I’ll start with an admission— I’m the wrong person to write this diary, or to make this request of others. I don’t use social media. I’m not on Facebook, I don’t have a Twitter account. I barely text.
But the klan, Nazis, and fascists of all stripes (starting with Trump and Bannon) have made prolific use of social media. It is their preferred medium of communication, and vehicle for harassment, threats, and loosely organized incitement to violence.
In a comprehensive review of the rise of right wing extremism in America, and the continuum that connects various strains and subgroups within the broader ideology ‘conservatism’ with the most violent elements of the right, Conservative and Right-Wing Movements (which is essential reading for all progressives), Kathleen Blee and Kimberly Creasap at the University of Pittsburgh describe how fascist groups in America use social media and the internet to recruit, communicate, and operate with near impunity:
Right-wing groups create virtual communities through Web sites, blogs, social networking sites, chat rooms, and online discussion boards (Adams & Roscigno 2005, Burris et al. 2000, Daniels 2009, Gerstenfeld 2003, Levin 2002, Reid & Chen 2007, Simi & Futrell 2006) (pg. 277)
… the Internet certainly has allowed right-wing movements to distribute propaganda to supporters and the general public. Right-wing sites often visually mimic more mainstream sites to make them familiar to viewers, while infusing racist and/or xenophobic rhetoric into their messages (Daniels 2009, Futrell et al. 2006, Gerstenfeld 2003). Virtual means such as the Internet provide anonymity for movements that promote hate speech and violent actions. Interactive online forums allow people to be involved in radical or extremist movements with little risk to their reputations, jobs, or family relationships (Simi & Futrell 2009). contact among right-wing activists that would otherwise be difficult because of geographical distance or fear of being observed and prosecuted (Blee 2002, Futrell et al. 2006, Gerstenfeld 2003, Levin 2002, Reid & Chen 2007). Furthermore, virtual communities offer a sense of belonging, companionship, and social support networks (Gerstenfeld 2003, Simi & Futrell 2006). Because mainstream media tend to portray right-wing movements negatively, right-wing activists create virtual communities to control their images (Gerstenfeld 2003, Simi & Futrell 2009). In interactive forums, such as blogs and discussion boards, users shape “virtual identities,” which are “people’s online performances of who they want others to think they are” (Anahita 2006, pp. 143–44). (pg. 277)
There are two tasks for progressives faced with the rise of fascism embodied in the election of Trump: 1) understand those who choose to align with fascists, and 2) resist fascism in all its forms, in all its guises, in each and every instance that it shows itself.
In regard to the first task— understanding those that choose to align with fascists, I’ve written diaries here, here and here, making the case that Trump voters need to be viewed, as a group, as proto-fascists, comfortable within communities that espouse white supremacy, prone to authoritarianism, and fundamentally opposed to the idea of an inclusive, pluralistic American democracy, opposed in their worldview to a society based on equal protection of the law, equal justice, and equal educational and economic opportunity.
Blee and Creasap make this abundantly clear as well:
A particular kind of conservative movement known as the New Right (NR) emerged in the 1970s, a time when the right had little electoral or cultural influence. Fragmented groups of free market enthusiasts, libertarians, anticommunists, and social conservatives found common interest, shaping a movement that rapidly became a force in political life. The NR’s explosive growth challenged long-held scholarly assumptions about conservative mobilization. For one, the NR did not primarily attract social groups in decline, such as the status-insecure middle class and Protestant fundamentalists that Bell (1963) identified as the core of the Old Right. Rather, its campaign to return America to political, economic, and moral strength mobilized a wide range of social groups, including economically successful middle classes (Durham 2000, Johnson 2000, McGirr 2001). Too, the NR’s success was not due primarily to its strong leadership, a common description of the Old Right (Ribuffo 1983). Instead, its leaders inspired grassroots action. For instance, antifeminist spokesperson Phyllis Schlafly fought against gender equity by mobilizing women fearful that they would be drafted into the military or that men would relinquish economic responsibility for their families (Critchlow 2005, Schreiber 2008). Scholars are divided on the racial nature of the NR. Some argue that the NR relied on racially coded messages to mobilize white evangelical activists. Race, one scholar of the NR writes, was used to connect “recipes for national revival to racialized and often exclusionary images of the national community,” particularly those of immigration, affirmative action, welfare, and traditional values (Ansell 2001, p. 189). Such racial ideology, unlike earlier forms of white racism, was not based on biological claims of white superiority. Rather, it rested on ostensibly nonracial values, such as disdain for government policies of equal opportunity (Ansell 1997). (pg. 272)
...studies of Europe suggest that extremists recruit members and spread ideologies through a variety of social arenas, including those that are ostensibly nonpolitical. For example, European racist skinheads contribute to the violence of sports hooliganism with racist songs and chants at soccer matches (Milo 2005, Pankowski & Kornak 2005). In Germany, the right wing has made inroads into mainstream culture with Nazi-esque lyrics and violent references to Hitler in the music of mainstream hip-hop artists (Putnam & Littlejohn 2007). There is some evidence of comparable practices in the United States, such as racist skinheads who attend NASCAR auto races and other gatherings of whites they regard as likely to be receptive to their message (Cooter 2006). Whether such practices are widespread or increasing among right-wing groups is unknown. More broadly, more study is required of how right-wing movements draw from, and themselves shape, their social and cultural environments to serve political agendas. (pg. 279)
Fascists are not ‘fringe members’ or ‘opportunists’ within the conservative movement, they are the logical endpoint of conservative ideology and policies. The subcultures that exist within conservatism are the breeding ground for fascism; fascism emerges from conservatism, conservative ideas and values, from within conservative communities.
With regard to the second task for progressives— fighting fascism. We need to take the fight to them, in their preferred arena, up until now, their safe haven— the internet, especially social media.
My suggestion: to publicly call out those who identify with fascist groups (klan, Nazis, extremist fundamentalist Christian groups), and all those who aid and abet them (for instance, someone who re-tweets anything said by Steve Bannon, or published on Breitbart)— you pass on the Nazi’s words, you own it, no excuses, ever.
Also, there is complicity in silently abiding the presence of fascists, whatever your claimed motives. Saying ‘I don’t share their views’, or ‘I didn’t hear that’, or ‘Don’t hold Trump responsible for the worst few’, etc., doesn’t cut it. This applies to every GOP office holder at every level (for example, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan come to mind), and anyone who voted for Trump. You all own this.
The only acceptable response now, and from now on, is to denounce and oppose any affiliation with someone like Steve Bannon or Richard Spencer, or anyone who associates with them, or consults them for advice, or even is willing to sit in the same room with them— under any circumstance. If you fail to do so— you are complicit in their empowerment.
No safe havens, no political cover, no excuses for fascists.
To do this, as a start, I’m suggesting ‘marking’ any reference to, citation of, sharing of, or publishing a news item related to the alt-right, new right, or any story involving the GOP or Trump on any subject whatsoever, to make a post Facebook, and share it, post to a blog, or tweet with a statement of opposition. The is comparable to the Nazi practice of designating someone known or assumed to be Jewish by placing three parentheses around their name. So, for example, I’m Jewish. In a comment on-line, a Nazi would highlight my name like this: (((Ian Douglas Rushlau))). We need to attach similar symbolic markers to each of them— name them, identify them.
Essentially, I’m saying we must refuse to allow the normalization of fascists in political discourse and news reporting. If we don’t remind the world Trump and the GOP openly consort with Nazis-- whenever they open their mouths, or anything about them is reported on— then we are silently complicit, as are ‘normal’ news organizations.
Name them, and shame them, until they no longer are allowed a free pass by the media, and by the GOP.
I have no experience in creating Twitter hashtags, and no media expertise, so please come up with ideas for what might stick as a label, but here’s what I’ve got so far:
#nazisneverwelcome
#spotafascist
#shinethelightonfascism
#defeatfascism
#nopeacewithnazis