Previous posts in this discussion:
PostCatalonia's Republican Movement: Integrating and Anti-Racist (Jordi Molins, Spain, 11/16/17 3:13 pm)
Brainwashing is often tainted by biases. For example, a Catalonian Republican will favor news suggesting that Constitutionalists are wrong, and vice versa, a Constitutionalist will prefer to watch news that confirm his or her own bias.
As a consequence, it is hard for an external observer, not versed in the particular discussion at hand, to find out "who is right and who is wrong." In fact, in normal times, nobody is completely right, or completely wrong.
However, there are circumstances in which evil dominates one of the sides of the conflict. It is important to have robust indicators that preemptively may announce such a course of events.
Casual observation of historical events suggest to me that evilness appears as a consequence of objectification: when a human group considers the rivals to be an object, inert and with no autonomy, which can be owned and used as a tool for any purposes. Objectification usually results in the dominating group making public claims which are, even for external observers, directly wrong or, at least, highly suspicious. Instead, in normal circumstances in which objectification does not apply, members of both sides of the conflict will always be rational and reasonable enough to make claims which are not obviously wrong, or suspicious, to external observers. From an empirical point of view, the existence of such odd claims is the "traffic light indicator" needed to preemptively identify the initial phases of an objectification process.
I want to highlight a paragraph of a recent post by WAISer José Manuel de Prada:
"Regarding indoctrination, it certainly exists, and in some private schools it was common already in the 1970s. I can vouch for this because I attended such a school from the late 1960s to the early 1980s. The school in question was well known for its Catalanist orientation, and at that time my parents considered that placing us there was the progressive thing to do. It was a sad mistake, realized too late. Nationalism is never progressive! Fortunately, my siblings and myself resisted the indoctrination, but that was not the case of many thousands of people who attended this and other similar schools and are now among the elites who support 'the process.'"
Let me emphasize that Franco died on November 1975, and the Spanish Constitution was enacted on December 29, 1978. As a consequence, José Manuel de Prada considers that he would have been less indoctrinated by attending schools subjugated to the extreme Spanish nationalism of the Franco dictatorship. In my opinion, this claim is highly distressing, even for foreigners with no or little knowledge about the Catalan situation.
I would like to point out that Republicans have consistently been behind the "Refugees welcome!" demonstrations in Catalonia in recent months and years. Constitutionalists were much less numerous in those demonstrations. In fact, the leader of the Popular Party in Catalonia, Xavier Garcia Albiol, became famous with his political campaign to "clean" his city, Badalona, from Romanian gypsies. Neo-Nazis and other similar extremist groups, all of them Spanish nationalists, have been the responsible of the recent surge in racist attacks against Catalan citizens with non-European physical appearance.
Finally, let me point out that an overwhelming majority of my family is of Murcian (non-Catalan) origin. I can personally confirm the Republican movement is deeply integrating and anti-racist.
JE comments: José Manuel de Prada never said that Francoist indoctrination didn't exist pre-1975, only that pro-Catalonian indoctrination was common afterwards. The distinction is important.
Jordi, have the Catalonian Republicans outlined a refugee and immigration policy? How will they balance an "open door" with the desire to preserve the language and culture of a small nation? Are they looking, say, to Denmark for a model?
Building a nation is hard work. Political independence is the easy part.
Is Washington Feeding Catalonian Republicanism?
(Eugenio Battaglia, Italy
11/18/17 5:15 AM)
I have been very interested in the WAIS discussion between the Republicans and the Constitutionalists (even if calling the Falangists neo-Nazis is an error). However, so far nobody has explored what the Empire is doing.
The following argument was recently made by Dario Fabbri of Limes (Rivista Italiana di Geopolitica):
Spain is a good colony of the Empire with many important military bases. However, Spain is also an obedient lackey of Frau Merkel. The problem is that Germany, even if covered with US military bases (70+), is seen with suspicion because of its increasing hegemony over the European Union. Therefore for the first time Washington thought to side with Barcelona.
By the way, the idea of Catalonian independence in modern times emerged after the imperialist war of the US against Spain, by which Barcelona lost all its important trade with the Caribbean and the Philippines. The Catalans started blaming this misfortune on Madrid.
The regional government of Catalonia spent $1.5 million on lobbying in the US, met with Bob Corker and found a good ally in Dana Rohrabacker.
An independent Catalonia would reduce German influence in the building of Kerneuropa, the part of Europe completely under German influence, including northern Italy [sic].
One 26 September, Rajoy went to Washington and convinced Trump to side with Madrid. This was also pushed by the Pentagon. The same Italian government was later immediately ordered to side with Madrid too. Anyway the status quo with no independence for Catalonia is in the interest of Italy.
Anyway, it is in the interest of a strong Empire to give force to the little regions looking for independence but covered by the Imperial umbrella. On the contrary, a weak Empire would need big strong countries as allies. Anyway the present Emperor may easily change this idea.
The order (immediately followed) to side with Madrid is proof of the colonial status of Italy. This has been shown by the visit to Washington by Di Maio, the leader of the populist party "5 Stars." This party in next spring's elections may be the winner. Therefore it is imperative to get the blessings of the Empire and assure it of its loyalty.
JE comments: I am confused: if Washington is fanning the flames of Catalonian independence in a "divide and conquer" strategy, why would it also coerce Italy to side with Madrid? Italy faces the risk of regional separatisms, too, so an intact Spain is more in Rome's interests than Washington's.
Does Fabbri give any evidence for US fear of German hegemony?