RechtsLinks 23.1.2017: Track Trump, Wikileaks sucht Tiny Hands Steuererklärung und die Logik von Punching Nazis


Track-Trump: „Donald Trump has made many statements about his plans. Below are the concrete items from Donald Trump's Contract with the American Voter, which contains his promises for his first 100 days. Here, we will track fulfillment of those promises, and update it daily during the initial 100 day period.“

spOnline: Wikileaks sucht nach Trumps Steuererklärung: „Im Wahlkampf versprach Donald Trump, seine Steuererklärung zu veröffentlichen. Jetzt will er davon nichts mehr wissen. Das empört Wikileaks: Die Plattform fordert Insider auf, das Dokument zur Verfügung zu stellen.“

George Lakoff: The Women’s Marches and the Politics of Care: The Best Response to Trump’s Inaugural Address

Trump wants to be seen as a Strict Father, but he’s breaking the cardinal rules of the Strict Father: he is a betrayer of trust. A Strict Father cannot be a betrayer of trust.

When Trump says to ordinary Americans that he’ll never let you down, here’s what he really means: I’m already letting you down. I will always let you down. But he means it literally when addressing rich conservatives.

The most memorable phrase of his speech was “American Carnage,” which he blames on liberals and on government officials in previous administrations. He is using it both literally and metaphorically. Literally, it means, as Merriam-Webster lists, “great and usually bloody slaughter or injury (as in battle).” Its synonyms are “butchery,” “bloodbath,” “massacre,” “death,” “holocaust,” and “slaughter.” He is using it literally to frame gun deaths in big cities. Metaphorically, he is using it to blame liberals and Washington bureaucrats for the loss of jobs and income among white working people, for inadequate public education, for failing infrastructure. Of course, in his universe, none of this had anything to do with corporate greed or Republican policies over the years.

But “carnage” is exactly what a large number of Americans fear will happen during Trump’s Presidency. That’s why millions of Americans have taken to the streets to make it clear they’ll stand up for democracy, freedom and civil rights. If we wish to prevent Trump’s visions of carnage, he marches must be the beginning of our movement, a movement centered on the politics of care. When citizens care about other citizens, and manage to use their government for public resources, America benefits because Americans benefit.

Persistence is the best resistance — moving from the marches to the everyday politics of care on all levels.


Ein bisschen Optimismus von Peter Leyden: Why Trump’s Inauguration is Not the Beginning of an Era — but the End. Ich bin geneigt, dem insgesamt zuzustimmen.

The world is in the relatively early stages of an almost inevitable transition to what can be best understood as a new 21st-century civilization. Relatively early — meaning roughly one-third of the way through. And almost inevitable — meaning it can be derailed if we make some catastrophic political choices.

There are three fundamentally different characteristics of this civilization: One, it will be run totally on digital technologies, smarter and smarter, more and more interconnected computers. Two, it will be totally global and operate on a planetary scale. And three, it will have to be sustainable, in its energy usage and its impact on the planet.

All three of these shifts are well underway and can be tracked and explained by pointing to investments, the morphing of the advanced economy, the positioning of leading companies, and just following what innovative people are doing. In many ways, these developments are happening despite what governments do. Governments can make things better, and accelerate changes, or slow down changes, but they can’t stop them at this macro level. […]

I think Trump ultimately is going to do America and the world a service by becoming the vehicle that will finally take down right-wing conservative politics for a generation or two. […] It will be a caricature of conservative policies. […] I think the backlash will be fast and furious. And it won’t just be Trump that goes down — it will be large swaths of conservative Republicans who will be almost helpless to stop Trump or distance themselves from him. They will pay the price for creating the conditions that created him.

mapBerliner Morgenpost: Es war nicht immer der Osten – Wo Deutschland rechts wählt: „Im September ist Bundestagswahl. Erstmals seit den 50er-Jahren wird eine Partei rechts von der CDU/CSU ins Parlament einziehen. Wir zeigen, in welchen der rund 11.000 Gemeinden bisher rechts gewählt wurde - und unterziehen geläufige Thesen einem Faktencheck.“

Tagesspiegel: AfD-Führung berät über Ausschlussverfahren gegen Höcke: „Thüringens AfD-Chef Björn Höcke hat mit seiner Brandrede in Dresden Empörung ausgelöst. Nun diskutiert der AfD-Vorstand über einen Ausschluss. Einig ist man sich nicht.“ [update] Ofcourse not: „Der AfD-Bundesvorstand hat gegen ein Parteiausschlussverfahren des umstrittenen Thüringer Landeschefs Höcke gestimmt. Es soll jedoch eine Ordnungsmaßnahme geprüft werden.“

Tagesspiegel: Rechtsextremisten zünden Autos an: „Wieder rechtsextremistische Attacken in Neukölln: In der Nacht zu Montag brannten zwei Autos linker Aktivisten aus.“

Telepolis: Die Wächter der Meinungsfreiheit (Wie ich lernte, die Fake-News zu lieben - Teil 4)

Die gesamte Task Force wirkt auf Kritiker so, als hätte des Bundesjustizministerium erfolgreich eine Art Zensur-U-Boot innerhalb der drei großen Portale installiert, das mit Akteuren besetzt ist, die dem Ministerium genehm sind. Immerhin gehört das Ministerium für Justiz und Verbraucherschutz zu den offiziellen Förderern des Vereines "Gesicht zeigen" - ebenso wie das Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, welches auch als Partner für die Amadeu-Antonio-Stiftung fungiert.

Das Ministerium ist auch Projektgeber für Zu den sonstigen Partnern gehören u.a. Eco-Verband der Internetwirtschaft, die Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle Multimedia-Diensteanbieter (FSM) sowie im Bereich "Safer Internet" Einfach ausgedrückt: alle Beteiligten der Task Force sind im Endeffekt mit den Bundesministerien und untereinander "verbandelt". Man kennt sich. Kritik untereinander, was Methoden, Agenden etc. angeht, dürfte sich eher wenig finden.

My dad's friend posted this unironically on Facebook and I don't know how to even start mocking it TBH“:


Counterpunch: Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election:

We are the 99 Percent, except, well, we’re not. Among other things, a two-class model of America deletes the massive disparities that exist between the working-class majority of Americans and the nation’s professional and managerial class. In the U.S. as across the world capitalist system, ordinary working people suffer not just from the elite private and profit-seeking capitalist ownership of workplace and society. They also confront the stark oppression inherent in what left economists Robin Hahnel and Mike Albert call the “corporate division of labor”—an alienating, de-humanizing, and hierarchical subdivision of tasks “in which a few workers have excellent conditions and empowering circumstances, many fall well below that, and most workers have essentially no power at all.”

Guter Twitter-Thread von @meakoopa re:Punching Nazis, aufgeräumt und formatiert für Lesbarkeit:

I just finished a PhD Dissertation about "reason" in relation to the public sphere so wwith apologies I might risk a short thread re: punching nazis because there is an unstated self-evident logic that I feel like might be clarifying.

Every liberal democracy realizes early on there are some positions which must prima facie [at first sight] be aggressively excluded from public discourse. You can't even articulate WHY they are unreasonable because to articulate WHY they are unreasonable is to itself open the possibility of reason. This is why you can't allow "just hypothetical" questions about whether Jews or blacks, as Spencer posits, are innately inferior/destroyable.

Nazi theorists like Carl Schmitt VERY QUICKLY diagnosed this weakness in liberal democracies. You can collapse a democracy by insisting the democracy had a right to end itself: Hindenburg to Hitler, "the peaceful transition of power". Intolerance cannot be tolerated, because this corrosive effect means the law can be co-opted by, and so protective of, fascism.

Fascism wriggles into democracies by insisting on right to be heard, achieves critical mass, then dissolves the organs that installed it, which means the stronger it becomes, it cannot be sufficiently combatted with reason. Because "reason" becomes the state's tool to enforce. The Overton Window becomes weaponized - as we are seeing in @KellyannePolls and @seanspicer's "alternative facts." The state decides.

Liberalism literally cannot see this - its insistence on rule of law, not genocideal lust, is what turned the German people into good Nazis.

Some positions must be excluded from discourse. Some positions you do not listen to - u can only punch. A society that begins to entertain why some members of its polis might not belong invites catastrophic decay. Those voices must be excluded.

TL;DR - punching a nazi is actually a supreme act of democracy becausec it will not tolerate a direct affront of a fellow citizen's citizenship.