Category: United States

  • If hallmarks of economic decline are everywhere apparent, it is Washington’s shameless participation in human genocide that has awakened many an American from their dogmatic slumbers. The United States has been a partner in human slaughter in Gaza, arming and funding, providing intelligence to and political cover for Zionist forces in Israel in their fanatical quest to establish a Greater Israel.

    This blatant moral failing is the surest sign yet that the liberal West has failed. Liberalism was once a symbol of progress, bourgeoisie and workers and rural peasants banding together to overthrow feudalism and the divine right of kings.

    Now it lists in the winds of modernity, an ethical cipher that maintains—like the artificial distortions of Mannerist art—a rhetorical posture of piety. Conservatives declare themselves part of an unfathomable messianic mission to establish mythical free markets and Christian rule, while liberal politicians repeat their multicultural platitudes in data-poor and poorly constructed sophistry that nobody believes.

    Both—through their Republican and Democrat political wings—refuse to acknowledge their culpability, reflecting the absolute arrogance that accrues to those too long in power.

    We Knew All Along

    As the world comes awake to the sickening tango of death being tapped out on the rooftops of Gaza, statements like the following float through the media sphere, unaddressed and unpunished by the world’s leading states:

    • Evidently calling for collective punishment outlawed by the Geneva Conventions, Israel’s President Isaac Herzog said, “It’s an entire nation that is out there that is responsible.”

    • Deputy Speaker of the Knesset Nissim Vaturi said Israel needs to “erase Gaza”

    • Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich transparently disguising ethnic cleansing as “the right humanitarian option”

    • Revital Gottlieb of the Israeli Knesset said, “All of Gaza’s infrastructures must be flattened…We need to stop talking about ‘humanitarian aid’.”

    • Another member of the Knesset, Nissim Vaturi, added, “Burn Gaza now. No more excuses.”

    • The New York Times reported that American leaders understood that mass civilian casualties were acceptable to Israeli leadership

    • Israeli lawmaker Moshe Saada justified widespread calls to “destroy Gaza”

    Western corporate media has provided extensive cover for Israel’s criminal campaign, often by insisting everyone on air first answer the slighting question, “Do you condemn Hamas?”, as if this is the moral bedrock on which any opinion on Gaza must establish itself. Yet the corporate media deliberately hides the fact that under the Geneva Conventions, an occupied people have every right to resist, including employing violent means. None of the international rulings from 1967 onward are included in discussions that are ahistorical at best, farcical at worst. Gore Vidal was prescient when he called America the United States of Amnesia.

    The feigned outrage and disgust by American pundits over the initial Hamas attack, liberal and conservative alike, only illustrates by contrast the utter callousness and emptiness of the public discourse. Seventy five years of oppression, racism, and bloodshed against Palestinians produced no such horror among the corporate intelligentsia.

    And as author Chris Hedges rightly pointed out, “How can you trap 2.3 million people in Gaza, half of whom are unemployed, in one of the most densely populated spots on the planet for 16 years, reduce the lives of its residents, half of whom are children, to a subsistence level, deprive them of basic medical supplies, food, water and electricity, use attack aircraft, artillery, mechanized units, missiles, naval guns and infantry units to randomly slaughter unarmed civilians and not expect a violent response?”

    Trump’s Vulgar Sycophancy

    Though not the first to support the present ethnic cleansing, President Trump has embraced the Israeli mission with an enthusiasm that betrays his utter subjugation to those that would keep him in power, notably AIPAC. His love for Israel seems to be the means by which he has made a measure of peace with the National Security State, which wanted him imprisoned in his first term for his friendliness with Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un.

    Now his administration has ratcheted up the vulgarity of American complicity in the Gaza genocide. For instance, he has:

    • Tied state aid to each state’s stance on Israel. This is a despicable policy that hitches domestic support to support for a foreign power, which no American citizen should be compelled to provide

    • Lifted a pause on 2,000-lb bombs, and a couple of ‘human rights’-linked oversight procedures, that had been put in place by the Biden administration as part of its feckless PR campaign to pretend to oppose the slaughter

    • Approved $7B in munitions and $3B in “emergency” bombs in February 2025 alone

    • Continues the Memorandum of Understanding from the Obama era under which the United States finances weapons procurement by Israel from U.S. defense firms

    • Congressional Reporting Service (CRS) notes enhanced military intelligence cooperation with Israel

    • Vetoed another UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate unconditional ceasefire

    • Conducted “limited” strikes on Yemen Houthis, which are pro-Palestinian allies of Iran

    • Has floated various real-estate fantasies about turning Gaza into another riviera once all the unwanted Arabs are removed, while children are trampled by tanks, in a kind of breathtaking display of utter callousness

    • And much else, though he’s only been in office 8 months

    Biden’s Liberal Narcissism

    Setting aside the current administration, lest we slip into the fanaticism of the liberal, the more important point to remember is that Democrats are also morally bankrupt, if not as crass, and if marginally better in social uplift statistics. Because if we do not recognize this, the electoral pendulum that swings between corrupt neoliberal capitalist Democrat and corrupt neoliberal capitalist Republican will continue, while the majority suffer economic debasement at home and slaughter abroad.

    The conservative critique that liberals prefer virtue signaling to principle is correct. It has been ever since Bill Clinton demonstrated that the New Democrats could win corporate money, co-opt business-friendly Republican policies, and sell them with the rhetoric of social empathy with the plight of the poor and disenfranchised. Coupled with a vigorous identity politics and companion campaign of discrimination against privileged and majority ethnic groups, it was a winning electoral strategy.

    Clinton’s triangulation model proved an irresistible rationale for members of the Professional Managerial Class (PMC), who claimed to hope to ‘do well by doing good.’ In the end, doing well meant maintaining their class privileges and material advantages while looking askance as their party practiced counterrevolutionary imperialism abroad, and instead hyping token reform at home.

    Where has this left the liberal class? With the following:

    The Biden administration was Israel’s most important military, financial, and political backer from the beginning of the genocide to the end of his term in office. We should set aside anonymously-sourced reports of Biden’s anger with Bibi and attend to the facts.

    Aside from $3.8B in annual military aid, the Democrats sent emergency arms shipments, and provided additional financial and political support, including:

    Military Supplies:

    • 14,000 tank shells in an October 2023 shipment

    • More than 2,000 2,000-pound bombs, great for mass casualty attacks

    • 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells in a December 2023 shipment, including bunker busters

    • F-35 fighter jet parts and $1B in new arms shipments approval in March 2024, the second time Biden used the Arms Export Control Act to bypass pesky Congress to arm the genocidaires

    • Ongoing intelligence sharing, including satellite imagery and location tracking

    • Military advisors dispatched by the Pentagon to assist in Israeli attacks

    • Deployed U.S. warships to block regional intervention

    • Launched Operation Prosperity Guardian to protect Israeli shipping

    • The Costs of War Project at Brown University, the United States spent nearly $18B in military aid to Israel in a single year

    • In August 2024, Biden approved a $20B arms shipment to Israel

    Political Cover:

    • Vetoed three UN Security Council Resolutions calling for a ceasefire, and abstained from a fourth despite a death toll of some 30,000

    • Attacked the ICJ finding on Gaza as meritless and threatened sanctions on ICC officials

    Financial Support:

    • Continued ongoing $3.8B annual military support deal, inked by the Obama administration, with no stoppage or even threat of stoppage

    • Added $14.5B in a Supplemental Aid Package in April 2024

    • Cut funding to UNRWA over unproven Israeli claims, devastating aid delivery. This means that the administration was blocking aid to Gaza while arming Israel

    All of this despite a death toll exceeding 30,000 people (likely far higher), the vast majority of which were women and children. And despite famine. And despite hundreds of reported potential violations of international law (rendering bootless the token human-rights verifications attached to some aid).

    And despite two leading Israeli rights organizations—B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel—both released reports declaring Israel’s conduct in the war on Palestinians constitutes genocide.

    (Even Grok wasn’t having it: “Israel’s actions in Gaza align with genocide indicators per ICJ’s plausible ruling, the UN’s “Anatomy of a Genocide” report, and Amnesty’s findings on intentional mass killings. US funding enables this horror—stop the slaughter.”)

    Coda to a Catastrophe

    Whatever the particular violent exploitation, there is bipartisan consensus. Whether participating in genocide in Gaza; sparking a bloody proxy war against nuclear-powered Russia in Ukraine; facilitating the wholesale destruction of Syria and whitewashing its terrorist leaders; aggressively working to disarm Iran while arming Israel; encircling China with military force; sanctioning every country that pursues a different model of economic development than Washington’s hegemonic system; or strip-mining Argentina through the IMF with the help of comprador elite. In any and every case, liberals and conservatives will always side with violent fascist imperialism over peaceful socialist mutualism because fascism doesn’t threaten capitalist profits. Rather it reinforces and amplifies them. Historical examples abound.

    Is there a difference, then, between the two electoral fronts for corporate power? Let’s ask Hedges, “Of course, there’s a difference. It’s how you want corporate fascism delivered to you. Do you want it delivered by a Princeton educated, Goldman Sachs criminal or do you want it delivered by racist, nativist, Christian fascist?”

    A quote from Noam Chomsky should suffice to close this chat: “I don’t know what word in the English language—I can’t find one—applies to people who are willing to sacrifice the literal existence of organized human life so they can put a few more dollars into highly stuffed pockets. The word ‘evil’ doesn’t even begin to approach it.”

    The post America’s Bipartisan Shame first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • On Monday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said that “Latin America and the Caribbean are not anyone’s backyard,” in response to recent reports in which the commander of the US Southern Command accused China of “infiltrating and plundering resources” from countries in the region.

    Guo Jiakun urged the United States to “let the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean choose their own course of action.”

    He added that “the countries of the region have the right to choose their own development paths and partners independently.”

    The Chinese official dismissed the US accusations as “statements that contradict the facts and repeat outdated phrases,” which “once again expose the deep-rooted Cold War and confrontational mentality of some in the US.”

    The post China To Washington: ‘Latin America And Caribbean Are Not Anyone’s Backyard’ appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The best reference for understanding the Palestine-Israel crisis is a book by Dan Kovalik. The Case for Palestine: Why It Matters and Why You Should Care is a carefully researched, meticulously documented, scholarly analysis of the longstanding confrontation, presenting a detailed account of the conflict’s history.
    I confront the bottomless depths of despair and uncontrollable weeping when I think about the horrors currently unfolding in Gaza. Therefore, I’ll try to keep this brief, without avoiding the ugly realities of the barbaric campaign by Israel to ethnically cleanse “Greater Israel” of the Palestinian people.

    Zionist propaganda — which is all we get from mainstream Western media — would have us believe that the Israeli destruction of Gaza is a reaction to the terrorist acts of Hamas on October 7, 2023. History didn’t start on that date. The Hamas attack on Israel was a reaction to the brutality and oppression of the Palestinian people by Israel without pause for 75 years.

    It began in 1948 with what the Palestinians call the ‘Nakba’. Translation: the Catastrophe. For decades prior to 1948, Zionists had been buying up land in Palestine. “[But] by 1948, the Jewish settlers constituted only one-third of the population of Palestine (and the vast majority of these were European settlers who were newcomers immigrating after 1917) and owned less than 6 percent of the land. And yet, the United Nations, in General Assembly Resolution 181 — the result of the intense lobbying by the Zionists as well as the guilt the Europeans rightly felt from the Holocaust — allocated 56 percent of the land, and the very best land, for the creation of the new Jewish state.”

    Now it was time for the settlers to get serious about taking over the region. The Nakba was the way. Palestinians were thrown off the land they had owned and occupied for centuries. 800,000 were quickly uprooted, and 532 Palestinian villages were destroyed. The indigenous population was sent packing. Killings and rape occurred not infrequently. This was the beginning of the terror campaign by Israel with the explicit intention of cleansing Palestine of its native population.

    What has happened since, including the October 7 reaction by Hamas, is the direct consequence of this policy. Israel’s intent to drive the Palestinians from their homeland and create a purely Jewish Greater Israel has now expanded into a full-blown genocide.

    Gaza Destruction_120_.jpg
    It is very difficult to determine the exact number of casualties — which include women and children — resulting from Israel’s unrelenting bombardment of Gaza, and the military operation daily unfolding there. Official numbers of dead are compiled from those delivered to the morgue. But tens of thousands are buried under the rubble, unaccounted for. Additionally, people are dying every day from starvation and lack of medical treatment. Israel has barred food and other aid from entering the conflict zone.
    But the official number of deaths, as I’m writing this, exceeds 58,000.

    The real death toll, by some estimates, is more than three times that, or nearly 8 percent of Gaza’s pre-October 7th population.

    A substantial number of Israeli citizens make no secret of the fact that they consider the Palestinians sub-human, insects, mere animals, and their presence in Greater Israel is not welcome. They are to be eliminated by whatever method is required. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have herded Palestinians into “safe” tent encampments, then bombed them in their tents. The IDF attacks schools, mosques, and has destroyed every hospital in Gaza. Hundreds of videos are circulating social media showing children mangled, mutilated, or in advanced stages of starvation; whole families killed by the bombing; horrifying scenes reminiscent of the Holocaust which Jews are so fond of citing as evidence of their own victimhood, of people being burned alive, victims of incendiary weaponry dropped on the homes and apartments of innocent civilians; journalists, doctors and other medical professionals, and aid workers, have been targeted for assassination.

    None of this is rumor or propaganda. Hundreds of credible eyewitnesses have fully corroborated it — many of them working for humanitarian organizations and human rights groups, including UNICEF, WHO, United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the World Food Programme, the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, Doctors Without Borders, and Amnesty International.
    Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, has spoken out, and her message is loud and clear: Israel’s assault on Gaza is the “shame of the century”.

    The latest Israeli gambit is to announce the availability of food, drive the food truck to a designated spot, and, when emaciated, desperate Palestinians show up for what scraps they can get, to gun them down in cold blood. Mercenaries from the U.S. are participating in this.

    The horror show in Gaza is being referred to as the first genocide in history to be televised. Just a few clicks on a computer mouse or swipes on your smartphone, and you can watch the slaughter unfold as it happens.

    As a relevant aside, Israelis are at the same time continuing their longstanding efforts to rid the West Bank of Palestinians, demolishing homes and entire communities, evicting Palestinians from property they’ve owned for generations. Forcing Palestinians to leave and stealing their land has always been the official policy of Israel, though it has for decades been hidden under a shroud of hypocritical blather. The apartheid state established by Israel in the West Bank has made life miserable, often completely intolerable for Palestinians.

    Make no mistake about it …

    The U.S. is fully complicit in this savagery. The pro-Zionist Congress, administration, and mainstream media all parrot the Israeli propaganda claim that the slaughter of the Palestinian people and wholesale destruction of Gaza reflect Israel’s “right to defend itself”. Anyone who has the integrity and basic decency to object to the carnage inflicted by the IDF is subject to penalties and prosecution. The U.S. is providing all the weaponry Israel is using in its genocidal campaign. From October 7, the date of Hamas’ attack on Israel, till January of this year, $22 billion in military equipment and ordnance has been given to Israel by America. The U.S. military also provides logistical support, conducts rigorous surveillance, and shares intelligence data, which facilitates identifying targets for bombing and Israeli troop assaults.

    President Trump has even explicitly stated his full, unwavering support for the entirety of Israel’s agenda, specifically stipulating relocating the Palestinians from Gaza.

    This is by far the cruelest, sickest, most inhumane, barbaric, and criminal official action by state actors — in this case, Israel and the U.S. — I’ve witnessed in my lifetime. That the U.S. is not fully, unhesitatingly, forcefully condemning it is disheartening and distressing. That, in fact, our tax dollars as U.S. citizens are being used literally to pay for a campaign engineered to uproot and destroy a people is appalling and unconscionable.

    As U.S. citizens, we’re paying the tab for a genocide.

    As U.S. citizens, we all bear the shame for this new holocaust.

    As U.S. citizens, it’s our duty to remove from power any individual who supports such heinous war crimes and any foreign entity or leader who is responsible for this monstrous slaughter.

    As U.S. citizens, it’s up to us to reclaim our country and demand America return to the values we believe reflect the true goodness, courage, and moral character of everyday citizens.

    [ This is an excerpt from my upcoming book, “America’s Hijacked Peace Dividend”, available late October or November at fine bookstores across the globe. ]

    The post The Case for Palestine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack urges Lebanese journalists to be “civilized,” “kind,” and “tolerant,” rather than “animalistic.” The irony is impossible to miss. Anyone familiar with the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East will understand the depth of the hypocrisy.

    Mr. Barrack implies that the “problem with the region”—the “chaos”— stems from Middle Easterners’ supposed lack of civilization, or worse, their allegedly subhuman nature. In truth, “the chaos” has been actively manufactured by the United States: sponsoring terrorism, violating sovereignty, propping up dictators, bombing cities and infrastructure, killing civilians, and plundering resources—just as it has done elsewhere in the world.

    It is no surprise, then, that many across the world view the decline of the American empire with some satisfaction, saying “inshallah.” For them, its downfall would not signify the end of human civilization, but perhaps the beginning of an opportunity for others to live with dignity and freedom.

    Despite being the richest nation in history, the U.S. has tragically failed to care for its own citizens—its “tired” and “poor”— while efficiently exporting misery abroad. Its foreign policy has consistently crushed the aspirations of peoples seeking self-determination—the “masses yearning to breathe free”—whether through coups, repression, or outright war.

    The reality is unmistakable: the gravest threat to human dignity and civilization today is not Middle Eastern journalists—scores of whom are silenced daily with American weapons and assistance—but the United States itself.

    The post “Who Is Uncivilized, Mr. Barrack?” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The moment the security pact known as AUKUS came into being, it was clear what its true intention was. Announced in September 2021, ruinous to Franco-Australian relations, and Anglospheric in inclination, the agreement between Washington, London and Canberra would project US power in the Indo-Pacific with one purpose in mind: deterring China. The fool in this whole endeavour was Australia, with a security establishment so Freudian in its anxiety it seeks an Imperial Daddy at every turn.

    To avoid the pains of mature sovereignty, the successive Australian governments of Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese have fallen for the bribe of the nuclear-powered Virginia Class SSN-774 and the promise of a bespoke AUKUS-designed nuclear-powered counterpart.  These submarines may never make their way to the Royal Australian Navy. Australia is infamously bad when it comes to constructing submarines, and the US is under no obligation to furnish Canberra with the boats.

    The latter point is made clear in the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, which directs the US President to certify to the relevant congressional committees and leadership no later than 270 days prior to the transfer of vessels that this “will not degrade the United States underseas capabilities”; is consistent with the country’s foreign policy and national security interests and furthers the AUKUS partnership.  Furthering the partnership would involve “sufficient submarine production and maintenance investments” to meet undersea capabilities; the provision by Australia of “appropriate funds and support for the additional capacity required to meet the requirements”; and Canberra’s “capability to host and fully operate the vessels authorized to be transferred.”

    In his March confirmation hearing as Undersecretary of Defense Policy, Eldridge Colby, President Donald Trump’s chief appointee for reviewing the AUKUS pact, candidly opined that a poor production rate of submarines would place “our servicemen and women […] in a weaker position.” He had also warned that, “AUKUS is only going to lead to more submarines collectively in 10, 15, 20 years, which is way beyond the window of maximum danger, which is really this decade.”

    The SSN program, as such unrealised and a pure chimera, is working wonders in distorting Australia’s defence budget. The decade to 2033-4 features a total projected budget of A$330 billion. The SSN budget of A$53-63 billion puts nuclear powered submarines at 16.1% to 19.1% more than relevant land and air domains. A report by the Strategic Analysis Australia think tank did not shy away from these implications: “It’s hard to grasp how unusual this situation is. Moreover, it’s one that will endure for decades, since the key elements of the maritime domain (SSNs and the two frigate programs) will still be in acquisition well into the 2040s. It’s quite possible that Defence itself doesn’t grasp the situation that it’s gotten into.”

    Despite this fantastic asymmetry of objectives, Australia is still being asked to do more. An ongoing suspicion on the part of defence wonks in the White House, Pentagon and Congress is what Australia would do with the precious naval hardware once its navy gets them. Could Australia be relied upon to deploy them in a US-led war against China? Should the boats be placed under US naval command, reducing Australia to suitable vassal status?

    Now, yet another think tanking outfit, the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), is urging Australia to make its position clear on how it would deploy the Virginia boats. A report, authored by a former senior AUKUS advisor during the Biden administration Abraham Denmark and Charles Edel, senior advisor and CSIS Australia chair, airily proposes that Australia offers “a more concrete commitment” to the US while also being sensitive to its own sovereignty. This rather hopeless aim can be achieved through “a robust contingency planning process that incorporates Australian SSNs.” This would involve US and Australian military strategists planning to “undergo a comprehensive process of strategizing and organizing military operations to achieve specific objectives”.  Such a process would provide “concrete reassurances that submarines sold to Australia would not disappear if and when needed.” It might also preserve Australian sovereignty in both developing the plan and determining its implementation during a crisis.

    In addition to that gobbet of hopeless contradiction, the authors offer some further advice: that the second pillar of the AUKUS agreement, involving the development of advanced capabilities, the sharing of technology and increasing the interoperability between the armed forces of the three countries, be more sharply defined. “AUKUS nations should consider focusing on three capability areas: autonomy, long-range strike, and integrated air defense.” This great militarist splash would supposedly “increase deterrence in both Europe and the Indo-Pacific.”

    In terms of examples, President Trump’s wonky Golden Dome anti-missile shield is touted as an “opportunity for Pillar II in integrated air defense.” (It would be better described as sheer science fiction, underwritten by space capitalism.) Australia was already at work with their US counterparts in developing missile defence systems that could complement the initiative. Developing improved and integrated anti-missile defences was even more urgent given the “greatly expanding rotational presence of US military forces in Australia”.

    This waffling nonsense has all the finery of delusion. When it comes to sovereignty, there is nothing to speak of and Australia’s security cadres, along with most parliamentarians in the major parties, see no troubles with deferring responsibility to the US imperium. In most respects, this has already taken place. The use of such coddling terms as “joint planning” and “joint venture” only serves to conceal the dominant, rough role played by Washington, always playing the imperial paterfamilias even as it secures its own interests against other adversaries.

    The post Think Tanker Demands for AUKUS: What Australia Should do with US Submarines first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • US President Donald Trump has ramped up threats against countries that have digital taxes, promising “subsequent additional tariffs” on their goods if those nations do not remove such legislation. Sources said earlier that the Trump administration was considering imposing sanctions on European Union or member state officials responsible for implementing the bloc’s landmark Digital Services…

    The post Trump threatens more tariffs for countries with digital taxes appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • The US Commerce Department said on Monday that one of its agencies will take over operational responsibility to oversee US$7.4 billion in semiconductor research funds, saying that the private non-profit established under the Biden administration to handle that function “served as a semiconductor slush fund”. The National Institute of Standards and Technology will assume operational…

    The post US voids Biden’s semiconductor research grant deal appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • They didn’t act like people and they didn’t act like actors.  It’s hard to explain.

    –  J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye

    With all the hullabaloo about President Donald Trump’s “peace” gestures toward Russia over Ukraine and the resetting of U.S.-Russia bi-lateral relations, it is worth remembering the “pivot to Asia” announced by the Obama administration in 2011 and the coup d’état it carried out in Ukraine in 2014.  For those who might not remember, I would recommend two films: John Pilger’s The Coming War on China and Oliver Stone’s Ukraine on Fire.

    They are two prongs of a long-term U.S. strategy to maintain American preeminence throughout the world by countering Russia and China simultaneously, if not equally at once. Such strategy is not determined by someone like President Donald Trump speaking or acting impulsively, as is his wont, but by bankers, financiers, éminences grises, and pale-faced scholarly guns-for-hire in stately buildings reserved for such deliberations.

    Despite rhetoric to the contrary, there is a consistent foundational foreign policy strategy from one American presidential administration to the next with necessary little detours here and there, and arguments within the ruling class about tactics. Long-term strategy is capacious enough to include sudden seeming shifts in policies that are couched in cover stories that beguile even the smartest people. Wishes fuddle the minds of the most astute. They serve to obscure the interests of U.S. dominance of the world, a dominance that is now threatened, and one that Trump is not abandoning, even as he adjusts American tactics on the fly.

    The Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) and its magazine, Foreign Affairs are where the ruling elites of the United States debate and determine American foreign policies from administration to administration, regardless of political party. The CFR is the preeminent U.S. think tank; it is over one hundred years old, financed by the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie Foundations and its members have included former CIA Director Allen Dulles, McGeorge Bundy, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and many other high government and financial figures, including David Rockefeller, who served as  chairman between 1970-1985.

    “Largely unbeknownst to the general public, executives and top journalists of almost all major US media outlets have long been members of the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).” It is evidence of why the corporate mainstream media is an adjunct of the U.S. propaganda system. To become a member is to be baptized into the U.S. ruling establishment and its vast propaganda network that includes, as former CIA analyst Ray McGovern describes it: the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex, MICIMATT.

    Donald Trump is a headline grabber who ultimately follows orders. He is not, as claimed, an outlier. Unusual he may be – bizarre in many ways – but he has his supporters within the dueling factions of the ruling elites. Nothing could clarify this more than the events of the past weeks, from his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska to his meeting in the White House with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenski, his fellow entertainer, and his European entourage of jugglers and clowns. They didn’t act like people and they didn’t act like actors.

    “Whenever I take up a newspaper,” the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen wrote in his play Ghosts, “I seem to see ghosts gliding between the lines. There must be ghosts all the country over, as thick as the sands of the sea. And then we are, one and all, so pitifully afraid of the light.”

    Such is what I see when I read today’s press about Trump, the peacemaker. Having been around a few years, his actions strike no shock of the new in me, but rather bring to mind a walk down a city street where old ghosts meet to whisper a description I once read of most corporate mainstream journalists – “No ideas and the ability to express them.” Or to put it another way – only ideas they have been fed and the ability to regurgitate them. So Trump is either described as a traitor who has been manipulated by Putin or a man genuinely seeking the end of America’s efforts to surround and crush Russia.

    Neither is true. We are captives in a contronymal game (a contronym being a word having contradictory meanings, such as “refrain”: to desist from doing something or to repeat).

    Someone is playing someone. Who is playing whom and why I will leave as a question for readers’ research. See, for example, the work of another key think tank – the Rand Corporation’s 2019 study, “Extending Russia,” – that cooly sets out various options for the U.S. to use in undermining Russia as if it were suggesting possible menu items at a restaurant. Without a knowledge of history, Donald Trump appears to be a radical departure from past American presidents. That he opened a dialogue when he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska seems significant. It is true that talking is better than walking away, but only when the intentions that underlie it are honorable, and in this case, I find that doubtful.

    Let me use an analogy that may at first seem “by the way” and therefore not apt. I think it is. When it came to the assassination of President Kennedy, the CIA and its media mouthpieces weaponized the term “conspiracy theory” to besmirch the names of those who questioned the Warren Commission Report. The corporate mainstream media (MSM) have echoed this ever since and thus the term came to be one applied to dissenters of all sorts, even those who believe the most outlandish things, such as Elvis didn’t die but was taken up by aliens where he now commands a spaceship called Suspicious Minds, named for one of his hit songs.

    Conspiracists were those who had these insane thoughts that there were elements within the government, notably within the CIA, FBI and Pentagon, who would assassinate their own leaders and those devoted to peace. Over the years this term came to be mixed with that of “the deep state,” shadow government, rogue network, etc. The “official” position was that such conspiratorial thinking was undermining the official good government and was the work of lunatics; it assumed that the government didn’t conspire to commit crimes, only lone nuts did, and then crazier nuts tried to pin it on elements within the government such as the CIA. These people were said to be paranoid.

    But over the decades scholars have clearly shown that many of the claims of the “conspiracy theorists” were correct despite the best efforts of MICIMATT to create fantastically absurd “conspiracy” stories that they have used to ridicule serious thinkers and researchers. This mode of attack was weakening and along popped Donald Trump “straight” out of the TV screen. A larger than life big mouth who appealed to voters who felt that they were being screwed by the elite elites, which they were and are (Trump, after all, is a super-rich New York City real estate tycoon that no one except the most astute propagandist would choose to run for the presidency). Trump promised he would get to the bottom of many of the “conspiracy theories” – such as the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, Jr., Robert Kennedy, and the events of September 11, 2001, etc. – but he never will. He was going to expose the crooks, clean out the swamp, and make government as pellucid as a pristine mountain stream. Like all the charlatan presidents, he campaigned as a peacemaker and then waged war directly or through barely concealed proxies (war being the lifeblood of the U.S. economy) – Ukraine, Israel, Syrian “rebels” (i.e. terrorists), etc. The charade of his “peacemaking,” although weakening, still casts a spell over many people who fail to understand who formulates American foreign policy strategy.

    If there is a so-called deep state responsible for the aforementioned assassinations, etc. and it controls U.S. presidents, then it controls Donald Trump. If Trump is truly trying to end the U.S. proxy war via Ukraine against Russia and establish good relations with its long-term arch-enemy, either the “deep state” has decided this is the best long-term strategy to try to maintain world dominance and it has tricks up its sleeve to attempt to do so, or else it will prevent Trump from carrying out his ostensible intent.

    However, if there is no hidden “deep state,” just the official U.S. public state whose policies are largely determined in the dens of the aforementioned think tanks whose works are openly available, a government that does what it wants under various cover stories – two most significant ones being “the deep state” and “conspiracy theory” – then Trump may be its most fantastic contronymal creation, the epitome in his person of what Orwell meant by Doublethink:

    Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them…. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary.

    It is important to remember how all the rhetoric surrounding the term “deep state” has been so craftily used and mixed with that of “conspiracy theory” that it is worth considering it part of a very sophisticated propaganda campaign to scramble minds.

    Few would dispute the fact that there is a ruling class in the United States and that its interests are not those of ordinary Americans. This is so obvious I will elide further comments about it. Everyone knows how wealth controls the electoral system; that it has corrupted it beyond repair.

    Logic suggests that if a “deep state” is posited opposed to the official “open” government, and if it can be eliminated by a “good” politician, then the good guys will be back in charge and a return to the status quo effected.

    So we must ask the question: What is the opposite of a contronym?

    The post Trump’s Contronymal “Peace” with Russia first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • With the usual qualifier that I could be entirely wrong, my sense is that both the Alaska Summit and Monday’s meeting at the White House were reality checks. They revealed that Putin was finally able to convince the “collective Trump” (Gilbert Doctorow’s term), that the war in Ukraine did not begin with the Russian invasion of February 2022 but with the February 2014 Maidan coup in Kiev that overthrew the democratically elected Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovych. It was part of the neocon’s grand strategy of using Ukraine in a proxy war to bleed Russia before taking on China.1 This faction of the permanent government or Deep State has been defeated on the battlefield.

    The filter to which to view recent events is that the other faction of the US ruling elite, the one to which Trump is nominally connected, “only” wants domination of one-third of the globe and they have correctly concluded that Russia has already won the war in Ukraine. Trump does not want to be associated with a war that ends like Vietnam or Afghanistan. Putin was offering Trump an exit and he pulled the plug onUkraine or, to mix metaphors, took Ukraine off the neocon’s global chessboard.

    At Monday’s White House meeting, the now neutered and obsequious Zelensky (who at least wore a coat) set a world record for uttering the words “Thank you, Mr. President”and the fact the Trump despises the back-stabbing, groveling European vassals was on full display as he humiliated them. I was reminded of disobedient school children sitting in the principal’s office. In any case, as each one offered his or her portion of the prepared script, the high (or low) point was when Merz pitifully raised the dead letter “ceasefire” demand for the umpteenth time and Trump pretended to listen before offering an offhand patronizing comment.

    The question arises why these Europeans will feverishly continue to sabotage the peace process? There might be a few leaders who believe the nonsense about a “Russian threat” but as Vijay Prashad  has cogently argued, “European elites are primarily interested in protecting their legitimacy. They have invested too much political capital in their goal of ‘victorious peace’ to walk away.” As I’ve noted in previous posts, how else can the European ruling class justify massive increases in arms spending which requires dismantling the welfare state if they can’t maintain the narrative that the Kremlin plans to invade Europe? More critically, how can they maintain their power and privilege if ordinary citizens realize they’ve been lied to over so many decades? In sum, this is the “existential threat” facing European governing elites and they’re living on borrowed time.

    In the near future, Putin will meet with Ukrainian negotiators, probably in Istanbul but because both sides are so far apart, no compromise is possible. Putin will enforce a resolution of the conflict on Zelensky which will be a surrender, a capitulation. Trump won’t be there because he wants to evade responsibility when everything collapses.

    Finally, Alaska and Washington were limited but positive first steps in transforming US-Russia relations and that’s good news for those aware of the real danger of nuclear war. Further, there’s a better than fifty percent chance that the Ukraine war will end in the near future and that tens of thousands of lives will be spared. And lest I be misunderstood, this isn’t because Trump is a “good guy” or US imperialism is softening but because of the aforementioned, array of highly unusual circumstances the US was forced to retreat. If there are folks out there who miss the truth that at this narrow, isolated point in time that’s a positive development, I can only say “pity on them.” Of course this “good news” must be quickly tempered by the fact that US “Project Ukraine” has already cost the lives of 1.1 million Ukrainians and Russians in a totally unnecessary war.

    Note: The entirely disingenuous question of so-called “security arrangements” must be taken up another day.

    ENDNOTE:

    The post What Do We Know About Zelensky and the Seven Dwarfs Visit to the White House? first appeared on Dissident Voice.
    1    Thomas I. Palley, “The War in Ukraine — A History: How the US Exploited Fractures in the Post-Soviet Order,” New Left Review, June 1, 2025; John J. Mearsheimer, “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault. Foreign Affairs, September/October 2014. We know now there was a covert CIA plan to invade Ukraine by special forces as early as 1957. See, Kit Klarenberg, “Declassified: CIA’s Covert Ukrainian Invasion Plan,” MRonline, Aug 19, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Democrats are politically flummoxed by the flurry of regressive proposals and policies daily manufactured by the Trump administration. Party leadership has been reduced to a reactionary political presence, simply reacting to Trump’s initiatives. Weakened and disoriented, the party seems incapable of effectively challenging Trump’s disingenuous populism. They do not forcefully attack his many vulnerabilities. Democratic party leaders, moreover, refuse to embrace a comprehensive program of fundamental social, economic and environmental projects and guarantees that are both popular and a genuine alternative vision of America.

    The beleaguered Social Security Administration offers an enormous opportunity to weaken Trump’s political strength. Ostensibly driven by budget deficits, Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency has eliminated 7000 employees at the SS Administration. That will certainly reduce services since now 1 employee manages 1,480 beneficiaries, which is 3 times the beneficiary load in 1967. Already telephone calls to the agency have gone unanswered. Close to 90 percent of Americans, moreover, wants SS to remain a strict priority of the government, “No matter the state of budget deficits.” Here the Trump administration has left itself wide open to a progressive political challenge that would guarantee funding of SS in the coming decades, definitively reject any privatization plans and highlight how Trump’s cuts threaten the integrity of a service so vital to all Americans.

    Trump is also vulnerable in many other of his administration’s initiatives. The elimination of the Agency for International Development, for example, immediately terminated the annual purchase of as much as a million metric tons of U.S. crops, depriving American farmers of a $510 million market. As a direct consequence, farmers are burning crops due to low prices, rising input costs and labor shortages compounded by the government’s immigration policies. Tragically, 1.5 million starving children in Afghanistan and Pakistan depend on AID’s food assistance. By 2030, according to researchers, an estimated 14 million people, including 4.5 million children under age 5, will die without the relief AID’s programs provide.

    Exposure of Trump’s cuts and plans for the Federal Emergency Management Agency again opens opportunity to reveal the callousness and shallow, short-term thinking that is typical of the administration. From 2008 to 2024 FEMA provided $170 billion to assist with environmental disasters. FEMA assistance is based on the cost of per capita impact (PCI). Trump has proposed raising the qualifying PCI from $l.89 to $7.56. This policy change is designed to shift the cost of disaster relief onto the states, thereby reducing federal spending and, among other specious cost-reduction efforts, diminish the federal deficit to fund tax cuts that disproportionately benefit wealthy Americans. And contrary to Trump’s assertions, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the tax cuts will spike the deficit by $2.4 trillion programs. over the coming decade.

    Trump’s healthcare plan is yet another area of his vulnerability. A national universal health insurance program is long overdue and such a proposal would stand in stark, constructive contrast to the administration’s plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would leave 10.9 million more Americans without healthcare, especially targeting those with low incomes and individuals in poor health. The elimination of the ACA funding mechanism, moreover, will increase the federal deficit by $41 billion. In addition, planned Medicaid cuts threaten rural hospitals that depend on it for a significant percentage of their revenues. And massive cuts to science and medicine in the recently approved ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ will hamper and even end much research into life-saving medicines and reduce the nation’s preparation for future epidemics and pandemics.

    The disappearance and detention of thousands of immigrants are a direct attack on the U.S. Constitution. Capturing and transporting law-abiding individuals to distant detention facilities without due process are practices common to police and military states. More than 60,000 immigrants are detained in facilities across the nation. Judges who rule against Trump’s immigration policies and practices are pilloried and threatened by the president himself. Families are broken up and children are arrested. This is yet another example of outrageous and often tragic violations of law and human rights.

    Trump’s virtual abandonment of Ukraine and his unwavering support of Israel are also very profound moral issues, positions that must be adamantly opposed. The U.S. and NATO allies must swiftly counter and arrest Putin’s military onslaught. With regard to Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza, Trump’s continued support for the Netanhayu government – his approval of $12 billion in military assistance in less than 2 months in office – makes the Trump government an unquestioned accessory to massive crimes against humanity. Trump swiftly by-passed Congress to supply these military weapons to Israel. To date more than 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, at least 18,000 of them children.

    The list of assailable proposals and program issues is interminable. Flagrant flouting of the law and congressional authority. Threats to and removal of dissenting judges. Weaponizing the Department of Justice. Deploying military troops in streets. The attack on the media to eliminate fact-based critique and dissent. The assault on academic freedom and free speech at universities, blocking the entrance of foreign students and undermining basic scientific research, imperiling U.S. global leadership in science and technology. Elimination of federal support of public education. The pursuit of tariffs that are actually paid by American importers who will raise prices of these goods, inducing inflation. Downgrading the NATO alliance. Violation of the emoluments clause. Usurping congressional authority and eroding separation of powers among the three branches of government. Pardoning insurrections. Appointing unqualified and compromised nominees to sensitive government positions. Undermining the Center for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health. Weakened regulations at the Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency. A complete retreat from renewable energy and other green practices and emphatic reliance on fossil fuels. Absolute ignorance of climate change. Aggressive vote suppression and rigging elections. Defunding Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And on and on, ad infinitum….

    The Democratic leadership is incapable of moving from soft, centrist politics to a progressive social and environmental agenda. In 2016 Democrats’ electoral scheme of superdelegates undermined the democratic socialist insurgency and its millions of youthful followers. Wedded to identity politics and fixated on quixotic undecided voters and presumably fence-post Republicans, the establishment wing of the Democrats runs away from thoroughgoing reform. Eschewing progressive populism – fearful of being branded leftist, socialist and communist – the party has pursued an electoral platform of abstract ideas such as appeals to saving democracy and nearly politically meaningless allusions to joy and decency. Without a genuine populist agenda the Democratic leadership drifts toward the political center, an increasingly conservative position as the center moves to the political right.

    Now is the time for progressive Democrats to break from the party and, allying with politically independent progressives and others on the political left, put forth an agenda that forges an alternative vision of a healthy America, one that supports ordinary families through authentic social welfare and sound environmental policy. To turn back a government takeover by the wealthy corporate class, progressives must seize this political moment. Their voice must be forceful, optimistic and youthful. They must aggressively challenge Trump, preying on his numerous points of vulnerability.

    By staging powerful televised weekly press conferences, engineering appearances on televised and digital ‘talk shows,’ generating a compelling social media presence and organizing public rallies and marches, progressives could present timely critiques of Trump’s ongoing misrepresentations and regressive proposals and, even more importantly, put forth a platform of populist programs that will really benefit average Americans. Such a campaign and strategy will energize and focus opponents of Trump, elevating the political discourse and conferring enormous credibility on progressive alternatives. It will give anti-Trump forces a platform of specific programs and goals to confront his dictatorial intentions and methods. If progressives fail to lead at this critical juncture in the nation’s history, they cede the immediate and long-term future to a self-serving dictator supported by a party of sycophants and opposed only by weak-kneed, unimaginative politicians.

    The post Trump Vulnerable to Progressive Populism first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Karen Paulina Biswell (Colombia), Nama Bú (We Exist), 2015.

    Those who do not live in war zones or in suffocated countries are forced to live life as if there is nothing strange about what is happening around us. When we read about war, it is disconnected from our lives, and many of us want to stop listening to anything about the human misery caused by weapons or by sanctions. The scholasticism of the academic and the hushed tones of the diplomat are silenced as the bomb and the bank wage war against the planet. After authorising the atom bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima (Japan) on 6 August 1945, US President Harry S. Truman announced on the radio: ‘If [the Japanese] do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth’.

    Truman justified the use of that hideous weapon by deceitfully alleging that Hiroshima was a military base. Yet he failed to mention that his bomb – known as ‘Little Boy’ – killed large numbers of civilians. According to the City of Hiroshima, ‘the exact number of deaths from the atomic bombing is still unknown. Estimates place the number of dead by the end of December 1945, when the acute effects of radiation poisoning had largely subsided, at roughly 140,000’. The total population of Hiroshima at that time was 350,000, meaning that 40% of the city’s population died within five months of the blast. A ‘rain of ruin’ had already befallen them.

    Luis Meque (Zimbabwe), Street Kids, 1997.

    The Lancet, one of the most distinguished magazines on health and medicine, published an article by Francisco Rodríguez, Silvio Rendón, and Mark Weisbrot with a very scientific title: ‘Effects of international sanctions on age-specific mortality: a cross-national panel data analysis’. These scholars have studied the impact of sanctions mostly imposed by the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations (UN). While these measures are often called ‘international sanctions’, in reality there is nothing international about them. Most sanctions are conducted outside the realm of the UN Charter, chapter five of which insists that such measures can only be taken through a UN Security Council resolution. This is most often not done, and powerful states – mostly the United States and members of the European Union – institute illegal, unilateral sanctions against countries that exceed the logic of human decency.

    According to the Global Sanctions Database, the United States, European Union, and UN have sanctioned 25% of the countries in the world. The United States by itself sanctioned 40% of these countries, sanctions that are unilateral because they do not have the assent of a UN Security Council resolution. In the 1960s, only 8% of the world’s countries were under sanctions. This inflation of sanctions demonstrates that it has become normal for the powerful North Atlantic states to wage wars without having to fire a bullet. As US President Woodrow Wilson said in 1919 at the formation of the League of Nations, sanctions are ‘something more tremendous than war’.

    Gaël Maski (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Jumeaux, 2023.

    The cruellest formulation of Wilson’s statement was made by Madeleine Albright, then the US ambassador to the UN, regarding the US sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s. A distinguished team of specialists from the Centre for Economic and Social Rights went to Iraq and analysed the data to find that from 1990 to 1996, sanctions had resulted in the ‘excess deaths of over 500,000 children under the age of five. In simple terms, more Iraqi children have died as a result of sanctions than the combined toll of two atomic bombs on Japan and the recent scourge of ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia’. On the CBS television programme 60 Minutes, journalist Leslie Stahl asked Albright about this study, saying ‘we have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And you know, is the price worth it?’. This was a sincere question. Albright had the opportunity to say many things: she could have said that she had not yet had time to study the report, or she could have shifted the blame to the policies of Saddam Hussein. Instead, she answered, ‘I think that it is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it’.

    In other words, it was worth killing half a million children to destabilise the Iraqi government led by Saddam Hussein. Of course, that government was not overthrown by sanctions. Instead, the people suffered for another seven years, for which there was no comparable study done on excess deaths. It took the massive illegal US invasion to overthrow the Iraqi government (illegal because there was no UN Security Council resolution). To be fair to Albright, she later said, ‘I have said 5,000 times that I regret it. It was a stupid statement. I never should have made it’. But she did. And it made its mark.

    Sarah Issakharian (Iran), The First Supper, 2016.

    Those who inflict pain through sanctions know full well what they are doing. Albright said that her statement was ‘stupid’, but she did not say that the policy was wrong. In 2019, Associated Press’s Matt Lee asked US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo about the sanctions imposed on Venezuela, to which he replied, ‘We always wish things could go faster… The circle is tightening. The humanitarian crisis is increasing by the hour. … You can see the increasing pain and suffering that the Venezuelan people are suffering from’. Pompeo’s statement is emblematic and correct: the illegal sanctions create pain and suffering.

    So, what does The Lancet’s new study on international sanctions show?

    1. From 1971 to 2021, unilateral sanctions have been the cause of death for 564,258 people per year.
    2. The number of people who die because of sanctions is greater than the number of battle-related casualties (106,000 deaths per year) ‘and similar to some estimates in the total death toll of wars including civilian casualties (around half a million deaths per year)’.
    3. The most vulnerable population groups, as you would expect, are children under five and older people. Deaths of children under five years ‘represented 51% of total deaths caused by sanctions over the 1970–2021 period’.
    4. Unilateral sanctions by the United States and the European Union are more deadly than UN sanctions, with ‘US sanctions appear[ing] to be driving the adverse mortality effects’. This is because ‘unilateral sanctions imposed by the USA or the EU might be designed in ways that have a greater negative effect on target populations’.
    5. The reason why US sanctions – with the EU alongside them – have such negative effects is due to the ‘widespread use of the US dollar and the euro in international banking transactions and as global reserve currencies, and the extraterritorial application of sanctions, particularly by the USA’.
    6. The analysis shows that ‘the effects of sanctions on mortality generally increase over time, with longer-lived sanctions episodes resulting in higher tolls on lives’.

    Based on these findings, the study concludes that ‘from a rights-based perspective, evidence that sanctions lead to losses in lives should be sufficient reason to advocate for the suspension of their use’.

    Dia al-Azzawi (Iraq), The Arab League Hotel, 1971.

    In March 2025, we published a dossier called Imperialist War and Feminist Resistance in the Global South, primarily looking at the case of Venezuela, and which described the impact of sanctions and how a society under attack is held together by the work of women. They know what the ‘rain of ruin’ feels like and they are fighting to strengthen their societies against it. As we showed in our FACTS analysis, sanctions against Venezuela resulted in a loss of 213% of its Gross Domestic Product between January 2017 and December 2024, which amounts to a total estimated loss of $226 billion or $77 million per day.

    In 1995, during the sanctions against Iraq and before the United States invaded that country illegally in 2003, Saadi Youssef (1934–2021) wrote a miraculous poem called ‘America, America’. Here is the last stanza:

    We are not hostages, America,
    and your soldiers are not God’s soldiers…
    We are the poor ones, ours is the earth of the drowned gods,
    the gods of bulls,
    the gods of fires,
    the gods of sorrows that intertwine clay and blood in a song…
    We are the poor, ours is the god of the poor,
    who emerges out of farmers’ ribs,
    hungry
    and bright,
    and raises heads up high…

    America, we are the dead.
    Let your soldiers come.
    Whoever kills a man, let him resurrect him.
    We are the drowned ones, dear lady.
    We are the drowned.
    Let the water come.

    The post Unilateral and Illegal Sanctions – Mainly by the United States – Kill Half a Million Civilians Per Year first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The demonization of Russia among Western journalists has gotten so perverse, if Vladimir Putin were to jump in an erupting volcano and rescue a family of four Americans, carrying them on his back hobbling along on the melted stumps of his legs to a hospital 50 miles away, the mainstream media in the U.S. would report that Vlad the Impaler in some disconnected attempt to reconstruct the Soviet Empire had personally kidnapped four defenseless U.S. citizens and was holding them in a labor camp in the Siberian tundra.

    Nothing good about Russia ever makes the cut these days, only the bad, much of it fabricated by the U.S. government itself. Even indisputable facts of history take a back seat to vilifying everything Russian. With appalling disrespect, Western leaders snubbed Russia by refusing to take part in the 70th anniversary celebrations of victory over Germany held in Moscow in 2015. Likewise with the recent 80th anniversary victory day celebrations, attended by many top leaders from all over the world. Then at equivalent ceremonies in Europe, scant mention was even made of the Russian campaigns, which resulted in the deaths of over 10 million Russian soldiers. If you bother to check the record, you will discover it was not France, England, and the U.S. which defeated Hitler. It was Russia.

    I don’t say this because I’m a Russia lover or a Putin apologist. This is a matter of historical record. Maybe to the propagandists in the West with their highly focused, patently obtuse agenda, facts don’t matter. But to you and I, if we are to have any shot at embracing harmony in the world, facts are vital to a greater appreciation of a nation of 146 million people whose government is armed with over 5,000 nuclear warheads.

    Here are some more facts. Feel free to check the historical record:

    1) Joseph Stalin proposed in 1952 that Germany be reunited as a single neutral country with free elections. A central condition was that Germany not be part of a NATO alliance, which it viewed as a military threat. Russia was under enormous pressure economically after being ravaged by World War II and wanted to reduce the growing tensions between the East and the West.

    Of course, by ignoring and ultimately rejecting this proposal, it would take another forty years of Cold War hostility and posturing to reunite Germany, then as an loyal ally and military stronghold of the U.S., though ironically, Germany for decades — until fairly recently — has been one of Russia’s most important European trading partners.

    2) Prior to the 1963 Cuban missile crisis, Nikita Khrushchev for almost a decade proposed substantial reductions in offensive weapons. While America was implementing the largest peace time military build-up in history, Russia was in fact reducing its military capability.

    Khrushchev finally became convinced, especially after the U.S. placed in nearby Turkey nuclear-tipped Jupiter missiles which could easily reach Russia, that America was bent on attacking the Soviet Union. This was the underlying reason for deploying nuclear missiles in Cuba, precipitating one of the most dangerous crises in history. Perhaps not the wisest thing to do, given the level of tensions the U.S. maintained with its constant “better dead than Red” fear mongering, nevertheless the missiles in Cuba were basically the Soviet’s attempt to achieve some sort of parity, at least a minimal acceptable level of mutually assured destruction with America.

    3) In 1983, the U.S. risked starting World War III with provocative and unnecessary probing of Soviet air defenses, a military exercise called Able Archer. This was purely a strategic and psychological maneuver intended to bolster support Reagan was soliciting from Congress and U.S. allies for his Star Wars missile defense system. Because at this same time the U.S. was deploying nuclear-tipped Pershing II missiles in Europe which only had a 5-minute flight time to key targets in Russia, Soviet leadership understandably viewed Star Wars not as a defensive system but as the means for establishing a first-strike capability. And it suspected the probing of its air space and testing of its defense systems via Able Archer, was a prelude to an attack. Speculation about a first-strike nuclear attack on Russia continues to this day. Extremely dangerous!

    4) Reagan and Gorbachev in the end were quite sincere about totally eliminating nuclear weapons by the end of the 20th Century, thus their verbal agreement during a summit in Reykjavik, Iceland to work toward eliminating the nuclear arsenals of both Russia and the U.S. was quite authentic. It was not posturing. Moreover, the whole idea for eliminating the entire nuclear arsenals of both countries was initiated by Soviet Premier Gorbachev in a letter sent to President Reagan January 14, 1986. It was actually his idea.

    5) Russia only has nine foreign military bases. This is in contrast to what many estimate to be 700-800 in at minimum 80 countries by the U.S. A cursory glance at a world map shows that a substantial number of these bases form a ring around Russia. Even the most impartial observer would not view this as a coincidence and would at least appreciate why Putin and company see much of what America does as provocative, if not blatantly confrontational — why some analysts on both sides conjecture that America is preparing to launch a “preemptive” nuclear attack on Russia, begging the question what such an attack would preempt other than the continuation of the human species.

    6) Contrary to headlines which screamed foul in the American media, Russia never invaded Crimea. The simple fact is that there were 16,000 troops already stationed there, as per a standing treaty with the Ukrainian government. When the elected President of the Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych — certainly corrupt and questionable in his own right, like most Ukrainian politician — was driven out of the country by street thugs, these troops were instructed to protect key physical assets in the region, as well as make sure that the many native Russians who were living there remained safe. There was no firefight, no resistance. After 97% of voters demanded in an internationally-monitored referendum to rejoin Russia, the region which had been part of Russia going back to 1786, returned to Russian authority — hardly an invasion by any stretch of the imagination. No troops stormed over the border. No shots were fired.

    7) Far from being the instigator of the current crisis in the Ukraine, Putin has consistently played peacemaker and attempted to defuse the situation, even as native Russians came under threat from the new government in Kiev, and now Russian civilians are still being attacked daily with drones. Battalions of neo-Nazi fighters now comprise key sectors of Ukraine’s military forces. These were among the shock troops which originally rampaged through the eastern regions, attacking Donetsk and Lugansk, two strongholds of pro-Russian separatists and home to a majority of Russians, after the Maidan uprising.

    8) Contrary to the narrative being pushed by the White House — obviously the creation of neocon ideologues swarming like locusts at all levels of the bureaucracy, especially in the State Department and think tanks within the beltway — the evidence is quite clear that the entire coup was engineered and directed by the U.S., using agent provocateur NGOs, funded by National Endowment for DemocracySenator John McCain and Asst. U.S. Secretary of State Victoria Nuland were even on the front lines during the demonstrations. This is, of course, not what you were being told by the American press, which still leads the charge in continuing to pin all blame on Russia and Putin.

    Now am I making a one-sided case here? Of course not. For over six decades, extending right up till the present, there have been gross deceptions and blunders on both sides. I bring up the above examples because the collective memory of the American public seems to be very short. Or more likely, many well-meaning Americans may not even be familiar with these particular facts in the first place. Anything good about the Soviets — and now the Russians — tends to be overwhelmed and replaced by the fiercely promoted and much easier to embrace “black hat” characterization we hear regurgitated over and over.

    What I am saying is there has already been so much misunderstanding, miscalculation, and missed opportunities, that to compound our bleak and tendentious relationship with Russia with yet more misunderstanding, miscalculation, and missed opportunities, is courting disaster. It’s that simple. What’s been going on is not working. Time for a new approach.

    And I am also saying that America lately bears more than its share of responsibility for the distortions, the slander, the disinformation, which has aggravated hostility toward Russia both by American and European leaders in their official capacities, and by American citizens, who never seem to run out of foreign peoples to fear, mistrust, even hate.

    Let me throw something else into the mix here. This is probably the most important factor whenever we look at Russia and try to gauge her motives and intents.

    The Soviet Union lost more than 27,000,000 people in World War II. Most were killed in the Russian homeland itself as a result of the overwhelming German Nazi blitz. Over a half million died in the Battle of Stalingrad alone.

    That is why they are fearful of having troops and/or ballistic missiles on their borders — as in the Ukraine or Georgia. They have been gritting their teeth as NATO has edged its way closer and closer to Russia — contrary, by the way, to reassurances given right after the fall of the Berlin wall and the reunification of Germany. America lost 420,000 soldiers during all of World War II, fighting on two fronts, in Europe and the Far East. If we had seen 27,000,000 Americans killed, the blood of the majority spilled right here on our own soil, how would we feel about having troops, nuclear-tipped tactical missiles, and ballistic missile defense radars and interceptors arrayed along the Canadian or Mexican borders? How would we read the intention of any nation insisting on putting these on our borders?

    As they say, this is not rocket science.

    What might require the intellectual aptitude of a rocket scientist is trying to understand what America’s strategic planners have in mind in promoting this agenda. It undermines any possibility of peace between the two great powers and risks thermonuclear war.

    Am I a Russia lover?

    An America hater?

    Neither.

    I just think that before we kill a few more million people or destroy the world, we might want to look at both sides of each issue, maybe mentally trade places, try to be fair and reasonable, give our all to try to understand exactly what is going on.

    And a big part of understanding issues is knowing history, taking into consideration what has been occurring for decades, sometimes even centuries. To paraphrase George Santayana: “Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes.”

    Yet, the drama continues and intensifies. Confrontation and intimidation of Russia is ongoing. Massive military exercises on Russia’s borders have become frequent: Griffin LightningOperation HedgehogNordic ResponseDynamic Front 25. These follow numerous previously held on Russia’s borders in Poland and substantial increases in troops and equipment in Poland and the Baltic states. A new ABM system was deployed in Romania back in 2016. Romania is now in the final stages of constructing the largest NATO military base in Europe. In 2024, NATO opened a new missile defense base in Redzikowo, Poland. Military war games are also held in the Black Sea, like Sea Breeze 2015 and Sea Breeze 2021, sailing war ships and aircraft carriers into the “Russian lake”, surveilling and testing Russia’s littoral defenses.

    While all of this display of firepower is allegedly to prepare for a Russian offensive, it only serves to provoke Russia and test its patience. Propaganda from the West would have it that Russia is aggressively re-building the Soviet Empire and is preparing to attack Europe. Looking at what comes out of U.S. think tanks would suggest the opposite, that it is the US/UK/EU/NATO which is preparing to attack and dismember Russia, then plunder its vast resources.

    Russia does not want war with Ukraine, the US, or any country in Europe. Recognize, no one can point at any actual aggression on Russia’s part, other than the trumped up and discredited accusations of fighting in eastern Ukraine and having invaded and seized control of Crimea and four oblasts. Russia’s coming to the defense of the people there is completely understandable. The people in these five regions are mostly Russian. Ukraine has systematically targeted them for elimination. Even before the 2022 Special Military Operation began, over 14,000 were killed in Donbas alone. These five zones have been actively wanting to leave Ukraine and join Russia since 2014. They each held referendums and by huge majorities — 97% in Crimea! — voted to do just that.

    Now the rhetoric from the U.S. and NATO is becoming even more skewed and provocative. At the July 2016 NATO meeting in Warsaw, Russia was declared the major threat to peace and stability in Europe. Nothing has changed except to get worse. Great Britain is talking about sending its troops to UkraineGermanythe Baltic and Scandinavia nations, and the UK open talk about having a war with Russia. These people are relentless. And apparently merciless. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of their citizens in a major war that need not happen. All Russia wants is a neutral Ukraine — free of US/EU/NATO troops, no missiles and other lethal weaponry pointed at Russia — and a Ukrainian government which is free of Russia-hating neo-Nazis.

    Russia has made clear its position over and over. Putin, forcefully and frankly, expressed his concerns about NATO expansion in 2007 in his historical address at the Munich Conference. The West was then and still is unable to listen. Or simply refuses.

    The reality is, facts don’t discourage western politicians and U.S. media from beating the drums of war, increasing tensions, and risking a major military confrontation. When you wear a white hat, you alone get to decide who the black hats are.

    Frankly, it’s shocking what comes out of the mouths of the spokespersons for the U.S. government. There is no equivalent that I can see coming from the Russian side. Russians tend to be restrained, diplomatic, and at least on the public side very respectful and statesmanlike. Trump, and Biden and Obama before him have, for example, in a number of high-visibility public forums made it their personal mission to insult Vladimir Putin and propagate what are proven lies about Russia. If our political leaders believe any of this stuff, then instead of attending foreign policy and intelligence briefings, they must have been reading comic books or getting their information from Garry Kasparov’s website. But to be honest, I’ve concluded they know the truth and these endless propaganda assaults are quite intentional. The big plan is still to destroy Russia, break it up into little pieces, a loot its rich national resources and treasures.

    Back to Russia …

    Despite the barrage of vituperation and insults from the West, you cannot find one instance of Putin, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, former Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, current Defense Minister Andrei Belousov, Director of Information and Press Department Maria Zakharova, Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, or any other high official in the ranks of power in Russia, conducting themselves with anything other than extreme courtesy and professionalism.

    Frankly, it’s often embarrassing to see the way U.S. diplomats swagger around like they’re on their way to a barroom brawl in America’s Old West. The contrast with Russia’s spokespersons is stark and revealing.

    Final thoughts …

    It would be one thing if the feud between the U.S. and Russia were just some schoolyard scrap between two pubescent boys. But these two major countries armed to the teeth with nuclear missiles, burdened with almost seven decades of bad blood between them, much of the bad blood alarmingly the product of gross misunderstanding.

    The price of more of the same aggravation and contentiousness is at best wasting valuable resources and energy which could be devoted to other mounting crises — climate change, the rapid destruction of the oceans, the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease, desertification of farmland, depletion of water resources throughout the world, increasing risk of widespread famine, the urgent need to secure vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons from access by terrorists — at worst an epic nuclear holocaust which puts the human race in a giant coffin.

    Isn’t it time to stop the name-calling?

    Isn’t it time to put away the gang colors?

    The black hats and the white hats?

    Russia Bad! America Good!

    Nothing is that simple.

    Unless you’re simpleminded.
    [ This is an excerpt from my upcoming book, America’s Hijacked Peace Dividend, available late October or November at fine bookstores across the globe. ]
    The post Russia Bad America Good first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • An immediate UN Security Council vote to grant Palestine permanent membership in the UN next month would put an end to Israel’s zealous delusions of permanent control over Palestine. It cannot happen without US backing.

    President Donald Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize, and his efforts toward peace in Ukraine, if successful, could possibly help him earn one—but only if he also ends US complicity in the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Under Trump, as under former President Joe Biden, the US has served as Israel’s partner in mass murder, annexation, starvation, and the escalating torment of millions of Palestinians. The genocide can, and will, stop if Trump wills it. So far he has not.

    Israel is committing genocide—everyone knows it, even its staunchest defenders. The Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem has recently made a poignant acknowledgment of “Our Genocide.” In Foreign Affairs, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew recently admitted that extremist parties in Netanyahu’s government openly aim to starve Palestinians in Gaza. Lew frames his piece as praise for the former Biden administration (and for himself) for their supposedly valiant efforts to prevent mass starvation by pressuring Israel to allow minimal food entry, while blaming Trump for easing that pressure.

    Yet the actual importance of the piece is that an ardent Zionist insider certifies the genocidal agenda sustaining Netanyahu’s rule. Lew recounts that in the aftermath of October 7, Israelis frequently pledged that “not a drop of water, not a drop of milk, and not a drop of fuel will go from Israel to Gaza,” a stance that still shapes Israel’s cabinet policy. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) can use Lew’s article as confirmation of Israel’s genocidal intent.

    The genocide in Gaza, coupled with the annexation in the West Bank, aims to fulfill the Likud vision of a Greater Israel that exercises territorial control between the Sea and Jordan. This will destroy any possibility of a Palestinian state, and any possibility of peace. Indeed, Bezalel Smotrich, the extremist minister of finance and minister in the ministry of defense, recently vowed to “permanently bury the idea of a Palestinian state” while the Knesset has recently called for annexation of the occupied West Bank.

    The US aids and protects Israel every day in these horrific crimes against the Palestinian people. The US provides billions of dollars in military support, goes to war alongside Israel, and offers diplomatic cover for Israel’s crimes against humanity. The vacuous mantra that “Israel has the right to defend itself” is the US pat excuse for Israel’s mass murder and starvation of innocent civilians.

    Generations of historians, psychologists, sociologists, philosophers, and inquiring minds will ask how the descendants and co‑religionists of the Jews murdered by Hitler’s genocidal regime came to become genocidaires. Two factors, deeply intertwined, come to the fore.

    First, the Nazi Holocaust lent credence among Jews to the Zionist claim that only a state with overwhelming military power and ready to use it can protect the Jewish people. For these militarists, every Arab country opposed to Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine became a dire foe to be crushed by war. This is Netanyahu’s doctrine of violence, which was first unveiled in the Clean Break strategy, and which has produced nonstop Israeli mobilization and war, and a society now gripped by implacable hatred even of innocent women and children in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria. Netanyahu has dragged the US into countless devastating and futile wars out of Netanyahu’s blindness to the reality that only diplomacy, not war, can achieve Israel’s security.

    Second, this non-stop resort to violence reignited a dormant strain of Biblical Judaism, notably based on the Book of Joshua, which presents God’s covenant with Abraham as justification for genocides committed in conquering the Promised Land. Ancient zealotry of this kind, and the belief that God would redeem his chosen people through violence, fueled suicidal revolts against the Roman Empire between 66 and 135 AD. Whether the genocides in the Book of Joshua ever occurred (probably not ) is beside the point. For today’s zealots, the license to commit genocide is vivid, immediate, and biblically ordained.

    Aware of the danger of self-destructive zealotry, the rabbis who shaped the Babylonian Talmud proscribed Jews from attempting to return en masse to the promised land (Ketubot 111a). They taught that Jews should live in their own communities and fulfill God’s commandments where they are, rather than seeking to recapture a land from which they had been exiled following decades of suicidal revolt.

    Whatever the fundamental reasons for Israel’s murderous turn, Israel’s survival among nations is at risk today as it has become a pariah state. For the first time in history, Israel’s Western allies have repudiated Israel’s violent ways. France, the United KingdomAustralia, and Canada have each pledged to formally recognize the State of Palestine at the upcoming UN General Assembly in September. These countries will finally join the will of the overwhelming global majority in recognizing that the two-state solution, enshrined in international law, is the true guarantor of peace.

    The majority of the American people, are rightly revulsed by Israel’s brutality and are also turning their support massively to the Palestinian cause. In a new Reuters poll released today, 58% of Americans now believe that the UN should recognize the State of Palestine, against just 32% who oppose that. American politicians will surely note the change, at Israel’s peril, unless the two-state solution is rapidly implemented. (Logical arguments can also be given for a peaceful one-state, bi-national solution, but this alternative has essentially no backing among UN member states and no basis in the international law regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict that has developed over more than seven decades.)

    This Israeli government will not change course on its own. Only the Trump administration can end the genocide through a comprehensive settlement agreed by the world’s nations at the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly. The solution is to stop the genocide, make peace, and salvage Israel’s standing in the world by creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel on the June 4, 1967 borders.

    For decades, the entire Arab and Islamic world has supported the two-state solution, and advocated to normalize relations with Israel and guarantee security for the entire region. This solution is in full accordance with international law, and was again espoused clearly by the UN General Assembly in the NY Declaration last month at the conclusion of the United Nations High-Level International Conference on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution (July 29, 2025).

    Trump has come to understand that to save Ukraine, he must force it to see reality: that NATO cannot expand to Ukraine as that would directly threaten Russia’s own security. In the same way, Trump must force Israel to see reality: that Israel cannot continue to rule over the Palestinian people, murder them, starve them, and ethnically cleanse them. The two-state solution thereby saves both Palestine and Israel.

    An immediate UN Security Council vote to grant Palestine permanent membership in the UN next month would put an end to Israel’s zealous delusions of permanent control over Palestine, as well as its reckless territorial ambitions in Lebanon and Syria. The focus of the crisis would then shift to immediate and practical issues: how to disarm non-state actors within the framework of the new state and regional peace, how to enable mutual security for Israel and Palestine, how to empower the Palestinians to govern effectively, how to finance the reconstruction, and how to provide urgent humanitarian assistance to a starving population.

    Trump can make this happen at the UN in September. The US, and only the US, has vetoed the permanent membership of Palestine in the UN. The other members of the UN Security Council have already signaled their support.

    Peace in the Middle East is possible now—and there is no time to lose.

    The post The US Can End the Gaza Genocide Now first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A few days ago, Armenia and Azerbaijan published the text of the peace agreement, brokered by the United States. On paper, both sides pledged to respect each other’s territorial integrity and formally end the decades-long conflict. However, it remains a mystery, whether the countries will actually sign the agreement. Numerous mutual claims and disputes, the resolution of which cannot be expected in the near future, call into question the readiness for reconciliation demonstrated by Armenia and Azerbaijan. Moreover, the draft itself, as well as the additional agreements, raises many doubts about who would really benefit from a potential truce.

    Thus, one of a few agreements that was actually signed and entered into force, gives the United States an exclusive right to develop the Zangezur Corridor (a strategic transport route between Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic) for 99 years. As usual, when it comes to America’s interests, it rushes to actions. According to the White House, the project — which has already been branded it the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity — is expected to strengthen economic ties with the region and increase energy exports. At the same time, the United States has cemented its presence in the South Caucasus, which is also being presented as another triumph of Washington’s diplomacy.

    As for Baku and Yerevan – while the former is the primary beneficiary of the potential peace, the latter is relegated to the role of a bargaining chip. Azerbaijan gets the opportunity not only to legally strengthen its control over the territories it has gained, but also to become a key energy center in the South Caucasus. Moreover, one should not forget that restrictions on defense cooperation between Azerbaijan and the United States had also been lifted. The mere possibility of receiving weapons from the United States gives Azerbaijan more confidence and freedom of action, which leads to increased pressure on Armenia. Thus, President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan has already repeatedly tried to force relevant amendments to the Armenian Constitution, insisting to do it as quickly as possible.

    It turns out that everyone, except Armenia, gains something. Trump receives the status of “peacemaker” and “noble tenant,” Aliyev – support from powerful patrons, while Nikol Pashinyan, Prime Minister of Armenia, is left with several problems which could lead to even greater weakening of the country’s geopolitical position. After losing Nagorno-Karabakh and failing to receive clear answers about the fate of political prisoners in Azerbaijan and the possibility of returning ethnic Armenians who fled hostilities in 2023, Armenia quickly lost its main negotiating tool, allowing the United States to take control of the Zangezur Corridor. In the future, this could lead to serious internal political instability and threaten the territorial integrity of Armenia.

    The post A Step Towards Resolving a Long-standing Territorial Conflict or a Leap into the Abyss? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • If one examines Donald Trump’s approach to world affairs since his entry into American politics, it should come as no surprise that he has worked to undermine the United Nations.

    The United Nation is based on international cooperation, as well as on what the UN Charter calls “the equal rights … of nations large and small.” It seeks to end “the scourge of war” and to “promote social progress” for the people of the world.

    By contrast, Trump has advocated a nationalist path for the United States. Campaigning for the presidency in 2016, he proclaimed that “America First” would “be the major and overriding theme of my administration.” In his 2017 inaugural address, he promised: “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first.”

    Indeed, “America First” became his rallying cry as he championed an unusually aggressive nationalism. “You know what I am?” Trump asked a crowd in Houston. “I’m a nationalist, O.K.? I’m a nationalist. Nationalist!” Sometimes, his displays of superpatriotism―which appealed strongly to right-wing audiences―included hugging and kissing the American flag.

    Given this nationalist orientation, Trump turned during his first administration to dismantling key institutions of the United Nations and of the broader system of international law. He withdrew the U.S. government from the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organization, the UN Human Rights Council, and the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). He also had the U.S. government vote against the Global Compact on Refugees, suspend funding for the UN Population Fund and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, and impose sanctions on a key international agency, the International Criminal Court, which investigates and prosecutes perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.

    Nevertheless, many of these Trump measures were reversed under the subsequent presidency of Joseph Biden, which saw the U.S. government rejoin and bolster most of the international organizations attacked by his predecessor.

    With Trump’s 2020 election to a second term, however, the U.S. government’s nationalist onslaught resumed. In January 2025, U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY), testifying at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on her nomination to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, assailed the world organization, and promised to use her new post to promote Trump’s “America First” agenda. “Our tax dollars,” she argued, “should not be complicit in propping up entities that are counter to American interests.” Joining the attack, Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho), the committee chair, sharply criticized the United Nations and called for a reevaluation of every UN agency to determine if its actions benefited the United States. If they didn’t, he said, “hold them accountable until the answer is a resounding yes.” He added that “the U.S. should seriously examine if further contributions and, indeed, participation in the UN is even beneficial to the American people.”

    Simultaneously, a new Trump administration steamroller began advancing upon UN entities and other international institutions viewed as out of line with his “America First” priorities. At his direction, the U.S. government withdrew from the World Health Organization and the UN Human Rights Council, refused to participate in the UN Relief and Works Agency, announced plans to withdraw from UNESCO, and imposed new sanctions on the International Criminal Court. In the UN Security Council, the U.S. government employed its veto power to block a June 2025 resolution demanding a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and release of all hostages―a measure supported by the 14 other members of that UN entity.

    The Trump administration has also worked to cripple the United Nations by reducing its very meager income. In July 2025, rescissions legislation sponsored by the administration and passed by the Republican-controlled Congress pulled back some $1 billion in funding that U.S. legislation had allocated to the world organization in previous budgets. This action will have devastating effects on a broad variety of UN programs, including UNICEF, the UN Development Program, the UN Environment Program, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the UN Fund for Victims of Torture.

    Moreover, the administration’s fiscal 2026 budget proposes ending UN Peacekeeping payments and pausing most other contributions to the United Nations. Although U.S. funding of the United Nations is actually quite minimal―for example, dues of only $820 million per year for the regular UN budget―the U.S. government has now compiled a debt of $1.5 billion (the highest debt of any nation) to the regular budget and another $1.3 billion to the separate UN Peacekeeping budget.

    The Trump administration’s hostility to the United Nations is sharply at odds with the American public’s attitude toward the world organization. For example, a Pew Research Center poll in late March 2025 found that 63 percent of U.S. respondents said that their country benefited from UN membership―up 3 percent from the previous spring. And 57 percent of Americans polled had a favorable view of the United Nations―up 5 percent since 2024.

    Furthermore, a University of Maryland public opinion survey in June 2025 found that 84 percent of Americans it polled wanted the U.S. government to work with the United Nations at current levels or more. This included 83 percent supporting UNICEF, 81 percent UN Peacekeeping, 81 percent the UN World Food Program, 79 percent the World Health Organization, and 73 percent the UN Environment Program.

    Nor was this strong backing for a global approach to global affairs a fluke. Even when it came to the International Criminal Court, an independent international entity that the U.S. government has never joined and that Trump had roundly denounced and twice ordered sanctioned, 62 percent of Americans surveyed expressed their approval of the organization.

    Trump’s “America First” approach can certainly stir up his hardcore followers. But most Americans recognize that life in the modern world requires moving beyond a narrow nationalism.

    The post Trump’s Assault Upon the United Nations is at Odds with U.S. Public Opinion first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • 2024, as an election year in the United States, was a year of special concern that featured aggravating political strife and social division. Such a landscape offers an opportunity to review the state of human rights in the country in an intensive manner.

    Money controls U.S. politics, with partisan interests above voter rights. The total spending for the 2024 U.S. election cycle exceeded 15.9 billion U.S. dollars, once again setting a new record for the high cost of American political campaigns. Interest groups, operating in the “gray areas” beyond the effective reach of current U.S. campaign laws, used money to wantonly manipulate the fundamental logic and actual functioning of U.S. politics.

    The post The Report On Human Rights Violations In The United States In 2024 appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • On May 1, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,” instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to cease nearly all federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The order prohibited local public radio and television stations, and any other recipient of CPB funds, from using federal grants to purchase programming from these public media organizations and mandated a review of existing grants for compliance with the administration’s ideological priorities. The Trump administration’s attempt to cut public media funding is part of their “rescission” strategy—a process to roll back previously appropriated budgets.

    The House gave final approval on July 18, 2025, to the Trump administration’s plan to rescind approximately $9 billion in previously allocated funds. This measure included a $1.1 billion cut to the CPB, effectively eliminating all federal support for NPR, PBS, and their member stations. Following this, the CPB announced on August 1, 2025, that it would begin an orderly shutdown of its operations after the Senate-Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill excluded its funding for the first time in nearly sixty years. These actions are part of a broader initiative spearheaded by the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which aims to streamline the federal government, eliminate programs deemed unnecessary by the administration, and reduce bureaucratic inefficiency.

    While the administration claims its efforts are motivated by fiscal responsibility and safeguarding taxpayer dollars, critics argue that these moves are politically motivated attempts to silence dissent and reshape the media landscape to favor partisan narratives. Clayton Weimers, Executive Director of Reporters Without Borders USA, told Project Censored, “The administration frames the cuts as ‘efficiency cuts,’ but that is not necessarily the case. They frame it that way because they decided that’s a more palatable way to sell it to the American people. But at the end of the day, public media broadcasting costs the American taxpayer, on average, $1.60 per year, and the level of value that Americans get out of that $1.60 per year is tremendous.”

    The CPB, established in 1967 as a private nonprofit corporation, was specifically designed to insulate public broadcasting from political interference, with its charter expressly forbidding government control over broadcasting content while ensuring that over 70 percent of federal appropriations flow directly to more than 1,500 local affiliate stations rather than centralized bureaucracies.

    “It’s really important that people understand how public media is funded in this country,” Weimers shared with Project Censored. Local affiliates have the freedom to purchase programming from NPR and PBS that caters to their audiences’ preferences. He explained how Trump’s executive order essentially bans affiliate stations from buying this programming, thereby infringing on their First Amendment rights. Weimers emphasized that “it is up to the individual local independent stations what they want to show their audience on air, and they should make that decision based on what their audiences want to see and what their audience wants to hear, not based on what politicians in Washington think they ought to hear.” He challenged the Trump administration’s claim that public media is a biased tool of his political opponents, “Some of the editorial coverage might lean left and the audience might lean left, but it’s a complete mischaracterization. Public media in this country has over a thousand different broadcast, television, and radio stations. It’s not just any one thing. There isn’t one political line across all of public media.”

    Other voices in the media industry echo Weimers’s statements regarding the motivations behind the Trump administration’s CPB rescissions. Victor Pickard, Professor of Media Policy and Political Economy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, explained to Project Censored that public media was created to address gaps in commercial broadcasting and to ensure that all audiences, especially low-income communities and communities of color, would have access to high-quality, trusted content. Pickard warned that defunding public media will force communities to “learn that lesson once again” about the limitations of commercial broadcasting, which “will never provide all of the information and communication needs of a democratic society.”

    Lisa Graves, founder and Executive Director of True North Research, told Project Censored that the Trump administration’s cuts to the CPB are a systematic effort to undermine independent journalism, not address legitimate concerns about bias or fiscal policy. Graves explained that the targeting of NPR and PBS stems from coordinated and widespread disinformation and propaganda being perpetuated by the Trump administration. “These entities are important public investments that help bring national, international, as well as local news into our communities,” Graves told Project Censored. “The administration claims that there is political bias or partisan bias at these outlets, when in fact they are just covering the news. … The attack on public broadcasting is an attack on facts, truth, and journalistic independence. It has to be seen as such.”

    This strategy poses an Achilles’ heel: While the rhetoric employed by the Trump administration targets elite, national outlets, the most damaging impact will fall on the hyperlocal media infrastructure already struggling to survive. Many small-town, rural, and tribal affiliates rely on CPB funding and syndicated content from NPR and PBS to fill gaps in local coverage, provide educational programming, and serve communities with little to no other media access, otherwise known as news deserts. Eliminating this support could crater regional journalism ecosystems—leading to programming losses, station closures, and widespread layoffs that ripple down the media supply chain. In many conservative and underserved communities, where public broadcasting often remains the only consistent source of local and noncommercial news, the cuts could unintentionally harm the very constituencies that the defunding narrative claims to serve.

    Noting that public media receive only paltry funding from federal sources, Pickard called the defunding of the CPB a “tragic irony,” because it will “hurt individual stations, especially in rural and conservative areas in states such as Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Texas.” He explained to Project Censored that some stations depend on CPB funding for 25–50 percent of their budgets and “will likely go under if federal subsidies are entirely cut, leaving news deserts in their wake.”

    The Trump administration frames these funding cuts as fiscal responsibility, but smaller local news outlets view them as politically motivated attacks and part of a campaign to delegitimize public media and the services they provide. NPR and three Colorado public radio stations filed a lawsuit alleging that the May executive order is “textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination” in violation of the First Amendment. PBS, along with Lakeland PBS in rural Minnesota, also filed a similar lawsuit, disputing claims of bias and asserting that the Constitution forbids the President from arbitrating content. These lawsuits suggest Trump has far exceeded the expansive powers of the presidency, usurping congressional prerogatives and eroding free speech rights.

    Seth Stern, Director of Advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, told Project Censored that the Trump administration has adopted what he calls a “throw-it-at-the-wall approach,” where they challenge the Constitution despite knowing most cases will fail on constitutional grounds. However, Stern explained that the strategy behind this approach is to find any legal opening the administration can exploit. “They are looking for the case they win, looking for the one instance where the courts give them an opening, and once they have that opening, they are going to barge through it.”

    The Trump administration has adopted a multifaceted strategy to politicize public media by portraying these institutions as adversaries rather than recognizing them as informational resources or allies. Through rhetorical attacks, the administration frames public media and their content as ideologically biased, financially irresponsible, and increasingly unnecessary. This approach is implemented through executive orders and policies that employ loaded language such as “woke propaganda,” citing questionable fiscal justifications like “cost efficiency,” downplaying societal value, and implementing disruptive measures that create instability for essential broadcasting programs, ultimately exploiting public media rather than leveraging its potential for effective public communication.

    Experts like Reporters Without Borders’ Weimers contend that the Trump administration has “shown a very strong disposition towards using whatever levers of power they have to punish those who oppose their agenda in any way.” Weimers emphasized to Project Censored that this targeting can affect public media outlets simply for “accurately reporting on what they’re doing.” The implications of these executive actions extend far beyond public media, he cautioned. “There is no reason that that would not also impact nonprofit media that publish content that the Trump administration does not like, even for-profit media.”

    Weimers warned of a troubling escalation, characterizing the Trump administration’s campaign against public media as “a slippery slope.” Once the government gains control over public media and broadcast licensees, he argued, “they are one step closer to getting their hands on the rest of the media as well.”

    Pickard told Project Censored that while the federal funding cuts will have a “chilling effect” on an already compromised media system, they also open the possibility of “building something entirely new out of the wreckage.” That wreckage is not merely financial—it is the collapse of a decades-old compact between government, media, and the public.

    But from that imminent destruction comes a rare opportunity to reimagine public media not as a government-funded institution vulnerable to political whims, but as a truly community-owned resource, insulated from both partisan interference and commercial pressures. Rebuilding cannot depend on Washington reversing course or a future administration restoring support. Instead, citizens must take action: establishing community-supported journalism cooperatives, developing hyperlocal news networks sustained by their audiences, and building media infrastructures accountable to neighbors rather than distant politicians or corporate shareholders. The Trump administration may have dismantled decades of public media investment, but it cannot destroy the fundamental human need for trustworthy, bipartisan information and community connection.

    Originally published on https://www.projectcensored.org/trump-admin-hijacked-public-broadcasting/

    The post Pulling the Levers of Power: How the Trump Administration Hijacked Public Broadcasting first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • On May 1, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,” instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to cease nearly all federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The order prohibited local public radio and television stations, and any other recipient of CPB funds, from using federal grants to purchase programming from these public media organizations and mandated a review of existing grants for compliance with the administration’s ideological priorities. The Trump administration’s attempt to cut public media funding is part of their “rescission” strategy—a process to roll back previously appropriated budgets.

    The House gave final approval on July 18, 2025, to the Trump administration’s plan to rescind approximately $9 billion in previously allocated funds. This measure included a $1.1 billion cut to the CPB, effectively eliminating all federal support for NPR, PBS, and their member stations. Following this, the CPB announced on August 1, 2025, that it would begin an orderly shutdown of its operations after the Senate-Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill excluded its funding for the first time in nearly sixty years. These actions are part of a broader initiative spearheaded by the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which aims to streamline the federal government, eliminate programs deemed unnecessary by the administration, and reduce bureaucratic inefficiency.

    While the administration claims its efforts are motivated by fiscal responsibility and safeguarding taxpayer dollars, critics argue that these moves are politically motivated attempts to silence dissent and reshape the media landscape to favor partisan narratives. Clayton Weimers, Executive Director of Reporters Without Borders USA, told Project Censored, “The administration frames the cuts as ‘efficiency cuts,’ but that is not necessarily the case. They frame it that way because they decided that’s a more palatable way to sell it to the American people. But at the end of the day, public media broadcasting costs the American taxpayer, on average, $1.60 per year, and the level of value that Americans get out of that $1.60 per year is tremendous.”

    The CPB, established in 1967 as a private nonprofit corporation, was specifically designed to insulate public broadcasting from political interference, with its charter expressly forbidding government control over broadcasting content while ensuring that over 70 percent of federal appropriations flow directly to more than 1,500 local affiliate stations rather than centralized bureaucracies.

    “It’s really important that people understand how public media is funded in this country,” Weimers shared with Project Censored. Local affiliates have the freedom to purchase programming from NPR and PBS that caters to their audiences’ preferences. He explained how Trump’s executive order essentially bans affiliate stations from buying this programming, thereby infringing on their First Amendment rights. Weimers emphasized that “it is up to the individual local independent stations what they want to show their audience on air, and they should make that decision based on what their audiences want to see and what their audience wants to hear, not based on what politicians in Washington think they ought to hear.” He challenged the Trump administration’s claim that public media is a biased tool of his political opponents, “Some of the editorial coverage might lean left and the audience might lean left, but it’s a complete mischaracterization. Public media in this country has over a thousand different broadcast, television, and radio stations. It’s not just any one thing. There isn’t one political line across all of public media.”

    Other voices in the media industry echo Weimers’s statements regarding the motivations behind the Trump administration’s CPB rescissions. Victor Pickard, Professor of Media Policy and Political Economy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, explained to Project Censored that public media was created to address gaps in commercial broadcasting and to ensure that all audiences, especially low-income communities and communities of color, would have access to high-quality, trusted content. Pickard warned that defunding public media will force communities to “learn that lesson once again” about the limitations of commercial broadcasting, which “will never provide all of the information and communication needs of a democratic society.”

    Lisa Graves, founder and Executive Director of True North Research, told Project Censored that the Trump administration’s cuts to the CPB are a systematic effort to undermine independent journalism, not address legitimate concerns about bias or fiscal policy. Graves explained that the targeting of NPR and PBS stems from coordinated and widespread disinformation and propaganda being perpetuated by the Trump administration. “These entities are important public investments that help bring national, international, as well as local news into our communities,” Graves told Project Censored. “The administration claims that there is political bias or partisan bias at these outlets, when in fact they are just covering the news. … The attack on public broadcasting is an attack on facts, truth, and journalistic independence. It has to be seen as such.”

    This strategy poses an Achilles’ heel: While the rhetoric employed by the Trump administration targets elite, national outlets, the most damaging impact will fall on the hyperlocal media infrastructure already struggling to survive. Many small-town, rural, and tribal affiliates rely on CPB funding and syndicated content from NPR and PBS to fill gaps in local coverage, provide educational programming, and serve communities with little to no other media access, otherwise known as news deserts. Eliminating this support could crater regional journalism ecosystems—leading to programming losses, station closures, and widespread layoffs that ripple down the media supply chain. In many conservative and underserved communities, where public broadcasting often remains the only consistent source of local and noncommercial news, the cuts could unintentionally harm the very constituencies that the defunding narrative claims to serve.

    Noting that public media receive only paltry funding from federal sources, Pickard called the defunding of the CPB a “tragic irony,” because it will “hurt individual stations, especially in rural and conservative areas in states such as Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Texas.” He explained to Project Censored that some stations depend on CPB funding for 25–50 percent of their budgets and “will likely go under if federal subsidies are entirely cut, leaving news deserts in their wake.”

    The Trump administration frames these funding cuts as fiscal responsibility, but smaller local news outlets view them as politically motivated attacks and part of a campaign to delegitimize public media and the services they provide. NPR and three Colorado public radio stations filed a lawsuit alleging that the May executive order is “textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination” in violation of the First Amendment. PBS, along with Lakeland PBS in rural Minnesota, also filed a similar lawsuit, disputing claims of bias and asserting that the Constitution forbids the President from arbitrating content. These lawsuits suggest Trump has far exceeded the expansive powers of the presidency, usurping congressional prerogatives and eroding free speech rights.

    Seth Stern, Director of Advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, told Project Censored that the Trump administration has adopted what he calls a “throw-it-at-the-wall approach,” where they challenge the Constitution despite knowing most cases will fail on constitutional grounds. However, Stern explained that the strategy behind this approach is to find any legal opening the administration can exploit. “They are looking for the case they win, looking for the one instance where the courts give them an opening, and once they have that opening, they are going to barge through it.”

    The Trump administration has adopted a multifaceted strategy to politicize public media by portraying these institutions as adversaries rather than recognizing them as informational resources or allies. Through rhetorical attacks, the administration frames public media and their content as ideologically biased, financially irresponsible, and increasingly unnecessary. This approach is implemented through executive orders and policies that employ loaded language such as “woke propaganda,” citing questionable fiscal justifications like “cost efficiency,” downplaying societal value, and implementing disruptive measures that create instability for essential broadcasting programs, ultimately exploiting public media rather than leveraging its potential for effective public communication.

    Experts like Reporters Without Borders’ Weimers contend that the Trump administration has “shown a very strong disposition towards using whatever levers of power they have to punish those who oppose their agenda in any way.” Weimers emphasized to Project Censored that this targeting can affect public media outlets simply for “accurately reporting on what they’re doing.” The implications of these executive actions extend far beyond public media, he cautioned. “There is no reason that that would not also impact nonprofit media that publish content that the Trump administration does not like, even for-profit media.”

    Weimers warned of a troubling escalation, characterizing the Trump administration’s campaign against public media as “a slippery slope.” Once the government gains control over public media and broadcast licensees, he argued, “they are one step closer to getting their hands on the rest of the media as well.”

    Pickard told Project Censored that while the federal funding cuts will have a “chilling effect” on an already compromised media system, they also open the possibility of “building something entirely new out of the wreckage.” That wreckage is not merely financial—it is the collapse of a decades-old compact between government, media, and the public.

    But from that imminent destruction comes a rare opportunity to reimagine public media not as a government-funded institution vulnerable to political whims, but as a truly community-owned resource, insulated from both partisan interference and commercial pressures. Rebuilding cannot depend on Washington reversing course or a future administration restoring support. Instead, citizens must take action: establishing community-supported journalism cooperatives, developing hyperlocal news networks sustained by their audiences, and building media infrastructures accountable to neighbors rather than distant politicians or corporate shareholders. The Trump administration may have dismantled decades of public media investment, but it cannot destroy the fundamental human need for trustworthy, bipartisan information and community connection.

    Originally published on https://www.projectcensored.org/trump-admin-hijacked-public-broadcasting/

    The post Pulling the Levers of Power: How the Trump Administration Hijacked Public Broadcasting first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The US State Department’s latest Human Rights Report condemns Venezuela for serious abuses. Weaponizing human rights, accusations are selectively applied to serve a destabilization campaign. In this article, a mirror is held up to Uncle Sam to see how well “America the beautiful” holds up to the same charges, while also exposing the role of sanctions, compliant NGOs, and military threats in Washington’s hybrid war on Venezuela.

    The carceral state

    The US report indicts Venezuela for “arbitrary or unlawful killings.” Meanwhile, in the land of the free, police killings hit a record high in 2024. Impunity is high with charges brought against offending officers in fewer than 3% of cases. The FBI itself admits that transparency is hampered.

    Prolonged solitary confinement, recognized as torturous, is widespread in US prisons and ICE detention centers, affecting over 122,000 people daily. A US Senate report on torture documented CIA abuses, yet meaningful accountability has failed. Hundreds of political prisoners languish in penitentiaries in the US and in Guantánamo, the majority of whom are people of color. Roughly 70% of local jail inmates are held in pretrial detention, often pressured with coercive plea deals, undermining equality before the law.

    The US has the largest prison population in the world (about 1.8 to 2 million) and an incarceration rate over 2.5 times greater than Venezuela’s. Even after release, about four million citizens remain disenfranchised due to felony convictions, disproportionately affecting Black communities.

    Freedom to protest

    Washington faults Venezuela for limiting freedom of expression. Yet, numerous US states have passed or considered anti-protest laws (e.g., “critical infrastructure” bills) that civil-liberties groups warn chill peaceful assembly.

    Reporters without Borders (RSF) observes, “the country is experiencing its first significant and prolonged decline in press freedom in modern history.” This accusation is particularly notable because RSF is strongly biased in support of the US and receives funding from the State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy. Arrests and detentions of journalists surged in 2024; schoolbook bans spiked across 29 states. In April 2024, Congress reauthorized and expanded FISA §702, enabling warrantless surveillance according to legal scholars.

    As the US-based Black Alliance for Peace observes, “domestic repression in the US colonial/capitalist core is imperative to support the aggressive militarism abroad.”

    This coupling of domestic subjugation with the international is painfully evident with the US imperialist/Israeli zionist aggression abroad in Gaza, while pro-Palestine advocates are suppressed at home. Zionist curricula are being imposed at all levels of education; at least half of the US states now require so-called “Holocaust education.” Pro-Palestine faculty, students, and staff are being purged.

    Washington’s accusation of Venezuelan antisemitism cites President Nicolás Maduro calling Israel’s assault on Gaza “the most brutal genocide” since Hitler. Its charge of antisemitism conflates Venezuela’s political criticism of the zionist state with hatred of the Jewish religion. If “antisemitism” includes Muslim Arabs, US culpability is so blatant that it requires no additional documentation.

    Meanwhile, the US accuses Venezuela of failing to protect refugees and asylum seekers. This projection does not deserve any rebuttal other than to mention that the US has a documented history of family separation of migrants and deaths in custody.

    Likewise, the world’s rogue nation does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and similar institutions, while reproaching Caracas for attempting to “misuse international law.” If anything, the Maduro government has gone out of its way to defend international law with initiatives upholding the UN Charter.

    Social welfare

    The US report scolds Venezuela for a minimum wage “under the poverty line.” Yet, its own federal minimum wage has been $7.25/hour since 2009; insufficient to lift a full-time worker out of poverty.

    A UN special rapporteur for human rights estimated that sanctions – more properly “unilateral coercive measures” – by the US and allies have caused over 100,000 excess deaths in Venezuela. Yet purported human rights NGOs Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRC), and the Washington Office on Latin American (WOLA) omit this glaring human toll in their reports on human rights in Venezuela.

    Predictably, they make nearly identical evaluations of the Venezuelan human rights situation as does the US-dominated Organization of American States (OAS) and the US State Department itself.  Their reports (AIHRWWOLA, US, OAS) either ignore or, at best, make passing references to the sanctions. No mention is made of the illegality of sanctions under international law – they are a form of collective punishment.

    In other contexts, the NGOs have acknowledged the horrific human impact of sanctions. Regardless, they were in a panic that the Trump administration might ease sanctions over the Chevron license, thus rewarding bad behavior. For these soft power apparatchiks of the US imperial project, the pain endured by the Venezuelans is worth it. WOLA has been particularly vocal about counseling against direct US military intervention, when sanctions afford an equally lethal but less obvious form of coercion.

    Hybrid war on Venezuela

    In his first term, Donald Trump levied a $15m bounty on Maduro, framing the Venezuela government as a transnational criminal enterprise tied to terrorism. This lowered the potential threshold for extraordinary US measures. Joe Biden seamlessly upped the bounty to $25m, which Trump then doubled on August 7.

    Evidence-free allegations linking the Venezuelan president to the dismantled Tren de Aragua drug cartel, the fictitious Cartel of the Suns criminal organization, and the actual Sinaloa Cartel (which is in Mexico) were conveniently used to justify invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which is supposed to be a wartime measure. This is coupled with the designation of drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) and periodic threats of US military intervention.

    This is from the country that is the world’s biggest launderer of illicit drug money and the largest consumer of illicit drugs. Even US agencies recognize that very few of these US-bound drugs move through Venezuela.

    Most recently, the US deployed an additional 4,000 troops and warships to the Caribbean and around Latin America. Venezuela responded by mobilizing its navy in its territorial waters.

    Leading Venezuelan opposition politician María Corina Machado expressed her “immense gratitude” for the imperialist measures against her country. In contrast, thousands of her compatriots took the opposite stance and marched in protest. Venezuela-American Michelle Ellner calls the US policy “a green light for open-ended US military action abroad, bypassing congressional approval, sidestepping international law.”

    Weaponizing human rights for regime change

    Venezuela is caught in a hybrid war that is as deadly as if it were being bombed. Washington’s strangling of its economy, making wild accusations against its leaders, sponsoring opponents, and threatening armed interventions are all designed to provoke and destabilize. Venezuela’s response is best seen as self-defense against an immensely powerful foreign bully that exploits any weakness, imperfection, or lapse in vigilance.

    The US weaponizes human rights to overthrow Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution. Its exaggerated or outright fabricated allegations are echoed by the “human rights industry.” Where problems exist, they must be viewed in the context of US economic warfare, which has strained Venezuelan institutions. North Americans genuinely concerned about Venezuelan human rights should be highly skeptical of corporate media reports and recognize the need to end US interference. Escalating provocations will only necessitate Venezuela’s greater defensiveness.

    The post US Human Rights Report on Venezuela Doesn’t Pass the Mirror Test first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The US State Department’s latest Human Rights Report condemns Venezuela for serious abuses. Weaponizing human rights, accusations are selectively applied to serve a destabilization campaign. In this article, a mirror is held up to Uncle Sam to see how well “America the beautiful” holds up to the same charges, while also exposing the role of sanctions, compliant NGOs, and military threats in Washington’s hybrid war on Venezuela.

    The carceral state

    The US report indicts Venezuela for “arbitrary or unlawful killings.” Meanwhile, in the land of the free, police killings hit a record high in 2024. Impunity is high with charges brought against offending officers in fewer than 3% of cases. The FBI itself admits that transparency is hampered.

    Prolonged solitary confinement, recognized as torturous, is widespread in US prisons and ICE detention centers, affecting over 122,000 people daily. A US Senate report on torture documented CIA abuses, yet meaningful accountability has failed. Hundreds of political prisoners languish in penitentiaries in the US and in Guantánamo, the majority of whom are people of color. Roughly 70% of local jail inmates are held in pretrial detention, often pressured with coercive plea deals, undermining equality before the law.

    The US has the largest prison population in the world (about 1.8 to 2 million) and an incarceration rate over 2.5 times greater than Venezuela’s. Even after release, about four million citizens remain disenfranchised due to felony convictions, disproportionately affecting Black communities.

    Freedom to protest

    Washington faults Venezuela for limiting freedom of expression. Yet, numerous US states have passed or considered anti-protest laws (e.g., “critical infrastructure” bills) that civil-liberties groups warn chill peaceful assembly.

    Reporters without Borders (RSF) observes, “the country is experiencing its first significant and prolonged decline in press freedom in modern history.” This accusation is particularly notable because RSF is strongly biased in support of the US and receives funding from the State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy. Arrests and detentions of journalists surged in 2024; schoolbook bans spiked across 29 states. In April 2024, Congress reauthorized and expanded FISA §702, enabling warrantless surveillance according to legal scholars.

    As the US-based Black Alliance for Peace observes, “domestic repression in the US colonial/capitalist core is imperative to support the aggressive militarism abroad.”

    This coupling of domestic subjugation with the international is painfully evident with the US imperialist/Israeli zionist aggression abroad in Gaza, while pro-Palestine advocates are suppressed at home. Zionist curricula are being imposed at all levels of education; at least half of the US states now require so-called “Holocaust education.” Pro-Palestine faculty, students, and staff are being purged.

    Washington’s accusation of Venezuelan antisemitism cites President Nicolás Maduro calling Israel’s assault on Gaza “the most brutal genocide” since Hitler. Its charge of antisemitism conflates Venezuela’s political criticism of the zionist state with hatred of the Jewish religion. If “antisemitism” includes Muslim Arabs, US culpability is so blatant that it requires no additional documentation.

    Meanwhile, the US accuses Venezuela of failing to protect refugees and asylum seekers. This projection does not deserve any rebuttal other than to mention that the US has a documented history of family separation of migrants and deaths in custody.

    Likewise, the world’s rogue nation does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and similar institutions, while reproaching Caracas for attempting to “misuse international law.” If anything, the Maduro government has gone out of its way to defend international law with initiatives upholding the UN Charter.

    Social welfare

    The US report scolds Venezuela for a minimum wage “under the poverty line.” Yet, its own federal minimum wage has been $7.25/hour since 2009; insufficient to lift a full-time worker out of poverty.

    A UN special rapporteur for human rights estimated that sanctions – more properly “unilateral coercive measures” – by the US and allies have caused over 100,000 excess deaths in Venezuela. Yet purported human rights NGOs Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRC), and the Washington Office on Latin American (WOLA) omit this glaring human toll in their reports on human rights in Venezuela.

    Predictably, they make nearly identical evaluations of the Venezuelan human rights situation as does the US-dominated Organization of American States (OAS) and the US State Department itself.  Their reports (AIHRWWOLA, US, OAS) either ignore or, at best, make passing references to the sanctions. No mention is made of the illegality of sanctions under international law – they are a form of collective punishment.

    In other contexts, the NGOs have acknowledged the horrific human impact of sanctions. Regardless, they were in a panic that the Trump administration might ease sanctions over the Chevron license, thus rewarding bad behavior. For these soft power apparatchiks of the US imperial project, the pain endured by the Venezuelans is worth it. WOLA has been particularly vocal about counseling against direct US military intervention, when sanctions afford an equally lethal but less obvious form of coercion.

    Hybrid war on Venezuela

    In his first term, Donald Trump levied a $15m bounty on Maduro, framing the Venezuela government as a transnational criminal enterprise tied to terrorism. This lowered the potential threshold for extraordinary US measures. Joe Biden seamlessly upped the bounty to $25m, which Trump then doubled on August 7.

    Evidence-free allegations linking the Venezuelan president to the dismantled Tren de Aragua drug cartel, the fictitious Cartel of the Suns criminal organization, and the actual Sinaloa Cartel (which is in Mexico) were conveniently used to justify invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which is supposed to be a wartime measure. This is coupled with the designation of drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) and periodic threats of US military intervention.

    This is from the country that is the world’s biggest launderer of illicit drug money and the largest consumer of illicit drugs. Even US agencies recognize that very few of these US-bound drugs move through Venezuela.

    Most recently, the US deployed an additional 4,000 troops and warships to the Caribbean and around Latin America. Venezuela responded by mobilizing its navy in its territorial waters.

    Leading Venezuelan opposition politician María Corina Machado expressed her “immense gratitude” for the imperialist measures against her country. In contrast, thousands of her compatriots took the opposite stance and marched in protest. Venezuela-American Michelle Ellner calls the US policy “a green light for open-ended US military action abroad, bypassing congressional approval, sidestepping international law.”

    Weaponizing human rights for regime change

    Venezuela is caught in a hybrid war that is as deadly as if it were being bombed. Washington’s strangling of its economy, making wild accusations against its leaders, sponsoring opponents, and threatening armed interventions are all designed to provoke and destabilize. Venezuela’s response is best seen as self-defense against an immensely powerful foreign bully that exploits any weakness, imperfection, or lapse in vigilance.

    The US weaponizes human rights to overthrow Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution. Its exaggerated or outright fabricated allegations are echoed by the “human rights industry.” Where problems exist, they must be viewed in the context of US economic warfare, which has strained Venezuelan institutions. North Americans genuinely concerned about Venezuelan human rights should be highly skeptical of corporate media reports and recognize the need to end US interference. Escalating provocations will only necessitate Venezuela’s greater defensiveness.

    The post US Human Rights Report on Venezuela Doesn’t Pass the Mirror Test first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • US director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said on Monday the UK had agreed to drop its mandate for iPhone maker Apple to provide a “backdoor” that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens. Gabbard issued the statement on X, saying she had worked for months with Britain, along with…

    The post UK agrees to drop ‘backdoor’ mandate for Apple appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Healthy societies revel in who they are. Unhealthy societies view themselves in terms of either an ignominious past, current enemies who endanger them, or internal elements degrading the true, virtuous nature of the commune and sapping its strength. The United States through most of its history was in the first category. Today, it is clearly in the second. Therein lies our national tragedy – and our precipitous slide into Fascism American style.

    This historic shift – with profound implications – has not been driven by tangible factors, originating within itself or externally, but strikingly by intangibles. The country has not experienced any traumatic shocks. No ruinous, humiliating wartime defeat and occupation. No economic crash. No civil war. No deeply rooted conflicts between Church and secular forces. Think of inter-war Europe: by comparison, the United States has been living in a benign environment. American exceptionalism.  Stresses and strains, yes – nothing, though, of the magnitude that could explain so drastic a transformation.

    YET, there is a pervasive feeling that things are not quite right, vague feelings of dread hover, that something awful may happen that we can neither anticipate, avert nor cope with, that America is ‘losing it.’ Free floating unease and apprehension. A United States that senses it is losing control, losing mastery of its environment and of itself, naturally will look for scapegoats. Why? Corrective action to straighten out what’s gone wrong requires constructive ideas, rigorous thinking, self-confidence. They don’t exist. Little is positive or constructive. Tearing down, destruction, perverting, corrupting predominate instead.1 The negative prevails. Let’s look at current scene – at public discourse, politics, the dominant themes, the level and type of citizen engagement.

    What marks the landscape are: emotions eclipsing thought, intellectual aridity, the erasure of all boundaries to words or actions, the triumph of crude willpower. The rapid success of the Trump-led MAGA movement in putting in place the building blocks for a quasi-fascist regime is stunning testimony to how potent are the forces of negativity, to how pathetically weak the resistance of institutions, of organized political opposition, of civil society.

    Instead of deliberate reflection, we round on “enemies” – abroad and at home.

    Abroad

    Today, there is near unanimity in the vilification of Russia cast as a reincarnate Soviet Union, in portraying China as a menace bent on supplanting the U.S. as a global hegemon by foul and illicit means, in denouncing Iran as fanatically dedicated in its attacks on American interests. Then, there are the Arab terrorists – an all-purpose label to be stuck on whichever groups in the Greater Middle East fight against American/Israeli domination and defy American dictation: inter alia Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS, the Houthis, al-Shabab. Al-Qaeda, which authored the trauma and humiliation of 9/11, has lost its pride of place on the enemies list now that Washington has joined with its Syrian branch to topple Assad, head of Syria’s anti-Israel Arab nationalist government.

    They are the hostiles who we say are conniving to bring America low. They represent an unprecedentedly multi-pronged threat to the national interest, to American self-esteem. They are assailing us ruthlessly in ever domain – military security, commerce and finance, our moral authority, even the political integrity of our impeccably democratic system by campaigns to disrupt and manipulate its workings.

    These propositions enjoy the allegiance of almost the entire American political class. Nary a single influential member of the Congress (Sanders, Yes; AOC, No) disputes them – as evinced by endorsement of Trump’s arbitrary sanctions warfare despite a Constitutional stipulation that only Congress has the authority to impose sanctions, by drastic boosts in the Pentagon/Intelligence budgets, by sustained applause for the homicidal fanatic who has lured us into a genocidal campaign against Palestine’s Muslim Arabs, and by blanket support for war preparations against the PRC. Not a single MSM outlet submits this hard core of the nation’s foreign policy precepts to skeptical examination. The major think tanks supply endless justifications. The only debates focus on tactics and priorities. Moral considerations are banned by common – silent – consent.

    [Stroll along Washington’s think tank rows of Massachusetts Avenue and ‘K’ Street and an attentive ear hears one uninterrupted declamation issuing from the minds that shape and propel American thinking about the world.]

    Noticeably absent is the ideological component. In the Cold War, the historic contest between democratic capitalism and Communism overshadowed all else. In its place, we have the contrived effort to promote a specious – and mortal – combat between Democracy vs Autocracy. In the American camp are such paragons of democracy as Netanyahu, Bolsonaro, Zelensky, Bukele (el Salvador), Mohammed bin-Salman, the Gulf sheikhs, and Abu Mohammad al-Jalani – ex-al-Qaeda emir installed as President of Syria. Democrat Netanyahu bombed Democrat Jalani’s capital Damascus a week ago. If Washington does anything to calm that intramural ruckus, Trump no doubt would cite it as the capstone to his fabulous record as peacemaker to claim the Nobel Prize. Donald Trump is the lodestar for all of these faux democrats, the cynosure of Democratic values.

    American elites and the citizenry overall seem to have no inkling as how far the country’s standing in the world has fallen – that we are seen as moral hypocrites and bullies everywhere outside the Collective West (its political class, anyway). That our reputation as a model of enlightened government and generator of public goods is shattered beyond restoration.

    We are living in a fantasy world of our own imaginings that is only tenuously connected to reality. In that fictitious domain, fixed consensus exists in believing the most outlandish – and reckless – notions. So, we are mistreated to an extraordinary array of misconceptions about declared foes and what we can do to subdue them. Most dangerous of these unsupportable propositions are those that vastly exaggerate – indeed, misrepresent – the threat that they pose. Those articles of faith, in turn, evoke extraordinarily extreme actions and plans for war. In the former category, we find these gems: Putin’s ambition is to wash his boots in the English Channel; Russia will crumble under the stress of sanctions and defeat by Ukraine’s ‘liberation’ forces; Putin’s regime will be replaced by a West-friendly, oligarch-led sober version of the Yeltsin-era set-up; Russian weaponry is significantly inferior to American weaponry; Russia can be split away from China and/or China split away from Russia. China is weaker than it looks; Beijing can be coerced into yielding its claim to Taiwan as an integral part of China – an agreed principle dating back 50 years, abrogated unilaterally by Washington; the U.S. has the upper hand in any economic duel with the PRC; therefore, we can impose a Maginot line of technological deprivation that will put an end to China’s challenge to American global dominance. A prideful India will hamstring its growing economy by boycotting Russian energy supplies at Washington’s command; prideful Indians eagerly will sign up as Sepoy auxiliaries in the American campaign to yolk China. Unlimited, unqualified backing for Israel’s imperial ambitions serves American national interests; there is no reason to modify that judgment in the face of its genocide of the Palestinians – nor should it be modified in the face of its military aggressions in Lebanon, Syria and its unrelenting (successful) attempt to embroil the U.S. in an all-out war with Iran. The answer to Iran’s resistance to Israeli-American hegemony in the Middle East is regime change in Tehran. Airborne attacks will trigger a popular uprising. American precision weapons can destroy Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles, its centrifuges and related nuclear facilities. {They have not. They never reached the inner chamber where the centrifuges were located – according to the most astute, neutral scientific assessment. Anyway, the High Enriched Uranium (HEU) and most of the centrifuges probably had been removed beforehand. Claims to the contrary emanating from the White House, the National Intelligence Agency (Tulsi Gabbard) and the Pentagon (Pete Hegseth) are outright lies referencing no pertinent data. Closer to home, there is the convenient belief that America’s drug addiction problem will disappear if we could dam the flow of narcotics from Mexico.

    Our faith-based supposition is that the outcome of these intertwined projects will be a stronger, more secure United States; elimination or grave weakening of our enemies; and enhanced respect/influence round the world. The exact opposite has occurred.

    Actions to achieve that outcome match the extremity of ambition. Policy elites are monolingual – they know only the lexicon of coercion, especially military coercion. Diplomacy is a dirty word, negotiations abhorrent.  We dictate, we make demands, we intimidate, we set deadlines – we don’t discuss. We envision the outcome of a successful negotiation as resembling the Japanese surrender on the deck of the Missouri in Tokyo Bay. An unwitting parody of Tom Lehrer’s “Send In The Marines.” Failure – repeated, ignominious failure – is filtered out.

    The consequences have been dire: costly for American well-being, murderously destructive out there, disintegrating of those international institutions and accords, arduously accomplished, that have lent a modicum of order and stability to inter-state dealings, and portents of nuclear war.

    Let’s turn our attention to the last mentioned. Over the post-war years, the great powers came to the common conclusion that there was no such thing as victory in a nuclear war. Therefore, they bent to the task of controlling “The Bomb,” i.e. taking concrete measures to ensure that there could be no activation of nuclear weapons by miscalculation, technical error, or accident. Stability and control were the aims codified in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTB), the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty – all now abandoned or ignored by Washington.

    They were complemented by clear understanding that the ‘rules of the road” governing their rivalry called for extreme caution in avoiding conflictual situations involving the U.S., the USSR or – later – China. Proxy wars, yes, but with restrictions. There was only one episode of Russian and American forces exchanging fire. That occurred in occasional dog fights between jets over the Yalu River separating Korea and the PRC. (A famous participant was Ted Williams of baseball legend).

    Today, Washington leaders – civilian and military – have deviated from the path of prudence. Senior officials speak openly about the inevitability of a Sino-American war over a Taiwan Straits crisis. That scenario tops the list of the Pentagon’s strategic planning aims and purposes. Military budgets and force structures reflect it. A slew of articles and documents are emerging from government security bodies, affiliated think tanks (e.g. the Hudson Institute), institutes and Establishment journals like Foreign Affairs that analyze in minute details how that war could be conducted under diverse circumstances. Most often, the prospect of it escalating to the level of strategic nuclear exchanges is minimized. Some even talk about which side would have an advantage in the event.

    The hard truth is that any conflict that entails American munitions hitting China proper has something like a 90% chance of escalating to nuclear war; 95% if the scatterbrained psychopath is in the Oval Office.2 That should be the premise incorporated in any plan for war against China. The casual way that these ‘strategists’ contemplate great power combat testifies to the fact that once minds, and emotions, take up residence in a fanciful universe of their imagining the prospect grows of their divorcing totally from reality.

    [“Ashes to ashes, dust to dust; if the bomb blast don’t get you, the fallout must” – pithy words of a renowned nuclear strategist]

    In regard to Iran, the United States has markedly increased the likelihood of its building a nuclear capability by giving up the international controls incorporated in the JPOA, by our implacable hostility and sanctions, and now by the heavy attack on Iran itself, an attack that has done little damage to Tehran’s nuclear capabilities while vastly strengthening incentives for it to go nuclear.

    Most alarming are the unprecedented American strikes against Russia proper. At this moment, and as has been the case for two years at least, serving officers physically in Ukraine play the critical role in the launching of a variety of missiles supplied by the U.S.: HIMARs, (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) and ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System). They provide the critical targeting Intelligence, they insert the codes that activate the weapons, and initiate the firing. Ukrainian military men do nothing more than “press the button.” In short, we are waging war against Russia – carrying out direct attacks. on Russian soil. Moreover, we have encouraged the British, the French and the Germans to do exactly the same – some employing American provided weapons whose use requires explicit approval from Washington. It is the Kremlin’s restraint that has prevented this provocation from leading to dangerous escalation – up until now.

    Set in this context, it should have been apparent that the Trump administration could not accept the humiliating defeat represented by a Ukraine settlement on any terms that met Russia’s core demands; nor could it engage seriously with Iran; nor could it consider reining in Israel; nor could it address China as an equal. No more than Biden or Trump in his first term.

    At Home

    The domestic scene offers a variation of this dismal reality. The Trump-led corps of suited militants and disciples are using coercive force of various kinds in random acts of destruction propelled by emotional drives for unfettered power, control and domination. The United States is being pushed down the path of Fascism American-style with stunning rapidity. Already, in critical respects we have ceased to be a Constitutional democracy.

    Daily, the Trump Falange takes truthless, arbitrary actions that defy the law and the Constitution, that shut down entire departments of government duly established by Congress, that suppress programs dedicated to preserve public health and other citizens’ services, that reject guarantees of due process at every level of government. The Bill of Rights is being gutted – the 1st and 4th Amendments already are null and void.  Trump cavalierly uses the Department of Justice as a weapon in vendettas against whomever he dislikes.

    These literally mindless assaults on state infrastructure put in place over more than a century are accompanied by attacks on scientific knowledge, on our most notable research institutions, on our universities. Trump and his henchman are literal “know-nothings” who indeed know nothing, and don’t want to know since knowledge is a constraint on the destructive impulse and the lust for absolute ‘freedom’ to do as they please. It follows that there is no tolerance for an official who speaks factual truth without first checking that it conforms to whatever wavelength the boss is on that day. Thus, Tulsi Gabbard is admonished that she will walk the plank unless she immediately contradicts herself on the “obliteration” of Iranian nuclear facilities. She, another D.C. careerist, obliges without hesitation. Both parties are pleased by the outcome. Thus, Erika McEntarfer – the poor woman who directed the Bureau of Labor Statistics – is kicked out unceremoniously because she innocently believed that arithmetic is politically uncontroversial. One party is pleased by the outcome.

    This rampage subjugates one institution after another like the German blitzkrieg overrunning hapless cities. In Congress, the Republicans are cowed into regimented automatons who resemble Prussian infantry or deputies to the old Supreme Soviet; the Democrats have reached the terminal point of their passive political suicide – comatose for so long that one barely notices their vanishing act; Barack Obama, who was the nation’s leader for 8 years, amuses himself  producing documentaries for Netflix while the country descends into perdition; the Supreme Court majority under John Roberts are a tacit, yet vital accomplice – rewriting the Constitution as suits them; the economic powerhouses – financial barons, business moguls, Silicon Valley buccaneers – are licking their chops at the feast spread before them by the Trump-Musk-Bessent pillage of the national economy; the MSM are shills or neutered; church denominations and civic society play mute or mumble sotto voce; Trump’s lucrative extortion-protection racket targeting blue chip law firms and Ivy League schools would make Vito Genovese blush; universities in particular are disgracing themselves in their abject surrender. The great debates at the highest reaches of our elite universities appear to be on whether to deal with Trump from a kneeling position or a supine position.

    A striking feature of this descent into unbridled autocracy, is that there is no ideological passion fueling it, no doctrine, no philosophy, no religious zeal. It is all about discharging emotions spawned in the depths of their roiled psyches. Just raw, crude tantrums committing flagrant acts of destruction and hurt. We must keep in mind that it is not only Trump. He has ignited and assembled a crew of wackos and misfits such a Robert Kennedy jr. who seemingly spends his waking hours devising ways to impair the health of Americans: cannibalizing the Center for Disease Control, slashing the National Institute of Health, restricting development and distribution of vaccines, suppressing scientific research at universities, demeaning those who actually know what they are talking about. Not surprisingly, this is someone who was diagnosed with worms in his brain and whose previous acts of civic behavior include strewing parts of a dismembered bear around Central Park in NYC Civilization has experienced nothing like this since the Dark Ages dropped the curtain on classical learning in the 6th and 7th centuries.

    [The Democrats, for their part, are equally non-ideological. They offer no coherent refutation of Trump’s amputations of the national government or his recission of every enlightened federal program initiated over the past 90 years. This tragic turn was foreshadowed by Bill Clinton’s public declaration in 1997 that “the era of big government is over,” and his promotion of the Bowles-Simpson Commission’s plan to cut deeply into Social Security and Medicare in his 2012 speech at the Democratic Convention renominating Barack Obama. Today, their message in opposition is nothing more than an anti-Trump screed.]

    Instead of ideology or doctrine we have a perverted Americanism. An artless blend of myth, doctored history and chauvinism, it has been inflated into an encompassing revelation that explains all, inspires all, justifies all. A one-size-fits-all creed cum faith that embraces every person, every circumstance, every act. Americanism acts as a Unified Field Theory of self-identity, collective enterprise, and the Republic’s enduring meaning. When one element is felt to be jeopardy, the integrity of the whole edifice becomes vulnerable. The drama of the American experience, our collective pageant of progress, used to be the great booster of morale and imparter of meaning. That tonic has lost much of its potency- in good part because it’s not the same country, and we no longer reign supreme in the world. So, crude attempts at restoration become the imperative for a shaky collective identity and impoverished individual self-esteem.  In the past, American mythology energized the country in ways that helped it to thrive.  Today, it is a dangerous hallucinogen that traps Americans in a time warp more and more distant from reality.

    [At the psychological level, this approach is understandable since it plays to the United States’ strength: overweening self-confidence coupled to military power – thereby perpetuating the national myths of being destined to remain the world’s No. 1 forever, and of being in a position to shape the world system according to American principles and interests. The tension for a nation so constituted encountering objective reality does not favor heightened self-awareness or a change in behavior. Today, there is no foreign policy debate whatsoever. In addition, our vassal governments in Europe and elsewhere either have a national interest in preserving the warped American view of the world (Israel, Poland) or have been so denatured over the decades that they are incapable 0f doing other than to follow Washington obediently – despite already having tumbled over a number of cliffs and staring at a potentially fatal abyss re. China and Russia]

    MAGA Dynamics

    To understand what forces are turbocharging the MAGA war on pre-Trump America, one must face squarely the abnormal elements in the movement’s make-up.

    A.      A cult-like movement such as MAGA can do without a god “but never without a devil.”3 For the neo-Fascist, the devil(s) on whom you focus your wrath is far more important than a prophet who offers a vision of a New Jerusalem or some other utopia. Just as the gratification of destruction eclipses any impulse to construct – other than restoration of some starry-eyed vision of an America that never existed.

    B.      There are Devils galore. Enemy states, clandestine networks of evil-doers at home and abroad, the racial “them,” and all who manipulate or facilitate them by not joining the paranoid crusade to purge those malignant forces. In a bizarre way so it is with the Palestinians whose tragic fate is to become the surrogate for all the above objects of scorn – permitting our complicity in their inhumane treatment. They are stand-ins for every social grouping that we – or some segment of us – hate, fear, despise, scapegoat. At once Islamo-terrorists, the Iranian mullahs, Russian saboteurs, Commies, drug cartels, illegal immigrants from inter alia Mexico, South America, Haiti, Afghanistan, Somalia, blacks, gays & transgenders, liberal elitists, abrasive feminists etc. etc. etc. All loom behind the Palestinian face in the mind’s eye of those in thrall to the demons of violent prejudice. When the mix of inchoate emotions reaches a critical mass, and demands discharge, they find a substitute for whatever fixates them. The unrecognized Palestinian becomes a blank canvas on which to paint the bête noir that obsesses you. In a bitter coda to this tale of depraved humanity, might there be vestigial bigots – in Europe and America – who in their twisted psyche project onto the anonymous Palestinian an image of “The Jew” – getting his comeuppance? For most, it is remarkable good fortune that the murderers and torturers are Jews – thus shielding them from stray pangs of conscience since we can congratulate ourselves on making up for the 2,000-years persecution of them.

    C. Displays of belligerence in word and deed tug on the emotional strings of those in the movement – even those who themselves lack the courage to act. Hence, the heroic savior is encouraged to raise the level of hostility and castigation of enemies in the rhetoric. He knows that “violence breeds fanaticism begets violence.”4

    D. The unspeakable has become the vernacular for Trump, his henchmen, his shock troops. Aggressive, hostile words – like violent deeds – nourish the lusts of the initiates while emboldening their prophet. Blind trust in the demagogic leader requires no collateral.

    E. In the light of the above, a fanatical mass movement can only intensify and reach new heights of extremity. It can be suppressed – but it cannot moderate. Once it reaches a certain threshold its own momentum will propel it to a climax of one sort or another – invariably a destructive climax.

    Conclusion

    Fascism or neo-Fascism does not emerge spontaneously from the depths like The Creature from the Black Lagoon. Conditions must be ripe, the ground prepared: combustible militants nursing their resentments must reach a critical mass, an inert populace must be numbed, a political class turned in on themselves, innate moral instincts sublimated, conventional norms of decency discredited. In this sense, Trump’s MAGA is the culmination of a degenerative process – not its cause.5

    We seem to have experienced a unique case of an auto-immune political cataclysm. The body politics’s instinctive mechanisms for reacting against (false) signs of a (fictitious) threatening invader become disoriented and begin to attack the host itself. A case of self-generated – if unintended – iatrogenic suicide. What was the perceived/felt threat catalyzing this process? 9/11 twenty-four years ago? There’s the puzzle.

    In truth, there are no tangible, overt threats to the American body politic which, by any reasonable measure, should cause such an extreme reaction. We must look elsewhere – into the minds and emotions of a disturbed society. One with a defective gyroscope. One where nihilism has blurred cultural and social reference marks, fostering a cult of selfishness – one of whose manifestations is the fashioning of fantasy worlds wherein delusional imaginings have no consequences – backing Trump as a sort of projected wish fulfillment – just as millions embark on a project of self -reinvention or play games of make-believe like ‘Fantasy Football.’ Those are the conditions that have generated the perversions, and the infirmities, that have led to the present perilous state-of-affairs.

    To be clear, we are not dealing with flaws of structure or procedure that could be remedied, mistaken policies that could be corrected, or sins that could be atoned. Rather, it is a pervasive corruption of our country’s societal software.

    If this interpretation is correct, there is little chance of a reversal or of rectifying the situation. Societies are incapable of close critical self-examination except, with great rarity, under the most extreme circumstances. A complete breakdown as Germany and Japan experienced in WW II. In those cases, it was made possible by the guiding hand of a relatively benevolent external party. We Americans are on our own – tragically, we are lacking the self-awareness to ward off disaster and to regenerate a measure of collective construction.

    Endnotes:

    The post America Meets Its Hidden Destiny first appeared on Dissident Voice.
    1    Nazism was a death cult. A very peculiar kind of death cult. For it reversed a Phoenix-like sequence by first announcing itself in grandiose construction projects, building autobahns, designing Albert Speer’s monumental public buildings as well as putting the Wehrmacht on steroids. Only then did it launch itself on the path of total destruction. First, the destruction of others; then the destruction of themselves and Germany. Throughout, its signature was the death head – Totenkopf – still seen as the emblem of Ukraine’s Azov units and among some Trumpite militants. Hitler’s own psyche entwined the drive for grandiose totems of power with intimations of self-annihilation. So, too, for many of his closest confidantes and fanatical followers. The Nazis are an extreme case both in the strength of their murderous impulses and in their readiness to enter into a danse macabre with Death.

    Aggressive cults dedicated to destruction without the suicidal element are more common.
    2    The other idea that has surfaced in academic strategic writing concerns nuclear warfighting. This hardy perennial has risen Phoenix-like from the critical dust several times. The latest iteration is set in the context of a conventional war between China and the United States. The analyst postulates that a “losing” China could revert to the use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNWs). This scenario defies credibility on multiple counts.

    Above all, the idea that nuclear exchanges could be constrained below a certain (undefined) threshold is unrealistic in the light of what we know about human behavior. The absence of any rules means that confidence margins in the assessment of escalation probabilities are extremely wide. In addition, it is nearly impossible to imagine a situation whereby the United States military defeats Chinese forces to the point of making the country vulnerable to American occupation or dictation of terms (whatever they may be). A credible enforcement of submission to any specific diktat from Washington would have to entail either occupation or threat to strike cities. The Army that had its hands full pacifying Baghdad is in no position to rule 1.5 billion Chinese. As to the possible attack on high value targets, it could be deterred by the strategic nuclear capabilities that China would retain.

    Nuclear strategy is a bit like Marxism or Freudian analysis or market fundamentalist economics. A lot of superior minds deploy their talents to concoct ingenious elaborations of received Truth that spin exercises in impressive abstract logic – but their conclusions are only tangentially related to reality. Thus, reputations and careers can be made – and much mischief done.
    3    Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, 1951, p. 85.
    4    Hoffer, p. 99.
    5    In 1968, Governor Ed Muskie, who was the frontrunner for the Democrats presidential nomination, saw his campaign collapse when he shed a tear in public in response to reports of how a critic had made slurs against his wife’s ethnicity. Similarly, Governor George Romney saw his candidacy for the Republican nomination falter after a remark that his earlier support for the Vietnam war had been due to a “brainwashing” by U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Saigon. Nowadays, the country elects – for the second time – a clownish Fascist psychopath who instigated, and pardoned, a violent assault on the Capitol. The United States manifestly is a degraded polity.

    [In Romney’s case, as Gene McCarthy quipped, a quick rinse would have sufficed]

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Photo: AFP via Getty Images

    Donald Trump came into office promising to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Now, six months later, his high stakes meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska may have put the United States and Russia on a new path toward peace, or, if this initiative fails, could trigger an even more dangerous escalation, with warhawks in Congress already pushing for another $54.6 billion in weapons for Ukraine.

    After emerging from the meeting, Putin correctly framed the historical moment: “This was a very hard time for bilateral relations and, let’s be frank, they’ve fallen to the lowest point since the Cold War. I think that’s not benefiting our countries and the world as a whole. Sooner or later, we have to amend the situation to move on from confrontation to dialogue.”

    Trump said he will follow up by talking to NATO leaders and Zelenskyy, as if the U.S. is simply an innocent bystander trying to help. But in Ukraine, as in Palestine, Washington plays the “mediator” while pouring weapons, intelligence, and political cover into one side of the war. In Gaza, that has enabled genocide. In Ukraine, it could lead to nuclear war.

    Despite protests from Zelenskyy and European leaders, Trump was right to meet with Putin, not because they are friends, but because the United States and Russia are enemies, and because the war they are fighting to the last Ukrainian is the front line of a global conflict between the United States, Russia and China.

    In our book, War In Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, which we have now updated and revised to cover three years of war in Ukraine, we have detailed the U.S. role in expanding NATO up to Russia’s borders, its support for the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s elected government in 2014, its undermining of the Minsk II peace accord, and its rejection of a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine after only two months of war in 2022.

    We doubt that Donald Trump fully grasps this history. Are his simplistic statements alternately blaming Russia and Ukraine, but never the United States, just a public façade for domestic consumption, or does he really believe America’s hands are clean?

    At their first meeting in Saudi Arabia on February 18, senior U.S. and Russian negotiators agreed on a three-step plan: first to restore U.S.-Russian diplomatic relations; then to negotiate peace in Ukraine; and finally to work on resolving the broader, underlying breakdown in relations between the United States and Russia. Trump and Putin’s decision to meet now was a recognition that they must address the deeper rift before they can achieve a stable and lasting peace in Ukraine.

    The stakes are high. Russia has been waging a war of attrition, concentrating on destroying Ukrainian forces and military equipment rather than on advancing quickly and seizing a lot more territory. It has still not occupied all of Donetsk province, which unilaterally declared independence from Ukraine in May 2014, and which Russia officially annexed before its invasion in February 2022.

    The failure of peace negotiations could lead to a more aggressive Russian war plan to seize territory much faster. Ukrainian forces are thinly spread out along much of its 700 mile front line, with as few as 100 soldiers often manning several miles of defenses. A major Russian offensive could lead to the collapse of the Ukrainian military or the fall of the Zelenskyy government.

    How would the U.S. and its Western allies respond to such major changes in the strategic picture? Zelenskyy’s European allies talk tough, but have always rejected sending their own troops to Ukraine, apart from small numbers of special operations forces and mercenaries.

    Putin addressed the Europeans in his remarks after the Summit:

    We expect that Kyiv and the European capitals will perceive [the negotiations] constructively, and that they won’t throw a wrench in the works, will not make any attempts to use some backroom dealings to conduct provocations to torpedo the nascent progress.

    Meanwhile, more U.S. and NATO troops are fighting from the relative safety of the joint Ukraine-NATO war headquarters at the U.S. military base in Wiesbaden in Germany, where they work with Ukrainian forces to plan operations, coordinate intelligence and target missile and drone strikes. If the war escalates further, Wiesbaden could become a target for Russian missile strikes, just as NATO missiles already target bases in Russia. How would the United States and Germany respond to Russian missile strikes on Wiesbaden?

    The U.S. and NATO’s official policy has always been to keep Ukraine fighting until it is in a stronger position to negotiate with Russia, as Joe Biden wrote in the New York Times in June 2022. But every time the U.S. and NATO prolong or escalate the war, they leave Ukraine in a weaker position, not a stronger one. The neutrality agreement that the U.S. and U.K. rejected in April 2022 included a Russian withdrawal from all the territory it had just occupied. But that was not good enough for Boris Johnson and Joe Biden, who instead promised a long war to weaken Russia.

    NATO military leaders believed that Ukraine’s counter-offensive in the fall of 2022 achieved the stronger position they were looking for, and General Milley went out on a limb to say publicly that Ukraine should “seize the moment” to negotiate. But Biden and Zelenskyy rejected his advice, and Ukraine’s failed offensive in 2023 squandered the moment they had failed to seize. No amount of deceptive propaganda can hide the reality that it has been downhill since then, and 69% of Ukrainians now want a negotiated peace, before their position gets even worse.

    So Trump went to Alaska with a weak hand, but one that will get weaker still if the war goes on. The European politicians urging Zelenskyy to cling to his maximalist demands want to look tough to their own people, but the keys to a stable and lasting peace are still Ukrainian neutrality, self determination for the people of all regions of Ukraine, and a genuine peace process that finally lays to rest the zombification of the Cold War.

    The whole world celebrated the end of the Cold War in 1991, but the people of the world are still waiting for the long-promised peace dividend that a generation of corrupt, war-mongering leaders have stolen from us.

    As negotiations progress, U.S. officials must be honest about the U.S. role in provoking this crisis. They must demonstrate that they are ready to listen to Russia’s concerns, take them seriously, and negotiate in good faith to achieve a stable and lasting agreement that delivers peace and security to all parties in the Ukraine war, and in the wider Cold War it is part of.

    The post US-Russia Talks: the Choice Between Peace and Escalation first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • As if President Trump intended to meet professional US mercenary Erik Prince halfway, US Attorney General Pam Bondi increased the existing US bounty on President Maduro—originally set at $15 million—from $25 million to $50 million for anyone providing “information leading to his arrest or conviction.”

    In late 2024, Prince, a professional mercenary, alongside Venezuela’s far right, promoted a plan to deploy a private army to Venezuela. He suggested that if the US raised the bounty on Maduro’s head to $100 million, targeting not only the president but also Diosdado Cabello and the entire government, they could “just sit back and wait for the magic to happen.” Prince and Venezuela’s far right even launched a crowdfunding campaign, Ya Casi Venezuela (“Almost There, Venezuela”), to collect the $100 million.

    In November 2024, Prince declared that after 10 January 2025 (Maduro’s inauguration day), key figures—including Diosdado Cabello (Interior Minister), Jorge Rodríguez (National Assembly President), Delcy Rodríguez (Vice President), Vladimir Padrino López (Defence Minister), Tarek William Saab (Attorney General), Cilia Flores (Maduro’s wife), and Nicolás Maduro himself—would become “criminal objectives” with no diplomatic protection. On 12 January 2025, Prince sent a message of support to opposition leader María Corina Machado, urging her to “Stay resolute.”

    Prince had pushed for the bounty to be raised to $100 million, but when the Biden administration ignored him, he secured backing from Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott, who share his objectives. On 20 September 2024, Scott and Rubio introduced the Securing Timely Opportunities for Payment and Maximizing Awards for Detaining Unlawful Regime Officials Act of 2024 (the STOP Maduro Act), allocating $100 million—taken from seized Venezuelan assets—to fund Prince’s efforts to depose Maduro.

    The US charges against President Maduro are not only preposterous but entirely false and slanderous. He is accused of being one of the world’s largest drug traffickers, a threat to US national security, and the leader of the Cartel de los Soles, allegedly responsible for shipping hundreds of tons of cocaine into the US while collaborating with “narco-terrorists,” the Tren de Aragua gang, and Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel. Venezuela’s Foreign Minister, Yván Gil, dismissed Bondi’s “pathetic” bounty as “the most ridiculous smokescreen we have ever seen.”

    Despite persistent propaganda about the Cartel de los Soles, drug trafficking, and “narco-terrorism”—used to justify labelling Venezuela a “narco-state”—the US has never provided credible evidence to support these claims. The DEA itself reports that over 80% of cocaine entering the US comes via the Pacific, with only 7% passing through the Eastern Caribbean (see DEA maps; notably, Venezuela has no Pacific coastline). This confirms Colombia as the region’s true narco-state, while Venezuela is, at worst, a transit route. The US also falsely accuses Venezuela of money laundering, despite the country being almost entirely cut off from the international financial system. And Mexico’s President, Claudia Sheinbaum, has just declared that Mexico has no evidence linking Venezuela’s Maduro to the Sinaloa cartel.

    Bondi’s bounty against Venezuela’s democratically elected president is part of a broader US strategy targeting Latin America, ostensibly centred on combating drug cartels but threatening far more drastic measures. The New York Times (08/08/25) revealed that Trump “secretly signed a directive ordering the Pentagon to use military force against certain Latin American drug cartels designated as terrorist organisations by his administration.” Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum responded unequivocally: “The US will not send its military into Mexico. That is ruled out, absolutely ruled out.”

    This outrageous US aggression against a Latin American head of state must be condemned unreservedly. The “pathetic” $50 million bounty consciously incentivises unsavoury actors to launch militaristic, murderous ventures—such as the 2020 mercenary incursion into Venezuela contracted by Guaidó. It marks an escalation in US efforts to overthrow a democratically elected leader, weaponizing bounties to force regime change.

    Trump’s secret directive authorising military force against cartels—effectively threatening unilateral intervention in Latin America—must also be unequivocally rejected. While ostensibly targeting Mexico, the policy could easily be weaponised against governments the US seeks to topple, such as Venezuela, Cuba, or Nicaragua (or any other nation, for that matter).

    The Trump administration is clearly intent on intimidating—and, given the opportunity, militarily intervening against—Latin American governments it opposes, using the “war on drugs” as a pretext. Worse, Bondi could issue similar bounties against other regional leaders. The US mercenary industry is well-developed, and such bounties would inevitably attract takers, further destabilising the region.

    When we consider the US’s highly aggressive tariffs against Brazil alongside its hundreds of sanctions targeting Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, it becomes clear that Washington is testing a new cocktail of threats designed to force nations south of the Río Bravo into submission to US geopolitical demands. This is classic US behaviour—with one key difference under Trump: the abandonment of any pretence behind hollow justifications like ‘democracy’ or ‘human rights’, though such rhetoric still features in official statements.

    The true objective is to stifle multipolarity and prevent Latin America from participating in it, all while reinforcing US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere under the guise of Make America Great Again. In reality, this is simply the Monroe Doctrine repackaged—an attempt to sever Latin America’s trade and exchanges with China, or more precisely, to expel Chinese influence from the region entirely. The abject capitulation of Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino, who withdrew from the Belt and Road Initiative under Trump’s threats of a US military takeover of the Canal—despite the economic costs to his nation—stands as stark confirmation of this strategy.

    Trump’s objectives stand in direct opposition to what progressive movements and governments across Latin America have sought to build: a fairer world without social exclusion, with reduced inequality and poverty, where policies prioritise people over private interests, and where universal rights to education, healthcare, and housing are upheld—all within a framework of strong national sovereignty that has enabled the region to resist US imperialist bullying.

    This vision entails:

    · An end to US lawfare against President Maduro and all aggression toward Venezuela or any regional government;

    · No arbitrary US tariffs against Brazil or any other Latin American nation;

    · The cessation of US military threats—let alone interventions—in Mexico, Venezuela, or elsewhere in the region;

    · A Latin America free from US meddling in its internal affairs.

    The struggle, then, is not merely about resisting individual policies but defending the very principle of self-determination against a US administration intent on rolling back decades of regional progress.

    The post What Lies Behind Trump’s Attacks Against Venezuela? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • For anyone who still thinks Donald Trump does not represent the interests of what is called “the deep state” but is actually the shallow or official U.S. state, it is time to think again. If he is not a figurehead for those alleged hidden forces, then he will agree to a Russia-Ukraine settlement on Russia’s fundamental terms – that is, a mutual security agreement that stipulates the pulling back of U.S./NATO forces encircling Russia, etc. – when he meets with Putin in Alaska this Friday. There will be no further delay.

    This, however, is extremely unlikely. Trump knows little but bullying and the use of the English language as a hammer. “I’m very highly educated,” he has said, without a scintilla of irony, “I know words, I know the best words. But there’s no better word than stupid.”

    On the latter assertion he is right: there is no better word than stupid when it’s applied correctly.

    During his campaign for the presidency, Trump used words more than fifty times to say that he would end the war in Ukraine “within twenty-four hours” of assuming the presidency. He could have accomplished this on day one by issuing an executive order (besides all those he did issue), stopping all military aide to Ukraine, but he didn’t. Seven months of game-playing have elapsed and the war goes on with Trump’s backing laced with doubletalk about how he is seeking peace in Ukraine, is a man of peace, is bringing all American troops back home, and of course he gave a grateful ah-shucks when his brother-in-genocide, Benjamin Netanyahu, showed him a letter nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    He fully supports the destabilization of Russia, overtly or covertly, as have his predecessors, and this in incompatible with any deal Russia can agree to when he meets with Putin in Alaska.

    This past weekend, and starting up again late Tuesday in the more conservative corporate media, August 12 as I write, CNN, the NY Times, and the Washington Post, three prominent establishment media (organs of propaganda) published their usual reminders to all presidents that they are watching:

    CNN: “Trump-Putin summit in Alaska resembles a slow defeat for Ukraine”

    The New York Times: “After Almost Losing Trump, Putin Gets His Ideal Summit”

    Max Boot op ed, the Washington Post: “Putin is setting up Trump for another Munich”

    For these media know that the Russians are coming still, as they have been for nearly a century, so don’t swim too far out into the Atlantic or Pacific, for they are waiting with Jaws to seize you. They are red and ravenous and have huge teeth.

    Some claim these articles, and many more to come, are an example of how the “deep state” is pressuring Trump to continue to encircle Russia and degrade its military and economic strength (even try to oust Putin, as Biden said) despite Trump’s sincere desire to end the U.S./NATO war against Russia as a means to peaceful cooperation. This would assume Trump is radically different from every U.S. president in the last eighty years (with the exception of JFK in the last year of his presidency) whose policies were all malignantly opposed to the USSR and then Russia.

    In one respective way Trump is different, for he has stepped straight out of an updated version of a Twain bitter satire or Melville’s Confidence Man, a dangerous ignorant liar whose mask hides yet reveals the agenda he serves so faithfully. The man, after all, was a reality-television star and has long reveled in radical reversals of previous statements and intentions.

    For example, in his first term, he often talked of withdrawing from NATO but never did; NATO, in fact, expanded under his watch. He talked about ending the U.S./NATO support for Ukraine’s bombing of Russian-speaking areas of eastern Ukraine, only to withdraw from the Minsk Accords and send military equipment to Ukraine to bomb those areas. A mimic of the severest neurotic, he reverses himself so often that it is obvious that it is a part of the strategic script he is performing. Confuse, confound, keep the audience is constant anticipation of the switch-back.

    It assumes as well that Trump’s support for Israel and its genocide of the Palestinians is somehow divorced from the U.S.’s overall geopolitical strategy throughout the Middle East, West Asia, Eastern Europe, Russia, and its desperate efforts throughout the world to counter the ascendancy of the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) as the U.S. debt skyrockets and its world dominance diminishes.

    Trump’s recent flim-flam plan is to pull a Richard Nixon Vietnamization hoax with NATOization of the war against Russia through Ukraine. I am convinced that the US/NATO war against Russia will not be ending unless NATO is dissolved, which Trump is not proposing. He only wishes to strengthen NATO with European money, not that of the US. NATO’s only current raison d’être is to destroy Russia as an independent country and create regime change there through multiple means. This has long been so. It is why the Obama administration engineered a coup d’ état in Ukraine in 2014. It is why NATO has existed for so long and has expanded. Open warfare in Ukraine is just one means among many they have used over the years. You can even “end” the overt war and continue the covert.

    If NATO is not dissolved, the undermining of Russia will continue under Trump, who may –  I emphasize “may” – recognize that the proxy war is lost on the battlefield, a fact obvious for years despite U.S. government and mainstream media propaganda to the contrary – propaganda so blatantly false that it raises questions about people’s gullibility, but not about the mainstream media’s lies. How many foreign leaders does such media need to call the new Hitler before people wise up?

    As the man said, “There’s no better word than stupid.”

    The post Trump Said It: “There’s No Better Word Than Stupid.” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The post The West is in panic as Israel’s plan for ‘full control’ of Gaza heralds a new Nakba first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Unbeknownst to much of the public, Big Tech exacts heavy tolls on public health, the environment, and democracy. The detrimental combination of an unregulated tech sector, pronounced rise in cyberattacks and data theft, and widespread digital and media illiteracy—as noted in my previous Dispatch on Big Data’s surveillance complex—is exacerbated by legacy media’s failure to inform the public of these risks. While establishment news outlets cover major security breaches in Big Tech’s troves of personal identifiable information (PII) and their costs to individuals, businesses, and national security, this coverage fails to address the negative impacts of Big Tech on the full health of our political system, civic engagement, and ecosystems.

    Marietje Schaake, an AI Policy fellow at Stanford University’s Institute for Human-Centered AI Policy, argues that Big Tech’s unrestrained hand in all three branches of the government, the military, local and national elections, policing, workplace monitoring, and surveillance capitalism undermine American society in ways the public has failed to grasp. Indeed, little in the corporate press helps the public understand exactly how data centers—the facilities that process and store vast amounts of data—do more than endanger PII. Greenlit by the Trump administration, data centers accelerate ecosystem harms through their unmitigated appropriation of natural resources, including water, and the subsequent greenhouse gas emissions that increase ambient pollution and its attendant diseases.

    Adding insult to the public’s right to be informed, corporate news rarely sheds light on how an ethical, independent press serves the public good and functions to balance power in a democracy. A 2023 civics poll by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School found that only a quarter of respondents knew that press freedom is a constitutional right and a counterbalance to the powers of government and capitalism. The gutting of local news in favor of commercial interests has only accelerated this knowledge blackout.

    The demand for AI by corporatists, military AI venture capitalists, and consumers—and resultant demand for data centers—is outpacing utilities infrastructure, traditional power grid capabilities, and the renewable energy sector. Big Tech companies, such as Amazon and Meta, strain municipal water systems and regional power grids, reducing the capacity to operate all things residential and local. In Newton County, Georgia, for example, Meta’s $750 million data center, which sucks up ​​approximately 500,000 gallons of water a day, has contaminated local groundwater and caused taps in nearby homes to run dry. What’s more, the AI boom comes at a time when hot wars are flaring and global temperatures are soaring faster than scientists once predicted.

    Constant connectivity, algorithms, and AI-generated content delude individual internet and device users into believing that they’re well informed. However, the decline of civics awareness in the United States—compounded by rampant digital and media illiteracy, ubiquitous state and corporate surveillance, and lax news reporting—makes for an easily manipulated citizenry, asserts attorney and privacy expert, Heidi Boghosian. This is especially disconcerting given the creeping spread of authoritarianism, smackdown on civil liberties, and surging demand for AI everything.

    Open [but not transparent] AI

    While the companies that develop and deploy popular AI-powered tools lionize the wonders of their products and services, they keep hidden the unsustainable impacts on our world. To borrow from Cory Doctorow, the “enshittification” of the online economy traps consumers, vendors, and advertisers in “the organizing principle of US statecraft,” as well as by more mundane capitalist surveillance. Without government oversight or a Fourth Estate to compel these tech corporations to reveal their shadow side, much of the public is not only in the dark but in harm’s way.

    At the most basic level, consumers should know that OpenAI, the company that owns ChatGPT, collects private data and chat inputs, regardless of whether users are logged in or not. Any time users visit or interact with ChatGPT, their log data (the Internet Protocol address, browser type and settings, date and time of the site visit, and interaction with the service), usage data (time zone, country, and type of device used), device details (device name and identifiers, operating system, and browser used), location information from the device’s GPS, and cookies, which store the user’s personal information, are saved. Most users have no idea that they can opt out.

    OpenAI claims it saves data only for “fine-tuning,” a process of enhancing the performance and capabilities of AI models, and for human review “to identify biases or harmful outputs.” OpenAI also claims not to use data for marketing and advertising purposes or to sell information to third parties without prior consent. Most users, however, are as oblivious to the means of consent as to the means of opting out. This is by design.

    In July, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s “click-to-cancel” rule, which would have made online unsubscribing easier. The ruling would have covered all forms of negative option marketing—programs that give sellers free rein to interpret customer inaction as “opting in,” consenting to subscriptions and unwittingly accruing charges. Director of litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, John Davisson, commented that the court’s decision was poorly reasoned, and only those with financial or career advancement motives would argue in favor of subscription traps.

    Even if OpenAI is actually protective of the private data it stores, it is not above disclosing user data to affiliates, law enforcement, and the government. Moreover, ChatGPT practices are noncompliant with the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the global gold standard of data privacy protection. Although OpenAI says it strips PII and anonymizes data, its practice of “indefinite retention” does not comply with the GDPR’s stipulation for data storage limitations, nor does OpenAI sufficiently guarantee irreversible data de-identification.

    As science and tech reporter Will Knight wrote for Wired, “Once data is baked into an AI model today, extracting it from that model is a bit like trying to recover the eggs from a finished cake.” Whenever a tech company collects and keeps PII, there are security risks. The more data captured and stored by a company, the more likely it will be exposed to a system bug, hack, or breach, such as the ChatGPT breach in March 2023.

    OpenAI has said it will comply with the EU’s AI Code of Practice for General-Purpose AI, which aims to foster transparency, information sharing, and best practices for model and risk assessment among tech companies. Microsoft has said that it will likely sign on to compliance, too; while Meta, on the other hand, flatly refuses to comply, much like it refuses to abide by environmental regulations.

    To no one’s surprise, the EU code has already become politicized, and the White House has issued its own AI Action Plan to “remove red tape.” The plan also purports to remove “woke Marxist lunacy in the AI models,” eliminating such topics as diversity, equity, and inclusion and climate change. As Trump crusades against regulation and “bias,” the White House-allied Meta decries political concerns over compliance with the EU’s AI code. Meta’s claim is coincidental; British Courts, based on the United Kingdom’s GDPR obligations, ruled that anyone in a country covered by the GDPR has the right to request Meta to stop using their personal data for targeted advertising.

    Big Tech’s open secrets

    Information on the tech industry’s environmental and health impacts exists, attests artificial intelligence researcher Sasha Luccioni. The public is simply not being informed. This lack of transparency, warns Luccioni, portends significant environmental and health consequences. Too often, industry opaqueness is excused by insiders as “competition” to which they feel entitled, or blamed on the broad scope of artificial intelligence products and services—smart devices, recommender systems, internet searches, autonomous vehicles, machine learning, the list goes on. Allegedly, there’s too much variety to reasonably quantify consequences.

    Those consequences are quantifiable, though. While numbers vary and are on the ascent, there are at least 3,900 data centers in the United States and 10,000 worldwide. An average data center houses complex networking equipment, servers, and systems for cooling systems, lighting, security, and storage, all requiring copious rare earth minerals, water, and electricity to operate.

    The densest data center area exists in Northern Virginia, just outside the nation’s capital. “Data Center Alley,” also known as the “Data Center Capital of the World,” has the highest concentration of data centers not only in the United States but in the entire world, consuming millions of gallons of water every day. International hydrologist Newsha Ajami has documented how water shortages around the world are being worsened by Big Data. For tech companies, “water is an afterthought.”

    Powered by fossil fuels, these data centers pose serious public health implications. According to research in 2024, training one large language model (LLM) with 213 million parameters produced 626,155 pounds of CO2 emissions, “equivalent to the lifetime emissions of five cars, including fuel.” Stated another way, such AI training “can produce air pollutants equivalent to more than 10,000 round trips by car between Los Angeles and New York City.”

    Reasoning models generate more “thinking tokens” and use as much as 50 percent more energy than other AI models. Google and Microsoft search features purportedly use smaller models when possible, which, theoretically, can provide quick responses with less energy. It’s unclear when or if smaller models are actually invoked, and the bottom line, explained climate reporter Molly Taft, is that model providers are not informing consumers that speedier AI response times almost always equate to higher energy usage.

    Profits over people

    AI is rapidly becoming a public utility, profoundly shaping society, surmise Caltech’s Adam Wierman and Shaolei Ren of the University of California, Riverside. In the last few years, AI has outgrown its niche in the tech sector to become integral to digital economies, government, and security. AI has merged more closely with daily life, replacing human jobs and decision-making, and has thus created a reliance on services currently controlled by private corporations. Because other essential services such as water, electricity, and communications are treated as public utilities, there’s growing discussion about whether AI should be regulated under a similar public utility model.

    That said, data centers need power grids, most of which depend on fossil fuel-generated electricity that stresses national and global energy stores. Data centers also need backup generators for brownout and blackout periods. With limited clean, reliable backup options, despite the known environmental and health consequences of burning diesel, diesel generators remain the industry’s go-to.

    Whether the public realizes it or not, the environment and citizens are being polluted by the actions of private tech firms. Outputs from data centers inject dangerous fine particulate matter and nitrogen oxides (NOx) into the air, immediately worsening cardiovascular conditions, asthma, cancer, and even cognitive decline, caution Wierman and Ren. Contrary to popular belief, air pollutants are not localized to their emission sources. And, although chemically different, carbon (CO2) is not contained by location either.

    Of great concern is that in “World Data Capital Virginia,” data centers are incentivized with tax breaks. Worse still, the (misleadingly named) Environmental Protection Agency plans to remove all limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, according to documents obtained by the New York Times. Thus, treating AI and data centers as public utilities presents a double-edged sword. Can a government that slashes regulations to provide more profit to industry while destroying its citizens’ health along with the natural world be trusted to fairly price and equitably distribute access to all? Would said government suddenly start protecting citizens’ privacy and sensitive data?

    The larger question, perhaps, asks if the US is truly a democracy. Or is it a technogarchy, or an AI-tocracy? The 2024 AI Global Surveillance (AIGS) Index ranked the United States first for its deployment of advanced AI surveillance tools that “monitor, track, and surveil citizens to accomplish a range of objectives— some lawful, others that violate human rights, and many of which fall into a murky middle ground,” the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reported.

    Surveillance has long been the purview of authoritarian regimes, but in so-called democracies such as the United States, the scale and intensity of AI use is leveraged both globally through military operations and domestically to target and surveil civilians. In cities such as Scarsdale, New York, and Norfolk, Virginia, citizens are beginning to speak out against the systems that are “immensely popular with politicians and law enforcement, even though they do real and palpable damage to the citizenry.”

    Furthermore, tracking civilians to “deter civil disobedience” has never been easier, evidenced in June by the rapid mobilization of boots on the ground amid the peaceful protests of ICE raids in Los Angeles. AI-powered surveillance acts as the government’s “digital scarecrow,” chilling the American tradition and First Amendment right to protest and the Fourth Estate’s right to report.

    The public is only just starting to become aware of algorithmic biases in AI training datasets and their prejudicial impact on predictive policing, or profiling, algorithms, and other analytic tools used by law enforcement. City street lights and traffic light cameras, facial recognition systems, video monitoring in and around business and government buildings, as well as smart speakers, smart toys, keyless entry locks, automobile intelligent dash displays, and insurance antitheft tracking systems are all embedded with algorithmic biases.

    Checking Big Tech’s unchecked power

    Given the level and surreptitiousness of surveillance, the media are doubly tasked with treading carefully to avoid being targeted and accurately informing the public’s perception of data collection and data centers. Reporting that glorifies techbros and AI is unscrupulous and antithetical to democracy: In an era where billionaire techbros and wanna-be-kings are wielding every available apparatus of government and capitalism to gatekeep information, the public needs an ethical press committed to seeking truth, reporting it, and critically covering how AI is shifting power.

    If people comprehend what’s at stake—their personal privacy and health, the environment, and democracy itself—they may be more inclined to make different decisions about their AI engagement and media consumption. An independent press that prioritizes public enlightenment means that citizens and consumers still have choices, starting with basic data privacy self-controls that resist AI surveillance and stand up for democratic self-governance.

    Just as a healthy environment, replete with clean air and water, has been declared a human right by the United Nations, privacy is enshrined in Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Although human rights are subject to national laws, water, air, and the internet know no national borders. It is, therefore, incumbent upon communities and the press to uphold these rights and to hold power to account.

    This spring, residents of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, did just that. Thanks to independent journalism and civic participation, residents pushed back against the corporate advertising meant to convince the county that the fossil fuels powering the region’s data centers are “clean.” Propagandistic campaigns were similarly applied in Memphis, Tennessee, where proponents of Elon Musk’s data center—which has the footprint of thirteen football fields—circulated fliers to residents of nearby, historically Black neighborhoods, proclaiming the super-polluting xAI has low emissions. “Colossus,” Musk’s name for what’s slated to be the world’s biggest supercomputer, powers xAI’s Hitler-loving chatbot Grok.

    The Southern Environmental Law Center exposed with satellite and thermal imagery how xAI, which neglected to obtain legally required air permits, brought in at least 35 portable methane gas turbines to help power Colossus. Tennessee reporter Ren Brabenec said that Memphis has become a sacrifice zone and expects the communities there to push back.

    Meanwhile, in Pittsylvania, Virginia, residents succeeded in halting the proposed expansion of data centers that would damage the region’s environment and public health. Elizabeth Putfark, attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, affirmed that communities, including local journalists, are a formidable force when acting in solidarity for the public welfare.

    Best practices

    Because AI surveillance is a threat to democracies everywhere, we must each take measures to counter “government use of AI for social control,” contends Abi Olvera, senior fellow with the Council on Strategic Risks. Harlo Holmes, director of digital security at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told Wired that consumers must make technology choices under the premise that they’re our “last line of defense.” Steps to building that last line of defense include digital and media literacies and digital hygiene, and at least a cursory understanding of how data is stored and its far-reaching impacts.

    Best defensive practices employed by media professionals can also serve as best practices for individuals. This means becoming familiar with laws and regulations, taking every precaution to protect personal information on the internet and during online communications, and engaging in responsible civic discourse. A free and democratic society is only as strong as its citizens’ abilities to make informed decisions, which, in turn, are only as strong as their media and digital literacy skills and the quality of information they consume.

    This essay first published here: https://www.projectcensored.org/hidden-costs-big-data-surveillance-complex/

    The post The Hidden Costs of the Big Data Surveillance Complex first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A memo written by the US Defense Department’s policy chief will allow US weapons and equipment earmarked for Ukraine to be diverted back into US stockpiles, CNN reported on 8 August.

    According to four people who have read the memo, the policy represents “a dramatic shift” that could see billions of dollars of weapons redirected to shore up dwindling US supplies.

    The memo was written last month by US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, but has become public ahead of US President Donald Trump’s planned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for next week.

    Items desired by Ukraine’s military that are in short supply in the US include interceptor missiles, Patriot air defense systems, and artillery ammunition.

    The post Pentagon Paves Way To Reclaim Ukraine-Bound Arms To US Stockpiles appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.


  • President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters after signing an executive order about the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games, in the South Court Auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus, August 5, 2025

    Trump’s threat of imposing a crippling 50 per cent tariff on all Brazilian imports to the United States took everyone by surprise, especially, considering the US enjoys a trade surplus with the South American giant (surplus it has enjoyed since 2007). Lula made it clear that Brazil would reciprocate in kind.

    Trump tariffs against Brazil are in line with his overall policy of applying tariffs on all countries in the world. Under Trump US imperialism seeks to establish a global system that it suits itself such that it can impose or change any rule any time it wants and attack any country it dislikes.

    As with many other global institutions, Trump, following in the footsteps of previous US administrations, is prepared to run roughshod over World Trade Organisation rules that US imperialism itself was central in establishing in 1995.

    Thus, his attack on Mexico is not surprising either, country with which it has a substantial trade deficit caused by its southern neighbour’s incorporation into US supply chain arrangements ever since the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).

    The US has had a trade deficit with Mexico ever since 1995, exactly one year after Nafta.

    To Trump’s chagrin, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has vigorously defended her country’s sovereignty and has skilfully navigated US provocations.

    To the charge of Mexico being a drug-trafficking hub, she has pointed out to US negotiators that the “the US itself harbours cartels, is the largest narcotic consumer market, exports the majority of armaments used by drug barons and hosts money-laundering banks.” She has also resolutely refused the deployment of US troops on Mexican soil.

    Back in January 2025, Trump threatened Colombia with sanctions and 25 per cent tariffs on all its exports to the US. When Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro did not allow US planes carrying deported Colombians in, refusing to receive them in military aircraft and handcuffed, Trump threatened to make the tariffs “extendable to 50 per cent [plus] exhaustive inspections of Colombian citizens and merchandise, and visa sanctions for Colombian officials” plus “sanctions on banking and other areas.”

    In response, Petro announced he would impose 50 per cent tariffs on US products entering the Colombian market. Furthermore, Petro, condemning the war on Gaza, argued that Colombia should break from Nato to avoid alliances involving militaries that “drop bombs on children.”

    By the end of July Trump announced 50 per cent tariffs on imports of copper but when he realised it would substantially increase costs for US manufacturers — making its price nose-dive by 22 points with US traders facing heavy losses — he was forced to abandon it. He amended the tariff to apply only on semi-manufactured products such as wire and tube, excluding refined copper (until January 2027). In 2024, Chile, Canada and Peru accounted for more than 90 per cent of US refined copper imports.

    On July 7, in a tweet Trump declared that Jair Bolsonaro was being witch-hunted by the Brazilian authorities. Bolsonaro is being tried for insurrection, coup plotting and his involvement in staging a January 6 Capitol assault-style riot against parliament and the judiciary buildings in Brasilia. Trump claimed Bolsonaro “is not guilty of anything, except having fought for the people.” Trump’s message sought to depict Bolsonaro as a political leader being politically persecuted, but nothing could, of course, be further from the truth.

    Lula’s immediate response was that the US president’s statements were an interference in Brazil’s internal affairs and demanded respect for Brazilian sovereignty: “The defence of democracy in Brazil is a matter for Brazilians.” And in a sharp barb, Lula added: “We do not accept interference or tutelage from anyone. We have solid and independent institutions. No-one is above the law. Especially those who attack freedom and the rule of law.”

    Trump’s attacks against Latin America are part and parcel of US imperialism’s efforts to destabilise governments it doesn’t like.

    Adding to the comprehensively tight sanctions regime being applied to Cuba and Venezuela and to a lesser extent to Nicaragua, Trump is now targeting Cuban and especially Venezuelan migrants, falsely presenting them as members of criminal organisations.

    And, in a human-trafficking operation run with far-right El Salvador President Nayib Bukele, Trump is sending hundreds of them to CECOT, El Salvador’s concentration camp.

    Reversing decades of US encouragement of migration aimed at weakening their governments, Trump has terminated the Temporary Protection Status (TPS) of hundreds of thousands of Nicaraguans, Cubans and Venezuelans, a key component of the ICE campaign of terror against Latinos.

    The Trump administration, following from his Democrat and Republican predecessors, is seeking to expand its military presence in Latin America as much and as quickly as possible. It has deployed troops on Mexico’s southern border; Ecuador’s President Daniel Noboa has succeeded in getting the constitution amended to allow the US to have military bases on the Galapagos islands; the US holds regular and massive joint military manoeuvres in Guyana (where it has at least one military base); and the US also has a number of military bases in Central America, Colombia, the Caribbean, Peru, and a new military base in Argentina.

    Though Trump’s tariffs on Latin America are chaotic and simplistic, they have a strategic objective: to slow down, reduce and if possible, eliminate altogether the drive to a multipolar world.

    In short, to stop China’s drive to foster a new geopolitics not determined by the weaponisation of the dollar, economic sanctions or military aggression. One in which relations are not dictated by coercive zero-sum games but by voluntary collaboration in mutually beneficial economic relationships.

    US imperialism (and the Trump government) find the ever-closer relationship and collaboration between the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac) and China simply intolerable. US officials repeatedly argue that China’s trade relations and co-operation with Latin America represent an existential threat to the US.

    Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua have forged strong links with China and so has Brazil. Lula was presiding over the Brics summit in Rio de Janeiro when Trump launched the dig about fascist Bolsonaro.

    Claudia Sheinbaum attended as an observer and Mexico is rapidly developing links with China. In Peru China has built the port of Chancay (a Belt and Road initiative) — the largest deepwater port on the western coast of South America.

    Honduras has cut ties with Taiwan and recognised the People’s Republic of China and Colombia has joined the Brics.

    Furthermore, China is the main trading partner of South America and the second-largest trading partner of Central America. Trump has threatened all Brics countries with 100 per cent tariffs.

    The US Southern Command recognises that China’s trade with Latin America has gone “beyond raw materials and commodities to include traditional infrastructure (road, bridges, ports) and ‘new infrastructure’: electric vehicles, telecommunication, and renewable energy.”

    Benefits never offered by the US to countries in its “backyard.” This ever-closer relationship explains Trump’s aggression towards the countries mentioned, to browbeat them economically and politically into drawing away from China.

    A US success story is Panama, where President Jose Mulino’s capitulation to Trump’s threats to retake the Panama Canal by military means led him to accept Washington’s pressure to exit China’s Belt and Road Initiative, “one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects ever conceived.”

    These contradictions are as a matter of course presented as the outcome of US-China rivalry, inevitable between these superpowers.

    However, such a framework is deceptive since the nature of the contradictions stems from two conceptions of how to organise the global economy.

    The US considers itself the “indispensable nation” which has always engaged in zero-sum games whose outcome produces winners (the US and its economically developed accomplices) and losers (the vast majority of humanity who reside in the global South).

    Trump’s tariffs intend to keep it that way, while Latin America’s orientation towards Asia, China and the Brics is correctly pushing in the opposite direction: to a fairer, multipolar world.

    The post Trump’s Tariffs against Latin America first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Black Alliance for Peace North South Project for People(s)-Centered Human Rights delivered a message to FIFA’s President and Head of Human Rights regarding the ongoing and rapidly deteriorating human rights conditions in Palestine, as well as current conditions in the United States that BAP believes makes the United States a dangerous nation for citizens and residents of foreign nations to visit.

    In that communication we made the argument that because of the ongoing genocide and the role of the U.S. as a facilitator of that genocide, as well as the unsafe and hostile conditions in the U.S. that has compelled a number of nations to issue advisories against travel to the U.S., we called on FIFA to ban the United States and Israel from hosting and participating in international competition, and to relocate the 2025 World Cup from the United States.

    The post FIFA: The Beautiful Game Cannot Support Genocide And Repression appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.