Category: and

  • KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, FL - MAY 30: SpaceX founder Elon Musk jumps for joy at a gathering following NASA commercial crew astronauts Doug Hurley (L) and Bob Behnken blast off from historic Launch Complex 39A aboard the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket in the crew Dragon capsule bound for the International Space Station. Photo by Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    The rise of the internet and personal computing once inspired utopian visions of how technology could improve society. These days, that kind optimism is sorely lacking from the conversation. The internet has gone from a sprawling web of thousands of websites and subcultures to an increasingly homogenized and monopolized space dominated financially and politically by a handful of billionaires, whose reach now extends into the federal government. In his new novel, Picks and Shovels, author Cory Doctorow brings his readers back in time to the 1980s, the pioneering days of PCs and the internet—and the egalitarian visions of technology’s role in the future that proliferated decades ago. In a special discussion hosted by Red Emma’s Bookstore in Baltimore, TRNN Editor-in-Chief Maximillian Alvarez and Doctorow dig into his new novel, and its place in the wider discussion on tech, inequality, and capitalism.

    Production: Maximillian Alvarez
    Post-Production: David Hebden


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Corey Doctorow:

    Baltimore, thank you very much. What a pleasure. To be in an anarchist bookstore. I grew up in a Marxist bookstore, print shops, which are a little staid. They don’t have as many comic books. It’s very nice to be in a bookstore, radical bookstore where the ethos is if I can’t read a cracking fantasy or I don’t want to be part of your revolution.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Yeah. Well, and I want give you a chance to give us an overview of this book and talk about where it came from. But before we get there, a question I’ve been really wanting to ask you for a while, I couldn’t help but sort of be overwhelmed with emotion holding this book, thinking about what it means, thinking back to young Corey, the IT worker crawling around desks and in the early days of the internet, and how much writing meant to you throughout your entire life. And of course, as someone who interviews workers all day, it makes me think of all the great works of literature that are just unwritten and living in the tired brains and exploited bodies of working people all around us. And so it’s a real remarkable thing to be holding one of those works of literature in my hand. I wanted to ask just to start, as someone who’s written so many different kinds of works, nonfiction, fiction, science fiction, what fiction writing, what has it given you that other forms of writing?

    Corey Doctorow:

    Well, I think that there are all these issues that are sort of on the horizon. I’ve spent most of my life the last 23 years working with the Electronic Frontier Foundation on these issues of tech policy that are really long way off before they’re urgent. But you can see on the horizon that things are going to be very bad if we don’t act now and when they’re that far off, everything seems very abstract and cold and it’s kind of hard to get your head around why you should be worked up about it. There’s stuff in the here and now you got to pay attention to, and this is broadly the problem of activism in the 21st century. This is the problem of climate activism. Eventually everyone believes in climate change, but if you believe in climate change because your house is on fire, it’s kind of too late and upregulating the salience of things that are a long way away, very technical, very abstract.

    It’s hard to do with just argument and you don’t want to wait until people are in the midst of it if for no other reason, then the difference between denialism and nihilism is paper thin. If we spend a decade arguing about whether anyone should be caring about the crashing population of rhinoceros, eventually there’s just going to be one of them left. And you’re definitely going to agree that this is now a problem. But at that point you might say, well, why don’t we find out what he tastes like? Right? Because there’s only one left. So getting people to care about this stuff early on, it’s very hard. And one of the things that science fiction is really good at is interrogating not just what a gadget might do, but who it might do it for and who it might do it to. The difference between a thing in your car that warns you if you’re drifting out of your lane and a thing in your car that rats you out to your insurance company because you’re drifted out of your lane is not the technology, right? It’s the social arrangements that go around it. And we are at the tail end of 40 years of technocratic neoliberalism that is really grounded in Margaret Thatcher’s idea that there is no alternative, which is really a way of saying don’t try and think of alternatives. That there’s only one way. This could be someone came down off a mount with two stone tablets and said, Larry Sergei thou shalt start mining thine log files for actionable market intelligence.

    These are not decisions that had to be made in one way, and they’re not decisions that we can’t unmake and remake in new ways. And one of the things that fiction does is let you explore a kind of emotional fly through of a virtual rendering of a better world or a worse one, both of which can inspire you to do more or to take action now to upregulate the salience of things that are a long way away.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    So you’re saying fiction is the shortest distance between the fuck around and find out stages of history?

    Corey Doctorow:

    Well, look, you need both. You don’t want to just build castles in the sky. You need a grounded theoretical basis. And the other thing about science fiction that I think is amazing is it’s the literature where we welcome exposition and exposition gets a bum rap. They’re like, oh, exposition is always bad show don’t tell. The reason we like showing and not telling is because it’s fiction. Writing on the easy level showing intrinsically is dramatic in a way that telling is not so it’s much harder to make it interesting. But you get 6,000 words of Neil Stevenson explaining how to eat a bowl of Captain Crunch cereal in Komi Con. I would read 20,000 words of that. I would tune into a weekly radio broadcast about it. So good at exposition. And so science fiction can integrate some of that theory, but you also need the theory part. This is a radical bookstore. It has an amazing comic book section. It’s also got a lot of theory.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, let’s talk about picks and shovels. Tell us a bit about where this book specifically a Martin Inch novel came from and give us I guess a

    Corey Doctorow:

    Quick

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Overview

    Corey Doctorow:

    Of it. So I write, when I’m anxious, it makes the world go away. I sort of disappear into the world of the mind. And so I’ve been doing a lot of writing during lockdown. I wrote nine books. I live in Southern California, so I spent all of lockdown in a hammock in my backyard writing. And one of them was this book, red Team Blues and Red Team Blues had a very weird conceit. I somehow came up with the idea of writing the final volume in a long running series without the tedious business of the series. And I thought there’d be a kind of exciting energy that kind of last day of summer camp, final episode, mash kind of feeling of getting to the finale of a long running series without having to do all that other work. And I didn’t know if it would work or not, but I sent it to my editor who’s a really lovely fellow, but not the world’s most reliable email correspondent.

    And I hunkered down to spend a couple months doing other stuff waiting to hear from him. But the next morning there was an email in my inbox, just three lines, that was a fucking ride. Whoa. And he bought two more, which is great, except that Red Team Blues is the final adventure of a 67-year-old forensic accountant who spent 40 years in Silicon Valley unwinding every weird, terrible finance scam that tech bros could think of over the whole period of the PC revolution and beyond. And he has earned his retirement by the end of Red Team Blues, he gets called out for a one last job and now it’s time for him to sail off into the sunset. And I didn’t want to bring him out of retirement. I mean, there is some precedent, right? Conan Doyle gave us back, Sherlock Holmes brought him back over Ricken Bch Falls.

    But that was because Queen Victoria offered him a knighthood if he’d do it. And my editor at the time was a vice president of the McMillan company that carries a lot of power, but you don’t get to night people. So I decided I would tell the story out of order and that you don’t really lose any real dramatic tension if you know that there’s something that happens chronologically later, which means that the character must be alive. Broadly speaking, you know that about every mystery or crime thriller series that you read. But by telling it at a sequence, I get a bunch of plot stuff for free. I don’t have to worry about continuity because I’m not foreshadowing. I’m back shadowing, right? Anytime. Two things don’t line up, I can just interpose an intermediary event in which they’re resolved. It turns out that when you’re doing this, the more stuff you pull out of your ass and make up and then later on figure out how to work out the more of a premeditated motherfucker you seem to be and people get really impressed, it’s great.

    It’s a great cheap writing trick. So this book Picks and Shovels, it’s Marty, he’s First Adventure. It starts with him as a classic MIT screw up. He’s in the computer science program in the early eighties and he is so busy programming computers that he’s flunking out of computer science. And so he ends up becoming a CPA, not because he’s particularly interested in accounting, but because the community college CPA program now has a lab full of Apple, two pluses, and he really wants to go play with those. So after getting his ticket, he and his genius hacker roommate moved to Silicon Valley at the height of the era of the weird PC because when PC started, they were weird. No one knew what they were for, who was supposed to sell ’em, who was supposed to buy ’em, how you were supposed to use them, what shape they were supposed to be.

    I grew up in Ontario, as you heard, I’m a Canadian. We’re like serial killers. We’re everywhere. We look just like everyone else. And the Ministry of Education in Ontario had its own computer that booted three different operating systems, a logo prompt, and it was in a giant piece of injection molded plastic with a cassette drive and a huge track ball like a Centipede game at the arcade. It was a very weird pc. Marty Hench ends up working with some very weird PCs. There’s a weird PC company called Fidelity Computing. The setup sounds like a joke. It’s a Mormon bishop, a Catholic priest and an orthodox rabbi who started a computer company. But the joke is it’s a pyramid scheme and they use parishioners to predate upon one another, extract money from each other and hook them into these computers that are meant to drain their wallets over long timescales because they’ve been gimmick so you can’t get your data off of them.

    The printers have been Reese Sprocketed, so they’ve got slightly wider tractor feeds, so you have to buy special paper that costs five times as much. They’ve done the same thing with the floppy drives. And this is making the millions and three women who work for them have become so disenchanted that they’ve decided to repent of their sins and rescue all of the parishioners. They have sucked into this pyramid scheme with a rival computing company. So these three women, a nun who’s left her order and become a Marxist involved with liberation theology, queer, Orthodox women whose family’s kicked her out, and a Mormon woman who’s left the faith overall position to the Equal Rights Amendment starts a company called Computing Freedom, whose goal is to make interoperable components floppy drives that work with their floppies floppies that work with their floppy drives, printers that work with their paper, paper that works with their printer printers that you can plug into their computers, computers that you can plug into their printers, all of the things you need to escape the lock-in of these devices and see in computers the liberatory potential that I think so many people saw as opposed to the control and extraction potential that unfortunately so many people also saw.

    And as Marty falls in with them, they discover that the kind of people who are not above making millions of dollars stealing from people who trust them because they’re faith leaders are also not above spectacular acts of violence to keep the Griff going. And so what starts as a commercial dispute becomes a shooting war. And that’s the book.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    So like you said, there’s like there’s a punchline kind of set up where a Mormon bishop, a Catholic priest and an orthodox rabbi walk into a bar and start a PC company. And I was thinking about that a lot when I was staring for a long while before I even got to the book at just the copyright page where it says this is a work of fiction. All of the characters, organizations and events portrayed in this novel are either products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. And I wanted to ask in the context of that disclaimer, where the question of faith and the exploitation of faith in this era, what it’s speaking to that is either a creation of your mind or a real situation that you’re addressing fictitiously.

    Corey Doctorow:

    So remember that the early 1980s were a revolutionary moment or maybe a counter-revolutionary moment. It’s the moment in which all of the things that we’re worried about today started. So it’s the first election that evangelicals came into the electorate in large numbers because Reagan brokered a deal with Jerry Falwell to get evangelicals into the Republican coalition. So this is the beginning of political activism among religion. It is also the moment at which pyramid schemes are taking off, especially within religions. I tell the story in the book, but there’s a company called Amway. Amway is one of the most toxic of the pyramid schemes we’ve ever had. It was started by Rich DeVos, who’s Betsy and his partner Jay Van Andel, who ran the US Chamber of Commerce and was the most powerful business lobbyist in the world. And ironically, Richard Nixon had had enough of their shit and was getting ready to shut them down through the Federal Trade Commission when he got fenestrated.

    And Jerry Ford, who’d been their congressman, came in and ordered the FTC to lay off on them. And the FTC crafted a rule, the Amway rule that basically says so long as your pyramid scheme operates like Amway did, it’s legal. So anyone from your high school class who’s found you on Facebook and tried to sell you essential oils or tights, they’re just doing Amway for tights or essential oils. The Amway has become the template and the reason that Amway was so successful, is it married pyramid selling to religion and religion, especially religions that are high demand or that have a high degree of a demand for fertility where you’re expected to have large families. These are institutions that require a lot of social capital for the parishioners to survive, right? If you’re in a religion where you’re expected to have 10 kids and you’re also supposed to tithe 10% of your income to the church, you are really reliant on other people to help take care of your family and vice versa.

    And so they live on social capital and a pyramid scheme is a way for weaponizing social capital, extracting it, vaporizing it, turning it into a small amount of one-time cash, and then moving that up to the top of the pyramid and leaving nothing behind. I just heard a really good interview on the Know Your Enemy podcast where they talked about how pyramid selling, it’s like the bizarre world version of union organizing because pyramid selling is organized around finding the charismatic leaders within a community who other people rely on teaching them how to have a structured conversation that brings other people into what they’re doing, except this is where it goes off the rails because a union organizing conversation is about building solidarity, whereas a pyramid selling conversation is about vaporizing it. And so this crossover of technology, which is always a fertile ground for ripping people off because things people don’t understand are easy to bamboozle them with. People think a pile of shit sufficiently large always has a pony underneath it.

    And it has this nexus with religion, the takeoff of pyramid schemes and this moment of Reagan omic kind of transformation of the country. And you put all those things together, you get a really rich soil that you can grow quite a story out of. And I didn’t know that it would be echoing this moment of counter-revolution that we’re in now that they would coincide so tightly. But really this is also a book about people living through things like the AIDS crisis where it’s an existential crisis because their government has decided that not only they don’t care whether they live or die, the government’s decided they want them dead.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    I want to return in the end before we go to q and a to that, the echoes of our current moment thing. But before we get there, my wife Meg, who’s a worker owner here at Red, Emma’s is from Michigan, and so she has to hear me complain about this more than anybody. Every time we’re driving back to Michigan and we’re on the goddamn toll roads throughout Pennsylvania and Ohio, I get so irrationally angry at the existence and concept of toll roads every time we’re passing through. Like this is so stupid, not just the existence of ’em, but you see the sort of systems and behaviors that coalesce and harden around a stupid idea and become just our accepted reality. And in so many ways, that’s the relationship that we have to tech. And you are returning us to a time in this novel, like you said, the era of the weird pc, the 1980s where so much of what we accept now as kind of settled concrete fact was not settled at all. So why return to that time and what is the world that you explore in this novel?

    Corey Doctorow:

    Yeah, so it was a very contingent moment, right? Not only did no one know what the PC was for, there was a lot of argument about what the PC could be for notoriously, there’s this moment where Bill Gates publishes an open letter in all the computer hobbyist magazines called a Letter to the Computer Hobbyists in which he says, look, I know that since the dawn of the first computer hobbyists and computer science, as we understand it, the way that we wrote programs is the way we do science. You publish the program, other people improve it, they read it, they understand it, they modify it, they use it themselves. However, history stops. Now, I and my buddy have copied a program that was progress. We made our own basic compiler or basic interpreter for A-P-D-P-I think it was. So we copied someone else’s idea that was a legitimate act of copying.

    You must not copy our program when you do that, that’s piracy. And from now on, nobody copies anyone. All the copying is done. And it’s this moment where you see this division in the two cultures between people who think of it as a scientific enterprise, which means that it has this degree of peer review, information sharing, building standing on the shoulders of others, and this idea of it being an extractive industry and one where it’s like we’ve planted all the corn we need, now we can eat the seed corn, right? We’ve got all the cool ideas that we needed to make by sharing ideas. Now it’s time to just have whoever was holding onto the idea when the music stopped, be the person in charge of that idea forever and ever. And we’re still living through that. We’re living through evermore extreme versions of it.

    And actually one of the things I’m very interested in at this moment, and one of the echoes of the moment that this book is set in is that we are at a moment of great upheaval a crisis. And Milton Friedman said in times of crisis, ideas moved from the periphery to the center. He was a terrible person, but he was right about that. His weird ideas about dismantling the new deal and turning us all into forelock tugging plebs who attended our social betters and cleaned their toilets are finally bearing fruit now. And for decades, people thought those were terrible ideas, but he was like, when the oil crisis comes, when whatever crisis it is comes, we’ll be able to do this. Well right now, Trump is our oil crisis. He’s about to make everything in the world 25% more expensive or more with a series of tariffs.

    And when those hit all the countries in the world that have signed up to not allow people to jailbreak, modify, copy, and improve the big tech products who signed up to make sure that every time a Canadian software author makes an app and sells it to a Canadian software user, the dollar the Canadian software user pays makes a round trip through Cupertino and comes back 30 cents lighter. All those things that other countries have signed up to do, we can throw them out the window because we signed up to do them on the condition that we get free trade. So we can be performatively angry at Elon Musk about the Nazi salutes. He kind of likes that he’s into the attention, but if it was legal everywhere in the world to jailbreak Teslas and get all the subscription content, all the stuff that you have to pay every month for free, and that took his absurd valuation to earnings ratio down to something much more realistic and prompted a margin call on all the debt that he’s floated to buy Twitter and so on, that’s going to really kick that guy in the dongle. So I really think that we are at this moment where some of the things we wanted to do back then that were kind of taken as red back then that we exterminated over 40 years, that they’ve never really gone away. They’ve been lurking in the background all along. And I think, I’m not saying Trump is good or that this is a good thing that Trump is in office, but I am saying when life gives you stars, you make sars Barilla, and this is our chance.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    I’m thinking about what you said about the timeline of the narrative, and you sort of know how we’re all going to end if you zoom out long enough. And in so many ways, there’s that kind of tragic sense that you get reading this novel and feeling that unsettledness of the eighties knowing that the endpoint is Aaron Swartz and the state’s attack on him. The endpoint is people like Eric Lundgren, who was one of the first people I ever reported on for the Baffler who printed the very free discs that come with every PC to let you just reboot the system if it fails. He wanted to print those and give ’em to as many people as he could, so they knew how to do it. And Microsoft charged him with basically manufacturing new OS systems and he went to prisons. So there’s that tragic sense of fatalism knowing where that memo from Bill Gates, where it ended up. And so I guess I wanted to ask how we really got from this open weird potential to such a cold system of capture.

    Corey Doctorow:

    Yeah, the five giant websites filled with screenshots, the text from the other four. I think that there’s a revisionist history of that moment that says there were people who were really excited about computers, but hopelessly naive. They thought if we gave everyone a computer, everything would be fine. Those techno optimists are how we got here. I don’t think that’s true. I don’t recognize that account. When I think back to those moments and those people, for example, nobody founds or devotes their life to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, everything is going to be fine. You have to, on the one hand, be very alive to the liberatory potential of computing, but also very concerned about what happens if things go wrong. It’s both. It’s not just these can be misused, but these can be used as well. And I think that if there was something we missed, and I do think we missed it, it was that competition law antitrust was dying as the computer was taking off.

    Literally, Reagan went on the campaign trail when the Apple two plus went on sale. And we had this decades of tech consolidation, not by making better things, but by buying companies that made better things, making those things worse, but also capturing regulators so that people can’t escape. Making it illegal to reverse engineer and modify things so that you can get away from them. So you look at a company like Google, right? 25 years ago, Google made a really amazing search engine. I don’t want to downplay that. It was magic. You could ask Js questions all day long and you’d never get an answer nearly as good as the answer you would get out of Google. But in the years since the quarter century, since when Google has grown to a $3 trillion market cap company, it has had, depending on how you count between zero and one commercial successes of things that it made on its own.

    And everything that it does that’s successful is something it bought from someone else. It made a video service, it sucked Google video, it’s gone. They bought someone else’s video service, YouTube, they bought their mobile stack, they bought their ad tech stack server management docs, collaboration maps, GPS, everything except the Hotmail clone is something that they bought from someone else. They’re not Willy Wonka’s Idea Factory, right? They’re just like Rich Uncle Penny bags. They just go around. They buy everyone else’s ideas up and kind of wall them off and lock you in with them. And I think we missed that that was going on and we missed it because there was a kind of echo of the antitrust enforcement that kind of carried forward through those years. So like 1982, which is more or less where the action this story starts, Ronald Reagan decides that he is going to go ahead and break up at and t.

    At and t had been under antitrust investigation for 69 years at that point. He led IBM off the hook. IBM had been through 12 years of antitrust investigation at that point. Every year they spent more on outside counsel to fight the US government than all the lawyers in the DOJ antitrust division cost the US government. They outspent America for 12 consecutive years. They called it Antitrusts, Vietnam. And in the end, they did get off the hook, right? Reagan dropped the case against them, but they were also like, well, obviously we don’t want to get in trouble again. So when we build the pc, we’re going to get someone else to make the operating system. That’s where we get Bill Gates. We we’re going to make it out of commodity components so anyone can make a pc. And Tom Jennings, who has a cameo in this book, he is, in addition to being a really important person in the history of computer science, is also a really important gay rights activist and published a seminal zine called Core.

    And there’s a scene in the book where he’s quietly selling issues of core in the corner of a dead Kennedy show. Tom went into a clean room and reverse engineered the PC rom for Phoenix, and that’s where we got Dell Gateway Compact and so on. So you get this moment of incredible eff fluorescence where there’s BBSs everywhere because at t is not crushing modems. Everyone’s making a PC like digital equipment company, which is this titan of computing keels over and gets bought with money down the back of the sofa cushions by compact, which is a company that had barely existed 10 minutes before. Things are really dynamic back then. Everything is changing. And I think that’s what we missed was that actually we weren’t going to do the antitrust work that would keep things dynamic after that. That was the last time we were going to do it.

    We try with Bill Gates, and it did get us somewhere, right? With the Microsoft antitrust investigation. Conviction went very well. And then GW Bush gets in and he drops the investigation, but it was, it was this amazing time and it let Google exist, right? Microsoft didn’t do to Google what they’d done to Netscape. And so we got this incredible new kind internet company. Things were really dynamic. And what we missed was that the dynamism was being sapped out of the system, that these companies were aspiring to become monopolists, and the people who would’ve stepped in to prevent them were no longer on the job that we were operating on. The presumption that monopolies are intrinsically efficient, that if you see a monopoly in the wild, it means it’s doing something good. And it would be incredibly ironic to use public money to destroy something that everybody loves.

    And so that’s how we get to this moment, and it’s how we end up with widespread regulatory capture. Because a hundred companies in the sector, they can’t agree on what they want their regulators to do. They can’t even agree on where to have their annual meeting. This is how tech got its ass kicked by entertainment. During the Napster Wars, the Napster companies, the entertainment companies, they were much smaller than tech and aggregate, but there were seven of them. They were all like godparents to each other’s children. They played on the same little league. Kids played on the same little league team. They were executors of each other’s estates. They were in the same polys, and they were able to run a very tight game around 200 tech companies that made up the sector then who were a rabble and who could be divided and conquered.

    And so when the sector concentrates like this, it gets its way. And that I think was the great blind spot that we had that we would end up in this moment. Now where monopolies are the norm, regulatory capture is the norm. Markets don’t discipline companies because they don’t really have competitors. Governments don’t discipline companies because they have captured their regulators. Workers no longer have power. I mean, tech workers had power for decades. They were in such short supply. And if your boss asked you to screw up the thing, you’d missed your mother’s funeral to ship on time, you’d say, fuck off and go get a job across the street with someone who paid more. But 260,000 tech layoffs in 2023, 150,000 in 20, 24 tens of thousands this year. Facebook just announced a 5% across the board headcount reduction. And they’re doubling executive bonuses. That’s a good one. Tech workers aren’t telling their bosses to fuck off anymore. And so all the things that stopped tech from turning into just another industry, that dynamism, that meant that if they made us angry at them, we could do something about it. We could switch, we could go somewhere else. All that stuff is vaporized by the collapse of anti-monopoly enforcement and it led the pack. But we now see that in every sector.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And I want to just tease that out a little more from the consumer side,

    Corey Doctorow:

    Right?

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    I mean, it felt like all of us have lived through the timeline where it felt like we could tell tech to fuck off and say, I’m going to go buy a Blackberry instead of this. They’re like, I’m going to go buy this MP three player instead of an iPod. Now it feels like we’re living in the period where tech’s telling us to fuck off and accept whatever they give us. And I think that speaks to the delayed reaction from us as consumers to what was happening, what you’ve just described. And our blindness to that was in part because it felt like as consumers tech was still giving us what we wanted. That dynamic period you talked about, and the companies and products and personalities that emerged from that all fed into this deep set, techno modernist, conceit that better technologies are going to win out in the market and become dominant in our lives because they are better, more efficient, the people making them are smarter, so on and so forth. So I wanted to ask, how has Silicon Valley as a real world entity become what it is because of that deep set cultural conceit that we have about it, but also how does its trajectory over the past 40 years reveal the falseness of that conceit?

    Corey Doctorow:

    Well, I mean, the reason that it seems so plausible is that it was true for a time, right? In the same way that if you show me a 10 foot wall, I’ll show you an 11 foot tall ladder. If you show me a printer where the ink costs 30% over margin, I’ll show you a company willing to sell you ink at 15% over margin. But the expansion of laws that made it illegal to do that, reverse engineering, that would break the digital lock that stopped you from using Third Party Inc. Or going to a third party mechanic or exporting your data, or when Facebook kicked off, it had a superior product to MySpace. It was like MySpace except they promised they would never spy on you. I don’t know if you remember this, and their pitch to people was Come to Facebook, we promise we’ll never spy on you.

    But the problem was that everyone who was already using MySpace had a bunch of friends there. And you know what it’s like you love your friends. They’re great people, but they’re a giant pain in the ass. And you cannot get the six people in your group chat to agree on what board game you’re going to play this weekend. Much less get 200 people that you’re connected to on Facebook to agree to leave when some of them are there, because that’s where the people have the same rare disease as them are hanging out. And some of them are there because that’s where they plan the carpool for Little League and some of them there because that’s where their customers are or their performers, and that’s where their audience is. Or they’ve moved from another country and that’s how they stay in touch with their family. It’s really hard to get those people to go Facebook cut through that Gordy and Knot, they gave people a scraper, a bot.

    You gave that bot your MySpace login and password. It would pretend to be you at MySpace several times a day, grab all the messages waiting for you, put them in your Facebook inbox, you could reply to them in and push ’em back out again. If you did that to Facebook today, they would nuke you until you glowed, right? You’d have violated Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. You’d be a tortious interferer with contract. You’d have violated their trademarks, their copyrights, their patents. I mean the rubble would be bouncing by the time the bomb stopped. And so this is how you end up in a situation where the same callow asshole Mark Zuckerberg can maltreat you much more without paying any penalty. And so he does. And printer ink is my favorite example of this because it’s just so visceral.

    HP really invented this. And so it’s against the lottery fill a printer cartridge or to use a third party ink cartridge, not because those things have ever been prohibited by Congress, but because all the printers are designed to detect whether you’ve refilled your cartridge or used a third party cartridge and modifying the printer, bypassing the access control to modify the printer is illegal under Section 1201 of the DMCA $500,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence for trafficking and a device to remove that. And so HP has just been raising the price of ink along with other members of the cartel. Ink is now the most expensive fluid you can buy as a civilian without a special permit. It runs over $10,000 a gallon. You print your grocery lists with colored water that costs more than the semen of a Kentucky Derby winner.

    This is how we get to this moment. These companies that are not run by more evil or wicked people, but are just less constrained, are able to act on the impulses that they have to exploit you, rip you off, do bad things because no one tells them no. I mean, we all know people who have gotten in a position of authority where no one could tell them no and abuse it. We are living through that politically right now. That is true all the way through movements, societies, and economies. When you take away the discipline and the responsibility and accountability to other people, then even benevolent people get crazy ideas and do bad things. And people who are malevolent, but we’re getting something done that we all enjoyed then can have their craziness fly mean, and it’s bad for them too, right? This is how you get Steve Jobs going. Well, I’m going to treat my cancer with juice cleanses, right? If no one can tell you no, you’re being an idiot, you have to do it differently. Everything goes wrong.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    So we got about 10 minutes, and I want to make sure that we end before we go to q and a with the passage bringing us back to the book and reading a passage there. But while we’re on the subject of malevolent evil people and what they do when no one tells them no, I wanted to ask since we’ve got you here and we’re all freaking out for the same reasons how we interpret this, Elon Musk is doing to the federal government what he did to Twitter, and we were all laughing about a year ago with the same logic of laying off thousands of federal workers. I’ve interviewed some of them at The Real News, it’s heartbreaking. And talking about replacing ’em with ai. So how do we make sense of this and how do we make sure, where is this going to go if no one tells them no if we don’t stop them?

    Corey Doctorow:

    Well, the joke about the guy who goes to the therapist and he says, I’m really sad and I just can’t seem to shake it. And the therapist says, well, you’ve got good news. The great clown Pag Lichi is in town. You should go see him tonight. Everybody who sees Pachi comes away with a smile on his face and the patient says, but Doctor, I am pag. I sort of feel this way when people ask me about Elon Musk. I mean, look, I am in the same chaos and demoralizing stuff as you. And there is a saying from Eastern Canada, if you wanted to get there, I wouldn’t start from here. That saying gets more true every day. And as an activist, I try to focus on the places where I think we can get a lot of leverage and change stuff, not because I can see how we get from there to solving all of our problems, but I feel like the difference between optimism and pessimism or just the fatalistic belief that things will get better or worse irrespective of what we do that hope is this idea.

    If we change things somewhat, if we ascend the gradient towards the world, we want to live in that. From that new vantage point, we’ll be able to see new ways to climb further and further up that gradient. And so that’s what I’m looking for. I’m looking for what we can do right now that improves the lie of the land so that maybe we can from there, see something else that we can do in something else. And right now, I think it’s going against the International Order of Trade. I really do think this is our moment for this. I especially think that this is the case because you can easily see how countries could be stampeded into it. So my friend Carolina Botero just wrote a couple of editorials in the big Columbian Daily about why Columbia should do this, should jettison all of its IP obligations under its trade agreements with the United States.

    And I’ve been talking a lot to Canadians. I was just there giving a lecture and talking to policymakers in Canada when I told ’em this. They were like, oh, well, if Columbia does it first, we might not be able to make as much money as we would if we were the first ones off. The Mark Mexico’s in the same boat. Mexico’s facing the same 25% tariff as Canada. There are so many places that are deliberately allowing Americans to rip off their own people and holding back their own domestic tech sector that might make locally appropriate more resilient technology by adapting technology themselves that I really feel like this is our oil crisis. This is where we can get something done. I don’t know where it ends with Musk. I mean, one of the things that is crazy about this moment and for the last 10 years is that we live in a kind of actuarial nightmare of a political system because everyone is so old. We are just a couple of blood clots away from majorities flipping in both houses.

    And it’s funny, but it’s totally true. It’s weird that a country that organizes a designated survivor in a bunker during the State of the Union, so there can be some continuity, can’t figure out how to have a talent pipeline that has anyone in it that’s not, doesn’t have a 13% chance of dying of natural causes in the next year. And so things are really unstable in lots of ways. And I could easily see Elon Musk just ODing on ketamine. We are just in this very weird moment where things could go very differently at any moment. And so what I’m bearing down on what I’m putting my chips on right now is figuring out how to get countries around the world to start thinking about what it would mean to raid the margins of large American companies as a retaliatory measure for tariffs instead of retaliatory tariffs, which just makes things more expensive in your own country, which if there’s one thing we learned from the last four years in every country around the world, if you are in office when things become more expensive, you will not be in office come the next election.

    And so this is a moment where you can do something that will actually make everything cheaper for the people in your country. And here in America, I think this is going to bleed in. There’s no way to stop a Canadian company that makes a tool like a software tool that diagnoses cars that you plug into a laptop with a USB port that you plug into the car from selling that to American mechanics. So long as there’s payment processing and an internet connection, they’ll buy it. And the thing is that if you destroy the margins, if you globally zero out the margins of the most profitable companies in the s and p 500 in their most profitable lines of industry, and these are the firms that are really at the core of the corruption of our political process, I think this changes facts on the ground in America for the better as well.

    And so this is where I’m not saying this is where everyone else should be, and I am freely admit that I’m a crank with one idea, and this is my idea and I’m going to work on it, but I am more excited about this than I’ve been in a long time because I really can see a way of doing this. I used to be a UN rep, right? I’ve been in treating negotiations. You ask how you carry on and persevere when it’s hopeless. It was hopeless then, right? We were just there because you couldn’t let this stuff happen without a fight. And every now and again, we won for weird reasons, which we just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and we could give things a push when they were already unstable, but mostly we lost. But after 25 years of doing it, I’m like, oh wait.

    There’s a lot of groundwork we built in those years, and there’s a lot of constituencies that we know how to reach, and there’s a lot of people who are more worked up about this stuff than they were a long time ago. And maybe this is the moment where we can actually make a huge durable change. One of the things that I think is so about what Musk is doing is that it’s so hard to rebuild the institution after it’s gutted. But one of the things that I’m very excited about is that it will be so hard to rebuild these institutions if we can gut them. So I feel like Steve Bannon calling himself a Leninist. I’m a leftist Freedman Knight

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    As alumni of the University of Chicago. I don’t know what to do with that, but we love our crank, Corey. I know that much, and I really love and appreciate what you said earlier. I don’t know what’s going to happen in the next year, two years, four or five 50 either, but I know where we’re headed. If we do nothing, I don’t know what’s going to happen because that side of the story has not yet been authored by us. And I want to kind of return us to that question of authorship. I want to return us back to the question of this text and finish with the text, because I think one of the things that gave me was at least more of a understanding that things are not as settled as they seem. The fates of everything is not as assured as they want us to believe.

    Corey Doctorow:

    Actually, you know what? I summarized the bit that I was going to read, so I think I should yield my time for q and a. Cool. Let’s not do the reading.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Let’s just do that. We’ll yield, go read the book. It’s a really great book. Let’s give it up to Corey Docto, everybody. Thank you.


    This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Maximillian Alvarez.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    Protesters at the Aotearoa New Zealand’s weekly “free Palestine” rallies today gave a tribute to poet Mahmoud Darwish — the “liberation voice of Palestine” — and marked the sixth anniversary of the Christchurch mosque massacre when a lone terrorist gunned down 51 people at Friday prayers.

    Organisers thanked the crowd for attending the rally in what has become known as “Palestine Corner” in the downtown Komititanga Square in the heart of Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau in the 75th week of protests.

    This was one of more than 20 Palestinian solidarity events happening across the motu this weekend.

    Palestinian poet, writer and activist Mahmoud Darwish
    Palestinian poet, writer and activist Mahmoud Darwish . . . forged a Palestinian consciousness. Image: The Palestine Project

    The organisers, of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA), said the rallies would continue until there was a “permanent ceasefire through Palestine” — Gaza, East Jerusalem and occupied West Bank and for a just political outcome for a sovereign Palestinian state.

    The poet, writer and activist Mahmoud Darwish (1941-2008) was born on 15 March 1941 in the small Palestinian Arab and Christian village of al-Birwa, east of Acre, in what is now western Galilee in the state of Israel after the attacks by Israeli militia during the Nakba.

    He published his first book of poetry, Asafir Bila Ajniha (“Birds Without Wings”), at the age of 19. Over his writing career, he published more than 30 volumes of poetry and eight books of prose.

    By 1981, at the age of 40, he was editor of Al-Jadid, Al Fajir, Shu’un Filisiniyya and Al-Karmel.

    He won many awards and his work about the “loss of Palestine” has been translated and published in 20 languages.

    Darwish is credited with helping forge a “Palestinian consciousness” and resistance to Israeli military rule after the 1967 Six-Day War.

    Several speakers read poetry by Darwish or their own poems dedicated to Palestine, including Kaaka Tarau (“Identity Card”), Chris Sullivan (“To My Mother”), Jax Taylor (own poem), Besma (own poem), Audrey (“I am There”), Achmat Esau (“I Love You More”), and Veih Taylor (“Rita and the Rifle”).

    MC Kerry Sorenson-Tyrer
    MC Kerry Sorenson-Tyrer . . . thanked rally supporters for their mahi for a Free Palestine movement.

    Journalist David Robie provided a short introduction to Darwish’s life and works, and he also spoke about the arrest of former Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte this week who is now in a cell in The Hague awaiting trial on International Criminal Court (ICC) charges of crimes against humanity over the extrajudicial killings of Filipinos during the so-called “war against drugs”.

    A poster at the rally . . . a “wanted” sign for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant in reference to the ICC warrants for their arrest. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    “This arrest is really significant as it gives us hope,” he said.

    “Although the wheels of justice might seem to move slowly, the arrest of Duterte gives us hope that one day the ICC arrest warrants issued last November for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant will eventually be served, and they will be detained and face trials in The Hague.”

    South African-born teacher and activist Achmat Esau reminded the crowd of the significance of the date — March 15, the sixth anniversary of the Christchurch massacre when a lone Australian terrorist shocked the nation by killing 51 people at Friday prayers in two mosques with scores injured, or wounded by gunfire.

    Leann Wahanui-Peters and Achmat Esau
    Leann Wahanui-Peters and Achmat Esau . . . a poem dedicated to the memory of the 2019 Christchurch martyrs. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    The gunman pleaded guilty at his trial and is serving a life sentence without parole — the first such sentence imposed in New Zealand.

    Esau shared a poem that he had written to honour those killed and wounded:

    Memory, by Achmat Esau
    51 …
    the victims
    49 …
    the injured
    15 …
    the day
    1 …
    the terror
    2 …
    the masjids
    5 million …
    the impact
    Hate …
    the reason
    Murder …
    the aim
    Love …
    the response
    Hope …
    the result
    Justice …
    the call
    51 …
    the Martyrs!

    The MC, Kerry Sorensen-Tyrer, praised the “creative people” and called on them to “keep creating and processing their feelings into something beautiful and external to honour the people of Palestine”.

    Organisers were Kathy Ross and Del Abcede.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • This story contains references to homophobia, antisemitism and racism, as well as mass shootings and other violence.

    ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

    On Jan. 19, 2024, the sheriff of Jacksonville, Florida, released a 27-page manifesto left behind by Ryan Palmeter, a 21-year old white man who had murdered three Black people at a Dollar General store before turning the gun on himself.

    The Florida Times-Union, a prominent local news outlet, said it would not be publishing the document, which it said used the N-word 183 times and had an “overall theme of white superiority.” T.K. Waters, the sheriff, said he had posted what he described as the “rantings of an isolated, hateful, madman” to keep his promise of public transparency. An attorney for one of the victims’ families urged the public “to not give Palmeter the satisfaction of publishing or distributing his manifesto,” saying it “contains not one redeemable thought.”

    Dallas Humber (Illustration for ProPublica)

    Thousands of miles away, in Elk Grove, California, Dallas Humber saw Palmeter’s view of the world as perfect for her audience of online neo-Nazis. Humber, a now-35-year-old woman with a penchant for dyeing her hair neon colors, was a leading voice in an online network of white supremacists who had coalesced in a dark corner of Telegram, a social media and messaging service with almost a billion users worldwide.

    She and her comrades called this constellation of interlocking Telegram accounts Terrorgram. Their shared goal was to topple modern democracies through terrorism and sabotage and then replace them with all-white ethno-states.

    Humber quickly turned Palmeter’s slur-riddled manifesto into an audiobook that she narrated in a monotone. Then she sent it into the world with her signature line:

    “So, let’s get this party started, Terrorbros.”

    The manifesto immediately began to spread, pinballing around the worldwide Terrorgram scene, which celebrated mass shooters like Palmeter as “saints.”

    The Terrorgram story is part of a much larger 21st century phenomenon. Over the past two decades, massive social networks like X, Facebook and Telegram have emerged as a powerful force for both good and evil. The ability to connect with like-minded strangers helped fuel uprisings like the Arab Spring and Iran’s pro-democracy movements. But it has also aided extremists, including brutal jihadist organizations like the Islamic State group and white supremacists around the world.

    About This Partnership

    This story is part of a collaborative investigation from FRONTLINE and ProPublica that includes an upcoming documentary, “The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram,” which premieres March 25 at 10 p.m. EDT/9 p.m. CDT on PBS stations (check local listings) and will be available to stream on YouTube, the PBS App and FRONTLINE’s website.

    Telegram, which is massively popular outside of the U.S., boasted an array of features that appealed to Humber and her fellow Terrorgammers. They could send encrypted direct messages, start big chat groups and create public channels to broadcast their messages. In the span of five years, they grew Terrorgram from a handful of accounts into a community with hundreds of chats and channels focused on recruiting would-be terrorists, sharing grisly videos and trading expertise on everything from assassination techniques to the best ways to sabotage water systems and electrical transmission lines. On one of her many accounts, Humber posted step-by-step instructions for making pipe bombs and synthesizing HMTD, a potent explosive.

    Humber went by a series of usernames but was eventually publicly exposed by a group of California activists. ProPublica and FRONTLINE reviewed chat logs — some provided by the Australian anti-facist research organization The White Rose Society — court records and Humber’s other digital accounts to independently confirm her identity.

    U.S. prosecutors say Humber helped lead the Terrorgram Collective, a transnational organization that ran popular Terrorgram accounts, produced sophisticated works of propaganda and distributed an alleged hit list of potential assassination targets. She is currently facing a host of federal terrorism charges, along with another alleged Terrorgram leader, Matthew Allison, a 38-year-old DJ from Boise, Idaho. Both have pleaded not guilty.

    To trace the rise and fall of Terrorgram, ProPublica and FRONTLINE obtained a trove of chat logs and got access to some of the extremists’ private channels, allowing reporters to track in real time their posts and relationships. We combed through legal documents, talked with law enforcement officials and researchers in six countries and interviewed a member of the collective in jail. Taken together, our reporting reveals new details about the Terrorgram Collective, showing how Humber and her compatriots were powerful social media influencers who, rather than peddling fashion or food, promoted murder and destruction.

    “The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram,” part of a collaborative investigation from FRONTLINE and ProPublica, premieres March 25.

    The material illustrates the tension faced by every online platform: What limits should be imposed on the things users post or discuss? For years, social networks like Facebook and X employed thousands of people to review and take down offensive content, from pornography to racist memes to direct incitement of violence. The efforts at content moderation prompted complaints, primarily from conservatives, that the platforms were censoring conservative views of the world.

    Telegram was created in 2013 by Pavel Durov, a Russian-born technologist, and his brother Nikolai. Pavel Durov, a billionaire who posts pictures of himself on Instagram, baring his chiseled torso amid rock formations and sand dunes, became the face of the company. He marketed the platform as a free-speech-focused alternative to the Silicon Valley social media platforms, which in the mid-2010s had begun aggressively policing disinformation and racist and dehumanizing content. Telegram’s restrictions were far more lax than those of its competitors, and it quickly became a hub for hate as well as illegal activity like child sexual exploitation and gunrunning.

    Our review of thousands of Terrorgram posts shows that the lack of content moderation was crucial to the spread of the collective’s violent content. Telegram’s largely hands-off approach allowed Humber and her alleged confederates to reach an international audience of disaffected young people.

    They encouraged these followers to turn their violent thoughts into action. And some of them did.

    ProPublica and FRONTLINE identified 35 crimes linked to Terrorgram, including bomb plots, stabbings and shootings. Each case involved an individual who posted in Terrorgram chats, followed Terrorgram accounts or was a member of an organized group whose leaders participated in the Terrorgram community.

    One of the crimes was a 2022 shooting at an LGBTQ+ bar in Bratislava, Slovakia, that left two people dead and another injured. In an earlier story, ProPublica and FRONTLINE detailed how the shooter, Juraj Krajčík, was coached to kill over three years by members of the Terrorgram Collective, a process that started when he was just 16 years old.

    Radka Trokšiarová survived the Bratislava attack after being shot twice in the leg. “Sometimes I catch myself wishing to be able to ask the gunman: ‘Why did you do it? What was the point and purpose of destroying so many lives?’” she said.

    Telegram declined repeated requests to make its executives available for interviews and would not answer specific questions about Humber and other Terrorgram leaders. But in a statement, the company said, “Calls for violence from any group are not tolerated on our platform.”

    The company said that Telegram’s “significant growth has presented unique moderation challenges due to the sheer volume and diversity of content uploaded to the platform,” but that since 2023 it has stepped up its moderation practices, using AI and a team of about 750 contractors. Telegram said it now “proactively monitors public content across the platform and takes down objectionable content before it reaches users and has a chance to be reported.”

    Excerpt from “The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram” (FRONTLINE)

    Watch video ➜

    Right-wing extremists were flocking to Telegram by 2019.

    Many had been effectively exiled from major social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, which, in response to public pressure, had built vast “trust and safety” teams tasked with purging hateful and violent content. The companies had also begun using a shared database of hashes — essentially digital fingerprints — to quickly identify and delete videos and images produced by terror groups.

    Even 8chan, an anonymous message board frequented by extremists, had begun pulling down particularly egregious posts and videos. Users there openly discussed moving to Telegram. One lengthy thread encouraged white supremacists to start using Telegram as a tool for communicating with like-minded people and spreading radical ideas to those they considered “normies.” “It offers a clean UI” — user interface — “and the best privacy protection we can get for this sort of social,” wrote one 8chan poster.

    Pavel Durov, the 40-year-old Telegram co-founder, had positioned himself as a stalwart champion of privacy and free expression, arguing that “privacy is more important than the fear of terrorism.” After the Iranian government blocked access to the app in that country in 2018, he called free speech an “undeniable human right.”

    To the extremists, Telegram and Durov seemed to be promising to leave them and their posts alone — no matter how offensive and alarming others might find their messages.

    Among those who joined the online migration were Pavol Beňadik and Matthew Althorpe. The two men quickly began testing Telegram’s limits by posting content explicitly aimed at inspiring acts of white supremacist terrorism.

    Then 23, Althorpe came from a small town on the Niagara River in Ontario, Canada; Beňadik, who was 19 at the time, lived in a village in Western Slovakia and went by the online handle Slovakbro.

    Both were believers in a doctrine called militant accelerationism, which has become popular with neo-Nazis over the past decade, the chat logs show. Militant accelerationists want to speed the collapse of society by committing destabilizing terrorist attacks and mass killings. They have frequently targeted their perceived enemies, including people of color, Muslims, Jews, gays and lesbians.

    Telegram gave them the ability to share tactics and targets with thousands of potential terrorists around the globe. Day after day they urged their followers to go out and kill as many people as possible to advance the white supremacist cause.

    Pavol Beňadik (Illustration for ProPublica)

    Beňadik had been immersed in the extremist scene since at least 2017, bouncing from one online space to the next, a review of his online life shows. He’d spent time on Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Gab and 4chan, another low-moderation message board.

    Beňadik would later tell authorities that he was inspired by Christopher Cantwell, a New Hampshire white supremacist known as the “Crying Nazi” for posting a video of himself sobbing after learning that he might be arrested for his actions during the deadly 2017 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. From Slovakia, Beňadik listened to Cantwell’s podcast, which featured long racist diatribes and interviews with white nationalist figures like Richard Spencer.

    By 2019, Beňadik had created a chat group on Telegram in which he encouraged his followers to firebomb businesses, torch the homes of antifascists and seek out radioactive material to build dirty bombs and detonate them in American cities.

    Althorpe started a channel and uploaded a steady stream of violent propaganda, the Telegram chat logs show. He named his channel Terrorwave Refined.

    “Direct action against the system,” Althorpe argued in one post, is “the ONLY path toward total aryan victory.” Althorpe often shared detailed material that could aid in carrying out terrorist attacks, such as instructions for making the explosive thermite and plans for building assault rifles that couldn’t be traced by law enforcement.

    Other sizable social media platforms or online forums would have detected and deleted the material posted by Althorpe and Beňadik. But on Telegram, the posts stayed up.

    Soon others were creating similar content. In the summer of 2019, the duo began circulating online flyers listing allied Telegram chat groups and channels. Early on the network was small, just seven accounts.

    Beňadik and Althorpe began calling this new community Terrorgram. The moniker stuck.

    “I decided to become a fucking content producer,” Beňadik would later say on a podcast called HateLab, which has since been deleted. “I saw a niche and I decided to fill it.”

    They were becoming influencers.

    At the Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, a gunman attacked worshippers in 2019, killing dozens. (FRONTLINE)

    Watch video ➜

    As the pair grew their audience on Telegram, they studied a massacre that had occurred a few months earlier in New Zealand.

    A heavily armed man had murdered 51 Muslims at two mosques, livestreaming the carnage from a GoPro camera strapped to his ballistic helmet. To explain his motivations, Brenton Tarrant had drafted a 74-page treatise arguing that white people were being wiped out in an ongoing genocide. He described the Muslim worshippers he murdered as “invaders” and invoked a conspiracy theory claiming they were part of a plot to replace people of European ancestry with nonwhite people.

    Tarrant’s slaughter had sent a surge of fear through New Zealand society. And his written and visual propaganda, which was aimed at inspiring more violence, had spread widely. Researchers would later discover that more than 12,000 copies of the video had been posted online in the 24 hours after the massacre.

    Within the Terrorgram community, Tarrant became an icon.

    On Telegram, Beňadik and Althorpe dubbed him a “saint” — an honorific they bestowed on someone who killed in the name of the white supremacist movement.

    The two men saw Tarrant’s crime as a template for future attacks. Over and over, the duo encouraged their subscribers to follow Tarrant’s example and become the next saint.

    For extremism researchers, the rise of the Terrorgram community was alarming. “Neo-Nazis, white nationalists and antigovernment extremists are publishing volumes of propaganda advocating terrorism and mass shootings on Telegram,” warned an investigator with the Southern Poverty Law Center in June 2019. The investigator said he was unable to even reach anyone at Telegram at the time to discuss the matter.

    By August 2019, the Terrorgram network had grown to nearly 20 chat groups and channels. The Terrorwave Refined channel had ballooned to over 2,000 subscribers. “Thanks to everyone who helped us hit 2,000!” wrote Althorpe in a post. “HAIL THE SAINTS. HAIL HOLY TERROR.”

    In addition to his chat groups, Beňadik created an array of channels to distribute propaganda and guides to weaponry and explosives. One of the most popular attracted nearly 5,000 subscribers.

    “He was, I would say, a key architect behind Terrorgram,” said Rebecca Weiner, deputy commissioner for intelligence and counterterrorism at the New York Police Department. Weiner’s unit spent years monitoring the Terrorgram scene and assisted the FBI in investigating cases linked to the community.

    When compared to mainstream social media, the numbers were tiny. But looked at a different way, they were stunning: Althorpe and Beňadik had built an online community of thousands of people dedicated to celebrating and committing acts of terrorism.

    One of them was Jarrett Smith, a U.S. Army private based at Fort Riley in Kansas who was a regular in Beňadik’s chat group during the fall of 2019.

    A beefy guy who enjoyed posting photos of himself in military gear, Smith had a love of explosives — he urged his fellow Terrorgrammers to bomb electric power stations, cell towers and natural gas lines — and contempt for federal law enforcement agents. “Feds deserve to be shot. They are the enemy,” he wrote in one chat thread.

    Days after making the post, Smith unknowingly began communicating with a federal agent who was posing as an extremist.

    In a string of direct messages, the undercover agent asked for Smith’s help in assassinating government officials in Texas. “Got a liberal texas mayor in my sights!” wrote the agent.

    Happy to oblige, Smith provided the agent with a detailed step-by-step guide to building a potent improvised explosive device capable of destroying a car, as well as how-tos for several other types of bombs.

    He was arrested that September and later pleaded guilty to charges that he shared instructions for making bombs and homemade napalm. Smith was sentenced to 30 months in prison.

    The Terrorgram community was becoming a significant concern for law enforcement.

    An October 2019 intelligence bulletin noted: “Telegram has become increasingly popular with WSEs” — white supremacist extremists — “due to frequent suspensions and censorship of their accounts across multiple social media platforms. Currently, WSEs are able to maintain relatively extensive networks of public channels some of which have thousands of members with minimal disruptions.”

    The bulletin was produced by the Central Florida Intelligence Exchange, an intelligence-sharing center staffed by federal, state and local law enforcement personnel. Today, that five-page document — which was not meant for public dissemination — seems prescient.

    It noted that while jihadist organizations and white supremacists were posting similar content on the platform, Telegram was treating the two camps in “vastly different” ways. The company, which had been headquartered in the United Arab Emirates since 2017, routinely shut down accounts created by the Islamic State group but it would “rarely remove WSE content, and typically only for high-profile accounts or posts that have received extensive media attention.”

    By 2020, a pattern emerged: When Telegram did take down an account, it was often quickly replaced by a new one — sometimes with a near-identical name.

    When the company deleted Althorpe’s Terrorwave Refined channel, he simply started a new one called Terrorwave Revived and began posting the same material. Within seven hours, he had attracted 1,000 followers, according to a post he wrote at the time.

    The Terrorgrammers saw the modest attempts at content moderation as a betrayal by Pavel Durov and Telegram. “You could do anything on 2019 Telegram,” wrote Beňadik in a 2021 post. “I told people how to plan a genocide,” he said, noting that the company did nothing about those posts.

    Apple, Google and Microsoft distribute the Telegram app through their respective online stores, giving them a measure of control over what their users could see on the platform. As the Terrorgram community attracted more notice from the outside world, including extremism researchers and law enforcement, these tech giants began restricting certain Terrorgram chats and channels, making them impossible to view.

    Still, the Terrorgrammers found ways to evade the blackouts and shared the work-arounds with their followers. The network eventually grew to include hundreds of chats and channels.

    The Center for Monitoring, Analysis and Strategy, a German organization that studies online extremism, “has tracked about 400 channels and 200 group chats which are considered part of the Terrorgram community on Telegram,” said Jennefer Harper, a researcher with the center.

    As the content spread, so did crime. Using court records, news clips and Telegram data collected by Open Measures, a research platform that monitors social media, ProPublica and FRONTLINE identified a string of crimes tied to Terrorgram.

    Nicholas Welker, who was active in the Terrorgram community, is serving a 44-month prison sentence for making death threats toward a Brooklyn-based journalist reporting on a neo-Nazi group.

    A Missouri man who planned to blow up a hospital with a vehicle bomb was killed during a shootout with FBI agents in 2020; his neo-Nazi organization had posted in Beňadik’s chat group and was using it to enlist new members.

    The most deadly known crime stemming from Terrorgram occurred in 2022 Brazil, where a teenager who was allegedly in contact with Humber shot 15 people, killing four. The teen was later hailed as a saint by the Terrorgrammers.

    Excerpt from “The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram” (FRONTLINE)

    Watch video ➜

    While Terrorgram started as a loose collection of chats and channels, by 2021 Althorpe and Beňadik had created a more formal organization, according to Canadian court records and interviews with law enforcement sources in Slovakia. Their small, clandestine group was the Terrorgram Collective.

    The organization began producing more sophisticated content — books, videos and a roster of alleged assassination targets — and distributing the material to thousands of followers.

    Court documents, a U.S. State Department bulletin and Telegram logs show that over the next three years, the collective would come to include at least six other people in five countries.

    Over 14 months, the group generated three books and repeatedly posted them in PDF form on Terrorgram accounts. Ranging in length from 136 to 268 pages, the books offer a raft of specific advice for planning a terror attack, including how to sabotage railroads, electrical substations and other critical infrastructure. The publications also celebrated a pantheon of white supremacist saints — mass murderers including Timothy McVeigh, who in 1995 bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.

    “That combination of tactical guidance plus propaganda is something that we’d seen a lot of coming out of ISIS in years past,” said Weiner of the NYPD. She added that the books are filled with “splashy graphics” designed to appeal to young people.

    “It’s a real manual on how to commit an act of terrorism,” Jakub Gajdoš, who helped oversee an investigation of Beňadik and Terrorgram for Slovakia’s federal police agency, said of one book. “A guide for killing people.”

    At least two Americans were involved in creating one of the books, according to U.S. federal prosecutors: Humber and Allison, the DJ from Boise, Idaho. The chat logs show they were both prolific creators and influencers in the Terrorgram community who frenetically generated new content, including videos, audiobooks, graphics and calendars, which they posted on an array of channels.

    Allison made around 120 Terrorgram videos, including editing “White Terror,” a quasi-documentary glorifying more than 100 white murderers and terrorists. Narrated by Humber, the video starts with the man who assassinated Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 and concludes with the young man who shot and killed 10 Black shoppers in a Buffalo supermarket in 2022.

    These “white men and women of action have taken it upon themselves to wage war against the system and our racial enemies,” Humber intones. “To the saints of tomorrow watching this today, know that when you succeed you will be celebrated with reverence and your sacrifice will not be in vain.”

    The pair also allegedly helped create “The List,” a detailed hit list of American politicians, corporate executives, academics and others, according to court documents. The List was shared on a series of dedicated Telegram channels, as well as an array of other accounts, some made to look like legitimate news aggregators. Each entry included a photo of the target and their home address.

    It was an escalation — and from court documents it’s clear that The List captured the attention of U.S. law enforcement agents, who worried that it might trigger a wave of assassinations.

    In 2022, a gunman attacked an LGBTQ+ bar in the Old Town neighborhood of Bratislava, Slovakia. (FRONTLINE)

    Watch video ➜

    The collective’s books influenced a new generation of armed extremists, some of them in their teens.

    One of these young disciples was Juraj Krajčík. The Slovakian student had joined Beňadik’s chat groups at the age of 16 and had become a frequent poster.

    ProPublica and FRONTLINE obtained an extensive trove of Terrorgram chat logs that show how Beňadik mentored Krajčík and played a profound role in shaping his beliefs. Over the span of three years, Beňadik, Allison and Humber all urged the teen to take action, the chat logs show.

    On the night of Oct. 12, 2022, Krajčík, armed with a handgun, opened fire on three people outside of Tepláreň, a small LGBTQ+ bar in Bratislava’s Old Town neighborhood, killing Juraj Vankulič and Matúš Horváth and wounding their friend Radka Trokšiarová.

    “I was in terrible pain because the bullet went through my thighbone,” she recalled. “I am still in pain.”

    Krajčík took off on foot, and hours later he killed himself in a grove of trees next to a busy roadway. He was 19.

    Six thousand miles away in California, Humber promptly began making celebratory posts. Krajčík, she exclaimed, had achieved sainthood.

    Shortly after the Bratislava attack, Humber messaged Allison on Telegram, according to court records recently filed by federal prosecutors in the U.S.

    She told him she’d been communicating with another Terrorgrammer who was planning a racially motivated school shooting.The attack occurred weeks later in Aracruz, Brazil, when a 16-year-old wearing a skull mask shot 15 people at two schools, killing four. Another saint.

    On a Terrogram channel, Humber posted a ZIP file with info on the attack, including 17 photos and four videos. The massacre, she noted, was motivated by “Hatred of non-Whites.” And she made a pitch tailored for the next would-be teenage terrorist: The assailant, she wrote in a post, would get a “SLAP ON THE WRIST” prison sentence due to his age.

    While Krajčík was planning his attack, law enforcement agencies in Europe, the U.S. and Canada were quietly pursuing the leaders of the Terrorgram Collective.

    Beňadik was the first to fall. Using information collected by the FBI, investigators in Slovakia arrested him in May 2022 while he was on break from college. He’d been studying computer science at the Brno University of Technology in the Czech Republic.

    While in jail, Beňadik admitted his involvement with Terrorgram. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison shortly after the Tepláreň attacks.

    Describing Beňadik as “extremely intelligent,” prosecutor Peter Kysel said he believes the student never met with any of his fellow Terrorgrammers in person and didn’t even know their real names. “All the contacts was in the cyberspace,” he said.

    But Beňadik misled investigators about his connection to Krajčík, saying they had one brief interaction, via direct message. “This was the only communication,” said Daniel Lipšic, the prosecutor who investigated the Tepláreň attack.

    In fact, Beňadik and Krajčík had many conversations, the logs obtained by ProPublica and FRONTLINE show. The pair repeatedly discussed targeting Tepláreň, with the older man writing that killing the bar patrons with a nail bomb wasn’t brutal enough. Krajčík posted frequently about his animus toward gays and lesbians, which Beňadik encouraged.

    Alleged Terrorgram Collective co-founder Althorpe is also in custody. Canadian prosecutors have accused him of helping to produce the Terrorgram Collective publications, through which they say he “promoted genocide” and “knowingly instructed” others to carry out “terrorist activity.”

    At the time of his arrest, Althorpe was running a small company selling components for semi-automatic rifles such as AK-47s and AR-15s. He has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.

    In the U.S., Humber and Allison are facing trial on charges including soliciting people to kill government officials through The List, distributing bomb-making instructions and providing material support to terrorists. Prosecutors say the two have been involved with the Terrorgram community since 2019.

    The 37-page indictment says they incited the attack on Tepláreň, noting that Krajčík “had frequent conversations with HUMBER, ALLISON, and other members of the Terrorgram Collective” before carrying out the crime.

    In a jailhouse interview that Allison gave against his lawyer’s advice, he admitted he produced content for the collective, including editing the “White Terror” video. Still, Allison insisted he never incited others to commit crimes and claimed The List wasn’t meant to be a guide for assassins. He said it was merely an exercise in doxxing, similar to how right-wing activists are outed by anti-fascist activists.

    All of his Telegram posts are protected under the First Amendment, according to a motion filed by his lawyers. They argue that while he was active in Telegram chats and channels, there is nothing in the government’s evidence to support the claim that he was a Terrorgram leader. “The chats are mostly a chaotic mix of hyperbole and posts without any recognized leader,” his lawyers wrote in the motion.

    Looking pale and grim, Humber declined to be interviewed when ProPublica and FRONTLINE visited the Sacramento County Jail. Her attorney declined to comment on the case.

    During the last days of the Biden administration, in January 2025, the State Department officially designated the Terrorgram Collective a global terrorist organization, hitting three more collective leaders in South Africa, Croatia and Brazil with sanctions. In February, Australia announced its own sanctions on Terrorgram, the first time that country’s government has imposed counterterrorism financing sanctions on an organization that is entirely based online.

    “The group has been majorly impacted in terms of its activity. We’ve seen many chats being voluntarily closed as people feel at risk of legal action, and we’ve seen generally the amount of discourse really reducing,” said Milo Comerford, an extremism expert at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a London-based nonprofit that tracks hate groups and disinformation. The “organizational capabilities of the Terrorgram Collective itself have been severely undermined.”

    Pavel Durov (Illustration for ProPublica)

    The demise of Terrorgram has coincided with reforms announced at Telegram in the wake of one co-founder’s arrest last year in France. Pavel Durov is charged with allowing criminal activity, including drug trafficking and child sexual abuse, to flourish on his platform. He has called the charges “misguided,” saying CEOs should not be held liable for the misuse of their platforms. He was ordered to remain in France during the ongoing investigation, and, depending on the outcome, could face trial next year.

    In a statement, the company said, “Mr. Durov firmly denies all allegations.”

    The company said it has always complied with the European Union’s laws. “It is absurd to suggest that Telegram’s owner is responsible for the actions of a negligible fraction (<0.01%) of its 950M+ active users.”

    Still, after the arrest, the company announced a slew of reforms designed to make Telegram safer. It promised to police illegal content on the platform and share the IP addresses and phone numbers of alleged lawbreakers with authorities.

    In response, white supremacists began to flee the platform.

    Pete Simi, a sociology professor who studies extremism at Chapman University in Orange, California, said the incendiary ideas promoting race war and violence that animated the Terrorgram Collective will migrate to other platforms. “Especially given the broader climate that exists within our society,” Simi said. “There will be new Terrorgrams that take its place by another name, and we will continue to see this kind of extremism propagated through platforms of various sorts, not just Telegram.”

    Today, many extremists are gathering on X, where owner Elon Musk has loosened content restrictions. White supremacists frequently post a popular Terrorgram slogan about killing all Black people. There are several Brenton Tarrant fan accounts, and some racist and antisemitic influencers who were previously banned now have hundreds of thousands of followers.

    A review by ProPublica and FRONTLINE shows the company is removing some violent white supremacist content and suspending some extremist accounts. It also restricts the visibility of some racist and hateful posts by excluding them from search results or by adding a note to the post saying it violates X’s rules of community conduct. And we were unable to find posts on the platform that shared the bomb-making and terrorism manuals that had previously appeared on Telegram. The news organizations reached out to X multiple times but got no response.

    In early March, a person who had a history of posting Nazi imagery shared a 21-second video lionizing Juraj Krajčík. The clip shows one of his victims lying dead on the pavement.

    Tom Jennings, Annie Wong, Karina Meier and Max Maldonado of FRONTLINE, and Lukáš Diko of the Investigative Center of Jan Kuciak contributed reporting.


    This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by A.C. Thompson, ProPublica and FRONTLINE, and James Bandler, ProPublica.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • People chant slogans during a rally called for by Syrian activists and civil society representatives "to mourn for the civilian and security personnel casualties", at al-Marjeh square in Damascus on March 9, 2025. Photo by -/AFP via Getty Images

    Editor’s note: This episode was recorded on March 4, 2025.

    In Syria, Assad is gone, but the country’s challenges remain. Over a decade of civil war and foreign intervention has devastated the country’s economy and politics, but a fragile optimism still exists. Joseph Daher and Ramah Kudaimi join this second episode of Solidarity Without Exception for a discussion on Syria’s long journey from the 2011 revolution to today, and what solidarity with the Syrian people should have looked like then, and could look like now.

    Pre-Production: Ashley Smith
    Audio Post-Production: Alina Nehlich

    Music Credits: 
    Venticinque Aprile (“Bella Ciao” Orchestral Cover) by Savfk |
    https://www.youtube.com/savfkmusic
    Music promoted by https://www.free-stock-music.com Creative Commons / Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Ashley Smith:

    Welcome to Solidarity Without Exception. I’m Ashley Smith, who along with Blanca Missé are co-hosts of this ongoing podcast series. Today we’re joined by Joseph Daher and Ramah Kudaimi to discuss the toppling of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. Joseph is a Swiss Syrian socialist, professor and author of Hezbollah: The Political Economy of Lebanon’s Party of God, Syria After the Uprising, and Palestine and Marxism. He recently returned from a visit to Syria only to find out that he has been fired from his university post for organizing in solidarity with Palestine. Ramah is a Syrian American activist and the campaign director for the Crescendo Project at the Action Center on Race and the Economy Institute. Ramah was previously the deputy director at the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, where she led and supported BDS campaigns in solidarity with the Palestinian people’s struggle for freedom, justice, and equality.

    In this episode, we’ll discuss Syria’s revolutionary process, which began in 2011 as part of the Arab Spring, when people revolted against the autocratic governments throughout the Middle East and North Africa. In Syria, people rose up against Assad’s regime in a mass revolutionary struggle for democracy and equality. In response, Assad launched a counter-revolutionary war on his people to defend his rule. There is no doubt that he would have fallen without the military support of Russia, Iran, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Together, they jailed, killed, bombed, and terrorized the country’s people driving millions into exile and internal displacement. Nevertheless, Assad lost control over whole sections of the country. Rebels led by the Islamic fundamentalist groups like Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham that dominated the military resistance, seized control over some sections of Syria, while Kurdish-led forces in the Syrian defense forces declared a liberated zone in Rojava.

    The US intervened in Syria against ISIS. When the group took over whole swaths of the country, Washington did back some Syrian rebels, including the Kurds, but restricted them to fighting ISIS, not the regime. In fact, the US wanted to preserve the regime as a bulwark of stability in the region. At best, hoping for a more pliant ruler to replace Assad. With that not in the cards, states throughout the region and world began to normalize relationships with Assad. But the regime’s days were numbered. It had little to no domestic support, and its foreign backers became weakened and preoccupied. Israel bombed Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah as part of their expansion of its genocidal war on Palestine. Meanwhile, Russia got bogged down in its own imperialist war on Ukraine.

    Without support from these regional and imperialist powers, the regime began to teeter and was finally toppled by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army and local popular militias. This has opened a new day in Syria, one that offers hope to rekindle the dreams of the original popular uprising, but also dangers posed by the Islamic fundamentalist forces now in power and the schemes of regional powers like Turkey and Israel. These two possible trajectories have been on display after this episode was recorded.

    On the one hand, the country’s new Islamic fundamentalist regime deployed its security forces in Latakia against holdout supporters of Assad in the mainly Alawite community. That encouraged sectarian attacks against the Alawite community that killed hundreds of people and drove many more from their homes in the worst sectarian violence since the fall of the regime. On the other hand, the new regime reached an accord with the Kurdish-led Syrian defense forces, which controls about 30% of the country. They agreed to unite their forces, declare a ceasefire, recognize Kurds as an Indigenous community entitled to citizenship and constitutional rights, and oppose attempts to sow sectarian strife between Syria’s different ethnic and religious communities.

    This accord is an enormous step forward for the Syrian people and a devastating setback to both Turkey and Israel’s attempt to divide the country. Thus, the future of Syria hangs in the balance between hope and horror, between an inclusive, democratic and egalitarian future and another of sectarian division, violence and social decomposition. What the masses of the country’s people do will determine whether the original hope of the revolution encapsulated in its slogan, the Syrian People Are One, will be fulfilled. Now on to the discussion with Joseph and Ramah, who provide crucial context for understanding the country’s ongoing struggle for liberation, democracy and equality.

    So obviously the biggest news out of Syria is the toppling of Assad’s regime. And I think everybody around the world, and obviously the overwhelming majority of Syrians were overjoyed about the overthrow and end of his horrific rule in power. So just to give us some background on the nature of his regime and also about the impact of the regime on the country’s people and how people responded to the fall of his regime. Maybe we could start with Joseph, because I know you were just in Syria, so you can give us an on-the-ground sense of that.

    Joseph Daher:

    To tell you honestly, since the 8th of December, it’s been kind of a dream following the fall of the Assad dynasty, a family that ruled Syria for 54 years. And obviously, there are a lot of challenges for the future of Syria. But as I’ve been saying, ability only to speak about these challenges is a big way forward. For the vast majority of the Syrian population, the ability to organize, the ability to organize conferences. For example, when I was in Syria, I was able to visit Damascus, Suwayda, Aleppo, and just the ability to go back to Syria. For a lot of people, it was not a total of possibility. I never thought I would be able to go back. I was saying there was this Syrian women political movement doing their first press conference. There have been a lot of local popular organizations will come back to this, so there’s a lot of dynamism.

    But this is not to deny as well the huge challenges for a country that suffered 13 years of war, massive destructions, 90% of the population live under the poverty line. Still the influence of foreign forces. And obviously the new actor in power that is far from being democratic, and I know we’ll come back to this, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. Now coming back to the nature of the, and it’s very nice to be able to say this, to the former regime, the Assad regime, it was, again, Hafez al-Assad built a new patrimonial state which was authoritarian, liberalizing the economy slowly, and there was an acceleration after Bashar al-Assad, but he put the basis, if we want, or the pillars of authoritarianism, despotism. And for the first time in decades, Syrians were able, for example, to celebrate or to commemorate the massacre of Hama that killed tens of thousands of people openly in ’82. So there was a complete oppression and criminalization of all forms of opposition.

    Bashar al-Assad completed, if you want, the patrimonialism of this regime, the centers of power concentrated within a small group, and this was only deepened with the war. And this is one of the reasons why actually the Assad regime fell as a house of cards, that no one wanted to defend a regime in which oppression was the rule, exploitation was the rule, and 90% lived under the poverty line. And soldiers did not fight. There was no major confrontations in the fall of the Assad regime. And this regime was completely dependent on foreign powers, Russia and Iran, that when they were weakened, therefore the regime vanished.

    Ramah Kudaimi:

    Yeah, it’s wonderful to be in convo with both of you and really happy, Joseph, you got to go to Syria. I’m still trying to figure out when to go myself. But yeah, that beautiful joy that people had, that continues to be had is something just so awe-inspiring. And just the shift of even how I’m able to have conversations with my family there. Immediately, the shift happened. And it was very shocking that people are immediately like, “Yeah, let’s openly talk about everything now,” after decades of really being afraid to say much about anything over WhatsApp or other way we have been staying in contact. So that stuff really was deep in so many people across the country, and we saw that fear break. We saw that fear break early on in the revolution. And then what we’ve been seeing I think these last two months is just that continuous joy and bringing us back to those early days of the revolution when people were just happy to be out in the street making demands.

    And I think some of what Joseph talked about in terms of like, oh yeah, people are just having political conversations, that doesn’t seem like a big deal, but it is really a big deal in Syria. And I think that’s something I would want to remind people. When we’re talking about authoritarianism, we’re really talking about a brutal, violent dictatorship that there was no opposition whatsoever, not like in other countries in the region where there was a controlled opposition. Here that wasn’t even accepted that there was a controlled opposition. It was just complete fealty to the regime, and specifically to the Assad family themselves.

    I think that’s another thing we need to remind ourselves, of what the regime was like. It was just really out for themselves for decades. The disappearances and the torture that we saw during the last almost 15 years of revolution were happening decades beforehand. All those pictures and videos of people being released from the prisons, it wasn’t only people who were released just from the start of the revolution, we’re talking about people who spent decades of their lives there. So that context is also important to understand why there is so much optimism and joy in this moment, even though we don’t know what’s going to necessarily happen next.

    Ashley Smith:

    Right. I think one thing we’ve got to do is start with the most recent wave of revolt, because you both have just talked about that this has been a decades-long struggle for the liberation of the Syrian people from this regime. But the most recent wave of revolt really began back in 2011 as part of the so-called Arab Spring uprisings. What precipitated the uprising in 2011 in Syria? Who participated in it? How was it organized? What were people demanding?

    Ramah Kudaimi:

    So much has happened since the end of 2010, 2011 that people kind of forget what sparked all of this. And we get bogged down into like, well, the US versus Russia, Saudi versus Iran, all the geopolitics. And what happened was this moment in time where people across the region were inspired to make a simple demand, that people want the fall of the regime. And that demand we saw go from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya to Bahrain to Yemen to Syria and beyond, to Iraq, there were protests early on, et cetera. And so I think that’s such an important context that we need to really delve into. And how important that moment was, particularly because it came almost a decade after the start of the global war on terror and the US invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. And kind of really a moment in time that was very dark for the region.

    We were having the Palestinian Second Intifada at the time as well. And so this was a moment where people were like, “No, actually we can make our own demands of these regions. We aren’t just being played by this geopolitical power versus this other one and whatever regime is wanting to do.” And so particularly in Syria, it started the famous protests of youth in Daraa, who saw what was happening across the region and decided to paint these freedom slogans on the walls of their city. And they were immediately arrested and tortured. The army person who was in charge of their torture actually just recently got captured, thankfully. So we can talk more about the need for accountability. But their torture then sparked more protests by folks in Daraa and were eventually met with even tanks and further violence, which then brought out protests against cities across the country. And there’s how this revolution sparked.

    So there’s just that sparking of it. And obviously there’s things like the economic situation was not that good at the time. There was a drought happening, there was high unemployment. The Bashar al-Assad had really opened up the country in terms of neoliberal policies, which meant slashing of subsidies and rising expenses. And none of that was necessarily new. But that with the moment of protests happening across the region with, again, if we think by February, March, 2011 when things started picking up in Syria, by that time Ben Ali had already fled in Tunisia, Mubarak had stepped down in Egypt. So that was two huge processes that brought down regimes that had been in power for decades. Of course people are going to then be like, “Why can’t this happen to us too?”

    Joseph Daher:

    I think what Ramah explained is key. And the images also of seeing people protest in Tunis and especially in Tahrir Square. I think the fall of Mubarak was a key turning point. Without forgetting obviously what happened in Bahrain, Yemen and Libya. And I think the roots, while every country has its own specificities, has to be found in obviously the absence of democracy, but also the particular, if you want, capitalist dynamics in the region where you have for the past decades, a form of blocked economic development focused on sectors of economy with short-term profits, such as luxurious real estate, financial services, trade. While productive sectors of the economy, such as agriculture and manufacturing industry, were very much diminished or undermined through the neoliberal policies. And obviously this increased also as well the level of corruption.

    So contrary to what a lot of academics and the US kind of discourse, more neoliberalism or economic liberalism did not bring democracy out [inaudible 00:15:20]. It brought quite the opposite, a form of upgrading authoritarianism, what we witnessed throughout the uprising. So yes, there were specificities in each country, but again, I think they all had similar kind of characteristics when it came to absence of democracy, absence of social justice, blocked economic development, and a willingness of the popular classes to basically participate in the future of the country, to decide their own future.

    Now, when it came to the Syrian uprising, what was interesting was the form of organization. Very rapidly, we had local coordination committees at the level of neighborhoods, cities, region, starting to organize protests, forms of civilian resistance. But the local coordination committees had democratic aspirations, I would even say some socioeconomic aspirations as well, talking about the issue of social justice inequalities. Because if you look at the geography of the uprising in Syria, it’s very much the poor neighborhoods of the big cities, rural areas, midtowns that suffered mostly from the neoliberal policies, the austerity measures that Ramah mentioned.

    And afterwards, as the uprising continued, also the regime withdrew from certain areas. And this is important to say that we had forms of double power, meaning that you had a key challenge to the center of power and people self-organizing through local councils. And obviously we shouldn’t romanticize all experiences. Some of them were not completely democratic, the role of armed opposition forces was also problematic. But there were attempts in large areas of Syria to self-organize, to manage their own life. And afterwards, unfortunately, we had militarization that was imposed on the Syrian population. There were harsh debates among Syrian protest movement on the issue of militarization. We forget now, but there were harsh debates was not easy solutions. And very often at the beginning it was civilians taking up arms to defend their own neighborhoods. And this is how the Free Syrian Army developed afterwards. Unfortunately, the level of violence was so heavy, so high on the protesters. Also the level of foreign intervention increased massively.

    So we had a popular uprising that turned into with foreign interventions from all sides. First of all, on the side of the regime, Hezbollah of Lebanon, Iran, very early on, even mid-end of 2011, and afterwards, Russia, 2015. On the other side, the so-called Friends of Syria, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar played also a very reactionary role by supporting the most, I think, reactionary sectors of the Syrian opposition. While most of these actors in the first six months of the uprising were trying to reach a deal with the Syrian regime at the time, we forget this, and they were quite big economic investors in Syria prior to 2011, for all of them were close allies. We forget that Erdogan and Bashar al-Assad used to spend their vacations together prior to 2011.

    So all this made that until recently, the roots, if you want, of the organization of the Syrian popular uprising suffered massively. First of all, because of the repression, the deadly repression of Syrian regime, its attempts to sectarianize from the beginning, eliminate every kind of democratic opposition and the rise of reactionary Islamic fundamentalist forces, the rise of foreign interventions, and militarization. And there were only few pockets I would see a continuous, I would say, roots of the popular uprising. But the key dominating aspect, unfortunately, since 2015 was the military aspect, in which it’s very hard to democratic and progressive to express and organize.

    Ashley Smith:

    So let’s talk now about how Assad was able to withstand this revolutionary uprising. What enabled the regime to survive one of the most mass popular uprisings of any of them that happened in the Middle East back in 2011 with the most democratic self-organization? What kind of regional and international powers intervened to help save the regime? And what was the impact of the counterrevolution on the country? Maybe we can start with you, Ramah on this.

    Ramah Kudaimi:

    Yeah, it’s interesting because I think for people who are into conspiracy theories, a lot of times it’s like, “Well, this was a conspiracy against the Assad regime.” And the reality is I think many people will tell you no, actually the global conspiracy was against the revolution itself. So we have the obvious actors that came in to support the Assad regime, which Joseph talked about in terms of Iran, Hezbollah, Russia. And we have to understand too, it wasn’t just the official armies of these folks, but Iran, for example, backed a lot of militias, whether it’s militias from Iraq or militias of people that they sent from refugee camps like Afghan, Pakistanis, refugees in Iran that they would just send to fight on their behalf in Syria, which is absolutely ridiculous that they would be able to get away with this.

    And the fact that they did it with such ruthlessness. We’re talking the bombing of hospitals was just a normal thing. Something we obviously spent the last year watching Israel do in Gaza, Assad normalized it to such an extent across Syria. The use of chemical weapons, the torture, the imprisonment, the siege, all tactics to destroy the uprising and all, again, supported by various international powers. And even, frankly, by the so-called Friends of Syria at one point and another where it was just like there could have been more potentially ways to hold Assad back that different regimes refused to do, did not want to do.Because at the end it became, I think, very clear, especially by 2013, 2014, that the preservation of the regime was much more important than the people actually succeeding in their revolution.

    And then we saw that, as Joseph was talking about, as folks took up more arms and it became more of an armed resistance against the regime, I mean sometimes that’s just going to be the reality of what’s going to happen when you have activists who were imprisoned, killed, or forced to flee, when you had geopolitics becoming the dominant discourse. So that was what became the issue in Syria versus, again, what do the everyday people want? And that’s such an important part of the conversation we need to have in terms of how we move forward and the future of Syria is to always remember who actually had the Syrian people’s future and their goals in mind. It was no one other than the Syrian people. It was obviously not those who came in support of the Assad regime. It was not the United States who was supposedly against the regime. It was not any of the various Friends of Syria that came together. It was not the United Nations and other international bodies. Let’s be very clear. So I think that’s a very important part of the conversation as we talk now and then in the future.

    Joseph Daher:

    Well, I totally agree with Ramah. I just add very few things. As I mentioned before, in the summer of 2012, half of Syria was outside the control of the regime. This is where you had extension increase in the assistance given by Iran, Hezbollah and the militia supported by Iran. In 2015, Russia intervened. And it was from this period they were able to reconquer territories. First of all, Eastern Aleppo in 2016, after Damascus countryside, Daraa. But even with this, it wasn’t enough. And militarily, the regime needed Iran and Russia, but also politically and economically. And this is how they accumulated a huge debt, especially to Iran, the 30, 50 billions. I think this is something that should be taken more by, especially the authorities, but the Syrian Democrats, is that we have an odious debt, so we don’t need to pay it to the Iranians.

    And the fact that this debt was made consciously against the interest of the Syrian people and Iran was participating in the massacres and keeping this regime in place. Plus, and it’s important also, as Ramah was saying, that everyone was against the fall of this regime, basically. There was a normalization that was started from 2018. The US and Russia were kind of having deal, how do they share Syria? It was clear that Israel from the beginning and for the past decades saw as a threat the fall of this regime. And the day after the fall of this regime, the best proof of this is that they bombed massively Syrian state capacities, armed capacities and extended the occupation of Syria the day after the fall of the guardian of the border with Israel.

    So we had a normalization period, et cetera. And the fall of the regime came from an initiative from an armed group, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. But even there was a green light given by Turkey. Turkey also entered the normalization process with the Syrian regime. So none of them wanting it. But because this regime was so weak and dependent on foreign actors, Iran and Russia most especially, and when they were weakened, again as I said, because it had no popular support, it vanished. So here we see really the key issues of foreign actors within the Syrian revolution process. And throughout the past five years, I would say, whether the kind of so-called Friends of Syria or Russia and Iran on the side really wanted to impose a form of authoritarian stability in the region, which included Assad.

    Ashley Smith:

    So let’s talk a little bit about how the US got involved, because both of you just touched on this. And it seems to me that the real turning point for significant intervention was after the rise of ISIS, which took over whole sections of Syria and Iraq. And the US then started intervening quite intensively. So what were its aims in doing so? What was the US really up to in Syria?

    Joseph Daher:

    Well, and again, I think it’s important, especially now that it’s been more than a decade, and also speaking with this in Syria with people that are a generation of 20 years old and asking them how they joined the revolution, et cetera. And I think we have to have the kind of similar kind of discussion outside, how the Arab uprisings or the uprisings in the region started and it wasn’t a conspiracy or et cetera. And in the case of Syria, again looking at the role of the US, I will always remember Hillary Clinton from I think the first few weeks of the uprising saying, “You know, Bashar Assad is a reformist, he’s not like his father.” It was two or three years before Obama reopened the embassy in Damascus. There was willingness to cooperate. And the Syrian regime of Assad, father and son, had a long history of cooperation with US imperialism. I think it’s important to remind everyone.

    And it was clear from the beginning, they said, “We will not have any Libyan scenario in Syria.” They were not interested in any kind of destruction of the Syrian regime. Rather they were seeking maybe to replace the head with another head that would be more submissive to their own political interests. But because of the nature of the Syrian regime, this was very difficult to do, the patrimonial nature, concentration of centers of power. But they definitely didn’t want the uprising to see a full complete of the acien regime, they were more in a controlled transition. This was the main aim of the US. And with the rise of ISIS, this challenged also the interests in the region and especially in Iraq. Iraqi Kurdistan, with the leadership of Barazan is a key ally. And they saw ISIS as creating, when it established its so-called Islamic Emirate from Mosul to Raqqa as a threat to the regional order.

    And this is when they intervened. They did not intervene in a manner to serve the interest of the Syrian population, but to serve their own political interests. And therefore there was never any kind of real intervention against the Syrian regime. There was one offensive made by Trump in the first presidency following the massacre, the chemical massacre of Khan Shaykhun, the city up north. But even then, the attack they did was really symbolic and they had actually told the Syrian and Russian that they would attack this particular military basements areas. So it was very clear for the US they always wanted a very clear control transition that does not create more chaos to the region, especially to Israel, Jordan, which is a key ally of the US as well. So here, I believe the main role of the US, it was never to challenge actually the Syrian regime.

    Ramah Kudaimi:

    The only other thing I’d add is just the context of, again, this continuing global war on terror and the excuse that that has given various presidents since 2001 to go in and go after, quote, unquote, “the terrorists.” So I think obviously, you know, Obama declared that the war on terror was over in 2013. That obviously was not true because a year later he’s going into Iraq and Syria against ISIS. Biden claimed, you know, “I withdrew the troops from Afghanistan in 2021.” That hasn’t stopped necessarily various drone strikes, especially in parts of Africa particularly. And then, obviously, what we’ve seen again with Israel and Gaza since October 7th, 2023.

    And I think that’s just part of the conversation as well in terms of like when the US and their allies truly intervened, it was to, again, fight who they were considering as terrorists. And it was to ensure these… We agree these are reactionary forces were destroyed. But it also happened around a time where the Assad regime was being very weakened. And what did that mean in terms of, in this moment of time where you chose to intervene was not against Assad but against ISIS.

    Ashley Smith:

    Right. So let’s turn a little bit to the questions about the later stages in the run-up to the toppling of the regime because one of the key powers in the region that started to intervene, that we really haven’t talked that much about, is Turkey. And Turkey played an increasing role, largely in opposition to the rise of a Kurdish revolutionary process within Syria, including establishing a regional autonomous area, Rojava. So why did Turkey increasingly intervene and become a player in Syria despite the deals, that Joseph talked about, the Erdogan regime making with Assad?

    Joseph Daher:

    Again, it’s important to remind everyone that Erdogan and Bashar Assad were great foes, there was commercial free trade agreement between both countries that now they want to also revive that would be catastrophic in economic terms for Syrian national production, especially manufacturing industry and agriculture. So in the first six months of the uprising, Turkey pushed for a deal between the Syrian regime and the Muslim Brotherhood that was refused, and they cut relations completely. And this is where Turkish state started supporting sectors of the opposition, especially in the beginning, Muslim Brotherhood welcoming a lot of Syrians. And throughout the years, as the Syrian regime with the help of its foreign allies, Turkey saw it was unable, basically, at this period, to overthrow the regime, turned more and more to concentrate on trying to put an end to what it perceives as a continuation of its national threat or national security threat, the Kurdish issue. And especially the fallout of the peace negotiation.

    So therefore, from there on, this concentrated more and more on the northeast, which is controlled by the autonomous administration of the Northeast, which is dominated by the PYD, a sister organization of PKK. So Turkey saw it as a continuation of its basically national security threat around the Kurdish issue. And this is how we understand the increasing intervention of Turkey in Syria. Also, it was to preserve its influence through the support of what is called its proxy, Syrian National Army, which is composed of tens of thousands of soldiers paid by Turkey, that serve their interests. And also lastly, there was the issue of the Syrian refugees that became an internal factor of instability for the AKP and rising racism against Syrian refugees. So they wanted to also to push them back to Syria. So I think these are the key, until recently, until the fall of the regime.

    Ramah Kudaimi:

    Turkey, like every other regional player, has its interests and those interests changed throughout the last 10, 12 years. And I think that’s an important, again, part of the conversation of what it means for those of us outside of the region, what solidarity looks like to be thinking about these things. It’s not just always a clearly like, “Here’s the formula of what it means to be a leftist.” Because I think that’s what a lot of times we’re looking for, instead of being like, “Things are going to shift very dramatically,” we have seen, and we need to be always on top of these shifts and understand when there are moments that like, yeah, there came a time when Turkey was very supportive of the revolution and was providing a lot to refugees, what does that mean? And then they flip obviously because they have their own concerns in relationship to their power and the Kurdish question, as Joseph was talking about. And now this flip-flop back of just like, “Oh, can we… Now the people we like are in power.”

    Ashley Smith:

    So if you think about where we stand over the last year, before the last year, before the Israeli genocidal war, Assad is in power, he’s normalizing relations with all these regional powers, but the country is not entirely controlled by Assad. There’s the Kurdish region, autonomous region, there’s sections of the country controlled by HTS, and the regime only has a narrow base. So what changed in the region and who are the forces that toppled the regime?

    Joseph Daher:

    First of all, it’s important to remember that the Assad regime had couple of changes to seek or to be able to guarantee in a way the survival of its regime by entering a form of transitional phase that was very symbolic because before its fall, the resolution 2254, UN resolution was seen by the regime in Russia, basically the demands were being constantly undermined since 2012 as the regime was normalizing. But the regime never sought, first of all, to restructure its own institutions, to seek even to guarantee some of the interests of actors they were normalizing with. This is one thing also, this is, and despite the fact that Russia and Iran were saying to some extent, not harshly, to the Syrian regime, try to give a bit to guarantee a bit.

    But more importantly, first of all you have the weakening of Russia following its imperialist war against Ukraine. It was not able to be able again to intervene as it was before. Iran and Hezbollah were definitely weakened by the sequence of events that followed the beginning of the genocide in Gaza. Israel was more and more, and with the total support of the US, because this genocide has been ongoing mainly because of US support and obviously European, but mainly US, especially military economically. So it weakened Hezbollah massively in the war of Lebanon and Iran in Syria. And you had even other areas outside the control of the region such as Suwayda and partially Daraa in the south. And these two actors actually, military actors from these regions when HTS, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, and again no one was seeing that they were top of the regime.

    First of all, I think even them, their main objective was to have better position in future negotiation by taking the countryside of Aleppo, possibly Aleppo, but not the whole. But when they were continuing the attack, it was actually armed groups from the south that entered first Damascus. And you had also part of a popular dynamics protest that is important to remember. First, and after let Ramah, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, we have to acknowledge that it went through major ideological political evolution from starting as a branch of Daesh in 2012, Jabhat al-Nusra, then falling out with Daesh, joining Al-Qaeda, falling out with Al-Qaeda. And basically because of the material reality they’re living in, they had to, in the northwest, basically rule an area.

    So they’re not anymore a transnational jihadist organization. They’re very pragmatist and they’ve been very pragmatist for a while. It’s not new. Does that mean they’re a democratic organization? No, far from it. They want to consolidate now their power and authoritarian, neoliberal, et cetera. We can come back to this later. The Syrian National Army, as I said, is acting as a main proxy of Turkey really. And this is a key asset for Turkey. And Turkey today is the most important regional actor within Syria.

    Ramah Kudaimi:

    I think I’ll also say that I think we can’t forget that even though it was under this banner of HTS, this is offensive started, right after, you know, the end of November through December 8th when Assad fled. We have to remember Idlib as a region housed Syrians from across the country. Idlib was where everyone would escape to when, you know, there was a deal made, when Assad would lay siege on an area, and then the UN would intervene. And in order to end the siege, the deal would be that these folks would hop on what became known, these green buses that everyone saw these images of, and then take the fighters and their families to Idlib.

    And I think that’s an important part of the conversation of just like a lot of these fighters that were part of this offensive were fighters who were returning to their homes, reuniting with their families. And so when they went to Halab, when they went to Hama, when they went to Homs, it was people returning to their homes. And I say that because I think that is a very different narrative than like, “Oh these HTS reactionaries brought down this, quote, unquote, ‘secular regime,’” which I think is something that certain parts of the internet is trying to push, this narrative, which is just not true. And I think it’s important to have these facts in place as we talk about what the future of Syria is and also to like really inspire us when we talk about… So many struggles across the globe are about returning to the homeland. And we’re witnessing an opening now of people returning to their homelands.

    Ashley Smith:

    Yeah, I think that really captures the dual dynamic of the toppling of the regime, that it had this very mass popular element to it of people within the country feeling liberated and HTS trying to consolidate its rule. So I want to ask about now the post-revolutionary situation and the kind of trajectory of things in Syria. So what is HTS trying to do in consolidating its transitional government? And how are the popular forces, the popular classes responding to that? And how does this connect to the original goals of the revolution in 2011?

    Ramah Kudaimi:

    Yeah, it seems like every day something new comes up, which is exciting, it is really exciting and it’s like, “Oh wow, things are just not set in stone?” I think people continue to be optimistic. I know I actually surprise myself when I’m like, “Oh this is interesting.” That pragmatism that Joseph was talking about is really coming through a lot in ways that at times I found unexpected. And my hopes of hopes that that continues. Even though we know, again, it’s not like some leftist socialist project is being born in Syria at this moment in time. Let’s be real. That is not what is being born at this moment. But that does not also mean that the opening isn’t there for the future of that.

    And I think that’s the biggest thing to me to keep in mind is like these openings are so important because, again, under these decades long under the Assad regime, those openings were not absolutely there. So even if the folks who are in power now, these folks who you know are former HTS fighters who are reactionary in many of their politics, et cetera, that is not necessarily the ideal where actor that the majority of Syrians would be like, “Yes, this is who we want to take over.” And yet under what we’ve been seeing these last two months is there continues to be openings for these conversations and these discussions and people being out and having these things very publicly, again, back to the early days of the revolution, these demands being made.

    I do think there’s like three things that I think really are important for us to continue to push on for those original goals of the revolution. One, how do we get accountability for all the war crimes? So obviously first and foremost, Assad and his cronies. And we’re seeing some people have been getting arrested. I think there was an official demand made of Russia to hand over Assad recently. So what does that mean? But the reality is when you have 10, 12 years of war, all kinds of actors have committed war crimes, whether it is HTS, whether it is SDF, like so many of these rebel groups. And what does accountability mean? Not accountability like everyone needs to be punished, but what is the process in order to get us to a point when we can actually rebuild this country, recognizing all the different pain and suffering all sectors of society went to.

    I think the other one, I think there’s been a lot of demands and protests by the families of the disappeared. And I think that’s one thing that actually has disappointed a lot of people is that, well, Sharaa now officially being the president of Syria has yet, to my understanding, to meet any of the families of the disappeared. And that’s been something that I think across the board has been a disappointment by many folks. And then I think there is this question of there’s a terrible economic situation in place and also the political situation. And I think there’s like this question of like what do you tackle first? Do you go all in to try to fix the economy because that’s what people need to survive? But does that then mean that the political situation of like the basics of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech and how we can get subsumed into this like economic solution? And I think those are the kind of discussions that need to continue. And hopefully that there continues to be space for that as we see various people take their positions in power now.

    Joseph Daher:

    Yeah, I think I will start where Ramah finished. The issue of the space to organize. And again, I think this is a principle for leftists. We see what the country, society, what is the space to organize for workers for popular classes? And it’s undeniable that since the fall of the regime, this space has increased massively. And this is, again, a victory for anyone thinking in gaining interest for the popular classes, working classes. Moreover, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham is still unable, because of the lack of human capacities and military capacities, to completely and fully dominate the country, which is a chance again for the Syrian popular classes.

    Does that mean it transformed automatically in the future democratic social society? No, it’s a race now. It’s basically a race between the ability of the Syrian popular classes, working classes to organize democratically, socially, et cetera. And on the other side, a clear, I think, willingness that has been proven for me since day one nearly or the day after the fall of the regime, that HTS is seeking to consolidate its power. The first government, transitional government they established was from one color, all the same ministers from Idlib establishment of a new army only with their members. Now they want to integrate people from the Syrian National Army. And some of them are true criminals, Abu Amsha, and others that are known assassins, establishment of new security services by the right hand of Julani, Ahmad al-Sharaa, designation in various professional associations and trade unions of new leadership. For example, the Lawyers Association and the members opposed it and demanded free elections.

    So there’s a clear attempt, and also on other levels they have no legitimacy for the moment to decide on the future of the economic trajectory of the country. They already made various statements regarding this. And a clear neoliberal path, privatization of state assets, ports, airports, transport networks, et cetera. And wanting to put an end to various forms of subsidies, bread obviously, electricity, et cetera. Now I think what Ramah was saying is one of the key issues I will just add regarding transitional justice, it would be key also to struggle against sectarian tensions, I believe so, without transitional justice it will be very hard, as well as ethnic divisions within the country. And we’ve seen in the past few days and weeks militia campaigns by HTS in rural areas of Homs that have killed dozens of people. We’re seeing rising tension. Full transitional justice I think can be also tackled, but I think democratic and social rights will have to go together.

    I’m very afraid that if there’s no economic improvement, because again, 90% of the population live under the poverty line, massive destructions. For a large section of the Syrians, obviously they’re happy because the regime is stopped, but their socioeconomic situation has not changed. So they still have to deal on a daily basis how they’re going to be able to live. And if we’re not able to improve their condition, they will not. It’s not because they’re unwilling, but they will not be able to participate to democratic debates or issues of citizenship, et cetera. And there’s a fear that we transform this issue in elitist discussions, issues of [inaudible 00:46:28] if we’re not able to bring them with socioeconomic issues. And here, I believe the role of trade unions, professional associations should be key, asking for free elections within it, starting to be active on its workplace, et cetera. So again, there are a lot of challenges, but as I started, I think, the discussion, the ability to think about these challenges, to live them is already a victory.

    Ashley Smith:

    So I want to end with one final question, which is really the theme of the entire podcast that we’re doing, which is called Solidarity Without Exception, with all democratic uprisings throughout the world. And one of the things that’s striking in a discussion about Syria is how much of the progressive left didn’t extend solidarity to the Syrian revolution, but did extend solidarity to the Palestinian liberation struggle. And really the question is why did that happen? And how should we think about solidarity globally, with the Ukrainian struggle for self-determination, with the Syrian struggle for the transformation of their society, with the struggle for Palestinian liberation and their relationship between one and another?

    Ramah Kudaimi:

    Yeah, I think I’ll start with saying that it also wasn’t necessarily a given that the left would be so in support of Palestinian liberation. I think that took decades of struggle as well. I think we all have been part of that struggle, and I think that’s just, unfortunately, being a leftist doesn’t mean that automatically you have the right politics. This is struggle that we’re having and organizing and needing to do. The importance of political education and organizing is important. And yes, of course it makes sense why particularly in the West leftists would be very clear about their solidarity with the Palestinian people since it is the Western countries, particularly the United States, arming the genocide for decades now.

    But I think what continues to be so infuriating is why that somehow is seen as requiring then Western leftists to, say, shill for Putin or shill for the Assad regime when they were still in power. And also having to realize that imperialism, Islamophobia, the war on terror, these are not just Western projects at this point. These are projects of China, these are projects of Russia, these are projects of the regional powers across the globe. And it’s so important that we, again, as I was saying earlier, it’s not just like, “Here are the three leftist positions,” no, we have principles as leftists and then we understand how we look at a situation based on our principles and our values and then decide this is what it means to be in solidarity with the oppressed people.

    And I think we’ve seen, similar to how liberals spent 2024 telling us we have to throw Palestinians under the bus in order to ensure that the greater fight against the right wing prevails, i.e. we have to support the Democrats in order for Trump to be defeated, I think leftists have had that positions towards Syrians for years now in terms of the greater fight is anti-imperialist fight. Assad somehow falls in that and so that is why the Syrian people need to just be sacrificed. And what we’ve learned is allowing genocide and massive war crimes to continue actually just leads to fascism and right-wing politics, whether it’s in Syria or US support for Israel.

    And I think we have to really push ourselves as leftists this idea that just whataboutism is not a politic. Calling out liberal hypocrisy is not politics. We are losing as leftists, to be very real. And seeing, like it hasn’t even been two weeks of Trump, and I’m like, “We are in trouble.” And one of the reasons we are in trouble is because a large part, again, of the left has just failed at understanding what our project should be and putting out a vision of what our project is meant that is not just like in of itself a hypocritical vision, just like what liberals have done with conservatives and the right wing. I think in this moment I think there’s a lot that we can, again, be inspired by the Syrian people. And for us it’s like, “What can we do at this moment?” We still have an opportunity to change the way we interact with the Syrian revolution. And so things like demanding the lifting of sanctions is going to be very important.

    So how are we pushing that the sanctions gets lifted? And how are we doing more grassroots support and donating as the grassroots left across the globe so that these institutions in Syria who are trying to rebuild are not only dependent on the neoliberal capitalist world system that we are, obviously. And then the misinformation and the disinformation, the propaganda we need to continue to watch for it and continue to trust the people of Syria. We’ve seen Syrians over and over again uprise when they need it, whether it’s from the regime. Syrians who were living under HTS in Idlib had no problem going out and making demands of HTS.

    So I think that’s a reality we can’t just succumb to of just like, “Well, now this reactionary force is in power, then that’s it, it’s all over.” No. Trust the people. And again, because for those of us in the US, the arms embargo demand around Israel continues to be top, not only obviously for Palestinian liberation, but we saw what Israel did immediately after the fall of the regime, go in, take more land, destroy all the planes and all these things that they somehow did not do while Assad was in power. And now all of a sudden take out all the military assets of the state. So I think that continues to be another important demand, and why we cannot separate our solidarity with Palestine from the solidarity of everyone else in the region.

    Joseph Daher:

    Yeah, it’s great, Ramah, because I always want to start where she finishes. It’s amazing. No, regarding the direct demand based Ramah in the US, you in the US, me in Europe is we can see direct links between the solidarity campaigns with Palestine and Syria. First of all, oppose Western imperialism and especially regarding sanctions. I was opposed against the general sectoral sanctions on Syria prior to the fall of the regime, based on the fact that these sanctions were hitting massively the same population and impoverishing them partially. And I’m opposed also today because it’s definitely a political card used by Western imperialists, especially the US, to pressure any kind of government. Today it’s HTS, hopefully tomorrow it’s not anymore. Maybe a bit afterwards. But it’s a card of pressure. And this is unacceptable. Goes against the interest of Syrian population.

    Just as the genocide was allowed and permitted and supported by Western imperialism, just as the war in Lebanon and expansion, occupation and destruction of Syrian statement and military capacities by Israel. So all of this, we can see the common demands, I mean, regarding Israel as genocide, continuous occupation, et cetera. And I think more broadly, our work is also because the significance of campism is also the inability to project a political alternative built on socialism from below. The ability of the people to change radically a political situation, a political framework from mass participation from below.

    This idea came back at the beginning of the uprisings in the MENA region after Tunis, Egypt. It was lost partially because of the counter revolutions. And I think it’s also something that throughout the world, this ability to change from below a political framework has been lost partially. And we have to rebuild this issue of socialism from below, internationalism that runs against a view by campism, that because change from below is not possible, we will basically put our politics in geopolitical dynamics, and we hope that the enemy of my enemy is partially kind of my friend. So basically the Russia, China as opposed to the US, therefore maybe we could find an opportunity to improve our own situation, regardless of the fact that these regimes are authoritarian, neoliberal, patriarchal, et cetera.

    And it’s putting also false hopes in these kinds of… It’s wrong hopes, wrong strategy, completely, to believe that these regimes that have very good relation, by the way, with Israel, that they not challenge the capitalist system, they just want a bigger part in it. And similarly with the so-called axis of resistance, how can we trust regimes or political parties that oppose their own popular classes, that repress them, that participate in a system of oppression? So again, I think the key issue is bringing back this issue of socialism from below, internationalism and that basically our destinies are connected. The liberation of Palestine is connected to the liberation of the popular classes of the Middle East and North Africa, and of the support, the international support, internationalist support of leftist popular classes against the complicity of their own state in a genocide and an apartheid state. And this is what we have to work with, to believe once again that our destinies are linked regardless of the borders and knowing the different situation. But really, it’s through internationalism, socialism from below that we believe that we can liberate Palestine and the further region internationally.

    Ashley Smith:

    Thanks to both Joseph and Ramah for that eye-opening discussion of Syria’s revolutionary process. Clearly a new day has dawned in Syria, one that offers hope for a truly democratic transition, but also challenges posed by Islamic fundamentalists in power as well as regional and imperialist powers. Stay tuned for our next episode on Solidarity Without Exception, hosted by Blanca Missé, where she will discuss Puerto Rico’s ongoing struggle for national self-determination and its class struggle against the island’s elite, with state senator and activist, Rafael Bernabe. To hear about upcoming episodes, sign up on the Real News Network newsletter.

    This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Ashley Smith and Blanca Missé.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg2 gesson trump2

    We speak with the acclaimed Russian American writer M. Gessen, who says Donald Trump has entered his second term prepared to enact his radical Project 2025 agenda, including a crackdown on LGBTQ rights and dissent. Gessen, who has spent decades writing about authoritarianism at home and abroad, argues that while he was something of an “accidental president” in his first term, “Trump has been transformed by power” and is now increasingly “imperialist” and “totalitarian.”


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Read original story in Tibetan

    As Tibetan students return to school for the spring term, they are being subjected to propaganda movies about heroic Chinese soldiers and storytelling contests extolling the greatness of the Communist Party, according to sources inside Tibet and state media reports.

    Students and teachers across Tibet are also being told to abandon “superstitious” thinking in a bid to eliminate Tibetan Buddhism, two sources from the region said.

    The renewed push for patriotic education is the latest example of Beijing seeking to eradicate Tibetan culture and assimilate all ethnic groups into the majority Han Chinese culture.

    State-run media reports say the campaign is aimed at promoting “ethnic unity” and cultivating the “red gene” in Tibetan children — a term that refers to the Communist Party’s revolutionary spirit and history. They include images of teachers showing propaganda movies to children.

    According to the two sources, teachers must provide in-depth explanations on “Chinese national spirit and warmth” and guide students about China’s socialist system under something called the “First Lesson of the Year.”

    Teachers must also boost students’ understanding of the “four consciousnesses” and achieve the “two safeguards” –- both of which refer to efforts to modernize Chinese society and upholding party rule with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the core, the two sources said on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

    Students are shown videos of the Dingri earthquake relief work, to combine ideological and political education using examples of quake aid, at a school in Nyingtri county, Tibet, March 8, 2025.
    Students are shown videos of the Dingri earthquake relief work, to combine ideological and political education using examples of quake aid, at a school in Nyingtri county, Tibet, March 8, 2025.
    (Citizen Photo)

    “We will certainly see more and more of education being used for propaganda purposes,” said Harsh V. Pant, vice president of studies and foreign policy at New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation and a professor of international relations at King’s College London.

    “This will manifest both in terms of official government policy, as well as in terms of how gradually the younger generation will be indoctrinated with certain ideas about China and its role in Tibet,” he told Radio Free Asia.

    ‘Red stories’

    Last month, the County Education Bureau of Pelbar (or Banbar in Chinese) County at Chamdo in the Tibet Autonomous Region launched an online storytelling competition for primary and secondary school children to narrate “red stories” about the greatness of the party.

    The competition resulted in 44 video submissions, with more than 100 students and parents taking part in the activity, county level announcements said.

    Students across the region have also been shown videos about the recent relief work conducted in Dingri County, where an earthquake struck in January, killing at least 126 people.

    Officials in the video said the work has “closely combined ideological and political education with vivid examples” from earthquake relief.

    The Public Security Bureau of Suo County carries out publicity activity at the county's middle school in Nyingtri county, Tibet,on March 8, 2025.
    The Public Security Bureau of Suo County carries out publicity activity at the county’s middle school in Nyingtri county, Tibet,on March 8, 2025.
    (Citizen Photo)

    The recent push in Tibetan schools stems from the October 2023 Patriotic Education Law, which put central and regional departments in charge of patriotic education efforts.

    “The government’s work report specifically highlighted political and ideological education as a priority alongside skills training, so the emphasis on the spread of propaganda in schools is likely to be higher,” said Anushka Saxena, a research analyst at Bengaluru, India-based Takshashila Institution.

    Abandon ‘superstitious’ thinking

    Authorities are also telling teachers and students to abandon religious and “superstitious” thinking in schools in a bid to eliminate Tibetan Buddhism and language study, the two sources said.

    The Chinese government issued directives on Feb. 25 entitled “Two Absolute Prohibitions” and “Five Absolute Restrictions” which includes strict bans on religious propagation in schools, the use of religious elements in the education system and the participation of teachers and students in religious activities.

    The directives also prohibit the wearing or carrying of religious symbols or clothing in schools.

    “Teachers are instructed to report to authorities every month, confirming that they are not teaching any religious course to their students while many Tibetan teachers are being dismissed citing lack of proficiency in Chinese as the reason,” the second source said.

    These policies are designed to strip children of their Tibetan identity and nature, said Tsewang Dorji, a research fellow at the Dharamsala, North India-based Tibet Policy Institute.

    “Xi Jinping’s emphasis on making education a priority will intensify these efforts,” he said. “And if such policies about political and ideological education continue to persist in the next 10 to 20 years, Tibetan language, culture, identity and Buddhism is under huge threat.”

    Translated by Tenzin Palmo. Edited by Tenzin Pema, Matt Reed and Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Tenzin Norzom and Tenzin Tenkyong for RFA Tibetan.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Photograph Source: SWinxy – CC BY 4.0

    We are in uncharted waters where Trump is criminalizing free speech even as he has ended Israel’s genocidal war, for now.

    1) First and foremost, we need to build as militant, strong, and broad a movement as possible to defend Khalil. I will leave the legal issues to others, but the terrain that “we,” meaning unwavering socialists and communists, fight on is social.

    2) This is a galvanizing moment. Defending free speech and the right to dissent gives us the high ground. It’s a chance to organize. This means bringing in new people, not merely mobilizing those who already agree with us. We need to win people to the left, such as those who are alienated by politics or liberals who are frustrated or disgusted by liberal elite capitulation to Trump.

    A galvanizing moment is when we can unite people with a clear purpose. It is a precursor to a disruptive moment, like Occupy Wall Street, Standing Rock, the George Floyd movement, and the student encampments for Gaza. In all those cases, the left shifted politics in their direction. Of course, the results have been a mixed bag but that is not the fault of the disruptive moments. They are necessary for the left to achieve meaningful social change.

    3) Speaking of liberals, liberal elites paved the way for Trump with the Democratic Party’s full-metal backing of Israel’s genocide. Harris dehumanized and demeaned Palestinians during her campaign. She promoted Israel’s Jim Crow-style rape hoax that was one of the primary motivators for the genocide, she embraced the genocide, and that is why she lost.

    4) But in the end Harris capitulated and said she would end the war in Gaza. It was too little, too late, two days before the election. But Palestinian- and Muslim-Americans and leftists who held firm are a model we should emulate in how to wield power from below.

    5) Liberal media and liberal universities also paved the way, such as CNN’s Dana Bash who in May 2024 likened peaceful student protesters at UCLA to Nazi Germany AFTER the students were attacked by a mob of violent Ziofascists. And Columbia University will never appease Trump, but it will continue cooperating with him to try to crush and criminalize students, faculty, and staff exercising 1A freedoms.

    6) AOC shows why Democrats are The Enemy. Remember AOC’s shocking primary victory in 2018? She quickly threw Palestinians under the bus. She likened creeping Zionist genocide in the West Bank to gentrification, saying, “settlements that are increasing in some of these areas and places where Palestinians are experiencing difficulty in access to their housing and homes.”

    At the 2024 DNC she covered for the genocide, spewing a lie that Harris was working “tirelessly” for a ceasefire. Notice how AOC did not sign the letter demanding the release of Khalil, and that only 14 out of 214 Democrats in the House did? (Apparently AOC did sign another letter calling for Khalil’s immediate release with 41 other politicians from NY State, but that is the bare minimum.)

    7) Let me talk strategy. Anyone talking about working within the Democratic Party is siding with the enemy. Few leftists realize that Dems don’t need our votes. The left is far too weak, scattered, and disorganized to tilt elections. Dems need our silence. The left has a singular ability to analyze, historicize, and critique why and how Dems betray their base, do the dirty work of the right, and exist only to function as a graveyard for social movements. So Dems need us to shut up, especially right before elections, when we can potentially force Dems to the left by influencing voters with our ideas and critiques. The answer is the more they try to shut us down, the louder we need to become.

    8) We need a complete break from the Democratic Party. This doesn’t mean third party. We need revolutionary parties of the left. Yeah, that is a huge order, but all the strategies of working within the Democratic Party, trying to take it over, or other parliamentary strategies have been a failure. Build power to pressure whoever is in office, but stop worrying about electoral politics and third parties.

    If a third electoral party does form, it will evolve out of powerful working-class and social movements. Then to be viable, a third party needs an existing party to break up. In this case a wing of the Democrats will become a third party which then will supplant the old Dem Party as a new second party. This is extremely unlikely any time soon. I am just explaining the likeliest path to success.

    9) The arrest of Mahmoud Khalil speaks to the failure of the left to unite behind ending the genocide. Many people warned in 2024, myself included, that support for the genocide was going to cost the Dems the election. Leftists who sided with Harris need to learn from this. They got the worst of all possible worlds: genocide and Trump.

    10) If a critical mass of the left had thrown its energy into ending the genocide, damn the election, we would have a more powerful movement now to confront the fascist strategy behind arresting Khalil because we would have had a year of movement building under our belts. Just as important, we would have had the political high ground for taking the correct position that genocide was not a single issue. It was the ONLY issue.

    11) Don’t forget Occupied Palestine, which includes the Ziofascist regime. Trump has his own cynical, self-interested, and avaricious agenda, so he has no love of Israel. It’s clear Trump and Netanyahu have an agreement that Israel can intensify its ethnic cleansing and murder in the West Bank in return for an end to the active genocide in Gaza. (The slow-motion genocide continues, as does Israel’s illegal war in and occupation of Syria and Lebanon.

    At the same time, Trump’s White House is negotiating directly with Hamas, it has sidelined Netanyahu such as by having its operatives speak directly to Israel media, and Trump’s hostage envoy Adam Boehler said out loud that the US was “not an agent of Israel.”

    Trump is doing things that many leftists claimed Biden and Harris could never do.

    12) Even as Trump criminalizes dissent and the Palestine Solidarity Movement at home, he has stopped Israel’s active genocide of Gaza for nearly two month. It is more proof that the excuses by many leftists that Biden and Harris were powerless to end the genocide was simply an unconscionable surrender to a rotten idea that the road to socialism runs through the Democratic Party.

    13) No gods, no masters. No fear, no favor.

    This piece first appeared on Arun News.

    The post The Arrest of Mahmoud Khalil and the Struggle Ahead appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Arun Gupta.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Image by Johannes Plenio.

    One bright spot amidst all the terrible news last couple of months was the market’s reaction to DeepSeek, with BigTech firms like Nvidia and Microsoft and Google taking major hits in their capitalizations. Billionaires Nvidia’s Jensen Huang and Oracle’s Larry Ellison—who had, just a few days back, been part of Donald Trump’s first news conference—lost a combined 48 billion dollars in paper money. As a good friend of mine, who shall go unnamed because of their use of an expletive, said “I hate all AI, but it’s hard to not feel joy that these asshats are losing a lot of money.”

    Another set of companies lost large fractions of their stock valuations: U.S. power, utility and natural gas companies. Electric utilities like Constellation, Vistra and Talen had gained stock value on the basis of the argument that there would be a major increase in demand for energy due to data centers and AI, allowing them to invest in new power plants and expensive nuclear projects (such as small modular reactor), and profit from this process. [The other source of revenue, at least in the case of Constellation, was government largesse.] The much lower energy demand from DeepSeek, at least as reported, renders these plans questionable at best.

    Remembering Past Ranfare

    But we have been here before. Consider, for example, the arguments made for building the V. C. Summer nuclear project in South Carolina. That project came out of the hype cycle during the first decade of this century, during one of the many so-called nuclear renaissances that have been regularly announced since the 1980s. [In 1985, for example, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Director Alvin Weinberg predicted such a renaissance and a second nuclear era—that is yet to materialize.] During the hype cycle in the first decade of this century, utility companies proposed constructing more than 30 reactors, of which only four proceeded to construction. Two of these reactors were in South Carolina.

    As with most nuclear projects, public funding was critical. The funding came through the 2005 Energy Policy Act, the main legislative outcome from President George W. Bush’s push for nuclear power, which offered several incentives, including production tax credits that were valued at approximately $2.2 billion for V. C. Summer.

    The justification offered by the CEO of the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company to the state’s Public Service Commission was the expectation that the company’s energy sales would increase by 22 percent between 2006 and 2016, and by nearly 30 percent by 2019. In fact, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company’s energy sales declined by 3 percent by the time 2016 rolled in. [Such mistakes are standard in the history of nuclear power. In the 1970s, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and utility companies were projecting that “about one thousand large nuclear power reactors” would be built “by the year 2000 and about two thousand, mostly breeder reactors, by 2010” on the basis of the grossly exaggerated estimates of how rapidly electricity production would grow during the same period. It turned out that “utilities were projecting four to nine times more electric power would be produced in the United States by nuclear power in 2000 than actually happened”.] In the case of South Carolina, the wrong projection about energy sales was the basis of the $9 billion plus spent on the abandoned V. C. Summer project.

    The Racket Continues

    With no sense of shame for that failure, one of the two companies involved in that fiasco recently expressed an interest in selling this project. On January 22, Santee Cooper’s President and CEO wrote, “We are seeing renewed interest in nuclear energy, fueled by advanced manufacturing investments, AI-driven data center demand, and the tech industry’s zero-carbon targets…Considering the long timelines required to bring new nuclear units online, Santee Cooper has a unique opportunity to explore options for Summer Units 2 and 3 and their related assets that could allow someone to generate reliable, carbon emissions-free electricity on a meaningfully shortened timeline”.

    A couple of numbers to put those claims about timelines in perspective: the average nuclear reactor takes about 10 years to go from the beginning of construction—usually marked by when concrete is poured into the ground—to when it starts generating electricity. But one cannot go from deciding to build a reactor to pouring concrete in the ground overnight. It takes about five to ten years needed before the physical activities involved in building a reactor to obtain the environmental permits, and the safety evaluations, carry out public hearings (at least where they are held), and, most importantly, raise the tens of billions of dollars needed. Thus, even the “meaningfully shortened timeline” will mean upwards of a decade.

    Going by the aftermath of the Deepseek, the AI and data center driven energy demand bubble seems to have crashed on a timeline far shorter than even that supposedly “meaningfully shortened timeline”. There is good reason to expect that this AI bubble wasn’t going to last, for there was no real business case to allow for the investment of billions. What DeepSeek did was to also show that the billions weren’t needed. As Emily Bender, a computer scientist who co-authored the famous paper about large language models that coined the term stochastic parrots, put it: “The emperor still has no clothes, but it’s very distressing to the emperor that their non-clothes can be made so much more cheaply.”

    But utility companies are not giving up. At a recent meeting organized by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the lobbying organization for the nuclear industry, the Chief Financial Officer of Constellation Energy, the company owning the most nuclear reactors in the United States, admitted that the DeepSeek announcement “wasn’t a fun day” but maintained that it does not “change the demand outlook for power from the data economy. It’s going to come.” Likewise, during an “earnings call” earlier in February, Duke Energy President Harry Sideris maintained that data center hyperscalers are “full speed ahead”.

    Looking Deeper

    Such repetition, even in the face of profound questions about whether such a growth will occur is to be expected, for it is key to the stock price evaluations and market capitalizations of these companies. The constant reiteration of the need for more and more electricity and other resources also adopts other narrative devices shown to be effective in a wide variety of settings, for example, pointing to the possibility that China would take the lead in some technological field or the other, and explicitly or implicitly arguing how utterly unacceptable that state of affairs would be. Never asking whether it even matters who wins this race for AI. These tropes and assertions about running out of power contribute to creating the economic equivalent of what Stuart Hall termed “moral panic”, thus allowing possible opposition to be overruled.

    One effect of this slew of propaganda has been the near silence on the question of whether such growth of data centers or AI is desirable, even though there is ample evidence of the enormous environmental impacts of developing AI and building hyperscale data centers. Or for that matter the desirability of nuclear power.

    As Lewis Mumford once despaired: “our technocrats are so committed to the worship of the sacred cow of technology that they say in effect: Let the machine prevail, though the earth be poisoned, the air be polluted, the food and water be contaminated, and mankind itself be condemned to a dreary and useless life, on a planet no more fit to support life than the sterile surface of the moon”.

    But, of course, we live in a time of monsters. At a time when the levers of power are wielded by a megalomaniac who would like to colonize Mars, and despoil its already sterile environment.

    The post Continued Propaganda About AI and Nuclear Power appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by M.V. Ramana.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Read a version of this story in Korean.

    Construction has begun on a road bridge that would connect North Korea and Russia over the Tumen River that separates the countries, South Korean satellite imagery revealed.

    This would be the first road bridge between these two allies, allowing trucks and buses to transfer goods and people. There is already a rail bridge between the two countries, which recently have been strengthening ties.

    South Korean firm SI Analytics announced that it captured the photos on March 3, and they showed that preparatory work had begun for an 830-meter (900-yard) section of road, including the bridge over the frozen river in the northeastern part of North Korea.

    Experts said that when completed, the bridge will likely boost trade and tourism in North Korea, and possibly increase Moscow’s influence in the region.

    One expert said that it seems as if Russia agreed to build this bridge in exchange for North Korean support in its war with Ukraine. North Korea has sent an estimated 12,000 soldiers to fight in Russia’s war against Ukraine, although neither Moscow or Pyongyang has publicly confirmed this.

    Preliminary staging

    On the Russian side of the border, the satellite images show that preliminary work for the bridge reaches less than 300 meters (330 yards) from the land.

    A yellow structure, believed to be a pillar that would hold up the bridge, can be seen on the frozen surface of the river. Additionally, construction materials can be seen in a staging area on the Russian side.

    Work proceeds on a new Tumen River bridge linking North Korea and Russia, March 3, 2025.
    Work proceeds on a new Tumen River bridge linking North Korea and Russia, March 3, 2025.
    (PleiadesNEO imagery with analysis by SI Analytics)

    “The groundwork will be completed before the river thaws, with the actual bridge pillars being installed in the spring,” SI Analytics said.

    Meanwhile, on the North Korean side, construction is underway on the road that would connect to the bridge. It appears that the ground has been compacted, but the road has yet to be paved. Heavy equipment like bulldozers, trucks and smaller cars can be seen at the construction site.

    Moscow selected contracting firm TonnelYuzhStroy LLC, to oversee design and construction of the bridge, with a deadline for completion set at Dec. 31, 2026, media outlet Interfax.ru reported.

    “Although the Russian government has allocated a two-year construction period, it seems that the rush to complete the groundwork even in the bitter cold is intended to show ‘tangible results’ in accordance with the demands of Russian President Vladimir Putin,” SI Analytics said.

    North Korea observers said that the construction of the bridge would be a boon for overland shipping between North Korea and Russia, as only one other bridge connecting the two countries exists, and it is only for trains.

    The new bridge will contribute to North Korea’s economic growth, Joung Eunlee, a research fellow at the Seoul-based Korea Institute for National Unification, told RFA Korean.

    “Land routes can actively transport much more logistics and people than railways,” she said. “If a bridge is built between North Korea and Russia, then the volume of goods transported will be much larger than railways, the transport time will be faster, and the volume of trade will likely increase.”

    Quid pro quo?

    The bridge is likely being built in return for North Korean military support of Russia in its war with Ukraine, said Bruce Bennett of the U.S.-based RAND Corporation.

    “Creating a new bridge would be a direct way for Russia to increase trade with North Korea,” he said. “I believe there is no doubt that this is, at least, a partial payoff to North Korea.”

    The new bridge is likely to lead to increased economic, social and military exchanges, and could weaken the effectiveness of sanctions on North Korea over its nuclear ambitions, SI analytics said. Additionally it could reorganize the balance of power in the region, increasing Russian influence at the expense of Chinese.

    “China’s response will likely to be a key variable going forward,” SI Analytics said.

    But the overall effect of the new bridge could also be relatively mild, Kim Young-hee, from the Institute for North Korean Studies, at Dongguk University in South Korea, told RFA.

    “It would have an economic effect, but North Korea would require a lot of travel by train or car to enable trade with Russia,” she said. “Geographically, China is better. Russia is far away, so transportation costs are higher than to trade with China.”

    She said that trading with China was more cost effective, so Pyongyang would likely still trade primarily with Beijing.

    Translated by Claire S Lee. Edited by Eugene Whong and Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Cheon Soram for RFA Korean.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Thailand’s move to cut off electricity, fuel and internet service to an area across the border in Myanmar rife with scam centers is hurting ordinary people more than the crime syndicates it was trying target, residents told Radio Free Asia.

    The shutoff of the grid since Feb. 4 has resulted in many turning to electric generators, and that’s doubled the price of gas in Myawaddy in just five weeks.

    Described by some as it’s “most decisive action ever,” Bangkok said the move was aimed at closing down the scamming operations, where hundreds of trafficked workers have been trapped and often tortured. Thailand also banned the export of 12 items, including mobile phones and electrical appliances, to Myanmar.

    But the criminal organizations are finding their way around the blockade, including often illegal ways to acquire the fuel needed to power their generators and continue their operations, residents told RFA Burmese.

    Instead of its intended targets, the shutdown is taking a much larger toll on residents in the area, which is controlled by the Karen Border Guard Force and the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army.

    “Ordinary people are suffering the most from the Thai government’s fuel cuts,” said a Myawaddy resident who used the pseudonym Thura for fear of reprisals. “Meanwhile, scam call center gangs continue to receive fuel supplies with the help” of region rebel groups.

    Fuel is hard to buy because demand is high and supply is low. Gas has nearly doubled to 7,000 kyats per liter ($12.64 per gallon), Thura said.

    In Myawaddy, across from the Thai town of Mae Sot, gas stations are all closed, and residents instead have to buy fuel from residents on the Thai side of the border.

    The criminal gangs, by relying on their connections with these local armed groups, can get what they need without much difficulty.

    “In contrast, ordinary people are struggling due to fuel shortages caused by illegal traders.”

    Attempts by RFA to contact the Karen Border Guard Force spokesperson Lt. Col. Nai Maung Zaw and the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army DKBA chief of staff General Saw San Aung, on March 10, for comment on these situations went unanswered.

    Illegal trade routes

    Kyaw Naing, a Myawaddy merchant who used a pseudonym for security reasons, told RFA that despite the Thai government’s bans on 12 types of products — which also include batteries, inverters and generators — are still being smuggled in.

    “Fuel is filled in cars from Mae Sot to be sold in Myawaddy,” Kyaw Naing said. “Buying fuel can be somewhat challenging, but it is still possible since the border routes are not completely closed all the time.”

    The banned Thai items can also be imported instead from China, to the point that the ban is almost ineffective, he said, adding that the Thai government should reopen the fuel market considering it is a basic need for the people.

    RFA attempted to contact Thin Thin Myat, chairman of the Myawaddy Border Trade Chamber of Commerce for comment, but she did not respond.

    With people buying fuel in Thailand to sell in Myanmar, sellers in Mae Sai, far to the north of the Mae Sot-Myawaddy border crossing are now requiring that buyers fill up only the gas tanks of their vehicles, not portable containers.

    Workers repatriated

    Meanwhile, the Karen Border Guard Force on Tuesday handed nearly 250 Indian and Malaysian workers who had been trafficked and held in Chinese gambling dens and scam centers in Myawaddy to authorities from their respective countries via the Mae Sot-Myawaddy Friendship Bridge.

    Among those freed were 226 Indian nationals and 24 Malaysians. “Plans are in place to repatriate more foreign nationals in the coming days,” a spokesperson for the Border Guard Force told RFA.

    Between Monday and Tuesday, 509 Indian nationals had been sent over the bridge to Indian authorities working alongside their Thai counterparts.

    The Karen Border Guard Force claims to have been conducting anti-scam and anti-human trafficking operations for nearly a month.

    According to a source at their Investigation Office, around 3,000 scam workers from China, Indonesia, India and Malaysia have been repatriated via Thailand.

    Translated by Aung Naing and Thane Aung. Edited by Eugene Whong and Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Burmese.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The Committee to Protect Journalists and 16 other organizations, led by the nonprofit group Public Knowledge, sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr on March 7, expressing concern about recent developments that threaten to erode long-established safeguards for editorial independence and free expression.

    The agency recently launched investigations into public broadcasting for allegedly airing advertising and threatening to investigate the northern California radio station KCBS after it reported on planned U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. FCC investigations can result in fines and license revocations, undermining the ability of news organizations to operate freely and without fear of government retaliation.

    The signatories underscored that a free press requires the FCC to uphold journalistic independence with impartiality and without political bias, and urged Carr to commit to:

    • requiring clear evidence of wrongdoing before launching investigations;
    • reaffirming the FCC’s commitment to protecting, not pressuring, editorial independence;
    • ensuring that any oversight actions are based on clear, objective criteria, not speculative political considerations; and
    • maintaining a clear boundary between government regulation and newsroom decisions.

    Read the letter here.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • When Mark Zuckerberg terminated Meta’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs for hiring and training employees and procuring suppliers in January 2025, he forged “inroads with the incoming Trump administration,” abandoned Meta’s founding ethos of open innovation, and dramatically realigned how the tech giant will now do business, as critics like Bärí A. Williams, former lead counsel for Meta (then Facebook) and creator of its now-dissolved Supplier Diversity program, noted. Zuckerberg’s changes play right into the ultra-conservative presidential handbook, Project 2025, with potentially devastating consequences for the safety of numerous marginalized communities.

    The supplier diversity program was meant to accomplish multiple goals, including creating economic opportunities for marginalized communities and mitigating gentrification caused by Facebook’s expanding headquarters into East Palo Alto’s Black and brown communities. However, by incentivizing its employees with $10,000 bonuses to move into East Palo Alto, Facebook increased traffic congestion and disproportionately drove up rents in the area. As a result, many of the city’s historic, working-class population faced evictions and other forced move-outs.

    Then, in only a matter of weeks, Meta dismantled Facebook DEI programs that had taken years to build. Zuckerberg, of course, has the prerogative to change his company’s course. However, politically motivated decisions are often made during national swings of the partisan pendulum. In the inevitable event that the pendulum swings back in the opposite direction, Meta will find that its scrapped programs will be hard to recover. “The trust of users, employees, and suppliers has been destroyed,” said Williams.

    Mirroring Meta’s change in corporate policies, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative announced that they are ending both internal and external DEI efforts, work on immigration reform, and racial equity grantmaking, citing the “shifting regulatory and legal landscape.” In a recent survey, many leaders in corporate philanthropy indicated that they plan to reduce emphasis on racial equality (24 percent) and gender equality (22 percent) efforts in response to the trend, reflecting “a broader recalibration of corporate diversity strategies amid heightened scrutiny and pushback” that is being driven by “political polarization, legislative actions targeting diversity programs and race- or gender-specific philanthropic efforts, and intensifying stakeholder debates over the role of corporations in addressing social issues.”

    The FCC goes full MAGA

    Accusations from conservatives that their online content had been unfairly targeted for political reasons presumably factored into Zuckerberg’s decision to do away with fact-checking and other changes to Meta’s approach to content moderation. Studies have shown, however, that although posts by conservatives had, indeed, been taken down more frequently, this was not due to political beliefs. Rather, take-downs were spurred by the promotion of false claims, sharing of links to low-quality news sources, and the posting of hateful speech and imagery that violated community standards. FCC Commissioner and Trump’s chief censor, Brendan Carr, the author of Project 2025’s chapter on the FCC, would have the public believe that social media moderation practices infringe on First Amendment rights, as he asserted in a November 2024 letter to the Big Tech companies. Unless the government was explicitly involved in those takedowns, however, the decisions of private corporations have no First Amendment implications.

    Meta’s overhaul of its fact-checking, content moderation, and DEI policies appears to have been motivated by the desire to proactively align itself with Trump administration ideology. Former Facebook employees who served on Meta’s DEI and trust and safety teams say this shift was “a long time in the making.” In 2024, for example, Sheryl Sandberg stepped down from Meta’s board of directors, to be replaced by the CEO of the Ultimate Fighting Championship organization, Dana White, “who leads the MAGA movements’ ultra-masculine sports league,” illustrating one of the steps that led to Meta’s current right turn.

    In May 2024, Meta hired Dustin Carmack, former Heritage Foundation fellow and author of Project 2025’s Intelligence Community chapter, to assist with the development of Meta’s new approach to content moderation across all of its platforms, effectively intertwining Project 2025’s governmental priorities with Meta’s corporate policies and goals. Carr’s letter to Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai of Alphabet (which owns Google), Tim Cook of Apple, and Satya Nandella of Microsoft (but not Musk) referred to them and their fact-checking, content moderation, and DEI practices as a “censorship cartel” that infringes on Americans’ right to free speech. In February 2025, Carr also issued a letter to Comcast, accusing the corporation of using DEI initiatives to impose discrimination (ostensibly against White people).

    Trump delivers on Project 2025

    The Global Project for Hate and Extremism (GPAHE) has warned that Meta’s new policies “align directly with Project 2025’s blueprint for dismantling” what Project 2025 identifies as “government censorship infrastructure.” Project 2025 perpetuates a manufactured moral panic around the assertion—unsupported by evidence—that “anti-white racism” is among the biggest threats to civil rights. The right-wing presidential playbook promotes White Christian Nationalism and involves plans to end the use of terms that allegedly “deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights,” including language for gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, and reproductive rights, GPAHE reported.

    Even though Trump said throughout the campaign season that he knew nothing about Project 2025, on January 20, 2025, he signed an executive gender order declaring there are only two sexes—defined biologically as male and female, following Project 2025’s plans to end the “DEI apparatus.” The executive order requires the federal government to use the term “sex” instead of “gender,” and will be reflected in all government-issued identification and other federal documents. The White House has also issued a ban on the use of pronouns in federal employees’ email signatures and on team communication platforms like Slack.

    In response to guidance issued by the Office of Personnel Management, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) ordered researchers and scientists to pause or remove the publication of research with any of the following forbidden terms, “gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, non-binary, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, biologically male, biologically female,” creating challenges to “publish research on diseases that disproportionately impact groups who can no longer be named.”

    Macho fashions for the autocrats

    Trump’s gender order coincides with Silicon Valley’s “macho makeover,” with Zuckerberg and his tech bros Musk and Bezos “dressing like titans, strongmen, and emperors.” As Zuckerberg told podcaster Joe Rogan, “A culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits,” provoking accusations of toxic masculinity.

    Typically understood to encompass how men are “culturally trained and socially pressured to behave,” toxic masculinity is typically characterized by toughness, anti-femininity, and power. Zuckerberg’s endorsement of aggression “sends an even stronger message that women aren’t welcome,” wrote Ashley Morgan, a masculinities scholar at Cardiff Metropolitan University. The same point holds for nonbinary individuals, who might well wonder where they fit into Zuckerberg’s hypermasculine worldview.

    The technogarchy “have long been aligning themselves with mythmaking, macho masculinity narratives,” and their new fashion aesthetic is not simply a trend, reported Amy Francombe, but a warning of “the consolidation of power in the tech industry” and its increased collaboration with the US government. “Zuckerberg’s style shift says something about a specific group of American billionaires who are aligning themselves with what looks to be a new political order within the United States,” Benjamin Wild of the Manchester Fashion Institute told Wired.

    In Trump’s second reign—indeed, Trump fancies himself a king—replete with displays of strong-man entitlement, wealth, and misogyny, the masculinization of Big Tech also signals a normalization of patriarchal power; that is, men’s power over and exclusion of women and gender nonconforming persons throughout sociopolitical and economic systems built by men. Wild described “parallels with medieval royal courts, where members of the aristocracy competed among themselves, often in what they wore and how they consumed, for the attention and patronage of the ruler.”

    Policies for safety obliterated

    The purpose of hate speech policies is to keep all users safe, not to “put a target on the backs of one historically marginalized group,” said Jenni Olson, Senior Director of the Social Media Safety program at GLAAD. According to 404 Media interviews with five current Meta employees, many employees are furious over the company’s content moderation changes that now allow users on its platforms to say that LGBTQ people are “abnormal” and “mentally ill.” This, explained Olson, is anti-LGBTQ dog whistle language. Meta’s extreme-right posturing mirrors the deluge of anti-trans and anti-DEI efforts emanating from the Trump White House, and the new policies and changes “send a clear message that the tech giant and its leadership may actually hold (and espouse) bigoted, homophobic, and transphobic beliefs about LGBTQ people,” Olson warned.

    Proponents of the DOGE takedown of DEI espouse a return to an allegedly merit-based society, but they ignore the fact that permitting, or even encouraging, hateful rhetoric on social media platforms can increase the likelihood of real world consequences, including threats and physical violence against members of marginalized communities. Meta may argue that the hateful rhetoric online doesn’t meet the criteria for hate speech established in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Still, continual exposure to hateful ideas and language has been shown to result in acts of “stochastic terrorism,” the term used by scholars and law enforcement to describe how “ideologically driven hate speech increases the likelihood that people will violently and unpredictably attack the targets of vicious claims.”

    Although stochastic terrorism is statistically predictable, when such acts of violence will occur and who will carry them out are not. For example, social media accounts such as Libs of TikTok and others spread virulent messages about the LGBTQ community that have led to bomb threats against Planet Fitness, public schools, libraries, and the firebombing of a progressive church in Plano, Texas.

    Banned education, manufactured ignorance

    The United States population is widely uneducated when it comes to LGBTQ culture, history, rights, and issues, particularly with regard to the transgender community.

    Either because LGBTQ subject matter is not taught, or is banned outright, in US classrooms, the formation of opinions on the LGBTQ community is disproportionately shaped by transphobic content on social media. A void of factual information about the transgender community will likely be exacerbated by Meta’s changes, which will promote increased circulation of disinformation and misinformation on its platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The trajectory of hate speech on X, after it was acquired by Musk and remodeled to reflect his distorted conception of “free speech,” provides a cautionary example. As with X, Meta’s new policies will promote astounding increases in racist, homophobic, Islamaphobic, antisemitic, and misogynistic speech on Meta platforms.

    Pushback and boycotts

    Although the number of companies abandoning DEI policies is growing, according to Fortune reporter Alena Botros, some prominent corporations, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Costco, Salesforce, Apple, and Microsoft, are maintaining their diversity policies. Even the NFL has doubled-down on its commitment to DEI. And some employees at Meta are subtly pushing back “against their billionaire Big Tech boss,” Botros reported, by undertaking actions such as bringing tampons into the men’s restrooms at Meta.

    Similarly, a movement is forming that encourages Tesla owners to get rid of their vehicles in protest of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and “the wholesale incursions into government systems” by its de facto leader, Elon Musk. For example, singer Sheryl Crow got rid of her Tesla and donated the money to NPR, the public radio outlet that, Crow posted on X, is under threat by the Trump Administration. As per Project 2025’s promises and Trump’s executive order, PBS has shuttered its DEI office; and although NPR has a dedicated DEI office too, it has not yet announced its plans. PBS and NPR haven’t escaped Carr’s lettersthe one to them claims that the public media outlets were in violation of their noncommercial status by publicizing their sponsors.

    On February 19, 2025, Pew Research published findings from a survey of Americans’ opinions of Musk and Zuckerberg. The gist is that more Republicans view Musk favorably than Democrats; and views of Zuckerberg are mostly unfavorable among both parties. Polls from the first months of 2025 show that Trump’s approval ratings are slipping, mainly owing to his overreach of executive power. With consumer confidence plunging, some Trump supporters may be regretting their choice.

    These findings may align with Bärí Williams’s advice “not to reward Meta with our engagement, our data, or their ability to earn ad revenue from us.” Invoking the history of the Civil Rights Movement, in which DEI has its roots, Williams described how boycotts were used to create safe spaces and entrepreneurial opportunities for marginalized communities. In her view, disengagement from Meta is the only way that Meta will feel the full consequences of the decision to abandon diversity. Author Caroline Sumlin wrote that, thanks to the earlier generation of civil rights activists who pressed on in the face of adversity, we should do the same now—not only for the present day but for future generations.

    The dismantling of DEI practices, fact-checking, and loosening of content moderation around hateful speech is in direct conflict with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Having pledged support for these principles, Meta continues to be responsible for respecting and protecting fundamental human rights even if doing so is not required by national law. Meta’s policy changes infringe on the human rights of others by actively encouraging discrimination across their platforms, refusing to address human rights linked to misinformation, and using “free speech” as rationale for human rights abuses.

    When a handful of major tech companies have a monopoly on the information space, they can effectively control the content we consume, make top-down determinations about what is deemed morally acceptable or historically accurate, and decide what information and viewpoints to preserve, omit, or alter. This can lead to a version of reality that reflects and promotes narrow corporate interests at the expense of the public good.

    To counter the twin threats of online hate speech and historical revisionism, users of these services should: develop an understanding of how information can be curated online through the use of algorithms that favor certain viewpoints over others; actively seek out information from a range of sources such as independent news, local media, and international outlets; and push for stronger regulations to ensure transparency and accountability in the digital space.

    1. First published at Project Censored.
  • Read Part 1, “Technogarchy Goes to Washington.”
  • The post Meta Shifts Right: Big Tech, Project 2025, and the Assault on DEI first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Mischa Geracoulis and avram anderson.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • TAIPEI, Taiwan – The size of Taiwan’s military has been at the center of a public debate in recent months, with reports emerging of plans to recruit women and foreigners while extending military training.

    Meanwhile, politicians from the island’s two major parties and members of the public are debating the defense budget, as the U.S. is reportedly pressuring Taiwan to strengthen its military capabilities.

    What is happening with Taiwan’s military?

    Chieh Chung, a research fellow at Taiwan’s Institute for National Defense and Security Research, said the island is experiencing “a rapid decline” in the number of military personnel, which is affecting front-line combat units.

    Taiwan’s armed forces saw a drop in the number of active-duty personnel to 152,885 in June 2024 from 164,884 in 2021, and Chieh believes the trend will continue mainly due to Taiwan’s low birth rate.

    This is a problem for Taiwan, according to Michael Hunzeker, associate director of the Center for Security Policy Studies at George Mason University, as the island is facing mounting threats from one of the world’s largest militaries: China with more than 2 million active-duty military personnel.

    China sees Taiwan as a breakaway province and has increased military pressure through drills and incursions. Taiwan, meanwhile, views itself as a sovereign state and strengthens its defenses. Beijing has increased military pressure on the island in recent years through air and naval incursions, military drills and diplomatic isolation efforts.

    “Besides having more troops and weapons, China’s military leadership has also put more time, energy, and resources into modernizing its military,” said Hunzeker.

    “None of these trends bodes well for Taiwan. There is no question that if we compare China and Taiwan in isolation, Beijing holds all of the cards militarily,” he added.

    Taiwanese soldiers hold firearms in a military training as Taiwan President Lai Ching-te, not in photo, inspects the Taiwanese military in Taichung, Central Taiwan, Friday, June 28, 2024.
    Taiwanese soldiers hold firearms in a military training as Taiwan President Lai Ching-te, not in photo, inspects the Taiwanese military in Taichung, Central Taiwan, Friday, June 28, 2024.
    (Chiang Ying-ying/AP)

    What is being done to address the shortage?

    Taiwan has responded with plans to increase military salaries and benefits, but the proposal has been met with skepticism.

    Arthur Kuo, a Taiwanese retired major general, is among those who believe that military recruitment is influenced by more than just wages.

    “Societal values, the image of military personnel, working conditions, and career development opportunities,” he said as he listed factors that affect Taiwanese people’s willingness to join the military.

    “One worthwhile lesson to keep in mind is that most Americans take a great deal of pride in their military,” Hunzeker said. “You don’t see the same thing in Taiwan.”

    A 2024 survey found that more than 50% of respondents were not confident in the Taiwanese military’s self-defense capabilities.

    “I would therefore imagine that if Taiwanese society held their servicemen and women in higher regard that it would probably do more for recruiting than any financial bonus ever could,” Kuo said.

    Some defense officials and analysts have proposed recruiting foreign military personnel.

    “The U.S. offers a fast-track naturalization process for green-card holders who join the military, which Taiwan could consider,” Kuo said.

    However, some analysts believe that might be “counterproductive.”

    Taiwanese soldiers take part in a drill while Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te inspects its military at a military base in Taitung County, eastern Taiwan, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2025.
    Taiwanese soldiers take part in a drill while Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te inspects its military at a military base in Taitung County, eastern Taiwan, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2025.
    (Chiang Ying-ying/AP)

    Chieh from the Institute for National Defense and Security Research said Taiwan’s financial systems could collapse in a war, making salary payments for foreigners uncertain.

    He warned that foreign troops, often motivated by pay, might lose commitment if payments stopped.

    Managing and training mercenaries from diverse backgrounds would also require significant resources, potentially outweighing the benefits, he added.

    Meanwhile, Taiwan’s defense ministry dismissed reports last week about a plan for the conscription of female troops.

    RELATED STORIES

    China warns US against containment as Trump’s second term reshapes relations

    China announces 7.2% defense budget hike, reaffirms opposition to Taiwan independence

    Taiwan to scale up annual military drill as China tensions mount

    Does military modernization really require more troops?

    Some commentators question whether increasing troop numbers is the right answer. They argue that the Russia-Ukraine war has shown the impact of military modernization, with drones, long-range artillery and missiles giving a force greater advantage than mere troop numbers.

    But Kuo believes addressing the manpower shortage issue is still crucial for Taiwan.

    “If Taiwan’s military capability declines, it will struggle to counter gray-zone threats from China, maintain strategic deterrence, uphold regional stability, and sustain foreign investment and economic growth – posing a serious national security risk,” he said.

    A military honor guard attends National Day celebrations in front of the Presidential Building in Taipei, Taiwan, Thursday, Oct. 10, 2024.
    A military honor guard attends National Day celebrations in front of the Presidential Building in Taipei, Taiwan, Thursday, Oct. 10, 2024.
    (Chiang Ying-ying/AP)

    Chieh shares similar views, saying that regardless of how advanced Taiwan’s weapons are, it must be prepared to defend the homeland with a sufficient number of ground forces, given China’s naval and air forces continue to grow.

    “The key is that while we may maintain a smaller standing force in peacetime, we must be able to rapidly expand our troop numbers through mobilization when necessary,” he said.

    China doesn’t just aim to defeat Taiwan’s military, according to Chieh. The authoritarian regime also assumes that U.S. intervention is inevitable.

    Under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the U.S. is committed to assisting Taiwan to defend itself, but it has long maintained a policy of “strategic ambiguity” on whether it would intervene militarily to protect Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack.

    “So, its strategy revolves around establishing a dominant position around Taiwan before the U.S. can effectively intervene, and this is why Taiwan should maintain strong troops itself – to send signals to Washington that we’re a reliable ally and it is worthy for them to fight together with us,” Chieh said.

    Edited by Taejun Kang.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Alan Lu for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Tibetans around the world on Monday marked the 1959 uprising against Chinese rule with protests in cities across Europe, North America and India as thousands marched for an end to Chinese oppression.

    With faces painted in the blue and red of the Tibetan national flag –- and shouting slogans in a slew of different languages -– Tibetans and their supporters rallied in Sydney, Taipei, London, New York, Washington and Toronto, among others.

    Some of the protests took place outside Chinese embassies. In New Delhi, police clashed with dozens of Tibetan protesters as some demonstrators tried to enter the Chinese Embassy.

    On March 10th, thousands of Tibetans commemorated the 66th anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising, with hundreds joining peaceful demonstrations worldwide

    Supporters carried banners that read “World Leaders, Stand up for Tibet,” “CCP, Stop Torturing Tibetans” and “Missing Home Since 1959.”

    The Tibetan national flag –- which is banned inside Tibet -– was widely seen.

    Demonstrations for the 66th anniversary of the Tibetan Uprising were also held in Ladakh in north India, Guwahati in northeast India and Mysore in south India.

    Tibetans protest outside the Chinese Embassy in Washington, March 10, 2025.
    Tibetans protest outside the Chinese Embassy in Washington, March 10, 2025.
    (RFA Tibetan)

    China invaded and forcibly annexed Tibet in 1950. The revolt nine years later was sparked in part by fears that the Chinese would arrest Tibet’s spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, who fled from Lhasa to India several weeks later.

    Thousands of Tibetans died in the 1959 uprising amid a subsequent crackdown by China. Since then, Tibetans have used March 10 to honor their courage, press China to stop its repression of Tibetans and voice their hope for a homeland where they can live freely.

    The date remains a politically sensitive one for Chinese authorities in Tibet, who routinely tighten surveillance and security measures in Tibetan areas of China to block protests ahead of the anniversary.

    ‘Freedom from Chinese forces’

    The Central Tibetan Administration, or CTA, led an official event in Dharamsala, India, where the Tibetan government-in-exile is located.

    “As we commemorate the Tibetan National Uprising Day, we honor our brave martyrs, and express solidarity with our brothers and sisters inside Tibet who continue to languish under the oppressive Chinese government,” CTA President Sikyong Penpa Tsering said at the event, which was attended by former Slovakian President Andrej Kiska and Estonian parliamentarian Juku-Kalle Raid.

    Tibetans protested in 1959 out of a “sense of real desperation,” the Dalai Lama said from his residence in Dharamsala.

    “There was no other way but to escape,” he said. “My heart was a little heavy. After I crossed a river, a local villager guiding my horse told me to take one last look at Lhasa as I won’t be able to see Lhasa beyond this point.

    At his residence in Dharamsala, North India, March 10, 2025, the Dalai Lama marks the March 10 Uprising of 1959.
    At his residence in Dharamsala, North India, March 10, 2025, the Dalai Lama marks the March 10 Uprising of 1959.
    (OHHDL)

    “So I turned and made my horse face Lhasa and said my prayers,” he said. “As I made my way southward, crossing the river and up through the passes, I felt a sense of happiness and freedom from Chinese forces.”

    Since then, despite Chinese efforts to “wipe Tibet from the face of the earth,” Tibet has endured, he said.

    Tight security in Lhasa

    In Europe, over 3,000 Tibetans and supporters from across various European countries gathered at The Hague in the Netherlands to participate in a rally that is organized every two years in a major city in Europe under the campaign, “Europe, Stand with Tibet.”

    Speaking at the rally were Dutch members of parliament, actor Richard Gere and former NBA player, Enes Kanter Freedom.

    “Tibetans inside Tibet are still experiencing a lot of problems under Chinese rule,” Kanter told Radio Free Asia. “So being a supporter of human rights and peace in the world, I fully support the Tibetan people and movement.”

    In Taipei, more than 500 people –- mostly Taiwanese and about 40 Tibetans –- gathered on Sunday. Representatives from Taiwan’s Human Rights Commission urged the Taiwanese people to stand with Tibetans to hold China accountable for human rights violations in Tibet.

    The Tibetan national flag was hoisted in various parts of the United States, including Berkeley and Richmond in California, Burlington in Vermont and East Rutherford in New Jersey. In Germany, more than 400 cities, districts and municipalities raised the Tibetan flag to recognize the ongoing oppression in Tibet.

    Inside Tibet, Chinese authorities have deployed police and military throughout Lhasa’s streets and religious sites, including the Jokhang Temple and Sera Monastery, since the beginning of March, two sources in the region told RFA.

    The sources added that police are conducting patrols even at 3 a.m. in predominantly Tibetan neighborhoods, while travelers from other Tibetan regions attempting to enter Lhasa are being turned away for even minor documentation issues.

    Edited by Tenzin Pema and Matt Reed.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Tibetan.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by The Real News Network.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • On February 9, reporter Tolga Güney welcomed a CPJ representative into the apartment he shares with several colleagues in central Izmir, Turkey. It was his 362nd day under house arrest while awaiting trial on terrorism charges. “I believe I’m in this situation for doing my job,” he said over a glass of tea.

    Güney is a reporter for pro-Kurdish outlet Mezopotamya News Agency, which has long been in the government crosshairs as part of the country’s decades-long crackdown on the Kurdish insurgent movement. On February 13, 2024, anti-terrorism police raided the homes of Güney and four other reporters affiliated with pro-Kurdish outlets and later placed three of them under house arrest.

    Güney, his Mezopotamya News Agency colleague Delal Akyüz, and Melike Aydın, a reporter with another pro-Kurdish outlet JİNNEWS were charged with membership in the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) which the government has designated a terrorist organization. In the indictments, which CPJ reviewed, authorities cited the three journalists’ work reporting on Kurdish issues, including phone calls with colleagues and books and magazines confiscated from their homes, as well as secret witness testimony alleging they work under the command of the PKK.

    Journalists who work for pro-Kurdish media are at risk in Turkey and beyond. CPJ’s most recent prison census found that 10 Kurdish journalists in multiple countries were imprisoned for their work as of December 1, 2024. Akyüz and Aydın are both Kurds, members of a large ethnic minority that spans several countries in the Middle East.

    In addition to visiting Güney at home, CPJ interviewed Aydın while she was under house arrest and spoke with Akyüz over the phone about the conditions of their confinement, their court cases, their views on self-censorship, and how they’ve continued to work from home. After our interviews, Aydın and Güney were released on February 10 while Akyüz was released on the 12th; the three remain under a travel ban while they continue to face charges. The interviews have been edited for length and style.

    CPJ Turkey representative Özgür Öğret (far left) attends a court hearing for journalists under house arrest at the Izmir Bayraklı courthouse. Melike Aydın (fifth from left) and Tolga Güney (sixth from left) were arrested over their journalism. (Photo: Courtesy of Mezopotamya News Agency)
    Delal Akyüz, reporter with Mezopotamya News Agency

    Why are you under house arrest?

    It may sound funny when I say it, but I don’t know the answer. I studied for four years to be able to write news stories. In court, they asked me if I wrote stories under the command [of someone else]. I’m under house arrest because I’m a journalist who uncover things society wouldn’t otherwise see. I’ve wired 50-150 TL (US$1.30-4.10) to people [in my personal capacity], and authorities call this “financing terrorism.” I talked to a source and asked him to send me a picture from a press conference and authorities described this as “membership in a terrorist organization.”

    What are the terms of your arrest? Do you have to wear a tracking device?

    I was never strapped with the device because the internet connection was poor. They came to our house in Izmir but they couldn’t connect it. That happened in Diyarbakır, too [to which the journalist relocated while under house arrest]. Police visited the house every day, or every two or three days to get my signature. I was at home every time, of course. I didn’t have experience of being strapped with a device but I did experience the confinement of being stuck indoors.

    You are still able to work, though it’s limited. How do you do it?

    Out of journalistic habit, I first check the news in the morning when I wake up to see what has happened in the country and the world. Then I write a story if I have one to write or I seek a story out. Ultimately, though, I’m isolated from the society. Visiting the hospital is a problem; I cannot do my own shopping. The place where a journalist can express himself is the streets.

    Are you concerned about the possibility that this experience might make you self-censor in the future?

    I don’t think that it will. Unfortunately, journalists are frequently detained or arrested in Turkey. It happened to me before, I was detained by the police, two or three times. I don’t believe that I did anything wrong. We are journalists; we may write stories that some may not like.

    Melike Aydın, reporter at JİNNEWS

    What was the evidence presented by authorities to place you under house arrest?

    The evidence against me is not evidence at all. For example, they used a phone call I made – I called my friend saying, “I’m here, where are you?” and she told me where she was – to try to find a terrorist link. Another example: the wife of a local politician called me to tell her husband was taken into police custody. I asked her if they trashed the house and could she send pictures. This is obviously journalistic activity. I’ve wired 500 TL (about $US14) to a friend. They asked if he was a member of a terrorist organization. I believe these house arrests are a result of overpopulation in the prisons. The government wants to bring the atmosphere of fear in the prisons to the neighborhoods.

    Have you ever been tried for your journalism before?

    A similar case was filed against me in 2018 regarding a social media post that authorities considered “terrorism propaganda.” I received a suspended sentence on the condition of not repeating the offense in the next five years. Prosecutors also reopened old case against me after I became a  journalist; I was taken into police custody while following the Gezi [anti-government] events in Ankara for not obeying an order to disperse. I wasn’t a journalist then but I had a camera and the enthusiasm. I was found guilty in that one. The verdict is in appeal. I was also imprisoned for three months in 2019 for my journalism; the evidence was my reporting and phone calls. The trial lasted about a year and a half before I was acquitted.

    How has being under house arrest impacted your wellbeing?

    My depression has gotten worse as my house arrest has continued. My performance at work is not the same as it was before. Being confined in one place is hard, even though I’m in the comfort of my own home with the ability to communicate with the outside world. This is a form of psychological torture. At the beginning, you wait month after month hoping they will lift [the house arrest] because the case is ridiculous. Then a year passes.

    What kind of journalism have you managed to do under house arrest, and how does this contrast to your working life before?

    I do stories that can be done at home. I do interviews on Zoom, I ask people on the phone to send me photographs. [Before my arrest] I wasn’t at home a lot. I was covering trials, social events, traveling outside of the city for stories. Sometimes I was out until 9 p.m. An interview is not the same when you do it on Zoom instead of face to face. There have been a ton of stories that I wanted to cover but I couldn’t. There was a story about local drug deal but I couldn’t do it because I had to go see it in person. I had to capture visuals, convince the people to talk to me, confirm my source’s claims. I couldn’t send somebody else because my source only trusted me. 

    Do you find yourself self-censoring, or are you concerned you will in the future?

    We are already living with self-censorship. We are reporting the truth of course but either we restrain ourselves or the people we interview do. They say “I’ve said that thing but don’t write that part” or they cancel interviews. This is censorship not by me, but by my sources. Truthfully, I self-censor, too. However, if I have indisputable proof of something and I know that my sources won’t be hurt, then I publish it.

    Tolga Güney, reporter with Mezopotamya News Agency

    How do you explain your house arrest?

    I believe I was targeted because [the government] is interested in my environmental coverage. The questions asked at the police station were all about that. They asked why did I write that report [about a mining company’s activities at the Black Sea shores] and who ordered me to do it? I don’t need to be commanded to write about something that I see with my own eyes. I take commands from my own conscience.

    What’s a typical day like under house arrest?

    The only thing different is that I don’t go outside. and I wake up at eight, prepare breakfast, take a shower and start working around nine. I live with my colleagues. We have our daily meeting on who handles which story. Then I try to work on my story via the phone or Zoom. One day a week I spend reading books or watching movies.

    Can you talk about how house arrest has limited your reporting?

    The greatest obstacle turned out to be being unable to use my camera for work. The second obstacle was to not be able to cover many events that were socially or ecologically important. I used to be outside, visiting different neighborhoods after a story.

    Are you concerned that you’re resorting to self-censorship under house arrest?

    No. I continued to report the same kind of news. I recently wrote a story about how a court order [to stop construction due to environmental damage at Mount Kaz] was ignored. It’s ironic actually, I stay at home, heeding a court order but a company can cut hundreds, thousands of trees, ignoring another. I didn’t self-censor, just the opposite, I got even more ambitious.

    What is life like with a tracking device strapped along your ankle?

    For the first two months [the strap] was tight. The device has had an effect on me, both physically and psychologically. It’s heavy; I have to turn it when I sit cross-legged because of the pain. I got used to it after some time, it almost became like another body part. But the psychological effect has persisted; I could leave the house with permission if I needed to go to a hospital or something, but I would still have this thing strapped around my ankle. I don’t usually wear pants in the summer, but I had to in order to hide it.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Özgür Öğret.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • This motivating discussion was supposed to run earlier, but then the third year anniversary of Russia’s full scale invasion of Ukraine was marked by Trump viciously reminding the world he works for Russia by kicking Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy out of the White House, after he, Vance, and MTG’s boyfriend tried to ambush the war hero. 

     

    In our recorded first ever Gaslit Nation book club, we discussed Albert Camus’ The Stranger (Matthew Ward translation) and Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, to see what wisdom they hold for us today, and how these two works “talk to each other.” 

     

    For March, we’re reading Gene Sharp’s revolutionary handbook From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation, which informed revolts in Ukraine, the Arab Spring, Hong Kong, and beyond. Our March 31st salon at 4pm will open with a book club discussion of Dictatorship to Democracy. For April, we’re reading (if you haven’t already!) Octavia Butler’s The Parable of the Sower, and May’s book club pick is Total Resistance: Swiss Army Guide to Guerrilla Warefare And Underground Operations. Get ready to make some good trouble! 

     

    To hear the full discussion, be sure to join our community on Patreon. Thank you to everyone who supports Gaslit Nation–we could not make this show without you! 

     

    Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!

    EVENTS AT GASLIT NATION:

     


    This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Three cops arrive at the blockade of Maersk. Photo: @unwisemonkeys on Instagram Three cops arrive at the blockade of Maersk. Photo: @unwisemonkeys on Instagram Three cops arrive at the blockade of Maersk. Photo: @unwisemonkeys on Instagram Three cops arrive at the blockade of Maersk. Photo: @unwisemonkeys on Instagram Three cops arrive at the blockade of […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post Boycotts, Divestment, and People’s Arms Embargoes appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Stan Cox.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • BANGKOK — Air force aerobatic and demonstration teams from China, India and the United States streaked through Bangkok’s overcast skies Friday in a rare joint-showcase marking the 88th anniversary of the Royal Thai Air Force.

    China’s August 1st Aerobatic Team of People’s Liberation Army Air Force, the U.S. Air Force’s F-35A Lightning II Demonstration Team and India’s Air Force Surya Kiran Aerobatic Team each performed separately, entertaining crowds at Bangkok’s Don Mueang air base.

    Also present was Thailand’s King Maha Vajiralongkorn, a former F-5 fighter jet pilot.

    “We did not have special conditions to have both the U.S. and Chinese aircraft to join. Politics is set aside and mutual respect is there,” Thailand’s air force chief Air Marshal Punpakdee Pattanakul told reporters.

    Vortices are visible on its wings as a U.S. Air Force F-35A demonstration team fifth generation jet performs over Don Mueang air base in Bangkok, March 7, 2025.
    Vortices are visible on its wings as a U.S. Air Force F-35A demonstration team fifth generation jet performs over Don Mueang air base in Bangkok, March 7, 2025.
    (Pimuk Rakkanam/RFA)
    India’s Air Force Surya Kiran Aerobatic Team fly Hawk Mk-132 jets as they perform over Don Mueang air base in Bangkok, March 7, 2025.
    India’s Air Force Surya Kiran Aerobatic Team fly Hawk Mk-132 jets as they perform over Don Mueang air base in Bangkok, March 7, 2025.
    (Pimuk Rakkanam/RFA)
    Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force Chengdu J-10 jets perform over Don Mueang air base in Bangkok, March 7, 2025.
    Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force Chengdu J-10 jets perform over Don Mueang air base in Bangkok, March 7, 2025.
    (Pimuk Rakkanam/RFA)
    A U.S. Air Force F-35A demonstration team fifth generation jet opens its weapons bay as it performs over Don Mueang air base in Bangkok, March 7, 2025.
    A U.S. Air Force F-35A demonstration team fifth generation jet opens its weapons bay as it performs over Don Mueang air base in Bangkok, March 7, 2025.
    (Pimuk Rakkanam/RFA)
    Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force Chengdu J-10 jets perform over Don Mueang air base in Bangkok, March 7, 2025.
    Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force Chengdu J-10 jets perform over Don Mueang air base in Bangkok, March 7, 2025.
    (Pimuk Rakkanam/RFA)
    India’s Air Force Surya Kiran Aerobatic Team fly Hawk Mk-132 jets as they perform over Don Mueang air base in Bangkok, March 7, 2025.
    India’s Air Force Surya Kiran Aerobatic Team fly Hawk Mk-132 jets as they perform over Don Mueang air base in Bangkok, March 7, 2025.
    (Pimuk Rakkanam/RFA)
    Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force pilots greet spectators as they taxi at Don Mueang air base in Bangkok, March 7, 2025.
    Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force pilots greet spectators as they taxi at Don Mueang air base in Bangkok, March 7, 2025.
    (Pimuk Rakkanam/RFA)
    A Royal Thai Air Force JAS 39 Gripen fighter jet  takes off from Bangkok’s Don Mueang air base, Mar. 7, 2025.
    A Royal Thai Air Force JAS 39 Gripen fighter jet takes off from Bangkok’s Don Mueang air base, Mar. 7, 2025.
    (Pimuk Rakkanam/RFA)
    A U.S. Air Force demonstration team pilot waves to spectators before taking off Don Mueang air base in Bangkok, March 7, 2025.
    A U.S. Air Force demonstration team pilot waves to spectators before taking off Don Mueang air base in Bangkok, March 7, 2025.
    (Pimuk Rakkanam/RFA)
    Spectators arrive at Don Mueang air base for the international air show commemorating the 88th anniversary of the Royal Thai Air Force, Mar. 7, 2025, in Bangkok.
    Spectators arrive at Don Mueang air base for the international air show commemorating the 88th anniversary of the Royal Thai Air Force, Mar. 7, 2025, in Bangkok.
    (Pimuk Rakkanam/RFA)


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Pimuk Rakkanam for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    Women from Aotearoa, Philippines, Palestine and South Africa today called for justice and peace for the people of Gaza and the West Bank, currently under a genocidal siege and attacks being waged by Israel for the past 16 months.

    Marking International Women’s Day, the rally highlighted the theme: “For all women and girls – Rights, equality and empowerment.”

    Speakers outlined how women are the “backbone of families and communities” and how they have borne the brunt of the crimes against humanity in occupied Palestine with the “Israeli war machine” having killed more than 50,000 people, mostly women and children, since 7 October 2023.

    The speakers included Del Abcede and Lorri Mackness of the International Women’s League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), Gabriela’s Eugene Velasco, and retired law professor Jane Kelsey.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg2 barber bloodysunday

    Republicans in Congress are pushing forward budget plans that would cut trillions in federal spending and give trillions more in tax cuts that disproportionately benefit corporations and the ultra-rich. This week, hundreds of faith leaders gathered on the Christian holy day of Ash Wednesday on Capitol Hill to voice their opposition. “There’s no way you can do the kinds of cuts they’re talking about — it’s mathematically impossible — without touching Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,” says Bishop William Barber, one of the participants. Barber also reflects on the 60th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, when civil rights marchers were brutalized in Selma, Alabama, and stresses that economic justice was always at the heart of the movement alongside ending segregation and winning voting rights.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Houses of Parliament (Cape Town, South Africa). Photograph Source: I, PhilippN – CC BY-SA 3.0

    There is no discourse in South Africa more ancient, more unresolved, and more weaponised than that of land. The passage of the Expropriation Act in South Africa has set the air thick with tension, a moment that peels open the past to reveal its jagged edges. A history that never ended, only submerged beneath the language of legality and market transactions, is once again clawing at the present.

    The land is not just dirt and fences—it is memory, survival, identity and belonging, resistance, dispossession of labour, the looting of minerals, and the establishment of racial capital. It is the primordial question—older than the Republic of itself.

    On 23 January 2025, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the controversial Expropriation Act 13 of 2024 into law. Like the screech of rusted gears grinding against time’s stubborn wheel, the Act has sent a raucous clatter through the nation and beyond—its champions hailing it as long-overdue justice for stolen land, its detractors warning of economic ruin, while distant powers, draped in their own self-interest, tighten their grip, their protests echoing not in the name of principle, but of privilege.

    The Act, replacing its apartheid 1975 predecessor, is no mere legislative housekeeping. It is the state’s uneasy reckoning with a history of plunder—a tentative attempt to confront the theft that built South Africa’s economy, the dispossession that cemented its class hierarchies. Yet, as the ink dries, old ghosts stir. Who truly benefits? Who is left behind? And what of the landless, for whom restitution has remained a vanishing horizon, a promise deferred by bureaucracy and broken by politics?

    At its core, the Act seeks to bring the law in step with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 108 of 1996, aligning the legal framework with the imperatives of land reform. It corrects the lingering contradictions between the outdated Expropriation Act and Section 25 of the democratic constitution, which speaks of expropriation in the public interest, the just terms of compensation, and the broader commitments of a nation still struggling to unshackle itself from its past. The Act echoes previous iterations—2015, 2018—bearing the scars of legislative battles, the residue of failed consultations. It insists: expropriation must not be arbitrary; compensation must be just.

    Yet, as the legal scaffolding is erected, the fundamental question remains—does the law merely refine the mechanics of ownership, or does it reimagine justice itself?

    Since the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck and the Dutch East India Company in 1652 on the shores of Southern Africa, the story of South Africa has been one of land, conquest, and capital. The first wars of dispossession began with the violent subjugation of the Khoi-San, their ancestral land carved up for Dutch settlers who spread inland, waging battles of expansion.

     As they moved eastward, they met fierce resistance from the Xhosa, who for a hundred years fought a series of wars against colonial encroachment. The Xhosa stood as one of the longest-lasting obstacles to settler domination, pushing back against British and Boer forces in a struggle that shaped the landscape of resistance. Yet, even as these wars raged, the British tightened their grip on the Cape, and tensions between white factions deepened—Boers, losing their cheap slave labour, trekked north to claim new territories, leaving a trail of blood and conflict.

    Despite their divisions, settlers were bound by a shared imperative: the extraction of land and labour at the expense of the indigenous majority.

    The discovery of minerals in the late 19th century marked a turning point, shifting South Africa from an agrarian society to an industrial economy fuelled by forced native labour. Capital’s hunger for wealth deepened racial segregation, culminating in the Anglo-Boer Wars, where white capital fought itself before ultimately uniting. In 1910, the Union of South Africa was formed, excluding native South Africans from political and economic power. This exclusion was cemented in 1913 with the passing of the Natives Land Act, which stripped natives of land ownership, confining them to impoverished reserves with the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936 and into “tribal” boundaries called homelands by the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951. The foundation for apartheid had been laid—not just through law, but through centuries of war, theft, and the relentless logic of capital.

    The new Expropriation Act of 2024 attempts to pull South Africa’s legal framework closer to the constitutional imperatives of Section 25—the so-called property clause. The legal fiction of “just and equitable compensation” introduced in the Act is an attempt to balance constitutional propriety with the pressure of historical injustice. But whose justice? And what is equitable in a country where land was not bought but taken?

    To date, land reform has largely been cosmetic, measured in hectares redistributed rather than in the dismantling of agricultural monopolies or capital structures. The state has danced cautiously around the issue, unwilling to provoke market unrest or dislodge the deeply entrenched privileges of the white agrarian elite. And so, the Expropriation Act emerges as both a promise and a limitation.

    The Act permits expropriation in the “public interest,” a term rooted in the Constitution but destined to be contested in courts for years, entangling the process in legal bureaucracy. While the Act provides a framework for expropriation with and, in limited cases, without compensation, it does not fundamentally alter the state’s cautious approach to reclaiming large tracts of unused, unproductive, or speculatively held land. Instead, it remains tethered to negotiation, reinforcing a slow and measured redistribution. The Act acknowledges the rights of unregistered land occupiers, yet recognition alone does not guarantee security or restitution—leaving many still at the mercy of protracted legal and administrative processes.

    As argued before, for the nearly 60% of South Africans living off-register in communal areas, informal settlements, or Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) houses, the Expropriation Act of 2024 offers little more than a symbolic gesture. Without title deeds, their claims to land are not legally secured, yet their histories and lived realities are deeply embedded in it. If expropriation is not accompanied by a robust land administration strategy that formalises tenure rights for the dispossessed, it risks becoming another performance of reform rather than a transformative intervention.

    The Act’s recognition of unregistered land rights is a step forward, but recognition alone does not equate to protection. Unless the expropriation process is integrated with a comprehensive land administration system to document the rights of unregistered occupiers, those most vulnerable to dispossession will remain in legal limbo. The enactment of a Land Records Act, as recommended by the High-Level Panel Report on the Assessment of Key Legislation (2018) and the Presidential Advisory Panel on Land Reform (2019), is essential to ensuring security of tenure.

    Additionally, both panels proposed a National Land Reform Framework Act to establish clear legal principles for redistribution, restitution, and tenure reform. Rather than replacing existing laws, this framework would provide coherence by setting legal criteria for beneficiary selection, land acquisition, and equitable access. It would also introduce mechanisms for transparency, accountability, and alternative dispute resolution, including a Land Rights Protector. The Expropriation Act should not stand in isolation—it must align with these broader legislative efforts to ensure that land reform is not only legally sound but also meaningfully transformative.

    Land, under capitalist relations, is not merely a resource—it is a commodity. Any attempt at expropriation without rupturing this logic is bound to be a compromised one. The Act, while acknowledging that compensation may, in certain instances, be set at nil, does not articulate a decisive framework for when and how this will occur, leaving these decisions to courts and policymakers. The absence of a robust redistributive mechanism means that expropriation may ultimately reinforce rather than disrupt market logic.

    This is not mere conjecture. In countries like Zimbabwe and Venezuela, land reform initiatives were sabotaged by a combination of domestic elite resistance and international financial retaliation. In South Africa, capital has already signaled its intention to resist large-scale redistribution, with organizations such as AgriSA warning of economic collapse should expropriation be pursued aggressively. This fearmongering is not new. It echoes the same panic-driven narratives that were used to justify land theft in the first place.

    Beyond South Africa’s borders, the passage of the Expropriation Act has triggered predictable reactions from Western powers. U.S. President Donald Trump, following a well-worn script of white minority protectionism, issued an executive order cutting aid to South Africa, claiming the law targets white farmers. The European Union has expressed “concern,” a diplomatic prelude to potential economic pressures. Additionally, the U.S. administration has threatened to revoke South Africa’s benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a trade agreement that facilitates tariff-free exports to the U.S. market. Yet, even as these forces decry land reform under the guise of defending property rights, Trump’s administration has quietly extended refugee status to white Afrikaners, framing them as victims of persecution. This move—granting asylum to the descendants of colonial settlers while barring refugees from war-torn Middle Eastern and African nations—reveals the racialised logic underpinning Western foreign policy. These responses are not about human rights or democracy. They are about the continued assertion of Western interests in the Middle East and Africa’s resources, protecting economic and racial hierarchies that long predate the Expropriation Act.

    International finance capital is already tightening its grip, with investment ratings agencies hinting at further downgrades should expropriation proceed in ways deemed unfavourable to the market. The South African state, historically timid in the face of international economic leverage, may find itself retreating into a defensive crouch, reducing expropriation to an instrument of negotiation rather than transformation.

    The Expropriation Act has reopened historical wounds, but it is not, in itself, a radical break. Its success or failure will depend on political will, legal battles, and grassroots mobilisation. The Landless People’s Movement, shack dwellers’ organisations, and rural activists have long articulated a vision of land reform that centres the dispossessed rather than the property-owning class. Will the state listen? Or will it once again privilege legal technicalities over substantive justice?

    For expropriation to mean something beyond legalese, it must be tied to a broader transformation of land relations in South Africa. This means:

    + Implementing a National Land Reform Framework Act, as proposed by the High-Level Panel and Presidential Advisory Panel on Land Reform, to set clear criteria for redistribution and beneficiary selection.

    + Recognising and securing tenure rights for the millions who live without formal documentation of their land occupancy.

    +  Creating mechanisms for community-driven expropriation, where citizens can initiate claims rather than relying solely on the state’s discretion.

    + Dismantling the commercial agrarian monopolies that continue to hoard vast tracts of land.

    Expropriation cannot be reduced to a bureaucratic procedure, a sterile legal exercise bound by the logic of the market. It must be a rupture—a deliberate act of redress, dismantling centuries of theft and exclusion. The state stands at a threshold: waver in hesitation, or grasp the weight of history and reimagine South Africa’s land ownership beyond the margins of negotiation. But history is restless. The dispossessed will not wait in endless queues of policy revisions and court battles. The land is calling—not for half-measures, not for another paper revolution, but for a reckoning that answers the injustice written into the soil.

    The post South Africa’s Expropriation Act: Between Legal Reform and Historical Justice appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Sobantu Mzwakali.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.