attempting to discredit the movement:

The Morton County Police Department is releasing factually inaccurate propaganda. They claimed that the water protesters were setting fires and that they used the water cannon in an attempt to put those out. The only protester-started fires visible in the hours of footage I’ve watched are small, controlled camp fires for warmth, a necessity when police spray water in crowds in these temperatures (21:43). These fires have not been targeted by the water cannon, and indeed in all the footage I've seen the cannon was only targeting the protesters. There were some other fires, but from what I saw it appeared that the police set them, and water protectors rushed to put them out.

What can you do?:

Remove your money from banks that support DAPL, call the governor of North Dakota (701-328-2200), the Morton Co. Sheriff's Office (701-667-3330), the White House (202-456-1111), the EPA (404-562-9077), Amnesty International (202-544-0200), and anyone else you think could make an impact. Block the buildings of banks that support DAPL in a protest of solidarity. If you want to donate, here is a link so you can help them survive the winter. And of course if you can, head out there, they need more bodies.

My main sources are videos from the scene. If you don’t trust me, please, take a look for yourself:

Kevin Gilbert Facebook Page (I recommend following him for updates)

A 30 Minute Compilation of important parts of the following videos

full videos:

Kevin Gilbert Video 1

Kevin Gilbert Video 2

Kevin Gilbert Video 3

Kevin Gilbert Video 4

Kevin Gilbert Video 5 (unfortunately the video is not uploading to YouTube correctly)

Kevin Gilbert Video 6

Kevin Gilbert Video 7

[1]: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/mandan/faa-issues-flight-restrictions-over-dapl-protest/article_0c270b54-73ff-5ea0-a626-153b33bac828.html

[2]: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/shailene-woodley-speaks-out-after-arrest-w444463

Solidarity Without Compromising Ideals

Solidarity is important. If a political group is fractured they quickly lose power, and small factions have to often work with the larger group to accomplish their agenda. I think that applies especially after a loss. That being said, blindly rooting for a party is a compromise we can’t afford to make, and is actually counterproductive in the long run. To the democrats that protested Bush’s wars: did you protest Obama’s? After you fought courageously against Bush’s strengthening of the NSA, did you denounce Obama’s unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers (more imprisoned under his administration than all previous presidencies combined) [1]? When you said the US shouldn’t act as the world’s police in Iraq, did you make the same claim about Syria? When you speak about GMOs and Monsanto do you mention that the Obama administration pushed biotech aggressively throughout the world [2]?

I ask these questions not to divide, but to challenge. The complacency in the democratic party has been frightening in the past eight years. We can had disagreements without dividing the left, and if we don't have and voice those disagreements, political power tends towards the corporations' side. I hope the one good thing to come from Trump’s administration is a reinvigoration of constructive anger and frustration, that will lead to meaningful change. However, please don’t let that die when the democrats are in power. The way you make your party better and stronger is the same way you make your country better and stronger; you challenge every ideology or policy you disagree with. When we let the democratic party drift further and further right, we lose votes and the moral high ground. Don't root for your party like a sports team, challenge your party to make it better.

I’m not claiming any moral purity or high ground when I challenge the apathy and rationalizing in the left. While I was aware and angry about the right-wing policies from the Obama administration, I didn’t do enough to combat those moves. I criticized these policies, but only spoke to a select few about them, and thus had no real effect. We all need to do better, the current state of affairs is evidence enough for that.

[1]: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/

[2]: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2013/07/01/us-corporations-gmos-thrive-under-obamas-african-partnership

DAPL: Dangers and Solutions

The amount of attention the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protests have gotten is a great first step, but it's not enough. There are two main problems with the reaction to these protests- knowledge of the issue, and knowledge of how to help.

Pipelines & DAPL:
The media coverage has been minimal at best, and more has likely been learned through social media than major media organizations. This isn't something we can really change, except perhaps through boycotts, but we can spread information on the topic individually, to friends and acquaintances through social media and in person.

Even those who know about the situation in North Dakota often have an incomplete understanding. Two things to emphasize are the danger of pipelines, and the fact that DAPL is only one of many pipelines under construction or in use. Between 2010 and 2015 in the US there were over 3,300 spills or leaks (that's over 13 every week!), resulting in a total of over seven million gallons of spilled oil [1]. Spills have a wide range of environmental and health impacts, depending on the type of oil or gas. DAPL would be transporting crude oil, which has a variety of harmful compounds, such as benzene, a known carcinogen [2]. These pipelines generally run through poorer, often minority communities, an example of environmental racism. For instance, the DAPL was moved to the current path through Native American land because a route passing above Bismarck was deemed to dangerous for the water supply of Bismarck residents [3].

There's already over 2.4 million miles worth of oil and gas pipelines in the United states, with many more in the planning or construction stage [4]. Increasing this infrastructure is unecessary and dangerous. We should be increasing renewable energy subsidies and production, which means we should be using less pipelines if anything.

What You Can Do
You can of course get involved with environmental groups or show up to DAPL solidarity protests in your area. However, there's another option that could be very effective if many people join:

Remove your money from a corporate bank, opting instead for credit unions. This not only impacts this issue but a variety of other big-banked back corporate endeavors. Credit unions aren't perfect, but they're certainly better than corporate banks. This is not an option for some, but membership to most credit unions isn't as exclusive as you might think. This shift could considerably impact the power of banks to loan money to sponsor these projects. Here's a link to find a credit union you're eligible for:
CUlookup

And here's Matthew Cooke, a proponent of this action:
CALL TO ACTION: MASS BANK EXIT

[1]: http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog/map-displays-five-years-oil-pipeline-spills
[2]: http://www.bioline.org.br/request?er07041
[3]: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/pipeline-route-plan-first-called-for-crossing-north-of-bismarck/article_64d053e4-8a1a-5198-a1dd-498d386c933c.html
[4]: http://www.pipeline101.com/Where-Are-Pipelines-Located

If You Don't Vote, Can You Complain?

In an ideal world it would be easy to vote- it would be a federal holiday, and transportation would be provided by the government. Unfortunately it's not, so there's a lot of reasons people don't vote apart from pure apathy. You can only vote from prison in two states, and in ten states felons never regain their right to vote [1]. Working class individuals sometimes have little time to vote, and may be disenfranchised further by restrictive ID or registration laws, and low concentrations of polling places resulting in long wait times [2]. In 2012 there was a 15 point gap between those making over $75,000/year and those making under $50,000/year [3]. That is one area we need to work on- we need to make voting a readily available right which doesn't cost a large amount of time or any money. Voting needs to be just the start though.

The idea that voting is your civic duty and the principal way to make a difference can lead to apathy outside of the voting booths. Voting is a small part of achieving change- if you change just 4 people's minds, that's 4 votes to your one. Protests, rallies, citizen lobbying, building progressive organizations, civil disobedience, standing up to discrimination, and educating others are just a few methods of effecting change that carry just as much importance as a vote. Voting doesn't let you off the hook, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

If you are privileged, you especially have no excuse to avoid activism. Working class individuals often have time constraints, and can't afford to miss work. If you are upper class, you have been gifted with lots of privilege- use it in a beneficial way; to attack injustice.

Our civic duty is to do all we reasonably can to change what's wrong in our society. If you've been considering joining a progressive organization- do it! Is there a protest of a pipeline or of police brutality down the road? Join them! Do you have family members and friends that you feel are very misled? Change their minds!

Here's some two links to assist you in some ways of creating change:
Citizen Lobbying:
https://movetoamend.org/toolkit/citizens-lobbying-guide

An essay by Thoreau on civil disobedience, still very relevant:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper2/thoreau/civil.html


[1]: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286
[2]: http://www.alternet.org/story/154661/2012's_newest_voter_suppression_trend%3A_close_polling_places,_don't_tell_voters
[3]: http://www.nonprofitvote.org/documents/2013/09/america-goes-to-the-polls-2012-voter-participation-gaps-in-the-2012-presidential-election.pdf

Diagnosing Why Trump Won

There's no purpose in playing the blame game for who's vote or action resulted in Trump's victory. It's not constructive, and will only serve to increase a divide in the left that we cannot afford, especially right now. However, it is constructive to determine the underlying reasons for Trump's success, so we can address them for the sake of future elections.

Under democratic presidents (in addition to republican presidents), the income gap has either widened or closed a miniscule amount [1], the cost of living has skyrocketed [2], and minimum wage hasn't even kept even with inflation- in 1968 it was $10.86 in 2016 dollars [3]. In Clinton's administration NAFTA wreaked havoc on American jobs [4]. The democratic party has failed the working class. The only place they see to turn is to the neoconservatives. This is illogical, as neocons are no better for the working class than neoliberals. The neocons succeed because they use the anger of the white working class, and direct it towards those beneath them (other races, immigrants, etc.), instead of at those above them. To fix that the democrats need to become a populist party again. If they fail in that endeavor, Trump-like candidates will keep winning.

Becoming a populist party is certainly easier said than done, but it starts with the voters. If we elect primary candidates in local races that don't support neoliberalism, that will fight for their constituents, and that aren't sold out, that will send a message to the democratic elite: adapt, or get out of the way. We don't have the money to buy lobbyists or bribes, but we still have votes for now.

There is an alternative, with some upsides and downsides. Building a progressive party apart from the democrats involves more organizational work, but we wouldn't have to fight against party elites for control. Attempting both of these strategies means we don't put all our eggs in one basket, but also means we could be spread thin. What do you think?

Below are three excellent takes on Trump's win. If you only look at one of these links, I think Michael Moore absolutely nails the reason Trump won, far before the election, with eloquence and sincerity.

Michael Moore on Trump
Sanders on Trump
Glenn Greenwald on Trump

[1]: http://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/
[2]: http://www.mybudget360.com/cost-of-living-compare-1975-2015-inflation-price-changes-history/ 
[3]: http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/
[4]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html

Introduction- Re-Building American Progressivism

The left in America has failed to win the votes, hearts, and minds of far too many citizens. Over 45% of eligible voters didn't even cast a ballot[1], and movements like Black Lives Matter and the fight against Dakota Access Pipeline have far too few supporters. This is something we can change. It won't be easy, and it will take trust and cooperation, but with a country that is desperate for a change, this is an important time to stop that change from going right. Currently this blog and facebook page are merely vehicles to share information about progressivism across the country, but that will change in time.

One of the factors that has made the left ineffective is the fractured nature of progressive causes. There are people fighting for environmentalism, racial justice, lgbtq rights, economic justice, animal rights, and many other causes. These are all incredibly important, and we should not attempt to make one amorphous movement, as that would not increase effectiveness.

I have a vision for a possible way to at least partially solve this problem. I'm focusing currently on college campuses, as this is often an area where these movements are most fractured- various clubs, all important, but too many for progressives to join all of them. My idea is a group to facilitate communication and cooperation between these groups. This organization would reach out to leaders in each group, and be notified of any major events or projects each group is working on. This information will then be disseminated to the other groups as necessary. There are two main instances I have thought of where this is necessary. First, if two groups are working on the same or similar issues, fostering communication would prevent duplicate work. Second, if a group has an event (protest, rally, etc.), this central group could draw on the other progressive groups' members to maximize attendees.

An eventual plan (perhaps a good ways in the future) would be to bring this organization off campuses, to coordinate between national organizations and movements. If you are interested in helping to develop this group at your college, message me. It may be a while before this gets going, but I want to gauge the number of people willing to work towards this goal.

[1]: http://mashable.com/2016/11/09/voting-poll-numbers/#7eyH8D0sZqqj