What is the Future of the US Army as Racism In Its Ranks Increase?

September 28, 2021

What is the Future of the US Army as Racism In Its Ranks Increase?

By Charles Abi Nader

A recent study by the Pentagon showed a decrease in the rate of Americans enlisting in the armed forces – only 2% of all Americas in the past two years. The study further revealed that the percentage of US troops of color or coming from minorities is remarkably declining, as the interest of black people in joining declined from 20% in 2019 to 11% the next year, to reach 8% in the fall of 2020. The study attributed the results to the rise of racism and the use of violence by security forces against the protesters, in addition to the murder of George Floyd – an African-American – which had repercussions on the entire American society.

First and foremost, the US Air Force acknowledged the reluctance of troops in joining its ranks, especially among minorities. There is concern regarding the decrease of a younger generation of troops in enlisting not only in the Air Force but also at other military arms. This, in addition to the risk of the long-term retention in the posts of others in the armed forces, especially those “in the ranks of the black males, Hispanics, and women, too”.

In fact, such a study conducted by the Pentagon can’t be considered as normal or be taken for granted since as per US laws and regulations, the results of any study on an important and sensitive sector, such as the army should be published. But the repercussions of this study suppose that the results should be somehow confidential, for this topic has considerable effects on the cohesiveness of the US army, and thus on the society and the state in general.

The cohesiveness of the US army – as the case of armies in most countries – reflects the cohesiveness and situation of the state as a whole. Even more, the US army might be the first internationally within this equation, since it is assigned big missions, most of which are overseas [with more than 800 military sea, land, and air bases outside the country]. Such missions are spread and located all over the world and sometimes relocated, for the so-called purpose of protecting US interests and allies as well as maintaining American national security. Therefore, to face such a big problem in the US army [the increase of racism, for example] has tremendous effects on both, the American national security and on the status of the US in the world.

What does it mean when racism increases in any army? How does it affect the efficacy of this army, and thus its capability of carrying out its missions and properly playing its role?

Talking about racism in a certain army means that there is an outcast, unwelcomed category or group in this army, with which the other group cannot get along. It also means that trust is lacking between the two groups or among the members of each group. With this in mind, how would it be possible to appropriately lead such a military unit in order to accomplish a common mission? How would this leadership be achieved, as it requires a concerted effort and focus of all its elements to attain the bottom-line effectiveness needed to successfully fulfill the goal?

Of course, with the spread of racism that implies a superior view, disgust and mutual hatred, it is normal to have trust issues between the officers and the employees, on all the ordinal levels, if they are of different colors or ethnicities or cultural and religious beliefs, and the like of the racism-inciting points. Accordingly, where there is racism, there will be an abnormality in the cohesiveness of any military unit, especially when this unit is assigned an extraordinary or dangerous mission. This being said, distrust among its members will grow, along with the possibility of treachery and evasion of responsibility, in addition to allocating the risk to a certain party by the operational and administrative heads.

That’s in general. As for the US army, with its transcontinental nature and sensitive missions that are usually assaults and invasions [we have previously shed light on this situation in most of the wars involving the US, where its troops are fiercely confronted by the troops of the targeted or assaulted countries and by resistance movements, as in Vietnam and Lebanon, and recently in Iraq and Afghanistan], the casualties have significantly surpassed the reasonable or the average extent due to the shaken trust between the members and officers, especially when carrying out overseas operations and missions.

Consequently, we can say that a great deal of the US army’s overseas failures can be attributed to this abnormal, unhealthy phenomenon. Apparently, it has always existed historically in this army, but it wasn’t exposed to the extent it’s been recently, in the aftermath of the murder of the African-American George Floyd and its disastrous repercussions on the US society. The danger of this phenomenon entails the close bond between the US community and army, as the latter is considered the first worldwide with respect to capabilities, and the second after the Chinese army with respect to personnel [more than one million members and officers]. The reciprocal influences between this army and the community are huge and tremendous, which will certainly have a direct effect on the coherence of the state and the system.

The fight to whitewash US history: ‘A drop of poison is all you need’

At least 15 states are trying to ban schools from teaching critical race theory and the 1619 Project. The reactionary movement stretches back to the 1920s and the KKK

By VT Editors –May 25, 2021

Guardian: In 25 May 2020, a man died after a “medical incident during police interaction” in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The man was suspected of forgery and “believed to be in his 40s”. He “physically resisted officers” and, after being handcuffed, “appeared to be suffering medical distress”. He was taken to the hospital “where he died a short time later”.

It is not difficult to imagine a version of reality where this, the first police account of George Floyd’s brutal death beneath the knee of an implacable police officer, remained the official narrative of what took place in Minneapolis one year ago. That version of reality unfolds every day. Police lies are accepted and endorsed by the press; press accounts are accepted and believed by the public.

That something else happened – that it is now possible for a news organization to say without caveat or qualification that Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd – required herculean effort and extraordinary bravery on the part of millions of people.

The laborious project of establishing truth in the face of official lies is one that Americans embraced during the racial reckoning of the summer of 2020, whether it was individuals speaking out about their experiences of racism at work, or institutions acknowledging their own complicity in racial injustice. For a time, it seemed that America was finally ready to tell a more honest, nuanced story of itself, one that acknowledged the blood at the root.

But alongside this reassessment, another American tradition re-emerged: a reactionary movement bent on reasserting a whitewashed American myth.  Read more…

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/25/critical-race-theory-us-history-1619-project

ABOUT VT EDITORS

VT EditorsVeterans Today

VT Editors is a General Posting account managed by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff. All content herein is owned and copyrighted by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff

editors@veteranstoday.com

Zionists’ Efforts to Coopt the BLM Movement: Can Racists Be Anti-Racist?

February 14, 2021

Palestinian artists painting George Floyed on the walls on UNRWA office, in Gaza. (Photo: via UNRWA Website)

By Benay Blend

On February 6, 2021, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza announced that she was pulling out of a World Values Network online gala with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, a prominent American Zionist.

“They approached me about having a conversation about the importance of solidarity between black communities and Jewish communities,” she explained, then thanked Palestinian American activist Linda Sarsour for amplifying the larger picture.

According to journalist Michael Brown, Garza has a history of denouncing other public figures who joined propaganda trips to Israel. Boteach’s gala, Brown continued, appears just as egregious, for it “follow[s] Boteach’s years of backing the racist Donald Trump, thereby making a mockery of the efforts promoted by Black leaders and the wider Black community to advance racial justice and decolonization.”

Placed within a larger context, Boteach’s move comes at a time when Zionists are increasingly fearful of the Boycott, Divestment Sanctions Movement (BDS)’s success. Coupled with the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s decision to investigate Israel for War Crimes, any support for Palestinian rights will undoubtedly come under attack.

There is a long history of Pan-African support for Palestine which has resulted in Zionists denouncing that alignment. In a lecture series “Palestine and Us: Black and Palestinian Solidarity,” Ahmad Abuznaid traced the history of Black support for Palestine as well as the fall-out from it. Referring to Malcolm X’s Zionist Logic (1964), Abuznaid explained that this statement drew from Malcolm X’s shift from Black Nationalist to a more Pan-Africanist position, particularly after he saw connections between Pan-Arabists, represented by Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, and Pan-Africanists that he was beginning to support.

After the 1967 war, Black Radicals began to move away from seeing Zionism as a liberation movement to viewing it as a colonialist venture, much like the colonialism that was oppressing Africans around the world. Following in this direction, Ethel Minor, a leader in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), wrote a piece in their newsletter entitled “Third World Round-up: The Palestine Problem: Test Your Knowledge,” leading to a split between those, like Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) who would continue to support Palestine on principle, and others who feared that without taking a more “balanced position,” one that included mention of the Holocaust, there would be loss of funding.

Indeed, as Ture made clear“immediately after the statement, phone calls rang in and the checks stopped coming.” Today, organizations, politicians and others who depend on funding are leery of taking a principled stance on Palestine, because, much like what happened with SNCC, Zionist supporters will use whatever means necessary to launch a targeted smear campaign of anyone who is critical of the Israeli state.

For example, in the aftermath of the Black Lives Matter movement’s 2014 platform that denounced the US government’s military aid to Israel, there were claims of “one-sided” and “unfair” from pro-Israel commentators who rejected the coalition’s critique. Several years before B’tselem’s quite similar statement, which was either ignored completely or applauded for its courage, BLM charged the following:

“The US justifies and advances the global war on terror via its alliance with Israel and is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people. Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people.”

The BLM platform also drew ire for its support of BDS. Fear of its success continues to motivate Zionists into the present time. In a piece for Haaretz, Rabbi Dan Dorsch of Atlanta declared that the mainstream Jewish community, and also Palestinian Government officials, have rejected BDS.

He continued that connecting the Black struggle in American to that of Palestinians is “unquestionably shortsighted and will only undermine the credibility of the movement and the important cause of civil rights in America”.

Like several years before, when pro-Israel donors withdrew their funds from SNCC, Rabbi Dorsch was warning that the pattern would continue as long as BLM lent its support to Palestine. Returning to the question of whether Zionists can be anti-racist, the short answer is an emphatic “no.” Quoting a message from Jewish Voice for Peace: “If you oppose racism, you should oppose Zionism too.”

As BDS successes grow and the ICC moves closer to investigate Israel for war crimes, pro-Israel groups will increasingly try to sever anti-racist movements in the US from their ties to Palestinians. Nevertheless, given several factors—the historic connections between Palestine and anti-colonial movements around the world, coupled with the waning acceptance of Progressive Except Palestine–Israel will not succeed.

For example, in a recent article Ramzy Baroud noted that

“Israeli efforts at co-opting Africa countries received a major setback on Saturday, February, 6 when the African Union issued a strong statement of solidarity with Palestine, condemning Israel’s illegal settlement activities and the US’s so-called ‘Deal of the Century’.”

In return, Palestinians have supported movements against injustice around the globe. Documenting a new round of Palestinian uprisings within the Zionist entity, Gaza-based journalist Wafaa Al-Udaini chose to use a photo from another protest against the Israeli regime.

Dating back a year to the shooting of Iyad al-Halak, an unarmed autistic Palestinian man, Palestinians in the picture also hold signs calling attention to the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis the previous week, an extralegal murder that they link with al-Halak.

While Palestinians understand the connections between their struggles and anti-colonial movements in other countries, many liberals in the U.S. do not. Nevertheless, as Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick outline in their new book, Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics, the days are over when so-called progressive public figures can join the anti-racist struggle at home while accepting gifts from Zionist organizations who fully support the Israeli apartheid state.

As Sarah Doyel notes in her review of Hill and Plitnick’s book, the authors observe that

“Democrats will take to the global stage to champion victims of other humanitarian crises, but Palestinians in Gaza living in what is commonly described as ‘the world’s largest open-air prison’ somehow merit little succor in the liberal worldview.”

Their work, Doyel concludes, is “a crucial and ultimately hopeful tool that better equips progressives to combat injustices within their own political circles.” Combined with the work of members of anti-colonial coalitions, some of whom convinced Alicia Garza to withdraw from Shmuley’s gala, perhaps anti-Zionists in the future will be strong enough to resist what will surely be increasing attacks on their political alignment with Palestinians.

– Benay Blend earned her doctorate in American Studies from the University of New Mexico. Her scholarly works include Douglas Vakoch and Sam Mickey, Eds. (2017), “’Neither Homeland Nor Exile are Words’: ‘Situated Knowledge’ in the Works of Palestinian and Native American Writers”. She contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

Why Joe Biden Can’t Unify America

As the Democratic party tumbles into the morass of racial and identity politics, Joe Biden will find it almost impossible to unify his own party, let alone America.

by Scott McConnell

Donald Trump faced an unfairly hostile press and was burdened with innumerable deficits of his own making, but in comparison with Joe Biden he held one clear advantage at the outset of his term: he had beaten fair and square his ideological rivals in his own party. The GOP establishment retained considerable power in the House and Senate—and Trump couldn’t govern without them. But Trump had beaten—no, whipped—Bush and Rubio and Cruz, and they knew it. He could draw large crowds and they couldn’t. His authority over the GOP may have been resented; the “resistance” to him from the Deep State and affluent suburbanites was formidable and eventually brought him down, but no one could deny that his ascension was based on one hard currency of politics, namely, mass voter enthusiasm.

Biden, a likeable enough centrist senator, can boast of no such thing. He prevailed, as Christopher Caldwell cogently reminds us, after an embarrassingly poor start to his campaign, (fourth and fifth-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire), salvaged by a critical endorsement from a South Carolina congressman who probably influences more votes than any politician in America, immediately followed by a panicked rush of the party establishment to close ranks against the socialist Bernie Sanders. Though American presidential campaigns last far too long, this critical period seemed to pass in a nanosecond. Congressman James Clyburn’s church ladies (and Biden’s unobjectionable tenure as Barack Obama’s vice president) put him over the top in South Carolina. Next, Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar immediately dropped out (the latter two having beaten Biden, sometimes decisively, in states where voters actually see a great deal of the candidates). Elizabeth Warren stayed in to battle Bernie for the party’s Left vote. Biden swept Super Tuesday just as the coronavirus was shutting down the country. It was almost certainly the most underwhelming route to a nomination in recent American political history. 

The party which nominated Biden is more divided than the one Trump dominated in 2016; the difference is the battle between the factions hasn’t been joined yet. Socialists would make common cause with deep state and corporate world neoliberals in believing, (or pretending to believe—it can be hard to distinguish) that Donald Trump constituted some sort of unique threat to American democracy. But with Trump gone, they share nothing. One can imagine a gifted politician (a Bill Clinton in his prime) able to soothe the divisions and partially placate the losers; it’s unlikely Biden could manage that at any point in his career.

The splits are as stark as those which separated Mayor Richard Daley and other party “regulars” from the McGovernites who beat them in 1972, but also more complicated. There is a liberal—or socialist-curious—Left that is genuinely concerned about the economic inequality which has been growing in the United States for forty years—Elizabeth Warren, and, in a more dogmatic and further left way, Sanders spoke for them. There is the identity politics faction, which shares their radicalism, ignores economic inequities unless they concern blacks or Hispanics, and is interested in a full-scale cultural war against whiteness, which means against much of American culture and history. Both groups endorsed Sanders but it is not clear how much they share with one another. They share virtually nothing with Michael Bloomberg or other Wall Street titans who contributed heavily to the Biden campaign.

One consequence is that in the early rounds of the Biden transition, every choice has been racially fraught. For the past five days, hundreds of Black Lives Matter (BLM) protestors have laid siege to the home of Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti, protesting against the possibility he would be given a cabinet post in the Biden administration. They opposed Garcetti, a Biden campaign co-chair and probably California’s most well-known Latino elected official, for rejecting BLM demands to defund the Los Angeles police department. California governor Gavin Newsom’s choice of a candidate to fill out the Senate term of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris is debated entirely on the basis of identity politics, with blacks and Latinos and LGBTQ groups each proclaiming that one of their “community” deserves the seat; one hears no arguments made on the basis of the character, intellect, or political talents of their favored candidates. Democratic intra-party politics increasingly resembles a zero-sum game of identity competitions, carried out under the feel-good banners of inclusion and diversity.

And yet if the identity politics movement since the first protests following the death of George Floyd seems more radical, pervasive, and frightening, it was not obvious that its beliefs had penetrated into the consciousness of those who were neither college students, young people not yet tied to work and family, or professional liberal activists. In the most bellwether ideological election held since the great awakening, Californians returned to the ballot box once more to pass judgement on race-based affirmative action, which had been made illegal by 53 to 47 percent referendum vote in 1996. In this summer of racial reckoning, liberals in the legislature had pushed for a revote, believing that the state’s changed racial composition, (fewer whites, more Latinos, more Asians) would allow a reversal of that result and give formal sanction for preferential treatment on the basis of race to be used to increase diversity and overcome legacies of past discrimination.

Race-based affirmative action, along with the conundrums of law enforcement, have been the only consequences of the Civil Rights revolution of the 1960s to remain under any serious political or cultural contestation. But since a Vietnam veteran named Allan Bakke famously sued for admission to a California medical school while clearly establishing that his grades and test scores were higher than minority applicants admitted in his stead, it has been a fraught issue, decided ambiguously by the Supreme Court. In California, voters had opted for state neutrality regarding race; now, in the summer of racial justice, progressives assumed they would reverse course.

The voters’ answer disappointed the state’s entire Democratic establishment (which unanimously supported the rollback) and the corporate donors who gave the rollback side a 20-1 spending advantage. Nonetheless, California’s diverse and strongly Democratic electorate still wanted race neutrality, voting for it by a larger margin (56-44) than they had in 1997. Latinos voters split down the middle, Asians and whites voted against the reinstitution of racial preferences.

Meanwhile, in Democratic strongholds of northern Virginia and New York City, Asian parents were leading campaigns to keep exam-based elite public schools alive: against them were arrayed progressive politicians and bureaucrats and Black Lives Matter activists who sought to eliminate tests which measure math and verbal competence and replace them with measures that would reduce the number of gifted students in elite schools—in the name, naturally, of inclusion and diversity.

These local battles take place largely under the national radar as Biden struggles to name a cabinet that will be “the most inclusive in history”—while at the same time assuring that key foreign policy posts are given to the kind of neoliberal Iraq war supporters he is most familiar and comfortable with. Indeed, the battle of leaks and emails over whether the next secretary of defense will be a woman or a black is debated almost entirely without reference to the Pentagon’s mission and how to best carry it out. Then there is the probable nomination of Neera Tanden, who has spent the past several years denouncing Republicans on Twitter, to run the Office of Management and Budget, a nomination that hardly constitutes an olive branch to Republicans.

There is no way to see how Biden or his party squares these circles, which would confound a more vigorous politician with a more robust electoral mandate. As the Soviet Union was fading, Georgi Arbatov, an intellectual close to the Politburo, famously remarked that Moscow was going to cause great problems for the United States by “depriving it of an enemy.” He may have been right. Trump has fulfilled the same function for the Democratic coalition; now that Dr. Evil is gone, the knives will come out. This is why the safest political prediction is that those who voted for a “return to normalcy” under Biden are in for a rude disappointment indeed.

Scott McConnell is founding editor of the American Conservative and author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches from the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars.

المجمع العسكري ـ الصناعي الأميركي ورسائل ترامب تجاه البنتاغون

معن بشور

في معرض الردّ على تصريحات منسوبة إليه يهاجم فيها الجنود الأميركيين فتح الرئيس الأميركي النار على قادة البنتاغون قائلاً: ربما يكون كبار المسؤولين في البنتاغون لا يحبونني لأنهم لا يريدون فعل شيء سوى خوض الحروب، ولذا فإنّ كلّ تلك الشركات الرائعة التي تصنع القنابل والطائرات وكلّ شيء آخر ستكون سعيدة.”

وجاءت هذه الإشارة السلبية من ترامب تجاه البنتاغون في سياق عملية تجاذب منذ ان هدّد ترامب باستخدام قانون التمرّد للاستعانة بقوات إنفاذ القانون خلال الاحتجاجات التي أعقبت وفاة المواطن من أصول أفريقية جورج فلويد على يد أحد ضباط الشرطة في جريمة وحشية ما زالت تداعياتها مستمرة حتى اليوم.

يومها أعرب الجنرال مايك بيلي رئيس هيئة الأركان المشتركة عن أسفه لانه سار مع ترامب في ساحة لافييت.

ويعتبر هذا السجال المتصاعد بين الرئيس الأميركي وكبار جنرالاته الذين عيّنهم بنفسه، كما عيّن أيضاً وزير الدفاع مارك اسبر (الذي كان مسؤولاً تنفيذياً ومقاول دفاع في شركة “رايثيون” التي تعدّ من أكبر الشركات المتخصصة في أنظمة الدفاع) تعبيراً جديداً عن عمق الأزمة البنيوية التي يعيشها النظام الأميركي، كما كان يردّد دائماً أخي وصديقي الدكتور زياد حافظ منذ عشرين عاماً، والتي يبدو أنها على ملامح انفجار كبير مع الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية في اوائل نوفمبر/ تشرين الثاني المقبل حيث يعلن الطرفان الجمهوري والديمقراطي رفضهما منذ الآن لنتائج الانتخابات اذا لم تأت لصالحه الى درجة انّ أحد كبار المسورلين في الحزب الديمقراطي قد أشار الى دعوة القوات المسلحة الأميركية الى إخراج ترامب من البيت الأبيض في حال رفضه الاعتراف بهزيمته.

لكن هذا السجال المستجدّ بين البيت الابيض والبنتاغون، المضاف الى سلسلة سجالات تملأ الساحة السياسية والشعبية والاقتصادية والاجتماعية الأميركية، يذكر بمقولة ردّدها الجنرال دوايت ايزنهاور رئيس الولايات المتحدة بين عام 1952 -1960، عشية مغادرته البيت الابيض محذراَ من مخاطر “المجمع العسكري الصناعي على الدولة الأميركية وسعيه لانتهاج سياسات حربية تؤمّن لشركات السلاح موارد لا تنضب، فيما تؤمّن هذه الشركات وظائف مجزية لكبار الجنرالات بعد مغادرتهم الخدمة العسكرية.

اليوم يأتي ترامب، وهو رئيس “جمهوري” أيضاً، كما ايزنهاور، ليشير الى هذه العلاقة بين كبار الجنرالات وكبار المقاولين في تعبير عن غضبه من عدم تجاوب البنتاغون مع خططه بإعاد انتشار القوات العسكرية الأميركية خارج الولايات المتحدة (وهو مطلب يرتاح اليه المواطن الأميركي)، كما لعدم تجاوبه مع رغبته بتطبيق قانون التمرّد الذي يضع بنظر أميركيين كثر، أكثريتهم من البيض، حداً للفوضى الأمنية التي تعيشها المدن والبلدات الأميركية منذ أشهر.

لا شك انّ هذه التحوّلات تستحقّ دراسة معمّقة على أكثر من صعيد، ولكن لا بدّ من دراستها على مستوى تداعياتها على حجم النفوذ الأميركي خارج الولايات المتحدة، وخصوصاً في بلادنا، حيث ما زال الكثير من الحكام والمحللين أسرى تحليل قديم يرى بأنّ “واشنطن قدر”، وأنّ سياستها تمتلك من القوة ما لا يسمح لأحد بمواجهتها.

انّ اشارة ترامب الى العلاقة بين كبار الجنرالات وكبار المقاولين، مجدّداً تحذيرات سلفه في الرئاسة والحزب الجمهوري، دوايت ايزنهاور، من تغوّل “المجمع’ الصناعي العسكري، الذي لا يستبعد بعض المحللين دوره في جريمة اغتيال الرئيس الديمقراطي جون فيتزجرالد كنيدي عام ١٩٦٣، وشقيقه روبرت عام ١٩٦٦، ليصبح الأمر تماماً بقبضة “المجمع” الذي لم يتوقف عن شنّ الحروب على شعوب العالم، وبشكل خاص على الشعوب العربية والإسلامية…

انها قراءة من خارج السياق، ولكنها ضرورية لكي نفهم أكثر السياسة الأميركية في منطقتنا او بالأحرى اللاسياسة الأميركية التي لا تحركها إلا مصالح الكيان الصهيوني وأمنه…

انها قراءة ضرورية لكلّ من يضع كلّ أوراقه بالسلة الأميركية وهو التحليل الذي أدخل الأمة كلها منذ عام 1977(زيارة السادات للكنيست) في اتفاقات متعدّدة باسم “السلام” الذي لم ينجب سوى الحروب لهذه المنطقة…

الأمين العام السابق للمؤتمر القومي العربي

#ICantBreathe: ‘Israeli’ Soldier Kneels on Palestinian Elderly’s Neck in West Bank Protest

By Staff, Agencies

Footage circulating from Palestine’s occupied West Bank has shown a Zionist soldier brutally kneeling on the neck of a Palestinian man whose age is above that of the years since the ‘Israeli’ occupation entity has come to exist on his land.

The Zionist occupation soldiers brutally assaulted and arrested the Palestinian man during a protest held near the city of Tulkarm against stealing his country’s lands in Shufa village.

The video showed an ‘Israeli’ soldier push the old man to the ground and kneel on his neck — a grim reminder of the US police violence and racial injustice that led to the murder of unarmed African American George Floyd in May.

The 46-year-old died after a white officer knelt on his neck and pinned him to the ground for nine minutes in Minneapolis, Minnesota, with his last words ‘I Can’t Breath’ being a global expression that represents injustice and oppression across the world.

Dozens of protesters were also injured by ‘Israeli’ fire in Tulkarm on Tuesday, with Zionist forces firing tear gas and live rounds to disperse the demonstrators.

The protests come against the ‘Israeli’ occupation regime’s plans to build new illegal settlements in a number of Palestinian villages near the northern West Bank city.

Tulkarm Governor Issam Abu Bakr, who participated in the protest, stressed that the rallies would continue until the settlement project, which is a threat to Tulkarm, was halted.

US President Donald Trump’s so-called ‘peace’ plan on the decades-old ‘Israeli’-Palestinian conflict envisions the occupied holy city of al-Quds as the Zionist entity’s ‘undivided capital’ and allows the Tel Aviv regime to annex settlements in the occupied West Bank and the Jordan Valley.

The plan also denies Palestinian refugees the right of return to their homeland, among other controversial terms.

The alleged ‘deal’ was immediately rejected by all Palestinians, triggering waves of protest rallies around the globe as well.

About 600,000 ‘Israelis’ occupy over 230 illegal settlements built since the 1967 occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East al-Quds.

Israeli Forces Violently Suppress Anti-Settlement Protest in West Bank (VIDEO)

September 1, 2020

Israeli soldiers handcuff Palestinian protester Khairy Hannoun from Tulkarem, West Bank, during a peaceful protest.(Photo: via Twitter)

Israeli occupation forces today violently suppressed a peaceful Palestinian protest against land grab affecting several northern West Bank villages, the Palestinian news agency WAFA reported.

Israeli soldiers attacked Palestinian protesters firing teargas at them and beating them up in an effort to crush their protest at a road that links the three villages of Jabara, al-Ras, and Shoufa, south and east of the northern West Bank city of Tulkarm, where Israel plans to build an illegal industrial settlement.

Younes Arar

Talking about George Floyd… well, it’s a very common happening in occupied Palestine, under Zionist military occupation… Pics taken today of the Palestinian elder Khairi Hannoun
during a nonviolent protest against establishing a huge colonial industry zone in Palestinian privately owned land of Shofa, Jbarah and Kafreyat villages, occupied Palestine, 1 September 2020.
Pics: Mohammad Hamdan

Image may contain: one or more people
Image may contain: one or more people, outdoor and nature
Image may contain: ‎one or more people and shoes, ‎text that says '‎Made, Made,with with SIEK حمدان حمد محمد مصویر‎'‎‎
Image may contain: one or more people and outdoor
Image may contain: ‎one or more people and outdoor, ‎text that says '‎KINEMASTER Made,with محمد حمد حمدان‎'‎‎

The protest was organized by local nationalist forces and the Wall and Settlements Resistance Commission.

Journalists covering the event were also attacked and prevented from filming it, said WAFA correspondent.

The army set up checkpoints on the roads leading to the protest area and stopped activists attempting to reach it and prevented them from continuing on the road.

Tulkarm Governor Issam Abu Bakr, who participated in the protest, said that the protest will continue until the illegal settlement project is stopped.

Between 500,000 and 600,000 Israelis live in Jewish-only settlements across occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank in violation of international law.

(Palestine Chronicle, WAFA, Social Media)

Related

VIOLENCE AND INSANITY: UNITED STATES EVERYDAY LIFE IN 2020

Violence And Insanity: United States Everyday Life In 2020

South Front

On August 21st, 31-year-old Trayford Pellerin, a black man, died after being shot 11 times by police officers in Lafayette, Louisiana.

Lafayette Police Department officers responded to a disturbance call, involving a man with a knife at a Shell gas station around 8 PM local time on August 21st.

When they tried to apprehend the suspect, identified as 31-year-old Trayford Pellerin, he allegedly ignored repeated orders to surrender as well as several taser shots fired at him.

He simply kept walking, with his back turned to police, while carrying a knife and attempted to enter the gas station’s store.

Around a dozen shots can be heard in the video above, sparking accusations of excessive use of force. Authorities argued that tasers were “ineffective” and failed to stop the suspect, and that he was still armed when he tried to enter the store with people inside.

On August 22nd, violent protests erupted in Lafayette. Protesters blocked traffic as they gathered on Moss Street in Lafayette near a police precinct to protest Pellerin’s death.

Police in riot gear gave a 10-minute warning before releasing flares and smoke canisters into the crowd of protesters, KATC reported.

Afterward, Interim Lafayette Police Chief Scott Morgan said that there were two groups of protesters – those who organized an event earlier in the day and those who he said “choose to be malicious.”

He said people blocked important roadways and started several fires in a grass area, and police observed some throwing fireworks into one of their buildings.

“Our intent is not going to be to just let people disrupt our town and put our citizens and our motorists and our neighborhood in danger. We’re going to use those resources that we have and those other agencies and we’re going to enforce these laws,” he said.

Lafayette Parish Sheriff Mark Garber issued a stern warning to “out-of-town agitators,” a trope sometimes used to try to undermine protest movements.

“If any out-of-town agitators are watching this, if anyone’s planning to enhance their techniques tomorrow or the next day, we are ready for you,” he said. “We are prepared. We will not willingly give up the city. You will have to go through every resource that I have and every resource that the police have in order to do harm to the citizens or to their property.”

“Once again, video footage has captured a horrific and deadly incident of police violence against a Black person who was brutally killed in front of our eyes,” Alanah Odoms Hebert, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, said in a statement.

Hebert said the shooting was an “inappropriate and excessive use of force” by the police.

“None of our communities are safe when the police can murder people with impunity or when routine encounters escalate into deadly shooting sprees,” Hebert said. “The ACLU of Louisiana will continue to demand justice for this brutal killing and push for reforms that will end the epidemic of police violence once and for all.”

Meanwhile, the trial against Derek Chauvin, who killed George Floyd on May 25th, is about to begin.

The police’s version of events is that George Floyd was intoxicated in some way, and that the use of force was needed. The general trend in cases such as this in the US when a police officer is accused of excessive brutality, is that the officer gets acquitted and it is done.

In other news of everyday American life, a black man from Bronx knocked the jaw out of a 17-year-old Pennsylvania park employee for asking him to wear a mask.

One of the BLM protesters hit a raccoon twice, then pulled out a baseball bat and beat him to death. The death of the raccoon was posted on social networks and was accompanied by an inscription that only white people care about the protection of animals.

Separately, a black man shot a 5-year-old white neighbor’s boy for driving his bicycle onto his lawn.

The news was not discussed in the American press, and if it was mentioned, instead of a photograph of the real killer, a photograph of his father was published.

News such as this are daily, this is currently considered “social activism” because it is being carried out by the correct group of people, otherwise, it would obviously be a crime.

Finally, Netflix has took it upon itself to also promote some questionable content.

For example, the French “coming-of-age comedy-drama film” Cuties. The main plot detail of the movie is pre-teenage girls twerking on camera. This is the synopsis of the film:

“Eleven-year-old immigrant girl Amy, originally hailing from Senegal, lives with her mother Mariam (Maïmouna Gueye) in one of Paris’s poorest neighbourhoods in an apartment along with her two younger brothers awaiting for her father to rejoin the family from Senegal. Things turn swiftly as Amy is fascinated by her disobedient neighbour Angelica’s twerking clique called Cuties, an adult-style dance troupe which has contrasting fortunes and characteristics to Mariam’s traditional customs, values and traditions.”

Another piece of content by Netflix is show AJ And the Queen, which features a 10-year-old transgender child, who fellow transgender actors joked about being a “top” or the person doing the penetrating in a homosexual relationship.

In the show, the child, who is the 10-year-old daughter of a drug-addicted prostitute, says she wants to be a boy “because people leave boys alone.” Netflix argued that the film was chosen by the fact that it received a prize at the festival Sundance, the founder of which, by coincidence, is also in prison for pedophilia.

Finally, the Democratic National Convention featured a convicted kidnapper and murderer – Donna Hylton.

On March 20, 1985, Donna Hylton and three female accomplices drugged and kidnapped 62-year-old Long Island real estate broker Thomas Vigliarolo at the behest of Louis Miranda, who thought Vigliarolo had cheated him out of $139,000 on a mutual con, in which the two allegedly sold shares in New York City condos and pocketed the money.

The kidnappers held Vigliarolo prisoner for 15–20 days. During that time, three men and four women, including Hylton, starved, burned, beat, sexually assaulted, raped, and tortured him. On April 5, 1985, with Hylton asleep in the next room, Vigliarolo died of asphyxiation. Three days later, his body was found locked in a trunk in a Manhattan apartment.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Biden / Harris 2020: The Values That Unite the US and Israel

Source

August 13, 2020

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. (Photo: File)

By Benay Blend

Joe Biden declares that what links the United States and Israel goes beyond the exchange of weapons. It is instead the much more ephemeral notion of a “shared soul that unites our countries, generation upon generation.” He proved that notion on August 11, 2020, when he chose Kamala Harris, the former Attorney General of California and current U.S. Senator, as his running mate.

In an article aptly titled “Jim Crow Joe and Kamala the Cop: Another Blue Lives Matter Ticket,” Tatiana Cozzarelli and Ezra Brain explain that Biden’s choice rested on a desire to “co-opt a movement against anti-Black police” by picking a Black woman who “talks about racial justice.” In reality, Harris proved that she is “pro-cop and pro-prison” by “locking up and terrorizing communities of color.”

Following the murder of George Floyd, there has been an unprecedented uprising against police brutality, during which some have called for the abolition of police and prisons. It was no coincidence that support came from beleaguered Palestine, as the same militarized techniques are used in both countries. Indeed, there was speculation that police who used the knee-on-the-neck choke-hold that cost Floyd his life learned that technique as a consequence of Deadly Exchange, the training of American police forces in Israel.

It is no coincidence that Harris was Biden’s choice for running mate for they not only are united in their belief systems; they also share those ideas with the Zionist regime. Biden talks about our shared soul with Israel. Harris reports that she is “honored to join Joe Biden in the fight for the soul of our country.” Yet in a prophetic tweet on May 1, Steven Salaita pleads:

“Please stop this shit about the presidential election being a battle for the ‘soul of America.’ Settler colonies have no souls, only ruling classes that want us to feel pious about their depravity.”

Apparently, neither do the leaders who want to run the country. Joe Biden devoted his career “fighting for the American people,” Harris continues. “And as president, he will build an America that lives up to our ideals.”

Fine words, but what do they really mean? Like Israel, America prides itself on being exceptional. In particular, both Israel and America claim to be exceptional democracies. In fact, they were born in the genocide of Indigenous people in both countries.

Significantly Biden and Harris are both unqualified supporters of Israel. In her statement Harris mentions her parents, both immigrants, mother from India and father from Jamaica, and each, she says, were participants in the civil rights movement of the 60s.

“Some of my earliest memories,” she continues, “are from that time” when her parents were “attacked by police with hoses, fleeing for safety,” with baby Kamala “strapped tightly” in her stroller.

Harris claims that she inherited her “spirit of activism” from her mother, who told her not to “just sit around and complain about things. Do something.” She did just that when she served as California’s Attorney General as well as Senator.

It wasn’t to “fix a broken system from within,” as she claims, that she served in those positions, at least not in the spirit of Civil Rights. As Cozzarelli and Brain make clear, Attorney General Harris was not so “progressive” as she claimed to be. Instead, as a lawyer who was “tough on crime,” she supported the prison industrial complex by “terrorizing communities of color.”

While previously serving as San Francisco DA, she directed a “war on truancy” which resulted in the arrest and prosecution of parents of children who had missed 10 percent of school days, often leading to a year in prison or a $2000 fine, neither of which were helpful for poor communities.

If all of this and more sounds even more appalling considering that Harris is Black, and so should have more empathy for her community, remember that Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State (2005-2009) and US National Security Advisor (2001-2005), who was 8 years old at the time of the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in her hometown of Birmingham, Alabama, said that afterward there was “no safe place” nor “sanctuary” for Black children in her community.

That experience, she said, led her to empathize with victims in other countries who had lost their families to war. Yet there were numerous war crimes committed under the Bush Administration, which, as Nancy Mancias explains, she condoned and covered for during her time as Secretary of State.

In a Facebook response last night, when emotions were running high, Ernesto Ayala, organizer for the Partido Nacional de la Raza Unidaasked that others organize instead of playing into what appeared to be a political game that tokenizes people of color:

“What a circus Ameriklan politics are. I’ve been on this planet 38 years and I’ve seen this ridiculous game over and over and over and it always follows the same pattern only now the empire is desperate and throwing in non white people into their game to AGAIN fool you into having hope in this decaying empire that has given us what? What on Earth has it given us only pain and misery everything we’ve been able to achieve has been in spite of and come at a cost of struggle that has cost blood NOT by this game show that produces Trump in the first place… Organize!”

Like Rice, Harris might understand the terrorizing of a community from her childhood experiences, but she has not been able to transfer that empathy to foreign policy. Moreover, as a Palestine Chronicle blog post attests, Harris   sports “a record of fighting for civil rights, freedom, and equality in America.”

Yet, as Kyle Kulinksi, a left-wing commentator and founder of the progressive political action committee Justice Democrats, observes, by ignoring Israel’s Occupation of Palestine, Harris is showing that “her moral and ethical concerns are non-existent.”

In a July 8, 2019 article in Electronic Intifada which is resurfacing again after Biden’s pick, Ali Abunimah claims that “[Harris’] support for freedom, civil rights and equality does not extend to one group of people systematically and violently denied them: Palestinians.” On this issue, she appears very much in line with Biden, whose support for Israel has been covered by the media for several years.

Given her record in California, I would argue that Harris’ domestic and foreign policy are all of one piece, seamlessly endorsing some of the same practices as those found in Israel. As AG in California, her stance on incarcerated prisoners was that they were expendable, much like Israel views Palestinians, and really the way that any settler colonial regime views the colonized. For example, when told to reduce the population of California’s crowned prisons, AG Harris’ office responded that if non-violent offenders were released that would lower the prison system’s source of cheap labor.

Writing for In These Times, Marie Gottschalk maintains that

“A new generation of prosecutors is willing to take on the Fraternal Order of Police and the statewide associations of district attorneys and sheriffs—some of the biggest obstacles to real criminal justice reform. And powerful local coalitions are emerging to make sure that those like Harris, who aspire to be ‘progressive prosecutors,’ do not pull back once they are elected to office.”

Will these young prosecutors, though, see the close links between foreign and domestic policies, particularly with respect to America’s ties to Israel? While liberals are quick to overlook the Biden / Harris position on the Occupation, they do so at their peril. As Michael Brown observes: “Substance on Palestine and settler-colonialism also matters and speaks volumes about a person.”

In the words of Palestinian-American writer/activist Steven Salaita: “Silence about ethnic cleansing is a sacrifice much greater than any principle an American might compromise in order to arrive at a voting decision.”

As commentators said after the shooting of George Floyd, our support of such tactics in other countries has implications for the state of our government at home. In addition to the exchange of military tactics and surveillance techniques, Israel’s disregard for what it deems a disposable population was mirrored in Harris’ legal career in California.

Indeed, if Israel meets her human rights standards, as she said, what does that say for what her bar will be at home? Unless we have the courage to look at the entire picture, not just what we want to see, we are doomed to repeat the protests that are going to follow after the shooting of many George Floyds in the future.

– Benay Blend earned her doctorate in American Studies from the University of New Mexico. Her scholarly works include Douglas Vakoch and Sam Mickey, Eds. (2017), “’Neither Homeland Nor Exile are Words’: ‘Situated Knowledge’ in the Works of Palestinian and Native American Writers”. She contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

Seeing the Tree But Not the Forest: Systemic Racism in American and Israeli Policing

July 31, 2020

By Benay Blend

Since the murder of George Floyd by the Minneapolis police, his name has (or should have) become a household word. When Mawusi Ture, an activist with the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP), asked if I would write about a similar incident, I was embarrassed that I had to look up the particulars of the case. John Neville also died in police custody, his last words were those of Floyd:   “Let me go.” “Help me up.” “Mama.” “I can’t breathe.”

Neville’s death, and others like it both in America and Occupied Palestine, bears mention beyond the tragedy of this man. The circumstances of his final moments are indicative of the systemic racism embedded in America’s policing and in Israel where many of our police are trained

On December 1, 2019, guards booked John Neville into the Forsyth County jail in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Reporting for the New York Times, Michael Levenson summed up the subsequent events. About 24 hours after his arrest, Neville fell from his top bunk onto the concrete floor. After what appeared to be a seizure, detention officers and a nurse moved him to another cell for observation.

In reality, he was left restrained on his stomach, calling out for help, much like George Floyd. Two days later he died from a brain injury due to cardiac arrest, which in turn was caused by asphyxia during a prone restraint.

In early July, five former detention officers and the attending nurse were charged with involuntary manslaughter in the death of John Neville, yet another Black man who called out “I can’t breathe.”

“Good men and women made bad decisions that day and, as a result, a good man died,” the Forsyth County sheriff, Bobby F. Kimbrough Jr., whose office runs the county jail, said at the news conference.

However, this case was not about good cops who make bad decisions, but rather systemic racism that has long been embedded in America’s policing. As Levenson observes, the charges were the newest in a long string of similar incidents that have inspired global protests against police brutality due to systemic racism in the force.

Over the past ten years, The New York Times found at least 70 people have died at the hands of the police after reiterating Floyd’s words: “I can’t breathe.” On an interactive page, the Times recorded all the words, that of the victim but also the victimizer’s failure to respond, that were said at the time of death.

After the death of George Floyd, videos surfaced of Israeli police performing the same knee-on-the- neck procedure with Palestinians that was responsible for Floyd’s demise. According to Sheren Khalel, the images have renewed concerns about programs that send American police to train under Israeli military forces.

Neighboring Durham, North Carolina’s City Council voted two years ago to bar its police department from engaging in “military-style training” programs abroad. While there seems to be no documentation specific to Winston-Salem, Khalel notes that North Carolina remains one of many states that participates in what Jewish Voice for Peace has labeled Deadly Exchange.

Palestinian Americans had long drawn comparisons between the US and Israeli use of tactics. Palestinians, too, quickly showed support after the murder of George Floyd, partly because of their own long history of oppression at the hands of Israeli cops.

Indeed, on July 8, Middle East Monitor (MEMO) reported that a Palestinian prisoner detained in Israeli jails had died of “medical negligence,” in much the say way as John Neville. In Saadi Al-Gharably’s case, a local NGO conveyed that Al-Gharably had suffered from prostate cancer, diabetes and blood pressure, none of which received medical attention during his time in prison.

Referring to a report from the Media Office of the Palestinian Prisoners, MEMO related that around 222 Palestinian detainees are said to have died in Israeli prisons, while over 5,500 Palestinians are currently held in Israeli jails where they are now even more at risk from the Covid-19 virus.

Shortly after Floyd’s death, Mohammad al-Qadi, a Palestinian marathon runner from the Occupied West Bank tweeted several pictures showing Israeli police using the same chokehold on Palestinians that had been employed on Floyd. “Crazy how the same thing happens in Palestine but the world chooses to ignore it,” al-Qadi captioned, describing with some anger the world’s indifference to suffering in his country.

What does it take to ignite an uprising that draws awareness to injustice? In occupied Palestine, it was the burning alive of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, 16, by three young Israeli settlers that called attention to the 2014 war on Gaza. In America, the murder of George Floyd sparked protests that continue on today.

Both events were watersheds, a spark after decades of Occupation in Palestine and centuries of the same in the United States. Such tragedies need to be put into historical context. Without that kind of grounding, movements that are organized around one event, like for example the anti-war campaign during Vietnam, run the risk of losing momentum when the original galvanizing force is gone.

Other pitfalls, too, could be avoided by placing each victim of police brutality within a timeline. For example, there have recently been important analyses on the tendency of brands and corporations to commodify Black lives. “As brands all over the world are taking a stand,” writes Leonie Annor-Owiredu, the questions should be: “where were you then, why now, and for how long will you take a stand?”

“Brands must be willing to take on struggles,” she continues, “instead of simply supposing/announcing themselves to be allies to the cause.” Context also plays a part in highlighting the Wall of Moms, a group that Dani Blum observes first started at the Portland protests but more recently have mobilized collectives across the country. Arm-in-arm, they have formed human shields between protestors and federal agents.

While admirable, McKensie Mack noted in a Facebook post that Black mothers in Englewood have been protesting violence in their community for years by creating a wall of justice around it in the same way as the Wall of Moms, by using their bodies as a shield. “We have a history,” Mack reminds her readers. “Let’s honor it. Let’s tell it right.”

By placing targeted groups—whether Palestinians or African Americans—at the center of their struggles, by placing those movements within historical contexts, there is a continuity that is less likely to be commodified by opportunists who soon move on to the next thing when they get tired.

It also makes clear that certain communities have entire systems and structures set against them. George Floyd and Mohammed Abu Khdeir were not one-time tragedies, but rather the latest in an entire history of atrocities meted out by settler-colonial states.

“The revolution won’t be sustained in diversity schemes,” Annor-Owiredu warns. It requires structural changes to bring about real justice.

Palestinians and people of color understand the importance of narration from below. In the words of journalist Ramzy Baroud, such history must rely on “the collective memory of the Palestinian people,” an accounting that defines “what it means to be Palestinian…what they stand for as a nation, and why they have resisted for years..”

– Benay Blend earned her doctorate in American Studies from the University of New Mexico. Her scholarly works include Douglas Vakoch and Sam Mickey, Eds. (2017), “’Neither Homeland Nor Exile are Words’: ‘Situated Knowledge’ in the Works of Palestinian and Native American Writers”. She contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

The Unconscious is Wiley’s Discourse

 BY GILAD ATZMON

wiley.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

 If Britain were a healthy society the #Wiley saga would have triggered an open discussion about race and privilege. Wiley would be invited to BBC Newsnight, he would be challenged by one of BBC’s anchors, he would be confronted by one or two representatives of the Jewish community, he would have a chance to explain where he comes from. We would be better able to understand the emerging clash between Jews and Blacks.

But Britain is not very healthy at the moment and none of the above has happened. 

What happened instead was George Floyd all over again, but with a few major and significant differences. In the case of George Floyd a few policemen engaged in a deadly brutal and insidious act. In the case of Wiley, the entire Zionist league and its allies used a collective public knee to attempt the annihilation of the Black music icon. Another difference reflects on all of us. Following the Floyd murder thousands of Brits went to the streets to loudly proclaim that Black Lives Matter. They confronted the British police, they destroyed statues of slave traders. Who took to the streets to support Wiley?  Do Black Lives Matter only so long as Blacks do not open their mouths?

Watch Wiley in action:

Wiley’s comments didn’t trigger the desirable, if heated, debate because Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to silence criticism of Jewish power. Every means that serves this cause is considered legitimate. Interestingly, the disabling of speech is so extreme that one can’t find out what  it was that Wiley said that was so offensive. His tweets were initially removed by Twitter and as his twitter account is suspended.

Every news outlet in Britain and beyond has told us that Wiley’s tweets were horrid and anti-Semitic but no one dares to provide an example. It seems we are not even allowed to know what it is that we shouldn’t say. Possibly the censorship is even more sinister, they don’t want Wiley quoted only to find out that a large number of  Brits, possibly including prominent Jewish voices,  actually agree with the gist of Wiley’s statement.    

Wiley is accused of promoting “Conspiracy Theories” about Jews and their power. This is slightly confusing because Jews often brag about their power and success. According to the Jewish site Israelunwired, Alan Dershowitz’s message to the Jews reflects a celebration of the power of Jews:  “Why is it that Jews feel they need to apologize? Why do they feel that because they are strong and have contributed so much to the world, that deserves an apology? On the contrary! Jews should feel proud that God has given them such strength. And they have used it to help others. It is crazy that the world still has such negative beliefs about the Jewish people!”

On its face, it seems as if today’s Number One  ‘Amalek,’ Wiley, a Black celebrity rapper and our prime Zionist mouthpiece, Dershowitz, agree on the significance of Jews in different domains. However, Dershowitz is entitled to brag about Jewish achievements, the Black voice Wiley is reduced to dust and declared public enemy number one.

Back in 2018 Dershowitz admitted in an  Washington Examiner article that “it is true that Jews are represented in large numbers in various professionals such as the academy, finance, and the media.” Dershowitz also believes that Jewish prominence  “is not because they are given preferential treatment. It is because they have proved to be successful at these enterprises. Should they be blamed for that?”

Like Dershowitz I believe that some Jews are gifted in certain areas, I also believe that people who work hard deserve acknowledgment. I am pretty sure that Wiley also agrees with that.  So where is the dispute? 

In both my writing and talks I keep insisting that there are no “Jewish conspiracies,” all is done in the open, whether it is AIPAC domination of  USA foreign policy or Epstein flying world leaders on his Lolita Express, but you can’t talk about it.  Dershowitz can brag about Jewish achievements: the rest of us can’t. Maybe we are tapping here into the true meaning of Jewish privilege. 

In the last two days I searched the net to find out what words Wiley said.  I found no trace, but the BBC, the failure news outlet, was proud to provide us with an extended  monologue delivered by Emma Barnett.

Tweet

Emma Barnett told her BBC listeners that she went through Wiley’s tweets and they where “straight out of the Hitler playbook of 1930s Nazi Germany.”

According to Barnett, Wiley tweeted that “Jewish people are cowards do something to me, I am waiting.” This doesn’t sound like Hitler to me.  It is crude, it is a challenge, it involves an essentialist generalization but contains nothing that echoes Hitler or Nazi Germany. However, they still came at Wiley as hard as they could.  Maybe Wiley should be recognized as the last prophet. They may want to consider integrating his tweets into the Hebrew Bible.

“They act rough,” she quotes Wiley as writing,  “but they hide behind the police” – in fact, this  sounds to me like a tweet by a Jewish pressure group bragging about its intimate “partnership”  with UK police (also look here and here).

Barnett quotes Wiley,  “who writes the laws, who changes the law, who implements the laws?”  80% of our conservative MPs are members of the Conservative Friends of Israel so the priorities of our ‘lawmakers’ are obvious.  Maybe Barnett should use this opportunity and tell us how many Conservatives are friends of Hartlepool, Liverpool or any other Pool in the Kingdom.

“Who runs the world?” Wiley asks. I guess that when Epstein, Maxwell, Wexner and Weinstein are constantly in the headlines, this question may be rhetorical.  Does Mrs. Barnett need me to introduce her to the work of Jared Kushner and his role in the Trump administration? Maybe the name Rahm Israel Emanuel rings a bell? Do I have to tell Barnett about AIPAC, CFI, LFI or the Crif?

“Who runs banking?”  Barnett quotes from Wiley’s tweet. Maybe Dershowitz could help defend Wiley as he calls upon Jews to be proud of their achievements in this domain. Barnett can also look at George Soros and Black Wednesday. She  can look at  Goldman Sachs, Greenspan, Yellen… the list is pretty endless and growing by the day.  

I guess that Barnett is sincere when she complains that  “these words play of a very deep Jewish hidden fear that anti-Semitism rises up.”  Yet, is “hidden” the right term? I ask because we are blitzed day and night by repetitions of this very specific Jewish fear. If there is anything that isn’t ‘hidden’ in Britain it must be the ‘Jewish fear of anti-Semitism.’

Emma Barnett doesn’t want us to talk about #Jewishprivilege.  I am afraid that pushing all of social media to blacklist  a Black cultural hero just  a month after George Floyd, with No 10 and Priti Patel  also pushing  on behalf of Zion, is a privilege no other ethnic minority enjoys, certainly not the bronze community of former world leaders that were toppled one after another in recent weeks.

I do partially agree with Emma Barnet when she says  “Jews don’t run the law.” Absolutely correct Emma, Jews don’t run the law,  but Jewish pressure groups do and they  boast about it 24/7.

Barnett declares, “Jews do not run the banks,”  True again Emma, but Jews are vastly over represented in every banking and investment sector as Dershowitz  boasted above.

“Jews do not run the world!” Absolutely true but AIPAC dominates American foreign policy and is proud of it. 

“Where did it get his anti-Semitic memo from?” Barnett asks. I find this question slightly perplexing since statistics confirm that a large segment of Europeans may agree with Wiley.  A  recent major survey of public attitudes for CNN found more than a fifth of the 7,000 people polled in seven countries believed Jewish people have too much influence in finance and politics. The ADL is telling us in its latest survey that 1.09 billion “People in the world harbour anti-Semitic attitudes” out of 4 billion surveyed. Once again we are talking about 25%. To answer Barnett’s question, If Wiley was really looking for an educational source he had more than a billion people to choose from. It seems as if according to the ADL, one out of four people admit to their feelings about Jews as long as they stay anonymous. This may reveal what Wiley’s ‘crime’ was. He uttered that which most people are trained to keep to themselves.   

Wiley gave us an opportunity to meet our demons, to understand what we are for real. The picture that is unfolding from that saga is grim and points to a darker future.  We are terrified of our rulers and we are tormented by our own thoughts which we are scared to admit to ourselves. We are living in a world where maintaining a social media account is way more important than our own truth. This is how far we are removed from our Athenian cultural, spiritual and intellectual ethos that made the west into a distinct civilization.  

For those who are confused by the Jewish institutional reaction to Wiley,  the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan offers an explanation. “The unconscious is the discourse of the Other,” was, I believe, Lacan’s most important insight. The unconscious is the fear that everybody out there sees you as you are and even worse, discusses you with others behind your back. The unconscious is the fear that if you fail in bed tonight; tomorrow your neighbours will refer to you as ‘the impotent.’ In Lacanian perspectives, for self identified Jews, it seems the unconscious is the discourse of the Goyim, it is the fear that those one billion identified by the ADL as ‘anti-Semites’ will start to explore their views in the open.  It is the unbearable fear that the ‘Goyim Know.’  

Lacan’s insight helps us grasp the hysteria around Wiley and anti-Semitism. Self-identified Jews are very happy to brag about their successes but the idea that the same success is scrutinized by others devastates their entire existence.

If Britain were an open space, we could openly discuss all of this and move our society forward towards harmony and reconciliation. Both Jews and gentiles would benefit from such a discourse. But Britain is an occupied zone and for more than a while. It is invaded by fear and dominated by the politics of fear. This type of politics, when it appears in other countries, is called ‘terror,’ ‘fascism,’ ‘authoritarianism,’ ‘totalitarianism,’ and ‘tyrannical conditions.’ Maybe time is overdue for Jews and Goyim alike to decide if these are the conditions they want to live in.   

Thanks for supporting Gilad’s battle for truth and justice.

My battle for truth involves a serious commitment and some substantial expenses. I have put my career on the line, I could do with your support..

Donate

Bring In The Feds! Protection Of Natural Rights Trumps Federalism

Bring In The Feds! Protection Of Natural Rights Trumps Federalism

July 27, 2020

by Ilana Mercer, posted with the author’s authorization

America circa 2020 continues to erupt in riots, spurred by the death-by-cop of George Floyd. The violence is qualitatively different to the violence that roiled the U.S. during the race riots of 1964.

Whether you thought those riots right or wrong, back in 1964, state police officers were a forceful presence for law-and-order. They did damage to rioters as deliberately as they defended people and their property.

End-stage America” riots, referred to by the malfunctioning media as “peaceful protests,” have engulfed “over 2,000 cities and towns in all 50 states.”

Even Wikipedia has conceded that “most large cities [have seen and are seeing] large scale rioting, looting, and burning of businesses and police cars.” You know how bad things are when such habitual liars for the Left admit to “large-scale” destruction by the Left.

This “mostly peaceful” mob even murdered a man, in Minneapolis, and burned down a pawnshop, all in memory of George Floyd.

Neutered, coopted, infiltrated and compromised—the police force in 2020 is missing in action. In the rare event that they act in accordance with their constitutional obligation to protect innocent people and their property, the police are hobbled—prevented from deploying riot-control tactics and, thus, invariably “hurt and hospitalized.

End-stage America” and its kneeling, pleading police force is the result of institutional rot, brought about because of the Left’s lengthy control of the intellectual means of production (neocons and ConInkers are collaborators).

In 1964, The Law would not countenance the disruption of public order and tranquility. The Law in 2020 has helped invert ordered liberty, so that, in America today, the law protects the outlaw against the law-abiding.

Witness the case of Mark and Patricia McCloskey: Riffraff invaded their grounds and encroached on their residence. The legacy media faulted the St. Louis couple, framing the two’s self-defense stance and deterrence as dangerous aggression. The Law followed through with weapons confiscation and criminal charges.

The police, whose first duty is to uphold the negative rights of the citizens, appear to believe they serve not the citizens but local mob bosses like Seattle’s mayor, Jenny Durkan, and her crooked police chief, Carmen Best. The latter, who seems to worry more about the weave on her head and eyelashes than about the working people of the city, commanded her compliant and cowardly police officers to desert their posts and the people they swore to protect.

Another Black Lives Matter stooge—all-round coward and oath-of-office violator—is Paul Pazen, police chief of Denver, Colorado. He stands complicit in standing down so as to enable the violent attack on author and activist Michelle Malkin.

Ms. Malkin, the scrappiest, bravest woman in America, was physically assaulted at a “Back the Blue” rally, in Denver, Colorado, on July 21. Police were present all right. They watched on as a bulldyke with a baton advanced on a little Braveheart of a lady, who screamed her lungs out in fury, not in fear.

But the boys in blue for whom Michelle stood up, stood down.

Inspired by scenes of wanton destruction openly enabled by elected authorities and their private militia—the police—Chris Cuomo of CNN minted a new phrase for the kind of “peaceful protesters,” who physically struck the diminutive Ms. Malkin and are destroying structures across the country: “Inequality riots.”

“Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto”: Another morally corrupt celebrity, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat from New York, has made the Jean Valjean Argument from Bread: Rioters are hungry. Indeed, there are some “heartbreaking videos of starving New Yorkers stealing bread from … a Chanel flagship store on Fifth Avenue.”

The same scenes played out in thousands of cities across the country. Worst of all have been Portland, in Oregon, and Seattle in Washington State.

So, finally, President Trump has sent in the cavalry. The president launched “Operation Legend.” “Announcing a surge of federal law enforcement in American communities plagued by violent crime,” Trump added that he had “no choice but to get involved.”

This paleolibertarian supports the president’s belated defensive actions to launch a counter-terrorism operation with the aim of crushing a violent insurrection against law-abiding America.

It is essential to take back the streets, and to quit misnaming a repulsive specter that is neither democratic nor peaceful.

Upholding rights to life, liberty and property is a government’s primary—some would say only—duty.

Belatedly, and in furtherance of the violation of individual rights, Democrats frequently rediscover American federalism. (In fairness, to promote their political agenda, Republicans are as opportunistic about deferring to the division-of-power bequeathed by the Founders. Rather than mandate facemasks to save people from dying and killing others; Republicans have left local leaders to supervise the killing fields of COVID.)

The reason the president’s domestic counter-terrorism operation is warranted is because the people’s rights to life, liberty and property are being systematically violated.

And natural rights antedate the state apparatus. Federalism is an excellent principle, but it is not a religion.

Michelle Malkin has a natural right to walk about unmolested and speak her mind free of bodily harm. If Colorado officials will not uphold her inalienable natural rights in Colorado, and mine in Washington State, then bring in the feds. Better still, free armed citizens to do the job their representatives, ostensibly bound by the Constitution, have shirked.

What a shame that a debate that ought to be about inalienable individual rights is straitjacketed into statist terminology.

We are told that “federal authorities from the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service, DEA and ATF” have arrived in our states to protect federal property (court houses, in the main), when their true duty is to uphold inalienable rights undermined.

The level of decision-making is immaterial; what matters is the decision. No one has the right to threaten lives and livelihoods (that includes the Internal Revenue Service). By logical extension, it matters not who upholds those inalienable rights to work and walk about Seattle and Denver unmolested—which state or federal official—just so long as someone does.

Yes, suddenly loathsome local leaders like Seattle’s Mayor Jenny, Portland’s Mayor Ted Wheeler (who was tear-gassed by federal agents on Wednesday night), Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D), and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) are decrying “a blatant abuse of power,” given that policing is the purview of “states, and governors and locals officials.”

To repeat, natural rights antedate the state apparatus and the federal scheme. And although federalism is an excellent principle, it is not a religion.

In their appetite for destruction, these liberal “leaders” have rediscovered principles for which they’ve hitherto had nothing but contempt.

In the liberal vernacular, States’ Rights are synonyms for racial hatred and discrimination. Now Democrats are shrieking louder than Dixiecrats ever did that the intervention by the Federal government in state affairs might undermine this “cherished” principle. (So, they know about the 10th Amendment?)

What’s next in liberal two-facedness? As they shield lawbreakers and attack the law-abiding, will Mayors Jenny, Lori and Ted lecture that, “We are a nation of laws”?

These confused casuists, whose reasoning is even more meager than their morals, don’t know that the long tradition of English and American law and the Christian religion favors the preservation of life, liberty and property over their forfeiture.

**

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 on Twitter, Facebook , Gab & YouTube

Racism, inequality, and conflict: an interview with Prof. Robert Sapolsky

Source

Earlier this month, I conducted an interview with Dr. Robert Sapolsky, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University, to discuss different issues such as racism, economic inequality, and partisan polarization. He was very generous with his time and provided us with in-depth analyses of such fundamental issues.

Dr. Robert Sapolsky is John A. and Cynthia Fry Gunn Professor of Biological Sciences at Stanford University, Professor of Neurology and Neurosurgery at Stanford’s School of Medicine, and a research associate at the Institute of Primate Research of the National Museums of Kenya. He is a recipient of a MacArthur genius fellowship and the author of several books, including Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers: A Guide to Stress-Related Diseases and Coping (1995) and Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (2017).

Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.

Question: Thank you very much for being with me, Dr. Sapolsky. Now, let’s start with the recent events in the United States, especially the police killing of George Floyd and the protests that broke out afterward. When something like that happens, what’s the first thing that comes into your mind?

Answer: I think basically racism is the single biggest historical problem in the United States. To use a religious word that I use as someone who is not religious, I think it is the “original sin” of the United States. And it did not end with slavery ending in 1865. It did not end with racial segregation ending in the 1960s. It remains just as much of a problem.

The only difference between the George Floyd case and so many others is that somebody videotaped it this time, not that the police actions are new. This has been happening for more than a hundred years or so. All that is happening is people are being able to document it to prove what is actually occurring. All of that said, we’ve now had videotapes of numerous African-American men being killed by the police in the last few years, and each time it causes some protests. This is the first time it has caused protests this big, and maybe this is going to cause meaningful changes, but I’m not optimistic about that. People have short memories in this country.

Q: So, do you regard racism as a cultural issue, or is it an innate characteristic of human beings?


A: Well, in so far as I think the science shows, race is not a particularly strong innate category in our heads, and racism can be changed as an unconscious category surprisingly easily. We are not looking at biology here. It’s cultural, but it is very deeply cultural.
“I think basically racism is the single biggest historical problem in the United States,” says Dr. Robert Sapolsky.
In some ways, the most depressing version of it was a study in the 1950s by a husband-and-wife pair of psychologists that horrified anyone who thought about it. It was this famous first study where they took black kids and gave them a choice of playing with a white doll or a black doll and asked them which one they wanted to play with and why. It showed that black kids in America, even at age seven, were already saying the white doll “is prettier”, the white doll “is nicer”, and the white doll “isn’t scary”. Seven-year-old black kids have already been taught to think about themselves that way!
When there was this famous case in the 1950s in the Supreme Court, where they finally ruled that you cannot have racial segregation, that you cannot be like South Africa, and that you cannot have separate schools for black kids and schools for white kids, that study was one of the most cited reasons behind the court’s decision.
Researchers are STILL finding the exact same thing. Your average black kid today still prefers to play with white dolls, because they’re “nicer” and they’re “less likely to hurt you”. So, racism is such a deep, deep phenomenon here, and few things say that more clearly than when people have been conditioned to have negative, racist feelings about themselves.
Q: As a neurobiologist, what do you regard as viable solutions to the issue of racism?
A: Well, there are slight hints of things to be optimistic about from the standpoint of neurobiology. For instance, if you put a white American in a brain scanner, and you quickly flash up a series of pictures of faces on a screen, and you flash up the face of an African-American person, in approximately seventy-five percent of white people, there’s an activation of the amygdala, which is a part of the brain that has to do with fear and anxiety and aggression. Oh, my god! This is fascinating and so depressing at the same time.
Also, the part of the brain that processes “faces” (called the fusiform cortex) does not activate as much in those seventy-five percent of white people looking at a black face, because it doesn’t count as “a face” as much. It’s not as much of a person. So, oh my God, this is so depressing and so horrible!
But wait a second, what about the twenty-five percent of the people where that does not happen? The answer is those are white people who grew up with close friends who are African-American. Those are people who had a romantic relationship with an African-American somewhere along the way. In another word, it is not inevitable but some of the best solutions for that start when you’re two years old.
Current racial segregation in schools in the U.S. is not because of laws, but because of economic inequality and cultural factors, the professor remarks.
However, in many parts of the United States in the big cities, the level of racial segregation – the extent to which if you’re black you are likely to be going to a public school, where 95 percent of the other kids are black, and if you’re white, the same thing in that direction – is as bad as it was in the 1950s. It’s not because of laws, but because of economics and cultural factors.
So, it is the massive issues that need to be changed starting early in life. Although it is possible to take an adult who was a racist – even on the most implicit, unconscious level – and change him or her, but it’s hard work and it’s a lot harder than preventing a three-year-old from becoming a racist in the first place. But the other issue is just such enormous economic inequality in this country by race. It’s so deeply structured in the economic and educational system here that all it does is find ways to become stronger each generation.
Q: You mentioned economic inequality and how being poor or rich leads to some kind of economic segregation. Now, I want to know what the findings show about being poor, especially with regard to children who are born into poverty.
A: I spent years studying what stress and stress hormones and poverty can do to the hippocampus – the part of the brain relevant to memory and learning. That’s so important and so interesting. However, I now think I spent thirty years of my life wasted because I was studying the wrong part of the brain. Much more interesting is studying that a stressor such as poverty not only makes you have less of a memory, but it also makes you more prone to depression. Even more importantly, it makes you more prone to fear and anxiety. Even more importantly, it makes you prone to making bad decisions when you have to make them quickly. And what I’m now starting to think is the most important one, it makes you less empathic toward other people.
Everyone focused on how poverty makes people less healthy. Poverty also makes for a more violent world, and it makes for a less kind and less humane world. That last part I think is the most important one. Even today, we know a little bit about what’s going on in the brain, in a world in which people are stressed and their brains have changed in response to stress from the time they were a fetus because stress hormone levels in pregnant women vary as a function of poverty levels. In other words, higher stress hormone levels in pregnant women are already affecting the brain of the fetus. Even at that stage, you are already changing aspects of the brain that could be for your entire life, that are going to make for people who make a society that is less kind and less safe and less healthy and less intelligent in every possible way that could go wrong. That’s just enormously depressing.
Q: You have spoken and written extensively about how economic inequality affects an individual and a society. Could you explain how that works?
A: When you look at poverty, you see that it is a predictor of poor health, more violence, less kindness, and all of those things. But even more important than poverty is inequality, which is not so much about being poor, rather, it’s about being reminded every day of what you don’t have and what others have. It’s the comparison.
Researchers have spent a lot of time showing that when inequality increases, the health of the poor gets worse, their crime rates go up and all of those bad things happen. But something that is even more interesting in some ways is that when inequality goes up, the health of the WEALTHY gets worse too. Of course, not as much as the poor, but it gets worse for them as well.
It’s not that if you are in the right part of society you can selfishly say that it’s their problem, because even if you’re wealthy and you don’t care about anyone else, living in an unequal society is even bad for your health, because it stresses you. For example, you have to spend more of your income on your house alarm system. You have to spend more of your income sending your children to private schools because the public schools are “too dangerous”.
It’s very stressful to try to construct a world in which nothing stressful can happen to you. In other words, it’s every level of society that pays for it and I think we see that in the United States. That’s why most of the wealthy vote for Donald Trump. Because they suffer too.
The voting patterns show that the wealthy in the cities are more in the direction of supporting the Democrats and are a little more liberal, in contrast to the wealthy in the suburbs and in rural areas. If you’re wealthy in a city, for example, if you’re going to the opera and you’re paying a crazy amount of money for it and you’re wearing a tuxedo and your life is wonderful, even just getting out of your limousine and going to the opera, you’re gonna have to step over somebody who is sleeping on the sidewalk because he is homeless. Even on the level of selfishness, you would say, “We have to do something about the homeless because it’s really very uncomfortable to go to the opera and have to see homeless people.”
But if you live in the rural areas and you’re a billionaire and you go to a rodeo of cowboys steer roping, if that’s your idea of fun, you’re not gonna have to step over homeless people – it’s a different world than that. But even the wealthy here pay a price for inequality.
Q: So, inequality is generally another category to divide the world into Us-es and Thems, which in turn would lead to more public anxiety.
A: Absolutely. And as a measure of how fast that could happen, you do studies where university students play an economic game, and then you introduce inequality to the game. For instance, half of the subjects start the game with ten units of money, and the other half start with a hundred units. Two minutes ago, the students were economically roughly equal and they were from the same dormitory. But now, even within minutes of artificially introducing inequality to the game, you already begin to see some of those behaviors.
According to Dr. Sapolsky, when there’s rampant economic inequality in a society, even the wealthy are negatively impacted by it.
It is so fast and it is so strong. To see one of the reasons why kindness and empathy go down, suppose you have a world where everybody gets one of two different incomes: Fifty percent of people get ten units of money a year, and fifty percent get a hundred units a year. That’s so unequal! But even with that, at any given point, half of the people in your world at least have the same income that you do. At least economically they are somewhat equal to you.
But if instead, only one percent of people in the country are getting the same income you’re getting, the inequality spreads out enormously. There will be fewer people who are your peers. A greater percentage of the people around you are either poorer or richer than you. If they’re poorer than you, you are afraid of them, or you want to keep them away, or you’re disgusted by them. And if they’re richer than you, you resent them and you envy them. So, you don’t have equals. The more inequality there is, the more of a hierarchy there is, and the more of a hierarchy, the fewer peers you have whom you are more likely to be kind to, and who are more likely to be kind to you. It makes for a more awful world by definition.
Q: Like the U.S., my own country, Iran, has turned into a very divided nation in recent years. However, when I follow the U.S. news, I feel that the level of polarization in the United States is perhaps much worse than that of Iran. What are the roots of such polarization? And what do you think is the solution?
A: Well, to begin with, Donald Trump is not the cause of it. Donald Trump is a symptom of it. He is the complete logical outcome of what the issues are here. I think basically what has happened is inequality has gone up, employment has gotten worse, and poverty levels have gotten worse, because so many jobs have been sent to poorer countries by the corporations here that don’t care or because so many more jobs are being automated.
And what happens as people get more stressed and more angry and more worried is, whether you are a rat or a baboon or a human, the basic neurobiology is to turn on somebody else and to have a very hard time realizing that it’s the fault of the people up on top, instead of the person who’s standing right next to you hoping for the same job.
The people in power are brilliant at making you turn on the person standing next to you instead of on them. And all it does is make things worse. If you are in the most dangerous part of the population in the United States, which is if you are an older white guy who never got much education and has now spent thirty years getting less proportionate income each year, and thirty years watching more and more people competing for your job, especially people who do not look like you, and seeing more and more of the teachers at your children’s schools not looking like you, and the people on television not looking like you, and the people getting elected not looking like you, and all of that is unconsciously telling you over and over that it is not your culture anymore, that you do not rule this place anymore.
Q: So, in this context, the idea of bringing people of different backgrounds together doesn’t resolve that issue, right?
A: No, because you have to do it the right way. People used to say “Ooh, if you could take people from two different groups who don’t like each other, if you could bring individuals together and let them spend time together, they will learn to see each other as individuals and they will learn that there are more similarities than differences and it would be wonderful, etc.” However, sixty years’ worth of research on contact theory has shown that most of the time it does not work, because it has not been done in the correct way. And if you do it the really wrong way, you will make things worse.
It takes a lot for it to work correctly. You can’t do it for a weekend or even a week. It takes contact lasting for months. It has to be on equal grounds. It has to be in settings where you are not seeing the other group’s symbols, which are a constant reminder to you.
“What happens as people get more stressed and more angry and more worried is … they turn on somebody else and have a very hard time realizing that it’s the fault of the people up on top, instead of the person who’s standing right next to you hoping for the same job,” says the professor.
This past summer, my family and I went to Northern Ireland, where Catholics and Protestants have been killing each other forever, and in the 1990s, they amazingly worked out a treaty and it has become much more peaceful. Nevertheless, the capital, Belfast, is still a completely divided city. There’s a Catholic half and a Protestant half, and there’s a wall in-between. We took a tour where, for the first half of the day a seventy-five-year-old man who used to be a fighter for the Catholic groups takes you on a tour through the Catholic area, and then around twelve o’clock, you go to the gate and he hands you off to a protestant guy, who was a gunman for the Protestant group for years when he was a young man but now runs the tour of his side. Both of those men had been in jail. Both of those men killed people.
Now, you go to one side, and it has nothing but Irish flags on every single house, and the other side has nothing but British flags on every house and pictures of Queen Elizabeth, and how wonderful she is, and so on. The point is, you know, you can’t do it where you are being reminded every minute what they [pointing to the right] did to your ancestors 200 years ago, or what they [pointing to the left] did to your ancestors in the seventh century.
So, it takes a lot of work to do it right. One of the areas where it has been most studied is in summer camp programs for Palestinian and Israeli teenagers, where you bring them together and you try to do it right. You get them in a neutral setting, and you give them something they all have as a shared goal. For instance, they’re brought to a place where they have no symbols – they cannot have flags or anything like that – then you show them this field full of boulders and rocks and weeds, and you say, “Okay, if you guys wanna work together like crazy for the next week to turn this into a football field, go for it. There you go. That’s the only way you’re gonna have a football field.” And then they work like crazy, and they work in teams together, which is the sort of thing that actually helps, and you show that when they leave at the end of these two weeks, some of them have had a change in their attitudes.
They’ve been doing that for twenty years, and despite that occasional good news, what the studies have also shown is that no person who ever went to one of those groups on either side has become a leader of a peace group; next to no person on either side has stayed in touch with the person they became friends with; no person has caused other people to change their opinions. What you get instead is that the researchers come back to them one year later to ask them about the other side, and they say, “Oh, those people? They’re terrible! They’ve stolen our land,” or “They’re terrorists. They’re terrible, rotten people.” But then they say, “Oh, I knew this one guy though… He was a good guy. You know, they’re not all that way. You know, but there was this guy… I should email him to see how he’s doing,” and then they never do that. But the overall prejudice does not go away, and whatever changes there have been in your attitudes, you do not spread them to anybody else. So, it takes so much work. It takes years.
Q: And goodwill on both sides.
A: And goodwill! You have to want the change to occur. You have to actually accept that the current situation is not good. People here often say, “Oh, what’s the cause of Islamic rage against the West? It’s history. They used to be the Ottoman Empire. They used to be the Moorish Empire. They used to be amazing and now look at them. They’re just upset at what they lost in history.” So, what’s Donald Trump about? “Make America great AGAIN!” AGAIN! And what does that mean? As a secret sign to the people who support him, make it a country again where, if you are a man, you rule your home. If you are white, you rule your country. If you are Christian, you are in charge of the religious culture in your country. It’s “Make America great AGAIN!” And you are saying, “I am part of the people who feel like history has left me behind, and this used to be my place to rule, and it’s no longer like that, and we need to go back.” It’s the same historicism.
Q: Now, I also want to talk about your book, “Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst”. In your book, you argue that “knowing a judge’s opinions about Plato, Nietzsche, Rawls,” and other philosophers “gives you less predictive power about her judicial decisions than knowing if she’s hungry.” Could you elaborate what that means?
A: Yeah, it’s wonderful! I love that finding – that finding and the finding that if you put someone in a room that smells bad, people become more politically conservative about social issues. I tell those findings to an audience and you could hear people say, “Whoa!” Or whenever I’m speaking to law students and I tell that one about judges, you can just hear people laughing a little bit in the audience and saying, “Oh, my God! What is wrong with us?”
Q: So, would you explain what happens in the study?
A: Okay. In this study, the researchers looked at parole boards. A parole board is a panel of people who decide whether a prisoner has behaved well enough that they should be released early. So, it was a study looking at parole board judges’ decisions, and it showed that the single biggest predictor of whether a prisoner was paroled or sent back to jail was how many hours it has been since the parole board judges had a MEAL. If you appeared before a judge right after they had a meal, you had a sixty-percent chance of being paroled. By three hours later, it was down to a zero-percent chance.
And then you ask the judge afterward, “Wow! That’s interesting! You let this guy [pointing to the right] free two hours ago, but now you sent this guy [pointing to the left] back to jail. How come?” And they will talk to you about Aristotle and Plato. They’re not gonna say because I’m hungry. But the biology of it shows that that’s the case. When their blood sugar levels are low, people become less generous, they become less empathic, and they become likely to cheat when they’re playing an economic game. And why is this? Because the parts of your brain that have to make you do the harder thing when it is the right thing to do have a higher metabolic rate than other parts of your brain. In other words, they demand more energy.
It takes energy to think twice about someone instead of just saying, “They’re rotten! Throw them back to jail.” Stopping and saying, “Well, let’s see. They grew up in a world that I never experienced. What was the world like for them? What is…” That takes more work! And that takes more brainpower in a very literal way. The frontal cortex, which is central for making you do the harder thing when the harder thing is the more difficult thing, needs more energy. Literally, your brain needs more energy to think about somebody else’s perspective on the world than thinking about your own.
After the study was published, everybody came up with what they thought was a confound, saying, “Here’s why they did the statistics wrong.” However, it has completely held up as a finding.
Q: That’s really interesting. You said that the finding has held up against criticisms. So, has it been replicated?
A: I do not know if it’s been replicated. But there were a number of responses to it. For instance, the critics said those who conducted the study had brought the prisoners from the less dangerous prisons early in the day and brought the more dangerous prisoners later in the day, and that’s why later in the day you’re more likely to send them back to jail. However, they controlled for that, and they showed a whole bunch of possible controls that ruled that out. Basically, all of the confounds that people have pointed out were found not to be real problems.
Also, another version of this same idea is one I just mentioned, which is you put someone in an economic game, and if they’re hungry, they cheat more, they’re less generous, and they’re less kind to other players. Now, showing what it’s all about, you either give them a drink of fruit juice that is full of sugar, or as an experimental control, a drink which is full of artificial sugar, which does not do anything to brain metabolism. So, give somebody actual sugar afterward and they will now become more generous. It’s the biology [laughing]. It’s not because of having a great meal. It’s literally the biology of it. And we’re biological machines. Big surprise!
Q: Let’s also talk about the roots of conservatism and liberalism and the studies with regard to this subject, which I believe are crucial in understanding the roots of conservatism and liberalism.
A: Sure. If you’re trying to understand why someone becomes a liberal or a conservative, or what their attitudes are about economic systems, causes of poverty, causes of violence, etc., I think there are two critical factors that no political scientist thinks of. The first thing is to find out how easily disgusted someone is. Because if they have a low threshold for feeling disgusted, they’re going to more easily be disgusted by people who need their help, instead of feeling empathy for them. The second thing is do they feel excited or scared by something that is new or uncertain to them? If it’s exciting, you’re likely to be a liberal. New people, new ideas, new facial appearances, new foods, new beliefs, etc. are exciting to liberals. But if those things are scary to you and cause you to have an anxiety response, you’re gonna be a conservative. Because it’s always gonna be the case that the past is more comfortable for you than the future.
Look at somebody’s heart rate in a circumstance like that and that is a predictor of what their attitudes are going to be about issues that split conservatives and liberals. Show people pictures of something like a wound that is infected and full of flies, and see how much their stomach lurches – and people whose stomachs lurch a lot are more likely to be social conservatives.
Take a five-year-old child and their mother in a room where there are some new toys to play with. The kid is excited to be playing with them, but after a certain amount of time the mother leaves the room and you measure how much time it takes for the kid to look around and see that mom is not there anymore and to begin to cry, versus continuing to play with the toys. How easily five-year-olds have an anxiety response to novelty is predictive of their voting patterns twenty years later.
This has been shown in different studies by now. Five-year-olds do not sit there and think, “Well, is a Marxist model or a free market model better for solving inequality?” Five-year-olds sit there and feel whether the world is a scary place or is it an exciting place. And that’s the most fundamental difference in terms of the novelty-anxiety connection.
Back to the finding about conservatives and liberals tending to differ on their thresholds for disgust – on average, conservatives have more different kinds of soap in their bathrooms. They have more cleaning products! If you are a conservative, the world is a place where you need to spend more time and money on cleaning than if you are a liberal. These findings tell you that political differences are about unconscious emotional issues, rather than you thinking about whether you can trust Vladimir Putin or not.
Q: I suppose people also move to the extremes on both sides based on the circumstances. What do you think about that?
A: Well, that’s certainly the polarization that has gone on in the United States. Traditionally, liberals and progressives are more tolerant of other opinions than conservatives are. They are more in favor of the freedom of the press. They’re more in favor of pluralistic societies. So, by definition, they are more open to other viewpoints. That’s always been the case. But even liberals have become less open over the last four years. Now, they’re now spending more time attacking other liberals for not being quite as perfect of liberals as they are. When the left – at least in a place like the United States – turns ugly, what they do is they write terrible, mean essays about other people on the left. When the right turns ugly, they kill black people, or gay people, or Jews, or immigrants. But when liberals become really scared, what they’re mostly good at is deciding that other liberals are not as good of liberals as they are!
As another example, when somebody asks people, “Would you be upset if your child married someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum?” even liberals are now more upset than they were four years ago at the prospects of that. Of course, they’re less upset than a conservative would be. But even they have become less tolerant. So, yeah, people move to the extremes.
Q: Dr. Sapolsky, this was such a fascinating conversation, and it was great to hear your thoughts on these issues. Thank you very much for your time.
A: Well, thanks. It was good to talk to you.
Photo: Linda A. Cicero / Stanford News Service

The Muslim Holocaust

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is muslim-holocuast.jpg

Holocaust is a word that Zionist propagandists have reserved for Jewish experience. However, in a new book, US-Imposed Post-9/11 Muslim Holocaust & Muslim Genocide (Korsgaard Publishing, 2020), Dr. Gideon Polya documents that three to four times more Muslims have been killed by Washington’s 21st century wars than there are Jews in Israel. Polya concludes that Washington’s holocaust of Muslims is a multiple of the claimed Jewish holocaust number of 6 million.

The cost in dollars to the United States of the gratuitous murder of 32 million Muslims is in the many trillions along with thousands of dead and maimed US soldiers and 88,000 US veteran suicides since September 11, 2001. Americans have paid dearly for the hoax “war on terror” imposed on them by lies and deception.

Polya acquaints the reader with a number of holocausts: the Bengali holocaust, Somali holocaust, opiate holocaust, and the Yemeni, Palestinian, Rohingya and other genocides. In Chapter 20 Polya speaks of the American Holocaust, which consists of untimely and unnecessary American deaths from the diversion of billions of dollars from American needs to Israel.

The book is full of factual information and is heavily documented.

There are so many unacknowledged crimes of state of horrific proportion that receive no public attention that the fake news story of George Floyd’s “murder by racist white police” is difficult to comprehend. Floyd died of an overdose of the dangerous opioid Fentanyl, as the toxicology report shows. If Polya’s book has a second edition, Chapter 22, War on Truth, deserves a section on how the fake news about Floyd’s death caused billions of dollars in US property damage and irreparably harmed racial relations in the US. Indeed, in my estimation, the property damage caused by the media’s lies exceed the combined value of the media companies.

Polya’s book can be purchased here: Korsgaard Publishing and here: Amazon


By Paul Craig Roberts
Source: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy

Serbia SITREP: Day 6 – Mindless brutality escalates in Serbia

Source

Serbia SITREP: Day 6 – Mindless brutality escalates in Serbia

by Saker’s Johnny-on-the-spot in Belgrade for The Saker Blog

Yes, Israel Shamir was on to something while showering Serbs with fulsome praise for derailing the globalist project with their anti-lockdown, anti-Vučić tyranny, insurrection. A measure of respect they have indeed earned. But let’s not count chickens before they hatch. This is not yet the Serbs’ March 27 1941 moment, or even a decent replay of the gloriously defiant 1999. What it will turn out to be, time will tell.

Long on emotions and short on strategy, even Serbs are now coming round to the sensible conclusion that to rid themselves of the execrable Bastard they must first settle in their own minds the methodology of his removal. Some inkling of that incipient realization was evident on the sixth night of protest (more hard-nosed people would have taken care of that essential piece of business on the very first day). The vociferous discussion in that relatively small liberated patch of Belgrade, the parliament square, the Agora of Serbs yearning to be free, has finally turned to the paramount subject of what political demands should direct their liberation movement.

So far no clear concepts have emerged, or concise slogans encapsulating the masses’ deep-seated anger and disgust and pointing to the objectives that should be pursued and, just as importantly, in what order. Notably and ominously tonight, the disgraced “opposition” figures who were vigorously chased away just a few nights ago have popped up again to purvey their services to the crowd which, this time, appeared more receptive to their gibberish. By far the best analysis of this critical juncture the protests have reached on Day 6 was offered not by professional political hacks, talking heads, or “analysts,” but by two fearless churchmen. No, not the senile and venal Patriarch, or anyone from his coterie, but the monk Anthony, the Serbian Savonarola, and archimandrite Dr Nikodim Bogosavljević, who had the integrity to bail out of the official church because he could no longer tolerate its Sergianist charade.

Meanwhile, Vučić’s vicious tontons macoutes continued their nightly bone-breaking campaign, unabated. The tontons macoutes were the Duvalierist regime’s feared intimidators, licenced to kill and maim with impunity, for those who are not students of Haiti’s political history. (Vučić apparently is, and quite an avid one. Papa Doc’s Serbian emulator has made huge progress converting Serbia into a voodoo state, complete with his own Duvalierville, the corrupt Belgrade-on-the-Waterfront money laundering operation.)

Duvalierville Quotes By Graham Greene: The only building finished in Duvalierville is the

By all accounts, Vučić’s savage police are endowed with comparable powers. If a picture is worth a thousand words, these two “before” and “after” arrest photos must be absolutely precious:

Image
Image

Little wonder that an ugly photo, worth not a thousand but a million words, turned into a viral poster, is now circulating on the internet:

And no, these are not George Floyd copy-cat crisis actors, this is the real thing. Not in Minnesota, but in central Belgrade, Serbia, Europe, in the twenty-first century.

And here is the bruised back of the grandson of Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences member, Dušan Teodorović. (Famous statement: “As long as I live I will fight the Vučić regime”). The grandson and a some school chums went out Wednesday evening to watch the action in front of the parliament building:

Image

This young man obviously got a piece of the action that he was not bargaining for.

As did this poor autistic boy in Novi Sad who was serenely riding his bike when he chanced upon a pack of Vučić’s tontons on Modena Street:

http://srbin.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/batinjanje.jpg

The son of cartoonist Dušan Petričić also got a piece of the action, courtesy of the Vučić tontons. In an early morning raid, they came to arrest him for passing out leaflets calling for civil disobedience to the regime. Here is a sample of elder Petričić’s caricatures, depicting the precipitous decline over two centuries in the civilizational level of Serbia’s leadership, which may explain the authorities’ annoyance with the family. The African chieftain on the extreme right is, of course, You-know-who:

Image

Obviously, you do not challenge such a primitive character with Gandhian civil disobedience nonsense. You do it with a stick.

And you make sure that yours is at least twice as big as his.

It Is the Century of Falling Racism Statues…And White Supremacy

Source

It Is the Century of Falling Racism Statues…And White Supremacy

By Elham Hashemi

George Floyd’s brutal killing was like a stone thrown into the pond, causing a non-stop ripple effect. For the first time in modern history, people across the United States and Europe sound their disgust and unease towards the racist policies carried out by the US administration and the systems across the Western part of the world.

It started with protests and riots, and so far has not come to an end. One interesting scene is how the streets began to fill up with people despite police violence and statues started to fall down; these are not any statues but are in fact statues of racism and white supremacy.

In the United States, more than a dozen statues have been toppled, including several Confederate figures. To begin with, a few statues of Christopher Columbus who is depicted as “THE hero” began to fall down. Rarely do educational texts or reports refer to Columbus’s true image.

Bartolemé de las Casas, who was said to have known Columbus in person, decried the brutality in his “A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies in 1552”. He described how Columbus and the conquistadors disfigured Native slaves and fed them alive to dogs.

 A statue of Christopher Columbus was beheaded in Boston. A Columbus statue was also destroyed and dragged into a lake earlier in the week in Richmond, Virginia. After the figure was removed from its pedestal by protesters using several ropes in Richmond, a sign that reads, “Columbus represents genocide” was placed on the spray-painted foundation that once held the statue. In Camden, a New Jersey city near Philadelphia, protestors took down a statue of Christopher Columbus, joining others across the country.

A 10-foot bronze sculpture of Columbus was also toppled in Minnesota after a group of protests tied ropes around the neck of the statue and yanked it from its pedestal.

Theodor Roosevelt’s statue at NY museum of natural history was reported to be removed soon for its symbolism of the Native American man and the African man who stands beside him.

In Belgium’s Antwerp, thousands of protesters marching for Black Lives Matter filled the streets and demanded the removal of statues of King Léopold II, a brutal colonial ruler. The Belgian king statue who brutalized Congo was burned and ultimately removed.

It was the statue of King Léopold; infamous for genocide with his orchestration of mass violence against the people in the Congo, a large portion of which he considered his personal territory for cultivating and exporting rubber and ivory.

In Britain, a statue of the 17th-century slave trader Edward Colston was toppled by protesters and dumped into the very same waters of the Bristol Harbor that launched slave ships centuries ago.

Protesters have also made threats against statues of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the architect of colonial policies that lead to the mass starvation of some four million Indians, the torture of Kenyans, and was in favor of using poisoned gas against “uncivilized” tribes.

Shamelessly, the British government sealed Churchill’s statue inside a protective steel barrier ahead of the massive London race protest which Prime Minister Boris Johnson claimed has been “hijacked” by extremists. In this context, it is not surprising to hear the racist language of Johnson and his claims that the protests are hijacked.

At the University of Oxford, protesters have stepped up their longtime push to remove a statue of Rhodes, the Victorian imperialist who served as prime minister of the Cape Colony in southern Africa. He made a fortune from gold and diamonds on the backs of miners who labored in brutal conditions.

Also in London, the statue of 18th Century slave trader Robert Milligan has been pulled down from outside the Museum of London Docklands after campaigners vowed to protest every day until it was removed.

New Zealand’s fourth-largest city removed a bronze statue of the British naval officer Capt. John Hamilton after a Maori tribe asked for the statue to be taken down and one Maori elder threatened to tear it down himself. The city of Hamilton said it was clear the statue of the man accused of killing indigenous Maori people in the 1860s would be vandalized.

The statues and monuments that have long honored racist figures are being boxed up, beheaded and sprayed in paint. It is not only because black lives matter, it is because the racist and white supremacist discrimination cannot be tolerated any longer. The New York Times reported that in dozens more cities across the US, statues that still stand have been marked with graffiti, challenged anew with petitions and protests, or scheduled for removal.

Among these statues, a “living statue” named Donald Trump must also be removed in order to preserve human dignity and freedom and end racism. White supremacists and other hateful actors attack immigrants, communities of color, and religious minorities with impunity — all under the Trump administration’s watch.

Tragedies during the Trump time have taken place across the US, targeting African Americans, immigrants and minorities, and these were encouraged by the same force of white supremacy. White supremacists including president Trump and his loyalists deploy disruptive rhetoric and enact racist policies like the Muslim Ban, family separation, attempts silence voters of color. At the end of the day, policies of violence and hate produce acts of violence and hate. The people of America, Europe and the world are rising in face of imperialism and white supremacy, it is no longer a time when the US administration can manipulate the free people of the world.

‘The God That Failed’: Why the U.S. Cannot Now Re-Impose Its Civilisational Worldview

Source

Alastair Crooke

June 29, 2020

The God That Failed': Why The U.S. Cannot Now Re-Impose Its ...

It was always a paradox: John Stuart Mill, in his seminal (1859), On Liberty, never doubted that a universal civilisation, grounded in liberal values, was the eventual destination of all of humankind. He looked forward to an ‘Exact Science of Human Nature’, which would formulate laws of psychology and society as precise and universal as those of the physical sciences. Yet, not only did that science never emerge, in today’s world, such social ‘laws’ are taken as strictly (western) cultural constructs, rather than as laws or science.

So, not only was the claim to universal civilisation not supported by evidence, but the very idea of humans sharing a common destination (‘End of Times’) is nothing more than an apocalyptic remnant of Latin Christianity, and of one minor current in Judaism. Mill’s was always a matter of secularized religion – faith – rather than empiricism. A shared human ‘destination’ does not exist in Orthodox Christianity, Taoism or Buddhism. It could never therefore qualify as universal.

Liberal core tenets of individual autonomy, freedom, industry, free trade and commerce essentially reflected the triumph of the Protestant worldview in Europe’s 30-years’ civil war. It was not fully even a Christian view, but more a Protestant one.

This narrow, sectarian pillar was able to be projected into a universal project – only so long as it was underpinned by power. In Mill’s day, the civilisational claim served Europe’s need for colonial validation. Mill tacitly acknowledges this when he validates the clearing of the indigenous American populations for not having tamed the wilderness, nor made the land productive.

However, with America’s Cold War triumph – that had by then become a cynical framework for U.S. ‘soft power’ – acquired a new potency. The merits of America’s culture, and way of life, seemed to acquire practical validation through the implosion of the USSR.

But today, with America’s soft power collapsed – not even the illusion of universalism can be sustained. Other states are coming forward, offering themselves as separate, equally compelling ‘civilisational’ states. It is clear that even were the classic liberal Establishment to win in the November U.S. elections, America no longer has claim to path-find a New World Order.

Yet, should this secularised Protestant current be over – beware! Because its subterranean, unconscious religiosity is the ‘ghost at the table’ today. It is returning in a new guise.

The ‘old illusion’ cannot continue, because its core values are being radicalised, stood on their head, and turned into the swords with which to impale classic American and European liberals (and U.S. Christian Conservatives). It is now the younger generation of American woke liberals who are asserting vociferously not merely that the old liberal paradigm is illusory, but that it was never more than ‘a cover’ hiding oppression – whether domestic, or colonial, racist or imperial; a moral stain that only redemption can cleanse.

It is an attack – which coming from within – forecloses on any U.S. moral, soft power, global leadership aspirations. For with the illusion exploded, and nothing in its place, a New World Order cannot coherently be formulated.

Not content with exposing the illusion, the woke generation are also tearing down, and shredding, the flags at the masthead: Freedom and prosperity achieved via the liberal market.

‘Freedom’ is being torn down from within. Dissidents from the woke ideology, are being ‘called out’, made to repent on the knee, or face reputational or economic ruin. It is ‘soft totalitarianism’. It recalls one of Dostoevsky’s characters – at a time when Russian progressives were discrediting traditional institutions – who, in a celebrated line, says: “I got entangled in my data … Starting from unlimited freedom, I conclude with unlimited despotism”.

Even ‘science’ has become a ‘God that failed’; instead of being the path to liberty, it has become a dark soulless path toward unfreedom. From algorithms that ‘cost’ the value of human lives, versus the ‘costing’ of lockdown; from secret ‘Black Box’ algos that limit distribution of news and thinking, to Bill Gates’ vaccination ID project, science now portends despotic social control, rather than a fluttering standard, hoist as the symbol of freedom.

But the most prominent of these flags, torn down, cannot be blamed on the woke generation. There has been no ‘prosperity for all’ – only distortions and warped structures. There are not even free markets. The Fed and the U.S. Treasury simply print new money, and hand it out to select recipients. There is no means now to attribute ‘worth’ to financial assets. Their value simply is that which Central Government is willing to pay for bonds, or grant in bail-outs.

Wow. ‘The God who failed’ (André Gide’s book title) – a crash of idols. One wonders now, what is the point to that huge financial eco-system known as Wall Street. Why not winnow it down to a couple of entities, say, Blackrock and KKR (hedge funds), and leave it to them to distribute the Fed’s freshly-printed ‘boodle’ amongst friends? Liberal markets no more – and many fewer jobs.

Many commentators have noted the wokes’ absence of vision for the future. Some describe them in highly caustic terms:

“Today, America’s tumbrils are clattering about, carrying toppled statues, ruined careers, unwoke brands. Over their sides peer those deemed racist by left-wing identitarians and sentenced to cancelation, even as the evidentiary standard for that crime falls through the floor … But who are these cultural revolutionaries? The conventional wisdom goes that this is the inner-cities erupting, economically disadvantaged victims of racism enraged over the murder of George Floyd. The reality is something more … bourgeoisie. As Kevin Williamson observed last week, “These are the idiot children of the American ruling class, toy radicals and Champagne Bolsheviks, playing Jacobin for a while, until they go back to graduate school”.

Is that so? I well recall listening in the Middle East to other angry young men who, too, wanted to ‘topple the statues’; to burn down everything. ‘You really believed that Washington would allow you … in’, they taunted and tortured their leaders: “No, we must burn it all down. Start from scratch”.

Did they have a blueprint for the future? No. They simply believed that Islam would organically inflate, and expand to fill the void. It would happen by itself – of its own accord: Faith.

Professor John Gray has noted “that in The God that failed, Gide says: ‘My faith in communism is like my faith in religion. It is a promise of salvation for mankind’’. “Here Gide acknowledged”, Gray continues, “that communism was an atheist version of monotheism. But so is liberalism, and when Gide and others gave up faith in communism to become liberals, they were not renouncing the concepts and values that both ideologies had inherited from western religion. They continued to believe that history was a directional process in which humankind was advancing towards universal freedom”.

So too with the wokes. The emphasis is on Redemption; on a Truth catharsis; on their own Virtue as sufficient agency to stand-in for the lack of plan for the future. All are clear signals: A secularised ‘illusion’ is metamorphosing back into ‘religion’. Not as Islam, of course, but as angry Man, burning at the deep and dark moral stain of the past. And acting now as purifying ‘fire’ to bring about the uplifting and shining future ahead.

Tucker Carlson, a leading American conservative commentator known for plain speaking, frames the movement a little differently: “This is not a momentary civil disturbance. This is a serious, and highly organized political movement … It is deep and profound and has vast political ambitions. It is insidious, it will grow. Its goal is to end liberal democracy and challenge western civilization itself … We’re too literal and good-hearted to understand what’s happening … We have no idea what we are up against … These are not protests. This is a totalitarian political movement”.

Again, nothing needs to be done by this new generation to bring into being a new world, apart from destroying the old one. This vision is a relic – albeit secularised – of western Christianity. Apocalypse and redemption, these wokes believe, have their own path; their own internal logic.

Mill’s ‘ghost’ is arrived at the table. And with its return, America’s exceptionalism has its re-birth. Redemption for humankind’s dark stains. A narrative in which the history of mankind is reduced to the history of racial struggle. Yet Americans, young or old, now lack the power to project it as a universal vision.

‘Virtue’, however deeply felt, on its own, is insufficient. Might President Trump try nevertheless to sustain the old illusion by hard power? The U.S. is deeply fractured and dysfunctional – but if desperate, this is possible.

The “toy radicals, and Champagne Bolsheviks” – in these terms of dripping disdain from Williamson – are very similar to those who rushed into the streets in 1917. But before dismissing them so peremptorily and lightly, recall what occurred.

Into that combustible mass of youth – so acultured by their progressive parents to see a Russian past that was imperfect and darkly stained – a Trotsky and Lenin were inserted. And Stalin ensued. No ‘toy radicals’. Soft became hard totalitarianism.

The Anti-American Universities Are a Much Greater Threat to Us than Putin and China

June 24, 2020

Paul Craig Roberts - Official Homepage

Paul Craig Roberts

This is an introduction to a letter written by a black American professor at the University of California, Berkeley.  He says that the University no longer serves scholarship and has become a servant to the Democratic Party and Black Lives Matter. He says that the university is akin to a suppressive regime that crushes real diversity and exiles free debate. At the end of his letter, he damns the University of California regents and the Berkely history department for eulogizing George Floyd, a depraved, drug-ridden thug “who hurt women. A man who hurt black women. With the full collaboration of the UCB history department, corporate America, most mainstream media outlets, and some of the wealthiest and most privileged opinion-shaping elites of the USA, he has become a culture hero, buried in a golden casket, his (recognized) family showered with gifts and praise. Americans are being socially pressured into kneeling for this violent, abusive misogynist. A generation of black men are being coerced into identifying with George Floyd, the absolute worst specimen of our race and species. I’m ashamed of my department. I would say that I’m ashamed of both of you, but perhaps you agree with me, and are simply afraid, as I am, of the backlash of speaking the truth. It’s hard to know what kneeling means, when you have to kneel to keep your job.”

Here is an honest and highly intelligent black American professor at a prestigeous State University who understands that the collapse of white confidence has destroyed scholarly integrity and respect for truth. He understands, unlike the dumbshit white regents of the university and the dumbshit propagandists in the history department who pretend to be objective historians, that this is a threat to him, to black Americans, to white Americans, to a multicultural society, to the United States, to Western civilization, and he is despondent that he cannot state his views except anonymously. 

The history department has denounced the letter as an unpardonable statement of truth.

Here is his letter:  https://www.rt.com/op-ed/491889-anonymous-uc-berkeley-professor-blm/ 

Read it. Read it again, and again.  You will understand what The Saker means when he says the United States has entered the final stage of collapse. If you want a clear picture of your future, read The Camp of the Saints, if you can find a copy of this best seller that has been withdrawn from publication and suppressed.  

America’s Own Color Revolution

By F. William Engdahl

Global Research, June 17, 2020

Color Revolution is the term used to describe a series of remarkably effective CIA-led regime change operations using techniques developed by the RAND Corporation, “democracy” NGOs and other groups since the 1980’s. They were used in crude form to bring down the Polish communist regime in the late 1980s. From there the techniques were refined and used, along with heavy bribes, to topple the Gorbachev regime in the Soviet Union. For anyone who has studied those models closely, it is clear that the protests against police violence led by amorphous organizations with names like Black Lives Matter or Antifa are more than purely spontaneous moral outrage. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans are being used as a battering ram to not only topple a US President, but in the process, the very structures of the US Constitutional order.

If we step back from the immediate issue of videos showing a white Minneapolis policeman pressing his knee on the neck of a black man, George Floyd, and look at what has taken place across the nation since then, it is clear that certain organizations or groups were well-prepared to instrumentalize the horrific event for their own agenda.

The protests since May 25 have often begun peacefully only to be taken over by well-trained violent actors. Two organizations have appeared regularly in connection with the violent protests—Black Lives Matter and Antifa (USA). Videos show well-equipped protesters dressed uniformly in black and masked (not for coronavirus to be sure), vandalizing police cars, burning police stations, smashing store windows with pipes or baseball bats. Use of Twitter and other social media to coordinate “hit-and-run” swarming strikes of protest mobs is evident.

What has unfolded since the Minneapolis trigger event has been compared to the wave of primarily black ghetto protest riots in 1968. I lived through those events in 1968 and what is unfolding today is far different. It is better likened to the Yugoslav color revolution that toppled Milosevic in 2000.

Gene Sharp: Template for Regime Overthrow

In the year 2000 the US State Department, aided by its National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and select CIA operatives, began secretly training a group of Belgrade university students led by a student group that was called Otpor! (Resistance!). The NED and its various offshoots was created in the 1980’s by CIA head Bill Casey as a covert CIA tool to overthrow specific regimes around the world under the cover of a human rights NGO. In fact, they get their money from Congress and from USAID.

In the Serb Otpor! destabilization of 2000, the NED and US Ambassador Richard Miles in Belgrade selected and trained a group of several dozen students, led by Srđa Popović, using the handbook, From Dictatorship to Democracy, translated to Serbian, of the late Gene Sharp and his Albert Einstein Institution. In a post mortem on the Serb events, the Washington Post wrote, “US-funded consultants played a crucial role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-drive, running tracking polls, training thousands of opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel vote count. US taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint used by student activists to scrawl anti-Milošević graffiti on walls across Serbia.”

Trained squads of activists were deployed in protests to take over city blocks with the aid of ‘intelligence helmet’ video screens that give them an instantaneous overview of their environment. Bands of youth converging on targeted intersections in constant dialogue on cell phones, would then overwhelm police. The US government spent some $41 million on the operation. Student groups were secretly trained in the Sharp handbook techniques of staging protests that mocked the authority of the ruling police, showing them to be clumsy and impotent against the youthful protesters. Professionals from the CIA and US State Department guided them behind the scenes.

The Color Revolution Otpor! model was refined and deployed in 2004 as the Ukraine Orange Revolution with logo and color theme scarves, and in 2003 in Georgia as the Rose Revolution. Later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used the template to launch the Arab Spring. In all cases the NED was involved with other NGOs including the Soros Foundations.

After defeating Milosevic, Popovic went on to establish a global color revolution training center, CANVAS, a kind of for-profit business consultancy for revolution, and was personally present in New York working reportedly with Antifa during the Occupy Wall Street where also Soros money was reported.

Antifa and BLM

The protests, riots, violent and non-violent actions sweeping across the United States since May 25, including an assault on the gates of the White House, begin to make sense when we understand the CIA’s Color Revolution playbook.

The impact of the protests would not be possible were it not for a network of local and state political officials inside the Democratic Party lending support to the protesters, even to the point the Democrat Mayor of Seattle ordered police to abandon several blocks in the heart of downtown to occupation by protesters.

In recent years major portions of the Democratic Party across the US have been quietly taken over by what one could call radical left candidates. Often they win with active backing of organizations such as Democratic Socialists of America or Freedom Road Socialist Organizations. In the US House of Representatives the vocal quarter of new representatives around Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib and Minneapolis Representative Ilhan Omar are all members or close to Democratic Socialists of America. Clearly without sympathetic Democrat local officials in key cities, the street protests of organizations such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa would not have such a dramatic impact.

To get a better grasp how serious the present protest movement is we should look at who has been pouring millions into BLM. The Antifa is more difficult owing to its explicit anonymous organization form. However, their online Handbook openly recommends that local Antifa “cells” join up with BLM chapters.

FRSO: Follow the Money

BLM began in 2013 when three activist friends created the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag to protest the allegations of shooting of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin by a white Hispanic block watchman, George Zimmermann. Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi were all were connected with and financed by front groups tied to something called Freedom Road Socialist Organization, one of the four largest radical left organizations in the United States formed out of something called New Communist Movement that dissolved in the 1980s.

On June 12, 2020 the Freedom Road Socialist Organization webpage states, “The time is now to join a revolutionary organization! Join Freedom Road Socialist Organization…If you have been out in the streets this past few weeks, the odds are good that you’ve been thinking about the difference between the kind of change this system has to offer, and the kind of change this country needs. Capitalism is a failed system that thrives on exploitation, inequality and oppression. The reactionary and racist Trump administration has made the pandemic worse. The unfolding economic crisis we are experiencing is the worst since the 1930s. Monopoly capitalism is a dying system and we need to help finish it off. And that is exactly what Freedom Road Socialist Organization is working for.”

In short the protests over the alleged police killing of a black man in Minnesota are now being used to call for a revolution against capitalism. FRSO is an umbrella for dozens of amorphous groups including Black Lives Matter or BLM. What is interesting about the self-described Marxist-Leninist roots of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) is not so much their left politics as much as their very establishment funding by a group of well-endowed tax-exempt foundations.

Alicia Garza of BLM is also a board member or executive of five different Freedom Road front groups including 2011 Board chair of Right to the City Alliance, Board member of School of Unity and Liberation (SOUL), of People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER), Forward Together and Special Projects director of National Domestic Workers Alliance.

The Right to the City Alliance got $6.5 million between 2011 and 2014 from a number of very established tax-exempt foundations including the Ford Foundation ($1.9 million), from both of George Soros’s major tax-exempts–Open Society Foundations, and the Foundation to Promote Open Society for $1.3 million. Also the cornflake-tied Kellogg Foundation $250,000, and curiously, Ben & Jerry’s Foundation (ice cream) for $30,000.

Garza also got major foundation money as Executive Director of the FRSO front, POWER, where Obama former “green jobs czar” Van Jones, a self-described “communist” and “rowdy black nationalist,” now with CNN, was on the board. Alicia Garza also chaired the Right to the City Alliance, a network of activist groups opposing urban gentrification. That front since 2009 received $1.3 million from the Ford Foundation, as well as $600,000 from the Soros foundations and again, Ben & Jerry’s ($50,000). And Garza’s SOUL, which claimed to have trained 712 “organizers” in 2014, when she co-founded Black Lives Matter, got $210,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation and another $255,000 from the Heinz Foundation (ketchup and John Kerry family) among others. With the Forward Together of FRSO, Garza sat on the board of a “multi-racial organization that works with community leaders and organizations to transform culture and policy to catalyze social change.” It officially got $4 million in 2014 revenues and from 2012 and 2014, the organization received a total of $2.9 million from Ford Foundation ($655,000) and other major foundations.

Nigeria-born BLM co-founder Opal Tometi likewise comes from the network of FRSO. Tometi headed the FRSO’s Black Alliance for Just Immigration. Curiously with a “staff” of two it got money from major foundations including the Kellogg Foundation for $75,000 and Soros foundations for $100,000, and, again, Ben & Jerry’s ($10,000). Tometi got $60,000 in 2014 to direct the group.

The Freedom Road Socialist Organization that is now openly calling for a revolution against capitalism in the wake of the Floyd George killing has another arm, The Advancement Project, which describes itself as “a next generation, multi-racial civil rights organization.” Its board includes a former Obama US Department of Education Director of Community Outreach and a former Bill Clinton Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The FRSO Advancement Project in 2013 got millions from major US tax-exempt foundations including Ford ($8.5 million), Kellogg ($3 million), Hewlett Foundation of HP defense industry founder ($2.5 million), Rockefeller Foundation ($2.5 million), and Soros foundations ($8.6 million).

Major Money and ActBlue

By 2016, the presidential election year where Hillary Clinton was challenging Donald Trump, Black Lives Matter had established itself as a well-organized network. That year the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund (BLMF), “a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition” in which BLM was a central part. By then Soros foundations had already given some $33 million in grants to the Black Lives Matter movement. This was serious foundation money.

The BLMF identified itself as being created by top foundations including in addition to the Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the Soros Open Society Foundations. They described their role: “The BLMF provides grants, movement building resources, and technical assistance to organizations working advance the leadership and vision of young, Black, queer, feminists and immigrant leaders who are shaping and leading a national conversation about criminalization, policing and race in America.”

The Movement for Black Lives Coalition (M4BL) which includes Black Lives Matter, already in 2016 called for “defunding police departments, race-based reparations, voting rights for illegal immigrants, fossil-fuel divestment, an end to private education and charter schools, a universal basic income, and free college for blacks.”

Notably, when we click on the website of M4BL, under their donate button we learn that the donations will go to something called ActBlue Charities. ActBlue facilitates donations to “democrats and progressives.” As of May 21, ActBlue had given $119 million to the campaign of Joe Biden.

That was before the May 25 BLM worldwide protests. Now major corporations such as Apple, Disney, Nike and hundreds others may be pouring untold and unaccounted millions into ActBlue under the name of Black Lives Matter, funds that in fact can go to fund the election of a Democrat President Biden. Perhaps this is the real reason the Biden campaign has been so confident of support from black voters. What is clear from only this account of the crucial role of big money foundations behind protest groups such as Black lives Matter is that there is a far more complex agenda driving the protests now destabilizing cities across America. The role of tax-exempt foundations tied to the fortunes of the greatest industrial and financial companies such as Rockefeller, Ford, Kellogg, Hewlett and Soros says that there is a far deeper and far more sinister agenda to current disturbances than spontaneous outrage would suggest.

*

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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from NEO

EMPEROR TRUMP NOW STANDS PARTIALLY NAKED

Source

 A

A child exposing the nakedness of the emperor by speaking truth to power?

Not these days.

More than half of the United States — not just liberals and the left but also the mainstream media and some Republicans — has been shouting at Emperor Trump for months on end that he has no clothes. These declarations have fallen on deaf ears, for Donald Trump is constitutionally incapable of acknowledging his own flaws.

Also, there are still plenty of people telling Trump what he wants to hear. The president is surrounded by family members, advisors, and careerists who have refused to acknowledge the simple truth that the White House has been occupied for more than three years by a person that former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson once called King Moron (oops, I misquote: he actually said a “f**king moron”).

In the last week, however, this picture has begun to change. Three important clothiers of the president have said that maybe the commander-in-chief has been experiencing a wardrobe malfunction all along.

Twitter, Justin Trudeau, and James Mattis all took their turns in the spotlight recently to challenge the American president. Representing three important constituencies — social media, the Pentagon, and the international community — all three in their own way have chipped away at Trump’s power.

True, they have all provided important cover for the naked leader in the past. Also, their statements could have been clearer calls to arms. But now, all three can help precipitate the “run for the exit” moment that will spell Trump’s downfall.

We’ll have to wait until November to be sure, but the president might have effectively lost his reelection bid this month, well before Election Day.

Social Media

Donald Trump once wooed the mainstream media. He chatted up gossip columnists. He pretended over the phone that he was his own publicist, singing the praises of his boss. He so desperately wanted to be on the cover of Time that he created dummy versions of the magazine proclaiming that “Trump is hitting on all fronts” and hung them in at least five of his golf clubs. Throughout, he groused that the media was not sufficiently flattering.

Twitter provided Trump with the ideal solution to his chronic need for attention. He no longer had to rely on the media and instead could communicate directly to his followers. He could simultaneously disparage the mainstream media as “fake news” and dispense his own fake news by tweet.

In the first three years of his presidency, Trump fired off more than 11,000 tweets. Many of them were rambling attacks on his opponents (somehow Trump manages to be rambling in under 280 characters). But some of them were actual policy announcements or served some other tactical purpose.

Twitter wasn’t simply a tool of the presidency. It became the presidency.

According to this New York Times analysis of this incessant Twitterstorm:

Early on, top aides wanted to restrain the president’s Twitter habit, even considering asking the company to impose a 15-minute delay on Mr. Trump’s messages. But 11,390 presidential tweets later, many administration officials and lawmakers embrace his Twitter obsession, flocking to his social media chief with suggestions. Policy meetings are hijacked when Mr. Trump gets an idea for a tweet, drawing in cabinet members and others for wordsmithing. And as a president often at war with his own bureaucracy, he deploys Twitter to break through logjams, overrule, or humiliate recalcitrant advisers and pre-empt his staff.

Twitter has helped Trump. And Trump has helped poison Twitter.

Although the social media giant has had no problem deleting praise for the Islamic State, it hasn’t shown comparable due diligence toward white nationalism. According to an account of a discussion at a Twitter staff meeting, a technical employee explained that “on a technical level, content from Republican politicians could get swept up by algorithms aggressively removing white supremacist material. Banning politicians wouldn’t be accepted by society as a trade-off for flagging all of the white supremacist propaganda.”

With the compliance of social media platforms, Trump and his coterie of Republican extremists have helped to mainstream otherwise marginal content.

But that tide might be turning. At the end of May, Twitter took the unprecedented step of labeling two of Trump’s tweets, directing readers to accurate sources of information on mail-in balloting and announcing that Trump had violated its policies on glorifying violence. Then, last week, Twitter took down an account that retweeted all of Trump’s utterances, again for violating its policies.

Trump, predictably, went ballistic. He lashed out on Twitter (the man is impervious to irony). He retaliated with an executive order to lift some of the liability protections on social media companies.

It’s not as if Trump is going to abandon his principle mode of communication. This last weekend, after all, he broke his own Twitter record by sending out 200 Tweets in a 24-hour period, including 74 in one hour. By increasing the outflow of his firehose, Trump seems to be daring Twitter to keep up with its labels.

Twitter hasn’t deplatformed Trump, as it has some other darlings of the alt-right. It let slide Trump’s latest Twitter outrage — promoting a conspiracy theory about a Buffalo protestor injured by the police — because the use of a question mark marked it as “speculative” (Really? Really??).

But with its labels, Twitter is finally saying that no one is above the law — the admittedly loose laws of the internet — not even the president of the United States.

Justin Trudeau

In the United States, we are still talking about the 8 minutes and 46 seconds that a cop knelt on George Floyd’s neck, killing him.

In Canada, they’re talking about 21 seconds.

That’s the pause that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took to answer a question on Trump’s threat to use the military against those protesting Floyd’s death. Trudeau could have used that time to criticize Trump directly. Instead, after his long pause, he chose to speak of the problems facing people of color in his own country. “There is systemic racism in Canada,” he said.

Trump has never hesitated to lambaste other heads of state. He called Trudeau “two-faced” as well as “very dishonest and weak.” He labeled comments by Emanuel Macron “very, very nasty.” He criticized comments of Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen as “nasty and inappropriate.” With comments about friends like these, you can imagine how Trump tongue-lashes his enemies.

For the most part, the international community has quietly tolerated Trump. They’ve delivered tersely worded rebuttals. They’ve made fun of him behind his back. But they haven’t directly or personally criticized him.

Given the power of the United States, it’s unlikely that the leader of an allied country will take the president to task. So, perhaps the best we can hope for is 21 seconds of silence, during which the rest of us can voice the thoughts we think are going through Justin Trudeau’s mind.

Maybe it’s because I worked for a Quaker organization for many years, but I think that sometimes silence can speak volumes.

James Mattis

Former Pentagon chief Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis was one of the more prominent “adults in the room” who were supposed to rein in Trump. He failed. He resigned in December 2018 after disagreeing with Trump’s push to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. When he resigned and later when he published his memoir the following year, Mattis kept his thoughts on Trump to himself.

Last week, Mattis broke his silence with a remarkable statement in The Atlantic criticizing the president’s threatened use of the military against protesters. He said, in part:

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society.

In all my years as a protester, I have never witnessed someone of Mattis’s background and standing actually side with folks on the street. “The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values — our values as people and our values as a nation,” he said.

It wasn’t just Mattis. Former chair of the joint chiefs of staff Mike Mullen wrote a similar condemnation of Trump as did former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan John Allen. It was the journalistic equivalent of D-Day, with the generals landing their forces on Omaha Beach in the hopes of dethroning their adversary several months hence.

Yes, yes, I know: Mattis, Mullen, and Allen are no leftists. You can’t even call them liberals or moderates. Andy Kroll is right to point out in Rolling Stone that these are “the same military leaders who endorsed and defended a policy of forever war that has led to tens of thousands of American deaths, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and Afghans and Syrians and Yemenis and Pakistanis, hundreds of thousands of injuries physical and mental suffered by U.S. service members, and many billions of taxpayer dollars poured into endless conflict.”

Kroll is both right and spectacularly off the mark. After all, Donald Trump similarly dismissed Colin Powell’s endorsement of Joe Biden by linking him to America’s failed wars.

The fact that these old establishment figures have blood on their hands is precisely the point. Noam Chomsky denouncing Donald Trump is not news. Everyone expects the leaders of the #BlackLivesMatter movement to criticize the president. I’ve been slamming Trump from day one of his presidency (and many months before), but I doubt my preaching goes very far beyond the choir.

All the attacks on Trump from left and center are what journalists call “dog bites man.” It’s no surprise. But “Mad Dog bites man”? That’s a different story altogether.

The military has been the most trusted institution in U.S. society for decades. According to Gallup, it enjoyed a 73 percent approval rating in 2019 — compared to 38 percent for both the presidency and the Supreme Court, 36 percent for organized religion, and 11 percent for Congress.

People listen to the military. And by people, here I mean folks who voted for Donald Trump, continue to support the president, and are still thinking about voting for him in November.

As importantly, these generals are willing to take enemy fire — from Fox News, from crazy Internet trolls, from the president himself—so that other former Trump enablers might be more willing to stand up and speak their minds.

Immediately after Mattis waded into the debate, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) confessed her concerns about Trump and said that she hasn’t made up her mind about who to support in November. Francis Rooney, a Republican member of Congress from Florida, is now leaning toward Biden. A number of prominent Republicans won’t vote for Trump, but they also are reluctant to say so in public.

This doesn’t exactly constitute a surge. A solid core of the party remains firmly behind the president. The more telegenic version of Trump, Tom Cotton (R-AR), is enjoying a swell of support after The New York Times criticized its own handling of the senator’s incendiary and inaccurate piece, “Send in the Military.” So far, Mattis has not played the role of the journalist Edward R. Murrow taking down the demagogue Joe McCarthy.

But you have to believe that statements from Mattis and others are at least going to introduce an element of doubt into the minds of some true believers. Active duty soldiers and veterans who voted for Trump — he received 61 percent of the veteran vote compared to Hillary Clinton’s 34 percent — might just heed the generals. And the latest polls suggest that both older Americans and white Americans are starting to abandon Trump.

I don’t expect Mitch McConnell or Tom Cotton to denounce Trump. Much of the Republican Party will loyally follow the president into his White House bunker. But thanks to the truth-telling of Mattis and others, everyone else will be laughing all the way to the polls at the emperor stripped bare by his enablers.


By John Feffer
Source: Foreign Policy In Focus

Protests show ‘American exceptionalism’ is over: political researcher

Source

June 17, 2020 – 12:0

TEHRAN – Lebanese political researcher Ali Mourad tells the Tehran Times that the anti-racism protests across the United States show that “American Exceptionalism” has come to an end.

Following the suffocation of George Floyd, a black African-American, at the hands of a white policeman on May 25 in Minneapolis, anti-racism protests have engulfed the United States.
Mourad also says, “We are witnessing an apparent ‘conflict of ideologies and identities’ in American society.”

Following is the text of the interview:

1. What are the messages of the recent protests in America against racial discrimination?

Answer: Of what we’ve seen up till now in those protests we can note that the Black struggle against systematic racism in the United States has risen back again, with new means of expression and a broad base of solidarity worldwide, which is more comprehensive than the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. It tells us also that it’s a declaration of the end of the so-called “American Exceptionalism” or what was also named as the “American Melting Pot.” We are witnessing an apparent “Conflict of Ideologies and Identities” in American society.
“Trump is somehow trying to make use of the protests by showing that it’s a rebellion of the blacks against the system ‘that is owned and run by the white people’.”2. Do you think that the Trump administration bears the responsibility for what happened against George Floyd, who was suffocated under the knee of a white police officer, or should we accuse the political structure in America, which is built based on racism?

A: Since he entered the White House, Trump is indeed responsible for inciting the violent actions against people of color in America, looking forward to tightening the loyalty of the electoral base that delivered him into power in 2016. However, I believe he’s not the only one or his party to blame for the Black community grievances. What the African Americans experienced and still inside the United States dates back to 400 years ago. The so-called “Founding Fathers” of the U.S. who wrote the “Declaration of Independence” were racists and owned slaves. Even the third president (Jefferson) writes: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that their Creator endows them with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. However, he had 600 slaves. He even started raping his slave “Sally Hemings” when she was 14 years old and had six children from her whom he refused to accept them as his children officially. It’s always been a racial system that governed in the United States. Right after Abraham Lincoln freed Blacks they were used to reconstruct the country after the civil war ended, later on, the Blacks were enrolled in the U.S. army so they could fight America’s battles in WWI and WWII and other conflicts. Even today, the majority of U.S. prisoners are black, and they are used under forced labor to manufacture the weapons of major U.S. arms companies.

3. Do you think that Trump is trying to militarize response to civil unrest for economic and geopolitical considerations which may enhance the prospects of a civil war in the future?

A: I think Trump wants nothing but re-elected again, so he’s reading from Richard Nixon’s book. The latter used the “Law & Order” speech to win the votes of the white population in the southern states, who were upset with the massive protests of the black community in spring 1968 after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. By then, the Republicans had what they called “The Southern Strategy” that aimed to flip the white conservative political views in the southern states from Democrats to Republicans, by adopting a militarist fear-mongering speech from the black community so they would attract them. It worked for the Republicans, and since the early 1970s, all Republican presidential candidates used the same strategy, and Trump is using it today. So yes, Trump is somehow trying to make use of the protests by showing that it’s a rebellion of the blacks against the system “that is owned and run by the white people.”
“MBS (Muhammad Bin Salman) and some other heads of Arab sheikhdoms believe their destiny is linked with Trump’s, that’s why they’re defending him.”4. What is the secret behind some Arab countries’ silence on recent events in the U.S. and the Saudi media attack on all those who support the protests and criticize Trump’s racism?

A: Most of the Arab regimes are very careful when it comes to Trump. They don’t want to upset him because they fear his reaction. As for Saudi Arabia, you can easily realize how nervous Riyadh was during those protests. In general, Saudi doesn’t believe in the right to protest, what if it was a protest against the protector of MBS? So yes, the Saudi media was doing the job that no U.S. media outlet dares to do, trying to alienate the protests and even accuse the protestors of being run by outsiders! MBS (Muhammad Bin Salman) and some other heads of Arab sheikhdoms believe their destiny is linked with Trump’s, that’s why they’re defending him.

5. How do the American protests affect the upcoming presidential elections?

A: It’s still early to evaluate the outcomes of the protests, but I think what matters to the un-politically affiliated “silent majority” is the economy, more than the racial issue. That’s America, and it will always be so. Between 1970 and 2020, African Americans conducted tens of significant protests and uprisings all over America, but little was achieved concerning gaining their full civil and economic rights. Trump is acting in a way that’s clear he doesn’t care if he lost the vote of the little margin the voters of color. He is trying to focus on his “successful” economic performance to gain some points for his polls.

6. The U.S. is using methods of violence against domestic protests, a practice it has repeatedly used in its imperial adventures abroad. How does it show the brutality of capitalism against suppressed people?

A: There is news that some major U.S. arms companies are about to sell police departments and law enforcement military tools and weapons, so that be used against U.S. citizens. Trump is pushing forward, so this happens when he says, “I’ll support and fund the law enforcement.” I think it’s a moment where we realize the deep quagmire America is facing: Washington is not capable anymore of starting a new war that they guarantee a victory in it after their defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. And since arms companies need to sell their products, it seems Washington has no problem to pour those weapons inside the country. With the U.S. 2nd amendment being guarded by white supremacy and arms companies’ lobbyists, America would be heading towards a second civil war in the future so that the capitalist corporate industrial complex gains more money. They did it to the oppressed people all over the world; now, they might be doing it against the minorities or even themselves inside America. That’s what you call: “Greed Capitalist Ideology.”

 
%d bloggers like this: