It is chic to be an activist. More chic than being an extremist.

They are everywhere. They are the climate activists. The social activists. The LGBT activists and so on. The activists for Palestine. The activists for housing. The activists for animal rights. And so on, don't lack imagination. Activists can sit in front of a "camp" and put up a poster that reads "Revolution is beautiful" (which happened just now in Porto), and that doesn't make them revolutionary – they remain nice and smiling activists. Innocent activists. Activists can cut streets, occupy squares, burn trash bins (in the most modest version of burning cars and shops) without ever risking being accused of violating the law or being violent – if they bring a flower in their hair, it is that flower that will be seen, not the scarf that hides their face. Activists can threaten the prime minister, can throw Molotov cocktails at protesters who disagree, can demonstrate with a hanged rabbit when a ruler was called Rabbit, and everything forgives them because they are activists. Or at least that's how the communication logic works. That's also how the neologism we live in works. We know, or at least have a duty to know, the concept of neologism, the minimalist and totalitarian language that George Orwell imagined in 1984. Neologism, he explained to us, "was conceived not to increase, but to restrict the field of thought, indirectly served by reducing the range of words to a minimum." With fewer words we are confined in the freedom to think, as neologism was created so that everything becomes literally unthinkable "at least to the extent that thought depends on words." Orwell did not live in the time of the simplification of social media and the mimicry of television, but he would certainly recognize this tendency of ours to reduce everything to a not only innocuous but even laudable "activism." It is less pleasant to talk about party militants, despite many of the leaders of these groups having known relations with far-left parties, such as the PCP, the Bloc, and even other much smaller organizations (if you doubt, see here or listen here). It is even less cool to talk about union leaders, even if disguised (like seeing the former coordinator of CGTP-IN disguised as a Peace activist in a demonstration for Palestine). But we know what the house spends – or rather, we know the one that has transformed into the dominant media discourse, a discourse that has long lost any concern for balance and has turned into "causes." Talking about "activists" and "activism," repeating phrases about "rights" and "youth" is much nicer than portraying radicalism and revolutionary agendas. It is also curious to see how the terms "activism" and "activists" themselves have evolved in their meaning. As described in some academic publications that studied their use by the press (this one, for example, from the University of Utrecht), the term activism emerged about 100 years ago and in an initial phase it mostly portrayed radicals who advocated direct action. In the 1960s, student activism gave it a more pleasant character in the eyes of the public, and its adoption by dissidents of the old communist bloc added to it citizenship rights. From there, the term became vulgarized and ended up being adopted by many and different causes, as the guardians of language and good "causes" never allowed other political areas that are not theirs to self-identify as "activists" (our inevitable RTP and the pretentious Filomena Cautela even made a program on the subject, now broadcast on the "Ensina RTP" platform, to distinguish good activism from protesters like those we have seen these days, potential protesters of the opposite sign, people who precisely because they are of the opposite sign did not deserve the honor of the designation "activist"). This informational distortion was also retraced in another study, this one conducted at the University of Nova de Lisboa, which analyzed 175 articles from the Public involving climate activists, proving the globally pleasant portrayal they made of them in the pages of that newspaper. For example: "A strong component of self-representation, as well as several cases of placing direct quotes from the activist in the title and subtitle, portray a significantly more harmonious relationship between the media and the activists than observed in international studies. Titles and subtitles with direct quotes, paraphrases of activists' statements or assertions that coincide with the activists' perspectives define the tone of the article in solidarity with the activist. This data is particularly relevant if we consider that readers do not always read the article in its entirety." Moreover: these options "indicate a temporary abdication of the newspaper's main function to interpret and shape reality." Important note: the analysis focused on the year 2019, precisely the year that Climáximo was formed, a group that self-defines as "an informal and anti-capitalist collective." However, this anti-capitalist agenda is omitted by rule in the news coverage of the group, and not by chance. Just as media coverage of the training actions these organizations promote is rare – one of the rare exceptions is this report from The Observer – and which teach methods of what they call "civil disobedience," perhaps a form of struggle justified in dictatorships, not in democracies and states of law. This almost playful enchantment of contemporary journalism with this type of movements also leads to the fact that, perhaps fascinated by their aesthetics, they not only forgive their excesses but ignore their possible development. I am not talking about the enthusiasm with which appeals to violence are applauded – which is in itself very revealing –, but about a path whose destination is unknown. Look to France, since activists have already done so and already been inspired. Our civic culture is not identical to the French one and it is hard to imagine that the level of violence that Paris and other cities experienced this Saturday, with numerous looting and vandalism to the point of burning a historic building in Limoges, could happen. The responsibility of the far-left is undeniable, as is the coordinated action of radicals from anarchist groups like the "black bloc" and marginals, but the essential thing is that out of the aesthetics of the "student revolt," a monstrosity was built. It is worth quoting the editorial of Le Figaro: "Under the ashes: decades of cowardice, of conformity, of blindness. The contempt for all authority that gives the individual their feeling of omnipotence. The historical, social, cultural resentment that feeds revolutionary impulses. A justice indulgent with the delinquent, intractable with good citizens. The incomprehensible privilege of these militias of the far-left that destroy, burn, and kill with impunity. An uncontrolled immigration, in which a part rises against the country that welcomes it. A descerbrated school." We are not there, but we walk towards there. In the lap of the "activists" and the useful idiots who delight in camps and "popular assemblies". It is a pity not to call them what they try to be: embryos of soviets. Only it's out of fashion to talk about soviets. Follow me on Facebook, Twitter (@JMF1957) and Instagram (jmf1957).