Showing posts with label swastika. Show all posts
Showing posts with label swastika. Show all posts

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Militant “Patriot” Who Declared Separate “Freedom County” among Missing in Washington State Mudslide


Among the missing in this month’s deadly mudslide in Oso, Washington, was a prominent secessionist from western Washington’s ultra-conservative “Christian Patriot” and “sovereign citizen” movements.


The now-presumed-dead activist, Thom Satterlee, age 65, came to public attention in the 1990s as a proponent of splitting the rural parts of Snohomish County away to form a new jurisdiction to be called Freedom County.  That push was prompted by environmental rules to protect wetlands which Snohomish County conservatives felt impinged upon property rights.  (A more mainstream proposal around the same time would have created Skykomish County from most of eastern Snohomish County and part of adjacent King County (whose seat is Seattle).)


Satterlee and an associate, John Stokes, went so far as filing a complaint with the United Nations in 1997 against the State of Washington for its refusal to create Freedom County.  (The U.N. declined to intervene.)  (Stokes later attracted controversy as host of a Kalispell, Montana, pro-militia radio talk show called The Edge, where he spun theories such as one that the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was not a right-wing militiaman but was in fact an agent provocateur from the Sierra Club.  Stokes, who has referred to environmentalists as “green Nazis … pure, unadulterated satanic evil … vile vomit,” also made headlines by marking Earth Day with the burning of a giant green swastika.)

An Earth Day publicity stunt by pro–Freedom County activist
and hate-radio shock jock John Stokes
Later, Satterlee drew the attention of the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) for trying to pay taxes with, as the hate-group-monitoring organization the Southern Poverty Law Center (S.P.C.L.) put it, “pseudo-legal ‘liens’ filed against a federal judge in Seattle over his handling of a conspiracy and weapons case against a group of western Washington militiamen.”

One proposed flag for Freedom County, Washington
But the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) got involved when Satterlee and some of his associates declared that they would arrest the Snohomish County sheriff, Rick Bart, if he wandered across the “border” into what they they had unilaterally declared a fully established “Freedom County” after a 1993 petition campaign.  Freedom County’s own sheriff was a “sovereign citizens” activist known only as Fnu Lnu (sic).  In 2002, Satterlee was convicted of running an illegal law practice.

The current flag of Snohomish County represents a row of
airline passengers assuming crash positions.
There are also indications in his writings that Satterlee subscribed to a set of beliefs called “Christian Identity,” common in “Christian Patriot” circles.  Christian Identity beliefs state that today’s Jews are in fact impostors and that white Anglo-Saxons are the actual “Chosen People” of the Old Testament.  Some strains of Christian Identity thought (such as the “twin seed theory”) hold that nonwhites are descendants of Eve mating with Satan in the Garden of Eden.

Thom and Marcy Satterlee, now presumed dead
Satterlee and his wife, Marlese (“Marcy”), age 61, are both unaccounted for and are, along with their daughter and her fiancé, among the 13 still considered missing after the destruction of their home in the March 22nd landslide.  Thirty residents have been confirmed dead by the recovery of their bodies.

Jackbooted thugs from the Muslim socialist Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMAinfringing on the rights of Freedom County residents by pulling
their dead bodiesfrom the muck with your tax dollars.
Thanks to William Abernathy for alerting me to this story.

[You can read more about right-wing militia activity in the Pacific Northwest and the “sovereign citizens” and “Christian identity” movements, as well as numerous separatist and new-nation movements, both famous and obscure, in my new book, a sort of encyclopedic atlas just published by Litwin Books under the title Let’s Split! A Complete Guide to Separatist Movements and Aspirant Nations, from Abkhazia to Zanzibar.  The book, which contains 46 maps and 554 flags (or, more accurately, 554 flag images), is available for order now on Amazon.  Meanwhile, please “like” the book (even if you haven’t read it yet) on Facebook and see this interview for more information on the book.]


Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Donetsk Putsch Nipped in Bud, but Could Odessa or Kharkiv Be Next as Russia Eyes Ukrainian Mainland?


The Donetsk Republic is no more—at least for the time being.  Last week in this blog, I reported on the pro-Russian rebellion in Donetsk, in eastern Ukraine, whose leaders took over the regional government on March 3rd and by March 5th had declared a “Donetsk Republic” and were preparing to invite President Vladimir Putin to send Russian troops to support them.  The uprising enacted the worst fears that a parallel to the takeover of Crimea could happen in the Ukrainian mainland.

A map of how Ukraine’s oblasts voted in the 2010 election (with red being pro-Russian)
shows Donetsk in the far east, bordering Russia.
The following day, the local coup’s leader, Pavel Gubarev (pictured, center, at the top of this article), was arrested by Ukrainian federal police while he was holding a press conference (he was later sentenced to two months in prison) and the Ukrainian flag was raised again over the offices of Donetsk oblast’s regional government.  This did not end the conflict.  Supporters of Gubarev’s group, the People’s Militia of Donbas (Donbas being the larger region around Donetsk, on the Don River), staged street confrontations with police that night.  On March 8th, 3,000 people rallied in Donetsk’s Lenin Square to support the idea of the Russian Federation annexing this part of eastern Ukraine—as it is already gearing up to do in Crimea.  The crowds chanted, “Russia!” and “Referendum!” and surrounded the government building where the oblast’s new governor, Sirhiy Taruta, was holed up, challenging him to emerge.  Taruta, a multi-millionaire oligarch, was appointed by the new interim Ukrainian government in Kyiv (Kiev) partly in an attempt to mollify the long-corrupt national economy’s powerful tycoons and get them on the side of the anti-Kremlin opposition that returned to power late last month.  Donetsk is also, no one fails to note, the home oblast of Ukraine’s deposed pro-Kremlin president, Viktor Yanukovych.

Pro-Gubarev activists confront police in the streets of Donetsk.
Little is known about Gubarev, described as a 30-year-old advertising executive or entrepreneur from the Donbas region.  In the 1990s, he was a member of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, a post-Soviet but communistic and pan-Slavic political party which is stridently anti-Western and anti-globalization.  He has also, oddly enough, been a member of Russian National Unity, an extremist right-wing party often described as neo-Nazi.  If those seem like opposite ends of the political spectrum for one person to travel before the age of 30 (it is not clear in which order he belonged to these groups, or to which of the two, if either, he still belongs), then that possibly says as much about Gubarev’s peripatetic nature as it does about the topsy-turvy world of the Ukrainian political fringe.  As Marlon Brando said, in The Wild One, when asked what he was rebelling against, “What’ve you got?”  All Gubarev seems sure he’s for is seeing his home region swallowed up by an omnivorous Russia.

Supporters of the current Ukrainian government celebrate the snuffing out
of the Donetsk Republic uprising—but for how long?
The phenomenon of Gubarev also points up the absurdity of the Kremlin’s official line that the anti-Yanukovych, anti-Kremlin forces in Ukraine are in essence fascists and neo-Nazis—as opposed to Russia’s home-grown nationalists, who, in this view, are the moral heirs to the Soviet Union’s heroic defeat of the Nazis in what is still called “the Great Patriotic War.”  Here, as a bit of an antidote to that line of thinking, is Gubarev in the uniform of Russian National Unity:


Nice armband, huh?  As with many far-right groups in Europe, one wonders if they think people won’t notice that they are wearing modified swastikas, or if they are rubbing our noses in it.  Compare, for example, the insignia of Greece’s far-right Golden Dawn organization: ...


... or Hungary’s far-right ultranationalist party Jobbik: ...


... or the radical, neo-fascist Free Wales Army, in the United Kingdom: ...


... or, alas, Ukraine’s own extremist Rightist Sector party, which has revived the Nazi S.S.’s “Wolfsangel” (wolf’s hook) insignia (as has Ukraine’s more mainstream right-wing Svoboda, or Freedom, party) ...


... and then there’s Russia’s Movement against Illegal Immigration (D.P.N.I.): ...


... or the group Russian Deed (Russkoye Delo): ...


... and here is how members of Gubarev’s own Russian National Unity party like to greet one another at their little meetings ...


... including some fellows having a bit of fun, Busby Berkley style, via Mel Brooks ...


... and here is Russia’s National Bolshevik Party: ...


Phew.  Well, at least their emblem doesn’t look like a swastika.  What a relief!

If Putin does decide to pull a Crimean-annexation maneuver in the Ukrainian mainland, Donetsk oblast, which borders Russia, is an obvious place to start.  And, ironically, ethnic-Russian neo-Nazis like Gubarev will be his local confederates making it all possible.

... but “ethnicity” is a more malleable, and shifting, phenomenon than native language.
A point needs to be made here about the little matter of ethnicity.  I myself, in this blog, at times have been guilty of being insufficiently careful with defining what it means when one says something like “the 30% of Ukraine that is ethnically Russian.”  Those who follow the news will wonder at references to eastern Ukrainian regions where Russians are in the majority while some maps in news sources show Crimea as the only area where “Russians” exceed 50%.  The problem is that there are two concepts in use here: Russian-speakers and ethnic Russians.  Censuses and other data on what languages Ukrainian citizens speak is one thing, and here we do find Russian-speakers a majority in most of the eastern oblasts: Kharkiv, Donetsk, Luhansk, as well as Odessa and Crimea.  But that is not the same thing as being ethnically Russian.  Many Russian-speakers in Ukraine have identified themselves as of Ukrainian nationality without further specification.  This is certainly the case with Yanukovych himself, who is of mixed Belarussian, Polish, and Russian ethnic background but, as president of Ukrainian, usually defined himself through his political career as simply Ukrainian.  But while data on language spoken at home might not shift much from one census to the next, ethnicity is very malleable.  Many Ukrainian speakers of Russian who have ethnically Russian ancestors have felt lucky to have landed in Ukraine, which emerged from the Soviet rubble in 1991 as the most prosperous of the Soviet successor states, and have defined themselves accordingly.  Crimea, which was part of the Russian republic until Nikita Khrushchev transferred it to Ukraine in 1954, seems to have been the one part of Ukraine where the great majority of Russian-speakers felt, and feel, far more Russian than Ukrainian.  But it has yet to be seen how much the feelings of Russian-speakers on the Ukrainian mainland will change their sense of identity.  Many Russian-speakers are anti-Yanukovych, but how many, and for how long?

Pro-Kremlin rioters in Kharkiv last week tried to take over government buildings.
In other ethnic-Russian-dominated parts of Ukraine, tensions are high.  In Kharkiv (Kharkov), pro-Russian activists rioted as the Crimea crisis unfolded earlier this month, demanding the Yanukovych government be returned to power.  Kharkiv, sometimes called Ukraine’s most Russian city, is a charged symbol: it was the capital of the fledgling Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic during the Russian Civil War between Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and others following the Communist revolution in 1917 as it fought anti-Bolshevik Ukrainian statelets formed in the west, mostly based in Kiev.  Kharkiv was the first place Yanukovych fled to when he lost power, and last month ethnic-Russian activists in Crimea laid out plans (as reported earlier in this blog) for a Federated States of Malorossiya, embracing Odessa, the Donbas, and Crimea, with a capital at Kharkiv.  Ukrainian police have been stepping up security around Kharkiv’s public buildings, fearing that a “Kharkiv Republic” might be next.

Some Russian nationalists envision a separate “Malorossiya” that includes Crimea, Donetsk, and Odessa.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin revealed February 7th that Vladimir Putin’s recent phone-call with President Barack Obama included Putin informing Obama something that might or might not be true: that ethnic Russians in Odessa have asked the Kremlin to intervene to help them.  This is all supposedly to protect them from persecution by ethnic Ukrainians—something that international media and human-rights organizations have found no evidence for.

Is Vlad the Impaler preparing to ride onto the western Steppes?
Odessa, although it is the westernmost of the Russian-speaker-dominated oblasts of Ukraine, is in one sense far more Central European than Russian.  Closer to Vienna or Istanbul than to Moscow, the area around Odessa was part of the Ottoman Empire, and it was only in the late 18th century that Catherine the Great won it from the Ottomans and erected its capital city as a Russian city.  In the 2001 census, 62.8% of the oblast’s residents identified themselves as Ukrainians, while 20.7% chose “Russian.”  It is likely that all of the “Russians” were Russian-speakers, while many of the slight majority that were “Ukrainians” were possibly Russian-speakers as well—and these may now be feeling divided loyalties as never before.  (In addition, Odessa oblast in 2001 was 6.1% Bulgarian, 5% Moldovan (i.e., ethnic Romanian), and 1.1% Gagauz (a Turkic people of Moldova).  Going for Odessa next—as Putin seems to have hinted to Obama he might (but why would he reveal his motives?)—would have the advantage of completely cutting off nearly all of Ukraine’s remaining access to the Black Sea (assuming the annexation of Crimea) and putting Russia on a border with Romania, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  It would also allow Russia to complete its sort of de facto incorporation of the eastern sliver of Moldova, which seceded after the Soviet collapse as the puppet state of Transnistria.  This would prevent not just Ukraine, but Moldova, from ever joining NATO.  And Odessa oblast would now be Russia’s westernmost point of land, not counting the exclave of Kaliningrad Oblast, wedged between Poland and Lithuania on the Baltic Sea.

“Odessa = Ukraine,” reads a sign (left).  Not all in Odessa agree.
Mir” (peace), reads another (right).  Not everyone agrees with that one either.
Already, there have been street confrontations between pro- and anti-Russian elements in Odessa, and ethnic-Russian rebels—or, perhaps, as in Donetsk, imported provocateurs from Russia itself—have managed several times to break in and raise the Russian flag over Odessa’s government buildings.  On March 6th, a speaker told a large crowd of cheering ethnic-Russian demonstrators and ad hoc militiamen, “Our duty is to demonstrate against Kiev’s junta, whom America has paid $5 billion to take over political power; otherwise their armed fascist militia will force us to elect their oligarchs and turn our country into a NATO member!”  Etc. etc.

Pro-Russian demonstrators in Odessa on March 6th
What will Putin do if the Russians of Odessa get around to “asking” him to “rescue” them from Ukrainian “fascists” and invade?  Do you think he wouldn’t dare?  That’s what we used to say about Crimea.

Members of the Ukrainian feminist political collective Femen
brought a pre-Giuliani feel to Times Square in New York this week with an anti-Putin protest.

[For those who are wondering, yes, this blog is tied in with my forthcoming book, a sort of encyclopedic atlas to be published by Auslander and Fox under the title Let’s Split! A Complete Guide to Separatist Movements and Aspirant Nations, from Abkhazia to Zanzibar.  (That is shorter than the previous working title.)  The book, which contains dozens of maps and over 500 flags, is nearly ready for the printer and should be on shelves, and available on Amazon, by February 2015.  I will be keeping readers posted of further publication news.  Meanwhile, please “like” the book (even though you haven’t read it yet) on Facebook and see this special announcement for more information on the book.]


(Once again, thanks are due to Olga Buchel for directing me to some of the information used in this article.)


Saturday, October 5, 2013

Quebec Free-Love Saucer Cult Joins Muslim-Headscarf Debate, Suggests Censoring Religious Texts


A discordant note has just been added to the passionate debate in Quebec, Canada, over the ruling separatist party’s reprehensible initiative to restrict the display of religious symbols and attire, in a thinly veiled attempt to target the province’s Muslim minority (reported in detail last month in this blog).  The latest condemnations of the Parti Québécois’s policy comes from a global but Quebec-based flying-saucer cult called the International Raëlian Movement.


Raëlian bishops have publicly announced that religious symbols should not be banned but that all religious texts should be censored in order to remove references to male dominance, intolerance of homosexuality, or the elevation of the superiority of any particular religion.  Raëlism considers itself in some ways a science rather than a religion and it voices respect for all faiths.  It also promulgates a free-love doctrine and freedom for all sexual orientations.

Raël himself
Founded by a French race-car driver turned U.F.O.-contactee named Claude Vorilhon, who goes by the name Raël, the group claims that human life on earth was seeded by extraterrestrials.  Raëlians have had their own controversies over religious symbology.  Their original logo was a swastika set inside of a Star of David (below, left) but a tide of complaints over the juxtaposition—especially when they tried to open an intergalactic “embassy” in Israel, where displays of swastikas are banned—led to its replacement by a more stylized version (below, right):


This has not mollified everyone—despite the Raëlians’ designation of July 20th earlier this year as “Swastika Rehabilitation Day.”  Raël points out (correctly) that, before its use by the Nazis in the 1930s, swastikas were primarily a religious symbol of good luck and harmony and other positive virtues, found around the world in traditional Native American, Egyptian, Buddhist, and many other cultures.  He also points out (far more debatably) that he saw such a symbol on the spaceships of the “Elohim” who contacted him and took him to their planet.  Adolf Hitler’s occultic religion of Ariosophy replaced a common Aryan (i.e., north Indian) counter-clockwise swastika with a clockwise one.  Some scholars believe that some swastikas were originally counter-clockwise because they indicated the direction of the rotating earth (as seen from above).


Other controversies in which the Raëlians have been embroiled have included nude parishioners distributing condoms in front of Catholic churches and, in 2002, a fraudulent but widely publicized claim by Raëlian geneticists that they had performed the first human cloning.

Raëlians celebrating August 25, 2013, as “Go Topless Day”
This week, Raëlians are offering to be the first religious group to submit their texts to a proposed international board of censors for the deletion of any homophobic, sexist, or religious-chauvinist passages—of which they say there are none in their 1975 founding holy writ, Vorilhon’s Space Aliens Took Me to Their Planet.



To many Americans, there is something off-kilter about the entire debate.  As in Europe, Canadian legal institutions and mainstream civil society seem to take it for granted that some forms of expression should be suppressed.  In Canada and much of Europe, it is illegal to deny the Holocaust or to “incite hatred” against minorities, however that might be defined.  As a result, Nazi sympathizers in those countries are emboldened by what they see as an official attempt to suppress the truth, and their logic is understandable: if Holocaust-denial literature is blatant nonsense, they reason, why are the authorities so desperate to prevent people from reading it?  Publishing Mein Kampf and displaying swastikas is illegal in Germany; consequently, Nazi symbology has acquired a rebellious mystique, and the sight of a swastika has a taboo allure about it in Europe which it does not in places like the United States, where it is commonly seen in historical references (and when fringe neo-Nazis make the news).  The U.S. has neo-fascists, but they are the fringe of the fringe.  And the U.S. has many forms of epidemic violence, but large gangs of neo-Nazi skinheads setting fire to immigrant and minority neighborhoods is not a recurring scourge the way it is in central and eastern Europe.  The global center of Holocaust-denial research, not coincidentally, is Canada.  And the suppression of some ideas naturally leads bigots like those in charge of the Parti Québécois to put forth a “Charter of Quebec Values” that sees implicit support for terrorism in the display of Muslim symbols—since where does one draw the line? isn’t jihadist terrorism as bad as neo-Nazi violence? and don’t many suicide bombers wear burqas? etc. etc. ... and then we’re right back where we started.

A German neo-Nazi.  Censorship won’t make this problem go away.
It’s not clear if the Raëlians are serious about their proposal to censor religious texts, just as it’s never clear if they’re serious about anything.  Mostly, I think they just like getting on the news.  But if they prod Canadians and Québécois to contemplate the absurdity of religious censorship, and to question the originally-well-meaning but deeply-illiberal approach to “bad ideas” and “bad symbols” prevalent in Canada and Europe, then they will be making a contribution.





[You can read more about Quebec and other separatist movements, both famous and obscure, in my new book, a sort of encyclopedic atlas just published by Litwin Books under the title Let’s Split! A Complete Guide to Separatist Movements and Aspirant Nations, from Abkhazia to Zanzibar.  The book, which contains 46 maps and 554 flags (or, more accurately, 554 flag images), is available for order now on Amazon.  Meanwhile, please “like” the book (even if you haven’t read it yet) on Facebook and see this special announcement for more information on the book.]


Subscribe Now: Feed Icon