#VDare | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 2 years

Text

A collection of radical right figures including white nationalists and ultranationalist European leaders gathered in Manhattan for the New York Young Republicans Club’s (NYYRC) annual gala Saturday night, where that group’s president declared “total war” on perceived enemies.

“We want to cross the Rubicon. We want total war. We must be prepared to do battle in every arena. In the media. In the courtroom. At the ballot box. And in the streets,” NYYRC President Gavin Wax declared to a room full of supporters at 583 Park Ave., an event venue on New York’s Upper East side.

“This is the only language the left understands. The language of pure and unadulterated power,” Wax added.

At the five-hour event, which Hatewatch reporters attended, white nationalists Peter and Lydia Brimelow of VDARE hobnobbed with Steve Bannon, a former Trump adviser and White House official. Donald Trump Jr. was also in attendance.

Republicans publicly lauded members of an Austrian political party founded by World War II-era German Nazi party members. Racist political operative Jack Posobiec shared jokes across a table with Josh Hammer, the opinion editor of Newsweek. Multiple recently elected GOP congresspeople applauded Marjorie Taylor Greene, who told the NYYRC crowd in the event’s closing remarks that the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol would have succeeded if she had planned it and that the insurrectionists would have been armed.

“Then Jan. 6 happened. And next thing you know, I organized the whole thing, along with Steve Bannon,” Greene said, referring to allegations that she had led reconnaissance tours of the Capitol for soon-to-be insurrectionists in the days prior to the violence.

“I will tell you something, if Steve Bannon and I organized that, we would have won,” she said, as attendees erupted in cheers and applause. “Not to mention, it would’ve been armed.”

WHITE NATIONALISTS AND NEOFASCISTS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

Republican speakers repeatedly voiced an anti-democracy, authoritarian ideology, and extremists in the audience cheered wildly. White nationalists such as the Brimelows of VDARE and leaders from extreme far right European parties like Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland, AfD), whom German officials placed under surveillance for their ties to extremism, and Austrian Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, FPÖ), ate and drank in the same room as newly elected Republican congresspeople, such as Long Island and Queens-based George Santos, Georgia-based Mike Collins and Florida-based Cory Mills.

Hatewatch reached out to Santos and Mills by email before the event about their willingness to appear in a global collection of radical right, anti-democracy activists. They did not reply. Hatewatch reached out to Collins on Sunday morning but had not received a response at press time.

A STEVE BANNON SELFIE FOR VDARE

Bannon, the former Trump adviser, physically embraced the white nationalist Brimelows at NYYRC, spoke to the couple for several minutes and took a selfie with them. VDARE traffics in the great replacement conspiracy theory and has published defenses of writings that a terrorist who gunned down 24 people in an El Paso Wal-Mart in 2019 allegedly authored. Peter Brimelow attended the white supremacist American Renaissance conference in November, whose host has portrayed Black people as being subhuman. The Brimelows publish writing authored by Jason Kessler, who helped organize the deadly 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

When Hatewatch attempted to speak to Lydia Brimelow after her conversation with Bannon to inquire about it, she walked away. Hatewatch did not get close enough to Bannon to ask him about the encounter with Peter and Lydia Brimelow.

‘PIZZAGATE’ JACK DESCENDS ON NEW YORK CITY

Posobiec, a radical right political operative, resides with his wife Tanya Posobiec in Hanover, Maryland. The couple took Amtrak Northeast Regional train 88 into New York’s Penn Station Moynihan Hall on Saturday afternoon to get to the NYYRC gala. Train 88 pulled in at around 3:45 PM ET, and a Hatewatch reporter observed Posobiec and his wife deboard and enter New York City.

“Antifa, don’t even think about it tonight,” Posobiec posted to Twitter three hours later, at 6:39 PM ET, with the location of the tweet marked Manhattan, NY.

NYYRC gave Posobiec a speaking slot and an Allen W. Dulles award, named after the former head of the CIA. NYYRC said in its December bulletin that the award is given to “an individual who embodies the virulent anti-Marxist spirit of [Dulles].”

Like the Brimelows, Posobiec has a well-documented history of radical right activism. He has boasted of his ties to the antigovernment Oath Keepers, fraternized with the Proud Boys, and at least twice, filmed propaganda videos with a pair of neo-Nazi brothers. He is primarily known for pushing the #Pizzagate disinformation campaign, which falsely suggested that Democrats ran a pedophile dungeon in the basement of a Washington, D.C., pizzeria.

Hatewatch spoke with Posobiec around midnight at the NYYRC event and asked him about his involvement in pushing the #StoptheSteal hashtag onto Twitter during the runup to the 2020 election. Although “Stop the Steal” became synonymous with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol building, Posobiec started tweeting the hashtag from his over-1-million-follower account as early as Sept. 7, 2020, two full months before anyone tallied any votes.

While responding to Hatewatch at NYYRC, Posobiec first attempted to associate the hashtag with Roger Stone and then with Ali Alexander, two of his collaborators. Then he called it “a meme.” He never explained why he abruptly started posting the hashtag in September 2020.

While answering questions, Posobiec grew testy with a Hatewatch reporter and described SPLC as a “domestic terror organization.” Posobiec called that reporter a “scumbag” and a “troll.” After Posobiec’s speaking tone became palpably agitated, a crowd formed and NYYRC executive secretary Viswanag “Vish” Burra escorted both Hatewatch reporters to the exit, physically shoving one of them.

NEWSWEEK FLAUNTS ITS RADICAL-RIGHT CREDENTIALS

Starting in May 2020, after editor Nancy Cooper and chief content officer Dayan Candappa brought political activist Josh Hammer to run Newsweek’s opinion section, the 90-year-old publication has emerged as a hub for opinion pieces authored by radical right activists. Newsweek has published the extremist Posobiec as well as 2020 election-lie pusher Raheem Kassam in recent years, and Hammer has also hosted both of them on his Newsweek-branded podcast. The three men sat together talking and laughing at table #6 during the NYYRC event, near the stage.

When QAnon influencer-turned-congressperson Marjorie Taylor Greene took the stage, Hammer stood up and applauded. When she endorsed former President Trump as her 2024 presidential candidate of choice, Posobiec turned to Hammer and grinned. In January, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis invited Hammer on a tour of his office, and the Florida-based Newsweek editor has since hyped DeSantis as a potential presidential candidate.

“You gonna go up there, Josh?” Posobiec chided Hammer about Greene’s endorsement of Trump, eliciting laughter from the table.

A Hatewatch reporter approached Hammer after Greene’s speech, made an introduction and asked if he knew Peter Brimelow of VDARE.

“He’s right here, right now?” Hammer asked with excitement.

“I didn’t even know he was here!” Hammer said of the infamous white nationalist publisher. “I’m going to say Hi.”

The Hatewatch reporter asked Hammer how he got his job at Newsweek, and the opinion editor abruptly stopped talking. He asked the reporter to identify himself again. When the reporter did, Hammer’s expression slackened. He quickly claimed he did not know Peter Brimelow and left.

‘WHAT’S RACIST ABOUT PROJECT VERITAS?’

Multiple figures associated with Project Veritas, the hard-right propaganda group that engages in sting operations, attended the NYYRC gala. The group’s founder James O’Keefe and Project Veritas board member Matthew Tyrmand hobnobbed with NYYRC guests Saturday.

Legal trouble has entangled Project Veritas in recent months. Former associates sued Project Veritas in August, citing the creation of a “highly sexualized” work environment, which they claim included substance abuse and unpaid labor. (The group has denied these allegations.) In September, a jury in a civil case found that Project Veritas had “violated wiretapping laws and fraudulently misrepresented itself” during a sting operation targeting a group called Democracy Partners. The FBI raided O’Keefe’s home in November 2021 as part of an investigation into the alleged theft of a diary belonging to President Joe Biden’s daughter Ashley. (The group has claimed that they acted lawfully in obtaining the diary.)

Outside of the building on 583 Park Ave., O’Keefe argued with antifascist protesters, according to footage reviewed by Hatewatch. A different, self-described “independent video journalist” posted a series of clips to Twitter at 8:15 p.m., showing O’Keefe asking antifascist protesters on the corner of Park Avenue and 62nd Street, “What’s racist about Project Veritas?”

The same social media user posted a video to Twitter at 9:12 p.m. In it, O’Keefe could be seen standing on the street outside the venue alongside several other men, including Newsweek’s Hammer.

“Would you like to make a tax-deductible donation to Project Veritas?” O’Keefe asked the protesters.

Hatewatch observed Project Veritas’ Tyrmand sitting at table #4, the one closest to the center of the stage, alongside Trump-world power players Steve Bannon and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. A recent New York Times report named Tyrmand and Bannon as key U.S. figures in an effort to depict Brazil’s November presidential elections as being fraudulent, after voters in that country pushed hard-right favorite Jair Bolsonaro out of office. Tyrmand, who is known for his ties to the global radical right, took the stage and lauded the ultranationalist European leaders in attendance.

“This is an all-star room, and I urge all of you to meet everybody here and continue to spend time together, getting to know each other, so we can fight the battle, arm in arm,” Tyrmand said of the European extremists, including the contingents from Austria and Germany.

ALMOST MIDNIGHT

Speakers including Trump Jr. and Greene sought to downplay the Republicans’ failure to secure a so-called “red wave” victory in the 2022 midterms by attacking such familiar right-wing targets as Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden and LGBTQ+ people.

“The party is in a pretty good spot, but America may not be getting it. We have a party right now that is actually delivering for the American people. But what we don’t have [is] our same people in Washington, who can make those things happen,” Donald Trump Jr. told the crowd after he came on stage.

Greene suggested eliminating Democrat members of House committees in her closing speech, as a way of shifting the tide of power in Washington. She also told the audience Americans it was “almost midnight,” meaning they risked losing their country to perceived enemies.

Greene praised a Project Veritas video focused on LGBTQ+ education published by the group, saying it shows that teachers “pass around dildos, buttplugs and lube.” (The school issued a statement claiming “[Project] Veritas deceptively edited the video with malicious intent.”)

Greene expressed her gratitude to Project Veritas for their work.

“Thank you very much. We appreciate that,” she said to scattered applause.

18 notes · View notes

midnightfunk · 2 years

Text

The SPLC’s report also highlighted some interesting event attendees, such as Peter Brimelow, Jack Posobiec, and Josh Hammer.

In case you’re not familiar, Brimelow runs the white nationalist site VDARE. Posobiec is best known for pushing the #Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Hammer is the opinion editor of Newsweek, once considered a premier news magazine, and an advocate of “national conservatism” (which raises the question of whether it’s going too far for me to connect the dots between national conservatism and white nationalism).

#vdare #white nationalism #mtg #marjorie taylor greene #peter brimelow #newsweek #jack posobiec #josh hammer #MAGAts

2 notes · View notes

disruptiveempathy · 2 days

Text

The white nationalist website VDARE, which has ties to former White House aides who helped shape the Trump administration’s harsh immigration policies, suspended operations earlier this year amid a slew of legal and technical challenges.

#human rights #social justice #articles #southern poverty law center #vdare #white nationalism

0 notes

mariacallous · 2 months

Text

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) has been making headlines for his “rocky rollout” since being named former President Donald Trump’s running mate last month. The bad headlines and poll numbers have been driven by Vance’s extreme comments about “childless cat ladies,” abortion, and more. Well, along with extreme comments, Vance has some extreme investments.

Vance has had a six-figure stake in Rumble, an online video platform. The company has played host to Russian propaganda and to far-right personalities like Stew Peters and Tim Pool. It has also featured even more extreme content, including explicitly neo-Nazi images and themes like this song touting the “Reich” and calling for Jews to be placed in ovens from a “dissident rapper” with a dedicated page on the site. The site features a plethora of channels and videos dedicated to the concept of “white genocide,” which is a core belief for white supremacists. It also hosts channels for explicitly white supremacist organizations including VDare and Patriot Front, which has led masked demonstrations around the country.

A former Marine, Vance was elected in 2022 after a career as a bestselling author and venture capitalist. In both the financial world and as he rose in politics, Vance has been backed by the Silicon Valley investor and right-wing donor Peter Thiel. The pair co-founded a firm, Narya Capital, in 2020. In keeping with Thiel’s preferred styling, the company was named after a reference to the “Lord of the Rings” fantasy novels.

In 2021, Narya Capital made a major investment in Rumble. The investment, which made Narya one of Rumble’s top shareholders, also gave the firm a seat on Rumble’s board. Financial disclosures filed by Vance in conjunction with his Senate bid also show that he made a personal investment in Rumble that was valued between $100,000 and $250,000.

Rumble went public in 2022 following Narya’s investment. In a filing last year that was reported by CNBC, Narya indicated it planned to sell more than three million shares of Rumble. Narya’s initial investment in Rumble totaled over seven million shares.

Vance has not yet filed required financial disclosures for last year. He sought an extension in April. His most recent disclosure, which covered 2022, showed the Rumble investment.

The stake is notable because it represents a direct financial link between Vance and a key outlet for some of the most extreme elements of the far right. Vance’s stake in Rumble was the subject of a New York Times piece during his Senate race in 2022. That story focused on Rumble hosting the Kremlin-backed propaganda network RT, but gave less attention to the extensive hate speech on the site.

A spokesperson for Rumble did not immediately respond to requests for comment on this story. A company representative responded to the prior Times story by saying the company is willing to host those who “hold politically unpopular views, so long as they comply with our content policies,” framing the issue as a matter of free speech. A spokesperson for Vance’s campaign told the paper “J.D. does not play an active role at Rumble, nor does he set Rumble’s content moderation policies” and noted his belief in “free speech rights online.”

Vance isn’t the only figure in Trumpworld who has financial ties to Rumble. Donald Trump Jr., the former president’s son, signed a seven-figure podcast deal with the company last year. Trump Jr. reportedly played a “pivotal role” in persuading his father to bring Vance onto the Republican presidential ticket. Trump Jr. did not respond to questions about the extremist content on Rumble and about whether his financial relationships influenced his support for Vance.

Representatives for Vance and the Trump campaign also did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The campaign of Trump’s opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, was more forthcoming. Harris 2024 spokesperson Joseph Costello issued a statement to TPM decrying Vance’s links to the extremist content on Rumble.

“The American people deserve a president who works to bring people together and who gives hate no safe harbor,” Costello said. “Every day the words and actions of Donald Trump and JD Vance prove they belong nowhere near the White House.”

While the bad headlines have seemingly led Vance’s political stock to drop among some Republicans, shares in Rumble have fared far better. According to CNBC Pro, Rumble stock went up 17 percent on the week Trump picked Vance. The movement prompted a note from JP Morgan analyst Kamal Tamboli, who said the surge was a “quarterly record” for the extremist platform.

“Retail traders appear to be closely following US election developments,” Tamboli wrote.

The stock has dropped a bit from its recent high, which came on the day Trump picked Vance. However, it is still up 21 cents from where it was before the pick. The Ohio senator may be a drag on the Trump ticket, but someone out there enjoyed a bit of Vancementum!

54 notes · View notes

victusinveritas · 2 months

Text

Reminder that the founder of VDARE was previously an editor at National Review and Fortune. The halls of power are full of bastards like him.

#antifascist #antiracism #antiracist action #fuck white supremacy

7 notes · View notes

marinetti-dinner-party · 2 months

Text

lmao yeah if there's one thing americans love it's think tanks

eta: also i think vdare and amren already have this covered buddy

3 notes · View notes

uboat53 · 2 months

Text

Hey look, another episode of "how the political media is screwing up", that didn't take long… All right, here we go.

So at the first night of the Republican National Convention, we saw a parade of black Republicans and other African-Americans who support Trump for president giving speeches and this was duly reported as the Republican outreach to black voters. Was it, though?

Look what those African-Americans talked about: they spent most of their time arguing that black voters had been brainwashed by Democrats and were on a "plantation" that they needed to escape from by voting for Republicans. I'm not sure if you know any African-Americans well enough to talk politics with them, but does this sound like it's speaking to the issues they care about? Do you think this line of argument went over well with them?

Assuming the people who programmed the convention aren't stupid (and Republican strategists generally do not have a reputation as being stupid), there must be another explanation for why they would devote an entire night to this because it definitely didn't gain them any serious amount of black votes. And here's the thing, anyone who is savvy about politics and has actually studied the history of race in politics knows exactly what they were doing.

You see, Donald Trump has a racism problem. He's promoted racist militias, tried to "both-sides" a major white supremacist terror attack, has embraced official hostility to civil rights policy, and has a decades-long business record of screwing over black people at his properties. More to the point, white supremacists LOVE him. I don't recommend going onto VDARE or Stormfront or other neo-Nazi/white supremacist websites but, if you do, you'll notice that they're overwhelmingly supportive of Trump. They believe he's advanced their cause immeasurably and moved openly racist ideas into the sphere of acceptable discourse in this country for the first time since the civil rights era, and they believe this because… well… he has. He and his allied media have promoted racist ideas like The Great Replacement Theory and moved it from a fringe idea that no one who valued their reputation would even acknowledge to something that gets discussed in respectable political shows.

And that's a problem for him. You see, there's not a ton of openly racist voters out there, but there are a ton of ordinary, button-down, "sensible conservative" types out there who would really love to vote Republican because they still hold to the Reaganomics orthodoxy but they're afraid of being labeled as racist. I'm sure you know a bunch of these people, they're all over the place.

That programming of black voices was for them. It had nothing to do with getting African-Americans to vote for Trump or vote Republican and EVERYTHING to do with convincing squishy conservative voters that "Trump's not racist, see, a bunch of black people said so."

As I said, this isn't mysterious. Everyone in politics or who studies it knows exactly what this is. I you don't believe me, e-mail any political science professor, they'll be happy to talk about it. Seriously, they'll be thrilled that someone is interested in their opinion, you should try it.

Except, apparently, the political media. And, look, it's not myserious why either. It's not that they don't know what's going on, but they're scared to say it. If they accurately report that Republicans are trying to tamp down accusations of racism to make white people feel secure in voting for them, conservative groups will scream bloody murder and claim that it really is an appeal to black voters (despite that fact that it, you know, has basically no appeal to black voters). At this point there are conservative billionaires on the board of just about every major media company, so those complaints will be amplified and passed down the chain of command. A journalist may not necessarily be fired for pointing out the obvious, but it's not a great career move.

And that, more than anything is the problem with the political media today.

(PS - If you're interested in good coverage of the Republican National Convention this week and probably the Democratic National Convention next week, I highly recommend The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. They're not actual journalists and, thus, are still producing great coverage.)

#politics #us politics #political news #news media #the daily show with jon stewart #republican national convention #rnc #racism

3 notes · View notes

jgmail · 7 months

Text

¿Weimerica? - Carl Schmitt sobre el Estado de Derecho

Por Tom Sunic

Traducción de Juan Gabriel Caro Rivera

Al Sistema Liberal le gusta ponerse la etiqueta de “Estado de Derecho”, con lo que sugiere implícitamente que otros sistemas de creencias u otros Estados no liberales o estatales que han existido a lo largo de la historia son entidades sin ley que violan la libertad de sus ciudadanos. Esto no es cierto. Desde tiempos inmemoriales los Estados de todo el mundo, incluso las peores tiranías, han utilizado sistemas legislativos a la hora de dictar sentencia contra sus oponentes políticos o delincuentes comunes. El problema no es si esos Estados o Estados antiliberales son o eran justos o injustos; el problema es más bien la elección correcta o incorrecta de tal concepto y la posterior interpretación de ese concepto por parte de los detractores o defensores de esos Estados.

Por ejemplo, la legislación de la Europa del Este comunista y de la Unión Soviética contenía elementos constitucionales detallados que abarcaban todos los aspectos de la vida de los ciudadanos. Lo mismo ocurre con el fascismo italiano y el nacionalsocialismo alemán (1922-1945), cuyos líderes consideraban que las leyes de su país defendían mejor la libertad que las leyes del Sistema Liberal. En los Estados Unidos contemporáneos, y al amparo de la grandilocuente expresión “Estado de Derecho”, el poder judicial tiende cada vez más a deslizarse hacia un legalismo excesivo, hacia una guerra legal (lawfare) que podría llevar cualquier otro nombre, y que tarde o temprano conducirá a la desorganización administrativa y el desencadenamiento de disturbios civiles. Actualmente, este proceso de guerra legal lo podemos observar en el poder judicial de los EE.UU., tal y como lo ilustran las numerosas acusaciones contra el ex presidente Donald Trump, la cruzada de Letitia James contra VDARE, la demanda de Charlottesville y muchos otros casos más. Además, los juicios casi al estilo soviético de miles de manifestantes del Capitolio del 6 de enero están en pleno apogeo, con los acusados convertidos en sujetos de nombres mal definidos y a menudo abstractos (¿alborotadores?, ¿intrusos?, ¿insurrectos?, ¿terroristas? ... ¿¡o luchadores por la libertad!?). Hay que señalar que, a pesar de las acusaciones mutuas, cargos por delitos graves y contraacusaciones del equipo legal de Trump contra los fiscales locales patrocinados por el gobierno estadounidense y los abogados activistas que odian a Trump como es el caso de Roberta Kaplan, no se trata de una característica inherente del sistema estadounidense. En absoluto. De hecho, el hiperlegalismo manifiesto en los EE.UU., que roza cada vez más la anarquía administrativa, representa la esencia misma de la dinámica histórica del Sistema Liberal [I].

Quis judicabit? - ¿quién toma la decisión legal final?

La sorprendente similitud entre el actual sistema judicial estadounidense y el poder judicial semianárquico de la Alemania de Weimar, que había dado lugar a incesantes disturbios civiles y asesinatos políticos en serie, fue descrito por Carl Schmitt en muchos artículos que fueron publicados entre 1933 y 1944 en revistas jurídicas de la Alemania nacionalsocialista. Sin embargo, al estudiar la obra jurídica de Schmitt hay que tener en cuenta varios aspectos. No existe en ingles un equivalente para el sustantivo compuesto alemán “Rechtsstaat” (Estado de derecho), un sustantivo que tiene un equivalente verbal y conceptual exacto en todas las lenguas europeas continentales (état de droit, pravna država, stato di diritto, právní stat, etc.). En cambio, los juristas estadounidenses/británicos recurren a una expresión mucho más general como “dominio de la ley” o “Estado constitucional”, términos que no tiene el mismo significado específico que el concepto alemán de “Rechtsstaat”. La expresión que voy a utilizar en mis traducciones de las citas de Schmitt, es decir, del concepto de Estado de Derecho (state ruled by law) es la palabra que que más se aproxime al sustantivo alemán original de “Rechtsstaat” (n.d.t, Sunic escribió este artículo originalmente en inglés por lo que no existe una traducción exacta a esa lengua, pero sí al español).

En segundo lugar, hay que tener en cuenta que Schmitt, a quien a menudo citan hoy decenas de académicos tradicionalistas contemporáneos tanto estadounidenses como europeos, al igual que intelectuales y activistas de la Alt-Right o de la Nueva Derecha, no sólo era un jurista experto y un reputado politólogo, sino también un erudito poliglota que indagaba constantemente en el significado de los conceptos políticos y sus distorsiones semánticas por parte de las diversas clases políticas dominantes en Europa y los Estados Unidos. La expresión “fake news” (noticias falsas) no existía en la época de Schmitt, aunque Schmitt era muy consciente de la falsa jerga jurídica usada por el sistema judicial liberal. A pesar de su abierta simpatía por el nacionalsocialismo y el fascismo, merece la pena examinar la relevancia de sus artículos, especialmente a la hora de evaluar los actuales sistemas jurídicos de los EE.UU. y la UE dentro del marco del derecho internacional. En uno de sus artículos que lleva el laudatorio título de “El Estado nacionalsocialista es un Estado justo” Schmitt escribe: “La existencia de un ‘Rechtsstaat’ [es decir, Estado de derecho] depende de la propiedad específica que uno atribuya a una palabra tan ambigua y también hasta qué punto un Rechtsstaat puede considerarse como un Estado justo. El liberalismo del siglo XIX atribuyó a este término un significado específico convirtiendo al Rechtsstaat en un arma política en su lucha contra el Estado. Quien utilice tal expresión debe explicar exactamente lo que entiende por ella y en qué se diferencia su Rechtsstaat del Rechsstaat liberal, así como en el qué es su Rechtsstaat nacionalsocialista o cualquier otro tipo de Rechtsstaat” [II].

Dado el uso excesivo y generalizado del término “Estado de derecho” no debe sorprendernos que este término hoy en día apenas si resulte creíble. “En este sentido”, escribe Schmitt, “el liberalismo se ha esforzado indiscriminadamente durante el último siglo por demostrar que todo Estado no liberal, ya sea una monarquía absoluta, un Estado fascista, un Estado nacional-socialista o bolchevique, es un Estado que no es regido por la ley (Nicht-Rechtsstaat), o como un Estado injusto o sin ley (Unrechtsstaat)” [III]. Además, el Sistema Liberal, como señalan incansablemente sus partidarios, establece una construcción social de dos niveles que promueve una división tajante entre el aparato estatal y la persona privada. El supuesto subyacente es que tal división puede prevenir mejor el surgimiento de un Estado poderoso y de un líder dictatorial. El Estado liberal, según los teóricos liberales, debe funcionar únicamente como un “vigilante nocturno” ocasional, sin interferir nunca en la esfera privada del individuo: “Esta naturaleza bifronte explica el típico marco constitucional del Rechtsstaat burgués. Los derechos y libertades fundamentales garantizados por el Estado liberal-democrático y su sistema constitucional son esencialmente los derechos de la persona privada. Sólo por esta razón [esos derechos] pueden considerarse ‘apolíticos’. El Estado liberal y el marco constitucional se basan en un contraste simple y directo entre el Estado y la persona privada. Sólo sobre la base de este contraste es natural y merece la pena esforzarse por crear todo el edificio de protecciones y facilidades legales con el fin de proteger a una persona privada que se encuentra indefensa, desvalida y aislada del poderoso Leviatán del ‘Estado’. Sólo para la protección de un individuo desvalido tiene sentido la mayoría de estas medidas de protección legal del llamado Recthsstaat. Se pueden justificar con el argumento de que la protección frente al Estado debe modelarse cada vez más por medio de procedimientos judiciales e incluso en líneas generales con la participación de una autoridad judicial independiente del Estado” [IV]. La cita anterior sobre la autopercepción romántica del sistema liberal es errónea. Cabría plantearse la siguiente pregunta: ¿es cierto, como afirman los teóricos liberales, que la división entre la sociedad civil y el Estado puede garantizar mejor las libertades individuales y proteger mejor a los ciudadanos particulares de las decisiones arbitrarias del Estado? Difícilmente. ¿Es cierto que los tan alabados controles y equilibrios liberales, incluida una separación tajante entre los poderes ejecutivo, legislativo y judicial, pueden prevenir mejor las tentaciones totalitarias? Tampoco es cierto. La división tan alabada entre la esfera privada y la esfera pública es engañosa; más bien impide a los ciudadanos escapar del actual Estado de vigilancia liberal. Hay que subrayar una y otra vez que en el sistema liberal ya no es el Estado el que ejerce el control; en su lugar, este control es ahora ejercido por una infinidad de grupos de presión, ONGs, empresas de medios de comunicación y grupos de presión elitistas bien financiados que influyen en los ciudadanos a diario mientras utilizan a su antojo al Estado como cobertura legal. Schmitt analizó hace tiempo el impacto negativo de los grupos de presión no gubernamentales como contrapoder.

Sin embargo, todo esto se vuelve completamente absurdo cuando se aplica a asociaciones u organizaciones colectivas fuertes que conquistan esferas de libertad no gubernamentales, es decir, no políticas, y organizaciones no gubernamentales (pero que no son apolíticas) que quieren ejercer su autoridad sobre las personas privadas mientras que se enfrentan al Estado utilizando diversos títulos legales (pueblo, sociedad, burguesía libre, proletariado productivo, opinión pública, etc.). Estas asociaciones no gubernamentales que, como ya hemos dicho, son totalmente políticas, llegan a dominar a través de la legislatura tanto la voluntad del Estado (a través de la coerción social y del “derecho puramente privado”) como la voluntad del individuo al que convierten en sujeto mediático. “Son estos grupos los verdaderos responsables de la política y quienes manipulan los resortes del poder estatal” [V]. ¿Acaso todo esto no nos suena familiar? Lo que ahora se denomina sarcásticamente Estado profundo ya había sido anticipado por Schmitt, aunque este término no existía en su tiempo. En sus críticas a la Constitución liberal de Weimar, los nacionalistas alemanes introdujeron y popularizaron en toda Europa el término das System, un concepto que fácilmente podría designar al actual Estado profundo liberal. Sin duda, en un Sistema Liberal en el que el poder está descentralizado, denominado en el mundo académico como “reparto del poder”, un ciudadano disidente sólo puede fantasear con derrocar a su respectivo gobierno por la fuerza atacando al Estado. A primera vista esto puede parecer como un medio para proteger la libertad dentro del Sistema Liberal. No obstante, la naturaleza atomizada del poder y su dispersión al interior del Liberalismo, resultado de sus famosas políticas de controles y equilibrios, conduce inevitablemente a una desconfianza y odio mutuo entre los ciudadanos, causando que la línea que separa a la víctima del culpable desaparezca gradualmente. El difunto Claude Polin, que fue uno de los mejores observadores de las contradicciones liberales, plantea una pregunta inquietante: “¿Cómo es posible que se tema el ejercicio del poder de un único rey y no se tema aún más el ejercicio de poder de millones de pequeños reyes?” [VI].

Cientos de reyezuelos no gubernamentales y cientos de agencias privadas en los Estados Unidos y la UE, incluidos decenas de grupos de presión étnicos, cada uno de ellos haciendo gala a menudo de un extraño victimismo y cada uno de ellos controlando su propio territorio, tienen sus propios métodos de represión contra las voces disidentes. Sin duda, la mayoría de las ONGs de los Estados Unidos y la UE no ocultan su profunda aversión hacia un Estado fuerte y se apresuran a denunciar cualquier signo de populismo en la burocracia gubernamental. No obstante, ninguna de ellas se priva del ejercicio de sus propias políticas represivas contra otros grupos marginados, al tiempo que piden al Estado generosas subvenciones. La ADL, SPLC en los EE.UU., docenas de fundaciones antifas y transgénero, incluyendo instituciones judías y cristianas financiadas por el gobierno de la UE, al igual que el Crif, LICRA o la Amadeu Antonio Stiftung operan de forma muy similar a los antiguos comisariados populares locales soviéticos. Todas ellas dan por sentado, sin embargo, que tienen derecho a un trozo del gobierno, es decir, del pastel de los contribuyentes. En nombre de la abstracta “tolerancia” y del “Estado de derecho” todos ellos consideran que su deber democrático y legal es espiar y denunciar a sus conciudadanos críticos con los dogmas judiciales del liberalismo. La democracia liberal posmoderna, aunque presume de ser el mejor de los mundos, recuerda cada vez más al surgimiento de los primeros Estados medievales. El Sistema Liberal, es decir, el Estado profundo que actualmente existe en los Estados Unidos y la UE, el cual es básicamente un sistema oligárquico, no cayó de la luna, ni está formado por bandas monolíticas de ladrones y conspiradores autodeclarados que están empeñados en subvertir el Estado. El sistema liberal de Occidente no es más que el resultado lógico de diferentes grupos, a menudo enfrentados entre sí, que voluntariamente – y a veces sin saberlo, como es el caso de los grupos religiosos cristianos que promueven políticas liberales para los refugiados – trabajan a favor de la descomposición social, racial y nacional del Estado y de su pueblo, un rasgo inherente a la propia dinámica del (mal) llamado Estado de derecho liberal.

Notas:

[I] T. Sunic, “Historical Dynamics of Liberalism: From Total Market to Total State? “, The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies 13, no. 4, (Winter 1988), p. 455.

[II] C. Schmitt, „Fünf Leitsätze für die Rechtspraxis“ en Deutsches Recht, 3, Nr. 7 (1933), S. 201–202, reimpreso en Gesammelte Schriften 1933–1936 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2021), p.56. (También: https://archive.org/details/carl-schmitt-gesammelte-schriften-1933-1936)

[III] C. Schmitt, Der Rechtsstaat, públicado por primera vez en Nationalsozialistisches Handbuch für Recht und Gesetzgebung (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1935, S. 24–32) y reimpreso en Gesammelte Schriften 1933–1936, p.286-287.

[IV] C. Schmitt, „Die Verfassungslage Deutschlands“ en Preußische Justiz – Rechtspflege und Rechtspolitik, Nr. 42, 5. Oktober 1933, pp. 479–482, reimpreso en Gesammelte Schriften 1933–1936, p.74.

[V] Ibid, p. 75-76.

[VI] Claude Polin, “Pluralisme ou Guerre civile?” Catholica (invierno, 2005–06), p. 16.

#carl schmitt #tom sunic #nueva derecha #hisoria #política #estado de derecho #liberalismo

6 notes · View notes