Category: Opinion

  • Our mace shaped COVID-19 enemy and its mutations merrily popping up around the United States, ironically has opened up new possibilities for inching beyond the grimy confines of industrial capitalism to new modes of work, learning and being that were initially promised by technocrats at the dawn of the Internet/World Wide Web. Indeed, the Pandemic of 2020-21 (Pandemic) revealed that remote education and work was feasible easing; for example, the pollution that filled the air with the exhaust from automobiles, buses, aircraft and idle factories.

    Further, telemedicine was catapulted from mere novelty to reality as the medical community realized that simple follow-up appointments did not require brick and mortar (B&M) office visits. Corporations like Amazon saved billions, according to CNBC, on travel expenses by halting the practice of needlessly sending employees to conferences and trade shows that could just as easily be conducted online. Families were forced to spend time together maybe getting to know one another better.  Businesses that survived during the Pandemic were forced to make hybrid arrangements for employees so they could care for their children while staying physically distanced from the workplace. Americans had time to think in isolation and perhaps, for a moment, they became bored with all the technological gadgets and networks that blur, rather than educate.

    Was it really all that bad? Can’t the nation wean itself off of industrial capitalism? Do we have to go back?

    Yes, no doubt, suffering was real. Millions went unemployed and the destruction wrought by the Pandemic was revealed in the numbers filing for unemployment claims, food assistance, rent/mortgage and student loan forbearance. Homelessness increased. Surplus labor skyrocketed. Indeed, according to the human resources consultancy Adeccogroup.com, the top five jobs set for the post-Pandemic chopping block are in higher education, sales, administration and office support, construction, air travel and the hospitality industry. What now?

    Never Forget

    It was in this that the Pandemic exposed the sheer ruthlessness of American industrial capitalist governance and its homicidal policies. Even as 500,000 Americans died from complications of COVID-19, Americans would watch as the US government—through its elected representatives, simply told the people to go pound sand. Watching the mostly wealthy entrenched ideologues in the US Congress bicker, or vacation, while COVID-19 was causing America to eat itself has to stand as one of the more sickening events in American history. Indeed, stock prices soared at many points during the Pandemic even as a modern day plague ravaged the land.

    No one should ever forget it.

    The Pandemic caused American government to buckle on its knees. It was a horrific structural failure and the wreckage is there for all Americans, and the world, to see. It is there in the COVID-19 KIA body counts, a flimsy healthcare system ravaged by privatization, logistical impasses in transporting vaccines and, in the midst of it all, the US Congress—while in session affirming the electoral vote count for president Joe Biden—was overrun by an ignorant mob. And now those at the apex of industrial capitalism, here in the United States, and those at the bottom of it, want to move back to the standard industrial model that has left a path of death, suffering and waste in its wake. “Build Back Better,” US president Joe Biden says. Back to what?

    Yes, our deadly friend COVID-19 showed that Americans are made of the stuff of ignorance, fear, complaint and irresponsibility. The Pandemic caused Americans not to adapt and put on a brave face, but rather exposed the flimsy myth of America as exceptional. Oh, first responders and frontline medical workers have great courage, of course, and so do many US soldiers that experience combat, but those individuals are small in number in a nation of 335 million people.

    It is strange that the Pandemic pushed the Internet/WWW to be used for what it was initially meant for: research, learning, work, and video/voice communication in a time of isolation. It was a far better use of the medium as opposed to  24 hours news casts, Tik-Tok videos and perpetual head-down positions required by the handhelds; all accompanied, of course, by loud, tractor-pull mutilated language or techno pop. With 100 places to turn for electronic stimulation— and the fear of missing a call, video or text—it’s no wonder attention spans for the young and old have become so irreparably damaged that recalling sentence number one at the end of a four sentence paragraph is a challenge of the highest order.

    Lobotomy Please, Not Reality

    But perhaps there is a ghost in the machine type of logic to it all. The network connected American has come to forget in the evening what was purchased in the morning. It is certainly good for business. History is what happens in the future, not the past. The past needs to be wiped away so the future can appear. The unintended use of the Internet/WWW and communications technologies/gadgets, have caused in-depth, critical thinking to be wiped away in the United States. The Pandemic has shown that Americans do not want to slow down or spend time apart from their handheld which is, of course, connected to the Internet/WWW.

    With the Internet—the cables, links, routers, switches and other machinery upon which content (voice, images, video, text, software) travels the World Wide Web, Americans became easily blinded into thinking that they were living out some novel, fantastical existence in a technologically sophisticated, forward thinking society. It was all cosmetic gloss, a techno-veil, one which we all donned because we really believed that by doing so we were moving in some direction to a sort of new American Nirvana.

    It is tempting to refer to the artsy-tech movie The Matrix and the scene where Morpheus shows Neo that the world he thought he knew has been destroyed. “Welcome to the world of the real,” Morpheus says as Neo looks on and goes into shock, vomiting.

    But the world of 2021 is no special effects movie.

    Americans are eager to get back to the way things were, in their world of the real. To get back on the road to commute to work/school; that is, increase pollution, vehicle accidents. To be relieved of parenting, that is, using schools/teachers as a babysitting service and prisons for prepubescent adolescents and/or maturing teenagers. Why does the United States want to rush back into the B&M model? Consider building construction, or, better still, phrase it as building empty, wasteful spaces. Elementary and high school buildings remain largely empty during a 24/7, 12 month cycle (after hours they remain largely vacant). The sports fields, running tracks and basketball courts that accompany each structure are only partially used. The same can be said for sky-scraping office buildings that, over the same 24/7 hour, 12 month cycles, remain empty. Meanwhile, taxpayer funded sports stadiums are never fully used. It is reminiscent of cathedrals and mosques built at great expense on the backs of the poor that become tourist attractions more than places of worship. Or think about military bases, factories and housing projects abandoned, rotting away. These are the wasteful byproducts of industrial capitalism still existing and perpetually constructed in what is wistfully called “The Information Age.”

    The Human Condition has hardly changed at all.

    Warehouses for the Young

    The Pandemic showed that the Internet—those land, seafloor and space-based communications networks, combined with the content and software of the World Wide Web (WWW), could be effectively used to teach students online, at home, and in virtual classrooms. As it is, America warehouses K-20 students; separating, or rather protecting them, from the messy society adults have created. Students are taught — what exactly? How to master a college entrance exam? To memorize Algebraic equations they will forget in a year?

    The Pandemic of 2020-21, showed just how archaic B&M education is. Let’s face it, isn’t distance learning/work the way the United States was supposed to evolve even minus COVID-19?

    Prognosticators claimed the greatest technological powerhouse on the planet was going to push ahead building pipelines to carry and host vast stores of knowledge content via the Internet and WWW for learning. No more bulky, out of date textbooks. Students, parents, teachers and local-state-federal government officials (in that order) would work together to develop an educational plan based on the student’s primary interests which would likely be demonstrated by 12th grade, perhaps, with second and third interests in the pipeline if the student’s subject matter area changed.

    Course tracks would be customized by downloading, largely free, content from the WWW. The teacher would become more like a tutor and the student would have many of them with perhaps a learning coordinator/advocate constantly tweaking the course menu. Since performance data on students in K-12 in the USA is tracked anyway; for example—including absent/sick days, suspensions and legal problems— career path/trend analyses based on grades and other statistics could be implemented to assist the student in selecting a field of study-employment.

    Chained to the Bicycle Rack

    “It’s nice to know things. I like to know things. You like to know things,” said Professor David Perkins of Harvard University in the 2015 issue of Harvard Ed Magazine. “But there are issues of balance, particularly in the digital age. The information in textbooks is not necessarily what you need or would like to have at your fingertips…Conventional curriculum is chained to the bicycle rack…It sits solidly in the minds of parents: I learned that. Why aren’t my children learning it? The enormous investment in textbooks and the cost of revising them gives familiar elements of the curriculum a longer life span than they might perhaps deserve. Curriculum suffers from something of a crowded garage effect: It generally seems safer and easier to keep the old bicycle around than to throw it out…the life worthiness of the multitudinous facts and ideas in the typical curriculum is spotty, it seems not to have been thought through very carefully.”

    It is often necessary to visit the past for a solution to the present. Consider the following from 1971. It is excerpted from Between Two Ages: The Technetronic Era, by Zbigniew Brzeziński.

    The following would be a good start for Americans to set about changing their views of learning, working and being.

    In America higher education is carried on within a relatively self-­contained organizational and even social framework, making for a protracted period of semi­-isolation from problems of social reality. As a result, both organizationally and in terms of content, a divorce between education and social existence has tended to develop…extending education on an intermittent basis throughout the lifetime of the citizen, society would go a long way toward meeting this problem. The duration of the self­-contained and relatively isolated phase of initial education could then be shortened. Taking into account the earlier physical and sexual maturation of young people today, it could be more generally pursued within a work ­study framework, and it should be supplemented by periodic additional training throughout most of one’s active life.

    A good case can be made for ending initial education—more of which could be obtained in the home through electronic devices, somewhere around the age of eighteen. This formal initial period could be followed by two years of service in a socially desirable cause; then by direct involvement in some professional activity and by advanced, systematic training within that area; and finally by regular periods of one and eventually even  two years of broadening, integrative study at the beginning of every decade of one’s life, somewhere up to the age of sixty. For example, medical or legal training could begin after only two years of college, thus both shortening the time needed to complete the training and probably also increasing the number attracted into these professions. Regular and formally required retraining—as well as broadening—could ensue at regular intervals throughout most of one’s professional career.

    By now you are wondering: So what is my solution? I don’t have an adequate response to that question, but I do know that national and transnational cultural education has to be connected to any answer or plan that sets America—and the world, for that matter, on a path to a post-industrial capitalist society. The country isn’t even close to it now. The Pandemic has shown that. It just does not seem likely that returning to the industrial capitalist, B&M norm—or the model of governance as it is run by officials now in power—will move the country any closer to change. The wars go on, weapons are more lethal and will soon be operated by AI programs, racism still exists, ignorance is bliss, corporations are people, pollution continues, wasted spaces are good for business, and education is awash in a mishmash of learning methodologies, software applications and a war between parents, teachers and administrators.

    Perhaps—like the US military as it seeks to stand down to contemplate the problem of extremism in its ranks—American civil society needs to stand down for some period of time to reassess learning, work and being.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • ANALYSIS: By David Welch, University of Auckland; Jemma Geoghegan, University of Otago; Joep de Ligt, ESR, and Nigel French, Massey University

    New variants of SARS-CoV-2 have now evaded New Zealand’s border protections twice to spread into the community.

    In the most recent outbreak on Sunday, which placed Auckland into an alert level 3 lockdown, there are three active community cases of the more infectious B.1.1.7 lineage.

    While we have seen the virus mutate over the entire course of the pandemic, it was not until mid-December 2020 that variants with measurably different behaviour emerged.

    There are several reasons for this, including the continued exponential rise in cases globally. Every covid-19 case gives the virus a chance to mutate, and if the number of infections continues to rise, more new variants are likely to emerge.

    Pressure to mutate
    The genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 is a string of RNA of about 30,000 bases, or letters. When the virus enters our cells, it hijacks them to make thousands of copies of itself, but the copying process is not perfect.

    Mistakes, or mutations, happen on average once every couple of weeks in any chain of transmission. Most are changes in a single letter and don’t result in a notable difference, but some will change the physical form of the virus, with possible knock-on effects to how the new variant behaves.

    We know about these variants thanks to the sequencing efforts from different countries and their open sharing of this knowledge. The variants that have arisen recently — known as B.1.1.7 (first identified in the UK), B.1.351 (identified in South Africa) and P.1 (identified in Brazil) — all have a large number of mutations that have physically altered the virus.

    Graph showing the rise in new variants of the virus that causes COVID-19
    This graph shows the frequency of SARS-CoV-2 sequences deposited on the global database GISAID (visualised by Nextstrain). The three ribbons at the bottom right correspond to variants P.1 (red, also known as 501Y.V1), B.1.1.7 (orange, also known as 501Y.V2), and B.1.351 (yellowy-orange, also known as 501Y.V1). Graphic: Nextstrain, CC BY-SA

    A number of these changes are on the outside of the virus, in the spike proteins it uses to infect cells. Such changes can also undermine our immune system’s ability to detect these new versions of the virus when it has only seen the old version.

    The most obvious reason why new variants have been emerging recently is that the number of global cases increased massively in the last quarter of 2020. There were about 35 million cases recorded worldwide in the first nine months of 2020, but it took just two months to double that number. We are well on the way to doubling that number again soon.

    Evading rising levels of immunity
    A second reason is that the virus is responding to immunity that has started to build up in the population. Our immune system plays an important role in driving which mutations survive and are transmitted.

    The immune system is constantly trying to identify and kill the virus, which can only infect new people if it escapes detection. While mutations occur randomly, ones that lead to a more transmissible variant or those that escape our immune system are preferentially selected and more likely to persist.

    The mutations that characterise B.1.1.7, B.1.351 and P.1 have been shown to spread faster (especially B.1.1.7) and initial evidence points to a difference in the immune response (though not in B.1.1.7).

    Another indication that immunity plays a big role is that the B.1.351 and P.1 variants came to prominence in areas with large first waves of COVID-19 where the population developed higher levels of immunity.

    Lights as a tribute to victioms of COVID-19 in Brazil
    Special lighting will honour victims of covid-19 during the cancelled carnival period in Rio de Janeiro. Image: Wagner Meier/Getty Images

    P.1 was identified in Brazil where up to 70 percent of the population were infected during the first wave. B.1.351 quickly became the dominant strain in the Eastern Cape region of South Africa which was similarly hard hit.

    The new variants could infect a greater number of people than the original wild type of the virus, which might infect only people who had never been infected before.

    This is one of the reasons why historically herd immunity for a new virus has not occurred through “natural disease progression” but only through vaccination.

    The final part of the story is the fact that two of these variants (B.1.1.7 and P.1) differ by as many as 25 mutations from the closest known SARS-CoV-2 sequences. This is very unusual given that most viral sequences we see are within just a few mutations of others.

    Such a rapid increase in diversity has been observed in chronic covid-19 infections in immunocompromised hosts. Most people are ill for a week or two, but a few have to fight the disease for months. During that time, the virus continues to evolve, sometimes very quickly as a weakened immune system presents all sorts of challenges to the virus but fails to kill it off.

    This kind of infection presents a “training ground” for the virus, as it continually adapts.

    Will we see more new variants?
    As long as the virus is around, it will continue to mutate. With vaccine protection and natural immunity in a growing number of people, there is greater pressure on virus variants that evade our immune defences.

    The rate of new mutations varies greatly between viruses. The overall mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2 is about half that of the influenza virus and much slower than HIV. But the overall mutation rate doesn’t tell us everything. What really matters is the rate of mutations that physically alter the virus.

    There is some early evidence this rate is about the same in SARS-CoV-2 as in influenza viruses. One reason for this is that SARS-CoV-2 has only recently jumped to people and is not yet “optimised” to spread in humans.

    Essentially the original virus was only a few mutations away from better fitness, and there may be further easy changes that could make it even better adapted to humans. Once the virus is through this initial adaptation phase, there will be fewer opportunities for easy, fitness-improving changes and new variants may appear less frequently.

    The variants that have been characterised so far are likely only a small subset of those in circulation. It is no coincidence they are known from countries with comprehensive sequencing programmes (notably the UK).

    But the new variants are not the main driver of transmission globally. Most of the world is still susceptible to any variant of SARS-CoV-2, including the original version. The protective measures we have used successfully in Aotearoa to control the virus continue to work for any variant.

    The best way to protect against all current variants and to prevent the emergence of further variants is to drive down the number of cases through ongoing control measures and vaccination.The Conversation

    Dr David Welch, Senior Lecturer, University of Auckland; Dr Jemma Geoghegan, Senior Lecturer and Associate Scientist at ESR, University of Otago; Dr Joep de Ligt, Science Lead Genomics & Bioinformatics, ESR, and Dr Nigel French, Professor of Food Safety and Veterinary Public Health, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ANALYSIS: By David Welch, University of Auckland; Jemma Geoghegan, University of Otago; Joep de Ligt, ESR, and Nigel French, Massey University

    New variants of SARS-CoV-2 have now evaded New Zealand’s border protections twice to spread into the community.

    In the most recent outbreak on Sunday, which placed Auckland into an alert level 3 lockdown, there are three active community cases of the more infectious B.1.1.7 lineage.

    While we have seen the virus mutate over the entire course of the pandemic, it was not until mid-December 2020 that variants with measurably different behaviour emerged.

    There are several reasons for this, including the continued exponential rise in cases globally. Every covid-19 case gives the virus a chance to mutate, and if the number of infections continues to rise, more new variants are likely to emerge.

    Pressure to mutate
    The genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 is a string of RNA of about 30,000 bases, or letters. When the virus enters our cells, it hijacks them to make thousands of copies of itself, but the copying process is not perfect.

    Mistakes, or mutations, happen on average once every couple of weeks in any chain of transmission. Most are changes in a single letter and don’t result in a notable difference, but some will change the physical form of the virus, with possible knock-on effects to how the new variant behaves.

    We know about these variants thanks to the sequencing efforts from different countries and their open sharing of this knowledge. The variants that have arisen recently — known as B.1.1.7 (first identified in the UK), B.1.351 (identified in South Africa) and P.1 (identified in Brazil) — all have a large number of mutations that have physically altered the virus.

    Graph showing the rise in new variants of the virus that causes COVID-19This graph shows the frequency of SARS-CoV-2 sequences deposited on the global database GISAID (visualised by Nextstrain). The three ribbons at the bottom right correspond to variants P.1 (red, also known as 501Y.V1), B.1.1.7 (orange, also known as 501Y.V2), and B.1.351 (yellowy-orange, also known as 501Y.V1). Graphic: Nextstrain, CC BY-SA

    A number of these changes are on the outside of the virus, in the spike proteins it uses to infect cells. Such changes can also undermine our immune system’s ability to detect these new versions of the virus when it has only seen the old version.

    The most obvious reason why new variants have been emerging recently is that the number of global cases increased massively in the last quarter of 2020. There were about 35 million cases recorded worldwide in the first nine months of 2020, but it took just two months to double that number. We are well on the way to doubling that number again soon.

    Evading rising levels of immunity
    A second reason is that the virus is responding to immunity that has started to build up in the population. Our immune system plays an important role in driving which mutations survive and are transmitted.

    The immune system is constantly trying to identify and kill the virus, which can only infect new people if it escapes detection. While mutations occur randomly, ones that lead to a more transmissible variant or those that escape our immune system are preferentially selected and more likely to persist.

    The mutations that characterise B.1.1.7, B.1.351 and P.1 have been shown to spread faster (especially B.1.1.7) and initial evidence points to a difference in the immune response (though not in B.1.1.7).

    Another indication that immunity plays a big role is that the B.1.351 and P.1 variants came to prominence in areas with large first waves of COVID-19 where the population developed higher levels of immunity.

    Special lighting will honour victims of covid-19 during the cancelled carnival period in Rio de Janeiro. Image: Wagner Meier/Getty Images

    P.1 was identified in Brazil where up to 70 percent of the population were infected during the first wave. B.1.351 quickly became the dominant strain in the Eastern Cape region of South Africa which was similarly hard hit.

    The new variants could infect a greater number of people than the original wild type of the virus, which might infect only people who had never been infected before.

    This is one of the reasons why historically herd immunity for a new virus has not occurred through “natural disease progression” but only through vaccination.

    The final part of the story is the fact that two of these variants (B.1.1.7 and P.1) differ by as many as 25 mutations from the closest known SARS-CoV-2 sequences. This is very unusual given that most viral sequences we see are within just a few mutations of others.

    Such a rapid increase in diversity has been observed in chronic covid-19 infections in immunocompromised hosts. Most people are ill for a week or two, but a few have to fight the disease for months. During that time, the virus continues to evolve, sometimes very quickly as a weakened immune system presents all sorts of challenges to the virus but fails to kill it off.

    This kind of infection presents a “training ground” for the virus, as it continually adapts.

    Will we see more new variants?
    As long as the virus is around, it will continue to mutate. With vaccine protection and natural immunity in a growing number of people, there is greater pressure on virus variants that evade our immune defences.

    The rate of new mutations varies greatly between viruses. The overall mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2 is about half that of the influenza virus and much slower than HIV. But the overall mutation rate doesn’t tell us everything. What really matters is the rate of mutations that physically alter the virus.

    There is some early evidence this rate is about the same in SARS-CoV-2 as in influenza viruses. One reason for this is that SARS-CoV-2 has only recently jumped to people and is not yet “optimised” to spread in humans.

    Essentially the original virus was only a few mutations away from better fitness, and there may be further easy changes that could make it even better adapted to humans. Once the virus is through this initial adaptation phase, there will be fewer opportunities for easy, fitness-improving changes and new variants may appear less frequently.

    The variants that have been characterised so far are likely only a small subset of those in circulation. It is no coincidence they are known from countries with comprehensive sequencing programmes (notably the UK).

    But the new variants are not the main driver of transmission globally. Most of the world is still susceptible to any variant of SARS-CoV-2, including the original version. The protective measures we have used successfully in Aotearoa to control the virus continue to work for any variant.

    The best way to protect against all current variants and to prevent the emergence of further variants is to drive down the number of cases through ongoing control measures and vaccination.The Conversation

    Dr David Welch, Senior Lecturer, University of Auckland; Dr Jemma Geoghegan, Senior Lecturer and Associate Scientist at ESR, University of Otago; Dr Joep de Ligt, Science Lead Genomics & Bioinformatics, ESR, and Dr Nigel French, Professor of Food Safety and Veterinary Public Health, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • We made it. These are the words on every teacher’s mind this week.

    Having ‘made it’ refers to getting through to the half term break. It’s a week of no lessons after one of the most trying half terms of most teachers’ careers. Of course, there will be plenty to do (half terms are often just catch up weeks) but it’s a joy to have some mental distance from the intensity of home learning and online teaching. It’s also a time when I will be able to properly limit my contact with other people – a luxury I have not been afforded throughout this lockdown.

    School attendance and entitled parents

    Which takes me on to an issue that has been plaguing my mind over the last few weeks: school attendance.

    While most children are learning from home, a significant number of children are in school. Many vulnerable children rightfully have a place in an environment where they can hopefully feel safe and secure for a few hours. Any decent teacher would not begrudge them a place. It’s part of our duty to help the most vulnerable and try to widen the opportunities of those from the harshest backgrounds.

    However, worryingly, there are a number of rather entitled parents who feel that their children should be in school no matter what. I’m talking, in the most part, about certain privileged people (and it almost always is the middle class parents) who feel their work is ‘essential’ when it really is not. I’ve had requests from: a BBC journalist who normally works from home, housewives in million pound houses, fashion designers, and architects. Yet cleaners, police officers, nurses, plumbers, and electricians have not requested a place. It seems that the guidance is just too wide and too open to abuse.

    Parents getting smarter at playing the game

    During the first lockdown, the list of ‘key workers’ wasn’t exactly narrow. Financial services were listed and I had a pawnbroker demanding a place. The guidance was very clear that both parents must be unable to work from home to allow for school based provision. That has not changed at my school. However, some parents have also become far smarter at playing the game. Previously, my school had around 30 children in from a possible 550. Now, almost 150 kids are attending every day. It seems quite a few parents are taking it far less seriously than before, risking not only the families of teachers but entire communities.

    The government has allowed this situation to happen and must take responsibility. However, certain individuals should be taking a hard look at themselves and the possible consequences of their actions. With no news on vaccinations for teachers and a touted schools reopening date of 8 March, where is the protection for school staff and our families?

    I do hope that we can all get back to full classrooms soon, but the more we mix in large groups, the less chance there is of that happening. So, this is a plea from a teacher: if you have a child and can work from home, please do. You’ll be helping us all in the long run.

    Featured image via Wikimedia/LabPluto 123

    By The Secret Teacher

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • As the doctor approached with his scalpel and began performing ritual genital mutilation, I complained as loudly as an eight pound body is able, but my cries fell upon deaf and unsympathetic ears.  Then They destroyed my first line of defense against disease-causing toxins by ripping out my tonsils and adenoids, and once again no one heeded my screams of agony.  Then a white-coated monster called a dentist drilled away my new strong teeth, replacing vast enameled swaths with a lead-like substance.  Then other white coats brought out the needles, and the “jab”, all too often followed by bouts of fever and vomiting, became routine.  Behind my sobs of pain was a growing suspicion that there was an agenda to wreck my health or kill me.

    But those were also times of prosperity and hope.  The second war to end all wars was history, and my parents bought a new house in Phoenix, Arizona.  Three bedrooms, two baths, and a family room…all wrapped up in a package painted with lead-based colors, insulated with asbestos, and financed by a loan from a bank with money created out of thin air, to be repaid with interest over the next 30 years.  So while They sprayed the surrounding citrus, grape, and cotton fields with DDT, stunted my intellect with regimented memorization of useless verbiage in a prison camp called “school”, and added fluoride to the water supply, I managed to grow to a size approximating that of an adult.

    It was 1960 when, at the age of eleven I became a financially semi-independent paperboy.  When the next jab was scheduled, I balked, then refused further vaccines.  Schooling (an activity designed for fish) became evermore unbearable, and I became some semblance of what humans were meant to be:  fearless, free, strong, and joyous.  A rebellious danger to society in the making.  A decade or so later, after three tortuous semesters of college, I quit showing up.  This triggered a 1A Selective Service classification, a draft notice, a refusal of induction, a federal felony charge, and “just punishment” for my unreasonable hesitancy to become a murderous slave to those who claim authority.

    60 years later or one year ago, with the lion’s share of my life behind me, it was beginning to look like the slide into the Homeplate of eternity might be made with confidence and ease.  I’d known love many times, fathered a beautiful daughter, then embraced a grandson.  My senses had beheld a great deal of the splendor of the world.  I’d resisted the insane antics of the ruling class, understood their agenda of endless wars, had immediately seen through the 9-11 fraud, and attempted to vaporize them in words without mercy.  I was at peace and without regrets.  Then came the scam to end all scams.  The scam which would completely sedate the huddled masses, rendering them and all progeny impotent and servile for the foreseeable future.  The perfect scam, complete with an invisible and imaginary enemy.  An enemy which was presented with precise timing and perfectly coordinated worldwide orchestration by the suits and ties, media whores, and white coats who announced loudly, clearly, and oh so often that there was only one road to salvation.  There was only one way forward They said.  Take the vaccine or die They said.  Mask up, don’t gather, sing, shake hands, kiss, make love, or talk.  Stay indoors, close your businesses, obey!  Oh crap, this can’t be good said my little voice.  Homeplate will have to wait a while.  There’s a job to be done.  No grandson of mine will grow up in the brave new world of Covid-1984.

    There is a conspiracy which is much more than a theory.  A vast and evil conspiracy to decimate the world population and enslave those who remain.  They Live.  Whether or not “They” are alien lizards or actual psychopathic humans is a conversation somewhat irrelevant at this juncture.  “They” must be stopped, and sooner rather than later.  Sand in the hourglass of freedom is on the move.  “They” have had many names throughout history, and it seems that “They” have been around for a very long time.  Their names have grown in number over the years, but their disdain for the common folks remains.  To them, we are mere resources to be harvested, and with their new military grade 5G radio frequencies combined with technological breakthroughs have rendered the common folks superfluous and expendable.  But we do make excellent lab animals.  Listen!…

    They control worldwide:  land, water, governments, money creation, healthcare, schools, food, energy, transportation, information, armies and police departments.

    They thought nothing of precipitating the great wars of the twentieth century, didn’t blink an eye when their experimental vaccines caused a pandemic that snuffed as many as one hundred million lives with what was strangely called The Spanish Flu.  They celebrated all of the assassinations of the 60’s, frolicked in the power of atomic bombs, enjoyed a sense of fulfillment on 9-11-2001, and are now finding perhaps ultimate satisfaction in the apparent complete success of The Covid-1984 Plandemic.

    They are destroying your world so they can “Build back better.”  U.N. Agenda 21 for sustainable development is real.  Event 201 foretold the Covid-1984 Plandemic only months before the big reveal.  The Great Reset is resetting.  The Fourth Industrial Revolution (the digital revolution) is here now.  You are a resource at best; a hindrance and liability more likely.

    They plan to usher you into human settlements where you will be linked to a population control grid and fed a diet of augmented reality and bioengineered food-like substances to keep you mooing contentedly.  Physical money will disappear.  Your cellphone will betray you.  Your flat screen will create your reality.  Your neighbor will police you, as you rat on him.

    They transformed healthcare a century ago with needle-administered nouveau snake-oil “vaccines” and oil-based “treatments” designed to exacerbate vaccine damage, thereby creating a need for new treatments which are usually equally toxic…and so on.  They said Pasteur (germ theory) was truth and Bechamp (terrain theory) was quackery.  They used their allopathic model to sicken the world population at an ever-increasing rate, and in 1986 received complete immunity from damages caused by vaccines.  They successfully shut down all contrary conversation and said that the science was fixed.  That should have been a clue.

    They don’t want you to be healthy.  Healthy people don’t take their vaccines or treatments, don’t attend their schools designed to create obedience, mediocrity and uniformity, don’t eat their toxic, genetically modified and patented Frankenfoods, and don’t swallow the swill dished out by their dinosaur media.  They despise humans who exercise in the sunlight and eat organic foods, and hate folks who love, laugh, play, mock them, and disobey.  They need to be stopped once and for all, and if you don’t have that figured out by now, may the gods have mercy.  At least you’re not alone.  Those who pretend to sleep are many, and nearly impossible to awaken.

    They shudder in fear when their official narrative is questioned, and fiercely censor all opposition.  They are the state merged in the throes of passion with private corporations.  They are fascists in every sense of the word, and must be stopped before their mass-culling of the herd goes any further.  The vaccine scam has already killed or damaged unknown millions of hapless victims.  They are the Democrats and Republicans at the top of the dung heaps.  They are the old families; the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Carnegies, and Fords.  They are the newbie technocratic clans; the Gates’, Zuckerbergs, and Bezos’.  They are Facebook, Google, Amazon, and The New York Times.  They are the enemies of mankind and the destroyers of freedom, and they have created a case of worldwide Stockholm Syndrome. They orchestrated and financed the revolutions which resulted in the rise of the U.S.S.R. and the C.C.P. as models for the U.S.A., which is being retooled to become just another big totalitarian state as we speak.

    If you know all of this, and are participating in their plan, then their success is assured.  If you are wearing a muzzle and speaking Mumblish, if you are eschewing hugs and handshakes, if you are practicing social distancing, and if you are jumping through all these ridiculous hoops fully aware that the Covid-1984 Plandemic is a fraud and a lie…then you are worse than the masses of hapless, hypnotized victims of Operation Mockingbird, which must comprise 95% of the U.S. population.  They know not what they do, and must be shown the way…if there still is a way.  All we can do at this point is lead by example.  Burn masks, hug your friends, exchange saliva with those most dear, and learn the power of NO!  Freedom isn’t quite dead yet, although its demise has been widely reported.  Hope is the best of things said Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption, but it must be backed up by action.  Hasta la victoria siempre!

    The post A Time for Love and Civil Disobedience first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • by John R. Hall / February 15th, 2021

    As the doctor approached with his scalpel and began performing ritual genital mutilation, I complained as loudly as an eight pound body is able, but my cries fell upon deaf and unsympathetic ears.  Then They destroyed my first line of defense against disease-causing toxins by ripping out my tonsils and adenoids, and once again no one heeded my screams of agony.  Then a white-coated monster called a dentist drilled away my new strong teeth, replacing vast enameled swaths with a lead-like substance.  Then other white coats brought out the needles, and the “jab”, all too often followed by bouts of fever and vomiting, became routine.  Behind my sobs of pain was a growing suspicion that there was an agenda to wreck my health or kill me.

    But those were also times of prosperity and hope.  The second war to end all wars was history, and my parents bought a new house in Phoenix, Arizona.  Three bedrooms, two baths, and a family room…all wrapped up in a package painted with lead-based colors, insulated with asbestos, and financed by a loan from a bank with money created out of thin air, to be repaid with interest over the next 30 years.  So while They sprayed the surrounding citrus, grape, and cotton fields with DDT, stunted my intellect with regimented memorization of useless verbiage in a prison camp called “school”, and added fluoride to the water supply, I managed to grow to a size approximating that of an adult.

    It was 1960 when, at the age of eleven I became a financially semi-independent paperboy.  When the next jab was scheduled, I balked, then refused further vaccines.  Schooling (an activity designed for fish) became evermore unbearable, and I became some semblance of what humans were meant to be:  fearless, free, strong, and joyous.  A rebellious danger to society in the making.  A decade or so later, after three tortuous semesters of college, I quit showing up.  This triggered a 1A Selective Service classification, a draft notice, a refusal of induction, a federal felony charge, and “just punishment” for my unreasonable hesitancy to become a murderous slave to those who claim authority.

    60 years later or one year ago, with the lion’s share of my life behind me, it was beginning to look like the slide into the Homeplate of eternity might be made with confidence and ease.  I’d known love many times, fathered a beautiful daughter, then embraced a grandson.  My senses had beheld a great deal of the splendor of the world.  I’d resisted the insane antics of the ruling class, understood their agenda of endless wars, had immediately seen through the 9-11 fraud, and attempted to vaporize them in words without mercy.  I was at peace and without regrets.  Then came the scam to end all scams.  The scam which would completely sedate the huddled masses, rendering them and all progeny impotent and servile for the foreseeable future.  The perfect scam, complete with an invisible and imaginary enemy.  An enemy which was presented with precise timing and perfectly coordinated worldwide orchestration by the suits and ties, media whores, and white coats who announced loudly, clearly, and oh so often that there was only one road to salvation.  There was only one way forward They said.  Take the vaccine or die They said.  Mask up, don’t gather, sing, shake hands, kiss, make love, or talk.  Stay indoors, close your businesses, obey!  Oh crap, this can’t be good said my little voice.  Homeplate will have to wait a while.  There’s a job to be done.  No grandson of mine will grow up in the brave new world of Covid-1984.

    There is a conspiracy which is much more than a theory.  A vast and evil conspiracy to decimate the world population and enslave those who remain.  They Live.  Whether or not “They” are alien lizards or actual psychopathic humans is a conversation somewhat irrelevant at this juncture.  “They” must be stopped, and sooner rather than later.  Sand in the hourglass of freedom is on the move.  “They” have had many names throughout history, and it seems that “They” have been around for a very long time.  Their names have grown in number over the years, but their disdain for the common folks remains.  To them, we are mere resources to be harvested, and with their new military grade 5G radio frequencies combined with technological breakthroughs have rendered the common folks superfluous and expendable.  But we do make excellent lab animals.  Listen!…

    They control worldwide:  land, water, governments, money creation, healthcare, schools, food, energy, transportation, information, armies and police departments.

    They thought nothing of precipitating the great wars of the twentieth century, didn’t blink an eye when their experimental vaccines caused a pandemic that snuffed as many as one hundred million lives with what was strangely called The Spanish Flu.  They celebrated all of the assassinations of the 60’s, frolicked in the power of atomic bombs, enjoyed a sense of fulfillment on 9-11-2001, and are now finding perhaps ultimate satisfaction in the apparent complete success of The Covid-1984 Plandemic.

    They are destroying your world so they can “Build back better.”  U.N. Agenda 21 for sustainable development is real.  Event 201 foretold the Covid-1984 Plandemic only months before the big reveal.  The Great Reset is resetting.  The Fourth Industrial Revolution (the digital revolution) is here now.  You are a resource at best; a hindrance and liability more likely.

    They plan to usher you into human settlements where you will be linked to a population control grid and fed a diet of augmented reality and bioengineered food-like substances to keep you mooing contentedly.  Physical money will disappear.  Your cellphone will betray you.  Your flat screen will create your reality.  Your neighbor will police you, as you rat on him.

    They transformed healthcare a century ago with needle-administered nouveau snake-oil “vaccines” and oil-based “treatments” designed to exacerbate vaccine damage, thereby creating a need for new treatments which are usually equally toxic…and so on.  They said Pasteur (germ theory) was truth and Bechamp (terrain theory) was quackery.  They used their allopathic model to sicken the world population at an ever-increasing rate, and in 1986 received complete immunity from damages caused by vaccines.  They successfully shut down all contrary conversation and said that the science was fixed.  That should have been a clue.

    They don’t want you to be healthy.  Healthy people don’t take their vaccines or treatments, don’t attend their schools designed to create obedience, mediocrity and uniformity, don’t eat their toxic, genetically modified and patented Frankenfoods, and don’t swallow the swill dished out by their dinosaur media.  They despise humans who exercise in the sunlight and eat organic foods, and hate folks who love, laugh, play, mock them, and disobey.  They need to be stopped once and for all, and if you don’t have that figured out by now, may the gods have mercy.  At least you’re not alone.  Those who pretend to sleep are many, and nearly impossible to awaken.

    They shudder in fear when their official narrative is questioned, and fiercely censor all opposition.  They are the state merged in the throes of passion with private corporations.  They are fascists in every sense of the word, and must be stopped before their mass-culling of the herd goes any further.  The vaccine scam has already killed or damaged unknown millions of hapless victims.  They are the Democrats and Republicans at the top of the dung heaps.  They are the old families; the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Carnegies, and Fords.  They are the newbie technocratic clans; the Gates’, Zuckerbergs, and Bezos’.  They are Facebook, Google, Amazon, and The New York Times.  They are the enemies of mankind and the destroyers of freedom, and they have created a case of worldwide Stockholm Syndrome. They orchestrated and financed the revolutions which resulted in the rise of the U.S.S.R. and the C.C.P. as models for the U.S.A., which is being retooled to become just another big totalitarian state as we speak.

    If you know all of this, and are participating in their plan, then their success is assured.  If you are wearing a muzzle and speaking Mumblish, if you are eschewing hugs and handshakes, if you are practicing social distancing, and if you are jumping through all these ridiculous hoops fully aware that the Covid-1984 Plandemic is a fraud and a lie…then you are worse than the masses of hapless, hypnotized victims of Operation Mockingbird, which must comprise 95% of the U.S. population.  They know not what they do, and must be shown the way…if there still is a way.  All we can do at this point is lead by example.  Burn masks, hug your friends, exchange saliva with those most dear, and learn the power of NO!  Freedom isn’t quite dead yet, although its demise has been widely reported.  Hope is the best of things said Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption, but it must be backed up by action.  Hasta la victoria siempre!

    John R. Hall, having finally realized that no human being in possession of normal perception has a snowball’s chance in hell of changing the course of earth’s ongoing trophic avalanche, now studies sorcery with the naguals don Juan Matus and don Carlos Castaneda in the second attention. If you’re patient, you might just catch him at his new email address, but if his assemblage point happens to be displaced, it could take a while. That address is: drachman2358@outlook.com Read other articles by John R..

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Ten years ago, I worked in the United States Senate and helped draft and pass the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. The law requires companies to report monies and gifts they give physicians, which are known to influence what doctors prescribe or promote. Thanks to the Sunshine Act, you can look up doctors on a public database to see who is paying them and how much. Several other countries have passed or are considering similar laws.

    Nothing similar exists in other disciplines like plant biology, climate science, or toxicology. We need a “sunshine law” for science that would expose all sorts of conflicts of interest and industry manipulation that skew research on food, synthetic chemicals, pesticides, air pollution, genetic technology, and the climate.

    Since the 1990s, tobacco and the industries allied with it, such as the food, chemical, and fossil fuel sectors, have worked especially hard to influence a field called risk analysis, which determines whether products cause harm. The agri-chemical giant Monsanto has been accused in recent years of manipulating employees at the Environmental Protection Agency on the dangers of glyphosate; petrochemical companies publish questionable studies on air pollution in corporate-friendly journals; and biotech lobbyists promote news stories that attack government agencies.

    The fossil fuel industry has also funded research departments at prestigious American universities, including Harvard, Stanford, MIT, and UC Berkeley. Most of the climate science community remains silent on this, but two students at Princeton recently exposed how their university has been influenced by companies such as ExxonMobil and BP, which spend paltry sums funding academics to buy social credibility — even as they pour enormous amounts into lobbying against bills that limit greenhouse gas emissions.

    In some cases, scientists have denied or attempted to dismiss peer-reviewed research showing how financial influence biases science. Five years ago, the New York Times ran a front-page story exposing the undisclosed ties between Kevin Folta, a plant biologist at the University of Florida, and Monsanto. Cheerleaders for GMO agriculture characterized the Times article as “laden with falsehoods, improper inferences and innuendoes.” (Folta sued the paper for defamation, but a judge dismissed the case.)

    The scientific community has not been entirely naive about corporate influence, and some experts have been discussing the problem since the late 1960s. In 1970, critics charged the National Academies of Science with pro-industry bias because chemical and fossil fuel insiders dominated a committee examining the health effects of airborne lead. The following year, the academies approved its first conflict of interest policy, which required scientists serving on its panels to disclose any ties to special interests. Ironically, the scientist who led that reform faced his own accusations of corporate bias for sitting on the board of a food conglomerate.

    Historically, biomedicine has been both heavily influenced by industry and a leader in pushing back. In 1984, the New England Journal of Medicine became the first prominent research journal to adopt a financial conflict of interest rule requiring authors to disclose any ties to special interests. JAMA endorsed a similar policy the next year. Shortly after, the National Institutes of Health — the largest funder of biomedicine on the planet — enacted a disclosure policy for grantees. Eventually, the journal Science passed a conflict of interest policy in 1992, and Nature came to the table in 2001.

    Of course, experts debate the effectiveness of these policies and whether they go far enough. Corporations have workarounds like creating a “council” or “committee” through a PR firm, as the agency Hill & Knowlton did for tobacco companies when it launched the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC). As Harvard historian Allan Brandt documented, TIRC funding of academic researchers helped chill scientific discourse and create doubt that smoking caused disease, while simultaneously granting tobacco companies the prestige that comes from associating with universities.

    Climate science and other research fields need to catch up and show greater transparency in corporate funding. First, all science journals should implement strong conflict of interest policies, as are common in medical journals, that require study authors to disclose any financial interests. The federal government already places such requirements on scientists who receive federal grants and could exert greater impact by requiring them to publish taxpayer-funded research only in journals with strong financial transparency policies.

    We should also demand that America’s science institutions require more training in science ethics. (When national researchers surveyed top research institutions, they found that those with medical schools exceeded federal mandates for instruction in “responsible conduct” in research). Ethics education should emphasize how corporations have influenced broad swaths of American science.

    Finally, we must hold the media accountable. In September, the New York Times published an article that cited microbiologist Alex Berezow of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) as an expert on coronavirus misinformation. But the Times did not note that Berezow is the organization’s VP of science communications — which is problematic because ACSH has over the years received funding from the likes of Chevron, Coca-Cola, Bayer, Monsanto, McDonald’s, and the tobacco conglomerate Altria. Berezow has also attacked Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists at the Times for exposing corporate ties between academics and the agrochemical industry. Readers deserve to be informed of such associations.

    In 2017, Forbes deleted several articles written by Henry Miller and Kavin Senapathy that reported favorably on GMO agriculture after the New York Times reported that Monsanto ghost wrote one of Miller’s articles.

    Corporations have been influencing science for as long as science has informed public health policies. The more sunlight we can let shine on that influence, the better.


    The views expressed here reflect those of the author. Fix is committed to publishing a diversity of voices. Got a bold idea or fresh news analysis? Submit your op-ed draft, along with a note about who you are, to fix@grist.org.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Science — especially climate research — needs a ‘sunshine’ law on Feb 15, 2021.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Professor Noam Chomsky co-wrote Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, which famously argued that the mainstream media’s role was all about suppressing criticism of the powerful. Now recent moves in the UK are about to see that ‘manufactured consent’ taken to a whole new level.

    These big media players won’t be content with this greater dominance.  And they, along with the help of the government, will do everything they can to crush the opposition.

    New kids on the block?

    The national mainstream media in the UK has always been dominated by the Conservative right. The Times, the Sunday Times and the Sun are owned by Rupert Murdoch and family via News UK, in turn, owned by News Corp. The main shareholder of the Daily Mail (as well as the i newspaper) is by viscount Rothermere. The Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph are owned by billionaire Frederick Barclay. And the Daily Express is owned by Reach (which also owns the Daily Star and the Daily Mirror). Each newspaper offers similar political content but tweaked for different audiences.

    As for broadcast news, the main players are the BBC (funded by the licence fee) ITV, Channel 4, and Sky News (each dependent on advertising).

    But there are now old players masquerading as new players waiting in the wings.

    News UK TV

    In August and September 2020, Murdoch and his sidekick Rebekah Brooks met regularly with UK government ministers, including prime minister Boris Johnson.

    Then in February 2021, Ofcom was reported to have given its approval for Murdoch and Brooks to launch News UK TV, an outlet that will undoubtedly reflect the political leanings of its owner.

    Meanwhile, it’s understood that former editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre, is rumoured to become the next chair of Ofcom.

    GB News

    And this isn’t the only new upcoming media venture. The “right-leaningGB News, which is part-funded by Legatum, a Dubai investment firm that via its chair is linked to the Brexit-backing Legatum Institute.

    GB News is headed by Angelos Frangopoulos, a former Sky News Australia boss. In 2018, former Labor minister Craig Emerson quit Sky News Australia after it “broadcast an interview with far-right extremist Blair Cottrell“. No doubt GB News’ politics will be of a similar hue.

    According to Byline:

    GB News appears to be owned by a company called ‘All Perspectives Limited’, which is in turn equally owned by media moguls Mark Schneider and Andrew Cole.

    Cole is a director and board member at Liberty Global – a multinational telecommunications company with roughly 47,000 employees. According to the trading website Wallmine, Cole is also a shareholder at Liberty, reportedly owning stock worth more than $1 million.

    Liberty Global has an interest in mainstream broadcasting in the UK, owning 9.9% of ITV Plc, the company that effectively owns and operates the ITV network. There has even been speculation that Liberty could launch a full takeover of ITV, with this rumour circulating via City AM as recently as May.

    Byline adds that Virgin Media is also owned by Liberty.

    Political cronyism or conflict of interest?

    But it doesn’t stop there.

    In January, it was reported that Richard Sharp, a former Goldman Sachs banker who donated an estimated £416,189 to the Conservative Party, is to be chair of the BRichard Sharp's donations to Tory partyBC’s board of directors.

    Here are some of the donations he made to the Conservative Party:

    The Guardian also reported that:

    Sharp’s family foundation donates to the Institute for Policy Research, an obscure charitable organisation that funnels money to the CPS [Centre for Policy Studies] – as well as to other organisations aligned with the right of the Conservative party, among them the Taxpayers Alliance, MigrationWatch UK and News-watch, an organisation that has produced a number of reports alleging anti-EU bias in BBC reporting.

    Sharp happens to be the former boss of UK chancellor Rishi Sunak. He was also an economic adviser to Boris Johnson when mayor of London. Sharp will join Conservative supporter Tim Davie, who took over as BBC director general last September. It’s reported that Davie met with former Downing Street special advisers Dominic Cummings and Lee Cain some two weeks after he assumed the role, although no minutes of that meeting are available.

    Meanwhile, the Johnson-led government is accused of blacklisting journalists and doing its best to sabotage freedom of information requests.

    Manufacturing consent

    The media landscape in the UK is undergoing a major shift. More right-wing players are stepping forward to work alongside media moguls, establishing control both in existing organisations and in creating new ones. It’s nothing less than a media coup, with the beneficiaries being the Conservative Party and their friends in business.

    Moreover, the right-wing media monopoly will no doubt want to destroy all effective opposition to its political dominance, including using any means it can to eliminate independent media.

    Or as Chomsky puts it better, a manufacturing of consent:

    Featured image via Youtube screengrab

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Two Black transgender women – Alexus Braxton and Fifty Bandz – have been violently killed in the past two weeks. Their tragic deaths are part of a rising “epidemic” of transphobic violence which disproportionately affects Black trans women. In spite of this, mainstream media outlets have remained conspicuously quiet regarding the deaths of both trans women.

    Say their names

    Miami police found Alexus “Kimmy Icon” Braxton on 4 February. They haven’t released details of the suspected murder case on the grounds that it would “jeopardise the case”. According to friends and family, Braxton was the “beloved daughter” of a Hollywood LGBTQ Council board member.

    A week before on 28 January, 21-year-old Fifty Bandz was shot and killed in Louisiana. According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), her death is “at least the fifth violent death of a transgender person in 2021” – four of which have been Black trans women. Police have arrested 20-year-old Michael Joshua Brooks for murder. Bandz had been in a relationship with Brooks, who had threatened her life before. According to reports, the pair had a “volatile” relationship. Brooks allegedly shot and killed Bandz during an argument.

    Black trans lives at risk

    Tori Cooper, HRC director of community engagement for the transgender justice initiative, said:

    In just one month, multiple transgender or gender non-conforming people have been killed, four of whom were Black trans women. This level of violence is infuriating and heartbreaking.

    They added:

    This is an epidemic of violence that must be stopped. We will continue to affirm that Black Trans Lives Matter and say the names of those we have lost, including Fifty Bandz, but we must do more. Fifty was killed by someone she knew – if we can’t trust the people we know, who can we trust? We need everyone to take action to bring this horrific violence to an end.

    Bandz was a victim of “intimate partner violence“, which massively impacts trans and non-binary people. According to HRC:

     In 2020, approximately seven in ten transgender and gender non-conforming people killed as a result of fatal violence were killed by an acquaintance, friend, family member or intimate partner. Unfortunately, the relationship of the victim to the killer is still unknown for close to one-third (30%) of all known cases. This means that anywhere from 44% to 74% of victims since 2013 were violently killed by someone they knew, including intimate partners, family members, friends, peers and acquaintances.

    Most of them were Black or Latinx trans women.

    Where’s the outrage?

    Media and police misgendering and deadnaming Bandz in reports is a further injustice, one that trans and gender non-conforming victims of violence experience all too often. This works to deny and stigmatise the victim’s identity, and mask the transphobic nature of the violence.

    Meanwhile, in the UK, mainstream media outlets are more concerned about whether maternity wards should adopt trans-inclusive language or not (the short answer is yes). But where are the headlines saying Braxton and Bandz’s names? Where are the articles telling us that their lives were valuable and meaningful? And where is the outrage against the violence that killed them? Where was the international outrage when white police officers shot and killed Black trans man Tony McDade days after protesters first took to the streets following the killing of George Floyd?

    It’s outrageous that Black trans people continue to be denied respect and dignity in life and in death. The persistent erasure of Black trans lives sends a message to the perpetrators of transphobic violence that their heinous crimes are acceptable.

    If we are sincerely committed to bringing about positive change, we must centre the voices of trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people of colour, and challenge transphobic violence in all its forms. We must consistently demonstrate that Black trans lives matter through our words and actions, and work to protect those most in danger. Only then will we be able to start building a world in which everyone has the opportunity to survive and thrive.

    Featured image via Obi Onyeador/Unsplash

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Image: Anadolu Agency

    Mandatory masks continue to be the standard operating procedure for many counties, regions, districts, states and nations worldwide, as the COVID cult agenda progresses. In many places, while COVID vaccines are not yet mandatory, authorities are rushing to prepare to make them so, by setting up schemes like immunity passports, vaccine certificates and mandatory tracking databases which log who has taken the shot and who has not. Meanwhile, inherent sovereign human rights are being limited to those who acquiesce to tkae the shot. The insanity and absurdity of the COVID cult is all the more apparent when you realize that its mandatory or quasi-mandatory rules stand in contradiction to a very important set of principles decided upon in 1947. I refer to the Nuremburg Code, the set of 10 points that arose from the infamous Nuremburg Trials conducted in the aftermath of World War II. I am not passing judgement on how impartial those trials were, because I know they were mainly run by the US and the Allies (as the victors), who for obvious reasons did not press charges against American generals such as Eisenhower (who later became US President) for his POW camps inside of Germany and carpet-bombing of Dresden. Nonetheless, the trials produced the Nuremburg Code which enshrined the principle of informed consent – a principle which, in the advent of the COVID scamdemic, is now highly relevant and is continually being put to the test. This article will look briefly at each of the 10 points in the light of COVID restrictions and rules.

    The 10 Points of the Code

    This website gives a brief history of how the 10 points of the Nuremburg Code came into existence. Interestingly, although the code is an international ethical landmark, it is apparently still not enshrined in American or German national law. We must assume those governments via their secret agencies like the CIA wanted to keep the door open to conduct medical experimentation (such as bioweapon programs like weaponized ticks) upon their citizenry without technically breaking the law:

    On August 19, 1947, the judges of the American military tribunal in the case of the USA vs. Karl Brandt et. al. delivered their verdict. Before announcing the guilt or innocence of each defendant, they confronted the difficult question of medical experimentation on human beings. Several German doctors had argued in their own defense that their experiments differed little from previous American or German ones. Furthermore they showed that no international law or informal statement differentiated between legal and illegal human experimentation. This argument worried Drs. Andrew Ivy and Leo Alexander, American doctors who had worked with the prosecution during the trial. On April 17, 1947, Dr. Alexander submitted a memorandum to the United States Counsel for War Crimes which outlined six points defining legitimate research. The verdict of August 19 reiterated almost all of these points in a section entitled “Permissible Medical Experiments” and revised the original six points into ten. Subsequently, the ten points became known as the “Nuremberg Code.” Although the code addressed the defense arguments in general, remarkably none of the specific findings against Brandt and his codefendants mentioned the code. Thus the legal force of the document was not well established. The uncertain use of the code continued in the half century following the trial when it informed numerous international ethics statements but failed to find a place in either the American or German national law codes. Nevertheless, it remains a landmark document on medical ethics and one of the most lasting products of the “Doctors Trial.”

    Nuremburg Code #1: Voluntary Consent is Essential

    The first point of the Code is:

    The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

    This point has already been broken many times over just with the introduction of mandatory masks alone. In the US, for example, masks are defined in several places as “medical devices” according to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). The first piece of evidence is on the FDA’s website itself at this page that discusses masks and is nested under the category Medical Devices as follows:

    Home / Medical Devices / Products and Medical Procedures / General Hospital Devices and Supplies / Personal Protective Equipment for Infection Control / N95 Respirators, Surgical Masks, and Face Masks


    The second piece of evidence is in the law: the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) which is US federal law enacted by Congress. It and other federal laws establish the legal framework within which FDA operates. The FD&C Act can be found in the United States Code (USC), which contains all general and permanent US laws, beginning at 21 USC 301. You can read it here. Look under Chapter II Definitions (pg.3) and scroll down to Section 201(h):

    (h) The term “device” (except when used in paragraph (n) of this section and in sections 301(i), 403(f), 502(c), and 602(c)) means an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is — (1) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them, (2) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, or (3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes.

    Under this section, a mask meets the criteria required for being designated as a medical device, since it meets point (2), being an apparatus which is intended to prevent disease.

    Did any politician ask the people of the world whether they wanted to wear masks and volunteer themselves to wear medical devices? No. There has been no voluntary or informed consent.

    Nuremburg Code #2: Yield Fruitful Results Unprocurable By Other Means

    The second point of the Code is:

    The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

    We have to face reality that COVID measures such as mandatory masks or vaccines are a giant medical experiment. Many people have been suffering the ill effects of under-oxygenation due to prolonged mask wearing. The untested vaccines constitute the biggest worldwide experiment in human history, having been rushed to market in under 12 months when vaccines usually take 7-20 years to develop. As covered in previous articles, these so-called vaccines (actually mRNA devices) were not designed to stop transmission, elicit a direct immune response (as traditional vaccines do) nor to stop moderate to severe symptoms, so their risk-to- benefit ratio is massively high. Cloth masks made of bandannas and rags are utterly “random and unnecessary in nature.” Meanwhile, there are many other ways to produce “fruitful results” for society without this experimentation: educating people about the principles of natural health, boosting the immune system naturally and even supplementing with vitamin D (research has shown a connection between those acquiring COVID and vitamin D deficiency).

    Nuremburg Code #3: Base Experiments on Results of Animal Experimentation and Natural History of Disease

    The third point of the Code is:

    The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

    This point has also been broken. Big Pharma companies skipped animal trials in their rush to get their “vaccines” to market.

    Nuremburg Code #4: Avoid All Unnecessary Suffering and Injury

    The fourth point of the Code is:

    The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

    None of the masks and “vaccines” (which indisputably cause suffering, injury, and death) are necessary for many reasons:

    1. the COVID case and death count has been wildly inflated from the beginning;
    1. COVID is a repackaging scheme which reclassifies existing diseases to create the appearance of a new deadly disease and pandemic when there is none. See the work of people such as Dr. Genevieve Briand;
    1. the alleged novel virus SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated, purified and proven 100% to exist.

    Nuremburg Code #5: No Experiment to be Conducted if There’s Reason to Think Injury or Death Will Occur

    The fifth point of the Code is:

    No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

    Is there an a priori reason to believe disabling injury or death will occur from the COVID not-vaccines? Given the past history of vacine injury, yes there is. Around 2 weeks ago on January 29th 2021, the CDC reported over 11,000 adverse reactions to the COVID vaccine, including 501 deaths and 10,748 other injuries, some of which were indeed disabling injuries. If you are not fainthearted, see these video clips and compilations (here, here, here and here) which show the possible horrible side effects of the vax.

    Nuremburg Code #6: Risk Should Never Exceed the Benefit

    The sixth point of the Code is:

    The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

    From Big Pharma’s point of view, the risk doesn’t exceed the benefit. They are shielded from legal liability thanks to the 1986 NCVIA and other preparatory laws like the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act which paved the way for Big Pharma legal immunity. There’s no risk, and the profits are astronomical. For the average individual, on the other hand, the situation is exactly the reverse; there’s no benefit to taking a non-vaccine which doesn’t protect you from severe symptoms and which doesn’t stop transmission, but which could lead to serious and debilitating effects like paralysis and death.

    Nuremburg Code #7: Preparation Must Be Made Against Even Remote Possibility of Injury, Disability or Death

    The seventh point of the Code is:

    Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

    No preparations have been made! The COVID vaccines are a giant worldwide human experiment, and every single participant is the equivalent of a human hamster or guinea pig. If you die, bad luck! Big Pharma will be sure to roll out their legal and PR departments and immediately question the connection bewteen their vax and your death. They will never, ever admit a connection, and even if they did, there are no legal consequences for them. There is no recourse.

    Nuremburg Code #8: Experiment Must Be Conducted by Scientifically Qualified Persons

    The eighth point of the Code is:

    The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

    Doctors such as Dr. Stefan Lanka and Dr. Tom Cowan who challenge the mainstream narrative of virology – namely that contagious viruses exist and can infect you – would most certainly dispute that career bureaucrats like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Big Pharma scientists are truly qualified, but even if you accept that they are, the scientists that make the vaccines are not the ones administering them. It’s the regular nurses and doctors who are doing that. How many of them truly know what the non-vaccine is, what it does, the complete list of its ingredients and the full list of its long-term side effects? No one knows the latter, precisely because this is a giant experiment.

    By creating unlawful mask mandates, politicians are playing doctor, putting themselves in the position of being medical experts by dictating health directives and medical interventions to the entire population. The people have not given consent for politicians, who are medically untrained, to act as their personal physicians.

    Nuremburg Code #9: Anyone Must Have the Freedom to Bring the Experiment to an End At Any Time

    The ninth point of the Code is:

    During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

    Do you have the right to bring the insane COVID cult medical experimentation to an end? Of course you don’t! People are being discriminated against for not wearing masks by being deprived of their rights to freely travel, trade and work. People are being threatened with fines and prison for not wearing masks. People’s rights are being violated when they exercise their right to make thier own medical decisions by refusing the vax. There is no freedom for the COVID subject who is being experimented upon.

    Nuremburg Code #10: The Scientist Must Bring the Experiment to an End At Any Time if There’s Probable Cause of it Resulting in Injury or Death

    The tenth point of the Code is:

    During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

    This point includes the phrase “probable cause” which is probably well-known to many people, especially Americans, since it is enshrined in the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution that protects people against searches and seizures unless the police have a warrant based on probable cause that that person has a committed a crime. Probable cause is legally considered to be a higher standard than “reasonable belief” or “reasonable suspicion” which is the wording used in other jurisdictions. Regardless, do you think any Big Pharma company has EVER voluntarily halted their vaccine rollout because of their “superior skill and careful judgment” that they might be harming people? No way! The profits are too great, and their line of defense is that some people may be injured or killed by the vaccines, but it’s all for the “greater good” of protecting society. As Martin Luther King said, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

    Conclusion

    Society is regressing right now. We are giving up hard-fought rights and freedoms out of fear. Collectively, we are forgetting that we have already long ago established fundamental human rights such as bodily autonomy, medical sovereignty and informed, voluntary consent. The Nuremburg Code is a stark reminder that we have been through all this before, and got through it to crystallize the lessons learned. We must remember Who We Are and stop this insane COVID medical experimentation – before it’s too late.

    The post Do Mandatory Masks and Vaccines Break the 10 Points of the Nuremburg Code? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Image: Anadolu Agency

    Mandatory masks continue to be the standard operating procedure for many counties, regions, districts, states and nations worldwide, as the COVID cult agenda progresses. In many places, while COVID vaccines are not yet mandatory, authorities are rushing to prepare to make them so, by setting up schemes like immunity passports, vaccine certificates and mandatory tracking databases which log who has taken the shot and who has not. Meanwhile, inherent sovereign human rights are being limited to those who acquiesce to tkae the shot. The insanity and absurdity of the COVID cult is all the more apparent when you realize that its mandatory or quasi-mandatory rules stand in contradiction to a very important set of principles decided upon in 1947. I refer to the Nuremburg Code, the set of 10 points that arose from the infamous Nuremburg Trials conducted in the aftermath of World War II. I am not passing judgement on how impartial those trials were, because I know they were mainly run by the US and the Allies (as the victors), who for obvious reasons did not press charges against American generals such as Eisenhower (who later became US President) for his POW camps inside of Germany and carpet-bombing of Dresden. Nonetheless, the trials produced the Nuremburg Code which enshrined the principle of informed consent – a principle which, in the advent of the COVID scamdemic, is now highly relevant and is continually being put to the test. This article will look briefly at each of the 10 points in the light of COVID restrictions and rules.

    The 10 Points of the Code

    This website gives a brief history of how the 10 points of the Nuremburg Code came into existence. Interestingly, although the code is an international ethical landmark, it is apparently still not enshrined in American or German national law. We must assume those governments via their secret agencies like the CIA wanted to keep the door open to conduct medical experimentation (such as bioweapon programs like weaponized ticks) upon their citizenry without technically breaking the law:

    On August 19, 1947, the judges of the American military tribunal in the case of the USA vs. Karl Brandt et. al. delivered their verdict. Before announcing the guilt or innocence of each defendant, they confronted the difficult question of medical experimentation on human beings. Several German doctors had argued in their own defense that their experiments differed little from previous American or German ones. Furthermore they showed that no international law or informal statement differentiated between legal and illegal human experimentation. This argument worried Drs. Andrew Ivy and Leo Alexander, American doctors who had worked with the prosecution during the trial. On April 17, 1947, Dr. Alexander submitted a memorandum to the United States Counsel for War Crimes which outlined six points defining legitimate research. The verdict of August 19 reiterated almost all of these points in a section entitled “Permissible Medical Experiments” and revised the original six points into ten. Subsequently, the ten points became known as the “Nuremberg Code.” Although the code addressed the defense arguments in general, remarkably none of the specific findings against Brandt and his codefendants mentioned the code. Thus the legal force of the document was not well established. The uncertain use of the code continued in the half century following the trial when it informed numerous international ethics statements but failed to find a place in either the American or German national law codes. Nevertheless, it remains a landmark document on medical ethics and one of the most lasting products of the “Doctors Trial.”

    Nuremburg Code #1: Voluntary Consent is Essential

    The first point of the Code is:

    The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

    This point has already been broken many times over just with the introduction of mandatory masks alone. In the US, for example, masks are defined in several places as “medical devices” according to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). The first piece of evidence is on the FDA’s website itself at this page that discusses masks and is nested under the category Medical Devices as follows:

    Home / Medical Devices / Products and Medical Procedures / General Hospital Devices and Supplies / Personal Protective Equipment for Infection Control / N95 Respirators, Surgical Masks, and Face Masks


    The second piece of evidence is in the law: the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) which is US federal law enacted by Congress. It and other federal laws establish the legal framework within which FDA operates. The FD&C Act can be found in the United States Code (USC), which contains all general and permanent US laws, beginning at 21 USC 301. You can read it here. Look under Chapter II Definitions (pg.3) and scroll down to Section 201(h):

    (h) The term “device” (except when used in paragraph (n) of this section and in sections 301(i), 403(f), 502(c), and 602(c)) means an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is — (1) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them, (2) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, or (3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes.

    Under this section, a mask meets the criteria required for being designated as a medical device, since it meets point (2), being an apparatus which is intended to prevent disease.

    Did any politician ask the people of the world whether they wanted to wear masks and volunteer themselves to wear medical devices? No. There has been no voluntary or informed consent.

    Nuremburg Code #2: Yield Fruitful Results Unprocurable By Other Means

    The second point of the Code is:

    The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

    We have to face reality that COVID measures such as mandatory masks or vaccines are a giant medical experiment. Many people have been suffering the ill effects of under-oxygenation due to prolonged mask wearing. The untested vaccines constitute the biggest worldwide experiment in human history, having been rushed to market in under 12 months when vaccines usually take 7-20 years to develop. As covered in previous articles, these so-called vaccines (actually mRNA devices) were not designed to stop transmission, elicit a direct immune response (as traditional vaccines do) nor to stop moderate to severe symptoms, so their risk-to- benefit ratio is massively high. Cloth masks made of bandannas and rags are utterly “random and unnecessary in nature.” Meanwhile, there are many other ways to produce “fruitful results” for society without this experimentation: educating people about the principles of natural health, boosting the immune system naturally and even supplementing with vitamin D (research has shown a connection between those acquiring COVID and vitamin D deficiency).

    Nuremburg Code #3: Base Experiments on Results of Animal Experimentation and Natural History of Disease

    The third point of the Code is:

    The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

    This point has also been broken. Big Pharma companies skipped animal trials in their rush to get their “vaccines” to market.

    Nuremburg Code #4: Avoid All Unnecessary Suffering and Injury

    The fourth point of the Code is:

    The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

    None of the masks and “vaccines” (which indisputably cause suffering, injury, and death) are necessary for many reasons:

    1. the COVID case and death count has been wildly inflated from the beginning;
    1. COVID is a repackaging scheme which reclassifies existing diseases to create the appearance of a new deadly disease and pandemic when there is none. See the work of people such as Dr. Genevieve Briand;
    1. the alleged novel virus SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated, purified and proven 100% to exist.

    Nuremburg Code #5: No Experiment to be Conducted if There’s Reason to Think Injury or Death Will Occur

    The fifth point of the Code is:

    No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

    Is there an a priori reason to believe disabling injury or death will occur from the COVID not-vaccines? Given the past history of vacine injury, yes there is. Around 2 weeks ago on January 29th 2021, the CDC reported over 11,000 adverse reactions to the COVID vaccine, including 501 deaths and 10,748 other injuries, some of which were indeed disabling injuries. If you are not fainthearted, see these video clips and compilations (here, here, here and here) which show the possible horrible side effects of the vax.

    Nuremburg Code #6: Risk Should Never Exceed the Benefit

    The sixth point of the Code is:

    The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

    From Big Pharma’s point of view, the risk doesn’t exceed the benefit. They are shielded from legal liability thanks to the 1986 NCVIA and other preparatory laws like the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act which paved the way for Big Pharma legal immunity. There’s no risk, and the profits are astronomical. For the average individual, on the other hand, the situation is exactly the reverse; there’s no benefit to taking a non-vaccine which doesn’t protect you from severe symptoms and which doesn’t stop transmission, but which could lead to serious and debilitating effects like paralysis and death.

    Nuremburg Code #7: Preparation Must Be Made Against Even Remote Possibility of Injury, Disability or Death

    The seventh point of the Code is:

    Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

    No preparations have been made! The COVID vaccines are a giant worldwide human experiment, and every single participant is the equivalent of a human hamster or guinea pig. If you die, bad luck! Big Pharma will be sure to roll out their legal and PR departments and immediately question the connection bewteen their vax and your death. They will never, ever admit a connection, and even if they did, there are no legal consequences for them. There is no recourse.

    Nuremburg Code #8: Experiment Must Be Conducted by Scientifically Qualified Persons

    The eighth point of the Code is:

    The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

    Doctors such as Dr. Stefan Lanka and Dr. Tom Cowan who challenge the mainstream narrative of virology – namely that contagious viruses exist and can infect you – would most certainly dispute that career bureaucrats like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Big Pharma scientists are truly qualified, but even if you accept that they are, the scientists that make the vaccines are not the ones administering them. It’s the regular nurses and doctors who are doing that. How many of them truly know what the non-vaccine is, what it does, the complete list of its ingredients and the full list of its long-term side effects? No one knows the latter, precisely because this is a giant experiment.

    By creating unlawful mask mandates, politicians are playing doctor, putting themselves in the position of being medical experts by dictating health directives and medical interventions to the entire population. The people have not given consent for politicians, who are medically untrained, to act as their personal physicians.

    Nuremburg Code #9: Anyone Must Have the Freedom to Bring the Experiment to an End At Any Time

    The ninth point of the Code is:

    During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

    Do you have the right to bring the insane COVID cult medical experimentation to an end? Of course you don’t! People are being discriminated against for not wearing masks by being deprived of their rights to freely travel, trade and work. People are being threatened with fines and prison for not wearing masks. People’s rights are being violated when they exercise their right to make thier own medical decisions by refusing the vax. There is no freedom for the COVID subject who is being experimented upon.

    Nuremburg Code #10: The Scientist Must Bring the Experiment to an End At Any Time if There’s Probable Cause of it Resulting in Injury or Death

    The tenth point of the Code is:

    During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

    This point includes the phrase “probable cause” which is probably well-known to many people, especially Americans, since it is enshrined in the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution that protects people against searches and seizures unless the police have a warrant based on probable cause that that person has a committed a crime. Probable cause is legally considered to be a higher standard than “reasonable belief” or “reasonable suspicion” which is the wording used in other jurisdictions. Regardless, do you think any Big Pharma company has EVER voluntarily halted their vaccine rollout because of their “superior skill and careful judgment” that they might be harming people? No way! The profits are too great, and their line of defense is that some people may be injured or killed by the vaccines, but it’s all for the “greater good” of protecting society. As Martin Luther King said, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

    Conclusion

    Society is regressing right now. We are giving up hard-fought rights and freedoms out of fear. Collectively, we are forgetting that we have already long ago established fundamental human rights such as bodily autonomy, medical sovereignty and informed, voluntary consent. The Nuremburg Code is a stark reminder that we have been through all this before, and got through it to crystallize the lessons learned. We must remember Who We Are and stop this insane COVID medical experimentation – before it’s too late.

    Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles, a long-time truth researcher and a promoter of freedom. He provides insightful, non-partisan, unique and cutting-edge analysis on who’s running the world, how they’re doing it and what the deeper agenda is – as well as solutions for restoring peace and freedom to the world. Read other articles by Makia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • First, the media and political opportunists tried to convince us life-long anti-racist Jeremy Corbyn was Hitler-in-waiting. Now, life-long anti-racist Ken Loach is being attacked by the same witch hunt. But after several years of the fraudulent weaponisation of antisemitism to achieve political objectives, the left is done. You come for one of us, you come for all of us. And that includes Ken.

    The anatomy of the witch hunt

    The witch hunt has a standard play after it picks a target. First, a person’s social media and public history is combed. Then a fabricated ‘controversy’ is constructed. This is amplified by the press in order to create a sense of panic. And even if the truth is established later, the witch hunt doesn’t care. People distance themselves from the newly blacklisted individual, not wanting to be tainted by association. And an effective opponent to racism, apartheid and inequality is hobbled.

    Organs like the Jewish Chronicle seem to exist only to character assassinate the political enemies of Israel and the Conservative party. The litany of libel losses by this rag is testimony to its total lack of veracity. It lost two major libel cases in the last year alone. In October, the JC was forced to pay “substantial” libel damages and publish an apology to Nada al Sanjari, a school teacher and Labour councillor. The JC had claimed she’d launched a vicious and antisemitic protest against Luciana Berger MP. This never happened.

    And just months before, in January 2020, the Jewish Chronicle apologised to Labour activist Audrey White for libeling her. The JC admitted on its website it had published “allegations about Mrs Audrey White” which were “untrue.”

    And the list goes on.

    The problem is, as the evidence clearly indicates, there is a pattern here. Baseless accusations from pro-Israel activist groups or political opponents of the left are amplified by the press into a moral panic. The facts may well come out later, and in almost all cases. But the damage has long since been done. And the hostile press never reports these libel losses at anywhere near the volume it reported the allegations.

    The whole point is to keep anti-racists on the back foot, unable to take the battle to racists.

    The targets of the witch hunt

    The objective of the witch hunt is to make it antisemitic to criticise Israel. The bonus for centrists and far right alike here is that many of the toughest critics of Israel are on the left. And so they’ve joined in enthusiastically with the witch hunt out of pure political opportunism. No accusation is considered too hyperbolic, and they can rest assured no establishment journalist will challenge their assertions.

    This saw Jeremy Corbyn described as an “existential threat” to British Jews, despite his life-long record of anti-racism. One proponent of the witch hunt even claimed that if Jeremy Corbyn became PM, he would “reopen Auschwitz“. Any journalist of merit would have torn this accusation apart as entirely baseless, opportunistic and offensive. But the establishment press is sorely lacking in journalists of merit. Instead, these ridiculous smears were parroted by one outlet and broadcaster after another until functionally true. The facts were immaterial, it just felt like Corbyn and the left had an antisemitism problem distinct from all other groups. Why? Because that’s how propaganda works.

    It takes courage to run against popular sentiment to point out the facts. Not only does it mean facing conflict, but it also marks you out for the witch hunt treatment. It takes a person willing to risk losing their reputation, their job or position, and being turned on by their supposed allies. Many leaders of the movement did not show that courage. But the grassroots did. So the fight was taken to them, with a purge of leftists from the party, and attacks on freedom of the press.

    The Canary is itself a target of the witch hunt, and proud to be. Because no dedicated anti-racist would accept the weaponisation of Jewish trauma in service of an apartheid state. We wouldn’t help create a hierarchy of racism which places any group above all others. And we would never back apartheid, or form alliances with people who do. The same cannot be said for a host of supposed left-wing commentators who’ve promoted this witch hunt out of careerism and fear. 

    And now they’ve come for Ken Loach

    For the crime of not playing with the witch hunt, Ken Loach has become a target. As a national treasure, his words matter. And so the need to delegitimise him as an effective critic of apartheid is real. Now he is accused of Holocaust denial. Did he deny the Holocaust? No. Did he advocate for denying the Holocaust? No. They’ve reached back to the 1980s to replay an attempted smear that was cleared up at the time. They’ve just rehashed it like it was new and true. As the award-winning filmmaker said at the time:

    In a BBC interview I was asked about a speech I had not heard and of which I knew nothing. My reply has been twisted to suggest that I think it is acceptable to question the reality of the Holocaust. I do not. The Holocaust is as real a historical event as the World War itself and not to be challenged. In Primo Levi’s words: ‘Those who deny Auschwitz would be ready to remake it.’ The first terrible pictures I saw as a nine-year old are ingrained on my memory as they are for all my generation.

    Like readers of this paper, I know the history of Holocaust denial, its place in far right politics and the role of people like David Irving. To imply that I would have anything in common with them is contemptible.

    Finally, a battle-hardened left is unwilling to play this game again. A massive and organic campaign of support has sprung up. The trending #IStandWithKenLoach hashtag is full of desperate pleas for truth in argument. By all means, we can have robust political disagreements. But to debase yourself by constructing entirely false narratives on such a serious issue is beyond the pale.

    As comic John Bishop put it:

    Declassified UK’s Matt Kennard, one of Britain’s leading investigative journalists commented:

    Labour MP Ian Lavery also chimed in:

    Enough

    In fact, many thousands of people made their support of Ken known. But more broadly, they signalled they have had it with this witch hunt. Lives, careers and political movements have been torn apart by it. So if the witch hunt is coming for Ken, it’s going to have to come through all of us.

    There comes a time when passive acceptance of evil is complicity. And weaponising the language of anti-racism to promote racism is evil. Making claims you know to be false, repeatedly, to destroy a progressive political movement is evil. It is the most morally and intellectually dishonest smear campaign of my lifetime, and it will not stop. It will have to be stopped. And that’s exactly what we’re going to do.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons

    By Kerry-anne Mendoza

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Desiccate: deaden, devitalize, lobotomize, castrate – Merriam-Webster

    In the United States the average man and woman has been dismissed, devalued and manipulated by both parties and the financial system. They have been prevented access to healthcare, decent-paying jobs, affordable education and food security. And their hopes and dreams have been crushed by the absence of humanity of those who exploit them for benefit.

    President Trump’s term served a unique purpose. The turmoil surrounding his presidency brought out the worst in both parties, so that now it’s hard to tell one from the other, but does give us a clearer idea of their sameness. Both have embraced and expounded on such extreme positions that even moderates in their own parties are looking for cover. This fiasco has provided a better understanding of the charade that is our legislative branch.

    The media is no different. I was once a big fan of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow when she was a bold and brassy commentator on Air America. That was then. News readers (I can’t call them reporters, because they aren’t) now regurgitate whatever rolls on the teleprompter as news or original thought. Many are ignorant lemmings who cannot even pronounce the words before them. Listeners are informed by media spokesmen who toe the line for those who would control power, fearful that if they deviate from the script, they will lose their jobs and status. If they spoke from the heart, the soapbox might be kicked out from beneath them.

    Trump has been the pariah who has enabled many of them to avoid all that is important to the American people. Eventually, after the media and the Dems squeeze every last drop of juice from this playbook, he will be gone. To whom or what will they turn to keep us from questioning anything remotely connected with the actual lives of everyone who isn’t them? You can be sure it will be no topic that casts a dark shadow over the financial elites and cultural gatekeepers who are intent on securing their own wealth and positions at any cost.

    If they were reporting news, media outlets would show footage of the poverty in this country, the food bank lines, the undernourished children, the ancient people staring out their windows in despair—the ones who remember. There is plenty of old celluloid in storage that documents the Depression and Dust Bowl years back when film was very expensive and cameras were incredibly heavy, yet dedicated reporters recorded their times in history so that we would never forget.

    They also filmed conditions in countries that were being destroyed and exploited by American imperialism. The British news organization Pathé documented the conflicts from 1910 until 1970 when it was displaced by television. As a kid, I went to the matinee, which included two movies, cartoons and a Pathé newsreel. I watched the Korean War in black and white, right after Tom and Jerry. We had a clear understanding of war, with all of its death and destruction. We saw it every Saturday. Pathé has digitized their newsreels and makes them available. Viewing should be required in every curriculum.

    I get daily emails linking to the stories of the mainstream media. Read one, you’ve read ‘em all. And I do not watch the Sunday morning talk shows anymore. As I sometimes do when I can’t view my favorite sports teams real time, I get the wrap-up. So much sameness. Few options allow the brave and the bold to offer opinions mostly free of corporate influence, and actual news. I smile thinking about how Matt Drudge broke the Clinton/Lewinsky story in 1998, and many others with the help of his “sources.” Independent journalists continue to break stories, for which they are usually persecuted and imprisoned. The general populace continues to look away, preferring not to make waves in support of the First Amendment and the Constitution in general.

    Where will our news be found when these journalists and their online platforms are replaced by the next new bright and shiny things. Just as The WWW (Wild West Web) of the 80s morphed into the corporate mind control tool of the present, I fear that complete domination will be exercised by the lords and ladies of the evil empire.

    I also fear for coming generations who will be unable to base their moral compass on the history of generations passed, the people who actually did stand on soapboxes, the protestors who were harmed, and often killed, for speaking truth to power, the politicians who met with constituents in smoky bars, the journalists who also dropped by after meeting their deadlines.

    Neither of the two parties is capable of real change. That will come only when new leaders in new parties rise to represent the people, with a new wave of populism that will be documented for history by a cadre of dedicated journalists unfettered by corruption and malice. It will be a thing to behold.

    The post The Desiccated Hearts and Souls of Working-class Americans first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • When I arrived in Rangoon in 2008, I felt as though I stepped into the pages of a forgotten colonial story within a musty old book. As I looked around Rangoon on my daily walks outward from central Rangoon, I saw the city was fully developed but neglected and abused by a lack of electricity and repair. Staunch British colonial architecture often sat behind rusted barbed wired fence pinched by wild-grown landscape and tall cackled trees. Absent in the decayed city was an overabundance of cars on the streets. Generators on curbsides everywhere belched exhaust into sweet jasmine air and shot power into buildings. Still, most people had no generators, and for them, the Dictatorship doled out stingy amounts of current late at night, usually between one to five in the morning. Burma’s people lived without basic necessities everyone in the modern world took for granted. Life moved slowly among street markets and sidewalk teashops that edged into the road, occasionally across two full lanes. Specialized markets appeared once or twice a week, such as the infamous Thieves Market on Shwe Bon Tar Street, where you could bargain for unique items with your hands protecting your own bag or pockets.

    Information from outside Burma was then often spread through conversations and rumors. Broadcasts of international media were received by illegal satellite dishes, but the Dictatorship cut signals when news about Aung San Suu Kyi or Burma appeared. Most people used transistor radios at night to listen to Voice of America or Radio Free Asia. Mobile communications were terrible. If you had the extra cash and wanted a mobile phone, the cost was around thirty thousand Kyat or roughly thirty US dollars. A SIM card to go with it, however, cost over five million Kyat.

    One could easily imagine the Burmese people were spiritually broken from the dictatorship’s oppressive habits. No doubt some were. In Burma, I saw how people lived inside a dystopian nightmare in which General Aung San’s request that the Burmese develop “discipline” as a guiding cultural trait was twisted by the Dictatorship into a brutal concept that actually preceded its rule. The Colonial British practiced “discipline” with totalitarianism as explained so well by none better than George Orwell, who served the British Empire in Burma as a policeman. From Orwell’s days until even as late as 2011, no one was safe from undercover police, military intelligence, and citizen informants. An utterance overheard by the wrong person could lead to harassment by a conniving local street or area boss seeking tea-money in exchange for silence, or a worse outcome if one seemed obtuse or apparently fearful. Without electronic surveillance, privacy was snatched away by word of mouth or prying eyes noticing you pass – your trail was easily traced no matter where you went. Notes on you were kept. Your movement was monitored rather than digitally recorded as it is today; it just took more time for police to learn your habits then, and inside pre-reform Burma time was an abstract concept. If you stepped out of line politically at any point in your life, years later, at any time, you could be investigated by dutiful authorities who would make no mistake sizing you up.

    Once I got past my newness as a stranger in a strange land and past the requisite fawning period over everything new and unusual to me, I began to see the multiple layers of life and living habits in Rangoon. So rare was it to meet a non-tourist foreigner to most locals to talk with for an extended period, it soon became evident to me that when local people got comfortable with me, they could barely contain their anger about the dictatorship and their need to tell me something about their life. More importantly, many people I met needed to talk about the horrors and hardships of living under the world’s most brutal military dictatorship in modern history.

    Rabbit Hole

    By January 2010, as an English Language Fellow under the US State Department’s English Language Programs, while at the US Embassy sponsored school in Rangoon, called the American Center, I was well grounded in Burma. I was accustomed to the local language, social nuances, and cultural norms as much as I could be. I was also well versed in local politics, for an outsider.

    The American Center on Tawin Street in 2010 was a sort of ground zero for the Burma democracy movement in Rangoon. It was a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural hotbed of intrigue complete with spies from various military and police agencies. Most of the students were political, faith, and social activists, many were ex-political prisoners or from political families, and a few claimed to be apolitical. Most students from outside Rangoon were granted from political, cultural, and religious organizations, and finally, there were the sons and daughters of the military and crony classes. The American Center Library was busy and open to anyone with a library card. Dozens of patrons visited the library each day. I taught language and literature classes and quietly taught journalism students in an old basement level broom and file cabinet closet that we converted into our office space. I volunteered when requested at every opportunity and gave as much time as I had to the students. It was the sort of experience for a serious and genuinely dedicated teacher that one would be thankful to have.

    One day a small group of students who formed the Cultural Impact Studies Club asked me to help them. Zin Mar Aung, a 2012 Woman of Courage Award recipient and a current Parliament member, said to me inside a dampened taxi ride one rain-soaked night, “We want you to help us help our people.” All I could say is, “Of course, if I can,” and just like that, I jumped into the labyrinthine rabbit hole of the Burmese underground Democracy movement with only one condition. First, they could not tell anyone I existed because I knew they would be seen by other locals and authorities as controlled by a foreigner, which was certainly never the case. I adopted several Burmese names for various reasons, and I was prepared to be detained or deported at any moment every day for the next two years. The dutiful students kept a spotlight off of me so well that on the day my journalism students released the final issue of a yearlong monthly journal to the American Center Library, the Head Librarian, Daw Myat San, asked me, “Who is U Thiha?” U Thiha wrote a farewell piece for the final issue and was always listed as one of the co-editors. I told her with a satisfied grin, “I thought you always knew, it’s me.” We had a good laugh. Such was the nature of how people in Burma shifted names.

    Upon joining the Cultural Impact Studies Club, I began two years filled with enlightenment, intrigue, tumult, observation, self-learning, and fulfillment. I quickly learned just how brave my students were. They laughed at the idea of going back to prison since they’d all been there for years. Such was the spirit of ex-political prisoners in Burma. Upon release from prison, political prisoners chose to resume their work as political activists or remain an activist but outside of political currents. They all followed the teaching of Aung San Suu Kyi and lived free from fear. We held Poetry of Witness and Art of Witness events, which were illegal public events attended by hundreds of people each time. Poets read poems for which they had been imprisoned for reading years earlier, and ex-political prisoners displayed art made while in prison even when such a display was also a crime. Another time we held a grand welcoming party for newly released political prisoners at the American Center with the help of a courageous Public Affairs Officer, Adrienne Nutzman. Outside the American Center gate, as many as fifty journalists protested because they were denied entry. We started a Self-Help Group for Ex-Political Prisoners that offered counseling and humanitarian assistance, the Yangon School of Political Science, the I-Nature environmental group, and the list grows longer though I’ll end it there. It was a glorious time, and we accomplished much despite the devious efforts at sabotage by a non compos mentis American Center Director who actions were eerily similar to the Burmese Special Branch police.

    The Cultural Impact Studies Club was led mainly by Zin Mar Aung with Myo Aung Htwe and Ko Bo Bo. Myo was sentenced to serve life in prison at sixteen years old for unknowingly standing near a broken handgun during a protest in 1988. Ko Bo Bo, an Army Colonel’s son, saw his dominos fall in 1988 when his curiosity to see a protest got him arrested during the mayhem, from then began his road toward several periods of imprisonment for his commitment to making Burma free. Among others who were ever-present was Ko Sein, a brave man who now leads the Peoples Alliance for Credible Elections.

    Suu Kyi Didn’t Lose Her Halo

    By June of 2011, all was quiet. There was little or no noticeable progress regarding Burma’s political situation or Aung San Suu Kyi’s future. In June, the Cultural Impact Studies Club held a birthday party for Suu Kyi in the secure family home of a friend and supporter of Aung San Suu Kyi, who secretly arrived alone as she had ditched her NLD handlers by declaring she was tired and needed rest. Suu Kyi spoke as a leader, an ex-political prisoner, an activist, or a mother, as the Burmese students called her. Suu Kyi’s spoken kindness toward all of Burma’s people was revealing of her nature. There was no press, no handler, no filter.

    I know Aung San Suu Kyi. I was present many times when she met and spoke with so many different groups of people. I know she’s done everything possible, and impossible, to nurture the seedling to Democracy in Burma. Missteps not withstanding, no one is perfect, Suu Kyi took far too much criticism from far too many people regarding the military’s offensive on the Rohingya. It was easy for everyone in the world to point at Aung San Suu Kyi, accusing her, and say genocide was her fault. Her detractors will still say anything to hurt her. Oxford Tea Circlers canceled her awards, removed her portrait, and thousands of so-called journalists literally rewrote the exact same article about how Suu Kyi “lost her halo.” They all viciously attacked and weakened Suu Kyi. Such bitter and shameless acts are marks of low intelligence. All the while, Aung San Suu Kyi stood firm for Myanmar and Myanmar’s people, as she said she would. Now anyone can see, as if it matters to anyone now, it was the Military Dictatorship all along. The civilian government with a non-elected State Counselor was an illusion, a distraction, and now it’s gone.

    In hindsight, I wonder how Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi Gyi would have fared in the modern world with Twitter, cancel culture, and narcissistic attention-seeking know-nothings trying to get Likes and Follows for shouting negative disgusting slurs at great people for reasons they can barely explain on their best day.

    No Return to the Past

    As Suu Kyi spoke that day, there was one moment that stood out to me overall. Someone asked her when she would call for protests. In fact, many activists from the 1988 Uprising era were then eager to stage a nationwide protest. Student protest is a tradition in Burma that goes back at least to British Colonial rule. I’ve seen references to student protests in poetry, most famously references to Ko Ba Hein, a student activist who claimed that the British government’s crackdown on protests would “let the fire be ablaze in the entire country by one beat of the horse-hoof.” With that blaze in mind, Aung San Suu Kyi explained how she changed her mind about mass protests. She seemed to have a heavy heart when talking about the thousands of people killed by the dictatorship during past protests. Her regret was unashamed, her eyes watered. Suu Kyi explained why she was opposed to protests and said that the result would be the same and therefore futile, and, frankly, it was what the dictatorship wanted since it was an excuse to reject sharing governance with civilian leadership. She said there would be no return to past failures.

    If only the Generals who forged the recent coup could agree with Suu Kyi about no return to the past.

    With a heavy heart, I now think of the many, many people I know dear and well who have to relive with, yes, an Orwellian nightmare under the weight of the military dictatorship. It’s as if the recent few years of hyper-capitalism with personal freedom and unlimited opportunities were merely a dream state, and now it’s time for the people to wake up to greet the same past decades of literal enslavement inside of their own homes. When I saw U Mya Aye and Min Ko Naing’s names on the list of those detained by the Dictatorship several days ago, I stopped to think about them. They are two of the most sincere and genuinely nice people I’ve ever known. I met up with Min Ko Naing near the Berkshires in Massachusetts in 2018. He visited with a friend at my home, and I remarked how he seemed so happy and carefree. He smiled. His life was moving on in ways he’d never imagined it could have during the long years he spent as a political prisoner – for being a poet.

    Myanmar, as Burma is called today, is not the same as in 2010. Technology and communications have brought Myanmar citizens into modernity, especially with the newest generation with smartphones in hand almost from birth. I thought that Myanmar youth would grow up to be immune from past generations’ hardships and the sacrifice made by tens of thousands of unnamed people whose one dream was for a better future for their children — and for freedom. I was wrong. On social media, it’s the tech-savvy youth organizing online campaigns, artful memes, and undoubtedly making plans for protests. Their vigor and energy on Twitter are spirited with talk about the sacrifice of their parents, relatives, friends, and the generations preceding their own. Growing up with abundance and technology has not made them politically aloof or spoiled. They retrieved the flags carried by student activists over the previous decades, they are bold, and they seem to accept political and social activism as their rightful duty in Myanmar society.

    The Dictatorship seized total control and quickly shut down mobile communications, turned off the Internet for hours, banned Facebook, and now threatens to ban Twitter. But can they ban Twitch, Gab, Discord, and the many other social and content platforms easily accessible without cutting the Internet? I wonder if the Dictatorship knows that millions of people will take to the streets to demand Aung San Suu Kyi’s release. Maybe that’s what the Dictatorship wants. Time will tell. People are organizing protests by banging pots and pans – everyone in Myanmar at the same time while they sing protest songs. People are beginning to gather in the streets for demonstrations, all Myanmar people, all professions, work stoppages, stay home strikes, public statements, in all manners of civil disobedience. It’s only a matter of time before mass protests begin.

    The question now is only, how will the Dictatorship respond? Everyone knows the Generals will kill a lot of people as they have the Rohingya, Rakhine, Kachin, Mon, Chin, Karen, Kaya, Shan, Wa, and Barma. Will they again kill protesters?

    It’s 2021 in Myanmar. The Myanmar people will not stop being free. They will fight. That is what Democracy looks like.

    The post  Burma Redux   first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • When I arrived in Rangoon in 2008, I felt as though I stepped into the pages of a forgotten colonial story within a musty old book. As I looked around Rangoon on my daily walks outward from central Rangoon, I saw the city was fully developed but neglected and abused by a lack of electricity and repair. Staunch British colonial architecture often sat behind rusted barbed wired fence pinched by wild-grown landscape and tall cackled trees. Absent in the decayed city was an overabundance of cars on the streets. Generators on curbsides everywhere belched exhaust into sweet jasmine air and shot power into buildings. Still, most people had no generators, and for them, the Dictatorship doled out stingy amounts of current late at night, usually between one to five in the morning. Burma’s people lived without basic necessities everyone in the modern world took for granted. Life moved slowly among street markets and sidewalk teashops that edged into the road, occasionally across two full lanes. Specialized markets appeared once or twice a week, such as the infamous Thieves Market on Shwe Bon Tar Street, where you could bargain for unique items with your hands protecting your own bag or pockets.

    Information from outside Burma was then often spread through conversations and rumors. Broadcasts of international media were received by illegal satellite dishes, but the Dictatorship cut signals when news about Aung San Suu Kyi or Burma appeared. Most people used transistor radios at night to listen to Voice of America or Radio Free Asia. Mobile communications were terrible. If you had the extra cash and wanted a mobile phone, the cost was around thirty thousand Kyat or roughly thirty US dollars. A SIM card to go with it, however, cost over five million Kyat.

    One could easily imagine the Burmese people were spiritually broken from the dictatorship’s oppressive habits. No doubt some were. In Burma, I saw how people lived inside a dystopian nightmare in which General Aung San’s request that the Burmese develop “discipline” as a guiding cultural trait was twisted by the Dictatorship into a brutal concept that actually preceded its rule. The Colonial British practiced “discipline” with totalitarianism as explained so well by none better than George Orwell, who served the British Empire in Burma as a policeman. From Orwell’s days until even as late as 2011, no one was safe from undercover police, military intelligence, and citizen informants. An utterance overheard by the wrong person could lead to harassment by a conniving local street or area boss seeking tea-money in exchange for silence, or a worse outcome if one seemed obtuse or apparently fearful. Without electronic surveillance, privacy was snatched away by word of mouth or prying eyes noticing you pass – your trail was easily traced no matter where you went. Notes on you were kept. Your movement was monitored rather than digitally recorded as it is today; it just took more time for police to learn your habits then, and inside pre-reform Burma time was an abstract concept. If you stepped out of line politically at any point in your life, years later, at any time, you could be investigated by dutiful authorities who would make no mistake sizing you up.

    Once I got past my newness as a stranger in a strange land and past the requisite fawning period over everything new and unusual to me, I began to see the multiple layers of life and living habits in Rangoon. So rare was it to meet a non-tourist foreigner to most locals to talk with for an extended period, it soon became evident to me that when local people got comfortable with me, they could barely contain their anger about the dictatorship and their need to tell me something about their life. More importantly, many people I met needed to talk about the horrors and hardships of living under the world’s most brutal military dictatorship in modern history.

    Rabbit Hole

    By January 2010, as an English Language Fellow under the US State Department’s English Language Programs, while at the US Embassy sponsored school in Rangoon, called the American Center, I was well grounded in Burma. I was accustomed to the local language, social nuances, and cultural norms as much as I could be. I was also well versed in local politics, for an outsider.

    The American Center on Tawin Street in 2010 was a sort of ground zero for the Burma democracy movement in Rangoon. It was a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural hotbed of intrigue complete with spies from various military and police agencies. Most of the students were political, faith, and social activists, many were ex-political prisoners or from political families, and a few claimed to be apolitical. Most students from outside Rangoon were granted from political, cultural, and religious organizations, and finally, there were the sons and daughters of the military and crony classes. The American Center Library was busy and open to anyone with a library card. Dozens of patrons visited the library each day. I taught language and literature classes and quietly taught journalism students in an old basement level broom and file cabinet closet that we converted into our office space. I volunteered when requested at every opportunity and gave as much time as I had to the students. It was the sort of experience for a serious and genuinely dedicated teacher that one would be thankful to have.

    One day a small group of students who formed the Cultural Impact Studies Club asked me to help them. Zin Mar Aung, a 2012 Woman of Courage Award recipient and a current Parliament member, said to me inside a dampened taxi ride one rain-soaked night, “We want you to help us help our people.” All I could say is, “Of course, if I can,” and just like that, I jumped into the labyrinthine rabbit hole of the Burmese underground Democracy movement with only one condition. First, they could not tell anyone I existed because I knew they would be seen by other locals and authorities as controlled by a foreigner, which was certainly never the case. I adopted several Burmese names for various reasons, and I was prepared to be detained or deported at any moment every day for the next two years. The dutiful students kept a spotlight off of me so well that on the day my journalism students released the final issue of a yearlong monthly journal to the American Center Library, the Head Librarian, Daw Myat San, asked me, “Who is U Thiha?” U Thiha wrote a farewell piece for the final issue and was always listed as one of the co-editors. I told her with a satisfied grin, “I thought you always knew, it’s me.” We had a good laugh. Such was the nature of how people in Burma shifted names.

    Upon joining the Cultural Impact Studies Club, I began two years filled with enlightenment, intrigue, tumult, observation, self-learning, and fulfillment. I quickly learned just how brave my students were. They laughed at the idea of going back to prison since they’d all been there for years. Such was the spirit of ex-political prisoners in Burma. Upon release from prison, political prisoners chose to resume their work as political activists or remain an activist but outside of political currents. They all followed the teaching of Aung San Suu Kyi and lived free from fear. We held Poetry of Witness and Art of Witness events, which were illegal public events attended by hundreds of people each time. Poets read poems for which they had been imprisoned for reading years earlier, and ex-political prisoners displayed art made while in prison even when such a display was also a crime. Another time we held a grand welcoming party for newly released political prisoners at the American Center with the help of a courageous Public Affairs Officer, Adrienne Nutzman. Outside the American Center gate, as many as fifty journalists protested because they were denied entry. We started a Self-Help Group for Ex-Political Prisoners that offered counseling and humanitarian assistance, the Yangon School of Political Science, the I-Nature environmental group, and the list grows longer though I’ll end it there. It was a glorious time, and we accomplished much despite the devious efforts at sabotage by a non compos mentis American Center Director who actions were eerily similar to the Burmese Special Branch police.

    The Cultural Impact Studies Club was led mainly by Zin Mar Aung with Myo Aung Htwe and Ko Bo Bo. Myo was sentenced to serve life in prison at sixteen years old for unknowingly standing near a broken handgun during a protest in 1988. Ko Bo Bo, an Army Colonel’s son, saw his dominos fall in 1988 when his curiosity to see a protest got him arrested during the mayhem, from then began his road toward several periods of imprisonment for his commitment to making Burma free. Among others who were ever-present was Ko Sein, a brave man who now leads the Peoples Alliance for Credible Elections.

    Suu Kyi Didn’t Lose Her Halo

    By June of 2011, all was quiet. There was little or no noticeable progress regarding Burma’s political situation or Aung San Suu Kyi’s future. In June, the Cultural Impact Studies Club held a birthday party for Suu Kyi in the secure family home of a friend and supporter of Aung San Suu Kyi, who secretly arrived alone as she had ditched her NLD handlers by declaring she was tired and needed rest. Suu Kyi spoke as a leader, an ex-political prisoner, an activist, or a mother, as the Burmese students called her. Suu Kyi’s spoken kindness toward all of Burma’s people was revealing of her nature. There was no press, no handler, no filter.

    I know Aung San Suu Kyi. I was present many times when she met and spoke with so many different groups of people. I know she’s done everything possible, and impossible, to nurture the seedling to Democracy in Burma. Missteps not withstanding, no one is perfect, Suu Kyi took far too much criticism from far too many people regarding the military’s offensive on the Rohingya. It was easy for everyone in the world to point at Aung San Suu Kyi, accusing her, and say genocide was her fault. Her detractors will still say anything to hurt her. Oxford Tea Circlers canceled her awards, removed her portrait, and thousands of so-called journalists literally rewrote the exact same article about how Suu Kyi “lost her halo.” They all viciously attacked and weakened Suu Kyi. Such bitter and shameless acts are marks of low intelligence. All the while, Aung San Suu Kyi stood firm for Myanmar and Myanmar’s people, as she said she would. Now anyone can see, as if it matters to anyone now, it was the Military Dictatorship all along. The civilian government with a non-elected State Counselor was an illusion, a distraction, and now it’s gone.

    In hindsight, I wonder how Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi Gyi would have fared in the modern world with Twitter, cancel culture, and narcissistic attention-seeking know-nothings trying to get Likes and Follows for shouting negative disgusting slurs at great people for reasons they can barely explain on their best day.

    No Return to the Past

    As Suu Kyi spoke that day, there was one moment that stood out to me overall. Someone asked her when she would call for protests. In fact, many activists from the 1988 Uprising era were then eager to stage a nationwide protest. Student protest is a tradition in Burma that goes back at least to British Colonial rule. I’ve seen references to student protests in poetry, most famously references to Ko Ba Hein, a student activist who claimed that the British government’s crackdown on protests would “let the fire be ablaze in the entire country by one beat of the horse-hoof.” With that blaze in mind, Aung San Suu Kyi explained how she changed her mind about mass protests. She seemed to have a heavy heart when talking about the thousands of people killed by the dictatorship during past protests. Her regret was unashamed, her eyes watered. Suu Kyi explained why she was opposed to protests and said that the result would be the same and therefore futile, and, frankly, it was what the dictatorship wanted since it was an excuse to reject sharing governance with civilian leadership. She said there would be no return to past failures.

    If only the Generals who forged the recent coup could agree with Suu Kyi about no return to the past.

    With a heavy heart, I now think of the many, many people I know dear and well who have to relive with, yes, an Orwellian nightmare under the weight of the military dictatorship. It’s as if the recent few years of hyper-capitalism with personal freedom and unlimited opportunities were merely a dream state, and now it’s time for the people to wake up to greet the same past decades of literal enslavement inside of their own homes. When I saw U Mya Aye and Min Ko Naing’s names on the list of those detained by the Dictatorship several days ago, I stopped to think about them. They are two of the most sincere and genuinely nice people I’ve ever known. I met up with Min Ko Naing near the Berkshires in Massachusetts in 2018. He visited with a friend at my home, and I remarked how he seemed so happy and carefree. He smiled. His life was moving on in ways he’d never imagined it could have during the long years he spent as a political prisoner – for being a poet.

    Myanmar, as Burma is called today, is not the same as in 2010. Technology and communications have brought Myanmar citizens into modernity, especially with the newest generation with smartphones in hand almost from birth. I thought that Myanmar youth would grow up to be immune from past generations’ hardships and the sacrifice made by tens of thousands of unnamed people whose one dream was for a better future for their children — and for freedom. I was wrong. On social media, it’s the tech-savvy youth organizing online campaigns, artful memes, and undoubtedly making plans for protests. Their vigor and energy on Twitter are spirited with talk about the sacrifice of their parents, relatives, friends, and the generations preceding their own. Growing up with abundance and technology has not made them politically aloof or spoiled. They retrieved the flags carried by student activists over the previous decades, they are bold, and they seem to accept political and social activism as their rightful duty in Myanmar society.

    The Dictatorship seized total control and quickly shut down mobile communications, turned off the Internet for hours, banned Facebook, and now threatens to ban Twitter. But can they ban Twitch, Gab, Discord, and the many other social and content platforms easily accessible without cutting the Internet? I wonder if the Dictatorship knows that millions of people will take to the streets to demand Aung San Suu Kyi’s release. Maybe that’s what the Dictatorship wants. Time will tell. People are organizing protests by banging pots and pans – everyone in Myanmar at the same time while they sing protest songs. People are beginning to gather in the streets for demonstrations, all Myanmar people, all professions, work stoppages, stay home strikes, public statements, in all manners of civil disobedience. It’s only a matter of time before mass protests begin.

    The question now is only, how will the Dictatorship respond? Everyone knows the Generals will kill a lot of people as they have the Rohingya, Rakhine, Kachin, Mon, Chin, Karen, Kaya, Shan, Wa, and Barma. Will they again kill protesters?

    It’s 2021 in Myanmar. The Myanmar people will not stop being free. They will fight. That is what Democracy looks like.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Keir Starmer’s Labour is complicit in the UK’s coronavirus (Covid-19) catastrophe, which has resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000 people. This staggering failure is a result of incompetence, appalling political judgement, and a lack of basic humanity. Perhaps the most damaging of Starmer’s decisions has been his persistence in calling for the reopening of UK schools. Various sources, from Independent Sage scientist professor Anthony Costello to the Long Covid Kids campaign group, are now coming forward to inform the public of the threat posed to children’s health by coronavirus. But Starmer isn’t listening.

    Alarming statistics

    Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 5 weeks after testing positive for coronavirus, 15% of secondary school children and 13% of under 12s are still struggling with symptoms. Long Covid Kids also reported that between the autumn half term and December 2020, 700 children were admitted to hospital as a result of coronavirus. The virus is now known to be capable of damaging a range of organs, causing permanent disability, even in those whose symptoms had initially been mild. And because schools have been open since September, fuelling the spread of the disease, it seems likely that the long term health implications of coronavirus are likely to be worse for children than we currently know.

    Return to school?

    According to the Skwawkbox, concerns about Labour’s post-Corbyn approach to the pandemic were raised internally by a member of the party’s policy team as early as April 2020. They advised that “returning children to school, and adults to the workplace, before test, track & trace had been properly established, posed a serious risk to public health”.

    Trade unions like Unite and the NEU also shared their concerns about an early reopening of schools, as did then shadow education secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey. Heeding none of this sound advice, Starmer tried to make a virtue of his having supported the government on their 1 June 2020 deadline for reopening schools, when raising the issue at PMQs on 3 June.

    Although the teaching unions prevailed and schools did not fully reopen until September, they then became breeding grounds for the virus. This culminated in both Starmer and Johnson insisting children return to the classroom on the 4 January, with the opposition changing its stance only after the government had signalled a last-minute U-turn. The disastrous result was children returning to school for just one day and teachers having no time to prepare for the online learning that would now have to take place, while all of them were unnecessarily exposed to coronavirus. For this, the Conservative government and Labour front bench share responsibility.

    And still they persist

    Even now, Starmer and Johnson remain fixated on ensuring that schools open more widely at the earliest possible time. Their current focus on the success of the vaccination programme as the precondition for returning children to classrooms is especially dangerous.

    Both parties’ positions fail to take into account the dangers posed by coronavirus to children’s health. Labour differs from the government only in calling for teachers to be vaccinated as if children and parents are somehow immune from catching and spreading the virus. But it’s the reinfection rate, not the vaccine rollout, that should be governing the easing of lockdown. With nobody suggesting that children or parents will be vaccinated before 8 March and serious concerns about the effectiveness of vaccines that are not reinforced by a timely second dose, talk of a return to schools before the summer is wildly premature.

    A dangerous narrative

    Worse still, the focus on vaccine rollout by both main parties has limited the scope of public debate. The mainstream media presents policy discussion as a battle between the two poles of government and opposition. Had there been responsible opposition – as there was up until 4 April last year – the scope for public debate would be wider and calls to prevent a reckless early return to the classroom would be heard more loudly. And it’s unforgivable that the threat to the health and wellbeing of our children posed by the premature wider reopening of schools is not being highlighted by the person whose main job is to hold the government to account.

    Unfit for office

    It should go without saying that an individual who wilfully disregards clear evidence that a policy will result in the death or permanent injury to thousands of people is unfit for public office, but it isn’t being said by nearly enough people. Starmer and his opposition front bench, and Johnson and the members of his cabinet, are co-authors of the present disaster. Not one of these people should be anywhere near power.

    The COSMOS is investigating the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic on communities across the UK. Working alongside Hamara Assra, we are listening to and asking questions of the minority Black, Asian and ethnic communities about the vaccines. We’d like to hear from all sides of the debate. If you are concerned about the coronavirus vaccine, or if you have no worries about it, please talk to us by filling out our survey.

    Image via BBC/YouTube

    By Dr Phil Bevin

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Jamela Alindogan reports from Manila on the attack on academic freedom. Video: Al Jazeera

    Teachers and students in the Philippines are angry over the decision to allow military forces to enter the top state university. The 1989 deal was put in place to protect students from the warrantless arrests and constant surveillance by police and military forces that were common during the 1970s era of martial law. Mel Sta Maria at Rappler analyses the crisis.

    ANALYSIS: By Mel Sta Maria in Manila

    Because of the controversy resulting from the unilateral termination by the Defence Department (DND) of the University of the Philippines (UP) and the DND’s accord limiting the entry of security personnel inside UP, Commission of Higher Education (CHED) chair J. Prospero de Vera was quoted in news reports as saying a “panel of education experts will define the meaning of academic freedom and the role of security forces in the protection of academic freedom and the welfare of students.”

    CHED or a “panel of experts” will define academic freedom for the University of the Philippines?

    This is the most intrusive, gross, and unconstitutional governmental action that can ever be done in regard to education.

    No governmental agency should define how academic freedom should be operationalised in UP and, for that matter, in any educational institution, like Ateneo de Manila University, Far Eastern University, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, De La Salle University, Mindanao State University, University of San Carlos, University of Sto. Tomas, and others.

    The 1987 Constitution provides that “academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning” (Article 14 Section 5[2]). The operative verb is “shall” – not may, could, or any other discretionary word.

    “Shall” is a command which all must observe unqualifiedly. No exact definition was made for a very fundamental reason.

    From the constitutional deliberations, Commissioner Adolf Azcuna (who later became a Supreme Court associate justice) said: “Since academic freedom is a dynamic concept, we want to expand the frontiers of freedom, especially in education, therefore, we shall leave it to the court to develop further the parameters of academic freedom.”

    The intent of the framers
    The intent of the framers was not for the executive department, especially the CHED, to come up with an academic freedom “definition”. The task has been exclusively and particularly given to the Supreme Court “to develop further parameters of academic freedom”.

    The reason is so obvious. The executive and Congress are political departments often imbued by temporal, erratic, and slanted motivations. Education cannot be left to these people.

    And the Supreme Court did its job by enunciating the pillars of academic freedom. All institutions of higher learning have exclusively the constitutional right to decide on the following:

    1. who may teach;
    2. what may be taught;
    3. how it shall be taught; and who may be admitted to study. (Ateneo de Manila vs. Capulong et. al., GR No. 99327 May 27, 1993).

    Significantly, the Supreme Court did not provide any specific definition but only enumerated these 4 pillars so that academic freedom shall truly be expansive and free pursuant to the spirit and aspiration of the constitutional mandate.

    For the CHED or any “panel of experts” to make a definition and impose it on UP or other schools will “straightjacket” or constrict academic freedom, opening it up to further so-called qualifications in the future.

    If that happens, it will usher in the beginning of more, though gradual, intrusions. I dread the day when the CHED and the DND, on the pretext of “security” reasons, will give outlines or syllabus to teachers for them to teach students – worst, for the CHED or the police to sit in in a class to monitor whether the “right” “patriotic” lessons are properly taught.

    State indoctrination
    This is state indoctrination. An atmosphere of prior restraint will be created – a repugnant situation.

    The Supreme Court’s parameters are enough guidance. There is no need to add anything. Neither is clarification necessary. Let us leave it at that. Let the institutions of higher learning principally decide what kind of atmosphere their education will have.

    Justice Frankfurter, the most revered US Supreme Court magistrate on the subject of academic freedom, said: “It is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculations, experiment, and creation.”

    And the University of the Philippines, to show fidelity to that “business of a university” to provide the right educational atmosphere to its professors and students, entered into the accord with the DND.

    UP grounds are public places which can be entered into by anybody. But, if they can be freely roamed by state agents with ulterior motives to monitor, overtly or clandestinely, UP’s academic community, education will be inhibited. That is not acceptable. The exclusionary nature of the accord therefore was important.

    Without it, there will be an atmosphere where professors and students may exhibit uncalled for reservations in their discussions and research, talking and investigating less freely lest they may be mistaken as seditionist or terrorist by state agents roaming around the campus.

    This undue self-restraint will destroy that “marketplace of ideas” which an educational institution should be.

    What about ‘mistaken incitement’?
    What if law or political science professors engage their students to research, debate, defend, or debunk the propriety or the pros and cons of socialism, Marxism, or even liberation theology, and roaming state agents, not experts in these topics, hear the discussions?

    It is possible that, mistakenly, these professors may be suspected of inciting students to commit terrorism and then apprehended.

    “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.”

    That quote is from Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest United States presidents.

    “A revolution, woven in the dim light of mystery, has kept me from you. Another revolution will return me to your arms, bring me back to life.”

    This is one of the memorable quotes in El Filibusterismo, written by Jose Rizal.

    What if a theatrical play created, written, produced, and directed by students were staged revolving around those statements? State agents without expertise on these matters may suspect these students of fomenting radical ideas and arrest them. The mere thought of such possibilities can restrain free expression, discussion, and analysis.

    Accord termination ominous
    The termination of the UP-DND accord is ominous especially in the light of the Anti-Terror-Law (ATL), where mere suspicion is the threshold for an arrest based on the vague provisions of the law.

    Professors and students can be victimised by the ATL. For instance, government surveillance can be made on any suspected person except that “surveillance, interception, and recording of communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources, and confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized” (Section 16 of the ATL).

    Professors and students are not exempted. Also, while “confidential business correspondence” is exempted, confidential educational correspondence between professors and students are not. These omissions portentously tell volumes on the vulnerability of professors and students.

    With the UP-DND accord’s termination and the ATL’s implementation, the lure to control the conscience, the thought process, the learning, the outlook, the discernment of students, may just be too great for unscrupulous state officials to resist. This is disturbing.

    Government officials should not tinker with academic freedom. Many Filipinos benefitted from its unadulterated concept. Many more have served the country well, performed their civic duties consistently, and gave hope to future generations.

    A definition by a “panel of experts” will not only define for educational institutions what academic freedom is; more dangerously, it will effectively dictate to them what academic freedom is not; what it no longer means. That is destructive and constitutionally abhorrent.

    Dr Mel Sta Maria is dean of the Far Eastern University (FEU) Institute of Law in the Philippines. He teaches law at FEU and the Ateneo School of Law, hosts shows on both radio and YouTube, and has authored several books on law, politics, and current events.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • OPEN LETTER: By USP staff, alumnus and students

    Vice-chancellor Professor Pal Ahluwalia has only been at the University of the South Pacific (USP) for three years – and each year, Fiji has attempted to “coup” him. The first was in August 2019, second in June 2020 and now February 2021.

    First, through a 16-page paper at the USP Council in Nadi in 2019, Fiji moved to sack him.

    Second in 2020, using its numbers in a special executive council, Fiji suspended him and installed Professor Derek Armstrong, a failed candidate for USP VCP as Acting VCP. After Council reinstated VCP Pal, and cleared him of all allegations, Fiji then told the Fijian public that the council made a wrong decision.

    Professor Pal Ahluwalia 040221
    Professor Pal Ahluwalia … deported by Fiji on a flight to Brisbane. Image: APR

    The third attempt was a plain old Gestapo-style coup.

    Under cover of darkness and during curfew hours, like the parable thief, 15 Fijian officials infiltrated the region’s sacred space in Laucala, kidnapped its CEO and his wife and whisked them off to Australia. The operation was over within 10 hours from the 12am Laucala campus kidnap to catch the 10am Nadi flight runway.

    And just next door at Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, in the early hours of the same Thursday, February 4, morning, the leaders were groaning over Dame Meg Taylor’s successor [as secretary-general].

    This Fiji operation was a staged and successful coup on the supreme governing body of USP while its leaders were preoccupied and too tired to take any action.

    Unable to stamp its dominance over the USP Council, the ruling FijiFirst government struck and for the third time, using its own laws, got rid of a thorn in its side and ready for another showdown with the region.

    Dr Morgan Tuimaleali’ifano
    For the Good Governance Team at USP

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The University of the South Pacific campus … scene of a Fiji “coup on the supreme governing body” of the regional 12-nation institution. Image: Wansolwara file

    OPEN LETTER: By USP staff, alumnus and students

    Vice-chancellor Professor Pal Ahluwalia has only been at the University of the South Pacific (USP) for three years – and each year, Fiji has attempted to “coup” him. The first was in August 2019, second in June 2020 and now February 2021.

    First, through a 16-page paper at the USP Council in Nadi in 2019, Fiji moved to sack him.

    Second in 2020, using its numbers in a special executive council, Fiji suspended him and installed Professor Derek Armstrong, a failed candidate for USP VCP as Acting VCP. After Council reinstated VCP Pal, and cleared him of all allegations, Fiji then told the Fijian public that the council made a wrong decision.

    Professor Pal Ahluwalia 040221 Professor Pal Ahluwalia … deported by Fiji on a flight to Brisbane. Image: APR

    The third attempt was a plain old Gestapo-style coup.

    Under cover of darkness and during curfew hours, like the parable thief, 15 Fijian officials infiltrated the region’s sacred space in Laucala, kidnapped its CEO and his wife and whisked them off to Australia. The operation was over within 10 hours from the 12am Laucala campus kidnap to catch the 10am Nadi flight runway.

    And just next door at Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, in the same early hours of the same Thursday, February 4, morning, the leaders were groaning over Dame Meg Taylor’s successor [as secretary-general].

    This Fiji operation was a staged and successful coup on the supreme governing body of USP while its leaders were preoccupied and too tired to take any action.

    Unable to stamp its dominance over the USP Council, the ruling FijiFirst government struck and for the third time, using its own laws, got rid of a thorn in its side and ready for another showdown with the region.

    Dr Morgan Tuimaleali’ifano
    For the Good Governance Team at USP

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The politics of divide and rule and how Indonesia’s attempt to separate indigenous Papuans is an irrational and unrealistic proposal that will damage the cultural values of kinship and togetherness as Melanesian people, writes Dr Socratez Yoman.


    ANALYSIS: By Dr Socratez Yoman

    The Indonesian coloniser has become an ignorant ruler with deaf ears and with evil intention in fighting for the addition of new Papuan provinces without the population numbers to justify this.

    Provincial division is a serious problem because the population of Papua and West Papua does not meet the requirements to establish new provinces.

    The planned provinces will cause division and destruction of the cultural values of kinship and togetherness as Melanesian people.

    After Indonesia failed with a plan to move 2 million indigenous Papuans to Manado, the new strategy devised by the Jakarta authorities is to separate indigenous Papuans according to ethnic groups. This is a crime against humanity and is a gross human rights violation carried out by the state.

    The author followed the presentation from the Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia, Tito Karnavian, to the Working Meeting of Commission I DPD RI in Jakarta on 27 January 2021 regarding the government’s version of the Provincial Expansion scenario which was not rational or realistic.

    The Minister of Home Affairs is not paying attention to the standards and requirements for the development of a new administrative area, such as area size, population, human resources and financial and natural resources.

    The criteria for a new government have been largely ignored, but political interests and remilitarisation have become the main mission. To be honest, the people and nation of West Papua do not need lots of division of districts and provinces.

    Military purpose for new provinces
    These new provinces are only for political and military purposes and to move excess population from Java.

    The proposal in summary

    1. Papua Province
    (the original province)
    Capital: Jayapura
    a. Jayapura Town
    b. Jayapura Regency
    c. Keerom Regency
    d. Sarmi Regency
    e. Maberamo Raya Regency
    f. Waropen Regency
    g. Kep. Yapen Regency
    h. Biak Numfor Regency
    i. Supiori Regency

    2. South Papua Province
    (new province)
    Capital: Merauke
    a. Merauke Regency
    b. Boven Digoel Regency
    c. Mappi Regency
    d. Asmat Regeny
    e. Peg Bintang Regency

    3. Central Eastern Papua Province
    (new province)
    Capital: Wamena
    a. Jayawijaya Regency
    b. Lani Jaya Regency
    c. Tolikora Regency
    d. Nduga Regency
    e. Maberamo Tengah Regency
    f. Yalimo Regency
    g. Yahukimo Regency
    h. Puncak Jaya Regency
    i. Puncak Regency

    4. Western Central Papua Province
    (still under debate)
    Capital: Mimika
    a. Mimika Regency
    b. Paniai Regency
    c. Deiyai Regency
    d. Dogiay Regency
    e. Nabire Regency
    f. Intan Jaya Regency

    5. West Papua Daya Province
    (previously mostly West Papua Province)
    Capital: Sorong
    a. Town of Sorong
    b. Sorong Regency
    c. Sorong Selatan Regency
    d. Maybrat Regency
    e. Tambrauw Regency
    f. Raja Ampat Regency

    With these additions Papua would have five provinces. The mechanism for provincial expansion is in accordance with Article 76 of the Special Autonomy Law with additional authority changes from the central government when there is a deadlock in the region.

    The total population of West Papua includes two provinces respectively: Papua Province 3,322,526 people and West Papua 1,069,498 inhabitants. The total is 4,392,024 inhabitants.

    Evenly dividing up population
    If the population is divided evenly from the total population of 4,392,024 the population for the five provinces are as follows:

    1. Papua Province will be inhabited by a population of 878,404 people.

    2. West Papua Province will be inhabited by a population of 878,404 people.

    3. The Province of Puppet I will be inhabited by a population of 878,404 people.

    4. The Province of Puppet II will be inhabited by a population of 878,404 people.

    5. The Province of Puppet III will be inhabited by a population of 878,404 people.

    The question is whether a province with a total population of 878,404 people is worthy and eligible to become a province?

    It is very important to compare with the population of the provinces of West Java, Central Java and East Java.

    1. Total population of West Java: 46,497,175 people.

    2. Total population of Central Java: 35,557,248 people.

    3. Total Population of East Java: 38,828,061 people.

    The question is why does the government of the Republic of Indonesia not carry out splitting the provinces of West Java, Central Java and East Java, which have the largest population sizes?

    ‘Transfer of excess population’
    As a consequence of a population shortage in this province, the Indonesian authorities will transfer the excess population of Malay Indonesians to these puppet provinces.

    The creation of these five provinces also have as their main objective to build 5 military area commands, 5 police area command bases, tens of military district commands and dozens of police district headquarters and various other units. The land of Melanesia will be used as the home of the military, police and Indonesian Malay people.

    The consequences will be that the indigenous Papuans from Sorong to Merauke will lose their land because the land will be robbed and looted to build office buildings, military headquarters, police headquarters, army district bases, and police district bases.

    Humans will be removed, made impoverished, without land and without a future, even slaughtered and destroyed like animals in a natural or unnatural way as we have experienced and witnessed until the present.

    There is evidence that a genocide process has been carried out by the modern colonial rulers of Indonesia in this era of civilisation. The crimes of the Indonesian colonial rulers continue to be exposed in public.

    In 1969, when the West Papuan people were integrated into Indonesia, the indigenous population was around 809,337 people. Meanwhile, the neighbouring independent state of Papua New Guinea has around 2,783,121 people.

    Since then, the indigenous population of PNG has reached 8,947,024 million, while the number of Indigenous Papuans is still only 1.8 million.

    Modern colonial ruler
    This fact shows that the Indonesian government is a modern colonial ruler which has occupied and colonised the people and nation of West Papua.

    Dr Veronika Kusumaryati, a daughter of Indonesia’s young generation in her dissertation entitled: Ethnography of the Colonial Present: History, Experience, And Political Consciousness in West Papua, revealed:

    “For Papuans, current colonialism is marked by the experience and militariSation of daily life. This colonialism can also be felt through acts of violence that are disproportionately shown to Papuans, as well in the narrative of their lives.

    “When Indonesia arrived, thousands of people were detained, tortured and killed. Offices were looted and houses burned. … these stories did not appear in historical books, not in Indonesia, nor in the Netherlands. This violence did not stop in the 1960s.”

    (Kusumaryati, V. (2018). Ethnography of the Colonial Present: History, Experience, And Political Consciousness in West Papua, p. 25).

    The Indonesian government repeats the experience of the colonial rulers of apartheid in South Africa. In 1978, Peter W. Botha became Prime Minister and he carried out a politics of divide and conquer by dividing the unity of the people of South Africa through establishing puppet states: 1. The Transkei Puppet State. 2. The Bophutha Tswana Puppet State. 3. Venda Puppet State. 4. The Ciskei Puppet State. (Source: 16 Most Influential Heroes of Peace: Sutrisno Eddy, 2002, p. 14).

    There is a serious threat and displacement of indigenous Papuans from their ancestral lands proven by the fact that in the regencies they have been robbed by the Malays and have been deprived of their basic rights for Indigenous Papuans in the political field. See the evidence and examples as follows:

    1. Sarmi Regency 20 seats: 13 migrants and 7 indigenous Papuans (OAP).

    2. Boven Digul Regency 20 seats: 16 migrants and 6 Indigenous Papuans

    3. Asmat Regency 25 seats: 11 migrants and 14 Indigenous Papuans

    4. Mimika Regency 35 seats: 17 migrants and OAP 18 Indigenous Papuans

    5. 20 seats in Fakfak District: 12 migrants and 8 Indigenous Papuans.

    6. Raja Ampat Regency, 20 seats: 11 migrants and 9 Indigenous Papuans.

    7. Sorong Regency 25 seats: 19 migrants and 7 Indigenous Papuans.

    8. Teluk Wondama Regency 25 seats: 14 migrants and 11 Indigenous Papuans.

    9. Merauke Regency 30 seats: 27 migrants and only 3 Indigenous Papuans.

    10. South Sorong Regency 20 seats. 17 migrants and 3 indigenous Papuans.

    11. Kota Jayapura 40 seats: Migrants 27 people and 13 indigenous Papuans.

    12. Kab. Keerom 23 seats. Migrants 13 people and 7 indigenous Papuans.

    13. Kab. Jayapura 25 seats. Migrants 18 people and 7 indigenous Papuans.

    Meanwhile, the members of the Representative Council of Papua and West Papua Provinces are as follows:

    1.  Papua Province out of 55 members, 44 Papuans and 11 Malays/Newcomers.;
    2. West Papua Province, out of 45 members, 28 Malays/Newcomers and only 17 Indigenous Papuans.

    Reverend Socratez Sofyan Yoman is a Baptist priest, author and human rights defender from Papua. He filed this article for Asia Pacific Report.

     

     

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The politics of divide and rule and how Indonesia’s attempt to separate indigenous Papuans is an irrational and unrealistic proposal that will damage the cultural values of kinship and togetherness as Melanesian people, writes Dr Socrates Yoman.


    ANALYSIS: By Dr Socrates Yoman

    The Indonesian coloniser has become an ignorant ruler with deaf ears and with evil intention in fighting for the addition of new Papuan provinces without population numbers to justify this.

    Provincial division is a serious problem because the population of Papua and West Papua does not meet the requirements to establish new provinces.

    The planned provinces will cause division and destruction of the cultural values of kinship and togetherness as Melanesian people.

    After Indonesia failed with a plan to move 2 million indigenous Papuans to Manado, the new strategy devised by the Jakarta authorities is to separate indigenous Papuans according to ethnic groups. This is a crime against humanity and is a gross human rights violation carried out by the state.

    The author followed the presentation from the Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia, Tito Karnavian, to the Working Meeting of Commission I DPD RI in Jakarta on 27 January 2021 regarding the government’s version of the Provincial Expansion scenario which was not rational or realistic.

    The Minister of Home Affairs is not paying attention to the standards and requirements for the development of a new administrative area, such as area size, population, human resources and financial and natural resources.

    The criteria for a new government have been largely ignored, but political interests and remilitarisation have become the main mission. To be honest, the people and nation of West Papua do not need lots of division of districts and provinces.

    Military purpose for new provinces
    These new provinces are only for political and military purposes and to move excess population from Java.

    The proposal in summary

    1. Papua Province
    (the original province)
    Capital: Jayapura
    a. Jayapura Town
    b. Jayapura Regency
    c. Keerom Regency
    d. Sarmi Regency
    e. Maberamo Raya Regency
    f. Waropen Regency
    g. Kep. Yapen Regency
    h. Biak Numfor Regency
    i. Supiori Regency

    2. South Papua Province
    (new province)
    Capital: Merauke
    a. Merauke Regency
    b. Boven Digoel Regency
    c. Mappi Regency
    d. Asmat Regeny
    e. Peg Bintang Regency

    3. Central Eastern Papua Province
    (new province)
    Capital: Wamena
    a. Jayawijaya Regency
    b. Lani Jaya Regency
    c. Tolikora Regency
    d. Nduga Regency
    e. Maberamo Tengah Regency
    f. Yalimo Regency
    g. Yahukimo Regency
    h. Puncak Jaya Regency
    i. Puncak Regency

    4. Western Central Papua Province
    (still under debate)
    Capital: Mimika
    a. Mimika Regency
    b. Paniai Regency
    c. Deiyai Regency
    d. Dogiay Regency
    e. Nabire Regency
    f. Intan Jaya Regency

    5. West Papua Daya Province
    (previously mostly West Papua Province)
    Capital: Sorong
    a. Town of Sorong
    b. Sorong Regency
    c. Sorong Selatan Regency
    d. Maybrat Regency
    e. Tambrauw Regency
    f. Raja Ampat Regency

    With these additions Papua would have five provinces. The mechanism for provincial expansion is in accordance with Article 76 of the Special Autonomy Law with additional authority changes from the central government when there is a deadlock in the region.

    The total population of West Papua includes two provinces respectively: Papua Province 3,322,526 people and West Papua 1,069,498 inhabitants. The total is 4,392,024 inhabitants.

    Evenly dividing up population
    If the population is divided evenly from the total population of 4,392,024 the population for the five provinces are as follows:

    1. Papua Province will be inhabited by a population of 878,404 people.

    2. West Papua Province will be inhabited by a population of 878,404 people.

    3. The Province of Puppet I will be inhabited by a population of 878,404 people.

    4. The Province of Puppet II will be inhabited by a population of 878,404 people.

    5. The Province of Puppet III will be inhabited by a population of 878,404 people.

    The question is whether a province with a total population of 878,404 people is worthy and eligible to become a province?

    It is very important to compare with the population of the provinces of West Java, Central Java and East Java.

    1. Total population of West Java: 46,497,175 people.

    2. Total population of Central Java: 35,557,248 people.

    3. Total Population of East Java: 38,828,061 people.

    The question is why does the government of the Republic of Indonesia not carry out splitting the provinces of West Java, Central Java and East Java, which have the largest population sizes?

    ‘Transfer of excess population’
    As a consequence of a population shortage in this province, the Indonesian authorities will transfer the excess population of Malay Indonesians to these puppet provinces.

    The creation of these five provinces also have as their main objective to build 5 military area commands, 5 police area command bases, tens of military district commands and dozens of police district headquarters and various other units. The land of Melanesia will be used as the home of the military, police and Indonesian Malay people.

    The consequences will be that the indigenous Papuans from Sorong to Merauke will lose their land because the land will be robbed and looted to build office buildings, military headquarters, police headquarters, army district bases, and police district bases.

    Humans will be removed, made impoverished, without land and without a future, even slaughtered and destroyed like animals in a natural or unnatural way as we have experienced and witnessed until the present.

    There is evidence that a genocide process has been carried out by the modern colonial rulers of Indonesia in this era of civilisation. The crimes of the Indonesian colonial rulers continue to be exposed in public.

    In 1969, when the West Papuan people were integrated into Indonesia, the indigenous population was around 809,337 people. Meanwhile, the neighbouring independent state of Papua New Guinea has around 2,783,121 people.

    Since then, the indigenous population of PNG has reached 8,947,024 million, while the number of Indigenous Papuans is still only 1.8 million.

    Modern colonial ruler
    This fact shows that the Indonesian government is a modern colonial ruler which has occupied and colonised the people and nation of West Papua.

    Dr Veronika Kusumaryati, a daughter of Indonesia’s young generation in her dissertation entitled: Ethnography of the Colonial Present: History, Experience, And Political Consciousness in West Papua, revealed:

    “For Papuans, current colonialism is marked by the experience and militariSation of daily life. This colonialism can also be felt through acts of violence that are disproportionately shown to Papuans, as well in the narrative of their lives.

    “When Indonesia arrived, thousands of people were detained, tortured and killed. Offices were looted and houses burned. … these stories did not appear in historical books, not in Indonesia, nor in the Netherlands. This violence did not stop in the 1960s.”

    (Kusumaryati, V. (2018). Ethnography of the Colonial Present: History, Experience, And Political Consciousness in West Papua, p. 25).

    The Indonesian government repeats the experience of the colonial rulers of apartheid in South Africa. In 1978, Peter W. Botha became Prime Minister and he carried out a politics of divide and conquer by dividing the unity of the people of South Africa through establishing puppet states: 1. The Transkei Puppet State. 2. The Bophutha Tswana Puppet State. 3. Venda Puppet State. 4. The Ciskei Puppet State. (Source: 16 Most Influential Heroes of Peace: Sutrisno Eddy, 2002, p. 14).

    There is a serious threat and displacement of indigenous Papuans from their ancestral lands proven by the fact that in the regencies they have been robbed by the Malays and have been deprived of their basic rights for Indigenous Papuans in the political field. See the evidence and examples as follows:

    1. Sarmi Regency 20 seats: 13 migrants and 7 indigenous Papuans (OAP).

    2. Boven Digul Regency 20 seats: 16 migrants and 6 Indigenous Papuans

    3. Asmat Regency 25 seats: 11 migrants and 14 Indigenous Papuans

    4. Mimika Regency 35 seats: 17 migrants and OAP 18 Indigenous Papuans

    5. 20 seats in Fakfak District: 12 migrants and 8 Indigenous Papuans.

    6. Raja Ampat Regency, 20 seats: 11 migrants and 9 Indigenous Papuans.

    7. Sorong Regency 25 seats: 19 migrants and 7 Indigenous Papuans.

    8. Teluk Wondama Regency 25 seats: 14 migrants and 11 Indigenous Papuans.

    9. Merauke Regency 30 seats: 27 migrants and only 3 Indigenous Papuans.

    10. South Sorong Regency 20 seats. 17 migrants and 3 indigenous Papuans.

    11. Kota Jayapura 40 seats: Migrants 27 people and 13 indigenous Papuans.

    12. Kab. Keerom 23 seats. Migrants 13 people and 7 indigenous Papuans.

    13. Kab. Jayapura 25 seats. Migrants 18 people and 7 indigenous Papuans.

    Meanwhile, the members of the Representative Council of Papua and West Papua Provinces are as follows:

    1.  Papua Province out of 55 members, 44 Papuans and 11 Malays/Newcomers.;
    2. West Papua Province, out of 45 members, 28 Malays/Newcomers and only 17 Indigenous Papuans.

    Reverend Socratez Sofyan Yoman is a Baptist priest, author and human rights defender from Papua. He filed this article for Asia Pacific Report.

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • When a European graduate student emailed to ask if I would participate in an assignment to “do an interview with one of my favourite authors,” I said yes. My books have not exactly been best-sellers, and so I was an easy target for anyone describing me as a “favourite author.”

    But beyond my gratitude for someone noticing my writing, I was intrigued by the questions. And when I suggested we might publish the interview, I was even more intrigued by the student’s request to stay anonymous. She wrote that she was “extremely unsure of having my name on anything online. I know I am very strange (probably the strangest person I’ve ever met), but I’m not on Facebook or social media. I actually like the fact that googling my name gets no results about me. I don’t know if I’m ready yet to give up my blissful online non-existence. Is that crazy?”

    It didn’t seem crazy to me, but I asked if she might want to describe herself for readers. Here is her self-description:

    I am a classically trained musician (more comfortable playing an instrument than talking in front of people), specializing in linguistics and interested in the meaning and the realities behind words and actions. Born and raised in a communist country, clandestinely listening to Radio Free Europe while growing up, having all civil liberties seriously infringed, yet being raised free by amazing parents (with the help of books and music) who knew how to help us find our identity independently of society’s impositions. I have always been profoundly enraged by any form of injustice or lie, and from a very young age I would routinely get in trouble for standing up for and defending my beliefs and people who were being abused in some way or another (something that has always been puzzling to adults and authority figures, since I am extremely shy and well behaved). I got myself almost expelled in high school for refusing to participate in an event which contradicted who I am. And I do not work on Sundays.

    Seeing how the world keeps collapsing and becoming more insane, I began to think that maybe I am insane for wanting a better world than the one that’s become so normalized. Stumbling upon Robert Jensen’s books made me realize I am not the only ‘insane’ person in the world. It takes courage to pursue a path that others ignore or deny, to talk about things that others so politically correctly sweep under the rug, to want to face your fears and the pain that comes with admitting the truth, and to give a voice to the pain, fear, and humiliation of those dehumanized by our lack of humanity.

    Here is the interview, conducted over email, last month:

    *****

    European graduate student: Who is Robert Jensen? How would you describe yourself?

    Robert Jensen: I’m a simple boy from the prairie. That’s how I started describing myself when I found myself in so many places that I would have never imagined when I was growing up. I was born and raised in North Dakota with modest aspirations. I was a good student, in that well-behaved, diligent, and just slightly above average way that made teachers happy. I did what I was told and never caused trouble. I didn’t come from an intellectual or political background, and I wasn’t gifted. So, when I found myself with a Ph.D., teaching at a big university, publishing books, and politically active in feminism and the left — which involved a lot of traveling, including internationally for the first time in my life — it was all a bit hard to comprehend. I used to call a friend when I was on the road and ask, “How did a boy from Fargo, ND, end up here?” I continue to think that “I’m a simple boy from the prairie” is a pretty accurate description of me.

    European graduate student: What was your childhood like? Were you a happy child? What are your best and worst memories from that time? 

    RJ: I am still searching for the words to use in public to describe my childhood. My family life was defined by the trauma of abuse and alcoholism. I spent my early years perpetually terrified and was pretty much alone in dealing with that terror. So, no, I was not a happy child. I don’t have a lot of clear memories of that time, which is one way the human mind deals with trauma, to repress conscious memories of it. I think one reason that a radical feminist critique of men’s violence and sexual exploitation resonated with me was that it provided a coherent framework to understand not only society but also my own experience. I came to see that what happened in my family was not an aberration from an otherwise healthy society but one predictable outcome of a very unhealthy society.

    European graduate student: Which authors have been important in helping you understand that?

    RJ: I gave a lecture once in which I identified the most important writers in my intellectual and political development: Andrea Dworkin (feminism), James Baldwin (critiques of white supremacy), Noam Chomsky (critiques of capitalism and imperialism), and Wes Jackson (ecological analysis). There are countless other writers who have been crucial in my development, but those are my anchors, the people who first opened up new ways of thinking about the world for me. They helped me understand not only specific issues they wrote about but how it all fits together, a coherent critique of domination.

    European graduate student: Radical feminism is central in your writing. What is radical feminism? 

    RJ: Feminism is both an intellectual and a political enterprise — that is, it is an analysis and critique of patriarchy, and a movement to challenge the illegitimate authority that flows from patriarchy. Most feminist work focuses on men’s domination and exploitation of women, but feminism also should be a consistent rejection of the domination/subordination dynamic that exists in many other realms of life, most notably in white supremacy, capitalism, and imperialism. I think radical feminism accomplishes that most fully. Radical feminism identifies the centrality of men’s claim to own or control women’s reproductive power and women’s sexuality, whether through violence or cultural coercion. Radical feminism helped me understand how deeply patriarchy is woven into the fabric of everyday life and how central it is to the domination/subordination that defines the world. Here’s how I put it in a recent article:

    For thousands of years — longer than other systems of oppression have existed—men have claimed the right to own or control women. That does not mean patriarchy creates more suffering today than those other systems — indeed, there is so much suffering that trying to quantify it is impossible — but only that patriarchy has been part of human experience longer. Here is another way to say this: White supremacy has never existed without patriarchy. Capitalism has never existed without patriarchy. Imperialism has never existed without patriarchy.

    European graduate student: What is it like being a male radical feminist in a world dominated by the idea that “men rule,” standing up in front of men and telling them that they should stop being men? 

    RJ: My message isn’t that men should stop being men. A male human can’t stop being a male human, of course. But we can reject the concept of masculinity in patriarchy, which trains us to seek dominance. When people critique “toxic masculinity,” a popular phrase in the United States these days, I suggest that “masculinity in patriarchy” is more accurate. The most overtly abusive and toxic forms of masculinity should be eliminated, obviously, but so should the “benevolent sexism” that also is prevalent in patriarchy. My argument to men is simple: If we struggle to transcend masculinity in patriarchy, we can shift the obsessive focus on “how to be a man” to the more useful question of how we can be decent human beings.

    European graduate student: What is your definition for “human being”? What about “woman,” and “man” (not as constructed by patriarchy)? 

    RJ: I would say that we all have to struggle to become fully human in societies that so often reward inhumanity. I don’t have a definition so much as a list of things that most of us want — a deep sense of connection to others that doesn’t undermine the exploration of our individuality; outlets for the creativity that is part of being human, which takes many different forms depending on the individual; a secure community that doesn’t demand that we suppress what makes each of us different. In other words, being human is balancing the need for commitment to a community in which we can feel safe and loved, and the equally important need for individual expression. I think that’s pretty much the same for women and men. But in patriarchy, all of that hardens into the categories of masculine (dominant) and feminine (subordinate). In that system, it’s hard for anyone to become fully human.

    European graduate student: You speak of the advantages of being a “white man in a heterosexual relationship, holding a job that pays more than a living wage for work I enjoy, living in the United States.” What are the disadvantages of all that? 

    RJ: I don’t know that I would call it a disadvantage, but I think most of us who have unearned privilege and power — whether we acknowledge it or not — know we don’t deserve it, which generates in many of us a fear that whatever success we’ve had is a sham. And when we fail, the sense of entitlement leads us too often to blame that failure on others. But on the scale of troubles in this world, that doesn’t rate very high. There’s a reactionary argument in the United States that in an age of multiculturalism, somehow it is white men who are the real oppressed minority, which is just silly. My whole life I have had subtle advantages that came because the people who ran the world I lived and worked in typically looked like me and cut me breaks, often in ways I wasn’t even aware of. I have listened to a lot of mediocre white guys whine about how tough it is for them. My response is, “As a mediocre white guy myself, I can testify to how easy we have it.” When I say that I’m mediocre, I’m not being glib. Like anyone, I have various skills, but I am not exceptional in anything. I think by accepting that fact about myself, that I’m pretty average, I have been able to develop the skills I have to the fullest rather than constantly trying to prove that I’m exceptional. I used to tell students that the secret to my success was that I was mediocre, and I knew it, and so I could make the best of it. That makes it easy to be grateful for all the opportunities I’ve had.

    European graduate student: Lately I have come across the term “ethical porn,” described as “ethical, stylish and elegant sexual adult entertainment” (“female and couple focused online porn”). Is there such a thing as pornography that is ethical? The descriptions on one of those sites state: “beautiful tasteful… very naughty photographic collections” which “show much more focus on the pleasure of passion and hot-blooded sex. The desire for sensual female arousal, with a balanced and more realistic approach to sexual gratification with more equal pleasure… porn for women that provided real meaningful and beautiful relatable sex.” Yet the whole idea, the action, and the actual techniques are exactly the same as “classic porn.” Isn’t pornography just pornography, anti-human, no matter how you do it? 

    RJ: We can start by recognizing that pornography produced without abusing women is better than pornography in which such abuse is routine. Pornography that doesn’t present women being degraded for men’s pleasure is better than the mainstream pornography that eroticizes men’s domination of women. But lots of questions remain, as you point out. Why does so much of the so-called ethical or feminist pornography look so similar to mainstream pornography? And, even more important, is it healthy to embrace a patriarchal culture’s obsession with getting sexual pleasure through the mediated objectification of others? In other words, one question is, “What is on the screen in pornography?” and the other is, “Why is the sexuality of so many people so focused on screens?” If through sexuality we seek not only pleasure but intimacy and connection to another person, why do we think explicit pictures will help? Do those images provide the kind of pleasure that we really want? For me, the answer is no. I don’t think graphic sexually explicit images would enhance the kind of connection my partner and I value. I realize other people come to other conclusions, but I think everyone would benefit from reflecting on what we lose when so much of life — including intimacy — is mediated, coming to us through a screen.

    European graduate student:What are the most important qualities (virtues) of a human being? What are a person’s flaws/failings that can make you run away as far and fast as possible? 

    RJ: I think that when we see our own flaws in others, we are the most critical of them. So, I can’t stand people who come to judgment quickly without listening to another person long enough. In other words, I am acutely aware of how often I lack patience. The thing I value most in others, which is probably true for almost all of us, is the capacity for empathy. The older I get, the easier it has been to understand my own failings, and I hope that makes me more empathetic toward others.

    European graduate student: What advice would you give children, especially boys, not just about masculinity and femininity but about life more generally today? 

    RJ: I would start by recognizing that what we do is usually more important than what we say. Adults can tell children what we believe, but kids watch us to see if we act in a way consistent with those statements. For example, I would suggest that kids experience the world directly as often as possible and be wary of letting screens — computers, video games, television — define their lives. That advice is meaningful only if I model the same behavior. It’s important to tell children not to be limited by patriarchal gender norms, but it’s even more important to avoid reinforcing those norms in everyday life.

    European graduate student: What advice would you give young adults, or for that matter, any adult? 

    RJ: When I was teaching, I found myself repeating, over and over again, three things: “Both things are true;” “Reasonable people can disagree;” and “We’re all the same, and there’s a lot of individual variation in the human species.” The first is about recognizing complexity. In my media law class, for example, I would point out that an expansive conception of freedom of speech is essential to democracy, and at the same time it’s crucial that we punish some kinds of speech (libel, harassing speech in certain circumstances, threats) because speech can cause tangible harms that we want to prevent. Both things are true. The second recognizes that in assessing the complexity, we are bound to come to different conclusions and should work to understand why and not assume the other person is an idiot. The third is a reminder that we are one species and all pretty much the same, yet no two of us are exactly alike. None of those three observations are particularly deep; they’re really just truisms. But we need to be reminded of them often.

    European graduate student: With all that has happened these past months — all those lives and livelihoods wasted to hate, racism, injustice, COVID-19, with the elections and the surrounding events — does it seem that people have learnt something from all this? Is there more empathy, more understanding, more humanity? Because from everything I see around the world, it looks like we are even more numb, asleep, and unaware, less caring, even more selfish and superficial than before. 

    RJ: Like always, there’s good news and bad news on that front. It’s not hard to find examples of people turning away from our shared humanity and seeking a sense of superiority and dominance, examples of greed intensifying in the face of so much deprivation. It’s also easy to find people doing exactly the opposite, taking risks to try to bring into existence a society in which empathy is the norm and resources are shared equitably. That’s just a reminder that human nature is variable and plastic — there’s a wide range of expressions of our nature, and individuals can change over time. But at this moment in the United States, it’s hard to be upbeat. Politicians routinely say two things that indicate how deeply in denial as a society we are about all this. One is, in response to the latest horror, “this is not who we are as a nation,” when it is of course a part of who we are as a nation, though some want to ignore that. The other is “there’s nothing we can’t accomplish when we work together,” which is just plain stupid. There are biophysical limits that no society can ignore indefinitely, though the modern consumer capitalist economy encourages us to ignore that reality. The ecological crises we face, including but not limited to rapid climate change, are a result of the species ignoring those limits, with the United States leading the way.

    European graduate student: What does the future look like for our planet, for humanity? Is there any hope for us? 

    RJ: Let’s start with what’s fairly clear: There is no hope that a population of eight billion people with the current level of aggregate consumption today can continue indefinitely. It’s important to recognize that this consumption isn’t equally distributed, and that injustice has to be corrected. But we have to face the reality that high-energy/high-technology societies are unsustainable no matter how things are distributed. The end of the current economic and political systems will likely be in this century, maybe a lot sooner than we expect, and no one knows what will come after that. My summary of the future is “fewer and less.” There will be fewer people consuming a lot less energy and resources, and planning should focus on how to make such a future as humane as possible. Most people — even on the left or in the environmental movement — do not want to face that, at least in part because no one has a plan for how to get from where we are today to a sustainable human population with a sustainable level of consumption. But that’s the challenge. As a species, we likely will fail. But that doesn’t mean we stop trying to figure it out. We’re not going to save the world as we know it, but the intensity of human suffering and ecological destruction can be reduced.

    European graduate student:Are the arts important for you in this struggle? Do you have a favourite musician(s)? Movies? Novels?

    RJ: For a lot of people, the arts are important in coping with these realities. I am not very artistically inclined, either in talent or interests. I like to watch movies and read novels now and then, and I listen to music. But as I got older, I gravitated toward a focus on more straight-forward political and intellectual work. That said, I have two favourite singer/songwriters. One is John Gorka, whom I first heard decades ago, and I immediately fell in love with the stories in his songs. I own everything he has recorded. The second is Eliza Gilkyson. I heard one of her records in the mid-1980s and liked it but didn’t follow her career. In 2005, I met her at a political event in Austin, TX, where we both lived, and we got to be friends. I started listening to her CDs and was especially struck by the quality of her songwriting, as well as her voice. The friendship turned into a romantic relationship and we’re married now. It turned out that she and John were friends, and lately they have been teaching songwriting workshops together. I’m in the enviable position of knowing my two favourite musicians, both of whom have an incredible gift with words, of making the human experience — both the political and personal sides of life — come alive in songs.

    European graduate student: Anything you would like to talk about, but people do not usually ask or do not want to hear. 

    RJ: In interviews, we tend to focus on what makes us look good. We tell a story that sounds coherent, but real life is messy. I like it when people ask me about mistakes I’ve made, stupid things I’ve done, ideas I once believed in that I now reject. There are lots of examples of that in my personal life, of course. But I’m thinking specifically of how long it took me to come to the critical analysis of the domination/subordination dynamic. In my mid-20s, I had a period of several years in which I was a harsh libertarian and a fan of the writing of Ayn Rand. At one point, I think I owned every book she had written. Looking back, I think I understand why. There’s a lot of attention, positive and negative, paid to Rand’s celebration of greed and wealth, but that was never my attraction to her books. I never wanted to be rich or find a justification for being greedy. I think she’s popular with lots of disaffected young people — the kind of person I was in my 20s — because she promises a life without emotional complexity. Rand constructs the perfect individual as a creature who chooses all relationships rationally, which describes no one who has ever lived, herself included. It’s just not the kind of animals we are. We are born into community and cannot make sense of ourselves as individuals outside of community. Her books offer the illusion that we can, by force of individual will, escape all the messiness of living with others. It’s interesting that Rand’s personal life was a train wreck, I suspect because she believed in those illusions and never really accepted the kind of creatures we human beings are. My assumption is that she was so scared of some aspects of the real world — perhaps the pain of loss and rejection — that she took refuge in the fantasy world she created. I think that’s a good reminder of how fear can drive us all to an irrational place if we let it. Anyway, when I started to understand that, I drifted away from Rand’s writing and started constructing a worldview that allowed me to face not only my own fears but also the collective fears of the culture, instead of running from them.

    The post An Interview with: “A simple boy from the prairie” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • When a European graduate student emailed to ask if I would participate in an assignment to “do an interview with one of my favourite authors,” I said yes. My books have not exactly been best-sellers, and so I was an easy target for anyone describing me as a “favourite author.”

    But beyond my gratitude for someone noticing my writing, I was intrigued by the questions. And when I suggested we might publish the interview, I was even more intrigued by the student’s request to stay anonymous. She wrote that she was “extremely unsure of having my name on anything online. I know I am very strange (probably the strangest person I’ve ever met), but I’m not on Facebook or social media. I actually like the fact that googling my name gets no results about me. I don’t know if I’m ready yet to give up my blissful online non-existence. Is that crazy?”

    It didn’t seem crazy to me, but I asked if she might want to describe herself for readers. Here is her self-description:

    I am a classically trained musician (more comfortable playing an instrument than talking in front of people), specializing in linguistics and interested in the meaning and the realities behind words and actions. Born and raised in a communist country, clandestinely listening to Radio Free Europe while growing up, having all civil liberties seriously infringed, yet being raised free by amazing parents (with the help of books and music) who knew how to help us find our identity independently of society’s impositions. I have always been profoundly enraged by any form of injustice or lie, and from a very young age I would routinely get in trouble for standing up for and defending my beliefs and people who were being abused in some way or another (something that has always been puzzling to adults and authority figures, since I am extremely shy and well behaved). I got myself almost expelled in high school for refusing to participate in an event which contradicted who I am. And I do not work on Sundays.

    Seeing how the world keeps collapsing and becoming more insane, I began to think that maybe I am insane for wanting a better world than the one that’s become so normalized. Stumbling upon Robert Jensen’s books made me realize I am not the only ‘insane’ person in the world. It takes courage to pursue a path that others ignore or deny, to talk about things that others so politically correctly sweep under the rug, to want to face your fears and the pain that comes with admitting the truth, and to give a voice to the pain, fear, and humiliation of those dehumanized by our lack of humanity.

    Here is the interview, conducted over email, last month:

    *****

    European graduate student: Who is Robert Jensen? How would you describe yourself?

    Robert Jensen: I’m a simple boy from the prairie. That’s how I started describing myself when I found myself in so many places that I would have never imagined when I was growing up. I was born and raised in North Dakota with modest aspirations. I was a good student, in that well-behaved, diligent, and just slightly above average way that made teachers happy. I did what I was told and never caused trouble. I didn’t come from an intellectual or political background, and I wasn’t gifted. So, when I found myself with a Ph.D., teaching at a big university, publishing books, and politically active in feminism and the left — which involved a lot of traveling, including internationally for the first time in my life — it was all a bit hard to comprehend. I used to call a friend when I was on the road and ask, “How did a boy from Fargo, ND, end up here?” I continue to think that “I’m a simple boy from the prairie” is a pretty accurate description of me.

    European graduate student: What was your childhood like? Were you a happy child? What are your best and worst memories from that time? 

    RJ: I am still searching for the words to use in public to describe my childhood. My family life was defined by the trauma of abuse and alcoholism. I spent my early years perpetually terrified and was pretty much alone in dealing with that terror. So, no, I was not a happy child. I don’t have a lot of clear memories of that time, which is one way the human mind deals with trauma, to repress conscious memories of it. I think one reason that a radical feminist critique of men’s violence and sexual exploitation resonated with me was that it provided a coherent framework to understand not only society but also my own experience. I came to see that what happened in my family was not an aberration from an otherwise healthy society but one predictable outcome of a very unhealthy society.

    European graduate student: Which authors have been important in helping you understand that?

    RJ: I gave a lecture once in which I identified the most important writers in my intellectual and political development: Andrea Dworkin (feminism), James Baldwin (critiques of white supremacy), Noam Chomsky (critiques of capitalism and imperialism), and Wes Jackson (ecological analysis). There are countless other writers who have been crucial in my development, but those are my anchors, the people who first opened up new ways of thinking about the world for me. They helped me understand not only specific issues they wrote about but how it all fits together, a coherent critique of domination.

    European graduate student: Radical feminism is central in your writing. What is radical feminism? 

    RJ: Feminism is both an intellectual and a political enterprise — that is, it is an analysis and critique of patriarchy, and a movement to challenge the illegitimate authority that flows from patriarchy. Most feminist work focuses on men’s domination and exploitation of women, but feminism also should be a consistent rejection of the domination/subordination dynamic that exists in many other realms of life, most notably in white supremacy, capitalism, and imperialism. I think radical feminism accomplishes that most fully. Radical feminism identifies the centrality of men’s claim to own or control women’s reproductive power and women’s sexuality, whether through violence or cultural coercion. Radical feminism helped me understand how deeply patriarchy is woven into the fabric of everyday life and how central it is to the domination/subordination that defines the world. Here’s how I put it in a recent article:

    For thousands of years — longer than other systems of oppression have existed—men have claimed the right to own or control women. That does not mean patriarchy creates more suffering today than those other systems — indeed, there is so much suffering that trying to quantify it is impossible — but only that patriarchy has been part of human experience longer. Here is another way to say this: White supremacy has never existed without patriarchy. Capitalism has never existed without patriarchy. Imperialism has never existed without patriarchy.

    European graduate student: What is it like being a male radical feminist in a world dominated by the idea that “men rule,” standing up in front of men and telling them that they should stop being men? 

    RJ: My message isn’t that men should stop being men. A male human can’t stop being a male human, of course. But we can reject the concept of masculinity in patriarchy, which trains us to seek dominance. When people critique “toxic masculinity,” a popular phrase in the United States these days, I suggest that “masculinity in patriarchy” is more accurate. The most overtly abusive and toxic forms of masculinity should be eliminated, obviously, but so should the “benevolent sexism” that also is prevalent in patriarchy. My argument to men is simple: If we struggle to transcend masculinity in patriarchy, we can shift the obsessive focus on “how to be a man” to the more useful question of how we can be decent human beings.

    European graduate student: What is your definition for “human being”? What about “woman,” and “man” (not as constructed by patriarchy)? 

    RJ: I would say that we all have to struggle to become fully human in societies that so often reward inhumanity. I don’t have a definition so much as a list of things that most of us want — a deep sense of connection to others that doesn’t undermine the exploration of our individuality; outlets for the creativity that is part of being human, which takes many different forms depending on the individual; a secure community that doesn’t demand that we suppress what makes each of us different. In other words, being human is balancing the need for commitment to a community in which we can feel safe and loved, and the equally important need for individual expression. I think that’s pretty much the same for women and men. But in patriarchy, all of that hardens into the categories of masculine (dominant) and feminine (subordinate). In that system, it’s hard for anyone to become fully human.

    European graduate student: You speak of the advantages of being a “white man in a heterosexual relationship, holding a job that pays more than a living wage for work I enjoy, living in the United States.” What are the disadvantages of all that? 

    RJ: I don’t know that I would call it a disadvantage, but I think most of us who have unearned privilege and power — whether we acknowledge it or not — know we don’t deserve it, which generates in many of us a fear that whatever success we’ve had is a sham. And when we fail, the sense of entitlement leads us too often to blame that failure on others. But on the scale of troubles in this world, that doesn’t rate very high. There’s a reactionary argument in the United States that in an age of multiculturalism, somehow it is white men who are the real oppressed minority, which is just silly. My whole life I have had subtle advantages that came because the people who ran the world I lived and worked in typically looked like me and cut me breaks, often in ways I wasn’t even aware of. I have listened to a lot of mediocre white guys whine about how tough it is for them. My response is, “As a mediocre white guy myself, I can testify to how easy we have it.” When I say that I’m mediocre, I’m not being glib. Like anyone, I have various skills, but I am not exceptional in anything. I think by accepting that fact about myself, that I’m pretty average, I have been able to develop the skills I have to the fullest rather than constantly trying to prove that I’m exceptional. I used to tell students that the secret to my success was that I was mediocre, and I knew it, and so I could make the best of it. That makes it easy to be grateful for all the opportunities I’ve had.

    European graduate student: Lately I have come across the term “ethical porn,” described as “ethical, stylish and elegant sexual adult entertainment” (“female and couple focused online porn”). Is there such a thing as pornography that is ethical? The descriptions on one of those sites state: “beautiful tasteful… very naughty photographic collections” which “show much more focus on the pleasure of passion and hot-blooded sex. The desire for sensual female arousal, with a balanced and more realistic approach to sexual gratification with more equal pleasure… porn for women that provided real meaningful and beautiful relatable sex.” Yet the whole idea, the action, and the actual techniques are exactly the same as “classic porn.” Isn’t pornography just pornography, anti-human, no matter how you do it? 

    RJ: We can start by recognizing that pornography produced without abusing women is better than pornography in which such abuse is routine. Pornography that doesn’t present women being degraded for men’s pleasure is better than the mainstream pornography that eroticizes men’s domination of women. But lots of questions remain, as you point out. Why does so much of the so-called ethical or feminist pornography look so similar to mainstream pornography? And, even more important, is it healthy to embrace a patriarchal culture’s obsession with getting sexual pleasure through the mediated objectification of others? In other words, one question is, “What is on the screen in pornography?” and the other is, “Why is the sexuality of so many people so focused on screens?” If through sexuality we seek not only pleasure but intimacy and connection to another person, why do we think explicit pictures will help? Do those images provide the kind of pleasure that we really want? For me, the answer is no. I don’t think graphic sexually explicit images would enhance the kind of connection my partner and I value. I realize other people come to other conclusions, but I think everyone would benefit from reflecting on what we lose when so much of life — including intimacy — is mediated, coming to us through a screen.

    European graduate student:What are the most important qualities (virtues) of a human being? What are a person’s flaws/failings that can make you run away as far and fast as possible? 

    RJ: I think that when we see our own flaws in others, we are the most critical of them. So, I can’t stand people who come to judgment quickly without listening to another person long enough. In other words, I am acutely aware of how often I lack patience. The thing I value most in others, which is probably true for almost all of us, is the capacity for empathy. The older I get, the easier it has been to understand my own failings, and I hope that makes me more empathetic toward others.

    European graduate student: What advice would you give children, especially boys, not just about masculinity and femininity but about life more generally today? 

    RJ: I would start by recognizing that what we do is usually more important than what we say. Adults can tell children what we believe, but kids watch us to see if we act in a way consistent with those statements. For example, I would suggest that kids experience the world directly as often as possible and be wary of letting screens — computers, video games, television — define their lives. That advice is meaningful only if I model the same behavior. It’s important to tell children not to be limited by patriarchal gender norms, but it’s even more important to avoid reinforcing those norms in everyday life.

    European graduate student: What advice would you give young adults, or for that matter, any adult? 

    RJ: When I was teaching, I found myself repeating, over and over again, three things: “Both things are true;” “Reasonable people can disagree;” and “We’re all the same, and there’s a lot of individual variation in the human species.” The first is about recognizing complexity. In my media law class, for example, I would point out that an expansive conception of freedom of speech is essential to democracy, and at the same time it’s crucial that we punish some kinds of speech (libel, harassing speech in certain circumstances, threats) because speech can cause tangible harms that we want to prevent. Both things are true. The second recognizes that in assessing the complexity, we are bound to come to different conclusions and should work to understand why and not assume the other person is an idiot. The third is a reminder that we are one species and all pretty much the same, yet no two of us are exactly alike. None of those three observations are particularly deep; they’re really just truisms. But we need to be reminded of them often.

    European graduate student: With all that has happened these past months — all those lives and livelihoods wasted to hate, racism, injustice, COVID-19, with the elections and the surrounding events — does it seem that people have learnt something from all this? Is there more empathy, more understanding, more humanity? Because from everything I see around the world, it looks like we are even more numb, asleep, and unaware, less caring, even more selfish and superficial than before. 

    RJ: Like always, there’s good news and bad news on that front. It’s not hard to find examples of people turning away from our shared humanity and seeking a sense of superiority and dominance, examples of greed intensifying in the face of so much deprivation. It’s also easy to find people doing exactly the opposite, taking risks to try to bring into existence a society in which empathy is the norm and resources are shared equitably. That’s just a reminder that human nature is variable and plastic — there’s a wide range of expressions of our nature, and individuals can change over time. But at this moment in the United States, it’s hard to be upbeat. Politicians routinely say two things that indicate how deeply in denial as a society we are about all this. One is, in response to the latest horror, “this is not who we are as a nation,” when it is of course a part of who we are as a nation, though some want to ignore that. The other is “there’s nothing we can’t accomplish when we work together,” which is just plain stupid. There are biophysical limits that no society can ignore indefinitely, though the modern consumer capitalist economy encourages us to ignore that reality. The ecological crises we face, including but not limited to rapid climate change, are a result of the species ignoring those limits, with the United States leading the way.

    European graduate student: What does the future look like for our planet, for humanity? Is there any hope for us? 

    RJ: Let’s start with what’s fairly clear: There is no hope that a population of eight billion people with the current level of aggregate consumption today can continue indefinitely. It’s important to recognize that this consumption isn’t equally distributed, and that injustice has to be corrected. But we have to face the reality that high-energy/high-technology societies are unsustainable no matter how things are distributed. The end of the current economic and political systems will likely be in this century, maybe a lot sooner than we expect, and no one knows what will come after that. My summary of the future is “fewer and less.” There will be fewer people consuming a lot less energy and resources, and planning should focus on how to make such a future as humane as possible. Most people — even on the left or in the environmental movement — do not want to face that, at least in part because no one has a plan for how to get from where we are today to a sustainable human population with a sustainable level of consumption. But that’s the challenge. As a species, we likely will fail. But that doesn’t mean we stop trying to figure it out. We’re not going to save the world as we know it, but the intensity of human suffering and ecological destruction can be reduced.

    European graduate student:Are the arts important for you in this struggle? Do you have a favourite musician(s)? Movies? Novels?

    RJ: For a lot of people, the arts are important in coping with these realities. I am not very artistically inclined, either in talent or interests. I like to watch movies and read novels now and then, and I listen to music. But as I got older, I gravitated toward a focus on more straight-forward political and intellectual work. That said, I have two favourite singer/songwriters. One is John Gorka, whom I first heard decades ago, and I immediately fell in love with the stories in his songs. I own everything he has recorded. The second is Eliza Gilkyson. I heard one of her records in the mid-1980s and liked it but didn’t follow her career. In 2005, I met her at a political event in Austin, TX, where we both lived, and we got to be friends. I started listening to her CDs and was especially struck by the quality of her songwriting, as well as her voice. The friendship turned into a romantic relationship and we’re married now. It turned out that she and John were friends, and lately they have been teaching songwriting workshops together. I’m in the enviable position of knowing my two favourite musicians, both of whom have an incredible gift with words, of making the human experience — both the political and personal sides of life — come alive in songs.

    European graduate student: Anything you would like to talk about, but people do not usually ask or do not want to hear. 

    RJ: In interviews, we tend to focus on what makes us look good. We tell a story that sounds coherent, but real life is messy. I like it when people ask me about mistakes I’ve made, stupid things I’ve done, ideas I once believed in that I now reject. There are lots of examples of that in my personal life, of course. But I’m thinking specifically of how long it took me to come to the critical analysis of the domination/subordination dynamic. In my mid-20s, I had a period of several years in which I was a harsh libertarian and a fan of the writing of Ayn Rand. At one point, I think I owned every book she had written. Looking back, I think I understand why. There’s a lot of attention, positive and negative, paid to Rand’s celebration of greed and wealth, but that was never my attraction to her books. I never wanted to be rich or find a justification for being greedy. I think she’s popular with lots of disaffected young people — the kind of person I was in my 20s — because she promises a life without emotional complexity. Rand constructs the perfect individual as a creature who chooses all relationships rationally, which describes no one who has ever lived, herself included. It’s just not the kind of animals we are. We are born into community and cannot make sense of ourselves as individuals outside of community. Her books offer the illusion that we can, by force of individual will, escape all the messiness of living with others. It’s interesting that Rand’s personal life was a train wreck, I suspect because she believed in those illusions and never really accepted the kind of creatures we human beings are. My assumption is that she was so scared of some aspects of the real world — perhaps the pain of loss and rejection — that she took refuge in the fantasy world she created. I think that’s a good reminder of how fear can drive us all to an irrational place if we let it. Anyway, when I started to understand that, I drifted away from Rand’s writing and started constructing a worldview that allowed me to face not only my own fears but also the collective fears of the culture, instead of running from them.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • ANALYSIS: By Kalinga Seneviratne

    Both coverage in the Asian press and statements by neighbouring Asian governments reported in the media on the grabbing of exclusive power by the military in Myanmar reflects the traditional Asian adage that democracy should go hand in hand with economic and political stability.

    Thus, sanctions and external funding of protest groups (usually urban elites and the young) are discouraged.

    Myanmar is a member of the Association of South East Nations (ASEAN) regional grouping, which was instrumental in guiding Myanmar to transit from military rule to civilian rule a decade ago.

    The ASEAN secretariat issuing a statement through its current chair Brunei reiterated that “domestic political stability is essential to a peaceful, stable and prosperous ASEAN Community”.

    Sharon Seah, coordinator at the ASEAN Studies Centre at the National University of Singapore noted that the ASEAN statement this week WAs a slight deviation from the one that ASEAN made after the 2014 coup d’etat in Thailand.

    “What is new in this iteration is the fact that the grouping recognises that collective goals can be undermined by a member state’s political ructions,” she noted.

    Seah, in a commentary published by Singapore’s TODAYOnline news portal, points out that the current ASEAN statement “sounds familiar except that this time, ASEAN is far further along the process of regional integration and community-building, since the ASEAN Community blueprint was launched in 2015”.

    Pax Americana ‘is over’
    Further, she wrote, “Pax Americana, as Southeast Asia knows it, is over and the global world order has changed irrevocably”, thus external pressure (from outside the region) is not the way to go.

    Interestingly, China’s media – both Xinhua news agency and Global Times – have described the latest coup in Myanmar as a “reshuffle of Cabinet”. Their logic may have some substance.

    “Myanmar military announced a major cabinet reshuffle hours after a state of emergency was declared on Monday,” February 1, reported Xinhua from Yangon.

    It referred to a military statement that “new union ministers were appointed for 11 ministries, while 24 deputy ministers were removed from their posts”.

    It added that Union chief justice and judges of the Supreme Court, chief justices and judges of regional or state High Courts are allowed to remain in office as well as members of the Anti-Corruption Commission, chairman, vice-chairman and members of the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission.

    The military used sections of the 2008 constitution, to which Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) had agreed to when they took part in the 2015 elections and won on a landslide.

    This constitution allows the military to take over the government in the event of an emergency that threatens Myanmar’s sovereignty leading to “disintegrating [of] the Union (or) national solidarity”.

    It is debatable if such a situation exists and this could be the subject of argument in coming months.

    Nine years ago
    Luv Puri, a member of UN Secretary-General’s good offices on Myanmar writing in Japan Times (as a private citizen) this week noted that nearly nine years ago, Aung San Suu Kyi reluctantly decided to participate in a byelection to the Parliament and after being elected she was resolute in her cautiousness as the Western leaders sought her advice on how to approach the then President Thein Sein’s government.

    “She had earlier termed the whole process an instance of sham democracy,” recalls Puri, adding, “on February 1, 2021, she proved to be right as the military or Tatmadaw, as it is locally known, staged a coup in the wee hours”.

    Puri noted that the military’s grouse is that at least 8.6 million irregularities were found in voter lists and the ruling NLD government and its appointed election commission failed to review the 2020 elections results, with the latter saying that there was no evidence to support the military’s claims.

    The ruling NLD party won 396 out of 476 seats in the November 8 election, allowing the party to govern for another five years.

    “The contesting positions are symptoms of a deeper institutional malaise.

    “Constitutionally, three important ministries relating to national security, namely defence, home and border, are held by the military,” notes Puri.

    “The military nominates 30 percent of the members of Parliament.

    Existential battle ‘for political survival’
    “In an environment in which the military is fighting an existential battle for political survival, after ruling the country directly or indirectly since the formation of the republic, a military coup was an imminent possibility.”

    China and India, with Myanmar, sandwiched between them have reacted cautiously to the latest developments.

    Myanmar is essential for the success of China’s BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) while for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Look East” project Myanmar is an important lynchpin.

    India has a 1468 km border with Myanmar that runs along 3 north-east Indian states – Nagaland, Manipur and Mizoram – all of which face ethnic and religious tensions.

    China has taken issue with Western media reports that it supported the military takeover in Myanmar.

    Global Times reported that China’s foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin has refuted such claims at a media briefing.

    “Such allegations are not factual,” he said in Beijing. He has also added that China was puzzled by a leaked document from the UN Security Council that China is supposed to have vetoed.

    “Any action taken by the Security Council should contribute to Myanmar’s political and social stability, help Myanmar realize peace and reconciliation, and avoid intensifying contradictions,” he told the media.

    “For India, which had cultivated a careful balance, between nudging along the democratic process by supporting Ms Suu Kyi, and working with the military to ensure its strategic interests to the North East and deny China a monopoly on Myanmar’s infrastructure and resources, the developments are unwelcome,” noted India’s The Hindu in an editorial.

    “The government will need to craft its response taking into consideration the new geopolitical realities of the U.S. and China as well as its own standing as a South Asian power.”

    ‘Share of uncertainties’
    The Indian Express also expressed similar sentiments in an editorial noting that new developments “will create its share of uncertainties” for India.

    “It must continue its engagement with Myanmar and leverage its influence with the Army to persuade it to step back,” added the Express.

    While Myanmar’s expat populations in places like Bangkok, Tokyo and Sydney have demonstrated calling for international intervention, within Myanmar people have taken a different strategy to confront the military takeover.

    Myanmar Times (MT), that is locally owned and published from Yangon, carried a number of reports on how this is shaping up. They reported about various aspects of civil disobedience campaigns initiated by trade unions, leading artists and the medical profession.

    MT reported that a movement, which urged Myanmar citizens to not buy and use products affiliated with the Tatmadaw has gone viral since February 3.

    The military has been linked to a large number of businesses in various sectors. They have been associated with food and beverage products, cigarettes, the entertainment industry, internet service providers, banks, financial enterprises, hospitals, oil companies, and wholesale markets and retail businesses, among others, the newspaper pointed out.

    MT also reported that “Myanmar celebrities, who usually make headlines for their latest albums, haircuts and fashion choices, have used their social media profiles for an entirely different purpose this week”.

    Singers change from cosmetics to disobedience
    Since the military seized power on February 1, “Myanmar’s singers, actors and artists changed their topic of interest from cosmetics to disobedience to the rule of the junta” noted MT.

    Among the celebrities are Paing Takhon who started his modelling career in 2014 and has amassed over 1 million followers on Facebook and filmmaker Daung with 1.8 million.

    Meanwhile, the Confederation of Trade Unions Myanmar (CTUM) and Myanmar Industry Craft and Service-Trade Unions Federation (MICS)  announced that they had resigned and are no longer part of government, employers and workers’ groups.

    The “Civil Disobedience Campaign” that was launched on February 2 is also joined by health-care workers in 40 townships, including doctors and nurses from 80 hospitals.

    Meanwhile, Seah argues that this month’s events are a big setback for ASEAN community building and to help in any democratic retransformation, an ASEAN-led commission to investigate the military junta’s allegations of electoral fraud could be set up, headed by a mutually respected senior ASEAN personality trusted by all sides.

    “For the commission’s findings to be accepted at the international level, support must come from ASEAN’s external stakeholders,” she argues.

    “The selection of the commission members must be transparent from the get-go and may require consultations with key stakeholders both inside and outside Myanmar (while) ASEAN should secure the agreement of the military junta to dial down to a state of limited emergency, refrain from the use of force against civilians and allow the functioning of government with specified conditions between the NLD and the military”.

    IDN-InDepthNews, 04 February 2021

    IDN is flagship agency of the non-profit International Press Syndicate. This article by Kalinga Seneviratne is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ANALYSIS: By Kalinga Seneviratne

    Both coverage in the Asian press and statements by neighbouring Asian governments reported in the media on the grabbing of exclusive power by the military in Myanmar reflects the traditional Asian adage that democracy should go hand in hand with economic and political stability.

    Thus, sanctions and external funding of protest groups (usually urban elites and the young) are discouraged.

    Myanmar is a member of the Association of South East Nations (ASEAN) regional grouping, which was instrumental in guiding Myanmar to transit from military rule to civilian rule a decade ago.

    The ASEAN secretariat issuing a statement through its current chair Brunei reiterated that “domestic political stability is essential to a peaceful, stable and prosperous ASEAN Community”.

    Sharon Seah, coordinator at the ASEAN Studies Centre at the National University of Singapore noted that the ASEAN statement this week WAs a slight deviation from the one that ASEAN made after the 2014 coup d’etat in Thailand.

    “What is new in this iteration is the fact that the grouping recognises that collective goals can be undermined by a member state’s political ructions,” she noted.

    Seah, in a commentary published by Singapore’s TODAYOnline news portal, points out that the current ASEAN statement “sounds familiar except that this time, ASEAN is far further along the process of regional integration and community-building, since the ASEAN Community blueprint was launched in 2015”.

    Pax Americana ‘is over’
    Further, she wrote, “Pax Americana, as Southeast Asia knows it, is over and the global world order has changed irrevocably”, thus external pressure (from outside the region) is not the way to go.

    Interestingly, China’s media – both Xinhua news agency and Global Times – have described the latest coup in Myanmar as a “reshuffle of Cabinet”. Their logic may have some substance.

    “Myanmar military announced a major cabinet reshuffle hours after a state of emergency was declared on Monday,” February 1, reported Xinhua from Yangon.

    It referred to a military statement that “new union ministers were appointed for 11 ministries, while 24 deputy ministers were removed from their posts”.

    It added that Union chief justice and judges of the Supreme Court, chief justices and judges of regional or state High Courts are allowed to remain in office as well as members of the Anti-Corruption Commission, chairman, vice-chairman and members of the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission.

    The military used sections of the 2008 constitution, to which Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) had agreed to when they took part in the 2015 elections and won on a landslide.

    This constitution allows the military to take over the government in the event of an emergency that threatens Myanmar’s sovereignty leading to “disintegrating [of] the Union (or) national solidarity”.

    It is debatable if such a situation exists and this could be the subject of argument in coming months.

    Nine years ago
    Luv Puri, a member of UN Secretary-General’s good offices on Myanmar writing in Japan Times (as a private citizen) this week noted that nearly nine years ago, Aung San Suu Kyi reluctantly decided to participate in a byelection to the Parliament and after being elected she was resolute in her cautiousness as the Western leaders sought her advice on how to approach the then President Thein Sein’s government.

    “She had earlier termed the whole process an instance of sham democracy,” recalls Puri, adding, “on February 1, 2021, she proved to be right as the military or Tatmadaw, as it is locally known, staged a coup in the wee hours”.

    Puri noted that the military’s grouse is that at least 8.6 million irregularities were found in voter lists and the ruling NLD government and its appointed election commission failed to review the 2020 elections results, with the latter saying that there was no evidence to support the military’s claims.

    The ruling NLD party won 396 out of 476 seats in the November 8 election, allowing the party to govern for another five years.

    “The contesting positions are symptoms of a deeper institutional malaise.

    “Constitutionally, three important ministries relating to national security, namely defence, home and border, are held by the military,” notes Puri.

    “The military nominates 30 percent of the members of Parliament.

    Existential battle ‘for political survival’
    “In an environment in which the military is fighting an existential battle for political survival, after ruling the country directly or indirectly since the formation of the republic, a military coup was an imminent possibility.”

    China and India, with Myanmar, sandwiched between them have reacted cautiously to the latest developments.

    Myanmar is essential for the success of China’s BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) while for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Look East” project Myanmar is an important lynchpin.

    India has a 1468 km border with Myanmar that runs along 3 north-east Indian states – Nagaland, Manipur and Mizoram – all of which face ethnic and religious tensions.

    China has taken issue with Western media reports that it supported the military takeover in Myanmar.

    Global Times reported that China’s foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin has refuted such claims at a media briefing.

    “Such allegations are not factual,” he said in Beijing. He has also added that China was puzzled by a leaked document from the UN Security Council that China is supposed to have vetoed.

    “Any action taken by the Security Council should contribute to Myanmar’s political and social stability, help Myanmar realize peace and reconciliation, and avoid intensifying contradictions,” he told the media.

    “For India, which had cultivated a careful balance, between nudging along the democratic process by supporting Ms Suu Kyi, and working with the military to ensure its strategic interests to the North East and deny China a monopoly on Myanmar’s infrastructure and resources, the developments are unwelcome,” noted India’s The Hindu in an editorial.

    “The government will need to craft its response taking into consideration the new geopolitical realities of the U.S. and China as well as its own standing as a South Asian power.”

    ‘Share of uncertainties’
    The Indian Express also expressed similar sentiments in an editorial noting that new developments “will create its share of uncertainties” for India.

    “It must continue its engagement with Myanmar and leverage its influence with the Army to persuade it to step back,” added the Express.

    While Myanmar’s expat populations in places like Bangkok, Tokyo and Sydney have demonstrated calling for international intervention, within Myanmar people have taken a different strategy to confront the military takeover.

    Myanmar Times (MT), that is locally owned and published from Yangon, carried a number of reports on how this is shaping up. They reported about various aspects of civil disobedience campaigns initiated by trade unions, leading artists and the medical profession.

    MT reported that a movement, which urged Myanmar citizens to not buy and use products affiliated with the Tatmadaw has gone viral since February 3.

    The military has been linked to a large number of businesses in various sectors. They have been associated with food and beverage products, cigarettes, the entertainment industry, internet service providers, banks, financial enterprises, hospitals, oil companies, and wholesale markets and retail businesses, among others, the newspaper pointed out.

    MT also reported that “Myanmar celebrities, who usually make headlines for their latest albums, haircuts and fashion choices, have used their social media profiles for an entirely different purpose this week”.

    Singers change from cosmetics to disobedience
    Since the military seized power on February 1, “Myanmar’s singers, actors and artists changed their topic of interest from cosmetics to disobedience to the rule of the junta” noted MT.

    Among the celebrities are Paing Takhon who started his modelling career in 2014 and has amassed over 1 million followers on Facebook and filmmaker Daung with 1.8 million.

    Meanwhile, the Confederation of Trade Unions Myanmar (CTUM) and Myanmar Industry Craft and Service-Trade Unions Federation (MICS)  announced that they had resigned and are no longer part of government, employers and workers’ groups.

    The “Civil Disobedience Campaign” that was launched on February 2 is also joined by health-care workers in 40 townships, including doctors and nurses from 80 hospitals.

    Meanwhile, Seah argues that this month’s events are a big setback for ASEAN community building and to help in any democratic retransformation, an ASEAN-led commission to investigate the military junta’s allegations of electoral fraud could be set up, headed by a mutually respected senior ASEAN personality trusted by all sides.

    “For the commission’s findings to be accepted at the international level, support must come from ASEAN’s external stakeholders,” she argues.

    “The selection of the commission members must be transparent from the get-go and may require consultations with key stakeholders both inside and outside Myanmar (while) ASEAN should secure the agreement of the military junta to dial down to a state of limited emergency, refrain from the use of force against civilians and allow the functioning of government with specified conditions between the NLD and the military”.

    IDN-InDepthNews, 04 February 2021

    IDN is flagship agency of the non-profit International Press Syndicate. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • ANALYSIS: By James Renwick, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    New Zealand’s Climate Change Commission this week released its long-anticipated advice to the government on how to reshape the economy to meet the country’s domestic and international climate change obligations.

    The document sets out three emissions budgets, covering 15 years to 2035 in five-yearly plans. It also provides advice on the direction policy should take to achieve the country’s 2050 net-zero goal.

    New Zealand’s net emissions rose by 57 percent between 1990 and 2018, placing it among the poorest performers in the OECD.

    As one of New Zealand’s six climate change commissioners I have been part of the process of making a clear case to government that we must take “immediate and decisive action on climate change” across all sectors.

    The commission’s priorities include a rapid shift to electric transport, accelerated renewable energy generation, climate-friendly farming practices and more permanent forests, predominantly in native trees.

    It also says New Zealand must raise its pledge under the Paris Agreement, known as the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), because its current commitment is not compatible with the goal of limiting warming to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels.

    Ambitious but realistic carbon budgets
    The good news is the draft carbon budgets are achievable, with technologies that already exist.

    The commission’s advice is built around 17 recommendations that cover many sectors of the economy. One of the key messages is that Aotearoa New Zealand cannot plant its way out of trouble but needs to make real cuts in emissions and eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

    Most of the solutions are well known. We need to reduce emissions from transport, from energy and industry, from agriculture and from waste.

    Reducing transport emissions is crucial as the sector was responsible for 36.3 percent of New Zealand’s emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases in 2018 and accounts for most of the growth in emissions over the past 30 years.

    Recommendations for the transport sector include electrification of the vehicle fleet, improved public transport networks and better integration of active transport (walking and cycling).

    A rapid increase in electric cars would reduce emissions from private and commercial transport, while supporting low-carbon fuels like “green” hydrogen and biofuels would help the freight sector (including heavy trucks, shipping and aircraft).

    Part of the transport story is urban planning — changing how people and goods move around. The commission recommends limiting urban sprawl, making walking and cycling safer and easier and shifting more freight from road to rail or shipping.

    The commission also calls for rapid decarbonisation of electricity generation, and energy generally, to phase out the use of coal. Between now and 2035, it estimates New Zealand could cut transport emissions by 47 percent and those coming from heat and electricity generation by 45 percent.

    Emissions from agriculture
    Methane accounts for 43.5 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, and more than 80 percent of total methane comes from cud-chewing farm animals. But the short-lived nature of methane in the atmosphere means we do not need to reduce methane emissions so fast.

    The Zero Carbon Act calls for a 24-47 percent reduction in methane emissions by 2050, compared to net-zero for carbon dioxide.

    Cows ready to be milked
    Emissions from farm animals account for more than 80% of New Zealand’s methane emissions. Image: Brendon O’Hagan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

    The commission’s advice is that biogenic methane emissions can be reduced by 19 percent by 2035 while further improving productivity in the sector through better feed, fewer but more productive animals and continued research into emission-reducing technologies.

    The commission calls for real cuts in emissions rather than offsets through tree planting, but argues forestry should continue to play an important role in the long-term storage of carbon, for example if timber is used in buildings or furniture and to provide bioenergy.

    It recommends a shift towards more permanent native forests to improve long-term carbon storage, biodiversity and soil retention.

    Waste is another sector with significant potential to cut emissions. Per head of population, New Zealanders throw away roughly twice what an average OECD citizen does. The commission recommends moving towards a circular economy, where resources are valued and reused.

    In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the main issue in the waste sector is methane release from decomposing solid waste. Capturing that gas at source could reduce methane emissions by 14 percent by 2035.

    Cost of a fair transition
    The commission’s draft budgets recommend an overall reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions of 36 percent by 2035, starting with 2 percent by 2025 and 17 percent by 2030. It estimates the cost of achieving this is less than 1 percent of projected GDP, much lower than was initially thought.

    The payoffs for public health, for our environment and biodiversity make this a good investment, let alone the huge avoided costs from unchecked climate change.

    The commission’s recommendations will go through a public consultation process until March 14, and the government has until the end of the year to decide which parts of the advice it takes on board.

    An important aspect of the advice is inclusiveness and support for all sectors of society as we move to a low-emissions future. The commission takes a te ao Māori (Māori world view) approach, making it clear that Aotearoa must have an equitable and fair transition.The Conversation

    By Dr James Renwick, professor, Physical Geography (climate science), Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • New Zealand’s net emissions rose by 57 percent between 1990 and 2018, placing it among the poorest performers in the OECD. Image: The Conversation/Lynn Grieveson via Getty Images

    ANALYSIS: By James Renwick, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    New Zealand’s Climate Change Commission this week released its long-anticipated advice to the government on how to reshape the economy to meet the country’s domestic and international climate change obligations.

    The document sets out three emissions budgets, covering 15 years to 2035 in five-yearly plans. It also provides advice on the direction policy should take to achieve the country’s 2050 net-zero goal.

    New Zealand’s net emissions rose by 57 percent between 1990 and 2018, placing it among the poorest performers in the OECD.

    As one of New Zealand’s six climate change commissioners I have been part of the process of making a clear case to government that we must take “immediate and decisive action on climate change” across all sectors.

    The commission’s priorities include a rapid shift to electric transport, accelerated renewable energy generation, climate-friendly farming practices and more permanent forests, predominantly in native trees.

    It also says New Zealand must raise its pledge under the Paris Agreement, known as the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), because its current commitment is not compatible with the goal of limiting warming to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels.

    Ambitious but realistic carbon budgets
    The good news is the draft carbon budgets are achievable, with technologies that already exist.

    The commission’s advice is built around 17 recommendations that cover many sectors of the economy. One of the key messages is that Aotearoa New Zealand cannot plant its way out of trouble but needs to make real cuts in emissions and eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

    Most of the solutions are well known. We need to reduce emissions from transport, from energy and industry, from agriculture and from waste.

    Reducing transport emissions is crucial as the sector was responsible for 36.3 percent of New Zealand’s emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases in 2018 and accounts for most of the growth in emissions over the past 30 years.

    Recommendations for the transport sector include electrification of the vehicle fleet, improved public transport networks and better integration of active transport (walking and cycling).

    A rapid increase in electric cars would reduce emissions from private and commercial transport, while supporting low-carbon fuels like “green” hydrogen and biofuels would help the freight sector (including heavy trucks, shipping and aircraft).

    Part of the transport story is urban planning — changing how people and goods move around. The commission recommends limiting urban sprawl, making walking and cycling safer and easier and shifting more freight from road to rail or shipping.

    The commission also calls for rapid decarbonisation of electricity generation, and energy generally, to phase out the use of coal. Between now and 2035, it estimates New Zealand could cut transport emissions by 47 percent and those coming from heat and electricity generation by 45 percent.

    Emissions from agriculture
    Methane accounts for 43.5 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, and more than 80 percent of total methane comes from cud-chewing farm animals. But the short-lived nature of methane in the atmosphere means we do not need to reduce methane emissions so fast.

    The Zero Carbon Act calls for a 24-47 percent reduction in methane emissions by 2050, compared to net-zero for carbon dioxide.

    Cows ready to be milkedEmissions from farm animals account for more than 80% of New Zealand’s methane emissions. Image: Brendon O’Hagan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

    The commission’s advice is that biogenic methane emissions can be reduced by 19 percent by 2035 while further improving productivity in the sector through better feed, fewer but more productive animals and continued research into emission-reducing technologies.

    The commission calls for real cuts in emissions rather than offsets through tree planting, but argues forestry should continue to play an important role in the long-term storage of carbon, for example if timber is used in buildings or furniture and to provide bioenergy.

    It recommends a shift towards more permanent native forests to improve long-term carbon storage, biodiversity and soil retention.

    Waste is another sector with significant potential to cut emissions. Per head of population, New Zealanders throw away roughly twice what an average OECD citizen does. The commission recommends moving towards a circular economy, where resources are valued and reused.

    In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the main issue in the waste sector is methane release from decomposing solid waste. Capturing that gas at source could reduce methane emissions by 14 percent by 2035.

    Cost of a fair transition
    The commission’s draft budgets recommend an overall reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions of 36 percent by 2035, starting with 2 percent by 2025 and 17 percent by 2030. It estimates the cost of achieving this is less than 1 percent of projected GDP, much lower than was initially thought.

    The payoffs for public health, for our environment and biodiversity make this a good investment, let alone the huge avoided costs from unchecked climate change.

    The commission’s recommendations will go through a public consultation process until March 14, and the government has until the end of the year to decide which parts of the advice it takes on board.

    An important aspect of the advice is inclusiveness and support for all sectors of society as we move to a low-emissions future. The commission takes a te ao Māori (Māori world view) approach, making it clear that Aotearoa must have an equitable and fair transition.The Conversation

    By Dr James Renwick, professor, Physical Geography (climate science), Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The hashtag #EatTheRich has been all over social media in recent days because of the “GameStop” chaos that has engulfed Wall Street. People have been pushing the narrative that the ‘small guy’ has taken on the big financial corporations and won. But this is, in no uncertain terms, utter bullshit.

    Welcome to GameStop

    CBC reported on the current storm surrounding a video game retailer, the online social media platform Reddit and some hedge funds. It said:

    Shares in a U.S. retail chain that hasn’t made any money in years have risen by 1,000 per cent in less than two weeks, wiping out billions of dollars from two Wall Street investment funds in the process.

    It went on to note that:

    In the early days of COVID-19, the company’s shares were changing hands at around $4 US a share. They hit almost $400 on Wednesday

    What happened is this.

    What’s going on?

    Hedge funds are financial organisations. They pool together their members’ money. Then, they use this money to make more money. Some people say that hedge funds helped cause the 2008 financial crash. This is because the way they work is risky. But it is also often unethical. For example, hedge funds regularly make money by betting that a company’s share price is going to fall. This is called “short selling”. CBS said:

    short sellers make money on falling shares by borrowing the shares from existing shareholders, selling them and then buying them back to replace the shares they borrowed at a lower price later and pocketing the difference.

    So, hedge funds had been short selling GameStop’s shares. They thought the price would fall. But another group of investors cottoned onto this. They were part of a Reddit group. These investors saw that GameStop’s price was falling. They knew it was because hedge funds were short selling the shares. So, they decided to buy a load of them. Then, they refused to sell them to the hedge funds. This caused GameStop’s share price to quickly rise. And it meant that the hedge funds lost a load of money.

    But then, a stock market trading app called Robinhood got involved. It saw what the small investors were trying to do to the hedge funds. So, it stopped people buying GameStop shares. But, small investors got angry. So, Robinhood allowed people to start buying shares again.

    So, why has this story caused such a fuss?

    #EatTheRich?

    People have been using #EatTheRich to talk about the story. They believe that the small traders who outdid the big hedge funds gave poor people a victory over the system. For example, Srivatsa tweeted:

    Braus UK said that this could be “the largest redistribution of wealth in history”:

    And Ash WSB thought this was an example of the system shutting “regular” and “poor” people down:

    All of this is bullshit. Here’s why.

    Cut the bullshit

    First, the small time investors, called “retail” investors, who screwed-over the hedge funds aren’t “regular” of “poor” people. BBC News reported on some of them. One was a “railway cyber-security engineer”. The 28-year-old from Kingston-upon-Thames in London was having trouble with his non-state pension. He said the pandemic ‘dealt it a blow’ last March. So, he decided to starting investing in shares. Someone else is currently doing a degree. But he’s hoping to go into investment banking as a career. Another small investor was a nurse. She used massive corporation Fidelity to buy $500 of GameStop shares. Her grandfather was an independent stock trader.

    These are not “poor” people. They didn’t spend their social security on GameStop shares. For example, I’d say a nurse having enough money to pay a multi-trillion dollar asset management company to “manage her retirement investments” isn’t the ‘norm’. As a fairly ordinary 40-year-old man, I have no private pension; nor do I have investments. And I wouldn’t have $500 knocking around to invest in anything.

    But there are other problems with the GameStop story.

    Making a killing

    People have been pushing the narrative that this is some sort of revolutionary act. But as one former Wall Street trader told TRUTHOUT:

    This isn’t hedge funds versus retail. It’s hedge funds versus other hedge funds… with retail driving the way forward. Melville [Melvin] Capital (a hedge fund that was shorting GameStop) may have imploded. But Citadel (a hedge fund whose Market Making arm is handling the majority of Robinhood orders) took part of it over. That’s hardly a resounding victory over the biggest titans of finance.

    You only have to look at who else made a killing from GameStop to realise this. Because already very rich people have also made money. The Guardian reported that:

    Other winners include Donald Foss, the 76-year-old founder and former CEO of Credit Acceptance Corp, a subprime auto lender. Foss bought 5% of GameStop early last year for about $12m. His stake is now worth more than $500m.

    In 2020, Credit Acceptance Corp was subject to a class action. The claimants said that the company:

    had, for years, made unfair and deceptive automobile loans to thousands of Massachusetts consumers. In addition, the lawsuit specifically alleges that Credit Acceptance provided its investors with false and/or misleading information regarding the asset-backed securitizations it offered to investors, and that Credit Acceptance engaged in unfair debt collection practices as well.

    But another crucial example is BlackRock. And its benefitting from GameStop sums this whole mess up.

    The BlackRocks of this world

    BlackRock is an asset management company. And it may well have made over $1bn from the GameStop saga. This is because it owned 13% of the company. Compare Blackrock’s £7.8tn (yes, trillion) of assets to Melvin Capital’s £12.5bn – meaning it is 0.16% of the size of Blackrock. So, the GameStop saga was not some ‘David and Goliath’ battle. It was individual traders taking on a relatively minor hedge fund and the principles of the system. So actually, this isn’t potentially the “largest redistribution of wealth”, as Braus UK called it. The GameStop saga has just made the already very rich even richer. And what it’s also done is further kept in place the system we live under.

    In 2011, New Scientist published research into corporations. It found that in 2007, just 147 companies actually controlled 40% of the wealth of 43,060 trans-national ones. That is, as New Scientist put it, just a handful of companies formed a “capitalist network that runs the world”. These 147 companies were mostly financial institutions. And overall, just 1,318 companies dominated the global economy. Other studies found similar results. So, it gives an idea into how our globalised economy really works.

    Fast-forward to 2017, and little appeared to have changed. In fact, in some respects it had got worse. A Cambridge University study found that BlackRock and two other investment firms were the largest shareholders in 88% of the top 500 biggest US firms trading on the S&P 500 stock market. It’s fairly safe to say that’s still the case now. Therefore, the GameStop/Melvin Capital saga is hardly revolutionary. What it’s highlighted it that our economic system is a corporatist, not capitalist, one.

    Welcome to corporatism

    Naomi Klein said in her 2007 book The Shock Doctrine that:

    A more accurate term for a system that erases the boundaries between Big Government and Big Business is… corporatist. Its main characteristics are huge transfers of public wealth to private hands, often accompanied by exploding debt, an ever-widening chasm between the dazzling rich and the disposable poor and an aggressive nationalism that justifies bottomless spending on security.

    She also noted that:

    other features of the corporatist state tend to include aggressive surveillance (once again, with government and large corporations trading favors and contracts), mass incarceration, shrinking civil liberties and often, although not always, torture.

    Ring any bells? This has been the US and UK system for years. Now, in the age of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, it’s accelerated. The point being, much of the debate about GameStop has been about “free markets”. People have realised that the markets aren’t actually ‘free’ at all. But government and regulators rig them in favour of a handful of large corporations.

    One example is the regulator’s response to the GameStop saga. They’re going after the mid-sized hedge funds and trading apps. This leaves the likes of BlackRock sitting pretty. So, these huge companies both control and benefit from the corporatist system. But what’s the alternative?

    Milton Friedman would be thrilled

    Jacobin noted that the GameStop saga was:

    the market working as it’s theoretically supposed to

    That is, free market, or laissez-faire, capitalism. Investopedia sums this up as:

    The purest form of capitalism is free market or laissez-faire capitalism. Here, private individuals are unrestrained. They may determine where to invest, what to produce or sell, and at which prices to exchange goods and services. The laissez-faire marketplace operates without checks or controls.

    This is what we saw at first with GameStop. Private individuals being able to manipulate and make money from the stock market. But is free market capitalism any better than corporatism? In short, no.

    Don’t listen to the capitalists

    Entrepreneur” and former KPMG executive (one of the biggest accountancy firms in the world) Sid Mohasseb argued in the Independent that Joe Biden needs to enact free market capitalism. He said:

    America… does not need handouts. It wants a helping hand up towards self-sufficiency.

    Biden must put America first by unleashing its power of entrepreneurship, and giving true capitalism a fighting chance

    The problem is, the pitfalls of corporatism would still be there with “true” capitalism. Greed and wealth hoarding won’t suddenly go. They’ll be more spread out, with more bosses ready to exploit workers. Inequality would still be there. The social diseases that come with a system based on hierarchy (addiction, mental health and crime) would still sicken us. Corporatism may have created, as Klein put it, a “chasm” between the super-rich and the rest of us. But free market capitalism would just put those chasms on our doorsteps and in our neighbourhoods.

    A global Monopoly game

    Moreover, the globalisation horse has bolted. You can’t suddenly shut the stable door on the likes of BlackRock; nor on the Walmarts and Amazons of this world. Both systems also revolve around poor people owing money to rich people (debt). Both corporatism and free market capitalism only ever leave one group of winners.

    All that’s without stock markets essentially being filled with pretend money: numbers on screens, created at the click of a button; how much of it there is depends on the whims of gambling bankers. And when they bet on the price of water – you know we’re fucked. We’re locked in a global game of Monopoly. Seven billion of us are playing it, along with a handful of bankers and their lackeys. And regardless of the economic system, none of us will ever own Park Lane.

    There’s no easy solution to the sickness of the economic system. But it’s definitely not corporatism or free market capitalism. And it certainly isn’t what went down with GameStop.

    Too far gone?

    Revolution is not a group of fairly well-off individuals playing games with a hedge fund. Progressiveness isn’t getting doe-eyed about ‘true free market capitalism’. The future certainly isn’t corporatism. And to be honest, I no longer know what we need to do as a species to save ourselves. But what I do know is that anything involving the stock markets isn’t radical, by default. Unless it involves the entire collapse of the system.

    “No is not enough” as Klein called one of her books. Tinkering around the edges of the system will bear no fruit. So, let’s stop pretending that minor blips in corporatism’s MO are anything more than that. We need seven billion people to collectively start to enact change. And until that happens, anything else is just window dressing.

    Featured image via Suzy Hazelwood – pxhere and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The government has released its latest figures from the UK’s annual badger cull, stating that the state-sanctioned murder spree was “effective” in 2020. The cull, which takes place between September and November, was already dubbed “the largest destruction of a protected species in living memory” back in 2018.

    The Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA) stated that:

    The final kill figure was a truly horrifying 38,642, the highest figure to date as was to be expected with 55 cull zones. The total figure in the 7 years of culling now stands at 140,991.

    Activists argue that they will, ultimately, stop the cull

    Throughout the 2020 culling season, animal rights activists all over the UK patrolled the countryside day and night to protect the badgers. Although the final number of murdered badgers is disgraceful, the number would have been much higher without the activists. In fact, a number of kill zones failed to reach their government-set target. The HSA explained:

    of the forty two zones still in the first four years of culling sixteen failed to hit minimum targets. As usual the Government and NFU [National Farmers’ Union] moved the goalposts halfway through culling and quietly reduced the targets for zones, where it became clear that the original minimum target couldn’t be hit, in a desperate attempt to turn failure into success.

    Lee Moon, Spokesperson for the HSA, argued that activists will, ultimately, be successful in stopping the cull:

    As always the release of the cull figures is a sad time for those who fought so hard across the country and the final death total is difficult to comprehend. The consolation is that the figure would have been so much higher without their amazing efforts. The Government and NFU can rest assured that hunt saboteurs and all the other fine people fighting the cull will never let them have it easy and every new and existing cull zone, where they try and kill badgers, will be a brutal slog. Cages will be destroyed in their hundreds and marksmen will have to fight for every shot and ultimately, we will stop the cull.

    No, the cull isn’t ending, despite what you have read

    Last week’s newspaper headlines stated that the cull is to be banned after 2022. But this isn’t the case. In fact, almost identical headlines like this circulated in the mainstream media this time last year. As badger cull licenses are usually issued to last for four years, badgers will still be murdered in 2025.

    HSA explained that:

    no new zones will be licensed after 2022 meaning culling would still be taking place in 2025 across large swathes of the country.

    Ecologist Rosie Woodruffe gave a more realistic interpretation of the Conservative party’s desire to wipe out badgers. Her analysis suggested that 276,045 badgers would be killed over the timespan of the current culling policy, of which 126,783 (46%) would be killed from this point forward, hardly suggesting that culling is effectively banned from 2022…

    Address the root cause

    Both the government and the National Farmers’ Union use badgers as a scapegoat, stating that they’re responsible for spreading disease. It is more convenient to argue that bovine TB in cattle is caused by badgers than it is to admit that intensive farming needs to change.

    The Canary has repeatedly reported the evidence which shows that badgers aren’t the cause of bovine TB in cattle. And Steve Backshall, president of the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust (BBOWT), argued in the Witney Gazette that:

    There has been no noticeable impact on bTB in cattle. With animals showing no visible signs of TB, and only 4 per cent of badgers infected, this is analogous to solving our current human crisis by wandering about the countryside taking out random people in the hope they might be carriers.

    A spokesperson from Avon Against the Badger Cull told The Canary:

    It is a point of protest that wildlife should be culled on the understanding that they spread a disease that is caused by the incarceration and intensive farming of cattle. This needs to be examined and dealt with at source. This situation is no different than the problem the world has had with various covids, including Covid 19. Human beings cannot continually turn a blind eye to the fact that animals – whether wild-caught and incarcerated or bred with deficient immune systems and incarcerated – suffer and become ill. I would rather go out and save one badger than stand by and not acknowledge what is the truth.

    The fight against the cull is far from over, and activists will need more committed people to join them in trying to prevent more unnecessary murders in 2021.

    Featured image via big-ashb / Flickr

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Last month, the first-ever auction for oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) ended with just three bidders winning drilling rights to more than half a million acres. The controversial auction, rushed in the final days of the Trump administration and widely opposed by environmentalists, raised a tiny fraction of what the government had projected, just $14.4 million in revenue; most tracts went for the minimum price of $25 an acre.

    After a 40-year political saga, lease rights to one of the nation’s most pristine, wild places went to extractive energy companies for a pittance. Environmental groups would have likely paid far more to protect the land — a practice some call conservation leasing — but federal rules excluded them. As the Biden administration pauses new oil and gas leasing to review the federal leasing program, it’s time for those rules to change.

    Current regulations require leaseholders to extract, harvest, graze, or otherwise develop their leases or risk losing them altogether. Activist and author Terry Tempest Williams found this out the hard way in 2016 when she tried to buy federal drilling rights in Utah to keep fossil fuels in the ground. In protest of the auction, she secured rights to 1,120 acres near Arches National Park for $1.50 an acre. She even created an “energy company” — Tempest Exploration Co. LCC — and began paying rental fees.

    But the plan didn’t work. The government cancelled the leases after Tempest Williams wrote in The New York Times that she had no intention of drilling.

    Other environmentalists have been similarly thwarted. In the late 1990s, the nonprofit Grand Canyon Trust purchased federal grazing permits from ranchers in Utah to protect environmentally sensitive lands only to see the unused allotments reopened to other ranchers. And in 2008, climate activist Tim DeChristopher was famously thrown in prison after he attempted to bid for oil and gas leases at a federal Bureau of Land Management auction.

    These use-it-or-lose-it rules not only restrict competition from environmentalists, they also shape environmental activism, which is often limited to costly litigation and political advocacy. Indeed, for several decades now environmental groups have filed lawsuits and led lobbying efforts to protect ANWR and other public lands, with mixed results. But what if there was another way?

    Buying out existing leases, or bidding on new ones, would likely be a more effective approach — if environmentalists were allowed to do so. In ANWR, there’s a good chance they could have afforded it. Only two of the 11 tracts that sold last month received competing bids. Environmental groups regularly spend far more on purchases of private lands or conservation easements, let alone on lobbying and litigation.

    Taxpayers would also benefit from conservation leasing. Watchdog groups like Taxpayers for Common Sense have often criticized federal leasing programs for failing to generate fair returns for the American public. When Congress mandated ANWR leasing as part of the Republican-led tax-reform legislation in 2017, the government estimated it would generate more than $900 million in bids to offset tax cuts. After splitting the revenue from last month’s sale with Alaska, the U.S. treasury will receive only about $7 million.

    In the few places where conservation leasing is allowed on public lands, environmental groups have shown they are often willing to pay to safeguard important landscapes, especially if they can be certain their leases won’t be cancelled and made available to industry groups instead.

    The Wyoming Range Legacy Act, for example, enables groups to negotiate buyouts of existing oil and gas leases on certain national forest lands in the state and retire them from future development. The nonprofit Trust for Public Lands recently purchased drilling rights from energy companies to protect more than 80,000 acres. In 2012, the group raised $8.75 million in private donations to stop drilling in the Hoback Basin, an area prized for its environmental and recreational value. Similar legislation allows grazing permit buyouts in and around several wilderness areas.

    Of course, conservation leasing is not a panacea. For it to succeed, environmentalists may have to expand or reorient their fundraising efforts, or rely on wealthy environmental donors, which has trade-offs. And it may be difficult for environmentalists to compete against industry groups that stand to profit from developing their leases.

    Conservation leasing may also conflict with the goals of Indigenous communities or others affected by land-use decisions on nearby public lands. In the case of ANWR, several Indigenous groups oppose drilling — including the Gwich’in tribes that reside outside the refuge but consider its land sacred — while others support it, including many Inupiaq people who live within the refuge.

    Most of the opposition to conservation leasing, however, comes from industry groups that benefit from the status quo, such as the livestock groups that opposed a House bill introduced last year that would have authorized voluntary grazing-permit buyouts nationwide. And the timber industry recently helped repeal a Montana law that allowed conservation leasing of state-owned forestlands, citing concerns about how such leases would affect logging companies.

    For the Biden administration, conservation leasing may represent a pragmatic way to advance some of its climate and environmental goals, such as conserving 30 percent of U.S. land and waters by 2030. Last week, Biden issued a moratorium on new federal oil and gas leases, but the order does not affect existing leases like the ones sold in ANWR or the thousands of drilling permits that oil companies stockpiled in the final months of the Trump presidency.

    If the new administration wants to stop these leases from being developed, it could support legislation that allows voluntary buyouts of drilling rights on public lands and advance rules that enable leases to protect lands from grazing and logging.

    To be clear, the point of conservation leasing is not to turn every land-use decision into a bidding war; rather, it’s to recognize that if environmental groups are willing to pay more to protect an area than industry groups are to develop it, then the land clearly ought to be protected. And for the hundreds of millions of acres of public lands that are already being leased for resource extraction, we need better ways to protect them. Conservation leasing is a good place to start.


    Got a bold idea or fresh news analysis? Submit your op-ed draft, along with a note about who you are, to fix@grist.org.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The case for conservation leasing on Feb 2, 2021.

    This post was originally published on Grist.