Monday, July 6, 2026

IMPORTANT NEW BOOKS:

Civil Rights and Structural Attacks: Conversations with Walter Riley
by Walter Riley
Edited by Jesse Strauss
Foreword by Boots Riley

Legacy Left Books, 2026
 
[Publication date: June 23, 2026]


Eighty years of lessons from the Black freedom struggle, labor movements, and internationalism.

Raised among the entrails of chattel slavery in Durham, North Carolina, Walter shares political reflections and lessons from decades of movement experience. This includes 1950s and early 1960s mobilizations against Jim Crow apartheid laws and welcoming Freedom Riders to Durham, followed by later 1960s student and labor organizing with the Progressive Labor Party, early Black Panther Party formations, anti-war activities, and co-leading the Peace and Freedom Party’s Black Caucus.

In the 1970s, Walter became a leader in the national Progressive Labor Party and led labor and welfare organizing in Chicago and Detroit. In the 1980s he became a criminal defense and civil rights lawyer and organized against South Africa’s apartheid system. His more recent work supporting infrastructure for Haitian movement-building and confronting police violence in Oakland allowed him to draw parallels between the dangers of international structural adjustment programs abroad, and the pitfalls of the nonprofit industrial complex at home.

This text is a multi-generational conversation between legendary Civil Rights organizer Walter Riley and longtime friend and Oakland organizer, Jesse Strauss. Together, they reflect on the importance of political action as the primary venue for learning and reflection. Walter Riley has a never-ending commitment to building a better world and he’ll challenge readers to avoid the paralysis of analysis that slows movements down and to avoid getting caught in the missives of ego. Includes a foreword by Walter Riley's son, Boots Riley.

REVIEWS:

"At a time when a lot of people are disconnected from actual movements, I hope my father’s legacy reminds you that it is each of our responsibility to participate in changing the world." —Boots Riley, from the foreword

“Walter Riley is one of the great revolutionary thinkers and strategists of our time–often compared with Amilcar Cabral or Walter Rodney. If you didn’t know this before, thanks to Jesse Strauss, now you know. You will find in these pages the critical insight, wisdom, and direction organizers need to meet the moment. And because Riley shares his own story of a life in struggle, you know why he is a beacon of light and brilliance for our movements.” —Robin D. G. Kelley, author of Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination

“Walter Riley is my political mentor and hero. Like Ella Baker, his lifelong commitment to the fight for freedom and justice has been powerful, persistent, and unassuming. As a union organizer, radical movement intellectual, people’s lawyer, and courageous freedom fighter, Walter’s contributions to a wide range of liberation movements over many decades is unmatched. An unflinching opponent of capitalism, colonialism, and racism from Haiti to Oakland, Walter is an exemplary champion of oppressed people the world over. No exaggeration. My only critique of this short bio-narrative is that it should be longer. There are so many important stories Walter could tell us, and lessons he could convey. Read, learn, and be inspired and fortified for the struggles ahead.” —Barbara Ransby, activist, historian, and author of Ella Baker and the Black Freedom Movement

“Walter Riley is a Movement Man—the kind of essential organizer/activist/thinker/doer who keeps the Movement moving. Here is an urgent intergenerational dialogue, the ideal vehicle for unlocking the wisdom of a veteran freedom fighter whose organizing work centers on principled unity and whose vast experience is wholly relevant to the demands of radical movement building today. Riley knows that eighty years is a long time in the life of a man but the blink of an eye in the life of a struggle, and so he’s neither nostalgic for a ship that’s already left the shore nor interested in burnishing a legacy. Rather, he’s still leaning forward, still on the move and in the mix, still asking the most insistent and burning questions: How do we name this political moment? Where do we go from here? What does the known demand of us now? Read Civil Rights and Structural Attacks: Conversations with Walter Riley as a challenge as well as an invitation to join Walter Riley on today’s barricades—we have a world to win.” —Bill Ayers, co-founder of the Weather Underground and author of When Freedom is the Question Abolition is the Answer

“The haymaker punch is named after the wide swinging motion of the scythe—the 14th Century agricultural tool used to reap edible grains and chop down undesirables. Name linked to the Latin scindere (to cut), the scythe’s broad arcing swing reaps abundance. Walter Riley’s deft dialectic introduces openness, risk, willingness to struggle, and revolutionary contingency to the scythe’s movement. In Walter’s words: ‘A haymaker in boxing is when you don’t know where the punch is going to land but you know it has power in it and you hope it’ll work. At the same time, you leave yourself open. People tend not to do that in actual boxing, but in this concept of being out in struggle, do some haymakers! Go after folks that are oppressive! Go after institutions! Go after ideas and thought processes that inhibit folks! Be intentional about it! Think about it but don’t hold back!’ This forcefully urgent volume is full of revolutionary insight, a ledger of radical praxis from my friend Walter Riley enriching our understanding of organizations and masses in motion: NAACP, CORE, The Black Panther Party, Progressive Labor Party, Fanmi Lavalas, and so much more. The geographical expanse is vast—NorthCarolina, Chicago, Detroit, Port-au-Prince, and of course, Oakland, California. Walter and Jesse Strauss’s text models through praxis its title formulation of ‘Quiet Leadership’—which like Assata Shakur’s notion of the ‘reluctant warrior’ opens up a treasure trove of insight informing their respective texts and archive of revolutionary praxis. This includes: the centrality of planning, the problem of leadership, the temptations of individuation, lessons of cadre building, mass base building, active listening, the nuance in Walter’s sense of ‘ante-revolutionary’ and anti-revolutionary. Thank you—Walter and Jesse—for this record of struggle—for feeding us, sustaining radical memory and current praxis, and cutting our enemies down to size. The pen is mightier than the scythe, but keep a scythe around just in case. Unite the many to defeat the few and while doing the damn thing—study this book and commence the throwing.” —Jeremy Matthew Glick, author of The Black Radical Tragic: Performance, Aesthetics, and the Unfinished Haitian Revolution

"Every city, every town, every village on this planet has iconic figures who spend their entire life being on the side of justice and clarity, being decent and warm hearted. Walter Riley is that person for northern California—a link to earlier struggles with his eyes firmly positioned on a future that is beyond the ugliness of the present. These conversations offer the education a new generation requires in how to be in the struggle for a lifetime and more." —Vijay Prashad, director, Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research

"Throughout his lifetime on the front lines of struggle, Walter Riley’s dialectical clarity has energized and sharpened people’s movements from Durham to Oakland to Haiti to Palestine. Civil Rights and Structural Attacks is not just a memoir but a practical roadmap for the next generation of activists: a profound, personal, and necessary manifesto on revolutionary change guided by core political principles, deep love, and a few well-timed haymakers against the centers of power." —Nora Barrows-Friedman, journalist, author and editor of The Electronic Intifada
 

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS:

Walter Riley grew up as a civil rights activist in the Jim Crow South, chaired Durham, North Carolina’s Young Adult NAACP, organized voter registration, sit-ins, job campaigns, and was a Field Secretary for CORE in the Southeast Region. He became a San Francisco State University activist for ethnic studies, and was a member of the Black Student Union and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Riley has worked as a criminal defense and civil rights lawyer since the 1980s. He is a loving father and grandfather.

Jesse Strauss is an anti-imperialist and abolitionist cultural worker, community organizer, musician, and journalist born and raised in Oakland and Berkeley (unceded Ohlone/Chochenyo land). He is an anti-zionist descendent of Jewish survivors of the Nazi genocide and was raised by parents engaged in radical queer healthcare and immigration asylum access work in the Bay Area. As a journalist, Jesse has a long working relationship with KPFA Radio, where he co-created the first-ever daily abolitionist radio show, Law & Disorder. He was a producer for Al Jazeera during the so-called “Arab Spring” and “Occupy” movements.

Boots Riley is a writer, director of the film Sorry to Bother You, musician, rapper with The Coup, and producer from Oakland, CA.


Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump
by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan
Simon and Schuster, 2026


[Publication date: June 23, 2026]
 
A riveting, intimate, and revelatory account of the most radical and consequential presidency of our time.

From the two reporters who have covered him more closely than perhaps anyone else over the past decade comes this definitive portrait of Donald Trump in the White House. Regime Change covers the first year of Trump’s second presidency—a term liberated from every constraint that defined his first. The generals who once told him “no” are gone, and the lawyers who remain have learned to pick their battles. His administration has flouted court orders and he has claimed powers that Congress once checked. What remains is a President willing to take enormous risks that have upended global markets and toppled heads of state; an imperial President operating almost entirely on instinct alone.

Based on hundreds of interviews and unprecedented reporting from deep within the administration’s most closely guarded rooms, Regime Change takes the reader inside the Situation Room and into the secret Oval Office deliberations that have launched a new war in the Middle East and seen Trump seal the border, surge National Guard troops into cities, and send immigration agents into deadly clashes with protestors. Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan bring us behind the scenes of a presidency that has transformed the culture, turned the Justice Department into an agent of retribution against the President’s enemies and the office itself into a brazen vehicle for profit. They reveal a second term propelled by a historical irony that Trump himself has come to understand: that the indictments, the convictions, the assassination attempts, and four years of exile made him not weaker but far more powerful, more vengeful, and more willing to gamble than any President in modern history.

This is the story of how Trump has used that power, who has tried to stop him, and why nearly all of them have failed. It is also the story of something American journalists are more accustomed to chronicling in distant capitals than in their own: a President who has fundamentally altered the nature of the office he holds—and, with it, how the rest of the world understands American power. It is an account of Regime Change right here in America—a landmark real-time history of a modern presidency like no other.

REVIEWS:

“Regime Change is exceptional. It transcends its genre...the book is packed with news that will stay news...This is reporting of consequence.”             —David Remnick, The New Yorker

“A flabbergasting feat of political reporting.” 
—Tina Brown

“Riveting and richly textured...What the authors add is the vivid detail that makes these events feel actual. They wrest reality itself back from the distorted world of entertainment, illusion, fantasy and denial that Trump has generated around himself. It is this flood of provocation, atrocity, self-dealing and fabrication that makes Haberman and Swan’s counternarrative so vital.” —Fintan O’Toole, The New York Times


ABOUT THE AUTHORS:


Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent for The New York Times. A New York City native, Haberman worked at the New York Post, New York Daily News, and Politico, before joining the Times in 2015. She has covered six US presidential elections and several gubernatorial and New York City mayoral races. She was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on President Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia. In 2021, she was part of a team that was a Pulitzer finalist for coverage of President Trump’s handling of the coronavirus. She has received the White House Correspondents’ Association’s Aldo Beckman Award, as well as the Newswomen’s Club of New York’s Front Page Award for Journalist of the Year. She is the author of Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America. She lives in New York City with her husband and their three children.

Jonathan Swan is a White House correspondent for The New York Times. Originally from Sydney, Australia, he has reported on Donald Trump since 2015, covering all three of his campaigns and his first term in office. Previously at Axios and The Hill,he won an Emmy Award for his 2020 interview of then-President Trump and received the White House Correspondents’ Association’s Aldo Beckman Award. He began his career as a teenage copy boy at a Sydney newspaper and later covered federal politics in Australia’s capital for The Sydney Morning Herald. He became a US citizen in 2024 and lives in Virginia with his wife and two children, with a third on the way.

The Conviction Machine: Prosecutors, Politicians, and Police Violence in Chicago
by Flint Taylor
Haymarket Books, 2026


[Publication date: May 19, 2026]
A captivating account of the most corrupt and blood-soaked chapters in Chicago law enforcement history

In December 1969, the FBI, the Chicago Police Department, and the office of States Attorney, led by rising political star Edward V. Hanrahan, conspired to assassinate Black Panther leader Fred Hampton, and then flagrantly covered up their misconduct. Thirteen years later, Jackie Wilson was tortured by the same police department and wrongfully incarcerated for thirty-six years.

Drawing on unique insights from his role as a leading opposition lawyer in both cases, award-winning author Flint Taylor details the vast political corruption uncovered in the Hampton case and the twists and turns of Wilson's forty-year effort to win his freedom.

With blistering clarity and righteous indignation, The Conviction Machine shines a penetrating light on the sordid world of prosecutorial misconduct and police violence.

REVIEWS:

"In this alarming exposé, civil rights attorney Taylor (The Torture Machine) reveals decades of government collusion to hide evidence of racist police violence in Chicago....The result is a painstaking, vital record of institutionalized corruption." ―Publisher's Weekly, Starred Review

"At last, Flint Taylor has given us an intimate, accurate, behind the scenes, forceful portrayal of the murderous machinations of the underbelly of American justice. I’ve been anxiously awaiting Flint’s exemplary work. Taylor vividly expresses the politically motivated, taxpayer-financed, and treacherous shenanigans of our nation’s political establishment and its enforcement apparatus; the American police departments, who area all too frequently in cahoots with the FBI, ICE, CIA, etc. Racism is its idealized engine, its raison d^etre.

The assassination of a young brilliant, gifted and courageous Black leader, Fred Hampton, was in a real sense its ultimate achievement. Fred’s assignation was not just a localized Chicago travesty of justice. It was the only officially sanctioned taxpayer-financed assassination of an American citizen for political reasons and political objectives by the U.S. Government in American history. And I was to be included in its deadly, deliberate undertaking! Fred’s assassination is the framework, the backdrop, the murderous modus operandi that still permeates our American law enforcement policy. Minneapolis and the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by America’s police operatives are our most recent reminders that much more remains to be done, and it must be done by the power of the people, common ordinary people.

Thank you, Flint Taylor, for "connecting the deadly dots". The "Conviction Machine" is a must-read for all freedom-loving, justice-seeking, and people-loving people. 
―Bobby Rush, former U.S. Congressman and former Deputy Minister of defense of the Black Panther Party

"Most often, popular history tells the story of the predator and not the prey. This is not that story.My Brother, Beloved Atty. Flint Taylor is the David who slew the Goliathan: the CHICAGO POLITICAL/POLICE MACHINE. If you keep hope alive and stay in the fight, you will win; even in the face of the most daunting odds and intimidating foes, you will win. This book is your blueprint." 
―The Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, and his daughter, Santita Jackson, Producer/Host of the "KEEP HOPE ALIVE with REV. JESSE JACKSON and the SANTITA JACKSON Radio Shows.

“A masterful chronicle of Fred Hampton's murder and its aftermath, Taylor's insider account reveals the shocking depth of official conspiracy and cover-up while celebrating the tireless advocates who refused to let the truth die with Hampton.”
―Chesa Boudin

“Flint Taylor is a gift to Chicago and the nation. This rigorous, unsparing and brilliant dissection of decades-long racism, corruption, and lies by Chicago law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges should be required reading in law schools nationwide. We can only hope it triggers a long overdue reckoning with the true character of our criminal legal system.”
―Dr. Martha Biondi, author of The Black Revolution on Campus and We Are Internationalists: Prexy Nesbitt and the Fight for African Liberation

“Flint Taylor exposes the absurd, cowardly and racist machinations of Chicago officials, who permitted police to get away with torture rather than take a stand to stop them. The book reads like a novel by Kafka―except it’s true.”
―Ben Joravsky, journalist and host of The Ben Joravsky Show podcast

"The Conviction Machine is a scathing, jaw-dropping indictment of our criminal justice system and the conspiratorial ways prosecutors are complicit in police murder. Flint Taylor, a true legal legend, exposes the truth that we must acknowledge: the Chicago police tortured and murdered in cold blood, prosecutors were complicit, and this history must be retold to understand the battles we face today." ―Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve, PhD Author of Crook County and Crime Fictions

"Only a legal practitioner of Flint Taylor's skill and vast experience could have written this diagnosis of the routine cruelties and frequent absurdities produced by a criminal justice system built on a bedrock of unacknowledged racism. Drawing on two epic cases, he provides a devastating account of the interactions between police abuse, prosecutorial misconduct, and political machinations. A brilliant and necessary book." ―Jamie Kalven, Founder of the Invisible Institute, and Pulitzer Prize-winning Journalist


Praise for The Torture Machine:

"If it was not for Flint Taylor I would still be languishing in prison. He brought hope to a hopeless place."
―Darrell Cannon, torture survivor

"It is impossible to fully understand the continuing challenges created by unjustifiable police violence against black and brown people without appreciating the historical backdrop that sustains this national crisis. Flint Taylor's powerful new book, informed by his decades as one of the most effective advocates addressing these issues, is a must-read."
―Bryan Stevenson, best-selling author of Just Mercy

"Taylor is a walking passcode to CPD misconduct. It was Taylor and his colleagues who unearthed the crimes committed by the “Midnight Crew,” a squad of racist cops who tortured blacks to extract their false confessions."
―Rolling Stone

"[A] searing memoir... essential reading for all who care about this country―past and future."
―Heather Ann Thompson, Pulitzer Prize winning author of Blood in the Water

"Incredible and devastating."
―Jeremy Scahill

"[A]n unsparing dissection of foundational racism in the criminal justice system ... It could not be more timely."
―Jamie Kalven, Investigative Reporter and Founder, Invisible Institute

"Each victim's case is a fascinating story in itself while the totality of the lawyers' efforts fighting a resistant establishment is staggering."
―The Observer
 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:


As a law student, Flint Taylor was a founding member of the People’s Law Office and has been a partner of the PLO since 1972. As a student and lawyer, he has been dedicated to litigating against police violence and racism for more than fifty-four years. Among the landmark cases that Taylor has litigated are the Fred Hampton Black Panther case; the Greensboro, North Carolina case against the KKK, Nazis and Greensboro police; and a series of cases arising from a pattern and practice of police torture and cover-up by Chicago police Commander Jon Burge, former Cook County State’s Attorney and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, and numerous other law enforcement officials. He has represented, and continues to represent, many wrongfully convicted persons, including police torture victims who have spent decades in prison and on death row. He has chronicled his work and that of the People’s Law Office in an award-winning historical memoir titled The Torture Machine.
 
Hubert Harrison: Forbidden Genius of Black Radicalism
by Brian Kwoba
The University of North Carolina Press, 2026


The significance of Hubert Henry Harrison (1883–1927)—as a journalist, activist, and educator—lies in his innovation of radical solutions to radical injustices. He witnessed staggering luxury for the few alongside crushing poverty for the many. White mob violence continually haunted Black communities, while imperial conquest and world wars wrought wanton destruction upon entire nations of people. These conditions sparked a global political awakening to which Harrison gave voice as a leading figure in cutting-edge struggles for socialism, internationalism, free love, freethinking, and free speech. He did far more than cultivate the rich, dark soil in which the so-called “Harlem Renaissance” would take root. Harrison also played a pivotal role in the rise of Marcus Garvey and the emergence of the largest international organization of African people in modern history. Because of his fearless radicalism, however, he has been erased from popular memory.

Hubert Harrison presents a historical restoration of Harrison’s numerous intellectual and political breakthroughs. Offering a fresh interpretation of his contributions to social movements for economic, racial, and sexual liberation, Brian Kwoba’s richly textured narrative highlights the startling and continued relevance of Harrison’s visionary thinking across generations.

[Publication date: July 17, 2025]


REVIEWS:

“Brian Kwoba has written a beautiful, intellectual biography as radical and original as its subject. He excavates Hubert H. Harrison—brilliant Marxist, Black nationalist, internationalist, and gender rebel—revealing dimensions even his most scrupulous chroniclers missed.”—Robin D. G. Kelley, author of Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination

“Hubert Harrison shaped movements from the Harlem Renaissance to Black studies. Brian Kwoba admirably highlights this formidable Caribbean American intellectual, who deserves a more central place in African American and African diaspora history.”—Carole Boyce Davies, author of Left of Karl Marx: The Political Life of Black Communist Claudia Jones and Black Women’s Rights: Leadership and the Circularities of Power

“Through an engagement with Hubert Harrison and his expansive ideas, this compelling book provides a theoretically nuanced account of the connections and ruptures within Black intellectual and social thought. ”—Claudrena Harold, University of Virginia

“Captivating and compelling. Many are praised for novel interventions, but few achieve what Kwoba has. Hubert Harrison shifts the ground and sets the standard for twenty-first-century research on Harrison. We owe Kwoba a great debt.”—Tommy J. Curry, University of Edinburgh.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:


Brian Kwoba is associate professor of history at the University of Memphis.



Sunday, July 5, 2026

FASCIST AMERICA 2026: White nationalists march in DC on July 4th: 'The legacy of the country' is 'in full view'--DEFEAT FASCISM BEFORE FASCISM DEFEATS YOU

FASCIST AMERICA 2026: Red Alert: DEFEAT FASCISM BEFORE FASCISM DEFEATS YOU--Read, Watch, and Listen To the Articles and Video Below And Tell Everyone you know what is actually going on at this very moment in this national cesspool, deadly white supremacist site of clinical insanity and U.S. Fascist horrorshow known as MAGA MADNESS

 
Hundreds of masked white nationalists march in Washington on Fourth of July


PHOTO: Members of the white supremacist group Patriot Front crowded into the Metro in Washington DC on Saturday following a rally. Photograph: Cheney Orr/Reuters

Neo-fascist group Patriot Front parades banners, including Confederate flag, chanting ‘Reclaim America’ in US capital

by Gloria Oladipo
5 July 2026
The Guardian (UK)

Hundreds of masked men carrying banners, including the Confederate flag, marched through Washington DC on the Fourth of July, the 250th anniversary of the US’s inception.

The group appeared to be led by Thomas Rousseau, founder of the neo-fascist, white supremacist organization Patriot Front. Members of the group wore white masks and gathered in front of DC’s Union Station. They later marched towards Capitol Hill, WTOP reported.

Members chanted “Life, liberty, victory!” and “Reclaim America!” during the Saturday demonstration, according to video posted on social media.

Images published by Reuters also showed masked members riding the DC Metro as other riders looked on warily.

Patriot Front embers march outside Union Station in Washington DC on the Fourth of July. Photograph: Douliery Olivier/ABACA/Shutterstock

The white supremacist group’s gathering attracted some counterprotesters. In one video, a man with a bullhorn shouted at Patriot Front members: “Every single one of you justifies the fucking right to abortion.”

In a comment shared with Politico on Saturday’s march, DC’s Metropolitan police department said it was “tracking first amendment activities that occurred this morning in the Eastern Market neighborhood”, adding: “MPD recognizes the rights of individuals to peacefully express their views and remains committed to maintaining public safety and security for DC residents and visitors.”

VIDEO:  
 
 
Masked men with Confederate flags march through Washington DC on July 4 | NBC4 Washington

NBC4 Washington

NBC4 Washington

A group of masked men gathered to march across Capitol Hill on Saturday with a mix of Confederate and American flags, some turned upside down. The group also carried flags and chanted phrases associated with white supremacist group Patriot Front.

Asked about white nationalists marching in Washington, the US secretary of interior, Doug Burgum, told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday that “what they stand for is nothing … I could possibly agree with – but one of the foundational principles of the United States which makes democracy messy is free speech”.

Members of Patriot Front were last seen marching during the Memorial Day weekend at the Virginia Beach oceanfront, local affiliate 13News Now reported.

Patriot Front was founded in 2017 following the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The neo-fascist hate group has gained visibility over the years as those connected to white supremacy organizations have been widely embraced by the Trump administration.

In 2022, an expert on extremists groups told the Guardian that Patriot Front’s fundraising and mobilizing efforts resembled those of a media production company.

“No other white supremacist group operating in the US today is able to match Patriot Front’s ability to produce media, ability to mobilize across the country and ability to finance,” Morgan Moon, an investigative researcher with the ADL Center on Extremism, said. “That’s what makes them a particular concern.”

Most recently, Patriot Front’s leader claimed to be a part of relief efforts following deadly flooding in central Texas last year.

Saturday’s march comes as Trump condemned a supposed “communist menace” in America in a deeply partisan speech to kick off celebrations of the US’s 250th birthday. The White House did not respond to the Guardian’s request for comment about if Trump condemns the latest march.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Gloria Oladipo

Gloria Oladipo is a breaking news reporter for the Guardian covering politics, race, mental health, pop culture and more

Explore more on these topics

Washington DC
The far right
Protest (US)
news
NBC4 Washington

A group of masked men gathered to march across Capitol Hill on Saturday with a mix of Confederate and American flags, some turned upside down. The group also carried flags and chanted phrases associated with white supremacist group Patriot Front.

Asked about white nationalists marching in Washington, the US secretary of interior, Doug Burgum, told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday that “what they stand for is nothing … I could possibly agree with – but one of the foundational principles of the United States which makes democracy messy is free speech”.

Members of Patriot Front were last seen marching during the Memorial Day weekend at the Virginia Beach oceanfront, local affiliate 13News Now reported.

Patriot Front was founded in 2017 following the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The neo-fascist hate group has gained visibility over the years as those connected to white supremacy organizations have been widely embraced by the Trump administration.

In 2022, an expert on extremists groups told the Guardian that Patriot Front’s fundraising and mobilizing efforts resembled those of a media production company.

“No other white supremacist group operating in the US today is able to match Patriot Front’s ability to produce media, ability to mobilize across the country and ability to finance,” Morgan Moon, an investigative researcher with the ADL Center on Extremism, said. “That’s what makes them a particular concern.”

Most recently, Patriot Front’s leader claimed to be a part of relief efforts following deadly flooding in central Texas last year.

Saturday’s march comes as Trump condemned a supposed “communist menace” in America in a deeply partisan speech to kick off celebrations of the US’s 250th birthday. The White House did not respond to the Guardian’s request for comment about if Trump condemns the latest march.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Gloria Oladipo is a breaking news reporter for the Guardian covering politics, race, mental health, pop culture and more


Explore more on these topics:

Washington DC
The far right
Protest (US)
news

Saturday, July 4, 2026

FASCIST AMERICA 2026: Dr. Robin D.G. Kelley On The Real Meaning of the 2020 National Presidential Election and the Profound Intellectual and Political Legacy of Dr. Cedric Robinson (1940-2016)

“What’s Past is Prologue…”

https://panopticonreview.blogspot.com/.../httpbostonrevie…

FROM THE PANOPTICON REVIEW ARCHIVES

(Originally posted on December 7, 2020):

Monday, December 7, 2020

Dr. Robin D.G. Kelley On The Real Meaning of the 2020 National Presidential Election and the Profound Intellectual and Political Legacy of Dr. Cedric Robinson (1940-2016)



DR. CEDRIC J. ROBINSON (1940-2016)
















https://bostonreview.net/.../robin-d-g-kelley-births-nation/

Politics
Race

Births of a Nation, Redux

Surveying Trumpland with Cedric Robinson

by Robin D. G. Kelley
November 5, 2020
Boston Review


IMAGE: A promotional poster for the film 'Birth of a Nation' (1915)

I wrote the following essay, “Births of a Nation: Surveying Trumpland with Cedric Robinson,” in the wake of Trump’s 2016 victory, but it could have been written today—two days into a still unsettled presidential election; two days of witnessing frenzied, nail-biting, soul-searching Democrats wondering what happened to the blue wave and why 68 million people actually voted for Trump; two days of threats from the White House that they will fight in the courts and in the streets before giving up power. And today Cedric Robinson, pioneering scholar of what he called the “Black Radical Tradition,” would have celebrated his eightieth birthday.

Today Cedric Robinson would have celebrated his eightieth birthday. What Robinson identified as “the rewhitening of America” a century ago is what we’re seeing play out today.

The lessons I took from Cedric in the aftermath of Trump’s election still stand: our problem is not polling, or the failure of Democrats to mobilize the Black and Latinx vote (they came out, often at great risk to their health and safety), or a botched effort to reach working-class whites with a strong, colorblind class-based agenda. What Robinson identified as “the rewhitening of America” a century ago is what we’re seeing play out today.

But before reviving the tired race-versus-class debate, pay attention: Robinson was making an argument about racial regimes as expressions of class power and how racism undergirds class oppression. As I quoted Robinson before: “White patrimony deceived some of the majority of Americans, patriotism and nationalism others, but the more fugitive reality was the theft they themselves endured and the voracious expropriation of others they facilitated. The scrap which was their reward was the installation of Black inferiority into their shared national culture. It was a paltry dividend, but it still serves.” (The emphasis is mine.)

What we’ve seen is the consolidation of a racial regime based—as are all racial regimes—on “fictions” “masquerading as memory and the immutable.” Trump is saving white suburban women from Black rapists and drug dealers who want to take their Section 8 vouchers out to gated communities. He’s protecting our borders from “illegals” who have no claims whatsoever to this white man’s country. He’s shielding the nation from wicked critical race theorists and Howard Zinn with “patriotic education.” He responds to the assault on white supremacist mythologies by defending Confederate monuments. He dispatches federal military forces to crush antiracist protests and declares Kyle Rittenhouse a patriot for killing two unarmed Black Lives Matter protesters. And he dusts off the tried and true strategy of labeling all challengers to the regime “communists and socialists.” (When Biden brags “I beat the socialists!” and “I am the Democratic Party,” he plays right into the regime’s fictions—he is the neoliberal moderate taking back the country from rioters, fascists, and socialists.)

We keep telling ourselves that Trump was elected as a backlash to a Black president, but really he was elected as a backlash to a Black movement. President Obama presided during the killing of Mike Brown, Tamir Rice, Tanisha Anderson, Philando Castile, Alton Sterling, Freddie Gray, Sandra Bland—ad infinitum. It was the mass rebellion against the lawlessness of the state—in Ferguson, in Baltimore, in Chicago, in Dallas, in Baton Rouge, in New York, in Los Angeles, and elsewhere—that prompted Trumpian backlash.

We keep telling ourselves that Trump was elected as a backlash to a Black president, but really he was elected as a backlash to a Black movement. Fear and racism feed off of insecurity.

The massive vote for Trump and his fascist law-and-order rhetoric should also be seen as a backlash to a movement. Some of us believed Black Spring rebellion in the wake of the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmad Arbery signaled a national reckoning around racial justice. But rather than reverse the rewhitening of America, our struggles catalyzed and concretized the racial regime’s explicit embrace of white power. Once again, an unstable ruling class drapes itself in white sheets, puts on its badge and brings out its guns. Fear and racism feed off of insecurity. And in the face of a global pandemic, joblessness, precarity, and an economy on the verge of collapse, this paltry dividend still serves.

If we’d paid attention, we wouldn’t have expected a Biden landslide or a blue wave ripping the Senate from Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell grip. It is not a coincidence that Louisville is on fire over the murder of Breonna Taylor and countless others who died at the hands of police in McConnell’s state. Kentucky has always been a battleground. California is too, and we’re not necessarily winning. Voters just defeated affirmative action, rent control, and the labor rights of gig workers. And despite some important victories, California delivered a lot of votes to Trump. We need to face the fact that our entire country, and the world, is a battleground. Trump and McConnell have succeeded in packing the Supreme Court with reactionaries. Trump’s backers still run the Senate. Gun-toting men and women in red hats stand outside vote-tabulating centers, threatening to do whatever is needed to secure a Trump victory. They yell “stop the count.”

Even with a Biden victory, the failure of the blue wave will be attributed in part to a certain kind of identity politics—Black and Latinx voter turnout less than what was expected—or to the militancy of antiracist protests, or to left-leaning candidates who scared off white moderates by pushing for single-payer healthcare and a Green New Deal. We should not see these as problems for legitimate Democrats. We’ve been witnessing authentic small-d democracy in action. In the streets we’ve seen a movement embrace Black, Brown, and Indigenous people, queer feminism, and a horizontal leadership model that emphasizes deliberative, participatory democracy.

We have an electoral college, battleground states, and voter suppression because the U.S. political order was built on anti-democracy.

This is the democracy Cedric Robinson insisted we embrace. He reminded us that the U.S. political order was built on anti-democracy, a theory of so-called enlightened governance that excludes the popular classes. This is why we have an electoral college, why we have battleground states, and why voter suppression was built into our country’s DNA. As I wrote three years ago, “today’s organized protests in the streets and other places of public assembly portend the rise of a police state in the United States. For the past five years, the insurgencies of the Movement for Black Lives and its dozens of allied organizations have warned the country that unless we end racist state-sanctioned violence and the mass caging of black and brown people, we are headed for a fascist state.”

We’re already here. And there is no guarantee that a Biden-Harris White House will succeed in completely reversing this trend. Nor should we expect presidents and their cabinets to do this work. That would put us back where we started—with tacit acceptance of the principles of anti-democracy.

Cedric’s words from exactly twenty years ago still haunt: “For the moment . . . an unelected government has seized illegal powers. That must be opposed with every democratic weapon in our arsenal.”

Happy Birthday, Dr. Robinson.
March 6, 2017

Cedric Robinson was fond of quoting his friend and colleague Otis Madison: “The purpose of racism is to control the behavior of white people, not Black people. For Blacks, guns and tanks are sufficient.” Robinson used the quote as an epigraph for a chapter in Forgeries of Memory and Meaning (2007), titled, “In the Year 1915: D. W. Griffith and the Rewhitening of America.” When people ask what I think Robinson would have said about the election of Donald Trump, I point to these texts as evidence that he had already given us a framework to make sense of this moment and its antecedents.

Robinson’s work—especially his lesser-known essays on democracy, identity, fascism, film, and racial regimes—has a great deal to teach us about Trumpism’s foundations, about democracy’s endemic crises, about the racial formation of the white working class, and about the significance of resistance in determining the future.

"Through the intervention of film, a new American social order was naturalized."

—Cedric J. Robinson

In 1915 William Joseph Simmons, an ex-preacher who made his income selling memberships in fraternal organizations, led a group of his friends atop Stone Mountain, just outside of Atlanta, burned a giant cross, and launched the revival of the Ku Klux Klan. His inspiration: seeing The Birth of a Nation, D. W. Griffith’s three-hour paean to the original Klan. Simmons believed the new Klan could make America great again by purging it of un-American influences: Negroes, immigrants (except for those of Anglo and Scandinavian stock), Catholics, and Jews. Under the slogan “100 percent Americanism,” the Klan pursued a program of severe immigration restriction, allegiance to the American flag, anti-communism, protecting white womanhood (and “correcting” wayward women who transgressed gender conformity, Protestant values, and the color line), better government, and law and order, while also engaging in lynching and open acts of terrorism against black people. The second Klan appears to be a ball of contradictions—antagonistic to both big business and industrial unions, contemptuous of both elites and a huge swath of the working class (the non-white and foreign-born). But as historian Sarah Haley recently argued, the Klan—whose membership rolls swelled to four million by 1924—mobilized a precarious middle class of small entrepreneurs, white-collar workers, and farmers facing the prospect of downward mobility and seeking hope in the elimination of the most marginalized segments of society.

Cedric Robinson has a great deal to teach us about Trumpism and the significance of resistance in determining the future.

In Forgeries of Memory and Meaning, Robinson explains why Griffith’s film catalyzed this movement. This was no ordinary film. Based on Thomas Dixon’s novel The Clansman (1905), it consolidated and circulated old racial fabulations and new fictions in the service of capitalist expansion and modern white supremacy—in the United States and abroad. The Birth of a Nation was historical alchemy, turning terrorists into saviors, rapists into chivalrous protectors of white women and racial purity, and courageous and visionary blacks into idle, irresponsible ignoramuses, rapists, and jezebels. Black people were not only unfit for democracy but they threatened social order. President Woodrow Wilson (who screened Griffith’s film at the White House) praised it as American history written with lightning—and like lightning, its historical reworking had an obliterating effect on truth. Robinson identified it as a “rewhitening of America,” a gallant effort to obliterate all vestiges of the black struggle for social democracy during Reconstruction.

For Robinson, 1915 marked the formation of a new “racial regime.” With the term, Robinson meant:

"Constructed social systems in which race is proposed as a justification for the relations of power. . . . [T]he covering conceit of a racial regime is a makeshift patchwork masquerading as memory and the immutable. Nevertheless, racial regimes do possess history, that is, discernible origins and mechanisms of assembly. But racial regimes are unrelentingly hostile to their exhibition. This antipathy exists because a discoverable history is incompatible with a racial regime . . . [and its] claims of naturalism.”

Racial regimes, in other words, are fictions. As such, they are unstable, fragile, and contested. The scramble to prove black inferiority and buttress white racial democracy in the era of Jim Crow was no cakewalk. The previous era had unleashed the possibility of radical change in the United States, and that struggle continued well into the twentieth century, when armed insurrection, political assassination, lynching, disfranchisement, imperialism, and federal complicity in the triumph of white supremacy destroyed the last sigh of black-led biracial democratic, populist, and radical movements.

Robinson lays out in great detail all the sites of contestation in 1915, and all the operations the new racial regime masked in the process. He reminds us that Griffith’s champion, Wilson, had opened the far Western Front of World War I when the United States invaded Haiti in 1915, long before the declaration of war on Germany. That intervention and long occupation (until 1934)—driven by U.S. finance capital—also required historical alchemy. The United States, the cause of much of Haiti’s political and economic instability, had to see itself as the country’s rescuing white knight. In the white American imagination, Haitians—like those blackface brutes in The Birth of a Nation—were seen as coons, niggers, and malevolent witchdoctors incapable of self-governance.

That May, W. E. B. Du Bois published “The African Roots of War” in Atlantic Monthly, a brilliant, prescient essay overshadowed by his folly three years later when he exhorted blacks to “close ranks” behind America’s official entry into World War I. The essay not only reveals a global racial regime in which “the white workingman has been asked to share the spoil of exploiting ‘chinks and niggers,’” but argues that we will never rid the world of war nor achieve democracy until we eradicate racism and colonialism. And who could lead the struggle to topple this rapacious system? None other than the descendants of “the European slave trade . . . the ten million black folk of the United States, now a problem, then a world salvation.”

The stage was set: D. W. Griffith’s New Nation versus the New Negroes. The latter resisted with pickets and boycotts, speeches and editorials, scholarship and art, and outright rebellion. They exposed the racial regime for what it was, the tyranny of white supremacy masquerading as enlightened democracy. The former, backed by finance capital and the academy, manufactured the Negro as Problem, a campaign accelerated through newer technologies of mass media. Film—whether newsreel footage of U.S. Marines entering Port-au-Prince or Griffith’s robed Klansmen saving the virginal Elsie Stoneman from the clutches of a rapacious mulatto—can mask and reorder social reality, turning victims into perpetrators and transforming imperialism into a rescue operation.

Robinson demonstrates that the post-Reconstruction order was not a return to the antebellum but a new racial and economic order that deployed a reinvention of the past in the service of a new regime. If new media played a key role, print was also crucial to this campaign. In 1916 The Passing of the Great Race, eugenicist Madison Grant’s chilling case for racial cleansing, became a national bestseller. Adolf Hitler praised the book as foundational to his own thinking. Grant’s book had plenty of company in the decade, including Robert W. Shufeldt’s America’s Greatest Problem: The Negro (1915) and Lothrop Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy (1920). White supremacy traverses the ideological spectrum, even now. Many foundational texts of the Progressive Era’s racial regime were penned by liberal social scientists obsessed with the challenges of race and empire for American democracy. Many shared the eugenicists’ presumption that democracy’s survival depends on the suppression of difference.

Racial regimes are fictions, unstable, fragile, and contested.

Franklin H. Giddings, in his 1901 book Democracy and Empire, coined the phrase “democratic empire” to suggest that imperial expansion was itself a democratizing project. It was more than just the introduction of modern infrastructure, Western education, and civilization. It was the creation of social cohesion through the rapid assimilation of subject peoples. Giddings insisted that social cohesion or some sense of solidarity is a precondition of democracy, and racial difference renders such solidarity improbable if not impossible. Sociologist John Moffatt Mecklin, a self-proclaimed Progressive liberal, published Democracy and Race Friction: A Study in Social Ethics the year before the release of The Birth of a Nation. He argues that racism and discrimination undermine democracy, but at the same time puts much of the blame on the cultural differences and “hereditary instincts” of non-whites (e.g., weak powers of inhibition, criminality, inability to control sexual impulses). Thus, while recognizing racism as a fetter on democracy, he nonetheless apologizes for white supremacy, arguing that blacks and whites have very different value systems. White supremacy is therefore a “form of self-preservation.” (He is silent on whether lynching and rape were “moral” elements of self-preservation.) The solution? Mecklin believed “industrial competition” will allow the laws of natural selection to determine the fate of non-whites, producing the “ethnic homogeneity” necessary for “an efficient democracy.”

While these texts were influential, Griffith’s masterwork and films that followed in its wake proved indispensable for installing the modern racial regime. The consequences, however fragile, were devastating—not just for African Americans but for working-class whites. As Robinson writes, Griffith and this emergent film industry constituted the social and cultural platform for a robust economic and political agenda; an agenda in the process of seizing domestic and international labor, land, and capital. . . . White patrimony deceived some of the majority of Americans, patriotism and nationalism others, but the more fugitive reality was the theft they themselves endured and the voracious expropriation of others they facilitated. The scrap which was their reward was the installation of Black inferiority into their shared national culture. It was a paltry dividend, but it still serves.

• • •

"I love the poorly educated."
—Donald J. Trump

The dividend still serves. Many who voted for him, including those of the alt-right, flocked to Trump because he villainized immigrants, black people, and anti-patriotic business moguls who sent jobs overseas. Most pundits insist that Trump appeals not to white racism but to working-class populism driven by class anger. If this were true, why didn’t Trump win over droves of black and brown voters, since they make up the lowest rungs of the working class and suffered disproportionately more than whites during the financial crisis of 2008? Instead Trump’s victory inspired a wave of racist attacks and emboldened white nationalists to flaunt their allegiance to the president-elect.


The response on the part of high-profile liberals and leftists has been to blame “identity politics” for undermining the potential for working-class solidarity. Mark Lilla’s New York Times screed, “The End of Identity Liberalism,” is a case in point. “In recent years,” writes Lilla, “American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.” The result is a “generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life.” In other words, people of color, queer folks, feminist-minded women, and liberal Democrats alienated the white working class, driving it into the arms of Trump.

Movements associated with “identity liberalism” are not exclusionary, they are serious efforts to interrogate the sources and structures of inequality.

The argument is both inept and confused. The movements associated with “identity liberalism” have not been obsessed with narrow group identities but with forms of oppression, exclusion, and marginalization. And these movements are not exclusionary—not Black Lives Matter, not prison abolitionists, not movements for LGBTQ, immigrant, Muslim, and reproductive rights. They are serious efforts to interrogate the sources of persistent inequality, the barriers to equal opportunity, and the structures and policies that do harm to some groups at the expense of others.

Of course, Lilla’s arguments are hardly new. At the height of the culture wars, conservatives such as Gertrude Himmelfarb, William Bennett, and Lynne Cheney; liberals such as Arthur Schlesinger and Allan Bloom; and self-styled leftists such as Todd Gitlin and Michael Tomasky argued that identity politics had undermined a unified America founded on Enlightenment principles of individualism, liberty, and secularism. A number of pundits have called Richard Rorty’s Achieving Our Country (1998) prophetic because it warns that continued downward mobility of the white working class and growing income inequality would lead to the rise of a strongman with authoritarian tendencies. Rorty’s thesis was not a critique of neoliberal policies, however, but a critique of the academic left and its love affair with identity politics. “Nobody is setting up a program in unemployed studies, homeless studies, or trailer-park studies,” Rorty laments, “because the unemployed, the homeless, and the residents of trailer parks are not ‘other’ in the relevant sense.” Anyone who works on these issues at the university—then and now—will find Rorty’s assertion laughable.

Rorty, a brilliant philosopher with genuine concern for working people, nevertheless mistook ideology—a categorical opposition to racism, sexism, homophobia, institutional oppression, and marginalization based on difference—for “identity politics,” while presuming that the white working class is operating purely out of race- and gender-neutral economic interests.

More conservative critics of identity politics sought to rescue Western culture from its anti-racist, feminist, and post-colonial critics. In his famous attack on multiculturalism, Arthur Schlesinger writes, “it was the West, not the non-Western cultures, that launched the crusade to abolish slavery. . . . Those many brave and humane Africans who are struggling these days for decent societies are animated by Western, not by African, ideals. White guilt can be pushed too far.” So far, in fact, that “political correctness” has been perceived as an attack on intellectual freedom and American virtues.

Robinson likened such antinomies to Christian attacks on heresy during the Middle Ages. In a short essay titled “Multiculturalism and Manichaeism,” he acknowledges what many critics of so-called “political correctness” understood: that the Schlesingers and Blooms and their compatriots across the ideological spectrum are holding on to “an imaginary transcendent universal culture—the West,” a nostalgia for a university that never was, and a mythic American identity presumably forged through an enlightened process of deracination. But Robinson knew there was more at stake. “They wish to erase the exposed seam,” he writes, “the nexus between power and regimes of knowledge so forcefully articulated by Michel Foucault. How else can one defend their specious histories of knowledge, which invoke some pristine mythical moment in the life of the American academy?”

This is not to say that Robinson’s defense of multiculturalist discourse was uncritical. He pointed to the dangers of an essentialism that reduces complex, historical experiences to fixed, discrete racial, ethnic, and gender identities. And to the left’s claim that Marxism is our way out of the Manichean world of fixed difference versus false universalism, Robinson politely demurred, citing arguments he made in Black Marxism a decade earlier. What he proposes instead is that a radical impulse in multiculturalism constitutes both a critique of the absences and an appropriation of the positive contributions of Marxism. We are not the subjects or the subject formations of the capitalist world-system. It is merely one condition of our being. . . . Multiculturalism, then, is a site of discursive resistance, and emblem of articulation of several trajectories of ‘objective’ opposition (religious, nationalist, feminist, etc.) mounted by our peoples in the everyday world.

• • •

"Democratic philosophy was subverted by plutocracy . . . whose rulers depended on the preservation of a slave economy, the exploitation of ‘white’ laborers (male and female), the severe restriction of women’s political rights, and the expropriation of Native Americans."

—Cedric J. Robinson

Opponents of Trumpism—and what it portends for the future of our democratic system—are scrambling to find both “the seed of opposition” and the roots of the crisis. Locating the elusive seed of opposition is a daunting task, but it seems that most people agree that repairing our broken democracy ought to be our priority.

Cedric Robinson had a lot to say about democracy—as a theory, an aspiration, and a fiction. As a child of World War II who came of age with the Cold War and the civil rights movement, he encountered the word “democracy” at every turn. Democracy was bandied about as an explanation for America’s frequent military excursions abroad, while at home it was an elusive dream for which black people were arrested, beaten, even killed.

Critics of so-called political correctness are holding on to an imaginary transcendent universal culture—the West.

Robinson studied democracy at the University of California, Berkeley, and fought for it as a leader of the campus naacp and as an activist in slate, a forerunner of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. In the summer of 1962, he witnessed firsthand a struggle to create a multiethnic democracy in Southern Rhodesia crushed by the state. He was there under the auspices of Operation Crossroads—a precursor to the Peace Corps that sent student volunteers to Africa to help build libraries, schools, and community centers.

Founded by Harlem Presbyterian minister James H. Robinson and backed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Operation Crossroads was also a Cold War project designed to combat communism and spread American democracy to the continent. During his month-long stay, Cedric watched the U.S.-backed regime led by the fascist Rhodesian Front violently repress and ultimately outlaw the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (zapu). Upon his return to Berkeley, Robinson enrolled in three political science courses, including one on African politics, in his quest to comprehend democracy, and he would go on to do graduate work in political science at San Francisco State University and at Stanford.

In an essay titled “African Politics: Progression or Regression?” written for a Stanford graduate seminar taught by David Abernethy (then a young scholar who wrote on popular education in Africa), Robinson argued that the newly “decolonized” territories in Africa were not yet nations. For him the “birth” of decolonialized African states required shedding Western political structures and creating their own political institutions. More provocatively, he suggests that the modern nation-state is, in fact, “a regression or step backward from the stateless societies of some earlier African history.” Here he begins to reveal the seeds of his argument in Black Marxism (1983) that the black petit bourgeoisie was disconnected from the political and cultural traditions that sustained anti-colonial movements in the past. He writes that those living in exile or European educated “have betrayed the heritage of their predecessors in the 19th and early 20th centuries,” indigenous leaders “who were committed through their own particular missions to the recovery of life with integrity for the mass of African people.” The alternative path he imagines is not based on modernization theory or industrialization but something different:

Perhaps what is needed are new political organisations without single or even multiple leaders, but with no leaders at all. . . . That is a sophisticated social organization; a primitive organization is one where the courts are filled with defendants bound and gagged or where its citizens must be shot down in the streets and terrorized in to fitful conformity.

Robinson never abandoned this radical utopian vision of democracy, although as the promise of the 1960s and ’70s faded into the revanchism of the 1980s and ’90s, he turned to the genesis of the “primitive organization” that became the U.S. political system. He traced the ideological roots of U.S. democracy back to the profoundly anti-democratic strain in Plato and Aristotle. For Robinson the “crisis” of democracy was not simply the result of the corrosive forces of neoliberalism but endemic from its very inception. His provocative essay “Slavery and the Platonic Origins of Anti-Democracy” (1995) locates the genesis of anti-democracy in The Republic, which accepts slavery and proposes a theory of enlightened governance that excludes the popular classes. Slavery in Plato’s politics was an immutable fact, the slave an inferior being bereft of reason and thus incapable of participating in democracy, let alone governing. “Plato’s political theory,” writes Robinson, “thus repressed the history of popular rebellion and with it the recognition that social agency might have its genesis from the general populace. Even in his ‘treatment’ of the degeneracy of democracy to tyranny, the demos is denied true agency through the selection of a demagogue.” Robinson wryly concludes, “In its antidemocratic plutocratic prejudice, the Republic provides an authority rich in intellectual strategems a propos to the political discourse embedded in the American political order. Plato survives because if he had not existed, he would have to be invented.”

It should come as no surprise that the founding fathers were avid readers of Plato and Aristotle, who were—along with Homer—the pillars of classical philosophy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Distrust of democracy was widespread. James Madison even positively described the new state as an “oligarchy.” Landholding, Madison insisted, had to be a requirement for participation in the body politic “as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” The result, besides property requirements for voting, was the Electoral College. For some proponents, the Electoral College would be the enlightened check against the threat of an ignorant populace backing a demagogue as president. But it also guaranteed a pro-slavery White House. Basic to the college’s architecture was the Three-Fifths Compromise, the rule that congressional representation in the slave states would be apportioned by counting the white population along with 60 percent of enslaved people. The number of electors was to be equal to the number of representatives and senators from each state. This gave the slaveholding South an edge in presidential elections compared to other states, and that advantage lasted well after slavery ended, since the vast majority of black southerners were disfranchised after Reconstruction.

Ironically, critics of the Electoral College who believe Hillary Clinton should be president based on the popular vote are now invoking Alexander Hamilton’s idea of the “conscientious” elector who will buck party affiliation in order to make the enlightened choice. Hence, an anti-democratic institution is invoked as both the problem and solution, fueling the myth of American democracy’s singular genius while remaining “openly hostile to the periodic outbreaks of what it redundantly terms ‘participatory’ or ‘direct’ democracy.”

• • •

"When the performance of charismatic leadership stands in for building movements and relationships, for grassroots political education, and for a practiced commitment to disassembling social hierarchies, the promise of social justice and political empowerment is endangered by a formation of authority that limits our capacities to remake the world."

—Erica R. Edwards

In 2016, on the heels of the centennial celebration of D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation, the Sundance Film Festival screened a new film bearing the same title. Nate Parker, the young African American actor who wrote, directed, and starred in the film appropriated the title from Griffith as a deliberate provocation. His historical epic is about Nat Turner, the Virginia slave-turned-minister who led the bloodiest slave revolt in U.S. history. Like Griffith, Parker simultaneously revised history while reflecting and refracting current political realities. It is impossible to watch Parker’s The Birth of a Nation without recalling the recent wave of police killings and rage and resistance it has generated. Yet whereas Griffith’s racist epic made history, Parker’s film flopped. Revelations of Parker’s involvement in a sexual assault twenty years earlier dampened ticket sales, and cinematic representations of black rebellion tend to do poorly at the box office. But neither adequately explains the film’s epic failure.

In both Births, women are territory to be fought over, attacked, and defended. Whereas the Klan avenged the nation and their manhood by rooting out alleged black rapists, Turner and his men avenged their nation and their manhood for the rape of their women by white masters and overseers. As critic and historian Salamishah Tillett observed, Parker’s film thus silences black women, turning them into mute victims. “In denying these women their revolutionary gestures, Mr. Parker risks making them objects that he, and only he, can freely move around the screen.” Noting the film’s appearance during the height of black resistance to police violence, she adds that its emphasis on the male charismatic leader is “out of step” with the Movement for Black Lives and its largely black female leadership. I would add that the movement’s embrace of black queer feminism, its horizontal leadership model, and emphasis on deliberative, participatory democracy counter the film’s central vision.

For the past five years Black Lives Matter warned the country that unless we end racist state-sanctioned violence, we are headed for a fascist state.

Robinson understood the charismatic figure in insurgent movements as “the expression of a people focused onto one of their members . . . the responsive instrument of a people,” rather than the force or agent directing the people forward. This is certainly not how Parker portrayed Turner, which suggests that Robinson may have been sympathetic to Tillet’s reading of the film. But he would have also insisted that the female-led, horizontal formations resisting state violence today are not aberrations but consistent with the black radical tradition. H. L. T. Quan reminds us of the centrality women in Robinson’s historical archeology of black revolt. “Indeed,” Quan writes, “the women who people Robinson’s imagination are not the anorexic two-dimensional (mainstream) feminist heroines whom we often encounter in gender-related texts, but the plotters of history. They are women of substance, of imagination, of formidable social force, women who would kill and wage revolutions against the state and the world economy.”

Just as Nat Turner’s rebellion portended chattel slavery’s violent demise, today’s organized protests in the streets and other places of public assembly portend the rise of a police state in the United States. For the past five years, the insurgencies of the Movement for Black Lives and its dozens of allied organizations have warned the country that unless we end racist state-sanctioned violence and the mass caging of black and brown people, we are headed for a fascist state.

Others argue that fascism is already here. Refusing to play politics, they criticize both Democrats and Republicans. They have angered cops by insisting that no law officer is above reproach. Skeptical of courtroom justice, they have taken to the streets, social media, the press, and even the United Nations, placing the moral, ethical, and legal question about the value of black lives before the world court of opinion. The movement has also proposed a plan to divest from a society of punishment, inequality, environmental degradation, and white supremacy and invest in a future built on free education, healthcare, housing, living-wage jobs, decriminalization, restorative justice in lieu of caging, food justice, and green energy. We need to remember this before more angry liberals—forgetting the misogynist strain in white identity politics—blame the Movement for Black Lives for Clinton’s defeat and for mau-mauing white folks into the arms of Trump.

Those of us who lived through the Reagan era have seen these dynamics before, though on a smaller scale. Ronald Reagan’s election not only owed much to white working-class resentment and middle-class white homeowners seeking tax relief, but his ascent to office coincided with heightened police and vigilante violence. In 1979 in Greensboro, North Carolina, the Ku Klux Klan assassinated five members of the Communist Workers Party in broad daylight. In Mississippi in 1980, at least twelve African Americans were lynched. The same year at least forty racially motivated murders occurred in cities as diverse as Buffalo, Atlanta, and Mobile. Across the country, police killings and non-lethal acts of brutality generated protests, notably a massive urban rebellion in Liberty City, Florida. And during Reagan’s eight years in office, the number of hate crimes reported annually in the United States grew threefold. Faced with a dramatic rise in racism, unemployment, and homelessness, followed by deep cuts in social programs and increases in military spending, black resistance ramped up. The late historian and activist Manning Marable had even referred to 1980 as “The Red Year,” a revolutionary moment similar to 1919.

Robinson shared some of Marable’s optimism. It was, after all, the period in which he wrote Black Marxism, which compelled him to undertake a substantive study of fascism since the book’s three main subjects—W. E. B. Du Bois, C. L. R. James, and Richard Wright—were all radicalized during the 1930s. The dark times under Reagan resonated with his reading of the history of America’s support of fascism. For example, the American capitalist class was sympathetic to Benito Mussolini’s fascist regime. J. P. Morgan loaned Italy in excess of $100 million in 1926, and Fortune Magazine, the Saturday Evening Post, Business Weekly, and the New Republic all ran admiring spreads on Italian fascism up until the mid-1930s. Robinson’s central point was that the black masses not only anticipated the rise of fascism, they resisted before it was considered a crisis. Robinson called them “premature antifascists,” noting that they had stood in stark opposition to those elites enamored with fascism, “which gave primacy to the interests of the State as an instrument of racial ‘destiny.’”

Trump’s election does not signal the strengthening and consolidation of U.S. power but its decline. Contemporary resistance movements did not ensure Clinton’s defeat, but they did reveal the regime’s fragility. The Movement for Black Lives, Black Lives Mater, the Dream Defenders, Black Youth Project 100, We Charge Genocide, Million Hoodies, the Moral Mondays Movement, the uprisings in Baltimore and Ferguson—not to mention the immigrant rights movement, and the ongoing struggle in Standing Rock in defense of Native sovereignty and against the war on the planet—all presaged and accelerated the current crisis of the state.

Robinson teaches us that racial regimes are unstable. They can be disassembled, though that is easier said than done. In the meantime, we need to be prepared to fight for our collective lives. I can hear Cedric’s timely counsel in the aftermath of George W. Bush’s “fraudulent” defeat of Al Gore in 2000: “For the moment . . . an unelected government has seized illegal powers. That must be opposed with every democratic weapon in our arsenal.”

Robin D. G. Kelley


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Robin D. G. Kelley, Gary B. Nash Professor of American History at UCLA, is author many books including Africa Speaks, America Answers: Modern Jazz in Revolutionary Times and Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination.


TAGS:

Politics

Race

Capitalism

Justice

Trump

IMAGE: A promotional poster for the film 'Birth of a Nation' (1915)