HUD says Texas discriminated against communities of color with flood aid

By Andrew Zhang & Joshua Fechter, The Texas Tribune

MARCH 8, 2022 / 

Rescue workers bring in a family through rising flood waters in the Cypress Station neighborhood as waters rise during Tropical Storm Harvey in Houston on August 28, 2017. File Photo by Jerome Hicks/UPI | License Photo

March 8 (UPI) -- A Texas agency discriminated against communities of color when it denied more than $1 billion in federal relief funds sought by Houston and Harris County to help hard-hit areas recover from Hurricane Harvey, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found.

The Texas General Land Office -- the agency charged with distributing approximately $2 billion in federal funds for future flood preparation -- initially awarded Houston and Harris County nothing when deciding where to send the money. At the time, local officials blasted the state agency, headed by Land Commissioner George P. Bush, for denying much-needed aid and called on the federal government to intervene.

HUD officials said the state agency's method of doling out the funds "discriminated on the basis of race and national origin" and "substantially and predictably disadvantaged minority residents, with particularly disparate outcomes for Black residents," according to a Friday letter detailing the result of a HUD probe. The land office is in violation of the Civil Rights Act as well as federal housing law, federal housing officials said.

"Quite frankly, it's what those of us at the city and at Harris County have been saying for quite some time," Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner said Tuesday.

Bush, who was born in Houston, is in the middle of a fierce runoff in the Republican primary for Texas attorney general against incumbent Ken Paxton. During the race, several of Bush's opponents have criticized his office's work in distributing the relief funds. Despite making it into the runoff, Bush placed third in Harris County in the March 1 primary.

Brittany Eck, a spokeswoman for the land office, said in a statement that HUD was politicizing the mitigation plan and the land office administered its program in accordance with the department's guidance.

"The GLO is considering all options, including legal action against HUD, to release this iron-fisted grip on mitigation funding and restore the pipeline of funds to communities," Eck said.

Local officials, meanwhile, applauded HUD's finding.

"It's not complicated: Harris County was ground zero for the heartbreaking impacts of Hurricane Harvey, and continues to be exceedingly vulnerable," Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo said in a statement. "The share of mitigation funds we receive from the federal government should reflect that reality."

The letter, which was first reported by The Houston Chronicle, is the latest turn in the drawn-out process to deliver relief for communities wrecked by Hurricane Harvey more than four years ago. Congress approved $4.3 billion for Texas in 2018, and about half of it remains undistributed.

The federal relief awarded to Texas is distributed through Bush's office. During the initial round of funding announced last year, the land office required communities seeking money to submit project proposals that were scored against a matrix with a variety of factors because of limited funding. Harris County's submissions did not score high enough to receive funding in the competition against other local entities, but county officials said the area's large population put them at a disadvantage.

Following the initial outcry after Texas' largest metro area was denied any federal funds, Bush called for the federal government to give $750 million directly to Harris County.

In June, Texas Housers, a nonprofit housing advocacy group, and Northeast Action Collective, an advocacy group formed to push for greater investment in flood mitigation after Hurricane Harvey, submitted a civil rights complaint to HUD alleging that the funding was distributed to white neighborhoods in lieu of Black and Hispanic neighborhoods that needed the money.

"Tragically yet predictably, the GLO's decision that violated civil rights laws delayed the award of badly needed funds to areas of our state at risk of future disaster," David Wheaton, advocacy director for Texas Housers, said in a video statement published Tuesday. "This delay is the sole fault of the GLO."

As the process continued to drag, HUD halted the approximately $2 billion in aid money in January after it said the land office had not submitted proper paperwork on its funding plan -- an announcement that an agency spokesperson called a political move. Then, Harris County officials asked the local congressional delegation to send future disaster relief money directly to large counties instead of routing it through a state agency.

The report said that if the land office does not voluntarily resolve the issue with a clear timetable for implementation, the department may initiate administrative proceedings or refer the matter to the U.S. Justice Department.

Disclosure: The Texas General Land Office has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a non-profit, non-partisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune. Read the original here. The Texas Tribune is a non-profit, non-partisan media organization that informs Texans -- and engages with them -- about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Study offers more evidence that education protects against dementia

By HealthDay News

A new study reinforces the idea that education can prevent or delay the onset of dementia. 

Photo by stevepb/Pixabay

Not everyone who becomes forgetful as they age develops dementia, and a new study suggests that those with college degrees and advanced language skills are likely to get better.

Mild cognitive impairment, or MCI, is an early stage of memory loss marked by lapses in memory and thinking problems that don't interfere with everyday life.

While people with MCI are more likely to develop dementia than folks who don't have these early memory lapses, some improve and return to normal.

"Although many people assume that if they develop mild cognitive impairment they will inevitably progress to dementia, we found encouraging evidence that this is not so," said study author Suzanne Tyas, an associate professor of public health sciences at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.

RELATED Risk for CTE linked to head injury rises with more years playing hockey

Education and language skills can help predict who will go on to develop dementia and who won't, the study found.

"These factors reflect exercise for the brain, and our work suggests they may be indicators of cognitive reserve," Tyas said. But exactly how cognitive reserve helps protect from dementia is not fully understood yet.

"One possible mechanism is neural compensation, where the brains of those individuals with higher levels of cognitive reserve may, by using alternate brain networks, be more able to compensate for the brain changes that originally led to mild cognitive impairment," Tyas explained.

The researchers analyzed data on 619 U.S. Catholic nuns, age 75 and up, in a long-running study of aging and Alzheimer's disease.

The nuns took tests measuring memory and other mental skills for up to 12 years or until they died.

A total of 472 women were diagnosed with MCI during the study, and about a third -- 143 -- regained their normal memory level at least once during an average 8.5 years after diagnosis. Nearly 84% of these 143 nuns never developed dementia.

RELATED Erectile dysfunction drugs may help cognitive decline

Another third did progress to dementia without ever reverting to normal thinking and memory skills, while 3% stayed in the MCI stage, and 36% of the nuns died.

The participants who earned a bachelor's degree had more than double the chances of getting their memory back compared to those with a grade school or high school education.

Nuns who had a master's degree or more advanced education were even more likely to regain their normal thinking skills after an MCI diagnosis, the study found.

The findings also offer reassurance for folks without such high levels of formal education, Tyas said.

Language skills, including those reflected in high grades in English class or in strong writing skills, also protected against dementia, the study found.

Those who had high grades in English but not in other subjects were almost twice as likely to improve after MCI as to develop dementia.

What's more, participants with strong writing skills based on number of ideas expressed were four times more likely to improve than progress to dementia, the study showed. This effect was even stronger for those whose writing used complex grammatical structure, Tyas said.

"Language is a complex function of the brain, so it makes sense that strong language skills were also protective, and this effect was even stronger than for education," Tyas said.

In addition to having high levels of education and solid language skills, nuns who were younger than 90 and didn't carry certain genetic risk factors associated with Alzheimer's disease, the most common type of dementia, were also more likely to see a return of their memory.

The bottom line? "It's encouraging that our findings show there are multiple factors that improve your chance of regaining cognitive function after experiencing mild cognitive impairment," Tyas said.

The findings were published this month in the journal Neurology.

Dr. Kenneth Langa, a dementia researcher at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, called the study "interesting and well-done."

Many people with MCI will get better on their own, said Langa, who was not part of the study.

"These findings are in line with other studies, but this study's careful measurement and long period of follow-up provide additional confidence in the results," he said.

These findings should be taken into account when considering treatment, Langa said.

"The fact that a significant number of individuals with MCI will not go on to dementia, even in the absence of any treatment, increases the risk for overdiagnosis and potential overtreatment among those with MCI," he said.

More information

The Alzheimer's Association has information about reducing your risk for Alzheimer's disease.

Copyright © 2021 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Shift work linked with memory, brain function problems, study finds

A new study links night-shift work with memory and other brain problems, which researchers said may contribute to increased risk for workplace injuries and errors. Photo by dayamay/Pixabay

March 8 (UPI) -- Night-shift work can cause memory and other brain function problems, an analysis published Tuesday by the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine found.

It is also associated with lower levels of alertness and visual focus, as well as declines in the ability to control impulses and situational response, the researchers said.

This could potentially raise the risk for workplace injuries and errors, they said.

Based on data from 18 studies that collectively included more than 18,000 participants, researchers found that night-shift workers had lower scores on tests designed to measure impulse control and situational response, or decision-making ability.

RELATED Working night shifts may raise odds for A-fib, study says

Night-shift workers also scored slightly lower on tests assessing brain processing speed, working memory, alertness and ability to filter out unimportant visual clues, the data showed.

"Our findings suggest an association between shift work and decreased cognitive functions such as working memory," study co-author Thomas Vlasak told UPI in an email.

This "may ultimately contribute to work-related injuries and errors leading to potential implications for occupational health and safety especially for high-risk and safety-sensitive professions," said Vlasak, a member of the scientific staff at Sigmund Freud Private University in Linz, Austria.

Previous studies have linked shift work with sleep problems and other serious health complications, including heart disease, obesity, diabetes, mood disorders and substance abuse.

Working outside the normal day-night cycle interferes with the body's internal clock, or circadian rhythm, because it results in affected people sleeping "out of step" with the normal light-dark cycle, Vlasak and his colleagues said.

Interference with the circadian rhythm affects production of the hormones that govern it, such as cortisol and melatonin, which impacts stress response and mental and physical health, they said.

RELATED Shift work-induced problems may raise risk for heart health problems

For this analysis, the Austrian researchers reviewed data from 18 studies published between 2005 and 2020 that collectively enrolled 18,802 working adults who had an average age of 35.

Five of the studies compared workers in fixed shifts with those working normal office hours, while 11 compared workers in rotating shifts with those working normal office hours and two did not specify shift type.

Half of the studies included healthcare professionals while the other half focused on different professions, such as police officers.

Based on the findings, companies who engage shift-workers should consider protective countermeasures such as scheduled naps, recovery plans and regular employee monitoring to minimize potential health effects, the researchers said.

"Studies suggest that managing healthy sleep patterns outside of shift work, taking naps when working overnight, following a healthy diet and controlled exposure to light during and after work can help to minimize risks," Vlasak said.

WAR CRIME

'The Destruction Is Colossal': Russia Bombs Ukrainian Children's Hospital

"The Russian occupying forces have dropped several bombs on the children's hospital," said officials from the besieged Ukrainian city of Mariupol.

A screenshot of video footage shows the outside of a children's hospital reportedly bombed by Russian forces on March 9, 2022. (Photo: Mariupol City Council)


JAKE JOHNSON

COMMOAN DREAMS

March 9, 2022

This is a developing news story... Check back for possible updates...

Local Ukrainian officials said Wednesday that a Russian airstrike hit a maternity and children's hospital in the besieged port city of Mariupol, inflicting heavy damage and burying patients under the rubble.

"The Russian occupying forces have dropped several bombs on the children's hospital. The destruction is colossal," said the Mariupol city council, adding that it is not yet sure how many injuries or deaths the attack caused.

Sharing a video of the airstrike's aftermath on Twitter, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused Russian forces of committing another "atrocity" and reiterated his demand for a no-fly zone, which NATO countries have rejected given the high risk of sparking a broader war with Russia.

 

According to the United Nations, dozens of Ukrainian children have been killed during Russia's full-scale assault on Ukraine, which is about to enter its third week with no end in sight.

Asked to comment on the reported hospital bombing, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told Reuters that "Russian forces do not fire on civilian targets."

Mariupol, located in southeastern Ukraine, has been under near-constant shelling over the past several days as Russian troops surround the strategic port city. Vadym Boichenko, the city's mayor, told the Financial Times that Russian forces "are trying to exterminate us."

As the Associated Press reports, "A humanitarian crisis is unfolding in this encircled city of 430,000, and Tuesday brought no relief: An attempt to evacuate civilians and deliver badly needed food, water, and medicine through a designated safe corridor failed, with Ukrainian officials saying Russian forces had fired on the convoy before it reached the city."

Ahead of the strike on the Mariupol hospital—which was carried out during an agreed ceasefire—the World Health Organization (WHO) said Wednesday that it has confirmed 18 attacks on Ukrainian healthcare facilities thus far, resulting in 10 deaths and 16 injuries.

"Attacks on healthcare are in violation of international humanitarian law," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stressed last week.

Ukraine officials say Russian airstrikes destroyed children's hospital, maternity ward


March 9 (UPI) -- Ukrainian officials accused Russia's military on Wednesday of bombing a children's hospital and a maternity ward in southeastern Ukraine and leaving children and women under the debris.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and other officials reported the attack on the hospital in Mariupol, which is one of five cities that Moscow agreed to allow refugees to flee with a new cease-fire agreement on Wednesday.

Before the hospital attack, Ukrainian officials said they were skeptical that Russia would comply with the cease-fire.

City councilors in Mariupol called the damage from the bombing "colossal."

RELATED Voices: Will Vladimir Putin threaten Ukraine with nuclear strike or surrender?

"Mariupol. Direct strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital. People, children are under the wreckage," Zelensky said in a tweet.

"How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror? Close the sky right now! Stop the killings! You have power but you seem to be losing humanity."

Earlier Wednesday, Zelensky urged the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, saying that failure to do so will lead to a humanitarian catastrophe.

The new cease-fire was scheduled to run from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Wednesday and Russia said it would allow civilians to flee in five cities -- Kyiv, Chernihiv, Sumy, Kharkiv and Mariupol. Ukrainian officials, however, noted that Russian forces have been shelling escape routes every day this week.

After failed attempts to secure safe corridors for Ukrainians trying the leave the country, Deputy Prime Minister Iryna Vereshchuk said she was hopeful Wednesday that the 12-hour cease-fire would allow the departure of noncombatants from several areas.

Vereshchuk said she is consulting with the International Red Cross about the proposed routes and called on Russia to keep its commitment to the passage without hostilities.

"People have to be able to leave the places where they are now hiding from the hail of [rockets] and the devastating fire that is killing them," she said, according to CNN.

Ukrainian officials said evacuations would resume Wednesday in war-torn Sumy, where a Russian airstrike on Tuesday killed several people, but noted that there are hundreds of thousands of civilians trapped in Mariupol.

Meanwhile, the United States has agreed to send Patriot anti-missile batteries to Poland to protect allied troops in the country. There is some concern that Moscow could ultimately fire rockets toward Poland or other neighboring countries that oppose the Russian advances.

Poland has been a staging area for Western forces and equipment, and U.S. President Joe Biden sent a couple thousand American troops there last month to aid NATO forces in protecting Ukraine.

On Wednesday, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris is traveling to Poland as part of a three-day trip through Eastern Europe to support allied forces. The White House said she will visit Poland and Romania.

"She will be carrying a three-part message. The first is that the U.S. stands firmly and resolutely with our NATO Allies," a senior administration official told reporters. "Second is our continuing support for the Ukrainian people, both in terms of humanitarian and military assistance to them.

"And third is the fact that Putin has made a mistake that will result in resounding strategic defeat for Russia. And you're already seeing evidence of that in terms of what's going on inside Ukraine as well as the impact of the sanctions that we have imposed on the Russian economy."

Harris' trip comes after U.S. officials rejected the Polish government's offer to send MiG-29 fighters to a U.S. air base in Germany for use by the Ukrainian military.

Meanwhile, the European Union agreed Wednesday to expand sanctions against Russia and its ally Belarus. It added to SWIFT restrictions for Belarusian banks, sanctions against more than 150 people and punitive measures against Russia's maritime industry.

UH OH 😨

'Insanity Not to Allow This': Calls for Ceasefire to Repair Chernobyl Power Supply

Ukraine's foreign minister said a ceasefire in the area would "allow repair crews to restore electricity supply" 

to the Chernobyl plant "as soon as possible."


A picture taken on April 13, 2021 shows the giant protective dome built over the sarcophagus covering the destroyed fourth reactor of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant ahead of the upcoming 35th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

 (Photo: Sergei Supinsky/AFP via Getty Images)


JAKE JOHNSON

COMMON DREAMS

March 9, 2022

This is a developing news story... Check back for possible updates...

Ukrainian authorities warned Wednesday that radioactive material could leak into the atmosphere after the decommissioned Chernobyl nuclear plant was reportedly disconnected from the power grid by Russian forces, raising the risk that spent nuclear fuel stored at the site may not cool properly.

"Because of military actions of Russian occupiers, the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl was fully disconnected from the power grid," Ukrenergo, Ukraine's state-owned power grid operator, said in a statement.

Ukrenergo added in a Facebook post that emergency diesel generators have been activated in response to the electricity shut-off, but noted the fuel would last for just 48 hours.

Energoatom, Ukraine's national nuclear energy firm, cautioned Wednesday that without adequate electricity, "the temperature in the [spent fuel] holding pools will increase" and "release of radioactive substances into the environment may occur."

Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to the Ukrainian president, characterized the state of the Chernobyl plant as "an extremely dangerous situation."

In a social media post, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) wrote that Wednesday's development "violates a key safety pillar on ensuring uninterrupted power supply" to the Chernobyl plant.

But the agency added that it "sees no critical impact on safety at the moment," explaining that the heat load of the spent fuel storage pool and the "volume of cooling water" at the facility are "sufficient for effective heat removal without the need for electrical supply."

Russian military forces quickly seized control of the Chernobyl plant, the site of the 1986 nuclear catastrophe, soon after they invaded Ukraine late last month, heightening fears of a nuclear disaster stemming from possible damage to the facility.

In a pair of tweets Wednesday, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba called for an immediate ceasefire in the area to "allow repair crews to restore electricity supply" to the Chernobyl plant "as soon as possible."

"Spare diesel generators will power the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and its facilities for 48 hours," Kuleba wrote. "Then the cooling system of the spent nuclear fuel storage will be shut down, which will threaten the leakage of radiation. Russia's barbaric war threatens the whole of Europe. Putin must stop it immediately."

The advocacy group Beyond Nuclear said it would be "insanity not to allow this," referring to necessary repairs to the Chernobyl power supply.

"The fighting must stop," the group added. "Everyone will be affected."

Officials fear possible radiation leak after Chernobyl nuclear plant loses power in Ukraine

Losing power means that systems in the Chernobyl plant that regulate radiation could fail and allow harmful radiation to escape into the atmosphere. Photo by Carl Montgomery/Wikimedia Commons

March 9 (UPI) -- Officials in Ukraine said Wednesday that Russian shelling has damaged a high-voltage power line to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station, which is under Russian control, and that radiation could escape if it's not repaired soon.

Authorities said the damage to the power line was caused by the "occupiers" and urged Moscow to call a halt to the fighting in the area to fix it. The Chernobyl plant is located about 70 miles northwest of Kyiv.

Russian forces have slowly been making advances in some parts of Ukraine and none at all in other areas that are guarded by Ukrainian troops and civilians. A new cease-fire that began on Wednesday was called to allow thousands of Ukrainians to flee the fighting, but it doesn't offer the necessary protection to fix the Chernobyl power line.

Losing power means that systems in the plant that regulate radiation could fail and allow harmful radiation to escape into the atmosphere.

A sign near the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine warns of possible radiation exposure stemming from the 1986 explosion at the facility, which partially melted the core in reactor No. 4. 

File Photo by Sergey Starostenko/UPI

"About 20,000 spent fuel assemblies are stored in the spent nuclear fuel storage facility-1. They need constant cooling. Which is possible only if there is electricity," Ukraine's State Service of Special Communications said in a tweet Wednesday.

"If it is not there, the pumps will not cool. As a result, the temperature in the holding pools will increase. After that evaporation will occur, that will lead to nuclear discharge. The wind can transfer the radioactive cloud to other regions of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and Europe. In addition, there is no ventilation inside the facility."

Officials also said that personnel at the plant will be exposed to a "dangerous dose of radiation."

Ukrainian officials said that there's also an increased risk of fire due to the outage, as extinguishing and suppression systems depend on electricity to function.

Making matters worse, officials said on Tuesday that systems that monitor nuclear waste at Chernobyl had stopped transmitting data.

"I'm deeply concerned about the difficult and stressful situation facing staff at the Chernobyl nuclear plant and the potential risks this entails for nuclear safety," Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said. "I call on the forces in effective control of the site to urgently facilitate the safe rotation of personnel there."

The IAEA said in a tweet earlier Tuesday, however, that it didn't foresee a "critical impact on safety" from the power outage.

More than 200 workers at the Chernobyl plant have been trapped there since the start of the war as no one is being allowed to replace them. The IAEA on Wednesday called on the international community to facilitate a staff rotation.

The Chernobyl nuclear plant was the site of a 1986 partial core meltdown after an explosion in its reactor No. 4. It was one of the worst nuclear disasters in history.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for CHERNOBYL 

Otto Rühle
The Struggle Against Fascism
Begins with the Struggle Against Bolshevism (1939)

This article by Otto Rühle appeared in the American councilist journal Living Marxism (Vol. 4, No. 8, 1939)

In 1981 it was reprinted as a pamphlet in the UK by Bratach Dubh editions.

It seems to be based on a much longer text, part of which was published in French as “Fascisme Brun, Fascisme Rouge” by Spartacus in 1975 (Série B—No 63). This is part of a still longer text in German called “Weltkrieg—Weltfaschismus—Weltrevolution”.

I.

Russia must be placed first among the new totalitarian states. It was the first to adopt the new state principle. It went furthest in its application. It was the first to establish a constitutional dictatorship, together with the political and administrative terror system which goes with it. Adopting all the features of the total state, it thus became the model for those other countries which were forced to do away with the democratic state system and to change to dictatorial rule. Russia was the example for fascism.

No accident is here involved, nor a bad joke of history. The duplication of systems here is not apparent but real. Everything points to the fact that we have to deal here with expressions and consequences of identical principles applied to different levels of historical and political development. Whether party “communists” like it or not, the fact remains that the state order and rule in Russia are indistinguishable from those in Italy and Germany. Essentially they are alike. One may speak of a red, black, or brown “soviet state”, as well as of red, black or brown fascism. Though certain ideological differences exist between these countries, ideology is never of primary importance. Ideologies, furthermore, are changeable and such changes do not necessarily reflect the character and the functions of the state apparatus. Furthermore, the fact that private property still exists in Germany and Italy is only a modification of secondary importance. The abolition of private property alone does not guarantee socialism. Private property within capitalism also can be abolished. What actually determines a socialist society is, besides the doing away with private property in the means of production, the control of the workers over the products of their labour and the end of the wage system. Both of these achievements are unfulfilled in Russia, as well as in Italy and Germany. Though some may assume that Russia is one step nearer to socialism than the other countries, it does not follow that its “soviet state” has helped the international proletariat come in any way nearer to its class struggle goals. On the contrary, because Russia calls itself a socialist state, it misleads and deludes the workers of the world. The thinking worker knows what fascism is and fights it, but as regards Russia, he is only too often inclined to accept the myth of its socialistic nature. This delusion hinders a complete and determined break with fascism, because it hinders the principle struggle against the reasons, preconditions, and circumstances which in Russia, as in Germany and Italy, have led to an identical state and governmental system. Thus the Russian myth turns into an ideological weapon of counter-revolution.

It is not possible for men to serve two masters. Neither can a totalitarian state do such a thing. If fascism serves capitalistic and imperialistic interests, it cannot serve the needs of the workers. If, in spite of this, two apparently opposing classes favour the same state system, it is obvious that something must be wrong. One or the other class must be in error. No one should say here that the problem is one merely of form and therefore of no real significance, that, though the political forms are identical, their content may vary widely. This would be self-delusion. For the Marxist such things do not occur; for him form and content fit to each other and they cannot be divorced. Now, if the Soviet State serves as a model for fascism, it must contain structural and functional elements which are also common to fascism. To determine what they are we must go back to the “soviet system” as established by Leninism, which is the application of the principles of bolshevism to the Russian conditions. And if an identity between bolshevism and fascism can be established, then the proletariat cannot at the same time fight fascism and defend the Russian “soviet system”. Instead, the struggle against fascism must begin with the struggle against bolshevism.

II.

From the beginning bolshevism was for Lenin a purely Russian phenomenon. During the many years of his political activity, he never attempted to elevate the bolshevik system to forms of struggles in other countries. He was a social democrat who saw in Bebel and Kautsky the genial leaders of the working class, and he ignored the left-wing of the German socialist movement struggling against these heroes of Lenin and against all the other opportunists. Ignoring them, he remained in consistent isolation surrounded by a small group of Russian emigrants, and he continued to stand under Kautsky’s sway even when the German “left”, under the leadership of Rosa Luxemburg, was already engaged in open struggle against Kautskyism.

Lenin was concerned only with Russia. His goal was the end of the Czarist feudal system and the conquest of the greatest amount of political influence for his social democratic party within the bourgeois society. However, it realized that it could stay in power and drive on the process of socialization only if it could unleash the world revolution of the workers. But its own activity in this respect was quite an unhappy one. By helping to drive the German workers back into the parties, trade unions, and parliament, and by the simultaneous destruction of the German council (soviet) movement, the Bolsheviks lent a hand, to the defeat of the awakening European revolution.

The Bolshevik Party, consisting of professional revolutionists on the one hand and large backward masses on the other, remained isolated. It could not develop a real soviet system within the years of civil war, intervention, economic decline, failing socialization experiments, and the improvised Red Army. Though the soviets, which were developed by the Mensheviks, did not fit into the bolshevistik scheme, it was with their help that the Bolsheviks came to power. With the stabilisation of power and the economic reconstruction process, the Bolshevik Party did not know how to co-ordinate the strange soviet system to their own decisions and activities. Nevertheless, socialism was also the desire of the Bolsheviks, and it needed the world proletariat for its realization.

Lenin thought it essential to win the workers of the world over to the bolshevik methods. It was disturbing that the workers of other countries, despite the great triumph of Bolshevism, showed little inclination to accept for themselves the bolshevik theory and practice, but tended rather in the direction of the council movement, that arose in a number of countries, and especially in Germany.

This council movement Lenin could use no longer in Russia. In other European countries it showed strong tendencies to oppose the bolshevik type of uprisings. Despite Moscow’s tremendous propaganda in all countries, the so-called “ultra-lefts”, as Lenin himself pointed out, agitated more successfully for revolution on the basis of the council movement, than did all the propagandists sent by the Bolshevik Party. The Communist Party, following Bolshevism, remained a small, hysterical, and noisy group consisting largely of the proletarianized shreds of the bourgeoisie, whereas the council movement gained in real proletarian strength and attracted the best elements of the working class. To cope with this situation, bolshevik propaganda had to be increased; the “ultra-left” had to be attacked; its influence had to be destroyed in favour of Bolshevism.

Since the soviet system had failed in Russia, how could the radical “competition” dare to attempt to prove to the world that what could not be accomplished by Bolshevism in Russia might very well be realized independently of Bolshevism in other places? Against this competition Lenin wrote his pamphlet “Radicalism, an Infantile Disease of Communism”, dictated by fear of losing power and by indignation over the success of the heretics. At first this pamphlet appeared with the subheading, “Attempt at a popular exposition of the Marxian strategy and tactic”, but later this too ambitious and silly declaration was removed. It was a little too much. This aggressive, crude, and hateful papal bull was real material for any counter revolutionary. Of all programmatic declarations of Bolshevism it was the most revealing of its real character. It is Bolshevism unmasked. When in 1933 Hitler suppressed all socialist and communist literature in Germany, Lenin’s pamphlet was allowed publication and distribution.

As regards the content of the pamphlet, we are not here concerned with what it says in relation to the Russian Revolution, the history of Bolshevism, the polemic between Bolshevism and other streams of the labour movement, or the circumstances allowing for the Bolshevik victory, but solely with the main points by which at the time of the discussion between Lenin and “ultra-leftism”, were illustrated the decisive differences between the two opponents.

III.

The Bolshevik Party, originally the Russian social democratic section of the Second International, was built not in Russia but during the emigration. After the London split in 1903, the Bolshevik wing of the Russian social democracy was no more than a small sect. The “masses” behind it existed only in the brain of its leader. However, this small advance guard was a strictly disciplined organization, always ready for militant struggles and continually purged to maintain its integrity. The party was considered the war academy of professional revolutionists. Its outstanding pedagogical requirements were unconditional leader authority, rigid centralism, iron discipline, conformity, militancy, and sacrifice of personality for party interests. What Lenin actually developed was an elite of intellectuals, a centre which, when thrown into the revolution would capture leadership and assume power. There is no use to try to determine logically and abstractly if this kind of preparation for revolution is right or wrong. The problem has to be solved dialectically. Other questions also must be raised: What kind of a revolution was in preparation? What was the goal of the revolution?

Lenin’s party worked within the belated bourgeois revolution in Russia to overthrow the feudal regime of Czarism. The more centralized the will of the leading party in such a revolution and the more single-minded, the more success would accompany the process of the formation of the bourgeois state and the more promising would be the position of the proletarian class within the framework of the new state. What, however, may be regarded as a happy solution of revolutionary problems in a bourgeois revolution cannot at the same time be pronounced as a solution for the proletarian revolution. The decisive structural difference between the bourgeois and the new socialist society excludes such an attitude.

According to Lenin’s revolutionary method, the leaders appear as the head of the masses. Possessing the proper revolutionary schooling, they are able to understand situations and direct and command the fighting forces. They are professional revolutionists, the generals of the great civilian army. This distinction between head and body, intellectuals and masses, officers, and privates corresponds to the duality of class society, to the bourgeois social order. One class is educated to rule; the other to be ruled. Out of this old class formula resulted Lenin’s party concept. His organisation is only a replica of bourgeois reality. His revolution is objectively determined by the forces that create a social order incorporating these class relations, regardless of the subjective goals accompanying this process.

Whoever wants to have a bourgeois order will find in the divorce of leader and masses, the advance guard and working class, the right strategical preparation for revolution. The more intelligent, schooled, and superior is the leadership and the more disciplined and obedient are the masses, the more chances such a revolution will have to succeed. In aspiring to the bourgeois revolution in Russia, Lenin’s party was most appropriate to his goal.

When, however, the Russian revolution changed its character, when its proletarian features came more to the fore, Lenin’s tactical and strategical methods ceased to be of value. If he succeeded anyway it was not because of his advance guard, but because of the soviet movement which had not at all been incorporated in his revolutionary plans. And when Lenin, after the successful revolution which was made by the soviets, dispensed again with this movement, all that had been proletarian in the Russian Revolution was also dispensed with. The bourgeois character of the Revolution came to the fore again, finding its natural completion in Stalinism.

Despite his great concern with Marxian dialectics, Lenin was not able to see the social historical processes in a dialectical manner. His thinking remained mechanistic, following rigid rules. For him there was only one revolutionary party -- his own; only one revolution -- the Russian; only one method -- the bolshevik. And what had worked in Russia would work also in Germany, France, America, China and Australia. What was correct for the bourgeois revolution in Russia would be correct also for the proletarian world revolution. The monotonous application of a once discovered formula moved in an ego-centric circle undisturbed by time and circumstances, developmental degrees, cultural standards, ideas and men. In Lenin came to light with great clarity the rule of the machine age in politics; he was the “technician”, the “inventor”, of the revolution, the representative of the all-powerful will of the leader. All fundamental characteristics of fascism were in his doctrine, his strategy, his social “planning”, and his art with dealing with men. He could not see the deep revolutionary meaning of the rejection of traditional party policies by the left. He could not understand the real importance of the soviet movement for the socialist orientation of society. He never learned to know the prerequisites for the freeing of the workers. Authority, leadership, force, exerted on one side, and organization, cadres, subordination on the other side, -- such was his line of reasoning. Discipline and dictatorship are the words which are most frequent in his writings. It is understandable, then, why he could not comprehend nor appreciate the ideas and actions of the “ultra-left”, which would not accept his strategy and which demanded what was most obvious and most necessary for the revolutionary struggle for socialism, namely that the workers once and for all take their fate in their own hands.

IV.

To take their destiny in their own hands -- this key-word to all questions of socialism -- was the real issue in all polemics between the ultra-lefts and the Bolsheviks. The disagreement on the party question was paralleled by the disagreement on trade unionism. The ultra-left was of the opinion that there was no longer a place for revolutionists in trade unions; that it was rather necessary for them to develop their own organizational forms within the factories, the common working places. However, thanks to their unearned authority, the Bolsheviks had been able even in the first weeks of the German revolution to drive the workers back into the capitalistic reactionary trade unions. To fight the ultra-lefts, to denounce them as stupid and as counter-revolutionary, Lenin in his pamphlet once more makes use of his mechanistic formulas. In his arguments against the position of the left he does not refer to German trade unions but to the trade union experiences of the Bolsheviks in Russia. That in their early beginnings trade unions were of great importance for the proletarian class struggle is a generally accepted fact. The trade unions in Russia were young and they justified Lenin’s enthusiasm. However, the situation was different in other parts of the world. Useful and progressive in their beginnings, the trade unions in the older capitalistic countries had turned into obstacles in the way of the liberation of the workers. They had turned into instruments of counter revolution, and the German left drew its conclusions from this changed situation.

Lenin himself could not help declaring that in the course of time there had developed a layer of a “strictly trade-unionist, imperialistic orientated, arrogant, vain, sterile, egotistical, petty-bourgeois, bribed, and demoralised aristocracy of labour”. This guild of corruption, this gangster leadership, today rules the world trade union movement and lives on the back of the workers. It was of this trade union movement that the ultra-left was speaking when it demanded that the workers should desert it. Lenin, however, demagogically answered by pointing to the young trade union movement in Russia which did not as yet share the character of the long established unions in other countries. Employing a specific experience at a given period and under particular circumstance, he thought it possible to draw from it conclusions of world-wide application. The revolutionist, he argued, must always be where the masses are. But in reality where are the masses? In trade union offices? At membership meetings? At the secret meetings of the leadership with the capitalistic representatives? No, the masses are in the factories, in their working places; and there it is necessary to effect their co-operation and strengthen their solidarity. The factory organization, the council system, is the real organisation of the revolution, which must replace all parties and trade unions.

In factory organizations there is no room for professional leadership, no divorce of leaders from followers, no caste distinction between intellectuals and the rank and file, no ground for egotism, competition, demoralization, corruption, sterility and philistinism. Here the workers must take their lot in their own hands.

But Lenin thought otherwise. He wanted to preserve the unions; to change them from within; to remove the social democratic officials and replace them with bolshevik officials; to replace a bad with a good bureaucracy. The bad one grows in a social democracy; the good one in Bolshevism.

Twenty years of experience meanwhile have demonstrated the idiocy of such a concept. Following Lenin’s advice, the Communists have tried all and sundry methods to reform trade unions. The result was nil. The attempt to form their own trade unions was likewise nil. The competition between social democratic and bolshevik trade union work was a competition in corruption. The revolutionary energies of the workers were exhausted in this very process. Instead of concentrating upon the struggle against fascism, the workers were engaged in a senseless and resultless experimentation in the interest of diverse bureaucracies. The masses lost confidence in themselves and in “their” organizations. They felt themselves cheated and betrayed. The methods of fascism, to dictate each step of the workers, to hinder the awakening of self-initiative, to sabotage all beginnings of class-consciousness, to demoralise the masses through innumerable defeats and to make them impotent-all these methods had already been developed in the twenty years of work in the trade unions in accordance with bolshevik principles. The victory of fascism was such an easy one because the labour leaders in trade unions and parties had prepared for them the human material capable of being fitted into the fascistic scheme of things.

V.

On the question of parliamentarianism, too, Lenin appears in the role of the defender of a decayed political institution which had become a hindrance for further political development and a danger to the proletarian emancipation. The ultra-lefts fought parliamentarianism in all its forms. They refused to participate in elections and did not respect parliamentary decisions. Lenin, however, put much effort into parliamentary activities and attached much importance to them. The ultra-left declared parliamentarianism historically passé even as a tribune for agitation, and saw in it no more than a continuous source of political corruption for both parliamentarian and workers. It dulled the revolutionary awareness and consistency of the masses by creating illusions of legalistic reforms, and on critical occasions the parliament turned into a weapon of counter revolution. It had to be destroyed, or, where nothing else was possible, sabotaged. The parliamentary tradition, still playing a part in proletarian consciousness, was to be fought.

To achieve the opposite effect, Lenin operated with the trick of making a distinction between the historically and politically passé institutions. Certainly, he argued, parliamentarianism was historically obsolete, but this was not the case politically, and one would have to reckon with it. One would have to participate because it still played a part politically.

What an argument! Capitalism, too, is only historically and not politically obsolete. According to Lenin’s logic, it is then not possible to fight capitalism in a revolutionary manner. Rather a compromise would have to be found. Opportunism, bargaining, political horse-trading, -- that would be the consequence of Lenin’s tactic. The monarchy, too, is only historically but not politically surpassed. According to Lenin, the workers would have no right to do away with it but would be obliged to find a compromise solution. The same story would be true as regards the church, also only historically but not politically antedated. Furthermore, the people belong in great masses to the church. As a revolutionist, Lenin pointed out, that one had to be where the masses are. Consistency would force him to say “Enter the Church; it is your revolutionary duty!” Finally, there is fascism. One day, too, fascism will be historically antedated but politically still in existence. What is then to be done? To accept the fact and to make a compromise with fascism. According to Lenin’s reasoning, a pact between Stalin and Hitler would only illustrate that Stalin actually is the best disciple of Lenin. And it will not at all be surprising if in the near future the bolshevist agents will hail the pact between Moscow and Berlin as the only real revolutionary tactic.

Lenin’s position on the question of parliamentarianism is only an additional illustration of his incapacity to understand the essential needs and characteristics of the proletarian revolution. His revolution is entirely bourgeois; it is a struggle for the majority, for governmental positions, for a hold upon the law machine. He actually thought it of importance to gain as many votes as possible at election campaigns, to have a strong bolshevik fraction in the parliaments, to help determine form and content of legislation, to take part in political rule. He did not notice at all that today parliamentarianism is a mere bluff, an empty make-believe, and that the real power of bourgeois society rests in entirely different places; that despite all possible parliamentary defeats the bourgeoisie would still have at hand sufficient means to assert its will and interest in non-parliamentary fields. Lenin did not see the demoralising effects parliamentarism had upon the masses, he did not notice the poisoning of public morals through parliamentary corruption. Bribed, bought, and cowed, parliamentary politicians were fearful for their income. There was a time in prefascist Germany when the reactionists in parliament were able to pass any desired law merely by threatening to bring about the dissolution of parliament. There was nothing more terrible to the parliamentary politicians than such a threat which implied the end of their easy incomes. To avoid such an end, they would say yes to anything. And how is it today in Germany, in Russia, in Italy? The parliamentary helots are without opinions, without will, and are nothing more than willing servants of their fascist masters.

There can be no question that parliamentarianism is entirely degenerated and corrupt. But, why didn’t the proletariat stop this deterioration of a political instrument which had once been used for their purposes? To end parliamentarism by one heroic revolutionary act would have been far more useful and educational for the proletarian consciousness than the miserable theatre in which parliamentarism has ended in the fascistic society. But such an attitude was entirely foreign to Lenin, as it is foreign to day to Stalin. Lenin was not concerned with the freedom of the workers from their mental and physical slavery; he was not bothered by the false consciousness of the masses and their human self-alienation. The whole problem to him was nothing more nor less than a problem of power. Like a bourgeois, he thought in terms of gains and losses, more or less, credit and debit; and all his business-like computations deal only with external things: membership figures, number of votes, seats in parliaments, control positions. His materialism is a bourgeois materialism, dealing with mechanisms, not with human beings. He is not really able to think in socio-historical terms. Parliament to him is parliament; an abstract concept in a vacuum, holding equal meaning in all nations, at all times. Certainly he acknowledges that parliament passes through different stages, and he points this out in his discussions, but he does not use his own knowledge in his theory and practice. In his pro-parliamentarian polemics he hides behind the early capitalist parliaments in the ascending stage of capitalism, in order not to run out of arguments. And if he attacks the old parliaments, it is from the vantage point of the young and long outmoded. In short, he decides that politics is the art of the possible. However, politics for the workers is the art of revolution.

VI.

It remains to deal with Lenin’s position on the question of compromises. During the World War the German Social Democracy sold out to the bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, much against its will, it inherited the German revolution. This was made possible to a large extent by the help of Russia, which did its share in killing off the German council movement. The power which had fallen into the lap of Social Democracy was used for nothing. The Social Democracy simply renewed its old class collaboration policy, satisfied with sharing power over the workers with the bourgeoisie in the reconstruction period of capitalism. The German radical workers countered this betrayal with this slogan, “No compromise with the counter revolution”. Here was a concrete case, a specific situation, demanding a clear decision. Lenin, unable to recognize the real issues at stake, made from this concrete specific question a general problem. With the air of a general and the infallibility of a cardinal, he tried to persuade the ultra-lefts that compromises with political opponents under all conditions are a revolutionary duty. If today one reads those passages in Lenin’s pamphlet dealing with compromises, one is inclined to compare Lenin’s remarks in 1920 with Stalin’s present policy of compromises. There is not one deadly sin of bolshevik theory which did not become bolshevistic reality under Lenin.

According to Lenin, the ultra-lefts should have been willing to sign the Treaty of Versailles. However, the Communist Party, still in accordance with Lenin, made a compromise and protested against the Versailles Treaty in collaboration with the Hitlerites. The “National Bolshevism” propagandized in 1919 in Germany by the left-winger Laufenberg was in Lenin’s opinion “an absurdity crying to heaven”. But Radek and the Communist Party—again in accordance with Lenin’s principle—concluded a compromise with German Nationalism, and protested against the occupation of the Ruhr basin and celebrated the national hero Schlageter. The League of Nations was, in Lenin’s own words, “a band of capitalist robbers and bandits”, whom the workers could only fight to the bitter end. However, Stalin—in accordance with Lenin’s tactics—made a compromise with these very same bandits, and the USSR entered the League. The concept “folk” or “People” is in Lenin’s opinion a criminal concession to the counter-revolutionary ideology of the petty bourgeoisie. This did not hinder the Leninists, Stalin and Dimitrov, from making a compromise with the petty bourgeoisie in order to launch the freakish “Peoples Front” movement. For Lenin, imperialism was the greatest enemy of the world proletariat, and against it all forces had to be mobilized. But Stalin, again in true Leninistic fashion, is quite busy with cooking up an alliance with Hitler’s imperialism. Is it necessary to offer more examples? Historical experience teaches that all compromises between revolution and counter-revolution can serve only the latter. They lead only to the bankruptcy of the revolutionary movement. All policy of compromise is a policy of bankruptcy. What began as a mere compromise with the German Social Democracy found its end in Hitler. What Lenin justified as a necessary compromise found its end in Stalin. In diagnosing revolutionary non-compromise as “An Infantile Disease of Communism”, Lenin was suffering from the old age disease of opportunism, of pseudo-communism.

VII.

If one looks with critical eyes at the picture of bolshevism provided by Lenin’s pamphlet, the following main points may be recognized as characteristics of bolshevism:

1. Bolshevism is a nationalistic doctrine. Originally and essentially conceived to solve a national problem, it was later elevated to a theory and practice of international scope and to a general doctrine. Its nationalistic character comes to light also in its position on the struggle for national independence of suppressed nations.

2. Bolshevism is an authoritarian system. The peak of the social pyramid is the most important and determining point. Authority is realized in the all-powerful person. In the leader myth the bourgeois personality ideal celebrates its highest triumphs.

3. Organizationally, Bolshevism is highly centralistic. The central committee has responsibility for all initiative, leadership, instruction, commands. As in the bourgeois state, the leading members of the organization play the role of the bourgeoisie; the sole role of the workers is to obey orders.

4. Bolshevism represents a militant power policy. Exclusively interested in political power, it is no different from the forms of rule in the traditional bourgeois sense. Even in the organization proper there is no self-determination by the members. The army serves the party as the great example of organization.

5. Bolshevism is dictatorship. Working with brute force and terroristic measures, it directs all its functions toward the suppression of all non-bolshevik institutions and opinions. Its “dictatorship of the proletariat” is the dictatorship of a bureaucracy or a single person.

6. Bolshevism is a mechanistic method. It aspires to the automatic co-ordination, the technically secured conformity, and the most efficient totalitarianism as a goal of social order. The centralistically “planned” economy consciously confuses technical-organizational problems with socio-economic questions.

7. The social structure of Bolshevism is of a bourgeois nature. It does not abolish the wage system and refuses proletarian self-determination over the products of labour. It remains therewith fundamentally within the class frame of the bourgeois social order. Capitalism is perpetuated.

8. Bolshevism is a revolutionary element only in the frame of the bourgeois revolution. Unable to realize the soviet system, it is thereby unable to transform essentially the structure of bourgeois society and its economy. It establishes not socialism but state capitalism.

9. Bolshevism is not a bridge leading eventually into the socialist society. Without the soviet system, without the total radical revolution of men and things, it cannot fulfil the most essential of all socialistic demands, which is to end the capitalist human-self-alienation. It represents the last stage of bourgeois society and not the first step towards a new society.

These nine points represent an unbridgeable opposition between bolshevism and socialism. They demonstrate with all necessary clarity the bourgeois character of the bolshevist movement and its close relationship to fascism. Nationalism, authoritarianism, centralism, leader dictatorship, power policies, terror-rule, mechanistic dynamics, inability to socialize-all these essential characteristics of fascism were and are existing in bolshevism. Fascism is merely a copy of bolshevism. For this reason the struggle against the one must begin with the struggle against the other.

Otto Rühle

Otto Rühle was a German Marxist active in opposition to both the First and Second World Wars, and a founder along with Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring and others of the group and magazine Internationale, which posed a revolutionary internationalism against a world of warring states, and also the Spartacist League in 1916. The Spartacist League took an oppositional stance to Leninism, and was attacked by the Bolsheviks for inconsistency. Though Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg were murdered in 1919 for their involvement in the German Revolution, Rühle lived on to participate in the left opposition of the German labour movement, developing both an early communist critique of Bolshevism, and an early opposition to fascism. Rühle saw the Soviet Union as a form of state capitalism with much in common with the state-centred capitalism of the West, as well as Fascism: "It has served as the model for other capitalistic dictatorships. Ideological divergences do not really differentiate socioeconomic systems." He also saw the Leninist Party as an appropriate form for the overthrow of Tsarism, but ultimately an inappropriate form for a proletarian revolution.

EAST GERMAN STALINISTS SUPPORT AfD

Germany's far-right AfD can be put under surveillance

The far-right populist Alternative for Germany has lost a legal battle against the countryˈs domestic intelligence service. Judges ruled that the party can be categorized as "suspicious entity."



The AfD can be labeled as a suspicious entity, granting investigators more power to keep tabs on it

Germanyˈs domestic intelligence agency has the right to surveil the populist far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) as part of its remit to monitor extremism, a court in Cologne ruled on Tuesday.

The AfD is the countryˈs most right-wing party represented in parliament and had been categorized as a "suspicious entity" by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) over concerns of increasing radicalization, especially within its youth organization.

The AfD had taken the matter to court to stop what it called the "politically motivated" investigation, arguing that the categorization would amount to a ban. They also claimed that the controversial extreme-right "Flügel" (wing) of the party had already been disbanded two years ago.

Björn Höcke, AfD leader in Thuringia, is one of the party's most influential figures on the extreme right

But the Administrative Court of Cologne found that there was more than sufficient evidence that the AfD was advocating an anti-constitutional ethnic concept, which the agency considers incompatible with human dignity as guaranteed in the German Basic Law. The judges found that even if the "Flügel" had been officially dissolved, its members were still active and influential within the party, as well as the "Junge Alternative" (JA) youth organization adhere to xenophobic concepts similar to those of Nazi Germany decades ago.

AfD chairman Tino Chrupalla said the party was "surprised" by the verdict, but vowed to explore all legal avenues to appeal it.
A first in post-war history

Although there are still a few legal hurdles to clear before the BfV is allowed to use informants or surveillance measures such as wiretaps, the decision marks the first time in post-war Germany that such a large party — the AfD is represented in the European Parliament, the Bundestag, as well as all state legislatures — will be surveilled by intelligence agents.

After the verdict, BfV President Thomas Haldenwang spoke of a "good day for democracy".

"The party stands for racism, the party stands for exclusion of minorities, the party stands for contempt of the social system," Haldenwang told public broadcaster ZDF. "That is why it is important that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution can talk about this party again after a year of silence."

In the past, the BfV has investigated members of the Left Party suspecting them of intending to replace the existing economic, political and social order with a socialist or communist system, but those investigations came to naught. It also infiltrated the neo-Nazi NPD with so many informants that a case to ban the party outright was thrown out over concerns that there were more spies in the party than dedicated members.

GERMANY: AFD PARTY LEADERS — LURCHING FURTHER TO THE FAR RIGHT
Bernd Lucke (2013 - 2015)
In 2013 the economist co-founded the Alternative for Germany (AfD) as a euroskeptic party that he went on to represent in the European Parliament in 2014. He left the AfD in 2015 after losing a power struggle against its more xenophobic wing.
123456

The fall-out for AfD members

The verdict may have immediate consequences for AfD members in the civil service, says DW political correspondent Hans Pfeifer.

"There are members of the party who are civil servants; police officers, district attorneys, teachers, judges," Pfeifer said, now their employers could argue that they have failed to uphold their oath to protect the constitution and fire them.

The court decision could also have an impact on AfD lawmakers in the Bundestag. Government and opposition MPs were quick to point out that members of a party that is suspected of breaching the constitution, would face a conflict of interest if they sat on committees overseeing the country's intelligence services.

The chairman of the Parliamentary Control Body in the Bundestag, Roderich Kiesewetter of the main opposition party, the center-right Christian Democrat (CDU) told ZDF: "If this ruling is confirmed, it will not be possible for a party that is classified as a suspicious case to be a member of the Parliamentary Control Board which controls the intelligence services of the federal government."

The former president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Charlotte Knobloch, described Tuesday's verdict as "a victory for the defensible constitutional state and a clear sign that democracy must not stand idly by and watch the machinations of its opponents." She told the FAZ daily that it was a sign "that all people can live safely and without fear in Germany. If a party borrows from National Socialism and openly associates itself with enemies of democracy at home and abroad, then the institutions of the rule of law must be able to keep a close eye on it."

Knobloch said she hoped this would also help sway voters: "I hope that the voters of the AfD will now finally also become aware of who they have sent to the parliaments."

But DW's Hans Pfeifer is less optimistic. While the verdict may make it more difficult for AfD supporters to claim that they are a mainstream conservative party, the verdict could be used to the partyˈs advantage, playing into their narrative that "this is just another way the government is trying to repress the opposition."

"They can turn this around, like the alt-right does in the US," Pfeifer said, "theyˈve already begun using it as a tool to de-legitimize the BfV and other government institutions, by insinuating that the mainstream political establishment has it out for them."

This article has been updated and expanded since its publication.

Darko Janjevic and Mark Hallam contributed to the report.

Edited by: Rina Goldenberg

SEE 

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2022/03/otto-ruhle-struggle-against-fascism.html

How war videos on social media can trigger secondary trauma

During a war, trauma is no longer limited to the battlefield. Violent and distressing content on social media can leave a lasting impression. Here's how users can be prepared.

A Ukrainian immigrant in California shows a photo of her aunt hunkering down

 in a basement in Kyiv, Ukraine, amid Russia's invasion

A huge explosion — first a massive orange-yellow flash, then plumes of smoke rising. The location is an administrative building on the edge of Svobody Square in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv. 

This scene could be watched unfiltered all over the world shortly after it happened. The video of the explosion, caused by a missile strike, as it later emerged, was shared widely on social networks. Four days later, it had been viewed several million times.

The war in Ukraine is also a digital war. The movements and reporting of journalists on the ground are limited, and access to most areas is restricted or impossible. Hence, a lot of the information coming out of Ukraine is so-called user-generated content, or eyewitness media. It is mostly raw footage posted; editorial standards do not apply. 

The result is that a lot of harrowing material makes it to the screens of social media users the world over. What does this mean for people who consume content from the war in Ukraine online? How can potential psychological injury be avoided, or at least limited? How can users stay informed on the one hand, while they protect their mental health on the other hand? 

Secondary trauma 

Secondary trauma refers to distress or negative emotional effects that result from second-hand exposure. In other words: secondary trauma can occur when an individual hears about the first-hand trauma experiences of another person, or is exposed to gruesome or distressing material via images or videos.

In particular, repeated exposure to disturbing content carries the risk of negative consequences regarding mental well-being. If at all possible, this should be avoided.

Studying the psychological effects of exposure to distressing digital content on social media is a relatively new field of research. The same applies to the study of effective countermeasures. 

"Always be prepared, avoid surprises, and be ready to view distressing material any time when moving online," said Sam Dubberley, managing director of the Digital Investigations Lab at Human Rights Watch, and co-author of a report on eyewitness media and vicarious trauma. 

While Dubberley’s research has focused on secondary or vicarious trauma in the journalistic and human rights context, some of his findings can also serve as advice to ordinary social media users viewing content from the war in Ukraine. 

Dubberly stresses: "Be honest to yourself. If you see something distressing that affects you, acknowledge it. Don’t brush it under the carpet or pretend it doesn’t affect you if it does." 

Everyone is different

It is important to stress that everyone is different and reactions vary to the same or similar occurrences or exposures. Furthermore, much depends on the frame of mind prevailing at the time of exposure. 

Someone who expects to counter potentially disturbing material can put up their guard beforehand in order to prepare accordingly for what may come up on screen. 

Furthermore, each individual has different triggers. For some, it is viewing explicit physical injuries, while for others it is the sad or desperate look of a child. 

Taking one's personal situation into account is also important. Having a personal connection to an event plays a role, too. There is no particular universal technique or guideline that works for everyone in every type of setting. Nevertheless, a number of measures and activities can help limit negative consequences.

Ukrainian refugees fleeing toward Poland have shared images of their experiences

 

Limiting negative impact on mental well-being 

Being prepared to potentially encounter disturbing or distressing material when scrolling through a news feed is an important strategy. During a heavily-documented war, a horrific photo or video could be displayed on screen at any moment. 

The power of sounds should not be underestimated, and social media users are advised to turn off the audio on their news feeds.

Research has shown that the sound of, say, a person being seriously injured or harmed, "sticks" far more to the psyche than visual material. There are many highly disturbing videos circulating online, showing people who are victims of attacks and assaults — and hearing their pain and suffering can burn itself into one's mind for a long time. 

If watching videos from the war, social media users should reduce the size of the video window and disable autoplay. Turning away from the screen is always an option too. 

Regular breaks away from phones and computers are advised to prevent users being exposed to a constant stream of war footage almost every waking hour.

People around the world, including in Krakow, Poland, have been protesting the war

If things turn really bad: seek help 

Those that do become affected, whether mentally or emotionally, are urged to look out for "unusual signs" (such as problems sleeping, frequent nightmares, excessive alcohol or drugs consumption, to name but a few) and to talk to others about their feelings. These can be family, friends or colleagues. 

If these issues continue for longer periods, professional help should be sought, if you haven't already.

Wars produce a huge amount of distress and trauma, not only for Ukrainians who are directly affected. While it is important to stay informed, social media users should stay aware of possible risks that may result from exposure to disturbing digital material, wherever it is encountered.

Edited by: Ruairi Casey