Read More

When Michael Fanone, the former Trump supporter and D.C. cop who nearly died at the hands of the January 6 mob at the U.S. Capitol, comes to the Chicago Humanities Festival next week to join We Are Proud Boys: How a Right-Wing Street Gang Ushered in a New Era of American Extremism author Andy Campbell on a panel about “Extremism in America,” their moderator will be a Northwestern University history professor as obsessed with the subject as they are.

“Extremism in America: Pushing Back on Radicalism and Saving Our Democracy”Sat 10/22 4:30 PM, Northwestern University Norris University Center, 1999 Campus Dr., Evanston, chicagohumanities.org, $20 ($15 CHF members, $10 students and teachers)

Kathleen Belew’s first book, Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America, was published in 2018, when she was an assistant professor at the University of Chicago. (She moved to Northwestern this year.) She co-edited an anthology, A Field Guide to White Supremacy, published in 2021 as a manual for journalists and anyone else seeking to understand this phenomenon. She says her focus is “history of the present.” 

Here’s an edited version of a conversation we had  this week.

Deanna Isaacs: You’ve written that the white power movement has been largely invisible because it operates as “leaderless” resistance? What’s that?

Kathleen Belew: Leaderless resistance is cell-style terrorism. It was implemented around 1983 to make it more difficult to prosecute people and to make it more difficult for informants to infiltrate. But the bigger consequence has been that this whole movement has been able to disappear. We tend to consume news about white power activism and militant-right activity as single incidents instead of part of a groundswell. We get stories about Charleston as anti-Black violence, El Paso as anti-Latino violence, Tree of Life shooting as antisemitic violence, when all of those are carried out by white power gunmen. All of this and January 6 are part of the same movement. There’s an enormous amount of circulation of ideas, people, weapons, and strategy between all of these different groups.

The current white power movement came together at the end of the Vietnam war?

Bring the War Home is a history focused on the late 1970s through the Oklahoma City bombing [1995]. The white power movement brought together Klansmen, skinheads, neo-Nazis, and militiamen. Prior to 1983, these groups were interested in violent action, but they described what they were doing as in defense of the state. So, for instance, they carried out a coordinated campaign of violent harassment against Vietnamese fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico around Galveston Bay and talked about that as a continuation of the Vietnam war. When they did border patrol actions, they talked about it as doing what the state couldn’t do itself.

What happened in 1983?

We see the rhetoric really change. They make a verbal declaration of war on the federal government in 1983. And we also see that the kind of violence they pursue changes. They become much more interested in major infrastructure attacks, major acts of domestic terrorism. It was no longer a vigilante movement that was trying to protect the government. It was a revolutionary movement, interested in overthrowing the United States and creating either a white ethnostate or a white nation or even an all-white world.

In testimony before a congressional committee in 2019, you had an exchange with another witness who argued that white supremacist extremism isn’t a major issue. Did the events of January 6 answer that claim?

There have been numerous moments where people on the right have tried to throw a bunch of dust at the scholarship around this and to direct people away from the problem. It’s not just one person. There was, for instance, a GOP talking points memo that came out after the El Paso shooting that said direct the conversation to mental illness and away from the problem of white nationalism. And that is before we get to the present moment, where we’re talking about January 6 insurrectionists successfully running for office, we’re talking about open GOP support not only for what happened on January 6 but, in many cases, for Great Replacement Theory and other far-right ideas. The bleed of these ideas into our mainstream has continued.

So where do things stand now?

In the last few years we’ve had a lot of public and institutional movement toward understanding how big this problem is, but I also think white power activity in our society has gained huge footholds. Activists in the period that I’ve studied [1970s-1990s] were interested in mounting mass casualty and infrastructure attacks, selective assassinations, and other kinds of political violence. Now there’s a second course of action, because mainstream politics is now available to these groups. That means that we don’t only have to be worried about mass attacks, terrorism, and assassination—we also have to be worried about authoritarianism as a threat to our democracy itself.

Read More

Never miss a copy! Paid print subscriptions are available for 12 issues, 26 issues, and for 52 issues from the Reader Store.

Chicago Reader 2022 print issue dates

The Chicago Reader is published in print every other week. Issues are dated Thursday. Distribution usually happens Wednesday morning through Thursday night of the issue date. Upcoming print issue dates through December 2022 are:

10/27/202211/10/202211/24/202212/8/202212/22/2022

Download the full 2022 editorial calendar is here (PDF).

See our information page for advertising opportunities.

2023 print issue dates

The first print issue in 2023 will be published three weeks after the 12/22/2022 issue, the final issue of 2022. The print issue dates through June 2023 are:

1/12/20231/26/20232/9/20232/23/20233/9/20233/23/20234/6/20234/20/20235/4/20235/18/20236/1/20236/15/20236/29/2023

Read More

Q: I’m a 31-year-old cis man married to a 33-year-old nonbinary partner, and our relationship has always been very vanilla. Over the past few years, I’ve discovered that I’m a kinky person, with a particular interest in both domination and submission. It took me a long time to summon the courage to bring this up with my spouse, as they have a cocktail of factors that could complicate play around power dynamics. This includes a history of trauma and sexual abuse, anxiety, body image and self-esteem issues, and residual religious guilt. In the past, even discussing sex and sexuality in the abstract has been fraught. But our first conversation went surprisingly well. My spouse is cautiously open to exploring submission, and they want to continue the conversation. I have real optimism that centering consent, boundaries, and communication in D/s play might actually make sex feel safer for them. And I hope that isn’t just dickful thinking.

So, now I’m the dog that caught the car and I’m terrified of messing this up. What advice would you give to gently ease into D/s play from a vanilla relationship? Can you recommend any books or podcasts that approach this kink at a firmly JV level and center safety and consent? My spouse is a reader and an academic at heart, and that might be a way to explore the idea from within their comfort zone. —Don’t Overwhelm My Spouse

A: “Let me address the elephant in the room right away,” said Rena Martine. “Why on earth would a survivor of sexual trauma actually want to engage in D/s sex?”

Martine is a sexual intimacy coach who has helped couples explore BDSM and other forms of erotic power exchange. She’s also a former sex crimes prosecutor, which makes her particularly sensitive to issues faced by survivors of sexual assault and abuse.

“When it comes to trauma, there’s a concept known as ‘restaging,’” said Martine, “which means the trauma survivor takes a situation where they felt powerless and ‘restages’ it, so they’re actually in the director’s chair and choosing to give up some of that control.”

While BDSM isn’t therapy, some people who have submissive desires and traumatic sexual histories find giving up control to a trusted partner empowering and low-key therapeutic. Instead of control being something an untrustworthy abuser took from them, control becomes a precious thing they loaned to someone they could trust. And when they handed it over, they knew it would be returned, either at a set time or immediately if the sub used their safe word.

“Research by Dr. Justin Lehmiller tells us that victims of sex crimes are actually more likely than nonvictims to fantasize about almost all aspects of BDSM,” added Martine. “Anyone who’s curious about the science of sexual fantasies should read his book, Tell Me What You Want. And Holly Richmond’s Reclaiming Pleasure is a great starting point for any sexual assault survivor.”

Before you attempt to engage in D/s play or even begin to discuss your fantasies in detail, Martine recommends thinking about the emotional needs that shape these fantasies. 

“What is it about domination and submission that appeals to each of them?” Martine said. “What aspects of D/S play are they excited about? Having a conversation about the ‘why’ will ensure they can each approach this new dynamic from a place of compassion and safety.”

Now, if you give thought to the “why,” DOMS, and your honest answer is, “Because it turns me on,” that’s good enough. And if your spouse’s honest answer is, “Because my partner is interested in this and I’m interested in exploring it,” that’s good enough. While some people into BDSM can point to one specific experience or something that shaped them more broadly (like a religious upbringing), you don’t need to justify your interest in D/s or BDSM by making a list of traumatic experiences. If this kind of play—this kind of theater for two—turns you both on, that’s a perfectly valid reason to explore D/s play.

As for getting started, Martine had a really good suggestion. 

“My favorite newbie recommendation for easing into D/S play is using a sleep mask,” said Martine. “It’s innocuous, easy to remove, and gives each player a chance to practice surrendering control by giving up one of their five senses.”

Taking a baby step like that—playing with a simple blindfold and nothing else—is a great way to test the waters while you keep talking about other “junior varsity” kinks you and your spouse feel safe exploring together.

“And for general D/s tips,” said Martine, “check out Lina Dune’s Ask A Sub podcast.”

Follow Rena Martine on Instagram @_rena.martine_.

Q: I’m a hetero 40-year-old woman, married to a guy who is very skilled and generous in bed. I’m also someone who absolutely needs to be in control of my body. I’ve never done drugs and only once got so drunk I didn’t remember every detail of the night. I hated that feeling. I think this need for control is why I don’t like having orgasms. I enjoy the feeling that comes immediately before an orgasm but then my body seems to suppress that last bit. Because I don’t enjoy the feeling of actual orgasms, this is fine with me. On the very rare occasions that I’ve had an orgasm, I feel gross after. But I could happily screw all night with no orgasm! I’ve discussed this with my husband, and he said that as long as I was having my best experience, he was not upset that I wasn’t having orgasms. But a friend—a friend I don’t have sex with—is convinced my aversion is a symptom of some sort of emotional scar. I did have some negative sexual experiences in the past, but I dealt with them and moved on. Should I explore this aversion even though the only person concerned is someone I don’t have sex with? Or can I be an emotionally whole person who just prefers the pre-gasm to orgasm? —Personally Prefer Pre-gasms

A: It doesn’t sound like . . .

There is more to this week’s Savage Love. To read the entire column, go to Savage.Love. 

Read More

When Michael Fanone, the former Trump supporter and D.C. cop who nearly died at the hands of the January 6 mob at the U.S. Capitol, comes to the Chicago Humanities Festival next week to join We Are Proud Boys: How a Right-Wing Street Gang Ushered in a New Era of American Extremism author Andy Campbell on a panel about “Extremism in America,” their moderator will be a Northwestern University history professor as obsessed with the subject as they are.

“Extremism in America: Pushing Back on Radicalism and Saving Our Democracy”Sat 10/22 4:30 PM, Northwestern University Norris University Center, 1999 Campus Dr., Evanston, chicagohumanities.org, $20 ($15 CHF members, $10 students and teachers)

Kathleen Belew’s first book, Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America, was published in 2018, when she was an assistant professor at the University of Chicago. (She moved to Northwestern this year.) She co-edited an anthology, A Field Guide to White Supremacy, published in 2021 as a manual for journalists and anyone else seeking to understand this phenomenon. She says her focus is “history of the present.” 

Here’s an edited version of a conversation we had  this week.

Deanna Isaacs: You’ve written that the white power movement has been largely invisible because it operates as “leaderless” resistance? What’s that?

Kathleen Belew: Leaderless resistance is cell-style terrorism. It was implemented around 1983 to make it more difficult to prosecute people and to make it more difficult for informants to infiltrate. But the bigger consequence has been that this whole movement has been able to disappear. We tend to consume news about white power activism and militant-right activity as single incidents instead of part of a groundswell. We get stories about Charleston as anti-Black violence, El Paso as anti-Latino violence, Tree of Life shooting as antisemitic violence, when all of those are carried out by white power gunmen. All of this and January 6 are part of the same movement. There’s an enormous amount of circulation of ideas, people, weapons, and strategy between all of these different groups.

The current white power movement came together at the end of the Vietnam war?

Bring the War Home is a history focused on the late 1970s through the Oklahoma City bombing [1995]. The white power movement brought together Klansmen, skinheads, neo-Nazis, and militiamen. Prior to 1983, these groups were interested in violent action, but they described what they were doing as in defense of the state. So, for instance, they carried out a coordinated campaign of violent harassment against Vietnamese fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico around Galveston Bay and talked about that as a continuation of the Vietnam war. When they did border patrol actions, they talked about it as doing what the state couldn’t do itself.

What happened in 1983?

We see the rhetoric really change. They make a verbal declaration of war on the federal government in 1983. And we also see that the kind of violence they pursue changes. They become much more interested in major infrastructure attacks, major acts of domestic terrorism. It was no longer a vigilante movement that was trying to protect the government. It was a revolutionary movement, interested in overthrowing the United States and creating either a white ethnostate or a white nation or even an all-white world.

In testimony before a congressional committee in 2019, you had an exchange with another witness who argued that white supremacist extremism isn’t a major issue. Did the events of January 6 answer that claim?

There have been numerous moments where people on the right have tried to throw a bunch of dust at the scholarship around this and to direct people away from the problem. It’s not just one person. There was, for instance, a GOP talking points memo that came out after the El Paso shooting that said direct the conversation to mental illness and away from the problem of white nationalism. And that is before we get to the present moment, where we’re talking about January 6 insurrectionists successfully running for office, we’re talking about open GOP support not only for what happened on January 6 but, in many cases, for Great Replacement Theory and other far-right ideas. The bleed of these ideas into our mainstream has continued.

So where do things stand now?

In the last few years we’ve had a lot of public and institutional movement toward understanding how big this problem is, but I also think white power activity in our society has gained huge footholds. Activists in the period that I’ve studied [1970s-1990s] were interested in mounting mass casualty and infrastructure attacks, selective assassinations, and other kinds of political violence. Now there’s a second course of action, because mainstream politics is now available to these groups. That means that we don’t only have to be worried about mass attacks, terrorism, and assassination—we also have to be worried about authoritarianism as a threat to our democracy itself.

Read More