Timothy Snyder, “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From The 20th Century”

13:42
there are very different ideas there are
still very different ideas the hypnosis
of the end of history is something that
we have to break ourselves out of the
fist thing that I think I’ve understood
is that the catalyst or if you want the
lubricant of regime change is mistrust

right the sense of uncertainty the sense
that nothing is real or nothing is true

if you are having that feeling now as
many Americans are you are right we’re
Russians were about a decade ago okay
they’re much further along now right
there they’re in a different place now
as people say but if you have that sense
that you don’t know who to trust as
journalism real as history real you know
should I listen to white men wearing
ties actually the answer is generally no
right and make it but but make an
exception right make an exception oh no
no I think I feel I feel like Sean
Spicer has totally ruined this look for
me but but i but i don’t know where else
to go so like maybe you know maybe you
can help you out afterwards anyway that
that mistrust is the rubric mistrust
makes it happen right because if you
don’t think anything’s true and you
don’t trust anyone then the rule of law
can’t work
and if the rule of law can’t
work then democracy is going to fall
right democracy depends on the rule of
law rule of law has depends on a certain
basic level of trust that basic level of
trust it’s not that we agree about
everything but that we agree there’s a
world in there facts in it if you lose
that then you lose rule of law then you
lose democracy right and the people who
are going after trusts the people who
are tweeting random things at 5:30 in
the morning right they are consciously
ripping out the heart of democracy it’s
not the skin right it’s not the muscle
that’s going to resigned it’s not the
bones it’s going right for the heart
it’s skipping the step of democracy
right it’s going right for the heart
it’s ripping out the thing which makes
democracy possible the final thing the

 

number 19
is the one about patriotism in general
the ones towards the end of the book are
meant to come later but you know
sometimes events outpace you or catch or
catch you up as Vic and I like to say
catch you up be a patriot set a good the
generations to come they will need it
what is patriotism let us begin with
what patriotism is not it is not
patriotic to dodge the draft and to mock
war heroes and their families
it is not patriotic to discriminate
against active duty members of the Armed
Forces and one’s companies or a campaign
to keep disabled veterans away from
one’s property it is not patriotic to
compare one search for sexual partners
in New York with the military service in
Vietnam that one has dodged it is not
patriotic to avoid paying taxes
especially when American working
families do pay it is not patriotic to
ask those working taxpaying American
families to finance one’s own
presidential campaign and then to spend
their contributions in one’s own in
one’s own companies it is not patriotic
to admire foreign dictators it is not
patriotic to cultivate a relationship
with Muammar Gaddafi or to say that
Bashar al-assad and Vladimir Putin are
superior leaders it is not patriotic to
call upon Russia to intervene in an
American presidential election
it is not patriotic to cite Russian
propaganda at rallies it is not
patriotic to share an advisor with
Russian oligarchs and is not patriotic
to solicit foreign policy advice from
someone who owns shares in a Russian
energy company it is not patriotic to
read a foreign policy speech written by
someone on the payroll of a Russian
energy company it is not patriotic to
appoint a national security advisor who
is taking money from a Russian
propaganda organ it is not patriotic to
appointed Secretary of State an oil man
with Russian financial interests who is
the director of a Russian American
energy company and has received the
order of friendship from Putin the point
is not that Russia and America must be
enemies the point is that patriotism
involves serving your own country the
president is a nationalist which is not
at all the same things a patriot a
nationalist encourages us to be our
worst and then tells us that we are the
best a nationalist quote although
endlessly brooding on power victory
defeat revenge wrote Orwell tends to be
quote uninterested in what happens in
the real world
unquote nationalism is relativist since
the only truth is the resentment we feel
when we contemplate others as the
novelist bunnyville keys put it
nationalism quote has no universal
values aesthetic or ethical a patriot by
contrast wants the nation to live up to
its ideals which means asking us to be
our best selves a patriot must be
concerned with the real world which is
the only place where his country can be
loved and sustained a patriot has
universal values standards by which he
judges his nation always wishing it well
and wishing that it would do better
democracy failed in Europe in the 1920s
1930s and 1940s and it is failing
not only in much of Europe but in many
parts of the world today it is that
history and experience that reveals to
us the dark range of our possible
futures a nationalist will say that it
can’t happen here which is the first
step towards disaster a patriot says
that it could happen here look that we
will stop it thank
41:03
I don’t I don’t have a silver bullet for
that but I do have some ways of trying
to get one’s mind around it the first is
that is is technological I mean it just
it just turns out that the Internet does
not open the broad you know the broad
sweep towards the positive globalization
that Al Gore was dreaming of right in
the 1990s that just isn’t true just like
it wasn’t true with a book which brought
us the Wars of Religion right just like
it wasn’t true a radio which brought us
fascism all of these new I mean not
alone right but all of these new
technologies are extremely unpredictable
for some like transition period that may
last a hundred years right there they’re
very unpredictable so art like our kind
of and this is something this is a
bubble that I think Hillary Clinton
herself was caught in her campaign was
caught in people on these coats were
thought and people did not realize what
the internet actually was right what it
was actually doing and this is I mean
there’s an empirical thing here there’s
a technical thing here the empirical
thing is people just did not realize how
how siloed off we had become I didn’t
realize it until I actually started
talking to real took when I was
canvassing and talking to Trump voters
in the Midwest and then I realized like
this is so dumb but it was at that
moment that I realized just how
different my facebook feed was from
other people’s because if you hear from
what seemed to be 25 independent sources
that Hillary Clinton is a murderer and
you’ve been hearing it for six months
you might well believe it
all right I mean that’s not surprising
which is the technical thing not enough
people again really a Clinton campaign
whatever realized that
Donald Trump actually had a campaign
advantage right we talked incessantly
about being a ground game ground game I
saw the ground game you know it’s like
it’s twice all agree I what the ground
game in the AK in the ground game which
is below the ground game right and what
the Russians called a psycho sphere
Trump had a tremendous advantage how
much of that was actually is campaigning
how much there was actually the Russians
I don’t know but in terms of the bots in
terms of the technical distribution of
the false news at the generation and
technical distribution he had a huge
advantage and what turned out almost
certainly be a decisive advantage these
are things that we have to understand
and get our mind around now in terms of
what we can do I mean obviously like you
know Zuckerberg can do a lot and people
who are in charge of news distribution
can can do a lot there are two little
things I mean one is kind of just a
declaration I think 2017 is already and
is going to be a heroic year for
journalism I mean and I be absolutely
mean heroic like if this is going to
turn around it’s going to be because of
people pursuing old fashioned stories
and old-fashioned ways and printing and
publishing very often in print journals
who can afford or at least try to try to
afford to be able to do such things and
and I mean it’s also generationally like
there are a lot of really interesting
young people who now see journalism as
edgy and they’re right right like the
whole threat like that the phrase
mainstream media that’s not like what’s
mainstream is the derision of the media
that’s the mainstream right being a
journalist is now edgy and dangerous and
interesting right and I think maybe
historically meaningful and you know the
little thing I say in the book which is
obvious I’m sure you all do it is that
we need to pay for a bunch of
subscriptions because if everybody pays
for subscriptions that will actually be
enough to subsidize investigations right
and that I mean even we know that people
like us often don’t do that right and if
we all did it that would make a huge
difference and then finally there’s like
there’s the internet self policing which
is it we have to think we have to
remember that we are all now publishers
right and so therefore we all every
every individual makes a difference in
terms of what is actually being
distributed right if we think about it
that way then each of us can make us
feel better to write like if you picked
reporters from the real world follow
their work
get to know them as it were and then
distribute their work online then you’re
being a publisher who’s doing a little
bit of good so let the day-to-day level
that’s something that we can do thank
that the cleat and actually the question
we just had the cleavages are going to
change they’re already changing and in
Europe they’re it’s further along than
than here because certain things are
further along in Europe and here but I
think the real dividing lines are fact
and post fact and and
anti-authoritarianism authoritarianism
and I think the anti I think I agree
with your premise the anti-authoritarian
case is unfortunately a case that has to
be made right it can lose but I think
that’s the case that has to be made and
it goes back to how one wins also the
anti-authoritarian z– have to include a
good deal of my view conservatives
people who vote Republican right people
who people who think there should be a
Constitution although they would have
they would disagree about policy you
know perhaps with me right the
anti-authoritarian camp is gonna have to
include a lot of folks like that as well
so so so my answer is that of course
you’re right I mean the Bill of Rights
is there for the reason you give that’s
why the Bill of Rights is there it’s not
there because it’s popular it’s there
because it would be unpopular right who
wants to separate church and state it’d
be so much more fun to have my you know
my church right I mean who’s not tempted
by that right few people okay so like
okay I was going to list all I want a
favor anyway there are a few
denominations who have maybe not beats
but in general like we you belong for
rare tradition if you belong to a
tradition which has never try to take
over the state at some point or found a
state right so how is dividing church
and state popular it’s not meant to be
popular it’s meant to be sensible these
things are not meant to be popular and
so that means they have to be defended
precisely but I think I think there is
enough of a consensus around
Constitution that one can at least start
there as a way of shaming people or
gathering people but I mean my basic my
basic notion is that you get yeah it
goes on very deep it’s whether you’re
going to authoritarian or
anti-authoritarian and the people who
are trying to change things already know
they’re authoritarians right so here we
just one of the comments when Hillary
Clinton stated at the time that Russia
was taking over Crimea and invading rule
and she compared it to sedating land
takeover and everybody scoffs better she
had to pull it back but I don’t know
whether you thought that was more apt
than some B’s well I mean on and
Elizabeth who was a very gifted and
conservative Russian historian made the
same comparison and lost his lost his
job for it no of course it’s apt right
so here’s like here’s how Americans join
you with history the Americans deal with
history as though history were an mp3
and if it doesn’t sound exactly the same
when you punch the button as it did the
previous time then you think something’s
wrong right that’s what American says if
it does if it doesn’t repeat perfectly
so if Americans will say oh well there
no there no swastikas so no jackboots
I’m changing the channel I’m afraid like
that’s our Nats our national response to
the history this whole taboo thing about
the 1930s is a way of saying well in the
in the naive view and the naive view
it’s a way of saying okay we don’t know
anything about history that’s fine right
because no analogies can be perfect
I mean Crimean sedate land is actually
an extremely good analogy it’s a very
close analogy right but none is going to
be perfect right and so saying oh that’s
just an analogy or that’s a way of just
not thinking about history and once you
don’t think about history you’re done
you’re finished because history is the
only thing which teaches you how people
have successfully resisted it’s also the
only thing we teaches you how
institutions are constructed right so
the moment you say oh no comparisons
you’re done forget it right it’s over so
it’s a very it’s a very dangerous very
dangerous move and in the dark version
the non naive version in the dark
version it’s quite deliberate you know
you say well I you know I am NOT exactly
like Hitler and therefore it’s okay
right and we’re getting to that point
right you know they’re nothing is wrong
I’m overstating this slightly but not
much
nothing is wrong because they’re on
concentration camps yet no no no no you
know and there weren’t you know the
wrong concentration camps in in January
1933 either right okay

Spicer on Cohen Raid: Trump Should Let Mueller Probe ‘Play Out’ – ‘It’s Not About Him’

Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the federal raid on Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s home and office shows the Russia probe continues to focus on people other than the president.

Spicer warned Trump to “let the process play out” when it comes to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged collusion between the president and Russia.

“I’d urge the president to listen to his counsel,” Spicer said. “The investigation continues to not focus on him or [on] collusion.”

Trump is perfecting the art of the Big Lie

But few of these lies were as chilling as the one last week at a fundraiser in Missouri.

The president recounted how Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had told him that the U.S. doesn’t have a trade deficit with his country. Trump said he contradicted Trudeau — “Wrong, Justin, you do” — even though “I didn’t even know. … I had no idea.” When Trudeau insisted, “We have no trade deficit,” Trump replied: “I don’t believe it.” He then called in an aide who supposedly told him that the U.S. has no trade deficit with Canada — but only if you don’t count energy and timber. “ ‘And when you do, we lose $17 billion a year,’ ” Trump quoted the aide as saying. “It’s incredible.”

It’s incredible, all right, as in literally not credible. Trump’s own U.S. trade representative reports that the United States has a $12.5 billion trade surplus with Canada, and that includes energy and timber. But Trump didn’t back down: He insisted that his “alternative facts” were superior to actual facts.

.. On Thursday, the president tweeted: “We do have a Trade Deficit with Canada, as we do with almost all countries (some of them massive).” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was sent out to do a full Spicer by dutifully saying, without a scintilla of substantiation, that “there are plenty of things, once you take into the full account of all of the trade between the two countries, that show that there is actually a deficit.”

.. this is another example of a would-be dictator’s desire not just to sneak lies by us but to shove them down our throats. Trump is signaling that he doesn’t care what the truth is. From now on the truth will be whatever he says, and he expects every loyal follower to faithfully parrot the official party line. Or else.

.. after Trump’s graceless ouster of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. The White House initially claimed that Tillerson had been notified the previous Friday that he was being let go, but on Tuesday Steve Goldstein, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, contradicted that spin by telling reporters that Tillerson was “unaware of the reason” for his firing and had just found out about it. Goldstein was immediately canned and, in a significant bit of symbolism, replaced with a former host of “Fox & Friends,” Trump’s favorite TV show. Trump is sending a signal that not only does he insist on his right to lie but that he regards telling the truth as a firing offense.

.. Trump’s gloating tweet makes it obvious this was punishment for telling the truth about the Maximum Leader’s attempts to obstruct justice and end an investigation into his links to the Kremlin.

.. As his presidency advances, Trump is becoming increasingly intolerant of disagreement and defiance, especially from aides who know what they are talking about.

  • Gary Cohn tried to tell him that tariffs and trade wars are bad economics; Trump didn’t listen and Cohn resigned.
  • Tillerson tried to tell him that scrapping the Iran nuclear deal is a bad strategy, and now he’s gone. National security adviser
  • H.R. McMaster is saidto be the next candidate for the heave-ho, because he reportedly rubs Trump the wrong way.

.. The frightening thing is that Trump’s insistence on redefining reality is working, at least with his base.

.. The video news site NowThis has posted a hilarious and horrifying clip showing Fox News talking heads hyperventilating over President Barack Obama’s promise to meet with the leaders of hostile states such as North Korea (Mike Huckabee: “President Obama likes talking to dictators!”), before going on to fulsomely praise President Trump for doing just that.

.. Trump is sucking a substantial portion of America into his Orwellian universe. The rest of us have to struggle simply to remember that war isn’t peace, freedom isn’t slavery, ignorance isn’t strength.

‘Shut up and dribble’: Fox News host extends Trump’s efforts to silence political athletes

Oh, and LeBron and Kevin: You’re great players, but no one voted for you … So keep the political commentary to yourself or, as someone once said, shut up and dribble.”

The “shut up and dribble” command isn’t that different from the “shut up and sing” directive many conservatives lob at liberals in the entertainment industry who are critical of policies on the right.

And the “stay out of politics” sentiment is usually a viewpoint only reserved for their political opponents. After all, the president often praises athletes that support his view of America, such as New England Patriot Tom Brady, who once kept a “Make America Great Again” hat in his locker.

.. Ingraham, who was once floated as a possible White House press secretary to replace Sean Spicer

.. The idea that the “court” of political punditry belongs to a host on the president’s preferred cable network is bound to get pushback.

What makes Ingraham an expert — a host on a cable network with primarily white hosts and conservative guests — on issues related to people of color in urban areas?

.. America is incredibly divided politically. And most Americans point to Trump, who called NFL players protesting racism “sons of bitches,” as one of the main agitators. But that probably isn’t going to change by telling people to sit down and be quiet, particularly when they are voicing concerns on issues many Americans are concerned with themselves.

By Ingraham telling Americans who don’t agree with her views to “shut up and dribble,” it further isolates certain groups and leads them to add the host — and her network — to the list of influential voices who do not understand the concerns of those who do not look like them.

Seeing Through the Fog in the Mueller Russia Probe

We know that to the media, since at least July 2016, Mr. Trump and campaign officials lied, repeatedly and often, about not having had contacts with Russian officials. As late as August 2017, President Trump held that line, telling The Wall Street Journal: “There’s nobody on the campaign that saw anybody from Russia. We had nothing to do with Russia.”

This sustained pattern of lying to the media about any Russian contacts was almost surely done by design and coordinated from within Mr. Trump’s inner circle.

Were statements to federal authorities also done by design and coordinated?

If you direct your attention to the series of known cases when Trump officials have not told the truth to the F.B.I. and to Congress about Russian contacts, what emerges is a likely conspiracy on the part of Mr. Trump’s inner circle to mislead federal officials.

That’s where the stakes could not be much higher for the White House. Not only is it a crime to lie to federal authorities; it’s also a crime to encourage others to do so, whether or not they follow through with crossing the line of perjury.

.. We have two undisputed cases, through the indictments of Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, and George Papadopoulos, the former foreign policy adviser. It is difficult to see how the two men could expect to get away with it. Who would lie to the F.B.I. if one’s colleagues, interviewed at a later date, would contradict the false account of the same set of events?

.. We now know Mr. Flynn’s phone call during the transition in December 2016 with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, was coordinated with other senior transition officials meeting at Mar-a-Lago, in Florida. When it came to Mr. Flynn’s F.B.I. interview, a story was already in place. The day before, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, had adamantly denied that Mr. Flynn spoke to the Russians about sanctions. So to get away with lying to the F.B.I., whether or not he alerted White House officials to the meeting beforehand, Mr. Flynn would presumably have to count on the others sticking to that lie, too.

The same goes for Mr. Papadopoulos, who risked going to prison for lying to the F.B.I. As with Mr. Flynn, his communications with the Russians were well known and approved by senior campaign officials.

.. The pattern goes on from there. If Mr. Flynn was counting on others to cover his tracks, he seems to have calculated correctly. For example, K. T. McFarland, the former deputy national security adviser who also served on the transition team, told the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, in writing, that she was not aware of Mr. Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador. That was a lie, disproved by court documents revealing her close strategizing with Mr. Flynn before and after the call and by the news report of her email coordinating on the matter with senior members of the Trump transition team at Mar-a-Lago. (Mr. Spicer was one of the email’s recipients.)

.. Perhaps Mr. Sessions felt he had to lie during his confirmation process. Mr. Trump had told reporters, at his first news conference as president-elect, that nobody associated with the campaign was in contact with any of the Russians.

.. Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, skipped over multiple meetings with Russians on his security clearance forms, which were vetted by the F.B.I. Mr. Kushner’s omissions were so alarming that it caused Charles Phalen, the sitting director of the government bureau responsible for clearing these forms, to tell Congress, “I have never seen that level of mistakes.”

.. Finally, Donald Trump Jr. may also have lied to congressional investigators by testifying that he did not inform his father of the Trump Tower meeting with Russians. There is no hard public evidence to prove this, but it is hard to fathom that Don Jr. didn’t inform the candidate of a meeting that was set up on the proposal, as far as he knew, for the Russian government to aid the campaign and that he thought deserved the direct involvement of Paul Manafort, then the campaign manager, and Mr. Kushner.

In short, if you block out much of the noise that has surrounded the Russia investigation and focus on certain public information, you can see the outline of a concerted effort to mislead federal officials.

.. How could campaign officials, or the president himself, expect to get away with any such scheme, especially when encouraging others to commit perjury is a serious federal offense?

Maybe they didn’t anticipate a full investigation. The president admitted that he felt if Mr. Sessions had only held on, the attorney general would have shut down the Russia investigation: “If Jeff Sessions didn’t recuse himself, we wouldn’t even be talking about this subject.”

.. With Mr. Flynn, Mr. Papadopoulos and now Steve Bannon cooperating, if and when the time comes for Mr. Trump’s interview, Mr. Mueller’s team will be well prepared to ask the president about his own knowledge and involvement.

This new Trump book could do even more damage than Michael Wolff’s. Here’s why.

  • Trump has a tendency to do whatever his advisers most strongly advise him against, and they even have a term for such behavior: his “defiance disorder.”
  • He, out of nowhere, tweeted his decision to ban transgender people from the military before a scheduled meeting with then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to discuss his options on the matter. “Oh my God, he just tweeted this,” Priebus reportedly said.
  • His aides were similarly blindsided by his accusation, also via Twitter, that President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump during the presidential campaign.
  • Trump was strongly advised not to dispatch then-press secretary Sean Spicer to dispute stories about Trump’s inaugural crowd size and later admitted, “I shouldn’t have done that.”

.. He wrote a column last month arguing that journalistic mistakes had allowed Trump to “shred the media’s credibility.” He has defended Trump’s Twitter attacks — even ones viewed as being sexist or advocating violence — as responses to the “battering” the president has taken.

.. The fact that the guy who made this argument early in Trump’s presidency is now relaying anecdotes — apparently via anonymous sources — about chaos behind the scenes in the White House should not be lost on anyone.

.. But what is described above is a president who is acting haphazardly and without the guidance of his aides, making major allegations and policy decisions on whims and — in the case of the inaugural crowd episode — deliberately pushing false narratives despite apparently knowing better. The juiciest bit so far appears to be “defiance disorder, “a term that could only arise out of repeated instances of Trump being perceived as acting not in the interest of the country but in the interest of defying those around him and trying to prove that he’s smarter — or that he can get away with things they say he can’t.