Mediaboss Marketing

The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) is good at what is does. Thats why it is now trying to tie the white supremacists of the alt-right to the pro-life movement, even though the opposite is closer to the truth. White supremacists at #Charlottesville have close ties not just to Trump, but GOP & anti-choice groups, NARAL announced on Twitter. After connecting one racist marcher to a College Republicans chapter and pointing out that another attended a March for Life, the group rested its case:

It should be no surprise why white supremacists promote #antichoice policies. They disproportionately harm women of color.

This doesnt make much sense. For it to be true, the alt-right would have to want to keep abortion away from racial minorities, even though it knows that abortion reduces Americas black and Hispanic populations. Indeed, NARALs point can be made more effectively the other way around: It is not anti-abortion laws that disproportionately harm women of color, but abortion itself, which has claimed the lives of 19 million black babies since Roe v. Wade in 1973.

That is the reason why, contrary to NARALs protestations, the leaders of the alt-right are actually pro-choice. They dont oppose abortion because its good for racial minorities; they support abortion because it kills them. They hate black people and think America would be better if fewer of them were born.

Though this is terrifying to contemplate, it should not be unfamiliar. In fact, the alt-right tends to praise abortion for the same reasons that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, praised it: It helps to rid the country of undesirables.

Richard Spencer, the keynote speaker in Charlottesville and the central figure of the alt-right movement, finds abortion useful. He has explained that abortion will help to bring about his vision of an elite, white America: The people who are having abortions are generally very often Black or Hispanic or from very poor circumstances. The people whom Spencer wants to reproduce, he says, are using abortion when you have a situation like Down Syndrome. It is only the unintelligent and blacks and Hispanics, he claims, who use abortion as birth control.

On this understanding, abortion is a form of eugenics, helping to shape the population to produce more desirables and fewer undesirables. This is why Spencer supports the practice not because he believes that it is a moral good or that women are owed the right to choose, but because he views it as a morally neutral tool that improves the American gene pool by making it whiter and richer.

Spencer has specifically contrasted his position on abortion with that of National Reviews Ramesh Ponnuru. Spencer mocks Ponnurus for undertaking a human rights crusade, built on the assumption that every being that is human has a right to life. Spencer, of course, doesnt believe that is true.

He has openly mocked conservatives who worry about a black genocide or how [abortion] is destroying black communities. He knows that an estimated 75 percent of women who have abortions are poor. He knows that black women, receiving an outsize 36 percent of all American abortions, are almost five times as likely to terminate their pregnancies as white women. Nothing could make him happier.

Also secure in that knowledge is the pseudonymous alt-righter Aylmer Fisher, who writes in Spencers Radix Journal. It is important we not fall prey to the pro-life temptation, Fisher proclaims. Her reasoning is predictable: The only ones who cant [avoid an unwanted pregnancy] are the least intelligent and responsible members of society: women who are disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and poor.

This sort of racism is largely foreign to todays pro-choice movement. Its members genuinely believe that a fetus either does not count as human life or does not carry moral value. The task of pro-lifers is to convince them on the science and ethics, and show that abortion preys on women more than it empowers them.

But abortion hits racial minorities harder than any other group, and this fact has not been incidental to its history in America. As National Reviews Kevin Williamson detailed extensively in a cover story earlier this year, progressive eugenics was the intellectual ferment out of which rose the American birth-control movement.

Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, wanted to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy. In other words, she sought to improve the human race.

However, she faced an obstacle the same one that so troubles Richard Spencer and his acolytes. In her book, Woman and the New Race, Sanger wrote, The feebleminded are notoriously prolific in reproduction. This would be a problem with a solution to which Sanger devoted her lifes work: controlling the birth rate, especially among the unfit (read: the poor, blacks, and Catholic immigrants).

This goal brought her into contact with Charles C. Little, the president of the American Eugenics Society (AES), and a founding board member of the American Birth Control League (ABCL), which eventually became Planned Parenthood. Littles two associations are not coincidental: The ABCL, founded by Sanger in 1921, even shared office space with the AES. Moreover, as Williamson notes, Little believed that birth-control policy should be constructed in such a way as to protect Yankee stock referred to in Sangers own work as unmixed native white parentage.

Linda Gordon, author of The Moral Property of Woman: A History of Birth-Control Politics, examined the ABCLs in-house publication, the Birth Control Review. She reports that, A content analysis of the Birth Control Review showed that by the late 1920s only 4.9 percent of its articles in that decade had any concern with womens self-determination. Furthermore, It was Sangers courting of doctors and eugenists that moved the ABCL away from both the Left and liberalism, away from both socialist-feminist impulses and civil liberties arguments toward an integrated population program for the whole society.

There is little doubt that the alt-right would like to pursue just such an integrated population program for the whole society. Unlike pro-lifers, its acolytes have no desire to protect life for its own sake.

Or, as Spencer himself has put it, pro-lifers want to be radical...human rights thumpers and theyre not us. On this point, I wont argue. Neither should anyone whose movements intellectual progenitor is Margaret Sanger.

Elliot Kaufman is an editorial intern at National Review.

Read the original post:
The Alt-Right Carries on Margaret Sanger's Pro-Abortion Legacy - National Review

Even as it wrestles with its own diversity issues, Silicon Valley has become the reluctant arbiter of the line where free speech crosses into hate speech in the wake of the deadly protests in Charlottesville.

In an age where a lack of condemnation is tantamount to complicity, experts say tech firms have no choice but to disassociate from the alt-right, although as a growing number of tech companies cut off white nationalist groups from the platforms they use for communication, commerce, and content distribution, some have criticized the response as too little, too late.

Theres a very intimate history between internet service providers and white supremacist groups, said Joan Donovan, media manipulation research lead at the Data & Society Research Institute. There was plenty of warning that this stuff was being coordinated in their spaces, she said, but tech companies initially resisted policing the activity.

Historically, Silicon Valley has presented itself on embracing diversity in all its forms, albeit for pragmatic rather than political reasons: Cutthroat competition for users and talent means that companies cant afford to be exclusionary.

The reason this is a heightened issue in technology is technology is much more heterogeneous its all over the world, said Dave Carvajal, CEO of a technology-focused recruiting firm.

Its this belief people have that the tech industry should be the most modern, the most cutting edge, said Brian Kropp, HR Practice Leader at CEB (now Gartner). It also has this promise of capturing what tomorrow is going to be like.

But putting these egalitarian principles into practice hasnt always been easy. Even before Charlottesville, companies have stumbled in the gap between bro culture and Silicon Valleys self-image of open-mindedness.

Ubers ouster of CEO Travis Kalanick shone an embarrassing spotlight on the ingrained misogyny at some firms, and Googles recent firing of engineer James Damore, who argued in a widely distributed memo that women are biologically less well-suited for tech jobs, triggered accusations that the search giant is intolerant of conservative views.

I think whats happening is a lot of these kinds of deep-rooted issues are being brought to the surface because of the political theater thats happening right now. Its stirring up a lot of this, Carvajal said.

The violence at a white nationalist rally that left one counter-protester dead and others injured has brought this tension into sharper focus.

Theyve been pushing very hard on many of these issues. Now theyre at a point where they have to make really hard decisions... whether or not they stand up to all the values theyve talked about and promoted, Kropp said.

Some tech firms have been more receptive to curtailing alt-right activity than others, said Rashad Robinson, executive director of advocacy group Color of Change.

A lot of them seem super-focused on terms of services and this idea of an open platform, he said. We hear things like they share our values but at this time theres not going to be an update to policy.

Some of the challenges are logistical rather than ideological, since much of the enforcement cant be automated. It takes humans making judgement calls, and the line between talk and action online isnt always clear. There hasnt been a good model so far for policy around how to monitor or prevent certain amounts of content, Donovan said.

Tech companies also dont want to alienate potential customers or trigger a public relations backlash. According to Ted Marzilli, CEO of YouGov BrandIndex, consumer sentiment metrics for Facebook, Apple and GoDaddy reflected little change this week. Theyre not getting a lot of credit from consumers, but theyre not being punished, either, he said.

This could embolden other Silicon Valley leaders to terminate alt-right and white nationalist business relationships, Marzilli said, even if it costs them. These things are always a bit risky for companies from the perspective of dollars and cents, he said.

Whether driven by a sense of moral obligation, concern about public perception or some combination of the two, last weekends violence seemed to be a wake-up call, Robinson said. Its certainly accelerated since Charlottesville, he said of companies willingness to cut ties with white nationalist groups.

They started to think about their role in promoting this kind of talk, Donovan said. One thing these platforms really understand about themselves is they dont just allow speech to flow, they do the job of coordinating action They saw that this kind of open unmoderated speech online produced violent effects.

Follow this link:
Alt-Right Activists Thrust Silicon Valley Into Debate on Hate Speech ... - NBCNews.com

WATCH LIVE

The city of Berkeley once again is gearing up for what could be another showdown between the right and left with rallies this weekend and in September, including a possible appearance by conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos. (Published Monday, Aug. 21, 2017)

The city of Berkeley once again is gearing up for what could be another showdown between the right and left with rallies this weekend and in September, including a possible appearance by conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos.

The rallies will focus on free speech, and while city and UC Berkeley leaders are not welcoming hate speech, they are allowing the rallies in the name of the First Amendment.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee and other city and county leaders are expected to speak Tuesday morning at Berkeley City Hall to make it clear to hate groups that they are not welcome in the city.

So-called alt-right ralliers plan to demonstrate on Berkeley's streets this weekend, and residents are concerned about violence and destruction similar to what occurred in February, before a planned Yiannopoulos speech was canceled.

"They're not alt-right; they're Nazis," resident Taye Taye said. "They're racists. They're not welcome."

UC Berkeley students also are concerned about what will happen this weekend and in September, when Yiannopoulos and other controversial alt-right speakers say they will be on campus.

"There is such a thing as too far left and too far right, so i think it's going to be a little dangerous around campus during that time," student Cindy Kreck said.

Still, the university says it will allow all speech on campus, even if it's filled with hate.

"We contest speech that we don't like with more speech, and the best disinfectant is sunlight," UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said.

Mogulof said the school will spend a lot of money on security to keep people safe.

Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin said the alt-right groups expected this weekend are not welcome but they will not be turned away if they remain peaceful.

"We as a community stand for free speech," Arreguin said. "We are the birthplace of the free speech movement, and we really can't dictate based on the content of the speech."

Published at 5:01 PM PDT on Aug 21, 2017 | Updated at 8:58 PM PDT on Aug 21, 2017

Read more:
Berkeley Braces for Upcoming 'Alt-Right' Rallies, Speeches - NBC Bay Area

A Washington Post-ABC News poll found that roughly one in ten Americans support the alt-right and nine percent find it acceptable to hold neo-Nazi or white supremacist views. Those numbers are a bit higher than you would like, as ideally they would be hovering somewhere around zero.

The poll, conducted after the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville,explicitly asked, Thinking now about the movement known as the alt-right Would you describe yourself as a supporter or an opponent of the alt-right movement?

Ten percent of respondents marked themselves down as supporters of the movement, although only four of that 10 percent said they strongly support the alt-right, while the other six only somewhat support it. Well, as long as you only kind of agree with the racists I suppose thats OK. But another issue is that a large chunk of those surveyed dont seem to realize that the alt-right is filled with white supremacists.

When asked, As far as you know, do you think the alt-right does or does not hold neo-Nazi or white supremacist views? 21 percent said it doesnt and 39 percent said they had no opinion, even thought this is not really a matter of opinion.

People have argued about this question, but lets be very clear here. The man who coined the term alt-right is Richard Spencer. Spencer is a white nationalist who wants to create a white ethno state. He claims he wants to do so peacefully, but theres no way to do that and everybody knows it. In addition to that, you have self-identified members of the alt-right marching around with tiki torches, chanting Jews will not replace us, and rallying in support of Confederate monuments. The man accused of murdering Heather Heyer in Charolottesville marched with National Vanguard, an explicitly white supremacist group that loves the phrase blood and soil. Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer counts himself and his followers as alt-right.

This is white supremacy, plain and simple.

[Washington Post | Photo: Getty]

Go here to read the rest:
Poll finds 10 percent of Americans support the 'alt-right' - Death and Taxes

Stop saying alt-right. Call them what they are:racists, Nazis,whitesupremacists, vile and divisive people. We cannot soften hate.

The good news isDonald Trumphas finally shown us his true colors. The bad news is he has shown us his true colors.There is no morality in his soul.In spite of growing up during the civil rights movement, when people died in sit-ins and marches, he found no moral high ground in that fight.

We need to speak the truth about Charlottesville and theracists, neo-Nazis and white supremacists coming to San Francisco and Berkeley this month. We need to be there to show our support for good, equality and justice. And we need to call them what they are.

Nanci Viera San Jose

As someone who has served in U.S. Army and studied military history all my life, I cannot let someone write something so ridiculous defending Gen. Robert E. Lee (Letters, Aug. 17). Like Germanys Gen. Erwin Rommel, Lee led armies that imposed racist and murderous war. Neither deserves to be treated with honor.

Vic DiEleanora San Bruno

I did not find President Trumps comments at all offensive.Trump was right on assigning blame to both sides.He strongly condemnedviolence, and he was wise to wait until he had all the facts before calling outby name. He is absolutely for law and order.

Why do people and news continually bash Trump? Why keep opposing the will of the people? What is placing the country in grave danger is not Trump, but it is the likes of people such as Rep Jackie Speier, the Bay Area Democratand others who portray him as unfit for office.

Deanna Method Campbell

Removing Confederate statues does not erase history and does not promote understanding or learning of our U.S. history. It would be more beneficial to place historical perspective statements on each statue to explain, for example, that Gen. Robert E. Lee was a great soldier, etc., however, he fought against the unity of the United States. President George Washington was also a slave owner. There are good and bad sides to each person, living and dead. Why not turn a newly ripened urge to rid our country of Confederate statues into a positive, educational enlightenment of our historical figures for all to understand in accordance to todays thinking. It would also save money and probably lives.

Mimi McDonald San Jose

Just as Mel Cottons sign will live on with History San Jose,,so should Confederate statues live on in a national, designatedmonument/museum dedicated to slavery, the Civil War, and the civil rights movement. The United States Holocaust MemorialMuseum need not stand alone. Lets add to it the United StatesNational Slavery Museum. (And, if we want to take it one step further, how about a United States Indigenous Peoples Memorial Museum also?)

Jeannette Schreiber San Jose

Concerning the traitor leaders of the Confederacy and the treasonous image of the Confederate flag, people should also look at the American flag and the patriots that formed this country in the same way. Both tried to break away/secede from a country that they did not feel reflected their values, right or wrong. The difference is that the colonists won their war. To the victor belongs the spoils. Its easy to pass judgment hundreds of years later.

Tom Simpson San Jose

Donald Trump has hastily accused those interested in removing Confederate monuments as revisionist intending to change history. He fails, again, to take responsibility for his many blatant attempts to eradicate President Obamas legacy, and to have lead the effort to delegitimize the birth of President Obama.The arrogance and shamelessness of Trump is beyond outrageous. It is criminal.

Blanca Alvarado Former member, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

Californias SB 10 is a morally right piece of bail reform legislation that will keep citizens safe and create a more equitable justice system that ensures everyone has access to justice and freedom. We cannot continue with the present system where more than 60 percent of people in jail are awaiting trial, costing taxpayers more than $5 million a day.

Vida Moattar Larkspur

More:
Aug. 21 Letters: Start calling the 'alt-right' what they are - The Mercury News