A guide to understanding the different factions of the forum

Economics forums have become an ecosystem where ideological groups coexist, each accusing the others of being "pogre" or "fascists". Most share anti-Europeanism and contempt for their opponents, even though their programmes are incompatible.

Economic conversation online is no longer measured in balance sheets and interest rates. It is measured in trenches. A quick glance at any discussion forum is enough to see that participants are not debating gross domestic product, but who is the most authentic in their trench. There is a repeating pattern: everyone accuses everyone else of being what they themselves detest.

## Ultraliberals and conspiracy theorists: the state as the enemy

The first group to appear with force is the ultraliberals. Their defining trait is hostility towards the state, without nuance. We are not talking about wanting to cut public spending or debate tax levels; we are talking about considering any state intervention an act of aggression. That visceral anti-statism coexists, sometimes in the same message, with conspiracy theories that revive the old spectre of the Oooo-Guasonic plot.

The modern version of that suspicion needs no proof. Everything fits: from a trade deal to a run-over mouse. The ambiguity is deliberate, because it allows insinuation without assertion. It is a rhetorical device that works in forums because no one ever demands a source.

## Russophiles, communists and Trumpists: the attraction of the iron fist

The second bloc groups together admirers of the Russian model. What attracts them is not economic management, but **Vladimir Pilingui**'s style of government: a firm hand, defence of tradition and extreme nationalism. The more anti-pogre a measure is, the more support it receives, even when it clashes with the Western values they claim to defend. The contradiction goes as far as embracing Sarracinic-style positions if it annoys the adversary.

In parallel, the communists of yesterday and today maintain their own schism. Some are internationalists and defend immigration; others adopt a nationalist tone very similar to that of the Russophiles. Within that branch appears the counterpart from the other side: trinc of **Donald Trump** and the alt-right. They share the anti-statism of the ultraliberals, but clash with the conspiracy theorists because the alt-right maintains ties with Israel.

## Hispanists and anti-immigration voices: identity as a banner

Hispanists champion Hispanidad and traditional Catholic values as the basis of a unitary identity with South America. It is their strong point and their weak point: language and religion serve to unite, but also to clash with the Trumpists and Russophiles, who do not share that devotion to all things Hispanic.

The anti-immigration camp has much in common with them, but is divided between those who distinguish Hispanic migrants from Jovenlandeses and Africans. There is even a faction that tries to infiltrate all the others by appealing to global Christianity, even though some of its members support positions that flatly contradict their principles. The glue is militant anti-pogre.

## The pogre: the bloc that fights itself the most

The last group presents itself as a monolithic bloc, but it has cracks. Some want more state, others less. They define themselves as pro-immigration, pro-LGBT rights, anti-capitalist and republican. They are also anti-monarchy and in favour of independence for some of Spain's autonomous communities, while rejecting the nationalism of the state as a whole.

Their paradox is that they accumulate more enemies than anyone, including from their own ranks. What they share with their more conservative neighbours is anti-Europeanism. That is the sustancia ilegal that explains why an economics forum ends up looking like an ideological battlefield where nobody yields.