NYC: Irish Boxer Sings Irish Republican Army Victory Song Entering the Ring in Madison Square Garden – 17 March 2019

Conlon
Undefeated former Olympic Irish boxer Michael Conlan walked into the ring on Saturday, 17 March 2019,  at Madison Square Garden in New York to a song containing lyrics which support the Irish Republican Army and the struggle for Irish freedom from British Imperialism.  He waved an Irish tricolor flag, and not the UK Union Jack which he technically lives under at home. 

Belfast native Conlan, 27, defeated his Mexican opponent Ruben Garcia Hernandez on March 17 in the Hulu Theater inside the world’s most famous fighting arena, Madison Square Garden, winning all ten rounds on the scorecards his career-best performance ever. 

Conlan was accompanied to the ring by former WWE champion and fellow Irishman Finn Balor. This is the boxer’s third successive St. Patrick’s Day fight at Madison Square Garden; two years ago he was walked to the ring by former UFC champion Conor McGregor.

Conlan opted to have The Wolfe Tones’ song ‘Celtic Symphony’ played through the venue’s PA system, a well-known Irish Republican song which contains the phrase: “Up the ‘RA'”

牛虻 (小说) 维基百科,自由的百科全书

牛虻》(英语:The Gadfly)是爱尔兰作家艾捷尔·丽莲·伏尼契创作的一部小说,发表在1897年(美国,六月;英国,同年九月),故事发生在1840年代奥地利统治下的意大利,一个充满起义和反抗的时代。[1] 故事围绕主角亚瑟伯顿,一名青年运动的成员,和他的对手蒙塔内利。 同时,亚瑟和他爱的婕玛悲剧性的关系也贯穿了整个故事。 这是一个关于信仰、幻灭、革命、爱情和英雄主义的故事。

影响

此书的主题是真正革命的天性,在苏联中华人民共和国伊朗异常流行,并对文化产生重大影响。《牛虻》被指定为必读书,并成为了最畅销的书。至作者伏尼契死时,在苏联大约售出了2,500,000本。[2] 在中国,仅中国青年出版总社就前后发行了2,050,000本,后来还有其它出版社发行。[3] 爱尔兰作家Peadar O’Donnell回忆称,在爱尔兰内战期间,此书在蒙乔伊监狱共和军犯人中非常流行。[4]

参考文献

 

  • See Voynich, Ethel Lillian. The Gadfly 1. New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1897 [13 July 2014]. via Archive.org

Cork City Libraries 互联网档案馆存檔,存档日期2007-11-18. provides a downloadable PDF of Evgeniya Taratuta’s 1957 biographical pamphlet Our Friend Ethel Lilian Boole/Voynich, translated from the Russian by Séamus Ó Coigligh. The pamphlet gives some idea of the Soviet attitude toward Voynich.

Archive

 

Le Taon – Révolution italienne de 1840 – le plus grand roman irlandais vendu – Lire en Russie soviétique et en Chine communiste – presque inconnu en Italie

Le Taon

Gadfly 2


Le Taon (The Gadfly) est un roman sur un thème révolutionnaire, connu particulièrement pour le succès dont a bénéficié sa traduction en langue russe sous le titre Ovod. Ethel Lilian Voynich en est l’auteure. C’est une écrivaine irlandaise, puis américaine. La première publication du livre aux États-Unis date de juin 1897 et en Angleterre de septembre de la même année.

 

Le roman a comme sujet l’activité des membres de l’organisation révolutionnaire clandestine « Giovine Italia » durant la première moitié du XIXe siècle. Il raconte l’histoire d’Arthur Burton, un jeune homme naïf, passionné plein d’idées et d’illusions romantiques. Il est trompé, calomnié et rejeté par tous. Il disparaît, simulant un suicide et retourne dans sa patrie lointaine après 13 ans, mais sous un autre nom, avec une apparence physique et une personnalité transformée, le cœur endurci. Il se présente aux gens qu’il a connu autrefois mais devenu cynique et moqueur. Il prend, comme journaliste, le pseudonyme du « Taon » (Gadfly1).

 

Popularité en Russie

Le roman est populaire en Angleterre et connaît 18 éditions avant 1920. Le Russie pré-révolutionnaire puis l’URSS, ainsi que les États-Unis, la République populaire de Chine et d’autres pays ont également connu des publications répétées et à succès. Pour la Russie, le chiffre de 2 500 000 exemplaires est cité2. En 1898, l’année du premier congrès du Parti ouvrier social-démocrate de Russie, la traduction du roman Le Taon paraît en supplément dans la revue Mir Boji. Beaucoup de personnalités assurent sa popularité : Elena Stassova, Grigori Petrovski, Ivan Babouchkine, Iakov Sverdlov, Maxime Gorki. Ce livre aurait servi de prototype à Pavel, le héros du roman de Maxime Gorki La Mère. Beaucoup sont passionnés par la lecture du Taon : Grigori Kotovski, Nikolaï Ostrovski, Arkadi Gaïdar, Mikhaïl Kalinine, Zoya Kosmodemianskaya. En 1988, le journal La Pravda écrit que Le Taon était le livre préféré du cosmonaute Youri Gagarine.

Le roman était aussi apprécié dans d’autres pays même s’il n’y faisait pas partie des œuvres dont on encourageait beaucoup la lecture. Dans le roman de Nikolaï Ostrovski, Et l’acier fut trempé, le personnage principal, Pavka Kortchagine, fait plusieurs fois référence au roman Le Taon et dans un épisode il récite tout un fragment.

 

Prototype

Les chercheurs littéraires polonais sont convaincus de retrouver le prototype de Gadfly dans les figures du parti social-révolutionnaire polonais. Les lecteurs russes y reconnaissent, quant à eux, les traits des révolutionnaires russes. D’autres encore retrouvent les traits caractéristiques de Giuseppe Mazzini et Giuseppe Garibaldi dans l’image du héros3.

En 1955, des écrivains soviétiques ont réussi à retrouver à New York l’écrivaine E. L. Voynich et à maintenir des relations épistolaires avec elle. Dans une lettre écrite à l’écrivain russe Boris Polevoï les 11 et 14 janvier 1957 elle s’explique à propos des prototypes d’Arthur Burton (Gadfly4).

Critique

Pour l’écrivain russe Varlam Chalamov, The Gadfly est le livre qui a joué le plus grand rôle dans la vie de deux générations de russes5.

Adaptations

Références

  1. On prétend que l’image du révolutionnaire du Taon a exercé une influence sur les débuts de la vie de l’espion britannique Sidney Reilly qui se livre à des activités d’espionnage en Union soviétiqueselon Robin Bruce Lockhart, Reilly: Ace of Spies, 1986, Hippocrene Books (ISBN 0-88029-072-2)
  2. Cork City Libraries [archive] provides a downloadable PDF [archive] of Evgeniya Taratuta’s 1957 biographical pamphlet Our Friend Ethel Lilian Boole/Voynich, translated from the Russian by Séamus Ó Coigligh. The pamphlet gives some idea of the Soviet attitude toward Voynich
  3. Œuvres de E L Voynich en deux tomes Э. Л. Войнич. Избранные сочинения в двух томах. М., «Художественное издательство художественной литературы», 1958. стр.14 (предисловие — Е. Таратута)
  4. E. L. Voynich : œuvres en deux tomes / Э. Л. Войнич. Избранные сочинения в двух томах. М., «Художественное издательство художественной литературы», 1958. стр.426-427
  5. Varlam Chalamov, Mes Bibliothèques, Éditions Interférences, , p. 52
  6. (en)John Riley, Dmitri Shostakovich: A Life in Film: The Filmmaker’s Companion 3, I.B.Tauris, (ISBN 9781850437093, lire en ligne [archive]), p. 80

Liens externes

Sur les autres projets Wikimedia :

Archive

Il più grande romanzo scritto irlandese più venduto – ‘Il figlio del cardinale’ – Leggi in Russia sovietica e Cina comunista – Quasi sconosciuto in Italia

gadfly 9Trama

L’opera, ambientata nell’Italia risorgimentale a cavallo degli anni ’30 e ’40 dell’Ottocento, vede snodarsi la propria trama tra l’allora Granducato di Toscana (Pisa, Livorno e Firenze) e la Romagna Pontificia (Brisighella, dove la vicenda narrata ha il suo tragico epilogo). I temi dominanti del libro vanno individuati nell’eroismo e nella lotta per la libertà, ai quali va aggiunto anche un tormentato ateismo. I riferimenti topografici all’interno del romanzo sono sorprendenti: sono infatti indicate anche singole località non riportate nemmeno sugli atlanti oppure sulle carte a piccola scala.

 

Ispirazione e ricezione

Con tutta probabilità, la Voynich trasse ispirazione e dati per il libro dai racconti di un esule romagnolo, tal Luigi Passani o Bassani, sviluppando poi l’intreccio assecondando la propria fede repubblicana e la venerazione che la scrittrice aveva nei confronti di Giuseppe Mazzini e Giuseppe Garibaldi.

Sostanzialmente sconosciuto in Italia e attualmente dimenticato nel mondo anglosassone, grazie ad una sua rilettura in chiave marxista The Gadfly ha avuto e tuttora ha grande successo negli stati comunisti o laddove l’ideologia comunista è stata molto forte: su tutti, URSS (dove la sua lettura era obbligatoria a scuola), Paesi ex comunisti dell’Europa orientale, Repubblica Popolare Cinese, Vietnam, Cuba.

Gadfly 4

Il successo del romanzo della Voynich fu tale che esso conobbe almeno 4 trasposizioni cinematografiche (3 sovietiche ed una cinese) e innumerevoli adattamenti per il teatro, l’opera, il balletto (in massima parte sovietici).

A gennaio 2013 è uscita una nuova edizione (Castelvecchi editore) con una traduzione inedita e un cospicuo apparato critico.

Nel 2017 sono stati editi gli atti di una giornata di studio tenutasi all’Università di Pisa nel 2015, dove si approfondiscono in primo luogo la ricezione e la rielaborazione russo-sovietica del romanzo.

 

 

Bibliografia italiana

  • S. Piastra, Luoghi reali e luoghi letterari: Brisighella in The Gadfly di Ethel Lilian Voynich, “Studi Romagnoli” LVII, (2006), pp. 717-735.
  • S. Piastra, Il romanzo inglese di Brisighella: nuovi dati su The Gadfly di Ethel Lilian Voynich, “Studi Romagnoli” LIX, (2008), pp. 571-583.
  • A. Farsetti, S. Piastra, The Gadfly di Ethel Lilian Voynich: nuovi dati e interpretazioni, “Romagna Arte e Storia” 91, (2011), pp. 41-62.
  • Ethel Lilian Voynich Il figlio del cardinale , (trad. it. di A. Farsetti; saggi di A. Farsetti e S. Piastra), Castelvecchi Editore (2013), ISBN 9788876156120.
  • C. Cadamagnani, A. Farsetti (a cura di), Il figlio del cardinale di Ethel Lilian Voynich. Un romanzo sul Risorgimento tra storia e mito, (Atti della giornata di studio), Pisa University Press, Pisa, 2017, ISBN 978-886741-8886.

Archive

US Support for Trump among Republicans stubbornly refuses to collapse – Liberal Media Flummoxed – by Jazz Shaw (Hot Air) 17 March 2019

When they’re not talking about impeachment, they’re speculating over who should challenge President Trump in a primary battle. To many in the bloated, liberal sector of the media, it seems to be a complete mystery why Donald Trump is still in office. Doesn’t everyone hate the guy? There can’t be more than a few personal friends and family members of his remaining who still want to see him in office, right?

See Also: Beto: Third trimester abortion is fine with me

So why isn’t there more of a line of serious GOP contenders forming up and preparing to remove the problem before it gets to the general election stage next year? A possible explanation (and some tough medicine for the left to swallow) might be found in a recent, massive poll conducted by Morning Consult. This jumbo survey, collecting opinions from more than 50,000 registered Republicans around the nation, reveals that primarying the President isn’t on much of anyone’s mind at the moment. In fact, the vast majority of them are okay with the job he’s doing and would like to see him have a second term. (Washington Times)

So how do Republicans feel about President Trump these days?

The answer is pretty good. No one appears particularly cranky. The sampling which follows is from a Morning Consult survey “based on 53,408 interviews with registered voters who indicate they may vote in the Republican primary or caucus in their state,” the pollster states.

Currently, 85 percent of these likely Republican voters approve of Mr. Trump, and that has inched up two percentage points in the last four weeks. Another 76 percent of the voters support Mr. Trump’s nomination, and that too has risen two percentage points in the past month. The painstaking poll also gauges support for Mr. Trump rather than another GOP candidate — this among 27 different demographics. That support ranges from a low of 62 percent among moderate Republicans to a high of 91 percent among those who are “very conservative.”

An 85% approval rating with 76% supporting the nomination for reelection is hardly a record in either party, but it’s certainly not bad. And if more than three-quarters of potential primary voters have already decided to support you, that doesn’t exactly leave a lot of wiggle room for any challenger looking to take you on. Yes, it’s true that some of that support may simply reflect the fact that there isn’t a viable declared challenger at the moment and those numbers might sag a bit if such a person emerged and declared their candidacy. But still… that’s a tough tightrope to walk. And Trump’s numbers among Republicans are going up, albeit slowly, and not in the other direction.

Jeb Bush (among others) has indicated that he’d like to see Maryland Governor Larry Hogan challenge Trump for the nomination. But as I’ve written here before, Hogan may be enjoying all the attention he receives as a potential contender, but he seems far too smart for that. He’s got a good thing going in his home state right now and doesn’t need to muck it up by jumping into that briar patch.

Who else is there? Recent polling shows that Trump would beat John Kasich by a margin of 67-14 (!) in a hypothetical primary matchup. (Even Republicans in Ohio don’t want Kasich to run.) Jeff Flake does even worse, not even cracking double digits.

For anyone still asking why there isn’t more primary activity taking place, you might need to peek out from your bubble for a moment. I have zero doubt that there are many traditional Republicans out there who aren’t wild about President Trump’s personal style or his social media habits. But they also know that regulations have been rolled back, the courts are being stocked with a generation’s worth of conservative judges, taxes and unemployment are low and wages are going up. You can put up with a lot of personal distaste for a deal like that.

And what are the alternatives? To vote for one of the Democrats, each and every one of which thus far are promising to roll back everything Trump is doing? I hardly think so. As this new polling seems to indicate, we might be in the middle of a bumpy ride at the moment, but almost nobody in GOP circles is talking about getting out of the car.

Archive

No, The New Zealand Shooter Was Not A Nationalist – By Robert Delahunty (The Federalist ) 18 March 2019

It is implausible to claim that the murders of these innocent Muslim victims were caused by nationalism. Rather, it appears to be the work of a kind of globalist.

………………..

NZ Al Noor Mosque

The mass murder of 49 Muslims at prayer in a New Zealand mosque is an atrocity that has led to a search for explanations. Some writers have attributed the killings to the “nationalism,” or “white nationalism,” of the killer.

Deliberately exploiting social media, he posted a lengthy manifesto revealing (or purporting to reveal) his opinions. We thus have some evidence—although its value is uncertain—about his motives. Here I want to explore the question whether, and if so in what sense, he was a “nationalist.”

This question is important because the murderer’s killing spree is being used to discredit nationalism and those who espouse it. But it is implausible to claim that the murders of these innocent Muslim victims was caused by nationalism. Rather, it appears to me that this killer was a kind of globalist, who in this respect and several others resembles the mass murderers of ISIS.

What Is a Nation?

Let me begin with the question of what a “nation” is. My treatment here is inevitably oversimplified and schematic. Those who seek a serious, in-depth analysis of this and related issues should read the brilliant recent book by the Israeli philosopher and political theorist Yoram Hazony, “The Virtue of Nationalism” (2018).

“Nations” can be seen to emerge organically from simpler types of kinship groups. To start with, there is the family. A group of families banding together form a clan. From a group of clans, a tribe emerges. From a collection of tribes arises a “nation,” or what can also be called a “people.”

The core of all these relationships is kinship or descent from a common ancestor (real or imagined). But membership at each level need not necessarily be closed to non-kin. Just as a family can adopt a stranger, so a clan, tribe, nation, or people can admit outsiders to their membership. But the core of the group is based on kinship, albeit often of an attenuated kind.

We call such nations “ethnic” nations. Probably such nations no longer exist, or scarcely exist, in a pure form. But the category can still be useful analytically, and a few existing nations—Iceland, for example—are approximations to the pure form.

“Nations” or peoples have to be distinguished from “nation states,” the political and governmental form that ethnic nationhood may take. In nineteenth-century Europe, the Poles, the Irish, and the Jews were all “nations” or “peoples,” but all lacked a nation state of their own. The Poles and Jews were largely subsumed by larger states, particularly the Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian empires; the Irish were incorporated into the British empire and more specifically into the United Kingdom. Each of these peoples acquired a nation state of their own in the twentieth century.

Creedal, or Civic, Nations Are Another Kind

Many existing nation states are not constituted or even dominated by a single ethnic “nation” or people. The highly multi-ethnic and pluralist United States and India are paradigms of this kind of nation state. So, increasingly, are nation states like France, where those who are ancestrally “French” are a declining proportion of the population.

Nation states such as the United States are constituted more by a shared belief system, institutional loyalties, and laws than anything resembling or resulting from kinship ties. To be an American is, in essence, to hold and to act upon certain beliefs. Membership in an ethnic “nation” is not a test of, or a perquisite for, being an American.

Because the basic criterion for membership in the American nation state is not ancestry but belief, being “American” is somewhat like being the follower of a religion. What matters most is what you believe and do, not who your forebears were or what tribal membership you claim. So the United States can be characterized as a “creedal” (others would say “civic”) nation, rather than an ethnic one.

In the run-up to the Civil War, there was a serious dispute over whether the United States should become an ethnic or a creedal nation. Some, like Chief Justice Roger Taney and Sen. Stephen Douglas, took the position that only those descended from the peoples of Europe could be members of the American nation and participants in its political life.

Others, like Abraham Lincoln and his supporters in the Republican Party, insisted that membership in the American nation state should not be based on tribal or ethnic identity but, essentially, on acceptance of the American “creed.” In the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln described America as “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Dedicated to a proposition. Lincoln’s view prevailed. We are a propositional nation, not an ethnic one.

Despite the infamies heaped upon him by mistaken critics, Donald Trump stands squarely in the broad tradition of American nationhood espoused by Lincoln and his Republican Party. Consider, for example, Trump’s call in his recent State of the Union Address for more legal immigration.

Trump appears to want a reform of our immigration system that would base legal admission on an applicant’s “merits,” presumably understood in economic terms, not tribal ones. There is no suggestion whatever that he wishes to restrict any legal immigration to Europeans, whites, or non-Muslims. To require that applicants bring human or other forms of capital with them as a condition of lawful immigration is obviously not to impose a racial, ethnic, or religious test.

The Last Category Is Empire

In addition to (ethnic or creedal) nations, there are also “empires.” Just as (ethnic) nations are aggregates of tribes, so empires have typically been aggregates of nations or peoples. Characteristically, however, one ethnic nation within an empire has tended to dominate the others politically and culturally. In the nineteenth-century British Empire, the English and Scottish tribes and peoples were dominant; the Irish, French Canadians and Indians not so.

The diversity of peoples in empires is a strength, but also a cause of friction and conflict.

“Empire” has probably been the most important form, historically, of large-scale political organization. Empires have included the Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Ottoman, and Chinese ones. The benefits of this political form are fairly obvious: empires repressed violence between the tribes and nations they governed; enacted uniform laws; established uniform weights and measures and a single currency; built roads, storehouses, and relay stations across vast territories; encouraged the use of a single language; and so promoted prosperity, commerce, and peace.

On the other hand, empires, even if long-lasting, have nearly always dissolved. (The Chinese empire is arguably the exception to this rule.) For one thing, the peoples or ethnic nations within them may long ardently for their own, independent form of government. This longing may be particularly acute when the dissatisfied people refuse to be treated as the inferiors of the dominant people, or resist the imposition of beliefs or customs repugnant to them. So the Jewish people rebelled, tragically and unsuccessfully, against the Roman Empire; and the Irish people, with greater success but only after many centuries, seceded from the British Empire.

The diversity of peoples in empires is a strength, but also a cause of friction and conflict. Ultimately, that diversity has often led to violence and war against the central authority and the governing group. Such violence in turn has led either to growing despotism by the authorities or to the empire’s dissolution. The long existence of the Chinese empire (under many different dynasties) may be due, in large part, to the belief of most of China’s population that they share the common (ethnic) identity of being Han.

Another cause of the dissolution of empires has been their vague and uncertain borders. Empires tend to extend themselves for indefinite distances, at least until the cost of military defense becomes too heavy. At some point in their expansion, they typically encounter peoples—like the Germans north of the Roman Empire, or the Mongols north of China—who forcibly resist their encroachment, demand tribute, raid their remote settlements, and even invade, conquer, and occupy their heartlands.

The Decline of the Nation-State

It is a commonplace to remark that the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century have witnessed, perhaps most conspicuously in Western Europe, the decline of the nation state. (Eastern Europe seems to be different.) Many reasons have been assigned as causes, and most European and American intellectuals applaud this trend.

Some explain it primarily in economic terms—e.g., the nation state is no longer right-sized for the demands of a global economy; or nation states cannot solve the collective action problems posed by global warming. Others would locate the decline of the nation state, particularly in Western Europe, to its (alleged) propensity to war. Whatever explanation is accepted, the trend itself seems very evident.

As identification with the nation state wanes, we should expect a reversion to ethnic nationalism and to tribalism.

What would replace the nation state? The answer that most western intellectuals and, at least until recently, most western politicians, would give is, in effect, empire. To be sure, they would never use the disturbing word “empire.” But that is, in substance, their position.

Thus, the European Union is a—very ramshackle, incongruous, and unacknowledged—empire. But it is an empire nonetheless, despite the disguises in which it is camouflaged. (Indeed, it is arguable that the EU is not only an “empire,” but effectively a German empire, in which that state plays a dominant role.)

As we have seen, empires have historically produced many goods, including the suppression of violence between the peoples or ethnic nations that comprise their populations. But they have also produced such violence as their constituent peoples grow disaffected, turn on each other, or rebel against the controlling authorities.

If the decline of the nation state has created pressures to ascend to the level of empire, it will likely also lead to increasing ethnic conflict and perhaps to retribalization. A major function of the nation state has been to prevent ethnic and tribal war, first, by suppressing such violence through its police and courts, and second, by offering its population an object of loyalty, commitment, and identity comparable in intensity and depth (at least in wartime) to a tribe’s.

The passion and energy that the nation state has been able to command have been awesome: hundreds of thousands of young American soldiers in the Union Army sacrificed their lives on what Lincoln called “the altar of the Nation.” But as identification with the nation state wanes, we should expect a reversion to ethnic nationalism and to tribalism.

Was the New Zealand Shooter Motivated by Nationalism?

With this framework in mind, we can address whether the New Zealand murderer was motivated by “nationalism.” It seems clear that he was not. A subtler and more searching explanation for his violence must be found.

To begin with, there is no indication at all, either from his actions or his writing, that he was an Australian nationalist. How would Australian nationalism be advanced by murdering Muslims?

More plausible is the thought that he was an Anglo-Australian (ethnic) nationalist. Certainly, he highlighted his British ancestry. Perhaps the Anglo-Australians might be considered to be a “people” or a large “tribe” within contemporary, pluralistic Australia. In the same way, the Dutch or English in the Union of South Africa might be characterized as distinct (minority) peoples or tribes in that setting.

The group of people who hold murderous or genocidal views of Muslims do not, in any way, constitute a ‘people’ or a ‘tribe.’

Carrying this thought even further, one might argue that the (ethnic) English in the current United Kingdom were a distinct people or tribe within that country. One might even attempt to claim the same of “WASPs” in the United States.

But, again, the New Zealand shooter did not identify himself as an Anglo-Australian nationalist. Rather, he identified himself with the figure of the convicted Bosnian Serb war criminal, Radovan Karadzic. But Karadzic could hardly be described as an Anglo-Australian nationalist: he was an ethnic Serb. The New Zealand shooter based his personal identification with Karadzic on the most important thing he thought they had in common: a murderous hatred of Muslims, everywhere on the planet.

Now, it is open to question whether Karadzic would have harbored murderous feelings towards Muslims in Christchurch New Zealand, which is pretty far away from Bosnia. But let that pass. The more salient point is that the group of people who hold murderous or genocidal views of Muslims do not, in any way, constitute a “people” or a “tribe.” The latter are relationships rooted in kinship, not in attitudes or beliefs. So if this shooter centered his identity on hatred of Muslims, it is hard to see how that could be said to have made him a “nationalist.”

The obvious retort to this is that he describes himself as acting on behalf of the “white people” or the “white race.” But would that make him a nationalist?

True, in some situations it might be reasonable to describe particular groups of “white” people as a distinct “nation,” “people,” or even, in a loose sense, “tribe.” Anglo-Australians might conceivably answer to that description; so might white South Africans. But in what sense could the “white race” throughout the entire world be described as a single ethnic nation?

Granted, the Poles, the Jews, or the Irish can plausibly be considered to be ethnic nations. But can all these groups be considered to be the same ethnic nation? How many of the world’s 800-900 million persons of straight European descent would see themselves in that light? How many of them would wish to form a distinct nation state?

The New Zealand Murderer as a Globalist

We should be looking for some explanation for the New Zealander’s violence other than nationalism. I submit that his perspective was a globalist, not a nationalist, one. The resemblances between this shooter’s violence and that practiced by the Islamic State (ISIS) are striking. They may give us the right clues to understanding his real motivation.

Like ISIS, the New Zealand murderer selected soft targets: the victims of his atrocity were innocent Muslim men and women at prayer. Like ISIS, he exploited to the full the resources of modern social media in order to call attention to himself and his actions. Like ISIS, he aestheticized violence: in his hands, the mass murder of the innocent, live-streamed as it was happening, was designed to be a work of art.

The resemblances between this shooter’s violence and that practiced by the Islamic State (ISIS) are striking.

Most importantly here, his violence, like ISIS’s, was addressed to a global audience in the service of a global cause: in their case, the renewal of a caliphate subsuming all Muslims spread across the planet, the umma. In his case, the “white race” throughout the world, faced (in his view) with demographic catastrophe and extinction. He was in effect calling on his intended audience to grasp the seriousness of its condition and to meet its global danger.

Whatever name we give to this kind of motivation, “nationalism” is not adequate. It is absurd to maintain that the white race throughout the entire planet forms a single, unitary “people” or “nation” in exactly the sense that particular white ethnicities do. Such a position is intelligible only from the globalist perspective that this mass shooter held, in which the differences between (say) Anglo-Australians and ethnic Serb Bosnians are entirely blotted out.

What I suspect the New Zealand killer was looking for was a kind of transnational or globalized community that defined itself in terms of “whiteness” and that adopted a violent and even genocidal attitude to the Muslim world as a whole. Yet, at the same time, that community, despite its global reach and teeming inner diversity, was to offer persons like himself the solace, intimacy, protection, and recognition characteristic of a tribe.

This is, perhaps, an ersatz and Christ-less form of Christendom. It may be a weird hybrid of globalism and tribalism. It is no recognizable form of nationalism.

Robert J. Delahunty is a professor of law at the University of St Thomas and has taught Constitutional Law there for 15 years.

US Pentagon Helped Make ‘Captain Marvel’ Blockbuster, Case Study in Neocon War Propaganda – by Ben Norton – 19 March 2019

The Pentagon was deeply involved in the production of the hit Hollywood film Captain Marvel, and is using the movie to spread recruitment propaganda.

The superhero blockbuster Captain Marvel is a perfect case study for how the United States military uses Hollywood to spread propaganda.

The US military is at the center of the plot of Captain Marvel. The film’s protagonist, Carol Danvers, is a former US Air Force pilot who becomes a superhero after absorbing the powers of an advanced technology created by another US military scientist. (That scientist happens to be a member of the advanced alien race known as the Kree, who for unexplained reasons decided to do groundbreaking military research for, of all the myriad places in the universe, the US of A).

As soon as the film opens, it bombards viewers with two hours of non-stop US military propaganda. And it is not even subtle; at the plot’s climax, Captain Marvel changes the colors of her suit to match those of the American flag.

But the US military is not only part of the story of Captain Marvel; as The Grayzone details below, the Pentagon was deeply involved in the production of the film itself.

The cast and directors of Captain Marvel worked closely with the United States military, relying on US military officers as consultants and advisers, employing dozens of active-duty US soldiers as extras. Several scenes were shot on a US military base. And since its release, the US Department of Defense has promoted the film relentlessly on its website and social media accounts.

Progressive cultural representation + militarist propaganda

Captain Marvel was marketed as a feminist blockbuster, a rare superhero movie featuring a female lead. As the women-centered magazine Elle trumpeted, “Captain Marvel Is Now the Highest Grossing Movie With a Female Lead Ever.”

As is so often the case in Hollywood, however, ostensibly progressive breakthroughs in cultural representation were seamlessly blended with US militarist propaganda.

Captain Marvel (played by Brie Larson) has two close allies: Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), a former CIA agent who finds himself directionless in life after successfully defeating communism in the Cold War; and Maria Rambeau (Lashana Lynch), another fighter pilot in the US military. The three team up in a benevolent, US military-backed mission to try to save a race of misunderstood underdog refugee aliens known as the Skrulls from annihilation by the Kree, a belligerent galactic superpower.

Marvel Studios and Walt Disney Studios, who produced and distributed Captain Marvel, respectively, had a similar marketing strategy with their 2018 opus Black Panther, which was also sold as a progressive anti-racist film with a majority-Black cast — and which just so happened to feature as a sidekick a white CIA agent who helped save the hero T’challa’s reactionary absolute monarchy from a revolution led by the anti-imperialist internationalist villain Killmonger. (There is good reason Black Panther was aggressively promoted by the CIA on social media.)

Investigative journalists and academics have documented the intimate relationship between Hollywood, the military, and intelligence agencies. Relying on declassified FOIA documents, researchers Tom Secker and Matthew Alford revealed that the DoD, CIA, and NSA have influenced more than 1800 movies and TV shows, and had even prevented films deemed too critical of the Pentagon from being made.

This year’s Captain Marvel is the just the latest and most blatant example of the US military exploiting the film industry to generate support for its agenda.

Captain Marvel, brought to you by the US military

On its official government website, the US Department of Defense boasted of its direct involvement in the production of Captain Marvel:

About 50 airmen from the Fresno-based 144th Fighter Wing of the California Air National Guard and the 412th Test Wing from Edwards Air Force Base, California, had roles as extras for the film. B-1 and B-2 bombers; F-16, F-22 and F-35 fighter jets; and a NASA Global Hawk unmanned aircraft, as well as housing, runways, the flighline and a hangar at Edwards were used in the [film]. About 490 cast and crew members with 37 trucks spent about 21 days on the base for setup, filming and tear-down.

Brie Larson, who portrays Danvers, also went to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, and met female fighter pilots, including Brig. Gen. Jeannie Leavitt, the first Air Force female fighter pilot.

The Pentagon published a photo of the celebrity cast members from the film — Samuel L. Jackson, Lashana Lynch, Gemma Chan, and Brie Larson — and its directors, Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden, standing with Air Force General Jeannie Leavitt in front of an F-15 fighter jet from the California Air National Guard’s 144th Fighter Wing, in Edwards Air Force Base on February 20, 2019.

(Screenshot from the US Department of Defense website)

The Pentagon revealed that General Leavitt, the commander of the Air Force Recruiting Service and the US Air Force’s first female fighter pilot, also served as a consultant for the Captain Marvel movie.

DoD tweeted a video interview with Leavitt, boasting of how she worked with the star of the movie to perfect her character.

Parts of the film were shot on the Edwards Air Force Base in California. The Air Force News Service (AFNS) noted that, “To ensure an accurate depiction of military service, filmmakers and actors immersed with Airmen from across the Air Force.”

The military was even part of the premiere of the film. On March 4, jets from the 144th Fighter Wing of the California Air National Guard — which was directly involved in the production of Captain Marvel — flew above to celebrate.

The movie’s directors, Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden, returned the favor to the US military by doing a PR event for the Pentagon on March 7.

In photos published by the Air Force, co-director Ryan Fleck can be seen wearing a military jacket over his t-shirt.

The Air Force News Service reported that, after the Pentagon round table, DoD held a screening of the film with the directors, which “was held to highlight Air Force collaboration with Disney and the inspiration behind the main character’s warrior ethos: ‘higher, further, faster.’”

Predictably, the US Air Force has used this film to try to recruit new soldiers.

The Pentagon even introduced a fun militarist quiz, combining knowledge of Captain Marvel and the superhero universe with trivia about the US military.

Official US military accounts published dozens of tweets using the film to spread Pentagon propaganda.


Ben Norton is a journalist and writer. He is a reporter for The Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebelspodcast, which he co-hosts with Max Blumenthal.