The war on Gaza has already taken a considerable bite out of Israel’s entire GDP. Photo by Iason Raissis.
In an important step toward the economic isolation of Israel due to its genocide in Gaza, Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global has decided to divest from yet more Israeli companies.
Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is the world’s largest, with total investments in Israel once estimated at $1.9 billion. The decision to divest was taken gradually but is consistent with the Norwegian government’s growing solidarity with Palestine and rising criticism of Israel.
Taking a leading role along with Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia, Norway has been a vocal European critic of the Israeli genocide and man-made famine in Gaza, actively contributing to the International Court of Justice’s investigation into the genocide, and formally recognizing the state of Palestine in May 2024. This diplomatic and legal stance, coupled with its financial divestment, represents a coherent and escalating effort to hold Israel accountable for the ongoing extermination of Palestinians.
The Israeli economy was already in a state of freefall even before the genocide. The initial collapse was related to the deep political instability in the country, a result of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist government’s attempt to co-opt the judicial system, thus compromising any semblance of “democracy” remaining in that country. This resulted in a significant lowering of investor confidence.
The war and genocide, beginning on October 7, 2023, only accelerated the crisis, pushing an already fragile economy to the brink. According to reports from the Israel Ministry of Finance, foreign direct investments in Israel fell by an estimated 28% in the first half of 2024 compared to the same period in 2023.
Any supposed recovery in foreign investments, however, was deceptive. It was not the outcome of a global rallying to save Israel, but rather a consequence of a torrent of US funds pouring in to help Israel sustain both its economy and the genocide in Gaza, along with its other war fronts.
Israel’s Gross Domestic Product was estimated by the World Bank to be around $540 billion by the end of 2024. The war on Gaza has already taken a considerable bite out of Israel’s entire GDP. Estimates from Israel itself are complex, but all data points to the fact that the Israeli economy is suffering and will continue to suffer in the foreseeable future. Citing reports from the Bank of Israel and the Ministry of Finance, the Israeli business newspaper Calcalist reported in January 2025 that the cost of the Israeli war on Gaza had already reached more than $67.5 billion. That figure represented the costs of the war up to the end of 2024.
Keeping in mind that the ongoing war costs continue to rise exponentially, and with other consequences of the war—including divestments from the Israeli market by Norway and other countries—future projections for the Israeli economy look very grim. The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics reported that the Israeli economy, already in a constant state of contraction, shrunk by another 3.5% in the period between April and June 2025.
This collapse is projected to continue, even with the unprecedented US financial backing of Tel Aviv. Indeed, without US help, the precarious Israeli economy would be in a much worse state. Though the US has always propped up Israel—with nearly $4 billion in aid annually—the US help for Israel in the last two years was the most generous and critical yet.
Israel is the recipient of $3.8 billion of US taxpayer money per year, according to the latest 10-year Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2016. Equally, if not more valuable than this large sum are the loan guarantees, which allow Israel to borrow money at a much lower interest rate on the global market. The backing of the US has, therefore, enabled investors to view the Israeli market as a safe haven for their funds, often guaranteeing high returns. This applies to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund as it did to numerous other entities and companies.
Now that Israel has become a bad brand, affiliated with unethical investments due to the genocide in Gaza and growing illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank, the US, as Israel’s main benefactor, has stepped in to fill the gaps.
The US emergency supplemental appropriations act of April 2024 allocated a total of $26.4 billion for Israel. While much of the money was earmarked for defense expenditures, in reality, most of it will percolate into the Israeli economy. This amount, in addition to the annual military aid, allows the Israeli government to minimize spending on defense and allocate more money to keep the economy from shrinking at an even faster rate.
Additionally, it will free the Israeli military industry to continue producing new, sophisticated military technology that will ensure Israel’s continued competitiveness in the arms market. The military-industrial complex, a significant part of the Israeli economy, is thus not only sustained but given a fresh impetus by American aid, ensuring the war machine continues to function with minimal financial disruption.
All of this should not diminish the importance of divestment from the Israeli financial system. On the contrary, it means that divestment efforts must increase significantly to balance out the US push to keep the Israeli economy from imploding.
Moreover, this should also make US citizens, who object to their government’s role in the genocide in Gaza, more aware of the extent of Washington’s collaboration to save Israel, even at the price of exterminating the Palestinians. Indeed, the flow of funds from the US is not a passive action; it is an active collaboration that directly enables the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
Photograph Source: DoD photo by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Marianique Santos – Public Domain
The Democratic Party has forfeited every claim to moral and political credibility. It is not a bulwark against fascism but an accomplice to it, a party of cowardice and complicity that props up the most barbaric features of gangster capitalism-extending from staggering levels of inequality to its refusal to support national health care. Its leadership, craven, visionless, and drunk on Wall Street money, has become a machinery of war and despair. It is wedded to the military-industrial complex and normalizes through its silence a culture of war, misery, and cruelty. It sends billions in weapons to Benjamin Netanyahu, an indicted war criminal, fully aware those arms sustain a machinery of occupation and repression. With one act, fighting to cut off the flow of weapons, the Democrats could help end this slaughter. Instead, when Netanyahu recently visited the White House, they shook his bloodstained hand and smiled for the cameras, their shamelessness captured in a widely circulated, obscene photograph. This betrayal abroad mirrors the Party’s collapse at home.The Party’s cowardice is written into its very DNA.
It is a party of whiners, trapped in ideological smugness and a flaccid discourse of compromise.Given its political and ethical weakness, it is ironic that on occasion it drapes itself in the hollow language of “resisting Trump’s authoritarianism.” This becomes more obvious when it advocates, on occasion,working with the regime, even as it props up authoritarians abroad and tightens the screws of neoliberal cruelty at home. Moira Donegan writing in The Guardian is right in stating that the Democratic Party is the party of self-sabotage, that is, it has a vision of American politics in which (they] have no power to set the terms of the debate on their own.” Its neoliberal policies have hollowed out working-class communities, shredded social protections, remained largely moot in calling out Trump’s regime as a criminogenic organization, and left despair in their wake, conditions that became the breeding ground for Trump’s authoritarian ascent. They created the void that fascism fills, and now they tremble before the monster they helped unleash.
The racist bile and fascist rhetoric spewed by Trump’s loyal sycophants, especially Stephen Miller, the president’s homeland security adviser and deputy chief of staff, receives far less outrage than the criticism directed at progressive voices like Zohran Mamdani, now running for mayor of New York City. When Miller brands the Democratic Party not only a domestic extremist organization but “an entity devoted exclusively to the defense of hardened criminals, gang-bangers, and illegal, alien killers and terrorists,” the silence from Democratic leaders is deafening. No effort is made to expose such language as rooted in the poisonous legacies of fascism and white supremacy, orfor that matter call for his resignation. Yet there can be no doubt that Miller’s discourse, and his influence in shaping Trump’s militarized immigration, education, and policing policies, is a five-alarm fire for democracy, one that demands unrelenting opposition. There is no effort on the part of the Democratic Party leadership to acknowledge that the Department of Homeland Security has become not only a domestic terrorist organization but a “white nationalist content, mill churning out bigoted, jingoistic schlock.”
This cowardice abroad is matched by their silence in the face of fascism at home. Matters of moral witnessing, addressing war crimes, calling out massive violations of human rights at home and abroad are rarely acknowledged by the Democratic Party leadership. This is especially true with respect to the genocide taking place in Gaza. Not only is it morally indefensibly silent about its own complicity in arming Israel, it also reveals itself too timid to confront Israel’s genocidal policies in Gaza, where more than two million people have been reduced to conditions resembling a “vast Ground Zero.” As a party wedded to Wall Street, it is too timid to challenge the predatory capitalism that now mutates into one of the most destructive and exploitative economic systems on the planet, an order that thrives on the obliteration of human needs, elevates profit as its only sacrament, and transforms the state into a corrupt crime syndicate.
At home, the Democratic leadership refuses to lift a finger for candidates who represent genuine hope. Their refusal to support Zohran Mamdani in New York is not an oversight but a betrayal. Schumer and Jeffries embody the Party’s moral bankruptcy: Schumer the coward, Jeffries the gutless tactician, both locked in servitude to corporate power, both content to preside over a politics of endless war, mass incarceration, obscene inequality, and the normalization of state terrorism. They are the pallbearers of democracy, not its defenders. Commenting on the fact that Jeffries and Schumer have so far refused to endorse Mamdani, journalist Mehdi Hasan wrote in a Wednesday column for The Guardian, “If you want to understand why the Democrats are polling at their lowest point for more than three decades, look no further than these two uninspiring Democratic leaders in Congress.” Mehdi only gets it partly right: these two politicians embody not individual cowardice, but a party that supports genocide in Gaza, refuses to stand up to the military-industrial-academic complex, and could not care less about the future they are destroying for young people.
The American people deserve more than these moral zombies. What is needed is a new party, one unafraid to fight for radical democracy and the dignity of all. A party that calls for the end of staggering inequality, a universal wage, free health care, free quality education for all, housing for everyone, strict gun restrictions, the abolition of poverty, and the dismantling of the warfare state. A party that will slash the bloated defense budget and redirect those trillions into schools, hospitals, homes, and the expansion of social rights. A party that will name criminalizedcapitalism for what it is: a death-dealing order of greed, violence, corruption, and disposability.
Fascism does not arrive fully formed; it is cultivated in the soil of despair, in the immiseration engineered by Trump’s cruelty and the Democrats’ cowardice. Left unchallenged, it corrodes everyday life until cruelty appears normal and democracy becomes little more than a corpse draped in patriotic slogans of hate, disappearance, and lawlessness. The Democratic Party cannot halt this descent. It is too compromised by its allegiance to corporate power, too wedded to the financiers of misery, and too invested in the politics of fear to offer anything resembling resistance.
The time for illusions is over. The Democratic Party cannot be reformed, nor can it be trusted to halt the march of authoritarianism. What is required is not the rehabilitation of a party of cowardice, but the creation of a new political formation, one that does not tremble before fascism but confronts it head-on. A movement that refuses to confuse capitalism with democracy, that rejects the barbarism of endless war and the plunder of Wall Street, that refuses to sacrifice children in Gaza or in America’s streets on the altar of profit and power. Such a movement must be rooted in the struggles of ordinary people, grounded in solidarity and sustained by collective courage.
The future belongs to those who can imagine and fight for a radically different order: a socialist democracy grounded in solidarity, justice, and care. It belongs to those who demand free health care and education, who insist on housing and dignity for all, who struggle for racial, gender, and economic equality, and who reject the culture of disposability that treats lives as expendable. It belongs to those willing to rise up, organize, and fight for a world where freedom, justice, and equality are not a privilege of the few, but the common inheritance of all.
If fascism grows in the soil of despair, then resistance must grow in the soil of hope. Against a politics of fear, we must summon a politics of courage. Against the machinery of death, we must build a mass working-class movement with the power to imagine and fight for a future in which socialist democracy is not an empty slogan but a hard-won reality, hammered out in struggle, sustained by solidarity, and carried forward by those who refuse to be ruled by fear. Democracy will not be saved by the cowards of compromise or the apostles of war, but by those in the struggles of workers and the oppressed who risk everything for justice, equality, and hope.
Poster calling for release of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, based on David Solnit’s art work. Photo credit, Code Pink.
In his last minutes of freedom before Israeli Defense Forces arrested him, Dr. Hussam Abu Safia, clad in a medic’s white coat, walked alone toward two Israeli tanks. His captors awaited him amid the rubble of Gaza’s Kamal Adwan hospital. An artist swiftly created a dramatic poster showing Dr. Safiya striding through the ruins of the hospital he directed. The artist, David Solnit, recently updated the poster’s caption. It now reads: Free Dr. Abu Safiya Eight months in prison Dec. 27, 2024 – August 27, 2025.
Dr. Safia had already endured agonizing losses at the Kamal Adwan hospital. In late October 2024, an Israeli drone attack killed his son, also a doctor. In a November 2024 attack on the hospital, Dr. Safiya was wounded by shrapnel, but continued working, insisting he would not close the hospital. He witnessed his colleagues being humiliated, beaten, and marched off to prison. By December 27, 2024, when Dr. Safia’s ordeal as a prisoner began, most hospitals in Gaza were non-functional.
On August 28, 2025, Dr. Safiya’s lawyer, Ghaid Ghanem Qassem, visited him in the Ofer Prison. She reports he has lost one third of his body weight. While imprisoned in in the Sde Teiman military Detention Center, located in an Israeli military base in the Negev desert, he showed signs of torture. Subjected to beating with electric shocks and batons, he sustained blows which may also cause him to lose his right eye. Yet his message remains intact:
“I entered in the name of humanity, and I will leave in the name of humanity… We will remain on our land and continue to provide healthcare services to the people, God willing, even from a tent.”
Regimes conducting a genocide have more than one reason to eliminate brave professionals attempting, life by precious life, to undo their inhuman work: doctors not only seek to slow down the dying, but they, like the journalists the Israeli regime so frantically targets, are specially positioned and specially qualified to accurately report on the intensity and nature of Israel’s extermination campaign. Silencing the citizens most capable of reporting on genocidal savagery is a key objective of genocide.
In one of the most egregious efforts to eliminate a key eyewitness, Israeli naval forces, on May 9, 2025, killed twelve-year-old Mohammed Saeed al-Bardawil, who, as a passerby alongside his father, had witnessed Israel’s March 23rd pre-dawn execution of 15 unarmed emergency rescue workers. The murdered paramedics had driven their clearly marked ambulances to a spot where they intended to retrieve victims of an earlier attack. The bullets that killed them were fired over six minutes as Israeli soldiers advanced to shoot directly into the survivors’ heads and torsos, afterwards using earth-moving equipment to bury their corpses and vehicles. On that day, Mohammed and his father were detained and made to lie face down near a burning ambulance. He is listed as a source in a well-documented NYT video on the massacre, dated May 2nd. Eleven days later, an Israeli gunboat fired on his father’s fishing boat, killing Muhammed in his father’s presence off the coast of Gaza’s southern Rafah governate.
It was less than two weeks ago, on August 25th, that Israel killed Reuters camera operator Hussam Al Masri and nineteen others, four of them also journalists, in a series of double-tap precision guided aerial attacks on buildings and a stairway of the Al Nasser Hospital. Al Masri was easily targetable as he broadcast a live video feed from a Reuters outpost on a top hospital floor. Describing the second wave of the attack, Jonathan Cook writes:
And when Israel struck 10 minutes later with two coordinated missiles, it knew that the main victims would be the emergency workers who went to rescue survivors from the first strike and journalists — al-Masri’s friends — who were nearby and rushed to the scene … Nothing was a “mishap.” It was planned down to the minutest detail.
Snipers and weaponized drone operators routinely kill Palestinians who courageously continue to don bullet proof press jackets, set up cameras, and report on Israel’s atrocities. Israel refuses entry to foreign journalists and when brave, grieving, impassioned young Palestinians insist on carefully documenting their people’s agony for Western news outlets, Israel carefully targets them using the traceable phone and broadcasting equipment necessary to their work, before posthumously branding them Hamas operatives. Craven Western officials watch from within Israel’s patron states, discounting brown lives on whatever flimsy pretexts white authorities offer them. Almost daily, new faces appear in an assemblage of photos showing hundreds of journalists Israel has killed.
Health care workers and journalists who are still alive do their work amid struggles to prevent their families, their colleagues, their neighbors, and of course themselves, from deaths not just by direct massacre but by militarily imposed starvation and its handmaiden, epidemic disease. Surgeons speak of being too weak to stand throughout an operation. Reporters document their own starvation.
Palestinians long for protection, but even the prospect of UN mandated protective forces carries terrifying possibilities. What if “peacekeepers” assigned to monitor Palestinians collect data the Israelis will use to control them? Weaponized “stabilizing forces,” equipped with U.S. surveillance technology, could be used to target, imprison, assassinate, and starve even more Palestinians.
In the summer of 1942, in Munich, Germany, five students and one professor summoned astonishing courage to defy a genocidal regime to which we, reluctantly, have to look if we want to find a racist cruelty comparable to that currently seizing not just Israel’s leadership but, in poll after poll, strong majorities of its non-native population. The students’ collective, called The White Rose, distributed leaflets denouncing Nazi atrocities. “We will not be silent” was the final line of each leaflet. Hans Scholl, age 24, and his sister, Sophie Scholl, age 21, hand-delivered the leaflets to their university campus in February of 1943. The Gestapo arrested them after a janitor spotted them disseminating the leaflets. Four days later, Hans and Sophie, as well as their colleague Christopher Probst, were executed by guillotine.
Jailers’ photos of Sophie and Hans Scholl days before they were beheaded by the Nazis. Photo credit: German federal archives
With Israel’s nuclear arsenal capable of out-killing the Nazi regime over the course of a few minutes, and in the process inciting humanity’s final war; and with its leadership and populace radicalized through decades of fascist impunity to the point of endorsing not just a genocide but multiple, preemptive military strikes upon most of its neighbors at once, we may well be arriving at the moment when, as a result of our having let Israel assassinate, with impunity, the reporters of its crimes, there will be no-one in the outside world left to receive reports.
The silence we allow ourselves today may soon be involuntary, and absolute. Let us summon up a fraction of Dr. Safia’s, of young Mohammad’s, of Sophie Scholl’s and Hussam al-Masri’s courage and speak while we can.
“There is no longer a credible way to justify US continuing material and diplomatic support for Israel.” – Photo by Matthew TenBruggencate
Failures of the UN Security Council and Western democracies to maintain international humanitarian law has left Palestinians ensnared in genocide, famine, and forced displacement. Despite the clear grounds for intervention, political will remains absent. In this exclusive interview for CounterPunch, international scholar Richard Falk argues that the General Assembly has the precedent and authority under the Uniting for Peace Resolution to bypass the Security Council and act decisively to protect civilians. Gaza offers a crucial test of whether the international system can prioritize people over politics.
Daniel Falcone: Considering the immobilization of the United Nations Security Council and the disastrous letdowns by Western democracies to maintain (IHL) international humanitarian law, what would it take for General Assembly to authorize a peacekeeping force, such as Blue Helmets, to intervene in Gaza?
Richard Falk: Both the humanitarian and moral imperatives and legal mechanisms are strongly supportive of an armed protective force to ensure the establishment of a permanent Gaza ceasefire, the delivery of food, water, fuel, and medicine to the surviving traumatized and largely malnourished Palestinians that continue to be confined to the killing fields of Gaza. And yet at the same time Gazan Palestinians are being openly threatened with post-genocide forced dispossession from their Gaza homeland or re-occupied as recommended in a variety of plans under consideration without meaningful Palestinian participation. This clashes with the basic human rights commitment to uphold the inalienable right of a nation and its people to self-determination.
The Uniting for Peace Resolution [GA Res. 377(V)] is a flexible instrument empowering the UN General Assembly to act when the Security Council is paralyzed by the right of veto possessed by the five permanent members (P5) in critical situations of global security, war prevention, genocide prevention, and humanitarian emergency. It was initially adopted as a Cold War initiative of the Western UN members to have a means to circumvent Soviet vetoes. UPR was most successfully relied upon in 1956 to secure the withdrawal of French, UK, and Israeli forces from Egyptian territory in a situation where a threat of wider war was addressed by the agreed deployment of a blue helmets UN peacekeeping force. This move supported by the US against its closest European allies and Israel was the high point in the subordination of geopolitical alignments to the core anti-aggression provisions of the UN Charter and has never been repeated. Washington think-tanks and foreign policy advisors have consistently criticized international legal commitments when in tension with alliance relations.
In the aftermath of the Kosovo War of 1999, it became obvious that the global order needed a basis for armed intervention as a last resort if genocide prevention was to become a meaningful component of the international order that emerged after World War II. Previously, in the colonial era, European states often claimed to be engaging in ‘humanitarian interventions’ to disguise their true motivations, which usually involved the exercise of political control and economic exploitation of the country in the Global South so targeted. The Global South was suspicious of such protentional encroachments on their sovereignty and political independence, reacting both to the abuse associated with past claims of humanitarian intervention and objecting to language that seemed to associate what is ‘humanitarian’ with discretion to engage in ‘intervention.’ The UN Charter addresses the issue obliquely in Article 2(7) that prohibits UN intervention in the ‘domestic affairs’ of member states except in instances of UN enforcement operations as authorized by the procedures of Chapter VII of the Charter addressing authorizations of force in the interests of maintaining international peace and security.
The attempted reconciliation of sovereignty with a UN protective role in desperate humanitarian crises became known as “The Responsibility to Protect” or ‘R2P’ with genocide prevention explicitly in mind, adopted in 2005 at a UN Summit as a norm calling for Security Council implementation as circumstances warranted. R2P was discredited by NATO’s 2011 regime-changing intervention in Libya in disguised form being proposed as a humanitarian protective move to protect the allegedly threatened civilian population of Benghazi by Libyan armed forces. Fooled by the humanitarian trappings of the requested UN authorization of force, Russia and China that refrained from using their right of veto no longer trusted the US and its European partners to confine intervention to humanitarian protection.
At this point, given the emergency conditions in Gaza, the General Assembly could extend the Uniting for Peace rationale for self-empowerment in circumstances of UN inaction to the urgency of fashioning a meaningful response to famine and Israeli defiance to comply with international law or the rulings of the ICJ. If this was done immediately it would create a mutually reinforcing legal foundation for UN action including the authorization, funding, and equipping of an armed protective force as the only remaining option given the military escalation involving Gaza City and one million sheltering Palestinians who face slaughter if they refuse evacuation orders that entail facing ultra-hazardous conditions imperiling life and minimal health.
In many respects Gaza presents a unique situation that has confronted the civilian population of Gaza for the past two years since October 7 of at once being entrapped within the lethal combat zones of Gaza with no secure sheltering safe zones, widespread destruction of homes and residential areas, mounting hunger and disease, destruction of habitat both understood as cultural heritage (sacred sites, historic buildings, museums, schools and universities) ecological viability. It would be a final betrayal of law and justice if the perpetrators of the crimes committed by the prolonged and unabashed genocide carried out in Gaza would be allowed to preside over the establishment of Gaza governance, plans for reconstruction, and arrangements for peace, justice, and security.
As of the start of 2025 Israel’s sophisticated manipulation of political discourse has begun rapidly losing the Legitimacy War, even in the complicit countries, on the symbolic battlefields of law and morality, and this is a significant factor in determining political outcomes in major conflicts since World War II. A major exception to Israel’s loss of control over the politics of perception is the maintenance of the largely uncontested identity of Hamas as a hateful terrorist entity that should be permanently excluded from any future formal role in the administration of Gaza. This reductionist view of Hamas is a triumph of Israeli state propaganda as accepted throughout the West as a sign of credibility of mainstream critics, especially when comes to stepping back from all out support of Israel, as illustrated by the German, British, Canadian, and French qualified recognition of Palestinian statehood often accompanied by a ritualized denunciation of Hamas. This neglects the fact that Hamas won an international certified election in 2006 largely on the basis of its resistance to Israeli unlawful occupation and sought a long-term ceasefire with Israel lasting up to 50 years, a proposal explained in detail to me while I was serving as Special Rapporteur for Occupied Palestine by Hamas leaders in Gaza, Doha, and Cairo, and evidently promoted in Washington at the time, but to no avail as Israel was insistent on keeping Hamas on the terrorist list and determined to continue using Gaza as a free zone for the testing of new combat tactics and weapons innovations.
After years of blockading Gaza since 2007 and otherwise abusing the population in defiance of the obligations of international law with respect to belligerent occupation as set forth in the 4th Geneva Convention, a cornerstone of international humanitarian law, the attack of October 7 was instantly characterized as ‘terrorism’ rather than as a hybrid event that acknowledged the Palestinian right of resistance while criticizing verified violations of international humanitarian law in terms of the killing of civilians. Israeli propaganda sensationalized these violation of the law of war through exaggeration and inflammatory, false allegations of barbarism, the refusal to treat their own abusive behavior as a necessary part of the context, and the suspicious failure of the Netanyahu government to heed highly reliable warnings of an impending attack given to Tel Aviv leading to uninvestigated impressions that Israel allowed the attack to happen providing a pretext for launching this massive retaliation.
Such factors give plausibility to the interpretation of Israel’s recourse to genocide as not directly about land and people, and not about security, self-defense, and revenge as is the hasbara claim. Indirectly, it was the largest application of the Dahiya Doctrine by which Israel adopted the doctrine of grossly disproportionate responses to hostile provocations, rationalizing a means to strengthen the deterrence of future provocations. The Dahiya Doctrine was condemned as violating international law in the Goldstone Report prepared under UN auspice after the Israeli military incursion in Gaza at the end of 2008, extending into 2009.
A final relevant consideration is the refutation of all Israeli claims of sovereign rights or occupational authority in Gaza. The Advisory Opinion of the ICJ issued on July 19, 2024 in a near unanimous decision on the applicable law concluded that Israel had so persistently violated its primary duty of an Occupying Power to protect the status quo of an occupied people and ensure its safety and security that it declared that it lost its right to be legally Occupy and was under a legal duty to withdraw from the Gaza and the West Bank within a year and forego any further efforts to control the governance of these Palestinian territories that have so long suffered from Israel’s unlawful policies and practices, culminating in apartheid followed by genocide.
It is against this background that recourse to armed intervention in the form of a UN protective force is the only hope for constructing a serious challenge to Israel’s evident and still active plans to achieve Palestinian erasure as a political presence whether by continuing on the path to extermination or by inducing a Palestinian acquiescence to the Zionist objective of establishing Greater Israel, a one state solution encompassing the whole of mandate or Ottoman Palestine, or more grandiosity of extending the sovereignty from the Nile to the Euphrates, which mean displacing or repressing regional peoples other than the Palestinians, and seriously encroaching upon their territorial sovereignty.
Of course, the formation of a responsible armed protective force remains a daunting practical challenge despite the overwhelming legal, political, and moral case for making it happen. At the very least efforts should be made not to allow Israel to benefit from its crimes by being rewarded in the peace process by shaping the design of future Gaza governance and the Palestinian victimization being further punished by excluding their participation in any future international efforts at peacebuilding in Gaza or the West Bank.
Daniel Falcone: You often stress faith in basic humanity. With the growing global protests and changing views of the public, how can social movements pressure state actors effectively in your view?
Richard Falk: I suspect this may be a misleading impression that may be created by the fact that I have opposed the excessive and abusive use of power by the West in this historical period, but in other settings I would have more faith in the regulatory wisdom of those holding the reins of governmental power than in the wishes and values of people who are susceptible to manipulation and propaganda as the triumphs of ultra-right populism throughout the world currently illustrates, and earlier the rise of European fascism confirms.
The legitimacy of elected governments as in the United States is undermined by the recent rise in influence on the policy process associated by special interests in the private sector but with often controlling influence when it comes to the shaping of government behavior. This is particularly true with respect to the privilege of the wealthy about taxes and inheritance, excessive funding of bloated military and intelligence budgets, and exaggeration of the national interest in relation to alleged security threats associated with remote conflicts and political developments. The US government in the domain of foreign policy, and especially with respect to the use of force overtly or covertly, shows little deference to the opinions of the citizenry, most dramatically illustrated by the unconditional support given Israel despite its defiance of international law and morality, and commitment to policies increasingly treated by public opinion and the mainstream media as ‘genocide.’
The national crisis at the present is a compound of failures: a government subservient to the priorities of special interests rather than the wellbeing of its own citizens or the public good of humanity; a public depoliticized by state propaganda that is not constrained by evidence or truthfulness, and a political opposition that is weak and also subject to similar patterns of responsiveness to special interests and monied pressures. This inadequacy of the Democratic Party as a source of benevolent government is recently and unabashedly illustrated by the refusal of the party leadership to back Zohran Mamdani in the New York City mayoral election, despite his decisive victory in the primaries, and a platform that stresses the wellbeing of people rather than subservience to special interests, including the pro-Israel lobby that has used abundant funds to capture bipartisan unconditional national support for Israel, despite its Gaza campaign and denial of Palestinian rights in their own homeland. Also, unfortunate is the virtual absence of checks and balances to restrain the quixotic and anti-democratic maneuvers of the Trump presidency. There is no longer a functioning independent Supreme Court or Congress. This allows Trump to exert near absolute control over the political process in a manner dangerous for the country and the world, and a blatant repudiation of democracy in a constitutional republic.
Ever since the a-bombs were used in 1945 and the development of nuclear weapons in subsequent years, governments whether democratic or not, were subject to the will of the leader on questions that could eventuate in apocalyptic catastrophe whether by design, miscalculation, or accident. In this vital domain of policy, people and even elected officials are excluded. Decisions are ultimately made by the leader with access to ‘the nuclear football,’ and war plans for use and threat are matters of high secrecy as Daniel Ellsberg documented in his book, The Doomsday Machine, (2017) which disclosed dangerous war plans never disclosed to the public or even to Congress.
Responding to ecological challenges poses analogous issues, especially in the context of climate change, where the avoidance of future catastrophe depends on acting cooperatively in the global public interest. Despite the scientific consensus warning of the dangers of inaction and non-attentiveness, neither government nor the people exhibit the kind of mobilized consciousness needed for an effective global framework dedicated to ecological resilience and guided by allocating responsibility on the basis of perpetrating harm and ability to bear fiscal harm, and strong enough to curtail the efforts of corporations and others to retain the established order without addressing longer term threats.
Daniel Falcone: The UN supported IPC (which leans conservative on methodology) and has declared famine in Gaza. It’s only the fifth such declaration in its history, as cited by the sharp analyst Idrees Ahmad. He cited previous famines in Somalia 2011, South Sudan 2017, 2020, and Sudan 2024. Considering this extreme classification, why do you think international responses remain bland and limited to boilerplate statements of concern rather than constructive paths like no-fly zones or UN peacekeepers?
Richard Falk: The simple answer is because there is not a strong enough political will to act on the part of governments critical of Israel, especially given US continuing support for Israel as evidenced diplomatically by reliance on the veto to block even a mandatory permanent ceasefire decision in the UN Security Council. Those former supporters, including NATO stalwarts UK, France, Canada, and Germany while stepping back, and antagonizing the Israeli government by tendering a recognition of Palestinian statehood, which even if hedged in various ways, was an expression of rising criticism of the latest phases of Israel’s tactics in Gaza, especially related to the blockage of humanitarian aid for a society officially declared to be in the midst of a famine with verified reports of daily deaths due to starvation and malnutrition, particularly affecting young children and the elderly.
While this step back from the Western solidarity with Israel is significant, it is mainly relevant with respect to the symbolic Legitimacy War, which the Palestinian are now winning decisively. We should take notice of the reality that in prior anti-colonial struggles waged since 1945 the side that politically prevailed in these conflicts was not the side that controlled the battlefield but rather the side that seized and held the high moral and legal ground in the conflict. In this sense, the emergence of Israel as ‘a pariah state’ may have more lasting political weight than recognition of Palestinian statehood or even an arms embargo. Thomas Friedman, always a trustworthy weathervane of establishment thinking in the US, has taken notice of this development in a column in the NY Times on August 25 with the provocative title, “Israel’s Gaza Campaign is Making It a Pariah State.” Although typically hedged by including a misleading demonization of Hamas and silence as to Palestinian self-determination rights, it can be viewed as a political surrender by the West in the all-important legitimacy war.
The more complex response to your question concerns the operationalization of an effective response in view of the geopolitical obstacles. What seems called for is an armed protective force supplemented by a no-fly zone over the whole of Gaza with sufficient capabilities to offer safety and security to the surviving Palestinian population. Whether Israel could be induced to consent to such an arrangement is extremely doubtful, and almost certainly the US under Trump would resist, if for no other reason, than opposition to any displacement of geopolitical primacy by deference to such a dramatic UN initiative.
It seems questionable, especially in view of the passive complicity of the leading Arab countries and Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), whether governments would put their citizens at mortal risk by undertaking such a mission even given the famine emergency and the widespread civil society support for such a rescue operation courageously undertaken despite dire risks. Israeli punitive responses to the Freedom Flotilla efforts to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza are suggestive of the dangers of attempting a forced entry to Gaza under UN auspices. The forthcoming Global Sumud Flotilla sailing from Tunisia, consisting of some 40 ships will further test Israeli resilience.
Daniel Falcone: Ahmad also stated that last year, USAID’s Famine Early Warning System sounded the alarms about the situation in Gaza. Biden forced a retraction and Trump only delivered on subsequent deterioration in this area. This was months before Israel blocked aid and later replaced UN aid distribution points with four GHF sites where Gazans were fired at. How should the public interpret the credibility of governments unwilling to act?
Richard Falk: As earlier responses suggest, it is a matter of mobilizing the political will to bear the costs and uncertain risks of challenging Israel’s behavior in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, however much it was itself acting unlawfully and now lacks any authority to perform as the legitimate occupying power. The US conduct dating back to the Biden presidency suggests a US unconditional commitment to Israel’s Gaza campaign. It is a matter of geopolitics taking clear, if disguised, dominance of the policy process, and a consequent disregard of the inhibitions of law, morality, and public opinion.
Now that the famine conditions are evident and combined with Israel’s defiant escalating violence directed at a starving, malnourished, and traumatized Palestinian survivors in Gaza, reinforced by the killing of truth-telling journalists and attacks directed at medical workers and facilities, there is no longer a credible way to justify US continuing material and diplomatic support for Israel. The Trump presidency is virtually silent as far as offering Israel sentiments of solidarity but continues to be active as by the recent sanctioning of the brave truth-telling UN special rapporteur on Occupied Palestine and officials of the International Criminal Court for acting against Israel.
Daniel Falcone: What are your thoughts on R2P and the ability to exercise it now? Is it time for the issuing of a no-fly zone and armed intervention at the IGO level?
Richard Falk: R2P was conceived in the aftermath of the Kosovo War in 1999, as an internationalized alternative to colonial era ‘humanitarian intervention’ by which the Global West used humanitarian arguments to disguise imperially motivated interventions, which usually were designed to protect ideological and economic goals. R2P was supposed to be a post-colonial expression of global responsibility for genocide prevention and other severe situations of danger arising from state repression or crimes against ethnic minorities. R2P was invoked in 2011 by NATO members of the Security Council in response to alleged dangers faced by the civilian population of Benghazi threatened by attacks from advancing military forces of the Qaddafi government in Libya.
Skeptical members of the Security Council, including Russia and China, were persuaded to abstain rather than veto the reliance on R2P to authorize a no-fly-zone and a protective armed force by reassurance that the goals would be confined to the humanitarian mission. R2P was discredited by NATO forces immediately engaging in a regime-changing military operation that resulted in producing chaos in Libya and the extra-legal execution of Qaddafi by a street mob. As a result, it was not relied upon in relation to prolonged Syrian or Iraqi civil strife as there was no longer any willingness on the part of geopolitical rivals to entrust uses of force to the West based on humanitarian reassurances.
The situation in Gaza is so desperate, and so widely perceived, that it might enable a Security Council mandate to invoke R2P, this time with the US refraining from exercising its right of veto by abstaining from a proposal to form a UN Protective Force as an urgent priority. If the US persists by vetoing such a decision, then by analogy to the Uniting for Peace Resolution, the procedural stalemate in the Security Council could justify the shift of burdens for the activation of R2P to the General Assembly. The UN for all its limitations has demonstrated a creative adaptation to overcome some of its operational shortcomings.
A notable illustration is the HRC development of Special Procedures, including the use of unpaid experts appointed by consensus in the 47-member Council Assembly, and recently vividly exemplified by the contribution of the Italian special rapporteur for Occupied Palestine who has analyzed and documented the Israeli military campaign in Gaza through her three influential reports on the Gaza genocide. I believe that the desperation of the situation in Gaza is an ideal context in which to make use of R2P as a mechanism of last resort to uphold fundamental humanitarian values.
Capitalism is presumably the first case of a blaming, rather than a repenting cult. … An enormous feeling of guilt, not itself knowing how to repent, grasps at the cult, not in order to repent for this guilt, but to make it universal, to hammer it into consciousness and finally and above all to include God himself in this guilt.
– Walter Benjamin, “Capitalism as Religion”
+ Kill 11 people riding in international waters on a dinghy with an outboard motor, broadcast the kill shot, gloat about it as if you’d sunk a Chinese battleship, then ask your minions to try to come up with a legal basis for the assassinations a couple of days later, if they could (they can’t)…
+ There is no legal justification for Trump’s military strike on an alleged “drug boat” off the coast of Venezuela. The boat, a simple speedboat, posed no threat to the US Navy vessels. The little boat could have easily been interdicted, searched for drugs and its occupants detained if any were found. No proof was offered that it was carrying drugs or was associated with the Tren de Aragua “narco-terrorist organization.” In any event, drug trafficking is not a capital offense, even when it’s been proven. Most countries would consider this an act of terrorism and mass murder under international law. Indeed, such a strike is also prohibited under US law.
+ The Trump Administration didn’t know where the boat was going or why 11 people would be taking up space on a small, open-air craft that was supposed to be packed with illicit drugs. Were they fisherman? Immigrants? Who could believe them? Rubio’s State Department has repeatedly lied about Venezuela and accused immigrants from the country of being Tren de Aragua gang members based solely on tattoos or the fact they’re wearing Air Jordans…
+ Marco Rubio on Tuesday: “These particular drugs were probably headed to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean.”
+ Trump later on Tuesday: “11 Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists were transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States.”
+ On Wednesday, Rubio reversed himself to be in alignment with Trump, saying the boat was headed toward the US:
The President, under his authority as Commander-in-Chief, has a right under exigent circumstances to eliminate imminent threats to the United States, and that’s what he did yesterday in international waters, and that’s what he intends to do.
+ Can you pinpoint that “right,” Marco?
+ According to the New York Times, “Pentagon officials were still working Wednesday on what legal authority they would tell the public was used to back up the extraordinary strike in international waters.”
+ If, in fact, the boat was traveling to Trinidad as Rubio first alleged (which makes more sense than it traveling the Caribbean 1200 nautical miles to Miami), what possible reason could the US have for striking it? (There is no justification for murdering the crew/passengers.)
+ Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: “We knew exactly who was in that boat. We know exactly what they were doing, and we knew exactly who they represented.” So who were they, Pete?
+ Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington:
The administration has not identified the authority under which this action was taken, raising the question of its legality and constitutionality. The questions this episode raises are even more concerning. Does this mean Trump thinks he can use the U.S. military anywhere drugs exist, are sold, or shipped? What is the risk of dragging the United States into yet another military conflict?
+ Ryan Good, former legal counsel at the Pentagon:
I worked at DoD. I literally cannot imagine lawyers coming up with a legal basis for the lethal strike of a suspected Venezuelan drug boat. Hard to see how this would not be ‘murder’ or a war crime under international law that DoD considers applicable.
Despite labelling the targets ‘narcoterrorists,’ there is no plausible argument under which the principle legal authority for the U.S. so-called ‘war on terror’—the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force—authorizes military action against the Venezuelan criminal entity Tren de Aragua.”…Drug trafficking by itself does not constitute an ‘armed attack,’ nor a threat of an imminent armed attack, for the purposes in international law. Nor does drug trafficking represent the predicate for self-defense commonly recognized as required for the invocation of self-defense under criminal law in the United States…In my view, the U.S. attack on this supposed smuggling vessel constituted the introduction of U.S. armed forces into hostilities, triggering both the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution as well as its 60-day clock for withdrawing U.S. forces…U.S. armed forces were deliberately introduced into the situation with the U.S. president himself reportedly giving the order to ‘blow up’ the supposed smuggling vessel.
+ Murder is criminalized under the U.S. War Crimes Act, where it is defined as:
The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.”
+ Can Trump shoot 11 people in the Caribbean and get away with it? Obama did.
+ Obama normalized extra-judicial assassinations, even to the point of droning US citizens in Yemen. Trump will use the precedent Obama set and take it to an entirely new level. If you can use the US Navy to assassinate people in international waters without offering any proof that they are a threat to the security of the country, why not in US waters or on US soil, for crimes real or imagined?
+ Rodrigo Roa Duterte, the former President of the Philippines, is currently in custody at The Hague, after being charged by the International Criminal Court for ordering the summary execution of alleged drug traffickers. Trump just ordered the summary execution of 11 alleged drug traffickers in international waters off the coast of Venezuela.
+ Venezuela is not a major producer or exporter of illicit drugs.
+ Nearly all fentanyl comes into the US from China, Mexico or Canada.
+ Meanwhile, the leading producers of cocaine are:
Colombia: 65%
Peru: 27%
Bolivia: 8%
+ As for heroin, it’s Myanmar, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Colombia and Mexico.
+ Rubio: “Frankly, it’s a war. It’s a war on killers, it’s a war on terrorists.” Ask Congress to declare one, then…
+ But as the failed drug war (now well-into its sixth decade) has shown, the production of illicit drugs isn’t the main issue. Demand for them is. And all of that is driven by consumers in the US. In fact, America’s “drug problem” isn’t primarily with illicit drugs but prescription drugs people have been hooked on by Big Pharma and its pay-to-prescribe network of physicians and pharmacies. More than 14 million Americans either misuse or have some level of addiction to prescribed medications, particularly opioids or benzodiazepines. And when they can’t get those legally, they buy them off the streets.
+ Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch:
If Trump can order people shot by calling them a drug trafficker or terrorist and declaring war, then none of us is safe. Criminal suspects must be arrested and prosecuted. Lethal force is allowed only as a last resort to meet an imminent lethal threat.
+++
+ When it comes to smuggling drugs into the US, nobody does it more frequently than US citizens…
+And if supplies run slow, they’ve often been able to count on the CIA to replenish the stockpiles and clear the runways.
+ As Nixon aide John Ehrlichman admitted in his diary, the drug war is “really all about the blacks.” Forty-eight years later, Ehrlichman elaborated on the real motives of the war on drugs to reporter Dan Baum:
The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
+ Trump has updated this nefarious strategy to target Hispanics.
+++
+ Sen. Mark Warner,the vice chair of the Intelligence Committee, says he was denied a meeting with career intelligence workers because Laura Loomer objected. But how did Loomer know about a classified meeting? Who leaked it to her?
+ Trump: “The guy in Illinois, the Governor of Illinois, saying that crime has been much better in Chicago recently and Trump is a dictator. And most people say if you call him a dictator, and he stops crime, he can be a…he can be whatever he wants. I’m not a dictator by the way. But he can be whatever he wants…I have the right to do whatever I want to do. I’m the president of the United States. If our country’s in danger, and it is in danger, I can do it.”
+ Chicago’s not even the murder capital of northern Illinois…Peoria, Kankakee, Rockford and Springfield all have higher crime rates than Chicago.
+ No US city ranks among the 25 cities in the world (with a population of more than 300,000) for murder rates. The top five deadliest cities in the world in 2023/24–Colima, Mexico (181.9), Durán, Ecuador (148), Ciudad Obregón, Mexico (138.25), Zacatecas, Mexico (134.6), and Nelson Mandela Bay, South Africa (102.82)–all had murder rates of more than 100 deaths per 100,000 people. By contrast, Chicago’s worst murder rate in the last five years was in 2021, when it saw 29.9 killings per 100,000 people, which didn’t even rank in the top 50.
+ Former mayor Lori Lightfoot on Trump’s threats against Chicago: “I’m sitting in a studio that is one block away from Trump Tower. They’re charging $800 a night for a room. They couldn’t be as bold and audacious to charge that kind of amount if this were a hellscape.”
+ The Pentagon has approved the use of the Great Lakes Naval Station by ICE, as it prepares to occupy the streets of Chicago. Department of Defense officials told the Washington Post that the Navy Station also could be used by US military forces who are called on to “assist” in ICE’s pogrom.
+ Nick Turse:“Sending troops to Chicago could cost $1.6 million per day,four times as much as housing the city’s homeless — plus it’s illegal.”
+ Trump the Crime Fighter…
+ So, the National Guard has cleaned a total of 3.2 miles of road at a cost of more than $1 million per day. Meanwhile, DC’s cleaning crews clean around 81 miles/day for around $150,000 day. It’s 170 times more cost-efficient per mile to fund DC’s existing work.
+ Each of the red states, whose governors sent their National Guard contingents to Washington, DC, has cities with higher crime rates than the nation’s capital.
+ Federal Judge Charles Breyer has blocked the use of the National Guard in Los Angeles: “[A]t Defendants’ orders and contrary to Congress’s explicit instruction, federal troops executed the laws. … In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act.” The injunction, which has been stayed until 9/12 pending appeal, would bar Trump from using the National Guard or any military troops in California to engage in “security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control,” and other similar operations. Breyer found that Trump is using the military as a “national police force with the president as its chief.”
+ Buried in a footnote in Judge Breyer’s scalding opinion that Trump’s deploying federal troops to LA violated the Posse Comitatus Act, after National Guard Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman objected to the Trump administration’s plans for a show of force in MacArthur Park. A Trump political appointee, Gregory Bovino, responded by “questioning Sherman’s loyalty to the country.”
+ Kristi the Puppy Killer: “I do know that LA wouldn’t be standing today if President Trump hadn’t taken action.”
+ South Dakota’s murder rate (4.5 per 100K) under Noem was higher than New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island…
+ Reichsleiter Stephen Miller, a Santa Monica diaper baby:
I grew up in Los Angeles, the city that I grew up in—in the 1980s and 1990s doesn’t exist anymore. Everywhere you look, there’s needles and druggies and criminals and vagrants…The Democrat Party as an institution at every level—its judges, its lawyers, its community activists, and its politicians—exists to serve these criminal thugs…[Trump is] ready to help and assist any community that wishes to be liberated from these criminal elements.
No crime or drugs in LA in the 80s and 90s, when the city was being flooded with CIA-sponsored crack? Easy Muthafuckin’ E would like a word…
+ The “founder” who wrote the following was born in St. Kitts and Nevis, less than 500 miles across the Caribbean from Trinidad and Tobago…
There are seasons in every country when noise and impudence pass current for worth; and in popular commotions especially, the clamors of interested and factious men are often mistaken for patriotism.
+ Fiscal conservatism in action!
+ The Justice Department is deliberating banning guns for transgender people as part of a range of options blocking “mentally unstable individuals” from committing acts of violence. Where’s the NRA’s denunciation of this gun-grabbing assault on the 2nd Amendment?
I just can’t emphasize enough how massive an escalation the targeted disarmament of a minority group is. Open the history books they haven’t banned yet and find out for yourself where this leads…You don’t have to be a gun owner or even like guns to see what this entails–a database of every person diagnosed with gender dysphoria and the suspension of their rights on that basis.
+ Meanwhile, the FBI is using the shootings in Minneapolis to promote a new theory of criminality: nihilistic violent extremism. “They’ve just given up.” Shocking. Who knew people like that stalked the streets and suburbs of America? Did someone in the Justice Department finally read Dostoevsky?
+++
+ Trump’s Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer: “I was elected as the Labor Secretary for all Americans.” Elected?
+ More than 445,000 federal employees saw their union protections canceled in August.
+ America’s billionaires are now worth $5.7 trillion. But just three of them account for more than $1 trillion of that wealth.
+ Chris Kempczinski, CEO of McDonald’s, says that Americans are now living in a “divided consumer landscape” created by“a two-tier economy:” “ If you’re upper income earning over $100,000, things are good, stock markets are near all-time highs… What we see with middle and lower-income consumers is actually a different story.”
+ Fewer than 18% of Americans earn at least $100,000 a year, and most of them are buried in debt. The average full-time American worker earns about $62,500 a year.
+ More than 70% of Americans now believe the “American dream” doesn’t apply to them. And they have good reason to believe that.
+ There are more than 500,000 houses on the market than there are potential buyers, the largest gap in US history, and a sure sign that more and more people can’t afford the houses they’re living in or the ones they want to buy. A survey by Redfin finds that 36% of American workers do not have an emergency fund to cover housing payments.
+ A survey of 1,700 American companies reveals that they are preparing for the steepest increase in medical costs in the last 15 years. Meanwhile, layoffs rose by 39% in August to 85,979.
+ The US manufacturing sector has undergone six straight months of contraction.
+ Dollar General may soon have to change its name. Its CEO announced this week that Trump’s tariffs have forced the company to raise prices. The Wall Street Journal reported Walmart, Target and Best Buy have also raised prices, claiming the hikes are in response to the tariffs, and Hormel Foods, J.M. Smucker and Ace Hardware say they’re poised to raise prices.
+ Meanwhile, Rep. Pat Fallon (TX) attacked people on food stamps: “We have a message for those kind of folks: If you’re able-bodied and you want to milk the taxpayer, those days are over. Get off the couch, stop eating the Cheetos, stop buying the medical marijuana…”
+ According to the Wall Street Journal, US companies announced only 1,494 new jobs in August, the lowest for the month since 2009.
+ For the first time in years, the number of job seekers (7.2 million) in the US has outstripped the number of job openings (7.18 million) But the situation is likely substantially worse, since at least 40% of companies posting listings for jobs that don’t exist.
+ US workers work an average 12 40-weeks more a year than German workers…
US worker: 1,811 hours/year
German worker: 1,340 hours/year
+ According to a new study published in the National Bureau of Economic Research, the 400 richest Americans paid an average effective tax rate of 24% from 2018 to 2020, compared with a 30% rate for all other taxpayers.
+ William Pulte, Trump’s top housing regulator, wants to allow crypto to be used as collateral for mortgages: “FHFA ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which package and securitize loans for investors in the housing market, to develop proposals allowing them to ‘count cryptocurrency as an asset for a mortgage’ during the application process.”
+ The number of student loan borrowers who are seeking to defer their payments (10.2 million) is more than 3 times higher than last year (2.28 million).
Why stay in college?
Why go to night school?
Gonna be different this time?
Can’t write a letter, can’t send no postcard
I ain’t got time for that now
+ A report from Payroll Integrations 2025 Employee Financial Wellness found that 38% of employees have withdrawn money prematurely from their retirement accounts, but Gen Z seemed to be the most desperate for funds. Almost 50% of young adults have already tapped into their retirement funds, compared to 31% of millennials, while a little more than 40% of Boomers and Gen Xers had dipped into theirs.
+ According to a Stanford study, the corporate adoption of AI has been linked to a 13% decline in jobs for young people in the U.S.
+ Who wanted this? The Trump administration has canceled the Biden era rule making airlines compensate passengers for flight delays and disruptions.
+ Fox Business on the Trump family crypto-scam: “My goodness. $5 BILLION. Eye-popping numbers…crypto-friendly legislation coming from the president, who is, in turn, cashing in on crypto. A conflict of interest.”
+++
+ On Tuesday, California was hit by more than 10,000 lightning strikes in less than 24-hours, igniting wildfires up and down the state.
+ China currently has 339 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity under construction, that’s nearly two-thirds of the world’s existing capacity.
+There’s a reason for this…
+ The data center for Zuckerberg’s Meta, now under construction outside Cheyenne, Wyoming, will consume more power than all of the homes in the Cowboy State.
+ Trump’s Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, got brutally fact-checked on Elon Musk’s own platform this week for his inane deprecations about solar energy…
+ Nicholas Fulghum, Senior Energy and Climate Data Analyst at Ember Energy: “Covering the planet in solar panels would produce around 150-200 million TWh of electricity a year. That is 1,000x more than the global primary energy consumption of ~180,000 TWh. There’s wrong and then there’s @SecretaryWright wrong, who is LEADING THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.”
+ There are two options here: Wright destroyed a lot of brain cells when he drank fracking fluid to prove it was “safe.” Or he’s just lying. Probably both.
+ A bracing new report in Nature warns that the Earth’s ability to absorb carbon may be exhausted much sooner than thought: “Researchers report that Earth can safely store around 1,460 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂) — a number much lower than the 10,000–40,000 GtCO₂ often cited in previous studies.”
+ According to OXFAM, the deepening drought in East Africa is worse than the one that devastated the region in 2011, when huge herds of cattle, sheep and goats were completely wiped out and 750,000 people perished from starvation and lack of water. Herder Mahmoud Ciroobey from Kalsheikh in Somaliland:
This drought is slowly killing everything. First, it “swept away” the land and the pastures; then it “swept away” the animals, which first became weaker and weaker and eventually died. Soon, it is going to “sweep away” people. People are sick with flu, diarrhoea, and measles. If they don’t get food, clean water, and medicines, they will die like their animals.
+ Decade after decade, the dry season in the Amazon rainforest has been getting longer and drier. A new study published in Nature Communications found that about 75 percent of the decrease in rainfall is directly linked to deforestation. In the first six months of 2025, Brazilian officials reported a 27 percent increase in tree loss nationwide over the same period last year.
+ The air quality in Squamish, British Columbia (30 miles north of Vancouver) hit 800 on Wednesday. An AQI between 200 and 300 is considered “very unhealthy. An AQI above 300 is considered “hazardous.” An AQI of 800 is almost unbreathable.
+ Air pollution generated by the oil and gas industry causes more than 90,000 premature deaths across the US each year and results in hundreds of thousands of cases of childhood asthma and more than 10,000 incidents of premature birth annually, according to a new study by researchers at University College London and the Stockholm Environment Institute. Moreover, the report found that the burden falls disproportionately on the poor and communities of color.
+ NASA Administrator Sean Duffy says the US will send a four-man crew to the moon at the beginning of next year. Meanwhile, Flint, Michigan and Jackson, Mississippi still don’t have safe drinking water.
+ Jeremy Pikser: “They’re gonna go when it’s a full moon because it will be a bigger target then.”
Still from “Le Voyage dans la Lune.”
+ This is utter nonsense from beginning to end. Trump:
Newsom didn’t allow the water to come from the Pacific Northwest. You know they have tremendous amounts of water in California, which most people don’t know. They send the water out into the Pacific Ocean. So I demanded that to be open. If that were open during the fire, you wouldn’t have had the fire because all the sprinklers would’ve worked in the houses. They had no water. They had no water in the fire hydrants. They wouldn’t have had the fires. They would have been put out after one house, two houses. But he stopped the water from coming in. And I had to send in the military to have that water opened, after the fires. And now that water, but he should have more, because they still restrict it. There’s something wrong with these people. There’s something really wrong.
+ Forget his bruised hand, there’s something really wrong with Trump’s brain…
+ In his own kind of eternal return, Trump keeps reentering the childhood he never grew out of…
+++
+ Why did Trump hit India with 50% tariffs, driving the Modi regime closer to China, even after the two countries engaged in border skirmishes as recently as four years ago? Because Trump insisted on taking credit for stopping a war, Modi says he didn’t stop (India v. Pakistan), and as a consequence, Modi refused to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Megalomaniacal diplomacy in action.
+ Will the ceremony be held in the Rose Garden or Four Seasons Total Landscaping?
Is Tutar invited?
+ Trump on why he decided to move Space Force HQ from Colorado to Alabama: “The problem I have with Colorado — they do mail-in voting. They went to all mail-in voting, so they have automatically crooked elections. And we can’t have that.” (Alabama allows mail-in voting.)
+ Tom Stephenson on the transformation of El Salvador into a prison state: ‘El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele has embraced his extemporary powers. Calling himself the “coolest dictator in the world”, the restorer of the state monopoly on violence has replaced the state and seized the monopoly for himself. Giving the US access to El Salvador’s expanded prison system as an offshore gulag has made him a darling of the American right. They praise him as a visionary leader, but his appeal lies in something more primordial: the assertion that a broken country can be fixed with sufficient state violence.’
+ Florida: Closed to immigrants, Open to viruses…
+ Is this the Cuban exile community’s response to Cuba still having the world’s best health care system, despite 6 decades of an asphyxiating embargo…?
+ Florida’s Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, during a news conference about his plan to end every vaccine mandate in the state:
All of them. All of them. Every last one of them is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery. Who am I as a government or anyone else, who am I as a man standing here now, to tell you what you should put in your body? Who am I to tell you what your child should put in their body? What you put into your body is because of your relationship with your body and your God. I don’t have that right.
Of course, what starts as a decision between “you and your God” doesn’t stay between you and your God.
+ According to a 2024 study published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, childhood vaccinations prevented 1.13 million deaths, 508 million lifetime illnesses, and 32 million hospitalizations. The measles vaccine alone is credited with preventing 13.2 million hospitalizations, while the diphtheria vaccinations saved 752,800 lives.
+ What’s the likelihood RFK Jr testified truthfully when he said that he fired Susan Monarez as head of the CDC because when he asked her, “‘Are you a trustworthy person?’ she said ‘No.’”
+ Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) on the CDC purge: “This is the same group of so-called experts that told the entire country we should live in fear of monkeypox, but failed to tell us that unless you’re a homosexual man, you don’t have to worry about this at all, that monkeypox is a sexually transmitted disease.” Still homophobic after all these years…
+ The governors of California, Oregon and Washington State just announced a joint “West Coast Health Alliance” to counter the Trump/RFK destruction of the public health system in the US.
+ Vaccinated dogs aren’t the creatures with “cognitive issues”….
+++
+ According to a piece in the New York Times, Trump is openly conspiring with Adams, Sliwa and Cuomo to defeat Mamdani: “Trump is considering giving Adams a position in the administration as a way to clear the field in November’s mayoral election and damage the chances of the Democratic front-runner, Zohran Mamdani.” Anything to say, Sen. Schumer? What about you, Hakeem Jeffries?
+ He’d rather work with Trump than Zohran on lowering housing costs…
+ Rep. Tom Suozzi, the anti-abortion Democrat from NY: “Zohran Mamdani and every other Democratic Socialist should create their own party because I don’t want that in my party.” He doesn’t want feminists, gays, trans people, peace activists or greens in “his” party either. Maybe he’s the one who should be looking for a new party.
+ This is ridiculous, especially when you consider that both Bill Clinton and Obama aspired in their own ways to be Reagan…
+ Having “operatives” is a big part of the Democrats’ problem.
+ Rep. Thomas Massie on Trump’s rant that Congress’s pursuit of the entire Epstein files is a “hostile act”: “I don’t know if that’s precedented in this country to have a president call legislators to say that they’re engaged in a hostile act, particularly when the so-called hostile act is trying to get justice for people who’ve been victims of sex crimes.”
+++
+ In his latest Substack post (“On Anonymous Sources“), Seymour Hersh once again appears to claim sole credit for “exposing” the My Lai Massacre: .
In 1969, I exposed the My Lai massacre in a series of freelance reports for a small anti-Vietnam War Saigon-based writers’ cooperative known as Dispatch News Service. Earlier I had covered the war as a Pentagon correspondent for the Associated Press, and—despite that experience and my writing for the New York Times Magazine about secret US work on chemical and biological weapons as well as a book on the topic—I could interest no major media outlets in what I had uncovered about the massacre at My Lai. I had obtained access to an Army charge sheet accusing a young Army 2nd lieutenant named William Calley of being the “bad apple” who engineered the crime. My work for Dispatch won me many prizes, including a Pulitzer, and a front-page story in the New York Times about the award for foreign reporting going to a freelance writer. Then, as now, the Times was the place to be a reporter.
In fact, the slaughter was first exposed by Hugh Thompson, who tried to stop the killing, and wrote a report about it the day it happened. Then, in March 1969 (seven months before Hersh’s first story), another Army veteran and investigative journalist, Ron Ridenhour, wrote a detailed account of the war crime and sent it to Nixon, Defense Secretary Melvin Laird and leading members of Congress. It wasn’t just Ridenhour, either. As I recounted in my piece “The Last Child of My Lai,” the day before Hersh’s first story for Dispatch News appeared, Wayne Greenshaw published a front-page piece in the Alabama Journal on the massacre, under the title: “Ft Benning Probes Vietnam Slayings: Officer Suspect in 91 Deaths of Civilians.”
The atrocities committed in “Pinkville” were no secret to the Vietnamese. Within days of the massacre, investigators with the Census Grievance Committee in Quang Ngai City released a fairly accurate account of the killings. But in a striking parallel to the Palestinian journalists covering the genocide in Gaza today, the reports by the Vietnamese were denounced as “VC propaganda” and dismissed by the Army, US investigators and western reporters.
Ridenhour and Greenshaw’s ground-breaking work also goes unmentioned in Cover-Up, Laura Poitras and Mark Obenhaus’s new documentary on Hersh, which has been greeted with enthusiastic reviews following its premiere at the Venice Film Festival. It’s also worth noting that Hersh’s reporting on the US’s biological and chemical warfare program for New York Times Magazine in August 1968 (and an earlier piece in the New York Review of Books in April 1968) leaned heavily on work first done by the Portland-based investigative journalist Elinor Langer (“Chemical and Biological Warfare,” Science, January 13/20, 1967).
+ In no way is this meant to detract from Hersh’s vital reporting, but to recognize the contributions of Thompson, Ridenhour, Greenshaw and Langer, who weren’t “anonymous” sources and shouldn’t be rendered as such. One of the reasons Alexander Cockburn dismissed journalism prizes, such as the Pulitzer, is that he believed, correctly, I think, that journalism is a collective endeavor, where one so-called “exposé” almost always builds on and is enhanced by the work of other journalists.
+ “Then as now, the Times was the place to be a reporter.” Really, Sy?
+ Merriam-Webster’s has enshrined “enshittification” into the official lexicon…
+ Emily Witt on the Manosphere: “The manosphere is confusing, because it’s a place where one can find both benign advice about protein consumption and ideas that have led to mass shootings. Its theories of evolutionary biology, mostly concerning what women were “built” to do, are reposted on social media by people such as Elon Musk. It’s annoying to have to take it seriously, just as it’s annoying to have to take the Taliban’s gender theories seriously.”
+ Every quarter, Secret Service snipers are supposed to demonstrate that they can hit a target while standing, sitting, kneeling, and prone. But a report by the Inspector General of the DHS revealed that of the Secret Service snipers met that requirement last year. I’m kind of glad about this. I find it impossible to root for snipers.
+ After the curtain fell on the premier showing of The Voice of Hind Rajab at the Venice Film Festival, the movie and its director, Kaouther Ben Hania, were greeted by the stunned audience with a 22-minute standing ovation, tears and shouts of “Free Palestine.” Too bad the real voice of Hind Rajab didn’t stun the Biden administration or the New York Times.
+ How to demonstrate you’ve never read the book…(Movie critic Geoffrey McNabb, writing in The Independent, pans Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein for not flipping Mary Shelley’s masterpiece on its head and making the Monster, instead of the mad scientist Dr. Frankenstein, “an agent of evil and chaos.”) The horror is the horror of prejudice, fear of the Other, which is playing out on Del Toro’s screen and live on a street near you…
I mixed reality with pseudo-God dreams The ghost of violence was something I’d seen I sold my soul to be the Human Obscene
“The hell with him, he thought bitterly. The hell with patriotism in general. In the specific and the abstract. Birds of a feather, soldiers and cops. Anti-intellectual and anti-Negro. Anti-everything except beer, dogs, cars and guns.”
Israel’s methodical destruction in Gaza has taken on many forms—photograph by Mohammed Ibrahim.
A week after the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, a large explosion incinerated a parking lot near the busy Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City, killing more than 470 people. It was a horrifying, chaotic scene. Burnt clothing was strewn about, scorched vehicles piled atop one another, and charred buildings surrounded the impact zone. Israel claimed the blast was caused by an errant rocket fired by Palestinian extremists, but an investigation by Forensic Architecture later indicated that the missile was most likely launched from Israel, not from inside Gaza.
In those first days of the onslaught, it wasn’t yet clear that wiping out Gaza’s entire healthcare system could conceivably be part of the Israeli plan. After all, it’s well known that purposely bombing or otherwise destroying hospitals violates the Geneva Conventions and is a war crime, so there was still some hope that the explosion at Al-Ahli was accidental. And that, of course, would be the narrative that Israeli authorities would continue to push over the nearly two years of death and misery that followed.
A month into Israel’s Gaza offensive, however, soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would raid the Indonesian Hospital in northern Gaza, dismantling its dialysis center with no explanation as to why such life-saving medical equipment would be targeted. (Not even Israel was contending that Hamas was having kidney problems.) Then, in December 2023, Al-Awda Hospital, also in northern Gaza, was hit, while at least one doctor was shot by Israeli snipers stationed outside it. As unnerving as such news stories were, the most gruesome footage released at the time came from Al-Nasr children’s hospital, where infants were found dead and decomposing in an empty ICU ward. Evacuation orders had been given and the medical staff had fled, unable to take the babies with them.
For those monitoring such events, a deadly pattern was beginning to emerge, and Israel’s excuses for its malevolent behavior were already losing credibility.
Shortly after Israel issued warnings to evacuate the Al-Quds Hospital in Gaza City in mid-January 2024, its troops launched rockets at the building, destroying what remained of its functioning medical equipment. Following that attack, ever more clinics were also targeted by Israeli forces. A Jordan Field Hospital was shelled that January and again this past August. An air strike hit Yafa hospital early in December 2023. The Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis in southern Gaza was also damaged last May and again this August, when the hospital and an ambulance were struck, killing 20, including five journalists.
While human-rights groups like the International Criminal Court, the United Nations, and the Red Cross have condemned Israel for such attacks, its forces have continued to decimate medical facilities and aid sites. At the same time, Israeli authorities claimed that they were only targeting Hamas command centers and weapons storage facilities.
The Death of Gaza’s Only Cancer Center
In early 2024, the Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital, first hit in October 2023 and shuttered in November of that year, was in the early stages of being demolished by IDF battalions. A video released in February by Middle East Eye showed footage of an elated Israeli soldier sharing a TikTok video of himself driving a bulldozer into that hospital, chuckling as his digger crushed a cinderblock wall. “The hospital accidentally broke,” he said. Evidence of Israel’s crimes was by then accumulating, much of it provided by the IDF itself.
When that Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital opened in 2018, it quickly became Gaza’s leading and most well-equipped cancer treatment facility. As the Covid-19 pandemic reached Gaza in 2020, all oncology operations were transferred to that hospital to free up space at other clinics, making it the only cancer center to serve Gaza’s population of more than two million.
“This hospital will help transform the health sector,” Palestinian Health Minister Jawad Awwad said shortly before its opening. “[It] will help people who are going through extreme difficulties.”
Little did he know that those already facing severe difficulties due to their cancer diagnoses would all too soon face full-blown catastrophe. In March 2025, what remained of the hospital would be razed, erasing all traces of Gaza’s once-promising cancer treatment.
Before October 7, 2023, the most common cancers afflicting Palestinians in Gaza were breast and colon cancer. Survival rates were, however, much lower there than in Israel, thanks to more limited medical resources and restrictions imposed by that country. From 2016 to 2019, while cases in Gaza were on the rise, there was at least hope that the hospital, funded by Turkey, would offer much-needed cancer screenings that had previously been unavailable.
“The repercussions of the current conflict on cancer care in Gaza will likely be felt for years to come,” according to a November 2023 editorial in the medical journal Cureus. “The immediate challenges of drugs, damaged infrastructure, and reduced access to specialized treatment have long-term consequences on the overall health outcomes of current patients.”
In other words, lack of medical care and worse cancer rates will not only continue to disproportionately affect Gazans compared to Israelis, but conditions will undoubtedly deteriorate significantly more. And such predictions don’t even take into account the fact that war itself causes cancer, painting an even bleaker picture of the medical future for Palestinians in Gaza.
The Case of Fallujah
When the Second Battle of Fallujah, part of America’s nightmarish war in Iraq, ended in December 2004, the embattled city was a toxic warzone, contaminated with munitions, depleted uranium (DU), and poisoned dust from collapsed buildings. Not surprisingly, in the years that followed, cancer rates increased almost exponentially there. Initially, doctors began to notice that more cancers were being diagnosed. Scientific research would soon back up their observations, revealing a startling trend.
In the decade after the fighting had mostly ended, leukemia rates among the local population skyrocketed by a dizzying 2,200%. It was the most significant increase ever recorded after a war, exceeding even Hiroshima’s 660% rise over a more extended period of time. One study later tallied a fourfold increase in all cancers and, for childhood cancers, a twelvefold increase.
The most likely source of many of those cancers was the mixture of DU, building materials, and other leftover munitions. Researchers soon observed that residing inside or near contaminated sites in Fallujah was likely the catalyst for the boom in cancer rates.
“Our research in Fallujah indicated that the majority of families returned to their bombarded homes and lived there, or otherwise rebuilt on top of the contaminated rubble of their old homes,” explained Dr. Mozghan Savabieasfahani, an environmental toxicologist who studied the health impacts of war in Fallujah. “When possible, they also used building materials that were salvaged from the bombarded sites. Such common practices will contribute to the public’s continuous exposure to toxic metals years after the bombardment of their area has ended.”
While difficult to quantify, we do have some idea of the amount of munitions and DU that continues to plague that city. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United States fired between 170 and 1,700 tons of tank-busting munitions in Iraq, including Fallujah, which might have amounted to as many as 300,000 rounds of DU. While only mildly radioactive, persistent exposure to depleted uranium has a cumulative effect on the human body. The more you’re exposed, the more the radioactive particles build up in your bones, which, in turn, can cause cancers like leukemia.
With its population of 300,000, Fallujah served as a military testing ground for munitions much like those that Gaza endures today. In the short span of one month, from March 19 to April 18, 2003, more than 29,199 bombs were dropped on Iraq, 19,040 of which were precision-guided, along with another 1,276 cluster bombs. The impacts were grave. More than 60 of Fallujah’s 200 mosques were destroyed, and of the city’s 50,000 buildings, more than 10,000 were imploded and 39,000 damaged. Amid such destruction, there was a whole lot of toxic waste. As a March 2025 report from Brown University’s Costs of War Project noted, “We found that the environmental impact of warfighting and the presence of heavy metals are long-lasting and widespread in both human bodies and soil.”
Exposure to heavy metals is distinctly associated with cancer risk. “Prolonged exposure to specific heavy metals has been correlated with the onset of various cancers, including those affecting the skin, lungs, and kidneys,” a 2023 report in Scientific Studies explains. “The gradual buildup of these metals within the body can lead to persistent toxic effects. Even minimal exposure levels can result in their gradual accumulation in tissues, disrupting normal cellular operations and heightening the likelihood of diseases, particularly cancer.”
And it wasn’t just cancer that afflicted the population that stuck around or returned to Fallujah. Infants began to be born with alarming birth defects. A 2010 study found a significant increase in heart ailments among babies there, with rates 13 times higher and nervous system defects 33 times higher than in European births.
“We have all kinds of defects now, ranging from congenital heart disease to severe physical abnormalities, both in numbers you cannot imagine,” Dr Samira Alani, a pediatric specialist at Fallujah General Hospital, who co-authored the birth-defect study, told Al Jazeera in 2013. “We have so many cases of babies with multiple system defects… Multiple abnormalities in one baby. For example, we just had one baby with central nervous system problems, skeletal defects, and heart abnormalities. This is common in Fallujah today.”
While comprehensive health assessments in Iraq are scant, evidence continues to suggest that high cancer rates persist in places like Fallujah. “Fallujah today, among other bombarded cities in Iraq, reports a high rate of cancers,” researchers from the Costs of War Project study report. “These high rates of cancer and birth defects may be attributed to exposure to the remnants of war, as are manifold other similar spikes in, for example, early onset cancers and respiratory diseases.”
As devastating as the war in Iraq was — and as contaminated as Fallujah remains — it’s nearly impossible to envision what the future holds for those left in Gaza, where the situation is so much worse. If Fallujah teaches us anything, it’s that Israel’s destruction will cause cancer rates to rise significantly, impacting generations to come.
Manufacturing Cancer
The aerial photographs and satellite footage are grisly. Israel’s U.S.-backed military machine has dropped so many bombs that entire neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble. Gaza, by every measure, is a land of immense suffering. As Palestinian children hang on the brink of starvation, it feels strange to discuss the health effects they might face in the decades ahead, should they be fortunate enough to survive.
While data often conceals the truth, in Gaza, numbers reveal a dire reality. As of this year, nearly 70% of all roads had been destroyed, 90% of all homes damaged or completely gone, 85% of farmland affected, and 84% of healthcare facilities obliterated. To date, Israel’s relentless death machine has created at least 50 million tons of rubble, human remains, and hazardous materials — all the noxious ingredients necessary for a future cancer epidemic.
From October 2023 to April 2024, well over 70,000 tons of explosives were dropped on Gaza, which, according to the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, was equivalent to two nuclear bombs. While the extent and exact types of weaponry used there are not fully known, the European Parliament has accused Israel of deploying depleted uranium, which, if true, will only add to the future cancer ills of Gazans. Most bombs contain heavy metals like lead, antimony, bismuth, cobalt, and tungsten, which end up polluting the soil and groundwater, while impacting agriculture and access to clean water for years to come.
“The toxicological effects of metals and energetic materials on microorganisms, plants, and animals vary widely and can be significantly different depending on whether the exposure is acute (short term) or chronic (long term),” reads a 2021 report commissioned by the Guide to Explosive Ordnance Pollution of the Environment. “In some cases, the toxic effects may not be immediately apparent, but instead may be linked to an increased risk of cancer, or increased risk of mutation during pregnancy, which may not become evident for many years.”
Given such information, we can only begin to predict how toxic the destruction may prove to be. The homes that once stood in the Gaza Strip were mainly made of concrete and steel. Particles of dust released from such crumbled buildings can themselves cause lung, colon, and stomach cancers.
As current cancer patients die slow deaths with no access to the care they need, future patients, who will acquire cancer thanks to Israel’s genocidal mania, will no doubt meet the same fate unless there is significant intervention.
“[A]pproximately 2,700 [Gazans] in advanced stages of the disease await treatment with no hope or treatment options within the Gaza Strip under an ongoing closure of Gaza’s crossings, and the disruption of emergency medical evacuation mechanisms,” states a May 2025 report by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. “[We hold] Israel fully responsible for the deaths of hundreds of cancer patients and for deliberately obliterating any opportunities of treatment for thousands more by destroying their treatment centers and depriving them of travel. Such acts fall under the crime of genocide ongoing in the Gaza Strip.”
Israel’s methodical destruction in Gaza has taken on many forms, from bombing civilian enclaves and hospitals to withholding food, water, and medical care from those most in need. In due time, Israel will undoubtedly use the cancers it will have created as a means to an end, fully aware that Palestinians there have no way of preparing for the health crises that are coming.
Cancer, in short, will be but another weapon added to Israel’s ever-increasing arsenal.
These days when I’m asked how I’m doing, I usually reply, “I’m fine until I start following the news.” It’s all so depressing. Donald Trump is everywhere. On front pages as well as in social media, DJT dominates. A day doesn’t go by without headlines mentioning something involving Trump. Tariffs? Attacks on the Federal Reserve or some other congressionally established institution? ICE? A recent court ruling for or against him? His Nobel Peace Prize quest? One could ask if his omnipresence is intentional. Does he set out to dominate the 24/7 news cycle or is his presence merely a reflection of his frenetic pace? “Attention, not cash, is the form of power that most interests him,” Ezra Klein wrote in the Times. Whether intentional or not, his media presence buries deeper stories. He diverts our attention from anything else.
Trump stories appear, then quickly disappear. Today’s headlines have their own limited time cycle. We are now focused on Trump’s firings at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the fate of Susan Monarez as well as pressure on Jerome Powell and Lisa Cook at the Federal Reserve. What will be next? Will the next Trump headline bury the CDC story or the one about the Federal Reserve? Already we have trouble finding information about what happened to the U.S. Institute of Peace where its president, George Moose, was escorted out by local police.
Like an avalanche, Trump news gathers speed and buries everything in its path only to pop up in another place. It’s exhausting, and overwhelming. As for intentionality, the former Trump chief adviser Steve Bannon described the strategy in 2018, “The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.”
I asked a former CNN executive if true journalism is over with Trump’s domination. This is his response:
“Those believing journalism is on its last legs are mistaken. Certain people will always seek out information from reliable sources. There’s the catch: the seekers are fewer and fewer. There are also fewer and fewer reliable sources, some thriving, others fading away.
It’s true that media houses are distancing themselves from news output. The priority for executives is keeping the cash flowing. Venture capitalists and hedge funders have no interest in sending money to newsrooms. Crypto and AI is far more interesting. Sure, those products may be nothing more than 21st Century buggy whips and hula hoops, but buyers are lined up.
Some observers wax prolific about a declining audience for journalism. The more experienced know the true importance of readers, viewers and listeners who remain supportive of media outlets as opposed to those needing an hourly dose of celebrity, glamor or hate. Some media proprietors have made the lowest common denominator their choice.”
The former CNN executive is optimistic about the future of media, although he has seen and lived through several media outlets disappearing. There are those of us who do believe in fact-based media outlets. But are we enough to keep the media ship afloat? A recent story by David D. Kirkpatrick on “How much is Trump profiting off the Presidency?” in The New Yorker is an excellent example of the kind of long-term reporting that is needed.
But there is a difference between longer articles in a weekly magazine – even The New Yorker now has a New Yorker Daily – and the 24/7 news cycle which feeds “an hourly dose of celebrity, glamor or hate.” DJT and his people have been able to appeal to a sizeable audience. “We want our news, and we want it now” is the current reality. The 24/7 news cycle gives instantaneous satisfaction; Trump fulfils that need.
This is how the former CNN executive sees Trump’s relation to the media:
“Donald Trump was chosen by Robert Thomson, chief executive of News Corp. Mr. Thomson understands the media business better than all the rest. Mr. Thomson found a true believer in the power of television with highly addicted viewers, typically those offended by smart people. This was – still is – the Fox audience. The money flowed in from cable TV subscriptions and advertisers selling cheap goods.”
The relationship between Trump and the media is perfectly symmetrical. He wants to be front page every day. The media believes he sells. The result is that the public gets its dose of Trump news daily. So whether or not Trump sets out to headline the daily news, he manages to be there. The media can’t get enough of him – witness Maggie Haberman’s ongoing fascination with DJT in the Times. Nor is this something new. An Axiosgraphic in September, 2017, showed “The insane news cycle of Trump’s presidency in 1 chart.”
How to get out of Trump’s dominated news? “How do you push back against a tidal wave?” political communication expert Dannagal Young asked. Besides retreating to some island with no connections, I began an experiment. At social gatherings I count the minutes before the conversation turns to Trump. Talk about the hot weather and climate change? An interesting movie or song that just came out? A book that’s worth suggesting to others? See how long it takes before the subject turns to Trump.
I’m not saying that Trump should be ignored. What I am suggesting is that his media domination is part of his personality and program. Being front and center is essential to who he is and how he functions. “[Trump’s] desire for that attention is so deep, it’s coming from such a deep place, he needs it so pathologically,” observed Chris Hayes, author of The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource.
Ignoring Trump may be one way of countering him and what he stands for. But I cannot promise not to read about him or write about him. What he is doing to the United States and the world cannot be ignored, and that’s not Maggie Haberman-like fascination.
View from Glastonbury Tor, August 30, 2025. Photo: The author.
Land of miracles
I don’t know how we wound up on Pilgrim’s Way, legendary site of King Arthur and Queen Guenevere’s graves. My wife Harriet and I stopped in Glastonbury last Sunday, intending only to recharge our EV on the way to Stonehenge, but there we were, trudging up Wearyall Hill in the rain.Joseph of Arimathea is supposed to have traveled the same path 500 years before Arthur, planting his staff and seeing it sprout into a “Holy Thorn” tree (crataegus monogyna), incarnation of Jesus’s crown of thorns. This was a land of miracles, and I wanted one. I looked up at the sky and just that second, saw the sun break through the clouds. I quickly checked my phone for news, hoping the Supreme Court gained a conscience or that lightning struck players on a certain, West Palm Beach Florida golf course.
Dialogue in Bristol
We travelled to Glastonbury from Bristol earlier that day after meeting for breakfast with our friend Wade Rathke. Wade is head of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), founded in 1970 by him and Gary Delgado. At its peak, it had some 1200 local chapters and 500,000 members in more than 100 U.S. cities.ACORN waged successful campaigns in support of minority voter registration, living wage laws, and fair housing, among other things, until a right-wing smear campaign (in addition to some self-goals), nearly destroyed the organization in 2009. Since then, it’s regrouped and re-focused on international work, and is now leading ambitious housing, corporate accountability and environmental health campaigns in Latin America, Eastern Europe and the U.K. It was Wade’s ongoing support for Anthropocene Alliance – the environmental non-profit founded in 2017 by Harriet and me — that led us to meet up in Bristol.
Wade is an energetic man with a sweep of white hair, prominent nose, and attentive blue eyes. He was born in Laramie, raised in New Orleans and gained his organizing chops in Little Rock. His accent reveals his Southern upbringing, and his speech is peppered with expressions like “that dog don’t hunt” and “all sizzle and no steak.” He’s a great talker but his confidence doesn’t get in the way of his ability to listen. After Harriet and I described some of the challenges of grassroots organizing, including the cost of underwriting it, we all fell into silence. After a little while, I broke it with flattery and a few cliches of my own:
“Wade, we’re like the fox and you’re like the hedgehog; we have many wiles, but you have one big one.
Right now, everybody agrees that grassroots organizing is the only way to halt the rise of fascism in the U.S. and U.K. In the U.S., the courts are disinclined to bail us out, Congress sure won’t, and when push comes to shove, the military will salute and follow orders from Trump. In the U.K., Labour seems to have a death-wish. It has cut budgets and services where it should increase them, for example social welfare, and raised them where it should cut them, for example defense.
Democratic ships of state on both sides of the Atlantic are going down unless people go into the streets and demand change. Wade, you’re one of the people that really knows how to organize. Philanthropies ought to be throwing money at you to help fight this thing!”
Wade took a few beats before replying: “The folks I’ve met at the Malcolm X Community Center here in Bristol have been coming up to me and saying: ‘What are you gonna do about ‘that man’? How are YOU gonna stop him?’
I felt like they were blaming me – and why shouldn’t they? We didn’t do enough to prevent Trump’s rise. We just didn’t. And unless the Labour Party gets its act together, the same thing will happen here. Nigel Farage is waiting in the wings with his MAGA cap.
And as for organizing, there’s never any guarantees. Some people are too tired, beaten, or scared to get organized. Others aren’t mad or hungry enough.Eventually, they will be, and we need to be ready. But will it happen in time? I just don’t know. We may need a miracle.”
We chatted some more and then said our goodbyes. Wade was flying back to New Orleans, and we were headed down to Stonehenge, on the Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire. William Blake painted and drew it several times, and I wanted inspiration for my planned monograph on the artist. He thought the builders of Stonehenge were Druids who practiced human sacrifice and cultivated war; their monument, he said, was a “building of eternal death, whose proportions are eternal despair.”I wanted to see for myself.
Stonehenge, c. 2500 BCE, Wiltshire, England. Photo: The author.
Unplanned stop in Glastonbury
Heading south, we decided to stay off the motorways and stick to small roads; rural Somerset and Wiltshire have rolling hills with distant prospects and quaint villages with thatched cottages, and we wanted to see them. Our GPS however, obliged us too well. After about 30 minutes, we realized we’d gone far out of our way and were now approaching Glastonbury. Needing to recharge the car, we decided to stop there.
The name Glastonbury is familiar because of the music festival held eight miles away in Pilton, and the ruined abbey, originally founded in the 8th century. After charging the car, we walked up High Street for a cup of tea.What a silly town! Nearly every other shop sold crystals, charms, herbal remedies, candles and books on witchcraft and paganism. Tourists here are a mix of pensioners (like me), New Age gurus, Wiccans, goths, hippies, dope smokers (in the alleys), Christians, Arthurians, and families with dogs and kids wanting a day out.
Despite its thriving tourist industry, Glastonbury is a bit shabby, like almost everywhere in the U.K. For more than 15 years, under Tory rule, county budgets across the country were cut while expenses for social care, homelessness, education and environmental protection rose. As a result, most towns and cities are plagued by empty storefronts and decaying infrastructure, and its residents by unemployment or under-employment (“shit jobs”), poverty (especially child poverty), and food insecurity.
Refreshed by our tea, we were ready to see the sights. In a discarded National Trust brochure, I read about the fabled Glastonbury Tor, a nearby, conical hill on top of which sit remains of the 15th century church of St. Michael. Deep below the church, I also read, there exists a cave (according to legend), leading to the fairy realm of Annwn where lives Gwyn ab Nudd, the lord of the Celtic underworld. Gwyn was renowned for heroic feats, including helping King Arthur seize the comb and scissors belonging to the ferocious boar, Twrch Trwyth. Remembering what Wade told us about needing a miracle to stop Trump (a ferocious bore if ever there was one) we decided to brave the rain squalls and ascend the Tor.
Part way up, we paused at the gate leading to Chalice Hill, where Joseph of Arimathea is supposed to have buried the Holy Grail, the cup used by Jesus during the last supper, and later by Joseph to catch the savior’s blood during the crucifixion. The legend is of considerable antiquity and much honored, but nobody ever discusses how Joseph is supposed to have gotten to Glastonbury from Jerusalem, circa 33 CE. On reflection, however, I realized it might not have been so hard. He didn’t have to go through airport security or pass a customs inspection. He wouldn’t have had to brave the endless cue to board the Eurostar in Paris. In fact, as a Palestinian from Judea, he wouldn’t be allowed to enter the U.S. or the U.K. at all today! Back then, there were no passports or visas. All he needed to come to Glastonbury was a boat, a donkey cart to pick him up at the harbor, and a few good pairs of sandals.
About 20 minutes into our trek, we approached a fellow pilgrim – a man about 25-year-old, bearded, wearing a daypack and holding a walking stick. He slowed when he heard me telling Harriet that many people believe that Joseph of Arimathea was the possessor of “those feet” in Blake’s famous lyric, but that I wasn’t so sure:
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!
“The Holy Lamb of God,” from the Gospel of St. John, I said, clearly referred to Christ. Was Blake saying that both Joseph and Jesus were on that boat from Palestine? Why, of all the places on earth, I added, did they pick Roman-occupied Britain? That’s like going from the frying pan into the fire.
That’s when the stranger piped up:“But it must have been Joseph who came here. There are many, early sources that speak about Christ’s disciples in England, including Eusebius and Hilary of Poitiers. In the 12th century, Robert de Boron wrote that Joseph sent the Holy Grail to Britain.Why do you scoff at the idea that Joseph – and maybe his cousin Jesus too — came to England? There’s an 18-year gap in gospel accounts of Christ’s life. What’s to say he didn’t do a bit of traveling?”
I replied: “You mean, he took an extended gap year abroad?”
My new friend answered: “Exactly! And there are other clues in the poem suggesting Joseph was the owner of “those feet.” He was a tinsmith, a metalworker, and Blake’s poem has refences to metalic weapons:
Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!
I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green & pleasant Land.
I’d clearly met my match and said so. Harriet and I said adieu and departed to finish our climb up Glastonbury Tor – 140 stone steps and a sequence of concrete ramps – to the ruins of the church of St. Michael. When we arrived, I cast my gaze in all directions, looking for more portent or signs. What about the swallowtail kite who seemed forever to hang in the air, held there by the steady rush of wind? I searched the news on my phone again – nothing. Deflated but undaunted, we headed back to town. We went down Chalice Hill, Wearyall Hill, Pilgrim’s Way and the High Street. We brushed past dogs and children, Wiccans and pensioners, dope smokers and Arthurians. This time, I walked more slowly past the New Age tchotchkeshops and bookstores; I briefly browsed in one. Then we got back into our fully-charged car and drove back up to our flat in Norwich.
“While the West has not yet fully turned against Israel, it may only be a matter of time.” Photo by Nikolas Gannon.
Is it finally happening? Is the West turning against Israel? Or are we, whether motivated by hope or driven by despair, simply engaging in wishful thinking? The matter is not so simple.
Last July, a significant number of countries and organizations signed the ‘New York Declaration,’ a strong statement that followed a high-level meeting titled, “Conference on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.”
The conference itself and its bold conclusion warrant a deeper conversation. What matters for now, however, is the identity of the countries involved. Aside from states that have traditionally advocated for international justice and law in Palestine, many of the signatories were countries that had previously supported Israel regardless of context or circumstance.
These mostly Western countries included Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, among others. Some of these nations are also expected to formally recognize the state of Palestine in September.
Of course, one has no illusions about the hypocrisy of supporting peace in Palestine while still arming the Israeli war machine that is carrying out a genocide in Gaza. That notwithstanding, the political change is too significant to ignore.
In the case of Ireland, Norway, Spain, Luxembourg, Malta, and Portugal, among others, one can explain the growing rift with Israel and the championing of Palestinian rights based on historical evidence. Indeed, most of these countries have historically teetered on the edge between the Western common denominator and a more humanistic approach to the Palestinian struggle. This shift had already begun years prior to the ongoing Israeli genocide.
But what is one to make of the positions of Australia and the Netherlands, two of the most adamantly pro-Israel governments anywhere?
In Australia’s case, media accounts argue that the friction began when the federal government denied an Israeli extremist lawmaker, Simcha Rothman, a visa for a speaking tour.
Israel quickly retaliated by ending visas for three Australian diplomats in occupied Palestine. This Israeli step was not just a mere tit-for-tat response but the start of a virulent campaign by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to wage a diplomatic war against Australia.
“History will remember Albanese for what he is: a weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia’s Jews,” Netanyahu said, again infusing the same logic of lies and manipulation tactics.
Israel’s anger was not directly related to Rothman’s visa. The latter was a mere opportunity for Netanyahu to respond to Australia’s signature on the New York Declaration, its decision to recognize Palestine, and its growing criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Though Albanese did not engage Netanyahu directly, his Home Affairs Minister, Tony Burke, did. He answered the accusations of weakness by boldly arguing that “strength is not measured by how many people you can blow up.”
This statement is both true and self-indicting, not only for Australia but for other Western governments. For years, and numerous times during the genocide, Australian leaders have argued that “Israel has the right to defend itself.” Since blowing people up hardly qualifies as self-defense, it follows that Canberra had known all along that Israel’s war is but an ongoing episode of war crimes. So, why the sudden, though still unconvincing, shift in position?
The answer to this question is directly related to the mass mobilization in Australia. On a single Sunday in August, hundreds of thousands of Australians took to the streets in what organizers described as the largest pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the country’s history. Marches were held in more than 40 cities and towns, including a massive rally in Sydney that drew a crowd of up to 300,000 people and brought the city’s Harbour Bridge to a standstill. These protests, which called for sanctions and an end to Australia’s arms trade with Israel, demonstrated the immense public pressure on the government.
In other words, it is the Australian people who have truly spoken, courageously standing up to Netanyahu and to their own government’s refusal to take any meaningful step to hold Israel accountable. If anyone should be congratulated on their strength and resolve, it would be the millions of Australians who relentlessly continue to rally for peace, justice, and an end to the genocide in Gaza.
Similarly, the political crisis in the Netherlands, starting with the resignation of Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp on August 22, 2025, is indicative of the unusually significant change in European politics toward Israel and Palestine.
“The Israeli government’s actions violate international treaties. A line must be drawn,” said Eddy van Hijum, the leader of the country’s New Social Contract Party and deputy prime minister.
The “line” was indeed drawn, and quickly so when Veldkamp resigned, ushering in mass resignations by other key ministers in the government. The idea of a major political crisis in the Netherlands sparked by Israeli war crimes in Palestine would have been unthinkable in the past.
The political shift in the Netherlands, much like in Australia, would not have happened without the massive public mobilization around the Gaza genocide that continues to grow worldwide. While pro-Palestine protests have occurred in the past, they have never before achieved the critical mass needed to compel governments to act.
Though these governmental actions remain timid and reluctant, the momentum is undeniable. People’s power is proving more than capable of swaying some governments to impose sanctions and sever diplomatic ties with Israel, not only through pressure in the streets but also through pressure at the ballot box.
While the West has not yet fully turned against Israel, it may only be a matter of time. The precious blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza deserves for history to be finally altered. The children of Palestine deserve this global awakening of conscience.
Parents observe it as their toddlers navigate playground dynamics: one child hits another; the other strikes back. Domestic feuds and old grudges can metastasize into jealousy, schadenfreude, and—if unchecked—retaliation. Belligerent drivers trigger micro-aggressions that can morph into road rage. In the extreme, assault and murder seem to beg for a commensurate response. Intentional harm breeds reciprocal foul. Whether on unabashed display or buried deeply beneath the surface, this base retributive impulse is potent, stealthy, and addictive—a perfect storm for inciting reactive violence. Society, to its peril, severely underestimates its capacity to do irrevocable damage.
Communally, this tit for tat unfolds with lethal consequences. Laws and government policies deftly conceal and enable the visceral thirst for vengeance through various forms of state-sponsored killing. This phenomenon particularly underpins two contemporary polarizing issues: the death penalty and the Gaza genocide. As the famed television personality and death penalty abolitionist Rev. Fred Rogers articulated, any form of the revenge model teaches children the patently hazardous lesson that two wrongs make a right. His wisdom rings true in both these cases.
The urge for retribution is insidious and subtle, often rendering it unrecognizable. It clouds objectivity, stifling judgment and self-awareness. It camouflages as false notions of “deterrence,” “public safety and security,” “justice,” a “Biblical mandate,” and “a lasting peace,” among other rationalizations. Many individuals and societies, therefore, vehemently deny any accusations of vengeful motivation—even for genocide—while unsuspectedly succumbing to its irresistible call.
The Shadow of the Holocaust
I should know. I once unwittingly operated under revenge’s cunning spell. As a third-generation Holocaust survivor, I used to experience the natural desire for vengeance against those who murdered my ancestors in cold blood. For years, that overpowering feeling contributed to my support of capital punishment. If I could not carry out that reprisal with my own hands, then I felt the state should do so by proxy against other murderers. “They should take ‘em out back and shoot ‘em,” some family suggested; “eye for an eye,” the Bible reinforced.
A personal experience as recently as 2008 illuminated this reality for me. I was watching Mark Herman’s film adaptation of John Boyne’s fictional Holocaust novel “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas” alongside a child survivor who was also a respected friend. In the climactic scene, the Nazis accidentally gassed to death a concentration camp commandant’s young son, who had befriended the film’s eponymous character. When the bereaved SS officer wept and screamed in agony upon discovering his child among the dead, my friend responded by flatly stating, “Good. Now they know how it feels.” In that fleeting moment, after watching a charged movie that so vividly portrayed the suffering of my ancestors, I agreed. While revenge was neither blissful nor sweet, for those few seconds, it felt bitterly just. Even after that emotion departed from my heart, how could I judge my friend for seeking to avenge his family members whom he had witnessed the Nazis murder, especially when I myself could identify with his reaction? We were only human, after all, living in the shadow of the wholesale mass murder of our people.
Unveiling Vengeance on Death Row
My vengeful impulse shifted later that same year when I started working as a Jewish prison chaplain in Canada with individuals whose convictions would have rendered them eligible for execution in certain United States jurisdictions. I learned what motivated those men and women to commit monstrous crimes, and I saw that many changed over time. They were not inherently evil. On the contrary, many began engaging in sincere repentance while safely incarcerated and no longer a threat to the public.
As I witnessed these human beings transform, so too did my views. My prison experiences unveiled my unconscious bias toward retribution, and I began to see it more clearly for what it was: an understandable wish for payback. In part to help break the cycle of violence into which I was born—and that I had been inadvertently perpetuating—I decided to launch into activism for death penalty abolition.
Since then, as an ordained cantor and co-founder of “L’chaim! Jews Against the Death Penalty,” I have directly communicated for years with scores of condemned Americans— many now executed—as well as some of their victims’ loved ones. I have experienced the impact of government policies that shroud the collective appetite for vengeance in the form of psychologically and physically torturous state-sponsored executions. This pattern invariably repeats, even when murder victims’ family membersexpressly call for mercy. That tragically familiar scene unfurled again just this past week ahead of the United States’ most recent execution of Curtis Windom in Florida, whose governor predictably dismissed all such protests before he put him to death. As before, a political leader submitted to the will of death penalty advocates, many of whom harbor the mentality of “the more suffering, the better,” no matter if the existing execution methods of lethal injection, gassing, and the firing squad are unconscionable Nazi legacies.
Wielding Revenge in Gaza
A similar yearning to fulfill a deep-seated bloodlust has significantly influenced the Israeli government’s response to Hamas’ October 7, 2023, onslaught and the ongoing hostage crisis. That pogrom constituted the deadliest mass killing of Jews since the Holocaust, and the triggering of that historical memory and intergenerational trauma combined with the sheer devastation of the Hamas attack to create an unprecedented stimulus for violent response. Many have understood the incalculable brutality of that unjustifiable act of terrorism by observing that it, too, was in part a vengeful response to decades of suffering that Palestinians have endured since Israel’s 1948 independence, to which much of the Muslim world refers as the Nakba (“catastrophe.”) Since that unfathomable day nearly two years ago, Israeli hostage family members have increasingly demanded that government officials call for a ceasefire in Gaza to bring home their loved ones. Yet, the state has persisted in catering to hardliners who, motivated by vindictive extremism combined with Messianicreligious fundamentalism, use the excuse of Hamas recalcitrance to justify carrying out a genocidal policy of mass killing, destruction of societal infrastructure, and starvation. Pope Leo XIV rightfully labeled the outcome “collective punishment.” The effect strikingly evokes capital punishment, whose “machinery of death” so often overrides the wishes of murder victims’ families.
The terrorist organization Hamas, well-versed in revenge dynamics, strategically releases horrific videos of suffering and emaciated Israeli hostages such as Evyatar David and Rom Braslavski with the intention of stirring the popular bloodlust. On cue, Machiavellian and megalomaniacalleaders like Benjamin Netanyahu and convicted felon Donald J. Trump bow to the will of the riled hoi polloi so that they might hold onto power. Israel, in turn, continues its campaign of obliterating tens of thousands of innocent civilians who become martyrs, thereby playing directly into Hamas’ hands. Meanwhile, my coreligionists who are unable to see beyond vengeance’s capped lens project displaced anger onto those of us who dare to name the genocide that Israel’s government perpetuates.
Let there be no doubt: there is a time for fighting—even killing—to fend off lethal aggressors. The Axis Powers during the Second World War immediately come to mind, among many other examples. In the current human evolutionary phase, nations consequently must maintain strong militaries. Still, there is a time for even the most just wars to end, lest they cross the thin red line into unleashing a disproportionate force that cloaks collective punishment, as the Gaza genocide confirms.
Causality is complex, rarely reducible to a single point. As with any military conflict, multiple other geopolitical and historical factors are at play in the spiraling tempest that is Israel/Palestine. Likewise, various political considerations unrelated to the lex talionis psyche determine a state’s utilization of capital punishment. The carnal drive for vengeance, however, remains integral to both execution chamber protocols and to the policies that have buried countless emaciated children in the Gaza rubble. Neither would exist without the primitive urge of the revenge response that has propelled the cycle of violence and plagued humanity since time immemorial. Restorative justice practices, including harm acknowledgment, repentance, repair, forgiveness, and reconciliation, are the only viable means of breaking this fatal pattern.
“May the killings end.”
It will require vigilance to transcend the insidious fixation on vengeance, but it is indeed possible. Jewish anti-death penalty activism offers one telling model for achieving this. Traditional rabbinic parlance cites a specific posthumous honorific for murder victims who have died as martyrs, particularly in pogroms, genocide, or terrorist attacks. The acronym it adds after each martyr’s name is “HYD,” which derives from the Hebrew letters Hey-Yud-Dalet (הי״ד) and stands for “Hashem yikom damam” (”May G-d avenge their blood.”) Members of the “L’chaim!” (”To Life!”) death penalty abolitionist group, however, intentionally never invoke this vindictive formula when they pray for capital murder victims at execution vigils for their condemned assailants. In its place, without exception, they employ the more common refrain “Zichronam Livracha” (”May their memories be for a blessing”). They then conclude with the following prayerful intention for the murder victims:
May their abiding neshamot (spirits) be loving guides for us all.
May their loved ones be comforted among all the mourners of the world.
May no more blood be shed in their sacred names.
May the killings end.
So may it be for the tens of thousands of victims of both the October 7, 2023, barbarity and the resulting Gaza genocide, as well as all targets of vengeful acts—however veiled.
A version of this essay was first published in The Jurist.
Photograph Source: Embajada de EEUU en Argentina – CC BY 2.0
During his confirmation hearings to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. emphatically pledged to prioritize tackling Long COVID, a debilitating chronic condition that develops after COVID-19 infections and leaves many patients with lasting symptoms, such as fatigue, brain fog, and respiratory problems. Sen. Todd Young (R-Indiana) asked Kennedy if he would commit to funding research into treatments and diagnostics for Long COVID. Kennedy’s response? “Absolutely, senator, with enthusiasm.”
Fast forward to August 2025, and Kennedy has dismantled not only federal COVID prevention programs but also much of the research infrastructure devoted to understanding and treating Long COVID. He closed the Office of Long COVID Research and Practice, a central coordinating body established in 2023 to unify agency efforts on Long COVID, and failed to meaningfully replace it. His sweeping reorganization of HHS eliminated or consolidated key centers essential for disease surveillance and chronic illness response, including the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Reckless funding cuts have dealt a significant blow to ongoing research, derailing NIH-funded clinical trials on antivirals and immunotherapies for Long COVID, halting large-scale cohort studies that track patient outcomes, and stalling the development of new diagnostics to improve detection and classification.
Kennedy is not a solo actor in this. Closing the Long COVID office, for example, coincided with a Trump executive order to “reduce the federal bureaucracy.” The involvement of others does not absolve Kennedy — the head of HHS — of responsibility for what takes place in his agency on his watch. It does, however, suggest that this is not a one-man problem but something more systemic and entrenched. The issue is not limited to HHS; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), for example, is currently seeking to remove the few remaining emergency reporting requirements for hospitals.
Creating Barriers to COVID Vaccines
Of course, one of the best ways to avoid Long COVID is to avoid getting infected with COVID. Kennedy has spoken about wanting to address root causes, and the root cause of post-COVID complications is infection with COVID, making prevention efforts a key way to prevent new health problems. Unfortunately, Kennedy has approached COVID prevention the same way he has approached measles prevention. He has gone after COVID vaccines, both the currently available shots and promising research into improved versions.
Unfortunately, Kennedy’s leadership thus far has culminated in new barriers to COVID vaccination that threaten to severely limit this year’s uptake (assuming new vaccines become available at all). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) declined to approve COVID vaccines for those under age 65 without high-risk conditions, instead requiring randomized controlled trials in those groups before considering future approval. This includes both primary series vaccinations and additional variant-specific shots for those who have already received their primary series. The FDA also revoked the Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer’s vaccinein children under the age of 5, leaving Moderna’s formulation as the only authorized option for high-risk children in this age group. For healthy children under 5, the only remaining path to vaccination is now through off-label use by a healthcare provider. The new framework imposes similar restrictions on adults: as of August 22, individuals under the age of 65 without high-risk conditions became ineligible to receive COVID vaccines through standard authorization channels.
And this past week, President Trump (at Kennedy’s behest) fired Susan Monarez, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A wave of protest resignations followed across senior leadership, including Chief Medical Officer Dr. Debra Houry, Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, and Director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases Dr. Daniel Jernigan. In his resignation letter, Daskalakis opined, “Having worked in local and national public health for years, I have never experienced such radical non-transparency, nor have I seen such unskilled manipulation of data to achieve a political end rather than the good of the American people.”
This month, Kennedy’s HHS also took aim at wastewater surveillance, a crucial tool for people trying to use real-world data to calibrate their preventive measures. Wastewater monitoring provides an early warning system for spikes in COVID and other infectious diseases, helping immunocompromised individuals — such as those recovering from cancer — decide when it may be safer to risk exposure from necessary activities like visiting the dentist. Kennedy’s HHS has doubled down on a favorite minimization tactic of the previous administration, and has changed the thresholds for transmission categories, such that virus levels that were previously categorized as “high” are now considered “very low.” More alarmingly, under Kennedy, the CDC has quietly stopped normalizing wastewater data (that is, adjusting for things like rainfall levels), a technical change that will significantly degrade its quality and comparability over time. Without normalization, raw viral counts are misleading, making it far harder for individuals, communities, and health systems to gauge real infection trends. This change threatens to undermine one of the most important and cost-effective surveillance tools still available.
Kennedy is clearly not interested in keeping the promise he made to the American people to tackle Long COVID. His behavior does, however, track with the ableist healthism that Julie Doubleday lucidly identifies as the beating heart of Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement. Ableist healthism is an ideology that equates being healthy with virtue and reframes public health as an individual lifestyle project rather than a collective obligation. It also conflates “natural” with “good,” which explains why MAHA advocates seem so unfazed by preventable deaths from ‘natural’ diseases like measles. Given MAHA’s complacency in the face of preventable death and disability from measles, it’s unsurprising that they would shun interventions like vaccines and other preventative medical interventions for COVID.
However, rather than building back trust based on sound science, Kennedy has doubled down on misinformation. Rather than leveling with people about both the benefits and limitations of existing COVID vaccines, for example, he has cast ill-founded aspersions on their safety profile (and the safety profile of other preventative medicine). He has also actively made it more difficult for those who want to use vaccines to protect themselves to do so. Where the agency once sowed confusion through poor messaging, Kennedy has actively weaponized that communications weakness to recast scientific uncertainty as evidence of conspiracy, replacing cautious half-truths with clear falsehoods.
It is abundantly evident that Kennedy does not intend to prioritize the well-being of Long COVID patients. Instead of using his immense power to expedite research to help current patients and prevent new cases, he has taken a hatchet to the limited systems of care that were already in place. But disabled lives are not expendable. Millions of people living with Long COVID and other post-viral and chronic conditions deserve dignity, care, and a government that values their survival and well-being. Investing in scientific research and robust public health infrastructure is not charity, but a commitment to a collective future that values and includes everyone in our community. The Trump government’s abandonment of Long COVID patients and disdain for prevention is not acceptable and should be recognized for what it is: a political choice to deepen suffering rather than relieve it.
The Trump administration’s immigration crackdown efforts have begun interfering directly with frontline responders of recent disasters – raising substantial fears about what could happen when more serious disasters strike.
On August 27, the Seattle Times reported that two firefighter crews deployed to fight the Bear Gulch fire on the Olympic Peninsula were held by Border Patrol agents, and two firefighters were eventually arrested after being accused of living in the country illegally. As the Times reported in what must be the most incredible understatement of the year, “It is unusual for federal border agents to make arrests during the fighting of an active fire, especially in a remote area.” The move is baffling, as it is pretty well known that nationwide, recruiting and retaining wildland firefighters has been an ongoing challenge. This issue, highlighted by the Government Accountability Office, stems from factors such as low wages, poor work/life balance, mental health challenges, and a lack of workforce diversity. The situation is so dire that California uses incarcerated labor. The recent arrests are likely to exacerbate the problem significantly. The administration is now prioritizing statistics, like the number of undocumented immigrants caught in Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) sweeps, over the country’s ability to combat destructive fires. And doing that in the middle of an active fire is deadly for everyone involved.
The White House is taking other steps that clearly prioritizing immigration detention over disaster relief. The Washington Post reported on the same day of the ICE raid in Washington state that new Department of Homeland Security contracts for aid organizations responding to disasters require these organizations to act as agents of ICE. The latest Fiscal Year 2025 DHS Standard Terms and Conditions for grants, cooperative agreements, fixed-amount awards, and financial assistance now includes a “Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials” section. Within that section, recipients are required to share information, assist in immigration operations (including temporarily detaining people), provide access to information on disaster survivors, and maintain confidentiality around ICE operations. To be clear, this means that if an organization such as the Red Cross receives federal funding to set up a temporary shelter for evacuees, they are required to identify undocumented immigrants, detain them, and let ICE know.
There are so many logistical and ethical issues with this that it’s hard to know even where to start. Aid organizations are not equipped to meet these requirements, particularly for detaining someone. Their core mission revolves around saving lives, not enforcing immigration law. Aid organizations, many of which are faith-based, have expressed concerns that the requirements “violate First Amendment freedoms, undermine religious neutrality, and force institutions to betray core values.” Another problem is that these requirements will deter survivors from seeking aid or services from any organization that receives DHS funding. This can be a death sentence for survivors of a disaster.
These are just two examples out of many in which the administration’s decisions at FEMA are creating a scenario in which all the worst possible things can and will go wrong simultaneously. It is a fear that is not going unnoticed inside the government. Last week, 182 current and former Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) employees addressed a letter to Trump’s FEMA Review Council and Congress stating recent decisions at the agency were putting the US at risk of another Hurricane Katrina-level disaster. Not surprisingly, the next day, about two dozen employees who had signed the letter were placed on leave. This reflects a pattern within the administration of replacing experienced and knowledgeable personnel who may disagree with policies with individuals who prioritize praising the president during meetings.
To be blunt, Trump’s interference with ongoing disaster recovery and relief efforts is dangerous. And as this pattern of politically motivated interference continues, the nation faces an escalating risk of failures in disaster response and an erosion of trust in the institutions that are supposed to keep people safe. With disasters increasing every year, lives are hanging in the balance. The US can’t afford political theater over doing what’s best for communities.
Donald Trump’s blatant campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize has a new claim for his resume—his “diplomacy” is contributing to a new world order. Unfortunately, it is a world order that not only lacks a place for the United States, but actively excludes the United States. This world order is contributing to the burgeoning ties between Russia and China, which are without precedent, as well as among China, India, North Korea, and Russia. U.S. relations with each of them are in decline. Relations between the United States and India are the most recent victim in the formation of the new world order.
The United States had been the key to understanding the world order created at the end of World War II. For the first time in 80 years, the United States is on the outside looking in, not only in Europe but in the Indo-Pacific as well. Washington’s decline can be perceived in terms of power, influence, credibility, and standing. For the first time in 80 years, the United States lacks an influential national security team that can work closely with a president who has peculiar ideas about policy and process. The fact that Marco Rubio serves as both secretary of state and acting national security adviser (and has very limited influence in either capacity) speaks to the problem. As a result, Rubio has thrown his powers into limiting visas for foreigners, particularly for foreign students, a key factor in U.S. isolation.
Trump has gone out of his way to isolate the United States in the global community. His latest action was the denial and revocation of members of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization to attend this month’s UN General Assembly in New York. This comes at a time when key U.S. allies (Britain, France, Canada, and Australia) are planning to join with 147 UN members that already recognize a Palestinian state.
The denial of the visas for the PLO violates the 1947 UN charter, which states the United States “shall not impose any impediment” to the travel of representatives of the UN missions to the “headquarter district” in New York City. This visa ban will affect more than 80 Palestinians as well as the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. (In 1988, the General Assembly met in Geneva so that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat could address the assembly.) This week, the Trump administration suspended all types of visas for all Palestinians.
Sino-Russia: China and Russia have never had a relationship as close as the one that currently exists. There are multiple reasons for this, but the actions of the Trump administration are central to the forging of these close ties. Joint military exercises are a key part of the current situation as well as the generous exchange of military intelligence and weaponry. The convergence of Moscow and Beijing contrasts with the growing discord between the United States and its allies in Europe and Asia.
Sino-Russia-India: This week’s summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a Eurasian security group led by Moscow and Beijing, brought Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to China for the first time in seven years. Again, Trump was the catalyst for Modi’s decision due to Trump’s tariff policies and taking false credit for the cease-fire between India and Pakistan several months ago. Xi’s diplomacy played a major role in bringing India closer to both Moscow and Beijing. Xi gained from making sure that India would not join Washington’s policy of containment against China.
Sino-Russia-North Korea: Kim Jong-un’s attendance at the summit in China marks an important step in ending the discord between Beijing and Pyongyang. Kim’s relations with Moscow are also on solid ground in view of the military support from North Korea for Russia’s war with Ukraine. Trump’s mishandling of the recent meeting with South Korean President Lee Jae Myung and a tough trade policy with Japan are additional points of contrast.
BRICS: The founding countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa have added Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and the United Arab Emirates to the fold in an effort to form an alternative to the G7. Its objectives are anti-Western and anti-US. The Israeli genocide and US complicity, as well as Trump’s tariff and trade policies, have added to BRICS’ popularity and credibility.
U.S.-India: Until recently, India, the world’s largest democracy, and the United States were on course to create a cordial and reciprocal diplomatic and economic policy where both sides could accommodate each other. Trump has virtually brought this policy line to a halt with a doubling of tariffs on India exports. At the same time, the United States and India have created troubled democracies.
Finally, the Trump and Biden administrations have both contributed to the isolation and alienation of the United States in the international community with their complicity in Israel’s profane genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza. Trump’s postwar plan, modeled on his notion to make Gaza the “Riviera of the Middle East,” would create a U.S.-administered trusteeship in Gaza for at least ten years, while it is turned into a tourist resort. Only real estate barons such as Trump, his son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Wytkoff could come up with such a cynical and exploitative idea. The fact that some of the same Israelis who created the dysfunctional Gaza Humanitarian Foundation that failed to distribute food to the starving masses in Gaza completes the hideous picture of Israeli genocide.
Meanwhile, the rubble in Gaza continues to mount, and deceitful Israelis continue to deny that famine exists.
I endlessly hear people complaining that we should tax billionaires, which we should. But the more fundamental question that is rarely asked is, why do we structure markets to allow people to become billionaires and now centi-billionaires?
It is mind boggling how there is so little questioning of the ways that markets have been structured to shift massive amounts of income upward. I always harp on government-granted patent and copyright monopolies as the most obvious way in which the government structures markets to redistribute income upward.
I focus on these monopolies both because there is an enormous amount of money at stake, almost certainly well over $1 trillion a year ($8,000 per household), and the nature of intervention should be obvious to anyone who is not determined to ignore reality. Capitalism without government-granted patent and copyright monopolies is still capitalism. We can make these monopolies shorter and weaker, rather than longer and stronger, and also use alternative, more efficient mechanisms to support innovation and creative work.
Unions and Labor Law
But that is only part of the story of how the rich have structured the market to make themselves richer. To take another example, since this is Labor Day, we should note how they have structured labor law to advantage employers at the expense of workers.
We often think of labor law as protecting workers, and to some extent it does. But it also protects employers. The most obvious way is by banning secondary boycotts. Some months back I wrongly said that this prohibited unions from honoring each other’s picket lines. That is not true, although a contract may prohibit honoring another union’s picket line.
But the prohibition on secondary boycotts does ban a union from picketing at a company’s major supplier or customer. This means, for example, that if the UAW had a conflict with GM, they could not picket a steel company or some other company supplying inputs to GM. Similarly, if the Steelworkers were striking a major steel company, they could not picket or take other actions against the auto companies that used their steel. These could be very effective tactics that the government will arrest union leaders for if their union was to undertake them.
So-called “right to work” laws also are measures that the government imposes to benefit employers. The government has a hands-off attitude towards the conditions that employers impose on their workers. They can require them to wear silly uniforms or make obsequious greetings to customers, which workers have to live with. The argument is that they can quit and work elsewhere if they don’t like the employers’ rules.
But if workers choose to unionize and want to have everyone at the workplace share in the cost of supporting the union, the government in most states says they can’t. And this is the case even if the employer is willing to sign a contract that has paying a union representation fee as a condition of employment. This is a clear violation of the principle of freedom of contract. Incredibly, in US politics, it is the union contract itself which is presented as an interference with individual freedom.
Governments Create Corporations, not the Free Market
Going further into the basics of the economy, the legal structure of corporations is an obvious intervention in the free market. Individuals can freely form partnerships, but a corporation as a legal entity requires the government.
There is a plausible argument that allowing the establishment of corporations as legal entities can foster economic development, most importantly by making it easier to raise capital for major investments. If individuals or partners sought to raise money without corporate status, they would put their entire wealth at risk if the business went bad. The limited liability associated with corporate status means that only the assets of the corporation can be tapped to repay loans or other liabilities, not the shareholders’ personal assets.
The quid pro quo for corporate status used to be that corporations paid the corporate income tax. Profits that were leftover after paying the corporate income tax were available to be paid as dividends, re-invested, or whatever the management of the company desired.
This has changed hugely in the last 70 years, as Congress created the “S-corporation.” These are corporations that enjoy the benefits of corporate status, including limited liability, without having to pay the corporate income tax.
Originally, the S-Corp was established to benefit small businesses, but the restrictions on S-Corps have been widened over time so that many of the richest people in the country now run businesses as S-corps. Also, many partnerships formed by the very rich, like hedge funds and private equity companies, are now structured as limited liability corporations, which also do not have to pay the corporate income tax.
There is no reason that the government should separate corporate status, or the privilege of limited liability, from the corporate income tax. No one forces people to incorporate, if they want corporate status, they can pay the corporate income tax.
Bankruptcy Laws
The existence of and rules around bankruptcy are not written in the Bible. The government can and does change them all the time. Much of the business model of private equity (PE) depends on the abuse of bankruptcy laws. A standard practice of PE companies is to buy up portfolio companies, strip them of assets — like the real estate a store or hospital may be built on top of — and also load them up with debt which can be used to pay dividends to the PE company.
If the portfolio company manages to survive and become a profitable company, the PE company can then take it public and make a huge profit on selling shares. If it can’t, the portfolio company declares bankruptcy and the PE company moves on to its next project.
The profitability of this neat trick would be largely removed if the PE company were liable for the debts of its portfolio companies. This could be done by making a company liable for the debts of another company that it controls, as is certainly the case with the portfolio companies held by PE companies. The Stop Wall Street Looting Act, proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, would have done this. If we had changed the bankruptcy laws along these lines, many of the great fortunes accumulated by PE partners would not exist.
Reform Section 230 to Make Facebook and X Less Profitable
Section 230 gives Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk protection from liability for spreading defamatory material on their platforms. While print and broadcast media can be held liable for spreading lies, as Fox was when it paid $787 million to Dominion for promoting lies about Trump winning the 2020 election, social media platforms have no similar concerns because of Section 230 protection.
There is an argument that they can’t possibly be responsible for monitoring the hundreds of millions of items that are posted daily, but they could be required to respond to takedown notices as they already do in the case of copyright infringement. It would also be possible to structure a reform of Section 230 to allow sites that do not rely on advertising or sell personal information to continue to enjoy the same protection they do now.
Change the Rules So the Billionaires Aren’t So Rich
In a society with enormous inequality, it is understandable that many people (including me) want to tax the billionaires. But massive inequality of wealth also translates into massive inequality of power. The billionaires won’t nicely agree to have their massive wealth taxed.
If anyone had paid attention to how they had been rigging the rules, we would have many fewer and poorer billionaires today. We can and should continue to push to make the billionaires pay higher taxes, but we should also push to restructure the rules for the market so that less money goes to the top in the first place.
This first appeared on Dean Baker’s Beat the Press blog.
Pentagon image of airstrike on alleged “drug boat” in international waters off the coast of Venezuela.
On September 2, the US government claimed that military operators acting on its behalf murdered 11 foreign nationals aboard a boat in international waters off the coast of Venezuela.
I say “claimed” because Venezuelan communications minister Freddy Ñáñez suggests that a video of the murders released by the US government is an AI-generated “deepfake.” Regimes lie, and it’s not obvious which regime is lying in this particular instance.
But let’s assume that US regime officials, including US secretary of defense Pete Hegseth and US secretary of state Marco Rubio, were truthful in their claims.
If so, it’s reasonable to also assume they’re truthful when they claim that these 11 murders are just the start of a “campaign,” and that the US government intends to “blow up and get rid of” (per Rubio) even more victims.
When someone credibly confesses to murder, announces an intent to commit further murders, and clearly possesses the means to do so, it seems to me that whatever law applies should be brought to bear.
Under 18 U.S. Code § 1111, “Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life; Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”
Said jurisdiction is defined in 18 U.S. Code § 7. It includes any vessel or aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United States, meaning that the military personnel involved in the murder mission are themselves criminals … IF the law is applied.
Similarly, the entire chain of command, all the way up to US president Donald Trump (who has publicly admitted to approving the crime) are clearly on the hook for “conspiracy to murder” under 18 U.S. Code § 1117 … IF the law is applied.
Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court ruled last year that presidents enjoy immunity for all “official acts,” even illegal ones like, say, ordering 11 murders. So Trump himself is as unlikely to be held accountable for this atrocity as for other crimes he’s ordered, such as the murder of eight-year-old American girl Nawar Anwar al-Awlaki in 2017.
But what about Hegseth, Rubio, and the various military officers who must have been involved in planning and directing the operation?
Holding them legally culpable may be as unlikely as bringing Trump himself to justice, but it’s theoretically possible. So far as I can tell there’s nothing to prevent a grand jury from indicting some or all of them.
The biggest hurdle to get over is that the US Department of Justice answers to Trump and likely won’t ASK a grand jury to do any such thing.
So, once again, the US government will get away with murdering anyone it announces is a “terrorist,” “drug smuggler,” etc., without having to prove the charges.
The only unique aspect of this particular mass murder is that its sole purpose seems to have been to distract us from the matter of Donald Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Why is there such a rush to resurrect the Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan? The lights have not gone out in Michigan since Palisades closed; there are no current AI data centers in Michigan clamoring for the power.
Once upon a time in Michigan, there was an aged nuclear power plant called Palisades. Since it started operation in 1971 until it was permanently closed in 2022, it ran about 73% of the time, about three days out of every four. But the old nuclear plant could not financially compete against renewables, and after its electric subsidy from Michigan expired in 2022, Palisades was closed and sold for scrap metal.
Holtec, the scrap company that bought the Palisades’ carcass, had never designed, constructed or operated a nuclear power plant. Its expertise was demolishing (decommissioning) them. So it neglected the aging steel pipes, allowing them to sit idle and deteriorate. It should come as no surprise that, like everything metallic, the nuclear pipes began to corrode and crack from that neglect.
In essence, Holtec deliberately pushed Humpty Dumpty off the wall and claimed that it “wasn’t unexpected” that cracks developed in the nuclear plant’s pipes. They were supposed to be demolishing Palisades so the cracks did not matter!
Now here is where things get weird. In 2024, after two years of neglect, Holtec decided to “resurrect” the carcass of Palisades (resurrect is Holtec’s own word!). The State of Michigan gave Holtec hundreds of millions of dollars and the Department of Energy (DOE) promised billions in additional funds for the resurrection. And the Department of Agriculture even awarded subsidies to Rural Electric Cooperatives to buy power from Palisades.
Everyone seemed to forget how the nursery rhyme ends, the part about “All the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty together again”! To no one’s surprise, when Palisades nuclear reactor components were examined in 2024 and 2025, it had extensive cracks! Everywhere!
Two years after acquiring Palisades, Holtec finally performed inspections to see how extensive Humpty Dumpty’s cracks really were. Those new inspections showed that stress corrosion cracking, SCC, was extensive throughout all the nuclear reactor components. Only one tube was found damaged in the 2020 inspection before Holtec bought the facility while more than 700 tubes were found to be damaged under Holtec in 2024.
Unlike Palisades previous owner, Holtec ignored the need to maintain excellent water chemistry inside the nuclear plant’s pipes. Holtec acknowledged that proper “wet layup” water chemistry was NOT maintained for about two years and also recognized that cracks “were not unanticipated.”
Without adequate control of water chemistry through the addition of oxygen scavengers and proper pH control, Palisades tubes and pipes had rapidly deteriorated. Holtec put no priority on maintaining excellent water chemistry inside the nuclear plant’s pipes. Their indifference to industry standards pushed Humpty Dumpty off the wall and made cracking inevitable.
The cracked components could have, should have, been replaced. In fact, Holtec acknowledged to DOE that many components were unrepairable. Half a billion dollars of DOE funds were requested “to replace old worn-out hardware such as the Steam Generators[1]”. After securing DOE funding, Holtec chose not to replace any of the cracked nuclear components.
Rather than replace key nuclear components as they promised the DOE, Holtec asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for permission to apply Band-Aids to the cracked, broken pieces, to stick them back together. These Band-Aids were called “relief requests” or “license amendment requests”.
If Humpty Dumpty were really an extensively cracked egg, the Food and Drug Administration would never have allowed consumers to eat it. But our Humpty Dumpty is an extensively cracked nuclear power plant, subject to oversight and regulation by the NRC. And the NRC has never met a nuclear plant it didn’t like.
And what did the NRC do when they were asked to analyze and regulate Humpty Dumpty’s cracks? It approved restarting Palisades without replacing the cracked components!
A retired former Palisades executive and I have independently and repeatedly asked, no, we’ve begged the NRC to consider the totality of the crack damage at Palisades. To look at Holtec’s incompetence as the real root cause of the cracking in the first place. To understand the technical literature that shows the cracks will worsen if the reactor is pressurized and heated back up. To do their job and regulate, not perpetuate Humpty Dumpty’s flawed repair scheme.
Under executive orders from the Trump administration to speed up nuclear approvals, the NRC chose not to place public safety at the forefront of the Palisades resurrection. Rather, it placed legal constraints around the applicability of the expert reports, allowing my engineering analysis in those reports to be ignored. Last month, the NRC granted Holtec permission to load fuel and begin startup testing of the aged reactor in spite of the known cracks and the likelihood that they will grow larger.
So I thought that perhaps I was wrong, possibly Holtec did not push Humpty Dumpty off the wall after all. Perhaps the NRC was right and the cracks could be repaired. Maybe the cracks would not grow when heat and pressure were applied. So, for an independent analysis, as any 2025 college grad would do, I asked Grok and ChatGPT.
Here is what GROK said:
Hundreds more indications, possibly 10-20% additional plugging needed within 1-2 years, risking loss-of-coolant accidents if unchecked.
Here is what ChatGPT said:
It’s not far-fetched to think of a worst-case where a tube could leak or rupture soon after …We could anticipate one or more tube leak events in 2025–2026 if the plant runs without replacing SGs [Steam Generators].… the likelihood of a serious tube event is undoubtedly higher now than it was historically.
Ironically, Holtec claims the power from Palisades is needed due to increased electric demands from AI Data Centers, yet the AI programs identify that Palisades would be unreliable and unsafe. Catch 22!
Why is there such a rush to resurrect Palisades? The lights have not gone out in Michigan since Palisades closed; there are no current AI data centers in Michigan clamoring for the power, and indeed, the power that Palisades plans on providing will need to be subsidized to be competitive with renewable energy sources.
WHY? Follow the lobbyists and the money. Holtec is a privately held company. It plans an Initial Public Offering (IPO) early in 2026 that has been valued at between $5 billion and $10 billion. The cornerstone of that IPO is the resurrection of Palisades. When discussing the IPO, Barrons states:
“ Nuclear Power’s Biggest IPO in Years Is on the Way…
Holtec is also on the verge of doing something never before attempted in America—bringing back a decommissioned nuclear plant. The company is restoring a reactor at the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan, which had been shut down in 2022 for financial reasons. It has received hundreds of millions of dollars of support from the state of Michigan and the Department of Energy for the project.[2]”
Ten Billion Dollars is a lot of money. Does Holtec plan on being rewarded for pushing Humpty Dumpty off the wall? I pray that my analysis is wrong, and that Palisades will not suffer radiation releases that could result in evacuating parts of Michigan if it is allowed to restart. But I know there is no second verse, no happy ending to the Humpty Dumpty nursery rhyme. There is no “And they all lived happily ever after”.
Author’s note: This short piece is based on several months of detailed supporting analysis. Three longer, more complete reports including my expert report, testimony and the complete AI analysis are available at this link: https://beyondnuclear.org/9472-2/
NOTES
1. Page 2, HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL AND STATE SUPPORT TO ENABLE THE RESURRECTION OF THE PALISADES NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION SUBMITTED JULY 5, 2022 ↑
“Are we liberal imperialists who take a knee for antiracism when it’s fashionable, but fall silent when an ethnostate openly conducts a campaign of extermination?” Photo by Daniel Pelaez Duque.
The following remarks were delivered at the “Take Back Our University” Rally held at Cornell University on August 28, 2025.
We are witnessing a wholesale, systematic attack on black and brown people, at home and abroad, and, true to form, much of the white majority either stands by passively or actively colludes, willfully ignorant to the reality that Du Bois described in 1935: namely, that white nationalist reaction is disguised class warfare against the bottom 90 percent of society.
We knew the institutional commitment to racial justice was paper-thin. We knew the DEI regime was a bland half-measure that allowed higher ed to claim social relevance and moral legitimacy. But even the cynics among us marvel at how rapidly craven administrators dismantle the diversity apparatus through which the corporate university once signaled virtue. DEI was the cream smeared on the face of structural racism. Now that it is inexpedient, look how easily it evaporates!
Make no mistake: white supremacy is the force behind the colossal disrespect, the sheer contempt, to which this society and this university routinely subject black and brown people.
What the colonizer cannot comprehend is that white supremacy degrades us all. It convinces us that settler-colonialism is natural or inevitable. It assures us that the concentration camp is built for someone else. White supremacy is the reason we believe a Palestinian child is less precious to her parents than our own children are to us. It allows us to watch a little girl being vaporized on social media while we continue to insist that the situation is dreadfully complicated.
Palestinians, you see, lack the protections of whiteness that their colonizers have mostly acquired, to disastrous effect.
White supremacy says who is expendable. It tells us who may be massacred with minimal opposition. At the same time, it convinces us that drones over Gaza do not prefigure drones over our heads. And yet, imperialism boomerangs. Militarism comes home to roost. One experiments in Gaza to execute at home. Technologies of repression, tested abroad, are deployed against domestic enemies.
Those of us who have experienced colonialism, whose families have experienced colonialism, can never forget this. We know that ANY racialized slaughter is a prelude to our subjection.
Every time we accept the erasure or exceptionalization of Palestinians, we reaffirm a human hierarchy that we disavow in every other aspect of our lives.
What hypocrisy! We decry the targeting of immigrants on our streets while condoning the kidnapping, torture, and indefinite detention of scores of Palestinians. We condemn attacks on higher ed while ignoring the criminalization of students who have somehow found the temerity to oppose a holocaust. Indeed, we let a handful of soulless bureaucrats cast into exile our best and our brightest. (Imagine how utterly hollow you must be, how cowardly…
to keep rolling out new codes of conduct as the children of Gaza, desperate and hungry, are annihilated.)
We lament the growth of a police state on our own soil while denying the transnational and collaborative nature of authoritarianism. Somehow we forget that violations of due process and human rights are the very terms of colonialism and occupation. We fail to realize, until too late, that Palestine is the tip of the spear that now points at our hearts.
You don’t have to be an Ivy League professor to see the links between militarized checkpoints in Washington, D.C., and militarized checkpoints overseas. Perhaps it is precisely the status and privilege of such professors that keeps them from publicly acknowledging the connection.
Remember, fascism feeds on silence. You don’t have to bend a knee for it to thrive. Just shut your mouth. Truth is, ALL that we do here is tainted by genocide. The whole enterprise. Every exchange, in the classroom and beyond, occurs under the pall of institutional and personal complicity.
One is tempted to ask: who are we, really? Are we liberal imperialists who take a knee for antiracism when it’s fashionable, but fall silent when an ethnostate openly conducts a campaign of extermination? Are we self-absorbed scions of the professional-managerial class, destined to lead lives of decadence and indifference? Are we hirelings of the Pentagon and the weapons industry? Are we narrow careerists? Are we mercenaries? Because, if we’re just scared, then goddamn us. We deserve the hellscape that the billionaires are preparing for us.
It’s been almost two years. Starving children are foraging amid carnage and debris. For God’s sake. Do SOMETHING. A humanist acts not because she lacks fear, but in spite of it.
Our silence exposes us. It mocks our professions of enlightenment. It defiles our land acknowledgements and decolonial metaphors and “Be kind” lawn signs. Our hands are drenched in blood. Our hands are drenched in blood. It may not be too late to redeem ourselves, to salvage some modicum of decency and morality. But the sun is setting.
What would it mean to refuse? Refuse to participate. Refuse to lie. Refuse to labor. Today the challenge is simply to declare, collectively and unequivocally, that we are horrified. We are heartsick. We are ashamed. We are ready to act.
I’ll end with a message to the donor class and their retainers in Day Hall. Please understand that we will NEVER abandon the Palestinian people. Solidarity is more precious to us than prestige or rank or any of the petty rewards you may dangle before us. And now that we have found our voice, we cannot return to the shadows of docility and compliance.
Free Palestine. Free Congo. Free Sudan. Free Los Angeles. Free Washington, DC. Hands off Venezuela. Hands off Cuba. US out of Africa. Resist! Resist! Resist!
In Indonesia, there is fear that if militant protests continue, state violence may become even more murderous—photograph by Angiola Harry.
Less than a year after taking office, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto is facing the most militant anti-government protests in years. Recent street actions are caused by the country’s incredible inequality and rule by an entrenched political class. Inequality in Indonesia is extreme, and the gap between rich and poor is widening. While the middle class is shrinking, the elite is becoming ever more wealthy, and arrogantly so. The parliament recently voted themselves a substantial hike in monthly housing allowances, bringing their total monthly income to over 100 million rupiah, more than $6000. Meanwhile, the average monthly wage for workers in February 2025 was 3.09 million rupiah, less than $200. The country’s unemployment rate hovers at 15%, more for youth, the highest in Southeast Asia.
On Thursday morning, August 28, labor unions peacefully assembled outside the parliament building to call for higher wages, tax reform and adherence to existing labor laws. After workers dispersed, students surged around the building, demanding cancellation of politicians’ new housing allowances and dissolution of parliament. That night, Affan Kurniawan, a 21-year old Ojek driver (an online motorcycle delivery/taxi service) was run over and killed by a 14-ton police water cannon and riot control vehicle. A co-worker suffered a broken leg.
Dismissed from his role as one of the most powerful generals 30 years ago for his involvement in the disappearance of pro-democracy student activists, president Probowo now claims to be ‘shocked and amazed’ by the death of the Ojek driver. He urges calm and ordered an investigation into ‘ethical’ issues related to Affan’s death. The sudden eruption of militant actions across the peninsula compelled him to visit the family of the slain driver and promise that the government would support them for their lifetimes. Affan’s funeral procession was made up of hundreds of green uniformed Ojek motorcycle drivers.
These marginalized workers daily come face to face with Indonesia’s stark inequality. They routinely pick up food at luxurious malls and deliver it to middle-class homes. Their financial situation is so precarious that on December 8, 2024, Darwin Mangudut Simanjutak starved to death in Medan as he waited for a customer’s order. The night before he died, he had complained to a friend that he hadn’t eaten because he didn’t have any money. Six months later, on May 20, 2025, thousands of drivers who worked for the Gojek online platform took to the streets in 18 cities. The Indonesia Online Drivers Union reported that at least 12 of their members had died due to fatigue because workers sometimes were on the job 18 hours per day. These drivers represent thousands of others who have been denied the benefits of the country’s economic development. For years, they have struggled to get improvements to their wages and conditions only to suffer from recent tax increases and wage reductions.
Despite the president’s appeal for calm, people refused to obey. After Affan’s killing, ‘Pembunuh’ (murderer) graffiti suddenly appeared on the streets of many cities. A leading student organization called on all citizens to join them in the streets, noting that, ‘An institution that should protect has turned into uniformed executioners, trampling the dignity of civilian citizens.’ On Friday, August 29, rallies and protests were organized across the archipelago. Regional parliament buildings were set afire and the national parliament in Jakarta was surrounded and besieged. More than a dozen bus and subway stations were destroyed, as were highway toll booths and carefully selected police buildings. The basement and first floor of a large police headquarters in East Jakarta was heavily damaged by fire. Hundreds of protesters massed outside the headquarters of the Jakarta Police’s elite Mobile Brigade (Brimob), the unit blamed for Affan’s death, throwing firecrackers as police responded with tear gas. A determined group of protesters, screaming ‘Pembunuh,’ tried to tear down the gates of the notorious unit, and pulled down a sign from the building’s exterior. Protests spread to other major cities, including Bandung in West Java, Semarang in Central Java, Surabaya in East Java and Medan in North Sumatra. In Yogyakarta, people besieged the regional police headquarters for five hours. Several government vehicles, a police service center, and a traffic post were set afire. Water barriers were attacked as well, forcing closure of the northern ring road.
The next day, Saturday, August 30, people’s anger continued to be expressed. Large buildings containing the regional parliament and city council in Makassar, Sulawesi went up in flames. Three government workers were trapped in the buildings and jumped to their deaths from the third floor. Another person was mistaken for a police spy and perished after being attacked by a crowd. In Solo, former President Jokowi’s hometown, the parliament building was also torched. In Jambi, the vice-governor’s official residence burned. In Martaram, protesters set on fire the massive regional parliament. Across the country, dozens of motorcycles, cars and buses were burnt.
At a televised press conference on August 30, the head of the country’s police and the army commander refused to apologize for the murderous state violence. Instead, they blamed anarchists. By dawn, stunned citizens observed dozens of burnt shells of cars surrounded by rocks and bottle fragments in many urban areas. As television news teams surveyed the damages from the street fights, their headlines uniformly declared, ‘anarchists harm the public good.’
Elite Arrogance Spurs Popular Response
After students called for the dissolution of parliament, Ahmad Sahroni, an influential member of parliament, called that perspective ‘a foolish mentality…That kind of person is the most stupid person in the world.’ After Sahroni repeated his remark, he left for Singapore. While he was gone, hundreds of outraged people surged into his private residence. They looted it while soldiers stood by, pleading with people not to burn the house. The army watched as people carried away the bathtub, refrigerator, washing machine, furniture, and expensive designer bags. A watch valued at more than $300,000 was among the appropriated items. Liberated dollars and rupiah were thrown into the air for all to share in the expropriated cash.
Eko Patrio, another member of parliament and a popular social media influencer, served as DJ for a dance party in parliament after pay raises were enacted. His outspoken celebration led people to converge on his residence. He engaged the protesters, claiming ‘everybody makes content.’ After he left for China, his residence was looted. People also streamed into the house of Finance Minister Sri Mulyani and Uya Kuya before taking all their belongings.
Crass public statements made by leading Indonesian government officials have continually made news. When a journalist asked minister of human development Pratikno about a large worm killing a young child, he publicly laughed out loud. Pratikno pointed to his ‘tired eyes’ before breaking into laughter. The five-year-old child named Raya had been diagnosed with tuberculosis. Once in the hospital, a worm began to come out out her nose. After she died, tapeworms weighing approximately one kilogram were found inside her body. The country’s minister of health later claimed infection, not worms, were the cause of death.
Although no one knows what will happen next, clean-up crews work at a feverish pace to clear streets of burnt out vehicles and to repair public transportation infrastructure. Of more than 500 people injured, dozens are still hospitalized, according to Street Paramedics Organization. Negotiations are underway for the release of more than 600 arrested people and for punishment of police involved in the killing of Affan. One eyewitness to Affan’s murder publicly stated that the Brimob vehicle ‘suddenly sped through the middle of the road without paying attention to the gathered crowd.’ Officials have detained seven Brimob officers for ‘ethical’ questions in connection with the driver’s death. Not surprisingly, government investigators have yet even to determine who was behind the wheel.
Political reforms of little consequence to the poor have been swiftly publicized. Probowo suspended the new housing allowances. Eko has been suspended as secretary-general of National Mandate Party (PAN). Apparently the final straw came after people criticized parliament members dancing to celebrate their housing allowance raise. Eko posted a video mocking people angered by the dancing. Ahmad Sahroni was also suspended from parliament by his NasDem Party, mentioning his statements ‘have offended and hurt the feelings of the people.’ Another party member, Uya Kuya, was shown dancing over a caption reading, ‘just dance with it, you guys thought that Rp3million a day was a lot.’ She was also suspended.
New repressive measures have also been enacted. Probowo warned that the protests could be considered ‘treason and terrorism.’ Three newly created mobile patrols of hundreds of heavily armed police now roam Jakarta. The country’s police chief ordered his officers to shoot with rubber bullets anyone who enters Brimob headquarters. The University of Indonesia has suspended all in-person classes and replaced them with online formats for at least the next week. At the same moment, preliminary reports indicate that protests continue to erupt across the archipelago.
Clearly, recent street actions and looting have stoked fear among the elite and middle class. The uprising has also provided new energy and pride to Ojek drivers and marginalized citizens, a palpable change that could be one of its most important outcomes. Prabowo canceled a trip to Beijing, where he had long planned to attend a summit of leaders of countries opposed to US imperial actions. While he has expressed sympathy for Affan’s family, he has also promised that firm responses will meet ‘anarchist acts,’ damage to public facilities, and looting of public and private properties. Many people fear that if militant protests continue, state violence may become more murderous.
How Will Capitalism End: Reflections on a Failing System – A Lecture by Wolfgang Streeck. Tuesday, April 4, 2017. Photograph Source: Center for the Study of Europe Boston University – CC BY-SA 2.0
Wolfgang Streeck, director emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies in Cologne, is in the front ranks of Europe’s social thinkers, having come out with some of the most penetrating analyses of the crises of neoliberal economics and the ills of neoliberal society over the last 30 years. No stranger to controversy, he has criticized the technocratic elites in Europe and the United States for placing adherence to so-called “universal values” rather than the democratic process as the basis of the right to rule, called for an end to Europe’s subjection to the United States, dismissed the Russian threat as a fiction manufactured by the Baltic states, and called for the transformation of Europe and the global order into systems of small states. Though a man of the left, he has distanced himself from both the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Die Linke (The Left Party) on matters of peace, immigration, and social policy and become identified as a strong supporter of the party (BSW) of the controversial Sahra Wagenknecht in the lead-up to the 2025 Bundestag elections. His latest book is Taking Back Control? States and State Systems after Globalism (2024)
Trump: Purveyor of Chaos and Uncertainty
WB: Let me turn to another issue. What do you think is going to happen with Trump and Europe?
WS: Before I address that issue, let me say that we have, in Germany, 40,000 American troops, the same as Okinawa. In addition, we have an unknown number of American nuclear warheads stationed in Germany. In Ramstein and Wiesbaden, we have the two most important command centers of the American military apart from the Pacific. Anything that is being done in the Middle East is being done out of the American military command in Wiesbaden, Germany. So, German foreign policy must always be seen in this perspective. And we have a political elite that over decades has been trained that Germany on its own cannot do anything unless the United States supports us.
Now to Trump, I’ve never been in a situation where it’s so difficult to make predictions. As a leader this man is a source of chaos—chaos means you don’t know what’s going to happen next. For this reason, one needs to look at the deep state in the United States. Trump is sitting on something. That something is the biggest military in the history of mankind and the biggest espionage and sabotage operation. In Europe, the two former fascist countries that were defeated in the Second World War, Germany and Italy, are still basically occupied by the United States. By the US military. Will they leave if Trump tells them to? I don’t think so. What they’ve dug into the ground in terms of technology, you can’t even speculate on this sort of thing. But there must be billions and billions worth of high technology on German soil, or underground. Will they pull it out? Career opportunities in the U.S. military have to do with their 750 military bases around the world. 750! If Trump is thinking about making “America Great Again” by rebuilding American society, finally building decent high schools and finally getting a decent health care system in place and ending the drug epidemic, then he would have to bring these people back into the real life on the American ground. They would have to learn to be decent policemen or decent doctors. Can you imagine this? This is what I think what Trump will have to get done to keep himself in office if MAGA is about the United States as a society rather than an empire.
WB: Let’s talk a bit about the deep state and how there might be dissatisfaction there with Trump’s policies. Do you think there are people in the US military who would be willing to move against Trump?
WS: It’s hard to think about someone in the U.S. military who would want to become a dictator. But J.D. Vance might fit the bill. To me he seems like someone who’s both very intelligent and absolutely ruthless. There’s a procedure in the American constitution, the 25th Amendment, to declare the president incapable. The procedure has to be started by the vice president. If he can convince the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader that Trump is mentally incapable, according to the constitutional procedure for removing the president from office if he’s no longer mentally fit, he might do it. Then he will be president.
Will Capitalism Again Reorganize Itself through War?
WB: Do you see the relations between Europe and the US as irreversibly deteriorating?
WS: When Trump came in during his first term and also at the start of his second term, there was this sense that European countries must have a common foreign policy and security capacity because the United States will leave. Then in a very short time, we had the NATO chief sucking up to Trump. From one extreme to the other. My view is that we need to have something different from both a United States of Europe and from Europe as a trans-Atlantic extension of America. In recent writings I have tried to point out the difficulties involved in both extremes, in order to really understand what Europe is and where it should go.
But before discussing that, let me share my biggest nightmare, which is capitalism reorganizing itself through war. Capitalism, in fact, has again and again organized itself through war. Capitalism was reorganized when the Dutch took over from Genoa and the center of capitalism moved from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, then the British defeated the Dutch and the center moved to London, then came the First World War which destroyed the old quasi-feudal European empires, replacing them with the modern nation-states, after which came the chaos of the 1930s, when Britain could no longer maintain world order while the United States still refused to do the task, leading to the Second World War, which saw Germany and Japan become allies, each seeking their own “zone of influence,” modeled after the Monroe Doctrine, then the postwar settlement—the second after 1918—which gave rise to the bipolar order and the colonial wars of liberation, and finally the end of the Cold War—without bloodshed only because of the wisdom of Gorbachev—making the United States the new hegemon, bringing in three decades of neoliberalism—George H. W. Bush’s New World Order—which is now in ruins. Around which power, or powers, will capitalism reorganize itself this time? And will it, once more, be reorganized by war? There are just two candidates, the United States and China.
What is frequently being discussed in the United States is the scenario Thucydides gives when trying to account for why Athens, the leading power of its time, lost the Peloponnesian War. As he recounts it, Athens was defeated by Sparta because it didn’t strike early enough, when it still had the strategic advantage. It watched the new hegemon rise until it was too late, Sparta having become too strong to be defeated. Note the ambivalence in Trump’s posture in relation to China. Sometimes he sounds very warlike, sometimes you’re not so sure. If Trump told an American military planner today that 10 years from now the United States would probably have to go to war with China, the answer might be that this would be too late because the Chinese would by that time have become too strong. So, the army might prefer to do the job now. Europe would inevitably be dragged into this conflict, unless it takes steps now to move away from its dependence on the United States.
Europe’s Crisis and the German Question
WB: So where is the thinking among European elites on this question?
WS: Since German unity in 1990, the rhetoric was always that Germany must accept its responsibility and act as the leading country in Europe. What this meant, however, was that Germany would pay the costs of keeping Europe together, but that being the leader did not mean telling others what to do. And that led to Merkel in particular, always hiding behind other countries, especially France.
The present German government, under Friedrich Merz, the new chancellor, has changed the tone. Now the rhetoric is about Germany as Europe’s most powerful nation. What this really means is that they actually want to lead, not just to pay. This makes for conflict, certainly with France. For the French always saw the Europe of the European Union as being led by a tandem, with them steering and the Germans sitting at the back. Now, things seem have to become different. Recently, someone suggested that one reason why the current German government has taken on such a lot of debt is to preempt Italy and France from getting their way by allowing the EU to take on debt on their behalf and with the Germans providing the de facto collateral. If the EU would now acquire debt on a large scale, interest rates would become prohibitive. Generally, I think that the new German leadership under Merz now aspires to a leading role of Germany in EU and Europe beyond just picking up the bill, basically out of political necessity, to avoid having to act in the interest of others instead of its own interest. In a longer perspective that points to Germany as the hegemon of the Western European state system in a multi-polar world.
My view, as I have said several times, is that Germany does not have the military capacity to support this kind of project. Since the 1960s, when France set up the Force de Frappe, the French governments have always had a deal in mind along the following lines: their nuclear force is expensive, so if we promise to extend our nuclear deterrence to the defense of Germany, Germans can pay for some of it. Since they don’t and can’t have a nuclear force, they have enough money to pay for a strong conventional army, the opposite of the French situation. There were several efforts by France to set up a deal like this, and Germany was sometimes willing to entertain something like it, paying part of the costs of the Force de Frappe in exchange for French nuclear protection. But when the Germans asked for the target catalogue for the French nuclear missiles, they heard that targeting had to remain a French prerogative as a sovereign nation. The problem behind this was that most of the targets were in Germany, since the idea was to stop the Russian army from getting to France, and where you stopped them was and could only have been in Germany. So, they never even came close to a deal, and this reinforced the dependence of Germany on the United States.
Interestingly, the new floor leader of the CDU in the Bundestag recently raised the question of whether Europe would need a nuclear umbrella of its own and where Germany would fit in this. If my memory serves me right, this had not been discussed since the 1960s. He repeated in an interview that Europe would need its own nuclear capacity but left unanswered who would be in charge of the nukes, saying it was still a problem that needed a solution and going on to propose something completely ridiculous like in the likelihood of war, countries could draw lots. Can you imagine giving Giorgia Meloni or Marine Le Pen the nuclear trigger? So, the implication is, if you can’t have a European nuclear weapon, then it has to be a national nuclear capacity for Europe, and if you don’t want it to be a French one, then Germany is the obvious candidate to develop this.
Is Russia the Enemy?
WB: Let me go to the question of Russia. Is Russia the enemy?
WS: No, I don’t see that. The official rhetoric in Europe is that Russia is the enemy, and that in five years’ time, the Russians will be ready to march on Europe. Now this is a picture that is above all spread by the Baltic states. The three Baltics countries are very small. They need someone else to fight their wars for them, and this can only be the Germans. They had tried this alliance in the last world war, and it did not end very well for them. They, in fact, wanted German protection so much that they armed several SS regiments fighting Russia under German command and assisted the Nazis in the persecution of the local Jewry. Very much like Ukraine.
Realistically, it seems totally ridiculous to think that Putin would want to conquer Germany or any other West European country. In principle they can sell gas and oil and other resources to the West Europeans and prosper. Why should they want to rule Germany or, for that matter, Finland, if they have a hard time ruling their own country?
One reason why the Baltics are so excited is that they have sizeable Russian minorities that some of them treat very badly. The tensions with Russia might be more manageable, without these immense preparations for war, if the Russian minorities would be given full citizenship and language rights and federal autonomy. That would mean they would no longer call on Moscow to help them against their governments. The worse they treat their Russians, the more Moscow might feel forced to do something for their compatriots. It is up to the Baltic states to decide how much pressure to put on their Russian minorities so that at some stage they will turn secessionist or irredentist. Instead there are wild dreams about getting the West to defeat Russia for the benefit of the smaller nations on the Russian periphery. For example, Kaja Kallas, the former Prime Minister of Estonia, who is now responsible for the foreign policy of the European Union, is said to have once suggested that Russia should be sliced up into four or five different states, and that only then will Europeans—that is, the Baltics—be safe. This, of course, has been tried before, and it turned out a disaster, including costing the lives of 15 million Russians alone. I claim that a safe life in Europe and in Germany is only possible if we find an arrangement to coexist in peace with Russia on the Eurasian continent, and this is linked to the bigger question of where Europe should go.
Is Another Europe Possible?
WB: And where is that?
WS: Europe is a collection of old societies and states, and the idea that someone can come and merge this into one, either a United States of Europe or as a trans-Atlantic extension of America—that is a very mistaken idea. So, my view is that if we can talk the Baltics out of dragging us into a war with Russia, we need to move into something that is both realistic and good for everyone.
That is, European countries cooperating voluntarily, and extending their freely chosen relations to the rest of the world. Nowadays, logistics are much easier than the 1930s. Germany, or other European countries, could develop amicable relationships with places like the Philippines or South America, or whoever. We could deliver things these countries urgently need, take desalination plants for example, and they could deliver things to us that we need. So, if different European countries on their own initiative, moving together with other European countries that have similar interests, could strike up relations with countries on the Southern side of the world, but also inside the continent of Eurasia, in particular with Russia, that would be something. In this context, we must deal with Russia in a positive way. In a Eurasian perspective, the old idea from Gorbachev to Yeltsin to Putin, “a zone of peace and prosperity from Vladivostok to Lisbon,” if that could be constructed, then we could see the end of our dependence on the United Sates, a dependence which partly depends on resources, since Russia has all the resources the Americans have. There will, of course, be security issues, but there needs to be shared security, with arms control, disarmament, confidence-building measures—none of this is new. If we manage to have a stable system of international security in Eurasia, the Americans can go wherever they want, hopefully in peace. Is that an illusion? I don’t know but if you ask me, what could be a positive legacy for our children and grandchildren, I’d say something like that.
I have spent the bulk of my career — on and off since the late Carter Administration — following the money that drives war and repression. What I have finally learned after so many decades of doing research on the war machine is that while research is critical, it must be in the service of a smart strategy backed by a lot of hard work by organizers from all walks of life.
My interest in using research to promote social change was sparked by my years at Columbia University in the 1970s, when I was a researcher and advocate in the divestment movement targeting the apartheid regime of South Africa and a participant in other social justice movements like the boycott in support of the United Farmworkers Union and the opposition to the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile.
Henry Kissinger’s justification for the U.S.-backed coup in Chile that put Augusto Pinochet in power still sticks in my mind: “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.”
So much for the land of the free and the beacon of global democracy.
The U.S. role in the coup was eventually recounted by many media outlets, but for me the first and most important was the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA), which devoted several issues of its magazine, then called The Latin America and Empire Report, to the origins of the coup, including the role of U.S. corporations. I was so impressed with their research and commitment that I applied to work at NACLA after graduating from Columbia in January 1978. They wisely demurred, since my background on Latin America was largely limited to what I had read in their own reports. Still, their skill in deploying detailed research to debunk the official lies that surrounded the coup stuck with me.
Research Against Apartheid
My real schooling in research, however, came in the anti-apartheid movement, starting with the divestment campaign at Columbia and expanding into my work with national anti-apartheid organizations like the American Committee on Africa (ACOA). Again, research was front and center. In order to make effective demands for divestment, we needed to know which companies were supporting the apartheid regime, and which of those companies our universities held stock in. ACOA was of great help in this, including through Richard Knight, who worked in a back room of their offices at 198 Broadway and had what may well have been the messiest desk in the history of progressive politics. But if my memory serves me correctly, he seemed to be able to remember exactly where he put a given document in one of the many piles of paper that obscured his desktop. The work he did, along with colleagues at ACOA, helped fuel the student divestment movement, along with research by students on campuses around the country.
At Columbia, we made an interesting discovery that put the lie to the university’s position on divestment. In response to demands to divest from firms involved with the apartheid regime, university leaders argued that, if there were objections to the actions of companies they were invested in, they felt it would be more productive to support shareholder resolutions seeking to change their conduct than to divest from those companies’ stocks.
But after digging around in past Columbia University documents, we found a memo from a prior year in which the university had responded to a request to support a shareholder resolution on behalf of trade unionists in Chile, some of whom had been murdered by the Pinochet regime. The university’s position then proved to be precisely the opposite of what it said just a few years later when asked to divest from companies involved in South Africa: they didn’t think it was productive to engage in shareholder resolutions. If there was an ethical issue with one of their holdings, their preference was to divest from the stock of that company.
Although it was a small instance of hypocrisy, it was nonetheless revealing. At that point, the university had been determined to do absolutely nothing to hold companies that were complicit in repression accountable. Our divestment campaign of the mid-1970s did not succeed, but in 1985, another cohort of student activists did finally persuade Columbia to divest. The next year, in 1986, Congress passed comprehensive sanctions on South Africa, overriding a veto attempt by President Ronald Reagan.
Obviously, research was only partly responsible for our success. It was research in the service of organizing and sound strategy that won the day. The fact that the liberation movements in South Africa, including the African National Congress and the Black Consciousness Movement, were calling for divestment greatly strengthened our case. And inspiring organizers and speakers like the incomparable Prexy Nesbitt and the late Dumisani Kumalo, a South African exile who went on to be liberated South Africa’s first representative to the United Nations, played a huge role, as did thousands of campus activists, religious leaders, trade unionists, state and local officials, and heads of pension funds.
Eight years later, in 1994, Nelson Mandela was sworn in as the first president of a free South Africa. The vast bulk of the credit for that historic change goes to the people of South Africa, but the divestment campaign and the larger global boycott of the apartheid regime played an important supporting role, a role much appreciated by activists in South Africa.
As for me, my work in the anti-apartheid movement shaped my career. I worked for a while as part of the collective that put out Southern Africamagazine, an independent journal that supported the anti-apartheid movement and the liberation movements in Southern Africa. The original editor was Jennifer Davis, the brilliant exiled South African economist who went on to direct ACOA. I wrote articles about the divestment campaign, violations of the arms embargo on South Africa, and the role of U.S. firms in propping up the apartheid regime. The skills and values I learned there were far more important to my career than my philosophy degree from Columbia, an institution whose leaders have now covered themselves in shame by cracking down on students speaking out against U.S.-financed Israeli genocide in Gaza.
The Impact of ‘68
Our work against apartheid was inspired in part by the generation of 1968, whose research exposed the role of companies fueling the war in Vietnam, including Dow Chemical, which produced napalm that was used to kill and maim untold numbers of people. We were also influenced by publications like “Who Rules Columbia,” as well as a handy publication on how to research the corporate ties of one’s university, published by the ever-relevant and crucial NACLA. And groups like National Action Research on the Military-Industrial Complex (NARMIC) were invaluable for peace activists from the anti-Vietnam War period onward.
Activists pushing universities to divest from companies profiting from Israel’s war in Gaza have made connections with the earlier generation of researchers described above, from webinars with members of NARMIC to essays that link to documents like “Who Rules Columbia?”
A key organization in the middle of current efforts is Little Sis — a powerful research organization whose name is based on the idea that they are the opposite of Big Brother. They facilitate research and make connections on a wide range of issues, but at this moment one of their most important products is a webinar they did with Dissenters, a youth anti-militarism group based in Chicago, on how to research the corporate ties of universities. It’s a tutorial on researching university ties to war profiteers, going well beyond the issue of stock holdings in arms makers to look at the connections of trustees, financial institutions, and other relevant ties to weapons makers.
Groups of dedicated students within the ceasefire and anti-genocide movements on U.S campuses have done excellent work in researching the corporate ties of their own universities. I appeared on Santita Jackson’s radio show in February 2025 and connected with Bryce Greene, a student at the University of Indiana involved in the ceasefire/Gaza movement there. He and his fellow students were researching the military ties of the university and they wanted me to review their research to see if they were missing anything. As it happened, they had dug up far more information than I would have, in part because of local connections. Their biggest find was related to the university’s ties to the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), Crane Division, which provides technical support for everything from missile defense systems to Special Operations Forces. University professors had gone back and forth between Crane and campus, and Crane had a direct presence at the school. Students then started a “keep Crane off campus” campaign.
Researchers focused specifically on Israel/Gaza include the American Friends Service Committee, which has a web page on “Companies Profiting from the Gaza Genocide,” and No Tech for Apartheid, which, among other things, reaches out to workers at Google and Amazon to encourage them to take a stand against technology from tech firms going to support the Israeli war effort. One of the most valuable current resources is the United Nations report, “From the Economy of Occupation to the Economy of Genocide,” produced under the supervision of Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, which describes its purpose this way:
“This report investigates the corporate machinery sustaining Israel’s settler-colonial project of displacement and replacement of the Palestinians in the occupied territory. While political leaders and governments shirk their obligations, far too many corporate entities have profited from Israel’s economy of illegal occupation, apartheid and now, genocide. The complicity exposed by this report is just the tip of the iceberg; ending it will not happen without holding the private sector accountable, including its executives.”
Models of Research and Strategy
The most effective current model for using data to shape the debate on security issues is the Costs of War Project at Brown University. Their work on the costs of America’s post-9/11 wars ($8 trillion and counting), the number of overseas U.S. counter-terror missions, the cost of U.S. military aid and military operations in support of Israel (over $22 billion in the first year of the war in Gaza) is routinely cited in the press and by political leaders, and provides fuel for activists in their writing and public education efforts.
The best current example of merging research, organizing, and strategy is the new Poor People’s Campaign, co-chaired by Reverend William Barber of Repairers of the Breach and Reverend Liz Theoharis of the Kairos Center. Their campaign was inspired by the effort of the same name announced by Martin Luther King Jr. in November 1967. King was assassinated before his campaign came to fruition, but the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) and other groups picked up the work of making its signature event, The Poor People’s March on Washington, happen.
One of the bedrock principles of the current Poor People’s Campaign is that the people most impacted by poverty should lead the movement. But cultivating such leadership, especially among those who have been excluded from the halls of power and influence for so long, requires an ongoing process of research, education, and training. Theoharis, director of the Kairos Center and co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, underscores this point in her new book on the history of poor people’s organizing, co-authored with Noam Sandweiss-Back:
“Without a continual process of learning, reflecting, and growing intellectually, our organizing is reduced to mobilizing, an exercise in moving bodies without supporting existing leaders and developing new ones . . . mobilizing people is important, but when it becomes our sole focus, we sacrifice long-term power for short-term action.”
“Education without social action is a one-sided value because it has no true power potential. Social action without education is a weak expression of pure energy… Our policies should have the strength of deep analysis beneath them to be able to challenge the clever sophistries of our opponents.”
In the midst of the torrent of lies and repressive practices emanating from Washington, the use of research to guide strategy and support organizing is more important than ever. But as the Trump administration stops collecting some kinds of data and destroys other kinds altogether, the job of research will be ever more difficult. That can be partially compensated for by drawing on the collective knowledge of researchers, organizers, and community members alike, taking our lead from people who are on the front lines of dealing with repressive policies.
Occasionally, when I am giving a talk on how to reduce the influence of the war machine, I point out that, if there were not people organizing for change, my research would be little more than a peculiar hobby. That is only a slight exaggeration. We need to bring together researchers, organizers, and strategists, taking our lead from members of impacted communities, to work in partnership against the challenges we now face on a daily, at times hourly, basis.
This means the content of our work may take different forms. Rather than reports and briefings, we may need to rely on music, storytelling, art, and ritual to share insights on the political terrain and tales of resistance and revival in these times of escalating crisis. This may become even more to the point as traditional forms of protest continue to be criminalized.
We have a rich history to guide and inspire us, but the task is ours.
When it comes to for-profit, private corporate incarceration of immigrants, making lots of money is like drinking salt water, the more they drink, the thirstier they get. Roman proverbs say that the more money a rich man has, the more driven and addicted he becomes to accumulating even more money. Wealth addiction is at the root of giant private prison corporations domination of the U.S. government as communities take a back seat to the need for private profit. Many government leaders from both political parties share the same ‘profits over people’ ideology. The industry is preparing for explosive growth. On recent earnings calls, CoreCivic executives announced plans to triple the number of beds in their facilities within a few months. That would mean an additional $1.5 billion in revenue for the corporation, more than doubling its annual earnings. The U.S. private incarceration system is a deeply entrenched network of public-private partnerships that make billions from incarceration and detention every year.
Just like large. private health insurance corporations, the U.S. private-profit incarceration system has the inherent tendency to invent new needs, disregard all boundaries and turn everything into big profit. Limitless greed for money becomes a disease where a person may become over-saturated with food….but no one or private prison corporation ever has enough wealth. Wealth addiction is a greedy compulsion to obtain more and more wealth, and specifically obtain what belongs to others. The effect is to injure others because it is adversarial/harmful to society as a whole..The private prison industry pushes for harsh immigration policies intended to drive up immigration detention. And private immigration detention centers suffer from many of the same problems as private prisons and jails, but the people held in them have even fewer rights and thus, at times, can suffer even more abuse.
What is Private Immigration Detention?
Emerging from the Reagan administrations advocacy of privatization of public services, immigration detention is now a booming business for private prison corporations. Today’s profiteering involves the complete outsourcing of the criminal legal system to the highest bidder. Corruption of money in politics allows greedy corporations to decimate families in disproportionately black, brown, and Indigenous communities.
With burgeoning anti-immigrant rhetoric and legislative crackdowns at all levels, private prison corporations are increasing their hold on U.S. detention policy. Today about 90 percent of detained immigrants are held in privately operated facilities, the highest percentage in U.S. history. In a for-profit prison, jail or immigrant detention facility, people are imprisoned by a private third party that contracts with a government agency. Contractual agreements between governments and private entities commit prisoners to privatized facilities and are paid a per diem or monthly rate, either for each immigrant or prisoner in the facility, or for each place available, whether occupied or not. Such contracts may be for the operation only of a facility, or for design, construction and operation.
The Trump administration leaves no doubt that it will detain as many undocumented immigrants as it can and send them to for-profit centers. And to help make sure that happens, private prisons companies spend millions on campaigns and congressional lobbying efforts, just like businesses that sell cars, real estate, hamburgers or toothpaste.
Next to private health insurance corporations, there is no greater disconnect between the public good and private interests than the rise of corporate owned and operated for profit jails. The interest of private jails lies not in the obvious social good of having the minimum necessary number of inmates, but instead having as many immigrants and prisoners as possible housed as cheaply and profitably as possible. In the push for austerity and privatization, private profit U.S.prison corporations have become premier examples of private capitalist enterprises seeking profits from the misery of man while trying to ensure that nothing is done to decrease that misery.
Profiteering private prison corporations are cashing in on the misery and desperation of U.S. citizens as many county jail and state prison systems privatize throughout the nation. Private companies house over ten percent of the nation’s total prison population, with privatization/profiteering madness now extending to well over 6 million people under correctional supervision, more than ever were in Stalin’s gulags.
Very alarming, the private prison industry now incarcerates 90 percent of all immigrant children, adolescents and adults . A spokesman for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (ICE), Alonzo Pena, acknowledged that the private companies have all too often fallen short, noting that “It wasn’t their priority to ensure that the highest standards were being met”. ICE deserves some blame/responsibility. “We set up this partnership with the private industry in a way that was supposed to make things much more effective, much more economical, but unfortunately, it was in the execution and the monitoring and the auditing we fell behind, we fell short.”
How to Privatize Jail
The standard method for privatization of jails:
1). Defund government services to make sure things don’t work and people get angry
2). Hand program over to private capital.
3). Continue to defund local publically funded jail and state prison services.
4). Urge/pressure county commissions and state government to allow for-profit, private prison corporations to take over under the guise of “rescuing” jail functions.
5). Promote the ‘appearance of rescue’ of the county jail or state service by self-serving private profit driven programs to the community.
In reality it’s not long until privatization falls short in quality service; the private jail program saves money by employing fewer, less trained guards and other workers and pays them badly, with horror stories often accompanying how these jails are run. In addition to Department of Justice studies and experience showing that governments save little money, if any, by turning over prison functions to private outfits, the Dept.of Justice also concluded that private prisons were in general more violent than government-operated institutions, and ordered a phaseout under the Obama and Biden administrations of their use at the federal level. Regrettably, reversing that order was one of the first things that President Trump did on taking office.
Claims of Private Prison Corporations
Without evidence, private prison corporations always claim that their program will save the county and state millions annually. Private companies, such as CCA/CoreCivic and GEO Group dominant, tout their virtues by saying they build and operate prisons more cheaply than governments can, due to the public sector’s many mandates. Their day-to-day operations are similarly more efficient and less costly, they assert, and they do it all without compromising public safety. The bottom line, they say, is that they allow governments to free up public funds for pursuits that mean more to most taxpayers than how felons or immigrants are jailed. To make sure that happens, private prisons companies spend millions on donations to politicians from both political parties at all levels of government, campaigns and congressional lobbying efforts, just like businesses that sell cars, real estate, or hamburgers.
“Privately operated facilities are better equipped to handle changes in the flow of illegal immigration because they can open or close new facilities as needed,” said Rodney E. King, CoreCivic’s public affairs manager. Critics tell a different story. They cite moments like a 2015 riot to protest poor conditions at a prison in Arizona run by another major private player, Management and Training Corporation. Earlier at that same institution, three inmates had escaped and murdered two people.
Many case examples show scrimping by private immigrant detention facility operators, with bad food and shabby health care for inmates, low pay and inadequate training for guards and hiring shortages. At immigrant detention centers, operators see little need to offer extensive educational programs for children or job training since people held there are mostly destined for deportation. Basic hygiene items like toothpaste or tampons are marked up by 300 percent or more by Commissary corporations. Contributing to suffering and preventable deaths, some private health care providers routinely delay or deny treament behind bars. Private food vendors serve meals that are frequently expired or nutritionally inadequate, all in the name of cutting costs and maximizing returns.“To maximize profit, you minimize your expenditures,” said Rachel Steinback, a lawyer for hunger strikers.
U.S. Dept. of Justice Concludes No Cost Savings
Despite many promises that jail and prison privatization will lead to big cost savings, such savings, as a comprehensive study by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, part of the U.S. Department of Justice concluded, “have simply not materialized.” To the extent that private prison and jail operators do manage to save money, they do so through “reductions in trained staff, fringe benefits and other labor-related costs.” Economist Paul Krugman noted that “as more and more government functions get privatized, states become ‘pay-to-play’ paradises in which both political contributions and contracts for friends and relatives become quid pro quo for getting government busines.”
Conclusion
The corrupt nexus of privatization and patronage by private one percent corporations and oligarchs is undermining local and state levels of government across the USA. Longer-term institutionalization by for-profit corporations is promoted via harsh sentencing guidelines and other means for keeping inmates doing lengthy, and very profitable for the corporation, sentences. To fix this problem, we should demand that private corporations be removed from the administration of our local, state and federal public prison programs. Privatization of jail services increases costs without any corresponding increase in quality or care. Until then, the powerful in county, state and federal government, along with their corporate oligarch partners to whom they are beholden will continue privatizing and profiteering as they please, while laughing all the way to the bank. Everyone interested should join all state and local efforts to end privatization. profiteering and barbarous inappropriate imprisonment of immigrants.
“Private prisons have embedded themselves in every facet of the criminal and immigration systems. While people have begun to challenge private prison corporations, there must be vigilant attention paid to the industry’s attempt to change its toxic image and expand into adjacent business lines. After all, whether walls are built out of concrete, wire, or WiFi, a prison is still a prison, and a private prison still needs more bodies to grow. No matter their form, private prison corporations have no place in any system that claims to be about justice”.
She is on her 18th day of hunger strike in HMP Peterborough in protest of the prison’s politically-targeted abuses. One of the Filton 24 detained indefinitely under the UK’s “Terrorism Act” while awaiting trial next spring, Hoxha is alleged to have participated in the heroic dismantling of an Elbit Systems weapons factory, causing €1 million in damages.
Over two weeks into her strike, Hoxha’s loved ones report that her physical and mental health is deteriorating fast, her hair is falling out, her jaw is in pain, and her brain fog is worsening, while the prison neglects her medical care. Supporters on the outside are organizing a call-in campaign to demand the prison administration give her electrolyte sachets and meet her demands: the reinstatement of her job in the prison library and the delivery of her mail that the prison administration is withholding from her. On 27 August, she developed a fever, experienced a persistent headache, vomited after taking vitamins, and noticed skin discoloration, and a nurse practitioner announced Hoxha is in the “danger zone.” As of 28 August, supporters are calling for her to be urgently admitted to a hospital.
Now more lives are on the line. When Casey Goonan, the only political prisoner in the US from the 2024 student intifada, heard about Hoxha’s hunger strike on 26 August, they and their cellmate at Santa Rita jail immediately declared a hunger strike in solidarity with Hoxha until her demands are met, internationalizing the strike. Refusing to intake food is especially risky for Casey as a diabetic, but they have organized successful collective hunger strikes in the past.
Similarly to the Pal Action UK prisoners, Casey has been repeatedly targeted for the political nature of their alleged crime, and deliberately isolated from other inmates, a classic tactic used by the state against political prisoners to prevent prisoner organizing. Just this summer, they were retaliated against for filing a grievance against a threatening deputy, and had their phone calls, visitations, and commissary revoked for over a month. Several times, the state has pushed back Casey’s sentencing hearing, supposed to be in April but now set for 23 September 2025. They are facing up to 20 years in federal prison with “terrorism enhancement” for allegedly burning police vehicles at the University of California, Berkeley. Also similar to the weaponization of counter-terrorism lawfare in the UK cases, this “terrorism enhancement” addition to Casey’s charges gives the federal government far more room for abuse and draconian overreach in their sentencing and treatment of Casey.
To announce the strike’s expansion, Casey published the following statement:
Today I learned about T Hoxha, a Pal Action prisoner in the UK who is on Day 16 of her hunger strike at HMP Peterborough. As of 4pm EST on August 26, 2025, 2 out of 3 of her demands have been met, and she is still on strike to demand that the prison release the mail they have been withholding from her.
As captives imprisoned for our participation in the Palestinian liberation movement in the west, we have a responsibly to each other across borders to pursue our lives in prison with the same steadfastness as the Palestinian prisoner movement held captive in Israeli prisons.
The states that we have been captured by are the enablers of the Zionist entity’s accelerated genocide and the extermination of Palestinians in Gaza, as well as the ongoing genocides of Black and Indigenous people whose lands they continue to occupy.
As the western left continues to move from crisis to crisis and avoid their responsibilities to Palestine, we are all that we have. By we I am referring to people facing repression for their support of Palestine, who are sacrificing, truly sacrificing. People such as T Hoxha, who has suffered through 16 days of starvation just to get her mail.
The Palestine solidarity movement in the west cannot abandon people like her who have risked their lives and continue to do so in resistance to this intolerable condition of genocide.
Solidarity is actions, not words. As of today, my cellmate and I are on hunger strike at Santa Rita jail until her demands are met. Solidarity with T. Hoxha and all prisoners of the Palestine solidarity movement!
RAZE THE WALLS! LIBERATE ALL PRISONERS OF SETTLER EMPIRE!
As Hoxha and Casey’s bodies shrink and weaken and start eating themselves alive, it begs the question, why do we not hear their names chanted in the streets at pro-Palestine protests, their faces raised on signs and murals, their demands echoed in conferences and pamphlets? Where are the cash-rich NGOs that could be using their huge platforms to speak out for Casey and the Filton 24, if not donating to their legal funds, at least acknowledging their existence? What about Elias Rodriguez, Jakhi McCray, Tarek Bazrouk, the countless other political prisoners in the so-called United States? There are too many to name. How dare anyone here express defeatism from their warm homes or complain about how none of us will sacrifice, while doing nothing to escalate, and ignoring the people who have made sacrifices and are now stuck in cold cells? How many people will get to the end of this article but fail to make a call for the hunger strikers?
Hoxha, the Filton 24, Casey, Elias, Jakhi, and long-term political prisoners like Mumia, Imam Jamil al-Amin, and those of the George Floyd Uprising do not get the kind of support they deserve from the movement, especially not from NGOs that identify themselves as the movement’s leadership, because they are not “perfect victims.” They are not accused of being peaceful; they are accused of resisting, and for that, they are unapologetic.
As one of Casey’s comrades wrote in the piece On Casey Goonan and the Abandonment of Political Prisoners in the Pro-Palestine Movement, “Despite vague assertions of the interconnectedness of repression and struggles between the American policing and prison apparatuses to that of Israel, there has been little material manifestation from that understanding within the US pro-Palestine movement. Meanwhile, coordinated struggle between prisoners and outside militants has been a key point of success for Palestinian liberation.” They point to the petit bourgeois class character and NGOization of the “movement” in the US, and its reformist attitude toward US imperialism and settler colonialism, as likely explanations for its isolation of militants and failure to escalate in general. As D. Musa Springer put it in Mondoweiss, this tendency is opportunistic and suicidal — “to not see ourselves reflected in the faces of our political prisoners and organize accordingly…We have allowed our political prisoners to become ghosts, within a movement claiming to want radical exorcism of oppressive systems.”
“Our prisoners are our compass” is not an empty slogan in Palestine, it is the material reality of struggle. When Lebanese revolutionary communist Georges Abdallah was released in July after decades in French prison, he explained this axiom in the clearest terms: “The one who resists is the one who has the final say and determines what should and should not be done. The ultimate decision-maker is the one who sacrifices himself to the resistance. All spectators have no right to discuss any topic.” Prisoners of the Palestinian revolution are not forgotten, or only paid lip service, they are bled for. We cannot forget, after all, that the Al-Aqsa Flood was itself a prison break and it birthed the Toufan al-Ahrar, the Flood of the Free. But until the honoring of political prisoners is actually put into practice here in the west, it will be just that, just a slogan, and an increasingly hollow one at that.
There is not much more to say here that is not already referenced above about this tendency to abandon militants facing repression, but the stakes feel imminently higher when it is not just life in prison on the line, but physical life itself. I remember when I was in jail last year for taking direct action with Pal Action US, for a relatively very short bid (40 days), and at the time, Casey was the only other political prisoner from this iteration of the Palestine movement, as well as the Pal Action UK prisoners. I felt like we were all breathing together, our spirits soaring across metal bars, concrete, mountains, and seas, never alone. We wrote happy birthday messages from our jail tablets to be passed on to prisoners in the UK. We asked our supporters to stop writing letters to us and instead to write to people inside for much longer, like Casey. It is like Casey said — “we are all that we have. By we I am referring to people facing repression for their support of Palestine, who are sacrificing, truly sacrificing.” Since I was released I fear sometimes that I have slipped back into my comforts or my numbness, that I have lost touch with the raw clarity and urgency (not despair) that I felt while inside, that we should all feel, all the time, everywhere. But Casey’s words jolt me right back into that clarity. They remind us that Casey and Hoxha are actually freer than us all, because they are resisting.
Serving in the military is the ultimate test of loyalty. When young Americans raise their right hand, they pledge to defend their nation, their Constitution, their people. Yet for many young Americans, that oath is NOT made to the United States military. Instead, they pack their bags, fly across the Atlantic, and enlist in a foreign army—the Israeli War Machine, aka, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).
The numbers speak loudly. According to the Washington Post, 23,000 Jewish American citizens are currently serving in the Israeli military. By contrast, U.S. Department of Defense data shows that in 2006 fewer than 4,000 American service members identified as Jewish. A later DoD report, released in January 2019, placed the figure at roughly 0.4 percent of active-duty personnel. Put simply, more Jewish Americans—both in raw numbers and percentage—serve under the misappropriated Star of David than under the Stars and Stripes.
Naturally, many new Americans maintain personal cultural and ancestral ties to their homelands—a land they actually come from, with real last names, not Hebraized East European family names. Furthermore, no group has a lobby dedicated to serving a foreign country, like AIPAC. Mexican Americans celebrate Mexico’s victory on Cinco de Mayo, but do not promote enlisting in Mexico’s military. Irish Americans rejoice Saint Patrick’s Day, but had not lined up to join the Irish Republican Army. No ethnic American group raises nonprofit tax-deductible funds for a foreign army, other than the Jewish billionaires, who bankroll “Friends of the IDF.”
Controlled by this foreign lobby, Congress not only tolerates this Israeli exception, it tries to reward it. Two Jewish Republican lawmakers; Guy Reschenthaler and Max Miller, have proposed legislation, H.R. 8445, to amend the American Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to include (Jewish) Americans serving in the Israeli army. If passed, it would grant these “foreign” soldiers the same benefits reserved for Americans in uniform.
Let that sink in: Israeli (American) soldiers would have the same protections as American army soldiers. An Israeli soldier starving babies and committing a war crime in Gaza would be legally indistinguishable from an American Marine guarding Camp Pendleton.
When it comes to Israel though, AIPAC, through the disproportionate Jewish representation in both Houses—three to five times higher than their share of the U.S. adult population—exerts outsized clout. Combine this with the campaign finance power over other elected officials, AIPAC can flex its muscles to institutionalize the Israeli exception. In any case, if this is good for Israeli (American) soldiers, why not provide all Americans serving in foreign armies the same benefits? Maybe for Muslim American soldiers, if any, serving in Pakistan or Egypt. Such idea would most likely cause a revolt in Washington. Accusations of dual loyalty, even treason, would dominate the headlines. Why not in the Israeli exception case?
One of those soldiers is David Meyers from California, who spent six years in the Israeli navy. He explained his decision to enlist in the Israeli military, citing “… an incredibly deep and long connection that I have to Israel.” When asked why he chose a foreign army over his own, his answer was more telling: “The United States with its strength and size, perhaps, isn’t quite needing your abilities and your efforts.”
Since when did America’s strength become an excuse to abandon it for a foreign army? At any rate, Meyers’s statement suggests he does not have a deep or long connection to the country of his birth—or at least not one as deep as to a foreign country. America is strong only because its citizens choose to serve it, not because they shirk duty in favor of a foreign uniform. To dismiss the U.S. military as too mighty to need Jewish Americans isn’t about necessity; it’s about misplaced loyalty.
Many of the Americans serving in the Israeli army are called lone soldiers. They are the young Americans with New York or Texas accents that I’ve encountered at Israeli checkpoints. Their job is to humiliate Palestinians in the West Bank, and enforce a starvation siege on Gaza.
Some may frame it as defending “the Jewish people.” Even though they’re not safeguarding a synagogue in New Jersey or families in San Diego. On the contrary, they are fueling Jewish hate in the West for being the face of the “Jewish-only” colonies built on stolen Palestinian land, or for imposing an apartheid occupation on behalf of a foreign political entity, whose leaders stand indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
With this in mind, these Americans are participating in a war the UN, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have described as war crimes—from the engineered starvation of babies in Gaza, to the subjugation of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. As the ICC continues to investigate Israeli crimes, one day, these “Americans” could face reality, not as heroes, but for their roles in the crimes against humanity. Ironically, Congress wants to make these foreign soldiers, and potential war criminals, as equal to American servicemembers.
The numbers do not lie. Jewish Americans enlist in the Israeli army at more than five times the rate they serve in their own country’s military. While this by no means represents all Jewish Americans, it raises a troubling question: why are so many Jewish Americans more willing to die for a foreign country than for the nation that gave them everything they have? That is not an anti-Jewish statement; it is a fact that would, and should be uniformly applied to any ethnic group in the U.S.
If some Jewish Americans choose to devote their lives and loyalty to a foreign state, that is their business. However, it is an insult to every American in uniform when Congress considers equating American soldiers with those serving in a foreign army. Worse, by ignoring the moral and legal consequences, U.S. policymakers risk entangling America in war crimes committed by these so-called American citizens, crimes that may one day be judged in The Hague, and for which today’s members of Congress should be held to account by their own constituents.
The Trump administration’s race toward fascism is unfolding at breakneck speed and on multiple fronts. At the heart of this transformation lies the emergence of the United States as a warfare state, a captive state that merges the interests of the military-industrial-academic complex with the toxic ideologies of white nationalism and white supremacy. What makes this moment especially dangerous is that warfare no longer refers solely to foreign conquest; it has become a central organizing principle of governance at home. The state itself has been weaponized, turning inward against its own population, normalizing domestic terrorism as a tool of rule. The scourge of militarization as the driving force of American politics, which has its contemporary roots in the terror state created by Bush and Cheney after 9/11, is even more intensified as a domestic and foreign policy mode of governance. The long legacy of armed intervention abroad by the U.S. now appears on the streets of Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. as well as in universities, courthouses, and even sports fields. As Melissa Gira Grant notes, “federal agents are the new proud boys.”Perpetual war is now waged against Americans, legitimated as a normal condition of politics.
This is domestic terrorism, the transformation of inflammatory, fear-mongering, and dehumanizing rhetoric into acts of state violence.It is a form of necropolitics wedded to the notion of death worlds and the ascendence of a corpse-like order. As Achille Mbembe argues,“death worlds” mark regimes in which “new and unique forms of social existence [emerge] in which vast populations are subjected to living conditions conferring on them the status of the living dead.” Trump’s regime of domestic terrorism, especially his war on immigrants and naturalized citizens is driven by a death drive that constitutes an orgy of annihilation wedded to the dictates of capital accumulation, the dynamics of class and racial hierarchies, and bold embrace and displays of racist histories and neo-Nazi symbols. Under Trump’s notion of gangster capitalism and politics of vengeance, there is no room in the U.S. except for white Christian nationalist and supine loyalists.
There is no pretense of democracy here, only the workings of gangster capitalism masquerading as the future. When a government deploys violence and coercion to intimidate its own population, driven by nativism, racism and political extremism, it meets the definition of domestic terrorism. Its policies and language are designed to cultivate fear, intimidate, and amass power in the hands of the rich. Dehumanizing speech does not simply wound; it punishes, it draws blood, and it prepares the ground for expulsions, detention centers, and a culture saturated with hate. Words like “invaders,” “vermin,” and “criminals” are weaponized against immigrants to mark them as disposable. Policies of family separation, mass deportation, and indefinite detention are constructed not only to punish but to terrorize. Confronted with this dehumanizing rhetoric and violence-soaked policies, Trump, chillingly and without irony, declares, “A lot of people are saying maybe we’d like a dictator.”
Trump’s authoritarian obsession with violence and punishment is evident in his relentless drive to criminalize dissent and weaponize the state against what he calls “enemies of the people.” He has demanded draconian penalties, including prison time, for those who burn the American flag, an act of protest protected under the Constitution. Stephen Prager argues in Common Dreams that Trump has issued an executive order that puts in place portals and legal mechanisms that may permit “‘random fascist vigilantes’ to help him crack down on protests across the country, according to one prominent civil rights lawyer.” In addition, he has called for the reinstatement of the death penalty for murder cases in the nation’s capital, deploying the ultimate form of state violence as both spectacle and warning. These are not isolated authoritarian postures but militarized acts of domestic terrorism, designed to fuse punishment, repression, and vengeance into the very core of political life.
What we are witnessing in the United States is not simply the corrosion of democratic norms but the rise of an aggressive fascist politics, one that weaponizes the threat of punishment to enforce Trump’s whims and vanities. As Ruth Ben-Ghiat rightly observes, Trump seeks to transform the Department of Defense into the Department of War, a blunt instrument of his personal authority. He boasts of sending armed troops into Democratic-run cities he despises, embracing the military as his private army. Journalist and historian Garrett Graff underscores the gravity of this descent, arguing that “America has finally tipped over into fascism.” While he does not explicitly invoke the term domestic terrorism, his depiction leaves little doubt that the necropolitics of state terror have taken root under Trump’s regime. Graff writes:
America has become a country where armed officers of the state shout “Papers please!” on the street at men and women heading home from work, a vision we associate with the Gestapo in Nazi Germany or the KGB in Soviet Russia, and where masked men wrestle to the ground and abduct people without due process into unmarked vehicles, disappearing them into an opaque system where their family members beg for information.
Anti-Communism Fanaticism and the Ghost of Roy Cohn
It is precisely out of this obsession with punishment and terror that Trump revives another of fascism’s oldest weapons: the anti-communist smear. At the core of this politics of fear, dissenters are not engaged but denounced, not debated but branded as traitors. In the McCarthy era it was used to silence dissent, dismantle unions, and destroy lives—think especially of “the Hollywood Ten.”
Under Trump, anti-communist smears are wielded once again, not as an argument but as a weapon, meant to mark whole movements, cities, and communities as enemies of the state. A chilling illustration of this came in a rant by white nationalist Stephen Miller, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff. Speaking at Washington, D.C.’s Union Station on August 20, 2025, during a stop at Shake Shack with Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, while visiting National Guard troops. Referring to protesters shouting at Miller in Union Station, he stated:
They’re the ones who have been advocating for the one percent. They’re criminals, killers, rapists, and drug dealers. And I’m glad they’re here today because me, Pete, and the vice president [are] going to leave here and, inspired by them, we’re going to add thousands more resources to this city to get the criminals and the gang members out. We’re going to disable those networks, and we’re going to prove that the city can serve law-abiding citizens. We are not going to let the Communists destroy a great American city, let alone the nation’s capital… So we’re going to ignore these stupid white hippies, who all need to go home and take a nap because they’re all over 90 years old, and get back to protecting the American people and the citizens of Washington, D.C.
Here the slur “Communists” does not name an ideology, it operates as an epithet, a scarlet letter of treason designed to criminalize protest and erase dissent itself. As Thom Hartmannreminds us, fascism rarely marches into being with tanks rolling down the avenues; it seeps into everyday life through language that glorifies violence, legitimizes cruelty, and sanctifies authoritarian power. By branding critics as “Communists” and ridiculing protesters as “criminals” and “stupid hippies,” Miller’s rant exposes how hate-saturated speech fuses with state repression to cultivate a culture where fear and violence appear natural, even necessary. He surely knows the lineage he is invoking. Anti-communist rhetoric, in the hands of George Wallace and Richard Nixon, functioned in the 1960s as a weapon to justify brutality against “domestic enemies”: liberals, civil rights activists, student radicals, leftists of every stripe. The irony is unmistakable: Miller resurrects the anti-communist hysteria of Roy Cohn, Trump’s mentor and enabler during the darkest days of McCarthyism, channeling a script of fear and denunciation that once destroyed lives and now returns as a blueprint for authoritarian rule. History leaves little doubt: the anti-communist vocabulary revived today by Trump, MAGA, and their sycophants is far from rhetorical excess, it is a deliberate strategy, a time-tested script, to sanctify authoritarian rule, legitimate state-sanctioned violence and silence democratic resistance.
Infamous for his rabid attacks on immigrants, Millerhas long been the ideological architect of Trump’s fascism. His racism and nativism fuel three central pillars of this project. First, Miller insists that all immigrants are criminals, fit only to be expelled or incarcerated. Second, he casts the assault on immigration as the cornerstone for erecting a police state, eroding justice, truth, morality, and freedom itself. Third, he has become a leading force in the war on public and higher education, branding them as “cancerous, communist, woke culture” that is “destroying the country.” Such language, echoing Trump’s lexicon, is code for dismantling the critical, inclusive, and democratic possibilities of education: the chance for diverse students to learn, to question, and to act as informed agents of a democratic society.
For Miller, schools must not cultivate critical consciousness but instead drill children in patriotism, uncritical reverence for America, and hostility toward “communist ideology.” The details of this pedagogical assault are chillingly familiar: banning books, whitewashing history into a racist mythology, abolishing critical pedagogy, and hollowing out the capacity for informed and ethical thinking. What emerges is a pedagogy of repression, one that seeks to erase historical memory, extinguish democratic values, and turn education into a factory of indoctrination.
The Rise of the Police State and the Attack on Citizenship
This is not an isolated campaign. The broader discourse of racism, white nationalism, and state repression is now flaunted by Trump and his cadre of shock troops in mainstream media, not with shame but with fanatical glee, and rarely interrogated as the lifeblood of fascist ideology. The legitimating force of this repression is what gives state violence its sheen of inevitability.
One stark example makes this clear. Christopher Rufo, one of the most influential propagandists of the MAGA movement, recently declared in a Substack post that agencies like ICE should “dispatch unmarked vans to follow key agitators and snatch them from the streets while the media are not looking.” The essence of fascism is always in such details. Trump and his allies know that secret abductions, forced disappearances, and the proliferation of masked federal agents who refuse to identify themselves, and who act with impunity, are not aberrations. They are the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes.And let’s be clear, Trump’s domestic terrorism and war on immigrants are not only a mask for creating a police state, it also provides grotesque opportunities for private prison companies to profit from Trump’s feverish attempt to imprison thousands of immigrants, dissenters, and anyone else opposed to his dictatorial delusions.
The erosion of due process, equal justice, and above all citizenship is the most chilling marker of this new warfare state. As John Ganzargues, the essence of Trump’s movement is an assault on the very concept of American citizenship, stretching from birtherism and the stolen election lie to attempts to revoke birthright citizenship and expand denaturalization. In Trump’s world, citizenship no longer exists as an inalienable right; it is stripped of its universality and recast as a privilege. In his hands, it is both gift and cudgel, “a transferable and revocable commodity,” wielded to divide, discipline, and destroy. This is the state’s cold choreography of fear, where terror, abduction, violence, and disappearance become the grammar of governance and the language through which power is spoken.
Trump’s attack on citizenship cannot be separated from the ongoing militarization of America. As Greg Grandin notes in The New York Times, at its core this attack is a “fight over the meaning of America” and reveals boththe white racism driving MAGA nationalism, and the pernicious claim by the Trump regime that they will decide “who gets to call themselves American in Mr. Trump’s America?” He adds:
Mr. Trump and operatives like Mr. Miller are waging a war not only on migrants but also on the concept of citizenship. According to one report, Immigration and Customs Enforcement expelled as many as 66 citizens during Mr. Trump’s first term, and now he has issued an executive order ending birthright citizenship. His government is exiling children who were born in the United States, including a 4-year-old boy with late-stage cancer. The Justice Department says it is “prioritizing denaturalization,” establishing a framework to revoke citizenship from naturalized citizens the White House deems undesirable.
To dismantle citizenship is to resurrect one of history’s darkest horrors: the rendering of people stateless, expelled not only from a nation but from the very category of the human—denied memory, voice, and existence itself. Deportation, detention, and denaturalization are not bureaucratic measures but weapons of political cleansing. This is domestic terrorism, not a metaphor, not an exaggeration, but the systematic transformation of incendiary rhetoric into instruments of state violence. Ganz is right: Trump’s attack on citizenship carries the unmistakable signature of fascism, the logic of totalitarianism reborn, the totalitarian machinery of erasure turned against the present, made into a spectacle suitable for instant viewing and the rush cruelty provides as a pleasure quotient.
Rachel Maddow captures the full weight of this authoritarian consolidation. The United States, she warns, is no longer on the brink but already living under a consolidating dictatorship. Secret police snatch people off streets, immigrants are scapegoated as the perpetual enemy, and even “homegrown” citizens are threatened with loss of citizenship. Whole swaths of U.S. territory have been reclassified as military zones, with armed, active-duty troops now exercising arrest powers. Massive detention centers are being built on military bases. Universities, the press, and courts are being militarized, coerced or dismantled. Like the state, spaces once reserved for asserting one’s rights, protection, and care are now held captive by agents, masked, and armed in tactical gear. As Mark Peterson points out in The New Yorker, spaces, such as court hallways, are now captive assites of intimidation, fear, and disappearancesThe rhetoric of a captive state and space are not metaphors, they have become the normalized tactics of fascism in real time.
The Spectacle as Opiate and Cover
The spectacle operates both as distraction and as pedagogy. By dramatizing state violence as entertainment, whether through militarized parades, campaign rallies, or sensationalist media coverage, the Trump regime trains the public to see authoritarian repression as normal, even desirable. The spectacle is a form of civic illiteracy: it numbs historical memory, erodes critical thought, and recodes brutality as patriotism.
The spectacle is more than distraction; it is a smokescreen for systemic violence. Behind the theatrics lie black-site detention centers, the militarization of U.S. cities, and surveillance technologies that monitor everyday life. The media’s complicity, obsessed with immediacy and balance, enables this process by masking the deeper truth: the rise of an authoritarian warfare state at home.
What emerges is not merely a culture of distraction, but the weaponization of spectacle itself. Under Trump, the media’s hunger for shock and drama has transformed authoritarian repression into mass entertainment, flooding the public sphere with images of violence, erasure, and conquest, all while consolidating executive power.
Guy Debord’s notion of the Society of the Spectacle has returned with a vengeance in the abyss of American fascist politics. What the media too often dismiss as “Trump’s diversions” or “stunts” are in fact ritualized performances of state violence, acts of political theater that function as pedagogy. These spectacles do not simply distract—they indoctrinate. They whisper that cruelty is virtue, that repression is order, that vengeance is justice, that fear itself is the normalized rhythm of everyday existence.
Consider the arming of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., staged as patriotic pageantry rather than as a militarization of civic life. The raid on the home of John Bolton, once a close adviser, later a critic, was choreographed as a national morality play in which betrayal is punished publicly. Trump’s retaliatory campaigns against adversaries like New York Attorney General Letitia James, Adam Schiff, and other so-called “enemies of the state” transform into grotesque spectacles of retribution, political theater driven by an unyielding demand for loyalty. These acts unfold as a public, performative display of power, relentlessly signaling that dissent will not only be silenced but criminalized. The bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities is framed as a display of strength, not reckless escalation, while ICE raids and masked agents abducting immigrants become national security dramas. These scenes, endlessly replayed across media, merge terror with pedagogy, cruelty with consent, both as performance and an unmistakable threat. But beneath this spectacle lies a deeper truth: a wannabe dictator using state power against, not for, the people and the principles of democracy. Today, state violence targets ICE victims, students, protesters, dissidents, and anyone on Trump’s retribution list—but in the end, no one will be safe from his fascist regime.
This celebration of cruelty and state violence is not limited to highlighting Trump’s political enemies; it extends via a slick promotional ventures used by his political lackeys. For instance, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, a MAGA-aligned official. shamelessly staged a promotional video shamelessly staged a promotional video against the bleak backdrop of shirtless, caged prisoners in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT. In her performance, a brutalizing system of incarceration was transfigured into an aesthetic of power and punishment, a stage set for political ambition.Noem’s spectacle reveals how authoritarian pageantry circulates transnationally: the prison state of El Salvador becomes a visual script for U.S. politicians eager to display toughness, exporting the grammar of fascist performance across borders. In this spectacularized culture, politics dissolves into the aesthetics of cruelty, where lawlessness and repression are repackaged as civic virtue and photo ops for what Wilhelm Reich, in Mass Psychology of Fascism, called “the libidinally deranged.”
Here the spectacle does not conceal fascism but embodies it. Each act dramatizes the message that Trump alone decides who is safe, who is punished, who is disposable. Reich’s insight into the fascist “perversion of pleasure” is central: the staging of cruelty is not only meant to terrify; it is meant to gratify. Citizens are invited to experience the humiliation of the weak as a form of release, to find satisfaction in the punishment of the vulnerable. Theodor Adorno’s warnings about the authoritarian personality come into sharp relief here: the blending of obedience and enjoyment, submission and aggression, produces subjects who come to desire domination as if it were freedom.
What emerges is an authoritarian economy of desire in which cruelty is transformed into theater. Images of militarized parades, mug shots of political enemies, or caged immigrants circulate across media platforms like advertisements for repression, producing both fear and illicit pleasure. The spectacle trains citizens to consume cruelty as entertainment, to eroticize domination, and to accept vengeance as the highest civic virtue. Watching becomes complicity; complicity becomes a source of satisfaction; satisfaction becomes a form of loyalty.
This authoritarian theater is not confined to U.S. borders; it reverberates globally, most visibly in Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza. Here the spectacle of state violence is magnified to a planetary scale: live-streamed bombings, images of flattened neighborhoods, and drone footage of entire families buried in rubble circulate as both military propaganda and cultural pedagogy. Just as Trump repackages cruelty as patriotic theater, Israel transforms mass death into a performance of deterrence, staging domination as necessity and erasure as security. Gaza becomes both a laboratory and a screen, where militarized cruelty is rehearsed, aestheticized, and then exported as a model for authoritarian regimes worldwide. The Iron Dome is celebrated as technological mastery, while beneath and beyond its arc lies a devastated landscape of disposability, an unending spectacle of suffering meant to teach not only Palestinians but the world that resistance will be met with extermination. In this sense, Gaza is not an exception but a mirror: a brutal stage on which the pedagogy of fascism is made global.
Under such circumstances, moral witnessing disappears, the burden of conscience on a global level is undermined, and older bonds of solidarity collapse as cultural and educational institutions devoted to the public good are gutted. The rise of the military–prison–carceral state becomes entertainment, a spectacle that fuses torture, the pornography of violence, and mass distraction into the central cultural grammar of politics. The spectacle numbs thought, erases memory, invents false villains, and produces a civic illiteracy that leaves the public disarmed before fear and manipulation. What disappears in this haze is the recognition that the United States is undergoing not a temporary aberration, but the consolidation of a new fascism, one that fuses militarized violence, pedagogical terrorism, and state-sanctioned domestic cruelty to construct a fascist subject fit for the twenty-first century. Fascism today is not simply a state-sponsored show of force; it is a pedagogical regime, an apparatus of cultural engineering that decides who counts as a citizen, whose lives matter, and whose may be discarded.
Domestic Terrorism as a Pedagogical Regime
Under the Trump administration, culture is not simply a mirror of political power but the very ground upon which authoritarianism takes root, fashions its subjects, and legitimates the warfare state. Trump’s reliance on brute force, his addiction to state violence, and his expansion of the carceral state are undeniable, yet the most enduring battlefield of his domestic terrorism is consciousness itself. Here, the public is trained to forget, taught to mistake lies for truth, and subjected to the pedagogical violence of disimagination machines that wage war on literacy and the imagination. Trump’s regime turns cultural engineering into a weapon, deciding what is remembered and what is erased, which values are sanctified and which are discarded. The goal is not only to control politics but to colonize consciousness, producing a population that internalizes obedience, fear, and historical amnesia. This is the logic of pedagogical terrorism: a cultural and educational apparatus that normalizes coercion, erasure, and dehumanization by teaching people to accept such practices as common sense.
The attack on the Smithsonian, the banning of books, the silencing of universities, and the stigmatization of “woke” as a code word for racial justice and historical truth all make visible how white supremacy fuels the cleansing project of Trump’s authoritarianism. There is more at work here than Trump’s attempt to rewrite history, it is a project aimed at obliterating historical memory. Chauncey Devega, writing in Salon, points this out in illuminating detail. He writes:
The president’s assault on the Smithsonian is serious. But his whitewashing campaign — or, more precisely, his White racial erasure project — does not exist in a vacuum. It extends far beyond the Smithsonian. We are witnessing a thought-crime regime that is taking control of the country’s intellectual history and collective memory, which have been deemed “woke.” This includes higher education, with a particular focus on elite colleges and universities; rewriting history textbooks and other educational materials; destroying public media such as PBS and NPR; restoring Confederate monuments; removing the historical context of public parks and other spaces and their connections to the color line; cutting federal funding for scientific and health research that benefits marginalized communities, including women; and ordering the Pentagon to purge officers and other leaders who are not white men, and remove the names and contributions of African-American and other nonwhite veterans — as well as women and LGBTQ Americans — from its libraries, website, reference materials, bases and ships.
At the state level, this project takes grotesque forms, as with Oklahoma’s Ryan Walters requiring applicants from “liberal states” to pass an anti-woke test before teaching. These assaults are not isolated. They are part of a systematic effort to weaponize education, culture, and memory to manufacture a fascist subject, passive, obedient, and stripped of critical thought.
Militarizing Society and The Spectacle of State Terror
These attacks are not simply about dismantling DEI or critical race theory. They are attacks on the values and institutions that make democracy possible. The merging of militarization with cultural engineering signals that authoritarianism now functions as a dual form of colonization that includes institutions and cultural pedagogical apparatuses shaping consciousness itself. ICE terror, secret abductions by masked paramilitary forces, the criminalization of dissent in universities, and the surveillance of public space are matched by the colonization of language, identity, and memory.
Trump’s rhetoric of crime, corruption, and invasion functions not only as political theater but as a spectacle of state terror. It is worth repeating that his repeated rants about “the enemy within”, Marxists, communists, fascists, and others he brands as “sick” and “evil”, are not mere insults but part of a fascist script of alleged internal enemies. Such rhetoric, as Greg Sargent notes, maps directly onto historical fascist traditions where opponents are dehumanized as existential threats, legitimizing violence against them.
This language has already been paired with force. Trump has unleashed the National Guard in Washington, D.C., rolling tanks into the capital for a military parade while signaling the city’s residents, largely Black and Democratic, that they live under the shadow of armed force. More recently, he federalized 2,000 members of the California National Guard without the governor’s consent to crack down on protests in Los Angeles, the first such move in 60 years. ICE agents hurled flash-bang grenades and fired “non-lethal” bullets into crowds, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth threatened to mobilize Marines if the unrest continued. Trump cast Los Angeles as “occupied by illegal aliens and criminals,” vowing to “liberate” the city. According to Trump, this act of military occupation will soon take place in Chicago and Baltimore, if not all the major Democratic controlled cities in America.
At a press conference, Christi Noem declared, with a fevered logic, that federal troops must occupy Los Angeles and other largely Black, Democratic cities, claiming such militarization is needed to “save them from the socialists.” These actions exemplify domestic terrorism: the use of military and police power to intimidate civilian populations, criminalize dissent, and declareDemocratic cities and multicultural strongholds as enemy zones in need of military occupation. Such actions are the domestic equivalent of martial law. In historical terms, they echo Bull Connor’s police dogs in Birmingham, the National Guard’s bullets at Kent State in 1970, and Pinochet’s use of tanks and soldiers to terrorize Santiago. The pattern is clear: state violence deployed against citizens to secure authoritarian rule, all of which feeds into Trump’s authoritarian fantasies. As Jackson Lears observes, the Trump regime is “drunk on exceptionalist fantasies and committed to conquering populations they deem inferior.”
Few places reveal the politics of state terror more starkly than Trump’s fantasy of a “Golden Dome” over the United States. Borrowed from Israel’s Iron Dome, it presents itself as defense but functions as a fantasy of total control: a canopy to shield authoritarian power while legitimating its violence. The real lesson of Israel’s Dome is that security for some is purchased through annihilation for others. Inside its arc, protection is mythologized; outside, destruction reigns. The destruction and genocidal annihilation of Gaza shows how defense becomes the alibi for genocide. Trump’s “Golden Dome” would perform the same trick, translating perpetual war and militarized repression into the language of protection.
Like all authoritarian myths, it is pedagogical: it trains citizens to equate safety with obedience, and it redefines dissent as a threat to national survival. Walter Benjamin’s warning that fascism aestheticizes politics finds fresh resonance here, the Dome becomes not only a technology of war, but a political fantasy of beauty and order built on violence and erasure.
Militarizing Public Space: The Fascist Aesthetic Reborn
Public space is now militarized, transformed into a stage where the technologies of surveillance and the omnipresence of armed police are the opening act in the script of spectacularized domestic terrorism. Under the Trump regime, theatricalized state videos merge the pornography of fear with the visual grammar of high-fashion editorials, an aesthetic in which the Homeland Secretary, Christi Noem, appears like a frozen model of repression, posed against the cold geometry of prison walls, razor wire, and armored convoys. This is not mere propaganda; it is the fascist aesthetic reborn, where violence is stylized, repression is choreographed, and the machinery of state terror is rendered seductive.
In this theatre of domination, public space is no longer simply occupied, it is choreographed into a tableau in which fear becomes both commodity and spectacle. As with all pedagogies of tyranny, such images do not merely display power; they teach the public how to desire it, naturalizing the presence of militarized authority as both inevitable and aspirational. The primitive tribalism of a toxic masculinity is now wedded to what Ariella Aïsha Azoulay calls “imperial technologies” that “militarize American politics and politicize the American military.”
At the heart of this authoritarian spectacularized system lies the fusion of punishment and erasure into a closed pedagogical loop, one that weaponizes culture as both a tool of domination and a means of shaping subjectivity. Punishment operates not only through the criminalization of dissent and the disciplining of communities by militarized policing, but also through the normalization of coercion. ICE raids, public abductions, and the omnipresence of surveillance function as public lessons, training people to internalize fear and accept repression as part of everyday life. Erasure complements this pedagogy of fear by cleansing the crimes of power from historical memory and cultural consciousness. This takes the form of censorship, the banning of books, the silencing of universities as democratic public spheres, and the disappearance of inconvenient truths from the social imagination. Together, punishment and erasure create a culture of pedagogical terrorism in which repression is naturalized and historical amnesia becomes the foundation for an upgraded form of fascist politics, one that not only controls bodies and institutions but also remakes culture itself as an apparatus of authoritarian rule.
Colonizing Memory and the Militarization of Consciousness
Fascism does not only occupy institutions; it occupies memory. It dictates what is remembered and what is silenced, ensuring that alternative visions of history and democracy cannot take root. Hannah Arendt warned that the destruction of citizenship and the rendering of people stateless amounts to an “expulsion from humanity itself.” Today’s authoritarianism similarly expels dissenting voices from public life by erasing their histories. Central to this process of erasure is the elimination of public space, the militarization of the institutions that produce informed citizens, and the transformation of cultural apparatuses or what Adorno called ‘the culture industry,’ transforming it into pedagogical mechanisms of silencing and propaganda. Central to this spectacle of militarization is not just the creation of an authoritarian subject, but also what is being erased—democratic values, critical education, public goods, communities of solidarity, basic human needs, the welfare state, the rule of law, the promise of economic equality,and a democratic vision of the future.
To resist authoritarianism requires not just political action but a reclaiming of memory as a democratic act. This means refusing the state’s monopoly over historical narratives, preserving the memory of solidarity and struggle, and cultivating new visions of justice. Memory becomes the terrain of democratic resistance, the counter-pedagogy to fascism’s culture of amnesia.
The most insidious aspect of the warfare state is that it does not simply control institutions, it colonizes thought by weaponizing knowledge as a form of power.It recasts war as a permanent condition, teaches cruelty and fear as civic virtues, and portrays empathy as weakness. Adorno’s work on The Authoritarian Personality illuminates this process: authoritarian regimes cultivate not just obedience but a psychological disposition that equates domination with strength and compassion with treason. What must be grasped, if fascism is to be resisted, is that it is not merely a political order but as Ergin Yildizoglu notes, is a pedagogical regime, a machinery of teaching and unlearning, of shaping consciousness itself through aesthetics, media, and the algorithmic reach of artificial intelligence. Its pedagogy is one of domination: it scripts emotions, dictates values, and implants narratives that define who must be hated, who must be forgotten, and who must remain invisible.
Fascism does more than capture the state; it colonizes language, memory, and identity. It erases the past by silencing historical memory, narrows the horizons of imagination, and drains public life of critical vitality. It produces subjects who are loyal not to truth but to power, obedient not to conscience but to command. This is the ultimate aim of pedagogical terrorism: not only to militarize the state, knowledge, and values, but to also militarize the mind. By narrowing what can be said, remembered, or imagined, it criminalizes dissent and turns language itself into an arsenal of cruelty. Under Trump, fascism is not only a militarized spectacle, it is a model of war. If fascism is not only a government, a form of gangster capitalism, but also a culture, the fight against it must not only be economic, ideological, but also pedagogical space where education becomes central to politics and culture speaks to individuals in a language in which they can both recognize themselves and organize into a mass movement.
As Antonio Gramsci, in the Prison Notebooks, reminded us, “all politics is pedagogical.” If fascism teaches fear, cruelty, and obedience, then resistance must teach solidarity, critical memory, and the courage to imagine a different future. Against fascism’s pedagogy of dispossession, we must cultivate a pedagogy of liberation—one that expands the field of the possible, restores the dignity of memory, and reclaims language as a weapon for democracy rather than domination.
Conclusion: Resisting the Warfare State
The United States is now living under a warfare state that fuses domestic terrorism with pedagogical terrorism. Its purpose is not only to dominate bodies but to colonize minds, erase memory, and manufacture a culture of passivity, obedience, and brutality. Resistance, then, cannot be reduced to exposing corruption, police violence, or opposing policy, however important; it must reclaim culture, language, and memory as the lifeblood of critique and democratic possibility. Only through this reclamation can we grasp how the darkest impulses of the past have been resurrected in the present, and how new media platforms and disimagination machines work tirelessly to normalize fear, ignorance, state violence, domestic terrorism, and the making of militarized subjects.
With respect to the making of militarized subjects, Sable Elyse Smith reminds us, ignorance is not simply the absence of knowledge, it is a form of violence. It is woven into the fabric of everyday life by disimagination machines that train us not only to consume pain but to take pleasure in it, to elevate cruelty into entertainment. Trump has sanctioned and expanded this spectacularized culture of abandonment, legitimating a politics where justice is disposable and civic institutions are hollowed out. He is less an aberration than the distilled emblem of gangster capitalism–a postmodern Frankenstein monster, theatrical and self-absorbed, who embodies decades of greed, savagery, and cruelty reaching their poisonous endpoint in American authoritarianism.
The spectacle of fascist politics is not a sideshow; it is the main event. Trump, as T.J. Clark observes, instinctively understands its power to “scent out the reaction of a virtual audience.” Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor remind us that the Trumpian spectacle, with its apocalyptic narratives, signals an ideology that has abandoned not only democracy but the very livability of our shared world. What emerges is a war culture, an authoritarian pedagogy in which cruelty is naturalized, memory is obliterated, and fear becomes the grammar of everyday life.
Against this militarized pedagogy of dispossession, every element of spectacularized fascism must be exposed: its cruelty illuminated, its lies unmasked, and its machinery of terror dismantled. Education should become an axe that breaks through the manufactured “common sense” of authoritarianism, a language that speaks to the deepest needs of the public, rekindles memory, and makes visible both suffering and the capacity to resist. If fascism teaches fear and obedience, then democracy must embrace the power of critique, hope, solidarity, and mass resistance.
The task before us is not only to defend the remnants of democratic institutions but to cultivate a cultural and educational imagination capable of shattering the grip of authoritarianism. To resist is to reclaim the future: to forge a pedagogy of liberation that restores dignity to memory, possibility to politics, and justice to the social fabric. Only then can we dismantle the machinery of terror and reclaim the possibility of a socialist democracy as a living, breathing project of freedom, equality, and justice.
Ku Klux Klan parade in downtown Hoquiam, Washington. Photo courtesy of Polson Museum, Hoquiam.
It’s not hard to find episodes of business class cooperation in United States history. Particularly when it comes to labor relations and suppressing workers’ rights, employers from different parties, industries, regions, and religions have much in common—and act accordingly. During the early twentieth century, bosses routinely expressed this solidarity by creating organizations ranging from chambers of commerce and professional associations to citizens’ committees and citizens’ alliances. The latter groups, in fact, were responsible for some of the bloodiest acts of vigilante terrorism in western U.S. history as merchants and manufacturers came together to bust unions and drive troublesome workers from their towns and workplaces.On the Pacific Coast, employer-led committees brutalized radical and militant workers in cities from the Mexican border to the Olympic Peninsula.
In Grays Harbor, Washington, which for decades made headlines for its record-setting lumber shipments and bloody labor wars, the mid-1920s witnessed the rise of a dominant Right-wing coalition with a firm grip over local politics and influence in national politics. The region was no mere backwater; in the 1920s Aberdeen—and its “Twin City” Hoquiam—were some of the Northwest’s largest and fastest-growing cities, and the Harbor’s goings on regularly turned up in major metropolitan dailies. Different branches of the Far Right and Further Right took their turn. In the early and mid-1920s, the center of right-wing activism was the hooded knights of the Ku Klux Klan. While many Americans believe that the Klan was limited to southern states, many of its deepest wells of support lay in the U.S. West and Midwest.
During the mid-1920s, a new struggle on Grays Harbor shifted from contests between the Left and Right, to a war between the Far Right and Further Right—as the Chamber of Commerce (and their citizens’ vigilante committee front groups) increasingly struggled for dominance with the KKK. Both groups had leaders drawn from the region’s employing class. Both the Chamber and the Klan had experience in politics; moreover, both groups maintained close ties with “law enforcement,” and both positioned themselves as representatives and defenders of their community. Still, if traditional politics and “justice” failed them, both groups proved willing to resort to vigilante justice to get their way.
In late 1924, the city’s municipal elections earned media attention across the region: the booming industrial city of Aberdeen, one of the Northwest’s largest municipalities, elected a Klansman to head its government. The Klan’s main rivals came from non-KKK (but pro-vigilantism) employers who showed that force worked not only for suppressing labor movements, but also for removing obnoxious elected officials.
Although the specifics of this local history are unique—perhaps a bit bizarre—they shine a bright light onto U.S. business history a century ago at a time when the Right ruled triumphant over much of American politics, culture, and economy. Counterpunch readers will likely notice the reverberations between the America of the Roaring Twenties and today’s world—exactly a century later.
Considerable ink gets spilt in discussions over divisions within the U.S. business elite, with our valiant Fourth Estate inquiring whether “Boss A supports progressive movements?” or “Will that divorce between Boss B and their spouse lead to a windfall for anti-Trump campaigns.” There are real schisms among those atop our society, but the unfortunate truth is that employers’ class interests have always attracted them toward movements of the Right. It’s this reality that makes possible what we see before us today: the schisms between the neocon Cold Warrior imperialists of the Democrat-Never Trump Republican wing of the United States; and the quasi-fascist movements lined up behind Trump. Both have billionaires and powerful institutions backing them, and both will continue their decades-long practices of harming those on this country’s—and global—margins.
What’s more, this Pacific Northwest regional history of a century past provides a useful reminder that those who run the U.S. economy and political institutions have little interest in democracy, except in finding ways to eradicate it from this “land of the free.” No fact so clearly shows the Upper Crust’s disinterest in democracy as the growth of today’s vast “union avoidance” industry, dedicated as the name suggests, to keeping workplaces non-union. Thus, the (non-union) workplace, where Americans spend so muchof their lives, is as dictatorial as any authoritarian country—places where the freedoms of expression and association do not apply, and any show of critical thinking can—and often is—met with retaliation, even termination.
Congressman Albert Johnson, 1920. Photo courtesy of Polson Museum, Hoquiam.
Albert Johnson: King of the Right
Few men figured so prominently in the 1920s American Right as Albert Johnson, longtime publisher of the Daily Washingtonian in the lumber town of Hoquiam. Johnson rose through the ranks of western publishers and established himself in the early 1910s through his militant anti-immigrant and anti-radical politics. Following his role in crushing a strike of (primarily) immigrant lumber workers in the spring of 1912, he founded The Home Defender, self-described as: “A National Newspaper Opposed to Revolutionary Socialism.”
A fervent bigot, Johnson channeled his anti-radical and anti-immigrant views into a decades-long crusade to expand immigration restrictions. Elected to Congress as a Republican in 1912, Johnson maneuvered into House leadership and assumed his prized position atop the House Immigration Committee. He and his movement peaked a century ago, in 1924, when Congress passed the Johnson-Reed Act, dramatically curtailing immigration from outside northwest Europe—eugenicists’ favorite nations.
Indeed, eight decades before Grays Harbor’s Kurt Cobain brought his song “Come As You Are” into the world, Albert Johnson, the region’s other most (in)famous resident, championed laws declaring, essentially, “Unless you’re from northwest Europe, don’t come at all.”
Unsurprisingly, given his accomplishments at the national level, Johnson drew support from all sides of the Northwest business classes: the lumbermen, bankers, news editors, and others who joined Johnson in their citizens’ committees and chambers of commerce in the early years of the twentieth century. Support also came from the proto-fascist movement of the Twenties, best represented by the Ku Klux Klan. Both the traditional business Right and their upstart challengers viewed Congressman Johnson as a champion. After all, he promoted both Northwest business development and an assortment of discriminatory policies designed to, in the words of his Home Defender, “put up the bars” against immigration.
Klan Towns
The KKK organized in haste on the Harbor in the early and mid-1920s. The movement’s growth paralleled that of the national movement as by 1924 the Klan had millions of members stretching across the country. A mass organization, the KKK appealed to the racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, xenophobia, and anti-radicalism of large swaths of white, protestant America.
Across the United States, Klansmen controlled dozens of local governments, and maintained a stranglehold over officials in states such as Oregon. The organization, too, ranked among the nation’s most dedicated fighters against the “Red Menace” of the Wobblies (Industrial Workers of the World, or IWW) and Communists. In 1924, the white terrorists’ anti-labor activism reached a grim crescendo when California Klansmen descended on the San Pedro Wobbly hall, brutally assaulted attendees with guns and clubs, and burned IWW children so badly that they had to be hospitalized.
Few subjects so confound students in my classes as our discussions of the strength and composition of the “Second Ku Klux Klan” during the 1920s. They are sometimes blissfully unaware of the terror group’s existence, but more likely familiar with the oft-told legend of the Klan as a small group of hillbillies as depicted in popular media. Indeed, Americans seem to struggle when confronted with the fact that the Klan was one of the largest and most powerful social movements of the first half of the twentieth century and that much of its membership—particularly its leadership—hailed not from the fringes of society, but instead the ranks of professional and business classes—the “Respectables” of the chamber of commerce. It’s possible that believing this mythical version of the Klan’s history is comforting for Americans, so often taught to accept anti-worker perspectives and believing that the uneducated and poor were—and are—the people most likely to hold white supremacist views.
In Grays Harbor, as across the United States, the Klan had its greatest appeal among business owners, professionals, and public officials. In Portland, Oregon, one of the largest blocs of Klansmen were police, and across the country the KKK actively recruited preachers who helped the white supremacist group reach their flocks. After observing one local Klan celebration, one Grays Harbor Wobbly claimed that the Klansmen hailed from the “gentry.” The Klan agreed. In 1921, Kleagle W.D. Norris spent four weeks recruiting in Hoquiam; he announced that most of the new members were businessmen.
Norris’s assessment was telling. Like in many other areas of Klan strength, the Harbor’s most-active KKK members included small businessmen and professionals, including several wealthy members of the owning class. Moreover, like many other groups formed by managers and professionals, the Klan demonstrated its class character as Klansmen pledged to fight intoxication, thus maintaining a sober, punctual, and hard-working labor force.
The Harbor’s best-known Klansman was Ransom Minkler. Ransom was a prolificjoiner who enjoyed the networking and socializing common to fraternities and employers’ associations. By 1918, he led the Grays Harbor Dairyman’s Association; in later years he led the area’s chamber of commerce and an automobile dealers’ association.
Although Minkler was not one of the Northwest’s lumber barons, he was wealthy. The Twenties was a dynamic period with vast fortunes made in the automobile industry, and Minkler cashed in. In 1927, Minkler started the Sunset Oakland Automobile Company in Aberdeen, paying for a $20,000 Hudson auto dealership.
The Klan’s message reached large audiences through its parades and mass meetings. In 1923, state Klan leaders held a gathering in Grays Harbor attended by “between 900 and 1,000 members, according to an estimate given by members who were there.” Members of the Aberdeen and Hoquiam organizations gave the “king kleagle of the Aberdeen klan” a gold knife, “in recognition of the work he is said to have done for the organization on Grays Harbor,” according to the Aberdeen Daily World. On July 4, 1925, the Klan turned out for a massive Hoquiam Independence Day parade, donning white robes for members and the horses pulling their float, as well as a large sign reading: “Americanization through Education is One of Our Objects: The Klu [sic] Klux Klan:”
The War on Vice
The Klan was an explicitly Protestant Christian organization and its membership and values connected it to elements of the temperance movement. Klansmen placed a high priority on enforcing laws that outlawed “vices” such as liquor, gambling, and prostitution. Enforcing the 18th Amendment was high-profile and often dangerous business. According to one estimate, nationally more than 1,300 persons were killed during the Twenties “in which it is known that prohibition enforcement was directly at issue. In every case one or more sworn officers of the law or their agents were involved as principals, either as the killers or the killed.”
The Harbor had its fair share of sensational dry raids; some ended in bloodshed. Klan-affiliated police directed some of the raids, as Klan members raided moonshiners’ homes, destroyed stills, and lobbied politicians in favor of enforcing alcohol laws.
The KKK’s campaigns against booze and prostitution distinguished it from some other right-wing business-led organizations—notably the citizens’ committees, which were more “Big Tent” operations—at least among the employing class. Those committees enrolled businessmen from “diverse” backgrounds. What really mattered to the citizens’ committees like those formed in Grays Harbor was the businessmen employers’ willingness to unify to defeat unions—using any means necessary.
At the center of Grays Harbor’s legal and extra-legal battle against the “demon rum” was the notorious “phantom dry squad” run by one of the Harbor’s most prominent Klansmen, an octogenarian Civil War veteran and constable named Albert G. Hopkins. Local governments created the dry squad to carry out a “clean-up campaign,” enrolling men such as Hopkins as constables. The press referred to the Hopkins operation as a “phantom squad,” which was likely a reference to the similarity between Klan and ghost costumes.
The dry squad activities generated attention—including dramatic news stories—as Hopkins led armed raids onto private homes and businesses across Grays Harbor—even conducting a raid at the Aberdeen mayor’s home. His brash tactics in defense of “law and order” won him supporters among large swaths of the voting public.
A KLAN MAYOR IN TIMBER TOWN
During the elections of the Roaring Twenties, in many cases, voters could choose between candidates from the Far Right and Further Right. In November 1924, the hooded knights succeeded when their chosen candidate, A.G. Hopkins, became mayor, unseating the incumbent, in the primary and winning the general election by more than 500 votes a month later.
Many Americans hold exaggerated views of their country as a bastion and beacon of democracy. The reality, of course, is more complicated—or rather—the reality is that elections in the United States have never been all that democratic. Women won the vote in the Evergreen State in 1910, ballooning voter rolls. However, the electorate remained laughably unrepresentative of the population with immigrants, itinerant laborers, and young people largely excluded from the polls. In the booming city of between fifteen and twenty thousand residents, a small minority of 4,500 voted; the new mayor received 2,562 votes. A paltry percentage of residents supported the new mayor, but of those (mostly white, native-born, older adults) who had the vote and the time to cast a ballot, the far-right proved popular.
The election of a Klan mayor made statewide news, proving an embarrassment to some of the business owners and professionals who worried about losing investments and tourism in their area. Leading the charge against the new mayor was banker William J. Patterson, one of western Washington’s wealthiest men and an old hand at dealing with sticky “problems” through extra-legal solutions. During a string of labor conflicts in 1911-1912, Patterson organized and led the citizens’ committee vigilantes as they beat, jailed, and deported men, women, and children from the Harbor.
In the interim between Patterson’s attacks on the Wobblies in 1911-1912 and the 1924 election, he reflected on his past as an anti-labor ruffian, proudly recalling: “We organized that night a vigilante committee—a Citizens’ Committee, I think we called it— to put down the strike by intimidation and force. . . . [W]e got hundreds of heavy clubs of the weight and size of pickhandles, armed our vigilantes with them, and that night raided all the IWW headquarters, rounded up as many of them as we could find, and escorted them out of town.”
Summarizing the non-Klan business group’s opposition to Mayor Hopkins, Patterson reported that “Aberdeen would like to devote its interest to the things that will contribute to its growth and to the development of Grays Harbor country in general.” Expressing these views, the Seattle Star wrote that many businessmen “charged him [Mayor Hopkins] with causing the town to lose its former prosperity.”
Another of the charges leveled against the mayor will be eerily familiar to readers in the 2020s as our own era’s elderly and infirm elites have yet to pass power to future generations. Mayor Hopkins’s opponents claimed that the elderly man was doddering and frail, unable to overcome the many hurdles opponents put in his way. Patterson contended that “the duties of the office of mayor had become too strenuous for a man of Mr. Hopkins’ age.”Moreover, the new mayor violated political norms by replacing appointed officials with his supporters. Ransom Minkler served as chief political operative; opponents charged the KKK political duo of stacking the police force and city government with their Klansmen pals. For good measure, Mayor Hopkins crafted new police regulations, including an authoritarian measure—the mass finger-printing of anyone charged with traffic or parking violations.
The conflicts between the Harbor’s two pillars of the business elite led to an exceptionally chaotic term for Hopkins, dubbed “a bitter political strife for months” and a “civic war” by the Seattle Star. The mayor’s wealthy opponents spent weeks organizing to counter the city leader’s political maneuvers—with the goal being the mayor’s ouster. The Seattle Star summarized the period: “This town is in the throes of one of the bitterest political fights it has ever had.” This was quite the statement considering the area’s long history of bloody conflicts.
Aberdeen’s two principal newspapers – the Daily World and Grays Harbor Post – opposed the Klan and Mayor Hopkins in print. The World, though, muted its criticism, ostensibly providing a “just the facts” reporting. Notably, it did not use the same discretion when “reporting” on labor activists; instead, at times, that paper incited its readers to take up arms against working-class radicals and downplayed years of anti-labor murders, round-ups, and property destruction.
J.W. Clark, editor of the Grays Harbor Post, went much further. He condemned the Klan in the harshest language possible. The newspaper featured front-page headlines and lengthy, biting editorials denouncing the Klan as “an unlovely thing that has no place in the United States of America,” an “unhealthy mental epidemic” which “every other intelligent citizen and right minded man” should confront should help in “blotting out.” Harsh feelings were apparently mutual; one issue of Seattle-based Klan paper The Watcher in the Tower attacked the Post: “Does the editor of the Grays Harbor Post really know what an American is? He is like a lot of the present day editors, who have a limited knowledge on certain subjects and when these are presented, makes what he thinks is a bright a retort, for an answer, that stamps him for what he is quicker than any branding iron ever could.” Displeased at the attack, Clark used the entire editorial page of his weekly to issue a sharp rebuttal to the Klan.
Clark mocked the KKK’s cowardice since they “hide their identity” and “wear sheets.” He also condemned their reliance on “direct action,” which he defined as to “take what you want when you want it.” One irony of Clark’s attack, however, was that in Aberdeen, the KKK gained power through an election, while the press worried that the “Hooded Order Is Active In Election.” Moreover, Clark and his fellow employers had their own history of using violent direct action to get their way. For decades, businessmen like Clark had used guns, clubs, rope and fire to terrorize union activists who tried to inject a little democracy into “lumber capital of the world.”
Hopkins’s mayoral stint didn’t last long. Four months after the December 6 election, a group of businessmen hostile to Hopkins again used force to make change. Many of these local elites had experience with removing elected officials, although unsurprisingly they almost always trained their political guns on the left. A decade before the Klan mayor reached office and amid a strike of thousands of local lumber workers, Grays Harbor employers forced a successful recall vote against Hoquiam’s prolabor socialist mayor and simply ousted the socialist city clerk—an official in the local labor movement. Recalls have long been a tool in the belt of Washington’s business class, useful ways to rid government of the rarest of politicians—those who put the interests of the working-class majority first.
When recalls proved too slow and unpredictable for Grays Harbor employers, they resorted to more direct methods of political change. And for once, they trained their political guns on those even further to the right.
On April 3, 1925, only a few months into Hopkins’s term, the “town fathers” had had enough. That night, agroup of prominent citizens—described by the Seattle Star as “business men, bankers, and the ‘open town’ element”—took the aged mayor to the Morck Hotel in Aberdeen.The Star set the scene:With “armed deputy sheriffs standing guard,” the mayor “sat dumbfounded, with no friends to counselor cheer him,” as “nearly 100 leading businessmen” hurled charges for four hours. After the lengthy period of “third degree methods,” “a paper was thrust before him to sign. It was his resignation.”Hopkins complained of being “forced to quit.”
As in earlier decades with business-led vigilantism against immigrants and labor radicals, the Harbor’s businessmen got their way through force. In the mid-1920s, however, employers’ interests motivated them to target a right-wing hate group. The Klansmen’s reputations—and potentially their commitments to enforcing prohibition—threatened investments and statuses of the other businessmen who undoubtedly wanted to keep their city out of the headlines. When attacks on the old mayor’s age and policies failed to yield results, businessmen used force to get their way.
Like the KKK’s outlandish costumes and customs, the improbable story of Aberdeen’s Klan mayor’s rise and fallshouldn’t distract us from the Klan’s wider significance. Fundamentally a racist and nativist organization, the Klan embodied the culture wars of the 1920s and was right at home in the Pacific Northwest. The Klan was representative of a large swath of the nation’s (and Grays Harbor’s) white Protestant population, and as across the country, many of Grays Harbor’s elites had power in the hooded order. Indeed, many of the area’s leading citizens, including Mayor A.G. Hopkins, and (future) Chamber of Commerce President Ransom Minkler – were notable Klan members, or at least strong supporters of KKK platforms. Congressman Albert Johnson even played an important part in turning Klan beliefs into public policy; generations of migrants turned away from America’s guarded gates are part of that legacy.
AFTERWARD
Ex-Mayor Hopkins’s reputation and influence was barely (if at all) diminished by his disastrous term. Reporters sometimes turned to Hopkins for his political opinions, while a decade after his brief mayoral stint, the Seattle Daily Times celebrated Hopkins’s birthday, reporting “Aberdeen’s Lone G.A.R. Man is 90.”
More significant support went to Ransom Minkler. His years in the Klan had done little to dampen his reputation—quite the opposite—as the businessman continued to exert considerable influence. A decade after his time as political advisor made statewide news, his fellow businesspeople chose Minkler to serve as president of the Grays Harbor Chamber of Commerce. In 1940, as Grays Harbor again rose to national infamy for right-wing vigilante attacks on labor, Minkler served in the vanguard as a director of the controversial Grays Harbor Business Builders, an employers’ organization at the center of the area’s anti-labor and anti-immigrant violence.
Nationally, the Ku Klux Klan’s strength waned as the 1920s wore on. Weakened by charges of political and sexual corruption, the KKK declined from a membership in the millions in 1924, to numbering around thirty-seven thousand by 1930.
But in some parts of the country, the “secret empire” maintained itself into the 1930s. Historian David M. Chalmers viewed the Harbor as the KKK’s main base of strength in the Pacific Northwest during the late 1930s. “With the exception of the Aberdeen, Washington, Klansmen, whose stones rattled the windows of the town’s union halls, the only active realm in the West was California,” noted Chalmers.
The Klan’s persistence on Grays Harbor was at least partly due to the group’s base among employers and that class’s decades-long embrace of vigilantism. Indeed, as Depression-era workers across the United States struck and unionized by the millions, the Klan remained in some labor strongholds where they lived up to their militant anti-union reputations.The KKK played a notorious part in the opening convention of that most storied union—the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU)—held in Aberdeen during April1938. With leaders of the dynamic new union in town, Klansmen attempted to terrorize the group, leading union president Harry Bridges to condemn the KKK as union-busting “red-baiters.” In much of the country it was left to the labor-left to do battle alone against far-right groups like the Klan as police and other “peace officers” both looked the other way or collaborated with reactionary forces.
Looking back a century later, the parallels between 1920s and 2020s America are hard to miss. Whether we’re talking about the “division” between the early twentieth century citizens’ committees (alliances) and the KKK, or the “divisions” between the billionaire-dominated Democrats and Republicans, in all cases we’re talking about elites who favor discrimination and brutality against immigrants, mass incarceration and surveillance, and a refusal to assist the working class through universal health care, pro-worker labor law reform, or even increased minimum wages.
Our own era is dominated by reactionary forces; the oppression and exploitation from the Right can appear invincible—inescapable. And while much about the current era is new, the overwhelming power of the American Right is not without precedent; instead, it’s been a feature throughout the country’s history. A century ago, it was the collective power of the working class that faced down and temporarily tamed the Right, ushering in an era of material benefits for the working-class majority. Any path that leads us out of our own era of rightwing domination is likely to emerge from similar sources—through mass unionization and societal disruptions led by a militant labor movement.
Last month, on the Daily Beast podcast, journalists Joanna Coles and Michael Wolff took turns reeling off a list of famous people who Wolff met while visiting Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan home. The recited names were a who’s who of rich, powerful, and perverted men, many of them recognized Friends of Jeffrey. But one name stood out as unusual: the Dalai Lama. (The list of names starts at about the 18:25 timestamp on the full recording.)
Coles thought so too, asking Wolff, “Did you actually meet the Dalai Lama at Jeffrey Epstein’s?”
“Indeed,” said Wolff.
Asked why the Dalai Lama was there, Wolff said that a lot of people hung out with Epstein to try to wheedle money out of him. And there was something compelling about the upscale salon-like scene: “It was always extraordinary,” said Wolff.
Wolff said that he started spending time at Epstein’s house in 2014, six years after the infamous pedophile was given an extremely favorable plea deal for sex crimes charges because, former U.S. district attorney Alex Acosta once said, “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone.” Wolff was working on a potential book about Epstein and was given access to the now-deceased sex offender’s wealthy social milieu. Epstein later became an important source for Wolff’s best-selling books about President Donald Trump.
Any writing about Michael Wolff seems to require the proviso that his reliability has been questioned by assorted enemies and media critics. Wolff is a gossip hound, practicing the art at a very high level, and he hangs out with unsavory politicians and oligarchs who might like the idea of having a famous journalist around — until he publishes a book about them. Wolff gets into marble-floored rooms that many journalists don’t, so his comments are worth considering.
With that throat-clearing aside, let’s consider why His Holiness the Dalai Lama may have been at now-deceased sex trafficker and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s house. People generally hung out with Epstein for two reasons: sex and money. Wolff suggested that, in this case, it was the latter. Did the Dalai Lama, or an organization with which he’s associated, receive a donation from Epstein?
The Dalai Lama’s press office did not respond to an emailed list of questions. I was unable to reach Michael Wolff for comment about the Dalai Lama’s visit to Epstein’s home.
It wouldn’t be the first time the Dalai Lama had received money from a sex trafficker. In 2009, the Tibetan spiritual leader spoke at an event for NXIVM, the abusive sex cult whose leader, Keith Raniere, was convicted in 2019 on seven criminal charges and sentenced to 120 years in prison. During the 2009 appearance, the Dalai Lama gave a speech and placed a ceremonial Tibetan scarf on Reniere’s shoulders. For his efforts, the Dalai Lama reportedly received $1 million. The deal was made by billionaire heiress Sara Bronfman, who, along with her sister Clare, gave Raniere and NXIVM at least $150 million. Sara Bronfman was alleged to be having an affair with the Lama’s personal peace emissary Lama Tenzin Dhonden, who was later removed from his post for corruption.
Despite evidence that he ran a child sex trafficking operation, the source of Epstein’s wealth has never been sufficiently accounted for. People who spent time around him have said that they didn’t know what he did for a job and that he seemed to do very little actual work. For some reason, billionaires liked to give Jeffrey Epstein huge amounts of money. Les Wexner gave Epstein tens of millions of dollars — he later said that Epstein misappropriated $46 million from him — along with one of the most valuable residential properties in New York City. Leon Black, who has been accused of rape in civil suits, paid Epstein $158 million for “tax advice.”
Whatever Epstein was as a financier — sometimes he was described as a financial bounty hunter, reclaiming assets stranded overseas — he was adept at moving money around the world. And he had help from pliant bankers, as demonstrated by victims’ lawsuits against JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank, which led to nine-figure settlements. Sen. Ron Wyden recently said that the Treasury Department has documents about banks looking the other way for more than $1.5 billion in Epstein-related financial activity, and that Treasury should release the documents. Wyden, who has overseen a long-running investigation into Leon Black’s taxes, also said that Black’s payments to Epstein should be investigated by the IRS.
In short, there’s still so much we don’t know about where Epstein’s money came from and where it went — and to what ends. But following the money trail as far as it leads can tell us something about Epstein’s network, how he operated, and who enabled him. And sometimes a single $50,000 payment can open up the aperture, letting in some light.
In the official 2020 MIT report regarding Epstein’s relationship with the university, two partners from the law firm Goodwin Procter “analyzed all donations received by MIT, both those made directly by Epstein (whether individually or through his charitable foundations) and those made by third parties at Epstein’s alleged behest.” The report found that, during a 15-year period, Epstein donated a combined $850,000 to Seth Lloyd, a physics professor, and to the MIT Media Lab, which was then headed by Joi Ito. Michael Wolff mentioned Joi Ito as one of the prominent guests who attended Epstein’s regular home gatherings.
The report claims that Lloyd, who was placed on administrative leave before being allowed to return to teaching, accepted transfers from Epstein in his personal bank account and tried to conceal the source of the donations. The report similarly describes MIT officials as trying to keep quiet Epstein’s donations to the Media Lab and his visits to campus.
The report doesn’t look at relationships between MIT staff and Epstein that occurred outside the university. While the authors write that they looked into donations that may have come through Epstein proxies, it’s not clear how far that investigation went, or was allowed to go. Former MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito received at least $1.2 million from Epstein for his own venture capital firm, which the MIT report mentions in a footnote.
The MIT Media Lab had an uncommonly high profile for a university organization, with an orbiting network of billionaire tech moguls, scientists, writers, government officials, politicians, and TED-talking NGO types. That made the Media Lab’s director, Joi Ito, an important relationship for the prestige-obsessed Epstein. The two seemed to be in close contact, with Ito once “strategizing with [Epstein] as to how he might be able to ‘mollify the bad press’ after a series of articles were published concerning a civil lawsuit brought by Epstein victims,” according to the MIT report. Ito, who sat on the boards of the New York Times and the MacArthur Foundation, repeatedly solicited Epstein for more money for the university. MIT’s investigators claimed that his big-money asks weren’t answered:
Epstein used ostensibly philanthropic donations in order to win favors, borrow academics’ intellectual prestige, or to move money where it wouldn’t normally be allowed to go. The MIT report describes Epstein using Professor Lloyd (with the professor’s participation) to see if he could make donations to the university without setting off alarm bells:
In November 2013, Linda Stone, who first introduced Epstein to Ito, sent an email to Ito suggesting that a 501(c)(3) might be used to mask Epstein’s donations, although, she wrote, “there may be disclosure issues.” Ito then took the idea to MIT’s VP of Development, according to the MIT report.
In 2017, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit called Education Advance donated $50,000 to the Prajnopaya Institute at MIT. The money for that donation came from an entity called “J Epstein Virgin Islands FD Inc,” which that same year gave Education Advance $55,000, according to IRS filings. Education Advance took in an additional $1,500 in 2017, which appears to be the only year it was ever in operation. Its IRS filings report no other donations or dispersal of funds, suggesting that Education Advance might have been purpose-made for the Prajnopaya Institute gift. After 2017, Education Advance never filed another Form 990, leading to its nonprofit status being revoked.
Education Advance was overseen by Svetlana Pozhidaeva, a Russian model who worked for MC2, a modeling agency run by Jean-Luc Brunel, an Epstein accomplice accused of rape and sex trafficking who died in a French prison in 2022. Education Advance was registered to an Epstein-owned Manhattan building. Pozhidaeva, who had been photographed leaving Epstein’s house, also shared a lawyer with him: Darren Indyke, who is now co-executor of Epstein’s estate. Epstein’s Virgin Islands-based foundation, the initial source of the funds, was sometimes called Enhanced Education.
The Prajnopaya Institute transaction isn’t mentioned in the 2020 MIT report, which covers the years “between 2002 and 2017.” The existence of the transaction had been reported a year earlier by the Daily Beast. MIT’s media office did not respond to questions about why the Prajnopaya Institute donation did not appear in its 2020 report on the university’s relationship with Epstein.
The lack of official acknowledgement from MIT is another indicator that Epstein’s money flows remain poorly charted. Some parties might prefer it that way. Epstein also helped muddy the waters by lying and exaggerating about the scope of his charitable giving — a deception that included Epstein making edits to Wikipedia pages about himself, his foundation, and some of his associates.
The Prajnopaya Institute told the Daily Beast in 2019 that it returned the $50,000 donation. The Institute didn’t respond to an email asking how the donation was brokered and if the Dalai Lama or Tenzin Priyadarshi was involved. A separate inquiry to Priyadarshi, sent through his website imonk.org, received no reply.
Priyadarshi has long been associated with the Media Lab and Joi Ito, who described Priyadarshi as his friend. They podcasted together and co-taught an MIT class called Principles of Awareness. Ethics programs that began in the Media Lab later moved to the Dalai Lama Center, where Priyadarshi is CEO. Ito and Priyadarshi have appeared on discussion panels together. Ito, a prolific photographer, has posted photos of Priyadarshi and the Dalai Lama, and he’s cited them in his writing. The Dalai Lama has attended at least three events hosted by the MIT center named after him.
Dr. Babak Babakinejad, an MIT whistleblower and research scientist who first alerted me to the Prajnopaya Foundation donation, offered the following statement:
Epstein’s interest in MIT was about more than just showering a couple programs he liked with cash. Epstein visited MIT’s campus at least nine times and attended MIT Media Lab events, which could attract wealthy tech and political figures like billionaire Reid Hoffman. Epstein spent time with MIT professors and staffers, some of whom he met through the literary agent John Brockman, who acted as a connector between Epstein and scientists and academics. It’s hard to think that Epstein’s MIT-related contributions during a 15-year period only amounted to $850,000, especially when the donations that are now documented were once obfuscated. As shown here, the Prajnopaya Institute donation means the real amount that Epstein gave to MIT is at least $900,000.
It’s not clear why Epstein, who as far as I can tell never mentioned Buddhism or had any association with Tibetan culture or causes, made a $50,000 donation to a Buddhist organization at MIT. Perhaps someone influential asked him. Perhaps he was once again looking “to see if the line jingles.”
The alarm did go off after all, but it was too late for anyone to care.
This piece first appeared on Jacob Silverman’s Substack.
+ Can you imagine being a reporter in Gaza, knowing that you’re on a target list by Israel simply because you are a reporter and feeling compelled to write a will to your young son? That’s what Maryam Abu Dagga, the tireless and brave freelance reporter for the AP, did before she was murdered this week, along with four other journalists, rescue workers and Palestinian civilians, in a targeted double-tap strike by the Israelis outside a hospital. Here’s what she wrote…
+ At least 20 people, including 4 journalists (one a freelancer for AP), a first responder and hospital staff, were killed Monday in an Israeli “double-tap” strike just minutes apart on the same location at southern Gaza’s Nasser Hospital. The double-tap strikes are meant to kill first responders sent to rescue the wounded from the initial strike…
+ Yuval Abraham on Israel’s use of double-tap airstrikes: “Source in Southern Command: ‘Another strike will be carried out to ensure that rescue efforts do not take place. First aid providers, rescuers – kill them. Attack again, on them. This is the procedure. Since October 7, it has been in place.”
+ Dr. Atef Al-Hout, Director of Nasser Medical Complex, described Israel’s double-tap attack on the hospital’s central surgery ward, then hit the staircase opposite the department where journalists had gathered to document events, after an earlier Israeli airstrike in the same location had already murdered Reuters cameraman Hussam Al-Masri:
What happened was that an Israeli drone bombed the surgery department, more specifically, the staircase opposite the surgery department, resulting in a number of martyrs, mostly journalists who were there to document the events. Without any prior warning or anything. And it was targeted twice, not once. The surgery department at the hospital. We are trying to finish these surgeries, as it will soon be put out of service until it’s restored. We are talking about the central surgery department here. It contains six operating rooms, roughly 70 percent of the number of operating rooms within the Nasser complex. What results from that, we will be witnessing with our own eyes very soon.
+ In the 22 months since October 2023, Israel has launched more than 800 attacks on healthcare facilities in Gaza.
+ While Netanyahu wrote off the Israeli attack on Nasser Hospital that killed journalists, rescue workers and civilians as a “tragic mishap,” his own favorite TV network, Channel 14, reported that “The soldiers say: the attack on the Nasser terror headquarters was approved and coordinated with the high command.”
+ Dr. Yawa Hawari offered this in response to Israel’s assertion that the airstrike that murdered 20 people at Nasser Hospital was meant to knock out a “Hamas camera” (which actually belonged to Reuters journalist Hussam al-Masri, who filmed the attack that killed him): “They want you to believe that Israeli regime surveillance is so precise that it can see a camera set up on the stairwell of a hospital building but can’t see all the journalists and civil defense workers around it.”
+ The “Hamas” camera…
…actually belonged to Reuters journalist Hussam al-Masri, who was using it to provide a live feed from the hospital.
+ The targets were the very people Israel murdered. They’ve bragged about how precise their airstrikes are, using the Habsora, Lavender and Where’s Daddy? AI systems….
+ Jerome Grimaud, Médecins Sans Frontières’s emergency coordinator in Gaza, on Israel’s double-tap strike on Nasser hospital:
We denounce in the strongest possible terms Israel’s horrendous attacks on the Nasser medical complex today – the only partially functioning public hospital in the south of Gaza. Israeli forces killed at least 20 people and injured 50 more in consecutive strikes, including healthcare workers, rescuers, and journalists.
Among them was Mariam Abu Dagga, a freelance photographer who frequently worked with MSF. We are heartbroken by her death. Mariam leaves behind a son who must now grow up without his mother. At least four other journalists were also killed today.
Some MSF staff members were forced to shelter in the laboratory as Israel repeatedly struck the building amidst rescue efforts. We are outraged as the Israeli forces continue to attack healthcare workers and journalists with impunity.
For the past 22 months, we have watched as healthcare facilities have been levelled, journalists silenced, and healthcare workers buried beneath the rubble by the Israeli forces. As Israel continues to shun international law, the only witnesses of their genocidal campaign are deliberately being targeted. It must stop now.
+ Photojournalist Valerie Zink on why she can no longer work for Reuters…
Western media is directly culpable for creating the conditions in which this can happen. As Jeremy Scahill from Drop Site News put it, “every major outlet – from the New York Times to the Washington Post, from AP to Reuters – has served as a conveyor belt for Israeli propaganda, sanitizing war crimes and dehumanizing victims, abandoning their colleagues and their alleged commitment to true and ethical reporting.”
By repeating Israel’s genocidal fabrications without determining if they have any credibility – willfully abandoning the most basic responsibility of journalism – Western media outlets have made possible the killing of more journalists in two years on one tiny strip of land than in WWI, WWil, and the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, and Ukraine combined, to say nothing of starving an entire population, shredding its children, and burning people alive.
The fact that Anas Al-Sharif’s work won a Pulitzer Prize for Reuters did not compel them to come to his defence when Israeli occupation forces placed him on a “hit list” of journalists accused of being Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants.
It did not compel them to come to his defence when he appealed to international media for protection after an Israeli military spokesperson posted a video making clear their intention to assassinate him following a report he did on the growing famine. It did not compel them to report on his death honestly when he was hunted and killed weeks later. I have valued the work that I brought to Reuters over the past eight years, but at this point, I can’t conceive of wearing this press pass with anything but deep shame and grief. I don’t know what it means to begin to honour the courage and sacrifice of journalists in Gaza – the bravest and best to ever live – but going forward, I will direct whatever contributions I have to offer with that front of mind.
+++
+ Earlier this week, Hamas once again accepted a US-brokered ceasefire deal to which Netanyahu responded, as usual…
+ Former US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller: “Netanyahu told us he intends to continue the war for decades and was imposing conditions when we sought a deal. The Israeli government has been obstructing the ceasefire and setting new demands.” Miller and his colleagues kept this salient fact to themselves during the Biden years and for 8 months into Trump time.
+ The first stop on the Jake Sullivan rehabilitation tour was The Bulwark, where he tries to dump all of the blame conveniently on Netanyahu:
I have, in fact, told a number of members who were thinking about the votes on these resolutions, that the situation as it stands today, following the breakdown of the ceasefire in March, a vote to cut off arms to Israel is a totally credible position. That is one I would support. But for me, the bigger question is about the future of the US/Isael relationship. And here, I think, it comes down to: what is the future of Israel? You know, you’re going to be dealing with a prime minister and a rightwing government for years on end or is there going to be political change in Israel, because I think that would have an impact on what the nature of the US/Israel relationship is. What is the democratic nature of Israel two, three, four, or five years from now?
+ From Isaac Chotiner’s interview in the New Yorker with Biden’s ambassador to Israel, Jacob Lew, who justifies the killing of Palestinian children by saying many were the children of Hamas fighters..
These Biden people are some cold-blooded ghouls.
+ Charlamagne tha God on Hakeem Jeffries: “I call him AIPAC Shakur.”
+ On Tuesday, DNC members rejected an amendment that urged support for the recognition of Palestine as a state and an end to all military aid to Israel. They also rejected a resolution,introduced by 26-year-old committee member Allison Minnerly, that calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an arms embargo on Israel.
+ Hours after the votes, Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said: “I believe it is time for the United States government to stop the sale of SOME offensive weapons systems to Israel as LEVERAGE to pressure Israel.”
+ Figures from the Israeli military’s own secret database show that 83% of the Palestinians it has killed in Gaza have been civilians. A May classified document leaked to +972 and the Guardian, listed 8,900 named fighters as dead or probably dead, when the overall death toll hit 53,000.
+ The percentage will prove to be much higher when the final death count is tallied. Recent studies suggest that more than 400,000 Palestinians have already or will soon perish under Israel’s genocidal lash. The CIA has estimated that Hamas’s total strength is around 30,000.
+ Can you get more explicit than this from the former head of Israel’s military intelligence unit? (By the way, Israel’s far surpassed the 50-to-1 kill ratio, so can they stop killing now? Apparently, not.)
+++
+ Last Friday, a state of famine was declared for the first time in Gaza City. A report by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) declared that More than half a million people in Gaza are being subjected to conditions leading to widespread starvation, destitution and preventable death. Classifying famine means that the most extreme category is triggered when three critical thresholds – extreme food deprivation, acute malnutrition and starvation-related deaths – have been breached. The analysis predicted that in the coming weeks, the famine will soon spread from the Gaza Governorate to Deir Al Balah and Khan Younis Governorates. By the end of September, more than 640,000 people will face Catastrophic levels of food insecurity – classified as IPC Phase 5 – across the Gaza Strip. An additional 1.14 million people in the territory will be in Emergency (IPC Phase 4) and a further 396,000 people in Crisis (IPC Phase 3) conditions. The situations in northern Gaza and the nearly destroyed city of Rafah are believed to be even more severe than the conditions in Gaza City. But the IPC investigators didn’t have enough data to render a report.
+ According to the WHO, “malnutrition among children in Gaza is accelerating at a catastrophic pace. In July alone, more than 12,000 children were identified as acutely malnourished – the highest monthly figure ever recorded and a six-fold increase since the start of the year. Nearly one in four of these children was suffering from severe acute malnutrition (SAM), the deadliest form with both short and long-term impacts.
+ Catherine Russell, Executive Director UNICEF: “Famine is now a grim reality for children in Gaza Governorate, and a looming threat in Deir al-Balah and Khan Younis,” said“As we have repeatedly warned, the signs were unmistakable: children with wasted bodies, too weak to cry or eat; babies dying from hunger and preventable disease; parents arriving at clinics with nothing left to feed their children. There is no time to lose. Without an immediate ceasefire and full humanitarian access, famine will spread, and more children will die. Children on the brink of starvation need the special therapeutic feeding that UNICEF provides.” Sara, a 14-year-old Palestinian girl living in Gaza City, to UNICEF’s Tess Ingram: “Famine, of course, I know. I’ve been starving for five months now.”
+ UN Chief Antonio Guterres: “It is a man-made disaster, a moral indictment – and a failure of humanity itself. Famine is not about food; it is the deliberate collapse of the systems needed for human survival. As the occupying power, Israel has unequivocal obligations under international law – including the duty of ensuring food and medical supplies for the population. No more excuses. The time for action is not tomorrow – it is now.”
+ From a Briefing to the UN Security Council on the Occupied Palestinian Territory by Joyce Msuya, Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator
On 22 August, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Famine Review Committee confirmed that famine is now occurring in the Gaza governorate and is projected to expand further to Deir al-Balah and Khan Younis by the end of September.
Allow me to share some numbers:
Over half a million people currently face starvation, destitution and death. By the end of September, that number could exceed 640,000.
Approximately 1 million people are in Emergency IPC Phase 4. And over 390,000 are in Crisis IPC Phase 3. Virtually no one in Gaza is untouched by hunger.
At least 132,000 children under the age of 5 are expected to suffer from acute malnutrition between now and mid-2026. The number of those at risk of death among them has now tripled to over 43,000. For pregnant and breastfeeding women, that number is predicted to surge from 17,000 to 55,000.
…
Behind these stark numbers are human lives – daughters, sons, mothers and fathers. Futures cut short and communities scarred.
The Famine Review Committee has been called five times to assess food security and nutrition in Gaza. We sounded the alarm after each of these assessments. We also reported to the Council twice under resolution 2417 (2018) on conflict and hunger – first, in February 2024 and again in June this year.
Let us be clear: This famine is not a product of drought or some form of natural disaster. It is a created catastrophe – the result of a conflict that has caused massive civilian death, injury, destruction and forced displacement. Last month, over 100 Palestinians, on average, were killed every day, according to estimates by Gaza’s Ministry of Health – nearly twice the average daily toll recorded in May. In the same period, some 800,000 people were newly displaced, pushed into overcrowded areas that lack shelter and other essentials.
This famine is also the result of 22 months of restricted and compromised delivery of essential humanitarian and commercial supplies; degraded health and nutrition systems; lack of adequate shelter, and broken water, sanitation, and hygiene networks, which have accelerated the spread of disease and turned menstrual hygiene into a nightmare for women and girls.
The famine in Gaza is also the result of a destroyed food production system where 98 per cent of the cropland is damaged or otherwise inaccessible, and where livestock is decimated…
International humanitarian law is a vital safeguard against hunger in conflict.
It prohibits the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and forbids attacks on objects essential to civilian survival – such as food, water and agricultural infrastructure. It demands that the parties take constant care to spare civilians and civilian objects throughout their military operations.
It demands that humanitarian personnel and assets be protected at all times and that the provision of unimpeded humanitarian relief be facilitated.
There is still time to act.
…
Failure to act now will have irreversible consequences.
This Council and all Member States must immediately work to ensure:
An immediate, sustained cessation of hostilities in Gaza to prevent further loss of life and to stop famine from expanding.
Second, the release of all hostages, immediately and unconditionally.
Third, the protection of civilians and critical infrastructure, including that which is essential for survival and the functioning of food, health and water, sanitation and hygiene systems.
Fourth, safe, rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access through all entry points and to all people in need across the Gaza Strip. This includes the delivery of immediate large-scale, multi-sector humanitarian assistance throughout the Strip, including items necessary for survival such as food and nutrition supplies, medicine, water and shelter, fuel and others.
Fifth, the restoration of commercial flows of essential goods at scale, market systems, essential services and local food production.
Ending this human-made crisis demands that we act as if it were our mother, our father, our child, our family trying to survive in Gaza today.
We must all do more, and quickly.
+ The Times of Israel reported that the Netanyahu regime plans to “target” the UN’s hunger monitors for publishing a “fabricated” report on the famine in Gaza.
+ Norman G. Finkelstein on the so-called “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation” aid sites:
How do they distribute the food? You know how they distribute it? They throw it on the floor and then people are supposed to run for it, to reduce them to rats.
Whenever I read about that, it reminds me of the concentration camps, the food they put in the giant vat, it’s almost all water. I’m referring to World War II now. It’s almost all water, but there are few vegetables, a few vegetables in that vat of soup.
And so, what can you imagine? The people who are lining up they’re pushing each other. They’re shoving each other because you have to get to the head of the line or it’s just water.
And that’s what they do to the people of Gaza, reducing them to scurrying rats. And then as they go for the food, the Israelis because they’re scared, they’re afraid, they start shooting at the people, killing them as they scramble and scurry for the food.
+ Israel has killed 408 aid workers in Gaza, including 7 employed by Andres’s own World Central Kitchens. The man you are shaking hands with has implemented a policy of forced starvation against 2 million people. Just how desperate for attention must Jose André be?
+++
A joint statement from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem on Israel’s attempt to drive Palestinians out of Gaza City:
Jerusalem August 26th,2025
“In the path of righteousness there is life, in walking its path there is no death” (Proverbs 12,28).
A few weeks ago, the Israeli government announced its decision to take control of Gaza City. In recent days, the media have repeatedly reported a massive military mobilization and preparations for an imminent offensive. The same reports indicate that the population of Gaza City, where hundreds of thousands of civilians live — and where our Christian community is located — is to be evacuated and relocated to the south of the Strip. At the time of this statement, evacuation orders were already in place for several neighborhoods in Gaza City. Reports of heavy bombardment continue to be received. There is more destruction and death in a situation that was already dramatic before this operation. It seems that the Israeli government’s announcement that “the gates of hell will open” is indeed taking on tragic forms. The experience of past campaigns in Gaza, the declared intentions of the Israeli government with regard to the current operation, and the reports now reaching us from the ground show that the operation is not just a threat, but a reality that is already in the process of being implemented.
Since the outbreak of the war, the Greek Orthodox compound of Saint Porphyrius and the Holy Family compound have been a refuge for hundreds of civilians. Among them are elderly people, women, and children. In the Latin compound we are hosting since many years people with disabilities, who are under the care of the Sisters Missionaries of Charity. Like other residents of Gaza City, the refugees living in the facilities will have to decide according to their conscience what they will do. Among those who have sought shelter within the walls of the compounds, many are weakened and malnourished due to the hardships of the last months. Leaving Gaza City and trying to flee to the south would be nothing less than a death sentence. For this reason, the clergy and nuns have decided to remain and continue to care for all those who will be in the compounds.
We do not know exactly what will happen on the ground, not only for our community, but for the entire population. We can only repeat what we have already said: There can be no future based on captivity, displacement of Palestinians or revenge. We echo what Pope Leo XIV said a few days ago: “All peoples, even the smallest and weakest, must be respected by the powerful in their identity and rights, especially the right to live in their own lands; and no one can force them into exile.” (Address to the group of refugees from Chagos, 23.8.2025).
This is not the right way. There is no reason to justify the deliberate and forcible mass displacement of civilians.
It is time to end this spiral of violence, to put an end to war and to prioritize the common good of the people. There has been enough devastation, in the territories and in people’s lives. There is no reason to justify keeping civilians as prisoners and hostages in dramatic conditions. It is now time for the healing of the long-suffering families on all sides.
With equal urgency, we appeal to the international community to act for an end of this senseless and destructive war, and for the return of the missing people and the Israeli hostages.
“In the path of righteousness there is life, in walking its path there is no death” (Proverbs 12,28).
Let us pray that all our hearts may be converted, so that we may walk in the paths of justice and life, for Gaza and for the whole Holy Land.
+++
+ A new poll from the University of Maryland documents the dramatic reversal of opinion on Israel and Palestine among Americans, who are now more sympathetic toward Palestinians than Israelis. As desperate as the Israelis have been to blot out all coverage of their heinous crimes in Gaza, thanks to the courage and persistence shown by Palestinian journalists under unimaginably dangerous circumstances, the truth has leaked out. Few nations, even one as prejudiced and brainwashed as this one, could tolerate for long daily images of amputated teens, starving babies and grandmothers incinerated while they slept in makeshift tents…
+ Most of the Trump sanctions against International Criminal Court judges are retaliation for the court authorizing charges against Israeli officials. But others are targeted for authorizing an Afghanistan investigation that the prosecutor said would not implicate the CIA torturers of the Bush era.
+ How is it “anti-semitic” to vandalize a fighter jet? Were the designers of the F-35 Jewish?
+ On Monday morning, award-winning Scottish screenwriter Paul Laverty (I, Daniel Blake) was in Edinburgh this morning for wearing a T-shirt reading ‘Genocide in Palestine, time to take action’ at an anti-genocide protest…This should be a big boost for Scottish Independence.
+ Laverty was detained and charged under Britain’s new anti-terror laws. Here is his statement on release:
The most important court in the world is the court of public opinion. Ordinary people are appalled to see starvation and genocide and the selling of arms to the apartheid state of Israel. So, actually, it’s a great pleasure to be here in solidarity with all those people who have declared not to let their conscience down. So let’s get on with it. Let’s stop murder and genocide in Palestine and carry out the obligations under the genocide convention.
+ Irish novelist Sally Rooney: “I too support Palestine Action. If this makes me a ‘supporter of terror’ under UK law, so be it. My books, at least for now, are still published in Britain, and are widely available … I want to be clear that I intend to use these proceeds of my work, as well as my public platform generally, to go on supporting Palestine Action and direct action against genocide in whatever way I can.”
No, she’ll stand her ground
Won’t be turned around
And she’ll keep this world from draggin’ us down
Gonna stand her ground
And she won’t back down
+ Three of the most inspirational and courageous people I know, each of whom speaks with unflinching moral clarity:Ms. Rachel, Greta and Sally Rooney.
+ Quite a change in tone here from Senator Jeanne Shaheen to CBS: “Israel is starving Gaza….We have people dying because they are systematically being starved to death, because Israel is refusing to allow in the humanitarian aid that people need to keep alive…the famine is a shameful black mark on humanity…[that]…Israel has allowed it to happen…We should be doing more and we should have done more. Absolutely. Everybody should have said more sooner.”
+ The same woman who, in a legal deposition, gratuitously outed the view of Trump White House staffers that Lindsey Graham is gay and rambled on about Marjorie Taylor Greene stuffing Arby’s roast beef sandwiches down her pants is the invisible hand guiding much of US foreign policy, in a very depraved direction. Last week, Laura Looomer went on an online rampage against Marco Rubio and the State Department after she learned that several badly injured Palestinian children had arrived in the US for life-saving medical treatment.
A day after Loomer’s eruption, the State Department announced it was suspending all visitor visas for people from Gaza.
+ Trump’s Kissinger followed up her glorious victory over severely injured Palestinian kids with a Tweet announcing her desire to get rid of “Islam once and for all.”
+ As Bill Clinton might say, this headline changes rather dramatically depending on what the meaning of “it” is…
+ The Nazi leadership took such pains to disguise their genocidal intentions that an entire Holocaust denial industry took root, saying ordinary Germans, not to mention the British and American governments, had no idea that Jews, homosexuals, and Leftists were being systematically exterminated in Nazi-occupied Europe. The leaders of the Israeli government are making no effort to conceal their own exterminationist goals. Indeed, they’re broadcasting them across Israeli media outlets…
+ Here’s yet more genocidal ravings from Israel’s Minister of Finance: “We conquer, cleanse, and stay… On the way, we annihilate everything that remains..…. We’re breaking Gaza apart, leaving it as a pile of rubble, total unprecedented destruction.”
+ After his meeting on Wednesday with Marco Rubio, Israel’s foreign minister, Gideon Sa’ar was asked what the plan was for a Palestinian state. He replied flatly: “There will be none.”
+ On December 31, 2023, a spokesperson for Tony Blair reprimanded the press: “Reports that Mr Blair has anything to do with the voluntary evacuation of Gazans is simply not true; there has been no such discussion, nor would he consider it.” But this week, Axios reported that Blair and Jared Kushner participated in a meeting on Gaza at the White House on Wednesday, where they presented Trump with ideas for a “post-war” plan, largely based on the scheme developed by the Boston Consulting Group, which was exposed by the Financial Times earlier this summer. The plan calls for the removal of Palestinians from Gaza (they’d get a $9,500 check as recompense for being ethnically cleansed) and 10 mega development projects on the Gaza coast, including the “Gaza Trump Riviera and Islands,” the “MBS Ring” and “MBZ Central Highway,: and the “Elon Musk Smart Manufacturing Zone.” The BCG plan assumed that at least 25 percent of the Palestinians in Gaza would “leave voluntarily” and estimated that the cost of the “relocations” could be $5 billion, but that the new managers of Gaza would see a “$23,000 savings on every Palestinian relocating because subsidies were cheaper than spending on housing support and other costs in the territory.”
+ Ali Abunimah: “It’s a paradox I haven’t heard well explained: At the height of the US unipolar moment, France and Germany exercised a modicum of independence by opposing the Iraq invasion. But now that the US is relatively weaker geopolitically, European vassalage is more total than ever.”
+ Julia Sebutane, the Christian Zionist judge from Uganda, who was the only member of the ICJ to vote in favor of Israel on every charge in the genocide case, shares the End Times eschatology of the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee:
I will never forget the day the judgment came out. Even though the government was against me, I remember one ambassador saying, ‘Ignore her because her ruling is not a representation of Uganda.’ There are now about 30 countries against Israel…the Lord is counting on me to stand on the side of Israel. The whole world is against Israel, including my own country.
There are now about 30 countries against Israel…the Lord is counting on me to stand on the side of Israel. The whole world is against Israel, including my own country.”
There is something I want to share. I have a very strong conviction that we are in the End Times. The signs are being shown in the Middle East. I want to be on the right side of history. I am convinced that time is running out…I am humbled that God has allowed me to be part of the last days.
+ Philip K. Dick’s dystopian panopticon seems almost primitive compared to what’s in store for us from these AI-freaks…Aaron Cohen, Israeli special ops veteran, developer of Gideon-AI mass surveillance system: “I’m about to launch America’s first-ever AI threat detection platform built for law enforcement. It scrapes the internet 24/7 using Israeli-grade ontology to pull specific threat language and then routes it to local law enforcement. It’s a 24/7 detective that never sleeps and it’s going to get us ahead of these attacks.”
Of course, the “Israeli-grade ontology” might also call in a drone strike on your own kid…
+ Doesn’t this represent more of a desecration of the US flag than burning it, which, as a political act, is at least symbolic of its relevance and power, while flying the Israeli flag is a sign of American impotence?
+ Flying the Israeli flag at US schools will almost certainly have the opposite effect from the one used as a justification…
+ The Jewish comedian Jonathan Friedland, who lived in Israel for years, allowed Rep. Ritchie Torres, the fanatical Israel supporter, to expose himself as a robotic and soulless politician, who is insensate to his own moral vacuity and so arrogant as to believe he can accuse Jews of being anti-semitic for opposing a genocide carried out in their name….
Friedland: I think hatred of Jewish people has just exploded in this country. And I think it’s because of our support for what appears to be an absolute brutality.
Torres: You think that’s a justification for anti-semitism? You think Israeli government policy is a justification for anti-semitism. There’s no justification for anti-semitism. Zero justification for anti-semitism.
Friedland: Okay, you’re deflecting again.
Torres: I’m not deflecting. That’s my position.
Friedland: What does it look like to have a flag with a Jewish star, and I’m Jewish, and for kids to be starving now as a result of our government?
Torres: It just sounds like you’re justifying anti-semitism.
Friedland: Are you crazy right now?
Ritchie Torres: “If you have disagreements with the Israeli government, but there is no justification for intimidation or harassment against American Jews
Adam Friedland: “I’m telling you, as a Jew right now, that we are receiving a lot more hate because of what the people with the flag that has a Jewish star on it are doing to other people right now. And I’m telling you as a Jewish person how painful it is for us to stay, and it hurts my stomach to say this, and you’re going to say ‘I disagree, I disagree’, that this is a genocide. And that hurts to say that a Jew can do that. It hurts because we grew up learning about what hatred did. We grew up learning about this! And the same year that Israel was founded, 1948, the world saw the Holocaust as they established standards for what a genocide is. It is the same year the world said, This shouldn’t be a thing that happens.
Torres: I mean, Hamas murdered thousands of people in Israel.
Friedland: So what does that mean?
Torres: That Hamas is a terrorist organization for murdering innocent children and civilians.
Friedland: How many civilians have been killed in this war?
Torres: The war is a tragedy. But…
Friedland: 90 percent of them have been civilians. They’ve killed journalists.
Torres: People have been killed in a war. It’s a tragedy.
Friedland: They’ve killed people waiting for aid.
Torres: But you’re suggesting it’s the policy of the Israeli government to murder civilians. And that’s a notion that I reject.
Friedland: You gotta listen, man. You’ve gotta be like a human being about this.
Torres: People who are dying in the war, which to me is a tragedy, because war is a tragedy.
Friedland: Do you feel in your heart that what you’re saying is right?
Torres: If you remove Hamas…
Friedland: You don’t actually think that…
Torres: Don’t tell me what I believe. I told you what I believe…
Friedland: Why would you believe that?
Torres: Because there are people who see the world differently. I know it’s a shock to you. But there are people who see the world differently than you do.
+ The entire interview is worth watching, if only to see how Friedland’s humane and emotional response to genocide contrasts with Torres’s programmatic callousness…
Here’s how Peter Savodnik, of Bari Weiss’s Free Press, described Friedland’s interview: “The role Friedland is playing is that of the kapo — the Jew articulating and/or acting out the wishes, conscious or unconscious, of the gentile majority. This is literally the world’s oldest (or second oldest) profession.”
+ The question that has perplexed all of Washington, none more vexatiously than Mayor Petebot…
+ A plurality of Americans, 43-28, now say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians, according to a new YouGov poll. Meanwhile, according to a Reuters survey, an overwhelming majority of Americans, 58-33, believe every country in the UN should recognize Palestine as a nation. The larger these numbers go, the harsher the sanctions will become against those who articulate these increasingly popular beliefs in public…
+ The Trump/Rubio State Department fired Shahed Ghoreishi, its top press officer for Israeli-Palestinian affairs, because he urged the administration to express condolences about journalists killed by Israel in Gaza and publicly oppose the forced displacement of Palestinians, according to internal documents reviewed by The Washington Post.
+ How far is “too far” to take a protest against genocide? Showing up in person? Wearing a kaffiyeh? Holding a sign reading, “Stop starving babies to death?” Chanting “From the River to the Sea”?
+ The United Methodist Church (UMC) will divest from Israel bonds and from other governments maintaining illegal military occupations. The UMC is the first church in the world to make such a pledge.
+ After viewing the most recent cut of Tunisian director Kaouther Ben Hania’s film The Voice of Hind Rajab–which depicts the killing of 6-year-old Hind Rajab and her family by Israeli forces in Gaza last year, incorporating her final pleas for help to the Palestine Red Crescent–Brad Pitt, Rooney Mara, Joaquin Phoenix, Alfonso Cuarón and Jonathan Glazer have joined as executive producers. (Good for you!) The film premieres this week at the Venice Film Festival. Ben Hania’s previous films include The Man Who Sold His Skin and Four Daughters, both nominated for Academy Awards.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told an NBC interviewer last week that the expansion of the North Atlantic Treat Organization was a “violation of Russian security interests” and one of the “root causes” of the war against Ukraine. Russian officials have made these statements in their private meetings with American counterparts, but this is the most explicit public statement since the start of the war three and a half years ago. The conventional wisdom in the United States does not accept NATO expansion as a cause of the war, but I’ve been arguing since the war began that there was such linkage.
Lavrov’s comments make it clear that an end to the war with Ukraine include security guarantees for Russia as well as for Ukraine. It’s unlikely that anyone in the Trump administration understands this linkage, which means that the war is not about to reach a negotiated solution. The United States simplistically blames only President Vladimir Putin for the start of the war, but no Russian leader would have accepted the extensive U.S. and NATO buildup on Russia’s western border.
Lavrov has been critical of Trump’s failure to discuss specifics of a negotiated end to the war, which is typical of Trump’s lack of process in dealing with difficult geopolitical issues. When asked about security guarantees, Trump responded that “We haven’t even discussed the specifics.” Trump still proclaims that he doesn’t know which side to blame for the start of the war. His most absurd statement regarding the war: “We’ll know which way I’m going, because I’m going tot go one way or the other,” he told reporters last week.
In addition to limits on Ukraine’s military buildup and the occupation in Ukraine by western forces, the Russians will push for limits on Western troops based in East Europe, an end to the deployment of a regional missile defense system as well as an end to the permanent deployment of German troops in such Baltic states as Lithuania. Russia will press for limits on U.S. bases in Poland and Romania as well. Even before the war began, Putin in December 2021 proclaimed that Russia demanded talks on the NATO threat to Russian national security.
Lavrov also stated that Ukraine has the “right to exist,” but only if it stops the cultural and linguistic limits on ethnic Russians and Russian speakers who the Kremlin believes “belong to Russian culture.” The majority of the population on the Donbas is ethnic Russian. For the past 30 years, Russian leaders have claimed it is their “duty” to protect those who share the values of the Russian language and the “Russian world” (“Russkiy mir”). Moscow uses the term “near abroad” to defend its support and protection for Russian ethnics throughout the former Soviet empire. Kazakhstan, with its large ethnic Russian population could be a target of similar Russian expansionism.
The Trump administration and U.S. policymakers in general do not seem cognizant of the fact that actions Washington has taken over the past 25 years in East and Central Europe are threatening to Russia. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, every U.S. administration has taken advantage of Russia’s national security weakness to expand the U.S. role in the region. Presidents Clinton and Bush ignored warnings not to expand NATO.
Clinton was also responsible for NATO’s bombardment of Serbia 1999 without a UN mandate and without touching base with the Kremlin, which has had a special relationship with Serbia for generations. The Bush administration was a strong supporter of the “color revolutions” in Georgia and Ukraine, where Putin believed there was a strong U.S. and CIA covert role. It was the provocative actions of the Georgian government in disputed territories that led to brief Russian military intervention in 2008. Bush clearly overplayed his hand in threatening Russia by pursuing a special relationship with a strongly nationalistic Georgia.
Bush overlooked the warnings from German Chancellor Angela Merkel to avoid encouraging NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. The hardliners in the administration backed off somewhat, but only reluctantly. Bush’s forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were perceived as threatening to Moscow because they contributed to greater insurgency and terrorism in areas close to Russia’s borders. The United Sates could have pursued diplomacy to coordinate actions with Russia in these areas, but no U.S. administration was willing to take Moscow seriously in view of Russia’s political, military, and economic weakness. Putin actually offered significant assistance to the United States in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington,
Meanwhile, U.S. policymakers and political analysts as well as the mainstream media totally dismiss the idea that NATO expansion had anything to do with Russia’s use of force. The New York Times and the Washington Post particularly dismissed the idea that “NATO provoked Russia’s invasion.” Again, the conventional wisdom was that Russia was engaging in an “illegitimate response to the hostile actions of a democracy.”
There is good reason for Moscow to believe that the expansion of NATO was a marker of Washington’s return to containment and a threat to its national security. Russia was angered about the expansion from the outset, particularly since President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker had assured their Russian counterparts that the United States would not “leap frog” over Germany if the Soviets pulled their 380,000 troops out of East Germany in order to reunify the German state. The past five administrations have pursued a policy of militarism in Europe toward Russia. Contemporary foreign policy experts anticipate a Putin threat to NATO beyond the threat to Ukraine, which portends greater U.S. pressure on Russia. Meanwhile, NATO expansion virtually ensures that a Cold War will exist between the West and Russia for the near future.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov wore a sweatshirt to the recent Alaska summit that vividly displayed his nostalgic imagination. Written in large Cyrillic letters was “CCCP” or USSR. Like Donald Trump’s red cap featuring the slogan “Make America Great Again,” Lavrov indicated that he, like Vladimir Putin, imagined the Russian Federation returning to its past glory as the Soviet Union. The 70-year-old leaders of the United States and Russia are in time warps. Geopolitics exists in linear time. Countries, like individuals, cannot return to their past glories in circular time.
Nostalgia for the past can be an obsession. I’m no exception. Each season I closely follow the results of the New York Yankees and the New York Knicks to see if they can repeat their past glories. (They have not won major championships since 2009 and 1973, respectively.) Mine is not a simple optimism about the Yankees and Knicks winning games; it is an optimism about the teams returning to their former championship status.
Now it is one thing to imagine a sports team returning to a past dominant position, it’s quite another to imagine a country returning to its past hegemonic role. Can countries or empires which were once dominant return to those previous situations? While sports seasons repeat the same number of games and similar formats to win the ultimate title, geopolitics evolves in time with no similar set of rules or formats. Baseball and basketball have regulated rules and procedures; geopolitics does not.
I know what the Yankees and Knicks need to do to win the World Series and NBA crown. I don’t know what has to happen for the Russian Federation to return to the glory of the Soviet Union. Or for the United States to be truly great again.
Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of Great Powers present similar temporal perspectives. Both describe how empires/hegemons rose and fell. Lavrov’s sweatshirt, and Trump’s omnipresent cap represent a different temporal perspective. Lavrov/Putin and Trump imagine that their empires/hegemons rose, fell, and will rise again.
When President Putin remarked in the post-summit that “a fair balance in the security sphere in Europe and the world as whole must be restored,” the emphasis was on restored. He implied that that is “the root causes” of the crisis with Ukraine. Putin’s nostalgic imagination is that the post 1945 Soviet Union’s regional hegemony and global power should be restored.
Trump’s cap says much the same. The American hegemonic rise also happened after World War II. The Vietnam War – if one needs a specific starting point – saw the decline of the United States. Trump’s cap’s slogan promises that he will return the U.S. to its post 1945 dominant position. When DJT says “Make America Great Again,” the emphasis is on Again.
Instead of linear time moving forward with new technologies and new geopolitics, Lavrov, Putin, and Trump imagine circular time going back to something that was before. Restored and Again are the keywords. So just as sports team repeat how the game is played, the nature of the schedule and the criteria for becoming champions, Lavrov, Putin, and Trump see geopolitics as circular in time as well.
But geopolitics and sports are not the same. European countries like Spain, Portugal, France, England, and the Netherlands all had their historic periods of geopolitical glory. They all had extraterritorial moments of domination. Today, none of their leaders envisions a return to that position. (The British Commonwealth of Nations is not the same as when “the Sun Never Set on the British Empire.”)
Sports teams can return to their previous glory. Individual athletes, politicians, and movie stars may make comebacks; empires/hegemons cannot.
And who is imagining a return to past glory? Sergei Lavrov is 75 years-old, Vladimir Putin 72 years-old, and Donald Trump is 79 years-old. All three are caught in the same nostalgic imagination. All three aging leaders project their temporal decline on a geopolitical imagination of a return to their countries’ past glories under their leadership. All three are caught in the same nostalgic time warp.
Individually, we would all like to remain young and healthy. We would all like to de-age and increase our longevity. Botox, plastic surgery, injections, exercise and pills are all part of that effort to counter linear time. Pictures of Putin’s physical prowess are regularly presented to defy his 72 years. Trump loves to show himself energetically playing golf; he often mocked Joe Biden’s age when he himself was in his late 70s. His favorite songs, the oldies but goodies his staffers play when he is in a bad mood, are “Memory” from Cats, and the Rolling Stones’ “You Can’t Always Get What You Want.”
Lavrov/Putin and Trump have taken the personal narrative of countering aging to a nostalgic, geopolitical level. 70 year-old men’s desires to maintain their youth has become part of a larger geopolitical narrative. Science may have succeeded in the de-extinction of the dire wolf, but there is no indication it will succeed with infinitely prolonging human longevity or restoring a country’s empire. Empires/hegemons rise and fall; they do not rise again. History may repeat itself in different forms, but geopolitics does not. Nostalgia for the past has its limits. And seventy year-old men should act their ages.