Latest news with #Marxism
IOL News
9 hours ago
- Business
- IOL News
Power Struggle: Jacob Zuma's Double-Edged Spear Thwarts Floyd Shivambu's Ambition
MKP President Jacob Zuma gives journalists the thumbs up at a media briefing held in Durban on June 4, 2025. The Party announced the removal of its Secretary-General Floyd Shivambu and his redeployment to the National Assembly as an ordinary MP. Image: Tumi Pakkies/Independent Media Zamikhaya Maseti The firing of Floyd Shivambu yesterday did not come as a surprise. In truth, Floyd penned his political obituary the day he walked into the MK Party and emerged as its General Secretary. That was not a promotion, it was a political coffin lined with velvet. But the real reckoning is still coming. The VBS scandal, so long buried under layers of delay, distraction, and legal gymnastics, will soon come to trial. And when it does, Jacob Zuma will do what he always does, drop the dead weight before it begins to stink. He will ask Floyd to step aside in the interest of the MK Party. That will be the final burial. Hamba Kahle Mkhonto, not with a song, but with a court docket. Floyd Shivambu's political execution was triggered by his clandestine trip to Malawi to attend a church service led by none other than Shepherd Bushiri a fugitive preacher facing serious allegations of rape, sexual exploitation, and financial fraud. That was too far even for Zuma's elastic ethics. Floyd Shivambu, the self-proclaimed Marxist sitting cross-legged in the sanctuary of a Pentecostal profiteer, clapping hands for a man accused of sodomising and brutalising young girls. This is not merely a lapse in judgment, it is a moral implosion. Those who read and understand the Marxist-Leninist Theory, not just name-drop, know that religion is not just 'the opium of the people.' It is the ideological glue of the very Bourgeois order Marxism exists to oppose. You cannot be a revolutionary on Monday and a prophet's disciple on Sunday. You cannot shout 'radical economic transformation' at Parliament and whisper 'Amen' at the altar of a millionaire scammer who preaches submission to the Capital, patriarchy, and magical thinking. Floyd failed the revolutionary morality test. His trip to Bushiri's church was not a mere detour. It was a confession, silent but deafening, that he had no centre. This is where Jacob Zuma, for all his faults, showed leadership and political decisiveness. Love him or hate him, and most people fall somewhere in between, he has demonstrated that, despite his numerous challenges and well-documented shortcomings, in the MK Party, his political outfit, he will not tolerate ideological bankruptcy or political dishonesty. By firing Floyd Shivambu, Zuma did what many South Africans expected the moment Shivambu returned from that ill-advised pilgrimage to Bushiri's church. It was not just poor judgment; it was a violation of public morality. And Zuma, sensing the national mood, played his move with chilling precision. One must admit, that Zuma is, without a doubt, a political chess master. He understands the terrain. He studies the map. He waits. And then he strikes. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ He did not flinch at the first sound of public outrage. He did not rush to satisfy the noise of social media or the murmurs of political insiders. No. Zuma sat still. He waited for the moment when he, not the nation, was ready. Then he acted. And when he did, the message was clear: in the Kingdom of Nkandla, there is only one strategist, only one tactician, and only one general. He understands the art of war, and more importantly, the art of timing. Shivambu may have embarrassed the MK Party publicly, but Zuma buried him strategically. There is, however, a serious downside to Zuma's political strategy; he is wielding a double-edged spear. Yes, he is decisive. Yes, he reads the battlefield well. But the very authoritarianism that gives Zuma the upper hand in the short term may well lead to the MK Party's long-term implosion. Undoubtedly, many within the MK Party are now unsettled. Their futures hang in limbo. The spectre of arbitrary dismissal haunts even the loyalists. No one is safe not from embarrassment, not from demotion, not from the sudden twist of a knife dressed as a song. This is not leadership by consensus. It is Stalinism dressed in camouflage. And Stalinism, as history has shown us, always leads to demoralisation, disillusionment, and eventually, decay. The full swing of musical chairs, where today's hero is tomorrow's exile, will only erode talent and collapse morale. Let's not forget these are men and women with families, responsibilities, and dreams. The stress of living under constant political threat, especially in this suffocating economic climate, will eventually take its toll on them, individually and collectively. This tired line that 'political deployment is not employment' is outdated, exhausting, and frankly, dishonest. It fails to acknowledge that politicians are human beings too, with aspirations, commitments, and material needs. To pretend otherwise is to invite hypocrisy. Political deployment is labour, and those deployed are not pawns; they are professionals, cadres, and citizens. They deserve respect, not permanent precarity. It may appear, for now, that members of the MK Party are content with these purges. That they clap as Comrades are fired. But don't be fooled. That is fear, not approval. That is survivalism, not loyalty. Zuma's Stalinist approach is unsustainable and will inevitably face a serious internal ideological offensive, as there are tried and tested Communists within the MK Party. If they surrender their ideological discipline just to stay in Zuma's good graces, then they are betraying more than themselves. They are betraying the memory of the Communist International. They are betraying a generation. And if that is the path the MK Party takes, then history will not be kind. As I conclude, it is imperative to surface what might well be the most consequential development regarding the MK Party: it now finds itself, by sheer electoral outcome and political reconfiguration, as the Official Opposition Party. This status is not merely symbolic; it carries with it a constitutional weight and a historic responsibility. With the Democratic Alliance (DA) having opted to join the Government of National Unity (GNU), the DA has effectively vacated the oppositional bench it once occupied with forceful intensity. The MK Party, however, has not yet settled into this new role. It is not combative, nor intellectually coherent, in the manner the DA once was in opposition. The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), with all their contradictions, are currently outpacing the MK Party in opposition performance.
Boston Globe
a day ago
- General
- Boston Globe
Alasdair MacIntyre, philosopher who saw a ‘new dark ages,' dies at 96
Advertisement MacIntyre belonged to a different moral universe. In his best-known book, 'After Virtue' (1981), he argued that thousands of years ago, the earliest Western philosophers and the Homeric myths generated 'the tradition of the virtues,' which was treated as objective truth. Value neutrality, to Mr. MacIntyre, was the goal of 'barbarians' and a sign of 'the new dark ages which are already upon us.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Such language might make Mr. MacIntyre seem like a wistful reactionary. In fact, his worldview was far less predictable. He never entirely disavowed his youthful Marxism, applauding Karl Marx's critique of the individualistic and acquisitive spirit of capitalism. He maintained a certain sort of modesty from his days as a self-appointed champion of the working class — he never earned a doctorate and disliked being called 'professor' — and he continued showing the dialectical passion of a Trotskyist, occasionally launching into what one colleague called 'MacIntyrades.' Advertisement His chief opponent was what he called 'modern liberal individualism,' a category in which he included not just supporters of the Democratic Party but also conventional conservatives, leftists, and even anarchists. All were guilty of 'emotivism': the belief that humanity was essentially a collection of autonomous individuals who selected their own principles based on inner thoughts or feelings. This starting point, Mr. MacIntyre argued, could lead only to eternal, unresolvable disagreement. He went so far as to suggest that every tradition of modern politics had come to 'exhaustion,' and he rejected many essential tools of modern moral philosophy: Thomas Hobbes' social contract, John Locke's natural rights, Jeremy Bentham's moral consequences, and Isaiah Berlin's pluralism. Instead, he valued storytelling, tradition, and rational debate, embedded within a shared moral community. He found these qualities in the thinking of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, who promoted 'a cosmic order which dictates the place of each virtue in a total harmonious scheme of human life,' he wrote in 'After Virtue.' Within such an order, moral truth was objective. 'After Virtue' gained extraordinary popularity for a work of late-20th-century moral theory, selling more than 100,000 copies, Compact magazine wrote in a piece published after Mr. MacIntyre's death, titled 'Postliberalism's Reluctant Godfather.' That was an apt label for someone who managed, in recent years, to earn multiple tributes from Jacobin, a journal on the socialist left, and First Things, which is on the religious right. Mr. MacIntyre seemed to grow increasingly uncomfortable with his influence as it came unavoidably into focus. Advertisement In 'After Virtue,' he wrote that morality arose out of a belief in human telos — the ancient Greek notion of purpose being intrinsic to existence. People of the modern world, he said, had two choices: Follow Friedrich Nietzsche in trying to honestly face a world without the traditional notion of a human telos, rendering moral thought baseless, or follow Aristotle and recover moral purpose by fostering a society dedicated to the cultivation of virtue. Mr. MacIntyre illustrated what that might look like with an analysis of what he called 'practices' — shared, skillful activities including chess, architecture, and musicianship — as examples of where virtue still had meaning. These pursuits, he said, intrinsically provide 'standards of excellence' and reward traits such as justice, courage, and honesty. In them, he saw a possible modern basis for virtue. 'After Virtue' was acclaimed by leading philosophers, including Bernard Williams, who in a 1981 review for The Sunday Times of London wrote that even Mr. MacIntyre's exaggerations were 'illuminating'; that his intellectual history of the moral self was a 'nostalgic fantasy' and yet also 'brilliant'; and that, whatever questions the book raised, 'the feeling is sustained that one's question would get an interesting answer.' In a subsequent book, 'Whose Justice? Which Rationality?' (1988), Mr. MacIntyre provoked sharper criticism. His argument now promoted Roman Catholicism with Aquinas, not Aristotle, as its paragon of moral thought. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum wrote a memorable takedown in The New York Review of Books accusing Mr. MacIntyre of dropping some of his own principles — such as his devotion to local traditions — when discussing Aristotle, Augustine, and the pope. What really interested Mr. MacIntyre, she argued, was not reason but authority: the ability of the Catholic Church to secure wide agreement, and, by extension, order. Advertisement She was one of several distinguished thinkers to challenge Mr. MacIntyre's idealized view of the past, arguing that historical societies were not as unified as he claimed and that unanimity itself was not so great. In a review of 'Whose Justice? Which Rationality?' published in The Times Literary Supplement, Thomas Nagel wrote, 'MacIntyre professes to be freeing us from blindness, but he is really asking for the return of a blindness to the difficulty of moral thought that it has been one of the great achievements of ethical theory to escape.' Alasdair Chalmers MacIntyre was born on Jan. 12, 1929, in Glasgow, Scotland. His parents, John and Emily (Chalmers) MacIntyre, were both doctors. In the 1930s the family moved to London, where his parents treated patients in the working-class East End neighborhood. In 1949, he earned a bachelor's degree in classics from Queen Mary College at the University of London. In the 1950s and '60s, he earned master's degrees in philosophy from Manchester University and Oxford while holding several lectureships. As a student, he joined the Communist Party, but he also steered debates of Britain's Student Christian Movement as its chair. In about 1970 he moved to the United States, where he taught at Brandeis University and gradually left Marx for Aristotle. In the 1980s, he converted to Catholicism and took to seeing Aquinas as the master thinker of the Aristotelian tradition. He had a series of academic appointments but mostly taught at Notre Dame, where his wife, Lynn Joy, is also a philosophy professor. Advertisement His two previous marriages ended in divorce. In addition to Joy, his survivors include several children. He and Joy lived in Mishawaka, Ind., a city near Notre Dame. For decades, no single tendency seemed to define readers who took inspiration from Mr. MacIntyre's work. There were heterodox Marxists, the skeptic of liberalism Christopher Lasch, and former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum. But more recently, one constituency claimed Mr. MacIntyre's work most completely and prominently: the Trump-supporting, religious, anti-consumerist, and illiberal right. Two leading commentators of this world, Patrick Deneen and Rod Dreher, have written books that pay tribute to Mr. MacIntyre. In 2017, the publication of one of these books, Dreher's 'The Benedict Option,' prompted an odd debate between Dreher and Mr. MacIntyre, with each man accusing the other of commenting on a book of his that he had not actually read. During a lecture at Notre Dame, Mr. MacIntyre deplored becoming part of an ideological battle of his own time. 'The moment you think of yourself as a liberal or a conservative,' he said, 'you're done for.' This article originally appeared in
Memri
2 days ago
- Politics
- Memri
South Korea's Democrats, Crisis, And What The U.S. Must Know
South Korea stands at a critical political crossroads. The impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol has triggered a snap presidential election, now just weeks away. What is at stake is more than the outcome of a vote. This election could decide the future direction of South Korea's democracy, its institutional integrity, and its strategic alignment with the United States. The moment is grave. Interpretations vary widely along ideological lines. But for those alarmed by China's expanding influence, the ideological drift of South Korea's Democratic Party under the sway of postmodernism and Marxism, and the post-pandemic legacy of coercive public health mandates, the stakes are especially high. Many South Koreans who hold conservative views – rooted in a Judeo-Christian worldview – find themselves sidelined by domestic media and mischaracterized abroad. Their voices must now be heard – and understood. (Source: Freedom Forged In Blood South Korea owes its existence as a free nation to the United States. During the Korean War, 36,574 American lives were lost in defense of Korea's freedom. They bled not as Republicans or Democrats, but as guardians of liberty. Their sacrifice laid the foundation for the Republic of Korea's democracy and postwar transformation. The values that shaped the United States – liberty, truth, and faith – also shaped the founding of modern Korea. Under President Syngman Rhee and the Christian leaders of his time, those principles were carried across the Pacific and embedded in our national identity. Korea's remarkable rise from the ashes of war would not have been possible without the blood, commitment, and leadership of America. That is why, during the most recent U.S. presidential election, the organization I lead – Truth Forum – supported for the election of Donald Trump. It was not about party politics. It was about restoring a nation founded on moral clarity and biblical truth. A strong and free America is not just in America's interest – it is vital to ours. Korea's future is deeply tied to America's direction. As we now approach a critical election of our own, following the impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol, our nation stands at a crossroads. The path ahead will determine whether we remain free – or fall to ideological subversion. In this decisive moment, we do not ask for sympathy. We ask for clear understanding – and for prayer. David Eunkoo Kim, founder and president of the Truth Forum A Mirror Of America – And A War Over Memory South Korea was born in the image of America – built on the same biblical worldview that inspired the U.S. Constitution and the founding principles of liberty, law, and faith. But like the United States, South Korea is now locked in an ideological crisis. Postmodernism, cultural Marxism, and atheistic progressivism have penetrated the nation's core institutions: schools, universities, media, courts, and even churches. These ideas have found political shelter within the Democratic Party, mirroring trends on the American left. The results are strikingly similar – truth replaced by narrative, and identity distorted by ideology. At the heart of this ideological subversion is a calculated revision of history. In the U.S., progressives have recast the founding as a project of oppression, built on slavery and colonialism. In South Korea, the left promotes a parallel fiction: that the Republic of Korea was not a sovereign act of national will, but a betrayal – engineered by pro-Japanese collaborators and propped up by American imperialism. This narrative does not stop at national shame. It assigns moral legitimacy to North Korea, portraying the regime as the "true Korea," supposedly forged in resistance against foreign domination. Never mind Pyongyang's record of tyranny, famine, and forced labor – the myth of anti-imperialist purity prevails. These distorted narratives function as political weapons. By undermining the Republic's moral foundation, they sow anti-Americanism and pave the way for sympathy toward Communist China. In this upside-down worldview, China is no longer seen as a threat – but as a model of post-Western order. That illusion is not only false – it is dangerous. This war over history is not a sidebar to politics. It is the front line. It shapes how nations understand themselves, choose their alliances, and decide their futures. For South Korea – and for the U.S.-ROK alliance – the outcome of this battle will determine whether truth or falsehood writes the next chapter. Distorting The Past: How Historical Revisionism Fuels Political Power South Korea's Democratic Party, under the leadership of Lee Jae-myung, has embraced a dangerous revisionist interpretation of Korean history – one that casts doubt on the very legitimacy of the Republic itself. In 2023, Lee appointed Lee Rae-kyung – an ideologue affiliated with the "Another Centennial" Foundation – as head of the party's Innovation Committee. Lee's theory claims that the last 100 years of Korean history, beginning with the 1919 March First Movement, represent an era of foreign domination, imposed particularly by the United States. In his view, Korea's founding was not liberation – but subjugation. He calls for a new national narrative, unburdened by ties to the West. This narrative has not remained on the fringes. Former progressive presidents echoed similar views. In 2003, Roh Moo-hyun stated that Korean history was defined by the "defeat of justice" and the "rise of opportunism." In his autobiography, Moon Jae-in described his sense of elation upon witnessing America's retreat from Vietnam, which he regarded as a realization of historical justice. At the center of this narrative war is the reinterpretation of the 1948 Jeju April 3 Incident. What was originally a violent communist uprising intended to derail South Korea's first democratic elections is now widely portrayed in global discourse as a state-sponsored massacre of civilians. UNESCO's recent decision in April to inscribe related documents into its "Memory of the World" register lends international legitimacy to this rebranding – while omitting the historical context of communist-led violence. Acknowledging civilian casualties is necessary. But to erase the nature of the uprising – to deny that it was launched to prevent the creation of the Republic of Korea – is not just revisionism. It is a political weapon. This is no longer a matter of domestic academic debate. It is a coordinated strategy to delegitimize South Korea's founding, absolve the violent legacy of communism, and sow anti-American resentment. The result is a warped historical lens through which younger generations are taught to question the morality of their own nation's birth. The roots of this revisionist impulse run deep. Many within the Democratic Party are not only ideological heirs of the South Korean Workers' Party but are connected to it by lineage. Former President Roh Moo-hyun's father-in-law, Kwon Oh-seok, was a lifelong unrepentant communist and political prisoner. These are not mere coincidences – they reveal a clear line of ideological continuity from Korea's radical past to its contemporary political elite. If the United States and its allies fail to recognize how historical narratives are being weaponized to undermine the moral foundation of free societies, they will forfeit critical ground – not only in Korea, but across the broader fight for truth in the Indo-Pacific. Strategic Blind Spots: How the Democratic Party Enabled China's Reach The Democratic Party's embrace of revisionist history is not merely ideological – it has translated into real-world deference to authoritarian regimes, most notably China. Under President Moon Jae-in, Seoul announced the "Three No's" policy in 2017: no additional THAAD missile deployments, no integration into a U.S.-led missile defense system, and no trilateral military alliance with the United States and Japan. In effect, the policy conceded strategic leverage to Beijing. The consequences have been more than symbolic. In late 2024, South Korea's Board of Audit and Inspection uncovered evidence that sensitive details about the THAAD deployment may have been leaked to China during Moon's presidency. This revelation followed Moon's 2017 pledge at Peking University to support China's so-called "national dream" – a message that sent a clear signal of alignment rather than neutrality. On the ground, the situation is even more alarming. Chinese nationals have repeatedly been caught photographing sensitive South Korean and U.S. military installations – ranging from U.S. Navy assets in Busan to the headquarters of South Korea's intelligence agency. Yet under current law, espionage is defined exclusively in relation to the "enemy state," which is North Korea. Efforts to revise the law to include other hostile foreign actors were blocked – and notably, by the Democratic Party. As a result, those caught gathering intelligence for China face, at most, a fine or deportation. There is no real deterrent. Critics call it what it truly is: passive collusion. This troubling pattern continues. While the United States intensifies efforts to combat Chinese fentanyl trafficking, South Korea's Democratic Party has slashed narcotics investigation budgets and curtailed prosecutorial authority. The results are catastrophic: in just five years, teenage drug crimes have surged fourteenfold. Meanwhile, Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung has signaled his intention to strengthen ties with Beijing. In a 2022 interview with Time magazine, he pledged greater cooperation with China if elected. When China's ambassador to Seoul warned in 2023 that South Korea would "regret" siding with the United States, Lee offered no rebuttal – a silence some critics interpreted as tacit approval. Even before that, Chinese state-run outlets such as Global Times and CCTV had portrayed him as a friendly and reliable figure in South Korean politics – coverage that, in China's tightly controlled media environment, is rarely incidental. Around the world, democratic nations are waking up to the reality of China's "united front" operations – covert campaigns to shape public opinion and co-opt foreign elites. Confucius Institutes, long exposed as soft power arms of the Chinese Communist Party, have been shut down across much of the West. In South Korea, however, they remain active – and some are reportedly expanding. At Seoul National University – South Korea's most prestigious academic institution – a "Xi Jinping Library" continues to operate despite widespread public opposition. It no longer serves as a neutral academic resource, but rather stands as a stark symbol of how deeply China has embedded itself in the nation's intellectual and political landscape. China's ambition matters – but more concerning is South Korea's vulnerability. If the United States and its allies ignore this creeping influence, they risk losing not just a partner – but the geopolitical anchor of democracy in Northeast Asia. When Impeachment Aligns With Authoritarian Ambition Whether the declaration of martial law was the right course remains debated. But what followed is beyond dispute: tens of thousands of young South Koreans – many previously disengaged from politics – took to the streets. Their outrage transcended partisanship. It stemmed from deepening concerns over unchecked legislative power, weaponized budget obstruction, growing doubts about election integrity, and clear signs of Chinese interference. For China, Yoon represented an obstacle – resolutely pro-U.S. and openly critical of Beijing's influence operations. For the Democratic Party, removing him was existential. A failed impeachment could have spelled collapse, especially with Lee facing intensifying corruption probes, including the high-profile Daejang-dong scandal. The convergence of interests between South Korea's progressive establishment and the Chinese Communist Party is no longer a matter of speculation. Reports indicate Chinese nationals took part in pro-impeachment rallies – raising urgent questions about foreign orchestration at the heart of Korea's constitutional process. This is not coincidence. It is coordination. It is what happens when internal political warfare intersects with the global ambitions of authoritarian regimes. Beijing wants South Korea out of America's orbit. The Democratic Party wants to survive – at any cost. Their common adversary: President Yoon. For U.S. policymakers, the lesson is clear and urgent. South Korea's internal crisis is not just confined to its borders. It is a case study in how foreign adversaries can leverage democratic institutions against themselves. Unless the United States recognizes this alignment for what it is – a coordinated effort to undermine Indo-Pacific stability – it risks repeating the mistakes of the past. A Sudden Pivot – Or Calculated Camouflage? In a striking shift, South Korea's Democratic Party – long criticized for its dovish stance toward Beijing – has begun to sound an unfamiliar tune. On January 21, the party introduced a resolution reaffirming support for the U.S.-ROK alliance. The timing was no accident. It coincided with rising global anticipation of a possible Trump administration return, and with South Korea's own snap election looming. Party leader Lee Jae-myung has followed suit. Once a champion of progressive economic policies, Lee is now signaling a retreat. He has signaled a willingness to abandon key progressive platforms, including the Democratic Party's hallmark policy of universal basic income – once championed as a pillar of its socialist agenda. In meetings with U.S. and Japanese officials, Lee has gone so far as to emphasize the importance of trilateral cooperation with Washington and Tokyo, a line rarely heard from the party's upper ranks. To casual observers, these gestures might suggest an ideological realignment. But within South Korea, few are convinced. Even some within the Democratic Party have expressed unease over the abruptness and optics of this sudden shift. However, this calculated camouflage seems working abroad. Not long ago, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich visited South Korea and addressed growing concerns in Washington about the Democratic Party's pro-China leanings and far-left tendencies. In a post on his X account, he noted that despite these concerns, most South Koreans remain firmly supportive of the U.S.-ROK alliance – and that even if the Democratic Party wins the presidency, the alliance would likely endure. His observation reflects a widely held reality in South Korea. The majority of South Koreans strongly value the alliance with the United States. However, as the U.S.-China rivalry intensifies, it is critical to recognize the dangers posed by the Democratic Party's distorted view of history and ideological foundations. If these are overlooked, the future of the U.S.-ROK alliance could face serious and lasting consequences. America's allies must distinguish rhetoric from conviction – because the future of our shared security may depend on it. Forecast And Response: South Korea's Election At The Crossroads South Korea stands on the edge of a consequential decision. The outcome of its upcoming presidential election will not only define the direction of its domestic politics but may also recalibrate the nation's democratic framework and foreign policy orientation. With the National Assembly firmly in the hands of the Democratic Party – widely criticized for its conciliatory stance toward Beijing – many Koreans fear that continued consolidation of power could tilt the country irreversibly toward strategic ambiguity. Some fear it could even lead to alignment with authoritarian regimes. Amid this uncertainty, Kim Moon-soo has emerged as the conservative standard-bearer. Once a socialist labor activist, Kim renounced those beliefs following the collapse of the Soviet Union. He went on to serve three terms in the National Assembly, as Minister of Labor, and as Governor of Gyeonggi Province. During his tenure, Kim played a key role in advancing South Korea's industrial growth through projects like Samsung's Pyeongtaek complex, Pangyo Techno Valley, and Gwanggyo New Town. Kim's profile – defined by personal modesty and a reputation for integrity – stands in stark contrast to his rival, Lee Jae-myung, who remains entangled in multiple legal investigations and continues to face widespread public distrust. Several individuals connected to his criminal cases have died under suspicious circumstances – allegations that continue to raise unanswered questions. Yet the political momentum has shifted since President Yoon Suk-yeol's impeachment. Conservative unity has weakened, and concerns have emerged over the reliability of polling and voter engagement. Notably, Yoon's approval ratings had rebounded to over 50 percent prior to his impeachment – suggesting that, with proper mobilization, the conservative base could still be reactivated. At the core of this election lies the issue of electoral integrity. While fraud allegations in the United States have prompted unified calls for investigation within conservative circles, South Korea's conservative leadership has remained largely silent – eschewing any meaningful inquiry. Even President Yoon's invocation of martial law, tied to concerns over election manipulation, failed to prompt a serious audit of the system or restore public trust in the electoral process. The result is a fragmented national discourse. Allegations of rigging are dismissed by some as fringe conspiracy theories, while others point to opaque procedures by the National Election Commission and the possibility of foreign interference – particularly from China. Public confidence continues to erode. This erosion is unfolding against the backdrop of a broader geopolitical threat. Anti-China sentiment in South Korea ranks among the highest in the world – 81 percent, according to Pew Research. Yet paradoxically, the political party widely viewed as sympathetic to Beijing continues to command significant support. This contradiction stems from deep historical and ideological divides. Some voters perceive the conservative bloc as tainted by alleged ties to Japan's colonial legacy. Others downplay the threat from China, citing economic pragmatism. Still, some progressives argue that concerns about Chinese influence are overstated. Others believe that economic cooperation must take precedence in times of global uncertainty. But this calculus may not hold. Recent reports of Chinese espionage involving South Korean military personnel have heightened public alarm. If further evidence emerges, the backlash could be swift – and politically decisive. South Korea is approaching a moment of reckoning. Rebuilding democratic confidence will require more than campaign rhetoric. It will demand transparency, institutional courage, and an honest reckoning with the risks posed by foreign interference. The stakes in this election are not abstract – they are existential. Syngman Rhee's Warning And The Unfinished Mission In 1954, President Syngman Rhee delivered a stark message to the United States Congress: "Unless we win back China, ultimate victory for the free world is unthinkable." At the time, his words may have sounded extreme. Seventy years later, they read like prophecy. The Republic of Korea today stands amid an unresolved struggle between truth and falsehood – a battle rooted not only in domestic division, but in the broader regional order shaped by North Korea's authoritarian regime and China's expanding influence. This ideological fault line runs deep, touching everything from historical interpretation to democratic governance. The collapse of North Korea and the liberalization of China remain essential, not optional, conditions for the full realization of freedom and stability on the Korean Peninsula. So long as the North Korean regime endures, it serves as a source of internal subversion, disinformation, and national division. Likewise, China's authoritarian reach continues to embolden illiberal forces in South Korea and beyond. This is more than strategy – it is a question of values. The U.S.-ROK alliance was forged not just to deter war but to safeguard liberty. That mission – defending truth, securing sovereignty, and advancing human dignity – remains incomplete. The question before us is whether we are prepared to finish the work begun decades ago. For both Koreans and Americans, the unfinished mission is clear: the liberation of North Korea and the arrival of genuine freedom in China. Without these, the free world's victory remains partial – and its future uncertain. *David Eunkoo Kim is the founder and representative of Truth Forum, a conservative youth organization founded at Seoul National University. Rooted in a Judeo-Christian worldview, Truth Forum promotes universal values and defends freedom, national sovereignty, and historical integrity in response to the rise of leftist ideology in academia and media. He holds a law degree from Seoul National University, where he also completed his doctoral coursework. Before launching his own game development company, he worked on the legal team at Nexon, one of South Korea's leading tech firms. He also co-produced and appeared in The Birth of Korea, a groundbreaking documentary that surpassed one million viewers. The film challenges progressive distortions of history and restores the legacy of South Korea's founding president, Syngman Rhee – a U.S.-educated Christian who built the Republic on principles of liberty. David founded Truth Forum in response to the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye, which he viewed as a turning point in South Korea's ideological trajectory. Under his leadership, the organization successfully led the campaign to shut down the Xi Jinping Library at Seoul National University – a symbol of growing Chinese influence on Korean campuses. He also launched Students for Israel in Korea to combat rising antisemitism and pro-Hamas sentiment in academia. Today, Truth Forum is at the forefront of a rising conservative movement, championing a strong U.S.–ROK alliance and advocating for Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Israel, Pro–South Korea, and North Korean human rights. David regularly writes and speaks on national identity, international security, and cultural resistance, focusing on countering authoritarian influence and defending democratic values.
Axios
3 days ago
- Politics
- Axios
MAGA's world tour exports Trumpism beyond U.S. borders
MAGA media heavyweights are intervening in elections around the world, increasingly obsessed with exporting President Trump's brand of right-wing populism beyond America's borders. Why it matters: What began as a nationalist reaction to America's perceived decline has evolved into a global ideological crusade. Now at the apex of its domestic power, MAGA is rallying behind candidates who share its views on immigration, globalism and the fight for " Western Civilization." "We believe the fight for freedom and conservative values doesn't stop at America's borders," Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) chair Matt Schlapp told Axios. "That's why we've taken CPAC overseas — to stand united with courageous leaders and citizens who are resisting the globalist dangerous spread of authoritarianism, open borders, and Marxism." Driving the news: MAGA-aligned candidates have been competitive in a spate of recent elections, emboldening pro-Trump influencers to engage more actively in foreign politics. Poland: Conservative presidential candidate Karol Nawrocki is headed to runoff Sunday against liberal Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, in a race MAGA media is treating as a bellwether for Europe's political right. CPAC just held its first-ever event in Poland, where Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem took the extraordinary step of endorsing Nawrocki and denouncing Trzaskowski as a "an absolute train wreck." Romania: MAGA leaders — including Vice President Vance — excoriated Romanian authorities for annulling the results of December's election and banning the leading far-right candidate over allegations of Russian interference. In last week's re-run, MAGA podcasters like Jack Posobiec and Steve Bannon rallied behind pro-Trump candidate George Simion, who even described himself as running "on the MAGA ticket" Simion ultimately fell short to centrist Bucharest Mayor Nicusor Dan, a result that MAGA blamed on globalist meddling. United Kingdom: The insurgent Reform Party, led by arch Brexiteer and Bannon friend Nigel Farage, is leading in British polls less than a year after the center-left Labour Party won a landslide election. Farage has brought MAGA-style rallies to the U.K., and his growing influence has forced Prime Minister Keir Starmer to move sharply to the right on immigration. Germany: Vance, Elon Musk and scores of pro-Trump influencers have championed the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which had its best-ever showing in elections earlier this year. Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned German intelligence's since-retracted decision to classify AfD as a right-wing extremist organization, calling it "tyranny in disguise." Ireland: Former UFC champion Conor McGregor has teased a longshot bid for the Irish presidency on an anti-immigration platform. McGregor was hosted by Trump at the White House on St. Patrick's Day, and appeared on Tucker Carlson's podcast in April. South Korea: Bannon recorded a segment of his show Tuesday boosting the conservative candidate in South Korea's June 3 snap presidential election. Some MAGA figures have spread the theory that former conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol — impeached and removed after declaring martial law — was ousted in a China-backed coup. Between the lines: MAGA's foreign focus isn't entirely new: Trump supporters have long idolized populist strongmen like Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. But the movement is no longer just cheering on incumbents: It's actively trying to shape new political outcomes. "The good news is that after 10 long years, the institutional MAGA movement realizes the power in having friends overseas," said Raheem Kassam, former Farage adviser and current editor of The National Pulse. Reality check: Despite its rising international ambitions, MAGA's influence abroad has yielded mixed results. The AfD has been shut out of government in Germany, Simion lost in Romania, the liberal candidate is favored to win in South Korea, and McGregor might not even make the ballot in Ireland. Kassam told Axios the losses had piled up because American MAGA lacks political infrastructure abroad — and mistakes brash rhetoric for true rage-against-the-machine populism. A win in Poland would be a major symbolic victory — and a sign MAGA's global playbook might finally be working.
The Wire
3 days ago
- The Wire
How Ngugi wa Thiong'o Turned Away from English to the Language of His People to Write Great Literature
Rarely do fiction writers pay a price as heavy as Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o (1938–2025) did for writing. He lost his Nairobi University job, was imprisoned, spent many years in exile, was attacked and robbed, and his wife was sexually assaulted when he returned to Kenya on a visit. Tragedy and hardship were not new to Ngugi. When he was young, and Kenya was a British colony, one of his brothers was shot dead because, being deaf, he did not hear the English officer's command to stop. Ngugi had lived through the historic Mau Mau rebellion, during which his village, Limuru, was destroyed by British soldiers. His mother was arrested and spent three months in solitary confinement. All these experiences fed Ngugi's hatred for colonialism and imperialism, turned him towards Marxism and fueled his creativity. Turning adversity to advantage, Ngugi wrote his novel Devil on the Cross on rolls of toilet paper while in jail. Ngugi wa Thiongo's birth name was James Ngugi. In 1938, when he was born, Kenya was an English colony. By the time he changed his name around 1970, Kenya was a formally independent nation. But colonial legacies are sticky, stubborn and persistent. In 1977, after seventeen years of writing in English, Ngugi abandoned it and began writing in his native language, Gikuyu. This was hardly easy. English was the colonialists' language, but it was also an international language. Writing in English potentially gave access to a readership that was spread across the world. English also had the paraphernalia that enables circulation of literary works – publishing houses, journals and newspapers, university courses, etc. – that native languages such as Gikuyu lacked. Many languages of the colonial subjects did not even have a script. Also read: Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o: The Kenyan Icon Who Wrote For Freedom Till the Very End Ngugi went a step further. In his view, 'language was the most important vehicle through which [colonial] power fascinated and held the soul prisoner. The bullet was the means of the physical subjugation. Language was the means of the spiritual subjugation.' This also had a class dimension. African literature written in European languages was 'the literature of the petty-bourgeoisie.' And while it was true that this class was far from homogeneous, ranging from agents of imperialism to nationalists or even socialists, and that the literature they produced did play a part in projecting a dignified image of Africa and Africans, the class roots of this literature yet constrained it. For Ngugi, there was no alternative. The language of the coloniser and the imperialist had to be abandoned. The language of his people – the masses of people, the peasantry and the working class – had to be embraced. But languages are not like shirts, you can't just toss one aside and wear another. 'Language, any language, has a dual character: it is both a means of communication and a carrier of culture.' His first work in Gikuyu was a play, I Will Marry When I Want (in collaboration with Ngugi wa Mirii), followed by the novel Devil on the Cross , the musical play Mother Sing for Me , and several other works, including his 2006 opus, Wizard of the Crow . How the play came to be is a fascinating story. One day in 1976, a woman from Kamiriithu village came to Ngugi with a request: 'We hear you have a lot of education and that you write books. Why don't you give some of that education to the village?' There was a somewhat decrepit youth centre in the village, she said, and they wanted help to revive it. She visited Ngugi every week for the next month or so, till he relented. This is how he came to be associated with the Kamiriithu Community Education and Cultural Centre. At the centre, theatre was to be part of a larger cultural enterprise – the revival of pride in being Kenyan, in being African. Spreading literacy was one part of this revival. Theatre was the other. But they had no theatre – that is, an auditorium or playhouse. The peasants of Kamiriithu cleared an empty area and erected a stage, which was no more than a mud platform, and created makeshift seating for the audience. As Ngugi write later, 'Theatre is not a building. People make theatre. Their life is the very stuff of drama.' But what language do you use when making plays around the lives of ordinary, working people? Not a language that sounds foreign to the people, that is alien to their history. Ngugi, again: 'It was Kamiriithu which forced me to turn to Gikuyu and hence into what for me has amounted to 'an epistemological break' with my past.' The story of I Will Marry When I Want (original title: Ngaahika Ndeenda ) by Ngugi wa Thiongo and Ngugi wa Mirii revolves around the proletarianisation of the peasantry in a recently colonised country. In Ngugi's words, the play 'shows the way the Kiguunda family, a poor peasant family, which has to supplement their subsistence on their one and a half acres with the sale of their labour, is finally deprived of even the one and a half acres by a multinational consortium of Japanese and Euro-American industrialists and bankers aided by the native comprador landlords and businessmen.' If this sounds a bit like the 1952 Bimal Roy film Do Bigha Zameen , that's not because the two Ngugis had seen it, but because the experiences of ex-colonies were similar in many ways. Since the rehearsals of the play took place in the open, many villagers would sit around watching. In time, many of them knew the entire play by heart. They would bring their families and friends, and gradually, pretty much the entire village had seen the play before it opened. Many of them gave critical feedback and suggestions. Ngugi, used to the idea of a 'premiere' where a play is 'unveiled' in front of an admiring audience, wondered if anyone at all would come to watch when shows actually began. When the play opened on October 2, 1977, it was an immediate success. The villagers of Kamiriithu came, of course, but not so much as spectators as hosts. It was their play, and they had spread the word far and wide to other villages. The play became part of a spontaneous festival, a mela. One time, it rained so hard that the actors had to stop and the spectators had to take shelter. This happened three times. Yet, every time the play resumed, they found that no one from the audience had left. The play ran every day, drawing new and repeat audiences every day. It was a triumph. Till the Kenyan government banned any further performances of it on November 16, 1977. Ngugi was arrested on the last day of 1977 and spent the whole of the following year in a maximum security prison. Ngugi wa Thiong'o with the author, Sudhanva Deshpande. I met Ngugi in February 2018, and we spent several hours together in Kolkata and Delhi. I was invited by Seagull Books, his publisher, to engage him in a public conversation at the Victoria Memorial . I also interviewed him for Newsclick in Delhi. In these recorded interactions, I asked the questions and he answered. Off camera, though, it was the opposite. He was endlessly curious – about India (which he was visiting for the second time); about literature in various Indian languages; about India's relations with Pakistan; about the Indian Left movement and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in particular; about Jana Natya Manch, the theatre group I work with, and its founder Safdar Hashmi, who was murdered while performing; about how I came into theatre and became part of the communist movement; about my father, who was also a playwright; about the food we ate; and on and on. We interacted again, briefly, this time on email, when LeftWord Books published a set of essays called The East Was Read: Socialist Culture in the Third World , edited by Vijay Prashad. He wrote an essay on how the Soviet Union helped him when he was writing his novel Petals of Blood . The book has an essay by Deepa Bhasthi on her communist grandfather's library. Bhasthi recently won the International Booker Prize, for which Ngugi was also nominated a few years ago. In fact, he is the only person to have been nominated for a translation of his own work, and the only writer to have been nominated for a work in an African language. I asked Ngugi how on earth he wrote on toilet paper, which is so flimsy and highly absorbent. He laughed. 'Not the toilet paper they gave us in jail. It was hard and thick. It was meant to hurt our bums. I used it to hurt theirs.' As the world bids farewell to this giant of world literature, it is this spirit, indomitable and playfully subversive, that will continue to inspire. Sudhanva Deshpande is an actor and publisher. He is the author of 'Halla Bol: The Death and Life of Safdar Hashmi' (LeftWord Books 2020).
