Mediaboss Marketing

Romanian auteur Cristian Mungiu is a master of the slow-burn drama. His careful cinematic style using wide master shots and long takes, allowing the action to play out within the frame without edits is put to service in exploring complex, hot-button social issues abortion in his 2007 Palme dOr winner 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, state corruption in 2016s Graduation with a calm, almost scientific precision.

Mungius latest, R.M.N., takes this scientific approach literally. The title is the Romanian acronym for an MRI, which one of the characters receives in the film, and the movie, which hits U.S. cinemas on April 28, is Mungius cinematic brain scan of his country, revealing the layers of illness racial, social, political, and above all emotional buried in the national psyche.

The plot, inspired by real events, takes place over the Christmas holidays in a small village in Transylvania. Matthias (Marin Grigore), a slaughterhouse worker, returns home from Germany and rekindles a relationship with old flame Csilla (Judith State), who manages the local bread factory. But the arrival of new factory employees from Sri Lanka disrupts the community. Tensions build as the locals most of whom are actually Hungarian, an ethnic minority in the country debate whether they should drive the foreigners out, as they did, several years previous, with the Romani families who used to live there.

For Mungiu, R.M.N. is an attempt to understand racism, xenophobia, and the rise of right-wing populism, from the inside: By looking, listening, but not judging, the people who spout heinous views. You cant start hoping to cure a public attitude until you name it and are willing to talk about it, to understand why it is happening.

The following interview was edited for length and clarity.

The so-called Romanian New Wave had already started by 2007 but it really blew up internationally after you won the Palme dOr for 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, a film that took not just your career, but sort of the entire movement, to a new level. 16 years on, how do you think the focus of Romanian cinema has changed? From an outsiders perspective, it seemed the first wave of films was dealing with the communist period of Nicolae Ceauescu. The new films from Romanian, including your latest, R.M.N., seem to be more concerned with current-day events.

Well, I dont think that we were speaking, even then, about communism in particular, I think that we were at that age, when you revisit your adolescence or, you know, your youth. And we were making films that had a kind of nostalgia for what we lived through. Of course, they had communism as a background, but we were talking about our experiences. And if you remember, Corneliu Porumboius first film, the one about the revolution [2006s 12:08 East of Bucharest], it wasnt so much about communism. Cristi Puius second film [2005s The Death of Mr. Lazarescu] wasnt at all about communism. They were quite contemporary, they were speaking about the long-term effects of communism on people, and the way the country was shaped and the people were shaped.

I dont think that the new wave got all this attention because it was speaking about communism. But mostly, because we were speaking in a different way, in a different cinematic way. I think it was a formal thing, which dragged this attention our way. This way of making films with very, very long takes, was deliberate. Behind the new wave, there was a lot of thinking about the limits of cinema as an art, and about its particularities. Thats why we were shooting in these long takes, not because we like master shots, but because theres this integrity of time, that cinema can preserve, on the condition that you dont use editing.

I think we were motivating one another to really think very deeply about cinema, to take this very seriously. There was no point at all for us in making popular films because, by that moment, the cinemas in Romania were gone, there was no audience whatsoever for us. So we focused directly on making films that would be important for the history of cinema, not for the present. And we felt the way you made a film is as important as the story that you wanted to tell.

I think the movement has evolved quite well. Its brought some filmmakers into focus that really had a point of view on cinema and had something to say. But, like any wave, time passes, and even this novel style gets old and becomes sort of a norm. It doesnt surprise anybody any longer. So now its important for each of these authors to reinvent himself and to find something fresh and new to say in terms of topic matter, and also in terms of style. Thats the fate of waves, what comes as a wave goes as a wave. And you know, therell be another wave coming, even if, right now, its not clear where it will come from.

But these filmmakers, these individuals, have survived. We were perceived as a wave because we all emerged at the same time, we were pretty much the same age, and we were the first group of filmmakers expressing themselves after the fall of communism in Romania. But now, so many years later, we see which voices are strong enough to continue telling something.

Thats the most difficult thing in cinema. Its not difficult to make a film that can surprise people once. But to make the next film, and eventually, to build this kind of personal take on cinema, this is very complicated. And I think Corneliu was telling me at some point he had checked and, apparently, statistically, most directors make two or three films in their entire lives. So if youve managed to make two or three films that actually got noticed, thats quite good.

The other thing which is good is that the new generation of Romanian filmmakers is deliberately trying to be as different as possible [from the New Wave]. Which is normal.

Where did the idea for R.M.N. come from?

It came from a real story. The real story is quite close to what you see in the film. There is this little village in an area inhabited mostly by Hungarians. And, youd imagine, in an area inhabited by a minority, that the people would be more empathic towards another minority coming in. But they were not. From their perspective, it was: We dont have anything against these people, but this is a very poor region, we have made a great sacrifice to stay here and try and grow this community, to preserve our traditions, and you the owner of the bakery have broken the rules by bringing foreigners into this community.

One of the reasons people behaved so badly, of course, was the color of their skin. But, its also true that when this scandal emerged in Romania, the wave of sympathy for these people was overwhelming. People and factory owners all over wrote and said: Well hire them, well take them into our communities, they can work here.

I thought the story of this film was very, very relevant to the state of the world today. Even if it happens in Transylvania in Romania, I had the feeling that it speaks about the way we behave today about these very hot issues of xenophobia, and the truth. Ultimately, its a film about this huge distance between what we think and what we say.

I presented this film at Cannes last year and in a lot of other places and so many people came up to me and said: This could have happened in my country, with us as well. Its just that people dont dare any longer to speak about such issues in public. It was important to me to see if there is still enough freedom in cinema, that we can speak about the elephant in the room, about the sense that we all know that a lot of people think like this, but we behave as if they dont exist. Unless we manage to tackle these issues directly, theres no way of hoping that we can cure them. You cant start hoping to cure a public attitude until you name it and are willing to talk about it, to understand why it is happening.

You have a very empathetic way of portraying all the characters in the film, even the ones who spout horrible, racist, or xenophobic views.

The most important conflict in the film, for me, is the internal conflict, not the external one, the conflict between the good part of us, that feels empathy for others, and the instinctual animalistic part in us, which makes us consider others potential enemies that have come to steal our world, our food, our horse or whatever. Thats fight that we need to try to win. But before winning it, you need to talk about it, expose it, see how much of it comes from your instinct and karma, how much of it is contextual.

One important step is to listen to the people who are displeased about what is happening today. Migration today doesnt look like it did 1,000 years ago, when a bunch of people on horseback would ride over the hill. Now they come by plane and try to get work. But for many people, the feeling is the same: Here is somebody who doesnt belong. Its a consequence of globalization. And many people living in tiny, very traditional communities feel: I didnt ask for this globalization, but I have to pay personally for decisions I had no say in. The speed of change is too great for them. They need more time. I think we need to have the patience to talk to them , to understand why they think like this, before branding them as sinners, xenophobic, or whatever.

In this particular case, the villagers were not, in their minds, xenophobic against foreigners. They thought it was alright to be xenophobic agains the local Romani. This is what they were trying to protect their community from.

This is why I thought the story was worth telling, because they did not see what they were doing as wrong. And, people dont say this, but nobody really wants to live in a community next to the Romani population. After Cannes I screened this film in 30 different villages in the region, in small towns, and people agreed, in principle, that its good to be tolerant. But when things get scaled down to you personally, everyone would prefer to live on a street where there are no Romani people. Theres such a big gap between the principles we all agree on, and what really happens. Its important to engage in this conversation and to see where these stereotypes are coming from.

You also point out the hypocrisy of the ostensibly good people like the factory owner, who is kind to the foreigners, but also, in a way, exploiting them for their labor.

Well, I think that theres a tendency, particularly in cinema, to oversimplify things. Theres a tendency of thinking filmmakers should include their position, as citizens, in the films they make. This is precisely what I think we shouldnt be doing. My position as a citizen on this issue is not in the film. I think films should bring forward issues that are important for society at this moment. But I also think filmmakers should abstain from pushing their own views on you. My effort was to try and understand why things happen the way they do, why people act the way they act, and to respect the integrity of the truth and the reality, in every way possible. Also formally, which is why I make this huge effort of shooting without cutting. But also ethically, the idea is that whoever you are, I dont want to be the judge, I want to bring forward these peoples arguments.

But its true that in the end, theres a lot of hypocrisy, even in the way the film was discussed. Id have two kinds of Q&As: The official ones on stage talking to people, and the conversations Id have when I left the cinema, where people would talk to me personally. Suddenly, they started really saying what they think.

And you can see what this hypocrisy does to us. In France or in Italy, you see the effects of this hypocrisy, how populists are exploiting it for their own benefit. Theres no point in trying to ignore what people think or claiming that they shouldnt be thinking like that. The problem is not going to be solved that way.

Thats why we end up having all these big surprises when people vote. When the populist parties and the extreme right are successful, people go: Oh my God, how is this possible? Its possible because you havent listened to these people, you havent engaged in a real conversation. A conversation starts when you listen to the other person. Before explaining to him that his arguments are not valid, you need to listen to him. If you prevent him from talking, if make all these kinds of rules, telling him Shut up, that is politically incorrect, you cant say that, it wont change what he thinks. And the moment he has the freedom to express himself, he will just vote accordingly.

I dont think the film is polemic, but the conversation it has started has been very polemic. And it should be, because this is what cinema can do.

It seems many people now view art as an expression of the personal opinions or views of the artist. Has it become more challenging for you to say: This is my work, its not my opinion?

I choose to present the reality as objectively as I can. This is my position as an artist. Im not following this trend of saying my own personal view and opinion is all that matters.

I think its more important to bring forward issues, personal stories, where you have to have an opinion, where you have to take a stand. Thats what Matthias understands, by the end of the film, that he cant stay neutral, he has to take a side. You are responsible even if you try to avoid the situation. You have a personal responsibility. As a filmmaker, Im trying to signal to you as a spectator: You have this responsibility. You cant just say: I dont agree with the filmmaker, I dont have the same view. The issue is: What is your position? Do you dare to have a position and express it in public?

This kind of personal, critical judgment, is very difficult for people to develop today, because the Internet, all this fake news, this avalanche of information makes it hard to understand, hard to listen, hard to question yourself, and to think: What would I do?

Very often, people are so used to saying the correct thing, they wont even acknowledge, in public, what they really think. Its a kind of schizophrenia. This was the response that I got from so many people: This big difference between what people say publicly, and what they think, privately. I think its interesting in cinema to bring forward what people really believe, to show what they say privately when theres nobody around. Because thats the truth.

What was different for you in the making of R.M.N., then, stylistically, compared with 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days?

The way Ive told the film isnt that different. My style hasnt changed much. The principle I use for 4 Months, one shot per scene, is still the same. Here a lot of the scenes are shorter, the film isnt just composed of very long moments. But then, because I really wanted to respect this style, I also have the longest scene Ive ever shot in a film, about 17-18 minutes without a cut. What is also different is that I think Ive become a master of my own style, so what I do now is to try and make sure the style isnt visible. Im trying to make sure that the style doesnt distract you from really watching the story. Because finally, what matters is the impact of this story on you as a spectator. So Ive tried to shoot in such a smooth way every shot leads into the next so that people dont notice how the film has been made.

How did you compose that incredible, 17-minute scene, of the town hall meeting, where the two women, the factory owner, and the manager, are arguing in favor of the migrants, and the other villagers are getting more and more aggressive towards them?

In this case, it was easy for me. The long shot at the end of the film is almost a replica, a reenactment, of the real town hall meeting. Its on the Internet. It was where the scandal started. The people in this small village thought this was a private conversation but somebody filmed it and posted it on the Internet the same day. And, all of a sudden, we had access to people saying what they actually thought in private, in public. I translated it because it was in Hungarian but I didnt need to invent too much. You can just watch, and you notice and understand. It was important for me to present these peoples arguments, their point of view, directly. Theres something about a lot of the cinema of today, that I really, dislike, which is that it has a kind of politically-correct agenda. By this, I mean that filmmakers of all ages are talking about the important issues of the day, diversity say, but being sure that everything is presented in the right way, that there is a positive stance on how to tackle these issues. This goes against my idea of creativity.

Of course, these films should be done too, but for me, artistic freedom means expressing things in a personal way. So there cant be just one point of view, one political perspective. There are a million other points of view that should be brought forward by art. I come from a country where censorship was very strong. Today, its difficult to speak about censorship, but I think there is a kind of positive discrimination, positive discrimination about very ethically-important issues. This positive discrimination comes from the bodies which finance films, it comes from the personal consciences of the filmmakers themselves. Everyone begins to agree on what stories should be told and how they should be told. But this is, in my view, against what cinema should be. Cinema needs to be creative and fresh. It needs to have a diversity of points of view. We have to have to strength to bear the political incorrectness of people we disagree with, and the strength to listen to all kinds of points of view. Thats where arts true strength resides.

The scene before the town hall expresses this. The townspeople are coming out of the church. They start walking towards the town hall. By the end, they are marching in lockstep. The marching marks this transformation from being an individual with your own position and opinion, and being part of the group and conforming to whats safe to think socially in a given moment. Thats why the characters of the two women are so important. They represent this need of talking about your own point of view, even if it is against everybody else.

IFC Films is releasing R.M.N. in the U.S. in select theaters on April 28.

See more here:
R.M.N. Director Cristian Mungiu on Xenophobia and the Dangers of Politically Correct Filmmaking - Hollywood Reporter

Raphael Samuel, who was a professor at Ruskin College, pictured at Oxford in 1993 [Alison Light and the Raphael Samuel Estate]

THERE was always excitement in the air as May Day approached and the scale of those who were planning to join in the annual workers festivities was such that marches from the four compass points in London were arranged, with people meeting in their hundreds of thousands in Hyde Park.

The May Day rallies of the early and mid-20th century were a huge show of force for working people, a day for hope and for solidarity.

For historian Raphael Samuel it was a key date both personally and in terms of the history of a global workers movement.

A professor at Ruskin College, Oxford, and the University of East London, through his long career Samuel played a key role in re-evaluating the study of history and promoting a more holistic, people-led approach.

Samuel was born in the East End in 1934 and would later move to Camden, living for periods in St Pancras, Belsize Park and Hampstead before settling in Spitalfields.

Along with the likes of Eric Hobsbawm and Stuart Hall, he helped spearhead interest in working class history, urban and rural labourers, and the successes and failures of progressive politics.

He promoted a new kind of popular history, commonplace today a democratic approach that considered the roles people played in shaping Britain, not just the politicians, generals and aristocrats.

Dubbing his work with fellow socialist historians, the History Workshop charted the effects of the Industrial Revolution on the people whose sweat and toil it was built on, while rooting his narratives in an understanding of what came before.

As a young activist, he recalled knocking on doors to discuss politics with possible supporters he recalled in a essay printed posthumously in the collection The Lost World of British Communism how it meant going down to the slums a descent in my case from the airy heights of Parliament Hill Fields to the basements of Kentish Town.

His mother, Minna Nirenstein, was a well-known activist and politics seeped through his family. My grandmother, a religious woman, was tolerant of this family communism and the passover which we held out of respect for her would begin with Hebrew prayers and end with Soviet songs, he would recall.

After a lifetime of research and political thought, in the 1980s he was interviewed for the BBC World Service programme, Postmark Africa, by reporter Shen Liknaitzky.

He was asked about the background to May Day, as well as his own memories of the importance the date meant for working-class people in the early and mid-20th century.

Its origin was a meeting of international socialists in July 1889, made up of people from the US, France, Britain, Canada, Germany, Austria, Australia and Belgium on the occasion of the anniversary of the French Revolution, he responded.

They came together and decided May 1890 would be observed as an international demonstration in favour of the eight-hour day.The importance of the meeting, held in Paris, has reverberated down the decades, as Samuel explained.

It was the birth of the modern socialist movement and would become the Second International that linked socialists in all countries, he added.

And the May Day of 1890 left a huge impact on the rapidly politicised urban working class.

But it also drew in Europes landworkers, too, the descendants of peasants and tied labourers.

Because of the astonishing response of workers, farming people and peasants in Europe to that May Day and remember, May Day had simply been one demonstration it then became this annual festival. It was a discovery by the working class movement of different countries own collective resistance.

Its impact across nations was keenly felt.

In Vienna, 300,000 came out and from there a working class movement arose, he said. It saw small farmers in Finland link with meat packers in Chicago.

So why was May Day chosen to become a symbol of international workers? In the months running up to 1890, the American Federation of Labour had called on May Day to be used to campaign for shorter working hours.

The socialists calendar had other key dates March 18 marked the outbreak of the Paris Commune of 1871, while July 14 was celebrated annually as the start of the French Revolution.

But May Day had resonance and the idea stuck. Samuels theory as to why links to both a socialism that looked back to the pre-industrial age and the festivals that welcomed spring.

It was almost arrived at by accident, he said.

Firstly, it was a non-Christian holiday. There was a strong element of anti-clericalism, particularly in European working class movements.

In the UK, early socialists often had roots in non-conformist faiths such as Quakers and Methodists. Choosing a non-Christian holiday spoke to them. It was not a holiday, so in some ways it had a feel of an international strike. It was seen as our day.

As a child, growing up in a socialist household, May Day was a landmark event for Samuel.

When I came to London aged 10, having refused to go back to boarding school, I found myself in a completely communist environment. he wrote.

Our little corner of St Pancras seemed full of communist homes, and my aunts house was a hub of local activity with an unending stream of visitors. Our branch was a strong one and remained more or less intact through the years of the Cold War. In 1954, when we joined up with Kentish Town and took some part in the tenants movement, it began to expand.

Raphael Samuels book The Lost World of British Communism

His first May Day march was in 1942.

There were four large columns from different parts of London, he said.

If you understand what it meant in England, you have to go back to a long vanished English collective culture and the idea of a one-day holiday.

It was a party of people, a one-day festival, and the festival aspect is very important.

And perhaps surprisingly, considering how deeply ingrained the idea of May Day and the workers movement was, it only became an official holiday in recent times.

It only became an official holiday in 1977 when it had lost any collective meaning at all, he added.

And May Day also offered a chance to imagine a world made for workers not bosses.

It could be a declaration of opposition to an industrial society, added Samuels.

The early May Day banners saw people turning their backs on the factories and marching off into the countryside. They had bucolic and rustic images of escaping the city, no longer being factory workers. It was very Utopian.

FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK. CLICK BANNER.

Go here to read the rest:
May Day: A day of hope and solidarity - Camden New Journal

On Monday last week, the Spanish authorities were confronted with one of mankinds eternal dilemmas: resolving to choose revenge over redemption and hate over hope. To mark his 120th anniversary, the left-wing coalition led by PM Pedro Snchez had legislated earlier last summer to disinter the bodily remains of Jos Antonio Primo de Rivera, the icon behind the far-right Falange party and a mainstay of the countrys turmoil leading up to the 1936-1939 Civil War. The exhumation fits into a larger law that claims to restore democratic memory, which built on an earlier and similarly aimed historical memory law passed by Snchezs socialist predecessor in 2007. Both laws amount to an Orwellian rewriting of History, one that overturns the pact of forgetting that underpinned Spains democratic transition upon the death of the wars victor, strongman Francisco Franco, in 1975. In its stead, on the pretext of honouring the memory of Francos victims (many of whose families are being compensated for recovering their bodies from unmarked mass graves), these two laws propound a slanted account of the war and the ensuing 40-year dictatorship as a Manichean contest of good (the republicans) versus evil (Francos nationalists).

De Riveras flirtations with fascism followed the cadence of a seesaw

Yet the logic of repairing past wounds seems, in Primo de Riveras case, to be working in reverse, with his desecration a redux of his execution after living through the wars initial months from prison. Up until Monday, his corpse lay in the Valley of the Fallen, a complex encompassing a memorial and a basilica near El Escorial, in Madrids northwest. Franco had intended the complex as a national act of atonement and reconciliation following the war, but Snchezs law has renamed it Valley of Cuelgamuros, exhuming Franco and evicting the basilicas Benedictine monks. Though their relations were strained and Francos so-called National Movement was distinct from Primo de Riveras brand of fascism it is hard not to see the latter as having laid the ideological groundwork for the strongmans 40-year rule. The two men were more in competition than in tandem, with Primo de Rivera angling to position Falange in the epicentre of any potential rebellion against the Republic which Franco would come to lead and corresponding with other chieftains. Until it made his death public in 1937, the regime referred to him as the absent (el ausente), moving his remains to El Escorial at the wars end and to the Valley of the Fallen in 1959.

His desecrators are right that Primo de Riveras deeds leading up to the war do merit greater scrutiny. He was in his 20s under the rule of his father, the right-wing strongman Miguel Primo de Rivera, becoming later convinced that his 1920s regime had failed for lack of a clear ideological foundation, something he single-mindedly put his mind to fashioning. In October 1933, along with two acolytes, he founded Falange as a four-legged ideological stool seeking at once (1) a Spain united by its universal destiny transcending class war and nationalism, (2) the idea of a new man carrying eternal values, (3) social justice availing everyone a dignified and humane life and (4) a sense of Spains Catholic roots. Profound as though they may seem on paper, De Riveras flirtations with fascism followed the cadence of a seesaw. In 1935, he was known to be paid a salary by Mussolinis fascist Italy to produce various reports on Spains political situation. His single visit with Hitler, however, had no import in his life. Starting in 1934, he gradually began to forswear fascism, claiming Falange would counter Spains decadent parliamentary democracy which he saw as beholden to communists by pursuing its own brand of right-wing illiberalism.

Equally illuminating in its ambivalence was Primo de Riveras approach to violence. Known to be hot-tempered, he indulged in rage when his fathers accomplishments were questioned and regularly quarrelled with magistrates and prison guards each time he was imprisoned. He once wrote that war is absolutely necessary and inevitable and cryptically extolled the dialectics of fist and gun. In March 1936, having lost his seat in that years February race which the left-wing Popular Front won and therefore his parliamentary immunity, he was detained for illegal possession of firearms and violent activities, leading Falange to be banned and 2000 of its adherents detained. The violent incidents featuring the party nonetheless continued in quick succession up until the wars eruption in July, with Primo de Rivera seeking to position the party as a driving force of the looming insurrection. On March 14th, he authored a sombre manifesto from prison, claiming that communism runs our streets. On 4 May, he sent a letter to the armys top brass many of whom he had been regularly corresponding with calling for an insurrection. The day before Franco rose up in arms, on 17 July, he expressed Falanges unreserved adherence to the rebellion.

Primo de Rivera stands as a testament that a different Spain is possible

Yet, in a stark depiction of his epoch, Primo de Rivera falls on the peaceable side of his contemporaries. Stanley Payne writes of him that he was, amongst the Falange leaders, the one who most shied away from employing violence and murder in a systematic way. In the months leading up to his execution by firing squad in November, he markedly softened his views, not least on whether violence against the institutions of the Republic was warranted morally. In April, made aware of the plans to kill socialist doyen Francisco Largo Caballero, who had served as his fathers minister, Primo de Rivera disowned the plot. During those early months of the war, he became the object of various prisoner swap plots, all admittedly with the aim of breaking free from prison to broker an armistice that would put an end to the hostilities, ushering in a reconciliation government. He wrote that Spain is undoing itself and that the absolute triumph of one side can bring back the Carlist wars, the series of civil conflicts that rocked Spain throughout the 19th century. Even Paynes nemesis, left-wing hispanist Paul Preston writes, Primo de Riveras apparent transformation fed the idea that he could have incarnated the great, lost opportunity for reconciliation.

He would soon be sentenced with conspiracy and rebellion, all but assuring him an afterlife as a martyr for his many acolytes. Payne writes that he became the object of the most extraordinary martyrs cult in all of Europe. Zira Box writes that for the falangistas, he would be exalted as a prophet, and even hailed for emulating Christ himself, spilling his young blood for Spains redemption. His last few words before death on 20 November ring ominously for eternity: May mine be the last Spanish blood spilled in civil discord. He went on: May all the peoples of Spain feel harmonized in an irrevocable unity of destiny. In the age of memes, these are often cited in contrast to a quote by Dolores Ibrruri, one of the Communist partys icons, who said in a meeting in Valencia in 1938: Rather than letting a single fascist free, we ought to rather convict 100 innocents. Although celebrating Primo de Rivera can cue support for a deathly ideology, it can also be construed as the opposite spirit to Ibrruris avengement. For all his youthful ideological fervour, he stands as a testament that a different Spain is possible, one reaching for concord amidst dissent. His arm lies outstretched to any who dare shake it. Snchezs government chose not to shake it. It chose to hate.

Go here to see the original:
Choosing hate | Jorge Gonzlez-Gallarza - The Critic

Review of Architects of Terror: Paranoia, Conspiracy and Anti-Semitism in Francos Spain by Paul Preston (William Collins, 2023)

Every so often Ill look up what certain twentieth-century intellectuals said of Francisco Franco. Im always struck by how many of them were fooled by him: they swooned, like innocent debutantes, when the blue-shirted Falange marched past. To my mind, this Franco test is for the political right what the Stalinist show trials were for the Left it is hard to really admire those who failed it. Can you guess who said the following?

I saw that Franco had made a heroic and colossal attempt to save his country from disintegration. With this understanding there also came amazement: there had been destruction all around, but with firm tactics, Franco had managed to have Spain sidestep the Second World War without involving itself, and for twenty, thirty, thirty-five years, had kept Spain Christian against all historys laws of decline! But then in the thirty-seventh year of his rule he died, dying to a chorus of nasty jeers from the European socialists, radicals, and liberals.

Those were the words of the famed Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. It is often said that Solzhenitsyn had personal reasons to loathe the NKVD, his countrys secret service, and any government, like the Second Spanish Republics, that looked to it for support. But Solzhenitsyn who never hesitated to praise the KGBs Vladimir Putin was by no means the only darling of the Right to fail the Franco test.

Evelyn Waugh came out firmly in favor of the nationalist side: had he been Spanish, he said, hed be fighting for General Franco. Taking a retrospective view, William F. Buckley said that Franco had stayed on too long, but he celebrated his skill in keeping Spain outside World War II. Buckley called him an authentic national hero who had saved the Spanish soul from a grotesque regime of visionaries, ideologues, Marxists, and nihilists. Such statements can still be heard on the religious right, though now usually muttered rather than exclaimed.

For this reason, Paul Preston, Britains leading expert on Francoist Spain, has often remarked that his critique of Franco must proceed from first principles. He cant simply take for granted that Franco was bad; he must establish even the most basic premises. His new book, Architects of Terror, examines the so-called Jewish-Masonic-Bolshevik conspiracy from which Francos inner circle believed they had to save Spain. The White Terror was greater in scope than the Red Terror roughly fifty thousand people were killed by the Republican side, while a hundred fifty thousand, if not more, were killed by the nationalists. But Preston shows that Francos terror was also characterized by an especially vicious, paranoid style. Its victims were pathologized, as though they were cancerous cells on the body politic. Defending Catholic Spain thus meant, in theory, rooting out the conspirators, while in practice, it meant piles of innocent corpses.

Architects of Terror contains six biographical chapters on the theorists who disseminated the notion of a conspiracy and the generals who implemented the massacres it justified. The rogues gallery consists of the following people: General Emilio Mola, General Gonzalo Queipo de Llano, the police officer Mauricio Carlavilla, the poet Jos Mara Pemn, the press liaison Gonzalo de Aguilera, and Father Juan Tusquets. Preston also provides two framing chapters: the introductory chapter outlines Francos own belief in the contubernio; the closing chapter shows how key members of the Franco regime continued to propagate it well into the 1970s.

The rebellion was fought in the interests of traditional elites whose privileges were threatened by social reform, but the belief in a Jewish-Masonic-Bolshevik conspiracy gave the rebels ideological coherence. They believed their privileges were threatened, not merely by the Republic itself, but by freemasons and Jews. The business mogul Juan March published the reactionary newspaper Informaciones.

Preston cites a typical editorial it ran during the February 1936 election. German Jewish emigres, it stated, have made Spain the international centre for boycotting Hitlers Germany which is saving Europe from the Asiatic red hordes. Edited by a member of Accin Espaola, it reached fifty thousand households every day. In a crucial moment, March stepped in to guarantee the financial future of the coup organizers in the event that they failed. He gave General Mola, one of the key plotters, enough money to send his family to Biarritz; Mola is supposed to have said, For the Fatherland, Im ready to risk my life but not my bread and butter.

Mola, on whom Preston bestows the epithet the Killer in the North, had served in Morocco, where he honed his talents for cruelty. When he became leader of the Nationalist forces in northern Spain, he wiped out suspected Republican sympathizers with the same glee he had exterminated Rif tribesmen. Like Franco, he believed in the veracity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, read Father Tusquetss polemics, and subscribed to the Bulletin of Geneva, published by the Entente Internationale contre la Troisime Internationale. He became convinced that the Spanish Communist Party was an instrument of nefarious Jewish influence. During the Civil War, he gave his troops carte blanche to wage terror. Even as the Francoists were claiming nothing had happened in Guernica, Mola took to the radio promising to annihilate Bilbao next.

Preston calls General Queipo de Llano the Psychopath in the South. Queipo de Llano betrayed the Republic, conquered Seville for the rebels, and mounted a campaign of extermination that killed over forty thousand people in Western Andalusia and Extremadura. He became known for his insane violent fantasies, which he broadcast in radio transmissions from Seville to the rest of Spain. These broadcasts were extremely lurid and often included sexual language of such impropriety that they had to be censored.

General Queipo de Llano describes scenes of rape with a coarse relish that is an indirect incitement to a repetition of such cases, wrote Arthur Koestler, who had met him. Officially, instead of saying that people were repressed or killed, the Francoists used euphemisms such as justice was done or the law was applied. Queipo de Llano, in spite of his aides sedulous efforts, couldnt stay on script. Instead his extemporaneous broadcasts routinely collapsed into semicoherent pornographic celebrations of violence. His rants often seemed buffoonish, as if he were in a state of constant intoxication. The historian Gerald Brenan recalled one particular broadcast:

Then [Queipo de Llano] would turn to his staff and say, I cant read this. Is it five hundred or five thousand Reds we have killed? Five hundred, mi general. Well, never mind. Never mind if this time its only five hundred. For we are going to kill five thousand, no five hundred thousand. Five hundred thousand just to begin with, and then well see.

Such statements, Brenan wrote, seemed comical at first but were horrifying when we realised the mass executions that were going on all round him.

Prestons most vivid portrait is of Gonzalo de Aguilera y Munro, the Conde de Alba de Yeltes. Though Aguilera didnt participate in the killings or propagate the contubernio idea, as one of General Molas press liaisons, he justified the repression to foreign correspondents. Educated at Stonyhurst College in Lancashire, he spoke several languages; his plummy English in particular endeared him to visiting journalists, who would call him Captain Aggie. He was a retired cavalry officer, enjoyed a polo game, and hed speed between front lines in his Mercedes, looking for beautiful women to pick up, while telling whichever correspondent that happened to ride shotgun that the reds were natural-born slaves fit only to toil and perish.

He told one reporter that shoe shiners ought to be executed. My dear fellow, he said, it only stands to reason! A chap who squats down on his knees to clean your boots at a caf or in the street is bound to be a Communist, so why not shoot him right away and be done with it? No need for a trial the guilt is self-evident in his profession.

One of the chief promoters of the contubernio theory was Mauricio Carlavilla. During the regime of Miguel Primo de Rivera, he worked for the secret police, infiltrating subversive circles, while writing paranoid pamphlets in his free time. His meager intellect, which mightve precluded other career paths, made him a natural (if overenthusiastic) agent provocateur. It seemed as though he might be booted out of the police for personal corruption, but survived with a reprimand and benefited from Molas appointment as director general of security in 1930.

On Molas orders, he began compiling a report on the Spanish Communist Party. Giving into every fixation possible, he elaborated his findings with pure fabulism. His report seems to have entrenched Molas own paranoia, who sent it to the Entente in Geneva. Later, it became the basis for Carlavillas first book, El comunismo en Espaa, which was soon followed by a string of even more unhinged screeds one of them reportedly selling more than a hundred thousand copies.

Only knowledge of freemasonry, the slave of Judaism, provides the key to the real aims of Socialism, Carlavilla opined. Statements like that were cited in the Carlist press as though they were truisms. He seems to have become increasingly obsessed by what he perceived to be a global conspiracy of socialist homosexuals. At one point, he claimed to have proof that Manuel Azaa, leader of the opposition, was homosexual, and in 1935 he involved himself in a plot to kill him. He wrote books with titles like Sodomitas and Satanismo.

Satanism is the hinge that connects communism with homosexuality, he wrote. Freemasons were embroiled in that conspiracy too, of course, but they were, in their turn, controlled by a satanic Jewish sect based in Babylon. Despite his obvious fabrications, he became a hero to European reactionaries. The Nazis invited him to inspect their concentration camps, which he praised for penning up homosexuals, though he believed they might as well be liquidated en masse.

Father Tusquets, in Prestons estimation, was probably the most influential peddler of the Jewish-Masonic-Bolshevik theory. Born in Catalonia, he entered the priesthood, which seems to have fueled his obsession with sects. He suspected the freemasons of controlling a whole network of other, smaller groups: vegetarians, theosophists, rotarians, and nudists. Freemasonry, he believed, had been behind every calamity one could think of, including the Russian Revolution.

In that fevered state of mind he began conducting his own personal surveillance of masonic lodges. He boasted that he had intercepted letters sent to lodges in Barcelona, opening them by the use of kettle steam. He thus collected a huge index of suspected masons, which became the basis for his bestseller Orgenes de la revolucin espaola. It explained that the Spanish Second Republic had been born from the machinations of a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy.

Tusquets translated The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in 1932. His translation came replete with annotations explaining its relevance to contemporary Spain. This seems to have endeared Tusquets to Franco, who was happy to add to what must have already been a voluminous collection of contubernio literature. Tusquets befriended Franco and formed an especially close bond with Ramn Serrano Suer, Francos second-in-command.

He thus became an important figure in the regime: with Francos encouragement, he supplied the rebels with his index of freemasons and began working for the Seccin Judeo-Masnica, which operated under the Servicio de Informacin Militar. Franco believed fully in Tusquetss theories, but others, even his fellow reactionaries, found his fixation on freemasonry somewhat excessive. Praising his magnificent courage, one Carlist nonetheless remarked that he was obsessed with finding freemasons even under the serviettes.

The people featured in Prestons book had certain things in common. They unanimously believed in the truth of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, celebrated the Alhambra Decree of 1492 that expelled the Jews from Spain, and they blamed freemasonry for the loss of empire. Many of them Mola, Queipo de Llano, Carlavilla, and Aguilera had experienced the pacification of Spains overseas territories. The tactics used by the Army of Africa in exterminating Republican sympathizers were honed in colonial, take-no-prisoners warfare. Class conflict was stated in racial terms: the rural and industrial working classes were widely seen by landowners as inferior, colonial races. Aguilera, for instance, elaborated a theory that the introduction of sewers to proletarian neighborhoods had swelled the ranks of the slave stock, which he believed to be the root cause of the Civil War. The rebels thus fought an imperial campaign in the homeland.

Those who outlived Franco perhaps especially Jos Mara Pemn, Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece tried to reinvent themselves in the new era. That meant conveniently forgetting the extent of their collaboration with the Franco regime. Tusquets, Preston notes, had a curiously selective memory: he claimed that he had opposed Nazism, even though he had said that the swastika was to be respected at least when it represents the new state of our well-beloved Germany, and he kept forgetting that he had been a member of the Falange.

As ought to be expected of someone who popularized The Protocols, Tusquets had fabricated wild stories throughout his life. Preston approaches these yarns with a wry sense of humor that is typically English. He remarks, for instance, that it is unlikely in the extreme that Tusquets had a semipermanent group of bodyguards consisting of motorcycle-riding Catalan anarchists, who, inspired by his writings in the reactionary El Correo Cataln, successfully foiled masonic threats to his life.

Francoists in postwar Spain were of course not without supporters in polite society. For forty years after the return of democracy, former prisoners of the regime were still viewed as criminals. Till today, organizations dedicated to identifying the remains of those that the regime buried in unmarked mass graves face criticism from right-wing fanatics who draw equivalences between opponents of state-backed terror and its practitioners.

This rehabilitation of the Right is not unique to Spain. Grom Italy to the Eastern Bloc, defenders of the allies of Nazism have sought to rebrand their idols as heroes prone to forgivable excesses. Prestons book a thorough dismantling of any attempt to rehabilitate the Fascist right provides useful ammunition to critics of the Rights convenient forgetting of history. The only shame is how timely it is.

See original here:
How the Mainstream Right Developed a Soft Spot for Francisco Franco - Jacobin magazine

OPINION Today, there isnt a more divisive topic in American politics than economic systems, capitalism, socialism, communism or any manner of organization, which are constantly compared. However, no school of thought has become quite so ingrained in America as capitalism. Why is this?

There are several reasons for this, but most of the causes can be traced back to around the World Wars, spanning up until the present day, with the American government taking an extremely proactive stance on stifling any socialist movements, domestic or abroad, and targeting democratically elected left-wing leaders globally.

Right after the end of the war, America was thrown into a whirlwind of propaganda through the Second Red Scare and McCarthyism. Senator Joseph McCarthy would be a catalyst, claiming, in 1950, to have a list of over 200 communist sympathizers employed by the Department of State. He would go on to utilize the House Un-American Activities Committee, formed in 1938, to target communists, intellectuals and anyone who disagreed with him.

This movement would become so powerful that the term McCarthyism now has its own definition in the American Heritage Dictionary. Defined as 1. The political practice of publicizing accusations of disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence and 2. The use of methods of investigation and accusation regarded as unfair, in order to suppress opposition.

Anti-communist sentiments would be intertwined with patriotism, along with capitalism. It was seen as un-American to support any other economic system, or any other interest than our [Americans] own. We were told to report neighbors whom we suspected of harboring communist sympathy, and death threats were sent to celebrities whom McCarthy and his acolytes labeled as Soviet sleeper agents.

America and the Soviet Union were the worlds preeminent powers, with neither keen on being weaker by any metric. This led to the creation of The North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO), and the Soviet-established Warsaw Pact, further dividing the world , even in present times.

Both nations were very interested in increasing their spheres of influence. What essentially became geopolitical tetris ensued, with American or Soviet influence being exerted over any region that was receptive. This was intended to block the others expansion and growth of influence across Africa, the Middle East, Europe, Asia and South America. The United States and the Soviet Union, or rather capitalisms interests and leftist presences, would be at odds.

We dub this era the Cold War in our education system and media, but realistically, the conflict was anything but cold. While we never engaged the Soviets in a set-piece battle, through proxy wars, military aid, enabling right wing paramilitaries and political or economic sabotage, we were constantly at odds with countless nations.

Great examples of this would be the wars in Vietnam and Korea, along with our tensions up until modern times with Cuba. All of these examples saw American service members perish, fighting for American interests against Soviet backed entities, while not outright fighting Soviet forces in name.

Those wars and our involvement in Cuba, from our embargos to the Bay of Pigs Invasion, are very well known examples. But our desire to globally suppress leftist movements throughout the Cold War era would result in countless foreign interventions across the world. Our government refuses to allow any left-wing economic movement or system that would become powerful enough to make Americans question the viability of capitalism.

There are genuinely too many instances to fit into this article. Since 1798, we have participated in 469 interventions solely considering our military, so I will choose four instances, among many, where our sole focus was stifling a growing leftist presence.

The best examples of our meddling, while considering the content in this article, include Nicaragua, Chile, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Guatemala.

In September of 1973, Chile would become Americas target. The country had been a shining example of democracy in South America since the early 20th century. Salvador Allende, a socialist, was democratically elected in 1970, becoming the first marxist to hold the office of president in a Latin-American liberal democracy.

Allende served his country for 40 years before earning his office. This platform consisted of nationalizing key industries, investing in education and improving life for the working class. He was very popular with the Chilean people, but his views on nationalization and what he represented were not popular with our government.

In 1973, the Chilean army, with guidance from the CIA, attacked the country, laying siege to Allendes office. He would barricade himself inside and broadcast one last message to the world before taking his own life, a better alternative than falling captive to the CIAs puppet military of the hour.

Backed by America, General Augusto Pinochet would establish a military dictatorship following the coup; the dictatorship stayed in place until the 1990s. Pinochets administration would disembowel dissidents so that they sank before throwing their corpses into bodies of water. He tortured and murdered thousands of Chileans before dying while under house arrest in 2006.

Nicaragua overthrew their dictatorship in 1979 and aligned themselves with the global socialist movement, also forming ties with the Soviets. The Reagan administration was trying to make deals and conduct business with Nicaragua prior, but their decision to adopt leftist policies would result in his authorization of covert operations in 1981.

Reagan was unwilling to let a socialist economy thrive and threaten the superiority of capitalism, fearing that the success of Nicaragua would inspire similar movements in Latin America and weaken the United States position amid the Cold War

The CIA would eventually train and arm the Contras, a right-wing military group within Nicaragua, giving them guidance on assisination and torture methods. The CIA even espoused psychological warfare tactics to the Contras, violating international law, and placed mines around local harbors.

Because of the United States actions, over 50,000 Nicaraguans perished, and a fledgling democracy was thrown into a state of extreme turmoil. Additionally, Americans were affected by Reagans actions due to the Contra penchant for peddling cocaine.

The Contras were found to be supplying infrastructure and protection for cocaine sales that helped fund their radical war; this cocaine would make its way into America. CIA funding and training was used by the paramilitary group and dealers to open drug routes into Los Angeles.

Dealers like Ricky Ross made millions, turning Los Angeles into the crack capital of the world. This would then be followed by Reagans War on Drugs, which ravaged Los Angeles and minority communities nationally. Many Americans are still feeling the aftershocks of his administrations crime legislation.

American involvement in the Congo began in 1960 with our governments support of the removal of Patrice Lumumba. This is a unique case, as Lumumba did not consider himself a leftist. He started off as a democratic-socialist, but upon seeing that this would cause division among the people, he shifted his platform to one that was more focused on the nationalization of the Congos industries. This, however, would not stop his being labeled a communist and likened to Castro inside our defense agencies.

This being said, Lumumba was, without a shadow of a doubt, anti-capitalist and anti-Western. His party was part of the African Nationalist movement, and would be considered Pan-African. The basis of these ideologies is the shaking off of the colonial-rooted capitalistic exploitation of Africa by the Western hemisphere as a whole, from America to France to Germany, and, in the Congos case, Belgian occupation.

Lumumba would become the first democratically elected president of the Congo, unifying a nation historically fractured along cultural and religious lines. In 1960, the CIA participated in an assassination plot targeting Lumumba. The Congo is considered one of the most biodiverse and natural resource laden countries, making the nationalization of their industries and dis-inclusion of western powers in their resource pools unbearable for our government.

Jacabo Arbenz was the second democratically elected president of Guatemala, following the countrys 1944 revolution against an oppressive regime. He succeeded President Arevalo, who advocated for workers rights, furthering the previous leaders efforts around helping the working class. This resulted in the redistribution of land to around 500,000 Guatemalans, including Arbenz, who owned some of the land himself.

The United Fruit Company (UFC) owned over 40% of land in the country and controlled the only port with access to the Atlantic Ocean. The UFC had profits roughly twice the entire countrys revenue, but due to their own dishonest property evaluations to evade taxes, the UFC received compensation for their land that damaged the company. At this time, our CIA Director and Secretary of State were brothers, and had ties to the law firm that represented the UFC, even serving on the law firms board of directors.

The CIA began falsely reporting a communist movement due to land redistribution, despite the fact that Guatemala was still capitalist, because Arbenz was aligning himself with some communist countries. This prompted Presidents Truman followed by Eisenhower to authorize Operations PB Fortune and PB Success, which would arm, fund and enable former Guatemalan General Castillo Armas, who was living in exile in Guatemala.

The CIA endorsed psychological warfare, and American fighter planes, flown by mercenary pilots, bombed the country. Towns became warzones, and Arbenz armed the people, creating a coalition of military-age citizens, workers militias and the Guatemalan Army. The Guatemalan Army would eventually become fearful of fighting due to the American presence and support of their enemies, fearing a United States invasion or more extreme support for Armas.

Arbenz would eventually be overthrown by his own officials and Colonel Carlos Diaz. The CIA began to destroy and collect any records of the PB operations, saying the records were unavailable when prompted to turn them over by Congress. These efforts would result in the final plan, PBHistory, in which the CIA attempted to prove the presence of the Soviet Union in the country to justify intervention, but the operation failed to prove any Soviet involvement.

The Cold War was not a conflict between democracy and communism, but a war between leftism and anti-leftist sentiments emanating largely from America. We know this due to our overthrow of countless democratically elected, popularly supported leaders. This is done on the whim of the executive branch in any administration, of any political party and for reasons so trivial as a monopolistic fruit company.

The United States war against socialism and leftism is not solely beyond U.S. borders, as American leftists have long been a target of the FBI. The best example would be the governmental destruction of black and other minority liberation or power movements throughout the mid-20th century.

Fred Hampton was a revolutionary leader and community organizer by his 21st birthday. As chairman of the Illinois Black Panther Party, Hampton, on April 4, 1969, founded the first Rainbow Coalition.

This coalition consisted of Hamptons own Black Panthers, Young Lords, a Latino gang turned political movement led by Jose Jimenez, and the Young Patriots, a group of working-class Southern whites. These groups abandoned fighting each other to fight the system, taking on police brutality and substandard housing. They were also leftist in their political affiliation.

Hampton accomplished this in Chicago, which was one of the most racially divided cities in America at the time. Through his passionate speeches, charisma and ability to relate to all people, Fred Hampton was quickly becoming a revolutionary. What he did was considered impossible and would draw the attention of the FBI.

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover began COINTELPRO, a counterintelligence program targeting political groups of the 1960s that were critical of the American government by being too left or militaristic, targeted groups included the Socialist Workers Party, the Nation of Islam, the entire New Left and the Black Panthers. The entire program severely violated the First Amendment rights of many Americans solely for having different beliefs.

The program used informants and infiltrators inside organizations like the Panthers to spread disinformation. Agents would harass leaders and members, and sometimes violence was used on citizens when all else failed. Perjury, excluding evidence and other litigatory infractions were common methods used after trials began.

Chairman Hampton fought through every obstacle the FBI could throw at him, leaving our government no choice but to use the sword rather than the pen or informants. Hoover, his program, the Cook County State Attorney and Cook County Law Enforcement would execute a raid at 4:30 a.m. on December 4, 1969.

The officers shot more than 90 rounds at a sleeping Fred Hampton, his 8-month pregnant fiance and other leaders of the Panthers. Two were murdered, including Hampton, and two more shot.

At the time, the Black Panthers were regarded by our government as a top threat to national security. Hampton himself was viewed as another Messiah, a powerful activist who was primed for national attention. The Panthers and other targeted organizations found themselves in the governments crosshairs due largely to their beliefs in socialism or communism, which was twisted into their being made out as essentially terrorists, groups trying to tear at the fabric of our society in the eyes of some.

After the Cold War came to a close, our global involvement in targeting left-leaning presences through military action decreased, but domestically, we are now experiencing somewhat of a third Red Scare.

This third scare is different because it is based on trends inside America, specifically the growing threat that younger generations pose to Republican agendas, as young Americans are increasingly critical of capitalism and will be the biggest voting block within 10 years.

Conservative media constantly discusses how newer generations are moving further left. Young Americans are for policies like legal abortion, marijuana legalization, criminal justice reform, legalized gay marriage, issues that Republicans are dead set against.

Republicans seem to believe that the politics of a 50-year-old evangelical from the 60s are appealing and applicable to an 18-year-old in 2023. Rather than shifting the partys platforms to stay relevant today, everything has to be labeled woke, from news media to the education system, and demonized.

This new Red Scare is especially evident in several states under Republican control. Florida governor Ron DeSantis has made it his mission to target anything that is woke, including drag shows, books, college and high school discussions, material taught by teachers and the beliefs of students themselves.

DeSantis has passed reforms starting in 2021 that prohibit the teaching of racist principles and practices the country was founded on, as this is not our true history in his eyes. Governor DeSantis has taken steps to ban books that teach about socialism or communism, or that have LGBTQ characters, instead creating Portraits of Patriotism libraries where students can learn the evils of communism and adopt a whitewashed nationalistic ideology with America as the unquestioned greatest country.

DeSantis, this year, is working to enact CS/HB 999, a piece of legislation that would remove any diversity, equity or inclusion programs at state colleges, which is worrisome as many clubs and organizations use critical race theory, intersectionality and what the legislation refers to as radical feminist theory, all of which would all be targeted by this legislation

Floridas Republican lawmakers say that colleges and our institutions should not tell us what to think, then force our education system to teach us skewed or downright untrue history, while simultaneously making it harder and harder for any view they dont agree with to survive.

This Republican attack on higher education is common across the whole country, with millions of Americans believing that colleges are liberal indoctrination centers, turning students into anarchists with radical socialist views that are destroying the very foundations of the country.

It could never be that getting exposed to diversity of thought, new concepts and people from all walks of life has effects on students politically.

Just like the previous Red Scares, immigrants are demonized, viewed as a way for Democrats to gain more votes or said to be stealing American jobs while simultaneously being drug dealers, despite nearly all of us having been immigrants at some point.

All of this is acceptable until political points can be scored, though, as DeSantis in particular has a penchant for trotting out refugees from countries like Cuba and Venezuela to prove the evils of leftist thought, alll while simultaneously ignoring how involved we ourselves have been in the destabilization and destruction of these countries for almost 100 years.

Measures that nearly every American would benefit from, like universal healthcare, are called communism. This is despite our being the only developed nation without some form of universal care. We would rather make a business out of life and death than support measures that would help the destitute and underserved.

We allow there to be more empty houses than homeless Americans because there is no profit in giving the blessing of shelter to those who can not make the rich richer in exchange. We continually let Americans die from starvation while our restaurants and stores pour toxic chemicals into their extra food, before throwing it in dumpsters at the end of the day. We have deserts filled with un-worn clothing while people in our own towns dont have a winter coat or socks.

Almost any initiative that would move to help those who have been trampled by our system without any return is socialism and un-American. Our politicians and media have weaponized the terms socialism and communism to the point where many dont even know what they are, essentially believing that the government taking any action for the common good is moving us closer to becoming the Soviet Union.

If our government is willing to kill Americans, topple democratically elected governments and support war crimes as long as the perpetrators are capitalists, and as long as leftism or leftists suffer in nearly every instance, they are hiding something from us. The United States has been involved in an all out war against socialism for around 100 years at this point.

If socialism and more leftist economic policies were doomed by their own nature, as we are constantly told, why has the United States made sure that non-capitalist countries suffer? Why are leftist beliefs stigmatized to the point that the common American cant have faith in them without being vilified and labeled unpatriotic?

Read the rest here:
The Voyager | The War On Socialism - The Voyager