Political Research Associates • 1310 Broadway, Suite 201 • Somerville, MA 02144
Political Research Associates • 1310 Broadway, Suite 201 • Somerville, MA 02144
I am typing as fast as I can…
The “Blood Libel” targeting Jews in Europe
Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Henry Ford and the Dearborn Independent
US Neo-Nazi Movements
Lyndon LaRouche Networks (Research Affidavit on the LaRouchites)
William Lind and Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation
Anders Breivik, Terrorism, and Right-Wing Conspiracism (Citing Lind)
Trump Supporters and the “Deep State”
Leads to -> George Soros as a target
Wayne LaPierre, ubër leader of the National Rifle Association, is calling the massive national marches against gun violence on Saturday March 24 the stealth work of “Gun-Hating Billionaires” and “Hollywood Elites.”
In doing so, LaPierre has blown a dog whistle of conspiracy theories which some members of the NRA will decode as a reference to a supposed Jewish menace of the philanthropy of George Soros and the Jewish bankers claimed to be the puppet masters behind Hollywood and the Democratic Party.
LaPierre, leader of the National Rifle Association, is known among most reporters as a gun rights fanatic. Due to gun-shy editors, however, LaPierre is generally portrayed in the corporate media as a defender of the Second Amendment.
There is a difference. Most hunters and target shooters support reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. LaPierre honed his ideological fanaticism based on the anti-government conspiratorialist claims of the Armed Militia movement of the 1990s.
After the Parkland shootings, LaPierre released a statement that accused “Democrats of pushing ‘socialist’ agenda in wake of Florida shooting.” Now he has added this loathsome dog whistle of antisemitic conspiracy theories.
Most Americans will not see or hear the antisemitic subtext. But anyone who is studied the rhetoric of antisemitism in the English language will see it clearly.
Note that antisemitic conspiracy theories traverse from the political right to the political left in today’s media and political environment. But connect the statement by LaPierre with the attempt by Trump to hire an attorney who is a notorious conspiracist crank; and Trump’s use of conspiracy theories during his Presidential campaign.
And keep an eye of Fox News, the Der Stürmer, of US media giants to see how they cover the story as it emerges. Will LaPierre become the Julius Streicher for Trump
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka takes a strong stand against racist thugs and Wall Street greedsters when talking to some reporters; but then he and other leaders in the AFL-CIO decided to not name Trump at their recent national convention. Apparently this was for strategic reasons.
While in DC for several meetings I spoke with workers rights advocates both inside and outside union staffs, and progressive Democratic Party activists. I kept hearing complaints that some of the same folks that steered the failed 2016 election campaign for the Democrats are leaning on unions to not take on Trump by name to somehow give Democrats an advantage in the midterm elections.
For over thirty years clueless inside-the-beltway strategists have been minimizing the growing threat of the Christian Right and White Nationalism. At the same time several unions made conscious decisions to not alert their own members about the right-wing juggernaut for fear of alienating their members who vote Republican.
I personally ran into this brick wall decades ago after being asked to brief the leadership of the National Educational Association at the recommendation of state-level staff who saw what was happening out in the field. After hearing my presentation, which included a warning that the NEA was a primary target for destruction along with the entire public school system…the NEA bigwigs decided to do nothing.
Now it looks like it is happening again.
Outside the Beltway, too many parents cannot feed their children. They cannot protect themselves and their families from verbal abuse, threats, and violence from White Supremacist, antisemitic, Islamophobic, anti-feminist, homophobic thugs. Some of those under attack are in unions.
What will it take to get those union leaders choosing “strategic” silence to see that they are turning their backs on our democracy when it is not only under siege by authoritarian bigots; but being targeted by fascists playing with fire?
Friday, October 14, 2005
Premillennial means a belief that Jesus Christ returns in the End Times and, after a series of confrontations and battles against evil, he reigns over an earthly utopia for a thousand years…a millennium. Therefore, Christ returns before (“pre”) the Godly millennial kingdom. Dispensations are epochs, or blocks of history, during which certain things happen. Premillennial Dispensationalists think that we are poised on the edge of that historic epoch during which the End Times preface the second coming of Christ and his millennial reign.
A large portion of Christian evangelicals who hold these specific theological beliefs also believe that devout and Godly Christians, before the tremendous confrontations or “Tribulations” that culminate in a huge global Battle of Armageddon, will be spared injury or death when they are brought away from Earth and held in God’s protective embrace in an event called the “Rapture.”
It is easy to poke fun at these types of religious beliefs, but it is deeply offensive and provocative in a way that undermines a serious and important public debate over the proper boundaries for religious belief and public policy decisions. It is not accurate to dismiss Christians who hold these beliefs as ignorant, uneducated, or crazy. Social scientists have thoroughly refuted these stereotypes with polling data and in-depth interviews. In addition, it is not fair to ask people of faith simply to abandon their beliefs when they step into the Public Square or political arena.
It is also not fair, however, for those in the Religious Right to use God as a trump card in public policy debates.
Premillennial Dispensationalism and a belief in the Rapture have only recently been steered toward a particular ultraconservative agenda. For many decades the evangelicals who held these beliefs were wary of too much political participation, which they saw as pulling them away from their religious obligations and devotions. Most felt that God’s plan for the End Times would reveal itself without the need for political activism. After all, God in the millennial utopia would ultimately reward devout Christians, and this was especially true if they believed the Rapture would protect them from all harm during the End Times confrontations.
In the 1970s a group of right-wing political operatives, seeking to rollback the economic policies and social safety net woven by the Roosevelt Administration, decided to recruit evangelicals into their political movement to take over the Republican Party. In doing so they pushed political debate in our country away from democracy and toward theocracy.
Evangelicals, however, require a Biblically based reason for their actions. Christian Right leaders, including Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, Paul Weyrich, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson, provided the justification by arguing that, according to the Bible, Christians had an obligation to struggle against evil in the political arena, and to purify and restore the sanctity of secular society.
The leaders of the Religious Right mobilized millions by arguing there was no compromise with evil. The political operatives provided long lists of who was evil and how these sinners were subverting God’s plan for America. They presumed to speak for God and country. Moreover, they created a politicized religious movement willing to strip away rights from persons categorized as sinful. This type of demonization and scapegoating is toxic to democracy. It erodes the concept of informed consent and masks prejudice and bigotry with a veneer of religious devotion.
Because the leaders of the Religious Right have mobilized such a large voter base, they regularly have meetings with powerful political leaders, including the President. Today the Religious Right plays a major role in shaping foreign and domestic policies.
We can change this situation. The Religious Right does not speak for all Christians or even all evangelicals. The leaders of the Religious Right sometimes argue for policy positions that make their own followers uncomfortable. In a constitutional democracy, the ideal path for the nation is always open to debate; and the idea of God is too big for small minds to shackle. If we want to defend the Constitution, we must learn the religious beliefs of those evangelicals who dominate the Religious Right, treat them respectfully, and yet engage them in a critical public conversation over the appropriate boundaries for civic political debate set by the founders and framers of our nation.
Ported from Campaign to Defend the Constitution