radiofree.asia

Category: United States

  • Language, Mind Control, and 9/11

    An example that shows the radical devaluation of thought is the transformation of words in propaganda; there, language, the instrument of the mind, become ‘pure sound,’ a symbol directly evoking feelings and reflexes.

    – Jacques Ellul, Propaganda

    A leader or an interest that can make itself master of current symbols is the master of the current situation.

    – Walter Lippman, Public Opinion

    Tuesday, September 11, 2001, was a non-teaching day for me. I was home in Massachusetts when the phone rang at 9 A.M. It was my daughter who lived and worked in New York City and was on a week’s vacation with her future husband. “Turn on the TV,” she said. “Why?” I asked.  “Haven’t you heard?  A plane hit the World Trade Tower.”

    I turned the TV on and watched a plane crash into the Tower. I said, “They just showed a replay.” She quickly corrected me, “No, that’s another plane.” And we talked as we watched in horror, learning that it was the South Tower this time.

    Sitting next to my daughter was my future son-in-law; he had not had a day off from work in a year. He had finally taken a week’s vacation so they could go to Cape Cod. He worked on the 100th floor of the South Tower. By chance, he had escaped the death that claimed 176 of his co-workers. My father’s good friend, retired from a NYC job and living in Pennsylvania, had a one-day-a-month consultancy job at the Twin Tower. Tuesday the 11th was his day to die in the North Tower.

    That was my introduction to the attacks. Twenty-four years have disappeared behind us, yet it seems like yesterday.  And yet again, it seems like long, long ago. But long ago is today when the repercussions of what happened then “lie” behind today’s terrible events, as they do because Bush, Jr.’s Global War on Terror continues on its mad and doleful way under three more presidents and different linguistic mind control narratives.

    As I type these words, I look down on my desk at my grandfather’s gold badge: Deputy Chief of the New York City Fire Department. Two of his brothers, my great-uncles, were members of the Fire Department and another a NYC cop, a sister a public school teacher. My other grandfather, my cousins, niece and her husband were NYC Police Officers. My grandfather’s nightstick hangs on a nail in another room. A great-great grandfather owned a popular tavern in the West 40s and another a livery stable on the West Side. Having grown up in the Bronx, gone to high school and graduate school in Manhattan, I have long and deep family roots in NYC. My Irish immigrant ancestors were sandhogs who dug the tunnels for the subways, the tunnels bringing water down to the city, and the foundations for the skyscrapers. This history goes deep and high, for my niece was a detective and her husband an anti-terrorism detective who flew over the Twin Towers in a helicopter on that fateful morning, taking so many of the famous photographs of the devastation below.

    I tell you this to emphasize how the city, where my family goes back 175 years, is in my blood, and the news my daughter conveyed to me affected me deeply. No matter where you roam in later life, as many native New Yorkers will attest, such bonds tie you back to what we call The City, and when its foundations are shaken as they were on September 11, 2001, so are you at a very deep level.

    Thus the truth of how and why these tragic events happened on a glorious September morning became my quest. It began emotionally but soon turned logical and objective as I followed my academic training in the sociology of knowledge and propaganda.

    Over the next few days, as the government and the media accused Osama bin Laden and 19 Arabs of being responsible for the attacks, I told a friend that what I was hearing wasn’t believable; the official story as reported by the media was full of holes. It was a reaction that I couldn’t fully explain, but it set me on a search for the truth. I proceeded in fits and starts, but by the fall of 2004, with the help of the extraordinary work of David Ray Griffin and other early skeptics, I could articulate the reasons for my initial intuition. My specialty throughout my long university teaching career has been propaganda, so I set about creating and teaching a college course on what had come to be called 9/11, on what I had learned.

    But I no longer refer to the events of that day by those numbers – 9/11. 

    Let me explain why.

    By 2004 I was convinced that the U.S. government’s claims (and The 9/11 Commission Report) were fictitious.  After meticulous study and research, they seemed so blatantly false that I concluded the attacks were an intelligence operation led by the neoconservatives – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. – who had become central elements within the George W. Bush administration and whose purpose was to initiate a national state of emergency (that is still in effect in 2025) to justify wars of aggression, known euphemistically as “the war on terror.”  The sophistication of the attacks, and the lack of any proffered real evidence except hyperbolic empty accusations for the government’s claims, suggested that a great deal of planning had been involved and a coverup was underway.

    Yet I was chagrined and amazed by so many people’s insouciant lack of interest in researching arguably the most important world event since the assassination of President Kennedy. I understood the various psychological dimensions of this denial, the fear, cognitive dissonance, etc., but I sensed something else as well.  For so many people their minds seemed to have been “made up” from the start. I found that many young people were the exceptions, while most of their elders dared not question the official narrative. This included many prominent leftist critics of American foreign policy. Now that twenty-four years have elapsed, this seems truer than ever.

    So with the promptings of people like Graeme MacQueen, Lance de Haven-Smith, T.H. Meyer, Jacques Ellul, et al., I have concluded that a process of linguistic mind-control was in place before, during, and after the attacks. As with all good propaganda, the language had to be insinuated over time and introduced through intermediaries. It had to seem “natural” and to flow out of events, not to precede them. And it had to be repeated over and over again. All of this was carried out by the corporate mainstream media.

    In summary form, I will list the language I believe “made up the minds” of those who have refused to examine the government’s claims about the September 11th attacks and the subsequent anthrax attacks.

    1. Pearl Harbor. As pointed out by David Ray Griffin and others, this term was used in September 2000 in The Project for the New American Century’s report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (p.51).  Its neo-con authors argued that the U.S. wouldn’t be able to attack Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan, etc. “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event –  like a new Pearl Harbor.”  Coincidentally or not, the film Pearl Harbor, made with Pentagon assistance and a massive budget, was released on May 25, 2001 and was a box office hit. It was in the theaters throughout the summer. The thought of the attack on Pearl Harbor (not a surprise to the U.S. government, but presented as such) was in the air despite the fact that the 60th anniversary of that attack was not until December 7, 2001, a more likely release date. Once the September 11th attacks occurred, the Pearl Harbor comparison was “plucked out” of the social atmosphere and used innumerable times, beginning immediately. Even George W. Bush was reported to have had the time to allegedly use it in his diary that night. The examples of this comparison are manifold, but I am summarizing, so I will skip giving them.  Any casual researcher can confirm this.
    2. Homeland. This strange un-American term, another WW II word associated with another enemy – Nazi Germany – was also used (in a Freudian Slip faux pas) many times by the neo-con authors of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.”  I doubt any average American referred to this country by that term before.  Of course it became the moniker for The Department of Homeland Security, marrying home with security to form a comforting name that simultaneously and unconsciously suggests a defense against Hitler-like evil coming from the outside.  Not coincidentally, Hitler introduced it into the Nazi propaganda vernacular at the 1934 Nuremberg rally. Both usages conjured up images of a home besieged by alien forces intent on its destruction; thus preemptive action was in order.
    3. Ground Zero. This is a third WWII (“the good war”) term first used at 11:55 A.M. on September 11 by Mark Walsh (aka “the Harley Guy” because he was wearing a Harley-Davidson tee shirt) in an interview on the street by a Fox News reporter, Rick Leventhal. Identified as a Fox free-lancer, Walsh also explained the Twin Towers collapse in a precise, well-rehearsed manner that would be the same illogical explanation later given by the government: “mostly due to structural failure because the fire was too intense.” Ground zero – a nuclear bomb term first used by U.S. scientists to refer to the spot where they exploded the first nuclear bomb in New Mexico in 1945 – became another meme adopted by the media that suggested a nuclear attack had occurred or might in the future if the U.S. didn’t act. The nuclear scare was raised again and again by George W. Bush and U.S. officials in the days and months following the attacks, although nuclear weapons were beside the point. But the conjoining of “nuclear” with “ground zero” served to raise the fear factor dramatically. Ironically, the project to develop the nuclear bomb was called the Manhattan Project and was headquartered at 270 Broadway, NYC, a few short blocks north of the World Trade Center.
    4. The Unthinkable. This is another nuclear term whose usage as linguistic mind control and propaganda is analyzed by Graeme MacQueen in the penultimate chapter of The 2001 Anthrax Deception.  He notes the patterned use of this term before and after September 11, while saying “the pattern may not signify a grand plan …. It deserves investigation and contemplation.” He then presents a convincing case that the use of this term couldn’t be accidental. He notes how George W. Bush, in a major foreign policy speech on May 1, 2001, “gave informal public notice that the United States intended to withdraw unilaterally from the ABM Treaty”; Bush said the U.S. must be willing to “rethink the unthinkable.” This was necessary because of terrorism and rogue states with “weapons of mass destruction.” PNAC also argued that the U.S. should withdraw from the treaty. A signatory to the treaty could only withdraw after giving six months’ notice and because of “extraordinary events” that “jeopardized its supreme interests.” Once the September 11 attacks occurred, Bush rethought the unthinkable and officially gave formal notice on December 13 to withdraw the U.S. from the ABM Treaty.  MacQueen specifies the many times different media used the term “unthinkable” in October 2001 in reference to the anthrax attacks.  He explicates its usage in one of the anthrax letters – “The Unthinkabel” [sic].  He explains how the media that used the term so often were at the time unaware of its usage in the anthrax letter since that letter’s content had not yet been revealed, and how the letter writer had mailed the letter before the media started using the word.  He makes a rock solid case showing the U.S. government’s complicity in the anthrax attacks and therefore in those of 11 September  While calling the use of the term “unthinkable” in all its iterations “problematic,” he writes, “The truth is that the employment of ‘the unthinkable’ in this letter, when weight is given both to the meaning of this term in U.S. strategic circles and to the other relevant uses of the term in 2001, points us in the direction of the U.S. military and intelligence communities.” I am reminded of Orwell’s point in 1984: “a heretical thought – that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc – should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words.”  Thus the government and media’s use of “unthinkable” becomes a classic case of “doublethink.”  The unthinkable is unthinkable.
    5. 9/11. This is the key usage that has reverberated down the years around which the others revolve. It is an anomalous numerical designation with no precedent applied to an historical event, and obviously also the emergency telephone number. Try to think of another numerical appellation for an important event in American history. The future editor of the New York Times and Iraq war promoter, Bill Keller, introduced this connection the following morning in a NY Times op-ed piece, “America’s Emergency Line: 9/11.” The linkage of the attacks to a permanent national emergency was thus subliminally introduced, as Keller mentioned Israel nine times and seven times compared the U.S. situation to that of Israel as a target for terrorists. His first sentence reads: “An Israeli response to America’s aptly dated wake-up call might well be, ‘Now you know.’”  By referring to September 11th as 9/11, an endless national emergency became wedded to an endless war on “terror” aimed at preventing Hitler-like terrorists from obliterating us with nuclear weapons that could create another ground zero or holocaust. It is a term that pushes all the right buttons evoking unending social fear and anxiety. It is language as sorcery; it is propaganda at its best. Even those who dissent from the official narrative continue to use the term that has become a fixture of public consciousness through endless repetition.  As George W. Bush would later put it as he connected Saddam Hussein to “9/11” and pushed for the Iraq war, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”  All the ingredients for a linguistic mind-control smoothie had been blended.

    I have concluded – and this is impossible to prove definitively at this time because of the nature of such propagandistic techniques and documents that take many decades to be discovered and perhaps released – that the use of all these words/numbers is part of a highly sophisticated linguistic mind-control campaign waged to create a narrative that has lodged in the minds of hundreds of millions of people and is very hard to dislodge. It is why I don’t speak of “9/11” any more. I refer to those events as the attacks of September 11, 2001. But I am not sure how to undo the damage.

    Lance de Haven-Smith puts it well in Conspiracy Theory in America:

    The rapidity with which the new language of the war on terror appeared and took hold; the synergy between terms and their mutual connections to WW II nomenclatures; and above all the connections between many terms and the emergency motif of “9/11” and “9-1-1” – any one of these factors alone, but certainly all of them together – raise the possibility that work on this linguistic construct began long before 9/11….It turns out that elite political crime, even treason, may actually be official policy.

    Needless to say, his use of the words “possibility” and “may” are in order when one sticks to strict empiricism. However, when one reads his full text, it is apparent to me that he considers these “coincidences” part of a government conspiracy. I have also reached that conclusion. As Thoreau put in his underappreciated humorous way, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

    The evidence for linguistic mind control, while the subject of this essay, does not stand alone, of course. It underpins the actual attacks of September 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks that are linked. The official explanations for these events by themselves do not stand up to elementary logic and are patently false, as proven by thousands of well-respected professional researchers  from all walks of life – i.e. engineers, pilots, architects, and scholars from many disciplines. To paraphrase the prescient Philadelphia lawyer Vince Salandria, who said it long ago concerning the assassination of President Kennedy, the attacks of 2001 are “a false mystery concealing state crimes.”

    If one objectively studies the 2001 attacks together with the language adopted to explain and preserve them in social memory, the “mystery” emerges from the realm of the unthinkable and becomes unutterable. “There is no mystery.” How to communicate this when the corporate mainstream media serve the function of the government’s mockingbird (as in Operation Mockingbird) repeating and repeating the same narrative in the same language; that is the difficult task we are faced with.

    The anthrax attacks that followed those of 9/11 have disappeared from public memory in ways analogous to the pulverization of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7. For the towers, at least, ghostly afterimages persist, albeit fading like last night’s nightmare. But the anthrax attacks, clearly linked to 9/11 and the Patriot Act, are like lost letters, sent, but long forgotten. Such disappearing acts are a staple of American life these days. Memory has come upon hard times in amnesiac nation.

    With The 2001 Anthrax Deception, Graeme MacQueen, founding Director of the Center for Peace Studies at McMaster University, calls us back to a careful reconsideration of the anthrax attacks. It is an eloquent and pellucid lesson in inductive reasoning and deserves to stand with David Ray Griffin’s brilliant multi-volume dissection of the truth of that tragic September 11 day and its consequences. MacQueen makes a powerful case for the linkage of both events, a tie that binds both to insider elements deep within the U.S. government, perhaps in coordination with foreign elements. His book should be required reading.

    MacQueen’s thesis is as follows: The criminal anthrax attacks were conducted by a group of conspirators deep within the U.S. government who are linked to, or identical with, the 9/11 perpetrators. Their purpose was to redefine the Cold War into the Global War on Terror and in doing so weaken civil liberties in the United States and attack other nations.

    Words have a power to enchant and mesmerize. Linguistic mind-control – language as sorcery – especially when linked to traumatic events such as the September 11 and anthrax attacks, can strike people dumb and blind. It often makes some subjects “unthinkable” and “unspeakable” (to quote James W. Douglass quoting the Trappist monk Thomas Merton in JFK and the Unspeakable: the unspeakable “is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said; the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment when they are pronounced, and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss. It is the void out of which Eichmann drew the punctilious exactitude of his obedience …”).

    We need a new vocabulary to speak of these terrible things.

    The post Language, Mind Control, and 9/11 first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Democrats’ Digital Dysfunction

    “HAVE A GREAT LABOR DAY WEEKEND, PATRIOTS!!! GOD BLESS THE WORKING PEOPLE WHO MAKE AMERICA GREAT!,” read an August 2025 tweet, capped with three American flags and a photo of its author in a convertible, sunglasses on, peace sign raised. This wasn’t 2016. This wasn’t President Donald Trump. It was California Governor—and presidential hopeful—Gavin Newsom.

    Newsom’s sudden shift to Trump-style posting has been hailed by some legacy outlets as proof Democrats are finally learning to compete in the digital-media space. The New York Times gushed that he “has that dog in him.” NBC claimed his “national profile soars.” But Democrats are not just late to the party—they’re fundamentally unprepared for it. Unlike Trump and other Republicans who thrived in podcasts and digital platforms by appearing authentic, Democrats have struggled with stiff rhetoric, unpopular policies, and a legacy-media mindset that collapses in unscripted, contentious interviews. Newsom’s Twitter cosplay is less a breakthrough than a symptom of a party pretending it can play a game it doesn’t understand.

    After the 2024 election, the contrast couldn’t have been clearer. Trump and then Vice-Presidential candidate J.D. Vance seemed comfortable and unscripted on podcasts like This Past Weekend with Theo Von and The Joe Rogan Experience. To drive home the contrast, Trump used his appearance on Rogan’s show to mock his Democratic opponent for President, Vice-President Kamala Harris, for avoiding such interviews, “Can you imagine Kamala doing this show? She’d be laying on the floor… call in the medics!” Harris did eventually sit down with Call Her Daddy, but it was a softball interview that looked like a last-ditch stunt, not a confident embrace of the medium.

    Since then, Democrats have been scrambling to figure out how to succeed electorally in a media environment increasingly dominated by populist rhetoric. After 2024, Trump’s side had Joe Rogan, Theo Von, Andrew Schulz’s Flagrant, and Tony Hinchcliffe’s Kill Tony, his own Truth Social platform, and Elon Musk’s X—at least until the Musk-Trump falling out. Democrats realized that they had nothing similar and tried to mimic the formula. Newsom even launched his own podcast, but misread the moment entirely. Convinced America wanted to move right, he booked guests like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon while back-pedaling on progressive causes like transgender rights. When that backfired, he pivoted again—back to resistance liberalism on social media.

    Dark Money, Influencers, and the Digital Echo Chamber

    Democrats have long struggled with the shifting news environment. After their 2016 loss, they blamed digital media, dismissing it as “fake news” or disinformation. “Over the next four years, they came to realize that digital media was not going away, and that competing successfully would require a more active media strategy. So, in 2020, Democratic allies and Trump’s opponents coordinated efforts to shape media narratives against him in what Time called a “shadow campaign.” In 2024, the Harris campaign went further, funding favorable—but false—AI-generated headlines through Google ads and enlisting influencers and celebrities. Still, these efforts could not match the brand loyalty and digital reach Trump had cultivated with online content creators.

    In 2025, Democratic supporters looked beyond candidates and sought to amplify party-friendly influencers. This included a dark money group named the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which poured money into pro-Democratic Party messaging online through Chorus. The Sixteen Thirty Fund has a long history of bankrolling Democratic causes—spending $400 million in 2020 to help defeat Republicans. Chorus describes itself as “a creator-led nonprofit organization dedicated to helping content creators expand their reach and educate their audiences about news and public policy.” According to Taylor Lorenz’s August 2025 reporting in Wired, Chorus ran the Chorus Creator Incubator Program, which paid liberal content creators like David Pakman and Brian Tyler Cohen up to $8,000 a month to produce party-friendly content—without disclosing the source of the funding.

    Lorenz, who has been accused of fabricating interviews and lying to editors (both of which she denies), became an easy target in this controversy. Some have criticized her for not proving the existence of dark money in the report. Others, including Pakman, threatened to sue her and Wired for defamation, while some falsely accused Lorenz of taking money from the same dark fund.

    In subsequent interviews, Lorenz noted that the problem is not that creators are being paid, but that they are not disclosing where their funding comes from. Indeed, Lorenz’s reporting indicates that the Chorus funded content creators were forbidden from revealing the source of the money. It does seem that Lorenz has a point: during Trump 2.0, Pakman became a favorite of Democratic-leaning legacy media, earning glowing praise from outlets like MSNBC for his commentary on how Democrats could build influential progressive media—though he conveniently left out the role of dark money in that analysis.

    Critics of the content creators note that Pakman and Cohen have avoided critiquing Israel—or, in Cohen’s case, covering the topic at all. Pakman’s former producer claimed this is because, after a White House meeting with then-President Joe Biden, content creators including Pakman discussed how covering the topic was too divisive and might cost them their audience. Thus, it may be the case that Pakman and Cohen are telling the truth—that this money did not directly influence their content—and this highlights an age-old critique from famed linguist and media scholar Noam Chomsky: people like Pakman and Cohen only receive funding from Democratic Party supporters because they already say what the funders want, and the money will stop if they change course.

    At the heart of this story is the fact that, rather than creating a truly open information superhighway that levels the playing field, the digital space has merely replicated the problems of corporate media: funding has often trumped ethics, including transparency in financial support. Just like cable news, the two major parties can buy up platforms and major content producers, giving the public a narrow window into the world—though the world is far bigger than Democrats and Republicans. This is not lost on commentators in the space; left-populist commentator Krystal Ball has warned that new media outlets risk replicating the same corporate media model they claim to oppose.

    Buying Attention, Not Support

    With rare exceptions, such as the redistricting fight, the Democratic Party seems more focused on buying the appearance of public support than on building it through a genuinely popular policy agenda. After all, since the start of Trump’s second term, the Democratic Party’s new chair has claimed the party has “good billionaires“; young leaders like David Hogg have been sidelined for trying to transform the party toward a more populist direction; Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) refused to use parliamentary tricks to delay Trump’s agenda; top Democrats refuse to endorse candidates who are energizing the electorate such as the Democratic nominee for New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani; Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) delivered a marathon speech against Trump before ultimately voting to support his policy agenda; and Democrats are largely avoiding tapping into the energy and popular appeal of Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Fighting Oligarchy Tour.”

    It is no surprise that polls suggest it is not working: even as Trump’s numbers dip—especially on the economy, his traditional strength—voters aren’t flocking to Democrats. Party leaders seem convinced their policies are popular and only their communication strategy needs fixing. But the data tells a different story. A recent report from the New York Times found that in the 30 states that track voter registration, since 2020, Democrats have lost ground to Republicans in all of them. That seems to indicate it is the message and policy, not the media, but Democrats forge ahead with their belief that new media will make their message and policies attractive to voters.

    The irony is sharp: Democrats are chasing an artificial “new media” presence when, not long ago, a thriving, organic one already existed. Rogan, Schulz, and the social media giants were often aligned with Democrats before 2024. Now, the party is reduced to manufacturing what it squandered. And when you have to pay people to amplify your message, it means your message—and your brand—aren’t resonating. Recent polling reveals just that. In July 2025, the Wall Street Journalfound Democratic approval at its lowest point in 35 years, back when George H.W. Bush was president.

    When Democrats Meet Unscripted Media

    But the problem runs deeper than money or platforms. Democrats don’t have candidates who can spar in good faith while sounding authentic. The party of the educated professional class has produced politicians trained to communicate like Human Resources (HR) representatives: no jokes, no controversy, no substance, no ambiguity. In podcast spaces where comedians riff vulgar jokes and hosts lob provocative hot takes, that robotic style falls flat.

    Worse, Democrats are conditioned by decades of cozy legacy media treatment. Step into new media, and suddenly their rhetorical tricks don’t work. Nowhere is this clearer than on Israel-Gaza. In podcasts and alt-media, Israel’s treatment of Gazans is routinely called “genocide”—even by Jewish commentators like Norman Finkelstein and Dave Smith. Although criticism of Israel is often treated as fringe in legacy media, polling shows these views are actually widely held. In July 2025, Gallup found that only 32% of Americans support U.S. military aid to Israel in Gaza. An August 2025 Economist/YouGov poll found that 45% of respondents called what Israel is doing in Gaza “genocide,” while only 31% disagreed with that conclusion. The same poll also found that 70% of respondents believed there is a hunger crisis in Gaza. Another poll found that about 70% of Democrats and 35% of Republicans have no confidence in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. An August 2025 Reuters poll showed that roughly 60% of Americans think the U.S. should contradict Israel and recognize Palestine as an independent nation. Even the Israeli government recognizes its waning support: a leaked study of global opinion found that substantial portions of the world—Europeans in particular—”agree with the characterization of Israel as a genocidal, apartheid state.”

    In his 2025 book, When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows… Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life, Steven Pinker, the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, explains that coordination depends not only on people having a common belief or assessment, but also on knowing that many others share the same view, so they can collaborate. As media scholars such as Robin Andersen, Professor Emerita of Communications and Media Studies at Fordham University, point out, legacy media shields the Democratic Party—which tried to avoid an internal debate about Israel in 2024—from confronting widespread dissatisfaction with Israeli policy. Indeed, members of both parties and allies in the news media are trained to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, a tactic that collapses in adversarial interviews in the digital-media space.

    Just ask Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY). On the Adam Friedland Show, Torres, a staunch supporter of Israel, tried to avoid commenting on human rights abuses by Israel by saying he supports free speech, which he said includes criticism of Israel but not antisemitism. The host, Friedland, himself Jewish, wasn’t having it. He argued that Israel’s violence in Gaza fuels antisemitism more than anything else, cited civilian death tolls, and outright called it “genocide.” Torres, unable to rely on the usual rhetorical tactic of shutting down debate by calling his opponent antisemitic—since Friedland is Jewish—ended up flailing. He tried to rely on his identity as a person of color, a technique that works in corporate pro-Democratic Party media, by claiming it made him aware of oppression and hyper-attuned to the feelings of Jews. Just for a moment, imagine if in the middle of 2020 a white person had used an identity feature to tell a Black person how they should feel about Black Lives Matter. Liberals would have been clutching their kale. It fell totally flat.

    Torres simultaneously denied that Israeli policy targets civilians while conceding that thousands had been killed, then bizarrely tried to draw a distinction between Israel’s “right-wing” government and the Israeli government itself—as if he opposed the right-wing government, which is the government of Israel, but would not denounce the government of Israel. The exchange left him looking evasive, unprepared, and profoundly out of touch, as evidenced by commentary from other creators in the space and audience reactions.

    Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg fared no better. On Pod Save America—a podcast practically designed to give Democrats soft landings—he was asked about U.S. support for Israel. Buttigieg deployed the usual consultant-speak about “assessing” aid and referred to U.S.-Israel relations as friendship, noting that sometimes friends need to guide each other “to a better place.” When pressed on whether Israel’s killing of 60,000 people should end that “friendship,” he responded vaguely, saying, “Sometimes words can fail.” It was classic HR-speak—saying nothing while sounding pained. Subsequent reporting confirmed what was obvious: Buttigieg’s appearance wasn’t just a dud—it was the kind of empty performance that made him look more like a consultant auditioning for a board seat than a leader taking a stand.

    Democrats who step into these independent media spaces often seem to expect the usual softball treatment from legacy outlets, only to find themselves cornered by facts—and with few skills to fight their way out. Take Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who appeared on Breaking Points and was pressed by host Krystal Ball over her hypocrisy on Palestine. Ball cited multiple examples, including Slotkin’s own past statements, showing how she condemned colleagues’ criticism of Israel while ignoring Democrats spreading Islamophobia or even calling for Gaza to be nuked. Caught off guard, Slotkin sputtered until her staff, apparently mercifully, cut the interview short.

    Faking It Won’t Cut It: Democrats’ New Media Crisis

    Funding conflicts and weak interview performances aren’t exclusive to Democrats or liberals. Earlier this year, reports emerged that conservative content creators such as Tim Pool, Dave Rubin and Benny Johnson were taking money to promote pro-Russian content. Republicans, too, largely trained in the legacy media space, aren’t immune from poor interviews in the digital-media space. For example, in 2025, Tucker Carlson humiliated Senator Ted Cruz by bluntly telling him, “You don’t know anything about Iran,” after Cruz fumbled basic questions about a country he was advocating bombing. But Republicans at least have figures like Trump who can command new media spaces. With few exceptions—such as Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA), who has spent years honing his communication for these platforms—Democrats are consistently exposed as unprepared, insincere, and allergic to authenticity.

    That brings us back to Newsom. His Twitter-Trump cosplay might fool a few credulous reporters, but it doesn’t solve the real problem. Democrats can’t fake authenticity in spaces built on blunt honesty, biting humor, and relentless confrontation. To compete, they don’t just need new platforms—they need new policies, new skills, and candidates who can thrive outside the safe bubble of legacy media. Until then, all the paid influencers, all the all-caps tweets, all the manufactured hype won’t disguise the truth: this is a party that doesn’t get the post-legacy media era—and the digital world is punishing them for it.

    The post Democrats’ Digital Dysfunction first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Buying Time: Israel’s Rogue Attack on Qatar

    It’s all part of a stratagem, bleak and brutal. With Palestinian recognition being promised by France, the UK, Canada and Australia at the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli aggression is becoming more brazen and panicked. Time must be bought on one vital front: creating a Greater Israel, involving the annexation of Gaza and extinguishing, as far as possible, the power of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. What follows from this is the termination of Palestinian statehood altogether, including its political representatives.

    Israel’s efforts have, for that purpose, focused on killing Hamas militants at enormous cost to Palestinian civilians while also attempting to eradicate the diplomatic presence of the organisation. The attack on a building in Doha, Qatar on September 9 was a case in point. The intention of the attack by the IDF, involving 15 Israeli fighter jets and an unspecified number of drones, was killing senior Hamas officials involved in discussing a ceasefire proposal advanced by US President Donald Trump. Were it to be accepted, that proposal would see the release of all Israeli hostages (dead and alive) in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, followed by a ceasefire of 60 days duration and ongoing negotiations towards an agreement concluding the war. Qatar had been putting pressure on Hamas to accept the proposal.

    While Hamas personnel were killed, such senior negotiators as Khalil al-Hayya (who lost his son), Zaher Jabarin, and Khaled Mashal, were spared. Seven perished in the strike, with Qatar losing two security officers. Yet again, Israel’s military action demonstrated a reading of international law that tilts towards anarchical self-assurance, indifferent to any sovereignty that is not its own. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reasoned, Qatar was hosting terrorists. “I say to Qatar and all nations who harbour terrorists, you either expel them or you bring them to justice. Because you don’t, we will.”

    Israeli officials, in keeping with an established, somewhat jaundiced view of international relations, advanced a novel, unhinged reading of the attack on Qatari soil. Israeli Ambassador to the US, Yechiel Leiter, offered his dash of drivel by suggesting that this would “actually advance the efforts for a ceasefire and peace.” And as for the Hamas leaders, “if we didn’t get them this time, we’ll get them the next time.”

    A condemnation of Netanyahu’s comments followed from Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which described them as a “shameful attempt … to justify the cowardly attack that targeted Qatari territory, as well as the explicit threats of future violations of state sovereignty.”

    Qatar’s Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, undoubtedly stung that his country’s modernised military had failed to protect the capital, drew the obvious conclusion. The strike had been motivated by Israel’s desire to eliminate “any chance of peace” in Gaza, and effectively sealed the fate of the Israeli hostages still being held in the Strip. “Everything in the meeting is very well known to the Israelis and the Americans. It’s not something that we are hiding.”

    He also demanded some “collective response” to the attack. “There is a response that will happen from the region. This response is currently under consultation and discussion with other partners in the region,” he explained to CNN. What that will look like is by no means clear, given the temperamental nature of relations between the various Gulf states. Al Jazeera’s Charles Stratford reports that a legal committee is being pooled to consider “all legal avenues to have Netanyahu tried for breaking international law.”

    Even Israel’s least conditional sponsor felt that things had gone too far. “I’m not thrilled by it,” stated Trump as he arrived at a restaurant in Washington. “It’s not a good situation but I will say this: We want the hostages back, but we’re not thrilled about the way it went down today.” He went further, saying he was “very unhappy about it, very unhappy about every aspect.” The President had every reason to harbour such sentiments, given the value of US-Qatar relations and the hosting of US forces at Al-Udeid, the largest US airbase in the Middle East. If Doha can be attacked with impunity, an American military presence becomes less impressive. This was a point Iran’s state-run Press TV found too delicious to avoid. “Did you know,” went the network’s post on X, “that Qatar hosts one of the US’s biggest military bases in the Persian Gulf, with many air defense systems present, yet none of the American THAAD systems fired a single shot to defend Qatar against the Israel invasion?”

    The Israeli PM’s list of legal woes is further reason time is being bought. Israel’s strikes across the Middle East this year have been efforts to keep war in the spotlight, peace suspended, and Netanyahu out of jail. The war in Gaza, the attacks on the Houthis in Yemen, the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities or the targeting of Syria, have all become matters of personal self-interest and prolongation. Were there a serious risk of pacific calm breaking out, if only momentarily, Netanyahu would have to face something he fails to take seriously: the force of the law.

    The post Buying Time: Israel’s Rogue Attack on Qatar first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Caribbean On A Knife’s Edge: Trump’s Military Buildup Threatens Venezuela

    The sun glints off the gray hull of the USS Iwo Jima, a massive amphibious assault ship cutting through the Caribbean Sea. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, a key architect of the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” policies, stands on deck before a group of sailors and marines. His voice, amplified by the ship’s public address system, is a low, serious rumble that carries across the choppy waters. “What you’re doing right now is NOT training,” he says, in a scene reminiscent of George W. Bush’s staged landing to declare victory in Iraq. “This is a REAL-WORLD EXERCISE on behalf of the vital national interests of the United States of America, to end the POISONING of the American people.”

    The post The Caribbean On A Knife’s Edge: Trump’s Military Buildup Threatens Venezuela appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The Latest About Public Groceries in Low-Income “Food Deserts”

    As leaders of America’s half-dozen giant supermarkets raise prices once again (Walmart, 40 percent “on some items”), they’re blaming Trump’s recent quixotic, retaliatory tariffs on foreign imports. Consumer boycotts and demands for public food stores are in the wind by the outraged perhaps because they suspect gouging by farmers and wholesalers on essentials such as eggs, milk, and bread. Some 53 percent find the price hikes a major source of stress.

    The USDA’s (U.S. Department of Agriculture) latest average price for a gallon of milk was $4.45, a dozen eggs, $6.47, and a loaf of white bread, $3.05. At high-end chains like Gristedes, milk was $5.89; eggs, $12.09; and bread, $5.29.

    Recent attention about public food stores has come from New York City’s November election campaign for mayor. The Democrat’s primary winner Zohran Mamdani is promising five city-owned supermarkets , one for each borough’s food desert in low-income neighborhoods. Some three million people in New York City have no easy access to fresh food. He estimated initial cost at $60 million to be deducted from the city’s privately funded FRESH (Food Retail Expansion to Support Health) program. It uses tax breaks, zoning changes, and “regulatory relief” for storeowners in those desert zones.

    But New Yorkers have had public-run enterprises since the 1700s (oysters) followed by the great, mostly jobless immigration waves of the 1880s and their pushcart commerce in Manhattan’s Lower East Side. For a $1 per week city permit and a $10 cart rental, some 6,000 families daily braved rain, snow, or heat wave to ensure few residents starved to death. In 1934, Republican Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia moved carts into city-owned vacant buildings, using WPA funds (Works Progress Administration) and larger permit fees to meet maintenance expenses. As a private-public operation, vendors could keep their earnings.

    Today, vendors in the six remaining buildings are managed by the city’s Economic Development Corporation which charges rent and for licenses. Black-market rates for scarce permits in 2023 were $6,000-8,000. Earnings of city/state/federal governments in 2023 alone were $71.2 million though the city since 2011 has subsidized 27 stores with 25-year tax abatements.

    That reinvestment perhaps may explain why public stores for food deserts have sprouted all over the U.S. in the last few years.

    Now, one of the nation’s biggest and oldest (130 years) public food chains is the Pentagon’s PX system (aka DeCA: Defense Commissary Agency). It sells food at wholesale prices averaging 25 percent less than major supermarkets. Of the four-branch PXes, the Army and Air Force alone serve 30 million customers on 5,500 bases here and abroad, often in “food deserts.” It is highly unlikely they will complain about tariffs even while buying vast volumes of bulk food from foreign importers.

    Best of all for PX stores and taxpayers, profits revert to the federal government. And they’ve been considerable, particularly for the A&AF branch: —$492 million in earnings and $8.5 billion in revenue for 2024.

    Small wonder that the PX system has been seen as a model for civilian-run public-groceries across this country in the last few years for food deserts, especially in urban low-income neighborhoods and rural areas.

    The nation is now down to about 40,000 grocery stores, and a January USDA report says 53.6 million Americans (17.4 % of the population) live in low-income areas with little access to them. Forty-four counties have no food stores at all, not even a convenience operation with its high prices and limited stocks. They’re scarcely where most people stock up on Saturdays for a month’s groceries.

    As for cooperatives, 165 exist, but their 1.3 million customers have to pay $100-$200 for a lifetime membership. Gas stations do offer candy bars, soft drinks/beer, and ready-made sandwiches, of course, but they do nothing to solve food deserts’ high rates of chronic diseases, poverty, and shorter life spans.

    One explanation for this discrepancy appears to be that grocery giants like Albertsons too often wiped out the small, independent Mama-Papa stores offering home deliveries like to my in-laws in Newport News, VA. Add mergers gobbling up competitive chains closing many a popular neighborhood supermarket. Potential replacements redline neighborhoods by low incomes, crime rates, and minorities.

    The obvious antidote to this long-time problem of the “underserved” initially was federal help. The idea was to “help build stores, shorten the trek for fresh food, and, and in the process, make people healthier and bolster the local economy,” Molly Parker explained in the Capital News Illinois. So in 2014, when Congress passed the Farm Bill, it included the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, a private-public program under the USDA’s wing. Its current $183 million resource offers grants and technical help to food retailers and suppliers underpinning grocers’ food products sold at low prices around the country.

    States have also helped develop public stores to increase future business taxes and attract new businesses. In 2023, the Illinois legislature passed the Illinois Grocery Initiative providing $20 million for stores in food deserts. Last May, its Democrat governor J.B. Pritzker followed suit by signing off on $20 million toward store construction and renovation of existing ones in four food deserts.

    Avoiding private public partnerships, however, means the state and local governments are free of corporate involvement, get a far higher return from store earnings—and receive the same results that Parker lists. Among other chief financial inducements for a public store are tax abatements and free rent on city-owned properties, usually covered by its business development appropriations. Because personnel are public employees, labor costs are already covered.

    According to Crain’s Chicago Business newsletter:

    A public grocery store might sound like a utopian idea, but it has recently proven successful in other parts of the country [than New York City], primarily in conservative rural communities. These stores function like privately owned stores and carry the same products, but operate more like a public utility.

    Major cities like Houston and New Orleans now have public stores. So do states like California, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Rural America—small towns and villages—has always been a classic food desert. People take hours and spend small fortunes annually on gas and tires to drive miles to a major supermarket elsewhere. My friend Brandon is among them, despite the time and gas expenses (“We don’t mind it”) to shop at KFC, a Kroger subsidiary.

    Many are in small towns like St. Paul, KS (p0p. 595). Because its only grocery store folded in 1985 and no private store was interested, residents were forced into a 34-mile round trip to a supermarket. A group of them decided a public-owned grocery store was as essential as the city-owned water department. The new mayor believed: “that access to food, like access to water, was a public good and something that should be supported by the city and the community.” An overwhelming vote for a public store was passed. That quickly led to a $400,000 zero-interest loan from the USDA for the initial startup costs. Profits would not only repay the loan, but also significantly boost St. Paul’s revenues.

    In major urban areas, the City of Madison WI just leased a full-service public store on city property in a food desert for $4.6 million. It has 24,000 square-foot ground-floor space, four floors above with 150 affordable apartments, and both a parking structure and ground space. It is also on a bus line, a key must for a public store’s success. Both Chicago and Atlanta are making serious plans to follow New York City’s lead.

    Most opponents of public stores seem to harp on arguments that taxpayers are subsidizing a business startup, even though earnings are promptly returned to city and town treasuries. Moreover, private startups certainly are subsidized by municipalities in offering annual tax abatements and thousands of taxpayer dollars spent on promotional inducements (“locate here”) to reap future business taxes.

    Another argument is that public groceries will wipe out Mama-Papa stores, as if the majors haven’t been doing that since Piggly Wiggly’s ® self-service supermarkets’ debut in 1916.

    The owner of Gristedes’ 31 New York City high-priced stores considers public groceries to be “radical socialism,” wildly exaggerating they “would collapse our food supply, kill private industry, and drag us down a path toward the bread lines of the old Soviet Union…. [Mamdani] wants bureaucrats to decide what you eat, when you eat, and where you get it from.” He’s threatening to move his chain to another state if Mandani is elected mayor.

    Other monolithic chain stores aren’t bothering with such economic falsehoods. Successful storeowners know that low prices and quality are what bring in the customers. Among them is employee-0wned WinCo Foods (142 stores nationally) which just launched a sensational two-week promotion of bread at 98 cents, three chicken breasts for $1.88, and canned tuna for 28 cents in the Portland OR area.

    Survival factors beyond four years for public stores certainly do center around low prices: discounts, coupons, “door-busting” sales of “loss-leaders,” and enforcement of the long-standing 1936 Robinson-Patman law by the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) forbidding suppliers to discriminate on price for the same product to favored customers. Getting customers in the door to change from a familiar grocery could range from leasing space to a delicatessen, bakery, or soda fountain to staging major events, big sales, and offering delivery services.

    Operational recommendations include starting a network of public stores pooling resources, says Erion Benjamin Malasi, policy and advocacy director of the Economic Security Project. “[It] would be in a stronger position to sustain long-term and weather downturns than any individual store alone.”

    Civileats adds the nitty-gritty suggestions for public-grocery success:

    Stock no more than 1,500 carefully selected products instead of 30,000. Buy in massive volumes. Employ union workers as municipal employees. And make it joyful and dignified to work and shop there.

    The post The Latest About Public Groceries in Low-Income “Food Deserts” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Third Constitution of the United States

    September 1, 2025: I (Roger) asked Chat GPT.com, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot created by OpenAI, this question:

    “Chat GPT, will you analyze all the different proposals for a Third Constitution of the United States and reveal to us your best recommendation for creating a Third Constitution of the United States that creates peace and happiness in our nation and throughout the entire world?”

    Here is the response from  Chat gpt . com.  It mentioned my constitution first, but it did not narrow its critique to my latest version.

    I then asked Chat GPT this question:  How Come We Don’t Have Peace on Earth?   An excellent answer was given.

    I asked Chat GPT to analyze this latest September 4, 2025 version of the Third Constitution specifically. I share Chat GPT’s response at the end of the Third Constitution below, but please read the constitution first.

    *****

    Preamble to the Third Constitution of the United States

    We the People of the United States of North America establish this Third Constitution to promote freedom, democracy, human rights, social justice, ecological wisdom, peace, and happiness for our nation and the world.

    The United States government should never be subservient to something like the Earth Constitution  unless the majority of its citizens approve it through a national  referendum (which is a direct vote by the electorate), and the majority of other nations also approve it through their own national referendums. Moreover, any international constitution, as a basis for a democratic world government, must state that the citizens of each nation shall vote once a year to decide whether to continue the democratic world government or abolish it and return back to the status of nation-states once again.

    It is truly foolish and tragic that in this modern age that many nations are spending half of their federal budgets for military defense, which is the primary reason there is no peace on the planet.

    As a nation, let us ask the individuals and  nations we have harmed or exploited in the past for forgiveness.  As a nation, let us vow to promote world peace and happiness for every nation and for every person and sentient being on the earth.  Let us understand that we are one world, one earth, one humanity–we are like all the cells and organs of a human body that must cooperate and work together.

    The first United States government with a constitution was under the Articles of Confederation, implemented in 1781.  The second constitution was implemented with the presidency of George Washington in 1789, and now this Third Constitution will be the basis for the third constitutional government.

    An Overview of the Third Constitution

    One of the aims of this Third Constitution is to preserve the best of the former constitution and government. It differs from the second constitution in the many ways that it empowers average Americans by making our democracy more inclusive and participatory.

    Under this Third Constitution of the United States, there will be 435 Federal Legislators (the same number that was in the House of Representatives under the previous government), based on districts (including Washington D.C.) of equal population. The election of lawmakers to the new Federal Congress or House of Federal Legislators, under the Third Constitution, will be based on the system of Proportional Representation among the 7 largest national political parties. United States citizens can choose Federal Legislators from the 7 largest national political parties–each party will be empowered with the same privileges, ballot access, rights and responsibilities.

    The United States Senate, which existed under the former constitution has been eliminated in the new Third Constitution, which means that the new federal legislature will be unicameral not bicameral, and it will have 100 fewer federal legislators since the former US Senate has been abolished. All federal laws in this one-chambered Congress must be passed with at least a 51% majority.

    Under the second constitution, California, whose population was about 70 times the population of Wyoming, unfairly had the same number of senators as Wyoming. The former undemocratic U.S. Senate has been abolished since it is not based on geographical districts that have an equal number of people.

    The Third Constitution reduces the Supreme Court from 9 members to 7 members, and each member may serve an unlimited number of 4-year terms.  Each of the 7 largest national political parties–not the President–will appoint a Supreme Court Justice.

    The 7 Supreme Court Justices will be appointed on the first Tuesday of November, in the same year that the president is elected, and the new Justices  will take office on January 20 of the following year. Supreme Court Justices can serve for an unlimited number of 4-year terms if they are appointed again by the political party they represent and if the political party they represent is still one of the 7 largest national political parties.

    The election of Federal Legislators will occur on the first Tuesday of November in the same year that the new President is elected, and the Federal Legislators will take office as the new President and Supreme Court Justices likewise do on January 20 of the following year.  Federal Legislators can serve an unlimited number of 4-year terms, if they are the choice of the people.

    The election of the President will occur during the first Tuesday of November, and he or she will take office on January 20. The president can serve a maximum of two 4-year terms.

    The Third Constitution eliminates the Federal Reserve, and has the Treasury Department oversee a National Public Banking System.  The Treasury Department will be audited by the U.S. Congress or their chosen representatives every 4 years.

    This Third Constitution also eliminates the previous Electoral College System for electing a President of the United States, choosing instead to elect the presidential candidate who gets at least 51 percent of the popular vote using a system of Ranked Choice Voting.

    This Third Constitution is much shorter and easier to understand.  The Constitution is not just for lawyers. It is written in a clear way that even elementary school children will be able to understand it and become empowered by it.

    The Third Constitution promotes honesty, fairness, and transparency at all levels of government.  Average Americans will now feel more empowered to participate in political decision-making.  As we create a truly democratic society, civics and citizenship should become supremely valued as never before.

    Our Founding Fathers of the second, current Constitution of the United States never told how to properly abolish it, apparently thinking they knew what was best for all future generations.

    Previous articles by Roger Copple explained a Twenty-Eight Amendment proposal to revise Article V of the current second constitution to show how the second constitution can be amended and abolished in an easier, quicker, orderly, and very fair way.

    If that revised Article V  of our current second constitution is ever officially ratified as a new amendment to our current constitution, then the American people could have a systematic way to abolish the second constitution in order to have a Constitutional Convention to establish the Third Constitution. And the same Constitutional Convention process to establish the Third Constitution can also be used to create the Fourth Constitution of the United States when the people are ready to abolish the Third Constitution.

    Revising Article V of our current second constitution through the ratification of a new Twenty-Eight Amendment may seem like a long time coming.  However, the 26th Amendment to lower the voting age to 18 was accomplished in about 3 months.

    The Founding Fathers did not foresee the establishment of political parties, which began to emerge almost immediately after our current constitution was ratified.  In fact, they actually feared and warned against political parties, referring to them as “factions”–a threat to the unity and stability of the new republic.

    Equally empowering the 7 largest national political parties is the most important component of the Third Constitution.  And the good news is that even under the current second constitution, our current bicameral US Congress could, without a new amendment or constitution, equally empower 7 national parties.  But there would have to be a very large demand for it.  A mass movement of people would have to demand it because the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to make it very difficult for third parties to have a greater voice.

    World Peace Is Coming Sooner Than You Might Think

    It could be the nightmare of a permanent technocratic, authoritarian police-state peace, or it could be the paradise of a fully democratic peace on earth in a world without empire.

    We cannot create the ideal learning environment until we create the ideal world, a world working together as one body.

    Chat GPT (AI) and others coming down the pike can provide individualized instruction if we ask what we truly want to know, but  as artificial intelligence analyzes the world and us, we the people must always have the last word.         

    How Proportional Representation Works 

    Voters in federal legislative districts will study and evaluate the platforms of the 7 largest national political parties.  Each voter will choose just one political party that he or she identifies with the most.

    In the United States, there are 7 political archetypes which could be the 1. Republican 2. Democratic  3. Libertarian 4. Green 5. Socialist  6. Constitution Party, and 7. the Anarchists, who usually don’t form political parties.  But the 7 political archetypes may not coincide exactly with the actual 7 largest national political parties. Here is what Chatgot (AI) said are the 7 largest national political parties: 1. Democratic Party 2. Republican Party  3. Libertarian Party  4. Green Party of the United States  5. Constitution Party  6. Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) and  7. Socialist Party USA (SPUSA).

    The 7 largest political parties in the United States could contain the following percentages:  30% Republican, 30% Democratic, 10% Libertarian, 10% Constitution Party, 10% Green Party, 5% Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), and 5% Socialist Party USA.

    The State of Indiana, for example, currently has 10 federal legislative districts out of a total of 435 US federal districts.

    The National Elections Committee 

    Under the Third Constitution, there will be a National Elections Committee whose 7 executive directors will come from the 7 largest national political parties at that time.

    The National Elections Committee will guarantee that in every precinct of every county of every state that there will be impartial and professional election officials.   The election officials at every poll will ensure that uniform or standardized procedures of voting are established.  The National Elections Committee will also verify and ensure that the national political parties provide an accurate count of their actual numbers.

    Equal Media Time for  Political Parties

    The 7 largest national political parties will have all the rights,  ballot access, and free television exposure that the Republicans and Democrats exclusively had under the Second Constitution, (End of Third Constitution Overview)

    Summary of Historical Events that Led to the Establishment of the Second US Constitution

    The Parliament of Great Britain passed the punitive Intolerable Acts which caused the Boston Tea Party to occur.   Then the British Navy implemented a blockade of Boston Harbor.

    Twelve delegates from the 13 colonies then decided to form a meeting, which became known as the First Continental Congress.  The First Continental Congress met for about 7 weeks in the fall of 1774 in Philadelphia.

    After the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the delegates met again at the   Second Continental Congress  which began meeting on May 10, 1775 and disbanded on May 1, 1781 (6 years).  During this period, on July 4, 1776, the 56 delegates to the Second Continental Congress adopted the  United States Declaration of Independence.

    The Declaration of Independence is the founding document of the United States.  The Declaration explains to the world why the Thirteen Colonies regarded themselves as independent sovereign states no longer subject to British colonial rule.

    The 56 delegates who signed the Declaration of Independence came to be known as the nation’s Founding Fathers, and the Declaration has become one of the most circulated, reprinted, and influential documents in world history.

    After the Declaration of Independence was signed and adopted in 1776, the fighting of the  American Revolution  continued another 5 years until the  Revolutionary War  ended in 1781.

    The Second Continental Congress (1775-1781) established the bond of Perpetual Union, managed the war effort, and adopted the Articles of Confederation, which was the first US Constitution.

    The final draft of the Articles of Confederation  was completed on November 15, 1777.  It was ratified on February 2, 1781 and it became effective (or was implemented) on March 1, 1781.  The Articles of Confederation was superseded on March 4, 1789 when the first president George Washington, under the new second US Constitution, took office.

    The government under the Articles of Confederation was considered to be weak, and the desire to make it stronger was realized when the second constitution was created, adopted, and implemented on March 4, 1789.

    The current  Constitution of the United States  is our second constitution.  The process of drafting or framing the US Constitution occurred during the Constitutional Convention that met at Independence Hall in Philadelphia from May 25 to September 17, 1787.

    The final draft of the US Constitution was completed on September 17, 1787, the last day of the Constitutional Convention, and it was ratified on June 21, 1788 by 9 of the 13 states. It became effective on March 4, 1789 when the new stronger federal government, based on the new US Constitution, began with George Washington as the first president.

    Third Constitution of the United States

    The Human Rights of United States Citizens 

    1. Our human rights preceded government, and the purpose of government is not to grant rights, but to protect pre-existing rights.  We The People have a right to vote on any amendments added to this Third Constitution, and we also have a right to vote every four years on whether we want a  constitutional convention to create a new national constitution. It will take a 51 percent majority to start the process of having a constitutional convention, in which representatives to the Convention will be selected using a system of proportional representation from the 7 largest national political parties.
    2. All individuals have freedom to speak and write about their personal, political, and spiritual beliefs.  They may worship God through the religion of their choice, or they may choose ethical behavior or spiritual disciplines not based on any religion.
    3. The government has powers granted to it as determined by the people’s democratic decision making.   The government must protect the human rights of each individual.  The government must also represent the collective will of the people, as it is developed through the democratic process.
    4. Government authorities must have probable cause to search our bodies, homes, cars, or any other property.   What consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes or bedrooms that does not infringe on the property or the rights of others should not be the concern of our government. Thus, individuals have a right to privacy.
    5. Property owners are entitled to a generous compensation if through eminent domain the government needs to seize the property for a higher, socially justifiable purpose, such as necessary road construction, for example.
    6. No person shall be tried for a serious crime unless there is a Grand Jury indictment that states valid reasons for the upcoming court trial.
    7.   No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property unless there is due process (or fair procedures) in carrying out the law.
    8.   In all criminal cases and prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in the district where the crime was committed.
    9. In all criminal cases and prosecutions, the accused must be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
    10. In all criminal cases and prosecutions, the accused has a right to a counselor who may or may not be an attorney. The accused, or a counselor of the accused, may confront (or cross examine) all witnesses testifying against him or her.
    11. In all criminal cases and prosecutions, the accused may require witnesses to testify if the witnesses have important information to share in the case.
    12. Unless it is a minor charge (or a misdemeanor), citizens have a right to a trial by jury.  Juries may determine a person’s guilt or innocence, and if a person is found guilty, the jury may determine the sentence of the accused, as advised by the judge.
    13. Excessive bail shall not be required of a person, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.
    14. Citizens may choose where they want to live.  Citizens may also visit any country they choose, including Cuba.  If they choose to move to another country, they will not be dispossessed of their personal assets by our government.
    15. The US Congress shall determine uniform policies regarding a citizen’s possession, use, and registration of firearms, or it may agree to let each State make that determination.

    ARTICLE I: The Legislative Branch of the Federal Government

    Section I  

    All federal legislative powers shall be granted to the Federal Congress of the United States, which shall be a unicameral body consisting of Federal Legislators. There will be 435 separate congressional districts in the 50 states of the United States, including the District of Columbia, based on equal population.    Federal Legislators will be elected based on the system of Proportional Representation.  All new federal laws must pass with at least a 51% majority vote of the federal legislature. Proposed amendments to the Third Constitution must also be approved by a 51% majority national referendum vote of the people.

    Section 2

    All Federal Legislators of the United States Congress will be chosen for four-year terms that coincide with presidential terms of office.  Federal Legislators may serve for an unlimited number of 4-year terms.  The election of Federal Legislators will occur on the first Tuesday of November.  They will take office on January 20 of the following year.

    Section 3

    Each state will have at least one Federal Representative under the system of Proportional Representation, and the District of Columbia will also have at least one Federal Representative.

    Section 4

    When vacancies in the Federal Legislature occur because of sickness, death, or resignation, the state of the removed legislator will vote for a replacement, chosen from the 7 largest national political parties.

    Section 5

    The Federal Legislators will vote among themselves to elect a Federal Legislator to be the Speaker of the House at the start of every new 4-year term.  The elected Speaker of the House will choose the chairpersons for the established committees.  The chairpersons, in turn, shall select committee members.

    Section 6

    The Federal Legislators  will be allowed to try, impeach, and remove any high-leveled federal officer in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government.  Any officer impeached is also liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to the law.

    Section 7

    All proposed bills must deal with one issue only.  Lawmakers have the responsibility to clarify the pros and cons of every proposed law or amendment to their constituents in their home state.      The best arguments for and against a bill must be expressed in writing for the lawmakers’ constituents.

    Citizens of a voting precinct in a state can electronically register their vote on a particular proposed federal bill before the Federal Legislators make their final voting decision.

    Section 8

    The salaries of Federal Legislators will be three times the federal minimum wage, based on a 40-hour work week.  Legislators cannot accept from corporate lobbyists any money, gifts, or fringe benefits at any time before, during, or after their tenure in office.

    Section 9

    After the passing of a particular federal law or constitutional amendment, the President cannot veto it, if he or she disapproves of it.

    Section 10

    Congress must strive to balance every budget and not engage in deficit spending, unless there is a national emergency.

    Section 11

    In all elections of Federal Legislators, the 7 largest national political parties (based on officially registered memberships) will have the same requirements, privileges, media access, and public financing as Republicans and Democrats had under the former government and constitution.

    If Indiana has 10 of the 435 federal legislative districts based on the latest national census, its 10 Federal Legislators could hypothetically consist of the following: 6 Republicans, 2 Democrats, 1 Libertarian, and 1 Legislator from the Constitution Party.

    Section 12

    Federal Legislators may be elected for more than one term to provide continuity and experience in government.

    Section 13

    Federal Legislators must have permanent residency in the districts of the states they represent.

     

    ARTICLE II: The Executive Branch of the Federal Government

    Section 1

    Executive power shall be invested in the President of the United States.  His or her term of office will be four years, the same 4-year period in which Federal Legislators and Supreme Court Justices will be elected.  The president will choose a Vice President who will serve in the President’s absence. Presidents will be elected on the first Tuesday of November, and they will take office on  January 20 of the following year.

    Section 2

    A president cannot become president unless he or she wins at least a 51-percent majority of the popular vote.

    The Electoral College System for electing a president has been abolished in this Third Constitution.

    Section 3

    If a president resigns, dies, is impeached, or is unable to hold the office, then the vice president will replace him or her.  If the vice president is unable to serve at that time, the order of succession will be the Speaker of the House of Federal Legislators, followed by the Secretary of State.

    Section 4

    The president’s salary shall be 3 times the federal minimum wage.  The president cannot accept money, expensive gifts, or fringe benefits from citizens or corporate lobbyists before, during, or after his or her term of office.  Such money or gifts could bias his or her decisions.

    Section 5

    The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. The President is not required to wait for the approval of Congress  to deploy troops on a moment’s notice during a national emergency that requires it.  A state governor will be the Commander-in-Chief of the National Guard of his or her state.

    Section 6

    The president cannot make a declaration of war, unless 51 percent of US citizens approve it, as expressed through a national referendum.

    Section 7

    All executive orders or presidential directives made by the current and former presidents that are in effect must be fully disclosed, explained, and clarified to the people.

     

    ARTICLE III: The Judicial Branch of the Federal Government

    Section 1

    The Supreme Court, under the Third Constitution, will have Judicial Review regarding federal and state legislation that possibly conflicts with the federal constitution.

    Section 2

    Under the Third Constitution, the Supreme Court will consist of 7 Justices—no longer 9. Before the new government under the Third Constitution begins, the 7 largest national political parties will each appoint one Justice to serve on the first Supreme Court.

    The 7 Supreme Court Justices will be appointed by the 7 largest national political parties on the first Tuesday of November, and  the 7 Justices will take office on January 20, at the same time that the new president and 435 federal legislators take office.

    The appointed Justices will each begin a 4-year term of office.  Supreme Court Justices may serve for an unlimited number of 4-year terms.  If a Supreme Court Justice dies or resigns, the political party he or she came from will provide a new Justice.  If the political party that the Supreme Court Justice came from is no longer one of the 7 largest national political parties, then a new political party will make the Supreme Court appointment.

    Section 3

    Currently there are over 850 federal judgeships in the United States. A term of office for a federal judge will be four years.  Through a referendum vote, citizens of the district that a federal judgeship represents will elect a new federal judge on the first Tuesday of November during the same year that presidents are elected.  Federal judges may serve an unlimited number of 4 year terms.

    Federal judges not assigned to a particular state will be selected by the Federal Congress or Federal Legislators.

    There will continue to be two distinct federal and state judicial systems under the Third Constitution as there were under the second constitution.

    Section 4

    In addition to the 12 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal based on geographical areas, there will also be, as previously established under the second Constitution, the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Circuit, which will have national appellate jurisdiction over certain types of cases, such as those involving patent law and those in which the United States is a defendant.  The Court of International Trade, The Court of Federal Claims, and similar courts may appeal to this Thirteenth Circuit Court as they did under the previous federal government.

    Section 5

    The federal Supreme Court can also review and cancel State Supreme Court decisions and state laws if the federal Constitution is violated.

    Section 6

    States cannot be sued in federal courts of a foreign country.

    Section 7

    The Federal Congress with a 51 percent majority can make modifications in the structure of the Supreme Court and the federal court system.  Congress will determine how much of the federal budget is needed to finance the Supreme Court and the federal court system.

    Section 8

    The job of the Supreme Court is to make judgments based on the Constitution and existing federal statutes, not to change or make new laws. Federal statutes under the second constitution will continue unless they are modified or abolished by the unicameral federal legislature of the Third Constitution.

    Section 9

    Every individual must do what he or she promises to do by contract.  An important role of the judiciary is to determine that legal contracts are honored.

    Section 10

    Government officials in any of the three branches of government will not have immunity from prosecution while they are in office.

    Section 11 

    Every individual shall have equal justice under the law.

     

    ARTICLE IV:  States Desiring to Withdraw from the Country

    A state cannot withdraw, or secede, from the rulings and protections of the United States government based on the stipulations of this Third Constitution, unless the Federal Congress votes for it with a 51 percent majority, and it is approved and ratified through a referendum of US citizens with a 51 percent majority.

    ARTICLE V: Nations Desiring to be United with the United States

    Only if approved by the Federal Congress and also approved through a referendum of the people can new nations that desire to be united with the United States be admitted.

    If ever one of the United States’ protectorates desires sovereignty from the United States, Congress will grant it sovereignty because the days of colonialism and empire are over.

    ARTICLE VI: The National Debt Problem

    The Federal Legislators should strive to pay off the enormous national debt within 20 years through large reductions in military spending.  The Federal Legislators can propose laws for the people to vote on regarding whether to have a graduated income tax. When a nation repeatedly has annual deficits, it causes the national debt to skyrocket, which then puts an enormous burden on taxpayers of future generations.

    ARTICLE VII:   The National Census

    The US Census will continue to be taken every ten years.  Accurate statistics enable the government, private companies, and individuals to have a better understanding of the nation’s demographics, which then promotes better planning for the future.

    ARTICLE VIII: Approving Corporate Charters

    County or municipal governments have the right to approve or revoke corporate charters and to impose taxes on corporations operating within their boundaries.  They may revoke the charter of any private corporation in their district if they determine that a particular corporation does not serve the community or benefit the environment.

    A corporation is not a natural person and should not have the same rights as a natural person.  A corporation cannot make any financial contributions to any local, state, or federal government election campaign.

    The federal congress or a state legislature can also revoke a corporate charter in a particular county if it considers the company is detrimental to surrounding counties within the state.

    ARTICLE IX: An Alternative to the Federal Reserve

    The former Federal Reserve System will be eliminated when the Third Constitution is implemented.  Public Banking in the United States shall be organized and supervised by the US Treasury Department and audited periodically by the US Congress.

    ARTICLE X: The Primary Role of Government

    The primary role of government is the protection of its citizens.  Actions such as, murder, rape, robbery, pollution, theft, embezzlement, fraud, arson, kidnapping, battery, trespassing, harassment, and nuisance–violate the right of others.  The government should investigate, prevent, and have consequences for individuals who engage in these types of illicit or illegal actions.

    ARTICLE XI: The Need for Habeas Corpus

    Habeas Corpus is a concept of law in which a person may not be detained by the government unless the government has a valid reason for putting that person in jail or prison.  Even in a national emergency, an individual’s right to Habeas Corpus should not be violated.  Prisoners of war or alleged terrorists, foreign and domestic, must also be given a fair trial.

    ARTICLE XII: The Need for Social Security 

    The national Social Security System must not be abolished.  Some American citizens (because their employers did not offer pensions, or because of misfortune or unwise financial planning) will need monthly Social Security payments (money that they themselves paid into throughout their entire life-working history) in order to survive financially in their old age. The federal government does not have the right to take money from the Social Security fund for any other purpose than what the fund was designed for.

    Article XIII: Keeping the Best of the Former Government

    Under this Third Constitution, the Federal Congress must not attempt to eradicate the good policies that existed under the previous constitution.  However, previous policies, statutes, regulations, and protocols can be changed as needed under the Third Constitution to reflect the ever-changing new attitudes, beliefs, and values of the current age.

    ARTICLE XIV: A New Era of Honesty and Transparency

    Wealthy individuals and large corporations must not be able to influence the political decision-making of voters.  A new era of openness, honesty, and transparency in government, private business, the media, and foreign affairs is vital to our well-being. Moreover, it is also important that individuals are open, honest, transparent, and vulnerable in their interpersonal relationships.

    ARTICLE XV: Income Tax Laws

    Federal income tax laws should be simplified in ways that do not allow clever people to cheat the government. The Federal Legislators will determine the federal tax for private corporations and possibly religious organizations as well.  The Federal Congress can also choose to eliminate the federal income tax.

    ARTICLE XVI:  Bottom-up Reorganization of the 50 State Governments: Only A Recommendation  State governments are encouraged to rewrite their state constitutions so that they are organized from the bottom-up, not the top-down: from the elementary public school district (which could also be a voting precinct district) to the township level, up to the municipal or county level, and up to the state level.

    Each level of state legislative government can make, not just legislative decisions but also executive and judicial branch appointments for that level.  Elected legislators at each level may vote among themselves to send a legislator to the next level above it.  This method is better than the previous system in which state and local citizens have often voted a straight ticket for many officers from two parties for candidates whom they know nothing about.  States are also encouraged to consider direct democracy at precinct, township, city, and county levels of government.  Here is an  expanded explanation  for reorganizing state governments.

    State governments are also encouraged to allow the residents of any public elementary, middle, or high school district to abolish its public school with a 51 percent majority so that money can be given to parents directly for private schooling, public charter schools, or for home schooling with additional private tutors.

    ARTICLE XVII: How this Third Constitution Can Be Amended and How It Can Be Abolished When a Fourth Constitution Is Desired.  

    The United States government under the Third Constitution can be changed when new Federal Laws are passed with a 51% majority.  But the United States government can also be changed by adding Amendments to the Third Constitution.  But to change the federal government completely and abolish this Third Constitution, there has to be a Constitutional Convention to create the Fourth Constitution of the United States.

    How to Add Amendments to the Third Constitution

    Under the previous second constitution, new amendments were added only if passed by Congress with a ⅔ majority and ratified by ¾ of the 50 state legislatures.  That was an extremely difficult task to accomplish, and it only happened 27 times.

    Under the Third Constitution, amendments can be added if the Federal Legislators approve it with a 51 percent majority, and the American people approve it with a 51 percent majority vote referendum. Then the new amendment to the Third Constitution will be ratified.

    In a modern, rapidly changing world, new laws, new amendments, and new constitutions should be easier to ratify to adapt to the changing times and changing preferences of each new generation.

    How to Abolish the Current Third Constitution to Create the Fourth Constitution 

    The Constitution is the supreme civil law of the land.  A radically new constitution and government can be created by having a Constitutional Convention.  If done properly in the way prescribed here, it will be achieved in a fair, orderly, and democratic way.

    The American people have a right to choose whether they want a new Constitution on a regular basis. Through their chosen representatives, an entirely new constitution can be written and adopted. Here is the procedure for having a Constitutional Convention to create a new constitution, the Fourth Constitution.

    The American people will vote to determine if they want a Constitutional Convention to create a new constitution every 3rd year after a presidential election. If approved by a 51-percent majority of the American people, then the following 8-month timeline will be used to make it happen.

    The 8-Month Timeline for Creating the Fourth Constitution 

    Three years after every presidential election on the first Tuesday of November, the American people with a 51 percent majority can decide if they want a constitutional convention to create the Fourth Constitution.

    If American voters  decide they want a Constitutional Convention, they will have about 7 weeks from the second Tuesday in November till January 14 of the following year to officially register with a national political party that truly expresses their values and worldview. Various websites describe all the major national political parties that voters can choose from.

    Then from January 15 till the end of January, no switching of parties can be made as the official count of all national political parties is determined by the National Elections Committee, which will be appointed by the current 7 largest national political parties.  Each of the 7 largest national political parties will appoint one person to serve on the Executive Council of the National Elections Committee.

    The National Elections Committee will know by the end of January which national political parties received the most votes.  The National Elections Committee will determine what are the current 7 largest national political parties.

    The National Elections Committee will be responsible for counting and verifying the membership of national political parties, and the National Elections Committee will guarantee that local election officials are impartial and professionalized.  The National Elections Committee may use voting machines that are standardized, or it may decide on other fair methods of voting that prevent dishonesty and corruption.

    Starting in the month of February and going to the end of March (a 2-month period), the 7 largest national political parties will get official, equal, free, national public television exposure.

    The 7 largest national political parties will be able to make public speaking presentations and will be allowed to participate in town hall meetings and debates on national television stations.  The 7 largest national political parties will also be required to give their written responses to standardized questions determined by the National Elections Committee, not exceeding the maximum number of words that the question allows.  Each of the political parties will be allowed to share their party platforms, any proposed national constitutions, and various articles from their websites.       

    Then during the first two weeks of April, there will be a second counting of registered voters in each of the 7 largest national political parties.  Party identifications cannot be changed during this time period.  As a result of this second counting, some voters will stay with the party they picked in January, while others will pick a new political party that better expresses their values and worldview.

    So after the second counting of party memberships, it will be announced on April 14 the percentage of votes each of the 7 largest national political parties received.  So here is how the results could be, hypothetically speaking:

    If the Constitution Party gets 5 percent of the votes, then there will be 5 Constitution Party delegates sent to the Constitutional Convention.  If the Green Party gets 9 percent of the votes, then there will be 9 Green Party delegates sent to the Constitutional Convention.  If the Republican Party gets 14 percent of the votes, then there will be 14 delegates from the Republican Party sent to the Constitutional Convention, and so forth.

    On May 1, the Constitutional Convention delegates will meet at the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. for the month of May and June.  The 100 delegates will work during May and June to create the best constitution that 51 percent or more of the attending delegates approve.

    When the Constitutional Convention begins in May, each of the 7 largest national political parties will nominate one of their attending party delegates to be the potential chairperson of the Constitutional Convention.  The 100 delegates will vote to elect one Constitutional Convention Chairperson from the slate of 7 potential candidates.

    If delegates reach a 51 percent majority before the 2-month period elapses, they must use the remaining days of the 2-month time frame to hear dissenting delegate voices in the constant effort to keep improving their document in order to get an even higher percentage of approval than 51 percent.  If at any point 60 percent of the constitutional convention delegates approve the new document, the delegates may choose to adjourn and go home before the maximum 2-month time limit has elapsed.

    If only 50 percent or less of the delegates approve any new proposed constitution after working on it for 2 months, then any document becomes void, and the current Third Constitution will continue to be official and valid.  However, if the new constitution is approved with a 51 percent majority by the end of June, then the American people must also approve the new document on the second Tuesday of July with at least a 51 percent majority in a referendum vote.

    This Constitutional Convention process that started the first Tuesday in November (3 years after a presidential election) until the second Tuesday of July, is roughly about 8 months.

    If the American voters approve or ratify the new document on the second Tuesday of July, the new Fourth Constitution will not be implemented immediately.  There has to be an election of new government officers, as there normally would be in a presidential election year on the first Tuesday of November.

    Then in the following year on January 20, the new constitution will be implemented, and the new legislative, judicial, and executive officers (who were elected during the previous first Tuesday of November) will begin their terms of office.

    When the Constitutional Convention delegates meet during May and June, the delegates should make their day-to-day proceedings public.  As mentioned above, whatever document the delegates approve with a 51 percent majority will not be ratified until 51 percent of the American voters approve it in a referendum vote.

    End of the 8-Month Timeline for Creating the Fourth Constitution 

    End of Article XVII of the Third Constitution

    End of the Third Constitution of the United States

    *****

    September 7, 2025:  I copied and pasted the September 4, 2025 latest version of my 28-page Third Constitution of the United States into the little Chat GPT question box window and asked Chat GPT to summarize and critique it, and this is Chat GPT’s response, which gives me food for thought when I do the next revision.

    The post Third Constitution of the United States first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • US EPA wants to speed up AI infrastructure permits

    The US Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new measures aimed at speeding construction of infrastructure needed for the rapid buildup of data centers for artificial intelligence that would enable companies to start building before obtaining air permits. The proposal comes six months after the EPA announced an initiative called Powering the Great American Comeback that…

    The post US EPA wants to speed up AI infrastructure permits appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • The Peoples Conference for Palestine: Another Step Forward

    The well-organized Palestine conference in Detroit brought over 4600 there, with a heavy Palestinian presence. Most of the speakers in the plenaries were genuine Palestinian activists tested in battle, not well-known writers or professors. The over 270 journalists who have been targeted and murdered for informing the world of the endless US-Israeli slaughter of civilians were honored throughout the three days that included over 20 sessions and plenaries, exhibits, including Palestinian cultural performances, a grand vendor fair and art exhibits.

    It was made clear that Israel is the US garrison state in the Middle East, out to break the Palestinian people’s resistance. US-Israel aim to destroy their confidence in their ability to resist and fight back, and as the Final Solution, to wipe Palestinians off their homeland. The US-Israeli military operations, through relentless carpet bombing, mass shootings of civilians, and starvation, aim to kill Palestinians until they decide to flee. If this is a war, then so are the mass shootings in the US, with the perpetrators shooting school children and civilians presented as an army of snipers in an armed conflict against their recalcitrant enemy.

    Dr. Mohammad Mustafa, a Palestinian emergency doctor, now living in Australia, has done medical missions to Gaza, spoke in the plenary Gaza is the Center of the World said, “Healthcare in Gaza is not a failure by accident but sabotage by design with doctors killed and aid blocked. That is the reality of Gaza. It is a mirror that is being held up to humanity. Why is it that baby formula is banned from Gaza? Why is it that feeding a child considered a threat? Why are ambulances and hospitals turned into targets of war? When did bread and milk become weapons? When did saving lives become a crime? Gaza is the only place on earth where nourishing a baby is an act of resistance. It is the only place where life itself is viewed as a weapon of war.”

    The plenary No Weapons for Genocide: The People Demand an Arms Embargo referred to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese’s report on “the corporate machinery sustaining the US-Israeli genocide’s settler-colonial project.” In the plenary, Aisha Nizar in gave an excellent review of their grassroots worldwide campaign to disrupt Maersk shipping company’s weapons deliveries to Israel. Over $19 billion in military materials have gone to Israel since the genocide began, mostly by commercial shipping companies. Maersk makes up over 50% of this shipping fleet. Aisha explained the work involved in organizing against Maersk, and have Spanish and Moroccan dock workers strike over servicing their ships.

    In the workshop entitled “Unmasking Genocide Enablers in the United States,” Writers Against the War on Gaza presented their campaign against The New York Times, condemning its apologist reporting of Israel’s onslaught on Gaza. One demand of the campaign is making the newspaper retract the December 2023 article, “Screams Without Words,” which claimed rape and sexual violence by Palestinian resistance fighters. This was dubbed “the most dangerous piece of propaganda published since the Iraq War.”

    The plenary Documenting Genocide: Gaza, Before and After October 2023  outlined the process of the US-Israel systematic genocidal campaign. Even before October 2023 the Palestinians in Gaza were corralled in an open air prison. Gaza is surrounded by 100 kibbutzes, set up under the cover of being socialist communes, as military outposts outside Gaza. Since October 7, Israel has weaponized and targeted all aspects of life in Gaza: food, health care, water, sewage, energy, education, shelter, and infrastructure. To cut off the people’s own Gaza-grown food, Israel bombed and chemically sprayed the agricultural lands (46% of the strip). Israel controls access to much of Gaza’s water, though Gaza does have aquifers. Gaza’s desalination plants were all targeted and bombed, as were the water treatment plants; water wells were bombed. Israel flushes sea water into the strip to pollute the freshwater aquifers. The one Gaza electrical power plant Israel bombed a week after October 7. US-Israel cut off fuel, electricity, wifi, lighting. Every single hospital, 36 of them, were bombed, one with white phosphorus, which burns right through your body. To date, 1600 health workers have been killed. Every single school in Gaza, preschool to university, Israel bombed.

    Israel bombed food aid sites, bakeries, and markets in the mornings, when people go there. In the evening they bomb residential areas, when families gather for dinner. The over 400 food and aid sites, US-Israel shut down in May 2025. They are now only four, each a sniper death trap operated by US-Israel. Several hundred Palestinians have already starved to death.

    Gaza is now 90% destroyed.

    When people of Gaza are told to move from one area to another, they go through checkpoints which register their photos and IDs, for Palantir, which are then used for the murder program “Where is Daddy?” When Israel wants to murder particular Palestinians, it tracks them to their homes, using US tech company tools, then wipes out the whole family.

    The Sunday plenary delved into the obstacle of the Palestinian Authority, now kapos for the Israeli occupation. The PA is like a little brother of the regimes that rule the Arab countries, forces for keeping the people under control and beaten down. These regimes know any liberation for the Palestinian people will set off popular earthquakes throughout the Arab world and destabilize their own rule.

    The conference ending was highlighted by an excellent closing speech by Palestinian US Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, who now faces Congressional censure for it.

    The conference would have benefited by having reports on the work of Jewish Voice for Peace, the BDS Movement (Boycott, Divest and Sanctions), and the Freedom Flotillas to Gaza, especially since the largest one is in route.

    The conference organizers called for a massive demonstration At the United Nations on Sept. 26 when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to address the General Assembly. The Palestine NGO Network called a Global Day of Action and Strike September 18th.

    This Palestine conference invigorated the movement against the US-Israeli genocide. It made clear the US empire is heavily invested in maintaining Israel as its imperial weapon against the peoples of the Middle East, as the neighborhood cop protecting US oil interests in the region. But today, for the first time, there is now widespread – and outspoken – sympathy in the US people for the suffering of the Palestinian people inflicted by US-Israel. Dislike for Israel has risen to new heights.

    The conference also explained that the US government and corporations invest in Israel since it is a lab with actual human subjects, not just rats or guinea pigs, where it can experiment with new methods of control, manipulation, and mass murder. As Rashida Tlaib wisely warned in her speech, “what our government is willing to do to Palestinians, it is willing to do to all of us.”  For instance, the US government has already used some of its citizens in gauging the deadly impact of nuclear fallout, in the CIA Program MK Ultra, and in the decades long Tuskegee experiment.

    By the end of the conference it was easy to comprehend that this genocide was planned in advance of October 7. Planned out in US-Israeli research institutes, in US-Israeli think tanks. In “The Academy,” the Ivory Tower, institutes exist to develop the most efficient manuals for mass murder of populations. And how to carry this out in the public eye while hiding it from them, while talking about freedom, democracy, and human rights. The manuals await the pretext and the sadistic politicians, like October 7 and Netanyahu, to put one into practice.

    US Genocides

    US history is full of genocides, against the Filipinos, the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the East Timorese, the Guatemalans, the Iraqis. It was the US and Britain who carpet bombed German civilian centers in cities, killing many tens of thousands – the Soviet Union did not, it fought German troops. The US is the only country to use the atomic bomb on civilian centers, at a time when Japan was surrendering.

    The struggle against the other apartheid settler regime, South Africa, long and hard, took many decades. It was ultimately aided by revolutions and solidarity from neighboring Mozambique, Angola, and Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, this situation hardly exists with the Arab neighbors of Israel. A turning point for South Africa came with Cuban troops defeating the apartheid occupation army in Angola. This is not on the horizon for Palestinians either. These key factors in the defeat of South African apartheid don’t exist to help us.

    The struggle against the even more barbaric US slave system likewise took nearly a century, if we start with Vermont first abolishing it, in 1777. It was not defeated by African slave resistance and the Abolitionist movement, forebearers of our Palestine movement today, but by outright war provoked by the slaveocracy. And yet, the victories in the US and South Africa have remained partial victories, unfinished. Unfortunately, the arc of justice in history progresses two steps forward, one step back.

    The model for US genocidal operations comes from the wiping Native Americas off their land, and the enslavement of Africans, breaking them, stripping them of their humanity.

    The entitled, genocidal attitude of white “civilization” that it owns the world and will civilize it with the sword and Bible has continued for 500 years. The astounding hypocrisy of the US rulers, committing mass murder while talking about freedom and human rights, goes back centuries. The writer of “all men are created equal,” who referred to “the merciless Indian Savages” in the same Declaration, owned other humans, as if they were cows or pigs. The same Thomas Jefferson wrote these genocidal words ten years later: “Our confederacy must be viewed as the nest from which all America, North and South is to be peopled…My fear is that they [the Spanish] are too feeble to hold [their colonies] till our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece.”

    In Mein Kampf, Hitler noted the US was “the one state” that created the racist society the Nazis wanted. He praised the “Aryan” US conquering “its own continent” by clearing the “soil” of “natives” for more “racially pure” occupiers. In 1937 Winston Churchill, of similar mind, said of the Palestinians, “I do not agree that a dog in a manger has the final rights to the manger, even though he may have lived there for a very long time.”

    Israeli Prime Ministers continued this racist genocidal thinking, saying Palestinians “do not exist,” another calling them “two-legged beasts” and a third “grasshoppers to be crushed.” They treated the two state solution in the same way the US did with treaties with Native Americans.

    European Union leader Josep Borrell embodies the same entitled white racism when publicly describing Europe as a “garden” and warned that “most of the rest of the world is a jungle, and the jungle could invade the garden”.

    This Palestine conference invigorated the movement against the US-Israeli genocide. It emphasized “Palestine is the Compass,” a key class struggle for opponents of the US empire to organize around. Winning this struggle against this white chauvinist US-Israeli destruction of the Palestinian people, has been and will be a long arduous struggle. Today the US empire may be in economic decline, but it still remains an overwhelming foe. It knows their losing this struggle will be another nail in its coffin.

    The post The Peoples Conference for Palestine: Another Step Forward first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Department of War

    Restoring the original and non-Orwellian name to the U.S. Department of War ought to have a positive impact on people’s speech and understanding.

    Yes, of course, Trump did it in order to celebrate the sadistic malevolence associated with the word “war.” He did it while pursuing horrific wars in Palestine and Ukraine, threatening (and beginning) wars on Venezuela and Iran, and moving massive resources from human and environmental needs into war preparations in the U.S. and its vassal NATO members. He immediately threatened to invade Chicago and show it the meaning of the newly restored name.

    Yes, of course, 78 years of propaganda will not be undone quickly. All or most of the governments around the world that copied the U.S. in renaming their militaries “defense” will fervently resist switching back. Even peace activists relentlessly talk about “the Defense Department,” “the defense industry,” “defense contractors,” etc. If decades of passionate advocacy by some of us for not parroting the very propaganda we work against has had virtually no impact, it can be expected to take at least a few weeks before people flip their linguistic habits in obedience to a fascist buffoon.

    But flipping those linguistic habits, for whatever reason, remains something that would benefit us all. Words shape our thinking as much as communicate it. We shouldn’t applaud Trump for dropping the pretense that wars are waged for something other than sadism, power, and profit, because he’s trying to normalize the glorification of sadism, power, and profit. But if those who oppose evil were to drop the pretense that the greatest evil in the world is “defensive” and “humanitarian,” we’d be much better off.

    If Congress had to pass National War Authorization and Appropriations Acts instead of so-called Nation “Defense” Acts, it might suddenly be possible to nudge the gears in a Congressional head or three into motion. The U.S. Constitution allows Congress to raise and support armies for no longer than two years at a time. It does not envision the permanent Military Industrial Congressional “Intelligence” Media Academic Think Tank Complex. Endless massive, ever-growing War Authorization Acts could make Congress stop and notice the absence during the past 84 years of any Declaration of War, or of any moment in which the U.S. War Department was not at war, or of any war that could be said to have accomplished anything useful.

    Trump believes that restoring the name “War Department” will restore an imaginary age in which the United States “won” wars — a powerful admission that for 78 years, the U.S. government has spent trillions of dollars killing millions of people, destroying societies, ripping down the rule of law, causing horrific and lasting environmental damage, fueling bigotry, restricting civil liberties, corroding culture, and depriving positive initiatives of resources that could have transformed the world for the better. But — in the words of Jeanette Rankin, who voted in the U.S. Congress against both of the “beautiful” world wars — you can no more win a war than a hurricane. The U.S. “won” imperialist and coalition wars in the days of the Department of War by committing genocidal slaughters of a sort deemed grotesquely unacceptable in the age leading up to the current livestreamed genocide in Gaza, and by allowing allies like the Soviet Union to do most of the killing and dying (rather like Ukrainians today) before producing countless Hollywood movies suggesting a different story.

    Restoring the acceptability of genocides, carpet bombings, and nuclear bombings doesn’t flow inevitably from restoring the name of the institution responsible. If we choose, the unconscionable horror of such things can instead mean that admitting what the Pentagon is, and stamping that disgusting, barbarous title over its front door could allow the development of a significant anti-war contingent in the United States. Such a contingent should not be simply anti-Trump. We should not be bothered by what he calls the war machine, but by the war machine itself — even when the name change is resisted or reversed.

    One way to help this along would be to conscientiously remove from our speech and our thoughts, not just “defense” but all variety of insidious war propaganda terms. We might try also giving honest names to every governmental department. We might consider alternatives to war, and the case for war abolition.

    The post The Department of War first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • USA Can Only Regain Strength If It Understands Why It Lost It

    The USA is a country well- endowed with natural resources and strategically suited geographical location. In the 20th century history too was on its side as a number of factors added to its strengths and, overcoming the setback of the great depression, after the end of the Second World War the USA emerged as the most powerful country in the world with its great military power supported by wider military alliances and above all its currency having worldwide acceptance.

    Subsequently the USA added very substantially to its military strengths and even after unilaterally moving away from the gold standard the international acceptance of its currency was retained. Its glory appeared to be complete with the disintegration of the Soviet Union around 1990.

    The post USA Can Only Regain Strength If It Understands Why It Lost It appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Mass Media Under-count Indigenous Deaths in US wars

    The eminent, truth-telling and humane Australian web medium Pearls & Irritations has published a responding Letter from me about total sanctions demanded against Apartheid Israel because of hundreds of thousands of Gaza Genocide deaths: Gideon Polya, “MSM under-count indigenous deaths in US wars,” 5 September 2025.

    I have been researching and writing about Indigenous deaths in US Alliance wars for over 30 years since discovering the “forgotten” WW2 Bengali Holocaust in which 6-7 million Indians in British-ruled Bengal, Bihar, Odisha and Assam were deliberately starved to death for strategic reasons with food-denying Australian complicity. Indeed the 1942-1945 Bengal Famine was the first WW2 atrocity to have been described as a “holocaust”. Re the WW2 Bengali Holocaust and the WW2 Jewish Holocaust, my dear late wife Zareena née Lateef was Bengali and Bihari, and I am an anti-racist Jewish Hungarian-Australian.

    I have published my findings about Indigenous deaths in US Alliance wars in a thousand articles and 9 huge books, but for the last 20 years Zionist and other gate-keepers have censored me in Australia. The core ethos of Humanity is Kindness and Truth. The key messages from the WW2 Holocaust, the WW2 Bengali Holocaust, all other WW2 holocausts (the Polish, Sinti and Roma, Soviet, European, and Chinese Holocausts), and indeed from all genocide and holocaust atrocities, are “zero tolerance for lying”, “zero tolerance for racism”, “bear witness” and “never again to anyone”. We must all bear witness and endlessly inform everyone we can – racist and lying MSM certainly won’t.

    My Letter:

    MSM under-count indigenous deaths in US wars

    This is an extremely important article by John Menadue demanding total trade sanctions against Israel because of hundreds of thousands of Gaza deaths. Dr Zeina Jamaluddine and colleagues estimated that 64,260 Gazans died violently by day 269 of the Gaza massacre (30 June 2024) (The Lancet) and hence 136,000 Gazans died violently by day 569 (25 April 2025) with a “conservatively estimated” four times that number (544,000) dying from imposed deprivation for a shocking total of 680,000 deaths from violence and deprivation by 25 April 2025.

    That is 28% of the pre-war Gaza population of 2.4 million, and 11 times the present mainstream media under-counted estimate of 62,000 deaths. Western mainstream media under-count indigenous deaths in US wars. Thus, in December 2011, the Australian ABC reported on Iraqi deaths: “The [US] withdrawal ends a war that left tens of thousands of Iraqis and nearly 4500 American soldiers dead.”

    I estimated 2.7 million Iraqi deaths and seven million Afghan deaths from violence and war-imposed deprivation (Gideon Polya, US-imposed Post-9/11 Muslim Holocaust & Muslim Genocide, 398 pages, 2020). The Brown University Costs of War Project: “At least 4.5 million people have died in the post-9/11 [US] war zones.” Iraq has five million orphans – go figure.

    Yours sincerely, Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne.

    The post Mass Media Under-count Indigenous Deaths in US wars first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • “Methinks thou doth protest too much!”


    Listen up, Senator Warmonger.

    Listen up, Congressman Forever War.

    Hear me out, President China Hater.

    Yes you, Vice-President Iran Hater.

    And you, Secretary Cuba Hater.

    Pay attention, General Russia Hater.

    I’m talking to you, Ambassador North Korea Hater.

    I think … no, I know … THOU PROTEST TOO MUCH.

    You vilify and condemn, you slander and demean too much.

    You insult and mock, you intimidate and provoke too much.

    You posture and pose, you bully and brag too much.

    You threaten and coerce, you beat the war drums too much!

    WAY TOO MUCH!

    Sure, we have some tough competition out there. Sure, there are countries and leaders who don’t think very highly of us. Sure, there are those who want to hold us down, get a leg up, make THEIR COUNTRY great again.

    But what you’d have us all think: EVERYONE WANTS TO ATTACK US, EVERYONE WANTS TO KILL ALL OF US, DESTROY OUR COUNTRY!

    Where’s the evidence, sirs and madams?

    Has Russia ever attacked us?

    Has China ever attacked us?

    Has Cuba ever attacked us?

    Has Iran ever attacked us?

    Has Venezuela ever attacked us?

    Has Nicaragua ever attacked us?

    Has North Korea ever attacked us?

    Why should we be afraid of countries who are never hostile to us?

    Listen, you bellicose, belligerent, bombastic purveyors of perpetual war …

    We’re on to you! We see what you’re up to.

    The more you protest, the more it sounds contrived and hollow.

    The more you protest, the more it looks like crass manipulation.

    The more you protest, the more it appears to be plain old brainwashing.

    Yes, the louder you bellow, the more it sounds like pure … BULLSHIT!

    Methinks thou are a fraud!

    Methinks thou are a serial liar!

    Methinks thou are drunk on power!

    Methinks thou prefer profit over peace!

    Methinks thou are a puppet of the war industry!

    Methinks thou are squandering trillions of our dollars!

    Methinks thou are going to be looking for a new job!

    That’s what methinks.

    The post “Methinks thou doth protest too much!” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • To Outlive Tyranny

    Flesh and blood alone cannot halt the advance of iron and steel. To stop the tanks, we need people to place blocks on the road and throw sand into the gears.

    This post was originally published on Dissent Magazine.

  • All Elements in Place for a US Decapitation Strike on Venezuela

    President Donald Trump euphorically concluded his White House press conference on September 2 with breaking news: the US military had just blown up a small motor vessel in the middle of the Caribbean Sea. He alleged that the skiff came from Venezuela and was loaded with illicit drugs headed to the US.

    On social media, he further embellished his story by saying that the crew were members of the Tren de Aragua cartel, which Trump claims is controlled by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Trump alleges that this cartel is “responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence across the US.”

    Evidence blown out of the water

    There was no attempt to stop and search the boat in international waters, before murdering the crew. This gruesome practice arrogates to the US state the extrajudicial power to kill anyone with whom it unilaterally declares itself to be at “war.”

    The eleven victims are just a drop in the imperial blood bucket compared to the US-sponsored genocide in Gaza. But the homicidal “victory” was used by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to crow about the “full power of America, the full might of the United States.”

    Maduro responded that no one believes Trump’s and Rubio’s lies: “they come for Venezuelan oil and gas, they want them for free.”

    The day before the incident, Maduro presciently warned that the US could create a false positive to justify the US military deployment. Claims have circulated that the incident may have been faked by AI. If true, that’s not much of a relief. It simply means Trump’s military escalation against Venezuela has begun at a lower level than he claims.

    Maduro alluded to the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident and the explosion of the Maine, which precipitated the 1964 Vietnam and 1898 Spanish-American wars respectively. Maduro also mentioned the WMD hoax that was used to justify the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.

    Maduro might also have noted that President Bill Clinton bombed Sudan, diverting attention from his Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. Trump is now facing similar difficulties due to his close friendship with the deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein

    A decapitation strike attempt on Venezuela foretold

    All the elements, especially US impunity, are in place to eventually attempt a decapitation strike eliminating the South American nation’s leadership.

    Trump ominously boasted at his press conference “there is more where that came from” for Venezuela. Just four days earlier, Washington’s “historic partner” Israel had assassinated the Yemeni prime minister and his civilian cabinet. Arguably, the word “partner” understates the intimate level of integration between the two. The Israelis have been perpetrating a live-streamed genocide in Gaza for over 700 days while receiving daily airlifts of military supplies under both Biden and Trump.

    Decapitation of an enemy’s leadership has become a tactic for the “partners.” Aside from Yemen, the Israelis launched a devastating decapitation strike on Hezbollah in Lebanon along with a similarly brazen one of top Iranian leaders during its twelve-day war with Tehran. In 2020, Trump murdered Iranian General Qassem Soleimani with a drone.

    Trump signed an executive order designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations the day he returned to the presidency. US military were deployed to the Caribbean near Venezuela under the ruse of drug interdiction. Shortly afterwards, The New York Times reported a leaked “secret order” authorizing the use of the US military to intervene in other countries against drug cartels.

    Also in August, the reward on the head of Maduro was doubled to $50 million with lesser rewards for other top officials. US sanctions now extend to the heads of the state oil and transportation companies, supreme court justices, electoral councilors, national assembly politicians, various military and security heads, and so forth; in short, a leadership hit list.

    Trump doesn’t actually care about the US’s illegal drug problem

    The US is indeed flooded with drugs, but Trump’s concern is insincere. Otherwise he would have mobilized against trafficking within the US and close allies like Ecuador. Instead Trump diverts public attention by scapegoating Venezuela, a country that contributes to the problem negligibly.

    Illicit dsrug sales in the US are estimated at $200–$750 billion, including new synthetics. Remarkably, the only other domestic commodity that comes close in volume is legal pharmaceuticals at $600 billion, followed by oil and gas at $400 billion. Indeed, the US is the largest consumer of illegal drugs and a major supplier of weapons and drug precursor chemicals for the cartels. As the world’s leading narcotics money launderer, prominent US banks implicated include HSBC Bank USA, Wachovia, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America.

    We constantly hear about Latin American drug kingpins, but who distributes the dope when it crosses the border is left unanswered. Research by Mexican journalist Jorge Esquivel demonstrates that no US administration has ever seriously investigated domestic drug trafficking networks. Venezuelan international analyst Sergio Gelfenstein asserts Washington has “no interest whatsoever in combating the drug trade”; it is just too big and profitable.

    Besides, drug usage serves to pacify youth, African Americans, and other potentially dissident demographics. Journalist Gary Webb exposed how drug trafficking on the streets of Los Angeles in the 1980s helped fund the CIA-backed Contras in Nicaragua. And opium production was virtually eradicated in Afghanistan before the US invasion of 2001, only to explode again under direct US military occupation.

    Fake threat of Venezuelan drug trafficking

     “What the US really seeks is regime change and regional control, thinly veiled behind drug war rhetoric,” according to The Cradle.

    The authoritative 2025 UN World Drug Report featured minimal mention of Venezuela, emphasizing that it plays a marginal role in global drug trafficking. The report confirms that Venezuela is a territory largely free of drug cultivation and processing, as well as any significant international cartel presence. Nor does the report mention the fictitious “Cartel of the Suns,” which the US claims Maduro heads.

    Despite the Tren de Aragua’s designation by the US as a terrorist organization, the intelligence community itself refutes that it is controlled by Maduro or is even a highly functioning international narcotics cartel.

    The guard rails are down for imperialist aggression

     Democrats may carp about the optics of Trump’s actions, but they have been bipartisan partners in opposition to the Bolivarian Revolution’s attempt to build socialism in the 21st century ever since Hugo Chávez was first elected Venezuela’s president in 1998. Note, every US Senator voted to confirm Marco Rubio as Trump’s Secretary of State.

    The so-called “international community” and its institutions such as the United Nations have been powerless to stop the US/Zionist war on Palestine let alone one in Uncle Sam’s “backyard.” Welcome to the post-Gaza genocide world.

    And let’s not forget the perfidy of big “human rights” NGOs like Amnesty International, which absurdly and hysterically alleges that the Venezuelan government’s “cruelty knows no bounds,” nicely timed to justify US imperialism.

    The US aggression on Venezuela is clearly escalating from funding of opposition elements, lawfare, and sanctions, plus occasional coup attempts and sabotage. Now direct military confrontation is possible, which could involve an attempt to assassinate the entire Bolivarian leadership.

    The reported 4,500 US troops recently deployed to the Caribbean could never take Venezuela even if they were multiplied many-fold. But recent history suggests that the US often avoids a full US troop-heavy occupation. In Haiti, Libya, and Syria, the US instead opted for chaos rather than permitting insubordinate states to survive.

    Resistance by Venezuela has stiffened to meet the challenge. Civilian-military unity has remained strong. This video clip shows artisanal fishing boats accompanying one of the mobilized Venezuelan naval ships. Shortly before the US destroyed the alleged “drug boat,” President Maduro had declared a “republic in arms.” And millions of civilian reservists have enlisted in the Bolivarian National Militia, a branch of the Venezuelan armed forces, while regular troops had been dispatched to the Colombia border.

    Many regional leaders along with the regional ALBA organization have condemned the US military buildup. Further afield, Russia, Iran, and China all stated their support of Venezuela. And international grassroots support for Venezuela’s sovereignty has been overwhelmingly positive, condemning Yankee warfare.

    For humanity, Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution represents hope; for the US imperial project, which seeks to crush any alternative to its order, it is a threat. To force regime change in Caracas, Washington may attempt to eliminate the current leadership or pursue another tactic. The method matters less than the goal – either installing a compliant vassal or, failing that, leaving the country in chaos. The pressure will therefore continue, and likely intensify.

    The post All Elements in Place for a US Decapitation Strike on Venezuela first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Real Reason Trump Wants to Reshape the NYC Mayoral Race

    Politics makes strange bedfellows. This is especially true in New York, where Donald Trump seems ready to support almost anyone in an effort to defeat Zohran Mamdani. While Zohran’s opponents include the “Never Trump” Republican Curtis Silwa, the Democratic heir Andrew Cuomo, and the unpopular incumbent Eric Adams, Trump sees all of these candidates as better alternatives. Most obviously, Zohran Mamdani is a committed socialist who will oppose the interests of wealthy businessmen, such as Donald Trump. However, the mainstream media has largely ignored another reason why Trump might desperately want Mamdani to lose: Israel.

    Simply put, Zohran Mamdani is a threat to the Zionist consensus in America. The idea that all US politicians, no matter if you are a MAGA Republican or a progressive Democrat, must swear allegiance to Israel faced little challenge in the US until Israel began slaughtering innocent Palestinian civilians. Now, only 32% of Americans support Israel’s genocidal military actions in Gaza. Nevertheless, the Democratic establishment in New York is so disconnected from the average voter that every Democratic candidate besides Mamdani promised to travel to Israel if they were elected mayor. Mamdani’s message of staying in New York as mayor to work for New Yorkers has attracted broad support. He has even been able to score a 17-point lead with Jewish voters. Mamdani’s success has alarmed the political establishment, which is why figures like Andrew Cuomo and Eric Adams have been promoted as candidates to block his momentum.

    Both Cuomo and Adams are Democrats who have held prominent positions in New York politics, yet neither could secure the endorsement of the Democratic Party. On the one hand, the DOJ says Andrew Cuomo has sexually harassed 13 women, and on the other, Eric Adams is perceived as being too close to Trump. However, Eric Adams is currently polling last, and many, including the President, see him as a spoiler candidate. Because of this, Trump is attempting the “RFK Jr. approach,” i.e., offering Eric Adams a position in his administration in exchange for his withdrawal from the race. Currently, the media has reported that the Trump Administration is considering Adams for the position of Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. While Adams has denied that he is dropping out of the race, RFK Jr. also claimed that he would never drop out and endorse Trump before, eventually, doing just that. The ambassadorship gambit makes sense once you understand what’s really at stake for Trump: the survival of the pro-Israel consensus.

    Donald Trump is afraid. He has recently openly lamented the fact that the Israel lobby has lost its nearly complete control over Congress, and for good reason. Donald Trump has tied his presidency to Israel, and he is now sinking with the ship. From low approval ratings to many in MAGA criticizing his administration’s Epstein cover-up, Donald Trump needs Israel to win and on Israel’s terms. Trump needs to be able to justify his slavish support for Netanyahu to his own supporters and to the public at large. One of the worst disasters for Trump financially and politically would be the rise of an anti-Zionist leftist in America’s biggest city. Mamdani’s substantial prospect of victory lingers as a specter of anti-capitalism and anti-Zionism over many Zionist businessmen with interests in New York City. Two of these individuals happen to be President Trump and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. While most Americans are aware that Donald Trump has over a billion dollars’ worth of real estate, with much of it located in New York, few are aware that Steve Witkoff, responsible for much of the behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Netanyahu government, also owns millions of dollars’ worth of New York City real estate. For Trump and Witkoff, politics and business are inextricably linked, which is why a Mamdani victory would be seen as a sign of weakness.

    Ultimately, a Mamdani victory would signal to the world (and to Trump’s Zionist backers) that he is unable to control the narrative regarding Israel in his country. Such an outcome is worse than a Democrat or liberal-leaning independent winning the New York mayoralty. It would embolden anti-capitalist and, more dangerously for the establishment, anti-Zionist movements. This would prove that even the wealthiest and most powerful figures cannot dictate outcomes in America’s biggest cities. It would challenge the unspoken rule that American politicians must bow to the interests of Israel over their own constituents. For Trump, for businessmen like Witkoff, and for the political establishment, a Mamdani win would be a warning shot: the old levers of influence no longer work, and the voters, not lobbyists of AIPAC or Big Business, now decide.

    The post The Real Reason Trump Wants to Reshape the NYC Mayoral Race first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Veterans For Peace Condemns the Deployment of National Guard in Washington, DC, and the Misuse of U.S. Troops and ICE to Create Terror in Our Cities

    Veterans For Peace unequivocally condemns President Trump’s unlawful deployment of the National Guard to Washington, DC. This follows the outrageous deployment of National Guard and U.S. Marines to the streets and parks of Los Angeles in support of ICE terror tactics in a city where as many as one in ten residents are undocumented workers. Even U.S. military veterans have been targeted and deported.

    The crime rate in Washington, DC, is at a 30-year low. The claim that an emergency exists requiring military policing is a blatant lie. The use of the U.S. military for domestic policing violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which reserves law enforcement for civilian authorities, not federal troops.

    Is it a coincidence that the cities targeted for occupation by federal forces are Democratic-led and often with Black mayors? Furthermore, the deployment of National Guard units without the consent of state governors, as in California, is highly questionable and likely illegal.

    Equally disturbing is the role of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in terrorizing entire communities. Wearing masks, without identification, often in plain clothes and unmarked vans, ICE personnel are becoming shock troops more reminiscent of fascist, totalitarian regimes. In recent days, at least one man was killed when he ran into traffic to avoid being detained by masked men. There are now reports of women being abducted and assaulted by violent criminals posing as ICE. How can anyone tell the difference?

    The ICE budget in Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” is larger than that of any branch of the armed services and larger than the entire federal prison system. New prisons—such as “Alligator Alcatraz” in Florida, effectively concentration camps—are being built to imprison nonviolent immigrants with no criminal records whatsoever. Meanwhile, Trump brands undocumented workers as violent criminals and drug-dealing gang members—another blatant lie.

    The deployment of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers to the border with Mexico threatens border communities and Mexico itself, with Trump even claiming the right to invade with drones and the U.S. military in pursuit of “cartels.” U.S. leaders have leveled unsubstantiated claims, such as accusing Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro of running a drug cartel, while dangling multimillion-dollar bounties. These are the hallmarks of regime-change propaganda.

    Veterans For Peace stands opposed to racist violence in our communities. Behind the masks and lies of the Trump administration, we see the face of White Supremacy—and a growing trend of domestic repression. As the old warning goes: First they came for the immigrants and communities of color…

    The U.S. Supports Genocide in Gaza and Escalates Toward Global War

    At the very same time, the U.S. government continues to provide bipartisan support for the genocide and starvation of Palestinian men, women, and children in Gaza. The U.S. supplies the bombs that fall on Palestinian neighborhoods and the political cover for the systematic destruction of an entire people.

    The U.S. has bombed Yemen and Iran, both countries that sought to aid Palestinians. The Pentagon is openly planning war against China, simply because the Chinese economy challenges U.S. dominance. Military planners even discuss using tactical—or first-strike strategic—nuclear weapons. The U.S. is also fueling a devastating proxy war in Ukraine, where the priority should be to cease hostilities and pursue genuine negotiations. Meanwhile, escalating threats toward Iran risk plunging the region into another catastrophic war.

    When Veterans For Peace and antiwar activists protest, will we find ourselves in ICE’s concentration camps?

    Military Members: “This Is Not What We Signed Up For!”

    As veterans of the U.S. military—and too many questionable wars—we stand with our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters in today’s armed forces. They did not enlist to chase immigrants around parking lots or into traffic. They did not sign up to invade Mexico or Venezuela. They do not want to stand on the front lines of a nuclear war. Increasingly, we are hearing from GIs questioning their deployments and seeking advice on their legal rights and alternatives.

    Veterans For Peace will continue to support members of the military who are questioning whether their orders are morally or legally justified. We encourage military personnel and their families to call the GI Rights Hotline at 877-447-4487 to learn more about their rights and how to seek a discharge.

    Peace at Home, Peace Abroad!

    Veterans For Peace joins the majority of people in the U.S. who reject the deployment of National Guard, U.S. troops, and ICE to terrorize our communities and prepare the ground for fascist repression. We will work with civil society organizations resisting these illegal, authoritarian measures.

    We call for peace at home and abroad: an end to U.S. support for genocide in Gaza, an end to provocative military actions against China, Iran, Venezuela, and Mexico, and a permanent peace agreement in Ukraine.

    We invite like-minded people—especially fellow veterans—to join us in defending our communities and building a future of Peace at home and peace abroad.

    The post Veterans For Peace Condemns the Deployment of National Guard in Washington, DC, and the Misuse of U.S. Troops and ICE to Create Terror in Our Cities first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Cold War 2.0 Is Against China

    “Globally, all available resources are to be focused on a zero-sum increase in U.S. power and on the defeat of China as the newly arising rival.” — John Bellamy Foster, “The Trump Doctrine and the New MAGA Imperialism”

    On September 3, China staged a grand gathering of over 20 foreign leaders to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War. China’s loss of some 20 million people was second only to the USSR in terms of deaths in WWII. We also need to acknowledge the 30,000 killed in the Nanjing Massacre of 1937 and the fact that 10 million Chinese were enslaved.

    Before the parade in Beijing, the Summit Meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) took place in Tianjin from August 31 to September 1. The meeting was the largest in the group’s decade-old history. In his Keynote Address, President Xi called on SCO member states to continue to resist “hegemonism and power politics,” and instead advocate for “an equal and orderly multipolar world and a universally beneficial and inclusive globalization.”

    Each of these meetings takes the multipolar world a step further, as they transition from a “talk shop” to substantive and cooperative projects that “bypass the US-led system toward one that protects these countries from the West.” This formidable coalition is saying, “You can bully your European vassals into obedience, but not us.” All available evidence suggests that we are witnessing the emergence of a new coalition, the end of Western domination of the global system, and the advent of a new era — provided the world remains intact.

    Photos of Chinese President Xi Jinping embracing Russian President Vladimir Putin and India’s Narendra Modi brings to mind Zbigniew Brzezinski’s famous warning in his book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997), when he wrote “the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia and perhaps India, an ‘anti-hegemonic’ coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances.” Little did Brzezinski know how rapidly the US would push India into a closer relationship with China and Russia, which gives multipolarity a tremendous boost. Nor did Brzezinski foresee the accelerating pace of common grievances and how quickly the multipolar world he feared would emerge.

    I should note that the final declaration made no mention of Ukraine. My sense is that although the war will drag on, Russia has won and Ukraine is already in the rearview mirror. Not coincidentally, the developments in Beijing happened just as the neocons lamentably realized the long-term US military strategy of a major proxy war with Russia in Ukraine has, in all essentials, failed. Here, it’s important to note that for some within the national security establishment, Ukraine was seen as a mistaken use of limited US military resources, but now there is an overwhelming consensus that China must be taken on.

    It is China’s economic growth and alternative development model that strikes fear into the capitalist ruling class. As Asia expert, Danny Haiphong, has asserted, “Without China’s economic development, there would be none in the Global South. These countries want to replicate China’s success.” In short, China is threatening a US-controlled world order that only benefits U.S. capitalists.

    This apprehension accounts for the fact that on November 17, 2011, former President Barack Obama announced his administration’s “Pivot” or “rebalance” to China, which heralded a decade of increased levels of US imperialism toward Beijing. Arguably, today’s most influential iteration of this bellicose approach toward China is the work of Elbridge Colby, the current Under Secretary of Defense, who is known to “prioritize” China and has been called “The China Hawks’ China Hawk.”

    Colby, grandson of former CIA Director William Colby, was a co-author of the 2018 National Defense Strategy, which argued that the U.S. should refocus its military might on the Pacific and that Europe and the Middle East were of secondary importance. (Incidentally, Bernie Sanders criticized Colby for halting arms shipments to Ukraine). Colby believed that two-front wars against Russia and China were dangerously stretching US military resources.

    In his 2021 book, Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict (Yale University Press, 2021), Colby advocates, as one reviewer states, “magnifying threats and increasing fears in order to build support among attentive publics and capitalist ruling class leaders for a possible war, this time, with China.” He urges the massive forward deployment of US military power in the Pacific to augment the existing 400 US military bases surrounding China. Furthermore, he counsels constructing an anti-China coalition that would include: Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, Vietnam, India, and Myanmar. It’s not lost on the Chinese that many of these former Japanese colonies are now US colonies.

    Further, Colby seeks to build support within the higher circles of the monopoly capitalist class — and by extension, ordinary Americans — for a possible “limited” war to prevent China from “dominating a key region of the world.” Under certain circumstances, Colby endorses a “limited nuclear war which would achieve victory for the United States.” As journalist and geopolitical analyst KJ Ngo warns, Colby posits a seamless continuum between nuclear weapons and conventional war. At other points, Colby suggests that “selective friendly nuclear proliferation may be the least best option, though this would not be a panacea and would be dangerous.” His fear-mongering reaches a fever pitch when he warns that, “If China succeeds, we can forget about housing, food, savings, affordable college for our kids, and other domestic needs.” In sum, Colby recognizes China’s new position of strength, wants to deny it “regional hegemony,” and in doing so, he’s willing to risk a nuclear catastrophe.

    Foremost in curbing China’s rise is the effort to portray it as a full-spectrum, moral enemy and threat to so-called “Western democracy.” This manufacture of consent to prepare for war requires a massive propaganda campaign, and in 2024, Congress approved 25 anti-China bills in just one week. It was hailed as “China Week” by the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. One of the bills passed during the week allocated $1.6 billion, or $ 325 million per fiscal year 2023-2027, to subsidize media worldwide to demonize China. The legislation passed 351-36, revealing conclusive bipartisan agreement to counter China.

    The new law specifically targeted China’s highly successful Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), under which China has built infrastructure and cemented ties with Latin America, Asia, and Africa. The U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, the semi-official voice of U.S. imperialism, has warned that the BRI “poses significant risks to U.S. economic and political interests and to longer-term security implications,” and the bill characterized the BRI as China exercising its “malign influence.” What’s so striking about this and other claims is that there’s never any evidence to support them. The “Chinese Threat” is simply assumed to be true and therefore perfectly legitimate, and even “morally right” to oppose China.

    Finally, of the 100 countries surveyed by the Democracy Perception Index, more than three-quarters have a more favorable view of China than of the United States. Conversely, the Pew Research Center’s polling in 2025 indicates that Americans’ negative opinions of China are slightly less unfavorable than in 2024 — 81% in 2024 to 77% this year. Still, 42% see China as the country posing the “greatest threat” to the U.S.

    We know that Americans are the most heavily propagandized people in the world. If the public is to be de-brainwashed about China, social media must take on an uphill but critically important role.

    Recommending Reading on China:

    Ken Hammond, CHINA’S REVOLUTION AND THE QUEST FOR A SOCIALIST FUTURE (NY: 1804 Books), 2023.

    Carlos Martinez, THE EAST IS STILL RED (Glasgow, Scotland: Praxis Books, 2023).

    Jeff Brown, CHINA RISING: Capitalist Roads, Socialist Destinations – The True Face of Asia’s Enigmatic Colossus (Brewster, NY: Punto Press Publishers, 2016).

    Deborah Brautigan, THE DRAGON’S GIFT (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

    The post Cold War 2.0 Is Against China first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Trump and the International Criminal Court

    The International Criminal Court bash fest is getting ever more frenetic in Washington and among the law shredding members of the Netanyahu cabinet in Israel. Last month, the Trump administration smacked sanctions on judicial members Kimberly Prost of Canada and Nicolas Guillou of France via Executive Order 14203. Prosecutors also received a chastening, sanctioning experience, including Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji and Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal.

    The US Secretary State Marco Rubio, who occupies more administrative posts than he can identify, confirmed the line of his boss, President Donald J. Trump.  The ICC was “a national security threat that had been an instrument for lawfare against the United States and our close ally Israel.”  In an August 20 press statement, Rubio insisted that the individuals in question had sought to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute US and Israeli nationals “without the consent of either nation”.  While Rubio has an undergraduate’s acquaintance with the principle of consent regarding the jurisdiction of the court, he should also be aware the involvement of the ICC can still take place regarding a non-signatory to the Rome Statute in certain cases.

    In the case of the murder, mayhem and orgiastic slaughter being visited upon Palestinians by the Israeli forces, the ICC has assumed jurisdiction given Palestinian ratification of the treaty.  As the alleged breaches of humanitarian law have taken place on Palestinian soil, Israel has fallen within the court’s investigative and judicial scope.  In November 2024, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant were issued with arrest warrants.  Rubio, nonetheless, repeats the usual charge sheet and insists that actions are necessary “to protect our troops, our sovereignty, and our allies from the ICC’s illegitimate and baseless actions.”  With depths of sheer cravenness, he insists that signatories to the Rome Statute appreciate that the freedom of many of the ratifiers “was purchased at the price of great American sacrifices”.

    The response from the ICC to such head spinning conspiracy could do no more than summarise the important point: that the sanctions were “a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution.”  The move was “also an affront against the Court’s States Parties, the rules-based international order and, above all, millions of innocent victims across the world.”  With admirable pluck, the body went on to declare that it would persist in “fulfilling its mandate, undeterred, in strict accordance with its legal framework as adopted by the State Parties and without regard to any restriction, pressure or threat.”

    UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric also told the press that the decision by Washington imposed “severe impediments on the functioning of the office of the prosecutor and respect for all the situations that are currently before the court.”

    Such impositions, and the broader attempt to place the US outside the gravitational pull of the ICC, has become routine.  American exceptionalism is always cited as the mainstay principle in doing so, despite the fact that drafting the original Rome Statute involved considerable interest from the American legal fraternity.  The first Trump administration saw the issuing of Executive Order 13928 in June 2020, which imposed travel and financial sanctions on ICC personnel and their family members.  President Joe Biden revoked the measure in April, 2021, with his Secretary of State Antony Blinken reasoning that the order had been “inappropriate and ineffective”.

    Last year, the House of Representatives passed the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act which blustered against international law while shielding US citizens and entities, along with non-US citizens lawfully resident in the country.  Were the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute such “protected” persons, the President would “impose visa- and property-blocking sanctions against the foreign persons that engaged in or materially insisted in such actions”.  Sanctions blocking the visas of immediate family members of those targeted would also be implemented.

    In January this year, the same bill failed by 54-45 votes to pass, though Democrat and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer could still offer considerable support for the instrument.  “However, as much as I oppose the ICC bias against Israel, as much as I want to see that institution drastically reformed and reshaped, the bill before us is poorly drafted and deeply problematic.”

    In February, Trump reprised his role as assaulter-in-chief of the ICC by issuing Executive Order 14203, reviving the provisions of the moribund Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act.  He warned that the Court’s “recent actions against Israel and the United States set a dangerous precedent, directly endangering current and former United States personnel, including active service members of the Armed Forces, by exposing them to harassment, abuse, and possible arrest.”  Accordingly, any non-American person or organisation can be sanctioned if they directly engage in any actions on the part of the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a “protected person” without consent of that individual’s country or nationality.  (Such persons are defined as US nationals and US military personnel, including persons who are citizens or lawful residents of a US NATO ally or “major non-NATO ally”.)

    Anyone supplying material assistance, including sponsorship, financial, material or technological assistance to the Court’s activities, can also be sanctioned.  As before, these can take the form of blocking assets within the US and bans on entry into the US for any sanctioned persons including their families.  Most prominently on the list is ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan.

    While criticism of these battering responses from Trump has been forthcoming from various Rome Statute member states, they constitute a mere smattering.  Trump’s hostility to the regime of international justice and accountability is one shared, overtly or otherwise, by various allies and adversaries.  Netanyahu knows, for instance, that the ICC arrest warrant will carry no truck in certain countries, however sentimental they claim to be about international humanitarian law.  France’s Foreign Ministry is notably adamant that he is immune from arrest, as Israel is not a party to the ICC.  Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stoutly flouted the warrant by inviting the Israeli PM to Budapest and also announcing his country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute.  Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala, preferring a certain obliqueness, called the ICC decision “unfortunate”, undermining “its authority in other cases when it equates the elected representatives of a democratic state with the leaders of an Islamist terrorist organization.”  With supporters like these, the blunting and sundering of international judicial processes is always assured.

    The post Trump and the International Criminal Court first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • ‘We’re Going In’: Trump Moves To Deploy Troops To Chicago

    After weeks of threats, US President Donald Trump officially announced that he is sending federal forces to the US city of Chicago. On September 2, Trump declared his intent to send federal troops, including National Guard personnel, to Chicago to address rising crime, stating: “We’re going in. I didn’t say when, but we’re going in.”

    On Tuesday, Trump claimed in a post on Truth Social that Chicago is “the worst and most dangerous city in the World, by far.” Chicago is not the most dangerous city in the world or even the nation in terms of violent crime and homicide. Chicago’s overall violent crime rate remains higher than the national average, but it’s seeing a steady decline.

    The post ‘We’re Going In’: Trump Moves To Deploy Troops To Chicago appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Russia’s Special Military Operation in Ukraine

    Medea Benjamin and Nicolas Davies have come out with the expanded and revised second edition of their book War in Ukraine. Defying logic, the subtitle is Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict.

    A blurb from professor Noam Chomsky calls it: “An invaluable guide.” I agree.

    Media analyst Norman Solomon calls the book a “concise primer … historical context with balance and compassion.” Benjamin and Davies are compassionate advocates for peace; this is laudable and undeniable. However, too often information that criticizes all sides in a conflict, more or less equally, is passed off as balanced. Yet, when the preponderance of blame lies with one side in a dispute, to criticize equally would be unbalanced. War in Ukraine often comes across as unbalanced, and that starts with the title.

    The authors give short shrift to the “Russian media narrative” notion of a “special military operation” (SMO, p 149) whereby Russia states that it is not conducting a war. The authors deal marginally with the distinction between SMO and war, (p 149) and it is left to the reader to just accept the authors’ assertion that it is a war and not a SMO. But what is a SMO? Basically, a SMO is a political-military concept used to downplay the severity and scope of a military action, while “war” is a broader, more objective term for a large-scale armed conflict. Thus, calling it a SMO versus war points to a semantic distinction aligning with a certain narrative.

    Putin says Russia’s hands were forced by the US-NATO to launch the SMO:

    They [US-NATO and Ukraine] did not leave us any other option for defending Russia and our people, other than the one we are forced to use today. In these circumstances, we have to take bold and immediate action. The people’s republics of Donbas have asked Russia for help.

    For the most part, War in Ukraine provides most of the requisite background leading to Russian invasion, inter alia:

    • NATO breaking its agreement to not move one inch eastward toward Russia.
    • The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 affirmed a commitment “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine,” and “obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine…”
    • The US was instrumental in fomenting the Maidan Coup/Revolution to overthrow the elected government of Viktor Yanukovych to install a US-preferred president.
    • The machinations of the US-NATO in the politics of Ukraine and the involvement of US-NATO in a proxy war.
    • Western Ukraine launched war on the eastern oblasts of Ukraine.
    • Kyiv failed to implement the Minsk Agreements to end the west versus east fighting in Ukraine.
    • Nazi ideologues constituted a major fighting force for Kyiv.
    • Western media played a biased role in its coverage.

    Questioning Balance

    The authors write, “… when Russia jumped on the might-makes-right bandwagon by tearing up the UN Charter and invading Ukraine.” (p 6) Thereby, “The people of Ukraine were unwittingly caught in a perfect storm, whipped up not only by brutal Russian aggression but also by astonishing Western hubris and stupidity.” (p 6) This dismisses or ignores that Putin launched the SMO “in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic…” War on Ukraine is somewhat taciturn about the killing and aggression preceding Russia sending its military into Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

    In mid-February 2014, the Maidan Coup (“coup” because an elected government was violently overthrown) resulted in the deaths of 107 civilians and 13 police officers. In the subsequent fighting, 14,000 people were killed, according to the estimates of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights from 14 April 2014 to 31 January 2022 in eastern Ukraine. In essence, if one posits a Russian aggression, then it seems it can also be posited that it was in response to Ukrainian aggression against Donbass with its sizeable proportion of ethnic Russians. In other words, the Russian aggression is to protect ethnic Russians from the initial aggression of Ukraine.

    Yet, Benjamin and Davies frame one question as: “And why did Russia decide to invade Ukraine?” (p 8) There was no question posed: “And why did western Ukraine decide to invade eastern Ukraine?” Why decide to invade Ukraine? (Balanced another way: Why did Russia feel forced to launch the SMO?) Putin stated,

    The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.

    Benjamin and Davies do speak to why the West backed the coup and post-coup governments in Ukraine thorough financing from the IMF: “The thrust of the IMF-mandated reforms was not to give Ukraine back to its people, but to open it up to Western capital and to partnerships between local oligarchs and Western ones with even deeper pockets.” (p 42)

    The authors quoted Putin from a presidential address in April 2021 warning:

    Those behind provocations that threaten the core interests of our security will regret what they have done in a way that they have not regretted anything for a long time. (p 65)

    Yet War on Ukraine is decidedly lacking in presenting and analyzing the speeches Putin made in an attempt to end the warring in Ukraine and preclude Russia’s entry into the fighting.

    It is a fact that the US-NATO rejected the security agreement proffered by the government of Russia to end the fighting in Ukraine and provide for the security of all parties. Neither did the US-NATO come back with a counter proposal. Clearly, Russia was seeking to avoid military action. From the decision of the US-NATO that “summarily dismissed Russia’s proposals” (p 68) one might well surmise that the West was hoping to force Russia to take up arms, which Russia obliged.

    Benjamin and Davies focus on the illegality of Russia’s SMO. (p 72) There certainly are laws that one can cite to criticize Russia on the legality of its SMO. Even if legal arguments might find against Russia’s militarism, should extant law always be the final arbiter on right and wrong? Is the launching of military action to save lives and staunch further killing not morally warranted? Many have clamoured for military action to stop the genocide being wreaked against Palestinians. Should the courageous state of Yemen be legally condemned as a scofflaw state for coming to the aid of Palestine?

    Benjamin and Davies bring up “the allegations of serious Russian war crimes in Bucha and Mariupol.” (p 76) The authors do not consider that this might have been a false flag carried out by Ukraine. The Bucha allegation is forcefully refuted by former US Marine Scott Ritter who says “hundreds of Ukrainian civilians in Bucha … were slaughtered by Ukrainian security forces.” Ritter provides a narrative of what happened and avers, “The evidence of this crime was overwhelming.” That may be so, but what Ritter provided was a narrative and not evidence.

    The authors write that in the first phase of the Russian penetration into Ukraine that Russia failed to take Kyiv. (p 79) The authors are attributing Russian intentionality to take the Ukrainian capital. In stating that, Benjamin and Davies call into question the veracity of Putin who has stated: “It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force.”

    Early in the Russian SMO, the authors cite Amnesty International reports of Russia’s “deliberate killings of civilians, rapes, torture, and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war.” (p 80) Is Amnesty International a credible source? Paul de Rooij has written a few articles highly critical of Amnesty International (“Amnesty International: Trumpeting for war… again,” “Amnesty International: The Case of a Rape Foretold,” “Where was Amnesty International during the Genocide in Gaza?” as have others; e.g., Khaled Amayreh, “Amnesty’s Scandalous Obliquity” and Binoy Kampmark “Finding the Unmentionable: Amnesty International, Israel and Genocide.”) One wonders what exactly is a report? Testimony given by people? That has validity if the testimony is verifiable or at least has genuine verisimilitude.

    Patrick Lancaster, an on-the-ground independent American journalist in Ukraine, for some reason not sourced by Benjamin and Davies, has spoken of several war crimes by Ukraine.

    The authors write that Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum. (p 101) This is true, but it shouldn’t be stated without context. The memorandum was to provide security guarantees for Ukraine. But security for one state was not meant to diminish the security of the Russian signatory and be to the detriment of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Certainly when Russia signed the memorandum it did not foresee that other signatories to the memorandum, the US and UK, would undermine democracy in Ukraine, weaponize and militarize Ukraine, and seek to draw it into NATO despite it being a Russian redline.

    Benjamin and Davies claim that Russia violated the UN Charter when it launched its SMO against Ukraine. (p 118-120, 128) What the authors do not discuss is the Responsibility to Protect, a global political commitment, endorsed by all member states of the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit. At R2P’s core is that sovereignty is not just a right but a responsibility. When Kyiv attacked eastern Ukraine it violated its responsibility for the security and welfare of all its citizens and opened the door for R2P to be invoked.

    Consider whether the authors are tendentious in the following depictions:

    As reporters got swept up in Zelenskyy’s calls for more Western military involvement, they often became purveyors of fake news. There were surely accurate stories of real Ukrainian heroism, but some turned out to be exaggerated, embellished, or even simply invented. (160)

    If there “surely are accurate stories of real Ukrainian heroism,” — and there must be — then why the need for the fake news? There are several admonitions about accepting the truth of statements when previous statements have been exposed as disinformation, from Aesop’s boy who cried wolf to “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me” and the Latin dictum: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

    There is credible evidence of summary executions, rapes, and torture carried out by Russian forces in Ukraine, and evidence of Ukrainian war crimes too. (p 162)

    There is evidence of Ukrainian war crimes, not credible evidence and the crimes are not spelled out as summary executions, rapes, and torture.

    And the question for this reader is: what is the evidence? Is it sufficient for a writer to merely state that there is evidence and that the evidence is credible? Would critical thinkers accept such an assurance?

    The authors write of “Russia’s annexation of Crimea.” (p 181)

    According to DeepSeek: “In international law, annexation is the forcible acquisition of territory by one state at the expense of another state. It involves the formal act of claiming sovereignty over territory that was previously under the control of another sovereign entity.” Much more context is required to just call it an annexation. This was a process whereby the people of Crimea, predominantly ethnic Russians, exercised their right under Article 1 of the UN Charter to self-determination, which they overwhelmingly voted for in a referendum. Also the historical context is relevant. Soviet president Nikita Khrushchev had formally transferred Crimea from the jurisdiction of Russia to Ukraine in 1954.

    *****

    Benjamin and Davies conclude:

    As with this war and the crisis that led up to it, Russia is accountable and responsible for its own actions, which have violated the most fundamental principles of international law. But our leaders in the West are also equally responsible for their actions and they too have acted irresponsibly and dangerously. (p 209)

    It is unassailable logic: that we are all responsible and accountable for our actions. Notable is that no violations of fundamental principles of international law are ascribed to the Western leaders. What about the casus belli; which entity provoked the war? Did Putin provoke the war? That would be a risible contention because Putin made overtures to US-NATO seeking security guarantees, but he was thoroughly rebuffed by the West. US-NATO was going to militarize and arm Ukraine and likeliest place missiles within Ukraine.

    Speaking of responsibility, is it not the responsibility of any country’s leadership to provide security for the country and its people? Putin has identified this as an existential threat to Russia.

    The intentions of the US in its proxy war against Russia have been made clear by several politicians, both Democrats and Republicans. For example, US senator Lindsay Graham, after meeting with President Zelenskyy Kyiv in August 2023, stated:

    “The Ukrainians are fighting to the last person, and we’re funding it. It’s a good deal for us.”

    “It’s the best money we’ve ever spent. Without a single American soldier dying, we can weaken the Russian military.”

    Several other US politicians have made the same argument. For example, Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader said,

    “The Ukrainians are destroying the army of one of our biggest rivals without having to put American soldiers at risk. We’re rebuilding our industrial base. The rest of the world is watching. This is a direct investment in cold, hard American interests.”

    Also, the West has a history of attacking Russia. Would Putin have been faithful to addressing the security situation of Russia if he had allowed NATO to deploy troops and missiles in Ukraine? It is often said that Putin does not bluff. What would his reputation have been if he did not stick to his redlines of no NATO in Georgia and Ukraine?

    Shouldn’t people devoted to peace be focused on arguing for the dismantling of NATO; adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, thereby denuclearizing; and engaging in worldwide disarmament? This is what Benjamin and Davies do best.

    Benjamin and Davies acknowledge the insight offered by several persons for their book. (p 235-236) The absence of certain persons who speak more understandingly of Russia taking on US-NATO-Ukraine, for instance,  former Marine Scott Ritter, retired colonel Douglas Macgregor, and professor Jeffrey Sachs is suggestive of the authors’ leaning. Jeffrey Sachs wrote a recent essay that stands in contrast to many conclusions reached by Benjamin and Davies.

    War in Ukraine is very readable, and it is informative. It is a great primer. But as for any information proffered, by whatever source, demand the evidence, question the evidence, and scrutinize the analysis.

    The post Russia’s Special Military Operation in Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Trump Redecorates the Oval Office

    Donald John Trump, born June 14, 1946, the 47th president of the United States, has decided to leave his imprint in history by redecorating historical landmarks in the nations capital. After reciting plans for a grand ballroom in the Whitehouse, which will feature Klezmer bands on Wednesday nights and Hora dancing on Sunday evening, also duplicated periodically at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the master decorator has prepared simple renovations for the Oval Office.

    The renovation does not attempt to obtain a more pleasing and aesthetic environment. The thrust of the renovation is to clarify power, reveal who controls, manages, and enchants the Oval office. The writer has been able to obtain the plans. Here is an image.

    The post Trump Redecorates the Oval Office first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • How the UN Can Act Decisively to End Genocide in Gaza

    One year ago, the UN General Assembly demanded that Israel must end its occupation of the Palestinian Territories within twelve months.

    The General Assembly voted, by 124 votes to 14, with 43 abstentions, for a strong resolution that not only “demanded” an end to the occupation within a year, but called on all countries to refrain from trade involving Israeli settlements and from transfers of weapons “where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they may be used in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

    The General Assembly was meeting on September 18, 2024, in an Emergency Special Session, invoking the “Uniting For Peace” principle to act where the UN Security Council has failed to do so. The General Assembly had asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to rule on the legality of the Israeli occupation and the legal consequences arising from it, and the new resolution was triggered by the court’s ruling, on July 19, 2024 that the Israeli occupation is unlawful and must end “as rapidly as possible.”

    A year later, Israel has failed to comply with any of the demands of the 124 states. On the contrary. It has escalated its genocide in Gaza by cutting off nearly all food, medicine and humanitarian assistance, launching relentless bombardments, expanding ground incursions, and displacing virtually the entire population. All over the world, people are calling on leaders and politicians to do whatever it takes to put a stop to this holocaust before it goes any further.

    As world leaders gather again in New York for another UN General Assembly beginning on September 9th, how will they respond to Israel’s ever-escalating genocide and continued occupation and expansion of settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem? Grassroots political pressure is building on all of them to turn the strong words in ICJ rulings and UN resolutions into meaningful action to end what the vast majority of the world recognizes as the most flagrant genocide of our time.

    Countries have taken individual actions to cut off trade with Israel and cancel weapons contracts. Turkey announced a total trade boycott on August 29, and closed its airspace to Israeli planes and its ports to Israeli ships. Twelve members of the Hague Group, formed to challenge Israeli impunity, have formally committed to banning arms transfers and blocking military-related shipments at their ports. Sweden and the Netherlands have urged the EU to adopt sanctions on Israel, including suspending the EU-Israel trade deal.

    But most of the 124 countries that voted to demand an end to the occupation have done very little to enforce those demands. If they fail to enforce them now, they will only confirm Israel’s presumption that its corrupt influence on U.S. politics still ensures blanket impunity for systematic war crimes.

    In response to this unconscionable state of affairs, Palestine’s UN Representative has formally asked the UN to authorize an international military protection force for Gaza to help with the delivery of humanitarian aid and protect civilians. So has the largest coalition of Palestinian NGOs, PNGO, as well as pro-Palestine groups and leaders such as Ireland’s President Michael D. Higgins. There’s a growing global movement calling for the UN General Assembly to take up this request in another Emergency Special Session when it meets this month. That would be well within the authority of the General Assembly in a case like this, where the Security Council has been hijacked by the U.S. abuse of its veto power.

    Whether or not this initiative for a protective force succeeds, the truth is that the governments of the world already have countless ways to support Palestine—they simply need to muster the political will to act. Israel is a small country that depends on imports from countries all over the world. It has diversified sources for many essential products, and, although the United States supplies 70% of its weapons imports, many other countries also supply weapons and critical parts of its infernal war machine. Israel’s dependence on complicated international supply chains is the weakest link in its presumption that it can thumb its nose at the world and kill with impunity.

    If the large majority of countries that have already voted for an end to the occupation are ready to back their words and their votes with coordinated action, a UN-led trade boycott, divestment campaign and arms embargo can put enormous pressure on Israel to end its genocide and starvation of Gaza, and its occupation of Palestine. With full participation by enough countries, Israel’s position could quickly become unsustainable.

    Two years into a genocide, it is shameful that the world’s governments haven’t already done this, and that their people have to plead, protest and push them into action through a dense fog of spin and propaganda, while leaders mouth the right words yet keep doing the wrong things.

    Many people compare the problem the world faces in Israel to the crisis over apartheid South Africa. The similarity lies not only in their racism, but also in the western countries’ shameful complicity in their human rights abuses and lack of concern for the lives of their victims. It is surely no coincidence that the United States, with its own history of genocide, slavery and apartheid, acted as the main diplomatic supporter and military supplier of apartheid South Africa, and now of Israel.

    But it took over 30 years, from the first UN arms embargo and oil sanctions in 1963 to the final lifting of UN sanctions in 1994, before UN action helped bring down the apartheid regime in South Africa. It was not until 1977 that the UN even made its arms embargo binding on all members. In the case of Israel and Palestine, the world cannot wait 30 years for its actions to have an impact. What will be left to salvage of Palestine if the UN can only counter Israel’s genocide and America’s bombs with endless court rulings, resolutions and declarations, but no decisive action?

    One initiative that will be debated and voted on in the General Assembly is the one advanced by France and Saudi Arabia. In July they hosted a high-level UN conference on the “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the implementation of the Two State Solution.” But its agenda is weak and it avoids any strong action to pressure Israel to end the genocide or the occupation.

    The first steps the declaration calls for are a ceasefire in Gaza, the restoration of the Palestinian Authority’s control of Gaza, and then the deployment of an international military “stabilization” force. But Israel has already rejected the first two steps, and critics warn that a stabilization force would mean foreign troops deployed in Gaza, not to protect Palestinians from Israeli bombs and bulldozers, but to police them, contain resistance, and reinforce Israeli demands.

    Moreover, the declaration contains no enforcement mechanism. Instead, it offers only carrots—promises of recognition, trade, and arms deals—while Israel pays no price for continuing its crimes.

    And while the declaration could pave the way for more Western countries to join the 147 countries that already recognize Palestine as an independent state, without concrete pressure on Israel to agree to a ceasefire in Gaza and end the occupation, such recognition risks being symbolic at best—and, at worst, may embolden Israel to accelerate its campaign of mass killing, settlement expansion, and annexation before the world can act.

    What is urgently needed is for the General Assembly to hold an Emergency Special Session to vote on a UN protection force, as well as a UN-led arms embargo, trade boycott and divestment from Israel, conditioned on ending the genocide in Gaza and the post-1967 occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

    The arms embargo and economic measures against Israel should be binding on all UN members, with the full support of the UN secretariat, which can provide staff to organize and supervise them, in coordination with UN members. China, the largest supplier of Israeli imports, and Turkey, which was the third largest before it cut off trade with Israel, should both be ready to take leadership roles in a UN boycott and arms embargo. The European Union collectively does even more trade with Israel than China, and has failed to unite against the genocide, but strong UN leadership could help Europe to overcome its divisions and join the campaign.

    As for the United States, its role in this crisis, under Biden and now under Trump, is to encourage Israel’s crimes, provide unlimited weapons, veto every Security Council resolution, and oppose every international attempt to end the slaughter. Even as majorities of ordinary Americans now side with the Palestinians and oppose U.S. military support for Israel, the oligarchy that rules America is as guilty of genocide as Israel itself. As the world comes together to confront Israel’s crimes, it will also have to confront the reality that Israel is not acting alone, but in partnership with the United States of America.

    Aggressors and bullies get their way by dividing their enemies and picking them off one at a time, as the world has seen the European colonial powers and now the United States do for centuries. What every aggressor or bully fears most is united opposition and resistance.

    Israel and the U.S. currently apply huge political pressure against countries and institutions that take action to boycott, sanction or divest from Israel, as Norway has by its decision to divest its sovereign wealth fund from Caterpillar for supplying bulldozers to demolish homes in Palestine. In a world that is truly united to end Israel’s genocide, threats of U.S. and Israeli retaliation would isolate the United States and Israel more than those they target.

    Recent UN General Assemblies have heard many speeches lamenting the UN’s failure to fulfill its most vital purpose, to ensure peace and security for all, and how the veto power of the five permanent members (P5) of the Security Council prevents the UN from tackling the world’s most serious problems. If, at this year’s UN General Assembly, the world can come together to confront the holocaust of our time in Gaza, this could mark the birth of a reenergized and newly united UN—one finally capable of  fulfilling its intended role in building a peaceful, sustainable, multipolar world.

    The post How the UN Can Act Decisively to End Genocide in Gaza first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Plausible Parody: A ‘Property Development’ Theory of Geopolitics

    Since resuming residence in the White House a few months ago, it has not been difficult to detect in President Trump’s behaviour traces of his background as a real estate deal maker. Indeed, it could be said that his statements and actions since becoming president demonstrate a clear predisposition to perceive geopolitics predominantly as an arena of opportunity for ‘property development’. ‘Property’ defined in a broad sense to include any high value natural resource, land, or other asset that can be turned into profit.

    We argue that the acquisition of such assets by fair means or foul (mainly the latter) and/or the control of access (for example, waterways) to them are important features of the president’s megalomaniacal self-image as the world’s new colossus and that they have a determining influence on his view of geopolitics and hence on US foreign policy.

    In some well-known cases, such as Palestine, President Trump has already expressed his interest explicitly in these terms.

    Conveniently, and perhaps not coincidentally, the president’s predilections in these respects dovetail beautifully with the insatiable appetites of late-stage capitalism, which depends for its survival on the acquisition and consumption of ever-increasing quantities of ‘property’. You might say that it is a union made in oligarchic heaven.

    Below, as plausible parody, we outline a Property Development Theory of Geopolitics (PDTG) as follows: first, we set out the criteria employed to identify target countries for property acquisition; and second, on the basis of those criteria, we draw up a property development country hit list, which reflects our best estimates of countries at risk of invasion or attack.

    This list can be used to assess the predictive validity of our theory as measured by the vigour with which countries on the list are attacked militarily and in other ways by the US and/or its allies and proxies.

    Country Assessment Criteria and Hit List

    Countries that might be regarded as prime targets are identified in terms of the following criteria:

    First, the richness of their natural resources (a sine qua non). Does the country have enough ‘property development’ potential to warrant and maintain the president’s attention?

    Second, the ease with which the country can be demonised as a mortal threat to the ‘democratic way of life’ or as a terrorist haven, a source of refugees and/or drugs (etc.) and can therefore be made a ‘legitimate’ target for invasion or some other form of attack such as economic sanctions, targeted assassinations, and so on. This would enable the US to employ the tried and tested method of attacking the country concerned in order to save both its own people as well as the rest of the world, as was the case in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Third, the military strength of the country and whether proxy states or other agents such as mercenaries can be used to do the dirty work for the US.

    Fourth, the degree to which the US government is subject to determining influences such as those exerted by Israel in relation to Palestine and Iran and/or strong pressure from major corporations and/or the target country has significant regional strategic significance.

    We have excluded Russia and China from our list because they are military superpowers that would not be susceptible to conventional US imperial smash and grab methods involving direct military attack.

    Neither have we included Ukraine. While undoubtedly asset rich, Ukraine’s notional status as a US ally and as the US/Nato proxy in the war with Russia largely exempts it from imperial smash and grab. It is conceivable also that the US will do an asset sharing deal with Russia and compel Ukraine and Nato to accept it.

    The absence from our list of erstwhile US target favourites like North Korea and Cuba is explained by the paucity of their assets and their relatively high military strength and the absence of suitable proxies. Their political misbehaviour in the eyes of the US is punished by extensive economic sanctions.

    We have included Palestine because we believe that the US will allow Israel to complete its occupation and ethnic cleansing of Gaza, the destruction of its infrastructure, and the expulsion of its inhabitants. Its asset richness stems from the high value and significance to Israel (and therefore the US) of the land it occupies and its reserves of natural gas.

    As we have suggested elsewhere, Iran’s heretofore underestimated military strength makes it a high-risk target for the US and Israel, but this is heavily outweighed by its maximum scores on the other criteria, making further military attacks against it a certainty in the short term.

    The first three countries in the high susceptibility category are all high value in terms of assets or ‘property’ and relatively low risk military targets.

    In particular, the DRC and the CAR have long been subjected to various forms of foreign state-supported corporate predation (using mercenaries etc.), are weak militarily, and the governance circumstances of the two countries have been reduced to ‘failed state’ status.

    By some calculations, the DRC is the world’s richest country in terms of natural resources.

    Regarding Venezuela, whose oil reserves are the largest in the world, President Trump’s ambitions were made clear in late August 2025 when he despatched three US warships armed with cruise missiles to the Venezuelan coast. Venezuela’s high demonisation score is accounted for by its socialist government.

    Panama and Greenland are less attractive for the reasons given in Table 1, but this does not preclude them from attack. Greenland’s inclusion as a semi-autonomous region within the Kingdom of Denmark and Denmark’s authority over its foreign and defence policies explain its score on military strength.

    Conclusion

    The serious purpose of this plausible parody is to identify in rank order a hit list of countries that according to our PDTG will become the next victims of US imperialism under President Trump or, where they are already subject to attack, US or US-supported aggression against them will be intensified.

    The other purpose is to demonstrate the depths to which international relations has sunk under the current US administration, which, given their normal abysmal state, required a deep dive.

    The implications for those countries that we deem to be either ‘certainties’ or ‘high risk’ are particularly sinister. Clearly, their interest in the predictive validity of our theory will be neither light-hearted nor academic.

    The post Plausible Parody: A ‘Property Development’ Theory of Geopolitics first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • New Mexico to invest $483m in quantum computing drive

    New Mexico, site of the world’s first atomic bomb tests, plans to invest US$315 million (A$483 million) in a bid to become a leader in another potentially era-defining technology: quantum computing. Quantum computing, which leverages the behavior of matter and energy at the atomic and sub-atomic scale, holds the promise of solving in minutes some…

    The post New Mexico to invest $483m in quantum computing drive appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • US judge orders Google to share search data with competitors

    Alphabet’s Google must share data with rivals to open up competition in online search, a judge in Washington has ruled, while rejecting prosecutors’ bid to make the internet giant sell off its popular Chrome browser and Android operating system. Google chief executive Sundar Pichai expressed concerns at trial in the case in April that the…

    The post US judge orders Google to share search data with competitors appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • People’s Conference For Palestine Draws Thousands Against Genocide

    The second annual People’s Conference for Palestine opened Friday afternoon, August 29, bringing together thousands of people of conscience in Detroit, Michigan. “Through this conference, I invite all of you to take part in the rich revolutionary tradition of Detroit,” said Nelson Garay, a member of Detroit’s People’s Assembly, a grassroots coalition fighting back against Trump’s policies. “In one voice, let us declare that we will not stand for the dehumanization of the Palestinian people, and we will not stand for anything less than their true liberation from a genocidal, apartheid state.”

    Taher Dahleh, an organizer with the Palestinian Youth Movement and an activist in the labor movement through his membership in the Communication Workers of America, opened the conference by describing the major milestones in the Palestine solidarity movement since last year.

    The post People’s Conference For Palestine Draws Thousands Against Genocide appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • ICE Carries Out Second Raid On New York Farm As Workers Unionize

    Agents with the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) carried out another raid at Lynn-Ette & Sons Farms in western New York on August 14, detaining seven farmworkers on their way to work. The raid came just months after another ICE raid, where 14 workers were detained.

    The United Farm Workers labor union has condemned the raid at the farm that the UFW has been actively organizing in since 2022. Of the 14 workers detained at the May 2 raid, ten were ultimately deported. UFW Secretary Treasurer Armando Elenes labels the raids as “shameful employer complicity in the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate legal protections and lower wages for farm workers.”

    The post ICE Carries Out Second Raid On New York Farm As Workers Unionize appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • More Americans Now Sympathize With Palestinians Than With Israelis

    A new opinion poll by the Sadat Center at the University of Maryland finds a sea change in the American public on the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. For the first time, the percentage of Americans who say they sympathize with Palestinians (28%) exceeds the percentage who sympathize with Israelis (22%)[!!!] Some one fourth (26%) of Americans say they are equally sympathetic to both. So 54% of Americans now sympathize with Palestinians, either primarily or equally with Israelis. Some 12% don’t like either one, and 13% don’t know. So of the Americans who have an opinion and feel knowledgeable, actually 67.5% either sympathize mainly with the Palestinians or equally with them and Israelis.

    The post More Americans Now Sympathize With Palestinians Than With Israelis appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Washington Stands Alone At United Nations Security Council

    All but one of the 15 members of the UN Security Council – the US – declared that the famine in Gaza is a “manmade crisis” and warned that using starvation as a weapon of war is prohibited under international law and constitutes a war crime, during a meeting on 27 August.

    The 14 council members announced in a statement that they support an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire, the release of all hostages, a significant surge of aid throughout Gaza, and for Israel to immediately and unconditionally lift all restrictions on relief deliveries.

    “Famine in Gaza must be stopped immediately,” the statement read. “Time is of the essence. The humanitarian emergency must be addressed without delay and Israel must reverse course.”

    The post Washington Stands Alone At United Nations Security Council appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • A New Foreign Policy for Europe

    The European Union needs a new foreign policy based on Europe’s true economic and security interests. Europe is currently in an economic and security trap of its own making, characterized by its dangerous hostility with Russia, mutual distrust with China, and extreme vulnerability to the United States. Europe’s foreign policy is almost entirely driven by fear of Russia and China—which has resulted in a security dependency on the United States.

    Europe’s subservience to the U.S. stems almost entirely from its overriding fear of Russia, a fear that has been amplified by the Russophobic states of Eastern Europe and a false narrative about the Ukraine War. Based on the belief that its greatest security threat is Russia, the EU subordinates all its other foreign policy issues—economic, trade, environmental, technological, and diplomatic—to the United States. Ironically, it clings close to Washington even as the United States has become weaker, unstable, erratic, irrational, and dangerous in its own foreign policy toward the EU, even to the point of overtly threatening European sovereignty in Greenland.

    To chart a new foreign policy, Europe will have to overcome the false premise of its extreme vulnerability to Russia. The Brussels-NATO-UK narrative holds that Russia is intrinsically expansionist and will overrun Europe if the opportunity arises. The Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe from 1945 to 1991 supposedly proves this threat today. This false narrative badly misconstrues Russian behavior in both the past and present.

    The first part of this essay aims to correct the false premise that Russia poses a dire threat to Europe. The second part looks ahead to a new European foreign policy, once Europe has moved beyond its irrational Russophobia.

    The False Premise of Russia’s Westward Imperialism 

    Europe’s foreign policy is premised on Russia’s purported security threat to Europe. Yet this premise is false. Russia has repeatedly been invaded by the major Western powers (notably Britain, France, Germany, and the United States in the past two centuries) and has long sought security through a buffer zone between itself and the Western powers. The heavily contested buffer zone includes modern-day Poland, Ukraine, Finland, and the Baltic states. This region in between the Western powers and Russia accounts for the main security dilemmas facing Western Europe and Russia.

    The major Western wars launched against Russia since 1800 include:

    • The French invasion of Russia in 1812 (Napoleonic Wars)
    • The British and French Invasion of Russia in 1853-1856 (Crimean War)
    • The German declaration of war against Russia on August 1st, 1914 (World War I)
    • The Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, 1918-1922 (Russian Civil War)
    • The German invasion of Russia in 1941 (World War II)

    Each of these wars posed an existential threat to Russia’s survival. From Russia’s perspective, the failure to demilitarize Germany after World War II, the creation of NATO, the incorporation of West Germany into NATO in 1955, the expansion of NATO eastward after 1991, and the ongoing expansion of U.S. military bases and missile systems across Eastern Europe near Russia’s borders have constituted the gravest threats to Russia’s national security since World War II.

    Russia has also invaded westward on several occasions:

    • Russia’s attack on East Prussia in 1914
    • The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact in 1939, dividing Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union and annexing the Baltic States in 1940
    • The invasion of Finland in November 1939 (the Winter War)
    • The Soviet Occupation of Eastern Europe from 1945 to 1989
    • The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022

    These Russian actions are taken by Europe as objective proof of Russia’s westward expansionism, yet such a view is naïve, ahistorical, and propagandized. In all five cases, Russia was acting to protect its national security—as it saw it—not undertaking westward expansionism for its own sake. This basic truth is the key to resolving the Europe-Russia conflict today. Russia is not seeking westward expansion; Russia is seeking its core national security. Yet the West has long failed to recognize, much less respect, Russia’s core national security interests.

    Let us consider these five cases of Russia’s purported westward expansion.

    The first case, Russia’s attack in East Prussia in 1914, can be immediately put aside. The German Reich had moved first to declare war on Russia on August 1st, 1914. Russia’s invasion of East Prussia was in direct response to Germany’s declaration of war.

    The second case, Soviet Russia’s agreement with Hitler’s Third Reich to divide Poland in 1939, and the annexation of the Baltic States in 1940, is taken in the West as the purest proof of Russian perfidy. Again, this is a simplistic and mistaken reading of history. As historians such as E. H. Carr, Stephen Kotkin, and Michael Jabara Carley have carefully documented, Stalin reached out to Britain and France in 1939 to form a defensive alliance against Hitler, who had declared his intention to wage war against Russia in the East (for Lebensraum, Slavic slave labor, and the defeat of Bolshevism). Stalin’s attempt to forge an alliance with the Western powers was completely rebuffed. Poland refused to allow Soviet troops on Polish soil in the event of a war with Germany. The Western elite’s hatred of Soviet Communism was at least as great as their fear of Hitler. Indeed, a common phrase among British right-wing elites in the late 1930s was “Better Hitlerism than Communism.”

    Given the failure to secure a defense alliance, Stalin then aimed to create a buffer zone against the impending German invasion of Russia. The partition of Poland and annexation of the Baltic States were tactical, to win time for the coming battle of Armageddon with Hitler’s armies, which arrived on June 22nd, 1941, with the German invasion of the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa. The preceding division of Poland and the annexation of the Baltic States may well have delayed the invasion and saved the Soviet Union from a quick defeat by Hitler.

    The third case, Russia’s Winter War with Finland, is similarly regarded in Western Europe (and especially in Finland) as proof of Russia’s expansionist nature. Yet once again, the basic motivation of Russia was defensive, not offensive. Russia feared that the German invasion would come in part through Finland, and that Leningrad would quickly be captured by Hitler. The Soviet Union therefore proposed to Finland that it swap territory with the Soviet Union (notably ceding the Karelian Isthmus and some islands in the Gulf of Finland in return for Russian territories) to enable the Russian defense of Leningrad. Finland refused this proposal, and the Soviet Union invaded Finland on November 30th, 1939. Subsequently, Finland joined Hitler’s armies in the war against the Soviet Union during the “Continuation War” between 1941 and 1944.

    The fourth case, the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe (and continued annexation of the Baltic States) during the Cold War, is taken in Europe as another bitter proof of Russia’s fundamental threat to Europe’s security. The Soviet occupation was indeed brutal, but it too had a defensive motivation that is completely overlooked in the Western European and American narrative. The Soviet Union bore the brunt of defeating Hitler, losing an astounding 27 million citizens in the war. Russia had one overriding demand at the end of the war: that its security interests be guaranteed by a treaty protecting it from future threats from Germany and the West more generally. The West, led now by the United States, refused this basic security demand. The Cold War is the result of the Western refusal to respect Russia’s vital security concerns. Of course, the history of the Cold War as told by the Western narrative is just the opposite—that the Cold War resulted solely from Russia’s belligerent attempts to conquer the world!

    Here is the actual story, known well to historians but almost completely unknown to the public in the United States and Europe. At the end of the war, the Soviet Union sought a peace treaty that would establish a unified, neutral, and demilitarized Germany. At the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, attended by the leaders of the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and the United States, the three allied powers agreed to “the complete disarmament and demilitarization of Germany and the elimination or control of all German industry that could be used for military production.” Germany would be unified, pacified, and demilitarized. All of this would be secured by a treaty to end the war. In fact, the U.S. and UK worked diligently to undermine this core principle.

    Starting as early as May 1945, Winston Churchill tasked his military Chief of Staff with formulating a war plan to launch a surprise attack against the Soviet Union in mid-1945, code-named Operation Unthinkable. While such a war was deemed impractical by the UK military planners, the notion that the Americans and the British should prepare for a coming war with the Soviet Union quickly took hold. The war planners deemed that the likely timing for such a war was the early 1950s. Churchill’s aim, it appears, was to prevent Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe from falling under a Soviet sphere of influence. In the United States too, top military planners came to view the Soviet Union as America’s next enemy within weeks of Germany’s surrender in May 1945. The U.S. and UK quickly recruited Nazi scientists and senior intelligence operatives (such as Reinhard Gehlen, a Nazi leader who would be supported by Washington to establish Germany’s postwar intelligence agency) to begin planning the coming war with the Soviet Union.

    The Cold War erupted mainly because the Americans and the Brits rejected German reunification and demilitarization as agreed at Potsdam. Instead, the Western powers abandoned German reunification by forming the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, or West Germany) out of the three occupation zones held by the United States, United Kingdom, and France. The FRG would be reindustrialized and remilitarized under the American aegis. By 1955, West Germany was admitted to NATO.

    While historians ardently debate who did and did not live up to the agreements at Potsdam (e.g., with the West pointing to the Soviet refusal to allow a truly representative government in Poland, as agreed at Potsdam), there is no doubt that the West’s remilitarization of the Federal Republic of Germany was the key cause of the Cold War.

    In 1952, Stalin proposed a reunification of Germany based on neutrality and demilitarization. This proposal was rejected by the United States. In 1955, the Soviet Union and Austria agreed that the Soviet Union would withdraw its occupying forces from Austria in return for the latter’s pledge of permanent neutrality. The Austrian State Treaty was signed on May 15th, 1955, by the Soviet Union, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, together with Austria, thereby leading to the end of the occupation. The goal of the Soviet Union was not only to resolve the tensions over Austria but also to show the United States a successful model of Soviet withdrawal from Europe coupled with neutrality. Once again, the United States rejected the Soviet appeal for ending the Cold War based on Germany’s neutrality and demilitarization. As late as 1957, the American doyen of Soviet affairs, George Kennan, was appealing publicly and ardently in his third Reith Lecture for the BBC for the United States to agree with the Soviet Union on a mutual withdrawal of troops from Europe. The Soviet Union, Kennan emphasized, was not aimed at or interested in a military invasion of Western Europe. The U.S. Cold Warriors, led by John Foster Dulles, would have none of it. No peace treaty was signed with Germany to end World War II until German reunification in 1990.

    It is worth underscoring that the Soviet Union respected the neutrality of Austria after 1955, and indeed of the other neutral countries of Europe (including Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Ireland, Spain, and Portugal). Finnish President Alexander Stubb has recently declared that Ukraine should reject neutrality based on Finland’s adverse experience (with Finnish neutrality ending in 2024, when the country joined NATO). This is a bizarre thought. Finland, under neutrality, remained at peace, achieved remarkable economic prosperity, and shot to the very top of the world leagues in happiness (according to the World Happiness Report).

    President John F. Kennedy showed the potential path to end the Cold War based on mutual respect for the security interests of all sides. Kennedy blocked the attempt by German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer to acquire nuclear weapons from France and thereby assuaged the Soviet concerns over a nuclear-armed Germany. On that basis, JFK successfully negotiated the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with his Soviet counterpart Nikita Khrushchev. Kennedy was most likely assassinated several months later by a group of CIA operatives as the result of his peace initiative. Documents released in 2025 confirm the long-held suspicion that Lee Harvey Oswald was being directly handled by James Angleton, a top CIA official. The next U.S. overture towards peace with the Soviet Union was led by Richard Nixon. He too was brought down by the Watergate events, which also have signs of a CIA operation that have never been clarified.

    Mikhail Gorbachev eventually ended the Cold War by unilaterally disbanding the Warsaw Pact and by actively promoting the democratization of Eastern Europe. I was a participant in some of those events and witnessed some of Gorbachev’s peacemaking. In the summer of 1989, for example, Gorbachev told the communist leadership of Poland to form a coalition government with the opposition forces led by the Solidarity movement. The end of the Warsaw Pact and the democratization of Eastern Europe, all steered by Gorbachev, led quickly to the calls by the German Chancellor Helmut Kohl for the reunification of Germany. This led to the 1990 reunification treaties between the FRG and GDR, and to the so-called 2+4 Treaty between the two Germanys and the four Allied powers: the U.S., UK, France, and Soviet Union. The United States and Germany clearly promised Gorbachev in February 1990 that NATO “would not shift one inch eastward” in the context of German reunification, a fact that is now widely denied by the Western powers but that is easily verified. That key promise not to proceed with NATO enlargement was made on several occasions, but it was not included in the text of the 2+4 Agreement, since that agreement concerned German reunification, not NATO’s eastward expansion.

    The fifth case, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, is once again regarded in the West as proof of Russia’s incorrigible westward imperialism. The favorite word of Western media, pundits, and propagandists is that Russia’s invasion was “unprovoked,” and therefore is proof of Putin’s implacable quest not only to reestablish the Russian Empire but to move further westward, meaning that Europe should prepare for war with Russia. This is a preposterous big lie, but it is repeated so often by the mainstream media that it is widely believed in Europe.

    The fact is that the Russian invasion in February 2022 was so thoroughly provoked by the West that one suspects it was indeed an American design to lure Russians into war to defeat or weaken Russia. This is a credible claim, as a long streak of statements by numerous U.S. officials confirms. After the invasion, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin declared that Washington’s aim was “to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine. Ukraine can win if it has the right equipment, the right support.”

    The overriding American provocation of Russia was to expand NATO eastward, contrary to the 1990 promises, with one important aim: to surround Russia with NATO states in the Black Sea region, thereby rendering Russia unable to project its Crimean-based naval power into the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. In essence, the U.S. aim was the same as the aim of Palmerston and Napoleon III in the Crimean War: to banish the Russian fleet from the Black Sea. NATO members would include Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia, thereby forming a noose to strangle Russia’s Black Sea naval power. Brzezinski described this strategy in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard, where he asserted that Russia would surely bend to the Western will, as it had no choice but to do so. Brzezinski specifically rejected the idea that Russia would ever align with China against Europe.

    The entire period after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 is one of Western hubris (as historian Jonathan Haslam entitled his superb account), in which the United States and Europe believed that they could drive NATO and American weapons systems (such as Aegis missiles) eastward without any regard for Russia’s national security concerns. The list of Western provocations is too long to provide in detail here, but a summary includes the following.

    First, contrary to promises made in 1990, the United States began NATO’s eastward enlargement with then-President Bill Clinton’s announcements in 1994. At the time, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Perry, considered resigning over the recklessness of the U.S. actions, contrary to previous promises. The first wave of NATO enlargement occurred in 1999, including Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. In that same year, NATO forces bombed Russia’s ally Serbia for 78 days to break Serbia apart, and NATO quickly placed a new major military base in the breakaway province of Kosovo. In 2004, the second wave of NATO’s eastward expansion included seven countries, including Russia’s direct neighbors in the Baltics, and two countries on the Black Sea—Bulgaria and Romania. In 2008, most of the EU recognized Kosovo as an independent state, contrary to the European protestations that European borders are sacrosanct.

    Second, the United States abandoned the nuclear arms control framework by unilaterally leaving the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. In 2019, Washington similarly abandoned the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Despite Russia’s strenuous objections, the U.S. began to place anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and Romania, and in January 2022, reserved the right to place such systems in Ukraine.

    Third, the United States deeply infiltrated Ukraine’s internal politics, spending billions of dollars to shape public opinion, create media outlets, and steer Ukraine’s domestic politics. The 2004–2005 election in Ukraine is widely regarded as a U.S. color revolution, in which the United States used its covert and overt influence and financing to steer the election in favor of the U.S.-backed candidates. In 2013-2014, the United States played a direct role in financing the Maidan protests and in backing the violent coup that toppled the neutrality-minded President Viktor Yanukovych, thereby paving the way for a Ukrainian regime supporting NATO membership. Incidentally, I was invited to visit the Maidan soon after the violent February 22nd, 2014 coup that toppled Yanukovych. The role of American financing of the protests was explained to me by a U.S. NGO that was deeply involved in the Maidan events.

    Fourth, beginning in 2008, over the objections of several European leaders, the United States pushed NATO to commit to enlarging to Ukraine and Georgia. The U.S. ambassador to Moscow at the time, William J. Burns, wired back to Washington a now-infamous memo titled “Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines,” explaining that the entire Russian political class was deeply opposed to NATO enlargement to Ukraine and that it worried such an effort would lead to civil strife in Ukraine.

    Fifth, following the Maidan coup, the ethnic Russian regions of Eastern Ukraine (Donbas) broke away from the new Western Ukrainian government installed by the coup. Russia and Germany quickly settled on the Minsk Agreements, according to which the two breakaway regions (Donetsk and Lugansk) would remain part of Ukraine but with local autonomy, modeled on the local autonomy of the ethnic-German region of South Tyrol, Italy. Minsk II, which was backed by the UN Security Council, could have ended the conflict, but the government in Kyiv, with the support of Washington, decided not to implement autonomy. The failure to implement Minsk II poisoned the diplomacy between Russia and the West.

    Sixth, the United States steadily expanded Ukraine’s army (active plus reserve) to around one million soldiers by 2020. Ukraine and its right-wing paramilitary battalions (such as the Azov Battalion and the Right Sector) led repeated attacks against the two breakaway regions, with thousands of civilian deaths in the Donbas from Ukraine’s shelling.

    Seventh, at the end of 2021, Russia put on the table a draft Russia-U.S. Security Agreement, calling mainly for an end to NATO enlargement. The United States rejected Russia’s call to end NATO’s eastward enlargement, recommitting to NATO’s “open-door” policy, according to which third countries, such as Russia, would have no say regarding NATO enlargement. The U.S. and European countries repeatedly reiterated Ukraine’s eventual membership in NATO. The U.S. Secretary of State also reportedly told the Russian Foreign Minister in January 2022 that the United States maintained the right to deploy medium-range missiles in Ukraine, despite Russia’s objections.

    Eighth, following the Russian invasion on February 24th, 2022, Ukraine quickly agreed to peace negotiations based on a return to neutrality. These negotiations took place in Istanbul with the mediation of Türkiye. At the end of March 2022, Russia and Ukraine issued a joint memorandum reporting progress in a peace agreement. On April 15th, a draft agreement was tabled that was close to an overall settlement. At that stage, the United States intervened and told the Ukrainians that it would not support the peace agreement but instead backed Ukraine to continue fighting.

    The High Costs of a Failed Foreign Policy

    Russia has not made any territorial claims against Western European countries, nor has Russia threatened Western Europe aside from the right to retaliate against Western-assisted missile strikes inside Russia. Up until the 2014 Maidan coup, Russia made zero territorial claims on Ukraine. After the 2014 coup, and up through late 2022, Russia’s only territorial demand was Crimea, to prevent Russia’s naval base in Sevastopol from falling into Western hands. Only after the failure of the Istanbul peace process—torpedoed by the United States—did Russia claim annexation of Ukraine’s four oblasts (Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia). Russia’s stated war aims today remain limited, including Ukraine’s neutrality, partial demilitarization, permanent non-NATO membership, and transfer of Crimea and the four oblasts to Russia, constituting roughly 19 percent of Ukraine’s 1991 territory.

    This is not evidence of Russian westward imperialism. Nor are they unprovoked demands. Russia’s war aims follow more than 30 years of Russian objections to the eastward expansion of NATO, the arming of Ukraine, the American abandonment of the nuclear arms framework, and the deep Western meddling in Ukraine’s internal politics, including support for a violent coup in 2014 that put NATO and Russia on a direct collision course.

    Europe has chosen to interpret the events of the past 30 years as evidence of Russia’s implacable and incorrigible westward expansionism—just as the West insisted that the Soviet Union alone was responsible for the Cold War, when in fact the Soviet Union repeatedly pointed the way to peace through the neutrality, unification, and disarmament of Germany. Just as during the Cold War, the West chose to provoke Russia rather than to acknowledge Russia’s wholly understandable security concerns. Every Russian action has been interpreted maximally as a sign of Russian perfidy, never acknowledging Russia’s side of the debate. This is a vivid example of the classic security dilemma, in which adversaries completely speak past each other, assuming the worst and acting aggressively on their faulty assumptions.

    Europe’s choice to interpret the Cold War and the post-Cold War from this heavily biased perspective has come at enormous cost to Europe, and the costs continue to mount. Most importantly, Europe came to view itself as wholly dependent on the United States for its security. If Russia is indeed incorrigibly expansionist, then the United States truly is Europe’s necessary savior. If, by contrast, Russia’s behavior has in fact reflected its security concerns, then the Cold War could most likely have ended decades earlier on the Austrian neutrality model, and the post-Cold War era could have been a period of peace and growing trust between Russia and Europe.

    In fact, Europe and Russia are complementary economies, with Russia rich in primary commodities (agriculture, minerals, hydrocarbons) and engineering, and Europe home to energy-intensive industries and key high technologies. The United States has long opposed the growing trade links between Europe and Russia that resulted from this natural complementarity, viewing Russia’s energy industry as a competitor to the U.S. energy sector, and more generally viewing close German-Russian trade and investment ties as a threat to American political and economic predominance in Western Europe. For those reasons, the United States opposed the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines well before there was a conflict over Ukraine. For this reason, Biden explicitly promised to end Nord Stream 2—as happened—in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. opposition to Nord Stream, and to close German-Russian economic ties, was on general principles: the EU and Russia should be kept at arm’s length, lest the United States lose its clout in Europe.

    The Ukraine War and Europe’s split with Russia have done great damage to the European economy. Europe’s exports to Russia have plummeted, from around €90 billion in 2021 to just €30 billion in 2024. Energy costs have soared, as Europe has shifted from low-cost Russian pipeline natural gas to U.S. liquefied natural gas, which is several times more expensive. Germany’s industry has declined by around 10 percent since 2020, and both the German chemical sector and automobile sector are reeling. The IMF projects EU economic growth of just 1 percent in 2025 and around 1.5 percent for the balance of the decade.

    German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has called for a permanent ban on reestablishing Nord Stream gas flows, but this is almost an economic suicide pact for Germany. It is based on Merz’s view that Russia aims for war with Germany, but the fact is that Germany is provoking war with Russia by engaging in warmongering and a massive military buildup. According to Merz, “a realistic view of Russia’s imperialist aspirations is needed.” He states that “Part of our society has a deep-rooted fear of war. I don’t share it, but I can understand it.” Most alarmingly, Merz has declared that “the means of diplomacy have been exhausted,” even though he has apparently not even tried to speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin since coming to power. Moreover, he seems willfully blind to the near success of diplomacy in 2022 in the Istanbul process—that is, before the United States put a stop to the diplomacy.

    The Western approach to China mirrors its approach to Russia. The West often attributes nefarious intentions to China that are, in many ways, projections of its own hostile intentions toward the People’s Republic. China’s rapid rise to economic preeminence during 1980 to 2010 led American leaders and strategists to regard China’s further economic rise as antithetical to U.S. interests. In 2015, U.S. strategists Robert Blackwill and Ashley Tellis clearly explained that the U.S. grand strategy is American hegemony, and that China is a threat to that hegemony because of China’s size and success. Blackwill and Tellis advocated a set of measures by the United States and its allies to hinder China’s future economic success, such as excluding China from new trade blocs in the Asia-Pacific, restricting the export of Western high-technology goods to China, imposing tariffs and other restrictions on China’s exports, and other anti-China measures. Note that these measures were recommended not because of specific wrongs that China had committed, but because, according to the authors, China’s continued economic growth was contrary to American primacy.

    Part of the foreign policy vis-à-vis both Russia and China is a media war to discredit these ostensible foes of the West. In the case of China, the West has portrayed it as committing a genocide in Xinjiang province against the Uyghur population. This absurd and hyped charge came without any serious attempt at evidence, while the West generally turns a blind eye to the actual ongoing genocide of tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza at the hands of its ally, Israel. In addition, the Western propaganda includes a host of absurd claims about the Chinese economy. China’s highly valuable Belt and Road Initiative, which provides financing for developing countries to build modern infrastructure, is derided as a “debt trap.” China’s remarkable capacity to produce green technologies, such as solar modules that the world urgently needs, is derided by the West as “overcapacity” that should be curtailed or shut down.

    On the military side, the security dilemma vis-à-vis China is interpreted in the most ominous manner, just as with Russia. The United States has long proclaimed its capacity to disrupt China’s vital sea lanes but then calls China militaristic when it takes steps to build its own naval capacity in response. Rather than seeing China’s military buildup as a classic security dilemma that should be resolved through diplomacy, the U.S. Navy declares that it should prepare for war with China by 2027. NATO increasingly calls for active engagement in East Asia, directed against China. European allies of the United States generally conform with the aggressive American approach towards China, both regarding trade and the military.

    A New Foreign Policy for Europe 

    Europe has backed itself into a corner, making itself subservient to the United States, resisting direct diplomacy with Russia, losing its economic edge through sanctions and war, committing to massive and unaffordable increases in military spending, and cutting long-term trade and investment links with both Russia and China. The result is rising debts, economic stagnation, and a growing risk of major war, which apparently does not frighten Merz but should terrify the rest of us. Perhaps the most likely war is not with Russia but with the United States, which under Trump threatened to seize Greenland if Denmark wouldn’t simply sell or transfer Greenland to Washington’s sovereignty. It’s quite possible that Europe will find itself without any real friends: neither Russia nor China, but also not the United States, the Arab states (resentful of Europe’s blind eye to Israel’s genocide), Africa (still smarting from European colonialism and post-colonialism), and beyond.

    There is, of course, another way—indeed a highly promising way, if European politicians reassess Europe’s true security interests and risks, and reestablish diplomacy at the center of Europe’s foreign policy. I propose 10 practical steps to achieve a foreign policy that reflects Europe’s true needs.

    First, open direct diplomatic communications with Moscow. Europe’s palpable failure to engage in direct diplomacy with Russia is devastating. Europe perhaps even believes its own foreign policy propaganda, since it fails to discuss the key issues directly with its Russian counterpart.

    Second, prepare for a negotiated peace with Russia regarding Ukraine and the future of European collective security. Most importantly, Europe should agree with Russia that the war should end based on a firm and irrevocable commitment that NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine, Georgia, or other eastward destinations. Moreover, Europe should accept some pragmatic territorial changes in Ukraine in Russia’s favor.

    Third, Europe should reject the militarization of its relations with China, for example by rejecting any role for NATO in East Asia. China is absolutely no threat to Europe’s security, and Europe should stop blindly supporting American claims to hegemony in Asia, which are dangerous and delusional enough even without Europe’s support. To the contrary, Europe should strengthen its trade, investment, and climate cooperation with China.

    Fourth, Europe should decide on a sensible institutional mode of diplomacy. The current mode is unworkable. The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy serves mainly as a mouthpiece for Russophobia, while actual high-level diplomacy—to the extent that it exists—is confusingly and alternatively led by individual European leaders, the EU High Representative, the President of the European Commission, the President of the European Council, or some varying combination of the above. In short, nobody speaks clearly for Europe, since there is no clear EU foreign policy in the first place.

    Fifth, Europe should recognize that EU foreign policy needs to be disassociated from NATO. In fact, Europe does not need NATO, since Russia is not about to invade the EU. Europe should indeed build its own military capacity independent of the United States, but at far lower cost than 5 percent of GDP, which is an absurd numerical target based on the utterly exaggerated assessment of the Russian threat. Moreover, European defense should not be the same as European foreign policy, though the two have become utterly confused in the recent past.

    Sixth, the EU, Russia, India, and China should work together on the green, digital, and transport modernization of the Eurasian space. Eurasia’s sustainable development is a win-win-win-win for the EU, Russia, India, and China, and cannot occur other than through peaceful cooperation among the four major Eurasian powers.

    Seventh, Europe’s Global Gateway, the financing arm for infrastructure in non-EU countries, should work together with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Currently, the Global Gateway is pitched as a competitor to BRI. In fact, the two should join forces to co-finance the green energy, digital, and transport infrastructure for Eurasia.

    Eighth, the European Union should step up its financing of the European Green Deal (EGD), accelerating Europe’s transformation to a low-carbon future, rather than squandering 5 percent of GDP on military-related outlays of no need or benefit for Europe. There are two benefits of increased outlays for the EGD. First, it will deliver regional and global benefits in climate safety. Second, it will build Europe’s competitiveness in the green and digital technologies of the future, thereby creating a new viable growth model for Europe.

    Ninth, the EU should partner with the African Union on a massive expansion of education and skill-building through the AU member states. With a population of 1.4 billion rising to around 2.5 billion by mid-century, compared with the EU’s population of around 450 million, Africa’s economic future will profoundly affect Europe’s. The best hope for African prosperity is the rapid buildup of advanced education and skills.

    Tenth, the EU and the BRICS should tell the United States firmly and clearly that the future world order is not based on hegemony but on the rule of law under the UN Charter. That is the only path to Europe’s, and the world’s, true security. Dependency on the U.S. and NATO is a cruel illusion, especially given the instability of the United States itself. Reaffirmation of the UN Charter, by contrast, can end wars (e.g., by ending Israel’s impunity and enforcing ICJ rulings for the two-state solution) and prevent future conflicts.

    The post A New Foreign Policy for Europe first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.