Crul has been investigating migration and integration for 25 years and has just begun a major new study this year, not of migrant groups but of the ‘white ethnic Dutch’ ‘It’s already happening in Amsterdam.
Only one in three youngsters under the age of 15 is of Dutch parentage,’ Crul told Trouw. With a team of eight researchers, Crul is starting a unique €2.5m 5-year study of six large European cities, including Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Frankfurt, Antwerp, Malmö and Vienna will also come under the spotlight.
If you want to look at integration, you need to look at the ethnic white Dutch, he said. ‘Who adapts to who if there is no majority?,’ he said. ‘The ethnic Dutch are the most unstable factor in Amsterdam. They move in while they are at university, and then leave or move with their young families to the suburbs. Migrant groups sometimes live in the same spot for generations,’ he said.
President Trump’s attempts to block travelers from a handful of countries — most of them predominantly Muslim — from coming to the United States hit another legal snag on Tuesday, when a federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide order freezing most of Mr. Trump’s third travel ban the day before it was to take effect.
At least for now, the judge’s order will prevent the Trump administration from stopping almost all travel to the United States indefinitely from most of the countries named in the ban.
The ban, now in its third iteration, was one of Mr. Trump’s earliest and most controversial decisions after taking office in January, and it has also been one of the most legally troubled. Both previous versions were ordered halted by federal district judges who said they violated the Constitution or exceeded the president’s authority, and those orders were upheld on appeal.
The Supreme Court was scheduled to review the second version of the order when Mr. Trump issued the third. Given the litigation surrounding the travel bans, the Supreme Court seems likely to take an interest in the current version as well.
Citing his campaign promises to keep terrorists and criminals out of the country, Mr. Trump initially ordered an immediate suspension of travelfrom seven predominantly Muslim countries, a move that plunged airports across the country into confusion and protest in January. That order was eventually blocked by a federal judge in Seattle. Mr. Trump’s second attempt narrowed the scope of the ban, but still struggled to survive judicial scrutiny; it was blocked in March by the same Hawaii judge who issued Tuesday’s order, Derrick K. Watson of Federal District Court in Honolulu.
The third travel ban, Judge Watson wrote on Tuesday, “suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor.” Among those flaws, he wrote, was that the ban “plainly discriminates based on nationality” in a way that undercut “the founding principles of this Nation,” and that the government had not shown that the United States’ national interests would be harmed by admitting travelers from the affected countries.
The Trump administration swiftly denounced the judge’s order, saying that the latest travel restrictions were issued after an “extensive worldwide security review” by Homeland Security officials.
The judge’s order “undercuts the President’s efforts to keep the American people safe and enforce minimum security standards for entry into the United States,” the White House said in a statement. “These restrictions are vital to ensuring that foreign nations comply with the minimum security standards required for the integrity of our immigration system and the security of our nation.” The statement called the ban “lawful and necessary” and expressed confidence that the courts would “swiftly restore its vital protections.”
The third version of the ban went further than the original, imposing permanent restrictions on travel instead of the original 90-day suspensions. Most citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea, as well as certain Venezuelan government officials and their families, were to be excluded from entering the United States at all, while citizens of Iraq were to face extra barriers to entry. The ban was scheduled to go into effect on Wednesday.
Judge Watson’s order blocks the administration from shutting the country’s doors to people from Chad, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia. It does not prevent the administration from barring North Koreans or Venezuelans or from subjecting Iraqis to stricter scrutiny.
The White House took pains to emphasize that the latest version was extensively vetted, with each of the affected countries subject to its own set of restrictions tailored to its security capabilities. The rollout of the third version of the executive order was supposed to avoid all the chaos of the first one: Legal permanent residents who were barred from the United States under the first travel ban would not be affected by the third, and people who already hold valid visas, including students now in the United States and employees of American businesses, would not have their visas revoked, as could have happened under the earlier ban. (Once their visas expired, however, they would be subject to the ban.)
Administration officials noted that non-Muslim countries were included in the order. But critics of the ban said that the addition of North Koreans and a small number of Venezuelans did little to disguise the ban’s targeting of Muslims.
Judge Watson appeared to find few substantial differences between Mr. Trump’s second effort and his third.
“Professional athletes mirror the federal government in this respect,” he wrote. “They operate within a set of rules, and when one among them forsakes those rules in favor of his own, problems ensue.”
The judge found that the government’s rationale for barring people from certain countries from entering the United States — that doing so would bolster national security — did not make sense, writing that the administration had failed to show a clear link between a person’s nationality and the threat he or she posed.
“The categorical restrictions on entire populations of men, women, and children, based upon nationality, are a poor fit for the issues regarding the sharing of ‘public-safety and terrorism-related information’ that the president identifies,” the judge wrote. Meanwhile, he added, dangerous people of other nationalities could fall outside the scope of the ban: “This leads to absurd results,” he wrote, adding that the executive order was “simultaneously overbroad and underinclusive.”
The judge also said that the order contradicted the administration’s public rationale by applying fewer restrictions to people from Iraq and Venezuela, which the administration said had failed to clear the security standards it had set, than it did on Somalia, which had met the baseline requirements. The administration also provided no coherent explanation for many of the carve-outs for certain categories of people in the ban, such as Iranian students, the judge wrote.
While the administration’s national security goals were important, Judge Watson said, the government had failed to prove that letting people affected by the ban into the country would directly harm the interests of the United States.
A spokesman for the Justice Department, Ian Prior, said the judge’s order failed to “properly respect the separation of powers” between the executive branch and the judiciary, and said the administration would appeal. The government has consistently argued that the president has broad powers to determine who may enter the country.
The judge’s ruling came in a suit filed by the state of Hawaii. The state’s attorney general, Douglas Chin, said in a statement: “This is the third time Hawaii has gone to court to stop President Trump from issuing a travel ban that discriminates against people based on their nation of origin or religion. Today is another victory for the rule of law. We stand ready to defend it.”
Judge Watson’s earlier ruling on the second version of the travel ban was upheld by an appeals court, but the Supreme Court ultimately allowed portions of that travel ban to take effect. It also allowed Mr. Trump to continue controlling the flow of refugees into the country. Administration officials said last month that Mr. Trump would cap refugee admissions at 45,000 over the next year.
It is already the case, Alexandre Mendel, author of the book ‘Partition’ told RT.
Europe has been facing a large number of migrants coming from the war-torn countries in Africa and the Middle East. Today many are concerned about the Islamization of Europe and the failure of Muslims assimilating into their new countries.
RT met with a writer Alexandre Mendel, whose new book “Partition” is devoted to the Muslims’ failure to integrate in France, and discussed the current situation in that country.
RT: Please start by describing for our readers your book.
Alexandre Mendel: My last book, ‘Jihadist France,’ was only about the French terrorists. ‘Partition’ is mainly about Islamization of France, about what’s going on in France, in schools, hospitals, at work, in sports clubs, etc. I am not talking this time about terrorism itself, but about the way France decided whether the French government – like it or not – collaborated and accepted some kind of arrangements with Islam. This is the main topic of the book.
There are at least two things that are important about the Islamization. The first one is that you cannot be always blind with this problem. For 20-30 years we let down our rules, our principals, our republican ideals; we negotiated with Islamists. We are totally blind to this kind of small signals that some parts of France were becoming Islamized. That can explain the terrorism today in France. If we didn’t accept these little arrangements with radical Islam, we probably wouldn’t have had so many attacks in France. That is why it is so important today not to be blind anymore in France and to tell the truth.
My book is made of many, many reports in France. It is not a theoretical book – it is a book written by a reporter. We went there, we went to the schools, to the hospitals, to the cities where people and police never set foot to see the reality and just to talk about the reality. A lot of French people, especially a lot of French journalists and French politicians never go there. It is very important today to be a reporter in these areas where nobody sets foot anymore. This is a testimony of our modern time.
RT: What should be done to integrate people into society? Is it only a Muslim thing, or other groups, as well?
AM: In my book, I say that there is no solution, because it is too late; there won’t be any solution. You can’t send them back to their country – they are French – the French cannot send them back. What France will become in the next 10 or 20 years will be a kind of new Lebanon in some places in France.
For example, take some suburbs in Paris: they will have their own set of rules, they will have their own laws, their own principals, maybe even their own police. It is already the case. The fact that in France right now in many places France has no control in these areas. We accepted it already and we won’t fight back to get these suburbs back to France. It is already done – we already lost the war against them.
So the rich people in France will be in the fancy neighborhoods of Paris, far from the problems, and then the poor people will have to deal with Islamism on a daily base. This is the way we accepted that already.
RT: Why did integration fail in France, do you think?
AM: Integration has failed in France, but not only France – in many other countries, because we buried our republican principal to actually mimic what exists in Great Britain, in Canada, or in the US; accept that you could be French, get French citizenship without even speaking French, without even going to the Republican French School, get French citizenship, without living like the French. France is not a new country of immigration – it has a very long story of immigration. People in the 1920s came to France from all over Europe – from Poland, from Russia, from Armenia, Italy, and there was no problem to integrate them, not problem at all…
Some more hateful reflections are growing in my mind
A blindness that was never lost
Striving hard for imperfection but still there is nothing inside
Capitalist values have no true cost
Still as I reach out to kill, the screams are no longer muffled
This all makes a bigger man of me
The only thing I can bring to my head is a gun
Watch me kill while they go down
I’m killing all you kikes to the ground dead with me while they drown
Wasting your whole life
The Jewish systematic hype means nothing to me
At the point of this retraciton and slipping further into a coma
This world has gotten worse for me
With no directions or morals to live by
Just dark skies in sight!
I reach out to kill you, your hand turns and wanders
You simply can never see
The separation of genders means nothing to me
I just keep killing on and on and on
I keep shooting on and on and on
Soon I will come back and it shall be your turn
Soon you will be the one to feel my burns
Kill whites and blacks!
They are dead now!
A few days ago, former police officer Jason Stockley, who is white, was acquitted of first-degree murder; he had fatally shot Anthony Lamar Smith, who was black, in 2011. Protests started in St. Louis, where the shooting took place and Stockley was judged, immediately after the verdict was announced. Although they were initially peaceful, they soon turned violent, and dozens of protesters were arrested while several police officers were injured. Since the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, just outside St. Louis, in 2014, this has become a familiar pattern. This article is not about whether Stockley should have been acquitted. Instead, I want to talk about the underlying narrative regarding the prevalence of police brutality against black men in the U.S., which is largely undisputed in the media. According to this narrative, black men are constantly harassed by the police and routinely brutalized with impunity, even when they have done nothing wrong, and there is an “epidemic of police shootings of unarmed black men.” Even high-profile black celebrities often claim to be afraid of the police because the same thing might happen to them. Police brutality, or at least the possibility that one might become a victim of such violence, is supposed to be part of the experience of a typical black man in the U.S. Events such as the death of Brown in Ferguson are presented as proof that black men are never safe from the police. This narrative is false. In reality, a randomly selected black man is overwhelmingly unlikely to be victim of police violence — and though white men experience such violence even less often, the disparity is consistent with the racial gap in violent crime, suggesting that the role of racial bias is small. The media’s acceptance of the false narrative poisons the relations between law enforcement and black communities throughout the country and results in violent protests that destroy property and sometimes even claim lives. Perhaps even more importantly, the narrative distracts from far more serious problems that black Americans face. Trump decertifies the Iran nuclear deal 00:06 00:33 Powered by Let’s start with the question of fatal violence. Last year, according to the Washington Post’s tally, just 16 unarmed black men, out of a population of more than 20 million, were killed by the police. The year before, the number was 36. These figures are likely close to the number of black men struck by lightning in a given year, considering that happens to about 300 Americans annually and black men are 7 percent of the population. And they include cases where the shooting was justified, even if the person killed was unarmed. Of course, police killings are not the result of a force of nature, and I’m not claiming these are morally equivalent. But the comparison illustrates that these killings are incredibly rare, and that it’s completely misleading to talk about an “epidemic” of them. You don’t hear people talk about an epidemic of lightning strikes and claim they are afraid to go outside because of it. Liberals often make the same comparison when they argue that it’s completely irrational to fear that you might become a victim of terrorism. One might retort that, while it may be rare for a black man to be killed by the police, black men are still constantly stopped and routinely brutalized by the police, even if they don’t die from it. However, even this weaker claim is false. It just isn’t true that black men are kicked, punched, etc., on a regular basis by the police. In order to show that, I’m going to use data from the Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS), which, as its name suggests, provides detailed information about contacts between the police and the public. It’s conducted on a regular basis by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and is based on a nationally representative sample of more than 70,000 U.S. residents age 16 or older. Respondents are asked whether they had a contact with the police during the past 12 months; if they say they did, they answer a battery of questions about the nature of their last contact, including any use of force. Since the respondents also provide their age, race, gender, etc., we can use this survey to calculate the prevalence of police violence for various demographic groups. The numbers in this piece are from my own analysis of the data, the details and code for which I provide here, but they are consistent with a 2015 report compiled by the BJS itself to the extent the two overlap. It’s not true that black men are constantly stopped by the police for no reason. First, despite what the narrative claims, it’s not true that black men are constantly stopped by the police for no reason. Indeed, black men are less likely than white men to have contact with the police in any given year, though this includes situations where the respondent called the cops himself: 17.5 percent versus 20.7 percent. Similarly, a black man has on average only 0.32 contacts with the police in any given year, compared with 0.35 contacts for a white man. It’s true that black men are overrepresented among people who have many contacts with the police, but not by much. Only 1.5 percent of black men have more than three contacts with the police in any given year, whereas 1.2 percent of white men do. If we look at how often the police use physical force against men of different races, we find that there is indeed a racial disparity, but that this experience is rare across the board. Only 0.6 percent of black men experience physical force by the police in any given year, while approximately 0.2 percent of white men do. To be fair, these are probably slight undercounts, because the survey does not allow us to identify people who did not experience physical force during their most recent contact but did experience such force during a previous contact in the same year. Further, physical force as defined by the PPCS includes relatively mild forms of violence such as pushing and grabbing. Actual injuries by the police are so rare that one cannot estimate them very precisely even in a survey as big as the PPCS, but the available data suggest that only 0.08 percent of black men are injured by the police each year, approximately the same rate as for white men. A black man is about 44 times as likely to suffer a traffic-related injury, according to the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Moreover, keep in mind that these tallies of police violence include violence that is legally justified. Now, it’s true that there are significant differences in the rates at which men of different races experience police violence — 0.6 percent is triple 0.2 percent. However, although people often equate racial disparities with bias, this inference is fallacious, as can be seen through an analogy with gender: Men are vastly more likely to experience police violence than women are, but while bias may explain part of this disparity, nobody doubts that most of it has to do with the fact that men are on average far more violent than women. Similarly, if black men commit violent crimes at much higher rates than white men, that might have a lot to do with the disparity in the use of force by the police. This is evident in the National Crime Victimization Survey, another survey of the public conducted by the BJS. Interviewers ask respondents if they have been the victim of a crime in the past 12 months; if they have, respondents provide information about the nature of the incidents, including the race and ethnicity of the offenders. This makes it possible to measure racial differences in crime rates without relying on data from the criminal-justice system, in which racial bias could lead to higher rates of arrest and conviction for black men even if they commit violence at the same rate. Racial bias is unlikely to explain a very large part of the discrepancy. NCVS data from 2015, the most recent year available, suggest that black men are three times as likely to commit violent crimes as white men. To the extent that cops are more likely to use force against people who commit violent crimes, which they surely are, this could easily explain the disparities we have observed in the rates at which the police use force. That’s not to say that bias plays no role; I’m sure it does play one. But it’s unlikely to explain a very large part of the discrepancy. Some might say that, instead of consulting statistics like these, we should defer to black Americans’ own perceptions of how the police treat them. As various polls have demonstrated, black people are much more likely than white people to think that police violence against minorities is very common. But the issue cannot be settled this way. Since individuals have direct knowledge of what happened to them personally, you can trust them about that. But when it comes to larger social phenomena, people’s beliefs are influenced by far more than just their personal experience, including the media. The far more compelling fact is that, if you draw a representative sample of the population and ask each black man in that sample whether a police officer has used physical force against him in the past year, you find that it’s extremely rare. On many issues, liberals have no problem recognizing this problem. For instance, there is a cottage industry of articles deploring the fact that, although crime has fallen spectacularly in the U.S. since the 1990s, most Americans believe it has increased. Liberals are absolutely right to point out this misperception, but if people of any color can be wrong about this, there is no reason to think black people can’t be wrong about the prevalence of police violence against minorities.
PARIS, France — Austria’s hard-right Freedom Party has a shot at sharing power after elections on Sunday, having narrowly lost out in a presidential vote last year.
A far-right party has also had some success in Germany, in September becoming the first such party to enter the Bundestag since the end of World War II, but their counterpart in France is faring less well.
Here is a snapshot of some of the far-right parties in Europe.
The eurosceptic and anti-immigrant Freedom Party (FPOe) came close to winning the presidency in December, which would have made its leader the European Union’s first far-right president.
One of Europe’s most established nationalist parties, it is forecast to come second or third in this weekend’s vote and could become junior coalition partners to the favourites, the conservative People’s Party (OeVP).
Founded in 1956 by ex-Nazis, the party earned a stunning second place in 1999 elections with nearly 27 percent.
Last year its candidate Norbert Hofer narrowly lost a presidential runoff against Greens-backed economics professor Alexander Van der Bellen.
The openly anti-immigration and Islamophobic Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the third-biggest party in the Bundestag after the September election, a political earthquake for post-war Germany.
The party took nearly 13 percent of the votes, having failed in the 2013 election to make even the five percent required for representation in parliament.
It has more than 90 seats on the benches of the parliament that meets for the first time on October 24.
Marine Le Pen’s National Front (FN), founded by her firebrand father Jean-Marie in 1972, took nearly 34 percent of votes in the May presidential election run-off won by Emmanuel Macron.
This was double her father’s 17.8 percent score when he reached the second round in 2002.
In campaigning, Le Pen vowed to abandon the euro, reinstate control of the nation’s borders and curb immigration if she won.
But the party fared badly in June parliamentary elections, taking just eight seats out of 577.
Tensions since then burst into the open when Le Pen’s right-hand man Florian Philippot quit and looks set to go his own way.
The anti-Islam Freedom Party (PVV) of Geert Wilders in March became the second party in parliament, with 20 seats in the 150-member parliament.
The Movement for a Better Hungary, known as Jobbik, is ultra-nationalist and eurosceptic. It is the second largest party in the legislature but has been outflanked by Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s own hardline anti-immigration stance.
The Northern League is a “regionalist” formation that evolved into an anti-euro and anti-immigrant party that secured 18 seats in the 2013 parliamentary election.
The next general election must be held by spring 2018 and the party is hovering at around 14 percent.
The neo-Nazi Golden Dawn finished third in the September 2015 election, with seven percent of the vote and 18 MPs. One later defected and the party is now the fourth biggest in parliament.
The Sweden Democrats party, with roots in the neo-Nazi movement, made a breakthrough in September 2014 to become the country’s third biggest party with 48 of 349 seats and nearly 13 percent of the vote.
The nationalist United Patriots coalition entered government for the first time in May after coming third in a March election. It is the junior party in the governing coalition.
In March 2016, the People’s Party Our Slovakia benefited from Europe’s refugee crisis to enter parliament for the first time, winning 14 seats out of 150.
BERLIN, Germany — Conservatives in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling coalition were in an uproar Saturday after one of her key allies floated the idea of a Muslim holiday in Germany.
Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said this week he was willing to discuss the possibility of introducing a Muslim holiday in parts of the country.
Germany is home to some 4.4 million Muslims, with many coming from the nation’s large ethnic Turkish community. The over one million migrants that arrived in recent years also include many Muslims.
“Where there are many Muslims why shouldn’t we consider a Muslim holiday,” the interior minister said at a rally in Lower Saxony ahead of Sunday’s regional election in the state.
The CSU, the Bavaria-based sister party of Merkel’s Christian Democrats, strongly rejected the idea.
“Germany’s Christian heritage is not negotiable,” Alexander Dobrindt, a senior CSU politician, told the Bild newspaper.
“For us, the introduction of Muslim holidays is out of the question,” he said.
Social Democrat leader Martin Schulz meanwhile said Saturday that the idea was worth “thinking about”, according to the DPA news agency.
Schulz said he was surprised that the idea had come from the interior minister who, he said, was usually known for having “very little imagination” in this area.
De Maiziere had previously called on immigrants to respect the German “Leitkultur”, culture of reference, a term regularly used by the far-right.
Sunday’s regional vote is a major test for Merkel after she won a fourth term in a national election in September but without a majority in parliament, which has forced her to embark on high-stakes coalition talks.
Latest surveys show the CDU lagging behind the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in Lower Saxony, the fourth most populous state in Germany.
VIENNA (AP) — Wrapping up a bruising political campaign season, Austrian political parties were counting down Saturday toward an election that could turn the country rightward after decades of centrist governance amid voter concerns over immigration and Islam.
Sunday’s vote is coming a year ahead of schedule after squabbles led to the breakup last spring of the coalition government of the Social Democrats and the People’s Party. A total of 16 parties are vying for 183 seats in the national parliament and will be chosen by Austria’s 6.4 million eligible voters. But less than a dozen parties have a chance of getting seats.
The People’s Party, which has shifted from centrist to right-wing positions, is leading in the pre-vote polls. Austria’s traditionally right-wing, anti-migrant Freedom Party is expected to come in second and the center-left Social Democrats are thought to be trailing in third place. Others that may clear the 4 percent hurdle needed to get into parliament seats are the Greens, the liberal NEOS, and Liste Pilz, led by former Greens politician Peter Pilz.
Favoring the People’s and Freedom parties is distrust of migrants and Muslims among many Austrian voters.
The 2015 influx of hundreds of thousands of people fleeing the war in Syria and poverty elsewhere into the EU’s prosperous heartland left Austria with nearly 100,000 new and mostly Muslim migrants. That has fueled fears Austria’s traditional Western and Christian culture is in danger. As a result, voters are receptive to the anti-migrant platforms of both the People’s Party and the Freedom Party.
Although the Social Democrats have come either first or second in elections since World War II, voters are now more receptive to calls for tough migration rules than that party’s focus on social justice.
Social Democratic Chancellor Christian Kern says his party will go into the opposition if it does not Sunday. With a handful of other parties struggling to just get into parliament, the most likely post-vote scenario is a People’s Party-Freedom Party coalition that would shift the government significantly to the right.
But other coalitions are possible, depending on the results of Sunday’s vote.
There is a painting, by the French Revolutionary Jaques-Louis David, that effectively sums up the difference between fascism and national socialism. It was painted in 1789 and is titled “The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons”.
After having led the battle against the monarchy, Lucius Brutus condemned his sons to death for fighting on King Tarquin’s side. This was the beginning of the Ancient Roman Republic. Brutus showed that his loyalty was to the Roman Republic (the State), whose symbol was the fasces, rather than to his own family. Contrastingly, Germanics have traditionally always put race, blood and kinship first. A Germanic would rather have gone into exile, renouncing his political power, with his sons than to kill them for the sake of the State. Germanics were renowned for holding liberty , blood, race and kinship sacred.
A fasces refers to a bundle of rods wrapped together with an axe. It is the symbol adopted by fascism, and implies that the people are tied to the State, with the axe representing force. The idea is that, by being thus bound, the State is made much stronger.
The political ideology of fascism was formulated by Benito Mussolini in Italy post WWI. He was greatly influenced by the Roman Empire and Republic. Mussolini founded the fascist movement 1919, calling it “Fasci Di Combattimento” which means “fighting sheafs”. The idea of the sheaf was popular already with socialists, who liked the idea of the “unbreakable union“. Mussolini himself had originally been a Leftist socialist in his ideology, and was anti Nationalist – but his ideas were to undergo a dramatic change by the time he had founded the fascist movement. He became very anti-communist and a nationalist.
In the Roman Republic, and the Empire, Law took precedence over kinship, and that has always been a characteristic of fascism. The very term “King” comes from the idea of kinship. In national socialism, as with traditional Kingship, tribal cohesion is paramount. In democracy, the individual is supposed to be paramount, and, when the state comes first, you have fascism.
It is a characteristic of fascism to allow foreigners who show an allegiance to the State to become citizens. In ancient Rome, despite several wars being fought to prevent this from happening, eventually foreigners were allowed to become Romans. Similarly, the fascist States in Spain (under Franco) and in Italy were not founded on blood, race and tribal cohesion. Franco used Muslim Moroccan troops to rape women in white towns which he had identified as being sympathetic to communism.
Ever since foreigners were allowed to become Roman citizens, there has been weak racial tribalism in Italy. Patriotic feeling, and dynastic loyalty there has surely been, but the concept of race has suffered in Italy, and only truly exists as a nostalgia for the earliest period of Rome. The patriotic loyalty is to the State. Thus fascism is ideally suited to the Italian, and Southern European nations, for whom race tends to prove somewhat divisive. After a period of eugenics this situation would change.
The national socialist program was worked out by Hitler in 1919, before he had heard of Mussolini, yet he still regarded events in Italy to have been an important influence. Mussolini’s march on Rome in 1922 was Hitler’s inspiration. It showed what it was possible to achieve. Hitler, in turn came to greatly influence Mussolini, causing him to introduce racial loyalty into Italian fascism towards the end. While the two leaders had initially been hostile towards each other, with Mussolini initiating this animosity with his public speeches denouncing Hitler as a “barbarian” and even as a “pederast”, they eventually became close friends. Hitler even organized a rescue mission when Mussolini ended up in prison, after the Fascist Council had decided they no longer wished him to be leader.
From Walther Hadding’s introduction to Mein Kampf:
Hegelianism and neohegelianism justified the state as an end in itself. National-Socialism did not regard the state as an end in itself, but because the examples of Prussia and Fascist Italy loomed large at the time, it was tempting for people not thoroughly familiar with national-socialism to see it in this light (and even today it is not unusual for careless sources to mislabel national-socialism as “fascism”).
Mussolini’s Doctrine on Fascism:
“Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value,-outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people.” From paragraph 7.
Alfred Rosenberg on the relationship of National-Socialism to Totalitarianism:
The State is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose is to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred.”
On all these grounds it is recommended for all national-socialists to speak no longer of the total state, rather of the completeness (totality) of the national-socialist worldview, of the NSDAP as the body of this worldview, and of the national-socialist state as the tool for the preservation of the soul, spirit, and blood of national-socialism as the powerful phenomenon which made its beginning in the 20th century. “
The far Left is especially keen that the term “socialism” should belong to them, and not to the ideas of the Third Reich, so they perpetuate the term “fascism” to describe National Socialism. Stalin started this by calling the Nazis “fascists” while, oddly enough, the democratic West was keen not to confuse the two ideologies, and political analysts kept them conceptually apart. When reading about WWII events, it used to be easy to tell if the speaker or writer was inspired by communism. If he or she talked about Nazis as “fascists”, then the argument or point of view had in all probability originated in communist circles.
Confusion also arises, for the public, because both National Socialism and fascism are dictatorial and anti-democratic.
Nearly 2000 kilometers from its nearest neighbor in the Pacific Ocean, Rapa Nui, also known as Easter Island, seems an unlikely crossroads for the world’s cultures. But in recent years, some scientists have argued that the island’s first inhabitants—Polynesians who settled there by 1200 C.E.—may have sailed all the way to South America and back, making contact with Native Americans long before Europeans. Now, DNA from people who lived on Rapa Nui before European contact suggests that may not be the case, throwing a wrench into one of the biggest remaining mysteries about human migration.
The result shocked Lars Fehren-Schmitz, a biological anthropologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who led the study. When he sequenced genomes from the rib bones of five individuals who lived on Rapa Nui before and after European contact, he expected to find a population with mixed Polynesian and Native American ancestry. Polynesian voyages to and from South America, though thousands of kilometers, “just seem to be plausible,” he says, and archaeological evidence shows that the sweet potato, domesticated 8000 years ago in Peru, had spread to Polynesian islands as early as 1000 C.E. But the DNA of the individuals, who lived between the 13th and 19th centuries, showed no signs of Native American ancestry, Fehren-Schmitz and his colleagues write today in Current Biology.
This contradicts a 2014 study, also published in Current Biology, that analyzed the genomes of 27 modern Rapanui who, like most people who live on the island today, have Polynesian, European, and Native American ancestry. About 8% of their DNA was inherited from Native American ancestors, appearing in their genomes in short bursts rather than long stretches. Because the contribution of each group’s DNA becomes more fragmented over time, that’s a strong signal of a long-ago meeting between different populations. Based on the length of the Native American DNA sequences, the researchers concluded that the Rapanui’s Polynesian and Native American ancestors must have met at least 19 generations ago, between 1280 C.E. and 1495 C.E.—long before Europeans arrived on the island in 1722 C.E.
There are a few ways to explain the discrepancy, researchers say. The most likely, says Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas, a population geneticist at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland who led the 2014 research, is that when the pre-Columbian individuals Fehren-Schmitz analyzed were alive, contact with Native Americans was recent and their genetic signature hadn’t yet spread to the whole population of Rapa Nui. “One would like to see more individuals … before you really say there was no contact,” agrees Hannes Schroeder, an ancient DNA researcher at the University of Copenhagen who wasn’t involved in either paper.
But Fehren-Schmitz proposes another possibility. Some of the colonial slave traders who targeted Rapa Nui were from Peru, where European and Native American genes had mixed since the 16th century. When they arrived on the island in the 18th and 19th centuries, they already carried short bursts of Native American DNA, and they could have passed those on to the still purely Polynesian Rapanui. That might have made it look like contact between Polynesians and Native Americans happened long before it actually did, he says.
Malaspinas says her team tested a scenario like this, and it didn’t fully explain their results. But she says it’s possible her model couldn’t precisely capture the myriad ways colonialism and the slave trade affected the Rapanui’s genomes. On the often surprising gaps between scientific models and what actually happened in the past, she and Fehren-Schmitz agree: “When it comes to human behavior and human history, there’s so much more complexity to it,” he says.