Pledge Drive continues! If you enjoy this blog, and can afford it, please click on the “donate” button below and send some bucks my way! Thanks!
So this was the scene outside a Trump rally in Phoenix Arizona last Saturday: A “tribal”-tatted, Trump-supporting Swole-American yelling “F–KING COOK MY BURRITO, BITCH” at a gentleman he evidently believed to be of Mexican descent.
Some of his other, er, observations:
- “Get the f–k out of here! Our country, motherf–ker, our country!”
- “Proud f–king American! Made in USA, bitch, made in f–king USA!”
- “Build that f–king wall, for me!”
- “Trump! I love Trump!”
You can watch the whole performance below, in a video that went viral this past week after being posted on Gawker.
If you pause the video 55 seconds in, you can spot a tattooed number “43” under the arm of the muscular fellow, later identified as Zack Fisher; this just happens to be a favorite symbol of a small but spirited organization called the Supreme White Alliance. You can probably guess what sort of group it is.
Naturally, Fisher has been warmly embraced by some of Trump’s most obnoxiously racist fans.
But before we get to that, let’s hear a bit more from Fisher himself — who explained to The Tab that, why no, he wasn’t a racist at all.
I love all colors. I’m no racist. I am who I am. There’s people out there of all colors that are horrible. Whites, browns, blacks, yellows out there, it doesn’t matter. It’s the color of your heart. …
It sucks that people are scared to stand up for what they believe in, and yet Latinos can do it and it’s fine. And if we do it? We’re racist. White people? The only race you can legally discriminate against.
He apparently spends a lot of time thinking about White Chicks, a Wayans Brothers “comedy” from 2004 in which two of the Wayanses play rogue FBI agents who go undercover as, well, white chicks.
People make movies about us and do we get mad? Like White Chicks? If there was a movie called Black Chicks, it would be a huge race thing. … We couldn’t do that, no way, they’d be like, “this is so racist.” And yet they can make a movie making fun of white people.
And what a widely celebrated film it is! Richard Roeper declared it “the worst movie of the year,” while Roger Ebert informed his readers that “it took an act of the will to keep me in the theater.” It’s got a Rotten Tomatoes score of 13%, ranking it lower than Wild Hogs, The Love Guru, and Hot Tub Time Machine 2.
I just wish people could get over what happened back in the day, to Mexico or Blacks. That was back in the past, people don’t get over it and it sucks. I forgive and forget. A lot of people don’t.
Dude, you haven’t even gotten over “White Chicks!”
Fisher may want to pretend that he’s not racist; many of his new fans don’t bother denying their racism.
Heartiste, the pickup-artist-turned-internet-Nazi, declared Fischer to be the “Sh-tlord Of The Week” for this week, encouraging his readers to adopt Fisher’s catchphrase “GO F–KING COOK MY BURRITO BITCH” as their own.
“If America is to be great/White again,” Heartiste declared,
she’ll need the help of ALL her sh-tlords, from the meme-making pranksters to the theme-cranking intellectuals to the shitlib-shaming musclebros. … it’s all to the Good in the Time of the Trumpening.
Heartiste’s fans were equally enthusiastic
A fellow calling himself Southern WASP happily declared:
It’s happening — the same noble White Man’s spirit that created the United States, as an act of rebellion, is now returning.
An older gentleman calling himself ultimathule1 happily explained that the video “just made my day!” It also got him thinking wistfully about growing up in a much whiter America.
I’m 60 years old, so I was 4 years old in 1960 when the U.S. was just a hair under 90% White. That”s the Whitest that it’s ever been, before or since. I have clear, wonderful memories of my childhood in the ’60s, growing up in a Finnish immigrant family with loving Old World parents and surrounded by normal, psychologically-healthy White Americans.
These days, ultimathule1 complained,
We Europeans are being squeezed into impending extinction simultaneously from below and above. Regardless of whether Trump wins or loses, he has unleashed a powerful force – the angry and fed-up White Man who will no longer take his dispossession passively, but who will push back and fight for everything he loves. To quote Steve McNallen, the founder of the Asatru Folk Assembly, “The existence of my people is not negotiable!” Let that be one of our war slogans.
The Asatru Folk Assembly, in case you’re wondering, is a white supremacist Odinist sect.
Captain Obvious suggested that he would soon be personally taking up arms:
Shiznat’s starting to get real. I’ve been thinking a lot about the Ruger Alaskan 2.5″ in 44 magnum – will it fit in the pants pocket of my Dickies work jeans?
In a followup comment, he explained why he needed a gun he could easily conceal:
I live on the outskirts of Sh!tlibistan. Folks here would totally phreak out if they saw open carry. … we have a metric sh-t-ton of nogs & muds & mystery meats & other troublemakers in the immediate vicinity [and we’ve even had mohammedan events]. So I need something with stopping power [for large nogs & mohammedans & sh!tlib pitbulls & whatnot] which doesn’t bulge too much.
Fisher, too, has evidently taken up arms, telling The Tab that since the video of him went viral he’s been carrying a “gun, with a bullet in the chamber. And that’s fine, I carry a gun with me everywhere and always.”
At the same Trump rally, an apparent friend of Fisher showed up in a “F–K Islam” t-shirt; after being escorted from the event, apparently by Trump’s security detail, he strapped on a gun and gave this interview to Eric Rosenwald, who also shot the video of Fisher.
Not all Trump supporters have picked up guns. Some, like the gleefully grinning young man in this earlier video by Rosenwald, prefer pepper spray.
This is what Trump has wrought.
@PoM
I remembered him stumbling pretty hard over that, but I couldn’t figure out if he finally snapped under the pressure of having to actually explain how his hypothetical model of non-government would work or if he just felt like it was a good place to start shouting. He started repeating himself, and I kind of spaced out into my game until he was raising his voice.
@ POM
We have a land registry which records ownership of property with written deeds and plans and everything; but our courts are still cluttered with people rowing about where a garden fence should be,
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2005/oct/16/property.observercashsection
Most free market libertarians appear to accept a low (flat) tax in order to fund the criminal justice system, national defense, border security and so on, so what it boils down to is an opposition to wealth redistribution.
@ryeash
My eyes also started to glaze over a bit when he said “you’re asking me to centrally plan liberty/freedom” for the 16th time. Then the yelling just came out of nowhere. He was interrupting Sam left and right, only to repeat himself each time, and he just lost it when he realized that he would actually have to explain how property rights would be enforced without a government, rather than simply talk over the host of the program on which he was a guest.
@IP
If it needs a government to enforce it, it’s not a natural law, and it’s frankly ludicrous to suggest that it is.
I don’t get this food fascism thing. In the UK we like our spicy ‘foreign’ foods. I’m a veggie/pescatarian so I like a lot of what Wetherspoons has to offer, Mexican Mondays! Thursday Curry night! Yum. And you get a free drink!
There’s nothing quite like a burrito and a pint of local real ale!
@littleknown
Haha, my partner and I were just mocking that. “You can’t ask me to centrally plan freedom, Sam!” Like if he said it enough times, he’d just be declared the winner.
I actually watched the debate between Michael and Sargon, and the latter used the exact same tactic. It’s like they think it’s a smokescreen they can use to escape the debate with their dignity intact.
@Dalillama
I didn’t say that. I think you’re quoting PoM there?
However, I agree. A natural law is a law by which nature abides. That’s what natural law means. A law that has been invented and is actively enforced by people isn’t a natural law. That’s not really how words work.
Many right libertarians do want a society that’s de facto based on privately owned fiefdoms (with or without various forms of serfdom or slavery) with a local government that will crush anyone who defies the property system and otherwise leave everyone alone. They’re usually dishonest about what their ultimate aims are.
Nazis and fascists want a centralized totalitarian government, but they’re fine supporting right libertarianism if it will weaken the government and make it easier to take control. They agree with the same Social Darwinist bullshit anyway.
I don’t know anything about politics and whatever so who do I vote for? Who are the best candidates for president, etc?
@ Alan
I have some anarcho-punk albums and compilations but I don’t know much about the people behind it. There are some other bands I like that are anarchists but their music isn’t that genre.
@Alan & Imaginary Petal, no problems, happy to share. There’s a publication happening but that’ll take forever so I can send you the current version. I’ll wait until after I’ve presented it on Friday morning – there’s Q&A afterwards, so I’m looking forward to feedback. Some big international and Aust feminists coming – I’m equal parts terrified and excited.
Alan, I’d love to hear about the debate you mention, too.
@Axe –
Coming from you, that’s hilarious 😛 . But he is 13, so maybe you have a point.
Re “natural law” – it does have a specific meaning in legal and philosophical terms; it doesn’t refer to a law that comes from nature or that is not made by humans. It’s more to do with a law that is linked to morality/ethics. So the notion of a natural law that requires enforcement isn’t oxymoronic in this particular sense. Apologies if I’m spelling out what’s already known 🙂
@fruitloopsie
Bernie Sanders would be a great choice.
I guess you are obviously anti Trump, that bit goes without saying.
Hilary would be a great role model for women, and a big up yourself to the Trumpettes, so it’s worth voting for her if there’s no other choice. She is nowhere near as left wing as Bernie the which is a shame. Bill was a silly man to get involved in a sex scandal, but of course, not Hilary’s fault. At least he was not a war monger like either Bush, Regan or Nixon. I don’t see America becoming socialist anytime soon unfortunately.
@Imaginary Petal
So I was; I apologize. (It’s even more embarassing when I make that kind of mistake in meatspace).
@History Nerd
And right-libertarians are happy to cooperate with facists in order to put their economic ideas into force (said economic ideas being actually virtually identical to those proposed by fascists; they only use different buzzwords). Look up the Chicago Boys sometime, they worked for Pinochet to install a perfect market fundamentalist economy in Chile, and it practically destroyed the country.
@Mish
I am aware of the term, but a) right-libertarians often elide ‘natural law’ and ‘law of nature’, and b) the idea in its philosophical context is still nonsensical, as it presumes the existence of an external source of morality and ethics but cannot demonstrate such a thing, nor even adequately describe what such a source might be. The idea in its legal context is a tautology, inasmuch as every law enacted by any society has some type of moral or ethical component by definition (by someone’s standards of morals and ethics, anyway).
There’s a case to be made that the aggregate behaviour of human populations under various legal regimes is broadly predictable, and it’s certainly possible to objectively discern in many cases what laws will lead to what outcomes, but consensus on desired outcomes has to be reached first.
I learned a new word today – “swole” for muscular. I’d heard “ripped” and “jacked,” but not “swole.”
@Fruitloopsie – If I were American I’d vote Democrat.
@Mish – The term “natural law” makes me shudder (metaphorically), but that’s because I’ve heard it used in defending anti-gay nonsense. I’m not too caught up on my 17th-century philosophers, though.
@epitome of incomprehensibility
That’s because the (now) unspoken external source of morality that underlies the concept is Jehovah, and has been since Tomas Aquinas.
I have no idea why you’re being so fucking hostile to me. What exactly brought this on?
and yet we now have the blocky yet easily identifiable as female ‘Alex’ skin. go figure
@epitome of incomprehensibility – ‘natural law’ actually goes all the way back to the Ancient Greeks, although obviously its specific content has changed. The use of it by homophobes (which makes me shudder, too) is misappropriation or misunderstanding. Philosophically it’s got nothing to do with ‘nature’ or ‘natural’ (as in biology or physics etc.) but some people use it as if it did (i.e. homophobes). This is why I noted earlier that a natural law that needs to be upheld and enforced is not contradictory, because ‘natural’ in this case does not mean it’s simply given.
Aside from that, the whole notion of ‘natural law’ does have problems; for religious people, the source of natural law would be god/gods/ scriptures, etc. while for secular people, it’s usually sourced from reason and critical thought; e.g. what are the laws that can be defined as universally good? It’s basically very subjective (how can we all agree on this?) but often masquerades as if it weren’t. The intellectual exercise of trying to come up with – and then justify – a natural law is rewarding, though! I often have my sociology students try it as it’s great for sharpening critical thinking capacity.
@Mish
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Z_QvBywkP-Y/VJc43WAtybI/AAAAAAAAG9c/vzE2IgAcZGA/s1600/stony%2B2.gif
Haven’t read all the comments yet, so maybe someone’s said, but:
‘We Europeans are being squeezed into impending extinction simultaneously from below and above.’
What does ‘below and above’ mean?
@ mish
Ah thank you, that’s very much appreciated.
He, not many people volunteer for more of my waffling, but I’ll point you in the direction of some of the better commentary. It’s all the animal rights stuff. It’s epitomised by the Greenpeace vs Sea Shepherds schism (you might want to google ‘Paul Watson) but it goes further. You’ve really got a spectrum from clicking ‘like’ to firebombing. Of course, if you believe speciesism is a thing then you’re justified in doing anything on behalf of an animal that you would on behalf of a human; that’s the theory at least.
It’s also tangentially related to veganism (there’s quite a crossover between animal rights and the more evangelical vegan wing). Vegan advocacy and tactics was touched on briefly in another thread. There’s some interesting issues there too.
All sorts of things crop up in those debates. Is it ok the use national stereotypes? Is there an element of body shaming? Are some of the arguments bordering on pseudoscience etc?
I’m really looking forward to seeing your stuff as I think there might be a lot of crossover.
@Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Okay, the only reason I ever found that site was because I saw an article on it that was posted here. And the reason I was on it was because I was arguing against what she had written in one of her blogs.
@weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo
I really don’t see where all the hostility is coming from. I just said that I don’t like using gendered terms much like most people in civil society.
> Sinkable John
As i may agree about the personality of the person, physically, it is a bit more the opposite.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2f8DiqCQAA1TwS.png:medium
@strykr5
Oh ffs. You’re not fooling anyone. Below are some things that you have said on your disqus profile.
Unironically using the word “cucked”, and promoting torture:
Fat shaming:
Tumblr hysteria:
Promoting sexism in the military:
“LOL women get things for free LOL”:
Women should just shut up and go to parties all the time:
Supporting the death penalty: