Understanding Richard Spencer’s Holodomor Denial

By | Support this author on Patreon

Richard Spencer is at the center of controversy again after his recent tweet denying that the Holodomor was an intentional genocide. This time, the controversy is not so much with the public at large (who have largely never heard the word), but within in his own white nationalist swamp. Almost immediately, Spencer’s credibility with many fash-fans dropped even lower than it had been after his repeat retreats in the face of antifa, as neo-Nazis everywhere cannibalized each other and labeled him as either a savvy nationalist or a tool of “the Jews”.

The Holodomor is the engineered starvation of the Ukrainian people in the 1930’s Soviet Union. Stalin and other members of his government viewed Ukrainians as a reactionary and recalcitrant population prone to spark a nationalist rebellion. When resistance to the dysfunctional collectivization of agriculture and unrealistic quotas induced starvation, authorities doubled down with even harsher demands and punishment for non-compliance in a way that was not mirrored in Russian-majority regions.

The Holodomor is a deeply politicized issue in both Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainians largely accept it as genocide and view it as a continuation of centuries of Russian oppression, while Russians — in identification with Stalin’s legacy and the continuity of broader Russian civilization under a red flag — claim it was incidental policy failure or environmental in origin. This is also the heart of a longstanding division between fascists: one that would be hilarious if it weren’t still killing people.

After the Holodomor, much of the resistance to Soviet authority occurred under the banner of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, a fascist guerrilla force that collaborated with the Nazis. To this date, Ukrainian fascists still venerate them as national heroes, and either tacitly or explicitly embrace the conspiracy theories that Bolshevism was a Jewish plot, the Holodomor was a Jewish genocide, and Putin’s Russia is still in thrall to the Elders of Zion. Russian and Novorussian fascists, influenced by Alekandr Dugin’s neo-Eurasianist ideology, slander Ukrainians as a fictional “bastard race” and pawns of NATO. Spencer has joined them, labeling Ukraine a synthetic nation in appearance at Auburn University and elsewhere on Twitter.

All of this has served to make Spencer’s comments and the fascist response somewhat inscrutable to outsiders, who don’t understand what the positions really signify. Putin’s United Russia party has been the architect and sponsor of far-right movements across Europe over the past decade, attempting to weaken NATO and the EU and construct the “multi-polar world” in which a Russian sphere of authority sits apart from foreign “Atlanticist” influence. To side with Russia is to signal allegiance to this Traditionalist International over the more explicit, but Western-aligned, Ukrainian Nazis.

The priorities here are telling. His pragmatism of alliances with other far-right groups overwhelms concern for more pedigreed Nazis, which has left the old school white supremacists howling. People often wonder how different kinds of fascists can ally with each other. The answer is that they all believe in nationalism, not globalism. Hence they can work together for conditions of mutual isolation, in which each group gets to “be itself” in its own homeland, violently protected from free individuals making their own transgressive choices.

This priority is mirrored on the tankie left, who are now coming to a more positive evaluation of Spencer. So eager to uphold the glorious state communist tradition of allying with Nazis, they embrace the Traditionalist International out of resistance to Western capitalist imperialism, echoing the European New Right author Alain de Benoist’s sentiment that it is “Better to wear the helmet of a Red Army soldier than to live on a diet of hamburgers in Brooklyn.” They, like Spencer and other white nationalists, also defend Putin’s support of Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian Ba’athist (Arab national-socialist) regime.

Noting that the far-right and authoritarian left hold similar priorities and sneer just as glibly at “globalism” is often derided as “horseshoe theory”: the idea that extremist views all tend toward the same totalitarian horror and truth lies in the sensible centrist middle ground. This is a misunderstanding. The common thread is not extremism but authoritarianism. All authoritarians promote closed societies and esteem them more than open ones because all authoritarians benefit from being able to insulate people from subversive outside influence, denying access to novelty and exploration. Freedom is inherently caustic to nation and tradition. They all intuitively recognize this, and that is why they get along so well.

As libertarians, we are inherently globalists. Not the capitalist and state “globalism” of the EU or other such half-measures, but the alter-globalism of a world without borders, bound together by peaceful cooperation and freed markets. Richard Spencer’s move should be taken an indication of exactly where libertarians should not go, and what practical alliances we should not seek. The world we seek is undiscovered country, and not to be found among the fascists.

Is S/He an Informant? A Ten Point Checklist

Image result for Informant Tip

A group of people who have been directly harmed by informant provocateurs have put together this checklist, drawing on personal experiences as well as those of other activists and information from informant provocateurs who have gone public. We hope you can learn from the damage that has already been done, so these people can be stopped before they are able to harm you.

Here are ten warning signs:

1.

Something feels “off.” Something about them just doesn’t line up. Their stories about their activist history or life history, don’t ring true. At this point, you need to run a background and criminal check. If you wait for all the other signs, it may be too late. The most obvious cause for serious concern is when someone shows up in an activist community and they don’t seem to have existed prior to that. That should be a deal breaker right off the bat.

2.

Despite the misgivings of some members, the individual quickly rises to a leadership position. S/he eagerly takes credit for actions in the media and begins to promote him/herself. S/he works to become one of the “faces” of the organization, and clearly wants to be a poster child for the group, attempting to “brand” their identity with the group’s name, imagery, and identity. S/he likes getting photographed, even when engaged in illegal activity.

3.

S/he photographs actions, meetings, and people that should not be photographed. S/he posts photos of actions and meetings on social media sites like Facebook, even tagging activists without their permission (in effect, facilitating law enforcement surveillance).

4.

S/he is a liar. S/he shows signs of lacking ethics and lacking transparency with the rest of the group.

5.

S/he advocates for high-risk illegal action to people s/he should not trust, while claiming to understand the importance of security culture. S/he goads others to violent action, for example by telling them they need to be “warriors.” Upon reflection, the illegal actions in question often have no real purpose and will not advance the goals of the group in any meaningful way. The person generally has a very twisted perception of what it means to be a warrior.

S/he seeks internal rifts in the community and exploits them. S/he has a cycle of abuse with groups and individuals: a honeymoon period, followed by manipulative, abusive behavior, followed by apologies and promises to do better. Then the cycle repeats.

6.

S/he always has bail money and pocket money, but either no real job, or no job that pays that much. S/he may imply access to a trust fund or similar resources, but this needs to be checked. S/he somehow has the financial freedom to be at any action that will get media attention, or any underground action that may involve illegal activity.

7.

S/he is found to be lying about really serious things like identity, family, background, race, or ethnicity.

8.

S/he has warrants but is unafraid of announcing and advocating illegal action, using his/her real name, publicly advertising his/her whereabouts, and once again jumping into the frame whenever photos or video are being taken at illegal actions. When picked up, s/he always makes bail and gets released, sometimes released on Own Recognizance even when the charges are very serious. This happens a lot. Then the individual goes right back to meetings, taking photos and posing for photo ops. S/he has a Catch and Release cycle with the cops. S/he may have a history of very early release from prison, then going directly to political meetings, sometimes of groups s/he privately claims to hate, or that would have been forbidden as a condition of normal parole.

9.

Juicy information, given only to the suspected informant, comes out the law enforcement end. To be sure this is taking place, the information must be unmistakable, and have been shared face to face, one on one, with zero possibility of surveillance (say, whispered in the informant’s ear in the middle of a field).

10.

Full admission: “My name is ________ and I was employed by [agency] to infiltrate [organization].” A full admission of informant and/or provocateur status may include details of what the informant provocateur received in exchange for their work: either the amount of money they were paid, or the deal they got to be released from prison or avoid prosecution for particular crimes. In some cases, the deal includes a future position with the law enforcement or intelligence agency that hired them. On the unlikely chance that someone is mentally ill, this information could conceivably be checked against the going rate for informant provocateurs; but if the other criteria are met, assume they are telling you the truth, even if they are mentally ill. While mentally ill people do not make reliable informants, they can make excellent provocateurs, and their history of instability can be cited as evidence when law enforcement denies the individual was hired as a provocateur.


If a person meets any of the criteria beyond points 1 through 3, you shouldn’t be working with them. Hopefully, all the points beyond number one will not even matter, as you will have already cut ties with the person after the first red flag. Regardless of whether we can prove someone is an infiltrator, if they display any of the problematic behavior described here, they shouldn’t be party to anything sensitive in the first place. Even if they’re not an infiltrator yet, it offers reason to believe they could be turned or crack under interrogation.

Here are some other warning signs to watch for. When it comes to people’s daily behavior, outside of meetings and actions, is the suspicious person behaving inappropriately with children? Are they harming their partners? Can they not keep their hands off kids? Or are they trying to sleep with multiple adults in the group (or one of the leaders)? Make sure you don’t have a pedophile who was let free in exchange for disruption, or a serial rapist or woman beater who has been turned loose on an activist community to cause devastation. Note when such people never face consequences from law enforcement, even when the victims press charges. If there’s a solid case against a predator, and that predator is allowed to flee, then goes to political meetings in another jurisdiction while the feds refuse to extradite him for trial… bingo.

In our recent experience, a predator who met nine out of ten of the above criteria (including number ten: an admission to other activists he was trying to turn) was never convicted by law enforcement. Instead, he was turned loose on a series of activist communities, wreaking havoc and destruction. Only his death put a stop to it. But there are plenty just like him, eager to take his place. Some of them may be on your friends list on Facebook. Some may have literally gotten away with murder.

When it comes to the thorny question of agents provocateurs and direct action, the point is not whether violence or nonviolence is preferable, but whether someone has violated the consensus of their affinity group and put their team in danger without their consent. It is irresponsible to allege that violence is always the work of agents provocateurs; rather, agents provocateurs set out to instigate violence that will be disadvantageous or isolating for the participants.

Here’s an example. Someone who has met all the above criteria except numbers nine and ten shows up at a public march. The march has been planned as a peaceful, legal event. Perhaps not all actions by this group are peaceful and legal, but for this event, that is the agreed strategy. The event is covered by the media, people are using their real names, and elders and children are participating. The provocateur has spent months ingratiating himself into the group, showing up for every action, paying the bills, giving people rides, saying whatever they want to hear, even buying them drugs. But once the march is underway and the cameras are rolling, the provocateur proceeds to show no regard for the safety or consensus of his group. He does whatever he can to shift the mood of the crowd, to instigate and encourage high emotions. The conditions are tense, and the provocateur does what he can to encourage breaks with discipline, and violations of the conditions previously agreed to. Suddenly he strikes out with a small but significant action, say of property damage or violence toward an individual, providing the flashpoint for sudden escalation. Then, as others follow suit, and illegal and dangerous actions erupt in front of the cameras, the provocateur fades back into the crowd, his mission accomplished. He has now put vulnerable and unprepared members of the community into direct danger, leaving them to handle the consequences of his actions while once again he goes free.

Check videos of actions on YouTube. Some people have filmed themselves breaking the law at actions. Some videos include this flashpoint moment. Note who does this over and over. Note who is and isn’t arrested for these things, and who does and doesn’t do time.

Successful agents can be hard to spot. But most infiltrators are not trained law enforcement officers. Most are criminals who have been cut a deal if they simply go to meetings and listen, or if they go to meetings and actions and disrupt.

In our experience, there have been a bare few, but significant, cases in which activists have been mistaken in their suspicions. In one case long ago that affected many of us, this misidentification had devastating consequences. The mistake was due to a lack of evidence and experience on the part of those who made the misidentification and a lack of solid criteria with which to evaluate the situation–not to mention the participation of actual agents in scapegoating an innocent woman. But because of this serious mistake, many activists compounded that mistake by swinging to the other extreme, overlooking blatant red flags and even direct admissions of infiltrator status. By providing this checklist, we aim to help you to develop your ability to identify, and prioritize, the truth in these situations. It’s not “bad jacketing” when it’s true.

There are a number of guidelines and articles out there about security culture. But just because a group has posted links or statements about the need for security culture doesn’t mean everyone in that group is paying attention and practicing security culture properly. We recommend this text to people and hope that this checklist will be a helpful addition.

Be safe, be effective, and trust your gut.

Edited for mb3-org,com

This is a very helpful article. But we want to add this. As activist we also have our hypocrisy on certain situations. And clearly this article has some. In no way shape or form this is 100% fact. WE REPEAT THIS IS JUST A HELPFUL ARTICLE

Source:https://crimethinc.com/2013/07/06/is-she-an-informant-a-ten-point-checklist

Net neutrality rules all but doomed as fact starts teardown

The laws governing an open internet may not be laws much longer.

On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 on a proposal to strip out the existing regulations that govern net neutrality, or the concept that all internet traffic must be treated equally. This is an initial vote that opens the issue up for comments. The FCC will entertain public input until August, and hold a final vote later this year. But given the Republican majority on the commission, a vote to remove the existing rules is a virtual certainty.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican appointed to head the commission by President Donald Trump, voted alongside fellow Republican Michael O’Rielly in support of the proposal, while Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn voted against it. There are typically five members on the commission, but two have yet to be appointed.

Today’s vote represents the first significant step toward dismantling regulations that have been in place since 2015, potentially changing the way the internet works. Proponents (Democrats, internet companies and consumer advocacy groups) argue that the rules were necessary to ensure that internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast couldn’t play favorites or charge more for faster access, while critics (Republicans, ISPs) said the rules were too onerous and stifled innovation and investment in infrastructure.

This move has been a pet project of Pai. He argued that Title II, a component of the existing rules that places the internet service providers under utility-style rules, isn’t necessary.

“The internet wasn’t broken in 2015,” he said during the FCC meeting. “We were not living in a digital dystopia.”

Public policy group Consumer Union called the vote “chilling.”

“Eliminating the Open Internet Order takes away the internet’s level playing field and would allow a select few corporations to choose winners and losers, preventing consumers from accessing the content that they want, when they want it,” said Jonathan Schwantes, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union.

Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota called it “a major step toward destroying the internet as we know it.”

The issue flared up over the past few weeks after Pai floated the proposal ahead of the vote. It was enough to spur comedian John Oliver to devote a segment to net neutrality, imploring viewers of his show “Last Week Tonight” to send their comments in support of the rules. The show even created the shortcutwww.gofccyourself.com to help viewers bypass at least five steps to reach the correct comments page.

The FCC website shut down shortly after, but the agency blamed it onbotnets that sent a flood of false comments.

Comcast and trade groups like the Telecommunications Industry Association gave Thursday’s vote a thumbs-up.

“We applaud Chairman Pai and Commissioner O’Rielly for remaining focused on creating a light touch regulatory environment that is pro-consumer, pro-investment and pro-innovation, especially with the present partisan political rhetoric and debate,” David Cohen, chief diversity officer for Comcast, said in a blog post.

The internet service providers had previously mounted a legal challenge to the rules, but a federal appeals court last year upheld the FCC’s 2015 regulations, and last week it threw out a request to rehear the case.

Source: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/net-neutrality-rules-all-but-doomed-as-fcc-starts-teardown/ar-BBBh81Y?OCID=ansmsnnews11

China’s Gruesome Dog Meat Festival Has Been Canceled, Say Activists

Dogs for sale are kept in a cage in Dashichang dog market on the day of local dog meat festival in Yulin

By Charlie Campbell

Could the barbarity be at an end? It just might according to jubilant animal rights activists, who say this year’s Yulin dog meat festival — where 2,000 to 3,000 canines are rounded up, forced into cramped cages, bludgeoned to death and eaten — has been canceled by authorities in the southern Chinese city.

Citing local sources, campaign groups say the sale of dog meat has been banned from a week prior to the June 21 annual festival, with offenders facing arrest and fines of $15,000. The move was apparently ordered by Yulin’s new Chinese Communist Party Secretary Mo Gong Ming in a bid to reform the city’s image after a sustained international outcry. A petition calling for the festival to be abolished gained 11 million signatures last year.

“Even if this is a temporary ban, we hope this will have a domino effect, leading to the collapse of the dog meat trade,” says Andrea Gung, executive director of Duo Duo Project, an anti-dog and cat meat campaign group. “This ban is consistent with my experience that Yulin and the rest of the country are changing for the better.”

However, it is unclear how any ban can be enforced, especially when the annual festival brings a healthy injection of cash to the city of 7 million. As the event has never been officially sanctioned, some advocates doubt the government’s ability to prevent individuals from partaking.

“Eating dog has been Yulin people’s tradition for quite a long time,” Ms. Tan, the owner of Three-Six Delicious Meat Restaurant in Yulin, tells TIME by phone. “I haven’t heard our government will stop the festival, or stop the selling of dog meat.”

While eating dog and cat has historic cultural roots in China, like many Asian nations, activists say the Yulin festival was only concocted in 2010 by dog meat traders and tenuously linked to the summer solstice. In fact, dog meat is much more common in China’s rural north, even as the nation’s burgeoning urban middle class increasingly keep well-preened pedigrees as pets.

“More people like dogs now, and especially in Beijing a lot have pet dogs,” says housewife Cheng Jie, while walking her four-year-old Pekingese by Beijing’s Houhai Lake. “But because there is rabies, a lot of people are still afraid of dogs and many parents teach their children to be wary of dogs.”

Activists say most of the 10 million dogs and around four million cats killed for meat each year in China are strays and stolen pets. The unregulated nature of the trade helps the spread of rabies and cholera, according to the World Health Organization. China has the second highest number of reported rabies cases in the world, with an average of 2,000 deaths per year for the past 10 years. About 90% of cases are due to dog bites.

“Most dog meat currently on the market doesn’t have a legal certificate,” says Li Weimin, a lawyer based in Beijing who has worked on the legality of dog meat. “It’s hard to tell the enforcement of the new rule in Yulin, but it’s progress. Other cities will watch Yulin closely and may follow its example.”

Even so, economics means the wider dog meat trade will likely continue. Because the majority of dog meat comes from stolen pets, there are no rearing costs, making it much cheaper than pork, chicken or beef, for example. Activists want stricter enforcement on existing prohibitions on the transportation of live animals to stamp out the trade for good.

“The Yulin dog meat festival is not over just yet,” says Peter Li, China Policy specialist at Humane Society International. “But if this news is true as we hope, it is a really big nail in the coffin for a gruesome event that has come to symbolize China’s crime-fueled dog meat trade.”

Edited For mb3-org.com

Endangered vaquita marina porpoise could be extinct by 2018: WWF

The tiny vaquita marina porpoise, native to Mexico, may soon be extict if drastic conservation measures are not taken, the World

The vaquita marina, a tiny porpoise native to Mexico, could be extinct by next year if urgent action including a ban on gillnets is not taken, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature warned.

Fewer than 30 of the rare mammals (Phocoena sinus) still live in the wild, all in the upper Gulf of California, the WWF said in a report Monday.

The vaquita population has plummeted 90 percent in less than six years, down from 250 in 2011.

“If we don’t do something today, the vaquita could be extinct by 2018,” said Maria Jose Villanueva, director of strategy and science for WWF Mexico. “Losing it would be like losing a piece of Mexico.”

Villanueva told reporters that the only known threat to the survival of the vaquita—”little cow” in Spanish—are gillnets, long walls of netting hung vertically that trap fish by the gills when they swim through.

The nets are meant to illegally catch totoaba, an endangered fish about the same size of the vaquita.

Deadly gillnets

Smugglers ship dried totoaba swim bladders to China, where they fetch up to $20,000 per kilo. Totoaba bladder is consumed in soup or used for medicinal purposes.

Gillnets also catch a large number species that are not targeted. The WWF says the nets accidently kill some 700,000 marine mammals and birds around the world each year.

Some 374 gillnets have been removed in the Gulf of Mexico between February 2016 and April 2017, but the vaquita population continues to drop—six have been reported to have died this year alone, Villanueva said.

Nets up to two kilometers long have been removed in the area, Villanueva said.

The Mexican government’s two-year ban on gillnet use is set to expire in less than two weeks.

Mexican environmental authorities and conservation groups are working on an emergency plan expected to begin around September to move the vaquitas to a “temporary sanctuary” where they can safely reproduce.

The WWF experts support the measure, despite reservations.

‘Desperate measure’

“We see it as a desperate measure,” said Jorge Rickards, the interim director general of WWF Mexico.

“We consider this a high-risk measure because nothing like this has ever been done before,” he said, fearing the death of even a single vaquita.

Rickards called on the Mexican government for “an urgent plan of action” that includes a permanent gillnet ban in the Gulf of California.

He said the government must also help area residents whose livelihoods depend on fishing.

The Gulf of California, which was officially listed as a World Heritage site in 2005, is a source for half of Mexico’s fisheries production.

A broad array of species live in the area, including over one third of the world’s marine mammal species, five of the world’s seven sea turtle species, and almost 900 fish species, the WWF says.

In its report, titled “Vanishing Vaquita: saving the world’s most endangered marine mammal,” the WWF called on the government to clamp down on the totoaba trade, and to commit to a plan “for the recovery of the vaquita within its natural habitat that includes specific population increases and timelines.”

The conservation group also called on the US and Chinese governments to collaborate with Mexico “to halt the illegal fishing and trade of totoaba” by increasing efforts to “intercept and halt the illegal transport, entry and sale of totoaba products.”

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-05-endangered-vaquita-marina-porpoise-extinct.html#jCp

Alt-right crowdfunding site disappears

Where's the money gone?

Posted By Jim

A major alt-right crowdfunding site has gone offline, raising questions about where the money has gone.

Before disappearing from the net WeSearchr.com had raised over $120,000 to support neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer.

WeSearchr.com was an alt-right website which used crowdfunding to pay bounties to people who sent information to the site.

The website had also been raising money to identify the anti-fascist hero who created the most meme-worthy event of 2017.

A Twitter account claiming to belong to former chief technology officer Pax Dickinson claims the server bill has not been paid.

In other posts on social media Dickinson appears to tell users who have donated money they “might have reason for concern”.

UPDATE: WeSearchr is now back online.

Source:https://libcom.org/news/alt-right-crowdfunding-site-disappears-16052017