Category Archives: Alt-right

The Commission for Countering ExtremismEnd of Year Report, 2021-2022, March 2022Foreword

It was a great honour to be appointed the Interim Commissioner at the Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE) in March 2021.

Extremism is a scourge on our society and the challenges it poses are great: communities divided, viewing each other with mutual suspicion and hatred. A rejection of democratic values and principles. A mindset that justifies or leads to hate crime or terrorism.

My time in office has reinforced my belief that the CCE is uniquely placed to assist government in providing a robust response to extremism in all its forms.

Since being appointed, I have provided advice to the government on the future structure and function of the Commission.

In doing so, I engaged with Ministers, policy officials, law enforcement, intelligence, prison governors, and regulatory bodies. I wanted a clear understanding of the issues they face while addressing extremism whether that is online, in schools, prisons, charities, or elsewhere and to look at the knowledge base on extremism, including with those who have front-line operational roles.

That engagement helped me better understand why there is such a need to increase the awareness of extremism across the public sector and the challenges government faces around engagement, particularly with groups where there is an extremism concern.

I was therefore pleased that the Home Secretary shared my vision of a permanent Commissioner-led body that can provide independent advice and expertise to government.

However, the CCE cannot only be government facing. Coming from a think-tank background, I am aware of the expertise that exists outside government. That is why we continue to engage with think-tanks, civil society groups, and academics, to understand how best to harness fresh and innovative external thinking around counter-extremism.

The CCEs Academic Practitioner Counter Extremism Network (APCEN) plays a vital role here, helping connect practitioners with leading academics specialising in the study of extremism. I am pleased that APCENs membership has grown in the past 12 months and I am considering how best to utilise APCENs expertise and knowledge in the future.

There is much to do. The extremism landscape is dynamic and evolving.

However, the challenges it presents are consistent. We will do all we can to ensure the CCE is at the forefront of addressing them.

Robin Simcox, Interim Commissioner for Countering Extremism

Robin Simcox was appointed as Interim Commissioner for Countering Extremism in March 2021. This appointment was made for an initial six month period, following the conclusion of Dame Sara Khan DBEs three-year tenure as Commissioner.

The important work of the Commission for Countering Extremism will continue, and Im delighted Robin Simcox will bring his expertise and innovative thinking to this role.

The objectives, as set out by the Home Secretary for the Interim Commissioner, required Robin to work across government and with external partners in England and Wales.

Since March 2021, this work has included providing advice to the Home Secretary on the future structure and function of the Commission, raising awareness around extremism in all its forms across the public sector, and considering how best public bodies can be supported in their efforts to disrupt those who seek to sow division in our communities. The Commission has also worked closely with Home Office and other government departments, to support better understanding of extremism across a range of ideologies and behaviours, helping shape policy and advice on departmental counter extremism work.

Part of the Commissions remit requires engagement across the counter extremism sector. In carrying out this work, the Commission has engaged widely across government, regulatory bodies, and law enforcement over the last twelve months. A full list of our engagements can be found at Annex B.

Through this engagement, the Commission has sought to better understand the issues faced in identifying and combatting extremism, and how best we can develop our shared knowledge on extremism. These conversations have highlighted to us the dedication and passion for counter extremism work that exists across the public sector, as well as the continued need for a permanent and independent Commissioner-led body on extremism.

My time as Interim Commissioner for Countering Extremism so far has only served to reinforce my belief that a robust governmental response to extremism is necessary. I have been very heartened to see such Ministerial enthusiasm for the role of the Commission in helping to shape this response, and such willingness across government to harness the Commissions expertise.

Robin Simcox, Interim Commissioner for Countering ExtremismOctober 2021

Over the last 12 months, the Commission has continued to grow its Academic and Practitioner Counter Extremism Network (APCEN), which was set up in October 2020.The Network brings together leading academics with policy officials and practitioners from the counter extremism sector. APCEN works to identify knowledge gaps, share new and emerging trends and research, and facilitate collaborative working and projects between members. APCEN significantly enhances the CCEs ability to provide expert advice and knowledge to government around extremism in England and Wales.

Keeping our country safe and secure is the firstduty of the government. The Commission for Countering Extremism holds a vital role in our national securityYour work is challenging. Your work makes a difference, both at home and abroad.

The Rt Hon Priti Patel MP, Home SecretaryFebruary 2022

In February 2022, the Commission hosted the first CCE Conference, bringing together government policy officials, academics, and public sector practitioners to consider how extremism manifests itself in the UK today and how best the sector should be responding. Panels included in-depth conversations on online harms, children and education, and prisons.

As an independent, arms-length body of the Home Office, our budget and spending is negotiated with the Home Office and is subject to Home Office finance policy and HM Treasury rules, including value for public money, and follow systems and processes for HR and procurement. The Commissions budget allocation and expenditure is in Annex A.

The Commission also recognises the importance of transparency. While we are not covered by the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, to support transparency in our work we respond to all appropriate requests that come direct to us, or via the Home Office. The Commission received seven FOI requests over the last 12 months and responded to all of them.

Robin Simcox starts in-post as Interim Commissioner, immediately beginning engagement with key stakeholders, both in and outside of government.

Robin presents his vision for the CCE to Munira Mirza, then Director of the No 10 Policy Unit, outlining his views on future government policy and the issues currently being faced by counter extremism practitioners.

Robin continues his engagement across the sector. Meetings include Counter- Terrorism Policing, and William Shawcross, Independent Reviewer of Prevent.

Robin meets with Baroness Williams of Trafford, Minister of State, to outline his priorities and future vision for the Commission.

Robin posts his first online CCE blog as Interim Commissioner.

Robins engagement across the sector includes visits to HMP Wandsworth and HMP Belmarsh. Meetings include the Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group, Antisemitism Policy Trust, and several leading academics.

Robin meets Rt Hon Priti Patel MP, Home Secretary to deliver advice and insights on key issues and challenges for government in countering extremism.

Robin takes part in a panel discussion on terrorism and extremism alongside Lord Carlile of Berriew CBE QC and Sir Alex Younger, as part of CEGs Young Leaders in National Security Fellowship.

Robin meets representatives from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and discusses extremism faced by the community, during a tour of the Baitul Futuh Mosque.

Robin delivers a speech on the work of the Commission and its aims to the University of Salford.

The Commissions Academic and Practitioner Counter Extremism Network marks the end of its successful twelve month pilot phase.

Robin meets Damien Hinds MP, Minister for Security, to discuss extremist threats and express the urgent need for a robust response to extremism.

Robin posts his second CCE blog, reflecting on his first six months in post.

Alongside advisory engagement with policy officials, Robin continues to engage academics across the country, to better harness innovation and insights from academia and think tanks. Themes discussed include the Far Right and the effectiveness of laws around proscription.

The Commission attend and feed into several cross-government roundtables and advisory meetings.

Robin receives presentations on Salafism and alt-right online subcultures.

The Commission hosts its first ever panel event, bringing the Home Secretary, senior policy officials, academics and practitioners together to share knowledge and insights.

The Commissions budget for Financial Year 2021/22 is 1,000,000 per annum. This is in line with (HMT) Guidance on Managing Public Money (the consent for our expenditurewas based on HMT consent under the guidance in Box 2.6),[footnote 2] and agreement from the Home Office.

Up to the end of January 2022, the Commission has spent 402,598.22.

The Financial end of year forecast for 2021/22 is c846,000. This includes pay andnon-pay, CCE projects, legal fees, IT and accommodation, and 300k underspend accrued due to delays in staff recruitment returned to Home Office Finance on 21/01/22.

Robin Simcox claimed 62.93 in expenses from April 2021 to the end of February 2022.

To respect data protection requirements, organisations names are listed rather than academics.

The Interim Commissioners engagement includes one-to-one meetings, workshops, conferences, and group discussions.

No.10

Home Office

Security Services

Ofsted

Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office

HM Prisons and Probations Service

Department for Education

Hate Crime Policing

Ofcom

Counter Terrorism Policing

Department for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities

Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport

Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group

Charity Commission

Independent Press Standards Office

Lord Carlile of Berriew CBE QC

HMP Wandsworth

HMP Belmarsh

Local Government Authority

The Prime Ministers Independent Advisor on Social Cohesion & Resilience

The Independent Reviewer of Prevent

The Independent Faith Engagement Advisor

The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation

The Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (as Secretary of State for the Home Department)

Damian Hinds MP (as Minister of State for Security and Borders)

Baroness Williams of Trafford (as Minister of State Home Office)

Jane Hutt MS (as Minister for Social Justice, Wales)

University College London

Coventry University

University of Salford

Anglia Ruskin University

Kings College London

Swansea University

University of Huddersfield

Brunel University

University of Birmingham

University of Kent

Tech Against Terrorism

CREST Advisory

Centre for Countering Digital Hate

Moonshot

Unity Initiative

APCEN

Public.IO

Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right

Veritable Analytics

REOC Communications

Policy Exchange

Institute for Strategic Dialogue

Counter Extremism Group

Read more here:

End of year report, 2021 to 2022 (accessible) - GOV.UK

The last programming that viewers of RT America saw, on the morning of March 1, was a half hour of BoomBu$tthe Russian-funded networks business show. That day, cohost Rachel Blevins, a 27-year-old from Mineral Wells, an hour west of Fort Worth, had led with a roundup of economic fallout from Western sanctions against Russia over, as she put it, its ongoing military operation in Ukraine, using Vladimir Putins euphemism for his war.

Though that days coverage of the conflict on BoomBu$t was mellow compared to the previous RT America show, which had featured one guest averring that not all Ukrainians are Nazis and another complaining that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky was being hailed as a hero. Blevins focused on the negative impacts from the sanctions: higher oil prices, a potential 2008-style global financial crisis, recession fears, and even tensions over the International Space Station. Next: a plug for The World According to Jessehosted by Jesse Ventura, the wrestler, conspiracy theorist, and former Minnesota governorfollowed by a cheeky house ad that said, RT is not alt-left or alt-right, but we are a solid alternative to the bullshit. Then, abruptly, the screen went dark and a message appeared: This channel is no longer available. DirecTV.

It was another blow to a network that was seeing its reach drastically curtailed due to government bans in Europe (an EU ban took effect the next day) and restrictions imposed by big tech companies such as Facebook and TikTok. Two days later, RT America announced that it was suspending its operations altogether. Launched in 2010, the channel was the Washington, D.C.based offshoot of the network formerly known as Russia Today. RT had begun broadcasting in 2005, soon expanding into a globe-spanning network of TV channels and digital media funded by the Russian government and run by close affiliates of Vladimir Putin. RT America became a home for iconoclasts, second-act pundits, and opportunistic apparatchiks, many of whom pretended not to notice their employers alignment with the Kremlin.

Blevins, along with most of the staff, was out of a job. She hadnt been the most prominent host at RT America, but she was one of its most loyal. She started working at RT America in 2018, just over a year after graduating from Texas Tech University with a degree in journalism. Her last BoomBu$t show was her 196th. In the early days of Russias invasion, Blevinss coverage had been highly diversionary; while the Russian military pressed into Ukraine on February 25, the second day of what RT called a special operation, Blevins led the program with a story about a Russian investigation into genocide in the breakaway Donbas region of Ukraine that had purportedly been carried out by Ukrainian neofascists. Analysts had warned just a week before that Putin would use exactly such a fabrication in order to justify invading Ukraine, as he had done in the lead-up to the annexation of Crimea in 2014.

As RT was systematically deplatformed in Europe and America, Blevins became one of the loudest voices defending her employer. On Twitter, she batted back at a legion of critics who saw her as a fitting target for their rage over RT and Russias war. A representative example: Your profile bio has a typo, it says Opinions are my own, it should say Opinion are from Vlad. Fixed it for you, I take payments in euros or dollars (sorry no rubles atm).

On February 27, as Russian troops bore down on Ukraine, Blevins took to Rokfin.coman Austin-based subscription platform similar to Patreon that mostly features wrestling and conspiracy contentto address RT critics. Ive never been told by RT what I should or shouldnt say. Ive never been told I needed to follow any sort of narrative and thats why I work for the network I work for, she said. She went on to defend the way RT covered the war in Ukraine, referring to the so-called invasion and linking the conflict to U.S. policy. For all the people sitting there saying, Well, Ukraine is a sovereign country, they should be able to do what they want to dowell, to a certain extent, sure, however, thats not whats happening now. Ukraine is not acting as a sovereign nation...it is acting under the influence of NATO.

On February 28, when Twitter slapped a label on her account warning that it constituted Russian-affiliated state media, Blevins fired back, insisting that she is an individual journalist who does not speak for Russia or Russian media. After being bombarded by what she describes as a flurry of hate mail, Blevins deleted the tweet only to surface the next day to address her critics. If youre one of the people pushing to ban RT and threatening myself and my colleaguesI hope you know that youre not achieving what you think you are. And when RT America shut down on March 3, she was one of the few RT employees to speak out, writing on Twitter that she was heartbroken and signing off with a George Orwell quote: Journalism is printing what someone else does not want publishedeverything else is public relations. When I talked to her on the phone the next day, she said she felt as if she was in a nightmare I still havent woken up from.

Blevins, for all her pro-Kremlin messaging, had never quite fit the stereotype that might leap to mind when one thinks of Putins American puppets. For lack of a better term, she came across as a normal young American journalist, passionate and seemingly sincere. But shed been with RT America for three and a half years, and she continues to vociferously defend its journalism. All of which raises some questions, foremost among them: how did a young woman from a small town in Texas end up as the face of RT America as the network spectacularly imploded?

Blevinss family moved from Colorado to Mineral Wells, an economically struggling town of around 15,000, when she was eleven. She attended Community Christian School, a small, private religious institution, where she graduated as valedictorian in 2013. A scholarship landed her at Texas Tech, where she began taking journalism classes. After her professors warned that young journalists usually have to toil for years covering local crime and local elections, Blevins said she planned to switch majorsthat is, until one of her professors assigned her and her classmates to conduct an official interview with a source. She chose the topic of government control of media. Her father, a regular listener of talk radio, suggested she interview Ben Swann, a TV journalist originally from El Paso who has alternated between stints as an award-winning major-market local TV anchor and an enthusiastic promulgator of conspiracy theoriessometimes at the same time. When they met, Swann had a short-lived radio show on the Republic Broadcasting Network, a fringe Texas-based outlet that has repeatedly featured hard-core white supremacists and Holocaust deniers.

Blevins says the interview helped open her eyes to what she terms independent journalists and independent networks. Facebooks algorithm had catalyzed the explosive growth of viral content farms, many of them seat-of-the-pants publishers that specialized in sensational and conspiratorial storiesand it just so happened that Swann was launching a website, Truth in Media, that needed writers. I was kind of in the place of saying, Okay, well, I dont have much experience, but I can try. And so I started out writing for him. By June, she was regularly freelancing for the site.

Swann was also a regular guest on RT America at the time, sometimes echoing Kremlin propaganda. In one 2014 segment, he averred that any credible evidence does not seem to exist that Russian-backed insurgents in Ukraine were responsible for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17an argument that was part of a larger campaign by Putin and RT to sow confusion about who was responsible for the 298 deaths that resulted. (An RT reporter resigned on air in disgust over the outlets coverage of the incident.) Years later, when Blevins had her own RT America show, Swann would pop up as a guest; in one of her last shows, he was introduced as a crypto analyst.

It didnt take long for Blevins to get noticed by RT higher-ups. Just a few months into her freelancing gig at Truth in Media, during the fall semester of her sophomore year, the news director for RT America saw one of Blevinss stories and reached out to offer her a job as a reporter. I said, Hey, Im still in college; Im going to get this degree. I will reach back out, and lets keep in touch and basically keep the networking going until I graduate. The offer might seem odd, or premature, but it was standard practice for RT. A 2020 Oxford study, based on interviews with 23 RT journalists, found that the networks management deliberately recruited journalists with little to no experience, in order to be able to mold the newly hired journalists and shape their minds.

The Truth in Media site no longer exists, but from what I could find, Blevinss work was fairly tamemostly write-ups of headline news with a libertarian bent. But it introduced her to a wider community of conspiracy-prone, Russia-credulous outlets. Soon she was freelancing for two more such sites, the Free Thought Project and We Are Change, the latter of which is run by Luke Rudkowski, an associate of Alex Jones who got his start as a leader of the 9/11 Truth movement in New York and came to viral YouTube fame in 2007 for yelling that former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski was New World Order scum. Blevins produced stories that mostly focused on police brutality in the U.S. and American atrocities abroad, but bore the hallmarks of the RT style: persistent whataboutism, fury at the mainstream media, and a reflexively pro-Putin posture.

For a newsletter for Texas Techs College of Media and Communication, Blevins was writing articles with headlines like Department of Public Relations Presents Student and Faculty Member of the Year Awards. At the same time, for We Are Change, she was writing articles with all-caps headlines like WHY ITS TIME FOR THE WASHINGTON POST TO GIVE UP THE ANTI-RUSSIA CAMPAIGN, WHY THE U.S. IS DEMONIZING RUSSIA TO COVER UP FAILURE IN SYRIA, and RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN WARNS DONALD TRUMP OF COUP DETAT, the latter of which published in January 2017 and argues in the lede that Putins latest sensational comments put the nail in the coffin of this whole Russian hacking scandal that we have been hearing about for the past two months.

Two Texas Tech journalism professors I spoke to said they knew nothing about Blevinss unusual freelance gigs during her time there. But they praised her as a top student. She was one of the sharpest young girls that came through the program, said Mary Ann Edwards, who taught her news writing. She was diligent; she was so conscientious about everything she did. Professor Randy Reddick recalled that she got a 94 on a paper criticizing media coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign. His main criticism to her: Be careful, this is opinionatedyou might rephrase.

After graduating in 2017, Blevins kept churning out freelance pieces as well as making her own videos for Facebookat least until the platform began cracking down on misinformation in the wake of Trumps election. In 2018, Facebook scrubbed the Free Thought Projectwhich was reaching 20 to 30 million people per week, according to one of its foundersfrom the platform. Later it zapped Blevinss own Facebook page, where she had accumulated close to 70,000 followers and posted videos, some of which she claims had a million views. With her freelance work drying up, Blevins turned to her next best option: the network that had made her an offer three years earlier.

I was reaching out to RT America, saying, Hey, you know, Ive been very vocal about foreign policy. Ive been very vocal in my frustration with some of the things that the U.S. government is doing and with the way the media landscape is today. And for me, RT America was the only option where I could actually cover the stories that I was passionate about, and it was the only place where I was seeing that coverage happen. She got the gig.

Part of the appeal for Blevins, she says, was RTs version of the old Fox News Fair and Balanced slogan: Question more. And indeed, RT wasnt left-wing or right-wing in the style of so many U.S. outlets. Thats because, as RTs own top leaders have acknowledged, the outlet is intended to impress Kremlin talking points on its audiences, particularly during times of war, and to sow division among Americans. It attracted American viewersand some of its editorial staffthrough a resonant critique of the failings and moral outrages of mainstream media and U.S. foreign policy. On some days, RT sounded like Noam Chomsky, on others, like Steve Bannon. The one constant theme was that America is a failing empirea contention that many Americans find appealing and absent from mainstream media.

Plus, as Bloomberg put it in 2017, referring to another young RT America anchor: Where else on cable news could a 27-year-old inveigh against U.S. imperialism on a nightly basis?

In conversations I had with Blevins, she had no qualms about working for RT and seemed mostly mystified by the backlash toward the networks coverage of the war in Ukraine.

It frustrates me that taking the stance of providing context to a conflict is automatically seen as supporting that conflict or supporting what the Russian military is doing, said Blevins, who calls herself incredibly anti-war. She added: And I think that its frustrating to come from a standpoint of everything has to be one way or the other. Everything has to be left or right, right or wrong, whatever.

Does Blevins really think Putin invaded Ukraine to fight Nazis? Had she used the Kremlins euphemistic phrase military operation because that was the Kremlins preferred phrasing for its war?

She admits to being surprised that Russia actually went through with an invasion, but cant quite process the criticism over the networks terminology. It feels like Im in a place where I cant win, she said. Every single thing I say, every term I use is going to be blown up in one way or another. And at the time, RT as a whole had been using that phrasing, and that was what we continued to use for our show just because we were in a position of trying to find the best way to navigate it, and we may not have chosen the best way to navigate it.

Blevins kept returning to context she said had been omitted by the mainstream media. In her account, its the U.S., not Russia, who is the primary aggressor. Russia did not wake up and decide that it was going to just take over Ukraine. I dont necessarily think that theyre fighting to take over Ukraine from what Ive heard and from what Ive paid attention to. But the way that the media coverage has been, that, you know, Putin is someone who wants to go in there and to overthrow the Ukrainian government and to install someone who he agrees with. And what weve actually seen happen is that the Russian government has two main demands from the moment that they lead this invasion in the country. Their demands have been that Ukraine be a neutral state and that it be a demilitarized state.

Moreover, she said, the U.S. media had turned a blind eye to the American financing of neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Russia understands the threat of having Nazis on their doorstep, she said. Exaggerating the threat of the far right in Ukrainewhich elected a Jewish president, Zelensky, in 2019 has been a consistent Kremlin messaging tactic at least since Russias annexation of Crimea in 2014. Like most propaganda, there is an element of truthUkrainian nationalists with neo-Nazi views played a prominent role in fighting Russia in the Donbas region in 2014. But outside Russia and the hallways of RT, Putins claim that his goal in waging war on Ukraine to denazify the country is greeted with ridicule.

With RT America off the air, perhaps forever, Blevins is trying to reboot as a freelancer. Her Twitter account, still bearing that Russian-affiliated state media label, looks scarcely different than it did when she was employed by RT. Shes making weekly videos for a tiny paying audience on Rokfin; the most recent had her explaining to fans that she had struggled with my coverage of the Ukraine conflict and conceding that she may not personally agree with exactly the way [Russia] has gone about invading Ukraine, while arguing again that Putin is taking on neo-Nazis.

But as for her time at RT, she says she has few regrets. The opportunities that I was given theregoing from being straight out of college into a reporter position, then going on to hosting an international business-finance showthose are opportunities I would not have gotten anywhere else, she said. I will always be so grateful for that.

More here:

How a 27-Year-Old Texan Became the Face of Russias American TV Network As It Imploded - Texas Monthly

As millions of Brazilians watched the live images of the U.S. Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, in disbelief, many commentators in the United States and Brazil were quick to agree that then-U.S. President Donald Trump had overplayed his hand. They believed the attackwhich failed to accomplish its objective of obstructing a democratic transition of powerwould damage the outgoing presidents political fortunes and complicate the U.S. Republican Partys future.

One year later, however, the way Brazilians interpret that day and its meaning has changed as the Republican Partywhich failed to condemn Trump and now propagates an increasingly revisionist narrative about the Jan. 6 eventslooks set to take back control of the U.S. Congress in Novembers midterm elections. Guga Chacra, an influential Brazilian political commentator, flatly stated in a recent analysis that we were wrong to assume Trump would be ostracized in the attacks aftermath, pointing out that the Capitol invasion didnt debilitate Trump. This shift in perspective among Brazilians is buttressed by the real possibility of Trump returning to the White House in 2025.

Today, Trumps decision to incite a violent mob to disrupt an electoral certification process no longer looks like a high-risk gamble but one of several carefully planned steps to consolidate the false narrative of a rigged election among his followers and maintain control of the Republican Party. Indeed, while the Democratic Party is currently in power at the national level, Trump retains de facto control of the GOP and its agenda. On Feb. 4, the GOP declared the Jan. 6, 2021, riots legitimate political discourse and censured Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for taking part in Congresss inquiry into the attacks.

As millions of Brazilians watched the live images of the U.S. Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, in disbelief, many commentators in the United States and Brazil were quick to agree that then-U.S. President Donald Trump had overplayed his hand. They believed the attackwhich failed to accomplish its objective of obstructing a democratic transition of powerwould damage the outgoing presidents political fortunes and complicate the U.S. Republican Partys future.

One year later, however, the way Brazilians interpret that day and its meaning has changed as the Republican Partywhich failed to condemn Trump and now propagates an increasingly revisionist narrative about the Jan. 6 eventslooks set to take back control of the U.S. Congress in Novembers midterm elections. Guga Chacra, an influential Brazilian political commentator, flatly stated in a recent analysis that we were wrong to assume Trump would be ostracized in the attacks aftermath, pointing out that the Capitol invasion didnt debilitate Trump. This shift in perspective among Brazilians is buttressed by the real possibility of Trump returning to the White House in 2025.

Today, Trumps decision to incite a violent mob to disrupt an electoral certification process no longer looks like a high-risk gamble but one of several carefully planned steps to consolidate the false narrative of a rigged election among his followers and maintain control of the Republican Party. Indeed, while the Democratic Party is currently in power at the national level, Trump retains de facto control of the GOP and its agenda. On Feb. 4, the GOP declared the Jan. 6, 2021, riots legitimate political discourse and censured Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for taking part in Congresss inquiry into the attacks.

Taken as a whole, the remarkable successes of Trumps party in controlling the narrative surrounding Jan. 6 since his tumultuous exit from the White House makes emulating his strategy seem all the more attractiveand far less risky.

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is no doubt watching closely. Bolsonaro has never hidden his authoritarian ambitions and admiration for Trump, whom he described as his greatest international ally. Ahead of the 2020 U.S. election, Bolsonaro often expressed his hope that Trump would win reelection. This year, the Trump of the Tropics, as Bolsonaro is often called abroad, is headed into a presidential election of his own.

In addition to frequently embracing Trumps argument that the 2020 U.S. election was rigged, Bolsonaro has eagerly promoted conspiracy theories about Brazils electoral system in recent years, leading electoral officials to say they consider a challenge by Bolsonaro to the outcome of Octobers vote inevitable. In particular, Bolsonaro seeks to systematically discredit electronic voting, which has been used across Brazil since 1996.

Bolsonaro frequently argues without evidence that Brazils electoral system is susceptible to fraud, calling for the reintroduction of paper ballots. After Jan. 6, 2021, Bolsonaro warned supporters, If we dont have the ballot printed in 2022, a way to audit the votes, were going to have bigger problems than the U.S. Pro-Bolsonaro WhatsApp and Telegram groups are rife with fearmongering about election fraud.

For Bolsonaro, the events of Jan. 6 initially held more lessons of what to avoid than what to emulate. To succeed where Trump had not, the Brazilian president would have to co-opt the armed forces, further erode public trust in the electoral system, and mobilize a larger number of followers to act. Although all of these options seemed possible, they could have posed serious risks for Bolsonaro and his family, such as being prosecuted for sedition or losing control over Brazils conservative camp.

In the aftermath of Jan. 6, Bolsonaros son Eduardoa congressmanfocused on the attackers mistakes while presiding over the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies Commission on Foreign Affairs and National Defense. The younger Bolsonaro said if the invaders had been better organized, they would have taken the Capitol, ominously adding that if the riotersdescribed as good citizens by Ernesto Arajo, Brazils foreign minister at the timewould have had a minimal war power [none of them] would have died, allowing them to [kill] all the police inside or the congressmen they all hate.

But now, the second coming of Trumps party may lead Bolsonaro and his advisors to believe that rejecting electoral resultseven if futile where maintaining power is concernedcould provide him with long-term benefits, including by helping to consolidate a core cadre of loyalists. After all, the fact that the Republican Party today remains in lockstep with Trump despite his 2020 electoral loss suggests Bolsonaro could utilize his own stop the steal myth to prevent the emergence of rival politicians on the right, labeling anyone who accepts his opponents victory as a traitorous false conservative.

Put differently, Bolsonaro may now reason that, even if he incites an armed revolt that ultimately fails to prevent the transition of power after an electoral loss in October, doing so could still be worth it.

Pollsters agree that Bolsonaros chances of winning reelection in October against his likely opponent, leftist former Brazilian President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva, are relatively low. Current polls show Lula, who governed Brazil from 2003 to 2010, ahead by 9 percentage points. Yet despite the Bolsonaro governments numerous woesa pandemic response likened to a crime against humanity and a sluggish economic recoverypolls have started tightening in recent weeks, and even Lula allies publicly acknowledge that the presidents approval ratings are likely to improve as public spending increases ahead of the election. A narrow loss, then, would make Bolsonaros claims of voter fraud seem more credible in the eyes of supporters.

Granted, Brazils electoral system is not like the United States. Unlike the United States, Brazil has a Superior Electoral Court, which concentrates the authority to confirm electoral results and is less vulnerable to outside pressure. Due to the absence of an electoral college, Bolsonaro and his supporters also cannot bully lowly state officials into submission to sow confusion about an electoral results legitimacy. Moreover, the Brazilian president lacks firm control over a large national political party, which Trump has achieved. And Brazils multi- (rather than two-) party landscape may make it more difficult for Bolsonaro to monopolize his influence among conservative voters.

Still, if Bolsonaro loses Octobers election and refuses to accept the resultwhich I believe to be the most likely scenario as of nowhe may succeed in turning support for his narrative into a proxy for patriotism in the eyes of his followers. Erstwhile Bolsonaro allies in Brazil who broke with him to position themselves as center-right presidential candidates are so far faring just as badly as U.S. Republicans who questioned Trumps claim that the 2020 U.S. election was stolen. Both Sergio Moro, Bolsonaros former justice and public security minister, and Joo Doria, governor of So Paulowhose views are comparable to those of the Republican Partys moderate wingare currently stuck in a political no mans land, vilified by both the left and Bolsonaros supporters. Despite Dorias notable successes as governorincluding taking the lead on vaccine procurement while Bolsonaro embraced COVID-19 denialismpolls suggest fewer than 5 percent of Brazilians support his presidential bid.

Even without an insurrection, Bolsonaros quest to undermine public trust in the Brazilian electoral process poses a severe threat to the countrys democracy. Assuming he will cry fraud if he loses in October, millions of Brazilians will not consider the presidents successor legitimate. A poll conducted last year confirms that the percentage of Brazilians who share Bolsonaros concerns about electronic votingseen by the vast majority of specialists as baselessis on the rise, currently standing at more than 45 percent.

What is particularly worrisome in this contextand what makes copying Trumps strategy even more attractive to Bolsonarois that parts of Brazils armed forces are eagerly embracing Bolsonaros narrative about possible voter fraud and his call for electoral reform to reintroduce paper ballots. Last year, Brazils defense minister, Gen. Walter Souza Braga Netto, reportedly told the president of Brazils Chamber of Deputies, Arthur Lira, that the Bolsonaro government would not allow the 2022 elections to go ahead without the reform. The day before Brazils National Congress voted on the proposalintroduced by a Bolsonaro allythe armed forces organized a military parade outside the legislature, a gesture largely understood as another thinly veiled threat. Refusing to be bullied, lawmakers rejected the measures, which experts believe would have sown the seeds of chaos on election day.

Brazils armed forces are unlikely to support a classic self-coup that involves surrounding its National Congress and the Supreme Federal Court with tanks. However, provided that the elections are close, a narrative about voter fraud similar to that promoted by Trump in the United States may allow pro-Bolsonaro elements in the security forces to frame their support for the president as a defense of democratic order. This may involve appealing the results in court, asking for a rerun of the vote, or declaring a state of emergency should protests break out. Some generals have publicly criticized the president, yet generous budget increases and access to power assure most continue to support Bolsonaro, who likes to refer to the military as my armed forces.

There are currently more than 6,000 members of the armed forces working in the Bolsonaro government, about half of whom are on active duty, and some are concerned that Lula could adopt a revanchist posture vis-a-vis the armed forces if elected. The former presidents attempts to reach out to the armed forces have so far been unsuccessful. Lula recently commented that the armed forces would return to the barracks in his governmentmeaning many would lose their political appointments.

Just like in the United States, countless Bolsonaro supporters are thus susceptible to considering a violent post-election insurrection not as an attack on democracy but as a heroic attempt to defend a righteous leader from a corrupted system. In this context, Bolsonaros attempts to centralize power over the military could be interpreted as setting the stage for a coordinated uprising after the election, if needed. The Brazilian president has also overseen the deregulation of gun ownership in the country, which worries many observers.

Bolsonaro and his allies do not even need to study Trumps strategy from afar. Brazil has become a global battleground for the proliferation of U.S. alt-right values, and Trump strategists and supporters like Steve Bannon, Jason Miller, and Mike Lindell have established an ample dialogue with the Bolsonaro administration.

At a cyber symposium in August 2021 organized by Lindell and attended by Eduardo Bolsonaro, Bannon described Brazils upcoming presidential elections as the second most important election in the world (presumably after those of the United States) and predicted that Bolsonaro would win unless the election were stolen. Donald Trump Jr., who also attended the meeting remotely, argued that Brazil provided hope for the conservative movement.

Although its tempting to focus on Brazils risk of experiencing its own Jan. 6 in the aftermath of its 2022 presidential elections, the true lesson Bolsonaro derives from Trumps staying power is that eroding democracy is a long-term effort, involving years of systematically sowing seeds that may produce tangible results down the line. The specter of a Trump-dominated Republican Party triumphing in November could thus provide even greater inspiration to Bolsonaro and other populists with authoritarian tendencies than the 2016 election that brought Trump to poweror even the 2021 attack that saw him out.

Read more here:

Challenging an Election Trump-Style Looks Attractive to Brazil's Bolsonaro - Foreign Policy

The Power of the Dog, the story of a troubled family of ranchers in 1920s Montana, is an essay in dysfunction, a film in the business of upending social and generic norms. It is a hugely satisfying, intriguing, stimulating drama with a whiplash of an ending that took us from the realm of alt-western to alt-body horror. It was this films mythic quality, its dreamlike knights-move away from the world generally represented in westerns, that no doubt resonated with Bafta voters, who awarded it best film and gave best director for the increasingly celebrated Jane Campion.

On an evening that celebrated dissident, revisionist westerns, the outstanding debut prize went to the ultraviolent gonzo revenge movie The Harder They Fall, starring Jonathan Majors, Zazie Beetz and Idris Elba. It is a headbangingly, flesh-splatteringly freaky debut from Jeymes Samuel that reclaims the African American side of the genre. The drumbeat of brutality became a bit too uniform for me, but it is stylishly made.

Denis Villeneuves colossal science fiction adventure Dune, taken from Frank Herberts classic novel, is a big film in every way and appropriately it was a huge winner at the Baftas, including for Hans Zimmers thrumming musical score. This was a movie that benefited from the reopening of cinemas, a movie about a doomed colonial tyranny on a mineral-rich planet, a movie whose ineffable vastness has to be experienced on the big screen. These awards feel like justice, although they might reinforce the impression that Dune was a cloudy impressionistic experience: one giant visual effect whose actual narrative is fading in the memory. But its a massively audacious film and part of a vibrant tradition of epic movies.

I was very pleased to Kenneth Branaghs enormously warm subversively warm movie Belfast pick up best British film, and maybe its a measure of how emollient this movie is that labelling a film about the Troubles as British isnt as controversial as it might have been. This is a film whose streak of sentimentality has alienated some: some Belfast-dwellers have written it off as inauthentic, others from Belfast have found it entirely real. I personally responded to its richness and heartfelt humanity.

As far as the acting prizes went, Joanna Scanlans Bafta for best actress in the fascinating After Love was a reward for work of the very highest quality: a complex, painfully real and honest study of a woman who makes terrible discoveries about her husband after he has died. It is a career-best for Scanlan, and hugely well deserved.

Will Smiths best actor Bafta for King Richard (beating the early favourite, Benedict Cumberbatch for The Power of the Dog) was a testament to his old-fashioned movie-star potency and an emotional connection to movie audiences. Its impossible to overstate just how much warmth Smith can generate in the right role and this one was the juiciest.

The crowdpleasing heart-of-gold dramedy Coda (remade from the French film La Famille Blier) had a really good night, with wins for best adapted screenplay and supporting actor. It is a film about a young hearing girl with hearing-impaired parents: a CODA or child of deaf adults. Its a movie widely felt to be well-intentioned if a tad micro-engineered perhaps it played well on streaming video with Bafta voters at home. Ariana DeBose was a thoroughly deserving winner of the best supporting actress prize for her fiercely engaged and theatrically exuberant performance in Spielbergs West Side Story.

Elsewhere, it was good to see Paul Thomas Anderson win best original screenplay for his satirically outrageous and gorgeously atmospheric age-gap comedy Licorice Pizza, set in 70s LA. It deserved more, but this unclassifiably brilliant film was always in danger of slipping through the cracks entirely. And it was pleasing to see Ryusuke Hamaguchis wonderfully intelligent Murakami adaptation Drive My Car named as best foreign-language film.

I was sad to see nothing for Guillermo del Toros noir thriller Nightmare Alley (a film superior to his much prize-garlanded The Shape of Water) and nothing for Joel Coens outstanding version of Shakespeares Macbeth. But this was a well-judged and satisfying Bafta list of winners.

Join Peter Bradshaw and fellow Guardian film critics for a Guardian Live online event ahead of the Oscars on Thursday 24 March.

See the rest here:

Jane Campion leads roll-call of worthy winners as Baftas hit all the right notes - The Guardian

2022 has not started off well for Joe Rogan even before the headline-grabbing Spotify controversy that has made him a perhaps unwitting figurehead for extremist rhetoric. First, hundreds of health experts complained that he was frequently spreading Covid-19 misinformation through his massively popular podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. Then a jaw-dropping compilation video of Rogan saying the n-word 24 times in his 12 years hosting the podcast surfaced.

These things seem like the hallmarks of a far-right ideologue, but Rogan, who called Barack Obama the best president we have had in our lifetime, cant easily be pigeonholed as racist. He also cant be easily pigeonholed as an anti-science bigot, despite having made misogynistic, anti-feminist, fatphobic, homophobic, transphobic, and anti-vax statements. Its not even easy to peg the podcaster, who famously endorsed progressive candidate Bernie Sanders in the 2020 election (before anti-endorsing Biden), as right-wing.

In fact, one of the things that makes Joe Rogan so popular among his millions of fans is that his politics are so difficult to pin down. Rather than simply and easily slotting into a box labeled conservative, liberal, or even reactionary, he mainly holds both the far right and the far left in contempt; depending on which day you check in, hes either a left-leaning centrist or a right-leaning libertarian. But his contrarian tendencies lead him to embrace and toy with lots of ideas, including those from the fringe.

As his critics are quick to point out, in portraying himself as open-minded, Rogan platforms a lot of people whose ideas are dangerous. And without a background in journalism or seemingly any type of journalistic editorial oversight, Rogan, who has spent most of his podcasting career as a fully independent media host, hasnt always been the best person to critique or fact-check his highly influential guests.

When Rogans more polarizing guests and their unchecked influence join with his own long history of saying offensive things, the results can be grim. Alongside the reasoned political debates and philosophical arguments, his massive audience of primarily mainstream, middle-American men gets dosed with toxicity and extremism. Rogan is always quick to defend his shows content in the name of free speech and preserving the voices of straight white men. But as the New York Times noted in a 2021 profile of Rogan, while his self-deprecating brand of authenticity has made his listeners view him as just another regular guy, his influence has grown hulking, enough to make him one of the most formidable single voices in media to exist maybe ever.

What we have, then, is a problem that is both unique to the internet and reflective of the giant problem of the internet as a whole: Like the internet itself, Rogan and whatever dangerous misinformation, conspiracy theories, jerky bigotry, or offensive views he wants to serve up today are all unstoppable and essentially answerable to no one. He has all of the audience, money, attention, and prestige of a traditional gatekeeper, but with barely any real pressure to assume responsibility for repeatedly making high-profile mistakes on the job.

The publics growing lack of trust in traditional journalism and legacy media outlets a wariness evinced by media throne usurpers like Rogan himself has made it even less likely for him to be effectively held accountable or face real consequences for repeated mistakes. After all, fans who are already prone to distrust the media are hardly going to support the journalism they dislike for trying to call out the podcaster they do like especially not for what they see as foibles rather than serious flaws.

That, too, is a unique problem: If Rogans audience doesnt agree that his guests or his rhetoric are problems to begin with, or that his pattern of platforming bigotry and misinformation is an issue, then whos to say theyre wrong?

Rogans exclusive Spotify deal, announced in May 2020, should have been an easy win for the company, which has been investing heavily in expanding its podcast content across a wide variety of genres and target audiences. The deal, which was initially reported as netting Rogan around $100 million but was recently reported as closer to $200 million, placed the vast majority of Rogans staggering episode vault currently up to nearly 1,800 eps exclusively on the Spotify platform.

But from the beginning, there were issues. Spotify quietly had Rogan remove about a dozen episodes interviews Rogan had done with alt-right figures like Milo Yiannopoulos and with Gavin McInnes, founder of the extreme-right Proud Boys movement. The Times recently reported that Spotify staff had vocalized their concerns about Rogans content as early as September 2020.

Then came Rogans increasingly skeptical views on generally accepted Covid-19 medical advice. On the show, Rogan advised young adults not to get vaccinated, claimed to be treating himself with harmful rogue treatments including an animal dewormer not recommended for Covid-19, and hosted anti-vax guests. The scientific communitys response to his spread of misinformation peaked in January with the open letter to Spotify. In response to the physicians criticism, legendary rock musician Neil Young protested Rogan by pulling all of his music from Spotify.

It was a jarring callout for Rogan, whose fans say they love him for being a moderated, reasoned voice in the middle of an increasingly polarized media space. And that fan base is enormous: His own estimates put the shows regular listening audience big enough to rival the Super Bowl, although those numbers are self-reported. And while his influence may have declined since moving to the platform, a Spotify spokesperson told Business Insider that Rogans listenership had actually grown since his move to Spotify.

The Neil Young controversy had barely been doused Rogan apologized, sort of, explaining, Im not a doctor, Im a fucking moron before another erupted. This time, another musician, India Arie, threatened to pull her music from Spotify over Rogan, sharing on her Instagram the video of Rogan saying the n-word 24 times on the podcast. In his subsequent apology, Rogan admitted that hed previously had a long history of saying the actual racial slur instead of saying the n-word.

I thought as long as it was in context, people would understand what I was doing, he said. But it is not my word to use. Im well aware of that now ... I never used it to be racist because Im not racist, but whenever youre in a situation where you have to say, Im not racist, you fucked up.

In response to the video and Rogans apology, Spotify asked Rogan to remove an additional 70-ish offensive episodes from the platform, including episodes where he made racialized remarks and joked about sexual assault. With that unpleasantness out of the way, the company stood firmly by Rogan. We should have clear lines around content and take action when they are crossed, but canceling voices is a slippery slope, company CEO Daniel Ek stated in a published memo to Spotify employees.

Rogan stressed that the video which has been floating around the internet for a while had been taken out of context, compiled over his shows 12-year history. Still, the implication that Rogan only said the n-word on-air an average of two times a year (as The Daily Shows Trevor Noah described it, like he bought it in bulk at Costco) is pretty galling by itself. It doesnt help that the video also included the time Rogan described entering a Black neighborhood as like entering the planet of the apes a statement Rogan claimed he only made to be entertaining, not to be racist.

As Rogan himself admitted, all of this looks and sounds horrible. But with zero consequences being laid at his door and his fan support unwavering, does any of it ultimately matter?

Rogan got his start in comedy and still primarily identifies as a comedian though that may be difficult for people who are mainly familiar with his more recent career to parse. As a standup comic, he performed in Boston, then moved to Los Angeles and scored roles on the 90s sitcoms Hardball and NewsRadio. His comedy career continued around his entertainment jobs, including the role that launched him into stardom: the often confrontational host of NBCs eat these worms reality show Fear Factor. Rogan has said he took the job as Fear Factor host so hed have more material for his standup routines. But in fact, his hosting abilities would pave the way for a career in podcasting.

When Rogan began The Joe Rogan Experience on Christmas Eve in 2009, the landscape of podcasting looked hugely different from how it looks today. Some legacy media had forayed into the podcasting world, most notably This American Life, which began distributing episodes as a podcast in 2006. But barring some rare exceptions, podcasting was almost entirely an independent, amateur, grassroots space not an industry at all, but rather a community of predominantly high-income, extremely online tech nerds, mostly men, flocking to the audio equivalent of a blog. The small-town intimacy of podcasting in those days allowed podcasts like Rogans to do well, not only because of listener loyalty but also because they were the only game in town. If you wanted to listen to a funny, comedian-centered chat show, or a meaty, lengthy interview, Rogan was right there with plenty of content to chew on.

Rogan was fast, prolific, and consistent, putting out long weekly, then biweekly, then multi-weekly episodes like clockwork. These initially featured long interviews with other comedians like Dane Cook or Bill Burr, but it didnt take long for other high-profile interviews to sneak in: Kevin Smith, Anthony Bourdain, Melissa Etheridge. Rogans wide-open approach to guests was effective but unwieldy: By 2013, he was chatting with scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson, but also courting fringe conspiracy theories of every variety, ranging from his long-held belief that the moon landing was faked to the existence of DMT elves.

Rogans podcast debut coincided with the introduction of Googles Android into the smartphone space, a development that exacerbated the rise not only of modern social media but also of the podcast as a ubiquitous smartphone presence. It also coincided with the increasing obsolescence of traditional media; between 2006 and 2016, awareness of podcasting doubled while trust in media on the whole plummeted, reaching new lows year over year.

Even more crucial to Rogans success was YouTube: Rogan filmed and released his podcast episodes on YouTube as well, giving him access to two growing online ecosystems. These were increasingly united not only by a common DIY ethos but a sense that influence and authority, if not expertise, could be earned through nontraditional pathways.

For Rogan, that authority took the form of embracing his masculinity and encouraging his listeners the vast majority of whom were and are young men to do the same. He offers a motivational shove in the general direction of success and happiness, a clarion call for audiences to step up and take control of their own lives that fits somewhere between a Tony Robbins seminar and Reddits favorite lawyer up and hit the gym mantra. In his bio, Rogan highlights his longstanding side gig as an MMA commentator and notes that he had a black belt in tae kwon do as a teen. Its perhaps significant that he lists those accomplishments before his Fear Factor hosting gig the latter might be a more recognizable achievement to the general public, but the former underscores the stamp of authentic machismo that his fans value.

But Rogan also, perhaps surprisingly, eschews toxic masculinity (even as Rogan himself eschews the whole idea of toxic masculinity and a potpourri of other progressive buzzwords). He urges listeners to be vulnerable, to forge close male friendships, to celebrate male energy. As Andrew Sullivan recently observed, He readily admits when hes wrong and often self-deprecates. Hes not afraid to show emotion and choke up whether its over the triumph of female fighters or putting down a puppy or the death of Chadwick Boseman. ... His masculinity is unforced, funny and real.

While a desire to uphold men and masculinity might make Rogan more relatable to his audiences, however, it also leaves them more receptive to Rogans wide-ranging social and political views and the extremist views of some of the guests he platforms. For example: Even after the 2018 collapse of his Infowars empire, right-wing extremist conspiracist Alex Jones continued to reach a massive mainstream audience as a guest on Rogans show, thanks to a 2019 appearance that was downloaded more than 30 million times before its eventual Spotify removal. Rogans most recent episode with recurring guest and right-wing philosopher Jordan Peterson was over four hours long; excerpts of it have already been viewed millions of times on YouTube alone. Thats a lot of potential new eyes and ears turned toward a man whose reactionary politics have won him a huge following among white supremacists.

Rogan has also increasingly faced charges of being an alt-right gateway drug, despite and perhaps even because of his progressive political endorsements and research into YouTubes ballooning far-right sphere of influence has borne out some of that alarm. Though Rogan has never overtly courted the internet manosphere, with its long tail of toxicity and function as an introduction into harder extremism, many of his fans are drawn to his podcast for the same reasons theyre drawn to the manosphere: Rogans permissive, understanding approach to being a man in a world increasingly critical of masculinity.

None of this context fully explains how Rogan arrived at the injecting himself with dewormer stage of Covid-19 conspiracies. But it does imply that unlike, say, a right-wing news anchor who might preach vaccine wariness while being fully vaccinated themselves, Rogans mistrust of authority and anti-establishment contrarianism are more than just words. The complicated reality is that Rogan seems to genuinely dislike woke progressive politics and what he perceives as the hypersensitive, overly semantic identity politics of leftism, while also despising Donald Trump and everything he represents. Recognizing that the two arent mutually exclusive moral vectors is arguably one of Rogans strengths; he wont cancel you for disagreeing with him. I disagree with myself all the time, hes said.

His fans likewise see his self-deprecating openness about his own ignorance as a value rather than a flaw. And all the racist language? That, too, is a nonstarter with fans as a serious criticism of Rogan which makes sense when you consider that one of the main ways modern racism flourishes is through a reliance on nuance that skirts the line between ironic racism and actual racism, between intent and effect. NPR critic Eric Deggans calls Rogans Im not X-ist, despite doing these many literally X-ist things approach to these topics bigotry denial syndrome, which he defines as the belief that, because you personally dont view yourself as a bigot, you dont believe that you can say or do something that is seriously bigoted or damaging.

The problem here isnt just that Rogan may have hurt feelings or given offense, Deggans writes. The bigger issue is the way such jokes foster acceptance of stereotypes that are damaging and persistent. ... In fact, you can argue that by providing more palatable ways for fans to use a horrible racial slur and laughing off a joke he admitted was racist Rogan did damage that is tougher to address than an admitted racist openly advocating white supremacy.

Deggans is focused here on Rogans history of racist language usage. But hes also pinned the slippery, bigger problem with Rogan as a public figure. Rogan is the influencers influencer a new-generation media mogul whose fame is predicated less on being accurate or being professional than on being popular and relatable. Paradoxically, that allows him not only to get away with professional-level mistakes errors that might have ended his career if he had a boss, worked in an office environment, or had anyone to hold him accountable but also to claim ownership of those glaring mistakes as a part of his brand of relatability and honesty.

Instead of being canceled (hes too big to cancel), Rogan has dragged us all in the opposite direction: Hes just respectable enough, and more than powerful enough, to have helped shift the Overton window of acceptable, respectable social views toward a messier, uglier roundtable that, sure, includes Bernie Sanders and Neil deGrasse Tyson, but also includes Alex Jones and a bunch of alt-light right-wingers. Spotify might have been the driving force that could have attempted to hold Rogan accountable for his decision to consistently platform extremists, but Spotify, battling its own set of problems in the podcast space, kowtowed to Rogan and graciously gave way.

In other words, Rogan, one of the most powerful voices in the world, now may have more freedom than ever to dictate the terms of public conversation to decide who and what gets to be listened to, and why. As Deggans notes, that sort of influence is much harder to fight than out-and-out extremism.

Its in that gray space that Rogan flourishes. Its in that gray space that his listeners, exhausted by the endless polarization of sociocultural discourse, find comfort in Rogans ambiguities and contradictions and uncertainties. But its also that gray space that harbors bad actors, bad science, misinformation, and disinformation. By playing host to them all but claiming it all as fair game in the name of free speech, Rogan has taught his followers a simple but effective playbook for how to appear balanced without actually being balanced.

Whether Rogan himself believes his dedication to cultivating a moderate and open viewpoint is almost beside the point: It only takes one bad seed to yield a lot of bad apples. And for every Roganite who gravitates to his show because of his more moderate guests, there are the Roganites who come for the Elon Musks but get drawn to the Jordan Petersons and Ben Shapiros. Thats all part of Rogans appeal, no matter how much his fans might insist that it isnt. And the more he teaches his followers how to weaponize that denialism, the harder it gets to pass off Rogans brand as that of a relatable guy whos just royally fucking up once in a while.

Yet what if Rogan were to drop the artifice? If he were to actually admit that there are limits to the acceptable nature of the views hes been platforming? For all Rogans shows of authenticity, that level of honesty seems almost unthinkable.

Rogan, and people like Peterson alongside him, have been able to stretch the Overton window because not enough of his followers and the general public are convinced that what theyre preaching is socially unacceptable discourse. But if Rogan admits that it is, then hes turned his show into yet another moral line in the culture war sand and another hill for his fans and far-right reactionaries to die on. If Rogan admits that amplifying abhorrent views in the name of free speech isnt worth the trade-off, then the safe comfort zone hes spent 12 years constructing for his audience comes crashing down.

And if Rogan admits, out loud, that the safe zone he built hides monsters, then we all have to reckon with having allowed him to build it. And to reckon, not just with Joe Rogan but with the past decade of our cultural conversation constricting itself in knots in order to establish a legitimate platform for white supremacy, white nationalism, and a bottomless cauldron of hate. For ideas that should never have been treated as legitimate to begin with.

Surely, rather than unpack that mess, its easier for everyone to let Joe Rogan keep Joe Roganing for Spotify to sidestep a distasteful canceling, and for fans to continue viewing Rogan as a vanguard of moderated discourse.

The only problem is one of attrition: The more we let Rogan get away with it, the more we set ourselves up for something worse down the line for something even more unacceptable to slowly become acceptable.

Whats more unacceptable than 24 n-words? We can barely imagine. But one thing already seems like an inevitability: The next Rogan-esque influencer who comes along may have even less pretense, and even more fans who are willing to follow him into the dark.

Read the original:

Joe Rogans Spotify controversy: Its bigger than the n-word clip - Vox.com

Last week, Republican senator Ted Cruz posted a photo of himself alongside UFC legend Chuck Liddell. The photo, which showed the two men posing with raised fists, was the latest example of a politician using an athletes star power, in this case to pander to a younger demographic. It also underscored the American rights ongoing love affair with the UFC.

Over the past few years, UFC has become synonymous with rightwing politics due to its well-documented relationship with former president Donald Trump. As previously reported by the Guardian, the organization effectively became the sports arm of the Maga regime and was an ideal platform for Trump to espouse his political agenda.

UFC president Dana White was among Trumps most boisterous supporters, having campaigned for the former president as far back as 2016. White has since defended Trumps policies, produced a documentary on him Combatant-in-Chief, and even used his relationship with the former president to defy government mandates at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.

During the 2020 presidential election, Trump deployed several UFC fighters as campaign surrogates, placing them in front of crowds at rallies in swing-states such as Florida in order to secure a key demographic that forms the majority of mixed martial arts fanbase: young men.

And though Trump lost the election, Republicans continued to flirt with the UFC in order to benefit from the organizations popularity.

UFC fighters and executives have become regular guests on conservative shows such as those hosted by Sean Hannity and Candace Owens. Over the past few months, Owens has invited fighters like UFC lightweight Beneil Dariush to discuss the woes of communism while White was brought on to discuss the supposed importance of keeping politics out of sports.

Its America, White told Owens in April 2021 when asked about the UFCs supposed political apathy. Thats the way its supposed to be. And you shouldnt have to go to work and listen to that shit.

While Whites assertion is tenuous at best due to his own history with Trump, his comments endeared him to conservative audiences dissatisfied with the rise of social justice narratives in leagues such as the NFL and NBA. By taking saying the UFC does not support so-called woke politics, White is essentially positioning the organization as a fitting alternative for the American right. This, in turn, has warmed conservative pundits and politicians to the organization, which they now view as a market for their ideology.

Among the politicians who embraced the UFC over the past year is Floridas governor, Ron DeSantis, who invited the organization to host UFC 261, a capacity-crowd event in Jacksonville, Florida, in April 2021. DeSantis, who is viewed as a contender for the Republican nomination in 2024, has been criticized for using his states limited Covid restrictions to increase his political clout. Hosting a capacity-crowd UFC show during a particularly difficult period during the pandemic was a clear show of defiance.

This is going to be the first [indoor] full-throttle sports event since Covid hit anywhere in the United States and I think its fitting, DeSantis said to a cheering crowd at the UFC 261 pre-fight press conference. Welcome to Florida. You guys arent the only ones looking to come to this oasis of freedom.

It is worth noting that UFC 261 was celebrated by the likes of Steve Bannon, as well as user wrote on a QAnon Telegram channel with more than 20,000 subscribers. Watch UFC.

UFC fighters have also stepped into the political arena in recent months. In December 2021, lightweight contender Michael Chandler spoke at Turning Point USAs Americafest event alongside conspiracy-monger Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump Jr, and alt-right personality Jack Posobiec.

Chandler first made his political leanings clear when he questioned the results of the 2020 presidential election, tweeting at the time is Joe Biden really just taking the mic to talk about how patient we have to be and how long we are going to have to wait AKA we are going to contest these resultshard #wakeupsheep. The fighter deleted the tweet shortly thereafter.

Other UFC fighters such as Colby Covington, whom the Guardian described as the athletic embodiment of Trumps politics, continues to strengthen his ties to prominent conservatives such as Trump Jr and Owens. In fact, Owens revealed that it was Covington who helped her become a fan of the UFC and that she plans to attend his upcoming fight against fellow Trump loyalist Jorge Masvidal at UFC 272 next month.

I will definitely be there [at UFC 272], Owens said on Full Send podcast. 100% will be there. I love Colby.

Owens previously called for the UFC to replace the NFL as Americas national pastime, a term that was once reserved for baseball. [The UFC] is exploding right now and its because they do not get involved in politics. They are not woke and they do not bend the knee, Owens said, adding that the UFC is the only real sport left.

It is perhaps no surprise many on the right identify more with the UFC than the NFL. Although the league is currently being sued for racial discrimination in a high-profile lawsuit, it has at least paid lip service to social justice in recent years, particularly after the police murder of George Floyd. According to a recent survey, approximately one-third of those polled stated that they were less of a fan of the NFL now than they were five years ago. The poll found that those who did not approve of the NFLs current stance on social justice were disproportionately Republican, and that 45% of those who identified themselves as Republican believed the NFL was doing too much to show respect for Black players. Whether this disapproval is actually making a difference to the NFLs bottom line is debatable. Viewing figures for the 2021 regular season were up 7% on the year before, so some Republicans are clearly still tuning in.

Nevertheless, since the NFLs policies no longer coincide with Republican ideals, the American right has since shifted much of its attention to the UFC, a hyper-masculine sport that is popular among young men.

As Republicans forge ahead with shaping the GOPs post-Trump future, they will continue to rely on the UFC as an ideological incubator and a breeding ground for future supporters.

Visit link:

They do not bend the knee: US right courts UFC as NFL nods at social justice - The Guardian

Few people in recent times have created as much controversy as Donald Trump. A year after his utterances got him banned from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, his new enterprise, Truth Social, has made its debut on Apples App Store.

The platform, which is available as both an app and website, was made available to download on the US Apple App Store yesterday, and has so far topped the download charts. It will also be coming soon to the Google Play Store and other countries.

The timing of Truth Socials debut on the symbolic US Presidents Day is certainly no coincidence. Is it, at the end of the day, another tool in Trumps political arsenal?

Lets just say Trump is likely keeping his options open.

The Truth Social website has reportedly already been the target of hackers. It seems some users who managed to get early access also secured user handles including donaldtrump and mikepence.

The site is offline at the time of writing this article, presumably while its cyber-security capabilities are upgraded. It may be the site came under a sustained attack, or developers realised the need to thoroughly debug it before it goes live.

Truth Socials developer, the Trump Media and Technology Group (or T Media Tech LLC), said the platform will routinely collect data about users browsing history, contact information (including their phone number) and any pictures or videos they post. Importantly, this information will be linked to the users identity.

The platform will also gather non-identifiable data on how the user interacts with the application supposedly to analyse usage patterns and personalise the users experience.

However, while these data are described as not being linked to a users identity, they nonetheless include the users email address and ID. This suggests they are, in fact, personally identifiable.

Having such richly textured information puts Truth Social in a position not only to learn about users opinions and behaviours, but also to target them with personalised political messaging.

The legalities of this practice would have been carefully vetted to be on the right side of the law (morally questionable as it may be). And the technology for it already exists. It was used in the now infamous Cambridge Analytica scandal which, as evidence suggests, could have aided Trumps victory in the 2016 US presidential elections.

Big data analytics is advancing fast, made possible by ever-smarter algorithms, larger datasets and more powerful computers. Its a game-changer in the high-stakes world of politics.

Its also no accident Truth Socials user interface closely resembles that of Twitter: the platform used to greatest effect by Trump. In a 2019 interview, Twitter cofounder Evan Williams described Trump as a master of the platform.

It could be argued his 57,000 Tweets helped in no small way to make him the 45th President of the United States.

Read more: Despite being permanently banned, Trump's prolific Twitter record lives on

In the case of Truth Social, most of the opinions and ideas expressed will likely fall within the right of the political spectrum everything from hardcore alt-right ideologies, to those slightly right of centre.

However, as the platform is reliant on Apple and Google distributing it on their app stores, its unlikely the Truth Social platform can afford to become a mouthpiece for the far-right, as Gab has become.

If it is to survive, it must avoid the fate of Parler. This hard-right Twitter clone was delisted by Apple and Google for hosting comments that incited violence during the pro-Trump riots at the US Capitol in January 2021.

Read more: Parler: what you need to know about the 'free speech' Twitter alternative

It remains to be seen whether Devin Nunes, who heads up T Media Tech LLC, can avoid the platform becoming stridently right-wing and being delisted.

Success will depend on Truth Social attracting a spectrum of political views from a substantial number of users. This is something previous Twitter alternatives Parler, Gab and Gettr all failed to do.

Only time will tell whether Truth Social can avoid the mistakes made by other similar platforms. But it does appear to be trying to distance itself from being perceived as hard right. It has adopted a so-called big tent approach. To quote from the app store listing:

Think of a giant outdoor event tent at your best friends wedding. Whos there? The combination of multiple families from all over the United States, and the world. Uncle Jim from Atlanta is a proud libertarian. Aunt Kellie from Texas is a staunch conservative. Your cousin John from California is a die-hard liberal Although we dont always agree with each other, we welcome these varied opinions and the robust conversation they bring.

Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labour in the Clinton administration, outlines seven ways unscrupulous politicians exercise control over the media.

These include berating and blacklisting dissenting media and raising a lynch-mob mentality. Opponents are demonised, sometimes with the added threat of legal action.

Also in the playbook is the exclusion of critics from interviews and comments. And last but not least is the exclusion of news outlets altogether, by using platforms such as Twitter to communicate directly with the public.

Before he was banned, Trump used Twitter to divert attention away from issues that could harm him. And research suggests diversionary tweets can be used to suppress coverage of certain issues, allowing the tweeter in question to exercise control of the narrative.

For example, heightened media coverage of the Mueller investigation was countered by multiple tweets from Trump about unrelated issues. It was observed this was followed by reduced coverage of the Mueller investigation.

All of this adds up to the distinct possibility that Trump has already begun campaigning for election in 2024. Instead of settling into comfortable retirement following his defeat in 2020, he has stayed in the limelight behaving more like a candidate-in-waiting.

Original post:

Twitter for the right: a look at Truth Social, Trump's ethically dubious social media platform - The Conversation AU

By Chris Ford*

Opinion - In my time, I've participated in a number of protests. I have done so around issues of social injustice such as user-pays tertiary education, climate change, employment law reforms, disability rights and threats to public health services, to name a few.

Protestors and Police standoff as police move concrete barricades Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver

Never though have I and other New Zealanders seen or witnessed anything like the right-wing inspired, influenced and led occupation that has paralysed our nation's capital for almost a fortnight now. They have been supported by a range of people from alt right and far right causes whom, in their wake, have drawn a considerable number of otherwise previously apathetic or even some otherwise progressive people in with their nonsensical and dangerous anti-vaccination theories.

Despite the range of causes that have brought this otherwise disparate group of people together - leading to some perturbing and confusing messaging along the way - the one thing they seemingly want is freedom from the government's Covid-19 rules.

For disabled people like myself, this freedom would mean the end of reasonable restrictions which have saved potentially not only my life but the lives of thousands of disabled people and people with health conditions nationwide who would otherwise have succumbed to Covid-19.

These restrictions have been sometimes frustrating and created difficulties for disabled people due to barriers being created by them, including access to support services being restricted during lockdowns and issues around accessing vaccinations. This all pales into comparison when, on balance, the restrictions and vaccinations have been a godsend to the disability and immunocompromised communities.

I hope that anyone who has been on the protest (or is still planted there), if they are reading this, will take note of the fact that overseas a high proportion of Covid-19 hospitalisations and deaths (particularly prior to the arrival of vaccines) were of disabled people or people with health conditions.

However, that won't worry some of the protesters, particularly those of a white supremacist/neo-Nazi persuasion who simply believe in no vaccination mandates due to the fact that Mori, Pacific, ethnic community and disabled people will all be able to just die off more easily in their view. Despite the messaging of some that the vaccination mandates are merely Nazism in disguise, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime, in fact, did not believe in vaccination mandates at all (which had been applied in Germany during the mid-1870s), believing that a more voluntaristic approach would lead to people who were viewed as enemies of Aryan racial purity - and this included disabled people and people with health conditions - dying off in greater numbers. So the Nazis ended all vaccine mandates from the mid-1930s onwards in line with their eugenic driven racial policies.

For the more traditional Christian social conservative elements who are participating, it all comes down to the false belief that all it will take is for people to be spiritually healed of Covid-19. In terms of the libertarians and neo-liberals who are either participating in or funding the occupation, it all comes down to just selfishness as epitomised by the millionaire's wife who was photographed in huge designer green gumboots on the grounds of Parliament last week.

Therefore, what I say to those participants is that to the Christian conservatives, many disabled people (and this includes many I know who are practising disabled Christians) don't subscribe to the simple prayer over the don't take the vaccine mantra. And as for the neo-liberals and libertarians among you, my guess is that you will be largely well-off and therefore don't give a damn about those who are marginalised and oppressed within our society, such as disabled people.

And what of the disabled and older residents of Central Wellington who have had to wade through this protest? What of the people who have had to endure either being attacked or harassed for simply wearing a face covering? In this, I was drawn to the words of Rae Julian, a central Wellington resident and older person with health conditions who last week talked about the frustrations of having to navigate around a small but still vociferous and un-vaccinated band of protesters as well as some new access barriers which have been created due to the detritus strewn around the parliamentary precincts by the occupation.

Talking of these new access barriers, I was enraged at the entitled arrogance of the woman who parked on a mobility access car park and told 1 News that she was 'happy to move if someone needed the park'. Believe me, I and many other disabled people have heard that excuse frequently from non-disabled people but given that this was done in the context of the occupation, it has simply made my and other disabled people's blood boil.

I have to say, though, that my guess is that some disabled people will have been drawn to the protest as well. Unsurprisingly, given the oppressive history of disability and associated denial of human rights, the siren cry of freedom would no doubt appeal to those who see the mandates as yet another denial of our freedom - when it really isn't. I know from personal experience that some disabled people (especially those who experience mental distress) would have been sadly drawn towards the protests and occupations by the preceding (and continuing) vaccination disinformation being spread through social media.

Lastly, I want to say a few words to those anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers at the occupation and elsewhere whom have made it harder for people who have genuinely needed facial coverings/mask exemptions to be believed. I say to the anti-vaxxers/anti-maskers who have gone about falsely claiming their 'right' to coverings exemptions and not wearing masks that you have caused acts of discrimination against disabled people and people with health conditions who really cannot wear masks for medical reasons nationwide. Your actions have sown confusion and distrust where there should not have been and this has been at the expense of disabled people and people with health conditions - many, if not all of whom would wear a mask if they could do so. All I can say is if you can genuinely wear a mask, then do so and help protect those who really can't!

Ultimately, I want the end of all Covid-19 restrictions and mandates too - but only when it's safe to do so and, scientifically speaking, this isn't the right time. At the end of the day, when the last restrictions are dropped, I and thousands of other disabled people will be there to celebrate alongside everyone else as we will have survived thanks to, albeit, imperfect but much needed government action - and just surviving will be the disability community's answer to the occupiers and protesters, many of whom really just want 'freedom' for themselves and no one else.

More here:

A disabled person's view of the Wellington occupation - RNZ

Good morning. Happy Presidents Day. Ligaya Mishan had a lovely essay on the origins of country captain in The Times last week, tracing the fragrant, curried chicken dish from its home in the Lowcountry of the American South to its origins in Britain and India, a legacy of colonials with palates newly awakened to the possibilities of spice.

Im intrigued by Ligayas recipe (above), which comes from Rohan Kamicheril, the founder and editor of Tiffin, a website devoted to the regional cuisines of India. Kamicheril grew up eating country captain in Bangalore, his mothers recipe, handed down by his grandmother, who was of Anglo-Indian descent. There are none of the soupy tomatoes that define the dish in America, only the juice and fat of the chicken, spice-darkened onions, golden potatoes. Its a dish meant to be eaten right away. I cant wait to do that.

Later you can compare it to this recipe I learned from community cookbooks and some of the finest kitchen hands in and around Charleston, S.C. The chicken is fried, then stewed with tomatoes and served over rice with crumbled bacon, slivered almonds and dried currants, occasionally with sliced bananas. Its very Junior League. Also, super delicious.

Country captain for dinner tonight, then! Maybe with Melissa Clarks new recipe for pineapple-ginger coffee cake for dessert and tomorrows breakfast?

And we are standing by to help, should something go wrong in your kitchen or with our technology. Just write cookingcare@nytimes.com and someone will get back to you. (If not, write to me: foodeditor@nytimes.com. I can take a punch. I read every letter sent.)

Now, its a long drive over rough terrain from anything to do with celery root or maple syrup, but I loved Alexandra Jacobss wry review, in The Times, of Heiresses: The Lives of the Million Dollar Babies, by Laura Thompson.

Equally entertaining is Molly Youngs recommendation, in her Read Like the Wind newsletter, of Han Suyins 1962 novella Winter Love. This rec goes out to all my lesbian zoologists, Molly wrote. Make some noise, ladies! Others will thrill to the prose as well. (I found a copy online for about $12.)

Check out the Chris Martin show at the Anton Kern Gallery in New York, with its big Brooklyn-in-the-Catskills energy. (Roberta Smith likes it!)

Finally, Richard Fausset put me on to William Beckmanns cover of Volver, Volver, which Beckmann played live in Texas last year. Listen to that, cook a lot, and Ill be back on Wednesday.

See original here:

What to Cook Right Now - The New York Times

Its important to say it up front: I cant claim to approach Henry Louis Gates, Jr.or Skip, as hes knownas a subject of objective journalistic inquiry. Weve known each other first as colleagues at The New Yorker, where he wrote the Profiles that make up his collection Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Black Man, and then as friends. Still, I dont think it requires the prejudice of friendship to believe that Gates, who is now seventy-one, has left a lasting, multiform imprint on the culture.

Gates was born in 1950 and grew up in Piedmont, West Virginia, where his family has deep roots. His father worked in a paper mill. Town picnics were still segregated but, with the advent of Brownv.Board of Education, the schools were not. After a year at Potomac State College, Gates transferred to Yale, which was starting to open up to a sizable number of Black students. In New Haven, he began to explore the depths of African American literature and history. His awakening did not take place only in the classroom and university meeting hall. Gates was also fascinated by the trial of Bobby Seale and other members of the Black Panthers at a courthouse near campus, and joined in the student strike in solidarity.

After graduating from Yale, he went, on a fellowship, to study at the University of Cambridge, where his most important mentor was Wole Soyinka, the Nigerian playwright, essayist, and novelist. The English faculty at Cambridge did not take African literature seriously, according to Gates, relegating it to anthropology. Soyinka, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature, in 1986, helped convince Gates to study African and African American literature.

As a literary critic, Gates made an impact on the field by helping to establish a canon of African American literatureone that was neither separatist nor a mere appendage to the traditional, white canon. In The Signifying Monkey, he employed the tools of post-structuralism and semiotics to bear on both the vernacular tradition and authors as varied as Zora Neale Hurston and Ishmael Reed. Gates also unearthed and brought forward nineteenth-century texts by African American authors including Harriet E. Wilson (Our Nig) and Hannah Crafts (The Bondwomans Narrative), and assembled the thirty-volume Schomburg Library of Nineteenth-Century Black Women Writers. Gates is a prodigious cultural entrepreneur, editing countless anthologies and reference works (including Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African-American Experience), co-founding the online publication the Root, and publishing popular volumes about Black culture and history. His book Colored People, which explores his family and upbringing in West Virginia, is an important chapter in the modern history of African American memoirs. A collection of Hurstons essays, You Dont Know Us Negroes, which Gates co-edited with Genevieve West, came out last month; Whos Black and Why? A Hidden Chapter from the Eighteenth-Century Invention of Race, which he edited with Andrew S. Curran, comes out next month.

Perhaps his most important and lasting role has been as a teacher and an institution builder. Gates arrived at Harvard in 1991, and he swiftly recruited an extraordinary concentration of Black scholarshipWilliam Julius Wilson, Cornel West, Lawrence D. Bobo, Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, Suzanne Blier, and othersall while reinvigorating the W.E.B. DuBois Research Institute, which is now part of the Hutchins Center. Gates proved a dynamo of both intellectual energy and fund-raising finesse.

In recent years, he has been a prolific filmmaker, mainly for PBS, putting out documentary series on heritage (Finding Your Roots) and history (Reconstruction, The Black Church, Africas Great Civilizations, and The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross). His book Stony the Road, a companion to the series on Reconstruction, credits the research of earlier historians, particularly Eric Foner, yet it is a superb account of the roots of American white supremacy and structural racism that afflict the country to this day. A new film on Frederick Douglass is about to appear.

Gates is married to the Cuban-born historian Marial Iglesias Utset; they live in Cambridge, Massachusetts. On the day of an immense snowstorm, we connected over Zoom for a few hours and talked about matters past and present. (We had a subsequent exchange over e-mail.) Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Id like to start out by looking back at your family and West Virginia. You write about this beautifully in your memoir Colored People. Tell me a little about Piedmont, where you grew up.

My family never moved, from fourth great-grandparents down to me. We lived within a thirty-mile radius in eastern West Virginia. I have deep roots in those mountains. Its not what you read about in textbooks like From Slavery to Freedom. It is not a typical Black experience, but it is a real Black experience.

In the year I was born, 1950, I believe there were about two thousand people in Piedmont, and just over three hundred were Black. It was an Irish-Italian paper-mill town. And because my dad worked two jobsin the daytime, at the paper mill, and then as a janitor at the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Companyhe had the highest income of any Black person in Piedmont. We had the nicest house. Wealth and poverty are always relative. In that context, we were in the Black upper-middle class. My mother never worked a job outside the home in my lifetime. When she was a girl, she cleaned houses to make extra money. One of the reasons my father worked two jobs was so my mother would never have to work.

As I understand it, your fathers attitude toward white folks in town was more easygoing than your moms.

My mother was very suspicious of white people. To help support her family, by the age of twelve, she was cleaning the Thompson house. She told us this awful story of them planting a twenty-dollar bill in the cushions of a sofa, to see what she would do. And she, of course, returned it. But, even at that age, she had figured out that this was a test, and she deeply resented that.

Brownv. Board of Education, the pivotal school-integration case, came along when you were a kid.

In 1956, when I started first grade, the schools had integrated, without a peep, though big social events, like town picnics, were segregated.

You describe the school in very positive terms.

Ive thought about this a lot and Ive been asked about it a lot. But I never once experienced racial discrimination in the classroom. Right before I started the first grade, someone knocked on our door, and it was a white person from the school system. They had tested all the kids entering our first-grade class. My parents took this white person into our formal living room, where nobody ever sat down and all the furniture was covered in clear plastic. They were whispering in hushed tones. And then the white person left.

My parents came out in the kitchen, where Id been cloistered, and they sat down and they said, Skippy, you took that test a couple weeks ago. And it had five hundred questions, and you got four hundred and eighty-nine questions right. That set the tone for the next twelve years of my life. They expected me to be the smartest kid in the class. The classroom was my playground. I was one of those kids, those little assholes, who hated summer vacation, man!

Read more from the original source:

How Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Helped Remake the Literary Canon - The New Yorker