Subscribe to Counterpunch feed
Tells the Facts, Names the Names
Updated: 2 hours 6 min ago

Standing Up against Racist, Fascist, Nazi, Swastikas in South L.A.

Mon, 2018-12-03 14:40

The defacing of an historical mural on Crenshaw Boulevard, Our Mighty Contribution,” by placing swastikas over the faces of Black women members of the Black Panther Party, Thursday, November 29,  is profoundly symbolic and real–a material reflection of the U.S. white settler state out of control. For us at the Strategy Center, the fight against racism, national oppression, and our deep ties to and love for the Black and Latino communities in particular, and all oppressed people, are rooted in an internationalist, anti-imperialist perspective and the long history of Black and Third World liberation movements inside and outside the United States. During The Sixties, we all knew we’re fighting against “the white power structure” and agreed with Dr. King that “the United States, our own government, is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.”

Not surprisingly, if classically brazen and pathetic, the LAPD described it as “an isolated incident” —perhaps, with a sense of unintentional irony, they meant compared to their daily and conscious practice of brutality, racism, and occupation.  But let’s be clear, there is nothing “isolated” about it. Today, the Black Community in Los Angeles is under systematic attack by a two-party capitalist system that sees South L.A., as Professor Cynthia Hamilton observed, as land that is valuable but a people who are not. As late as 1970, a once vibrant, if embattled Black community in Los Angeles had a population of 750,000 members, 25% of the population of L.A.’s 3 million people.  Today, as L.A.’s population has grown to 4 million, the Black community has declined to 350,000 people—less than 10% of the city and county.  The defacing of the mural is the act of some racist thugs, and do not rule out conscious and organized right-wing organizations, but is also representative of U.S. and L.A. policies of gentrification and 24/7 police occupation. It is also reflected in the L.A. MTA raising the monthly bus/rail pass to $100 and then arresting and ticketing passengers—and singling out Black passengers, for “fare evasion” making it a crime to ride public transportation if you can’t afford to pay. Look at how many restaurants, stores, public places have virtually no Black employees as there is a “white list” against hiring Black people who the system believes are too independent, thoughtful, happy, and self-respecting to be the docile and obedient employees they seek–and can never find anyway.   This is also  The System’s Big Payback and White Backlash against the great sacrifices the Civil Rights and Black Liberation Movements for all they gave for the liberation of all people including the people of Vietnam.

It is hard to know where to start or finish as The System aka U.S. imperialism is now in such free fall that a raving, racist, proto-fascist is president and half the country–certainly the majority of the white oppressor nation–still enthusiastically supports his attacks on Mexicans, Hondurans, Blacks, Indigenous peoples, women, gays, and all the “others” who are in fact the heart and soul of whatever positive future can be built in revolutionary opposition to this dying empire.

So what in the world can we do? First, just feel bad, then terrible, then enraged at the defacement of Black art and Black people. Thanks to all who have worked to rebuild the mural—and then turn rage into far greater dedication and commitment to fight this system with all of our hearts.

* Give generously on Black Friday, and Black everyday to organizations working to help the Black community in South L.A. and throughout the U.S. and among many, big props to Black Lives Matter for calling the question front and center.

* Fight for Open Borders, Full Amnesty, and making human rights for all legally and morally binding for all residents regardless of citizenship

* Stand up to, misogyny, homophobia, attacks on Arabs and Muslims, attacks on and hatred against Jews, support the people of Palestine, fight racism and hatred in every form both aggressive and subtle—and remember, there is no such thing as a “joke” degrading any other people. When you are attacked with the response, “Can’t you take a joke?” the answer is, “Hell no you damn racist!”

* For those of us in the Movement, we have to truly cherish each other, forgive each of us our trespasses, and bring generosity of spirit into our discussions and negotiations especially when tensions are at their highest. If we don’t truly believe we need each other, which we do, believe in the strategic imperative of a united front against fascism and imperialism, which we do need urgently, we are doomed and we can’t blame Trump, or the Democrats, or the System if we are the problem.

The Strategy Center, as our small part of the solution, has built the Strategy and Soul Movement Center in South L.A. at the corner of King and Crenshaw,  to bring films, books, food, and transformative organizing to a community we love. We are building a multi-racial, Black/Latino led, movement for social, racial, and climate justice. We are fighting for Free Public Transportation, No MTA Police on Buses and Trains, No Police in LAUSD Schools, No Cars in L.A. and Stop MTA Attacks on Black Passengers. We send our deep solidarity and regards to our friends and allies at Community Coalition, CADRE, SCOPE, St. Johns Wellness, Black Workers Center, Black Lives Matter LA, Crenshaw Coalition Against Gentrification, CHIRLA, LACAN, Black Workers Center–to just name a few–and ask those working to protect and rebuild the murals and other forms of public and protest art in South L.A., South Central, and throughout the city to reach out to us to ask for help. We can assure you, we will respond enthusiastically/

These acts of public racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and homophobia are neither crazy nor random. They are systematic reflections of the ideology and strategy of a dying system.

The system is at war with us. The challenge to all of us is— are we willing to up the ante to build up our army and fight even harder on our side of the war.  Victory is not certain, but it is possible and urgently necessary.

With warm if broken hearts. We send our deep love to all.

Eric Mann, Barbara Lott-Holland, Channing Martinez, Elmo Gomez, Brigette Amaya, Stephanie Prieto, and your friends at the Labor/Community Strategy Center.

We welcome comments at


Categories: News for progressives

The End of Illusion

Fri, 2018-11-30 16:15

Photo Source Christopher Michel | CC BY 2.0

The following is the Epilogue from Jeffrey St. Clair’s and Joshua Frank’s new book The Big Heat: Earth on the Brink, available now from CounterPunch Books.

In the spring of 2017, the carbon dioxide readings at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawai’i cracked 410 parts per million, an all-time record and a frightening one. On Earth Day, climate marches took place in cities across the world. Trump’s policies didn’t drive the spiking CO2 levels, but they did propel tens of thousands onto the streets for a few hours of fun. Where were those people during eight years of Barack Obama, an oil and gas man of some distinction? Where were they during eight years of Bill Clinton, one of the greatest environmental con men of our time?

Has Donald Trump finally shattered our illusions, so that we can see clearly the forces—economic, political and technological—that are plunging the planet toward a man-made heat death? Is he, in fact, a kind of clarifying agent for the real state of things?

One can hope so.

Except one mustn’t hope.

As Kafka, the High Priest of Realism, admonished his readers, “There is hope. But not for us.”

Hope is an illusion, an opiate, an Oxycontin for the masses. Instead of hope, we need a heavy dose of realism. A realism as chilling as reality itself.

Twenty-five hundred years ago, the Buddha instructed us that the world is suffering, and indeed it is. He also advised us that the cure for suffering is empathy, especially for those living beings—among which we would include redwood trees, sea coral and saguaro cacti—which have no defense against the forces that are inflicting that globalized torment.

That’s where we come in. Defenders of the Earth need to abandon all hope before entering the fray. Hope is a paralytic agent. Hope is the enemy.

The antidote is action.

Action, however, is not marching in a parade a couple of times a year, featuring puppets, vagina hats and signs printed up by the Sierra Club©. Action is not taking selfies with a celebrity in the back of a police wagon after a designer arrest. Action is not typing your name on a MoveOn e-petition or voting for a Jill Stein-like candidate in safe states like Oregon or California. Action is standing arm-in-arm before water cannons and government snipers on the frozen plains of North Dakota. Action is hanging from a fragile perch 150-feet up in Douglas fir tree in an ancient forest grove slated for clearcutting, through howling winter storms. Action is chaining yourself to a fracking rig in rural Pennsylvania or camping out in the blast zone at a Mountain Top Removal site in the hills of West Virginia. Action is intervening when police in stormtrooper gear are savagely beating a defenseless woman on the streets of Portland. Action is jumping into the Pacific Ocean with a knife in your teeth to cut the vast trawler nets ensnaring white-sided dolphins and humpback whales. Action is stopping bad shit from going down, or trying to.

The time for protests is over.

Protests will not prick the conscience of the unmasked beast called Donald Trump. Trump has no conscience to arouse, no shame to trigger, no remorse to cultivate. Trump is a full-frontal menace, that dangerous object in the mirror that is closer than it appears. It is the old threat, coming at us faster than before and from all directions at once. An unchained beast that will not be moderated by regulations, social conventions or appeals to common decency.

We are witnessing the wet-dream of Steve Bannon—the Trump Whisperer—made manifest: the dismantling of the regulatory state. This new reality compels us—for those who are willing to look—to confront the shedding of another illusion, an illusion that mainstream environmentalists have been marinating in since the 1970s, when our most progressive president, Richard M. Nixon, cynically created the modern environmental regulatory state in order to split the anti-war movement, pacify the Left and smother a much more radical defense of the natural world.

The green regulatory state—as personified by the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service and the BLM (Bureau of Livestock and Mining), as well as thousands of laws, administrative rules and regulations, the meaning of which can only be divided by lawyers, lobbyists and professional environmentalists—has not slowed the decimation of native forests, the extirpation of wildlife or the poisoning of our air and water. It has simply codified and systematized the destruction, allocating the looting to a coterie of well-connected corporations large enough and shrewd enough to navigate the legal labyrinth for their own bloody profits.

At the same time, the creation of the regulatory state effectively neutered the once potent environmental movement as a real threat to the System. As their budgets swell, often fattened by the largess of grants from foundations linked to the fossil fuel industry, the big DC-oriented conservation groups become more and more complicit with the political fool’s gold of neoliberalism. Try finding a lobbyist from NRDC with callouses on their hands and a trace of mud on their boots.

As Trump begins the demolition of the regulatory state, we start to see how hollow many of Gang Green’s alleged environmental victories of the past—from coal mining and air quality regulations to endangered species protections and new national monuments—really are. They are being wiped out with a slash of the pen.

As the archdruid David Brower used to say: “When we win, it’s only a stay of execution, when they win it’s forever. Thus we must be eternally vigilant.” These days the corporate environmental movement is vigilant about only one thing: claiming fake victories in their sustained barrage of fund-raising appeals.

But the days of the laptop environmentalism are numbered. Trump is creating a battlefield where professional conservationists will fear to tread, a direct, face-to-face confrontation with the machinery of ecocide.

And we know who will rise to the call. The ones who always have in the past: the indigenous, the altruists and the anarchists. Those are the ones who will fight as if their lives depend on the outcome, because, of course, they do.

If we are to believe the sociobiologists, such as E.O. Wilson, the altruistic gene may only be present in three percent of the human population—may their gene pool increase! But, hell, that’s still three times as many people as the one-percenters who are running the show! If you want hope, there’s a microdot to swallow.

Small, scruffy and unruly as it is, we’ve seen the power of our movement in the past. When our backs are—often literally—against the wall, when the battle lines are clear from the immobilizing fog of liberal rhetoric and free from the timid advice of professional compromisers. We’ve seen it emerge from the Lacandon jungle to say enough is enough and overtake the streets of Seattle to shut down the World Trade Organization. We’ve seen grandmothers and housewives expose the toxic crimes of Love Canal and corn farmers shut down nuclear power plants. We’ve taken the international timber industry to its knees on its home turf, blocked strip mines, pipelines and river-killing dams. We’ve thrown monkey-wrenches big and small into the gears of the System. It has been done and it will be done again and again. No grant applications or protest permits needed.

As Ed Abbey used to say: there’s no battle more important, no fight more fun waging, no comrades more trusty-worthy than those in the trenches with us when we rise up together in defense of life on Earth. To crib a line from Leonard Cohen: “we may be ugly, but we’ve got the music.”

So draw a line and take a stand—almost any place will do, since the whole shebang is under threat—and let loose an old battle cry so that others will know where to come join you: Earth First!

Categories: News for progressives

Trump and the USMCA: From Free Trade to Gassing Migrants

Fri, 2018-11-30 16:01

Photo Source Jonathan McIntosh | CC BY 2.0

Last weekend, US Border Patrol agents used tear gas against hundreds of migrants protesting on the Mexican side of the border with the United States. The men, women and children who were gassed were part of the six thousand asylum seekers who fled violence and poverty in Central America by forming a caravan that has now reached the US border. In a related event, the leaders of the United States, Mexico and Canada will sign the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) at the G20 summit in Argentina this weekend. The two events are related because the migrants who were gassed at the border are economic refugees who illustrate a major contradiction in these supposed free trade agreements. In order to facilitate ‘free trade’ these agreements violate one of the basic tenets of the ‘free market’: the free movement of labor. Given this reality, the USMCA could be more accurately named the United States Migrant Control Agreement (USMCA).

Like all neoliberal free trade agreements, the USMCA has little to do with free trade and everything to do with facilitating profit generation for multinational corporations. They allow corporations to freely move their capital, profits, raw materials and finished goods across borders, but the one commodity that does not have freedom of movement is labor. Workers are commodities under capitalism, as any economist will acknowledge. Consequently, restricting the free movement of one specific commodity (i.e. workers) to cross borders violates a basic tenet of the free market. But restricting the free movement of workers is essential for boosting corporate profits—and, in addition to signing the USMCA, President Trump has sought to restrict such movement by threatening to build a wall, deploying troops to the border, and using tear gas against migrant job seekers on Mexican soil.

By not allowing the free movement of workers across borders, the USMCA, like the currently existing North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), ensures that corporations can exploit low-wage labor. Under NAFTA, an automobile manufacturer can close down an assembly plant in Detroit and lay-off thousands of workers who were earning $30 an hour and open up a factory in Mexico where wages are only $2 an hour. And while the Trump administration’s token protectionist policies, including aspects of the USMCA, claim to address this issue, in actuality they do nothing to remove the ultimate trade barrier that exists in all free trade agreements: restricting the free movement of labor.

If the USMCA and other free trade agreements were to actually create a free market then workers would, like other commodities, be allowed to move freely across borders to access better-paying jobs. Such a scenario would lower wages in the United States and Canada but raise them in Mexico because the movement of workers to regions where wages are higher would eventually equalize wage levels between the three countries. So instead of auto workers earning $30 an hour in the United States and Canada and only $2 an hour in Mexico, they might earn $15 an hour in all three countries.

While this would serve corporate interests with regard to lowering wages in the United States and Canada, it’s still not as profitable as keeping a surplus of impoverished workers trapped within the borders of countries where wages are often less then $2 an hour. This reality illustrates how neoliberal free trade agreements are not about creating free markets so much as establishing favorable conditions for multinational corporations to maximize profits through access to low-wage labor.

An inevitable consequence of the neoliberal free trade model is the immiseration of millions of people, many of who cannot find jobs, and most of those that do earn poverty-level wages. Not surprisingly, many choose to flee the structural violence that has been imposed on them by undertaking the arduous and often dangerous journey to a country where they might be able to earn a living wage: the United States. The thousands of economic refugees in the migrant caravan that is currently at the US border are merely the latest wave of asylum seekers fleeing oppressive neoliberal free trade agreements.

We only need look at the history of NAFTA to see how this has played out over the past twenty years. Following its implementation in 1994, NAFTA resulted in the dumping of food products by heavily-subsidized US agri-businesses onto the Mexican market—the most devastating of which was corn, the principal food staple in Mexico. Not surprisingly, unsubsidized Mexican farmers could not compete with the imported subsidized US corn, and imports from the United States quickly dominated the Mexican market.

For proponents of NAFTA, this scenario was not problematic. Those Mexican farmers who could no longer compete would, in theory, abandon agriculture and become wage labourers in Mexico’s manufacturing sector and begin purchasing imported food. And Mexican farmers did abandon their lands; in fact, they abandoned them in startling numbers. By 2006, it was estimated that as many as two million Mexican farmers had quit farming.

Many of Mexico’s displaced peasants joined the exodus of other poor people from various parts of the country to cities in northern Mexico that were experiencing a boom in the manufacturing sector during the early years of the trade agreement. By 2000, NAFTA had created 700,000 manufacturing jobs in maquiladoras, or assembly plants, and the massive displacement of peasants from the countryside to the cities ensured a sufficient army of surplus labour to keep wages low—an average of $1.74 an hour. But by 2003, more than 300,000 of those jobs had moved overseas, primarily to China, where the interests of multinational corporations were being better served through labour costs that were even lower than in Mexico. So even at its height, NAFTA failed to create enough manufacturing jobs to accommodate the displaced peasant population.

Given the devastating economic impacts of NAFTA on millions of Mexicans, it is no surprise that the emergence of the so-called illegal immigration problem in the United States coincided with the implementation of the free trade agreement. NAFTA’s displacement of peasants and its failure to provide them with viable economic alternatives forced millions of people to seek their economic survival elsewhere, and the most logical destination for many was the United States.

Throughout most of the 20th century, the migration of Mexicans to the United States constituted little more than a trickle. As a result, there were only 4.8 million Mexican-born residents in the United States in 1994, the year that NAFTA went into effect. By 2000, that number had almost doubled to nine million and it continued to grow after that. Many of those migrants who had crossed the increasingly militarized border were labelled ‘illegals’ when in fact they were economic refugees. Furthermore, according to US government statistics, more than 2,000 migrants died trying to cross the border during the first decade of NAFTA.

In 2004, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) extended the agricultural provisions in NAFTA to Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic. CAFTA has devastated farmers in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador in the same manner that NAFTA destroyed the livelihood of peasants in Mexico. The massive displacement of peasants in these Central American countries ensured a surplus labor force that has kept wages low in the garment sweatshops that assemble clothing for brand name designers.

By 2017, however, clothing exports from Honduras—the largest Central American exporter of clothing—to the United States had fallen by 24 percent. As happened with Mexico’s maquiladoras, garment sweatshops in Honduras moved overseas to even more profitable locations. And so, in addition to CAFTA destroying the livelihoods of Honduran farmers, thousands of garment workers have become unemployed in recent years. When the extreme levels of violence that have plagued Honduras since the US-supported military coup in 2009 is added to the equation, millions of Hondurans now feel that they have no choice but to flee the rampant violence, unemployment and poverty.

The thousands of asylum seekers in the migrant caravan are not “hardened criminals” as President Trump would have us believe. In fact, almost half of the six thousand people in the caravan are women and children. They are economic refugees fleeing the failure of neoliberal free trade agreements in Honduras and other countries in the region. Interestingly, while the mainstream media openly blames Venezuela’s socialist policies for people leaving that South American country, they never point out that the hordes of asylum seekers from Honduras are fleeing the failure of capitalism in that country.

So while President Trump meets with the leaders of Mexico and Canada to smile for the cameras, shake hands and sign the USMCA this weekend, thousands of asylum seekers will still be desperately waiting at the US border hoping and praying that the richest and most powerful country in the world will open its doors to them. Ironically, these migrants are seeking asylum in the same country that is responsible for their dire predicament. However, there is virtually no chance that they will be allowed to enter the United States because, as workers, these migrants do not have the same right to free movement across borders as other commodities.

And so the migrants remain on the Mexican side of the heavily-guarded border and watch the thousands of trucks full of new cars, televisions, computers, clothing and other commodities cross freely into the United States. The Trump administration’s USMCA—United States Migrant Control Agreement—will not change this reality; it will not eliminate the trade barrier that restricts the free movement of workers across the border. After all, giving these migrant job seekers the same right to free movement as other commodities would infringe upon the ‘right’ of multinational corporations to exploit their cheap labor in order to maximize profits. And if gassing men, women and children is necessary to safeguard those profits, then so be it.

Categories: News for progressives

 Trumpland: Get Ready for the Storm Ahead   

Fri, 2018-11-30 16:00

Photo Source Billie Grace Ward | CC BY 2.0

The feeling is palpable: with the Christmas recess coming to Capitol Hill, and then with Democrats about to take over the House, a whole lot of shit is about to hit the proverbial fan.

So far, this is only a feeling. It is anybody’s guess in what form (or forms) it will come, and exactly when to start ducking.

However, the circumstances surrounding the impending shit storm are clear enough, at least in broad outline, despite the miasma Trump and his minions exude.

For one, the Republican Party, especially but not only at the national level, has become the Party of Trump. The party Ronald Reagan fashioned is done for, finished, kaput.

This is not to say that Reaganites have gone extinct like, say, Eisenhower or Rockefeller Republicans. If anything, they are thriving like never before.  But the Grand Old Party is Trump’s, not theirs.

Before Trump, practically anything that diminished the power of the Reaganite old guard was welcome news. No longer.  The Trump Party is many times more odious than what it replaced.

It is stupider, more corrupt, more retrograde, and more lacking in fundamental human decency. Witness the family separations and the tear-gassing of asylum seekers and their children along the Mexican border. Being even worse than, the GOP in the Tea Party -Mitt Romney days is no mean achievement, but there it is.

The pre-Trump and post-Trump GOPs are fruit of the same poison tree – the Southern Strategy, the plan Pat Buchanan and Richard Nixon hatched in the aftermath of the civil rights victories of the 1960s to reconstitute the Solid South of the Jim Crow era within the bowels of the Republican Party.

It is no surprise, therefore, that they would both be contemptible.  But GOP racism and nativism used to be muted; that was the Reagan and post-Reagan style. The Trumpian version rings loud enough to revive the vilest specters of the twentieth century’s inter-war years. Even classical anti-Semitism, all but defunct for many decades, is back.

Had Reaganism gone down with the Reaganite GOP leadership, we could at least credit Trump for having done something useful.  However, under his aegis, just the opposite has occurred.  Trump is in the White House but the dregs of the old order are still calling the shots.

This is happening because Trump is an empty shell of a conman who only wants to work his con – the better to enrich himself and the idiot children Ivana bore him, and to stoke the flames of his own overarching, narcissism-fueled, vanity.

To that end, he seems to have found that, for him, the best, perhaps the only, way to move forward is to put unreconstructed Reaganites in key policy positions, giving them carte blancheto do what they want, so long as they pay him homage.  They run the show, but they serve at his pleasure and dare not cross him.

Thus the actual governing is being done by miscreants who think, as the Gipper put it, that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”   They also think, as Reagan did, that the way to deal with government is to disable it by impoverishing it, to “starve the beast.”

Their miserliness has limits, however; it only applies to those parts of government that serve socially useful purposes.

Abandoning all pretenses of fiscal conservatism, they think that the parts that keep the military-industrial complex in business or that keep all but the hyper-rich in line through the use or threat of force ought to get heaps of money thrown their way.

With admirable transparency, the pre-Trump GOP did its best to starve the beast in plain sight. Democrats were on board with that too. Thus every American president after Reagan followed his lead; they were all Reaganites under the skin.

Indeed, the most Reaganite president of all was Bill Clinton.  No one did more to implement “the Reagan agenda”; not either Bush and not Reagan himself.

Obama rode the Reaganite wave too, making a mockery of what Sarah Palin aptly called “ that hopey changey thing.”

His “drain the swamp” bluster aside, Trump hasn’t broken the mold either, though he did introduce a new wrinkle, making the Reaganite consensus even worse.  Being terminally lazy and having no interest in governance, he accomplished this feat by letting House and Senate Republicans have their way.

Sometimes they indulged their passion for retrograde symbolic gestures, as when they would vote time and again to repeal Obamacare; sometimes they used their power to exacerbate already monumental levels of income and wealth inequality and to sow the seeds of fiscal crises ahead, as when they got massive tax cuts for the rich enacted into law.

And sometimes, spurred on by Mitch McConnell’s villainy, they used their power to pack the federal judiciary with troglodytes.   Because judges hold lifetime appointments, the resulting harm will require generations to overcome.

Trump takes credit for any and all of this, whenever he deems it in his interest.  However, all he has really done is empower others to get their own pet projects through; there is nothing more to the so-called Trump agenda than that.

Like Bill Clinton’s, Trump’s Reaganism is opportunistic.  In Clinton’s case, this often involved traducing his own convictions; in Trump’s, this would be out of the question because the man has no convictions, only mean spirited attitudes and prejudices.  Trump is also lazy.  In the circumstances in which he is operating now, letting dedicated Reaganites have their way is the path of least resistance.

And so, he has fallen into what Fintan O’Toole, writing in the December 6 edition of The New York Review of Books calls “a strategy of incompetence.”

Trump puts second- or third-rate people in charge of government departments and agencies whose missions they oppose, and then, as much as possible in a system in which most federal workers still have union and civil service protections, they go on to staff positions under them with yet more incompetent, similarly minded underlings. Or they leave crucial positions vacant for as long as they can.

At some level, Trumpians seem to understand that what they are doing would be wildly unpopular if honestly exposed.  They realize that the more they starve the beast out of the public’s sight, the better off they, and Trump, will be.

There is an additional benefit for them in taking that route: by making government incompetent, they further undermine the loss of “faith” in it that made Reaganism possible.  It is a vicious cycle that, from their point of view, seems virtuous.

Needless to say, this is not at all what the slogan “Make America Great Again” suggests.

Quite to the contrary, bona fide authoritarians, fascist and otherwise, want and need a strong state — in extreme cases, a totalitarian state.  The non-state, market mechanisms neoliberals glorify diminish the power they crave.

Trump is with full-fledged authoritarians on police power, and on fawning over all things military, especially parades – he is, after all, a little boy in an old man’s body.  He is emphatically not with them, however, on according economic power to the state over market mechanisms; that is for neoliberal ideologues, not Mussolini wannabes.

For reasons that reflect poorly on their moral and mental capacities, this plays well with the Trump base.  It doesn’t even bother them that Trump cannot keep himself from bad mouthing military and veterans’ leaders whenever it comes to his attention that they have failed to pay him the respect he considers his due.

This has been happening a lot lately, because the Donald doesn’t seem to realize that he is doing himself no good.  Or perhaps he just enjoys playing with fire.

Going after judges is even more reckless, but, again, Trump cannot help himself.

It hardly matters that, on this, as on so much else, Trump is often more right – almost always for the wrong reasons — than the mainstream defenders of the old order who deride him for his indifference to longstanding norms of presidential behavior.

Trump’s antics elicit sanctimonious calls for decorum from all quarters.  Even such a generally deferential arch-conservative as Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked him for going after an “Obama judge” in a recent tweet, insisting that there are no Obama or Bush or Clinton judges, just good, hared working, impartial jurists dedicated to administering equal justice under law.

Could Roberts have been channeling the speech to the 2004 Democratic convention that brought Barack Obama to national attention, the one in which he declared that there are neither “red” states nor “blue” states, just United States?  Or perhaps the lesson just is that decorous minds think alike.

Another lesson might be that thinking decorously is not the same as thinking lucidly.

Would Roberts deny that there are now five, highly partisan Republican Justices on the Supreme Court he leads?  How can he not see himself on the same page as them?

And what about the judges Trump and McConnell are in such haste to confirm, and the Trump judges confirmed already?  The differences between them and the others, even those appointed by Reagan or the two Bushes, are not just political.  Trump judges are more pernicious.

No doubt, Trump is counting on them to keep him out of prison.  Even so, attacking the referee, while the game is still in process, is not a wise move, especially insofar as the referees are committed to upholding the dignity of the office they hold.  Roberts plainly is; some of the others surely are as well.

It is not impossible that Trump’s attacks on judges will prove too much even for the two Supremes Trump has inflicted upon us, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and for other Trump judicial appointees.  If so, the Donald might have inadvertently impeded the illiberal drift of the policies he encourages.  What a magnificent irony that would be!

Trump’s attack on truth tellers and on truth could backfire as well.   To keep his base on board, the conman needs to keep his marks ignorant and confused.  He needs them to think that, when the news about him is devastating, it must be “fake,” and therefore cannot be believed; but that when it is laudatory, it is the gospel truth.  Good luck with that.

Needless to say, not all media are, by Trump’s lights, “enemies of the people.”   Media that glorify him and do him yeoman service are beyond reproach.

The irony, of course, is that Trump is a creature of the media he derides.  He did not get to where he now is just by “starring” in the low-grade reality TV shows dear to viewers in the Fox News demographic.  He got there because “respectable” media report on his antics 24/7, and because, for people whose livelihoods depend on flimflamming the gullible, there is, as P.T. Barnum famously put it, “no such thing as bad publicity.”

Corporate media’s love-hate relationship with the Donald is complicated because Trump is good for the ratings upon which they depend, and because, despite all that he has done to undermine the majesty of the office he holds, people in media still harbor respect for the presidency, even as they despise the president himself.

They therefore report on Trump’s doings as if the whole world revolved around them.  In a way, they do, even though, on the merits, Trump is not worth being taken seriously at all.  However that may be, were there ever to be a final reckoning, CNN and MSNBC would likely be found as culpable for bringing on the Age of Trump as Trump TV (Fox News).

With his “maybe he (MBS, Mohammad bin Salman) did, maybe he didn’t” line on ordering the murder and dismemberment of U.S. resident and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Trump now seems to have reached a new low in fatuous prevarications and abject immorality.

The truth is obvious but inconvenient — for the death merchants and masters of war that comprise our military-industrial complex, for the Trump and Kushner families whose businesses depend on good relations with Saudi Arabia, and for the likes of Sheldon Adelson and Benjamin Netanyahu who salivate at the thought of war with Iran.

After Trump himself, it is practically axiomatic in Trumpland that their will be done!  Trump would therefore have Congress cut MBS endless slack.

Khashoggi was just a journalist, after all, a member of a community that, at its best, purveys inconvenient truths, and is therefore to be despised.

Moreover, he was on the wrong side of conflicts within the Saudi royal family, and we mustn’t cross them.

Is this the kind of thinking that will govern American diplomacy in the months and years ahead?  In all likelihood, the answer is Yes – not so much because de-Trumpification, if and when it get underway, will be a long and arduous process, but also because Democrats vilify truth tellers too.

Much as their Reaganism is less overt but sometimes more effective than the Republican kind, their war on refractory journalists who insist on telling it like it is, even when guardians of the status quo find that upsetting, can sometimes be just as horrendous.

A case in point is the way that MSNBC and CNN go after Russia Today, a purveyor of news and features many times more intelligent and interesting than the Dreck they put on offer, and no more propagandistic.  Even its “production values” are better.

And then there is their relentless vilification of Julian Assange, holed up for years in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, just for revealing information embarrassing to the Obama administration, especially Hillary Clinton.

Rachel Maddow cannot say his name without sneering, and most of the other talking heads, disembodied voices, and feckless scribblers on MSNBC, CNN, NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, and the rest are even worse.  For them, it is beyond dispute, for reasons that only they know, that Wikileaks is the devil’s – or perhaps Vladimir Putin’s – handiwork.

And remember Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and the other whistleblowers in the Democratic Party’s crosshairs.  Compared to some of them, Khashoggi didn’t get such a bad deal.

The jury is out on the salvageability of the Clintonite – Pelosi and Schumer led — Democratic Party, though, despite a few hopeful signs, the likelihood is strong that, now that the midterms are over, not nearly enough will change to make the Democratic Party good for anything more than not being the GOP.

This should become clear soon enough, but first we have the weeks before Christmas to endure.

Categories: News for progressives

Shameless Hypocrisy: Lessons of the Great Khashoggi Kill Story

Fri, 2018-11-30 15:59

The Jamal Khashoggi kill drama was instructive regarding the shameless imperial hypocrisy of the United States’ media and politics culture. Before it disappears completely down Orwell’s memory hole (if it hasn’t already), let’s review some of the key lessons.

Unworthy Victims

Note the disparity between the huge attention corporate American media gave to Saudi Arabia’s killing of one man and the scant consideration that media granted the Saudi kingdom’s U.S.-funded and U.S.-equipped crucifixion of Yemen.  The dominant media was rightly horrified by the murder and vivisection of Khashoggi, ordered by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammad bin-Salman (MbS).  But that same media couldn’t (and still can’t) muster more than an occasional hint of indignation over the systematic starvation, sickening, maiming, and murder of hundreds of thousands of Yeminis.

What’s this discrepancy about? On one side, it’s simple. The Yemeni multitudes are classic “unworthy victims” in U.S. media’s foreign affairs coverage and commentary.  They are casualties on the wrong end of the guns and bomb and missile sites owned and operated by the U.S. and its client states and allies.

As Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky first famously demonstrated in the 1980s, the so-called mainstreamU.S. media “manufactures consent” to U.S. imperialism by reserving “worthy victim” status to U.S.-Americans and to people and nations allied with U.S. foreign policy.  The horrific Saudi regime (possibly the world’s most reactionary government) is a critical and longstanding U.S. client.  Its Yemini prey are therefore inherently “unworthy victims” (Chomsky and Herman) in reigning U.S. media.

Things would be different if Yeminis were being attacked by states designated as U.S. enemies or rivals: Iran, Syria, Russia, and/or China.  In that case, U.S.-American media consumers would be hearing a great deal about the suffering masses of Yemen.

How Jamal Khashoggi Became a Worthy Victim

Yes, but what about Khashoggi?  How did a “dissident Saudi journalist” slaughtered by the U.S.-backed Saudi kingdom in Turkey become such a high-profile worthy victimin establishment U.S. media? Four reasons.

First, Khashoggi, no radical or anti-imperialist, was a Washington Post journalist with residential status in the U.S. at the time of his death. No true dissident, he was an at least honorary member of the U.S.-imperial press corps.  After many years functioning as a conservative ally of Saudi princes before being forced into exile in opposition to MbS’s imposition of one-man rule in Riyadh, Khashoggi was part of the American media consent manufactory. While he may have gotten on the wrong side of MbS, he was on board with the U.S. imperial establishment, for whom the Postis a virtual house organ.

For mainstream U.S. journalists and reporters, Khashoggi was a comrade – a fellow member of a profession that the creeping fascist Trump calls “the enemy of the people.” As California State University political scientist As’ad AbuKhalil recently explained on the Real News Network (RNN):

“Jamal Khashoggi was seen as…one of their own, as one of the natives who was agreeable. He never challenged their coverage of the Middle East. They liked that. They also liked that he never spoke about Palestine in the paper, never questioned assumptions about American foreign policy, and didn’t want to make it a big issue. In their conflict with the [Trump] administration, Khashoggi was convenient.”

“…the Saudi regime is saying that [the Khashoggi murder] is used…by media and Democrats who do not like Trump as a way to embarrass him…They are not farfetched on that line. …It is not that the media has suddenly discovered that, lo and behold, there is a government which kills journalists….in the last few months, the Israelis have killed journalists who are wearing, literally, signs that they were press, they work for the press, and we saw no outcry.”

Second, there was the elaborate and ghastly nature of Khashoggi’s literal butchering, conducted by a fifteen-person kill-team sent by the rabid MbS and including the Saudi kingdom’s leading forensic specialist. This grisly story appealed to the prurient sentiments of a media and viewing public conditioned by years of American law and order television to relish a hair-rising CSI murder plot like the vivisection of an exiled journalist in one of his homeland’s foreign embassies. The international palace intrigue of it all also helped drive interest and ratings.

Third, there was division within the U.S. foreign policy-making class over who should sit atop the Saudi regime. The Council on Foreign Relations-Atlantic Council- Brookings Institution-Wilson Center-CIA-New York TimesWashington Postestablishment was displeased with the reckless and immature MbS.  It had not turned against the entire Saudi regime, which it sees as an essential lynchpin of U.S. wealth and global power.  But the “deep state” establishment preferred a less impetuous and potentially destabilizing leader at the head of the client state. Its media was therefore happy to report and denounce the prince’s murder of Khashoggi.

By contrast, Trump formed an ugly bond with MbS, who shares Trump’s taste for one-man decree.  The orange monstrosity revoltingly but predictably gave credence to the Crown Prince’s unbelievable denial of responsibility (“Maybe he did it, maybe he didn’t,” Trump said, as if there was any serious doubt).

Particularly relevant here is the conflict between Trump’s personal agenda and the U.S. “intelligence community’s” perception of what best serves U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East.  As AbuKhali told RNN ten days ago:

“Donald Trump wants what is best for his administration. He has somebody, he has Mohammed bin Salman, as he best can have him. He is holding him by the neck. And if he survives, he — Mohammed bin Salman — will be greatly indebted to Trump, and to [Israel Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, because those two stood by him and kept him afloat. And because of that situation, Mohammad bin Salman will be obligated to make so many concessions — political, military, and financial — to the United States, and even to Israel. Some of it would be more direct now. Perhaps he would even visit the Israeli occupation state…On the other hand, the intelligence agencies…do not think that Mohamed bin Salman is capable of steering the regime in a direction that is more in the interest of the stability of the regime. As a result, they would rather make a change in order to save the regime. They worry that bin Salman is too reckless, and his thinking is too precarious, which endangered American interests in that region” (emphasis added).

Fourth, the prominence of the Khashoggi murder story was driven partly by the fact that another key US-allied state, Turkey, blew the whistle – replete with video and audio evidence – on the killing, committed in Istanbul.  The distinction between worthy and unworthy victims can get muddled when the media reports on incidents involving conflict between two different and powerful client states.

Things Missing from the Mainstream Critique

Establishment non-FOX U.S. reporters and commentators were rightly critical of Trump’s morally repugnant defense of MbS on the grounds that the Saudis aid the U.S. by buying U.S. arms, selling the U.S. cheap oil, and helping the U.S. and Israel “contain” supposedly terrorist and expansionist Iran.

As numerous reporters, columnists, and cable news talking heads pointed out, Trump’s claims that Saudi military purchases supported “500,000” or even “a million” U.S. jobs were absurdly exaggerated.

Equally false, establishment media reported, was Trump’s claim that the CIA had little more than a “feeling” that MbS ordered Khashoggi’s killing. The Agency was quite certain about the Crown Prince’s guilt.

The corporate media rightly questioned Trump’s claim that the Saudis would turn to China and/or Russia for military supplies if the U.S. pulled back from MbS.  The Saudi military is locked into U.S.-made weapons systems and will remain so for many years.

Some “mainstream” commentators have correctly noted that Trump was wrong to equate defense of MbS with the US alliance with the Saudi Arabia.  Getting rid of MbS would not mean scrapping Washington’s sponsorship of that horrendous, head-chopping kingdom.

Many imperial pundits and talking heads raised legitimate concerns about Trump’s open sacrifice of morality on the altar of global realpolitik, profit, jobs, and military sales. They accused the president of selling the nation’s “soul” for economic and strategic advantage.

Notice, however, what was missing in these critiques. They included no reflection on how minor a matter Khashoggi’s terrible death is when compared to the Saudis’ much bigger and U.S.-backed war-crimes in Yemen, where Riyadh’s aggression has created one of the greatest humanitarian catastrophes in recent history.

They avoided the complete absurdity of Washington’s demonization of supposedly terrorist and expansionist Iran, which is a peaceful model of democracy and women’s rights by comparison with the arch-reactionary Saudi regime, the world’s leading generator and exporter of Wahhabist-Islamist terrorism.

And they made no acknowledgement of the elementary historical fact that the U.S.-American Empire has richly participated in an ugly marriage of imperial convenience with the Saudi regime over most of the last century and all the present one – from Franklin Roosevelt through Obama and Trump.

The tangerine totalitarian currently befouling the Oval Office hardly invented the bipartisan U.S. imperial establishment’s embrace of the murderous tyrants of Riyadh. Trump did not create Washington’s pattern of funding, equipping, and otherwise backing foreign authoritarian regimes in pursuit of perceived U.S. profit and power. That pattern has been as “American as apple pie” since at least the 1940s.

Trump’s Real Sin: Being Too Candid About U.S. Objectives

Properly mocking the “pompous denunciations” that Trump’s brazen defense of the U.S.-Saudi relationship has met in the editorial pages of the New York Times and in other establishment venues, Glenn Greenwald reminds us that Trump’s comments are “a perfect example – perhaps stated more bluntly and candidly than usual – of how the U.S. has conducted itself in the world since at least the end of World War II.”  The neoliberal establishment’s fake-progressive darling Barack Obama – the U.S. empire’s silver-tongued and outwardly global and multicultural new clothes in the wake of George W. Bush’s clumsy and all-too brazenly and openly imperialist invasion of Iraq – was no exception to the rule.  He elegantly embraced the Saudi nightmare state for pretty much the same reasons as those more brutishly articulated by the orange Neanderthal he helped instigate and usher into the White House. The outraged liberal commentators’ pretense “that Trump’s posture [is] a deviation, a grievous violation of, longstanding U.S. values” (Greenwald) was shamefully ahistorical in ways that Orwell would certainly appreciate.

The Demented [1]One’s real sin for the U.S. establishment was not that he held fast to the morally indefensible American alliance with Riyadh but that he did so in such a naked, frank, and shameless “America First” way, without the usual mandatory statements of America’s supposed benevolent concern for decency and democracy around the world.

Same As it Ever Was

It may seem strange that I have put so much of this essay in the past tense given how recent (and even ongoing) the Khashoggi kill story is.  I have done this for two reasons.  First, the U.S. media’s news cycle is all about the amnesiac obliteration of history. The Khashoggi kill story has already begun its descent down the recall vacuum, the victim of other news items with higher ratings.  (Now you see it, now it’s gone: next distraction please). Second, as Abukhalil noted three weeks ago, “Washington and Riyadh have had worse crises and will survive the Khashoggi murder…maintaining good relations with the Saudi royal family has been a high bipartisan priority since President Franklin D. Roosevelt and King  Abdul Aziz ibn Saud made their Faustian bargain in 1945: The U.S. would shield the Saudi kingdom’s tyranny from criticism in exchange for a share of oil revenues and Riyadh’s political loyalty (and American arms sales).”

The latest U.S.-Saudi dust-up will pass too. With MbS disciplined somewhat by the unexpected drama that Turkey’s release of evidence that he murdered Khashoggi, the Crown Prince “might now abandon his proclivity for adventurism and become a more traditional Saudi despot deferring to DC on key decisions” (Abukhalil). End of story. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.


1. The Stable Genius recently spoke on climate change and the epic California wildfires of November 2018:

“One of the problems that a lot of people like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence but we’re not necessarily such believers…As to whether or not it’s man-made and whether or not the effects that you’re talking about are there, I don’t see it…You look at our air and our water and it’s right now at a record clean. But when you look at China and you look at parts of Asia and you look at South America, and when you look at many other places in this world, including Russia , including many other places, the air is incredibly dirty, and when you’re talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small…And it blows over and it sails over. I mean we take thousands of tons of garbage off our beaches all the time that comes over from Asia. It just flows right down the Pacific. It flows and we say, ‘Where does this come from?’… And it takes many people, to start off with…. you go back and if you look at articles, they talk about global freezing. They talk about at some point, the planet is going to freeze to death, then it’s going to die of heat exhaustion…The fire in California, where I was, if you looked at the floor, the floor of the fire, they have trees that were fallen…They did no forest management, no forest maintenance, and you can light — you can take a match like this and light a tree trunk when that thing is laying there for more than 14 or 15 months. And it’s a massive problem in California…You go to other places where they have denser trees, it’s more dense, where the trees are more flammable, they don’t have forest fires like this because they maintain. And it was very interesting I was watching the firemen, and they were raking brush…It’s on fire. They’re raking it, working so hard. If that was raked in the beginning, there would be nothing to catch on fire.”

Trump speaking to the CIA on his first day in office:

“Now, I know a lot about West Point. I’m a person that very strongly believes in academics. In fact, every time I say I had an uncle who was a great professor at MIT for 35 years who did a fantastic job in so many different ways, academically — was an academic genius — and then they say, is Donald Trump an intellectual? Trust me, I’m like a smart persona…And the generals are wonderful, and the fighting is wonderful. But if you give them the right direction, boy, does the fighting become easier. And, boy, do we lose so fewer lives, and win so quickly. And that’s what we have to do. We have to start winning again.”

“You know, when I was young and when I was — of course, I feel young. I feel like I’m 30, 35, 39. Somebody said, are you young? I said, I think I’m young. You know, I was stopping — when we were in the final month of that campaign, four stops, five stops, seven stops. Speeches, speeches, in front of 25,000, 30,000 people, 15,000, 19,000 from stop to stop. I feel young.”

“When I was young — and I think we’re all sort of young. When I was young, we were always winning things in this country. We’d win with trade. We’d win with wars. At a certain age, I remember hearing from one of my instructors, ‘The United States has never lost a war.’ And then, after that, it’s like we haven’t won anything. We don’t win anymore. The old expression, ‘to the victor belong the spoils’ — you remember. I always used to say, keep the oil. I wasn’t a fan of Iraq. I didn’t want to go into Iraq. But I will tell you, when we were in, we got out wrong. And I always said, in addition to that, keep the oil. Now, I said it for economic reasons. But if you think about it, Mike, if we kept the oil you probably wouldn’t have ISIS because that’s where they made their money in the first place. So we should have kept the oil. But okay…Maybe you’ll have another chance. But the fact is, we should have kept the oil. ”

“I believe that this group is going to be one of the most important groups in this country toward making us safe, toward making us winners again, toward ending all of the problems. We have so many problems that are interrelated that we don’t even think of, but interrelated to the kind of havoc and fear that this sick group of people has caused. So I can only say that I am with you 1,000 percent.”

Categories: News for progressives

Terror at the Border: Experts Condemn the Tear-Gassing of Children

Fri, 2018-11-30 15:59

Photo Source Daniel Arauz | CC BY 2.0

On Sunday, US border officers fired tear gas at groups of asylum seekers attempting to reach the US border. Images of mothers and small children fleeing the gas drew widespread outrage from politicians and human rights groups.

Wind carried the gas a kilometer away, impacting many individuals not attempting to reach the US border.

As a result of the tear gas, one woman collapsed unconscious, a baby fainted, with many others were screaming and coughing, and a child with Down syndrome was among those affected by the gas.

“I felt that my face was burning,” said Cindy Milla, a Honduran woman. “I ran for my life and that of my children.”

But on Tuesday, President Trump defended the use of tear gas, claiming the tear gas used was “very safe”.

Experts contacted by the author strongly disputed Trump’s assurances and called the tear-gassing of children illegal and potentially deadly.

“Tear gas should never, in my opinion, be used on children,” said Dr. Alastair Hay, Professor of Environmental Toxicology at the University of Leeds. “The stinging of the eyes and coughing fits that the tear gases cause will terrify any child.”

If a child with asthma comes into contact with tear gas, it could provoke a dangerous asthma attack in a vulnerable population that may not have access to medicine.

Dr. Rohini Haar, Visiting Professor at UC Berkeley School of Public Health, agreed that exposing children to tear gas was dangerous.

“Children are particularly vulnerable to weapons like these—they have more naive respiratory systems, more fragile skin, perhaps don’t know to close their eyes and mouths so they get more in, and they don’t know quite how to get the stuff off as well as adults.”

Dr. Anna Feigenbaum, who has written a book on the history of tear gas, said, “The safety of tear gas was determined by its exposure to fit, male bodies. Tear gas can be far more dangerous for children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing conditions.”

Tear gas is a toxin, which is lethal if an individual receives a high enough dose, and the lethal dose for children is much lower, according to Dr. Feigenbaum.

“It’s a chemical weapon, not a condiment,” Dr. Feigenbaum said.

“Poisoning the air that children breath puts their lives at risk.”

Tear gases work by compelling people to flee in a panic, which can cause children to be separated from parents, trampled, or trigger an asthma attack.

A percentage of people exposed to tear gas will have long-term impacts, according to Dr. Wright, a professor at Leeds Beckett University. Studies have even linked tear gas to miscarriages.

Both Dr. Feigenbaum and Dr. Haar questioned the legality of using tear gas on children, and Mexico is calling for an investigation into the incident.

“This is a violation of UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force,” said Dr. Feigenbaum.

Dr. Haar said, “Both the US military and police all use standards of conduct that require the use of proportionate force. I can’t imagine how tear-gassing unarmed civilians is proportionate.”

There is also concern that officers using tear gas do so improperly.

“A major hazard for civilians targeted with these weapons is direct injuries to the skull when the projectiles are fired at heads at close range – in contravention of company technical guidance,” said Dr. Wright.

Tear gas is banned for use in war by chemical weapons conventions, but is regularly used against civilians, with especially brutal results by authoritarian regimes.

In 2013, thirty-nine prisoners in Egypt suffocated to death when tear gas was fired into a prison van. In 2011, Saudi Arabia helped the small country of Bahrain crush its Arab Spring uprising, and the security forces extreme use of tear gas killed at least thirty people.

Dr. Feigenbaum criticized the idea that tear gas is truly non-lethal weapon. “Why do we have so many deaths, if these are non-lethal weapons?”

Dr. Wright said the goal of tear gas use is to appear to be less dangerous, but not necessarily be less dangerous.

“In terms of alleged safety, it should be recalled that some of the first WWI agents were so called tear gases,” Dr. Wright said.

In the US alone, there have been over 100 people killed by tear gas, with most of these deaths occurring in prisons or in SWAT raids, according to Dr. Feigenbaum.

Now tear gas has been turned on vulnerable families living in desperate conditions near the US border.

At least some of the tear gas used on Sunday appeared to be Triple Chaser and Saf-Smoke Grenade, based on canisters found near the border.

Triple Chaser and Saf-Smoke Grenade are both manufactured by Defense Technology, a subsidiary of The Safariland Group. Defense Technology’s website includes a warning to potential purchasers of both Triple Chaser and Saf-Smoke Grenade:

“This product can expose you to chemicals including Lead Salts and Hexavalent Chromium, which are known to the State of California to cause cancer, and Lead Salts, which are known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.”

Dr. Feigenbaum said Triple Chaser is a particularly dangerous form of tear gas because the canister splits into 3 parts, making it hard to control where it will land.

Recently the Trump administration gave US troops at the border have permission to use force to protect border officers, and attempted to take away the right to claim asylum by those who entered the US without authorization.

“In the longer term, we are likely to see much greater use of such weapons at borders as conflict and climate induced migration increase,” said Dr. Wright.

Dr. Anna Feigenbaum summed up one reason she thinks we may be seeing border officers using tear gas at the border.

“Tear gas is cost effective if you don’t have the resources to built permanent infrastructure. You can use tear gas to create a temporary border wall as a solution to the border crisis.”

Categories: News for progressives

Humanity is Killing the World’s Wildlife Populations, Not ‘Capitalism’

Fri, 2018-11-30 15:58

Photo Source N i c o l a | CC BY 2.0

Cocked the gat to her head, and pulled back the shirt cover

But what he saw made him start to cringe and stutter

Cause he was starring into the eyes of his own mother

— Immortal Technique, Dance With The Devil 

“Man is a species-being, not only because he practically and theoretically makes the species – both his own and those of other things – his object, but also – and this is simply another way of saying the same thing – because he looks upon himself as the present, living species, because he looks upon himself as a universal and therefore free being.”

— Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto 

“To all those who still wish to talk about man, about his reign or his liberation, to all those who still ask themselves questions about what man is in his essence, to all those who wish to take him as their starting-point in their attempts to reach the truth, to all those who, on the other hand, refer all knowledge back to the truths of man himself, to all those who refuse to formalize without anthropologizing, who refuse to mythologize without demystifying, who refuse to think without immediately thinking that it is man who is thinking, to all these warped and twisted forms of reflection we can answer only with a philosophical laugh – which means, to a certain extent, a silent one.” 

— Michel Foucalt, The Order Of Things 

This article is a response to an piece by the name same (get it?): Capitalism is killing the world’s wildlife populations, not ‘humanity’. 

Everybody with a vape to stomp on these days has a critique of capitalism. It’s about as predictable as a hipster’s gripes about gentrification in their favorite hangout spots. How did so many hipsters get here? (I thought I snuck in). Gulp. Yet it’s worse than hipsters now, far worse.

The hipster (who was at least nice) has now been replaced by the socialist anti-hipster hipster, who is grumpy, resentful, and (to no fault of his own doing) even poorer and more pretentious than his hipster alter ego. I’m afraid that this generation’s Punk is Marx. Now, I love Marx. He’s as much a God as Ramones in my opinion. But he’s the sort of God that develops from a generation that is venereally repressed, or at least venereally stunted, and needs a release from an existence that is basically based entirely in status, appearance, city life, posturing, identity, stress, work, isolation and economic insecurity.

Most of the anti-capitalist talk of today works just as capitalism originally did: as a justification for humans to claim superiority over the earth and not hold ourselves accountable for the horrifying things we do to her. Humanity is capitalism, and capitalism is humanity. To save our planet we must do a whole lot more than find our own subject relation in the world. We must assert radically, as Karl Marx once did, that capitalism is a natural progression of humanity. And as Marx said, we must not only seek to understand this world, but to change it.

As long as capitalism remains a primarily exterior force, we will remain rooted in the passivity that our screen age lays out for us. Where we can consume everything, hate everything, blame everything, but never become something greater, precisely because we don’t believe in anything, except maybe ourselves and avocado toast. Coming to age now is a generation that snottily dismisses God (and all those who believe in him) as a construct. A generation that believes in nothing besides the nihilism of the world as embodied by late-stage capitalism. The truth is that throughout human history, life has been challenging, miserable, unjust, and primarily hopeless.

The inequality in this day and age may indeed be unique, but the suffering is not. Suffering and struggle has been the way of humans and other species during most days, for most times. The only striking thing about this day and age is two factors: 1. the development of the modern subject, who has not only an ego, but an entitlement to ownership of the world around him. 2. the fall of this subject into a place of powerless within the context of mass inequality during the stage of neoliberal late capital. These two factors do create an inconsistency, a heartbroken and demented subject, as best embodied by Donald Trump.

While many may have a critique of capitalism, most critics remain first and foremost as ‘exterior’ critics, unwilling to confront humanity’s central role in the destruction of the ecosystem. Ironically, and in this case, tragically, we fail to see that the shift in the subject from one with the earth to owner of the earth was in fact formed through capitalism, and has only got more out of proportion as capitalism has grown.

Therefore, any critique of capitalism that does not take into account humanity’s relationship with the earth not only fails to consider the earth, it fails to consider capitalism in an honest way. Separating capitalism from humanity is ludicrous. Supposing that some sort of alternative reality will come as prophecy as soon as the means of production are seized forgets one crucial component: what is modern production doing to the planet? The mentality of “it will all be better once we are in charge” is the exact same philosophy that the most cold-hearted capitalists have and it is the exact mentality they all want us to have. It is exactly this competition for the most worthy rulers of society that takes away all those without voices: especially nature, but also other marginalized groups.

As communist superstar Son D. Pham said: saying it’s capitalism’s fault and not humanity’s is like saying I eat burgers, not food. There is a reality we are living in and it is ecological collapse fueled by human activity. As humans, we have systematically ignored and pillaged our earth for our own gain. The vast majority of humanity does not consider earth as its equal, let alone the source of our own life. Ancient societies often would worship the earth, as a God or a parent, or a smartphone (to relate to people today).

Today all religion is being increasingly seen as a joke as we become a society that believes it knows everything. We believe that we are superior to those falling for fake news. We believe we are superior to those who believe in a “simpler life” of providing for their family under the means of capitalism. We believe we are superior to all people who believe in anything other than base cynicism. And, above all, we believe we are superior to nature as we boldly assert that we would have saved the world, if only we had control.

Nature is passing us by, appearing only as an occasional horror story—another weapon for the apocalypse destiny promoted by the dystopian novel, the superhero movie, and every art project today. The sense that nature is God, is our literal mother, is losing its way. Gone now from her breast, we forget it is our mother who feeds, houses and clothes us. We forget that we are merely a construct of her own creation, a blip on her radar, our consciousness only developed through the sounds she gave us, our superiority only fabricated through the apparent faculty she has given us.

I use the “mother earth” phrase, and I hope to clarify why. In our language earth has been classified as female precisely because the male language sees her as secondary and subordinate. Humans see earth as passive and as incapable of being the subject in and of herself. With that in mind, as we reclaim earth as the origin, or even the God, we would do well to keep the female pronoun, for precisely the opposite reasons that this pronoun first came about.

We forget that as many meanings for life we may develop, as many theories of justice, economically or otherwise, we may imagine to be true, none are possible without her. And that our own existence is extremely unlikely, and perhaps even false. And that in fact, given the many universes out there, we may not even be much at all. And actually, if one were to measure intelligence based on other criteria, we would be nothing.

It is only through consciousness, itself an unlikely, and likely highly misleading reality, that masquerades as meaningful, potentially just, and omnipotent only because we know nothing else. It is precisely because of our lack of knowledge that humanity can see itself as all-powerful. It is precisely because we have forgotten the earth that we may now claim a reality outside of her. If we could see right in front of us, we could see where we are going. Now there are a million things to say, and a million different ways to say them, but each branch out further from the truth.

What makes us so certain that we dare to be atheist? And I’m not talking strictly religiously, either. I am talking about that position of believing that humans, especially rich humans, control everything, from destiny to purpose to the future (for mother earth will get the last laugh, don’t forget that). Was it the airplane that created these capital worshipping socialists? Or maybe, just Uber Eats?

What made us so certain that the world was just a resource to be exploited or taken care of? What made us so sure she is something to be managed, solved and explained through the language we speak but she does not hear? That old riddle of a tree falling in the empty woods not making a sound could be revised to say that a human being bleating about capitalism is just not heard by hers truly?

Look at yourself a moment. Those pathetic hands and feet. Your nose, which maybe social media has inspired to be a different shape in your dreams. What made one so sure that the meaning of this life, after all, was a justice by humanity and for humanity? Whether you are a socialist (Marx is seriously worth a read!), or not.

The question, and I think we must cut deeper than the words neoliberal or late-stage capital here. The question must be: how do we remember earth again? Run scared from consumerism or technology or any of the other trendy problems all we want, but are we remembering? Memory is formed not through consciousness, I mean not really. It’s a feeling. You remember people who you don’t have a single memory with, simply because you have been there before. Just as a plant or an animal has been there before. And the earth, we must remember her like this. We must remember the soil between our toes.

Saving the earth will mean dumping everything in our society now. We must again live in a sustainable way, a way unrecognizable to most of us. But again I wonder about the economic solutions being purposed. I draw hope from talks of a Green New Deal. And I like the idea that so many young people are socialists, at least by name. But I wonder too, is any of that enough? Or is any of that really very convincing? Because aren’t we all gone now, anyways? Aren’t we all swept up in the mentality of capitalism? The consciousness of capitalism? We are there. Often critically, often screaming to reshape our lives in radical ways, but, we remain, most of us at least, in capitalism. Trapped in capitalism.

Donald Trump, his ways, his ways of hating everything and becoming distant and self-obsessed and finding a way of seeing the world that deals with his own despair, that is what is going on. There has to be a way to deal with the despair, the hopelessness. Some way to again claim agency.

But is that anyway out? Is controlling this ecosystem destroying society—whether it is equal among us conscious beings or not—is that really the way to go? Should we really be looking for ways to expand our own indulgences in the time when we are draining the earth of all she can give us? The skeptic inside of me says humans are merely turning to socialism now because capitalism has failed each of us individually. This new rise of socialism may not be a communal uprising, but groups of frustrated individuals looking for a capitalist way to rise up and become successful in a capitalist way through socialist means.

The solutions purposed to the present ecological crisis are post-capitalism solutions. They involve the market—they just involve control of it. It was the development of the market (not necessarily the inequalities within the profits) that killed life on earth. It was the ever-growing production itself, not just the distribution of it, that resulted in the ecological crisis we face today. It is precisely that the progression of humanity that has rendered the earth as merely a product for consumption and ownership. The argument we have these days is whether or not the ownership should be for the few or the many. Forget owning the means of production, how about getting rid of production all together?

Forget it all I say. Forget everything humanity has taught us so far, for all we know, however much we may like it or hate it now, is a death wish for these species and all others. Become exactly who we were made to be, biologically that is, not metaphysically. There are specific ways for this species to survive, and specific ways for this species to die. The basic story of our species is this: we have chosen individual pleasure in the short term, and it will eventually doom us in the long term. The bigger takers (far bigger takers) are the rich, and they deserve the bulk of the blame. But overthrowing the rich will only get us so far. It’s a narrow viewpoint that forgets who we are and where we came from.

And despite us becoming so entranced by our own little theories, whether they be capitalism, Marxism or something different all together, we remain worthless in any real sense of the term. All of us, especially the rich ones, are but humble servants of mother earth, and if she wishes to end us tomorrow, she certainly could. For one reason or another, we are still here. I don’t like being thankful for anything near the time of Native American Genocide Celebration season, held on the fourth Thursday of November. But, if I were to claim thankfulness for anything, it would be that mother earth gave me an existence, and made me aware of this existence, even if I am not aware of much else. One can say that is capitalism, not humanity, that promotes self-interest, but that would be selfishly running from the problem. Then again, what else are humans good for?

The article I am responding to at first glance seemed quite radical to me. It contained refreshing class analysis, pointing to the richest people doing the bulk of the consuming with the poorest people feeling the blunt of its effects. I agree that the “blame” assigned should be just as, if not more unequal than our current wealth inequality. An inequality that is as disgraceful as it is heartbreaking. But all that’s pretty boring, isn’t it? And not very helpful. The rich stink. More or less every voice left of center says that these days. And many, many even claim the coveted socialist title.

I don’t have much interest in that socialist title, and that’s probably because every relationship I’ve had with a self-identifying socialist has been quite unpleasant. I’m not exactly sure why that is, but very likely, it is my fault. And even the socialists I don’t know, well, very unpleasant. They leave something sour in your mouth. I hear this wasn’t always the case.

I think mostly it’s just a feeling of being lost in this day and age. God knows the rest of the political spectrum is giving us no favors.

I only include that anecdote because I am finding that anti-capitalism, as an ideology at least, is failing to explain our present state. Keep in mind that Barack Obama is basically called a socialist by the right and that most people believe that. And then Bernie Sanders is called a socialist by the left and most people believe that too.

So I don’t know what to do with this rising hatred of the rich. It’s welcome, for obvious reasons. But it’s a hatred that can be turned on itself, on the working class, and on the earth. And Donald Trump, we see his rise. Basically anti-corruption in rhetoric. Called a populist, and that may not be entirely accurate (simply based on polling numbers by class). Still, he taps into something here. It’s a hatred of neoliberalism, for good reason. Neoliberalism has effectively left all working people in a state of precariousness, nearing collapse both economically and emotionally.

The author who blames capitalism not humanity (Anna Pigott), let’s give her credit. She takes what is a mainstream media thesis and subverts it. The mainstream media blames humanity (speaking generally) and Pigott blames capitalism specifically for the ecological state we are in. Broadly speaking, of course, Pigott is right. The current system is capitalism and the current system is death. But couldn’t we all agree that basically the whole world is capitalism at this point and it would be more accurate to call this a stage in history where capitalism is present, as Marx tried to do.

So I’m not sure where one can really untangle the web of humanity’s trajectory and capitalism’s trajectory. Capitalism is our economic system, just as opposable thumbs distinguish our hands. Now, socialists may counter: other systems are possible! Yes, of course! And like Marx, I see socialism as the next step for humanity. And I dare say it would be welcome, hopefully curbing hunger and homelessness and education and everything else. Celebrating the goods of socialism should be done early, and it should be done often, but in this particular column, I’ll just say achieving socialism would be the peak of human civilization, far beyond what capitalism has ever given us.

But here in lies the problem with the Anthropocentrism approach. The precise problem with seeing socialism as the end-all solution is that it basically is a further progression of capitalism. While in present day we live in a world economy owned by the few, and benefit the few, the goal of socialism is basically a democratic capitalism. Ownership and agriculture still exist, but they are by the many for the many, rather than by the many, for the few. Naturally, such an approach would help the environment, as we would become stewards of the entire environment. Presently we more or less operate as stewards of the environment the rich want to protect, which naturally has limits.

In this sense, socialism is the furthest progression of humanity. It makes capitalism, a truly brutal system, democratic and fair. It says that basically, using the wonderful gifts of humans, we can now provide for all humans, not just the few. Today any of the major inventions by private companies use public funding, with private profits. It’s unfair and wrong and largely hidden. And it causes the majority of the world to suffer needlessly. All that is true. But, what really changes when we change that? A lot changes for humans, certainly But does it stop environmentally destructive inventions that benefit the human race? No, of course it doesn’t.

The theory of capitalism is this: if it makes money, it shall succeed. This helps nobody but those making the profit, so it basically has very few winners. Socialism has much loftier goals: social programs to benefit the masses. But let’s keep in mind that more or less all major developments associated with capitalism are in fact done through socialism. It’s all really a mixed economy, with lots of variances. It is through the labor of the public that we get greatness. The myth of the great individual leading societies forward should be debunked. By arguing for socialism above all else we more or less will keep the earth wrecking environmental practices of capitalism simply because capitalism’s exploits have always aimed to reach the masses one way or the other (cheap labor the most common way). There is really very little evidence that a post-capitalism solution would alter our expectations within a capitalist society.

These are expectations that place the earth last. The earth becomes the means to take care of the working class, or a means to take care of the rich. Take your side in the class war.

The only way to make it in this world would be to basically consume as much as a gorilla does now. I mean, really, we should all become gorillas or else the whole planet is doomed.

However, we aren’t doing that. We may do that someday, even if it seems unlikely now. But at this point in time humanity has fallen so far it is difficult to see how the human race ever becomes self-sustainable again.

The human race is reminiscent of wolves bred into lap dogs. While we can rationally trace upgrades in our species, however, these upgrades rely on a specific set of circumstances, and are therefore, unsustainable. Our current needs to survive are highly specific to our time. Soon the resources we reply upon will no longer be here for us to use. Soon things will start to break down. If one puts a lap dog in the forest, they stand no chance, as they have forgotten their instincts—replacing them with now useless information about how to survive in the civilized world. Likewise, us humans have no idea how to survive any longer. We have developed too far, and gone too fast. We have devolved away from both our means and our capacity to survive in a sustainable manner. If we are having any argument at all on these dying days, it is limited to Anthropocentrism. The class struggle. Who will win. Rich humans or poor humans? At this point, it will be neither.

I do want to clarify my disdain for the rich, and I don’t think it is so much for the reason of absolving the poor. The question of guilt and punishment is, after all, a pretty conceptual one, seeing that it always has been, with a few exceptions, the rich who determine the sanctioned narrative of blame, even if they cannot ultimately decide history or truth completely.

Under capitalism, the vast majority of humanity, with a very few rich exceptions, lives more or less in the moment, not as a strategy, but as a necessity to survive, and even if that hurdle is conquered, as a conditioned habit. It can be said, and I believe I am in no position to judge people otherwise, that most of us really cannot afford to have considerations for the coming mass extinction or our role in it. We, of course, cannot afford not to consider it, but here we get into the question of how much agency the average human, most of whom are pretty poor, really has over the future of the world.

This is what I think was Ms. Pigott’s point, a valid and admirable one. And I think if we were to think about our fate in terms of who can afford to change (and therefore who should be most ashamed that they are not), we would point all ten of our fingers at the rich. But that directly supports my point. Humanity really cannot afford to even consider changing at this point. We are so occupied with survival, with getting through the day, paying the bills, etc., We simply have more pressing concerns than the extinction of our planet.

And this could be qualified as a systematic issue. Surely if we all lived comfortably enough to make the proper adjustments, we would indeed be more likely to make them, even if human history has not necessarily proven this point yet. However, this presents a more perplexing paradox, which is that this sort of change is exactly the opposite of what is being purposed. Capitalists most certainly have an interest in expanding materialism, but Marxism itself is an analysis based in materialism, even if Marx himself could make the necessary statements about the false, and even fatal relationship that materialism creates with the earth.

I think the blindness of the modern Marxist subject to itself was seen pretty clearly with the mounting skepticism of Black Friday’s materialism. Now it’s indisputable. Black Friday is a display of materialism in its ugliness form. Denounce materialism all you want but the only thing unique about Black Friday is that everything is on sale. In other words, things are less money. A rich person would have no need for Black Friday, which again brings us to the hilt of materialist criticism in general. It is a criticism only possible if materials are a choice. And for most people going shopping on Black Friday, they shop then because they need the deal, and those of us rich enough to criticize capitalism mostly forget that in the absence of socialism, capitalism acts as the only bread maker—making capitalism even more urgent to abandon.

That criticism aside, there is another one. And this goes beyond need and goes into the way desire has been shaped under capital. We are in the constant state of need for more, and this often works because there is more to offer, and seemingly, more to gain. And Marxism actually fits in with the needs presented here, it just offers a more just way of distributing it.

The concept of basing all happiness on material gains is an irony lost on many Marxists. I’m not sure if they’re wrong, either. But just as capitalism has contradictions, so does Marxism. And while we obviously can achieve these gains for the masses, we should be appalled by the rich stopping this from happening. We absolutely should be appalled. And yet, the goals, the terms of success, are much the same under both contradicting ideologies of Marxism and capitalism. Material gains as justice (either for the ‘fittest’ or for the masses).

Too harsh? Maybe so. And we should not forget that socialism is among the most “green” of theories out there, both in theory and in practice. And yet green acts as a modifier. The subject of the earth is still negated. The earth still acts as a material to provide for humans. There is still no realistic plan to stop the over-consumption of the earth’s resources. And this sadly may especially be true if Marxism actually succeeds in its goals of bettering the masses.

There is no need to choose though. Being environmentally friendly and socialist are very consistent. The point I am making is not so much to change someone’s socialist politics here. I would say I am an aspiring Marxist first, before anything else. The point is rather to change the subject relationship that we have with the mass extinction that is upon us.

As agriculture ballooned, there simply hasn’t been a sustainable, let alone a just, policy towards the earth. And I think if we truly wanted to save the earth, well we would either live like animals again (hardly a socialist thing to do). Or we would figure out a way to all die at once (which is the crude philosophy behind our pick and choose immigration policy). Other options can help, and are welcome and feasible. They won’t save us, and they won’t save most species of the planet. All the same, they may be the best we can do at this time.

Capitalism then is the problem, but only part of it. When Marx writes that man sees himself as “universal and therefore free” it amounts to a species that can reason out capitalism, precisely because we tend to think of ourselves as the subject. A subject destined to control the object, an object who is earth.

What capitalism does is compound the problem. Capitalism justifies this mentality by making all things (including other humans) into objects. There is always a degree of separation within capitalism. A peach is never a peach. A dollar can buy a peach, so therefore a dollar is earned to get the peach, often at the expense of every peach outside the one you are getting.

And capitalism limits the way we think about freedom. Freedom becomes being able to buy things, because this is the way to survive, and after that, the way to achieve an identity. Capitalism never keeps track of what it means for us all to survive, or even for us all to get along.

However, even a more responsible system, well, it’s unclear what exactly it would do to change Marx’s criticism that “man makes other species the object.” That separation is there, with or without, the degree of separation known as money. It arose before money, this separation arose when agriculture did, and money became the way to mediate it.

Capitalism is an expression of humanity’s development of itself as subject. And Marx saw that this was largely hierarchal within the species, as well as outside of it. No other species sees itself as the subject of justice or meaning. Humanity’s treatment of other species is primarily colonial.

As soon as this separation occurs, the child is no longer responsive to the mother. She becomes his to master, to name, and to exploit. As soon as this relationship is formed, money merely acts as a way to manage what the subject acquires. Money, for humans, is meta. Without money, how do we value what we claim is valuable?

What Michel Foucalt recognized was that if a structure of thought cannot be critical of itself, it really is useless outside its own context. I see modern rational human thought to be quite useless in this way. We have now made curbing climate change our new goal, and the reason we have failed is more or less an extension of the climate denialism in the Republican Party. There is a plain refusal to claim responsibility and there is a lack of self-examination.

In The Order of Things Foucault traces the way we began to order things. Foucault writes brilliantly—exposing, questioning and ultimately dethroning the entire premise in which we arrive at all our conclusions. That premise, if I am reading closely enough, largely has to do with this supremacy of humanity—which itself is based on the supremacy of thought, a force that has no ways to exist outside of itself.

It’s a concept highly influenced by Jacques Derrida’s reading of Plato. Essentially, humanity operates on a tautology. Becoming the master of the earth is preposterous precisely because we are of the earth and we rely upon it for our existence. The key to dethroning the master is understanding change, and that based on new circumstances outside of the master’s control, he will fall.

Like all figures who try to become more than what they are, humans will end their tragedy as something far less. We had a chance to exist in this world but we got greedy. We needed more. This is the story of capitalism. However, it’s also the story of humanity. It’s a classic chicken and egg scenario.

When it comes to chicken and egg, the question in the riddle is always which came first. The same may be true for capitalism and humanity. Although no one ever points to the manifest. When the chicken dies, there will be no more eggs. With the mass extinction upon us, this seems like an apt analogy. So, fear not anti-capitalists, this evil system will be dying soon. The autopsy though will read something different than you expected, if it is to be read at all.

It is best to end these sorts of things on a cheery note, so one more time from Michel Foucault: “It is comforting, however, and a source of profound relief to think that man is only a recent invention, a figure not yet two centuries old, a new wrinkle in our knowledge, and that he will disappear again as soon as that knowledge has discovered a new form.”

Categories: News for progressives

Washington is Ramping Up Military Confrontation With Russia and China

Fri, 2018-11-30 15:58

Photo Source DVIDSHUB | CC BY 2.0

On November 26 the New York Times asserted that “Russia’s seizure [on November 25] of three Ukrainian naval vessels was the first overt armed conflict between the two since 2014, when Russian forces occupied Crimea.”

There was no armed conflict in Crimea and not a drop of blood was spilled. There was no “occupation” because, under treaty, over 20,000 Russian troops were stationed there.

Crimea’s citizens have always been Russian-speaking, Russian-cultured and in general pro-Russia. Following the US-sponsored rebellion in Ukraine that went the way the US intended it to go, there was the awkward matter of Crimea which had been part of Russia until, as noted by the BBC, “In 1954 Crimea was handed to Ukraine as a gift by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.” In 2014 the majority of Crimean citizens wanted to rejoin Russia rather than stay with crippled post-revolution Ukraine which would have victimized them because of their Russian heritage. In March 2014 Crimea’s parliament voted to ask to join Russia.  A referendum was held and the vast majority of voters were in favor. But you wouldn’t know this from western media or politicians, who continue to refer to Russia’s supposed “annexation” of Crimea.

The Ukraine revolution of 2014 was encouraged by the United States whose Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, was photographed together with the US ambassador handing out cookies to rebels in Kiev’s Maidan Square in December 2013.  (The goodies were taken to the square by her armed US security guards.  Then when the time was right for the cameras she was given the bags and doled them out. It was a gruesome but well-orchestrated little pantomime.)

Nuland was up to her ears in the coup, and the BBC’s record of one of her telephone conversations shows just how deeply the US was involved. She is heard saying “I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea” but that “I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience.”

What a sterling supporter of democracy, to be sure.

Crimea is Russian and the only reason the US-NATO military alliance wanted (and still want) it to be owned by Ukraine is that a Russian naval fleet is based there and would have to leave if the Ukrainians took over.

Washington continues to brandish military muscle all round the globe and has recently been concentrating on confronting Russia and China. Its policy and deployments were explained by the US Air Force Secretary in September when she declared that Washington felt threatened because “Less than a week ago Russia began the largest exercise on Russian soil in four decades … with more than 300,000 troops and 1000 aircraft . . . on the other side of the world, China’s first aircraft carrier was declared combat ready this year, and promptly sailed into the Pacific to conduct flight operations.”

The absurdity of that statement escaped fitting comment by the West’s mainstream media, which also considers it astonishing that Russia should carry out a military exercise in its own territory following the massive build-up by the US-NATO  military alliance along its borders.

Foreign Policy in Focus observes that “In all NATO countries in Eastern Europe, the US Air Force is investing multimillion-dollar sums in the expansion of its air bases, with more than $50 million pouring into a base in Hungary, more than $60 million allocated to the modernization of two air force bases in Romania, and two bases in Slovakia that will be upgraded with more than $100 million, besides various base upgrades in other countries in the region.”

In October President Putin made it clear there would be decisive action if there is any attack on Russia, and “the aggressor should know that retaliation is inevitable, and he will be destroyed.” Russia has “precision hypersonic weapons” exemplified by the Kinzhal missile and a new system, the Avangard, that will enter service in the next few months.

His outlook and approach are echoed by China’s leader, President Xi Jinping, who reminded those attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Papua New Guinea on November 17 that “History has shown that confrontation, whether in the form of a cold war, a hot war or a trade war, produces no winners.”

In early 2018 President Xi said that China “will forge a powerful military that is ready to respond to the call, to fight and to win a war,” and in October, following Washington’s ramped-up military activity in and around the South China Sea, the President told his armed forces to “concentrate preparations for fighting a war”.

What China and Russia are saying is plain, blunt and unambiguous : stay out of our territory; stop prodding our borders and cease your coat-trailing provocation.

The Air Force Secretary added to absurdity by declaring that “now all of Southeast Asia is within reach of China’s long-range bombers” — presumably considering it irrelevant that in October, in the latest of a series of provocative operations, two nuclear-capable USAF B-52 bombers from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, overflew the South China Sea. As reported in the Air Force Times “the flights were in support of US Indo-Pacific Command’s Continuous Bomber Presence, a mission focused on deterring regional challengers.”

Regional challengers?  Just who is challenging whom with a “continuous bomber presence”?

Like Russia, China has developed advanced weapons to counter the menace patrolling and probing its borders, and these could be employed effectively in the event of US confrontation getting out of hand in the South China Sea.

A CNN headline in October was “US Navy proposing major show of force to warn China” and it indicated that the “Pacific Fleet has drawn up a classified proposal to carry out a global show of force as a warning to China and to demonstrate the US is prepared to deter and counter their military actions . . .  The plan suggests sailing ships and flying aircraft near China’s territorial waters in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait in freedom of navigation operations to demonstrate the right of free passage in international waters. The proposal means US ships and aircraft would operate close to Chinese forces.”

If Washington is insane enough to go ahead with this deliberately confrontational fandango, there could be serious consequences.  Chinese warships could maneuver to bar US Navy vessels from coming with 12 nautical miles of one of its islands in the South China Sea, and if  there were attempts by the US to penetrate that barrier, there could well be a major incident.  Should this involve damage to a Chinese ship, Beijing would not stand idly by and would respond appropriately.  Given its inventory of weapons, especially its advanced torpedoes, this could involve destruction of one of the US Navy’s carriers.

There are similar possibilities in the north. CNN noted that “Currently the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman is taking the unexpected step of operating in the North Sea — sending a signal to Russia that US military forces can extend their reach to that area.”  But if US warships behave aggressively it can be expected that Russia will counter such behavior most forcefully.

In October the Commander of US Naval Forces Europe, Admiral James Foggo, told the US Naval Institute that “it would be important to have a greater naval presence in Europe than the US has had in the last two or three decades, and that this year’s presence by the Harry S Truman Carrier Strike Group and the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group were part of the effort to boost presence to reassure allies and to keep an eye on Russian activity.  With the Truman Strike Group now back in the region — spending time in Iceland and the North Sea ahead of Trident Juncture [the November 2018 anti-Russia US-NATO exercise based in Norway] — ‘that sends a very strong message that the United States will operate anywhere, either unilaterally or in collaboration with our NATO partners and allies. And like I said, nobody in the world can come close to a US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in terms of firepower, dwell and endurance,’ he said.”

Foggo’s diatribe ended with the juvenile but dangerous pronouncement that “And those guys and gals out on that carrier and the Marines are doing a fantastic job. So we’re keeping the adversaries back on their heels. They don’t know where we’re going next and that’s a good thing. And we’re working more with allies and partners because we have that additional capability. Right now I have — I think, at last count — 495,000 tons of grey-hulled shipping operating in the theatre. And that’s great. I love it.”

This type of trigger-happy immature belligerence is official warning of US policy as regards Russia and China, and it is not surprising that both nations are taking action to counter Washington’s confrontation.

Categories: News for progressives

Woolsey Fire Started at Santa Susana Field Lab — Site of “[fourth] largest release of iodine-131 in the history of nuclear power”

Fri, 2018-11-30 15:57

In my Nov. 16 column, I reported on potential radiation risks posed by California’s Woolsey wildfire having burned over parts or all of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory—south of Simi Valley, Calif., 30 miles outside Los Angeles—site of at least four partial or total nuclear reactor meltdowns.

The field laboratory operated 10 experimental reactors and conducted rocket engine tests. In his 2014 book Atomic Accidents, researcher James Mahaffey writes, “The cores in four experimental reactors on site … melted.” Reactor core melts always result in the release of large amounts of radioactive gases and particles. Clean up of the deeply contaminated site has not been conducted in spite of a 2010 agreement.

Los Angeles’s KABC-7 TV reported Nov. 13 that the Santa Susana lab site “appears to be the origin of the Woolsey Fire” which has torched over 96,000 acres. Southern Calif. Public Radio said, “According to Cal Fire, the Woolsey Fire started on the afternoon of Thursday, Nov. 8 … on the Santa Susana site.” (

In my column I noted that Dr. Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy & Environmental Research, estimated that the partial meltdown of the lab’s Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) in 1957, caused “the third largest release of iodine-131 in the history of nuclear power,” according to Gar Smith in his 2012 book Nuclear Roulette. But Makhijani was speaking in 2006, so now of course the SRE meltdown counts as the fourth largest radio-iodine release—after the triple meltdowns at Fukushima in Japan in 2011, Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986, and Windscale in England in 1957.

Santa Susana’s operators caused the destruction of the liquid sodium-cooled SRE on July 12, 1959—“showering the downwind hills and meadows of the 2,850-acre site with a fog of chromium and radioactive isotopes, including iodine-131,” according to Smith in Roulette. It was these hills and meadows that were burned so completely by the Woolsey wildfire.

“It [the fog of isotopes] likely spread to nearby communities such as Simi Valley, Chatsworth and Canoga Park,” according to Southern Calif. Public Radio’s Elina Shatkin (“What Happened at the Santa Susana Nuclear Site During the Woolsey Fire?” Nov. 13.) Makhijani calculated that fallout from the meltdown contained “80 to 100 times the amount of iodine-131 released at Three Mile Island” [in Harrisburg, Penn., in 1979], Smith reports in Roulette. Canoga Park Senior High School is one of four Red Cross evacuation centers for the Woolsey Fire.

During the two weeks after the partial meltdown of the SRE, workers tried to repair it. “When they couldn’t, they were ordered to open the reactor’s large door, releasing radiation into the air,” Shatkin reported for public radio.

Radioactive materials released by the meltdown were never accurately measured in part because monitors inside the SRE went off scale. Yet the melting of fuel didn’t cause the only releases of radiation from SRE—just the single largest. In his 2012 book Mad Science, Joe Mangano writes, “Every day, radioactive gases from holding tanks in the reactor building were released into the air—often at night … sometimes twice a day.” In Atomic Accidents, Mahaffey describes the same practice writing, “The fission gases were piped off and compressed into holding tanks for controlled release into the environment…”

After the July meltdown was halted, Atomics International, which ran the SRE, concocted a report for the Atomic Energy Commission on Aug. 29, 1957. The report falsely declared: “No release of radioactive materials to the plant or its environs occurred and operating personnel were not exposed to harmful conditions.”

However, conditions inside the reactor building were extremely dangerous for workers, and radiation levels are estimated to have reached between 10,000 and one million times greater than normal. According to one worker, staff radiation measuring badges were taken away. John Pace, a young trainee at the lab, “Before July 13, we wore film badges, and after then, at some point they [Atomics International] took them away, since they know that the levels would be really high.”

With 10 experimental reactors, radiation routinely released to the air, years of accidents, and four core meltdowns, the “downwind hills and meadows” can be considered permanently compromised with cancer-causing toxins. Dan Hirsch, president of Committee to Bridge the Gap, a nuclear policy organization told public radio that Santa Susana’s soil has, “a mix of radioactive materials like plutonium, strontium-90 and cesium-137” and perhaps 100 toxic chemicals “such as PCBs, dioxins, heavy metals like mercury and chromium-6 and volatile organic compounds like PCE.” In 2012, the US EPA reported that its soil tests found radioactive cesium-137 at 9,328 times ordinary background levels.

Citizens living in the vicinity of Santa Susana have become harshly critical of the site’s early operators—Boeing, Atomic International and Rocketdyne—who for years burned toxic and radioactive wastes in open pits, endangering all the downwinders. In 2005, Boeing paid $30 million to compensate nearby residents for early mortalities and a range of rare diseases.

Categories: News for progressives

How the U.K. and Ecuador Conspire to Deliver Julian Assange to U.S. Authorities

Fri, 2018-11-30 15:57

Photo Source Jeanne Menjoulet | CC BY 2.0

The accidental revelation in mid-November that U.S. federal prosecutors had secretly filed charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange underlines the determination of the Trump administration to end Assange’s asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been staying since 2012.

Behind the revelation of those secret charges for supposedly threatening U.S. national security is a murky story of a political ploy by the Ecuadorian and British governments to create a phony rationale for ousting Assange from the embassy. The two regimes agreed to base their plan on the claim that Assange was conspiring to flee to Russia.

Trump and his aides applauded Assange and WikiLeaks during the 2016 election campaign for spreading embarrassing revelations about Hillary Clinton’s campaign via leaked DNC emails. But all that changed abruptly in March 2017 when WikiLeaks released thousands of pages of CIA documents describing the CIA’s hacking tools and techniques. The batch of documents published by WikiLeaks did not release the actual “armed” malware deployed by the CIA. But the “Vault 7” leak, as WikiLeaks dubbed it, did show how those tools allowed the agency to break into smartphones, computers and internet-connected televisions anywhere in the world—and even to make it look like those hacks were done by another intelligence service.

The CIA and the national security state reacted to the Vault 7 release by targeting Assange for arrest and prosecution. On March 9, 2017, Vice President Mike Pence called the leak tantamount to “trafficking in national security information” and threatened to “use the full force of the law and resources of the United States to hold all of those to account that were involved.”

Then came a significant change of government in Ecuador—an April 2, 2017, runoff election that brought centrist Lenin Moreno to power. Moreno’s win brought to an end the 10-year tenure of the popular leftist President Rafael Correa, who had granted Assange political asylum. For his part, Moreno is eager to join the neoliberal economic system, making his government highly vulnerable to U.S. economic and political influence.

Eleven days after Moreno’s election, CIA Director Mike Pompeo resumed the attack on Assange. He accused WikiLeaks of being a “hostile non-state intelligence service.” That was the first indication that the U.S. national security state intends to seek a conviction of Assange under the authoritarian Espionage Act of 1917, which would require the government to show that WikiLeaks did more than merely publish material.

A week later, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that arresting Julian Assange was a “priority.” The Justice Department was reportedly working on a memo detailing possible charges against WikiLeaks and Assange, including accusations that he had violated the Espionage Act.

On Oct. 20, 2017, Pompeo lumped WikiLeaks together with al-Qaida and Islamic State, arguing that all of them “look and feel like very good intelligence organizations.” Pompeo said, “[W]e are working to take down that threat to the United States.”

Moreno’s Government Under Pressure

During this time, the Ecuadorian foreign ministry was negotiating with Assange on a plan in which he would be granted Ecuadorian citizenship and diplomatic credentials, so that he could be sent to another Ecuadorian embassy in a country friendly to Assange. The Ecuadorian government reached formal agreement with Assange to that effect, and Assange was granted citizenship on Dec. 12, 2017.

But the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which was responsive to U.S. wishes, refused to recognize Assange’s diplomatic credentials. The foreign office stated that Ecuador “knows that the way to resolve this issue is for Julian Assange to leave the embassy to face justice.” On Dec. 29, 2017, the Ecuadorian government withdrew Assange’s diplomatic credentials.

The Trump administration then took a more aggressive stance toward Assange and the policy of the Moreno government. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas A. Shannon Jr. visited Ecuador in late February 2018, and he was followed in March by the deputy commander of the U.S. Southern Command, Gen. Joseph DiSalvo, whose task was to discuss security cooperation with the Ecuadorian military leadership.

The day after DiSalvo’s visit, the Ecuadorian government took its first major action to curtail Assange’s freedom in the London embassy. Claiming that Assange had violated a written commitment, reached in December 2017, that he not “issue messages that implied interference in relation to other states,” Ecuadorian officials cut off his access to the internet and imposed a ban on virtually all visitors.  The government’s statement alluded to Assange’s meeting with two leaders of the Catalan independence movement and his public statement of support for the movement in November 2017, which had provoked the anger of the Spanish government.

Ecuador’s economic situation offered further opportunity for U.S. leverage at that time. The steep drop in the price of Ecuador’s oil exports had caused the South American nation’s politically sensitive domestic fiscal deficit to increase rapidly.  In mid-June of 2018 an International Monetary Fund delegation made the organization’s first trip to Quito in many years in an effort to review the problem. A report by J.P. Morgan released immediately after the IMF’s mission suggested that it was now likely that the Moreno government would seek a loan from the IMF. The regime had previously sought to avoid such a move, because it would create potential domestic political difficulties. Seeking an IMF loan would make Ecuador more dependent than before on political support from the United States.

On the heels of that IMF visit, Vice President Pence traveled to Ecuador in June and delivered a blunt political message. An unnamed White House official issued a statement confirming that Pence had “raised the issue of Mr. Assange” with Moreno and that the two governments had “agreed to remain in close coordination on potential next steps going forward.”

In late July 2018, Moreno, then in Madrid, confirmed that he was involved in negotiations with the U.K. government on the issue of Assange’s status. The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald reported that a source close to the Ecuadorian foreign ministry and the president’s office had warned privately that the two administrations were close to an agreement that would hand Assange over to the U.K. government. He reported further that it would depend on unidentified assurances from the United States.

The Tale of a Secret Plot Linking Assange With Russia

On Sept. 21, 2018, The Guardian published an article titled “Revealed: Russia’s secret plan to help Julian Assange escape from the UK.” In that story, Guardian reporters Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Dan Collyns and Luke Harding asserted that Russia had devised a plot to “smuggle” Assange out of the embassy in a diplomatic car and then whisk him out of the U.K. The authors also claimed that Moscow had negotiated the alleged plot with a close Ecuadorian confidant of Assange and suggested that the scheme raised “new questions about Assange’s ties to the Kremlin.”

But the story was an obvious fabrication, intended to justify the agreement to deprive Assange of his asylum in the embassy by linking him with the Kremlin. The only alleged evidence it offered was the claim by unidentified sources that the former Ecuadorian consul on London and confidant of Assange, Fidel Narvaez, had “served as a point of contact with Moscow” on the escape plan—a claim that the Narvaez had flatly denied.

A second Guardian piece published five days later implicitly acknowledged the fictitious nature of the first. It failed to even mention the earlier article’s claim that the Russians had concocted a plan to get Assange out of the embassy secretly. Instead the article, by Dan Collyns, cited a “classified document signed by Ecuador’s then-Deputy Foreign Minister Jose Luis Jacome” that showed the foreign ministry had assigned Assange to serve in the embassy in Moscow. But the author acknowledged that he had not seen the document, relying instead on a claim by Ecuadorian opposition politician Paola Vintimilla that she had seen it.

In a Sept. 28, 2018, story for ABC News, reporters James Gordon Meek, Sean Langan and Aicha El Hammar Castano reported that ABC had “reviewed and authenticated” Ecuadorian documents, including a Dec. 19, 2017, directive from the foreign ministry on posting Assange in Moscow. They noted, however, that the documents “did not indicate whether Assange knew of the Ecuadorean directive at the time.”  The ABC story relied on unnamed Ecuadorian officials who, the reporters said, had “confirmed” the authenticity of those documents.

Former U.K. Ambassador Craig Murray, who had been forced out of the British diplomatic corps in 2004 for having having refused to recant his reporting about rampant torture by the Karimov regime in Uzbekistan that was then supplying the United States with military bases, was a close friend of Assange and was helping him during the negotiations on a diplomatic post. “I was asked to undertake negotiations with a number of governments on receiving [Assange], which I did intensively from December to February last year,” Murray recalled in an email. “Julian instructed me which governments to approach and specifically and definitively stated he did not wish to go to Russia.”

Although Murray would not identify the countries with which he had conversations about Assange, his blog and social media postings between December 2017 and March 2018 show that he had traveled to Turkey, Canada, Cuba, Jordan and Qatar.

Murray also said that, to his knowledge, Assange had never been informed of any proposed assignment in Moscow. “Neither the Ecuadorian Embassy, with whom I was working closely, nor Julian ever mentioned to me that Ecuador was organizing a diplomatic appointment to Russia,” Murray said. According to the former ambassador, the Ecuadorian Embassy correspondence with the British Foreign Office, which the embassy shared with him, did not mention a posting to Russia.

Murray believes that there are only two possible explanations for those reported documents. The first is the Ecuadorian government was working on its own plan for Assange to go to Russia without telling him, and “intended to present it as a fait accompli.” But the more likely explanation, Murray said, “is that the documents have been retrospectively faked by the Moreno government to try and discredit Julian and prepare for his expulsion, as part of Moreno’s widespread moves to ingratiate himself with the USA and UK.”

On Oct. 12, the Moreno government took a further step toward stripping Assange of asylum status by issuing a “Special Protocol” that prohibits him from any activities that could be “considered as political or interfering with the internal affairs of other states.” It further required all journalists, lawyers and anyone else who wanted to meet with Assange to disclose social media usernames and the serial number and IMEI codes of their cellphones and tablets. And it stated that that personal information could be shared with “other agencies,” according to the memorandum reported by The Guardian.

In response, Assange’s lawyers initiated a suit against the Ecuadorian foreign minister, Jose Valencia, for “isolating and muzzling him.” But it was yet another sign of the efforts by both the British and Ecuadorian governments to justify a possible move to take away Assange’s protection from extradition to the United States.

When and whether that will happen remains unclear. What is not in doubt, however, is that the Ecuadorian and British governments, working on behalf of the Trump administration, are trying to make it as difficult as possible for Julian Assange to avoid extradition by staying in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

This essay originally appeared on Truthdig.

Categories: News for progressives

Zionism: Cycles of Trauma and Aggression in the Service of Settler Colonialism

Fri, 2018-11-30 15:57

Photo Source zeevveez | CC BY 2.0

Zionism is inherently reactionary

The origins of Zionism are profoundly misunderstood by many. This is not coincidental and can be seen largely as the result of propaganda, which opportunistically and erroneously asserts that Zionism is the natural expression of Judaism.

In fact, Zionism gained traction among some Jews only in the late 19th  century in response to antisemitism and romantic European nationalist movements. Zionists syncretized many white supremacist, antisemitic, messianic and fascistic racialized dogmas and were thus overwhelmingly unpopular among most Jews, who viewed the ideals of the enlightenment–emancipation, equality and integration – as their target.

Zionism first increased its influence in the small Jewish towns in Eastern Europe–the shtetls–at a time when many of their inhabitants became secular but not emancipated. Thus, their view of antisemitism and its accompanying violence and trauma was a modern one, not the traditional Jewish notion that deemed oppression and hardship as divine punishment for sins (for review see here). Zionism offered a seemingly empowering vision of a “new Jew”, who shed obsolete beliefs, which were viewed as passive and weak. Instead, Zionists reacted with force against oppression and adopted the antisemitic notion whereby Jews were the cause of their own oppression and should thus segregate themselves.

In response to antisemitism, Zionists embraced their fear and contempt of their abusers to produce defensive aggression, reinventing identity in a reactionary attempt to ensure survival and restore pride. The reward of violence–power-quickly enticed Zionist leaders to morph what began as a defensive strategy into an offensive one that culminated with a settler colonialist vision of a homeland in Palestine at the expense of its Indigenous population, the existing Palestinian people.

Defense and oppression–a self-sustaining cycle

It is instrumental to view this dynamic through a behavioral neuroscientific perspective, which affords a means of understanding underlying motivations of both persons and class structures, as well as informs on potential resolutions.

Studies show that the emotions of fear and anxiety and their corresponding neural circuitries are highly conserved among all mammals, including humans. In response to threat, fear is expressed in the form of defensive behaviors. These include flight if an escape route is available, freezing and avoidance if not (both techniques of choice in response to antisemitism prior to Zionism), and defensive threat and attack when confrontation is imminent.

Defensive aggression and its corresponding violence can lead to the rewards of resource acquisition–whether it be the sparing of one’s own life or access to the many spoils of dominance: sexual partners, money, land, power etc. Hence, a process that begins with oppression leads to fear in the oppressed (expressed as defensive aggression) and morphs to offensive aggression directed towards resource acquisition, which ultimately results in the subjugation of others by those previously oppressed. The once powerless become “hooked” to the rewards of violence; an addiction which facilitates the transition from defense to offense.

Thus, the everlasting and self-perpetuating dynamic of persecution often shifts the balance of power, yet always maintains an equal or growing level of violence.

How do the hegemonic forces sustain subservience in their subject population while reaping the benefits of oppression? through fear mongering and ever-escalating violence.

Fear conditioning and population control

Fear memories are formed when otherwise neutral stimuli are paired with pain or danger and are extinguished when they are decoupled (see here). Chronic, prolonged, generalized or an otherwise abnormal fear reaction to an ambiguous stimulus is viewed as maladaptive and linked to a range of psychopathologies, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Fear conditioning is “reinstated” in a person or a populace (“collective PTSD”) upon re-exposure to-or the recall of-the fear-inducing stimulus. In such a manner, reinstatement is a technique by which the political, religious, military and economic ruling classes manipulate their populace to gain support for their aggressive and expansionist policies, distract from their own corruptions, privileges and suppression of dissent.

Fear is reinstated in traumatized collectives using several methods: (i) focusing on-and decontextualizing an act of violence or resistance (e.g. “terrorism”); (ii) reminding the public of some atrocity in the past (memorial days, sanctifying bereaved families); (iii) shifting attention to perceived threats (e.g. the Iranian nuclear program); (iv) appealing to past glory, nostalgia (romantic nationalism) and; (v) segregating communities (apartheid), which preserves a process of dehumanization of the “other” and renders re-exposure and reconciliation (i.e. extinction of fear) virtually impossible.

Thus, fear manifests in increasingly violent displays of aggression promoting the interests of those in power. It is precisely these aggressive actions which are rewarded by the hegemony and therefore become more prevalent in the general population. Privilege enables little risk of harm for the hegemonic forces and the reinstatement of perceived imminent threats constantly raises the bar for-and serves to justify permissible oppression.

From an early age the population, through participation in violence in the army or elsewhere, are encouraged to transition from the defensive to the offensive expressions of aggression. As such, the population is made an accomplice to ruling class corruptions and crimes, and thus perceives, together with its leaders, any forms of dissent as treasonous existential threats (see here).

Breaking the cycle of oppression

The cycle of violence and inequality has been the backbone of all white supremacist, settler colonialist societies, past and present which engage in ethnic cleansing and genocide of Indigenous populations; e.g. the United States, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Israel and more.

Yet the question arises–how can the cycle be broken?

Victims of abuse can cope with trauma in two ways. They can either channel their rage toward weaker elements in their immediate society or outside of it and in so doing perpetuate the never ending cycle of abuse, or stand up to their abusers, who are stronger than them, resist the temptations of resource acquisition and break the cycle of violence and inequality.

The first option of picking on the weak is easy and can be a solitary endeavor; victims become abusers and in so doing feel empowered; e.g. the Zionist example. The second option of fighting oppressors poses a greater challenge and requires courage, resolve and social skills, i.e. collectivism, as bullies are usually stronger and more formidable than their victims.

For this purpose, it is advantageous for the oppressed to join forces and collaborate with fellow victims of white supremacy; women, immigrants, black and brown people, Indigenous, Muslim, Jews and others so that together they may form a winning strategy to overcome their oppressors.

Notably, Zionist propaganda works against this sort of alliance building and resistance by fragmenting and isolating Palestinian society within historical Palestine and outside of it.

BDS and defeating white supremacy

The non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Palestinian-led movement has demonstrated the utility of adopting an approach which implements the lessons learned by the many victims of settler colonialism and white supremacy.

These lessons include a series of steps which include: (i) promoting truth and dispelling propaganda; (ii) fostering accountability in the guilty (e.g. here); (iii) moving toward cessation of hostilities/injustices; (iv) breaking barriers, physical or otherwise; (v) adopting an intersectional, anti-racist leadership which recognizes interlocking systems of power and oppression that impact those who are most marginalized in society and (vi) creating empathy and forging bonds.

It is glaringly apparent that with every BDS victory the Israeli propaganda machine continues to lose credibility. The demonopolized nature of the internet provides accessibility to truth like never before and an opportunity for Palestinians and other victims of settler colonialism to connect and collaborate towards the breaking of the cycle of violence and inequality.

That said, the rise of global fascistic movements, stimulated by Donald Trump and his Zionist allies in the Israeli government, are hard at work toward their mutual interest of global apartheid, often using the internet to disperse false information (“fake news”). Thus, it is clear that the battle against Zionist expansionism and its oppression of the Palestinian people should incorporate a comprehensive dismantling of settler colonialism and white supremacy.

Categories: News for progressives

Nicaragua: U.S. Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds

Fri, 2018-11-30 15:57

Photo Source Tavox13 | CC BY 2.0

A rather puzzling news item caught the eye of this writer today: “The US has imposed sanctions on Nicaragua’s Vice-President Rosario Murillo, the wife of President Daniel Ortega, accusing her of corruption and serious human rights abuses.”

As he read further, this bewilderment only increased: “On Tuesday, the US Treasury said it was using a new executive order issued by US President Donald Trump to punish Ms. Murillo, accusing her of undermining Nicaragua’s democracy.”

One of the crimes Murillo is purported to be guilty of is as follows: “She is believed to have held influence over a youth organization that the US says engaged in extra-judicial killings, torture and kidnapping.”

Let us all take a look at these brief statements, and see how many examples of hypocrisy can be found in them.

+ Murillo, the first lady of Nicaragua who rules the nation along with her husband, Daniel Ortega, is accused by the U.S. of ‘corruption’. President Trump, his son and daughter-in-law are believed to be benefiting financially by their positions in government, which, or course, is ‘corruption’ in the U.S. That this has not be seriously investigated is a mistake (to put it tactfully) that will no doubt be rectified in January, when the Democrats take control of the House, and will be looking for anything to discredit Trump. From all available evidence, such issues will not be difficult to find.

+ Murillo is also accused of ’serious human rights abuses’. Where do we start? In the U.S., white police officers shoot and kill unarmed teens and adults of African descent with nearly complete impunity. Tax laws in the U.S. hurt the poor, such that at least 40 million citizens, a third of them children, live in poverty. The U.S. supports the brutal regimes of Israel and Saudi Arabia, both of which are guilty of the most heinous human-rights abuses, yet the U.S. says nary a word of objection.

+ The Nicaraguan first lady is accused of behaviors that are “undermining Nicaragua’s democracy”. Trump was installed as president, despite losing the popular vote by 3,000,000 votes; that doesn’t seem to be very supportive of democracy. The U.S. Congress is beholden not to its constituents, but to the wealthy lobby groups representing business and foreign governments, that finance its members’ campaigns. U.S. law allows unlimited financial donations to these campaigns from any business or industry.

Prior to Trump’s election, the Republican-controlled Congress blocked the Supreme Court nominee of President Barack Obama until after the election, with the hope (eventually fulfilled) of putting a more conservative justice on the Supreme Court. This left a vacancy on the court for nearly a full year. To this writer, that sounds more like political maneuvering than democracy.

+ An organization in Nicaragua over which the first lady has ‘influence’ has been involved, it is said, in “extra-judicial killings, torture and kidnapping”. At this point, this writer had to re-read the article, to assure that it was about Nicaragua, and not the United States. The U.S. is notorious for kidnapping suspected ‘terrorists’, transporting them to ‘rendition’ sites, where they are tortured, sometimes for years. At the Cuban-based U.S. torture chamber in Guantanamo, countless people have been held without charge, denied access to family or legal services, and tortured for years. The U.S. government doesn’t merely have ‘influence’ over these activities: it is completely responsible for them. The current director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), is Gina Haspel, known in some circles as ‘Bloody Gina’, due to not only her instruction to other agents on how to torture, but her experience torturing prisoners herself. These violations of international law, human rights and common decency are part and parcel of U.S. governance.

The United States is currently sending massive amounts of weaponry to Saudi Arabia, while that nation continues to decimate Yemen; millions of people, mostly children, are starving to death because of this ongoing assault. The fact that Saudi Arabia recently bombed a school bus full of children, and murdered a prominent journalist, mean nothing to Trump and many of his GOP cohorts.

Additionally, the U.S. provides apartheid Israel with $4 billion annually, while its own infrastructure is crumbling, its schools are failing, and the citizens of Flint, Michigan do not have clean drinking water.

The U.S. has supported terrorist organizations in Syria that seek to overthrow the legitimate government, and bombed Syria when the Syrian government was accused of using chemical weapons. Yet the U.S. government says nothing when Israel uses chemical weapons against the Palestinians. And after the bombing of Syria to ‘punish’ the Syrian government for using such weapons, Secretary of Defense James Mattis said there was no evidence to confirm that a chemical attack ever occurred.

The U.S. violated international law by withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that regulated Iran’s nuclear program, despite the fact that Iran was and always has been in complete compliance with the agreement. The U.S. has sanctioned Iran (again), and has threatened to sanction any nation that does business with Iran, including some of the U.S.’s oldest and closest allies. Only two nations supported the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

One might ask why the U.S. government feels it is in any position to criticize Nicaragua, or any other nation, for any of its policies. The U.S. is and always has been very selective in how it supports human rights and international law. Why it has now chosen to focus on Nicaragua is anyone’s guess.

Slowly, around the world, other nations are gaining in economic and military strength, thus weakening the hegemony that the U.S. has long had on the planet. The Chinese economy will soon rival and overtake that of the U.S.; India is becoming a powerhouse as well. In the Middle East, despite U.S. efforts, Iranian influence is growing.

Once other nations equal or exceed the power of the United States on the world stage, the planet will become a more peaceful and just environment. One must be cautioned, however: a world power in decline is always dangerous, and the U.S. has been dangerous even when its power has been unrivaled. It is possible, even likely, that prior to more reasonable nations becoming world leaders, the U.S. will do significant damage around the globe. In the White House, there are no ‘adults’ in the room; there is little to prevent Trump’s worst urges from damaging or destroying the world.


Categories: News for progressives

The Abortion Battle Continues

Fri, 2018-11-30 15:57

Photo Source Debra Sweet | CC BY 2.0

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued it momentous Roe v. Wade decision that legalizing a woman’s right to the privacy of an abortion.  In his decision, Justice Harry Blackmun noted, “… throughout the 19th Century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn ….”  The Roe decision forced 46 states to liberalize their abortion laws.

The Court’s decision occurred two days after Richard Nixon was inaugurated to his second term as president.  His landslide victory over Sen. George McGovern (D-SD) — who had been labeled the candidate of “acid, amnesty, and abortion” – was driven by the “Southern strategy” that reconfigured national politics.  These two events helped foster the culture wars.

Now, nearly a half-century later, Donald Trump’s election enabled the forces of the Christian right to seize state power, including two seats on the Supreme Court. Their efforts, combined with conservative legislators in states throughout the country, are intended to finally end – or severely restrict – the Roe decision and a woman’s right to an abortion.

A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and arecent lower-court abortion decision in Mississippi may take some of most virulent wind out of the anti-abortion movement. Unfortunately, like the culture wars in general – and hardcore support for Trump in particular – reactionary rage has little to do with statistical facts let alone court decisions.  These religious warriors, like fundamentalists the world over, blindly seek to impose their beliefs on everyone under their ostensible control.


On November 23rd, the CDC issued a report, “Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015,” that found that in the decade from 2006 to 2015 the number of reported abortions decline by nearly one-quarter (24%) to 638,169 from 842,855 – and nearly one-third (32%) from the 1996 total of 934,549 reported abortions.

The study draws on data was from what it calls “participating areas,” including the 50 states, the District of Columbia and New York City.  It notes that the rate of abortions per 1,000 for women ages 15 to 44 fell to 11.8 from 15.9 percent during the 2006-2015 decade and that decreases in abortion rates occurred across all age groups.  It found that in 2015 abortion rates declined across all age groups.  Over the decade the study covers, the greatest decline was seen among adolescents; the rate of abortions of girls aged 15-19 fell by more than one-half (54%).  However, the majority of women who had abortions were in their 20s; nearly one-third (31.1%) were aged 20-24 and over one-quarter (27.6%) were aged 25-29.

The CDC study found that, in 2015, nearly two-thirds of all abortions occurred when the fetus was no later than at eight weeks of gestation and more than nine-out-of-10 (91%) abortions took place at 13 weeks or less of gestation.  Equally revealing, the study found that nearly three-out-of-five (59%) of the women who had abortions in 2015 had previously given birth – and more than 14 percent were women who’d had three or more births.

Rachel Jones, principal research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute, attributed the sizable and sustained decline in abortions to proactive birth-planning practices.  “Affordable access to the full range of contraception and family planning options is critical for people deciding if and when they’d like to become parents, develop their careers, plan for their futures, and manage their health,” she said. “For women who become but do not want to remain pregnant, access to safe, legal abortion services remains critical.”

The CDC report was issued three days after a federal judge in Mississippi blocked one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country, concluding that Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban is “unequivocally” a violation of women’s constitutional rights.

The so called “Mississippi Gestational Age Act” was enacted in March and sought to prohibit abortions after 15 weeks of gestation — except in case in which the mother faced medical emergency or if the fetus suffered “a severe fetal abnormality” that would prevent it surviving outside of the womb. The law called for doctors found guilty of violating the act to have their licenses suspended or revoked and face a fine. Judge Carlton W. Reeves ruled: “The record is clear: States may not ban abortions prior to viability; 15 weeks [since a woman’s last menstrual period] is prior to viability,”

In May, Louisiana’s Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards signed a bill that would ban abortions after 15 weeks. However, because the Mississippi ban was found unconstitutional, it’s unlikely that the Louisiana bill will take effect.


We live in a perverse period, a sad, pathetic state of affairs.  Faced with the CDC’s very good news about the significant decline in abortions, Pres. Trump failed to acknowledge it.  Equally disappointing, but predictable, Focus on the Family, a leading organization of the religious right, reported the CDC findings but failed to acknowledge that something socially “good” had occurred.  It dutifully reported the news, but then sought to debunk the findings as mere inadequate data.

After nearly a half-century of struggle, the anti-abortion movement has become a business.  As of October 2018, Christian right lobbying organizations, led by the Susan B. Anthony List, raised $820,000; in 2017, these groups garnered $1,050,000. Waging the culture wars has become a profitable scam like private prisons and private military contractors.

In 1992 there was a revealing exchange about the culture wars:

There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America.  It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.  – Pat Buchanan

I regret to inform Pat Buchanan that those wars are over and the left has won.  – Irving Kristol

Over the last quarter-century, the religious right has socially lost the culture war but desperately fights on politically. The right has given up the fight against mainstream sexual commerce – e.g., sex toys, porn, adult (non-trafficked) prostitution – that has become a multi-billion-dollar business.  The once-decisive battle over the Equal Rights Amendment has been superseded by women increasingly securing more rights (e.g., wages, credit, military service) – and many men sharing in housework and childcare.

Nevertheless, religious warriors have captured the Republican Party and are exploiting corrupt electoral schemes to maintain political power.  The recent midterm elections suggest what might be coming in 2020 – an end to Trump’s presidency, Republican control of the Senate and this round of the culture wars. Hopefully, this will help protect a woman’s right to an abortion.

Categories: News for progressives

Creeping Neo-Fascism in Ireland and the “Open Borders” Question

Fri, 2018-11-30 15:56

Photo Source Ron Cogswell | CC BY 2.0

Apparently, so I have read, pop/rock band Coldplay are due to release fresh new music under a fresh new name. The venture will be undertaken in collaboration with the singer Pharrell, who recently revealed himself as a shameless supporter of the Israeli ‘Defense’ Forces; but that is neither here nor there, for now. The terrifying reappearance of Coldplay reminded me of some wise words once uttered by fictional character Superhans, a comical drug-taking party fiend from Channel 4’s Peep Show, which aired between 2003 and 2015.

In a back-and-forth with one of the other chief protagonists of the show, Jeremy, on the subject of setting up a pub somewhere in London and what food and beverages ought to be stocked in it, it is put to Superhans that the old dependables of lager and nuts should be considered, as ‘people like larger and nuts’. Superhans’s response is almost apoplectic; ‘people like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis! You can’t trust people Jeremy!’

An underbelly of intolerance

There seems to be some truth in that exclamation, especially in this climate of burgeoning neo-fascism, which we are bearing witness to across the globe today. In Ireland, in the recent presidential election campaign, a formerly marginal, Trump-like figure and crank named Peter Casey managed to secure 23.1% of the vote based on nothing more than anti-Traveller (Ireland’s only indigenous ethnic minority) and anti-immigrant rhetoric and hearsay. Crime rates certainly appear to be higher among Travellers per capita, but so too are school dropout rates, suicides, early mortality, and a host of other problems. These problems stem from decades of officially sanctioned exclusion from society’s institutions – justified in the 1963 Commission on Itinerancy Report – conveniently ignored by Casey.

In recent days, we have seen a meeting of ‘concerned’ locals in County Wicklow voicing their opposition to a direct provision centre for Syrian asylum seekers fleeing war in their home country. The ‘issues’ these locals raise – vocalised in thinly veiled racist terms – are about ‘safety’, despite there being no evidence to show correlations between other centres of this type already in operation and a rise in crime. Their other primary grievance is along the lines that, in the midst of a housing crisis, ‘we must look after our own first’.

This is not the first case of controversy stirred up around the opening of such centres, as a small protest by ‘concerned’ locals in Killarney, County Kerry, in 2017 demonstrated. Whether it be in Wicklow, Kerry, or elsewhere, these ‘concerned citizens’ are often encouraged by local political figures who cynically foster division and fear in order to maintain their own fiefdoms, while small-time local media outlets hungry for exposure, hits, and likes, have also played their part in enflaming volatile situations.

Social media activity

More troubling, however, with regards recent developments is the likely involvement of hardened neo-fascist activists – of both domestic and international origins – in stoking tensions. Having failed to organise publically in Dublin in 2016 after being met with large crowds of counter-demonstrators, Ireland’s neo-fascists have slinked back to their pathetic online ‘white pride’ forums and anonymous Twitter accounts. But it now appears as though they may have taken to attempting to infiltrate and influence public meetings posing as regular punters.

As a consequence of this mesh of online and ‘real world’ activity, it seems as though – only days after the Wicklow gathering – a hotel that had been intended to be used to house Syrian refugees in Moville, County Donegal, was attacked in the dead of the night by racist arsonists, perhaps leaving it uninhabitable for the foreseeable future. Gladly, the response in the immediate aftermath of the attack by numerous locals, who rallied in solidarity with the asylum seekers and condemned the arson, has been commendable.

Over in the so-called Twittersphere, meanwhile, another former presidential election runner, Gemma O’Doherty (or non-runner as it turned out, as she failed to secure the necessary council backing), has taken to laying the blame for a plethora of Ireland’s social ills, including homelessness, on the immigration policy of the EU and Ireland. O’Doherty had previously done some important work in exposing cover-ups, especially in relation to Garda (police) handling of the case of the disappearance of six-year-old Mary O’Boyle in Donegal in 1977.

But this has been negated since she has revealed herself in recent weeks to be a crackpot whose analysis of social issues is akin to that of a turnip’s, for she seems to believe that problems such as poverty and homelessness stem primarily from ‘corruption’. Apparently, if only we root out ‘the few bad eggs’ all will be well. In reality, corrupt behaviour is a rational outworking of the class interests and profit motive inherent in the capitalist economic system. Corruption is merely a by-product of that system, and, though it can fluctuate depending on who is in charge, it cannot be wholly eradicated or ‘cleaned up’ within it.

The reason I mention O’Doherty; she has a considerable following on social media and is giving voice to those who are, predictably, alienated and impoverished by the economic system, but whose first instinct is to scapegoat immigrants and minorities, rather than to tackle the problem at its core by apportioning blame on those who actually deserve it: the senior bankers; hedge fund operators; top civil servants and charity bosses, unscrupulous lawyers, corporate tax dodgers, and their lackeys among the established political class.

The (neo)liberal response

Indeed, the powers that be, and neoliberal figures such as Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar in particular, are doing the work of the neo-fascists for them. Varadkar exudes a sneering upper-class attitude, regularly scapegoats the working class and welfare recipients, and possesses absolutely no desire to address the ubiquitous housing crisis through the construction of public housing or even through regulating landlordism and soaring rent levels in some way.

It is thus easy for the far right to link immigration to the housing crisis when Varadkar tweets about 3,000 new Irish citizens being sworn in at a ceremony this week. Not that the far right should deter him from doing so, and all right-minded people will welcome these new citizens, of course. But, Varadkar, in typical neoliberal fashion, by failing to invest in the public good, yet at the same time appearing to champion multiculturalism, further embitters that section of the working class who hold xenophobic views and quite likely adds more to their ranks.

This cohort understand the housing crisis not in terms of an utter failure by those wedded to market ideology to build public homes and distribute wealth more evenly, but as a locally played out zero sum game of who gets what. ‘They got a house and I didn’t’, they complain. The chorus then rings out, ‘we must house our own first’. But immigration or not, the market will not provide the necessary homes to alleviate the crisis, nor will it allow the so-called rights of property to be subverted so that the thousands of vacant dwellings standing idle might provide shelter to those sleeping rough or in emergency accommodation.

The Left’s Response

It is therefore incumbent on the left to articulate the actual source of these various crises, particularly in housing, to those disgruntled people and to the wider public in general. It is imperative that the neo-fascists do not steal a march on the left in Ireland as has occurred elsewhere. Nonetheless, global trends demonstrate how quickly far-right populists can become acceptable to the mainstream and rise to power.

Calling for ‘open borders’, as some leftists are prone to do, will only enhance the appeal of neo-fascism for the working class. The neoliberal states of the First World have no intention of providing decent living standards to the workers and destitute who already reside within them. Hence, it is clear that without fundamental societal transformation and the advance of real economic equality – both within and across the countries of the First World and the Global South – the concept of ‘open borders’ is based not on a sober socialist analysis, but rather on liberal notions of almsgiving.

It is easy for ultra-leftists to sloganize and call for ‘no borders, no nations’, as has been witnessed in recent days during the furore over Angela Nagle’s article, “The Left Case Against Open Borders,” published lately in the quarterly journal American Affairs. Whatever the contested economic spats around cheap foreign labour driving wages down, or the counter-argument that immigrants can enrich domestic economies through their labour and tax contribution, it is clear that sustained migration from the global south to the global north would have a profound social, cultural and economic impact on both hemispheres; one which neoliberalism is not equipped to deal with in a humane way. Furthermore, it would provide the perfect opportunity for neo-fascists to undermine left-wing struggle and make inroads into the support bases of the left.

Ideally, the objective for the left should be to achieve the free movement of people from south to north and vice versa. The reality of global inequity created chiefly by historical (and contemporary) white Anglo-American imperialism – and where the lion’s share of wealth is concentrated in the north – makes this impossible at this stage.

However, agitating towards such an ideal scenario in the future and campaigning for substantial reforms to immigration policy in the here and now are not mutually exclusive. In Ireland, the abolition of direct provision (effectively the modern version of the laundries and industrial schools) must be achieved and refugees must be allowed to integrate and work. These asylum seekers want to work and contribute, but are being prohibited from doing so due to the strict prison-like conditions of the centres.  Moreover, the Irish state, for its part, must live up to its international humanitarian responsibilities.

The callous actions of the EU, and states such as Italy in particular, in downgrading rescue efforts in the mass graveyard that the Mediterranean has become also need to be challenged. In America, the asylum seekers at the Mexico/US border need to be welcomed and processed, the hundreds of thousands of ‘undocumented’ already inside ought to be given their papers, ICE needs to be abolished as a matter of urgency, and any attempts to build Trump’s permanent wall opposed.

It is essential, too, that imperialism is consistently combatted. Decades of US interference in South America has created the context for the migrant caravans from Honduras, while the recent interventions of NATO in North Africa and the Middle East are directly responsible for increased migration to Europe from those war-torn regions.

Whom to trust?

But to return to, and conclude with, the question of trust. Superhans was wary of placing trust in ‘the people’ due to their track record of supporting fascism during the 1930s. Now, during the 2010s, we see vast swathes of people in the US, France, Germany, Greece, Spain, Hungary, Finland, and, most recently, Brazil, once again lurching to the far right.

The real question, however, is not whether we should ‘trust’ people to do the right thing and expect them to denounce fascism out of some innate decency. In the wake of the Great Recession of 2008 people are gravitating towards this cancerous ideology for the very same core economic reasons that they did in 1930s Europe in the wake of the Great Depression: mass unemployment; underemployment; precarity; inflation; low pay; the cost of living and so forth. Only this time the scapegoat is different.

The vital question, then, that demands asking is whether the left is prepared to engage in a clearheaded analysis of how to combat the neo-fascists, who will play on immigration as a bone of contention, while continuing the work of building socialism in local communities where xenophobic views – or at least the seeds of them – exist. Can it do this, or will it continue to pass liberal and ultra-leftist ‘open borders’ rhetoric off as a realistic answer to the issue of immigration and the threat of the far right? Does the global left trust itself enough to have the necessary debate on immigration without consuming itself and branding anyone who dissents from a policy of ‘open borders’ a fascist or a racist? Time will tell.

Dr Kerron Ó Luain is an historian from Dublin, Ireland. His latest journal article examines Irish republican democracy in Belfast during 1846-48.


Categories: News for progressives

Sacrificing Children: Pesticides in the Time of Oligarchy

Fri, 2018-11-30 15:56

Photo Source Andy Powell | CC BY 2.0

Oligarchy is bad for children’s health

All past civilizations protected children. It was self-evident that healthy children assured continuity, security and happiness.

However, machine-powered civilizations give the illusion corporations, oligarchies, and the government control everything. Children fade in this confused vision. The disproportional power of the few dehumanizes everything, including children.

Oligarchs control medicine, drugs, chemicals, farming and politics. If their products harm children, their lobbyists, scientists and politicians cover up the truth.

Delaney Clause 

In the United States, this oligarchic control has flooded the country with thousands of chemicals, most of them untested and potentially harmful to life. This fact angered Democratic Congressman James Delaney from New York. He found it intolerable that America in the 1950s was bathed in around 50,000 chemicals.

He convinced Congress to eliminate cancer-causing chemicals in food. He authored the 1958 Food Additives Amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act — the Delaney Clause.

Suddenly, agribusiness, chemical, and drug industries faced a law that challenged their monopolies to do whatever pleased them with food. They set up roadblocks to the enforcement of the law. They purchased scientists to denounce the controversial law.

The General Accountability Office, the least partisan organization in the federal government, took up the Delaney Clause. The December 11, 1981 GAO report put the controversy in this light:

“The heart of the issue centers on Delaney’s “zero-risk” concept that no substance, in any amount, may be intentionally added to food if it has been shown to cause cancer.”

Science lipstick

The Reagan administration of the 1980s did not enforce the law. And the Clinton administration of the 1990s killed it. But Bill Clinton marshalled the power of science to cover up his shameful policy. He paid the National Academy of Science to prepare the ground.

The 1993 National Research Council report, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, revealed the deadly connection between children, pesticides, and disease. But it did not name names or propose the banning of the pesticides making children sick. Instead, the report tried indirectly to sound the alarm by pointing to food as the source of disease and death among children.

With this report out, EPA issued its 1995 policy on evaluating “the risks to infants and children consistently and explicitly.”

However, EPA did no such thing, especially in its “regulation” of pesticides. By 1995, the consensus among industry and government was to get rid of the Delaney Clause.

Killing the only federal protection against cancer 

In 1996, the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, explained why:

“The Delaney Clause was designed to protect against… many [human] cancer types. It was based on the hypothesis held in the 1950s that human cancers are due to environmental chemicals. This is clearly not true for the great majority of cancers and therefore, the Delaney Clause… has not saved any lives, is obsolete, and should be eliminated.

In fact, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 where it deleted the Delaney Clause. This revised law is appealing in name only. It does practically nothing for food quality or the protection of children or adults. It’s a business as usual pesticides law.

The abolition of the Delaney Clause sparked a celebration at EPA. I remember watching bureaucrats from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration, Department of Agriculture and lobbyists drinking and shouting.

Boosting industry propaganda

This expression of contempt for the law had consequences. It convinced the industry that a lie, repeated often, becomes truth. The industry and its bought and sold academics had published “articles” and advertisements that the Delaney Clause had to go.

Undermining the protection of health ignored the philosophical and scientific importance of the only American law against the intentional contamination of food by cancer-causing substances.

This misstep led to Bill Clinton’s cosmetic measure of siding with children. His Executive Order of April 21, 1997 says:

“A growing body of scientific knowledge demonstrates that children may suffer disproportionately from environmental health risks and safety risks. These risks arise because: children’s neurological, immunological, digestive, and other bodily systems are still developing; children eat more food, drink more fluids, and breathe more air in proportion to their body weight than adults.”

Like the 1995 EPA policy on children, this Order, sound on science but poor in children protection, had no effect in diminishing the constant threat to children from eating conventional food and drinking water potentially contaminated by farm toxins.

The National Institutes of Health “awarded nearly $144 million in new grants to develop new tools and measures that can be used to investigate more effectively environmental exposures from the womb through later years in a child’s life.” This was an Obama administration measure of September 28, 2015.

What happened to this money? Any benefits for children?

Neglect for children continues. The Trump administration is probably shutting down EPA’s symbolic but toothless children’s health office.

This immoral policy is sacrificing children. Instead of harsh labor, children now face an invisible enemy.

Food is medicine

Michelle Perro, a pediatrician, and Vincanne Adams, professor of medical anthropology, University of California-San Francisco, authored What’s Making Our Children Sick? (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2017) in which they denounced this invisible enemy.

They said: “we are seeing in clinics across the country chronically afflicted children
who suffer from being the unwitting participants in several decades of experimentation with agrochemically produced food. This is an epidemic-scale health crisis.”

Perro and Adams represent physicians and scientists who are breaking ranks with the agrobusiness-medical-pharmaceutical-government regulatory establishment. They are revealing an open secret that industrialized farming poisons food, which is causing “hard-to-diagnose, intractable, and often debilitating” diseases to children.

Our kids, they say, “are sick with chronic ailments today because of the cataclysm” of three things: We live in a “toxic environment” that makes the “foods we eat a source of disease.” Second, we confront obsolete ideas of “clinical care and disease causation.” And, third, physicians refuse to learn from “food-health science.”

Perro and Adams practice ethical medicine and science. They are right in advocating the banning of the genetic engineering of crops and pesticides, especially organophosphates causing neurological and brain damage.

Their book is full of insights on the diseases of children and how to treat most of those diseases with organic food. Yes, indeed, they are students of Hippocrates. Food is medicine.

Read this book. It will inspire you to become active in creating a world good for our children.

Categories: News for progressives

An Ode to Chomsky

Fri, 2018-11-30 15:55

Photo Source Matthew Straubmuller | CC BY 2.0

Ninety years old and still going strong. Almost twenty years after the age when that other great left-wing public intellectual Jean-Paul Sartre was already utterly frail, uncommunicative, pliable in the hands of his handlers, and prone to haplessly spilling egg and mayonnaise on his face while eating, Chomsky is still constantly giving interviews, traveling to distant countries to give talks on the political issues of the day, and in general is just as lucid as he always has been. It’s an unusual constitution that guy has.

A few years ago I wrote a long article about why I find Chomsky important, but I’m now embarrassed by that piece and unable to read it. Nor did it succeed in communicating what he has meant to me. So I thought that on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday I’d take another stab at it. A lot has been written about him, but little from the “personal” perspective I’ll adopt.

I’m well aware of Chomsky’s aversion to personalizing things, and to an extent I share his taste. There’s something inegalitarian about singling people out and praising them to the sky, something anti-democratic and anti-anarchistic about treating them as authorities (particularly if they’re perceived as nearly infallible). Even aesthetically one might object to doing so, if one prefers the coolly rational and objective aesthetic of classicism, of Bach and Mozart, the purity of a vision elevated above the spots and blemishes of the concretely existing. I’ve always much preferred the realm of ideas and perfection to that of personality and politics. It’s just so much cleaner, so much nobler and more sublime, timeless, transporting, this realm of philosophy, science, intellectual and art history, music from the Baroque and Classical eras, all things not merely time-bound or particular. The universal is what’s healthy; the particular slides into decadence.

But this is exactly why I can’t help but be fascinated by Chomsky. For he seems, at least from afar, to be a unique fusion of the particular and the universal, of personality and reason, a person who exists above the personal. I’ve never seen anyone so reluctant to say a word about himself or his private life, his personal grievances or feelings or experiences, so completely self-effacing that it’s hard even to believe he has a family or a life at all. He seems to be the disembodied voice of reason, compassion, and morality. I remember years ago jotting down some thoughts in my journal comparing him to certain other intellectuals, his antipodes:

For the last couple of hours I watched videos on YouTube of Norman Mailer, William F. Buckley, Martin Amis, Christopher Hitchens and such characters. It was almost an unreal experience. These people and evidently their circles were/are not ordinary, in the worst possible way. I was watching degenerates, narcissists, poseurs, boors, and bores. No doubt brilliant in their own diseased way. But I couldn’t help thinking I was in the electronic presence of personified decadence. Hitchens of course was the embodiment of sleaze, his whole being icky, greasyslimy. Those are the adjectives that come immediately to mind when I look at him. The perfect emblem of this group of people, this whole literary cocktail-party subculture, would be a picture of Hitchens’ face in the midst of an attempted smile. A grotesque, false image. Pop culture meets pretentious intellectualism meets Roman homosexual orgies.

The essence is simple: with those people, as with most pop culture, I can feel myself being lowered—to the particular. With Chomsky, as with much classical music, I can feel myself being elevated—to the universal. It’s pollution versus cleanliness. Shiny pollution versus radiant cleanliness.

I can think of no one else as intellectually, morally, and humanly clean as Chomsky (or as his persona, at least). And we should all, I think, strive for such “cleanliness,” a concept, incidentally, that moral theorists might expound on for its pithiness and evocativeness.

In any case, while there are dangers in personalizing or in hero-worship, there can also be gains. And insofar as humans are oriented towards humans and not only abstract principles, personalizing can never be wholly escaped. From childhood onwards, we enjoy putting certain people on a pedestal and perhaps emulating them; and this can be a quite important means of self-development, of the youth’s sculpting of his own identity—in the likeness of his hero. Chomsky is wrong to dismiss—if he does—the importance of role-models, and of his own status as a role-model, in his conviction that each person should follow his own inner light, realize his creativity in his own peculiar way unencumbered by subordination to an authority. On this point, at least, Nietzsche was nearer the mark, for Nietzsche saw that sometimes to revere an “authority” can serve precisely to liberate, not to enslave:

Your true nature lies [he wrote], not concealed deep within you, but immeasurably high above you, or at least above that which you usually take yourself to be. Your true educators and formative teachers reveal to you what the true basic material of your being is, something in itself ineducable and in any case difficult of access, bound and paralyzed: your educators can be only your liberators.

By fixing your gaze on a star and struggling to raise yourself to its height, you unwittingly find your way to your true self and perhaps, in the end, even become your own star, shining confidently apart from the distant celestial body you once worshiped. For it’s true you should never simply copy another; you should only use others to liberate yourself from the dreck and slime of your surroundings and finally, using what you have learned, “become who you are.”

Even Chomsky shouldn’t be followed everywhere. He may be the least decadent person in history, the least culturally polluted—“he’s a pencil-and-paper theoretician who wouldn’t know Jabba the Hutt from the Cookie Monster,” Steven Pinker has said—but sometimes a little decadence can be a good thing, can add depth and richness to life. To be as perfectly masculine, as rock-like, as Chomsky, nothing but the Enlightenment, can be limiting; there is also a place for the feminine, for, say, existentialism, phenomenology, popular music, dancing, receptiveness. And even Chomsky is just plain wrong from time to time. (For instance, he’s wrong to rarely mention particular left-wing organizations that could use donations or members.)

In the following, though, since it’s his birthday (soon), I’ll focus on the positives.


In fact, to be blunt, with this article I’m in the myth-making business. Again as Nietzsche understood, human life has need of illusions and is even grounded in them. The necessary illusion of our own importance, of the great value of our own little contributions, of the very existence of oneself as a substantival self, some coherent and enduring entity called “Chris Wright” or whatever (an illusion Buddhists, and not only they, have recognized as such—but can nonetheless not fully escape)—these and other lies are in some sense ineluctable. Easier to escape is the lie of traditional religion, but we still need values despite the death of God. The death of the human species itself is now a glimmer on the horizon, and yet we still, somehow, have to ward off nihilism. In a time of monsters and “morbid symptoms” (to quote Gramsci), of triumphant relativism and mass degeneracy, we need an anchor. My thesis is that Chomsky can serve as that anchor.

“Some people say, ‘What would Jesus do?’” remarks Lawrence Krauss. “I say, ‘What would Noam do?’” Myths, by inspiring and vivifying, can help ward off the rot and decay that creeps underground and far above ground in the White House, to seize on the living and sap their will to resist.

Living in this society, many years ago I woke up to find myself hemmed in and threatened on all sides by mediocrity. And in myself too I was more than disconcerted to see layer upon layer of mediocrity. But it was mostly the external mediocrity that troubled me, because it seemed so over the top. Everywhere I looked I saw stupidity, irrationality, meanness, proud ignorance, thoughtless conformity, an impossible lack of empathy, self-deception, hypocrisy, status-worship, an unbelievable amount of flakiness—just try internet dating for a few years if you want to become a misanthrope or a misogynist—in general a world governed by assholishness and idiocy. And cowardice. So I retreated into my music, my reading, and my writing. I was comforted by thinking of Karl Marx, or reading Schopenhauer, Byron, Leopardi, Montaigne, La Rochefoucauld, Nietzsche, and many other writers who gave lyrical expression to existential dissatisfaction.

Let’s just reflect for a minute on how objectionable the human species is. Actually, one has only to think of two words to decide that insects are morally superior to humans: Nazism happened. But let’s leave that aside. The mundane indignities of life are more than enough to justify ambivalence toward the species. I’ve always been disturbed, for example, by what the phenomenon of “charisma” says about humans. What a primitive quality it is, or can be! Just look at Donald Trump, or any number of oafish alpha males: big body, big head, tall stature, loud voice, overflowing self-confidence (with or without deep insecurities), and…that’s it. That’s all you need to be an “alpha male,” and thus to dominate, have influence, be taken seriously, be popular with women, have power. Or think of the frat-boy type, hideously common in the spheres of business, finance, politics, law, sports, and entertainment. I’m reminded of Tucker Max, the superhumanly sleazy self-proclaimed asshole who’s made a career of being an asshole and advertising how popular his assholishness is with the ladies. What does it say about men that everyonerecognizes this personality type? And what does it say about women that such an immense proportion of them are attracted to these jackasses?

Dumb brutes—even the intelligent ones, like (presumably) Brett Kavanaugh, are still just dumb brutes—and they’re popular and powerful. Humans are but apes, after all, so maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. In fact, when I’m feeling down about the species that’s how I cheer myself up: how astonishing it is that great apes have achieved what humanity has! We should be amazed by our talents, not by our amoral mediocrity, since what would you expect from a hairless ape except mediocrity?

But I’m not finished with the mediocrity yet. A few days ago I was in a car that grazed the door-handle of another car as it pulled out of a parking spot. We stopped to make sure there was no damage to either, and were about to leave when out of the other vehicle, originally hidden by tinted windows, stepped a gorilla of a man livid with murder in his eyes. “You bumped my car!” We apologized profusely and pointed out there wasn’t a scratch anywhere. No matter. He was inconsolable. So we left, lamenting that such creatures as this gorilla existed—by the millions.

It’s mine! You can’t touch it!”

“Get away, this is private property!” “But I’m just eating a sandwich on the edge of this courtyard—the sidewalk is two feet away.” “It’s private property, you’re not allowed here.” The hostility and paranoia that suffuse the capitalist mind are pathetic to behold. Chomsky mentioned once that all his neighbors’ houses and cars were outfitted with alarms, in a neighborhood where the worst thing that had ever happened was that a pet cat ran away. (In Chomsky’s house, apparently, they didn’t even lock the door. My god, what recklessness!)

Wherever there is atomization, there is sickness. It might be the sickness of “Don’t step on my lawn!” or it might be the sickness of “Don’t blame me, I’m just following the rules.” Or the sickness of hating the Other—the Jew, the Muslim, the immigrant, the liberal—or of pursuing profit at the expense of workers, communities, the natural environment, and life itself. The manifestations of alienated atomization are infinitely varied, from the pointless, stupid honking of car horns in cities to the bureaucratic mass murder of “the unpeople” by the U.S. and its client states. I ought to be numb to it by now, but somehow whenever I encounter the sickness again, every day, I still shake my head at the cruelty and predictability of humans.

In general, I’ve lived much of my life in a state of resentment at the smallnessof our species, the moral and intellectual smallness. There’s a cognitive and affective dissonance that arises when you spend a large amount of time immersed solitarily in “high culture,” overawed by the mysteries of life and the universe, by the grandeur and inconceivable beauty of the human brain, of existence itself, and then look up from your writing to see a world in which, say, the most embarrassing fools can become intellectual celebrities—Ayn Rand, Thomas Friedman, William F. Buckley, Ann Coulter, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson—or in which luck and subservience determine destiny, and rationality and courage are almost always punished. Not to mention the stupefying small-mindedness that, for example, sentences a teenager (black, of course) to 65 years in prison for having participated in a robbery when he was 15 that resulted in a police officer shooting his friend to death. Life comes to seem utterly picayune and pointless, the very opposite of majestic and beautiful, when it’s lived in such a world as this. A world in which the fate of millions can be determined by the merest accident, like a 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that installs the reactionary Bush rather than the centrist Gore in the presidency. How can anything really matter in such a farcical, accidental world?

(Indeed, it’s an accident we still exist at all, considering how close we’ve come many times to terminal nuclear disaster.)

And then one starts to sympathize with, e.g., George Carlin’s nihilism and misanthropy. Late in his life, Carlin said the following in an interview:

We’re on a nice downward glide. I call it circling the drain. And the circles get smaller and smaller, faster and faster… And we’ll be gone. And that’s fine, I welcome it. I wish I could live a thousand years to watch it happen. From a distance, so I could see it all.

Interviewer: Does it depress you?

No, it lifts me up. It lifts me up because I gave up on this stuff. I gave up on my species and I gave up on my fellow Americans. Because I think we squandered great gifts… And that’s why I’m divorced from it now. I see it from a distance… I said, “George, emotionally you have no stake in this, you don’t care one way or another. So watch it! Have fun!”

It’s all a farce, so just enjoy the spectacle!

That’s the temptation, the “sinful” temptation. And it seems that many, many people have succumbed to it, have become wholly cynical and apathetic.

I might have succumbed to it too, feeling alone, disdainful, if it weren’t for my discovery of…yes, Chomsky. He helped prevent my “downward glide” into the depths of Carlinian cynicism. In finding someone who validated nearly all my instincts and intuitions, but who sharpened them and elevated them to a level of virtually complete objectivity, I felt both vindicated and somewhat forgiving of others’ faults. For it was clear that Chomsky was far above me in most respects, and yet was well-disposed toward humanity and hadn’t “lost faith”—so who was I to lose faith or wallow in disgust? I didn’t have the right to. And since then, Chomsky has served as a moral and intellectual guide—not an infallible one, but a pretty reliable one.


I suppose part of the explanation of my “hero-worship” is that I have a somewhat religious temperament, a mind oriented towards transcendence and desirous of objectivity, and I’ve never fully made my peace with the nonexistence of God. I’ve wanted objective confirmation of my worth—as we all do, only I was especially preoccupied with the ideal of objectivity or truth. Simply living in the world wasn’t enough; I wanted to transcend it, to penetrate mere appearances and understand, or even coincide with, something timeless and absolute. Something like “God.”

To say it in more mundane language, perhaps the only thing I find fundamentally interesting is objectivity or rationality. Or truth. Error and mere subjectivity are everywhere, predictable and boring. People are so certain of themselves, and they’re so wrong, it becomes difficult to take them seriously. But a genuine commitment to rationality, and an ability to follow through, to be consistently logical, open-minded, reasonable, concerned only to know truth even at the expense of “fitting in”—this quality is rare and precious.

For these reasons, I found it more than refreshing to come across Chomsky. He was, as Lawrence Krauss said or implied, the closest approximation to something transcendent or to pure reason that humans could hope for. In a world of rampant and rampaging self-indulgence, here was someone totally disciplined, fanatical about evidence, virtually masochistic in his devotion to principle, embodying moral and intellectual integrity in apparently every act and every utterance, a warm and kind person, and on top of it all, a genius with few peers in history who was right about seemingly everything. I felt that, well, if homo sapiens is capable of Nazism, at least it’s also capable of Chomsky.

He was the anti-capitalist, the anti-Milton Friedman, opposite of all things pop-cultural and postmodern, completely unpretentious and democratic, willing to answer even the most idiotic emails I sent him. I was impressed by the capacious humanity evidently possessed by someone who had spent thousands of hours writing letters and emails to people all over the world, who in his long life had seen everything humans have to offer but remained cheerful and, on some level, idealistic. In fact, he was so idealistic, so committed to upholding human dignity, that he seemed reluctant even to entertain negative thoughts about humanity. I was struck, for instance, by reading (somewhere) that he rejected the common interpretation of the infamous Milgram experiment, as showing that people tend to be slavishly obedient to authority. An equally plausible interpretation, he said, is just that the experimental subjects were acting rationally, on the best information available to them at that moment. Why not trust the guy in charge?

And so the more I familiarized myself with Chomsky’s perspectives, the more I was able to “problematize” (to use a fashionable postmodern word) my jaundiced notions. I had always been torn between Marxian optimism about people and Nietzschean or Schopenhauerian pessimism, being attracted both to the critique of capitalism and to the ancient critique of humans themselves, going back not only to Plato but even the Pre-Socratics (Heraclitus, for example) and beyond. It was, and is, kind of fun to be contemptuous, and intellectuals throughout history have found the pleasures of contempt irresistible. (No doubt in part because they think they lack the recognition or power they deserve.) But here, in Chomsky, was someone who, even more than Marx, rejected cynicism and misanthropy with scientific consistency—despite being reviled, calumniated, the target of every conceivable lie, and constantly bombarded by sheer stupidity, repetitive questions, audience hostility, heckling, willful misunderstanding, etc. So the “philanthropic” side of my nature was strengthened in its war against the misanthropic.

I know all this praise sounds effusive and embarrassing, but I did warn you that this article is in the Nietzschean business of myth-making. (Cf. the Übermensch.) And yet how false or exaggerated is the picture I’m painting? Somewhat, certainly, but not wildly so. You can test it by reading Chomsky’s books and watching his interviews.

The sparkling objectivity and impersonality of Chomsky’s analyses leads to one of his greatest contributions, his making a science, so to speak, of leftist philosophy. Marx, in a sense, had already accomplished this, but Marx made mistakes in his predictions and was a bit analytically sloppy on key questions (as I explain here—though you should disregard the oversimplified summary at the top of the page). Chomsky, in essence an anarchist Marxist, dropped the ideological baggage of Marxism but implicitly kept most of the theoretical framework—which, after all, is just common sense, insofar as class struggle, conflictual relations of production, the capitalist state, imperialism, and other basic concepts can hardly be denied except by vulgar ideologists. The factually rigorous interpretations of politics that Chomsky gave, backed up by overwhelming detail and an apparent command of almost the entire scholarly and journalistic literature, were and are of immense utility in substantiating the claim that to be on the far left is not just to be ideological or biased; it is to be scientific and rational, if the values you hold include democracy, human freedom, and human welfare. I had sometimes wondered if I was too left-wing; Chomsky convinced me I wasn’t nearly left-wing enough, nor consistent enough.

As I suggested earlier, there was something else I appreciated about Chomsky’s Olympian objectivity, or his focus on institutions rather than individuals: I loved the aesthetics of it. For one thing, I liked the withering contempt it expressed for functionaries of power, media figures, and intellectuals. Occasionally Chomsky would directly state what he thought of most intellectuals, as when calling them “specialists in defamation,” or the American intellectual community a “gang of frauds,” or the liberals at The American Prospect pathetic, frightened, cowardly little people”; but ordinarily it was just the tone of savage irony, and the refusal to treat most intellectuals as anything more than expressions of institutional interests—not people to be taken seriously in their own right—that made clear his attitude (which also happened to be mine, based on what I had seen of academia).

And he was exactly right, both morally and scientifically. It’s an obvious point that goes back to Marx: social behavior is overwhelmingly constrained by institutional context. Nearly everyone internalizes the norms appropriate to his institutional location—intellectuals maybe even more so than most, since they’re more educated and therefore more indoctrinated. So their self-expressions tend just to be sublimated expressions of power-structures and hierarchies, institutional jealousies and conflicts, often mere class interests or rationalizations of class interests. When interacting in academic contexts, I’ve frequently had the uncanny feeling that I’m not talking to a person so much as to a node in the network of institutional norms. An institutional automaton, so to speak. There were limits to what I could say: for instance, if I mentioned Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, or if I said some critical words about Foucault or some other postmodernist hero, the atmosphere grew a little tense and uncomfortable. “Chomsky lacks academic bona fides,” I would be told. Or (after asking why Chomsky is rarely mentioned among scholars of Latin America) “Chomsky just borrows from scholars without producing original research,” or something along those lines. It was clear that these remarks were mere rationalizations of the desire to ignore him—since, after all, he draws on every conceivable source and puts forward compelling interpretations—and that what was really being said was “He’s not one of us, so we don’t mention him. But I’ll forgive you this time because you’re new.” It was interesting, in any case, to realize that at that moment I was talking to an institution, not a person.

As for the morality of it, well, to the extent that one lets one’s humanity be submerged underneath institutional norms, one is abdicating responsibility and ceasing to be a moral agent. It becomes perfectly legitimate, then, to treat such a person as “beneath contempt,” to use a term Chomsky is fond of.

But there was another aspect of the aesthetics of objectivity that I liked: as I said above, I appreciated the absence of any hint of cultural decadence. This was not a minor consideration. For whatever reason, for a long time my antennae have been hyper-attuned to indications of decadence. I’ve always thought, for example, that the greatest and healthiest music ever written was during the era of Bach to Schubert: after Beethoven and Schubert, decline set in—enervation, emotionalism, romanticism, self-indulgence, excess, stupefaction, a lack of discipline, etc. This isn’t to say I don’t love an enormous amount of Romantic music, from Chopin to Rachmaninoff; but I know it isn’t as spiritually healthy or creatively disciplined as Mozart and Beethoven. And with the twentieth century—impressionism, atonalism, Mahler, Stravinsky, and then eventually the indeterminacy of John Cage, and minimalism, and all the academic noise-crap that gets written today by classical composers—things got truly, repulsively decadent. There was still some great music, but it was on a lower order of greatness than the Holy Trinity Bach-Mozart-Beethoven.

I could discuss whole swathes of culture, from philosophy to poetry, explaining how and why there was a decline from the vigor of the eighteenth century (and Marx, its disciple) to the lassitude and fragmentation of the twenty-first, but that would take me rather far afield. The point is that Chomsky, the last great Enlightenment thinker, was the most significant exception to this trend of ever-increasing decadence. He struck me in fact as the most purely autonomous person ever, impervious to unhealthy influences or impulses.

Philosophically, for instance, I was pleased to see my contempt for behaviorism validated by two brilliant essays, the 1959 review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior and a lesser-known critique of Skinner that appeared in Chomsky’s For Reasons of State. From the first moment I had come across behaviorism, the notion of interpreting humans and all animals in terms of stimulus and response, conditioning, reinforcement, and so on struck me as ludicrously impoverished. Empiricism in general, the tradition emanating from John Locke and David Hume, who deprecated the rich innate endowment of the human mind in favor of interpreting it as virtually a passive absorber of sense-impressions and the like, I was never able to take seriously. It was just too contrary to common sense, and too scientifically primitive.

More clearly “decadent,” though, was the whole “paradigm” of postmodernism that Chomsky has consistently rejected, and that actually has some connections to the empiricism he has fought against his whole life. This isn’t the place for a systematic discussion of postmodernism, so hopefully I’ll be forgiven if I just refer passingly to its general thrust of interpreting the world, in the vein of empiricism and idealism, as formed and structured by “discourses,” “vocabularies,” “epistemes,” “imaginaries,” social constructions, mutually incommensurable and incommunicable paradigms, and other such idealistic notions. I’ve never been able to understand why intellectuals and activists who operate in this tradition can consider themselves to be exemplary leftists, since the leftist tradition has for a long time been associated with materialism. Its goal has been to change the objective world that constrains us, the institutions that govern our behavior, and thus the class structures that allocate resources. What’s so radical or transformative about withdrawing into the spheres of literary and cultural theory? What’s so radical about relativism, the denial of objective truth, a focus on subjectivity, denial that natural science can give us access to the nature of the mind-independent world, denial that there even is a mind-independent world? Doesn’t that tend to imply that power and oppression are only in the mind, that they aren’t objectively real, and so that people can free themselves from oppression if they only change how they think and talk?

But that, of course, is the point. The idealism serves two purposes: it allows intellectuals to pretend they’re important, since they’re the ones who produce the ideas and discourses that supposedly constitute reality; and it takes attention away from things that matter in the real world, like wages, working conditions, the natural environment, and living conditions, thus serving the interests of business. So the whole postmodern paradigm is allowed and encouraged to become culturally dominant, and colossal sums of money are directed to fund “research” in these academic fields. It certainly is no coincidence that the era of the triumph of postmodernism was the era of the triumph of conservatism.

It’s also worth noting that, as György Lukács describes in his masterpiece The Destruction of Reason, an idealism and relativism quite similar to the spirit of postmodernism pervaded German culture, and European culture generally, in the early twentieth century, and did much to prepare the ground for fascism—which itself was an idealistic and relativistic ideology and movement. So the postmodernists aren’t in great company.

Wherein consists the decadence of postmodernism? In brief: (1) its frequently obscurantist and impenetrable prose, which serves to give the impression of incredible profundity and also protects writers from criticism (since “you’re misunderstanding them!”); (2) its navel-gazing subjectivism and focus on language or terminology (or subjective identities, one’s relationship with one’s body, etc.), which discourages active, confident, productive engagement in/with the real world; (3) its agenda to deconstruct, tear down, “problematize,” refute, fragment, rather than confidently create and synthesize; (4) its relativism, pessimism about the possibility of mutual understanding—or even the existence of meaning itself—and ultimately its nihilism; (5) its supposed hyper-sophistication, its cynicism, its weariness with all the great philosophies and achievements of the past, which is the opposite of a healthy, youthful, strong naïveté; (6) its fetish of the particular over the general; (7) its extreme pretentiousness, which dresses up simple ideas in over-inflated, turgid prose and presents truisms as if they’re important discoveries; (8) its rejection of commonsense realism and the very notion of objectivity or truth; (9) its intellectual sloppiness and many self-contradictions (e.g., “[it’s objectively true that] there is no objective truth”); (10) its cloistered, elitist, hyper-academic nature; (11) its political cowardice, as in its refusal to confront class-structures; (12) its lack of seriousness and urge to just fecklessly play (with words, concepts, images, collages—bricolage); (13) its goal to provoke for the sake of provoking, to be outrageous for the sake of being outrageous, and in the end to just garner attention for oneself because nothing else matters in a world in which nothing matters. Etc. ad nauseam. Postmodernism is the very apotheosis of decadence, the kind of thing that happens just before the world ends.

So Chomsky has generally ignored it. And even this reaction is the healthiest and least decadent possible, because postmodernism is so obviouslyrotten, so clearly masturbatory, so vitiating, so polluted with intellectual, aesthetic, and moral vice, and in the end so unimportant compared to the crimes constantly being committed by the state and the business community, that one might as well focus on something else, something that truly matters. Just ignore these intellectuals as the self-promoting parasites and poseurs they are.

I’ve also appreciated Chomsky’s tendency to ignore another symptom of decadence: postmodern feminism, queer theory, gender theory, all the discussion of sexuality and bodies and so on that proliferates among liberal and leftist academics and activists. Practically the only time he ever acknowledges feminism is when describing progress that has been made since the 1960s. And he’s right, of course: the progress that has been made in women’s rights and sexual equality, as in gay rights, in the last two generations is of immense importance, and has had a civilizing effect on the culture. Moreover, this sort of activism remains urgent, as states roll back abortion rights, a conservative majority exists on the Supreme Court, the Trump administration tries to make it more difficult for sexual assault survivors to speak out, etc. Feminism will always be of great moral significance, because there will always be room for improvement in relations between the sexes.

But the specifically postmodernist aspects of contemporary feminism are of far less moral importance than the general goal to empower women. In fact, there’s an enormous amount of intellectual confusion, shallow thinking, self-deception, and hypocrisy among feminists. I’ve discussed the matter here, and won’t delve into it now. Suffice it to say that, for most feminists, the idealistic mantra “Social constructions!” substitutes for thought, and for open-minded perusal of the relevant scientific and psychological literature—not all of which (to say the least) supports favored politically correct dogmas. The radical empiricism of postmodern feminism, according to which the minds of males and females are a blank slate at birth onto which social expectations are written—such that genes, hormones, brain structures and such make nocontribution to the differences in behavior and psychology between men and women—is extremely primitive and scientifically illiterate.

But it’s an example of a very common and unfortunate human tendency: the tendency to believe something not on the basis of evidence but simply because one wants to believe it. Most people evidently are prone to thinking on the level of “I like” and “I don’t like,” not “The evidence suggests…” They think according to value-judgments, not disinterested investigation of evidence. This explains how religious belief can be so widespread despite being irrational and absurd: people want to believe in God, so they do. This phenomenon is such a “fundamental dishonesty and fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity,” to quote Bertrand Russell, that I find it hard to understand. But it’s present everywhere, among feminists, conservatives, liberals (“Obama was a great and moral president!”—despite his drone terrorism campaign, aggressive deportation of immigrants, refusal to prosecute bankers, slavish support of Israel, refusal to bail out homeowners after the 2008 crash, support for the 2009 military coup in Honduras, relatively meager actions on climate change, catastrophic intervention in Libya, support for dictators all over the world, and generally his abject subservience to the oligarchy that runs the U.S.), free-market fundamentalists, Leninists, and so forth.

Regarding Leninism, for instance, Chomsky is right to criticize both the theory and the practice (before, during, and after the Russian Revolution). Recent scholarship, such as that of Christopher Read and Orlando Figes, validates the old criticisms of Lenin by anarchists, left-Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg, and Chomsky himself, in showing how Lenin ended the experiments with workers’ control of factories in 1917 and established dictatorial control over the state and society. One can argue that he had to, given the conditions that prevailed; but it’s striking that his undemocratic, semi-Blanquist practice was wholly consistent with his earlier ideas, his vanguardism and elitism. But even apart from this, there is something at least prima facie odd in still worshiping and looking for profound lessons from a figure, or figures, who dealt with conditions that could hardly be more different from the U.S. in the twenty-first century. What does Russia in 1917 (and earlier, when Lenin was formulating his ideas) have in common with the U.S. in 2018? Why not stop obsessing over how Lenin seized power in a shattered late-feudal, early-capitalist country, or what his strategies were to seize power in such a country, and instead focus on conditions and problems that confront us now?

One other point about feminists, and many other young leftists today: conservatives’ criticisms of their totalitarian tendencies are not wholly off the mark. Free speech is, after all, an important value, however much feminists and others might not want to hear things that hurt their feelings. To give a trivial personal example: I was once invited to give a talk on worker cooperatives at a university, but the invitation was rescinded after some students came across the page on feminism I linked to above. They were offended, you see, by what they had read. I found the incident more amusing than anything, but it was a little disconcerting to have it vividly confirmed to me that even the sorts of obvious truths and mild provocations they had read are considered beyond the pale, so much so that it’s necessary to cancel a talk on a completely unrelated subject. Nothing less than absolute uniformity of thought is permitted.

Such censorship, incidentally, has an ironic similarity to the functioning of hierarchical institutions. In institutions, at least, one can argue there’s some necessity to conform fairly rigidly; otherwise the institution might break down. But leftists should be more careful about persecuting people, or refusing to listen to them, just because they don’t subscribe wholeheartedly to the party line.

Again, though, Chomsky’s attitude is right: however stupid and immoral the totalitarian intolerance of young leftists might be—and also self-defeating, because it risks alienating people who basically share their values and want to fight for a better society—the threat to free speech posed by such people is so minuscule compared to the colossal suppression of truth and free speech by government and the corporate media that it makes no sense to focus on the silly young leftists. Unless, of course, you’re as unprincipled as, say, Nicholas Kristof.

Moreover, Chomsky’s general reluctance to criticize the left, especially as compared with the fierce criticisms he levels against dominant groups, is precisely right. “The most important word in the language of the working class is ‘solidarity,’” Harry Bridges said. Privately, yes, one should criticize the actions or beliefs of fellow leftists if that might have a constructive effect. But one should be wary of making severe public criticisms, since that might serve only to foment resentment and thereby fragment and undermine the left. No living leftist better exemplifies solidarity than Chomsky. (On this point, he is far superior to the sectarian Marx.)

To sum up, Chomsky has been able to avoid all the decadence that has afflicted intellectual and cultural life for well over a hundred years. I have yet to come across instances in his writings and talks of sloppy thinking, intellectual dishonesty, a lack of commitment to principle, or the groupthink and status-consciousness that determine how virtually all “intellectuals” (and, in fact, nearly all people) think, write, and act. How common it is for people to take something seriously just because it’s taken seriously by others! Or to act in a certain way only because others do, and condemn those who act or think differently. Instead, one should step outside one’s own little subjectivity, one’s personal feelings and impulses, and evaluate every thought and act in the light of cold reason and warm compassion.


Another unusual quality of this Übermensch I’m over-praising is that he doesn’t waste words. His manner of speaking and writing is notably pithy and economical—which sounds odd, since he’s famously long-winded. He talks and talks, and could probably talk for days, until he collapsed from inanition, just following a train of thought where it led him. In general, though, every word seems necessary, every sentence furthers the argument or usefully illustrates it with examples. This economy of expression is, to put it mildly, unusual among intellectuals. As among everyone else. People love to hear themselves talk, and they’ll frequently talk for the sake of talking. It’s a phenomenon readily observable during most kinds of “meetings” (of activists, for example), academic seminars, and question-and-answer sessions during talks (in which audience members asking their questions frequently expatiate unnecessarily, and often incoherently, on all manner of topics, until the moderator has to interrupt them).

Again, I’m led back to the theme of decadence, and of particularity vs. generality. People are immersed in themselves: when talking at great length unnecessarily, they’re being self-indulgent, unempathetic, undisciplined, and just plain stupid. (Stupidity is utterly immersed in itself, whereas intelligence incorporates others. Particularity vs. generality.) In communicating, one should try to stick to the point. Even more importantly, one should have a point.

Chomsky’s practice in this respect holds some lessons for academics. He doesn’t describe for the sake of describing, recounting things that happened just because it’s interesting to tell stories or to probe the experiences of people from certain analytical perspectives (the perspectives of gender, race, sexuality, or whatnot). While there is value in doing so, in the manner of social historians for example, he prefers to take a more scientific approach to the study of society. As he says in this interview (near the end), if your goal is to explain, rather than just to describe, you have to apply general principles to particular phenomena and try to explain the latter in terms of the former. You don’t simply wade around in the particularity and remain on that level; and you certainly don’t celebrate the particular for its own sake, as postmodern scholarship—which rejects general principles like class conflict as either oversimplifications or of no special priority—often does. The whole point of science is to simplify, to explain the chaotic mess of reality in terms of simple principles like Boyle’s Law or Newton’s laws of motion. You abstract from complicating factors and isolate dominant forces; then you try to account for unexplained factors by using secondary principles, and so on. Throughout, the point is to test the general idea, not to say, in effect, “Reality is incredibly complex, but here are various ways of describing it and interpreting it (using gender, race, sexuality, class, individual psychology, etc.).”

Chomsky isn’t wrong when he says—while admitting that the picture he’s presenting is overdrawn—“Humanistic scholarship…says every fact is precious; you put it alongside every other fact. That’s a sure way to guarantee you’ll never understand anything. If you tried to do that in the sciences, you wouldn’t even reach the level of Babylonian astronomy.”

As I’ve explained in this essay, in the case of society, the dominant principle has to be class conflict. Or historical materialism more generally. Of course, society is different from nature: it’s not deterministic. So the “science” is of a different character than physics, and the explanatory principles are of a different character than Newton’s laws of motion. Still, the people who criticize Chomsky or Howard Zinn or Marx for being reductivist, oversimplifying, partisan, etc. are wide of the mark. The truth is that it’s the establishment intellectuals who are being far less scientific than the “partisan” leftists, because the latter recognize how science, or understanding, works. It isn’t “neutral.” It is grounded in“reductivist” principles.

A new book by the respected liberal historian Jill Lepore serves to illustrate the point. These Truths: A History of the United States has received the usual acclaim that establishment writers get, and in many ways it is an impressive achievement. But not as providing a framework of explanation for U.S. history. Insofar as the narrative is guided by general ideas at all, they’re the wrong ideas. “The United States rests on a dedication to equality, which is chiefly a moral idea, rooted in Christianity, but it rests, too, on a dedication to inquiry, fearless and unflinching.” “The American experiment rests on three political ideas…political equality, natural rights, and the sovereignty of the people.” It’s the tiresomely conventional liberal idealism, which, incidentally, is grounded in value-judgments just as much as Zinn’s People’s History of the United States is. Lepore has given the usual criticisms of Zinn, that he simply reverses old value-judgments about the gloriousness of America, a reversal that, analytically, “isn’t an advance; it’s more of the same, only upside-down.” She fails to see that her own history is just a more subtle return to the narrative about how great and unique “the American experiment” is. She acknowledges that lots of bad things have happened in U.S. history, but then immediately qualifies this admission by saying it’s true of every other country too (which it is). And then the next sentence: “But there is also, in the American past, an extraordinary amount of decency and hope, of prosperity and ambition, and much, especially, of invention and beauty.” This sentence isn’t followed by acknowledgement that the same value-judgment is true of other countries, because Lepore, as a good patriotic liberal American, still implicitly subscribes to the old notion of American exceptionalism (which Zinn, being a deeper thinker, rejected—and this wasan “analytical advance”). Her agenda is to celebrate the U.S.—to defend it against “critics” like Zinn—as a French historian might celebrate France, a British historian might celebrate Britain, etc. There isn’t much explanatory value in this sort of patriotic narrative history.

I’d also note, in defense of Zinn, that it isn’t true he does “nothing but” criticize the United States, as Lepore says. As a serious thinker, unlike Lepore, he knows that the very idea of criticizing the United States is meaningless, since the United States isn’t a single coherent entity. Being a nation, it’s an artificial construction that has innumerable dimensions. Zinn criticizes the U.S. government; he celebrates the American people, especially those who have resisted oppression. He has a far more sophisticated analytical method than a Lepore.

One of the reasons for his sophistication is that he doesn’t adopt a naïve idealism that tries to “explain” history using principles that aren’t robust enough to really explain anything. He uses truly explanatory principles, which, like a scientist would, he tests by deeply exploring the past. These “principles” amount to the single, commonsense statement that Chomsky makes in the film Requiem for the American Dream: “The history of the United States is a constant struggle between these two tendencies: pressure for more freedom and democracy coming from below, and efforts at elite control and domination coming from above.” It’s a history of power struggles, which amounts to a history of class conflict (including racial and other forms of conflict, conditioned in myriad ways by class). This is a realistic and substantive hypothesis that provides a framework of understanding, and that is backed up by a colossal body of world historiography.[1]

Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs has devastatingly criticized Lepore’s book, pointing out that it mostly ignores the history of working-class struggle, among other things that are central to the American story. But this is what happens when you don’t have much of an overall point except to tell particular stories that you rather arbitrarily judge to be important. If you lack a weighty analytical anchor, you lose your way.

I’ve always found it ironic that the idealists, whether liberal, conservative, or postmodernist, are bad at ideas, far worse than the materialists.

The fact is that you don’t need the endless verbiage of academics, the (usually hyper-specialized) books and articles ad infinitum, in order to understand the world. Essential truths can be expressed in a few words, as Chomsky shows. You state the hypotheses, and then you provide the factual documentation. Of course, we intellectuals have to get our paychecks, so it’s necessary for us to constantly come up with new research proposals and new stories to tell for their own sake, and to discuss and discuss unendingly in conferences and so forth, repeating and slightly reformulating old insights or “problematizing” them for the sake of problematizing them, pompously “theorizing” and pontificating, but little of our activity has much of a ‘scientific’—and certainly not a moral—payoff. It’s just how the institutions work, and how the political economy keeps educated people occupied who might otherwise spend their time on dangerous pursuits like challenging power-structures.


This article has gotten longer than I anticipated, but there are a couple more points I want to make before putting an end to the “endless verbiage” to which I’m subjecting the reader.

When reading Chomsky’s works or watching his interviews, I sometimes come across a startling statement that first elicits the reaction “What the…?”, which is momentarily followed by “Hm, that makes sense.” And then I envy the mind that was independent enough to have come up with the idea on its own.

I remember reading in Understanding Power that when some Vietnamese refugees in Canada had burned Chomsky’s books he wasn’t bothered by it. It’s a reasonable form of protest, he said (as long as it isn’t done by governments or corporations). Having been indoctrinated by writers of books into thinking that books are sacred, that book-burning is always a barbaric act, for a moment I was surprised. But then I thought, “Sure, why not? What’s so terrible about burning a few copies of books if you think they’re bad books? It’s not like you’re burning everycopy. It’s just a symbolic statement. It’s free expression!” Most other authors would have been outraged at a bonfire of their books, but Chomsky doesn’t take things personally. Abstract principles are what matter.

More recently, I was struck by his statement in this video (at 31:44) that “the concept of debate is one of the most irrational inventions that human beings have come up with.” Huh? “Just think about what a debate is. The ground rules for a debate are you’re not allowed to change your mind. You’re not allowed to say to the person you’re talking to, ‘oh, that was an interesting idea, why don’t we pursue it?’ It’s just the height of irrationality…” As he elaborates, you realize he’s basically right. Personally, I’m too much a product of my society, too groupthinking and conformist, to have had the thought on my own. I’ve always wished I were a better debater. But yes, surely the main reason debates happen at all is that ego and questions of power are involved. (Or the debate can be a game, a competition.) If it were only a question of reason, we would have open-minded conversations, not debates.

I now try never to automatically accept seemingly reasonable cultural ‘constructs,’ but instead to critically examine every value and idea I’m pressured to accept. It’s a hard thing to do consistently. But even ideas I’ve come to on my own I try to periodically challenge yet again, to see if they still make sense in the light of new experiences.

In the end, it’s this (relative) absence of ego that sets Chomsky (relatively) apart. He obsesses over politics not because he enjoys it—he surely finds it as dreary as I do—but because, given his abilities, he has a duty to. I think we all could be a little more conscious of our duties to each other, insofar as we subscribe to the Golden Rule (as we should). Duties to be kind, to answer emails, to not be too quick to judge harshly, to imagine ourselves in the other person’s shoes, to give people the benefit of the doubt while yet taking a clear stand when certain moral lines have been crossed, and in general to strive for relative selflessness (because that is intellectually, aesthetically, and morally elevated).

It’s easy to be misanthropic and nihilistic, but there’s something a little self-indulgent, even decadent, about that. A more “clean” and virile response is to recognize the horrendous evils and absurdities of the world, indeed to take them for granted, but to imagine oneself as an objectively detached being who is committed, no matter what, to realizing certain universal values. Nothing can make you stray from your path. However stupidly and disgustingly people act, you continue to act kindly and respectfully because it’s a principle you’re committed to, your own categorical imperative. You keep working to improve the world in whatever small ways you can, because that’s the law you’ve given yourself. You try not to emotionally dwell on the negative, since there’s so much of the negative in the world that you’ll end up in suicidal despair. You remember there is also plenty of the positive, and the only healthy thing is to increase the aggregate amount of the positive.

In a sense, don’t take the world seriously. Don’t take the farce, or the “freak show,” as George Carlin called it, seriously. We’re here for a few decades, can observe and try to mitigate the freak show for a few decades, and then vanish into the oblivion from whence we came. Nothing really makes sense, not our existence and, especially, not what we’ve collectively done with our existence. The brutal Chomskian irony/sarcasm is appropriate. But you still make of life what you can, do what you can to live in a healthy way, not being surprised or overly depressed by all the cruelty and absurdity but impressed by the many positive qualities you encounter.

Nietzsche’s amor fati is perhaps unattainable, but Chomsky’s stoicism and good humor are the next best thing.

In short: happy birthday, Noam, and may you have many more.


[1] But you really only need to read one book in order to get the rudiments of an education: Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky. I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that, together with its extraordinary footnotes, this may be the greatest book ever published in the fields of political philosophy and political science. I think it also suggests one of the reasons that intellectuals loathe Chomsky: he knows and understands so much more than they, despite lacking all professional credentials in these fields, that his existence is something of an embarrassment. Even worse, it’s hopeless to argue against him. All you can do is smear him.

Categories: News for progressives

Democratic Socialism: The Impossible Dream?

Fri, 2018-11-30 15:54

Photo Source David Shankbone | CC BY 2.0

The founders of “scientific socialism,” Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, assumed it was quite possible, even historically inevitable, for working people to democratically govern an industrial society.  However, they never went into detail about how this would work.  Even today, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, many orthodox Marxists persist in believing that vast, complex, globalized, industrial economies can be run by and for the workers who operate the machinery of production.  In fact, doctrinaire Marxists still cling to the fantasy that worker-run industrial socialism is not only possible, it is the historically destined, superior replacement for industrial capitalism.

This Marxist conviction is dubious for two reasons.  First, history has demonstrated that after many attempts, and despite their best intentions, the leaders of “socialist” revolutions have never succeeded in building an industrial society run by and for working people.  Second, the primary underlying reason for this failure flows from the structural requirements of industrial society.  Fossil-fueled industrial economies exert a powerful influence over their social structure. The extensive, intricate, hierarchical configuration of carbon-powered industrialism appears structurally unsuited and deeply resistant to bottom-up, democratic management.

When socialist-led revolutions seized political power in Russia, China, and elsewhere, Marxists were quick to label these countries “socialist.”  They were convinced that their ruling communist parties would industrialize these countries and bring them under democratic, working class control. Meanwhile, in Western Europe, reform-minded Marxists believed working people could gain power over their industrial economies through the ballot instead of the bullet.  But whether socialist parties were elected or seized power through revolution, they were never able to bring an industrial economy under the democratic management of working people.

Does this mean industrial societies are stuck with capitalism?  No. History has proven that industrial societies can possess relations of production other than profit-driven capitalism. Just as the agricultural societies generated despotic, slave, feudal, and capitalist class relations at different places and points in history, modern industrialism’s brief 200-year lifespan has generated a spectrum of economic relations as well.  But none of them have been democratic.

History demonstrates that industrialism can be dominated by capitalist owners out to maximize their profits or by central planners who manage the economy to benefit themselves while governing in the name of the people. Thus, the actual distance been industrial capitalism and the statist economies falsely labeled “socialist” or “communist” is much narrower than either old-line Marxists or free-market ideologues want to admit.  Throughout the 20th century, capitalists and communists waged ideological warfare over which type of industrial system was superior—privately run or government planned. But these arguments exaggerated the actual, real world differences between state-run (“socialist”) and corporate-run (capitalist) industrial systems.  In doing so, they hid the pervasive similarities between these two versions of industrial society.

During the Cold War, most Marxists asserted that the state-planned, industrial societies they called “socialist,” were far superior to capitalism. They denounced capitalism as a crisis-ridden system that benefitted the few by exploiting the labor of the vast majority.  These Marxists believed that government-planned industrial economies would outlaw labor exploitation for private profit and promote the general welfare of all.  Conversely, free market ideologues insisted these statist industrial economies (that they also called communist or socialist) suppressed economic liberty; stifled competition, efficiency, and innovation; and imposed totalitarian control over every aspect of life.

The original meaning of “socialism” and “communism” was lost in this ideological shadow boxing.  As originally intended by Marx and Engels, a socialist society would be run democratically, by the vast majority of working people, on the basis of human need, not profit.  In other words, socialism meant economic, political, and social democracy. They believed worker-run socialism would eventually become classless communism, as industry produced enough wealth to satisfy everyone’s basic needs and people became accustomed to contributing their abilities to a commonwealth that encouraged their talents and potentials in return.

When self-proclaimedsocialist revolutions came to power in Russia and China, Western capitalists were worried. They feared that thriving workers’ democracies could make capitalism look inferior and inspire more class rebellions around the world.  They tried to eliminate, subvert, and vilify these socialist experiments whenever possible. But sabotage failed to prevent these experiments in “socialist construction” from rapidly industrializing. Unfortunately, industrialization was never accompanied by economic democracy.

For years Marxists excused the failure of self-proclaimed socialist governments to promote democracy in the workplace, the community, and in government.  There was substantial truth in their excuses.  The conditions for promoting democracy were definitely not ideal in the USSR, China, or any of the other countries where communist parties came to power.  These countries were not the advanced industrial societies Marx and Engels believed would become the birthplace of socialism.  The working class was not the majority; instead, it was a poorly organized minority in underdeveloped nations of peasant farmers.

But even though the Soviet Union and China fell short of their vision of working class democracy, most Marxists were hopeful that they were a work-in-progress.  They claimed economic democracy would come later, after a modern industrial economy was constructed under the direction of the communist party’s central planners.  Unfortunately, later morphed into never.  Although the USSR and China industrialized and the “socialist” nations of Eastern Europe modernized rapidly after World War II, efforts to promote genuine economic and political democracy never gained traction, even after the working class was the vast majority of society.

In fact, no self-proclaimed socialist country, from Poland and East Germany to Cuba and Vietnam, ever achieved the type of economic and political democracy Marx, Engels, and most socialist revolutionaries envisioned. Instead, what passed for socialism were statist societies ruled from above by an elite cadre of party officials and central planners.  Needless to say, the proponents of capitalism seized every opportunity to disparage and vilify the idea of communism and socialism whenever these statist governments failed to live up to their self-proclaimed socialist ideals, which they invariably did.

The rulers of statist systems insisted they were Marxists, leading their socialist nations toward a classless, communist society.  Yet, as time passed, it appeared that centrally planned industrial systems consistently fostered an entrenched, privileged class of party officials and central planners rather than a socialist democracy run by and for working people.[1]  Yet, both communist and capitalist cold warriors insisted on mislabeling these statist societies “socialist” and either condemned them as grim totalitarian tyrannies or extolled them as prosperous workers’ democracies.

It is important to note that it served the interests of both sides to mislabel these statist systems “socialist” or “communist.”  Western capitalist governments wanted to discourage their citizens from seeing socialism as a viable alternative, so they highlighted the worst qualities of these state-planned economies to portray socialism as an evil totalitarian system.  From the other side, the ruling parties of these statist economies proclaimed themselves to be the leaders of prosperous socialist democracies on the path to classless communism, while glossing over the grim realities of industrial statism with glowing propaganda.

Thus, for opposite reasons, both sides of the Cold War tacitly agreed with the self-serving fiction that these statist industrial societies were genuine examples of socialism.  So when the Soviet system imploded and China integrated itself back into the global capitalist system, it became a commonly accepted myth that socialism (and communism) had failed and capitalism had won the Cold War.  When actually, what failed was statist industrialism.

In reality, genuine democratic socialism has never existed despite the self-serving claims of both sides to the contrary.  In fact, the complex, large scale, highly centralized, vertically integrated nature of industrial society cannot possibly accommodate authentic, bottom-up, democratic control over this top-down economic process.

There are multiple theories for why democratic socialism failed. Some critics of revolution insist that the leaders of socialist insurrections were merely power-driven opportunists who never intended to bring the working class into power.  However, to be a valid explanation for the universal failure of democratic socialism this would have to be true across the board, for all those who led and organized every socialist revolution.

History provides no evidence for the assertion that none of the revolutionaries who risked their lives to lead anti-capitalist revolutions were sincerely committed to democratic socialism.  Of course, there are always opportunists in every political movement.  But it is inaccurate to claim that socialism failed because these revolutionary Marxists were never genuinely committed to democratic socialism.  Instead, most either believed the communist party represented working people or hoped to bring the working class into power eventually. Yet, despite their best intentions, this never happened.  Why?

As Engels reminds us, sometimes our intentions,“are from the outset incapable of realization, or the means of attaining them are insufficient.”  He goes on to explain that when our intentions are unattainable, “the conflict of innumerable individual wills…for the most part, produce results quite other than those they intended–often quite the opposite.”[2]  The socialist-led revolutions of the 20th century did indeed produce results quite other than those they intended.  Yes, they were able to launch nations down a path of state-planned industrialization that did not operate according to the profit-driven imperatives of capitalism. But these statist systems bore no further resemblance to democratic socialism.

Most historians have rejected opportunism as a universal explanation for the failure of democratic socialism.  But many doctrinaire Marxists went so far as to insist that any criticism of self-proclaimed socialist countries was merely capitalist propaganda. However, less ideologically rigid Marxists have offered a range of plausible reasons why democratic socialism has failed to materialize.

Some blame capitalism.  Without a doubt, capitalist powers have tried very hard to vilify, abort, or undermine these revolutionary regimes at every turn.  Their efforts had an definite impact.  They made it very difficult for socialist experiments to succeed, while highlighting their failures to turn people against socialism.  Yet these efforts at sabotage did not prevent communist parties from rapidly industrializing or claiming they were constructing socialism despite “capitalist encirclement.”[3]

Other Marxists blamed the failure of democratic socialism on the authoritarian rule of communist vanguard parties that monopolized power while claiming to rule in the name of the workers.  There is truth in this criticism as well.  Most ruling communist parties extolled their nation’s faultless leaders and the infallibility of Marxist doctrine even as they departed further and further from anything resembling democratic socialism.  In fact, time after time, as countries became more complex and industrialized they became even less democratic.

The failure of democratic socialism was also blamed on the underdeveloped economies where revolutions brought communists to power.  When communist parties gained power after leading successful national liberation movements in the Third World, some Marxists doubted they could create socialism in these backward peasant countries. They believed socialism would be impossible unless communist parties pursued a policy of rapid industrialization to modernize the country and develop a working class majority.  But even in China and the Soviet Union, where rapid modernization succeeded and the working class became the majority, no working class democracy ever materialized.

Other Marxists reasoned that when communist parties led armed insurrections followed by policies of rapid industrialization they were compelled to impose top-down programs and directives incompatible with the messy, time-consuming process of bottom-up, participatory democracy.[4]  There is substantial truth to these Third World focused explanations because they reflect the underlying fact that rapid industrialization is inherently resistant to democratic management.

However, it is important to note that none of these partial explanations can account for the failure of socialists in the industrialized West to establish working class democracies—either through revolutions or elections.  In the more developed nations of the global economy, the revolutionary path to power has never succeeded.  Some Marxists attribute this to the enormous coercive power of the corporate state; others blame the false consciousness imposed by capitalism’s ideological “hegemony” over the entire culture.[5]

These Marxists highlight the political complacency fostered by media-hyped consumerism, individualism, and the higher living standards found in the industrialized core of the global economy.  These conditions produced a working class with no taste for revolution and a limited enthusiasm for electing “socialist” governments.  If elected, socialist and communist politicians never attempted to democratize the economy.  Instead they settled for taxing corporate profits and promoting welfare state industrialism.  But the economy remained largely in private hands.  Even when a “socialist” government exercised power over major portions of the economy, this power was never held by working people.

Ultimately, these are all partial, piecemeal explanations for the failure of democratic socialism.  Some theories focus on why it failed in poor nations, others on why it failed in wealthy nations; some focus on power-hungry politicians, working class apathy, or the inherent weaknesses of either reform or revolution.  However, universal failure would suggest that there are more pervasive, underlying, structural reasons why neither revolutionary nor reformist efforts to build democratic socialism have ever achieved more than welfare state capitalism or statist industrialism.  The essential truth remains that genuine democratic socialism has not succeeded anywhere, even though Marxists believed it would succeed everywhere.

Is it possible that a rapidly expanding, multi-state, globalized industrial economy—powered by an energy base of fossil fuels—is incompatible with nationally restricted efforts to bring it under genuine democratic control?  In hindsight, it appears that the physical constraints and social requirements imposed by globalized industrialism foster undemocratic, hierarchical economic relations resembling either corporatist or statist political economies that resist bottom-up, democratic governance.  This is the most feasible, comprehensive explanation for the failure of democratic socialism in both emerging and mature industrial societies.  The other piecemeal theories discussed above are partially accurate, yet limited, derivatives of this pervasive, underlying restriction on genuine economic democracy.

The problem solving theoretical principle known as Occam’s razor (or the law of parsimony)considers the strongest theory to be the one that provides the simplest, most comprehensive explanation in line with the evidence.[6]  The conclusion that economic democracy is incompatible with the hierarchical, vertically organized structure of industrial production meets these criteria.  By its very nature, fossil-fueled industrialism promotes extensive, highly integrated economies of scale that require top-down managerial direction.  Complicated, highly mechanized, global chains of industrial production frustrate nationally confined, workplace-centered economic democracy.  They require an managerial elite to oversee the planning, administration, and supervision these technologically elaborate, vertically integrated operations. Therefore, it becomes virtually impossible to govern these political economies in a decentralized, democratic manner—especially when chains of production override and transcend national borders.

Even for the “socialist” countries that tried to remain detached from the global capitalist economy, industrialization defied “democratic socialist planning.”  Without profit margins and market signals to influence economic decisions and erratically adjust supply and demand, the extremely complicated process of fossil fueled industrial production had to be centrally planned to meet the multiple contending needs of the workforce, the surrounding community, the entire nation, and the sophisticated technologies needed to operate it.

Grassroots democratic control over this “pyramid of production” has never succeeded at the national level and is hard to even imagine on an international scale.  Invariably, the nature of this giant, complicated, hierarchical system resists democratic oversight and impedes bottom-up decision-making procedures.  Therefore, despite the polarized, antagonistic ideologies of capitalism and “socialism,” the spectrum of real world production relations compatible with carbon-powered, highly mechanized societies is much narrower than these rival ideologies care to admit.

Whether they call themselves socialist or capitalist, all modern societies generate a managerial elite of central planners or corporate executives to oversee them.  Even so, the enormity and complexity of globalized industrialism defies strict, comprehensive control.  However, by occupying society’s commanding heights, ruling elites dominate the decision making process and claim an inequitable share of the benefits for themselves.  They control the technologies of energy conversion and the institutions of economic power; they use this power to shape society’s political priorities and cultural institutions.  Thus, the party officials and state planners of “socialist” countries like China bear a remarkable resemblance, in both appearance and function, to the top corporate executives and government policymakers of their capitalist counterparts.  In each case, complex, centralized, mechanized, urbanized, fossil-fueled economies beget a powerful industrial elite who attempt to control the flow of energy, resources, money, power, and information.

While capitalist ideologues, in theory, extol the virtues of the competitive “free market” and spurn state regulation, in reality corporate executives revile competition and do everything in their power to avoid it unless the game is rigged in their favor.  As Marx pointed out long ago, each successive bout of boom and bust reduces capitalist competition, which inevitably succumbs to centralization and oligopoly.  Instead of a regulation-free competitive environment, giant corporations prefer a corrupt “revolving door” relationship with government policymakers who favor them with political influence, lucrative contracts, tax breaks, and subsidies, while forcing small businesses to contend with regulatory barriers and rigged markets that make competition nearly impossible.  The supposed separation between the public and private sectors is more artifice than reality.  At the pinnacles of power, capitalist elites circulate constantly between highly integrated “private” and “public” sectors of social control.

Powerful industrial states, whether capitalist or statist, always possess a well-funded national security apparatus of armies, propaganda and intelligence operatives, police, courts, and prisons.  These institutions of social mind control, coercion, and violence are used in exactly the same way: to defend and advance the industrial elite’s interests at home and abroad and to suppress any significant dissent and unrest.

Beneath this powerful class of industrial “socialist” and capitalist elites there are middle class functionaries, scientists, bureaucrats, and professionals who provide the intellectual talents, technological expertise, and managerial skills necessary to keep a complex society functioning. This middle class lives better than the vast majority of the population whose days are spent doing the mind-numbing, back-breaking, minimum wage jobs needed to tend the bureaucratic-industrial machine.

Except for relative differences in social welfare, modern conveniences, and purchasing power, these basic relations of production have characterized all developed industrialized countries from capitalist Europe and America to statist systems like the Soviet Union, its East European allies, and China. Wherever you look, genuine economic and political democracy has not proven compatible with the industrial mode of production, despite the dedicated efforts of free-market libertarians, anarchists, populists, radical democrats, communists, and socialist revolutionaries to redistribute wealth and power.  Instead, some configuration of industrial rulers have always emerged and prevailed.

Thus, genuine socialism has never become a reality despite the best intentions of those who struggled to bring it about.  Instead, their best intentions and noble aspirations were eroded and warped to fit the structural imperatives of modern industrial society.  The result became the various versions of statist industrialism that passed for “socialism” during the 20th century. With few exceptions, all of these statist systems had re-integrated themselves into the global capitalist system to one degree or another by the end of the 20th century.[7]  Marxists have been hard pressed to explain why.

This was especially perplexing for old school Marxists and communists who wanted to believe that these statist societies were genuine socialist systems at the vanguard of history, leading humanity down the evolutionary road to communism.  After all, why would a socialist nation, supposedly run by and for working people, ever choose to reverse the course of history and rejoin the capitalist system?  However, once you remove the ideological blinders, the answer to this question is much less perplexing: the working class was never in power in any of these so-called “socialist” governments.

Some Marxists claim these statist systems were actually socialist because, unlike capitalist countries, state-planned enterprises were not required to maximize profit and were not allowed to turn labor or means of production into commodities.  The government was the only owner of the means of production and thus the only employer of the working class.  It guaranteed workers a job and didn’t restrict basic social needs like education, housing, transportation, and health care to only those who could afford to buy them.

However, the working class did not have any effective control over these “socialist” governments.  These statist systems were not democratic; and the inefficient, unaccountable bureaucracies that managed every walk of life were self-serving, impassive, insensitive, and generally unresponsive to public criticism.  Even at its best, the quality of the jobs, goods, and services provided by these state planned economies was highly unsatisfactory for everyone except a politically privileged elite.

Thus, like capitalism, alienation pervaded every aspect of life under statist societies.  While the profit motive is the primary directive for corporate elites, “communist” officials were motivated to please their superiors in the chain of command by perfunctorily fulfilling the directives of the central plan.  This situation left most working people completely alienated from, and disillusioned with, the grand ideals of “socialism.” So when these centrally planned systems began to implode under the burden of their own bureaucratic weight, corruption, and inefficiency, those who imagined they could do better under industrial capitalism were not sorry to see them go.

As the Age of Fossil Fuels draws to a close, there is an important lesson to be learned from our brief, petroleum powered, roller coaster ride through industrial civilization.  Energy sources, and the technologies used to harness them, are not socially or politically neutral.  They have a powerful influence over how society can be organized.  They promote some types of economic relations and discourage others.  While hydrocarbon powered industrial societies have proven incompatible with genuine economic democracy, future societies will have to live without this enormously rich, ecologically devastating energy source.  The decentralized technologies needed to harness alternative energy sources may be much more conducive to democratic governance at the community and workplace level.  However, there is absolutely no guarantee that post carbon societies will be more just or democratic.  After all, feudal and slave societies were based on renewable energy.  Those who hope to build a less alienating, more democratic future will have to pay careful attention to the social and political consequences of the technologies they adopt to harness renewable energy.


[1] One of the first materialist analyses of this process was: Rizzi, Bruno. THE BUREAUCRATIZATION OF THE WORLD (Free Press, 1939); see also: Bahro, Rudolf. SOCIALISM & SURVIVAL. (Heretic Books, 1982) and Bahro’s FROM RED TO GREEN. (VERSO, 1981).

[2] Engels, Friedrich. LUDWIG FEUERBACH (1888): 47-51.

[3] The notion of “capitalist encirclement” was popularized by Joseph Stalin.  In his words, “Capitalist encirclement—that is no empty phrase; that is a very real and unpleasant feature.  Capitalist encirclement means that here is one country, the Soviet Union, which has established the socialist order on its own territory and besides this there are many countries, bourgeois countries, which continue to carry on a capitalist mode of life and which surround the Soviet Union, waiting for an opportunity to attack it, break it, or at any rate to undermine its power and weaken it.”

[4] Fagen, Richard R. “The Politics of Transition,”Monthly Review. (Nov., 1986).

[5] As popularized by the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, cultural hegemonyis the domination of capitalist society by a ruling elite that imposes its beliefs and values upon the entire culture.  Through its influence over all the venues of cultural indoctrination, education, and discourse capitalist ideology becomes the universally accepted ideology. It justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for everyone, rather than as an artificial social construct that benefits only the ruling class.  See: Hoare, Quentin and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, eds. SELECTIONS FROM THE PRISON NOTEBOOKS of ANTONIO GRAMSCI (1971).

[6] The law of parsimony, often referred to as Occam’s razor, is the problem-solving principle that the simplest viable solution tends to be the right one.  Thus, when presented with competing explanations, one should select the simplest, most comprehensive, hypothesis with the fewest assumptions and compatible with the evidence at hand.

[7] Since 1960, Cuban “socialism” has remained a relatively self-reliant, partially state planned society by default in many respects.  The collapse of the USSR and the stiff embargo enforced by the US imposed a level of self-sufficiency on the island that largely removed the potential for greater reintegration into the world capitalist system.  If the embargo is lifted, these new conditions will alter Cuba’s domestic and global economic relations.  This externally and internally reinforced isolation is similar to the situation of North Korea, although these two systems differ dramatically in many ways.

Categories: News for progressives

First Step Post-Election – Open Up the Closed, Secretive Congress

Fri, 2018-11-30 15:53

Photo Source Mike Norton | CC BY 2.0

Following the mid-term elections, progressive citizen groups have to advance an agenda that makes Congress work for all Americans. The first step, however, is to acknowledge that Capitol Hill has walled itself off from the people, on behalf of corporate autocrats.

Currently, Congress is open for avaricious business, not for productive democracy. Congress itself is a concentrated tyranny of self-privilege, secrecy, repressiveness, and exclusive rules and practices. Congress fails to hold public hearings on many important matters and too often abandons oversight of the executive branch, and shuts out citizens who aren’t campaign donors. (See my new book, How the Rats Re-Formed the Congress at

Having sponsored in the nineteen-seventies the bestselling book ever on Congress – Who Runs Congress, I have a frame of reference for the present, staggering institutional narcissism of the Congress as the most powerful, though smallest, branch of our federal government.

It would have been rare in the sixties and seventies for major legislation to have moved to the floor of the House and the Senate without thorough public hearings with witnesses from a diverse array of citizen groups being given a chance to come and testify.

In the past two years, the Republicans sent the tax escape and health care restriction legislations to the floor, without any public hearings at the Committee level. The “tax bonanza for the corporate and wealthy” passed into law, while the “take away health care for millions of people” bill fortunately lost by one vote in the Senate.

Cong. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee sent five bills to the House floor, without public hearings, that were meant to usurp the state courts’ traditional jurisdiction and weaken your rights to have your day in court before a trial by jury were you wrongfully injured. This vicious attack by Goodlatte’s corporatists on vulnerable victims was blocked by the Senate Democrats.

U.S. Supreme Court nominees before the Senate used to face days of public hearings with many valuable witnesses. For three decades, the Senate Judiciary Committee, under both Democratic and Republican control have shortened the hearings and markedly cut back on witnesses permitted to testify. Knowledgeable people with adverse information about the nominees were kept from testifying – their requests often not even acknowledged.

The signs of Congressional closeouts are everywhere. Years ago, Congress excluded itself from the great Freedom of Information Act. This arrogance fostered a breeding ground for abusive secrecy, covered up were such conflicts as members of Congress speculating in stocks with their inside information, corruption inquests before House and senate Ethics Committee. Even using taxpayer money to settle credible accusations of sexual assault against sitting lawmakers were all covered up.

The orgy of self-privilege knows few boundaries – being wined and dined and journeyed on fundraising junkets by lobbyists who donate dollars to their campaigns in return for legislated bonanzas or immunities is normal business practice. The Senators and Representatives give themselves generous pensions, health insurance, life insurance, and other goodies while denying or failing to provide tens of millions of people those protective benefits and coverages.

Members of Congress get special favors from an airline industry that gives you the back of its omnipresent, fee imposing hand (except for Southwest Airlines). Our survey of every member of Congress which aimed to publicize the details of these commercially provided privileges was ignored by every member of Congress. (See my “Letter to Congress re: Airline industry influence”). Also, nobody knows what favors the banks give them, while these subsidized firms gouge their customers with outlandish fess, penalties and ludicrously low interest rates on savings.

If you’ve ever wondered why the nearly $5 billion you pay annually to support 535 offices in Congress does not produce supervision of the sprawling wasteful executive branch Departments such as the Department of Defense, the Department of Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and State, the FDA and others, it might just be that the corporate donors are in effect paying their recipient solons to look the other way and let their passive Committee staff slumber.

An increasing number of the staff assigned to each member and their well-budgeted Committees are coming from the so-called K Street lobbying business. A little on-the-job experience helps them deliver the goodies to their former corporate employers, before rejoining them for lucrative salaries.

This corruption of the professional Congressional staff motivated Michael Pertschuk, the great chief of staff for Senator Warren Magnuson’s powerful Senate Commerce Committee, to write the recent book titled When the Senate Worked for Us. He chronicled the days in the sixties and seventies, when professional staffers played critical roles in passing consumer, environmental, worker, and other life-saving legislation.

The heavy concentration of power in the top two rulers of the Senate and the House has stripped Committee chairpersons of much of their power to address urgent necessities and diversify and decentralize internal Congressional power and activities.

Then there are the daily irritations. Regular people trying to call members of Congress or Committees find their switchboard increasingly on voice mail during working hours. Substantive letters from constituents are not even acknowledged much less given the respect of a reply. Calls to Senators or Representatives or their top staff are often ignored if you are not a campaign contributor.

These increasing plunges into dictatorial misuses of the sovereign power we have delegated to members of Congress are not universal. There are minorities of good-faith lawmakers objecting, but their power is too little to overcome the Congressional Corporate complex that has seized our Capitol.

As I’ve written many times before, it is not as hard as we think to break the corporate grip on our Congress. Creating a people-driven Congress starts with organizing Congressional Watchdog Groups that represent the broad left/right voter support for long overdue changes and reforms, in every one of the 435 Districts. See my book, Breaking Through Power: It’s Easier Than We Think (especially pp. 144-145), where the civic summons to your Congressional lawmakers is presented for powerful face-to-face series of citizen controlled meetings back home.

Categories: News for progressives

Yes, You Have the Right to Talk Back to the Government, But It Could Get You Killed

Fri, 2018-11-30 15:53

“The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”

— Justice William J. Brennan, City of Houston v. Hill

What the architects of the police state want are submissive, compliant, cooperative, obedient, meek citizens who don’t talk back, don’t challenge government authority, don’t speak out against government misconduct, and don’t step out of line.

What the First Amendment protects—and a healthy constitutional republic requires—are citizens who routinely exercise their right to speak truth to power.

It’s not an easy undertaking.

Weaponized by police, prosecutors, courts and legislatures, “disorderly conduct” charges have become a convenient means by which to punish those individuals who refuse to be muzzled.

Cases like these have become all too common, typical of the bipolar nature of life in the American police state today: you may have distinct, protected rights on paper, but dare to exercise those rights and you put yourself at risk for fines, arrests, injuries and even death.

This is the unfortunate price of freedom.

Yet these are not new developments.

We have been circling this particular drain hole for some time now.

Almost 50 years ago, in fact, Lewis Colten was arrested outside Lexington, Kentucky, for questioning police and offering advice to his friend during a traffic stop.

Colten was one of 20 or so college students who had driven to the Blue Grass Airport to demonstrate against then-First Lady Pat Nixon. Upon leaving the airport, police stopped one of the cars in Colten’s motorcade because it bore an expired, out-of-state license plate. Colten and the other drivers also pulled over to the side of the road.

Fearing violence on the part of the police, Colten exited his vehicle and stood nearby while police issued his friend, Mendez, a ticket and arranged to tow his car. Police repeatedly asked Colten to leave. At one point, a state trooper declared, “This is none of your affair . . . get back in your car and please move on and clear the road.”

Insisting that he wanted to make a transportation arrangement for his friend Mendez and the occupants of the Mendez car, Colten failed to move away and was arrested for violating Kentucky’s disorderly conduct statute.

Colten subsequently challenged his arrest as a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech and took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sided with the police.

Although the Court acknowledged that Colten was not trespassing or disobeying any traffic regulation himself, the majority affirmed that Colten “had no constitutional right to observe the issuance of a traffic ticket or to engage the issuing officer in conversation at that time.”

The Supreme Court’s bottom line: protecting police from inconvenience, annoyance or alarm is more important than protecting speech that, in the government’s estimation, has “no social value.”

While the ruling itself was unsurprising for a judiciary that tends to march in lockstep with the police, the dissent by Justice William O. Douglas is a powerful reminder that the government exists to serve the people and not the other way around.

Stressing that Colten’s speech was quiet, not boisterous, devoid of “fighting words,” and involved no overt acts, fisticuffs, or disorderly conduct in the normal meaning of the words, Douglas took issue with the idea that merely by speaking to a government representative, in this case the police—a right enshrined in the First Amendment, by the way—Colten was perceived as inconveniencing and annoying the police.

In a passionate defense of free speech, Douglas declared:

Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet. The situation might have indicated that Colten’s techniques were ill-suited to the mission he was on, that diplomacy would have been more effective. But at the constitutional level speech need not be a sedative; it can be disruptive.

It’s a power-packed paragraph full of important truths that the powers-that-be would prefer we quickly forget: We the people are the sovereigns. We have the final word. We can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy. We need not stay docile and quiet. Our speech can be disruptive. It can invite dispute. It can be provocative and challenging. We do not have to bow submissively to authority or speak with reverence to government officials.

Now in theory, “we the people” have a constitutional right to talk back to the government.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded as much in City of Houston v. Hill when it struck down a city ordinance prohibiting verbal abuse of police officers as unconstitutionally overbroad and a criminalization of protected speech.

In practice, however, talking back—especially when the police are involved—can get you killed.

The danger is real.

We live in an age in which “we the people” are at the mercy of militarized, weaponized, immunized cops who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

While violent crime in America remains at an all-time low, the death toll as a result of police-sponsored violence continues to rise. In fact, more than 1,000 people are killed every year by police in America, more than any other country in the world.

What we are dealing with is a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out against individuals posing little or no real threat.

I’m not talking about the number of individuals—especially young people—who are being shot and killed by police for having a look-alike gun in their possession, such as a BB gun. I’m not even talking about people who have been shot for brandishing weapons at police, such as scissors.

I’m talking about the growing numbers of unarmed people are who being shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or looking a certain way, or moving a certain way, or not moving fast enough, or asking a question, or not answering a question, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

This is not what life should be like in a so-called “free” country.

Police encounters have deteriorated so far that anything short of compliance—including behavior the police perceive as disrespectful or “insufficiently deferential to their authority,” “threatening” or resistant—could get you arrested, jailed or killed.

The problem, of course, is that compliance is rarely enough to guarantee one’s safety.

Case in point: Miami-Dade police slammed a 14-year-old boy to the ground, putting him in a chokehold and handcuffing him after he allegedly gave them “dehumanizing stares” and walked away from them, which the officers found unacceptable.

According to Miami-Dade Police Detective Alvaro Zabaleta, “His body language was that he was stiffening up and pulling away… When you have somebody resistant to them and pulling away and somebody clenching their fists and flailing their arms, that’s a threat. Of course we have to neutralize the threat.

This mindset that any challenge to police authority is a threat that needs to be “neutralized” is a dangerous one that is part of a greater nationwide trend that sets the police beyond the reach of the First and Fourth Amendments.

When police officers are allowed to operate under the assumption that their word is law and that there is no room for any form of disagreement or even question, that serves to destroy the First Amendment’s assurances of free speech, free assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Then again, this is what happens when you take a police recruit, hype him (or her) up on the power of the gun in his holster and the superiority of his uniform, render him woefully ignorant of how to handle a situation without resorting to violence, drill him in military tactics but keep him in the dark about the Constitution, and never stress to him that he is to be a peacemaker and a peacekeeper, respectful of and subservient to the taxpayers, who are in fact his masters and employers.

The problem, as one reporter rightly concluded, is “not that life has gotten that much more dangerous, it’s that authorities have chosen to respond to even innocent situations as if they were in a warzone.”

What we’re dealing with today is a skewed shoot-to-kill mindset in which police, trained to view themselves as warriors or soldiers in a war, whether against drugs, or terror, or crime, must “get” the bad guys—i.e., anyone who is a potential target—before the bad guys get them.

Never mind that the fatality rate of on-duty police officers is reportedly far lower than many other professions, including construction, logging, fishing, truck driving, and even trash collection.

The result of this battlefield approach to domestic peacekeeping is a society in which police shoot first and ask questions later.

The message being drummed into our heads with every police shooting of an unarmed citizen is this: if you don’t want to get probed, poked, pinched, tasered, tackled, searched, seized, stripped, manhandled, arrested, shot, or killed, don’t say, do or even suggest anything that even hints of noncompliance.

This is the “thin blue line” over which you must not cross in interactions with police if you want to walk away with your life and freedoms intact.

If ever there were a time to scale back on the mindset adopted by cops that they are the law and should be revered, feared and obeyed, it’s now.

It doesn’t matter where you live—big city or small town—it’s the same scenario being played out over and over again in which government agents, hyped up on their own authority and the power of their uniform, ride roughshod over the rights of the citizenry.

Americans as young as 4 years old are being leg shackled, handcuffed, tasered and held at gun point for not being quiet, not being orderly and just being childlike—i.e., not being compliant enough.

Americans as old as 95 are being beaten, shot and killed for questioning an order, hesitating in the face of a directive, and mistaking a policeman crashing through their door for a criminal breaking into their home—i.e., not being submissive enough.

And Americans of every age and skin color are being taught the painful lesson that the only truly compliant, submissive and obedient citizen in a police state is a dead one.

As a result, Americans are being brainwashed into believing that anyone who wears a government uniform—soldier, police officer, prison guard—must be obeyed without question.

Of course, the Constitution takes a far different position, but does anyone in the government even read, let alone abide by, the Constitution anymore?

If we just cower before government agents and meekly obey, we may find ourselves following in the footsteps of those nations that eventually fell to tyranny.

The alternative involves standing up and speaking truth to power. Jesus Christ walked that road. So did Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and countless other freedom fighters whose actions changed the course of history.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the American dream was built on the idea that no one is above the law, that our rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, and that our government and its appointed agents exist to serve us.

It may be that things are too far gone to save, but still we must try.

Categories: News for progressives



Brian Robinson Public Relations
104 Hiawatha Road
Toronto M4L 2X8
(in Cambodia)

Contact 2.0

Skype: bbbrobin
Brian on Facebook
Follow Brian on Twitter

1,000 Apologies, but I had to remove my actual e-mail address from this page. I'm afraid I got pretty tired of the sock puppets offering me free sexual favours. (And NO! I don't know how many of them were Russian, and it won't change my vote, I promise!) So here's one of those crappy contact forms that I really hate. Did I mention I'm sorry?
Contact ME! (or don't)