Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Weather Underground Call to “Attack and Dethrone God” Behind Black Lives Matter Protests – Fox News.

with 8 comments


Attack and Dethrone God: ‘Trending’.

This is a story,  believe it, circulating today,

‘Attack And Dethrone God’ trends amid BLM protests: Is the Weather Underground back from the dead to fight racism?

With the social unrest and Black Lives Matter demonstrations across the nation in the wake of the killing of George Floyd refusing to die down, extreme reactions have started surfacing on virtual platforms like Twitter and one of them is #AttackAndDethroneGod. It is not too difficult to understand who is the target of the Twitter trend and with it, the name of the once-famous Weather Underground Organization (WUO) is also doing the rounds. President Donald Trump has recently expressed his intention to designate the left-wing anti-fascist Antifa movement as a terror organization in the wake of the Floyd protests and with the surfacing of the WUO’s name now, it is clear that the US is now trapped between extreme conflicting ideologies.

This if the Fox News broadcast that sparked the prairie fire.

The Jerusalem Post reports this story, tongue firmly in the cheek.

Riots, like military org., ‘attack and dethrone God’ – Former FBI agent

Turchie claimed that “Praire Fire” highlighted six main points that the WUO intended on executing in order to achieve their goals, the last of which was titled “attack and dethrone God.”

Former FBI deputy counterterror director Terry Turchie told Fox News‘s Laura Ingraham on Friday when speaking on the news that the riots occurring throughout the United States in response to the murder of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police is not unlike the extreme leftist Weather Underground Organization (WUO), claiming one of its intentions was to “attack and dethrone God.”

“They had a major goal, and that goal was to form a communist revolution,” Turchie said. “They call themselves communist-minded men and women, and in 1974 they authored a document called ‘Prairie Fire,’ and they outline their strategy and they outline the way they could get to that strategy and actually bring down the US government.”

Turchie claimed that “Praire Fire” highlighted six main points that the WUO intended on executing in order to achieve their goals, the last of which was titled “attack and dethrone God.” Turchie did not clarify what he meant by this last strategy.

They continue,

Police racism then and police racism now is a phony issue,” he concluded. “It has always been a phony issue. It is the issue that communist societies use to literally tear apart Americans and to be devisive. Those categories of people you have on that screen, those are the kind of victimhood that they look for to kind of bring in the focus, large groups of people, and get them on the team here.”

The point stating “attack and dethrone God” received massive backlash online, with many Twitter users who support the Black Lives Matter movement amid the riots joking that they surely intend to do so.

This Blog recommends the following book for the history of he Weather Underground:

Jacobs, Ron (1997). The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. London: Verso

You can download a copy for free from Libcom here.

I first became aware of Weatherman in the fall of 1970, after opening a copy of Quicksilver Times and reading about the group’s assistance in Timothy Leary’s escape from a prison inCalifornia. Although I personally preferred the antics of that other psychedelic prankster KenKesey, the fact that a political organization had aided the unreservedly apolitical Leary to escape fascinated me

This is the last paragraph.

On January 6, 1994, one of the last of those charged in the Days of Rage went to court. Twenty-five years after the first national Weather action, Jeff Powell ended his life underground to face riot charges. He was fined $500 and placed on probation. Nearly a quarter-century after Weather called on the youth of America to bring the war home, Powell, a foot soldier in the Days of Rage, finally surrendered.15

The claim about the Weather Underground are not voices crying in the wilderness.

To just how wild the US right is these days the following is a windy straw;

The Democrat Party these days has actually ended up being more extreme than the Weather Underground, raising the concern what traitorous red line should the Democrat Party cross prior to the leaders are detained for sedition, and the Party dissolved for being a company that has just one goal: The basic improvement of our Constitutional Republic, into a totalitarian socialist state.

Liberals Have Chose To Tear Apart What They Cannot Rule

Written by Andrew Coates

June 6, 2020 at 11:53 am

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It is not just Rupert Murdoch media idiocy.

    It is also ‘the Leader of the Free World’ and his White House administration:



    June 6, 2020 at 12:09 pm

  2. Probably, the puppets of anti-Semitic billionaire Rupert Murdoch bases that on the fact that, today, there is a meteorological information internet site, called Weather Underground.



    June 6, 2020 at 12:53 pm

    • Odd choice of name, but yes, it’s there all over the Google marketplace.

      On the book I cite about the real Weather Underground:

      Book Review
      The Way the Wind Blew
      by Ron Jacobs
      Reviewed by:
      Greg Hall

      Ron Jacobs’ The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground is a sympathetically written, concise history of the militant Weather Underground organization. Jacobs explains how Weather grew out of a split within the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), primarily between those who supported the Black Panthers as a vanguard of the revolution, and the Progressive Labor Party (PL) whose members thought black nationalism was an ideological and tactical mistake. As SDS fell apart and the PL walked off into Maoist obscurity, the Weather Underground embarked on a revolutionary campaign to “bring the war home.” The organization attempted to end U.S. imperialism, especially its current war in Vietnam. It defined itself as a domestic revolutionary organization in league with the national liberation movements of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

      Jacobs begins his history of the Weather organization in 1968, introducing a myriad of New Left organizations and players in the movement. At that time, the U.S. antiwar movement shifted into a new more militant phase, with the New Left itself reaching its highest level of adherents. Jacobs categorizes the New Left as moving into “a more coherent stance toward the liberal-conservative establishment” and toward an articulation of a sociopolitical critique of American society that focused on the inherent injustice of the society and its explicit imperialism. Though Jacobs falls short of articulating, for the sake of context, a fully developed definition of the New Left and its ultimate goals, he is quite good at explaining changes in the antiwar movement. According to him, SDS, with its student/campus base, generated an antiracist and anti-imperialist stand that significantly broadened the antiwar movement to an attack on American society as a whole.

      The actual creation of the Weather organization emerged out of the essential disintegration of SDS. Jacobs does his best to decipher the sometimes thickheaded ideological differences that led to the breakup. He focuses on the issue of racism and revolution as the key to the origins of the Weathermen. With the 1968 SDS convention as a backdrop, Jacobs explains how the drama of yet another sectarian split in the history of the American Left took place. According to him, PL, a significant intellectual strain in SDS, argued that African Americans were simply “superexploited workers” and needed to view themselves within a class context rather than in an exclusively racial context. Members of what was to be the Weather Underground, on the other hand, argued that racism, imperialism, and capitalism were intimately tied together into a system that could only be changed through a revolution led by the truly oppressed, i.e., African Americans. Jacobs notes, with fine insight, that the purist, revolutionary posture that the Weathermen embraced would ultimately lead to their inability to form alliances with other groups who had a different revolutionary agenda or who were radicals rather than revolutionaries. Yet Jacobs’ sympathy for the Weathermen does get in the way of his analysis. He puts the blame for the destruction of SDS at the feet of PL when both Weather members and the PL were equally responsible for the failure of socialist unity. At the time, SDS was the most successful movement in the U.S. Left since the Communist party of the 1930s, and it was probably the premier New Left organization of the 1960s.

      With the “Days of Rage” period, Jacobs demonstrates how the Weather Underground’s ideas evolved as individuals dropped away from the movement and others gained influence and positions of leadership. Yet despite the introduction of individuals, Jacobs does not offer adequate personal profiles. As he states in the book’s preface, he deliberately avoided writing a history of Weather personalities and centered instead on the group’s political history. Though laudable, his mission short-changes the reader. An explanation of personal motives and decisions could have offered readers a better sense of Weather members as people with a history and granted more insight into their organizational dynamics. Studying only the text that historical figures leave behind is sometimes unavoidable, because that is all that survives. However, with many Weather people still alive, Jacobs could have made better use of oral histories, especially since his endnotes suggest that he had contact with individual former Weather Underground members.

      Jacobs does an excellent job of taking the reader into the inner workings of the group, its ideology, strategy, tactics, and evolution. With a series of local collectives loosely supervised by the national leadership, the organization rejected mass alliance antiwar demonstrations, all reforms of U.S. society, accepted the most radical elements of the counterculture, rejected the revolutionary potential of the white working class, and moved to advocate street violence as a revolutionary act. Furthermore, Jacobs continues his characterization of the Weather Underground as an organization driven to create a fighting cohort of committed revolutionaries. He delves into their sexual views, their use of LSD, and into their use of intense self-, individual-, and group-criticism sessions. Jacobs seriously analyzes these attributes of the Weathermen, while other scholars have tended to either ignore or belittle them.

      Jacobs also explains the groups’ struggle with the state, describing outright repression, infiltration, and legal persecution. But he is at his most insightful as he explains the evolution of the Weathermen as it moved from an above ground organization to an underground one. Militant demonstrations by Weather gave way to bombings. Their move to forms of “propaganda by the deed” tends to be overrated by Jacobs, but he does offer the necessary criticism of the group’s ideological bent and strategy through the comments of other revolutionary Leftists. Also Jacobs accurately views Weather within the context of the Women’s Liberation Movement and shows how Weather responded to this influence. Moreover, he places Weather well within the context of other movements and organizations of the New Left, e.g. the Black Panther Party and the Symbionese Liberation Army, and their influence on and relationship to Weather. For the reader who lacks an adequate background of the period, some brief historical descriptions of such organizations would have been helpful. Over all, though, the latter chapters of his book (especially chapters six and seven) offer a rare glimpse into a history of the American Left that has not been given the attention it deserves. Yet one element missing from Jacobs’ ideological analysis is an analysis of Weather’s collective view of a post-revolutionary world. The authoritarian strain that ran through Weather did not bode well for any libertarian socialist future. One wonders what kind of socialism Weather members envisioned.

      Unfortunately, Jacobs’ book lacks a satisfactory conclusion. He takes the reader to the point when Weather begins to acknowledge the mistakes of its purist ideological stand that alienated it from much of the American Left. The work and struggles of the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee, Weather’s attempt to form an above ground support group, are given fair treatment. His analysis of the mid-70s Prairie Fire document and the New Left’s reaction to it is well written. But as the book ends with the surrender of Weather men and women, Jacobs concludes his political history on a narrative descriptive note. The analysis that he exhibited throughout much of the book is lacking at its end. A final appraisal by Jacobs on Weather’s path to revolution and the price that the revolutionaries had to pay would have been worth reading. He gives some brief personality profiles at the end of the book in the form of an appendix, but these, unfortunately, lack depth. Finally, little information is provided by Jacobs regarding how Weather members evaluated their experiences.

      Overall this book is a fine treatment of its subject. Jacobs takes the Weather organization seriously. He gives a much more comprehensive history and analysis of Weather than Tod Gitlin’s rather bitter The Sixties (though any student of the American Left should read Gitlin’s personal and highly readable work). For those interested in a truly comprehensive history of the domestic side of the Vietnam war and the significance of Weather’s anti-imperialist mission, Tom Wells’ The War Within would be good reading.

      The Way the Wind Blew is a handsome book with many photographs. Jacobs includes several excerpts of Weather communiques and other bits of New Left writings. He also has a useful chronology of events and a helpful bibliography. This study is a solid contribution to an ever growing body of work relating to the 1960s, the Vietnam war, and the history of the American Left.


      Andrew Coates

      June 6, 2020 at 4:38 pm

  3. Philip Pullman, the avatar of John Milton is behind this. I knew it!

    Mr Paul Bryden

    June 6, 2020 at 7:05 pm

  4. petrel41

    June 6, 2020 at 7:43 pm

  5. Andrew Coates

    June 6, 2020 at 8:50 pm

    • How is Antifa different from the Weathermen?

      Erika Whelan, 20 years of studying and practice.

      Joseph Jacob Cohn’s answer (q.v.) gives a decent overview of what the Weather Underground did. Comparing them with Antifa is difficult, however, because, unlike the Weather Underground Organization, Antifa is not a unitary, permanent organization, but a loose formation of various activists who, although they may form more-or-less unitary, permanent organizations for the purposes of engaging in antifascist action (Antifa originally being a contraction of Antifaschiste Aktion, Antifascist Action), generally also belong to other political organizations and engage in other kinds of activity. Thus, unlike the members of the Weather Underground Organization, antifascists are not per se committed to the revolutionary transformation of society; whatever the distortions imposed by their twisted ideology, the members of WU certainly set as their task precisely that.

      This brings us to the more fundamental difference between WUO and Antifa. Antifa has no ideology, by which I mean no fixed set of principles or doctrine by which it guides its operation. Antifa simply exists to fight fascism, whatever “fascism” might be, and not all Antifa even agree on what fascism is, or how best to fight it. This is not to say that there isn’t a rough consensus, or that they don’t recognize its most visible manifestations (although it would not surprise me at all if, in the near future, groups calling themselves “antifascist” were to begin to question whether many of what they formerly regarded as being its most visible manifestations were; such is the weakness of having no ideology). Their approach to fighting fascism is to beat up fascists, to doxx them, to harass their employers into firing them, and generally make nuisances of themselves.

      Seemingly paradoxically, Antifa in its modern form is largely an anarchist project. Its lack of definite organization and discipline, and lack of ideology, however, are hallmarks of contemporary anarchism in the US. Much contemporary US anarchist praxis fetishizes[1]struggle, especially loosely-organized, poorly-defined struggle, for democracy and other political goals, while eschewing lasting organizational commitments rooted in the proletariat. It seemingly sprang out of nowhere, but in fact has precedent in previous anarchist political struggles against white supremacist organizations (e.g., Anti-Racist Action). Antifa’s purpose is, effectively, simply defense against what it sees as the rising threat of fascism in the United States.

      The Weather Underground, by contrast, was not preoccupied with a fight against fascism, but, as stated above, had as its goal the revolutionary transformation of society. WUO came out of the Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM), which was an ultra-left group that formed within Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). It saw itself as part of the vanguard of a revolutionary movement which would overthrow the capitalist state and bring about a communist revolution, and identified its primary opponent as US imperialism. Instead of attempting mass organizing, which its members saw as a dead-end, they instead placed their faith in the efficacy of direct action. Being students at elite universities, they did not have much experience doing labor organizing, and their organizing experience was with radical community organizing and electoral politics; coupled with the deadening hand of the regime unions on the labor struggle and the apparent failure of independent efforts like DRUM, this conclusion is understandable.

      SDS split into two factions in 1969: RYM and the Worker Student Alliance (WSA), which was an entryist formation of the Progressive Labor Party (PLP), a Maoist party formation. The leadership of RYM included the members of the WUO, who controlled the SDS national office, and dissolved it after failing to prevent WSA, whose line, following that of the PLP, of opposition to national liberation struggles they disagreed with, from taking over. They also clashed over the WSA/PLP criticizing the Vietnamese National Liberation Front and the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam for “selling out” by coming to the table at the Paris Peace Talks (which started in 1968!), and for PLP’s criticisms of the Black Panthers. RYM itself would later split over the question of WUO’s adventurism; the faction that did not go with WUO formed RYM II, focused on building a new vanguard party, and became the core of the New Communist Movement.

      This, I think, is the key difference.


      Andrew Coates

      June 7, 2020 at 4:20 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: