Politics

[moka]

October 14: Two very different outcomes for Indigenous people.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/19-10-2023/october-14-two-very-different-outcomes-for-indigenous-people
(https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/19-10-2023/october-14-two-very-different-outcomes-for-indigenous-people)
On the same day the unapologetic Māori voice in New Zealand’s parliament grew, Australians voted down their ‘Voice’ referendum.

What is constitutional recognition of Indigenous peoples?
Essentially, it means protecting the rights of an indigenous population inside a country’s political system – like its constitution or parliament. It’s crucial for empowering Indigenous peoples during the reality of modern-day colonisation.
Sixty percent of Australians voted against recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ rights within the foreign political system that rules their homeland.

Despite New Zealand electing a National government – a party that many consider less likely to empower Māori than Labour – the unbridled tāngata whenua voice in parliament got louder. Te Pāti Māori, parliament’s self-described unapologetic indigenous voice, increased its power by winning four Māori electorates, three of which were taken off Labour. (There is a possibility Te Pāti Māori could win two more after special votes are counted.)

One reason why the political power of Te Pāti Māori grew this election is because the rights of tāngata whenua are constitutionally enshrined. An example is the Māori seats, of which Te Pāti Māori won a majority. Australia’s referendum voted down constitutionally enshrining the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders people.

Without Māori seats, Te Pāti Māori may not be in parliament at all (they’ve never won a general electorate). Although New Zealand is not perfect at respecting tāngata whenua, we have a better foundation than Australia because He Whakaputanga, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Māori seats are – for the most part – accepted parts of our political system.

On the other hand, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights aren’t acknowledged in Australian politics, and they only gained universal voting rights in 1962 (compared to 1893 for Māori). To reckon with its troubled history of colonisation, Australia must enshrine and respect the political rights of its First Nations people – but the referendum’s result perhaps highlights the country’s continuing refusal to redress the evils of its past.

Tākuta Ferris, a rising star of Te Pāti Māori, summed up how many tāngata whenua feel about Act’s referendum. “The fact that we’re talking about referendums on the Treaty just demonstrates how much more we have to learn as a country. You can’t referendum a Treaty away. It’s a permanent fixture of the constitution of our country, and it is not going anywhere.”

[moka]

The above article was a Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ On Air.
I had never actually taken the time to investigate the funding. But it seems like a there was a lot of misinformation and disinformation about the funding, which was set up to help support business through Covid.

https://www.nzonair.govt.nz/funding/journalism-funding/
(https://www.nzonair.govt.nz/funding/journalism-funding/)
Public Interest Journalism Fund (now closed)
The $55m Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF) was made available by the government in 2020 to support news media through the COVID-19-induced downturn. Funding was provided to NZ On Air to administer until 30 June 2023. The PIJF was a specific ring-fenced fund that was designed to provide targeted, short to medium-term support for roles, projects and industry development.

The PIJF provided seven rounds of funding, with funding for 73 projects, 219 roles and 22 industry development projects in total, and supporting journalism across the length of the motu. As at April 2023, it has seen more than 60,000 pieces of news content created that have had more than 134 million total views.
Some of those roles and projects are funded to run until January 2026, so we will continue to see the legacy of the fund, and its investment in the sustainability of the media sector, for some time yet.

ROUND 6 (https://www.nzonair.govt.nz/news/latest-journalism-funding-round-provides-substantial-commitment-to-asian-audiences/)
Te Rito 2023, NZME, up to $1,719,407- to provide journalism training and work experience for 12 cadets from Māori, Pacific and diverse backgrounds.
Tagata Pasifika 2023, Sunpix, up to $2,019,190. A 2023 season of the flagship Pasifika current affairs and news programme.
RNZ Asia Unit, RNZ, up to $1,114,672 for one year of a two-year project. A new unit producing news and current affairs content in Mandarin, Hindi and English, for Asian communities of Aotearoa.
Newshub Nation 2023, 42 x 60min, including Budget and election specials, for Discovery NZ, up to $999,781. A weekly political current affairs programme that provides political news, interviews, and analysis.
Q + A with Jack Tame 2023, 40 x 60min plus 1 x 118min special for TVNZ, up to $842,200. TVNZ’s leading political current affairs programme that tackles newsworthy political issues alongside debates and interviews.
The Hui Series 8, Great Southern Television, up to $737,036. An additional season of the award-winning weekly bilingual Māori current affairs programme that confronts difficult subjects, exposes injustice, and celebrates Māori success.

[causecelebre]

Cash for Coverage is an appalling thing for any govt to do at any time, let alone in an election cycle. No government should be providing funds to any media and direct how those funds are to be translated into media. The state should also have no interest in the media TVNZ, RNZ etc. It opens up the potential for gross manipulation.

[Aaron]

Cash for Coverage is an appalling thing for any govt to do at any time, let alone in an election cycle. No government should be providing funds to any media and direct how those funds are to be translated into media. The state should also have no interest in the media TVNZ, RNZ etc. It opens up the potential for gross manipulation.

And Rupert Murdoch has shown how leaving it to the private sector results in a better outcome. Facebook or social media news feeds and share trader have undoubtedly improved peoples understanding of events and the world around them as well.

Private businesses are so much more transparent and less opaque than anything govt funded.

Mind you Goebbels puts forward a strong case for govt and media not being joined at the hip.

The more I think about it the more I regret making a comment as my understanding of the issue is limited.

[moka]

The reason why America has become 'uniquely stupid' | RNZ
(https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2018845545/the-reason-why-america-has-become-uniquely-stupid)
The last 10 years in America have been "uniquely stupid," social psychologist Jonathan Haidt (https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2018817669/jonathan-haidt-social-media-model-is-breaking-the-world) says.

And Haidt is laying the blame squarely on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. In a recent essay in The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/), Haidt wrote that it was not Americans who were getting stupid as individuals; rather USA’s institutions. Haidt, who is professor of ethical leadership at NYU-Stern, argues that social media is allowing people to intimidate others and make them afraid of public consequences for anything they say.

And that makes institutions structurally stupid, because people have stopped dissenting, questioning and challenging. All seemed well until about 2014, he says.

Originally a useful tool, social media is now inimical to democracy, he says, because it allows no place for considered debate.

“To have a deliberative democracy, there has to be some space for people to deliberate, to talk about the issues of the day. That doesn't mean it's going to be friendly or civil. It can have anger, while there can be anger, there should not be intimidation, there should not be threats of violence, people should not have to worry that they're going to be fired or attacked physically for stating their opinion on an ordinary issue.”

The utopian vision of an interconnected and informed world has turned into a nightmare, Haidt says. “We, the users, are not the customers, we’re the product. And so, the platforms are designed to keep us on, to extract as much of our attention as possible and the best way to keep our attention is to make us angry.”

Haidt believes a lack of informed debate is making America’s institutions stupid.
“The miracle of British institutions to me, the British gave us our institutions, which we modified, are that they are pretty good at channelling dissent, managing conflict and turning it into something better than people could have created as individuals. That's what a jury does. That's what a legislature does. That's what an academic community is supposed to do.”

“Social media comes in and makes us afraid of dissent. Because if you tell a joke, if you raise a question, if you even so much as tweet, a link to a study, an academic study, that questions an orthodoxy about race, or gender, you can be fired for that.

“When critics go silent, the institution gets stupid.”

He believes social media should be reined in, in particular anonymity should not be allowed.
“I'm focused on two problems. One is the decline of democracy. And the other is the skyrocketing rates of depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicide of teenagers, especially teenage girls.”

[moka]

I was motivated to post this discussion on Fascism after listening to about half a dozen interviews or speeches by Trump’s running mate J D Vance.

https://www.theindiaforum.in/society/why-fascism-rise-world-over
(https://www.theindiaforum.in/society/why-fascism-rise-world-over)
Why Fascism is on the Rise the World Over. February 01 2023

Fascist ideas strike deep roots in the collective psyche and persist even in societies where they were once utterly disavowed. In Europe, as elsewhere globally, there has been a steady drift towards majoritarianism and rejection of liberal democratic values.

Fascist ideas are mostly abstract and intangible, appealing to emotion rather than to the intellect. A cult of tradition or calling on the past does not require an examination of history or if such a past ever existed. Similarly, fascism readily embraces technology and glorifies it, while simultaneously rejecting modernism or the spirit of scientific enquiry. It harks back to some mythical past, and evokes national pride and historic grievances. It appeals to a majoritarian identity, which must find an antagonist, foreign or domestic, to project as an existential threat to that identity.

These ideas have little to do with the daily life and experience of the broad mass of people but serve to deflect and distract.
William Reich was among the first to consider the inherent conditions in society as the basis for the growth of fascism. His central insight was that widespread support for fascist movements arose from the “mass psychology of fascism.” This innate tendency which inclines people towards an authoritarian ideology came from the authoritarian and patriarchal roots of a society, he argued.

“Fascist mentality is the mentality of the subjugated “little man” who craves authority and rebels against it at the same time. It is not an accident that all fascist dictators stem from the milieu of the little reactionary man.” (Reich 1942: 11)

[Honour and duty] while important to their moral compass were not necessarily required in actual practice.
The social milieu he described was that of a class of petty traders, independent craftsmen, and the petty bourgeoisie in Germany in the aftermath of the First World War. This class had come of age in an authoritarian monarchy which was conservative and intensely patriarchal.

They venerated morality, honour, and duty towards the nation and society. While these phrases are a staple of fascist propaganda, the masses saw them not as propaganda but as an expression of their own values.
This class was also amoral. Minor dishonesty in business or trade was a part of everyday life. Abstract ideals, while important to their moral compass, were not necessarily required in actual practice.

For Reich, it was precisely these contradictions which were at the heart of the mass psychology of fascism.
An individual in present-day society is apparently not that different from the “subjugated little man” of Wilhelm Reich, at once subservient and rebellious. The similarity surfaces in everyday populist attitudes, which are decidedly proto-fascist in outlook.

Populist attitudes amongst people – as distinguished from politics of populism –is a “thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the general will of the people.” (Mudde and Kaltwasser 2017: 6).

[moka]

https://www.theindiaforum.in/society/why-fascism-rise-world-over
(https://www.theindiaforum.in/society/why-fascism-rise-world-over)
An authoritarian figure who promises simple solutions to sweep away all the social evils is seen as the one who understands and reflects the people’s values and fears. Contemporary politics has seen the mass adulation of self-proclaimed strong leaders – a Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Bolsonaro or Modi – an adulation which is quite independent of the character of the personalities themselves. An imagined golden age is sought in the past.

These populist attitudes are not antithetical to democracy, indeed quite the reverse. They could be seen as expressions of basic tenets of democracy but also a sense of disillusionment with the institutions of democracy.

Difficult choices and compromises inherent in a democratic society lose out when confronted with populist solutions.
Modern societies face a number of problems, and more importantly, involve choices. Constitutionalism entails compromises. Equity demands due share for all in equal measure. However, the difficult choices and compromises inherent in a democratic society lose out when confronted with populist solutions that could cut through the tangled mess of constitutionalism. Corruption and failure of the political elite contribute in no small measure. There is also considerable evidence that increased representation of members of the traditional minority is experienced by dominant groups as threatening in various ways. (Stanley 2020: 94-95)

Although inequality in income and wealth may have increased substantially, support for right-wing movements is spread across a wide spectrum of society. A shared value system transcends contradictory and, even conflicting, class interests. Society seems to be divided in terms of value systems which are nominally and somewhat lazily categorised as conservative or liberal.

That there could be intrinsic conditions in the collective psyche resonates to a surprising extent in the current context. When we explore the underlying causes or drivers as it were, it boils down to two key elements: the politics of identity and the politics of resentment.

Italian fascism was the first right-wing totalitarian movement in Europe. It was followed by several such movements over the next two decades with varying degrees of success. While these movements differed in their particular forms, they shared some common characteristics: a leadership cult, a semi-militaristic organisation, an ideology of hypernationalism, and exclusion.

Fascist regimes systematically undermined the rule of law, and the institutions of liberal democracy and replaced them with repression and arbitrary rules. State power became an instrument of violence to perpetuate power and to crush ‘the enemy’.

While some of these characteristics can be seen in contemporary authoritarian regimes, the similarities with classical fascism end there. What distinguishes the New Despotism (Kean 2020) is the use of the constitutional system and legal structure, democratic tools, laws, and mass media to bend society towards its ideology.

The ‘new despots’ do not dispense of democratic trappings, but. seek to legitimise their actions through popular sanction. For them, it is not sufficient that the people acquiesce or tolerate their policies or actions, they must enthusiastically endorse and rejoice in them. The more brazen the lies and deception, the greater must be the mass support and the denial of objective reality.

In other words, the politics of mass fascism are deliberately nurtured. Its people cannot be victims, but must be willing participants in the process. The supporters of the regime are not merely content to support it but also actively demonise and attack the real or imagined enemies of the regime. That is undoubtedly the fascism of the masses.

[Daytr]

Interesting read Moka thanks

[davflaws]

I read Reich forty years ago. Might be a good time to read him again. What Haidt said about the pervasive nature of social media and the decay of institutions resonates with me.

I have a 70 year history of following enthusiasms as far as they take me and then moving on to something else, but the wall to wall availability of material on line has recently exposed a hitherto undiscovered tendency in me towards obsessive and addictive behavior.

The 'wake up call' was realising that I was spending more than 18 hours most days watching you tube or listening to podcasts on American politics. At any time of the day or night I could tell anyone who asked about the latest developments, and what CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and OAN were saying about them. Bizzare!

I have gone 'cold turkey' since seeing an image of Trump surrounded by secret servicemen raising his fist, and I am now more than ten days clean, having watched, listened, and read nothing about USA politics. I have no idea whether Biden is still in the race, or whether Trump is in jail, and interestingly, don't want to know.

My family are almost frightene by the amount of extra energy I seem to have.

[moka]

I read Reich forty years ago. Might be a good time to read him again. What Haidt said about the pervasive nature of social media and the decay of institutions resonates with me.

I have a 70 year history of following enthusiasms as far as they take me and then moving on to something else, but the wall to wall availability of material on line has recently exposed a hitherto undiscovered tendency in me towards obsessive and addictive behavior.

The 'wake up call' was realising that I was spending more than 18 hours most days watching you tube or listening to podcasts on American politics. At any time of the day or night I could tell anyone who asked about the latest developments, and what CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and OAN were saying about them. Bizzare!

I have gone 'cold turkey' since seeing an image of Trump surrounded by secret servicemen raising his fist, and I am now more than ten days clean, having watched, listened, and read nothing about USA politics. I have no idea whether Biden is still in the race, or whether Trump is in jail, and interestingly, don't want to know.

My family are almost frightene by the amount of extra energy I seem to have. Thanks for sharing davflaws. I agree with you that there is wall to wall availability of material online. When I open YouTube and scroll through there are often about 10 videos I would like to watch that day, so 10 -20 hours. I don’t do that much though. I have found it necessary to monitor my mental health and limit the time I spent on Sharetrader and on the internet and news because it is easy to become overwhelmed and descend into negativity and a sense of hopelessness and powerlessness.

Someone I listen to a lot is Dr. Gabor Maté who has expressed significant concerns about social media use, particularly focusing on its impact on mental health and emotional development. He argues that social media can contribute to emotional underdevelopment and impulsive communication, which can exacerbate feelings of being lost or disconnected. Maté suggests that social media platforms reward behaviors that are not conducive to mental well-being, such as seeking external validation and instant gratification, which can lead to addictive patterns similar to other forms of addiction.

In his broader work on addiction, Maté defines addiction as any behavior that a person craves, finds temporary relief or pleasure in, but ultimately suffers negative consequences from, and yet has difficulty giving up. This definition applies to social media use, where individuals may experience temporary pleasure from likes and comments but suffer from long-term negative effects such as anxiety, depression, and a sense of inadequacy.

Maté's perspective on social media is part of his larger view on trauma and addiction, where he emphasizes the importance of understanding the underlying emotional and psychological wounds that drive addictive behaviors. He advocates for a more compassionate and holistic approach to addressing these issues, focusing on healing and emotional growth.

[moka]

I had to dig a little deeper to understand the Reich quote. I saw that contradictory mindset of simultaneously craving and rebelling against authority during covid with lots of people talking about “freedom” but also wanting or admiring strong leaders, just as long as they did not limit their freedom.

“Fascist mentality is the mentality of the subjugated “little man” who craves authority and rebels against it at the same time. It is not an accident that all fascist dictators stem from the milieu of the little reactionary man.” (Reich)

Wilhelm Reich's quote captures a key insight into the psychology of fascism.
This mentality is rooted in the experiences of the "subjugated little man" - typically members of the lower middle class or petty bourgeoisie who feel economically and socially insecure. Reich argues that these individuals, raised in authoritarian and patriarchal environments, internalize a conflicted relationship with power and authority.

On one hand, they desire strong leadership and order to provide a sense of security and superiority over others. Yet they also resent their own subordinate position and rebel against the very authority they crave. This internal conflict manifests as support for fascist movements and leaders.

Reich contends that fascist dictators themselves emerge from this same social milieu of the "little reactionary man". Their appeal lies in their ability to embody both the authoritarian father figure and the rebellious son - promising to overthrow the existing elites while instituting an even more rigid hierarchy.

This analysis connects fascism to deeper psychological and social structures, rather than seeing it as merely an ideological movement. Reich emphasizes how sexual repression, patriarchal family dynamics, and economic insecurity combine to produce the fascist mentality.

While Reich's ideas were developed in the context of early 20th century Europe, some scholars argue they remain relevant for understanding modern right-wing populist movements. The appeal of "strongman" leaders to those feeling economically and culturally insecure echoes Reich's description of the fascist mentality's contradictory nature.

[davflaws]

Thanks for sharing davflaws. I agree with you that there is wall to wall availability of material online. When I open YouTube and scroll through there are often about 10 videos I would like to watch that day, so 10 -20 hours. I don’t do that much though. I have found it necessary to monitor my mental health and limit the time I spent on Sharetrader and on the internet and news because it is easy to become overwhelmed and descend into negativity and a sense of hopelessness and powerlessness.

Someone I listen to a lot is Dr. Gabor Maté who has expressed significant concerns about social media use, particularly focusing on its impact on mental health and emotional development. He argues that social media can contribute to emotional underdevelopment and impulsive communication, which can exacerbate feelings of being lost or disconnected. Maté suggests that social media platforms reward behaviors that are not conducive to mental well-being, such as seeking external validation and instant gratification, which can lead to addictive patterns similar to other forms of addiction.

In his broader work on addiction, Maté defines addiction as any behavior that a person craves, finds temporary relief or pleasure in, but ultimately suffers negative consequences from, and yet has difficulty giving up. This definition applies to social media use, where individuals may experience temporary pleasure from likes and comments but suffer from long-term negative effects such as anxiety, depression, and a sense of inadequacy.

Maté's perspective on social media is part of his larger view on trauma and addiction, where he emphasizes the importance of understanding the underlying emotional and psychological wounds that drive addictive behaviors. He advocates for a more compassionate and holistic approach to addressing these issues, focusing on healing and emotional growth.

Gabor Mate is big in this house, with our interests in A&D and couples work from an attachment perspective. I am curently reading "The Myth of Normal" and findig it heavy going...

[Daytr]

I had to dig a little deeper to understand the Reich quote. I saw that contradictory mindset of simultaneously craving and rebelling against authority during covid with lots of people talking about “freedom” but also wanting or admiring strong leaders, just as long as they did not limit their freedom.

“Fascist mentality is the mentality of the subjugated “little man” who craves authority and rebels against it at the same time. It is not an accident that all fascist dictators stem from the milieu of the little reactionary man.” (Reich)

Wilhelm Reich's quote captures a key insight into the psychology of fascism.
This mentality is rooted in the experiences of the "subjugated little man" - typically members of the lower middle class or petty bourgeoisie who feel economically and socially insecure. Reich argues that these individuals, raised in authoritarian and patriarchal environments, internalize a conflicted relationship with power and authority.

On one hand, they desire strong leadership and order to provide a sense of security and superiority over others. Yet they also resent their own subordinate position and rebel against the very authority they crave. This internal conflict manifests as support for fascist movements and leaders.

Reich contends that fascist dictators themselves emerge from this same social milieu of the "little reactionary man". Their appeal lies in their ability to embody both the authoritarian father figure and the rebellious son - promising to overthrow the existing elites while instituting an even more rigid hierarchy.

This analysis connects fascism to deeper psychological and social structures, rather than seeing it as merely an ideological movement. Reich emphasizes how sexual repression, patriarchal family dynamics, and economic insecurity combine to produce the fascist mentality.

While Reich's ideas were developed in the context of early 20th century Europe, some scholars argue they remain relevant for understanding modern right-wing populist movements. The appeal of "strongman" leaders to those feeling economically and culturally insecure echoes Reich's description of the fascist mentality's contradictory nature.

I enjoy your thoughtful posts davflaws and I am one who can be reactionary. I think there is balance between letting things go and standing up to fake news or fascist type agendas, as they don't go away unfortunately.

The problem with social media it has given everyone a voice, me included and that sounds like a good thing, but in reality it connects people with agendas or bad intentions that's they would never have known existed or supported their view and unfortunately it provides them with support of their own view no matter how deluded or dangerous it may be.

I know I could improve with my own interactions, but I do struggle to entertain misogynistic or racist rhetoric etc. My tolerance for such behavior is very limited as I feel it just needs to be stamped on.

Anyway, keep up the good fight.

[moka]

Gabor Mate is big in this house, with our interests in A&D and couples work from an attachment perspective. I am curently reading "The Myth of Normal" and findig it heavy going...Thanks for reminding me of his book “The Myth of Normal.” I started reading it and never finished, and now I’ve picked it up again. It can be heavy going because it challenges many things you think of as “true” as not true. A bit like believing the world is flat because that is what the authorities and experts told you, and then realising it is not flat. You have been lied to.

A Gabor Mate wrote in the last few paragraphs in the book:

Many of the greatest crimes have been and continue to be perpetrated by people in leadership positions who are deemed to be the epitome of normal in their respective societies, whether it’s the production of toxic and climate-altering chemicals or, say the imposition of policies that lead to mass starvation in countries far away. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children died of malnutrition in the 1990s because of US sanctions.
America’s then UN ambassador Madeleine Albright declared that “the price is worth it” in an interview seen by millions.
As we now know, and as anyone could have known back then, there was no credible justification for such heartless cruelty. Albright subsequently became the first woman secretary of state and remains highly respected especially in liberal circles. .

One is reminded of Victor Hugo’s withering phrase for such figures: “the barbarians of civilization.”

[moka]

I enjoy your thoughtful posts davflaws and I am one who can be reactionary. I think there is balance between letting things go and standing up to fake news or fascist type agendas, as they don't go away unfortunately.

The problem with social media it has given everyone a voice, me included and that sounds like a good thing, but in reality it connects people with agendas or bad intentions that's they would never have known existed or supported their view and unfortunately it provides them with support of their own view no matter how deluded or dangerous it may be.

I know I could improve with my own interactions, but I do struggle to entertain misogynistic or racist rhetoric etc. My tolerance for such behavior is very limited as I feel it just needs to be stamped on.

Anyway, keep up the good fight.Daytr, often it is about picking up the mirror rather than the magnifying glass. That is self-reflection versus judgment, scrutiny of others, and focusing on the flaws or issues of others.

That said there are so many instances these days where people do need to be challenged on their views which perpetuate oppressive and hierarchical culture and practice. And yes, misogynistic or racist rhetoric does need to be challenged.

[moka]

Fascism: A Warning" is a 2018 book by Madeleine Albright, the first woman to serve as U.S. Secretary of State. The book is a personal and urgent examination of fascism in the 20th century and its enduring legacy in contemporary politics. Drawing from her experiences as a child in war-torn Europe and her distinguished career as a diplomat, Albright explores the characteristics and warning signs of fascism, emphasizing its relevance today.

Albright defines a fascist as someone who claims to speak for an entire nation or group, is utterly unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use violence and other means to achieve their goals.

She argues that fascism is not an ideology but a method for seizing and holding power, often involving the rejection of minority rights, the use of propaganda, and the endorsement of violence.

The book profiles various historical and contemporary leaders who exhibit fascist tendencies, including Mussolini, Hitler, Putin, and Kim Jong-un. Albright also discusses the current political climate in the United States, expressing concern over the rise of populism and nationalism, which she views as fertile ground for fascist ideologies. While she stops short of labeling President Donald Trump a fascist, she highlights his autocratic tendencies and the dangers they pose to democratic institutions ."Fascism: A Warning" serves as both a historical analysis and a call to action, urging readers to recognize and resist the signs of fascism in order to protect democratic values and institutions .

[moka]

The concept of the "Banality of Evil" was introduced by philosopher Hannah Arendt in her 1963 book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. The term emerged from her observations during the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a key organizer of the Holocaust. Arendt's thesis posited that Eichmann was not a fanatic or sociopath but rather an ordinary individual who committed heinous acts through a combination of thoughtlessness, adherence to orders, and a desire for career advancement.

The Banality of Evil, refers in part to Eichmann's deportment at the trial as the man displayed neither guilt for his actions nor hatred for those trying him, claiming he bore no responsibility because he was simply "doing his job." Eichmann was examined by more than half a dozen psychologists while in prison. “These psychologists found no trace of mental illness, including personality disorder. One doctor remarked that his overall attitude towards other people, especially his family and friends, was "highly desirable", another remarked that “the only unusual trait Eichmann displayed was being more "normal" in his habits and speech than the average person.”

Arendt noted that Eichmann's demeanor during the trial was strikingly mundane. He did not exhibit overt hatred or guilt but instead claimed he was merely following orders and fulfilling his duties. This led Arendt to argue that Eichmann's evil was "banal" because it stemmed from a lack of critical thinking and moral reflection rather than from a deeply rooted malevolence. She suggested that this kind of evil could arise from ordinary individuals who, under certain conditions, fail to critically examine their actions and the orders they follow.

Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962) was a high-ranking Nazi official and one of the principal architects of the Holocaust. Born in Solingen, Germany, Eichmann's family moved to Linz, Austria, during World War I. He had an unremarkable early life, working various jobs including as a traveling salesman before joining the Nazi Party and the SS in 1932.

Eichmann quickly rose through the ranks of the SS, becoming deeply involved in Jewish affairs. He was instrumental in the implementation of the "Final Solution," the Nazi plan for the extermination of the Jews. Eichmann's responsibilities included organizing the identification, assembly, and transportation of Jews from across occupied Europe to extermination camps such as Auschwitz.

In January 1942, Eichmann participated in the Wannsee Conference, where Nazi officials formalized plans for the genocide of the Jewish population. Following this, he played a central role in coordinating the logistics of mass deportations and executions.

After World War II, Eichmann was captured by U.S. troops but escaped from a detention camp in 1946. He fled to Argentina, where he lived under an alias until 1960. Israeli Mossad agents captured him in Buenos Aires and brought him to Israel to stand trial.

Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem was highly publicized and lasted from April to December 1961. He was convicted of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other charges, and was sentenced to death. Eichmann was executed by hanging on May 31, 1962, and his ashes were scattered at sea.

Eichmann's trial was significant not only for its legal outcomes but also for its broader implications in understanding the Holocaust. The trial brought to light the bureaucratic nature of the genocide and Eichmann's role as a key facilitator. His defense, which portrayed him as merely following orders, was widely scrutinized and rejected, highlighting the moral and legal responsibilities of individuals in committing atrocities.

[moka]

Adolf Eichmann at his trial claimed he bore no responsibility because he was simply "doing his job."

In his book “The Myth of Normal” Gabor Mate talks about a person “just doing his job” when he discusses Martin Lindstrom, who is one of the world’s leading children’s marketers. Lindstrom has expressed serious qualms about the results of his work. Lindstrom predicted that his industry would continue to erode children’s imaginations and creative capacities.

Professor Joel Blakan writes that children’s constant and deepening exposures to marketing is leading to a disaster in terms of kids and their futures. These marketers are smart, insightful and quite evil, because they understand what they are doing, Bakan told Gabor Mate.

Lindstrom’s understanding of the child’s mind is alarmingly on point: Emotions drive everything for children… and marketers, to be successful must engage the most fundamental emotions at the deepest level. Love which connotes nurturing, affection, and romance is one of the fundamental emotions, and fear and mastery.

This deft analysis is not intended to help the child’s mind develop towards health, dignity, genuine mastery, and authentic independence, but the polar opposite: to deliberately turn that mind into prey and a lifelong captive of profit-driven market forces. It aims at the direct sabotage of childhood: the period of growth in which the young human is designed by Nature to move toward her full capacities.

Everything the corporate juggernaut foists upon children - prefabricated play options, video games, mass-manufactured toys, gadgets, peer-centric online platforms, and saccharine and superficial television programs targeted at toddlers and preschoolers, along with the mainstreaming of glossy, soulless, porn-inflected depictions of sexuality available to teens and, increasingly to younger kids - has detrimental effects

[davflaws]

Adolf Eichmann at his trial claimed he bore no responsibility because he was simply "doing his job."

In his book “The Myth of Normal” Gabor Mate talks about a person “just doing his job” when he discusses Martin Lindstrom, who is one of the world’s leading children’s marketers. Lindstrom has expressed serious qualms about the results of his work. Lindstrom predicted that his industry would continue to erode children’s imaginations and creative capacities.

Professor Joel Blakan writes that children’s constant and deepening exposures to marketing is leading to a disaster in terms of kids and their futures. These marketers are smart, insightful and quite evil, because they understand what they are doing, Bakan told Gabor Mate.

Lindstrom’s understanding of the child’s mind is alarmingly on point: Emotions drive everything for children… and marketers, to be successful must engage the most fundamental emotions at the deepest level. Love which connotes nurturing, affection, and romance is one of the fundamental emotions, and fear and mastery.

This deft analysis is not intended to help the child’s mind develop towards health, dignity, genuine mastery, and authentic independence, but the polar opposite: to deliberately turn that mind into prey and a lifelong captive of profit-driven market forces. It aims at the direct sabotage of childhood: the period of growth in which the young human is designed by Nature to move toward her full capacities.

Everything the corporate juggernaut foists upon children - prefabricated play options, video games, mass-manufactured toys, gadgets, peer-centric online platforms, and saccharine and superficial television programs targeted at toddlers and preschoolers, along with the mainstreaming of glossy, soulless, porn-inflected depictions of sexuality available to teens and, increasingly to younger kids - has detrimental effects

I suspect not only kids. The algorithms are designed to stir us and keep us clicking. Eyeballs are everything, and if you can provide content that provokes fear and anger, you can attract and keep your audience, and sell their eyeballs to advertisers..

[Aaron]

Surprised by the suggestion later in the article that there should be a limit to political donations in NZ.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/why-new-zealand-political-donations-have-more-than-tripled/ar-BB1qM7RO?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=b2b119d114054b8a89f0d5da370b601b&ei=26

Why when both major parties continue with policies that concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands (targeted inflation, no capital gains tax, no gift duty, stamp duty, financial transaction tax, death duty or anything that might redistribute wealth) would we consider a cap on political donations. What is the point in owning everything if you don't get to wield some power as well.

Another crazy liberal idea that could ruin the country.