Political party in Austria

Austrian Nazism or Austrian National Socialism was a pan-German movement that was formed at the beginning of the 20th century. The movement took a concrete form on 15 November 1903 when the German Worker's Party (DAP) was established in Austria with its secretariat stationed in the town of Aussig (now st nad Labem in the Czech Republic). It was suppressed under the rule of Engelbert Dollfuss (193234), with its political organization, the DNSAP ("German National Socialist Workers' Party") banned in early 1933, but revived and made part of the German Nazi Party after the German annexation of Austria in 1938.[14]

Franko Stein, from the town of Eger (now Cheb, Czech Republic) and an apprentice bookbinder Ludwig Vogel, from the town of Brx (now Most, Czech Republic), organised the Deutschnationaler Arbeiterbund (German National Workers' League) in 1893. It was a collection of laborers, apprentices, and trade unionists from the railroads, mines, and textile industries, who upheld nationalism as a result of their conflicts with the non-German speaking portions of the workforce, especially in the railway systems. In 1899, Stein was able to convene a workers' congress in Eger and promulgated a 25-point program.

Another convention was called in April 1902, under the title of "German-Political Workers' Association for Austria" (German: Deutschpolitischer Arbeiterverein fr sterreich), in Saaz. In Aussig, on 15 November 1903, they reorganized under the name of the "German Workers' Party in Austria" (German: Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in sterreich). At further party congresses, Hans Knirsch proposed to call themselves the "Nationalsozialistische" (National-Socialist) or "Deutsch-soziale" (German-social) Workers' Party. The proposal was blocked by the Bohemian groups, who did not want to copy the name of the Czech National Social Party. An early member of this group is Ferdinand Burschowsky, a printer from Hohenstadt (Moravia), who was active in writing and publishing.

At a party congress in Vienna in May 1918, the DAP changed its name to the Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei (DNSAP) and produced a National Socialist Program, which is thought to have influenced the later German Nazi manifesto.[citation needed]

The Austrian DNSAP split into two factions in 1923, the Deutschsozialen Verein (German-Social Association) led by Dr. Walter Riehl, and the Schulz-Gruppe. After 1930, most former DNSAP members became supporters of the German NSDAP led by Austrian-born Adolf Hitler, and were one of the chief elements leading the pro-Nazi coup in 1938 that brought about the Anschluss of Austria with Germany.

Leaders of the party, who were dubbed Landesleiter due to the recognition of Hitler as overall Fhrer, included Alfred Proksch (193133), Hermann Neubacher (1935) and Josef Leopold (193638), although real power frequently lay with Theodor Habicht, a German sent by Hitler to oversee Nazi activity in Austria.

See the rest here:

Austrian Nazism - Wikipedia

Nazism had peculiarly German roots. It can be partly traced to the Prussian tradition as developed under Frederick William I (16881740), Frederick the Great (171268), and Otto von Bismarck (181598), which regarded the militant spirit and the discipline of the Prussian army as the model for all individual and civic life. To it was added the tradition of political romanticism, with its sharp hostility to rationalism and to the principles underlying the French Revolution, its emphasis on instinct and the past, and its proclamation of the rights of Friedrich Nietzsches exceptional individual (the bermensch [Superman]) over all universal law and rules. These two traditions were later reinforced by the 19th-century adoration of science and of the laws of nature, which seemed to operate independently of all concepts of good and evil. Further reinforcements came from such 19th-century intellectual figures as the comte de Gobineau (181682), Richard Wagner (181383), and Houston Stewart Chamberlain (18551927), all of whom greatly influenced early Nazism with their claims of the racial and cultural superiority of the Nordic (Germanic) peoples over all other Europeans and all other races.

Hitlers intellectual viewpoint was influenced during his youth not only by these currents in the German tradition but also by specific Austrian movements that professed various political sentiments, notably those of pan-Germanic expansionism and anti-Semitism. Hitlers ferocious nationalism, his contempt of Slavs, and his hatred of Jews can largely be explained by his bitter experiences as an unsuccessful artist living a threadbare existence on the streets of Vienna, the capital of the multiethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Adolf Hitler (third from right) participating in a Nazi parade in Munich, c. 1930s.

This intellectual preparation would probably not have been sufficient for the growth of Nazism in Germany but for that countrys defeat in World War I. The defeat and the resulting disillusionment, pauperization, and frustrationparticularly among the lower middle classespaved the way for the success of the propaganda of Hitler and the Nazis. The Treaty of Versailles (1919), the formal settlement of World War I drafted without German participation, alienated many Germans with its imposition of harsh monetary and territorial reparations. The significant resentment expressed toward the peace treaty gave Hitler a starting point. Because German representatives (branded the November criminals by Nazis) agreed to cease hostilities and did not unconditionally surrender in the armistice of November 11, 1918, there was a widespread feelingparticularly in the militarythat Germanys defeat had been orchestrated by diplomats at the Versailles meetings. From the beginning, Hitlers propaganda of revenge for this traitorous act, through which the German people had been stabbed in the back, and his call for rearmament had strong appeal within military circles, which regarded the peace only as a temporary setback in Germanys expansionist program. The ruinous inflation of the German currency in 1923 wiped out the savings of many middle-class households and led to further public alienation and dissatisfaction.

Learn about the rise of Adolf Hitler, the Nazi Party, and the anti-Semitism they fomented in pre-WWII Germany

In 1933 Adolf Hitler's National Socialists were voted into power, and the campaign of terror began. From The Second World War: Prelude to Conflict (1963).

Hitler added to Pan-Germanic aspirations the almost mystical fanaticism of a faith in the mission of the German race and the fervour of a social revolutionary gospel. This gospel was most fully expressed in Hitlers personal testament Mein Kampf (192527; My Struggle), in which he outlined both his practical aims and his theories of race and propaganda.

Posing as a bulwark against communism, Hitler exploited the fears aroused in Germany and worldwide by the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the consolidation of communist power in the Soviet Union. Thus, he was able to secure the support of many conservative elements that misunderstood the totalitarian character of his movement.

Hitlers most important individual contribution to the theory and practice of Nazism was his deep understanding of mass psychology and mass propaganda. He stressed the fact that all propaganda must hold its intellectual level at the capacity of the least intelligent of those at whom it is directed and that its truthfulness is much less important than its success. According to Hitler:

It is part of a great leaders genius to make even widely separated adversaries appear as if they belonged to but one category, because among weakly and undecided characters the recognition of various enemies all too easily marks the beginning of doubt of ones own rightness.

Hitler found this common denominator in the Jewish people, whom he identified with both Bolshevism and a kind of cosmic evil. Jews were to be discriminated against not according to their religion but according to their race. Nazism declared Jewswhatever their educational and social achievementsto be forever fundamentally different from and inimical to Germans.

Nazism attempted to reconcile conservative, nationalist ideology with a socially radical doctrine. In so doing, it became a profoundly revolutionary movementalbeit a largely negative one. Rejecting rationalism, liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and all movements of international cooperation and peace, it stressed instinct, the subordination of the individual to the state, and the necessity of blind and unswerving obedience to leaders appointed from above. It also emphasized the inequality of humans and races and the right of the strong to rule the weak; sought to purge or suppress competing political, religious, and social institutions; advanced an ethic of hardness and ferocity; and partly destroyed class distinctions by drawing into the movement misfits and failures from all social classes. Although socialism was traditionally an internationalist creed, the radical wing of Nazism knew that a mass base existed for policies that were simultaneously anticapitalist and nationalist. However, after Hitler secured power, this radical strain was eliminated.

Read the original post:

Nazism | Definition, Leaders, Ideology, & History | Britannica

Political ideology combining extreme nationalism and communism

National Bolshevism (Russian: -, romanized:Natsional-bol'shevizm, German: Nationalbolschewismus), whose supporters are known as National Bolsheviks (Russian: -, romanized:Natsional-bol'sheviki) or NazBols (Russian: , romanized:Natsboly),[1] is a radical political movement that combines ultranationalism (or alternatively fascism in some cases) and communism.[2][3]

Notable historical proponents of National Bolshevism in Germany included Ernst Niekisch (18891967), Heinrich Laufenberg (18721932), and Karl Otto Paetel (19061975). In Russia, Nikolay Ustryalov (18901937) and his followers, the Smenovekhovtsy, used the term.

Notable modern advocates of the movement include Aleksandr Dugin and Eduard Limonov, who led the unregistered and banned National Bolshevik Party (NBP) in the Russian Federation.[4]

National Bolshevism as a term was first used to describe a current in the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and then the Communist Workers' Party of Germany (KAPD) which wanted to ally the insurgent communist movement with dissident nationalist groups in the German army who rejected the Treaty of Versailles.[5] They were led by Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritz Wolffheim and were based in Hamburg. Their expulsion from the KAPD was one of the conditions that Karl Radek explained was necessary if the KAPD was to be welcomed to the Third Congress of the Third International. However, the demand that they withdraw from the KAPD would probably have happened anyway. Radek had dismissed the pair as National Bolsheviks, the first recorded use of the term in a German context.[6]

Radek subsequently courted some of the radical nationalists he had met in prison to unite with the Bolsheviks in the name of National Bolshevism. He saw in a revival of National Bolshevism a way to "remove the capitalist isolation" of the Soviet Union.[3]

During the 1920s, a number of German intellectuals began a dialogue which created a synthesis between radical nationalism (typically referencing Prussianism) and Bolshevism as it existed in the Soviet Union. The main figure in this was Ernst Niekisch of the Old Social Democratic Party of Germany, who edited the Widerstand journal.[7]

A National Bolshevik tendency also existed with the German Youth Movement, led by Karl Otto Paetel. Paetel had been a supporter of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), but became disillusioned with them as he did not feel they were truly committed to revolutionary activity or socialist economics. His 1930-formed movement, the Group of Social Revolutionary Nationalists, sought to forge a third way between the NSDAP and the KPD, emphasising both nationalism and socialist economics.[8] He was especially active in a largely unsuccessful attempt to win over a section of the Hitler Youth to his cause.[9]

Although members of the NSDAP under Adolf Hitler did not take part in Niekisch's National Bolshevik project and usually presented Bolshevism in exclusively negative terms as a Jewish conspiracy, in the early 1930s there was a parallel tendency within the NSDAP which advocated similar views. This was represented by what has come to be known as Strasserism. A group led by Hermann Ehrhardt, Otto Strasser and Walther Stennes broke away in 1930 to found the Combat League of Revolutionary National Socialists, commonly known as the Black Front.[10]

After the Second World War, the Socialist Reich Party was established, which combined neo-Nazi ideology with a foreign policy critical of the United States and supportive of the Soviet Union, which funded the party.[11][12]

As the Russian Civil War dragged on, a number of prominent Whites switched to the Bolshevik side because they saw it as the only hope for restoring greatness to Russia. Amongst these was Professor Nikolai Ustrialov, initially an anti-communist, who came to believe that Bolshevism could be modified to serve nationalistic purposes. His followers, the Smenovekhovtsy (named after a series of articles he published in 1921) Smena vekh (Russian: change of milestones), came to regard themselves as National Bolsheviks, borrowing the term from Niekisch.[13]

Similar ideas were expressed by the Evraziitsi movement and writers such as D. S. Mirsky, and the pro-monarchist Mladorossi. Joseph Stalin's idea of socialism in one country was interpreted as a victory by the National Bolsheviks.[13] Vladimir Lenin, who did not use the term National Bolshevism, identified the Smenovekhovtsy as a tendency of the old Constitutional Democratic Party who saw Russian communism as just an evolution in the process of Russian aggrandisement. He further added that they were a class enemy and warned against communists believing them to be allies.[14]

Ustryalov and others sympathetic to the Smenovekhovtsy cause, such as Aleksey Nikolayevich Tolstoy and Ilya Ehrenburg, were eventually able to return to the Soviet Union and following the co-option of aspects of nationalism by Stalin and his ideologue Andrei Zhdanov enjoyed membership of the intellectual elite under the designation non-party Bolsheviks.[15][16] Similarly, B. D. Grekov's National Bolshevik school of historiography, a frequent target under Lenin, was officially recognised and even promoted under Stalin, albeit after accepting the main tenets of Stalinism.[17]It has been argued that National Bolshevism was the main impetus for the revival of patriotism as an official part of state ideology in the 1930s.[18][19] Although many of the original proponents of National Bolshevism such as Ustryalov and members of the Smenovekhovtsy were suppressed and executed during the Great Purge for national chauvinism, anti-Soviet agitation and other counter-revolutionary activities.[20][21]

The term National Bolshevism has sometimes been applied to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and his brand of anti-communism.[22] However, Geoffrey Hosking argues in his History of the Soviet Union that Solzhenitsyn cannot be labelled a National Bolshevik since he was thoroughly anti-Stalinist and wished a revival of Russian culture that would see a greater role for the Russian Orthodox Church, a withdrawal of Russia from its role overseas and a state of international isolationism.[22] Solzhenitsyn and his followers, known as vozrozhdentsy (revivalists), differed from the National Bolsheviks, who were not religious in tone (although not completely hostile to religion) and who felt that involvement overseas was important for the prestige and power of Russia.[22]

There was open hostility between Solzhenitsyn and Eduard Limonov, the head of Russia's unregistered National Bolshevik Party. Solzhenitsyn had described Limonov as "a little insect who writes pornography" and Limonov described Solzhenitsyn as a traitor to his homeland who contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union. In The Oak and the Calf, Solzhenitsyn openly attacked the notions that the Russians were "the noblest in the world" and that "tsarism and Bolshevism [...] [were] equally irreproachable", defining this as the core of the National Bolshevism to which he was opposed.[23]

The current National Bolshevik Party (NBP) was founded in 1992 as the National Bolshevik Front, an amalgamation of six minor groups.[25] The party has always been led by Eduard Limonov. Limonov and Dugin sought to unite far-left and far-right radicals on the same platform.[26] With Dugin viewing national-bolsheviks as a point between communist and fascists, and forced to act in the peripheries of each group.[citation needed] The group's early policies and actions show some alignment and sympathy with radical nationalist groups, albeit while still holding to the tenets of a form of Marxism that Dugin defined as "Marx minus Feuerbach, i. e. minus evolutionism and sometimes appearing inertial humanism.", but a split occurred in the 2000s which changed this to an extent. This led to the party moving further left in Russia's political spectrum, and led to members of the party denouncing Dugin and his group as fascists.[27] Dugin subsequently developed close ties to the Kremlin and served as an adviser to senior Russian official Sergey Naryshkin.[28][29]

Initially opposed to Vladimir Putin, Limonov at first somewhat liberalized the NBP and joined forces with leftist and liberal groups in Garry Kasparov's United Civil Front to fight Putin.[30] However, he later expressed more supportive views of Putin following the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.[31][32][33]

The Franco-Belgian Parti Communautaire National-Europen shares National Bolshevism's desire for the creation of a united Europe as well as many of the NBP's economic ideas. French political figure Christian Bouchet has also been influenced by the idea.[34]

In 1944, Indian nationalist leader Subhas Chandra Bose called for "a synthesis between National Socialism and communism" to take root in India.[35]

That same year, the new leadership of the Israeli paramilitary organization Lehi declared its support for National Bolshevism, a break from the group's fascist outlook under its previous leader Avraham Stern.[36]

Some have described the Serbian Radical Party, the Bulgarian Attack party, the Slovenian National Party and the Greater Romania Party as "National Bolshevik" for blending much of their respective countries' far-right rhetoric with traditional left-wing stances such as socialised economies, anti-imperialism and defense of historical communist rule.[citation needed] The Serbian Radical Party in particular has given support to leaders such as Muammar Gaddafi,[37] Saddam Hussein[38] and current Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.[39] The Greater Romania Party on the other hand was founded by Corneliu Vadim Tudor, described as the "Court Poet of Nicolae Ceauescu",[40] and has been seen as a continuation of the latter's ideology with a right-wing veneer.

Here is the original post:

National Bolshevism - Wikipedia

In The Indian Struggle, Subhas Chandra Bose had outlined the reasons why he foresaw that communism would never be adopted in India. Firstly, he wrote, communism had no sympathy with nationalism, whereas the freedom movement was a national movement. Lenins thesis on the relation between nationalism and communism had been sidestepped after the failure of the Chinese revolution. The second reason was Russias disinterest in sparking a world revolution, with its focus on internal affairs and a decline in its prestige due to its pacts with capitalist countries and the joining of the League of Nations. Thirdly, the anti-religious and atheistic character of Russian communism would not fit into the Indian environment, where a national awakening is in most cases heralded by a religious reformation and a cultural renaissance. The fifth reason, he felt, was that although communist theory had made certain remarkable contributions in the domain of economics such as state planning, it was weak in other aspects Bose. Later, however, he retracted his argument about the conflict between nationalism and communism at an interview with Rajani Palme Dutt in January 1938, where he said:

I should point out also that Communism, as it appeared to be demonstrated by many of those who were supposed to stand for it in India, seemed to me anti-national, and this impression was further strengthened in view of the hostile attitude which several among them exhibited towards the Indian National Congress. It is clear, however, that the position today has fundamentally altered. I should add that I have always understood and am quite satisfied that Communism, as it has been expressed in the writings of Marx and Lenin and in the official statements of policy of the Communist International, gives full support to the struggle for national independence and recognises this as an integral part of its world outlook.

His later utterances, however, indicate that this statement was more a tactical retreat than a change in belief.

Subhas had urged Jawaharlal to preside over the All-Bengal Students Conference in Calcutta, held on 22 September 1928. Like Subhas, Jawaharlal too sang paeans to the youth, and had similar things to say about empowering different disadvantaged groups in the society, but the thrust of his message was very different. His was a message of socialism in contrast to nationalism. I have placed before you the ideals of internationalism and socialism as the only ideals worthy of the fine temper of the youth, he told them. As far as his attitude to communism was concerned, he said that:

. . . though personally I do not agree with many of the methods of the communists and I am by no means sure to what extent communism can suit the present conditions in India, I do believe communism as an ideal of society. For essentially it is socialism, and socialism I think is the only way if the world is to escape disaster.

Speaking at the same conference, Subhas outlined where he differed with Jawaharlal in the sphere of ideas. He too believed in internationalism, but not in the form which obliterated distinctive characteristics of different nations. The expression of nationalism by Chittaranjan, a humanist, poet, essayist, thinker and a politician fiercely proud about his Bengali heritage rolled into one, was in stark contrast to the critique of nationalism by Tagore. In their quarrel, Subhas was completely on his political mentors side. From Mandalay Jail, he had criticized the shallow internationalism in life and literature of Tagore and his school which did not realize the fundamental truth in nationalism. He would touch upon the topic now and then, but his speeches and writings lacked the lyrical exuberance of his guru. While speaking at the Maharashtra Provincial Conference, Subhas responded to the charge of nationalism being narrow, selfish and aggressive from the perspective of cultural internationalism: his response was more in the nature of a political project that he envisioned rather than at an abstract, conceptual level. He pointed out that Indian nationalism, far from being any of these, was inspired by the highest ideals of the human race, viz., Satyam (the true), Shivam (the good), Sundaram (the beautiful):

Nationalism in India has instilled into us truthfulness, honesty, manliness and the spirit of service and sacrifice. What is more, it has roused the creative faculties which for centuries had been lying dormant in our people and, as a result, we are experiences a renaissance in the domain of Indian art.

In fact, he would return to the philosophical aspects of the independence movement repeatedly in his speeches around this time. Organizing the movement was the immediate problem, but equally important was to impart a character to it. Subhas was not yet advocating a particular form of political and social organization for independent India. Rather, he focused on defining the components which would make up the whole, and wished to lay the ground for post-independence reconstruction. He was preoccupied with questions such as: What was the most desirable political system for Indias development? What were the roles of the students and the youth? How should India balance nationalism and internationalism?

The ideal of the youth was to break the shackles of all oppression, injustices, and malpractices to create a new nation, he told a youth conference at Pabna. Creation of a new order had to follow the destruction of status quo. Subhas invoked Krishnas stern castigation of Arjun in the battlefield of Kurukshetra Klaivyam masma gamah Partha as the message which contained the essence of immortal youth. The youth movement, just like the national movement, was not merely a political movement. It had to weave together varying strands of art, literature, philosophy, science, commerce, and sports for the development of national life.

He refused to stand behind any particular ism at this point. No ism (he referred to anarchism, socialism, communism, Bolshevism, syndicalism, republicanism, constitutional monarchy, and fascism) was adequate to lift humanity out of misery unless individual characters were strengthened. Indians, he said, had every quality except tenacity of purposewhat was needed, therefore, was the ability to sacrifice everything for the sake of an idea. As Vivekananda had pointed out, the basis of nation formation as well as of establishing an effective ism was to create good human beings first. Whatever ism India chose for itself, it had to be moulded in accordance with its traditions and had to answer well to the requirements of present conditions. It was equally important to pay attention to the nationalist aspect of the movement as to the internationalist aspect. The latter was required to be the foundation of lasting global peace based on common understanding, development and exchange of knowledge, and the emphasis on the latter was critical to be able to create a nation based on new ideals. The responsibility for this regeneration was on the shoulders of the youth.

The national awakening would not take place unless the foundations of Indian society were shaken up. For most people, as he pointed out, social oppression was a greater reality than political oppression. The never-changing aim was complete freedom social, economic and political. Most people could relate more immediately to social oppression than to state-led oppression, and it was futile to expect the oppressed sections to join in the political movement. He said that the hypocrisy that is going on in the name of society, religion and state must be crushed ruthlessly. Therefore, Privileges based on birth, caste or creed should go, and equal opportunities should be thrown open to all irrespective of caste, creed or religion.

If it was important to break out of the restrictive traditions of the past, it was equally important to remain connected with the achievements of the past and be proud of ones heritage. The politics of nation-making did not take away anything from his consciousness of being a Bengali. In his presidential address the 1929 Bengal Provincial Conference at Rangpur in North Bengal (now in Bangladesh), Subhas took his audience through the history of the province, stressing its tradition of rebelliousness, the unique identity the region maintained in ancient times, the vivacity of the Bengalis leading to experimentations with social and political forms and their achievements in spreading ideas in other countries, the syncretic culture during the Muslim rule, the reform movements, and lastly the emergence of the nationalist movement. Aware of the increasing influence of Marxist thought, especially amongst the revolutionary groups, he reiterated his conception of Indias traditional forms of socialism. Vivekananda and Deshbandhu were the icons of his variant of socialism, who struggled throughout their lives to uplift the downtrodden. Again, he voiced his opposition to accepting any ism as a package. Every ism had elements of truth what was good in socialism should be accepted; but accepting tenets of socialism did not mean that the discipline, organisation and obedience of fascism were to be disregarded. He referred to how the Soviet Union had to implement the New Economic Policy in contravention to the orthodox communist philosophy to suit its unique needs. He argued that if an ism is imposed on a country by disregarding its history and its present conditions, it would either lead to a revolution or give rise to a contrary ideology like fascism. Most important, however, was the development of personality. No ism could succeed without good human beings.

He was only too aware of the barriers to building up that mass movement in the form of caste and religious divisions, the position of women in the society and the tentative links between the Congress and the industrial labour and peasants. Throughout this period, these themes kept resonating in his speeches as the basis of attaining social, economic and political freedom.

(Excerpt from Bose: The Untold Story of An Inconvenient Nationalist by Chandrachur Ghose, with permission from Penguin Random House)

See the article here:

Netaji Believed Indian Nationalism Was All About The Highest Ideals Of Human Race - Outlook India

This week I met a ghost. Not some movie caricature of a risen spirit but something far more ghoulish and real: the resurrected corpse of tyranny, fundamentalism, and sheer hatred.

Im a columnist for the Toronto Star, one of Canadas largest newspapers and very much the voice of the countrys liberal conscience. On Monday 17 January I wrote about the anti-vaccination movement. Not a deep analysis or a thorough exploration, but a personal account the story of my great-aunt from Eastern Europe, who would care for me when I was a child, and of the death camp numbers tattooed onto her arm, and the slaughter by the Nazis of many of her, and my, family.

How, I asked, could the opponents of the vital and compassionate Covid vaccination programme compare themselves to people ripped from their homes, tortured, humiliated, and murdered? How dare they parade the yellow star at their demonstrations and on their social media platforms, try to hijack the Holocaust, and compare their privileged and self-imposed experience to genocide? It was the world turned upside down, the denial of reality, the desecration of memory and loss.

Thats when the ghost came out to play. The column was intensely personal, difficult to write, and there were numerous people who championed it. But not the anti-vaxx militants, whom I now realise move in dark and fierce regiments.

The tweets and emails began within moments of the column being published. Im an old hand at this sort of thing and have been attacked by all sorts of nutters and nasties over the years, some of them highly motivated and belligerent. But never, ever anything like this. In 48 hours there had been thousands of attacks. Many of them were, of course, bot accounts, meant to destabilise and polarise, and theyre obvious by their style and appearance. But most appeared to be from real people.

As Im a priest, dozens of them alleged that I was a child abuser, a paedophile. They varied in their explicit and gross nature. Then there were the hundreds convinced that I was a Satanist, a devil-worshipper. One had me as a Son of Satin. Hey, its lovely material.

They posted pictures of my body with a twisted, grotesque face, they told downright lies about my life and work, superimposed my face on pictures of Hitler and Goebbels, and libeled members of my family. And they threatened me, some demanding that I be hanged. (Well, they said hung but what does one expect?) Friendly voices recommended contacting the police, but while they meant well they didnt appreciate how pointless this usually is. Unless there is evidence of who is behind such threats, the cops are largely powerless. I made sure the doors were locked, paid more attention to my surroundings, comforted myself that it was all bombast.

They found my website of course, and obtained my personal email. None of this is hidden, and as a cleric who deals with pastoral emergencies and hospital visits my details are out there. I wish I could say it didnt matter and that I didnt care but that would be untrue. Putting on a brave face isnt the same as having no feelings. Eventually it will fade and they will move on to another target but the sobering aspect, the thought that rests permanently in the mind, is that in the end theres actually not very much one can do about it.

So who are they, these acidic warriors in the fight against vaccinations, masks, and lockdowns? Various people, naturally, but broadly speaking hyper libertarians, religious mostly Christian fundamentalists, conspiracy theorists, and the weak and gullible. Its a dangerous brew, as were seeing increasingly in acts of violence and civil disobedience. In North America the situation is more acute, more concerning. The mob that stormed the Capitol Building in Washington, DC on 6 January 2021 was composed of precisely the sort of people Ive just listed. Since then theyve become more radicalised, feel more marginalised, and are certainly more organised.

This jarring disconnect, this politicised mass psychosis, may have its origins in the US but has been replicated internationally; not always as large, and thank God not as well-armed, but its there, like a toxin of hysteria and ignorance pumped into the bloodstream of the body politic. Or even ironically a potentially deadly virus. Most of us find it all somewhat difficult to comprehend, because the belief system behind it is downright deranged, and can so easily be proven wrong. But the same can be said of fascism and racism. The same could be said, was said, but sometimes and with ghastly consequences still failed to win the day.

If the gutter press could influence millions in the 1930s, social media and Fox News can do so just as efficiently almost a century later. As many others have said before, the lie told convincingly and frequently becomes the truth, the fiction becomes the fact. I wasnt attacked by people who thought they were bad, I was attacked by people who knew I was. Unless we grasp this we can never understand the problem.

Contrary to what several thousand people told me in the past few days, the Covid vaccine isnt designed to control world population, sterilise us, or make us instantly identifiable to the new world order. Its not the sign of the beast, not connected to some eschatological fantasy, and President Joe Biden isnt dead and being played in public by a Moscow-trained actor. And no, Im not the anti-Christ.

It all seems so bizarre, so ridiculous, even so irrelevant. Until it isnt.

My bubba, about whom I wrote that column, thought that National Socialism was a circus of inadequate malcontents and that civilized, noble Germany would come to its senses. So we should be moderate in our response but be informed and aware. What is a campaign against vaccinations today could wear a different uniform tomorrow. I wish I could say otherwise, but the people and the beliefs Ive encountered this week arent simply going to disappear.

Sign up for The New Statesmans newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Morning Call Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. World Review The New Statesmans global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The New Statesman Daily The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. Green Times The New Statesmans weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. This Week in Business A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. The Culture Edit Our weekly culture newsletter from books and art to pop culture and memes sent every Friday. Weekly Highlights A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. Ideas and Letters A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Events and Offers Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

See the original post:

What it's like to be targeted by anti-vaxxers - The New Statesman

This statement will be distributed by the International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) club members to students and young people around Australia as universities resume for the 2022 academic year.

The start of 2022 has brought young people around Australia face to face with the cruel reality of the ruling elites criminal policies amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Australia was once hailed around the world as a success story for keeping case numbers and deaths low relative to countries like the US, Brazil, and those in western Europe. The country is now experiencing 100,000 daily infections spurred on by the highly transmissible Omicron variant. Fatality records are being broken multiple times a week, with 398 deaths in the last seven days alone.

The vertical spike in Australian COVID infections is a result of the murderous live with the virus program promoted by governments and the corporate media around the world. Australian federal and state governmentsLiberal-National Coalition and Labor alikehave proceeded amid the surge in cases with the pro-business reopening of business, schools, and universities in the interests of the profits of the financial oligarchy, no matter the impact on the lives of ordinary people.

Young people and students must take up a fight against this homicidal profit-driven drive!

Youth are being placed on the frontlines of the governments ghoulish experiment on the population. As part of the campaign to reopen, universities and schools plan to return to in-person teaching. Cramming students around the country into crowded classrooms and lecture theatres will cause an uncontrolled spread of the deadly virus, resulting in further mass death and suffering.

The death earlier this month of fit, young, healthy, double-vaccinated James Kondilios in Sydney underscores that young people are not safe from the virus. It cuts across this government-media lieused to justify the profit-driven campaign to live with the virusthat youth are invulnerable to the effects of COVID-19. Child hospitalisations amid the Omicron surge are at record levels in almost every country. Unmentioned in the mainstream media as well are the effects of Long COVID, which are not yet fully understood. What is known, however, is that suffering can persist for many months after initial infection.

Despite the staggering case numbers, and record hospitalisations and deaths due to COVID-19, university campuses around the country are marching in lockstep with the calls by big business to resume face-to-face teaching.

Monash University in Melbourne announced that it will reopen its campus on January 27, while the University of Melbourne will have a blended online and on-campus model for onshore students. Sydneys University of New South Wales is also planning a return to campus for the first term of 2022.

University workers at Melbournes Victoria Universitywhich has a large working-class and immigrant student populationwere advised before Christmas that summer courses would resume in person despite COVID-19 case numbers spiraling out of control.

This reopening has gone ahead with the full support of the pro-business trade unions. National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) Assistant National Secretary Gabe Gooding penned an article in the unions magazine, Advocate, on November 8, 2021, entitled Reflections on leaving lockdown and the road ahead. While the current surge due to the spread of Omicron had not yet begun, daily case numbers nationally at the time were over 1,000. In the article, Gooding wrote: This period as we transition out of lockdowns is the point where we must seize the moment and ensure that we dont transition back, but instead transition forward.

The NTEU has not written a word since on the exponential rise of cases around the country, let alone opposed the drive to reopen universities. The National Union of Students has similarly remained silent on the reopening of university campuses amid mass infections.

Australian children are being herded into unsafe classrooms. No longer is there any pretence that it is safe for children or their teachers or in the interests of their education. It is to force their parents back to work to produce profits for the financial elite. This is occurring under conditions in which many under 12-years-old remain unvaccinated. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison insisted emphatically last week: Our objective is go back, stay back, day one term one.

Young workers employed in hospitality, retail, warehousing, delivery services, and other industries are on the frontline of the dangerous spread of the virus. They often have to work multiple jobs and living in cramped accommodation in order to pay for rent, food, bills, education, and other living expenses. In these sectors, youth are being pressured by bosses and their financial situation to return to work despite the dangers amid mass transmission.

In recent interviews published on the World Socialist Web Site, young workers exposed their unsafe work conditions and the indifference of government and business policies to the dangers that workers confront amid the live with the virus campaign.

But a shift is underway. Young people, students, and workers are not going to sit back and allow this mass death and misery to continue. Internationally, there is a growing movement of the working class against the homicidal big business policy of herd immunity and mass infection.

Teachers aroundtheworldarespeakingout in opposition to the murderous plans to return to face-to-face teaching. In France, an estimated 75 percent of teachers participated in a national strike. In Chicago, 25,000 teachers took part in a powerful protest against the school reopening policies pursued by the Democratic Party on behalf of big business. There is also growing opposition among high school students in Australia to school reopenings while infections continue to rise. Educators and their supporters organised outside the politically bankrupt trade union apparatus in rank-and-file committees in Sri Lanka, Germany, Australia, the UK, Canada and elsewhere have discussed the need to stop reckless reopening of schools during the pandemic.

Internationally, there have been similar developments among autoworkers, postal workers, transport workers, and in other industries. It is to this social forcethe international working classthat young people and students must turn in order to end the pandemic and save lives.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a symptom of a much more terminal diseasethe decaying capitalist system. The pandemic crisis was predicted by modern science, and scientific knowledge also shows that it was entirely preventable and can still be ended. The suppressionofthevirusinChina since the initial outbreak shows that scientifically-determined public health measures taken togetherstrict lockdowns, mask mandates, proper quarantining facilities, mass vaccination programs, and adequate contact tracingcan eliminate COVID-19. But this cannot be maintained in a single country. The eradication of COVID-19 requires an internationally-coordinated program of elimination.

However, this scientific program has been rejected by the tiny, wealthy minority as the closure of businesses would cut across their ability to make profits through the exploitation of the working class. The financial oligarchy in every country have continued to engorge themselves while workers, their families, small businesses and whole societies made to suffer. The drive to reopen the economy, including the resumption of in-person teaching in schools and universities, is an exercise in social murder at the expense of capitalist profits.

The World Socialist Web Site, published by the world Trotskyist movement of which the IYSSE is the global youth and student movement, has characterised the pandemic as a trigger event in world history, akin to the First World War, which will have a profound impact on social consciousness. Millions of workers and youth internationally are gaining an education outside of schools and universities. That lesson is in the abject criminality of the capitalist system which places profits over lives.

The International Youth and Students for Social Equality insists that the pandemic raises centrally the question of political program. Capitalism has not only produced the COVID-19 pandemic crisis but is also the cause of all the dire social problems confronting humanity: the drive to another catastrophic world war, environmental destruction, growing social inequality, and the threat of fascism.

The latest Oxfam briefing on inequality summed up the state of class relations in the world today. A new billionaire has been created every 26 hours, since the beginning of the pandemic in early 2020 it stated. The report continued: The worlds 10 richest men have doubled their fortunes, while over 160 million people are projected to have been pushed into poverty. Meanwhile, an estimated 17 million people have died from COVID-19a scale of loss not seen since the Second World War.

If the capitalist system cannot prevent misery and mass death for the worlds population, then it must be overthrown and replaced with a socialist system to address the pressing needs of humankind.

As the only genuinely socialist revolutionary club on campus, the IYSSE will fight to mobilise youth and students against the criminal response of capitalism to the pandemic, and for an international revolutionary movement of the working class for socialism. We urge you to take your place in this struggle today by joining the IYSSE club or by forming one at your school or university. Contact the IYSSE to find out more.

Join the fight to defend public education! No unsafe return to schools!

Subscribe to our student and youth newsletter

Excerpt from:

Oppose the dangerous reopening of universities! Students and youth must take up a fight against the pandemic! - WSWS

Every day we must remember the heroes and martyrs, our founders, referents and paradigms, Palacios specified when making the conclusions of the central act for the 33rd anniversary of the movement, held in the Principal Theater, one of the architectural jewels of the city .

Thanks to Sancti Spritus for what it has done all this time, which is why it is the venue for this act, he said, and recognized that being a Martian is feeling his work, loving it and applying it.

He conveyed congratulations on behalf of the National Directorate of the MJM, the National Bureau of the Union of Young Communists (UJC) and the Office of the Mart Program, for being this province the most outstanding in the work of the aforementioned movement for two consecutive years.

He highlighted the importance of showing a true character, which according to his own words goes through ethics, the vocation of justice and being worthy.

That is what Mart calls us to do, he specified, indicating that the 169th anniversary of the birth of the Apostle of independence, the most universal of all Cubans, will be celebrated on the 28th.

He recalled the close friendship that united Mart and the Hero of the three Cuban wars of independence against Spanish colonialism, Serafn Snchez born in Sancti Spiritus.

Cuba must continue to be a headlight, because we are committed to socialism, social justice and equality, with everyone and for the good of all, as Mart expressed, he argued.

The Provincial Council of said movement, with the approval of the UJC Bureau in the territory, awarded the Abdala prize -a dramatic poem written by Mart- to outstanding educational and cultural institutions, and to Arley Rodrguez, a doctor at the Gaviota Complex.

Other institutions were recognized, such as the branch of the Jos Mart Cultural Society, and La Colmena Espirituana Dueos de la Felicidad, as well as the venue for the national act received by Orlando Ernesto Prez, president of the MJM in the province.

Also attending the national event were Deivy Prez, member of the Central Committee of the Party and first secretary in the territory, Teresita Romero, governor of Sancti Spritus, and Alicia Alonso, deputy minister of Higher Education.

ef/msm/mpg

Follow this link:

Marti's thoughts applied to daily life keeps him alive in Cuba - Prensa Latina

Republican lawmakers introduced additions to a Cold War-era statute that bans educators from advocating for communism in schools to the House committee on Thursday. The statute dates back to 1949.Rep. Alicia Lekas, R-Hudson was looking to add Marxism and socialism to the ban, as well as any idea that the United States was founded on racism.Lekas said the intent of House Bill 1255 is to ensure teachers are educating and not indoctrinating."When I only accept an answer that says that my political beliefs are right and your beliefs are wrong, thats indoctrination, Lekas said.The intention here is to make certain that in our schools our teachers are doing what has happened for a long time teaching how to think not what to think, said Rep. Erica Layon, R-Derry.People opposed to the bill say teachers will be silenced and scared to cover certain topics in the classroom for fear of punishment."Critical thinking isnt being allowed because theyre afraid theyre going to be reported for something, National Education Association New Hampshire President Megan Tuttle said."The idea that I show up to work every day for low wages in unsafe conditions and Im not loyal I would love to know what your definition of loyalty is if its not that, history teacher Jennifer Given said. The sponsor of the bill said she did not have time to properly draft the bill and she is currently working on an amendment.

Republican lawmakers introduced additions to a Cold War-era statute that bans educators from advocating for communism in schools to the House committee on Thursday.

The statute dates back to 1949.

Rep. Alicia Lekas, R-Hudson was looking to add Marxism and socialism to the ban, as well as any idea that the United States was founded on racism.

Lekas said the intent of House Bill 1255 is to ensure teachers are educating and not indoctrinating.

"When I only accept an answer that says that my political beliefs are right and your beliefs are wrong, thats indoctrination, Lekas said.

The intention here is to make certain that in our schools our teachers are doing what has happened for a long time teaching how to think not what to think, said Rep. Erica Layon, R-Derry.

People opposed to the bill say teachers will be silenced and scared to cover certain topics in the classroom for fear of punishment.

"Critical thinking isnt being allowed because theyre afraid theyre going to be reported for something, National Education Association New Hampshire President Megan Tuttle said.

"The idea that I show up to work every day for low wages in unsafe conditions and Im not loyal I would love to know what your definition of loyalty is if its not that, history teacher Jennifer Given said.

The sponsor of the bill said she did not have time to properly draft the bill and she is currently working on an amendment.

Continue reading here:

NH teachers react to proposed bill adding to Cold War-era 'Teachers' Loyalty' law - WMUR Manchester

Opening statements were heard on Monday in the federal trial of three former Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) officers charged with deprivation of civil rights for refusing to stop Derek Chauvin from killing George Floyd by kneeling on his neck on Memorial Day 2020.

The trial of J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane, and Tou Thao is being presided over by Judge Paul Magnuson of the U.S. District Court in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The three men were charged, along with Chauvin, in an indictment by a federal grand jury in Minnesota nearly one year after the killing of Floyd. The charges of deprivation of civil rights were applied in three counts: the first against Chauvin for keeping his knee on George Floyd after he became unresponsive, the second against Thao and Kueng for willingly failing to intervene to stop Chauvin from using unreasonable force, and the third against all four of the former officers for willfully failing to provide aid to Floyd and acting with deliberate indifference when he was in distress and dying.

Chauvinwho was convicted of murdering Floyd in a state trial on April 10 and is now serving a 22.5-year prison sentencepleaded guilty on December 15 to the federal civil right charges against him. He is expected to receive an additional 2.5 years of prison time for the federal offense.

A jury of five men, seven womenwith an even number of white and non-white jurorsand six alternates was selected from across the state of Minnesota last Thursday. Judge Magnuson repeatedly stressed that the conviction of Chauvin on state murder charges and his guilty plea on federal charges must not influence the proceedings against the trial of the other three. Kueng, Lane and Thao also face a state criminal trial of their own that is scheduled to begin on June 13.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Samantha Trepel opened the prosecutions case saying that the three officers did not lift a finger to help George Floyd even though he said 25 times that he could not breathe. Speaking to the defendants directly, she said that Floyd was in your custody, in your care and then read from the MPDs policy about how people are to be treated once taken into police custody.

Using still images from a city surveillance camera, the prosecutor described the actions of each of the defendants as they made the conscious choice over and over again not to act to protect a man they had in handcuffs and pinned to the pavement. Protecting those in custody is not just a moral responsibility, its what the law requires under the U.S. Constitution, Trepel said.

Trepel singled out the actions of Thao, 36, who was a veteran officer and Chauvins partner. She showed in a bystander video how Thao was trying to keep at bay the angry crowd that was witnessing the murder and demanding that Chauvin get off George Floyds neck. Instead of trying to stop Chauvin from killing Floyd, she explained, Thao cynically told the witnesses, This is why you dont do drugs, kids.

The prosecutor acknowledged that both Kueng and Lane were rookie officers but said this was no excuse for their actions. She said even though it can be awkward and uncomfortable to criticize a fellow officer, the two had received extensive training for 1-1/2 years that use of force and the duty to intervene should have been fresh in their minds. Among the training that Trepel mentioned was the obligation to turn a subject on his/her side when they are having trouble breathing.

As to the third charge, the prosecutor said that the officers were trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation but took no action to help save George Floyds life as he was rendered unconscious and lost a pulse. Here on May 25, 2020, for second after second, minute after minute, these three CPR-trained defendants stood or knelt next to Officer Chauvin as he slowly killed George Floyd right in front of them, she said.

In conclusion the Assistant US Attorney told the jury, We will ask you to hold these men accountable for choosing to do nothing and watch a man die.

Following the prosecutions opening statement, the attorney for Kueng, Thomas Plunkett, made a motion for a mistrial on the grounds that Trepels presentation to the jury was more argumentative than based on the evidence the prosecutors were planning to use during the trial. Judge Magnuson denied the motion.

In his opening statement of defense, Robert Paule, the attorney for Thao, attempted to blame George Floyd for his own death by saying it was a tragedy but a tragedy is not a crime. Paule told the jury to look beyond the video and see that Floyd was acting erratically and appeared to be on drugs when the officers attempted to arrest him.

According to a report in the New York Times, the defense appeared to be outlining a defense built on several pillars: That by initially resisting arrest, Mr. Floyds actions justified the aggressive police response; that Mr. Lane and Mr. Kueng were rookies, and that Mr. Chauvin was a training officer; and that Mr. Thao was busy keeping bystanders at bay, acting in the words of Mr. Paule as a human traffic cone.

Plunkett also suggested that he would try to blame the MPD for insufficient training of the rookie Kueng, and Earl Gray, attorney for Lane, was also pointing a finger at the city police department for keeping Chauvin on the force when he had a history of abuse and misconduct. Gray said that Lane had been told by superior officers that Chauvin was an excellent field training officer. Attorney Gray also said that his client intended to testify in his own defense, the only one of the three to do so, and said that Lane had two times tried to get Chauvin to roll George Floyd onto his side.

Legal experts have said that obtaining a conviction in the federal trial of Kueng, Lane and Thao is difficult because the prosecution must prove that the defendants are guilty of willingly violating George Floyds constitutional rights by not acting in his in defense rather than doing something directly to him.

The behavior of the then-Minneapolis officers is hardly unknown to working class and poor people in the US or other countries around the world. The actions of Kueng, Lane and Thao is part of an unstated law enforcement code of conduct where extreme brutality is followed by the victim being left unconscious or dying as officers mill around at the scene discussing how they will cover up their crime.

The only thing that is different in the death of George Floydand other similar cases recently, such as the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery in Glynn County, Georgiais the presence of the smartphone phone video shot by Darnella Frazier that was then viewed millions of times, triggering mass protests against police violence which swept across the US and internationally during the summer of 2020.

Additionally, the case of the three officers who cooperated with Derek Chauvin in killing George Floyd shoots a hole in the racialist presentation of police violence as purely a matter of blacks being killed by white police officers. The fact that Kueng is black, Lane is white, and Thao is Asian American makes clear that police violence is rooted in class society and capitalism, and the only way to stop it is by unifying the working class across all national, ethnic, racial and language barriers in the struggle for socialism.

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

Read more:

Jury hears opening statements in federal trial of three former cops involved in the murder of George Floyd - WSWS

This book details the result of the 2020 elections, the impact of the pandemic, the implosion of the leadership class, and the new coalition being built on the right.

MARION, Iowa (PRWEB) January 24, 2022

Author Tom Donelson offers his solution to pulling America out of the dark in America At The Abyss: Will America Survive? ($16.99, paperback, 9781662836725; $26.99, hard cover, 9781662836732; $7.99, e-book, 9781662836749).

Donelson sees a dark future for America if it continues its current trajectory, but he also believes there is hope. In this book, he explores solutions such as a new GOP coalition of rural Americans, and combining Trump populism with classical conservatism.

This book details the result of the 2020 elections, the impact of the pandemic, the implosion of the leadership class, and the new coalition being built on the right, said Donelson.

Tom Donelson has authored eight books including his most recent book, the Rise of National Populism and Democratic Socialism. Presently Mr. Donelson is the chief political strategist of Americas PAC and research associate and project director of Americas Majority Foundation. He has contributed for the past four decades to various publications, websites and blogs.

###

Liberty Hill Publishing, a division of Salem Media Group, is a leader in the print-on-demand, self-publishing industry. America At The Abyss is available online through amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com.

Share article on social media or email:

Read the original here:

Amidst Political Turmoil and Global Hardship, What Path Remains for Conservative Americans? - PR Web

Most of the opinions circulating about the July 11 protests in Cuba, particularly those that reject disorder and violence, as well as those that interpret and propose solutions to the conflict, must be right. Many reflect civic concern and commitment to issues that go beyond personal interest. Seen like this, they would be a sign of social glue, of citizen participation and consensus. At the same time, they are the mirror of a significant conflictiveness.

In this brief space, I will avoid discussing good or bad intentioned interpretations, experiences lived, read or heard, recommendations to the government, etc. I only propose to take a step back, to coldly examine some basic problems, among the many that lie ahead.

What do the protests mean?

If we were to ask mile Durkheim, one of the founders of Sociology, what is the nature of these protests, he could answer that it is a classic case of anomie. Anomie defines a situation where previously established norms and values disintegrate; a typical reaction of periods of drastic and rapid changes in the social, economic or political structures of society. Social groups that experience anomic reactions may feel disconnected, as if they do not belong to their society, and as if their society does not value their identity. Anomie can cause purposelessness, hopelessness, and encourage deviance and crime. I have intentionally underlined a few keywords in this classic definition, which is the ABCs of sociology.

In Cuba, we have been going through a transition process for more than two decades, characterized by profound changes in the social structures and in the economic life of the people, but also in the relations between civil society and political power. Among other changes, lets say, there is the very idea of socialism, which now incorporates conceptions different from those defended for half a century, as well as unprecedented policies. This transition has made visible a crisis of norms and values, widely debated in various public spaces and media. Likewise, the weakening of the sense of belonging has been pointed out; and the reproduction of marginality and its typical behaviors, within subordinate neighborhoods and social groups, but also the proliferation of crime in other social and institutional spaces, where corruption grows. As for despair, the art and literature disseminated on the island are a good mirror.

In other words, what is happening in Cuba is an anomie that should not catch us by surprise, because its factors and manifestations have not remained hidden or muzzled, as anyone can see without having to read social networks or anti-government newspapers. It has been there, in front of everyone, analyzed and discussed for too long, to ask ourselves now where the protests come from, as if they were thunder in a clear sky. Rather, one should ask why they have not happened before.

How is it that the Cuban opposition, on the island and in Miami, using the fashionable unconventional war manuals, and the CIA itself, have not managed to unleash something like this until now? And why precisely now? Durkheim would resort to another concept shared by social sciences and civil engineering: fatigue. After a year and a half of COVID-19 and six months of queues to buy basic products as Dr. Durn would say we are all more vulnerable.

What is happening to the new government?

I have pointed out before that the consensus has become more heterogeneous and contradictory in Cuba, that it has incorporated dissent, and that the Cuban government knows it. Before taking office as president, Ral recognized that the leadership of the founder of the Revolution, Fidel, was not inherited. Daz-Canel, who was already in the Political Bureau in Fidels time, was also able to know this; and in any case, he has experienced it firsthand since he took office in 2018. In fact, continuity has entailed different ways than the historical ones did before. Circumstances, which are the benchmark of politics, had already been imposed on them before they retired.

I underline what I say about a new government, because if it is postulated that this is the same Cuba as Fidel and Ral, witty literary metaphors can be constructed, but the countrys political and social process is difficult to understand. This government has sought to build its own consensus from the beginning, instead of resting on what some call the political capital of the Revolution. However, the yardstick to measure change is already another.

In effect, the new government has proposed unprecedented reforms since 1960, beginning with a new Constitution, which admits a mixed economy, with markets and the private sector, and which grants unprecedented autonomy to local powers. Its new style, learned by holding leadership positions in the provinces, emphasizes the interaction between the central and local level; and it has ministers under the age of 60 explaining problems and answering questions on television. Unlike previous periods, citizens can identify them by their names, judge them, praise them or openly mock them.

There has never been a moment like this before in terms of freedom to criticize the government, on social networks, but neither in public media, nor to access information from very diverse sources, including those of the opposition; nor is there greater freedom to enter and leave the country. Article 56 of the Constitution approved in 2019 establishes the right of association and public demonstration. In fact, a demonstration law was scheduled in the legislative calendar for October 2020 postponed, along with a dozen other bills due to the coronavirus. Regardless, the prevailing yardstick dictates that this government has done far less than it should. According to that rod, its glass would be almost empty.

As if that were not enough, after a year and a half focused on a formidable global human security crisis called a pandemic, without resources or protective alliances like those of yesteryear, this government has had to deal with the largest manifestations of discontent that occurred since 1959 Going down the streets of San Antonio de los Baos, President Daz-Canel must have remembered, like all of us who lived the summer of 1994, Fidel followed by a sea of people, going down San Lzaro street, to control that outbreak of anomie on the Malecn, without weapons or specialized forces to deal with riots. In a certain way, he did exactly the same thing as Fidel: to appear at the scene of the events, and summon the revolutionaries to take to the streets and face violence, by force, if necessary.

The same media, however, may produce different results in other circumstances. It took him a few hours to realize it. But his first slogan was carried out to the letter, not only by the police, but by the summoned organizations, first of all, the Party. Across the street, the opposition, as on November 27, 2020, capitalized on the discontent and increased the tensions. The classic escalation of violence studied by experts in conflict resolution1 was immediate.

A more complicated scenario could not be imagined to maintain the route outlined in the 8th Party Congress, just 90 days ago.

What violence and how?

In a model country for many in terms of stability, citizen respect and internal order, such as Japan, protests against police brutality against foreigners or racism are not uncommon. A group of foreign (that is, Korean) protesters can gather around them a cloud of police officers dressed as characters from Star Wars, with polycarbonate helmets and armor, armored shields and tonfas.

We are used to seeing images of violent demonstrations in other countries. Those who throw stones are part of the people, who rebel against injustice; those who shoot jets of water from riot control vehicles, tear gas, rubber bullets, or real ones, are the repressive forces. These global images do not discriminate between countries such as Chile, South Africa, Kyrgyzstan or the United States, with hundreds of wounded and dozens of deaths that are their balance.

The photos and videos that circulate in the media such as BBC Mundo above all suspicion of collusion with the Cuban regime reveal that neither the National Revolutionary Police (PNR), which here in Cuba is the only police institution, nor the special troops from the Ministry of the Interior (MININT) or the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) deploy those resources. Surely the Institute of Police Sciences of the MININT teaches how to face violent scenarios. But no class or exercise is equivalent to dealing with 700 angry people marching down the street under the summer sun or doing it by force if necessary even if its instructions say to avoid injuring them or using lethal means.

This is not a technical or circumstantial detail. Among the images of the protests that went viral on social networks, a dozen protesters turned police cars upside down, and even other vehicles, jumped on them and destroyed them. Compared to any capital in Latin America, there are no forces that prevent these attacks on authority, and that repress them at that time. At the same time, some police officers and civilians, summoned to mobilize in the theater of the confrontation, incurred excesses.

Among the few data available to measure physical violence is the looting of stores, in freely convertible currency and in Cuban pesos. There were none in San Antonio de los Baos; nor in Havana until after the television appearance of President Daz-Canel (4:30 pm). Of the 28 assaults registered up to that time, 68% (19) occurred in Matanzas, the province most affected by the pandemic; almost all of them in Crdenas (13), where the combination of the drop in tourism in Varadero plus the quarantine has hit a relatively higher standard of living than in other places in the province. In that period, there was only significant looting (4) in Coln (Matanzas), and Gines (Mayabeque); and others scattered in Holgun, Bayamo, Gira (1). After the Presidents intervention, 13 stores were raided, including 4 in Havana.

The social polarization that this violence shows is inversely proportional to unity, that is, to the construction of consensus. In addition, it has a negative impact on the image of the country, which works in favor of the cornerstone of U.S. policy: isolation. Preventing the battle won at the UN from being lost in the streets of Crdenas or Paseo del Prado is also a national interest.

After having tried everything with Fidel and Ral, and 25 years after the end of the Cold War, Barack Obama and his government considered that this policy was ineffective, according to their national interest. However, although Joseph Biden, vice president of that government, supported normalization, things have changed for them. What if Daz-Canel, without the wisdom and experience of the Castros, were not able to deal, at this moment of vulnerability, with the Cuban crisis? They might reason that it is better not to lower the heat on the blockade right now, but to let it continue to simmer the island. As you would say in Cuban: whats the rush?

The protests are lessons for all who want to read them. They could teach some economists that the success of the reforms does not depend only on technically solving planning, the market, the socialist state enterprise or the private sector, but on tackling problems such as income redistribution, consumption stratification, the adjoining economically brilliant or dark spaces, the inequalities and territorial and local setbacks, the state of the productive forces called workers. They have also shown politicians that the problem of national unity is that of consensus, and that it is not solved only with summoning mobilizations of revolutionaries, but through sustained dialogue with all citizens. They have shown the Party apparatuses, once again, that the effectiveness of a public media system is not ideological, but political, and that it is measured by its credibility and capacity to convince (the unconvinced, of course). They have confirmed that law enforcement agencies can provide first aid to outbreaks of violence, but at the cost of other damage, and that it is not they who should deal with the social and political problems where dissent takes root. Finally, it has shown U.S. politicians that its alliances with this bellicose opposition reinforces the hard line on both sides, and damages the real exercise of freedom and human rights in Cuba.

The common denominator of these lessons is Cuban society, with its lights and shadows. Knowing how to decipher its present, without bipolar roadmaps, will decide what will come.

Note:

1 Violencia y solucin de conflictos, in Temas magazine # 53, January-March, 2008.

Read this article:

Conflict, consensus, crisis. Three minimum notes on the protests - OnCubaNews

Earlier this week, a pair of right-libertarian journalists announced the launch of their new site, BASEDPolitics. All hell promptly broke loose on right-wing Twitter.In the first editorial for their new site, co-founders Brad Polumbo and Hannah Cox define 'based' as 'upfront, on point, or rooted in true principles.' That fits pretty well with my understanding of the term, but it leaves something out.

That 'something' accounts for the pushback they received from the post-liberal, national conservative crowd. According to them, libertarians like Polumbo and Cox are nothing more than Koch-funded shills who fight for tax cuts and weaker antitrust laws while drag queens read to our children. They are not 'based' and have no right to refer to themselves as such.

'Our culture is not your costume,' one popular right-wing Twitter personality quipped. Sohrab Ahmari, an American Conservative editor who advocates for 'political Catholicism,'tweeted'Im never using based again, now that these corporate schmucks have appropriated it.'

Ahmari also threw in some disparaging comments about Polumbos 'gigantic' head and Coxs 'tackily overspilling dcolletage' as they appeared in the announcement graphic.

I asked Polumbo (full disclosure: he and I are both affiliated with Young Voices) whether he expected this kind of reaction. Heres what he had to say:

Oh yeah, we anticipated pushback from the very-online nationalist crowd. Im not particularly bothered by it, although some of it has been ad-hominem and juvenile, and thats pretty pathetic, fan behaviour. We wont stoop to that. But the pushback is kind of the point. The nationalists want to redefine what it means to be conservative so that it resembles big government, socially conservative Elizabeth Warren economics more than Ronald Reagan. We still believe the future of the Right should be rooted in free markets, individual liberty, the Constitution, (and)limited government.

The term 'based' originated as slang for being high on crack. Perhaps theres some connection with 'freebasing', or smoking cocaine. From there, the terms definition expanded to cover all the strange and erratic behaviours typically associated with 'crackheads'. A modern equivalent might be to say someone is 'trippin' or 'tweakin'. These dont necessarily mean the person is under the influence of psychedelics or meth, only that theyre acting like it. 'Youre crazy,' spoken either with total dismissiveness or with a hint of admiration, would convey the same meaning.

'Based' began to take on its current connotation with rapper Lil B the Based God, who released his first album, Based Boys, in 2007. According to Lil B, 'Based means being yourself. Not being scared of what people think about you. Not being afraid to do what you wanna do.'

According to one online dictionary, the term, now a 'signal of power and swagger,' became associated with the online right in the 2010s as a synonym for 'politically incorrect'. Donald Trump was 'based' because he was willing to say things that annoyed the libs and then laugh at their outrage.

'Can you believe OrangeMan said X?!' the outraged soycuck shrieks. 'Lol, based,' the gigachad responds.

It seems to me that at this point, an earlier definition of 'based' unrelated to West Coast drug culture began to influence the terms use by the new right. 'Based' retained its sense of the manic, un-self-conscious energy of Trumps Twitter, but it also took on the the sense of being 'based on' or 'based in' something older and sturdier than the endless flux of liquid modernity. ric Zemmour is based. So is Viktor Orbn. Jailing pornographers, seizing the assets of the Ford Foundation, and going to Latin Mass with your nine kids and tradwife are all based. On the darker corners of right-wing Twitter, Rhodesia, Mussolini and overt expressions of sexism are also 'based'.

The prevailing definition of 'based' sits somewhere near the intersection of troll and trad.

Polumbo told me hes fully aware that hes going against the usual meaning of the term:

'While not our only mission, a crucial part of our project is to explicitly combat the nationalist conservative movement in a substantive and ideas-based way. We are redefining what it means to be based, whether they like it or not. Freedom is based. Catholic integralism and other forms of lite-theocracy are authoritarian and un-American.'

The post-liberal response, of course, would be that right-libertarianism, like progressivism, is a dominant ideology masquerading as a scrappy resistance. They are two faces of the same beast called liberalism. They divide the world between them: freedom in the boardroom and freedom in the bedroom.

Im not nearly the libertarian Polumbo is, but Im not a fully convinced post-liberal yet either. I think wokeness is a far greater threat than socialism. At the same time, I worry that any sort of post-liberal political project could lead to tyranny. The levels of social conservatism and, frankly, religiosity it demands simply dont have enough buy-in to win national elections.

Imagine the average Joe Rogan listener. Not the alt-right white nationalist monster sketched out in thinkpiece after thinkpiece, but the representative of the American median, the 'barstool conservative'.Hes economically agnostic, an admirer of entrepreneurship who distrusts large corporations. Socially, hes slightly to the left of centre. The idea of giving puberty blockers to kids freaks him out, but he has no interest in outlawing gay marriage or no-fault divorce. Hed be more likely than Polumbo to support trade protectionism and breaking up big tech, but Ahmari would have a hard time selling him on porn bans and blue laws.

Polumbo and Cox are betting that this voting bloc will be more open to Friedrich Hayek than to Thomas Aquinas. Their plan seems to be to stan capitalism while casting wokeness as a collectivist distortion of individual liberty rather than its natural outgrowth. Its possible, they promise, to combat the excesses of progressivism to be 'based' without throwing out many of the fundamental assumptions of American politics and culture.

It might work. If their attempt to reclaim 'based' succeeds, well know it has.

See original here:

Who will win the battle for 'based'? - Spectator.co.uk

A common refrain in the Trump era was that despite all of Donald Trumps racist, xenophobic ambitions, he was too incompetent to carry out a wholescale remaking of U.S. society. Theres no question his four years in office had a profound, disastrous effect on the people and communities his administration targeted immigrants, Muslims and trans people, just to name a few. Plus, his openly fascist rhetoric and sometimes actions significantly emboldened the far right. However, both his legislative agenda, and to a lesser extent his exercise of executive authority, were likely hampered by his lack of experience in elected office and overall laziness, lack of discipline and inattention to detail.

Many advocates understandably fear that Trumps eventual Republican presidential successor, whoever they are, could combine the most toxic elements of Trumpism with a greater degree of technocratic skill. A more-competent Trump could do even greater damage to U.S. political infrastructure, like the refugee resettlement system that Trump dismantled, that could take decades to rebuild. A more-competent Trump could also potentially shepherd through a legislative agenda that far exceeded Trumps, which consisted primarily of a standard-fare Republican tax cut for the wealthy.

Currently, the most likely GOP successor to Trump seems to be Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who regularly ranks as Republicans top choice in the 2024 presidential primary if Trump declines to run. Trumps polling lead over DeSantis appears to be narrowing in recent months, though any surveys this far out should be taken with a grain of salt. Everything in DeSantiss public record suggests that he poses a serious threat to democracy, the working class and marginalized communities. DeSantis recently signed into law some of the nations most stringent anti-critical race theory legislation, and ordered a review of the states university system to determine if professors were indoctrinating students into a stale ideology, clearly a reference to ideas ranging from anti-racism to socialism. Hes also pushing a bill that would prevent teachers and private businesses from making white people feel discomfort when learning about the history of racist oppression in the United States.

DeSantis has also recently staked out his position as more anti-vaccine, anti-booster than Trump himself. In December, the Florida governor refused to say if hed gotten a COVID booster when asked by Fox Newss Maria Bartiromo. Ive done whatever I did, the normal shot, DeSantis said. DeSantis got the Johnson & Johnson single dose in April, and stonewalled in October when asked if he would get a booster.

These statements, as well as DeSantiss rising stature in the national Republican Party, seem to have rankled Trump. In comments that were widely understood to be directed at DeSantis, Trump criticized politicians who wouldnt say if they had gotten a COVID booster shot. Many Republican politicians had in fact gotten the booster, but they dont want to say it. Because theyre gutless, Trump said on the far right One America News Network. You gotta say it whether you had it or not. (At a rally in December, Trump told the crowd that hed gotten the booster. They booed him in response.)

Several days later, Axios reported Trump has been calling DeSantis a dull personality in private meetings. Also, in that report, Trump aides claimed the former president was angry that DeSantis hasnt pledged not to challenge Trump in the 2024 GOP primary, should he run again. The New York Timess Maggie Haberman tweeted that shed heard similar frustrations from those in Trump world, who said Trump thought DeSantis should be showing him more deference.

DeSantis, for his part, has taken shots at Trump as well. On the conservative Ruthless podcast, the governor said one of his biggest regrets since taking office was not being much louder in opposing Trumps calls for soft lockdowns as COVID initially spread throughout the country and world.

DeSantis also appears to be shoring up support from conservative media stars to build a parallel track of public support, separate from his standing with Trump. On the anniversary of the January 6 storming of the Capitol, the Florida governor gathered nine prominent social media stars in Tallahassee, Politico reported. Blaze TVs Sara Gonzales told Politico it would be a mistake for DeSantis not to run, and that many conservatives were hungry for someone with the guts to speak for them without fear of repercussions, but also without the obvious baggage that Trump carries.

However, despite the simmering tensions between the two men, neither appears eager to engage in an all-out attack on the other. Last week, Trump told reporters that he has a very good relationship with DeSantis. He reminded them of his early support for the Florida politician when he was a relatively unknown congressman making a longshot bid for governor. DeSantis won the [gubernatorial] election the day I announced that I was going to give him my endorsement, Trump said on the call. He made similar comments to New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters in a forthcoming book, underscoring the degree to which Trump believes hes responsible for DeSantiss success. Look, I helped Ron DeSantis at a level that nobodys ever seen before, Trump told Peters.

Despite the emerging personal rivalry between DeSantis and Trump, the two are ideologically nearly identical, and also govern in a similar manner. DeSantis reportedly rules Florida with an iron fist and demands total fealty and loyalty, just as Trump does. Ron DeSantis is essentially the speaker of the House, the president of the Senate and the chief justice of the Supreme Court right now, one Republican legislator recently told Politico. Another GOP state legislator said in the same report that its well known you cant go against him. If you cross him once, youre dead.

In another clear echo of Trumpism, DeSantis is pushing for the creation of a new, so-called election police force. The new sub-agency, whose proposed official name is the Office of Election Crimes and Security, would operate under the Department of State, which is controlled by the governor. Voting rights advocates are understandably alarmed, citing the extremely low levels of deliberate voter fraud and arguing that the goal of the new sub-agency is to depress turnout, particularly among Black voters and other groups historically targeted for harassment.

Also worrisome is a new proposed congressional district map released by DeSantiss office, an incredibly rare phenomenon. DeSantis map would cut in half the number of African American districts from four on current proposed congressional maps to two, while boosting the number of seats Donald Trump would have won in 2020 to 18 from the 16 on the map currently being considered by the GOP-led Florida Senate, Politico reported.

The 2024 primary will semi-officially start this year, after the November midterms. Trump hasnt announced whether hell run, but all signs suggest that he will. DeSantis is a young, popular, far-right politician who doesnt command the base of the party like Trump does, but comes closer than any other potential challenger at the moment. Ever since Trumps upset victory in 2016, those on both the right and the left have wondered what Trumpism without Trump might look like. In DeSantis, we could be seeing an answer.

Here is the original post:

Is Ron DeSantis Shaping Up to Be Trump 2.0 in 2024? - Truthout