Monday, June 10, 2024

FREE PELTIER!

U$ POITICAL PRISONER

What to know about Indigenous activist Leonard Peltier’s first hearing in more than a decade


American Indian activist Leonard Peltier speaks during an interview at the U.S. Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan., April 29, 1999. Peltier, who has spent most of his life in prison in the 1975 killings of two FBI agents in South Dakota, has a parole hearing Monday, June 10, 2024, at a federal prison in Florida. (Joe Ledford/The Kansas City Star via AP, File)

An unidentified FBI agent, one of the nearly 500 current and retired FBI agents protesting clemency for Leonard Peltier, marches toward the White House, Friday, Dec. 15, 2000, holding an image of two FBI agents, Ron Williams and Jack Coler, who were killed on the Pine Ridge Indian reservation in South Dakota in 1975. Peltier, who has spent most of his life in prison for the killings, has a parole hearing Monday, June 10, 2024, at a federal prison in Florida. (AP Photo/Hillery Smith Garrison, File)

BY HEATHER HOLLINGSWORTH AND JACK DURA
 June 9, 2024

Indigenous activist Leonard Peltier, who has spent most of his life in prison since his conviction in the 1975 killings of two FBI agents in South Dakota, has a parole hearing Monday at a federal prison in Florida.

At 79, his health is failing, and if this parole request is denied, it might be a decade or more before it is considered again, said his attorney Kevin Sharp, a former federal judge. Sharp and other supporters have long argued that Peltier was wrongly convicted and say now that this effort may be his last chance at freedom.

“This whole entire hearing is a battle for his life,” said Nick Tilsen, president and CEO of the NDN Collective, an Indigenous-led advocacy group. “It’s time for him to come home.”

The FBI and its current and former agents dispute the claims of innocence. The fight for Peltier’s freedom, which is embroiled in the Indigenous rights movements, remains so robust nearly half a century later that “Free Peltier” T-shirts and caps are still hawked online.

“It may be kind of cultish to take his side as some kind of a hero. But he’s certainly not that; he’s a cold blooded murderer,” said Mike Clark, president of the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI, in a letter arguing that Peltier should remain incarcerated.

Here are some things to know about the case.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE ‘70S?

An enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Chippewa tribe, Peltier was active in the American Indian Movement, which began in the 1960s as a local organization in Minneapolis that grappled with issues of police brutality and discrimination against Native Americans. It quickly became a national force.

AIM grabbed headlines in 1973 when it took over the village of Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge reservation, leading to a 71-day standoff with federal agents. Tensions between AIM and the government remained high for years.

The FBI considered AIM an extremist organization, and planted spies and snitches in the group. Sharp blamed the government for creating what he described as a “powder keg” that exploded on June 26, 1975.


That’s the day agents came to Pine Ridge to serve arrest warrants amid ongoing battles over Native treaty rights and self-determination.

After being injured in a shootout, agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams were shot in the head at point-blank range. Also killed in the shootout was AIM member Joseph Stuntz. The Justice Department concluded that a law enforcement sniper killed Stuntz.

Two other AIM members, Robert Robideau and Dino Butler, were acquitted of killing Coler and Williams.

After fleeing to Canada and being extradited to the United States, Peltier was convicted and sentenced in 1977 to life in prison, despite defense claims that evidence against him had been falsified.

“You’ve got a conviction that was riddled with misconduct by the prosecutors, the U.S. Attorney’s office, by the FBI who investigated this case and, frankly the jury,” Sharp said. “If they tried this today, he does not get convicted.”
HOW HAS THE FBI RESPONDED?

FBI Director Chris Wray said in a statement that the agency was resolute in its opposition to Peltier’s latest application for parole.

“We must never forget or put aside that Peltier intentionally murdered these two young men and has never expressed remorse for his ruthless actions,” he wrote, adding that the case has been repeatedly upheld on appeal.

And the FBI Agents Association, a professional group that represents mostly active agents, sent a letter to the parole commission opposing parole. The group said any early release of Peltier would be a “cruel act of betrayal.”

WHAT IS THE LEGACY OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT?

Tilsen, a citizen of the Oglala Lakota Nation, credits AIM and others for most of the rights Native Americans have today, including religious freedom, the ability to operate casinos and tribal colleges, and enter into contracts with the federal government to oversee schools and other services.

“Leonard has been a part of creating that, but he hasn’t been available to be a beneficiary because he has been incarcerated for almost 50 years,” Tilsen said. “So he hasn’t been able to enjoy the result of those wins and see how they have changed and transformed Indian country.”

WHEN IS THE HEARING?


The hearing is scheduled to start at 11 a.m. Monday at a high security lockup that is part of the Federal Correctional Complex Coleman. The Federal Bureau of Prisons said in a statement that the hearing is not open to the public.

Sharp, Peltier’s attorney, said the hearing will have witnesses for and against parole. Family members of the two FBI agents who were killed will be there.

Sharp expects the hearing to last the day. The decision is required to come within 21 days. If parole is granted, there’s a process for release which shouldn’t take long. If denied, Peltier can look at his options for filing an appeal to a federal district court, Sharp said.

Parole was rejected at Peltier’s last hearing in 2009, and then-President Barack Obama denied a clemency request in 2017. Another clemency request is pending before President Joe Biden.


Leonard Peltier, Native activist imprisoned for nearly 50 years, faces a 'last chance' parole hearing


 Native American activist and federal prisoner Leonard Peltier, who has maintained his innocence in the murders of two FBI agents almost half a century ago, is due for a full parole hearing Monday — his first in 15 years — as his supporters fear he may not get another opportunity to advocate for his release.

A lawyer for Peltier, 79, said he has been “in good spirits” as he prepares for the hearing at the Federal Correctional Complex Coleman in Florida.

“He wants to go home and he recognizes this is probably his last chance,” attorney Kevin Sharp said. “But he feels good about presenting the best case he can.”

Sharp said medical and re-entry experts would be called to support Peltier’s case for parole, and that hearing examiners and the U.S. Parole Commission will have letters from his community and prominent figures to review.

Over the decades, human rights and faith leaders, including Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama, and Nobel Peace Prize recipients such as Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu have backed Peltier’s release.

Apart from the decades of scrutiny surrounding how Peltier’s case was investigated and his trial was conducted, Sharp said, he believes his age, nonviolent record in prison and declining health, including diabetes, hypertension, partial blindness from a stroke and bouts of Covid, should be accounted for as the commission determines whether to grant parole.

The federal Bureau of Prisons “does not say he is a danger,” Sharp said. “This is about have they extracted enough retribution,” he added of the federal government’s resistance to Peltier’s previous bids for parole, given that the crime involved law enforcement agents.

At his 2009 parole hearing, an FBI official argued that time has not diminished “the brutality of the crimes,” and that while Peltier claimed his innocence, “he has resorted to lies and half-truths in order to sway public attention from the facts at hand.”

Paroling Peltier, who was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences, would have only promoted “disrespect for the law,” Justice Department officials said at the time.

FBI Director Christopher Wray said in a statement Friday that the agency "remains resolute" in its opposition to Peltier's release, citing how his appeals have been denied and that he had even escaped from a California prison in 1979 but was captured three days later.

"We must never forget or put aside that Peltier intentionally murdered these two young men and has never expressed remorse for his ruthless actions," Wray said.

The arrest

On June 26, 1975, FBI agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams were on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota to arrest a man on a federal warrant in connection with the theft of cowboy boots, according to the agency’s investigative files.

While there, the pair radioed that they had come under fire in a shootout that lasted 10 minutes, the FBI said. Both men were killed by bullets fired at close range. According to the officials, Peltier —  a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and then an activist with the American Indian Movement, a grassroots Indigenous rights group — was identified as the only person in possession of a weapon on the reservation that could fire the type of bullet that killed the agents.

But dozens of people had participated in the gunfight; at trial, two co-defendants were acquitted after they claimed self-defense. When Peltier was tried separately in 1977, no witnesses were presented who could identify him as the shooter, and unknown to his defense lawyers at the time, the federal government had withheld a ballistics report indicating the fatal bullets didn’t come from his weapon, according to court documents filed by Peltier on appeal.

But the FBI has maintained his conviction was “rightly and fairly obtained” and “has withstood numerous appeals to multiple courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Still, other officials have spoken out in support of him over the years. Retired federal prosecutor James Reynolds, who supervised Peltier’s post-trial sentencing and appeals, wrote to President Joe Biden in 2021 asking him to commute Peltier’s sentence because it would “serve the best interests of justice and the best interests of our country.”

“He has served more than 46 years on the basis of minimal evidence, a result that I strongly doubt would be upheld in any court today,” Reynolds wrote.

Peltier, in a phone interview from prison with NBC News in 2022, said he had hoped mounting pressure from Democratic members of Congress would convince Biden to grant him clemency, and possibly allow him a new trial to prove his innocence.

“I have a last few years,” Peltier said, “and I got to fight.”

Parole process

Peltier falls into a small category of mostly elderly federal prisoners who committed their offenses before November 1987 and can petition for parole from the Justice Department’s Parole Commission. Congress eliminated federal parole for inmates who committed offenses after that date because of new sentencing guidelines.

At a hearing, an examiner is in charge of reviewing the inmate’s case and hearing from witnesses. The hearing examiner’s recommendation on whether to grant parole moves to at least one other examiner who does not attend the hearing, and the ultimate decision then falls to a parole commissioner — who is nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate and may be a former law enforcement official, educator or lawyer.

If the parole commissioner agrees with the examiners’ recommendation, that becomes the official decision. But if the first parole commissioner disagrees, a second commissioner must concur with either that commissioner or the examiners.

Such a layered process can appear detrimental to inmates if “the thread is lost,” said Charles Weisselberg, a Berkeley Law professor who has written about the “dysfunction” of the commission.

In addition, the Parole Commission typically has five members, but it has had only two since about 2018, Weisselberg said.

The Senate has not moved on filling the commission’s vacant seats. Weisselberg said having fewer commissioners to deliberate gives “greater power” to the hearing examiner, and “as a practical matter, it virtually eliminates the right to a meaningful parole appeal.”

Weisselberg has suggested the process can be streamlined with a magistrate judge as the arbiter. The Parole Commission did not return a request for comment.

Peltier’s supporters are hoping for parole but say Biden, who has not commented on the case, can still have him released on compassionate grounds.

“Mr. Peltier deserves the dignity to live the rest of his life outside the confines of a federal prison cell,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., adding that “it is not too late to grant him the remaining years of a life that the federal government wrongfully stole from him so many years ago.”

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com


Campaign: President Biden Should Free Leonard Peltier ... Leonard Peltier, a Native American activist, has been imprisoned for nearly 50 years in the USA for a ...

Stand with us to demand justice, compassion, and the granting of clemency for Leonard Peltier. Together, we can help rectify an injustice that has lasted for .


is a nationwide initiative to ensure the legacy of Leonard Peltier remains in the forefront of the public eye. As an icon of Native American political injustice ...

Activist Leonard Peltier is now in his 49th year of imprisonment. The injustice of his long incarceration has led the U.S. Attorney who handled the prosecution ...

is a nationwide initiative to ensure the legacy of Leonard Peltier remains in the forefront of the public eye. As an icon of Native American political injustice 

... News Articles | Frank Blackhorse | Links. ^Top. FREE LEONARD.ORG 1893 Clinton St. • Buffalo, NY 14206. Tel: 716.822.7645 • Email: info@freeleonard.org.

American Indian Movement (AIM) freedom fighter Leonard Peltier was convicted on false evidence in 1975 and sentenced to two life sentences.


Sep 12, 2023 ... Organizers delivered impassioned speeches about Peltier's life and his importance as a Indigenous leader, punctuated by shouts of “Free Peltier!

Methodist church regrets Ivory Coast’s split from the union as lifting of LGBTQ ban roils Africa

BY TSVANGIRAYI MUKWAZHI
June 6, 2024




HARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) — Leaders of the United Methodist Church expressed regret over last week’s decision by the branch in Ivory Coast to leave the union following the church’s decision to repeal a long-standing ban on LGBTQ+ clergy but pledged to accept it.

The developments were the latest in a series of ripple effects in conservative Africa, which is home to the vast majority of United Methodists outside the United States, amid disputes on sexuality and theology that have shaken the Methodist churches.

In early May, delegates at the church’s first legislative gathering in five years voted overwhelmingly to remove a rule forbidding “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” from being ordained or appointed as ministers.

It was a sharp contrast to past General Conferences of the United Methodist Church, which had steadily reinforced the ban and related penalties amid debate and protests. The change doesn’t mandate or even explicitly affirm LGBTQ+ clergy, but it means the church no longer forbids them.

But each member church was free to decide for itself — and while some bishops favored staying on, others pushed to disaffiliate.

On May 28, Ivory Coast’s church voted to split from the United Methodists. With over 1.2 million members, the West African country’s church has one of the denomination’s largest overseas followers. The United Methodist Church has about 5.4 million members in the United States, and about 4.6 million in Africa, Europe and the Philippines, according to church figures.

In its first reaction following last week’s vote, the church’s Council of Bishops said on Wednesday that “while we grieve” Ivory Coast’s decision, “we commit to work with them through the process of becoming an Autonomous Methodist Church.”

“While we are not all of one mind in all things, the strength of our connection is love, respect, compassion and a shared commitment to faith in Jesus Christ,” the council said in a statement.

Elsewhere in Africa, hundreds of United Methodist Church members gathered at the church’s local headquarters in Zimbabwe’s capital, Harare, last Thursday to protests the church’s move to welcome LGBTQ+ members.

They sang religious songs, held placards with messages saying homosexuality is a sin and an abomination.

“Africa is not for sale. No to homosexuality,” read one placard held by an elderly woman. Church member James Kawaza reminded the gathering that “homosexuality is unlawful in Zimbabwe.”

“The church has aligned with the Rainbow Movement, and this is also a threat to our African traditions and human existence at large,” read a petition by church members, calling on their Bishop Eben Nhiwatiwa to act.

Nhiwatiwa was not available for comment.

Zimbabwe’s Christian denominations — and others in Africa — have been vocal against any moves to welcome gays into the church.

In January, Catholic bishops in Africa and Madagascar issued a unified statement refusing to follow a declaration by Pope Francis allowing priests to offer blessings to same-sex couples, asserting that such unions are “contrary to the will of God.”

Chester Samba, Director of GALZ, which represents the LGBTQ+ community in Zimbabwe, said he was not so hopeful for Zimbabwe and much of the continent to change their conservative stand.

“It is my hope that platforms for dialogue are created and supported to enhance understanding so that all may be welcome in the house of worship regardless of sexual orientation,” said Samba, whose members have over the years been targets of harassment and stigmatization.
___

Associated Press writer Farai Mutsaka in Harare, Zimbabwe, contributed to this report.
___

AP Africa news: https://apnews.com/hub/africa


Bill would rename NYC subway stop after Stonewall, a landmark in LGBTQ+ rights movement


- Rainwater seeps down into the Christopher Street-Sheridan Square subway station, March 30, 2010, in New York. The New York City subway station would be renamed to commemorate the Stonewall Inn protests that galvanized the modern LGBTQ rights movement, under legislation approved by state lawmakers as they wrapped up their session in June 2024. 
(AP Photo/Stephen Chernin, File)

, June 9, 2024


NEW YORK (AP) — A New York City subway station would be renamed to commemorate the Stonewall riots that galvanized the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement, under legislation approved by state lawmakers as they wrapped up their session this month.

The state Legislature approved a bill Wednesday directing the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to change the name of the Christopher Street-Sheridan Square subway station in Greenwich Village to the Christopher Street-Stonewall National Monument Station.

“This change will memorialize the history of the modern LGBTQ civil rights movement and inspire NY to demand justice and equality for all,” state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Manhattan Democrat who sponsored the proposal, wrote on the social platform X following the Senate’s passage of the measure.

The bill now heads to Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul for her approval. Her office said late Sunday it will review the legislation.


PRIDE MONTH


New South Wales becomes last Australian state to apologize for laws criminalizing homosexuality


Maura Healey, America’s first lesbian governor, oversees raising of Pride flag at Statehouse


Gay pride revelers in Sao Paulo reclaim Brazil’s national symbols
ADVERTISEMENT

The Stonewall Inn was raided by police June 28, 1969, sparking a riot and several days of protests that marked a groundbreaking moment in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights in the country.

At the time, showing same-sex affection or dressing in a way deemed gender-inappropriate could get people arrested and led to bars that served them losing liquor licenses.

Today, Stonewall Inn is a National Historic Landmark, with patrons flocking to the site each June, when New York and many other cities hold LGBTQ+ pride celebrations.

The Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center is also planned to open next door as the National Park Service’s first such center focused on LGBTQ+ history.




New South Wales becomes last Australian state to apologize for laws criminalizing homosexuality



New South Wales State Premier Chris Minns formally apologizes to the LGBTQI+ community at state parliament in Sydney, Thursday, June 6, 2024, for discriminatory laws. The leader of Australia’s most populous state apologized Thursday for the “unforgivable pain” caused by previous laws criminalizing homosexuality, 40 years after gay sex was decriminalized in New South Wales.
 (Louise Kennerley/AAP Image/Pool via AP)

BY CHARLOTTE GRAHAM-MCLAY
 June 6, 2024

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) — The leader of Australia’s most populous state apologized Thursday for the “unforgivable pain” caused by previous laws criminalizing homosexuality, 40 years after gay sex was decriminalized in New South Wales.

“We are here to apologize for every life that was damaged or diminished or destroyed by these unjust laws,” Premier Chris Minns said in a speech to the state parliament. The legislation “should never have existed,” he added.

The state was the last in Australia to make a formal apology for laws that made gay sex acts illegal, following Victoria and South Australia in 2016 and the country’s other three states in 2017. Same-sex marriage became legal in Australia in 2017.

Homosexual acts between adult men were decriminalized in New South Wales in 1984, making it the fifth state to do so. Sex between women was never a criminal offense in the state. The state recorded dozens of “gay hate” deaths in the 1980s, in part because of hostility and fear stemming from the AIDS epidemic.

A legislative change in 2014 allowed men with convictions under the past laws to apply for them to be expunged.

Minns said Thursday that those convicted had lost jobs, futures and family as a result.

“We are very sorry for every person convicted or otherwise who were made to live a smaller life because of these laws,” he said.

“People who reached the end of their days without ever voicing who they really were, without ever experiencing the greatest of human joys, which is the joy of love, we are sorry,” Minns added.

Sydney lawmaker Alex Greenwich told legislators that he was the only openly gay member of the New South Wales parliament, which includes Sydney, and one of only two in the chamber’s history.

“This in itself shows how much work we need to do,” he said.

“My message to my colleagues today will be the same message as the LGBTQ community had 40 years ago. ‘Get out of our bedrooms, get out of our pants and let us live our lives,’” said Greenwich, who has proposed a bill that would prevent teachers and students at private schools from being fired or expelled for coming out.
Massachusetts 

Maura Healey, America’s first lesbian governor, oversees raising of Pride flag at Statehouse


Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, left, joins with lawmakers and members of the LGBTQ community Wednesday, June 5, 2024, to mark Pride Month in front of the State House in Boston. Healey, one of America’s first two openly lesbian elected governors, took the opportunity to oversee the raising of the Pride flag on the Statehouse lawn. The ceremony marked the 20th anniversary of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, the first state to allow the unions. (AP Photo/Steve LeBlanc)

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey joins with lawmakers and members of the LGBTQ community Wednesday, June 5, 2024, to mark Pride Month in front of the State House in Boston. Healey, one of America’s first two openly lesbian elected governors, took the opportunity to oversee the raising of the Pride flag on the Statehouse lawn. The ceremony marked the 20th anniversary of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, the first state to allow the unions. (AP Photo/Steve LeBlanc)Read More

BY STEVE LEBLANC
Updated 2:57 PM MDT, June 5, 2024Share

BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey joined lawmakers and members of the LGBTQ community Wednesday to mark Pride Month.

Healey, America’s first lesbian governor, oversaw the raising of the Pride flag on the Statehouse lawn. The ceremony also marked the 20th anniversary of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, the first state to allow the unions.

“No matter your age, your identity, your gender expression, here in Massachusetts you are welcome,” Healey said as she raised the flag. “We see you, we hear you, we love you, we stand with you, we will always fight for you.”

The ceremony comes ahead of the Boston Pride Parade on Saturday, the largest in New England.

Standing on the Statehouse steps, Healey said she was reminded of all who paved the way for the court decision in Massachusetts that legalized same-sex marriage. She also said that the right to marry and other victories for the LGBTQ community must be defended against ongoing threats.

“We are facing a situation where too many are looking to take away important, hard-won rights and freedoms,” said Healey, the state’s former attorney general. “These are freedoms. Equal treatment under the law is something that is in our United States Constitution.”



Massachusetts governor adds to number of individuals eyed for pardons


Massachusetts is turning a former prison into a shelter for homeless families

Hospital operator Steward Health Care files for bankruptcy protection

Wednesday’s flag raising and Saturday’s parade comes amid growing hostility toward the LGBTQ+ community elsewhere in the country. Some states have sought to limit drag shows, restricted gender-affirming medical care and banned school library books for their LGBTQ+ content.

Saturday’s parade will be Boston’s second Pride parade since 2019. A hiatus began with COVID-19 but extended through 2022 because the organization that used to run the event, Boston Pride, dissolved in 2021 under criticism that it excluded racial minorities and transgender people.

Boston Pride for the People, the new group formed to plan Boston’s parade, came together in 2022 to create a more inclusive, less corporate festival, according to planners.

The parade is one of the oldest Pride events in the country. A second event for the over-21 crowd is planned at City Hall Plaza on Saturday with beer, wine, DJs, drag queens, drag kings, other royalty, pole dancers and more, organizers said.


Trump film ‘The Apprentice’ made noise in Cannes, but it still lacks a US distributor

SOUNDS LIKE A JOB FOR THE DNC


Martin Donovan, from left, Maria Bakalova, director Ali Abbasi, and Sebastian Stan pose for photographers at the photo call for the film ‘The Apprentice’ at the 77th international film festival, Cannes, southern France, Tuesday, May 21, 2024. (Photo by Daniel Cole/Invision/AP)

Gabriel Sherman, from left, Maria Bakalova, director Ali Abbasi, Sebastian Stan, and Martin Donovan pose for photographers upon departure from premiere of the film ‘The Apprentice’ at the 77th international film festival, Cannes, southern France, Monday, May 20, 2024. (Photo by Scott A Garfitt/Invision/AP)


BY JAKE COYLE
 June 7, 2024

NEW YORK (AP) — Two weeks after its much-anticipated premiere at the Cannes Film Festival, a film about Donald Trump in the 1980s is still seeking distribution in the United States.

In Cannes, “The Apprentice” unveiled a scathing portrait of the former U.S. President as a young man. The film, starring Sebastian Stan, chronicles Trump’s rise to power in New York real estate under the tutelage of Roy Cohn (Jeremy Strong), the defense attorney who was chief counsel to Joseph McCarthy’s 1950s Senate investigations of suspected communists.

“The Apprentice,” directed by the Danish Iranian filmmaker Ali Abbasi, immediately sparked controversy. After its premiere, Trump’s reelection campaign spokesperson, Steven Cheung, called the movie “pure fiction” and said the Trump team would file a lawsuit “to address the blatantly false assertions from these pretend filmmakers.”
ADVERTISEMENT


Whether influenced by that threat or not, “The Apprentice” is yet to secure distribution from either a major studio or a leading streaming service — none of whom have put in a bid on the movie. While the film has picked up international distribution in most territories worldwide, it doesn’t yet have a home in the country where Trump is running for president.

Though high-profile films typically find buyers either before or shortly after their festival debuts, negotiations can drag on. A spokesperson for the film’s sales team declined to comment. A person close to the film who requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to comment publicly said there are numerous offers for the film domestically.

Earlier this week, Abbasi’s frustration seemed to boil over on X, the social media platform. In a response to a news article blaming a stream of sequels and remakes on the recently dismal performance of films at the box office, Abbasi offered “a new proposition.”

“Its not a (expletive) sequel nor is it a (expletive) remake,” wrote Abbasi. “Its called #The_Apprentice and for some reason certain power people in your country don’t want you to see it!!!”

Representatives for Trump didn’t respond to requests for comment. Last Thursday, Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records arising from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election.

One scene in the film is especially explosive. Late in the movie, Trump is depicted raping his wife, Ivana Trump (played by Maria Bakalova ). In Ivana Trump’s 1990 divorce deposition, she stated that Trump raped her. Trump denied the allegation and Ivana Trump later said she didn’t mean it literally, but rather that she had felt violated.

Variety earlier reported alleged behind-the-scenes drama surrounding “The Apprentice.” Citing anonymous sources, the trade publication reported that billionaire Dan Snyder, the former owner of the Washington Commanders and an investor in “The Apprentice,” has pressured the filmmakers to edit the rape scene. Snyder previously donated to Trump’s presidential campaign.

Attorneys for Snyder didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Releasing “The Apprentice” in most years could be challenging. In an election year, it’s a potential lighting rod. Distributors would be faced with the option of launching it either shortly before the election in November or after it.

“The Apprentice” received largely positive reviews in Cannes but didn’t factor into the festival’s juried awards. Strong’s performance was particularly praised as a possible awards contender.

At the film’s premiere, Abbasi argued for the movie’s direct approach, saying “there is no nice metaphorical way to deal with the rising wave of fascism.”

The following day, the filmmaker shrugged off the threat of a lawsuit.

“I don’t necessarily think that this is a movie he would dislike,” said Abbasi. “I don’t necessarily think he would like it. I think he would be surprised, you know? And like I’ve said before, I would offer to go and meet him wherever he wants and talk about the context of the movie, have a screening and have a chat afterwards, if that’s interesting to anyone at the Trump campaign.”


JAKE COYLE
Film writer and critic
twitter mailto

 Stalin and Stalinism in History (2012)

Domenico Losurdo

2024-05-16

Original publication: lafauteadiderot.net

Translation: Roderic Day

Red Sails


On 12 April 2012, the Gabriel Péri Foundation hosted a panel on the question of “Stalin and Stalinism in History,” featuring anti-communist historian Nicolas Werth — who contributed the USSR chapters to Stéphane Courtois’s infamous Black Book of Communism (1997) — and philosopher Domenico Losurdo. [1] [2] Below is Domenico Losurdo’s keynote address. All citations are my addition. — R. D.

Philosophers like to evoke not only historical events but also the categories through which we interpret these events. Today, what is the category through which Stalin is interpreted? That of bloodthirsty madness. This category has already been used against Robespierre, against the Revolution of 1848, against the Paris Commune, but never against war, or against Louis XVI, or against the Girondins or Napoleon. Regarding the twentieth century, we have psychopathological studies of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, but not, for example, of Churchill. [3] However, all of the Bolshevik leaders spoke up against colonial expansionism, while Churchill wrote: “War is a game that is played with a smile.” [4] Then there was the carnage of the First World War. The Bolshevik leadership group, including Stalin, was against this carnage, but Churchill said again: “War is the greatest game in world history, here I play with the highest stakes. War is the sole acute sensation of our lives.” [5] So, why the psychopathological approach in the one case and not in the other?

Given these conditions, what central category can we part from? For the sake of reflection, I will cite Nicolas Werth: “The source (matrice) of Stalinism was the period of the First World War, the revolutions of 1917, and the Civil Wars, taken as a whole.” I fully share this view. So we have to start with the First World War. The origins of Stalinism lie not in an individual’s thirst for power, but in the permanent state of emergency that started with the First World War. But we need to take into account not just the First World War, but the whole period of the Second Thirty Years’ War — because even after the Treaty of Versailles, everyone sensed that there would be a Second World War. This is a war that would affect the Soviet Union and the West in different ways. The war in the East, against the Soviet Union — and before that, against Poland — was a colonial war. Eminent scholars today characterize the war against the Soviet Union as “the greatest colonial war in history.” [6] And I would add that this war was not just a colonial war, but a slaver war, explicitly aimed at the reintroduction of slavery. We can read about this in Hitler or Himmler. The latter, speaking at a meeting of Nazi leaders, declared “we need slaves for our culture.” [7] Then, if Hitler-led Germany was one of the protagonists of this colonial and slaver war, the Stalin-led Soviet Union was the other — its antagonist.


We can also place this war in a larger historical context. There is another important slaver war that we can consider: Napoleon’s war against Saint-Domingue. Toussaint Louverture and Jean-Jacques Dessalines were protagonists of a resistance to slavery, just like Stalin. And regarding this connection I want to draw attention to the fact that Stalin did not become a protagonist only in Stalingrad 1942 — even before the October Revolution he considered that Russia was in danger of becoming a colony: “Certain foreigners,” he writes “were behaving in Russia like Europeans in Central Africa.” [8] I’ll quote him again: the question of the Revolution is about “the liberation of Russia.” [9] Stalin clearly perceived a risk that Russia would become a colony.


Let’s now turn to the objection: “But what about the 1939 pact with Hitler?” For starters, to the extent there was a race to compromise with Hitler, Stalin lost it: the Third Reich had by that time a concordat with the Holy See (Reichskonkordat, 1933), an agreement with the Zionists (Haavara Agreement, 1933), and a naval agreement with Britan (Anglo-German Naval Agreement, 1935) — the last of which prompted Hitler to write in his diary: “this is the happiest day of my life.” [10] And then, of course, there was Munich (1938). [11] But that’s perhaps not the most important point. Here again I’ll draw a comparison with the politics of Toussaint Louverture, whose anti-conformism is beyond dispute: in early 1794 he allied with royal Spain and England against revolutionary France, and yet no one considers him an agent of feudalism. Toussaint Louverture and his followers may have made mistakes, but the fact that they were protagonists in the first great struggle against the colonialist and slave-owning system is not disputed.


Thus far I’ve only talked about grand gestures and not of tragedies, but the two things go hand-in-hand, because with the October Revolution come messianic expectations: power, the rationale behind States, States as such, nations… all of this was expected to disappear. One philosopher, Ernst Bloch, even claims Soviets will turn power into love! When Lenin introduces the New Economic Policy (NEP), tens of thousands of workers literally tear up their party cards in disgust, and rechristen it the “New Extortion of the Proletariat.” Stalin, of course, wasn’t Lenin, but he insisted on building socialism in Soviet Russia, although premised above all on national liberation: that’s how he invited people to study technology, to become masters of science. He thought the class struggle revolved, at this particular juncture, around the conquest of technology and of science.


When Walter Benjamin visited Moscow in December 1927, he said that, for many people, Bolshevism was the crowning achievement of Peter the Great. [12] However, Trotsky compares Stalin not to Peter the Great but to Nicholas II — and so the Stalinist regime must be dealt a fate analogous to that dealt to Nicholas II’s regime. [13] Trotsky then called Stalin “Hitler’s butler,” “a provocateur in Hitler’s service.” In turn, Stalin used the same language against Trotsky and others. This is the language of civil war. From his point of view, as a revolutionary, Trotsky had not only the right but also the duty to overthrow Hitler’s so-called butler. And this civil war was playing out not only in words, but also at the organizational level. In my book on Stalin, I quote Ruth Fischer, who says that by 1927 we can already speak of opposing parties and military apparatuses. [14]


The ideological struggle becomes a civil war: unfortunately, this is the history of all great revolutions. The civil war in Russia was particularly horrific, that’s not in dispute. But how can we understand the particularity of this horror? The challenge is to come up with categories which enable us to understand this horror in particular. On this subject, a well-known historian in the Western world, Robert Conquest, argues that “mental aberrations” are peculiar to the French and Russians, and mostly foreign to the Anglo-Celts. [15] Is this recourse to Anglo-Celtic natures as root explanation any different from Nazi recourse to Aryanism? For my part, in order to understand the particular horror of the civil war in Soviet Russia, I’ll quote Nicolas Werth again: “The collapse of all authority and institutional frameworks.” [16]


Let me emphasize: the Trotsky-Stalin struggle is not one between two different personalities. It’s a struggle between two different principles of legitimizing power.


What’s more, the civil war in Soviet Russia is characterized by the fact that both the opposing parties have experience in conspiracy and clandestine struggle, and agree upon the necessity underlined by Lenin in What Is To Be Done? of agitating within the army, the police, and the State apparatus; all while camouflaging and hiding it by speaking sometimes in an “aesopic language.” It should also be noted here that even Khrushchev in his report speaks of false denunciations and “provocatory accusations,” made either by “real Trotskyites” — who could thus “take revenge” and thrust the State apparatus into confusion — or by “conscienceless careerists” — prepared to get ahead by the most despicable means. [17] [18]


The dominant ideology equates the gulag system and the concentration camps (konzentrationslager) in Nazi Germany. In my book I discuss the “absent third party.” As a matter of fact, there are other concentration camps. Mike Davis brings the militarized labor camps of colonial India in the late 19th century, referring to them as “extermination camps.” [19] An Italian historian, Angelo Del Boca, also speaks of extermination camps, this time of Libyans incarcerated by liberal Italy. If we compare the various different camps, there is an important similarity between Nazi concentration camps and colonial camps: in both cases, the rule is a racial rule.


Ideology also plays a role in the terror. The most horrifying period was the collectivization of agriculture. Bukharin rightly spoke of the danger of a “St. Bartholomew’s Night.” [20] But finally the decisive role in collectivization was played by military concerns — though it in no way detracts from the horror.


One has to distinguish between horror and mythology. After the French Revolution mythologies spread widely, such as Robespierre wanting to become the new King of France, or of a genocidal Robespierre who, according to Babeuf, wanted to enact in the Vendée a “system of depopulation.” The October Revolution and the Stalinist period gave rise to mythologies of this sort.


The central question is the following: is Nazism the twin brother of Communism, or is Nazism the continuation and radicalization of the colonial tradition and the racial ideology that accompanied it? [21] This is a very important question. As a philosopher, I interrogate the watchwords of Nazi ideology. One of these is Untermensch, which is to say “sub-human.” This word is translated from English, from the expression under man, first used by Lothrop Stoddard in the United States. In Nazism, we find white supremacy [22] — the category of the colonial tradition and of the racist ideology of the United States. Similarly, while the Nazis spoke of “racial hygiene,” Lothrop Stoddard spoke of “race cleaning,” “race purification,” and, more generally, of “the science of ‘Eugenics’ or ‘Race Betterment’.” Even the decisive term “final solution” comes from the United States, where the Black or Indigenous question was referred to as the “ultimate solution” or the “final and complete solution.” [23]


Indeed, British and Western colonialism have long been compared to Hitler’s colonialism. Gandhi said: “I assert that in India we have Hitlerian rule however disguised it may be in softer terms.” [24] “Hitler was Britain’s sin.” On the other hand, he referred to Stalin as a “great man.”


In conclusion, the horror of the Stalinist period is indisputable, but we cannot forget that Stalin was a protagonist of the anti-colonial struggle. Similarly, if we want to understand Hitler, we have to start from the history of colonialism. All the harsh condemnations of Stalin must reckon with this fact: with the October Revolution and with Stalin, we see colonialism begin to disappear, and with it also go the central categories of Nazi ideology stemming from the colonial tradition and the racial ideology of the West.


[1] See also Nicolas Werth’s speech at the same meeting. [web] 


[2] Referenced in Grover Furr, “In Memoriam: Domenico Losurdo” (2018). [web] 


[3] See also Michael Parenti’s “Against Psychopolitics” (1992). [web] 


[4] Winston Churchill (1915) cited in Martin Gilbert’s The Challenge of War: Winston S. Churchill, 1914-1916 (1990), p. 651. [web] 


[5] In Alex P. Schmid, Churchills privater Krieg. Intervention und Konterrevolution im russischen Burgerkrieg 1918-1920 (1974). [web] 


[6] David Olusoga and Casper W. Erichsen, The Kaiser’s Holocaust: Germany’s Forgotten Genocide (2011), London: Faber and Faber, p. 327. 


[7] Heinrich Himmler, Posen Speeches (1943). [web] 


[8] J. V. Stalin, “Foreigners and the Kornilov Conspiracy” (12 September 1917). [web] 


[9] J. V. Stalin, “The Logic of Facts” (29 October 1918). [web] 


[10] In Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris (1998). [web] 


[11] “The Munich Agreement was an agreement reached in Munich on 30 September 1938 by Nazi Germany, Great Britain, the French Republic, and Fascist Italy. The agreement provided for the German annexation of part of Czechoslovakia called the Sudetenland.” — Wikipedia. [web] 


[12] Peter I (b. 1672-1725) was the Tsar under whose reign people began referring to Russia as an empire, due to military victories, territorial expansion, and cultural modernization. 


[13] Nicholas II (b. 1868-1917), overthrown by the revolution, was the last Tsar of Russia, known for military defeats and violent repression. 


[14] For Domenico Losurdo’s take on Trotsky and Stalin, see “Primitive Thinking and Stalin as Scapegoat” (2011). [web] 


[15] “The huge catastrophes of our era have been inflicted by human beings driven by certain thoughts. […] How did these mental aberrations gain a purchase?” (p. 3), “[S]pontaneous legal, public activity is clearly an adjunct, if not a condition, of the Anglo-Celtic culture” (p. 32), “The intention here is more to consider how and why this aberration took place, to differentiate its various species, […]” (p. 115) — Robert Conquest, Reflections on a Ravaged Century (1999). [web] 


[16] Nicholas Werth in Stéphane Courtois, Quand tombe la nuit: origines et émergence des régimes totalitaires en Europe, 1900-1934 (2001). [web] 


[17] N. Khrushchev, “Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U.” (1956). [web] 


[18] See also Domenico Losurdo, “How to Cast a God into Hell: The Khrushchev Report” (2008). [web] 


[19] Mike Davis, Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World (2000). [web] 


[20] “The St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in 1572 was a targeted group of assassinations and a wave of Catholic mob violence directed against the Huguenots (French Calvinist Protestants) during the French Wars of Religion.” — Wikipedia. [web] 


[21] See Domenico Losurdo, “Towards a Critique of the Category of Totalitarianism” (2004). [web] 


[22] Written out in English in the original French. 


[23] Losurdo extensively lays out material illustrating this question in “The International Origins of Nazism” (2010). [web] 


[24] Mahatma Gandhi, “Answers to Questions (25 April 1941)” in Collected Works, vol. 74, p. 17. [web] 


 Domenico Losurdo

Original publication: lafauteadiderot.net
Translation: Roderic Day

Losurdo interviewed by Eychart (2007)


An interview with Domenico Losurdo conducted by Baptiste Eychart in 2007, marking the occasion of the publication of his book Gramsci: From Liberalism to “Critical Communism.”

 Red Sails


Baptiste Eychart: Domenico Losurdo, you’ve devoted several book-length studies to major thinkers of the modern era: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Hegel. However, this is the first time you’ve written an intellectual biography of an important figure of the workers’ movement: Antonio Gramsci. What circumstances led you to this choice?

Domenico Losurdo: Gramsci enables us to challenge both neoliberalism and postmodernism — two versions of today’s dominant ideology that often appear intertwined. How many books have been written attempting to demonstrate that Marxism and Communism sacrifice concrete individuality and moral standards at the altar of the philosophy of history?

Important liberal writers, including Benedetto Croce, justified Italy’s intervention in the carnage of the First World War, over and against widespread popular opposition, in terms of the right of heroic elites to force the cowardly masses to rise for the sake of the unity and regeneration of the nation. Gramsci became a communist through his criticism of this philosophy of history; he condemned its pretensions towards “transforming the working people into raw material for the history of the privileged classes.” [1]

Baptiste Eychart: The analogues between our current political situation and Gramsci’s period of counter-revolution are strong. The strength of your work lies in showing that Gramsci needed to carry out a self-critique of his previously held positions to better grasp the historical situation in the late twenties and thirties.

Domenico Losurdo: The most interesting Gramsci is the one who reflects on the stability of Western capitalism in spite of the horrors of the Great War it provoked. This led him to a radical critique of the theory of the collapse of capitalism, and to a much more sophisticated reformulation of the theory of revolution. Thus, his vision of socialism underwent an evolution: when he first greeted the October Revolution he emphasized that it would produce equality; nine years later he supported the NEP despite its flagrant social inequalities in the name of the need to develop the productive forces.

Baptiste Eychart: For Gramsci it’s also a question of abandoning a utopianism that turns out to endanger the construction of socialism…

Domenico Losurdo: Indeed. The horrors of the 1914-1918 war on the one hand, and the extreme hopes generated by the October Revolution on the other, encouraged a messianic reading of Marxism: in the same manner as classes, states and nations, religion, the market, money (or power as such), and in fact every manifestation of conflict, were all set to disappear. Compounding the non-stop state of emergency provoked by imperialist aggression, these utopian aspirations made it even more difficult to build a post-capitalist society based on democracy and the rule of law. Gramsci proposed a path that still must be followed from beginning to end: to conceive of a powerful project of emancipation that nevertheless does not presume to be the end of history.

Baptiste Eychart: In your opinion, the “critical return” to this cultural heritage shouldn’t be an occasion for Communists to engage in self-flagellation, it should be carried out from the perspective of a struggle against a capitalism whose novel features are yet to be fully theorized. Do you think that Gramscian categories such as “passive revolution” shed light into the dynamics of today’s capitalism?

Domenico Losurdo: There’s no reason for communists to resign themselves to self-hate (autophobie) and a flight from history. [2] Decolonization and, focusing on the West more properly, the birth of democracy and of universal suffrage, as well as the overcoming of the three great historical discriminations (based on race, caste, and gender) and the creation of the welfare state, are achievements that would have been unthinkable without the contribution of the communist movement. [3]

In the era which corresponded to the “passive revolution,” the West responded to the challenge posed by communist agitation by introducing important reforms, albeit under the direction and control of the bourgeoisie. With the disappearance of this challenge comes a period of more or less open reaction: it suffices to consider here the dismantling of the welfare state, or what the American historian Arthur Schlesinger describes as the return of discrimination based on caste (discrimination censitaire) as a result of the growing role played by wealth in the electoral process. Also indicative of this regression is the return of the principle of hierachies among entire peoples, exemplified by American representatives openly claiming to be “God’s chosen people,” with a duty to lead and dominate the rest of the world.

Baptiste Eychart: For a long time Gramsci has been classified as a representative of “Western Marxism,” with a series of authors claiming that Gramsci shared with them a number of objections of the early “Orthodox Marxism” of Kautsky and Lenin. You seem to challenge this characterization.

Domenico Losurdo: Gramsci’s point of view contrasts “our Marx” — a Marx read alongside the “Oriental” Lenin — to the the “Marxism contaminated with positivist and naturalist encrustations” of Bernstein and Kautsky (“Westerners”!), which appears incapable of understanding the dialectics and historical necessity of the October Revolution. Moreover, Gramsci distinguishes between, on the one hand, a dogmatic communism and, on the other, a “critical communism” that presents itself as heir of the highest summits of the bourgeois cultural tradition, parting from Hegel and classical German philosophy. [4] That said, even here the notion of “Western Marxism” turns out to be misleading: it’s finally Stalin who liquidates Hegel as an expression of German reaction to the French Revolution; a formulation accepted by many European Marxists, yet rejected by Mao Zedong.

The problem is that this category of “Western Marxism” positively contrasts the West to the East, and pure intellectuals to politicians engaged in the construction of a post-capitalist society. This brings us back to the problematic discussed at the beginning of this interview: those unable to criticize the self-flattering apologia of the West promoted by liberal ideology are forced to retreat from history — the “original sin” of “Western Marxism.”


[1] The pejorative use of “philosophy of history” here refers to the common liberal argument that socialists are guilty of abandonding all norms under the premise that “the (historical) ends justifies the (political) means,” which Losurdo demonstrates is in reality is a very generic vice, at many points in history championed primarily by liberals themselves. — R. D. 

[2] See also Domenico Losurdo’s “Flight from History? The Communist Movement between Self-Criticism and Self-Contempt” (1999). [web] — R. D. 

[3] See for example Alice Malone, “Concessions” (2023). [web] — R. D. 

[4] “Bolsheviks […] are not ‘Marxists’ as such; they have not derived a doctrine out of the work of the Master, dogmatic and beyond questioning. They live out Marxist thought, the undying continuation of German and Italian idealism, that in Marx appeared contaminated by positivist and naturalist affectations.” — Antonio Gramsci, “The Revolution Against Das Kapital” (1917). [web] — R. D.