This article is co-published with The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan local newsroom that informs and engages with Texans. Sign up for The Brief Weekly to get up to speed on their essential coverage of Texas issues.

One day in late May 2024, lawyer Zina Bash spent 6 1/2 hours working on a case against Facebook parent company Meta on behalf of the state of Texas. She reviewed draft legal filings. She participated in a court-ordered mediation session and then discussed the outcome with state Attorney General Ken Paxton.

In her previous job as senior counsel on Paxton’s leadership team, that labor would have cost Texas taxpayers $641.

But Bash had moved to private practice. Paxton hired her firm to work on the Meta case, allowing her to bill $3,780 an hour, so that day of work will cost taxpayers $24,570.

In the past five years, Paxton has grown increasingly reliant on pricey private lawyers to argue cases on behalf of the state, rather than the hundreds of attorneys who work within his office, an investigation by The Texas Tribune and ProPublica found. These are often attorneys, like Bash, with whom Paxton has personal or political ties.

In addition to Bash, one such contract went to Tony Buzbee, the trial lawyer who successfully defended Paxton during his 2023 impeachment trial on corruption charges. Three other contracts went to firms whose senior attorneys have donated to Paxton’s political campaigns. Despite these connections and what experts say are potential conflicts of interest, Paxton does not appear to have recused himself from the selection process. Although he is not required to by law, this raises a concern about appearing improper, experts who study attorneys general said.

Paxton appears to have also outsourced cases more frequently than his predecessors, available records show. And he’s inked the kind of contingent-fee contracts, in which firms receive a share of a settlement if they win, far more often than the attorneys general in other large states, including California, New York and Pennsylvania. Since 2015, the New York and California attorneys general have awarded zero contingent-fee contracts; Pennsylvania’s has signed one. During that period, Paxton’s office approved 13.

One of those was with Bash’s firm, Chicago-based Keller Postman, at the time known as Keller Lenkner, which she joined as partner in February 2021 after resigning from her job at the attorney general’s office. Paxton had signed a contract with the company two months earlier to investigate Google for deceptive business practices and violations of antitrust law. A little more than a year later, Bash’s firm won a state contract to work on the Meta litigation, alleging its facial recognition software violated Texans’ privacy. This time, Bash was the co-lead counsel.

Meta, which called the lawsuit meritless, settled the case for $1.4 billion in the summer of 2024. It was a windfall for Keller Postman. The firm billed $97 million, the largest fee charged by outside counsel under Paxton’s tenure. Bash’s work alone accounted for $3.6 million of that total.

Bash, a former U.S. Supreme Court clerk, said in a statement she is honored the attorney general’s office partnered with Keller Postman based on the firm’s “first-rate attorneys and extensive experience.”

“We have a record of taking on the most significant litigation in the country against the most powerful defendants in the world,” Bash said.

Keller Postman did not respond to a request for comment.

There is little to stop Paxton, or any other occupant of his office, from handing these contracts out. The attorney general can award them without seeking bids from other law firms or asking anyone’s permission.

Asked to provide competitive-bid documents for the contingent-fee contracts it has awarded, the attorney general’s office said it had none because state law “exempts the OAG from having to do all of the solicitation steps when hiring outside counsel.”

Given the high-profile nature of representing an attorney general and the potential for a big payday, many qualified firms would be eager to compete for this work, said Paul Nolette, a professor of political science at Marquette University who studies attorneys general.

“I’d be curious to know what the justification is for this not going on the open market,” Nolette said.

Paxton declined interview requests for this story. He has publicly defended the practice of hiring outside law firms, arguing that his office lacks the resources in-house to take on massive corporations like tech companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

“These parties have practically unlimited resources that would swamp most legal teams and delay effective enforcement,” Paxton told the Senate finance committee during a budget hearing in January.

A spokesperson for Paxton said in a statement that the outside lawyers hired by the office are some of the best in the nation. With the contingent-fee settlements to date, more than $2 billion, the state “could not have gotten a better return on its investment,” the statement said.

Chris Toth, former executive director of the National Association of Attorneys General, questioned why so much extra help is needed. Outside counsel is appropriate for small states, he said, that “only have so many lawyers with so many levels of expertise.”

The Texas attorney general’s office, one of the largest in the country, has more than 700 attorneys.

“Large states typically don’t hire outside counsel,” Toth said. “They should have the people in-house that should be able to go toe-to-toe with the best attorneys that are out there.”

When a Texas attorney general previously made a practice of giving lucrative contracts to private counsel, it didn’t end well.

Dan Morales was the last Democrat to hold the office. He became embroiled in scandal after he used outside firms to help secure a $17 billion settlement in Big Tobacco litigation in 1998.

Republicans, including then-Gov. George W. Bush, blasted the $3.2 billion payout to the outside lawyers as exorbitant. Their attacks grew more intense when Morales sought to steer $500 million of that sum to a lawyer, a personal friend, who did very little work on the case. Morales pleaded guilty in 2003 to related federal corruption charges. He served 3 1/2 years behind bars.

John Cornyn, the Republican who succeeded Morales in 1999, criticized his predecessor’s handling of the tobacco case during his campaign for the office. In an interview for this story, Cornyn said he never hired outside counsel as attorney general because he focused on recruiting talented in-house lawyers that he felt could handle all the office’s cases.

Paxton is challenging Cornyn, now a four-term U.S. senator, in next year’s Republican primary.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, the Republican who led the office after Cornyn, appears to have rarely used private lawyers. The attorney general’s office was able to produce records for only part of Abbott’s 12-year term because state law allows the files to be deleted after so many years. The office signed nine outside counsel contracts between 2010 and 2014, all pro bono or for hourly rates rather than contingency. Abbott did not respond to an interview request.

Paxton also seldom outsourced cases during his first five years in office. Through 2019, he awarded only nine outside counsel contracts, all pro bono or hourly rate. The most expensive contract capped fees at $500,000 — far less than $143 million the state paid to the two firms, including Bash’s, that handled the Meta case.

He changed course in 2020.

That summer, the attorney general’s office was gearing up to file its first case against Google. It related to allegations that the company monopolized the online advertising market, raising costs for advertisers, who increased the price of their products for average consumers as a result. Paxton initially had no plans to hire outside counsel for the litigation, three former deputy attorneys general told the Tribune and ProPublica.

But before the case was filed, the attorney general’s office was thrown into upheaval. At the end of September, seven of Paxton’s senior advisers reported him to the FBI, concerned his relationship with an Austin real estate investor had crossed the line into bribery and corruption. State House members would later impeach Paxton on counts related to the accusations; state senators eventually acquitted him. The federal criminal investigation into Paxton did not result in any criminal charges.

Over fall 2020, each of the lawyers in his office who had accused Paxton of wrongdoing quit or was fired. That included Darren McCarty, the head of civil litigation who was supposed to lead the Google litigation before he reported his boss to the FBI. He resigned on Oct. 26.

Less than two months later, on Dec. 16, Paxton signed contracts with The Lanier Law Firm and Keller Postman to investigate Google. They filed the lawsuit against the tech giant in federal court the same day.

Paxton replaced the lawyers who complained to the authorities. The staffing of the antitrust and consumer protection divisions, which would have handled these cases, remained constant at more than 80 employees in the following years. Yet Paxton continued to outsource lawsuits against large corporations to private lawyers.

Under Keller Postman’s contract, the firm would be paid only if it secured a settlement or won at trial. These contingent-fee cases have the potential to be far more profitable for the outside firms than those in which they bill at a regular hourly rate. In a successful case, the contracts say that firms are paid either a percentage of a settlement or the sum of hours billed by the firm times four, whichever is less.

In the Meta case, Keller Postman was entitled to 11% of the state’s settlement, a share that totaled $154 million. But because the firm’s fees and expenses totaled $97 million, it billed that sum.

In multiple legislative sessions, Paxton has testified that outsourcing was the only way his office could stand toe-to-toe with corporate titans.

If Paxton has a shortage of qualified in-house attorneys, Cornyn told the newsrooms, that’s because of the damage the whistleblower scandal did to the reputation of the attorney general’s office as a home for ambitious young lawyers.

“He’s a victim of his own malfeasance and mismanagement because people did not want to work for him anymore,” Cornyn said. “And if you run off your best lawyers because you engage in questionable ethical conduct, then you’re left with very few options. But this shouldn’t be a way to reward bad behavior.”

Former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said he was surprised Paxton began hiring contingent-fee outside lawyers only after the scandal, since those contracts, with their potential for high profits, are tougher to ethically defend.

“I would have thought it would have been the other way around — that he got more careful after he got the whistle blown on him,” said Goddard, a Democrat. “But it looked like he got more reckless.”

Paxton’s style of procurement also benefited Buzbee, the man who successfully defended him during his impeachment trial, which stemmed from allegations the whistleblowers raised.

The attorney general chose to skip most of the proceedings, so for the 10 days of trial in the Texas Senate, his most vociferous advocate was the loquacious Buzbee. The pair sat side by side when the attorney general did attend.

A little more than a year later, Paxton hired The Buzbee Law Firm to pursue an antitrust suit against the investment firms BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard that accuses the companies of manipulating the coal market in a way that allegedly increased electricity prices for Texans. The firms deny wrongdoing.

Buzbee is a successful litigator and one of Houston’s most famous plaintiffs’ attorneys. Among other victories, he won settlements for victims of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and $73 million for Gulf of Mexico oil drillers in a 2001 antitrust case. But he’s known primarily for personal injury work, not antitrust litigation.

His firm, one of two hired for this latest attorney general’s office contingent-fee case, could collect 10% of any judgment or settlement. The case is in its early stages, though the Trump administration in May filed a brief in the case in support of Texas.

Buzbee downplayed the potential for a big payday in an email to the newsrooms and argued there is no buddy system at play, noting he believed other law firms also interviewed with Paxton’s office for the job. (The attorney general’s office did not confirm this.) He said his firm has to pay for significant expenses up front, without any guarantee of payment.

“The current arrangement may be a good deal for other lawyers, but in all candor, it’s not for me,” Buzbee said, adding that his normal hourly rate is $2,250. “Frankly, the only reason I’m even doing it is that I am proud to represent the state in such a landmark case.”

The connections between Paxton and the lawyers he has hired also extend to other firms. The attorney general’s office hired the firm Norton Rose Fulbright, one of the largest in the country with more than 3,000 lawyers on staff, to work on separate Google cases for the state, focusing on consumer protection allegations.

The attorney general’s office has awarded three contracts to the firm since 2022 for cases against the tech giant. Three times during that period, Joseph Graham, the firm’s lead counsel on the Google litigation, contributed $5,000 to Paxton’s campaign for attorney general. Twice, the donations came within 16 days of Graham signing one of the firm’s contracts with the attorney general.

The firm and its attorneys have contributed $39,500 to Paxton’s campaign since he took office. Neither Graham nor Norton Rose Fulbright responded to requests for comment.

Mark Lanier, founder of The Lanier Law Firm, which the state hired to work on a separate Google case, is a large donor to Texas elected officials. He has contributed $31,000 to Paxton’s campaigns since 2015. The largest contribution, for $25,000, came six months after Lanier signed his firm’s Google contract.

The Lanier contract is slightly different from the others the attorney general’s office awarded, in that the firm’s payment is partially based on a basic hourly rate but it could also be paid more if it wins the case, as in the contingent-fee model. Lanier noted in an emailed statement to the newsrooms that he took a reduced fee on this case and maintained that the attorney general’s office needed the kind of firepower his team can bring against an opponent like Google.

“The Texas AG office and its lawyers are good, but specialists are needed in a war like this. And it is a war,” Lanier wrote. “It would be irresponsible to pursue Google on behalf of Texans without bring[ing] the fullest resources you can.”

A competitive, open process for awarding contracts can be a strong defense against accusations of favoritism, Goddard said.

Unlike some other states, Texas does not require these contracts be put out to competitive bid.

Florida, for example, has one of the most robust laws in the country for procuring outside counsel, requiring the attorney general to explain in writing why a contingent-fee contract is necessary. It also mandates most contracts be put out to competitive bid and caps contingent-fee payouts at $50 million.

Texas has no such cap.

It also has virtually no method for state lawmakers to truly supervise this kind of practice. State law mandates only that the attorney general notify the Legislature when his office awards a contingent-fee contract, and certify that no in-house lawyers or private attorneys at an hourly rate can handle the task. Paxton has done so in boilerplate two-page letters that all say outside attorneys are needed because of the “scope and enormity” of the cases.

If lawmakers are concerned about these contracts, there is no mechanism for them to challenge Paxton’s determination that private counsel is needed.

Having lawyers bid for work would eliminate the appearance of impropriety that hangs over Paxton’s hires, Goddard said.

“A couple look like paybacks, which is extraordinarily improper, in other words to award a contract to someone who’s a major contributor or has recently left your office,” he said. “All of those would not be allowed in our state.”

Officials in other states have said they can still secure big wins for their constituents without relying on private firms.

California, for example, reached a $93 million settlement with Google in 2023 over claims that the company was clandestinely tracking users’ locations. A year earlier, in a case with similar allegations, Oregon and Nebraska led a 40-state coalition that won a $392 million settlement against the company. Texas was not part of this suit.

The latter agreement required Google to make new privacy disclosures to consumers, restricted its ability to share users’ location information with advertisers and required the company to prepare an annual report detailing how it was complying with the settlement terms.

Doug Peterson, the Republican attorney general of Nebraska at the time, said negotiating the financial penalty — Nebraska’s share was $11.9 million — was a secondary goal of the settlement.

“The most important thing we’re trying to do is to stop the bad behavior,” Peterson said.

McCarty, one of the attorney general employees who blew the whistle on Paxton, said private lawyers can be talented, but they have an incentive to fixate on the financial portion of settlements — which is tied to their compensation — rather than enforcement provisions that may best protect a state’s residents.

“Government enforcers, especially in the antitrust context, can focus on more effective solutions,” McCarty said.

Norton Rose Fulbright has yet to send its final billing records to the attorney general’s office but is likely to be rewarded handsomely. The firm helped the state secure a $1.38 billion settlement with Google in May. Google spokesperson José Castañeda said the Texas settlement, which has not been finalized, will contain no new restrictions on the company’s practices.

Under the terms of its contracts, the firm’s fees could exceed $350 million.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Zach Despart, The Texas Tribune.

God told me he has a message for you. It is this.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by David Swanson.

but when hospitals
and food distribution centres
are targeted
and those accessing them
for help
or working in them
to help
are killed
then the evil
has become
another kind
of evil
evil

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Stephen House.

A Heart-Felt Story

In the beginning men and women lived in harmony and peace. We were once one with nature and there were few differences between us in social power or wealth. Women had a special place in early tribal societies: their motherhood was revered, they held positions of authority, and they practiced forms of magic centered on the worship of a monotheistic Goddess. Figurines of Goddesses have been discovered, proving there was once a great women’s religion. At the end of the Bronze Age, hunters and pastoralists from Central Asia invaded these peaceful societies creating social hierarchies, wars, and the beginnings of male dominance. All of this was later sanctioned by the worship of otherworldly, transcendent male deities that eventually coalesced to become a monotheistic God. The Goddess was discredited and went underground, being kept alive in later years by peasant communities in the magical practice of witchcraft. Today the Goddess has resurfaced as a focus of women’s spirituality. 

These are the claims about history and social evolution made by many Neo-Pagan or spiritual feminists. To be sure, not all people associated with the Goddess movement believe all of these claims. However, the summary above is probably a fair one, in that each of its elements is repeated in the writings of nearly all of the movement’s leaders. How plausible are these contentions in the light of anthropology, archaeology, macrosociology, political science, world history, mythology studies, and comparative religion? Were there once matriarchies or matrifocal societies? Does reverence for goddesses go all the way back to the Paleolithic Era? Can all or most of the figurines found by archaeologist Marija Gimbutas and others be classified as goddesses? If, in our society, a male god goes with male dominance, is it fair to infer that if we find evidence of goddesses in the ancient world this must indicate female dominance or at least the high status of women? Was motherhood revered in ancient societies? Is all magic goddess-centered? Is all witchcraft synonymous with goddess reverence? Were ancient tribal societies peace-loving before being invaded? Does the movement from polytheism to monotheism involve a battle among male gods, or between male and female gods? Here is a summary of the Goddess movement’s claims.

Common Claims or Assumptions Made by the Goddess Movement

• There were once matriarchies or matrifocal societies
• All or most of the figurines discovered by archeologists are goddesses
• Goddess reverence goes all the way back to the Paleolithic Age
• All magic is synonymous with goddess reverence
• All witchcraft is synonymous with goddess reverence
• Ancient People revered a monotheistic goddess
• Motherhood is the leading function of goddesses 
• There is a direct connection between the presences of goddesses in ancient societies and the prosperous material status of women 
• The rise of institutionalized male dominance was caused by invasions of pastoral  nomads
• Tribal societies were peace-loving before being invaded by patriarchal societies
• The movement from polytheism to monotheism involved battles between male gods and female goddesses

In addition to addressing these contentions about history, it is important to make explicit the underlying values of the Goddess movement. I agree with Philip Davis (1998) that the Goddess movement is part of a larger Romantic movement that began during the Renaissance and sustained itself through the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and the twentieth century. I will paint as sympathetic picture as I can of the Romantic movement’s perspective on the world.

The Goddess movement is generally critical of Western-style political centralization and the globalization of the human community because Western civilization is not now and never has been truly democratic. The movement’s members tend to believe that all state societies, even those predating capitalism, serve the interests of the wealthy. They do not believe that real democracy can ever work when power is centralized. Furthermore, they resist attempts to universalize different groups of people into a universal humanity because this grouping in the past has, in practice, excluded many groups from the wealth they produced because of their class, race, or gender. At the same time, the movement is generally critical of the competitive values of capitalism and is suspicious of the preoccupation with material wealth, the accumulation of commodities, and high technology. Finally, the Goddess movement is critical of science as a way of knowing because, while proclaiming to be neutral, it actually serves the interests of the elite classes by providing the methodological base by which technologies of war may be built. For these reasons, the movement looks to the political organization of pre-state societies as a model for participatory democracy, pre-capitalists ways of conducting economic relations, and pre-scientific ways of knowing how the world works.

Because the Goddess movement often contrasts the values of tribal societies with those of state societies, it must also challenge the way world history has been presented. According to the Goddess movement, the dominant social order has placed a value judgment on social evolution by claiming that it constitutes “progress”. This means that the more complex societies are, the more they have improved life for everyone. Because the movement challenges this assumption, it must either try to revise history as written or, in more extreme cases, claim that the struggle to discover an objective history is futile. Here the Goddess movement joins forces with the extreme relativism of the Postmodernists, who say that one version of history is as good as another, and that competing ways of knowing about the past are equally relevant. One common approach is to fuse the study of history with mythology. Much of the work of the Goddess movement vacillates between the attempt to revise views of what really happened in history, and the effort to reinterpret history based on ancient mythology. For obvious reasons, this latter strategy garners little sympathy from those historians that aspire to using a scientific methodology.

The system of industrial capitalism has impacts not just on the economy and political structure of societies, but also on their sacred traditions, their ideas about non-human nature, and the collective psyche or mentality of the people. The Goddess movement believes that there is a direct connection between the nature of the perceived sacred sources and the manner in which people treat the natural world. The movement’s members believe that an otherworldly, transcendental God, because he is out of the world, neglects this world and effectively colludes with elites who exploit and pillage the natural world. Conversely, when sacred sources are understood as immanent and worldly, nature is more likely to be treated with respect. According to spiritual feminists, the distant sky-god acts as if he were an absentee landlord. If Goddess advocates are skeptical about centralization and globalization in the political world, they will take the same attitude toward the spiritual world. Rather than believing in a universal monotheistic deity, many people in the Goddess movement prefer a decentralized polytheism, though this is a bone of contention within the movement, as we shall see.

Patriarchal religions and atheistic non-believers have tended to use mechanistic metaphors to describe nature. The Goddess movement rejects the idea of nature-as-machine and believes that nature is alive, that the world is an organism. Even in patriarchal religions nature is often conceived of metaphorically as “mother”. The Goddess movement builds on this theme, viewing human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom as part of “her” body. Just as nature is not separate from sacred sources, so humanity is not separated from other creatures. Other animals are at least the equals of humans and we humans have no business trying to get away from nature or to improve her with scientific techniques. We need to merge with, or get back to, nature. There are also implications for our sense of time. One symptom of humanity’s problems, according to Goddess advocates, is our linear concept of time. This has caused us great problems in understanding how change occurs. Nature, for the Goddess movement, works in cycles. For humanity to merge with nature we would need to understand society and our individual lives as following the cycles of nature. Because the relationship between humanity and the rest of nature must be immanent, people do not need mediators and specialists to interpret sacred experience. We are all explorers together with no need for chaperones.

There are two kinds of nature—external and internal. Our bodies are an internal, microcosmic slice of the external macrocosm of nature. This has deep psychological implications. For the Goddess movement, rationality, analysis, planning, and striving to be objective are the psychological skills an individual uses to dualize or separate our bodies from the rest of nature. These rational skills lead to other dualisms: God vs. nature, nature vs. society, society vs. the individual, and the mind vs. the body. These separations are partly responsible for the problems of the modern world.

It is the non-rational part of the psyche—the part of the mind that synthesizes rather than divides—that is the true source of wisdom. The emotions, sensuality, intuition, and spontaneity are understood as virtuous. The Goddess movement believes that women have these skills more than men do and, generally speaking, though they would probably not claim this explicitly, most members act and talk as though women are inherently better than men.

There are at least two tension points which are worth pointing out. While the Goddess movement opposes traditional female roles and supports experimenting with being simply more human, there is a tension between those who want to develop the skills that men have traditionally been encouraged to claim, and those who want to elevate traditional female skills as inherently superior to male skills.

There is also a tension between the value of innocence in contrast to the value of experience. For the most part, the Goddess movement values experience over innocence but, in their contrast between tribal and state societies, they tend to romanticize tribal societies as innocent and uncorrupted. In the first chapter, I criticized the theory of progress as a way to understand history. Taken in its extreme, New-Age form, the Goddess view of history is a degeneration theory of social evolution. Instead of suggesting, as progress theorists do, that the further we go in history the better it gets, this theory argues that the earlier in time we go the better it gets. A summary chart of these Romantic values follows:

List of Twenty One Composite Values of Ancient Goddess Supporters

SOCIAL STRUCTURES

• Simple, pre-state societies are an ideal to strive for (small is beautiful).
• Complex, large societies are inherently bad, because they are impersonal.
• Innocence is more noble than experience when it comes to social evolution.
• What comes earlier in time must be better. Tribal societies are the ideal.
• Material wealth, objects/commodities and technology are likely to be corrupting influences.
• Science is alienating, cold, unfeeling and doesn’t address what is important in life.
• Cooperation and communalism are better than competition as a way to organize social life.
• Modern society perpetrates a false unity of humanity, ignoring gender, ethnic and class inequalities.
• Myth is at least as important as history.
• Historians reduce myth to illusionary or naive history. Support of a real “people’s history,” while retaining the value of mythic stories as a valuable sacred activity.

NATURE/SACRED

• Spirit is immanent in nature and the individual rather than transcendent and separate from nature. Nature is all there is. Behind nature there is only more undiscovered nature.
• There are many goddesses and gods – polytheism – there is no single source which “unites them all.*
• Nature is understood as an organism, rather than a machine.
• Goddesses are inseparable from female physiology: menstruation and childbirth.
• Neither organized religion nor atheism provide meaningful answers to the big questions of life.
• Other animals are at least the equal of or superior to human beings.
• Human beings should merge with nature. We have no business thinking or trying to improve her.
• Generally, sacred communion is experiential and not mediated by secular or sacred authorities based on faith.
• Change happens in cycles, rather than linearly.

PSYCHOLOGY

• Emotions, sensuality, intuition and the non-rational are at least as good as reason or empiricism as ways of knowing.
• What is subjective and personal is better than impartiality and striving to be objective.
• Spontaneity is more in touch with what matters in life than planning.
• Experimental gender roles are better than traditional male and female roles.
• When it comes down to it, women are inherently better than men.

* There is a counter-argument which claims that there is a single goddess.

According to Goodison and Morris (1998), the controversy between the supporters of Goddess theory and those who dismiss it is made worse because the two sides do not speak to each other. Those who support the theory are non-specialists, artists, psychotherapists, Neo-pagans, and amateur historians. They accuse academics—archaeologists, ancient historians, and anthropologists—of intentionally ignoring evidence of a powerful female presence in ancient history. This supposed intentional hiding or overlooking of evidence of the Goddess is usually described as being part of a male conspiracy to hide real history. Contemporary specialists in relevant fields ignore the Goddess claims, dismissing them as too far-fetched to take seriously. They also suspect that the movement is motivated by an ideology of feminist reform that attempts to rewrite history in the service of that ideology.

Defining Matriarchy

Victorian anthropologists, in attempting to understand the past, sometimes proposed the existence of tribal societies in which women were at least the equals of men. Part of the feminist movement has latched on to these claims to show the relativity of “patriarchal” institutions today. However, before we address specific arguments, we need a working definition of the term “matriarchy. Both the words patriarchy and matriarchy share the same suffix—archy, from the Greek –archos, which means “rule by.” Therefore, in simple terms patriarchy means the rule of men over women in the areas of technology, economics, politics and religion, art, science. To be consistent with the meaning of the suffix, matriarchy would have to be the reverse of patriarchy—i.e., the rule of women over men in these areas. Matriarchy would mean the control of technological, political, and economic power—the right to control production and distribution beyond the household. Women would have the military power to force men to go along with social policy, and they would control the myths by which the society lives. Have societies with these characteristics actually existed? Presumably, if they have, we should look for evidence among the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers, the Neolithic horticulturists, and the Bronze-Age agricultural states.

Before proceeding, it is important to refine our definitions of patriarchy and matriarchy a little further. It is highly unlikely that any sociologist (man or woman) would define patriarchy or matriarchy as referring to “all men” or “all women.” In the case of rank and stratified societies, there is no question that those in power are men. However, the percentage of men with political, economic and technological power is small. The rest of the male population—the middle classes, the working class artisan and peasant men—are subordinate to them. All men have some privileges over women but privilege is not the same as power. A refined definition of patriarchy therefore would be, the power and control exercised by a few men over all women and most men throughout the infrastructure, structure, and superstructure of society, with all men having some privileges over all women. If we want to be consistent with what we know of patriarchal rank and stratified societies, then a matriarchy would be defined as the power and control exercised by a few women over all men and most women throughout the infrastructure, structure, and superstructure of society, with all women having some privileges over all men. Virtually everyone familiar with the evidence archaeology, anthropology, and history agrees that matriarchies have never existed.

What are the implications? If women did not once dominate in the sacred, political, and economic dimensions of society, does this mean that patriarchies have always existed? The hidden assumption of those who ask us to choose between matriarchy and patriarchy as the mode of dominance in ancient societies is that rule over others was always the case. We are simply asked to choose whether it was women or men who were doing the ruling. But in hunting-and-gathering and simple horticultural societies everyone was doing the ruling. This means that these societies were neither matriarchal nor patriarchal.

If matriarchy is simply defined as the reverse of patriarchy, then the notion of its prevalence in early societies is fairly easy to dismiss. However, some sectors within the pagan-feminist community have defined matriarchal societies differently, calling them “matrifocal.” What they mean by this is the existence of egalitarian political and economic relations between men and women in material culture and the predominance of a Goddess or goddesses in sacred culture.

Most anthropologists, archaeologists, and macro-sociologists agree that hunting-and-gathering and simple horticultural societies were politically and economically egalitarian. Here Goddess advocates are on solid ground. But Goddess advocates confuse the issue by insisting that the superstructure of these societies was characterized by reverence for goddesses. This presumed predominance of goddesses, together with a presumed reverence for motherhood, seem to be the major justifications for calling these societies “matrifocal.”

Positive Conclusions

There are at least five positive conclusions to be drawn from the Goddess theorists and their claims with regard to history. First, they are right to point to a time in history when gender relations were politically and economically equal. Second, some of the figurines found by Gimbutas are likely to have been goddesses. Third, goddesses had many positive functions in Bronze Age societies, more than they did once the universalistic religions emerged. Fourth, the practice of magic, including goddess magic, long predated the rise of the great religions. Fifth and last, tribal societies did not engage in mass killings the way state societies did.

Negative Conclusions

In most other instances, however, as we have seen, the Neo-pagan goddess theorists overstate their case or are simply wrong. First, there have never been any matriarchal societies, as we have defined “matriarchy.” This does not mean that all ancient societies were patriarchal: tribal societies were neither patriarchal nor matriarchal. Second, many of the figurines discovered were probably not goddesses; some were male, some were non-gendered, and some were used as dolls, toys, or lucky charms. Third, there is no good evidence for goddess reverence going all the way back to the Paleolithic Age. It is more likely that it began in the Bronze Age.

In terms of sacred practices, while all goddess practices were magical, magical practices were not tied necessarily to goddesses. Magic was conducted with earth spirits, totems, and ancestor spirits long before goddesses came on the scene. Correspondingly, while some elements of witchcraft have existed in all ancient societies, witchcraft was practiced in Paleolithic and Neolithic societies before goddess reverence emerged.

Further, the goddesses within Bronze Age societies were polytheistic, not monotheistic. There was never a single monotheistic Great Goddess who was regarded as presiding over all of society. Further, motherhood was not the leading function of goddesses. While goddesses had many functions, motherhood was not a leading one. This is because most ancient societies did not think much of motherhood.

In addition, there was no direct relationship between reverence for goddesses and high material status for women. At the time Bronze Age civilizations appeared, goddesses already had subordinate status, and this justified the low status of women in these societies. In the Iron Age, with the rise of the great religions, the status of women improved slightly despite the marginalization of goddesses. In societies that can be characterized as egalitarian (hunter-gatherer and simple horticultural societies) there were no goddesses. Therefore, so far “matrifocal” means egalitarian relations between men and women in material culture and the predominance of goddesses in the sacred dimension, ancient societies were not matrifocal. Women’s positive material and sacred status have never coexisted within the same society. When women lived material lives more or less on a par with men—in foraging and simple horticultural societies—the evidence for goddess reverence is absent. When goddesses emerged in agricultural states, women’s material status had already deteriorated (with the exception of queens and priestesses who constituted an insignificant proportion of the population).

The rise of institutionalized male dominance was not caused by pastoral invasions, but rather by processes internal to pre-state societies. Tribal societies were far from peace loving. Their homicide rates and frequency of war were greater than in Bronze and Iron Age State civilizations, in which institutionalized male dominance emerged. Last, the transition/crisis from polytheism to monotheism did not involve conflict between gods and goddesses, but rather between male gods. Table 1 presents these conclusions in chart form.

Goddess theorists either have not studied the anthropological literature fully (reading selectively), or they believe that there was such a thing as matriarchal dominance, at least in the sacred realm, as a kind of article of faith. In the case of child-rearing, it is generally admitted that this was the province of women, but Goddess theorists have projected romanticized notions of motherhood back in time. As a whole, motherhood and child rearing were rarely if ever held as sacred activities in the ancient world. To the extent that male dominance in tribal societies is admitted, it is generally attributed to external sources—male-dominated herders or patriarchal colonialists attacking hunter-gatherers and simple horticulturists—rather than seen as emerging from within societies.

I call Goddess theorists “idealists” because they generally try to explain changes in material institutions—ecology, technology, the economy, and politics—from changes in spiritual beliefs, from the Goddess to the God.

Holding Out the Olive Branch

In denying most of the historical claims of the Goddess movement my intention is descriptive, not proscriptive. I am arguing not for what ought to have happened in gender history, but what is likely actually to have happened. It is certainly comforting and inspiring to believe that there was a time when women were respected in all areas of cultural life. If that were the case, it would be easier to believe that women can again achieve full equality with men in all aspects of society today and in the future. Even if most of the historical claims of the Goddess movement are mistaken we still can use the myths and rituals of pagan people to help build our future. More women have a better life today, at least in industrialized societies, than they ever did in agricultural states when goddesses first arose. The improvement in the life of most women in industrial societies is a solid basis for making a closer connection between women’s material and sacred status in the future. To me, that project offers the best prospect for achieving the Goddess theorists’ ultimate aims.

This article is a summary of a thirty page chapter I wrote from my book Power in Eden: The Emergence of Gender Hierarchies in the Ancient World.

Critique of the Goddess Movement Model of Ancient History

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Bruce Lerro.

PRELUDE:

If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history.
— Hannah Arendt

I. Functional stoner / Still not a loner
Flying without a net / Everyone’s a threat
Ain’t that a shame / The country’s rigged game
Swallowed by theocratic aims
You were hoping / I was coping
You were counting on me
But now it’s martial decree
No space for justice
From sea to singeing sea
II. In a time of forced submission / Liberty’s attrition
Supreme Court kneels / To authoritarian appeals
Something taken, nothing earned / Roe reversed, bridges to justice burned
Project 2025 dominates/ Trump’s blueprint built on fear and hate
Christian flags at every gate / New commandments from the state
Macolm X knew the fire / Familiar with the racist choir
Sinclair Lewis understood it could happen here / Alligator Alcatraz aims to instill fear
Pence replaced by Vance / Performing the same Trump dance
Banned books, gagged teachers / Bible politicking preachers
Who bless the boots and beat the drum
For the kingdom yet to come
From sea to singeing sea
III. Ignoring plural lives / As the single creed thrives
No consent, no reprieve / Just “believe or leave”
Layered trauma politicized / Truth hollowed, terror disguised
Of thee I sing / May freedom ever again ring
Loneliness rebranded pride / While freedoms slip and slide
No justice, no dream / Just red-pilled regimes
Tear down history / Build mythic symmetry
From sea to singeing sea
IV.Contradictions in bloom / Over Liberty’s tomb
Amber waves surveilled / People voting derailed
Purple mountains majesty / Can’t hide the travesty
Faith as law, law as weapon / “Christian nation” is the lesson
Above and below the fruited plain
The torch burns, but not in vain
From sea to singeing sea

CODA:

The trouble with [Adolph] Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together.
— Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Bill Berkowitz.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Faramarz Farbod.

Bill looks at me. “Which is…”

“The highest elevation where trees can still grow.”

“If you say so, boss.”

We’re climbing up the mountain at a pretty good clip. It’s getting dark and cold.

Bill suddenly stops. “Boss, is it just me… but the trees seem to be moving too… and at more or less the same pace as we’re approaching them.”

“Funniest thing, Bill, the exact same thought occurred to me just a minute ago. But how’s arbol strolling physically possible?”

“They’re scared of us… or just don’t want to meet us. Could there be any other reason?”

“I think you’re right, although trees lack the capacity to think. Maybe they’re escaping out of instinct, self-preservation. Still, it doesn’t make sense. Plants are supposed to be fixed in place.”

“Are we so horrible… trees pull up their roots and trudge away? They can’t bear standing near us?”

“It seems that way, Bill, it sure does. We people are apparently repulsive creatures. At least according to Abies alba.”

“Then it’s hopeless, boss. A futile effort… the entire journey.”

“Yes, it could prove to be a pipe dream. But even if it’s all beyond reach, we cannot wend our way back. The valley is on fire.”

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by J.S. O’Keefe.

Britain and America would like everyone to believe that hostilities with Iran began with the 1979 Islamic Revolution. But you have to go back over 70 years to find the root cause in America’s case, while Iranians have endured more than a century of British exploitation and bullying. The US-UK Axis don’t want this important slice of history resurrected to become part of public discourse. Here’s why.

William Knox D’Arcy, having obtained a 60-year oil concession to three-quarters of Persia and with financial support from Glasgow-based Burmah Oil, eventually found oil in commercial quantities in 1908.  The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was formed and in 1911 and completed a pipeline from the oilfield to its new refinery at Abadan.

Just before the outbreak of World War 1 Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, wanted to convert the British fleet from coal. To secure a reliable oil source the British Government took a major shareholding in Anglo-Persian.

In the 1920s and 1930s, the company profited hugely from paying the Persians a miserly 16% and refusing to renegotiate terms. An angry Persia eventually cancelled the D’Arcy agreement and took the matter to the Court of International Justice in The Hague. A new agreement in 1933 provided Anglo-Persian with a fresh 60-year concession but on a smaller area. The terms were slightly improved but still didn’t amount to a square deal.

In 1935 Persia became known internationally by its other name, Iran, and the company was re-named Anglo-Iranian Oil. By 1950 Abadan was the biggest oil refinery in the world and the British government, with its 51% holding, had affectively colonized part of southern Iran.

Iran’s tiny share of the profits had long soured relations and so did the company’s treatment of its oil workers. 6,000 went on strike in 1946 and the dispute was brutally put down with 200 dead or injured. In 1951 while Aramco shared profits with the Saudis on a 50/50 basis Anglo-Iranian handed Iran a miserable 17.5%.

Hardly surprising, then, that Iran wanted economic and political independence. Calls to nationalise its oil could no longer be ignored. In March of that year the Majlis and Senate voted to nationalize Anglo-Iranian, which had controlled Iran’s oil industry since 1913 under terms frankly unfavourable to the host country.

Social reformer Dr Mohammad Mossadeq was named prime minister by a 79 to 12 majority and promptly carried out his government’s wishes, cancelling Anglo-Iranian’s oil concession and expropriating its assets. His explanation was perfectly reasonable:

Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries… have yielded no results thus far. With the oil revenues, we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people.

Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced…. Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence. (M. Fateh, Panjah Sal-e Naft-e Iran, p. 525)

Britain, determined to bring about regime change, orchestrated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil, froze Iran’s sterling assets and threatened legal action against anyone purchasing oil produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries. The Iranian economy was soon in ruins… All sounds very familiar, doesn’t it?

Churchill (prime minister at the time) let it be known that Mossadeq was turning communist and pushing Iran into the arms of Russia just when Cold War anxiety was high. That was enough to bring America’s new president, Eisenhower, onboard and plotting with Britain to bring Mossadeq down.

So began a nasty game of provocation, mayhem and deception. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in exile, signed two decrees, one dismissing Mossadeq and the other nominating the CIA’s choice, General Fazlollah Zahedi, as prime minister. These decrees were written as dictated by the CIA. The coup by MI6 and the CIA was successful and in August 1953, when it was judged safe for him to do so, the Shah returned to take over.

For his impudence Mossadeq was arrested, tried, and convicted of treason by the Shah’s military court. He was imprisoned for 3 years then put under house arrest until his death. He remarked: “My greatest sin is that I nationalized Iran’s oil industry and discarded the system of political and economic exploitation by the world’s greatest empire… I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle East in breaking the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests.”

His supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed. Zahedi’s new government reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium to restore the flow of Iranian oil, awarding the US and Great Britain the lion’s share, with 40% going to Anglo-Iranian.

The consortium agreed to split profits on a 50-50 basis with Iran but refused to open its books to Iranian auditors or allow Iranians to sit on the board.

The US massively funded the Shah’s government, including his army and his hated secret police force, SAVAK. Anglo-Iranian changed its name to British Petroleum in 1954. Mossadeq died in 1967.

Smouldering resentment for more than 70 years

The British-American conspiracy that toppled Mossadeq, reinstated the Shah and let the American oil companies in, was the final straw for the Iranians. It all backfired 25 years later with the Islamic Revolution of 1978-9, the humiliating 444-day hostage crisis in the American embassy and a tragically botched rescue mission.

If Britain and America had played fair and allowed the Iranians to determine their own future instead of using economic terrorism to bring the country to its knees Iran might today be “the only democracy in the Middle East”, a title falsely claimed by Israel which is actually a repulsive ethnocracy. So never mention the M-word MOSSADEQ – the Iranian who dared to break the chains of slavery and servitude to Western colonial interests.

Is Britain incapable of playing fair? During the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) the US, and eventually Britain, leaned strongly towards Saddam and the alliance enabled Saddam to more easily acquire or develop forbidden chemical and biological weapons. At least 100,000 Iranians fell victim to them.

This is how John King, writing in 2003, summed it up. “The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam’s army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was known that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens.

“The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked the UN censure of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France, and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.”

The company I worked for at that time supplied the Iranian government with electronic components for military equipment and we were mulling an invitation to set up a factory in Tehran when the UK Government announced it was revoking all export licences to Iran. They had decided to back Saddam. Hundreds of British companies were forced to abandon the Iranians at a critical moment.

Betraying Iran and throwing our weight behind Saddam went well, didn’t it?

Saddam was overthrown in April 2003 following the US/UK-led invasion of Iraq, and hanged in messy circumstances after a dodgy trial in 2006. The dirty work was left to the Provisional Iraqi Government. At the end of the day, we couldn’t even ensure that Saddam was dealt with fairly. “The trial and execution of Saddam Hussein were tragically missed opportunities to demonstrate that justice can be done, even in the case of one of the greatest crooks of our time”, said the UN Human Rights Council’s expert on extrajudicial executions.

Philip Alston, a law professor at New York University, pointed to three major flaws leading to Saddam’s execution. “The first was that his trial was marred by serious irregularities denying him a fair hearing and these have been documented very clearly. Second, the Iraqi Government engaged in an unseemly and evidently politically motivated effort to expedite the execution by denying time for a meaningful appeal and by closing off every avenue to review the punishment. Finally, the humiliating manner in which the execution was carried out clearly violated human rights law.”

In 2022 when Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian, was freed after five years in a Tehran prison it transpired that the UK had owed around £400m to the Iranian government arising from the non-delivery of Chieftain battle tanks ordered by the Shah of Iran before his overthrow in 1979. Iran had been pursuing the debt for over four decades. In 2009 an international court in the Netherlands ordered Britain to repay the money. Iranian authorities said Nazanin would be released when the UK did so, but she suffered those years of incarceration, missing her children and husband in the UK, while the British government took its own sweet time before finally paying up.

Now we’re playing dirty yet again, supporting an undemocratic state, Israel, which is run by genocidal maniacs and has for 77 years defied international law and waged a war of massacre, terror and dispossession against the native Palestinians. And we’re even protecting it in its lethal quarrel with Iran.

It took President Truman only 11 minutes to accept and extend full diplomatic relations to Israel when the Zionist entity declared statehood in 1948 despite the fact that it was still committing massacres and other terrorist atrocities. Israel’s evil ambitions and horrendous tactics were well known and documented right from the start but eagerly backed and facilitated by the US and UK. In the UK’s case betrayal of the Palestinians began in 1915 thanks to Zionist influence. Even Edwin Montagu, the only Jew in the British Cabinet at that time, described Zionism as “a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom”.

Sadly, the Zionist regime’s unspeakable cruelty and inhumanity against unarmed women and children in Gaza and the West Bank — bad enough in the decades before October 2023 but now showing the Israelis as the repulsive criminals they’ve always been — still isn’t enough to end US-UK adoration and support. UK prime minister Starmer much prefers to talk about “the malign influence of Iran”

The excuse this time is that Iran’s nuclear programme might be about to produce weapons-grade material which is bad news for Israel. There’s a blanket ‘hush’ over Israel’s 200 (or is it 400?) nukes. The US and UK and allies think it’s OK for mad-dog Israel to have nuclear weapons but not Iran which has to live under this horrific Israeli threat. Then there’s America’s QME doctrine which guarantees Israel a ‘Qualitative Military Edge’ over its Middle East neighbours.

Then consider that Israel is the only state in the region not to have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It hasn’t signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention either. It has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, similarly the Chemical Weapons Convention. Yes, it’s quite evident that the Zionist entity, not Iran, is the ultimate “malign influence” in the Middle East.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Stuart Littlewood.

Perhaps the mentally ill person I love is correct, unintentionally, in evading the effects of this government’s lunacy, and that of the Israelis. Marines and National Guard troops sent into LA because the public demands to be heard in peaceful symphony. A President and his inner sanctum that intend to transform us into Germany circa 1930s. They replace the ‘Jew vermin’ with the ‘Illegal alien vermin’. The one constant is that all who oppose the MAGA MACHINE are just as Red as those who opposed the Nazi juggernaut.

I guess some things never change. The support for this dangerous Israeli government is congruent with Trump’s support for our Military Industrial Empire, feeding that beast with more of our tax dollars. His assault on everything vital, from Medicaid, food for the elderly and infirm delivered to their abodes, labor unions or labor organizing, daycare, public education… and pretty soon the big scissor on our cherished Medicare and Social Security.

I once interviewed a man who was tortured in captivity. After hearing of all the terrible things they did to his body, and his mind, I asked him how did he survive. He said that after awhile he just became numb to it all, both physically and mentally. Uncomfortably Numb!

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Philip A. Faruggio.

In the mountains of truth, you never climb in vain.

― Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human (1878)

High on the mountain ridge two huge rattlesnakes eye my son the eagle as he passes a few feet from them.

Early June. Dawn brings mist covered mountains and an empty road. The car’s capsule draws us together. I am taking my adult son to a trail that begins at the bottom of a ski slope where he will start a twenty-one mile run up and over a series of mountain peaks and through dense forests.

It is Sunday morning and soon many will awake and go into buildings to pray. Emerson and Thoreau suggested otherwise, and my son hears the same call. “Rise free from care before the dawn, and seek adventures,” said Thoreau. God is not caged in a building where preachers prattle about commonplaces meant to soothe bad consciences.

As he adjusts his running vest with its bottles of water, he walks toward the ascending path. From the rear, his curly hair and neck remind me of the little boy who loved nature so that he uncannily knew the names of every country and all their animals, as he now knows every bird and all their calls in an instant.

My heart opens like a flower as I watch him go.

Highly accomplished professionally and athletically, I think he runs to find the rhythm of life’s essence and the peace that passes all understanding. And to overcome himself. Always self-overcoming! I recall when I was his age how, when I went on much, much shorter and easier runs in natural surroundings, I would sometimes think of Leo Tolstoy or his character Andrei in War and Peace or Levin mowing with a scythe in Anna Karenina, finding the peace of the uncaged God in nature’s beauty and rhythmic movement. Now when I walk it is no different. And I too prefer to go alone.

I agree with Nietzsche, who wrote on scraps of paper while walking in the mountains: “Sitting still is the real sin against the Holy Ghost.”

I think of my father, with whom I talk regularly, who died thirty-two years ago and who walked city streets to different beats. He was conventional in certain ways, but from the stories I’ve heard about him when he was an age similar to my son’s, he did things that I would have warned against, but that I have come to realize are useless suggestions against God’s seal on one’s soul.  Quien sabe? (who knows?) was his favorite phrase. I don’t. Advice can be crippling. I am a recovering crippler out of love, but a love filled with fear for the safety of those I love, although I too was like my father and son, and many would say I still am, in a different way. Love is strange. So is daring.

When my father was in his twenties, he was in a bar with his brother (both became lawyers). An off-duty cop was drunk and looking for a fight. He was brandishing his gun. My father pinned his arm to the bar, grabbed the gun, ran outside, and threw the gun down a sewer. Risky business.

When in his late fifties, he was riding a subway with one other rider, an old lady. He was dressed in a bulky overcoat and a fedora, looking like a NYC cop of that era. Four young punks entered and demanded his wallet. One said to him, “Are you a cop?” He replied, “Why don’t you find out?” And he put his hands in his pockets. The train stopped at the next station and the four jumped out.

Fathers and sons. The links are mysterious but true, and very strong. My father, the only grandfather my son ever met, was a beautiful caring soul, a conventional Catholic and politically mainstream with a highly sophisticated mind. I became a theologian in my early years but a dissident Catholic and a political radical who was fired from teaching positions for “heresy.” My father disagreed with many of my positions but fully supported me in every way. My son, like many of his generation, took a step further away from religion. He disregards it, but he is such a deep thinker that he travels circuitous paths to the contemplation of the mysterious, to marvel at miraculous nature, what is clearly spiritual, however you want to define that word. What C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man sums up as the Tao, that Chinese term whose reality is beyond all predicates. “It is Nature, it is the Way, the Road.” One enters the Tao following one’s chest (the seat of magnanimity, sentiment) – full physically – sensing, however dimly, that one’s feet will lead one into a reality beyond words where “the head rules the belly through the chest,” the middle element of feeling that leads the soul on through trained habit.

In a world becoming more disincarnate and mechanical, what could be more important.

When my father read the English writer Edmund Gosse’s classic account of his Victorian childhood and his conflicted religious relationship with his father in Father and Son – subtitled “a study of two temperaments” – he wrote to me to say it sounded like us. There was a sadness in his words tinged with a wise understanding that this was inevitable, for separate generations are affected differently by changes in society, and yet and yet, the fundamental things abide.  Our deep love, most fundamentally.

My son and I have been affected by similar societal changes that have diffused the religious impulse into more diverse paths. Younger spirits don’t want to run on worn old soles. My son runs further and higher than I ever could. I thought I went deeper than my father. But the winding roads the three of us travel always intersect in ways our unknowing minds never know but our chests feel. These are the ties that bind us.

Wordsworth, in Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood tells us how they are rooted in childhood:

High instincts before which our mortal Nature
Did tremble like a guilty thing surprised:
But for those first affections,
Those shadowy recollections,
Which, be they what they may,
Are yet the fountain-light of all our day,
Are yet a master-light of all our seeing;
Uphold us, cherish, and have power to make
Our noisy years seem moments in the being
Of the eternal Silence: truths that wake,
To perish never;
Which neither listlessness, nor mad endeavour,
Nor Man nor Boy, for beauty
Nor all that is at enmity with joy,
Can utterly abolish or destroy!

High on the mountain ridge two huge rattlesnakes eye my son the eagle as he passes a few feet from them. He thanks them for awakening him on his long journey and photographs them as he dances past their coiled bodies where a sublime vibrating landscape greets him. Beasts lead the way to beauty if you’re brave. “And he who is not a bird should not build his nest over abysses. . . . You stand there honorable and stiff and with straight backs, you famous wise men: no strong will and wind drives you. . . . Thus spoke Zarathustra.”

In his essay, “Create Dangerously,” Albert Camus tells us that beauty never enslaved anyone, just the opposite. Without beauty, we would perish. And in the Duino Elegies, Rilke tells us that “every angel is terrifying.” What is an angel but an image of beauty, and before transcendent beauty we can only bow down in reverence. Art takes a multiplicity of forms: words, paint, music, etc., but it is always incarnated expression to be true to human experience. Like mountain running.

Camus:

After all, perhaps the greatness of art lies in the perpetual tension between beauty and pain, the love of men and the madness of creation, unbearable solitude and the exhausting crowd, rejection and consent. Art advances between two chasms, which are frivolity and propaganda. On the ridge where the great artist moves forward, every step is an adventure, an extreme risk. In that risk, however, and only there, lies the freedom of art…. the free artist is no more a man of comfort than is the free man…. Danger makes men classical, and all greatness, after all, is rooted in risk.

Create dangerously, as he said.

Four hours later, I drive twenty-five miles to the southwest to meet my son. I wait in a little dirt parking lot where the seven mile trail down from the last mountain peak is so narrow that one can barely get through it. I push through and look up in fear and awe. The path cascades down over rocks and heavy brush. No one is in sight. Then, further up, I glimpse movement around a bend and down comes my son flying like a wild bird with feet – grinning.

“How was it?,” I ask him.

“Fine,” he says, in his laconic style.

When we get in the car to drive home and he is gulping the bottles of water that I have brought for him, his grandfather, my father, startles us from the back seat. He says, “Have you guys ever heard this poem?” And he begins to recite it in his mellifluous voice as we roll along.

Sometimes A Man Stands Up During Supper

By Rainer Maria Rilke

Sometimes a man stands up during supper
and walks outdoors, and keeps on walking,
because of a church that stands somewhere in the East.

And his children say blessings on him as if he were dead.

And another man, who remains inside his own house,
dies there, inside the dishes and in the glasses,
so that his children have to go far out into the world
toward that same church, which he forgot.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Edward Curtin.

A South Asian proverb:

When-buffaloes fight, it’s the trees that gets wrecked.

An African saying:

When elephants fight, it’s the grass that gets hurt.

Just at this moment, I received a divine revelation:

“When the world’s most powerful person and the planet’s richest person fight, it’s the world that gets ravaged.”

HOPE NOT!

HOPE …

they’ll “have dinner together,” instead.

To me, war God YHWH further revealed:

“Whatever happens elsewhere is none of my business. However, what happens in my ‘chosen land’ is my supreme concern. Thus one thing remains constant: My chosen one Bibi (not to be confused with this Bibi) is going to continue working to spread more peace.

“No one could stop Bibi’s mission: neither those who think expanding peace is a crime, nor those who claim the land belongs to other people.

“The chosen land is blessed with good neighbors: Pharaoh, Auto-man, puppet, mole, and GCCP. Bibi is busy mopping up the area of people who challenged the chosen ones. Only one bad neighbor is left now which, I am sure, Bibi will take care of.

“My people are also being supported by a communalist who follows a supremacist ideology. The founders of that supremacist ideology were impressed by the person who sent many people to gas chambers, including five to six million of my followers. The communalists were planning the same for the minorities in their own country.

(YHWH has used code-words rather than naming the neighbors.)

Pharaoh cannot be anyone but Egypt‘s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

Auto-man sounds like Ottoman, that is, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Erdogan is a man who turns automatically in the direction where he sees benefits.

Puppet must be Jordan’s King Abdullah II.

Mole must be Morocco’s King Hassan II who, as a member of the Arab League, gave very important information from the conference recording to Israel’s spy agency Mossad. Why would Yahweh invoke Hassan II who died in 1999? Yahweh is probably trying to say that relations have remained the same with the new King, Muhammad VI, son of Hassan II.

GCCP. GCC stands for Gulf Cooperation Council made up of six countries: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Despite being Jewish God, YHWH has some knowledge of the rulers who are always worried about their ass-glued gold thrones and are thus looking for protection from the US at the expense of their resources and people. We can thus deduce that GCCP stand for Gulf Cooperation Council of Pimps.

The communalist is India’s Narendra Modi.

The “bad neighbor” is not difficult to identify because only Iran is left there who gave support to Gazans and opposes Israel’s hegemony. Israel, a nuclear power, is looking for ways to destroy Iran’s nuclear program so that it doesn’t have any nuclear rival.)

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by B.R. Gowani.

In 2008, the Free Gaza Movement successfully managed to reach Gaza with two vessels.  For the next eight years, five out of 31 boats successfully journeyed to the Strip. Others met no such luck. In 2010, Israeli commandos revealed their petticoats of violence in killing 10 activists and injuring dozens of others on the Mavi Marmara, a vessel carrying 10,000 tonnes of supplies, including school supplies, building materials, and two large electricity generators. It was also operated by the Humanitarian Relief Foundation, a Turkish NGO, being one of six ships that formed a flotilla. Scandal followed, and the wounds on that issue have yet to heal.

With the Israeli Defense Forces and its evangelical warriors preaching the destruction of Palestinians along with any hope of a viable, functioning state, an impotent collective of nations, either allied to Israel or adversarial in nature, have been unable to minimize or restrain the viciousness of the Gaza campaign. Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen have made largely fruitless military efforts to ease the program of gradual liquidation taking place in the Strip. Given such an absence of resolve and effectualness, tragedy can lend itself to symbolic theatre and farce.

The Madleen enterprise, operated by the Freedom Flotilla, departed from Sicily on June 1 with baby formula, food, medical items, and water desalination kits. It ended with its interception by the Israeli forces in international waters roughly 185 km (100 nautical miles) from Gaza. With a top-billing activist such as Greta Thunberg, a French-Palestinian Member of the European Parliament, Rima Hassan, and journalists in the crew, including Al Jazeera’s Omar Faiad, this was not your standard run-of-the-mill effort.

Celebrities, when they throw themselves at ethical and moral problems, often risk trivializing the cause before the bright lights, gilding, if not obscuring the lily in the process. Thunberg, for all her principles, has become a professional activist, a superstar of the protest circuit.  Largely associated with shaming climate change deniers and the officials’ laziness in addressing dense carbon footprints, her presence on the Madleen crew is a reminder that calculated activism has become a media spectacle. It is a model, an IKEA flatpack version, to be assembled on sight, an exportable product, ready for the journey.

This is not to be flippant about Thunberg or the broader purpose involved here. Her presence and those engaged in the enterprise are dangerous reminders to the Israeli project in Gaza. Had they been wise, the bureaucrats would have let the affair play out in stoic silence, rendering it a media event, one filed in the library of forget-me articles that have become the stock and trade of an overly crowded infosphere. But the criminal instinct, or at least one guiltily prone towards one, is garrulous. The chatter can never stop, because the justifications for such behaviour never end.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry, for instance, thought it wise to dismiss the entire effort of what it called the “celebrities yacht” as a “media gimmick for publicity (which includes less than a single truckload of aid) – a ‘selfie yacht’.”  Perfectly capturing Israel’s own abominable record in supplying humanitarian aid in dribs and drabs to the residents of Gaza, when it bothered to, the ministry goes on to fabulize about 1,200 aid trucks and 11 million meals supposedly sent to those in the Strip, never mentioning the killing of those seeking the aid by IDF personnel, the enlistment of rogue Palestinian clans, and the sketchy background of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

Defence Minister Israel Katz also issued a statement declaring that Israel would “not allow anyone to violate the naval blockade on Gaza, the primary purpose of which is to prevent the transfer of weapons to Hamas, a murderous terror organisation that holds our hostages and commits war crimes.”

In responding to the vessel, the Israelis did not disappoint. They added to the scene with accustomed violence, but the publicity wonks were aware that killing Thunberg and treating the rest of the crew like any other member of displaced persons at Khan Younis did not seem kosher. The infliction of suffering had to be magisterially restrained, a gold-class privilege delved out by the superior ones. No missiles or armed drones were used on this occasion.

Instead, the twelve-member crew was taken to the port city of Ashdod, 30km north of Gaza, where prison authorities had been instructed by Israel’s dogmatic National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir to hold them in solitary confinement. A number, including Thunberg, have been deported. Others are still being held, purportedly for refusing to sign paperwork authorising their deportation.

As the formalities are being chewed over, the broader designation of the effort by the Madleen and her crew as those of a “selfie yacht” offer the pool’s reflection to Israeli authorities: how the IDF took selfies of their atrocities, filming with haughty and avenging pride the destruction of Palestinian civilian infrastructure and the moonscape of their creation; how Israeli officials, such as the former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant felt comfortable claiming the Jewish state was “fighting against human animals”. This was one occasion where a celebrity venture, as small as it was, proved worthy.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

[A] lot of people across the global majority are asking the extremely serious question: why the BRICS, and especially why Russia and China, are not doing more than what they’re doing on behalf of Palestine and to defend Palestine. This is an extremely serious question and it’s not being addressed by Russia and China. We have to be straightforward about that, right? The only ones who are actually doing something, once again, are the Houthis in Yemen. Heroes of the whole planet.

— Journalist and geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar in a Youtube interview with Danny Haiphong, streamed live on 17 July 2024 (approximately 18:16 to 18:54)

The sentiments expressed by Escobar were expressed to me at an earlier date by author Randy Shields:

… if all Russia and China are going to do is talk they could start talking about a one state solution. They could put some urgency into the situation. They could let Abbas and the Gulf family dictatorships know that the status quo is unacceptable. They could start telling the truth to the world that the “two state solution” is impossible and was only ever a delaying tactic by Israel. They could even announce that Palestine is under consideration for BRICS membership…. They could cut off whatever trade they have and cut off diplomatic relations with Israel, recall ambassadors, etc…

Godfree Roberts, author of Why China Leads the World gave his take on China and Palestine in his 1 May 2025, “Xi the Merciful?: The fate of China’s worst enemy lies in Xi Jinping’s hands”:

Beijing is hunting much bigger game than tariffs: the liberation of Palestine. China, Palestine’s oldest and most loyal friend, has endured America’s genocidal mania for generations and now has the tools to end their shared misery….

This year, we will witness the most momentous events since WWII. Global leadership will return to Asia, America will enters [sic] its post-imperial twilight, and Palestine will become free and independent, and the Zionists return to Ukraine whence they came.

Shields is skeptical:

There’s no evidence to back up what [Roberts] says. Russia and China continue to maintain trade and diplomatic ties with a genocidal apartheid state committing 24/7 live-streamed genocide.

China plays a long game. There is plenty of evidence of Chinese advancements in science, technology, supply chains, manufacturing, arts, etc. The question is whether China (and Russia) will come through with morally based support befitting a leading world economy?

The Communist Party of China (CPC) has made great strides for its people, having achieved a xiaokang (moderately prosperous) society in 2021. Moving forward, China aims for gongtong fuyu (common prosperity) — a society based on social equality and economic equity.

On the road to gongtong fuyu, the CPC’s next five-year plan targets “the goal of basically realizing socialist modernization, with a view to building a great country and advancing national rejuvenation” in the period 2026 to 2030. China’s rise is also meant to benefit the world as it seeks peaceful win-win relationships. Chairman Xi Jinping said, “Long ago China made a solemn declaration to the world that it is committed to pursuing peaceful development.”¹

This commitment to pursuing peaceful development has recently been thrown into question by China’s business arrangements connected to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, which can hardly be construed as peaceful development from the Palestinian side (or any morally based side).

China’s Support for Palestine

China’s support for the human and territorial rights of Palestinians dates back to the time of chairman Mao Zedong. Mao’s China supported anti-imperialist and national liberation movements worldwide; this included support for the Palestinian cause. In May 1965, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was ensconced in a Beijing office and accorded diplomatic privileges and immunity. During a meeting with a visiting PLO delegation in 1965, Mao said: “Imperialism is afraid of China and of the Arabs. Israel and Formosa are bases of imperialism in Asia. You are the front gate of the great continent, and we are the rear.”²

Post-Mao, on 20 November 1988, China officially recognized the State of Palestine and established official diplomatic relations between the two countries. On 31 December of the same year, the PLO’s office in Beijing was upgraded to the Embassy of the State of Palestine in China, and its head was appointed as the ambassador of the State of Palestine to China.

However, China has a uneven history of supporting the Palestinian cause and opposing Zionism.³

More recently, at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 22 February 2024, Ma Xinmin, director-general of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Chinese Foreign Ministry “unequivocally stated”:

“The Palestinian-Israeli conflict stems from Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory and Israel’s longstanding oppression of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people fight against Israeli oppression and their struggle for completing the establishment of an independent state on the occupied territory are essentially just actions for restoring their legitimate rights.”⁴

Moreover,

Citing numerous articles of international laws, Ma claims that “the struggle waged by peoples for their liberation, right to self-determination, including armed struggle against colonialism, occupation, aggression, domination against foreign forces should not be considered terror acts” and that “armed struggle in this context is distinguished from acts of terrorism. It is grounded in international law. This distinction is acknowledged by several international conventions.” He further declares, “in pursuit of the right to self-determination, Palestinian people’s use of force to resist foreign oppression and complete the establishment of an independent state is an inalienable right, well-founded in international law.”⁵

Regarding the deliberations by the ICJ on the charge of genocide being carried out by the state of Israel, China supports the ICJ’s role in upholding justice and international law, and calls for an immediate ceasefire in Palestine, humanitarian assistance, and a two-state solution to achieve lasting peace in the region.

On 14 April 2025, Times of India reported that Russia and China criticized Israel for turning humanitarian assistance to Gaza into “a tool of war.” Russia’s UN envoy Vasily Nebenzya alleged that Israel was attempting to make the UN an accomplice to its warring in Gaza. This sentiment was echoed by China’s envoy Fu Cong.

As Shields, and many others, would point out this is just more words.

What is China doing in Israeli Occupied Palestine?

But the situation vis-à-vis Palestine appears decidedly more sinister.

Razan Shawamreh is a Palestinian researcher interested in Chinese foreign policy in the Middle East. She has thrown a wrench into Chinese good intentions supporting Palestinian resistance and self-determination in its territories. Shawamreh wrote an article, “How China is quietly aiding Israel’s settlement enterprise,” for the Middle East Eye in which she charges, “Away from Beijing’s lofty rhetoric about defending Palestinians, Chinese firms are helping to sustain illegal settlements.” Despite China having supported the UN General Assembly resolution 3379 that defined Zionism as a “form of racism and racial discrimination” in 1975, Shawamreh provides numerous examples of Chinese support for Zionism.

• Adama Agricultural Solutions, a former Israeli company now fully owned by the Chinese state-run firm China National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina) is directly “linked to the militarised destruction of Palestinian livelihoods.”
• This is not an exception. Shawamreh writes, “In recent years, several state-owned Chinese companies, along with other private Chinese firms, have invested directly or indirectly in Israeli settlements or companies operating within them. Take the case of Tnuva, a major Israeli food producer that operates in illegal settlements. Despite international calls to boycott the company, China’s state-owned conglomerate Bright Food acquired a 56 percent stake in Tnuva in 2014. In 2021, Tnuva won a tender to operate 22 public transportation lines that serve 16 settlements in Mateh Yehuda – all built on occupied land in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. These aren’t just buses; they’re infrastructure supporting colonial entrenchment, making settler life easier and more permanent.”

An earlier article by Shawamreh concluded, “China’s alleged impartiality serves to undermine Palestinian rights.”⁶

I have seen no official Chinese response to the reports of abetting the Israeli Jews’ dispossession of Palestinians. What did appear on 17 May 2025 was a Youtube video by global impulse, titled “The SHOCKING Truth Behind China’s Gaza Aid | 60,000 Families Saved,” which claimed, “But one thing is clear, China is no longer content to be a passive observer in Middle Eastern Affairs.” Two months earlier, The Indian Express showed a video that China had sent its first batch of 60,000 packages of humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza via Jordan.

Can the guilt of colluding in the genocide and dispossession of indigenous Palestinians bring comfort to the Chinese soul through providing aid parcels?

Xi Jinping on Israel and Palestine

In a speech on 5 June 2014 chairman Xi Jinping spoke of “hundreds of years [of] peace and cooperation, openness and inclusiveness, mutual learning, and mutual benefit” between the Chinese and Arab peoples. “We will not forget the promise to support the cause of the Palestinian people that China made to the Arab states … at the Bandung Conference 60 years ago.”⁷ [Emphasis added]

Mao laid the foundation for the PRC in dealing with Palestinians. As part of a symposium to commemorate the 120th anniversary of Mao’s birth, Xi channelled Mao in a speech titled “Carry on the Enduring Spirit of Mao Zedong Thought”:

We stand for peaceful resolutions to international disputes, oppose all forms of hegemony and power politics, and never seek hegemonism nor engage in expansion.⁸

The Conscience of China

China is important. Its dedication to peaceful development and diplomacy is laudatory and in stark contrast to the bombastic hectoring and warring of the US-NATO block. China cares for the well-being of all its citizens; it seeks win-win relationships with other countries — not the win-lose entanglements of the capitalist West. As such China gives substance and believability to reifying that elusive, illusory, transient, teasing, wishful abstraction called hope — hope that all too often leads to bitter disappointment.

I have been disappointed before upon hearing of Chinese involvement in an unsavoury circumstance. A few years back, I came across an article that was scathing of a big Chinese tuna-fishing company, Dalian Ocean Fishing, for alleged maltreatment of foreign workers, workers who fell sick, died, suffered abuses, substandard food, excessive working hours, and withholding of pay.

I inquired about the situation and discovered it was a rogue private company that was selling its catch to a Japanese company, Mitsubishi. Nonetheless, that does not let China off the hook. Perfection is not expected, but how Chinese-licensed private companies do business at home and abroad does reflect back on the home country.

While beyond the scope of the present article, deeper consideration of the role of the Chinese State vs. Private Capital in China’s external relationships demands elucidation. What exactly does win-win mean?
While state-owned firms are clearly extensions of Chinese policy, how China manages — or fails to manage — the conduct of private or semi-state firms abroad, especially in contested or ethically sensitive zones speaks to the conscience of a nation.

Especially concerning, is the case of Chinese state-owned companies doing business for an occupier in occupied territory. This is morally magnified when the occupier, Israel, is under scrutiny by the World Court for committing genocide. Genocide is an act that morally upstanding countries will emphatically denounce as reprehensible; in addition, morally upstanding countries will take measures to publicly distance their state from such an evil-doer until such time as it sincerely atones for its crime against humanity. Highly moral countries — for example, Yemen — will make sacrifices to bring an end to such horrific crimes.

Professor and author T.P. Wilkinson, a keen China observer, remarked, “Non-interference is China’s top principle — business comes first. If there is any morality it only applies in China.”

China does not interfere in the culture and politics of other nations. That is understood. Nonetheless, morally centered people do not wish to see their country or any other country engage in violence against other nations in the world. And morally centered people do not wish to see their country abetting violence, not borne of self-defense, by another country. For allying with unrepentant rogue actors such as the United States and Israel, vassal states in Canada, Oceania, and Europe deserve to be regarded scornfully.

As an emerging superpower, China has increasingly garnered respect for pledging and delivering peaceful, win-win relations with other countries. That needs to be across the board. China is now faced with serious allegations, and it needs to come clean on what its companies are doing in occupied Palestine. One cannot expect that a country’s political leader is up-to-date and aware of all the ongoing functions of a country, domestically and externally, especially in a rapidly rising colossus of 1.4 billion people. However, when sordid facts come to the fore, a leader must lead. It is morally incumbent that chairman Xi deal forthrightly and promptly with any Chinese involvement in ignoble business affairs or crimes against humanity.

What Would Meaningful Action Look Like?

If Chinese firms are confirmed to be operating illegally in the occupied territories of Palestine, then I submit that an official Chinese public apology is demanded, also an immediate cessation of Chinese operations in what was once known as Mandate Palestine, and a turning over of Chinese assets in Mandate Palestine to Palestinian authorities. But it is for the Palestinians to determine what would be the proper rectification by China.

Why, one may ask, is such atonement not demanded of Canadians, American, and European interests in Mandate Palestine? It is and should be, but western governments have been unabashed in supporting colonialism, imperialism, and racism abroad. This speaks to the nature and conscience of Western governments that were so quick to fallaciously accuse China of genocide in Xinjiang, and yet they are loathe to acknowledge the factually undeniable genocide in Palestine. China, on the other hand, is viewed by much of the world’s people as a cut above the western governments.

Geopolitical Realism vs. Moral Idealism

While the present article acknowledges the current realpolitik constraints that China faces in balancing ties with Israel, the US, Arab countries, and the rest of the world, it posits the primacy of moral responsibility. Morality is what separates capitalism’s dog-eat-dog law-of-the-jungle from socialism, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is what is practiced by China.

As such an unflinching moral audit of China’s actions in occupied Palestine is called for. Therefore, to maintain its high regard, China must earn and hold onto the people’s trust through morally centered economic activities at home and abroad, as is implied by win-win relationships. In a truly multipolar world not only must power be redistributed more equitably but shared moral standards must also be elevated.

It is decidedly not a win-win relationship when Palestinians are subjected to starvation, humiliation, murder, bombardment, theft of territory, and the indignity of the World Court taking what must seem like an eternity to put a halt to a crime that demands immediate action: genocide. That China companies would profit from a genocide would cast a pall over China that would be hard to shake.

If China aspires to genuine global leadership, then it must lead not just in development and diplomacy — but in conscience.

ENDNOTES:

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

For the first time in its history, the United Nations General Assembly has held a high-level plenary meeting focused exclusively on human rights abuses in North Korea.

The session, held at U.N. headquarters in New York on Tuesday, brought together diplomats, international human rights experts, and North Korean escapees to spotlight the government’s abuses. The meeting was convened under a North Korea human rights resolution adopted by consensus in December 2024.

Elizabeth Salmón, the U.N. special rapporteur on North Korean human rights, told the assembly that conditions in North Korea have sharply worsened since the COVID-19 pandemic.

“North Koreans have lived in near-total isolation for over five years,” Salmón said. She cited border closures, severe restrictions on humanitarian aid, and limited access to outside information as key factors worsening the humanitarian crisis. Newly adopted laws, she added, have further restricted freedom of movement, labor rights, and freedom of expression.

Death penalty

In 2020, North Korea passed the Anti-Reactionary Ideology and Culture Act, imposing harsh penalties — including death — for watching or distributing foreign media. In 2021, supreme leader Kim Jong Un issued a directive to prevent young people from adopting South Korean speech, fashion, and hairstyles. Subsequent laws, such as the Pyongyang

Cultural Language Protection Act, further curtailed South Korean and foreign cultural influences. These are collectively known as the “three major oppressive laws” aimed at tightening ideological control.

Two women who had escaped from North Korea and now live in South Korea shared personal accounts of life inside the country.

Gyuri Kang, 24, who fled North Korea in 2023 aboard a 10-meter wooden boat with her mother and aunt, described how the authoritarian regime publicly executed people — including teenagers — for watching or distributing South Korean dramas.

“Three of my friends were publicly executed,” Kang told assembly. “Two were killed for distributing South Korean dramas. One was just 19 years old.”

She said North Korean authorities are determined to keep their people in the dark and prevent them from dreaming of freedom. Kang added that the COVID-19 lockdowns gave the regime the perfect excuse to intensify its crackdown amid widespread hyperinflation, economic hardship, and hunger caused by the collapse of trade with China.

Fled across the river

Eun-joo Kim, who escaped North Korea in 1999 at age 12, recounted a harrowing journey marked by loss and exploitation. She said she lost her father to starvation at age 11, then fled with her mother and sister across the Tumen River that defines a large section of North Korea’s northern border — only to be trafficked after arriving in China.

Kim also described how North Korean soldiers are being deployed to the Russia-Ukraine war without knowing their location or the reasons for fighting.

“They don’t even know where they are or why they are fighting,” she said. “Meanwhile, parents back home live in pain, not knowing whether their sons will return.”

North Korea has recently confirmed deploying troops to support Russia in the Ukraine conflict, acting on orders from Kim Jong Un, and claimed to have helped reclaim Russian territory held by Ukrainian forces.

Human scum

The North Korean delegation, led by Ambassador Song Kim, strongly condemned the meeting as a “political scheme.” Kim disparaged the escapees and said the meeting aimed to undermine the dignity and sovereignty of North Korea.

“What is more deplorable is the invitation of human scum who have even betrayed their own parents and families,” Kim said. “The DPRK delegation categorically rejects and strongly condemns this meeting, which was convened with the political aim of undermining the dignity and sovereignty of our state.”

DPRK stands for the North’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

China and Russia also criticized the meeting, saying it was held without the consent of North Korea and questioned its legitimacy.

The General Assembly is the main deliberative and policy-making body at the United Nations. Every member state is represented there. Its resolutions have political weight, but are not binding on member states.

Greg Scarlatoiu, president of the U.S.-based nongovernment Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, said the regime in Pyongyang has become a global threat, citing arms exports to Russia and militant groups in the Middle East via Iran.

“North Korea’s threat now reaches far beyond Northeast Asia,” Scarlatoiu told the assembly. “Its roots lie in the regime’s systematic human rights abuses.”

Sean Chung, executive director of Canada-based rights group Han Voice, told the assembly North Korea’s rights abuses are closely tied to its military ambitions. He urged U.N. member states to establish an independent expert mechanism under the General Assembly to investigate links between North Korea’s human rights violations and threats to global peace and security.

Edited by Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Jaewoo Park for RFA Korean.

“Sulaiman Rahil is the latest of many Afghan journalists to be swept up by the notorious General Directorate of Intelligence without explanation or charge,” said CPJ Asia Program Coordinator Beh Lih Yi. “The Taliban continue to show zero tolerance for independent journalists who report anything other than the group’s strictly censored narratives. The Taliban’s intelligence agency is attempting to control the media through fear and to prevent any honest reporting about the difficulties of life in Afghanistan today.”

Rahil, director of the local, independent Radio Khushal, was detained in Ghazni city after publishing a video on Facebook highlighting the plight of two impoverished women, according to the exiled Afghanistan Journalists Center watchdog group. CPJ was unable to locate the video.

Two days prior to his arrest, Rahil had also published a video on Facebook alleging that the provincial head of the Taliban-run National Radio and Television of Afghanistan had insulted him, according to the independent Afghanistan Women’s Voice website.

Rahil has a following of 49,000 on Facebook, where he regularly shares updates about daily events in the city.

Radio Khushal is an FM station that covers religious, cultural, and political issues across the province and regularly shares news on its Facebook page, with 72,000 followers.

Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid told CPJ via messaging app that he was not aware of Sulaiman Rahil’s detention.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

As the conflict chugs along in pools of blood and bountiful gore, the confused shape of Israel’s intentions continues in all its glorious nebulousness.  Pretend moderation clouds murderous desire.  There is no sense that those unfortunate Israeli hostages captured by Hamas in its assault on October 7, 2023, matter anymore, being merely decorative for the imminent slaughter.  There is even less sense that Hamas will be cleansed and removed from the strip, however attractive this idea continues to be.

Such evident limits have not discouraged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet, who have decided that more force, that old province of the unimaginative, is the answer.  According to the PM, the cabinet had agreed on a “forceful operation” to eliminate Hamas and salvage what is left of the hostage situation.

A spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces, Brigadier-General Effie Defrin, has explained on Israeli radio that the offensive will apparently ensure the return of the hostages.  What follows will be “the collapse of the Hamas regime, its defeat, its submission”.  Anywhere up to two million Palestinian civilians in Gaza will be herded into the ruins of the south.  Humanitarian aid will be arranged by the Israeli forces to be possibly distributed through approved contractors.

The IDF chief of staff, Lt. General Eyal Zamir, confirmed that the approved plan will involve “the capture of the Strip and holding the territories, moving the Gazan population south for its defence, denying Hamas the ability to distribute humanitarian supplies, and powerful attacks against Hamas.”

Within the Israeli cabinet, ethnocentric and religious fires burn with bright fanaticism.  The Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich remains a figure who ignores floral subtlety in favour of the blood-stained sledgehammer.  He remains that coherent link between cruel lawmaking and baffling violence.  “Within a few months,” he boasts, “we will be able to declare that we have won.  Gaza will be totally destroyed.”  With pompous certitude, he also claimed that the next six months would see Hamas cease to exist.

Such opinions, expressed at the “Settlements Conference” organised by the Makor Rishon newspaper in Ofra, a West Bank settlement, give a sense of the flavour.  Palestinians are to be “concentrated” on land located between the Egyptian border and the arbitrarily designated Morag Corridor.  As with any potential abuser keen to violate his vulnerable charges while justifying it, Smotrich tried to impress with the idea that this was a “humanitarian” zone that would be free of “Hamas and terrorism”.

The program here is clear in its chilling crudeness.  Expulsion, relocation, transfer.  These are the words famously used to move on populations of a sizeable number in history, often at enormous cost.  That this should involve lawmakers of the Jewish state adds a stunning, if perverse, poignancy to this.  They, the moved on in history, the expelled and the condemned wanderers, shall expel others and condemn them in turn.  Smotrich also points the finger at desperation and hopelessness, the biting incentives that propel migration.  The Palestinians will feel blessed in their banishment.  “They will be totally despairing, understanding that there is no hope and nothing to look for in Gaza, and will be looking for relocation to begin a new life in other places.”

Impossible to ignore in Smotrich’s steaming bile against the Palestinians is the broader view that no Palestinian state can arise, necessitating urgent, preventative poisoning.  In addition to the eventual depopulation of Gaza, plans to reconstitute the contours of the West Bank, ensuring that Israeli and Palestinian traffic are separated to enable building and construction for settlements as a prelude to annexation, are to be implemented.

The issue of twisting and mangling humanitarian aid in favour of Israel’s territorial lust has raised some tart commentary.  A statement from the Humanitarian Country Team of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, a forum led by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), does not shy away from the realities on the ground.  All supplies, including those vital to survival, have been blocked for nine weeks.  Bakeries and community kitchens have closed, while warehouses are empty.  Hunger, notably among children, is rampant.  Israel’s plan, as presented, “will mean that large parts of Gaza, including the less mobile and most vulnerable people, will continue to go without supplies.”

The UN Secretary General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator have confirmed that they will not cooperate in the scheme, as it “does not adhere to the global humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, independence, and neutrality.”

The foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany have made the same point.  Despite all being solid allies of Israel, they have warned that violations of international law are taking place.  “Humanitarian aid must never be used as a political tool and a Palestinian territory must not be reduced nor subjected to any demographic change”.

To date, a promise lingers that the offensive will only commence once US President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar takes place.  But no ongoing savaging of Gaza with some crude effort at occupation will solve the historical vortex that continues to drag the Jewish state to risk and oblivion.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

The viral video comes days after terrorists shot at civilians enjoying their time at the lush meadows of the Baisaran valley near Kashmir’s Pahalgam. The dastardly terror act, on April 22, claimed the lives of at least 26 people. India has held Pakistan-backed terror groups responsible for the attack and taken several stringent steps, such as suspending the 1960 Indus Water treaty, shutting the integrated check post at the Attari border, halting access to travel under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme (SVES) and closing India’s airspace to Pakistani airplanes. Several Pakistan-based social media accounts have also been banned in the country. Needless to say, already frigid diplomatic ties between the two countries have worsened. In a high-level security meet on April 29, Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave the Indian armed forces “complete operational freedom to decide on the mode, targets and timing” of India’s response to the attack.

Readers must also note that the viral video surfaced online soon after social media was abuzz with rumours that the Pakistan army chief had disappeared after the Pahalgam attack. Several media outlets also published reports citing ‘unverified’ social media claims.

X page South Asian Perspective, recognised as an official organisation by the platform, shared the clip showing General Munir on April 30. The caption said that Pakistani accounts had shared a video of the army chief visiting the LoC to inspect Pakistan’s war-readiness and boost the morale of soldiers. At the time this article was written, the post had gained more than 340,000 views. (Archive)

X user Dr Shama Junejo (@ShamaJunejo) shared the same clip on April 30 with a caption that said, “Pakistani Army Chief General Asim Munir at the front posts. Karo Hamla… (bring it on)”. The post has received over 225,000 views and was reshared over 300 times. (Archive)

Several other X users shared the same clip, claiming that it’s recent footage of General Munir visiting the LoC as Pakistan gears up for war.

Fact Check

To verify this claim, we broke down the viral clip into multiple keyframes and ran a reverse image search on a few of them. This led us to a thread by an X account called Intelligence Directorate (@IntelDte). The bio of the page said, “Directorate of Pakistan Strategic Defence Force “. This thread was posted on December 3, 2022, and the first post of the thread carried the now-viral video of General Asim Munir interacting with Pakistani soldiers. However, this video did not have any voiceover, unlike the viral clip.

The caption accompanying the video said: “General Syed Asim Munir, Chief of Army Staff (#COAS) visited frontline troops in Rakhchikri Sector of Line of Control (LOC) today. COAS was briefed on latest situation along LOC & operational preparedness of the formation.”

The account @IntelDte is based in Pakistan, hence, at present, it remains banned in India. We are attaching the archive links of the original X posts in the thread and a screen recording of the first X post that had the same video. (Archive 1, 2, 3)

We then ran a relevant keyword search and found a YouTube video posted on the channel of ISPR Official; ISPR stands for Inter-Services Public Relations and is the media and public relations wing of the Pakistan Armed Forces. The video was posted on December 3, 2022, and the title reads, “Press Release No 108/2022 – COAS Visited Troops in Rakhchikri Sector of LoC – 3 Dec 2022 | ISPR”.

The same news was also covered by Pakistan-based media outlet Dunya News on December 3, 2022. While reporting on it, the channel aired visuals from the now-viral video.

Further, we found a news report by Al Jazeera from December 3, 2022, which said that Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir visited the LoC and vowed “not only to defend every inch of our motherland, but to take the fight back to the enemy if ever war is imposed on us”.

Therefore, it is clear that the clip showing General Asim Munir visiting the LoC to check Pakistan’s war-readiness is from three years ago and not recent.

The post Clip of Pakistan army chief General Asim Munir visiting LoC viral after Pahalgam attack actually from 2022 appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Oishani Bhattacharya.

“Inspectors General are crucial parts of the apparatus that keep the government accountable to everyday people. IG offices investigate real cases of fraud, waste and abuse, and work to remedy them. Unlike DOGEーthe agents of rampant destruction that are running amok across Donald Trump’s governmentーIGs use disciplined investigative approaches to ensure that government works for real people.”

“Instead of investing in those offices, their leaders, and their crucial work, Donald Trump has fired most of them, and in their stead offered brazen partisans with records of using their positions to allegedly engage in nepotism and outright theft. For many years, those holding this position were held to a particularly high standard of ethics and public service. Now, having a besmirched legacy is not seen as an automatic disqualifier, but is seemingly viewed as an asset for a potential Trump administration Inspector General.”

“The Revolving Door Project will continue to track the bad actors running these offices, because the decimation of the institutions structured to hold the government to account impacts us all. IGs have long been bulwarks against the use of public offices and public funds for self-enrichment schemes, for personal gain, for personal retribution and more, and their replacement is a crucial part of the Trump corruption project. Should Trump succeed in staffing them with loyalists and crooked characters, another barrier in the way of autocracy will fall. We encourage all those committed to covering the Trump administration’s abuses to avail themselves of this resource.”

The tracker can be viewed here and will be regularly updated to reflect changes made by the Trump administration.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Shortly after President Donald Trump’s second term began, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi joined Trump in taking steps to punish and intimidate news outlets that have covered him and his administration unfavorably. We’re documenting her efforts in this regularly updated report.

Read about how Trump’s appointees and allies in Congress are striving to chill reporting, revoke funding, censor critical coverage and more here.

This article was first published on April 28, 2025.

April 25, 2025 | U.S. attorney general rescinds journalists’ protection from federal subpoenas

---

April 25, 2025 | U.S. attorney general rescinds journalists’ protection from federal subpoenas

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a memo released on April 25, 2025, directed the reversal of Biden-era policies that protected journalists from having their records seized or being forced to testify amid leak investigations.

Under President Donald Trump’s first administration, the Department of Justice secretly obtained or attempted to obtain records from After these subpoenas were made public, Biden administration Attorney General Merrick Garland announced in July 2021 that he was changing the department’s policies to prevent such seizures of journalists’ records.

Less than four years later, Bondi justified the revocation of that policy as necessary to thwart leaks that she said jeopardize the DOJ’s ability to “uphold the rule of law, protect civil rights, and keep America safe.”

“I have concluded that it is necessary to rescind Merrick Garland’s policies precluding the Department of Justice from seeking records and compelling testimony from members of the news media in order to identify and punish the source of improper leaks,” Bondi wrote in her April 25 memo. “This Justice Department will not tolerate unauthorized disclosures that undermine President Trump’s policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people.”

Bondi noted, however, that there will still be procedures in place to ensure such measures are only used when “essential” to successfully investigating or prosecuting the source of sensitive leaks. The language of the new policy had not been made public as of publication.

Freedom of the Press Foundation, of which the Tracker is a project, condemned Bondi’s decision and criticized members of Congress who did not prioritize passing a federal shield law in 2024 that would have protected journalists from such subpoenas.

“Every Democrat who put the PRESS Act on the back burner when they had the opportunity to pass a bipartisan bill codifying journalist-source confidentiality should be ashamed,” FPF Advocacy Director Seth Stern wrote in a statement. “Everyone predicted this would happen in a second Trump administration, yet politicians in a position to prevent it prioritized empty rhetoric over putting up a meaningful fight.”

Back to Top

This content originally appeared on U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database and was authored by U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/28/pam-bondi-targets-journalists-leakers-as-u-s-attorney-general/feed/ 0 529966 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/25/inspector-general-probes-whether-trump-doge-sought-private-taxpayer-information-or-sensitive-irs-material/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/25/inspector-general-probes-whether-trump-doge-sought-private-taxpayer-information-or-sensitive-irs-material/#respond Fri, 25 Apr 2025 21:05:00 +0000 https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-doge-irs-treasury-tigta-inspector-general-probe by William Turton, Avi Asher-Schapiro, Christopher Bing and Andy Kroll

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

A Treasury Department inspector general is probing efforts by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to obtain private taxpayer data and other sensitive information, internal communications reviewed by ProPublica show.

The office of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has sought a wide swath of information from IRS employees. In particular, the office is seeking any requests for taxpayer data from the president, the Executive Office of the President, DOGE or the president’s Office of Management and Budget.

The request, spelled out in a mid-April email obtained by ProPublica, comes as watchdogs and leading Democrats question whether DOGE has overstepped its bounds in seeking information about taxpayers, public employees or federal agencies that is typically highly restricted.

The review appears to be in its early stages — one document describes staffers as “beginning preplanning” — but the email directs the IRS to turn over specific documents by Thursday, April 24. It’s not clear if that happened.

The inspector general is seeking, for instance, “All requests for taxpayer or other protected information from the President or Executive Office of the President, OMB, or DOGE. Include any information on how the requestor plans to use the information requested, the IRS’s response to the request, and the legal basis for the IRS’s response,” the email says.

The inquiry also asks for information about requests for access to IRS systems from any agency in the executive branch, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration and DOGE.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration office, known as TIGTA, is led by acting Inspector General Heather M. Hill. When Trump fired 17 inspectors general across a range of federal agencies in January, those working for the Treasury Department were not among the ones axed.

The White House, DOGE, OMB and Musk did not respond to requests for comment Friday.

Previously, the administration has said, “Those leading this mission with Elon Musk are doing so in full compliance with federal law, appropriate security clearances, and as employees of the relevant agencies, not as outside advisors or entities.”

A TIGTA spokesperson, Becky D’Ambrosio, said the agency “does not disclose specific details of ongoing work or timelines.” She said the office has received multiple requests from Congress. “When possible, we are incorporating these requests into our ongoing work providing independent oversight of IRS activities.”

The April 15 request follows concerns expressed by some within the IRS that DOGE employees under Musk’s direction have improperly accessed taxpayer information or shared it with other government agencies, said multiple people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

Earlier this month, a group of Democratic senators urged the Treasury inspector general to investigate whether the Trump administration was “violating strict taxpayer privacy laws” by giving DOGE personnel wide access inside the agency.

“Taxpayer data held by the IRS is, by design, subject to some of the strongest privacy protections under federal law, the violation of which can trigger civil and criminal sanctions,” the lawmakers wrote in their request.

In March, three senators said they were troubled by reports the IRS had entered into a sharing agreement to help the Department of Homeland Security “locate suspected undocumented immigrants.” Trump has promised deportations on a massive scale.

A spokesperson for Sen. Ron Wyden, one of the signees of both requests, declined to comment. DHS referred a request for comment from ProPublica to the Treasury Department, which did not respond.

The inspector general examination comes amid major upheaval at the Treasury Department and the IRS, as the administration moves to fire thousands of agency workers and DOGE digs deeper into IRS databases. Melanie Krause resigned as the acting commissioner of the IRS after the agency reached an agreement to share taxpayer data with the DHS.

A former senior official at TIGTA told ProPublica the review could lead to a criminal investigation if reviewers find evidence of lawbreaking. The same official said it’s possible those leading the review could face political repercussions, as have scores of prosecutors, FBI agents, law firms and others who have questioned Trump’s actions.

Emails from the inspector general to IRS employees earlier this month asked them to provide copies of any written agreements to share taxpayer data with entities including the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, DOGE, the Office of Personnel Management or other agencies.

It also seeks a full list of non-IRS employees who are part of DOGE or its affiliates. This year, ProPublica has been profiling the figures working for DOGE.

Danielle Citron, a leading privacy legal scholar at the University of Virginia, said the email suggests that the inspector general may be probing for violations of the Privacy Act, which requires agencies to safeguard citizens’ information and only share it across the government in specific cases. The kind of blanket data-sharing agreement the Trump administration is seeking with the IRS, she said, is “exactly what the Privacy Act is designed to avoid.”

CNN and Wired have reported that DOGE is attempting to build a master database that combines information from the IRS, DHS, Social Security Administration and other agencies. The database would be used for immigration enforcement, the outlets reported.

This is not the first time Trump administration decisions at the IRS have prompted an inspector general inquiry.

As ProPublica reported, a senior IRS lawyer warned the agency’s leaders in late February that its plan to terminate nearly 7,000 probationary employees based on poor performance was untrue and a “fraud.” The IRS proceeded with the firings, which have since been challenged in federal court.

After the firings, the IRS inspector general began scrutinizing the mass terminations, said a person familiar with the effort who wasn’t authorized to speak with reporters. The status of the probe is not known.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by William Turton, Avi Asher-Schapiro, Christopher Bing and Andy Kroll.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/25/inspector-general-probes-whether-trump-doge-sought-private-taxpayer-information-or-sensitive-irs-material/feed/ 0 529580 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/24/a-moral-imperative-for-the-2025-canadian-election/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/24/a-moral-imperative-for-the-2025-canadian-election/#respond Thu, 24 Apr 2025 15:15:09 +0000 https://dissidentvoice.org/?p=157715 Prime Minister Mark Carney, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh. Photo by Thomas Padilla/AP; Dave Chan/AFP via Getty Images Back in August 2014, the New Democratic Party (NDP) was led by Tom Mulcair whose Zionism was so extreme that a sitting MP, Sana Hassainia, of the Montreal-area riding of Vercheres-Les Patriotes, could […]

The post A Moral Imperative for the 2025 Canadian Election first appeared on Dissident Voice.]]>
Prime Minister Mark Carney, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh. Photo by Thomas Padilla/AP; Dave Chan/AFP via Getty Images

Back in August 2014, the New Democratic Party (NDP) was led by Tom Mulcair whose Zionism was so extreme that a sitting MP, Sana Hassainia, of the Montreal-area riding of Vercheres-Les Patriotes, could not accept Mulcair’s position and chose to sit as an independent.

The current NDP leader Jagmeet Singh forthrightly denounced the genocide in Gaza and questioned current Canadian prime minister Mark Carney (Liberal Party) about his position on Gaza.

“Mr. Carney, why don’t you call it what it is? It’s a genocide,” said Singh.

Carney replied, “This question is in front of the International Court of Justice. The situation is a horrible situation. I will not, and I will never politicize that word or this situation.”

The Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre is a Trump-style politician in Canada. Poilievre promises to deport critics, move Canada’s embassy in Israel, and cut funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other international bodies assisting Palestinians.

Poilievre accused UNRWA employees of being involved in the 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel.

Singh demurred, “What you said about UNRWA was disgusting.… Calling it a terrorist organization is unacceptable. It’s hateful and it’s entirely inappropriate.”

There was a choice in the United States election to vote against genocide, but people overwhelmingly voted for one of the two pro-Zionist presidential candidates in the 2024 election, despite there being presidential candidates who were opposed to the Zionist genocide.

The leaders of the two major parties in Canada present as Zionist appeasers, as demonstrated by their own words. The difference from the 2024 US election is that in Canada there is a prominent political party, the NDP, whose leader calls genocide by what it is.

Canadians have a choice to vote No to genocide on Monday, 28 April.

The post A Moral Imperative for the 2025 Canadian Election first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/24/a-moral-imperative-for-the-2025-canadian-election/feed/ 0 529181 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/24/trumps-christian-nationalist-twenty-first-century-inquisition/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/24/trumps-christian-nationalist-twenty-first-century-inquisition/#respond Thu, 24 Apr 2025 15:00:38 +0000 https://dissidentvoice.org/?p=157708 The Inquisition was aimed at enforcing religious orthodoxy in order to preserve Christian dominance and “protect” the faithful. It was a tool for maintaining religious and political control, using interrogation, torture, and banishment. Several centuries later, in the United States, a country mostly run by White Christians, Trump, claiming “christian persecution,” has launched a twenty-first century version of […]

The post Trump’s Christian Nationalist Twenty-First Century Inquisition first appeared on Dissident Voice.]]> The Inquisition was aimed at enforcing religious orthodoxy in order to preserve Christian dominance and “protect” the faithful. It was a tool for maintaining religious and political control, using interrogation, torture, and banishment. Several centuries later, in the United States, a country mostly run by White Christians, Trump, claiming “christian persecution,” has launched a twenty-first century version of The Inquisition. Not only is Trump’s “Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias Task Force” aimed at marginalizing non-Christian communities, it is clearly geared at promoting a Christian nationalist agenda.

The Inquisition held secretive interrogations; citizens were encouraged or compelled to report heretical behavior. By encouraging anonymity, Trump’s Task Force is emboldening workers to spy on each other; creating a culture of suspicion and fear. The Inquisition was religious intolerance and abuse of power on steroids. Sans brutality and physical initiation, nevertheless the impact of Trump’s Task Force – thus far limited to U.S. federal institutions — appears to be heading down a path of religious orthodoxy.

Trump is escalating its war on church-state separation. Led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, the new “Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias Task Force” — established by a Trump Executive Order 14202, issued February 6th, setting up a White House Faith Office headed by televangelist Paula White — recently convened a meeting of the Task Force at the Department of Justice. The room was packed with Christian nationalist cabinet members and framed as a defense against persecution.

Christians now, and since the founding, have held majority power in this country. Trump’s task force is not about ending bias—it’s about further institutionalizing power in favor of a single religion. And one way of consolidating power is by stoking fear.

In early April, the State Department ordered employees to report any instances of “anti-Christian bias.”

This week, the Department of Veteran Affairs sent out the following internal email titled “Message From The Secretary: Task Force on Anti-Christian Bias.” In the message, Secretary Douglas A. Collins encouraged all VA workers to spy on their co-workers and report any thing that a worker might claim to be anti-Christian bias. The memo from the VA’s chief makes no mention of bias against Muslims, Jews or any other religious believers other than Christians.

The 11-point e-mail “Message” declared that the Veterans Administration (VA) “is establishing its own Task Force to better effectuate the Department’s internal review. The VA Task Force now requests all VA employees to submit any instance of anti-Christian discrimination to vog.avnull@gnitropeRsaiBnaitsirhC-itnA.

“Submissions should include sufficient identifiers such as names, dates, and locations.”

Religion News Service’s Bob Smietana reported that “The email from Collins, a former Southern Baptist pastor and Air Force chaplain turned politician, lists 11 kinds of bias or discrimination — three of which specifically name Christianity — ranging from retaliation in response to requests for religious holidays or religious accommodations to discipline against chaplains in response to their sermons. The email also says the task force will “review all instances of anti-Christian bias” but makes no mention of how to report discrimination of any other faiths” (https://religionnews.com/2025/04/22/veterans-affairs-asks-employees-in-email-to-report-anti-christian-bias/).

According to The Guardian, “The email states that the department will review ‘all instances of anti-Christian bias’ but that it is specifically seeking instances including ‘any informal policies, procedures, or unofficially understandings hostile to Christian views.’

“In addition, the department is seeking ‘any adverse responses to requests for religious exemptions under the previous vaccine mandates’ and ‘any retaliatory actions taken or threatened in response to abstaining from certain procedures or treatments (for example: abortion or hormone therapy)’” (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/22/veterans-affairs-anti-christian-bias).

Soon after Trump’s executive order, Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, “expressed concerns with the focus on anti-Christian bias but not religious liberty when Trump issued his executive order in early February.

“We have strong concerns that this new task force could be weaponized to enforce a theological conformity that will harm everyone’s religious freedom, including those of Christians,” she said. “Today’s action is consistent with inflaming the completely unfounded claims of rampant Christian persecution in a majority-Christian nation.”

The Inquisition enforced its mandate through brutality and intimidation. Trump’s Task Force, which encourages anonymous reporting of so-called anti-Christian bias, is fostering a culture of surveillance and fear. With the administration hell-bent on redefining religious freedom as privileges for Christians only, we’re no longer talking democracy—we’re talking theocracy. This isn’t about “religious freedom” — it’s about Christian supremacy.

The post Trump’s Christian Nationalist Twenty-First Century Inquisition first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Bill Berkowitz.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/24/trumps-christian-nationalist-twenty-first-century-inquisition/feed/ 0 529185 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/18/aclu-advises-university-general-counsels-on-legal-limits-on-ices-authority/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/18/aclu-advises-university-general-counsels-on-legal-limits-on-ices-authority/#respond Fri, 18 Apr 2025 20:53:31 +0000 https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/aclu-advises-university-general-counsels-on-legal-limits-on-ices-authority The American Civil Liberties Union this week shared an open letter to general counsels at colleges and universities across the nation outlining their responsibilities and rights when dealing with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigations and enforcement actions.

Amid the growing retaliatory crackdown against noncitizen students for their First Amendment-protected speech and advocacy, the open letter explains that colleges and universities are not violating the law by providing housing or services to noncitizen students, including students whose visas have been revoked by the government. It further advises institutions that they are legally able to refuse to comply with warrantless searches of non-public areas, like dorm rooms, by ICE agents.

The letter also outlines a legal framework for responding to administrative subpoenas from ICE. In consultation with legal counsel, universities generally maintain the right to not respond to administrative subpoenas unless and until ICE obtains an enforcement order from a judge. Universities also have the right to publicize the subpoenas or alert students if their information has been targeted by an ICE subpoena.

“Universities must do everything they can to protect their students from intimidation or targeting by ICE, and they have the legal right to do so,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We reject the federal government’s extreme claim that housing and educating noncitizen students can violate the law. We hope this letter will empower institutions to stand firm in the face of radical bullying tactics.”

The letter can be read in full here.

Related Documents

• Open Letter to College and University General Counsels on: 1) 8 U.S.C. § 1324 Harboring Liability, and 2) ICE Administrative Subpoenas

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/18/aclu-advises-university-general-counsels-on-legal-limits-on-ices-authority/feed/ 0 527333 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/07/will-the-u-s-build-sea-walls/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/07/will-the-u-s-build-sea-walls/#respond Mon, 07 Apr 2025 15:41:44 +0000 https://dissidentvoice.org/?p=157260 Antarctica is coming apart, crumbling into the sea, much, much faster than anybody ever thought possible. After all, it was only a couple of months ago when polar scientists called an extraordinary emergency meeting to discuss shocking developments: “Runaway ice loss causing rapid and catastrophic sea level rise is possible within our lifetimes.” (Source: Our […]

The post Will the U.S. Build Sea Walls? first appeared on Dissident Voice.]]> Antarctica is coming apart, crumbling into the sea, much, much faster than anybody ever thought possible. After all, it was only a couple of months ago when polar scientists called an extraordinary emergency meeting to discuss shocking developments: “Runaway ice loss causing rapid and catastrophic sea level rise is possible within our lifetimes.” (Source: Our Science, “Your Future: Next Generation of Antarctic Scientists Call for Collaborative Action,” Australian Antarctic Research Conference, November 22, 2024).

Another more recent new study using data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program is now overshadowing those panicky voices of polar scientists in November 2024. The new study should rattle the cages of every political leader in the world: “This simultaneous decline across both poles reinforces fears that Earth’s polar regions may be undergoing synchronized climate destabilization.” (“Antarctica’s 2025 Sea Ice Collapse Shocks Scientists and Raises Fears of a New Climate Normal,” Daily Galaxy, April 3, 2025)

“While Antarctica’s summer ice was hitting rock bottom, the Arctic was also seeing near-record-low winter ice… with multiple low-ice years piling up, the question of whether this represents a tipping point is gaining traction in the scientific community.” Ibid.

Irreversibility of Cascading Ice Sheets

The tools that once revealed subtle changes in Antarctica are now capturing dramatic losses, lending weight to concerns that Antarctica’s sea ice system is approaching irreversibility. The polar scientists’ emergency meeting in November 2024 sent a chilling message to the world; “The experts’ conclusion, published as a press statement, is a somber one: if we don’t act, and quickly, the melting of Antarctica ice could cause catastrophic sea levels rise around the globe.” (Source: “Emergency Meeting Reveals the Alarming Extent of Antarctica’s Ice Loss,” Earth.com, Nov. 24, 2024)

“Truth be known, before very long we’ll see cities inundated and catastrophic flooding events, especially in low-lying coastal cities. All of these changes, we can plot them and if we look exponentially, we see really catastrophic effects in the next few years, certainly in the next decade or two the world will be completely different than it is now.” (Peter Wadhams, professor emeritus, Ocean Physics, Cambridge University, author of A Farewell to Ice: A Report from the Arctic)

Extensive research into how to stop this cascading freight train barreling down the mountainside concludes that the only salvation that’ll work soon enough is to stop burning fossil fuels, for example, gasoline-powered cars.

Building Sea Walls?

“Last year, when the Army Corps of Engineers proposed a vast network of seawalls and gates to shield NY and New Jersey Harbor, it argued that the fifty-three-billion dollar ($53B) project was a very good deal, although it ‘will not totally eliminate flood risks’ in the area, it would cost much less than repairing the city after every storm, Hurricane Sandy caused an estimated nineteen billion dollars in damage to NYC alone.” (Source: “Can Sea Walls Save Us?” The New Yorker, Nov. 5, 2023) Alas, $53B “will not totally eliminate flood risks.”

Across the globe, there is no organized worldwide mitigation plan underway to prevent both poles from crashing much faster and faster yet, which requires an immediate stop to burning fossil fuels. Good luck with that! Therefore, massive flooding is almost guaranteed to hit the world’s coastal megacities, like Miami, New York, and London. But nobody knows how soon, which, in and of itself, dictates taking immediate action to fund, engineer, start building seawalls, tall seawalls.

According to the above-referenced polar scientists’ emergency meeting: “The services of the Southern Ocean and Antarctica — oceanic carbon sink and planetary air-conditioner — have been taken for granted. Global warming-induced shifts observed in the region are immense. Recent research has shown record-low sea ice, extreme heatwaves exceeding 40°C (104°F) above average temperatures, and increased instability around key ice shelves. Shifting ecosystems on land and at sea underscore this sensitive region’s rapid and unprecedented transformations. Runaway ice loss causing rapid and catastrophic sea-level rise is possible within our lifetimes. Whether such irreversible tipping points have already passed is unknown.”

That paragraph contains the formula for rising sea levels beyond anybody’s imagination!

According to Earth.org, coastal megacities are at serious risk, e.g., Bangkok, Amsterdam, Ho Chi Minh City, Cardiff (UK), New Orleans, Manila, London, Shenzhen, Hamburg, and Dubai as well as megacities Miami and New York City. Many Florida and East Coast cities are high risk, e.g., Ft. Lauderdale, Norfolk, Hampton, Charleston, Cambridge, Jersey City, Chesapeake, Boston, Tampa, Palm Beach. It’s a long list.

What’s the likelihood of the Trump administration building seawalls to protect coastal cities? It can’t happen soon enough.

In the year 2020: “Trump Blocked Over Plans to Build Wall Around Irish Golf Resort,” CNN World, March 12, 2020: “Donald Trump’s hopes to protect his coastal Irish golf resort from erosion with a protective wall have been dashed by planning authorities.”

The post Will the U.S. Build Sea Walls? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Robert Hunziker.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/07/will-the-u-s-build-sea-walls/feed/ 0 524222 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/03/out-of-the-cradle-endlessly-resisting/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/03/out-of-the-cradle-endlessly-resisting/#respond Thu, 03 Apr 2025 14:30:53 +0000 https://dissidentvoice.org/?p=157148 David Alfaro Siqueiros, The New Democracy, 1944-45 I’m simply going to posit, without a dollop of varnish applied, the following declaration outright: The foremost and defining reason for the present miseries of US culture: Generation after generation have internalized the grift perpetrated by high dollar capitalists predators and blood-drenched war profiteers: the citizenry has been […]

The post Out of the Cradle Endlessly Resisting first appeared on Dissident Voice.]]>
David Alfaro Siqueiros, The New Democracy, 1944-45

I’m simply going to posit, without a dollop of varnish applied, the following declaration outright: The foremost and defining reason for the present miseries of US culture: Generation after generation have internalized the grift perpetrated by high dollar capitalists predators and blood-drenched war profiteers: the citizenry has been induced into believing, in fact, defining their lives by the soul-sucking lie: that which does not make a profit is devoid of value.

A hidden agenda is veiled within the capitalist work ethic: those who do the day-by-day work enrich the coffers of those are, in essence, on a cultural basis, high-end proprietors of a cut-rate cultural carnival and their clutch of con artist barkers and grift artists i.e., creators of garish illusions and enervating distractions designed to render those within the carnival grounds bamboozled and poorer.

Pull back for a cosmic view: Even night, on our planet, has been banished by constellations of industrial and commercial artificial light. From space, Planet Earth appears festooned with carnival lights.

Enter the rise of the MAGA sideshow that has become the centerstage attraction. And what is retailed at traveling carnivals? A panoply of illusions retailed to separate carnival attendees from their money.

The age of MAGA, and its obsessive insistence that the noxious illusions of the nation’s past must be the prologue of all futurity, will, by their totalitarian mania, enervate the remaining and foundering raison d’etre of the nation. The fantasy of the land of personal freedom and individual innovation will flame out in a Götterdämmerung of the grift of it all.

When a belief system is on the verge of self-immolation, the artifice contrived by its elites bloats into absurdity. Unlike the modus operandi of a traveling carnival that arrives, is assembled, and decamps, the grotesque has become quotidian.

Nebuchadnezzar turned into an animal, Nebuchadnezzar in Rudolf von Ems, Weltchronik (World Chronicle) ca. 1400–1410)

Yet monuments to the power holders’ egos, erected in empty air, are vaporous. The winds of time will blow in and the gasbag Trump’s malevolent words will dissipate. In the meantime, bearing witness to the extant hideousness engenders a state of emotional agitation.

Angst and pain feels as though it cannot be contained and endured. The agonies can be endured — but suffering must be given voice; and the more creative/musical/poetic all the better.

“I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world.” ― Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass

The world is alive within. Soul overcomes vanity because vanity lives for artifice while the soul endures terror and it allows itself to be undone then restored by beauty.

O you singer solitary, singing by yourself, projecting me,
O solitary me listening, never more shall I cease perpetuating you,
Never more shall I escape, never more the reverberations,
Never more the cries of unsatisfied love be absent from me,
Never again leave me to be the peaceful child I was before what there in the night,
By the sea under the yellow and sagging moon,
The messenger there arous’d, the fire, the sweet hell within,
The unknown want, the destiny of me.
— Walt Whitman, excerpt, Out The Cradle Endlessly Rocking

First, divest yourself of the notion that culture proceeds by reason. Resist the lie that people getting hurt are some way deserving of the pain inflicted upon them.

Day to day living under unfettered capitalism, de facto wage and debt slavery, is antithetical to its apologists’ declaration that the system promotes freedom. Internalized, the collective psyche of the culture transmogrifies from gaudy carnival to howling madhouse.

Said apologists declaration can be revealed as insanity by the simple act of noticing the condition of life in the nation. Take a gander: The present dehumanizing economic order reduces everyday life to an endless (futile for many) struggle to keep one’s heart alive — to prevent reservoirs of hope within the psyche from being rendered into an arid wasteland.

The Quest, 1938 by Cecil Collins

First step out of the wasteland, the notion of the oasis of a commercialized comfort zone is a mirage. Complacency serves to expand the system’s brutal and heart-decimating reach. In times such as these, the banality of evil is embodied by the act of going along to get along. The social peacemaker becomes a force of tacit aggression in the service of powerful interests.

Yet, when a calling arrives to resist the mundane tropes of coping that allow evil to flourish, there is a chance family members will withdraw affection, even become estranged; bonds of friendship might be broken, perhaps, irrevocably.

We long for companionship; the longing has become a hollow ache in our era of atomization. We ache for the numinosity freighted in social interaction. The mind becomes sharper; awareness is heightened; the heart awakens to life. We crave to be within the thronging mass. The world is aglow. Purpose regained, we have the feeling of traveling into a light-festooned city, teeming with eros and mystery.

But, at present, we confront an economic/political system devoid of heart, a system that refuses to acknowledge that human suffering is inevitable, and the suffering will grow to the point of becoming unbearable if remedy is not delivered. To wit, a nation’s survival depends on the type and degree of relief brought to bear on the suffering of its citizenry.

David Alfaro Siqueiros, Echo of a Scream, 1937

Fools will ignore the pain. The wicked will justify cruelty. And the worst among the populace will spread and exacerbate pain, deprivation, and misery. The role of the just becomes: an attempt to create an environment that not only promotes survival but creates health, meaning, and purpose. In short, promotes a life worth living for the citizenry and not a carnival of cruelty.

The hidden story of corrupt, war-like nations is: predatory birds come home to roost.

An indication collapse is coming: There was a time when members of the US political class displayed eloquence and wit, even in their mendacity. Now listening to the palaver of our present day political elite inflicts the nausea experienced onboard low-grade carnival rides. The political class of old, corrupt as they were, would vomit at the sight and sound of our present day, sub-literate, cut-rate carnie clowns.

With a nation, as in life itself, and, as with love, demands for perfection are not necessary. Attempting to create a just society proves to be the most propitious approach. As opposed to the banality of evil, this is the stuff of everyday redemption.

Conversely, in a nation ridden by vast wealth inequality and engaged in perpetual militarism, cruelty becomes quotidian: a president-as-bully-in-chief deploys demagogic blame-shifting, directed at cultural outsiders, to gain and maintain power; the homeless shuffling the streets are condemned as mere losers and deemed a public menace, as opposed to emblems of the society’s lost sense of humanity; war profiteers amass obscene wealth by manufacturing weaponry used for genocide.

The character of a nation is defined by its challenges. When its challenges are ignored, when speech addressing the fact is suppressed or, worse punished, tragedy results. The nation’s writers, poets, artists and activists must act as emissaries of remembrance and renewal.

As a writer I must turn inward before gazing outward. I must endeavor to, by reflex, not avert my sight from the criteria that causes me to experience discomfort or even mortification. I suggest everyone make the attempt. It is the work of being human. To embrace one’s imperfections, oddly enough, improves the world. There is less need for fakery, of addiction to approval, or for truckling to authoritarian power. Self-justifying bullshit transforms into tales of soul-making. The everyday grifts inherent to the false self expand in a personal form of Homeric hymns. What is shed is shame. What is gained is an affinity with other imperfect, confused beings. Over a period of time, the heart is enlarged as your view of others and the world is enlarged.

Diego Rivera – Indian Warrior

No, you do not shamble into paradise. The dilemmas and struggles of everyday life must be confronted. Trudging through valleys remain; the mountaintop of enlightenment, reserved for the holy, is a domicile reserved for few of us.

The process will be slow. Every tree must use the life-force to, imperceptibly, navigate its branches sunward. Here we are not encountering the capitalist/consumer state addiction to manic distractions and endless growth. For, at times, leaves of belief must fall, decay to hummus, thus contributing to the silent (to us) living cosmos of earth at ground level.

When the capitalist/consumer empire hits bottom, perhaps, root systems of humanity can take root. The brave at heart must proceed to ground level in order to plant seeds that will bear new understanding as to our perceptions of ourselves and of the world. Of course, we will remain human thereby be prone to folly. But our life regret will not involve making the same tragic-in-consequence mistakes over and over again and justifying it as “our way of life.”

Belief in a past that never was reduces the present to a wasteland, dry of hope; revisioning of belief thus becomes the grail that will heal the suffering land.

“Resist much, obey little.” ― Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass

William Blake, Nebuchadnezzar

The post Out of the Cradle Endlessly Resisting first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Phil Rockstroh.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/03/out-of-the-cradle-endlessly-resisting/feed/ 0 523445 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/01/everyday-in-america-is-april-fools-day/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/01/everyday-in-america-is-april-fools-day/#respond Tue, 01 Apr 2025 14:00:38 +0000 https://dissidentvoice.org/?p=157088 The US is a peace-loving country that promotes harmony across the globe and treats other countries with respect. The US has the greatest respect for international law. It meticulously honors its treaties, and uses the UN to constructively resolve any disputes between nations. The enormous wealth of the US is shared equitably across its population […]

The post Everyday in America is April Fool’s Day first appeared on Dissident Voice.]]> The US is a peace-loving country that promotes harmony across the globe and treats other countries with respect.

The US has the greatest respect for international law. It meticulously honors its treaties, and uses the UN to constructively resolve any disputes between nations.

The enormous wealth of the US is shared equitably across its population and is instrumental in keeping the standard of living for all citizens at peak levels.

All US citizens enjoy equal opportunities for a good life, self-improvement and comfort, and a better future for coming generations.

The political leaders of the US are exemplary: intelligent, well-informed elected officials of the highest integrity and concern for the general welfare, lead the nation.

Our success as the greatest experiment in self-government has made democracy in the US a model for the rest of the world.

Elections in the US are free, fair and transparent. The widest possible range of views and opinions are available for a lively national conversation, and choice at the polls.

US citizens are well-informed and actively engaged in determining the policies and direction of the country. Their voice is heard and heeded by their representatives.

Equality and human rights are among the most valued guiding principles. Everyone equally enjoys the benefits of living in the US, regardless of race, creed, or gender.

Media in the US is objective, fair, and balanced, keeping Americans well-informed of all sides of important issues. Every point of view gets equal exposure to the public.

The economic policy of the US is sound, responsible, and responsive to the needs of the citizenry. The US economy is thriving, benefiting everyone.

Corporations play a vital role in keeping Americans healthy, wealthy, and wise. They stoke the engine of economic development and wealth creation.

Good-paying jobs offering satisfying and esteem-building work are in abundance. Employees are rewarded for their high productivity and work ethic.

High-quality, affordable health care by the most successful health care industry in the world, is available to everyone.

The US puts great emphasis on infrastructure, thus works aggressively to repair and renovate its shared assets: roads, bridges, airports, the internet, public transportation.

Research and development is valued and generously funded, keeping America on top of its competitors in the international marketplace.

A solid education is available to everyone, regardless of economic status or class. A smart, educated citizenry keeps the US in the lead internationally.

The regulatory agencies of the US are scrupulous in protecting everyday citizens from the predations of big corporations, keeping our food, water, and air safe and healthful.

The US works diligently at protecting the environment, guarding against pollution and resource depletion.

The US has the best judicial system in the world. Everyone is treated fairly by the courts, promoting justice, and equality before the law.

God is on our side. It’s in the Bible.

Okay … had enough?

Most people in the US remain fooled but the rest of the world is waking up to the fantasy bubble Americans live in. Like George Carlin said, “That’s why they call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

The post Everyday in America is April Fool’s Day first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John Rachel.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/01/everyday-in-america-is-april-fools-day/feed/ 0 522984 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/03/12/on-stupidity/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/03/12/on-stupidity/#respond Wed, 12 Mar 2025 17:21:09 +0000 https://dissidentvoice.org/?p=156572 Stupidity, stupidity everywhere – and not a word to witness. “Stupid” is a commonplace term casually used in everyday conversation. Much less so in writing – especially when the subject is political personalities. It is heavily weighted with inhibition. Why this hesitation? Why at a time when manifest stupidity in speech and action is rampant? […]

The post On Stupidity first appeared on Dissident Voice.]]> Stupidity, stupidity everywhere – and not a word to witness.

“Stupid” is a commonplace term casually used in everyday conversation. Much less so in writing – especially when the subject is political personalities. It is heavily weighted with inhibition. Why this hesitation? Why at a time when manifest stupidity in speech and action is rampant?

“Stupid” is both blunt and conclusive. Straight-forward. It does not welcome qualification or discussion. It implies: matter settled, closed. Moreover, it suggests a character flaw as well as low intelligence. That somehow makes us uncomfortable. So we prefer: dense, slow, thick, dim or dim-witted; or pithy euphemisms, e.g. “not the sharpest tool in the kit” or “none too swift” or “slow on the uptake” or “not playing with a full deck” or “in so far over his head that the bubbles don’t reach the surface.” In addition, there are those words that refer directly to intelligence: moron, imbecile, idiot. They, too, are in currency but suffer from the disability of taking in vain a descriptive word that refers to the poor souls who are born with mental deficiencies.

“Stupid” is used as an epithet 95% of the time. Not as a depiction of someone’s Intelligence Quotient (IQ). To do so in the latter sense is to complicate matters. Intelligence, as we now are aware, is a broad concept that covers 5 or 6 or 7 mental attributes whose correlations are quite low. So, almost no one thinks that through before throwing the word around. To the degree that one might consider meanings, it implies lack of logic – the core characteristic of conventional IQ intelligence.

Squirt kerosene on a simmering barbecue – that’s stupid. Sending more troops to Afghanistan in 2017 when you’ve failed miserably to achieve your (undefined) objective over the past 15 years with much larger contingents is stupid, i.e., illogical. Denouncing China as America’s enemy on whom it plans to impose severe economic sanctions while senior officials publicly predict war within 10 years, and then beseeching Beijing for assistance in keeping the dollar the global currency by ending its sale of U.S. securities; and then demanding that China slow its economic growth because 1) it causes balance-of-trade imbalances, and 2) that would reduce its oil imports thereby minimizing Russian revenue from its sales on a softer world market (as did Janet Yellin on two separate visits) – that’s stupid. Silently letting Turkey provide crucial material support to ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria while decrying terrorist acts by jihadis in the US and Europe is stupid, i.e., illogical. (The Obama administration soon joined in supplying arms indirectly those same groups, then helped secure their control of the Idlib enclave which was their base for the eventual breakout a few months ago; now in power they are massacring Alawites and Christians). Bestowing praise and honors on the Saudi leaders as declared brothers in the “war on terror” when in fact these very persons have done more to propagate the fanatical creed that inspires and justifies acts of terror is stupid, i.e., “illogical.”

These instances of stupid behavior draw our attention to the connections between intelligence and knowledge – between “stupidity” and “ignorance.” Stupid (illogical) behavior is more likely when you don’t know what you’re doing because important information is missing. In the examples cited, though, the information that is the foundation for logical thinking was known to the parties taking those actions. Not just accessible – it is lodged (somewhere) in the brain of the actor. “Dumb”¹ in popular usage is the word that combines “stupid” and “ignorant” – with the connotation that the ignorance is willful. That is a pertinent notion to which we’ll return.

Assuming that the “stupid’ actors are not mentally deficient, why do they act as if they are? That is the persistent question that crops us as we see and read the antics of public officials, commentators, and a host of celebrity personalities. Several explanations, not excuses, come to mind.

One is that there exists an implicit logic that is not acknowledged but salient for the person(s) involved. The Pentagon brass may well have been less concerned about “winning” in Afghanistan, whatever that means, than they were living with the intolerable perception that they “lost.” No general cum security policy-maker wants to be saddled with the label of “loser.” That sensitivity can become institutionally generalized; Generals Mattis and McMaster were in little danger of being blamed personally for failure in Afghanistan. What seems to count is that they did not want the U.S. military to be stigmatized as a failure. They were acutely aware of how much the image of the uniformed military suffered as a result of America losing its first war in Vietnam. It follows that they might hope against hope that the outcome can be fudged enough so as to escape that fate. There is a practical side to this concern, too. Failure, as perceived in the public eye, could tarnish the resplendent image so successfully cultivated during the “war on terror” era. That could translate into less support for bigger budgets, less lucrative consultancies after retirement, and less acclaim. And a weaker voice in policy debates.

If one were to postulate that these are cardinal objectives, then campaigning to send several thousand more troops on a strategically pointless mission is logical – and the plan’s promoters not as stupid as they appear. What of senior policymakers in and around the White House who did not share those particular interests? They, indeed, were stupid.

Another instructive example is Barack Obama’s announcing the conclusion of an historic, arduously negotiated nuclear treaty with Iran (JPOA) in a speech that vilifies the Tehran regime as a tyranny that sponsors terrorism, aims to dominate the Persian Gulf, and endangers Israel. Thereby, he emboldened opponents of the accord to attack it – clearing the way for its abrogation by Trump a few years later. The net result: we now are on the brink of war with Iran because of its nuclear activities. Stupidly illogical? Perhaps not. Obama, on narrow political grounds, was trying to insulate himself from a barrage of criticism from Washington hard-liners and the Zionist lobby. Only two years earlier, he had infuriated them by scotching plans for American military strikes against government forces in response to chemical attacks blamed on the Assad regime (in fact, a false flag operation by MI-6 and their White Hats in collaboration with the jihadi rebels); hence, the perceived need to mollify them. So, it can be seen as logical given his weighting of interests and priorities. Not stupid – just self-centered and unresponsive to the public good, vintage Obama.

A second reality to keep in mind is that governments are plural nouns – or, pronouns with multiple antecedent nouns. The numerous organizations, bureaucracies and individuals involved in decision-making typically lead to a convoluted process wherein it is easy to lose track of purposes, priorities and coordination. Where little discipline is imposed by the chief, the greater the chances that the result will be contradictory, disjointed, sub-optimal and often poorly executed policies. At the present moment, we are witnessing a disjointed Trump administration, that in regard to Ukraine/Russia, 6 individuals are pursuing 7 different lines as indicated by their public remarks – an octopus trying to put on a pair of mismatched socks. All exacerbated by a scatterbrained Chief Executive who contradicts himself – as well his senior deputies – on a nightly basis.

Another kind of impediment to coherent, reality-based policymaking arises when the opposite condition prevails: an elaborate process involving several parties with divergent perspectives and parochial interests concludes with an agreement on a lowest common denominator basis. Arduously reached, that decision becomes frozen, insulated from new information or changes in the environment due to the fear that any revision would unravel the consensus – a form of groupthink. An extreme example of this phenomenon is provided by the EU where 27 sovereign states must agree before any policy can be enunciated. In Brussels, success is proclaimed when they reach accord as if negotiating among themselves is tantamount to negotiating an accord with other governments. A similar example is presented by the current campaign of the Trump administration to press Ukraine into negotiations with Russia. The tussle between Washington and Kiev is taken to be the crucial step toward resolution of the conflict. In fact, the ideas being bandied about as key ingredients of a settlement already have been absolutely rejected by Moscow – in particular, the much ballyhooed ceasefire that is a Western pipedream. As yet, they have not even been formally conveyed to the Russians. Stupid – or pathological?

Finally, we should recognize that rigorous thinking is far from the norm – at the highest levels of government as well as in everyday life. It takes a combination of education/training, experience, intellectual integrity, a cultivated sense of responsibility, discomfort with deciding on the basis of skimpy or suspect information, and an ingrained preference for knowing why you’re doing something instead of flying by the seat of your pants. True, when practiced and reinforced, rigorous thinking can become habitual – just like other modes of human behavior. There are multiple influences, though, that militate against that habit taking root and being sustained. They include the lure of celebrity, time pressures due to an excess of travel and/or summonses to mind-numbing TV interviews, long-tedious-inconclusive meetings (such as those presided over by Susan Rice which drove Chuck Hagel out of government), endless bureaucratic games-playing, distracted Chief Executives who demand ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers to complex issues. Altogether, the tumult can soften the toughest mind. Weaker minds simply latch onto whatever conventional wisdom and catch phrases are floating around in order to remain relevant and minimally functional in the kaleidoscopic setting of most administrations.

All of these patterns with attendant adverse consequences are more likely to crystallize into stupid acts when the man nominally in charge lacks the intelligence, emotional stability, self-awareness and/or advisors to recognize either the requirements for sound policymaking or for implementation. A lack of capacity to accept responsibility and to be held accountable exacerbates matters.

A business career such as Trump’s is not the desired preparation. Not only is that world fundamentally different from the world of public affairs (and especially foreign policy) Further, Trump partially compensated for his flaws through coercion, cheating, and duplicity. And at the end of the day, he could rig the books. That modus operandi doesn’t fly in the Middle East or in dealing with the likes of Vladimir Putin or Xia Jinping. It could, and does, win elections in a country where ignorance and “obtuseness”, in its many inglorious forms, are commonplace.

“Willful ignorance,” or “studied ignorance,” is an increasingly familiar phenomenon. Not just in Washington but among heads of large organizations of all stripes (e.g. universities). The inclination to avoid acquiring knowledge about a matter either at hand or looming is not necessarily a sign of stupidity. Here, too, there may be hidden considerations at play. American foreign policymakers may have wish to mask the Kabul government’s faltering popular support because doing so means a fundamental rethink of aims- an agonizing reappraisal for which they are unprepared intellectually, politically, and diplomatically. (MB: substitute Ukraine)

Making no effort to uncover the facts only becomes “stupid” where the responsible official then does things, as a consequence, that harm his interests. That has been the case in Syria where Barack Obama refused to come to terms with the uncomfortable truth that the “rebels” were overwhelmingly Salafist jihadis. In this case, an admission of that cardinal truth would pose the stark choice between continuing to back an al-Qaeda²-led cause or reversing course in tilting toward the Assad regime. The President lacked the courage to deal with the wide-ranging ramifications of that; so, he deluded himself into pursuing a will-o’wisp that existed only in the imaginings of those who were keen on an American military intervention. By surrounding himself with a rogue Secretary of Defense, a strategically disoriented Secretary of State, a self-absorbed, unpracticed National Security Advisor, and an obstreperous UN Ambassador, Obama fostered an environment that enabled his escapist behavior. So, too, did his ritual deference to the warped liturgy of the foreign policy Establishment that they represented.

For a President to avoid acting “stupidly,” he need not have an exceptional IQ – or score remarkably high on other dimensions of intelligence. Two things are most important: he must be honest with himself; and he must put in place a policy system that is both logical in process and self-aware as to why decisions are taken with what end in mind. To borrow an analogy from the football terminology favored in the corridors of Washington power: you can win a championship with a simply competent quarterback if the other pieces are in place and he follows a disciplined script. (Bart Starr of the old Green Bay Packers). An emotionally handicapped or narcissistic quarterback – however talented – will cripple a team sooner or later. One who suffers from the latter condition(s), along with a lack of athletic talent, is a guarantor of disaster. “Stupidity” will be the least of the derogatory terms applied to the ensuing performance; that word should be reserved for those who chose him.

Moral: we should not hesitate to call things as they are. Feigned politeness in situations marked by systematic deceit, ill-will and harm to the nation serves no good purpose. Concerned about the proverbial “dignity of the office?” Take your shoes off before entering the Oval Office. If “stupidity” displayed by stupid people is what we observe, virtue lies in calling it by its name.

The foregoing discussion pertains directly to government leaders. What of those non-official members of the “foreign affairs community” – the think tank pundits, the media personalities, the op ed columnists? These days, the thinking of most mirrors that of those in government positions. The unstated or unconfirmed premises, the partial or selective information, the logical flaws. The main differences are that they write/speak at far greater length, compose longer sentences, and use polysyllabic words. The level of intellectual rigor, though, is pretty much the same.

ENDNOTES:

The post On Stupidity first appeared on Dissident Voice.

1    “Dumb” as a pejorative has been out of favor for some time. It sounds stale to the post-modern ear. Only be adding the suffix “SOB” or “bastard” does it make any impact. That may be changing, though. The comeback of “dumb” could well have something to do with the fact that it rhymes with “Trump.” The German spelling “Drump” has even truer resonance.

2    Abu Mohammad al-Julani, nom de guerre of Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, and Abu Bakra al-Baghdadi of ISIS notoriety were confederates in the al-Qaeda subsidiary al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia that had been active in Iraq after the 2003 American invasion and occupation. Soon after the civil war in Syria broke out in 2011, they went their more or less separate ways: al-Baghdadi leading the Islamic State and Julani controlling al-Nusra as it came to be known. Over time, al-Nusra became the dominant force in the opposition coalition. It used its non-jihadi allies as convenient cover. American aid, along with that of European supporters, was laundered through those other groups. In effect, they served as a postal drop box. Over the eight years when al-Nusra ran the Idlib pocket under Turkish protection, they set up a repressive Islamic autocracy. They also assembled a multiethnic force including ISIS remnants, Uigurs, Uzbeks, Afghans, Chechens that acted as Turkish mercenaries in Libya, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Now, they enjoy a measure of independence as militias in the new-found regime of Jalani’s Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – its latest organizational incarnation. However, they could not commit the massacres against the Alawites without Jolani’s tacit approval, and HTS security forces, too, were involved.

For the record: among Syria’s 4.5 million Alawites, few supported Assad to the end and active opposition to the HTS takeover was very limited.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Michael Brenner.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/03/12/on-stupidity/feed/ 0 518469 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/03/12/the-trump-illness-hypothesis/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/03/12/the-trump-illness-hypothesis/#respond Wed, 12 Mar 2025 13:52:48 +0000 https://dissidentvoice.org/?p=156565 The critics are utterly beside themselves in trying to understand the bruising odds and turns of Donald J. Trump, the reality showman and business tycoon who became US president twice. One particular group that have become prominent are the aggrieved and estranged. Former employees who were given their marching orders after brief spells in Trump’s […]

The post The Trump Illness Hypothesis first appeared on Dissident Voice.]]> The critics are utterly beside themselves in trying to understand the bruising odds and turns of Donald J. Trump, the reality showman and business tycoon who became US president twice. One particular group that have become prominent are the aggrieved and estranged. Former employees who were given their marching orders after brief spells in Trump’s administration have made a career in podcasting and punditry on the man whose bilious orbit they seemingly cannot escape. A common theme to their recent criticism is that of mental health. Trump, we are told, is unhinged, a true nutter.

The aggrieved, war loving John Bolton, who had spells in the administration of George W. Bush and a brief one as Trump’s national security advisor, has been particularly noisy in pushing the illness hypothesis. When asked by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins whether Trump’s claim that Russia’s Vladimir Putin was not a dictator could be seen as a negotiating ploy, Bolton would have none of it. “I think it’s an indication his mind is full of mush, and he says whatever comes into it. He believes Vladimir Putin is his friend, and you know, you don’t call your friends [Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky] a dictator.”

Bolton also falls for the old, almost laughable mistake when trying to understand Trump: that facts necessarily matter in that world. When Trump met the current Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lieutenant General Dan Caine, in Iraq during his first term, the president offered a rather different account to that of Bolton’s. The former claimed that Caine had told him that the campaign against the ISIS group could be “finished in one week”, that he sported a Make America Great Again hat, and claimed he would “kill” for the president.

Bolton, who accompanied Trump on that visit, was adamant: “There was no chance that Trump had a conversation with General Caine that bore any resemblance to what he’s described. I never saw Caine wear a MAGA hat.” (In a tossup between who to trust between these men, Bolton might just prevail.)

Another former employee who had reiterated similar points of mental decline is Anthony Scaramucci, who spent a mere 11 days in the first Trump administration as communications director before being sacked. After being a firm loyalist, the born again commentator and financier known as the Mooch could confidently claim to Vanity Fair in 2019 that Trump was “crazy, everything about him is terrible”.

Having failed in spectacular fashion, along with fellow pundits, to read the premonitory signs of a Trump victory over Kamala Harris, he has returned to the theme of the mad man, or at least the ill man. Some of these views were expressed just prior to a visit to the White House by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In the Off Air… with Jane and Fi podcast, Scaramucci took it as given that “Trump’s obviously got something wrong with him. I would say to Keir Starmer the guy is unwell and he’s surrounded by willing sycophants that want to pretend he’s not unwell.” One did not need to be “a rocket scientist to know that something’s wrong”.

While it did not come from one of the estranged or aggrieved, the most telling remark on Trump’s health was offered by Democratic political consultant and strategist James Carville. In a posted video, Carville felt speculatively adventurous after the turbulent February 28 meeting between the US president and his Ukrainian counterpart, President Zelensky. “I want to seek the possibility that maybe I had a point considerably earlier than this when I pointed out on this very channel that Trump had red splotches on his hand which I was told by a number of medical professionals that when you see that condition the first thing you suspect is syphilis.” There you have it. Analysis can end, there and then.

Many of these criticisms stem from dross from the first Trump administration, when opinion pieces questioning the man’s faculties and sanity became a feature. Often, they were slipshod and lazy, seduced by the Trump canard. Trump derangement syndrome is, after all, a hard thing to shake. His effect on US politics and its analysis has been so profound as to turn critics and commentators into replicates of his dislike of factual analysis. Just as book reviewers, as Cyril Connolly remarked, are bound to have their critical faculties blunted by the poor quality of books available for review, Trump as both subject and method has cut through the undergrowth of sensible discourse. The illness hypothesis is yet another example of this.

Embracing such a proposition avoids the more fundamental point about Trump: that he does know more than you think about what he wants and how he wants to achieve it. He is most certainly a disturbed human being, infantilised, insecure, and prone to hazes of narcissism, but he can hardly be dismissed as a person without certain cerebral functions.

With a vengeful conviction lacking in his first iteration, he is shaping aspects of US government that are both remarkable and disconcerting. On the international stage, he has finally stripped bare the cant pursued by the liberal and neoconservative internationalists who insist on a policing role for Washington in the name of “rules”. For them, the messianic role of the United States will guard the world against such nasties as rule-bending autocrats. The MAGA philosophy has its dangers and problems, but the mental illness of its chief proponent is not one of them.

The post The Trump Illness Hypothesis first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/03/12/the-trump-illness-hypothesis/feed/ 0 518406 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/03/10/is-this-the-beginning-or-the-end-of-a-new-cold-war/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/03/10/is-this-the-beginning-or-the-end-of-a-new-cold-war/#respond Mon, 10 Mar 2025 16:10:59 +0000 https://dissidentvoice.org/?p=156500 Woman at rally supporting peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in Berlin, Germany.  (Photo: Reuters) When European Union leaders met in Brussels on February 6 to discuss the war in Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron called this time “a turning point in history.” Western leaders agree that this is an historic moment when decisive action is needed, but […]

The post Is This the Beginning or the End of a New Cold War? first appeared on Dissident Voice.]]>

Woman at rally supporting peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in Berlin, Germany.  (Photo: Reuters)

When European Union leaders met in Brussels on February 6 to discuss the war in Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron called this time “a turning point in history.” Western leaders agree that this is an historic moment when decisive action is needed, but what kind of action depends on their interpretation of the nature of this moment.

Is this the beginning of a new Cold War between the U.S., NATO and Russia or the end of one? Will Russia and the West remain implacable enemies for the foreseeable future, with a new iron curtain between them through what was once the heart of Ukraine? Or can the United States and Russia resolve the disputes and hostility that led to this war in the first place, so as to leave Ukraine with a stable and lasting peace?

Some European leaders see this moment as the beginning of a long struggle with Russia, akin to the beginning of the Cold War in 1946, when Winston Churchill warned that “an iron curtain has descended” across Europe.

On March 2, echoing Churchill, European Council President Ursula von der Leyen declared that Europe must turn Ukraine into a “steel porcupine.” President Zelenskyy has said he wants up to 200,000 European troops on the eventual ceasefire line between Russia and Ukraine to “guarantee” any peace agreement, and insists that the United States must provide a “backstop,” meaning a commitment to send U.S. forces to fight in Ukraine if war breaks out again.

Russia has repeatedly said it won’t agree to NATO forces being based in Ukraine under any guise. “We explained today that the appearance of armed forces from the same NATO countries, but under a false flag, under the flag of the European Union or under national flags, does not change anything in this regard,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on February 18. “Of course this is unacceptable to us.”

But the U.K. is persisting in a campaign to recruit a “coalition of the willing,” the same term the U.S. and U.K. coined for the list of countries they persuaded to support the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. In that case, only Australia, Denmark and Poland took small parts in the invasion, Costa Rica publicly insisted on being removed from the list, and the term was widely lampooned as the “coalition of the billing” because the U.S. recruited so many countries to join it by promising them lucrative foreign aid deals.

Far from the start of a new Cold War, President Trump and other leaders see this moment as more akin to the end of the original Cold War, when U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev met in Reykjavik in Iceland in 1986 and began to bridge the divisions caused by 40 years of Cold War hostility.

Like Trump and Putin today, Reagan and Gorbachev were unlikely peacemakers. Gorbachev had risen through the ranks of the Soviet Communist Party to become its General Secretary and Soviet Premier in March 1985, in the midst of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and he didn’t begin to withdraw Soviet forces from Afghanistan until 1988. Reagan oversaw an unprecedented Cold War arms build-up, a U.S.-backed genocide in Guatemala and covert and proxy wars throughout Central America. And yet Gorbachev and Reagan are now widely remembered as peacemakers.

While Democrats deride Trump as a Putin stooge, in his first term in office Trump was actually responsible for escalating the Cold War with Russia. After the Pentagon had milked its absurd, self-fulfilling “War on Terror” for trillions of dollars, it was Trump and his psychopathic Defense Secretary, General “Mad Dog” Mattis, who declared the shift back to strategic competition with Russia and China as the Pentagon’s new gravy train in their 2018 National Defense Strategy. It was also Trump who lifted President Obama’s restrictions on sending offensive weapons to Ukraine.

Trump’s head-spinning about-turn in U.S. policy has left its European allies with whiplash and reversed the roles they each have played for generations. France and Germany have traditionally been the diplomats and peacemakers in the Western alliance, while the U.S. and U.K. have been infected with a chronic case of war fever that has proven resistant to a long string of military defeats and catastrophic impacts on every country that has fallen prey to their warmongering.

In 2003, France’s Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin led the opposition to the invasion of Iraq in the UN Security Council. France, Germany and Russia issued a joint statement to say that they would “not let a proposed resolution pass that would authorize the use of force. Russia and France, as permanent members of the Security Council, will assume all their responsibilities on this point.”

At a press conference in Paris with German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, French President Jacques Chirac said, “Everything must be done to avoid war… As far as we’re concerned, war always means failure.”

As recently as 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, it was once again the U.S. and U.K. that rejected and blocked peace negotiations in favor of a long war, while France, Germany and Italy continued to call for new negotiations, even as they gradually fell in line with the U.S. long war policy.

Former German Chancellor Schröder took part in the peace negotiations in Turkey in March and April 2022, and flew to Moscow at Ukraine’s request to meet with Putin. In an interview with Berliner Zeitung in 2023, Schröder confirmed that the peace talks only failed “because everything was decided in Washington.”

With Biden still blocking new negotiations in 2023, one of the interviewers asked Schröder “Do you think you can resume your peace plan?”

Schröder replied, “Yes, and the only ones who can initiate this are France and Germany… Macron and Scholz are the only ones who can talk to Putin. Chirac and I did the same in the Iraq war. Why can’t support for Ukraine be combined with an offer of talks to Russia? The arms deliveries are not a solution for eternity. But no one wants to talk. Everyone sits in trenches. How many more people have to die?”

Since 2022, President Macron and a Thatcherite team of iron ladies – European Council President von der Leyen; former German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock; and Estonia’s former prime minister Kaja Kallas, now the EU’s foreign policy chief – have promoted a new militarization of Europe, egged on from behind the scenes by European and U.S. arms manufacturers.

Has the passage of time, the passing of the World War II generation and the distortion of history washed away the historical memory of two world wars from a continent that was destroyed by war only 80 years ago? Where is the next generation of French and German diplomats in the tradition of de Villepin and Schröder today? How can sending German tanks to fight in Ukraine, and now in Russia itself, fail to remind Russians of previous German invasions and solidify support for the war? And won’t the call for Europe to confront Russia by moving from a “welfare state to a warfare state” only feed the rise of the European hard right?

So are the new European militarists reading the historical moment correctly? Or are they jumping on the bandwagon of a disastrous Cold War that could, as Biden and Trump have warned, lead to World War III?

When Trump’s foreign policy team met with their Russian counterparts in Saudi Arabia on February 18, ending the war in Ukraine was the second part of the three-part plan they agreed on. The first was to restore full diplomatic relations between the United States and Russia, and the third was to work on a series of other problems in U.S.-Russian relations.

The order of these three stages is interesting, because, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted, it means that the negotiations over Ukraine will be the first test of restored relations between the U.S. and Russia.

If the negotiations for peace in Ukraine are successful, they can lead to further negotiations over restoring arms control treaties, nuclear disarmament and cooperation on other global problems that have been impossible to resolve in a world stuck in a zombie-like Cold War that powerful interests would not allow to die.

It was a welcome change to hear Secretary Rubio say that the post-Cold War unipolar world was an anomaly and that now we have to adjust to the reality of a multipolar world. But if Trump and his hawkish advisers are just trying to restore U.S. relations with Russia as part of a “reverse Kissinger” scheme to isolate China, as some analysts have suggested, that would perpetuate America’s debilitating geopolitical crisis instead of solving it.

The United States and our friends in Europe have a new chance to make a clean break from the three-way geopolitical power struggle between the United States, Russia and China that has hamstrung the world since the 1970s, and to find new roles and priorities for our countries in the emerging multipolar world of the 21st Century.

We hope that Trump and European leaders can recognize the crossroads at which they are standing, and the chance history is giving them to choose the path of peace. France and Germany in particular should remember the wisdom of Dominique de Villepin, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder in the face of U.S. and British plans for aggression against Iraq in 2003.

This could be the beginning of the end of the permanent state of war and Cold War that has held the world in its grip for more than a century. Ending it would allow us to finally prioritize the progress and cooperation we so desperately need to solve the other critical problems the whole world is facing in the 21st Century. As General Milley said back in November 2022 when he called for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, we must “seize the moment.”

The post Is This the Beginning or the End of a New Cold War? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

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

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/03/10/is-this-the-beginning-or-the-end-of-a-new-cold-war/feed/ 0 517835 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/03/08/international-womens-day-activists-protest-in-solidarity-with-palestinians/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/03/08/international-womens-day-activists-protest-in-solidarity-with-palestinians/#respond Sat, 08 Mar 2025 09:51:54 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=111815 Asia Pacific Report

Activists in Aotearoa New Zealand marked International Women’s Day today and the start of Ramadan this week with solidarity rallies across the country, calling for justice and peace for Palestinian women and the territories occupied illegally by Israel.

The theme this year for IWD is “For all women and girls: Rights. Equality. Empowerment” and this was the 74th week of Palestinian solidarity protests.

First speaker at the Auckland rally today, Del Abcede of the Aotearoa section of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), said the protest was “timely given how women have suffered the brunt of Israel’s war on Palestine and the Gaza ceasefire in limbo”.

• READ MORE: Muslim nations condemn Israel’s ‘war crimes and acts of genocide’
• International Women’s Day is for the few, not the many
• The world cannot ignore Trump’s death threat to the people of Gaza
• Gallery: NZ women call for long-term peace and justice in Palestine
• Other Gaza genocide reports

“Women are the backbone of families and communities. They provide care, support and nurturing to their families and the development of children,” she said.

“Women also play a significant role in community building and often take on leadership roles in community organisations. Empowered women empower the world.”

Abcede explained how the non-government organisation WILPF had national sections in 37 countries, including the Palestine branch which was founded in 1988. WILPF works close with its Palestinian partners, Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling (WCLAC) and General Union of Palestinian Women (GUPW).

“This catastrophe is playing out on our TV screens every day. The majority of feminists in Britain — and in the West — seem to have nothing to say about it,” Abcede said, quoting gender researcher Dr Maryam Aldosarri, to cries of shame.

‘There can be neutrality’
“In the face of such overwhelming terror, there can be no neutrality.”

Dr Aldosarri said in an article published earlier in the war on Gaza last year that the “siege and indiscriminate bombardment” had already “killed, maimed and disappeared under the rubble tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children”.

“Many more have been displaced and left to survive the harsh winter without appropriate shelter and supplies. The almost complete breakdown of the healthcare system, coupled with the lack of food and clean water, means that some 45,000 pregnant women and 68,000 breastfeeding mothers in Gaza are facing the risk of anaemia, bleeding, and death.

“Meanwhile, hundreds of Palestinian women and children in the occupied West Bank are still imprisoned, many without trial, and trying to survive in abominable conditions.”

The death toll in the war — with killings still happening in spite of the precarious ceasefire — is now more than 50,000 — mostly women and children.

Abcede read out a statement from WILPF International welcoming the ceasefire, but adding that it “was only a step”.

“Achieving durable and equitable peace demands addressing the root causes of violence and oppression. This means adhering to the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion by dismantling the foundational structures of colonial violence and ensuring Palestinians’ rights to self-determination, dignity and freedom.”

Action for justice and peace
Abcede also spoke about what action to take for “justice and peace” — such as countering disinformation and influencing the narrative; amplifying Palstinian voices and demands; joining rallies — “like what we do every Saturday”; supporting the global BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaign against Israel; writing letters to the government calling for special visas for Palestinians who have families in New Zealand; and donating to campaigns supporting the victims.

Lorri Mackness, also of WILPF Aotearoa, spoke of the Zionist gendered violence against Palestinians and the ruthless attacks on Gaza’s medical workers and hospitals to destroy the health sector.

Gaza’s hospitals had been “reduced to rubble by Israeli bombs”, she said.

“UN reports that over 60,000 women would give birth this year in Gaza. But Israel has destroyed every maternity hospital.

“Women will be delivered in tents, corridors, or bombed out homes without anasthesia, without doctors, without clean water.

“When Israel killed Gaza’s only foetal medicine specialist, Dr Muhammad Obeid, it wasn’t collateral damage — it was calculated reproductive terror.”

“Now, miscarriages have spiked by 300 percent, and mothers stitch their own C-sections with sewing thread.”

‘Femicide – a war crime’
Babies who survived birth entered a world where Israel blocked food aid — 1 in 10 infants would die of starvation, 335,000 children faced starvation, and their mothers forced to watch, according to UNICEF.

“This is femicide — this is a war crime.”

Eugene Velasco, of the Filipino feminist action group Gabriela Aotearoa, said Israel’s violence in Gaza was a “clear reminder of the injustice that transcends geographical borders”.

“The injustice is magnified in Gaza where the US-funded genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people has resulted in the deaths of more than 61,000.”

‘Pernicious’ Regulatory Standards Bill
Dr Jane Kelsey, a retired law professor and justice advocate, spoke of an issue that connected the “scourge of colonisation in Palestine and Aotearoa with the same lethal logic and goals”.

The parallels between both colonised territories included theft of land and the creation of private property rights, and the denial of sovereign authority and self-determination.

She spoke of how international treaties that had been entered in good faith were disrespected, disregarded and “rewritten as it suits the colonising power”.

Dr Kelsey said an issue that had “gone under the radar” needed to be put on the radar and for action.

She said that while the controversial Treaty Principles Bill would not proceed because of the massive mobilisations such as the hikoi, it had served ACT’s purpose.

“Behind the scenes is ACT’s more systemic and pernicious Regulatory Standards Bill,” she said. ACT had tried three times to get the bill adopted and failed, but it was now in the coalition government’s agreement.

A ‘stain on humanity’
Meanwhile, Hamas has reacted to a Gaza government tally of the number of women who were killed by Israel’s war, reports Al Jazeera.

“The killing of 12,000 women in Gaza, the injury and arrest of thousands, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands are a stain on humanity,” the group said.

“Palestinian female prisoners are subjected to psychological and physical torture in flagrant violation of all international norms and conventions.”

Hamas added the suffering endured by Palestinian female prisoners revealed the “double standards” of Western countries, including the United States, in dealing with Palestinians.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/03/08/international-womens-day-activists-protest-in-solidarity-with-palestinians/feed/ 0 517475 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/02/26/in-2023-the-move-forward-party-won-thailands-general-elections-but-was-blocked/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/02/26/in-2023-the-move-forward-party-won-thailands-general-elections-but-was-blocked/#respond Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:13:48 +0000 http://www.radiofree.org/?guid=0fc22149310655bacaf977364301a4ad
This content originally appeared on Human Rights Watch and was authored by Human Rights Watch.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2025/02/26/in-2023-the-move-forward-party-won-thailands-general-elections-but-was-blocked/feed/ 0 515237 https://www.radiofree.org/2025/02/25/no-excuses-no-compromises-no-fear-no-forgiveness/ https://www.radiofree.org/2025/02/25/no-excuses-no-compromises-no-fear-no-forgiveness/#respond Tue, 25 Feb 2025 15:17:32 +0000 https://dissidentvoice.org/?p=156186 “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” Spoken by a fellow in a time when tolerance and trust, faith in the essential goodness of human beings, belief in turn-the-other-cheek stoicism, all were still possible. It was innovative even back then, but an option which could be considered. These are different times. No […]

The post No Excuses. No Compromises. No Fear. No Forgiveness first appeared on Dissident Voice.]]>

“Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”

Spoken by a fellow in a time when tolerance and trust, faith in the essential goodness of human beings, belief in turn-the-other-cheek stoicism, all were still possible. It was innovative even back then, but an option which could be considered.

These are different times. No longer does innocence bloom. Hope is a four-letter word, gutted by abuse, now a contemptuous metaphor for hypocrisy and cunning. Faith, charity and love have been quantified, digitized, commodified, sexualized, turned into more weapons of mass deception and poisoning of the human spirit, just box cutters in the toolbox of a tiny elite, self-anointed as the class of absolute privilege and ultimate prerogative, self-appointed as Masters of the Universe. The sociopaths have won the class war and sit at the top of the sh*tpile they’re fabricating.

No, good people, forgiveness is no longer recommended, no longer possible, such graciousness is not the appropriate noble response anymore.

We simply cannot forgive those who are doing to our world what we see happening right now.

It’s unconscionable. It’s repulsive. It’s malevolent. It’s nihilistic. It’s … unforgivable.

Jesus Christ surely would not approve of what I’m about to say. Then again, these days He’s basically irrelevant, just another marketing brand, an advertising gimmick for knee-jerk religiosity.

Please listen, friends. Take heed. It’s getting late. We have no choice. Urgency drives our mission. Common decency and timeless morality dictate our agenda.

Forgive them not … for endless war, carnage for conquest, slaughter for power and control, the creation of enemies to drive weapons sales, the demonization of other countries and their leaders to prepare the public for war and more war.

Forgive them not … for destroying the environment, killing untold numbers of species, filling the waterways with toxins, polluting the air, pumping greenhouse gases at an accelerating rate into the atmosphere.

Forgive them not … for poisoning our bodies with man-made chemicals and for-profit pharmaceuticals, for poisoning our food with herbicides, pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, for boosting the bottom line with no regard for human health or dignity.

Forgive them not … for filling the oceans with millions of tons of the debris of “civilization” and turning the vast expanses of life-giving, life-sustaining water into graveyards for the creatures of the sea.

Forgive them not … for fostering suspicion and hatred, promoting racism and intolerance, for setting humans against one another to make us all easier to control, manipulate and exploit.

Forgive them not … for persecuting Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and other truth-tellers, while promoting to positions of power serial liars, prevaricating warmongers, self-enriching enemies of truth.

Forgive them not … for destroying science as an objective methodology for obtaining knowledge and achieving understanding, for buying and bribing scientists to front for their deceptive, money-driven agendas.

Forgive them not … for rigging the economy via influence peddling and grotesque warping of the democratic process with enormous infusions of money, in order to accelerate the transfer of wealth to a handful of beneficiaries at the top, then use that wealth to leverage even more money to further enrich the already incomprehensibly rich.

Forgive them not … for desertification, deforestation, the destruction of enormous swaths of arable land, the destruction of rainforests, the ruin of ecologically-sensitive marshlands, the oil spills, chemical spills, all the direct result of blind avarice and predation.

Forgive them not … for hoarding epic, inconceivable piles of money, while so many millions on the planet struggle to survive, live meal-to-meal, starve to death, die of easily curable diseases.

Forgive them not … for flooding the planet with weapons, seeding crisis after crisis, being witness and perpetrators of killing, slaughter, unconscionable terror, death and destruction, all in the name of defense industry profits and stock portfolios.

Forgive them not … for using the media, movies, TV and internet, entertainers and celebrities, to spread lies, propaganda, disinformation, fake news to slander and marginalize bearers of truth, and to confuse, distract, and disempower everyday people.

Forgive them not … for destroying democracy and the promise of our bold and once-affirming experiment in self-government.

Forgive them not … for exploiting our innate fear of death and universal desire for well-being, for turning medical care and maintenance of health into yet another revenue stream for predatory capitalism.

Forgive them not … for violating the innocence of children, exploiting their thirst for knowledge and natural curiosity, destroying their inherent creativity, and turning our educational system into a factory for consumer robots.

Forgive them not … for taking the beautiful, majestic heavens, the pure, wholesome expanse of outer space and turning it into yet another battlefield, bristling with weapons of terror and killing.

Forgive them not … for mangling and mutilating timeless messages for spiritual growth and healing; for inverting the lessons teaching the virtues of compassion, caring and sharing; for turning institutionalized religion into cults of self-worship and warring tribes of exclusion and vilification.

Forgive them not … for Monsanto, Raytheon, Pfizer, Chase, the Fed, Amazon, Google, the NYT, Facebook, Microsoft, the entire web of corporate tyranny.

Forgive them not … for the Patriot Acts, for the 17 intelligence agencies, the CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS, the NDAA, the duopoly, Citizens United, for election rigging, voter machine fraud, gerrymandering, the scam of government by the people.

Forgive them not … for massive intrusive unconstitutional citizen surveillance, both by security agencies and private corporations, and for the oppressive censorship which has destroyed the most fundamental rights of free expression and open exchange of ideas and information.

Forgive them not … for simply being so self-centered, so selfish, so arrogant, so self-righteous and delusional, they are undermining everyone else on the planet, and creating a world which will eventually be uninhabitable for any of us, including them — the stupid self-sabotaging bastards!

FORGIVE THEM NOT … FOR THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO.

And what they do is sick and evil … pure and simple.

We have to get it together, folks! Tolerate none of this. Do not forgive the “people of privilege”. Capture them. Bring them to trial. Imprison them. They know exactly what they’re doing. They do it callously, maliciously, mercilessly, intentionally, with plan and pre-meditation. We know who they are. They cannot be trusted. They cannot be excused — now or ever — if there is to be a world which is functional and supports life and positive human interaction.

No forgiveness. No excuses. No compromises. No fear.

FORGIVE THEM NOT …

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John Rachel.

[A] coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

— Raphael Lemkin describes genocide¹

Protesters in Australia urge the government to back South Africa’s court case against Israel. (AAP Photo)

The US is Israel’s preeminent supplier of weapons. Since 7 October, the US has supplied Israel with F-15 jets, tank cartridges, explosive mortar cartridges, army vehicles, more than 10,000 2,000-pound bombs and thousands of Hellfire missiles. Obviously, the US is not a neutral party to the fighting between Israel and Palestine. In fact, the US’s involvement makes it a participant in a proxy war against the lightly armed Palestinian resistance, who have no fighter planes, no tanks, no Iron Dome.

Seeing an opportunity, US president Donald Trump declared that the US would take over the Gaza Strip. So said Trump in a White House press conference with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Of note is that Trump’s guest has an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and war crimes dating back to 8 October 2023.

Trump boasted, “We’ll own it … We have an opportunity to do something that could be phenomenal … the Riviera of the Middle East.”

Trump stated that the Gaza Strip has been “a symbol of death and destruction for so many decades” and “an unlucky place for a long time.” Trump called on “countries of interest with humanitarian hearts” to build “various domains that will ultimately be occupied by the 1.8 million Palestinians living in Gaza.”

Though the US will own it, according to Trump, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that there was no plan to put American boots on the ground in Gaza and that the US would not pay for Gaza reconstruction. Ownership without investment.

One imagines that Trump’s Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner, an investor who remarked in March 2024 that “Gaza’s waterfront property it could be very valuable,” must be rubbing his hands together with glee.

Of course, there was widespread consternation and condemnation of Trump’s plan to take over Gaza. It is blatantly illegal. There are several UN Security Council resolutions on the borders of Palestine, and UN Security Council resolutions are binding upon UN member states. Moreover, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory.”

Curiously, writer Pepe Escobar in an interview described Trump’s taking over Gaza as “transforming a genocide into an ethnic cleansing operation.” (around 15:30)

It seems that Escobar saw ethnic cleansing as diminishing the genocidal onslaught.

The UN Genocide Convention states in Article II that

genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Obviously, (b) and (c) would factor in when it comes to determination of a genocide versus ethnic cleansing.

Citing Trump’s figure of 1.8 million Palestinians to be transferred, whereas the Gaza population was given as 2.3 million prior to 7 October 2024, Escobar is among the analysts who have noted that the uncounted Palestinian population of 500 000 might portend a much higher fatality count that what is reported in the mass media.

Linguistic Accuracy

Previously, I wrote an article about an academic paper by public health researchers Rony Blum, Gregory H. Stanton, Shira Sagi and Elihu D. Richter. Blum et al. called for the expunging of the term “ethnic cleansing” from official use, declaring that it “bleaches the atrocities of genocide and its continuing use undermines the prevention of genocide.” The researchers noted, “The term ‘ethnic cleansing’ is used as a euphemism for genocide despite it having no legal status.”

The researchers considered that mislabeling a genocide as ethnic cleansing might well provide cover for further killing. Consequently, they advocated

The researchers considered that mislabeling a genocide as ethnic cleansing might well provide cover for further killing. Consequently, they advocated linguistic accuracy so that agents of flagrant criminal actions will bear full culpability and responsibility. Blum et al. made a compelling case for ditching the term “ethnic cleansing” and calling genocide what it is. Given the abhorrence evoked by genocide, linguistic cleansing is required.

Arguably, of greater importance than linguistic accuracy though is the recognition and identification of the genocidaires. Blum et al. focused on countries outside their backyards and overlooked genocides perpetrated by their own countries. This is not only intellectually dishonest, but it detracts from the morality that implicitly underlies their position.

Ilan Pappe, author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, at first drew a distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Did Pappe fudge on the question of genocide?

Pappe writes, “Massacres accompany the operations [of ethnic cleansing], but where they occur they are not part of a genocidal plan: they are a key tactic to accelerate the flight of the population earmarked for expulsion. (p. 2) [italics added]

“Ethnic cleansing is not genocide, but it does carry with it atrocious acts of mass killing and butchery.” (p. 197) [emphasis added] Pappe is generous with the definition of “ethnic cleansing” (e.g., “part of the essence of ethnic cleansing is the eradication, by all means available, of a region’s history”) but parsimonious with the definition of “genocide.”²

My colleague Gary Zatzman wrote, in a personal communication (March 2007):

Here’s the thing about ethnic cleansing: it’s not the same as genocide. The latter [genocide] is consciously aimed at destroying the people-hood of a people by attacking how, as well as where, they live, their ideas, their outlook, their culture etc etc. The former [ethnic cleansing] displaces people, but the question of whether there is a genocidal intention, or merely a desire to take over the land and property of others, is left moot.

Ilan Pappe is one of those who fudges this question. He says what the Zionists do today in Gaza is genocide, but what they did in Mandate Palestine since 1947 and in the West Bank since 1967 was ethnic cleansing. DISINFORMATION ALERT! …

It is ALL genocide. The intention of the Haganah was to genocide the Palestinians. It’s very convenient to say, à la Golda Meir, that the Zionists didn’t think of the Palestinians as a people or nationality, just an inconvenient obstacle. The FACT is they prepared and executed genocide. It doesn’t matter, either, that the Zionists didn’t get all the Palestinians in one fell swoop, but have dragged it out over the last 58 years. It is still genocide. To suggest the survivors of the Judeocide were incapable of such a thing, which seems to be the only substance at the heart of the liberal Zionists’ argument, is utter nonsense. Were these survivors not psychically damaged by what they experienced before they were “liberated”? Such people were the ideal human material to set upon the Palestinians like wild beasts.

Perhaps the excellent analyst Escobar might reconsider his usage of the term “ethnic cleansing” — especially if referring to it as a lesser form of genocide.

ENDNOTES:

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Bhajan L.

Though initially confused at the sudden influx of English speakers, long-dwelling app users quickly connected the dots and were quick to poke fun at the US government’s accusations of China spying on your typical American citizen.

The app “Xiaohongshu” directly translates to ‘Little Red Book,” but it has been dubbed RedNote in the United States. Many are quick to think of Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong’s famous Little Red Book, though app officials say it isn’t a direct reference. Still, the comedic composition is something to celebrate.

The Tiktok ban is quite evidently backfiring on the US government. As users snub the ban and move to a real Chinese social media app, spontaneous interactions between US and Chinese citizens are naturally sorting through years and years of anti-China propaganda.

WAIT! The social credit thing isn’t real??? One user commented, after locals revealed that there is no such thing as a social credit score in China — just one of the many stories the media has falsely fed us.

The app has ushered in a new wave of cross-cultural learning. Americans have been posting questions like, “How does China feel about Palestine?” and “What does the US government tell us about China that isn’t true?” There’s been comparisons between the US and China health systems (of which China’s is undoubtedly superior) and tours of China’s incredible EVs. The vast number of Americans agree: the US has fallen way behind.

Not only that, but American citizens cite a new appreciation for China, and the number of people learning Mandarin has grown. Duolingo has already seen a 216% spike. While Chinese citizens have taken it upon themselves to start teaching newcomers common Chinese phrases, Americans simultaneously help local users with their English homework.

It is more than just cultural exchange, however. This is an unprecedented people-to-people moment, allowing two communities to come together and realize they are more alike than not. Such a realization is desperately needed, and undercuts a rapidly escalating war climate between the US and China.

Recently, the US approved a $2 billion arms sale to Taiwan, citing potential war with China. In response, China sanctioned numerous US weapons companies for violating the one-China principle and destabilizing the region. War talk isn’t new — the US government has been pushing and planning for it ever since China rose to power in the early 2000s. A natural threat to US global hegemony, our politicians have been plotting the fall of China for decades, spending billions and billions of dollars to militarize the region around China and pushing a narrative of hatred and fear in the media.

Just this week, China hawk Marco Rubio underwent his Secretary of State confirmation hearing. Due to his push for war against China, he has been travel-sanctioned by the Chinese government for years. Our nation’s top “diplomat” is going to have some trouble conducting diplomacy when he’s unable to even travel to the nation where we need it most. Not that anything Rubio does could ever be considered diplomacy.

But despite the constant anti-China rhetoric plaguing our politicians and media, new RedNote users appear to be taking a different path:

The internet is a modern tool not previously available to the people during the great power wars of previous decades. It provides a fresh avenue that can circumvent the weaponization of the media and allow people to easily connect from different sides of the globe.

Perhaps an app like RedNote is exactly what we need to continue diffusing all the anti-China propaganda attempting to manufacture consent for the next great war. It’s about time the people decide for themselves who they should and shouldn’t be calling “enemy” rather than adhering to the whims of a war-obsessed government.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Megan Russell.

In her confirmation hearing Wednesday, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Pam Bondi, refused to answer Democrats’ questions about maintaining the Department of Justice’s independence from the president and pursuing his personal vendettas. Bondi also avoided directly answering questions about Trump’s vow to pardon January 6 defendants and refused to say Trump definitively lost the 2020 election. “Bondi clearly has a comfort level with basing her prosecutorial discretion on whether someone has power and influence, and whether they’re willing to give her a taste of that,” says The American Prospect’s David Dayen, who explains how such abuse of power could dangerously expand the ability of the president to go after political enemies.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

forty hard years of lobotomizing, dumbdowning, infantilizing, and deploying this multilayered PSYOPS of direct and covert operations have been brought to us, partially, by the Edward Bernays of the World … now we are here: Fear and Loathing in Our Delusional and Self-Incriminating Selves! (Haeder, May 28, 2023)

Versus:

Before the Russian invasion, CIA reports linked him to an oligarch so dirty and so mired in “significant corruption” that the State Department banned him from entering the U.S.

But now CIA propaganda portrays Zelensky as nobler than Winston Churchill and saintlier than Mother Theresa.

Will the Real Volodymyr Zelensky Please Stand Up (source)

Now now, I know we can’t in PC/PAEC (Politically Approved by Elites Correct) society point out a spade from a diamond. Ahh, even after Nakba 75? Who stopped it, a celebration-remembrance-sadness of that genocide?

Sorry, but it does matter who controls the levers of power, the narrative, the engines of Press-Propaganda-Entertainment. As well as, politics, marketing, education? Nakba is a lie. You don’t see a pattern here?

In a statement Monday, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen said, “We will fight the ‘Nakba’ lie with full strength and we won’t allow the Palestinians to continue to spread lies and distort history.”

Ahh, this commemoration, by the UN, of all organizations, is despicable, according to another Jew, and that is a-okay language, no?

In a recorded statement, Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., Gilad Erdan, said that the organization’s decision was “shameful” and would harm any efforts to find a peaceful solution to the generations-old conflict between the state of Israel and the Palestinian people.

Asking other U.N. representatives to boycott the commemoration, he said, “[A]ttending this despicable event means destroying any chance of peace by adopting the Palestinian narrative calling the establishment of the state of Israel a disaster while ignoring Palestinian hate, incitement, terror and refusal to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state.”

“UN Recognition of Palestinian Displacement Angers Israel” — One headline, and just replace, “…angers Israel” with, “…. angers Christians, Zionists, Israel-Firsters, Members of Congress, Members of the MSM, politicians, AIPAC, etc., et. …”

Shit, recognition of that Liberty, that United States SHIP, and more poison arrows launched by the Isra-Hellions:

Shit, that crime memorial is coming up, June 8 = The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats, on 8 June 1967, during the Six-Day War.

Ahh, can we protest that other anniversary? By virtue of General Assembly Resolution 273, Israel was admitted to membership in the United Nations on 11 May 1949.  In the three years following the 1948 Palestine war , about 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel, residing mainly along the borders and in former Arab lands.

Can we remember June 8 without being smeared?

For more information on Israel’s crimes, and the USS Liberty, go here: IAK.

Now transitioning to more racism and bigotry and Big Brother-ism by Jewish leaders, ZioCryptos, and the like, let’s scour the WWW for those attacks on Pink Floyd’s front man: Jews will attack Roger Waters, of Pink Floyd, and they will get countless thousands of lies published in countless broken media outfits immediately. Just Google-Gulag search: “Roger Waters and Berlin Fascism.” Hate, pure lies, and the hasbara and powerful Jewish hatred of thinking Rogers is an antisemite!

Again, a concert, and Israel speaks up.

Israel’s foreign ministry later criticized Waters on social media, tweeting on May 24: “Good morning to everyone but Roger Waters who spent the evening in Berlin (Yes Berlin) desecrating the memory of Anne Frank and the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust.”

 

I am sorry to say that the Jewish folk I have been reading about, listening to, and researching throughout my decades, even from day one of college onward, many (not all)  are indeed a clear and present danger to straight-up research and critical thinking. Then, just move over to the fact in my humble opinion, many powerful Jews hate Russia, Russians, and anyone who might dare question the UkroNazi Proxy War with Russia, started, oh, hell, way before 2014.

Self-proclaimed Jewish criminal, Kolomoyskyi is the dirty banker and the dirty funder of Zelensky:

 

[Photo: On the left, Zelensky in circle behind Kholomoisky. On the right, Zelensky on the campaign trail is followed by one of Kholomoisky’s bodyguards.]

But, read this Jewish rag in Isra-Hell, Haaretz | World News/

“Ukraine Enlists Jewish Leaders to Lobby Israel for Arms”

Ukraine recently requested air defense systems and training from Israel, saying that Iran would use the deployment of its weapons systems in Europe to refine their capabilities. Still, Israel maintains that it would not send military assistance to Ukraine

A senior Ukrainian official close to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called on world Jewry to push Jerusalem to arm his country with defensive weapons on Wednesday, only two days after Moscow warned Israel that supplying military equipment to Ukraine would “destroy the political relations between the two countries.”

Of course, I am disgusted by any racist group calling on “all Jews worldwide to continue the murder of Russians and Ukrainians in Donbass, and now, throughout Ukraine and into Russia.

This is merchant of death war mongering, and it has to stop, stop first by beginning to call a Jewish Fascist a Jewish Fascist when you come in contact with him or her or them: Here, more lies, blatant valorizing of a corrupt and criminal man, Zelensky!

1. The most important Jewish leader in the world (source)

The past week has turned us all into experts on Ukraine, now at the center of every conversation. Did you know how big it is? (When you lay it over the U.S. map, it stretches from New York to Chicago.) Who knew that we were actually using the Russian city names and not the Ukrainian ones (it’s Kyiv, not Kiev; Lviv, not Lvov; and Kharkiv, not Kharkov). And their president—did you know that he is Jewish?

Volodymyr Zelensky is probably the most admired Jewish leader the world has to offer right now. Before entering politics in 2018, Zelensky was a popular comedian (and you can’t get any more Jewish than that); he does not often speak about his Jewish identity, but he has never tried to hide it. In a country like Ukraine, which is still struggling with a painful legacy of antisemitism, Zelensky’s Jewishness has always been present.

For Jews across the world, Zelensky is now a source of pride: a young, inexperienced leader who is putting his life at risk for his people by leading a nation of 40 million people in opposing a ruthless Russian aggressor.

In his inauguration speech, Zelensky famously told lawmakers not to hang his portrait on their walls. “I do not want my picture in your offices: The president is not an icon, an idol or a portrait. Hang your kids’ photos instead, and look at them each time you are making a decision.”

True to form, Zelensky maintained his unassuming, direct style when crisis hit. His video messages, posted several times a day, have been helping reassure the Ukrainian people. He spoke from his office and from the streets of Kyiv, even as Russian troops closed in on the capital, and when the fighting intensified, Zelensky candidly shared with all Ukrainians the fact that he has been marked by the Russians as “target number one” and that his family is “target number two.” But when the U.S. offered to evacuate him from Kyiv to somewhere safer, he responded: “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”

I’m writing this column on Sunday, as Russian forces, bogged down and weakened by courageous Ukrainians armed with AK-47s, Molotov cocktails, or sometimes just a large pole they picked up on the side of the street, still threaten the capital. Zelensky is leading the effort to save his nation, though most foreign intelligence services still think he’s fighting a losing battle.

So, this POS war crimes leader, Zelensky, *elensky because the letter “Z” has been outlawed, and Ukraine and Zelensky with the one-two-three punch of US and UK, with their Kill List, you have to imagine that in the USA and Canada and UK and EU and Europe, all brains have been thrown out the window, or the voice of reason has gone where?

Read Caitlin: “Most Propaganda Looks Nothing Like This”

Propaganda is administered in western nations, by western nations, across the political spectrum — and the really blatant and well-known examples of its existence make up only a small sliver of the propaganda that our civilization is continuously marinating in.

The most common articles of propaganda — and by far the most consequential — are not the glaring, memorable instances that live in infamy among the critically minded. They’re the mundane messages, distortions and lies-by-omission that people are fed day in and day out to normalize the status quo and lay the foundation for more propaganda to be administered in the future.

[…]

One of the forms this takes is the way the western political/media class manipulates the Overton window of acceptable political opinion.

It’s propaganda in multiple ways: it excludes voices that are critical of the established status quo from being heard and influencing people, it amplifies voices (many of whom have packing foam for brains) which support the status quo, and, most importantly, it creates the illusion that the range of political opinions presented are the only reasonable political opinions to have.

Then there’s the ideological herding funnel we discussed recently, which herds the population into two mainstream factions of equal size which both prevent all meaningful change and serve the interests of the powerful.

Maybe the most consequential of all the mundane, routine ways we’re propagandized is the way the mass media manufacture the illusion of normality in a dystopia so disturbing that we would all scream our lungs out if we could see it with fresh eyes.

Another of the mundane, almost-invisible ways the public is propagandized from day to day is described in a recent video by Second Thought titled “You’re Not Immune To Propaganda“. We’re continually fed messages by the capitalist machine that we must work hard for employers and accept whatever standards and compensation they see fit to offer, and if we have difficulty thriving in this unjust system the fault lies with us and not with the system. Poor? That’s your fault. Miserable? Your fault. Unemployed? Your fault. Overworked? Your fault.

Another related method of manipulation is agenda-setting — the way the press shapes public thinking by emphasising some subjects and not others. In placing importance on some matters over others simply by giving disproportionate coverage to them, the mass media (who are propagandists first and news reporters second) give the false impression that those topics are more important and the de-emphasised subjects are less so.

But then, this is another form — of propaganda . . . denial, and denigration and plain ignoring alternative views, even those that are consistent and repeated:

But it’s the 74th Anniversary of an illegitimate state, apartheid and ethnic cleansing one albet>  This is how ZioAzovLensky rolls, and even the corrupt CIA-controlled Wikipedia has some facts here on the murderous Jews, Zelenksy’s mother ship, historical grounding, who called themselves Zionists, but I know very few Jews who are not ZIONISTS, overtly or covertly:

A successful paramilitary campaign was carried out by Zionist underground groups against British rule in Mandatory Palestine from 1944 to 1948. The tensions between the Zionist underground and the British mandatory authorities rose from 1938 and intensified with the publication of the White Paper of 1939. The Paper outlined new government policies to place further restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchases, and declared the intention of giving independence to Palestine, with an Arab majority, within ten years. Though World War II brought relative calm, tensions again escalated into an armed struggle towards the end of the war, when it became clear that the Axis powers were close to defeat.

The Haganah, the largest of the Jewish underground militias, which was under the control of the officially recognised Jewish leadership of Palestine, remained cooperative with the British. But in 1944 the Irgun, an offshoot of the Haganah, launched a rebellion against British rule, thus joining Lehi, which had been active against the authorities throughout the war. Both were small, dissident militias of the right-wing Revisionist movement. They attacked police and government targets in response to British immigration restrictions. They intentionally avoided military targets, to ensure that they would not hamper the British war effort against their common enemy, Nazi Germany.

The armed conflict escalated during the final phase of World War II, when the Irgun declared a revolt in February 1944, ending the hiatus in operations it had begun in 1940. Starting from the assassination of Baron Moyne by Lehi in 1944, the Haganah actively opposed the Irgun and Lehi, in a period of inter-Jewish fighting known as the Hunting Season, effectively halting the insurrection. However, in autumn 1945, following the end of World War II in both Europe (April–May 1945) and Asia (September, 1945), when it became clear that the British would not permit significant Jewish immigration and had no intention of immediately establishing a Jewish state, the Haganah began a period of co-operation with the other two underground organisations. They jointly formed the Jewish Resistance Movement.

The Haganah refrained from direct confrontation with British forces, and concentrated its efforts on attacking British immigration control, while Irgun and Lehi attacked military and police targets.^[6] The Resistance Movement dissolved amidst recriminations in July 1946, following the King David Hotel bombing. The Irgun and Lehi started acting independently, while the main underground militia, Haganah, continued acting mainly in supporting Jewish immigration. The Haganah again briefly worked to suppress Irgun and Lehi operations, due to the presence of a United Nations investigative committee in Palestine. After the UN Partition Plan resolution was passed on 29 November 1947, the civil war between Palestinian Jews and Arabs eclipsed the previous tensions of both with the British. However, British and Zionist forces continued to clash throughout the period of the civil war up to the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948.

Within the United Kingdom there were deep divisions over Palestine policy. Dozens of British soldiers, Jewish militants, and civilians died during the campaigns of insurgency. The conflict led to heightened antisemitism in the United Kingdom. In August 1947, after the hanging of two abducted British sergeants, there was widespread anti-Jewish rioting across the United Kingdom. The conflict caused tensions in the United Kingdom–United States relations.

Putin and Russians and those of us who actually want Russia to have a safe border, peace, and zero NATO interference, see Zelensky and his Jewish Lords — Kagan Familias, Nuland, Blinken, Yellen, Sherman, Garland, and hundreds of others in the Biden White House and thousands of others in the Military Industrial Expanded (finance, computing, surveillence) Complex and millions more in the world of turning a dollar on death — as the ENEMY. Murderous, conniving, hateful, slick enemies numero uno, those espousing war with China and war with Russia.

I know Dissident Voice is reluctant to publish voices that might lean toward a Pepe Escobar critique of the Israel Hell unleashed on the world. I get it. But, the fact is violence and terror, those are right up Zelensky’s alley, and this war that UK and USA and Five Eyes and EU have unleashed will not end soon, because Ukraine in the minds of many is Israel 2.0. An added “benefit” for these monsters: Expect those weapons that USA taxpayer footed the bill for to bring down some commercial airlines in a neighborhood near-by soon.

 

We are a soiled Western Culture, and we have seeded the rest of the world with our feces — high tech, low tech, money, land theft, pollution, exploitation, consumerism, throw-away mentality, sanctions, blood lust, coups, supporting despots, money laundering and gold theft and assets removal. Loans from Hell, and alas, here we are, in a putrid world, a day before the big Monday Holiday, Memorial Day, and we are straddled by syphilitic monsters running the world and our own populous generally marked for death, marked as marks, these, the billionaires, the fleecers and many left and right, Jewish or not, they are Zionists and Israel-Firsters who have sold us down the Ukrainian toilet.

Israeli newspapers point out the victories?

 

 

These are THEIR graphics, and by me point these out, I am deplatformed, stopped from teaching, pushed to the excrement posts of publishing my books anywhere

But leave it to the Paranoid Former Nazis and the disgusting ADL and AIPAC and Mossad loving Israelis to attack us all attacking them:

Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters says Berlin gig controversy a ‘smear’

“The depiction of an unhinged fascist demagogue has been a feature of my shows since Pink Floyd’s ‘The Wall’ in 1980,” Roger Waters said.

“I have spent my entire life speaking out against authoritarianism and oppression where I set it… My parents fought the Nazis in World War II, with my father paying the ultimate price,” he said.

“Regardless of the consequences of the attacks against me, I will continue to condemn injustice and all those who perpetrate it.”

Waters is a well-known pro-Palestinian activist who has been accused of holding anti-Jewish views. He has floated an inflatable pig emblazoned with the Star of David at his concerts. The singer denies the anti-Semitism accusations, saying he was protesting against Israeli policies, not Jewish people.

Ah, those old days, which now would be both considered hate speech and also ground down by the ugly media and the uglier mainstream fools in college, in towns, every where.

Yep, it is a piece of shit piece of cloth for many, representing so so much death, murder, hate, and racism. Cloth, man, and alas, a symbol, for those who cry crocodile tears when they hear the National Anthem, and then for others, it is the greed and murder and Empire of Chaos-Lies-Terror in every red and white strip, every star and bar:

 

This stuff is not allowed on campuses, and not just Guantanamo Desantis’s Florida.

 

This is not anti-DIsney, but it is the Dsneyification of the world, and this is the outcome: bones, immolation, worldwide.

Old school, but you can’t get college students to analyze this without being charged with a Virginia Tech Situation — call SWAT.

I doubt you can loosely call for the execution of Corporations, CEOs, what have you. Again, Virginia Tech Situation — call SWAT on Haeder.

Ahh, if we are the biggest war profiteers, then we’ll be letting China take first place. Yep, that’s the modern college student’s response.

Ahh, I have been warned that telling my students that I was rapped on the head by cops, in Portland, El Paso, Seattle, and elsewhere, and that protest is dangerous but necessary, and that I would dare use the ACAB as an opening to discuss that Defund the Police Movement — who, what, where, when and WHY — as well as my own work as a police reporter and what I think of cops/pigs, all verbotten! Call SWAT on Haeder.

Hell, you can look this one up in Wikipedia. And babies? 

Read the transcript: with the reason the poster was made, the soldier who was in the massacre!

Oh, no, trigger warnings, vicarious PTSD, verboten.

Partial transcriptof the Mike Wallace interview with Paul Meadlo in which Meadlo describes his participation in the My Lai massacre:

Q. So you fired something like sixty-seven shots?

A. Right.

Q. And you killed how many? At that time?

A. Well, I fired them automatic, so you can’t – You just spray the area on them and so you can’t know how many you killed ‘cause they were going fast. So I might have killed ten or fifteen of them.

Q. Men, women, and children?

A. Men, women, and children.

Q. And babies?

A. And babies.

Ahh, loyalty oaths in how many state legislatures on never saying a bad word about Israel, and no push for boycotting Israeli goods, that’s the power of Jewish Extremism in the USA: But not enough, not enough BDS around the world.  17 BDS resolutions considered and 11 passed at US colleges last year, per ADL report

It is a well-oiled, well-placed, complex, 3-D kind of chess machine, and it is pure killer, pure killer, and most campuses utilized Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, Marines, DoD, BOrder Patrol, CIA, FBI, ATF, MONEY. Some of the nation’s most elite universities are deep into defense lobbying, often hiring Washington-based firms to press Congress and the Pentagon to fund their science projects.

Asked whether students or professors ever have ethical objections to working on projects funded by the Defense Department, Zuber said that “no professor has to take money from DoD.”

“We’re a bottom-up organization,” she said. “Professors make those choices.”

She also said that “if there are students who have a feeling that they don’t want to work on defense-related issues, they certainly don’t have to.” But, she added, “a whole lot seem to want to.”

Like MIT, the Association of American Universities, an alliance of 62 of the leading research institutions in the United States and Canada, advocates defense research funding.

 

[Photo: Universities chase defense dollars]

 

The end result is that BABIES, kids, NEWBORNES, women, SENIOR citizens, disabled, PATIENTS in hospitals, youth on PLAYGROUNDS, are mudered, and killed, and imploded, so, then, BABY Killers is just a limited sigh — wedding parties, goat herders, and entire families at gravesites, murdered by universities, colleges, think tanks, corporations, marketing firms, law firms, retail services in the EMPLOY of the USA.

This sign? These youth? Their message? Their no war and stop the escalation and disarmament now, ahh, then, of couse, it’s triple bad, since they are free thinkers and align with New York Young Communist League.

Hood Communist?

 

 

So many more organizations working on it, working on it — no more NATO, no more Arms.

Back to the Jewish thing in Ukraine: And, well, and, who writes the narrative of Ukraine, of Zelensky, of the Jewish Apartheid State supporting the Nazis under Zelensky?

There is no way in hell you will read this story, objectively, anywhere:

The Jews are the ones behind the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and their goal is to create a new Jewish state to replace the failing Zionist project of Israel, Palestinian Islamic scholar Mraweh Nassar has claimed, as reported by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

Nassar, whom MEMRI identified as the secretary-general of the Jerusalem Committee of the International Union of Muslims Scholars, made his claims on March 22 while speaking with Channel 9, an Arabic-language TV station in Turkey that the media watchdog says is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Now now, Dan Shapiro (New Atlanticist, err, Atlantic Council) wrote this one, and again, it’s the NARRATIVE and the MEDIUM is the MESSAGE driver, and then who gets to tell the stories and how the algorithms benefit the propagandists, shit dog, need we look further?.

Speaking to reporters this week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described the future he sees for his country in unusual terms: as “a big Israel.”

Gone, he said, are hopes for “an absolutely liberal” state—replaced by the likely reality of armed defense forces patrolling movie theaters and supermarkets. “I’m confident that our security will be the number-one issue over the next ten years,” Zelenskyy added.

With Russian forces having withdrawn from around Kyiv, suggesting that Ukraine successfully repulsed the first phase of the Kremlin’s invasion, the time is right for Zelenskyy to contemplate how to prepare for the next—and potentially much longer—phase of this conflict.

But what does he mean by “a big Israel”? With a population more than four times smaller, and vastly less territory, the Jewish state might not seem like the most fitting comparison. Yet consider the regional security threats it faces, as well as its highly mobilized population: The two embattled countries share more than you might think.

So if Zelenskyy really does have Israel in mind as a model for Ukraine, here are some of the key features he might consider for adoption (some of which are already applicable today):

• Security first: Every Israeli government promises, first and foremost, that it will deliver security—and knows it will be judged on this pledge. Ordinary citizens, not just politicians, pay close attention to security threats—both from across borders and from internal sources— and much of the public chooses who to elect by that metric alone.

• The whole population plays a role: The Israeli model goes further than Zelenskyy’s vision of security services deployed to civilian spaces: Most young Israeli adults serve in the military, and many are employed in security-related professions following their service. A common purpose unites the citizenry, making them ready to endure shared sacrific

I ask, “Will one vapid bought-and-brainwashed media person get on with some rejiggering their knowledge:

Here, over at Dissident Voice: “Journey to St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Crimea” by Dan Kovalik and Rick Sterling / May 25th, 2023

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Paul Haeder.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

New York Attorney General Letitia James is investigating about a half dozen guardianship organizations and how they manage the health and financial affairs of hundreds of elderly and infirm New Yorkers deemed incapable of looking after themselves, according to people familiar with the matter.

The inquiry, which is being conducted by lawyers in the office’s charities bureau, follows a yearlong series by ProPublica that revealed how some guardians neglected the vulnerable clients entrusted to their care, while others used their court-appointed positions to enrich themselves at their wards’ expense.

Judges often rely on guardianship companies to care for the so-called unbefriended, people who don’t have friends or family able to look after them. Oversight of these guardians, however, is scant, with officials rarely visiting wards to check on their care. Meanwhile, the courts that appoint the guardians rely largely on financial paperwork to determine a person’s well-being. That dynamic, the news organization found, has resulted in fraud, abuse and neglect of the state’s most vulnerable.

Among the groups investigators are scrutinizing is New York Guardianship Services, which was featured in ProPublica’s work, said one of the people familiar with the state probe, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive law enforcement action.

ProPublica found NYGS had failed to meet the needs of more than a dozen people entrusted to its care, including an elderly woman whom the company placed in a dilapidated home with rats, bedbugs and a lack of heat. NYGS collected $450 a month in compensation from the woman’s limited income while stating in reports to the court that her living situation was “appropriate” — even as internal company records and her own emails showed that she’d repeatedly complained about the conditions.

After ProPublica’s first story was published, a judge ordered NYGS to pay back that ward $5,400, representing about a year’s worth of fees, writing that the company had provided “minimal services, if any” during that time.

In another instance, ProPubica reported that the company collected monthly fees from an elderly man even after he’d left the country — and also after he died.

Company executives have declined to answer questions about specific clients but previously told ProPublica that NYGS was accountable to the court and that its work was scrutinized by examiners, who are empowered to raise any issues.

But ProPublica’s investigation found that there are too few examiners in the system to provide timely and thorough oversight. There are just 157 examiners responsible for reviewing the reports of 17,411 New York City wards, according to the court’s most recent data. And there are roughly a dozen judges to check their work. As a result, ProPublica found that annual assessments detailing wards’ finances and care can take years to complete, depriving judges of critical information about people’s welfare.

The courts have similarly taken a light touch to vetting guardianship providers. ProPublica found that though NYGS presented itself as a nonprofit, it hadn’t registered as such with state and federal authorities.

The attorney general’s investigation is not the office’s first foray into the guardianship world. A decade ago, the same unit investigated a nonprofit guardian called Integral Guardianship Services, ultimately finding the group had improperly loaned its top officials hundreds of thousands of dollars while its wards unnecessarily sat in nursing homes, according to court records. To settle the case, Integral agreed to various reforms, paid back the loans and brought on a management consultant, the Harvard Business School Club of New York, to review its systems, operations and finances.

Even so, Integral shut down just a few years later, stranding hundreds of wards whose cases were absorbed by other nonprofit groups and private lawyers. Among them was NYGS, which was founded, in part, by Integral’s former director of judicial compliance, Sam Blau, who wasn’t named in the attorney general’s lawsuit. Other Integral employees also remained in the guardianship business, starting their own groups or working as court-appointed fiduciaries, court and tax records show.

Some of those successor businesses are now among the entities state investigators are examining, the people familiar with the attorney general’s investigation said.

NYGS executives Sam and David Blau did not respond to an email seeking comment. Neither did the attorney general’s office.

News of the attorney general’s investigation comes as court administrators and Albany legislators face increased pressure to fix the guardianship system. Court officials have said they need more money to address the problems and announced last fall that they were appointing a dedicated special counsel, as well as a statewide coordinating judge, to oversee reforms.

Advocacy groups have mounted their own lobbying campaign, pressing Gov. Kathy Hochul and legislative leaders to commit $15 million annually to support a statewide network of nonprofits experienced in handling government contracts to serve the unbefriended. Another proposal, put forth by an advisory committee to the state court system, has advocated for the creation of a $72 million independent statewide agency to serve as a public guardian.

It’s not clear what Hochul, a Democrat, foresees for guardianship ahead of the upcoming legislative session. She’ll present the executive budget later this month. Last year’s $229 billion spending plan included just $1 million to fund a statewide guardianship hotline. A spokesperson for her office did not respond to questions about her funding plans or for comment on the AG’s probe.

Guillermo Kiuhan, an attorney for the former NYGS ward who has since died, said he was encouraged to hear the company may have to answer for what he said was outright theft. He has been trying to get NYGS to reimburse the ward’s heirs for the thousands of dollars the company took as compensation while his family provided for his care in Colombia. So far, the efforts have been unsuccessful. The Blaus didn’t respond to questions about Kiuhan’s claims.

“We are very frustrated,” he said in an interview. “Hopefully this is an opportunity to get the authorities involved … and not have more people with the same problem.”

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Jake Pearson.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Dissident Voice Communications.

This unprecedented drama began unfolding on the night of December 3, 2024. Amid 250+ days of intentionally destabilizing US-led war games and months of massive citizen protests demanding his resignation, the deeply unpopular president put his nation under martial law for the first time since 1979, dispatching armed troops with the orders to “shoot to kill” if necessary to surround the National Assembly and prevent lawmakers from convening to rescind the order.

By the following night, some 2 million Koreans bearing light sticks, candles, and beacons formed a luminous sea around the National Assembly to demand the impeachment of Yoon Suk-yeol, while lawmakers clambered over fences and security barriers to gain access to the chambers. With a vote of 204 to 85, which included 12 lawmakers from the ruling People’s Power Party (PPP), the National Assembly impeached Yoon, with Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung declaring, “the people have proved that they are the owners of this country.”

While the Constitutional Court has 180 days to render a judgment on whether the impeachment motion is constitutional, Yoon’s rogue insurrectionism and contemptuous defiance of the rule of law is continuing, escalating tensions and instability.

Yoon’s motivation for his failed insurrection lies in the ongoing crisis of legitimacy facing his puppet government, which has eagerly acquiesced to every demand made by its American and Japanese “allies” while making a hollow mockery of Korean self-determination and ignoring the interests of the nation he swore to defend. Since assuming power in 2022 after winning the presidency by a razor-thin margin of 0.7%, Yoon has actively worked to undermine the very basis of Korean independence and democracy back to its roots during the brutal period of Japanese colonization in WWII.

Moreover, Washington’s unquenchable geopolitical ambitions, couched behind its so-called “ironclad commitment to Korea,” mandates the continuation of its policy of preferring right-wing governments at the expense of Korea’s sovereignty. This has overtly empowered and legitimized Yoon’s autocratic pursuit of power against the interests of the Korean people.

Thus, Yoon–who represented his country by sycophantically singing “American Pie” during a state dinner at the White House–has dutifully promoted the US-led trilateral “Axis of War”, facilitating non-stop US-led wargames, and escalating tensions with Pyongyang while persecuting his domestic critics as “communists” and “anti-state forces.” His ongoing rogue behavior of defiance of the rule of law is directly related to the strong support he has received from Washington as “Biden’s man” in Seoul.

With the President suspended from power, what’s next for Korea’s “Revolution of Lights”?  How can the world support Korea’s quest for democracy, peace, and true sovereignty? Demand accountability for Yoon’s legacy of authoritarianism, his continuing assault on democracy and the rule of law, and his betrayal of Korean sovereignty in service of Washington’s geopolitical ambitions. Call for a final end to Washington’s shameful history of subverting South Korean politics by abetting dangerous far-right forces that take Korea’s democracy and sovereignty hostage.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Simone Chun.

It is hoped that DV will be up and publishing again soon.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Dissident Voice Communications.

But the claim is false. The video shows a funeral of Ri Ul Sol, a close aide of the North Korean founder, who died in 2015 due to illness. The whereabouts of Kim Yong Bok, who was reportedly dispatched to Ukraine to help Russia’s war efforts, is unknown.

The video was shared on X on Dec. 23.

“General Kim Yong Bok, the commander-in-chief of North Korean forces supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, had his body returned to DPRK and received a state funeral from the Grand Marshal [Kim Jong Un],” the caption of the video reads.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK, is North Korea’s official name.

In the 30-second video, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and officials around him can be seen bowing to a convoy of vehicles.

The same video and claim were shared on Douyin, Chinese version of TikTok, as well as on the website of the Taiwanese online media outlet Newtalk News.

(DXDWX999 via X and Newtalk News)

But the claim is false.

Funeral for North Korean founder’s aide

A reverse image search found that the clip shared on social media was taken from a longer YouTube video posted in June 2020.

“Ri Ul Sol, one of North Korea’s first-generation revolutionary founders and marshal of the Korean People’s Army, passed away on November 7, 2015 at age 94 due to an illness. The DPRK held a state funeral for Ri with Kim Jong Un in charge of arrangements,” the caption of the video reads.

A separate search found a report published in 2015 by China’s state-run broadcaster CCTV carrying the same video that shows the funeral of Ri Ul Sol.

(Zigui Culture via YouTube and CCTV)

Ri Ul Sol was a North Korean politician and military official, who played an important role in the administrations of North Korean founder Kim Il Sung and former leader Kim Jong Il.

Achieving the rank of marshal of the Korean People’s Army, he was responsible for the safety of top North Korean leaders and their families as Commander of the Guard.

Kim Yong Bok

Japan’s Kyodo News reported in October that Kim Yong Bok, deputy chief of the General Staff of the Korean People’s Army as well as a close aide to leader Kim Jong Un arrived in Russia to oversee North Korean troops there helping Russia in its war against Ukraine.

At that time, Kyodo News said it obtained a list of military officers in charge of the North Korean troops recently sent to Russia, and Kim Yong Bok was at the top.

AFCL has been unable to independently confirm Kim’s recent whereabouts or whether he was killed in combat in Russia.

The Wall Street Journal cited Western officials as saying that a North Korean general was wounded in the Ukraine war in late November, although the general’s identity was not given.

Kim Yong Bok’s profile has risen over the past year. His position as deputy chief of the army was confirmed when he was reported in state media as a member of Kim Jong Un’s entourage during a visit to a key operational training base in western North Korea in March.

Up to 12,000 North Korean soldiers are reportedly in Russia to support its war efforts against Ukraine in Kursk. Ukraine reports over 3,000 casualties among them, while South Korea estimates at least 1,100 have been killed or wounded.

Neither President Vladimir Putin nor North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has confirmed the North’s troop deployment to Russia

Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Taejun Kang.

Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Zhuang Jing for Asia Fact Check Lab.

But the claim is false. The video shows a funeral of Ri Ul Sol, a close aide of the North Korean founder, who died in 2015 due to illness. The whereabouts of Kim Yong Bok, who was reportedly dispatched to Ukraine to help Russia’s war efforts, is unknown.

The video was shared on X on Dec. 23.

“General Kim Yong Bok, the commander-in-chief of North Korean forces supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, had his body returned to DPRK and received a state funeral from the Grand Marshal [Kim Jong Un],” the caption of the video reads.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK, is North Korea’s official name.

In the 30-second video, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and officials around him can be seen bowing to a convoy of vehicles.

The same video and claim were shared on Douyin, Chinese version of TikTok, as well as on the website of the Taiwanese online media outlet Newtalk News.

(DXDWX999 via X and Newtalk News)

But the claim is false.

Funeral for North Korean founder’s aide

A reverse image search found that the clip shared on social media was taken from a longer YouTube video posted in June 2020.

“Ri Ul Sol, one of North Korea’s first-generation revolutionary founders and marshal of the Korean People’s Army, passed away on November 7, 2015 at age 94 due to an illness. The DPRK held a state funeral for Ri with Kim Jong Un in charge of arrangements,” the caption of the video reads.

A separate search found a report published in 2015 by China’s state-run broadcaster CCTV carrying the same video that shows the funeral of Ri Ul Sol.

(Zigui Culture via YouTube and CCTV)

Ri Ul Sol was a North Korean politician and military official, who played an important role in the administrations of North Korean founder Kim Il Sung and former leader Kim Jong Il.

Achieving the rank of marshal of the Korean People’s Army, he was responsible for the safety of top North Korean leaders and their families as Commander of the Guard.

Kim Yong Bok

Japan’s Kyodo News reported in October that Kim Yong Bok, deputy chief of the General Staff of the Korean People’s Army as well as a close aide to leader Kim Jong Un arrived in Russia to oversee North Korean troops there helping Russia in its war against Ukraine.

At that time, Kyodo News said it obtained a list of military officers in charge of the North Korean troops recently sent to Russia, and Kim Yong Bok was at the top.

AFCL has been unable to independently confirm Kim’s recent whereabouts or whether he was killed in combat in Russia.

The Wall Street Journal cited Western officials as saying that a North Korean general was wounded in the Ukraine war in late November, although the general’s identity was not given.

Kim Yong Bok’s profile has risen over the past year. His position as deputy chief of the army was confirmed when he was reported in state media as a member of Kim Jong Un’s entourage during a visit to a key operational training base in western North Korea in March.

Up to 12,000 North Korean soldiers are reportedly in Russia to support its war efforts against Ukraine in Kursk. Ukraine reports over 3,000 casualties among them, while South Korea estimates at least 1,100 have been killed or wounded.

Neither President Vladimir Putin nor North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has confirmed the North’s troop deployment to Russia

Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Taejun Kang.

Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Zhuang Jing for Asia Fact Check Lab.

Thirty years after then-President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act into law, its legacy of mass incarceration, police militarization, and over-criminalization continues to haunt us.

It has become the gift that America can’t seem to return.

We are now suffering the blowback from the triple threats of the Crime Bill: police militarization, a warrior mindset that has police viewing the rest of the citizenry as enemy combatants, and law enforcement training that teaches cops to shoot first and ask questions later.

Too often, that “triple threat” also manifests itself in deadly traffic stops, the use of excessive force against unarmed individuals, and welfare checks turned fatal.

The Crime Bill fueled the rise of the police state by pouring funding into law enforcement agencies, particularly for military-grade weaponry and the expansion of police forces. It also laid the groundwork for mass incarceration by incentivizing the construction of more prisons and enacting harsh “three strikes” laws that mandated lengthy sentences for repeat offenders.

Most critically, the Crime Bill led to the explosive growth of SWAT teams across the country.

It’s estimated that more than 80,000 SWAT raids are carried out every year. That translates to over 200 every single day in the U.S.

Among the tens of thousands of raids that leave in their wake the wreckage of lives, homes and trust in the nation’s so-called peacekeepers, some are so egregious as to cut through the apathy and desensitization that has settled over the nation regarding police violence.

Such tragedies are not isolated incidents.

They are the direct result of a system built on policies like the 1994 Crime Bill.

The unfortunate reality we must come to terms with is that America is overrun with militarized cops—vigilantes with a badge—who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

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

These warrior cops, who have been trained to act as judge, jury and executioner in their interactions with the public and believe the lives (and rights) of police should be valued more than citizens, are increasingly outnumbering the good cops, who take seriously their oath of office to serve and protect their fellow citizens, uphold the Constitution, and maintain the peace.

In this way, the old police motto to “protect and serve” has become “comply or die.”

This is the unfortunate, misguided, perverse message that has been beaten, shot, tasered and slammed into our collective consciousness over the past few decades, and it has taken root.

This is how we have gone from a nation of laws—where the least among us had just as much right to be treated with dignity and respect as the next person (in principle, at least)—to a nation of law enforcers (revenue collectors with weapons) who treat “we the people” like suspects and criminals.

As a result, Americans of every age and skin color are continuing to die at the hands of a government that sees itself as judge, jury and executioner over a populace that have been pre-judged and found guilty, stripped of their rights, and left to suffer at the hands of government agents trained to respond with the utmost degree of violence.

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

Warrior cops—trained in the worst-case scenario and thus ready to shoot first and ask questions later—are definitely not making us or themselves any safer.

Worse, militarized police increasingly pose a risk to anyone undergoing a mental health crisis or with special needs whose disabilities may not be immediately apparent or require more finesse than the typical freeze-or-I’ll-shoot tactics employed by America’s police forces.

Indeed, disabled individuals make up a third to half of all people killed by law enforcement officers. (People of color are three times more likely to be killed by police than their white counterparts.)

If you’re black and disabled, you’re even more vulnerable.

This is America’s new normal.

Like the Ghost of Christmas Past, the 1994 Crime Bill haunts us with its legacy of injustice. Its Ghost of Christmas Present shows us the ongoing struggles with police brutality and mass incarceration. And its Ghost of Christmas Future warns us of a society where over-policing and surveillance become the norm.

So how do we counter the triple threats posed by the Crime Bill?

Despite the outcry from those on the left, the answer is not to de-fund the police, although it wouldn’t hurt to loosen the military industrial complex’s chokehold on America.

What we really need to do is de-fang the police: de-militarize (reduce the reliance on military-grade equipment and tactics), de-weaponize, and focus on de-escalation tactics (prioritizing communication and conflict resolution skills over the use of force), a shift in mindset (moving away from the “warrior” mentality towards a guardian or community policing model), and better accountability.

As with all things, change must start locally, in your hometown.

Remember, a police state does not come about overnight. It starts small, perhaps with a revenue-generating red light camera at an intersection. When that is implemented without opposition, perhaps next will be surveillance cameras on public streets. License plate readers on police cruisers. More police officers on the beat. Free military equipment from the federal government. Free speech zones and zero tolerance policies and curfews. SWAT team raids. Drones flying overhead.

No matter how it starts, however, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it always ends the same.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.

In a 296-page report sporting the ominous title “You Feel Like You Are Subhuman”, the human rights body, after considering the events in Gaza between October 2023 and July 2024, identified a “pattern of conduct” that indicated genocidal intent.  These included, among other things, persistent direct attacks on civilians and objects “and deliberately indiscriminate strikes over the nine-month period, wiping out entire families repeatedly launched at times when these strikes would result in high numbers of casualties”; the nature of the weapons used; the speed and scale of destruction to civilian objects and infrastructure (homes, shelters, health facilities, water and sanitation infrastructure, agricultural land”; the use of bulldozing and controlled demolitions; and the use of “incomprehensible, misleading and arbitrary ‘evacuation’ orders’”.

The report does much to focus on statements made from the highest officials to the common soldiery to reveal the mental state necessary to reveal genocide.  102 statements made by members of the Knesset, government officials and high-ranking commanders “dehumanized Palestinians, or called for, or justified genocidal acts or other crimes under international law against them.”  The report also examined 62 videos, audio recordings and photographs posted online featuring gleeful Israeli soldiers rejoicing in the “destruction of Gaza or the denial of essential services to people in Gaza, or celebrated the destruction of Palestinian homes, mosques, schools and universities, including through controlled demolitions, in some cases without apparent military necessity.”

From its alternative universe, the Israeli public relations machine drew from its own agitprop specialists, working on mangling the language of the report.  The formula is familiar: attack the authors first, not their premises.  “The deplorable and fanatical organisation Amnesty International has once again produced a fabricated response that is entirely based on lies,” came the howl from Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Oren Marmorstein.

Other methods of repudiation involve detaching Hamas and its war with Israel from any historical continuum, not least the fact that it was aided, supported and backed by Israel for years as a counter to Fatah in the West Bank.  Isolating Hamas as a terrorist aberration also serves to treat it as alien, artificially foreign and not part of any resistance movement against suffocating Israeli occupation and strangulation.  They, so goes this argument, are genocidal, and countering such a body can never be, by any stretch, genocidal.  The pro-Israeli group NGO Monitor abides by this line of reasoning, calling allegations of genocide against Israel “a reversal of the actual and clearly established intent of Hamas and its allies (including its patron, Iran), to wipe Israel off the map”.

Israel’s closest ally and sponsor, the United States, proved predictable in rejecting the findings while still claiming to respect the humanitarian line.  The US State Department’s principal deputy spokesman, Vedant Patel, expressed disagreement “with the conclusions of such a report.  We had said previously and continue to find that the allegations of genocide are unfounded.”  Patel did, however, pay lip service to the “vital role that civil society organizations like Amnesty International and human rights groups and NGOs play in providing information and analysis as it relates to Gaza and what’s going on.”  Vital, but only up to a point.

Far less guarded assessments can be found in the American pro-Israeli chatter sphere.  These follow the usual pattern.  Orde Kittrie, senior fellow of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a name that can only imply that crimes committed in such a cause are bound to be justifiable, offers a neat illustration.  Amnesty, he argues, “systematically and repeatedly mischaracterizes both the facts and the law.”  Kittrie suggests his own mischaracterisation by parroting the IDF’s line that Hamas had “increased casualty counts by illegally using Palestinian civilian shields and by hiding weapons and war fighters in and below homes, hospitals, mosques, and other buildings.”  This conveniently ignores that point that the numbers are not necessarily proof of genocidal intent, though it helps.

The report also notes that, even in the face of such tactics by Hamas, Israel was still “obligated to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians and avoid attacks that would be indiscriminate or disproportionate.”

Amnesty International’s report is yet another addition to the gloomy literature on the subject.  Human Rights Watch, in November, pointed to violations of the laws of war, crimes against humanity, and the provisional measures of the ICJ issued urging Israel to abide by the obligations imposed by the UN Genocide Convention of 1948.  The Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem stated in no uncertain terms in October that “Israel intends to forcibly displace northern Gaza’s residents by committing some of the gravest crimes under the laws of war”.

Battling over the designation of whether a campaign is genocidal can act as a distraction, a field of quibbles for paper pushing pedants.  The “specific intent” in proof must be unequivocally demonstrated and beyond any other reasonable inference.  A smokescreen is thereby deployed that risks masking the broader ambit of war crimes and crimes against humanity.  But no amount of pedantry and disagreement can arrest the sense that Israel’s lethal conduct, whatever threshold it may reach in international law, is directed at destroying not merely Palestinian life but any worthwhile sense of a viable sovereignty.  Amnesty Israel, while rejecting the central claim of the parent organisation’s report did make one concession: the country’s brutal response following October 7, 2023 “may amount to crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.”

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

“I know it when I see it”

In the 1964 Supreme Court case Jacobellis v. Ohio, – which was about pornography in the movie industry, the concurring opinion stated,

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [‘hard-core pornography’], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.’

And with that statement, one of the most infamous phrases in the American lexicon was born.

PsyWar and Psyops operations are like that also. The problem is that people often have to be taught to “see it.”

The US Department of Defense (DoD) 2004 and 2010 Counterinsurgency Operations Reports define “psyops” as the following:

Psychological operations: Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator’s objectives. Also called PYSOP.

When authorized, PSYOP forces may be used domestically to assist lead federal agencies during disaster relief and crisis management by informing the domestic population.

Psychological warfare (PsyWar) involves the planned use of propaganda and other psychological operations to influence opposition groups’ opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior. PsyWar is when psyops is used by governments against a foreign population or even against the citizens of a government (domestically) in a coordinated fashion.

The book PsyWar was specifically written to provide armor against PsyWar being deployed by governments and the globalists against we, the people.

In the back of that book, there is a list of terms associated with PsyWar, in the hopes that if people can understand the concepts, methods, and groups involved in PsyWar campaigns, they will “know it when they see it.”

PsyWar is an excellent present for the older teen or anyone really who wishes to understand better the political world they were born into.

Below is the full PsyWar Glossary from the book PsyWar: Enforcing the New World Order.

A PsyWar Glossary

Administrative state is a term used to describe the phenomenon of executive branch administrative agencies exercising the power to create, adjudicate, and enforce their own rules. The administrative state uses nondelegation, judicial deference, executive control of agencies, procedural rights, and agency dynamics to assert control above the republic and democratic principles.

Advocacy journalism is a subset of journalism that adopts a nonobjective viewpoint, usually for some social or political purpose.

Algorithms on social media and in search engines are computational processes. Online platforms such as Google, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X use algorithms to predict what users are interested in seeing, isolate users who break “community standards” or government censorship rules and maximize revenues. Algorithms filter and prioritizes the content that the user receives, based on their individual user history. Algorithms can isolate different user groups into echo chambers and away from other others or bring users together.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer science that focuses on creating machines that can perform tasks that typically require human intelligence. A key characteristic of AI is that it can learn from data and improve performance over time. AI systems learn from experience, understand natural language, recognize patterns, solve problems, and make decisions.

Astroturfing (ergo, fake grass roots) is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. Astroturfing gives organizations credibility by hiding information about the source’s financial or governmental connections. An Astroturf organization is an organization that is hiding its real origins, in order to deceive the public about its true intentions.

Asymmetric warfare is a type of war between opponents whose relative military power, strategy, or tactics differ significantly. It often involves insurgents or a resistance movement against a standing army or a more traditional force.

Advocacy journalism is journalism that advocates a cause or expresses a viewpoint with a specific agenda. It is often designed to increase or decrease the Overton window. It is a form of propaganda.

Bad-jacketing. Rumors and gossip meant to disenfranchise and destroy a movement or quell enthusiasm.

Black ops is an abbreviation for “black operations,” which are covert or clandestine activities that cannot be linked to the organization that undertakes them.

Black propaganda falsely claims a message, image, or video was created by the opposition in order to discredit them.

Bot is an automated account programmed to interact like a user on social media. Bots are used to push narratives, amplify misleading messaging, and distort online discourse. The name “bot” came from a shortened version of the name robot.

Botnet is a network of devices infected with malware, controlled by an attacker to launch distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks or spread malware.

Chaos agents are a person or people that purposefully causes chaos or mischief within a group, for their own personal entertainment or as a tool to cause organizational fragmentation. It is a tool often used by intelligence agencies.

Community technology is the practice of synergizing the efforts of individuals, community technology centers and national organizations with federal policy initiatives around broadband, information access, education, and economic development” (Wikipedia)

Computational propaganda: is an “emergent form of political manipulation that occurs over the internet” (Woolley and Howard, 2018, p. 3). This type of propaganda is often executed through data mining and algorithmic bots, which are usually created and controlled by advanced technologies such as AI and machine learning.

Computational propaganda (EU Parliament definition): “the use of algorithms, automation, and human curation to purposefully distribute misleading information over social media networks.” These activities can feed into influence campaigns: coordinated, illegitimate efforts of a third state or non-state agent to affect democratic processes and political decision-making, including (but not limited to) election interference. It is asserted that disinformation (deliberately deceptive information) turns one of democracy’s greatest assets—free and open debate—into a vulnerability. The use of algorithms, automation and artificial intelligence is boosting the scope and the efficiency of disinformation campaigns and related cyber-activities.

Computer algorithms—to control access or speech. Example: Algorithms to enable X’s policy of “Freedom of speech, not reach”

Controlled opposition, disruptors and chaos agents. Historically, these tactics involves a protest movement that is actually being led by government agents. Nearly all governments in history have employed this technique to trick and subdue their adversaries. However, in fifth-gen warfare, controlled opposition often may come in the form of disruptors and chaos agents. Either “real” people or bots that generate outrageous claims that delegitimize a movement (examples currently may (or may not be); “snake venom in the water” or “everyone is going to die who took the vaccine within two years.” Another tactic is placing agents of chaos whose job is to basically disrupt organizations and events. This may also come in the form of “reporters” who assert fake or highly exaggerated news stories, and who most likely are funded by the opposition. “Undermine the order from the shadows” is the tactic here.

Cryptographic backdoors are methods that allows an entity to bypass encryption and gain access to a system.

Cyberattack is an attempt by an individual or organization to hack into another individual or organization’s information system. The attacker seeks to disrupt, damage, or destroy the system, often for personal gain, political motives, or harm. Cyberattacks can include the use of botnet, denial-of-service, DNS tunneling, malware, man-in-the-middle attacks, phishing, ransomware, SQL injection, and zero-day exploitation.

Cyberstalking involves the use of technology (most often, the internet!) to make someone else afraid or concerned about their safety. Generally speaking, this conduct is threatening or otherwise fear-inducing, involves an invasion of a person’s relative right to privacy, and manifests in repeated actions over time. Most of the time, those who cyberstalk use social media, internet databases, search engines, and other online resources to intimidate, follow, and cause anxiety or terror to others.

Data mining: is the software-driven analysis of large batches of data in order to identify meaningful patterns.

Decentralized and highly non-attributable psychological warfare (memes, fake news).

Deepfakes are synthetic media that have been digitally manipulated to replace one person’s likeness or voice convincingly with that of another. Deepfake techniques include using a type of artificial intelligence called deep learning to create convincing images, audio, and video hoaxes.

Deep state is a type of governance made up of potentially secret and unauthorized networks of power operating independently of a state’s political leadership in pursuit of their own agenda and goals.

Denial-of-service (DoS) attack involves overwhelming a system with traffic to exhaust resources and bandwidth.

Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack is a malicious attempt to disrupt normal traffic to a web property.

DNS Tunneling is the use of a domain name system (DNS) protocol to communicate non-DNS traffic, often for malicious purposes.

DoD Military Deception Missions are attempts to deliberately deceive by using psychological warfare to deliberately mislead enemy forces during a combat situation.

DoD Military Information Support Operations (MISO) Missions: Military Information Support Operations (MISO) missions involve sharing specific information to foreign audiences to influence the emotions, motives, reasoning, and behavior of foreign governments and citizens. This can include cyber warfare and advanced communication techniques across all forms of media. In the case of a domestic emergency, MISOs can be used on domestic populations.

DoD Interagency and Government Support Missions: shape and influence foreign decision-making and behaviors in support of US objectives by advising foreign governments.

Electronics intelligence (also called ELINT) is technical and intelligence information obtained from foreign electromagnetic emissions that are not radiated by communications equipment or by nuclear detonations and radioactive sources.

Electronic warfare (EW) is warfare that uses the electromagnetic spectrum, such as radio, infrared, or radar, to sense, protect, and communicate. At the same time, EW can disrupt, deny and degrade the adversaries’ ability to use these signals.

Emotional appeal is a persuasive technique that relies on descriptive language and imagery to evoke an emotional response and convince the recipient of a particular point of view. An emotional appeal manipulates the audience’s emotions, especially when there is a lack of factual evidence.

Fearporn is any type of media or narrative designed to use fear to provoke strong emotional reactions, with the purpose of nudging the audience to react to a situation based on fear. Fearporn many also be used to increase audience size or participation.

Fifth generation (fifth-gen) warfare is using non-kinetic military tactics against an opponent. This would include strategies such as manipulating social media through social engineering, misinformation, censorship cyberattacks, and artificial intelligence. It has also been described as a war of “information and perception.” Although the concept has been rejected by some scholars, it is seen as a new frontier of cyberspace and the concepts behind fifth-generation warfare are evolving, even within the field of military theory and strategy. Fifth-gen warfare is used by non-state actors as well as state actors.

Flooding is a tactic that manipulates search engine or hashtag results by coordinating large volumes of inauthentic posts. Flooding may also be referred to as “firehosing.”

Fourth industrial revolution, 4IR, or Industry 4.0, conceptualizes rapid change to technology, industries, and societal norms in the twenty-first century due to increasing interconnectivity and smart automation. This is being led by the joining of technologies such as artificial intelligence, gene editing, advanced robotics, and transhumanism, which will blur the lines between the physical, digital, and biological worlds.

Gang stalking (cyber) is a form of cyberstalking or cyberbullying, in which a group of people target an individual online to harass them through repeated threat threats, fear-inducing behavior, bullying, teasing, intimidation, gossip and bad-jacketing.

GARM is the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a cross-industry initiative established by the World Federation of Advertisers and the WEF to address the challenge of “harmful” content on digital media platforms and its monetization via advertising. This is done by rating social media platforms and websites. If an entity has a low score, advertisers, including aggregator sites, such as Google, are not allowed to advertise on those platforms. This is a de-monetization strategy. That has been used by governments to censor news stories that they find inconvenient, such as the existence of Hunter Biden’s laptop, the safety and efficacy of the mRNA jab, and the origins of COVID-19. Both the participants and the terms of the GARM agreement are nontransparent.

GARM was launched at Cannes in the summer of 2019 and has been working hard to highlight the changes needed for advertisers to feel more confident about advertising on social media. As of November 2019, GARM is a flagship project of the World Economic Forum Platform For Shaping the Future of Media, Entertainment and Culture.

Gatekeeping is a process and propaganda technique of selecting content and blocking information to sway a specific outcome. It is often used in news production to manipulate the people by manipulating the writing, editing, positioning, scheduling, and repeating of news stories.

Generative AI means the class of AI models that emulate the structure and characteristics of input data in order to generate derived synthetic content. This can include images, videos, audio, text, and other digital content.

Gray and dark market data sets. A gray market or dark market data set is the trading of information through distribution channels that are not authorized by the original manufacturer or trademark proprietor.

Gray propaganda is communication of a false narrative or story from an unattributed or hidden source. The messenger may be known, but the true source of the message is not. By avoiding source attribution, the viewer becomes unable to determine the creator or motives behind the message. This is common practice in modern corporate media, in which unattributed sources are often cited.

The Great Reset is the name of an initiative launched by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its founder, Klaus Schwab in June 2020. They are using the cover of anti-COVID measures and an overstated public health crisis, as well as emergencies such as “climate change” to push an agenda to remake the world using stake-holder capitalism (a form of socialism).

Honeypots (not the sexual entrapment kind). In computer terminology, a honeypot is a computer security mechanism set to detect, deflect, or, in some manner, counteract attempts at unauthorized use of information systems.

Hypnosis is a procedure that guides one into a deep state of relaxation (sometimes described as a trancelike state) designed to characterized by heightened suggestibility and receptivity to direction. Hypnosis can be implemented it in digital media, movies, advertising and propaganda. Trance-like experiences aren’t all that uncommon. If you’ve ever zoned out while watching a movie or daydreaming, you’ve been in a similar trance-like state.

Hypnotic language patterns are used to influence and persuade by employing techniques such as lulling linguistic patterns, metaphor, and emotionally appealing words and phrases. Hypnotic language patterns and propaganda are connected through the use of persuasive and manipulative techniques to influence public opinion and highlights the powerful impact of language on shaping public perception and behavior.

Industry 4.0: The fourth industrial revolution (4IR) is a term used to refer to the next generation of technological advances, where it is anticipated that the differences between physical, digital and biological technologies disappear. This is a world where machines and computers evolve independently, where new biological entities and evolutionary changes are being controlled by artificial intelligence, where brain waves can be manipulated. It is, quite literally, a brave new world.

Infodemic is the rapid and far-reaching spread of information, both accurate and inaccurate about a specific issue. The word is a conjoining of “information” and “epidemic.” It is used to describe how misinformation and disinformation can spread like a virus from person to person and affect people like a disease. This use of this technique can be deliberate and intentional.

Inverted totalitarianism is a managed democracy, where economic and state powers are conjoined and virtually unbridled. Regulatory control is superimposed upon the administrative state and a nontransparent group of managers and elites run the country from within.

Limited hangout is a propaganda technique of displaying a subset of the available information. It involves deliberately revealing some information to try to confuse and/or prevent discovery of other information.

A modified limited hangout goes further by slightly changing the information disclosed. Commercially controlled media is often a form of limited hangout, although it often also modifies information and so can represent a modified limited hangout.

Low-cost radios (ham, AM, local) Throughout less-developed technologically areas in the world, these technologies are the backbone of communications.

Mal-information is any speech that can cause mistrust of the government, even if the information is true.

Malware is malicious software that breaches a network through a vulnerability, typically when a user clicks a dangerous link or email attachment.

Man-in-the-middle (MitM) is an attack that interferes with a two-party transaction to steal data or inject malware.

Mass formation is, in essence, a kind of group hypnosis that destroys individuals’ ethical self-awareness and robs them of their ability to think critically. Mass formation within a population can happen suddenly.

Mass formation psychosis describes the individual under the spell of mass formation. Although this term is not found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), it is our opinion that it is just a matter of time before this amendment will be included.

Mass surveillance is the surveillance of a population or fraction of a population. This surveillance is often carried out by local and federal governments or governmental organizations, but it may also be carried out by corporations. Often specific political groups are targeted for their beliefs and influence.

Modified limited hangout is a propaganda technique that displays only a subset of the available information, that has also been modified by changing some or all of the information disclosed (such as exaggeration or making things up). It is meant to confuse and/or prevent discovery of other information.

Moral outbidding (see purity spiral)

NBIC is hyper-personalized targeting that integrates and exploits “neuroscience, bio-technology, information, and cognitive” (NBIC) techniques by using social media and digital networks for neuro-profiling and targeting individuals.

Neurolinguistic programming (NLP) is a set of techniques that are used to improve communication, interpersonal relationships, and personal development. It is based on the idea that our thoughts, language, and behaviors are all connected. By changing one of these elements, the other elements will be altered. Hypnosis and meditation, including the use of repetitive messaging are core NLP Techniques. Other techniques including visualization, image switching, modeling of other successful people, mirroring (using body language to mirror others that you wish to gain approval of) and the use of incantations to reprogram the mind.

Nudging is any attempt at influencing people’s judgment, choice or behavior in a predictable way that is motivated because of cognitive boundaries, biases, routines, and habits in individual and social decision-making posing barriers for people to perform rationally in their own self-declared interests, and which works by making use of those boundaries, biases, routines, and habits as integral parts of such attempts. In fifth-gen warfare, nudging can take the form of images, videos or online messages.

Open-source intelligence (OSINT) is the collection and analysis of data gathered from open sources (covert and publicly available sources) to produce actionable intelligence.

Operation Mockingbird was organized by Allen Dulles and Cord Meyer in 1950. The CIA spent about of one billion dollars a year in today’s dollars, hiring journalists from corporate media, including CBS, the New York Times, ABC, NBC, Newsweek, Associated Press, and others, to promote their point of view. The original operation reportedly involved some three thousand CIA operatives and hired over four hundred journalists. In 1976, the domestic operation supposedly closed, but less than half of the media operatives were let go. Furthermore, documentary evidence shows that much of Operation Mockingbird was then offshored to escape detection. It is rumored that British intelligence picked up many of the duties of Operation Mockingbird on behalf of the US intelligence community (see the Trusted News Initiative).

Othering is a phenomenon where individuals or groups are defined, labeled and targeted as not fitting in within the norms of a social group. This is a tactic used by the deep state, politicians and the media. Chaos agents as well as propaganda are used to create a sense of divide. This influences how people perceive and treat those who are viewed as being part of the in-group versus those who are seen as being part of the out-group. This can happen on both a small and very large scale.

Outrage porn, also known as outrage journalism, is a form of media or storytelling that aims to elicit strong emotional reactions to expand audiences or boost engagement.

Phishing is the practice of sending fraudulent communications that appear to come from a reputable source, aimed at stealing sensitive data or installing malware.

Propaganda is a form of manipulation of public opinion by creating a specific narrative that aligns with a political agenda. It uses techniques like repetition, emotional appeals, selective information, and hypnotic language patterns to influence the subconscious mind, bypassing critical thinking and shaping beliefs and values. Propaganda can use a form of hypnosis, whereby putting people into a receptive state where they are more prone to accepting messages.

Psychological Bioterrorism is the use of fear about a disease to manipulate individuals or populations by governments and other organizations, such as Big Pharma. Although the fear of infectious disease is an obvious example, it is not the only way psychological bioterrorism is used. Other examples include propaganda regarding environmental toxins, unsafe drinking water, soil contamination, and climate change risks. Another name for psychological bioterrorism is information bioterrorism.

Psychological warfare involves the planned use of propaganda and other psychological operations to influence opposition groups’ opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior.

PsyWar is when psyops is used by governments against a foreign population or even against the citizens of a government (domestically) in a coordinated fashion.

Publicly available raw data and surveys used to sway public opinion by use of memes, essays and social media posts.

Purity spiral is a form of groupthink, where it becomes more beneficial to hold certain views than to not hold them, and more extreme views are rewarded while expressing doubt, nuance, or moderation is punished (a process sometimes called “moral outbidding”). Moral outbidding makes it beneficial to hold specific beliefs than to not hold them. Although a purity spiral often concerns morality, it is about purity.

Ransomware is a type of malware that encrypts a victim’s files and demands payment in exchange for the decryption key.

Realpolitik is political philosophy (or politics) based on practical objectives rather than on ideals. The word does not mean “real” in the English sense but rather connotes “things”—hence a politics of adaptation to things as they are. Realpolitik thus suggests a pragmatic, no-nonsense view and a disregard for ethical considerations. In diplomacy it is often associated with relentless, though realistic, pursuit of the national interest.

Repetitive messaging is a propaganda technique whereby a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously throughout media without regard for truth or consistency.

Sealioning is a trolling or harassment tactic in online discussions and blogs. It involves the attacker asking relentless and insincere questions or requests for evidence under the guise of civility and a desire for genuine debate. These requests are often tangential or previously addressed and the attacker maintains a pretense of civility and sincerity, while feigning ignorance of the subject matter. Sealioning is aimed at exhausting the patience and goodwill of the target, making them appear unreasonable.

Shadow banning (also known as stealth banning, hell-banning, ghost banning, and comment ghosting) is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or the user’s content from some or all areas of an online community. This is done in such a way that the ban is not readily apparent to the user, regardless of whether the action is taken by an individual or an algorithm.

Social credit systems: China’s social credit system is a combination of government and business surveillance that gives citizens a “score” that can restrict the ability of individuals or corporations to function in the modern world by limiting purchases, acquiring property or taking loans based on past behaviors. Of course, how one uses the internet directly impacts the social credit score. This is the origin of the social credit system that appears to be evolving in the United States. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics are a kind of social credit system designed to coerce businesses—and, by extension, individuals and all of society—to transform their practices, behaviors and thinking.

Social engineering is any manipulation technique that exploits human behavior and error in order to gain access to sensitive or confidential information. Where some scammers would steal someone’s personal information, social engineers convince their victims to willingly hand over the requested information like usernames and passwords. “Nudge” technology is actually applied social engineering.

Social media algorithms are a set of rules and calculations used by social media platforms to prioritize the content that users see in their feeds based on their past behavior, content relevance, and the popularity of post. Social media algorithms are also used to determine which posts will or won’t get seen by other uses. “Free speech but not reach,” first coined by Elon Musk describes the use of social media algorithms on “X” and other such platforms.

Social media analytics (commercially available) is the process of gaining and evaluating data from social media networks (such as Twitter, Google, Brave or Facebook). This process helps to determine if a social media campaign’s performance was effective and make future decisions on the basis of this analysis.

Social media manipulation (data driven) involves a series of computational techniques that abuse social media algorithms and automation to manipulate public opinion.

Sophistry is the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving. It is a technique often used by the media and fact-checkers.

SQL Injection is a code injection technique used to attack data-driven applications whereby malicious SQL statements (code) are inserted into an entry field for execution.

Stovepiping is a term used in intelligence analysis, which prevents proper analysis by preventing objective analysts from drawing conclusions based on all relevant data by only providing some of the raw data without context.

Surveillance capitalism is a business model based on the unilateral claim of human private experiences as free raw material for translation into behavioral data. These personal data are then extracted, processed, and traded to predict and influence human behavior. Specific data concerning individuals is the commodity. In this version of capitalism, the prediction and influencing of behavior (political and economic) rather than production of goods and services is the primary product. The economic success of this business model is a major contributor to the profitability of Google, Facebook, TikTok and many other social media companies. The data and tools of surveillance capitalism has been exploited for political purposes by Cambridge Analytica. In many cases the surveillance state and globalist governmental organizations have fused with surveillance capitalism to yield a new form of fascism commonly known as techno-totalitarianism.

Switchboarding describes the federal government’s practice of referring requests fo the removal of content on social media from state and local election officials to the relevant social media platforms for removal.

Synergistic use of mixed media to build excitement or to create outrage.

Synthetic media is a term used for the artificial production, manipulation, and modification of data and media, through the use of generative AI and artificial intelligence algorithms for the purpose of misleading people or changing an original meaning. Often referred to as deepfakes.

Technocracy is a form of government in which the decision-makers are selected on the basis of their expertise in a given area of responsibility. This system explicitly contrasts with representative democracy. Decision-makers are selected on the basis of specialized knowledge and performance, rather than political affiliations, parliamentary skills, or popularity.

Tracking surveillance software (such as COVID trackers, GPS and cell phone keyword searches).

Traditional protest tools can be combined with fifth-gen warfare. An example would be a large rally combined with social media tools to create synergy or opposition for a movement.

Trolls are human online agents, sometimes sponsored to harass other users or post divisive content to spark controversies as well as dis-enfranchise individuals or group members through bad-jacketing and gossip.

The Trusted News Initiative (TNI) is a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)–led organization which has been actively censoring eminent doctors, academics, and those with dissenting voices that contravene the official COVID-19 narrative as well as other narratives, such as voter fraud, elections and current news not sanctioned by government. Partners in this endeavor include the major mainstream media organizations, Big Tech (such as Google and social media), governments, and nongovernmental organizations. Anything contrary to the government narrative is considered disinformation or misinformation and will be deleted, suppressed, or deplatformed.

Ultra vires (“beyond the powers”) is a Latin phrase used in law to describe an act that requires legal authority but is done without it. Its opposite, an act done under proper authority, is intra vires (“within the powers”).

Virtue signaling is sharing one’s point of view on a social or political issue, often on social media or through specific dress or actions, to garner praise or acknowledgment of one’s righteousness from others who share that point of view or to rebuke those who do not.

Web crawler, also known as a spiderbot, is an automated Internet program that systematically browses the World Wide Web for specific types of information.

White propaganda is a type of propaganda where the producer of the material is marked and indicated, and the purpose of the information is transparent. White propaganda is commonly used in marketing and public relations. White propaganda involves communicating a message from a known source to a recipient (typically the public or some targeted sub-audience). White propaganda is mainly based on facts, although often, the whole truth is not told.

World Economic Forum (WEF) is one of the key think tanks and meeting places for managing global capitalism and is arguably coherent enough to qualify as the leading global “deep state” organization. Under the leadership of Professor Klaus Schwab, it has played an increasingly important role in coordinating the globalized hegemony of large pools of transnational capital and associated large corporations over Western democracies during the last three decades.

Wrap-up smear is a deflection tactic in which a smear is made up and leaked to the press. The press then amplifies the smear and gives it legitimacy. Then, an author can use the press coverage of the smear as validation to write a summary story, which is the wrap-up smear.

Yellow journalism is newspaper reporting that emphasizes sensationalism over facts. Advocacy journalists who support government narratives often use it to sway public opinion.

Zero-day exploit is a technique targeting a newly discovered vulnerability before a patch is available.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Robert Malone.

For decades, since WW2, our Military Industrial Empire created and protected this Two Party/One Party system. One wing of it, The Democrats, were as the late Black Agenda Report editor Glen Ford called them, the ‘Foxes.’ Shrewd enough to play upon identity politics and ignore the plight of working stiffs. They did and have always nurtured the very poor and indigent, but disregarding we who labor for ‘The Man.’ The other wing, the Republicans, Glen Ford labeled as The Wolf Pack, ready and able to devour you as they followed their leader’s dictates.

If you will read Rick Perlstein’s fantastic book, Reaganland, you will find how this Trump phenomena was strictly out of Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign playbook. Trump even plagiarized the slogan ‘Make America Great Again‘ from Reagan. The 2024 Republicans, as with their 1980 counterparts, pile on the undocumented AKA Illegal Aliens (as if they are from Mars or beyond), Gay Americans, a woman’s right to choose, and of course the Democrats who caused higher food and gasoline prices (and not this Military Industrial Empire). Imagine the irony that the Air Traffic Controllers Union endorsed Ron… and then he fired their asses! So it will be with The Donald 2 when his far right-wing foolowers continue the destruction of labor unions, which are sadly down to but a bit over 6% membership in the private sector. Although we now know that over 60% of Americans polled want government-run National Health Coverage, the MAGA run cabal will see to it that the shitty Medicare Advantage will soon be all we will have a choice for. Profit before People is their mantra folks!

As I listen to Pink Floyd’s masterpiece ‘Comfortably Numb’ so it will be for the less than 1 % of our fellow citizens once January 20 comes around. Dylan was correct gang.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Philip A. Faruggio.

What counts as news reporting on the subject in the Western press stable adopts a threadbare approach.  We read or hear almost nothing about the dominant backers in this latest round of bloodletting.  “With little warning last Wednesday, a coalition of Syrian rebels launched a rapid assault that soon seized Aleppo as well as towns in the nearby Idlib and Hama provinces,” reported NBC News, drawing its material from the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

We are told about the advances of one organisation in particular: Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an outgrowth of Jabhat al-Nusra, a former al-Qaeda affiliate.  While the urgent reporting stressed the suddenness of it all, HTS has been playing in the jihadi playground since 2017, suggesting that it is far from a neophyte organisation keen to get in on the kill.

From Al Jazeera, we get pulpier detail.  HTS is the biggest group in what is dubbed Operation Deterrence of Aggression.  HTS itself comprises Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, Liwa al-Haqq, Jabhat Ansar al-Din and Jaysh al-Sunna.  That umbrella group is drawn from the Fateh al-Mubin operations centre, which is responsible for overseeing the broader activities of the armed opposition in northwestern Syria under the control of the Syrian Salvation Government (SSG). It is through the offices of SSG that HTS delivers essential goods while running food and welfare programs.  Through that governance wing, civil documentation for some 3 million civilians, two-thirds of whom are internally displaced people, has been issued.

The group, headed by Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani, himself an al-Qaeda recruit from 2003, then of Jabhat al-Nusra, has done much since its leader fell out with Islamic State and al-Qaeda.  For one, HTS has a series of goals.  It purports to be an indigenous movement keen on eliminating the Assad regime, establishing Islamic rule and expelling all Iranian militias from Syrian soil.  But megalomania among zealots will always out, and al-Jawlani has shown himself a convert to an even broader cause, evidenced by this remark: “with this spirit… we will not only reach Damascus, but, Allah permitting, Jerusalem will be awaiting our arrival”.

All of these measures conform to the same Jihadi fundamentalism that would draw funding from any Western intelligence service, provided they are fighting the appropriate villain of the moment.  We should also expect routine beheadings, frequent atrocities and indulgent pillaging.  But no, the cognoscenti would have you believe otherwise.  We are dealing, supposedly, with a different beast, calmer, wiser, and cashed-up.

For one thing, HTS is said to be largely self-sufficient, exercising a monopoly through its control of the al-Sham Bank and the oil sector through the Watad Company.  It has also, in the words of Robin Yassin-Kassab, become a “greatly moderated and better organised reincarnation of Jabhat al-Nusra.”  This could hardly cause cheer, but Yassin-Kassab at least admits that the group remains “an authoritarian Islamist militia” though not in the eschatological fanatical mould of its forebears.  “It has a much more positive policy towards sectarian and ethnic minorities than ISIS.”  Fewer beheadings, perhaps.

A fascinating omission in much commentary on these advances is Turkey’s outsized role.  Turkey has been the stalking figure of much of the rebel resistance against the Assad regime, certainly over the last few years.  Of late, it has tried, without much purchase, to normalise ties with Assad.  In truth, such efforts stretch as far back as late 2022.  The topics of concern for Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoĝan are few: dealing with the Kurdish resistance fighters he sorely wishes to liquidate as alleged extensions of the PKK, and the Syrian refugee problem.  The Syrian leader has made any rapprochement between the two states contingent on the withdrawal of Turkish forces from Syria.

With Damascus proving icily dismissive, Ankara got irate.  Indeed, there is even a suggestion, if one is to believe the assessment by Ömer Özkizilcik of the Atlantic Council, that Turkey was instrumental in initially preventing the rebels from attacking as far back as seven weeks ago.

Much in the latest spray of analysis, along with unfolding events, will require much revisiting and revision.  There is the issue of lingering Turkish influence, and whether Erdoĝan’s words will mean much to the charges of HTS as they fatten themselves on the spoils of victory.  There is the behaviour of HTS, which is unlikely to remain restrained in a warring environment that seems to treat atrocities as mother’s milk.  (Al-Jawlani has not shown himself to be above the targeting and massacring of civilians.)  The retaliation from the Syrian government and Russian forces not otherwise deployed against Ukraine also promises to be pitilessly brutal.

Then there are the untold consequences of a Syria free of Assad, a fate longed for by the coarsened righteous in Western circles and emboldened al-Jawlani.  This is certainly not off the books, given that both Iran and Russia are preoccupied, respectively, with Israel and Ukraine.

Were the regime, bloodthirsty as it is, to collapse, yet another cataclysmic tide of holy book vengeance is bound to ripple through the region.  Never mind: the babble about God and theocracy will be happily supplemented by covert operations and arms sales, all overseen by a wickedly smiling Mammon.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

• President-elect Trump names decorated general Keith Kellogg as special envoy to Russia and Ukraine.
• American prisoners held in China released after diplomatic agreement between Beijing and Biden Administration.
• US economic numbers for the third quarter continue to show strong growth.
• Israeli-Hezbollah ceasefire appears to hold after taking affect Wednesday.
• Governor Newsom touts Delta Tunnel project, environmentalists remain critical.
• Trump names former Immigration chief Tom Homan as new border czar. 
• Oakland airport employees rally for better wages and benefits on year’s busiest travel day. 

The post The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – November 27, 2024 President-elect Trump names decorated general Keith Kellogg as special envoy to Russia and Ukraine. appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

The Biblical Book of Job chronicles a string of catastrophes relentlessly plaguing the main character, Job, who loses his prosperity, his home, his health, and his children. Eventually, an agonized Job curses his own existence as well as the god that created him.

Numerous interpretations of the story exist, and more than one version has circulated through the ancient Near East. One version concludes with Job avowing repentance. “I know that my redeemer liveth, and so I repent in dust and in ashes.”

The Latin root for the word ‘repent’ is pensare – to think. ‘Repent” suggests an effort to rethink.

Job’s surprising repentance has been on my mind as calls increase, in 2024, for the United Nations to rethink its relation to Israel as a member state. Increasingly, civil society groups are pressuring Permanent Missions to the UN to eject Israel as a voting member of the General Assembly.

To paraphrase Pankraj Mishra, writing for the New York Review of Books, a stunned world has watched with disbelief as the United States provisions Israel with weapons enabling a mass murder spree across the Middle East.

Palestinians in the West Bank have recently urged all organizations demanding UN compliance with the International Criminal Court ruling of July 2024 to sign a letter available at World BEYOND War which urges Member States of the United Nations General Assembly to fulfill their duties.

Following up on the potential of this letter, a new coalition, “Global Solidarity for Peace in Palestine” has issued a letter to His Excellency Mr. Philemon Yang, the President of the United Nations General Assembly asking him to convene an urgent meeting of the General Assembly to demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire, establish and secure humanitarian aid corridors and ensure the complete withdrawal of Israel from the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The letter additionally requests:

• The revival of the UN Committee Against Apartheid to address systemic violations of international law and human rights in the OPT.
• Consideration of targeted boycotts, sanctions, and divestments, particularly against illegal operations in the OPT.
• The establishment of an arms embargo on Israel.
• Exploration of suspending Israel from the General Assembly until it complies with international law.

To further support these efforts, the letter calls for the establishment of an unarmed UN peacekeeping mission in the OPT under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to ensure the safety and dignity of all civilians.

In a way, Israel has already removed itself from norms maintained by the UN Charter as it has consistently flouted UN treaties, Resolutions and Advisory opinions. We must not forget that Israel refuses to acknowledge to the UN its possession of nuclear weapons.

I felt startled, during an initial planning call held with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, when one of them spoke of the evacuation he and his family faced, that very day, and said, “We are facing the final solution. Israel is imposing the final solution on us.” Other participants spoke of having shuddered during bombings, day and night.

Journalist Mehdi Hasan,  writes movingly in the Guardian of how absurd it is that the United Nations’ General Assembly agrees to seat Israel as a U.N. member nation.

Israel’s abusive repudiation of the very idea of the United Nations, its escalating and lethal violation of countless international norms, its repeated, lethal attacks on U.N. sanctuaries and peacekeepers justifies its expulsion. Hasan reminds us that Israel’s outgoing Ambassador to the United Nations shredded the UN charter while standing at the General Assembly podium. This is the Charter that declares the UN mission to eradicate the scourge of warfare for future generations.

It is time for the clouds to part above the burning lands of West Asia – for the suffering there to be comforted and their pitiless accusers rebuked by the gathered voice of humanity, by the agent that created Israel and can, when it wishes, “let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” The work here is ours, and so let our United Nations demand, and not beg, humanity from Israel and from its imperial sponsor the United States.

• First published at World BEYOND War.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kathy Kelly.

Statement of Common Cause President & CEO Virginia Kase Solomón

The nomination of Rep. Matt Gaetz to serve as Attorney General represents a serious threat to the fair and equal enforcement of the law in our nation. Gaetz is wholly unqualified for the post in addition to being an election denier and far-right extremist. This move is both shocking and alarming. Matt Gaetz’s record proves he has no place in any position within the Department of Justice, an institution dedicated to upholding the rule of law. We call on every Senator to put country before party and reject this nomination.

Rep. Gaetz has consistently worked against democracy and accountability. On January 6th, he supported efforts to overturn the 2020 election and has since continued to shield those who attempted to subvert our democratic processes. His anti-voter agenda includes pushing legislation that would strip eligible voters from the rolls, even threatening government shutdowns to enforce voter suppression.

Beyond that, his rhetoric and actions reveal a troubling history of encouraging violence against racial justice protesters and promoting dangerous white supremacist ideologies. This is not a candidate who values equality, justice, or the rights of all Americans.

The role of Attorney General is to uphold civil and voting rights protections and ensure fair justice for all. This nomination marks the first major pro-democracy struggle of Trump’s second administration. Senate Republicans must demonstrate their commitment to democracy and the rule of law by rejecting this extreme nomination.

Matt Gaetz is one of the most extreme and unsuitable choices for this role, and Senate confirmation is not assured. We call on Senators from both parties to stand with the American people and protect our democratic institutions by ensuring Matt Gaetz never reaches this role.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Everybody knows the boat is leaking/Everybody knows the captain lied.

– Leonard Cohen, “Everybody Knows”

When the polls closed on Tuesday, November 5, I was sound asleep, like a baby rocking gently in his cradle, lost to the frenzied rants or joyful shouting of the different political claques. Even though I missed the results of what the mass media had been telling us was the most important election in our lifetimes, I was happily oblivious to their cant.  I remember hearing that nonsense many times before.

I gave up on my country’s electoral system more than fifty years ago. Every presidential election is a contest between two sides of the ruling monied elite, chosen to represent their interests. It is corrupt beyond repair and was so even then.  Do most people have a clue that their country is owned and run by a small group of the super-rich and ten or so financial institutions, such as BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, etc., the big banks and financial interests that in 1947 formed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to spearhead the U.S. warfare state around the world in support of its economy that is reliant on endless war?

The electorate continually puts its hope in the performers that the spectacle’s producers put up to front for their interests, failing to grasp that the rulers’ interests are not theirs. Arguing and anguishing over certain policy differences between Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, they fail to see that both exist to serve global capital, not regular people, that exchanging presidents is a counterfeiter’s con-game with the voters the scammers’ marks.

Trump’s current victory is an example of that, as was Biden’s in 2020. If Harris had won, it would have proven the same.  They are two sides of one coin. That the system is rigged by the oligarchs should be obvious but isn’t. Or maybe it is obvious but people secretly harbor a perverse liking for it. Stranger things are true, as on personal levels people embrace the symptoms of their neuroses because the symptoms are their disguised solutions, their ways of staying stuck because change is hard and frightening and requires admitting repressed realities.

The cliché that all politics is local has a certain appeal and a trace of veracity, but 99 + % of the truth lies elsewhere.  Apprimately 145 + million Americans just lined up to vote like puppies looking for a bone to be thrown their way by the people who own the country. They do get a bone here and there, which keeps them looking for the meat, but that is reserved for the fat cats, as always.

I understand why people prefer upbeat words, but very often the upbeat is really the downbeat of hopelessness in disguise. A coverup. And seemingly hopeless words, such as that our presidents are the public personae of the rapacious oligarchy, are actually far more hopeful, even though they reveal long-held assumptions to be delusional.

Imagine what might happen if a great portion of people refused to vote for the charlatans chosen to run for president.

The fear that there was even a slight chance that this might happen lies behind all the pep talks and moralizing about doing your civic duty, which is such “a privilege.” Vote, even if it’s for the “lesser of two evils.”

But please, let us not mention the great evil that lies behind these lessers. Vote and we’ll give you a sticker. A sticker that signifies your gullibility.

There is a “system,” as young radicals referred to the U.S.’s political-economic structure back in the 1960s.  I was one of them, a conscientious objector from the Marine Corps and a graduate student studying sociology, deeply influenced by the work and moral voice of C. Wright Mills and his powerful books, The Power Elite, The Causes of World War III, and Listen, Yankee, and William Domhoff’s Who Rules America, a work that has gone through seven updated editions.

There were (and are) many other books that told the story truly, but even reading them won’t help unless you are willing to dispense with the obvious illusions and face the bleakness of a corrupt system. Willing to take it personally. Willing to recognize the systemic evil that under-girds the System. Willing to accept the void that the Trappist monk Thomas Merton termed the Unspeakable:

It is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said; the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment when they are pronounced, and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss.

This void is the fact that the U.S. political economy is controlled by a small group of the wealthiest nihilists and is maintained through lies, a military-industrial economy, and perpetual wars around the world to maintain and increase their wealth.  It is a death cult that people worship by their participation.

Although in subsequent years it became fashionable to decry the use of the term “the system,” there was a system then and there is one now, run by the upper class elite whose wealth has increased exponentially over the years throughout Democratic and Republican administrations. This system is tightly entwined throughout the social structure of the country, part of the everyday fabric of American life. It is fueled by the corporate mass media of all political persuasions. Understanding it helps to explain most of what is going on today, including the farcical election just concluded. A battle between two candidates who represent the forces that oppress the common people, support the genocide of the Palestinians, and are figureheads for the warfare state.

The system has evolved its methods of control since the 1950s but is essentially unchanged.  It is now monopoly global capitalism joined with the steroidal injection of digital technology and the Internet to create a seamless marriage of economic exploitation and non-stop propaganda that has coopted and controlled the working classes and leftist intellectuals alike. Those middle to upper middle classes who like to consider themselves liberal or progressive accept the status quo because it rewards them at the expense of struggling peoples at home and abroad. They can afford to play along and look away, being typical Babbitts.  And the right-wing was always in the pocket of the power elites.

Elections are said to be about pocket-book issues, which is largely true, but the oligarchic control of the nation’s pocketbook is not the focus. Small stuff is.

Listen to Peter Philips, a sociologist in Mills’s tradition, who tells the truth that most can’t bear to hear and will never accept. His latest book is, Titans of Capital.  Here he is being interviewed by Robert Scheer, These Ten Companies Run Our “Democracy.”

It’s nothing new, but to accept it would require an American revolution, which isn’t coming.  No, it’s not coming when so many people “do their civic duty” and vote for presidential candidates fronting for the upper class’s interests.

As I am finishing writing these words, a headline appears at the New York Times Corporation to make me laugh and give me that all-over happy tingle.  It reads: “Popularist Revolt Against Elite’s Vision of the U.S.” Subheaded with these introductory words: “In the end, Donald Trump is not the historical aberration some thought he was, but a force reshaping the modern U.S., writes Peter Baker in an analysis.”

Not an historical aberration! Then he must not be a deviation from the normal type of American president.  Trump is a good old normal American president, claims the Times. Is this a Freudian slip?

The “elite’s vision?” So the Times is also admitting that there is an elite and they have a vision for the common people?  I wondered what kind of confession was to follow? So I followed.

The article by Baker has a strangely punctuated title with an ambiguous meaning that its text contradicts: ‘Trump’s America’: Comeback Victory Signals a Different Kind of Country.”  It opens with the introductory words I quoted above, as if to reinforce the point.  Not an historical aberration, which for anyone who understands the English language means he is normal.  But then Baker mixes his illogical word salad with dressing.

He writes, as if there were some logical connection between his sentences:

Populist disenchantment with the nation’s direction and resentment against elites proved to be deeper and more profound than many in both parties had recognized. Mr. Trump’s testosterone-driven campaign capitalized on resistance to electing the first woman president.

Is he not saying that there is an elite that the common people are rebelling against by voting for Trump and that Harris has been chosen by this same elite and as a woman she is the focus of the fat, seventy-eight year-old Trump’s massive testosterone drive because she is a woman?

But if Trump is not an historical aberration and therefore has also been chosen by the elite, then the “popularist revolt” is no revolt at all but a con job played out by the billionaire elite who support Trump.  Baker and all the “experts” he quotes are loathe to admit openly that the ruling oligarchy is split; that both Harris and Trump are candidates of the elite who war among themselves but who in the end reap the spoils of the system.  That they are allied in an overall goal.

Baker tells us about Kamala Harris, who was not chosen by the people but by the elite who control the Democratic party, that “Once she took the torch from Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris initially emphasized a positive, joy-filled mission to the future, consolidating excited Democrats behind her, but it was not enough to win over uncommitted voters.”

Joy didn’t work. Well what the heck!

Baker also tells us that trashing Trump and emphasizing unity didn’t either because the American people want a strongman.

What? a non-aberrational strong man?

But Baker goes on to castigate Trump as a criminal, a liar, a fraud, a conspiracy theorist, etc. while the joyful Harris just miscalculated and underestimated popular discontent. This is the usual Times’ schtick. Turn to the New York Post for the obverse and have a chuckle at the absurd game the media play on the public.

Baker’s headline tells us that Trump’s win signals that the U.S. is now a different kind of country because so many people are fed up with how it’s being run. Different from 2016 when Trump won?

If only it were a different country, but it isn’t. The same elite money forces run the show. Elections don’t change that.  People continue to be suckers.

Baker lets it slip again with these words:

The assumption that Mr. Trump represented an anomaly who would at last be consigned to the ash heap of history was washed away on Tuesday night by a red current that swept through battleground states – and swept away the understanding of America long nurtured by its ruling elite of both parties.

Yes, the “ruling elite.” One elite. Both parties. And nothing was swept away. This ruling elite is just laughing and no doubt secretly applauding the stenographers who serve their interests, such as Peter Baker, who portrays them in typically deceptive Times’ gobbledygook fashion as “perplexed.”  Have a laugh!

“Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich stay rich
That’s how it goes
Everybody knows”

Do they?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Edward Curtin.

Still, the tide comes & goes.
As I stand in the sand, the under-
tow pulls my heels, dragging
me insistently deeper. These
returns can suck folks
in beyond their depth, so I know not
to wade further into turbulence,
into a world half-eaten, equal parts
hoorays & handkerchiefs.

A rip tide of hope will buoy
a body long enough to be pulled
into an ocean of despair. So let’s
stand on the strand, where hot
sand & cold sea meet, respecting
that death is death whether we
suffocate or drown, burn or freeze.

Every day is a day on some
beach. This doesn’t have to be
our Normandy. Blue skies, red tides
change. The undertow is just
the immensity reclaiming itself,
& fear – just one wave
resisting.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Marya Summers.

On Oct. 24, officials reburied the ashes of People’s Liberation Army founding general and former Guangxi regional party chief Wei Guoqing – 35 years after his death.

The full-honors burial ceremony at Beijing’s Babaoshan Revolutionary Cemetery – the resting place of China’s high-ranking leaders and revolutionary heroes – was attended by high-ranking guests, including the descendants of late revolutionary leaders Zhu De and Peng Dehuai.

The news prompted outrage and satire on Chinese-language social media, with comments highlighting Wei’s role in the Guangxi Massacre in which members of factional gangs killed an estimated 100,000-150,000 people through beheadings, beatings, burial alive, stoning, drowning, boiling and disembowelment, according to historical research.

Wei’s name is most strongly linked in the public mind with cannibalism during the massacre period in Guangxi’s Wuxuan and Wuming counties and Nanning city, after the victims were targeted as “enemies of the people” amid the factional violence of the 1966-1976 Cultural Revolution.

Public records cited in The New York Times in 1993 and by Radio France International in 2016 showed that at least 137 people were eaten, with thousands participating.

Chinese-language comments on this week’s news story on X, which is blocked in China but still accessed by some using circumvention tools, were darkly scathing about the move.

“So the Chinese Communist Party’s running-dog butcher is now a hero for killing people,” commented @ueinhu, while @sebonesama quipped: “Babaoshan is already packed full of demons and monsters – there’s always room for one more.”

Other jibes seemed to echo those made about the fictional killer Hannibal Lecter, with one user posting a meme of Wei faced with piles of deep-fried meat and a KFC logo in the background.

“Paying tribute to a legendary gourmet,” commented @WaterMargin_10, while @akira38458278 wondered if the move was to prevent the people of Guangxi from “digging him up and eating him” and @DingeX22503 concluded: “Only those who are ruthless enough get to be a hero in China.”

Hands ‘covered in blood’

Feng Chongyi, a professor at the University of Technology in Sydney, said Wei’s burial is politically symbolic, as it underscores Xi Jinping’s status as the heir of late supreme leader Mao Zedong, and is a tacit endorsement of the political “struggle” tactics used by his predecessor.

“Wei Guoqing was an executioner whose hands were covered in blood,” Feng told RFA Cantonese in a recent interview. “By giving him the honor of entering Babaoshan, Xi Jinping is endorsing the persecution mania of the Cultural Revolution, which reflects his own totalitarian resurgence.”

“It indicates that Xi Jinping and Mao Zedong have the same authoritarian nature,” Feng said.

Yang Haiying, a professor at Japan’s Shizuoka University who has researched Cultural Revolution violence against the ethnic Mongolian population, said the burial of Wei’s remains seemed to indicate Xi’s unwillingness to distance himself from that era of China’s recent history.

“When Wei Guoqing was in Guangxi, his people killed and ate people, and yet he gets to be in Babaoshan Revolutionary Cemetery,” Yang said. “The Chinese Communist Party has never condemned the Cultural Revolution ... just paused it temporarily.”

“Xi Jinping is now restarting it; we’re right in the middle of it now," he said.

Yang said there was a leader similar to Wei in Inner Mongolia, who presided over massacres of tens of thousands of ethnic Mongolians during the Cultural Revolution, but that the authorities had refused to criticize his actions in public.

“The Chinese Communist Party is a violent regime, and all its talk of revolution just means violence,” he said. “So it will only reward its most violent followers.”

Wei Guoqing died of illness on June 14, 1989, 10 days after the Tiananmen massacre put an end to weeks of student-led pro-democracy demonstrations on Tiananmen Square.

His ashes were placed in storage at the Babaoshan Columbarium until the Oct. 24 burial ceremony.

Translated with additional reporting by Luisetta Mudie.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Yitong Wu and Kit Sung for RFA Cantonese.

Palau’s largest newspaper is being sued for defamation by the company of President Surangel Whipps Jr’s father, just days ahead of general elections in the Pacific nation.

Surangel and Sons alleges “negligence and defamation” by the Island Times and its editor Leilani Reklai for an article published on Tuesday with “false and unsubstantiated allegations,” owner Surangel Whipps Sr said in a press release on Thursday.

Reklai has rejected the company’s allegations and said the “lawsuit is trying to control how media here in Palau tells a story”, a news article about the case in the Island Times reported on Friday.

• READ MORE: Media freedom at stake? Palau newspaper faces defamation lawsuit
• Regional Asia Pacific media freedoms

“I feel like we are being intimidated, we are being forced to speak a certain narrative rather than present diverse community perspectives,” said Reklai, who is also a stringer for BenarNews.

The Micronesian nation of 17,000 people — 650 km north of Papua New Guinea — goes to the polls on November 5. Whipps Jr’s rival is his brother-in-law Tommy Remengesau Jr, who was president from 2001 to 2009 and 2013 to 2021.

The controversy comes after Palau was top of the inaugural 2023 Pacific Media Freedom Index of 14 island countries that highlighted the region’s media facing significant political and economic pressures, bribes and corruption, as well as self-censorship.

Island Times reported on Friday the suit is seeking compensation and punitive damages and that the company asserts the “monetary awards should be substantial enough to prevent similar conduct from the newspaper and Reklai in future”.

Surangel and Sons financial details — leaked from the country’s tax office — were posted on social media last weekend, prompting heated online debate over how much it paid.

A new corporate and goods and services tax system introduced by Whipps Jr’s government is currently being rolled out in Palau and its merits have been a focus of election campaigning.

The company in a statement said its “privacy rights had been violated,” the tax details were obtained illegally, posted online without consent, and some of the figures had been altered.

Motivation ‘confusing voters’
“The motivation behind the circulation of this document is clearly for misinformation and disinformation to confuse voters. In the end Surangel and Sons is not running for office. Unfortunately, it has been victimised by this smear campaign,” the company posted on social media.

Island Times in a 225-word, front-page story headlined “Surangel & Sons condemns tax report leak as privacy violation” reported the company’s statement on Tuesday. It also quoted financial details from the leaked documents and accompanying commentary.

Whipps Jr. in a press conference on Wednesday accused the Island Times of publishing disinformation.

“Island Times continues to print political propaganda, it’s not accurate,” Whipps Jr said, calling for a correction to be published.

The lawsuit against the paper and its editor was served the next day.

Whipps Jr’s spokesperson told BenarNews any questions related to the lawsuit should be directed to the parties involved.

Surangel and Sons was founded in 1980 by Whipps Sr, who also served as Palau’s president briefly in 2005 and for two years from 2007.

Business ‘offers everything’
The privately-owned business “offers everything from housing design and automotive repair to equipment rentals, groceries, and scuba gear” through its import, sales, construction and travel arms, the company’s website says.

Previously as CEO, Whipps Jr transformed the company from a family store to one of Palau’s largest and most diversified businesses, employing more than 700 people.

His LinkedIn profile states he finished as CEO in January 2021, after 28 years in the position and in the month he became president. His spokesperson did not respond to questions from BenarNews about if he still retains any direct financial or other links to the company.

Surangel and Sons said the revelation of sensitive business information threatens their competitive advantage and puts jobs at risk.

Palau’s Minister of Finance Kaleb Udui Jr told the president’s press conference on Wednesday an investigation was underway, a special prosecutor would be appointed and apologized for the leak to the company.

“I would hope the media would make extra effort to help educate the public and discourage misinformation and breaches of privacy of the tax office and any other government office,” Udui said, confirming the tax documents had been altered before being posted on social media.

He said tax office staff have previously been warned about leaks and ensuring data confidentiality, as breaches negatively impact the confidence of foreign investors in Palau.

Explanation rather than leak
Whipps Jr added that the newspaper should have explained the tax system instead of reporting the leaked information.

He also accused Island Times of failure to disclose a paid advertisement in this week’s edition of the paper for his political opponent.

“I’m disappointed in the Island Times, because there was an article that was not an article, a paid advertisement,” Whipps Jr said about a colourful blue and yellow election campaign graphic.

Island Times told BenarNews it was not usual practice to put “Paid Advertisement” on advertisements but it would review its policy for political campaign material.

Reklai fears the lawsuit could have serious consequences for the media in Palau and bankrupt Island Times, the paper reported.

“If I don’t stand up to this, it sends a signal to all journalists that they risk facing claims for damages for powerful companies and government officials while carrying out their work,” she said.

Palau has two newspapers and four radio stations and enshrined in its constitution are protections for journalists, including a guarantee they cannot be jailed for refusing to disclose sources.

Surangel and Sons said they would no longer sell Island Times through their outlets.

Copyright ©2015-2024, BenarNews. Republished with the permission of BenarNews.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Orientation
What is politics?

Nine Questions for Determining What is Politics
In Part I of my article Seven Theories of Politics I posed ten questions for narrowing down what the range for defining what is politics.

Temporal reach

How far back into human history does politics go? Does politics go back to pre-state societies? Or does politics begin with state societies? Is politics possible before there were political parties?

Cross species scope

Is politics confined to the human species or does it ooze into the life of other species? If so, which ones? If politics crosses species, is it social species that are political? Is it possible to have animal societies which are social such as lions or wolves, but not political? Does a species need to be social to be political? Is being social a necessary but not sufficient condition for politics? Is being social a necessary and sufficient condition for politics? Or is being social neither a necessary nor sufficient condition? In other words, is it possible for a non-social species to have political relationships?

How much does evolutionary biology impact politics?

At a macro level, how does natural adaptation impact human politics? In terms of men and women, how much does sexual selection determine politics? At the micro level, how much do genetics and brain chemistry determine the level and the interest and skill in politics? Or is politics primarily a creature of the socio-historical level of reality?

Spatial reach

Where does politics take place? Many political scientists limit politics to what is taking place within states. Is that casting the net too narrowly? Can there be politics through discussions in private  space? Is it politics when I get into a discussion about the viability of capitalism while I am at the unemployment line waiting for my check? Are there politics within families? Are there politics between lovers? Or are politics only about public affairs?

Am I being political if I ask my partner if she wants to go to the movies and propose a movie and she agrees to both proposals, is spontaneous agreement political? Suppose she said she wants to go to a movie but prefers another movie. We debate about it, and one of us persuades the other. Has the discussion become political? Suppose you and I are riding bicycles. We reach a crossroads where we have to decide whether to turn left or right. We each want to go in a different direction. Is the process of deciding this political?

Political agency

Who does politics? Is politics done only by politicians? If I argue with my neighbor about police brutality in my neighborhood, are my neighbor and I political beings in this discussion? Do I become political only when I vote on the issue in the next election? Do I become political when I bring police brutality to a town hall meeting next month? Or is the only person who is political the mayor who decides whether or not to make it part of his platform for his campaign next month?

What is the relationship between politics and power?

Can you have politics without having power? Can you have power without having politics? If power and politics are related, in what way? Are politics and power interchangeable? Is one a means to another? Is power the means and politics is the end? Is politics the means and power the end?

Politics, force and coercion

Let’s go back to this movie issue. Suppose Sandy has been drinking, and in the past she has been bad-tempered to her partner. She starts drinking while they are deciding on a movie. Sandy’s partner starts worrying and gives in to the movie Sandy wants to watch prematurely to avoid the risk of being yelled at. Is that politics?

This example is a small slice of a larger issue: what is the relationship between politics and force or the threat of force? Is violence an inherent part of politics or is politics what you do to win someone over without being violent?  Some political theorists like Bernard Crick say that politics is the art of compromising when you know you cannot get what you want. Others say that the whole political system is based on violence because the entire class system is based on exploitation and force. All attempts to change things must come up against this militaristic force which protects the rulers. Some say that the only force is political and that the state is the ultimate political actor because it has, in Weber’s words, a monopoly on the means of violence.

Interdisciplinary span of politics

How (if at all) is politics related to economics? What is the relationship between technology and politics?  Does the economy dictate politics? Does politics determine economics? Does technology determine politics or does politics determine technology? The same question could be asked about religion or mass media.

What, if any, is the relationship between theories of politics and political ideologies?

Is there a relationship between a consistent set of answers to these questions and whether you are a liberal or conservative? How will the answers of social democrats, communists and fascists be different than that of either anarchists on the left or libertarian capitalists on the right?

As it turns out, the field of cross-cultural politics I will be discussing gives very narrow answers to these questions and therefore leaves a great deal out.

• Temporal reach – narrow, starts with class societies and leaves out tribal societies
• Cross-species – narrow, limits it to the human species
• Is politics biological? Narrow, politics is limited to the social, psychological
• Spatial reach – narrow, limited to what happens in states
• Political agency—limited to what politicians do, no one else
• Relationship between politics and power, wide, used interchangeably
• How is politics related to force or coercion? Narrow, understates force
• Interdisciplinary span of politics – narrow, it excludes economics
• Theories of politics and ideology -narrow, it tries to make politics scientific and above ideology

In Part II of my article, I identity seven theories of politics:

Old Institutionalists

Civil Republicans

• Weberian political sociologists
• Marxian political scientists
• Rational choice theorists
• Radical feminists
• Bio-evolutionary

All the answers comparative politics gives to those questions primarily come from two schools, the old institutionalists and rational choice theorists. They pretty much leave out the other five schools.

Connection to past articles
About three years ago I wrote four articles about the ideological nature of political science. One article Anti-Communist Political Science: Propaganda for the Capitalist State was primarily about political science as it is practiced in the United States (not Europe). The second article, Invasion of the Body Snatchers connects political science to neo-classical economics and shows how both support each other while blocking out an integrated approach called political economy. In my third article Dictatorship and Democracy I expose how Mordor political scientists were quite interested in dictatorships both in Europe and even within the United States in the 1930s. On the other hand, their interpretation of democracy was thin and lacked any subsistence. Lastly, my piece Totalitarian Anti-Communism showed the manipulation of the use of the word “Totalitarian” from the 1930s into the late 20th century. However, there is one topic that I did not cover in much detail and that is the subject of comparative politics. I did discuss it a bit in the last part of my first article but not in any depth. I would especially like to write about it now because while the field of comparative politics is not taken seriously outside the United States because its political manipulation is well-known, it still serves as propaganda for war and imperialism within the United States. It is as part of Yankee self-propaganda that discussing the field of comparative politics is still worth an analysis.

Sources for my criticisms of comparative politics
Sources for my criticisms of comparative politics are as follows. Ronald Chilcote wrote a very good criticism of comparative politics from a Marxian point of view. He was especially good at exposing the ideological nature in the field. For example he pointed out the connection between the social sciences and the CIA. Ido Oren was also really excellent at showing the connection between modernization theorists and the promotion of US foreign policy. Michael Latham’s book Modernization as Ideology reveals how modernization theory was behind JFK’s international anti-communist program, Alliance for Progress. Lastly, Irene Gendzier’s book Development Against Democracy explains how the word “development” was used by comparative politics involved in foreign policy to railroad countries on the capitalist periphery away from socialist and communist transition programs.

Where are we going?
In this article I will show eight foundational problems with comparative politics:

• Its characterization of capitalist societies as democratic;
• Its characterization of states as governing rather than ruling;
• Its relative exclusion of propaganda from political communication in the West;
• Its ignoring the presence of how capitalism undermines political relations;
• Its ignoring of the Secret Service and the rest of deep state in political decision-making processes;
• Its blanket characterization of socialism with authoritarian;
• Its neglect of anarchism as a legitimate part of socialism;
• Its treatment of nation-states as autonomous and not determined by alliances and between larger, more powerful states and transnational capitalists.

Oligarchies vs Democracy

Those of you who were unlucky enough to take a political science class might have been exposed to a cross-cultural version of the same thing. I refer to the field of comparative politics. The first thing that struck my eye in looking at the table of contents of a college textbook on comparative politics was the different types of rule. According to mainstream theorists, there are only two kinds of rule, democratic and authoritarian. The United States and Western Europe are deemed “democratic” whereas Russia, China and Iran are deemed authoritarian.

The unpopularity of democracy in the West until the 20th century
One problem with this formulation is that it fails to address the unpopularity of democracy in Yankee history itself, not only among conservatives but liberals as well all the way to the end of the 19th century. In the 19thcentury when liberalism really took hold as a political ideology, liberals were not interested in democracy, and considered it “mob rule”. Most industrialized countries did not have the right to vote at the end of the 19th century. Back then farmer populist parties and socialist parties took their democracy seriously, bringing economics into it. The result was a “substantive democracy” championed by Charles Merriman and Charles Beard in the 1930s. But the rise of fascism and communism had shaken liberal confidence in the natural sympathy between democracy and capitalism. So in the 1940s Joseph Schumpeter introduced a weakened form of democracy as simply the circulation of elite politicians  that people choose between. The procedural democracy of Robert Dahl of the 1950s involved choosing between these elites through voting. There was nothing about economics.

In his book Strong Democracy, Benjamin Barber distinguishes “thick democracy” from the “thin democracy” of Dahl. My point is by the standards of thick democracy few if any Western countries are democratic. To call them democratic serves the ideological purposes of cold warriors and their desire to fight communism. Since democracy is a loaded virtue word, and authoritarian is a loaded vice word, a cold war opposition between the two is built into the entire field of comparative politics.

How many parties make a democracy?
What is striking is the criteria for what constitutes democracy when it comes to political parties. For comparative politics, a single party rule constitutes authoritarian rule. But the addition of just one more party, as in the American political system, we suddenly then have a democracy. Countries with many parties including most of Europe are also constituted as democracies. Aristotle argued that there were 3 forms of rule – monarchy, oligarchy and democracy. Oligarchy is the rule of the few. Given the actual nature of who controls the elections in the United States, it is most reasonable to say the United States and Western Europe are oligarchies, ruled by the ruling class, the upper class and the upper middle class. Taken together this is about 20% of the population, hardly a democracy. In the United States most of middle class, working class and poor have no representation and yet the country is called democratic.

One party – authoritarian

Two parties – democratic

Many parties – democratic

In other words, the difference between one and two parties is greater than the difference between two parties and many parties. In fact, the implication of those who defend the two-party system is that having many parties can be confusing and unwieldly. So we wind up with the two parties of the United States as a kind center of stability. This is so despite the fact that for about the last 50 years, forty percent or more people in the United States do not vote. Is this a sign that democracy in the United States doesn’t work? Not at all. Those who don’t vote are dismissed as ignorant, apathetic or pathological in some way. The reason people don’t vote is simply because neither party represents their interest is never present. When voting tallies are presented, the number of people who don’t vote is rarely presented. Voting tallies are presented like 50% vs 49% for the two parties as if that constituted all the people who could have voted. In fact, in the actual tallies the winning party gets 30% of the vote. The loser gets 29%. What is ignored is the highest tally: 40% who don’t vote. This is democracy? What we have here is an oligarchy. But in comparative politics, democracy is not a process that actually exists but a self-congratulating ideology for the ruling capitalist oligarchs who control both parties.

Governing vs Ruling
In comparative politics, “governing” is a taken for granted term for Western capitalist societies. “Ruling” is saved for countries suspected of not being democratic, like “authoritarian” countries. I prefer to take the governing word very seriously as it is used in cybernetic systems. Governing in cybernetic systems means steering a system which includes goals, communication within the system, adaptation to the environment, feedback systems which allow for adjustment and few forward system which results in planning. The human heart is a “governor” of the human body. By these standards the only type of society in which there was governing was the egalitarian politics of hunting and gathering societies. Simple horticulture societies in these societies decision-making was collective. They adapted and moved when the ecology dictated a change.

For the last 5,000 years, complex political systems had rulers. This means that political goals were rarely carried out, communication systems were blocked and muddled by self-interested bureaucracies. Adaptations to the environment were slowed down by the machinations of the short-term thinking of ruling classes. Feedback systems were ignored such as extreme weather and pollution. Feed forward mechanisms were clogged by myopic ruling classes who couldn’t think three months ahead – if that. In Joseph Tainter’s book The Collapse of Complex Societies he describes how inept the ruling classes can be. Calling complex societies “governing” is ridiculous when compared to hunting and gathering societies which prevailed for 90% of human history. We are ruled by oligarchies and this should be reflected in any political field that considers itself scientific.

The Exclusion of Propaganda from Political Communication in the West
In part, the reason we have the illusion of democracy and a governing class rather than rulers of an oligarchy is because of Western propaganda. There are many textbooks describing propaganda in the West. If you like videos more than books, check out Adam Curtis’ documentary, The Century of the Self. This video demonstrates how 100 years of psychological propaganda in the person of Edward Bernays and the brainwashing in the work of Ewen Cameron controlled the Mordor public. Despite this, the only mention of propaganda in my comparative politics textbook is when it comes of “authoritarian” regimes. No surprises here.

Comparative Politics Ignores Capitalism
Following the tradition of Mordor social sciences, just as political science excludes economics while neoclassical economics ignores politics, comparative politics ignores the economic system of capitalism when it discusses Western politics. They ignore economic exchange and act as if politics was merely system of law, voting, institutional systems of bureaucracies and foreign policies. Without saying so, countries that count as “democratic” have capitalist exchanges. The field of comparative politics theorists act as if there was a natural, unremarkable relationship between capitalism and democracy. But as Rueschemeyer, Stephens and Stephens have described in their book Capitalist Development and Democracy, it was not the capitalist merchants that brought representative democracy to the West, but the working class. Capitalist economic exchanges should be foundational to understanding political systems. Yet in my comparative poetics textbook that I’m reading, “political economy” is buried in the last chapter of the book.

Two reasons why capitalism should be included in politics
Capitalism should be foundational to politics because countries that have counted as politically “underdeveloped” have become so because of capitalist imperialism, as Gunder Frank pointed out decades ago. At the same time capitalist societies should be foundational to politics because it was under capitalist crisis that fascism emerged. The political ideology of fascism can never be understood without its roots in capitalism. There has never been fascism in human history before capitalism and there has never been fascism without the presence of capitalism.

The Deep State and International Pressure Groups are not Included in the Decision-making Processes of Politics

Supposedly, democratically elected leaders of political parties govern their populations by carrying out “the will of the people”. I am countering this by saying these politicians represent the will of the oligarchs who rule over people. But the oligarchs do not just use political leaders to carry out their will. Besides capitalists that politicians have to answer to, there are agencies such as the FBI, the CIA as well as international pressure groups such as AIPAC, Five Eyes, and NED. None of these groups are mentioned in my comparative politics textbook as involving political decision making. The textbook on Political Psychology in International Relations writes as if political leaders make decisions for their nation by themselves. It is only in “authoritarian” societies that bureaucracies, revolutionary factions and terrorist groups come into play that constrain the decision-making will of the official political leaders.

Authoritarian Politics is Synonymous With Socialism 

When it comes to the West the field of comparative politics ignores the fact that its ruling oligarchy is run by capitalism. However, they have no problem declaring that authoritarian politics goes with a socialist “command economy”. Western countries that became socialist, such as Sweden and Norway, are presented as socialist democracies only because the presence of a market or capitalism. This made the naturally socialist authoritarian states more democratic.

Most military dictatorships are capitalists

Advocates of comparative politics ignore the fact that military dictatorships are often attempts by capitalists to hold on to power in the face of socialist uprisings. Most dictatorships are not socialist, but capitalist installations. In the case of socialism, the textbook cases that are trotted out are the old Soviet Union, Cuba or China. These countries have oligarchies as well. But whether or not they are more authoritarian than the capitalist West is much more complex than it first appears. Theories of comparative politics play down or ignore the relentless international class war any socialist system has to endure on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis at the hands of the heads of state in the West along with their capitalist rulers. Capitalists in the West act as if the whole world is their private property. They treat any elected national leader (even if not a socialist) who has the nerve to set their own agenda for international trade as an enemy. All socialist leaders have to treat most any oppositional party in their country as potentially a tool of international capital. The extent to which socialist countries are authoritarian has a great deal to do with the pressure they experience from international capital.

What about “totalitarian”? 

Fortunately, this Cold War vice word is now internationally  discredited. However, the use of the term totalitarian to characterize socialist or communist countries, leaves out at least the following. If we grant that Sweden and Norway were once socialist, there has never been a socialist country with an advanced technology, communication systems, or advanced science. These societies have never had the ability to control the messages sent out to the population so that people were all thinking the same thing at the same time due to centralized control of propaganda. It is only advanced capitalist countries that have the capacity to do this. For example, Mordor’s media has roughly five corporations that all send out the same propaganda message in the case of Israel. People are severely punished by the police for supporting the Palestinians. All third parties in Mordor are blacked out. They cannot get into the “debates”. My point is that because of its control over mass media, capitalist control of the state is much closer to real totalitarianism than anything Stalin or Orwell ever dreamed up. The Soviet Union and China are poor countries. Their communist parties have no centralized control over their entire nation state. Peasants in both countries made up their own mind as to what was happening. Only in Mordor do you hear the same anti-working-class slogans against health care, or “welfare queens” from New York to San Francisco, from Houston Texas to Missoula in Montana. This is the power political propaganda holds to be internalized by people who imagine they are making up their own minds.

Comparative Politics Ignores Anarchism as Part of Socialism
The claim that all socialism is authoritarian ignores the 180-year history of the anarchist movement and its leaders from Proudhon to Bakunin to Malatesta, Kropotkin, to Lucy Parsons, Emma Goldman to Durruti. Anarchism was no intellectual movement. It was followed by thousands of people who fought in and out of labor unions and in the Russian and Spanish revolutions. This negligence on the part of comparative political theorists is ironic given that anarchism at its best is the purist form of democracy – direct democracy. If comparative political theorists understood the scale that the anarchists organized during the Spanish revolution of 1936-1939, they would be ashamed to think that what goes on in Western societies has anything to do with democracy, at least comparatively speaking.

Comparative Politics Ignores the International Pressures Within Larger States or Alliances Between other States

Comparative politics acts as if political decisions begin and end at national borders and with only official political leaders. But today’s nation-states have formed alliances with other nation-states. They have agreements about where they or won’t all act together. In the West we have the alliance of United States, England and Israel. None of those countries enacts a political decision by themselves. The same is true with China, Russia and Iran. Nation-states are interdependent, not independent actors.

Conclusion

I began this article with nine foundational questions of what politics is. I described how narrowly the field of comparative politics is in answering these questions. Then I identified seven theories of politics and showed how each of the seven theories of politics answers these nine questions differently. As it turned out, the field of political science uses only two of the seven theories: old institutionalism as rational choice theory.

Then I embedded within this article other articles I had written about how anticommunist domestic political science and neoclassical economics are in their studies and how international political science (comparative politics) is in carrying on that tradition. After that I named eight areas in which comparative politics are weak, including:

• Its propagandistic use of the word “democracy”. I claim that no state society on this planet is democratic. They are oligarchies.
• Its propagandistic use of the world governance. I identify with a cybernetic definition of governance, using the heart as an example. With this as criteria, no state system in the world governs a society. They all rule, not govern.
• Comparative politics over-emphasizes the use of propaganda in “authoritarian” societies while barely even mentioning propaganda in capitalist ruling  oligarchies.
• Comparative politics does not successfully integrate capitalism into the comparative systems it analyzes . One textbook tacks it on as a last chapter.
• Comparative politics ignores the power of the institutions of the deep state and transnational capitalists in determining the decision-making capacities of politicians.
• Its treatment of the term “authoritarian” is more or less synonymous with socialism. It plays down the existence of socialism in Scandinavian countries and communal councils in Venezuela.
• Lastly, the use of the term “totalitarian” to depict Soviet Union, China and Cuba is completely false. In the case of the Soviet Union and China they were too poor to have a centralized state that could reach down to every peasant village and bombard them with propaganda. The foundation for this totalitarian state is a centralized media apparatus, mass transportation, a country that was electrified. Paradoxically it is Mordor’s control over its mass media where we see the closest approximation to totalitarianism.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Bruce Lerro.

• UN rapporteur recommends suspending Israel from General Assembly amid outrage over Knesset’s ban on UN aid agency for Palestinians.
• Hezbollah leader Naim Kassem vows to continue fighting Israel until acceptable cease-fire terms are offered.
• California Sen. Alex Padilla condemns Trump’s pledge for largest deportation operation if re-elected.
• Supreme Court allows Virginia to resume voter registration purge aimed at preventing non-citizens from voting after emergency appeal from Republican administration.
• San Jose mayor joins partners for grand reopening of Pacific Motor Inn homeless shelter, which provided emergency housing during COVID-19 shutdowns.

The post UN rapporteur recommends suspending Israel from General Assembly amid outrage over Knesset’s ban on UN aid agency for Palestinians – October 30, 2024 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

Thank you to everyone who joined our live taping with Laboratories of Autocracy and Saving Democracy author David Pepper, who is not just a democracy warrior, but also the mastermind behind the new podcast series Project 2025: Up Close and Personal. Picture this: short, terrifying vignettes with a cast so star-studded, you'd think it was Hollywood's last gasp before a fascist takeover—J. Smith-Cameron, Fisher Stevens, Richard Schiff, Morgan Fairchild, Omid Abtahi, and many more! We previewed "Chapter 2" of the series–it’s the audio equivalent of a cold sweat. You can listen to it [here].

Democrats have been playing defense for so long, they've forgotten what offense looks like. "There are two million uncontested races out there," David pointed out, which is about as comforting as knowing JD Vance’s particular brand of weird fills the halls of power in Republican hostage states. David also shared the story of how he got a call out of the blue from Vice President Kamala Harris last spring, to discuss ways to fight back. Thanks to the audience Q&A, he shared who he thinks should be her Attorney General—should she win, of course.

Want to make that dream a reality? Join the fight! Gaslit Nation hosts phonebanks with Sister District every Wednesday at 6 p.m. RSVP [here]. Join our next live taping on Tuesday October 1st at 12pm ET with Greg Palast, discussing his new film Vigilantes Inc: America’s New Vote Suppression Hitmen. Bring your questions on all the ways Russian-backed MAGA is trying to steal the election, their plans if they lose, and ways to protect the vote. 

Come As You Are Weekly Political Salons! Join us every Monday at 4 PM ET via Zoom! Let’s share frustrations, ask burning questions, seek support, and help shape Gaslit Nation. Everyone’s voice matters—whether you’re a political junkie or just finding your voice, you belong here! Recordings available exclusively on Patreon.

Upcoming Virtual Live Tapings:

• October 1 at 12 PM ET: Join investigative journalist Greg Palast to discuss his new film Vigilantes Inc: America’s New Vote Suppression Hitmen

• October 24 7pm ET: How to Make a Podcast workshop – we need your voice! 

All these events, access to our Victory Chat and Art is Survival Chat, ad-free shows, bonus episodes, Q&As, and more await at Patreon.com/Gaslit at the Truth-Teller level and higher. Annual discounts available!

Show Notes:

How To Help After Hurricane Helene https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2024-09-26-how-to-help-hurricane-helene-victims-where-to-donate

The Red Cross Won’t Save Houston It has proven itself unequal to the task of massive disaster relief. We need a new kind of humanitarian response. https://slate.com/business/2017/08/dont-give-money-to-the-red-cross-we-need-a-new-way.html

This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.

• U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland announced today that three Iranian operatives have been charged with hacking Donald Trump’s presidential campaign as part of what the Justice Department says was a sweeping effort to undermine the former president and erode confidence in the U.S. electoral system.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met face-to-face with former President Donald Trump today, despite rising public tensions between the two over Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s invasion and amid the U.S. presidential election.
• The U.S. announced an agreement with the Iraqi government to conclude the military mission in Iraq of an American-led coalition fighting the Islamic State group by next year.
• Vice President Kamala Harris is making her first visit to the U.S.-Mexico border since becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, aiming to confront immigration, one of her biggest vulnerabilities ahead of the November election.
• Prisoner rights advocates sued the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, seeking to stop the agency from using a rule intended to keep ex-felons off prison grounds as a tool to suppress constitutionally protected protests and speech.

The post U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland announces charges against three Iranian operatives for hacking Trump campaign – September 27, 2024 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

“As Jewish New Yorkers we vehemently condemn Prime Minister Netanyahu’s assault on Lebanon and genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. We will continue to raise our voices in dissent until the United States government stops arming Israel and Palestinians are able to live with the full freedom and dignity they deserve,” said Jay Saper of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Netanyahu’s visit to New York comes a week after pagers and walkie talkies were detonated across Lebanon, killing at least 70 and maiming thousands of people. Only a few days after the attacks, Israel launched hundreds of airstrikes, killing over 500 people in a single day — one of the highest daily death tolls of any war in recent history — and injuring another 1,600.

“Netanyahu is not welcome in New York,” said actor and activist Rowan Blanchard.

Netanyahu’s visit also marks nearly a year of a relentless bombing of Gaza that has killed more than 41,000 Palestinians, which has led the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for the prime minister’s crimes against humanity.

“Our world leaders have done nothing to stop Netanyahu and his genocidal administration from murdering over 15,000 children and several times more adults. As he plans to escalate the slaughter, we must be the ones to stop him,” said Munir Marwan of

Palestinian Youth Movement.

The protesters blockaded the Israeli motorcade route outside of the Midtown Manhattan headquarters of the United Nations, bringing traffic to a halt near the East River. They wore red shirts that read “Stop Arming Israel” and unfurled banners that read

“Stop the Genocide” and “No War Criminals Welcome in NYC.” They chanted “Stop Bombing Gaza.”

The arrests kick off what is expected to be a daylong protest of Netanyahu, with hundreds anticipated outside the United Nations later in the afternoon. Netanyahu’s last visit to the United States, when he addressed a joint session of Congress on July 24, was also with massive protests in the streets and one of the largest sit-ins in the history of Congress that led to the arrest of over 200 people.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

The UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly passed a resolution demanding that the Israeli government end its occupation of Palestinian territories within 12 months — but half of the countries that voted against are from the Pacific.

Affirming a recent International Court of Justice opinion that deemed the decades-long occupation unlawful, the opposition from seven Pacific nations further marginalised the region from world opinion against Israel.

Earlier this week several UN experts and officials warned against Israel becoming a global “pariah” state over its almost year-long genocidal war on Gaza.

• READ MORE: UN General Assembly overwhelmingly calls for end of Israeli occupation
• Israel will become a ‘pariah’ over Gaza ‘genocide’, UN rights experts say
• Other Israeli War on Palestine reports

The final vote tally was 124 member states in favour and 14 against, with 43 nations abstaining.

Pacific countries that voted with Israel and its main ally and arms-supplier United States against the Palestinian resolution are Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Palau, Tonga and Tuvalu.

Kiribati, Samoa and Vanuatu abstained while Solomon islands voted yes. Australia abstained while New Zealand and Timor-Leste also supported the resolution.

Pacific countries have been the target of an Israeli diplomatic, aid and media influence push in recent years.

The Palestine-led resolution, co-sponsored by dozens of nations, calls on Israel to swiftly withdraw “all its military forces” from Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

Palestine is a permanent observer state at the UN and it described the vote as “historic”.

Devastating war
Like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinion in July, which found the occupation “unlawful”, the resolution is not legally binding but carries considerable political weight.

The court’s opinion had been sought in a 2022 request from the UN General Assembly.

The UNGA vote comes amid Israel’s devastating war on Gaza, which has killed more than 41,250 Palestinians.

The United Kingdom, which recently suspended some arms export licenses for Israel, abstained from yesterday’s vote, a decision that the advocacy group Global Justice Now (GJN) said shows “complete disregard for the ongoing suffering of Palestinians forced to live under military-enforced racial discrimination”.

However, other US allies such as France voted for the resolution. Australia, Germany, Italy and Switzerland abstained but Ireland, Spain and Norway supported the vote.

“The vast majority of countries have made it clear: Israel’s occupation of Palestine must end, and all countries have a definite duty not to aid or assist its continuation,” said GJN’s Tim Bierley.

“To stay on the right side of international law, the UK’s dealings with Israel must drastically change, including closing all loopholes in its partial arms ban and revoking any trade or investment relations that might assist the occupation.”

NEWS: UN General Assembly adopts resolution demanding that Israel brings to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory without delay and within the next 12 months.https://t.co/Vj0Ve1lLBi pic.twitter.com/2rKKvDNDqd

— United Nations (@UN) September 18, 2024

BDS welcomes vote
The Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement welcomed passage of the resolution, noting that the UN General Assembly had voted “for the first time in 42 years” in favour of “imposing sanctions on Israel”, reports Common Dreams.

The resolution specifically calls on all UN member states to “implement sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, against natural and legal persons engaged in the maintenance of Israel’s unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in relation to settler violence.”

The resolution’s passage came nearly two months after the ICJ, or World Court, the UN’s highest legal body, handed down an advisory opinion concluding that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal and must end “as rapidly as possible.”

The newly approved resolution states that “respect for the International Court of Justice and its functions . . .  is essential to international law and justice and to an international order based on the rule of law.”

The Biden administration, which is heavily arming the Israeli military as it assails Gaza and the West Bank, criticised the ICJ’s opinion as overly broad.

Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in a statement that “the Biden administration should join the overwhelming majority of nations around the world in condemning these crimes against the Palestinian people, demanding an end to the occupation, and exerting serious pressure on the Israeli government to comply”.

“We welcome this UN resolution demanding an end to one of the worst and ongoing crimes against humanity of the past century,” said Awad.

Turning ‘blind eye’
Ahead of the vote, a group of UN experts said in a statement that many countries “appear unwilling or unable to take the necessary steps to meet their obligations” in the wake of the ICJ’s opinion.

“Devastating attacks on Palestinians across the occupied Palestinian territory show that by continuing to turn a blind eye to the horrific plight of the Palestinian people, the international community is furthering genocidal violence,” the experts said.

“States must act now. They must listen to voices calling on them to take action to stop Israel’s attacks against the Palestinians and end its unlawful occupation.

“All states have a legal obligation to comply with the ICJ’s ruling and must promote adherence to norms that protect civilians.”

Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem in the 1967 war and subsequently annexed the entire holy city in 1980, reports Al Jazeera.

International law prohibits the acquisition of land by force.

Israel has also been building settlements — now home to hundreds of thousands of Israelis — in the West Bank in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which bans the occupying power from transferring “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Vietnam’s famous Củ Chi tunnel network was on our bucket list for years.

For me, it was for more than half a century, ever since I had been editor of the Melbourne Sunday Observer, which campaigned against Australian (and New Zealand) involvement in the unjust Vietnam War — redubbed the “American War” by the Vietnamese.

For Del, it was a dream to see how the resistance of a small and poor country could defeat the might of colonisers.

• READ MORE: Flashback to the 1968 My Lai massacre: ‘Something dark and bloody’
• Ho Chi Minh City’s War Remnants Museum

“I wanted to see for myself how the tunnels and the sacrifices of the Vietnamese had contributed to winning the war,” she recalls.

“Love for country, a longing for peace and a resistance to foreign domination were strong factors in victory.”

We finally got our wish last month — a half day trip to the tunnel network, which stretched some 250 kilometres at the peak of their use. The museum park is just 45 km northeast of Ho Chi Minh city, known as Saigon during the war years (many locals still call it that).

Building of the tunnels started after the Second World War after the Japanese had withdrawn from Indochina and liberation struggles had begun against the French. But they reached their most dramatic use in the war against the Americans, especially during the spate of surprise attacks during the Tet Offensive in 1968.

The Viet Minh kicked off the network, when it was a sort of southern gateway to the Ho Chi Minh trail in the 1940s as the communist forces edged closer to Saigon.

Eventually the liberation successes of the Viet Minh led to humiliating defeat of the French colonial forces at Dien Bien Phu in 1954.

Cutting off supply lines
The French had rebuilt an ex-Japanese airbase in a remote valley near the Laotian border in a so-called “hedgehog” operation — in a belief that the Viet Minh forces did not have anti-aircraft artillery. They hoped to cut off the Viet Minh’s guerrilla forces’ supply lines and draw them into a decisive conventional battle where superior French firepower would prevail.

However, they were the ones who were cut off.

The Củ Chi tunnels explored.    Video: History channel

The French military command badly miscalculated as General Nguyen Giap’s forces secretly and patiently hauled artillery through the jungle-clad hills over months and established strategic batteries with tunnels for the guns to be hauled back under cover after firing several salvos.

Giap compared Dien Bien Phu to a “rice bowl” with the Viet Minh on the edges and the French at the bottom.

After a 54-day siege between 13 March and 7 May 1954, as the French forces became increasingly surrounded and with casualties mounting (up to 2300 killed), the fortifications were over-run and the surviving soldiers surrendered.

The defeat led to global shock that an anti-colonial guerrilla army had defeated a major European power.

The French government of Prime Minister Joseph Laniel resigned and the 1954 Geneva Accords were signed with France pulling out all its forces in the whole of Indochina, although Vietnam was temporarily divided in half at the 17th Parallel — the communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, and the republican State of Vietnam nominally under Emperor Bao Dai (but in reality led by a series of dictators with US support).

Debacle of Dien Bien Phu
The debacle of Dien Bien Phu is told very well in an exhibition that takes up an entire wing of the Vietnam War Remnants Museum (it was originally named the “Museum of American War Crimes”).

But that isn’t all at the impressive museum, the history of the horrendous US misadventure is told in gruesome detail – with some 58,000 American troops killed and the death of an estimated up to 3 million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians. (Not to mention the 521 Australian and 37 New Zealand soldiers, and the many other allied casualties.)

The section of the museum devoted to the Agent Orange defoliant war waged on the Vietnamese and the country’s environment is particularly chilling – casualties and people suffering from the aftermath of the poisoning are now into the fourth generation.

The global anti-Vietnam War peace protests are also honoured at the museum and one section of the compound has a recreation of the prisons holding Viet Cong independence fighters, including the torture “tiger cells”.

A guillotine is on display. The execution method was used by both France and the US-backed South Vietnam regimes against pro-independence fighters.

A placard says: “During the US war against Vietnam, the guillotine was transported to all of the provinces in South Vietnam to decapitate the Vietnam patriots. [On 12 March 1960], the last man who was executed by guillotine was Hoang Le Kha.”

A member of the ant-French liberation “scout movement”, Hoang was sentenced to death by a military court set up by the US-backed President Ngo Dinh Diem’s regime.

In 1981, France outlawed capital punishment and abandoned the use of the guillotine, but the last execution was as recent as 1977.

Museum visit essential
Visiting Ho Ch Min City’s War Remnants Museum is essential for background and contextual understanding of the role and importance of the Củ Chi tunnels.

Also for insights about how the last US troops left Vietnam in March 1973, Nixon resigned the following year under pressure from the Watergate revelations, and a series of reverses led to the collapse of the South Vietnam regime and the humiliating scenes of the final Americans withdrawing by helicopter from the US Embassy rooftop in Saigon in April 1975.

Back in my protest days as chief subeditor and then editor of Melbourne’s Sunday Observer, I had published Ronald Haberle’s My Lai massacre photos the same week as Life Magazine in December 1969 (an estimated 500 women, children and elderly men were killed at the hamlet on 16 March 1968 near Quang Nai city and the atrocity was covered up for almost two years).

Ironically, we were prosecuted for “obscenity’ for publishing photographs of a real life US obscenity and war crime in the Australian state of Victoria. (The case was later dropped).

So our trip to the Củ Chi tunnels was laced with expectation. What would we see? What would we feel?

The tunnels played a critical role in the “American” War, eventually leading to the collapse of South Vietnamese resistance in Saigon. And the guides talk about the experience and the sacrifice of Viet Cong fighters in reverential tones.

The tunnel network at Ben Dinh is in a vast park-like setting with restored sections, including underground kitchen (with smoke outlets directed through simulated ant hills), medical centre, and armaments workshop.

ingenious bamboo and metal spike booby traps, snakes and scorpions were among the obstacles to US forces pursuing resistance fighters. Special units — called “tunnel rats” using smaller soldiers were eventually trained to combat the Củ Chi system but were not very effective.

We were treated to cooked cassava, a staple for the fighters underground.

A disabled US tank demonstrates how typical hit-and-run attacks by the Viet Cong fighters would cripple their treads and then they would be attacked through their manholes.

‘Walk’ through showdown
When it came to the section where we could walk through the tunnels ourselves, our guide said: “It only takes a couple of minutes.”

It was actually closer to 10 minutes, it seemed, and I actually got stuck momentarily when my knees turned to jelly with the crouch posture that I needed to use for my height. I had to crawl on hands and knees the rest of the way.

A warning sign said don’t go if you’re aged over 70 (I am 79), have heart issues (I do, with arteries), or are claustrophobic (I’m not). I went anyway.

People who have done this are mostly very positive about the experience and praise the tourist tunnels set-up. Many travel agencies run guided trips to the tunnels.

“Exploring the Củ Chi tunnels near Saigon was a fascinating and historically significant experience,” wrote one recent visitor on a social media link.

“The intricate network of tunnels, used during the Vietnam War, provided valuable insights into the resilience and ingenuity of the Vietnamese people. Crawling through the tunnels, visiting hidden bunkers, and learning about guerrilla warfare tactics were eye-opening . . .

“It’s a place where history comes to life, and it’s a must-visit for anyone interested in Vietnam’s wartime history and the remarkable engineering of the Củ Chi tunnels.”

“The visit gives a very real sense of what the war was like from the Vietnamese side — their tunnels and how they lived and efforts to fight the Americans,” wrote another visitor. “Very realistic experience, especially if you venture into the tunnels.”

Overall, it was a powerful experience and a reminder that no matter how immensely strong a country might be politically and militarily, if grassroots people are determined enough for freedom and justice they will triumph in the end.

There is hope yet for Palestine.

• The Melbourne-based Asia Vacations Group has recently expanded its Vietnam offering in New Zealand.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by David Robie.

Israeli forces and settlers targeted Palestinian children playing outside, protesting in the streets, walking home from school, and even standing inside their own homes in various towns and villages in the West Bank, at distances ranging from five meters up to 300 meters away. They killed a total of 141 Palestinian children during the reporting period. The majority–116 children–were killed with live ammunition targeting vital areas like the head and torso. In 43% of cases, Israeli forces deliberately prevented injured Palestinian children from receiving medical care by detaining ambulances or firing live ammunition toward ambulances, paramedics, and civilians attempting to provide aid. In eighteen cases, Israeli forces confiscated the bodies of the children they killed, in violation of international law.

In both Gaza and the West Bank, the impact of Israel’s genocidal violence on Palestinian children is devastating. In Gaza, Israeli forces have killed over 16,500 children, with public health experts now conservatively estimating that, when direct and indirect fatalities are fully accounted for, fatalities will reach at least 4x higher than what has been officially reported. In the West Bank, Israeli forces and settlers are escalating attacks against Palestinian communities.

Amid the ongoing brutal genocide in Gaza and Israel’s continued invasion and forced displacement of Palestinian communities in the West Bank, we join advocates for justice in calling for an arms embargo on Israel. In the words of Khaled Quzmar, DCIP’s general director: “Israeli forces are killing Palestinian children with calculated brutality and cruelty all throughout the occupied Palestinian territory. The international community must act urgently to enact an arms embargo and sanctions to protect Palestinian children’s lives.” 

Special thanks to Hadeel Saalok and DCIP for their collaboration on this visual.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Visualizing Palestine.

Israeli forces and settlers targeted Palestinian children playing outside, protesting in the streets, walking home from school, and even standing inside their own homes in various towns and villages in the West Bank, at distances ranging from five meters up to 300 meters away. They killed a total of 141 Palestinian children during the reporting period. The majority–116 children–were killed with live ammunition targeting vital areas like the head and torso. In 43% of cases, Israeli forces deliberately prevented injured Palestinian children from receiving medical care by detaining ambulances or firing live ammunition toward ambulances, paramedics, and civilians attempting to provide aid. In eighteen cases, Israeli forces confiscated the bodies of the children they killed, in violation of international law.

In both Gaza and the West Bank, the impact of Israel’s genocidal violence on Palestinian children is devastating. In Gaza, Israeli forces have killed over 16,500 children, with public health experts now conservatively estimating that, when direct and indirect fatalities are fully accounted for, fatalities will reach at least 4x higher than what has been officially reported. In the West Bank, Israeli forces and settlers are escalating attacks against Palestinian communities.

Amid the ongoing brutal genocide in Gaza and Israel’s continued invasion and forced displacement of Palestinian communities in the West Bank, we join advocates for justice in calling for an arms embargo on Israel. In the words of Khaled Quzmar, DCIP’s general director: “Israeli forces are killing Palestinian children with calculated brutality and cruelty all throughout the occupied Palestinian territory. The international community must act urgently to enact an arms embargo and sanctions to protect Palestinian children’s lives.” 

Special thanks to Hadeel Saalok and DCIP for their collaboration on this visual.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Visualizing Palestine.

Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton is facing accusations he is using his office to suppress Latino voters in the state. The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the country’s oldest Latino civil rights group, is calling on the Justice Department to investigate Paxton over a series of police raids on the homes of LULAC members, state lawmakers and other community leaders in the San Antonio area last week. Previously, Paxton had tried and failed to shut down the Houston-based and immigrant-led civil rights group Familias Inmigrantes y Estudiantes en la Lucha (FIEL) by claiming it engaged in electioneering. We’re joined by the director of FIEL, Cesar Espinosa, and the CEO of LULAC, Juan Proaño, who both share how their organizations have been impacted by the attorney general’s harassment and intimidation. Proaño calls the targeting of Latino leaders and organizations a pattern of “blatant discrimination” and says, “We see these as tactics essentially for Republicans to stay in control of the government in Texas.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

In a Memorandum Opinion ruling running into 286 pages, Judge Amit P. Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found that Google acted as a monopoly in its “general search” and “general search text advertising” markets and had breached Section 2 of the Sherman Act by making exclusive dealing agreements with various vendors (Apple, Samsung, Verizon and so forth).

In doing so, Google’s search engine was given exclusive default status on various platforms and devices, notably web browsers, wireless carriers and smartphone manufacturers.  “These partners agree to install Google as the search engine that is delivered to the user right out of the box at key search access points.”  Through its “revenue share” operation, involving the payment of billions of dollars to its partners, “Google not only receives default placement at the key search access points, but its partners also agree not to preload any other general search engine on the device.”  Such a distribution system had forced Google’s competitors to seek other means of reaching users.

The decision offers a chronology of how such monopoly developed.  Initially, Google most likely reached the high summit of market supremacy through legal means, making its search product enviably singular.  The problem here was Google’s conduct in seeking to maintain that supremacy in the market, thereby foreclosing it to competitors.

The memorandum ruling is also valuable for revealing the tactical and strategic approach of the company in preserving its dominance, not to mention showing full self-awareness of that fact.  Were such partners as Apple to develop their own search engine as the default in Safari, for instance, a fortune would be at stake.

The company also showed a sketchy practice to preserving evidence, indulgently destructive in the practice of deleting chat messages after 24 hours, unless the default setting was turned to “history on”.  According to arguments of the DOJ and the regulators, doing so revealed knowledge that Google’s practices “were likely in violation of the antitrust laws and wanted to make proving that impossible.”  In Judge Mehta’s words, “Any company that puts the onus on its employees to identify and preserve relevant evidence does so at its own peril.  Google avoided sanctions in this case.  It may not be so lucky with the next one.”

Other practices included an extensive, overly indulgent misuse of attorney-client privilege by filling email communications with gratuitous references to the company’s in-house legal team.  Directions were also issued to employees to avoid using “certain antitrust buzzwords in their communications.”  A March 2011 presentation, “Antitrust Basics for Search Team,” was blatant in instructing employees to avoid any reference to “markets”, “market share” or “dominance,” not to mention “scale” and “network effects”.  Best also avoid, according to the presentation, any “metaphors to wars or sports, winning or losing.”

The exclusionary conduct engineered through Google’s agreements was found by the Court to have had “three primary anticompetitive effects”: market foreclosure, preventing rivals from achieving scale and diminishing the incentives of any rivals, including nascent challengers, to invest and innovate in general search.

Causation of such harm could be “inferred” in this case if the anticompetitive conduct in question reasonably appeared “capable of making a significant contribution to … maintaining monopoly power”.  There was no need for “but-for proof,” something that made the task of the US Department of Justice that much easier.  It followed that the company’s “distribution agreements are exclusionary contracts that violate Section 2 because they ensure that half of all GSE [general search engine] users in the United States will receive Google as the preload default on all Apple and Android devices, as well as cause anticompetitive harm.”

The saga is set to become even lengthier, given that no remedies have yet been identified.  These, as Robert Milne and Edward Thrasher of White & Case explain, can vary in terms of severity and effect, ranging from prohibiting Google from entering into the exclusive agreements to privilege the default status of its search engine, to requiring the company to share data and relevant code with other competitors in the search market, to the more drastic breaking up of the company.

Google has announced that it will appeal the decision, and the commentary about how it could do so is already mushrooming.  Geoffrey A. Manne, president of the International Center for Law and Economics, is one, offering a detailed overview about where Judge Mehta is said to have misread or misunderstood such concepts as proof of anticompetitive conduct.

Invariably, scribblers in the tech industry have seized the opportunity to wonder what the alternatives to a post-Google world – or one where the company is stripped of its monopolistic ascendancy – might look like.  Natasha Lomas in Techcrunch writes dreamily that a web lacking Google’s acquisitive, data-pinching domination, let alone existence, “is absolutely bigger than mere utility.”  This presented a chance “for different models of service delivery – ones that prioritize the interests of web users and the public infosphere – to achieve scale and thrive.”

Broadly speaking, the Google decision can be said to nest in a range of recent efforts and undertakings by government regulators to conserve competition in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital markets, a point made by the July 23, 2024 “Joint Statement on Competition in Generative AI Foundation Models and AI Products” from the US Department of Justice, the US Federal Trade Commission, the European Commission, and the United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority.

The regulators are mindful of potential attempts by firms “to restrict key inputs for the development of AI technologies,” entrench or extend existing market power in digital markets “in adjacent AI markets or across ecosystems, taking advantage of feedback and network effects to increase barriers to entry and harm competition,” create instances of monopsony power and develop and wield AI “in ways that harm consumers, entrepreneurs, or other market participants.”

Such talk is hardly novel.  It peppers and haunts the incipient stages of the web’s existence: misty visions of the informed cybersphere; communities of engaged digital citizens rowdily if respectfully engaged in civil discourse.  All of this done in defiance of policing measures and the suspicious eye of the authoritarian State.  Eventually, techno utopianism is as faulty as any other variant of the unrealised idyll.  The honey, milk and fruit always seem better on that side of the river, till the journey is made.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

The mismatch between the complexity of the world and the simplistic manner in which we think about it

The social, economic and political world in which we live is extremely complex, but  most of the Yankee population does not have the thinking skills that can make intelligent decisions about this world and what to do about its problems. At the micro level, we find the same shortcoming in how we solve individual problems if we can tolerate learning and appreciating that thinking goes through stages of judgment. The choice of the word “how” instead of “why” in the title is intentional. I am not asking why the Yankee population thinks in simplistic ways because that involves a comparative knowledge of other cultures. I am only describing a cognitive style which contributes to Yankees being blockheads.

Introduction to stages of reflective judgment

In their book Developing Reflective Judgement Karen Kitchener and Patricia King claim that many adults clearly have trouble thinking intelligently about ill-defined problems. For many years they have been asking adolescents and adults of all ages and occupations where they stand on questions on the objectivity of news media, safety in food additives and the use of nuclear power. They are not interested in the content of what these subjects believe or how much they know. They are interested in the process of how they came to their conclusions, their method, whether conscious or unconscious. They interviewed more than 1,700 people ranging in age from 14 to 65. First the researchers provide the interviewee with statements that describe opposing viewpoints on various topics. Then the interviewer asked: “What do you think about these statements? How did you come to that view?” What they found is that people go through seven stages in their attempts to solve problems. The first three stages are non-reflective followed by a transition stage, leading to two relativistic stages followed by the highest, seventh stage of reflective judgment.

The authors define reflective judgment as a highly developed thinking skill which makes defensible judgment about ill-structured problems by the manner in which they weigh and discover evidence, uncover underlying rules, generate multiple solutions, accept probabilistic results or judge expert opinion. As it turns out, most people do not show evidence of reflective judgment until their middle or late 20s, if at all. You might glance at Table 1 which defines their seven stages of judgment. I will comment in more depth about the table later on in the article. You don’t need to completely understand the table before you continue to read.

Purposes of this article

One purpose of this article is to introduce you to Kitchener and King’s seven stages of judgment. Secondly, I want to apply them to six areas of our lives:

• Religion, paranormal and scientist
• Romance
• History of anthropology
• Problem solving
• Individual development
• The political spectrum

Furthermore I want to briefly compare and contrast the seven stages of judgment to my four styles of thinking model. I will attempt to synthesize Kitchener and King’s stages with what I call the spectrum of styles which includes naïve absolutist, relativist, dialectical and cynical. I will make a comparison between the two systems later in this article. For now, let’s explore the four kinds of judgment.

The Spectrum of Four Kinds of Judgment

What is the difference between someone who is skeptical and one who is cynical? A skeptical person is one who says “show me” but is open to the results, especially if the evidence is scientific. A cynical person is not only critical but is closed. No amount of evidence will convince him. What is the difference between someone who is open and someone who is gullible?  A person who is open takes in some information but not everything. They draw the line at the far-fetched or outlandish claims. In other words, they are open but not so open that their brains will fall out. Gullibility means you believe anything. Let us apply these types of thinking to religious, paranormal and scientific thinking.

The Spectrum of Religion, the Paranormal and Science

Naïve absolutist

When we apply the differences between absolutist, relativist and dialectical thinking we can see that Yankee religious fundamentalism conforms to what I call the naïve absolutist thinking. Here the answer to the ontological question of what I can know is that knowledge is objective and certain. Further, knowledge is concrete and not abstract. By what process is knowledge acquired? Knowledge is passive, poured into people as a result of religious conversion. As a kid in a Catholic school religious training through the catechism was like this.

Relativist

But what about if someone believes in the paranormal – ESP or telepathy? Many Americans are very interested in psychic phenomena. Think of a 16-year-old bright thinker who wants to explore the mystery of haunted houses. For New Agers as opposed to fundamentalists, knowledge is subjective and created by them through experience, not objective based on a holy book as with the fundamentalists. Knowledge for the relativist starts with the individual and is uncertain. Unlike the fundamentalism, this New Age relativist says that the knower actively creates knowledge by processing it autonomously. Lastly, relativists understand that how they acquired knowledge needs justification, but not beyond personal experience. New Agers are critical of what I call naïve absolutists who simply obey religious authorities. For relativists Religion (for them “spirituality”) has to be personal. Relativist New Agers do not have a method for how to know things. They proceed by eclectic trial and error. From a class point of view naïve absolutists with their fundamentalism are more likely to be working class. Research shows relativists whose interest is in the paranormal are more likely to be middle or upper-middle class Yankees.

Dialectical

Now suppose someone is neither religious nor believes in the paranormal. Like the naïve absolutist, the dialectical scientist understands knowledge as objective, but not absolutely objective. For the dialectical scientist knowledge is only relatively objective because it is impacted by history, the economic system and social class of the person. Just as for the relativist, the scientist sees knowledge as an active process of experimentation, not experiential. It discovers events that are already there and discusses them with other scientists. Unlike the New Ager, his mind does not construct events. For the scientist, knowledge needs to be justified using objective standards of scientific method.  Furthermore, scientific standards themselves evolve. Yankee communists or socialists think this way at their best.

Cynical

For the cynical scientist, knowledge is objective but must be worked through and evolving and subject to universal scientific laws. The cynic is less sensitive to historical changes, economic systems and social class as the dialectician in science and is less settled about probability. He is after universal causal laws if he could find them. A cynic is dismissive of both fundamentalist religion and New Age relativist and is less likely to view them as themselves products of evolution. He is less likely to see anything positive in them. A cynic can be an upper-middle class scientist or a working class person who is bitter and has given up on their lives.

So what we have is:

• Religious fundamentalist; naïve absolutist
• New Age paranormal; relativist
• Scientist – dialectical
• Scientism – cynical

Spectrum of Judging Applied to Romance

What is the difference between the following statements about romantic relationships? “I’ve found prince or princess charming.” The second person is lucky enough to have three relationships at the same time. When pressure is applied to choose one, they can’t decide. “Why do I have to decide?” they say. Let’s assume them are polyamorous. The absolutist disapproves of their lifestyle and wants them to hold out for their soulmate”. The third person says, “there are no princes or princesses. Everyone has their pros and cons. We must set up a spread sheet, list the pros and cons of each person. Assign qualitative weights to each and then choose.” The relativist sees this as too harsh and judging of other people. The absolutist thinks the dialectical way takes all the romance out of relationships. The fourth Yankee cynic says, “Everyone is damaged. There is no use in trying”. The dialectical thinker believes the cynic has given up too soon or their standards are too high. The first and the fourth way of making sense of relationships appear to be opposite. One is Pollyanna and the other is bitter. But as we shall see, they have some unsuspected commonalities.

The naïve absolutist is slavish to the ‘authorities’ in helping them find a partner, whether he trusts his parents, his priest or his therapist. The relativist is cynical about the authorities, feels they are untrustworthy and believes you just have to trust your “gut feelings”. He trusts his personal experience in romance. While the dialectical thinker is skeptical of the authorities he will listen to them about weighing the pros and cons  only if they prove themselves. The dialectical judger is less trusting of his personal experience.  He trusts the research done of other groups and trusts the demographics about what are the ideal match-ups. The naïve absolutist does not understand why the dialectical judger does not trust the authorities and the relativist is amazed at the lack of trust in personal experience. For the relativist, personal experience is much more valuable than demographics. A cynical scientist may be not only skeptical of personal experience, he is also skeptical of the demographics of groups. Because his standards are so high, he wants to be much more certain than what is yielded from statistics on groups. He doesn’t want to take any chances and may wind up single. A Yankee working class cynic just says “romantic relationships are too hard to bother with”.

History of Anthropology

Naïve absolutist: theories of progress

Let’s switch from the micro to the macro world. Around the time when anthropology began about 1870, the first theoreticians gathered information from missionaries and explorers and arranged their findings into stage theories – savagery, barbarism and civilization. This followed the trajectory from primitive societies, to agricultural states to industrial capitalist societies. They claimed that this arrangement constituted “progress”. That means that the later in time in history we go, the better societies get. The criteria includes political complexity, happiness, morality, science and intelligence. The theorists of progress assumed that all hunting and gathering societies were the same, the agricultural states were all the same. Their sweep was universal and insensitive to time and place differences between cultures. They asked questions which emphasized commonalties, not differences.

Relativists: all societies are equal

Around the turn of the century, the German-American anthropologist Franz Boas attacked the theory of progress as racist. Unlike the first wave of anthropologists, Boas was not an armchair anthropologist. He did field work and his conclusions were that “primitives” (who were mostly Indigenous) were by no means less intelligent, less moral, less happy or more superstitious than white Western Europeans. His students like Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead claimed that there was no basis for comparing or judging societies. All societies were equal. These anthropologists were called “cultural relativists”. They held sway in anthropology for well over 100 years to today.

Unlike the absolutist theorists of progress, relativists are very sensitive to specific times and places. They are splitters rather than lumpers. They ask questions which emphasis differences. They are hard-pressed to find commonalities across cultures and view generalization as a kind of cognitive imperialism.

In 1959 at the centennial of Darwin’s birthday a new school of anthropology emerged. People like Leslie White argued the societies can be compared and studied scientifically. White claimed that societies can be organized hierarchically based on the degree to which they harnessed energy. Others such as Elman Service and Marshall Sahlins had other materialist criteria. But it was Marvin Harris and Gerhard Lenski who claimed that while societies couldn’t be meaningfully be structured according to progress, Harris in particular noticed something else.

Dialectical: improvised evolutionists

On the one hand, dialectical judgers like Marvin Harris and Gerhard Lenski said that the reason societies changed was not due to discovering a new technology or being suddenly enlightened as theories of progress assumed. They argued that societies changed because of necessity. These necessities included as populations grew resources being depleted that produced crises. It was new technologies, along with economic and political reorganization that pulled societies out of the crisis. But the same crises grew back hundreds or thousands of years later. Unlike the cultural relativists, Harris didn’t say all societies were equal. He argued that more complex societies created greater crises, but also produced greater material wealth to solve their problems. Harris called his school of anthropology “cultural materialism”. I call these anthropologists improvised evolutionists. These theorists understand that hunter-gather societies are different from each other because their ecological settings are different. Yet they were able to say that all hunting and gathering societies face many of the same problems. Dialectical thinkers ask questions that are both differences and commonalities but also ask themselves and their colleagues Socratic questions.

Cynics

In the field of anthropology there are no scientific cynics. What we have are cultural cynics of post modernism who don’t dare ask questions about commonalities across cultures. They are not interested in science and simply studying individual societies. They think that studying other societies is just a projection of what exists in the society of origin.

See any patterns?

So, do you see a pattern between attitudes toward romance on one hand and the evolution of anthropology on the other? Do you see any commonalties between the individual who is looking for prince or princess charming and the anthropologists who organize societies in a progressive manner? Is there a commonality between the person who can’t decide among partners and the cultural relativist who thinks all social formations are equal? Does the individual who wants to organize relationships into spreadsheets have anything in common with Harris’s cultural materialism? 

Problem Analysis and Problem-Solving

What are well-structured and ill-structured problems?

A well-structured problem is like solving a jigsaw puzzle or a word problem. There is one right answer, you know when you have found it and you don’t have to search for evidence because it is all given in the problem. This is how Yankee naïve absolutists think about politics: two choices, Democrat or Republican. More on this later.

With an ill-structured problem there could be many answers. You have to search for evidence outside the problem and you often don’t know if your answers are right because all answers are in varying degrees of probability. An example of an ill-structured problem is a vocational counselor helping a worker find a new occupation. The counselor can give them an assessment test which matches their interests to occupations. But a worker has to join vocational organizations which show them available jobs. The worker may do an internship as a welder, shadow working to see how they like it. However, they might not know if this is a good match for them as a field until they commit to the job and then see what happens. In critical thinking a well-defined problem is like formal logic or rationality. An ill-defined problem requires informal logic or reason.  Let’s see how our four types of thinkers do with these problems.

Naïve absolutism

A Yankee naïve absolutist would expect ill-structured problems to fit into well-structured problems because he expects personal or world problems to fit into his fundamentalist type of religion or his expectation of finding a single soul-mate, prince or princess charming. For the naïve absolutist there is only one right answer.

Relativist

Our relativist would be cynical that any problems could ever be well-defined. He might say, two and two makes four but in the world of non-linear geometry this would not be the case. For the relativist there are an infinite number of answers.

Dialectical

The dialectical thinker would be able to differentiate well-structured from ill-structured problems and be able to use formal logic rationality for one and informal logic or reasoning for the other. For the dialectical thinker there are a few right answers that roughly correspond to the five or six theoretical schools of thinking in sociology or psychology. The dialectical thinker chooses the best of lot and sets out to take action. Communists and socialists at their best in groups think this way.

Cynical thinker

A cynical thinker, like the naïve absolutist, prefers the one right answer of a well- defined problem. However, unlike the absolutist the cynical scientist can suspend judgment and hold out for the best solution to the problem. A cynical thinker will know there are a few answers but will hold out for the perfect one and bypass taking action. A Yankee cynical working-class voter might give up on all politics thinking that if all the choices are Republicans or Democrats what is the point in voting. Neither party speaks to their needs.

Reflexive Judgment revisited

Have a look again at Table I. The stages of judgment are listed down the left-hand side of Table 1. The first four stages are relatively simplistic. King and Kitchener call these stages pre-reflective. Stages 5 and 6, the relativist categories are more sophisticated and the last stage is the most complex. Each of these stages is described in detail under three categories; metaphysical assumptions, epistemological assumption and the concepts of justification.

What is the relationship between the stages of reflective judgment and the four styles of thinking?

• The first three stages of pre-reflective judgment correspond to the naïve absolutist form of thinking.
• There is no correspondence between the fourth transition stage of judgment and the styles of thinking.
• Stages 5-6, quasi-reflective can be matched up with the style of thinking I am calling relativist.
• Stage 7, reflective judgment goes with dialectical thinking.
• There is no stage of judgment which corresponds to the cynical style of thinking.
• My styles of thinking table (see Table 2 if you dare!) adds many categories of comparison that are not in the seven stages of judgment table.

Application to Individual Development.

It is not far-fetched to group the Yankee naive absolutist judgment into childhood, relativist judgment to adolescence and dialectical open-skeptical thinking into adulthood as well as cynical thinking. However, in adulthood there can be Yankees who think in a naïve absolutist way or relativist manner. In the case of naïve absolutist, the individual would probably be very low functioning because they would be thinking too simply for the complex social world we live in. Sadly, many Yankees fall into this category politically. In their personal lives these Yankees would have difficulty sustaining mature relationships or holding jobs that require managing people. Relativists can function well as adults in friendships, romance and work but would have problems with major life decisions because of their difficulty prioritizing.

Naïve absolutists

How do the four types of thinking fare in understanding the relationship between thinking and emotions? As we might expect, naïve absolutists are both irrational and unreasonable. They let their emotions rule. They are likely to be guilty of scapegoating because they see the world in either-or terms. They are likely to be superstitious because naïve absolutists don’t understand probability. They are almost always surprised that the claims of other people about a problem may be just as valid as are their own.

Relativists

The relativists might understand cognitive psychology in that emotions are driven by thoughts but they might not be able to abstract thoughts completely from emotions because they think in a concrete operational way. They are not likely to be able to use Piaget’s formal logic.  Relativists can put themselves in the place of others’ claims. However, they do this so well that they become enmeshed and get lost in the hearts of others so that they lose their claim.

Dialectical

Dialectical thinkers are reasonable. They allow their emotions a place at the table, but they don’t let them decide. They know the existence of other claims and they will compare and contrast them to each other according to a justified criterion, knowing that some claims are better than others, but no claim is perfect. They can enter the heart and mind of another, but they will not be swept away by them. Their claim may be affected by the input of another, but not likely to be completely upstaged. Communists and socialists at their very best relate to their personal life this way.

Cynical

Cynical thinkers are cut off from their emotions and will try to use rationality to muscle their way to a conclusion. They will not be moved by the emotions of others so their decision-making process is linear. Once their mind is made up, that is the end of the line. They are isolated in using the scientific method but will hold out for the perfect solution which never comes. Consequently, they are detached and disappointed. In my experience, socialists at their worst often conduct their personal lives this way.

The Linear Political Spectrum

Dictatorship and democracy

In the United States we have some very peculiar ideas about what democracy is. What is supposedly the opposite of democracy? We are told it is a dictatorship where only one-party rules. Examples of dictators are trotted out and virtually they always have something to do with socialism. But something extraordinary happens when we add one more political party! In this country now we have two parties to vote for and that is the maximum we can hope for democracy – Republicans and Democrats. But if democracy is “the rule of the people” wouldn’t more parties mean even more democracy? Some other countries see it this way and have many parties. But not here in Mordor. The rulers tell us more parties make things too complicated, unwieldy and more drawn out. We are told by Colin Woodward (American Nations) there are eleven regions of the country and only two parties speak for them. Sociologists tell us we have between six and eight social classes, but two parties is plenty to represent us. So what we have is:

• One party – dictatorship
• Two parties – democracy
• Five parties – too complicated, unwieldy, maybe even a mobocracy

Democrats and Republican voters are naïve absolutists

So we have an “election” in three months in which we are told that democracy means we have to vote for one of two parties. Voting for a third party is called a waste of a vote but then we are told that if the Democratic candidate loses that our votes decided the election. What about not voting? According to the Democratic and Republican ruling circles not voting shows ignorance, lack of education, apathy or maybe being on drugs. What I am claiming is the insistence only voting for a Democrat or a Republican is a form of naïve absolutist thinking. For example, Democrats naively think that those of us who vote for a third party are choosing between a Democrat and a Green. The truth is that most of us who vote for a third party are really facing a choice either voting for a Green or not bothering to vote.

Cynics don’t bother to vote

Not bothering to vote is a higher form of judgment than naïve absolutism, a form of cynicism which understands both these parties represent the upper classes and have nothing to do with middle class, working class or poor people. Some of these same people understand that the lords of capital own both parties and control what they say about dualistically framed issues through think tanks and lobbyists.

Dialecticians vote for a socialist third party

Those who vote for third parties aspire to think about politics in a dialectical way. For example, most naïve absolutist Democrats are myopic. Every four years they claim that this election is the most important in history. A voter for a third party understands that building and sustaining a political party is a 15 or 20 year project. That means you build up a base of loyal voters over the long haul. We don’t expect to win an election every four years any more than a sophisticated baseball owner expects to win the World Series every year. Secondly, naïve Democrats and Republicans think that having a political party is synonymous with voting. But there are many socialist parties that never expect to be voted in. They use the opportunity to run a campaign to present a program for what they will do when capitalism collapses. The Bolsheviks were a political party that was not voted in yet they successfully seized power.  So far:

Naïve absolutists – Democrats and Republicans
Cynical – not voting at all.
Dialectical – voting for a third party

Complexity of analysis

In its complexity of analysis both Democrats and Republicans present the issues as a choice between black and white solutions to black and white issues carried out by good guys or bad guys. Those who don’t bother to vote because there is no one to vote for understand that their issues like raising the minimum wage, having a health care system and educational system, that make being in debt for life are not anything either party is interested. Those who vote for a third party are even more dialectical. They see that wars, stock market instabilities, inflation, extreme weather and ecological degradation are all connected and can only be addressed in a systematic way as part of a transitional plan.

Precision and quantification

In her book Eloquence in the Electronic Age, Kathleen Jamieson pointed out that in the 19th century before the electronic age, politicians made speeches just as lawyers make cases. They defined key terms and set out to show four of five ways of making a claim. Democrats and Republicans today do not define their terms. Like naïve absolutists they think their use of the term is universal and understood by everyone. Those who do not vote are not in any position to define their terms since they are either working class or poor and no one would care about whether they strove to define terms. Those who are dialectical are devoted to defining terms because they understand the same words mean different things to different people. A cynical member of the third party might get preoccupied with the definition of a word and get carried away with the purity of having the right word. Race and gender politics within third parties have had bitter conflicts in identity politics, sad outcomes of cynical insistence on one term.

Capacity to suspend judgement

Republican Donald Trump is a great example of a naïve absolutist who will say the first thing that flies into his head rather than to appear hesitant. Can you imagine this blowhard saying something like “I need to think about it”? A dialectical thinker understands the difference between a surface “I don’t know” and a depthful “I don’t know”. The surface “I don’t know” is the result of a lack of information. A deep “I don’t know” is having evidence that is equally balanced where it is truly wise to wait and see how things play out. A dialectical thinker in a third party is not pressured to have an immediately canned reaction.

Decision-making

The Democratic and Republican parties are in no position to hold out for the perfect answer to a political problem. The truth is these parties are not deciding anything of consequence. They are thrown hither and yon by conflicts between ruling class capitalists, the deep state FBI and CIA, the neocons controlling foreign policy and the powerful Israeli lobby, AIPAC. All these political actors have overlapping but conflicting interests. The heads of parties are figureheads. Those that are relativist/ cynics might understand the complexity of issues and their interconnectedness, but because they don’t set priorities, they wind up solving a couple of problems in a watered down way and then kick the can down the road. Democrats typically do this when it is their turn to assume power.

Makes claims falsifiable

Just like the naïve absolutist, Democrats and Republican candidates make promises but they never state the conditions under which they can be proven wrong. Unlike real scientists Mordor politicians are not held to any consequences if they fail to deliver. And sadly, the public does not demand falsifiability and does not track the contradictions between what is promised and what is delivered. The same is true for naïve absolutists economic advisers, mainstream economists. These folks claim to be scientists but fail to predict either crises or prosperity. Politicians who are relativists, who may well be in Green party or some communist party, might develop a program but they don’t relate to their program in a scientific way. At their very best, third party candidates in other countries who are fortunate enough to come to some representative power would have dialectical relationship with their base. This means that if claims made by elected politicians that were not followed up on, or came to ruin, they would have to account to the people who voted for them. In the case of economics, real scientific economists, whether Marxians or Post-Keynesians, make predictions and the following year write assessments of what they got right and wrong. Jack Rasmus is one political economist who does this.

Monitoring feedback

Naïve absolutists of either party pay no attention to feedback. When the size of the homeless population grows, instead of a structural solution like expanding low-cost housing, they drive the homeless to the outskirts of the city. When bridges collapse the Republicrats do nothing. They claim they have no money. But they have money for wars that they continually lose. When the national debt grows to 35 trillion dollars, is this a sign for them there is a problem? No – the Fed just prints more money. There are signs everywhere that Mordor is collapsing and these naïve absolutists look the other way. They specialize in secondary rationalizations. The relativist politicians outside the party are open to feedback but relativists lack the skills of prioritizing, setting goals and making a feasible plan so they never take the bull by the horn. At its best, a dialectical third party meets with its members and reads scientific reports together about what has happened politically and economically on a regular basis. They reorganize accordingly and come up with a new plan.

How to Navigate Through the Spectrum of Thinking Styles

The table below tracks the engagement of the four styles of thinking across 20 categories. All these categories have been applied partially to the topics of religion, paranormal and scientific thinking; to romance; history of anthropology; problem analysis, problem-solving; individual development and life on the linear political spectrum. Moving from left to right on the table, on the extreme left are the categories that are being compared. The stages of judgment move across vertically down from the most simple (naïve absolutist) to the most complex (dialectical). In terms of complexity, the cynical thinker lies somewhere between the relativist and the dialectical thinker. Beginning with category one, the types of categories proceed from the simplest kinds of input (knowledge); analyzing sources of evidence; evaluation of answers to making decisions; taking action and monitoring the actions taken. Lastly the table can be studied in two ways. If you read this vertically you will get a “snapshot” of how each kind of thinking answers the processes of thinking questions across the 20 categories. I would start with this. When you read across you are comparing and contrasting each form of judgment to its rivals across the categories.

Conclusion

The main purpose of this article is to try to explain how the Yankee population has difficulty analyzing complex problems of our social world, politically and economically, at both domestic and at international scales. I argued that those people who feel compelled to vote for one party or another are naïve absolutists. Of those 40-45% who don’t vote many can be categorized as cynical. Those who understand a third socialist party needs to be built are thinking dialectically. In the stages of reflective judgment, naïve absolutists correspond to King and Kitchener “pre-reflective judgment”. Those who are politically open relativist are called “quasi-reflective”. Those who use stage 7 reflective judgment correspond to dialectical thinkers.

In terms of social class, surprisingly it is middle and upper-middle class Yankees, even with their higher formal education, who think like naïve absolutists when it comes to the two-party system. A higher percentage of working-class people, many whom don’t bother to vote can be characterized as cynical.

As a second purpose I attempted to show how absolutist, relativist and cynical thinking affects the Yankee population in micro-problem-solving abilities, romance and individual lifecycle development.

Table I Kitchener and King’s 7 Development of Reflective Judgment

See Table II at Socialist Planning Beyond Capitalism

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Bruce Lerro.

Orientation

How much do left brain pathologies have to do with culture and geography?

Recently I was interviewed by Jeff J. Brown on China Rising about an article I wrote titled “The Dark Side of Left-Brain Operations”. During the interview, I contrasted the differences between the functions the left and the right sides of the brain. As we went through this, Jeff commented on how the characteristics of the right side of the brain corresponded to Chinese culture and how the characteristics of the left side of the brain seemed to be an expression of European-Yankee culture. A big part of my article discussed how there is a power struggle between the left and the right sides of the brain. Psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist pointed out that when the left side of the brain gets out of control, the result is the dark side of cultural institutions like the Reformation, the Enlightenment and industrial capitalism.

At the end of my interview I pointed out that McGilchrist, author of The Master and His Emissary, did not explain why the left brain running amuck was not the characteristic of Far Eastern countries like China, Japan or Korea. In other words, if when the left brain gets out of control if it was strictly a biological or psychological process, we would expect to find it happening in all cultures all over the world including South America and Africa. But we don’t. It is only Western. This new article attempts to provide a materialist explanation for these differences based on the book The Geography of Thought by Richard Nisbett for why Easterners and Westerners think differently.

Some provocative questions

Why would the ancient Chinese excel at algebra and arithmetic but not geometry (as the Greeks)? Why do modern Asians do very well at math and science but produce less in the way of revolutionary science compared to Westerners? As Nisbett says:

Chinese civilization is remarkable because Chinese civilization far outdistanced Greek civilization technologically in ink, porcelain, magnetic compass, stirrups and wheelbarrow, pound locks on canals, sternpost rudder, quantitative cartography, immunization techniques, astronomical observations of novae, seismographs and acoustics.

Why are East Asians able to see relationships between events better than the West but find it more difficult to disentangle an object from its surroundings? Why are Easterners more susceptible to the hindsight bias such as ‘they knew it all along’? Why do Western infants learn nouns at a much more rapid rate than verbs?Why do Easterners learn verbs at a more rapid rate? Why are Easterners so willing to entertain apparent contradictions? Why are Westerners more likely to apply formal logic when reasoning about everyday events?

Where are we going?

My purpose in this article is three-fold. First is to show the differences that Nisbett contrasts between holistic and analytical thinking. Secondly, I explore his materialist explanations for why these cultures think so differently. Lastly, I point out some weaknesses in Nisbett’s book.

Holistic vs Analytical Thinking in nature

Functional vs taxonomic classification

Which of these three is least like the other two? The three items are a dog, a carrot and a rabbit. If you think holistically the dog is different. If you think analytically the carrot is different. Why? Because in holistic thinking rabbits eat carrots, the dog is different. But if you think analytically the carrots are different because dogs and rabbits are animals while a carrot is a vegetable. Holistic classification is functional, based on how objects work together in everyday life. They are grouped together because of causal, temporal or spatial functional relationships. This analytical classification is called taxonomic. This means objects are classified according to type, independent of space, time or cause. It has little to do with everyday life interactions.

Form vs content

Closely connected to these classification differences is the relationship between form and content. In holistic thinking, objects (content) are never understood as separate from their atmosphere form (or setting). In analytical thinking, objects are separated from their context and treated separately. Thus, empiricism separates objects from their context and examines them in terms of what they have in common (empiricism). So too, thinking is separated from the senses and thoughts are compared to other thoughts leading to rationalism, including formal logic.  Contrary to this holistic thinking treats thinking and sensing as going together. There is no formal logic I know of in Chinese thinking.

Here are a couple of examples. In a research experiment with fish in the water, the Japanese made many more references to background elements. Americans focused on the fish and ignored the environment. In the United States an instruction book on how to draw was published called Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. In it there was an exercise on drawing the negative space which surrounded the figure. The idea was to let the figure emerge growing out of the negative space rather than drawing the figure directly. The whole point of the exercise was to get Western students to stop treating the background as irrelevant. Easterners, knowing this already, would have little need for this exercise.

Diffused vs focused attention; aggregates vs synthesis

Holistic thinking and analytic thinking each have their pros and cons. In holistic thinking, we have a wide, diffused lens. We see the forest but the trees are blurry. In analytical thinking we have tunnel vision. We see the detail of the trees, but miss the majesty of the forest. This attention to detail leads analytical thinkers to imagine that the whole of the forest is nothing more than an aggregate of individual trees.  In holistic thinking the entire forest system is more than the sum of the trees.

Organism vs mechanism; plenum vs atoms and the void

In general, way beyond forests, holistic thinking imagines all of nature as an organism where all aspects are interdependent. In Chinese philosophy, nature consists of a plenum or Tao which is filled with interdependent substances like the five elements.  Wood, fire, earth, metal and water are constantly changing into each other in different proportions. This philosophy is embodied in the writings of Lao-Tze. The philosophy of nature in the West is mechanism where all the parts are interchangeable rather than interdependent. According to Democritus and Epicurus, nature is not a plenum. it is composed of atoms and the void. These atoms are discrete objects (atomism) and these objects are composed of particles or things.

Differences in language socialization

The differences between East Asian languages and Indo-European languages are so deep that they are embedded in how each learn language. Philosophically we can say that for East Asians generally, movement is more important than stasis. In the West, on the other hand, we start with things and then as a derivative try to explain movement. Nisbett points out that East Asian languages verbs are learned at a faster rate than nouns. It the West the opposite is true, nouns are learned faster. What do the nouns and verbs say? In East Asia, verbs are denoted by relationships. In the West nouns are denoted by categories. Lastly, there are differences even in the placements of nouns and verbs in a sentence. In East Asia, verbs come at the beginning and the end of sentence, with nouns in the middle. This indicates that first there is movement which temporarily thickens into a noun which then returns into more movement. In the West it is the opposite. First nouns, then verbs (predicate) and then objects. This follows a philosophy that says in the beginning there are things (nouns), there are verbs in the middle and then nouns (objects) at the end.

Polar vs dualistic opposites

The Tao in Chinese philosophy consists of two polar opposites, yin and yang and these opposites turn into each other creating new combinations of the five elements. These opposites depend on each other and cocreate with each other. In analytical thinking opposites are understood as being mutually exclusive, zero-sum game with choices such as “either/or”, as in Aristotle’s law of the excluded middle. When confronted with two apparently contradictory propositions Americans tended to polarize their beliefs. In the West there is typically a right and wrong and there will be a winner and loser. In holistic philosophy choice involves not choosing one or the other. Both are chosen in addition to other choices. Holistic philosophy strives for hostility reduction and compromise mediated by a third party.

Formal logic vs informal logic

Formal logic in the West is the study of the structure of an argument independently of its content. The basis of formal logic is to abstract qualities from context and connect these abstractions as if they had a life of their own. The syllogism:
– All women are mortal
– Sandy is a woman
– Sandy is mortal

It is correct from the point of view of formal logic. It doesn’t matter if we change Sandy’s name to Phyllis. It doesn’t even matter if we substitute immortal for mortal.

So:
– All women are immortal
– Phyllis is a woman
– Phyllis is immortal

This is still logically correct. It doesn’t matter that in real life woman are mortal. Nisbett points out that for the Chinese there is a whiteness of the house and the whiteness of the snow but not whiteness as an abstract, detachable concept that can be applied to almost anything. The Chinese were distrustful of decontextualization.

Nisbett writes that In China there were only two short-lived movements of little influence in the East that shared the spirit of logical inquiry that has always been common in the West. These are the logicians and the Mohists (Mo Tzu), both in the classical period of antiquity. Mo Tzu shared several logical concerns. They include the ideas of necessary and sufficient conditions, the principle of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Mo Tzu developed a rough version of cost-benefit analysis. However, there was never even among the logicians and Mohists a willingness to accept arguments that flew in the face of experience.

Holistic vs Analytical Relationships in Society

Cogs in the machine vs interdependent belonging

Earlier I said that analytical thinking treats parts in nature as particles or things. This carries over into how workers function in relationship to capitalism. Workers are treated as things, interchangeable parts. Unskilled workers are hired and fired with no sense of continuity or membership in an organization. They are cogs in a mechanistic machine. In Japan in the 1970s and early 1980s, even though it was a capitalist society, workers were still treated as interdependent parts of an organization. Every worker had a place and worker could have one job for their whole life. In speaking about the industrial revolution, Nisbitt points out:

Seeing the world of objects is linked to the industrial  Revolution. Assembly line—auto part atoms were put together by workers performing a repetitive set of actions over and over again (82)… {in the} late 18^th century, especially in the United States, they began to modularize the world of manufacture and commerce. From muskets to furniture they were broken down into the most standardized parts possible and the simplest replicable actions…. Time itself became a modular entity: three minutes for bolting on the carburetor; two and a half minutes for installing spark plugs…Starting around the late 19th century retail stores became modular chains. (83)

Collectivism vs individualism

One of the major divisions within cross-cultural psychology is that between collectivism vs individualism. As you might expect, holistic thinkers are collectivist. This means that the group comes first and decisions are based on the interests of the group, which is true from the micro to the macro level. Analytical thinkers are individualists. The individual is the center of attention and the group is seen as secondary or a necessary evil. This plays out when something happens to an individual. When an individualist has an unfortunate circumstance, their tendency is to imagine the personal motives of another person involved rather than the situation another person was in. This is called an “internal locus of control”. In social psychology Collectivist holists are more likely to examine the situation first. They will underestimate the power of individuals to change things. In part this is because they have an external locus of control.

In answer to the question tell me about yourself, Japanese schoolchildren are taught how to practice self-criticism both in order to improve their relations with others and to become more skilled in solving problems. In the West individuals answer the same question by referring to their personality traits, role categories and activities statically proclaiming, “I am what I am”. The proportion of self-references was more than three times higher for American children than for Chinese children.

In-group and out-group

In our initial description of the differences between collectivism and individualism we said that for collectivists the group comes first and for individualists the single person comes first. But this is only for the in-group. It says nothing about relationships with the out-group or strangers. As it turns out in East Asia the gap between in-group and out-group (strangers) is greater than in the West. In the West the relationship between individuals and their in-group is weaker, but their relationship to the out-group (strangers) is less. Part of this no doubt is that under capitalism, being civil to strangers is necessary for the exchange of commodities. In East Asia, which has either outright socialism or moderate capitalism, they are less likely to give strangers the time of day.

Rights vs obligations

Nisbett tells a story that an Asian friend is perplexed to hear in households in Yankeedom members of a family are always thanking each other rather than simply carrying out obligations. The basis of thanking someone is that there is no necessary interconnection between people that makes help a constitutional part of society. Instead, we volunteer to do something with the option to not help. This is the essence of individualism.

Nisbett says that for Westerners, once a contract has been agreed to it is binding regardless of circumstances that might make the arrangement problematic. To the Western mind, once a bargain is struck, it shouldn’t be modified.  For Easterners agreements are often regarded as tentatively agreed upon guides for the future. There is little or no conception of rights that are inherit in the individual. Furthermore, Nisbett points out:

The combative, rhetorical form is also absent from Asian law. More typically the disputants take their case to a middleman whose goal is animosity reduction. There is no attempt to derive a resolution to a legal conflict from any universal principle. The Americans were more likely to prefer adversarial adjudication with representation by lawyers. (75)

Holistic vs Analytical Relationships in the Sciences and the Arts

The Chinese used their experience to measure things. The Greeks abstracted from their experience and fixed abstract rules which were used as the basis for predicting and explaining the motion of these objects. As might be expected those who think analytically will disentangle relationships in order to extract abstract rules from them. The Greeks understood that it was necessary to categorize objects in order to be able to apply rules to them. Nisbett says that because the Chinese see relationships first their lack of interest in the categories prevented them from discovering laws that really were capable of explaining classes of events. In the case of the Greeks, most of Aristotle’s physical propositions were false, but Aristotle had testable propositions. Though the Chinese excelled in algebra and arithmetic they made little progress in geometry because proofs rely on formal logic.  While the Greeks excelled in geometry and had formal proofs they never developed the concept of zero which was required both for algebra and for an Arabic style place number system.

The arts

Interestingly but not surprisingly, Chinese paintings are dominated by landscape which dwarf human figures. Studies of Western paintings show human figures as three times as large. Furthermore, the Chinese paint the horizon lines 15% higher to call attention to the depth and allows more room for the objects. Analytical tradition of the West paint the horizon lines 15% lower. This reduces the range of the scene that is visible. Nisbett says the Chinese emphasized monophonic music which reflected their concern with unity. In the analytical West, polyphonic music was present where different instruments and different voices take different parts. Please see Table I for a comparison.

Table I

How Asians and Westerners Think Differently

Qualifications

We must be careful not to overstate generalities. In the case of the Far East, there were some atomistic and empirical traditions such as Mo Tzu that shared many of same interests as Western philosophers. Conversely in the West, while the atomism of Democritus and Epicurus were surely important, Western philosophy has a deep anti-atomist tradition stretching from Plato to Leibniz, Shelling and Hegel.

Within the Western tradition, Nisbett points out that the Southern European countries like Spain, and Italy plus Belgium and Germany are intermediate between the East Asian counties and the countries influenced by Protestant, Anglo-Saxon culture. Still more generally the European continent is more holistic and rationalist than are the empirical England or the United States. The big picture theories in politics and economics come from the continent including Marx, Weber, Durkheim and Comte. In psychology we have the big system philosophy of Freud and Piaget. It is hard to imagine behaviorism emerging in any place but the United States or England. When we turn to Western religions, we find the same split between the Anglo-American world of Protestants and the continental European tradition where Catholicism reigns.

Within Eastern traditions not all roads lead to China. While both the Chinese and Japanese stress order, it is a different kind of order. For the Chinese, order comes from the macro world of state on the one hand and the micro world of family relations on the other. This comes in the form of mother-son or father-daughter relations. For the Japanese the forces of order come from the meso-world of the peer group. The same pattern holds in school. For the Chinese, obedience to the teacher is primary, but for the Japanese control is managed by what classmates may think or say.

A huge difference between the Japanese and the Chinese is that Japan developed capitalism well over 100 years before the Chinese. But even in this case geography might have had something to do with it. Japan, like England, was an island where no large centralized system had room to develop. Even so, Japanese capitalism still retained a collective orientation. Loyalty to the corporation was much stronger among workers there than in either the United States or England. Finally, Nisbett points out that while in the macro and micro worlds the Chinese expect order, in the meso-world the Chinese have a more relaxed form of life. It is the Japanese who insist on a need for order in all parts of their lives. In that way they are similar to the Germans and Dutch.

Materialistic Explanations for East-West Differences

Geography and climate

Not just in China, but in all the great agricultural civilizations of the past there is a crucial climate, geography problem. First, there is inadequate rainfall, yet the presence of large bodies of water in the valleys. The problem for them is how to get the large bodies of water to their farms. In Greece and in Europe generally there is no such rainfall problem. European countries are surrounded by mountains leading to a change in climate as Jared Diamond pointed out in Guns, Germs and Steel.

Political consequences

China, along with Egypt, and India have ways to solve the problem of inadequate rainfall and large bodies of water by setting up irrigation systems. But China and India are very large countries and setting up local irrigation systems is too risky and they could fail too easily. Hence the development of a centralized agricultural state could solve their problems. However, the leaders of these centralized states soon recognized their position and they begin to expect more and more in return for performing this public service. The result is a centralized political system with a ruling class.

In Greece and generally in Europe there was no need for any centralized irrigation system because rainfall made it unnecessary. In addition, the high mountains between European states made any centralized political power over Europe next to impossible. The European continent has never completely fallen to an empire. Hence all political power was decentralized.

Means of subsistence

With a centralized irrigational system and rich river valleys, Chinese peasants settled down to do subsistence agriculture, including rice. The Greeks were not so fortunate. The Greek land was stony and dry which only lent itself to orchards growing olive trees. The Greeks made their living from herding, fishing and trade. They engaged in commercial agriculture producing olive oil for trade.

The subversiveness of trading

The activity of trading produces mutual effects in differentiating Greece from Chinese and other near Eastern civilizations. For one, it taught the merchants different languages and different systems of weights and measures opening them up to more trading. Second, living near the coast meant encountering many ethnic groups with different religions and politics. Third, trading also forced traders to haggle, going back and forth and arguing. This was a very powerful instrument in conducing not only economic affairs but political affairs. As is well known Greece developed an extraordinary decentralized political system in which debate and the teaching of rhetoric by the Sophists was a way of life. Farmers hired rhetoricians to help them win cases when their land was threatened to be taken over.

On the other hand, trade for China was not a necessity. They traded mostly in luxury goods. Surely traders were never given free reign by the emperor. This meant that China was a more closed civilization. Nisbett says that 95% of the Chinese population belongs to the same Han ethnic group. Nearly all of the country’s more than fifty minority ethnic groups are in the western part of the country. The Chinese were less exposed to other religions and political systems and when they were Chinese rulers saw them as inferior. Because there was no reason to learn how to haggle and be argumentative in marketing situations Chinese politics was far from the tradition of Greece debate.  Chinese civilization was under a centralized political rule that was from the top down. Argumentation was disapproved of because China did not have liberal political expectations. In addition, the Chinese kin relations, like the Japanese, had built into them the expectation people should be able to save face.

Implications for contemporary science

Nisbett makes a very interesting point about contemporary differences between Chinese and European traditions in science that are connected to what has been said so far. He writes that the Chinese are very good at following up and expanding what Western science has produced but they are not as good at making breakthroughs. Why could this be? Nisbett points out that most scientists they hit their peak contributing innovative scientific explanations in their 20s. But Chinese scientists have a tradition of deferring to elders. Therefore, at Chinese conferences young scientists are expected to defer to elders, even if these elders have nothing new to say. Seniority is more important than innovation. Competitive debate with clear winners and losers is understandably seen as in bad taste. However, in the West competitive debate has been going on for well over 2000 years. In addition, in the West the elderly are not revered, and are considered over the hill. The revering of the young in the West goes perfectly well with young scientists presenting findings that might contradict those of the elderly. Please see Table II for a summary of the ecological, political and economic explanations for the differences between holistic and analytical thinking.

Table II

Materialistic Explanations for Holistic vs Analytical Thinking

Criticisms of The Geography of Thought

The Geography of Thought is a very interesting and provocative book. Most of what I have to say about it are qualifications rather than direct disagreements. First of all, the book seems ahistorical. It presents the origin of two cultures, China and Greece, too much as destiny. It really does not account for the fact that China has a history which surely has some innovations since ancient China. So too Greece, let alone Europe, must have developed new innovations over the last two thousand years. In addition the book does not provide any explanation for how these historical innovations could have emerged using the ecological, political and economic explanations.

According to world-systems theory capitalism emerged in the West in the 16th century. This, of course, is a direct expression of analytical thinking. However, in the last of the 19th century Japanese capitalism developed and from the beginning of the 1980s capitalism also developed in China. We need an explanation for how this invasion of holistic thinking came about.  Lastly, the relationship between socialism in the 19th and 20th centuries needs to be made sense of in its relationship with holistic thinking in China. How is it similar and different from the values of ancient China?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Bruce Lerro.

On July 19, shortly after state media reported Trong’s death after 13 years in Vietnam’s top government job, former prisoner of conscience Pham Thanh Nghien posted a Facebook story titled “Why is NPT exempted from being judged right now and instead we must wait for history’s judgment?”

“No need to wait for history, Vietnamese people should have the right to judge him straight away,” wrote Nghien, who lives in exile in the U.S. with her family. A day earlier, she posted a commentary discussing President To Lam taking over the general secretary role if Trong died and recalling an incident in which Lam, then minister of public security, was photographed eating gold-coated steak at an upscale restaurant in London in 2021.

On July 22, she received a Facebook notification in both English and Vietnamese regarding the two posts.

“Your post is unavailable in Vietnam. [Because of] a legal request from the Vietnam Ministry of Information and Communications (MOIC), we have to restrict access to your post,” Facebook said.

Explaining the decision, the Meta subsidiary said that it had “evaluated legal requests before taking action upon legal requests or requests by governments” and “taken into consideration human rights impacts.”

Facebook suggested Nghien contact the Vietnamese Ministry of Information and Communications if she had any questions.

The former political prisoner said Facebook had blocked interactions, removed her stories, and even shut down her account many times over the years. She sometimes received company notifications about their action but this time, she said, Meta had not provided a concrete and clear explanation regarding the communication ministry’s intervention.

Nghien, who served four years in prison for protesting against China’s claim to islands in the South China Sea, accused Facebook, which used to be a platform where many Vietnamese raised dissenting voices, of trading human rights for profits. 

“Facebook has already surrendered,” she told Radio Free Asia.” They are pursuing profits and abandoning their commitment to ensure freedom of speech while doing business in Vietnam. It appears that they are cooperating or even compromising with the Communist Party of Vietnam in censoring Facebook accounts of political dissidents and posts with content disliked by the Vietnamese government.”

RFA emailed the MOIC to verify whether it had asked Facebook to block Nghien's articles in Vietnam but did not receive any responses at time of publication.

RFA also contacted Facebook to verify that it had restricted access to Nghien’s posts in response to Vietnamese government requests but did not receive an immediate response.

RELATED STORIES

Facebookers fined, warned about posting information about Nguyen Phu Trong

Vietnam jails Facebook user for 7 years for insulting Ho Chi Minh

Facebook user fined in Vietnam for posts about barefoot monk

Journalist Le Trung Khoa, who lives in Germany, said he received similar notifications from Facebook. The owner of the Thoibao.de website, which publishes articles critical of the Vietnamese government, said on Tuesday Facebook notified him that his stories about Nguyen Phu Trong were not available in Vietnam.

“This morning, I received notification from Facebook that four of my stories were not available in Vietnam upon MOIC request,” he said. “This is new, as Facebook used to quietly block posts in Vietnam without any notifications for the past year.”

California-based Facebook said in a transparency report, that from July 2023 to December 2023, it restricted access in Vietnam to more than 2,300 items in response to reports from the MOIC, the Authority of Broadcasting and Electronic Information and the Ministry of Public Security for allegedly violating local laws on proving information that distorts, slanders, or insults the reputation of an organization or the honor and dignity of an individual under Article 5.1 (D) Decree no. 72/2013/ND-CP. The remaining items were restricted for alleged violations of other Vietnamese laws.

Facebookers fined, even beaten

Vietnamese authorities also cracked down on domestic dissenters who turned to social media to criticize what Trong had done or failed to do during his tenure.

State media cited Ho Chi Minh City police as saying that after Trong’s death, a number of individuals used social media to post information that was “fabricated, distorting, attacking, and undermining the great national unity, lowering the prestige of the Party and State.”

State media also reported that on July 20 and 21 Ho Chi Minh City police had fined three people VND7.5 million (US$300) each for posting material about Trong, ordering them to pledge not to repeat the violations.

“Hanoi is trying to frame Trong as a ‘new Uncle Ho’ to repolish old-fashioned values of the Communist Party,” said a Hanoi-based political commentator who requested anonymity, referring to revolutionary leader and former president Ho Chi Minh. 

“The efforts to clarify Trong’s [legacy] and criticize the Communist Party now become a felony and are heavily suppressed."

An activist from Ho Chi Minh City, who also wanted to remain anonymous for security reasons, told RFA that the police had summoned him to discuss a post on his Facebook page in which he expressed his disagreement with a government “order” asking the whole country to mourn Trong.

He said police beat him and forced him to acknowledge that the Facebook account and post were his. However, he refused to do so, or to sign any documents. He said that before freeing him, police told him that they would summon him again in the course of their work on the case..

Translated by Anna Vu for RFA Vietnamese. Edited by Mike Firn.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Vietnamese.

Last November, we reported on an incisive and courageous email that had been sent on 24 October 2023 to Tim Davie, the BBC’s Director General, by Rami Ruhayem, a Beirut-based BBC correspondent. Basing his arguments on considerable evidence and rational analysis, Ruhayem was highly critical of the BBC’s pro-Israel coverage of Gaza since the Hamas attacks on 7 October 2023.

A former journalist for the Associated Press, Ruhayem has worked as a journalist and producer for BBC Arabic and the BBC World Service since 2005. He wrote:

‘Words like “massacre”, “slaughter”, and “atrocities” are being used—prominently—in reference to actions by Hamas, but hardly, if at all, in reference to actions by Israel.

‘When the BBC uses such language selectively, with the standard of selection being the identity of the perpetrators/victims, the BBC is making a statement—albeit implicit. It implies that the lives of one group of people are more valuable than the lives of another.’ (Our emphasis)

As we pointed out at the time, this is extremely serious. The state-mandated BBC News organisation is essentially channelling Israeli propaganda that excuses its war crimes while demonising Israel’s victims, the Palestinian people.

Similar points were made in a 2,300-word letter sent in November 2023 to Al Jazeera by eight BBC journalists who, fearing reprisals, requested anonymity. They accused the BBC of:

‘failing to tell the story of the Israel-Palestine conflict accurately, investing greater effort in humanising Israeli victims compared with Palestinians, and omitting key historical context in coverage.’

They said that the BBC is guilty of a ‘double standard in how civilians are seen’, given that it is ‘unflinching’ in its reporting of alleged Russian war crimes in Ukraine.

They noted that the BBC’s interviewers regularly asked Palestinians whether they ‘condemn Hamas’, while interviewees putting the Israeli perspective were not asked the same about Israel’s actions, ‘however high the civilian death toll in Gaza.’

A notorious example was a BBC Newsnight interview on 9 October 2023 with Husam Zomlot, the head of the Palestinian Mission to the United Kingdom, who had lost several members of his family during the early days of Israel’s bombing campaign.

He told presenter Kirsty Wark of his emotional pain. He listed the relatives who had been killed, describing them as ‘sitting ducks for the Israeli war machine’.

Wark replied:

‘I am sorry for your own personal loss. I mean, can I just be clear though, you cannot condone the killing of civilians in Israel, can you? Nor the killing of families?’

No doubt taken aback, Zomlot, who is not a Hamas representative, said:

‘No we don’t condone, no we don’t.’

Wark recently bid farewell to Newsnight after thirty years and was predictably garlanded with praise from across the state-friendly establishment of ‘mainstream’ politics and news.

Currently, the reported death toll in Gaza is approaching 39,000. But this may be a considerable underestimate, with over 10,000 estimated to be buried under the debris caused by Israeli bombing. A recent study in the prestigious Lancet medical journal points out that there will be many additional indirect deaths caused by destroyed health-care infrastructure; severe shortages of food, water, and shelter; the population’s inability to flee to safe places; and the loss of funding to Unrwa, the UN’s relief agency for Palestinians. The Lancet authors estimate that the total death toll in Gaza may even exceed 186,000. As a result, reports TRT World, Gaza ‘is turning into an open air cemetery’.

Israel’s attempt to eradicate Unrwa, and the withdrawal of many Western countries’ financial support for the agency on the basis of non-evidenced Israeli claims that Unrwa staff took part in the 7 October attacks, is a major but under-reported scandal. Israel has hit nearly 70 per cent of Unrwa schools in Gaza since 7 October. Over 95 per cent of these schools were being used as shelters when bombed. 539 people sheltering in Unrwa facilities have been killed. The agency said:

‘Nowhere is safe. The blatant disregard for UN premises and humanitarian law must stop.’

On 1 May 2024, Ruhayem sent a follow-up email to the BBC Director General, which was also sent to several departments of BBC News. This email was leaked to the right-wing UK press and reported the following day (see below). It has now been published in full on the Jadaliyya website, hosted by the Arab Studies Institute, a non-profit organisation.

The essential conclusion about BBC News coverage of Gaza, wrote Ruhayem, is that of:

‘a collapse in the application of basic standards and norms of journalism that seems aligned with Israel’s propaganda strategy.’ [Our emphasis]

Moreover, Ruhayem has revealed that BBC management has failed to respond to ‘a mass of evidence-based critique of coverage’ from members of staff. The implication is that there may well be considerable disquiet among many BBC journalists that the broadcaster has been a largely uncritical conduit for Israeli propaganda.

Although undoubtedly made more stark over the past nine months, this basic feature of BBC News is nothing new. Over many years, we have pointed out the propaganda function of the BBC in books and media alerts, incorporating valuable work by numerous analysts including the Glasgow Media Group. A major figure here was Greg Philo who died recently and whose books with Mike Berry (‘Bad News From Israel’ and ‘More Bad News From Israel’) are vital reading.

‘A Dizzying Pace’

In his 1 May email to the Director General of the BBC, Ruhayem begins by saying that, since his previous email of 24 October 2023, he has examined more thoroughly the ‘editorial failings’ that have characterized the BBC’s coverage of Gaza, and questions whether management is serious about addressing those failings. The evidence of a collapse in BBC journalism standards, in line with Israel’s propaganda strategy, ‘has been pouring in for months at a dizzying pace’.

Ruhayem collated some of this evidence of pro-Israel bias in two papers (see below) which he sent to management’s feedback email in February. Other BBC colleagues have documented similar problems and presented them in various ways to senior levels within the BBC. What has been the response?

Ruhayem wrote:

‘Management has recognized that many of us have deep misgivings about coverage, and that these should be heard. That seems to be the implicit logic behind the “Listening Sessions” and the feedback emails. But irrespective of what the intention(s) behind this process may have been, it has amounted to little more than a short-lived venting exercise.’

He added:

‘I have participated keenly in every avenue proposed by management that I managed to involve myself in, and more. Silence has been a common response to a mass of evidence-based critique of coverage. Nothing I sent to “feedback emails” has received a response, except once to say that maybe someone will respond, maybe not. Others have had similar experiences.’

The BBC correspondent then noted that:

‘The exceptions to such silence have usually been worse. In one email chain, a senior figure did not answer a simple question: do BBC presenters not have a duty to interject when serious, unverified claims are made on air? Another, when asked about the reasoning behind editorial decisions, saw fit to inform a group of staff that “editors edit”, seemingly in the belief that this should be enough to brush off everything we’d said.’

Anyone who has ever submitted a complaint to the BBC about its coverage, whatever the topic, will not be surprised by such dismissive treatment. We have lauded all those brave people who enter the labyrinthine den of the BBC ‘complaints system’. This is a soul-crushing experience that even the former BBC chairman Lord Grade once described as ‘grisly’ due to a system that is ‘absolutely hopeless’. So, what hope for us mere mortals? Anyone who makes the attempt is surely forever disabused of the notion that BBC News engages with, or indeed serves, the public in any meaningful way. Long-time readers may recall that Helen Boaden, then head of BBC News, once joked that she evaded public complaints that were sent to her on email:

‘Oh, I just changed my email address.’

It is noteworthy that the Beirut-based BBC correspondent and his colleagues expressing serious concerns about BBC coverage have also been rebuffed. It is perhaps perversely refreshing to hear that BBC management treats its own journalists with similar disdain as it does viewers and listeners.

Ruhayem told Davie that senior BBC managers would occasionally offer one or two links as counterexamples to serious bias in its coverage:

‘The implicit logic would appear to be that a collapse in standards is ok if there are exceptions. Faced with specific examples, senior managers might say it’s inappropriate to comment on individual stories. Faced with analysis that goes back in time to examine content, they might ask for “specific” examples. One of them once referred a group of us back to the unresponsive “News board” feedback email. Another told me they wouldn’t address issues that had already been raised to the News board.’

Again, we note the Kafka-esque contortions performed by BBC management to avoid proper accountability even to their own journalists.

One senior manager replied to a group of staff that all the examples of serious pro-Israel bias provided by Ruhayem and colleagues are the result of ‘decisions taken by editors’. This risible response was seemingly intended to preclude further argument.

Of course, as Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky observed in Manufacturing Consent, senior editors and managers in ‘mainstream’ news outlets – which, as we have repeatedly demonstrated, very much includes BBC News – have been selected for conformity to state-corporate ideology. Chomsky made the point succinctly to a young, befuddled, pre-BBC Andrew Marr in a now-famous clip:

‘I’m not saying you’re self-censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you say. But what I’m saying is if you believed something different you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.’

In his email to Davie, Ruhayem asked whether BBC editors:

‘gave instructions to drop requirements for applying scrutiny regarding the most serious, unverified claims that were being repeated by propagandists for Israel? Would they be able to explain why, and offer a defence of such decisions based on BBC values and standards? If that is not the case, would the editors be able to explain why – upon observing these standards being repeatedly cast aside – they did not intervene? In any case, would upper management clarify what it thinks its own duties are in such a situation?’

Media Lens analysis of BBC News since we began in 2001 reveals that ‘BBC values and standards’ is a doctrinal phrase that has little basis in reality. ‘Impartiality’, ‘objectivity’, ‘balance’ and ‘accuracy’ are largely jettisoned when it comes to the brutal truths behind state and corporate power. The myth that ‘we’ are ‘the good guys’ in world affairs must be maintained at all times.

Ruhayem goes on to say that the latest trend among BBC editors being challenged by their own journalists about biased Gaza coverage is to ask for ‘recent’ examples.

‘This is usually in response to questions about the first weeks/months of coverage, during which Israeli claims about the events of October 7 were given an open, uncritical platform by the BBC. This ignores the fact that – in many cases – examples of this kind of thing were flagged as they were happening but not addressed at the time, or at any time. It also ignores the lasting harm such content is likely to have contributed to causing. In any case, many of us have offered – and continue to offer – feedback that covers all these categories; individual examples, systemic issues, recent examples, not-so-recent examples, without receiving a meaningful response in any instance, at any time, whatever the channel we use, and usually without receiving any response at all.’ [Our emphasis]

These considered revelations are damning. Senior BBC editors and management are simply not willing and/or capable of engaging with serious scrutiny of the broadcaster’s coverage, even when challenged by their own journalists. At this point, we have to recognise the courage and moral integrity of Rami Ruhayem in being prepared to challenge senior BBC figures; no doubt, with considerable animosity from his line management and some colleagues, resulting in personal discomfort and, indeed, significant risk to his continued BBC employment.

When his 1 May email was leaked to the right-wing press, the reports downplayed the seriousness and extent of his collated evidence and emphasised the ‘outrage’ of ‘Jewish staff’ with the inevitable and insidious deployment of the ‘antisemitism’ card: The Times (‘BBC correspondent questions “facts” of October 7 attacks on Israel’), The Telegraph (‘BBC may be “complicit in Israeli war propaganda” claims Beirut correspondent’), and The Daily Mail (‘BBC correspondent says the broadcaster has a pro-Israel bias and should be questioning the “facts” of October 7 – sparking fury among Jewish colleagues’). No other newspapers reported the leak, including the Guardian and the Independent.

In short, Ruhayem is adamant that the problems of BBC coverage of Gaza are ‘evident, unmistakable, and ongoing.’

‘Israel’s War on Context’

So, what are the specifics of Ruhayem’s charges against BBC coverage? The first of two papers that he presented in February 2024 to Davie and senior BBC News staff concerned what the Beirut-based correspondent termed, ‘Israel’s war on context’.

This was elucidated by Ruhayem’s analysis of 22 interviews with Israeli guests – mostly current officials, a few former officials, army officers, politicians, and a ‘human rights activist’. All the interviews were conducted between October 10 and October 25, 2023 on the BBC News channel. They do not necessarily cover every interview with Israeli guests on the channel during that period.

His main findings were:

1. There was no challenge about different manifestations of what appears to be the Israeli government’s drive to destroy any chance of Palestinian self-determination, about Israeli officials in positions of power who had incited extreme violence against Palestinians prior to October 7, or what all of that might suggest about the motivations driving Israel’s conduct of the war.
2. Ruhayem found one single reference by a BBC presenter to one of the statements mentioned above [i.e. the statements summarised in point 1]. It was the only such mention in 22 interviews that took place over a period of 15 days. In that exception to the rule, the issue was framed in terms of the potential legal and reputational harm to Israel.  In other interviews, Israeli guests repeated claims that are at odds with such statements from top Israeli leaders, without the statements being mentioned by presenters.
3. The Dahiya Doctrine is not mentioned in any of these interviews.

The so-called Dahiya Doctrine is essentially an Israeli military doctrine that overrides any sense of ‘proportionality’ in Israel’s attacks on Palestinians. It was articulated in the wake of the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, and put into practice later in Gaza. Gadi Eisenkot, at the time head of the Israeli Northern Command and currently a member of the Israeli war cabinet, explained:

‘What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. […] We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases […]. This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.’

Recall that, after the attack by Hamas on 7 October, Israeli leaders, officials and army personnel made boastful statements about how brutally Israel intended to conduct its attacks on Gaza. Defence minister Yoav Gallant said that ‘we are fighting human animals and we act accordingly’ and that he ‘removed every restriction’ on the army. An Israeli army spokesman said that the ‘emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy’.

The above three findings are, Ruhayem wrote, part of:

‘a growing body of evidence indicating that the BBC may have been withholding vital information from the public, contributing to incitement against Palestinians, and spreading and reinforcing Israeli war propaganda.’

He added:

‘There appears to be a ceiling on questioning Israeli officials and propagandists, expressed in the consistent failure of presenters to use crucial evidence to challenge Israel’s west-facing propaganda. Lines of challenge which are obvious to pursue and which would cast doubt on Israel’s west-facing messaging are conspicuously and consistently not pursued by BBC presenters.’

Ruhayem continued:

‘Unfettered by proper challenge, propagandists for Israel can then paint a picture of a peaceful state that has the misfortune of existing alongside pure evil, and present it as the backdrop to the unfolding horror in Gaza.’ [Our emphasis]

BBC coverage is thus fundamentally compromised, noted Ruhayem:

‘The main assumption is that Israel is trying to avoid harming Palestinian civilians as it conducts a war of self-defence. Thus, discussions between BBC presenters and Israeli propagandists are centred on the question of whether Israel is trying hard enough, or acting intelligently enough, to achieve its goal of “crushing” and “dismantling” Hamas without harming civilians – or its reputation. This framework is cemented because evidence to the contrary is erased.’

Moreover, BBC management have made:

‘little meaningful effort to examine our coverage with urgency and transparency in pursuit of evidence-based conclusions.’

Ruhayem’s second paper sent to senior BBC News staff on 25 February 2024 examined BBC content relating to the events of 7 October. Considerable BBC coverage was devoted to claims of alleged horrific acts carried out by Hamas attackers. These claims included the alleged beheading of babies and the blood-curdling story of a pregnant woman who had her belly cut open, the baby removed from her stomach and beheaded in front of her before she herself was beheaded.

Ruhayem noted that:

‘Claims and testimony that encourage the most extreme portrayals of Israel’s enemies are allowed to be repeated without challenge – regardless of whether or not they’re backed by evidence. Claims and testimony that raise the possibility of Israeli disinformation around the events of October 7 are ignored – despite the evidence.’

The purpose of Israeli’s repetition of horrific stories, platformed by the BBC and other news media, was clear: to drill into the public ‘the idea that any action Israel sees fit to take is justified’.

Ruhayem continued:

‘By seeking to place Hamas on the most extreme end of the spectrum of evil, propagandists for Israel seemed to believe they’d be able to defend whatever Israel chose to do – and set the stage for more. The seeming suspension of basic standards of scrutiny on the BBC most likely encouraged that strategy.’

He added:

‘Such coverage is likely to have aided Israel’s efforts to ensure political support in the West for its actions, and to intimidate those opposed to them and portray them as supporters of the most hideous atrocities.’

In summary, the evidence in both papers presented to senior BBC managers and editors by Ruhayem:

‘indicates a collapse in editorial standards and values […] which complements, reinforces, and otherwise serves Israel’s messaging. BBC output appears to have aided two pillars of Israeli propaganda: the obliteration of vital context, and incitement against Palestinians.’

It has, of course, been clear to careful observers since 7 October that BBC News has been, and remains, complicit in Israel’s attempted genocide of the Palestinian people. The particularly noteworthy aspects of the BBC correspondent’s leaked emails is that there is likely significant concern, even dissent, among BBC News staff, and that BBC management refuses to engage in any meaningful way with staff expressing such views.

Since the full publication of the leaked emails last week by the Jadaliyya website (Part 1 and Part 2), there has been zero coverage in the UK national press, according to our media database searches. The silence sums up the insidious censorship by omission that characterises ‘mainstream’ media when it comes to uncomfortable truths.

As a closing example of the BBC’s ‘impartiality’, consider the headline of a BBC News online story last week:

‘The lonely death of Gaza man with Down’s syndrome’

The article, by BBC journalist Fergal Keane, only revealed in the 16th paragraph that Israeli soldiers had set a combat dog on 24-year-old Muhammad Bhar, leaving him to bleed to death. His decomposed body was found a week later by his family who had been ordered to leave their home while Muhammad was locked in a room inside with Israeli soldiers. Muhammad’s brother Jibril said the soldiers likely tried to stop the bleeding, but then left him ‘without stitches or care’.

After a tsunami of online outrage, the BBC updated its headline to:

‘Gaza man with Down’s syndrome attacked by IDF dog and left to die, mother tells BBC’

Even this headline blunted the horrible truth. Historian and author Assal Rad, who regularly provides more accurate headlines to ‘mainstream’ news stories on Gaza, observed of the updated headline:

‘This was one of the worst stories I’ve heard, and this is how the BBC covers it’

She suggested a more accurate version:

‘Israeli soldiers killed a Palestinian man with Down’s syndrome after setting a dog on him and leaving him to die’

This is yet another example of how the BBC routinely sanitises Israeli crimes and helps to ‘normalise the unthinkable’, to use the phrase deployed by the late Edward Herman.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Media Lens.

At one point early in this war, the US Army feared that guerrilla fighters were disguising themselves as civilian peasants, and opened fire on them. “Fire on everything, kill ’em all”, one US Army veteran says they were told. “Over the course of a three-day barrage of gunfire and air strafing, hundreds of… civilians were killed,” one account reads. “Survivors recall a stream under the bridge running red with blood and 7th Cavalry veterans recall the near constant screams of women and children.” The US Army stonewalled, and journalists were pressured not to report the full story if at all.

The two paragraphs above are apt descriptions of the Vietnam War and the 1968 My Lai Massacre respectively. Except they are neither descriptions of the Vietnam War nor of My Lai, but instead of the Korean War and the No Gun Ri Massacre carried out by American troops in South Korea in late July 1950.

As a history educator, I’m always surprised at how my students–juniors and seniors in the Los Angeles Unified School District–know almost nothing about the Korean War. A few boys recognize it from their Call of Duty video games, a few others might have heard of the North Korean dictatorship’s bombastic threats, but of the Korean War itself, which ended 71 years ago this week, they know next to nothing.

Part of the problem is the textbooks we are given to use. Neither our US History book, the AP US History book, nor the World History book provide any substantive background to the war. We’re only told, as the regular US History textbook tells us, that “North Korean forces swept across the 38th parallel in a surprise attack on South Korea.” This is distortion by omission.

During WWII, the US and the Soviet Union agreed that, upon Japan’s surrender, Korea, which had been a Japanese colony since 1910, would be divided at the 38th parallel into a Northern, pro-Soviet sector and a Southern, pro-American sector.

The US installed Korean exile Syngman Rhee, who had lived in the US from 1912 to 1945, as the leader of South Korea. Rhee’s government and police force, and almost all leaders of South Korea’s Army, had served the colonial Japanese regime.

The Soviets installed the Korean communists into power, led by Kim Il Sung, who fought a guerrilla war against fascist Japan’s colonial occupation of Korea. The communists had credibility and support because of their long struggle to win Korea’s independence from Japan.

The US History textbook tells us that two Koreas then developed—“one communist and one democratic.” Actually, the “democratic” Rhee regime was brutal, authoritarian, corrupt, unpopular, and widely seen as an artificial creation of the US.

Rhee perpetrated horrific massacres of pro-Communist South Koreans, including the Jeju Massacre (1948-1949), in which up to 30,000 Koreans were killed, and the murder of 100,000 to 200,000 suspected Korean communists in the Bodo League massacre. For years, South Korea falsely claimed this crime was committed by North Korea.

Cumings, author of The Korean War: a History, refers to the US-backed regime’s “atrocious massacres…our ostensibly democratic ally was the worst offender, contrary to the American image of the North Koreans as fiendish terrorists.”

The megalomaniacal Rhee on numerous occasions proclaimed his determination to conquer the communist North. Ignoring American warnings not to provoke a war, Rhee foolishly launched military raids across the border, leading to the deaths of 8,000 South Korean soldiers and thousands of North Korean fighters. At the same time, North Korean-backed communist guerrillas launched guerrilla attacks in South Korea.

With both sides threatening to unify the country by force, the North invaded on June 25, 1950.

Even though the US-Soviet division of Korea gave the South twice the population of the North, the North quickly overran the South. As historian James Stokesbury explains, the masses of conscript South Korean soldiers had little loyalty to the Rhee regime, and soon retreated or defected en masse to the North.

Two days after the invasion, Rhee’s regime abandoned the capital, Seoul, detonating the Hangang Bridge over the Han River in an effort to slow down the North Korean advance. Thousands of refugees were crossing the bridge at the time, leading to hundreds of deaths.

After General Douglas MacArthur’s brilliant landing at Inchon, United Nations forces–90% of whom were American–pushed north towards the Chinese border, spurring China to enter the war. After major Chinese advances, the war ended in a stalemate.

Ignored in our textbooks are the horrific results of the US air war. Air Force General Curtis LeMay, head of the US Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, explained, “[W]e killed off…20 percent of the population…We…burned down every town in North Korea.”

Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk recalled “we were bombing every brick that was standing on top of another, everything that moved.”

In August 1951, war correspondent Tibor Meráy saw “complete devastation between the Yalu River and the capital…[there were] no more cities in North Korea.”

According to the Asia-Pacific Journal:

By the fall of 1952, there were no effective targets left for US planes to hit. Every significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had already been bombed. In the spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the North Korean rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more food aid to the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands of acres of farmland, inundating whole towns and laying waste to the essential food source for millions of North Koreans.

U.S. planes dropped more bombs on the Korean peninsula— 635,000 tons — and more napalm — 32,557 tons — than against Japan during World War II. Yet, incredibly, the word “bomb” does not appear once in the US History textbook’s section on the Korean War.

Cumings says the US “carpet-bombed the north for three years with next to no concern for civilian casualties.”

Nor is there any mention of napalm in our texts. Then-British Prime Minister Winston Churchill condemned the US’ widespread use of napalm as being “very cruel,” saying the US was “tortur[ing] great masses of people” by “splashing it all over the civilian population.” He explained, “Napalm ought not to be used in the way it is being done by the American Forces.”

Nor do our texts mention No Gun Ri or other massacres perpetrated by the American forces. Former Associated Press international correspondent Charles Hanley, author of The Bridge at No Gun Ri: A Hidden Nightmare from the Korean War, explains:

[T]he story of No Gun Ri was shocking when it emerged in 1999, but within the following decade it became clear that events like this were quite commonplace during the Korean War, and it is in some ways what war is all about.

The Associated Press explains that revelations about No Gun Ri “led to an outpouring of other accounts of alleged mass killings of southern civilians by the U.S. military in 1950-51, particularly air attacks. A South Korean investigative commission counted more than 200 cases on its docket by 2008, but the commission was disbanded by a new conservative government in 2010 before it could confirm more than a handful.”

The US History textbook spends 458 words on the conflict between President Truman and General MacArthur and tells us the war cost the US $67 billion and 54,000 killed (actually 36,574). Students are then asked to consider “whether fighting the Korean War was worthwhile” in light of “the loss of American lives” and “fear of communism.” Not once is there mention of the three million Koreans killed, mostly civilians, nor of the 600,000 Chinese killed.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Glenn Sacks.

At one point early in this war, the US Army feared that guerrilla fighters were disguising themselves as civilian peasants, and opened fire on them. “Fire on everything, kill ’em all”, one US Army veteran says they were told. “Over the course of a three-day barrage of gunfire and air strafing, hundreds of… civilians were killed,” one account reads. “Survivors recall a stream under the bridge running red with blood and 7th Cavalry veterans recall the near constant screams of women and children.” The US Army stonewalled, and journalists were pressured not to report the full story if at all.

The two paragraphs above are apt descriptions of the Vietnam War and the 1968 My Lai Massacre respectively. Except they are neither descriptions of the Vietnam War nor of My Lai, but instead of the Korean War and the No Gun Ri Massacre carried out by American troops in South Korea in late July 1950.

As a history educator, I’m always surprised at how my students–juniors and seniors in the Los Angeles Unified School District–know almost nothing about the Korean War. A few boys recognize it from their Call of Duty video games, a few others might have heard of the North Korean dictatorship’s bombastic threats, but of the Korean War itself, which ended 71 years ago this week, they know next to nothing.

Part of the problem is the textbooks we are given to use. Neither our US History book, the AP US History book, nor the World History book provide any substantive background to the war. We’re only told, as the regular US History textbook tells us, that “North Korean forces swept across the 38th parallel in a surprise attack on South Korea.” This is distortion by omission.

During WWII, the US and the Soviet Union agreed that, upon Japan’s surrender, Korea, which had been a Japanese colony since 1910, would be divided at the 38th parallel into a Northern, pro-Soviet sector and a Southern, pro-American sector.

The US installed Korean exile Syngman Rhee, who had lived in the US from 1912 to 1945, as the leader of South Korea. Rhee’s government and police force, and almost all leaders of South Korea’s Army, had served the colonial Japanese regime.

The Soviets installed the Korean communists into power, led by Kim Il Sung, who fought a guerrilla war against fascist Japan’s colonial occupation of Korea. The communists had credibility and support because of their long struggle to win Korea’s independence from Japan.

The US History textbook tells us that two Koreas then developed—“one communist and one democratic.” Actually, the “democratic” Rhee regime was brutal, authoritarian, corrupt, unpopular, and widely seen as an artificial creation of the US.

Rhee perpetrated horrific massacres of pro-Communist South Koreans, including the Jeju Massacre (1948-1949), in which up to 30,000 Koreans were killed, and the murder of 100,000 to 200,000 suspected Korean communists in the Bodo League massacre. For years, South Korea falsely claimed this crime was committed by North Korea.

Cumings, author of The Korean War: a History, refers to the US-backed regime’s “atrocious massacres…our ostensibly democratic ally was the worst offender, contrary to the American image of the North Koreans as fiendish terrorists.”

The megalomaniacal Rhee on numerous occasions proclaimed his determination to conquer the communist North. Ignoring American warnings not to provoke a war, Rhee foolishly launched military raids across the border, leading to the deaths of 8,000 South Korean soldiers and thousands of North Korean fighters. At the same time, North Korean-backed communist guerrillas launched guerrilla attacks in South Korea.

With both sides threatening to unify the country by force, the North invaded on June 25, 1950.

Even though the US-Soviet division of Korea gave the South twice the population of the North, the North quickly overran the South. As historian James Stokesbury explains, the masses of conscript South Korean soldiers had little loyalty to the Rhee regime, and soon retreated or defected en masse to the North.

Two days after the invasion, Rhee’s regime abandoned the capital, Seoul, detonating the Hangang Bridge over the Han River in an effort to slow down the North Korean advance. Thousands of refugees were crossing the bridge at the time, leading to hundreds of deaths.

After General Douglas MacArthur’s brilliant landing at Inchon, United Nations forces–90% of whom were American–pushed north towards the Chinese border, spurring China to enter the war. After major Chinese advances, the war ended in a stalemate.

Ignored in our textbooks are the horrific results of the US air war. Air Force General Curtis LeMay, head of the US Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, explained, “[W]e killed off…20 percent of the population…We…burned down every town in North Korea.”

Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk recalled “we were bombing every brick that was standing on top of another, everything that moved.”

In August 1951, war correspondent Tibor Meráy saw “complete devastation between the Yalu River and the capital…[there were] no more cities in North Korea.”

According to the Asia-Pacific Journal: