Showing posts with label authoritarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label authoritarianism. Show all posts

Monday, April 15, 2019

Antony C Black — Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance … Between the Vatican, the CIA, and the Mafia [Book Review]


What your "deep state" has been up to. No good.

Can Paul L. Williams be believed? On one hand, he has academic credentials. On the other hand, he has been criticized as a conspiracy theorist for alarmist writings on the threat of Islamic terrorism in the US. His book is available for download at Internet Archive here. He provides documentation for his claims, but I have not checked out the sources.

Off Guardian
Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance …… Between the Vatican, the CIA, and the Mafia (2015)Overview of Paul L Williams” book
Antony C Black

Related

Peter Radford reviews Walter Scheidel’s “The Great Leveler”, "which gives us a very long period perspective on inequality."

This is a good article on the limitations that academic economics imposes on itself that limit its scope to idealizations about the operation of markets based on stylized facts rather than investigating the actual facts, which extend beyond this scope and are determinative of outcomes that cannot be understood without investigation of the influence of politics and power. Perhaps I am influence by confirmation bias, since I have saying this for a long time here at MNE and it bears me out.

The Radford Free Press
Power: Take Two
Peter Radford

Monday, June 4, 2018

Paul Waldman — Inevitably, Trump Declares He Is Above the Law


Making it official. Absolute power, that is.

I remind you of this history [of Richard Nixon] because over the weekend, The New York Timespublished a letter from President Trump's lawyers to special counsel Robert Mueller, which includes this stunning passage:
It remains our position that the President's actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself, and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired.
To clarify, they're asserting that no matter what the president does, by definition he cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice, because he's the president.… 
The entire last year and a half has been leading to the point at which Donald Trump proclaims that he is above the law, and dares us to do anything about it.
So there. What you going to do about it?

This would otherwise be a curiosity, being a counterfactual, but it is particularly relevant presently in light of discussion indicating that if the Democrats take House in the fall midterm election, Trump will be impeached — more importantly, it appears that there are the votes in the Senate to convict and remove him from office.

Obviously, DJT knows this and will be pulling out all the plugs to make sure that the Democrats don't take back the House.

A key part of his strategy is to win a victory one trade, but that risks roiling the markets and depressing both the financial markets and the economy.

Stay tuned.

The American Prospect
Inevitably, Trump Declares He Is Above the Law
Paul Waldman

See also
However, as Bloomberg reporter Steven Dennis pointed out [on Twitter], that wasn't the case at the end of former President Richard Nixon's time in office. "Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the president cannot pardon himself," the Department of Justice declared in 1974. The DOJ spelled it out just four days before Nixon resigned, explaining that the president's pardoning power "does not extend to the president himself."
The Week
The DOJ ruled 44 years ago that the president cannot pardon himself

Also
This morning, President Donald Trump tweeted that he “absolutely” had the power to pardon himself in the event that he is charged with obstructing justice in the investigation into Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election (or with anything else).
VOX
Giuliani: Trump “probably” can pardon himself. Trump: I “absolutely” can pardon myself.
Jane Coaston

I won't post anymore links on this, since it has gone viral globally.

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Francis Fukuyama and Robert Muggah — Populism is poisoning the global liberal order


The title signals the strong liberal bias of the authors. The dialectic is actually about traditionalism, which appears negatively as authoritarianism to liberals, versus liberalism, which appears as libertinism to traditionalists.

The tell is the admission that the wave of traditionalism is being led by "populism," as in what people actually want.

But what the people actually want is supposed to be the hallmark of liberalism.

The way liberals counter is this is that the majority lacks intelligence and sophistication and therefore need "enlightened" (liberal) leaders.

Thus democracy needs to managed because the people cannot be trusted to act in their real (liberal) interests.

Got that?

Global and Mail — Opinion
Populism is poisoning the global liberal order
Francis Fukuyama and Robert Muggah

See also

The Guardian (26 May 2016)
'It needs more public-spirited pigs': TS Eliot's rejection of Orwell's Animal Farm
Alison Flood

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Joseph Hickey — How Societies Form and Change


You might find this of interest. As a bonus, it explains some fundamental principles of mathematical modeling.
Hierarchy appears to be an inescapable feature of animal, including human, societies. There are dominants and subordinates, bosses and employees, rulers and subjects, and an individual’s position in the social hierarchy to a large degree determines fundamental aspects of his or her life, including one’s health, access to resources, and influence in society. From the individual’s point of view, the hierarchy provides security, but also reduces one’s freedom. What determines how oppressive society is toward the individual? Would more freedom be better for society? How bad does societal inequality have to become before things start getting better? Are there any fundamental laws or rules that control how social hierarchy forms and evolves in a complex society of many interacting individuals and groups?
I am doing my PhD research in physics on these questions. Something I’m often asked is how can the study of social hierarchy be considered “physics”? The answer is “simple” – physicists try to construct simple models to reveal essential or underlying features of complex natural phenomena. Such a model has to be as simple as possible, yet it must be cleverly constructed so that, in its simplicity, the model captures essential features of reality. If this is achieved, the model can provide insights about underlying rules that may control or influence the real phenomenon.
I have constructed a simple physics model of the formation and evolution of social hierarchies, based on interactions between the individual members of the society. Computer simulations of the model produce societies that resemble real-world societies, and we can study how the simulated societies are formed and how they change in time. A scientific article presenting the model has been submitted to a journal and can be read online at ResearchGate.1 In the following, I outline how the model works for a general (non-specialist) reader and briefly discuss what its results might mean in terms of understanding social hierarchy in the real world.
Dissident Voice
How Societies Form and Change
Joseph Hickey | Executive Director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association(OCLA)

Friday, August 25, 2017

Dara Lind — The real reason Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio

Both Trump and Arpaio believe that maintaining “law and order” is more important than adhering to the technicalities of actual law.
This is known as the difference between the rule of law and the rule by men. Go figure where this leads. If you came up with authority rather than liberty, you would be right.
Danielle Haynes

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Matthew MacWilliams — The best predictor of Trump support isn't income, education, or age. It's authoritarianism.

In the five days leading up to the South Carolina Republican primary I fielded a survey of 358 likely voters, hoping to better understand who supports Donald Trump, why, and what it may mean for the Republican presidential nominating contest.
What I found is a trend that has been widely overlooked. A voter’s gender, education, age, ideology, party identification, income, and race simply had no statistical bearing on whether someone supported Trump. Neither, despite predictions to the contrary, did evangelicalism.
Here is what did: authoritarianism, by which I mean Americans’ inclination to authoritarian behavior. When political scientists use the term authoritarianism, we are not talking about dictatorships but about a worldview. People who score high on the authoritarian scale value conformity and order, protect social norms, and are wary of outsiders. And when authoritarians feel threatened, they support aggressive leaders and policies.
Authoritarianism and a hybrid variable that links authoritarianism with a personal fear of terrorism were the only two variables that predicted, with statistical significance, support for Trump.…
I did find one soft spot in Trump’s support. Regular, weekly church attendance — as measured by a standard Pew Research question included in my survey — predicted a statistically significant and substantive opposition to Trump.…
VOX
The best predictor of Trump support isn't income, education, or age. It's authoritarianism.
Matthew MacWilliams

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

John Queally — Against Growing Authoritarian Threat of Far-Right, Massive Marches in Poland

Thousands of citizens marched through city streets across Poland on Saturday to protest the right-wing government's encroaching authoritarianism, including a new plan to enact sweeping surveillance measures.…
Common Dreams
Against Growing Authoritarian Threat of Far-Right, Massive Marches in Poland
John Queally

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Barry Lando — France is on the Verge of … What?

“Is France Ripe for an Authoritarian Regime?” What is remarkable about that Op Ed piece in the conservative Le Figaro newspaper, is that it was written not in the wake of today’s horrific terrorist attacks in Paris—but the day before.…

According to the Le Figaro, when asked by IFOP, a respected French poling agency, if they would accept a non-democratic form of government to bring necessary reforms to France, 67% of the French said they would opt for a government of non-elected technocrats. 40% percent said they would back a non-elected authoritarian regime.
Again, that survey was carried out the day before the bloody carnage in Paris.…
Counterpunch
France is on the Verge of … What?
Barry Lando
Crossposted at Naked Bull-Shit

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Sputnik International — Estonian Sports Hero Condemning Fascism Told to Go Read Works of Hitler

The Estonian Conservative People's Party (EKRE), embroiled in a scandal earlier this month involving a recently elected parliamentarian's comments about the "many positive nuances" of fascism, was hit again on Saturday in an op-ed by a famous party member and national sports champion who said that he had once been told that he was just another "illiterate athlete who must first go to the nearest library and read the works of Hitler."
Earlier this month, the EKRE was hit by scandal following local media's discovery of an old blog post by recently elected MP Jaak Madison, who noted in 2012 that he saw "fascism as an ideology that consists of many positive nuances necessary for preserving the nation-state." The young politician also noted that while "it's true that there were concentration camps, forced labor camps, and a fondness for the use of gas chambers, at the same time, [the Nazis'] 'iron-fisted' rule did bring Germany out of deep trouble as the development initially based on military industry growth made the country one of the most powerful in Europe in just a few years."....
What with the rising popularity of Stalin in Russia and Hitlers in Europe? The answer is pretty simple, although obviously different parties have divergent views that complicated a full answer. The quick takeaway, however, is that in parlous times many people look to a strong leader and more authoritarian state to assuage rising fear. While this phenomenon is usually explained by rising nationalism and based on exceptionalism, which is true to a degree, the overwhelming factor seems to me to be a reaction to events called forth by a broad perception of threat. While Stalin and Hitler are generally thought of in terms of their authoritarian excesses, they are also remembered by some for their leadership qualities based on projection of power.

This is also playing out in a similar fashion post 9/11, where the US has adopted a form of politics that has become increasingly illiberal and authoritarian, suspending constitutional liberties indefinitely based on an endless "war on terror," as well as adopting a "unitary executive" doctrine, which is a euphemism for dictatorship. The increasing militarization of domestic security and increasing heavy-handed ness on its part are also symptomatic. The overwhelming domestic and international strategy of the US now is projection of power. And its bipartisan although the GOP is more hard line and vociferous about it. The irony of this on the part of the US is that it is purportedly in defense of liberalism.

The worrisome thing is that a resurgence of authoritarianism can be a harbinger of impending war.

Sputnik International
Estonian Sports Hero Condemning Fascism Told to Go Read Works of Hitler

This study reported in the following article supports the view that Putin's recent rise in popularity is due to his exhibiting strong leadership in strengthening Russia. He is faulted, apparently since the question was not put directly, for not reining the oligarchs that arose in the Yeltsin liberal period enough. Russians perceive the liberal period as a disaster for Russia and for most of them, and there is little possibility of Russia returning to that type of regime any time soon. My sense is that US strategists realize this and have concluded that the next best tactic is to destabilize the Russian Federation and its near abroad and tie it down with border issues.

Russians' Attitudes Toward Putin Are Changing, And Not How You Might Think


Friday, March 27, 2015

Mark Adomanis — Russian Support For Democracy Just Hit The Lowest Level In More Than 20 Years

The invaluable Levada Center, Russia’s only genuinely independent polling agency, regularly conducts a survey about Russians’ attitudes towards the government, the economy, and the proper relationship between the state and its citizens. The 2015 results were just released, and it makes for rather depressing reading [to Western liberals].
Basically, right across the board, Russians have become substantially more statist and nationalist in their views.....
It should seem obvious, but you need to pay attention to what the Russian public thinks. It might be nice to assume that it wants exactly the same things that we do, but all of the evidence suggests that this isn’t true.
Turns out that most Russians are very conservative rather than liberal. The odds of a liberal regime coming to power are very low.

Forbes
Russian Support For Democracy Just Hit The Lowest Level In More Than 20 Years
Mark Adomanis, Contributor


Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Russia Direct — Putin's Orthodox conservatives vs. Russia's unorthodox liberals

It was naïve to imagine that after hundreds of years of cruel monarchy and feudalism, and then after decades of bloody and pointless experiments with Communism, in the 1990s the newly independent Russia would immediately settle down on the path of civilized democratic development. 
No, the conservative-patriarchal conception of life, in which a strong leader and state should protect “mere mortals,” to this day dominates the consciousness of the overwhelming majority of Russians. And increasingly, this conservatism inherited from the past comes into open conflict with liberalism, which the most progressive part of Russian society is preaching.…
The basic distinction between liberalism and conservatism is a preference for freedom or order. Much of the post is about comparing Russian conservatism with American conservatism under the label of the Tea Party, which only goes so far.
According to the editor-in-chief of popular radio station Echo of Moscow Alexey Venediktov, “If Putin happened to have been born in the U.S. then he would doubtless be on the edge of the right wing of the Republican Tea Party, and would be more right wing then Senator John McCain.” 
However, the attempt to place Putin within the ideological spectrum of the American political system is quite superficial. As Russian opposition leader and world chess champion Garry Kasparov says, in the United States “the conservative right ideology is not simply a mechanical selection of values but an entire organism, all its parts are closely interrelated. For the American conservative, individual freedom flows naturally from those very same traditional American protestant values.”

In Russia, Vladimir Putin’s highest priority is order, which is more important than human rights or freedom. Almost all public opinion polls within Russia show this.…

The neocons assume that if there is regime change in Russia, liberals will take power. That is most likely an incorrect assumption, since liberals are in the vast minority. The vast majority of Russians poll as conservative or ultra-conservative, and even the reactionary cohort (monarchist) is significant. The outcome of regime change could well be toward a more nationalistic and reactionary government instead of a liberal one.

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Chauncey DeVega — People Who Become Cops Tend to Have Authoritarian Personality Characteristics

Research shows a correlation between police behavior and authoritarianism.…
…criminologists, psychologists and other social scientists have compiled a large amount of data on the relationship between police behavior and authoritarianism. This information is readily available and highly accessible to the general public. However, it is not discussed by the corporate news media because the facts cannot be readily reconciled with the mythologies that surround (and protect) America’s police.…
When authoritarianism is combined with bias and power, the result can be exploitive and explosive. And this doesn't only apply to policing, or even chiefly to policing.

Monday, January 5, 2015

Henry A. Giroux — Authoritarianism, Class Warfare and the Advance of Neoliberal Austerity Policies

Right-wing calls for austerity suggest more than a market-driven desire to punish the poor, working class and middle class by distributing wealth upwards to the 1%. They also point to a politics of disposability in which the social provisions, public spheres and institutions that nourish democratic values and social relations are being dismantled, including public and higher education. Neoliberal austerity policies embody an ideology that produces both zones of abandonment and forms of social and civil death while also infusing society with a culture of increasing hardship. It also makes clear that the weapons of class warfare do not reside only in oppressive modes of state terrorism such as the militarization of the police, but also in policies that inflict misery, immiseration and suffering on the vast majority of the population.…
Truthout | News Analysis
Authoritarianism, Class Warfare and the Advance of Neoliberal Austerity Policies
Henry A. Giroux | McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University

Monday, December 29, 2014

Max Blumenthal — Exposed: How Republicans and Cops Are Teaming Up to Take Down deBlasio

How much does it cost you to live in your house? If you are a renter, the answer to that question is fairly straightforward (although if your rent includes a gym membership and heat, it is not clearcut what the simple cost of occupying your place is). 
But suppose you are an owner. What is it costing you every month or every year to live in your house? The truth is, you don't know with a great deal of precision, and neither does anyone else. 
There are two ways to look at the issue.…
Pretty much like the right wing went after Clinton and Obama. Now it's De Blasio's turn.

More divisiveness that is ripping the US apart and hemorrhaging American soft power on the world stage.

AlterNet
Exposed: How Republicans and Cops Are Teaming Up to Take Down deBlasio
Max Blumenthal

See also

AlterNet
Whistleblowing Officer Makes Tape of Top Cop Ordering Stop-and-Frisks of Black Males
Walter Einenkel, DailyKos
Stop “the right people, the right time, the right location,” Deputy Inspector Christopher McCormack is heard saying on the recording.
[...] 
“So what am I supposed to do: Stop every black and Hispanic?” Serrano was heard saying on the tape, which was recorded last month at the 40th Precinct in the Bronx.
[...] 
“I have no problem telling you this,” the inspector said on the tape. “Male blacks. And I told you at roll call, and I have no problem [to] tell you this, male blacks 14 to 21.” 
The tape and testimony are a part of a class-action lawsuit against the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy.

Crooks and Liars
Mayor DeBlasio: Fire The Commissioner And Discipline Insubordinate Police Officers
Susie Madrak

Democracy Now
NYPD Officer Speaks Out on Fellow Cops Who Turned Backs to Mayor & Why People of Color Fear Police
Amy Goodman interviews Adhyl Polanco

Jacobin
Smash the Lynch Mob
Ari Paul

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Ming Chun Tang — Hong Kong’s Fight Against Neoliberalism

As protesters flood the streets of Hong Kong demanding free elections in 2017, the international media puts on its usual spin, characterizing the struggle as one between an authoritarian state and citizens who want to be free.… 
But regardless of what the BBC wants the world to believe, Occupy Central isn’t so much a fight for democracy as a fight for social justice.… 
The list of people who have spoken out against Occupy Central is particularly revealing – oligarch Li Ka-shing, HSBC, the world’s four largest accounting firms, among others in business circles. The main issue with CY Leung’s administration isn’t the fact that it wasn’t democratically elected, but that it serves two main groups: Beijing on one hand, and local elites on the other – in other words, far from democratic in its representation. It’s not hard to see why big business and the oligarchs are terrified of Occupy Central: any movement towards real democracy would see them losing power and losing their grip over the territory. The status quo, on the other hand, serves them well.
Counterpunch
Hong Kong’s Fight Against Neoliberalism
Ming Chun Tang | Hong Kong-born writer and a student at Hamilton College (New York), currently at the London School of Economics

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Digby — Can't help lovin' those commie strongmen

So panic artist Ted Cruz called Obama a pussy (well, "kitty cat" but please ...) and expresses his admiration for Vladimir Putin --- a real bear of a man. How typical. One of the defining characteristics of the modern conservative movement has been their deep admiration for the machismo of their adversaries. 
Here's a little blast from the past on this lazy holiday week-end:
Grover Norquist, is reported to have said back in the 1980's,"We must establish a Brezhnev Doctrine for conservative gains. The Brezhnev Doctrine states that once a country becomes communist it can never change. Conservatives must establish their own doctrine and declare their victories permanent…A revolution is not successful unless it succeeds in preserving itself…(W)e want to remove liberal personnel from the political process. Then we want to capture those positions of power and influence for conservatives. Stalin taught the importance of this principle."
 
Inspired as he is by all things totalitarian, Norquist went on to do a number of things that Uncle Joe would be proud of, one of which was The Legacy Project.
Hullabaloo
Can't help lovin' those commie strongmen
Digby

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Dani Rodrik — Rethinking Democracy

A true democracy, one that combines majority rule with respect for minority rights, requires two sets of institutions. First, institutions of representation, such as political parties, parliaments, and electoral systems, are needed to elicit popular preferences and turn them into policy action. Second, democracy requires institutions of restraint, such as an independent judiciary and media, to uphold fundamental rights like freedom of speech and prevent governments from abusing their power. Representation without restraint – elections without the rule of law – is a recipe for the tyranny of the majority.... 
When democracy fails to deliver economically or politically, perhaps it is to be expected that some people will look for authoritarian solutions. And, for many economists, delegating economic policy to technocratic bodies in order to insulate them from the “folly of the masses” almost always is the preferred approach....

Optimists believe that new technologies and modes of governance will resolve all problems and send democracies centered on the nation-state the way of the horse-drawn carriage. Pessimists fear that today’s liberal democracies will be no match for the external challenges mounted by illiberal states like China and Russia, which are guided only by hardnosed realpolitik. Either way, if democracy is to have a future, it will need to be rethought.
Project Syndicate
Rethinking Democracy
Dani Rodrik | Professor of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey

Monday, October 28, 2013

Mike Lofgren — The Revolt of the Lower Middle Class and the Stupidity of the Elites

 Mike Lofgren takes on Michael LInd's thesis that the Tea Party revolt is characterized by the regional (chiefly Southern) "local notable who are locally successful and have accumulated modest wealth — millions, but not billions. Lofgren sees it differently and rather alarmingly so:
In periods of political crisis or threatening social change, the lower middle class[ii]often has been the demographic segment most susceptible to militant authoritarian movements - such as the Klan or the Coughlinites in earlier times in American history. In other countries as well, the lower middle class has been the basis of fascist movements. As Richard J. Evans documents in The Coming of the Third Reich, the original electoral backbone of the National Socialists was the lower middle class, exemplified by petty shopkeepers, the lower rungs of the white-collar professions and land-poor farmers. As the great economic calamity of 1929 intensified, these groups feared, above all, sinking into the despised proletariat. It was this emotion that caused them to identify the source of their problems less in the banks, corporations and cartels that were the proximate cause of the crash than in the contaminating presence of foreigners and the underclass. France has had periodic bouts of thisphenomenon, with movements like Action Francaise, the post-World War II Poujadists (the definitive small shopkeepers movement) and, more recently, the anti-immigrant party of Jean-Marie Le Pen, whose psychologically penetrating political catchphrase was "I say what you are thinking." Capitalists are of course more than willing to fund such parties if they are on the brink of success and can be useful to capital, just as the German cartels began to fund the Nazis after their breakthrough election in September 1930. Nothing succeeds like success: University professors and intellectuals flocked to the Nazi Party once it gained power. But the motivating energy of the movement sprang, above all, from the fear and resentment of those tenuously situated a couple of rungs above the actual poor....
Lofgren then looks at what is happening in the US. He sees a disturbing ascendence of authoritarianism in this iteration of the Tea Party, obscuring its Libertarian roots:
[In What's the Matter with Kansas Thomas] Frank identified the culture wars as trumping economics, but the fascinating question he never sufficiently answered is how this mechanism works at the granular level.
In 1933, psychologist Wilhelm Reich attempted to answer that question in The Mass Psychology of Fascism. His answer: The virus is all around us, because it is latent within ourselves. But it flourishes in rigid, punitive and authoritarian upbringings, whereby a person's early domestic circumstances foreshadow his future relationship with state and society. In a home life filled with punishments, taboos and guilt, Reich saw the kernel of the future fascist: repressed, conformist and outwardly submitting but filled with a rage over his humiliation whose source could never be admitted. This dilemma accounts for the curiously contradictory psychology of the adherents of authoritarian movements. They are highly suggestible followers of some strong leader whom they can masochistically adore, yet at intervals they become anarchic and rebellious. And as they cannot admit the roots of their rage, they displace it onto others: Hence the xenophobia, the militancy, the endless search for scapegoats. It is no coincidence that this kind of personality finds an outlet on the Tea Party - which overlaps so heavily with followers of the Religious Right, whose lives are often a catalogue of commandments, taboos and shibboleths.
All this unhealthy energy usually does not find a unified political objective unless coaxed along by money and organizational skill from outside....
...there are always not a few businessmen willing to finance an ostensibly populist movement so as better to manipulate it, and who then get an unpleasant surprise....
Definitely an analysis worth reading all of. This is a defining movement of our time and not only in the US.