Tonight we dance in the streets with joy, for the path ahead of us has been cleared by the courts to bring a Reckoning to Our Clown of Terror, Traitor Trump, for his treason, insurrection, and other acts of madness and evil of his criminal regime.
Such as the many times he attempted to hijack the narrative of the Black Lives Matter protests by sending his deniable assets like the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys in joint operations with a special shadow army of Homeland Security, chosen like the Nazi SS death squads for fanaticism as white supremacists from among the most deranged of violent prisoners mixed with the most elite of our government’s trained killers, to disrupt and provoke the nonviolent marches which seized fifty of our nation’s cities with a campaign of looting, arson, violence, and the abduction and torture of protestors. This included the police assassination of our Antifa comrade Michael Reinoehl; as the Matadors said when the rescued me from assassination by a police death squad in Brazil the summer before I began high school; “We can’t save everyone, but we can avenge.”
So much more elegant it is when we can fight for our common liberty and our universal human rights in the courts and elections, as citizens who are co owners of the state, rather than in direct action and revolutionary struggle. This is why I celebrate victories of legal and political process like today, which are possible only so long as these institutions remain legitimate. Suing malefactors and voting them out is so much better than hunting them down, and that it remains possible is welcome truth because it tells us that America, democracy, and human civilization throughout the world is not yet Fallen.
As Freud teaches us; “Civilization was invented by the first man who threw words instead of stones.” And this we must never abandon.
As written by Devan Cole, Hannah Rabinowitz, Holmes Lybrand, Katelyn Polantz and Marshall Cohen for CNN, in an article entitled Trump does not have presidential immunity in January 6 case, federal appeals court rules; “ Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency to reverse the 2020 election results, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.
The ruling is a major blow to Trump’s key defense thus far in the federal election subversion case brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith. The former president had argued that the conduct Smith charged him over was part of his official duties as president and therefore shield him from criminal liability.
“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,” the court wrote.
The ruling from the three-judge panel was unanimous. The three-judge panel who issued the ruling Tuesday includes two judges, J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, who were appointed by Joe Biden and one, Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush.
The court is giving Trump until February 12 to file an emergency stay request with the Supreme Court, which would stop the clock while his attorneys craft a more substantive appeal on the merits. If he is successful with that, the criminal trial will not resume until after the high court decides what to do with his request for a pause.
If proven, the court wrote, Trump’s efforts to usurp the 2020 presidential election would be an “unprecedented assault on the structure of our government.”
“It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity,” they wrote.
The judges flatly rejected Trump’s claim that his criminal indictment would have a “chilling effect” on future presidents.
“Moreover, past Presidents have understood themselves to be subject to impeachment and criminal liability, at least under certain circumstances, so the possibility of chilling executive action is already in effect,” the opinion says.
Trump’ attorneys had argued that if future executives believed that they could be indicted for their “official acts” as president, they would be more hesitant to act within their role.
The panel wrote: “The risks of chilling Presidential action or permitting meritless, harassing prosecutions are unlikely, unsupported by history and ‘too remote and shadowy to shape the course of justice.’ We therefore conclude that functional policy considerations rooted in the structure of our government do not immunize former Presidents from federal criminal prosecution.”
Trump faces four counts from Smith’s election subversion charges, including conspiring to defraud the United States and to obstruct an official proceeding. The former president has pleaded not guilty.
Trump has argued that he was working to “ensure election integrity” as part of his official capacity as president, and therefore he is immune from criminal prosecution for trying to overturn the election results. His lawyers have also asserted that because Trump was acquitted by the Senate during impeachment proceedings, he is protected by double jeopardy and cannot be charged by the Justice Department for the same conduct.
The district judge overseeing Trump’s criminal case in DC rejected Trump’s immunity arguments in December, writing that being president does not “confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.” Trump quickly appealed that decision to the DC Circuit, which agreed to expedite its review of the matter.
Not protected under separation of powers clause
The appeals court found that Trump is not protected from criminal prosecution under the separation of powers clause.
“Here, former President Trump’s actions allegedly violated generally applicable criminal laws, meaning those acts were not properly within the scope of his lawful discretion,” they wrote, meaning that existing case law “provide him no structural immunity from the charges in the Indictment.”
As written by Matt Ford in The New Republic, in an article entitled Trump’s Embarrassing Immunity Arguments Have Been Thoroughly Shredded; A three-judge panel just handed the former president his most comprehensive legal defeat yet; “Former President Donald Trump is not above the law, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday. The three-judge panel unanimously rejected his sweeping claims of absolute immunity from official acts committed while president. Tuesday’s ruling paves the way for the resumption of his D.C. criminal trial on January 6–related charges—unless the Supreme Court intervenes, that is.
There was no real reason to believe that Trump—or any former president, for that matter—had the level of immunity that the former president imagined he possessed. No president had ever claimed it before, the Constitution does not mention it, the Founders would have despised it. One cannot help but wonder if, way down deep in their heart of hearts, Trump’s lawyers even believed the claims they were making in court. They essentially argued that President Joe Biden could murder them and their client if he so wished and nothing could be done about it.
But the D.C. Circuit was obligated to consider it on appeal nonetheless. The court’s 57-page ruling is unsigned, a move that both signals a deep agreement among the judges on the panel and avoids the risk of making one of them a target for death threats or retribution from the former president’s followers. It easily but comprehensively dispenses with Trump’s myriad arguments for immunity.
Trump first argued that his purported immunity flowed from the Constitution’s separation of powers. Most of his argument stemmed from a line in Marbury v. Madison, the foundational 1803 ruling that established judicial review, where Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that a president’s “official” acts “can never be examinable by the courts.”
The panel noted that this was a misreading of Marbury, which also distinguished between a president’s discretionary acts and his ministerial ones. Discretionary acts like naming a specific person to an ambassadorship or issuing a pardon aren’t subject to judicial review, but ministerial ones, such as enforcing federal criminal laws, are.
Trump’s actions, the panel concluded, fell within the latter category and thus could be reviewed by the courts. “Here, former President Trump’s actions allegedly violated generally applicable criminal laws, meaning those acts were not properly within the scope of his lawful discretion; accordingly, Marbury and its progeny provide him no structural immunity from the charges in the indictment,” the panel wrote.
Trump’s next set of claims revolved around public policy considerations. He claimed that allowing criminal prosecutions of former presidents would undermine the executive branch’s ability to carry out its constitutional functions. If former presidents could face criminal charges, Trump warned, it might have a chilling effect on how presidents wield executive power. While undoubtedly biting their judicial tongue, the panel effectively noted that a chilling effect on criminal conduct was precisely the point of criminal laws.
“Moreover, past Presidents have understood themselves to be subject to impeachment and criminal liability, at least under certain circumstances, so the possibility of chilling executive action is already in effect,” it noted, citing the experiences of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. “Even former President Trump concedes that criminal prosecution of a former President is expressly authorized by the Impeachment Judgment Clause after impeachment and conviction.” (We’ll come back to that clause later.)
The court was careful to balance specificity with generality. While it rejected Trump’s arguments as he made them, the panel also set aside thornier constitutional questions. In a footnote, the panel noted that its reasoning only applied to former presidents, leaving open the question of whether a sitting president can face criminal charges. And the panel noted that its ruling was based on the specific charges at hand, which alleged that Trump tried to overturn the presidential election results and illegally stay in office.
The latter caveat, if anything, made the panel even less inclined to countenance an immunity claim. “We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power—the recognition and implementation of election results,” it wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
The most bewildering and misleading argument for immunity that Trump made—which is really saying something—is that his prosecution was foreclosed by his acquittal in his second impeachment trial. He claimed that the Constitution’s language on impeachment, which says that “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law,” meant that he could only be tried for January 6–related charges if he had been convicted by the Senate during his second impeachment trial.
This is a nonsensical theory that, as I noted in October, rested heavily on Trump’s legal team misreading part of Justice Samuel Alito’s dissenting opinion in a previous immunity case. The panel duly dispensed with it by noting that the weight of historical evidence suggested otherwise. “In drafting the Impeachment Judgment Clause, to the extent that the Framers contemplated whether impeachment would have a preclusive effect on future criminal charges,” the panel noted, “the available evidence suggests that their intent was to ensure that a subsequent prosecution would not be barred.”
Trump’s last and most desperate claim was that his Senate acquittal for “incitement to insurrection” also barred his prosecution on January 6–related charges under “principles of double jeopardy.” This did not fly with the panel for a few reasons, foremost among them that impeachment is not a criminal proceeding and so the double jeopardy clause does not apply. “To the extent former President Trump relies on ‘double jeopardy principles’ beyond the text of the Impeachment Judgment Clause,” the panel wryly noted, “those principles cut against him.” After all, it pointed out, federal prosecutors had not charged him with the same offense.
The D.C. Circuit’s decision is impressive not only for its clear reasoning but for the speed with which it was written. Some federal appellate courts take months to hand down rulings on complex cases, sometimes even more than a year. It took the three-judge panel only 28 days from oral argument on January 9 to the announcement on February 6. That raises hopes that Trump’s criminal trial, which had been paused during the appeal, can speedily resume. Judge Tanya Chutkan scrapped the March 4 trial date last week but will likely announce a new one in the coming days.
All that remains to be seen is whether the Supreme Court will take up the case. It would not be surprising if the justices decided to give a final, authoritative word on the matter. At the same time, even the most accelerated briefing and argument schedules would make it difficult for the court to issue a ruling before the end of this term. The justices are already under pressure to deliver a ruling on Trump’s disqualification case, in which oral arguments are scheduled to begin on Thursday. In this matter, the court may decide for now to let the D.C. Circuit panel’s opinion stand unless enough justices actually disagree with it on the merits. The high court will likely signal its next steps in the coming weeks after Trump’s inevitable appeal.”
Trump’s crimes of treason and sedition in the coup attempt of the January 6 Insurrection rightly remains our focus in understanding the fascist subversion of democracy and capture of the state in the Stolen Election of 2016; but let us not forget his many other crimes for which we must bring a Reckoning.
As I wrote in my post of September 3 2023, Anniversary of the Assassination of Antifascist Comrade Michael Reinoehl: Violence, Responsibility, the Social Use of Force, and Our Duty of Care For Others; On this terrible day we mourn the extrajudicial and political assassination by police three years ago of a committed fellow antifascist and brother in the great struggle against white supremacist terror and the carceral state of the Fourth Reich, Michael Reinoehl, who has in a live broadcast interview publicly claimed responsibility for killing in self defense a member of a violent racist terror organization on August 29 2020 in Portland.
To whom does responsibility in such a tragedy belong? First responders are immune from prosecution for trying to save lives because of the doctrine of our duty of care for others; does this not also apply as a general humanitarian principle to intervention to prevent our own death and that of others? Who perpetrates the threat or use of deadly force, displays or fires guns at others to intimidate or kill them, is responsible for the harm their actions cause; so also with organizations of terror which arm, train, fund, and provide communications and logistics support for them, regardless of whether they are a deniable asset of state terror such as the Patriot Prayer group which fielded the perpetrator, police who hide behind the immunity and authority of their badges to enforce elite hegemonies of wealth, power, and privilege and authorize others in the commission of acts of terror, or those who provide ideology and authorization, logistics and communication, and other organizational infrastructure for them as a conspiracy of white supremacist terror, even if it originates from the White House.
I now wish to clarify publicly and irrevocably that I neither endorse violence nor the avoidance of responsibility for our actions; anyone who reads my writing will realize that I believe violence is a result of unequal power and of fear, and this informs and motivates everything else. We have a right to defend ourselves and others from harm, but not to compel virtue by force. My abhorrence of the social use of force is the basis for my opposition to law and order, prisons, police, surveillance, tyranny, state force and control, normality and the ideas of other people, state authorization of identities, and violations of our rights of conscience and of bodily autonomy. I envision a society free of the use of social force and without violence.
As to public confrontations as theatre; I understand the value of public image and presence and of protest in raising awareness of a cause, and especially in the four primary duties of a citizen in the face of unjust authority to question, expose, mock, and challenge authority, and the inviolable principle of solidarity which means that if they come for the marginalized and the oppressed we come for them, and in my world you stand with those who stand with you, but this does not imply an endorsement of ridiculous macho posturing, the fetishization of guns and other male jewelry, or the valorization of warlike displays of toxic masculinity which may become preconditions and incitements to violence. This is especially true where guns are involved; their power is seductive and malign. The fetishization of instruments of violence normalizes and precedes violence.
Who bears arms bears death, has chosen to bear death among us and has degraded every human relationship and interaction to a kill or no kill decision.
Choose life.
Here endeth the lesson; or maybe not. For I have used a word throughout my witness of history and eulogy for a comrade which is itself a ground of struggle; antifascist. A word that cuts slices, polarizes, incites, damns or grants permission, identifies friend or foe, confers nobility of purpose, and engulfs the world in the fires of transformation and rebirth symbolized in the stolen fire of the gods of our Torch of Liberty.
As I wrote in my post of July 31 2020, A Useful Past: What is Antifa?; What do we mean when we say we are Antifascists? What do our enemies mean when they use the term? These mirror reverse meanings face us Janus-like in dialectical contradiction as negative spaces of each other like Escher’s Drawing Hands, and while factions struggle to control the narrative in the media I don’t see much direction provided by anyone speaking as an Antifa-identified voice. I’m changing that, for I speak to you today as the founder of Lilac City Antifa.
In calling Antifa a terrorist group, Trump has inverted its values and libeled every American serviceman, from those who fought in World War II to our entire military services today, for they have been the primary force against fascism and tyranny throughout the world. I am an American patriot and an Antifascist; and if our flag is on your uniform, you are one of us.
The Second World War has been much studied, filmed, and written about; but of course what we mean when we speak of Antifa today proceeds from the history of those whose public service of vigilance in exposing and confronting fascism developed from the partisans of that conflict and from the Allied military and intelligence services sent to assist them in the liberation of Europe, from the Resistance and from those who hunted escaped Nazis after the war.
To begin with, both the OSS which became the CIA and the Jedburgh teams which became the Green Berets or Special Operations originate as antifascist forces, and this is true generally of all European intelligence and special operations forces born and forged in the war against fascism.
One may discover strange and unlikely allies in the Antifascist community because of this history; and we may say the same of enemies. Both our allies and our enemies are partners in a dance, wherein we choose our futures and how to be human together.
A very specific historical context and tradition informs and motivates those who, like myself, use the term Antifascist as a descriptor of identity; I have appended some articles on this useful past, but Antifa is a personal choice to work against fascism and may sometimes be a component of an ideology or belief system but is not an organization. No one calling themselves Antifa speaks for or answers to anyone else; it is a nonhierarchical and mutualistic network of alliances. There is no special tie nor fraternal handshake; membership is by declaration.
To claim you are Antifa is to be Antifa. This means whatever we intend when we say it.
For myself, to be an antifascist is to belong to a tradition of resistance which originates in the Second World War, a war that has never ended but went underground. I look also to the American and French Revolutions against monarchy and against all systems of unequal power, imperial tyranny and colonial inequality, and to the Second American Revolution and the great crusade of Abolition against slavery that was the Civil War, to the glorious mirage of the Paris Commune, and to our direct origins in the Italian Arditi del Popolo, the Antifaschistische Aktion direct action forces of the German Democratic Socialists from whom we inherit our name, the International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War, and the Resistance, for antecedents and inspiration. For the principles which I feel are consistent with Anti-fascism, see my repost below of the original proclamation with which I founded Lilac City Antifa.
Proclamation of Lilac City Antifa: Resistance Against Fascism and Tyranny
We, the People of Lilac City and of America, being of all imaginable varieties of historical origin, race and ethnicity, gender and sexual personae, faith and the lack thereof, class and status, and all other informing and motivating sources of becoming human and frames of identity as yet undiscovered, declare our independence from fear and from authorized identities, boundaries of the Forbidden, images and narratives of ourselves made for us by others as instruments of subjugation, the tyranny of false divisions and categories of belonging and exclusionary otherness among us.
To make an idea about a kind of people is an act of violence.
We stand united as human beings whose universal rights depend on no government but on the inherent nature of our humanity, and as American citizens and co-owners of our government in a free society of equals, inclusive of all who so claim and declare as heirs of the legacy and idea of Liberty and of America as an historical expression and manifest form of its ideals and values, among these being freedom and the autonomy of individuals, equality as an absolute structural principle in law and ideal in social relations, truth and its objectivity and testable nature and our right to seek and verify and to communicate it which includes freedom of the press and the right of access to information and from surveillance and all forms of thought control, justice and its impartiality, and a secular state in which freedom of conscience is absolute and there can be no compulsion in matters of faith.
We are a web of human lives which connect us with one another and anchor us to our Liberty, to our history and to our future, and we are resolved to our common defense as human beings and as Americans, and to the mutual safety and freedom of ourselves and of others from fascist violence and intimidation, coercion and the social use of force, in the performance of our identities and in our rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We are American patriots and heirs to the glorious tradition of resistance by those who stood for Liberty at the balance points of history, at Saratoga and Yorktown, Gettysburg, Normandy, and many others, against the three primary threats of tyranny, inequalities of race and gender and slavery in all its forms, and fascism which combines and expands them, as we must always do against the atavistic forces of barbarism and the nightmares of totalitarian force and control which threaten our nation and our civilization, against what madness and evil may together do.
We must unite together as free citizens who will not be broken by fear, but instead embrace our differences as a strength and a heritage purchased for us all by the blood of our sacred dead in countless wars throughout our history.
To all those who have offered their lives in our service, members and veterans of the military and other security services: join us. If our flag is on your uniform, you are one of us. For America is a Band of Brothers, sworn to one another and to the defense of our union, with liberty and justice for all.
To all enemies of America and a free society of equals: We are many, we are watching, and we are the future.
Join us in resistance, who answer fascism and tyranny with equality and liberty.
I am an American patriot and an Antifascist. Pledge thus with me:
I swear zero tolerance for racism or the supremacy of any persons by categories of identity, racist violence and white supremacist terror, ethnic cleansing and genocide, hate and its symbols and speech, for all fascisms of blood, faith, and soil, and for all inequalities and divisions of exclusionary otherness and victimization of the dispossessed and the powerless.
I will make no compromise with evil.
As you have sworn to challenge and confront fascism, therefore I offer you the Oath of the Resistance as it was given to me in Beirut in 1982 by Jean Genet; here is the story of how it happened, and of my true origin.
During the summer before my undergraduate senior year of university in San Francisco, I had set out on a culinary Grand Tour of the Mediterranean, learning to cook the food I loved, and was in Beirut when Israel invaded Lebanon and trapped me in a city under siege. Feral bands of soldiers were roaming the streets, committing atrocities; one such unit of the Israeli Defense Forces set some children on fire, laughing and making bets on how far they could run screaming before they fell into pools of blackened ruin and their screams became silent. I found myself fighting them; others joined me, and more joined us. From that day forward I was part of the defense of Beirut against the siege.
A fabulous café that had the best strawberry crepes in the world lay on the far side of a sniper alley, which my friends and I made an extreme sport of dashing across to reach breakfast while the occasional bullet impacted the wall behind us. One day we arrived in our usual high spirits when an elegant gentleman sat at my table, and speaking in French began a conversation with, “I’m told you do this every day, race against death for breakfast.”
To which I replied, “We have nothing but moments stolen from death; these alone belong to us, and set us free. It’s a poor man who has no pleasures worth dying for.”
He smiled and said, “I agree”, and so began our conversations at breakfast in the last days before his capture, unforgettable days for this is where he set me on my life’s path of struggle for liberty against tyranny and autocracies of state force and control, for equality against racist violence and injustice, and against the fascism which combines both state tyranny and racist terror.
He introduced himself as a former Legionnaire by the name of Jean, was mischievous, wise, immensely learned in classical scholarship and possibly had once been educated as a priest, and filled with wild stories about the luminaries of modern European culture. I was stunned when I discovered days later that my strange new friend was one of the greatest literary figures of the century. I had quoted The Thief’s Journal in refutation of something he said, which he found hilarious, while we were discussing Maurice Blanchot’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra as compared to that of Georges Bataille, a conversation which remained unfinished as he couldn’t stop laughing. Eventually he sputtered, “I myself am Jean Genet.” To me he remains a Trickster figure and part of my historical identity and personal mythology.
There came a day when the barricades were overrun and our neighborhood along with it, one of our last days together. With the streets suddenly filled with Israeli soldiers running amok in a sack of murder, arson, and other vileness of terror and inhumanity, our house set on fire and about to be burned alive as the soldiers called for us to come out and surrender, and the discovery of our only weapon being the bottle of champagne we had just finished with our strawberry crepes, I asked my breakfast companion if he had any ideas. To this he replied with a very Gallic shrug and another question, “Fix bayonets?”
We laughed, and he elaborated; “When all hope is lost, we are free to do impossible things, glorious things.” This advice I find necessary to recall from time to time, and which I recommend to you all.
Then he asked, “Will you surrender?’
To which I replied, “No.”
“Nor I,” he said, standing. “As I share with you now, pass to others at need; this is an oath I devised in 1940 from the one I took as a Legionnaire, for the resistance to the Nazi occupation. It may be the finest thing I ever stole.”
And so I offer to all of you the Oath of the Resistance as it was given to me by the great Jean Genet in a burning house, in a lost cause, in a time of force and darkness, in a last stand and an act of defiance beyond hope of victory or survival; “We swear our loyalty to each other, who answer tyranny with Liberty and fascism with Equality. We shall resist and yield not, and abandon not our fellows.”
To fascism and the idea that some of us are better than others by condition of our birth there can be but one reply; Never Again.
We escaped capture that day because we were led through the checkpoints of the encirclement by an unlikely ally, a figure who materialized out of the background at the far end of the alley and walked over to us grinning. This was the sniper whom my friends and I had been playing our games with for two weeks, who had been utterly invisible and had outwitted every attempt to track, trap, ambush, or identify him, and who had in fact besieged the city from within. He held out his hand to me and I shook it as he said, “Well played, sir. I’ve tried to kill you every day for fourteen days now, but the Israelis have occupied the city, and this changes everything. We have a common enemy, and they don’t know that, so I’m in a position to help you. But I can’t fight them alone. Want a partner?”
So began a great adventure and friendship, which I share with you now in the context of the nature of antifascist resistance because it illustrates something which can never be forgotten by anyone who does this kind of work; human beings are not monsters, are deserving of human doubt, and are never beyond redemption.
The struggle between good and evil in the human heart often pivots and balances on the differences between the purpose of the use of force; to punish transgression when inflicted by authority as an act of subjugation and repression against the powerless, or to seize power and to protect the powerless as a duty of care. Be very sure you know which cause your actions serve.
The end goal of Antifascism, and of revolutionary struggle and liberation, is to achieve a democratic society of true equality, diversity, and inclusion in which we can abandon the social use of force.
Such a day will not be easily won, nor quickly, even with seizures of power, for the systems of oppression in which we are embedded also inhabit our flesh as living stories, and we must escape the legacies of our history if we are to create ourselves anew in a free society of equals.
Trump does not have presidential immunity in January 6 case, federal appeals court rules/ CNN
Trump’s Embarrassing Immunity Arguments Have Been Thoroughly Shredded | The New Republic
https://newrepublic.com/article/178791/trump-presidential-immunity-court-defeat
Qualified Immunity: A Legal, Practical, and Moral Failure | Cato Institute
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/qualified-immunity-legal-practical-moral-failure
Antifa: a reading list
Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, by Mark Bray
The Antifa Comic Book: 100 Years of Fascism and Antifa Movements
by Gord Hill
Philosophy of Antifascism: Punching Nazis and Fighting White Supremacy
by Devin Zane Shaw
Transatlantic Antifascisms: From the Spanish Civil War to the End of World War II, by Michael Seidman
Writers’ Block: The Paris Antifascist Congress of 1935, by Jacob Boas
Rethinking Antifascism: History, Memory and Politics, 1922 to the Present
by Hugo García Fernández (Editor), Mercedes Yusta Rodrigo (Editor), Xavier Tabet (Editor), Cristina Clímaco (Editor)
Torch of Liberty 
Leave a comment