How a Black Evangelical Denomination was Duped into “Blessing” Israel

Glen Plummer Social Media

By Kathryn Shihadah

Source

“There are more than 40 million Black Americans, they spend more than $1.3 trillion a year, so we’re a measurable market, a measurable group of people, easily identified, and we think we can also contribute to the advancement of Israel.”  – Glenn Plummer, Bishop of Israel

The Church of God in Christ, or COGIC, is certainly not the first evangelical group to embrace the state of Israel. But unlike most evangelical denominations, this one is mostly African American. Its leadership includes the newly-minted and first-ever “Bishop of Israel,” Dr. Glenn R. Plummer, who now resides in Jerusalem – and he cherishes his new post.

The Plummers’ move from their Detroit home is the culmination of a years-long targeted outreach by pro-Israel organizations to the African American Christian community, including a carefully curated public relations campaign that oscillates between portraying Israel as a victim of Palestinian violence and ignoring Palestinian existence completely.

The mission: American dollars for Israel

Plummer defines his mission in terms of creating mostly commercial ties between African Americans and Jewish Israelis. The two million Muslim and Christian Palestinians who live in Israel do not figure into his plans. As he explains it:

It’s a perfect time to show our support for the Jewish people, and for Israel in particular, and we intend to do that in very tangible ways. There are more than 40 million Black Americans, they spend more than $1.3 trillion a year, so we’re a measurable market, a measurable group of people, easily identified, and we think we can also contribute to the advancement of Israel.”

Plummer, pictured in a matching tracksuit and Nike fanny pack, with a member of his congregation during a 2019 tour in Jerusalem. Photo | COGIC

Plummer’s wife, who now claims the title “the first lady of Israel,” adds that the couple hopes to correct what she calls “misunderstandings” about Israel among Black Americans. “God blesses those who bless Israel, she said, “We want to make sure that Black Americans understand that the way to bless Israel is to speak well of Israel.”

Last month, the foundation Israel Allies named Plummer one of Israel’s “Top 50 Christian Allies.”

African American views on Israel

Black Americans as a group are primarily Protestant – a characteristic usually associated with robust support for Israel – but also predominantly Democrats, the less pro-Israel party. 

Most African American Christians lean left when it comes to the Jewish State. Less than half — 48 percent — endorse Israel, and 27 percent sympathize with the Palestinians.

Although traditional religious teaching in many denominations calls on believers to support Israel, the majority of Black Christians sympathize equally with both Israeli and Palestinian struggles (seventy percent); over forty percent also believe that Israel denies Palestinians their basic human rights and that Israeli laws discriminate against Palestinians (about the same percentage say they don’t know).

The link: pro-Israel charity

The modern African American connection to Israel can be traced back to the late American Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, who in 1983 created a collaborative charity called the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFCJ). Eckstein has since grown it into a $100 million-a-year organization. IFCJ claims to support the Israeli military, provide aid to needy Jewish families, and promote Jewish emigration to Israel.

Eckstein addresses a Baptist Church in Detroit during the Martin Luther King Day weekend. Photo | Phil Lewis | The Fellowship

In 2014, after over thirty years of cultivating support for the Jewish state among White American Christians, Eckstein began pursuing the African American Christian community. He found the work tricky. Black Christians, after all, tend to be Democrats and not supportive of the more hawkish pro-Israel policies for which he sought backing. But Eckstein had a secret weapon.

He targeted COGIC because of one particular doctrine: a belief that the creation of the State of Israel was ordained by God.

Selective pilgrimage

By 2015 a group of COGIC ministers, including the Plummers, visited Israel with Eckstein, taking in a hand-picked list of Jewish and Christian holy sites, a bomb shelter in Tel Aviv, and the Holocaust memorial.

In 2017, with financial assistance from Hobby Lobby, another COGIC group visited Israel. Notably, the week-long trip did not include Bethlehem, which is in Palestinian territory, or any meetings with Palestinians. A senior COGIC delegate explained that the purpose of the visit was to focus on the strength of Israel, adding, “that’s not to say the Palestinian issue is not deserving of consideration as well. Anything that helps humanity.”

The itinerary for African American church leaders included a stop in southern Tel Aviv, where most of Israel’s 45,000 African asylum-seekers live. The group discussed the challenges these immigrants faced, including racism and economic inequity. But again, the narrative was incomplete.

Israel has been openly trying for over ten years to stop the flow of refugees from Africa and to deport those already present. Human Rights Watch reported that it “recognized fewer than one percent of asylum applicants,” choosing instead to “bully” them or ignore their applications. The government even funded a wall on its border with Egypt and then initiated a policy of detention and expulsion, housing African refugees in large camps in the middle of the southern desert.

Despite the carefully curated itinerary, one church leader summed up his takeaway from the trip thusly, “[D]espite the achievement of some [Africans in Israel], educational and economic inequity remain.”

“From Ferguson to Palestine”

Just before the COGIC trip to Israel, the U.S. saw a surge of Black support for the Palestinian cause – something Plummer has yet to acknowledge.

The summer of 2014 highlighted the parallel issues faced by African Americans and their Palestinian brethren. As Blacks in America protested the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Israel waged a brutal war against the people of Gaza. Over 2,200 Palestinians were killed, 65 percent of them civilians. More than 500 Palestinian children lost their lives in the Israeli campaign along with 73 Israelis, just eight percent of whom were civilians.

The 2015 Black Solidarity Statement with Palestine, signed by over 1,000 activists and 39 organizations, was born of this shared adversity and read, in part:

The past year has been one of high-profile growth for Black-Palestinian solidarity. Out of the terror directed against us—from numerous attacks on Black life to Israel’s brutal war on Gaza and chokehold on the West Bank—strengthened resilience and joint-struggle have emerged between our movements.

Neighborhood watch

Bishop Plummer and his wife made their new home in an upscale Israeli suburb of Jerusalem called Mevaseret Zion, a neighborhood whose backstory is noteworthy if one is willing to search it out.

Before 1948, Mevaseret Zion was the site of the mostly-Arab Palestinian village of Qalunya, population: 1,056. The violent Jewish paramilitary force, the Haganah, destroyed the village as recounted by historian Walid Khalidi, author of “All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948.” The village was one of over five hundred depopulated and demolished in the wake of Israel’s creation.

Plummer poses with African members of the IDF in Jerusalem in 2016. Photo | COGIC

Ottoman records indicate that it had been in existence since at least 1596. Its Palestinian farmers grew (and paid taxes on) wheat, barley, and vegetables, and tended citrus and olive trees.

Kerem Navot, a non-profit Israeli group that monitors land policy, recently pointed out that Mevaseret Zion lies partly inside Palestine. But instead of resolving the trespassing issue, Israel recently approved plans for further construction in the town, requiring the appropriation of yet more Palestinian land.

Zooming toward racism

On June 4, Bishop Plummer participated in a video conference vigil hosted by Yehudah Glick on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Its objective: to pray for racial reconciliation in the United States following the death of George Floyd.

Plummer and his colleagues may not have been aware that following a 1967 agreement, only Muslims are supposed to be allowed to perform religious rituals on the Temple Mount, the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and one of Islam’s most revered sites.

In recent years, Israeli radicals have stormed the mosque compound more and more frequently, often under the protection of Israeli police. Despite having exclusive access to the Wailing Wall, a nearby Jewish holy site, they storm the compound under the auspices of a desire to pray in the mosque compound, a move seen by many Muslims as intentionally provocative. Yehudah Glick’s prayer vigil was both illegal and provocative.

Glick also ignored the fact that both the religious establishment and the Israeli government openly discriminate against the Palestinians in their midst to the point that many experts have described the government’s actions as apartheid. And even as Glick urged his listeners to chant “no more violence,” his country observed the 53rd anniversary of its brutal occupation of Palestine.

Israel’s widely publicized narrative of innocence overshadows the reality of its intolerance, though both Israeli and Palestinian historians have chronicled it thoroughly.

The state of Israel displaced 750,000 Palestinians in 1948 simply because they were not Jewish. It defied international law by refusing to allow them to return; appropriated 78 percent of their land in 1948, and occupied the rest in 1967, with no end in sight.

Numerous human rights organizations have been tallying and reporting on Israel’s decades of ongoing human rights abuses.

In Gaza alone 7,400 Palestinians have been killed through direct Israeli violence (thousands more due to lack of food and medicine caused by the now fourteen-year-old blockade); during the same time period, about 250 Israelis were been killed by Palestinians in Gaza.

Glick mourned the May 25 death of George Floyd and the nationwide unrest in its aftermath. He left unspoken the name of Eyad al Hallak, a disabled Palestinian man executed by Israeli police on May 30 in Jerusalem – not far from where Glick’s own vigil was held.

America’s Race Reality: Inhuman, Insane, Incoherent

America’s Race Reality: Inhuman, Insane, Incoherent

August 14, 2020

by Ilana Mercer, published with the authorization of the author

Racism is a lot of things. One thing it is not:

A white child, aged five,  executed by a black man with a shot to the head, as the tyke rode his bike. Ask the cultural cognoscenti. They’ll tell you: That’s never racism.

Otherwise, almost anything involving the perpetually aggrieved black community counts as racism.

Students hoist a “thin blue line” flag in solidarity with police: racism.

A black male is asked for his driver’s license: racism. Of course it’s systemic. Are you stupid, or something?

A white politician proclaims that “all lives matter”: Come again? Are you kidding me?!

A museum curator fails to commit to the exclusion of the art of white men, including, presumably, the Old Masters: not racism; white supremacism. Be gone with you, Rembrandt and Vermeer.

A black student struggles with English grammar. English grammar is ruled racist. Take that, Dr. Johnson!

This, even though, logically, it is more likely that our student is not up to the task or hasn’t tried hard enough; that his tutor is not up to the task and hasn’t tried hard enough—or all of those things combined.

As you can see, accusations of racism are seldom grounded in reason or reality.

Racism, then, is just about anything other than the point-blank execution of little Cannon Hinnant (white), on August 9, by Darius Sessoms (black), and the rape, the other day, by Dejon Dejor Lynn, 25, of an old lady: his 96-year-old neighbor.

From the media industry’s modus operandi, we may comfortably deduce that the raped lady is almost certainly white.

How so?

Fully 73 percent of the residents of Ann Arbor, Michigan, are white. If the race of an unnamed victim of black crime is withheld, she’s most likely white. Were the victim Hispanic, the media industry would say so, and would forthwith withhold the picture and race of the “suspect,” so that the crime became an attack against a “minority.”

Similar black-on-white atrocities are a daily occurrence, documented, “in moving images,” by “the fearless and indefatigable journalist Colin Flaherty.” They are either ignored by the media industry or described as racially neutral.

In a powerful responsorial that is almost religious in cadence, Jack Kerwick, a Frontpage.com columnist, commands us to “say their names”:

David Dorn was a 77-year-old retired African-American police captain and family man. Say his name.

Paul and Lidia Marino, a couple in their mid-80s. Say their names!

Wendy MartinezSay her name.

Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla: Teenagers tortured and murdered. Say their names.

Karina Vetrano: Attacked, sexually assaulted, and strangled to death while jogging. Say her name.

Phil Trenary: Treasury of the Chamber of Commerce in Memphis who was trying to rejuvenate the city’s economic life. Say his name.

Scott Brooks; Sebastian Dvorak; Serge Fournier; Tessa Majors; Dorothy Dow; Lorne Ahrens; Brent Thompson; Michael Krol; Patrick Zamarripa.

Say their names. (“Remembering the Victims of Black Violence – Black and White,” By Jack Kerwick)

The prototypical American victims of racial hatred were 21-year-old Channon Christian and 23-year-old Hugh Christopher Newsom, of Knoxville, Tennessee.

Their slaughter, in 2007, was dismissed as a garden-variety murder and rape. But there is no finessing the white-hot racial hatred seared into their mangled, white bodies.

Read the description of the crime in Into the Cannibal’s Pot, and pray tell how white America can thus forsake its children by accepting the racial innocence of their defilers:

Five blacks—four men and a woman—anally raped Hugh, then shot him to death, wrapped his body in bedding, soaked it in gasoline and set it alight. He was the lucky one. Channon, his fair and fragile-looking friend, was repeatedly gang raped by the four men—vaginally, anally and orally. Before she died, her murderers poured a household cleaner down her throat, in an effort to cleanse away DNA. She was left to die, either from the bleeding caused “by the tearing,” or from asphyxiation. Knoxville officials would not say. She was then stuffed in a garbage can like trash. White trash. (pp. 35-36)

The object of hate is so often a remarkably beautiful woman or man. It is as if the aim is to forever obliterate beauty unattainable.

On the Dark Continent, the same dynamic was in play when “Hutus picked up machetes to slash to bits nearly a million of their Tutsi neighbors in the 1994 Rwandan genocide.” There,

… tribal allegiance trumps political persuasion and envy carries the day. The Tutsi—an alien, Nilotic African people, who formed a minority in Rwanda and Burundi—had always been resented by the Hutus. The tall, imposing Tutsis, whose facial features the lovely supermodel Iman instantiates, had dominated them on-and-off since the 15th Century. On a deeper level, contends Keith Richburg, an African-American journalist, the Hutus were “slashing at their own perceived ugliness, as if destroying this thing of beauty, this thing they could never really attain, removing it from the earth forever.” (Into the Cannibal’s Pot, p. 43)

Such was the murder of Tyler Wingate, “a 24-year-old man from Berkley [who] was brutally beaten to death after a seemingly minor car crash on Detroit’s west side [in July of 2019]. The crash and beating were caught on surveillance video from a nearby gas station.” (The Unz Review)

Undeniably, it is a kind of race-based annihilation of beauty unattainable, for that is certainly what poor Tyler Wingate was blessed with.

For America to have incorporated and assimilated the unreason of “racism” on such a self-immolating scale, as American society has done, is to be mired in self-contradiction. To the Greek philosophers, to be mired in self-contradiction was to be less than human, less than coherent, less than sane.

This is where American society finds itself: less than human, less than coherent, less than sane.

Patriots, please quit the “rest in peace” platitudes. Tyler Wingate and all the rest rage, rage from the grave.

***

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She’s the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016). She’s currently on Gab, YouTube, Twitter & LinkedIn, but has been banned by Facebook.

Macron in Lebanon: Hijabi Reporter Not Allowed to Speak and Dual Standards on Protesters

Source

Macron in Lebanon: Hijabi Reporter Not Allowed to Speak and Dual Standards on Protesters

By Nour Rida

On Thursday, August 7, 2020, Western mainstream media covered French President Manuel Macron’s visit to Lebanon in the aftermath of the Hiroshima-like explosion that hit Lebanon three days earlier. News headlines and stories covered his visit as he called for “reforms and change”, and told Lebanon that any money to help Beirut recover must come with what he called a “new political order” to replace a “system that no longer has the trust of its people.”

Of course the media failed to mention two things; Macron’s (indirect) racist attitude towards a Lebanese reporter when he got her prevented from asking a question during a press conference, and his dual standards in dealing with protesters in Lebanon and protesters back in France.

Mona Tahini, a Lebanese citizen who has been working as a news reporter for the past 13 years was prevented from asking Macron a question during his press conference at the Pine Palace in Beirut on Thursday, one single question, at the time other reporters were allowed to ask multiple questions or even have discussions and pose for pictures with the French president.

The reporter who works for al-Manar TV, posted a video on her Twitter account which shows Macron having a side talk and taking selfie pictures with a number of journalists although the pretext for preventing her from raising her question was that that the French President Macron did not have enough time before heading to the airport to back into France.

Tahini said that some journalists consumed a long time while raising their questions, adding that she was not given her turn to ask although she had already taken a permission for that.

Interpreting the instance, Macron’s attitude towards Tahini can be explained as prejudice and bias towards the female reporter in what clearly indicates a racist attitude towards her wardrobe as she was the only reporter wearing the Hijab. Macron was unfair, and did not give Tahini the chance to ask a question for wearing her Hijab. Else, there would be one more interpretation to preventing Tahini from asking: he is afraid of the question itself in advance.

It is said that people usually fear what they are unfamiliar with. But for someone like Macron, a President of what he claims to be a “modern” and “developed” France, he should have educated himself a bit more on that piece of cloth called Hijab; supposedly a personal and religious freedom.

Both, banning Tahini from speaking and his double standards on confronting French protesters with violence while supporting Lebanese protesters (for political aims obviously) refute the claims about Macron’s France holding the values of democracy and freedom of speech. Not only does his attitude contest his claims of being democratic, but also highlights the lack of values France claims as one of its major legacies in its motto of the so-called French revolution: “egalité” i.e. equality.

Now before discussing Macron and his dual standards on protesters, it is interesting to see how Western mainstream media frames the story. It reported that “Lebanese protesters” seemed to feel like Macron was on their side and reporting that they said “he was their only hope.” Quoting one protester, the media allowed itself to do what it does all the time, have one speak on behalf of a few million who do not agree with that view point necessarily.  Western media and Macron are similar in one aspect: they both allow themselves to speak on behalf of others.

Now Macron warmly reacted with Lebanese protesters who chanted “Revolution!” as he walked through the Gemmayze street. The scenario seems a bit odd when remembering France’s 2019 which offers a preview of Macron’s real face and how he could not take in any criticism: growing protests against liberalism—and growing brutality against the protests.

Protesters in France believed they were objecting Macron’s Neoliberal policies which have brought so much poverty & human misery to France, but Macron could not digest it. Thousands of Yellow vests or “Gilets Jaunes” took to the streets in for long consecutive weeks and were confronted with severe violence.

Never mind, we are by no means in a place to impeach Macron for his violence against his own people, they can sort out their issues within their country, but of course it remains sad to see how French protesters are confronted with tear gas bombs and severe ferocity.

What should be unclouded and completely transparent is that Macron, who enjoys no tolerance back at home towards his people and is accused of standing behind a corrupt system is by no means eligible to guide Lebanon on what to do and how to sort out its issues.

An Attack on Edward Said’s Legacy

Source

by Lawrence Davidson

Lawrence Davidson | Author | Common Dreams

Part I—Meeting Caroline Glick

I traveled to Israel and the Occupied Territories in the early 2000s with the progressive group Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian Peace. We made an effort to gain insight into most of the players in the conflict, and so a series of interviews was arranged with members of the Israeli right wing. I remember that one of them was Caroline Glick, an ardent American-Israeli Zionist. She lectured us on the positive personal relationships allegedly prevalent between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. 

It was an interesting and somewhat embarrassing experience. Glick and I are both American and both Jewish. Growing up, I had this understanding that American plus Jewish always meant being anti-racist. To be so was, in my mind, the prime lesson of modern Jewish history. What being anti-racist meant to Glick was unclear. She spent the better part of an hour giving us a defense of Israeli-Jewish treatment of Palestinians based on the classic “some of my best friends are Black” (read Palestinian) defense. In the words of the New York Times journalist John Eligon, this line of argument “has so often been relied on by those facing accusations of racism that it has become shorthand for weak denials of bigotry—a punch line about the absence of thoughtfulness and rigor in our conversations about racism.” And so it was with Glick, who explained that she, and many other Israeli Jews, had Palestinians who do small jobs for them and are treated well, and that this proves a lack of cultural and societal racism. It was such a vacuous argument that I remember feeling embarrassed for her. 

Things haven’t gotten much better when it comes to Ms. Glick’s worldview. She is now a senior columnist at Israel Hayom (Israel Today, a pro-Netanyahu newspaper owned by the family of Sheldon Anderson) and contributor to such questionable U.S. outlets as Breitbart NewsShealso directs the Israeli Security Project at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. There can be little doubt that she continues to see the world through the distorting lens of a particularly hardline variant of Zionism.  

Part II—Glick’s Attack on Edward Said’s Legacy 

Recently, Caroline Glick launched an attack on the legacy of the late American-Palestinian scholar and teacher Edward Said. Entitled “Edward Said, Prophet of Political Violence in America,” it was recently (7 July 2020) published in the U.S. by Newsweek—a news magazine with an increasingly pro-Zionist editorial stand. As it turns out, one cannot find a better example of how ideology can distort one’s outlook to the point of absurdity. Below is an analysis of Glick’s piece in a point-by-point fashion. Ultimately, the ideological basis for her argument will become clear. 

1. Glick begins by resurrecting a twenty-year-old event. “On July 3, 2000, an incident occurred along the Lebanese border with Israel that, at the time, seemed both bizarre and … unimportant. That day, Columbia University professor Edward Said was photographed on the Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese side of the border with Israel throwing a rock at an Israel Defense Forces watchtower 30 feet away.” She goes on to describe this act as “Said’s rock attack on Israel” and the “soldiers protecting their border.”

We need some context to put all of this in perspective: Israel is an expansionist state, and the original Zionist aim (as presented to the Paris Peace Conference following World War I) was to incorporate parts of southern Lebanon into what is now Israel. Southern Lebanon also briefly became a staging area for Palestinian retaliatory attacks into Israel. Thus, Israel invaded Lebanon multiple times only to be forced to withdraw in the face of resistance led by Hezbollah, a strong Lebanese Shiite militia in control of much of southern Lebanon.  

Said relates that during his 2000 visit to the Lebanese border with his family, he threw a pebble (not a “rock”) at a deserted Israeli watchtower (no Israeli soldiers were “defending their border”).  Said saw this as a symbolic act of defiance against Israeli occupation. Over the years stone throwing by Palestinian youth had become just such a symbolic act. And, it was from their example that Said might have taken his cue.

2. However, Glick wants to draw highly questionable consequences from Said’s act. She tells us that “with the hindsight of 20 years, it was a seminal moment and a harbinger for the mob violence now taking place in many parts of America.” By the way, the “mob violence” in America she is referring to is the mass protests against police brutality that followed the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police on 25 May 2020.

3. Now that sounds a bit odd. How does Glick manage this segue from Edward Said’s symbolic stone toss in the year 2000 to nationwide inner-city rebellions against police brutality in 2020 America? Here is the contorted sequence she offers: 

a. Said was a terrorist because he was an influential member of the alleged “terrorist organization,” the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). “Terrorist organization” is a standard Zionist descriptor of most Palestinian organizations. Actually, the PLO is the legally recognized representative of the Palestinian people and as such has carried on both a armed and a diplomatic struggle to liberate Palestine from Israeli Occupation. In 1993, the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist. This made little difference to the Zionist right wing who, like Glick, continued to use the terrorist tag for propaganda purposes. It is to be noted that all liberation movements are considered to be “terrorist” by those they fight against. And, indeed both sides in such a struggle usually act in this fashion on occasion. Certainly, Israel is no innocent in this regard. 

b. For Glick, Said’s alleged terrorist connection transforms his “rock attack” into a terrorist act. This is simply an ad hominem assertion on Glick’s part. There is no evidence that Said ever engaged in any act, including the tossing of stones, that can sanely be characterized as terrorism.

c. Glick tells us that, at the same time Said was ‘committing a terrorist attack’ on Israel, he was also “the superstar of far-Left intellectuals.” It is hard to know what she means here by “far-Left.” It is seems to be another ad hominem slander. Said was a scholar of Comparative Literature and, when not in the classroom, he advocated for the political and human rights of oppressed Palestinians—how “far-Left” is that?

d. Nonetheless, Glick goes on to assert that as a “far-Left” academic, Said waged a “nihilistic” and “anti-intellectual” offensive against Western thought. He did so in a well-known work entitled Orientalism published in 1978.

What does Orientalism actually say? Using mostly 19th century literary and artistic examples, the book documents the prevailing Western perception of the Near East and North Africa, which stands in for the Orient. This perception reflects a basically bipolar worldview—one which, according to Said, reserved for the West a superior image of science and reason, prosperity and high culture, and for the Orient an inferior somewhat mysterious and effeminate image of the “other” fated for domination by the West. Over time this view became pervasive in the West and influenced not only literary and artistic views of the Orient, but also impacted political, historical, anthropological and other non-fictional interpretations. Having helped create a superior sense of self, this orientalist perception served as a rationale for Western world dominance. It should be said that whether one agrees with every one of Said’s details or not, there is no doubt his well researched and documented work has made most scholars more aware of their biases.

e. Glick refuses to see Orientalism asjust an influential academic work. Instead, in what appears to be a pattern of illogical jumps, she claims that “in Orientalism, Said characterized all Western—and particularly American—scholarship on the Arab and Islamic worlds as one big conspiracy theory” designed to justify empire. This then is the heart of Said’s alleged “nihilistic” repudiation of Western scholarship. She particularly points to Said’s claim that “From the Enlightenment period through the present every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist and almost totally ethnocentric.” While this is a far-reaching generalization, it basically reflects an equally pervasive, very real Western cultural bias. What Glick describes as a “conspiracy theory” is Said’s scholarly demonstration of how that bias has expressed itself. And, it should be noted that such pervasive biases are not uniquely American nor even Western. Chinese, Japanese, Arab/Muslim, Hindu and Jewish civilizations have their own variants of such biases. Yet, it is Said’s effort to expose and ameliorate the orientalism of the West that seems to madden Caroline Glick.

f. For Glick, Said’s suggestion that both past as well as many present scholars have culturally biased points of view of the Orient becomes an accusation that any “great scholar” with a classical Western worldview “is worse than worthless. If he is a white American, he is an agent of evil.” Glick is now building a real head of steam and her account becomes more and more grotesque. She now claims that Said’s work is “intellectual nihilism.” How so? Because it “champions narrative over evidence.” What Glick is implying here is that Said’s work is an anti-Western screed presented without evidence. This is demonstrably wrong, but nonetheless provides a platform for Glick’s further assertion that Said’s fantastical narrative is told in order to “manipulate students to engage in political violence against the United States.”

Part III—What Is This All About?

Caroline Glick makes repeated illogical jumps. As egregious as these are they actually point the way to her larger ideological agenda.

  1. Said is a terrorist because he opposes Israel and supports the Palestinians. Participation in the PLO is her proof of this. 
  2. Because Said is a terrorist, his throwing of a stone at the southern Lebanese border is a terrorist attack against Israel and its defense forces. 
  3. Somehow, Said’s throwing the stone was also “a harbinger for the mob violence now taking place in many parts of America.” The connector here is Said’s tossing of an intellectual “rock”—his thesis presented in Orientalism.
  4. Just as his “rock attack” was terroristic, so Said’s book, Orientalism, is itself an act of terrorism as well as a “nihilistic” project. 
  5. It is all these nasty things rolled into one because it calls into question established cultural assumptions that had long underpinned colonialism and imperialism, and which also just happens to underpin Israel’s claim to legitimacy.
  6. But there is more. Glick tells us, “Said’s championing of the Palestinian war against Israel was part of a far wider post-colonialist crusade he waged against the United States. The purpose of his scholarship was to deny American professors the right to study and understand the world [in an orientalist fashion] by delegitimizing them as nothing but racists and imperialists.”
  7. And finally, “Orientalism formed the foundation of a much broader campaign on campuses to delegitimize the United States as a political entity steeped in racism.”

Part IV—Conclusion

Glick’s attack on Edward Said’s legacy is beset with leaps of illogic. So let me conclude this analysis with my own leap, hopefully a logical one, to an explanation of what may be Glick’s larger agenda. Glick is attempting to turn the ideological clock back to a time before decolonization. Specifically, she wishes to resurrect an overall acceptance of Western colonialism as a benevolent endeavor whereby progress and civilization was spread by a superior culture. 

Why would she want to do this? Because if we all believe this proposition, then Israel can be seen as a legitimate and normal state. After all, Israel is the last of the colonial settler states—the imposition of Western culture into the Orient. It rules over millions of Palestinian Arabs as the result of a European invasion made “legal” by a colonial document, the Balfour Declaration, and its acceptance by a pro-colonial League of Nations. Our post-colonial age in which Edward Said is a “superstar intellectual,” is seen as a constant threat to Zionist Israel’s legitimacy. 

Edward Said’s legacy provides a strong theoretical foundation for understanding why the Western imperialists thought and acted as they did, and hence helps both Western and non-Western peoples to confront their own modern historical situation. However, Glick cannot see any of this except through the Zionist perspective. Thus, Said’s legacy is just part of an anti-Israeli conspiracy—an attack on those scholars who support the legitimacy of an orientalist point of view and of the Zionist state. 

She also suggests that Said’s undoing of historically accepted biases lets loose the “mob violence” seen in the U.S. There is no evidence for this, but it may be Glick’s  roundabout way of undermining student support for Palestinian rights on American campuses. 

Ultimately, what Glick is interested in is preserving the image of Israel as a Western democratic enclave in an otherwise uncivilized sea of Arab and Islamic barbarians. That fits right into the traditional orientalist belief system and justifies the continuing U.S.-Israeli alliance. Said has successfully called that perspective into question. Hence Glick’s assault on his legacy. 

Finally, Glick’s present attack on Said, and her attempt to tie his work into the protests that followed George Floyd’s murder, shows how frightened the defenders of one racist state, Zionist Israel, become when their principle ally, the United States, comes under attack for racist practices. Said as a “superstar” foe of all racism becomes the lighting rod for that fear. 

“But The Jews Also Suffered An Injustice”

By Rima Najjar

Source

Palestine dan meyers QYfFCOFqf7o unsplash 2c27d

Question: Have there been other examples in history where victims of gross injustice, like that perpetrated against Palestinians by colonizing European Jews, are asked to acknowledge and embrace the poisonous and false claims of their oppressors?

Of course, there have been. Those with the military or political power to oppress have historically imposed their “narratives” on their victims and written their history books accordingly. When liberation came, when the oppression was lifted, the colonial downtrodden and dispossessed were able to reclaim their geographic territory and their history. The oppressors were forced to reevaluate their racist/supremacist self-education.

I am not saying, by any means, “and they all lived happily ever after,” because they haven’t, as we observe in continuing struggles today, many years after liberation technically occurred, especially in settler-colonial countries. To use Angela Davis’ words, freedom is a constant struggle. But “progress,” albeit in fits and starts, is still evident in many, if not all (Kashmir!), of these causes.

The case of Palestine has many similarities with other settler-colonial cases. These are often pointed out in discussion. Our case, however, has been stubbornly resistant to “progress,” even in a century in which “progressive causes” are largely self-evident — except for Palestine.

The reason for the cognitive dissonance embedded in the expression “progressives except for Palestine” lies in the Jewish identity of those who orchestrated the implementation of Zionism on Palestinians. By that I mean Jewish history in Europe continues to pose a challenge to Palestinian liberation.

There was/is something about Palestinian liberation that plays havoc with the minds of Jews on the Left in the “diaspora,” not to mention in the minds and hearts of Israeli Jews. Now that Peter Beinart has opened the door for some revision — not of that history, but of the mindset that balances Palestinian human rights against Jewish interests and reluctantly (or in anguish) finds room for Palestinians in a “Jewish tent” — the key to acceptance of the Palestinian cause as a “progressive cause” appears to lie in the hands of Jews, especially young American Jews, who are growing up rejecting their parents’ beliefs that Jews worldwide are “a people” with a right to self-determination outside their countries of origin.

But it’s still “complicated.”

In pleading our cause, it appears, we have the burden of convincing our oppressors that they have nothing to fear and everything to gain by recognizing our humanity and by sorting out what many have described as their pathology. What’s more, we must, it seems, also be credentialed as their allies in the struggle to end antisemitism — an antisemitism we in Palestine have had nothing to do with, and in which they themselves are complicit!

Israel celebrates its so-called “independence,” as the US does; both are settler-colonial states; both perpetrated genocide/ethnic cleansing and displaced native inhabitants — a criminal project that’s ongoing in Israel. But when people say about “the Middle East” that “it’s complicated,” they are referring to the Israeli phenomenon of successfully selling the status of colonizing Zionist Jews as indigenous. Therein lies the “complication.”

What it is, really, is a hoax. Deception has always been Israel’s first option for the attainment of its Zionist goals. And through deception, Israel has turned the internationally recognized Palestinian right of return into a “redemption fantasy of return across the Green Line,” and the Biblical fantasy of Jewish redemption, i.e., “God redeeming the people of Israel from their exiles,” into a reality.

If reconciliation in conflict means restoring the right relationship between adversaries, our biggest challenge as Palestinians is to persuade all those otherwise rational Jews and non-Jews who understand, on the one hand, that the creation of Israel in Palestine in 1948 was a terrible injustice to the Palestinians, and on the other, fully accept the legitimacy of Israel, that they are wrong.

When you ask such people for an explanation, the answer invariably begins with: “But the Jews also suffered an injustice.” This is exactly what Israeli historian Avi Shlaim says.

To that I say, give us Palestinians a break!

How Two Seemingly Unrelated Events Laid Israel’s Racism Problem Bare

A viral video showing an Israeli family mocking impoverished Palestinian children and a controversial New York Times editorial by famed Zionist commentator Peter Beinart have exposed the racist underpinning of the so-called Jewish state.

Source: MintPress News

by Miko Peled

Protesters attend a rally against Israel plans to annex parts of the West Bank, in Tel Aviv, June 6, 2020. Sebastian Scheiner | AP

Two seemingly unrelated items hit social media recently and both received a lot of attention. The first was an article by Peter Beinart that was published in the New York Times where Beinart claims he no longer believes in a Jewish State and calls for a binational state with equal rights in Palestine. The other, a video clip showing an Israeli family riding in a car when two children approach them. The car window opens and we hear the father ask the children in Hebrew, “Who wants to feed a Bedouin?” While these two seem unrelated, there is something equally disturbing about both of them.

A Jewish home in Palestine

One might think that the epiphany experienced by yet another liberal Zionist, and one that has access to the mainstream media, should be celebrated. After all, another well known Jewish American has reached the conclusion that Palestinians deserve equal rights in their own country. However, as we read this article there are several disturbing elements that dampen the excitement.

Beinart shares with the readers, “I knew that Israel was a source of comfort and pride to millions of other Jews.” He explains that this is why he believed in the Jewish state. One could argue that slavery was a source of comfort and pride for millions of white Americans, yet to support slavery is still abhorrent.

Peter Beinart
Peter Beinart, center, talks to people after speaking at the University of Washington Hillel, October 23, 2014. Photo | Joe Mabel

He goes on to describe a sentiment that one hears from many liberal Zionists. “One day in early adulthood, I walked through Jerusalem, reading street names that catalog Jewish history, and felt that comfort and pride myself.” Jerusalem was an Arab city for over a thousand years. In 1948, Palestinians in Jerusalem were subjected to a total and complete ethnic cleansing, and not a single Palestinian was allowed to remain in the city. Jerusalem then became the capital city of the state of Israel and the street names, which used to catalog the long and magnificent Arab history of the city, were changed.

“I knew Israel was wrong to deny Palestinians in the West Bank citizenship, due process, free movement and the right to vote in the country in which they lived.” What about the rights of millions of Palestinians languishing in refugee camps? This country that gave him, and Jews like him, such pride is denying millions of Palestinians their right to return to the lands and homes from which they were expelled.

“But the dream of a two-state solution that would give Palestinians a country of their own let me hope that I could remain a liberal and a supporter of Jewish statehood at the same time.” That was precisely what the scam of the Two State Solution was set to do. To allow liberal Zionists to support the crimes of Zionism and the creation of a racist state in Palestine while still feeling good about themselves.

The idea that the Two State Solution would give Palestinians “a country of their own,” is puzzling. Palestinians have a country of their own, it is Palestine. According to historian Nur Masalha, it has been Palestine for thousands of years before the establishment of the Zionist state on May 15, 1948.

The epiphany experienced by liberal Zionists who suddenly realize they can’t have it both ways is really not an epiphany at all. It is a compromise that allows them to continue to justify their patronizing attitude towards Palestinians. Beinart is not unlike another liberal Zionist, Avram Burg. Burg, a staunch Zionist who served as speaker of the Knesset and chairman of the Jewish Agency, and in between, profited greatly from peddling Israeli weapons. He is a Zionist through and through, and yet, he too claims it is time for a single state. In a piece he authored in 2018, he writes, “Since 1967 Israel had occupied Palestinian territory.” Not unlike Beinart, he sees only the West Bank as Palestinian territory.

To feed a Bedouin

A disturbing video clip was recently shared on TikTok by Roy Oz, also known as Roy Boy, an Israeli entertainer who hosts various programs for children. In the clip, an Israeli family is driving comfortably in what appears to be an SUV, with young children in the backseat and the parents in front. The father, Roy Oz, is driving. As they drive, two young children approach the car. The children in the car are white, the children outside are brown. The landscape is barren, like a desert, and we can safely assume it is the Naqab region in southern Palestine.

The father opens the window and hands a cookie to the children outside and says to his children in Hebrew, “Who wants to feed a Bedouin?” He speaks to the children outside in Arabic and then turns to his children again, asking in Hebrew, “You don’t want to feed a Bedouin, Ariel?” One of the two children outside is older than the other and hands the cookie to the younger child. Then, the father turns the camera, showing his children’s faces and asks again, “Do you want to feed a Bedouin? You don’t?” We hear him also saying to himself, “they are so cute,” referring to the children outside.

The father then turns to the children outside and asks in Arabic how much money they want. “One thousand shekel?” He asks. “No, just ten” one of the children answers. “Only ten?” The father asks at which point the mother reaches out of the car and hands one of the children a coin.

Expressions of Shock

Expressions of shock came fast from Palestinian communities, who demanded an apology and an explanation. Some even said this was the worst expression of racism they had ever seen. But there is nothing shocking about this clip because this was a normal Israeli middle-class family expressing what countless Israelis express all the time. The appalling racism and patronizing colonial attitude toward Palestinian Bedouin children, as we see in the video, is the foundation upon which the state of Israel was established and exists throughout Israeli society.

Without structural, systemic, deeply ingrained racism, Israel would not exist. Furthermore, without this white supremacist attitude, no Israeli pilot would be able to push the button that releases the bombs which then burn and rip Palestinian children in Gaza to shreds. No sniper would be able to pull the trigger and kill and maim Palestinians. It is an essential part of Zionist education.

Many Israelis had expressed their displeasure at this expression of racism. However, their displeasure aside, this is nothing new or abnormal. It is not unlike the incident where an Israeli army medic, who is charged with saving people’s lives and had taken an oath to do so, executed a wounded Palestinian laying on the ground. The incident was caught on video and went viral, resulting in the medic being court-martialed and receiving a slap on the wrist. This medic also acted as he was trained, as he was taught, that a Palestinian life does not matter.

Recognizing that Palestinians have rights within a Zionist construct is a symptom of Zionist racist supremacy. This racism is what allows a family to drive by Palestinian children and treat them like animals in a safari. It is how the state of Israel is able to continue the Naqba, the systemic, catastrophic destruction of Palestine and its people for close to one hundred years.

Feature photo | Beinart speaks at a 2012 event in Atlanta after being banned from a Jewish book festival over his criticism of Israel. David Goldman | AP


Related

ليتني كنت حماراً وحشياً…!‏

نصار إبراهيم

وقف حمار وحشي في سهوب أفريقيا الأمّ، أطرق برأسه حزيناً وهو يتابع ما يجري من ويلات وجنون وبؤس في المجتمعات التي تدّعي الإنسانية والحرية والمساواة والعدالة وحقوق الإنسان. سرح بنظره في السهوب الممتدّة وقال: أيّ حمقى أنتم أيها البشر، ما هذا الجنون والقباحة؟ ماذا تفعلون، كيف تبيدون ذاتكم بسبب اللون أو غيره؟ هل تعون ما تفعلون؟

انظروا إليّ جيداً ها أنذا، فهل أنا أبيض أم أسود؟ وهل يمكن أن أكون أنا أنا إذا عبثت بجوهري الطبيعي؟

ألا ترون أنني جميل بذاتي ولذاتي ولم يخطر ببالي لحظة أنني في حالة تناقض.

إنني جميل كما أنا، تشكلت هكذا عبر صيرورة تعود لملايين السنين، فتكوّنت على أجمل وأكمل ما يكون، ولا يشغلني شئ حول طبيعتي وماهيتي.

لو سرت على طريقكم لكنت اليوم مجرد «إنسان حمار» غبي وحشي أمزق ذاتي لكي أتخلص من هذا اللون أو ذاك. يعني حمار عنصري.

هل تعلمون إيها «الحضاريون» جداً أنّ العنصرية والتمييز القائم عليها تشكل ذروة البشاعة الواعية في تناقضها المهين مع الطبيعة والقيم الإنسانية النبيلة التي تدّعونها والتي تتمحور – كما أعرف – على الإنسان ككائن اجتماعي مشروط بقاءه موضوعياً وذاتياً باحترام وتعزيز المبدأ التكويني الإبتدائي: التضامن الإنساني من أجل البقاء ومواجهة المخاطر والتحديات والمشاكل المتواصلة على مختلف الصعد.

العنصرية أيها البائسون بكلّ ما يترتب عليها من ثقافة وممارسة متعاكسة بالمطلق من بديهة الوحدة في التنوّع الطبيعي، الذي هو شرط بقاء الحياة، حياة الإنسان والنبات والحيوان وتوازن البيئة.

والعنصرية هي الإبن الشرعي لنظم الهيمنة والاستغلال والسيطرة والنهب والتملك والجشع والأنانية الضيقة التي أنشأتموها، والتي تهبط بالتنوع والاختلاف الطبيعي وتجعل منه مبرّراً للسيطرة والتمييز الدوني والإبادة الاجتماعية والجنسية والثقافية والقومية.

والعنصرية لكي تكون وتزدهر تنشئ منظومات عميقة وممتدة وشاملة:

العنصرية الجنسية ضد المرأة، العنصرية العرقية، عنصرية اللون، العنصرية القومية، والدينية والطائفية.

وبقليل من التدقيق تجدون أنّ هدف العنصرية النهائي هو السيطرة والنهب والسرقة والاستغلال الوحشي.

ولكي تبرّر أنظمة ومنظومات العنصرية ذاتها فإنها تخلق وتؤسّس أيديولوجيتها الخاصة التي تقوم على:

التفوّق العرقي

انها ذات رسالة أخلاقية وإلهية.

وأنّ التميّز والتفوّق للجماعات العنصرية هو معطى طبيعي.

ثقافة التمركز على الذات.

الاختلالات الاجتماعية والتاريخية كالتخلف والتقدم هي بسبب الاختلافات الطبيعية والقصور والعجز العقلي الوراثي وليس بسبب النهب وعلاقات القوة والاستعمار والهيمنة والقهر والاستعباد.

الاختلافات البيولوجية (الأنثى والذكر، الأبيض والأسود..) هي تعبير عن اختلالات بنيوية تبرر الإهانة والتمييز والاستغلال والإخضاع والعنف.

أنهى الحمار الوحشي مطالعته، صمت قليلاً، هزّ ذيله ثم قال سأروي لكم الآن قصة جميلة قرأتها بعنوان «نعم… أفتخر أنني «حمار ابن حمار»! وهي بالمناسبة لكاتب شاعر من جنسكم اسمه أحمد مطر، تقول القصة:

«ذات يوم أضرب حمار عن الطعام مدة من الزمن، فضعف جسده وتهدّلت أذناه، وكاد جسده يقع على الأرض من الوهن، فأدرك الحمار الأب أن وضع ابنه يتدهور كلّ يوم، وأراد أن يفهم منه سبب ذلك، فأتاه على انفراد يستطلع حالته النفسية والصحية التي تزداد تدهوراً. فقال له: ما بك يا بني؟ لقد أحضرت إليك أفضل أنواع الشعير.. وأنت لا تزال رافضاً أن تأكل ..أخبرني ما بك؟ ولماذا تفعل ذلك بنفسك؟ هل أزعجك أحد؟

رفع الحمار الابن رأسه وخاطب والده قائلاً:

نعم يا أبي… إنهم البشر.

دُهش الأب الحمار وقال لابنه الصغير:

وما بهم البشر يا بني؟

فقال له: إنهم يسخرون منّا نحن معشر الحمير.

فقال الأب وكيف ذلك؟

قال الابن: ألا تراهم كلما قام أحدهم بفعل مشين يقولون له يا حمار! وكلما قام أحد أبنائهم برذيلة يقولون له يا حمار! أنحن حقا كذلك؟ يصفون أغبياءهم بالحمير. ونحن لسنا كذلك يا أبي. إننا نعمل دون كلل أو ملل. ونفهم وندرك، ولنا مشاعر ..

عندها ارتبك الحمار الأب ولم يعرف كيف يردّ على تساؤلات صغيره وهو في هذه الحالة السيئة، ولكن سُرعان ما حرّك أذنيه يُمنة ويسرة ثم بدأ يحاور ابنه محاولاً إقناعه حسب منطق الحمير.

انظر يا بني إنهم معشر البشر خلقهم الله وفضّلهم على سائر المخلوقات لكنّهم أساؤوا لأنفسهم كثيراً قبل أن يتوجّهوا لنا نحن معشر الحمير بالإساءة.

فانظر مثلاً… هل رأيت حماراً خلال عمرك كله يسرق مال أخيه؟ هل سمعت بذلك؟ هل رأيت حماراً يعذب بقية الحمير ليس لشيء إلا لأنهم أضعف منه، أو أنه لا يعجبه ما يقولون؟ هل رأيت حماراً عنصرياً يعامل الآخرين من الحمير بعنصرية اللون والجنس واللغة؟ هل سمعت عن قمة حمير لا يعرفون لماذا مجتمعين؟ هل سمعت يوماً ما أنّ الحمير الأميركان يخططون لقتل الحمير العرب! من أجل الحصول على الشعير؟ هل رأيت حماراً عميلاً لدولة أجنبية ويتآمر ضدّ حمير بلده؟ هل رأيت حماراً يفرّق بين أهله على أساس طائفي؟ طبعاً لم تسمع بمثل هذه الجرائم الإنسانية في عالم الحمير! ولكن البشر هل يعرفون الحكمة من خلقهم ويعملون بمقتضاها جيداً؟ لهذا يا ولدي أطلب منك أن تحكّم عقلك الحماري، وأطلب منك أن ترفع رأسي ورأس أمك عالياً، وتبقى كعهدي بك حمار ابن حمار، واتركهم يا ولدي يقولون ما يشاؤون. فيكفينا فخراً أننا حمير لا نكذب، لا نقتل، لا نسرق، لا نغتاب، لا نشتم، لا نرقص فرحاً وبيننا جريح وقتيل.

أعجبت هذه الكلمات الحمار الابن فقام وراح يلتهم الشعير وهو يقول: نعم سأبقى كما عهدتني يا أبي. سأبقى أفتخر أنني حمار ابن حمار ثم أكون تراباً ولا أدخل النار التي وقودها الناس والأحجار».

أنهى الحمار الوحشي الجميل والشجاع حديثه، ثم مضى يركض ببهجة عفوية عارمة وغاب في القطيع، فلم يعد بالإمكان تمييزه عن غيره.


ليتني كنت حماراً وحشياً وليس إنساناً وحشياً…!

SITREP: Tucker Carlson Damns Republican Party, Calls for ‘New Leaders’ and Condemns Trump as a ‘Weak’ President, Lauds ‘Strong’ Obama

SITREP: Tucker Carlson Damns Republican Party, Calls for ‘New Leaders’ and Condemns Trump as a ‘Weak’ President, Lauds ‘Strong’ Obama

by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog

Fox ‘News’ host Tucker Carlson effectively abandoned the Republican Party on June 19th as “too weak,” and urged “it’s time to find new leaders.” If he were attempting to start a third-party run for the White House, this rant would be ideal, especially because, as of noon two days later, on June 21st, it had nearly 1.4 million views and nearly 20 thousand viewer-comments — overwhelmingly favorable. Here are its highlights:

Jun 19, 2020, 1,389,994 views and 20K comments, overwhelmingly favorable — [all as of noon on Jun 21]

A supporter of the Democratic Party is (1:30) someone who “wants more foreign wars and enjoys sucking up to banks … You vote for Republicans to protect you from this.” Confederate statues in Old Dixie were removed because of (2:00) “illiterate vandals.” Carlson (3:00) condemned the president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, who had said “racism is America’s Achilles’ heel. It has been embedded into our culture for 400 years” as “accusing America of being ‘irredeemably racist’,” as if such an allegation shouldn’t even be published but instead banned. He condemned “so many on the right” for doing “exactly the same thing” (alleging that America is “irredeemably racist” or “racism is America’s Achilles’ heel. It has been embedded into our culture for 400 years”). They “did everything possible to accommodate the demands of … rioters. .. They didn’t blame the rioters, they blamed the cops.” “Ordinary Americans came under attack for the color of their skin, actual racism [against Whites]. … And yet no Republicans rose to defend them.” Carlson (5:25-) condemned Trump and said that Obama would have crushed the rioters, not like Trump and the Republicans who were (7:50-end) “too weak. … The crisis has revealed the truth. Now we know who they are. It could not be clearer. And now it’s time to find new leaders.”

Tucker Carlson has, perhaps, been running for the U.S. Presidency ever since at least the time when he started to become an advocate of the anti-regime-change-war candidate for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination, Tulsi Gabbard.

Here you see it from 5 March 2019.

Here you see it from 27 June 2019.

Here you see it from 1 August 2019.

Here you see it from 8 January 2020.

Here you see it from 10 March 2020.

Here is another Fox PR for Gabbard on 10 March 2020.

All of those were Republican Fox ‘News’ pumping the only anti-neoconservative (or anti-imperialist) Democratic Presidential candidate, and Tucker Carlson was the leader of that anti-neocon thrust, as if the Republican Party weren’t just as neocon (supportive of U.S. imperialism) as is the Democratic Party.

In all of the polling of Democratic primary voters, Gabbard never received an average level of support that was above 3%; so, she was one of the least appealing candidates to Democratic Party voters. If anything, her frequent appearances on Republican Party ‘news’-media reduced instead of increased her support from Democratic Party voters. Clearly, the Democratic Party is strongly neoconservative, not only from the donor class, but also from the voter class.

Carlson has therefore been running (if he is) in order to appeal to Republican and independent Whites who support police (even racist ones), consider racial integrationists to be mainly “illiterate vandals” instead of peaceful demonstrators, and feel that a “strong” President would put down any violent demonstrators by prohibiting the demonstrations and cracking the heads of anyone who would demonstrate against barbarically racist cops.

What this might suggest to be the case is that Carlson is planning to run third-party to appeal to the most disadvantaged Whites who compete against Blacks. As the February 2020 Brookings study “Examining the Black-white wealth gap” said, “At $171,000, the net worth of a typical [median] white family is nearly ten times greater than that of a [median] Black family ($17,150) in 2016.” However, since the numbers of people increase at the lower end of the wealth-distribution and decrease very sharply at the higher end of it, there are a great many poor Whites in the U.S., and Carlson is pitching to them. Poor Whites receive none of the extra consideration from the Government that all Blacks can on many federal and state “affirmative action” and other programs, and they therefore compete against black applicants at a disadvantage on the existing legal basis.

Regarding Carlson’s alleged opposition to U.S. imperialism, Trump himself spoke not much differently from today’s Carlson on that, but it has merely become a Republican talking-point against the neoconservative Barack Obama’s policies, just as Obama himself talked up a storm against George W. Bush’s neoconservative policies while running against Hillary Clinton in 2008. However, the American people have never really rejected neoconservatism. For example, Americans have no objection to the U.S. Government invading a country that never  so much as threatened to invade the U.S. During 1992-2003, Gallup kept polling Americans on the question “Would you favor or oppose invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops” and consistently there were 2-to-1 to 3-to-1 margins saying “Favor” instead of “Oppose” on that. Moreover, during Gallup’s 7 pollings on that question during December 2002 and January 2003, the detailed demographic breakdowns showed that every category of Americans except post-college graduates, Democrats, Liberals, and Blacks were in favor of invading. That’s because invading Iraq, and even being neoconservative, were considered ‘Republican’ policies then. Americans have no problem with the Government’s committing the international war-crime of “aggressive war.” None whatsoever.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Protests And A Prognosis

 Posted by Lawrence Davidson

Author - American Herald Tribune

Part I—A Dangerous Dichotomy

If we go with the United States’ own picture of itself as a constitutional democracy that aims to guarantee citizens equal rights under law, how are we to interpret President Donald Trump’s reported desire to use ten thousand active duty troops to “dominate the streets” and quell largely peaceful protests against racist police behavior? A reasonable interpretation of President Trump’s attitude, and that of his supporters as well, is that they seek to prioritize the political and cultural desires of a largely racist subgroup of whites over the constitutional rights of citizens in general. This sets up a very dangerous dichotomy that constitutes a danger to the country’s democracy—at least as defined above.  

It should be kept in mind that the right-wing side of this dichotomy, and its challenge to a democracy based on a liberal interpretation of the Constitution has always been with us. Considering just the 20th and 21st centuries, figures such as Woodrow Wilson and his consistently racist use of power both prior to and during World War I; J. Edgar Hoover and his rights-defying use of the FBI; Joseph McCarthy and his pernicious use of anti-Communism; George W. Bush and his initiation of war on false premises; and now the clearly autocratic aspirations of Donald Trump. Such “leaders” have ruined countless lives while eroding the constitutional basis of equal rights.

Part II—The Bureaucratic Factor 

Why has the Constitution proven so fragile in this regard? One reason is the autocratic nature of bureaucracies. All these men wielded power through bureaucracies, and their power was magnified by such institutions. Bureaucracies are top-down affairs, and so those operating within them are expected to, and almost always do, follow the orders of their superiors. For instance, the President of the United States is also “Commander-in-Chief” of the armed forces—which in turn are themselves top-down bureaucracies. When, in early June, Commander-in-Chief Donald Trump demanded ten thousand active duty soldiers for deployment onto the streets of America, none of them could be expected to pull out a copy of the U.S. Constitution and fact-check the legitimacy of the orders issued. Nor were they expected to take seriously their induction oaths to “defend” the integrity of that same document. They were expected to readily follow their orders regardless of constitutional limits. Thus, all things being equal, President Trump should have gotten what he asked for. We are very fortunate that at that moment all things were not equal—a factor is to be considered below. 

If the regular army had hit the streets in June of 2020, they would have done so in order to suppress largely peaceful protests over the lack of equal rights and lack of legal treatment under the law. Indeed, in Washington, D.C.—the only place Trump’s order was partially followed—active-duty military police and the D.C. National Guard did act side-by-side against peacefully demonstrating citizens. Elsewhere, the National Guard called up by governors abetted the police in “riot control,” during which almost no distinction was made between looters and peaceful demonstrators. A few National Guard troops have subsequently expressed regrets over their participation.

The typical police force is also a bureaucracy with its own institutional culture that in many ways mimics the military. Most (there often proves to be a small number of exceptions) of those in the ranks are going to follow the orders of whomever they recognize as having authority. Quite frankly, there is a strong tendency over time for the police, particularly those assigned to minority neighborhoods, to forget all about the U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and other niceties of law, and slip into a fraternal (often white supremacist) culture which sets them apart from those they are “policing.” They are then easily used as an arm of establishment power. That certainly was the expectation of President Trump and many of the nation’s chiefs of police.  

Part III—All Was Not Equal

At this point we can ask, What were the demonstrators protesting? Specifically, thousands of citizens across the country were protesting the behavior of the police, who had long been brutalizing African American and other minority group citizens in the name of law enforcement. Most of the demonstrators understood their cause within the context of both human and U.S. Constitutional rights of citizens to live in a community where the law serves the cause of equitable justice. “No justice, no peace.”

The nation was fortunate that most of the protesters understood rights in this way. That understanding allowed them, in their great numbers (less a relatively small number of both black and white looters), to quite literally save American democracy. They did so by demanding that those who had authority confront one of the autocratic threats of our day—racist police forces, the brutality of which was captured repeatedly on video. The demonstrators used that evidence to force the issue, and this, in turn, caused the bureaucrats to eventually stop acting in a knee-jerk fashion. Thus, city councils, mayors, governors and even military officials had to choose between oppression (which included, in this case, following Trump’s order that they “dominate the streets) and the Constitution. Choosing oppression would have resulted in two things: erosion of the constitutionally sanctioned rule of law and the burning of cities across the land. No one, except perhaps Donald Trump and his white racist base, wanted either of those two consequences. So the notion that “without the right to protest, there can be no [liberal] democracy” was upheld, and that made the protesters “the nation’s true patriots.”

Part IV—Will the Changes Last?

According to a recent piece in the HuffPost, the demands of the protesters for a just and safe America are being heeded. As proof, the article notes the following:

—Police officers are being held accountable for brutal behavior.

—Some police departments are reforming police practices.

—Monuments to racist and hardline historical figures are coming down.

—Technology companies are halting cooperation with police departments when it comes to facial recognition techniques. 

—Finally, there has been a shift in public opinion: Americans “support the anti-racism protests by a 2 to 1 margin.”

 All this is for the better, but will it last? Barack Obama has compared the present protests to those of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. He believes that they have brought about a similar “sea change” or profound transformation. Is that actually the case?

It should be recalled that the earlier civil rights protests led to a series of changes in law and, ultimately, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that banned discrimination in the public realm. These changes smoothed the way for other legislation expanding rights to people with disabilities, to homosexuals, lesbians and transgender folks, and to others. However, and quite significantly, these events triggered a culture war that focused white resentment and resistance within conservative political and fundamentalist religious movements. Among their unofficial institutional allies were and are some of the nation’s police forces. The racism, now exhibited by today’s Republican Party and its leader, President Donald Trump, as well as modern episodes of police brutality toward African Americans, should be understood within the context of that on-going culture war.

Looking at things this way, we can ask if the progressive response to today’s protests is best described as a “sea change” or a continuing, albeit important, chapter in what is still a very long-term struggle? As one activist and organizer, Sajari Simmons, realizes this is certainly not the end of the struggle for justice. Referring to the protests, she noted that “This is not just it. This is just one component,” she said. “There’s a lot more that we can do to help impact and educate and support.”

Part V—Conclusion

The American political system is lobby based. If the average citizen is important, it is only to be rallied at election time. However, if they are organized into politically potent interest groups, those citizens can have a long-term impact. To ultimately win the culture war, today’s protesters must be somehow united into a standing movement capable of “educating and supporting” their cause at local, state and national levels over the long run. 

Lest we forget, the enemies of a liberal, non-discriminatory interpretation of the Constitution are still out there and they have power. President Trump and his minions are still in place, as are millions of racist voters. Their political power must be broken at the polls, in the courts, and through a multigenerational process of reeducation. In working toward these goals, demonstrations are necessary, but not sufficient. Without a competently led and lasting movement, police brutality will come back, and “ten thousand soldiers” might, someday, really “dominate the streets.”

About Lawrence Davidson

Lawrence Davidson is professor of history emeritus at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He has been publishing his analyses of topics in U.S. domestic and foreign policy, international and humanitarian law and Israel/Zionist practices and policies since 2010.

SYRIA CAESAR’S LAW: WHO DOES IT TARGET, AND HOW WILL IT AFFECT PRESIDENT ASSAD?

By Elijah J. Magnier: @ejmalrai

In mid-June, the US sanctions against Syria will escalate, with the enactment of “Caesar’s Law“, sanctions designed to “pursue individuals, groups, companies, and countries that deal with the Damascus government.” This law – purportedly named after a Syrian army officer who smuggled out thousands of photos of torture by the Syrian army in prisons – is designed to prevent companies and countries from opening diplomatic channels with Syria, and to prevent them from contributing to reconstruction, investment, and the provision of spare parts for the energy and aviation sectors in Syria. The sanctions also affect the Syrian central bank, freezing the assets of individuals who deal with Syria and invalidating any visa to America. Who will abide by this law, and what are its consequences for Syria, Lebanon, and the countries that stand beside Syria?

Torture is a common practice in many nations around the world. Syria practised torture (the case of Maher Arar) on behalf of the United States of America and the Bush administration. At least 54 countries (Middle Eastern and African nations but also western countries like Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and more) supported US “extraordinary renditions” in 2001 and secret detentions under President Barack Obama. Washington thus lacks any moral authority to claim opposition to torture as a basis for its policies. Over recent decades the US has become notorious for authorising gruesome forms of torture, stripping people of their most basic rights, and generally violating human rights in defiance of the Geneva convention and above all the 1984 UN convention against torture. James Mitchell, a CIA contract psychiatrist who helped draft and apply “enhanced interrogation techniques“, disclosed several methods approved by the US administration to torture prisoners placed in detention in “black sites” outside the US, illegally but with official authorisation. Images of torture in Abu Ghraib prisons showed the world that the US use of torture and illegal methods of interrogation against detainees in Iraq. 

Thus, US sanctions on Syria cannot plausibly indicate US concern for human values and opposition to the abuse of power. Moreover, the US administration’s adherence to its own Constitution is in grave doubt, given the reaction of the security forces against demonstrators in America in response to widespread racial discrimination and racially motivated police attacks.

These new US sanctions, under the name of Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, can in no way be ascribed to some moral value, but rather to the failure by the US, Israel and several Western and Arab countries to change the regime in Syria, and their refusal to acknowledge defeat. They keep trying, and in this case, imagine that through harsh sanctions against Syria and its allies they can achieve what they have failed to accomplish through many years of war and destruction.

In the 1990s, the US imposed sanctions on Iraq (oil-for-food). Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens died as a result of US sanctions on Iraq without Saddam Hussein’s regime and his entourage being affected. Consequently, we can predict that US sanctions in general primarily affect the population and not the leaders.

The US fails to realize that it is no longer the only superpower in the world, and in the Middle East in particular. Russia has done what many thought was impossible and elbowed its way into the Levant to remain in Syria and confront NATO at the borders. China has followed as a rising economic superpower to make its way into the Middle East, mainly Iraq and Syria. Iran has already a strong presence and powerful allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Palestine. These three countries, along with Syria, are playing a leading role in actively eliminating US hegemony in this part of the world.

In Beirut, the government cannot adopt and abide by “Caesar’s Law” and close its gates to Syria. Lebanon’s only land borders are through Syria since Israel is considered an enemy. Any national economic plan to revitalise the abundant local agriculture sector and export to Syria, Iraq or other countries in the Gulf would fail if “Caesar’s Law” were put into effect. Any regenerated industry or import/export from the Middle Eastern countries must go through the “Syrian gate”. Besides, the current Lebanese government risks falling if it implements the US sanctions. Washington is not providing any financial assistance to the Lebanese economy in crisis and clearly has no intention of offering necessary and immediate help to the crippled Lebanese economy. The US, as has become the norm, seeks to impose sanctions and conditions on the nations it targets but offers little in return to affected countries. In the case of Lebanon, its budget deficit is close to 100 billion dollars following decades of corruption and mismanagement.

The government of Prime Minister Hassan Diab is, theoretically, a technocratic and non-political government. It does not consider the US an enemy but neither is it likely to follow US dictates, since it is close to the “March 8 Alliance” whose strongest members are not US friendly. Hence, the only solution for this government or any future government is to go east towards China, Russia and Iran. America will likely lose in Lebanon, with its “March 14 Alliance” allies rendered voiceless and powerless. 

There is no doubt that the Christian party within the “March 8” political group will be challenged and affected by US sanctions. These have an international relationship to look after and maintain as well as external bank accounts. Regardless, “Caesar’s Law” cannot be implemented in Lebanon, whatever the consequences of its violation.

As for Iran, it has already been subject to “maximum pressure” and harsh sanctions increasing year after year since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, for daring to reject US hegemony. Hence, it has no consideration whatsoever for the US “Caesar’s Law”. Even more, Iran is certainly not unhappy that the US blocked the return and reopening of Gulf countries’ embassies – who dare not disobey the US wishes – in Syria. Gulf companies are no longer in the field as competitors to divide shares in Iran’s reconstruction contracts related to projects in the field of industry, trade and energy. Iran has already challenged US and EU sanctions on Syria by sending oil tankers to Damascus. Also, Tehran sent five tankers to Venezuela, another country suffering from harsh US sanctions. The Gulf and European countries – US’s allies – are thus losing their opportunity to return to Syria, to be involved in its reconstruction and to regain their foothold in the Levant.

As for Russia, it has just signed a deal with the Syrian government to expand its military airport and naval bases in Tartous, Hasaka and Hmeymim. Furthermore, it is supplying Syria with modern military hardware and fulfilling the Syrian army needs to come up to full strength. It supplied Syria with squadrons of the updated MiG-29 fighters this month in a clear message to the US and its “Caesar Act” sanctions.

As for China, it is now in a “cold war” situation over US accusations that Beijing is responsible for the outbreak of COVID-19. The US is seeking to prevent Beijing from doing business with the European market, and particularly to prevent Europe from embracing China’s 5G network and technology. The US administration is also pushing Israel to curtail trade with China and to call off its billion-dollar contracts signed with China to avoid “hurting the relationship with the US”. Moreover, the Iraqi-US relationship took a severe blow when the former Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi signed off on a $20 billion “oil for reconstruction” agreement with China. Thus China, already involved in different projects in Syria, is not likely to abide by “Caesar’s Law”.

As for Syria, it will never accept starvation nor buckle under the US’s economic siege. President Bashar al-Assad is reconstructing the liberated areas under the government forces’ controls. He is rebuilding infrastructure for the Syrian population present in the homeland, excluding the areas abandoned by refugees who fled the country many of whom will not return. The Syrian government is not suffering from the absence of the five to seven million refugees in Idlib, in refugee camps outside the control of the government or in nearby bordering countries. Those refugees are financed and looked after by the international community and the United Nations. This relieves the central government of a considerable financial burden.

Consequently, Syria does not need to reconstruct the refugees’ homes or provide them with oil, electricity, schools, infrastructure and subsidies for as long as Western countries want them to stay outside Syria. The international community wants these refugees to remain away from the central government’s control and is doing everything in its power to prevent their return so as to be able to reject a future Presidential election- where Bashar al-Assad’s victory is guaranteed.

President Assad will work with Iran, Russia and China to secure his needs. Iran has defied US-European sanctions by sending oil tankers to Syria through the Straits of Gibraltar twice. Iran is building drug and medicine factories in Syria, and is also working on other projects that it shares with Russia and China. Syria is heading toward the east, not the west, since that it is the only remaining option left to it. This is the long-awaited dream of the “Axis of Resistance”. Lebanon, Syria and Iraq are looking to Asia to reverse the US-European sanctions against them and their allies in the Middle East. By imposing further unaffordable sanctions on Syria, the US is helping the Levant come out of the US sphere of influence and presence.

Iran, Russia, China and Syria are uniting as allies with an integrated project against US hegemony. There is no place for the domination of one state over another in this gathering of nations because solidarity is required to help Syria, for example, stand as a healthy and reliable country to confront the US. Their strength grows as the weakness of the US becomes more apparent, at a time when President Donald Trump is struggling domestically and his world influence is weakening. Washington is unilaterally imposing sanctions on nations and populations, forcing some allies to follow but also forcing them to consider seriously future possibilities for detaching from this burdensome “umbilical cord.”  

The US “Caesar’s Law” aims to submit and suppress the Syrian nation and people, as Washington has attempted with Iran and Venezuela, so far failing miserably. This policy can no longer be effective because the Russian – Chinese – Iranian alliance has now become important to many countries in the Middle East. The influence of this alliance now extends to the Caribbean Sea. “Caesar’s Law” will turn against its architects: “he who prepared the poison shall end up eating it.”

Proofread by:  Maurice Brasher and  C.G.B.

This article is translated free to many languages by volunteers so readers can enjoy the content. It shall not be masked by Paywall. I’d like to thank my followers and readers for their confidence and support. If you liked it, please don’t feel embarrassed to contribute and help fund it, for as little as 1 Euro. Your contribution, however small, will help ensure its continuity. Thank you.

Copyright © https://ejmagnier.com   2020 

أحداث أميركا ومستقبل ترامب

أحداث أميركا ومستقبل ترامب… – جريدة البناء | Al-binaa Newspaper

د. جمال زهران

لا شك في أنّ ما حدث ولا يزال مستمراً، من تمرّدات وانتفاضات شعبية أميركية في كلّ ولايات أميركا الخمسين، بل في العاصمة واشنطن وأمام البيت الأبيض، على مدار الأسبوعين الماضيين، إثر حادث مقتل مواطن أسود، هو: (جورج فلويد)، من قبل شرطي عنيف أمسك رقبته بقدمه حتى الموت، هو من أكبر الانتفاضات التي وقعت في أميركا منذ نشأتها في أواخر القرن الثامن عشر، على يد جورج واشنطن. فقد تقع بعض الأحداث الغاضبة، نتيجة سوء معاملة الشرطة الأميركية لبعض المواطنين، خصوصاً السود منهم! إلا أنها تستمرّ ساعات أو أياماً محدودة، وتنتهي بإجراء من الإدارة الأميركية. وكان من أكبر ما حدث من انتفاضات، في عهد الرئيس الأميركي بيل كلينتون، حيث صدر حكم قضائي كان قاسياً ولا يتفق أو يتوازى مع الجرم، على مواطن أسود في كاليفورنيا في التسعينيات من القرن العشرين، وكانت هيئة المحكمة كلها من أصحاب «الوجوه البيضاء» فوقعت المظاهرات العنيفة، من تكسير وتخريب ونهب، للمحكمة ومحيطها، شملت الولاية كلها، رافعة شعار رفض هذا الحكم وضرورة إلغائه. ولم تتوقف هذه المظاهرات العنيفة، إلا بقرار رئاسي من كلينتون، بإلغاء هذا الحكم، واعتباره كأنه لم يكن، وإعادة محاكمته أمام دائرة أخرى، برّأت المواطن. وقد كان ذلك التدخل الرئاسي، رسالة لكلّ المؤسسات بضرورة إعمال مبادئ العدالة وعدم ظلم السود، وضرب التمييز العنصري، وتوقفه فوراً!

وقد لوحظ أنّ هذه الانتفاضة الحالية، من أكبر الانتفاضات التي شهدتها أميركا منذ الحرب الأهلية التي استمرت سنوات، حتى توحّدت كل الولايات، وذلك من حيث الفترة الزمنية، ومن حيث الانتشار في كل الولايات، وليس في ولاية واحدة، ومن حيث حجم الخسائر الضخمة، ومن حيث التداعيات، حتى أنها شملت كل المجتمع ضد التمييز العنصري، ولم تقتصر على أصحاب الجباه السوداء، بل شملت كل الوجوه بألوانها، وكل الفئات بأديانها. كما أنّ اللافت للنظر أنّ هذه الانتفاضة الكبرى، تضمّنت إشارات وصلت إلى تصريحات رسمية إلى العصيان المدني من قبل حكام بعض الولايات على الرئيس الأميركي، والوصول إلى حدّ الإعلان عن الانفصال عن الاتحاد، وإعلان الاستقلال! وشهدنا كلّ ما كان محرّماً من الحديث قولاً أو فعلاً، لدرجة أنّ بعض العمُد اتخذوا قرارات عكس قرارات الرئيس، وهو ما يحدث للمرة الأولى.

والسؤال هنا: ما هو انعكاس ما يحدث على مستقبل ترامب؟ بل ما هو انعكاس ذلك على مستقبل أميركا ووحدتها؟!

فقد كثر الحديث عن قرب تفكك أميركا وانتهاء حقبة الولايات المتحدة، وأن سيناريو التفكّك الذي شهده الاتحاد السوفياتي في نهاية عام 1991، هو ما ستشهده الإمبراطورية الأميركية كما شهدته بالضبط الإمبراطورية السوفياتية. كما كثر الحديث عن أنّ ظاهرة ظهور ترامب، هي الظاهرة ذاتها التي أظهرت من قبل ميخائيل غورباتشوف بنهاية مارس 1985، فكان كلّ همّه تفكيك الاتحاد السوفياتي بالانسحابات المتتالية والانكفاء على الذات وطرح وثيقتي (الغلاسنوست والبيروسترويكا)، بمعنى المكاشفة، وإعادة البناء! وخلال 6 أعوام (1985 – 1991)، تفكك الاتحاد السوفياتي، واختزل في دولة روسيا العظمى، من بين 15 دولة كان يضمّها هذا الاتحاد السوفياتي. والآن وبعد مرور ما يقرب من 4 سنوات من تولي دونالد ترامب حكم أميركا، فبدأ بالانسحابات الأميركية من الاتفاقيات والمناطق، وغيرها، وتغيير السياسات والاستراتيجيات الأميركية، واستعداء الأصدقاء، وخلق أعداء جدد، ثم انتهاج سياسات التمييز العنصري منذ بداية توليه في 20 كانون الثاني/ يناير 2017! فكانت النتيجة هو تعرّضه للعزل في مجلس النواب، وأنقذه مجلس الشيوخ! ثم فوجئ بنتائج أعمال سياساته الداخلية، في الشارع الأميركي الذي تفجر ضدّه على خلفية اغتيال وقتل عمدي لـ جورج فلويد «الأسود»!

في ظلّ ذلك، هل لترامب مستقبل في الاستمرار في حكم أميركا لمدة ثانية 4 سنوات أخرى، تنتهي في كانون الثاني/ يناير 2025؟!

هناك سيناريوان عند الإجابة على هذا التساؤل:

الأول: توقع نجاحه، الأمر الذي يؤدي إلى استمرار سياساته الداخلية والخارجية، والنتيجة هو تفكيك الولايات المتحدة، وانتهاء الإمبراطورية الأميركية ودورها العالمي، ودخول النظام الدولي في مرحلة جديدة، حيث محدودية التنافس الدولي بين الصين وروسيا من جانب ولهما الغلبة، وبين الاتحاد الأوروبي الذي يدخل مرحلة التفكك نتيجة تفكك المركز، المتمثل في الولايات المتحدة الأميركية.

الثاني: هو التوقّع بفشله في الانتخابات، خاصة بعد فشله في إدارة أزمة كورونا، والانتشار الأفقي لهذا الوباء في أميركا كلها (بلغت الإصابات حتى تاريخه أكثر من 2 مليون إصابة، 115 ألف وفاة)، وفشله في مواجهة الانتفاضة الشعبية الأميركية واحتوائها، حيث إن الشارع الأميركي انقلب عليه، وتآكلت شرعيته ورصيده الشعبي. وقد يرتب رحيله من الحكم وفشله في الانتخابات إلى صعود الديمقراطيين، وعودة استراتيجياتهم الناعمة، فيتأجّل تفكك الولايات المتحدة إلى موعد آخر، رغم أنه حتمي، ولكنه التوقيت… لا أكثر! ويتأجّل انتهاء الدور العالمي لأميركا رغم أنّ هذا الدور دخل مرحلة الأفول أيضاً.

وفي تقديري، فإنّ السيناريو الثاني، بفشل ترامب في الفوز بمدة ثانية هو الأرجح، لأنّ الرأسمالية المتوحشة ربما تزيحه حفاظاً على استمرارها متحكمة في النظام الاقتصادي العالمي، خاصة بعد أزمة وباء كورونا الذي لم يتوقف بعد، وليس مرجحاً الانتهاء منه قريباً.

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

*أستاذ العلوم السياسية والعلاقات الدولية، والأمين العام المساعد للتجمع العربي الإسلامي لدعم خيار المقاومة، ورئيس الجمعية العربية للعلوم السياسية.

Education Is Offensive and Racist and so is America

Education Is Offensive and Racist and so is America

June 13, 2020

Paul Craig Roberts

Years of teaching blacks to have grievances against white people for things that happened centuries ago have come to fruition. Rioting and looting are not enough, the violent thugs and ignorant woke creatures are pulling down historic monuments in public parks and defacing public buildings while police and public authorities stand down.

In Richmond, Virginia, a statue eight feet tall of Christopher Columbus in a public park has just been pulled down and rolled into a lake by a group of thugs.  Why?  “Columbus represents genocide.”  What the barbarians mean is that by discovering America, Columbus exposed the inhabitants to invasion from abroad, which is what the US has been undergoing since 1965. 

Who hasn’t suffered invasions?  Why of all the countless invasions in history is European entry into the new world so upsetting.  Columbus wasn’t looking to invade any country.  He was testing a theory and hoping to find a shorter route to the spice trade.

Any number of Confederate memorials are being pulled down.  Not even Robert E. Lee will be spared.  Are public authorities  so stupid that they do not understand that their acquiescence to lawlessness and destruction of property lets the genie out of the bottle?  

The new word for racist is white.  By definition a white person is a racist.  The two words are synonyms.  Every stature of every white person is a statue of a racist and can be pulled down. The Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee has amended the defense bill to require the US military to rename bases named after anyone who served under the Confederate flag. They don’t understand that as white is a synonym for racist, all whites, including Union officers, are racists. All US military bases will have to be named after blacks or it will be racist.  Grant and Lee were both white and served together fighting for American empire in the war against people of color in Mexico. The only difference between Grant and Lee is that in addition to fighting for American empire against Mexico, Grant also fought for American empire against the South. 

History is also being pulled down.  Future historians will be perplexed to find no signs of the racism on which the NY Times says America was founded.  

Ignorance is everywhere. RT describes Columbus as “another notorious figure in the history of slavery.”  What!? The year 1492 was long before the black Kindgom of Dahomey created the black slave trade and long before there were any colonies needing a labor force.  But facts no longer matter.  Truth is whatever is emotionally satisfying.

America is said to be a superpower, but its inhabitants collapse in excruciating pain over a mere word. The pain felt by mental and emotional weaklings is so severe that it has caused universities to overthrow academic freedom.  At UCLA, once a university and now a propaganda ministry, a faculty member is under investigation for reading Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” to the class he teaches.  The letter (April 16, 1963) was King’s reply to black pastors who expressed their concern to him about his arrival as an outsider to their community to stir up confrontation when they were working to negotiate the achievement of the same goals peaceably. King’s answer was that confrontation sharpens the issue and will aid their negotiations. Creating a crisis, King told the pastors, fosters tension and forces a community to deal with the issue.

What did the professor do wrong by reading King’s own explanation of his strategy?  The professor is in trouble because King in his letter used the word “nigger” and in reading King’s letter to the class, the professor read the word “nigger.”  OhMyGod, a white man said “nigger.”

Oh, the hurt, the offense!  University administrators have denounced the professor. To keep the controversy going students are urged to come forward with complaints. A town hall will be held to outline future next steps. 

Think about this for a minute. According to reports “numerous students plead (sic ) with Professor Ajax Peris to not use the n word.”  But it was King, not Peris, who used the n word. What is the message here?  Does it mean that a white person cannot read out loud Martin Luther King’s letter?  If the professor wanted students to be aware of the letter, would he have to bring in a black guest lecturer to read the letter?  Would the professor still be accused of insensitivity if he gave  Martin Luther King’s letter to the students as a reading assignment?  Does it mean that King himself committed an offense by using the n word?

The professor also showed the class a documentary about lynching. The documentary had graphic descriptions that distressed and angered the students.  Do we have here the plight of what sounds like a leftwing professor trying to rile up blacks against whites and finding that he cannot succeed because the necessary words and images cause them paroxysms of pain?

In our oh-so-sensitive-times, no one is concerned about giving offense to Southerners.  White Republican senators are leading the charge to rename military bases. Not to be outdone, black members of the House want to remove what they call Confederate statues from the vicinity of the Capitol as part of the protest against police violence in Minneapolis. They are having a fit over Jefferson Davis, who for 3 or 4 years of his life was president of the Confederate States of America. Much more of Davis’ life was spent serving the United States of America as a military officer, a US Senator and as US Secretary of War (they were more honest in those days; today they call it “defense”).  Davis was a West Point graduate. As an officer in the US Army he fought for the US empire in the Mexican-American war. It was Davis who led the sucessful charge on the La Teneria fort in the Battle of Monterrey.  He was married to the daughter of US President Zachary Taylor. He argued against secession.  These are the reasons that there is a statue of him.

Davis, like Robert E. Lee, and so many others from Southern states spent their life in service to the United States. They rallied to the Confederacy only because Lincoln invaded their states.  People are so ignorant today, especially those who go around shouting “racist,” that they are unaware that in those days people regarded their home state as their country.  The US Constitution gave governing power to the states, reserving to the states all powers not ennumerated to the federal government.  All of this was changed by Lincoln’s war which consolidated power in Washington and eventually turned largely independent states into vassals of Washington.

Robert E. Lee, a West Point Graduate, spent his life in the US military fighting wars for the US empire. He served as Superintendent of the United States Military Academy. He was so highly regarded that he was offered a Union command in Lincoln’s war. Lee’s response was that as a Virginian, he could not lead an army to invade his country.  If the US was going to invade Virginia, he would have to resign his commission in the US Army.

An ignorant person once wrote in CounterPunch that Lee had 200 slaves.  Lee had no plantation. He spent his life fighting against Indians and Mexicans for the American empire. It did not occur to the peabrain at CounterPunch what a person fighting Indians on the frontier and Mexicans in Mexico would do with 200 slaves.  But as I have often observed, it you are out to demonize someone—Trump, Putin, or Lee—you say whatever does the job.

Lee had to take a leave from the US army for 2 years in order to settle his father-in-law’s estate, which had land holdings and slaves on one side of the ledger and massive debts on the other. The aim was to emancipate the slaves. Knowing that, some slaves pushed it before it could be done. They were punished, and ever since it has been used to blacken Lee who had fiduciary duties.

The current line is that Confederate memorials “pay tribute to white supremacy and slavery,” as the most ignorant Barbara Lee (D, CA) put it.  So, according to a person regarded by people in California of sufficient intelligence and integrity to represent them in Washington, a Southerner who resists the invasion of his country is a white supremacist.

As has been proven so many times, the so-called “Civil War” was fought over economics, not slavery. Lincoln himself intended to send the blacks back to Africa, judging them unfit to live among white people.  Lincoln said over and over that the war was fought to preserve the Union. He gave assurances to the South that they could have slaves as long as they stayed in the Union and paid the tariff. Historians have researched the letters and diaries of participants on both sides of the war and found that soldiers were not fighting for or against slavery. The North was fighting for the Union, and the South was fighting because the South was invaded.  There is a famous book in which the contents of the wartime letters and diaries are recorded.

Yet the real documented history has been replaced with a false made-up history that serves the sole purpose of creating dissention and hatred in a vulnerable and fragile multicultural society.  

As I recently wrote using Richard Weaver’s title, ideas have consequences. The stand downs of police and public authorities while criminals loot and destroy are consequences of the false history that has been created for the United States. 

The United States is a Tower of Babel from which white people should flee. The state of collapse is advanced. With mayors and governors refusing to protect property from black looters, President Trump threatened to call out the US military.  His own Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, and his own Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Mark Milley, quickly informed the US military that their duty was to the Constitution, not to the President. The two made a show of this to undercut President Trump and to present him as a tyrant for trying to fulfill his constitutional obligation to protect private property and the lives of citizens.  Apparently, both Esper and Milley are too dumbshit to understand that it is a constitutional duty to protect property.

Trump is not Establishment, but his government is. Trump is a President surrounded by his enemies. Trump attempted to be a president of the people, but the Establishment will not permit it.  Trump will be the last president who attempts to represent the American people.  All future presidents will have learned the lesson in advance. An American president serves the ruling elite and no one else.  The elite have worked long and hard to acquire a divided population that cannot unite against them.  They have succeeded. 

Trump Attacks China and Others Falsely, Puts More Bodies in Bags

Trump Attacks China and Others Falsely, Puts More Bodies in Bags

By Nour Rida

Amid the coronavirus chaos, US President Donald Trump has shown that he is probably the worst at tweeting, his political discourse standards reached a new level of unprecedented frenzy and panic in US history and the best he could is ask people to explore disinfectants as a possible treatment for COVID-19 virus — an extremely dangerous proposition that medical experts warn could kill people.

He has also succeeded in a few things; attacking friends and foes and making accusations such as the case of China, cutting funds for international organizations like the case is with WHO or the UN, setting a blind eye to US theft of coronavirus aid and equipment if not giving consent to the hijacking of the medical aid of other countries, and attacking the people of his own country and carrying out racist and violent actions against them. Of course we must not forget his contradicting statements throughout the crisis reported by mainstream media outlets.

Media reports suggest that the growing public distrust in Trump’s ability to lead the country in its fight against COVID-19 is why he attacked China in first place, accusing it of spreading the virus.

“Trump is trying to divert public outrage over China as he is increasingly accused of the unwillingness the US has encountered in the pandemic. Because of this, Trump also targeted the World Health Organization [WHO],” read a report in late April.

Sarcastically, the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a statement in late April debunking false claims about COVID-19 origins, saying that the virus was “not manmade or genetically modified.”

This came while China has extended a helping hand, sending out tens of millions of protective wards, masks, medical equipment, medicines as well as medical teams to the world, with Italy as a clear example.

Known now for his threads of racism, lies and imprecision, he used the term “China Virus” multiple times when referring to coronavirus, a phrase of racial discrimination which had drawn criticism for both domestically and internationally since it was coined in mid-March.

The World Health Organization has issued guidance against “stigmatizing certain communities” when naming illnesses. US lawmaker Judy Chu – a California Democrat and chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus – was not impressed by Trump’s remarks, according to NBC News.

According to Chu, Trump’s comments would not “be necessary if he and his supporters had not already endangered so many by spreading this toxic xenophobia”.

With the mainstream media of the US and some of its allies creating a collective media campaign attacking China, the same media which claims impartiality sets a blind eye to reports on how US deportation flights increase the spread of the virus, which remains to be a fact and not just rumors.

According to Michele Heisler, medical director at the US-based nonprofit Physicians for Human Rights and a professor of internal medicine and public health at the University of Michigan, “the flights do not only put people in deportation proceedings at risk, but also threaten to spread the coronavirus to countries ill-equipped to deal with the disease.”

Countries in the region have been forced to deal with deportees infected with the virus, including Colombia, Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico, and Haiti, many of which have fragile health-care systems.

As the US sinks in its own chaos amid the incompetence of its administration in facing the coronavirus, it has been accused of “modern piracy”. One instance of it is redirecting 200,000 Germany-bound masks for its own use. The local government in Berlin said the shipment of US-made masks was “confiscated” in Bangkok.

Countries including the US, France, and Turkey have been accused of confiscating shipments, holding on to supplies, and last minute outbidding each other in an escalating war for supply goods.

Following Trump’s furies and fits, media reports have harshly criticized Trump and his attitude towards the pandemic and his justifications. Commenting on Trump’s dealing with the coronavirus crisis, the Foreign Policy wrote in a report “Like Bush, who couldn’t grasp the fact that al Qaeda was not the tool of an adversarial state, Trump refused to believe—or professed not to believe—that the virus was not an instrument of a hostile Chinese state, invented in a laboratory, and unleashed on an unsuspecting world. Just as Bush shifted the nation’s focus to Iraq, Trump seized the coronavirus to justify his obsession with China.”

The US did not stop at pouring all the blame falsely on China, or deporting thousands regardless of health concern warnings. In mid-April, Trump decided to suspend funding to the World Health Organization. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said it was “not the time” to be reducing funds to the WHO or any other organization fighting the pandemic.

“Now is the time for unity and for the international community to work together in solidarity to stop this virus and its shattering consequences,” Guterres said in a statement.

Reacting to Trump’s action and threats, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said last week that it was not the time for such rhetoric.

“The focus of all political parties should be to save their people. Please don’t politicize this virus,” Tedros said at a press briefing in Geneva last week.

“If you want to have many more body bags, then you do it. If you don’t want many more body bags, then you refrain from politicizing it … We will have many body bags in front of us if we don’t behave.”

Trump made his decisions; he keeps contributing in isolating America rather than making it great as he claims, and helps put more body in bags in the US as well as around the globe.

كيف يُواجَه «قانون قيصر» الإجراميّ ومشتقاته وأمثاله…؟

العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط

تصاعدَ التهويل واشتدّت الحرب النفسية التي تشنّها أميركا على سورية وحلفائها والمتعاملين معها في المجال الاقتصادي والمالي تهويل وضغوط من باب تطبيق “قانون قيصر” الأميركي الكيدي الإجرامي الذي يستهدف خنق الاقتصاد السوري وتجويع الشعب السوري عبر عزل سورية عن العالم اقتصادياً ومنع التعامل معها على أيّ صعيد مالي واستثماري، بقصد دفعها إلى موقع تتخلى فيه عن انتصاراتها في الحرب الكونية التي استهدفتها خلال 10 سنوات ولا تزال، ثم القبول بشروط الاستسلام الأميركي التي طالما رفضتها منذ العام 1973 وحتى اليوم.

بيد أنّ القانون الذي أقرّه الكونغرس الأميركي مستنداً إلى أسباب موجبة لفقها تحت عنوان “محاسبة النظام السوري لانتهاكه حقوق المدنيين السوريين وسلامتهم” يشكل (أيّ القانون) أكبر طعنة لهذه الحقوق في أبسط أشكالها من حيث الغذاء والدواء ومتطلبات العيش الأوّلي الضروري، ولا يغيّر من طبيعته ومفاعيله الإجرامية وتصنيفه كجريمة ضدّ الإنسانية، ادّعاء أميركا انه لن يمسّ بمصالح المدنيين. فأميركا احترفت النفاق والتزوير وتستسهل الكذب والخداع فتقتل الإنسان مدّعية أنها تقدّم له مساعدة للحياة.

فأميركا التي تتشدّق بحقوق الإنسان وتشنّ الحروب زاعمة السعي لحمايتها تحترف وبكلّ وقاحة انتهاك حقوق الإنسان أينما كان. فالسياسة لدى أميركا هي سياسة جمع المال وتراكم الثروات لطبقة من الرأسماليين على حساب الإنسان أينما وجد ولنا في ما يحصل اليوم في مدن أميركا وشوارعها من اضطرابات ومواجهات سببها العنصرية وانتهاك حقوق الإنسان خير مثال على ما نقول، حيث إنّ الحكومة الأميركية تتصرف خلافاً لما تتشدّق به حول حقوق الإنسان إلى الحدّ الذي يجعلنا نعتقد ونؤمن بأنّ مقولة “حماية حقوق الإنسان” هي سلعة أميركية معدّة للتصدير وللاستهلاك الخارجي فقط وليس للتطبيق والاستعمال الداخلي”.

إنّ أميركا وتحت عنوان “حماية حقوق الإنسان السوري”، سنّت قانوناً لتقتل هذا الإنسان ولتشنّ عليه حرباً تؤدي إلى القتل الممنهج عبر قرارات تتخذها هيئاتها الدستورية وتفرضها على العالم في تجاوز واضح لسيادة الدول واستقلالها. ونحن نفهم أنّ تتخذ أميركا تدبيراً تلزم به نفسها ضدّ دولة ما، وهذا حقّ سيادي لها، أما أن تفرض تدبيراً هي قرّرته، وتلزم به دولاً أخرى فهو أمر في منتهى العدوان والانتهاك للسيادة الوطنية لأيّ دولة أجنبية تكرهها أميركا على تطبيق قراراتها العدوانية.

فالجريمة الأميركية من باب “قانون قيصر” ومشتقاته وأمثاله من التدابير الكيدية التي تسمّيها أميركا “عقوبات” خلافاً لمدلول الكلمة الاصطلاحي قانوناً هي جريمة ضدّ الإنسانية يرتكبها من ليس له الصلاحية بالقيام بها. لأنّ العقوبة هي ما تقرّره وتفرضه جهة مخوّلة شرعاً وقانوناً بحقّ طرف وضع تحت سلطتها وكان لها حياله صلاحية العقاب. وأميركا ليست وليّ أمر سورية وليست مخوّلة من أيّ جهة دولية بأن تكون شرطي العالم بل إنها جعلت لنفسها هذه الصلاحية افتئاتاً على القانون والشرعية الدولية وأحكام وقواعد القانون الدولي العالم. وتكون الجريمة الأميركية من باب هذا القانون مركبة من جرائم عدة أوّلها التصدّي لأمر ليس من صلاحيتها، ثانيها عدوان على شعب لم يمارس هو وحكومته أيّ سلوك عدائي ضدّها وثالثها انتهاك لسيادة الدول التي تكرهها أميركا على التقيّد بقانونها. وهنا يطرح السؤال كيف نواجه القرار حتى نعطل مفاعيله ثم هل من طريق لمحاسبة أميركا على جريمتها المتمثلة بهذا القانون وسواه من الجرائم المشابهة؟

نطرح هذا مع علمنا بأنّ أميركا تتصرّف على أساس أنها فوق القانون وأن ليس من سلطة في العالم قادرة على محاسبتها وهي في الوقت الذي تطالب بملاحقة الدول أمام القضاء الدولي لا تقبل بأن تلاحق كدولة أو يلاحق أفرادها لدى هذا القضاء الذي لم توقع على اتفاقيات إنشائه.

أما عن المواجهة فإنها برأينا تكون بمنع تحقيق القرار لأهدافه التي هي في الحدّ الأدنى:

1

ـ إطالة أمد الصراع في سورية ومنعها من تحرير ما تبقى من أرضها في يد الإرهاب أو تحت الاحتلال التركي أو الأميركي وترى انّ الخنق الاقتصادي يعطل العمل العسكري ويمنع الحسم.

2

ـ حمل الشعب السوري على العودة إلى الشارع والانفضاض من حول قيادته تحت وطأة الجوع والمطالبة أو الاستجابة للمطالب الأميركية بإسقاط النظام.

3

ـ منع حلفاء سورية من مساعدتها ومنع تمتين أواصر العلاقات البينية معها وبشكل أدق منعهم من الانتظام في دورة إعادة البناء التي تعمّق الحلف أو الأحلاف الاستراتيجية بين سورية وأصدقائها.

4

ـ عرقلة عودة سورية إلى الانتظام في المنظومة الدولية كدولة قوية مؤثرة متمسكة باستقلالها وسيادتها، رافضة أيّ تبعية أو تنازل عن حقوقها وحقوق الأمة خاصة في فلسطين.

هذه هي الأهداف المباشرة التي ترمي أميركا إلى تحقيقها من خلال تطبيق قانون قيصر وأمثاله مما سبق أو قد يلحق من تدابير كيدية تتخذها بحقها وتباهي بها وبكلّ وقاحة وفجور، مؤكدة أنها تؤلم سورية كما سمعنا جيمس جيفري المبعوث الأميركي إلى سورية والمنطقة الذي باهى وبكلّ صلف “انّ تدابير أميركا تسبّبت بانهيار الليرة السورية”… (ما تسبّب بضائقة اقتصادية مسّت المواطن السوري بلقمة عيشه ودواء دائه).

وعليه فإنّ مواجهة هذا التدابير يجب أن تتركز قبل كلّ شيء على منعها من تحقيق أهدافها عبر سلة من التدابير التي تفهم أميركا بأنّ خطتها الإجرامية لن تنجح، ولن تحقق رغباتها في استسلام سورية. فسورية التي عانت ما عانت وضحّت ما ضحّت خلال حرب الدفاع عن نفسها وحققت الانتصار الاستراتيجي التاريخي في إفشال العدوان عليها من المستحيل ان تضيّع ما قدّمت وضحّت به وتسلّم لأميركا بما تريد بمجرد أنها مارست التضييق الاقتصادي عليها. وانّ في الردّ السوري الأوّلي على القانون هذا برفض الإذعان للشروط والإملاءات الأميركية ما يؤكد أنّ سورية اتخذت قرارها بالمواجهة الدفاعيّة ويبقى وضع استراتيجية الدفاع الاقتصاديّ ومطالبة كلّ مَن يعنيه الأمر في الداخل السوري والخارج بالقيام بدوره في هذا الدفاع. دفاع يكون مركباً من تدابير عسكرية وإعلامية واقتصادية وسواها التي تقدّر سورية وحلفاؤها نجاعتها خاصة في مجال:

أ ـ العمل العسكري: حيث سيكون من المفيد العودة إلى الميدان سريعاً واستغلال الظرف الدولي والأميركي القائم والانشغال التركي الحالي واستئناف معركة تحرير إدلب التي اتخذ قرار تحريرها بشكل لا عودة عنه. وسيكون هذا الأمر محرجاً لأميركا عندما يتمّ إنجاز التحرير لأنها ستجد نفسها وحيدة في احتلال شمال شرقي الفرات وستجد إمكان انطلاق المقاومة لمنع إنضاج الحالة الانفصاليّة أمرأ في متناول يد الشعب والدولة السورية وعندها ستوقن أن لا طائل من قيصر وقانونه لأنّ الدولة السورية تعمل لاجتثاث أسس المشروع الأميركي في سورية.

ب ـ العمل الشعبي والإعلامي والحرب النفسية إذ بعد أن أثبت الشعب مناعته في مواجهة الضغوط الأجنبية وقدرته على التحمّل، فإنّ تحصين هذه المناعة والقدرة سيكون مطلوباً من أجل تمتين علاقة الشعب بقائده وحكومته وإفهام أميركا أنّ الجوع لن يخرج الشعب عن مبادئه. طبعاً ويجب أن يترافق ذلك مع أقصى ما يمكن من تدابير من أجل تخفيف الضغط الاقتصادي على الشعب، وهنا ننوّه بما شهدته السويداء مؤخراً من تظاهرات شعبيّة تؤكد رفض العدوان الأميركي وتتمسّك بالدولة المركزية وقيادتها.

ج ـ أما الدور المعوّل عليه وبشكل أساسي فهو دور الحلفاء خاصة إيران وروسيا والصين، وهم جمعاً أو فرادى، قادرون على تحدّي أميركا في قانونها وقادرون على كسر إرادتها ولنا في عملية ناقلات النفط الإيراني الخمس إلى فنزويلا خير مثال. إن بضعة مليارات من الدولات مع عمل شركات هذه الدول داخل سورية كافية لتعطيل مفاعيل قانون قيصر.

د ـ وأخيراً يكون مفيداً جداً الذهاب إلى السوق المشرقيّة والتكامل الاقتصاديّ بين الدول التي تحيط بسورية، لبنان والعراق، إيران ما يعطل مفاعيل انهيار العملة في هذه الدول ويشجع الإنتاج والتبادل البيني للسلع من دون الخضوع لسلطان الدولار.

إنّ سورية ومعها وحلفاؤها خاصة إيران وروسيا والصين قادرون مجدّداً على إفشال أميركا في جريمتها الجديدة، وقادرون على إفهامها أنّ قانونها يسري عليها هي ولا يتجاوزها للغير وان قرارها ليس قدراً، ومن انتصر على أميركا في الميدان وفي مواجهة الإرهاب وفي الحرب النفسية والسياسية قادر أيضاً على إضافة انتصار جديد في المجال الاقتصادي. فأميركا اليوم تتراجع وتنهشها الاضطرابات والارتباكات وغير مؤهّلة لتحقيق نصر مهما كانت طبيعته.

*أستاذ جامعي – خبير استراتيجي

Capitalism and Coercion: Crisis in the Legitimacy of the U.S. State

By Vince Montes

Global Research, June 11, 2020

The U.S. state appears to be facing a crisis of its legitimacy amid the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown. The killing of George Floyd, yet another unarmed black man killed by the police, has erupted into popular protest. It is quite possible that the disruption to the routinization of life due to the lockdown to prevent the spread of the Covid-19 virus may very well have been a factor in creating the conditions for many to form a collective conscious, which translated in the outpour of protest against the racial policing policies in the U.S. and in generating the broad support it is currently receiving.

This crisis in legitimacy appears to be aided by many conditions. With millions displaced from work, people may have had a moment in which they did not blame themselves, their neighbors, or God for their troubles. Instead, people may have looked at the structure of society, as they did in the 1930s and the 1960s. Their outrage transformed into protest and rebellion. We should also consider how there is a significant disruption to the full consumption habits. Furthermore, distractions from the culture industry of Hollywood (Marcuse 1963; Horkheimer et al. 2002) and the interruption in spectator sports (as an opium of the masses, Eitzen et al. 2012) may have possibly played a role in getting people to think and act more critically about the world in which they live.

The U.S.’ political order is not solely based on coercion, but based on a multitude of coercive and facilitative measures that seek to co-opt and manufacture consent; thereby, making rebellion rare (Montes 2009; 2016). There is a crisis in the legitimacy of authority when large sections of the population lose trust in the government. The military, police, the courts, the political system (i.e., government) are all institutions of the U.S. state, so when people lose trust in the police, they have lost confidence in the U.S. state’s ability to govern.

The police are similar to the military because they are necessary arms of the state; they protect and maintain the continuation of the political order: a political order that is rooted in racial, class, and gender hierarchies. It is vital to understand that when a government, as is currently occurring in the U.S., can no longer manufacture enough consent to legitimize its authority, it resorts to increased use of state coercion (the U.S. state coercion is by no means dormant, not even in non-rebellious times). Thus, this is why the state has amassed the militarized-police, National Guard, and the military, as an axillary force across the United States to suppress the protest of the police killing of George Floyd. The U.S. state is reliant on physical violence, and repression has been essential in protecting and maintaining the continuity of the U.S. capitalist system.

The use of racism has been fundamental to the so-called “greatness” of the United States. This “greatness” long preceded the Trump administration and has been and continues to be hidden and a not so hidden hallmark of its economic “success.” One can argue that the very inception of the U.S. has been a nation-state engaged racist state-sponsored policies, as in the case of the genocidal policies against the indigenous peoples of North America and the system of slavery, de jure, and post facto racial segregation. This history also involves the usurpation of Mexican land in the southwest, the conquest and colonialization of Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guan, and Alaska, which all have required physical violence, leaving carnage and trauma in its wake. This physical violence does not always involve invasions and the suppression of insurgencies. Still, violence can be seen in the societies and neighborhoods of the oppressed, with high rates of unemployment, poverty, police brutality, and incarceration. Often, it is also turned inward in the form of collective and individual destruction (e.g., suicide, high rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, et cetera). The above is but an example of the imperialist side of capitalism. This is what Karl Marx meant when he said that capitalism comes into the world “dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt” (Marx 2017:639).

Coercion and Capitalism and the U.S. State

The U.S. capitalist-state does not only depend on its military to secure resources abroad and to expand its markets and influence, but it simultaneously needs endless pools of disciplined workers that are desperate enough to work for low wages. Now, maintaining a system where few benefit from the misery of the many requires a great deal of force and particular ideologies that can justify such a system. Such a system has no real commitment to eradicate poverty and racism. According to Chris Parenti (1999), what lies at the heart of the matter is a contradiction: capitalism needs the poor (i.e., surplus populations of laborers) and creates poverty. Yet, capitalism is also directly and indirectly threatened by the poor. It is the role of police, prisons, and the criminal justice system to manage this contradiction (Parenti 1999:238).

As the new crime control policies took hold in the aftermath of a very explosive period of protest and rebellion in the 1960s, incarceration rates by the mid-1970s began to peak (Parenti 1999; Wacquant 2005). According to Glenn Tonry, the architects of the so-called “war on drug” were aware that this war would be fought mainly in minority areas of U.S. urban cities, which would result in a disproportionate number of young blacks and Latinos incarcerated (Wacquant 2005:21).  For Wacquant, the ghetto was were much of the “war on drugs” policies were carried out; it is an institution based on closure and power, whereby a population is deemed dishonest and dangerous and is at once secluded and controlled (1998:143). Pamala Oliver, for example, state repression includes mass incarceration, because of the role that prisons played as repressive agents on black males in the U.S. during the Black Power Movement (2004). The extension of state repression beyond “subversives” suggests that the most oppressed not only can disrupt the system (e.g., there were over 300 urban rebellions in the 1960s) but can become revolutionary (Oliver 2004). Parenti (1999), Oliver (2004), and Wacquant (2005) suggest that crime control is a form of state repression.

The system of capitalism is a system based on private ownership and profit, and competition (read: in most cases, corporate-state monopolies). Wealth development is not socially owned; it is individually owned, and for this system to exist, it requires ideologies that can justify why rewards and prestige are so unequally distributed. Where does wealth come from? It comes from the exploitation of labor, and the usurpation of land and resources.

The origins of policing are said to be in England in 1829 when the British state concluded that “what was needed was a force that could both maintain political control and help produce a new economic order of industrial capitalism” (Vitale 2017:36). Therefore, the police role was to manage the disorder from capitalism and to protect the “propertied classes from the rabble” (Vitale 2017:36). This policing was also used to manage the British colonial occupation of Ireland, seen as an innovative way to control insurrections, riots, and political uprisings. For Alex S. Vitale, the police in the U.S. are intimately tied to the management of inequalities of race and class, suppressing workers and surveilling and managing black and brown people have always been at the center of policing (2017).  The role of policing in the U.S. is about the protection of private property, the suppression of rebellions, and putting down strikes and other industrial actions. It had also aided the system of slavery, the colonization of the Philippines, the repression of native populations in Texas, as a means for U.S. state expansion, and represses and neutralizes protest (Vitale 2017:40-50).

The present use of policing has maintained its original goal, which is to manage the surplus populations and contain the poor and racial minority communities whose labor is considered redundant due to automation, deindustrialization, and deregulation.  As Parenti stated, the “war on drugs” has been the trojan horse for these policies (1999:10).

The political neutrality of policing or state coercion has always been questioned. Charles Tilly’s research identified a link between coercion and legitimacy. He wrote that whatever else states do (e.g., the idea of the social contract), “they organize and, wherever possible, monopolize violence” (1985:171). For Tilly, state legitimacy is obtained over time because eventually “the personnel of states purveyed violence on a larger scale, more effectively, more efficiently, with wider assent from their subject populations, and with readier collaboration from neighboring authorities than did the personnel of other organizations” (1985:173). Consequently, states, in part, maintain power by legitimizing themselves by creating ideologies, which socializes individuals to the norms and values of the state. As Tilly makes clear, control over the physical forces of violence is fundamental to nation-state’s authority, and the fact that legitimacy depends on the conformity to abstract principles such as the consent of the governed only helps to rationalize the monopoly of force (1985:171). After all, for Tilly, it is through the concentration and accumulation of capital and coercion and successful inter-state war waging that the present nation-state emerged (1992).

Stephanie Kent and David Jacobs argue that a society based solely on coercion could not survive, not even the most authoritarian use coercion by itself, but is often mixed with other means (2004). Kent and Jacobs’ research provide examples that illustrate what occurs when police suddenly become paralyzed (e.g., on strike) and do not respond; the poor tend not to accept the conditions of inequality and would engage in redistribution of wealth. Robert Cover provides an excellent example of the state’s reliance on force by illustrating how “a convicted defendant may walk to a prolonged confinement, but this seemly voluntary walk is influenced by the use of force. In other words, if he does not walk on his own, he will most certainly be dragged or beaten” (in Green and Ward 2004:3). As pointed out above, coercion a crucial component for the establishment and continuation of the political order. Stability is problematic even in the most democratic societies because resource distribution is so unequal that only a few genuinely benefit and have access to freedom, rights, and security. It is undeniable that race continues to be a significant marker of a person’s social, economic status, as well as the degree in which one is targeted and entangled in the criminal justice system.

Unequal relations are maintained in the U.S. by there being over 12 million members of coercive forces -e.g., policing and military and billions of tax-payer’s dollars allocated to this mission. Coercive forces that range from the police, corrections, national security, to the military. They are conjoined in their various task in upholding domestic and foreign policies designed to maintain the status quo in the U.S. and U.S. hegemony around the globe. As a result, there are approximately 7 million individuals under correctional supervision in the U.S. alone and many populations around the world that live in wretched conditions so that the U.S. state can maintain its global dominance (Montes 2016).

The U.S. population consists of approximately 12% black and 15% Latino; however, some reports illustrate that these two groups represent about 60% of those incarcerated. In 2012, the incarceration rate per 100,000 was 2,841 for blacks, 1,158 for Latinos, and 463 for whites (Carson and Golinelli 2013). The rate of incarceration by race demonstrates racial disparity within the criminal justice system. The U.S. incarceration rate is the highest in the industrial world, but it is even higher when aggregating for race. Yet, Bruce Western illustrates that mass incarceration affects the poorest of blacks, which points to the class element (2006:26). In short, one can argue that mass incarceration involves the containment of the most marginalized, in which blacks, brown people, and Native Americans are disproportionately the poorest. The groups that have the most significant distance from wealth and privilege are perceived as the greatest threats to the political order. This theorizing explains racial profiling and how race is a marker for criminality. As a result, there is more reliance on the policing of the poor and racial minority communities. However, the type of crime that should be the focus is the state crimes of omission; this is when state’s failure to protect the rights and to serve the needs of all people within the territory of a particular nation-state; thereby, creating the conditions for non-state crime (Barak 2011: 35-48). Essentially, when these needs are not met, as mentioned above, they can create a breakdown in the legitimacy of state authority, which creates conditions favorable for protest and rebellion.

Crisis in Legitimacy 

Image on the right: George Floyd Mattered graffiti along 38th St in Minneapolis on Wednesday, after the death of George Floyd on Monday night in Minneapolis, Minnesota (Source: Flickr)

The explosion of widespread protest over the killing of George Floyd has become a flashpoint of anger for all the other unarmed black males killed by the police in the United States. For many of the protesters, this had been yet another senseless and unjustified murder. In which the police would once again not be held accountable. The impunity of law enforcement has long enraged black, Latino, Native Americans, and poor communities across the United States.

Just about every community of color and poor community in the U.S. has a list of victims of police brutality. This tension and frustration have been building up for some time, and more recently, with the high media profile cases of Eric Garder (2014), Michael Brown (2014), and Freddy Grey (2016). For many, this problem could no longer be dismissed. As a result of protest and rebellion, ordinary everyday people had to take notice of the repeated police killing of unarmed black youth and men. According to tracking by the Washington Post, half of the people shot and killed by police are white. However, blacks are shot at a disproportionate rate. They account for less than 13% of the U.S. population but are killed by police at more than twice the rate of whites. Police also kill Latinos at a disproportionate rate. Overall, the police kill more people at a higher rate in the U.S. than do police in similar industrial nations. The circumstances of these killings vary – e.g., from being unarmed to being armed to being in the commission of a crime to being a suspect and racially profiled. However, what appears consistent is that law enforcement is not be trusted to investigate themselves. In many cases, had it not been civilians using their phone cameras and/or protesters forcing an investigation, many people would have accepted the official police and political officials’ narrative. What has been bought to light by afflicted black and communities of color has been the systemic nature of police brutality and how it is not restricted to a few police officers or a few police departments.

The system was confronted with a crisis in its authority once the U.S. state and the corporate media could no longer dismiss the protest as just black protest from marginalized areas. The success of the Black Lives Matter Movement (BLM) kept the murder of black men and youth at the center of their organizing efforts. The BLM linked together, the spontaneous protests and rebellion of black and people of color communities when they experienced police brutality, propelling these injustices to national and international levels of attention. The multicultural outpour of support, which has included celebrities and professional athletes, has lent their support. One cannot overlook how suddenly everyone appears now to be antiracist. Nor can one deny how this moment seems to have opened up the opportunity for political opportunism, particularly within the duopoly political party system, and the corporate media. It is at these times that the political elite from both parties and the corporate media attempts to angle their messages in such a way as to restore trust in the political order while being semi-critical of it. When politicians and news anchors of the corporate media -e.g., verbally condemn the killing of George Floyd, but at the same time, uphold the status quo. This angling lends itself to discussions about better training in police procedures, the firing and convictions of the officers involved, more racial sensitivity trainings, and pleas to channel the outrage into voting Democrat. Unfortunately, this negates an understanding of the fundamental role policing plays in the U.S. state and its task in upholding an unequal society.

Also, the conflating the outrage of the killing of George Floyd with the protesters who are not “peaceful,” disobey curfew, and loot and burn is another way in which the state officials and corporate media presenters attempt to restore trust in the U.S. state. So, what is absent is a focus on how the various means of protest, civil disobedience, and the destruction and defacing of the property of corporations, the U.S. flag, and the police are symbols of what many perceive is the problem. The problem is the U.S. state and how it is increasingly not protecting the freedoms, safety, and economic wellbeing of all its people, but is protecting its own interests, which includes the interests of corporations, which are interlocking. And configured in this equation is policing and the military, ensuring that the particular political order is maintained.

Discrediting protesters as thugs, terrorists, or the orchestration of external forces such as Russia, and/or Antifa is to absolve the U.S. state of any culpability. Even in the pre-Covid-19 world, there were millions of people in the U.S. who have long lost trust in the system and felt alienated from the political process because they believed that politicians represent their own interests and those interests are allied with the continuation of the political order. As Emma Goldman, a famous anarchist, stated, “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” As mentioned above, the racialized and exploitative system has long preceded the Trump administration. In fact, the rise of the Occupy Movement in 2011 and the rise of the Black Lives Matter Movement in 2013 was because they had no confidence in the political establishment. There is a reason why these movements were grassroots organizations and struggle to remain as such because the political elite did not act on their behalf. For example, the Obama administration did not use executive orders to step in during the many instances of police killings and protests, such as in Ferguson.  Furthermore, these movements had no interest in being co-opted by the politics of the duopoly political party system.

This crisis in legitimacy can also be seen in how both parties supported the bailout of Wall Street during the Great Recession. Bailouts of corporations are also occurring currently, amid the Covid-19 pandemic. Both parties were responsible for “tough on crime” legislation, such as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 passed by the Clinton administration. This act, in part, is responsible for furthering mass incarceration and for creating more laws that target racial minorities. Both parties are also responsible for creating more economic insecurity for the poor and people of color by implementing neoliberal policies. The Republican Party and Democratic Party both partake in the gutting of the safety net programs. The Clinton administration – e.g., Welfare Reform Bill of 1996, the repeal of the Glass Stiegel Act in 1999, and NAFTA in 1994. Also, the Obama administration supported the bailout of Wall Street, single-payer health care over universal health care, and the 2014 Farm Bill (that included cuts to food stamps).

Both are different wings of the duopoly political parties, maintaining the status quo of the state. Glen Ford’s astute analysis of what he refers to as the “racist-capitalist state” has remained intact even when political officials are no longer white. For Glen Ford, Obama’s legacy can be seen as protecting corporate power and advancing the imperial agenda, while promoting the myth of a post-racial society (Hedges 2017). During the 1960s, various state strategies were deployed to diffuse urban rebellion, one of them was the incorporation of blacks and other people of color in law enforcement and political office such as mayors to provide the illusion of reform (Katz 2007). The point made is a very sociological one. If the U.S. state does not change from being a capitalist-imperial state and is reliant on coercion to maintain the political order, then no amount of selective incorporation or mimetic reforms (Katz 2007) will change the role of policing.

It is safe to say that this crisis in legitimacy involves the distrust in two wings of the duopoly system (i.e., the government) because the police are but an arm of the state. And this can be seen repeatedly with the endless protest and demonstrations in the streets. A real important indicator of how deep this crisis will be is if the police themselves, from the top brass and the rank and file, find it difficult to hide behind the blue wall of silence. If there is the realization that what separates the people is not the thin blue line or the military mindset of us vs. them, but between equality vs. inequality. Many employed in coercive occupations receive state-sponsored elevated honorific statuses and stable employment with high salaries during insecure economic times. Besides being highly bureaucratic organizations that instill particular self-fulfilling ideologies, the state and other agents of socialization, such as the corporate media and educational institutions, all extend great deference to this institution, making them a difficult group to win over.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Vince Montesis a lecturer in sociology. Earned a Ph.D. at the Graduate Faculty of New School for Social Research.

Sources

Barak, Gregg. 2011. “Revisiting Crimes by Capitalist State.” Pp. 35-48 in State Crime, edited by D. L. Rothe & C. W. Mullins. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Carson, E. Ann. and Golinelli, Daniela. 2013. “Prisoners in 2012: Prisoners in 2012 Trends

In Admissions and Releases, 1991–2012.” Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 243920

Eitzen, Stanley D. Maxine Baca Zinn, and Kelley Eitzen Smith. 2012. In Conflict and Order. Boston, MA: Ally & Bacon.

Green, Penny and Tony Ward. 2004. State crime: Governments, Violence and Corruption.

Sterling, VA: Pluto Press.

Hedges, Chris. 2017. “President Obama’s Legacy with Glen Ford.” On Contact. Jan. 22. Video, https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/374680-obama-wars-corporate-interests/

Horkheimer, Max, Theodor W. Adorno, and Gunzelin Noeri. 2002 [1948] Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Katz, Michael. 2007. “Why Aren’t U.S. Cities Burning?” Dissent, Summer.

Kent, Stephanie and David Jacobs. 2004. “Social Divisions and Coercive Control in Advanced Societies: Law Enforcement Strength in Eleven Nations from 1975 to 1994.” Social Problems, Vol. 51, No. 3: 343–361.

Loury, Glenn C. 2008. Race, Incarceration, and American Values. Cambridge, MA: Boston Review.

Marcuse, Herbert. 1964. One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Marx, Karl. 2017 [1867] Capital (Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy). Digireads.com.

Montes, Vince. 2016. “Coercive Occupations as State Facilitation: Understanding U.S. State’s Strategy of Control.” Radical Criminology, Issue 6, fall, 71-129. (http://journal.radicalcriminology.org/index.php/rc/issue/view/6/showToc)

__________. 2009. “The Web Approach to the State Strategy in Puerto Rico.” Pp. 99-118 in Bureaucratic Culture and Escalating Problems: Advancing the Sociological Imagination, edited by D. Knottnerus and B. Phillips. Boulder, CO, Paradigm Publishers.

Oliver, Pamela. 2008. “Repression and Crime Control.” Mobilization, 13,1: 1-24.

Parenti, Christian. 2008 [1999]. Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis. New York, NY: Verso.

Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward. 1979 [1977]. Poor People’s Movement. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Tilly, Charles. 1992. Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

__________. 1985. “State Making and War Making as Organized Crime.” Peter Evens, Dietrich Ruechemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, Bringing the State Back In, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Western, Bruce. 2006. Punishment and Inequality in America. New York, NY: Russell Sage

Foundation.

Wacquant, Loic. 2008. “Race, Incarceration, and American Values.” Glenn C. Loury,

Race, Incarceration, and American Values. Cambridge, MA.: Boston Review. The original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Vince Montes, Global Research, 2020

Empires and their puppets including Israel will eventually fall: “Free Gaza Movement” co-founder Greta Berlin

Preview in new tab(opens in a new tab)

June 8, 2020 – 12:45
Berlin likens the situation in the occupied Palestinian lands to South Africa under the apartheid regime which will finally be a country for all citizens including Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
 “This kind of situation, like its predecessor in South Africa, will eventually fall apart, and the country will end up being a country for all citizens, Jews/Christians/Muslims,” Berlin, an author and activist, tells the Tehran Times in an exclusive interview:  
This is the text of the interview:
1: Madame Greta Berlin, please tell us what Israel has achieved after 72 years since its establishment. Has it succeeded to win legitimacy?
 A: Israel has achieved what all white/colonial/racist entities have achieved; subjugating, terrorizing, marginalizing, and stealing from the indigenous population to make an illicit country. It’s no different than the U.S. or Canada or South Africa or Australia. 
Israel has the biggest gorilla in the room on its side and that’s the U.S.It’s gotten its legitimacy from the very countries who have done the same thing to a population that was already there and perceived as, somehow, being “less human” than the invaders. After 72 years, it’s only legitimate claim to the land of Palestine has been through force, and all empires and their puppets eventually fall. Israel will as well.  
2: How do you analyze the situation inside Israel?
 A: There are three strata inside Israel; Ashkenazi Jews, the white Jews from Europe/Russia, and the U.S. who control power, politics, and money. The second tier is the Sephardic or Arab Jews who were often forced to immigrate to Israel immediately after Israel was founded on the backs of the Palestinians. Once the European Jews drove out 750,000 Palestinians, they needed workers to come and settle in the land they stole. What better place to find them than the Arab Jews of the Middle East and North Africa? If they didn’t want to come peacefully, Mossad made sure they changed their minds. 
After arriving in Israel, they even made up a name for themselves… Mizrahi… so they didn’t have to be called Arab Jews. They are becoming the largest segment of the population, but they have little power. You’ll often see them as members of the IOF, subjugating the third tier in Israel; the Palestinians, who have no power whether they are Israeli citizens or living in the Bantustans of the occupied West Bank and Gaza. 
Americans are beginning to wake up to the terrorism of the Israeli occupation This kind of situation, like its predecessor in South Africa, will eventually fall apart, and the country will end up being a country for all citizens, Jews/Christians/Muslims. 
 3: Israel plans to annex parts of the West Bank, and Netanyahu and opposition leader Benny Gantz are unanimous in this move. Netanyahu has confidently said that annexation will take place within “a few months,” or before the American presidential election in November. What has made Israel behave so unashamedly and intransigently? Don’t you think that an impotent international community or inaction by international bodies have made Tel Aviv so emboldened?
 A: Israel has the biggest gorilla in the room on its side and that’s the U.S. It makes no difference who is President in the U.S., Israel controls Congress, and most politicians will bow to its demands. However, watching what is happening in the U.S., everything is going to change over the next few years, as China emerges triumphant and the U.S. becomes another failed empire like Britain and France. 
Personally, I’m all for a one-state solution and have been for decades. And the sooner, the better for everyone living there. Palestinians already outnumber Jews, and those demographics are only going to improve for Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim.  
 4: You are internationally famous for advocating “justice” for Palestinians since early 1960. What prompted you to highlight the sufferings of the Palestinians?
 A: While in graduate school in 1963, I met and married a Palestinian and had two Palestinian/American children who couldn’t return to Safad, the city where their father was raised, while a Jew from New York City could immigrate there with no other credentials except religion. 
That sense of injustice has challenged me since then. The most outspoken advocate for the rights of marginalized people like Palestinians are often the people who learned the truth after being lied to as children. Like many Americans, I grew up thinking Israel was the victim and Jews had the right to settle in the Holy Land. When I met my husband, and he began telling me the truth of the violent takeover of his land by European terrorist Jews, I became an advocate for justice in Palestine for life.  
 5: You were a co-founder of the Free Gaza Movement and among those brave persons who broke the Gaza siege. Can you please explain your experiences and reactions?
 A: This is such a long story, encompassing two years of planning, buying the boats, sailing to Gaza and so much pain, laughter and delight at finally getting there. It’s a book and a movie and a webinar already. The best way of describing our journey to Gaza is to provide people with these three links.
 6: The U.S. has been blindly defending the illegal behavior of Israel toward Palestinians over the past seven decades. How can such support be justified by a country which proclaims leadership of the free world and defender of democracy and human rights?
 A: The U.S. has never been a defender of democracy and human rights. The country was founded on the genocide of the native population and got rich on the back of slavery. It has had, however, one of the most brilliant PR campaigns of any country in the world. Israel tries to emulate it with many of the same catchphrases such as, “the only democracy in the Middle East.” That’s as big a lie as the U.S. saying it stands for human rights.
However, there is a difference between government propaganda and the citizens of the U.S. Americans, once they wake up, are among the most outstanding advocates for justice for people seeking equal rights, and have put their lives on the line, from the martyrs of the civil rights movement, https://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/civil-rights-memorial/civil-rights-martyrs
to Rachel Corrie in Palestine. They are the one bright and hopeful beacons of light in the U.S., especially this younger generation. I have great hopes they will become like many of us out of the 1960s, advocates for a better world. 
 7: How is it possible that successive Congresses and to a lesser extent administrations remain so biased in favor of Israel? Does it show that the American people who vote for their representatives are indifferent or ignorant toward the situation of the Palestinians?
A: Bribery, Blackmail, and Benjamins. 
It is true, however, that Americans are beginning to wake up to the terrorism of the Israeli occupation. But to be honest, Americans can barely make it from one paycheck to the next and are overwhelmed with problems in their own back yards. 
And the country is huge, with 331 million people, only 20% who even own a passport. Very few of us travel outside the Northern Hemisphere. America and much of its population are isolated and not very well-educated about other countries.  
 8: And, why anybody who opposes the stealing of the Palestinian lands or criticizes suppression of Palestinians is easily being accused of ant-Semite?
 A: It’s become a badge of honor to be called anti-Semitic. Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, Stephen Hawking, Roger Waters have all been called anti-Semites. I’m proud to be in their company.

إمبراطوريّة القهر والتمييز العنصريّ!!‏

د. عدنان منصور

ما يجري في الولايات المتحدة من أحداث دامية، يشاهدها العالم بأمّ العين، ليدرك جيداً مدى زيف المبادئ الإنسانية، التي ما انفكت الولايات المتحدة عن التشدّق بها، منذ استقلالها وحتى اليوم. وهي ترفع شعارات الحرية وحقوق الإنسان، وحق تقرير المصير للشعوب واستقلالها.

زيف المبادئ الأميركية، كشف بوضوح حجم العنصرية القبيحة، التي لا زالت متغلغلة في نفوس مسؤولين، ومواطنين، حملوا في داخلهم على مدى قرون جينات عنصرية، لم يستطيعوا التخلص منها، منذ أن وطأت أقدام البيض القارّة الجديدة، وسحقت من أمامها عشرات الملايين من السكان الأصليين في القارّة، الذين عرفوا بالهنود الحمر، بعد مجازر وحشية وتطهير عرقي واسع النطاق، ارتكبه الوافدون البيض الجدد من القارّة الأوروبية.

هذا السلوك اللاإنسانيّ لم يتغيّر ولم يتبدّل، بل تجذّر

في العقول والنفوس، والنهج والأخلاق الاجتماعية، وانتقل من جيل الى جيل، رغم المحاولات الساعية للحدّ من النزعة العنصرية، والقوانين البراقة التي تتباهى بها الولايات المتحدة أمام العالم، حيث لم تستطع التخلص من هذا السلوك ونزعة التمييز العنصري حتى هذه اللحظة.

لا يحق بعد اليوم للإمبراطورية العنصرية، ان تطالب دول العالم بالإصلاحات، فمن الأوْلى أن تبدأ بإصلاح نفسها، وتهذيب سلوكها، وأخلاق سياساتها قبل إصلاح غيرها، وقبل فرض العقوبات على الدول الحرة، التي ترفض السير في فلكها والخضوع لها، بحجة غياب الحريات في هذه الدول، وعدم احترامها لحقوق الإنسان فيها.

لا يحق للولايات المتحدة التي لم تستطع اقتلاع الروح العنصريّة داخل بيتها الأميركي، ان تذهب بعيداً، لتروج لنفسها على أنها رسول الحرية في العالم، بينما هي في الحقيقة، تؤجّج الفتن والاضطرابات، في هونغ كونغ، وفنزويلا والبرازيل، وتركيا والعراق، وسورية، وتدعم الحركات الانفصالية في أكثر من مكان…

في خضمّ ما يجري في الداخل الأميركي نتساءل: أين صوت الاتحاد الأوروبي وموقفه الصارم، وردّه القوي على ما يحصل من انتهاكات لحقوق الانسان في أميركا، ومهاجمة الشرطة للتظاهرات السلميّة، وإفراطها في استخدام القوة والعنف، والغاز المسيل للدموع ضدّ المتظاهرين؟! أين حرصه على الحريات وأمن الشعوب، وحقوق الإنسان، التي تباكى عليها مع حليفته واشنطن، في إيران والعراق وسورية وروسيا والصين وكوريا الشمالية وتركيا وفنزويلا وكوبا وبوليفيا وغيرها! وماذا لو انّ الذي جرى داخل الولايات المتحدة من ممارسات الأجهزة الأمنية ضدّ التظاهرات السلمية، حصل في دولة من هذه الدول المناهضة للعنصرية والهيمنة والاستغلال! هل سيكون موقف الاتحاد حيال هذه الدول، كموقفه الهزيل تجاه واشنطن! أم أنه على الفور سيلجأ الى الإدانة وفرض العقوبات عليها والتشهير والتنديد بها وبأفعالها؟

أين صدقيّة الدول التي تناغمت في قراراتها مع أميركا في كلّ صغيرة وكبيرة، حيال ما يحصل من تمييز عنصري فيها؟!

وهل المصالح هي التي تطغى على المبادئ الكاذبة الخادعة! كيف كانت ستتعاطى هذه الدول وتتصرّف، فيما لو أنّ الذي يحصل في الولايات المتحدة، يحصل في بلد مناوئ للسياسات والمصالح الغربيّة! هل كانت هذه الدول ستتصرف على المستوى ذاته، وبالأسلوب والطريقة نفسهما مثل ما تعاطت به مع الادارة الأميركية؟

الغرب وللأسف، لا يرى إلا بعين واحدة، فالولايات المتحدة والاتحاد الأوروبي وجهان لسياسة واحدة. فلا حقوق السود ولا التمييز العنصري، ولا قتل الفلسطينيين، ومحاصرتهم، ومصادرة أراضيهم وتهجيرهم عنها بالقوة، ولا القوى الإرهابية التي تضرب في سورية والعراق وغيرها تحرك إحساسهم، وتثير إنسانيتهم، أو يوقظ الحصار الشرس، والعقوبات الظالمة ضميرهم المعطل، التي يفرضونها على الشعوب المناهضة لسياساتهم المنحازة، وممارساتهم القهرية، مهما كانت تداعياتها ونتائجها المدمّرة على هذه الشعوب.

إنها لفرصة أمام العرب، وكلّ الأحرار في العالم، الذين ذاقوا الأمرّين، على يد الإدارات الأميركية، كي يُعربوا من خلال الوسائل المتاحة والمتوفرة لهم، عن تضامنهم وتأييدهم الكبير مع الأميركيين الثائرين، الناقمين، وبالذات مع المواطنين السود، ووقوفهم بجانبهم ضدّ كلّ أشكال التمييز العنصري، وتعاطفهم معهم، يذكرونهم بالتمييز العنصري الذي يمارس بحق شعوبنا، لا سيما شعب فلسطين على يد «إسرائيل»، حيث يلقى تطويرها العرقي وممارستها العنصريّة، كلّ الدعم والتأييد بلا حدود من الإدارات الأميركية المتعاقبة.

إذا كان السلوك العنصري قد ساد عبر التاريخ، في عديد من الدول والامبراطوريات المستبدة، التي احتلت وهيمنت، وسيطرت وبغت، ونهبت خيرات وثروات الشعوب. فإنّ الولايات المتحدة ليست إلا واحدة من هذه الإمبراطوريات، التي هيمنت وتحكّمت، واستغلّت، والتي لم تستطع حتى الآن، من اقتلاع النزعة العنصرية داخل مجتمعها.

وخلال مسيرة التاريخ أيضاً، ظهرت امبراطوريات لفترة من الزمن، طال عمرها أم قصر، وبعد ذلك، تفكّكت وتلاشت، وتحللت، بعد أن تآكلت من الداخل رويداً رويداً. وها هي الإمبراطورية الأميركية اليوم، بما تمارسه من سياسات القهر والاستبداد في العالم، وما تشهده حالياً من أحداث خطيرة مقلقة، تحمل نذر تآكل داخلي، حيث بدأ عدّادها العكسي، يحصي العقود او السنوات المتبقية لإمبراطورية قهر، عانت من ويلاتها وتعسّفها غالبية الشعوب المضطهدة في العالم. فهل باستطاعة حكام الولايات المتحدة اليوم، أن يوقفوا هذا العدّاد! أم أنهم مثل غيرهم من حكام الإمبراطوريات الذين شاهدوا سقوط إمبراطورياتهم أمام أعينهم، ولم تكن في يدهم حيلة لوقف هذا السقوط!

انها مسألة وقت لأفول نجم إمبراطورية مستبدة، تتمنى الشعوب الحرة المسحوقة في العالم أن لا يكون طويلاً.

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

*وزير الخارجية الأسبق.

Militarized Police a Gift from Israel?

Training of American police in brutal tactics revealed

PHILIP GIRALDI • JUNE 9, 2020


The killing of black man George Floyd by white Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin has produced the highest level of national unrest seen in the United States since the 1960s. Tens of thousands of protesters are demonstrating against racism and perceived police brutality. As it also comes at a time of coronavirus pandemic and record unemployment, it has the potential to change the U.S. in fundamental ways. The core issue is that many on the left, as well as some on the right, see America’s police as something like an “occupying force,” increasingly self-serving enemies of the people rather than careful protectors of the taxpayers’ lives and property.

There are already calls to “defund” the police in an attempt to strip local forces of responsibilities and resources that have little to do with community policing relative to actual crime rates, which are low nationwide. And the concept of community itself is under scrutiny and is itself being “reimagined” in an effort to compel police forces and the citizens they interact with to work together more cooperatively for the good of all.

History teaches us that changes in seemingly entrenched attitudes and beliefs occur regularly, though they can sometimes move glacially slowly. Meanwhile, some loony birds on the left are also promoting more radical schemes. One of the more amusing was posted up recently by Alyssa Rosenberg at the Washington Post. Rosenberg maintained that it is now time for Hollywood and the entertainment media to get involved by shutting down all movies and television series that present the police in a positive light.

Rosenberg puts it this way “…there’s something Hollywood can do to put its money where its social media posts are: immediately halt production on cop shows and movies and rethink the stories it tells about policing in America. For a century, Hollywood has been collaborating with police departments, telling stories that whitewash police shootings and valorizing an action-hero style of policingover the harder, less dramatic work of building relationships with the communities cops are meant to serve and protect… The result is an addiction to stories that portray police departments as more effective than they actually are; crime as more prevalent than it actually is; and police use of force as consistently justified. There are always gaps between reality and fiction, but given what policing in America has too often become, Hollywood’s version of it looks less like fantasy and more like complicity.”

Rosenberg has a point, but television shows and movies are fiction and most people are quite capable of watching an entertaining story and not having it become a substitute for reality. And there is nothing particularly wrong in believing that cops should be good guys who solve serious crimes, which is in fact what many police officers actually do. She instead calls for more portrayal of cops as do-little-or-nothing jerks who spend most of their time writing traffic tickets and typing up reports. If she had been around in the nineteenth century, she would no doubt have been conventionally liberal knee jerk antiwar, if such existed at the time. She would have advised Leo Tolstoy to have his Russian soldiers in War and Peace spend most of their time peeling potatoes, smoking and bitching rather than marching off in columns heroically to confront Napoleon at Austerlitz.

One issue that has surfaced in a number of places is the militarization of police, which has been a reality of “maintaining public order” and “fighting terrorism” since 9/11. Police now receive surplus military equipment, to include armored cars, body armor and automatic weapons. One wonders, for example, what my semi-rural county here in Virginia has been doing with its armored car, which, as I recall, the local sheriff’s department did not even want. Ordinary policemen are also increasingly trained in anti-terrorist tactics, to include the increasing deployment of swat teams to perform actions that are not necessarily confrontational, to include serving warrants and collecting fines on library books. Many innocent civilians of all races have been killed as a result.

The militarization of American law enforcement has been in a sense institutionalized through programs set up by the federal government and the states to train with Israeli police, a mentoring relationship established by Michael Chertoff when he was Secretary of Homeland Security. Joint training programs run in Israel are being used to indoctrinate American police forces and are difficult to comprehend as related to normal policing as the Israelis are clueless when it comes to conducting investigations or protecting all of their country’s citizens. Israel’s cops are at the forefront of state violence against Palestinians as well as serving as protectors of rampaging heavily armed settlers who destroy Arab livelihoods so they can steal their land. The Israeli police are also quite good at using the “Palestinian chair” for torture when they are not shooting Arab teenagers in the back. They also invented skunk water, a disgusting smelling chemical spray initially used against Arab demonstrators, and were the first major police force to regularly employ so-called rubber bullets, which can kill or maim.

In fact, there have been suggestions that certain American policemen might well be picking up some unanticipated pointers from the Israelis. Georgia has been experiencing a surge in officer involved shootings, nearly half of the victims being unarmed or shot from behind. As this has unfolded, the state continues to pursue a “police exchange” program with Israel run through Georgia State University.

The police “exchange programs” began twenty-seven years ago in 1992 and are paid for through grants from the U.S. Department of Justice as well as from the state and local governments. Reportedly “law enforcement from [a number of] U.S. states have participated in the program, including those from Tennessee, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.” In some states and local jurisdictions, the Israel exchange program is managed by the Anti-Defamation League, which also sponsors propagandistic seminars on Israeli “counter-terrorism” practices throughout the U.S.

Some states and cities, however, concerned over being linked to Israel’s militarized police forces and their brutal occupation of Palestinian land, are beginning to withdraw from the training program. Recently the Vermont State Police, the Northampton, Massachusetts police department and the Durham North Carolina city police have canceled their planned training in Israel.

There has been particular concern expressed over the Israeli “us-versus-them” dual track mode of policing where the 20% of the country’s citizens that are Arab are regarded as an enemy while the settlers who prey on the Palestinians are automatically protected by police solely because they are Jewish. Selective policing based on race or ethnicity might be another gift from Israel that visiting American policemen bring home with them. In Israel, lethal force is frequently resorted to on a “shoot-to-kill” basis in any incident involving Arabs and Jews, even when there is no serious threat.

A favorite technique used by the Israeli police to subdue an Arab is the very knee on neck used by Derek Chauvin that killed George Floyd. Minnesota has been actively involved in training its police with the Israelis, to include participation by over 100 officers in a 2012 conference in Minneapolis hosted by Israel’s Chicago consulate. There, they learned the “restraint procedures” employed by Israelis. The conference was jointly hosted by the FBI, the facilities were provided by the city, and the meeting itself was funded by the federal government and the state.

While it is not known if Chauvin actually underwent the specific training, the Israeli techniques have made their way into the city’s police manual, which has been, not surprisingly, removed from online. An archived copy of the relevant section on how to control someone who is resisting arrest does still exist however and can be viewed at this site. It includes “Minneapolis Police Department Use of Force Policy: 5-311, Use of Neck Restraints: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck).” There are admittedly some caveats on the use of the technique, but it is generally approved for use in subduing someone who is resisting arrest, which may plausibly have been the case with Floyd.

That all means that Officer Derek Chauvin used a technique taught to American police by Israeli trainers even if his judgement can be seriously faulted in terms of how he did it and how long her sustained it. He may have received the training with the full cooperation and financial support of both the Federal government, the government of the state of Minnesota and the city of Minneapolis. His lawyers will be able to argue, which they surely will, that he used a technique that was endorsed by the city of Minneapolis’s police manual and was also part of officer training with Israel. This makes for an interesting back story and an unbiased judge and jury, if that can be found anywhere on the planet, just might find Chauvin and his three colleagues innocent, which would be a travesty but inevitable in a system where police have effectively been trained and licensed to kill.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

The Systemic Collapse of the US Society Has Begun

THE SAKER • JUNE 4, 2020 


Cops in DC

I have lived in the United States for a total of 24 years and I have witnessed many crises over this long period, but what is taking place today is truly unique and much more serious than any previous crisis I can recall. And to explain my point, I would like to begin by saying what I believe the riots we are seeing taking place in hundreds of US cities are not about. They are not about:

  1. Racism or “White privilege”
  2. Police violence
  3. Social alienation and despair
  4. Poverty
  5. Trump
  6. The liberals pouring fuel on social fires
  7. The infighting of the US elites/deep state

They are not about any of these because they encompass all of these issues, and more.

It is important to always keep in mind the distinction between the concepts of “cause” and “pretext”. And while it is true that all the factors listed above are real (at least to some degree, and without looking at the distinction between cause and effect), none of them are the true cause of what we are witnessing. At most, the above are pretexts, triggers if you want, but the real cause of what is taking place today is the systemic collapse of the US society.

The next thing which we must also keep in mind is that evidence of correlation is not evidence of causality. Take, for example, this article from CNN entitled “US black-white inequality in 6 stark charts” which completely conflates the two concepts and which includes the following sentence (stress added) “Those disparities exist because of a long history of policies that excluded and exploited black Americans, said Valerie Wilson, director of the program on race, ethnicity and the economy at the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning group.” The word “because” clearly point to a causality, yet absolutely nothing in the article or data support this. The US media is chock-full of such conflations of correlation and causality, yet it is rarely denounced.

For a society, any society, to function a number of factors that make up the social contract need to be present. The exact list that make up these factors will depend on each individual country, but they would typically include some kind of social consensus, the acceptance by most people of the legitimacy of the government and its institutions, often a unifying ideology or, at least, common values, the presence of a stable middle-class, the reasonable hope for a functioning “social life”, educational institutions etc. Finally, and cynically, it always helps the ruling elites if they can provide enough circuses (TV) and bread (food) to most citizens. This is even true of so-called authoritarian/totalitarian societies which, contrary to the liberal myth, typically do enjoy the support of a large segment of the population (if only because these regimes are often more capable of providing for the basic needs of society).

Right now, I would argue that the US government has almost completely lost its ability to deliver any of those factors, or act to repair the broken social contract. In fact, what we can observe is the exact opposite: the US society is highly divided, as is the US ruling class (which is even more important). Not only that, but ever since the election of Trump, all the vociferous Trump-haters have been undermining the legitimacy not only of Trump himself, but of the political system which made his election possible. I have been saying that for years: by saying “not my President” the Trump-haters have de-legitimized not only Trump personally, but also de-legitimized the Executive branch as such.

This is an absolutely amazing phenomenon: while for almost four years Trump has been destroying the US Empire externally, Trump-haters spent the same four years destroying the US from the inside! If we look past the (largely fictional) differences between the Republicrats and the Demolicans we can see that they operate like a demolition tag-team of sorts and while they hate each other with a passion, they both contribute to bringing down both the Empire and the United States. For anybody who has studied dialectics this would be very predictable but, alas, dialectics are not taught anymore, hence the stunned “deer in the headlights” look on the faces of most people today.

Finally, it is pretty clear that for all its disclaimers about supporting only the “peaceful protestors” and its condemnation of the “out of town looters”, most of the US media (as well as the alt media) is completely unable to give a moral/ethical evaluation of what is taking place. What I mean by this is the following:

By repeating mantras about how “Black anger is legitimate” the US liberal media is basically placing a seal of approval on the violence and looting. After all, if Black “anger” is legitimate, and if “White privilege” is real, then it is quite “understandable” that this “anger” “sometimes” “boils over” and leads to “regrettable” “excesses”. Just take a look at this image of Biden kneeling down before a Black demonstrator:

Of course, Biden and his supporters will claim that Biden was only kneeling before a cute little girl and her peacefully protesting father, but when combined with the attacks against Trump’s “law and order” rhetoric by Biden and his supporters (including four former US Presidents!), I believe that these kinds of photo-ops are sending a very different message: keep “protesting” as we are on your side which, coming from a guy like Biden, the ultimate symbol of the 1%er elites and a perfect example of “White privilege”, just goes to show that the hypocrisy of US politicians really knows no bounds or limits.

I have to note here that these riots also represent a potential danger for both factions of the Uniparty in power: for the Demolicans the riots probably represent the very last chance to prevent a Trump-reelection, but if the Demolicans are too obvious in support of the riots, then it could backfire against them and turn all the frightened “law and order” types against them. But if they do not support the riots, then the Demolicans will alienate their core constituency (a hodgepodge of various “minorities” pushing their narrow identity-politics agenda). Likewise, for Trump this is an opportunity to show his “law and order” credentials and promise the White people and the relatively fewer Blacks of his base that he will protect them. However, if he is too direct about this and if Trump orders what might be seen by many as unfair or excessive force (of which there has been a lot almost everywhere), then he risks pushing many moderate Republicrats over the edge and side with the Demolicans (or, at least, withhold their vote). In other words, both factions of the Uniparty feel that the riots are both an opportunity and a threat and this is why neither faction can come out and speak truthfully about the real causes of the riots.

The exact same message of weakness and even submissive impotence is, I believe, sent every time a cop kneels when confronting even peaceful demonstrators like on this photo. While this might be intended as a message of compassion, and maybe even an apology, the only thing the rioters will see here is a powerful sign of surrender of the local authorities and I find that extremely dangerous.

Yes, there are plenty of racist, violent and otherwise incompetent cops in the USA. And yes, many of my Black friends reported feeling singled out and treated rudely by cops. But having extensively traveled the world, I want to assure you that the US most definitely does not have the worst cops out there. In fact, I believe that most US cops are decent people. Much more importantly, these cops are the “thin blue line” which protects society against criminals. And while I do believe that US policemen ought to be better educated, better trained, better led and better supervised, I also realize that there is also no short term alternative to them. It is all very fine to dream about educated, peaceful and non-racist cops, but if you remove the existing police force from the equation, there are no other alternatives (the national guard or the regular armed forces do not qualify and don’t have the correct training to deal with civilians anyway), especially in those states which have successfully killed the 2nd Amendment by means of what I call “death by a thousand regulatory cuts” (including NY and NJ).

Then there is what Solzhenitsyn called the “decline of courage” in the West: the vast majority US politicians have basically lost the ability to criticize Blacks, even when it is quite obvious that many of the current problems of the Black population of the US are created by Blacks themselves: I think of the truly vulgar, obscene and overall disgusting “rap culture” with which most Black youth are now “educated” in since early childhood or how many Black youth have been brainwashed into considering gang members and street prostitutes as the measure of what “looking cool” looks like in terms of clothes, language and overall behavior. I believe that it is pretty obvious to any person who lived in the US that Blacks are very often (mostly?) the cause of their own misery: I can tell you that my Jamaican and Sub-Saharan African friends (who live in the USA) have told me many times that a) they think that US Blacks have opportunities which they would never have in Africa or Jamaica and that b) local Blacks often resent Africans and Jamaican Blacks because the latter do so much better in the US society. I can also testify to the fact that I have seen a lot of anti-Latino feelings from US Blacks. As for how Blacks often feel about Asians, all we need to do is remember the LA riots in 1992. Finally, I do believe that many (most?) people in the US know that the strongest and most frequent form of racism in the US will be anti-White, especially from politically engaged Blacks.

I can personally attest that there is plenty of anti-White racism in the USA. Not only did I experience it myself (I lived in Washington, DC from 1986-1991), but it has been amply documented by people like Colin Flaherty whose books “White Girl Bleed A Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It” and “Knockout Game a Lie?: Awww, Hell No!” are excellent primers on Black on White violence and racism. Yet, anybody daring to suggest that US Blacks themselves are at least partially responsible for their own plight will immediately be labeled a “racist”.

To those of you who live outside the USA, I would recommend this simple thought experiment: just take 20-30 minutes and watch the footage of BOTH the “peaceful protests” AND “the violent riots” and look carefully not only at what the folks you see in the footage are wearing, but also how they speak, how they act, what they say and how they say it and ask yourself a simple question: would you want to hire any of these guys and pay them a decent salary? I very much doubt that many of you would. Frankly, most of these rioters are unhirable, and “racism” has nothing to do with this.

The fact is that what is sometimes called the “MTV culture” is, in reality, nothing else than a systematic glorification of criminal mayhem. Forget about rap hits like the famous “Fuk Da Police” or “Kill d’White People“, I would argue that 99% of rap is a glorification of all the worst problems of Black communities in the US (drugs, violence, promiscuous sex, objectification of women, alcoholism, glorification of criminal behavior in the streets and in prisons, etc.). Yet most US politicians seem to be paralyzed and feel the need to pretend like they are absolutely charmed by this so-called “Black culture”. But it is even worse than that.

Combine an emasculated ruling polity which does not dare to call a stone a stone and which promotes a (pretend) “culture” which glorifies violence and hatred against all non-criminals, including law abiding Black who are called “Toms” and who are also singled out as in this “beautiful” rap which includes the following “verses”: “Then you got niggas that’s blacker then the night, Running around town saying their best friends are white, Niggas like that are gonna hang up from a tree, And burn them up alive and let everybody see” (check out this “beautiful” rap here and for the full lyrics, a truly fascinating read, here). Next, throw in a completely dysfunctional state which is owned and operated by a tiny gang of obscenely rich narcissistic bastards (of all races, very much including Blacks), add to it a total absence of any real social opportunities, then toss in the COVID pandemic and the worst recession in US history with record high levels of unemployment even among those who would be employable (folks with dropped down pants, excessive tattoos, past felony convictions and a comprehensively non-professional attitude would not even get a job even if the economy was booming). Then, you get a relatively localized “spark” (like the murder of George Floyd by a gang of arrogant imbeciles in uniform) to start a fire which will instantly spread throughout the entire country, especially since there are so many other groups besides Blacks who want to “piggyback” their personal agenda on top of the one of Black Lives Matter or Antifa (I am, of course, referring to the real cornucopia of Trump-haters which never accepted his election).

Conclusion 1: this is not the US version of the Gilets Jaunes!

Some might be tempted to say that what we are seeing in the US is a US version of the French Gilets Jaunes. I assure you that it is not. For one thing, the Gilets Jaunes had a pretty clear political program. US rioters do not. Next, the Gilets Jaunes were mostly peaceful and much of the violence was instigated by the French police forces (including the use of fake rioters). While there are definitely peaceful protesters in the USA, neither BLM or AntiFa have truly denounced the riots (and why should they when the US media and politicians don’t have the courage to do that either?). Finally, the French ruling classes and media did not show the kind of “understanding” of the riots which did take place although Macron did pose with two “gangstas” in an effort to look “cool” (which failed):

Not only Biden, in Europe too…

Not only Biden, in Europe too…

Conclusion 2: this is not a revolution or a civil war

Some are now fantasizing that what we are witnessing today is either a revolution or a civil war. I believe that this is neither.

For a revolution to take place there must be a force capable of changing not the person(s) in power, but fundamentally change the regime, the polity, itself and replacing it with another one. Declaring that “Black lives matter” or looting stores or even demanding that the police be defunded, does not have this kind of potential capability.

For a civil war to take place you need at least two sides, each with a clearly identifiable political agenda. Since the real power in the US is hidden from the public awareness, there is no potential for a “the people vs the rulers” kind of civil war in the US. A “Right/Conservative vs Left/Liberal” civil war is also not possible, because both the US Right and the US Left are, in reality controlled by a deep state which is neither liberal nor conservative. Finally, a “rematch” between North and South is not possible either because the modern US is not really split along North/South lines anymore. In terms of geography, there is somewhat of a “Big cities vs rural USA” split, but it takes place in both the north and the south of the country. Instead, what we do observe is a social breakup of the US into “zones” some of which will be doing much better than others (big cities with a strong Black population fare the worst, mostly White small towns fare best; that is even true within the same state). In some of these zones, we will see more of this kind of acts of self-protection:

This kind of confrontations, even if they are not violent, are yet another illustration of the state being simply unable to take charge and protect the people.

Conclusion 3: this is an insurrection which has initiated the systemic collapse of the US society

I call what is happening today an insurrection: a violent revolt or rebellion against the authorities as such. When you burn a police precinct you do not “protest” against the actions of a few cops, no, what you are doing is expelling the cops from your neighborhood (I know that personally. In Argentina I lived in a suburb of Buenos-Aires in which the police station was attacked so often that it closed and was never rebuilt). And since in a civilized society the state should have the monopoly on the (legal) use of force, you are basically rejecting the authority and legitimacy of the state which operates the police force. This insurrection is most unlikely to remove Trump from office (hence it is not a coup or a revolution), but the anti-Trump faction of the ruling elites have now clearly adopted the strategy of “worse is better” simply because they realize that these riots are probably their last chance to blame it all on Trump (and Russia, why not?!) and maybe, just maybe, defeat him in November.

Right now all we see can only be called a mob-rule (technically referred to as an “ochlocracy“). But mobs, no matter how violent, rarely succeed in achieving tangible political results as they act ‘against something’ and not ‘for something’. This is why the real (behind-the-scenes) ruling classes need to instrumentalize this mob-induced insurrection to their political advantage. So far, I would say that neither the Demolicans nor the Republicrats have succeeded in this. But there is a very long and potentially extremely dangerous summer ahead and this might well change.

Irrespective of whether either faction will succeed in instrumentalizing the riots, what we are seeing today is a systemic collapse of the US society. That is not to say that the US will disappear, not at all. But just like it took the Soviet Union a decade or more to fully collapse (roughly from 1983-1993), it will take the US many years to fully crash. And just like a New Russia eventually began taking form in 1999, there will be a New US coming out of the current collapse. Total and final collapses are very rare, mostly they just initiate a lengthy and potentially very dangerous transformation process, the outcome of which is almost impossible to predict.

However, just as the Russian people had to stop kidding themselves with silly dreams about “democracy” and had to tackle the real problems of Russia, so will the people of the US have to find the courage to deal with their real problems, frontally and deliberately. If they fail to do that, the country will most likely simple further disintegrate into numerous and mutually hostile entities.

Time will tell.

US Protests: Why the uneasy silence?

US Protests: Why the uneasy silence?

June 04, 2020

by Ken Leslie for The Saker Blog

Note: I appreciate that some will find the essay controversial or even uncomfortable reading. I hope though that it can destroy the paralysing trope of Soros bad – everybody else good.

I’d very much like to thank The Saker for deeming this essay good enough to publish. Like many others, I have been engrossed in the mayhem unfolding in the United States over the last week or so. I have felt a sense of relief and hope in what I see as the beginning of the end of the United States as a fundamentally fascist quasi-empire whose criminal record in terms of destruction of innocent lives and countries after 1945 is unparalleled (according to some estimates, 30 million people and 56 countries respectively—highly likely more). More important, I have been heartened by the sense that a new, different America might be possible.

This is not the place to elaborate on why and how the USA arrived at a point at which, many people sense, a restoration of its former power and status is impossible. Here, I want to address something that I have found quite strange, namely, the muted if not completely inimical reaction in many alternative (particularly pro-Russian) media to this momentous event. Here, I will briefly comment on some of the relevant points but will avoid dealing with political and tactical reasons for such a reaction.

1. Why destroy a great country over one dead black man—he was passing a fake cheque!

The country as it is needs to end and be replaced by something else—hopefully better. It was built on a massive genocide of the indigenous human and buffalo populations (despite what some revisionists claim). It was built on the sweat of the black, Chinese and other sources of slave or near-slave labour. It achieved its acme at a time when the rest of the world was laid low by the ravages of war. Since the end of WWII, it has leveraged the disgusting, anti-Christian and anti-human myth of exceptionality to loot, pillage, destroy, and bully innumerable countries and retard progress towards a more equitable and just society. This is not even contentious.

Drunk on anti-communism, Russophobia and a completely undeserved superiority complex, successive US governments have also used this pernicious myth (remember the CIA cut-out Obama?) to anaesthetise their population to the fact that the Potemkin village of American supremacy was starting to crumble as early as 1968. The anaesthetic started to wear off in the early 2000s and now we are finally witnessing the moment of full awakening. The ultimate irony of the situation lies in the fact that great American “patriots” strutting on Twitter are quiet about the fact that their own cherished City on the Hill was born from a bloody rebellion, rioting and destruction—of continental proportions.

This is the main reason for the current confusion—people as thoroughly zombified as an average adult American are utterly incapable of comprehending their predicament and reflecting critically in order to affect positive change. Sure, there will be token gestures of “taking a knee” with protesters, sops to the black community etc. None of this however can reverse the rapid descent into Hades of a country built on iniquity. The pain of the black American is real. Still inchoate despite a number of attempts to articulate it intellectually, it reflects a genuine sense of grievance and desperation. The experience of slavery to one side, it is the constant and uninterrupted campaign by the right-wing whites to behead the black leadership and strangle any genuine attempts by the black community to advance—politically, economically or culturally—that has found its expression in an emotive call to protest.

Sadly, some people think of the black Americans as the lowest of the low. According to this view, they are hardly human and their low caste status is justified because of their low IQ, inherent laziness, affinity for violence, promiscuity etc. Never once do these superior human beings stop to consider that the causality might be reversed—that it is precisely because of the inhuman treatment, cruel uprooting and universal contempt of generations of African Americans that have given rise to the criminality. If I were treated by the police and white people the way that many black Americans are treated, I would rob, loot and kill too. This is not to say that white people are irredeemably racist. As the protests demonstrate, younger generations will not stand for racism of any kind.

It is unthinkable for me to view anybody, let alone an African-American, as a sub-human precisely because my people were enslaved for 400 years and as recently as 1940s, my “race” was considered Untermenschen, not worthy of life or any human consideration. In addition, I do believe in the precepts of Jesus Christ. This makes it easy for me to empathise with black Americans despite the constant poisoning of the well by various COINTELPRO machinations. Until now, there has often been more white outrage on the internet over the abuse of animals than over the deaths of black people. The narratives such as “they shouldn’t have resisted arrest” are no longer allowable and rightly so. This is the end of that argument, no ifs, no buts. Unless we are able to recognise our own exceptionalism, we can never claim to be fully human (or Christian). If you were ever thought of as “lower”, you have no right to look down. And especially if you weren’t! You can’t serve God and Mammon both. I am no better than anybody else, just aware of my own darkness.

2. Raise the bridge, Soros at the gates!

Apart from racial insensitivity, that insidious poison of the mind, another reason for the muted reaction must be the fear conditioned by the alt-right that Soros, Illuminati, freemasons, satanic Bolsheviks, Antifa, Frankfurt School etc. are behind the riots. The reticence is understandable—the malevolent speculator Soros is indeed one of the major criminals of the modern era and it is possible that some of this activity is being sponsored by his organisation. However, this has no bearing on the proper understanding of the situation. Even if all of this were true, and it isn’t, so what? Does it mean that we are prepared indefinitely to endure the whims of a belligerent right-wing regime which has taken the world to the brink of a world war (see e.g. the demented pencil-necked Tom Cotton baying for Chinese and black blood)? If nothing else, the protests have taken away what little domestic and international credibility America had and have crippled its soft power beyond repair. Is this such a bad thing?

The hypocrisy of the current US’s position is delightful. After accusing and sanctioning Russia and China for a long list of non-existent crimes, it has exposed itself for what it is—a shaky plywood fortress built on a land cursed by its extinguished owners. Why not celebrate? If Soros is funding the “left”, do you know who is funding the “right”, namely the ultramontane Bannonites, the crazed Evangelicals and assorted right-wing Zionist cabals? What about Jabba the Hutt Adelson? Has Trump’s election fund of over $100 million dollars (five times larger than Obama’s) come solely from the contributions of patriotic Americans? Perhaps, but I wouldn’t bet on it. The idea that the alt-right regime is in any sense “good” is beyond naïve.

Does the fact that nefarious agents always co-opt any meaningful human activity mean that we must forego the fight against obvious injustice? What’s wrong with giving America a taste of the Bolshevik medicine? If the “patriots” are anything like the fat, bearded or steroid-soaked rednecks with AR-15s I see daily on the internet, more power to Soros (and I have been following his criminal activity since the mid-90s). It could be argued that the alt-right has turned Soros into the ultimate scarecrow that successfully distracts from their own evil. If the reason for silence has to do with Russia, again, what is the problem? Russia has gone through three West-inspired tragedies in less than 100 years. If it has not learned the lessons of history, our support for Trump will not help much.

Before I continue, let me emphasise that US Democrats are as far from a true “left” as it is possible to get. The Overton window of the American political discourse has shifted to the right so much that known warmongering murderers and racists such as Hillary Clinton (“black super thugs”) are considered to be of the left. As discussed on this site ad nauseam, the US political scene is a parasitical corporatist duopoly. I am not interested in the flavour of this travesty (patronisingly liberal or patriotic and God-fearing) because both are massive cons specifically promulgated to give the plebs a sense of hope. This is now unravelling and with it, the capacity of the dark empire to harm the world. Why are we not raising a glass? Does anybody here think that the narcissistic racketeer Trump who has sanctioned Russia and China to death, incited a war against Iran and Venezuela, and is now threatening to move nuclear weapons to Poland, A MAN OF PEACE? The time has come to shed such illusions and acknowledge that we were wrong. The most charitable explanation for his failure is that compelled to renege on his campaign promises by the advanced imperial decay, Trump has accelerated the destruction of the fabric of the US society (some say deliberately) and exposed its dark racist and imperialist underbelly. Which brings me to the next point.

4. We must all cheer for Team Murrica!

The fact that the majority of US citizens are completely in thrall of the grand lie, I take for granted. What is more puzzling and troubling is the sense that the desperate and dirty struggle of the US regime to save itself from the justifiable wrath of its own people is somehow our struggle. For over 70 years we have been conditioned to think of America as a unique and irreplaceable Shangri-La whose destiny touches us all. We have spent a large amount of time and best years of our youth in that America of the mind that includes many great things but is ultimately a chimera built on lies with a single intent—to perpetuate the empire without having to resort to the force of arms.

Those living in the USA will say—oh, but it’s not like that, this place is really great. To that I reply—it might have been once and briefly but the unresolved internal contradictions (hello Karl) have sucked out its elan vital, destroyed its cohesion and sense of purpose. Wake up! The world is tired of the bullying, killing and racketeering perpetrated by the trillionaire parasites infesting the Wall Street, the Silicon Valley and the military-industrial-intelligence complex—the three fasciae.

Whether their chosen puppet is Trump or Biden is less important, if at all. For the United States to have any future as a coherent entity, it must first renounce its evil imperialist present and revisit some of the more humane and peaceful modes of existence based on peaceful co-existence. The first people that spring to mind here are Franklin Roosevelt and Henry Wallace (so hated by the “patriots”) but also a number of black intellectuals who have pondered this difficult question. The first step though is the eradication of the deep systemic racism which still blights the landscape. I have no doubt that African Americans deserve better—and this does not mean money but genuine respect. And, what is equally important, in the coming together of the young people of different races, I see a germ of a more hopeful future. Which leads to…

5. Those soy-fed white SJWs have no idea how privileged they are!

A typical reaction to the unprecedented participation of white youth in the protests is met with a lazy alt-right trope: pampered middle-class millenials and Generation Xers are playing at class struggle blah blah. Yet, the response has been so overwhelming that it cannot be explained away by empty generalisations. The young generation in America and the West feels cheated. Decades of lies and empty promises have left most young people helpless and hopeless. They are drowning in student loan debt and mostly have no hope of owning a home or holding a steady job. The typical right-wing injunctions to “get on your bike” or “learn to code” are largely meaningless when you realise that few privileged hustlers who produce nothing useful hold around 70% of the country’s wealth.

Why should a young person work their entire life for slightly more than a pittance in order to increase the profits of a malignant corporation? Why enter the corporate rat race when one can be happy with very little provided the society is based on humane values? Why should they spend years learning a skill or getting a degree only to be immediately removed from the queue and replaced by the cheaper H1b import? I would argue that the young are much smarter than we old f***s give them credit for. They understand the fundamental injustice of the present system and refuse to perpetuate it. Rather than a sign of stupidity, it is a mature and largely rational estimate of the situation. They cannot be lulled into obedience by the slimy appeals to freedom, family and second amendment issued daily by warmongering lechers and paedophiles hiding behind God and homeland.

It is this sense of hopelessness that has awakened empathy for the suffering of others. Yes, some might be selfish and deluded but even in their awkward attempts to embrace their black brothers and sisters, they are saying a loud NO to the system that has betrayed them all. They reject the divisive rhetoric of the fake left (race before class) and fascist right (implicit segregation, racial inequality). Instead of criticising them, it might be a good idea for us to move aside and hope that they are capable of rectifying the errors of their ancestors.

Oh, and FBI has just stated that there has been no Antifa presence at the protests so far.

Ken Leslie is an independent researcher based in the UK with some experience in post WWII history and geopolitics

%d bloggers like this: