logo
We are Nobel laureates, scientists, writers and artists. The threat of fascism is back

We are Nobel laureates, scientists, writers and artists. The threat of fascism is back

The Guardian2 days ago

On 1 May 1925, with Benito Mussolini already in power, a group of Italian intellectuals publicly denounced his fascist regime in an open letter. The signatories – scientists, philosophers, writers and artists – took a stand in support of the essential tenets of a free society: the rule of law, personal liberty and independent thinking, culture, art and science. Their open defiance against the brutal imposition of the fascist ideology – at great personal risk – proved that opposition was not only possible, but necessary. Today, 100 years later, the threat of fascism is back – and so we must summon that courage and defy it again.
Fascism emerged in Italy a century ago, marking the advent of modern dictatorship. Within a few years, it spread across Europe and the world, taking different names but maintaining similar forms. Wherever it seized power, it undermined the separation of powers in the service of autocracy, silenced opposition through violence, took control of the press, halted the advancement of women's rights and crushed workers' struggles for economic justice. Inevitably, it permeated and distorted all institutions devoted to scientific, academic and cultural activities. Its cult of death exalted imperial aggression and genocidal racism, triggering the second world war, the Holocaust, the death of tens of millions of people and crimes against humanity.
At the same time, the resistance to fascism and the many other fascist ideologies became a fertile ground for imagining alternative ways of organising societies and international relations. The world that emerged from the second world war – with the charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the theoretical foundations of the EU and the legal arguments against colonialism – remained marked by deep inequalities. Yet, it represented a decisive attempt to establish an international legal order: an aspiration toward global democracy and peace, grounded in the protection of universal human rights, including not only civil and political, but also economic, social and cultural rights.
Fascism never vanished, but for a time it was held at bay. However, in the past two decades, we have witnessed a renewed wave of far-right movements, often bearing unmistakably fascist traits: attacks on democratic norms and institutions, a reinvigorated nationalism laced with racist rhetoric, authoritarian impulses and systematic assaults on the rights of those who do not fit a manufactured traditional authority, rooted in religious, sexual and gender normativity. These movements have re-emerged across the globe, including in long-standing democracies, where widespread dissatisfaction with political failure to address mounting inequalities and social exclusion has once again been exploited by new authoritarian figures. True to the old fascist script, under the guise of an unlimited popular mandate, these figures undermine national and international rule of law, targeting the independence of the judiciary, the press, institutions of culture, higher education and science, even attempting to destroy essential data and scientific information. They fabricate 'alternative facts' and invent 'enemies within'; they weaponise security concerns to entrench their authority and that of the ultra-wealthy 1%, offering privileges in exchange for loyalty.
This process is now accelerating, as dissent is increasingly suppressed through arbitrary detentions, threats of violence, deportations and an unrelenting campaign of disinformation and propaganda, operated with the support of traditional and social media barons – some merely complacent, others openly techno-fascist enthusiasts.
Democracies are not flawless: they are vulnerable to misinformation and they are not yet sufficiently inclusive. However, democracies by their nature provide fertile ground for intellectual and cultural progress and therefore always have the potential to improve. In democratic societies, human rights and freedoms can expand, the arts flourish, scientific discoveries thrive and knowledge grow. They grant the freedom to challenge ideas and question power structures, propose new theories even when culturally uncomfortable, which is essential to human advancement. Democratic institutions offer the best framework for addressing social injustices, and the best hope to fulfil the post-war promises of the rights to work, education, health, social security, participation in cultural and scientific life, and the collective right of peoples to development, self-determination and peace. Without this, humanity faces stagnation, growing inequality, injustice and catastrophe, not least from the existential threat caused by the climate emergency that the new fascist wave negates.
In our hyper-connected world, democracy cannot exist in isolation. As national democracies require strong institutions, international cooperation relies on the effective implementation of democratic principles and multilateralism to regulate relations among nations, and on multistakeholder processes to engage a healthy society. The rule of law must extend beyond borders, ensuring that international treaties, human rights conventions and peace agreements are respected. While existing global governance and international institutions require improvement, their erosion in favor of a world governed by raw power, transactional logic and military might is a regression to an era of colonialism, suffering and destruction.
As in 1925, we scientists, philosophers, writers, artists and citizens of the world have a responsibility to denounce and resist the resurgence of fascism in all its forms. We call on all those who value democracy to act:
Defend democratic, cultural and educational institutions. Call out abuses of democratic principles and human rights. Refuse pre-emptive compliance.
Join collective actions, locally and internationally. Boycott and strike when possible. Make resistance impossible to ignore and costly to repress.
Uphold facts and evidence. Foster critical thinking and engage with your communities on these grounds.
This is an ongoing struggle. Let our voices, our work and our principles be a bulwark against authoritarianism. Let this message be a renewed declaration of defiance.
Nobel laureates: Eric Maskin, Roger B Myerson, Alvin E Roth, Lars Peter Hansen, Oliver Hart, Daron Acemoglu, Wolfgang Ketterle, John C Mather, Brian P Schmidt, Michel Mayor, Takaaki Kajita, Giorgio Parisi, Pierre Agostini, Joachim Frank, Richard J Roberts, Leland Hartwell, Paul Nurse, Jack W Szostak, Edvard I Moser, May-Britt Moser, Harvey James Alter, Victor Ambros, Gary Ruvkun, Barry James Marshall, Craig Mello, Charles Rice
Leading scholars on fascism and democracy: Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Timothy Snyder, Jason Stanley, Claudia Koonz, Mia Fuller, Giovanni De Luna and Andrea Mammone
The full list of signatories can be found here

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Britain will pay with blood of its people if it doesn't wake up now – world must fear us, Penny Mordaunt warns
Britain will pay with blood of its people if it doesn't wake up now – world must fear us, Penny Mordaunt warns

The Sun

timean hour ago

  • The Sun

Britain will pay with blood of its people if it doesn't wake up now – world must fear us, Penny Mordaunt warns

BRITAIN will pay with the blood of its people if more money isn't spent to bolster the UK's defence, Penny Mordaunt has warned. The ex-defence secretary has urged the government to "wake up" and fund the UK 's security properly before it's too late. 5 5 5 Former Navy reservist Mordaunt argued that Britain is "emboldening our enemies" if we fail to invest in other forms of deterrence. She warned the consequences with be "incalculably grave" if the government does not open up the treasury purse. Ms Mordaunt told The Sun: "I'm confident that if you prepare for war, you invest in it, you train for it, then conflicts don't start. "Because your foes know it is not worth them doing that. They're going to lose. "The consequences of retaliation against them are too great." Ms Mordaunt's call was echoed by Sir Liam Fox - defence secretary from 2010 to 2011 - who warned the greatest threat to the UK right now comes from Russia. "Frankly, Putin is not going to be deterred by ambition," he told The Sun. "He's deterred by hard power." It comes as the government this month released its much-anticipated Defence Review, which provided a catalogue of recommendations on how to respond to external threats. The review - led by ex-Nato chief Lord Robertson - urges the UK to move to a position of "war-readiness". Britain is our enemy number one, Russians say as new poll puts UK above even Ukraine as Moscow's top foe This could be achieved through numerous commitments to scale up defence capabilities - including a £1.5 billion investment in an "always on" pipeline for munitions, the review said. But the Spending Review this week failed to fulfil the suggestions made by Lord Robertson - including to agree to Nato calls to ramp up investment to 3.5 per cent of GDP. US president Donald Trump previously demanded the UK boost defence spending to five per cent of GDP. It comes after Keir Starmer last week vowed to make Britain "battle-ready" and insisted the threat from Russia could not be ignored. Ms Mordaunt said: "The US President pressed us to go further. The Prime Minister said we needed to deliver on all fronts to keep Britian's people safe and their interests secure. "Not to do so would be a dereliction of his first duty. I was hopeful. "This week we discovered that, behind Treasury smoke and mirrors, defence will received nothing. "No extra funds, no plan to reach Nato's ask, no assurance to unlock industrial investment, no reassurance to donor allies like the US, or recipient allies such as Ukraine, that we are a serious partner. "The consequences of this are incalculably grave. "If the Prime minister believed what he told us about the threats we face then government must alter its plans." It comes as threats to the UK's security loom large from rogue nations such as Russia. And meanwhile the Middle East sits on the brink of war, with Starmer moving military assets in after Israel and Iran fiercely clashed. Vladimir Putin continues to throw soldiers into his meatgrinder war in Ukraine which shows no sign of stopping after more than three years. The bloodthirsty tyrant has repeatedly threatened Western nations - including Britain - over their support of Kyiv. A series of suspicious incidents including undersea cables being cut in suspected sabotage attacks are also a real cause for concern. And this week, Britain was declared as Russia's enemy number one - even above Ukraine and the United States. Ms Mordaunt warned: "We need to wake up Europe and we need to wake up in Britain. "If we don't start funding these foundational capabilities, we are going to end up having to spend more money in the future. "And it won't just be money we're spending. It will be the blood of our own citizens because we'll be in a conflict somewhere." 5 5 Sir Fox - who praised Lord Robertson's "sensible" defence review - insisted defence is the "number one" job of the government. He added: "The problem is the same problem we've had for a long time, which is that the governments like to make a lot of noise about defence - but the treasuries don't open the cheque books. "There's a real problem in European governments in particular, which includes outs, that we enjoyed the peace dividend after the Cold War and thought it would last forever. "And therefore we could increase our domestic spending on welfare and everything else. And that's fine because the defence budget could stay much lower. "Well, defence is not a discretionary spend. "If they were useless at anything else, the one thing they have to be good at is protecting British citizens from outside threats. "And that means they have to spend whatever is necessary in response to that threat, not what they would like to spend in a perfect world." Putin's Ukraine war toll tops 1MILLION by Patrick Harrington and Sayan Bose PUTIN's battlefield casualties have soared past the bloody one million milestone after 40 months of a war he expected to win within days. Ukraine's fierce resistance has ensured Russia has paid a mighty toll for every inch of land it has taken, and its advances remain painfully slow. The staggering milestone includes troops who have been killed or wounded so severely that they cannot fight on. According to the Ukrainian General Staff, one million Russian military troops have been put out of action since February 24, 2022, with 628,000 of those casualties occurring in the last six months. Burning through a million troops has won Putin just 20 per cent of Ukraine's total territory - mainly in southern and eastern areas - which is a humiliating conversion rate. Despite the devastating losses which have already ripped a scar in Russian society, experts fear that Putin is likely unaffected by the numbers, because mass sacrifice is ingrained in his battle plan.

China haunts Bilderberg talks as usual suspects plot world domination
China haunts Bilderberg talks as usual suspects plot world domination

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

China haunts Bilderberg talks as usual suspects plot world domination

Deep within the glittering bowels of Stockholm's fanciest hotel, grave ruminations on the future of the world are taking place. A heady throng of tech billionaires, ministers, corporate titans and the king of the Netherlands have convened in Sweden for the 71st Bilderberg meeting – the publicity-shy annual policy conference that has long sustained conspiracy theorists – hosted this year by the fabulously wealthy Wallenberg family. The four days of transatlantic talks are taking place at the swanky Grand hotel, which is owned, like so much else in Sweden, by the Wallenbergs. The Swedish PM, Ulf Kristersson, turned up for welcome dinner on Thursday evening, and would have been about halfway through his second plate of meatballs when the first of Israel's rockets dropped on Tehran. What better time for the prospects of world war three to go up a gear than in the middle of a Bilderberg conflab, with nuclear proliferation slated for discussion, and the heads of Nato and MI6, and two of America's most senior military officers in the room. They're joined in Stockholm by the CEOs of several major defence suppliers such as Palantir, Thales and Anduril. Even the quietly spoken host of the conference, Marcus Wallenberg, happens to run an arms company. He's chair of Sweden's largest defence contractor, Saab. The Tehran attacks slot happily into the conference agenda, which includes the topics 'Middle East' and the rise of an 'authoritarian axis' – what Bilderberg insider Nadia Schadlow, a former deputy US national security adviser, describes as 'the growing collusion among revisionist powers'. According to Schadlow: 'An authoritarian axis is rapidly coalescing around China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, disrupting the belief that an international community has taken shape in the aftermath of the cold war.' Earlier this year, the Economist magazine, whose editor sits alongside Schadlow on Bilderberg's steering committee, struck a similar note, declaring: 'The rupture of the post-1945 order is gaining pace.' But the Economist handed Donald Trump a fair chunk of the blame for 'junking the transatlantic alliance'. What this means for Bilderberg is that seven decades of hard work nurturing the postwar international order are in danger of going up in – literal – smoke. Trump's vice-president, JD Vance, has taken every opportunity to lever the US and Europe apart. 'Europe being more independent', he said recently, 'is good for the United States.' Back last summer, before the election, he said: 'The United States has to focus more on east Asia. That is going to be the future of US foreign policy for the next 40 years, and Europe has to wake up to that fact.' The presence in Stockholm of Samuel Paparo, the head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, is a sign that Bilderberg has taken this to heart. Also, there's another member of the 'authoritarian axis' which looms far larger than Iran over this conference: China. Though the name 'China' doesn't actually appear on this year's agenda, the heightening struggle between America and China is a spectre which haunts at least half of the topics being discussed – from the 'geopolitics of energy and critical minerals' to 'defence innovation and resilience'. Just a couple of months ago, Eric Schmidt, the former Google boss and longtime Bilderberg board member, warned that 'China is at parity or pulling ahead of the United States in a variety of technologies, notably at the AI frontier'. Schmidt suspects that it will be only a matter of 'three to five years' before some form of super-intelligent AI is achieved. 'The geopolitical stakes, especially in the race with China, are enormous,' he says, because attaining super-intelligent AI would mean total and unassailable military domination. In short, it would give the winner 'the keys to control the entire world'. But here's the problem – 'due to the immense power requirements of large-scale AI', beating China to the super-intelligent punch would require 'potentially 100 times more energy' than is currently available. The head of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, who is conferencing this year at Bilderberg, recently posted on X that 'global electricity demand from data centres powering AI is set to soar in the next decade'. In this desperate winner-takes-all race for the keys to the world, in which the 'geopolitics of energy' becomes ever more important, power stations – along with the data centers they feed – are going to become the No 1 military targets. Cue the AI drones. For the time being, before AI invents completely new and unimagined ways for us all to kill each other, drones are perhaps the biggest practical application of AI in warfare. There's a healthy swarm of drone manufacturers at this year's Stockholm summit, sharing their hopes and fears about 'defence innovation'. Hovering alongside Eric Schmidt there's the chairman of Thales – 'a leader in the fast growing market of unmanned aircraft systems'. Buzzing nearby is Gundbert Scherf, co-founder of German drone and AI company Helsing. One of the early investors in Helsing is also present: the CEO of Spotify, Daniel Ek, which presumably means that the Helsing drones will have the best playlists, booming out suggested songs as they swoop down to attack. The investment interlinking of Bilderberg participants is particularly intense around autonomous drone tech. Saab is an investor in Helsing. Helsing is collaborating with leading AI company Mistral, whose CEO is attending the conference. Mistral was funded by Schmidt, who's a huge fan of military UAVs. Schmidt's recent AI/drone expo, which took place last month in Washington, was co-sponsored by Palantir, which was set up by Bilderberg insider Peter Thiel, who is a major funder of Anduril, whose CEO, Brian Schimpf, is also in Stockholm. Schimpf is a former employee of Palantir, whose CEO, Alex Karp, is also on board of Bilderberg, having been ushered on to it by Thiel. And so it goes. Thiel's fingers can be found wriggling around in an awful lot of pies, not least the juiciest pie of all: the White House. The two senior White House officials at the Stockholm conference, Kevin Harrington and Michael Kratsios, both used to work for Thiel Capital. And Thiel's famously long list of influential acolytes includes none other than Vance. Only a few days ago, Vance was on a podcast defending Trump's proposed Palantir-powered database on every citizen, which was described by MSNBC as 'an unprecedented spy machine that could track Americans'. Vance waved away any such concerns: 'I don't believe that Palantir is collecting any information.' Thank heavens for everyone's freedoms, Palantir is run by self-confessed 'classic liberal' Alex Karp. In a recent earnings call, the idiosyncratic CEO said his company was busy 'building really great things', in order 'to power the west to its obvious innate superiority'. Karp throbs with what he calls 'productive narcissism' – at Palantir, he insists: 'We're proud of our moral stance'. His philosophy, as he sums it up, is this: 'If you've done something big and important, you're probably a good person.' Palantir is successful, ipso facto, it's doing good. As the Economist put it: 'Fast approaching is a might-is-right world.' It's a kind of Gordon Gekko morality that would be heartily approved of by Wall Street legend and Bilderberg faithful Henry Kravis of KKR, on whom Gekko was actually based. Of course, not all the tech luminaries at this year's Bilderberg are thinking in terms of world domination. Demis Hassabis, the co-founder of DeepMind, turned up in Stockholm with the 2024 Nobel prize for Chemistry in his back pocket and some rather more optimistic rhetoric about AI, which he thinks will usher in an era of 'radical abundance'. He thinks of AI as 'the cavalry' arriving to save us from ourselves. He says: 'I'd be very worried about society today if I didn't know that something as transformative as AI was coming down the line.' And Jack Clark, the co-founder of Anthropic, likes to think AI replace us in every last will help us find new ways of living fulfilling lives. His vision is of a world in which, freed up from our jobs, we'll engage in 'creative, fun exercises in getting AIs to build things, or make things, or carry out competitions and games where people can play them with one another'. Pulling back for a moment from the AI endgame to the world in 2025, there's one rather less jazzy item on the conference agenda worth mentioning – 'US economy'. But even this has everything to do with China. Taking part in the Stockholm summit is Republican congressman Jason Smith, a vocal fan of Trump's 'America first' trade policy. Smith has pledged to 'continue fighting to combat the economic and national security threat China poses to our great nation'. He's fully aligned with fellow conference goer Robert Lighthizer, an influential economic adviser close to Trump, who told CBS News earlier this year that 'China to me is an existential threat to the United States'. Lighthizer is urging a 'strategic decoupling' from Chinese trade, and most importantly, he says: 'We should disentangle our technology.' Here's where Trump's trade vision intersects with not just the long view of Silicon Valley's bullish billionaires, but with the longstanding transatlantic vision of Bilderberg. Thiel recently called for 'a very drastic reset with China' and urged other nations to do likewise. In other words, look at our success, and join us. Of course, the only thing wrong with this self-fulfilling meritocratic version of western civilization is that if the Chinese succeed in beating the west to the keys of the world, it will mean that they were the good guys after all.

Politicians, lawyers and doctors express concern over use of expert witnesses in English courts
Politicians, lawyers and doctors express concern over use of expert witnesses in English courts

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Politicians, lawyers and doctors express concern over use of expert witnesses in English courts

A lack of regulation over the use of expert witnesses in English courts could be leading to miscarriages of justice, senior politicians, lawyers and doctors have said. The former attorney general Dominic Grieve and the former justice secretary Jack Straw were among those to tell the Guardian that criminal and civil trials were sometimes hanging on evidence by self-appointed 'experts' who could lack relevant knowledge. Grieve warned that although experts were supposed to be independent, they often came across as being 'hired guns'. 'Expert evidence is clearly critical, legitimate and in some cases can be absolute clinchers,' he said. But when dealing with issues 'at the limits of human scientific knowledge and understanding', expert witnesses could make people feel comfortable about making decisions when 'quite frankly, the evidence isn't there', he said. Concerns over the use of expert witnesses have been raised in relation to the case of Lucy Letby, the neonatal nurse convicted of murdering seven babies. Lawyers appealing against her conviction argue that the expert evidence presented at her trial was flawed. Expert witnesses were also criticised during the Post Office scandal, where subpostmasters were convicted of stealing based on evidence from IT experts that has been subject to criticism. Expert witnesses are used in both criminal and civil courts to give information and opinion on matters relevant to the case that would be considered outside the knowledge of a judge or jury. They are supposed to give an objective and unbiased opinion, according to guidelines from the Crown Prosecution Service, and can be instructed by the prosecution and the defence. But there are no formal controls on who can describe themself as an expert or training required to ensure they understand legal procedure. Jack Straw, a former justice secretary, said there was a 'nagging worry' that expert witnesses were not being properly regulated. He said courts often encourage both sides to agree on using one expert witness, to save on time and costs, but 'in my view this emphasises even more the need for there to be better regulation of expert witnesses' to ensure reliability. Nazir Afzal, a former chief crown prosecutor for north-west England, said there are 'a number of issues' with the system. He said it would generally be up to a judge to decide whether somebody has the relevant expertise, which becomes more complicated if the area of expertise is related to 'lived experience' rather than science. With international experts, he said, it may also be difficult for a court to verify their qualifications. He also said there were issues with 'expert shopping', where lawyers will consult different experts until they find one who will say what they need them to. The law firm Bond Solon offers expert witnesses training, and also runs an annual survey that looks at improving standards of expert evidence. More than a third of experts who responded to the 2024 survey said they had experienced 'hired gun' experts in their field in the past year, referring to people who provide 'evidence to substantiate the opinion preferred by the instructing party'. One in four also said they had been pressured by solicitors to produce biased opinions. Simon Berney-Edwards, the chief executive of the Expert Witness Institute, a not-for-profit membership body for expert witnesses which provides training, vetting and a directory, said there 'is no bar set' to ensure people not only have the correct qualifications, but that they understand legal procedure. 'There is no thing that says [expert witnesses] have to be registered with their professional body, or with any regulatory body. The onus on vetting the quality of their expert remains very much with the legal team,' he said. 'Many people will say that they're doing expert witness work but haven't had one bit of training. Where you've got people that don't understand what they're doing, that's where you get the problems, the possible miscarriages of justice.' Expert witnesses are paid for their time, and although in criminal cases – particularly those funded via legal aid – it is not always very lucrative, people can make large sums in civil and medico-legal work. Prof Sir Norman Williams, a former president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, carried out a government commissioned review into gross negligence manslaughter prosecutions against medical professionals in 2018 that found widespread concern about expert witnesses. The review found issues with 'the quality and consistency of opinion provided by healthcare professionals acting as expert witnesses' that may not be uncovered until trial or appeal, and made recommendations for more training. 'Ideally one would like to see a system that was better regulated, but I can't see that happening easily,' Williams said. 'You have to be somewhat concerned that problems [highlighted in the review] can recur, because some cases are very complex, they're difficult for juries to appreciate. If all the factors aren't taken into consideration, there could be miscarriages of justice.' Jonathan Lord, an NHS consultant gynaecologist and co-chair of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists abortion taskforce, said there is concern among medics about some witness evidence that has come before the courts. 'They are hired by one side, not the court, and many have substantial earnings from this work, so conflicts of interest that would not be acceptable in other professional spheres are embedded into the system,' he said. 'While they are supposed to be neutral, given the large payments involved and the need to be called and engaged again in the future, it's hard to be reassured that bias doesn't creep in.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store