Category: Militarism

  • The U.S. regime carries out its oppression by coercion, and by delay and outright suppression of news-reporting about the key facts of the case. It does this both in domestic matters and in international ones, as will here be exemplified first by the example of an innocent man who was framed by the U.S. regime and given a life sentence in a murder-case, and then by the example of the deeply corrupted Ukrainian nation which was grabbed by the U.S. regime in a February 2014 U.S. coup that the U.S. regime hid behind popular 2013-2014 anti-corruption demonstrations on the Maidan square in Kiev and so turned that nation into a battering-ram against the U.S. regime’s top target for conquest, which is Russia right next door to Ukraine.

    In both examples — both domestic and foreign — the U.S. regime’s motivation was to increase and to intensify the power of its owners, whom it serves and who are never satisfied with the immense power that they already have but always crave to acquire yet more.

    How It Does Domestic Oppression

    On 4 May 2020, Jordan Smith headlined “MISSOURI’S ATTORNEY GENERAL IS FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AN INNOCENT MAN IN PRISON: Despite ample evidence that Lamar Johnson was wrongfully convicted, Eric Schmitt is sparing no effort to keep him locked up as the coronavirus spreads”, and reported that:

    The police had nothing concrete to go on. But by the time they finally interviewed Elking, they had already latched onto a suspect: 20-year-old Lamar Johnson.

    Johnson would soon be arrested and tried for the October 1994 murder on thin and troubling evidence. …

    In 1995, Johnson was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Still, he has long maintained his innocence — and now has a powerful ally in his corner: Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, chief prosecutor for the city of St. Louis.

    Gardner ran on a reform agenda and in 2016 became the first black elected prosecutor in the city’s history. She won federal funding to start a conviction integrity unit and in 2018, at the behest of the Midwest Innocence Project, began investigating Johnson’s case. A year later, she concluded that he was innocent.

    In July 2019, Gardner filed a motion with Circuit Court Judge Elizabeth Hogan conceding that Johnson was wrongfully convicted. She asked the judge to grant a hearing on the matter and, ultimately, a new trial for Johnson. “When a prosecutor becomes aware of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of a crime that the defendant did not commit — the position in which the circuit attorney now finds herself — the prosecutor is obligated to seek to remedy the conviction,” Gardner wrote in the court filing.

    But [Judge] Hogan balked, questioning whether Gardner had the power to challenge the conviction. She called in Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt to see what he had to say about it. Schmitt argued that not only did Gardner lack that authority, but the court couldn’t even entertain the matter. Hogan aligned herself with Schmitt and dismissed the case without considering the evidence Gardner had uncovered.

    Hogan’s decision sparked a unique legal battle that, on April 14, culminated in a video conference hearing before the Missouri Supreme Court. The question before the judges, who are working remotely amid the coronavirus crisis, is whether a prosecutor has any power to right a wrongful conviction. …

    Gardner’s yearlong inquiry revealed that Johnson’s conviction had been marred by extensive police and prosecutorial misconduct. She found that police had fabricated witness statements in an effort to frame Johnson (the witnesses said they’d never told police the things that had been attributed to them) and had pressured Elking into making an identification after he’d repeatedly told them he did not know who had attacked Boyd that night. Elking said that a detective told him who to pick out of the lineup.

    Elking said that a detective told him who to pick out of the lineup.

    Gardner learned that Elking had been paid more than $4,000 in exchange for his testimony and that prosecutors had also fixed a string of traffic tickets for him. None of this information was turned over to Johnson’s defense. … The state also failed to tell the defense that the jailhouse informant, Mock, had an epic criminal history (some 200 pages long) and a history of testifying for the state. … There was also the fact that Johnson had an alibi: He was with his girlfriend, child, and two friends several miles away at the time of the shooting.. … On top of it all, Gardner learned that not long after Johnson was convicted, two men, Phillip Campbell and James Howard, had each separately confessed to killing [Markus] Boyd. Both insisted that Johnson had nothing to do with it. … Given the breadth of the misconduct, Gardner felt she had to find a way to make things right — after all, it was her office that was responsible for Johnson’s conviction.  …

    Not everyone agrees with that position. Schmitt’s office has since doubled down in opposition to Gardner with a mind-numbing array of arguments. …

    No prosecutor in the state of Missouri has the power to undo a wrongful conviction, sys the attorney general. … Schmitt says that Johnson can vindicate his rights by following regular post-conviction procedure: File a challenge based on the evidence Gardner has supplied and let the legal system work its ordinary, slogging magic. …

    Even if Johnson’s appeal were to survive a procedural challenge, the process would only draw out his already wrongful incarceration. …

    Unless the Missouri Supreme Court steps in, prosecutors in the state may remain hobbled, which is essentially what Schmitt is advocating: Keep the power to vet these claims in his hands and dismiss from the process elected prosecutors like Gardner, who vowed on the campaign trail to work toward a more equitable criminal justice system. …

    Reform prosecutors across the country have faced varying degrees of backlash from the entrenched power structures they’ve challenged, and they’ve repeatedly had their discretion questioned as they’ve sought changes that upset the old guard. …

    On 15 February 2023, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch bannered “Judge frees Lamar Johnson after 28 years in prison: Original murder case was ‘suspect at best’”, and reported:

    Lamar Johnson walked out of the downtown courthouse Tuesday afternoon, a free man for the first time in decades.

    Just hours earlier, a St. Louis Circuit judge vacated Johnson’s murder conviction, ruling he was wrongly imprisoned nearly 30 years ago and that there is clear and convincing evidence of his innocence.

    The ruling by 22nd Circuit Court Judge David Mason comes roughly two months after a weeklong hearing in December during which another man confessed to the 1994 killing of Marcus Boyd — the crime that sent Johnson to prison with a life sentence.

    Cheers erupted in the courtroom as Mason read his decision. …

    The ruling ends Johnson’s decadeslong fight to prove his innocence. After years of being turned down on appeals and habeas corpus petitions, Johnson’s case attracted national attention in 2019 when Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s Conviction Integrity Unit reported misconduct by the investigation’s lead detective and other constitutional errors in the 1995 trial. …

    Much of Mason’s decision centered on the main witness in Johnson’s 1995 trial, Greg Elking, who said at the December hearing that police coerced his original identification of Johnson as the man who wore a ski mask and shot Boyd. Mason described that identification as “suspect at best.”

    ”All Elking witnessed was the assailant’s eye, giving a new meaning to the phrase ‘eye witness,’” Mason said, describing it as “yet another serious weakness in the case against Johnson.”

    Without Elking’s identification, there was no case. …

    Photos: Wrongfully convicted inmate Lamar Johnson set free after serving 28 years for murder he did not commit. …

    Once Lamar Johnson was freed, the national press reported the case, as being an example showing that though ‘mistakes’ can happen in American ‘justice’, they can be rectified: in this ‘democracy’, such mistakes can be rectified — the Government isn’t set up so as to produce these ‘mistakes’; it’s not set up that way so as to produce the world’s highest percentage of its population (almost all of which are poor people) being in prisons. It’s only mistakes. So, the public don’t know that it’s NOT mistakes — that it’s the way ‘our’ Government functions.

    On 8 November 2022, Eric Schmitt won Missouri’s election to the U.S. Senate, and became appointed to the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he joins the other key Senators that represent the interests of U.S. armaments contractors (America’s most profitable industry), such as Boeing Corporation, which is the largest manufacturer in the state and is seeking tax-breaks from people such as Schmitt.

    How It Does Foreign Oppression

    Ukraine was neutral between Russia and America until Obama’s brilliantly executed Ukrainian coup, which his Administration started planning by no later than June 2011, culminated successfully in February 2014 and promptly appointed a rabid anti-Russian to impose in regions that rejected the new anti-Russian U.S.-controlled government an “Anti-Terrorist Operation” to kill protesters, and, ultimately, to terrorize the residents in those regions in order to kill as many of them as possible and to force the others to flee into Russia so that when elections would be held, pro-Russian voters would no longer be in the electorate.

    The war in Ukraine started in 2014, as both NATO’s Stoltenberg and Ukraine’s Zelensky have said; but Russia responded militarily on 24 February 2022 in order to prevent Ukraine from allowing the U.S. to place a missile there a mere 317 miles or five minutes of missile-flying-time away from The Kremlin and thus too brief for Russia to respond before its central command would already become beheaded by America’s nuclear strike.

    However, even after at least $360 billion in support to Ukraine’s war against Russia after Russia’s invasion, from the U.S. and its colonies and their IMF, Ukraine’s prospects of winning against Russia have been declining not increasing throughout the course of the war and are now close to nil.

    So: how did the U.S. regime carry out this oppression of the Ukrainian people? It was done by the same means as it had been done in the Lamar Johnson case: coercion, including coercion against the mind, which is deceit, and including coercion against public officials who might otherwise try to do the right thing in order to serve the public instead of to serve their masters who have been funding their political careers.

    On 17 June 2015, I headlined “The Who’s Who at the Top of the Coup” in Ukraine, and focused upon Dmitriy Yarosh, whom Obama’s Victoria Nuland chose to run the Maidan demonstration in Kiev that provided cover for the Obama-Nuland-organized February 2014 coup in Ukraine; and, on 1 February 2015, I headlined “The Ideology of the New Ukraine”, and focused upon Andrei Biletsky (or Beletsky), who organized and ran the openly nazi Ukrainiani Azov Battalion and, unlike Yarosh, Biletsky didn’t equivocate about his being a Ukrainian Social Nationalist or (National Socialist) in the Hitler vein, but he aimed “to create a Third Empire [a Ukrainian Third Reich],” instead of Hitler’s German “Third Reich.” Then, on 20 March 2022, I headlined “How The Western Press Handles The Ukrainian Government’s Nazism” and presented a universally hidden-in-The-West photo of Biletsky leading his men in salute to what had been Nazi Germany’s Wolfsangel insignia.

    On 27 May 2019, the OBOZREVATEL online Ukrainian news site headlined (as translated into English) “Yarosh: if Zelensky betrays Ukraine, he will lose not his position, but his life” , the transcript of their interview with Yarosh, right after Zelensky had won the Presidential election against Poroshenko, and, in that interview, Yarosh made unambiguously clear that if as President, Zelensky were to negotiate seriously with Russia,”he will lose not his position, but his life.” Yarosh — the agent of the regime in Washington DC — was sending the new Ukrainian President the very clear message, that even if the U.S. wouldn’t get rid of such a Ukrainian President, Ukraine’s nazis would. So: Zelensky (like Poroshenko before him) was being controlled not only from above, the empire’s imperial regime in Washington, but also from below, the U.S.-empowered nazis whom the U.S. regime had used in order to take over Ukraine during February 2014.

    Conclusion

    The U.S. Establishment (called “neocons” in foreign policy, and “neoliberals” or “libertarians” in domestic policy, but, in any case, America’s under-1,000 billionaires and their numerous employees and other agents) work via threats, not only against heads-of-state abroad such as Zelensky, but ALSO  against domestic public officials such as the Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, to turn the screws upon those down below (such as in plea-bargains to lie in court cases) in order to keep those billionaires on top, and everyone else down below; and this is the empire’s social and political and even international, “rules-based order.” Whereas Lamar Johnson, as an extremely lucky exception to the rule (or “rules-based order”) managed finally to get free in 2023 after entering prison in 1995 for a frame-up against him by the regime that he and other Americans are forced to fund with their taxes, few others are and will be so lucky, but America’s ‘news’-media won’t and don’t report this fact. For example: there is nothing to indicate that Lamar Johnson sees what happened to him as being a frame-up by the regime instead of just a bunch of tragic mistakes that the U.S. Government had made. Even the victims usually remain ignorant of the reality. — the ‘news’-media cover it up. But the whole operation — like that of any other empire — is based ultimately upon requiring the public officials to impose by raw coercion if necessary, their masters’ rule, in this “rules-based order.” It’s the way that any empire functions. And, in the world of today, the only empire that remains is the U.S. and its colonies (‘allies’).

    The post How the U.S. Carries out Its Oppression first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • On Monday 22 January Palestine Action covered Twickenham Stadium in blood red paint, hours before the Defence IQ’s ‘International Armoured Vehicles’ expo was due to commence:

    Twickenham Stadium: complicit in Israel’s genocide on Gaza

    The event, which is marketed as “the world’s premier international meeting ground for all elements of the armoured community”, hosts representatives of Israel’s weapons trade, including largest weapons company, Elbit Systems Ltd, along with representatives of their British subsidiary Elbit Systems UK and the Israeli state-owned arms manufacturer, Rafael.

    Based in Haifa, Elbit is responsible for the manufacture of vast amounts of the Israel‘s military technologies – including 85% of its drones and land-based military equipment, all of its small-calibre ammunition, and an array of munitions, surveillance and targeting technologies, and other armaments.

    During the current onslaught on Gaza, which has thus far martyred over 25,000 Palestinians, Elbit Systems’ CEO described the company as playing a crucial role in the genocide, which received gratitude for this by the Israeli military. From this country, Elbit export numerous drone technologies, surveillance and targeting systems, and other weaponry to the Zionist regime, from manufacturing sites in Shenstone, Tamworth, Kent, Bristol, and Leicester.

    Palestine Action has, for over three years, worked to prevent manufacture at these premises and to disrupt Elbit’s appearances and marketing wherever possible – including at high-security weapons fairs such as this.

    A blood-red reminder

    One such example is Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI). Taking place every two years – supported by the UK government, and organised by Clarion Events – DSEI is a massive event for arms dealers. One of its primary functions is to allow arms companies to network with representatives from some of the world’s most repressive regimes.

    Companies will encourage delegates from human-rights-abusing nations such as BahrainQatarTurkey, and Saudi Arabia to buy the latest weapons to suppress their own populations and/or to wage war against others. Moreover, Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) research shows that over 40 Israeli arms companies – including Elbit Systems – had stalls at DSEI in 2023 – weeks before Israel began its genocide in Gaza.

    Twickenham has, therefore, was covered in a blood-red reminder of the Palestinian bloodshed for which their guests of honour are responsible:

    Action Twickenham Stadium 22/01/24Other companies present include Thales, Elbit’s partner in running their UAV-Tactical-Systems joint enterprise drone plant in Leicester, along with other firms facilitating Israel’s genocide including Leonardo, BAE Systems, and Teledyne.

    A Palestine Action spokesperson said of the expo at Twickenham Stadium:

    That Israeli arms dealers are invited as guests of honour at a time when their deadly output is on full show in the Gaza genocide should shame all people who enter this abominable event. After developing their weaponry in the Laboratory of Palestine, Elbit and Rafael then sell these technologies on to other regimes.

    While our governments happily turn a blind eye to this brutality, Palestine Action will continue to work to make sure that Israeli war criminals have nowhere to hide.

    Featured image and additional images via Palestine Action

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Like waking up with a bad hangover, 2024 began with geopolitical headaches and pains from the previous year’s conflicts, chaos and instability. Multiple wars in Africa, Europe and the Middle East; human-caused climate and environmental crises; and concerns about democratic backsliding, economic stress and social unrest marked the beginning of the new year. In 2024, a record number of national and…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • It was not surprising that the U.S.’s earsplitting anti-Russian uproar has recently slowed down considerably. Israel’s Zionist genocidal war on the Palestinian people entrapped in Gaza (occupied first in 1967, and then totally blockaded since 2005) stole the limelight. The momentary slowdown gave Russia some breathing time, and the U.S. a possible way out of the mess it had engineered. Irrespective of Russian voices claiming the conflict has “Entered its endgame”, or American declarations talking about a “Negotiated settlement”, the conflict continues unabated.

    Let us assume that Russia would accept withdrawing from Donbass in exchange for Ukraine meeting all or some of its conditions. Would that change U.S. behavior toward Russia? No. Extensive political and military indicators (aid, weapons, statements, effective policy, etc.) enacted by the United States and its allies preclude such possibility—U.S. objectives in Ukraine go beyond Donbass and Crimea. Clues: Several U.S. political quarters and think tanks are now calling for a policy of containment toward Russia.

    It is elementary that spoiling relations among states is easier than repairing them. In the case of the United States, the idea of repairing ties with Russia has been consistently anathema to U.S. imperialists —even before Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. By force of consolidated ideological patterns, U.S. ruling circles systematically seek submission not agreement. Accordingly, their view of conflict resolution is conditioned by (a) the scope of U.S. intervention in Ukrainian politics vis-à-vis Russia’s objectives, (b) historical precedents whereby hegemonic ambitions takes precedence over other matters, and (c) intense enmity toward a Russia that has been proving its resilience to subjugation.

    As a primer to understand deep-seated U.S. political personality disorder, consider the following. In the American imperialistic mentality of coercion, changing foreign policy conduct means retreat, and retreat means loosing. It is known though that changing course for the sake of settlement is not losing. What is happening here is easy to explain: U.S. ideologues of war abhor giving up any of the geopolitical advantages they have obtained so far at the expense of Russia. Reading between the lines: those same ideologues appear to be thinking in terms of opportunity—if they do not succeed at incapacitating Russia now, they never will.

    Still, could Russia impose its conditions whereby Ukraine declares neutrality, forgoes joining NATO, and accepts post-intervention realties? Would the United States accept relinquishing its heavy encroachment in Ukraine thus leading it to (a) erase its established military footprints and political control, and (b) reprise its normal relations with Russia?

    Russia has all means to inflict irreparable military defeat on Ukraine. But after almost two years of war without a decisive solution, such prospect seems out of favor with Russia for reasons it did not disclose. This leaves a diplomatic solution open. But this seems out of Russia’s hand because in the pursuit of maintaining its grip on Ukraine, the U.S. would not allow it. The collective answer to the questions above would be as follows: because U.S. calculations are global in nature, the immovable tenets of U.S. super-militarized capitalism and aggressive hegemonic world outlook will be the determinant factors in deciding future directions. Said otherwise, the ideological superstructure of the U.S. Empire– coupled with the prospect of material profits—is the engine driving its decision-making.

    Consequently, the chance that the United States could reach a compromise with Russia soon is dim. The U.S. ruling establishment would keep the tension going with the expectation that something beneficial to the American imperium could still happen. In retrospect, a compromise could have happened had Russia crushed Ukraine militarily from the very beginning, and had U.S. rulers abstained from putting all their weight to defeat Russia through a protracted multi-actor proxy war. To recap, today, the prospect that Russia could impose its conditions on Ukraine is next to nil for no other reason than the United States is materially in full charge of Ukraine and its policymaking.

    America’s decision for a protracted proxy war comes in varied ways. A mouthpiece of U.S. imperialism, former NATO secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen, conveyed U.S. thinking about Ukraine joining NATO in the following words:

    The time has come to take the next step and extend an invitation for Ukraine to join Nato. We need a new European security architecture in which Ukraine is in the heart of Nato. . . The absolute credibility of article 5 guarantees would deter Russia from mounting attacks inside the Ukrainian territory inside Nato and so free up Ukrainian forces to go to the frontline. [sic], [Italics added].

    “Free up Ukrainian forces to go to the frontlineare the keywords. Meaning: U.S. war by delegation would continue. But the core meaning is unequivocal:  according to Rasmussen’s formula, the U.S. would continue pursuing its war efforts notwithstanding Russia’s objections. Reminder: one reason why Russia intervened in Ukraine was to stop it from joining NATO. Rasmussen’s intent, therefor, was all too evident: he [actually, the United States] wants to poke Russia right in the eye by admitting Ukraine to NATO. Logically, his call can be interpreted as a blatant provocation to spur Russia into an expanded reaction. Once done, NATO would invoke article 5. Clear purpose: create a pretext for direct war with Russia.

    Another mouthpiece is retired U.S. Navy Admiral James Stavridis. Stavridis thinks of Ukraine in terms of financial opportunities for U.S. economic imperialism and future Ukrainian dependency. He cites, with twisted ideologism, the South Korean example and gives his far-reaching views as follows:

    In terms of advantages for the alliance, Ukraine would have the most battle-tested, innovative and motivated forces in Europe. The Ukrainians have earned a spot on the team, and as I look back on my time as NATO’s military commander, I would have been happy to welcome them into alliance…. If such a deal is reached, here is my prediction: Despite being far smaller in terms of population and land, Ukraine will overtake Russia in a few decades in terms of gross domestic product, overall agrarian output, and certainly in the sense of being a vital, democratic society in which people want to live. I see nothing in the twisted policies of Czar Putin that will change that depressing outcome for Moscow. Let’s hope a Korean-style miracle of reconstruction is on the horizon for Ukraine. [Italics added]

    Discussion

    U.S. imperialism assumes diverse denominations according to circumstances. The following are a few examples. Diplomatic Imperialism: is when the U.S. coerces foreign governments to go along its foreign and domestic policies. Financial Imperialism: through financial institutions (World Bank, SWIFT system, International Monetary Fund, Central banks of targeted countries, currency conversion rates, etc.), the United States exercises its hegemony by denying and/or regulating access by designated adversaries. Management Imperialism: is when American citizens connected to the high echelons of power directly manage the economic assets and political decision-making of foreign nations.

    With regard to Management Imperialism as applied to Ukraine, Mike Pompeo has already started the process proposed by Stavridis. Just like Hunter Biden before him sitting on the Board of Directors of Burisma, Pompeo will be sitting on the Board of Directors of the Ukrainian branch of Veon. Beyond that, Stavridis wants a future Ukraine to continue exercising its proxy military role vs. Russia, which is, per se, what the United States wants: a lasting war with Russia.

    Rasmussen and Stavridis’ opinions follow a coordinated script with two postulations: (1) The United States would not give up its newly found protectorate Ukraine, and (2) it would continue to wage war against Russia regardless of potential global conflagration—with the hopeful gamble that the “endgame” would not come to that.

    As stated, the United States seems not ready to concede its footprints in Ukraine unless by some sort of a war with Russia. Or, a better scenario: the U.S. concludes there is no way out except by compromise.  Overall, abandoning the coveted conquest of Ukraine would mean halting U.S. imperialistic expansions. Explanation: having footprints in Ukraine means that the United States would re-apply its old methods of domination—a process begins with a pretext, followed by intervention, and ends up with entrenched encroachment that political exorcism is incapable of dislodging. Consider the following limited examples:

    Germany: after occupying half of Germany (West) at the end of WWII; after the U.S., Britain, and the USSR slapped it with the Potsdam Agreement; after it and Britain took the lion shares of war reparations; and in spite of Germany’s formal status as an independent country within NATO structures, the U.S. is still occupying it on permanent basis. Today there are 35,221 U.S. troops stationed in Germany. British and French troops still exists in different form. Pay attention.  While the Potsdam Agreement imposed the dismantling of the German military industry, the United States reversed it by absorbing West Germany into NATO in 1955. This means the re-armament of Germany—NATO countries must have a standing military force with budget and with contribution from their Gross National products to the efforts of future wars—with the USSR being the target. The point: once the United States intervened in a country, it remains there until events change the status of occupation.

    Italy: after occupying Italy at the end of WWII, etc., the U.S. is still occupying it through 7 military bases and 12,493 troops. Pay attention: After the defeat of Italy, the U.S. first shackled it with the Paris Conference, and then absorbed it in NATO structures in 1949,      

    [Note: on the case of Germany (before reunification in 1990-1) and Italy, the conversion from vanquished enemies to NATO allies was a planned U.S. strategy to absorb them as occupied countries by other means.]

    Japan: after occupying Japan at the end of WWII, etc., and after shackling it with myriad treaties and the writing of a new constitution serving its interests, the U.S. is still occupying Japan through 5 military bases and 50,000 troops,

    Kuwait: after ending Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait in 1991, the U.S. is now occupying Kuwait through 7 military bases and 13,500 troops

    Philippines: After it conquered the Philippines from Spain consequent to Spain-U.S. war, the U.S. granted independence to that nation in 1946. Pay attention: the United States shackled the Philippines with the Mutual Defense Treaty. U.S. military encroachment or occupation continues today with enhanced treaties and four military bases,

    Saudi Arabia: from so-called Desert shield 1990 forward, the U.S. has been occupying Saudi Arabia through 3 military bases and 2,700 troops,

    Iraq: Iraq is a yardstick to judge the U.S. plan for Ukraine. The United States invaded that country in 2003 and immediately partitioned it in two federated entities—Arab and Kurdish—without having any authority to do so. As per military dot com (connected to the Pentagon) the United States has 12 military bases in Iraq, and as per PBS (connected to U.S. Zionism and the wider imperialist system) the U.S. has 2,500 troops on the ground.  [Note: Iraqi reports speak of 16,000 U.S. troops across the country. Comment: the notion of 2,500 troops is both risible and fake. If divided by 12, each base would have 208 service members. Observation: no military base could function with such a low number of service members].

    Pay attention: before removing the bulk of its invasion force from Iraq, and after building several military bases around the country, U.S. imperialists shackled it with a treaty and called it “U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement”. With this ruse, the United States has been occupying Iraq for 21 consecutive years. For the record, on May 1, 2020, so-called Iraqi parliament passed a resolution calling for the American forces to leave Iraq. Over three a half years later, U.S. forces are still entrenched on Iraqi soil like a rock stuck inside deep mud.

    What happened before and after the U.S.‑created Iraqi parliament issued that resolution?

    On January 10, 2020, the Washington Post stated, “The Trump administration refused again Friday to recognize Iraq’s call to withdraw all U.S. troops, saying that any discussion with Baghdad would center on whatever force size the United States determines is sufficient to achieve its goals there”. Well. Finally, we know that so-called “Operation Iraqi Freedom” was about “whatever force size the United States determines is sufficient to achieve its goals there”. [Italics added]. (Also, read the statement by Mike Pompeo). “Goals”, they say. What goals are these if not the perpetual occupation of Iraq by any means?

    On January 10, 2024, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Sudani—the U.S. greenlighted his appointment—asked the United States to initiate dialogues for the exit of U.S. forces from Iraq. [Reuter’s: Exclusive: Iraq seeks quick exit of US forces but no deadline set, PM says]. Knowing about his request in advance, the Pentagon stated, “It was not currently planning to withdraw its roughly 2,500 troops from Iraq, despite Baghdad’s announcement last week it would begin the process of removing the U.S.-led military coalition from the country.”  [Italics added]. [January 8, 2024, Reuter’s: Pentagon says not planning a US withdrawal from Iraq].

    Now take a guess: who is ruling over so-called sovereign Iraq today, and who would be ruling over so-called sovereign Ukraine once the conflict is over?

    Kosovo: the United States bombed Serbia, severed Kosovo (a genuine Serbian territory despite its large Albanian ethnicity), and proclaimed it an “independent” State. Remark: soon after it bombed Serbia and after declaring Kosovo’s independence, the United States transformed this historically Serbian province into a U.S.-occupied territory with its Camp Bondsteel. How is this so? Forget that NATO troops are in the camp and disregard its small size (955 acres). But, Bondsteel is a Regional Command under the control of the U.S. Army. As such, it is a plain symbol of U.S. imperialist encroachment, i.e., occupation by other means.

    Taiwan: the U.S. may not object to re-unification; but its intent is apparent. It wants its protégé: the small island of anti-Communist Taiwan (23 million) to rule over great and independent China (1.4 billion)—not the other way around.

    South Korea: After partitioning Korea (with the Soviet Union that successively withdrew) in North and South, the U.S. is still occupying South Korea through 12 military bases and 23,468 troops. (For more info: U.S. military around the world by Aljazeera).

    To close, even if the conflict would resolve with compromise, Ukraine would end up being occupied by the United States in multiple ways—whether Russia likes it or not. Similarly, the prospect of the United States would occupy Ukraine somehow and shackle it with bases and treaties—with or without NATO—is potentially possible.

    Generally, U.S. conduct in Ukraine follows an established ideological attitude that has been applied without pause since the end of WWII. Briefly, it rests on the self-serving idea that U.S. status as a military hyperpower (with 12 combatant commands spread in all continents) grants it extraordinary license to supervise, manage, and direct world assets and relations according to its exclusive views and objectives. One such view is the baseless pretension that whatever happens around the world is a matter of U.S. “national security”—recently, the Biden Administration declared, “Security assistance for Ukraine is a smart investment in our national security.” Senator Jack Reed goes beyond exaggerating the investment deception. He stated, “U.S. Aid to Ukraine is Vital to America’s Security & Economic Interests”.

    These are bombastic words. (a) Biden’s White House is lying big—who are benefiting from that investment are weapons manufactures not ordinary Americans, and (b) the argument of the national security stuff is preposterous. To settle this issue without dissertation, suffice it to say there are no functional, structural, or any another artificially implied correlations between the events in Ukraine and so-called national security of super fortress America.

    Statement: U.S. practice of calling anything that does not meet its criteria of acceptance a “threat to its national security” is fraudulent and deceptive. Discussion: the notion of “national security” paradigm of any nation is valid only when its physical existence and conditions for normal living of its people are threatened by external forces. Consider the following limited examples:

    • Egypt continues to oppose Ethiopia “Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam” not for any reason except that the huge reduction of water entering into Egypt is effectively dooming its agricultural lands. When Ethiopia persists in ignoring Egypt’s legitimate concerns on water sharing (governed by stipulated treaties), then it is materially threatening Egypt’s national security and survival.
    • When the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh’s government to control Iranian oil, it certainly damaged Iran’s national security.
    • Venezuela never threatened the United States in anyway. But when Donald Trump threatened Venezuela with military intervention, his threat was a clear attack against Venezuela’s national security.
    • When Britain and the United States declared war (Opium War) on China to open its ports for trade with the U.S. and the West—that was a flagrant infringement on China’s national security and sovereignty.
    • Britain declared war on China because this prohibited the opium trade—a product Britain needed for its drug industry. But Britain and United States attacked and went to war with China for more reasons. They wanted China to open its ports for trade with the U.S. and the West. I need not debate that these acts were a flagrant infringement on China’s
      national security and sovereignty. [ Read: “How were the Opium Wars an example of imperialism in China?”; “U.S. Department of State: Opium War“).

    Conclusion: whereas themes and theories are invented to support the political concept of “national security”, countless other factors restrict its definition, scope, and applicability. But for the United States to enforce its so-called right to security by deeming any fathomable action taken by foreign nations in defense of their societal development as a threat to its “national security” is a barefaced blackmail on a domestic level, as well as a twisted pretext for confrontation on a foreign level.

    Now, can anyone name one single incident whereby a country—excluding Russia (re: Cuban missile crisis)—has ever posed any threat to the United States? (For the record, the USSR tried to install nuclear missiles in Cuba in response to the US installing similar missiles in Turkey pointing to Soviet territory. Kennedy and Khrushchev resolved the impasse by dismantling the disputed missile systems.)

    Conclusion: U.S. pretension that its security is uniquely important but not that of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Madagascar, Algeria, Columbia, Togo, India, etc. is a ploy to establish a world order under its tight command. Accusing others of premeditated malfeasance or intention to harm the United States is the easiest way to initiate planned hostilities.

    With regard to Ukraine, the meaning of the preceding could not be terser: U.S. imperialists are manifestly scheming. They pretend to see Ukraine “free” from the “Russian invaders”, while at the same time they are roaming the globe to pacify it with death, destruction, sanctions, and economic strangulation, and while treating Ukraine as an “investment” to deter hypothetical connections to frivolous “security anxieties”. Deduction: U.S. fury over Russia’s intervention in Ukraine is quite readable. Russia interrupted U.S. march for world control.

    Claiming, therefore, that Donbass or the whole of Ukraine is important to European and NATO security is a trite farce. If Donbass were so important, the U.S. should not have staged the Maidan coup, and should have worked to implement the Minsk Agreements. Commenting on how the United States turns things around in the attempt to muddy things à la Donald Trump, Maria Zakharova (Russian Foreign Ministry) responded eloquently to Antony Blinken’s call to revise the Agreements. She said, “It is strange how the US is trying to find a sequence in a document where the entire sequence of steps is spelled out for all parties”.

    Incidentally, I read nowhere that Russia threatened Germany, Finland, or any other European country. But when trained propagandists at the State Department say, “Ukraine is a key regional strategic partner that has undertaken significant efforts to modernize its military and increase its interoperability with NATO,” they imply that this newly-found “strategic partner” is important to the United States because any arrangement with it increases the prospect of added security to NATO and the United States. The propaganda message is transparent: “Russia is threatening Europe”. American Progress dot org goes further. Johan Hassel and Kate Donald explain, “Why the United States Must Stay the Course on Ukraine”, and elaborate by saying, “Because it is essential to America’s national security interests and democratic values. A Ukraine defeat would create a more dangerous and unstable world.” [Italics added]. “Democratic values” they write. Could they intelligently—not stupidly to be precise—explain what values are these, and in which way they interact with the Ukrainian situation?

    Now, imagine how the United States would react to hearing Russia claiming that the Sonora province or Mexico is “essential to Russian security and democratic values”.

    To stay with the events, Russian intervention in Ukraine has led to the formation of two opposing camps. On one camp, stand U.S. super-militarized imperialism and arrays of vassal European States—most of them coerced to follow Washington’s direct orders. On the other, stands Russia alone but with only Belarus openly at its side.

    At this tense stage of world history, there should be no illusion that Ukraine has become a peculiar arena. Russia’s limited intervention has swiftly gone beyond its initial purpose to protect ethnic Russians in Donbass, and beyond U.S. posturing that Russia breached international norms. No need to state that at no time in modern history did the United States ever care to abide by such norms—unless enacted to serve its purpose or to hold others accountable.

    Russia’s Camp: From the time in which Bill Clinton and Zionist neocons (Madelaine Albright [State], Willian Cohen [Defense], Samuel Berger [National Security Advisor] took control of U.S. foreign policy until its intervention in Ukraine, Russia—despite its conversion to capitalism—has gradually but convincingly reached the ineluctable conclusion that its own existence is constantly threatened. With its decision to take action in Donbass, Russia has crossed the Rubicon without looking back. It launched a daring challenge against the fascist-tyrannical world order imposed by the United States.

    With that challenge, Russia transformed itself from protector of ethnic Russians in Donbass to a powerful forerunner in the resistance against U.S. stranglehold on the world. Yet, judging from the myriad statements that Putin, Medvedev, and Lavrov have been making since after the intervention, said transformation appears to be evolutionary rather than planned. That is, although Russia has been criticizing U.S. bent on absolutist domination long before its entry in Ukraine, that entry was not enacted with the slogan to terminate U.S. unipolarism in Ukraine and the world. The successive bold statements denouncing and prospecting the end of U.S. world order came about gradually as Russia realized that the entire Western system of nations was aligned behind the U.S. hegemon.

    To close, Russia of Putin is not an anti-imperialist state. From my readings, Russian political lexicon of the past 34 years never spoke of or referred to imperialism as an issue for Russia’s foreign policy. As a concept and term, it seems that the new Russia treated imperialism as a thing belonging to Leninist Soviet Russia, not new capitalistic Russia. Wrong. U.S. and European imperialisms never disappeared—they are well, alive, and super-fortified with rage and racism. The irony of it: after Russia’s intervention, U.S. mastodontic propaganda started depicting Russia as an imperialist state.

    Now then, considering that all sanctions and threats against Russia have, so far, failed to achieve their objectives, then Russia’s ultimate purpose—focused on terminating U.S. hallucinations for permanent hegemony over the international system of nations—appears highly possible. The fact that many nations are now breaking free from using the dollar in their bilateral exchanges proves the unthinkable: capitalistic Russia is on the right path to rebuild the international order on equitable foundations.

    America’s Camp: The United States has always been a static superpower that thrives on the status quo. When confronted with resolute countries that it cannot bomb, it remedies by repeating tricks that no longer work. In the case of Russia, it tried to replay the card it played on the Iraq of Saddam Hussein—with the complicity of failed Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and traitorous Arab rulers. Sanctions, seizing of assets, name-calling, lies, instigation, congressional resolutions, mobilizing NATO, use of the UN, ruses of all sorts, and threats of war are just a few outmoded means of pressure that worked against Iraq, but cannot work against today’s Russia. In short, the shrewd American illusionist has run out of tricks.

    The show of anti-Russian reactions is not confined to the imperialist camp. Surprisingly, some peace and antiwar activists in the West has joined in the violent bashing of Russia. But if Russia, China, and other counties are for an equitable international system that a) respects all nations and their right for self-determination, and b) is applicable to all equally, then how do we explain all those anti-Russian attacks coming from self-designating peace and antiwar activists?

    Agreed, Russian forces crossed onto the Donbass province of Ukraine. Now, if Washington’s hypocrites consider Russia’s act criminal and contrary to their “rule-based international order”, then we have the right to ask if their repeated crossings into countless countries are innocent and abiding by that order. On this issue, can those who oppose Russia’s intervention explain by whose authority did the United States cross into Syria from U.S.-occupied Iraq? According to what article of the “international law” did the hyperpower settle its occupation force around Syria’s oil fields? Lastly, can they explain why is the United States working frenetically to partition Syria as it did Iraq? (Later in this series, I shall discuss the issue of war and antiwar)

    What we need to do next is to establish a context for the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the reaction to it.

    Next Part 3 of 16

    The post Imperialism and Anti-imperialism Collide in Ukraine (Part 2 of 16) first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • In a stark statement, President Joe Biden has admitted that the widely decried U.S. bombing campaign in Yemen isn’t actually having an effect on the Houthi blockade — but vowed to continue the bombings anyway. Outside of the White House on Thursday, a reporter asked Biden if the airstrikes in Yemen have been “working.” “Well, when you say ‘working,’ are they stopping the Houthis? No.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • You have to hand it to the U.S. and its henchmen for brazenness.  In order to protect their client state Israel and its genocide in Gaza, the U.S., together with the UK, have in one week launched air and sea attacks on the Houthis in Yemen five times, referring to it as “self-defense” in their Orwellian lingo.  The ostensible reason being Yemen’s refusal to allow ships bound for Israel, which is committing genocide in Gaza, to enter the Red Sea, while permitting other ships to pass freely.

    To any impartial observer, the Houthis should be lauded.  Yet, while the International Court of Justice considers the South African charge of genocide against Israel that is supported by overwhelming evidence, the U.S. and its allies have instigated a wider war throughout the Middle East while claiming they do not want such a war.  These settler colonial states want genocide and a much wider war because they have been set back on their heels by those they have mocked, provoked, and attacked – notably the Palestinians, Syrians, and Russians, among others.

    While the criminalization of international law does not bode well for the ICJ’s upcoming ruling or its ability to stop Israeli’s genocide in Gaza, Michel Chossudovsky, of Global Research, as is his wont, has offered a superb analysis and suggestion for those who oppose such crimes: that Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter – “The fact that a person [e.g. Israeli, U.S. soldiers, pilots] acted pursuant to order of his [her] Government or of a superior does not relieve him [her] from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.” – should be used to supplement the South African charges and appeal directly to the moral consciences of those asked to carry out acts of genocide. He writes:

    Let us call upon Israeli and American soldiers and pilots “to abandon the battlefield”, as an act of refusal to participate in a criminal undertaking against the People of Gaza.  

    South Africa’s legal procedure at the ICJ should be endorsed Worldwide. While it cannot be relied upon to put a rapid end to the genocide, it provides support and legitimacy to the “Disobey Unlawful Orders, Abandon the Battlefield”  campaign under Nuremberg Charter Principle IV.

    While such an approach will not stop the continuing slaughter, it would remind the world that each person who participates in and supports it bears a heavy burden of guilt for their actions; that they are morally and legally culpable.  This appeal to the human heart and conscience, no matter what its practical effect, will at least add to the condemnation of a genocide happening in real time and full view of the world, even though no one will ever be prosecuted for such crimes since any real just use of international law has long disappeared.  Yet there is a edifying history of such conscientious objection to immoral war making, and though each person makes the decision in solitary witness, individual choices can inspire others and the solitary become solidary, as Albert Camus reminded us at the end of his short story, “The Artist at Work.”

    With each passing day, it becomes more and more evident that Israel/U.S.A. and their allies do want a wider war.  Iran is their special focus, with Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen targets on the way.  Anyone who supports the genocide in Gaza, explicitly or through silence, bears responsibility for the conflagration to come.  There are no excuses.

    And the facts show that it is axiomatic that waging war has been the modus operandi of the U.S./Israeli alliance for a long time.  Just as in early 2003 when the Bush administration said they were looking for a peaceful solution to their fake charges against Sadam Hussein with his alleged “weapons of mass destruction,” the Biden administration is lying, as the Bush administration lied about September 11, 2001 to launch its ongoing war on terror, starting in Afghanistan.  Without an expanded war, President Biden – aka the Democrats, since he will most probably not be the candidate – and his psychopathic partner Benjamin Netanyahu, will not survive.  It is bi-partisan war-mongering, of course, internationally and intramurally, since both U.S. political parties are controlled by the Israel Lobby and billionaire class that owns Congress and the “defense” industry that thrives on never-ending war to such an extent that even the notable independent candidate for the presidency, Robert Kennedy, Jr., who is running as an anti-war candidate, fully supports Israel which is tantamount to supporting Biden’s expanding war policy.

    Biden and Netanyahu, who are always claiming after the fact that they were surprised by events or were fed bad advice by their underlings, are dumb scorpions. They are stupid but deadly.  And many people in the West, while perhaps decent people in their personal lives, are living in a fantasy world of “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity,” in MLK, Jr.’s words, as the growing threat of a world war increases and insouciance reigns.

    Neither the Israeli nor American government can allow themselves to be humiliated, U.S./NATO by the Russians in Ukraine and the Israelis by the Palestinians.  Like cornered criminals with lethal weapons, they will kill as many as they can on their way down, taking their revenge on the weakest first.

    Their “mistakes” are always well intentioned.  They stumble into wars through faulty intelligence.  They drop the ball because of bureaucratic mix-ups. They miscalculate the perfidy of the moneyed elites whom allegedly they oppose while pocketing their cash and ushering them into the national coffers out of necessity since they are too big to fail.  They never see the storm coming, even as they create it.  Their incompetence or the perfidy of their enemies is the retort to all those “nut cases” who conjure up conspiracy theories or plain facts to explain their actions or lack thereof.  They are innocent.  Always innocent.  And they can’t understand why those they have long abused reach a point when they will no longer impetrate for mercy but will fight fiercely for their freedom.

    All signs point to a major war on the horizon.  Both the U.S.A. and Israel have been shown to be rogue states with no desire to negotiate a peaceful world.  Believing in high-tech weapons and massive firepower, neither has learned the hard lesson that anti-colonial wars have historically been won by those with far less weapons but with a passionate desire to throw off the chains of their oppressors.  Vietnam is the text-book case, and there are many others.  Failure to learn is the name of their game.

    The Zionist project for a Greater Israel is doomed to fail, but as it does, desperate men like Biden and Netanyahu are intent on launching desperate acts of war.  Exactly when and how this expanded war will blaze across the headlines is the question.  It has started, but I think it prudent to expect a black swan event sometime this year when all hell will break loose.  The genocide in Gaza is the first step, and the U.S./Israel, “not wanting” a wider war, have already started one.

    (For an excellent history lesson on the Zionist oppression of Palestinians and the current genocide, listen to Max Blumenthal’s and Miko Peled’s impassioned talk – “Where is the War in Gaza Going? – delivered from the heart of darkness, Washington D.C.  Two Jewish men who know the difference between Zionism and Judaism and whose consciences are aflame with justice for the oppressed Palestinians.)

    The post “Not Wanting” A Wider Middle East War, the U.S. Has Started One first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Tarek al-Ghoussein (Palestine), Untitled 9 from the series Self Portrait, 2002.

    On 11 January, Adila Hassim, an advocate of the High Court of South Africa, stood before the judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and said: “Genocides are never declared in advance. But this court has the benefit of the past 13 weeks of evidence that shows incontrovertibly a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible claim of genocidal acts”. This statement anchored Hassim’s presentation of South Africa’s 84-page complaint against Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Both Israel and South Africa are parties to the 1948 Genocide Convention.

    The filing by the South African government documents many of the atrocities perpetrated by Israel as well as, crucially, the declarations of intent to conduct genocide made by senior Israeli officials. Nine pages of this text (pp. 59 to 67) list ‘expressions of genocidal intent’ made primarily by Israeli state officials, such as calls for a ‘Second Nakba’ and a ‘Gaza Nakba’ (Nakba, which means catastrophe in Arabic, refers to the 1948 expulsion of Palestinians from their homes that led to the creation of the state of Israel). These chilling declarations of intent have appeared repeatedly in the Israeli government’s speeches and statements since 7 October alongside racist language about ‘monsters’, ‘animals’, and the ‘jungle’ to refer to Palestinians. In one of many such instances, Israel’s Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said on 9 October 2023 that his forces are ‘imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly’.

    Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, another advocate from South Africa, described these words as a ‘language of systematic dehumanisation’. This language, alongside the character of Israel’s assault – which has thus far claimed over 24,000 Palestinian lives, displaced nearly the entire population of Gaza, and plunged 90% of the population into acute food security – should provide a sufficient basis for the accusation of genocide.

    It is fitting that Adila Hassim’s first name means righteousness or justice in Arabic and Tembeka Ngcukaitobi’s first name means trustworthy in Xhosa.

    John Halaka (Palestine), Memories of Memories, 2023.

    At the ICJ hearing, Israel was unable to respond credibly to South Africa’s complaint. Tal Becker, a legal advisor to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, spent his entire presentation trying to indict Hamas, which is not a party to the dispute. It was Hamas, Becker said, that created the ‘nightmarish environment’ in Gaza – not Israel.

    After Israel made its case, the fifteen ICJ judges began their deliberations. The presentations on 11–12 January were merely the prima facie hearing to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to a trial, which – if it happens – would likely take years. However, South Africa asked the court to apply ‘provisional measures’, namely an emergency order from the ICJ judges calling on Israel to stop its genocidal attack on Palestinians. This would be a significant blow to Israel’s already diminished legitimacy as well as the legitimacy of its major backer, the United States of America. There is considerable precedence for this measure. In 2019, Gambia was able to get the court to order provisional measures against the government of Myanmar for its attacks on the Rohingya people. The world awaits the court’s verdict.

    Ibrahim Khatab (Egypt), Do What You Want Under the Trees, 2021.

    The day before the hearings began, the US released a statement saying ‘allegations that Israel is committing genocide are unfounded’. Once more, the US government fully backed Israel, intervening on its behalf not only in words but by providing arms and logistical support for the genocide. That is why South Africa is now preparing a filing against the United States and the United Kingdom to be submitted to the ICJ.

    In November 2023, when the genocidal character of the war was already widely accepted across the globe, US Congress passed a $14.5 billion package in military aid to Israel. While the ICJ held its hearing, US National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby told the press that the US will ‘continue to supply [Israel] with the tools and capabilities they need’, which it did – again – as recently as 9 and 29 December, when it transferred additional arms to Israel. When asked about loss of life concerns within Congress, Kirby said that ‘we still see no indication that [Israel is] violating the laws of armed conflict’. Kirby, a former admiral, acknowledged that ‘there are too many civilian casualties’. However, rather than calling to end attacks on civilians, he said that Israel must ‘take steps to reduce that’. In other words, the US has given Israel the green light and carte blanche support, and arms, to do whatever it would like to Palestinians.

    When the people of Yemen, led by Ansar Allah, decided to block the movement of ships to Israel through the Red Sea, the US formed a ‘coalition’ to attack Yemen. On the day of South Africa’s presentation at the ICJ, the US bombed Yemen. The message was clear: not only will the US provide unconditional support for the genocide; it will also attack countries that try to put a stop to it.

    Shaima al-Tamimi (Yemen), So Close Yet So Far Away, 2018.

    The atrocities perpetrated by Israel, as well as the resistance of the Palestinian people, have moved millions across the world to take to the streets, many of them for the first time in their lives. Social media, in almost all the world’s languages, is saturated with content decrying Israel’s terrible actions. The focus of attention does not seem to be diminishing, with 400,000 people marching on the US capitol last weekend in larger numbers than ever in the country’s history. The increasing fervour and scale of these demonstrations have provoked concerns in the Democratic Party that US President Joe Biden will lose not only the Arab American vote in such key states as Michigan, but that liberal-left activists will not support his re-election campaign.

    Chie Fueki (Japan), Nikko, 2018

    Over the course of the past two years, from the start of the Ukraine War until now, there has been a rapid decline in the West’s credibility. This drop in legitimacy did not begin with the Ukraine War or genocide in Palestine, though both events have certainly accelerated the decline in the authority of the NATO countries. Ansar Allah spokesperson Mohammed al-Bukhaiti posted a video of a pro-Palestine march in New York that is perhaps indicative of the mood in most of the world and wrote: ‘We are not hostile to the American people, but rather to the American foreign policy that has caused the death of tens of millions of people, threatens the security and safety of the world, and also exposes the lives of Americans to danger. Let us struggle together to establish justice among people’.

    Since the start of the Third Great Depression in 2007, the Global North has slowly lost its control over the world economy, technology and science, and raw materials. Billionaires in the Global North deepened their ‘tax strike’, siphoning a large share of social wealth into tax havens and unproductive financial investments. This left the Global North with few instruments to maintain economic power, including the ability it once held to make investments in the Global South. Later this month, Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research will release a new dossier, The Churning of the Global Order, and a study, Hyper-Imperialism: A Dangerous Decadent New Stage, which detail the maladies of the present and the new mood created by the rise of the Global South. The ICJ complaint filed by South Africa and backed by several Global South states is an indication of this mood.

    Athier Mousawi (Iraq-Britain), A Point to A Potential Somewhere, 2014.

    It is clear to most people in the world that the Global North has failed to address planetary crises, whether the climate crisis or the consequences of the Third Great Depression. It has tried to substitute reality with euphemisms such as ‘democracy promotion’, ‘sustainable development’, ‘humanitarian pause’, and, from UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron and Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, the ridiculous formulation of a ‘sustainable ceasefire’. Empty words are no substitute for real actions. To speak of a ‘sustainable ceasefire’ while arming Israel or to speak of ‘democracy promotion’ while backing anti-democratic governments now defines the hypocrisy of the Global North’s political class.

    On 12 January, the German government released a statement saying that it ‘firmly and explicitly rejects the accusation of genocide that has now been made against Israel’. In line with the new mood in the Global South, the government of Namibia reminded the Germans that they had ‘committed the first genocide of the 20th century in 1904–1908, in which tens of thousands of innocent Namibians died in the most inhumane and brutal conditions’. This is known as the Herero and Namaqua genocide. Germany, said the government of Namibia, ‘is yet to fully atone for the genocide it committed on Namibian soil’. Therefore, Namibia ‘expresses deep concern with the shocking decision’ of the German government to reject the indictment of Israel.

    Israel, meanwhile, says that it will continue this genocide for ‘as long as it takes’, though its already tenuous justifications continue to deteriorate with increasing rapidity. Behind this violence is the waning legitimacy of the NATO project, whose sanctimonies sound like nails being dragged across a bloodied chalkboard.

    PS: Please do not miss the panel discussion based on our recent dossier, Culture as a Weapon of Struggle: The Medu Art Ensemble and Southern African Liberation, which widens the focus from South Africa to Palestine, featuring Wally Serote (poet laureate of South Africa and the founding chairperson of the Medu Art Ensemble), Judy Seidman (cultural worker and member of the Medu Art Ensemble), Clarissa Bitar (award-winning Palestinian oud musician and composer), and Niki Franco (cultural worker). The event will be hosted by our very own Tings Chak as well as Hannah Priscilla Craig of Artists Against Apartheid and livestreamed on 21 January via The People’s Forum YouTube page at 20:00 (Johannesburg), 18:00 (London), 15:00 (São Paulo), and 13:00 (New York). Register here.

    The post The Global South Takes Israel to Court first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • I find Westerners in general, and Europeans in particular, extremely indoctrinated and obsessed with perceptions of their own uniqueness. Many see themselves as chosen people, after going through a one-sided education and after relying on their media outlets, without studying alternative sources.

    — André Vltchek, Soviet-born US political writer, 1963-2020.

    On 20 March 2006, on the third anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq, BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall declared on the Six O’Clock News:

    ‘There’s still bitter disagreement over invading Iraq. Was it justified or a disastrous miscalculation?’

    The supposed ‘justification’ claimed by Prime Minister Tony Blair was the ‘serious and current threat’ posed by Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. The BBC’s false notion of ‘balance’ was to present ‘disastrous miscalculation’ as the counterargument. In fact, as we detailed at the time in media alerts and in our books, the invasion was considered by many legal experts to be a ‘war of aggression’, the ‘supreme international crime’ as judged by the standards of the post-WW2 Nuremberg trials.

    But such a view is deemed too extreme for respectable BBC discourse. Even today, the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg glibly notes:

    Labour nerves still jangle over what went so terribly wrong in Iraq, even after all these years.

    The implication, endlessly channelled by the BBC, is that a ‘disastrous miscalculation’ occurred, rather than an international war crime leading to the deaths of over one million Iraqis; a crime for which no western leader, or their media cheerleaders, has ever been tried in court. That outcome, in any serious responsible society, would have been more fitting than mere ‘jangling nerves’ among politicians.

    But such narrative control is an endemic feature of state-corporate media, wrongly labelled ‘mainstream’. It is a fundamental requirement of political journalists and editors that they magically transform the crimes of ‘our’ governments into ‘miscalculations’, ‘mistakes’ or ‘misguided’ attempts to do good. This transformation is a power-serving alchemy turning the base metal of brutal realpolitik into the gold of benign intention, all for public consumption.

    Noam Chomsky succinctly explained the ideological underpinning of ‘mainstream’ news coverage:

    In discussion of international relations, the fundamental principle is that “we are good” – “we” being the government, on the totalitarian principle that state and people are one. “We” are benevolent, seeking peace and justice, though there may be errors in practice. “We” are foiled by villains who can’t rise to our exalted level.

    — Chomsky, Interventions, Penguin Books, London, 2007, p. 101.

    It does not matter how frequently, or how horrifically, this benevolent claim is violated by Western countries, journalists can be relied upon to perform the necessary whitewashing: the Gulf War in 1990-91, Nato’s bombing of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, Iraq sanctions from 1990-2003, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, the destruction of Libya in 2011, the US-sponsored toppling of the Ukrainian government in 2014, US-Nato air strikes against Syria, participation in the Saudi-led bombing of Yemen, and now the attacks on ‘Iran-backed’ Houthi rebels. (Of course, convention decrees that the Houthi are always described as ‘Iran-backed’, whereas Israeli forces are not routinely labelled ‘US-backed’.)

    The list goes on and on. You might well ask: at what point do supposedly astute, well-informed, senior editors and political correspondents simply stop regurgitating government propaganda; even start challenging it? How much blood has to be spilled, how many lives lost, how much vital infrastructure – homes, hospitals, power plants – destroyed by ‘our’ weaponry, with ‘our’ diplomatic, political and economic support?

    But, of course, serious media challenge of elite power is highly unlikely. ‘Successful’ media professionals are fed through an industrial filter system that rewards steady adherence to state-approved narratives. As Chomsky once so memorably told a discombobulated Andrew Marr:

    I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.’

    Misleading The Public Is State Policy

    In several powerful books, based on careful research of formerly secret UK government documents, historian Mark Curtis, co-founder of Declassified UK, has laid bare the motivations and reality of British foreign policy. Ethical concerns and morality are notable in these internal state records by their absence. Curtis observed:

    a basic principle is that humanitarian concerns do not figure at all in the rationale behind British foreign policy. In the thousands of government files I have looked through for this and other books, I have barely seen any reference to human rights at all. Where such concerns are evoked, they are only for public-relations purposes.

    — Curtis, Unpeople: Britain’s Secret Human Rights Abuses, Vintage, London, 2004, p. 3.

    He added:

    in every case I have ever researched on past British foreign policy, the files show that ministers and officials have systematically misled the public. The culture of lying to and misleading the electorate is deeply embedded in British policy-making.

    — Ibid., p. 3.

    This is especially true when it comes to Western terrorism. But what exactly is terrorism? The definition from a US army manual is:

    The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.

    — Chomsky, ‘The new war against terror’, talk given at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on 18 October 2001.

    By this definition, the major source of international terrorism is the West, notably the United States, supported by its ‘special relationship’ ally, the UK. Curtis wrote:

    The idea that Britain is a supporter of terrorism is an oxymoron in the mainstream political culture, as ridiculous as suggesting that Tony Blair should be indicted for war crimes. Yet state-sponsored terrorism is by far the most serious category of terrorism in the world today, responsible for far more deaths in many more countries than the “private” terrorism of groups like Al Qaida. Many of the worst offenders are key British allies. Indeed, by any rational consideration, Britain is one of the leading supporters of terrorism in the world today. But this simple fact is never mentioned in the mainstream political culture.

    — Curtis, Web of Deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World, Vintage, London, 2003, p. 94.

    The US-UK-supported genocidal attacks by Israel on the people of Gaza, now extending to over 100 days, have made it ever more difficult for politicians and managers of public perception to maintain the myth of western benevolence and a ‘global rules-based order’.

    The Financial Times reported last October:

    Western support for Israel’s assault on Gaza has poisoned efforts to build consensus with significant developing countries on condemning Russia’s war against Ukraine, officials and diplomats have warned.

    The FT article continued:

    “We have definitely lost the battle in the Global South,” said one senior G7 diplomat. “All the work we have done with the Global South [over Ukraine] has been lost…Forget about rules, forget about world order. They won’t ever listen to us again.”

    The senior G7 diplomat added:

    What we said about Ukraine has to apply to Gaza. Otherwise we lose all our credibility. The Brazilians, the South Africans, the Indonesians: why should they ever believe what we say about human rights?

    Why indeed.

    Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s foreign minister, observed recently that:

    I think this notion of international rules is very comfortable for some people to use when it suits them but they don’t believe in international rules when it doesn’t suit them. Because they don’t apply international rules or law equally in all circumstances.

    She added:

    You can’t say because Ukraine has been invaded, suddenly sovereignty is important, but it was never important for Palestine.

    To put it bluntly, the notion of the West upholding a rules-based international system is a blood-drenched myth.

    Gaza – A War ‘To Save Western Civilisation’

    Last week, South Africa presented a detailed 84-page submission to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – essentially the UN’s global law court – arguing that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The case was brought under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

    The South African legal team showed ample evidence of Israeli genocidal acts in Gaza, as well as the stated intention to commit genocide, indicated in public statements by numerous senior Israeli political and military leaders. On 28 October last year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech in which he compared the Palestinians to the Biblical people of Amalek. In the first Book of Samuel, God commanded King Saul to kill every person in Amalek, a rival nation to ancient Israel:

    Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

    We could find no reference to Netanyahu’s genocidal comparison of the Palestinians to the Amalekites on the BBC News website.

    Around 24,000 people have been killed in Gaza since 7 October last year, including over 10,300 children and 7,100 women. There may be another 7,000 buried under the rubble. In other words, over 70 per cent of those killed are women and children. Around four per cent of Gaza’s population has either been killed, wounded or is missing under rubble.

    According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, by the end of 2023, 1.9 million people – nearly 85 per cent of the total population of Gaza – had been internally displaced under Israel’s attacks. These include many families who have been displaced multiple times, forcibly and repeatedly moved to try to flee Israel’s bombardment. But, as the UN has warned, there is no safe place in Gaza. Oxfam reported that Israel’s military is killing Palestinians at an average rate of 250 people a day, exceeding the daily death toll of any other major 21st century conflict. Many more lives are at risk from hunger, disease and cold, warned Oxfam.

    As of 30 December, about 65,000 residential units in Gaza had been destroyed or made uninhabitable and over 290,000 housing units had been damaged, meaning that over half a million people will have no home to return to. Thirty out of Gaza’s thirty-six hospitals are not functioning, and the remaining six are only partially functioning.

    Jonathan Cook noted that the West is now standing in the dock alongside Israel at the ICJ:

    Israel expects support from western capitals because they have nearly as much to fear from a verdict against Israel as Israel itself. They have staunchly backed the killing spree, with the US and UK, in particular, sending weapons that are being used against the people of Gaza, making both potentially complicit.

    Cook pointed out that it is significant that South Africa has brought the case of genocide against Israel. Both countries ‘bear the trauma of Europe’s long history of racial supremacism, but each has drawn precisely opposite lessons.’ As Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s first post-apartheid president, said:

    We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.

    Israel’s most brutal assault in Gaza’s history is a continuation of its long war of oppression against the Palestinians. Israeli president Isaac Herzog described the genocidal attacks on Gaza as a war ‘to save Western civilization, to save the values of Western civilisation.’ As the political writer Caitlin Johnstone pointed out, Herzog was right; but not in the way he intended. She explained:

    The demolition of Gaza is indeed being perpetrated in defense of western values, and is itself a perfect embodiment of western values. Not the western values they teach you about in school, but the hidden ones they don’t want you to look at.

    Johnstone continued:

    For centuries western civilization has depended heavily on war, genocide, theft, colonialism and imperialism, which it has justified using narratives premised on religion, racism and ethnic supremacy — all of which we are seeing play out in the incineration of Gaza today.

    She added:

    What we are seeing in Gaza is a much better representation of what western civilization is really about than all the gibberish about freedom and democracy we learned about in school.

    A BBC News report on the ICJ proceedings was titled, with fake balance, ‘South Africa’s genocide case against Israel: Both sides play heavy on emotion in ICJ hearing’. This was a distortion of the truth: the South African case was presented with dignity, clarity and forensic detail. As the BBC conceded deep in its report, it was Israel who made a strong appeal to emotions, displaying the images of 132 missing Israelis – most of them still being held hostage in Gaza. But, as Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, noted of Israel’s legal case:

    Its repeated invocation of Hamas’s horrible 7 October attack and alleged genocidal aspirations are irrelevant because atrocities by one side do not justify genocide by another. Its argument of self-defence is beside the point because a legitimate defence does not allow genocide.

    BBC News marked one hundred days of the current phase of the Israel-Palestine crisis with a classic example of propaganda bias. The BBC website headlined a major 3,000-word piece on the October 7 attacks. Underneath, there was a tiny link to a one-minute video of footage from Gaza that clearly underplayed the level of destruction. This is called BBC ‘impartiality’.

    True to form, Washington is doing its utmost to protect Israel. During a press briefing, US national security spokesman John Kirby told reporters:

    South Africa’s lawsuit against Israel is “meritless, counterproductive and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever”.

    Interviewed by Andrew Napolitano, a former judge and law professor, Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University responded to Kirby’s dismissive remark:

    I just wish there were grown-ups in power. Grown-ups who are responsible, who are honest, who are decent, who would read an 84-page detailed complaint and give a serious answer, rather than a one-sentence smack-off like that.

    He added:

    I wish, at the same time, that the White House press corps would follow up more seriously. Actually, if I remember correctly, that question started with a few words, “Just a quick one”. And then the question was asked and Kirby responded in this utterly disgusting way when the most important issue on the planet is in front of him, and couldn’t do more than one dismissive, phony and false statement. But then there’s no follow-up [by the journalists at the press briefing]. Then they move on to the next topic. And the next topic.

    Sachs continued:

    Why don’t the journalists do their job, rather than feeding us the propaganda from the White House? They should be questioning the propaganda. That’s why I was grateful for today’s [ICJ] court proceedings because there were hours to put forward the evidence. There is a detailed legal complaint. There are dozens of countries that have supported this. But the US government is all spin, all propaganda, and all attempt at narrative control.

    This is, of course, standard behaviour for the world’s major perpetrator of terrorism.

    The Language Of Genocide

    Media academics have analysed Israel-Palestine coverage and found that Palestinian perspectives are given ‘far less time and legitimacy’ than Israeli views in the British media. Last month, Greg Philo and Mike Berry of the highly-respected Glasgow Media Group examined four weeks (7 October – 4 November, 2023) of BBC One daytime coverage of Gaza to identify which terms were used by journalists themselves – i.e. not in direct or reported statements – to describe Israeli and Palestinian deaths.

    They found that ‘murder’, ‘murderous’, ‘mass murder’, ‘brutal murder’ and ‘merciless murder’ were used a total of 52 times by journalists to refer to Israelis’ deaths but never in relation to Palestinian deaths. Philo and Berry noted that:

    The same pattern could be seen in relation to “massacre”, “brutal massacre” and “horrific massacre” (35 times for Israeli deaths, not once for Palestinian deaths); “atrocity”, “horrific atrocity” and “appalling atrocity” (22 times for Israeli deaths, once for Palestinian deaths); and “slaughter” (five times for Israeli deaths, not once for Palestinian deaths).

    But more importantly:

    The Palestinian perspective is effectively absent from the coverage, in how they understand the reasons for the conflict and the nature of the occupation under which they are living.

    Tim Llewellyn, a former BBC Middle East correspondent, once observed that what is routinely missing from BBC coverage is that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land:

    demeans and degrades people: not just the killing and the destruction, but the humiliation, the attempt to crush the human spirit and remove the identity; not just the bullet in the brain and the tank through the door, but the faeces Israel’s soldiers rub on the plundered ministry walls, the trashed kindergarten; the barriers to a people’s work, prayers and hopes.

    Emre Azizlerli, a former senior BBC producer, said recently via X (formerly Twitter):

    I worked there for over 20 years. Internal boards determine who gets promoted by a panel of the applicant’s superiors. The political likes and dislikes of those at the very top easily trickle down in this chain mechanism all the way down to how producers behave, since everyone wants to please their boss to move ahead.

    No wonder that a Morning Star tribute to the late John Pilger, who reported on Palestine over many years, noted that his death ‘leaves a void’, adding:

    There are few investigative journalists of his courage or integrity. And designedly so. From the censorship of “hostile” voices across the internet to the outrageous incarceration of Julian Assange, every effort is being made to stamp out independent journalism.

    Throughout his career, Pilger drew attention to the role of the media as ‘an appendage of established power’. Addressing a conference last March, organised by the Morning Star, he called for:

    urgent debate and activism around the issue of the media… the media was rarely a friend of working people, but there were spaces for independent journalists in the mainstream.

    He continued:

    My own career is testament to that. Until a few years ago I worked in mainstream newspapers — in later years the Guardian mainly — but the Guardian like the others is now closed to independent thinking and honest journalism… we need to understand that the media is now fully integrated into an extremist state, and that working people must look elsewhere — to the Morning Star, yes, and to oases on the internet where good journalism flourishes.

    Pilger often cast a sceptical eye on those whom we are supposed to regard as the best journalists working in the major news media. They are nevertheless performing a propaganda role by demarcating the permissible limits of reporting. For example:

    BBC reporter, Jeremy Bowen, who talks about a war between Israel and Hamas. Bowen knows that’s wrong. It’s an attack on an occupied people by the occupier, Israel, backed by great powers.

    State-corporate journalism – BBC News is a prime example – is far removed from the mythical notion of reporting the truth to the public. As the playwright John McGrath once wrote:

    The gentlemen at the head of the powerful opinion-forming corporations do not wish to have their articulate mediation of reality disturbed by a group of people going around with a different story, seeing events from a different perspective, even selecting different information. Still less do they wish to have the population at large emerging from their mental retreat – the inner exile of the powerless and alienated – and demanding a share of power, of control, of freedom.’

    — McGrath, A Good Night Out: Popular Theatre: Audience, Class and Form, Nick Hern Books, 1981, pp. 89-90.

    We should all reject the output of ‘the powerful opinion-forming corporations’ and look elsewhere, to those internet oases of real journalism, in order to understand the world and to radically change it for the better.

    The post Gaza: A Brutal Demonstration Of “Western Values” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • In recent days Palestine Action has targeted the logistics companies servicing the operations of Israel’s arms trade in Britain, as well as the biggest arms manufacturer – disrupting both their operations and exposing their roles in supporting the ongoing genocide of Palestinians.

    Palestine Action: targeting Israeli arms’ supply chain

    First, Palestine Action targeted logistics companies belonging to Kuehne+Nagel (K+N) and Palletline on 17 January, as part of a widespread direct action campaign against Israel’s biggest weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems, and the companies which facilitate their weapons manufacturing in Britain and their arms exports to Israel.

    K+N’s Milton Keynes branch and their subsidiary in London, Nacaro cargo insurance, were targeted overnight. At the company’s Milton Keynes industrial site, which specialises in road transportation, activists sprayed the entire front of the building in blood-red paint and shattered windows.

    In London, others took similar action against Nacora, leaving the office drenched in paint:

    In Scotland, activists from Palestine Action struck Palletline’s Glasgow site, breaking their windows and spray painting messages such as “Drop Elbit” and “Free Palestine”. Palletline frequently transport items in and out of Elbit’s drone factory, U-TacS, In Leicester:

    K+N provide transportation and logistics services for Elbit’s UAV Tactical Systems (U-TacS) factory in Leicester, facilitating the manufacture and delivery of Israeli drone technologies. Along with partnerships held with Elbit – the company supplying 85% of Israel’s drones and land based military equipment – K+N played a historical role in trafficking weapons to apartheid South Africa, bolstering the regime in the 1980s. According to the Anti-Apartheid Movement, these shipments were even sent to South Africa via Israel.

    Then, Palestine Action targeted Elbit itself.

    Elbit: still under pressure

    The group was supported by the Bristol-based ‘Rise Up for Palestine’. They shut down the Israeli-owned Elbit weapons headquarters in Bristol on the morning of Thursday 18 January. Dozens from the local group surrounded four activists from Palestine Action who locked on to each other – making the blockade of the only entrance to Elbit’s HQ immovable:

    Elbit Systems UK operates across England and Wales and is owned by Israel’s largest weapons company. The Bristol location, which is leased from Somerset Council, is Elbit’s main operational facility.

    This action happened while Israel is mounting a campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing, bombarding Gaza and killing over 25,000 Palestinians, injuring over 60,000 people and displacing over 1.9 million captive Palestinians.

    In the past few days, Al-Aqsa hospital in Gaza, one of only 13 out of 35 remaining functioning hospitals, has come under attack by the Israeli army. Drones and quadcopters, most likely developed by Elbit, are being used to fire at anyone who enters or leaves the hospital.

    The Israeli weapons firm openly talk of having “battle tested” its weapons, through Israel’s deployment of them against Palestinians, before these are then sold on the global market. In the current bombardment, Elbit’s new iron sting missiles and drone technologies are being used to massacre the Palestinian people.

    ‘End the complicity in genocide’

    A Palestine Action spokesperson has said:

    Disrupting Israel’s military supply chain through direct action and community mobilisation is a crucial and necessary tactic to deploy as our Palestinian siblings are under fire by Elbit’s weaponry. We do not stand for genocide enablers on our doorstep, and we’ve once again made it clear that Elbit is not welcome in Bristol or anywhere on British soil.

    We will continue to rise up and take the power back into our own hands to shut down the companies arming Israel’s genocide of Palestine.

    Moreover, companies assisting in the delivery and shipment of Israeli weaponry and essential equipment for Elbit, facilitate and profit from the genocide of the Palestinian people. Thus, Palestine Action remain determined to target all those who remain associated with Elbit

    In the past 100 days over 25,000 Palestinians were killed, and for the last 75 years they’ve remained under an apartheid regime enabled by the British government. Whilst our pleas for sanctions on apartheid Israel fall on deaf ears, it’s up to ordinary people to take direct action and end the complicity in genocide.

    Featured image via Palestine Action

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • It should surprise no one that the prize-match fight for the rule of international law has pitted Israel and South Africa against each other at the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

    The world is split between those who have crafted a self-serving global and regional order that guarantees them impunity whatever their crimes, and those who pay the price for that arrangement.

    Now the long-time victims are fighting back at the so-called World Court.

    Last week, each side presented its arguments for and against whether Israel has implemented a genocidal policy in Gaza over the past three months.

    South Africa’s case should be open and shut. So far Israel has killed or seriously wounded close to 100,000 Palestinians in Gaza, almost one in every 20 inhabitants. It has damaged or destroyed more than 60 percent of the population’s homes. It has bombed the tiny “safe zones” to which it has ordered some two million Palestinians to flee. It has exposed them to starvation and lethal disease by cutting off aid and water.

    Meanwhile, senior Israeli political and military officials have openly and repeatedly expressed genocidal intent, as South Africa’s submission so carefully documents.

    Back in September, before Hamas’ break-out from the Gaza prison on 7 October, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had shown the United Nations a map of his aspiration for what he termed “the New Middle East”. The Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank were gone, replaced by Israel.

    Despite the mass of evidence against Israel, it could take years for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to reach a definitive verdict – by which time, if things carry on as they are, there may be no meaningful Palestinian population left to protect.

    South Africa has therefore also urgently requested an interim order effectively requiring Israel to stop its attack.

    Opposing corners

    The peoples of Israel and South Africa still carry the wounds of the crimes of systematic European racism: in Israel’s case, the Holocaust in which the Nazis and their collaborators exterminated six million Jews; and in South Africa’s, the white apartheid regime that was imposed on the black population for decades by a colonising white minority.

    They are in opposite corners because each drew a different lesson from their respective traumatic historical legacies.

    Israel raised its citizens to believe that Jews must join the racist, oppressor nations, adopting a “might makes right” approach to neighbouring states. A self-declared Jewish state sees the region as a zero-sum battleground in which domination and brutality win the day.

    It was inevitable that Israel would eventually spawn, in Hamas and groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, armed opponents who view their conflict with Israel in a similar light.

    South Africa, by contrast, has aspired to carry the mantel of “moral beacon” nation, that western states so readily ascribe to their top-dog, nuclear-armed Middle Eastern client state, Israel.

    South Africa’s first post-apartheid president, Nelson Mandela, famously observed in 1997: “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”

    Israel and apartheid South Africa were close diplomatic and military allies until apartheid’s fall 30 years ago. Mandela understood that the ideological foundations of Zionism and apartheid were built on a similar racial supremacist logic.

    He was once cast as a terrorist villain for opposing South Africa’s apartheid rulers, much as Palestinian leaders are by Israel today.

    Jackboot of colonialism

    It should also not surprise us that lined up in Israel’s corner is most of the West – led by Washington and Germany, the country that instigated the Holocaust. Berlin asked last Friday to be considered a third party in Israel’s defence at The Hague.

    Meanwhile, South Africa’s case is backed by much of what is called the “developing world”, which has long felt the jackboot of western colonialism – and racism – on its face.

    Notably, Namibia was incensed by Germany’s support for Israel at the court, given that at the outset of the 20th century, the colonial German regime in south-west Africa herded many tens of thousands of Namibians into death camps, developing the blueprint for the genocide of Jews and Roma it would later refine in the Holocaust.

    The Namibian president, Hage Geingob, stated: “Germany cannot morally express commitment to the United Nations Convention against genocide, including atonement for the genocide in Namibia, whilst supporting the equivalent of a holocaust and genocide in Gaza.”

    The panel of judges – 17 of them in total – do not exist in some rarified bubble of legal abstraction. Intense political pressures in this polarised fight will bear down on them.

    As former UK ambassador Craig Murray, who attended the two days of hearings, observed: most of the judges looked as if they “really did not want to be in the court”.

    ‘Nobody will stop us’

    The reality is that, whichever way the majority in the court swings in its decision, the crushing power of the West to get its way will shape what happens next.

    If most of the judges find it plausible that there is a risk Israel is committing genocide and insist on some sort of interim ceasefire until it can make a definitive ruling, Washington will block enforcement through its veto at the UN Security Council.

    Expect the US, as well as Europe, to work harder than ever to undermine international law and its supporting institutions. Imputations of antisemitism on the part of the judges who back South Africa’s case – and the states to which they belong – will be liberally spread around.

    Already Israel has accused South Africa of a “blood libel”, suggesting its motives at the ICJ are driven by antisemitism. In his address to the court, Tal Becker of the Israeli foreign ministry argued that South Africa was acting as a legal surrogate for Hamas.

    The US has implied much the same by calling South Africa’s meticulous amassing of evidence “meritless”.

    On Saturday, in a speech littered with deceptions, Netanyahu vowed to ignore the court’s ruling if it was not to Israel’s liking. “Nobody will stop us – not The Hague, not the axis of evil, and not anybody else,” he said.

    On the other hand, if the ICJ rules at this stage anything less than that there is a plausible case for genocide, Israel and the Biden administration will seize on the verdict to mischaracterise Israel’s assault on Gaza as receiving a clean bill of health from the World Court.

    That will be a lie. The judges are being asked only to rule on the matter of genocide, the gravest of the crimes against humanity, where the evidential bar is set very high indeed.

    In an international legal system in which nation-states are accorded far more rights than ordinary people, the priority is giving states the freedom to wage wars in which civilians are likely to pay the heaviest price. The gargantuan profits of the West’s military-industrial complex depend on this intentional lacuna in the so-called “rules of war”.

    If the court finds – whether for political or legal reasons – that South Africa has failed to make a plausible case, it will not absolve Israel of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indisputably, it is carrying out both.

    Foot dragging

    Nonetheless, any reticence on the part of the ICJ will be duly noted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), its heavily compromised sister court. Its job is not to adjudicate between states like the World Court but to gather evidence for the prosecution of individuals who order or carry out war crimes.

    It is currently gathering evidence to decide whether to investigate Israeli and Hamas officials over the events of the past three months.

    But for years, the same court has been dragging its feet on prosecuting Israeli officials over war crimes that long predate the current assault on Gaza, such as Israel’s decades of building illegal Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, and Israel’s 17-year siege of Gaza – the rarely mentioned context for Hamas’ break-out on 7 October.

    The ICC similarly baulked at prosecuting US and British officials over the war crimes their states carried out in invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq.

    That followed an intimidation campaign from Washington, which imposed sanctions on the court’s two most senior officials, including freezing their US assets, blocking their international financial transactions and denying them and their families entry to the US.

    Terror campaign

    Israel’s central argument against genocide last week was that it is defending itself after it was attacked on 7 October, and that the real genocide is being carried out by Hamas against Israel.

    Such a claim should be roundly dismissed by the World Court. Israel has no right to defend its decades-long occupation and siege of Gaza, the background to the events of 7 October. And it cannot claim it is targeting a few thousand Hamas fighters when it is bombing, displacing and starving Gaza’s entire civilian population.

    Even if Israel’s military campaign is not intended to wipe out the Palestinians of Gaza, as all statements by the Israeli cabinet and military officials indicate, it is nonetheless still directed primarily at civilians.

    On the most charitable reading, given the facts, Palestinian civilians are being bombed and killed en masse to cause terror. They are being ethnically cleansed to depopulate Gaza. And they are being subjected to a horrifying form of collective punishment in Israel’s “complete siege” that denies them food, water and power – leading to starvation and exposure to lethal disease – to weaken their will to resist their occupation and seek liberation from absolute Israeli control.

    If all of this is the only way Israel can “eradicate Hamas” – its stated goal – then it reveals something Israel and its western patrons would rather we all ignore: that Hamas is so deeply embedded in Gaza precisely because its implacable resistance looks like the only reasonable response to a Palestinian population ever more suffocated by the tightening chokehold of oppression Israel has inflicted on Gaza for decades.

    Israel’s weeks of carpet bombing have left Gaza uninhabitable for the vast majority of the population, who have no homes to return to and little in the way of functioning infrastructure. Without massive and constant aid, which Israel is blocking, they will gradually die of dehydration, famine, cold and disease.

    In these circumstances, Israel’s actual defence against genocide is an entirely conditional one: it is not committing genocide only if it has correctly estimated that sufficient pressure will mount on Egypt that it feels compelled – or bullied – into opening its border with Gaza and allowing the population to escape.

    If Cairo refuses, and Israel does not change course, the people of Gaza are doomed. In a rightly ordered world, a claim of reckless indifference as to whether the Palestinians of Gaza die from conditions Israel has created should be no defence against genocide.

    War business as usual

    The difficulty for the World Court is that it is on trial as much as Israel – and will lose whichever way it rules. Legal facts and the court’s credibility are in direct conflict with western strategic priorities and war industry profits.

    The risk is the judges may feel the safest course is to “split the difference”.

    They may exonerate Israel of genocide based on a technicality, while insisting it do more of what it isn’t doing at all: protecting the “humanitarian needs” of Gaza’s people.

    Israel dangled just such a technicality before the judges last week like a juicy carrot. Its lawyers argued that, because Israel had not responded to the genocide case made by South Africa at the time of its filing, there was no dispute between the two states. The World Court, Israel suggested, therefore lacked jurisdiction because its role is to settle such disputes.

    If accepted, it would mean, as former ambassador Murray noted, that, absurdly, states could be exonerated of genocide simply by refusing to engage with their accusers.

    Aeyal Gross, a professor of international law at Tel Aviv University, told the Haaretz newspaper he expected the court to reject any limitations on Israel’s military operations. It would focus instead on humanitarian measures to ease the plight of Gaza’s population.

    He also noted that Israel would insist it was already complying – and carry on as before.

    The one sticking point, Gross suggested, would be a demand from the World Court that Israel allow international investigators access to the enclave to assess whether war crimes had been committed.

    It is precisely this kind of “war business as usual” that will discredit the court – and the international humanitarian law it is supposed to uphold.

    Vacuum of leadership

    As ever, it is not the West that the world can look to for meaningful leadership on the gravest crises it faces or for efforts to de-escalate conflict.

    The only actors showing any inclination to put into practice the moral obligation that should fall to states to intervene to stop genocide are the “terrorists”.

    Hezbollah in Lebanon is putting pressure on Israel by incrementally building a second front in the north, while the Houthis in Yemen are improvising their own form of economic sanctions on international shipping passing through the Red Sea.

    The US and Britain responded at the weekend with air strikes on Yemen, turning up the heat even higher and threatening to tip the region into a wider war.

    With its own investments in the Suez Canal threatened, China, unlike the West, seems desperate to cool things down. Beijing proposed this week an Israel-Palestine peace conference involving a much wider circle of states.

    The goal is to loosen Washington’s malevolent stranglehold on pretend “peace-making” and bind all the parties to a commitment to create a Palestinian state.

    The West’s narrative is that anyone outside its club – from South Africa and China to Hezbollah and the Houthis – is the enemy, threatening Washington’s “rules-based order”.

    But it is that very order that looks increasingly self-serving and discredited – and the foundation for a genocide being inflicted on the Palestinians of Gaza in broad daylight.

    • First published in Middle East Eye

    The post Western Racism laid the Foundations for Israel’s Genocide in Gaza first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • At regular intervals the high representatives of the Allied Powers (West) congregate to commemorate the “kick-off” that led we are told to victory in Europe ending part of the hostilities in the Second World War. They meet on the often-cold beaches of Normandy, the western coastal region of France from which William the Conqueror led his hordes to decimate what became Great Britain and establish the monarchy and aristocracy, which until the end of 1947 comprised rulers of the most extended imperial state in history. There, the successors to the temporary autocrats of the US, Britain and France, engage in ritual self-congratulation and insincere piety. The D-Day amphibious landing of some 150,000 troops of the combined British and American Empires on those windy shores provides their alibi. Since the end of the war against the Soviet Union in 1989, the former adversaries are no longer the targets of self-righteous rebuke. The total forces of on-going occupation have wholly reconstructed Germany and Italy in the image of the victors. Moreover, the Eastern ally, if not shunned, has been repeatedly insulted on these occasions—at least since Vladimir Putin became head of the Russian Federation.

    On or about 6 June 2024 will be the 80th anniversary of what Western schoolbooks and Hollywood propaganda films tell us was the decisive blow against the NSDAP regime in the German Reich. The continuing war through Ukraine is beyond irony. Meanwhile, the expected continuation of slaughter in Palestine will surely enhance the cynicism on those hallowed beaches.

    However, the purpose of D-Day, the better late than never concession to the Soviet Union of a “second front” against Germany, has always been presented as evidence of the West’s magnificent contributions to defeating Germany for the second time in the 20th century. Subsequent Anglo-American occupation of first the rump Federal Republic and then the annexed Democratic Republic have assured that the Anglo-American history of the Second World War prevails in the culture of the vanquished. Even today to challenge that history in any public fashion can bring dire consequences.

    Critical historians have repeatedly called attention to discrepancies in the official history as well as the on-going revisionism with its denials.[1] While even the suggestion that this official history may be inaccurate or incomplete can incriminate the critic as a so-called “holocaust denier”, attempts by the Russian Federation to punish the glorification of the fascist era have been opposed with scorn by those who ostensibly fought on the same side. The revisionary process reiterates or elaborates the view that the Soviet Union and the NS regime in Germany were essentially the same. The implication is that the Red Army defence of what was still the Soviet Union against German invasion was a crime while the collaboration of ultra-right wing Western Ukrainians with the German invasion—including formation of dedicated Waffen SS divisions like the Galizia—were heroic acts of national self-defence.[2] No later than 2014 this implication has been adopted as canonical history in the West, at least at governmental level. The bureaucratic authoritarian bodies of the European Union have fostered this process with attempts to equate the Soviet Union with the NS regime or at least to attribute the war to the acts or omissions of the Soviet leadership under Joseph Stalin.

    However if blatant distortions directed at the defunct Soviet Union and its successor, the Russian Federation, are relatively well known and openly controversial, there are numerous matters regarding the Second World War which still deserve some scrutiny. Such scrutiny is not merely of academic relevance. The Second World War—along with its precursor the Great War—is the great sacramental myth upon which the Anglo-American Empire relies for its legitimacy, even among those who are either reluctant or embarrassed to accept it. Then as now a central issue is the concept of “war guilt”. It may be argued that this moral or religious concept derives from that most formative of eras in Western history—the Crusades. The Latin papacy, both for political and financial reasons, established the Christian doctrine of war for salvation of souls. The political reasons were obvious. Expanding the Latin empire required more than mendicant preachers it needed “boots on the ground”. Rome’s coup against Constantinople could only be sustained by military means. Moreover the control over the trade routes that passed through Asia Minor required armed occupation. Hence, the relatively under-populated peasant provinces had to be reaped for able bodies. Preaching the Crusades—recruiting foot soldiers and raising money—was complementary to the papal derivatives market aka the trade in relics and indulgences. For all the cant about Islam and its holy wars, the Latin papacy established salvation through organized mass murder as a firm institution in Western culture, a curse with us even today. A salvation model needs sin and guilt from which one is to be saved in the first place. Hence it was probably a natural development that empires built on the exploitation of the salvation model of militarism would need a moral template by which to judge their victories and defeats. If the Great War was the culmination of Western imperial competition then it is hardly surprising that morality would reach a critical mass, leading to the infamous “war guilt” provisions of the Versailles treaties.

    Wherein could the “war guilt” actually be found? The diplomatic record, some of which has actually made its way into history books, shows that the French acted covertly to undermine German efforts to negotiate with the members of what became the Entente. The Wilhelmstrasse had successfully persuaded the Russian Empire to withdraw its general mobilization order and negotiate differences with Germany.[3] Thus, the Schlieffen Plan for the invasion of France via neutral Belgium became an imperative for the German high command. The French government would have been forced to negotiate to avoid a war with an industrially and militarily superior German Reich. Even if this French subterfuge is conceded, German militarism is claimed as unimpeachable evidence for German war guilt. A disingenuous Australian historian reasserted the naïve claim that the war was no one’s fault but the result of “sleepwalking” in Europe’s foreign offices. This attempt to sidestep the “war guilt” issue is self-serving. Rather than openly confronting the chain of culpability and the exculpatory evidence in favour of the German Reich, the “sleepwalkers” thesis removes the culpability issue from the table under the pretext of dismissing the “war guilt” question entirely.[4] This question of war guilt cannot be properly addressed without first considering the fundamental change that occurred between the “long 19th century” and the “short 2oth century”.

    Political economist Michael Hudson summarized the “long 19th century” in a very different way than its most noted proponent, British historian Eric Hobsbawm. While Professor Hobsbawm describes the “long 19th century” as the evolution of liberal-enlightenment (somewhat democratic) values, Professor Hudson also following Marx describes it as the evolution of industrial capitalism toward socialism.[5] By that Professor Hudson described the direction of classical economics (also identified with the Enlightenment) as the struggle to eliminate the rentier or landlord class and its parasitic role in society.[6] Industrial adventurers would take capital and organize it in new ways together with labour to modernize society and provide goods and services appropriate to that modernization. Part of the surplus value would accrue to entrepreneurs but those resources which were natural, like land, water, air, minerals etc. would be developed as state monopolies so that the forces of production would drive society rather than the forces of extraction. This socialisation was in fact occurring despite the most vicious resistance by the landlord class and its ally the Church. According to Hudson, 1914 did not end liberal democracy but the drive toward socialism necessary for any kind of democracy, whether liberal or mass-based.

    The Great War was not accidentally a war against Germany. It was a war launched against an increasingly efficient social-economic model that was out-producing the leading manufacturing country of the day and moreover delivering a higher quality of life to its citizens. This war started however before 1914 through economic and cultural war against both the German Empire and Austria-Hungary. German militarism was fed by the successful efforts by those who controlled British and French finance to obstruct the Berlin-Baghdad Railway. Not unlike measures presently taken to impede the Belt and Road Initiative, every effort was taken to block a land route from Central Europe to East Asia that would bypass the British merchant marine and Anglo-French ownership of Suez—with all that control implied for international trade.[7] In 1914, like in 2024, free trade and freedom of navigation were reserved to the Anglo-American Empire and no one else. Absent realistic commercial or diplomatic channels to establish Germany’s access to the world economy, the intensification of military preparation could have been no surprise. However objectionable armed force is, Germany’s application of it was neither unique nor without justification. Guilt, termed liability in civil law, not only presumes intent but also the capacity to act otherwise. The doctrine of force majeure or acts of God rebuts liability for acts performed under conditions the actor could neither foresee nor prevent. Hence official historians, as dedicated attorneys for the Establishment, must conceal or obscure evidence that an adversary was compelled to act or was denied any alternative to the act condemned.

    The Second World War was a continuation of the British Empire—meanwhile all but formally amalgamated with the American Empire—to assure British domination of world trade and Britain’s exceptional status among nations. Rightly those summoned to Versailles to submit to further economic and social strangulation were to suffer the wrath of nationalists at home. Then as now, nationalists are evil if they are not one’s own. In the aftermath of this until then greatest known gratuitous mass slaughter of youth and manhood, the efforts to restrain competition and obstruct economic development led to the overthrow of the Romanov dynasty in the impoverished peasant empire of Russia. The Communist Party under Vladimir Lenin began a massive socio-economic transformation. This revolution was necessarily built upon the wholly inadequate and failed tsarist infrastructure and bureaucracy; a fact Lenin admitted would be a major obstacle to the country’s modernization. However this revolution threatened the permanent debtor status, which the Romanov’s century-long pawning of Russia’s wealth and economic capacity had created. Thus there was every incentive for the same bankers and cartels to support the counter-revolution with the help of the US, Great Britain, the Czech Legion and Japan. The withdrawal from the Great War had aggravated the Anglo-French front. To prevent the default on the battlefield and in debt service, the international community (the banking community that is) induced the US to intervene on the side of the British and French just enough to save impending bad debts and to prevent a negotiated peace among equals.

    Economic warfare against Germany continued under the various extortion treaties designed for the public imagination to “punish Germany” for its war guilt. Thus an attempt to overthrow the servile Weimar regime was defeated by Allied support to the German military and the assassination of critical leaders. Not only were Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg murdered by forces friendly to the Allies. Officially, Walter Rathenau, son of the family that ran Germany’s AEG electricity group, was assassinated by a right-wing anti-Semite. Most probably he was murdered for his negotiation of the Rapallo agreement between Germany and the Soviet Union by which the former would supply industrial equipment in return for raw materials.[8] Even the circumstances of Rathenau’s murder bear an uncanny resemblance to another conspiracy, the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz-Ferdinand in Sarajevo.[9] The more one examines story of economic warfare, assassination and ethno-nationalist conspiracy, the more obvious it becomes that the Open Society Foundations, NED and Otpor merely modernized established British covert foreign policy toolbox. Historians, or those who pretend to this function, as well as journalists have long been key performers in the mass deception that perpetuates “good war” mythology and its dramatic climax, war guilt.

    However prior to the Great War, “war guilt” was not an essential part of the law of nations. In fact, one of the consequences of the treaties signed in Westphalia ending the first Thirty Years’ War was to de-moralize it. By recognizing the authority of rulers to define the religious regime of their respective states, a significant step was taken away from the salvation model of warfare. By the 19th century this could be captured in the dictum attributed to Carl von Clauswitz that “war is the continuation of policy with other means”. The realpolitik expounded in his classic Vom Kriege (1832) was a general’s assessment of the professional soldier’s role in his country’s public life. While it is understandable that a professional army officer would write about the relevance of armed combat in statecraft, this is not the same as preferring it to diplomacy or negotiated problem-solving. By withdrawing the religious or moralizing component war itself, von Clausewitz did not legitimate war as an amoral endeavour. Instead he placed the responsibility for morals and ethics on those who make state policy and hence decide whether it is to be pursued by force of arms. Thus the soldier is a servant of a moral or political order and not the one to define it. Any question of guilt or innocence has to be answered in the policy and those who make it not in the army per se.

    On 27 August 1928, in Paris, the representatives of the high contracting parties, including the United States of America, the United Kingdom (and its dominions), France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgium and Ireland, signed the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, aka the Kellogg-Briand Pact. This much-ridiculed treaty, still an element of international law in force, ratified by the US and hence integrated into its national law, was remarkably simple.

    Its main text comprised only two articles.

    Article I

    The high contracting parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

    Article II

    The high contracting parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

    This treaty was signed, adopted, and ratified independent of other inter-governmental institutions such as the then extant League of Nations. Hence it became international law independent of any inter-governmental or supranational body. Its provisions were absorbed by the United Nations Charter but not superseded by it. By 1929 all the countries that were later to constitute the belligerents during the Second World War had ratified the treaty.

    The Kellogg-Briand Pact transcended the realpolitik with which von Clausewitz and a century of militarism had been associated. Von Clausewitz removed the morality from the profession of arms and submitted it to the authority of the State rather than the generals. The 1928 treaty renounced that particular continuation of policy and created an obligation to negotiate and apply peaceful measures. It is unnecessary to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the treaty in preventing war. Even when the treaty was signed and ratified contemporaries saw it is empty idealism. There were neither enforcement nor penalty provisions. However such objections lead to the absurdities of the current UN system by which the dominant founding member arrogates the sole right to punish “breaches of the peace” by waging war against those accused. It did not take long for this to occur. The US abused not only its veto power but also every other diplomatic and economic measure to obtain Security Council approval of its 1951 invasion of the Korean peninsula.

    However, before such blatant bullying and deceit were applied to protect the US coup d’etat in Seoul and plans for “rollback” in China, there was an even more insidious deceit. The “good war” has meanwhile been shown to be far less good than Hollywood or schoolbooks have told us for the past eighty years. The unambiguous battle by the “good” against the “evil”, while necessary to preserve the crusading spirit of the Anglo-American Empire, is full of inconsistencies beginning with the funding of the NSDAP paramilitary forces needed to suppress political opposition before the elections in which Hitler’s party established a minority government with the help of the Latin pontiff. The formal abolition of the Zentrum ordered by Pope Pius XI eliminated the largest party in the German Reichstag and the only formal obstacle to Hitler’s appointment as chancellor. This detail is often omitted to support the erroneous assertion that the Germans elected Hitler. Once the government had been formed and the Enabling Act adopted to eliminate constitutional limitations on the government’s power, there was no shortage of support from American and British cartels. Well before the orders for Operation Barbarossa were given, Hitler’s government and rearmed military was being used as a cut-out for Britain’s war against the Spanish Republic. The minutes of Hitler’s meeting with Franco in Hendaye indicate that Franco appreciated Britain’s role in his victory while Hitler did not.

    Carroll Quigley credibly argued that there was no “appeasement” on the part of Neville Chamberlain in Munich. Quite the contrary, Chamberlain in his capacity as a member of the so-called Round Table group, was intent on delaying any confrontation with the German Empire that would direct its attentions to the West. Moreover the strategic negotiations that led to the absorption of the Sudetenland, the occupation of Czechoslovakia and the annexation of Austria were generally accepted as legitimate remedies to the wholesale territorial seizures resulting from Germany’s defeat in 1918. There can be no doubt that negotiating the amalgamation of German-speaking territories from the defunct Austro-Hungarian Empire was entirely consistent with the stated policy of the famous Wilsonian “Fourteen Points”. These principles had until Munich never been applied to Germany or Germans. The subsequent portrayal of the Munich accords as surrender to an insatiable German dictator obscures Britain’s constant duplicity. At the same time it was conceding the legitimacy of German demands it was secretly encouraging the Czechs and Poles to oppose them, promising diplomatic and military support which never came. These features along the road to world war, while perhaps unfamiliar, are sufficiently incriminating to debunk British claims to innocence. Nonetheless claims to Germany’s “evil” role persist.

    After years of suppression, testimony is emerging that supports the accusations that Franklin Roosevelt at least could have known that the Empire of Japan had planned and was undertaking an attack on America’s Hawaiian colony. Although Roosevelt was accused of deceit at the time of the attack, the story of the surprise and unprovoked Japanese aggression has remained the cornerstone of US history, not only of the Second World War but also for all its subsequent wars. Pearl Harbor itself became a metonym for fiendish surprise by which any adversary of the US is denounced as evil—and popularly accepted as such. Despite the suspicions harboured for decades, official history has maintained the ex post facto argument that even if the POTUS had known about the pending attack on the Pearl Harbor naval station, the evil of the Anti-Comintern Pact regimes, usually known as the Axis, is self-evident.[10] Feigning surprise was “a good lie” for “a good war”. However that is doubly dishonest. First of all, the horrors of the Second World War were only acknowledged in their magnitude after the Axis had been defeated. Defenders of the “so what” thesis must attribute clairvoyance to the POTUS not merely good intentions.

    The “good lie” for the “good war” defence relies on two assumptions: one, the Anglo-American Empire was innocent of the cause of the war and two, it was genuinely surprised by the attacks that led to its participation in the hostilities. If the Anglo-American Empire was culpable in the start of the war, the element of surprise attack is deemed mitigating. In other words, the culpability accepted only extends to the part in real conflicts and controversies, not to the aggressive acts committed by Germany and Japan.

    There is a technical issue, in itself minor, but if given due weight may also rebut the claims to innocence in causing the war. Here the much-maligned Kellogg-Briand Pact is quite relevant. The terms of the General Treaty oblige the parties to resolve problems by peaceful means and to renounce war. By alleging that one or more of the Axis powers committed surprise attacks the argument is made that it was the Germany or Japan which had breached its obligations under the treaty by failing to pursue negotiations in lieu of using armed force.

    Here the actions of the Soviet Union take an entirely different colour than the one in which they are commonly depicted. The Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, has been denounced by the official histories and by many who considered themselves members of the Left, or even a communist party. This treaty has been almost universally condemned in the West. The Establishment points to it as proof for its “Hitler equals Stalin” equation. The Left beyond the orthodox Communist Party followers of the time, saw it as Stalin willing to appease Hitler at the expense of the international workers’ struggle against fascism—however defined. Yet US Ambassador Joseph Davies (from 1936-1938) was quite clear when he said that the Soviet government pursued negotiations with Germany while France and Britain were essentially arming Hitler to attack the Soviet Union.[11] Davies, who had no reason to defend either Stalin or the CPSU, was assessing the diplomatic cesspool of British and French foreign policy.

    Meanwhile in the Pacific, where the US had expanded its empire in 1901 to include practically every island that was neither French nor British between San Francisco and Manila, the US consistently supported Japanese expansion into the Asian mainland. For his contributions to this feat Theodore Roosevelt was even awarded a Nobel Peace Prize—proof that the award had been debased long before it was given to Henry Kissinger. Later US Secretary of State Dean Acheson would even admit that one of his principal assignments in Foggy Bottom prior to 7 December 1941 was to direct economic warfare against Japan. The US within the context of its established geopolitical doctrine of Manifest Destiny, under the pretext of the Open Door, was determined to succeed all European powers as the dominant imperial force in East Asia.[12]  The United States was pursuing a covert policy, which could have no other effect than to provoke hostilities with Japan. The US supported the transfer of German settlements in China to the Japanese Empire at the end of the Great War. This further eased Japanese conquest of Manchuria, a logical move after the US had brokered Japanese annexation of Korea.

    The second phase of the Chinese Revolution had pitted the right wing of the Kuomintang (KMT) against its enforced partners the Chinese Communist Party. Chiang Kai-shek clearly understood that he had the backing of the US against the Communist Party in the same way that the British backed Franco. Japanese invasion was barely opposed because Chiang saw the Japanese not unlike Hitler’s Legion Condor. Superior Japanese military force would help him to crush the Communists and reach an agreement with Japan for the benefit of his own party. Both Mao and Chiang were aware of this role that the US and Japan were playing in China’s internal revolution. US foreign policy and even war plans throughout the 19th century anticipated the possibility of war with the British Empire, its only natural enemy. Nonetheless, British tradition and education has long been the source of American foreign policy, diplomacy and duplicity. The New England elite, whether from Business or the Ivy League colleges, barely concealed their admiration for the British model of indirect rule and duplicitous, espionage-laden diplomacy. Using Japan as a wedge with which to dominate China risked the emergence of Japan’s own capabilities and interests. The Second World War would determine which country’s power would define the Asia-Pacific half of the world, for a while at least.

    Already on the eve of the attack on Pearl Harbor there was at least one general officer on MacArthur’s staff who attempted to raise the alarm of a coming Japanese attack only to find that this was no surprise. Moreover, he apparently concluded that there was foreknowledge of which he was not privy. After the war, including three years in a Japanese POW camp, Edward P. King, Jr. wrote a memoir no one would publish in which he related his experience leading up to the attack. In Day of Deceit[13], Robert Stinnet documents what others have claimed but been unable to make heard.

    The circumstances before, during and after the attack were so irregular they even deviated from the routines of peacetime naval duty. Leaving aside the suspicious circumstantial evidence that no efforts were made to prepare or execute adequate defence of the naval station, the key to the surprise myth relies on a technical issue which when discussed is minimized or obscured. The British and Hollywood have paraded the story of their cryptographic coup against the German Reich so that everyone has probably heard of Turing and ENIGMA. Less trumpeted is the fact that US Navy signals intelligence and the ONI had successfully broken Japanese ciphers and thus the US was able to monitor most of the imperial fleet’s cable traffic. Even today we only know a fraction of the capacity of signals intelligence work since “national security” would be jeopardized were the extent of surveillance actually known. One need only ask Mr Snowden or consider the fate of Mr Assange to recognize how little we actually know about the cryptographic work of the Anglo-American Empire and its government agencies and privatized surveillance system.

    However, it is worth considering that both Germany and Japan were heavily exposed in what they apparently believed were coded communications. Since as has already been shown the Anglo-American Empire had targeted Germany and Japan long before the outbreak of hostilities they had worked very hard to incite, it is not far-fetched to imagine that the deciphering of Japanese and German communications was an on-going operation before 1939 or 1941. If the Anglo-American Empire was in full possession of meaningful, decrypted communications of its two primary adversaries, then it was also in a position to face those potential belligerents with diplomatic arguments for resolving the disputes at hand. Germany and Japan were both led by governments well aware of their relative weaknesses and material deficiencies in the event of war. They also knew that protracted war would exhaust their resources while their adversaries could rely on sources of supply practically immune from attack. There is no reason to believe that confronted with the exposure of their intentions and preparations they would not have launched attacks that could not be surprises.

    This leads to the question that remains relevant today. If the Anglo-American Empire was not surprised by attacks but merely feigned surprise then they knowingly provoked a massive world war that not only could have been averted by negotiation but which they were obliged by international law to avert. By inciting Germany and Japan to wage war against them and concealing the knowledge that would have forced all parties to aver armed conflict, they actively inhibited negotiations before the outbreak of hostilities. Unlike the Soviet Union which demonstrably negotiated to the very end, not only with the regime in Berlin but with Berlin’s sponsors and promoters in the Anglo-American Empire, the Anglo-American Empire was in grave breach of its treaty obligations. As more honest historians and journalists have come to argue, the International Military Tribunal—only convened because the Soviet Union insisted on trials—should have included the British Empire and the United States of America in the dock, unindicted co-conspirators, for the breach of the peace and crimes against humanity they wilfully incited, in addition to those they perpetrated on their own account. Instead the crimes of “breach of the peace” derived from the Kellogg-Briand Pact were perverted, one might even say “encrypted” such that they continue to disguise the violations of the substance and the spirit of that noble act of modern diplomacy.

    ENDNOTES:

    [1] Among others Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (1990), Jacques Pauwels, The Myth of the Good War and The Great Class War, reviewed by this author “’Romanticism and War’: Contextualizing a Theory of Interpretation”, Dissident Voice (15 September 2015). Although Zinn debunks much of the official World War 2 history in the US he completely omits – like many others- the Yalta agreements and the background they set for the Soviet Union in the post-war order. This is no doubt in part because Harry Truman repudiated the Yalta accords at the Potsdam Conference, a time when most people had no idea what had been agreed.

    [2] Such was the “heroism” that the remainder of the Galizia division was packed from Italian POW camps and sent to Britain en masse at the end of the war from whence they spread throughout the Empire it seems.

    [3] Metonyms for the various governments and foreign ministries: Wilhelmstrasse (Berlin), Quai d’Orsay (Paris), Foggy Bottom (Washington), Whitehall (London)

    [4] See “Peculiar Admission in Award Winning BookDissident Voice (21 July 2014)

    [5] Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes: The Short 20th Century 1914-1991 (1994)

    [6] For articles, interviews, and bibliography of Professor Hudson’s political economic analyses see www.michael-hudson.com

    [7] Summarized in F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (2012)

    [8] This story is told in Time Forward!, (Vremya, vperyod!), Valentin Kataev (1932) in English (1995)

    [9] Markus Osterriede, Welt im Umbruch: Nationalitätenfrage, Ordnungspläne und Rudolf Steiners Haltung im Ersten Weltkrieg (2014)

    [10] The term “axis” for the Anti-Comintern Pact, initially concluded between Germany and Italy and later including Japan, actually conceals the purpose of the Axis, one in which the Allies with the exception of the Soviet Union were entirely agreed. The Axis powers were explicitly agreed to combat the supposed expansion of the Soviet Union by means of the Communist International (Comintern).

    [11] An important element of the treaty was the restoration of territory to each country that the Entente had allocated to the new Polish republic. Claims that this was conquest ignore the way in which the Entente imposed border and territorial realignments on Germany and the Russia (which was in the midst of civil war during most of the negotiations).

    [12] For a thorough discussion of US imperial policy in the Asia-Pacific region see Bruce Cumings, Dominion from Sea to Sea: Pacific Ascendancy and American Power (2010)

    [13] Robert B. Stinnet, Day of Deceit The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (2001)

    The post Guilt by Decryption first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • British Prime Minister Winston Churchill desperately tried to persuade United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to declare war on Germany and enter World War II. The U.S. president recognized Nazi Germany’s threat to Western civilization and U.S. interests but his intuition told him that the American people were not ready for battle. Complicating a proposed alliance was FDR’s critical attitude toward the British Prime Minister; they had met at a 1919 post-World War I conference, where Roosevelt considered Churchill a heavy drinker who behaved in a superior manner. The British PM also represented the colonialists of the British Empire and supported the empire’s hold on world trade and world prices. Roosevelt sought the end of colonialism and the beginning of free trade. He considered Winston Churchill as an obstacle to achieving both pursuits.

    German forces conquered France and Roosevelt realized the need to help Britain. His help considered British soldiers fighting the war with U.S. armaments and not together with U.S. soldiers. The entrance of the Soviet Union into the war increased the president’s belief that the joint Anglo-Soviet forces, aided by U.S. war materials, would be able to defeat Germany without the U.S. entering the war. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor reorganized the war map and Roosevelt found his nation forced into battle.

    The U.S. declared war on imperial Japan and not on Nazi Germany. After Germany declared war on the U.S., considered one of the most strategic blunders ever made by a country at war, the U.S. returned the favor and entered the European theater of war. In December 1941, the U.S. military was unprepared and suffered quick losses from an advancing Japanese army. Preoccupied with stopping the Japanese, U.S. strategists had no will to fight on two fronts. However, they did. In the finest years of their history, the American people sacrificed everything, stood united as never before and never since, produced armaments at a record pace — a warship each day ─ and, together with the Soviet Union, liberated Europe and Asia from aggression and oppression.

    To those who observe events from a socio-economic perspective, America fought in World War II to prevent German and Japanese economic dominance and assure American hegemony. Those familiar with FDR and America of that time have a different perspective — Roosevelt was an internationalist who believed no country should dominate and no country should be dominated. At Yalta, he knew that the United States and the Soviet Union would emerge as the dominant world powers and to prevent clashes, each needed its sphere of influence and defensive perimeter. Being dominant did not mean dominating and Roosevelt, maybe naively, expected that the Socialist Soviet Union would treat all nations in its sphere of influence as an equal partner. He titled the war effort “America, the arsenal of democracy,” assuring, by morality and military might that liberty and freedom would be made available to all.

    Future U.S. presidents betrayed Roosevelt’s vision. The U.S. achieved dominance and fought to preserve it. The glow of the shining World War II years began to dim and was extinguished by President Biden’s actions at the start of Israel’s war on Gaza. Americans were now supporting tyranny that had many elements to what they had fought against, willing accomplices to an apartheid Israel that supposedly arose from the ashes of the Holocaust and developed from embers that characterized Nazi Germany — ultra-nationalism, racism, militarism, irredentism, belief in the unique folk, and perpetuation of genocide. List the characteristics of nations and compare apartheid Israel with Nazi Germany and the two nations have many similar characteristics, while apartheid Israel shows little relation to Western democracies. Not everyone will agree with the comparisons made with the writer’s knowledge and honest effort. Others can construct their comparison tables and gather their conclusions.

    • Israel does not have the totalitarian rule that characterized Nazi Germany but, during the last decades, extreme right governments have governed. Critics of China’s government rail at Xi Jinping’s extended rule after a 10-year presidency of two terms. Benjamin Netanyahu ruled for 11 years and has ruled again for the last year.
    • Israel does not have a corporate state (Fascist economy), where the government exercises strict control over corporate behavior and essentially regulates the economy. Social control is much less in Israel but existent. Modern techniques allow Israel’s intelligence agencies to conduct greater surveillance of the population, more than the intrusions that existed in Nazi Germany.
    • Israel is not nearly at the sinister level of the brutal Nazi system that murdered, plundered, and brought chaos to all of Europe but its policies have usurped Palestinian lands, held the Palestinians in captivity, destroyed their tools for having a decent life, reduced their feelings of security, and are directed to diminish their will to live; policies that are genocidal.

    Assisting the development of apartheid Israel into acquiring characteristics associated with Nazi Germany and rewarding it for its brutal activities are one part of contemporary U.S. governments’ betrayal of World War II efforts to combat tyranny. The other part allows the memory and deaths of those who died in the World War II Holocaust to be used to advance Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people.

    Hundreds of books, films, plays (the Holocaust Theater Catalog has chronicled over 950 theater works from around the world relating to the Holocaust), TV dramas, radio broadcasts, and streaming videos on the Holocaust are available. A new performance appears every year. In 2022-2023, the silver screen featured The Zone of Interest, a loose film adaptation of Martin Amis’ 2014 novel, which describes, in fiction, the domestic life of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess and his family. Hasn’t this genre been done before, except the locales were on southern plantations? Who can be interested in the make-believe day-to-day walking around of a family with whom nobody has sympathy?

    Tom Stoppard’s LEOPOLDSTADT (Vienna’s Jewish Quarter) played on Broadway from September 2022 to July 2023. Set in Vienna, the play follows the lives of one extended and prosperous Jewish family from 1899, through the war years and into the middle of the twentieth century.

    An opera, The Garden of the Finzi-Continis, based on a 1962 book and a later film, had a short run in Manhattan in 2022.  A brief description.

    The Garden of The Finzi-Continis is set on the eve of World War II and tells the story of an aristocratic Italian-Jewish family, the Finzi-Continis, who believe they will be immune to the changes happening around them.  As they make a gracious haven for themselves in their garden, walling out the unpleasantness of the world outside, Italy forms its alliance with Germany and begins to enforce anti-Semitic racial laws.  But the Finzi-Continis discover too late that no one is immune, no one is untouchable.

    I don’t expect any artistic presentations on the 75-year ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people, which has enough tragic stories to fill Broadway theaters for 15 million years, but how about something on Rohingya, Cambodia, Darfur, or Armenians, just one presentation? If events during WWII are appreciated, why not more in the visual arts that feature the heroism of American soldiers and the effects of the war on the American people — powerful dramas that inspire, encourage, and renew patriotism?

    The extensive concentration on one particular atrocity captures each generation and accumulates material that can be revived after many years. For what purpose? It cannot be for an entertainment purpose ─ these are not themes that can be entertaining. Can’t be for commercial purposes ─ these stories don’t stimulate the box office. Can’t be for educational purposes ─ they have not prevented other mass atrocities or genocides, which is an important consideration. The cultural expressions of the WWII Holocaust serve to emotionally attach viewers to one ethnicity as perpetual victims and sympathize with them in the creation of a state that is also always a victim and must use pulverizing force against the worldwide army of anti-Semites who are conspiring to destroy that state.

    The plethora of Holocaust dramas that suffocate the senses is not enough to rally Americans to support Israel. We also have museums. In twenty-six states there are sixty-six Holocaust museums and educational centers.

    In the U.S. there are two prominent World War II history museums — The National WWII Museum, in New Orleans and The National Museum of the Pacific War, in Fredericksburg, Texas. Two other museums, World War II American Experience, in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and the Wright Museum, located in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, “recognize and honor the contributions and enduring legacy of WWII-era Americans.” In addition to the two major and minor museums, there are another 128 museums and exhibits in the U.S. that focus on or relate to some aspect of World War II. Strange that the U.S. gave priority to constructing the Holocaust Memorial Museum in 1980 on prime and reserved land for federal buildings and did not finish construction of the World War II memorial (a World War I memorial is now being constructed) until 2004, 24 years after establishing the Holocaust Memorial Museum.

    Unfortunately, the National WWII Museum has not escaped the clutches of the holocaust industry; for some unknown reason, it includes lectures, such as, “Why Did ‘Kristallnacht’ Happen? Teaching the History of European Antisemitism.” Why does a study of events that occurred before WWII, that are discussed in other venues, that is one part of a European history that has religious wars, and has no direct relation with Americans, appear in a national museum of World War II?

    Why do U.S. authorities give little attention to an important period in U.S. history and give excessive attention to a tragic occurrence in a foreign country visited upon foreign people? We know Americans have not reacted to the World War II Holocaust and used their might to prevent other genocides. Do Americans enjoy any of these lugubrious, doleful, and depressing presentations of man’s inhumanity to man? Maybe, yes. The Native Americans constructed a museum of affirmation in Washington, DC, with exhibits describing the cultures of existing and living tribes. The museum does not highlight the genocides visited upon the indigenous peoples. The initial reaction to its presentation was not encouraging, Americans expected more blood and battle.

    We could give Americans what they may want by converting the Holocaust Memorial museums into museums that describe the genocides of the indigenous tribes. Better than that ─ turn the Holocaust Memorial museums into inspirational museums, where Americans learn of the heroism, wisdom, and sacrifices of American people and institutions who fought for peace, justice, and freedom. American museums for Americans — museums that inform, give hope, arouse optimism, make Americans feel good, bring Americans together, and make them want to work united, as they did during the difficult World War II years.

    Reverse what is now drastically wrong. Stop the special interests that manipulate and control the American people. If Israel carries out the genocide, which seems more likely each day, the World War II sacrifices and Holocaust deaths will have been in vain, the Statue of Liberty will signify hypocrisy, and the American Republic, established in 1789, will have reached its end.

    The post Losing World War II first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Middle East policy expert Trita Parsi says President Biden’s reluctance to press Israel for a ceasefire in Gaza has the potential to drag the U.S. into a war with Iran and its allies in the region. On Monday, Israel reportedly killed a Hezbollah commander in southern Lebanon, just days after an airstrike killed a senior Hamas leader in the capital Beirut. Meanwhile, the U.S.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • 1. The overview

    If you often ask yourself “How can people believe those lies and deceptions?” when facts clearly indicate them to be untrue, you are not alone.  If you ask how so-called leaders can get away with a policy that guarantees disastrous, anti-human consequences, you are not alone either.

    In order to examine these questions, let us look at how our minds operate.  We have the conscious part of our minds and the unconscious part of our minds. Both operate together. They can be separated into an instinctual part, a daily operational part, and the part that guides us with set principles. Freud described these as id, ego and superego. As we live in our given social framework, all parts of our minds operate within the imperatives of the social formation. As our minds develop, our instincts are trained to fit what we perceive as reality. Reality, our social interactions, and the ideas and rules generated by society condition and shape our daily thoughts and routines.

    Our idealistic principles are ultimately formed according to the prevalent ideas of good and bad, how things should be and so on. This transfers a collective sense of ideal notions into the guiding principles of individual minds. This basic mechanism allows us to be social beings working together to achieve the goals and objectives of the society. We are individuals with our own ideas and interests, but we are also parts of an entity we perceive as our society. We are individual entities, but we also exist as a collective, as a species in a vast geological time frame.

    But what if our social relations are subservient to the values, norms, and beliefs of the ruling class? What if social institutions are dominated by wealthy and powerful people? What if our society is flooded by their propaganda?

    Our society is highly hierarchical based on financial power. It forms a caste-like system, with social mobility bound by conditions set by ruling class imperatives. No kingdoms in the past achieved the degree of accumulation of wealth we observe today.  Social media platforms are built to facilitate divisions and commodify collective power within the capitalist framework.  Digitalization allows corporate entities to cultivate certain public opinions while excluding others.  AI technology can effortlessly steal collective ideas while reinforcing prevalent ideas firmly within the acceptable range of the authority. The advent of the Internet, AI, and financialization of the economy have strengthened the ways to condition people according to the rules stipulated by the money dominated social institutions. All of these are manifesting in new ways to place our thoughts, our ideas, and our social relations within the acceptable range of the ruling class.

    The capitalist social formation has an inherent contradiction that leads to periodic crises: The capitalists– the ruling class– get too much money and the rest of the people stop having purchasing power, while unsold products pile up. This has been the primary cause of the major predicaments of our times.

    The ruling class shifts its mode of exploitation and subjugation in order to keep the basic structure intact, generating new ways to profit and maintain its dominance. The actual crisis of capitalism is constantly replaced with distorted and narrowly defined prepackaged “crises” which provide pretexts for the economic and social restructuring necessary to float the economy.

    For example:

    The deprived living conditions, poverty, and destruction of inner-city communities—all stemming from the crisis of capitalism—were portrayed as an emergence of inner-city criminal youth, “superpredators.” The demonization, along with the slogan “tough on crime,” exacerbated the momentum for gentrification, militarized police and school-to-prison pipeline, contributing to enriching associated industries.

    Muslim populations have been demonized as “terrorists” as their leaders are called dictators, allowing embargoes, economic blockade, proxy wars, and military assaults against them, ultimately resulting in western corporate powers restructuring their societies to accommodate western corporate interests.

    Legitimate environmental activism has been shaped to narrowly focus on CO2,  which has created a myriad of environmental issues of its own. This has destroyed the momentum for real environmental activism based on actual damages and accountabilities, while creating a momentum for “green capitalism” for profits.  The CO2 focus has also created the carbon trade pyramid scheme for the rich while punishing those developing countries without the capacity to invest in new technologies and infrastructures.

    We are flooded with crisis after crisis—“war on terror,” “global warming,” “pandemic,” “Russian threat,” and etc. And the pace of the cycle accelerates as the crisis of capitalism continues to be insolvable, and the western hegemony faces the economic as well as military powers of countries which have been defying the western colonial trajectory.

    Meanwhile, our minds, facing obvious manipulations and deceptions, struggle to maintain their integrity by keeping certain things conscious and others unconscious in order to exist within the given social formation. This has been facilitated by active propaganda, educational indoctrination, political rituals, and structural violence against the oppressed. We are given false narratives to swallow in exchange for keeping our positions in the social hierarchy while our livelihoods and well-beings are at gunpoint. This conscious/unconscious process of swallowing the status quo by omission of facts ties us to an invisible cage of the ruling class imperatives. Our minds are forced to employ various psychological defense mechanisms to further disassociate ourselves from the root of the problem.

    This has resulted in an enormous decrease of our abilities to perceive ourselves, our relationships to others and the social formation.  It has also been eliminating facts and our history from our minds. Our minds and bodies are conditioned to go along with the social imperatives, and the process diminishes our capacity to grow as human beings.

    This parallels the increased powers of those who profit from our collective labor and our collective knowledge. The acute concentration of wealth allows the rich and powerful to dominate social institutions.  This allows them to impose their agendas and policies through many layers of conditions and extortion regimes against those who are trapped in the social hierarchy.

    One might not keep his job or social position if he holds disagreeable opinions about the authority. Or those with disagreeable ideology could be excluded from various social networks.

    Let’s say that you hold a position in a community organization, and you are an anti-war activist. Your position can be taken away easily by a few wealthy donors with political motives. They effectively blackmail the organization, saying that so and so is on the side of the enemy country, advocating terrorism, and etc. They threaten to boycott the organization unless you are removed. The little organization, which you have been part of, has struggled so hard to serve the community with no resources of its own. The organization has no choice but to ask you to step down. And having struggled together with the organization for years, you can’t risk damaging the organization by making the event public. The anti-war activism suffers, and you are traumatized by the expulsion. In the process, the organization is shaped to stay within the imperial framework.

    Similar dynamics are at work against all individuals who hold views which are unacceptable to the authority. Under the current social formation, our individual productive activities can be exploited by profiteers who set the goals and the objectives, while those who engage in actual activities are deprived of access to the actual collective results. The pattern of domestication of ideas and social relations is not restricted to those who sign contracts with their employers. The fact that social institutions are dominated by the ruling class means that our social relations in general are under the guiding hands of the ruling class.

    For example:

    -Even though they might have good intentions, volunteers for NGOs can be guided to perform activities within the framework of the ruling class, since the NGOs rely on funding from the wealthy. Even if the NGOs survive co-option by the wealthy, their policies and agendas can always be limited by obstacles presented by capitalist dominated social institutions.

    -Grass roots activism can also be at any point co-oped by the interests of the ruling class or neutralized by corporate backed institutions.

    -If you happen to be good at anything and garner popularity among the people, sooner or later, your activities can also be forced to conform to the imperatives of corporate entities.  Or, you could be excluded from one social network or another as your world view collides with money dominated entities along the way, until you find it unsustainable to be in your field.

    This is basically the same mechanism observed by Robert Owen in the 19th century as noted by Frederic Engels in Utopian and Scientific. Owen noted “If this new wealth had not been created by machinery, imperfectly as it has been applied, the wars of Europe, in opposition to Napoleon, and to support the aristocratic principles of society, could not have been maintained. And yet this new power was the creation of the working class.”

    This fundamental dynamic of exploitation and subjugation and use of the collective power of the people to shift the course of society for the interests of the ruling class has evolved for the past two centuries, fully normalizing the hidden mechanism, while cultivating layers and layers of protective mechanisms to prop up the basic structure. Our social relations are filtered through so many layers, constantly being scrutinized to fit the current social formation. In exchange for contributing to the harvesting of the collective power, we receive money which can only be used within the economic markets which are dominated by the capital. We are deprived of our powers and in exchange we receive smaller powers which can be used to support the economic structure, which is controlled and manipulated by various institutions.  What suffers in the process are things we can’t buy with our tokens: love, friendship, community, culture, nature and etc.

    The strength of colonization through the economic structure can be observed as we see how a regional economy in the global south can lose its tradition, sustainable local economy, and communities with the introduction of Wall Street style economy. As the economy shifts to a winner-takes-all, profit oriented structure, social relations shift to conform to the interests of the rich. This goes along with importation of media, where entertainment commodities are geared toward imperial propaganda. Hollywood movies are filled with western-centric narratives. How many of the movies that we see have Russian villains and Muslim terrorists? Mainstream media outlets, now owned by a mere 6 corporate entities, have been serving the corporate and military interests of the west for generations. Western NGOs can also operate with western funding to spread narratives friendly to the west while demonizing the local authority, which defies the infiltration of western propaganda, cultural imperialism and economic restructuring favorable to western corporate interests.

    2. The Hierarchy 

    Here it should be strongly noted that there is a real sense of community, warmth of togetherness and potentially sustainable social relations among those who are engaging in building community momentum. No one can deny those feelings and the actual benefits. This is obvious when we see people finding the real sense of belongingness, pride, and meaning in the communities they build. This can even be said about institutions more obviously facilitated by the intentions of the ruling class —religious, political, military and so on. However, the point here is that our nature to be social and find collective goals to survive can be systemically and structurally co-opted by the structural arrangement of exploitation and subjugation. This should be noted throughout this text, especially as we discuss the inner workings of individuals. Accountability for inhumanity should be squarely placed against the system and its beneficiaries. The purpose of unfolding the mechanism here is not to blame the people who are victims of the domestication. Doing so would bring us to the cynical conclusion that it is human nature to be exploited and brutally attack each other. We must not equate the nature of humanity, however we term it, with the conditions created by the current social formation that allows the ruling class to domesticate the rest of us while depriving us of our humanity and causing devastating consequences to the environment.

    The difficult part, of course, is that we can say with certainly that slave owning landlords or those who appeared in lynching post cards smiling right next to black men hanging from a tree probably had happy families and friendships amongst themselves. But as soon as you stepped out of the stipulated boundaries of the community, the smiley faces of your fellow humans could turn into the faces of terrifying perpetrators of lynching. The happiness one gained by belonging to the community had dual functions: ensuring your livelihood and well-being while augmenting the then legitimate social institution of slavery. The enormous sacrifices paid by the enslaved people co-existed right next to the happy families of “good old times.”

    When the values, norms and beliefs of the collective are subservient to the ruling class imposed framework of the social hierarchy, it automatically normalizes the most brutal and inhumane discrimination and biases in institutionalized forms throughout the “democratic” sphere.  This is the true nature of the notion of “rule by the majority”– a prominent feature of western democracy today.

    This mechanism is at the core of US imperialism. When western corporate entities restructure a country with their neoliberal economic policies, it expands its “democratic” sphere, normalizing exclusion and discrimination, which, in turn, facilitates the exploitation and subjugation.

    In this regard, the age-old colonial view of “others” still dominates the underlining momentum of western colonialism.  The most important psychological element of colonizing is to define the subject population as inferior to the colonizers.  The sub-humans must be helped so that their lives can rise to the level of the colonizers, or more precisely, modified to serve the colonizers.

    The sense of mission allows the colonizers to do whatever necessary, regardless of the actual well-being of the subject population.  All sacrifices among the population are worth it in the end for their own good.

    A military action against them is always justified but the resistance against it is always denied as “inhumane”, “barbaric” and “brutal” because ultimately the counter action does not serve the subject population according to the colonizers. Countless lives of the subject population simply do not weigh the same as the lives of colonizers in the imperial minds.

    This sense of mission is also very useful in exploiting and subjugating oppressed people within the country engaging in the colonizing. The grievances and dissenting voices against the ruling class are set aside in order to instead fight the “barbaric people.” Those who oppose this would be defined as traitors, terrorist supporters and so on.

    In this broader overview, it is clear that the problem is not the “barbaric people who need help” or “terrorist supporters”.  The problem is clearly with the colonizers.

    The social hierarchy, with its very bottom tier, the very top and everything in between, is the clear manifestation of the social formation of exploitation and subjugation. The political institution of so-called western democracy manifests itself somewhere between social democracy and fascism. In either case, the political parties are backed by capitalists. Their policies and agendas stay within the interests of the owners of the political parties. The constant move between “left” and “right” within acceptable politics creates the sense of political struggle and progress, but in reality, all is restricted within the corporate interests.

    However, capitalist hierarchy as a whole doesn’t only shift itself between its fascist mode and social democracy mode in perpetuating itself. The class analysis of the social formation reveals the elements of fascism and socialism within the existing social formation.

    The effect of the corporate domination and measures implemented against the people can be felt severely among the most oppressed people while the benefits of state protection and favoritism are felt by the rich. The elements of fascism–authoritarianism, social hierarchy, suppression of opposition, censorship, militarism, and so on—are literally the reality among the oppressed without waiting for the fascist dictatorships to come along. For the rich the state functions tremendously to forward their interests. The political notion of fascism to describe political opponents by the “left” only appears when the interests of the privileged class are threatened, while the political notion of socialism to describe political opponents by the “right” only appears, again, when the interests of the privileged class are threatened. The true liberation of the people can only be possible if we grow out of the hierarchical social formation based on money and violence.

    Extreme suffering equivalent to suffering under a fascist dictatorship is inherently present for the oppressed population structurally at all times. The incarceration rate in the US is by far the highest globally. In particular, the rate of incarceration for black people has been higher than apartheid South Africa. Every major city in the US contains tent cities where people are subjected to life without basic human rights. One out of five children is facing hunger in the US. The number goes up twice as much for minority children. Without universal healthcare, the cost of major illnesses would easily bankrupt the average household. Three people are killed by police officers every day on average in the US. Meanwhile, the wealthy people often avoid jail time with their political connections, better lawyers, and ability to pay bail. The richest among the US population pay less tax than the average household. The overwhelming favoritism for the rich in the social layers has been institutionalized in various ways, allowing three people in the US to own more wealth than the bottom half of the US population. “Socialism” only for the wealthy is well functioning for the ruling class at all times.

    In order to fully perceive and appreciate life for the benefits for all,  we must recognize the overwhelming role of ruling class imperatives in the formation of collective values, beliefs and norms among us.  The class hierarchy and the process of “othering” based on the dominant world view play significant roles in determining our perceptions.

    3. The Minds

    Now, getting back to our minds, the fact that we internalize the authority as our guiding principle in order to form society creates an unintuitive phenomenon—our thoughts and behaviors follow the ruling class imperatives automatically. All commonly known psychological defense mechanisms are fully employed by individual minds to cling onto the existing social formation. Instead of recognizing the exploitive nature of the system as a whole, our minds are forced to blame “others” for not following unjust laws and ruling class-centric ideas. For example, economic insecurity and poverty due to austerity measures, job exports to overseas, lower wages and etc. would be blamed on immigrants, who are forced to migrate to the US due to the US imperial policies within their home countries. Inconvenient contradictions and world shattering facts stemming from the systemic exploitation are simply repressed as individuals face cognitive dissonance. Accountability for imperial war crimes, colonial policies, and brutal oppression by the authority are projected onto propagandized characters of “enemies.” Unsolvable contradictions lead to regression, resulting in violent behavior against others.

    The social structure is not forcefully activated by top-down coercion only. Each individual plays a significant role in helping to mobilize the entire structure. This is the secret of “western democracy” managing to reign as an imperial power in the name of “freedom,” “justice” and “humanity” and exploiting and subjugating the global south for so long. The collective power of the imperial mind acts like a power steering wheel, allowing a handful of the ruling class to set their goals and objectives in how to use the stolen collective power of the people.

    This is facilitated by the fact that the social formation, which doesn’t allow social relations based on one’s own interests, deprives one of the ability to perceive their surroundings correctly. Instead, “the reality” is projected onto the people as prepackaged corporate narratives through the media industrial complex, educational industrial complex, political industrial complex and so on. One is either forced to swallow a prepackaged social framework or one develops a personal world view based on one’s own position in the social hierarchy.  For those who embrace the prepackaged world view, dissenting opinions become threats to their very own existence—an attack against the authority literally is an attack against a part of their psyche, the internalized authority. For example, the dissident voices against the US proxy wars and the military actions against other countries would appear unpatriotic, “terrorist supporting” and so on in their minds.

    For those who develop personal world views based on their own position within the hierarchy, it also creates a desperate struggle to embrace that position, instead of offering to understand the view which derives from a different circumstance and work together to eliminate the root cause.  The legitimate grievances of minority groups to access job markets, social safety nets, equal rights and so on are seen as threats among the rest of the already struggling population. This results in divisions amongst the subject population and lack of understanding amongst the people, while augmenting the social hierarchy as a whole.

    Dissident groups often split or disappear as emerging crises reveal their narrow interests within class hierarchy, resulting in infighting. For example, some among those who have vehemently opposed measures forwarded by the medical industrial complex—forced “vaccination,” profit oriented Covid measures, the associated media censorship and etc.—have been quick to side with the establishment in Israel and its allies’ settler colonial violence after the 10/7/23 Palestinian military operation against Israel. Those who oppose losing their human rights within the imperial framework have failed to recognize over 75 years of colonial occupation, apartheid policies and genocide against Palestinian people by the US imperial project in the Middle East. This has resulted in devastating divisions among activists. The power which should be directed against the thieves of the collective power is directed toward one another, within the hierarchy.

    Quite often a social mobilization is expressed as “war”–war on drugs, war on crime, and so on. A state of war does not allow discussion, alternate views, or reconciliation on a personal basis or collective basis without the commander in chief saying so. Instantly, dissenting actions are deemed “treason.” The urgency and seriousness of “war” is orchestrated by media propaganda, educational indoctrination, political measures, legal restrictions, and so on. The internalized authority in people’s minds creates a massive storm of self-censorship, infighting amongst families, friends and communities under the notion of absolute allegiance to the authority.  A McCarthyism-like social atmosphere appears every time we are subjected to this sort of mobilization.

    Without understanding the structural mechanism as well as the psychological mechanism, one can also develop a warped abstract notion of a collective enemy—Jewish bankers, globalists, Illuminati, and so on. These prepackaged enemies can serve the system by preventing people from seeing the actual mechanism of exploitation and subjugation, while depriving them of the actual measures to dismantle the system.

    For many, these processes involving psychological defense mechanisms are unconscious, while the framework of the society where they belong is upheld unconditionally. The cage of capitalism stays invisible to the subject population. Also, the fact that we are deprived of access to facts and history due to the domination of social institutions by capital adds to the confusion while making the authority a single entity to obey.

    For those who manage to be conscious about the contradictions and unjust policies coming out of the authority, the situation is very difficult. Most of us do not wish to fight a systemic mafia enterprise operating in our neighborhood. If they demand a protection fee, many will simply pay instead of having their houses burned down at night.  In this case, we are talking about the entire system colluding with institutions to run its operation. It is unlikely that any legal system, any media outlets, and so on, will take your side. In most cases the idea gradually subsides into unconsciousness, turns into cynicism, or creates various sorts of mental dysfunctions amongst the subject population.

    Yet, conscious efforts to point out the problem of this social formation have been with us for centuries. Unfortunately, history is abundant with violent repression against dissidents with anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist views. The degree of the use of violence is unimaginable to ordinary people. The brutality and scope of the violence defines the  determination and criminality of the ruling class to perpetuate its dominance over the subject population. Assassinations, imprisonment, systemic eradication of dissident organizations by state violence, various war crimes committed by its military and so on have created an aspect of the authority as an invincible “mafia enterprise.” This notion lurks on the border between the unconscious and the conscious as we wonder about the legitimacy of the authority and the grave violence committed by it in the name of “democracy,” “freedom,” and “humanity,” as it quietly demands compliance by its threatening presence. This is far from how a “free country” is said to run its business.

    The internalization of the authority is a colonization of the mind in each and every one of us. Trauma creating events due to economic oppression, lack of social safety nets, destruction of communities and so on strengthen the presence of the internal authority, just like victims of domestic abuse cling onto the abusers. Pain and suffering are a firmly integral part of the social formation.

    The collective wounds of a trauma—racism, sexism and so on—can also be utilized to augment capitalist measures and imperial measures. These create opportunities for the same system which institutionalizes trauma-inducing discriminations to effectively enlist people of stigmatized identities who are willing to collaborate in exploitation and subjugation.  The first black President Barak Obama came in with a thundering popularity.  He managed to bomb seven countries, effectively working with corporate entities to install neoliberal restructuring regimes in many areas, while protecting the interests of the criminal banking system.  The legitimate criticisms against him were termed racist, while the actual deep seated racist sentiment amongst the population muddied the aim of the legitimate criticisms as well. A similar mechanism is at work in Israel’s brutal imperial settler colonialism.  The Israeli government, along with the western establishment, has been openly equating opposition to Israel’s apartheid policies and settler colonial violence against Palestinians with anti-semitism. This has created a vicious cycle of anti-imperial momentum advertised as “anti-semitism” through corporate media, adding to the escalating violence against Palestinians with impunity. This has allowed Israel to function as a military base for the US empire in the middle east and beyond for generations. The US financial aid to Israel surpasses the aid to any other country, amounting to over $317 billion since 1946. The vast majority of the aid goes to the military.

    Moreover, social activism for equality and justice has become strategized tokenism within the system instead of a struggle to eliminate class hierarchy and ruling class abuses. This trajectory has been openly supported by the establishment in the name of “diversity.” The corporate backed “diversity” firmly operates within the structural imperatives of the established order. Those with minority backgrounds who embrace corporate policies and imperial agendas are chosen for their diverse backgrounds; however, in reality, their corporate orientations and their subserviency toward imperialism reinforce the actual capitalist hierarchy and contribute in exacerbating actual sufferings of the oppressed.

    As we grow as humans, we grow in this mold, thinking and acting so that you won’t offend the authority and the internalized authority. Dissenting voices are structurally excluded, deprived of facts, of history and resources and constantly forced to make deals with the establishment to keep themselves alive.

    When we shift our attention to the mental states of agents of the ruling class — politicians, bureaucrats, establishment backed “experts,” and super rich individuals — one can’t avoid witnessing psychopathic qualities present in how the interests of the ruling class are blatantly forwarded at the expense of a vast suffering majority. We saw president Obama joking about killing people and joking about drone bombing. We saw Hilary Clinton laughing about assassinating Gaddafi. We heard Madeline Albright stating it’s worth killing half million Iraqi children. Some remarks by president Trump certainly belong to this category as well.

    The wealth driven social structure requires leaders who can ruthlessly forward the interests of the ruling class. Psychopathic characteristics are necessary parts of this social formation.

    In a society which operates based on the interests of the population in harmony with nature and life forms,  psychological repression is a defense mechanism that protects individuals from devastating traumas. Psychopathic behaviors are treated as unsuitable personal traits for responsible positions in society. However, defense mechanisms are an integral part of the dynamics of the collective mobilization and they are crucial in making the capitalist cage invisible in this social formation. The social formation also utilizes psychopathic individuals in forwarding inhumane exploitive measures.

    Suffering and pain create infighting amongst the oppressed, while hopelessness and cynicism turn into self-harm or random violence. The internalized authority in the subject population’s minds directs their attention to their fellow humans, to themselves, or forces them to regress into committing violent actions. These tendencies have been drastically augmented by the prevalent use of mind-altering pharmaceutical drugs in recent decades. Researchers have been noting the devastating consequences brought out by drugs with side effects such as suicidal ideation, psychopathy and so on. (Big pharma makes money, and again, suffering caused by the exploitive environment has created opportunities for industry.)

    Where is a formation like this heading in the geological time frame, let alone the development of a few centuries?

    4.  The Social Institutions

    Our social lives revolve around certain networks in our careers, our interests, our backgrounds and so on. This allows us to find livelihoods and meaning in our daily lives away from the structural issues devastating parts of our population. However, the measures and the policies of the ruling class are also imposed through those networks within the social formation as well. Social institutions, under the strict control of capital and backed by the internalized authority of individuals, quietly guide us to the imperial framework. In a functioning society, a social institution allows facts and history to accumulate in a given field, creating collective assets of knowledge and wisdom. This is a column supporting what we perceive as “civilization.” But what is the implication of it functioning as an element to divide people and impose draconian measures under the umbrella of the ruling class authority? What are the consequences of such oppression for those who are eager to protect the integrity of the institution? And how do we understand our surroundings, facts and history when those change according to the agendas? We lose our common ground to stand on. Our communities are destabilized and ultimately forced to stand on official narratives.

    Religious institutions, political institutions, science and etc. often play such a role.  For example, the political institution has been reduced to a machine to form and legitimize ruling class agendas in the name of “democracy” in which money dominated corporate parties meticulously choose and curate problems that will give opportunities for corporate entities. Narratives, slogans and talking points are provided to party members according to their affiliations. The parties, backed by corporate interests, encourage party members to engage in this controlled competition in which rules and objectives are set by corporate interests. This effectively eliminates an actual political process for the interests of the people while giving an illusion of “democracy.” Participation becomes a ritual in which the collective power of the people is stolen in the name of ensuring the betterment of the people.

    Just as the collectivity of indoctrinated individual minds acts as a power steering wheel for capitalist agendas, social institutions have become an integral part of the driving force of ruling class agendas.  In particular, corporate funded NGOs, think tanks, academic institutions, research institutions and so on, play a crucial role in formulating effective measures and policies for achieving lucrative goals at the expense of the exploited and subjugated population.

    5. Perpetual Now

    The depth of the colonization of minds is reflected by how we perceive major events of our time. For example, the people who desperately screamed “Stand with Ukraine” are nowhere to be seen as we are forced to swallow the new slogans on the Palestinian conflict. The 500,000 Ukrainian deaths resulting from the US proxy war do not appear anywhere.  We clearly remember the images of 9/11. But there is no accountability for the deaths of millions of innocent people in the Middle East. The non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction, “dead incubator babies,” “viagra supplied soldiers,” and other emotionally charged accusations against the “brutal dictators” do not find any reasoned connections to the actual events and their consequences at all. We are forced to consume incoherent segments of the broken dreams of the ruling class, with ample excuses and justifications, as if we are watching a series of rationalization dreams of the ruling class mind with our wide awake minds.  In this collective process, we are totally detached from history and material reality as we are forced to embrace the fictitious notion of “perpetual now.”  This colonization of our perception, with forced consumption of incoherent propaganda narratives, leads us, sleep walking, into colonial projects of war, colonialism, and neoliberal restructuring.

    Our lives count on the healthy functioning of social institutions and social relations based on our interests. We internalize the imperatives of the collective as guiding principles. We naturally build respect and trust for those who protect social institutions with their wisdom and knowledge. We build communities to build social relations based on our interests. Our internal sense of the collective manifests as tradition, myths, culture and so on. We learn to organize ourselves so that we can live harmoniously with ourselves, with each other, with other life forms and with nature. We create art to reflect who we are while also reflecting how things can be, reaching out to the vastness of the universe.

    The capitalist hierarchy and its beneficiaries replace these dynamics with imperatives that keep their order intact. Our psychological traits, our collective social mechanism, how we perceive, and the actual facts themselves and history are being manipulated, altered, and abused. They have been taken apart and put back together to form an invisible cage of caste-like social hierarchy which is constantly being shaped and maintained through the process of trauma and conditioning. Our species is being domesticated by the ruling class, which is harvesting our collective powers to pursue this destructive path.

    6. Growing Out of the Social Formation

    In this writing I have attempted to lay out the psychological aspect, as well as the structural mechanism, of collective mobilization of the people under capitalist domination.

    All these processes clearly indicate structural as well as active efforts by the ruling class to impose policies and agendas against the subject population. This particular social formation is extremely inefficient and unproductive in terms of realizing the potential of the collective power of humanity since the captured power has been largely used to concentrate the power of humanity in the hands of a few without regard to the ultimate trajectory of the species as well as our real potential to actualize our capabilities in harmony with our surroundings. The process diminishes our capability to perceive ourselves, each other, and our environment, while depriving us of our abilities to create and grow as human beings. We have yet to see the real potential of our species at this point. Continuation of this trajectory will deprive us of it.

    To end this writing, I must add one thing. I find many people in the US to be friendly, kind, and extremely sophisticated in their areas of specialization. I have seen so many of them displaying great ingenuity, relentlessness and creativity in what they achieve. As an artist, I do feel waves of corporate pressure against creative freedom and the structural impediments of co-optation. But I also do feel the resilience of artists quietly but surely spreading roots in examining what it is to live and what it is to be humans. The sense of freedom and optimism which has overcome slavery does shine through the spirits of the people. The progress we make for the betterment of all people must stem from the historical reality and the characteristics of the people. Yes, slavery has morphed into current forms of exploitation and subjugation. Yes, the accumulation of wealth and the disparity among haves and have-nots has been exacerbated.  We could see these facts as proving the strength and resilience of the capitalist formation. However, we could also see them as evidence proving the criminality of the social formation as a vast pyramid scheme imposed on the majority. As the list of criminal acts continues to expand, our yearning for life and nature also expands.

    It is very difficult to understand the mechanism of exploitation and subjugation which involves many layers of our social structure as well as that of our minds.  Our examination makes it clear that the social formation consists of many elements working together in highly complex ways. The ultimate solution cannot be narrowly defined by one magic bullet.   Although focused measures are necessary to counter immediate risks and impediments to well-being, a narrowly focused solution will ultimately allow the system to morph and absorb that measure into the existing system. The transformation of society from a ruling class-centric one to a people-centric one requires a fundamental shift of social power to the hands of the people.

    The discussion leads to new questions:

    The system cannot function without the help of the internalized authority in every one of us.  Our understanding of the system and our role in it helps us to do away with the spell put on us by the system, allowing us to have opportunities to refuse to act against our own interests which, in turn, can stop the momentum of the system.  How do we educate ourselves?

    The system attempts to commodify love, friendship, community, culture, nature and so on.  All of those have been shaped and defined by the capitalist society to be sold and bought, only to be seen less and less among us.  If we make right choices for ourselves and for others, not for the interests of the ruling class, we can cultivate truly meaningful social relations by valuing what really matters to us, which could lead us to building social institutions which function for us.  Social institutions which work for the interests of the people are the basis of a well-functioning social structure for the people.  How can we achieve that?

    We are social beings by nature.  We can achieve by working together what we cannot achieve by working alone.  This collective power belongs to us all. How do we ensure that our power serves the livelihoods and well-beings of us in harmony with nature and other life forms?

    Countless people in the US and across the globe have raised their voices against this social formation from various angles. We have much to learn from the successes and failures of people who live under the socialist form of government. We have a vast wealth of knowledge and wisdom going all the way back to the beginning of our species examining how to be as a collective and how to be as individuals. We are one with those people from the past, from now and from the future in our path to outgrow the current social formation.

    The post Social Formation first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • They are unlikely to be revelatory, will shatter no myths, nor disprove any assumptions.  Cabinet documents exist to merely show that a political clique – the heart of the Westminster model of government, so to speak – often contain the musings of invertebrates, spineless on most issues such as foreign policy, while operating at the behest of select interests.  Hostility to originality is essential since it is threatening to the tribe; dissent is discouraged to uphold the order of collective cabinet responsibility.

    The recent non-story arising from the cabinet documents made available as to why Australia participated in a murderous, destructive and most probably illegal war against Iraq in 2003 proves that point.  The documents available showed, for instance, that a country, without mandatory parliamentary consultation, can go to war under the stewardship of a cabal influenced by the strategic interests of a foreign government.  The Howard government, famously buried in the fatty posterior of the US imperium, was always going to commit Australian military personnel to whatever military venture Washington demanded of it.  (In some cases, even without asking.)

    It was modish to suggest during the “Global War on Terror” that governments with fictional weapons of mass destruction might pass them on to surrogate non-state actors.  It was fashionable to misread intelligence material alleging such links, and, when that intelligence did not stack up, concoct it, as Tony Blair’s government happily did, sexed-up dossiers and all, in justifying Britain’s participation in the mauling of Iraq.

    The larger story in the recent documents affair over Iraq was what documents were withheld from the provision to the Australian National Archives in 2020.  In his January 3 press conference, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese outlined the process.  Normally, cabinet documents would be released two decades after their creation.  Such documents are provided to the Archives three years in advance by the government of the day.  But on this occasion, 78 were omitted from the transfer, enabling Albanese to point the finger firmly at his predecessor, Scott Morrison. (Those documents have since been transferred to the Archives.)

    In Albanese’s view, “Australians have the right to know the basis upon which Australia went to war in Iraq.  Australians lost their lives during the conflict and we know that some of the stated reasons for going to war was not correct in terms of the weapons of mass destruction that was alleged Iraq had at the time.”  Australians, he went on to say, had “a right to know what the decision-making process was”.

    The mistake in question had to be corrected, and the Archives had to release the documentation provided to them.  A constricting caveat, however, was appended to the declaration: the release of the documents had to “account for any national security issues  […] upon the advice of the national security agencies.”

    The caveat is a good starting point to suggest that this documents saga, and the restrictions upon the disclosure of the missing 78 Cabinet records, are set to continue.  For one thing, Albanese has added to the farce of secrecy by commencing an independent review that is barely worth that title.  The review is to be chaired by the very sort of person you would expect to bury rather than find things: Dennis Richardson, former director of the Australian Secret Intelligence Organisation and former head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

    Richardson’s appointment continues a practice of partisan control over a process that should be beyond the national-security fraternity.  There are fewer strings of accountability, as would apply, say, to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.  There are no terms of reference outlined.  Short of simply being a political manoeuvre that might cast a poor light on the previous government’s practices, it is unclear what Richardson’s purpose really is apart from justifying the retention of any of the said documents from public view.

    Either way, he will be on a tidy sum for the task, something which he is becoming rather used to.  As The Klaxon reports, Richardson has been well remunerated by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) for previous work.  A $50,000-a-month contract was awarded to him last year for “strategic advice and review” between August 2 and October 31.  The department refuses to state what it was for, preferring the insufferably vague justification of some “need for independent research or assessment”.  Be on guard whenever the term “independent” is coupled with “inquiry” or “assessment” in an Australian government context.

    A media release from the PM&C further notes that no department official or Minister has a direct role in the release or otherwise of the documents in question; the Archives will have the final say on whether those documents will be released or otherwise, whatever Albanese says.  Researchers, transparency activists and those keen on open government, are almost guaranteed disappointment, given the habitual secrecy and dysfunction that characterises the operation of that body.

    If there is a true lesson in this untidy business for the Albanese government, it must surely lie in the need to debate, discuss and dissent from matters that concern the entanglement of Australia, not merely in foreign wars but in alliances that cause them.  That, sadly, is a lesson that is nowhere being observed.  Howard’s crawling disposition has found its successor in Albanese’s obsequiousness, in so far as foreign conflicts are concerned.  Wherever the US war machine is deployed, Australia will hop to its aid with gleeful obedience.

    And as for anything to do with revealing the Australian decision-making process about the decision to invade, despoil and ruin yet another Middle Eastern state in 2003, one is better off consulting records from the White House and the US State Department.

    The post Circle of Secrecy: The Iraq War’s Missing Cabinet Documents first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The future of Israel’s war on Gaza is uncertain, but the Biden administration says it will continue supporting the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), even as the horrific war divides fellow Democrats and stokes fear that the United States is being pulled into a violent regional conflagration. The headlines this week did not ease this anxiety. Harking back to the brutal war in Iraq, a U.S.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Capitalism is killing us. That’s the unequivocal message of a new book, Dying for Capitalism: How Big Money Fuels Extinction and What We Can Do About It by Charles Derber and Suren Moodliar. The authors draw critical links between capitalism, militarism and environmental destruction to show how nothing short of radical change is required to shift the deadly course humanity as a whole is now on.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • With every escalation of United States wars — whether the post-9/11 war of terror or Genocide Joe Biden’s current war on Palestine — we witness an escalation in policing and the militarization of the U.S. border. It is no coincidence that the Senate is currently discussing changes to the U.S. migration system as part of a military aid package related to Israel and Ukraine, in the name of “national…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Finance analysts free of moral scruple can point to Palantir with relish and note that 2023 was a fairly rewarding year for it.  The company, which bills itself as a “category-leading software” builder “that empowers organizations to create and govern artificial intelligence”, launched its initial public offering in 2020.  But the milky confidence curdled, as with much else with tech assets, leading to the company stock falling by as much as 87% of value.  But this is the sort of language that delights the economy boffins no end, a bloodless exercise that ignores what Palantir really does.

    The surveillance company initially cut its teeth on agendas related to national security and law enforcement through Gotham.  A rather dry summation of its services is offered by Adrew Iliadis and Amelia Acker: “The company supplies information technology solutions for data integration and tracking to police and government agencies, humanitarian organizations, and corporations.”

    Founded in 2003 and unimaginatively named after the magical stones in The Lord of the Rings known as “Seeing Stones” or palantíri, its ambition was to remake the national security scape, a true fetishist project envisaging technology as deliverer and saviour.  While most of its work remains painfully clandestine, it does let the occasional salivating observer, such as Portugal’s former Secretary of State or European Affairs Bruno Maçães, into its citadel to receive the appropriate indoctrination.

    It’s impossible to take any commentary arising from these proselytised sorts seriously, but what follows can be intriguing.  “The target coordination cycle: find, track, target, and prosecute,” Maçães writes for Time, reflecting on the technology on show at the company’s London headquarters.  “As we enter the algorithmic age, time is compressed.  From the moment the algorithms set to work detecting their targets until these targets are prosecuted – a term of art in the field – no more than two or three minutes elapse.”  Such commentary takes the edge of the cruelty, the lethality, the sheer destruction of life that such prosecution entails.

    While its stable of government clients remain important, the company also sought to further expand its base with Foundry, the commercial version of the software. “Foundry helps businesses make better decisions and solve problems, and Forrester estimated Foundry delivers a 315% return on investment (ROI) for its users,” writes Will Healy, whose commentary is, given his association with Palantir, bound to be cherubically crawling while oddly flat.

    This tech beast is also claiming to march to a more moral tune, with Palantir Technologies UK Ltd announcing in April that it had formed a partnership with the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine (OPG) to “enable investigators on the ground and across Europe to share, integrate, and process all key data relating to more than 78,000 registered war crimes.”

    The company’s co-founder and chief executive officer, Alexander C. Karp, nails his colours to the mast with a schoolboy’s binary simplicity.  “The invasion of Ukraine represents one of the most significant challenges to the global balance of power.  To that end, the crimes that are being committed in Ukraine must be prosecuted.”

    Having picked the Ukrainian cause as a beneficial one, Palantir revealed that it was “already helping Ukraine militarily, and supporting the resettlement of refugees in the UK, Poland and in Lithuania.”  For Karp, “Software is a product of the legal and moral order in which it is created, and plays a role in defending it.”

    Such gnomic statements are best kept in the spittoon of history, mere meaningless splutter, but if they are taken seriously, Karp is in trouble.  He is one who has admitted with sissy’s glee that the “core mission of our company always was to make the West, especially America, the strongest in the world, the strongest it’s ever been, for the sake of global peace and prosperity”.  Typically, such money-minded megalomaniacs tend to confuse personal wealth and a robber baron’s acquisitiveness with the more collective goals of peace and security.  Murdering thieves can be most moral, even as they carry out their sordid tasks with silver tongs.

    When Google dropped Project Maven, the US Department of Defense program that riled employees within the company, Palantir was happy to offer its services.  It did not matter one jot that the project, known in Palantir circles as “Tron”, was designed to train AI to analyse aerial drone footage to enable the identification of objects and human beings (again bloodless, chilling, instrumental).  “It’s commonly known that our software is used in an operational context at war,” Karp is reported as saying.  “Do you really think a war fighter is going to trust a software company that pulls the plug because something becomes controversial with their life?  Currently, when you’re a war fighter your life depends on your software.”

    War is merely one context where Palantir dirties the terrain of policy.  In 2020, Amnesty International published a report outlining the various human rights risks arising from Palantir’s contracts with the US Department of Homeland Security.  Of particular concern were associated products and services stemming from its Homeland Security Investigations (HIS) division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  Human rights groups such as Mijente, along with a number of investors, have also noted that such contracts enable ICE to prosecute such activities as surveillance, detentions, raids, de facto family separations and deportations.

    In 2023, protests by hundreds of UK health workers managed to shut down the central London headquarters of the tech behemoth. The workers in question were protesting the award of a £330 million contract to Palantir by the National Health Service (NHS) England.  Many felt particularly riled at the company, given its role in furnishing the Israeli government with such military and surveillance technology, including predictive policing services.  The latter are used to analyse social media posts by Palestinians that might reveal threats to public order or praise for “hostile” entities.

    As Gaza is being flattened and gradually exterminated by Israeli arms, Palantir remains loyal, even stubbornly so.  “We are one of the few companies in the world to stand and announce our support for Israel, which remains steadfast,” the company stated in a letter to shareholders.  With a record now well washed in blood, the company deserves a global protest movement that blocks its appeal and encourages a shareholder exodus.

    The post Amoral Compass: Palantir and its Quest to Remake the World first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • U.S. “ironclad” support for militarism undercuts attempts to curb right-wing terrorism. From white supremacist violence in the West Bank to gendered violence in Olongapo, we can’t defeat at home what we export abroad.

    In his first month as secretary of defense with the J6 Capitol riots fresh in memory, Lloyd Austin rolled out training requirements to combat right-wing extremism in the ranks of the U.S. military.

    Extremism has indeed been a problem for quite some time, dating back to early American history when George Washington’s army committed violence against the Haudenosaunee and recaptured enslaved Africans who had fled from plantations. In 1919, W.E.B. Du Bois found evidence of widespread racism in the ranks of the U.S. army. All-too-common slurs against Asian Americans originate from U.S. troops fighting the Korean War.

    In occupied Guam, activist Naek Flores shared a harrowing incident with CODEPINK during our recent webinar, Beyond the Cold War: A Feminist Foreign Policy for the Asia-Pacific. An air force member reportedly vandalized two buildings, with the message: “Stop racism against white Americans. Our tax dollars pay for your entire government, your paychecks. Without us, you are nothing.” Flores linked the racist vandalism to similar incidents at the hand of Israeli troops in Gaza.

    But Austin’s initiatives, while focused on a very real problem, have not addressed that link – the one between extremism and U.S. imperialism. Austin’s policies have in fact solidified this link, by invoking military alliances with settler colonialist states and former colonies of the U.S. as a pretext for “defending” national security. From supporting Israel’s aggression to provoking China, Austin’s “ironclad” commitment to militarism threatens human security, and leaves no room for peace and protecting communities most vulnerable to extremism.

    Despite more attention needed on rooting out right-wing extremism from Chicago to Salt Lake City, Austin’s priorities have been focused on targeting the countries of origin of those victimized at home. Since October, he’s repeatedly expressed support for Israel’s genocidal bombardment of Palestine, despite 153 countries – the majority of the world – supporting a ceasefire at the United Nations.

    On December 18, he tweeted on his way to Tel Aviv that he was traveling to reiterate the U.S.’ “ironclad commitment to Israel” and discuss ways to topple Gaza’s government. It comes as the U.S. is sending warships to Yemen (where a U.S.-backed siege has killed at least hundreds of thousands) to reopen the Red Sea for Israeli commerce.

    Even as Austin has raised concerns about Israel’s conduct, he’s stubbornly backing it, despite the Palestinian people and the entire world demanding peace, all while bringing more, not less conflict, to war-torn Yemen. The rules-based order is definitely not a diplomacy-based order or a humanity-based order. And it reveals why the South China Sea and Korean peninsula are also on the brink of war.

    Austin has used his favorite word – “ironclad” – to embrace Japan’s remilitarization. While the U.S. fought Japan just 80 years ago, most of Japan’s wartime atrocities mostly targeted the Asia-Pacific region from Beijing to Bataan. In fact, Japanese expansionism during the 20th century was enabled by Western politicians who supported Japan’s colonization of Korea in the Taft-Katsura Agreement, as well as the Chinese coastal city of Qingdao after Germany’s defeat in World War I. In October, days before Israel escalated its 75-year-long occupation, Austin said Article V of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty affirms an “ironclad” commitment to defend Japan’s claim to the Senkaku or Diaoyu Islands – territory disputed by China.

    Aside from the danger of affirming a military alliance instead of seeking ways to de-escalate between a former colonizer and the country it once colonized, Austin’s ironclad commitment also potentially makes the Japanese people casualties of a would-be war with China.

    Signed in 1960, eight years after the U.S. ended its occupation of Japan, the treaty was protested by 6.4 million workers. In Okinawa, occupied by the U.S. until 1972, residents have continued to oppose the treaty’s authorization of American military bases. As New Diplomacy Initiative director Sayo Saurta highlighted in an interview with CODEPINK back in August, Okinawans are still standing up to environmental and human rights abuses perpetrated by U.S. forces.

    Austin’s ironclad commitment to our military alliance with South Korea also exposes how little he’s worried about resuming the Korean War. As President Biden met with President Xi in San Francisco, Austin’s visit to Seoul was an alarming reminder that U.S. nuclear threats in Asia did not end with President Trump. Austin said the U.S. commitment includes “the full range of nuclear, conventional, and missile defense capabilities.” Instead of breaking with our ugly history of nuclear blackmail, Austin’s policies are effectively doubling down and blocking chances for peaceful mediation.

    North Korea, of course, has a military alliance with China. As Joseph Gerson wrote in a letter to the Boston Globe in September, “Common security negotiations today between the United States and China, focused on Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, and South China Sea, can resolve the security dilemma and prevent ‘avoidable’ and catastrophic war.”

    If Austin really cares about security, as well as stopping extremism, it’s time he expresses ironclad commitment to negotiations, which would decrease abuses of power by military personnel and promote mutual understanding between our supposed adversaries. We can also finally begin our path to decolonization.

    From decades of deforestation to the 2014 transphobic murder of Jennifer Laude, our military footprint has increased violence and exploitation. Just like with Japan and South Korea, the Philippines is also in danger of becoming a battleground in a world war. In April, Austin announced four new U.S. military bases in the northern region of Luzon. Some analysts fear President Bongbong Marcos is poised to join a U.S. contingency in nearby Taiwan if war breaks out.

    Austin said the U.S.’ support for the Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines also remains ironclad, echoing numerous statements of the kind made since the summer as maritime tensions between Beijing and Manila have flared up. Based on a then-secret agreement, hosting U.S. military bases was a condition for the Philippines’ independence, granted in 1946. This was despite the widespread racist abuse by U.S. forces. In 1951, the Mutual Defense Treaty was signed. It has allowed for the continuation of American abuses perpetrated against Filipinos going back to the Spanish-American War.

    From West to East Asia, Austin’s commitment to military alliances is getting in the way of his stated goal of stamping out right-wing extremism. We can’t defeat at home what we are exporting abroad, from white supremacist settler aggression in the West Bank to gendered violence in Olongapo. His ironclad commitments keep no one safe and only secure the legacies of colonization and nuclear terrorism. To truly build peace and root out extremism in the ranks, Austin must embrace common-sense diplomacy and human-centered security.

    The post Right-Wing Extremism and The Cold War Go Hand-in-Hand first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The unstoppable Israeli U.S. armed military juggernaut continues its genocidal destruction of Gaza’s Palestinians. The onslaught includes blocking the provision of “food, water, medicine, electricity and fuel,” openly genocidal orders decreed by Netanyahu and his extreme, blood-thirsty ministers.

    The stunning atrocities going on day after day is being recorded by U.S. drones over Gaza and by brave Palestinian journalists directly targeted by the Israeli army. Over 66 journalists and larger numbers of their families have been slain. Israel has excluded foreign and Israeli journalists for years from Gaza.

    This no-holds-barred ferocity came out of the Israeli government’s slumber on October 7 which allowed a few thousand Hamas and other fighters to take their smuggled hand-held weapons and attack soldiers and civilians before being destroyed or driven back to Gaza.

    Seventy-five years of Israel military violence against defenseless Palestinians and fifty-six years of violently and illegally occupying their remaining slice of the original Palestine provides some background for Israel’s Founder, David Ben-Gurion’s candid statement: “We have taken their country.” (See, his full statement here.)

    The overwhelming military superiority of Israel – a nuclear armed nation – in the Middle East has produced a more aggressive Israeli government. Being more secure than ever before doesn’t seem to temper the expansionist missions of right-wing Israeli colonies in the West Bank.

    Presently, the narrow Netanyahu majority in the Parliament believes that “nothing can stop us.” Presently, they are right.

    Joe Biden and Congress are vigorously enabling the annihilations. The UN is frozen by the Joe Biden administration’s vetoes in the Security Council against ending the carnage in Gaza. The Arab nations either lay in ruins – Syria, Iraq – or are too weak to cause Israeli generals any worry. The rich Arab nations in the Gulf want to do business with prosperous Israel and, other than Qatar, care little about their Palestinian brethren.

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are no obstacle. Israel, along with Russia and the U.S. do not belong to the International Criminal Court. The Palestinian Authority is a party, but the practical difficulties of investigating Israeli war crimes in Gaza and apprehending the accused are insurmountable. The ICJ’s jurisdiction requires a country to bring Israel before the Court for war crimes or genocide. In any event, the Court’s lead-footed procedures trespass on eternity. So much for international law and the Geneva Conventions. Netanyahu rejects the moral authority of seventeen Israeli human rights groups, including Rabbis and reservist soldiers. Their open letter to President Biden in the December 13, 2023 issue of the New York Times on “The Humanitarian Catastrophe in the Gaza Strip” was ignored by the media despite the truth and courage it embodied.

    In the U.S., protests and demonstrations are everywhere. Many are organized by Jewish human rights groups such as Jewish Voice for PeaceIf Not NowStanding TogetherVeterans for Peace and various student organizations. Everywhere Biden travels there are people from all backgrounds protesting.

    A few days ago, the first protests by labor union members occurred in Oakland, California. Union activists could turn their attention to why, for years, union leaders put billions of dollars into riskier lower-interest Israeli bonds rather than U.S. Treasuries or bond funds investing in America. Like U.S. weapon deliveries, purchases of Israeli bonds by states, cities and unions have surged since October 7.

    Pope Francis, informed of the Israeli attack on the only Catholic Church and Convent in Gaza, which housed people with disabilities, killing and injuring Christians sheltering there, sorrowfully said: “Some would say, ‘It is war. It is terrorism.’ Yes, it is war. It is terrorism.”

    In 2015, over 400 Rabbis from Israel, the USA and Canada called on Prime Minister Netanyahu to stop the practice of demolishing hundreds of Palestinian homes as being contrary to international law and Jewish tradition. Their successors Rabbis for Human Rights are being ignored by the regime.

    The Head of the U.S. Bishops Conference and the National Council of Churches, representing millions of parishioners, condemned the bombings but received little coverage.

    There is only one institution that could stop Netanyahu’s mass military massacres of the Palestinian people. That is the U.S. Congress. As long as over 90% of the politicians there automatically support AIPAC, the Israeli Government Can Do No Wrong Lobby, even a peace-loving Joe Biden cannot deter Netanyahu. Bibi (his nickname) could simply say to a hypothetically transformed Biden “Joe, take it up with OUR Congress.”

    How has AIPAC achieved such domination on Capitol Hill? By years of relentless lobbying and the smear of “anti-semitism” to anyone defying them. AIPAC and its chapters don’t bother with marches or demonstrations. They personally focus on the legislator – one by one. Carrots or sticks. Praise, PAC money and junkets are the Carrots. The Sticks are smears and money for selected primary challengers in their Districts or States. Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) called AIPAC “a Hate Group.”

    There are about 300,000 citizens spending significant time back in the states working Congress in AIPAC’s favor. They know the doctors, lawyers, accountants, clergy, local politicians, donors, golf champions and other friends of the Senators and Representatives, and forcefully promote Israeli expansionism backed to the hilt by the U.S. government.

    AIPAC is proficient in part for lack of any organized opposition. It is also practicing state-of-the-art non-stop grassroots lobbying.

    Congress is poised to send $14.3 billion to Israeli militarism – a “genocide tax” on U.S. taxpayers – without public hearings. While growing public opinion in the U.S. is against unconditional backing of the Israeli regime, it has not changed a single vote in Congress. Someday, more organized support for America’s national interest will.

    (For calls to your legislators, the Congressional switchboard is 202-224-3121.)

    The post “Nothing Will Stop Us” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • NATO’s having won Finland as a member is the worst blow to Russia’s national security in decades, and it wouldn’t have happened if Putin had played his cards right. This fact will be explained here:

    No one is perfect; and, as I’ve explained elsewhere (such as here) I believe that Putin’s track-record during his now nearly 23 years of being the leader of Russia is vastly superior to that of any leader of any U.S.-and-allied country during any portion of that 23-year period. However, I shall explain here why I believe that Putin’s public-relations errors regarding his handling of Ukraine constitute a major flaw in his leadership-record and produced Finland’s becoming a NATO member — and potentially the most dangerous one to Russia in all of Europe.

    The most crucial thing to understand is why did Russia actually need to invade Ukraine? The answer is very simple (far simpler than Putin’s many and confusing statements about that). Putin’s many explanations never made clear the core reason: The U.S. Government has been planning to win a WW III by blitz-nuking The Kremlin so fast that Russia’s central command wouldn’t have enough time to press the button to launch its retaliatory missiles and bombers; and therefore immediately after that blitz-nuclear first-strike decapitation of Russia, the U.S. regime would be able entirely on its own schedule to then knock out virtually all of Russia’s retaliatory weaponry and so to win WW III with perhaps only a few million dead on its side and thus, finally, at long last, possessing (at a small enough cost in American lives so as to be attractive to the few individuals who actually control the U.S. Government) full control over Russia, which is the world’s most-natural-resources-rich country — which is why the U.S. regime was so set, for so long a time, on winning Ukraine as a NATO member. And this is also the reason why Obama finally grabbed Ukraine in 2014.

    The ideal place from which to launch that blitz attack against Russia would be Ukraine, because it has the nearest border to Russia’s central command in The Kremlin, which is only 317 miles (511 km) away from Ukraine — a mere five minutes of missile-flying time away — from Shostka in Ukraine, to Moscow in Russia. A mere five minutes away from decapitating Russia’s central command. That is the real answer to the crucial question of why did Russia actually need to invade Ukraine? Putin never clearly stated it, and never focused on it; and, so, in both Finland and Sweden (and throughout Europe), Russia’s essential defensive invasion of Ukraine was instead widely viewed as being aggressive not defensive: aggression against Ukraine, instead of defensive against America (which has controlled Ukraine ever since America’s February 2014 coup there). Thus, both Finland and Sweden (on the basis of that false impression) joined NATO, and American troops and weapons will be pouring into Finland even closer to The Kremlin than had previously been the case — almost as close as-if Ukraine DID join NATO. Maybe Ukraine will be kept out of NATO, but Finland, which is around 500 miles from The Kremlin, joined NATO largely because of Putin’s PR failure regarding his invasion of Ukraine.

    Just like in chess, the way to win the game is to capture the king, in war-strategy the way to win is to decapitate the opposite side’s leadership by capturing or disabling its Commander-in-Chief. The U.S. regime had started by no later than 2006 to plan for winning a WW III instead of to use its nuclear weapons only in order to work alongside Russia to PREVENT there being any WW III. During the George W. Bush Administration, neoconservatism became — and has remained since — bipartisan in both of America’s two political Parties. The only way that this “Nuclear Primacy” strategy can even conceivably be achieved would be via a blitz-nuclear attack beheading ’the enemy’.

    Russia has in place a “dead-hand” system to release, automatically-and-instantaneously after being beheaded, its entire arsenal against the U.S. and its colonies (‘allies’), but the system can’t be tested before it’s used; and, so, whether it would function (which would require all parts of the system to function as planned) can only be a huge question-mark. Moreover: even if it would work, Russia’s central command would already have been eliminated; and, so, the dead-hand system is a dooms-day system in any case: it wouldn’t protect Russia. At best, it will result in M.A.D.: Mutually Assured Destruction. And if it fails, then Russia would lose WW III.

    America’s capturing Ukraine, which it did in 2014 by Obama’s brilliantly successful coup that he hid behind anti-corruption demonstrations on Kiev’s Maidan Square, was intended to make it possible for America to checkmate Russia by positioning a missile in or near Shostka. This was why Putin had established as being a red line that America must not cross, Ukraine’s possibly becoming a NATO member.

    On 17 December 2021, Putin buried in two proposed treaties — one delivered to Biden and the other to NATO — his demand for America and its colonies never to allow Ukraine into NATO, and he did this as quietly as possible and failed to explain to the public why Russia could never tolerate a possibility that Ukraine would join NATO. His proposed two treaties buried the entire matter of Ukraine, and mentioned “Ukraine” only once, in the propsal to NATO, by saying, “All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.” He gave no hint of why Ukraine was the only nation that was singled-out to be named. Both of the proposed treaties were intended to be understood only by the recipients, not by any nation’s public. They weren’t written so as to make clear to the public what the motivation behind them was — though both of them could have been. Neither Biden nor NATO were willing to negotiate about anything in those two documents. There was just silence for three weeks, and neither of the two documents was published or discussed in the ‘news’-media. The Kremlin did nothing to facilitate access to the documents even to the press. Putin himself wanted it that way; he handled this as strictly a matter of private diplomacy, not at all of public relations, much less of helping the public to understand the Russian Government’s motivation behind the documents.

    Then, suddenly, and little reported or commented upon, on 7 January 2022, the AP headlined “US, NATO rule out halt to expansion, reject Russian demands” — every one of his demands. Putin now had no other option than to invade Ukraine to take it militarily so as to prevent any U.S. nuclear missile possibly becoming placed there — to do it BEFORE Ukraine would be already seriously on the road to NATO membership, because if he were to wait any longer, then it might already be too late — and there would then be zero chance once Ukraine would already be a NATO member.

    He invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

    He had done no public relations in order to help the publics in The West to understand WHY he invaded. His explanations seemed to have been intended to resonate ONLY to his fellow-Russians, NOT to any international audience.

    This was tragic because not only was Ukraine the MOST dangerous nation to be admitted into NATO, but the second-most dangerous nation to become a NATO member is Finland, which at Kotka is only 507 miles or 815 km. away from blitz-nuking Moscow (and that would be a 7-minute missile-flight-time away); and whereas Putin had done nothing in order to explain to their public that Ukraine was a unique and special case and that Russia at that time actually had no national-security worries about Finland, Finland’s public couldn’t see why he wouldn’t want to take their country too, now that Russia had invaded ‘democratic Ukraine’.

    As is normal for the U.S. regime and its agents, they had long been working upon the Finnish public in order to stir them to fear Russia; and polling is always one of the tools that it uses in order to manipulate public opinion in such a target-country. On 28 January 2022, Helsinki’s MTV News headlined (as autotranslated) “MTV Uutisten survey: Support for NATO membership has risen to 30 percent, opposition has clearly decreased – ‘It would be safer with the West’,” and reported:

    Opposition to NATO membership has decreased, while the position of more and more people is uncertain, according to a recent survey by MTV Uutisten. If Finland’s top management supported joining NATO, half of the Finns would already be on the side of NATO membership.

    Based on a survey conducted by MTV Uutisten, 30 percent of Finns support Finland’s application for NATO membership. 43 percent of those who responded to the survey oppose applying for membership, and 27 percent are unsure of their position. …

    The National Defense Information Planning Board (MTS) analyzed the support for NATO membership at the end of 2021. At that time, 24 percent of respondents supported applying for membership. More than half, or 51 percent, opposed applying for NATO membership.

    Since then, Russia has presented a list of demands to the West, which included, among other things, NATO’s commitment not to expand to the east. The concern for Europe’s security has been increased by the heavy military equipment that Russia has moved near the Ukrainian border.

    According to everyone, Russia’s actions are not yet so burdensome that they should apply to NATO. …

    In recent years, in NATO polls, support has typically been close to 20 percent and opposition over 50 percent.

    Based on the survey conducted now, the opposition is no longer as strong as before. In addition to the supporters of NATO membership, the number of undecideds has also increased. The difficulty of forming an accurate opinion is also evident in the comments. …

    In addition to the current NATO position, the respondents were asked whether Finland should apply for NATO membership if the top government was in favor of it.

    In this case, support for NATO membership rose from 30 percent to as much as  [NO — TO EXACTLY] 50 percent [saying that on this question they’d trust that the Government’s leaders would make the best decision on this matter]. 33 percent of the respondents chose not to answer, and 18 percent could not form their opinion.

    The majority of respondents would follow the government if it decided to join NATO.

    That was before Russia invaded Ukraine — a country that Finnish ‘news’-media had already long presented favorably against Russia and as being a victim of Russia’s opposing Ukraine’s ‘democratic revolution’ at the Maidan Square in February 2014. No Finnish news-medium existed that indicated this ‘democratic revolution’ to have been actually a U.S. coup. Finnish ‘news’-media had censored-out all of that actual history. When Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, Finns were therefore terrified, and the Finnish Government — right along with Sweden’s, which had similarly been worked on for decades by U.S. and its NATO agents — promptly requested NATO membership. On 16 September 2022, Gallup’s polling reported that 81% of Finns and 74% of Swedes approved of their country’s joining the NATO anti-Russian military alliance. Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, the figures had been almost the exact reverse.

    Presidential elections are expected to be held in Finland on Sunday, 28 January 2024, with a possible second round on Sunday, 11 February 2024. The leading candidate now is Alexander Stubb, who is one of Finland’s top CIA assets. In a 28 October 2023 campaign speech he said, “If I am elected president of the republic, I promise that Finland will support Ukraine as long as necessary. Ukraine is fighting for the whole civilized and free world – against oppression and tyranny. And that war it will win, has already won. Slava Ukraine! … Fortunately, Finland has now chosen its place. We are part of the alliance of Western democracies. The next president of the republic will literally be the international NATO president. … Our NATO path began to open with the Russian war of aggression. … I consider Russia’s attack on Ukraine to be the time of a new turning point in world politics.” (Actually, Obama’s 2014 coup in Ukraine was that.)

    But already, on 18 December 2023, Finland and the U.S. signed a Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA) enabling Washington to send troops there and store weapons and ammunition, up to and including nuclear weapons, at 15 locations in Finland. Drago Bosnik at South Front headlined “FINLAND’S NEW ‘DEFENSE’ DEAL WITH US EERILY REMINDS OF SIMILAR ONE WITH NAZI GERMANY”, and he wrote: “For Russia, this is particularly concerning, as Finland and Estonia, now both NATO members, are in close proximity to St. Petersburg, its second most important city.” However, St. Petersburgh isn’t actually a concern here any more than Miami was a concern when America in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis wouldn’t allow Soviet missiles to be posted in Cuba — Washington DC was the concern, and it was nearly a thousand miles farther away from Cuba than Moscow is from Ukraine. Similarly to JFK then, Russia’s worry now is how close Finland is to Moscow — not to St. Petersberg. And whereas Cuba was 1,131 miles away from DC, Finland is only 507 miles from Moscow. Putin never made clear that his concern regarding American nukes in Ukraine was the same as JFK’s was regarding Soviet nukes in Cuba — but twice as much so. If Putin had made that point clearly and often, then demagogues such as Stubb wouldn’t have been able to get the impact they did from phrases such as “Our NATO path began to open with the Russian war of aggression. … I consider Russia’s attack on Ukraine to be the time of a new turning point in world politics.” America has been the aggressor here — against Russia; Russia was by then forced, by America and by its NATO, to respond militarily, since all diplomatic efforts by Russia had been ignored by the aggressors. Just like JFK was not the aggressor in 1962, Putin was not the aggressor in 2022. Putin could easily have made that point, but he never did — he buried it in with a mess that in Western countries seemed like merely a blur. He handed the Russia-the-aggressor argument to America’s agents in Finland, and they ran with it and thereby easily succeeded to present Russia as the bogeyman, against which NATO represented safety. This was a major blunder by Putin — not just in Finland, but throughout The West.

    One might blame the Finnish (and Swedish) people for having fallen for what was actually the U.S. empire’s narrative on the Ukraine situation; but to do so would confuse the liars with their victims — the deceived public. For example: I personally submitted to all of Finland’s major ‘news’-media right after Finland’s Government expressed the intention to seek admission into NATO, arguing that to enter NATO would increase — NOT decrease — the danger to Finland’s national security, by causing Finland to thereby become targeted by Russia’s missiles (which had previously NOT been aimed at them); and all of those media refused even to reply — no questions or editorial suggestions, but simply refused to respond to or contemplate presenting a counter-argument. The Finnish public were never presented such an argument. Is that a ‘democracy’?

    Moreover: the same situation, of a widely deceived public falling into the grip of the U.S. empire and believing its lies, is widespread, not only within this or that nation. For example, on December 19th, the Danish peace-researcher and professor at Sweden’s Lund University, Jan Oberg, headlined at Dissident Voice, “How Much Longer Can Danes Snore While Their Security and Democracy are Being Stripped away and Danish Politics Increase the Risk of World War III?,” and he reported the very same trap being fallen-into by the Danes that Finns are falling into. Blaming this phenomenon on the victims, the public, instead of on the billionaires who have engineered and provided the trap (and who enormously profit from it), is simply more of the standard blame-the-victim morality.

    By this time, Putin ought to be well aware that it was a huge blunder. As I noted with concern on 28 October 2022, “NATO Wants To Place Nuclear Missiles On Finland’s Russian Border — Finland Says Yes”. His blunder was blatantly clear by that time. And I already had outlined, on 13 May 2022, “Russia’s Weak Response to Finland’s Joining NATO” and presented there a strategy to replace that weak response with a much stronger and entirely diplomatic strategy for Russia to terminate the NATO alliance. I am surprised that Putin still, even to the present day, has failed to initiate some such policy. His passivity in that regard is stunning.

    However, on 5 April 2023, since that proposed strategy wasn’t being even mentioned in the press by anyone but myself, I concluded that the time had come to lay out an alternative strategy, “Russia’s only safe response to Finland in NATO is to move Russia’s capital to Novosibirsk.” Whereas Finland (Kotka) is only 507 miles or 816 kilometers from Moscow, it is 2,032 miles or 3,271 kilometers from Novosibirsk.

    Furthermore: Novosibirsk is 2,716 miles or 4,372 kilometers from Japan (Hokkaido). And it is 2,371 miles or 3,815 kilometers from South Korea (Seoul). Placing Russia’s central command in Novosibirsk would eliminate the danger from the U.S. regime and its colonies.

    Obviously, if Russia’s capital city becomes relocated to Novosibirsk, then the Cold War (the danger that the U.S. empire poses to Russia) will effectively be ended. But Putin has initiated no new approach to addressing the problem that his own continuing blunder has largely assisted to cause to Russia’s national security.

    The post How Putin’s Explanation of Why Russia Invaded Ukraine Facilitated or Even Caused NATO to Win 2 New Members: Finland and Sweden first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • BREAKING: “Later this week, Denmark and the US will sign a defence cooperation agreement”

    It’s a damn good thing we have Washington to inform the Danes about what’s coming, right before Christmas when people are thinking about everything else.

    The procedure is completely obscene: An agreement is first signed (as with Norway, Finland and Sweden), and then it must (possibly) be approved by the Danish parliament: How on earth would it be possible for Denmark to withdraw and say that “thanks to our democracy, we unfortunately have to cancel the agreement again”?

    It’s not going to happen. Public debate until later this week? The Danish historically uniquely authoritarian government wants no debate – can’t tolerate it intellectually or morally.

    Two to four decades ago, this fundamental Danish security policy issue would have been the subject of a public, broad-based commission report that would have analysed the pros and cons of various imagined conflict and war scenarios.

    And then there would have been a reasonable public debate.

    Now, the Frederiksen government is fixing Denmark’s American future during the Christmas holidays. It’s completely irresponsible, but they don’t realise that; to them, everything is so damn simple.

    It can only go wrong one day. Even the failure of NATO’s expansion and the rearmament of Ukraine or other blind loyalty policies in favour of the US apparently doesn’t make anyone responsible stop and think.

    Danmarks Radio – DR public ‘service’ – of course only interviews one military person dressed in military uniform inside and outside. It doesn’t strike them that this man from the Danish Defence Academy is a clear party to the case, obviously positive, and certainly not an impartial expert.

    He has the nerve to say that American weapons should now be pre-stocked in Denmark because it would “take far too long to get things transported here from the US, says Anders Puck Nielsen.”

    Oh – and you find this out just like that now after Denmark’s 74-year NATO membership where the cornerstones have always been: No foreign bases, no foreign troops, no pre-storage, no nuclear weapons on Danish soil and no cooperation with the NATO nuclear planning group?

    All this will be cancelled over Christmas. Just so you know. As a trifle, an expedition case

    The journalists don’t ask questions but hold a megaphone; they don’t ask what this means: that the US can conduct “military operations in our neighbourhood, thereby improving our own security!” (my italics)

    Which operations? And how exactly do pre-stocking and these military operations in Denmark’s neighbourhood contribute to improving “our own security”? It’s clear-cut propaganda without the slightest analysis or relation to the real world. An empty claim.

    Whatever the US and the Frederiksen government do over people’s heads – in worse than Putin-style – is simply and by definition good for “our security”.

    In no time at all, I would be able to provide solid arguments that all of this increases Denmark’s insecurity, that it is much more complex and deserve analysis before any decision is made:

    That it shortens the warning and possible negotiation time in a crisis; that this is a further provocation that Russia will view negatively; that this agreement in its consequences will force Denmark into war earlier than otherwise and reduce the Danish government’s first duty: To enforce Denmark’s legal and political sovereignty and decision-making rights over its own future, etc. (The most important question for any government is: Should we or should we not participate in war?)

    Furthermore, that any US base – now 30-40 in the Nordic region? – will be an immediate target for Russian rockets in the first hours of a war, and death and destruction for miles around is guaranteed. That the US already has 600+ bases around the world and is a sick militaristic system that has lost all its wars and can never get enough weapons and bases.

    And that Denmark will be even less allowed to promote mediation, the UN, international disarmament, confidence-building measures, international law, etc. because it is, in practice, the extended arm of the US and not (in this area) a sovereign state.

    At DR, they have no idea how important this issue is. Or maybe someone is pulling the strings from above and doing it this way, precisely because they know that this is the biggest break with Danish foreign and security policy since 1949 and that critical questions about the US will not be raised with impunity.

    This agreement will be made with the most belligerent and mass-murdering country since 1945. At a time when that country is fully behind – actively supporting – what is indisputably the largest genocide in the West since the war.

    If you sleep in a democracy, you risk waking up in a dictatorship – as a wise man is said to have said.

    This is – I repeat – indecent and highly security-reducing. With 45 years of scientific experience in theory and practice in these areas, I know a little about these things. I must sound the alarm – even though I know that no Danish media, also not DR, would seek my and others’ critical analyses and perspectives.

    This is militarism. This is how the cancer-like MIMAC works – the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – which has never had such a tailwind in the West, in Denmark, as it has today.

    Danish policy promotes the risk of World War III at a time when anything else would be both conceivable and possible. Denmark is on the wrong side of history; the world wants a different path than that of the US. And Denmark.

    Now, every honest, peaceful Dane (regardless of their opinion on the matter as such) must simply take to the streets and protest against the government’s ever-increasing abuse of power and ever-increasing blind loyalty to the US as it continues to recklessly jeopardise Denmark’s future well-being.

    The post How Much Longer Can Danes Snore While Their Security and Democracy are Being Stripped away and Danish Politics Increase the Risk of World War III? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) sees the recent visit of US Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks to RAF Lakenheath, as further proof that Washington is preparing the Suffolk airbase to host new US nuclear weapons in Britain.

    RAF Lakenheath: hosting US nuclear weapons

    As the Canary previously reported, the US and UK governments and militaries are reportedly planning to allow American nuclear weapons to be stored at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) and West Suffolk Council have already put plans in place to develop the site – including a rapid airfield damage repair facilities (RADR), a child development centre, and a 144-bed dormitory.

    CND has already launched a legal challenge against the plans – but now, the visit of Hicks to RAF Lakenheath appears to confirm that the plans are still going ahead.

    Hicks’ tour included an inspection of “infrastructure improvements” at RAF Lakenheath. Among the works previously revealed in US Air Force budgetary documents are: upgrades to the special weapons hangers so they can store the new B61-12 guided nuclear bomb; rapid airfield damage repair facilities; and a 144-bed “surety dormitory” for US Air Force personnel. In US military terminology, the word “surety” is used to refer to the handling of nuclear weapons.

    CND has already challenged the planning rights used for the dormitory – which so far has not received an environmental impact assessment ahead of its planned construction next year. It believes that the construction of buildings at RAF Lakenheath for the purpose of a nuclear weapons mission poses an outstanding environmental risk. As the Canary previously reported, the group:

    claims the MoD and West Suffolk Council have failed to assess the environmental impact of potentially facilitating the weapons at the Suffolk airbase and has called on the MoD to halt development works at RAF Lakenheath while the necessary screening is carried out.

    In letters to the MoD and West Suffolk, CND says that under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2017 the development does not have permitted development rights which would allow it to go ahead.

    The work could go ahead without an environmental impact assessment if it was being carried out by or on behalf of the Crown but this does not apply since the building works are being done by and for the USAF, it is believed.

    Moreover, the presence of nuclear weapons will make the base – and the UK – a target in the event of nuclear war; it will also run the risk of an accident at the base prompting a nuclear incident.

    Making the UK a ‘nuclear target’

    CND condemns the UK government’s lack of transparency surrounding the siting of these weapons at RAF Lakenheath. It has refused to answer questions about the deployment of US nuclear weapons to Britain; about new construction work at the base; or about any safety measures in the event of a nuclear accident.

    CND general secretary Kate Hudson said:

    Kathleen Hicks’s visit to RAF Lakenheath is further proof that Washington intends to use Britain as a launch pad for its nuclear arsenal in Europe. The lack of transparency surrounding this deployment is shocking given how dangerous it is. Russia has already retaliated: it has stationed its own nuclear weapons in Belarus in response.

    A YouGov poll found that almost two thirds of the British public don’t want US nuclear weapons stationed here. That’s not surprising – they will make us a nuclear target. CND calls on the UK government to say that US nuclear weapons are not welcome in Britain.

    Featured image via U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Gaspar Cortez

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Direct action group Palestine Action has successfully managed to get a company to drop its association with one of Israel‘s largest arms manufacturers – directly complicit in its ongoing genocide in Gaza. It shows that, with perseverance, protest and direct action can bring about change.

    Palestine Action: holding iO Associates to account

    Palestine Action is a direct-action network of groups and individuals formed with the mandate of taking action against the sites of Elbit Systems and other companies complicit in Israeli apartheid, calling for all such sites to be shut down. When it launched in 2020, the network explained that:

    We have come together to promote civil disobedience and take direct action against the companies and institutions that Israel uses to violently enforce apartheid, occupation and colonisation on the people of Palestine.

    Now, after weeks of action the sole recruiters for the British operations of Israel’s largest weapons company, Elbit Systems, have confirmed via email to Palestine Action that they ended their association with Elbit on the evening of 29 November. For two months, activists in the Palestine Action network had disrupted iO Associates at their premises across the country, to impede their ability to recruit roles for Israel’s war machine.

    iO Associates recruited the likes of engineers, software developers, and finance staff for positions across the sites of the British branch of Israel’s largest weapons company, Elbit Systems.

    Elbit are the largest supplier to the occupation military, providing the vast majorities of its drones, munitions, surveillance gear, and parts for its tanks, jets, and precision missiles. From Britain specifically, they manufacture parts for Israel’s killer drones, along with weapons sights, tank parts, and more, exporting these technologies to Israel in great volume yearly. This is the nature of the business that iO was Associates with, and were IO Associates biggest client.

    Direct action working

    In response to their facilitation of Elbit’s criminal activities, iO’s offices were stormed and occupied in Manchester on 1 September, and again on 7 October. Activists painted iO offices red on 9 October in London, Reading, and Manchester:

    Palestine Action iO Associates

    They were forced to vacate their Manchester offices from 11 October, after the premises were also stormed by the Youth Front For Palestine, and then finally targeted in Edinburgh twice, on 11 and 17 October. After being forced to vacate their offices, having their online presence tarnished, and (as confirmed to us by former employees) losing their staff who resigned in opposition to their arms trade partnership, iO Associates have finally cut ties with Israel’s weapons trade.

    This is not the first success Palestine Action has had. As the Canary reported in December 2022:

    The minister of defence procurement Alex Chalk has confirmed that the government has ejected Elbit Systems from a £160m contract. The news follows significant third quarter losses for the Israeli weapons company, putting its future in the UK in doubt.

    All this is part of an expansive strategy by Palestine Action, by disrupting the suppliers and facilitators of Elbit’s presence in Britain. It has seen Elbit’s accountants (Edwards), haulage providers (Kuehne + Nagel), landlords (JLL) and many other complicit companies targeted, alongside the hundreds of actions at Elbit sites themselves, continuing to resist the presence of Elbit warmongers in Britain, and constantly reminding those associated with them that they have blood on their hands.

    As a result of iO Associates dropping Elbit Systems, the recruiters have been removed as a target of Palestine Action’s campaign. All targets who still facilitate Israel’s weapons trade are listed on elbitsites.uk

    Featured image and additional images via Palestine Action

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Activists have staged a ‘silent protest’ outside Barclay’s HQ in London. It was over the bank £1.3bn of shares in companies that supply arms and tech to Israel.

    Barclays: complicit in Israel’s genocide

    On Thursday 30 November, activists from Fossil Free London held a silent demonstration outside the headquarters of Barclays, to stand in solidarity with Palestine and in protest of Barclays investments in Israeli arms companies:

    Barclays protest Fossil Free London

    The protest comes as the humanitarian situation in Palestine worsens, as displaced Palestinians call for a permanent ceasefire.

    Signs read ‘Barclays profits from genocide’ and ‘Barclays profits from apartheid’, as protestors stood silently outside the offices dressed in black as staff walked in:

    An activist holding a sign
    Last year, whilst remaining the number one European bank financing fossil fuels since the Paris Agreement, Barclays also owned £1.3bn worth of shares in companies supplying Israel with weapons and military technology:

    Barclays protest Palestine

    The protest is part of a series of actions by Fossil Free London that attempt to demonstrate the interlinkages between the climate crisis and the situation in Palestine. Last week, they protested outside BP after Israel granted twelve gas exploration licences off the coast of Gaza to six companies, including BP, at the end of October.

    As the Canary previously reported:

    Amidst Israel’s ongoing bombing of Gaza, Israel granted twelve gas exploration licences off the coast of Gaza to six companies, including BP, at the end of October.

    BP not only received this licence but is also set to acquire 50% of the Israeli Delek Group-owned NewMed, who have also been granted a licence. NewMed owns 45% of Leviathan, the largest gas field in the Mediterranean, situated off the coast of Israel.

    Billions invested to kill Palestinians

    Joanna Warrington, a spokeswoman for Fossil Free London, said:

    As Israel continues its genocide on the people of Gaza, all the bosses of Barclays see is a business opportunity. Just as they continue to finance new fossil fuel expansion projects, banks like Barclays prop up violent arms and fossil fuel corporations with their investments.

    All the time that banks like Barclays profit from human suffering as they invest in violent and environmentally destructive practices we will be here to hold them to account. The climate movement stands in solidarity with Palestinians, and against fossil fuel banks operating with impunity to fund the arms and oil that kill en masse.

    Fossil Free London’s protest came after research released by Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT), and War on Want last year uncovered that Barclays holds over £1bn in shares and provides over £3bn in loans and underwriting to nine companies whose weapons, components, and military technology have been used in Israel’s armed violence against Palestinians.

    The companies identified include Elbit Systems, which produces military technology, surveillance systems and drones used in Israel’s attacks on Palestinians, including its bombing campaigns of the besieged Gaza Strip. A range of financial institutions have divested from Elbit Systems due to its role in producing weapons used in violation of international law, including internationally banned cluster munitions.

    Featured image and additional images via Fossil Free London

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Young people and other activists have taken action across the UK against property management company Fisher German, which is complicit in Israel‘s genocidal assault on Gaza and the Occupied Territories.

    Shut down Fisher German

    On Thursday 29 November, as part of an international call to stand with Palestine and take action against the arms industry supplying Israel, people across five cities in England rallied outside the respective offices of Fisher German to urge the property managers to evict Israeli-owned Elbit Systems and all its subsidiaries from Fisher German properties.

    This was London:

    The offices in London, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Newcastle were protested by groups comprised of ordinary people, trade unionists, healthcare workers, activists, and students. In Newcastle, demonstrators were able to get inside and crash the Fisher German offices:

    In all other cities the respective offices were shut down for the day, with employees told to stay home.

    This was Birmingham:

    Profiting from genocide in Palestine

    Fisher German are the landlords of UAV Engines, a subsidiary of Elbit Systems in Shenstone, Staffordshire. Elbit is Israel’s largest arms company, producing 85% of the Israeli military’s drones and 85% of its land-based military equipment. UAV Engines is responsible for producing the engines for Elbit’s Hermes 450 drone which is said to be the ‘backbone’ of Israel’s military drone fleet, used extensively in past wars on Gaza and is undoubtedly in use in the current Israeli assault.

    Elbit markets the Hermes 450 as ‘battle tested’ on the captive people of Gaza, a population of mainly children.

    Over 14,800 people have been killed by the Israeli military since 7 October, including 6,150 children, in what a former senior UN official has described as a “textbook case of genocide”.

    The Israeli assault on Gaza has targeted schools, hospitals, churches, mosques, and homes, with 60% of the housing stock in the Gaza Strip now destroyed and 1.8 million people displaced [3]. The Fisher German protests today are among many that have taken place over the country in recent weeks as activists draw links between British companies’ profits and the ongoing Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

    Erin, one of the campaigners who took part in the action in Manchester, said:

    Over 14,000 people have been killed in Gaza in the last several weeks, with many more also being killed and driven from their homes in the West Bank. British companies such as Fisher German might be based thousands of miles away from Palestine but they play a very real role in supporting Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. Whilst Fisher German continue making profit out of genocide, we will not stop.

    Featured image via Youth Front for Palestine

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On Monday 27 November, members of community union ACORN took simultaneous action against three companies across England, blockading their entrances to protest against their involvement in Israel’s ongoing assault in Gaza.

    ACORN: taking action against three arms companies

    ACORN is a community union with branches in 25 towns and cities across England and Wales. Known for mobilising people to resist evictions, fighting for rental reform, and with campaigns spanning public transport to community services to the cost of living crisis, ACORN brings people together to win on the issues affecting their communities. Read more about ACORN here. Now, it has turned its attention to Israel’s onslaught in Gaza and the Occupied Territories.

    In Birmingham, people linked arms and held banners to block the entrance of Meggitt. In Bristol, workers turned away as people blocked the entrance to Leonardo, as did workers at the offices of BAE Systems in Leeds. All of these companies manufacture or provide components and systems for military aircraft being used in the bombardment of Gaza:

    From housing to public transport to the cost of living crisis, ACORN brings people together to take action on the issues affecting our members and our communities. Nurses, shop workers, delivery drivers, carers, and parents come together and organise our communities to fight for what ACORN calls “a better quality of life; a dignified and comfortable life for all”.

    For that reason, it said it cannot stand by while the UK government that claims to act in people’s names, and companies in cities, in communities, encourage and profit from the widespread destruction of the lives of nurses, shop workers, delivery drivers, carers, parents, and children elsewhere in the world.

    Enough is enough

    More than 14,000 Palestinian people, up to half of them children, have been killed by the Israeli state since this war began. Nearly two million people have been displaced and more than 50% homes in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed.

    That’s why ACORN came together, it said, to stand with the people of Gaza, community to community, to say:

    Enough is enough! No to companies in our communities profiteering from the death of children! Ceasefire now!

    Criminal companies complicit in misery

    Chelsea Phillips, ACORN Chair, said:

    ACORN will not stand by while entire communities are obliterated, while ordinary people just like us are murdered in their tens of thousands by the Israeli government, with the support of our government and using horrific weapons of war built by British companies.

    The people running these companies are criminals, profiteers who grow rich from the death and misery of people who, but for an accident of birth could be our neighbours, our friends, our parents, our children.

    All ordinary people want and deserve the same things, no matter where we are in the world – safe, happy communities, where we can live with dignity and with hope for the future. These fundamental rights have been denied to the Palestinian people for too long.

    We believe that solidarity and the desire for justice are fundamental to being human. We stand with our brothers and sisters suffering in Gaza and beyond.

    We demand an immediate and lasting ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli military forces from Gaza and an end to the occupation of the Palestinian territories. We call on our government to proactively work towards a ceasefire and that all arms sales from British companies to Israel are halted.

    Speaking of the action, Workers in Palestine, a collective of 18 Palestinian Trade Unions, said:

    Decisive action against the arms trade with Israel such as that taken by ACORN are critical to ending Israeli impunity. In this difficult time, our hope is in international solidarity from trade and community unions. Keep on taking action and speaking up against injustice – together we can build a better world for all.

    Featured image via ACORN

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Negev Nuclear Research Center photographed by a U.S.
    reconnaissance satellite in 1968 Declassified Public Domain

    It’s one thing to burrow beneath the ground, digging to construct a tunnel for refuge, a passage of goods, or to store weapons during a time of war. It’s quite another to use one hand, as a small child, to try and dig your way out of the rubble that has collapsed upon you.

    Professor Mustafa Abu Sway, a professor based in Jerusalem, spoke sadly of the reality in Gaza where, he said, “one child dies every ten minutes.”

    “It was not the death of a child,” he said, ”but the survival of one, that made me really very, very sad.” He was speaking of a video which had emerged showing a child buried alive under rubble attempting to free herself with one hand.

    When we think of how to rescue suffering children from the unbridled carnage of numerous wars that have forced people to go underground, the vast network of tunnels built by the Vietnamese come to mind. To this day, tourists in Viet Nam visit a network of tunnels created by the North Vietnamese, extending from the outskirts of Saigon to the borders of Cambodia. Construction of these tunnels, used both for shelter and by soldiers, began during the French occupation of Viet Nam. Eventually, the complex system gave the North Vietnamese a form of leverage in their effort to fight against the United States military.

    Following the U.S. defeat in Viet Nam, weapon makers in the United States focused on developing  ordnance that could destroy underground tunnels and bases. Bombs like the Paveway (GBU-27) were used against Iraq in Operation Desert Storm where they were deployed on February 13, 1991 to attack the Amiriyah shelter in Baghdad. At that time, families in the Amiriyah neighborhood had huddled overnight in the basement shelter for a relatively safe night’s sleep. The smart bombs penetrated the “Achilles’ heel” of the building, the spot where ventilation shafts had been installed.

    The first bomb exploded and expelled 17 bodies out of the building. The second bomb followed immediately after the first, and its explosion sealed the exits. The temperature inside the shelter  rose to 500 degrees Celsius and the pipes overhead burst, resulting in boiling water that  cascaded down on the innocents who slept. Hundreds of people were burned alive.

    In Afghanistan, on April 13, 2017, The United States used a Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb nicknamed MOAB, the Mother of All Bombs, to destroy a network of tunnels in the Hindu Kush mountains. The United States had helped the Mujahideen construct these tunnels during their war against the Soviet Union in the late 1970s.

    The 21,000 pound MOAB, designed to destroy tunnel complexes and hardened bunkers, still affects the area where it was used.

    Locals say this harsh terrain has been haunted by a deadly, hidden hazard: chemical contamination. According to one local resident, Qudrat Wali, “All the people living in Asad Khel village became ill after that bomb was dropped.” The 27-year old farmer showed a journalist red bumps stretched across his calves and said, “I have it all over my body.” He said he got the skin disease from contamination left by the MOAB.

    When Wali and his neighbors returned to their village, they found their land did not produce crops like it had before “We would get 150 kilograms of wheat from my land before, but now we cannot get half of that,” he says. “We came back because our homes and livelihoods are here, but this land is not safe. The plants are sick and so are we.”

    One of the most alarming underground concentrations for massive destruction is located 53 miles from Gaza, where a complex now called the Shimon Peres Negev Nuclear Research Center has developed at least 80 thermonuclear weapons. First built in 1958, the facility underwent a major renovation just two years ago.

    “To this day,” writes Joshua Frank, “Israel has never openly admitted possessing such weaponry and yet has consistently refused to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit the secretive site.”

    A classic 1956 film depicting the horror of a Nazi concentration camp, Alain Resnais’s “Night and Fog,” contains narration that at one point addresses how the terrible sites will be seen in the future.  “Nine million dead haunt this countryside… We pretend that it could only happen once, in this place at that time… The icy water fills the hollows of the mass graves, while war goes to sleep, but with one eye always open.”

    Living as we do in a world where countries like the United States maintain a permanent warfare state, we must reckon with the horrific cost of war – and the obscene profits. The Merchants of Death War Crimes Tribunal notes that weapons makers’ stocks on Wall Street have risen 7% since the war started. Recognizing war never sleeps, we must keep our eyes wide open and acknowledge the horrendous toll as well as our responsibility to build a world beyond war.

    As much as we might long to grasp the hand of the child trying to free herself from underneath a collapsed building’s rubble, we need to imagine and long for the chance to grasp the hand of someone outside our own community, someone we’ve been taught to regard as an enemy or an invisible “other.”

    Writing these words from a safe, secure spot feels hollow, but in my memory I return to the pediatric ward of an Iraqi hospital when Iraq was under a siege imposed by U.S. and U.N. economic sanctions. Agonized and grieving, a young mother, her world crashing in on her, wept over the dying child she cradled. I came from the country that forbade medicine and food desperately needed by each of the dying children in this ward. “Believe me, I pray,” she whispered, “I pray that this will never happen to a mother who is from your country.”

  • This article first appeared in The Progressive.
  • This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Peace activists will meet in Cardiff this week to discuss the best way to end the ongoing conflict in Palestine and Gaza with an immediate ceasefire. Stop the War Coalition has organised the event.

    Stop The War Coalition: peace event in Cardiff

    Poet Patrick Jones, UNISON president Libby Noland, and MP Beth Winter will be among the speakers at the event on Wednesday 22 November at the offices of public services union UNISON in Cardiff.

    Stop the War Coalition has organised the meeting which aims to promote and expand the reach of existing peace networks in Wales and better link these networks to build the campaign for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Confirmed organisations attending the upcoming meeting include the Stop the War Coalition, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, UNISON, PCS, Undob, The Morning Star, Cymdeithas y Cymod, Welsh Labour Grassroots, and Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg.

    Going forward, organisers hope to promote the cause of peace in conflicts across the world by setting up a provisional Stop the War Cymru coordinating committee.

    The event is being held in UNISON House, Custom House Street, Cardiff at 6.30 pm on 22 November. Speakers include:

    • John Rees – National Officer Stop the War Coalition.
    • Betty Hunter – Honorary President Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
    • Libby Nolan – UNISON President.
    • Beth Winter MP/AS.
    • David Nicholson – Morning Star
    • Patrick Jones – Poet.
    • Mabon ap Gwynfor MS/AS.
    • Sam Alkarnaz – Palestinian UNISON activist.
    • Marianne Owen – PCS NEC member & Wales chairperson.
    • Jamal Elaheebocus – President Cardiff University Palestine Society.
    • Maggie Simpson – Welsh Labour Grassroots.
    • Owain Meirion – Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg.

    Israel’s actions will “not survive history”

    Stop the War national officer Rees said:

    The Palestine protest got rid of Suella Braverman. But Sunak is still ignoring calls for a ceasefire in Gaza and pushing ahead with a new ban on protest. So the Tory plan is to dump Suella Braverman and double down on her policy. Our plan is first Suella, then Sunak.

    Swansea cardiac nurse and UNISON president Nolan said:

    As a nurse, as well as president of UNISON, I find it hard to comprehend the anguish and suffering of my fellow health workers in Gaza. The ambulance workers who navigate badly bombed roads rushing from home to home to collect the injured. The health workers who struggle to treat the injured, when over a third of hospitals and two thirds of clinics have shut due to damage or a lack of fuel.

    UNISON demands an end to this needless loss of thousands of lives; we demand an immediate ceasefire.

    Stop the War activist and event organiser Dominic MacAskill said:

    Our political representatives need to recognise that the status quo is untenable.

    Military occupation, with a subjugated, walled-in population discriminated within an apartheid regime will not survive history.

    The international community needs to mobilise for a solution based on equality, so every person living between the river and the sea has the same rights irrespective of the nation-state configuration.

    Featured image via Wikimedia

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.