Politics & Stuff

[robsblubot 3,476]

1 minute ago, Fernando said:

Of course he lost the election. That is the part that I say he is crazy at times. 

But this time many people are not sure who to vote for. 

If Kamala wins not the end of the world, if Trump not the end of the world. 

If that were the only case, I'd be happy to just put it down to "crazy" and move on.

It is very much a strategy though Deny, Deflect, Delay, and Don’t Put Anything in Writing 
He and his family met with Brazil Bolsonaro, and after that Bolsonaro started using the very same strategy, even similar terminology.

His "find me votes" call was unlawful... there is no "crazy" in that. That's what mobsters do.
His actions before and during the Attack on the Capitol were unlawful. The only reason he's not yet in jail is because he was the president at the time, and his lawyers were right about what this Supreme Court would do.

[Fernando 6,428]

26 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

If that were the only case, I'd be happy to just put it down to "crazy" and move on.

It is very much a strategy though Deny, Deflect, Delay, and Don’t Put Anything in Writing 
He and his family met with Brazil Bolsonaro, and after that Bolsonaro started using the very same strategy, even similar terminology.

His "find me votes" call was unlawful... there is no "crazy" in that. That's what mobsters do.
His actions before and during the Attack on the Capitol were unlawful. The only reason he's not yet in jail is because he was the president at the time, and his lawyers were right about what this Supreme Court would do.

Well that is wrong with the us rules because in other countries where a president does something lawful they get persecuted and what not. 

In Ecuador, Argentina some previous president are being persecuted for doing unlawful acts. 

 

[robsblubot 3,476]

13 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Well that is wrong with the us rules because in other countries where a president does something lawful they get persecuted and what not. 

In Ecuador, Argentina some previous president are being persecuted for doing unlawful acts. 

 

Yup. It gets complicated when we are talking about "one of the three powers" which is what a president should be. Presidents here enjoy even more power given that they control the secret service, FBI, and the military... and assign judges to the Supreme Court which then decide their fate later eh.
Supreme Court in the US is another controversial thing, with their life terms and zero accountability.
 

[Vesper 28,494]

5 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Yeah apologies if this comes off as ignorant, but I don't understand this "Loss of basic human rights" argument when it comes to leaving the abortion laws to the states. These are state representatives making these decisions who are voted into power by the states citizens. AKA democracy.

Following that 'states' rights logic' (which is what the US Civil War was fought over), Alabama or Mississippi could bring back race based chattel slavery and if the RW SCOTUS insanely said that it was ok (which it clearly is not, due to the 13th Amendment, but one of the HUGE Constitutional flaws in the US system is that the Supreme Court can rule anyway it wants and there is NO appeal mechanism, nothing can be done other than SCOTUS being ignored, which is fraught with danger in and of itself) it would go forward.

Same if those states made it illegal for blacks to vote (thus going against the 15th Amendment).

By leaving abortion up to the states, they are denying women in those states the right to due process and equal protection under the law. States that ban it not only take a away a fundamental human right (of body autonomy) but also place millions in potential danger medically, up to and including possible death if (and this has already happened) doctors refuse to treat medical emergencies that come out of preganacies gone awry (refuse out of fear of being imprisoned or even possibly executed).

Edited Thursday at 21:51 by Vesper

[Vesper 28,494]

In EVERY state (including hardcore RW conservative Republican dominated ones like OK and OH, etc etc) where 'make the right to abortion enshrined in the law at a State constitutional level' amendments have been on the ballot via referendums (post Dobbs), they have PASSED.

Edited Thursday at 21:57 by Vesper

[Vesper 28,494]

Trump seriously babbling nonsense and rambling again:

[Vesper 28,494]

https://prospect.org/politics/2024-10-10-political-violence-spilling-out-of-red-states/

In December 2020, Rusty Bowers’s modest suburban home in the Phoenix suburbs became the site of virulent MAGA protests. Bowers, the Republican Speaker of Arizona’s House of Representatives, had come under intense pressure from Donald Trump and his lieutenants to call a special session of the Arizona legislature to investigate supposed fraud in the election that Trump had just lost. When Bowers refused Trump’s entreaties, his legislative colleagues went after him on Twitter.

Before long, his home address had been posted across right-wing social media networks. “Trump trains” of pickup trucks, waving MAGA flags and blaring their horns, descended on Bowers’s home, where his 42-year-old daughter, Kacey, was convalescing in the final stages of a battle with liver failure. An armed gunman confronted one of Bowers’s neighbors. A video billboard baselessly and scurrilously accusing him of being a pedophile was parked outside his home. Bowers went on to receive the nation’s second-highest civilian award for his defense of democracy, before losing his next primary race to a challenger who claimed the devil stole the 2020 election.

Red state–supported vigilantes are specifically aiming to intrude into blue states and impose MAGA values.

The vigilantes and their enablers in government weren’t done. In a May 2022 presentation from True the Vote, a front group for election deniers, state Sen. Kelly Townsend parroted a conspiracy theory that Democratic operatives were using Arizona’s early-voting drop boxes to deposit thousands of illegal ballots. “I have been so pleased to hear of all of you vigilantes out there that want to camp out at these drop boxes,” Townsend told her audience. “So do it. We put the word out today that if you’re going to come and be like a mule and stuff ballot boxes this time, you’re going to get caught.”

Arizona has used early voting for decades; its ballot drop boxes, located at courthouses and government centers, allow voters to exercise their constitutional rights in a secure and convenient fashion. But when early voting began, voters were shocked to find masked, heavily armed men patrolling the drop boxes. Although the vigilantes concealed their identities, reporting from ProPublica revealed that they included members of the AP3 militia, a group whose popularity surged as federal prosecutors went after other militias more centrally implicated in the January 6th insurrection.

The vigilantes’ presence cast a chill over Arizonans’ exercise of the franchise. An untold number of voters walked or drove away rather than subject themselves to being surveilled by vigilantes carrying long guns and recording equipment. After one voter tried to drop off her ballot, she was followed by a group of individuals, triggering a federal civil rights investigation.

The MAGA Movement’s Revival of State-Sponsored Vigilantism

The vigilante attacks on Arizona’s elections came as a shock. Yet public, private, and in many cases public and private voter suppression has been a regular feature of America’s elections for most of the nation’s history. Long into the 19th century, states restricted the franchise to white men whose good character was established by owning property where they voted. After the Civil War, when constitutional amendments guaranteed voting rights to Black men, states and private actors primarily in (but not limited to) the South devised an array of voter suppression schemes, both blunt and subtle, to ensure that the formal right to vote was little more than an empty promise for anyone but white Democrats.

As social media users pointed out when images of the Arizona drop box vigilantes went viral, the Ku Klux Klan used the same techniques, similarly animated by a purported need to protect the “integrity” of the vote, to manipulate elections during Reconstruction. The Klansmen’s efforts may have formally violated the law. But little in the way of punishment was forthcoming. State officials not only tolerated but often encouraged the violent enforcement of white supremacy.

State-supported vigilantism remained a central feature of American political life throughout the long decades of Jim Crow. Only after the civil rights movement gained momentum did the tide turn. But to the surprise and horror of practically everyone who understood state-supported vigilantism to be gone for good, the ignoble practice is now making a roaring comeback. Equally inspired and chastened by the chaos of January 6, 2021, MAGA strategists recalled that for private violence and intimidation to work well, it would have to be normalized, and even legalized.

Armed vigilantes in Arizona patrolled drop boxes throughout the state during the 2022 elections.

To carry out this plan, MAGA lawmakers backed by a loose network of lawyers, dark-money groups, and right-wing advocacy shops like the Alliance Defending Freedom and Russell Vought’s Center for Renewing America have repurposed Jim Crow–era strategies to advance the dual objectives of prosecuting today’s Christian nationalist culture wars and entrenching MAGA political power.

In our forthcoming book Vigilante Nation: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens Our Democracy, we term the first of these strategies dissenter vigilantism. By reconfiguring what used to be a right to opt out, lone dissenters are given the de facto right to impose their policy views on their communities.

The second strategy, courthouse vigilantism, encourages MAGA foot soldiers to surveil members of their communities and bring legal proceedings to punish deviations from MAGA orthodoxy, even if those deviations take place outside their jurisdictions. Pioneered in Texas’s infamous anti-abortion bounty hunter law, it has become a key mechanism for policing the gender of high school athletes and pushing LGBTQ+ families out of public life.

The next strategy, street vigilantism, involves the use of violence and threats of violence to control who exercises rights and how. Through immunities from criminal prosecution, an exorbitant conception of “self-defense” that allows for the use of deadly force when heavily armed vigilantes feel “threatened,” kid-glove exercises of prosecutorial discretion, and Trumpian uses of the pardon power, MAGA politicians telegraph that violence against their political enemies is welcome and will not be punished.

Lastly, electoral vigilantism involves the use of dissenter, courthouse, and street vigilantism to take and hold political power. In locales like Shasta County, California, and Clallam County, Washington, it has propelled right-wing government takeovers, creating a vicious circle in which vigilante-backed officials further empower the foot soldiers who put them in office, all in the hope of creating a Jim Crow–style lock on political power. But this is not preordained; in Shasta County, frustration with the incompetence and maladministration of the militia-backed officials has enabled some of the community’s old-school conservatives to regain their footing. Control of county government is now closely divided between MAGA die-hards and their opponents.

Copycats, Spillovers, and Intrusions

The most immediate effects of the right’s revival of legal vigilantism have been in MAGA-dominated states such as Florida, Texas, and Tennessee. Recent reporting shows that vigilante-targeted teachers and students are being forced to conceal their identities; denial of access to reproductive care and gender-affirming care has led to arduous, expensive, and sometimes dangerous trips to secure services out of state; and lifelong Republicans have been hounded from office and public life more broadly for faithfully executing their duties. Local governments controlled by vigilantes have thrown out voting machines and wasted millions of dollars pursuing MAGA conspiracy theories, while liberal towns and cities, notably in Texas and Florida, have seen their authority to govern themselves handed over to vigilantes operating with a license from the state.

As political scientists have documented, however, state and local governments today play a particularly prominent role in national political battles, serving as laboratories for policies copied by other states and, perhaps soon, by the federal government. A glance at Project 2025 reveals how much inspiration the drafters of the de facto manifesto of a second Trump presidency have seemingly drawn from the likes of Ron DeSantis, Greg Abbott, and Glenn Youngkin.

But state-supported vigilantism isn’t simply about cementing right-wing control in MAGA jurisdictions and prototyping policy for the Heritage Foundation. Red state–supported vigilantes are specifically aiming to intrude into blue states and Washington, D.C., and impose MAGA values.

Like much of the vigilante playbook, the prototype for these incursions is the handiwork of Donald Trump. In 2020, in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump issued a Twitter call to “LIBERATE MICHIGAN,” where lawmakers were considering whether to challenge an emergency declaration issued by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer restricting public gatherings.

Trump’s tweet animated far-right extremists, some of whom understood the president to be calling for the “boogaloo,” an armed uprising that’s a fixture of anti-government conspiracy theorists. In a preview of the January 6th insurrection, caravans soon descended on Lansing to protest at the governor’s residence. Not long after, armed protesters flooded the state Capitol building. From high in their perch, they looked on as legislators attempted to conduct the state’s business. A viral photograph captured an agitator screaming in the face of masked State Police officers. One of that man’s confederates explained his presence as follows: “The message here that I had: Violence will happen and it will happen in two weeks when people literally don’t have any food … You’re gonna rub people the wrong way. There will be violence. People are dying from the side effects of all this legislative action.”

Blue states owe duties to fellow Americans denied basic rights by red-state authoritarianism.

Following Trump’s lead, MAGA organizers have mustered posses to “protect” communities from Black Lives Matter protests. The most notorious such gathering took place in Kenosha, Wisconsin, where Kyle Rittenhouse (who traveled from Illinois upon learning about the rally on social media) shot and killed two BLM protesters and injured a third. MAGA leaders have organized pro-Trump caravans in California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and Texas, where in 2020 they attempted to run a Biden campaign bus off I-35 between Austin and San Antonio. They’ve summoned mobs to combat supposed ballot-stuffing and dispute unfavorable election returns, as in Arizona. The national news media inevitably covers these incursions, and right-wing commentators applaud them. As one caravan headed to Lansing during the pandemic, Fox News host Laura Ingraham tweeted it was “time to get your freedom back.”

In today’s America, there is no such thing as purely local vigilantism. The toxic combination of social media, national news, and cross-state activist networks—all of whom take their cues from Mar-a-Lago—makes every local attack a part of a national political battle.

As if targeting women, LGBTQ+ people, and racial minorities doesn’t do enough work to silence their voices, bully them out of civic spaces, and maybe even compel them to relocate to safer (often bluer) states, right-wing partisans are intimidating voters and election officials, and destabilizing democracy in the process. In the wake of violent threats, doxing incidents, and harassment campaigns led by both townspeople and elected officials, scores of nonpartisan election administrators and supervisors have stepped down from their posts.

In a May 2024 survey by the Brennan Center at NYU School of Law, 38 percent of local election officials reported experiencing threats, harassment, or abuse. Fifty-four percent of officials said they were concerned for the safety of their colleagues and staff, and 28 percent reported being concerned about their family or loved ones being threatened or harassed. After pro-Trump mobs descended on polling sites and tabulation centers in 2020 and 2022, Arizona has taken extraordinary measures to secure them in the upcoming presidential election. In Maricopa County, uncounted ballots are kept in “cages” made of chain-link fencing, CCTV cameras record ballot-counting rooms and the exterior of the tabulation center, and a SWAT team is stationed at the main building where officials tabulate votes.

The harms from being forced to operate in this fortress-like environment are not limited to nonpartisan election officials. For decades, the sites of American democracy have been open to public view and often participation, allowing voters, volunteers, and party officials to observe where votes were counted and how they were tabulated. Now, MAGA strategists have begun to realize that those sites present soft targets for vigilante attacks. County and state officials’ understandable inclination to harden them has, lamentably, altered what once was an open, inviting process into one that, out of necessity, is more closed and policed. That, ironically, will further validate the vigilantes’ conspiratorial beliefs, as the tabulation of votes becomes a function conducted by “deep state” bureaucrats insulated from public oversight.

Interrupting Vigilantes’ Interstate Pipeline

Already, some numbers of Americans are seeking to leave vigilante-enabling jurisdictions, principally to obtain access to medical services. But the same MAGA lawyers and activists who deployed vigilantes to stamp out access to legal abortions in Texas (and surveil high schools to prevent transgender children from competing in women’s sports) are now targeting interstate travel.

Under the guise of regulating “abortion trafficking,” Texas cities have enacted local ordinances that unleash vigilantes against individuals who use public highways to secure out-of-state abortions. Taking a page from Texas, Idaho has endeavored to make it a crime to help a minor cross state lines to seek an abortion or obtain abortion medication.

Still, blue states are not powerless to stop vigilantism affecting those seeking refuge. They also have the power to combat red-state vigilantism and the violence, cruelty, and democracy-distorting effects those practices have had on the nation as a whole.

A first step is to provide greater protections for those seeking sanctuary. Individuals forced to flee states because they have been targeted on the basis of their identity, because their kids are going to schools where teachers can’t teach Black history or let students use bathrooms that match their gender identities, or because they have a bona fide need for medical care that has been outlawed in the jurisdictions they are fleeing should receive relocation assistance and housing support. The principal argument for providing such supports is moral: Blue states owe duties to fellow Americans denied basic rights by the hollowing out of federal protections and red-state authoritarianism. But like most refugees, red-state refugees are likely to be an economic boon to the places they flee to over the long term. By making themselves inhospitable to those who do not conform to the edicts of white Christian nationalism, red states are depriving themselves of a valuable source of human capital.

The Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871 granted federal protection against Ku Klux Klan attacks. They could be resurrected to prevent modern vigilantism.

The next order of business is protection against vigilantes for those within blue-state borders. The 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, offers an object lesson in what not to do. Reflecting on how right-wing militias were able to dominate the storied college town, then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe commented: “You saw the militia walking down the street, you would have thought they were an army … [They] had better equipment than our state police had.” To be sure, open-carry laws complicate efforts to counter Charlottesville-type gatherings. But even if states are precluded from disarming protesters by open-carry rules, many have little-used laws that ban private militias and empower state police to break up mobs. In moments when violence is likely to spike, blue-state attorneys general should set up specialized units to monitor and respond to organized threats to the civil rights of state residents.

Blue states also need to do more to protect the privacy of the short-term visitors who’ve come in search of health care and related medical services. Laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts prevent local courts from providing information or assistance to vigilantes using courts to go after individuals who cross state lines to secure reproductive or gender-affirming care. The coverage of such laws varies from state to state, however, and many jurisdictions have yet to adopt them. They should be enacted anywhere where MAGA lawmakers don’t control the state legislature.

Reconstruction Revisited?

Of course, blue-state pushback is simply one line of defense. Only the federal government has the authority to override state law under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and the resources and manpower to ensure that the targets of today’s vigilantism are protected. But, in part because of the MAGA stalwarts in Congress and on the federal bench, the U.S. government has been unable to lead the charge, even with a Democrat in the White House.

It is noteworthy that some of our most venerable civil rights statutes were enacted to address forms of state-backed vigilantism that closely parallel the legalized thuggery states are encouraging today. The Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871 granted federal protection to Black Southerners and their allies whom the Klan targeted in campaigns of racist terror. Section 6 of the 1870 act made it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to “intimidate any citizen with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Recognizing that state courts would nullify their federal protections, the acts expanded the federal courts’ jurisdiction to provide a fair forum in which to vindicate federally protected rights. Enforcement proceedings could be initiated not only by the Department of Justice (which Congress created in 1870 in part to better protect Reconstruction) but also by individuals whom vigilantes attacked.

To its shame, the Supreme Court has constricted the acts’ scope to a shadow of what the Reconstruction Congress originally intended. Moreover, the Court’s erasure of long-standing rights to bodily autonomy (and the vulnerability of a federally protected right to marry to future Supreme Court meddling) leaves gaps in the acts’ coverage. With no federally guaranteed rights to protect, the acts’ tools are a dead letter. Fixing those gaps should be a priority for Vice President Harris’s 100-day legislative agenda if she pulls off a win in November.

But even in their current, hobbled form, the enforcement acts can be powerful tools against vigilante violence. Following the Unite the Right rally, the Enforcement Acts served as the backbone for a civil case in which a jury levied millions of dollars of damages against the rally’s organizers. Although the jury ultimately found the defendants liable under state law, the case highlights the power of litigation brought under the acts, including in cases brought by government litigators. The defendants acknowledged during trial that a verdict would bankrupt them, significantly weakening their ability to coordinate future Charlottesvilles.

This month, a case using Section 2 of the third Enforcement Act heads to trial in Texas federal court, against the organizers of the Trump train that attempted to force a Biden campaign bus off the highway in Texas. Rejecting the defendants’ bid to avoid trial, Judge Robert Pitman wrote: “Although the methods of political intimidation may change over time and require adapting the [Enforcement] Act to new contexts, the conduct alleged here requires no such adaption; the Defendants’ alleged conduct is similar to a type of political violence that the Klan engaged in at the time of the Act’s enactment.” Judge Pitman cited a chilling 1877 case, United States v. Butler, in which conspirators captured two Black men traveling on a public road and forced them “to get down on their knees, and … swear that they would vote the Democratic ticket.”

Bringing more such cases would require the DOJ to recognize the vigilante threat emanating from red America for what it is, not to mention substantial investments of investigators and lawyers. Given the department’s plodding response to the January 6th insurrection, and Trump judges’ success in derailing Trump prosecutions, one might question whether the department has the gumption for this. But the Democratic Party is under new leadership. If Vice President Harris prevails in November, she has the opportunity to appoint new enforcement officials who can respond to MAGA vigilantism with the urgency it demands.

[cosmicway 1,303]

Trump is storming home, bet365 says:

Trump = 1.72
Harris = 2.10

See this also:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-election-odds-surge-b2627263.html

Edited Friday at 14:18 by cosmicway

[cosmicway 1,303]

I have stated my opinion about bookies.
They generally know how to start a market.
Subsequently they have people who react to various events (and if they check someone who is not good at reacting they give him the sack).
But they 're not really ahead of events.
They seem to be ahead because a) most of the punters are not good judges, b) most of the punters do not receive the daily/hourly info bookies do receive and of course plus the take off percentage from bets that they enjoy.

There is also the possibility of some odd punter or punters making a huge bet so making the market tilt, justifiably or otherwise.
But here something must have happened. What ?



 

Edited Friday at 14:30 by cosmicway

[cosmicway 1,303]

Greek crisis and betting on the drachma
-----------------------------------------------
The Greek economic crisis was some ten years ago (the peak of it to be sure).
But it was never really on that Greece was going to leave the euro and go back to the drachma.
Talking about it in certain populist - left wing cirlces yes, but it was not on and it was not on for Tsipras the Syriza pm from 2015 to 2019 either.
I was surprised to see the betting companies offering the return to the drachma as a near certainty. Price was 1.50-1.60 and they were giving a time limit as well.
That was from 2010 to to 2015 approx.
Since these bookie companies are mostly UK based I 'm sure it was the brexiters who formed this market (the later to become brexiters to be precise).
The brexiters and the Tories hate the euro so they bet out of sentimentality.
Boris Johnson hated the euro and urged Greeks to abandon it.
Lots of people bet out of sentimentality.
Could we be witnessing something similar with Trump ? I don't know but could we ?
 

Edited Friday at 15:10 by cosmicway

[Vesper 28,494]

Far-Right wins in Austria and Germany: what mainstream parties keep getting wrong

11th October 2024

Recent far-right victories in Europe reveal the dangerous effects of mainstreaming extremist views and the urgent need for a new political strategy.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/far-right-wins-in-austria-and-germany-what-mainstream-parties-keep-getting-wrong

Sömmerda, Germany, August 24, 2024. Hundreds of people attend the Summer Festival in the centre of the town and listen to Citizens’ dialogue with Björn Höcke (photo: Ryan Nash Photography/shutterstock.com)

 

The recent elections in Austria and Germany have put the far right back at the centre of the public debate. While most media emphasise the (alleged) newness of the results, such as the first time in the postwar era that a far-right party came first in Austria or a German state, the results primarily reflect some of the critical elements of the so-called “fourth phase” of the postwar far right, i.e. its mainstreaming and normalising. Given the continued “shock” in the public debate, discussing some of these critical elements in more detail while referencing the most recent elections in Austria and Germany (among others) makes sense.

1. The Far-Right is relevant

During the so-called “third phase” of the postwar far-right, i.e. in the last two decades of the 20th century, far-right parties achieved electoral breakthroughs in some European countries (e.g. Austria and France). Still, both far-right parties and positions remained largely marginalised. Immigration was mostly kept off the political agenda and far-right parties were kept out of (national) governments. This has changed radically in the “fourth phase”. Today, far-right parties are relevant in European politics!

The Italian political scientist Giovanni Sartori argued that political parties were relevant when they could affect (national) coalition formation. They could do this in two ways, directly and indirectly. Directly, parties can have “coalition potential”, meaning they are considered koalitionsfähig, i.e. are seen as potential coalition partners. This is the case for the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), for example, which already has been a member of the national government before and is currently considered an acceptable coalition partner by the conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) – albeit with the caveat, at least for now, that FPÖ-leader Herbert Kickl cannot be part of an FPÖ-ÖVP coalition. Alternatively, parties can have “blackmail potential”, meaning that they can influence coalition formation by making some preferred coalition options impossible. This is the case in much of East Germany, most notably Brandenburg, where the Social Democratic Party (SPD) might feel forced to govern with the left-conservative Alliance Sarah Wagenknecht (BSW) to circumvent the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD). 

However, far-right parties have not only become relevant for coalition formation but also influence the policies of other parties and governments they are not part of. Germany provides a great example of both. The AfD is one of the key reasons why immigration has been at the top of the German political agenda for much of the past ten years, which has moved almost all other parties to a more anti-immigration agenda and even helped create a new party, the BSW, an anti-immigrant split of The Left. The AfD’s electoral success in the East German state elections was also the real reason the German federal government tightened immigration and re-introduced border control.

2. The Far-Right Is Here to Stay

Much of the media debate about the far right suffers from violent mood swings. When a few prominent far-right parties or politicians lose shortly after each other, the far right is “dying”, while if a few win shortly after another, the far right “surges” – thereby simultaneously suggesting the far right is a uniform actor. Regardless of debates that portray the far right as a wave that ebbs and flows, Austria and Germany show that the far right is here to stay, albeit in different ways. In Austria, the FPÖ has dominated the far right since 1986, when newly elected party leader Jörg Haider pulled the party (fully) into the far right. Although the party has suffered major splits and scandals, it is still at the heart of Austrian politics. 

In Germany, the far right has been represented – albeit primarily at the state level – by various parties throughout time, from The Republicans in the 1990s through the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) in the 2000s, to the (most successful) AfD today. In most of the cases, the electoral success of these parties was “explained” by a (immigration) “crisis”, but the recent successes in East Germany show that no “crisis” is necessary. Rather, the success of the far right is a consequence of structural changes in society, most notably the development of multicultural societies, and reflects nativist and other reactionary attitudes that exist among significant portions of the population. These (nativist) attitudes feed far-right support and they are here to stay.

3. No Country Is Immune to the Far-Right

The idea that certain countries (and societies) are immune to the far right has long been popular in academic and public debates. The Dutch and Swedes liked to think they were too “tolerant” for the far right. Some English commentators argued that the English never embraced “extremism”. Some academics argued that Portugal and Spain were immune to the far right because of the recent memories of right-wing dictatorships, while others argued that the German Vergangenheitsbewältigung (dealing with history) explained why that country was immune to the far right. We know better today. The far right is not only electorally successful in all these countries, but it is or has been part of (sub-)national governments in most of them. 

Moreover, even in the few countries where the cordon sanitaire survives (somewhat), like France and Germany, far-right frames and positions are propagated by “mainstream” parties. This is most forceful in the immigration issue. Today, not just centre-right but increasingly also social democrat politicians position themselves critically towards immigration, as recent expansions of border controls in Germany in response to the AfD’s electoral successes illustrate. And while there was widespread outrage in January over a secret meeting by far-right actors in Germany where plans of “remigration”, a euphemism for deportation, were discussed, these frames and ideas have quickly found their way into the mainstream discourse.

4. Mainstreaming Does Not Work

Mainstream parties often coopt far-right frames and positions, suggesting this is necessary to “win voters back” or “defeat the far right”. A prime example of this was Sebastian Kurz’s nativist shift after his takeover of the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), after which the party increasingly resembled the far-right on immigration issues. However, academic research is very clear on this: it does not work. In fact, when immigration is the key issue of an election, and the dominant frame is a far-right one (i.e. immigration as a threat), far-right parties do well. Although this has been the case for decades, “mainstream” parties continue to delude themselves (and their voters), as was evident in the most recent elections in Sweden, The Netherlands, and Germany. Similarly, if you make the far right one of the key issues of the election, constantly giving them and their issues more attention by pointing to the looming danger they present, they win. This was likewise the case in both Austria and Germany, where mainstream parties continuously warned about the rise of the far-right but failed to present themselves as a viable alternative.

Another argument for mainstreaming the far right and governing with them is that this will moderate them. Again, there is little academic evidence for this position. Most scholarly research shows that the mainstreaming of the far right is almost exclusively the consequence of the radicalisation of the mainstream, not of the moderation of the far right. In fact, there are some indications that the far-right movement is radicalising, too, to continue to stand out. Several established far-right parties have started to speak in racial terms, as the example of Vlaams Belang in Belgium shows, or defend anti-democratic politicians like Viktor Orbán and Donald Trump. 

5. Normalization Has Changed the Normative Consensus

While “mainstreaming” is primarily an empirical process, i.e. the increased convergence of positions (notably on immigration) of far-right and “mainstream” parties, “normalisation” is a normative process, reflecting changes in what is considered “normal” or “the norm”. This is often described in terms of changing the Overton Window, simply stated, “the range of ideas the public is willing to consider and accept”. After decades of mainstream islamophobia and nativism in both media and politics, it is increasingly difficult to “shock” the people. And, even if there is outrage, the far-right has a successful script to turn itself from the villain into the victim, as linguist and discourse analyst Ruth Wodak has shown.

For a long time, there was a “law” in the study of far-right politics that held that open flirting with “extreme right” ideas would lead to electoral irrelevance. Clearly, this is no longer the case. Today, being openly extreme, including open references to the Nazi era, is no longer a hindrance to electoral success or political office, as recent cases also demonstrate. For example, in Austria, video material revealed far-right politicians’ attendance at a funeral days before the elections, where a “SS song” that glorifies the holy German Reich was sung. Two days later, the party celebrated its best election result in history. And this was just the most recent incident of FPÖ politicians openly displaying Nazi sympathies. Udo Landbauer, the former leader of the party’s youth wing, resigned in 2018 after a scandal over a Nazi-glorifying songbook, but now serves as the deputy governor of the state of Lower Austria. 

Similarly, the AfD’s unofficial leader, Björn Höcke, frequently employs Nazi phrases and has already been fined twice for doing so. Although he claims ignorance, his past as a history teacher makes it highly doubtful that he indeed was unaware of the Nazi connotations. Even with the convictions, Höcke led the AfD to its best result in any state, coming in first with the support of one in every three voters in Thuringia.

Moving Forward

Although it is probably naïve, let’s hope that the recent elections finally lead to a better understanding of contemporary politics. The far-right is relevant, and it is here to stay. Far-right parties are the biggest, or at least biggest right-wing, parties in a growing number of European countries. They are not the result of individual “crises” but rather structural societal changes and mass attitudes and are here to stay. Mainstreaming and normalising the far right does not weaken them; rather, it strengthens them.

Similarly, governing with them does not necessarily weaken them, and even when it does, far-right parties usually return to their initial strength (as happened in Austria). All the while, liberal democracy is weakened, and vulnerable populations are marginalised even more. It is, therefore, high time that mainstream parties move away from simply copying the far right and instead set their own agenda and develop their own policies. This does not mean ignoring issues like crime, corruption, or immigration, but it does mean policies that defend minority rights and strengthen liberal democracy. 

Edited Friday at 16:02 by Vesper

[Vesper 28,494]

The EU’s ‘People, Skills, Preparedness’ agenda: A risky shift in social policy

11th October 2024

The EU’s ‘People, Skills, Preparedness’ shift signals a move toward individual responsibility and crisis management in social policy.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/the-eus-people-skills-preparedness-agenda-a-risky-shift-in-social-policy

 

The new European Commission will no longer include a commissioner for employment. Instead, if confirmed, Romanian Roxana Mînzatu will be responsible for “people, skills, and preparedness.” Far from being trivial, this strange title suggests a new vision based on the individualisation and securitisation of social issues.

If it is true that words have meaning in politics, the titles of European Commissioners’ portfolios are yardsticks for the European Zeitgeist. In 2019, Ursula von der Leyen’s decision to call the migration portfolio “Protecting our European Way of Life” sparked controversy. This time, employment and social affairs have been rebranded as “people, skills, and preparedness,” combining previously distinct domains of employment and education. What does that mean?

The title sketches a political vision away from collective responsibilities towards a world of disembedded individuals required to arm themselves in the face of looming threats and multidimensional insecurity. Merging education and employment under one umbrella further subjects society to the supposed needs of a self-steering economy.

Social affairs vs. “people”

The inclusion of the term “people” is undoubtedly the most difficult to decipher because it seems so generic and somewhat naïve. It may suggest expanding the scope from workers to many other potential categories of people, such as children, students, pensioners, freelancers, or individuals in poverty. Forging new categories such as “vulnerable people” in reference to mobility poverty or energy poverty could be fruitful in the face of new challenges.

That said, the disappearance of the term “social” is telling. It further undermines the understanding that individuals are embedded in social relations (with employment being a social relation par excellence), that their constraints and opportunities are shaped by social stratification, and that the ultimate goal of policies is not only to solve problems but also to enhance the cohesion of the social fabric. Contrary to workers – embedded in the labour market – or citizens involved in public life and political cultures, “people” are detached from any institutional or systemic basis. Not only does it sound terribly vague, but it’s also absurd: do other Commissioners not work for the benefit of the “people”?

Employment vs. “skills”

For most Commission mandates, the traditional portfolio term was “employment”. Admittedly dry, employment refers to a policy area and a clear mission for decision-makers, namely the idea that the economy should “employ” workers in a way that can generate prosperity but is also morally acceptable, spelling out rights and responsibilities. In that sense, employment constitutes the nexus of the relations between capital and labour, employers and workers in a social market economy. In contrast, the dominant focus on education and skills tilts the balance towards individual responsibility: “If you want a quality job, get yourself the skills the market requires!” This underpins the shifting conception of unemployment as an individual rather than a collective problem.

Skills are, by no means, a new item on the European agenda. In the aftermath of the financial and sovereign debt crisis, skills emerged as a “crisis exit strategy”, and the first-ever conservative politician to take up the employment portfolio in the past two decades, Marianne Thyssen, already boasted skills in her portfolio title. Ever since, such discourse has become both more omnipresent and more contentious. Over the course of the past year, proclaimed by EU institutions as “the European Year of Skills”, unions insisted the problem wasn’t primarily a lack of skills but a lack of quality employment.

Policy vs. “Preparedness”

“Preparedness” is perhaps the most unexpected addition to the portfolio title. The term typically refers to societies’ ability to anticipate risks and build capacity to face unexpected events and disasters. Recently, the notion became popular in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic. Like natural disasters, epidemics should be regarded as cross-border threats deserving to be covered, for instance, by civil protection policy. But preparedness also carries an implicit reference to warfare. In US history, the preparedness movement campaigned for strengthening the army after World War I.

Against the backdrop of tectonic shifts in geopolitics, a discourse of securitisation remodels an increasing number of policy areas. This is not benign or purely rhetoric, for it contributes to transforming our understanding of social issues. These are no longer conceived as the result of the unequal distribution of resources and costs, the fruit of collective decisions taken in the past, rooted in largely endogenous historical and social dynamics, but as a question of crisis management, of the ability to respond to ‘external’ shocks that will strike us in ways that are as certain as they are unpredictable.

Crisis management and emergency politics are a political repertoire now well known to European leaders and bureaucrats. Tried and tested over the last fifteen years in the wake of the financial and sovereign debt crises, the migratory influx of 2015, Brexit, and then the pandemic, European crisis management has been a powerful driving force behind federalisation. In times of crisis, necessity justifies both welcome institutional innovations and dangerous democratic shortcuts.

But how effective, legitimate, and durable are the policies arising from crisis management? In fact, Covid-19 provides a good illustration of the contradiction in the preparedness discourse. None of the new tools deployed by the EU (e.g. short-time work schemes – SURE, or even Next Generation EU) have seriously addressed the deep problems within European healthcare systems in terms of insufficient funding, affordability, unequal territorial coverage, and labour shortages. If a new pandemic were to hit tomorrow, how many EU countries would be well “prepared”?

In a world shaped by climate change and political tensions, the EU should be working towards collective, institutionalised, and durable responses to structural transformations. This requires a deeper debate about values and an engagement with the thorny issue of redistribution and the very meaning of welfare. Fueling moral panic, shifting problems to individual responsibility, and engineering quick fixes will fall short.

Edited Friday at 16:05 by Vesper

[Vesper 28,494]

Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon take heavy toll on civilians

The airstrikes are reviving criticism of Israel over its apparent tolerance for high civilian casualties in pursuit of military goals, rights groups say.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/10/11/israel-lebanon-civilian-deaths-hezbollah-war/

SIDON, Lebanon — Zahra Assi sat in her hospital bed last week, wounded in both legs by an Israeli airstrike, struggling with pain but spared by her family, momentarily, from worse: the 7-year old had not been told that the strike had killed her mother, a brother and four other members of her family, one of her surviving brothers said.

As Israel expands a ferocious air campaign in Lebanon that it says targets Hezbollah with precision, the civilian toll is soaring — reviving critical questions about the consideration Israel gives to noncombatants when it carries out the strikes.

The bombing that injured Zahra targeted a residential building in the southern town of Ain Aldelb, where she was staying with her family and dozens of other civilians. Multiple Israeli munitions struck the building Sept. 29, causing it to collapse, survivors said.

At least 45 people were killed, making it one of the deadliest single attacks of the war, health officials said. Days before, another Israeli bombing on a building in the Bekaa Valley killed 15 people, all but one from the same extended family, relatives said.

In response to questions about the strike in Ain Aldelb, about three miles east of Sidon, the Israeli military said it had “eliminated the commander of Hezbollah’s Sidon compound along with several other operatives” after “the execution of evacuation procedures.” It did not name the commander, say how many other operatives were killed or disclose how people were warned to evacuate.

The military did not respond to questions on the Bekaa Valley attack.

As in Gaza — where Israel’s military offensive against Hamas has killed tens of thousands of people over the last year, many of them women and children — rights groups say the scale and intensity of the strikes in Lebanon mean large numbers of civilians are likely to be killed here, too.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled as much in a recorded video message that he released Tuesday, when he warned Lebanon against falling “into the abyss of a long war that will lead to destruction and suffering like we see in Gaza.”

The strikes in Gaza and now in Lebanon “raise serious concerns about the tolerance for civilian casualties,” said Richard Weir, a researcher in the Crisis, Conflict and Arms Division at Human Rights Watch, who noted that the group has previously documented in Gaza “apparent war crimes by Israeli forces, including airstrikes that have caused massive casualties.”

While Weir said the Israeli military has demonstrated it can be “extremely precise in terms of the damage caused” by its airpower — taking out single cars or individual floors of apartment buildings in targeted strikes on militant leaders — other attacks have been “extremely destructive,” he said. “In some cases, it’s difficult to identify what the target of an individual strike has been — or how they assess the military advantage against expected civilian harm.”

In the three weeks since Israel began its military escalation with attacks on pagers used by Hezbollah, more than 1,500 people have been killed, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between combatants and civilians but says at least 333 women and children were among the dead between Sept. 16 and Oct.3.

On Sept. 23 alone, the first day of stepped-up bombing, when Israel carried out more than 1,300 strikes, some 569 people were killed, Lebanese Health Minister Firass Abiad said. “The vast majority of those who fell were unarmed people who were in their homes,” he said a day later.

Filippo Grandi, the U.N. high commissioner for refugees, said during a visit to Beirut on Sunday that there had been “many instances of violations of international humanitarian law in the way the airstrikes are conducted that have destroyed or damaged civilian infrastructure” or killed civilians.

Hezbollah began attacking Israel on Oct. 8, 2023, in support of its ally Hamas, setting off a low-level conflict that displaced tens of thousands of people on both sides of the border. From the beginning of the conflict through Sept. 21, Hezbollah conducted at least 1,758 air or drone attacks against Israel, according to data compiled by the ACLED, an organization that collects data on conflicts. In the same period, Israel carried nearly 9,000 airstrikes, the group said.

Twenty-eight civilians in Israel have been killed by Hezbollah attacks, the Israeli military said Thursday.

Israel has characterized its ground invasion of southern Lebanon as “limited” and “localized” — aimed at pushing Hezbollah fighters away from the border and returning displaced Israelis to their homes in the north — but its aerial campaign is only growing.

Israeli strikes have devastated large swaths of the country’s south, thud daily into Beirut’s southern suburbs and have started to creep toward central areas in the capital and new areas in Lebanon’s north. On Monday, Israel unleashed a barrage of dozens of strikes, on towns around the southern city of Tyre.

Adding to the public anxiety are Israeli warnings to avoid Hezbollah “infrastructure” — orders seen as both untenable and dangerously vague. Supporters of the militant group, which is also the country’s most powerful political party, are spread across Lebanon. So are the facilities used in its expansive social services network, including hospitals and schools.

Evacuation orders have been issued by Israel for villages across southern Lebanon, including warnings to avoid driving cars in the region — one of the few means of escape for most people. Other recent warnings to civilians, to avoid buildings in Beirut’s southern suburbs, have been posted on social media by an Israel Defense Forces spokesman in the middle of the night.

The strikes have battered Shiite Muslim-majority towns in the increasingly depopulated south, including those where residents said people were largely supportive of Hezbollah but not involved in its operations. And neighboring Christian communities or towns with diverse populations have not been spared.

Witnesses and survivors of the strike in Ain Aldelb said all they knew for sure about the attack was that the building was filled with civilians.

Hisham al-Baba, 59, lives in Berlin and was visiting his 40-year-old sister, Donize. He was in the bathroom at the time of the strike and somehow that saved him, he said from his hospital bed at the Labib Medical Center in the city of Sidon. He was stuck under the rubble for nine hours before being rescued, he said.

Donize; her husband, Moyheldin el-Rawas, 50; and their children Ali, 16, and Nermine, 21, were killed in the strike. Nermine was engaged to be married. Moyheldin was found hugging his children, Baba said.

“We lost. A big loss,” he said. “Catastrophe.”

 

A woman holds a photograph of Nermine Rawas, 21, who was killed in an airstrike. (Lorenzo Tugnoli for The Washington Post)

Downstairs in the same hospital, Zahra’s older brother, Ali Assi, 18, said his family was among the displaced people sheltering in the same building. They had relocated from their home near the southern city of Tyre because of heavy bombing, he said, including an airstrike in front of their home. Zahra’s left thigh had what the doctors called a severe crushing wound that had exposed the bone, and lacerations on her right leg.

One of Ali’s fingers, struck by shrapnel, had to be partially amputated. He was looking after his sister in the hospital while their father, who also survived, had gone back to their village — to bury his wife and the rest of the family.

The attack also killed all nine members of a family that had just fled from the village of Aitaroun, said Osama Saad, a parliament member from Sidon. Others in the building had been displaced from similarly small communities along the border: “So they came to this building fleeing from their towns, they came to their relatives who live in this building,” Saad said.

“The Israeli army usually says they hit a place because of this and that, but this time they did not say anything,” he added, referring to the Israeli military’s public silence for more than a week about the target of the strike. “They killed all these people, but they didn’t say why they hit this place. This is a war crime.”

In the bed next to Zahra, also watching cartoons, was Ziyad Kharaiss, 10, the survivor of a different strike Sunday on his family’s home in the southern town of Khiam. His face was blistered and bruised with what the doctors called “head and ear trauma.”

Among his family, he had the sharpest recollection of what had befallen them — recalling the day and the time the strike occurred, as his mother sometimes sobbed and struggled for words. A Syrian couple and another man were killed in the strike.

The neighborhood was “civilian,” said Rabiah Kharaiss, Ziyad’s father. “We were shocked. Shocked.”

Another son, Ali, 24, was upstairs in the intensive care unit, healing from injuries including the loss of his right eye. Ali and his father were mechanics, the father said. “We are 100 percent defenseless people. We are not affiliated with anyone,” he said.

Another strike, days earlier in the Bekaa Valley, killed 15 people, including extended members of the Shuaib family. The attack sent cars flying and destroyed the building where the family lived in separate apartments, as well as a neighboring house, relatives said.

One relative said most of the adults who were killed worked as teachers, including one who worked in a private school network run by Hezbollah.

The dead included Ali Shuaib, 16, who left behind a bereft principal at his school in the nearby town of Zahleh, two grieving cousins next door and half a dozen chickens he had been raising. They wandered around the rubble after he was gone.

Ali played football and basketball, and “loved to go hiking,” said one of the cousins, a 16-year old also named Ali, as he stood with his brother looking down on the massive heap of concrete and cushions and metal and books.

“It feels unreal,” said Rakan Shuaib, another relative and retired Lebanese army soldier who lived next door. “The town here was supposed to be safe, so a lot of people are coming over to ask us for help finding them a shelter or place to stay.” The bombing blew out walls in his building too. He remained in the house, “because there is no other choice.”

The vast majority of the strikes, he contended, were on people who are “not related to the environment of Hezbollah.” The bombing he said, was “barbaric.”

Edited Friday at 16:15 by Vesper

[Vesper 28,494]

Swedish exports to US threatened by Trump's proposed tariffs

https://www.thelocal.se/20241011/today-in-sweden-a-roundup-of-the-latest-news-on-friday-151

Swedish exports to the US could fall by 16 percent if the country introduces the huge new tariffs on China and the rest of the world, which presidential candidate Donald Trump has made a key part of his election campaign.

The warning comes from National Board of Trade Sweden (Kommerskollegium), the Swedish government agency for international trade.

"The proposed tariffs risk having far-reaching consequences for global trade and create challenges for Swedish companies reliant on the US export market," said Nils Norell, co-author of the agency's analysis, with sectors such as motor vehicles and pharmaceuticals among those that could be affected. The motoring industry makes up almost a third of Swedish exports to the US.

It estimates that Chinese exports would fall by 66 percent, but that the country that would suffer the most is the US, with imports and exports expected to decline by 10 and 14 percent, respectively.

Swedish vocabulary: a tariff – en tullavgift

[Vesper 28,494]

New from GPAHE: Identitarian Leader Martin Sellner and Violent Italian Neo-Nazi Guido Taietti Scheduled to Appear at American White Supremacist Conference GPAHE is raising significant concerns regarding the scheduled appearance of Austrian Identitarian leader Martin Sellner and Italian neo-Nazi Guido Taietti at the American Renaissance (AmRen) Conference from November 15-17, 2024, in Tennessee. Both individuals, known for their violent extremist affiliations, are expected to propagate dangerous ideologies at this prominent gathering of white supremacists. Sellner will deliver a lecture promoting forced mass deportations, “remigration,” rooted in the discredited “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory, while Taietti, a convicted violent offender, will share insights on European Identitarianism. In a Press Release published this week that addresses this issue, Heidi Beirich, co-founder of GPAHE, stated, "Martin Sellner and Guido Taietti are not just fringe figures; they represent a violent ideology that has fueled hate crimes and terror attacks globally." Wendy Via, CEO and co-founder of GPAHE, echoed this sentiment, making a strong call on the Department of Homeland Security to take immediate action: "Allowing them to speak at a gathering of white supremacists only serves to legitimize their violent ideologies and could further incite division and violence within our borders." GPAHE remains vigilant in monitoring this situation and advocating against the spread of hate and extremism in the world.

New from GPAHE: “Wokebusters” Begins Operations: Far-right Hungarian-led Network includes prominent American conservatives and elected officials Hungary’s far-right government has launched "Wokebusters," an international effort backed by CPAC Hungary and U.S. conservatives with deep connections to Project 2025. This initiative represents a global effort to undermine democracy and human rights. Supported by individuals in over 20 countries, including Spain, Belgium, and the U.S., Wokebusters positions itself as a “rapid reaction force” against progressive movements, signaling a coordinated transnational threat to liberal democracy. Led by Hungary’s Center for Fundamental Rights, Wokebusters has drawn support from prominent figures like Ted Cruz, Gavin Wax, and Matt Schlapp. The coalition's network is rapidly expanding, with plans for events, workshops, and political actions across Europe, the U.S., and Latin America. This coalition poses a significant threat to human rights worldwide.

Tech Policy Press: Political Figures Must Be Held to the Same Online Standards as Others. It is Vital for Democracy and Human Rights. “It is vital that the platforms do all they can to protect democracies and elections around the world, not just this year, but for the future, especially given the precarious state of some democracies. A tremendous step toward protecting voters and democracy would be to finally fully enforce the community standards for the politically powerful” said Wendy Via and Heidi Beirich, co-founders of GPAHE. GPAHE’s take: In a critical year for global elections, GPAHE is highlighting the urgent need for social media platforms to apply the same content standards to political figures as they do to other users. Published by Tech Policy Press, the article warns of the dangers posed by unchecked hate speech and disinformation, which threaten both democracy and human rights worldwide, and are echoed by the esteemed Club de Madrid, an association of more than 100 former democratic leaders and heads of state from around the world.

[Vesper 28,494]

‘I Have Watched My People Suffer in Ways That Would Shock the World’

Dispatches from Gaza on surviving a year of genocide.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/october-7-one-year-later/

This October marks one year of bloodshed and horror in the land that stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. One year since Hamas launched its surprise attack on Israel, killing 1,200—and one year since Israel began its genocidal war on Gaza, killing more than 40,000 and destroying virtually everything that made life possible in the Strip. Throughout this time, The Nation has dedicated itself to bringing readers the words of people in Gaza, to sharing their testimonies of atrocity as well as their testaments of strength, all in the hope that they would not only inform but also ignite readers’ conscience and move people to action.

Now, as we reflect on this painful year, we return to some of the people we have met along the way—among them, an impossibly brave 14-year-old girl who has held on to her capacity for love and hope; a writer and father who survived six months in Gaza before fleeing to Egypt; and a poet, activist, and father who has persisted, day after day, despite enduring the ultimate loss. (In related posts, you can also find a dispatch from Israeli journalist Meron Rapoport who has been covering the shifts and splits in his country and a chronicle by Palestinian American lawyer and activist Noura Erakat of the day-by-day efforts to stop the genocide.)

We urge you to read their words—to listen to the pleas and yearning within them, to the fear and despair, to the rage and sorrow and, yes, love. And we urge you to share their words, far and wide, so that the world cannot fail to hear them.

—Jack Mirkinson and Lizzy Ratner
 

My Message to My Friends Around the World

I write to you from my wounded yet beautiful home, Gaza. After months and months of destruction and extermination in a war where many battles have intertwined—the war of weapons, the war of starvation, the war of disease, and the war of siege and displacement—there have been moments when I thought we were enduring this pain alone.

Where, I wondered, were the preachers for freedom, democracy, and human rights, especially the rights of children? Sometimes, disappointment crept into my soul. But after seeing people from all corners of the world demonstrating for the children of Gaza; after reading the messages from so many, young and old, for the people of Gaza; after hearing their chants calling for an end to the war and freedom for Palestine, I felt that their words were painting a new picture for me, one with bright colors, despite the darkness of the devastating war being waged against us. Their actions have become our only bastion of hope, sheltering, protecting, and strengthening us at a time when death hovers above our heads.

To every good-hearted seeker of freedom, justice, and equality, I say this: You reassure us that the fight for Palestinian children in particular, and the rights of my Palestinian people in general, is alive. It is thriving and flourishing in your heart.

Over the past year, I came to realize that this war is not just a war against Gaza. It is a war against the very essence of humanity, one that every person with a conscience is enduring and fighting in every corner of the earth. When we hurt, you hurt. When we grieve, you grieve. So thank you for standing by us—for feeling the death, torture, and dreadful living conditions alongside us. We need your support for our cause so that peace can prevail, and so that children like me can live without the pain of loss, hunger, and disease. We want to live in a free homeland with peace and security. We want to look up at the sky without fear of death from planes loaded with missiles—to hear the sounds of birds, not bombs. We want to hold our pens and books and go back to school. Your words and voices will always be a support for a child who has lost a dream and is searching for a new reality.

From me and from all the children of Gaza and Palestine, we send you our love and gratitude, and I say on behalf of an entire generation: Your hands wipe away the pain of every child in my land, your voices are a melody of peace, and your heartbeats reach ours despite the siege we live under and the vast oceans between us. For all this, and for being the benevolent beautiful people you are, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Perhaps one day I will be able to invite you to my small city, which will for sure rise from its ruins, where the red anemones will bloom again in soil watered by our blood, to thank you for keeping us in your hearts and thoughts. Until then, the waves of our sea will always remind us that beyond its horizons, there are those who see us, hear us, feel with us, and stand in solidarity with us.

I love you all.

Lujayn 

Another Nakba, Another Exile

I remember writing about the 74th anniversary of the Nakba, and the 75th, and the 76th. I wrote about the pain and pride of my people—many of whom had been expelled from their homes and sent into what would become my homeland, Gaza.

Decades after that first expulsion, many things have changed, but one thing has remained the same: Israel’s determination to erase us from our own land. For 2 million people still trapped in Gaza, that has meant a year of genocide—of death, starvation, displacement, and the constant search for safe haven; for tens of thousands of others, like me and my family, it has meant a Nakba of our own—a desperate flight from Gaza and into exile.

For those of us who have been permitted a way out, surviving Gaza hasn’t made the war less painful. Our scars linger, not just in the memories of destruction, but in the daily struggle of trying to rebuild our lives, to find a sense of normalcy in the midst of chaos.

It is hard to describe what it feels like when your life as you knew it evaporates overnight—when you have to leave your home even though your home can never leave you. I can never forget my home—not just when it’s being blown up, but in the stories my grandparents told, in the memories passed down through generations, in the olive trees that stand as silent witnesses to our dispossession. The day my father was forced to leave Gaza under evacuation orders, he carried nothing but the keys in his pocket and the hope that, one day, he would return—just as his own father did over 70 years ago.

Though I am still in my 20s, I never imagined I would endure the same tragedy. Generations have come and gone, places have changed, but the reality of forced displacement remains. As we watch the news today, one question haunts us: Will we live to see the day when we can finally experience the right to return and celebrate the liberation of our homeland?

My earliest memories are of my grandmother’s stories, told in a voice heavy with the weight of generations. She spoke of a free Palestine, where the air was sweet with the scent of jasmine and the nights resonated with the music of the oud. Her stories weren’t just about a land; they were about a way of life, a deep sense of belonging that transcended the physical.

One year of relentless assaults has once again turned that land into blackened rubble.

It’s been one year, and we are still asking the world for the same thing over and over: to see us not just as victims, but as people with dreams and aspirations, with the right to live in peace and dignity. We are not asking for charity; we are demanding our rights, both in and outside of Palestine. The right to live in peace, to return to our homes, to walk our streets without fear.

Despite everything, we hold on to hope. Hope is a dangerous thing, fragile and easily shattered. But it is also resilient, growing in the most unlikely of places. Hope is in the eyes of the child who dreams of becoming a doctor, in the hands of the artist who paints a future free of fear, and in the voice of the mother who sings her baby to sleep under the hovering of warplanes. Hope is the lifeblood of Gaza, coursing through the veins of a people who refuse to be broken.

Writing, in these times, is also hope. It feels like an act of birth. To write is to remember, to hold on to the threads of our identity even in exile, and to declare that we are still here.

Those of us in exile are scattered across the globe but are connected by memory and longing. We carry our homeland in our hearts, a piece of Gaza in every step we take, every word we speak. Rebuilding our lives from nothing is an act of defiance, a refusal to let go of the dream of return. Our homes in exile are never truly home. Home is the smell of the sea, the taste of olives, the sound of prayers at dawn in Gaza’s suburbs of Shuja’iyya and Tal al-Hawa.

I left Gaza, but it has never left me. And so we will continue to write, to speak, to shout, until our voices are heard. We will continue to dream, to hope, to fight, until Gaza is free. We are not just fighting for ourselves, but for the future of our children, for the memory of our ancestors, for the soul of Palestine.

Gaza taught me hope. And I won’t let it down, even if I am in exile. In and outside of Gaza, we refuse to be silenced, to be erased. Three hundred and sixty-five days and counting, our sacrifice is far from over. But one thing is certain: As long as there is life in Gaza, there is hope. We will not give up. We will not surrender. And we will return.

Mohammed Mhawish

We Are Among the Scores Who Have Lost Everything

It’s been a year since Israel launched its genocidal military campaign against Palestinians in Gaza. It could not have lasted this long or been as brutal without the unconditional military, political, and economic support provided to Israel by Western governments, particularly the United States. It also could not have continued without the complicity of the dictatorial Arab regimes aligned with the US. Palestinians are almost completely alone as they face a genocide waged not only by Israel but by all the governments that support and abet its atrocities—or that simply choose to remain silent and do nothing.

The consequences of Israel’s unchecked aggression are catastrophic and shocking. To date more than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed, including multiple members of my own family. Last October, my father’s home, where my family had gathered, was bombed. My 13-year-old son Abdullah and five other family members were killed. I survived, by God’s grace, even though I was only a few feet from the explosion.

My son, my family—they were all civilians, and that is true for the majority of Israel’s victims. Israel’s indiscriminate bombing has wiped out hundreds of family lines, leaving not a single member remaining. When the home of our neighbors, the Abu Younes family, was blown up, my three friends, Taher, Tareq, and Dhafer, were killed along with their parents, sisters, and children. The only ones who survived were Tareq’s children, as they were visiting their mother’s family at the time. Weeks later, their mother’s family home was also bombed, and she and her children were killed. With that, all of the Abu Younes children and grandchildren were erased from the civil registry.

The massive number of people killed and the destruction of entire families and neighborhoods is a deliberate Israeli policy to make the entire population of Gaza suffer. By launching ferocious attacks on densely populated areas, the Israeli military has intentionally destroyed entire residential blocks, sending homes and apartments crashing down on their residents.

To illustrate the scale of the tragedy: Before this war, Gaza was classified as one of the most densely populated places in the world and, thanks to years of Israeli bombardment and siege, was deemed virtually uninhabitable. Now the livable area has shrunk to only 10 percent of the previous space, and this area lacks the most basic human services. There is no electricity, no drinking water, no sewage system, and no buildings, so most people are forced to live in tents.

My family and I are among the hundreds of thousands who lost everything and have been forced to live in tents as, one by one, our homes have been taken from us. My father’s house, which contained four apartments, was the first to be destroyed, forcing my brothers and their families to crowd into a small apartment in western Rafah. Even this refuge, however, was soon taken from them: in May, Israel issued a forced evacuation order for Rafah, and then promptly followed through by destroying most of the area’s apartments, including my family’s home, my father’s land, and the small apartment they had rented. Once again, they had to move.

Before the war, I too had my own apartment. It was in northwest Khan Younis, and I used to tell my family they could take refuge there if they had to leave Rafah. But my apartment was also blown up, along with all the furniture, during the army’s invasion of Khan Younis. Now my family owns nothing. All we have left are tents and a few simple belongings. We don’t know how long we will remain in this state or what awaits us in the future.

Still, we are lucky compared to many displaced families who don’t even have tents but are forced to live on sidewalks or the beach, using ragged pieces of cloth for shelter. We are lucky, even though we, like so many others, are hungry, because Israel has restricted the entry of food and aid, part of its policy of weaponizing starvation against the people of Gaza. Nor is there sanitation or adequate health services, which makes the environment an incubator for the spread of diseases.

All of this has been our reality for the last year. For 366 days, we have lived with the knowledge that Israel is working systematically to eliminate all the foundations of Palestinian society in Gaza.

And yet, amid this horror, it is important to recognize that this genocidal approach did not begin after October 7, nor can it be considered a reaction to what happened that day. For decades, Israel’s strategy towards Gaza has been based on creating conditions to pressure the population to leave permanently. Two-thirds of Palestinians in Gaza are refugees whose families were ethnically cleansed from their homes in what became southern Israel during the state’s establishment in 1948. Since 1967, Israel has been militarily occupying Gaza, controlling virtually every aspect of our lives. And since 2007, Israel had maintained a suffocating blockade—condemned as illegal by the United Nations and rights groups—that prevented any economic development in Gaza, while launching repeated military assaults that killed thousands of civilians. What changed after October 7 was the intensity of Israel’s violence and its use of more severe methods.

Nor is Israel’s extreme violence focused on Gaza. Israel has taken advantage of the atmosphere created by the Gaza war to escalate its aggressive policies in the West Bank, and now Lebanon as well. Senior Israeli officials have explicitly called for treating the West Bank the same as Gaza, meaning accelerating the destruction of homes and the violent displacement of Palestinians. Most notably, Foreign Minister Israel Katz threatened to carry out “expulsion” operations against Palestinians in the cities of Jenin and Tulkarm in the northern West Bank, similar to what has happened in Gaza.

After a year of genocide, Israel’s message to Palestinians is clear: We do not want you on this land except as corpses, and whether you try to coexist or resist, we will kill you or drive you out of your homeland. The question is: will Israelis continue to believe they have impunity and that no one will hold them accountable for their actions? And will US continue supporting Israel’s genocide with weapons, money and diplomatic cover?

Ahmed Abu Artema

When Will This End?

It has been a year since I lost my brother, nephews, nieces, sister-in-law, and too many neighbors to a war that shattered everything we knew. The homes my family built with love were reduced to rubble, taking not only our safety but our hope. Yet, the physical destruction pales in comparison to the realization that, to those in power, Palestinian lives are seen as disposable.

It is clear that when it comes to Palestinian—and now Lebanese—civilians, Western leaders act as though we do not exist. My brother, like tens of thousands of Palestinians, was slaughtered in one of the most deadly bombing campaigns in modern history, yet no one has been held accountable. My adopted country, the United States—which promised me safety—has instead fueled the suffering of my family in Gaza through its relentless supply of weapons to Israel.

Today, I face the painful truth that no matter what atrocities are committed against Palestinians—including Palestinian Americans—political leaders in the United States and other Western nations remain passive, so long as Israel is responsible. At every opportunity to show that Palestinian lives matter, they have chosen to stay complicit in our suffering.

These past 366 days have been a nightmare. I have watched my people suffer in ways that should shock the world. I have seen my mother nearly die from a lack of basic medical supplies. My nephew was shot in the head by an Israeli sniper, only to undergo life-saving surgery under the light of a cell phone. I have seen my little brother paraded half-naked by Israeli soldiers, accused of crimes, only to be released when their lies fell apart. I have spoken directly to Vice President Kamala Harris, who assured me humanitarian aid would reach Palestinians and civilians would be protected—yet the violence and blockade continue, unchecked.

I have crisscrossed the United States, raising millions for humanitarian aid, speaking on major news networks, writing op-eds, and giving interviews across the globe. I have walked the halls of Congress, made emotional pleas, and met with leaders who promised to help. Yet, despite all this, I am left feeling that our pain simply does not matter to those in power. 

US leaders rightfully condemned the Hamas massacre of Israelis on October 7th. But when it comes to Israel’s ongoing, far greater slaughter and relentless bombings in Gaza, where more than 45,000 innocent Palestinians have been killed—over half of them women and children—their outrage and empathy are far more muted, and they continue the flow of money and weapons to Israel. 

Since October 2023, the US government has appropriated $18 billion worth of weapons for Israel, with President Biden recently approving $20 billion more. While many Americans may appear silent, I have seen people protesting, speaking out, advocating for Palestains in city halls, holding companies accountable, and donating to humanitarian causes. But even aid has been politicized, with workers and convoys bombed. At least 250 humanitarian workers have been killed in Gaza.

President Biden must impose a ceasefire desired by both Palestinians and Israelis, as polls show the majority of Americans support this. He should also expand asylum opportunities to the families of Palestinians killed by American-supplied weapons. Many of them already have relatives in the US, providing them with a crucial support network. With Gaza facing decades of rebuilding—assuming Israel allows it to be rebuilt—we owe these families the chance for a better life. Some Palestinians may struggle with this proposal. My own parents, for example, refuse to leave Gaza and remain in the north, fearing they will never be allowed to return. However, offering asylum to those seeking a better life is merely a step toward justice in a world where Palestinians are allowed to grow old on their ancestral homeland, stay, return, and live freely and safely. 

After a year, the nightmare only continues to grow, with more civilians in places like Lebanon forced to share in our horror as Israel extends the violence with blank-check US support. I am left asking: when will those in power wake up? When will they see that our lives are worth more than token gestures of aid or empty words of sympathy? Vice President Harris speaks with more empathy for Palestinians than President Biden, but in terms of policy, she is promising to continue the flow of money and weapons Israel is using to kill us, as is former President Donald Trump. When will this end? 

We Palestinians deserve to live, rebuild, and hope—just like everyone else. Maybe one day, the United States and other Western governments will ask for our forgiveness. Until then, we will keep demanding the justice that has been denied for far too long.

Edited Friday at 16:59 by Vesper

[Fulham Broadway 16,742]

Remember Black Lives Matter? People didn’t mean it. That much is clear now, as the world watches a war that is killing tens of thousands, that has displaced more than 10 million and which is threatening to devour 13 million more through famine – and barely gives it a glance. These are Black lives and it could not be more obvious that, to an indifferent world, they don’t matter at all.

With a few honourable exceptions, it’s barely covered on TV, on the radio or in the papers. Most politicians never mention it. There are no mass demonstrations on the streets, no hashtags on social media. Instead, the war in Sudan is out of sight and out of mind – for reasons that say a little about Africa and much more about everyone else.

The conflict has raged since April 2023, so there’s been no shortage of time to notice it. Nor is it lacking epic scale. On the contrary, aid organisations say Sudan faces “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis”. 

AP Media

 

[cosmicway 1,303]

2 hours ago, Vesper said:

Far-Right wins in Austria and Germany: what mainstream parties keep getting wrong

11th October 2024

Recent far-right victories in Europe reveal the dangerous effects of mainstreaming extremist views and the urgent need for a new political strategy.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/far-right-wins-in-austria-and-germany-what-mainstream-parties-keep-getting-wrong

Sömmerda, Germany, August 24, 2024. Hundreds of people attend the Summer Festival in the centre of the town and listen to Citizens’ dialogue with Björn Höcke (photo: Ryan Nash Photography/shutterstock.com)

 

The recent elections in Austria and Germany have put the far right back at the centre of the public debate. While most media emphasise the (alleged) newness of the results, such as the first time in the postwar era that a far-right party came first in Austria or a German state, the results primarily reflect some of the critical elements of the so-called “fourth phase” of the postwar far right, i.e. its mainstreaming and normalising. Given the continued “shock” in the public debate, discussing some of these critical elements in more detail while referencing the most recent elections in Austria and Germany (among others) makes sense.

1. The Far-Right is relevant

During the so-called “third phase” of the postwar far-right, i.e. in the last two decades of the 20th century, far-right parties achieved electoral breakthroughs in some European countries (e.g. Austria and France). Still, both far-right parties and positions remained largely marginalised. Immigration was mostly kept off the political agenda and far-right parties were kept out of (national) governments. This has changed radically in the “fourth phase”. Today, far-right parties are relevant in European politics!

The Italian political scientist Giovanni Sartori argued that political parties were relevant when they could affect (national) coalition formation. They could do this in two ways, directly and indirectly. Directly, parties can have “coalition potential”, meaning they are considered koalitionsfähig, i.e. are seen as potential coalition partners. This is the case for the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), for example, which already has been a member of the national government before and is currently considered an acceptable coalition partner by the conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) – albeit with the caveat, at least for now, that FPÖ-leader Herbert Kickl cannot be part of an FPÖ-ÖVP coalition. Alternatively, parties can have “blackmail potential”, meaning that they can influence coalition formation by making some preferred coalition options impossible. This is the case in much of East Germany, most notably Brandenburg, where the Social Democratic Party (SPD) might feel forced to govern with the left-conservative Alliance Sarah Wagenknecht (BSW) to circumvent the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD). 

However, far-right parties have not only become relevant for coalition formation but also influence the policies of other parties and governments they are not part of. Germany provides a great example of both. The AfD is one of the key reasons why immigration has been at the top of the German political agenda for much of the past ten years, which has moved almost all other parties to a more anti-immigration agenda and even helped create a new party, the BSW, an anti-immigrant split of The Left. The AfD’s electoral success in the East German state elections was also the real reason the German federal government tightened immigration and re-introduced border control.

2. The Far-Right Is Here to Stay

Much of the media debate about the far right suffers from violent mood swings. When a few prominent far-right parties or politicians lose shortly after each other, the far right is “dying”, while if a few win shortly after another, the far right “surges” – thereby simultaneously suggesting the far right is a uniform actor. Regardless of debates that portray the far right as a wave that ebbs and flows, Austria and Germany show that the far right is here to stay, albeit in different ways. In Austria, the FPÖ has dominated the far right since 1986, when newly elected party leader Jörg Haider pulled the party (fully) into the far right. Although the party has suffered major splits and scandals, it is still at the heart of Austrian politics. 

In Germany, the far right has been represented – albeit primarily at the state level – by various parties throughout time, from The Republicans in the 1990s through the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) in the 2000s, to the (most successful) AfD today. In most of the cases, the electoral success of these parties was “explained” by a (immigration) “crisis”, but the recent successes in East Germany show that no “crisis” is necessary. Rather, the success of the far right is a consequence of structural changes in society, most notably the development of multicultural societies, and reflects nativist and other reactionary attitudes that exist among significant portions of the population. These (nativist) attitudes feed far-right support and they are here to stay.

3. No Country Is Immune to the Far-Right

The idea that certain countries (and societies) are immune to the far right has long been popular in academic and public debates. The Dutch and Swedes liked to think they were too “tolerant” for the far right. Some English commentators argued that the English never embraced “extremism”. Some academics argued that Portugal and Spain were immune to the far right because of the recent memories of right-wing dictatorships, while others argued that the German Vergangenheitsbewältigung (dealing with history) explained why that country was immune to the far right. We know better today. The far right is not only electorally successful in all these countries, but it is or has been part of (sub-)national governments in most of them. 

Moreover, even in the few countries where the cordon sanitaire survives (somewhat), like France and Germany, far-right frames and positions are propagated by “mainstream” parties. This is most forceful in the immigration issue. Today, not just centre-right but increasingly also social democrat politicians position themselves critically towards immigration, as recent expansions of border controls in Germany in response to the AfD’s electoral successes illustrate. And while there was widespread outrage in January over a secret meeting by far-right actors in Germany where plans of “remigration”, a euphemism for deportation, were discussed, these frames and ideas have quickly found their way into the mainstream discourse.

4. Mainstreaming Does Not Work

Mainstream parties often coopt far-right frames and positions, suggesting this is necessary to “win voters back” or “defeat the far right”. A prime example of this was Sebastian Kurz’s nativist shift after his takeover of the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), after which the party increasingly resembled the far-right on immigration issues. However, academic research is very clear on this: it does not work. In fact, when immigration is the key issue of an election, and the dominant frame is a far-right one (i.e. immigration as a threat), far-right parties do well. Although this has been the case for decades, “mainstream” parties continue to delude themselves (and their voters), as was evident in the most recent elections in Sweden, The Netherlands, and Germany. Similarly, if you make the far right one of the key issues of the election, constantly giving them and their issues more attention by pointing to the looming danger they present, they win. This was likewise the case in both Austria and Germany, where mainstream parties continuously warned about the rise of the far-right but failed to present themselves as a viable alternative.

Another argument for mainstreaming the far right and governing with them is that this will moderate them. Again, there is little academic evidence for this position. Most scholarly research shows that the mainstreaming of the far right is almost exclusively the consequence of the radicalisation of the mainstream, not of the moderation of the far right. In fact, there are some indications that the far-right movement is radicalising, too, to continue to stand out. Several established far-right parties have started to speak in racial terms, as the example of Vlaams Belang in Belgium shows, or defend anti-democratic politicians like Viktor Orbán and Donald Trump. 

5. Normalization Has Changed the Normative Consensus

While “mainstreaming” is primarily an empirical process, i.e. the increased convergence of positions (notably on immigration) of far-right and “mainstream” parties, “normalisation” is a normative process, reflecting changes in what is considered “normal” or “the norm”. This is often described in terms of changing the Overton Window, simply stated, “the range of ideas the public is willing to consider and accept”. After decades of mainstream islamophobia and nativism in both media and politics, it is increasingly difficult to “shock” the people. And, even if there is outrage, the far-right has a successful script to turn itself from the villain into the victim, as linguist and discourse analyst Ruth Wodak has shown.

For a long time, there was a “law” in the study of far-right politics that held that open flirting with “extreme right” ideas would lead to electoral irrelevance. Clearly, this is no longer the case. Today, being openly extreme, including open references to the Nazi era, is no longer a hindrance to electoral success or political office, as recent cases also demonstrate. For example, in Austria, video material revealed far-right politicians’ attendance at a funeral days before the elections, where a “SS song” that glorifies the holy German Reich was sung. Two days later, the party celebrated its best election result in history. And this was just the most recent incident of FPÖ politicians openly displaying Nazi sympathies. Udo Landbauer, the former leader of the party’s youth wing, resigned in 2018 after a scandal over a Nazi-glorifying songbook, but now serves as the deputy governor of the state of Lower Austria. 

Similarly, the AfD’s unofficial leader, Björn Höcke, frequently employs Nazi phrases and has already been fined twice for doing so. Although he claims ignorance, his past as a history teacher makes it highly doubtful that he indeed was unaware of the Nazi connotations. Even with the convictions, Höcke led the AfD to its best result in any state, coming in first with the support of one in every three voters in Thuringia.

Moving Forward

Although it is probably naïve, let’s hope that the recent elections finally lead to a better understanding of contemporary politics. The far-right is relevant, and it is here to stay. Far-right parties are the biggest, or at least biggest right-wing, parties in a growing number of European countries. They are not the result of individual “crises” but rather structural societal changes and mass attitudes and are here to stay. Mainstreaming and normalising the far right does not weaken them; rather, it strengthens them.

Similarly, governing with them does not necessarily weaken them, and even when it does, far-right parties usually return to their initial strength (as happened in Austria). All the while, liberal democracy is weakened, and vulnerable populations are marginalised even more. It is, therefore, high time that mainstream parties move away from simply copying the far right and instead set their own agenda and develop their own policies. This does not mean ignoring issues like crime, corruption, or immigration, but it does mean policies that defend minority rights and strengthen liberal democracy. 

The first postwar cycle of the far right was anti-communism in the late forties - early fifties.
But it was the commies who started it.
The second cycle was against the social democrats who were held to be "fellow-travelers".
The third cycle was after the Jimmy Carter years. With the CIA no longer liking dictators or prospective dictators, the far right was at its weakest and there was n't much about immigration to talk about.
The fourth cycle is now.
But Britain was always an exception and British far right + Tory hard core were always against immigrants, of any creed-race-religion more or less.

During cycles (1) and (2) it made no sense to vote for these parties and give them any real strength. Would only serve to let the socialists win - so nearly everyone voted for the established conservative parties.
During all cycles the communist left and the fellow traveling left were doing all they could to help the extreme right under the table.
This served twofold: Create social chaos -a prerequisite for the revolution- and create mistrust between allies so help the Soviet Union.
It's not different now.

At the same time those who treat the extreme right and their antics with kidgloves are the conservative parties of course, the parliamentary ones.
So we have the rise:
Contributing causes are the attitude of the traditional conservatives + acts of provocation by the left.

It would be blindness not to say that the presence of immigrants does n't by itself play a role.
A number are not positively vetted and are dangerous, they are into common crime.
More significantly after 9-11 they are in the public mind connected with the terror groups and indeed there exist cells of ISIS-Al Qaedda-Hamas activists among them.
France-Germany-Belgium mourn many victims from terrorist actions. Britain-Spain and Italy also in the years of the Iraqi war

Meanwhile Trump is supposed to be leading in PA. Hence the commotion.
 

Edited Friday at 18:42 by cosmicway