Thailand: Key ASEAN Nation Emerges from COVID-19

June 12th, 2020 by Joseph Thomas

The Kingdom of Thailand plays a central role in the Southeast Asian ASEAN economic bloc. It has a population of nearly 70 million, the second largest economy in the region and hosts a key leg of China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative including high speed rail that will connect China (via Laos) to Malaysia and beyond.

Thus, regional recovery in the wake of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) depends on central nations like Thailand’s quick and orderly recovery.

COVID-19’s Impact

For Thailand, the impact of COVID-19 has been mostly socioeconomic. The disease itself had a minimum health impact with health services easily accommodating the approximately 3,000 cases with less than 60 resulting in deaths. The deaths themselves were linked to serious pre-existing chronic illnesses and advanced age.

Regardless, the government took quick action, instating curfews, lockdowns and restricting both internal travel and international arrivals. Coupled with measures taken by China to restrict departures of tour groups, Thailand’s tourist industry took a particularly hard hit considering arrivals from China make up the vast majority of Thailand’s tourism business.

Thai businesses big and small also depend heavily on Chinese manufacturing for both components and for retailing. The temporary closure of Chinese factories created the first of two major setbacks for Thai businesses hitting supply, while lockdowns and curfews hit demand.

However, Thailand possesses a massive “informal economy” with myriad small independent businesses which have proven over the years to be exceptionally agile even in times of crisis. The use of modern telecommunication and IT technology (particularly online shopping and delivery apps) together with delivery services allowed to continue operating by the government during lockdown, many food, beverage and retail businesses continued operating, allowing many Thais to continue making a living despite restrictions.

Recovery

The Thai government is investing heavily in breathing life back into the Thai economy, having already provided several programmes to aid those temporarily unemployed during the lockdown now being lifted incrementally across the country.

This includes a stimulus package aimed at helping businesses recover from the extended period of shuttered or partially shuttered business. State enterprises are also being restructured to prevent massive disruptions and losses in the event something like COVID-19 occurs again.

Because Thailand has strong economic fundamentals including a strong agricultural and manufacturing base as well as strong trade ties within both Southeast Asia and wider Asia including China who is itself on its way to recovery, Thailand will likely succeed in restoring economic stability and the return to normality in short order.

Thailand is also looking into ways of heading off similar disruptions in the future by looking for ways to bolster domestic economic activity in the event that foreign trade and tourism is ever cut off again.

Complications

While the majority of Thailand is eager to get back to business there is a small but loud minority eager to seize upon the crisis to compound Thailand’s situation. This includes the US-backed political opposition led by the now defunct “Future Forward Party” (FFP) disbanded for blatant election law violations.

Despite being cast out of politics, FFP’s leader, nepotist billionaire Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit continues to fund and organise disruptive street activities mirroring efforts in nearby Hong Kong to complicate and corrode stability in China. He does so with extensive support from the US and European media as well as US-European funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organisations.

“Student” protesters have vowed to resume street protests despite the party they support having already run in and lost elections in 2019, with FFP coming in distant 3rd with some 2 million fewer votes than the currently ruling Palang Pracharath Party.

But just as is done elsewhere by the US, struggling opposition groups with minimal prospects of ever coming to power on their own are searched out and built up either to seize power and serve as a client regime or to create enough instability to exact concessions from a nation’s ruling government.

In Thailand’s case the US seeks to place a divide between it and China, complicating China’s OBOR ambitions and removing from China’s foreign trade ties a large and constructive economic partner. Thailand’s recent military acquisitions have also been largely from China which has been followed by growing Thai-Chinese military cooperation, replacing Thai-US cooperation that had been cultivated by Washington since the Vietnam War.

For all of these reasons and more, the US and the opposition it funds and backs in Thailand are bent on complicating Thailand’s return to normal in the wake of COVID-19 to in turn complicate China’s recovery and in a much longer-term effort, complicate China’s rise as a global power.

While Thailand and other nations around the globe work both on their own and in cooperation with each other to return stability and prosperity to their respective societies, the United States and its partners are determined to draw out the damage as long as possible and in the hopes of leveraging it to their advantage.

This more than anything else helps reveal what is behind supposed “pro-democracy” protests who seem to have endless resources and time even as the rest of society struggles to return to work and make a living.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. 

Featured image is from NEO

A video clip shared by local farmers from Ras Al-Ayn showing an inferno burning their livelihood before their eyes, hundreds of acres of wheat on fire just as the crop is due to harvest.

We’ve been reporting about these fires in areas of operation of the NATO’s Turkish (Orwellian-named) ‘Spring of Peace’ military operation in northern, and especially in northeastern Syria regions as well as in areas where remnants and sleeper cells of NATO-sponsored terrorists of ISIS and its affiliates are active in the south of the country.

The video is also available on BitChute and Dailymotion.

Truly, hearing is not like seeing, any person with the least sense of humanity, especially citizens of all NATO member countries as these crimes are committed in their names with their tax money making them accomplices in the crimes, should be appalled of these scenes and should condemn these war crimes and call for the culprits to face justice.

Syria has officially filed a complaint to the NATO-dominated United Nations Security Council against these crimes committed by terrorists operating directly under the protection and sponsorship of the Turkish Army TSK of NATO, with the help of their US allies. But we all know the hapless mechanism of the United Nations and how only resolutions in favor of NATO countries are implemented, and under its Article 7 of its Charter when needed, the article that enforces the resolutions with military power.

Burning of wheat crops started earlier by the US-sponsored Kurdish separatist SDF and Asayish militias in Qamishli, Hasakah, when the farmers refused to sell their crops to Turkey for cheap and be paid in Turkish Lira, they were insisted on selling it to the Syrian state for the fair price offered to them by their government and in the Syrian Lira, therefore, the Kurdish separatists looted their crops and burned down what they couldn’t loot.

Kurdish PYD Asayish SDF Torching Wheat Farms in Qamishli

Kurdish separatist SDF armed militia burning wheat fields in Qamishli (video)

These war crimes are part of the Trump regime’s ‘Maximum Pressure’ official policy against countries that do not accept puppet rulers loyal to the US working against the interests of their own people, Syria has been on the Pentagon’s destabilizing and threats since 1956 and these destabilization efforts and threats only increased through the past decades reaching this month with the so-called ‘Caesar Act‘, a US regime of sanctions approved by the ‘democratically elected representatives of the US citizens to Congress’ and by the ‘democratically elected president’ in addition to the already draconian sanctions imposed earlier to suffocate the last breath the Syrian ordinary people can take.

This ‘economic terrorism’ act comes at the same time the whole world is calling on the USA and its European minions to lift off the sanctions, instead, the EU renewed their illegal inhumane unilateral sanctions against Syria for one more year earlier this month and the US Special Envoy to Syria James Jeffery gloating about the hardship this act is causing the Syrian people bragged: ‘The hardship the Syrian are living and the collapse of their national currency is the result of our policies.:

The US-led War of Terror and Attrition War it is waging against the Syrian ordinary people under the guise of ‘helping them out of oppression’, these lies should stop but we are very much aware and especially after we saw how the policy of sucking the life out of people and not allowing them to breathe is deeply rooted in the US culture, we are not betting much on their humanity rather on their fear of Karma, you will reap what you sow sooner or later and on Judgment Day there won’t be elections to manipulate or hide behind or any navy carriers protecting you, you’ll be called individually to stand naked before your creator and in front of all humans to answer for your crimes against others, including your silence to the crimes committed in your name by your politicians and military and with your money.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All images in this article are from Syria News

Crash of the Dollar? Is the US Dollar Doomed?

June 12th, 2020 by Timothy Alexander Guzman

The US Dollar is in trouble. Many of us in the alternative media and several economists who were ignored by the mainstream media and others saw this coming many years ago. The mainstream media is now listening, in this case Bloomberg News in an opinion piece written by Stephen Roach, ‘A Crash in the Dollar Is Coming’ gives the reader something to think about. What is surprising is what Mr. Roach said in the beginning of his piece, “the world is having serious doubts about the once widely accepted presumption of American exceptionalism.” A truth to consider given the fact that the world sees Washington’s double standards when it comes to geopolitics, economics and free trade.  Roach says that the U.S. dollar’s “exorbitant privilege” is over:

The era of the U.S. dollar’s “exorbitant privilege” as the world’s primary reserve currency is coming to an end. Then French Finance Minister Valery Giscard d’Estaing coined that phrase in the 1960s largely out of frustration, bemoaning a U.S. that drew freely on the rest of the world to support its over-extended standard of living. For almost 60 years, the world complained but did nothing about it. Those days are over

Wow, makes me think how long he will last working at Bloomberg? Not only did the US cripple its economy by consuming a massive amount of debt that will never be repaid, they supported government programs, corporate bailouts and the most expensive government bill for taxpayers to date, funding the military-industrial complex. Trump increased the military budget to rebuild the military to continue its wars in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq with new wars in the making with Iran and possibly Venezuela.  Washington loves wasting trillions of dollars to sow destruction and chaos to keep the oil and heroin coming into U.S. shores. They have used US dollars as leverage against its adversaries from the Caribbean to the Asia Pacific for not obeying Uncle Sam. The US has imposed an embargo on Cuba, followed by economic sanctions on various nations for decades.  Now the US is about to experience a new reality and that is it’s weapon of choice, the US dollar is on a verge of collapse. When will it happen? We don’t know, we don’t have crystal ball to foresee when exactly the US dollar will collapse, but it will happen:

Already stressed by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, U.S. living standards are about to be squeezed as never before. At the same time, the world is having serious doubts about the once widely accepted presumption of American exceptionalism. Currencies set the equilibrium between these two forces — domestic economic fundamentals and foreign perceptions of a nation’s strength or weakness. The balance is shifting, and a crash in the dollar could well be in the offing

An article published by Marketwatch.com in 2019 ‘Why Jim Rogers rejects notion of U.S. dollar as safe haven’ said that “Enter Jim Rogers, the chairman of Rogers Holdings, who says dollar fundamentals are “horrible,” but he’s buying it to prepare for the currency’s last-gasp rally.” Rogers declared in an interview with Real Vision that “People would think the U.S. dollar is a safe haven, it’s not. The fundamentals are horrible. Nobody in his right mind would buy the U.S. dollar, but I own a lot…because I’m not in my right mind. I’m assuming that the rest of the world is not in its mind either and they’re all going to buy it.” Jim Rogers predicted that the US dollar will be a bubble in a couple of years “I’m not very good at market timing but I would expect it to be in the next period of turmoil, which will be coming in the next two or three years.” He was right as many others with the Covid -19 scare plus protests over the murder of George Floyd followed by economic instability is a combination that will pop the debt bubble. Stephen Roach also mentions the enormous budget deficit:

Lacking in domestic saving, and wanting to invest and grow, the U.S. has taken great advantage of the dollar’s role as the world’s primary reserve currency and drawn heavily on surplus savings from abroad to square the circle. But not without a price. In order to attract foreign capital, the U.S. has run a deficit in its current account — which is the broadest measure of trade because it includes investment — every year since 1982.

Covid-19, and the economic crisis it has triggered, is stretching this tension between saving and the current-account to the breaking point. The culprit: exploding government budget deficits. According to the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the federal budget deficit is likely to soar to a peacetime record of 17.9% of gross domestic product in 2020 before hopefully receding to 9.8% in 2021

Roach does write for an anti-Trump financial news outlet and possibly salvaged his job as he conveniently blames President Trump (in all fairness, he does deserve at least some of the blame) for the economic decline, but this in all due respect began when the US government launched its quest to abandon the gold standard in 1933, then it officially ended the gold standard in 1971.  The US dollar is not backed by anything of value, it’s only backed by imposing sanctions, embargoes or by military threats if any sovereign nation planned to switch into alternative currencies to free themselves from the US dollar:

Look no further than the Trump administration. Protectionist trade policies, withdrawal from the architectural pillars of globalization such as the Paris Agreement on Climate, Trans-Pacific Partnership, World Health Organization and traditional Atlantic alliances, gross mismanagement of Covid-19 response, together with wrenching social turmoil not seen since the late 1960s, are all painfully visible manifestations of America’s sharply diminished global leadership

Roach forgets to mention that it is not when Trump decided to withdraw the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) that “diminished” US global leadership, it is the wars of aggression, orchestrated coups, embargoes, economic sanctions, unfair trade policies, interfering in foreign elections and assassinating foreign leaders that has “diminished” Washington’s power, not Trump’s withdrawal from globalist organizations.  Many nations around the world are now aiming at the Achilles heel of Washington’s power and that is the US dollar. Roach claims that the demise of the US dollar will become inflationary, followed by a weak economic recovery, then by stagflation:

The coming collapse in the dollar will have three key implications: It will be inflationary — a welcome short-term buffer against deflation but, in conjunction with what is likely to be a weak post-Covid economic recovery, yet another reason to worry about an onset of stagflation — the tough combination of weak economic growth and rising inflation that wreaks havoc on financial markets

Several nations have been dumping US dollars including China, Russia, Iran with many more to follow. The reign of the US dollar is coming to an end as the world is quickly moving into a different direction. One quote that always lingers in my mind is from Gerald Celente, Founder of the Trends Research Institute and publisher of Trends Journalwho has warned the US population for years in getting prepared for what’s coming ahead, he recommends the three G’s “Guns, Gold and a Getaway Plan.” I recommend silver if gold is out of reach.  Stock up on food, water supplies, weapons to protect yourself and your family and the most important thing to do is to surround yourself with like- minded people who understand what is happening.  Rapper Nipsey Hussle who was murdered in 2019 in South Los Angeles once said that “If you look at the people in your circle and don’t get inspired, then you don’t have a circle. You have a cage.” Think outside the box, think about yourself and your family and get together with those who have a plan to survive. Take action and protect yourself because sooner or later, the US economy will collapse, it’s inevitable, besides the mainstream media is now starting to sound the alarm, and that is worrisome. There is still time to prepare, act now.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Canada’s UN Security Bid Shaken by Canadian Protests on Israel

June 12th, 2020 by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) believes that Canada’s bid for a UN Security Council (UNSC) seat has been badly shaken by an influential Canadian grassroots campaign. CJPME obtained a letter from Canada’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations, addressed to all UN Member and Observer States and signed June 10, 2020, which seeks to defend Canada’s record on Israel and Palestine. Canada’s letter is a direct response to the campaign “Canada does not deserve a seat on the UN Security Council,” which is supported by hundreds of organizations and prominent individuals calling UN member states to vote against Canada’s candidacy for the UNSC seat.

“It is clear that Canada’s reps at the UN have heard back from UN members asking tough questions about the points that this grassroots campaign has been raising,” said Thomas Woodley, President of CJPME. “Quite honestly, Canada’s international record is weak in several areas, and Canada should be forced to respond to these legitimate concerns.”

For years, CJPME and others have criticized Canada’s one-sided policy on Israel-Palestine, pointing out that Canada frequently provides cover for Israeli human rights abuses in international forums, and protects Israel from condemnation or censure.

The grassroots campaign opposing Canada’s bid had criticized Canada’s “anti-Palestinian record,” noting that Canada has voted against 166 UN General Assembly resolutions critical of Israel since 2000. According to campaign spokesperson Karen Rodman, “Canada has consistently isolated itself against world opinion when it comes to the long-suffering Palestinians.” Many UN members are upset that Israel commits egregious human rights abuses against the Palestinians with impunity, and with the acquiescence of the US, Canada and other Western nations.

In its response letter, Canada’s UN mission sought to defend its various positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Nevertheless, since 2015, the Trudeau government has been extremely reticent to pressure Israel on its human rights abuses. Canada, for example, has been one of the last Western leaders to express concern – albeit tepid – over Israel’s plan to illegally annex Palestinian territory later this summer. The Trudeau government has also strengthened bilateral ties with Israel in recent years, while Canada’s former foreign affairs minister Chrystia Freeland claimed that if Canada got on the UNSC, it would try to serve as an “asset to Israel.” CJPME issued a statement last week calling Canada to defer its bid for a UNSC seat until it improves its record on the Israel-Palestine and other international files. The UNSC vote is scheduled for next week, on June 17.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from The Palestinian Chronicle

Colombian senators on Wednesday said that U.S. troops that arrived in the South American country in early June are allowed to associate with illegal groups and seek an eventual international confrontation.

The Democratic Congressman Ivan Cepeda revealed that the current manuals of the U.S. special forces (SFAB) that arrived in Colombia “mention the function of advising non-governmental militias and illegal partners.”

“We can end up like Libya, a destroyed state that has become a field for the multinational oil companies,” the opposition congressman added.

The arrival of U.S. military personnel in the country without the consent of Congress demonstrates the responsibility of the government of Ivan Duque in that regard.

The presence of foreign troops in Colombia violates the Peace Agreement aplication. It turns social plan implementation territories into theatres of war.

The Democratic Pole, Congressman Wilson Arias, also valued that, “this is the operations manual of the US special forces, strengthening paramilitary groups and working with them.

Since the end of May, 53 military personnel have arrived in the country: five on May 27 and 48 on Tuesday.

The military are in obligatory preventive isolation and as soon as they finish the quarantine they will move to Tumaco (Nariño), Tibú (Norte de Santander), Macarena (Meta) and the rest will stay in Bogotá.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Members of the US Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and the Colombian National at Tolemaida Air Base, in Nilo, Colombia, January 25, 2020. | Photo: Twitter/ @chrstphr_woody

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Troops in Colombia “Associate with Illegal Groups”, Killing Farmers, Seek to “Spark a War with Venezuela”
  • Tags: , ,
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Battles over Education: Australia, China and Unsafe Universities

No Economic Sovereignty Without Political Sovereignty

June 12th, 2020 by Manlio Dinucci

There is a  current discussion on how much and what kind of funding Italy will receive from the European Union and under what conditions. Reassuring messages arrive from Brussels. But since such financing will be mostly provided in the form of loans, several economists warn that there is a danger of heavy debt and further loss of economic sovereignty.

Political-media attention therefore focuses on relations between Italy and the European Union. An important issue, which cannot however be separated from the relations between Italy and the United States, and nobody discusses in Parliament and major media.

Italian public continues to ignore the implications of this “assistance” plan for Italy launched by President Trump on April 10 (il manifesto, 14 April 2020). Yet the US ambassador to Italy, Lewis Eisenberg, calls it “the greatest financial aid that the United States has ever given to a Western European country since 1948, since the time of the Marshall Plan.”

In support of anti-Covid health activities, already “tens of million of dollars have gone and will go to the Red Cross and some non-governmental organizations” (not better identified). In addition to this, the plan provides for a series of interventions to “support the recovery of Italian economy“.

President Trump has ordered the Secretaries of  Treasury and Commerce, the president of the Export-Import Bank, the administrator of the US Agency for International Development, the director of the United States International Development Finance Corporation (Government Agency financing private development projects) to use their tools to «support Italian companies» for this purpose. Nobody says which companies are and will be financed under this plan, nor under what conditions are these loans bound to.

Ambassador Eisenberg speaks in general of excellent relations between the United States and Italy, demonstrated by “important economic and strategic indicators“, including “one of the largest military agreements with Fincantieri“, which gained a contract of about $6 billion for the construction of ten US Navy multi-role frigates last May. The Italian group is controlled 70% by the Ministry of Economy and Finance, has three shipyards in the US, where four similar warships for Saudi Arabia are also under construction.

Another important economic and strategic indicator is the growing integration of Leonardo, the largest Italian military industry in the US military-industrial complex, especially through the largest US military industry Lockheed Martin. The Ministry of Economy and Finance is the main shareholder of Leonardo, which supplies the USA with products and services to the armed forces and intelligence agencies, and manages Lockheed’s F-35 fighters Martin factory in Cameri, Italy.

These and other powerful interests – especially those of large financial groups – bind Italy to the United States. Italy’s foreign and military policy is also an economic policy, subordinated to the strategy of the United States based on an increasingly acute political, economic and military confrontation with Russia and China. Washington’s plan is clear: exploiting the crisis and the fractures in the EU to strengthen US influence in Italy.

The consequences are obvious. For example, it would be in our national interest to remove sanctions to Moscow reviving Italian exports to Russia and restore export especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, this choice has been made impossible by our dependence on the choices made in Washington and Brussels. At the same time, Italy’s agreements with China under the New Silk Road project are under threat, they are not welcome to Washington.

The lack of real political sovereignty prevents these and other vital economic choices to exit the crisis. But, on political talk shows there is no mention of all this.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Il Manifesto. Translated from Italian by Jean Toschi Marazzani Visconti.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

On June 9, an improvised explosive device exploded on the route of the patrol of the Russian Military Police near the town of Ayn al-Arab (also known as Kobani) in northern Syria. Initially, Kurdish sources claimed that at least 3 Russian service members were injured in the attack. The Russian reconciliation center denied these claims saying that nobody had been injured in the explosion. Photos from the site of the incident show that the TIGR infantry mobility vehicle was significantly damaged. Attack helicopters were deployed to cover the return of Russian troops to their permanent deployment location.

No group has claimed responsibility for the IED attack. However, pro-Turkish sources as always blamed US-backed Kurdish armed groups for the provocation. Just recently, the number of incidents in northeastern Syria between US and Russian patrols increased. Both the forces of the US-led coalition and the Russian Military Police work to limit each other’s freedom of movement. On top of this, the US military openly admits that it is working to prevent the Russians from strengthening their positions in this part of Syria.

Later on June 9, the Russian Military Police and the Turkish Army conducted a joint patrol near the border town of Derbasiya. The patrol took place without incident. At the same time, the Syrian Army reinforced its positions at the Tabqa Military Airport. Over the past weeks, government forces have significantly increased their military presence in this part of Raqqa province.

On June 10, artillery units of the Syrian Army struck fortified positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its allies near the villages of al-Fatirah, Fulayfil and Dahr al-Kabir in southern Idlib. Following the recent clashes near Tunjarah, militants have increased their activity along the contact line. Pro-government sources claim that al-Qaeda-linked groups are preparing a major attack on Syrian Army positions.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also reacted to the current tensions by claiming that the Damascus government was increasing provocations and Turkey would not allow Idlib to become a conflict zone again. It is interesting to note how the Turkish President manages to describe regular violations of the ceasefire regime by Turkish-protected al-Qaeda groups in such terms.

Turkey’s silent agreement with terrorists allowed its forces to set up a network of observation posts along the M4 highway in southern Idlib and even to secure the joint Turkish-Russian patrols along a part of the highway.Nonetheless, the continued tolerance of the presence of the terrorist groups in Greater Idlib creates strong preconditions for the destabilization of the region.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Support South Front in its endeavors. If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Explosion Targets Russian Military Police Patrol in Northern Syria. Who Was Behind It?

The Syrian Army and the National Defense Forces have repelled an attack on their positions in southern Idlib.

On June 8, forces of the Ghurfat Eamaliat wa-Harid al-Mu’minin coalition of al-Qaeda-linked militant groups stormed the villages of Tanjarah and Fattirah. Militants captured the villages and reportedly killed at least 2 soldiers and destroyed a BMP vehicle. Clashes continued till the evening, when government forces finally retook the area. According to released photos and videos, at least 3 militants were killed, a vehicle and a motorcycle were also destroyed.

Pro-militant sources claimed that Syrian and Russian warplanes carried out over a dozen airstrikes on targets across the Al-Ghab Plain.

A few days earlier, Ghurfat Eamaliat wa-Harid al-Mu’minin and its allies from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which remains the most influential armed group in Idlib, deployed large reinforcements to the Zawiya Mount area.

Early on June 9, Syrian government forces shelled Hayat Tahrir al-Sham positions near Hantoteen, al-Ruwaihah and Benin.

Pro-government sources claim that several units of the 4th Armoured Division are now being deployed at this part of the contact line.

The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the US-led coalition finished the second part of their anti-ISIS operation on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. According to the SDF, the raids took place in at least 15 villages and 12 ISIS terrorists were detained.

Late on June 8, a rocket launched by unknown gunmen landed in the vicinity of Baghdad International Airport. The Iraqi military said that the rocket was launched from the area south of the airport and that the rocket strike caused no material damage or casualties. On the same day, reports appeared that a C-130 military transport aircraft of the US-led coalition skidded off a runway at Camp Taji. The Pentagon confirmed the incident saying that 4 people had been injured.

Usbat al-Tha’ireen, an Iraqi anti-US armed group that already claimed responsibility for several attacks on the coalition, immediately reacted to the incident by posting the message “With patience, we are victorious”.

While it remains highly unlikely that any of the recently surfaced Iraqi anti-US groups were somehow linked to the incident, they will for sure exploit the situation for their own propaganda purposes.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Support South Front in its endeavors. If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Syrian Army Repelled Militant Attack in Southern Idlib. US Air Force C-130 Plane Crashed in Iraq

Defund the Police, Defund the Military

June 11th, 2020 by Medea Benjamin

On June 1, President Trump threatened to deploy active-duty U.S. military forces against peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters in cities across America. Trump and state governors eventually deployed at least 17,000 National Guard troops across the country. In the nation’s capital, Trump deployed nine Blackhawk assault helicopters, thousands of National Guard troops from six states and at least 1,600 Military Police and active-duty combat troops from the 82nd Airborne Division, with written orders to pack bayonets.

After a week of conflicting orders during which Trump demanded 10,000 troops in the capital, the active-duty troops were finally ordered back to their bases in North Carolina and New York on June 5th, as the peaceful nature of the protests made the use of military force very obviously redundant, dangerous and irresponsible. But Americans were left shell-shocked by the heavily armed troops, the tear gas, the rubber bullets and the tanks that turned U.S. streets into war zones. They were also shocked to realize how easy it was for President Trump, single-handedly, to muster such a chilling array of force.

But we shouldn’t be surprised. We have allowed our corrupt ruling class to build the most destructive war machine in history and to place it in the hands of an erratic and unpredictable president. As protests against police brutality flooded our nation’s streets, Trump felt emboldened to turn this war machine against us—and may well be willing to do it again if there is a contested election in November.

Americans are getting a small taste of the fire and fury that the U.S. military and its allies inflict on people overseas on a regular basis from Iraq and Afghanistan to Yemen and Palestine, and the intimidation felt by the people of Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and other countries that have long lived under U.S. threats to bomb, attack or invade them.

Source: CODEPINK

For African-Americans, the latest round of fury unleashed by the police and military is only an escalation of the low-grade war that America’s rulers have waged against them for centuries. From the horrors of slavery to post-Civil War convict leasing to the apartheid Jim Crow system to today’s mass criminalization, mass incarceration and militarized policing, America has always treated African-Americans as a permanent underclass to be exploited and “kept in their place” with as much force and brutality as that takes.

Today, Black Americans are at least four times as likely to be shot by police as white Americans and six times as likely to be thrown in prison. Black drivers are three times more likely to be searched and twice as likely to be arrested during traffic stops, even though police have better luck finding contraband in white people’s cars. All of this adds up to a racist policing and prison system, with African-American men as its prime targets, even as U.S. police forces are increasingly militarized and armed by the Pentagon.

Racist persecution does not end when African-Americans walk out the prison gate. In 2010, a third of African-American men had a felony conviction on their record, closing doors to jobs, housing, student aid, safety net programs like SNAP and cash assistance, and in some states the right to vote. From the first “stop and frisk” or traffic stop, African-American men face a system designed to entrap them in permanent second-class citizenship and poverty.

Just as the people of Iran, North Korea and Venezuela suffer from poverty, hunger, preventable disease and death as the intended results of brutal U.S. economic sanctions, systemic racism has similar effects in the U.S., keeping African-Americans in exceptional poverty, with double the infant mortality rate of whites and schools that are as segregated and unequal as when segregation was legal. These underlying disparities in health and living standards appear to be the main reason why African-Americans are dying from Covid-19 at more than double the rate of White Americans.

Liberating a neocolonial world

While the U.S. war on the black population at home is now exposed for all of America–and the world–to see, the victims of U.S. wars abroad continue to be hidden. Trump has escalated the horrific wars he inherited from Obama, dropping more bombs and missiles in 3 years than either Bush II or Obama did in their first terms.

But Americans don’t see the terrifying fireballs of the bombs. They don’t see the dead and maimed bodies and rubble the bombs leave in their wake. American public discourse about war has revolved almost entirely around the experiences and sacrifices of U.S. troops, who are, after all, our family members and neighbors. Like the double standard between white and black lives in the U.S., there is a similar double standard between the lives of U.S. troops and the millions of casualties and ruined lives on the other side of the conflicts the U.S. armed forces and U.S. weapons unleash on other countries.

When retired generals speak out against Trump’s desire to deploy active-duty troops on America’s streets, we should understand that they are defending precisely this double standard. Despite draining the U.S. Treasury to wreak horrific violence against people in other countries, while failing to “win” wars even on its own confused terms, the U.S. military has maintained a surprisingly good reputation with the U.S. public. This has largely exempted the armed forces from growing public disgust with the systemic corruption of other American institutions.

Generals Mattis and Allen, who came out against Trump’s deployment of U.S. troops against peaceful protesters, understand very well that the fastest way to squander the military’s “teflon” public reputation would be to deploy it more widely and openly against Americans within the United States.

Just as we are exposing the rot in U.S. police forces and calling for defunding the police, so we must expose the rot in U.S. foreign policy and call for defunding the Pentagon. U.S. wars on people in other countries are driven by the same racism and ruling class economic interests as the war against African-Americans in our cities. For too long, we have let cynical politicians and business leaders divide and rule us, funding police and the Pentagon over real human needs, pitting us against each other at home and leading us off to wars against our neighbors abroad.

The double standard that sanctifies the lives of U.S. troops over those of the people whose countries they bomb and invade is as cynical and deadly as the one that values white lives over black ones in America. As we chant “Black Lives Matter,” we should include the lives of black and brown people dying every day from U.S. sanctions in Venezuela, the lives of black and brown people being blown up by U.S. bombs in Yemen and Afghanistan, the lives of people of color in Palestine who are tear-gassed, beaten and shot with Israeli weapons funded by U.S-taxpayers. We must be ready to show solidarity with people defending themselves against U.S.-sponsored violence whether in Minneapolis, New York and Los Angeles, or Afghanistan, Gaza and Iran.

This past week, our friends around the world have given us a magnificent example of what this kind of international solidarity looks like. From London, Copenhagen and Berlin to New Zealand, Canada and Nigeria, people have poured into the streets to show solidarity with African-Americans. They understand that the U.S. lies at the heart of a racist political and economic international order that still dominates the world 60 years after the formal end of Western colonialism. They understand that our struggle is their struggle, and we should understand that their future is also our future.

So as others stand with us, we must also stand with them. Together we must seize this moment to move from incremental reform to real systemic change, not just within the U.S. but throughout the racist, neocolonial world that is policed by the U.S. military.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq

“Who excavates Muslim Palestinian graves and mosques in [Palestine’s] depopulated towns and why?”, asks Haifa-based Palestinian advocate Jehad Abu-Rayya.

“Recently,” he goes on, “these desecrations have been on the increase — In the village of Beit Jibreen, in the village of Al-Lajjun, in the village of Amwas, in the village of Al-Ghabisiya, village of Hittin — and these are only a few of such attempts before Israel implements its [Trump’s] plan [in reference to the forthcoming annexation of parts of the West Bank]. This list does not include the demolition, desecration, and erosion of [Palestinian] graves and shrines in Jaffa, Safed, Ain Hud, Sindiyana and others.”

Jehad Abu Raya’s post of his article (من ينبش القبور والمساجد في البلدات المهجرة ولماذا؟) on Facebook generated outrage and comments such as the following translated from Arabic:

“They are afraid of history, afraid of Mujahideen, even in their graves, because they are thieves, and the thief is always in fear and does not feel safe. Even in my town, there were excavations inside the shrine and mausoleum of Abu al-Hija. They excavate and place a small plaque and write on it their history and in the future they say this shrine is about us Jews and goes back in history for such and such a year. Beware those who counterfeit history.”

“There is a big difference between robbing graves and digging graves to conceal history. Grave robbers are thieves looking for valuables to pilfer, a sin against God; the deliberate destruction and concealment of history, such as what happened in the cemetery and the depopulated village of Benechir at the bottom of the Carmel Mountains in Haifa [is another matter].”

“This is a new old file. We, a group of tour guides, have noticed through our tours and visits to these sites that the matter has worsened and has become disturbing, as it is a blatant violation of the sanctity of holy sites and Islamic cemeteries. And if the perpetrators are seemingly unknown, then the purpose behind the deed reveals the truth.”

“Of course, they are not able to erase us, so they erase our ancestors.”

“They stole the country and made the people homeless — no morality and no conscience.”

As one of the comments above states, this ongoing erasure of Muslim and Palestinian history and presence in Israel is “a new old file”:

Speaking at a closed discussion in the summer of 1967, a conversation published in 1968 in the Israeli journal De’ot (‘Opinions’), Israel Eldad (Sheib) says:

I have always said that the deepest and the profoundest hope symbolizing redemption is the re-building of the [Jewish] Temple … then it is obvious that those mosques [al-Haram al-Sharif and Al-Aqsa] will have, one way or another, to disappear one of these days … Had it not been for Deir Yassin — half a million Arabs would be living in the state of Israel [in 1948]. The state of Israel would not have existed. We must not disregard this with full awareness of the responsibility involved. All wars are cruel. There is no way out of that. This country will either be Eretz Israel with an absolute Jewish majority and a small Arab minority, or Eretz Ishmael, and Jewish emigration will begin again if we do not expel the Arabs one way or another.

The ongoing desecrations and erasures of Muslim mosques and grave sites described by Jehad Abu Rayya are simply a manifestation of Israel’s very existence. Israel was established as a Jewish state. It was not intended as a state for all its citizens. Rather it was, and is, a state for Jews — i.e., every Jew throughout the world is a potential citizen; Palestinian Arabs and their heritage must be erased or excluded for such a Jewish state to “exist”.

In 1950, the Knesset passed two laws, the Law of Return (“Every Jew has a right to immigrate to the country”) and the Absentee Property Law [‘Absentee’, as in forcibly driven out and dispossessed]. These laws, along with Israel’s Nationality Law of 1952, defined the state’s Jewish character.

Despite the above, Palestinian right of return is universally recognized in international law and repeated UN resolutions beginning with Res 194 (III), 11 Dec 1948.

It is important to note here by way of highlighting Israel’s and Zionism’s racist character that, as Uri Davis writes, it is

not only the Palestinian non-Jew — first and foremost the Palestinian Arab ‘absentee’ — who is excluded from his or her right to undisputed citizenship [in Israel]. Large categories of Jews are similarly excluded: Jewish bastards, Jewish persons born to non-Jewish mothers, Jewish persons born to Jewish mothers who converted to another religion, and non-Jews converted to Judaism by conservative or reform rabbis (only the Jewish Orthodox conversion procedure is effectively recognized in Israel).

The Black Lives Matter movement and current uprising against racism has resonated in Western and post-colonial societies worldwide. Political Zionism is a racist ideology. It shares a common view with secular anti-Jewish racism on the existential status of Jewish minorities in Gentile communities — that the Jew cannot be, by definition, an equal citizen and a free individual in a non-Jewish society (not because of inferiority or sin, but because Jews have a special status). For the political Zionist, Jewish society must also be segregated in Palestine, renamed by the Zionist as Eretz Israel. Thus Anti-Palestinian Arab racism and Israeli apartheid both originate in the Zionist ideology of the Jewish state.

The Times of Israel report that “Israel could easily destroy Jerusalem’s flashpoint Al-Aqsa mosque, but emphatically does not want to, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said,” is far from reassuring.

Don’t call me Ishmael [Ismail]; don’t call me Israel — call me one democratic state.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Don’t Call Me Ishmael; Don’t Call Me Israel — Call Me One Democratic State!
  • Tags: ,

The U.S. state appears to be facing a crisis of its legitimacy amid the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown. The killing of George Floyd, yet another unarmed black man killed by the police, has erupted into popular protest. It is quite possible that the disruption to the routinization of life due to the lockdown to prevent the spread of the Covid-19 virus may very well have been a factor in creating the conditions for many to form a collective conscious, which translated in the outpour of protest against the racial policing policies in the U.S. and in generating the broad support it is currently receiving.

This crisis in legitimacy appears to be aided by many conditions. With millions displaced from work, people may have had a moment in which they did not blame themselves, their neighbors, or God for their troubles. Instead, people may have looked at the structure of society, as they did in the 1930s and the 1960s. Their outrage transformed into protest and rebellion. We should also consider how there is a significant disruption to the full consumption habits. Furthermore, distractions from the culture industry of Hollywood (Marcuse 1963; Horkheimer et al. 2002) and the interruption in spectator sports (as an opium of the masses, Eitzen et al. 2012) may have possibly played a role in getting people to think and act more critically about the world in which they live.

The U.S.’ political order is not solely based on coercion, but based on a multitude of coercive and facilitative measures that seek to co-opt and manufacture consent; thereby, making rebellion rare (Montes 2009; 2016). There is a crisis in the legitimacy of authority when large sections of the population lose trust in the government. The military, police, the courts, the political system (i.e., government) are all institutions of the U.S. state, so when people lose trust in the police, they have lost confidence in the U.S. state’s ability to govern.

The police are similar to the military because they are necessary arms of the state; they protect and maintain the continuation of the political order: a political order that is rooted in racial, class, and gender hierarchies. It is vital to understand that when a government, as is currently occurring in the U.S., can no longer manufacture enough consent to legitimize its authority, it resorts to increased use of state coercion (the U.S. state coercion is by no means dormant, not even in non-rebellious times). Thus, this is why the state has amassed the militarized-police, National Guard, and the military, as an axillary force across the United States to suppress the protest of the police killing of George Floyd. The U.S. state is reliant on physical violence, and repression has been essential in protecting and maintaining the continuity of the U.S. capitalist system.

The use of racism has been fundamental to the so-called “greatness” of the United States. This “greatness” long preceded the Trump administration and has been and continues to be hidden and a not so hidden hallmark of its economic “success.” One can argue that the very inception of the U.S. has been a nation-state engaged racist state-sponsored policies, as in the case of the genocidal policies against the indigenous peoples of North America and the system of slavery, de jure, and post facto racial segregation. This history also involves the usurpation of Mexican land in the southwest, the conquest and colonialization of Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guan, and Alaska, which all have required physical violence, leaving carnage and trauma in its wake. This physical violence does not always involve invasions and the suppression of insurgencies. Still, violence can be seen in the societies and neighborhoods of the oppressed, with high rates of unemployment, poverty, police brutality, and incarceration. Often, it is also turned inward in the form of collective and individual destruction (e.g., suicide, high rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, et cetera). The above is but an example of the imperialist side of capitalism. This is what Karl Marx meant when he said that capitalism comes into the world “dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt” (Marx 2017:639).

Coercion and Capitalism and the U.S. State

The U.S. capitalist-state does not only depend on its military to secure resources abroad and to expand its markets and influence, but it simultaneously needs endless pools of disciplined workers that are desperate enough to work for low wages. Now, maintaining a system where few benefit from the misery of the many requires a great deal of force and particular ideologies that can justify such a system. Such a system has no real commitment to eradicate poverty and racism. According to Chris Parenti (1999), what lies at the heart of the matter is a contradiction: capitalism needs the poor (i.e., surplus populations of laborers) and creates poverty. Yet, capitalism is also directly and indirectly threatened by the poor. It is the role of police, prisons, and the criminal justice system to manage this contradiction (Parenti 1999:238).

As the new crime control policies took hold in the aftermath of a very explosive period of protest and rebellion in the 1960s, incarceration rates by the mid-1970s began to peak (Parenti 1999; Wacquant 2005). According to Glenn Tonry, the architects of the so-called “war on drug” were aware that this war would be fought mainly in minority areas of U.S. urban cities, which would result in a disproportionate number of young blacks and Latinos incarcerated (Wacquant 2005:21).  For Wacquant, the ghetto was were much of the “war on drugs” policies were carried out; it is an institution based on closure and power, whereby a population is deemed dishonest and dangerous and is at once secluded and controlled (1998:143). Pamala Oliver, for example, state repression includes mass incarceration, because of the role that prisons played as repressive agents on black males in the U.S. during the Black Power Movement (2004). The extension of state repression beyond “subversives” suggests that the most oppressed not only can disrupt the system (e.g., there were over 300 urban rebellions in the 1960s) but can become revolutionary (Oliver 2004). Parenti (1999), Oliver (2004), and Wacquant (2005) suggest that crime control is a form of state repression.

The system of capitalism is a system based on private ownership and profit, and competition (read: in most cases, corporate-state monopolies). Wealth development is not socially owned; it is individually owned, and for this system to exist, it requires ideologies that can justify why rewards and prestige are so unequally distributed. Where does wealth come from? It comes from the exploitation of labor, and the usurpation of land and resources.

The origins of policing are said to be in England in 1829 when the British state concluded that “what was needed was a force that could both maintain political control and help produce a new economic order of industrial capitalism” (Vitale 2017:36). Therefore, the police role was to manage the disorder from capitalism and to protect the “propertied classes from the rabble” (Vitale 2017:36). This policing was also used to manage the British colonial occupation of Ireland, seen as an innovative way to control insurrections, riots, and political uprisings. For Alex S. Vitale, the police in the U.S. are intimately tied to the management of inequalities of race and class, suppressing workers and surveilling and managing black and brown people have always been at the center of policing (2017).  The role of policing in the U.S. is about the protection of private property, the suppression of rebellions, and putting down strikes and other industrial actions. It had also aided the system of slavery, the colonization of the Philippines, the repression of native populations in Texas, as a means for U.S. state expansion, and represses and neutralizes protest (Vitale 2017:40-50).

The present use of policing has maintained its original goal, which is to manage the surplus populations and contain the poor and racial minority communities whose labor is considered redundant due to automation, deindustrialization, and deregulation.  As Parenti stated, the “war on drugs” has been the trojan horse for these policies (1999:10).

The political neutrality of policing or state coercion has always been questioned. Charles Tilly’s research identified a link between coercion and legitimacy. He wrote that whatever else states do (e.g., the idea of the social contract), “they organize and, wherever possible, monopolize violence” (1985:171). For Tilly, state legitimacy is obtained over time because eventually “the personnel of states purveyed violence on a larger scale, more effectively, more efficiently, with wider assent from their subject populations, and with readier collaboration from neighboring authorities than did the personnel of other organizations” (1985:173). Consequently, states, in part, maintain power by legitimizing themselves by creating ideologies, which socializes individuals to the norms and values of the state. As Tilly makes clear, control over the physical forces of violence is fundamental to nation-state’s authority, and the fact that legitimacy depends on the conformity to abstract principles such as the consent of the governed only helps to rationalize the monopoly of force (1985:171). After all, for Tilly, it is through the concentration and accumulation of capital and coercion and successful inter-state war waging that the present nation-state emerged (1992).

Stephanie Kent and David Jacobs argue that a society based solely on coercion could not survive, not even the most authoritarian use coercion by itself, but is often mixed with other means (2004). Kent and Jacobs’ research provide examples that illustrate what occurs when police suddenly become paralyzed (e.g., on strike) and do not respond; the poor tend not to accept the conditions of inequality and would engage in redistribution of wealth. Robert Cover provides an excellent example of the state’s reliance on force by illustrating how “a convicted defendant may walk to a prolonged confinement, but this seemly voluntary walk is influenced by the use of force. In other words, if he does not walk on his own, he will most certainly be dragged or beaten” (in Green and Ward 2004:3). As pointed out above, coercion a crucial component for the establishment and continuation of the political order. Stability is problematic even in the most democratic societies because resource distribution is so unequal that only a few genuinely benefit and have access to freedom, rights, and security. It is undeniable that race continues to be a significant marker of a person’s social, economic status, as well as the degree in which one is targeted and entangled in the criminal justice system.

Unequal relations are maintained in the U.S. by there being over 12 million members of coercive forces -e.g., policing and military and billions of tax-payer’s dollars allocated to this mission. Coercive forces that range from the police, corrections, national security, to the military. They are conjoined in their various task in upholding domestic and foreign policies designed to maintain the status quo in the U.S. and U.S. hegemony around the globe. As a result, there are approximately 7 million individuals under correctional supervision in the U.S. alone and many populations around the world that live in wretched conditions so that the U.S. state can maintain its global dominance (Montes 2016).

The U.S. population consists of approximately 12% black and 15% Latino; however, some reports illustrate that these two groups represent about 60% of those incarcerated. In 2012, the incarceration rate per 100,000 was 2,841 for blacks, 1,158 for Latinos, and 463 for whites (Carson and Golinelli 2013). The rate of incarceration by race demonstrates racial disparity within the criminal justice system. The U.S. incarceration rate is the highest in the industrial world, but it is even higher when aggregating for race. Yet, Bruce Western illustrates that mass incarceration affects the poorest of blacks, which points to the class element (2006:26). In short, one can argue that mass incarceration involves the containment of the most marginalized, in which blacks, brown people, and Native Americans are disproportionately the poorest. The groups that have the most significant distance from wealth and privilege are perceived as the greatest threats to the political order. This theorizing explains racial profiling and how race is a marker for criminality. As a result, there is more reliance on the policing of the poor and racial minority communities. However, the type of crime that should be the focus is the state crimes of omission; this is when state’s failure to protect the rights and to serve the needs of all people within the territory of a particular nation-state; thereby, creating the conditions for non-state crime (Barak 2011: 35-48). Essentially, when these needs are not met, as mentioned above, they can create a breakdown in the legitimacy of state authority, which creates conditions favorable for protest and rebellion.

Crisis in Legitimacy 

Image on the right: George Floyd Mattered graffiti along 38th St in Minneapolis on Wednesday, after the death of George Floyd on Monday night in Minneapolis, Minnesota (Source: Flickr)

The explosion of widespread protest over the killing of George Floyd has become a flashpoint of anger for all the other unarmed black males killed by the police in the United States. For many of the protesters, this had been yet another senseless and unjustified murder. In which the police would once again not be held accountable. The impunity of law enforcement has long enraged black, Latino, Native Americans, and poor communities across the United States.

Just about every community of color and poor community in the U.S. has a list of victims of police brutality. This tension and frustration have been building up for some time, and more recently, with the high media profile cases of Eric Garder (2014), Michael Brown (2014), and Freddy Grey (2016). For many, this problem could no longer be dismissed. As a result of protest and rebellion, ordinary everyday people had to take notice of the repeated police killing of unarmed black youth and men. According to tracking by the Washington Post, half of the people shot and killed by police are white. However, blacks are shot at a disproportionate rate. They account for less than 13% of the U.S. population but are killed by police at more than twice the rate of whites. Police also kill Latinos at a disproportionate rate. Overall, the police kill more people at a higher rate in the U.S. than do police in similar industrial nations. The circumstances of these killings vary – e.g., from being unarmed to being armed to being in the commission of a crime to being a suspect and racially profiled. However, what appears consistent is that law enforcement is not be trusted to investigate themselves. In many cases, had it not been civilians using their phone cameras and/or protesters forcing an investigation, many people would have accepted the official police and political officials’ narrative. What has been bought to light by afflicted black and communities of color has been the systemic nature of police brutality and how it is not restricted to a few police officers or a few police departments.

The system was confronted with a crisis in its authority once the U.S. state and the corporate media could no longer dismiss the protest as just black protest from marginalized areas. The success of the Black Lives Matter Movement (BLM) kept the murder of black men and youth at the center of their organizing efforts. The BLM linked together, the spontaneous protests and rebellion of black and people of color communities when they experienced police brutality, propelling these injustices to national and international levels of attention. The multicultural outpour of support, which has included celebrities and professional athletes, has lent their support. One cannot overlook how suddenly everyone appears now to be antiracist. Nor can one deny how this moment seems to have opened up the opportunity for political opportunism, particularly within the duopoly political party system, and the corporate media. It is at these times that the political elite from both parties and the corporate media attempts to angle their messages in such a way as to restore trust in the political order while being semi-critical of it. When politicians and news anchors of the corporate media -e.g., verbally condemn the killing of George Floyd, but at the same time, uphold the status quo. This angling lends itself to discussions about better training in police procedures, the firing and convictions of the officers involved, more racial sensitivity trainings, and pleas to channel the outrage into voting Democrat. Unfortunately, this negates an understanding of the fundamental role policing plays in the U.S. state and its task in upholding an unequal society.

Also, the conflating the outrage of the killing of George Floyd with the protesters who are not “peaceful,” disobey curfew, and loot and burn is another way in which the state officials and corporate media presenters attempt to restore trust in the U.S. state. So, what is absent is a focus on how the various means of protest, civil disobedience, and the destruction and defacing of the property of corporations, the U.S. flag, and the police are symbols of what many perceive is the problem. The problem is the U.S. state and how it is increasingly not protecting the freedoms, safety, and economic wellbeing of all its people, but is protecting its own interests, which includes the interests of corporations, which are interlocking. And configured in this equation is policing and the military, ensuring that the particular political order is maintained.

Discrediting protesters as thugs, terrorists, or the orchestration of external forces such as Russia, and/or Antifa is to absolve the U.S. state of any culpability. Even in the pre-Covid-19 world, there were millions of people in the U.S. who have long lost trust in the system and felt alienated from the political process because they believed that politicians represent their own interests and those interests are allied with the continuation of the political order. As Emma Goldman, a famous anarchist, stated, “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” As mentioned above, the racialized and exploitative system has long preceded the Trump administration. In fact, the rise of the Occupy Movement in 2011 and the rise of the Black Lives Matter Movement in 2013 was because they had no confidence in the political establishment. There is a reason why these movements were grassroots organizations and struggle to remain as such because the political elite did not act on their behalf. For example, the Obama administration did not use executive orders to step in during the many instances of police killings and protests, such as in Ferguson.  Furthermore, these movements had no interest in being co-opted by the politics of the duopoly political party system.

This crisis in legitimacy can also be seen in how both parties supported the bailout of Wall Street during the Great Recession. Bailouts of corporations are also occurring currently, amid the Covid-19 pandemic. Both parties were responsible for “tough on crime” legislation, such as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 passed by the Clinton administration. This act, in part, is responsible for furthering mass incarceration and for creating more laws that target racial minorities. Both parties are also responsible for creating more economic insecurity for the poor and people of color by implementing neoliberal policies. The Republican Party and Democratic Party both partake in the gutting of the safety net programs. The Clinton administration – e.g., Welfare Reform Bill of 1996, the repeal of the Glass Stiegel Act in 1999, and NAFTA in 1994. Also, the Obama administration supported the bailout of Wall Street, single-payer health care over universal health care, and the 2014 Farm Bill (that included cuts to food stamps).

Both are different wings of the duopoly political parties, maintaining the status quo of the state. Glen Ford’s astute analysis of what he refers to as the “racist-capitalist state” has remained intact even when political officials are no longer white. For Glen Ford, Obama’s legacy can be seen as protecting corporate power and advancing the imperial agenda, while promoting the myth of a post-racial society (Hedges 2017). During the 1960s, various state strategies were deployed to diffuse urban rebellion, one of them was the incorporation of blacks and other people of color in law enforcement and political office such as mayors to provide the illusion of reform (Katz 2007). The point made is a very sociological one. If the U.S. state does not change from being a capitalist-imperial state and is reliant on coercion to maintain the political order, then no amount of selective incorporation or mimetic reforms (Katz 2007) will change the role of policing.

It is safe to say that this crisis in legitimacy involves the distrust in two wings of the duopoly system (i.e., the government) because the police are but an arm of the state. And this can be seen repeatedly with the endless protest and demonstrations in the streets. A real important indicator of how deep this crisis will be is if the police themselves, from the top brass and the rank and file, find it difficult to hide behind the blue wall of silence. If there is the realization that what separates the people is not the thin blue line or the military mindset of us vs. them, but between equality vs. inequality. Many employed in coercive occupations receive state-sponsored elevated honorific statuses and stable employment with high salaries during insecure economic times. Besides being highly bureaucratic organizations that instill particular self-fulfilling ideologies, the state and other agents of socialization, such as the corporate media and educational institutions, all extend great deference to this institution, making them a difficult group to win over.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Vince Montes is a lecturer in sociology. Earned a Ph.D. at the Graduate Faculty of New School for Social Research.

Sources

Barak, Gregg. 2011. “Revisiting Crimes by Capitalist State.” Pp. 35-48 in State Crime, edited by D. L. Rothe & C. W. Mullins. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Carson, E. Ann. and Golinelli, Daniela. 2013. “Prisoners in 2012: Prisoners in 2012 Trends

In Admissions and Releases, 1991–2012.” Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 243920

Eitzen, Stanley D. Maxine Baca Zinn, and Kelley Eitzen Smith. 2012. In Conflict and Order. Boston, MA: Ally & Bacon.

Green, Penny and Tony Ward. 2004. State crime: Governments, Violence and Corruption.

Sterling, VA: Pluto Press.

Hedges, Chris. 2017. “President Obama’s Legacy with Glen Ford.” On Contact. Jan. 22. Video, https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/374680-obama-wars-corporate-interests/

Horkheimer, Max, Theodor W. Adorno, and Gunzelin Noeri. 2002 [1948] Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Katz, Michael. 2007. “Why Aren’t U.S. Cities Burning?” Dissent, Summer.

Kent, Stephanie and David Jacobs. 2004. “Social Divisions and Coercive Control in Advanced Societies: Law Enforcement Strength in Eleven Nations from 1975 to 1994.” Social Problems, Vol. 51, No. 3: 343–361.

Loury, Glenn C. 2008. Race, Incarceration, and American Values. Cambridge, MA: Boston Review.

Marcuse, Herbert. 1964. One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Marx, Karl. 2017 [1867] Capital (Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy). Digireads.com.

Montes, Vince. 2016. “Coercive Occupations as State Facilitation: Understanding U.S. State’s Strategy of Control.” Radical Criminology, Issue 6, fall, 71-129. (http://journal.radicalcriminology.org/index.php/rc/issue/view/6/showToc)

__________. 2009. “The Web Approach to the State Strategy in Puerto Rico.” Pp. 99-118 in Bureaucratic Culture and Escalating Problems: Advancing the Sociological Imagination, edited by D. Knottnerus and B. Phillips. Boulder, CO, Paradigm Publishers.

Oliver, Pamela. 2008. “Repression and Crime Control.” Mobilization, 13,1: 1-24.

Parenti, Christian. 2008 [1999]. Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis. New York, NY: Verso.

Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward. 1979 [1977]. Poor People’s Movement. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Tilly, Charles. 1992. Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

__________. 1985. “State Making and War Making as Organized Crime.” Peter Evens, Dietrich Ruechemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, Bringing the State Back In, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Western, Bruce. 2006. Punishment and Inequality in America. New York, NY: Russell Sage

Foundation.

Wacquant, Loic. 2008. “Race, Incarceration, and American Values.” Glenn C. Loury,

Race, Incarceration, and American Values. Cambridge, MA.: Boston Review.  

Longterm harm caused by US policies at home and abroad are far removed from a Panglossian best of all possible worlds view.

What’s going on has echoes of Orwell’s dystopian 1984.

Both right wings of the US war party wage forever wars against invented enemies.

Mass surveillance, controlling the message, and countering resistance are what police state rule is all about, how the US operates domestically, what it wants imposed on other nations worldwide.

The disparity between super-wealth and growing poverty in the US is greater than any time since the 19th century gilded age.

The nation’s economic policy elevates all yachts to unprecedented levels while protracted main street Depression harms ordinary Americans with nothing ongoing to change things.

Countless millions of US households face unacceptable choices between paying rent or servicing mortgages, seeking increasingly unaffordable medical care when needed, heating homes in winter, and feeding family members.

The struggle to survive in the US gets harder because of indifference toward public health and welfare by its ruling class.

A massive disconnect exists between soaring equity prices and dismal main street economic conditions gone largely unaddressed — Depression conditions exceeding the worst of the 1930s.

Before economic collapse, economist David Rosenberg explained fundamental structural weakness in the US economy, saying:

There’s been a decade of “very little productivity growth, very little capital spending, a recession in nonresidential construction.”

Consumer spending that accounts for around 70% of GDP alone “ke(pt) the glue together” — the underpinning it provided now gone from economic collapse producing record-high unemployment.

As for the roaring bull market in recent weeks, it’s from “financial engineering,” an ocean of liquidity fueling speculation, a “Potemkin bull market.”

Economic fragility is so profound that things are unable to keep from cratering further if interest rate rise to low 1930s levels.

Likely to remain at near-zero for the foreseeable future in the US “tells you that we have a very weak longterm economic outlook,” Rosenberg explained, adding:

There’s no precedent for shutting down the US and global economy for a considerable time that caused record-high unemployment and GDP collapse.

Rosenberg expects a 40 – 50% Q II decline, followed by a Q III bounce off the bottom, calling it “a square root sort of a recovery.”

“There’ll be some activity. But there is no return to normality” for an unknown period of time ahead.

“We’re not going to get a perpetual increase in production and hiring and get the unemployment rate back down without demand.”

“There’s no playbook” to explain how things got to the present dismal state.

Millions of US jobs have been “eliminated permanently.” Ones available are “low skilled, low value-added” ones.

“We don’t produce anything anymore. (We’re) a society and economy (based on financialization), entertainment and leisure and restaurants and retail.”

Long ago industrial America with high-pay/good benefits jobs is largely gone, offshored to low-wage countries by corporate America with acquiescence from Washington.

Given unprecedented things going on, Rosenberg said “the confidence intervals around any (economic) forecast are as wide as I’ve ever seen, and in 35 years in this business, I’ve seen a lot.”

Economist John Williams calls the US economic system “bankrupt.”

Unlimited amounts of money are being spent “to prevent an immediate (house of cards) collapse,” adding:

“We have about 40 million unemployed (in the US) which is about a 40% unemployment rate and not 13% claimed by the government.”

US inflation as it was calculated pre-1990 is around “9 per cent,” not the phony official number.

Along with protracted main street Depression, no end of it in prospect, US anti-China, anti-Russia, anti-Iran, anti-Venezuela, anti-North Korea, anti-other nations free from its control risks possible global war ahead by accident or design — no matter which wing of the one-party state is in power.

US rage to control other nations, their resources and populations makes the unthinkable possible.

Aware of the threat posed by Washington, Russia’s updated nuclear containment policy includes use of these weapons if its homeland is attacked by a foreign power, stating:

“The Russian Federation views nuclear weapons solely as a means of deterrence whose employment is a last resort and forced measure, and (after) taking all necessary efforts for reducing the nuclear threat and preventing the escalation of inter-state relations that can provoke military, including nuclear, conflicts.”

Moscow’s nuclear deterrence policy sent a message to Washington that harsh retaliation will follow a Pentagon attack on its territory if occurs.

China is preparing for possible confrontation with the US. So is Iran.

Weeks earlier, Trump regime war secretary Mark Esper said an “era of great power competition…means we need to focus more on high intensity warfare going forward.”

“(O)ur long-term challenges are China, No. 1, and Russia, No. 2.”

“(W)hat we see happening out there is a China that continues to grow its military strength, its economic power, its commercial activity, and it’s doing so, in many ways, illicitly, or it’s using the international rules-based order against us to continue this growth, to acquire technology, and to do the things that really undermine (US-led Western) sovereign (and) the rule of law (sic).”

Esper barely stopped short of a declaration of war. China and Russia won’t subordinate their sovereign rights to US interests.

Nor will Iran, Venezuela or North Korea. Nor should any nation.

Washington’s permanent war policy risks eventual use of thermo-nukes able to destroy planet earth and all its life forms if used in enough numbers.

All sovereign independent nations on the US target list for regime change threaten no one.

Yet preemptive US war on them is possible because imperial USA tolerates no challengers to its rage for absolute control.

War is never the answer. Yet time and again it’s the US option of choice to advance its imperium — an agenda posing an unprecedented threat to everyone everywhere.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from The Grayzone

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Worst of All Possible Worlds? Echoes of Orwell’s Dystopian 1984. Mass Surveillance, Police State Rule, Struggle to Survive…
  • Tags: ,

Marshall McLuhan observed in the 1960s that humans are toolmakers whose tools eventually reshape them.

Fifty years hence, we suggest that the aphorism should include ‘rewire’ humans as the present age of the internet serves as the global nervous system for humankind.

This article explores how, in this present period of the Information Age, media manipulate public opinion about and consent for new digital tools and techniques threatening human agency and sovereignty.

This essay introduces the concept of convergence as developed by Henry Jenkins and explores how the practice has expanded in the current global pandemic milieu wherein the interests of a technocratic elite converge to cultivate a general acceptance of the digital tools of a new socioeconomic order. Alongside this analysis stands the historical development of computing tools and the development of data as tools of social control.

In a world where the manufactured need for ever-increasing speed and efficiency have largely co-opted human reason, we analyze how digital tools threaten to merge with humans. Enlisted in the effort to examine the integration propaganda are historical accounts of this emerging order as elaborated by key public servants and intellectuals of the 20th century.

The primary aim is to situate the top-down attempt to acquire control over the masses in a larger historical context when sophisticated computing tools began serving the need to track and control populations. The essay is an effort to grapple with the complex historical attempt to wield control over people through public relations and technologies.

VIDEO  (click on Watch this video on Youtube)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWyjDV-HSxU&feature=emb_err_woyt 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Study.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Who Wants to be a Slave? The Technocratic Convergence of Humans and Data

Walking through the park this weekend I noticed a man on a bench reading Metaxas’ acclaimed biography of German theologian and anti-Nazi dissident Dietrich Bonhoeffer. And it occurred to me then and there that this is indeed a moment in our history when we may acquire much needed insight and inspiration by revisiting Bonhoeffer’s extraordinary life and legacy.

Bonhoeffer was born in 1906 in Breslau, Germany into a large and prominent family – which included his father, noted psychiatrist and neurologist, Karl Bonhoeffer. The younger Bonhoeffer graduated from the Protestant Faculty of Theology at the University of Tübingen and went on to complete his Doctor of Theology degree from Berlin University in 1927.

In 1930, Bonhoeffer went to the United States for postgraduate study and a teaching fellowship at New York City’s Union Theological Seminary. Perhaps the most important part of his stay in the US was being introduced to the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem, where he would not only teach Sunday school and form an abiding love for black spirituals – recordings he brought back to Germany would become “some of his most treasured possessions” – Bonhoeffer would also hear Adam Clayton Powell Sr. preach the “kingdom of social justice.” Powell had the fire of a revivalist preacher, combined with “great intellect and social vision” – he actively condemned racism and “minced no words about the saving power of Jesus Christ.”

Finding in Powell the gospel preached and lived out according to God’s commands, Bonhoeffer became acutely aware of the injustice and subjugation experienced by minorities and began to adopt the standpoint of the oppressed. He remarked,

“Here one can truly speak and hear about sin and grace and the love of God…the Black Christ is preached with rapturous passion and vision.”

Returning to Germany in 1931, Bonhoeffer lectured in systematic theology at the University of Berlin – but his promising career as an academic would be derailed by the rise of Nazism, and Hitler’s installation as Chancellor in 1933.

By Florence Dabby

Bonhoeffer resisted the Nazi regime from the very beginning and never wavered. Within days of Hitler’s election, he gave a radio address in which he denounced Hitler and admonished the people against forming an idolatrous cult of the Führer (leader), who could easily turn out to be Verführer (or misleader) – a distinction Donald Trump’s blind followers would do well to remember.

In April 1933, Bonhoeffer was the first to assert the church’s opposition to Hitler’s persecution of the Jews and insisted that the church cannot merely “bandage the victims under the wheel,” but must “jam a spoke in the wheel itself.”

Bonhoeffer’s theology was a theology of the oppressed, and his active involvement in the German resistance against Hitler followed from his moral awareness that “the structure of responsible action includes both readiness to accept guilt and freedom,” as he wrote in his Ethics – for “If any man tries to escape guilt in responsibility he detaches himself from the ultimate reality of human existence…” A life spent in fear of incurring guilt was itself sinful. In this respect Bonhoeffer is essentially in agreement with G.F.W. Hegel: only a stone can be innocent; all meaningful action entails guilt – and we must act. As Bonhoeffer observed:

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

The Cost of Discipleship (1937) – an extended commentary on the Sermon on the Mount – is generally regarded as Bonhoeffer’s masterpiece. In Chapter 4, he considers that passage from Mark 8:34, where Christ says, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” From an ethical standpoint this is all-important: as Bonhoeffer famously said, “When Christ calls a man he bids him come and die.” This may not mean actual martyrdom (though it certainly might): it means first of all that we must die to ourselves. In his commentary he writes,

“Just as Christ is Christ only in virtue of his suffering and rejection, so the disciple is a disciple only in so far as he shares his Lord’s suffering and rejection and crucifixion.”

Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1987-074-16, Dietrich Bonhoeffer.jpg

To ‘deny oneself’ has nothing to do here with asceticism or suicide, both of which retain an element of self-will. Rather, “it is to be aware only of Christ and no more of self, to see only him who goes before and no more the road which is too hard for us.” Self-denial then is inseparable from the obedience of the responsible one who hears the call and says, “Here I am” (hineni) – for “faith only becomes faith in the act of obedience,” not to any man-made law or worldly authority, but to God, whose call reaches us through the voice of our oppressed and persecuted neighbor.

Bonhoeffer makes the crucial distinction – as important now as it ever was – between “cheap grace” and “costly grace.” Cheap grace means grace without price, without cost, “everything can be had for nothing.” Bonhoeffer reminds us that we are still in the fight for costly grace, “which calls us to follow… It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life.”

Costly grace affirms that you can only discover what obedience is by obeying. It is no use asking questions – questions such as, ‘Who is my neighbor?’ “You are the neighbor. Go along and try to be obedient by loving others… Neighborliness is not a quality in other people, it is simply their claim on ourselves… We literally have no time to sit down and ask ourselves whether so-and-so is our neighbor or not. We must get into action and obey – we must behave like a neighbor to him.”

Bonhoeffer was arrested in 1943 by the Gestapo – two years later, at dawn on 9 April 1945, he was led naked to the gallows and hanged to death, a few weeks before Hitler would commit suicide.

Throughout the last two weeks, we have witnessed across the country protests against systemic racism and police brutality – and indeed protesters have gathered in cities around the world, from London to Hamburg, from Pretoria to Brisbane. Blacks and whites are rising up in unison to oppose the systematic subjugation of people of color – a subjugation which began over four hundred year ago when the first slave ships arrived on these shores.

Bonhoeffer’s life holds an important lesson for us today, regardless of our religious affiliation or lack thereof. And simply put it is this: you are called upon; you are called on behalf of your neighbor. When you are called to be responsible that is not an obligation which you can decline, discharge or acquit yourself of – it is an infinite responsibility, a “forever commitment” as Charles Blow recently put it. And we all must be prepared to make any sacrifice necessary when we are called.

At times like these we see the difference between those who are satisfied with cheap grace and those who know that true grace comes at a price, and that price is obedience to the call of God which we hear in the choking, gasping cries of our neighbor, in the desperate pleas of the man who is down on the ground with an oppressor’s knee on his neck.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Sam Ben-Meir is a professor of philosophy and world religions at Mercy College in New York City. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Any self-identifying socialist will be met with the question at some point in their lives: How many people have been killed in the name of socialism? They might have pointed out in response that Soviet-style state socialism is about as far removed from the democratic socialism proposed by politicians such as Jeremy Corbyn as Chinese state capitalism is from its free-market cousin. But they are unlikely to have noted that the world’s largest empire engaged in a program of international assassinations more deadly than Stalin’s purges — all in the name of capitalism.

In his new book, The Jakarta Method: Washington’s Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program That Shaped Our World, Vincent Bevins reveals the staggering death toll of the United States’ foreign policy throughout the Cold War. The book centers on the anti-communist massacres that took place in Indonesia in 1965–66, as US-backed dictator Suharto deposed his anti-imperialist, developmentalist predecessor Sukarno.

While many will have heard of the Indonesian genocide from films such as The Act of Killing, few are aware of the political context in which the slaughter took place — and even fewer understand quite how intimately involved the United States really was. In an exceptionally well-written narrative, which combines interviews with survivors with detailed historical analysis, Bevins reveals how the atrocities that ripped through Indonesia in the 1960s still haunt the country today.

Sukarno, Bevins argues, was never a communist — he was a pragmatist, committed to retaining power, growing the Indonesian economy, raising the living standards of its people, and projecting its influence abroad. But for all these reasons, he frequently took the same line as the Indonesian Communist Party — itself more a mass left-nationalist party than a Leninist vanguard.

Countries like Indonesia were, as Kwame Nkrumah powerfully argued, kept in a subaltern position in the global economy through the exercise of neocolonial power by the core countries in the capitalist world system. These states often worked together during the early days of the postcolonial era, forming groups such as the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). The Bandung Conference, which took place in Indonesia in 1955, was a precursor to the NAM, where states agreed on a set of ten principles to govern the relations within the Third World.

As the Cold War escalated and McCarthyism ran rampant in the United States, acts of Third Worldist solidarity were less likely to be tolerated by fervently anti-communist US administrations. The White House increasingly came to adopt the view that states in the Global South were either with the United States or against it. Sukarno’s independent streak, coupled with several other perceived slights to US hegemony, ultimately placed him on the wrong side of this divide.

By the mid-1960s, the United States had decided to adopt a more hostile stance toward Indonesia — and to Sukarno himself. When, in a series of events that are still shrouded in mystery, General Suharto took power, he did so with the explicit support of the United States.

Suharto was a little-known general before the events of 1965, but his anti-communist rhetoric endeared him to CIA officials. As soon as he came to power, he immediately set about literally exterminating Indonesia’s millions of communists. The fact that the murders took place on the basis of ideology rather than race has led to disagreement about whether what took place can be called a genocide. What is not in question is the scale of the slaughter — as Bevins writes,

“between five hundred thousand and one million people were slaughtered, and one million more were herded into concentration camps.”

If Ernest Renan was correct to say that the history of a nation is based on their collective capacity to forget the atrocities associated with its formation, then Indonesia provides a case in point. Part of the reason that so few have heard about the anti-communist massacres is that the truth was repressed by Suharto for so long. Bevins writes, “for more than fifty years, the Indonesian government has resisted any attempt to go out and record what happened.” Meanwhile, Western journalists faithfully regurgitated the lines they were fed by CIA officials, casting the violence in Indonesia as a random explosion of atavism of the kind that was to be expected from a “backward” nation.

While the events in Indonesia are those discussed in the most depth, they do not form the main subject matter of the book. Instead, The Jakarta Method focuses on the inspiration taken by far-right groups around the world, with the tacit or active support of the United States, from events that took place in Indonesia. From Brazil to Chile, anti-communists began talking openly about their own “Jakarta plans.” Bevins is clear about what this meant: “the state-organized extermination of civilians who opposed the construction of capitalist authoritarian regimes loyal to the United States.”

In a fascinating and disturbing journey around the world, Bevins documents the effects of Washington’s virulent anti-communist crusade across several continents. The next testing ground for the Jakarta method would be Latin America, where hundreds of thousands of people would be killed or “disappeared” in the name of anti-communism over the subsequent decades. But it did not stop there.

Bevins writes that a “loose network of US-backed anti-communist extermination programs . . . carried out mass murder in at least twenty-two countries”: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, East Timor, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Iraq, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, the Philippines, South Korea, Sudan, Taiwan, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

These battles were, argues Bevins, a crucial part of the US victory in the Cold War. He cites historian John Coatsworth, who estimates that “the number of victims of US-backed violence in Latin America ‘vastly exceeded’ the number of people killed in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc over the same period of time.”

In the wake of this program of state-backed slaughter, the only movements that remained were those that heeded the warnings of Che Guevara and armed themselves before US-backed anti-communist extremists could exterminate them. Little wonder that many of the communist regimes that have survived the Cold War are famed for human rights abuses — they learned from the best: the United States.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Grace Blakeley is a staff writer at Tribune, and the author of Stolen: How to Save the World from Financialisation.

Open Wounds: Sweden Drops the Killing of Olof Palme Case

June 11th, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

It’s the sort of thing that ruffled the image of a composed and tranquil existence.  In some countries, doing away with political leaders is a periodic affair, deemed necessary to clean the stables.  But in Sweden, change is barely discernible, stability nigh guaranteed and institutions revered.  “It’s in the tradition of Sweden to put itself forth as a moral role model,” observes author Elisabeth Åsbrink.  

Then came that thorny, troubling issue of Olof Palme. Palme minted a reputation berating the bullying actions of great powers and forging an internationalist platform for progressive politics.  He took issue with the crushing of the 1968 Prague Spring by the Warsaw Pact forces, apartheid in South Africa and US involvement in the Vietnam War.  As education minister in the Tage Erlander government, he marched alongside Sweden’s North Vietnamese ambassador in protest.  As Prime Minister, he gave an excoriating speech in 1972 likening the Christmas bombings of Hanoi with the destruction of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War and the Nazi death camp at Treblinka.  In an address to parliament on November 7, 1973, he reflected on the overthrow of Chile’s socialist president, Salvador Allende.

“The overthrow of a government elected by the people in Chile has raised the question of whether, in general, it is possible to carry out profound changes in a poor and unfair society without having privileged groups resorting to violence.” 

He mocked the nuclear deterrent and praised striving efforts of the Third World, the latter earning him praise from Cuba’s Fidel Castro.  On the domestic front, he remained a social democrat to an aggressive degree, bringing in universal day care, introducing legislation on workers’ rights, abortion and gender equality.

Such measures encouraged the haters, though many preferred operating in the shadows.  On February 28, 1986, Palme and his wife Lisbet left a movie theatre located in downtown Stockholm.  He had felt no need for a continued security presence.  He was subsequently gunned down in his wife’s company at 11.21 pm, shot in the back by a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum.  The scene of death saw witnesses aplenty – 23 in all – who could attest to seeing a man fire the shots and flee the scene via Tunnelgata alleyway.  What followed was the interviewing, by police, of 90,000 people.  Of that improbably large sample, 134 confessions for the murder were noted.   

The list was subsequently trimmed to include, amongst others, Kurdish separatists.  At the time, the rattled Stockholm police chief Hans Holmér ordered the raid of Stampen, a jazz club that led to the arrest of several Kurds.  All were released for lack of evidence.  In the late 1990s, a captured former commander of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) of Turkey, one Semdin Sakik, claimed ignorance about “the details of the assassination of Swedish prime minister Olof Palme” but insisted with unconvincing confidence that “this murder was committed by the PKK.”  PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan was supposedly peeved by the expulsion of eight members of the group from Sweden. “The operation to kill Palme was given the codename ‘wedding’ and the assassination command was given by Abdullah Öcalan [with the words] ‘Send him to his wedding’.” (The alleged assassins seemed to have had a sense of marital humour about them.)  In 1999, Turkish prosecutors took up this angle in the trial of Öcalan, who disabused notions that he was involved.  But instead of clearing matters up, another tentative hypothesis was offered: that Palme had been slain by a hastily assembled splinter group, PKK Rejin.  Back in Stockholm, sighs were registered. 

The smorgasbord of suspects proved heavy and almost ludicrously well spread.  Allegations of South African involvement were also, at stages, proffered.  (To this can be added claimed Iraqi participation; the role of Chilean neo-fascist Roberto Thieme; the US Central Intelligence Agency and the German Red Army Faction.)  The Deep Search papers, prepared by General Tai Minnaar, designated Palme “enemy of the state”, and contained a list of individuals said to be involved in the decision making, planting and execution of the operation.  In January 2003, Agneta Blidberg, deputy director of the prosecuting service in Stockholm admitted to receiving the South African documents and instituting “certain steps and interrogations”.  She refused to put any “value” on them, though a general sense that they were forgeries remained.  In South Africa, weighty figures such as Chris Thirion, former head of South Africa’s Military Intelligence (MI), thought otherwise.  The Deep Search papers had a smell that refused to go away. Former General Tienie Groenewald, head of South Africa’s National Intelligence Interpretation Branch when Palme was killed, was also convinced, going so far as to supply the Swedish aid worker Göran Björkdahl with names in Johannesburg during an October 1, 2015 meeting.

The initial field of suspects, filtered of all exoticism and danger, left the police with the petty criminal and derelict Christer Pettersson, continuously referred to in press notes as “an alcoholic and drug addict”.  He was jailed for the killing and sentenced to life imprisonment on July 27, 1989.  Crucial to the case was testimony from Lisbet Palme, who claimed she saw Pettersson gazing with glacial interest at her dying husband after the shooting.  On appeal, he was acquitted.  In the 1990s, prosecutors revisited the case that refused to go cold, keen to get back at Pettersson.

Palme’s case has continuously radiated with wild discussion and expansive theories, often with bewildering stretch.  As Gunnar Pettersson wrote with continuing relevance in 1989,

“Practically everything that is known is open to interpretation – particularly as regards the motive, since so many individuals and groups can be said to have had one.” 

The more these ideas persisted, the greater the suspicion about the competence of Sweden’s investigative authorities, allied to the troubling idea that right-wing elements in the Norrmalm District of the Stockholm Metropolitan Police and the Swedish Security Police (Säpo) were at work.  (The fact that some thirty police were in the vicinity of the murder at the time is striking.)  Ministers of Justice, public prosecutors and police investigators duly resigned. 

Over the years, one man seemed to linger closer to home, the depressive “Skandia Man”, graphic designer and eventual suicide Stig Engström.  He was at the scene at the time, even claiming to have made an effort to “resuscitate” Palme; he worked at Skandia Insurance, in proximity to the crime scene.  Interest was revived in 2018 with the investigative prodding of journalist Thomas Pettersson.  Engström’s ex-wife, was unswayed.  “He was too much of a coward.  He wouldn’t harm a fly.” 

As seems to be a tendency in high profile cases, the Swedish prosecutors do take their time.  And time does get away.  Engström had moved up the list of favourite suspects but his death in 2000 made the continuation of proceedings more than just futile.  “Since he has died,” concluded chief prosecutor Krister Petersson, “I cannot indict him.”  But it was Engström who had “acted how we believe the murderer would have acted.”  He had weapons training, been in the army, was a member of a shooting club, hated Palme and his views.  Such evidence remained painfully circumstantial.  While the prosecutors claimed they could muster enough to move it to trial, it was not necessarily sufficient to obtain a conviction.  Obstacles remained: the inability to link, forensically, the murder with any weapon.

The conclusion to this investigation seemed egregiously dismissive, a slander on Palme’s life.  Even Palme’s son Marten, in concluding that the prosecutors had drawn the right conclusion in closing the case, could claim some disappointment “that they didn’t have more conclusive evidence, like DNA or a weapon that they could trace to the crime.”  If failure to identify Palme’s killer remained Swedish society’s great “open wound”, as current Prime Minister Stefan Löfven described it, it is one that has been left tantalisingly unclosed.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Open Wounds: Sweden Drops the Killing of Olof Palme Case
  • Tags: ,

Selected Articles: Israel’s Illegal Annexation of West Bank

June 11th, 2020 by Global Research News

If you look to Global Research as a resource for information and understanding, to stay current on world events, or to experience honesty and transparency in your news coverage, please consider making a donation or becoming a member. Your donations are essential in enabling us to meet our costs and keep the website up and running. Click below to become a member or to make a donation to Global Research now!

Click to donate:

*     *     *

European Court of Human Rights Deals Major Blow to Israel’s War on Palestine Solidarity

By Palestinian BDS National Committee, June 11, 2020

The ECHR decision comes at a time of widespread condemnations of Israel’s plans to formally annex large swathes of the occupied Palestinian territory. In response to these plans and to Israel’s ongoing “apartheid regime” and “de facto annexation,” Palestinian civil society has reminded states of their obligations to adopt “lawful countermeasures,” including a ban on “arms trade and military-security cooperation with Israel” and on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements.

Palestinian Lives Matter: Huge Jewish-Arab Rally in Tel Aviv Decries Netanyahu’s Plan to Annex 1/3 of West Bank

By Prof. Juan Cole, June 09, 2020

If the goal of the event was to forestall annexation, however, it is doomed to fail, since Netanyahu has the votes in parliament to go forward, and the Trump administration is a cheer leading section for the far right wing Likud-led government. The annexation will completely end any prospect of anything resembling an actual Palestinian state and will formalize for decades to come Israeli Apartheid on the Palestinian West Bank, which is under Israeli military occupation.

Palestine Is Gone! Gone! راحت فلسطين

By Rima Najjar, June 07, 2020

The Palestinian plight is savagely painful and the pain is compounded by the bafflingly off-hand dismissal and erasure by Western powers of that pain, and by the monumental challenges facing Mahmoud Abbas, our nominal and imposed leader, for many of our true leaders are either murdered or languishing in Israeli prisons. I hope and pray Abbas will find his way, as mapped for him here, to doing the right thing — transfer the Palestinian Authority apparatus to the Palestinian National Council (PNC).

“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

By Israel Shahak and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 07, 2020

President Donald Trump had from the outset in January 2017 confirmed in no uncertain terms, his support of Israel’s illegal settlements (including his opposition to UN Security Council Resolution 2334, pertaining to the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank). The Trump administration expressed its recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. And now the entire West Bank is being annexed to Israel.

Israel Is, Like the US, Prime Target for New Mass Uprising

By Michael Jansen, June 05, 2020

Having announced he would begin the process to annex portions of the occupied Palestinian West Bank on July 1, he must be concerned that in response, violence, similar to the rioting in the US, could erupt in the, so far, mainly quiet West Bank and East Jerusalem. After more than a century of Palestinian resentment and resistance to expropriation and suppression, Israel is, like the US, a prime target for a new mass uprising, a Third Intifada.

Palestine: Surrendering or Preparing for a Third Intifada?

By Elijah J. Magnier, June 02, 2020

Through its failed foreign policy, the US administration has unwittingly and unwillingly become the greatest supporter of the “Axis of the Resistance” led by Iran. Along with Israel, Washington is, in fact, globally encouraging countries to rebel against its dominance. Israel effectively contributed to the creation of Hezbollah by invading Lebanon in 1982. The US contributed to the creation of Hashd al-Shaabi in 2014 when it refused to help Iraq to defeat ISIS. Both Israel and the US fostered the creation of Syrian resistance groups and pushed President Bashar al-Assad to join the “Axis of the Resistance” by their efforts to create a failed state in the Levant. And, when President Donald Trump offered the Syrian occupied Golan Heights, Jerusalem and the West Bank to Israel, he left no alternative to the Palestinians but to join Iran and become fully dedicated to the “Axis of the Resistance”. Is a third intifada on its way?

Israel’s Intent to Annex Part of West Bank May Spark New Wide-scale Middle East Crisis Amidst Global Pandemic

By Paul Antonopoulos, May 24, 2020

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas announced that the Palestinian state and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) will no longer adhere to the agreements they signed with Israel and the United States. It is a reaction to Israel’s intentions to annex Jewish settlements in the West Bank. If Abbas’s intentions are consistently implemented, it would be a paradox for Palestine to abolish itself.

Click here to read more on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Israel’s Illegal Annexation of West Bank

Dear Mr. Horowitz:

We write to you as alumni of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ” or the “Department”). Collectively, we have served in both career and high-ranking politically-appointed positions in both Republican and Democratic administrations. Some of us had careers that spanned decades and multiple administrations.

We are deeply concerned about the Department’s actions, and those of Attorney General William Barr himself, in response to the nationwide lawful gatherings to protest the systemic racism that has plagued this country throughout its history, recently exemplified by the brutal killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor by sworn law enforcement officers acting under the color of law. These unjustified killings are anathema to the fair administration of justice, and have rightly outraged Americans of all races and political persuasions, many of whom have chosen to exercise their First Amendment rights through public protest. In particular, we are disturbed by Attorney General Barr’s possible role in ordering law enforcement personnel to suppress a peaceful domestic protest in Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020, for the purpose of enabling President Trump to walk across the street from the White House and stage a photo op at St. John’s Church, a politically motivated event in which Attorney General Barr participated.

While the full scope of the Attorney General’s role is not yet clear, he has admitted that he was present in front of the White House before law enforcement personnel took action to disperse the crowd. Department of Justice and White House personnel initially said that the Attorney General gave an order to law enforcement personnel to “get going” or “get it done.” A day later, the Attorney General told the Associated Press that he was “not involved in giving tactical commands.” If the Attorney General issued orders to officers of a variety of federal agencies, including U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Park Police, D.C. National Guard, and U.S. Military Police, it is unclear under what purported authority he did so. After the order was given, and before the start of a city-imposed curfew, federal law enforcement officers in riot gear reportedly fired rubber bullets, chemical gas, smoke canisters, and stun grenades at peaceful protesters, and otherwise used excessive force, physically injuring many people, including journalists and an Episcopal priest who had come to give food and water to the protestors. Based on what we now know, these actions violated both the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and the press, and the right to assemble; and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable seizures, to include objectively unreasonable uses of force by law enforcement officers. None of us would ever have considered directing or engaging in such actions to be consistent with our oaths to support and defend the Constitution.

We are also disturbed by the Attorney General’s deployment of federal law enforcement officers throughout the country, and especially within the District of Columbia, to participate in quelling lawful First Amendment activity. According to a Department press release, participating personnel include officers and agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Marshals Service. We have profound doubts that the personnel deployed from these agencies are adequately trained in policing mass protests or protecting the constitutional rights of individuals who are not subject to arrest or have not been convicted of a crime. Moreover, reports from witnesses indicate that federal officers were blocking streets, guarding buildings, and interacting with civilians without displaying or otherwise providing identification, even when asked to do so by peaceful protestors. Accountability requires law enforcement personnel to identify themselves and be identifiable. Especially in view of the events in Lafayette Square, we have no assurance that these officers are lawfully deployed, that they will respect the rights of the civilians they encounter, or that there are proper mechanisms in place to identify and investigate possible law enforcement misconduct

For all of these reasons, we are asking you to immediately open and conduct an investigation of the full scope of the Attorney General’s and the DOJ’s role in these events. The rule of law, the maintenance of the Department’s integrity, and the very safety of our citizens demand nothing less. The Office of the Inspector General has the authority and the independence to conduct this investigation in a manner that will credibly probe the actions of the Attorney General and other DOJ employees. If the Attorney General or any other DOJ employee has directly participated in actions that have deprived Americans of their constitutional rights or that physically injured Americans lawfully exercising their rights, that would be misconduct of the utmost seriousness, the details of which must be shared with the American people.

Thank you for your consideration.

(If you are a former DOJ employee and would like to add your name to this statement, please complete this form. Protect Democracy will update this list daily with new signatories until June 24th.)

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Afghan-Pakistani Rapprochement Complicates India’s Hybrid War Plans

5G, the New Track of the Arms Race

June 11th, 2020 by Manlio Dinucci

At Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada – announces the Pentagon – construction of a 5G experimental network will begin in July. It will become operational in January 2021.

The Red Flag, the most important air manoeuvre in the United States, took place at this base last March, with the participation of German, Spanish and Italian forces. The latter were also composed of F-35 fighters which – the Air Force says – were “integrated with the best of American military aviation” in order to “exploit the full potential of the aircraft and weapons systems on board”, including certainly the nuclear ones. At the Red Flag in 2021, 5G mobile networks consisting of towers, that can be assembled and disassembled in less than an hour for rapid transfer depending on the operation in progress, will probably already be in operation for testing in a real environment.

The Nellis base is the fifth selected by the Pentagon to test the military use of 5G: the others are in Utah, Georgia, California and Washington State.

A Congressional Research Service paper (see below) explains that this fifth-generation mobile data technology can have “many military applications. One such application is for “autonomous military vehicles,” that is, robotic air, land and naval vehicles capable of autonomously performing attack missions without even remote control. This requires the storage and processing of an enormous amount of data that cannot be carried out solely on board the autonomous vehicle. The 5G will allow this type of vehicle to use an external data storage and processing system, similar to the current Cloud for personal file storage. This system can make possible “new military operational concepts”, such as “swarming”, in which each vehicle automatically connects to the others to carry out the mission (e.g. an air attack on a city or a naval attack on a port).

5G will make the entire command and control system of the US armed forces more powerful on a global scale: currently – explains the document – it uses satellite communications but, because of the distance, the signal takes some time to arrive, causing delays in the execution of military operations. These delays will be virtually eliminated by 5G. It will play a decisive role in the use of hypersonic weapons, which, also equipped with nuclear warheads, travel at more than 10 times the speed of sound.

5G will also be extremely important for the secret services, making possible much more effective control and espionage systems than the current ones. “5G is vital to maintaining America’s military and economic advantages,” the Pentagon said.

Particularly advantageous is the fact that “the emerging 5G technology, which is commercially available, offers the Department of Defense the opportunity to take advantage of this system at lower costs for its own operational requirements. In other words, the 5G commercial network, made by private companies, is being used by the U.S. Armed Forces at a much lower cost than would be required if the network were made solely for military purposes. This also happens in other countries.

It is therefore understandable that the 5G dispute, especially between the United States and China, is not part of the trade war alone. 5G creates a new track for the arms race, which is taking place less in terms of quantity than quality. This is not addressed by the media and is largely ignored even by critics of the technology, who focus their attention on the possible harmful effects on health. This commitment is certainly of great importance, but it must be joined with those opposing the military use of this technology, which is unwittingly financed by ordinary users of fifth-generation mobile phones.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto. Translated by Roger Lagassé.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from Greek City Times

The Truth about Hiroshima and Nagasaki

June 11th, 2020 by Greg Mitchell

Chris Wallace of Fox News has published his first book, Countdown 1945. It’s about the final days of the run-up to dropping the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You might have hoped that it would be a bit contrarian — like some of his interviews and commentary on that network.

Would he question what Robert Jay Lifton and I have called “The Hiroshima Narrative” that has held sway in the media and popular culture since President Truman announced the attack on August 6, 1945? That narrative has insisted that the bomb, and only the bomb, could have ended the Pacific war against Japan and thereby saved hundreds of thousands or even a million American lives.

Sadly, based on the evidence of an hour-long Fox News special, which he hosted this past Sunday night, and on his book—now a national bestseller—the answer is no. The only thing remarkable about Wallace’s arguments are that they offer nothing new, as if no challenging evidence or counter-narratives have been raised over the past 75 years.

Why does this matter today?  Among the many issues Wallace failed to mention on Fox: America’s official “first-use” policy, initiated in 1945, which enables any president to respond to a non-nuclear attack or threat by launching our nuclear missiles, remains fully in effect today.   The enduring defense of the use of the bomb against two cities in 1945 to “save American lives” can only encourage, or at least enable, possible future use—by the U.S. or any other country. In fact, polls show that large numbers of Americans say they would support a nuclear first-strike in response to a grave danger posed by North Korea or Iran.

There were some true howlers in the Fox special, such as showing an overhead view of the mushroom cloud rising at Hiroshima using footage actually shot over Nagasaki; then, a few minutes later, using the same footage for the Nagasaki bomb but changing it from color to black and white, hoping we wouldn’t notice. Earlier, the producers briefly flashed footage of the atomic test in the ocean off Bikini in 1946 to represent the first test of the bomb in the New Mexico desert in 1945.

But the program can be criticized more for omissions than errors of commission.

There was not a single second of footage from the aftermath of the bombings that revealed any injured, sick, dying or dead Japanese victims.  All we saw was rubble and damaged buildings.

What else was left out?

There was no discussion of Japan’s near collapse weeks before the attacks. In the summer of 1945, the country was suffering under a full blockade.  Increasingly desperate surrender feelers were being communicated by Japanese diplomats, of which Truman was well aware, but you would never know that from the program.

We also do not learn that the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that Japan would have likely surrendered, even without the atomic bombings, before the U.S. invasion planned for late that autumn.

Instead we’re told that the “enemy showed no willingness to surrender,” and “few doubted that defeating the Japanese could drag on for another 12 to 18 months.” In fact, by July 1945, many American military analysts, including leading generals, doubted this.

Nor did we hear in the documentary that several top Truman advisers believed that Japan would quit the war if the United States modified its “unconditional surrender” demand by signaling that the emperor could remain on the throne.  There was no admission in the program that after dropping the bombs we allowed the emperor to stay on anyway.  What if we had done that earlier?

Beyond the use of the two atomic bombs, several other factors speeded the end of the war, most notably Russia’s entry on August 8, which the U.S. had demanded and Stalin had agreed to at Potsdam two weeks earlier. Securing that from Stalin, Truman wrote in his diary, “Fini Japs” and “we’ll end the war a year sooner now”—referring to the Soviets’ declaration of war, not the expected dropping of the bomb. The only reference on the Fox show to this critical factor was a brief mention in Wallace’s closing remarks.

Wallace accurately cited the immediate death toll for both cities as 100,000, but failed to present the ultimate toll due to burns, injuries and radiation poisoning, which doubled the number of deaths if not more. Hiroshima was repeatedly referred to as a “military target” or even a “military city”—a key U.S. claim going back to August 1945 when Truman labeled it a “military base”—even though Japanese soldiers only represented about one in ten deaths there (and there is no mention of the dozen U.S. prisoners who died in the attack).  A total of about 150 Japanese military personnel died in Nagasaki.

As is customary in such programs, Nagasaki was barely a footnote. Kurt Graham, director of the Truman Library and Museum, offered a bizarre and false defense of dropping the second bomb:  The U.S. did not yet have the kind of “satellite reconnaissance” that would have allowed an aerial assessment of damage in Hiroshima, so we had to plunge ahead with the Nagasaki bombing.

This is nonsense, as photos from a U.S. flyover of Hiroshima were quickly sent to Washington. (The New York Times in a front-page headline cited 60% of the city destroyed.) You’d never know from Wallace that many of the historians and others who support the use of the first bomb feel that the bombing of Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, is indefensible, perhaps even a war crime.

The range of “expert” opinions on the show was extremely narrow, with the main commentators—except for one Hiroshima survivor—a conservative Republican senator (Roy Blunt), that director of the Truman library, a historian for the military bomber group that carried out the attacks, and a department chairman from the Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum in Washington, D.C.  Twenty-five years ago that institution brought shame on itself when it caved to pressure from veterans and politicians which led to the cancellation of a balanced exhibit surrounding its triumphant display of the newly restored B-29 bomber Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the Hiroshima bomb. The Wallace book appears to support that suppression.

Wallace claims further that Truman deeply pondered for weeks whether to deploy the new weapon, even spent many “sleepless nights.”   Truman himself, however, would repeatedly assert that he never lost any sleep over it.  Asked once how long it took to make the decision, he snapped his fingers in reply.

One Japanese survivor, Hideko Tamura Snider (married to an American) is allowed in the TV special and book to tell the moving story of experiencing the bombing and losing her mother. But this is undercut by the overall message that the loss of civilian lives was a) Japan’s fault; b) unavoidable in war; and c) a paltry number compared to the lives that would have been lost in a U.S. invasion.

In any event, her story ends on a disturbing note as she is filmed visiting the restoration of the Enola Gay at an Air & Space Museum annex. There she assures Wallace that she feels no anger about losing her mother, though she still grieves.  Then she turns to the plane and says “Sayonara,” as Wallace hugs her around the shoulders.

That is the one thing “new” in the Fox special.  Otherwise it follows a tired formula.  And while Wallace’s Countdown 1945 book is more detailed and at times more nuanced, its arguments are fully reflected in the TV special, and reduces all questions about the necessity of dropping the bombs to “hindsight.”

From my particular perspective, what I also found astounding was how much the program echoed moves by the Truman White House and military to sabotage the first movie about the bomb, produced by MGM in 1947, which lends its name to the title of my new book, The Beginning or the End:  How Hollywood—and America—Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

As long ago as that, Truman and the military forced changes in the movie script to, among other things, bolster the “military target” and  “million lives saved” arguments, remove any scenes of victims on the ground, cut any references to Nagasaki or to Truman’s alleged “sleepless nights.” Truman even ordered a re-take of a key scene and got MGM to fire the actor playing him for lacking the proper “military bearing.”

Chris Wallace’s unqualified summation in the Fox special perfectly matches the message of both that MGM film and what’s been the main plotline of The Hiroshima Narrative for seven and a half decades:  “The bomb ended the war more than a year earlier than any invasion of Japan would have, and likely saved more than a million casualties on both sides.”  Yet there is little credible evidence that Japan, in its desperate state and after a Soviet declaration of war, would hold out for a year after a massive U.S. invasion—or even without one—nor did few military experts expect a million U.S. casualties in such an invasion.

That ultimate Wallace argument also rests on a tragically faulty premise.  Having successfully tested the bomb, and with more ready to be quickly assembled, there is only a slim chance that the invasion, though well-planned, would ever have happened.  There is no way Truman would have ordered tens of thousands of American soldiers to their deaths once he had atomic bombs at the ready.  As we’ve seen, he also believed that, even without the atomic weapon, the Russians’ attack on Japan meant the war would end “a year sooner.”

The historical debate thus has always rested on the issue of whether Truman should have waited another few days, or weeks, for Japan to capitulate before ordering the bomb dropped over the center of two cities, killing more than 200,000, an estimated 95% of them civilians.

Yet Wallace diminishes what he calls “questions of morality” by concluding, “It’s unrealistic to think that Harry Truman would have made any other choice.”  That may be true, but all of us have the responsibility to consider whether that choice was the correct one, with possible “first-use” of nuclear bombs still a terrifying option today.

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Greg Mitchell is the author of a dozen books, including The Tunnels, Atomic Cover-Up and (with Robert Jay Lifton), Hiroshima in America.  His latest book is The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood–and America–Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (The New Press). 

Featured image is from Political Concern

There are three contenders in the upcoming election for a seat on the UN Security Council. Unlike the other two, Norway and Ireland, present-day Canada represents the epitome of modern colonialism. Although the US is the quintessential post-World War II colonial power, Canada is not far behind. Canada is one of the most important foreign affairs allies of the US. Unlike Norway and Ireland, Canada is a G7 country and thus part of the group considered to be the de facto coordinating committee for international affairs. In reality, it is also the group coordinating colonial domination over the world.

Canada is a latecomer to the G7, having been admitted to this exclusive club only in 1976. However, successive Canadian governments since WWII, irrespective of the political party in power, have consistently “earned” Canada’s place in the “colonial sun.” This is largely due to its unconditional commitment to the US-led subjugation of the Third World. Had this not been the case, a country such as China might have been invited to the G7 instead. Of course, irrespective of one’s views on this country, China does not toe the US line.

Zeroing in on Latin America and the Caribbean, let us start with Haiti. This country had the first successful slave rebellion in the world. It established an independent black republic by throwing the French colonial regime out of the country. But in more recent history, Canada has been a key player in a coup d’état against Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Since that 2004 event, Canada has been one of the leaders of a so-called Core group, along with the US and France, which continues to support the violent subjugation of Haiti to Western interests.

Yet, Canada is fully involved with the US in attempting to overthrow the Venezuelan government. Along with the US and Colombia, the Justin Trudeau government is at the head of this effort through the so-called Lima group. The Donald Trump administration is not in the Lima group, because Trudeau is doing their dirty work for them. Trudeau is the liberal poster-boy acting as a diplomatic front for Trump, while Colombian president Iván Duque represents the armed wing of the Lima group.

The Trudeau government also played a key role in the US-led coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia by immediately recognizing the unelected Jeanine Áñez as interim president. Canada also backed the now disputed electoral investigation by the Organization of American States (OAS) whose evident bias helped unleash a wave of racist massacres and oppression against Indigenous Bolivians.

Trudeau further supported the right-wing coup against Lula in Brazil by the racist Bolsonaro. He did not seem bothered by the catastrophic economic conditions and violent repression caused by the policies of the right-wing government of Mauricio Macri in Argentina. Trudeau went out of his way to show solidarity with president Sebastián Piñera of Chile while the military and police were violently suppressing huge demonstrations by students and Indigenous Chileans, recalling the Pinochet era.

As the finishing touches were being carried out to this article we just learned about another atrocity in Chile. The widow of the Chilean Mapuche leader Alejandro Treuquil, who was assassinated on June 4, confirmed that death threats were carried out against her husband in the period leading up to his  assassination by the Carabineros, the Chilean military police seemingly supported by Trump and Trudeau.

Turning to a life and death issue for small island nations affected by climate change, where does Canada stand? While many small Caribbean islands risk devastation to coastal communities from rising sea levels, it is pertinent that both Ireland and Norway have per capita emissions that are little more than half of Canada’s. CARICOM States could attract a far more sympathetic ear to the two countries making a greater effort to contain climate change.

On nuclear arms, Caribbean countries signed a treaty making “Our America” (Latin America and the Caribbean) a peace zone free of nuclear arms, while Canada has refused to sign a UN treaty against the proliferation of nuclear arms (but signed by both Ireland and Norway, along with more than 150 other states). In the realm of development assistance to the Third World, Norway spends about one percent of its GNP, with less wealthy Ireland contributing 0.32 percent, while wealthy Canada spends a lowly 0.26 percent.

Canada may be geographically closer to CARICOM countries than Norway and Ireland. However, Ireland is also an island and has had its anti-colonial struggle against British colonialism. When Trudeau speaks to Caribbean countries on any subject, his mindset is 100 percent US-oriented or, completely imbued with a Eurocentric outlook, values and preconceived notions.

Whenever Latin American/Caribbean regional summits take place that include CARICOM States, I watch Caribbean leaders speak with clarity, passion and sincerity in support of Caribbean values and sovereignty against all attempts at foreign intervention in the region.

Tiny Islands with Voices of Giants need to look squarely at the issue of the elections for seats on the UN Security Council. Surely, after considering Canada’s role in the region and the world, it is impossible to fathom how it could be in the interests of CARICOM States to vote for a government such as the current one in Canada.

Trudeau’s foreign policy serves as camouflage for Trump’s policies, and the Monroe Doctrine which is still very much on the table today.

Malcom X famously said:

“The white conservatives aren’t friends of the Negro, but they at least don’t try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling”.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Caribbean News Global.

Arnold August is a Canadian journalist and lecturer, the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion and Cuba–U.S. Relations: Obama and Beyond. He collaborates with many web sites, television and radio broadcasts based in Latin America, Europe, North America and the Middle East. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on CARICOM Should Vote Against Canada for a UN Security Council Seat
  • Tags: ,

The United States continues to threaten Germany with sanctions if the European country proceeds with the Nord Stream 2 project – a strategic partnership with Russia to build a large gas pipeline that would facilitate the energy flow between Russia and Europe via a smaller and faster route. Recently, US senators introduced a bill to sanction all companies that provide certification, insurance and port facilities for the planned pipeline, in a clear objective to undermine any businesses interested in the benefits of the project.

This is a common and well-known tactic by the American government, which has traditionally made extensive use of enforcement and coercive mechanisms to achieve its goals on the international stage. The sanction is a mechanism that, due to the good customs of the law, should be applied as a last resort, to safeguard a legal asset that was being violated. Unfortunately, in recent decades, Washington has made absolute use of this mechanism, applying it indiscriminately to simply pursue its own interests.

However, Germany is not willing to passively surrender to American impositions. The European country intends to fight back Washington’s attack by applying strict tariff sanctions to American gas, aiming not only to react to the American provocation, but also to protect the German energy sector from the forced consumption of the American product. From the Bundestag Committee for Economy and Energy, Klaus Ernst stated in a recent interview that “if US pressure on the pipeline project does not stop, we must consider serious measures to protect ourselves – for example, there may be punitive gas tariffs for the US”.

A possible tariff war between Germany and the US on the gas issue is already beginning to rise on the horizon. Increasingly, European and American interests clash and the alliance that shaped the Western geopolitical bloc in recent decades is advancing in its process of decay. At the end of last year, tariff tension around gas had already begun, with Washington approving sanctions against people and companies involved in Nord Stream 2. At the time, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas firmly rejected foreign intervention in the European Union, stating that such measures violate all elementary principles of European law and are therefore inadmissible.

In the beginning, only the German left supported retaliation with tariffs on American gas, being a cause led by the German left party “Die Linke”. Now, however, the cause has acquired deep political and popular dimensions, with strong support from the working classes. The high degree of American intervention in European sovereignty mobilized a parliamentary coalition against the impositions by Washington, making, with the growth of a critical point of view in relation to the USA in the European Union, to face the USA and the imposition of the American gas to become one of the country’s top causes.

The reason why the United States wants to ruin Nord Stream is very clear: the agreement benefits bring Russia and Europe closer together, ending dependence on the Ukrainian route of the Russian natural gas and creating a more continuous, safer and cheaper flow of transport. American fear goes far beyond the mere economic or energy issue. What Washington really wants to avoid is the establishment of close ties between Moscow and Berlin (or any other European power), which could change the geopolitical configuration of the modern world forever. However, the construction of Nord Stream 2, powered by an alliance of companies from Russia, Germany, Austria, France and the Netherlands, was suspended in December 2019, after Washington threatened sanctions against the Swiss company Allseas that carried out the works.

In the midst of a Europe that is gradually resuming its routine, slowly leaving the collective quarantine, the discussion on the energy issue will certainly be the most powerful, since it is a central theme for German national strategy. Furthermore, the project has already been absurdly delayed, since, in the first moments, discussions and tensions of a political nature left the German participation in Nord Stream 2 uncertain and; after the participation was decided, the American sanctions and the pandemic again hampered the progress of the project, which can only now be definitively resumed and finalized.

In fact, if Germany proceeds with sanctions against the USA, this will be a real act of sovereignty and a break in global geopolitics, where Berlin, aiming to satisfy its national interests and needs, will reject the American ambition to be a “global police power”, thus contributing to a multipolar future. Definitely, we are at the moment in the history of the West when the USA and the EU will constantly have increasingly different interests and objectives, with situations of confrontation abounding.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

ECHR rules unanimously that French highest court’s criminal conviction of Israel boycott advocates violates the European Convention on Human Rights’ freedom of expression article

***

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled unanimously today that the French highest court’s 2015 criminal conviction of activists with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement advocating nonviolent boycotts of Israeli goods violated article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Reacting to the breaking news, Rita Ahmad from the Palestinian-led BDS movement said:

This momentous court ruling is a decisive victory for freedom of expression, for human rights defenders, and for the BDS movement for Palestinian freedom, justice and equality. It confirms a 2016 European Union position defending the right to call for BDS against Israel to achieve Palestinian rights under international law.

This is a major legal blow to Israel’s apartheid regime and its anti-BDS lawfare. At Israel’s behest, European governments, especially in France and Germany, have fostered an ominous environment of bullying and repression to silence Palestine solidarity activists.

The ECHR decision comes at a time of widespread condemnations of Israel’s plans to formally annex large swathes of the occupied Palestinian territory. In response to these plans and to Israel’s ongoing “apartheid regime” and “de facto annexation,” Palestinian civil society has reminded states of their obligations to adopt “lawful countermeasures,” including a ban on “arms trade and military-security cooperation with Israel” and on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements.

In 2009 and 2010, eleven activists in France had participated in peaceful protests inside supermarkets calling for a boycott of Israeli goods in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality. They were convicted by French courts of “incitement to discrimination.”

Rita Ahmad said:

At a time when European citizens, inspired by the Black Lives Matter uprising in the US, are challenging the ugly legacy of European colonialism, France, Germany and other EU countries must end their racist repression of human rights defenders campaigning for Palestinian human rights and for an end to Israeli apartheid.

Europe is deeply complicit in Israel’s occupation, siege of Gaza and slow ethnic cleansing of Indigenous Palestinians in Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and elsewhere. For as long as this complicity continues, BDS campaigns will too.

We salute Palestine solidarity activists in France who, despite the prevalent anti-Palestinian repression, have effectively campaigned against Israeli apartheid and against corporations that are complicit in its war crimes against Palestinians, including AXA, Veolia and Orange.

*

Background to the lawsuit (source: ECHR website):

Baldassi and Others v. France (nos. 15271/16, 15280/16, 15282/16, 15286/16, 15724/16,

15842/16, and 16207/16)

The eleven applicants are: Mr Jean-Michel Baldassi, Mr Henri Eichholtzer, Ms Aline Parmentier, Ms Sylviane Mure, Mr Nohammad Akbar, Mr Maxime Roll, Ms Laila Assakali, Mr Yahya Assakali, Mr Jacques Ballouey, Ms Habiba El Jarroudi, and Ms Farida Sarr-Trichine. The applicants are all French nationals, apart from Mr Nohammad Akbar and Ms Habiba El Jarroudi, who are Afghan and Moroccan nationals respectively. Mr Eichholtzer and Ms Parmentier live in Habsheim and Zillisheim respectively. Mr Jacques Ballouey lived in Mulhouse, as did the other applicants.

The cases concern the complaint by activists in the Palestinian cause about their criminal conviction for incitement to economic discrimination, on account of their participation in actions for boycotting products imported from Israel as part of the campaign “BDS : Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions”.

The applicants are members of the “Collectif Palestine 68”, which is a local relay for the international campaign “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS). This campaign was launched on 9 July 2005 with an appeal from Palestinian non-governmental organisations, one year after the opinion issued by the International Court of Justice which states that “[t]he construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law”.

On 26 September 2009 five of the applicants took part in an action inside the [C.] hypermarket in Illzach, calling for a boycott of Israeli products, organised by the “Collectif Palestine 68”. They displayed the articles which they considered to be of Israeli origin in three trolleys so that they could be seen by customers, and handed out leaflets. A similar event was organised by the “Collectif Palestine 68” on 22 May 2010 in the same hypermarket. Eight of the applicants were involved. They also presented a petition to be signed by hypermarket customers, inviting the hypermarket to stop selling products imported from Israel.

The Colmar public prosecutor summoned the applicants to appear before Mulhouse Criminal Court for, inter alia, incitement to discrimination, which offence is provided for in section 24(8) of the Law of 29 July 1881.

By two judgments of 15 December 2011, Mulhouse Criminal Court acquitted the applicants. By two judgments delivered on 27 November 2013, Colmar Court of Appeal set aside the former judgments inasmuch as they acquitted the applicants. It found the applicants guilty of the offence of incitement to discrimination.

As regards the incidents on 26 September 2009, the Court of Appeal imposed on each of the five accused a suspended fine of EUR 1,000 and ordered them to jointly pay each of the four admissible civil parties (the International League against Racism and Antisemitism, the Lawyers without Borders association, the “Alliance France-Israël” association and the “Bureau national de vigilance contre l’antisémitisme”) EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 on the basis of Article 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (civil party expenses not defrayed by the State).

Concerning the incidents of 22 May 2010, the Court of Appeal imposed on each of the nine accused a suspended fine of EUR 1,000 and ordered them to jointly pay three of the civil parties (the International League against Racism and Antisemitism, the Lawyers without Borders association, the “Alliance France-Israël” association), each, EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 on the basis of Article 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (civil party expenses not defrayed by the State).

By two judgments of 20 October 2015 the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeals on points of law lodged by the applicants, who had alleged, in particular, a violation of Articles 7 and 10 of the Convention. It found inter alia that the Court of Appeal had justified its decision since it had rightly noted that the constituent elements of the offence laid down in section 24 (8) of the Law of 29 July 1881 had been made out and that the exercise of freedom of expression, set out in Article 10 of the Convention could, pursuant to paragraph 2 of that provision, could be subject to restrictions or sanctions which were, as in the present case, measures necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder and the protection of the rights of others.

Relying on Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the Convention, the applicants complain that they were convicted on the basis of section 24(8) of the Law of 29 July 1881 on freedom of the press of incitement to economic discrimination, whereas that text did not cover economic discrimination. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), they complain of their criminal conviction on account of their participation, in the context of the BDS campaign, in actions calling for a boycott of articles produced in Israel.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on European Court of Human Rights Deals Major Blow to Israel’s War on Palestine Solidarity
  • Tags: , , ,

Greece and Italy signed a historic agreement yesterday that demarcates the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of the two countries in the Ionian Sea. The agreement signed between Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias and his Italian counterpart Luigi Di Maio has many ramifications in the entire Eastern Mediterranean region, but especially against Turkey’s ambitions of East Mediterranean hegemony.

The agreement helps establish Italy as an energy player, especially as it has already taken an active position in the construction of the Eastmed pipeline – a major project between Greece, Cyprus and Israel, whose joint pipeline will eventually reach Italy through a secondary pipeline project. The EEZ signing comes as Greece, Cyprus, Israel and Egypt have strengthened their relations at a time when Italy was acting unilaterally to serve their own interests. This changed however as Rome was becoming increasingly excluded from developments in the region. An example of this is Italy not having as much influence as they wanted over the war in Libya. By acting unilaterally, albeit not as aggressive as Turkey, Rome ran the risk of being completely left on the fringes of East Mediterranean issues. This is because Greece, Cyprus, Israel and Egypt continued to make deals, improve multilateral relations and assert strong influence over events in the region.

The EEZ agreement was also a first such deal for Greece. Greece also shares a maritime border with Turkey, Cyprus, Egypt, Libya and Albania and now has a legal precedent which will quickly lead to Athens signing EEZ agreements with other neighbouring states, with some speculating Athens could sign one with Egypt as soon as next week.

Source: InfoBrics

In fact, the Libyan House of Representatives, based in the eastern city of Tobruk and in opposition to the Turkish-backed Muslim Brotherhood government in Tripoli, congratulated Greece and Italy on their peaceful resolution to their maritime border issues through international law. The Libyan House of Representatives then called on Greece to make a maritime EEZ agreement with them that would undermine the Turkey-Tripoli deal as it would be in accordance to the United Nations Charter Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

From the Greek perspective, the signing of an EEZ with Italy has massive ramifications for Turkey’s plans to steal oil and gas from Greece’s maritime zone – thus hindering its efforts for complete East Mediterranean dominance. In November last year, Turkey signed a maritime deal with the Muslim Brotherhood government in Libya to carve out Greece’s oil and gas rich waters between them without acknowledging that islands were in EEZ. UNCLOS defends Greece’s vision of how the EEZ between Greece and Turkey should look. However, this is rejected by Ankara who refuse to acknowledge that islands have an EEZ or continental shelves, and is the main reason why Turkey is one of only 15 countries in the whole world not to sign and/or ratify UNCLOS.

The biggest obstacle to the Turkey-Libyan Muslim Brotherhood pact will be the declaration of a Greek EEZ with Egypt. Greece and Italy resolved their EEZ borders by using international law, and it is expected that Greece and Egypt will also use UNCLOS. Meanwhile, the Turkey-Libya deal has been widely condemned, even from Turkey’s closest allies like Germany, and has not received a single confirmation or support from outside of Ankara and Tripoli.

Turkish media, which is overwhelmingly controlled by the state, reacted negatively to the Greece-Italy deal knowing the ramifications it would have on Turkey’s own ambitions to steal Greek maritime space.

Haber Global said “The move to escalate tension in the Eastern Mediterranean by Italy and Greece!”

Milliyet said “’Greece seeks international support’ Panic in Greece!”

Haber 7 said “Greece and Italy agreed to establish an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) at a time when tensions escalated due to natural gas drilling work in the Eastern Mediterranean.”

Turkish Energy Minister Fatih Dönmez announced earlier this month that a drilling vessel of the Turkish Petroleum Corporation will start oil exploration operations to the immediate south of the Greek island of Crete “within three to four months.”

This prompted a flurry of responses from Athens, with Greek government spokesman Stelios Petsas saying “we are not afraid. We are getting prepared for any possibility;” Defence Minister Nikos Panagiotopoulos saying “We do not want to go there, but we want to make it clear that we will do whatever it takes to defend our sovereign rights to the fullest extent possible;” and, General Konstantinos Floros saying that “the Greek Armed Forces are ready to fulfil their duty and carry out their mission of the Constitution from Evros to Kastellorizo ​​if and when required.”

Greece wants to resolve issues diplomatically and peacefully, as it repeatedly calls to do with Turkey and has done so with Italy, but is willing to militarily fight against Turkey, a fellow NATO member, if its maritime space is violated. In light of the Greek-Italian EEZ deal it is unlikely that Turkey will provoke a war as Italy, one of the major powers in the European Union, has confirmed that islands do indeed have an EEZ despite Ankara’s objections.

The EU already showed support for Greece, with Josep Borrell, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, expressing condemnation against Turkey’s provocative actions.

“We are in close contact with our colleagues, the foreign ministers of Greece and also Cyprus, in order to follow the situation of the drillings, and we are calling on Turkey to stop drilling in the areas where there is the EEZ or territorial waters of Cyprus and Greece,” said Borrell, adding that the Foreign Affairs Council “already delivered a strong message addressed to Turkey.”

The question remains whether Turkey will risk a war with Greece by drilling for oil and gas in Greek maritime waters in the next three or four months. It likely will not happen as Turkey has no support in the EU, but a withdrawal will also demonstrate that Ankara is utterly failing in their project for East Mediterranean hegemony.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

“Western countries see the rest of the world as their playing field fit only for exploitation.” – Pramoedya Ananta Toer in conversation with Andre Vltchek, in Jakarta, 2004

“The “global playing field” is “level” only from the perspective of the west.”- Robert H Wade

Introduction

The success of Bong Joon-ho‘s film Parasite (2019) has drawn attention to his back catalogue, in particular his first mainly English-language film, Snowpiercer (2013).

Snowpiercer is a fast-paced movie about a train on a global circular train track, set in the future after a climate change engineering experiment goes wrong. Ice cold temperatures freeze the world into a new ice age. The train is designed and run by the magnate Wilford to circumnavigate the planet perpetually. The passengers, the earth’s only survivors, are segregated: the elites in the luxurious forward cars and the poorest in the grimy tail compartments.  The tail-enders, led by Curtis, decide to revolt and make a plan to get through the fortified doors of each carriage to take over and control the train. However, after battles with the train guards take a heavy toll on the insurgents, a select few are brought to the front of the train to meet Wilford.

The film encapsulates the class system very cleverly with different classes enjoying very different levels of comfort on the train. The tail-enders revolt was only the latest in a series of failed revolutions on the train. This latest revolutionary failure under Curtis’ leadership heralds a change in the tone of the film from violent battle scenes to increasingly decadent and bizarre scenes as he moves through the elite carriages. The disappointing failure of the insurrection seems to have led some film critics to see the film as a depressing metaphor for class struggle. The journey of the survivors through the train to the cockpit seems surreal and pointless after the initial exciting revolutionary exuberance.

Metaphorically speaking

However, a different way of looking at the film might throw some light on the dramatic changes that take place throughout the narrative of the film. And that would be to look at the film, not as a metaphor of class, but as a metaphor of time.

There are many key symbols throughout the film that suggest the train and its carriages are a metaphor for the passage of time, not least that the train itself represents the arrow of time, but also the progress of capitalism through the twentieth century.

That is, a metaphor for the progress and profound changes of the twentieth century that led to climate change, and the attempts to rectify it in the twenty-first century experimental disaster that followed.

Seeing the train as a metaphor of time also clarifies why the narrative changes from a people’s uprising to elite decadence. It is a view of the twentieth century which looks at class but does not have a class analysis. What it has instead is a nihilistic ecological analysis which prefers to see the destruction of society itself (and all those who both benefit from it and all those who are exploited by it) rather than face up to global issues of exploitation and injustice. If there is any hope it is rather vaguely put into a reverse biblical Adam and Eve symbolism whereby the survivors return to the earthly Garden of Paradise much chastened by their catastrophic expulsion.

Carriages and Time: Depicting the Twentieth Century

1910s and 1920s: Slum

The film starts with the failed climate engineering ‘chemtrails’ and moves swiftly to the carriage where the tail-enders, led by Curtis and his second-in-command Edgar, are being overseen by armed militia. The atmosphere is Dickensian as the living quarters resemble slums from the Industrial Revolution. The dirty grey clothes, drawn faces and squalor are straight out of the documentary photography of the early twentieth century and resemble descriptions from Upton Sinclair’s extraordinary novel The Jungle (1906) of the meat-packing industry in Chicago. The first three train cars we see depict a ghetto slum, a prison and mortuary, and a factory respectively. In the prison car they release Namgoong, a captive security specialist, and his clairvoyant daughter Yona to open the doors. They enter the factory car that makes their black protein bars (‘nutrient gel’) and discover the large hoppers are full of cockroaches. This scene could be straight out of The Jungle as Sinclair describes the sausage-making process:

“There was never the least attention paid to what was cut up for sausage; there would come all the way back from Europe old sausage that had been rejected, and that was moldy and white – it would be doused with borax and glycerine, and dumped into the hoppers, and made over again for home consumption. There would be meat that had tumbled out on the floor, in the dirt and sawdust, where the workers had tramped and spit uncounted billions of consumption germs. There would be meat stored in great piles in rooms; and the water from leaky roofs would drip over it, and thousands of rats would race about on it. It was too dark in these storage places to see well, but a man could run over these piles of meat and sweep off handfuls of the dried dung of rats. These rats were nuisances, and the packers would put poisoned bread out for them; they would die, and then the rats, bread, and meat would go into the hoppers together.”

1930s and 1940s: Fascism

After the shock of seeing the contents of their diet the insurgents move on to the next carriage door. As the doors open they face a large group of burly masked men dressed in black and carrying hatchets. They launch into a bloody battle. This scene is reminiscent of the street battles between workers and fascists in England, Germany and Spain in the 1930s. As if to make the point clearer the hatchets resemble the axe of the fasces, a bound bundle of wooden rods, including an axe with its blade emerging carried by the Roman lictors. (The lictor‘s main task was to attend as bodyguards to magistrates who held imperium. The axes symbolized the power to carry out capital punishment and became a symbol of the Italian fascists). And the group’s leader is called Franco the Elder.

Things get worse as the train goes into a long tunnel while the ‘lictors’ put on night vision goggles. The complete overpowering of the tail-enders in the dark reminds one of the total war of Nazi Germany in the Second World War. Eventually, lit torches are brought up from the back of the train and the rebels overcome the men in black. Despite this victory, the group of insurgents is much weakened and at this point it is decided that Curtis, Namgoong, Yona, skilled fighter Grey, and Tanya and Andrew will go it alone to the top of the train. The revolution is effectively over and a select few are brought forward to meet the elite.

1950s: Self-Sufficiency

The small group are now brought through the fifth car showing a woman knitting in a conservatory listening to classical music. All is quiet as peaceful workers tend to the vegetable plants. The sixth car is an aquarium with a sushi bar. They sit down and have real food for the first time since they got on the train.

The symbolism of Japan at this point in the chronology is interesting as:

“Post-World War II Japan of the 1950s and ’60s saw many changes. It experienced record economic growth and advances in manufacturing and design that resulted in a wealth of goods that fascinated people across the world.”

Japan also has significance as an Asian country with a development curve similar to the West. The seventh car is depicted as a fully stocked refrigerated meat section. These cars of fruit, vegetables, and meat could easily represent the post world war nationalist ideology of self-sufficiency, that partly arose out of the war economy, but was soon affected by supranational free trade areas and international free trade agreements. For example:

“In the 19th century, Britain did completely embrace free trade. It was enormously to our advantage to do so, as the workshop of the world, and we imported most of our food by the end of the 19th century. The result was that we nearly starved in two world wars. After the Second World War, we did not make the same mistake; even with the enormous change in tastes and increase in food imports in recent decades, we still produce more than half of what we eat.”

The eight car is a classroom where the teacher, a middle class lady dressed in 1950s style clothing, tells the children about the greatness of Wilford and the “sacred engine”. The children are taught negative views of the ‘Old Worlders’ and the ‘Tail Sectioners’, for example:

“YLFA (8) a sweet little girl with blond pigtails waves her hand at Teacher.  She jumps up without being acknowledged…

YLFA: I heard all Tail Sectioners were lazy dogs who slept all day in their own shit. […]

YLFA: Old World people were frigging morons who got turned into popsicles!”

Boiled eggs are handed out to the children and the workers. However guns are concealed underneath and the teacher pulls out a machine gun and starts firing at the rebels and is killed. This is a shocking moment revealing the fanaticism and violence of Wilford’s supporters.

Curtis’ declining group continues through the ninth and tenth car which resemble luxury carriages from the Orient Express. In car 10 they pass by an academic, a dentist and a tailor all busy at work in their compartments.

1960s: Equilibrium

In the eleventh car there is a very plush bar where the elites inhabit their own world in their own older fashion sense.  A staircase leads up to a row of women sitting under typical 1960s hair salon hair-drying chairs. The next car has swimming pools straight out of a 1960s James Bond movie where another gun battle takes place. The 13th car has two rows of individual sauna cubicles. These carriages (from the 5th to the 13th) have a mood of equilibrium and peace where the elites can live undisturbed and the middle classes can enjoy the good life.

1970s and 1980s: Decadence

However, now the rebel group (Curtis, Namgoong, and Yona) enter a disco in the 14th car where we see the middle class youth for the first time dancing and taking drugs. They are kept constantly high and drunk. After the disco they pass through a nightclub VIP room where the drugged out ‘zombies’ loll about in animal skins oblivious to the drama taking over the train.

1990s and 2000s: Computer Age

This leads them into a carriage lined with banks of computers and large engine cogs turning the wheels of the train. The last carriage for Curtis is the section where Wilford himself resides behind massive metal doors. Here the system is digitised and runs on a perpetual power source. Despite its technological sophistication it still needs children (Tim) from the tail-end of the train to sit in the works as living components of its power generation. The ‘perpetual’ or ‘sacred’ engine feeds off the poorest and  youngest to keep going indefinitely, symbolising capitalist dependence on children in the factories and mines of the nineteenth century, and the child labour scandals in the modern factories of today.

Thus the whole train seems to move through time as well as space. From slums to fascism, expansionism to decadence and finally technology and the 1%, the elites on the train promote a hierarchical system and ideology which they believe is ‘correct’ and ‘natural’. As Wilford says to Curtis:

“WILFORD: Curtis, everyone has their own pre-ordained position.
this way and that…and everyone is in it.  Except you.
CURTIS: That’s what people in the best place say to the people in the worst place.
There’s not a soul on this train who wouldn’t trade places with you.”

This ‘correct’ attitude can still be seen among the aristocracy today, as Chris Bryant writes:

“Historically, the British aristocracy’s defining feature was not a noble aspiration to serve the common weal but a desperate desire for self-advancement. They stole land under the pretence of piety in the early middle ages, they seized it by conquest, they expropriated it from the monasteries and they enclosed it for their private use under the pretence of efficiency. They grasped wealth, corruptly carved out their niche at the pinnacle of society and held on to it with a vice-like grip. They endlessly reinforced their own status and enforced deference on others through ostentatiously exorbitant expenditure on palaces, clothing and jewellery. They laid down a strict set of rules for the rest of society, but lived by a different standard. Such was their sense of entitlement that they believed – and persuaded others to believe – that a hierarchical society with them placed firmly and unassailably at the top was the natural order of things. Even to suggest otherwise, they implied, was to shake the foundations of morality.”

In Snowpiercer, the train hierarchy is a patriarchal system of which Wilford is the highest priest of the ‘sacred’ engine and father of all. The whole system is self-reproducing as the children of the middle class and elites are indoctrinated into it from an early age.

Throughout his journey through the cars Namgoong has been collecting the drug Kronole made from hallucinogenic industrial waste which is also highly flammable. He pushes the small blocks together to make a plastic explosive bomb which he uses to blow open a train door. However, the explosive shock waves cause the train to be hit by successively stronger avalanches and is eventually derailed and crashes. Everybody is killed except for Yona and Tim, (as far as we know).

This metaphor for the complete collapse of the whole system (and a catastrophe triggered by an unforeseen event) is typical of modern ecological ideologies that blame the ‘greed’ of the human race for climate chaos, and not the global class system which exploits natural resources relentlessly, and under which the vast majority of people have to struggle to survive. Thus, ideologically, the working class not only fails to take control of the train (and thereby the system) but is itself destroyed in the train crash.

Conclusion

On a broader level the survival of Yona and Tim has some interesting parallels with Mao’s Three Worlds Theory. In the Snowpiercer narrative, the First World [e.g.the US] and Second World [e.g. Europe and Japan] are destroyed while the Third World [e.g. Asia (Yona) and Africa (Tim)] survives to repopulate the world presumably with a more nature-friendly ideology. Thus the survivors become a metaphor for the supra-national entities of Asia and Africa, who, after centuries of colonialism and imperialism (by the First and Second Worlds) cannot be blamed for not investigating the destruction behind them as they walk away.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. 

Since the videotaped violent murder of African American George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25, there has been an upsurge in antiracist and anti-police brutality demonstrations and rebellions spanning across the United States.

When Darnella Frazier, the 17-year-old woman who captured this horrendous police action on her cellphone and later posting it to social media, the debate around the role and status of police forces came to fore.

Floyd’s killing represented a long legacy of systematic racist violence directed towards African Americans by law-enforcement agents and vigilantes. These deaths at the hands of police, racist organizations and individuals are often allowed to take place without any legal consequences for the perpetrators.

Other high profile cases involving the shooting deaths of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia and Breonna Taylor in Louisville, served to heighten the level of social tensions leading to a myriad of expressions which oppose the historic treatment of African Americans. One issue which has created much concern from the perspective of the U.S. ruling class is the idea of defunding or even dismantling the police.

Slogans raised by demonstrators over the period since May 25 labelling police as inherently racist and brutal, are being reflected in the debates taking place throughout the corporate media. Hosts and commentators begin from the perspective that the calls for the defunding and dismantling could not really mean what it suggests. How could U.S. society maintain order without law-enforcement agents?

Nevertheless, the Minneapolis City Council in the aftermath of the rebellion which set the stage for national protests, voted to dismantle the current police force on June 7. Prior to this announcement, the Minnesota state government announced a wide ranging probe into the operations of the Minneapolis police in light of the death of Floyd and many others over decades.

The French Press Agency wrote in an article that:

“The council of the U.S. city of Minneapolis voted late Sunday (June 7) to dismantle and rebuild the police department, after the death in custody of George Floyd sparked nationwide protests about racism in law enforcement, pushing the issue onto the national political agenda. ‘We committed to dismantling policing as we know it in the city of Minneapolis and to rebuild with our community a new model of public safety that actually keeps our community safe, Council President Lisa Bender told CNN.”

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey stated before a crowd gathered to honor George Floyd in a “Defund the Police” rally that he was opposed to dismantling the existing department. After saying this he was rebuked by many within the audience. Just days later, the police chief of Minneapolis, Medaria Arrandondo, in addressing a press conference, reported that the agency had suspended contract talks with the local union representing the cops.

Numerous municipalities are debating the ideas related to defunding and dismantling of law-enforcement in its present form. However, at present only the Minneapolis City Council has passed such a pledge to dismantle and rebuild on what is said to be a better system of public safety.

Other cities are discussing reductions in funding for the police departments. These municipalities include Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Dallas, Austin, St. Louis, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., New York City, Baltimore, Durham and Hartford.

Chicago demonstration calling for defunding the police

In Camden, New Jersey where the police department was dismantled several years ago in favor of a County-wide system (CCPD), there are mixed reviews over the current situation. There were indications that crime had been reduced and better police-community relations were the concrete outcomes.

Adversely, at least one assessment of the restructuring of police services in Camden reveals that these measures were enacted alongside cuts in public services. The availability of low-income housing and other amenities to assist the working class and impoverished coincided with the law-enforcement restructuring.

Keith Benson, an academic studying the overall social conditions in Camden, wrote in Business Insider:

“In 2010, Camden had roughly 77,000 residents; today, the number is closer to 70,000. In addition to fewer people, there are also fewer public housing complexes, less affordable housing, and fewer Section 8 offerings within city limits. There is also a widely held suspicion among Camden residents that violent crimes are going unreported in media and reclassified at department headquarters as nonviolent offenses. This is on top of the spike in abuse-of-power allegations against the CCPD since its inception and the beatings of residents captured on camera and viewable on YouTube.”

Consequently, the calls for defunding and dismantling must be viewed within the broader context of the economic and social conditions prevailing in the municipalities. With the COVID-19 pandemic, the growing problems of mass unemployment, school closings and the burdens placed on urban areas directly resulting from the decline in tax revenues, necessitates in a capitalist system, that widespread austerity measures are inevitable.

Some will look at the disproportionate spending on law-enforcement and the criminal justice system as a source for reducing public budgets. Of course, the opposition to such proposals either for economic or political reasons, will be formidable considering the recent unrest which has swept the U.S.

Police Brutality Escalates During National Unrest

There have been innumerable reports of misconduct and brutality in the midst of the mass demonstrations and rebellions around the U.S. In New York City, police were condemned for the excessive use of force and unwarranted arrests of those exercising their right to free speech and assembly.

Recent reports from Atlanta, Georgia, despite the existence of an African American Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, revealed that there were numerous complaints about police abuse against youth involved in the demonstrations and those who were not at all remotely connected to the protests. National Guard and police shot to death an African American businessman in Louisville, Kentucky, David McAtee, while he was outside his restaurant. The victim was not participating in the demonstrations and property damage which took place in the city.

In Detroit, police arrested over 400 people during a three day period as daily marches and rallies were held in solidarity with the movement against the murder of George Floyd and other African Americans. Moreover, the utilization of rubber bullets, teargas, pepper spray and other purportedly non-lethal crowd control weapons has received sharp criticism. Members of the public demonstrating, passersby, journalists and legal observers were struck with these weapons and detained without justification.

Demonstrators in Detroit drafted a series of demands which include the defunding of the police and the banning of crowd control weapons, were rejected in a June 9 meeting with the corporate-imposed mayor and police chief. Yet in the aftermath of the impact of COVID-19 in the city, which is quite severe, thousands of municipal employees are being laid off, furloughed, having to take reductions in pay, and the slashing of city services. The State of Michigan has already announced the trimming of the public education budget by 25%.

California and Washington, D.C. were often highlighted in the rise of police brutality cases. Sean Monterossa, 22-years-old of San Francisco, was killed by a Vallejo police officer during the unrest. The officer claimed that he saw Monterossa carrying a weapon he thought was a firearm and actually turned out to be a hammer.

The Mercury News said of the incident:

“Sean Monterrosa was shot by a Vallejo officer around 12:30 a.m. Tuesday (June 2). The officer mistook a hammer near Monterrosa’s waist for a gun while responding to a report of looting at a local pharmacy, Vallejo police Chief Shawny Williams said last week. The officer was identified by multiple law enforcement sources as Jarrett Tonn, a veteran policeman who has had three prior shootings since 2015. Tonn and several ‘witness officers’ were placed on administrative leave after the shooting, police said.”

President Donald Trump weighed in to the crisis by calling for the deployment of the U.S. military to restore order in the country. He later slandered the 75-year-old demonstrator in Buffalo, New York who was seriously injured when he was pushed down by a special response unit of the police force. After the two officers involved were charged with assault, over 50 members of the police force resigned from this unit and received unconditional support from their union. Trump claimed that the victim, Martin Gugino, was a member of the Anti-Fascist movement (ANTIFA), which was not true. In making such a false assertion the president is signaling his unconditional support to law-enforcement irrespective of the crimes they are committing.

The Role of Police in a Racist-Capitalist Society

Law-enforcement policy towards African Americans has its origins within the slave patrols of the 18th and 19th centuries. African enslavement contributed to the advent of capitalism in Europe and North America, consequently the continuation of policing in its present form will receive support from the highest echelons of the ruling class.

Slave advertisement for the acquisition of Africans

An article written by Prof. Connie Hasset-Walker of Norwich University addressed this history saying:

“Policing in southern slave-holding states had roots in slave patrols, squadrons made up of white volunteers empowered to use vigilante tactics to enforce laws related to slavery. They located and returned enslaved people who had escaped, crushed uprisings led by enslaved people and punished enslaved workers found or believed to have violated plantation rules.

The first slave patrols arose in South Carolina in the early 1700s. As University of Georgia social work professor Michael A. Robinson has written, by the time John Adams became the second U.S. president, every state that had not yet abolished slavery had them. Members of slave patrols could forcefully enter anyone’s home, regardless of their race or ethnicity, based on suspicions that they were sheltering people who had escaped bondage.”

Slave patrols in the United States represent the origins of policing measures for African Americans

The demands for the defunding, dismantling and restructuring of the police are an important development in the mass struggle now making headway in the U.S. The resources allocated to police departments could be utilized for the purpose of improving education, municipal services and infrastructural improvement.

Nonetheless, the underpinning of law-enforcement and criminal justice policies in the U.S. requires a radical deconstruction. These reforms can only be effectively implemented when the capitalist and racist system itself is eliminated and there is the realization of a socialist society.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated; featured image: New York City police aggressively attack demonstrators

In the near-two decades since the International Criminal Court was set up to try the worst violations of international human rights law, it has faced harsh criticism for its highly selective approach to the question of who should be put on trial.

Created in 2002, the court, it was imagined, would act as a deterrent against the erosion of an international order designed to prevent a repetition of the atrocities of the Second World War.

Such hopes did not survive long.

The court, which sits in The Hague in the Netherlands, almost immediately faced a difficult test: whether it dared to confront the world’s leading superpower, the United States, as it launched a “war on terror”.

The ICC’s prosecutors refused to grasp the nettle posed by the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Instead, they chose the easiest targets: for too long, it looked as though war crimes were only ever committed by Africans.

Now, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, looks poised finally to give the court some teeth. She is threatening to investigate two states – the US and Israel – whose actions have been particularly damaging to international law in the modern era.

The court is considering examining widespread human rights abuses perpetrated by US soldiers in Afghanistan, and crimes committed by Israeli soldiers in the occupied Palestinian territories, especially Gaza, as well as the officials responsible for Israel’s illegal settlement programme.

An investigation of both is critically important: the US has crafted for itself a role as global policeman, while Israel’s flagrant violations of international law have been ongoing for more than half a century.

The US is the most powerful offender, and Israel the most persistent.

Both states have long dreaded this moment – the reason they refused to ratify the Rome Statute that established the ICC.

Last week Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, stepped up US attacks on the court, saying its administration was “determined to prevent having Americans and our friends and allies in Israel and elsewhere hauled in by this corrupt ICC”.

A large, bipartisan majority of US Senators sent a letter to Pompeo last month urging him to ensure “vigorous support” for Israel against the Hague court.

Israel and the US have each tried to claim an exemption from international law on the grounds that they did not sign up to the court.

But this only underscores the problem. International law is there to protect the weak from abuses committed by the strong. The victim from the bully.

A criminal suspect does not get to decide whether their victim can make a complaint, or whether the legal system should investigate. The same must apply in international law if it is to have any meaningful application.

Even under Bensouda, the process has dragged out interminably. It has taken years for her office to conduct a preliminary investigation and to determine, as she did in late April, that Palestine falls under the ICC’s jurisdiction because it qualifies as a state.

The delay made little sense, given that the State of Palestine is recognised by the United Nations, and it was able to ratify the Rome Statute five years ago.

The Israeli argument is that Palestine lacks the normal features of a sovereign state. However, as the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem recently noted, this is precisely because Israel has occupied the Palestinians’ territory and illegally transferred settlers onto their land.

Israel is claiming an exemption by citing the very crimes that need investigating.

Bensouda has asked the court’s judges to rule on her view that the ICC’s jurisdiction extends to Palestine. It is not clear how soon they will issue a verdict.

Pompeo’s threats last week – he said the US will soon make clear how it will retaliate – are intended to intimidate the court.

Bensouda has warned that her office is being subjected to “misinformation and smear campaigns”. In January, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the court of being “antisemitic”.

In the past, Washington has denied Bensouda a travel visa, and threatened to confiscate her and the ICC judges’ assets and put them on trial. The US has also vowed to use force to liberate any Americans put in the dock.

There are indications the judges may now be searching for a bolt hole. They have asked Israel and the Palestinian Authority to respond urgently to questions about whether the temporary Oslo accords, signed more than 25 years ago, are still legally binding.

Israel has argued that the lack of resolution to the Oslo process precludes the Palestinians from claiming statehood. That would leave Israel, not the ICC, with jurisdiction over the territories.

On Monday Bensouda was reported to have given her view that the Oslo accords should have no bearing on whether an investigation proceeds.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, told the ICC last week that the PA considers itself exempt from its Oslo obligations, given that Israel has announced imminent plans to annex swaths of Palestinian territory in the West Bank.

Annexation was given a green light under President Trump’s “peace plan” unveiled earlier in the year.

Bensouda’s term as prosecutor finishes next year. Israel may hope to continue stonewalling until she is gone. Elyakim Rubinstein, a former Israeli Supreme Court judge, called last month for a campaign to ensure that her successor is more sympathetic to Israel.

But if Bensouda does get the go-ahead, Netanyahu and an array of former generals, including his Defence Minister Benny Gantz, would likely be summoned for questioning. If they refuse, an international arrest warrant could be issued, theoretically enforceable in the 123 countries that ratified the court.

Neither Israel nor the US is willing to let things reach that point.

They have recruited major allies to the fight, including Australia, Canada, Brazil and several European states. Germany, the court’s second largest donor, has threatened to revoke its contributions if the ICC proceeds.

Maurice Hirsch, a former legal adviser to the Israeli army, wrote a column last month in Israel Hayom, a newspaper widely seen as Netanyahu’s mouthpiece, accusing Bensouda of being a “hapless pawn of Palestinian terrorists”.

He suggested that other states threaten to pull their contributions, deny ICC staff the travel visas necessary for their investigations and even quit the court.

That would destroy any possibility of enforcing international law – an outcome that would delight both Israel and the US.

It would render ICC little more than a dead letter, just as Israel, backed by the US, prepares to press ahead with the West Bank’s annexation.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”— George Santayana

Watch and see: this debate over police brutality and accountability is about to get politicized into an election-year referendum on who should occupy the White House.

Don’t fall for it.

The Deep State, the powers-that-be, want us to turn this into a race war, but this is about so much more than systemic racism. This is the oldest con game in the books, the magician’s sleight of hand that keeps you focused on the shell game in front of you while your wallet is being picked clean by ruffians in your midst.

It’s the Reichstag Fire all over again.

It was February 1933, a month before national elections in Germany, and the Nazis weren’t expected to win. So they engineered a way to win: they began by infiltrating the police and granting police powers to their allies; then Hitler brought in stormtroopers to act as auxiliary police; by the time an arsonist (who claimed to be working for the Communists in the hopes of starting an armed revolt) set fire to the Reichstag, the German parliamentary building, the people were eager for a return to law and order.

That was all it took: Hitler used the attempted “coup” as an excuse to declare martial law and seize absolute power in Germany, establishing himself as a dictator with the support of the German people.

Fast forward to the present day, and what do we have? The nation in turmoil after months of pandemic fear-mongering and regional lockdowns, a national election looming, a president with falling poll numbers, and a police state that wants to stay in power at all costs.

Note the similarities?

It’s entirely possible that Americans have finally reached a tipping point over police brutality after decades of abuse. After all, until recently, the legislatures and the courts have marched in lockstep with the police state, repeatedly rebuffing efforts to hold police accountable for official misconduct.

Then again, it’s also equally possible that the architects of the police state have every intention of manipulating this outrage for their own purposes.

It works the same in every age.

As author Jim Keith explains,

“Create violence through economic pressures, the media, mind control, agent provocateurs: thesis. Counter it with totalitarian measures, more mind control, police crackdowns, surveillance, drugging of the population: antithesis. What ensues is Orwell’s vision of 1984, a society of total control: synthesis.”

Here’s what is going to happen: the police state is going to stand down and allow these protests, riots and looting to devolve into a situation where enough of the voting populace is so desperate for a return to law and order that they will gladly relinquish some of their freedoms to achieve it. And that’s how the police state will win, no matter which candidate gets elected to the White House.

You know who will lose? Every last one of us.

Listen, people should be outraged over what happened to George Floyd, but let’s get one thing straight: Floyd didn’t die merely because he was black and the cop who killed him is white. Floyd died because America is being overrun with warrior cops—vigilantes with a badge—who are part of a government-run standing army that is waging war on the American people in the so-called name of law and order.

Not all cops are warrior cops, trained to act as judge, jury and executioner in their interactions with the populace. Unfortunately, the good cops—the ones who take seriously their oath of office to serve and protect their fellow citizens, uphold the Constitution, and maintain the peace—are increasingly being outnumbered by those who believe the lives—and rights—of police should be valued more than citizens.

These warrior cops may get paid by the citizenry, but they don’t work for us and they certainly aren’t operating within the limits of the U.S. Constitution.

This isn’t about racism in America.

This is about profit-driven militarism packaged in the guise of law and order, waged by greedy profiteers who have transformed the American homeland into a battlefield with militarized police, military weapons and tactics better suited to a war zone. This is systemic corruption predicated on the police state’s insatiable appetite for money, power and control.

This is a military coup waiting to happen.

Why do we have more than a million cops on the taxpayer-funded payroll in this country whose jobs do not entail protecting our safety, maintaining the peace in our communities, and upholding our liberties?

I’ll tell you why.

These warrior cops—fitted out in the trappings of war, drilled in the deadly art of combat, and trained to look upon “every individual they interact with as an armed threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making—are the police state’s standing army.

This is the new face of war, and America has become the new battlefield.

Militarized police officers, the end product of the government—federal, local and state—and law enforcement agencies having merged, have become a “standing” or permanent army, composed of full-time professional soldiers who do not disband.

Yet these permanent armies are exactly what those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights feared as tools used by despotic governments to wage war against its citizens.

American police forces were never supposed to be a branch of the military, nor were they meant to be private security forces for the reigning political faction. Instead, they were intended to be an aggregation of countless local police units, composed of citizens like you and me that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every American community.

As a result of the increasing militarization of the police in recent years, however, the police now not only look like the military—with their foreboding uniforms and phalanx of lethal weapons—but they function like them, as well.

Thus, no more do we have a civilian force of peace officers entrusted with serving and protecting the American people.  Instead, today’s militarized law enforcement officials have shifted their allegiance from the citizenry to the state, acting preemptively to ward off any possible challenges to the government’s power, unrestrained by the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment.

They don’t work for us. As retired Philadelphia Police Captain Ray Lewis warned, “Corporate America is using police forces as their mercenaries.”

We were sold a bill of goods.

For years now, we’ve been told that cops need military weapons to wage the government’s wars on drugs, crime and terror. We’ve been told that cops need to be able to crash through doors, search vehicles, carry out roadside strip searches, shoot anyone they perceive to be a threat, and generally disregard the law whenever it suits them because they’re doing it to protect their fellow Americans from danger. We’ve been told that cops need extra legal protections because of the risks they take.

None of that is true.

In fact, a study by a political scientist at Princeton University concludes that militarizing police and SWAT teams “provide no detectable benefits in terms of officer safety or violent crime reduction.” According to researcher Jonathan Mummolo, if police in America are feeling less safe, it’s because the process of transforming them into extensions of the military makes them less safe, less popular and less trust-worthy.

The study, the first systematic analysis on the use and consequences of militarized force, reveals that “police militarization neither reduces rates of violent crime nor changes the number of officers assaulted or killed.”

In other words, warrior cops aren’t making us or themselves any safer.

Militarized police armed with weapons of war who are allowed to operate above the law and break the laws with impunity are definitely not making America any safer or freer.

The problem, as one reporter rightly concluded, is “not that life has gotten that much more dangerous, it’s that authorities have chosen to respond to even innocent situations as if they were in a warzone.” Consequently, Americans are now eight times more likely to die in a police confrontation than they are to be killed by a terrorist.

Militarism within the nation’s police forces is proving to be deadlier than any pandemic.

This battlefield mindset has gone hand in hand with the rise of militarized SWAT (“special weapons and tactics”) teams.

Frequently justified as vital tools necessary to combat terrorism and deal with rare but extremely dangerous criminal situations, such as those involving hostages, SWAT teams have become intrinsic parts of local law enforcement operations, thanks in large part to substantial federal assistance and the Pentagon’s military surplus recycling program, which allows the transfer of military equipment, weapons and training to local police for free or at sharp discounts while increasing the profits of its corporate allies.

Where this becomes a problem of life and death for Americans is when these SWAT teams— outfitted, armed and trained in military tactics—are assigned to carry out relatively routine police tasks, such as serving a search warrant. Nationwide, SWAT teams have been employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community nuisances: angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession, to give a brief sampling.

Remember, SWAT teams originated as specialized units dedicated to defusing extremely sensitive, dangerous situations. They were never meant to be used for routine police work such as serving a warrant. Unfortunately, the mere presence of SWAT units has actually injected a level of danger and violence into police-citizen interactions that was not present as long as these interactions were handled by traditional civilian officers.

There are few communities without a SWAT team today, and there are more than 80,000 SWAT team raids per year.

Yet the tension inherent in most civilian-police encounter these days can’t be blamed exclusively on law enforcement’s growing reliance on SWAT teams and donated military equipment.

It goes far deeper, to a transformation in the way police view themselves and their line of duty.

Specifically, what we’re dealing with today is a skewed shoot-to-kill mindset in which police, trained to view themselves as warriors or soldiers in a war, whether against drugs, or terror, or crime, must “get” the bad guys—i.e., anyone who is a potential target—before the bad guys get them. The result is a spike in the number of incidents in which police shoot first, and ask questions later.

Making matters worse, when these officers, who have long since ceased to be peace officers, violate their oaths by bullying, beating, tasering, shooting and killing their employers—the taxpayers to whom they owe their allegiance—they are rarely given more than a slap on the hands before resuming their patrols.

This lawlessness on the part of law enforcement, an unmistakable characteristic of a police state, is made possible in large part by police unions which routinely oppose civilian review boards and resist the placement of names and badge numbers on officer uniforms; police agencies that abide by the Blue Code of Silence, the quiet understanding among police that they should not implicate their colleagues for their crimes and misconduct; prosecutors who treat police offenses with greater leniency than civilian offenses; courts that sanction police wrongdoing in the name of security; and legislatures that enhance the power, reach and arsenal of the police, and a citizenry that fails to hold its government accountable to the rule of law.

Indeed, not only are cops protected from most charges of wrongdoing—whether it’s shooting unarmed citizens (including children and old people), raping and abusing young women, falsifying police reports, trafficking drugs, or soliciting sex with minors—but even on the rare occasions when they are fired for misconduct, it’s only a matter of time before they get re-hired again.

Much of the “credit” for shielding these rogue cops goes to influential police unions and laws providing for qualified immunity, police contracts that “provide a shield of protection to officers accused of misdeeds and erect barriers to residents complaining of abuse,” state and federal laws that allow police to walk away without paying a dime for their wrongdoing, and rampant cronyism among government bureaucrats.

It’s happening all across the country.

This is how perverse justice in America has become.

Incredibly, while our own Bill of Rights are torn to shreds, leaving us with few protections against government abuses, a growing number of states are adopting Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights(LEOBoR), which provide cops accused of a crime with special due process rights and privileges not afforded to the average citizen.

This, right here, epitomizes everything that is wrong with America today.

Even when the system appears to work on the side of justice, it’s the American taxpayer who ends up paying the price.

Literally.

Because police officers are more likely to be struck by lightning than be held financially accountable for their actions. As Human Rights Watch explains, taxpayers actually pay three times for officers who repeatedly commit abuses: “once to cover their salaries while they commit abuses; next to pay settlements or civil jury awards against officers; and a third time through payments into police ‘defense’ funds provided by the cities.”

Deep-seated corruption of this kind doesn’t just go away because politicians and corporations suddenly become conscience-stricken in the face of mass protests and start making promises they don’t intend to keep.

As I explain in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we need civic engagement and citizen activism, especially at the local level. However, if it ends at the ballot box without achieving any real reform that holds government officials at all levels accountable to playing by the rules of the Constitution, then shame on us.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Censorship is the new normal in the US. They’re increasingly threatening speech, press, and academic freedoms — how all police states operate.

Tech giants Facebook, Twitter, Google, and others, along with establishment media, are complicit with a campaign to suppress content conflicting with the official narrative.

When truth-telling and dissent are considered threats to national security, free and open societies no longer exist.

It’s the slippery slope where the US and other Western societies are heading, totalitarian rule for unchallenged control their aim.

S. 3398: Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act was introduced in March by neocon Senator Lindsey Graham and likeminded bipartisan hardliners.

On the phony pretext of developing and mandating “best (online) practices,” along with targeting “online child sexual exploitation, preventing, and for other purposes,” the measure is one of a series congressional actions that aim for mass surveillance and to control the message.

The EARNS Act threatens online communications, including encryption technologies used to secure them, protecting privacy rights of users.

If enacted into law, violators of its provisions could result in loss of Telecommunication Act Section 230 immunity, leaving them vulnerable to government and/or civil suits. More on this below.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) slammed the unconstitutional measure, calling it a “serious threat to both free speech and security online,” adding:

The draft bill (currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration) could let “the attorney general unilaterally dictate how online platforms and services must operate.”

“If those companies don’t follow the Attorney General’s rules, they could be on the hook for millions of dollars in civil damages and even state criminal penalties.”

The measure “opens the door for the government to require new measures to screen users’ speech and even backdoors to read your private communications.”

Section 230 of the US 1996 Telecommunications Act provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an “interactive computer service” that publish information provided by third-party users.

In Reno v. ACLU (1997), the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act violate core First Amendment rights.

According to Free Press.net’s Guarav Laroia:

“The EARN IT Act is constitutionally suspect.”

“It threatens key First and Fourth Amendment rights while failing to specify how it could or would administer the tests online entities need to pass to preserve those rights for themselves and their users.”

“The measure (lets) government (act) as the arbiter of all communications and conversations that happen on the internet” — a power Trump regime AG William Barr and congressional hardliners seek.

It’s a way to criminalize or otherwise neutralize online content opposed to the official narrative if authorities in Washington intend to use this power if gotten for this purpose — to counteract dissent.

Fight for the Future.org issued a statement, saying the following:

“(T)he EARN IT Act (aims to) give the Trump (regime) power to destroy essential encryption services, putting us all at risk of surveillance, censorship, human rights abuses, and other serious threats.”

The measure “is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Graham earlier “threat(ened) Apple, Facebook, and…other tech compan(ies) that might refuse to kill encryption programs” that would block government access to private online communications, saying:

“You’re going to find a way to do this or we’re going to do it for you.”

The latter is what the EARN IT Act is all about — “a thinly-veiled excuse to destroy privacy protections for everyday people like you and me.”

Graham, likeminded congressional members, and AG Barr want digital backdoor access to all online communications that’s unrelated to national security or otherwise protecting public welfare.

It’s all about making greater police state powers the law of the land — a First and Fourth Amendment breach if successful.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Suppressing the Truth, Sustaining The Lie. Censorship is the “New Normal” in America
  • Tags: ,

In this crucial moment, all of us who desire change should begin to think very carefully about a unified message and a coherent, organizing principle in the fight against endemic racism and police brutality in this country. I believe the message should be simple, yet radical: a complete abolition of the police in this nation.

There are many reasons for this stance. Police violence against black communities has gone on for so long, with no signs of abatement, and very few cases of prosecution and significant jail time even when the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.

I do not believe police reform is a reasonable expectation when police (even minority police officers) have been trained for decades to shoot first, ask questions later. I do not believe a reformed police system would be ready to relinquish their military grade weapons, equipment, and automobiles. I do not believe in any reform that keeps officers armed is worthy of our time. Now is not the time for incremental reform, because no one else should die because our criminal justice system is too slow, bureaucratic, and spineless to react in time. Our nation should be pushing for sweeping change.

Recent statistics indicate US police have killed over 8,000 civilians since 2000, while in countries such as Norway, Iceland, and Finland, who all have 2-3 years of police training with much higher qualifications compared to around 6 months in the US have killed between 1-3 people each in the same time frame. No one can reasonably claim US citizens are thousands of times more violent and dangerous that civilians elsewhere, the problem obviously lies in the gun-slinging response of the police forces.

It does not matter if you “know a good cop.” Policing entails following strict orders to protect private property, which necessarily entails harassing people for the most petty of reasons. The severe enforcement of property ownership means the police are the first line of defense in propping up the unjust, immoral system we toil under which goes by the name of capitalism. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the police are the muscle to ensure that is stays that way. Any time “riots” and “looting” threatens property relations, you will not find the one-percenters out in front of their businesses ready to defend them, but you will see police ready to “uphold the law.”

George Floyd ultimately was murdered over a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill. Police are authoritarians at best, fascists and white supremacists at worst. They are not here to protect and serve you or your community: rather the function of police is to preserve law and order, at all costs. The motto is to shoot first, ask questions later.

Of course it’s worth bringing up one of the most famous icons the police use, as seen on T-shirts, bumper stickers, and as tattoos: The Punisher. For those who don’t know, The Punisher is a children’s comic book character, a mentally unstable vigilante who kills “bad guys” but also innocents who get in his way when he is enraged. Much like The Punisher, many US police view themselves as the law: they see their role as the judge, jury, and executioner all in one.

City councils in Minneapolis are already grappling with how to govern in a post-police world, and we should encourage a national conversation. Most calls to the police are for substance abuse problems, medical emergencies, domestic issues, property complaints, simple things like theft or selling drugs, and many calls are made by those who are frankly scared of anyone different from them; usually the homeless, people with mental illnesses, minorities, or anyone who doesn’t appear to “belong” in a particular area.

Many large cities allocate between 25-40% of their discretionary funding to policing. By completely defunding the police and diverting those resources into various public sectors, counselors can respond to drug and substance problems, mental health professionals can help those in need, public education can help alleviate virulent racism, etc. For serious emergencies involving violence or its threat, community/neighborhood groups can be trained formed with an emergency number, and response times would be much faster without the threat of deadly force. More resources can be put towards affordable housing for all, universal jobs programs, ending homelessness, and ending the wage gaps between minorities and whites.

The function of the police domestically mirrors the function of the military abroad. There are plenty of authoritarian leaders and dictators around the world, but if they ally with the US, buy our weapons, and let our corporations plunder their resources and exploit their workers, they are not deemed a threat to US “national security.” However, if the leadership is defiant towards the will of the US, they are suddenly declared a threat to the world, tyrants, sponsors of terrorism, etc. The military does not defend our freedoms; their main function is to carry out the imperial and capitalist agenda which necessarily involves the destruction of black and brown bodies all over the globe as well as the wanton extermination of ecosystems. Since 1945, our military is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of innocent people around the world.

It is absolutely possible to absolutely defund and abolish the active military, which is an imperial standing army, and replace it with citizens’ militias and regional self-defense organizations. The US, due to its huge amount of weaponry and armed citizens, would not be vulnerable to the sorts of attacks from other major countries. Further, the 750+ billion dollars a year devoted to the military could be given to the poor as well as social programs and infrastructure to create renewable energy, peaceful technology to improve housing and transportation, and sustainable farming methods, which will become paramount as we continue into the 21st century.

Likewise, the function of ICE is to terrorize undocumented immigrants and to satiate the delusions of hard-right conservatives who believe “illegal” workers are stealing the jobs of US citizens and somehow are a threat to the “American way of life”, whatever that means. The threat of ICE raids and deportation keep undocumented workers from obtaining necessary things like licenses, insurances, etc., and also keeps the undocumented from getting medical treatment even with life-threatening conditions. The truth is there are enough jobs, resources, and money for everyone in the US; and those who argue otherwise are simply ignorant or under the spell of elite ideology. This false consciousness is a form of brainwashing, which seeks to divide and conquer by pitting ordinary peoples against each other in order to distract from the systematic looting and pillaging engaged in by multinational corporations, domestic policing regimes which murder African-Americans in plain sight, and a military which engages in genocide to sustain imperial military hegemony and has continually committed the worst crimes against humanity over the past 75 years.

These are extremely unpleasant truths but they are necessary to reflect on in order to understand US foreign policy and capitalist political economy. The murder of George Floyd and many others domestically are connected to the stillborn child delivered to an Iraqi woman whose village was contaminated with depleted uranium, to the child in Yemen who starves to death after his family was obliterated in a US drone strike, to the swollen belly of a child laborer mining Coltan for our cell phones, to the widow in Colombia whose husband was killed on their rural farm by US-backed death squads.

If we can begin to face the horrors the US has inflicted on the world, as well as each other, the first steps can be taken to reflect, grieve, and grapple with our barbaric treatment towards minorities and brutal history as a nation. Deep introspection will be necessary to reconcile with our past and connect the dots to the ongoing violence at home and abroad. Public opinion is shifting significantly, and there are encouraging signs that the protests can sustain themselves and become a national uprising. Now more than ever, the world must stand in solidarity with the protesters and organize twice as well to tackle the crisis of racist police violence in the midst of the global pandemic.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Abolish the Police, Abolish the Military, Abolish ICE: Dismantle Systems of Oppression
  • Tags:

Selected Articles: We Don’t Need A Vaccine for COVID-19

June 10th, 2020 by Global Research News

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis provided by Global Research on a daily basis?

Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

*     *     *

Virus Contact-Tracing for All – Singaporeans to be Tracked by Gov’t in Post-COVID World

By Zero Hedge, June 10, 2020

Singapore is on the cusp of rolling out a mandatory COVID-19 tracing program that will identify people who had come in contact with virus carriers. The program will distribute tiny microchips to all 5.7 million residents, in what will be the most extensive tracing program globally, reported Reuters.

Another Brewing Scandal: Saudi Arms Sales, the Ghost of a Reporter, and America’s Oil War in Yemen

By Charlotte Dennett, June 10, 2020

The brutal killing of George Floyd by police, followed by the president’s calls for military intervention against protestors, are causing words like “dictatorship,” “authoritarianism,” and even “fascism” to become part of the national discourse. But the president has been dismantling constitutional safeguards for a long time, and the racism he and his administration have broadcast across the nation extends around the world, too.

Rewriting History: The Problem with Toppling Our Monuments

By Johanna Ross, June 10, 2020

On Sunday a statue to the 19th century English merchant Edward Colston was seized from its pedestal and violently hurled into Bristol harbour by a group of protestors demonstrating as part of the Black Lives Matter movement. The incident has become the subject of fierce debate ever since. Edward Colston, like many wealthy Europeans of his time, was a slave trader, and the monument has become, for many, a symbol of racism of the type we must eradicate from our society for good.

Two Million Arab Lives Don’t Matter

By Kurt Nimmo, June 10, 2020

While BLM and identity activists dwell in OCD fashion on racist cops and “white privilege,” they completely ignore the organized mass murder of black- and brown-skinned people by a government that now “takes a knee” for a former criminal, beatified as a saint by the state and its propaganda media. Those responsible for the murder of George Floyd will undoubtedly spend years behind bars, as they should, but this will not quell the outrage and violence committed in his name. 

We Don’t Need No Stinking Vaccine for COVID-19

By Jeff Harris, June 10, 2020

So if our lifestyle is very, very important to staying healthy as the good doctor says ask yourself this question? Based on the Web M.D. article virtually all the results of the lockdown serve to weaken our immune systems. The stress of unemployment, constant harping about infections and rising death rates, lack of exercise and now a crack in our food distribution system all are known to weaken the human immune system.

Now Comes the Davos Global Economy “Great Reset”. What Happens After the Covid-19 Pandemic?

By F. William Engdahl, June 10, 2020

On June 3 via their website, the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) unveiled the outlines of their upcoming January 2021 forum. They call it “The Great Reset.” It entails taking advantage of the staggering impact of the coronavirus to advance a very specific agenda. Notably enough, that agenda dovetails perfectly with another specific agenda, namely the 2015 UN Agenda 2030. The irony of the world’s leading big business forum, the one that has advanced the corporate globalization agenda since the 1990s, now embracing what they call sustainable development ,is huge. That gives us a hint that this agenda is not quite about what WEF and partners claim.

Militarized Police, A Gift from Israel?

By Philip Giraldi, June 10, 2020

The killing of black man George Floyd by white Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin has produced the highest level of national unrest seen in the United States since the 1960s. Tens of thousands of protesters are demonstrating against racism and perceived police brutality. As it also comes at a time of coronavirus pandemic and record unemployment, it has the potential to change the U.S. in fundamental ways. The core issue is that many on the left, as well as some on the right, see America’s police as something like an “occupying force,” increasingly self-serving enemies of the people rather than careful protectors of the taxpayers’ lives and property.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: We Don’t Need A Vaccine for COVID-19

Singapore is on the cusp of rolling out a mandatory COVID-19 tracing program that will identify people who had come in contact with virus carriers. The program will distribute tiny microchips to all 5.7 million residents, in what will be the most extensive tracing program globally, reported Reuters.

The city-state, located in Southeast Asia, has already developed a tracing app for smartphones, called TraceToegether, to identify people who have interacted with virus carriers. The app was downloaded by more than 1.5 million residents but did not work well on iPhones since Bluetooth activity goes dormant when app runs in the background.

Singapore officials overseeing the tracing app had several discussions with Apple, but no resolutions were found.

Minister-in-charge of the Smart Nation Initiative Vivian Balakrishnan spoke with Parliament on Friday, gave members of the government update on the tracing program:

“Because TraceTogether does not work equally well across all smartphones, we have decided therefore, at this point, not to mandate the compulsory use of TraceTogether.

“We are developing and will soon roll out a portable wearable device that will … not depend on the possession of a smartphone.

“If this portable device works. We may then distribute it to everyone in Singapore … This will be more inclusive, and it will ensure that all of us will be protected,” Balakrishnan told Parliament.

Balakrishna said the pivot to wearables would mean residents will have to wear a tiny microchip at the end of lanyard or can be carried in pocket or bag. He expects it to be rolled out in the near term.

The technology behind the wearable was not discussed, and at what range the government can track people.

There are many privacy concerns about tracing devices. Especially when the government wants widespread use, it will have to make it mandatory. Other concerns are about who gets the tracking data, and it was said that the Singapore government would only collect data via the first app if a person becomes infected with COVID-19. There are many privacy concerns about contact tracing devices and how the government will use the data.

For instance, this week, the US government and law enforcement agencies are using contact tracing and big tech to identify rioters.

The war on COVID around the world has ushered in a massive surveillance state with weaponry that governments can deploy at any time: thermal imaging cameras, drones, contact tracing, biometric databases, etc.

No one is safe from government in a post-corona world. 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

Thatcherism, as it is known, was made of up of principles comprising economic, social and political ideals that described the Conservative Party that undoubtedly shaped Britain for nearly fifty years. The economic policies that came with Thatcherism really amounted to little more than deregulation. It was and still is a total rejection of the ‘post-war consensus’ that drives privatisation, nationalisation and unleashes ‘corporatism’ – the so-called efficiency of the free-market and the fiction sold to everyone as a ‘trickle-down’ effect.

But that wasn’t enough for the corporations who profited more and more as each decade turned into the next.

Take for instance, Britain’s water supply which was nationalised in the early 20th-century because the private water companies profited from delivering a terrible service throughout the previous century. A hundred years ago, water was considered by politicians a public health necessity but when Thatcher arrived in government nearly a century later, privatisation was the only way. However, Thatcher needed a lie to achieve it. She then hugely restricted the ability of the nationalised water companies to borrow money. That led to the equivalent of financial strangulation and when the service delivery fell (pipe breakages, building disrepair, maintenance etc) to unacceptable levels, calls were made by the Tories to privatise it. Thatcher effectively financially strangled the water companies and then blamed them for not maintaining and building on the infrastructure with a rising population. The same tactic is being used on the NHS.

The full privatisation of water in Britain – the first in the world, involved the new water companies paying £7.5bn for ten water authorities, which was highly publicised as a great financial success. What the public were unaware of at the time was that the state paid £5bn of water company debts and added nearly £2bn in grants – effectively handing each water company over for free. In the year 2018-19, the average wage packet of CEO’s of these water companies was £7.5million and shareholders pocketed £6.5billion in dividends. The delivery of water is no better today than it was in the 1970s and in many respects – worse. According to a study from the National Audit Office, water bills have increased at a rate of 40% above inflation since the industry was fully privatised in 198os. Water privatisation delivered nothing better, made the public worse off and created some fat cats. And to add insult to injury, hosepipe bans are looking increasingly likely for 2020 because the infrastructure is not there in the first place.

The story of water privatisation is not new. The railways provide us with a much worse story and whilst its difficult to attach any of this to corruption – you might think that the sale of 600 buildings originally owned by the state and used by the tax collection service HMRC, which were sold to a company located in a tax haven is indeed corruption. If not, it is nothing short of fraud as it defrauds the taxpayer of a stable income source from its own asset and disposes of it to a tax dodger. The irony is at best painful.

By setting out these examples – and there are many of them, private companies take their lead. The result is that four million companies operating in Britain, do so in anonymously owned shell structures. That is a staggering one in ten companies in the UK operating illegally. And it is now a note of public record that 70 per cent of corruption cases involve opaquely-owned companies such as these.

When the Tories came to power in 2010, they did so on a campaign to make government the most transparent ever and to clean up corporate corruption. Ten years later, the government is actively seeking to hide its activities away from the public eye, shut down scrutiny or even questioning it and corporate corruption has escalated.

The New Statesman recently reported that for Britain –

Cronyism and issues of money buying access to power, are widely recognised and widely criticised” and that “we may be so used to corruption that we are effectively immune to anything but the most high-profile coverage of it.”

The LeaveEU and Cambridge Analytica scandal is just one of many examples along with numerous other dodgy business deals where government contracts are handed out without public scrutiny. Amongst all of this is the lifting of extremely sensitive private data that has been gifted to the likes of Palantir – a company who was deeply involved in the aforementioned Leave EU/CA Brexit scandal.  The government refused point-blank to divulge information relating to these contracts under Freedom of Information requests – but only did so after being sued and even then only four hours before court proceedings.

Britain’s Prime Minister is at the centre of another scandal by suppressing the House of Commons Intelligence Committee report on Russian threats to our democracy. The dossier reportedly illustrates how the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 referendum – and names nine Russian donors to the Conservative Party. It’s bad enough to know that Electoral Commission, the Police, National Crime Agency were all involved in this investigation – all have been leant on – and that the government has ducked accountability. It’s worse to know that a hostile foreign state is deeply involved in a fraudulent Brexit campaign that led to the division of an entire nation and the actors involved have somehow got immunity from investigation.

The Russia Report is quite possibly a game-changer. The results of the inquiry from the Intelligence Security Committee, begun in November 2017, were passed to Boris Johnson in October last year.

Johnson then promised MPs it would be published – which still hasn’t been. Under pressure, he then said on February 4th this year that it would be disclosed after the committee, which was disbanded at December’s election, is up and running again. Somehow, the Committee have not put forward any nominees. There are two legal actions against the government to force the report out into the open. Both look set to fail.

Corruption is now at the heart of Downing Street and is intertwined with everything they do. Having lied their way in, they have now broken just about all of their election promises already (as they did with UK farmers, scientists, new trade deals, an oven-ready EU deal, a guaranteed treaty, no Irish border and so on) or will do. Then add a dash of undisclosed holidays to tropical island hideaways, cover-ups over accusations conflict of interest and a myriad of yet to be discovered wrong-doing and what we really find is a state tearing apart the rule of law and therefore the boundaries of what is right or wrong.

What this does is open the door for genuinely corrupt people to enter political life as voters become ever more anaesthetised to corruption. In turn, it makes politicians accuse each other of being charlatans and liars thereby changing both internal and external perceptions of the UK both domestically and internationally.

Just as corruption is created in the dark corners of the corridors of power, for the first time in more than a century, this makes British politics look and feel more corrupt. And as the pandemic swept across the nation, the government very much decided not to waste the opportunity that a crisis inevitably brings to those with bad intent. And what it showed was a government unable to govern with any moral authority whilst exposing corruption that now appears to be endemic to the office of Downing Street.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from TP

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Britain’s Government – Entangled in Its Own Corruption

Ultimately, All Monuments Are Ozymandias

June 10th, 2020 by Craig Murray

The great philosopher John Stuart Mill probably did more than anyone to map out the proper boundaries of the individual and the state in the western model of political democracy. Furthermore, he talked not just of the state but of societal behaviour as it impacts on individuals. Through the power of thought his influence on the development of the modern world has been enormous, even if many have never heard of him. He was four generations ahead of his time; but that is in part true because his own writings helped shape the future. This from the New Yorker is a fine example of the received view of Mill among the modern liberal intelligentsia:

Mill believed in complete equality between the sexes, not just women’s colleges and, someday, female suffrage but absolute parity; he believed in equal process for all, the end of slavery, votes for the working classes, and the right to birth control (he was arrested at seventeen for helping poor people obtain contraception), and in the common intelligence of all the races of mankind. He led the fight for due process for detainees accused of terrorism; argued for teaching Arabic, in order not to alienate potential native radicals; and opposed adulterating Anglo-American liberalism with too much systematic French theory—all this along with an intelligent acceptance of the free market as an engine of prosperity and a desire to see its excesses and inequalities curbed. He was right about nearly everything, even when contemplating what was wrong: open-minded and magnanimous to a fault, he saw through Thomas Carlyle’s reactionary politics to his genius, and his essay on Coleridge, a leading conservative of the previous generation, is a model appreciation of a writer whose views are all wrong but whose writing is still wonderful. Mill was an enemy of religious bigotry and superstition, and a friend of toleration and free thought, without overdoing either. (No one has ever been more eloquent about the ethical virtues of Jesus of Nazareth.)

Yet for a living John Stuart Mill was Secretary to the Political Committee of the East India Company, and actively involved in the rapacious colonisation of India and the enforced opening of China to opium sales. How do we cope with this? Mill has possibly influenced my thinking more than any other political writer. I would start any political education with a reading of Mill’s On Liberty and J A Hobson’s Imperialism: A Study. But how do we process Mill’s involvement with the East India Company? Should Mill’s statue be ripped from Victoria Embankment Gardens and dumped in the Thames?

I do not ask that as a rhetorical question. It is a dilemma. Historians of thought have tended to deal with it by ignoring Mill’s day job. I have read three biographies of Mill and I have a fourth, by Timothy Larsen, waiting to be started. Richard Reeves comes closest of Mill’s biographers to addressing Mill’s work for the East India Company but tells us almost nothing on the subject that is not from Mill’s own Autobiography. In his Autobiography, what Mill mostly tells us about his work for the EIC is that it did not take up too much of his time.

If Mill were a dentist, for biographers to ignore his day job and concentrate on his philosophy would make sense. But Mill’s day job was governing a very significant proportion of the world’s population. He did not just work at the East India Company, he was perhaps, as Secretary of the Political Committee, the most important civil servant there. Mill wrote and signed off detailed instructions to Governors General. He issued advice – which was expected to be followed – on trade and military affairs, and on governance. It is fascinating to me that in his Autobiography Mill systematically downplays his role in the East India Office, both in terms of his commitment and his importance within the organisation.

There has been much more written about Mill and the East India Company by Indian researchers than by western researchers, because it is of course an excellent illustration of the hypocrisies of western liberalism, that its figurehead was so enmired in the colonial project. Unfortunately, many of these studies lack nuance and tend to accuse Mill of being things he definitely was not, such as a racist. East India Company policies are ascribed to Mill which Mill was demonstrably and actively against, such as the anglicising project of Trevelyan and Macaulay. Mill did not view British culture as superior, and he was horrified by initiatives like the ending of communal land ownership in Bengal and the British creation of a Bengali landlord class there. I broadly recommend this article by Mark Tunick, though like almost everything published on the subject it suffers from the drawback of discussing what Mill wrote about governing India rather than the much harder task of discussing what he wrote in governing India. The subject needs solid analysis of Mill’s thousands of minutes and despatches in the East India Company records.

Mill worked with Burnes to try to avoid the First Afghan War, but like Burnes he did not resign over it, nor over the appalling war crimes committed by the British in its prosecution. Mill had been the guiding hand behind the long Governor Generalship of Lord Bentinck and its policy of avoiding war and expansion; but Mill was still there administering when that ended, through the annexations of Sindh and Nepal and Baluchistan and the most aggressive period of Imperial expansionism. Mill was there for the opium wars.

So how do we come to terms with our past? If slavery is the touchstone of good and bad, Mill is fine. He was a dedicated an effective lifetime opponent of slavery, including in EIC territories, and was highly influential in assuring the UK did not recognise the Confederacy in the US civil war. But if you look at the atrocious crimes of British imperialism, the financial and economic rape of whole continents, the killing, torture, terror and physical rape, why would slavery be the only criterion to judge people?

I have chosen Mill because he was a demonstrably good man, and yet I perfectly understand why a person of Indian or Chinese heritage might want to dump him in the Thames. There are others Imperialists, like Napier, Gordon or Wolseley, with statues all over the country, whose deeds are not admirable to a modern eye, particularly as our society is now a great deal less homogenous and contains descendants of those whose cities were pillaged and people raped and slaughtered by these military prodigies.

I don’t have all the answers. My life of Alexander Burnes tried to find a way to treat a remarkable man who lived by the mores of times not our own. The answer lies not in glorifying nor in destroying our past.

Monuments do not stand still. They are, ultimately, all of them Ozymandias. Destruction of historical artifacts is a bad thing; they are valuable tools for understanding the past, and of artistic and cultural value in themselves. But it is perfectly natural that in public spaces we wish to have public objects that reflect the mores of our own times. The important thing is to understand that the mores of the times do change; our great grandchildren will undoubtedly think we were quaint and had weird beliefs.

A thought on Edward Colston. His involvement in slavery was as a director of the Royal African Company. The Royal in that title is not meaningless; the company was set up specifically to make the monarch rich. A far more practical way to honour the memory of the slaves would be to abolish the monarchy. That would be a meaningful action.

A further thought. Living here in Edinburgh I find it absolutely infuriating that we have a major street named after the genocidal sadist the Duke of Cumberland. (Yes, Cumberland Street is specifically named after him). Respecting the past does not mean our society cannot move on. Street names and statues are signs of honour. There are plenty that should be removed from the street and placed in museums, where they can be explained and contextualised.

When Horatio Nelson helped to “free” the Kingdom of the Sicilies from Napoleon and restore its appalling autocratic monarchy, Neapolitan writers and intellectuals were shot and hung on Nelson’s flagship, anchored off Naples so the mob could not intervene to save them. Nelson watched some of the executions between bouts of shagging Lady Hamilton. I do not recommend toppling Nelson’s column; but I do advocate some real information about him in an education centre under the square.

UPDATE: I see that Liverpool University have just agreed to rename Gladstone Hall because Gladstone’s father was a slave owner. That is, I think, an appalling act of stupidity from what is supposed to be an institute of learning.

Very many thanks to the 700 people who have applied to follow virtually the criminal proceedings against me which start tomorrow. It is just a procedural court hearing tomorrow and I am worried that nothing much may happen. I do hope you will not get bored and give up on the rest of the case when it comes. In Julian Assange’s case, the behaviour of the judge has been outrageous even in the procedural hearings, but we should not take for granted that the same will happen here.

The court has been informing people they are not allowed to record, or to publish while the court is in session. That is true; but you can take notes, and you are allowed to publish factual accounts of what happened once the court closes.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The brutal killing of George Floyd by police, followed by the president’s calls for military intervention against protestors, are causing words like “dictatorship,” “authoritarianism,” and even “fascism” to become part of the national discourse. But the president has been dismantling constitutional safeguards for a long time, and the racism he and his administration have broadcast across the nation extends around the world, too.

In Iraq, where civilian populations have long suffered under the heel of American militarism, protesters applauded the demonstrations in American cities. In Yemen, now in its fifth year of a US-armed Saudi war that has decimated civilian populations, its desperately poor people are bracing for an onslaught of covid-19 due to cuts in UN assistance by Gulf countries allied with the US. But while this tragedy is going largely unnoticed, some key American lawmakers are trying to hold the Trump Administration — and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in particular —accountable for mishandling the war in Yemen through illicit arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

A Congressional hearing on June 3rd focused on the abrupt firing last month of the man looking into the arms sales, the Inspector General charged with oversight of the State Department, including the secretary of state.

IG Steve Linick (image on the right), who accused Pompeo of misconduct, has become the latest victim in a string of politically motivated firings of government watchdogs. If the president’s bunker mentality isn’t disturbing enough, a deeper look into this scandal shows how racism lies at the heart of Trump’s and Pompeo’s foreign policy. And how oil, most notably in the Middle East, and most particularly, in Yemen, is the driving force.

Trump’s Love Affair with Oil

Donald Trump, a mere real estate developer before becoming president, has not been shy about his love of the powerful oil industry, whether domestic or Middle Eastern. Defying Washington’s tradition of hiding the role of oil in foreign policy, he has embraced oil power exuberantly and unapologetically, as when he appointed Rex Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon-Mobil, as his first secretary of state shortly after taking office. Then last fall he scandalized the international community when he redeployed American troops to Eastern Syria to “secure our [sic] oil.” Most recently, his administration secretively doled out at least $113 million to oil companies in taxpayer-backed loans under the Paycheck Protection Program, intended for small businesses hurt by Covid-19.

Now Trump’s brazenness is backfiring against his most recent Secretary of State. Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigating Linick’s firing last month want to know if it was an act of retaliation by Pompeo. The secretary has denied the charge, but his timing was certainly suspect.

As first reported by the Washington Post on May 16, Linick was wrapping up an investigation of Pompeo’s approval one year ago of unauthorized arms sales worth $8 billion to Saudi Arabia, defying the will of Congress. The weapons’ ultimate destination: the Saudis’ widely condemned war in Yemen, deemed the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis.

Yemen

Linick briefed the State Department of his findings before issuing his report, which assuredly set off alarm bells in Pompeo’s office and plausibly resulted in Linick’s abrupt dismissal. The congressman who originally asked for the investigation, Representative Eliot Engel, Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Washington Post, “We don’t have the full picture yet but it’s troubling that Secretary Pompeo wanted Mr. Linick pushed out before this work could be completed.” In his testimony Wednesday, Linick said a top department official “bullied” him, pressuring him not to pursue his investigation into arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Democratic lawmakers, in a statement released after the testimony, urged the administration “to immediately comply with outstanding requests for additional witness interviews and documents.”

As with all things Middle East, it’s never easy to get the full picture right away. With oil riches gumming up so many human interactions, including war and pretexts for war, assassinations and regime changes, the path to the truth can be littered with lies. It took me decades of research and years of filtering that research into a book, for instance, to figure out what the Great Game for Oil had to do with the death of my father in a mysterious plane crash following his top-secret mission to Saudi Arabia.

Now, at least, I know where to look and how to look when questions loom.

I analogize this to peeling an onion, beginning with the most obvious question.

First peel: Why did Democrats and Republicans object to arms sales to Saudi Arabia last year?

The answer, in this case, can be boiled down to three words: cold blooded murder. The murder victim in this case was a Washington Post columnist and an exiled Saudi national named Jamal Khashoggi. Two months before his death in October, 2018, Khashoggi had written disparagingly about the Saudis’ disastrous war against Yemen, then in its third year. The war had become an acute international embarrassment, especially after Saudi coalition forces bombed a school bus on August 9, 2018 killing forty children and thirty-two nearby civilians. By August 19, CNN reported that the bomb used in the attack was a US-made, 227-kilogram laser guided bomb manufactured by Lockheed Martin.

News like this was not helpful to Saudi Arabia’s reigning crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (nicknamed MSM), nor to his closest allies, Donald Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner, who strived to turn Saudi Arabia into a mecca for international investment (think hotels and resorts along the Red Sea). Those ambitions crystallized a few months after the newly elected Trump took then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on his first official trip overseas in March, 2017 — not (as is tradition) to visit any of our democratic allies, but to visit Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes in the world. That trip was made memorable by images of Trump jubilantly dancing the sword dance with his white-robed royal hosts.

As I pointed out in The Crash of Flight 3804, they were dancing for joy after negotiating $350 billion in US aid, including the sale of $100 billion in US armaments to the kingdom. It was a nice quid pro quo: You have oil, we have arms. We can make a lot of money from US arms sales and hotel tourism. provided you modernize Saudi Arabia and institute some reforms like letting women drive. In return, we will help you win your unpopular war in Yemen.

But Jamal Khashoggi kept getting in the way with his Washington Postcolumns. ”Saudi Arabia must face the damage from the past three plus years of war in Yemen,” he wrote on September, 2018. “The conflict has soured the kingdom’s relations with the international community and harmed its reputation in the Islamic world.” But Khashoggi didn’t stop there. He singled out Donald Trump’s “good friend,” crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, for additional criticism: “The crown prince must bring an end to the violence,” he wrote, concluding with a fatal barb, “and restore the dignity of the birthplace of Islam.”

One month later, Khashoggi was brutally murdered, hacked to pieces in the Saudi embassy in Turkey by a bone saw wielded by the head of Saudi security forces. During the ensuing investigation President Trump kept prevaricating over holding MBS (now widely referred to as Mohammed Bone Saw) responsible for Khashoggi’s murder despite international cries for accountability and the CIA’s assessment that MBS was behind the killing. Trump repeatedly reminded Americans of the kingdom’s importance as a “strong ally,” especially as a counterweight to Iranian ambitions in the Middle East. Pompeo, pictured here with the Saudi king just days after the Khashoggi murder, agreed.

Trump simply attributed the murder to “rogue killers” while making no commitment to lessening arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The armaments industry was, after all, creating a lot of jobs, he argued. It didn’t matter that the death toll in Yemen was fast approaching 100,000 since the war began in 2015.

This was just too much for Congress. Democrats and Republicans alike insisted Saudi Arabia would have to be punished for the war in Yemen and the murder of its most ardent critic, who, after all, had written for the powerful Washington Post. In early April, 2019 both the House and the Senate passed the Yemen War Powers Act, a bipartisan bill aimed at stopping all US involvement — including arms sales — to Yemen. On April 19, President Trump vetoed the bill.

The following month he and Pompeo declared emergency powers in order to bypass Congress and deliver $8 billion worth of arms sales, mostly to Saudi Arabia and its wartime ally, the United Arab Emirates, in order to stop “the malign influence of Iran in the middle East.” Once again, members of Congress cried foul, questioning Trump’s legal justification for invoking emergency powers and reiterating their concerns about Saudi Arabia’s dismal human rights record and the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

Apparently, Representative Eliot Engel never got over Trump’s act of impunity, and so he called upon the Inspector General to investigate.

Second peel: Is there an oil connection to the US-Saudi war in Yemen?

It stands to reason, since Saudi Arabia ignored widespread condemnation to pursue its war in Yemen at all costs. That term, “at all costs,” has been employed repeatedly through decades of endless wars in the Middle East, beginning when my father wrote in a memo to his superiors at the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in 1944 that the oil of Saudi Arabia was so vitally important to US interests that it had to be protected “at all costs.” Protected, that is, by vast amounts of US military assistance to the Kingdom, which from 1950 to the present amounts to trillions of dollars.

Fact is, Yemen is swimming in oil. Equally significant, the crown prince’s main concern has been “freedom of navigation for oil tankers carrying Saudi oil, whether they pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow chokepoint at the bottom of the Persian/Arabian Gulf that separates eastern Saudi Arabia from Iran, or the Bab el Mandeb Strait on the western side of the Saudi peninsula. Problems arose in 2015, when Shiite-backed Houthi rebels gained control over much of northern Yemen, pushed out its corrupt pro-Western leader, and took control of Yemen’s capital. Next they began advancing on the oil-producing province of Ma’rib and beyond, toward the Bab el Mandeb Strait. To alleviate these worries, Saudi Arabia has embarked on building a pipeline–despite local protests — that will carry its oil straight to the southern Yemen port of Mukalla, on the Gulf of Aden, avoiding the two chokepoints.

The war in Yemen and the projected Saudi pipeline through Yemen, pictured in “The Crash of Flight 3804″

At the same time, MSM made multiple trips to Washington seeking military aid, part of which would go toward protecting the pipeline.

Third peel: Did alleged threats from Iran warrant Trump’s declaration of emergency?

A series of attacks on oil tankers did, in fact, occur during the spring of 2019 that brought the world perilously close to another Middle Eastern war. The thing is, the identity of the perpetrators remains unresolved. Four oil tankers were damaged in early May, 2019, causing Pompeo to blame Iran, although “without citing specific evidence,” according to the Wall Street Journal. The Iranians vigorously denied the charges, and accused the US of trying to pull Iran into a war. Leaders around the world cautioned against war, including US allies. Pompeo accused Iran again of attacking two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman in June, again providing no evidence.

Small wonder, with skepticism about Iran’s involvement mounting at home and abroad, that Pompeo’s claim of a national emergency, caused some members of Congress to see the emergency as phony.”

On September 14, 2019 another international crisis erupted when a series of drone and missile attacks hit Saudi oil facilities in Riyadh, causing significant damage and prompting a warning from President Trump that the US was “locked and loaded” in its readiness to respond. Pompeo declared the attacks an “act of war,” and tried to pull together a coalition at the UN to “deter” Iran. Once again, Iran denied responsibility, this time before the UN General Assembly, and challenged the US to provide evidence. Saner heads prevailed and war was narrowly averted.

But the attack on Saudi Arabia had one salutary effect: a surge in crude oil prices. Who benefited? One group in particular: US shale oil producers, who early on in Trump’s reign became overnight billionaires through heavy borrowing and financial mismanagement. Noted Bloomberg.com, “American shale producers, one of the worst-performing segments on the stock market this year, jumped Monday morning after an attack on a Saudi Arabia oil production facility over the weekend sent crude prices soaring.The spike in oil prices offers relief at a critical time for U.S. shale producers, which have seen investors flee after the sector largely failed to generate shareholder returns while rapidly growing output.”

Could this mean President Trump created a phony emergency and risked war with Iran to help his embattled friends (described in my previous blog) in the shale oil industry? So far, Pompeo has yet to turn over witnesses and documents. But if the truth ever comes out, it will surely confirm that protecting the riches of oil, “at all costs,” will trump protecting the rights of ordinary individuals here and abroad.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Medium.

Charlotte Dennett is an author, investigative journalist, and attorney. Recently published The Crash of Flight 3804 about the death of her master-spy father in the Great Game for Oil.

All images in this article are from Medium unless otherwise stated

On Sunday a statue to the 19th century English merchant Edward Colston was seized from its pedestal and violently hurled into Bristol harbour by a group of protestors demonstrating as part of the Black Lives Matter movement. The incident has become the subject of fierce debate ever since. Edward Colston, like many wealthy Europeans of his time, was a slave trader, and the monument has become, for many, a symbol of racism of the type we must eradicate from our society for good.

The slave trade, which saw at least 12 million Africans shipped to North America over a period of 400 years, was a brutal, debased industry founded on the principle of putting profit before human rights. The money amassed from it went towards developing many of our renowned universities and institutions and the construction of towns and cities across the UK. But it was not only the Atlantic slave trade that contributed to our nation’s wealth. You cannot walk the streets of Britain today without noticing the hallmarks of our imperialist past.  The British Empire exploited people from India to Barbados and the evidence of it is laid bare in the bricks and mortar of our urban architecture and street names. Our country is literally a museum to its imperialist past.

So, what are we to do, start tearing down our town halls, art galleries, and university buildings? How far are we to take the destruction of our material world in order to meet our contemporary standards? We have seen the attempt to rewrite history in recent years in Ukraine, for example, where Lenin statues have been toppled in a bid to wipe the Soviet leader and his Communist dogma, from the pages of history. Or in the Baltic states, where several monuments to the Red Army have been removed as a way of denouncing Soviet rule, despite their purpose being to celebrate victory over Nazism. The past, whether we like it or not, happened. It cannot be erased. There will always be statues that were on the wrong side of history; there will always be some who do not agree with the glorification of a particular figure.

Source: InfoBrics

In fact, it could be argued that we should retain controversial monuments as a constant reminder of past injustices. Better still, a more constructive approach would be to start building monuments, instead of removing them, to, for example, progressive 19th century thinkers who did stand up against slavery. Take the Scot, Zachery Macauley, governor of Sierra Leone and anti-slavery activist. Having initially been involved in the British sugar plantations in Jamaica at the age of 16, he devoted his life to fighting for the abolition of slavery, paving the way for the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act.  There is a bust to him in Westminster Abbey but no statue as such. Surely a monument is long overdue.

Furthermore, it is vital that children are taught not only about the Atlantic slave trade, but all the sordid aspects of the western imperialist past.  I say western, because it’s no secret that the whole of Europe was at it. The Dutch were exploiting Indonesia, the French were ransacking Africa and the Spanish pillaging South America. These were people of a different era, with a different way of thinking – call it primitive, or immoral or just plain wrong. Those that did follow a strong moral code were for the most part fervently religious and desperately trying to ‘convert’ conquered peoples to Christianity as they deemed them ‘savages’. Can we change these facts? No. The main thing is that we leave such attitudes in the past, where they belong.

Racism obviously remains a deep-rooted issue in the US which may take generations to eradicate. It is systemic and very much tied up with the country’s history, from the days when Europeans invaded the lands belonging to Native Americans.  Unfortunately it is a nation founded on injustice and built on the blood, sweat and tears of exploitation. Although this should never be forgotten, what is even more important is learning from these mistakes. And so far, there is little evidence of this happening. For although the British empire has long been disbanded, Britain continues to support US imperialism and expansionism which wreaks havoc across the globe, from the wars waged in Iraq, Libya and Syria, to the multinational firms exploiting impoverished workers in Bangladesh and China.

Indeed, we may have come to terms with our role in the 19th century Atlantic slave trade in recent years, but we have a long way to go in recognizing our role in supporting the modern slave trade, which it is estimated involves a staggering 40.3 million people. That means 1 in 200 people worldwide is a slave. Whether we are talking about women and girls working in the sex trade in Asia or workers building the infrastructure for the 2022 Qatar world cup, slavery is far from being a thing of the past, it is part of the globalised world we live in. The clothing we wear, and the mobile phones we use, have more often than not been manufactured by people working in slavery or exploitation.

So while it may be easier to focus on monuments of the past which don’t comply with our moral standards, not only are we likely to be left with none at all, but we are at risk of deflecting attention from the real inequalities which plague our society. If we are indeed a more enlightened people than our forefathers, we need to look beyond the monuments on our streets, to the very food we put on our plates, how it got there, and who has been exploited for our benefit. Otherwise, if we’re pulling down a monument with one hand and swigging a Starbucks coffee (made from beans harvested by slave labour) with the other, then we’re simply hypocrites.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Die Davos-Reset-2021-Agenda des Weltwirtschaftsforums WEF

June 10th, 2020 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

Am 3. Juni 2020 kündigte das World Economic Forum WEF in Genf als Folge der „globalen Gesundheitskrise“ für Januar 2021 einen „einzigartigen Zwillingsgipfel“ in Davos in der Schweiz an. (1) Das Thema soll lauten: „The Great Reset“, oder auf Deutsch “Der Große Neustart“. Das WEF definiert den „Großen Neustart“ als „Verpflichtung, gemeinsam und dringend die Grundlagen unseres Wirtschafts- und Sozialsystems für eine gerechtere, nachhaltigere und widerstandsfähigere Zukunft zu schaffen“. Eingeladen werden weltweit führende Vertreter aus Regierung, Wirtschaft und Zivilgesellschaft. In einem von der jungen Generation geführten Dialog sollen diese mit „Stakeholdern“ weltweit virtuell verbunden werden. Das sind Personen und Interessengruppen mit einem Netzwerk in 400 Städten auf der ganzen Welt, die ein berechtigtes Interesse am Verlauf und Ergebnis des Gipfels haben. Alle Ankündigungen klingen vielversprechend und verheißen eine strahlende Zukunft.

In der Presseerklärung des WEF heißt es weiter: „Die Ankündigung des ‚Großen Neustarts‘ wurde von S.K.H. The Prince of Wales und Professor Schwab während eines virtuellen Treffens gemacht, gefolgt von Erklärungen des UN-Generalsekretärs António Guterres und der geschäftsführenden Direktorin des IWF Kristalina Georgieva.“ Neben den großartigen Versprechungen auch wohlklingende Namen.

Managing Diretor Kristalina Georgieva verfasste bereits am Tag der Ankündigung des Gipfeltreffens eine Stellungnahme an das World Economic Forum. Diese beginnt mit den Worten:

„My thanks to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and to Professor Schwab for bringing us together.“ Weiter schreibt sie: „Aus der Sicht des IWF verfügen wir über einen massiven fiskalischen Stimulus, um den Ländern bei der Bewältigung dieser Krise zu helfen und die Weichen für eine Rückkehr des Wachstums zu stellen. Es ist von überragender Bedeutung, dass dieses Wachstum in Zukunft zu einer grüneren, intelligenteren und gerechteren Welt führt.“ (2)

Auch der Gründer und Vorsitzende des Weltwirtschaftsforums selbst sah sich noch am Tag der Ankündigung zu einer eigenen Stellungnahme berufen. Unter der Überschrift „Jetzt ist die Zeit für einen ‚großen Reset‘“ und dem Untertitel „In jeder Krise gibt es eine Chance“ schreibt Klaus Schwab: „Wir können aus dieser Krise eine bessere Welt hervorbringen, (…). Um ein besseres Ergebnis (als die Depression in den 1930er Jahren, R.H.) zu erzielen, muss die Welt gemeinsam und schnell handeln, um alle Aspekte unserer Gesellschaften und Volkswirtschaften zu erneuern, von Bildung über Sozialverträge bis hin zu Arbeitsbedingungen. Jedes Land, von den Vereinigten Staaten bis nach China, muss teilnehmen, und jede Industrie, von Öl und Gas bis hin zu Technologie, muss transformiert werden. Kurz gesagt, wir brauchen einen ‚großen Reset‘ des Kapitalismus.“ (3)

Wortschöpfer und Ideengeber des „Großen Neustarts“ ist wohl der Bestsellerautor und Wirtschaftsentwicklungsexperte Richard Florida mit seinem Buch „The Great Reset. How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity“ (“Das große Zurücksetzen. Wie neue Lebens- und Arbeitsformen den Wohlstand nach dem Zusammenbruch fördern”).

Vertieft man sich in die Presseerklärung des WEF und die dazu erschienenen Stellungnahmen – was jedem Interessierten dringend zu empfehlen ist – dann stellen sich für den kritischen Zeitgenossen einige drängende Fragen. Zum Beispiel die Frage, in welchen Zustand unser Wirtschafts- und Sozialsystem nach dem beispiellosen ökonomischen und sozialen Totalcrash „zurückgesetzt“ und neu gestartet werden soll. Sodann die Frage, was man von einer „Rückführungsagenda“ erwarten kann, die von denselben globalen Regierungs- und Wirtschaftsführern formuliert und umgesetzt werden wird, die den gegenwärtigen Crash absichtlich herbeiführten. Die Kardinalfrage lautet jedoch: wird der angekündigte „Große Neustart“ ein Segen sein für die Menschheit oder vielmehr ein Fluch?

Die Antwort auf diese Frage sollten ausgewiesene Experten herausfinden – und zwar noch bevor sich die Teilnehmer des Zwillingsgipfels im Januar 2021 an die Arbeit machen und eine Agenda entwerfen, deren Umsetzung nichts Gutes für die Menschheit bedeuten wird. Wir sollten uns darauf vorbereiten können, das Schlimmste zu verhindern.

Wenn wir das gegenwärtige Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit, das anlässlich des „globalen Corona-Fehlalarms“ vom „Großen Geld“, den Globallisten, Foundations, Big Pharma und der WHO weltweit losgetreten wurde, zusammendenken mit den heuchlerischen Heilsversprechen des kabbalistischen Weltwirtschaftsforums und dem räuberischen Internationalen Währungsfond, dann ist nicht von einer De-Globalisierung und einer Abkehr vom menschenverachtenden Neoliberalismus auszugehen. Die herrschende „Elite“ wird das Treffen in Davos dafür nutzen, die globale Kontrolle von uns Bürgern durch die Zerstörung der Nationalstaaten weiter voranzutreiben. Und das wird eine große Gefahr sein für die Menschheit, die wir nur gemeinsam abwehren können.

*

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler.

Noten:

1. http://www.weforum.orgunter „The Great Reset: Ein einzigartiger Zwillingsgipfel zu Beginn des Jahres 2021“

2. https://imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/06/03/sp060320-remarks-to-world-economic-forum-the-great-reset

3. weforum.org unter „Now is the time for a ‚great reset‘“

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Die Davos-Reset-2021-Agenda des Weltwirtschaftsforums WEF

Still Protesting After All These Years

June 10th, 2020 by Robert Fantina

On Wednesday, June 4, I joined thousands of marchers in Kitchener, Ontario, the town in which I live, to protest racism and police brutality. I have, in the last few years, participated in local events in support of Palestinian self-determination and justice; freedom for the Kashmiris, and for international justice for all when I addressed the Kitchener commemoration of the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Previously, when I lived in the United States, first in New Jersey, and then in Florida, I participated in demonstrations against the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I am a long-time member of World Beyond War, an international organization whose goal is the end of all war. I serve on the boards of several human rights organizations.  When does this end? I am not a young man; if I stretch the truth just a bit, I can still say I am middle-aged. I am, of course, just one person, but shouldn’t the efforts of millions of people around the world have brought significant progress to society by now?

Certainly, I am not sufficiently naïve to think that these efforts should have ushered in a Utopian world. I am old enough to remember Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the various civil rights marches in the decade of the 1960s. I also remember the shocking brutality with which demonstrators, especially people of color, were subjected to by government forces. The scenes I am seeing in the news today are no different.

Through at least the first half of the twentieth century, lynchings of Black people by whites were common, and, if investigated at all, seldom resulted in prosecution. The belief that the victims were, after all, ‘only’ Black people seemed to make it somehow acceptable. All this was supposed to change with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; however, laws do not change attitudes, and as long as those in power are only interested in the selective enforcement of laws, things remain the same.

The election of Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 was seen by many, naively, as a major milestone in race relations in the United States. Some people, incredibly, even said that this was evidence that racism no longer existed in the country!

But what has changed?

Seven years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, President Richard Nixon inaugurated the so-called ‘war on drugs’, a racist, trillion-dollar boondoggle that plagues the nation to this day. People in inner cities, many of them Black and brown, who are caught with small amounts of marijuana or cocaine, receive severe, long-term sentences. Upper middle-class whites with the same amounts of illegal substances, if they are caught at all, may receive a fine and probation. And the police cannot usually be found in middle-class, or even poor, white neighborhoods, harassing white people who are doing nothing more than walking down the street, standing in front of a building awaiting a friend, or otherwise going about their business. The Black experience is far different.

The term ‘white privilege’ has been defined in many ways. Concisely, it might be seen as having no additional barriers due to skin color. Yes, many white people are born into poverty and remain in poverty all their lives, but that is not due to efforts they make being thwarted because of the color of their skin. White privilege plays out in so many ways. Whites are not profiled by the police; although I can only offer anecdotal evidence, I am happy to do so. Never once have I been stopped while walking or driving and asked about where I’m going, where I’ve been, or if I have drugs in the car. I have been stopped because I was speeding, inadvertently went through a red light, or was driving with an expired registration. In each case, the police officer who stopped me was patient and polite.

In predominantly Black or brown neighborhoods, residents do not have the same experience. Police officers and agencies proclaim that they harass people in those neighborhoods to prevent crime; if they know the cops are watching, they won’t break laws. This, of course, is a smokescreen, enabling the so-called law enforcement officers to act on their racism under the guise of doing what’s good for their victim.

At one demonstration a few years ago, I don’t even remember now what it was for, I saw a woman carrying a sign reading “Why do I have to keep protesting this s*it?” It is a question we all must ask as we make another picket sign and march against the newest shocking injustice. What are we, as concerned world citizens, doing wrong? In the U.S., which, despite all evidence to the contrary, proclaims itself a model democracy, we are told that voting is the way to bring about change. Is it? When two parties that are almost mirror images of each other dominate the air waves, preventing the many legitimate third-parties from having any chance even to be involved in debates, let alone be listed on the ballot, voters are generally faced with voting for the lesser of two evils. That’s a devil’s choice, since the lesser of two evils is still evil. Both parties are beholden not to the voters, but to their real constituencies, the corporate and foreign government lobbies that finance their campaigns.

Voting can only be effective if voters can actually vote. Republican efforts to suppress the vote, especially in neighborhoods inhabited mostly by the poor and people of color, who usually vote Democratic, have been successful. So the idea that voting is some panacea to bring about change beneficial to the people is simply a fairy tale.

If voting isn’t a viable agent for change in the United States, what is?

The rot of the system runs deep, and a complete revamping is needed. There must be recognition that what works for the people of Arkansas and Alabama may not be pleasing to the people of New York and California, and vice versa. It must be acknowledged that when one candidate loses the popular vote and still becomes president, the idea of democracy is simply a farce. And if one candidate receives 45% of the vote, and his/her opponent 55%, that means that 45% of voters have no representation.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation offers a 10-point, common sense platform. The Republican and Democratic Parties seek to marginalize it, because their corporate-owned cheerleaders know that they would have no chance should the voting public be familiar with it.

Other nations have successfully introduced alternative forms of government, and their people benefit. The U.S. must cease its awkward and unsuccessful attempts to lead, and follow other nations as they have given the power back to the people.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Robert Fantina is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Two Million Arab Lives Don’t Matter

June 10th, 2020 by Kurt Nimmo

The hypocrisy of the Black Lives Matter movement is astounding. BLM and its followers shout down those who insist all lives matter, regardless of race. In the BLM universe, skin pigmentation is the determinate, as it is for all racists. 

While BLM and identity activists dwell in OCD fashion on racist cops and “white privilege,” they completely ignore the organized mass murder of black- and brown-skinned people by a government that now “takes a knee” for a former criminal, beatified as a saint by the state and its propaganda media. Those responsible for the murder of George Floyd will undoubtedly spend years behind bars, as they should, but this will not quell the outrage and violence committed in his name. 

So lopsided and blinkered is the current identity-obsessed movement, it fails to address a far more deadly and vicious adversary—the neoliberal state. 

The organized murder of more than two million Arabs in Iraq, Syria, and Libya—more than a million in Iraq, 600,000 in Syria, and 30,000 in Libya—does not even register on the BLM and identity ideological radar.

Barack Obama suffocated the antiwar movement that had coalesced around the Bush neocon invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, thus revealing that much of the political activism was predicated along partisan establishment political lines. Antiwar activists of the Vietnam War era called out both Republicans and Democrats for war crimes. Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Nixon—both Democrats and Republicans—are responsible for the murder of more than 3 million Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians. 

Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, are directly responsible for arming murderous jihadi mercenaries in Syria and their counterparts in Libya. The latter resulted in vicious racism by Arab Libyans against black African migrant workers and refugees. 

In Syria, Obama’s CIA funded and armed mercenaries in an effort to topple the government of Bashar al-Assad. The illegal effort by the US military to defeat the Islamic State in Syria—a psywar operation birthed by the Pentagon in occupied Iraq—resulted in further destabilizing Syria and killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians. 

Additionally, BLM and the supposed left in America have not pointed out the obvious—psychopathic cops are trained, armed (with tanks and other weapons of mass destruction), and enabled by the Pentagon. Why isn’t the Pentagon a site of protest, like it was during the Vietnam War? 

The neoliberal elite is obsessed with overturning and destroying nations resisting IMF and World Bank domination and the “structural adjustment” schemes bankster and globalist organizations push (the strip mining and privatization of public services).

Identity is not a consideration or precursor—all who resist, regardless of skin color and ethnicity, are to be hunted down and brutally murdered, as Muammar Gaddafi was for the crime of announcing he planned to quit selling oil in US dollars and establish an African gold dinar. 

Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, wasn’t deposed and executed for threatening the US with weapons of mass destruction, as the ludicrous machinations of the Bush neocons claim. Saddam, a former CIA operative in a plot to assassinate Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim in 1959, was a trusted asset until he stepped out of bounds, as did another CIA asset, Panama’s Manuel Noriega. 

The Israelis, holding considerable political sway over Congress and the White House, also demanded Saddam Hussein be taken down, primarily for his support of the Palestinians, but also because a nation with a pan-Arabist at the helm was unacceptable. 

Likewise Syria. The hereditary regime of the al-Assad family and the Ba’ath party long touted a pan-Arab worldview and this was unacceptable to Israel and the United States. 

The covert and illegal war by the US and Israel in Syria has nothing to do with human rights, as espoused. The objective is to destroy any resistance to Israeli expansionism, turn pan-Arabism into an Islamic movement that can be more easily radicalized and thus vilified, and balkanize the Middle East along ethnic and religious lines, thus realizing Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy… to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.”

Only politically expedient and exploitable “barbarians” (as they are considered by the ruling elite, never mind the disingenuous rhetoric) will be allowed to protest and demand justice. BLM racism, the absurd demand white people go prostrate in racial submission, and the criminal looting and burning of cities in the name of George Floyd have not set off alarm bells at the Council of Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Federal Reserve, and the institutional thank tanks. These should be the focus of protest, not police departments militarized by the federal government. The Milwaukee Police Department is not the hydra-head. The federal government and its corporate and bankster overseers are the true purveyors of violent conflict and political polarization.  

The BLM represents the forefront of an effort to divide Americans along racial and political lines, thus keeping race and identity-based barbarians safely away from more critical issues of importance to the elite, most crucially a free hand to plunder and ransack natural resources, minerals, crude oil, and impoverish billions of people whom the ruling elite consider unproductive useless eaters and a hindrance to the drive to dominate, steal, and murder. 

The murder of millions in the Middle East, Asia, South and Central America over the last few decades by a psychopathic elite and its corporate mercenaries does not figure in the equation. 

It is an irrelevant historical footnote, if that, to an identity movement that does not threaten the elite and its political class. It is sad to say BLM serves the elite by ignoring or remaining ignorant of the main problem—boundless predation by a neoliberal criminal project that considers all—black, white, yellow, brown—as expliotable and dispensable serfs.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog site, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Palestine Solidarity Campaign

We Don’t Need No Stinking Vaccine for COVID-19

June 10th, 2020 by Jeff Harris

A Glaring Omission

With the 24/7 media circus coverage of Covid-19 I find it particularly interesting that there is an obvious glaring omission of some extremely important facts relative to dealing with a virus, especially one that is allegedly so virulent like this one. Yes, I read all about the critical need to shelter in place, stay inside away from other people, wash your hands constantly, avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth, wear your face mask and by all means observe social distancing if you MUST venture outside for food!

Then it’s repeated ad infinitum that the ONLY hope we have of ever returning to a semblance of normalcy is to have a vaccine to protect us! Then to add some drama to this narrative the media highlights their death-o-meter scoreboard with the implied threat that you’ll be next IF you don’t obey the rules as dictated by the “experts”.

But what is assiduously avoided at all cost is any reference to our most potent defense against any virus; our body’s natural immune system. Try as I might I couldn’t find anything about this first line of defense on the World Health Organizations (WHO) website or Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website. It’s as if it doesn’t exist and is completely irrelevant.

If these organizations were genuinely concerned about the health of citizens they would obviously discuss the vital role a healthy immune system plays in protecting us from illnesses. But since they don’t its obvious some other motive is at work, at least to me, and I strongly suspect to other critical thinkers as well.

We now know from the science and data that over 90% of the people exposed to Covid-19 have no symptoms at all or at worst a mild cold. The flu vaccines we have are only effective 30% to 60% of the time and the bugs change regularly so a vaccine that worked OK last year may barely work at all this year. Let’s learn some more about our body’s immune system.

Virus protection without a vaccine

There is an enlightening article on Web MD titled: “How to use Your Immune System to Stay Healthy”. That’s a pretty straight forward title now isn’t it? Early on Bruce Polsky, MD, interim chairman department of medicine and chief division of infectious disease at St. Lukes-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City says:

“We are endowed with a great immune system that has been designed evolutionarily to keep us healthy.”

The article goes on. . .

“The immune system is your body’s natural defense system. It’s an intricate network of cells, tissues and organs that band together to defend your body against invaders. Those invaders can include bacteria, viruses, parasites, even fungus, all with the potential to make us sick. They are everywhere-in our homes, offices and backyards. . . “

The truth is no amount of social distancing, hand washing or face mask wearing is going to eliminate our exposure to these various bugs. That’s why we were created with this amazing first line of natural defense.

Here’s more from Web MD . . .

“The immune system can recognize millions of different antigens. And it can produce what it needs to eradicate nearly all of them. When it’s working properly, this elaborate defense system can keep health problems ranging from cancer to the common cold at bay. . . “

Wow! That’s pretty amazing stuff isn’t it! According to Web MD a properly functioning immune system can “keep health problems ranging from cancer to the common cold at bay.” So why isn’t this “science” being included in all the other health recommendations we’re being bombarded with daily? It seems to me that any “expert” worth their salt would be talking about the importance of a healthy immune system to stay healthy.

But there’s more . . .

The Web MD article noted that failure to eat a healthy diet, sitting around not exercising, not getting enough sleep and chronic stress can all lead to a compromised immune system. To quote Dr. Polsky again:

“. . . Lifestyle aspects are very, very important.”

So if our lifestyle is very, very important to staying healthy as the good doctor says ask yourself this question? Based on the Web M.D. article virtually all the results of the lockdown serve to weaken our immune systems. The stress of unemployment, constant harping about infections and rising death rates, lack of exercise and now a crack in our food distribution system all are known to weaken the human immune system.

I also find it quite interesting that large groups of people can shop at Walmart, Home Depot or other big box stores but they can’t attend their local church even if it’s a “drive through” service?

Web M.D. says:

“Research shows that people with close friendships and strong support systems tend to be healthier than those who lack such supports.”

During times of crisis people need encouragement and their faith built up more than ever before. Mandating people huddle in fear in their homes with constant media reports of infections and death bombarding them continually is there any wonder peoples immune systems are under severe stress?

Boosting Your Immune System

If you would like to boost your immune system consider checking out Dr. Mercola’s website at www.mercola.com . He’s an osteopathic MD with a focus on natural health. There are a variety of simple, low cost resources you can utilize to support good immune system health so you can hopefully fight off the bugs that are a part of everyday life.

And above all, avoid the main stream media like the plague! Their fear mongering is doing more to harm the nation’s health than any virus ever could! Boost your immune system and laugh at Covid-19 and all the cowering sheeple you see furtively scurrying about with their masks on. Humans were created with a natural immune system that has served them well for thousands of years to combat flu bugs. By following some common sense steps you can ensure your immune system is functioning well and provides the first-line-of-defense that protects 90% of the population.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

While it may be common knowledge that fire departments originated as private organisations to defend the interests of property insurers, it has probably been forgotten that in the US police were originally the hired gangs of landowners and merchant-industrialists. As urban conurbations like New York City grew, the police were the action arm of the political machines that served to dominate native and immigrant workers. A job in the police department was a patronage post, i.e. one either bought a job or by demonstrated willingness to act for the political boss(es) could be given a shield, a license to use violence and commit crimes on behalf of the machine or for personal gain as long as it did not conflict with the interests of the former. 

In the expanding continental empire that became the USA, the rural police were either the auxiliaries of the slave patrols or the “deputised” vigilantes in the service of big landowners, railroads, mining companies or ranchers. Community policing, let alone “democratic” policing was never a meaningful part of the US political system. What has recently been condemned as corrupt and brutal policing is actually consistent with historical tradition of localised repression.

When in the so-called Progressive Era corporate cartels realised it was necessary to counter emergent mass democratic movements, the ruling elite began a process of “professionalisation”. This trend actually covered most of the West. Ideological catalyst for “progressivism” was the adoption of the ideas of Auguste Comte, best illustrated in the case of Brazil whose flag today is adorned with the motto of Positivism (and the Positivist Church) “Order and Progress”. The emphasis was on technocratic order, embodied in the military as an emerging scientific bureaucracy. Progress meant resisting democratic demands with gradual technocratic solutions.

In the US this meant professionalisation of local government and integration of the private/ partisan police forces into a permanent civil service. Thus the gangs of capitalists acquired protected status as part of the new, modern, professional government apparatus which rationally could counter the “irrationality” attributed to democracy, not least of which were the horror of communists and anarchists among the immigrant population. In many US cities, this meant that the ethnic hierarchy became entrenched in the forces of “law and order”. Irish came to dominate East Coast urban armies– later Italians were allowed to join. Blacks were excluded– also because one of the jobs of the police was control over Blacks and other racial inferiors in the labour force. Even today the major urban armies of the US Eastern seaboard, e.g. Boston, New York, Philadelphia, are dominated by Irish and Italian dynasties for whom the police force is also a cult.

Tourist trap, New York City

Not only was the struggle for democratic and socialist government subverted by imposing “progressive” public administration, these professional governments were equipped with private armies, which were then given a badge and virtual immunity from any form of civil or criminal prosecution. Although some may know the history, it is important to recall that these policies were developed, supported and ultimately imposed by the plutocrats of the 19th century, Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, later Ford and others both directly and through philanthropic foundations– established to evade taxes and distribute bribery– and make public policy at arm’s length.

Under Woodrow Wilson, that South Carolina racist and Princeton professor promoted to POTUS, the Pinkerton Detective Agency was essentially moved from its role as private and mercenary political hammer to a State apparatus und A. Mitchell Palmer, who installed them under a fascist bureaucrat named John Edgar Hoover— who then turned it into the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the US equivalent of what Hitler established as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (the controlling office for all Nazi political and criminal police forces).

The US Constitution does not provide explicitly for police powers– except in the Second Amendment. That infamous addition is usually interpreted as the right for anyone in the US to own and bear firearms. However that is incorrect. The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the slave states from federal interference in their “slave patrols”, the militias organised under state authority to hunt runaway slaves, discipline slaves and prevent resp. suppress slave rebellions. In other words, the implied police power of the Second Amendment was conceived as an instrument for controlling slaves and later Blacks after slavery was abolished. This is the license that the Constitution gives to the thugs clothed in municipal or state uniforms as professional armies for the oligarchy that owns the United States.

After World War I those owners sought means to establish federal jurisdiction over political dissent, especially given the enormous numbers of urban immigrants from inferior European stock. People like Henry Ford realised that suppressing the consumption of alcohol would create a nationwide pretext for social control without openly contravening the supposed constitutional liberties, e.g. the First Amendment or those forbidding unreasonable search and seizure or denial of due process. The Volstead Act was adopted and the Prohibition amendment entered into force. For the first time since the Civil War, the federal government had a mandate to coordinate policing throughout the US and to mobilise the corporate/ machine police forces for political control. This not only made families like the Kennedys and Bronfmans fabulously rich, it helped establish the corporate form of crime of which Meyer Lansky became the paragon (although popular culture focuses on Italians rather than Jews).

The federal prohibition of alcoholic beverages did not end drink but created the context for a massive expansion of corporate and state police power. Now the taxpayer– obviously not corporations or their plutocratic owners– could pay the bill for their own repression. This would not have been possible were the US not historically saturated with the hypocritical theocratic culture of Oliver Cromwell’s puritan republic. Since “white” American politics– even abolitionism– has always been dominated by the theocratic tradition of the colonial era, prohibition of alcohol could be promoted as a necessary imposition of moral conduct upon inferior European stock– where wine and beer were ordinary food– and as a purification of the body politic. In fact it was an alibi for political policing of immigrants, socialists, and any other “un-American” activities.

When it became clear that Prohibition’s days were numbered and an enormous army of uniformed thugs would suddenly be unemployed, people like Harry Anslinger, wed to the Mellon dynasty and a former head of the Pennsylvania Railroad’s private army, lobbied for the prohibition of narcotic drugs. One of his barely veiled reasons was that policing narcotics would also preserve an instrument for policing Blacks. So the Federal Bureau of Narcotics became the primary national race police while its senior rival the Federal Bureau of Investigation was the US secret political police (what was called under Hitler the Gestapo– abbreviation for GeheimeStaatspolizei, as opposed to the Schutzpolizei or protective police).

Together these two federal agencies began the process of shaping disparate and independent warlords with their municipal armies into forces that could be mobilised either for political or racialist purposes. The so-called New Deal not only introduced a vast array of federal interventions in the economy and social organisation, some of which were barely socialist but most of which were proto-fascist/ corporatist, it nationalised the police powers (and overseas subversion). This meant the corporations were no longer directly liable for the actions of their gangs, e.g. the Pinkertons, Ford Service or the numerous railway and factory police forces deployed to control workers and their communities. The uniforms and badges were exchanged and now these private armies were official agents of state repression. The fiction of civilian control survived in part due to corporate and jurisdictional jealousies. However these armies became entrenched parts of the civilian bureaucracy, unionised, and established legacies that made many forces virtually hereditary castes.

It is against this background that one needs to understand the decades of opposition to police in the US, mainly from non-white and poor communities. This opposition is not based on occasional abuse or failures in training. It is based on the intuitively recognised fact that the police in the US– as in the rest of the US Empire– are an army of occupation. They are, individual police officers of good faith notwithstanding, the daily terror and threat of terror, which is the complement to Hollywood propaganda and the dictatorship of the workplace. It is no accident that someone like Dan Mitreone, an Indiana police chief, became a notorious trainer of torturers in Latin American police forces before he was kidnapped and executed. Michigan State University ran, or served as a conduit for, programs throughout the US war against Vietnam that brought members of these municipal terror organisations to Southeast Asia to torture Vietnamese.

Of course policing in Britain and throughout Europe is also derived from state terror policies. Yet only in Britain and the US does one have such an enormous investment in the myth of good police officers. The late journalist Alexander Cockburn once wrote that Britain had the only police department that was treated as a global tourist attraction. Hollywood has done everything possible to give the NYPD that reputation too– although even less deserved. FBI and DEA have become “brands” for leisure attire. Have you seen anyone wearing a “GESTAPO” tee shirt?

Image on the right: Tourist trap, London (Brixton, 1981)

The current wave of demonstrations and demands for an end to police repression and even an end to the police force as such may shock some who think that it would be enough to end racialist abuse by the police, to finally convict police of the capital crimes they commit and punish them accordingly. In a country proud of its death penalty, the number of police condemned for murder and punished accordingly can certainly be counted on one hand — or less! The number of people wrongly convicted and/ or executed for allegedly killing police gangsters is enormous. The City of Brotherly Love is infamous here.

The problem, of which the murder of George Floyd is only one example among thousands (or perhaps millions throughout US history), is complex. First of all the warlords– the corporate owners of municipalities and their armies called police– have to be restrained. These armies, like the paramilitary units that same US corporate oligarchy maintains in its overseas protectorates, have independent means– e.g. through their control of drug, gambling and other cash flows. They can buy, blackmail or otherwise suborn politicians and judiciary. They are organised in powerful unions with cult-like loyalty through generations. They are supplied by the covert internal security apparatus established since Hoover’s ascent and enriched after the war on Vietnam and 9-11—now officially vested in the Department of Homeland Security. They can rely on a perverse criminal code, both at local and federal level, which legitimates their functions. Last but not least they are integrated in the penal value chain since the privatisation of prisons and other disciplinary operations. There is so much money involved that it is mind boggling.

Although I remain sceptical as to the actual organisation(s) behind the wave of demonstrations and actions aimed at police forces and their crimes, the issues are real. An adequate and dialectically developing movement to address these long suppressed issues will need to deal with the complexity of police history and especially the powerful financial and political interests behind this municipal militarism that plagues the US and constitutes one of the main obstacles to democratic struggle there.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Political ABCs: The Difference Between “Cop” and “Crook”, Maybe It Is Just a Badge?

President Trump Is Seeking Another Victim

June 10th, 2020 by Massoud Nayeri

On George Floyd final viewing day and celebration of his life (under the Democratic Party supervision), the fascistic minded President Trump is seeking another victim! He has tweeted: “Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away … he fell harder than was pushed. … Could be a set up?”

It is imperative to understand that the President’s tweet is not a vicious attack only against one person; what the tweet is propagating is that the Trump administration is declaring the last warning against those who dare to stand up for freedom of speech, even if dissent comes from 75 year old Martin Gugino.

Mr. Martin Gugino is a true peace and justice activist, an elder who fought against injustice for decades, a humble man who was against the United States military prison in Guantanamo Bay according to his friends. I don’t know Brother Martin Gugino, but I know there are many peace activists just like him in Houston where I live.

It is time to demand that Mr. Trump should resign. Working people and youth must lead the mass movement to force Trump out now! … Before it’s too late.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Massoud Nayeri is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

In a fractious election year that has already witnessed Russiagate, impeachment and a pandemic, Americans are now forced to contend with the malignant scourge of rioting and looting following the killing of George Floyd at the hands of a white cop. Now, many Democrats seem content to the let the whole house burn down to achieve some sort of twisted justice .

To get a true sense of the mob mentality that is now leading the United States straight to the abyss, you could do no worse than a visit to the nation’s embattled capital. There, District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser recently evicted 1,200 members of the National Guard from hotels where they had been staying during their brief deployment, which included everything from cleaning graffiti from buildings to patrolling the streets.

The eviction notice came just days after the White House was the scene of heavy protests and just before the weekend (June 6-7) when hundreds of thousands of demonstrators are planning to march in Washington, D.C. against racism and police brutality. And considering what is already known about the involvement of ANTIFA, the radical leftist organization that is slated for status as a domestic terrorist group, wouldn’t any mayor be grateful for the additional layer of security? Not Mayor Bowser, apparently, who explained in a letter sent to various state governors that the presence of the Guard is “inflaming demonstrators” and therefore should be removed from the U.S. capital. In other words, the city should be expected to bow to fears of upsetting the mob as opposed to preparing for a worst-case scenario of destructive riots, a word that has become politically incorrect for the mainstream media to even mention.

Unfortunately, this sort of strategy for dealing with the possibility of violence is not restricted to D.C., but prevalent in a number of other cities currently under Democratic control.

In Los Angeles, for example, police officers are up in arms over the city’s decision to partially defund the police department while donating a quarter-of-a-billion dollars to – wait for it – Black Lives Matter, the activist group that is not only organizing protests across the country against a purportedly endemic ‘racism,’ but demanding a display of fealty to their objectives as well.

Unless one wants to be branded a foaming at the mouth ‘white supremacist’ it is necessary to publicly absolve oneself of this original sin by ‘taking a knee,’ a controversial gesture first performed by former NFL player Colin Kaepernick who refused to stand during the pre-game singing of the national anthem in protest of police brutality. While many people would agree that a major overhaul of police tactics is desperately needed, showing disrespect for the American flag and everything good it stands for is not best way for moving forward as a nation.

While Los Angeles and New York City appear to have lost their minds, the rest of Democratic country must have some respect for authority, right? Dream on. In the Midwestern city of Minneapolis, for example, Mayor Jacob Frey attempted to pacify protestors at a rally when he pledged “deep-seated structural reform” in the police department. That was not enough to pacify the mob. Prodded by a foul-mouthed female activist who wanted the mayor to commit to defunding the Minneapolis police, Frey – bravely, it must be said, considering he was in the middle of a veritable throng – rejected the idea. What happened next was a sight to behold as Mayor Jacob Frey was forced to leave the rally in a walk of shame as hundreds of demonstrators chanted, “Go home, Jacob, go home.”

To add some context, the city of Minneapolis says the looting and property damage following the death of George Floyd has caused about $55 million in destruction, which includes the torching of more than 200 buildings. The price tag for the damage is expected to rise in the coming days and weeks, according to city officials. Is this really the best time to be talking about abolishing the police?

So how do the Liberals hope to take law and order into their own hands now that the police are being shown the door? By bailing the looters and vandals out of prison, of course. With the US media unable to articulate the simple word “riots,” Hollywood celebrities has shown a willingness to come to the aid of the law breakers, whom, thus far, have not invaded the former’s well-guarded palatial homes.

Chrissy Teigen, for example, American model and TV personality, announced on Twitter that she would be donating $100,000 “to the bail outs of protestors across the country.”

The obvious problem with Teigen’s message (which generated almost 1 million ‘likes’), is that rarely does it happen in America that people are arrested for merely assembling in protest. People are arrested in the United States for destroying property, looting and physically assaulting others, which is exactly the sort of behavior we have seen play out on numerous occasions across the country for days. And not only is the media serving as official apologist for the violence, it is actively encouraging it.

Teen Vogue told its young, impressionable audience that the real provocateurs of the mayhem, Antifa, is actually in the business of creating a better world.

“Antifa grows out of a larger revolutionary politics that aspires toward creating a better world, but the primary motivation is to stop racists from organizing,” it explained in a tweet.

At the same time, Slate tweeted out at the peak of the violence that “Non-violence is an important tool for protests, but so is violence.” In the subheading to the title of the linked article, ‘A History of Violent Protest,’ it read: “A nice, peaceful protest may not bring about the big structural changes America needs.”

Apparently those “structural changes” are the defunding of police forces across the country, together with the opening of the border to illegal migrants. In other words, total anarchy and the absolute destruction of the United States as we know it. For an elite contingency of people who can afford a small army of armed security contractors to guard their fenced-in homes, such a disastrous outcome is of little consequences to them, at least for the time being.

Many people may read the above accounts and conclude that insanity has gripped the Democratic mindset. That observation, however, is not wholly accurate. What is happening before our eyes is a carefully executed plan at work; the premeditated destruction of the entire fabric of the nation in order to usurp Trump in November and impose neo-Liberal ideology across the country (some have called the movement ‘socialist’ in nature, but it must be pointed out that the socialist states that have appeared on the world map have had respect for law and order; the so-called ‘progressives’ now calling the shots inside of the Democratic Party apparently do not).

The Democrats want the country to descend into so much chaos that when the Trump administration is finally forced to do what the Liberals won’t – restore some semblance of law and order on the streets of America, possibly with help of the military – the Republicans will be accused of using ‘excessive force’ against peaceful protesters.

Thus, we have reached a most remarkable moment in the history of the United States when a group of individuals are so obsessed with power that they would destroy the very country they hope to govern to achieve that end. That says everything we need to know about their ‘leadership’ qualities.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist.

Featured image is from Black Agenda Report

Trump regime hardliners want imports of food, medicines, medical equipment, and other humanitarian goods blocked from entering Iran.

They want the world community going along with a high crime against humanity on the Iranian people.

They want them denied treatment for serious illnesses, wanting thousands to suffer and die.

They want them starved to death from lack of access to food and other humanitarian imports.

Nations supplying essentials to life, health, and welfare to Iran are threatened with secondary sanctions — a euphemism for wanting international trade to the country illegally blocked.

The US Constitution’s 8th Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.”

In 1992, the US ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

It’s also a signatory to the UN General Assembly’s adopted Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

ICCPR and ICESCR are binding international and constitutional law.

Despite being legally bound to observe the principles of these laws to the letter, the US grievously, consistently, and repeatedly breaches them at home and worldwide more than any other UN member state.

It’s responsible for more deaths, destruction, and human misery over a longer duration than any other nation in world history — bar none.

The US Supreme Court time and again upheld the ban on cruel and unusual punishment in all forms, including the right of prisoners to humane treatment (Estelle v. Gamble, 1976).

Since its 1979 revolution, ending a generation of US imposed fascist tyranny, Washington has been at war with Iran by other means.

Its unlawful actions are all about wanting the Islamic Republic returned to US client state status — its sovereign rights abolished, its resources plundered, the people exploited like serfs, Israel’s main regional rival state neutralized, despite threatening no one.

In pursuing its hostile objectives, the Trump regime has gone way beyond where its predecessors went by imposing prohibited cruel and unusual punishments on all Iranians.

Its latest unlawful action aims to starve them to death. On June 8, Iranophobe hardliner Pompeo said the following:

“Today, sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) and its Shanghai-based subsidiary, E-Sail Shipping Company Ltd (E-Sail) have come into effect,” adding:

“(A)ny government, entity, or individual that chooses to continue doing business with IRISL and/or E-Sail now risks exposure to US (secondary) sanctions.”

Unilaterally imposed sanctions by nations against others constitute a UN Charter breach.

Authority to take this action is afforded exclusively to Security Council members, not individual or groups of nations on their own.

US sanctions on Iran have nothing to do with regional peace, stability, security, and the rule of law, nothing to do with targeting alleged illegal or improper Iranian actions — Trump regime accusations against the country invented, not real.

They’re mainly directed against its people, including the Trump regime’s latest action — wanting maximum cruel and unusual punishment imposed on them, a flagrant breach of international and US constitutional law, under its Supremacy Clause.

Unacceptable Trump regime actions against Iran are built on a foundation of bald-faced Big Lies and deception.

The Islamic Republic is the leading proponent of regional peace and stability.

From inception to today, its legitimate nuclear program has no military component, no evidence of seeking one — confirmed in annual US intelligence community assessments of possible global threats.

Iran poses no threats to other nations — regionally or elsewhere. Its ruling authorities observe international law and agreements like the JCPOA.

Its involvement in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere are all about combatting (US supported) terrorism, not proliferating it — polar opposite how Washington, NATO, Israel, and their imperial allies operate, breaching international law in pursuit of their diabolical aims.

On Tuesday, Iran’s Press TV headlined the following:

“US enforces sanctions on Iran’s shipping network expected to hinder imports of food, medical supplies,” saying:

Lawless Trump regime policy “comes at a time when the country is fighting to contain a deadly coronavirus outbreak,” adding:

“(T)he US Treasury Department’s website says (new) sanctions also apply to ‘agricultural commodities, food, medicine or medical devices,’ threatening anyone who engages in humanitarian transactions” with Tehran.

In 2018, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled against the Trump regime for breaching the 1955 US-Iran Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights.

It prohibits imposition of restrictions or prohibitions of Iranian imports or exports except for specifically banned items.

The agreement notably prohibits restrictions or prohibitions of imports or exports of humanitarian goods to include food, medicines, medical equipment, and whatever else relates to the health and well-being of the Iranian people.

The ICJ’s ruling against specific Trump regime sanctions on Iran was ignored.

It’s long past time for the world community to reject US war on humanity that’s all about advancing its imperium no matter the human cost.

Russia and China slammed unlawful Trump regime actions against Iran.

Sergey Lavrov called them “irresponsible (and) absolutely unacceptable.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said Trump regime actions against Iran breached Security Council Resolution 2231, affirming the JCPOA, making it binding international law, adding:

“(I)f these actions are continued, it will inevitably lead to a serious crisis of the UN Security Council and undermine its authority.”

On Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi slammed the latest unlawful Trump regime action, saying:

“Iran will not surrender with such sanctions and pressures.”

“Sanctions that are being announced by American officials are (as unlawful) as previous ones.”

If increasing numbers of world community nations no longer observe illegal US actions on Iran and other countries, Washington will be transformed into a paper tiger.

It would be a major step in the pursuit of world peace and stability over endless US-led wars of aggression against nations threatening no one.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Regime Wants 84 Million Iranians Ill-Nourished and Starved
  • Tags: ,

The Greek “Bail-out” Program: A Colossal Failure

June 10th, 2020 by Dimitris Konstantakopoulos

Read Part I here.

A colossal failure

If we judge the Greek program not on the basis of our own criteria, but on the basis of the goals it set itself and of its predictions, we can safely say it was a gigantic failure, by far the biggest in the history of western leading economic institutions, like the IMF, the EU and the ECB.

In the future, every economics handbook in the world will begin by a chapter under the title “The Greek Bail-Out Program: What Economists must not do in any country”.

The Greek program was launched, supposedly, to help Greece cope with a situation where the “markets” (the international finance) were refusing to lend it, its huge debt considered unsustainable.

In 2010, when the program was launched, Greek sovereign debt was 129% of GDP. Now it is more than 185%. (After the Coronavirus, it will probably be more than 200%.)

The bail-out program not only failed to address the sovereign debt problem, it added to that an equally important problem of a huge private debt, created as a result of the Troika (ECB, EU, IMF) measures. Back in 2010, the non-served loans to banks were insignificant. Now, near half of all loans are not served.

Back in 2010, Greek Banks had about 220-240 bn. euros in deposits. Now they are no longer Greek and have half of that sum.

Back in 2010, Greece was in a much more powerful position vis-à-vis its lenders, which were private banks and funds. Its debt was regulated by Greek law and its national parliament. Disputes related to the debt were under the jurisdiction of the Greek courts. The Greek debt was denominated in Greek national currency, so if Greece left the Eurozone, the Debt would be undervalued as much as the new Greek national currency introduced.

Now the debt is owned by states and international institutions and ruled by British Colonial law, all Greek public property has become a mortgage to the service of the debt, its constitutional protection lifted. Debt related disputes are under the jurisdiction of foreign courts and it is denominated in Euros.

The Greek debt restructuring (PSI, 2011-12), was the first in History undertaken against the interests of the debtor country! They changed the legal status of the debt, while slashing the reserves of Greek pension funds, hospitals, universities etc.

The country has encountered a recession three times bigger than the IMF and the EU were predicting, not to speak of the predictions by the then Greek Finance Minister who was speaking for growth already by 2012. This is why we stated this program was a colossal failure even on its own terms.

The IMF, European Governments, the EU and the ECB use the services of some of the best economists of the world. How it was possible to make such an enormous “mistake”? If it was really a mistake, why did they not correct it and why haven’t they yet?

This is what gives us the right to ask the question if this program was a mistake or, rather, and from the very beginning, a program intended to achieve such a result. The IMF representative in Greece, the Danish Paul Thomsen, a kind of economic hit man and sadistic personality like most of the people who were treating with Greece on behalf of international organizations, has revealed the hidden goals of the program when he stated that Greek salaries had to be somewhere between the Portuguese and the Bulgarian.

By stating that, he inadvertently revealed the philosophy of the EU leaders today. They do not understand the EU as an organization contributing to the improvement of the living standards. They understand the EU as an institution lowering the living standards and social rights of its members.

We want to remind our readers that this program was not imposed on Greece only by Germany and the EU. For its imposition to become possible Berlin had to enter into a tacit alliance with international banks to attack Greece and create the conditions justifying the program. The program was also approved by the IMF, against its own rules and principles. Such a thing could not happen if International Finance and the US administration did not want it to happen. Not to speak about the role of US banks like Goldman Sachs in creating, first of all, the Greek debt bubble and then making it explode.

The result of the crisis was the destruction of Greece, the political capital of Germany and the weakening of Europe on behalf of international Banks and the United States. (The same happened, by the way, during the Yugoslavia crisis in the ‘90s, when the aggressive and imperialistic policy of Germany, Austria and the Vatican greatly contributed to the bloody disintegration of Western Balkans only to rehabilitate US – NATO role in European affairs and destroy for good any prerequisite for a common European Foreign and Defense Policy).

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Militarized Police, A Gift from Israel?

June 10th, 2020 by Philip Giraldi

The killing of black man George Floyd by white Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin has produced the highest level of national unrest seen in the United States since the 1960s. Tens of thousands of protesters are demonstrating against racism and perceived police brutality. As it also comes at a time of coronavirus pandemic and record unemployment, it has the potential to change the U.S. in fundamental ways. The core issue is that many on the left, as well as some on the right, see America’s police as something like an “occupying force,” increasingly self-serving enemies of the people rather than careful protectors of the taxpayers’ lives and property.

There are already calls to “defund” the police in an attempt to strip local forces of responsibilities and resources that have little to do with community policing relative to actual crime rates, which are low nationwide. And the concept of community itself is under scrutiny and is itself being “reimagined” in an effort to compel police forces and the citizens they interact with to work together more cooperatively for the good of all.

History teaches us that changes in seemingly entrenched attitudes and beliefs occur regularly, though they can sometimes move glacially slowly. Meanwhile, some loony birds on the left are also promoting more radical schemes. One of the more amusing was posted up recently by Alyssa Rosenberg at the Washington Post. Rosenberg maintained that it is now time for Hollywood and the entertainment media to get involved by shutting down all movies and television series that present the police in a positive light.

Rosenberg puts it this way “…there’s something Hollywood can do to put its money where its social media posts are: immediately halt production on cop shows and movies and rethink the stories it tells about policing in America. For a century, Hollywood has been collaborating with police departments, telling stories that whitewash police shootings and valorizing an action-hero style of policingover the harder, less dramatic work of building relationships with the communities cops are meant to serve and protect… The result is an addiction to stories that portray police departments as more effective than they actually are; crime as more prevalent than it actually is; and police use of force as consistently justified. There are always gaps between reality and fiction, but given what policing in America has too often become, Hollywood’s version of it looks less like fantasy and more like complicity.”

Rosenberg has a point, but television shows and movies are fiction and most people are quite capable of watching an entertaining story and not having it become a substitute for reality. And there is nothing particularly wrong in believing that cops should be good guys who solve serious crimes, which is in fact what many police officers actually do. She instead calls for more portrayal of cops as do-little-or-nothing jerks who spend most of their time writing traffic tickets and typing up reports. If she had been around in the nineteenth century, she would no doubt have been conventionally liberal knee jerk antiwar, if such existed at the time. She would have advised Leo Tolstoy to have his Russian soldiers in War and Peace spend most of their time peeling potatoes, smoking and bitching rather than marching off in columns heroically to confront Napoleon at Austerlitz.

One issue that has surfaced in a number of places is the militarization of police, which has been a reality of “maintaining public order” and “fighting terrorism” since 9/11. Police now receive surplus military equipment, to include armored cars, body armor and automatic weapons. One wonders, for example, what my semi-rural county here in Virginia has been doing with its armored car, which, as I recall, the local sheriff’s department did not even want. Ordinary policemen are also increasingly trained in anti-terrorist tactics, to include the increasing deployment of swat teams to perform actions that are not necessarily confrontational, to include serving warrants and collecting fines on library books. Many innocent civilians of all races have been killed as a result.

The militarization of American law enforcement has been in a sense institutionalized through programs set up by the federal government and the states to train with Israeli police, a mentoring relationship established by Michael Chertoff when he was Secretary of Homeland Security. Joint training programs run in Israel are being used to indoctrinate American police forces and are difficult to comprehend as related to normal policing as the Israelis are clueless when it comes to conducting investigations or protecting all of their country’s citizens. Israel’s cops are at the forefront of state violence against Palestinians as well as serving as protectors of rampaging heavily armed settlers who destroy Arab livelihoods so they can steal their land. The Israeli police are also quite good at using the “Palestinian chair” for torture when they are not shooting Arab teenagers in the back. They also invented skunk water, a disgusting smelling chemical spray initially used against Arab demonstrators, and were the first major police force to regularly employ so-called rubber bullets, which can kill or maim.

In fact, there have been suggestions that certain American policemen might well be picking up some unanticipated pointers from the Israelis. Georgia has been experiencing a surge in officer involved shootings, nearly half of the victims being unarmed or shot from behind. As this has unfolded, the state continues to pursue a “police exchange” program with Israel run through Georgia State University.

The police “exchange programs” began twenty-seven years ago in 1992 and are paid for through grants from the U.S. Department of Justice as well as from the state and local governments. Reportedly “law enforcement from [a number of] U.S. states have participated in the program, including those from Tennessee, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.” In some states and local jurisdictions, the Israel exchange program is managed by the Anti-Defamation League, which also sponsors propagandistic seminars on Israeli “counter-terrorism” practices throughout the U.S.

Some states and cities, however, concerned over being linked to Israel’s militarized police forces and their brutal occupation of Palestinian land, are beginning to withdraw from the training program. Recently the Vermont State Police, the Northampton, Massachusetts police department and the Durham North Carolina city police have canceled their planned training in Israel.

There has been particular concern expressed over the Israeli “us-versus-them” dual track mode of policing where the 20% of the country’s citizens that are Arab are regarded as an enemy while the settlers who prey on the Palestinians are automatically protected by police solely because they are Jewish. Selective policing based on race or ethnicity might be another gift from Israel that visiting American policemen bring home with them. In Israel, lethal force is frequently resorted to on a “shoot-to-kill” basis in any incident involving Arabs and Jews, even when there is no serious threat.

A favorite technique used by the Israeli police to subdue an Arab is the very knee on neck used by Derek Chauvin that killed George Floyd. Minnesota has been actively involved in training its police with the Israelis, to include participation by over 100 officers in a 2012 conference in Minneapolis hosted by Israel’s Chicago consulate. There, they learned the “restraint procedures” employed by Israelis. The conference was jointly hosted by the FBI, the facilities were provided by the city, and the meeting itself was funded by the federal government and the state.

While it is not known if Chauvin actually underwent the specific training, the Israeli techniques have made their way into the city’s police manual, which has been, not surprisingly, removed from online. An archived copy of the relevant section on how to control someone who is resisting arrest does still exist however and can be viewed at this site. It includes “Minneapolis Police Department Use of Force Policy: 5-311, Use of Neck Restraints: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck).” There are admittedly some caveats on the use of the technique, but it is generally approved for use in subduing someone who is resisting arrest, which may plausibly have been the case with Floyd.

That all means that Officer Derek Chauvin used a technique taught to American police by Israeli trainers even if his judgement can be seriously faulted in terms of how he did it and how long her sustained it. He may have received the training with the full cooperation and financial support of both the Federal government, the government of the state of Minnesota and the city of Minneapolis. His lawyers will be able to argue, which they surely will, that he used a technique that was endorsed by the city of Minneapolis’s police manual and was also part of officer training with Israel. This makes for an interesting back story and an unbiased judge and jury, if that can be found anywhere on the planet, just might find Chauvin and his three colleagues innocent, which would be a travesty but inevitable in a system where police have effectively been trained and licensed to kill.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

Featured image is from The Unz Review

“The media is the most powerful entity on earth. Because they control the minds of the masses, they have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power…If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” – Malcolm X

“For one bright moment back in the late 1960s, we actually believed that we could change our country. We had identified the enemy. We saw it up close, we had its measure, and we were very hopeful that we would prevail. The enemy was hollow where we had substance. All of that substance was destroyed by an assassin’s bullet.” – William Pepper (page 15, The Plot to Kill King)

***

Across America, as well as in Western Europe, there is an ongoing campaign against racism following the dramatic events in Minneapolis. Our thoughts are with George Floyd, his family and friends.  We stand in solidarity with African-Americans who are the target of police killings and racial discrimination. Colonial and contemporary history has left its mark. Today, African-Americans are also the victims of neoliberalism which triggers poverty, social inequality and unemployment.

The campaign against racism including the protest movements cannot be divorced from the broader battle against neoliberalism and the carefully designed instruments of economic and social oppression.

At this juncture, there is an important question which must be addressed. The Covid-19 pandemic, which is based on manipulated data coupled with a fear campaign is destroying people’s lives. It is an act of economic and social warfare against humanity. It is carried out Worldwide.

The most recent evidence from a leaked report of Germany’s Ministry of the Interior confirms that the COVID-19 virus is a “Global False Alarm”. According to the team of experts contracted by the German Government, Covid-19 is of lesser significance than the 2017-2018 seasonal flu, which barely made the headlines. While the report acknowledges  the dangers to public health, it nonetheless emphasizes that “The danger is obviously no greater than that of many other viruses. There is no evidence that this was more than a false alarm”. [in German in the report: globalen Fehlalarm]

Other reports come to similar conclusions not to mention the manipulation of death certificates.

Italy’s lockdown in early March was justified by quoting “fake data”. Vittorio Sgarbi, MP stated in Parliament that the closure of 60% of Italy’s economy was taken on the basis of an “estimated” 25,000 Coronavirus deaths.

“It’s not true,” he said. “According to the National Institute of Health, 96.3% did not die of coronavirus, but of other pathologies stated Sgarbi – which means that only 925 have died from the virus and 24,075 have died from other things claimed Sgarbi, “… the virus was little more than an influenza. Don’t lie! Tell the truth!”

The lies are numerous:  Both in Britain and the US, “duplicate counting” has been used to inflate the reported positive cases.

Many prominent scientists and politicians have courageously spoken out:

Senator Dr. Scott Jensen of Minnesota “received a  7-page document that showed him how to fill out a death certificate as a “COVID-19 diagnosis” even when there isn’t a lab test confirming the diagnosis”. According to Jensen:

“Right now Medicare is determining that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you get $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator you get $39,000, three times as much. Nobody can tell me after 35 years in the world of medicine that sometimes those kinds of things impact on what we do.” (Dr. Sen. Scott Jensen, from Fox Interview, emphasis added)

Meanwhile, politicians have been lying through their teeth, the media has been entrusted to sustaining the fear campaign. People’s lives are threatened. Lies and Bribes are the driving force. Politicians and scientists are co-opted.

All of which is intent on justifying “social distancing” as well as enforcing the infamous lockdown which confines people to their homes, in many cases without income, food and  medical attention.  And people obey because they are scared.

But why have these issues not been raised by the anti-racism campaign?

Confinement is “racist”. It serves as a  justification to deny peoples’ fundamental right to employment. It’s social engineering. The lockdown destroys our institutions, undermines family life and social relations, destroys culture (including music and the arts), closes down schools and universities, and of course it impoverishes large sectors of the World population.

And if the pandemic is “A Global False Alarm” (Official Germany Report), there is no justification for closing down the economy. But that report along many other independent reports is subject to media censorship.

The Anti-Racism Campaign and The Lockdown

The lockdown from the outset is being used as a means to destabilize the US economy and create massive unemployment. Why then is the campaign “against racism” firmly supportive of the lockdown?

This campaign against racism is not a protest movement against the financial elites who are pressuring governments to postpone the reopening of the national economy as long as possible.

Big Money controls the politicians. They control the media that wages the fear campaign. They are also the creditors of the State, who are now in the process of concocting a multi-trillion dollar loan package for indebted governments. Their intent is to deregulate the labor market, and pick up the pieces of bankrupt enterprises.

The protests and the riots serve their interests. The financial elites are not the target of the protest movement. Quite the opposite: their elite billionaire foundations are supporting many of the progressive NGOs which are waging the campaign against racism, while also paying lip service to the Democratic Party which is firmly against the reopening of the US economy as part of their 2020 election campaign.

BLM’s #WhatMatters2020 is a campaign aimed to maximize the impact of the BLM movement by galvanizing BLM supporters and allies to the polls in the 2020 U.S Presidential Election to build collective power and ensure candidates are held accountable for the issues that systematically and disproportionately impact Black and under-served communities across the nation.

BLM’s #WhatMatters2020 will focus on issues concerning racial injustice, police brutality, criminal justice reform, Black immigration, economic injustice, LGBTQIA+ and human rights, environmental injustice, access to healthcare, access to quality education, and voting rights and suppression.

This initiative will inspire and motivate people to ask themselves and their candidates are you really addressing What Matters in 2020?

“What Matters in 2020?”   While rightly focussing on the police killings and the criminalization of justice, What Black Lives Matter fails to address is that African-Americans are the victims of the COVID-19 pandemic fear campaign, which in practice is contributing to social divisions, racism and the development beyond bounds of a police state apparatus.

It’s a scam: Confinement creates unemployment, affecting African-American communities across the United States. It is an instrument of “economic injustice”. It’s neoliberalism.

The economic and social “collateral damage” of COVID-19 is mass unemployment, poverty, death and despair. It emanates from the financial establishment.

Supporting the lockdown which creates poverty and disrupts economic activity Worldwide has de facto racist overtones. Why? Because it destroys peoples lives.

The damage incurred by a “global economic lockdown” far exceeds the health impacts of the corona virus.

The objective of the financial elites, the billionaire foundations and philanthropists is the concentration of wealth, bankruptcy of the real economy, mass unemployment, social inequality and racism.

If you are against racism, an end to confinement, the reopening of the national economy and the restoration of employment should be a number one priority.

To put it bluntly: There is no mass protest movement against the COVID-19 lockdown. The lies are accepted at face value.

The WHO is funded by the Gates Foundation and Big Pharma, politicians around the World are co-opted and bribed. But at the same time, the billionaire charities and foundations (including Soros, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller et al) are financing the “progressive” anti-racist NGOs, which are acting as a “controlled opposition”.

Manufactured dissent and the funding of dissent is also a multibillion dollar undertaking. “The mechanisms of “manufacturing dissent” require a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle cooptation of individuals within progressive organizations”.

And these NGOs have decided to overlook the fact that African-Americans are the victims of neoliberalism and the lockdown of the US economy.

And the lockdown is an integral part of the 2020 election platform of the Democratic Party, which is a neoliberal pro-war racist agenda imposed by Wall Street, Big Pharma, the Military Industrial Complex, et al.

You cannot wage a battle against the Empire and then ask the Empire to finance your protest movements.

“Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could be regarded as “making the World safe for capitalism”, reducing social tensions by helping to comfort the afflicted, provide safety valves for the angry, and improve the functioning of government (McGeorge Bundy, former National Security Advisor and president of the Ford Foundation, (1966-1979)

BLM does not in any way “endanger” global capitalism:

“… Black Lives Matter is increasingly awash in cash, raking in pledges of more than $100 million from liberal foundations [2016]… [including] The Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy … That funding comes in addition to more than $33 million from top Democratic Party donor  George Soros …, as well as grant-making from the Center for American Progress.” [headed by John Podesta Jr., Obama’s White House chief of staff]

This is not an issue of “choice” between Republicans and Democrats both of which are racist and corrupt. It is an issue of confronting the “Big Money” architects of this diabolical project to destabilize the economy, social relations and institutions of the entire planet. The police state and racism is an integral part of that “destabilization agenda”.

A Real Grassroots Movement

What we need is a real grassroots movement, across the land, nationally and internationally, independent of corporate funding. The Coronavirus crisis is an act of war against humanity. We must reach out to all those who are victims of the corona crisis. The legitimacy of the COVID-19 pandemic depends on fear,  disinformation and submission to higher authority.

Breaking the lie means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force.

What is required is the development of a broad based independent grassroots network at all levels of society, urban areas, towns and villages, work places, parishes. Workers and  farmers organizations, professional associations, business associations, schools, student unions, veterans associations, artists, musicians, church groups would be called upon to integrate this movement. The COVID-19 pandemic is based on a Lie. The consensus has to be broken.

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on The Corona “Global False Alarm”, the Campaign against Racism and Neoliberalism

In Gary Pomerantz’s recent book on Bob Cousy, “The Last Pass”, he relates a story about the Boston Celtics All Star as to race relations. This was from 1950, when most of our nation was even more segregated than we (still) are now.

Cousy was a rookie that year and roomed with the team’s only black player, Chuck Cooper. They became close friends, going to jazz clubs together and socializing with their wives on a regular basis. They had to go travel to play in areas of the country that had ‘Jim Crow’ laws to force segregation: ‘White Only’ and ‘Colored Only’ restaurant eating sections, bathrooms, water fountains and hotels. Cooper, a proud man, really got ‘taken back’ by such horrific and draconian laws. On one trip he just felt violated by such attacks on his manhood. Cousy, very troubled for his friend, told him that Germany, up until the war’s end, had treated the Jews just as horrifically. Matter of fact, he said, being a Catholic he was angered by how some Southern right wing nuts trashed Catholic churches due to their hatred of what they referred to as ‘Papists’. Cooper answered him that “When they look at those folks they cannot see if they are Jewish or Catholic or whatever. All they have to do is look at me and know!”

As a baby boomer this writer can assure you that I have always lived in a segregated, white supremacist society. It could be North, South, East or West, it is usually always the same thing: If one is of a darker complexion, then they are simply a referred to as the N Word Period! All the crap about civil rights may be OK for some government jobs, but for the majority of Amerika, N.s will always be second class citizens. Whether it be for private sector employment, housing or getting into better schools, to name just a few examples, the N.  gets the short end of the stick. One example resonates well with me. It was 1985 and I was employed at a local real estate office. The owner, a tall Irishman, once got arrested for running guns in Texas for shipment to the IRA in Belfast.

He Knew, from his experience with the British in Northern Ireland, that he himself was thought of as an N. One day he approached me to handle the rental of a home he owned in the area near the office. I answered the first call I got, from a doctor who had just been hired by the local hospital. When I showed the house to he and his wife, I noticed that he was originally from India. He and his wife loved the house and didn’t even try to negotiate the rental charge. They wrote me a check for the deposit, and I told them to meet me tomorrow morning at 10 at the office to sign the contract etc. I was really happy the next morning when I arrived at the office. This was going to be a nice, hefty commission for me, the rental of a house. My boss saw me and called me over to him, right in front of the other sales people. “Phil, give the man back his check when he comes in. Tell him you are sorry but I already rented the house.” I was shocked! Why, I asked? He rolled up his sleeve and said, as he slapped his hand across his wrist “Do you see the color of my wrist? Anything darker than that, you don’t rent. I don’t care myself, Phil, about things of that nature. It is just that I have to be careful as to not insult my neighbors by renting to someone colored.” I was aghast. But the guy is a doctor, I jibed back. I don’t get it! My boss got adamant and insisted I do what he asked. I exclaimed He’s a **** doctor! Do it yourself! I quit!!

Prejudice has always been a ‘Learned response’. Just look at a bunch of three year olds playing together. They care not for what background each of them come from. Not at all. I recall growing up in a 98% white neighborhood in Brooklyn. As with most of the neighborhoods in perhaps the whole country, this is how it was… and to some extent still is. The only black people I would see  (though they were referred to in those days as ‘Colored’ or ‘Negro’) were either the cleaning ladies who a few of my neighbors hired, an apartment building janitor, or a delivery truck helper. As I have related in a previous column, my earliest experience of racial fear was when my mother took me with her around the corner to the grocery store. I must have been five years old, and she held my hand as we crossed the avenue. Coming in our direction was this black man, dressed in a suit. As we approached him I could feel her hand tightening on mine. After he passed by her hand loosened up.

In 1988 I was working as a marketing director for a Brooklyn based manufacturer. One evening I was on a flight to Phoenix, on this huge wide body plane. Many of us were able to stand around in a lounge area. I made conversation with this 40 something fellow from Israel. He was an engineer on his way to a conference. I asked him about his feelings on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. His answer still reverberates in my memory bank as if it was yesterday. “Well”, he said, “Here is the way it is for many Israelis. The Palestinians are to us like your southern blacks are to you here. We see them breeding like rabbits, knee deep in poverty. If we do not do something about this problem, they will one day out populate us. As sorry I am to say this, but you asked for my truthful answer, is if we don’t push them into the sea, our culture will be doomed…. period!”

History has this terrible habit of always repeating itself… IF we never learn.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image is from NEO

In the face of protests composed largely of young people, the presence of America’s military on the streets of major cities has been a controversial development. But this isn’t the first time that Generation Z — those born after 1996 — has popped up on the Pentagon’s radar.

Documents obtained by The Intercept via the Freedom of Information Act reveal that a Pentagon war game, called the 2018 Joint Land, Air and Sea Strategic Special Program, or JLASS, offered a scenario in which members of Generation Z, driven by malaise and discontent, launch a “Zbellion” in America in the mid-2020s.

The Zbellion plot was a small part of JLASS 2018, which also featured scenarios involving Islamist militants in Africa, anti-capitalist extremists, and ISIS successors. The war game was conducted by students and faculty from the U.S. military’s war colleges, the training grounds for prospective generals and admirals. While it is explicitly not a national intelligence estimate, the war game, which covers the future through early 2028, is “intended to reflect a plausible depiction of major trends and influences in the world regions,” according to the more than 200 pages of documents.

According to the scenario, many members of Gen Z — psychologically scarred in their youth by 9/11 and the Great Recession, crushed by college debt, and disenchanted with their employment options — have given up on their hopes for a good life and believe the system is rigged against them. Here’s how the origins of the uprising are described:

Both the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Great Recession greatly influenced the attitudes of this generation in the United states, and resulted in a feeling of unsettlement and insecurity among Gen Z. Although Millennials experienced these events during their coming of age, Gen Z lived through them as part of their childhood, affecting their realism and world view … many found themselves stuck with excessive college debt when they discovered employment options did not meet their expectations. Gen Z are often described as seeking independence and opportunity but are also among the least likely to believe there is such a thing as the “American Dream,” and that the “system is rigged” against them. Frequently seeing themselves as agents for social change, they crave fulfillment and excitement in their job to help “move the world forward.” Despite the technological proficiency they possess, Gen Z actually prefer person-to-person contact as opposed to online interaction. They describe themselves as being involved in their virtual and physical communities, and as having rejected excessive consumerism.

In early 2025, a cadre of these disaffected Zoomers launch a protest movement. Beginning in “parks, rallies, protests, and coffee shops” — first in Seattle; then New York City; Washington, D.C.; Los Angeles; Las Vegas; and Austin — a group known as Zbellion begins a “global cyber campaign to expose injustice and corruption and to support causes it deem[s] beneficial.”

During face-to-face recruitment, would-be members of Zbellion are given instructions for going to sites on the dark web that allow them to access sophisticated malware to siphon funds from corporations, financial institutions, and nonprofits that support “the establishment.” The gains are then converted to Bitcoin and distributed to “worthy recipients” including fellow Zbellion members who claim financial need. Zbellion leadership, says the scenario, assures its members that their Robin Hood-esque wealth redistribution is not only untraceable by law enforcement but “ultimately justifiable,” as targets are selected based on “secure polling” of “network delegates.” Although its origins are American, by the latter 2020s, Zbellion activities are also occurring across Europe and cities throughout Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, including Nairobi, Kenya; Hanoi, Vietnam; and Amman, Jordan.

In the world of JLASS 2018, Gen Z’s most militant members have essentially taken to privately taxing large corporations and other institutions to combat income inequality or, as the war gamers put it, using the “cyber world to spread a call for anarchy.”

The JLASS war game emerges in the context of the Pentagon playing a controversial and visible role in the unfolding domestic protests against racism and police brutality in the U.S. National Guard units have been deployed in various locations already, and some active-duty military forces were sent by the Trump administration to the Washington D.C. area.

“I think the sooner that you mass and dominate the battlespace, the quicker this dissipates and we can get back to the right normal,” said Secretary of Defense Mark Esper earlier this week during a teleconference call that also saw President Donald Trump deride U.S. governors for their “weak” response to protests over the killing of George Floyd. Trump even declared that he had put Gen. Mark Milley, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “in charge.” Later that day, after security forces drove protesters and clergy from Washington, D.C.’s Lafayette Square with tear gas, Milley, dressed in combat fatigues, followed Trump, Attorney General William Barr, Esper, and others to a roundly condemned photo op in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church.

This came amid the backdrop of threats being issued to employ active-duty military to forcefully suppress protests, and the deployment of rapid-reaction units from the 82nd Airborne Division to bases just outside Washington, D.C. With retired admirals and generals, among others, excoriating Trump — and to a lesser extent Esper and Milley — for breeches of long-standing norms in civilian-military relations, it’s worth considering how the Pentagon’s war gamers chose to focus the military’s attention on a generation now demonstrating peacefully in America’s streets.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is by Becker1999 from Grove City, OH / Wikimedia Commons

The Turkish involvement in the Libyan conflict allowed the Government of National Accord (GNA) to turn the tide of the battle of Tripoli and even develop further success by expanding control over a notable chunk of northern Libya.

After capturing Tripoli International Airport last week, GNA forces and Syrian militant groups with a direct support from the Turkish Armed Forces forced the Libyan National Army (LNA) led by Khalifa Haftar to retreat from a number of villages and towns including Tarhuna and Dawun.

Retreating LNA fighters left behind dozens of weapons and pieces of military equipment, including T-55 and T-62 battle tanks and howitzers. Pro-GNA sources also showcased a destroyed Pantsir-S system, which the LNA had received from the UAE. The town of Tarhuna was looted and a large number of buildings there were destroyed by Turkish-backed forces. The residents of this town are known for their support to the LNA. A large number of civilians fled the town with the retreating LNA units.

On June 6, Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi announced a new diplomatic initiative for Libya proposing a ceasefire from June 6 and the resumption of the political process. Egypt alongside with the UAE are key backers of the LNA.

Apparently, Ankara and the GNA saw this move as a sign of the weakness. The GNA even announced an advance on the port city of Sirte controlled by the LNA. However, Turkish-led forces failed to reach the city on June 6 and June 7 suffering casualties. According to local sources, over 30 Turkish proxies were killed. A Turkish Bayraktar TB2 combat UAV was also shot down. In response, Turkey shot down a Wing Loong II combat UAV operated by the LNA and conducted a series of airstrikes on LNA positions near Sirte. On June 8, the GNA and its allies conducted another attempt to advance on Sirte. Clashes are ongoing.

Egypt reacted to these developments by sending reinforcements to the border with Libya. At least 2 large columns with Egyptian battle tanks were filmed moving towards the border. The geographic location of Egypt allows its leadership, if there is a political will and a strong decision, to freely employ its ground and air forces to support the LNA in the conflict against Turkish proxies. Cairo could opt to choose the strategy of direct actions if Turkish-led forces capture Sirte threatening the LNA heartland in northeastern Libya.

The modern military political leadership of Turkey, in particular President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his inner circle, has views on the needed structure of the Islamic world, which are to a great extent similar to those of the Muslim Brotherhood. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood thinks that the leading Islamic states should be headed by leaders with a rather strong religious agenda.

Egypt traditionally has a complex and balanced cooperation of the religious and secular parts of their society. In the view of the Muslim Brotherhood, the religious factor should be developed further, even at the cost of the interests of the secular part of the society. This goes contrary to the current reality in Egypt, which is ruled by relatively secular leaders. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood and armed groups affiliated with it are considered terrorist organizations in Egypt. Therefore, Cairo sees the expansion of forces ideologically close to the organization as a direct threat to its national security.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Support South Front in its endeavors. If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Radical Reforms: Disbanding Police Forces in the US

June 9th, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

“I’ve been saying for the last several years … American policing is at a crossroads.” – Mike Cutone, former Massachusetts officer, June 5, 2020

If you can envisage the commencement of a police force as a band of auxiliaries to keep slaves in check, capture escapees and sow much terror, it becomes that much clearer.  Such men were not stewards to keep the people safe; they were there to protect a propertied status quo at the end of the whip and baton.  In the southern US states, the modern police organisation that found form was the “Slave Patrol”, vested with powers to hunt down, apprehend and return runaway slaves to their owners while maintaining a deterrent of terror and discipline. In the aftermath of the Civil War, Southern police departments continued to exert a degree of control over freed slaves within the context of Jim Crow segregation.  Appearances were kept up.

The rage following the death of George Floyd on May 25 has sent a shiver of reform down the spine of the Minneapolis establishment. In Minneapolis, nine members of the city council spoke of their intention to disband the city’s police force.  Council President Lisa Bender told CNN about a pledge “to dismantling policing as we know it in the city of Minneapolis and to rebuild with our community a new model of public safety that actually keeps our community safe.” 

One method of change making its way in public policy land is a traditional one: redirecting the public purse.  Take the funding away from the agency with a monopoly on the use of force within the state or city – in this case, the police – and invest it in the marginalised communities where policing would otherwise be required. On Sunday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a measure along such lines, cutting the budget of the NYPD and relocating resources to youth and social services.  “Our young people need to be reached, not policed.”  

Advocates are not entirely clear, however, whether to go the whole hog on this and abolish departments altogether, or retain some skeleton force.  In the case of Minneapolis, a cut of $200 million is being proposed to its $1.3 billion annual budget.  The police budget in 2020 was $189 million, which will supposedly be directed towards “community-based strategies”, a term that could encompass anything.  Bender, at least, has an inkling of the problem, given that most 911 calls tend to focus on matters touching on mental health services, general health issues and fire services.

Community organisations with a pro-defunding platform for police are not calling for an immediate cessation of cash.  As MPD150, a group based in Minneapolis, argues, “we’re talking about a gradual process of strategically reallocating resources, funding, and responsibility away from the police and toward community-based models of safety, support and prevention.”

MPD150 suggests drawing out other participants better equipped to deal with social crisis.  Drop the idea of deploying “strangers armed with guns, who very likely do not live in the neighbourhoods they’re patrolling”.  Shift the emphasis, rather, to “mental health providers, social workers, victim/survivor advocates, religious leaders, neighbours and friends – all of the people who really make up the fabric of a community – to look out for one another.”

As with any abolitionist community, the views are scrappy and fractious.  Do you embrace gradualism?  Or do you go for the proverbial policy jugular?  Campaign Zero’s 8cantwait campaign has been attacked by another group, 8toAbolition, which has mauled it for its “claims, assumptions and faulty science.”  Scratch the surface of radicalism, and the accused collaborator will be found.  The central problem with Campaign Zero’s main claim – that adopting its policies of restraint would “reduce” police killings by 72% – has been seen to preserve a tinkered system rather than tearing it apart.  8cantwait advocated “a pacification method”, rather than a solution.

For its part, 8toAbolition’s to-do list includes defunding police, demilitarising communities, removing police from schools, freeing people from the prison system, repeal laws criminalising “survival”, investing in community self-governance, providing safe housing for all and investment “in care, not cops.”  The organisation envisages “a society without police or prisons, where communities are equipped to provide for their safety and wellbeing.”

This may sound a touch treacly, but social experiments of this kind have been tested on US soil.  The entire Camden police force was disbanded in New Jersey which was succeeded by a larger, county force with a focus on “community service”. The 2013 decision seemed counter-intuitive: Camden boasted the dubious honour of having one of the highest crime rates in the country.  All the accompaniments were there: dilapidated and distressed neighbourhoods, abandoned store fronts and homes; ruined playgrounds. 

In place of the former 141-year old police force was a new outfit.  Police officers were re-hired, along with fresh blood, at lower salaries.  They were encouraged to mingle with residents and build a rapport with the community.  Arrests and the issuing of tickets would be frowned upon.  In 2014, Camden County Freeholder Director Louis Cappelli, Jr. was confident that the shift had worked.  “We’ve started taking back sectors of the city on behalf of residents.”  Parks had been reclaimed for children; the bloated murder rate began to fall.

Anoka County Sheriff James Stuart is far from impressed with such suggestions, as is Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who has publicly opposed the abolition route.  Abolitions, defunding and reduction in police personnel could never take place in a vacuum.  His agency had “no appetite” in working in a city with an abolished police department.  “The members of the Minneapolis City Council should be mindful that numerous other law enforcement agencies have responded to them, to restore order, to protect their citizens, and to return peace to their city during recent tragic days.”  Should they “choose to eliminate their police department through defunding operations without a realistic plan, they must also choose to live with the consequences of their decisions.” 

The question of logistics is one thing, but whether the councillors of Minneapolis will have the iron cast stomach to pursue the promised change is the question that will remain begging till actual steps are taken. “We don’t have all the answers for what the future looks like,” Ward 5 councillor Jeremiah Ellison airily declared, “but the community does.”  Till then, much of this will seem like moral posturing, the performance of a role that will simply pass.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

Indeed police killings, brutality, and its other unacceptable practices against America’s most disadvantaged are a major societal problem needing correction.

Cutting its funding or even replacing it with an alternate societal control system won’t fix things.

The problem isn’t cops. It’s power elites controlling them.

It’s state-sponsored inequity and injustice, privileged interests served exclusively at the expense of exploiting most others domestically and abroad.

US instruments of control go way beyond state and local police.

The Wall Street owned and controlled Fed has supreme power over all others by controlling the nation’s money, credit, debt, and ability to manipulate markets for private enrichment.

In his book titled “Tragedy and Hope,” historian Carroll Quigley explained the following:

“(T)he powers of financial capitalism (can) create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole,” adding:

“This system (is) controlled…by the central banks of the world, acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”

Former Bank of England director Josiah Stamp said “(b)anking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin,” adding:

“The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again.”

The Fed is a privately owned banking cartel by its major banks, able to create limitless amounts of money digitally.

The 16th Amendment let Congress levy an income tax so bankers given control of the nation’s money by the 1913 Federal Reserve Act could be paid interest on the federal debt.

If money power was returned to public hands where it belongs, and swords were beaten into plowshares, creating a new era of peace, the federal income tax could be eliminated for most Americans, greatly reduced for others.

Government debt would be interest free or eliminated altogether.

Publicly controlled money used for economic growth could produce sustained inflation-free prosperity, what colonial America accomplished. So did Lincoln.

Why not now? Because powerful bankers would lose what they value most.

The power to create money lets them rule the world unchallenged. If returned to public hands, they’d be powerless.

Politicians serve their interests. US money-controlled elections maintain dirty business as usual, the unacceptable status quo.

Funded by countless trillions of dollars poured down a black hole of unaccountable waste, fraud, and abuse, the Pentagon’s global empire of bases involved in waging endless war on humanity is a far greater problem than police wrongdoing.

So is the CIA-led US intelligence community, a force for pure evil, not good.

It’s hired guns killed JFK, RFK and MLK for opposing US militarism, warmaking, and related state-sponsored wrongdoing.

JFK notably ordered all US military forces out of Vietnam by end of 1963, eliminated for wanting peace over aggression against a nation threatening no one.

He despised the CIA, wanting it “splinter(red) into a thousand pieces and scatter(ed) into the wind.”

His transformation from warrior to peacemaker cost him his life. It cost the lives of millions of Southeast Asians and thousands of Americans from a decade of US aggression — ongoing endlessly today in multiple theaters.

Ironically, ground-breaking for Pentagon construction began on another 9/11 in 1944 — what became headquarters for orchestrating endless wars on humanity worldwide, resulting in tens of millions of lost lives.

Cops in the US terrorize society’s most disadvantaged of all races.

The US gulag prison system, the world’s largest by far, symbolizes systemic injustice.

Most inmates are poor Blacks and Latinos, mostly for nonviolent crimes, illicit drug possession the most common one.

Countless numbers behind bars are for what amounts to misdemeanor offenses, many wrongfully blamed for things they had nothing to do with, including on death row.

America’s obsession to incarcerate targets society’s most vulnerable and others for supporting ethnic justice, racial emancipation, and political, economic and social equality across gender and color lines — political prisoners languishing behind bars.

Immigrants from the “wrong countries” of the wrong faith are hunted down, rounded up, denied bail, dehumanized, and unjustly punished with no right of appeal.

What should be a national scandal and denounced gets scant public attention.

The same goes for US torture prisons, operating globally, at home and abroad — filled with political prisoners of the wrong faith, color and nationality, unjustly considered terrorists.

What’s gone on for time immemorial, torture became official US policy under Bush/Cheney, continued under the radar to this day with no end of it in prospect, a high crime against humanity getting no public attention.

Calling Trump “the fire devil, German publication Der Spiegel missed the point.

Like most of his predecessors, notably the Clintons, Bush/Cheney and Obama, he fronts for systemic dirty business as usual at home and abroad — the same to be true for whoever succeeds him in 2021 or 2025.

One-party rule with two anti-peace, equity, and justice right wings assures it — mirror images of each other on issues mattering most, serving privileged interests exclusively.

It’s been the American way from inception with brief moments of positive change along the way — notably by New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society programs.

They greatly eroded since the neoliberal 90s, heading for elimination altogether to free up maximum funds for war on humanity at home and abroad, along with handouts to corporate America.

All of the above issues and related ones made the US a pariah state, a fantasy democracy, a notion it tolerates nowhere, especially not domestically.

Cops in America serve and protect powerful interests at the expense of vitally needed beneficial social change.

They’re symbolic of societal injustice, not the root cause.

Defunding or disbanding police in one, a few, or larger numbers of US cities won’t stop state-sponsored war on humanity, inequity, injustice, or institutionalized racism.

Only revolutionary change can transform a deeply corrupted system too debauched to fix any other way.

Positive change never comes top down, never by elections assuring continuity, only bottom up.

There’s no other way, never been one before or looking ahead.

A Final Comment

I’ve stressed many times that no nation historically caused more harm to more people over a longer duration than the US.

Throughout its history from inception, governance of, by, and for the privileged few has been and continues to be core US policy.

That’s what the American way is all about — democracy for the privileged few by exploiting most others and plundering planet earth for maximum profit-making, the human toll ignored.

Humanity is held hostage to what Orwell called “a boot stamping on a human face — for ever!”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Defund, Reform, or Disband US Police? What About the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, US Gulag, and Wall Street Owned Fed Etc!
  • Tags:

The US Dollar index is not a true measure of value of the US dollar. It just tracks an “exchange rate” between the US dollar and a basket of significant fiat currencies.

For a true measure of value of the US dollar it is better to look to Gold and Silver. However, there is a relationship between significant Gold rallies and the US Dollar index.

Gold has a tendency to rally at a certain time in a US Dollar index long-term cycle. Previously, I have looked at significant Silver rallies, relative to the US Dollar long-term cycle. Here, I would like to look at Gold.

Here is a long-term chart of the US Dollar index:

On the chart, I have marked two fractals (1 to 5). Both fractals exist in similar conditions – relative to the relevant Dow/Gold ratio peaks (1966 and 1999). During the period from Points 1 to 3 on both charts, the first phase of the Gold bull market occurred (70s Gold bull market 1971 to 1980 and current Gold bull market 1999 to 2011).

During the period from points 3 to 4, Gold started a significant correction (1974 and 2011), and bottomed years later (1976 and 2015). At point 4, the Dow peaked (1976 and 2020 – true if Feb 2020 is Dow top).

Another important thing that happened during both these periods, was Gold being much stronger than Silver. This was especially more pronounced during the current pattern period, since the Dollar was much stronger during the current Gold and Silver correction (from 2011) than during the one from the mid 70s.

Below, is the same chart, with the Gold chart included for reference purposes:

Notice that the 1980 and 2011 Gold tops came close to the end of a downtrend of the US Dollar index. Also, it came just after the US Dollar index made new all-time lows in 1978 and 2008.

This is what I would be looking for at before the next Gold peak. If not a new all-time low for the US Dollar index, then at least a decent downtrend before calling a potential Gold peak.

If the current pattern continues to follow the 70s pattern, then the US Dollar index is likely to decline significantly over the coming months and years, while Gold makes new all-time highs.

During the period from point 4 to 5 (in the 70s pattern), Gold went from about $100 to $850. How high can Gold go this time?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Hubert Moolman on Silver and Gold.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Dollar Cycle Points to New All-time Highs for Gold
  • Tags: ,

Niente sovranità economica senza quella politica

June 9th, 2020 by Manlio Dinucci

Si discute attualmente su quanti e quali finanziamenti l’Italia riceverà dall’Unione europea e a quali condizioni. Da Bruxelles arrivano messaggi tranquillizzanti. Ma poiché tali finanziamenti saranno forniti per la maggior parte sotto forma di prestiti, diversi economisti avvertono che c’è il pericolo di un forte indebitamento e di una ulteriore perdita di sovranità economica.

L’attenzione politico-mediatica si concentra quindi sui rapporti tra Italia e Unione europea. Tema importante, che non può però essere separato da quello dei rapporti tra Italia e Stati uniti, di cui in  parlamento e sui grandi media nessuno discute.

Si continuano così a ignorare le implicazioni del piano di «assistenza» all’Italia varato il 10 aprile dal presidente Trump (il manifesto, 14 aprile 2020). Eppure l’ambasciatore Usa in Italia, Lewis Eisenberg, lo definisce «il più grande aiuto finanziario che gli Stati Uniti abbiano mai dato a un paese dell’Europa occidentale dal 1948, dai tempi del Piano Marshall».

A supporto delle attività sanitarie anti-Covid già «decine di milioni di dollari sono andati e andranno alla Croce rossa e ad alcune organizzazioni non governative» (non meglio identificate). Oltre a questo il piano prevede una serie di interventi per «sostenere la ripresa dell’economia italiana».

A tal fine il presidente Trump ha ordinato ai segretari del Tesoro e del Commercio, al presidente della Banca di Export-Import, all’amministratore dell’Agenzia Usa per lo sviluppo internazionale, al direttore della United States International Development Finance Corporation (agenzia governativa che finanzia progetti di sviluppo privati) di usare i loro strumenti per «sostenere le imprese italiane». Non viene detto quali imprese sono e saranno finanziate nel quadro di tale piano, né a quali condizioni sono vincolati tali finanziamenti.

L’ambasciatore Eisenberg parla in generale degli ottimi rapporti tra Stati uniti e Italia, dimostrati da «importanti indicatori di tipo economico e strategico», tra cui  «uno dei più grandi accordi militari con Fincantieri», che lo scorso maggio si è aggiudicata un contratto da circa 6 miliardi di dollari per la costruzione di dieci fregate multiruolo della US Navy. Il gruppo italiano, controllato per il 70% dal Ministero dell’economia e delle finanze, ha negli Usa tre cantieri, in cui sono in costruzione anche quattro analoghe navi da guerra per l’Arabia Saudita.

Altro importante indicatore di tipo economico e strategico è la crescente integrazione della Leonardo, la maggiore industria militare italiana, nel complesso militare-industriale Usa soprattutto attraverso la Lockheed Martin, la maggiore industria militare statunitense. La Leonardo, di cui il Ministero dell’economia e delle finanze è il principale azionista, fornisce negli Usa prodotti e servizi alle forze armate e alle agenzie d’intelligence, e in Italia  gestisce l’impianto di Cameri dei caccia F-35 della Lockheed Martin.

Sono questi e altri potenti interessi – in particolare quelli dei grandi gruppi finanziari – che legano l’Italia agli Stati uniti. Non solo la politica estera e militare, ma anche quella economica dell’Italia viene così subordinata alla strategia degli Stati uniti, improntata a un sempre più acuto confronto politico, economico e militare con la Russia e la Cina. È chiaro il piano di Washington: sfruttare la crisi e le fratture nella Ue per rafforzare l’influenza Usa in Italia.

Le conseguenze sono evidenti. Mentre ad esempio sarebbe nostro interesse nazionale togliere le sanzioni a Mosca, così da rilanciare l’export italiano in Russia per ridare ossigeno soprattutto alle piccole e medie imprese, tale scelta è resa impossibile dalla nostra dipendenza dalle scelte di Washington e di Bruxelles. Sono allo stesso tempo in pericolo gli accordi dell’Italia con la Cina nel quadro della Nuova Via della Seta, non graditi a Washington.

La mancanza di reale sovranità politica impedisce queste e altre scelte economiche di vitale importanza per uscire dalla crisi. Ma di tutto questo, nel talk show della politica, non si parla.

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Niente sovranità economica senza quella politica

Inroduction

This short critical review explores the findings of extant research on the health risks posed by 5G technologies that emit radiofrequency radiation (RFR)1. It also provides evidence that the processes by which policy decisions have been made concerning the protection of public health may be significantly flawed, as the overwhelming body of scientific evidence appears to have been ignored by relevant government departments and agencies in arriving at decisions about the introduction of 5G. This lacuna comes about due to the over-reliance on expert opinion from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an NGO whose members have traditionally had close ties to industry. It is significant that the UK government and its agencies neither sought nor obtained independent scientific advice on a matter of importance to public health. Consequently, it failed in its duty to identify, assess,and mitigate the risks posed by RFR-based technologies before their introduction, specifically 5G networking and related technologies, thereby protecting public health.

What does science have to say about the health risks of 5G Technology?

The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation (RFR) as a possible human carcinogen. It is, therefore, incredible that not a single, peer-reviewed scientific study has been carried out on the health risks associated with 5G technologies that emit low frequency (700MHz), high frequency (3.4- 3.8 GHz, centimetre (CM)) or extremely high-frequency millimeter (MM) (26 GHz and above) RFR. The overwhelming majority of published peer-reviewed scientific studies in biomedical research databases PubMed, Ovid Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and those listed in Google Scholar, indicate significant health risks with RFR of the type used in 5G technologies, both near field in the home and far-field in antennae, whether on access points or masts. This is the view of the majority of scientists across biomedical and related fields: However, the minority view is led by a group of 13 influential scientists from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Significantly, commission members have strong links with the telecommunications industry and hold key roles in the WHO, the International Agency for Research on Cancer(IARC), and the EU’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). Thus, the minority view dominates through political influence, not the preponderance of scientific evidence.

The majority view is represented in the findings of thousands of peer-reviewed empirical studies on microwave non- ionizing RFR focusing on the biomedical effects of 2-4G and WiFi technologies (see Di Ciaula, 2018; Miligi, 2019; Russell, 2018; and Kostof et al. 2020, for examples). There are also several reviews and general studies focusing on extremely high frequencies up to 100GHz that may be used in 5G (Neufeld and Kuster, 2018; Simkó and Mattsson, 2019). The overwhelming majority of studies conclude that there is a high risk of adverse biological effects on humans at low, high and extremely high frequencies. Recent research funded by DARPA (US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) finds that ICNIRP guidelines focus on short-term risks only,not long‐term exposures to weak RFR: this despite “a large and growing amount of evidence indicates that long‐term exposure to weak fields can affect biological systems and might have effects on human health” with significant “public health issues” (Barnes and Greenebaum, 2020. p. 1). Furthermore, research also finds biological effects at high frequencies may add to and compound those predicted at lower frequencies (Kostof et al., 2020).

What are the health risks of non-ionizing RFR?

A recent research review on the health risks of RFR, involving independent verification based on 5,400 studies in the MedLine database, concludes that “the literature shows there is much valid reason for concern aboutpotential adverse health effects from both 4G and 5G technology” and that extant research “should be viewed as extremely conservative, substantially underestimating the adverse impacts of this new technology” (Kostoff et al. 2020).

Kostoff et al. report that peer-reviewed studies show the following adverse health effects well below the safety limits set by the UK based on ICNIRP guidelines:

  • “carcinogenicity (brain tumors/glioma, breast cancer, acoustic neuromas, leukemia, parotid gland tumors),
  • genotoxicity (DNA damage, DNA repair inhibition, chromatin structure), mutagenicity, teratogenicity,
  • neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis),
  • neurobehavioral problems, autism, reproductive problems, pregnancy outcomes, excessive reactive oxygen species/oxidative stress, inflammation, apoptosis, blood-brain barrier disruption, pineal gland/melatonin production, sleep disturbance, headache, irritability, fatigue, concentration difficulties, depression, dizziness, tinnitus, burning and flushed skin, digestive disturbance, tremor, cardiac irregularities,
  • adverse impacts on the neural, circulatory, immune, endocrine, and skeletal systems.”

What is the scientific consensus on health risks?

It is significant that the vast majority of independent original experimental and epidemiological research studies and scientific review papers identify the health effects documented above (cf. Belpomme et al. 2018; Belyaev et al. 2016; Miller et al., 2018; Barnes and Greenebaum, 2020, for examples of the latter). In addition, following its own extensive empirical research on 2-3G radiation, which identifies clear evidence that RFR is carcinogenic (Lin, 2019), the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ National Toxicology Program (NTP)is investigating whether 5G poses similar risks to human health (National Toxicology Program, 2018b). Inter alia, “NTP scientists found that RFR exposure was associated with an increase in DNA damage. Specifically, they found RFR exposure was linked with significant increases in DNA damage in: the frontal cortex of thebrain in male mice, the blood cells of female mice, and the hippocampus of male rats” (NTP, 2018b). These concerns are echoed and amplified in the conclusions of other systematic reviews (see Di Ciaula, 2018; Russell, 2018), which argue that precautionary approaches need to be adopted by governments, given the known risks (Miligi, 2019). Significantly, Italian medical consultant and researcher Agostino Di Ciaula (2018) underlines concerns and concludes from his review of the scientific and medical literature that 5G technology is of great concern as the “available findings seem sufficient to demonstrate the existence of biomedical effects, to invoke the precautionary principle, to define exposed subjects as potentially vulnerable and to revise existing limits.” Thus, the majority of peer-reviewed scientific studies conclude that 2-4G and WiFi, and by logical generalization, 5G, puts those exposed to RFR signals at significant health risks, even at exposure levels 100,000 times lower than Public Health England (PHE)/ICNIRP safety guidelines. However, the European Academy for Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM) EMF Guidelines (Belyaev et al., 2016) indicates a non-thermal safety level of 1,000,000 to 100,000,000 times less than PHE and ICNIRP guidelines.

Is 5G RFR carcinogenic?

Few policymakers and healthcare professionals understand why in 2011 the WHO’s IARC classified non- ionizing RFR as a Class 2B possible carcinogen. RFR’s status as a major environmental toxin and probable carcinogen has been confirmed in numerous studies since. A recent scientific review of RFR studies and the links with cancer is unequivocal and states that “[m]obile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A)”. However, new experimental and epidemiological research has scientists conceding that it should be reclassified as a Class 1 human carcinogen. Accordingly, an IARC Advisory Group of 29 scientists from 18 countries recommended that non-ionizing radiation be prioritized bythe WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs programme during 2020–24 (IARC Monographs Priorities Group, 2019). It is significant that former ICNIRP members are now recognizing this and also calling on the IARC to review its classification (see Lin, 2019). It is therefore of concern that 5GRFR’s status as a carcinogen is played down by the UK government and PHE: furthermore, it is clear that RFR’shealth risks as such are not understood, particularly by scientists and medical practitioners advising PHE.

What is the primary biological mechanism that leads to toxicogenic and carcinogenic effects?

Non-ionizing RFR is considered by the majority of independent scientists as a potent environmental toxin, due to its ability to cause oxidative stress in animal and human cells (Belpomme et al. 2018; Yakymenko et al., 2016). The relationship between non-ionizing RFR, the increase in free radicals/reactive oxygen species, the reduction in anti-oxidants, and oxidative stress in human cells of all types is significant (Kıvrak et al., 2017). The vast majority of studies identify oxidative stress as the mechanism through which cancer and a range of other more immediate health ill-effects, such as neurological and immunological effects, occur through exposure to most environmental toxins, including RFR (cf. Barnes and Greenebaum, 2020). Of particular concern here to many scientists are the effects on children’s neurological and psychological development causedby RFR exposure (Belyaev et al., 2016).

Why are the health risks of exposure to RFR significant?

As with any environmental toxin, the risks related to RFR exposures increase with the frequency and duration of such exposures over time, even at low levels of exposure: put simply, it is the extent of the exposure to all sources of RFR that poses the greatest risk to individuals and society (Barnes and Greenebaum, 2020).

Unlike other toxins and carcinogens, RFR is truly ubiquitous: it radiates from multiple personal and WiFi devices, routers, access points—these radiate 3-5G telecommunications and data signals, 2.4 and 5G Wifi signals and Bluetooth RFR—in the home, public spaces, hospitals, cars, in schools, and a web of antennae across the built environment. Thus, exposure to this carcinogen and toxin is of high frequency and long, if not continuous, duration.

This continuous exposure maximizes the risk of persistent and continuous oxidative stress and, consequently, makes humans vulnerable to ALL the health risks listed earlier. Children are particularly at risk. Hence, scientists and medical practitioners globally believe that ubiquitous 5G sources present high levels of risk to human health and well-being (5G Appeal, 2019). Just how significant are the health risks? What follows is a precis of the major health risks.

Click here to read full article.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Demonstrators at the anti-5G protest in Bern on Friday. (© Keystone / Peter Klaunzer)

Selected Articles: Censorship and Injustice Amid COVID-19

June 9th, 2020 by Global Research News

The COVID-19 War in Japan: Is National Face-Saving More Important than the People’s Lives?

By Prof. Joseph H. Chung, June 09, 2020

The bad choice of policy priority was shown with the arrival of the cruiser Diamond Princess on February 3 in Yokohama Bay. This seems to have disturbed much Abe’s government.

There were already unknown infections cumulated up in January and, now, there were 3,711 individuals on the cruiser without knowing how many were infected among the passengers and the crew.

SouthFront Is Censored Under Cover of Pandemic

By Rick Sterling, June 09, 2020

The censorship has been accompanied by a parallel disinformation campaign promoted by corporate, governmental and establishment “think tank” organizations.  This is in the context where the US State Department’s  Global Engagement Center (GEC) has a direct liaison with Silicon Valley companies and teams focused on “countering the propaganda” from Russia, China and Iran with a current budget of $60 million per year.

A Pipelineistan Fable for Our Times

By Pepe Escobar, June 09, 2020

Once upon a time in Pipelineistan, tales of woe were the norm. Shattered dreams littered the chessboard – from IPI vs. TAPI in the AfPak realm to the neck-twisting Nabucco opera in Europe.

In sharp contrast, whenever China entered the picture, successful completion prevailed. Beijing financed a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Xinjiang, finished in 2009, and will profit from two spectacular Power of Siberia deals with Russia.

The Six-Day War: The Myth of an Israeli David Versus an Arab Goliath

By Miko Peled, June 09, 2020

June 2, 1967, was a tense day at the Israeli army headquarters in Tel Aviv. For weeks, IDF generals had been pushing the government to initiate a war and the atmosphere was tense. Israel’s Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, who also acted as minister of defense, came to see the generals at the IDF command center. All the generals who made up the IDF high command were present. This meeting became known as the showdown. Years later, some would even accuse the army of an attempted coup d’etat.

Palestinian Lives Matter: Huge Jewish-Arab Rally in Tel Aviv Decries Netanyahu’s Plan to Annex 1/3 of West Bank

By Prof. Juan Cole, June 09, 2020

The crowds shouted slogans against the annexation plan, against the continuing Occupation and depriving Palestinians of basic rights, and against last week’s killing of an autistic Palestinian man by Israeli border guards in East Jerusalem. Many in the crowd also accused Netanyahu of destroying Israeli democracy.

Camouflage: How the Israeli Left Continues to Hoodwink Us with Corrupted Slogans

By Rima Najjar, June 08, 2020

When White supremacists in the U.S. adopted the “All Lives Matter” slogan, everyone quickly understood that the use of it was intended to denigrate the “Black Lives Matter” slogan. The Zionist embrace of “Palestinian Lives Matter” is also a denigration. Palestinian lives suddenly matter to them now only out of fear that Israel’s impending annexation of parts of the West Bank means the end of Zionism and will allow the world to understand the true supremacist nature of the state, which at heart is: “only Jewish lives matter”.

The Gaza Strip Under Israeli Military Siege

By Dr. Zuhair Sabbagh, June 08, 2020

In accordance with International Law, both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, i.e. the Palestinian Territories, are considered occupied territories. It has been agreed upon by the international community, including its astounding legal experts, that the proper legal tools that are applicable in cases of belligerent occupation, are the 1907 Hague Regulations, the 1949 Four Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I, and customary international humanitarian law.


Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Censorship and Injustice Amid COVID-19

The performance of Shinzo Abe in the war against the corona virus has been less than poor.  

Abe is blamed for having put the policy priority to the Olympics and Abenomics over human life.

The Japanese people have the legendary docility and they seldom protest government policies.

But, this time, the life of each Japanese person is threatened. Would they continue their docility and silence?

In this paper I will do the following.

First, I will discuss the problems of Abe’s handling of the COVID-19. I argue that Abe made two errors, namely the missing of the golden time and mismanagement of the whole process of fighting the virus.

Second, I will see the nature and the depth of the ordinary Japanese people’s dissatisfaction with Abe’s government’s handling of the corona-virus crisis.

Third, I am asking myself how much longer the ordinary Japanese people will tolerate the corruption of the right-wing establishment, risk the restoration of the pre-1945 military imperial Japan and the ruin of the national economy which Abenomics could not prevent.

The COVID-19 Crisis and Abe’s Policy Failure

From the mid January 2020, the cases of the infected were observed in several prefectures. The government was aware of this trend and began to prepare anti-virus measures.

On January 30, the government established the Novel Corona Virus Response Headquarters under the Task Force headed by the Deputy Chief Secretary of the Cabinet, Okita Yoshiki with high ranking government officials who were far from being experts in the field of infectious diseases.

On February 6, the medical tests and consulting system was established. On February 16, Abe held the first meeting with the experts.

And, the criteria of testing were the fever of 37.5 C for four days and pronounced fatigue. This criterion was largely criticized as being too restrictive to find out the extents of infections.

In fact, a good part of infected is not symptomatic, that is, there are no visible signs of infections. In some studies, the asymptotic cases represent as much as 80% of the infections.

On February 25, Abe announced concrete anti-virus measures consisting of home quarantine and social distancing. These measures required that those who were of high risk should not go the hospital for treatment and they should get the prescription through phones.

Thus, Abe’s government was well aware of the crisis by creating needed institutions, but the trouble was that these institutions could not do their expected functions.

The basic problem of Abe’s anti-virus measures may be characterized in terms of the choice of wrong policy priority, bad planning and poor coordination.

Six People From The Diamond Princess Cruise Ship Have Now Died ...

The bad choice of policy priority was shown with the arrival of the cruiser Diamond Princess on February 3 in Yokohama Bay. This seems to have disturbed much Abe’s government.

There were already unknown infections cumulated up in January and, now, there were 3,711 individuals on the cruiser without knowing how many were infected among the passengers and the crew.

But, 13 individuals infected were allowed to leave the ship without tests; they were allowed to use public transportation facilities. If these 13 individuals were infected in addition to unknown infected persons on the land who had not been quarantined, they could have transmitted the virus to a huge number of individuals.

Suppose that there are 100 persons infected and that the multiplier of virus propagation, Ro is 2 and that the transmission period is three days. It means that the number of infected doubles every three days.

On Day 1, we have 100 infected; on Day 3, we have 200 infected; on Day 6, we have 400 infected; on Day 9, we have 800 infected; on Day 12, we have 1,600 infected. Nobody knows how many persons were infected in Japan by February 3, the day of the cruiser’s arrival in Yokohama Bay.

But, one thing sure was that the government should have better managed the situation on the board of the cruiser and made suitable planning of the anti-virus war.

Speaking about the government’s handling of the Diamond Princess cruiser, Iwata Kentaro of Kobe University a specialist on infectious diseases was known to have evaluated the cruiser handling as “the violation of all elementary principles of dealing with infectious diseases”.

The fundamental question is about Abe’s perception of the corona virus crisis. Professor Iwata Kentaro was quoted to have said that “the leaders’ sense of entitlement was breeding indifference to the crisis and incompetence in dealing with the crisis” (1)

Koichi Nakano of Sophia University was quoted to have said:

“The Abe government has approached this crisis first as and foremost economic crisis and government public relation crisis rather than an epidemiological crisis.” (2)

This was clearly shown by the nomination of Yasutoshi Nishimura, minister of economic rehabilitation, as minister of corona virus counter measures. Abe was concerned with the salvaging what was left of his Abenomics.

The most important issue for Abe was the opening of the July Olympics, which was threatened by the corona virus crisis.

For Abe, the Olympics Game was a sort of saviour for him and for his government. It could be redemption for the failure of Abenomics; Abe was hoping to have tens of billions of billion dollars of income through Olympics related tourism; there was huge expected income from the rights of TV diffusions. The huge multiplier effects of employment and income deriving from the construction of facilities would have been considerable

For Abe, the Olympics Game was something perhaps more important than the economic and financial bonanza; it was also the question of “saving face of Japan.”

Japan was losing face because of the three-decade economic deflation, the mishandling of the 2011 triple disasters of earthquake, tsunami and the nuclear melt-down in addition to disappointing treatment received from Trump and the “Japan-passing” in the North-Korean peace dialogue.

So, it was more difficult for Abe to give up the Olympics, In fact, he waited until March 24th, before he postponed it for July 2021.

In the meantime, for more than three months from January to mid March had passed and the number of infected could have increased beyond our imagination; nobody knows how many, but it could be several tens of thousands, may be, more than hundred thousand, given the total population of 127 million inhabitants.

In fact, there are some experts who think that the total number of the infected could be 8 times of the reported cases of infections, if the testing campaign were more aggressive.

Nevertheless, Abe waited until April 7 before he declared the state of emergency for Tokyo and six surrounding prefectures. The world could not understand Abe’s way of handling the crisis.

Professor Koichi Nakano of Sophia University said this.

“Abe seemed generally reluctant to call the state of emergency, so may be out of fear of further damaging the economy, he dragged his feet too long, but he had no choice but to accept the outbreak which is now out of control.” (3)

Thus, Abe missed the golden opportunity to save Japanese lives most likely because of his concern about his Abenomics and the interests of his corporate friends.

Abe has been criticized for the wrong timing of the closing of schools in February without proper planning and coordinating.

Abe was widely criticized for the terribly sub-standard face masks which were suspected to have been produced by incompetent company close to the establishment.

But, Abe’s failure the most criticized was the poor testing. As of May 3, the number of tests in Japan was 1.3 per 1,000 people as against 12.0 for South Korea and 18.0 for the United States.

And the number of cases of infections, as of May 3, was 15,789 to increase to 16,779 as of June 3. The number of death rose from 549 to 900 in the same period.

It is the generalized view that the number of cases and deaths are low, simply because the number of tests is low. Abe tries to justify the low level of tests by evoking the poor reliability of the test kits, the lack of hospital facilities to deal with a large number of cases.

Such arguments are not very convincing, because Japan has been boasting about the high quality of the public health system.

The Voice of the Ordinary Japanese

One of the sad aspects of the corona virus crisis is the Japanese people’s impression that Abe attaches greater importance to money and the glory of his “New Japan” than to human life.

The ordinary Japanese have been enduring the decades-long economic deflation, shrinking value of income, decreasing real jobs, the wide spread corruption of the establishment of the Japanese society and suffering of the elderly from hunger and social alienation.

But, now, they might have had enough; the life of each Japanese man, women and child is threatened. This is a new experience; they are frightened. They might have decided not to accept the loss of human life for Abenomics and Japan’s Face-Saving.

In fact, they seem to have given up their legendary docility and have decided to open up their mind; they seem to liberate themselves from the pejorative image of “docile sheep”.

The following is the results of the poll conducted by Mainichi Shimbum in collaboration of a research partner on May 8, 2020.

Evaluation of the government and political parties

Do you support the current administration in Japan led by Abe?

  • No (45%);
  • Yes (40%)

Which political party do you support?

  • LDP (30%),
  • the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDPJ) (9%),
  • Nippon Innovation Party (11%),
  • four other minor political parties (below 5 %)

It is interesting to notice that while 40% of the poll respondents support the government, only 30% support the Liberal Demographic Party (LDP) led by Abe. This seems to show that Abe is losing people’s support. In the past, LDP used to have 70% popular support.

Evaluation of the COVID-19 policies 

Do you think that the declaration of state of emergency in the area you live can be lifted by the end of May?

  • No (46%),
  • Yes (36%)

Do you feel uneasy about Japan’s medical and testing system in relation to novel corona-virus?

  • Yes (68%);
  • Not uneasy (14%)

How do you evaluate the administration’s response to novel corona virus?

  • Negatively (48%);
  • Positively (22%)

As many as 46% of the respondents believe that the state of emergency will not be lifted, while it has been lifted.

This means that Abe has ignored the people’s fear. Such fear seems to come from their mistrust in the medical and the testing system. As a matter of fact, 68% do not feel easy with the system. All in all, 48% of the respondents evaluate negatively the government response to corona virus.

Japanese people’s docility 

Since the declaration of the state of emergency did you go out of home?

  • Not at all (15%);
  • went out for essential needs such as works and shopping (82%)

How much have your own direct contacts with other people declined since the declaration of the state of emergency?

  • Declined by 80% (56%);
  • by at least 20% (26%)

The respondents’ responses to these questions seem to reflect that the Japanese people respect the government instruction of self quarantine and social distancing.

Since the declaration of the state of emergency 15% did not go out all, while 82% went out for essential missions.

On the other hand, as many as 80% of the respondents say that, since the declaration of the state of emergency, the contact with other people declined by 56%.

These poll results seem to lead to two conclusions. First, the Japanese people are not happy with the way the government has been handling the corona-virus crisis.

Second, even if they are not satisfied with the whole system of public health and government reactive policies, the Japanese people could have saved many lives by virtue of self quarantines, social distancing, saluting by bowing instead of shaking hands, frequent hand washing and the culture of wearing face masks.

However, nobody knows how many lives have been saved by the Japanese docility and popular culture. It is more than certain that the real number of the infected and the corona-virus related death could be much higher than the reported figures.

There is a theory saying that the government does not report the true figures of infections and deaths, even if it has the true data, in order not to make the people feel insecure.

But, this theory does not seem defendable, because each individual having the risk of being infected should be eager to know the truth. Anyway, by the end of June, the true picture might emerge. 

What will happen to the Japanese Culture of Docility and Harmony?

A part of my education took place in Korea under the Japanese rule. I used to admire the docility, the obedience to authorities, strict disciplines and the quest for harmony of the Japanese people.

On the other hand, I was sad to see that the great majority of the Japanese people had to suffer from decades-long war without much complaining; it was difficult for me to see the Japanese families sending their fathers, sons, brothers to Kamikaze fighter planes.

I was wondering for whom the war was? I was wondering who was benefitting from the war?

Was it for the people or for the glory of a few ambitious political and military leaders who had the illusion of conducting the “holy war of liberating Asia from the White”?

Even now, I see, in front of my eyes, the poor Japanese children and the elders starving to death on the street of Tokyo and other Japanese cities in 1944 and 1945.

The Japanese people thought, since the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki, that they would enjoy peace, prosperity, the end of Kempeitai (cruel military police) and ordinary people-friendly government.

In short, they were hoping a decent and human society in which even the ordinary people can enjoy. But the ordinary Japanese people have been denied of such world.

History tells us that, if a single political force rules the country for very long period, the probability of corruption of the political establishment, the abuse of power and the alienation of the week increases. This has happened in Japan.

One of the amazing political scenes in Japan is the one in which one political party, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) ruled, since 1957, 57 years out of 63 years, or 91% of the period.

During this period, Japan had 21 prime ministers. The longevity of Japanese prime ministers has been as follows:  1-year PMs: 4;  2-year PMs: 11;  3-year PMs: 2;  5-year PMs: 2;  8-year PM:1; 10-year PM:1

Shinzo Abe has been prime minister for 10 years (2006-2007 and 2012-2020).

Yasuhiro Nakasone (1982-1987) and Junichiro Koizumi (2001-2006) were two 5-year prime ministers.

Abe’s maternal grandfather, Nobuske Kishi (1957-60) and Hayato Ikeda (1961-64) were two 3-year prime ministers.

The instability of the Japanese government is well reflected by the fact that 71.4 % of prime ministers since 1957 were 1-year or 2-year prime ministers.

The excessive instability of the Japanese government was attributable partly to the different term for the party presidency (3 years for LDP) and the term of prime minister (4 years). The prime minister is the president of the party in power; this can create confusion.

However, the more important reason for the instability could be the never ending corruption of the political leaders. In fact, many of them killed themselves or lost the position of prime minister because of corruption.

One of the notorious scandals was the Recruit Scandal in which 70 lawmakers bought, in 1988, the stock of a company before its listing and made fortune. There were savage sex offenses at night clubs by lawmakers of the LDP. The bribery scandals of construction industry has been a part of the corruption culture of the establishment.

The land dealing scandal in which the first lady was involved was related to the acquisition of public land for a small portion of the land’s market price; the land was for the establishment of a Meiji-era inspired ultra-right primary school, Moritomo Gakuen.

The scandal which made the Japanese the very angry was the scandal of prolonging the tenure of the Tokyo chief prosecutor, Hiromu Kurokawa, from 63 years to 65 years.

The chief prosecutor is a strong supporter of Abe, who needed the prosecutor in order to use the Bureau of Prosecutor for Abe’s political purpose including the silencing of the voice of objections to his ambitions.

For the first time, 4 million twitters of the ordinary Japanese people emerged to protest Abe’s hidden intention. It happened that Kurokawa played, for money, the illegal “mahjong” game and he resigned.

There is a close correlation between the length of power and the extent of the corruption culture. As we saw, out of 63 years since 1957, the year of the creation of LDP by Abe’s grandfather, it ruled Japan for 57 years, that is, 91% of the period.

Such long period of power leads necessarily to the creation of the corruption culture dominated by big business, bureaucrats and politicians. This group begins with money-power collusion, then the creation of the oligarchy and eventually the creation of corruption culture.

Once you come to the era of the corruption culture, it is very difficult to get rid of it. We have seen it in South Korea under the 58-year rule by the conservative governments since 1948, that is, 81% of the period, 1948-2020.

The most disastrous effect of the corruption culture is this. The core of the culture is the monetary-political establishment whose interest is the maximization of the interests of the establishment at the expense of those of the ordinary people.

The nomination and the expulsion of prime ministers are most likely determined by the establishment. Many of the short-term prime ministers are those who might have done something which he establishment did not like.

Under this situation, the economic prosperity has not been very beneficial to the ordinary Japanese. One of the popular descriptions of Japan since the 1980s was “the country is rich but, the ordinary people are poor.”

There is another political phenomenon which makes the Japanese people worried and insecure; it is the Abe group’s dream of restoring the pre-1945 military imperial empire of Japan.

Abe’s decades-long ambition has been the amendment of the Peace Constitution, in particular, Article 9, which prevents Japan from making offensive wars. His group proposes even the way Hitler changed the Weimer Constitution by force.

The statement of the deputy prime minister who was also foreign minister, Taro Aso, showed how much the Abe team admired the Nazi constitution.

“German’s Weimer constitution was changed into Nazi constitution before anyone knew. It was changed before anyone else notices. Why don’t we learn from that method?” (4)

There was also the State Secret Act adopted in 2013 designed to silence the voices of objection. This Act has the following characteristics.

  • Civil servant who leaks state secrets can be imprisoned up to 10 years.
  • Civilians and journalists who reveal state secrets may be imprisoned up to 5 years.
  • It is the government which defines what should be state secrets

To restore the old Japanese empire, Abe has to silence the voice of objection. Abe has made the NHK (Japan’s national TV) into “Ave TV.”

The Japanese people have endured all these realities; they have suffered from 3-decade long economic deflation; they have had to watch helplessly how Abenomics could not find the solution.

As a matter of fact, Abenomcs has failed. The fiscal arrow and the monetary arrow have hit the wrong targets. The fiscal arrow has increased the national debt to 253% of GDP. The monetary arrow had inundated cash, in the name of QE (quantity easing), in the financial institutions without really connecting the money to the real economy, the good-producing economy.

The real arrow was the third arrow of structural adjustment. This policy means the strengthening of the industries by not bailing out the hopeless big companies. Most of the monetary and fiscal resources have been used for the bailout of businesses close to LDP.

The Japanese people have endured all these hardship caused by wrong policies. Yet, they have not gone down to the streets to protest.

They did once for the antiwar movement in 1969. In 2011, more than 300 civic organizations made street demonstration against the government mishandling of the triple disasters of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meld-down.

But, they could not continue, because of the lack of sustained backing of political forces.

However, Abe’s choice of the glory of New Japan (neo-military and imperial Japan) at the expense of simple happiness of simple people might lead to the open protests against Abe’s political forces.

The simple happiness of simple Japanese is peace, more equal distribution of the fruits of economic development and a little better social status recognized and respected by the elite group.

To do this, they need strong opposition parties. But, there are too many small political parties and the Abe’s LDP is too strong and still popular.

However, if united, the ordinary Japanese people can change things.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Professor Joseph H. Chung is professor of Economics and co-director of the Observatoire de l’Asie de l’Est (OAE) of the Centre d’Études sur l’Intégration et la Mondialisation (CEIM), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Notes

(1) thedailybeast.com/japans-covid-19-state-of-emergency-locks-down-criticism

(2) Ibid

(3) theguardian.cm/world/2920/apeil/09/dash-loom-in-japan-as-tokyo-governor-says-abe-covid-mesures-not-enough)

(4) thedeadlybeast.com/japan-shinzo-abe-government-has-a-thing-about-hitler-it likes-him

SouthFront Is Censored Under Cover of Pandemic

June 9th, 2020 by Rick Sterling

Introducing SouthFront

Where do you find daily news, videos, analysis and maps about the conflict in Syria?  Detailed reports about the conflicts in Libya, Yemen and Venezuela?  News about the rise of ISIS in Mozambique?  Original analysis of events in the US and Russia?  SouthFront is the place.

SouthFront is unique and influential, reaching a global audience of hundreds of thousands. They have  opinion articles but their reports and videos are informational and factual. Their website says,

“SouthFront focuses on issues of international relations, armed conflicts and crises…. We try to dig out the truth on issues which are barely covered by the states concerned and the mainstream media.”

Censorship by Facebook and YouTube

A major disinformation and censorship drive against SouthFront was recently launched.  On April 30 the SouthFront Facebook account with about 100,000 subscribers was deleted without warning or notice.

On May 1,  SouthFront’s main YouTube account with over 150 thousand subscribers was terminated. The English language channel had 1,900 uploaded videos with 60 million views over the past 5 years.

While the SouthFront website continues as before, the above actions remove important distribution channels which SouthFront has painstakingly built up.

The censorship has been accompanied by a parallel disinformation campaign promoted by corporate, governmental and establishment “think tank” organizations.  This is in the context where the US State Department’s  Global Engagement Center (GEC) has a direct liaison with Silicon Valley companies and teams focused on “countering the propaganda” from Russia, China and Iran with a current budget of $60 million per year.

In a March 2020 hearing, Senator Chris Murphy (D – Conn) lobbied for increased funding and more censorship. He said, “It’s hard to chase one lie after another. You have to actually go after the source and expose the source as illegitimate or untrustworthy, is that right?” Lea Gabrielle, head of GEC, responded “That’s correct.”

When the Senator says “it’s hard to chase one lie after another“, he is acknowledging that it’s often hard to show that it’s a lie. Even more so when it is not a lie. It is much easier for the authorities to simply say the source is untrustworthy- or better yet to eliminate them – as they have tried to do with SouthFront.

False Accusations by Facebook

The elimination of SouthFront’s Facebook account was based on a Facebook sponsored investigation titled “April 2020 Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior Report”.  The 28 page report says,

We’re constantly working to find and stop coordinated campaigns that seek to manipulate public debate across our platforms….We view influence operations as coordinated efforts to manipulate public debate for a strategic goal where fake accounts are central to the operation…. This month we removed eight networks of accounts, Pages and Groups….. Our investigation linked this activity to … two media organizations in Crimea – News Front and SouthFront. We found this network as part of our internal investigation into suspected coordinated inauthentic behavior.”

First, SouthFront is not trying to “manipulate public debate”; they are providing news and information which is difficult if not impossible to find elsewhere.  It seems to be the censors who are trying to manipulate debate by shutting out some voices.

Second, SouthFront does not have “fake accounts”; they have a public website plus standard social media outlets like Facebook and YouTube (until cancelled). Third, SouthFront has no connection to NewsFront nor operations in Crimea.

NewsFront and SouthFront are completely different organizations. They share the name “Front” but that is irrelevant. Does Facebook confuse the New York Times with Moscow Times?  After all, they both have “Times” in their title.

Facebook has shut down SouthFront on the basis of misinformation and smears.

False Accusations by DFRLab

The  Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) was created by the Atlantic Council, a “non partisan organization that galvanizes US global leadership”. It is another organization which is quick to label alternative foreign policy voices as “Russian propaganda”. DFRLab claims to have “operationalized the study of disinformation by exposing falsehoods and fake news”. They reported the censorship of SouthFront with a report titled “Facebook removes Russian propaganda outlet in Ukraine” with subtitle “The social network took down assets connected to News Front and SouthFront, propaganda websites supportive of Russian security services”.  They reported that the two “demonstrated a close relationship by liking each other’s pages.” As anyone who uses Facebook is aware, it is common to “like” a wide variety of articles and publications. The suggestion that “liking” an article proves a close relationship is silly.

The DFRLab  report says News Front and SouthFront “disseminated pro-Kremlin propaganda in an array of languages, indicating they were attempting to reach a diverse, international audience beyond Russia.”

First, NewsFront and SouthFront are completely distinct and separate organizations.  Second, is there anything unusual about a website trying to expand and reach different audiences? Don’t all publications or outlets do that?  This is a tactic of the new censors: to portray normal behavior as sinister.

Another censorship tactic is to assert that it is impermissible to question the veracity of certain findings.  Thus DFRLab report says NewsFront posted “outright disinformation” when it published a story that “denied the culpability of Russian-backed separatists’ involvement in the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines MH-17”.  They suggest this proves it is Russian propaganda and false. However, the facts about the downing of MH-17 are widely disputed. For example. one of the foremost American investigative journalists, the late Robert Parry, came to the same conclusion that the MH-17 investigation was manipulated and the shoot-down was probably NOT as portrayed. Parry did many articles on this important event, confirming that it is not “Russian propaganda”.

The Atlantic Council is one of the most influential US “think tanks”. It appears they have created the DFRLab as a propaganda tool to disparage and silence the sources of alternative information and analysis.

Disinformation by European Council “Task Force”   

The goals and priorities of the European Union are set by the European Council.  They are also increasingly active in suppressing alternative information and viewpoints.

In 2015 the European Council created a East StratCom Task Force to “address Russia’s ongoing disinformation campaigns”. Their major project is called EUvsDISINFO. They say,

“Using data analysis and media monitoring services in 15 languages, EUvsDISINFO identifies, compiles, and exposes disinformation cases originating in pro-Kremlin media.”

This organization is part of the disinformation campaign against SouthFront. In April 2019 they published an analysis “SouthFront – Russia Hiding Being Russian“. The story falsely claims that SouthFront “attempts to hide the fact it is registered and managed in Russia.”  The SouthFront team is international and includes Russians along with numerous other nationalities. Key spokespersons  are a Bulgarian, Viktor Stoilov, and an American, Brian Kalman. They do not hide the fact that the website is registered in Russia or that PayPal donations go to an account in Russia. The website is hosted by a service in Holland. It is genuinely international.

EUvsDISINFO demonstrates disinformation tactic of falsely claiming to have “exposed” something that is “hidden” when it is public information. There is nothing sinister about collaboration between different nationalities including Russia. EUvsDISINFO suggests there are sinister “pro-Kremlin networks”.  In reality, SouthFront is a website run by a dedicated and underpaid staff and lots of volunteers.  While the European Council gives millions of dollars to EUvsDISINFO, SouthFront operates on a tiny budget without government support from Russia or anywhere else.

False accusations by US Department of Defense

On April 9,  the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Laura Cooper, spoke at a press briefing.  She identifies SouthFront by name and accuses them of “reporting that there actually was no pandemic and that some deaths in Italy might in fact have been from the common flu”.

The first accusation is because of the SouthFront article “Pandemic of Fear”. In contrast with the accusation, the article says, “The COVID-19 outbreak is an apparent threat which cannot be ignored.”  The article also discusses the much less reported but widespread pandemic of fear.

The second false accusation is regarding the high death toll in Italy. SouthFront reported the findings of a report from the Italian Ministry of Health which suggested the previous mild winter and flu season had “led to an increase in the pool of those most vulnerable (the elderly and those with chronic illnesses) that can increase the impact of the epidemic COVID-19 on mortality and explain, at least in part, the increased lethality observed in our country.” This is very different than saying the deaths were caused by the common flu. In any case, the findings came directly from Italian health authorities not SouthFront.

In the same press conference, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense says she wishes to “reign in malign actors that are spreading misleading disruptive information”.   The censors claim the higher ground but engage in misinformation and falsehoods as they seek to silence discussion and debate.

Conclusion

There is a coordinated effort to manipulate and restrict what the public sees and hears in both North America and Europe.  Under the guise of “fact checking” and stopping “Russian propaganda”, the establishment has created private and government sponsored  censors to distort and diminish  questioning media.  They label alternative media “Russian” or “pro Kremlin” even though many of the researchers and writers are from the West and have no connection or dependency on the Russian government.

SouthFront is an example of a media site doing important and original reporting and analysis.  It is truly international with offices in several countries. The staff and volunteers include people from four continents. The censorship and vilification they are facing seems to be because they are providing information and analysis which contradicts the western mainstream narrative.

In recent developments, SouthFront is posting videos to a secondary YouTube channel called SouthFront TV. When that was also taken down on May 16, they challenged the ruling and won. The channel was restored with the acknowledgment “We have confirmed that your YouTube account is not in violation of our Terms of Service.”

SouthFront is still trying to have their main channel with 152K subscribers restored. Their Facebook account is still shut down and attempts to disparage their journalism continues. The censorship has escalated during the Covid19 crisis.

 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. He can be reached at [email protected].