Rise of Nationalism In Europe

(Nationalist) Republican Party in power with 71% of seats.
(Nationalist) Freedom Party 1st in polls, 26% for the 2016 elections!
(Nationalist) New Flemish Alliance party in power since 2014. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina
(Nationalist) Party of Democratic Action in power since 2014.
Reformist Bloc, Patriotic Front, Bulgaria Without Censorship, Ataka are all nationalist parties, 26.4% of seats.
(Nationalist) Democratic Rally party in power since 2013 elections with 57.5%.
(Nationalist) Danish People’s Party won 2014 EU Parliament elections with 26.6%. Also polling at 20% (will likely win) June 2015 Danish general election.
(Eurosceptic) Centre party and (Nationalist) Finns party form right-wing coalition government after April 2015 parliamentary elections.
(Nationalist) Front National party won 2014 EU parliament elections with 25%. FN won 2015 departmental elections in popular vote with 25.24%. Marine Le Pen polling 1st at 30% for the 2017 Presidential elections.
Two largest political parties of Georgia are both nationalist, 95% of seats. Greece
(Nationalist) Golden Dawn 3rd in 2015 Greek legislative election.
2014 EU elections: (Nationalist) Jobbik in 2nd at 15%. 2014 Hungarian elections: Jobbik in 3rd with 20.5%.
(Nationalist) Five-Star Movement, a new party, polling 2nd at 23.5% for the next Italian general elections.2nd in the 2014 EU Parliament elections with 21.2%.
(Nationalist) National Alliance 2nd at 14.3% 2014 EU Parliament elections.
(Nationalist) Homeland Union won 2014 EU Parliament election at 17.43%, (Nationalist) Order and Justice party at 14.25%.  
(Nationalist) VMRO party in power since 2014 Macedonian general election
(Nationalist) Horizon Monaco party in power since 2013 general election.
(Nationalist) Party for freedom tied 2nd in 2014 EU parliament elections with 4 seats. Polling 1st for the next Dutch general elections.
(Nationalist) Andrzej Duda defeats President Komorowski May 2015. (Nationalist) Law and Justice, tied 1st in 2014 EU parliament elections at 19 seats. Polling 1st at 35% for the October 2015 Polish elections.
(Nationalist) People’s Party, newly formed for 2012 legislative elections, finished 3rd at 14%.
(National Conservative) Vladimir Putin won 2012 Russian presidential election at 63.6%. Polling 1st at 82% for next presidential election. United Russia won legislative elections with 50% & (UltraNationalist) LDPR at 4th with 11.7%.
(Nationalist) Sweden Democrat party polling 3rd at 18% for next Swedish general election.
(Nationalist) Swiss People’s party polling 1st at 26.2% October 2015 Swiss elections and banned immigration last year.
(Fascist) Nationalist Movement polling 3rd at 23% for June 2015 Turkish elections.
(Nationalist) People’s Front, new party, 2nd in 2014 Ukrainian parliament elections at 22%, wins popular vote. 
(Nationalist) UK Independence Party won 2014 EU Parliament elections at 26.6%. Polling 3rd for next UK General elections.

CULTURAL MARXISM: conspiracy cranks with ideological prejudice commitments to Christianity, capitalism, patriarchy and libertarianism, labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a ‘cultural Marxist’. 'Cultural Marxist’ is a catch-all for 'ideological enemy’. it’s clear that the conspiracy cranks have an uneasy intellectual inferiority complex about the 'cultural Marxists’.

Banner for Sunday! Reminder that actual neo-Nazis are taking to the streets demanding the Richmond Town Hall take down the Aboriginal and rainbow flags. It’s imperitive for every leftie to be there. Let’s outnumber the fascists, homophobic scum so they won’t be allowed to spew their hatred.


il Monumento

“We need soldiers rather than philosophers.” -Il Popolo d’Italia, 1928

One of the reasons why I made this comic is because I see stuff like this every so often: 

And yes sometimes it’s done in a  genuinely funny but a lot of times I think it’s because people forget that nation-tans are characters on their own too, and not just robotic manifestations of their leaders or government policies–after all, most nation-tans have been through multiple differing governments in their lifetime, but every time there’s a coup it doesn’t mean their personality immediately changes. Regarding Italy in particular, I find him really fascinating because, well, he certainly does not fit the description of Mussolini’s cult of virility and heteronormativity, which encouraged aggression and implored males to be the  “military, uncouth, and virile” beings that they “naturally” were, as opposed to the “feminized” intellectual bourgeoisie that was looked down upon. “The fascist regime pursued a pedagogy of virility potentially aimed at every male of every age, proposing once again the ideal masculine model of the combatant devoted to action; in this way it aimed to fight the negative product of modernity: the reflexive, hypersensitive and frail man whose passive and uncertain character derived from an excess of rationality.” (Sandro Bellassai, “The Masculine Mystique”, 2005)  In light of this, while it’s been shown that Feliciano can be an efficient fighter if he wants to, he’d much rather be cooking, flirting, reading and making art and music. He’s much more interested in exploring other cultures rather than dominate them, and while his exact sexuality is unconfirmed, he is definitely not straight. (my head canon is he’s ace pan/quoiromantic!!)   Rather than being a contradiction, this is probably a good representation because, even with all the propaganda and militaristic programs Mussolini put into place, inevitably not everyone could live up to the standard, and some people of course just blatantly ignored it. (There’s also some question about the effectiveness of the regime’s early military training, due to the Italian army’s actual performance during the war, but that’s a whole other issue–and probably)

For all the times he’s the butt of all the jokes, both in canon (ESPECIALLY in the dub), and in fandom, who just want to make him out to be nothing but Germany’s whiny uke, (the very TITLE of the series is a pun on how “useless” he is)  Feliciano Vargas really is one of the wisest characters in the series. Despite, or maybe because of said “uselessness,“ Italy seems to have stumbled upon an important truth as well–the truth that the pursuit and lust for Power is ultimately detrimental, and it’s just so much worthwhile to try and learn about and appreciate the wonderful things about people, even if they’re different than you, and even if it means being considered foolish.  It’s the little victories  in life that are much more important to celebrate than the conquering of others. Whatever shady things his government might be up to at any point in history (colonization *cough cough*), Feliciano couldn’t be less concerned with chasing after power and glory–for all his ditziness and for all the times he’s made fun of in canon for being “weak,” remember that as a child he turned down Holy Rome’s offer to “become the greatest nation in the world” because he saw the effect it had on his grandpa. Italy knows that power, while it sure might feel good in the meantime, only leads to more stress and devastation, and it never lasts. It’s something that Grandpa Rome himself learned as well, as seen in the episode where he visits Germany and is asked why he disappeared. “I thought my wealth and power would last forever,” he says. The Rome that Feli remembers, the old man scarred by age and time, is so different than the Duce’s imagination of a sublime, godlike being of unstoppable force and glory. It’s not just about the physical resemblance, but the attitude and meaning behind the representation as well…

And I speculate that Mussolini probably viewed Feliciano more as “the grandson of Roman Empire” rather than as an individual in his own right.

Extra Notes:

-On the first page: in 1925 Mussolini gave permission to Cesare Mori to start an intense and violent crackdown on the Mafia, which while at the time was purported by the government to be successful, when in actuality… it was not.  It also caused several mafia members to move to the United States.

-idk my perspective and scenery game is pretty rusty but I would be lying if I said I wasn’t inspired by the vast architectural interiors of “The Conformist”…

-The Rome Statue is holding the Fasces, which was the symbol of authority in Ancient Rome and from which the Fascist party adopted as its symbol (and name) as well.

-The whole suspicion of intellectuals was kind of the most incredible thing for me, like I’ve always known that dictatorships are suspicious of intellectuals, but the sheer lengths they went to demonize it was just…kind of ridiculous. Mostly because they demonized intellectuals by associating it with being an “infertile intelligence,” and (*gasp*) associating it with femininity "but in the worst sense, for it is a femininity that will never be maternal.” Um yeah. The tenets are just rooted in misogyny…

-Mussolini’s head is really weirdly shaped. 

Further Reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_masculinity_under_fascist_Italy (for a quick overview)

-http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09523369908714098  Gigliola Gori (1999) Model of masculinity: Mussolini, the ‘new Italian’ of the Fascist era, The International Journal of the History of Sport, 16:4, 27-61,

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13545710500188338 Sandro Bellassai (2005) The masculine mystique: antimodernism and virility in fascist Italy, Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 10:3, 314-335,

As usual I’m just a nerdy student, not an expert, so if any of you have any commentary to add please do so!


Cultural Marxism’? A uniting theory for rightwingers who love to play the victim

What do the Australian’s columnist Nick Cater, video game hate group #Gamergate, Norwegian mass shooter Anders Breivik (a norvegian mass murder which killed young social democrats after a right wing conservative conspiracy theory), and random blokes on YouTube have in common? Apart from anything else, they have all invoked the spectre of “cultural Marxism” to account for things they disapprove of – things like Islamic immigrant communities, feminism and, er, opposition leader Bill Shorten.

What are they talking about? The tale varies in the telling, but the theory of cultural Marxism is integral to the fantasy life of the contemporary right. It depends on a crazy-mirror history, which glancingly reflects things that really happened, only to distort them in the most bizarre ways.

It begins in the 1910s and 1920s. When the socialist revolution failed to materialise beyond the Soviet Union, Marxist thinkers like Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs tried to explain why. Their answer was that culture and religion blunted the proletariat’s desire to revolt, and the solution was that Marxists should carry out a “long march through the institutions” – universities and schools, government bureaucracies and the media – so that cultural values could be progressively changed from above.

Adapting this, later thinkers of the Frankfurt School decided that the key to destroying capitalism was to mix up Marx with a bit of Freud, since workers were not only economically oppressed, but made orderly by sexual repression and other social conventions. The problem was not only capitalism as an economic system, but the family, gender hierarchies, normal sexuality – in short, the whole suite of traditional western values.

The conspiracy theorists claim that these “cultural Marxists” began to use insidious forms of psychological manipulation to upend the west. Then, when Nazism forced the (mostly Jewish) members of the Frankfurt School to move to America, they had, the story goes, a chance to undermine the culture and values that had sustained the world’s most powerful capitalist nation.

The vogue for the ideas of theorists like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno in the 1960s counterculture culminated with their acolytes’ occupation of the commanding heights of the most important cultural institutions, from universities to Hollywood studios. There, the conspiracy says, they promoted and even enforced ideas which were intended to destroy traditional Christian values and overthrow free enterprise: feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and atheism. And this, apparently, is where political correctness came from. I promise you: this is what they really think.

The whole story is transparently barmy. If humanities faculties are really geared to brainwashing students into accepting the postulates of far-left ideology, the composition of western parliaments and presidencies and the roaring success of corporate capitalism suggests they’re doing an astoundingly bad job. Anyone who takes a cool look at the last three decades of politics will think it bizarre that anyone could interpret what’s happened as the triumph of an all-powerful left.

The theory of cultural Marxism is also blatantly antisemitic, drawing on the idea of Jews as a fifth column bringing down western civilisation from within, a racist trope that has a longer history than Marxism. Like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the theory was fabricated to order, for a special purpose: the institution and perpetuation of culture war. We can even nominate an author for this lunacy:William S Lind, a polymath of the American hard right, who sought to put rightwing activism on a new footing as the cold war drew to a close.

In the late 1980s, Lind wrote a couple of monographs arguing that there was an emerging mainstream political consensus on free-market economics (due in part to the “disarray” of the traditional social-democratic left), but that many Americans across the political spectrum were dismayed by the decline in traditional values, the family and middle-class life. If conflict with the left could be shifted to the ground of culture, there was a chance of binding the right and even claiming some socially conservative voters who had traditionally voted for the Democrats.

When the Berlin Wall fell, it was time for Lind’s strategy of “cultural conservatism” to become a central strategy for US Republicans: it identified a new kind of social enemy for the right to mobilise against. The changing parameters of economic debate and the beginning of American decline demanded that conservatives embrace a politics “centred more, not less, on cultural issues” – the family, education, crime and morality. The fairytale of cultural Marxism provided a post-communist adversary located specifically in the cultural realm – academics, Hollywood, journalists, civil rights activists and feminists. It has been a mainstay of conservative activism and rhetoric ever since.

While Lind has recently become a more marginal figure, his story of cultural Marxism has proved durable and useful across the spectrum of right-wing thought because it offers so much.

It allows those smarting from a loss of privilege to be offered the shroud of victimhood, by pointing to a shadowy, omnipresent, quasi-foreign elite who are attempting to destroy all that is good in the world. It offers an explanation for the decline of families, small towns, patriarchal authority, and unchallenged white power: a vast, century-long left wing conspiracy. And it distracts from the most important factor in these changes: capitalism, which demands mobility, whose crises have eroded living standards, and which thus, among other things, undermines the viability of conventional family structures and the traditional lifestyles that conservatives approve of.

The story of cultural Marxism is also flexible and can be tailored to fit with the obsessions of a range of right-wing actors. As such, it’s one example of an idea from the extremes which has been mobilised by more mainstream figures and has dragged politics as a whole a little further right.

Anders Breivik killed young social democrats because he believed that their party was involved in a cultural Marxist plot to undermine traditional European values by means of mass immigration from the Islamic world. Prominent voices in the #Gamergate movement have invoked it to warn of what is really motivating the feminist and queer critics of game aesthetics and culture – a desire to purge the culture of “proper” masculine values. It can even chime with Cater’s dreary, pedestrian moaning about how a “graduate class” seeks to remodel authentic, “egalitarian” Australian culture.

The idea of a cultural Marxist conspiracy has also endured because, in the absence of a genuine clash of ideas about the way the economy should be run, it provides an animating idea for the political contest. For Cater to claim that Bill Shorten is a Marxist of any kind is laughable precisely because to the extent that the opposition leader is explicitly offering anything, it’s plainly just a slightly more cushioned version of the same underlying economic orthodoxy embraced by Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey. Until that changes, the right will always be able to offer their story of victimhood and conspiracy with some hope of success.

Jason Wilson on The Guardian

Troops referred to Ferguson protesters as ‘enemy forces’, emails show

Documents detailing military mission during unrest over the police killing of Michael Brown designated ‘enemy forces’ to include ‘general protesters’

Apr. 17 2015

As the Missouri national guard prepared to deploy to the streets of Ferguson last year during protests sparked by the shooting death of Michael Brown, the troops used highly militarised language such as “enemy forces” and “adversaries” to refer to citizen demonstrators.

Documents detailing the military mission divided the crowds that national guards would be likely to encounter into “friendly forces” and “enemy forces” – the latter apparently including “general protesters”.

A briefing for commanders included details of the troops’ intelligence capabilities so that they could “deny adversaries the ability to identify Missouri national guard vulnerabilities”, which the “adversaries” might exploit, “causing embarrassment or harm” to the military force, according to documents obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request by CNN.

And in an ominous-sounding operations security briefing, the national guard warned: “Adversaries are most likely to possess human intelligence (HUMINT), open source intelligence (OSINT), signals intelligence (SIGINT), technical intelligence (TECHINT), and counterintelligence capabilities.”

In less military-style language, the briefing then goes on to detail how protesters might obtain this intelligence – a list of sources no more technical than public records, social media and listening to conversations “being carried out in public” by civic officials or law enforcement, according to the report.

The Missouri governor, Jay Nixon, deployed the state national guard to Ferguson in August after local police forces caused international uproar by firing teargas on demonstrators while armed with gear that even US military veterans said was better suited for the streets of Afghanistan than an American suburb.

“It’s disturbing when you have what amounts to American soldiers viewing American citizens somehow as the enemy,” local alderman Antonio French told CNN.

Read More

In many settler societies, historically the white population not only supported the police, in part they were the police. Unlike in Old Europe, where in general the masses of people were kept disarmed and landless, in settler colonies often the entire euro-male culture revolved around common and cheap access to land and rifles and the bodies of the oppressed. Posses or militias or “Committees of Correspondence” or lynch mobs of armed men enforced the local settler dictatorship over Indians, Latinos, Afrikans, Asians, North Afrikans, women, etc.  And white men of all classes joined in, to affirm their membership in the most important “class” of all. Settlerism filled the space that fascism normally occupies.
Churchill's love for Fascism

Just about the greatest myth peddled about Winston Churchill is that he led a great anti-fascist crusade against the Axis power during World War II - his finest hour. What utter baloney. The man welcomed the coming to power of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler - viewing them as valuable bulwarks against communism. Churchill only became ‘anti-fascist’ when he felt that the British empire was threatened by the expanding ambitions of these rivals. Defending British imperial interests, not fighting a democratic crusade against fascism, was his aim during World War II.

Previously, Churchill had praised Mussolini to the skies - the man could do no wrong. Il Duce had “rendered a service to the whole world” by showing the “way to combat subversive forces”. In fact, Churchill thought, Mussolini was the “Roman genius” - the “greatest lawgiver among men”. Speaking in Rome in 1927, he told Italy’s Fascist Party: “If I had been an Italian, I would have been entirely with you from the beginning to the end of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism.”

He heaped similar praise upon Hitler too. After the Nazis came to power, Churchill proclaimed in a 1935 article that if Britain was defeated like Germany had been in 1918, he hoped “we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations”. While all manner of “formidable transformations” were occurring in Europe, Churchill continued, corporal Hitler was “fighting his long, wearing battle for the German heart” - the story of that struggle “cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance and the vital force which enabled him to challenge, defy, conciliate or overcome all the authorities or resistances which barred his path”. If only things had been different, Britain could have done a deal with fascist Italy and Germany against the common enemy - ie, ‘international Bolshevism’.

~Eddie Ford(weekly worker)

catholics-for-israel asked:

Yes. Hi. I'd just like to ask, did you know that the Israeli government has actually spoken out as pro-Palestinian? They however would not like a Palestinian state run by Hamas, as 1) Hamas obviously and blatantly attacks Israel with missiles and suicide bombers on a weekly basis, unprovoked by Israel and 2) Hamas kills more of the Palestinian people than Israel ever has and ever will. So why is it that the Israeli's always get blame yet again?

This message has been sitting in my drafts for about half a year because I couldn’t find the words to describe how outrageous it is (I still can’t, but I had to reply one time or another).

I can’t decide if whoever brainwashed you did an amazing job because you’re so lost and deep in their lies, or a terrible job because people immediately realise you’re talking a load of nonsense the moment you start talking. 

You need to sit down by yourself and do some real thinking. You need to realise that if you were to visit Palestine you’d be treated just the same as Palestinian Christians are and how Jesus would be if he visited his hometown. 

“did you know that the Israeli government has actually spoken out as pro-Palestinian” 

The Israeli government is obsessed in their mission to eliminate all Palestinians and remove every trace of Palestine, from Al Nakba to illegal settlements to deadly attacks on Gaza every 1-2 years to house demolitions to even saying that Palestinians don’t exist. Just last summer they killed 1,600 Palestinian civilians. 

1) Hamas obviously and blatantly attacks Israel with missiles and suicide bombers on a weekly basis, unprovoked by Israel

Israel violates ceasefires 3 times more than Hamas does. And going back to ‘people immediately realise you’re talking a load of nonsense the moment you start speaking’, Hamas haven’t used suicide bombings as a widespread military tactic since 2008. 

Either your Zionist propaganda textbook is more than 7 years old or you need to find an up-to-date fascist to be your new teacher.

2) Hamas kills more of the Palestinian people than Israel ever has and ever will

This is one of those lies that tries to put doubt into people’s minds or somehow make Israel look good but luckily most people have common sense and when doing their own research will find that the ratio of Palestinians killed by Israel to those killed by Hamas is about 500000:1.

So why is it that the Israeli’s always get blame yet again?

Because Israel is committing genocide.