Search

This article explores how the January 6th attack on the Capitol building is represented in the discourse of the participants in the insurrection. We analyze a self-compiled corpus of depositions and interviews with individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, assault, which we have named TruJan. The TruJan corpus was compiled from the GovInfo website. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC-22) was used for the analysis to extract the most frequent topics discussed by the interviewees during the hearings, along with sentences that showcase the attitudes of the speakers regarding the most salient issues. The second part of the article offers a close reading of the depositions and interviews with movement leaders or founders: Ali Alexander (Stop the Steal), Henry “Enrique” Tarrio (Proud Boys), and Stewart Rhodes (Oath Keepers). We argue that Trumpism’s latent totalist potential was made manifest in the January 6 attacks due to the political setbacks Trump faced when losing the 2020 elections, which was perceived as a state of crisis.

Peter Bernholz, Totalitarianism, Terrorism and Supreme Values. History and Theory Cham, Springer, 2017,160 pp. The book written by Peter Bernholz represents the culmination of a process, serving to refine his [...]

This paper aims to present several of the most important aspects concerning political spatiality and its various dimensions, such as the physical, symbolic and charismatized aspects. This analysis will serve a two-fold purpose: 1) depicting the main types of spatiality, while concentrating more on the difficulty in defining and categorising sacred space; 2) how the use of spatiality can aid in the creation of ideological hegemony, of social homogeneity and, ultimately, of a distinct teleological narrative which may legitimize communities, as well as modern ideocratic regimes. Keywords: spatiality, hegemony, regime, charismatization, legitimacy, This paper aims to systematically depict the main types of spatiality, as well as analysing how the use of spatiality can aid in the creation of ideological hegemony, of social [...]

THIS PAPER WILL PORTRAY SOME OF THE FUNDAMENTAL TRAITS ENCOUNTERED IN THE WORK OF A. C. POPOVICI REGARDING THE TENSIONS BETWEEN NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY. CULTURED, CONTROVERSIAL, RELENTLESS, AND HIGHLY COMBATIVE IN HIS CONDUCT THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE, POPOVICI WAS, AT THE SAME TIME, A COMPLEX THINKER, WHO SOUGHT TO PROMOTE A SOCIAL AND POLITICAL COUNTER-MODEL THAT WOULD PREVENT WHAT HE SAW AS THE LEVELLING INFLUENCE OF DEMOCRATIC MASS POLITICS, AS WELL AS THE ULTIMATE COLLAPSE OF THE NATION. THIS PAPER WILL FIRSTLY EXPLORE THE RECEPTION OF HIS SECOND MAJOR WORK, NATIONALISM OR DEMOCRACY, BOTH DURING HIS LIFETIME AND FURTHER ON. SECONDLY, THE PAPER WILL DEPICT THE IDEOLOGICAL ROOTS OF POPOVICI'S WORK, IDENTIFYING SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FEATURES OF HIS THOUGHT. THIRDLY, THE PAPER WILL ALSO CONSIDER THE IDEOLOGICAL OPPOSITES TO POPOVICI'S VISION, WHICH FUELLED HIS PERSISTENT ATTEMPTS TO SET HIMSELF AGAINST THE INCREASINGLY DEMOCRATIC CURRENTS OF HIS TIME. THE PAPER WILL THUS SHOW HOW POPOVICI REPRESENTED MORE THAN A SIMPLY REACTIONARY TAKE ON THE CONTEMPORARY UNDERSTANDING OF DEMOCRACY ITSELF, BUT ALSO A REPRESENTATIVE OF A WIDER CURRENT WHICH SOUGHT TO MAKE SENSE OF THE LEVELLING TENDENCIES THAT WERE TEARING DOWN EXISTING REALITIES AND ELITES, AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATING NEW ONES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]