jump to navigation

Never Forget: Grandson of Auschwitz Commandant Fights For A Nazi-Free Europe May 17, 2014

Posted by rogerhollander in Genocide, History, Nazi / Fascist, Right Wing.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Roger’s note: well, I am not a great believer in elections as a means of fighting fascism, but I still think the message here is relevant, not to mention chilling.  Not only are right wing neo-Nazi movements burgeoning throughout Europe, but around the globe, and that includes the United States.  This is grounds for alarm of the highest nature.

by Abby Zimet

With upcoming elections in a Europe beset by rising neo-Nazi frenzy, a new campaign by Swedish Social Democrats against the resurgence has a high-profile leader: Rainer Hoess, 48, grandson of Rudolf Hoess, the infamous commandant of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp who presided over the murder of over a million Jews and others before being captured and hanged near the crematorium he was so proud of. Hoess, who wears a Star of David around his neck, has spent years researching the Nazi movement, talking to survivors, and speaking to German schoolchildren about the dangers of right-wing extremism. He also appeared in the critically acclaimed documentary “Hitler’s Children.” The Swedish campaign, dubbed “Never Forget. To Vote,” stresses that “Nazi influences are growing in Europe for the same reasons they did back then. The social safety nets have been torn, and people are left behind…Hopelessness is what comes first. Then the hatred.”

Hoess on his murderous grandfather: “Generation after generation, we bear the same cross he put on our shoulders.”

 

America’s Coup Machine: Destroying Democracy Since 1953 April 13, 2014

Posted by rogerhollander in History, Imperialism, Latin America, Ukraine.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Roger’s note: this shameful report on how the United States government, via its military, the CIA, aided and abetted by the MIC and the corporate mainstream media, exports death and misery around the globe, comes as no big surprise to anyone who has taken the time to investigate and understand.  It is a useful compilation of its dirty work since the end of World War II, but of course it didn’t all begin there; in a sense it all began with Columbus, and in modern history U.S. imperial adventures took off with the Spanish American War, 1898, under President McKinley.  It also gives us a truer picture of the U.S. role of the coup in the Ukraine.

 

shutterstock_97739666Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com

Soon after the 2004 U.S. coup to depose President Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti, I heard Aristide’s lawyer Ira Kurzban speaking in Miami.  He began his talk with a riddle: “Why has there never been a coup in Washington D.C.?”  The answer: “Because there is no U.S. Embassy in Washington D.C.”  This introduction was greeted with wild applause by a mostly Haitian-American audience who understood it only too well.

Ukraine’s former security chief, Aleksandr Yakimenko, has reported that the coup-plotters who overthrew the elected government in Ukraine, “basically lived in the (U.S.) Embassy.  They were there every day.”  We also know from a leaked Russian intercept that they were in close contact with Ambassador Pyatt and the senior U.S. official in charge of the coup, former Dick Cheney aide Victoria Nuland, officially the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.  And we can assume that many of their days in the Embassy were spent in strategy and training sessions with their individual CIA case officers.

To place the coup in Ukraine in historical context, this is at least the 80th time the United States has organized a coup or a failed coup in a foreign country since 1953.  That was when President Eisenhower discovered in Iran that the CIA could overthrow elected governments who refused to sacrifice the future of their people to Western commercial and geopolitical interests.  Most U.S. coups have led to severe repression, disappearances, extrajudicial executions, torture, corruption, extreme poverty and inequality, and prolonged setbacks for the democratic aspirations of people in the countries affected.  The plutocratic and ultra-conservative nature of the forces the U.S. has brought to power in Ukraine make it unlikely to be an exception.

Noam Chomsky calls William Blum’s classic, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II, “Far and away the best book on the topic.”  If you’re looking for historical context for what you are reading or watching on TV about the coup in Ukraine, Killing Hope will provide it.  The title has never been more apt as we watch the hopes of people from all regions of Ukraine being sacrificed on the same altar as those of people in Iran (1953); Guatemala(1954); Thailand (1957); Laos (1958-60); the Congo (1960); Turkey (1960, 1971 & 1980); Ecuador (1961 & 1963); South Vietnam (1963); Brazil (1964); the Dominican Republic (1963); Argentina (1963); Honduras (1963 & 2009); Iraq (1963 & 2003); Bolivia (1964, 1971 & 1980); Indonesia (1965); Ghana (1966); Greece (1967); Panama (1968 & 1989); Cambodia (1970); Chile (1973); Bangladesh (1975); Pakistan (1977); Grenada (1983); Mauritania (1984); Guinea (1984); Burkina Faso (1987); Paraguay (1989); Haiti (1991 & 2004); Russia (1993); Uganda (1996);and Libya (2011).  This list does not include a roughly equal number of failed coups, nor coups in Africa and elsewhere in which a U.S. role is suspected but unproven.

The disquieting reality of the world we live in is that American efforts to destroy democracy, even as it pretends to champion it, have left the world less peaceful, less just and less hopeful.  When Harold Pinter won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005, at the height of the genocidal American war on Iraq, he devoted much of his acceptance speech to an analysis of this dichotomy.  He said of the U.S., “It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good.  It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis… Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be, but it is also very clever.”

The basic framework of U.S. coups has hardly evolved since 1953.  The main variables between coups in different places and times have been the scale and openness of the U.S. role and the level of violence used.  There is a strong correlation between the extent of U.S. involvement and the level of violence.  At one extreme, the U.S. war on Iraq was a form of regime change that involved hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops and killed hundreds of thousands of people.  On the other hand, the U.S. role in General Suharto’s coup in Indonesia in 1965 remained covert even as he killed almost as many people.  Only long after the fact didU.S. officials take credit for their role in Suharto’s campaign of mass murder, and it will be some time before they brag publicly about their roles in Ukraine.

But as Harold Pinter explained, the U.S. has always preferred “low-intensity conflict” to full-scale invasions and occupations.  The CIA and U.S. special forces use proxies and covert operations to overthrow governments and suppress movements that challenge America’s insatiable quest for global power.  A coup is the climax of such operations, and it is usually only when these “low-intensity” methods fail that a country becomes a target for direct U.S. military aggression.  Iraq only became a target for U.S. invasion and occupation after a failed CIA coup in June 1996.  The U.S. attacked Panama in 1989 only after five CIA coup attempts failed to remove General Noriega from power.  After long careers as CIA agents, both Hussein and Noriega had exceptional knowledge of U.S. operations and methods that enabled them to resist regime change by anything less than overwhelming U.S. military force.

But most U.S. coups follow a model that has hardly changed between 1953 and the latest coup in Ukraine in 2014.  This model has three stages:

1) Creating and strengthening opposition forces

In the early stages of a U.S. plan for regime change, there is little difference between the methods used to achieve it at the ballot box or by an anti-constitutional coup.  Many of these tools and methods were developed to install right-wing governments in occupied countries in Europe and Asia after World War II.  They include forming and funding conservative political parties, student groups, trade unions and media outlets, and running well-oiled propaganda campaigns both in the country being targeted and in regional, international and U.S. media.

Post-WWII Italy is a case in point.  At the end of the war, the U.S. used the American Federation of Labor’s agents in France and Italy to funnel money through non-communist trade unions to conservative candidates and political parties.  But socialists and communists won a plurality of votes in the 1946 election in Italy, and then joined forces to form the Popular Democratic Front for the next election in 1948.  The U.S. worked with the Catholic Church, conducted a massive propaganda campaign using Italian-American celebrities like Frank Sinatra, and printed 10 million letters for Italian-Americans to mail to their relatives in Italy.  The U.S. threatened a total cut-off of aid to the war-ravaged country, where allied bombing had killed 50,000 civilians and left much of the country in ruins.

The FDP was reduced from a combined 40% of the votes in 1946 to 31% in 1948, leaving Italy in the hands of increasingly corrupt U.S.-backed coalitions led by the Christian Democrats for the next 46 years.  Italy was saved from an imaginary communist dictatorship, but more importantly from an independent democratic socialist program committed to workers’ rights and to protecting small and medium-sized Italian businesses against competition from U.S. multinationals.

The U.S. employed similar tactics in Chile in the 1960s to prevent the election of Salvador Allende.  He came within 3% of winning the presidency in 1958, so the Kennedy administration sent a team of 100 State Department and CIA officers to Chile in what one of them later called a “blatant and almost obscene” effort to subvert the next election in 1964.  The CIA provided more than half the Christian Democrats’ campaign funds and launched a multimedia propaganda campaign on film, TV, radio, newspapers, posters and flyers.  This classic “red scare” campaign, dominated by images of firing squads and Soviet tanks, was designed mainly to terrify women.  The CIA produced 20 radio spots per day that were broadcast on at least 45 stations, as well as dozens of fabricated daily “news” broadcasts.  Thousands of posters depicted children with hammers and sickles stamped on their foreheads.  The Christian Democrat Eduardo Frei defeated Allende by 17%, with a huge majority among women.

But despite the U.S. propaganda campaign, Allende was finally elected in 1970.  When he consolidated his position in Congressional elections in 1973 despite a virtual U.S. economic embargo and an ever-escalating destabilization campaign, his fate was sealed, at the hands of the CIA and the U.S.-backed military, led by General Pinochet.

In Ukraine, the U.S. has worked since independence in 1991 to promote pro-Western parties and candidates, climaxing in the “Orange Revolution” in 2004.  But the Western-backed governments of Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko became just as corrupt and unpopular as previous ones, and former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich was elected President in 2010.

The U.S. employed all its traditional tactics leading up to the coup in 2014.  The U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has partially taken over the CIA’s role in grooming opposition candidates, parties and political movements, with an annual budget of $100 million to spend in countries around the world.  The NED made no secret of targeting Ukraine as a top priority, funding 65 projects there, more than in any other country.  The NED’s neoconservative president, Carl Gershman, called Ukraine “the biggest prize” in a Washington Post op-ed in September 2013, as the U.S. operation there prepared to move into its next phase.

2) Violent street demonstrations

In November 2013, the European Union presented President Yanukovich with a 1,500 page “free trade agreement,” similar to NAFTA or the TPP, but which withheld actual EU membership from Ukraine.  The agreement would have opened Ukraine’s borders to Western exports and investment without a reciprocal opening of the EU’s borders. Ukraine, a major producer of cheese and poultry, would have been allowed to export only 5% of its cheese and 1% of its poultry to the EU.  Meanwhile Western firms could have used Ukraine as a gateway to flood Russia with cheap products from Asia. This would have forced Russia to close its borders to Ukraine, shattering the industrial economy of Eastern Ukraine.

Understandably, and for perfectly sound reasons as a Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovich rejected the EU agreement.  This was the signal for pro-Western and right-wing groups in Kiev to take to the street.  In the West, we tend to interpret street demonstrations as representing surges of populism and democracy.  But we should distinguish left-wing demonstrations against right-wing governments from the kind of violent right-wing demonstrations that have always been part of U.S. regime change strategy.

In Tehran in 1953, the CIA spent a million dollars to hire gangsters and “extremely competent professional organizers”, as the CIA’s Kermit Roosevelt called them, to stage increasingly violent demonstrations, until loyal and rebel army units were fighting in the streets of Tehran and at least 300 people were killed.  The CIA spent millions more to bribe members of parliament and other influential Iranians.  Mossadegh was forced to resign, and the Shah restored Western ownership of the oil industry.  BP divided the spoils with American firms, until the Shah was overthrown 26 years later by the Iranian Revolution and the oil industry was re-nationalized.  This pattern of short-term success followed by eventual independence from U.S. interests is a common result of CIA coups, most notably in Latin America, where they have led many of our closest neighbors to become increasingly committed to political and economic independence from the United States.

In Haiti in 2004, 200 U.S. special forces trained 600 FRAPH militiamen and other anti-Lavalas forces at a training camp across the border in the Dominican Republic.  These forces then invaded northern Haiti and gradually spread violence and chaos across the country to set the stage for the overthrow of President Aristide.

In Ukraine, street protests turned violent in January 2014 as the neo-NaziSvoboda Party and the Right Sector militia took charge of the crowds in the streets.  The Right Sector militia only appeared in Ukraine in the past 6 months, although it incorporated existing extreme-right groups and gangs.  It is partly funded by Ukrainian exiles in the U.S. and Europe, and may be a creation of the CIA.  After Right Sector seized government buildings, parliament outlawed the protests and the police reoccupied part of Independence Square, killing two protesters.

On February 7th, the Russians published an intercepted phone call betweenAssistant Secretary of State Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt.  The intercept revealed that U.S. officials were preparing to seize the moment for a coup in Ukraine.  The transcript reads like a page from a John Le Carre novel: “I think we’re in play… we could land jelly-side up on this one if we move fast.”  Their main concern was to marginalize heavyweight boxing champion Vitali Klitschko, who had become the popular face of the “revolution” and was favored by the European Union, and to ensure that U.S. favorite Arseniy Yatsenyuk ended up in the Prime Minister’s office.

On the night of February 17th, Right Sector announced a march from Independence Square to the parliament building on the 18th.  This ignited several days of escalating violence in which the death toll rose to 110 people killed, including protesters, government supporters and 16 police officers.  More than a thousand people were wounded. Vyacheslav Veremyi, a well-known reporter for a pro-government newspaper, was dragged out of a taxi near Independence Square and shot to death in front of a crowd of onlookers.  Right Sector broke into an armory near Lviv and seized military weapons, and there is evidence of both sides using snipers to fire from buildings in Kiev at protesters and police in the streets and the square below.  Former security chief Yakimenko believes that snipers firing from the Philharmonic building were U.S.-paid foreign mercenaries, like the snipers from the former Yugoslavia who earn up to $2,000 per day shooting soldiers in Syria.

As violence raged in the streets, the government and opposition parties held emergency meetings and reached two truce agreements, one on the night of February 19th and another on the 21st, brokered by the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Poland.  But Right Sector rejected both truces and called for the “people’s revolution” to continue until Yanukovich resigned and the government was completely removed from power.

3) The coup d’etat.

The creation and grooming of opposition forces and the spread of violence in the streets are deliberate strategies to create a state of emergency as a pretext for removing an elected or constitutional government and seizing power.  Once the coup leaders have been trained and prepared by their CIA case officers, U.S. officials have laid their plans and street violence has broken down law and order and the functioning of state institutions, all that remains is to strike decisively at the right moment to remove the government and install the coup leaders in its place.  In Iran, faced with hundreds of people being killed in the streets, Mohammad Mosaddegh resigned to end the bloodshed. In Chile, General Pinochet launched air strikes on the presidential palace.  In Haiti in 2004, U.S. forces landed to remove President Aristide and occupy the country.

In Ukraine, Vitaly Klitschko announced that parliament would open impeachment proceedings against Yanukovich, but, later that day, lacking the 338 votes required for impeachment, a smaller number of members simply approved a declaration that Yanukovich “withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner,” and appointed Oleksandr Turchynov of the opposition Fatherland Party as Acting President.  Right Sector seized control of government buildings and patrolled the streets.  Yanukovich refused to resign, calling this an illegal coup d’etat.  The coup leaders vowed to prosecute him for the deaths of protesters, but he escaped to Russia.  Arseniy Yatsenyuk was appointed Prime Minister on February 27th, exactly as Nuland and Pyatt had planned.

The main thing that distinguishes the U.S. coup in Ukraine from the majority of previous U.S. coups was the minimal role played by the Ukrainian military.  Since 1953, most U.S. coups have involved using local senior military officers to deliver the final blow to remove the elected or ruling leader.  The officers have then been rewarded with presidencies, dictatorships or other senior positions in new U.S.-backed regimes. The U.S. military cultivates military-to-military relationships to identify and groom future coup leaders, and President Obama’s expansion of U.S. special forces operations to 134 countries around the world suggests that this process is ongoing and expanding, not contracting.

But the neutral or pro-Russian position of the Ukrainian military since it was separated from the Soviet Red Army in 1991 made it an impractical tool for an anti-Russian coup. So Nuland and Pyatt’s signal innovation in Ukraine was to use the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party and Right Sector as a strike force to unleash escalating violence and seize power. This also required managing Svoboda and Right Sector’s uneasy alliance with Fatherland and UDAR, the two pro-Western opposition parties who won 40% between them in the 2012 parliamentary election.

Historically, about half of all U.S. coups have failed, and success is never guaranteed.  But few Americans have ended up dead or destitute in the wake of a failed coup.  It is always the people of the target country who pay the price in violence, chaos, poverty and instability, while U.S. coup leaders like Nuland and Pyatt often get a second – or 3rd or 4th or 5th – bite at the apple, and will keep rising through the ranks of the State Department and the CIA.  Direct U.S. military intervention in Ukraine was not an option before the coup, but now the coup itself may destabilize the country and plunge it into economic collapse, regional disintegration or conflict with Russia, creating new and unpredictable conditions in which NATO intervention could become feasible.

Russia has proposed a reasonable solution to the crisis. To resolve the tensions between Eastern and Western Ukraine over their respective political and economic links with Russia and the West, the Russians have proposed a federal system in which both Eastern and Western Ukraine would have much greater autonomy.  This would be more stable that the present system in which each tries to dominate the other with the support of their external allies, turning Ukraine and all its people into pawns of Western-NATO expansion and Russia’s efforts to limit it.  The Russian proposal includes a binding commitment that Ukraine would remain neutral and not join NATO.  A few weeks ago, Obama and Kerry seemed to be ready to take this off-ramp from the crisis.  The delay in agreeing to Russia’s seemingly reasonable proposal may be only an effort to save face, or it may mean that theneocons who engineered the coupare still dictating policy in Washington and that Obama and Kerry may be ready to risk a further escalation of the crisis.

The U.S. coup machine has also been at work in Venezuela, where it already failed once in 2002.  Raul Capote, a former Cuban double agent who worked with the CIA in Cuba and Venezuela, recently described its long-term project to build right-wing opposition movements among upper- and middle-class students in Venezuelan universities, which are now bearing fruit in increasingly violent street protests and vigilantism.  Thirty-six people have been killed, including six police officers and at least 5 opposition protesters.  The protests began exactly a month after municipal elections in December, in which the government won the popular vote by almost 10%, far more than the 1.5% margin in the presidential election last April.  As in Chile in 1973, electoral success by an elected government is often the cue for the CIA to step up its efforts, moving beyond propaganda and right-wing politics to violence in the streets, and the popularity of the Venezuelan government seems to have provoked precisely that reaction.

Another feature of U.S. coups is the role of the Western media in publicizing official cover stories and suppressing factual journalism.  This role has also been consistent since 1953, but it has evolved as corporate media have consolidated their monopoly power.  By their very nature, coups are secret operations and U.S. media are prohibited from revealing “national security” secrets about them, such as the names of CIA officers involved.  By only reporting official cover stories, they become unwitting co conspirators in the critical propaganda component of these operations.  But the U.S. corporate media have turned vice into virtue, relishing their role in the demonization of America’s chosen enemies and cheerleading U.S. efforts to do them in.  They brush U.S. responsibility for violence and chaos under the carpet, and sympathetically present U.S. policy as a well-meaning effort to respond to the irrational and dangerous behavior of others.

This is far more than is required by strict observance of secrecy laws, and it reveals a great deal about the nature of the media environment we live in.  The Western media as it exists today under near-monopoly corporate ownership is a more sophisticated and total propaganda system than early 20th century propagandists ever dreamed of.  As media corporations profit from Western geopolitical and commercial expansion, the propaganda function that supports that expansion is an integrated part of their business model, not something exceptional they do under duress from the state.  But to expect factual journalism about U.S. coups from such firms is to misunderstand who and what they are.

Recent studies have found that people gain a better grasp of current affairs from John Stewart’s Daily Show on Comedy Central than from watching “news” networks.  People who watch no “news” at all have more knowledge of international affairs than people who watch MSNBC or Fox News.  A previous survey conducted 3 months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq found that 52% of Americans believed that U.S. forces in Iraq had found clear evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.  Among Republicans who said they were following “news on Iraq very closely”, the figure was 78%, compared with only 68% among Republicans at large.

If the role of the corporate media was to provide factual journalism, these studies would be a terrible indictment of their performance.  But once we acknowledge their actual role as the propaganda arm of an expansionist political and economic system, then we can understand that promoting the myths and misinformation that sustain it are a central part of what they do.  In that light, they are doing a brilliant job on Ukraine as they did on Iraq, suppressing any mention of the U.S. role in the coup and pivoting swiftly away from the unfolding crisis in post-coup Ukraine to focus entirely on attacking President Putin for reclaiming Crimea.  On the other hand, if you’re looking for factual journalism about the U.S. coup machine, you should probably turn off your TV and keep reading reliable sources like Alternet,Consortium News and Venezuela Analysis.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. He wrote the chapter on “Obama At War” for the book, Grading the 44th President: A Report Card on Barack Obama’s First Term as a Progressive Leader.

Before Death, Acclaimed “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Author Stieg Larsson Lamented Right-Wing Extremism July 27, 2011

Posted by rogerhollander in Art, Literature and Culture, Racism, Right Wing.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

www.democracynow.org, July 27, 2011

 

In the aftermath of the Norway attacks, we look at the work of Stieg Larsson, an author known less for his extensive research into right-wing extremism in Scandavia and Europe than for his international blockbuster books, published after his death and known as the Millennium Trilogy: “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” “The Girl Who Played with Fire,” and “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest.” As part of his passion to “counteract the growth of the extreme right and the white power-culture in schools and among young people,” Larsson founded the Swedish Expo Foundation and edited its magazine, Expo. We go to Stockholm, Sweden, to speak with Larsson’s lifelong partner, Eva Gabrielsson, about the research they did together before his death.

In the aftermath of the Norway attacks, we look at the work of Stieg Larsson, an author known less for his extensive research into right-wing extremism in Scandavia and Europe than for his international blockbuster books, published after his death and known as the Millennium Trilogy: “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” “The Girl Who Played with Fire,” and “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest.” As part of his passion to “counteract the growth of the extreme right and the white power-culture in schools and among young people,” Larsson founded the Swedish Expo Foundation and edited its magazine, Expo. We go to Stockholm, Sweden, to speak with Larsson’s lifelong partner, Eva Gabrielsson, about the research they did together before his death.

Guest:

Eva Gabrielsson, author of a recently published memoir, There Are Things I Want You to Know about Stieg Larsson and Me. She is the partner of the late Stieg Larsson, author of the international bestselling Millennium Trilogy: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played with Fire, and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest.

AMY GOODMAN: We turn to look at the rising tide of far-right extremism in Norway, in Sweden and elsewhere in Europe. Despite the increasing prevalence of anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment in the country and region, many were surprised that the attacks were carried out by a Norwegian nationalist. The head of the security program at the Peace Research Institute in Oslo said he was one among many who thought the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda.

PETER BURGESS: I was among those who first thought, in the first 24 hours after the attack, that it was a jihadist or a al-Qaeda-inspired attack. And there were a few reasons why that might be plausible. And I think that was really the only scope of threat that was considered by the Norwegian Security Services. So now that we find out that it’s a right-wing extremist, we’re all the more surprised. And I think that the Security Services were even more surprised. There was nothing—the statements from the Security Service are that there was nothing about this man which came up—which should have come up on the security intelligence radar. Everything he was doing was within the realm of legality. There was really no reason to suspect him. And yet, there was every reason to suspect him.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Peter Burgess of the Peace Research Institute in Oslo.

According to observers, many of Anders Breivik’s views have increasingly moved into the mainstream. Right-wing parties have also re-entered European politics in recent years, including the Dutch Party for Freedom, the Sweden Democrats, the True Finns, the National Front in France, the National Democratic Party of Germany. Europe’s right fringe has secured seats in numerous national and regional parliaments across the continent.

Well, the man whose work we turn to now is known less for his extensive research into right-wing extremism in Scandinavian Europe than for his international blockbuster bestselling books known as the Millennium Trilogy: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played with Fire, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest. The author is Stieg Larsson. His books were actually published after his death. You see them at every airport. You may read the books. You may have seen the movies. But Stieg Larsson was also the editor of Expo, which was a magazine, a journal, that researched far-right movements in Sweden and beyond. So we’re turning to Sweden right now, to Stockholm, to speak with his life partner, Eva Gabrielsson. She has just published her memoir called There Are Things I Want You to Know about Stieg Larsson and Me.

We welcome you to Democracy Now! You did this work into the right wing together. When Stieg Larsson wasn’t writing these books, he was writing, doing his research for years into the right. When this took place in Norway, Eva, what were your thoughts?

EVA GABRIELSSON: Well, I thought immediately that this must be a madman, but a politically motivated madman. And my thoughts went to—that this was a person inspired by some extreme right wing, because he went to slaughter the youth at the youth camp. So I had never thought it was al-Qaeda.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the work that you and your partner, Stieg Larsson, now known throughout the world—certainly not the case when he was alive; he only dreamed that the books he—the manuscripts that he had would help to finance the research that you both have done, his life—his real life commitment. Talk about what spurred Stieg to begin his research into the right wing. You talk about it in your book, the wave of racist violence in Sweden in the ’80s, after which the extreme right became increasingly active in Sweden.

EVA GABRIELSSON: Well, he started being more openly active already in 1983, when he started to write for the British anti-fascist magazine Searchlight, which is based in London, and just because they needed somebody who could cover Scandinavia at the time. We had racist incidents. We had racist groups. We had neo-Nazi groups. And they all kept growing all through the 1980s. So, in the middle of the 1990s, it was time to also launch a Swedish magazine, a sort of sister magazine to Searchlight, but to make it its own, and that was Expo. So Stieg was actually working on these issues actively from 1983 up until his death.

His last article in Searchlight was published the same month as he died. That was November 2004. So he never gave up, and he continuously tried to explain that these groups aren’t deluded youth. You can’t say its their psychology or their social background which make them do these things. You have to understand that they do have a message and they do have a goal. And you have to regard their politics and take it seriously and see where they are going.

AMY GOODMAN: There is—you’re involved in an ongoing legal dispute with Stieg’s father and brother over the estate, which really—you know, it was after he died that these books became such massive blockbusters. But one of the issues you’ve raised and talked about was the reason that you, together with Stieg, for what, some three decades, didn’t get married, and it had to do with registering your location. Can you talk about that?

EVA GABRIELSSON: Well, we wanted to marry. I even—we even got the rings in 1983, and I still wear them. But we had to keep Stieg safe, and he wanted to keep me safe, by making sure that he was registered as unmarried in the Swedish public records, because we knew that they then, and still do, use the public records to make up lists of enemies of all kinds. These enemies are journalists. They are political activists. They are policemen. They are lawyers. They are politicians and so on. And Stieg was on that list from 1990 to ’93, when the first list was revealed in a court case. And they continued to build on that list. So by not marrying—it was, of course, possible to find his address in the public records, but it wasn’t possible to find behind which door he was living, because his name wasn’t on the door. He never paid any electricity bills. He never paid any gas bills. He never paid any insurance, anything like that. It was all in my name. So, that’s why we did not marry. And it worked. It worked fine.

AMY GOODMAN: Meaning you were both protected. One of the central themes of Stieg Larsson’s work is his research into the far right and the issue of violence against women. It is also something you are deeply concerned about. And when you read his books, you see that everywhere. Can you talk about why he was so deeply concerned about this and how he linked it into the rise of neo-Nazi groups, right-wing groups?

EVA GABRIELSSON: Well, he—when you talk about violence against women, or discrimination, Stieg used to say that they are just two sides of the same coin. They are directed towards different groups of the people in a society, but it’s the same mechanism, it’s the same ideology, it’s the same terror or discrimination that they want to impose, to subject somebody to something to be able to get more power of their own. And so, he never really saw any difference between racism and anti-feminism, just that—because the extreme right-wing movements and the right-wing populist racist movements started to grow so much in Sweden and in Scandinavia, he never really got the time to develop his feminist views, until Millennium. So that’s why that became such an important thing in Millennium.

And I also noted—I listened to the program while standing here. I also noted that you finally have found out that this Breivik in Norway, he is also what you could call a man who hates women. He blames actually women for the state of things in Europe now, and he doesn’t blame the global economy and the lack of political and economical responses to that, which he should be able to do, since he went to some commerce higher education in Norway. Instead, he blames women, saying that we have destroyed societies, we are for multiculturalism, we are against men, we have made men into something that they are not. And I’m horrified to see that his long-term aim, by using terror to destabilize whole nations and the whole of Europe, is supposed to end up in a coup, first civil war and then a coup, where which they will reestablish the patriarchy again—obviously with him in some kind of lead then at some point in time.

And it’s just—it’s just so backward. It’s just so horrible. It doesn’t reflect the ideas of Scandinavian societies at all. And I’m deeply upset by his writings. I’m even more upset by what he has done. It’s—please don’t think that we are like that up here in the north. We certainly aren’t.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Eva Gabrielsson, if Stieg were alive today, since he had been researching far-right extremism in Sweden and Scandinavia, do you think he would be surprised what took place in Norway? Or do you think it links into the different groups that Stieg has been writing about in Searchlight, in his magazine Expo? In fact, the shooter said, in his manifesto, he said that he was working with others, and that’s still being investigated, with other cells in Norway.

EVA GABRIELSSON: I don’t think Stieg would have fallen into the trap of sort of enhancing this man into something more than a lone, very confused person at this point in time. What I’ve been able to see so far is that his contacts with the Norwegian Defence League and a similar thing in Great Britain seem to have been a lot contact by internet, by blogs, by emails and things like that. He doesn’t seem to have been the kind of man who was able to be in groups with real people in real life. So, for the time being—and I hope the police investigation will show how much contact he had with others and if there is, in fact, any organization, but it seems to be—so far, it seems to be a lone, lone guy.

I also would like to show you a book. This is an official government report from 1999, which dealt with the destroyers of democracy. This was a official government study into how to deepen and broaden and secure democratic ways of making politics. And Stieg wrote a chapter here, and it’s about terror, it’s about The Turner Diaries and these kinds of threats. So, we have been aware of this in Sweden, that democracy needs to be deepened and broadened and practiced by more than politicians. And I’m glad to hear Jens Stoltenberg, the prime minister of Norway, expressing some kind of the same ideas in his speech to the Norwegian nation last night.

AMY GOODMAN: Eva Gabrielsson, I want to thank you for being with us. I hope this is just part one of our conversation. Eva Gabrielsson is the life partner of Stieg Larsson, famous for the Millennium Trilogy. And she has written a book about her relationship with Stieg, called There Are Things I Want You to Know about Stieg Larsson and Me.

Stephen Harper linked to Nazi intellectuals and Christian fundamentalists suggests Trevor Harrison’s book April 20, 2011

Posted by rogerhollander in Canada, Right Wing.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4 comments

leave a comment

https://i1.wp.com/justinbeach.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/StephenHarper.jpg

The Conservative Party’s hidden agenda to support a pro Big Business, and an oppressive anti-democratic agenda

by Dr. Debra Chin

Mr. Harrison documents in the book entitled Of Passionate Intensity, that Prime Minister Stephen Harper was a member of the ultra-right wing Northern Foundation in 1989. Mr. Harrison documents that this Foundation was comprised of Neo-Nazi social Darwinist intellectuals.

More on Stephen Harper and the Northern Foundation as documented by Trevor Harrison

Preston Manning
Author Trevor Harrison links Preston Manning to Northern Foundation ideological interests.

Stephen Harper was Reform Party Policy chief, at a time when it had numerous members of the white supremacist group Heritage Front as members. Trevor Harrison, further documents that Mr. Harper even had Heritage Front members doing security for Preston Manning at Reform Party events in Ontario. The Reform Party would evolve into the Alliance Party of Canada, which sought to take over the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (PC Party) toward the formation of the “Conservative Party of Canada”. The taking over of the PC Party was sought to provide legitimacy to a movement that was largely continued to be perceived a fringe group from Alberta. However, the current Conservative Party is still apparently governed by the same fringe Reform Party mentality, which in turn is linked with the architects of the far right Northern Foundation.

When Stephen Harper was a member of the ultra-right-wing Northern Foundation in 1989, Mr. Harrison documents that this was a group that had numerous Neo-Nazi skinheads as organizers, as well as a leadership that included a well-known white supremacist and anti-feminist crusader as a prominent leader that sought to take over the mass-media to enable the fulfillment of a right wing agenda. The Northern Foundation, with the support of corporate allies was able to get Mr. Harper elected in the first place by indeed, taking over the mass-media in Canada. This was done to shelter Mr. Harper from the kinds of critical journalism which had kept him out of power, in the first place. Corporate mass-media owners would seek to remake Mr. Harper and the Conservative Party from being ultra right, into a fabricated image of a non-threatening “moderately conservative” party.

Trevor Harrison also documents that “He [Mr. Harper] had little trouble doing so, as the media had been largely muffled by one fact: press baron Conrad Black, then reaching the height of his powers was also a member of the Northern Foundation and equally shy about having it publicly known.” Mr. Harrison elaborates that, “Journalists feared incurring his wrath as he employed many of them at the time, and was a potential employer for those whom he didn’t employ. Had they made the membership list public, Mr. Black would have been exposed.”

Now that Mr. Harper has been able to seize power by taking over the PC Party (through a breach of contract law), and with the help of, for example, media owners of CanWest Global (that form example, controls many Canadian newspapers including the National Post, and the Ottawa Citizen) who donated money to his political campaigns, the Conservative Party in association with the Northern Foundation now seeks to focus on the fulfillment of an NWO agenda.

Complaining of “socialist/progressive thinking”, and a media/political system controlled by ‘lib/left’ elites, who had been ‘able to impose their agenda on the Canadian people because “small-’c’ conservatives” had been divided. Mr. Harrison further documents that the Northern Foundation was the creation of a number of generally extreme right-wing conservatives, including Anne Hartmann (a director of REAL Women), Geoffrey Wasteneys (A long-standing member of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada), George Potter (also a member of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada), author Peter Brimelow, Link Byfield (son of Ted Byfield and himself publisher/president of Alberta Report), and Stephen Harper.

Mr. Harrison, also links former Reform Party leader Preston Manning, who continues to be a leading intellectual of the Conservative Party, right-wing author David Frum (linked to the current U.S. Bush administration), Toronto Sun columnist Peter Worthington and others, as having been affiliated to the Northern Foundation.

The roster of conservative adherents speaking at foundation conferences in 1989, 1990 and 1992 is equally instructive, further to Mr. Harrison’s very detailed documentation. Among speakers were Dr Walter Block (the Fraser Institute), Ed Vanwoudenberg (leader of the Christian Heritage party), Lubor Zink (an extreme right-wing columnist with the Sun chain), Dr. John Whitehall (of the Canadian Christian Anti-Communist Crusade), Ron Leitch (president of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada), Gwen Landolt (founder of the right wing organization REAL Women), Ken Campbell (founder of Renaissance Canada), Paul Fromm (former member of the Western Guard, a neo-fascist group, and later of CFAR), and author William Gairdner. The Foundation’s quarterly, The Northern Voice, had sought to regularly provide advertising space for these same individuals, their fascistic visions, and their related organizations.

Ostensibly, therefore, the Northern Foundation has sought to be a vehicle for bringing together several disparate right-wing groups and otherwise for disseminating a Neo-Nazi ideology. Significantly, it also had cultivated substantial connections to the Reform Party, which would eventually evolve into the current Conservative Party of Canada.

Mr. Harrison also documents, that the Reform Party under the watchful eye of Preston Manning and Stephen Harper, housed former Neo-Nazi Western Guard (an infamous Toronto-area hate group launched in the 1960’s) members like Leigh Smith, and Wolfgang Droege. Mr. Droege had gone on to form Heritage Front and brought other members of that group into the Reform Party and eventual Conservative Party political interests.

More on the makings of the Northern Foundation

The Northern Foundation’s president was Rita Ann Hartmann, widow of former Western Guard radical Paul Hartmann. Ms. Hartmann had moved to Ottawa in 1987 with her six children, two of whom were skinheads who would go on to recruit on behalf of the Heritage Front in the national capital. The Hartmann family, the Toronto Star elaborates. lived in a huge home at 25 Delaware Avenue, in the well-to-do Golden Triangle neighbourhood. From there, Hartmann maintained connections with Neo-Nazi groups across North America. In March 1990, for example, she wrote to the ultra-violent Confederate Hammerskins of Tulsa, Oklahoma, using an alias she favours, Eleanor Cameron. Out of the same address, Ann Hartmann busied herself with REAL Women of Canada. Ms. Hartmann, who has a law degree from the University of Toronto, provides legal advice to REAL Women. In April 1989, for example, she gave an anti-abortion speech to a REAL Women conference at the Radisson Hotel in Ottawa.

Author, Mr. Harrison also further documents that the Northern Foundation’s inaugural conference was also attended by a well-known Conservative MP; a founder of Alberta Report magazine; a senior representative of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada; and a columnist for the Toronto Sun. Many of those associated with the Northern Foundation would go on to play key roles in the Neo-Nazi Heritage Front. These persons include Steve Dumas, the Foundation’s research officer, who would write a regular column in the Front’s Up Front publication under the pseudonym Steve Baker; Geoff Lupton, who had made an unsuccessful attempt in 1989 to establish a Nationalist Party club at Carleton University and who used the pseudonym Geoff Edwards when working on behalf of the Heritage Front; and Eric (Stilts) Hartmann, son of Paul and Ann, who was moved to pen an anti-abortion editorial for Mr. Droege.

“The Northern Foundation Conference was the start of it all for the Heritage Front,” recalls Droege. “From that point on, things really took off.” So too, did things take-over for Mr. Harper who became Prime Minister of Canada, and leader of a party which has apparently sought to fulfill the agenda of the Northern Foundation. That agenda apparently includes blocking candidates like Mr. Warner, which do not present the ideology of the Northern Foundation, that in turn endorses the U.S. President George Bush administration.

Further links with the neo-con National Citizens’ Coalition (NCC)

“The connections between the National Citizens’ Coalition (NCC) and the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance/Conservative Party go back a long way,” also documents Mr. Harrison. Their political agendas have been virtually identical: so called “deficit reduction” against progressive social policies; restriction of immigration; ending universal social programs; lowering taxes for corporations and high-income earners, and ending universal public healthcare,” further elaborates Mr. Harrison.

Colin Brown, the founder of the NCC, began his conservative crusade in 1967 with a full-page ad in the Globe and Mail attacking the federal Liberal government’s plans for a national medicare scheme. Brown would eventually incorporate the far right National Citizens’ Coalition in 1975.

There are no direct ties between the Conservative Party and the National Citizens’ Coalition. Furthermore, with the former President of the National Citizens’ Coalition as leader of the Conservative Party formal ties, with that organization, would be redundant.

The original Nazis, under Adolf Hitler, believed that a certain in-group of white Europeans, are descendants of Extraterrestrials called “Aryans”. Neo-Nazis or “modern Nazis”, further believe that these racially superior group of whites, are destined to once again rule the world, under the religious guidance of these “Aryans”, through the creation of a “New World Order” (NWO). “Globalization” is a project among these elites, toward the creation of the NWO.

As social Darwinists, Canada’s Neo-Nazi intellectuals believe that society and the world in general, would be strengthened when weaker “mongrel races” accept their “inferiority” and are allowed to perish, without the protection of social policy, like universal public healthcare, and human rights. Neo-Nazis view war i.e. the “War on Terrorism”, as desirable, to create a “warrior society”, and to ensure that the resources of the world are under the direction and exclusive control of “Aryan descendants”. A “warrior society” glorifies militarism and military service to defend against “enemies of society”, which include human rights and social activists.

The Northern Foundation of which Mr. Harper was a member, is a male-dominated and self-anointed “white brotherhood”. Females are not excluded though, provided that they accept its highly conformist and male chauvinistic culture of fascism.

Mr. Harper would eventually “officially” break-away from this group. Indeed, it would be unfair to Mr. Harper, to continually link him ideologically to a group that he may have simply sought to explore, in his process of political exploration and outreach. However, upon closer examination, the substantive policy direction of the Conservative government, appears to be emphatically driven by the expressed agenda of the Northern Foundation. This includes massive cuts to programs aimed, for example, at advancing the status of women; and protecting minorities from institutionalized discrimination.

The Neo-Nazism, that is associated with the Foundation, also ideologically embraces sexual repression; homophobia; and seeks to prevent constructive measures to redress the plight of the poor, which include senior citizens and children.

The apparent goals of the Northern Foundation, through the Harper government, appear to be to replace Canada as we know it, (as a progressive society), into being a regressive society under the U.S. colonial control, under the direction of a self-anointed Aryans. In other words, Mr. Harper appears to be attempting to use public office designed to defend the national interests of all Canadians, to carry out the apparent private agenda of a clique, whose members are determined to transform Canada into their own bleak fascist image under U.S. control.

The support of the Harper government for the undermining of civil rights through the rationalization of the so-called “War on Terrorism”; operates to execute the glorification of militarism and war; messianic Zionism; an apparent bias toward ‘eugenics’ in relation to ignoring the global threat of the HIV-AIDS pandemic, (and the corresponding environmental-related “life and death” issue of Global Warming); and use religion as a means to manipulate the masses. All of these are being conducted to support the desire for Canada to become a U.S. colony through the endorsement of the Security and Prosperity and Partnership of North America (SPPNA); and are all supported by the expressed ideology of the Northern Foundation.

The dropping of Mark Warner in Toronto-Centre encapsulates the apparent Neo-Nazi intellectual foundations of the Conservative Party agenda

The Toronto Star reported on 1 November 2007, that the federal Conservatives under Mr. Harper’s direction ousted 43 year old international trade lawyer Mark Warner because he wanted to advance urban and social justice issues that are at odds with the prevailing Conservative Party ideology. Ousting a candidate who had been a member of the Conservative Party since the Brian Mulroney government, simply because he seeks to affirm human rights inclusive of redressing the plight of the poor and disenfranchised Canadians. is exactly the kind of ideological-motivated course of action that one would expect from a clique still acting to fulfill the vision of the Northern Foundation, as documented by Mr. Harrison.

“We’ve had, for a number of months, a series of differences between our campaign and the national campaign, over the degree to which I could run a campaign that would focus on the kinds of issues that matter in a downtown urban riding,: Mr. Warner had told the Toronto Star.

“Over the objections of leaders of the Toronto Centre riding association, Mr. Warner was removed by the Party’s National Campaign Manager, ” Mr. Warner’s website correspondingly acknowledges. LINK Conservative officials in their apparent desire to advance the ideology of the fascistic Northern Foundation, had sought to “actively resist Mr. Warner’s emphasis on housing, health care and cities issues.

Right-Wing Rage: Hate Groups, Vigilantes and Conspiracists on the Verge of Violence March 3, 2010

Posted by rogerhollander in Right Wing.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

The radical right has caught fire, as broad-based anger over the past year has ignited an explosion of new extremist groups and activism across the nation.

March 2, 2010  |  
 
Southern Poverty Law Center / By Mark Potok
The radical right caught fire last year, as broad-based populist anger at political, demographic and economic changes in America ignited an explosion of new extremist groups and activism across the nation.

Hate groups stayed at record levels — almost 1,000 — despite the total collapse of the second largest neo-Nazi group in America. Furious anti-immigrant vigilante groups soared by nearly 80 percent, adding some 136 new groups during 2009. And, most remarkably of all, so-called “Patriot” groups — militias and other organizations that see the federal government as part of a plot to impose “one-world government” on liberty-loving Americans — came roaring back after years out of the limelight.

The anger seething across the American political landscape — over racial changes in the population, soaring public debt and the terrible economy, the bailouts of bankers and other elites, and an array of initiatives by the relatively liberal Obama Administration that are seen as “socialist” or even “fascist” — goes beyond the radical right. The “tea parties” and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups, but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism.

“We are in the midst of one of the most significant right-wing populist rebellions in United States history,” Chip Berlet, a veteran analyst of the American radical right, wrote earlier this year. “We see around us a series of overlapping social and political movements populated by people [who are] angry, resentful, and full of anxiety. They are raging against the machinery of the federal bureaucracy and liberal government programs and policies including health care, reform of immigration and labor laws, abortion, and gay marriage.”

Sixty-one percent of Americans believe the country is in decline, according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Just a quarter think the government can be trusted. And the anti-tax tea party movement is viewed in much more positive terms than either the Democratic or Republican parties, the poll found.

The signs of growing radicalization are everywhere. Armed men have come to Obama speeches bearing signs suggesting that the “tree of liberty” needs to be “watered” with “the blood of tyrants.” The Conservative Political Action Conference held this February was co-sponsored by groups like the John Birch Society, which believes President Eisenhower was a Communist agent, and Oath Keepers, a Patriot outfit formed last year that suggests, in thinly veiled language, that the government has secret plans to declare martial law and intern patriotic Americans in concentration camps. Politicians pandering to the anti-government right in 37 states have introduced “Tenth Amendment Resolutions,” based on the constitutional provision keeping all powers not explicitly given to the federal government with the states. And, at the Web site titled “A Well Regulated Militia,” a recent discussion of how to build “clandestine safe houses” to stay clear of the federal government included a conversation about how mass murderers like Timothy McVeigh and Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph were supposedly betrayed at such houses. 

Doing the Numbers
The number of hate groups in America has been going up for years, rising 54 percent between 2000 and 2008 and driven largely by an angry backlash against non-white immigration and, starting in the last year of that period, the economic meltdown and the climb to power of an African American president.

According to the latest annual count by the Southern Poverty Law Center), these groups rose again slightly in 2009 — from 926 in 2008 to 932 last year — despite the demise of a key neo-Nazi group. The American National Socialist Workers Party, which had 35 chapters in 28 states, imploded shortly after the October 2008 arrest of founder Bill White for making threats against his enemies.

At the same time, the number of what the SPLC designates as “nativist extremist” groups — organizations that go beyond mere advocacy of restrictive immigration policy to actually confront or harass suspected immigrants — jumped from 173 groups in 2008 to 309 last year. Virtually all of these vigilante groups have appeared since the spring of 2005.

But the most dramatic story by far has been with the anti-government Patriots.

The militias and the larger Patriot movement first came to Americans’ attention in the mid-1990s, when they appeared as an angry reaction to what was seen as a tyrannical government bent on crushing all dissent. Sparked most dramatically by the death of 76 Branch Davidians during a 1993 law enforcement siege in Waco, Texas, those who joined the militias also railed against the Democratic Clinton Administration and initiatives like gun control and environmental regulation. Although the Patriot movement included people formerly associated with racially based hate groups, it was above all animated by a view of the federal government as the primary enemy, along with a fondness for anti-government conspiracy theories. By early this decade, the groups had largely disappeared from public view.

But last year, as noted in the SPLC’s August report, “The Second Wave: Return of the Militias,” a dramatic resurgence in the Patriot movement and its paramilitary wing, the militias, began. Now, the latest SPLC count finds that an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias) — a 244 percent jump.

That is cause for grave concern. Individuals associated with the Patriot movement during its 1990s heyday produced an enormous amount of violence, most dramatically the Oklahoma City bombing that left 168 people dead.

Already there are signs of similar violence emanating from the radical right. Since the installation of Barack Obama, right-wing extremists have murdered six law enforcement officers. Racist skinheads and others have been arrested in alleged plots to assassinate the nation’s first black president. One man from Brockton, Mass. — who told police he had learned on white supremacist websites that a genocide was under way against whites — is charged with murdering two black people and planning to kill as many Jews as possible on the day after Obama’s inauguration. Most recently, a rash of individuals with antigovernment, survivalist or racist views have been arrested in a series of bomb cases.

As the movement has exploded, so has the reach of its ideas, aided and abetted by commentators and politicians in the ostensible mainstream. While in the 1990s, the movement got good reviews from a few lawmakers and talk-radio hosts, some of its central ideas today are being plugged by people with far larger audiences like FOX News’ Glenn Beck and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. Beck, for instance, re-popularized a key Patriot conspiracy theory — the charge that FEMA is secretly running concentration camps — before finally “debunking” it.

Last year also experienced levels of cross-pollination between different sectors of the radical right not seen in years. Nativist activists increasingly adopted the ideas of the Patriots; racist rants against Obama and others coursed through the Patriot movement; and conspiracy theories involving the government appeared in all kinds of right-wing venues. A good example is the upcoming Second Amendment March in Washington, D.C. The Web site promoting the march is topped by a picture of a colonial militiaman, and key supporters include Larry Pratt, a long-time militia enthusiast with connections to white supremacists, and Richard Mack, a conspiracy-mongering former sheriff associated with the Patriot group, Oath Keepers.

What may be most noteworthy about the march, however, is its date — April 19. That is the date of the first shots fired at Lexington in the Revolutionary War. And it is also the anniversary of the fiery end of the government siege in Waco and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

Mark Potok is the editor of the Southern Poverty Law Center‘s Intelligence Report.