• There’s a question that’s been bugging me for nearly a decade. How is it that half of America looks at Donald Trump and doesn’t find him morally repellent? He lies, cheats, steals, betrays, and behaves cruelly and corruptly, and more than 70 million Americans find him, at the very least, morally acceptable. Some even see him as heroic, admirable, and wonderful. What has brought us to this state of moral numbness?

• Below, we will first provide a general outline of the PCV’s position on the so-called Bolivarian process or Bolivarian Revolution and the Nicolás Maduro government, addressing key aspects of the debate. Then, we will respond specifically to some statements made by Steve Ellner regarding our party.

   

• The strikes came after 18 months during which Israel had effectively dismantled Hamas in Gaza, dealt a devastating blow to Hezbollah in Lebanon, weakened the Houthis in Yemen, and seen the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria – a longstanding and key Iranian ally.

   

  From a military standpoint, these were remarkable achievements. But they failed to deliver the strategic outcome Israeli and US leaders had long hoped for: the collapse of Iran’s influence and the weakening of its regime

• Instead, the confrontation exposed a deeper miscalculation. Iran’s power isn’t built on impulse or vulnerable proxies alone. It is decentralised, ideologically entrenched and designed to endure. While battered, the Islamic Republic did not fall. And now, it may be more determined – and more dangerous – than before.

   
• Israeli defences were breached. Civilian infrastructure was hit, ports closed, and the economy stalled

• The day after the US strikes, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke with Donald Trump about a ceasefire. He and his generals were reportedly keen to bring the conflict to a speedy end. Reports suggest that Netanyahu wanted to avoid a lengthy war of attrition that Israel could not sustain, and was already looking for an exit strategy.

   

• Crucially, the Iranian regime remained intact. Rather than inciting revolt, the war rallied nationalist sentiment. Opposition movements remain fractured and lack a common platform or domestic legitimacy. Hopes of a popular uprising that might topple the regime expressed by both Trump and Netanyahu were misplaced.

   

• In the aftermath, Iranian authorities launched a sweeping crackdown on suspected dissenters and what it referred to as “spies”. Former activists, reformists and loosely affiliated protest organisers were arrested or interrogated. What was meant to fracture the regime instead reinforced its grip on power.

   

• Most notably, Iran’s parliament voted to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ending inspections and giving Tehran the freedom to expand its nuclear programme – both civilian and potentially military – without oversight.

   
• Iran’s stronger institutions, military depth, resistance-driven identity and existence made it a fundamentally different and more resilient state.

• While Iran’s regional network has taken significant hits over the past year –Hamas dismantled, Hezbollah degraded, the Houthis depleted, and the Assad regime toppled – Tehran recalibrated. It deepened military cooperation with Russia and China, secured covert arms shipments, and accelerated its nuclear ambitions.

   

• Both Israel and Iran, however, came away with new intelligence. Israel learned that its missile defences and economic resilience were not built for prolonged, multi-front warfare. Iran, meanwhile, gained valuable insight into how far its arsenal – drones, missiles and regional proxies – could reach, and where its limits lie.

   

• Most of Iran’s drones and missiles were intercepted — up to 99% in the cases of drones — exposing critical weaknesses in accuracy, penetration, and survivability against modern air defenses. Yet the few that did break through caused significant damage in Tel Aviv, striking residential areas and critical infrastructure.

   
• Iran may now adjust its doctrine accordingly – prioritising survivability, mobility and precision in anticipation of future conflicts

• Israel’s geographic and demographic constraints have become clear. Its high-tech economy, tightly integrated with global markets, could not weather prolonged instability. And critically, the damage inflicted by the US bombing was more limited than hoped for. While Washington joined in the initial strikes, it resisted deeper involvement, partly to avoid broader regional escalation and largely because of the lack of domestic appetite for war and high potential for energy inflation, if Iran was to close the Strait of Hormuz.

   
• Its crackdown on dissent, withdrawal from IAEA oversight, and deepening ties to rival powers suggest a regime preparing not for collapse, but for survival, perhaps even confrontation.

• The broader lesson is sobering. Regime change cannot be engineered through precision strikes. Tactical brilliance does not guarantee strategic victory. And the assumption that Iran could unravel like Syria was not strategy, it was hubris.

   

13 more annotations...

• zijn dood in 1994
• na een tijd ondergedoken te hebben geleefd met hulp van leden van de Spaanse fascistische Falange-partij, in de openbaarheid verschijnt – terwijl de Spaanse regering al een hele tijd beweert dat hij niet meer in Spanje is
• Een spilfiguur in een van deze netwerken is de Oostenrijker Otto Skorzeny, net als Léon Degrelle een ex-SS’er, een ‘krijger’, omhuld door oorlogslegendes. De grootste van die legendes is de bevrijding, volgens sommigen de ‘ontvoering’, van Benito Mussolini uit het hotel Campo Imperatori in de Abruzzen, op 12 september 1943. Hoewel hij daarbij alleen een ondergeschikte, misschien zelfs hinderlijke rol heeft gespeeld, voerde de nazipropaganda hem op als de grote held en mocht hij van dan af het Ridderkruis dragen. Skorzeny is, net als Degrelle, als vluchteling in Spanje terechtgekomen, in 1950. Maar anders dan Degrelle is hij geen vluchteling gebleven. Hij werd nooit veroordeeld en kan na zijn ‘denazificering’ in 1952 gaan en staan waar hij wil, ongehinderd internationale reizen maken en zakendoen. Skorzeny is ingenieur en installeert een ingenieursbureau in Madrid, volgens een vroeg CIA-rapport een dekmantel voor zijn politieke activiteiten, waar hij van meet af aan Léon Degrelle bij betrekt. De twee worden in 1951 al samen gesignaleerd in Toledo, bij een herdenking van de strijd om het Alcázar, een heroïsche episode uit de burgeroorlog

• Wat er ook van zij: Degrelle, in 1945 gearriveerd met alleen maar een rugzak vol dagelijkse spullen en een boek van de Vlaamse kunsthistoricus Max Rooses, wordt in korte tijd een redelijk welvarende burger, of houdt in ieder geval de levensstijl van zo iemand aan. In november 1954 zal een Madrileense bank aankloppen bij de Belgische ambassade om informatie te vragen over een Belg, een zekere Juan Sanchis Dupret (sic), die een duur appartement heeft gehuurd in de stad en bezig is het op luxueuze wijze in te richten. Juan Sanchis Dupret is een van de vele namen die Degrelle gebruikt.

   
• Het herstel van volwaardige diplomatieke relaties tussen België en Spanje en het duidelijke gebrek aan jachtinstinct van de Belgische minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Paul van Zeeland maken Degrelle roekelozer.
• Die verlorene Legion verschijnt in 1952 bij Veritas Verlag in Stuttgart, een katholieke uitgeverij gespecialiseerd in kleine religieuze boekjes
• Er is ergens wel een kleine juridische stok te vinden, maar ‘[op] dit ogenblik lijkt de emotie in België te zijn gaan liggen. Het lijkt me niet opportuun (…) om te vroeg gebruik te maken van deze mogelijkheid’, vindt Van Zeeland.
• De Tanger-kwakkel komt natuurlijk goed uit om de Spanjaarden verder niet onnodig onder druk te hoeven zetten.
• Verschillende kranten en radiostations nemen dat bericht over en binnen de kortste keren is het nieuws over Degrelles eerste publieke verschijning in Spanje ook in België bekend. Het komt daar hard aan. De vele burgerslachtoffers van het von Rundstedt-offensief, precies tien jaar eerder, worden net herdacht. Degrelle, of in ieder geval sommigen van zijn Rex-militanten, worden nog altijd verdacht van moordpartijen in die dagen

• In het interview looft hij de Spanjaarden als ‘de reserve van de eeuw’ en betreurt hij dat er slechts 28 miljoen exemplaren van bestaan. Wat hij zijn interviewer niet vertelt is dat een bejaarde dame uit Constantina, de 72-jarige weduwe Matilde Ramírírez Reina, net de toestemming van een rechter heeft gekregen om hem te adopteren. De adoptie wordt een klein jaar later notarieel vastgelegd. Degrelle mag nu zijn nieuwe naam gebruiken: León José Ramírez Reina. Het is de naam die uiteindelijk ook op zijn overlijdensakte zal staan. Matilde heeft geen beroep, dat van haar geadopteerde zoon blijkt escritor (schrijver) te zijn.

   
• zoals Spaaks eigen behandeling door Franco in 1940 en de manier waarop Belgen op weg naar Engeland tijdens de oorlog werden opgesloten in het Spaanse interneringskamp van Miranda.

9 more annotations...

• Marx, for example, viewed the US and Brazil, which were the only two large capitalist countries with modern slave-based production, as forms of racialised capitalism. In the 1850s, he wrote that perhaps the revolution would start not in the most industrially advanced countries, but in the periphery, namely China and India. When an uprising occurred in Poland in 1863, Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels that “one may hope that this time the lava will flow from east to west.” But these ideas were never very elaborated at the time.

• But by the late 1860s, his thinking started to change. Marx still viewed British workers as having a lot of revolutionary potential, but he started to see that the revolutionary energy might come from outside the most advanced industrial sectors of the English working class. Marx instead started to see that an agrarian uprising in Ireland could be the spark to shake up Britain and push it in a revolutionary direction. 

• Something else emerges in Marx’s writings in the late 1870s and early ’80s. He starts to see these revolts in the periphery not only as politically important for chipping away at the strength of core capitalist countries, but also as containing communist possibilities. He really zeroes in on Russia, which he starts to view as the new centre of revolutionary energy on the continent. 

• In his last writing — the 1882 preface to The Communist Manifesto — Marx asks the question: “Can the Russian obshchina [peasant commune], though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership?” His response is that “if the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.”

• This represents a huge reversal from the language of the Communist Manifesto in 1848. Back then, Marx argued that old agrarian relations had to be uprooted and destroyed. That is why he supported free trade; he wanted capitalism to spread everywhere and shake up the old pre-capitalist structures. Now Marx was saying that elements within these pre-capitalist social structures — so-called primitive communism — could be the basis of a revolutionary movement. 

• Second, if this defeat, consolidating patriarchy, occurred more or less simultaneously with the rise of private property and the state, then under modern capitalism we can attack patriarchy most effectively by targeting capitalist private property as the economic foundation of both patriarchy and the state. It followed that women’s movements should be auxiliaries of the socialist left, not autonomous and free-standing. That, in fact, was the policy of socialists in the generation after Marx and Engels. 

• In Russia, the situation was quite different. There was no nationalist movement there, certainly none that was left-wing. Instead, you had all kinds of different socialists. Most were intellectuals who loved Capital and wanted to apply it very dogmatically to Russia. They talked about the need to drive peasants off the land in order to industrialise Russia and create a proletariat. Marx told them this was not what he had meant. But you also had another wing, the populists, who lacked theoretical clarity but whom Marx admired as they too saw certain revolutionary potential in Russia’s peasantry. 

• By Capital Vol I, Marx is writing that capitalism “turns every economic progress into a social calamity,” especially for the working class. He still views capitalism overall as progress — he never gave up that view completely — but in his later writings he is saying things he would not have said before on the negative aspects of progress. 

• The other side of the coin is that he starts to see potential building blocks for socialism in some pre-capitalist collectivist social structures. Ironically, if you said that in a meeting of Marxists in Russia in 1900, you would be called a populist, not a Marxist. 

• Some people said Marx made an exception for Russia due to its different development path. But you can see in his writings on India and Indigenous societies in North Africa and Latin America, that Marx also believed communal social structures in those societies could be a basis for revolution. That is a shift from his writings in the 1840s and ‘50s, where Marx was aware of these communal structures, but saw them as the basis of oriental despotism and closed off to any form of progress. 

• Today, there are dozens of different viewpoints within the global left. But if we look at those with large levels of support, we can point to slightly more reformist forces such as those around [US democratic socialists] Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, [La France Insoumise leader] Jean-Luc Mélenchon and [former British Labour leader] Jeremy Corbyn. 

• Then you have the left that emerged from the Black Lives Matter and Palestine solidarity movement, as well as much of the student left, who tend to prioritise identity and view white workers as conservative simply because they are white and privileged — even if often the people saying this are way more privileged.

• What Marx was saying in his Ireland writings is that we have to find ways to connect the workers: movement with the banlieue uprising, because these often semi-unemployed youth of colour are among the most oppressed of the population. Unfortunately, trade unions have not done this, though Mélenchon’s group really did try to involve these sectors in the socialist left, which is important. 

11 more annotations...

• An article published in China praises Rwanda for modeling its military development on the example of the People's Liberation Army (PLA).  The article claims that about 73 percent of Rwanda's active-duty officers have undergone Chinese military training.  Much of Rwanda's military equipment is Chinese and its military doctrine and culture look much like the PLA's.  

   

   

   

   

• but bloc is divided and unbalanced
• Leaders of only three of the five founder members were present: South Africa, Brazil and India.
• to try to revive and reinvent a collective approach to the world’s problems.
• “we have witnessed an unparalleled collapse of multilateralism”, the Brazilian president told leaders. “Hard-won advances, such as climate and trade regimes, are under threat.” The autonomy of the Brics group was being challenged, he warned
• the attack on Ukraine (by Russia, a founder member of Brics)
• Its 11 full members account for 40% of the global population and economy, and more than half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions – on all of these counts, putting it ahead of the G7 group of the world’s richest, and ideologically capitalist, countries, mostly from the global north. But Brics nations are divided and unbalanced. China has roughly the same GDP and CO₂ output as all of the other Brics members combined

• Hence the dismay when President Xi Jinping declined to attend the talks in Rio this week. His first no-show at a Brics summit was not well explained, prompting speculation that China’s enthusiasm for the organisation may have diminished.

• “Internal tensions within Brics have increased markedly since 2014,” said Oliver Stuenkel, an associate professor at the School of International Relations at the Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) in São Paulo. “And it has become even more difficult since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.”

• Vladimir Putin only joined virtually, apparently due to the international criminal court warrant for his arrest. Other notable absences were Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and the Iranian president, Masoud Pezeshkian, who was due to attend the summit before the US and Israeli attacks on his country in June and was deputised by his foreign minister.

• The 31-page Rio de Janeiro declaration, which was issued by the leaders on Sunday, condemned the military strikes on Iran, the attacks on Gaza and tariffs, but the language was relatively muted, and there were also soothing reassurances about the importance of the dollar. Analysts said Brazil does not want to reappear on Trump’s tariff radar or to antagonise other countries ahead of Cop30. “There was a general sense of ‘let’s keep this as low key as possible,’” Stuenkel said. “Brazil sees Cop30 as the most important encounter of the year. It has identified climate change as a topic where it can play a leading role.”
• Brazil has reportedly asked China and Brics member states in the Middle East to be among the seed funders. But the bulk of the money is expected to come from wealthy northern-hemisphere nations, which are most to blame for the climate crisis.
• Instead, the statement acknowledged “fossil fuels will still play an important role in the world’s energy mix”. Brics now includes several of the world’s biggest oil and gas producers, though it remains behind the G7 – particularly the US, Canada and Australia – when it comes to plans for increased production.

• But if this week’s summit was any indication, there is little appetite for accountability or transparency inside Brics. On the first day, media access to national delegations was severely restricted. Civil society groups were absent, perhaps deterred by rows of military vehicles equipped with water cannon and hundreds of troops on closed-off streets, carrying assault rifles.

• Brazil, which has always been a great champion of multilateralism, has papered over cracks inside and outside the conference this week, but it will face a still great chasm at Cop30 in November. Preparatory talks in Bonn last month almost came unstuck over money because the EU and other wealthy nations refused to make up the missing climate funds left by the abandonment of the US. This issue – and the widening of war zones – looks likely to haunt the gathering in Belém, when the global south may be left wondering whether the new world order is an opportunity or an illusion.

12 more annotations...

• “The reason is propaganda of radical values: Today they have 70 genders, and who knows what will come next,” RIA Novosti quoted Beslangurov as saying, echoing President Vladimir Putin’s frequently deployed grievances against Western countries’ comparative gender freedom.

   

• Russia, which has ranked among the worst countries for expats in recent years, experienced a major downturn in tourism and other foreign arrivals after the invasion of Ukraine.

   

• Putin has decided that Russia is going to be a 'safe haven' for people who want to trade liberal Western ways for Russian 'moral values'

     

         

   

       

   
• • Applicants may include those from countries unaligned with "Russian spiritual and moral values."
   

• Russia, in many ways an authoritarian state, has designated itself as a "safe haven" for citizens of Western countries looking to escape "destructive neoliberal ideas."

   

   

• Applicants can request residency based on the rejection of what the decree describes as their home countries' "destructive neoliberal ideals," which it says differ from "traditional Russian spiritual and moral values." Russia is expected to produce a list of which countries are included in this exception, TASS said in its report on the new decree.

• Praise for Russia has been a common occurrence among some prominent figures on the right, including former President Donald Trump, who has often spoken positively about Putin. Others have parroted Russian talking points, while others have celebrated some elements of Russian society.

   

   

• Rhetoric of this nature has shown up in the Russian leader's speeches. In 2022, Putin criticized the West as "satanic," arguing that it had rejected "moral norms" and "traditional" values. And in his Victory Day speech in 2023, he attacked "Western globalist elites" for what he said was the destruction of "family and traditional values ​​that make a person human."

   

   

4 more annotations...

• The Russian president’s ‘strong man’ image and disdain for liberals has turned him into a hero for white nationalists
• Putin is now seen as the upholder of traditional Christianity

• The backlash showed how the war in Ukraine has exposed the American far right’s affinity with Putin. That affinity is complicated by the tortured relationship between Russia and former president Donald Trump, whose rise Moscow supported with a covert operation to undermine US democracy.

• Ukraine was a place where the same perceived downfalls of western society existed and Putin embodying a strong man authoritarian-type figure stepping in and inflicting suffering on Ukraine was viewed in a positive light

• “I don’t believe anyone should be canceled,” Taylor Greene told the attendees of the white nationalist conference. She lashed out at a wide range of topics from Marxism to cancel culture but avoided the invasion of Ukraine, saying even less on the topic than Russian state media.

• Devin Burghart, executive director of Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights, said: “In the world of the white nationalists, you are seeing a lot of support for Putin, as expressed by the cheerleading at AFPAC over the weekend.”

• Others agree, pointing to a shared socially and culturally conservative ideology, disdain for democratic systems and appreciation for a “strong man” form of government. There was also the fact that it was the current Ukrainian government whom Trump attempted – and failed – to bribe to investigate his political rival Biden: actions which led to his first impeachment.
• “When Russia invaded Ukraine, large parts of the far right were supportive.”

• “The common thread is this idea that because of western European and US influence on Ukraine, Ukraine was a place where the same perceived downfalls of western society existed and Putin embodying a strong man authoritarian-type figure stepping in and inflicting suffering on Ukraine was viewed in a positive light.”

• Taylor Greene was condemned by some in her own party for speaking at AFPAC but is unlikely to be disciplined. And she was not alone. The Arizona congressman Paul Gosar made a video address. A lieutenant governor from Idaho and state legislator from Arizona also spoke at the event, which also attracted figures such as Gavin McInnes, the founder of the violent extremist gang the Proud Boys, which currently has more than three dozen members under indictment for the insurrection.

• This represents a disorienting shift for a Republican party once staunchly opposed to communism and the Soviet Union, which President Ronald Reagan dubbed “the evil empire”. But Trump, who in 2015 ran for president promising to build a wall and impose a Muslim ban, stoked the party’s nativist elements.

• And as America and the world grow more diverse, critics say, Russia has come to be seen as a beacon of salvation by white nationalists. In 2004 David Duke, a longtime leader of the Ku Klux Klan, described it as “key to white survival”. In 2017 Ann Coulter, a rightwing author and commentator, opined: “In 20 years, Russia will be the only country that is recognizably European.”

• Researchers who monitor far-right groups agree that the moment of Putin enthusiasm in the US has intellectual underpinnings with deeper roots. Burghart said: “For almost a decade the work of Russian fascist Alexander Dugin has found a home in American white nationalist circles.”

• Dugin’s ideology is steeped in Russian Christian nationalism and has chimed with Putin’s world view. At the same time, it echoes much of the Christian nationalist activism in the US, where liberal values, gay rights and a desire to keep religion out of the state, are seen as decadent and responsible for American decline.

• Burghart added: “There’s an attraction to Putin’s hardline authoritarian stand, his aggressive policies, they are attracted to his brand of traditional Christianity that Putin’s expressed. Some have liked Putin’s attacks on the Russian LGBTQ+ community.”

• On the eve of the Russian invasion, former Trump aide Steve Bannon hosted private security head Erik Princ, founder of the Blackwater military contracting group, on his popular War Room podcast. The two men – who are highly influential in Trumpist circles – praised Putin as “anti-woke”.

• After four years of praise for the Russian leader there’s a large swath of the right that has internalized that message.

• The legacy of the Trump years shapes the perception of Putin among the right in the US as Trump demonstrated a clear affinity for the Russian leader, even as details emerged of the Russian attempt in the 2016 election to disrupt US democracy. Trump himself praised Putin as “genius” and “smart” as the invasion began only to change his tune later as the military action faltered and casualties mounted.

• Even then, while condemning the assault, Trump told CPAC: “The problem is not that Putin is smart – which of course he’s smart – but the real problem is that our leaders are dumb.”

• The same was true of America’s most popular conservative broadcaster, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. Right up to the invasion Carlson was lambasting Ukraine as “not a democracy” and a puppet state of the US state department. He also praised Putin, saying: “Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him? Has he shipped every middle-class job in my town to Russia?”

• That sort of language – contrasting Putin favorably against Democrats on mainstream US television – has an impact.

• Burghart commented: “After four years of praise for the Russian leader there’s a large swath of the right that has internalized that message. Some of the right have embraced Putin while others have been slow to denounce the invasion of Ukraine.”

• Burghart says some extremist rightwing militias even see Ukraine as a potential scenario to discuss how to prepare for urban warfare and a future insurgency in the US itself. Instead of horror at the outbreak of brutal urban warfare, some US extremists are obsessed with the idea of a coming civil war in America.

• “They see a societal collapse and need to prepare for an impending civil war, and their focus is on preparing for the battles of that here in the US,” Burgheart added.

22 more annotations...