Not Neo-Nazis, Judeo-Nazis: That's What Israel's Senior University Lecturer Thinks of Israel's Religious Zionist Youth

Peace activist Professor Amiram Goldblum thinks some aspects of religious Zionism is "Judeo-Nazi." (Screen capture
from YouTube video)

'Let someone dare say this is not Judeo-Nazi youth,' senior Hebrew U. lecturer, Amiram Goldblum, wrote next to a Jerusalem Day celebration video.

By Uzi Baruch
Professor Amiram Goldblum, a senior lecturer at Hebrew University and co-founder of the extreme leftist organization Peace Now, has made use of his Facebook page to tear into the nationalist camp, the Jewish Home faction and religious Zionism.

There an aspect of racism in Israel that America's
corporate media refuses to show

"Let someone dare say that this is not Judeo-Nazi youth,” wrote Goldblum next to a video of the “rikudgalim” flag dance celebration on Jerusalem Day. “The Arabs are under curfew in the streets of the Old City. The apartheid that exists beyond the Green Line is in Jerusalem now. Jewish youths are raised on the monstrous style that we have seen in other places.”

Goldblum did not forget to note that “this is not something they invented. This is in the air that is manufactured by the Israeli right wing, and especially by that sect of impurity, religious Zionism and its rabbis.”

Prior to Jerusalem Day, Goldblum said that the right wing camp makes the historic day “look and sound like the neo-Nazi march through Skokie... let the call resound: fascists of the world, unite – the Golden Dawn from Greece, the religious right in Israel, brothers in fascism.”

Read More

The Divided House of Anti-Europe: The Next European Parliament Will Have More Right-Wingers Than Ever — But They're Not United

Eurosceptic anti-EU graphic. (Illustration from EU Exposed)

By Cas Mudde
With less than a month to go before the start of the European elections, 22-25 May, the idea that Eurosceptics are going to win big has become received wisdom. Article after article warns for the potentially disastrous effects of a “self-hating European Parliament” and the EU elites have done their utmost to scare voters away from such an “extremist” vote. Much less attention is paid to the fact that the majority of European citizens is now Eurosceptic and oppose further transfers of power to the European Union. Perhaps most damaging, an EU-exit, until recently a marginal option in only a few EU members states (e.g. Denmark and UK), today is a serious option for significant minorities across the EU (e.g. 26 percent of supporters in Sweden and 21 percent in the Netherlands).

Debunking the 'Eurosceptic tide'

With little regard for clear definitions or empirical facts ‘experts’ and journalists speculate wildly about the size of the electoral surge of the Eurosceptics and the political consequences of their inevitable victory. Commentators regularly cite an expected one-quarter of the votes going to Eurosceptics, while some even predict that the “malcontents’ Block” could win up to one-third of the votes. Most attention has been paid to right-wing Euroscepticism, in particular the relatively new radical right European Alliance for Freedom (EAF), or, in the parlance of an overexcited journalist, “Le Pen's unholy alliance hoping to destroy the EU.” Much less attention is paid to the two current right-wing Eurosceptic groups in the European Parliament (EP), the ‘soft’ Eurosceptic European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and the ‘hard’ Eurosceptic Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD).

According to the latest Pollwatch 2014 predictions, based on averages of various national polls in the period 15-17 April 2014, the ECR would have a group of 41 MEPs in the next EP and the EFD of 36. Pollwatch does not identify the EAF, its members are mostly part of the amorphous group of Non-Inscripts (Non-Affiliated, NI), which is predicted to have a total of 94 MEPs in the next European legislature (2014-19). The problem with this prediction is that it is based on current membership of EP groups and several parties have indicated that they might or will switch groups after the elections.

Based on the same Pollwatch predictions, I find that the soft Eurosceptic ECR is the largest faction of right-wing Eurosceptics in terms of total seats. It is predicted to gain 39 MEPs, which is a loss of 17 seats compared to the 2009 European elections. As the EP will shrink from 766 to 751 seats, this translated to a drop from 7.3 to 5.2 percent of all EP seats. More problematic is that the ERC will lose members from various states, mainly because affiliated national parties will no longer compete or be able to top the national threshold – for example, List Dedecker (LDD) in Belgium. Consequently, the ERC is predicted to have MEPs from only six member states – one too few to constitute an official EP group, which requires at least 25 MEPs from at least a quarter of the EU member states (i.e. seven).

The core of the ERC is made up of the British Conservative Party, the Czech Civic Democratic Party (ODS), and the Polish Law & Justice (PiS). These mainstream conservative parties are overall soft Eurosceptic, demanding mainly non-fundamental EU reforms. Their effectiveness in the EP is weakened by the fact that each party includes both Europhile and hard Eurosceptic voters, members, and representatives. In the next EP the Conservative Party and PiS will deliver the vast majority of MEPs (17 and 18 respectively). In recent national elections the once dominant ODS has been decimated, which will reduce its faction to just one in the next EP, just like the other ECR parties, the Dutch Christian Union (CU), the Slovak Ordinary Citizens (OL), and the Latvian For Fatherland and Freedom (TB/LNNK).

This is assuming that the latter will still be part of the ECR, however. The national conservative TB/LNNK came to the ECR from the now defunct Union for Europe of the Nations (UEN), which more resembled the hard Eurosceptic EFD. In 2011 the party merged with the far right All for Latvia! and became part of the National Alliance (NA), which is currently a junior partner in the Latvian government. Whereas the TB/LNNK fitted ideologically somewhere between ECR and EFD, NA is probably better placed somewhere between EFD and EAF. It remains to be seen whether the NA will reflect this ideological shift in terms of EP group membership and switch to EFD – given its government status, a switch to EAF is unlikely.

At the same time, the ERC has its eyes on the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA), the largest party in Belgium, which has already indicated that it will leave the Greens/EFA group. While the N-VA comes out of the Europhile tradition within the Flemish nationalist movement, the party’s more conservative direction under party leader De Wever has led to several ideological and strategic changes. Already in 2010 De Wever and British PM David Cameron had “a good conversation” and more recently Cameron is said to have invited the N-VA to join the ERC. The main question is whether De Wever will be able, and willing, to overcome internal opposition to this move. Current N-VA MEP Marc Demesmaeker has already voiced strong opposition, saying: “We’ll find a group where we can defend our programme. It won’t be extreme-left, it won’t be extreme-right and it won’t be eurosceptic.”

Fault lines

The small EFD was founded with 30 members from eight national parties in 2009, filling the void left by the demise of the Independence/Democracy and UEN groups. Ideologically, it is a somewhat uncomfortable and improbable coalition of far right and non-far right hard Eurosceptics, notably the Italian Northern League (LN) and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). Oddly enough, while UKIP is among the few non-far right parties in the EFD, it is the one with the most extreme anti-EU position, advocating a British exit from the EU. Research by Marley Morris of Counterpoint has shown that the EFD “has a relatively low cohesion rate compared to other political groups.” Moreover, it was largely “marginalized” within the EP, because of both its size and its far right members.

The future of the EFD looks far from certain. Pollwatch predicts it will be able to constitute a faction of 36 MEPs from eight countries, but includes the MEPs of the LN and the Slovak National Party (SNS), which both have declared allegiance to the new EAF. Without these two parties the EFD would fall back to 31 from six countries, more than sixty percent from UKIP (19 seats). However, it could continue to profit from the unusual orthodox Christian coalition list CU/SGP in the Netherlands, which is expected to return two MEPs, of which one will join the ERC (CU) and one the EFD (the Political Reformed Party, SGP). This brings them to 32 MEPs from seven member states. This all presupposes that the other parties will stay within the group.

This is at least uncertain for The Finns, which is expected to return four MEPs to the next EP. Chairman Timo Soini has said that the party has a choice between the EFD and the ERC, while MEP candidate Olli Immonen has expressed the wish “that at least The Finns party, the French National Front, the Austrian and Dutch Freedom parties, the Danish People's Party and maybe UKIP would be in the same group.” This difference of opinion is, in part, a reflection of the broader ideological split within the fairly heterogeneous party, which includes both conservative and far right factions. Still, given the consistent and unequivocal refusals of the Danish People’s Party (DFP) and UKIP to work with the FN, Immonen’s wish sounds like wishful thinking at the moment.

This brings us to the new kid on the block, the EAF, which has received the bulk of the media attention and speculation in the past months. The EAF is the newest initiative by the French National Front (FN) to create a radical right party group in the EP. Previous attempts never came to fruition or fell apart within a few years, in part because of the leadership of former FN-leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, who will still be a major player within the far right in the EP. In addition to the usual suspects – the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), the Belgian Flemish Interest (VB), and the Italian LN – new FN leader Marine Le Pen was able to convince Geert Wilders and the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) to join.

While all are populist radical right parties, they differ quite fundamentally on important European and foreign issues. First and foremost, while some parties are more hard Eurosceptic (e.g. FPÖ and VB), others are Euroreject, wanting their country to leave the EU (e.g. FN and PVV). Second, with regard to the emerging New Cold War, all parties have expressed understanding of Putin’s Russia and criticized the new Ukrainian government and the EU’s support of it. However, this does not mean all parties are “pro-Russia,” as certain commentators and media love to claim. While the FN has always preferred a foreign policy independent from both Russia and the US, the PVV is still staunchly pro-US. And we are not even talking about Israel and the Middle East, where PVV is probably the most pro-Israel party in Europe, while most of the other EAF parties have become somewhat more pro-Israel, but still have to deal with anti-Israel and anti-Semitic legacies.

Both Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders have expressed confidence about the ability to constitute an official party group in the next EP. While they seem to have convinced most commentators too, the future is much less certain than is often claimed. The EAF is currently estimated at a total of 34 seats, well above the bar of 25, but from only six member states. More than half come from the FN (20), followed at considerable distance by FPÖ, LN and PVV, all with four MEPs, and SNS and VB, both with one. While many media include the Sweden Democrats (SD) into the future EAF group, that party has yet to commit officially. Waiting until after the Swedish parliamentary elections on 14 September, the SD has to choose between cooperation with the DFP, a potential future coalition party in neighbouring Denmark, or membership in the EAF. Despite the party’s insistence that no choice has been made, some important signs point toward a choice for the EAF. First, MP Kent Ekeroth is treasurer of the EAF. Second, the party’s youth branch, admittedly more radical than the mother party, has recently joined the Young European Alliance for Hope (YEAH), together with the youth branches of the FN, FPÖ and VB.

If the SD won’t join, the EAF will have a hard time finding a seventh party. The remaining far right parties – Germany’s National Democratic Party (NPD), Greece’s Golden Dawn (CA), Hungary’s Jobbik – are all deemed too extreme and would almost certainly lead to the PVV leaving the EAF. This leaves the borderline far right Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) from Northern Ireland, which has one MEP, but that party has been trying to rebrand itself as more moderate and mainstream. The only other possibility is the new Bulgaria Without Corruption (BBT), which is not only an unknown quantity, but also a risk given the anti-Bulgarian immigrant rhetoric of some EAF members (e.g. PVV).

Looking beyond

Among the non-affiliated MEPs are two big prizes for the three right-wing Eurosceptic groups: the Italian Five Star Movement (M5S) and the Alternative for Germany (AfD). The latter will certainly not join any far right EP group, which definitely excludes the EAF. While UKIP leader Nigel Farage is actively courting the AfD, he has so far only convinced its youth branch, the Young Alternative (JA). In terms of background of party leadership and ideology, the AfD is more likely to end up in the ECR, even if it is more Eurosceptic than most other ECR members.

The Italian M5S is expected to gain 20 MEPs in May, which would make it one of the largest parties in the next EP. The party is very difficult to place on any ideological spectrum and even its Euroscepticism has been erratic (its most recent programme can be found here). At this point it is highly unlikely that M5S will officially join any of the three groups. However, the large M5S faction is among the most likely to quickly generate defectors, who will leave the M5S faction but not the EP. All three right-wing Eurosceptic groups will actively try to recruit defectors and (independent) non-affiliated MEPs to meet the required minimum number of member states – for example, the EAF seems to place hopes in former UKIP-MEP Godfrey Bloom and former Maltese Labour MEP Sharon Ellul Bonici (currently the Secretary General of the EAF!). Given that most factions will already include MEPs from various west European parties, they will probably look more eastward for new recruits. But even if this poaching of defectors will help them constitute an official party group, the newly ‘independent’ MEPs will most likely make the group internally less homogenous and less stable.

In conclusion, despite all the media hype, the European elections will not be “won” by right-wing Eurosceptics and the next European Parliament will not be run or shut down by right-wing Eurosceptics. By far the largest group in the elections will again be the non-voters, which already constituted 57 percent in 2009, while the EP will continue to be dominated by the Europhile center-right European People’s Party (EPP) and the center-left Socialists & Democrats (S&D). Together these three groups will number ca. 425 MEPs, roughly 57 percent of all seats. Even in the case of internal rebellion by some members, Europhile legislation can count on the support of the Alliance for Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) and, to a lesser extent, the Greens-European Freedom Alliance (Greens-EFA). While right-wing Eurosceptics will have (slightly) more MEPs than ever before, they will continue to be divided between and within ideologically heterogeneous and organizationally unstable party groups that are dominated by one or two parties. In other words, despite the Eurosceptic consensus at the mass level, a Europhile consensus will continue to dominate the elite. I can’t wait for 2019!

Reprinted with permission from openDemocracy.

Nationalist Extremism: The Real Threat to Israel

Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu (Illustration by
DonkeyHotey)

By Mitchell Plitnick

They were dueling op-eds, one in the New York Times and the other in the Jewish communal magazine, Tablet. The question being bandied between them was whether Israel is becoming a theocracy. Not surprisingly, both pieces missed the mark. It’s not theocracy but unbridled nationalism that is the threat in Israel.

The Times piece was authored by Abbas Milani, who heads the Iranian Studies program at Stanford University and Israel Waismel-Manor, a lecturer at Haifa University and visiting associate professor of political science at Stanford. Their thesis is that Iran and Israel are moving in opposite directions on a democratic-theocratic scale, and that they might at some point in the future pass each other. Milani and Waismel-Manor are certainly correct about the strengthening forces of secularism and democracy in Iran, along with a good dose of disillusionment and frustration with the revolutionary, Islamic government that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini ushered in thirty-five years ago. But on Israel, they miss the mark by a pretty wide margin.

Waismel-Manor and Milani posit that the thirty seats currently held in Israel’s Knesset by religious parties shows growing religious influence on Israeli policies. But, as Yair Rosenberg at Tablet correctly points out, not all the religious parties have the same attitude about separation of religion and the state. Where Rosenberg, unsurprisingly, goes way off course is his complete eliding of the fact that the threat is not Israel’s tilt toward religion, but it’s increasingly radical shift toward right-wing policies, which are often severely discriminatory and militant.

Waismel-Manor and Milani collapse the religious and right-wing ideologies at play in the Israeli government. Rosenberg is right to counter this. There are currently three parties in the Knesset (Israeli parliament) which define themselves as religious parties: HaBayit HaYehudi (The Jewish Home), Shas, and United Torah Judaism (UTJ). Shas is the most explicitly dedicated, in ideology and practice, to a religious Jewish state. But it is currently in the opposition and has not seen much rise in its share of the electorate in quite a while. It is worth noting, as well, that Shas has generally been the most welcoming of all religious parties to a two-state solution, although its stance on an undivided Jerusalem is notoriously problematic.

UTJ is made up of two religious parties, which don’t always agree and sometimes split for a while and reunite later. But UTJ generally supports the status quo of religion in the state, and HaBayit Hayehudi, while ostensibly supporting a religious state, is much more focused on its radical nationalism. This is why Bennett, after some early difficulties, has found a way to work with secular parties like Yesh Atid and, most importantly, Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel, Our Home). Neither of those two parties, both major partners in the current coalition, could find common ground with UTJ or Shas. That is very telling, because it illustrates where both the Times and Tablet op-eds go wrong. Rosenberg, who is also the editor of the Israel State Archives blog, is zealous in his determination to be a heroic “Defender of Israel” and in so doing he comes off as both snide and dishonest in his takedown of Waismel-Manor and Milani, despite the merits of his case. Surely so keen an observer of Israeli politics as Rosenberg claims to be could not have missed the thread that the two scholars detected but mis-identified in their piece. It is not theocracy that Israel is sliding toward, it is the passionate and often brutal oppression that extreme nationalism so often leads to.

Read More

A Black Cloud Over the EU?: The Rise of Neo-Racists Political Parties Within the European Union

Flickr/kPluto. Some rights reserved.

By Alex Sakalis
The recent success of the Front National in French local elections, as well as the announcement of a Le Pen-Wilders alliance in the European parliament, has re-ignited speculation about the rise of the far-right in Europe. It is widely expected that the far-right will attain their best ever European results in the May elections. Despite this, far right parties and MEPs have historically found it difficult to form groups in the European parliament. Why? And what has changed?

From humble beginnings

European groups are an intrinsic part of the European parliament. They can either be a single European party, such as the EPP, or a coalition of European parties, such as The Greens - European Free Alliance (which is a coalition between the European Green Party and the European Free Alliance). The EPP is the largest group in the Parliament with 274 MEPs, while the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats is the second largest, with 195 MEPs.

As well as making the Parliament more efficient, the groups themselves provide their members with several benefits. The bigger your group, the more public funds you are given. You also have the right to assume more committee positions and have more speaking time in the Parliament. In order to form a group, you must have at least 25 MEPs representing at least seven countries, and have a “common political affinity”.

In 1999, this “common political affinity” was challenged when several non-inscrits (MEPs not part of any group), decided to join together and form the Technical Group of Independents. The group originally included 29 non-inscrits but within a few days all the non-far right MEPs had left, alarmed by some of their new colleagues, which included representatives from the French National Front and the terrifying Flemish secessionist party, Vlaams Blok.

The group was immediately seized upon by other groups, who argued that the Technical Group did not fulfil the criteria of having a common political affinity and therefore was illegal. After a lengthy legal battle, the courts agreed and the Technical Group was dissolved.

The fascists who just wanted to belong

But from these ashes rose the Orwellian-sounding Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty group, whose members included the father-daughter team of Jean-Marie and Marine Le Pen, Alessandra Mussolini, the colourful grand-daughter of Benito, and Dimitar Stoyanov, a Bulgarian MEP whose career highlight up until that point had been to claim that a Hungarian Roma MEP was too ugly to receive her 2006 Parliamentarian of the Year award and that he could “easily buy a younger and prettier Gypsy bride” back in Bulgaria.

United by a charter that included anti-immigration and anti-EU principles, the EU was unable to dissolve them and was forced to give them access to public funds. MEPs did however manage to block them from gaining positions on parliamentary committees.

Despite constant hostility from other groups in the EU, in the end, the ITS’ greatest enemies turned out to be themselves. Less than a year after its formation, the group collapsed when the Greater Romania Party left in protest at Alessandra Mussolini’s claim that all Romanians living in Italy were criminals.

The rise of the European Alliance for Freedom

Since then, the far-right have struggled to re-assert themselves at the European level. The closest thing we currently have in the European Parliament is the eurosceptic Europe of Freedom and Democracy group (EFD), which is dominated by UKIP and Lega Nord. However, parties such as the Front National and the Freedom Party of Austria have been denied admission to the group for being too extreme and their MEPs continue to sit as non-inscrits. Until now.

The European Alliance for Freedom, initially founded as a small europarty in 2011, now has the backing of Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders, two of the continent’s most successful far right leaders, and is seeking to become a full political group in the European parliament after the elections in May.

While much has been written about the far right’s attempts to reform and rebrand themselves nationally as they move closer towards mainstream acceptance, comparatively little has been written about their attempts to do the same at a European level.

In the past, the main reason why far-right parties had failed to form official European groups was due to a mutual fear of guilt by association. It is very easy to discredit a party by simply pointing out who they sit next to. The relatively moderate UKIP have suffered such criticisms due to their alliance with Lega Nord in the EFD. As one Labour MEP said: “Ukip's decision to sit alongside such unsavoury groups as Lega Nord speaks volumes about where they really stand in relation to the extreme right.” Even the UK Conservative party suffered similar opprobrium when they left the EPP to join a new European group, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), which critics alleged contained anti-Semites and homophobes.

But the new group of young far right leaders – Marine Le Pen, Strache, Salvini, etc - are more strategically minded than their predecessors. They know that it is in all of their interests to moderate their views as it will make it easier to form European groups without worrying about being tainted by guilt by association. The larger the group, the more speaking time, financial support and committee positions they are entitled to. And the larger they are, the more legitimate they seem. Being the sixth or seventh largest group in the European Parliament is rather better than having no group at all.

The ongoing European crisis has also given far right parties a chance to unite under common principles that would previously have been hors de combat. Dissatisfaction with austerity, belief that politicians are out-of-touch with and far-removed from their constituents, and a crisis of legitimacy within the EU itself are all vogue issues which give the far-right a strong and united platform.

The EAF’s manifesto is telling in this regard. It talks about giving more power to people and states by reversing the centralisation of power in the EU, halting mass immigration, and suggesting a break-up of the single currency. Presenting themselves as outsiders, fighting with “us” against “them” gives them considerable appeal among disaffected voters fed up with an EU they see as consigning them to austerity alongside unwanted social change through “mass immigration”.

It seems like it has never been a more fortuitous time to be a far-right party in post-Cold War Europe, and the demagogues are taking full advantage.

We are back - graffiti in a toilet in Austria. Tominaustria/some rights reserved.

The far right supergroup – what will it look like?

So how big and influential will this new group be? Using up-to-date aggregate polling, we can hazard the following predictions.

The Front National (FN) looks likely to have the most sensational results. A poll taken the day of their stunning electoral success in south-east France predicts them taking 22% of the vote in May, winning sixteen seats. This would put them – just barely – behind the conservative UMP, who are predicted to win seventeen seats. Hollande’s Socialist Party come an embarrassing third, with thirteen seats.

Le Pen’s main partner will be Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV) which is currently predicted to come a dramatic first in the Netherlands’ euro elections with 16.5% of the vote, winning four seats. This despite Wilders’ latest controversial statements on Moroccans in the Netherlands.

The Freedom Party of Austria (FPO) - formerly led by the late Jorg Haider and now under the direction of the charismatic HC Strache - is predicted to come third in a tight three-horse race, winning 21.5% of the vote and four seats.

The Lega Nord were a formidable fixture of Italian and European politics, but they have all but imploded amidst a series of internal scandals. They currently sit with UKIP in the EFD, but have announced their decision to leave and join the EAF. Despite having replaced the outlandish Umberto Bossi with the youthful Matteo Salvini as party leader, they could struggle just to meet Italy’s 4% threshold for election. If they do, they are likely to win only three seats, down from the nine they won in 2009.

Who else is poised to join the group? There are the far-right Flemish nationalists, Vlaams Belang, who look to double their European representation from one to two MEPs. There’s also the Sweden Democrats, who are poised to get their first MEP. The Slovak National Party have announced they are leaving UKIP’s group and look likely to transfer their lone MEP to the EAF.

So that’s 31 MEPs, but only six countries (you need at least seven to join). Who else can they recruit?

Godfrey Bloom, expelled from UKIP after a series of embarrassing gaffes, was a founder of the original EAF, although he is unlikely to be re-elected without his former party’s backing. Perhaps the most curious recruit is the Maltese politician Sharon Ellul-Bonici, who has been appointed secretary-general of the EAF. She ran in the 2009 euro elections as a Labour party candidate.

Other potential “big names”, such as Golden Dawn and Jobbik, both of whom are likely to have their MEPs elected, have been banned from joining the EAF. Likewise UKIP, The Danish People’s Party and Alternative for Germany have all refused to take part in the group, considering it too extremist.

UKIP is an interesting case. Too eurosceptic for the ECR and not fascistic enough for the EAF, they exist in an awkward “in-between” space which has made it difficult for them to find allies in the European parliament. In the May elections, they are currently predicted to take 26% of the UK vote, winning nineteen seats in the European parliament – that’s ten more than they have now. Despite this, they will struggle to form a new group in parliament.

With Lega Nord and the Slovak National Party leaving to join the EAF, and other key allies, such as Greece’s Popular Orthodox Rally and United Poland, unlikely to return any of the six MEPs they currently provide to the EFD, well, you can imagine just how tempting the ascendant EAF may look to the remaining eurosceptic parties in the EFD.

A black dawn for Europe?

Are we overestimating the EAF? How much influence can they possibly have in the European parliament? Not a lot it is true, but they certainly can’t be ignored. Their rise has been meteoric and many will see the finishing line in the distance. They will almost certainly use their platform within the EU to augment their message and draw more supporters to their cause.

Much like Nigel Farage’s speeches in the European Parliament, which regularly reach views in the hundred thousands, it is not hard to see speeches by notorieties such as Marine le Pen and Geert Wilders becoming equally as popular. They will have increased access to funds, committee positions and privileges which will also boost their profile. Most importantly, it will allow them to work towards something they have been attempting for generations – normalisation in the political theatre.

Whatever happens, Europe will not be the same.

Reprinted with permission from openDemocracy.

Chechen Dictator and Russian Nationalist — NOT Taking Over Ukraine

Yin and Yang of Russian trollitics, highly unlikely bedfellows Leader of Chechnya
Ramzan Kadyrov and nationalist blogger Egor Prosvirnin. (Images remixed by author)

By Andrey Tselikov
Time and time again Russian Internet users and Russophone mass media prove that they will fall for any hoax, no matter how bizarre or unbelievable. It's not as if it is the first time someone took the fake Twitter account of Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov for the real thing. @KadirovRussia [ru] was started before the real Kadyrov joined Twitter and quickly gained a following. These days, however, almost everyone is aware that although Kadyrov does tweet at his own account, @rkadyrov [ru], he mainly uses it to link to his favorite social networking platform, Instagram [Global Voices report]. Nevertheless, multiple bloggers, forum users, and online media outlets were taken for a ride with a recent tweet by @KadirovRussia:

Crimea is a primarily Russophone region of Ukraine currently protesting the change of power in Kiev. Crimeans are afraid that nationalist Ukrainians will infringe on their culture, and many Russians share their fear, stoked as it is my mainstream Russian media. A beach paradise not far from where the Sochi Winter Games took place, it is also home to a Russian naval base, and is currently a pressure cooker of ethnic tension between Russians, Ukrainians, and Crimean Tartars. Not a day passes that there aren't rumors of Russia deploying troops or Kiev sending its own militia to the region. The most recent development [ru] is that armed men have occupied a regional administration building and hung Russian flags from it.

In this climate the announcement that the gruff Chechen leader has joined causes with nationalist blogger Egor Prosvirnin (of Sputnik & Pogrom fame), who has been vocally advocating for Crimean independence [ru] for the past several days, fell on fertile ground. Never mind that Prosvirnin harshly mocks and lambastes Kadyrov, the news was reported by several Ukrainian outlets, including Ukrainian Komsomolskaya Pravda [cache], Obozrevatel [ru], and Korrespondent [cache], with commentary noting the increasingly violent climate in Crimea. Kadyrov's alleged involvement must have been particularly troubling — it was the Chechen “Vostok” Battalion that was in the lead during Russia's 2008 armed conflict with Georgia over the breakaway province of Abkhazia.

Prosvirnin himself was amused with the confusion, writing [ru]:

Разбудили звонком с НТВ, спросив, правда ли мы с Кадыровым едем в Крым. Спросонья ступил и сказал, что они там совсем что ли ебу дались, и уже повесив трубку понял, что НАДО БЫЛО ВСЕ ПОДТВЕРДИТЬ.

Was woken up with a call from NTV, asking if its true that Kadyrov and I are going to Crimea. I was still dozy and stupidly said that they were out of their f*cking mind, but as I hung up I realized that I SHOULD HAVE CONFIRMED EVERYTHING.

He said that the news might have scared the Crimean Tartars who are currently against any talk of secession. Later he also joked [ru] that Kadyrov has agreed to take charge of the western Ukrainian province of Lviv.

Chechen “Vostok” Batallion troops at a Crimean beach, or what it might look like
if they were. (Images remixed by author.)

Meanwhile, the real Kadyrov has actually sounded off about Ukraine [ru] on his Instagram account:

Получаем информацию, что у проживающих в этой стране соотечественников появились серьезные проблемы с сохранностью бизнеса и личной безопасностью. Мы никогда не претендовали на чужое, но и своё защитим. Следует четко осознавать, что не дадим в обиду чеченцев и других россиян, где бы они не находились.

We have received information that our countrymen living in that country are having serious problems with safety of their businesses and personal safety. We have never wanted what isn't ours, but we will protect our own. It needs to be clearly understood, that we won't let Chechens and other Russians come to harm, wherever they may be.

A troubling statement — perhaps more troubling than any fake news of rapprochement with Russian nationalists.

Reprinted with permission from Global Voices.