Comparing #HolocaustMemorialDay this year and last is an excellent illustration of what's changed in the past year. I've never seen so much anti-Semitism voiced by people with major public platforms this openly before.
We have some things on the extremes, like Poland's lower house of parliament passing a bill criminalizing discussing Polish involvement in the Holocaust, or Julian Assange explaining how it was really about Slavs, not Jews.
Or Ken Livingstone going on Iranian state TV to discuss whether the Holocaust is being exploited to oppress others.
We have some of the more "traditional" bullshit, like Mike Pence trying to turn the Holocaust into some kind of Christian apocalyptic / martyrdom myth — but that's just what Dominionist prats *do*.
May as well provide some links for these, for the curious. Livingstone:
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @daverich1 view original on Twitter
Poland:
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @Yair_Rosenberg view original on Twitter
Assange:
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @JulianAssange view original on Twitter
Pence:
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @VP view original on Twitter
We have the New York Times running pieces about the importance of Steve Miller, a powerful and fervent advocate of Nazi ideology today, on #HolocaustMemorialDay .
And there's more, much more. I'm not counting the usual Nazis who invariably come out of the woodwork; what's significant here is that there are people with major platforms coming out on this day, for this day, and getting support.
If you wonder why this is so important: The Holocaust didn't start with people being rounded up and being dragged into camps. It didn't start with the murder of the disabled. Before any of that, it started with a press campaign.
The Nazis made certain questions part of the "normal" political discourse: Are Jews people? Do the disabled have a right to live? Are the Roma people?
But they didn't phrase the questions so crisply. They would say, "these people are why we have crime." "These people are what weaken our economy." "These people weaken our country." And if anyone debated that, it simply legitimized that it was a valid question to ask.
And today, we're hearing one of the classic American political refrains, adapted to this: "Don't politicize the Holocaust." (!!!)
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @EgSophie view original on Twitter
In America, we hear versions of this phrase every time there's a mass shooting ("Don't politicize the tragedy!"), on MLK day ("Don't politicize Martin Luther King!"), on any number of occasions which might make us stop and reflect.
In every case, that phrase has a singular meaning: "If we talk about this seriously, people might notice that my own ideology doesn't sit well at all with what we might talk about. DON'T TALK ABOUT IT."
For mass shootings, this comes from the NRA, whose ideology has become "we must never discuss the rights of [white] people to own guns."
(Only white ones. Remember when Philando Castile was killed by a cop for saying he had a legal CCW? Remember what the NRA said?)
But hearing it on Martin Luther King day a few weeks ago, and on Holocaust Remembrance Day yesterday, is new. It reflects that a now-mainstream political movement has an ideology which, if you examined it in any detail, reads like Nazism.
And this is not a coincidence. A few months ago, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 14% of Americans were neutral to favorable on Nazism *when described by that name*.
When asked about Nazi ideals, like "protecting and preserving America's white European heritage," levels of support went into the 30's.
No aspect of the rise of Nazism in American politics has been subtle. Compare these two pictures, one from whitehouse.gov, one from the Nazis:
Or this regular news feature — "The Criminal Jew," highlighting crimes committed by Jews, again published by the Nazis — to the VOICE reports now published about "crimes by immigrants" by ICE.
Or straight-up look at what Trump has called for. This is something I wrote back in late 2015, when he called for removing 11 million people in two years. Did anyone *listen*?
Trumpism is nothing more than Nazism with a worse haircut. It is an ideology of strengthening the "nation" by purging it of all those who "weaken" it. Immigrants. Muslims. The disabled. Queer people. Trans people. Brown people. Black people. Jews.
And it can be recognized as such both by its ideology — here's a refresher on what Nazism actually means, for those who don't know — and by the way in which it openly embraces and emboldens avowed Nazis. (Or "good people on both sides," as Trump put it)
It is no coincidence that on #HolocaustMemorialDay, Nazis with platforms were speaking loudly and openly. It is no coincidence that fellow travelers of the Nazis, with platforms, were using that day to express anti-Semitism without concern for their reputations.
In the past few years, but most of all in the past year, Nazism has re-risen as a political ideology. It has made the questions of who among us is human a subject for "legitimate" news to discuss. All the filth of our past is coming back to haunt us.
We must give this foul ideology no more quarter today than we did then. //
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is something I've been expecting for a while, but not quite so suddenly and sharply: privacy is becoming enough of an issue that people are questioning its violation as a business model. washingtonpost.com/technology/201…
Interesting contrast: FB lost 19% of its value (!!!) after its earnings call, but Google jumped a percent after its call just a few days earlier. I think this means people are recognizing a difference in the two companies' approaches.
While people like to say "oh, they're all big companies, they're all after your data, they're all bad," there are profound differences between the companies' attitudes and business models.
Little thing I wish: that the EU would codify its directives and regulations the way the USC does. Having to read and reconcile a pile of individual laws is a lot of work for no benefit.
This tweet brought to you by reading directives 2000/78/EC, 2000/43/EC, and 2006/54/EC, and realizing they're almost verbatim identical and if they were codified would have amounted to trivial edits on a single shared piece of text.
On the up side: these are really thoughtful directives, well-drafted, and show a lot of signs of having studied what did and didn't work all over the world. (They're all about discrimination, especially in employment)
There's a really good interview here, where @karaswisher asks Zuckerberg all the right questions. I can't say that I'm satisfied with his answers, though. They feel superficial, not because he's dodging the question, but because he hasn't really grappled with it.
Good thought exercise: Imagine what Facebook would be like if its founder had been a Black woman from an otherwise similar background. How would its priorities have been different? What would "connecting people" have meant?
I think the deep flaw in Facebook's orientation comes down to this initial idea that its goal is to "connect people," as though that were a good in and of itself. It can sound that way if you're a certain person in a certain environment, but it very definitely Isn't Always True.
OK, unusual note tonight: this is for the people I know now or previously in the US intelligence community, and for the people I don't know there who have been doing their best under impossible circumstances.
You didn't get shit upon by your country today. You got shit upon by a Russian asset, whose job it is to shit on the US intelligence community.
It may hurt like hell to realize that your President is a Russian asset, and that every sane norm of what to do has been upended. But those are the breaks.
This thread captures something significant I hadn't noticed - and which is especially creepy as an Israeli, knowing what sorts of people use this language. Generally, they are the sort of people you want to encounter at a distance, and through a scope.
They tend to have a very *vivid* idea about Biblical prophecies and want to bring them about, typically via some kind of plot that involves killing a whole lot of people.
These people tend to love Israel, in much the way that fishermen love fish.
They come in all shapes and sizes - I've encountered Jewish, Christian, and Muslim versions, and I'm sure other religions have their versions as well. But this one smells particularly like a Christian version, and a Dominionist one in particular.
This is an incredibly bizarre statement, given that Cohen met with Kremlin agents in late August 2016 in Prague to arrange payment for the precise things listed in this indictment. (Steele 135, 136, 166.2)
And given that on 27 Jul 2016, the people indicted started to attack Clinton's email system within hours of being publicly asked to do so by Trump. (Indictment para 22)
And that in late September, they compromised DNC election analytics (Indictment para 34), and on 7 Oct started to release Clinton campaign emails (para 49), followed immediately by this: