In its current iteration, it is inspired by the Israeli “Iron Dome” multilayered defensive shield, a matter that raised an immediate problem, given the trademark ownership of the name by the Israeli firm Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. Given the current administration’s obsession with all things golden, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has dubbed this revived endeavour “Golden Dome for America”. The renaming was noted in a February 24 amendment to request for information from industry. Much sniggering is surely in order at, not only the name itself, but the stumbling.

Reagan, even as he began suffering amnesiac decline, believed that the United States could be protected by a shield against any attack by Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles. The technology intended for that endeavour, much of it requiring a space component, was thin on research and non-existent in development. The envisaged use of laser weapons from space and terrestrial components drew much derision: the President had evidently been too engrossed by the Star Wars films of George Lucas.

The source for this latest initiative (“deploying and maintaining a next-generation missile defense shield”) is an executive order signed on January 27 titled “The Iron Dome for America”. (That was before the metallurgical change of name.) The order asserts from the outset that “The threat of attack by ballistic, hypersonic and cruise missiles and other advanced aerial attacks remains the most catastrophic threat facing the United States.” It acknowledges Reagan’s SDI but strikes a note of disappointment at its cancellation “before its goal could be realized.” Progress on such a system since the US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 had been confined to “limited homeland defense” efforts that “remained only to stay ahead of rogue-nation threats and accidental or unauthorized missile launches.”

The Secretary of Defense is also directed, within 60 days, to submit to Trump “a reference architecture, capabilities-based requirements, and an implementation plan for the next-generation missile defense shield.” Such a shield would defend the US from “ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles and the other next-generation attacks from peer, near-peer and rogue adversaries.” Among some of the plans are the accelerated deployment of a hypersonic and ballistic tracking space sensor layer; development and deployment of proliferated space-based interceptors and the development and deployment of capabilities that will neutralise missile assaults “prior to launch and in the boost phase”.

The original SDI was heavy on the intended development and use of energy weapons, lasers being foremost among them. But even after four decades, US technological prowess remains unable to deploy such weapons of sufficient power and accuracy to eliminate drones or missiles. The Israelis claim to have overcome this problem with their Iron Beam high energy laser weapon system, which should see deployment later this year. For that reason, Lockheed Martin has partnered with Israeli firm Rafael to bring that technology into the US arsenal.

To date, Steven J. Morani, currently discharging duties as undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, has given little away about the herculean labours that have been set. “Consistent with protecting the homeland and per President Trump’s [executive order],” he told the McAleese Defense Programs Conference in Washington earlier this month, “we’re working with the industrial base and [through] supply chain challenges associated with standing up the Golden Dome.” He admitted that this was “like the monster systems engineering problem” made even more difficult by being “the monster integration problem”.

The list of demerits to Golden Dome are many, and Morani alludes to them. For one, the Israeli Iron Dome operates across much smaller territory, not a continent. The sheer scale of any defence shield to protect such a vast swathe of land would be, not merely from a practical point but a budgetary one, absurd. A space-based interceptor system, a point that echoes Reagan’s Star Wars fantasy, would require thousands of units to successfully intercept one hefty ballistic missile. Todd Harrison of the American Enterprise Institute has offered a calculation: a system of 1,900 satellites would cost somewhere between US$11 and US$27 billion to develop, build and launch.

A study for Defence and Peace Economics published this year goes further. The authors argue that, even if the US had appropriate ballistic missile defence technology and a sufficient number of interceptors to be distributed in a two-layer defence with an efficiency return of 90%, 8 times more would have to be spent than the attacker for a bill between US$60 and US$500 billion. If it was assumed that individual interceptor effectiveness was a mere 50%, and the system could not discriminate against decoys, the cost would be 70 times more, with a staggering bill of US$430 billion to US$5.3 trillion.

The most telling flaw in Golden Dome is one long identified, certainly by the more sober members of the establishment, in the annals of defence. “The fundamental problem with any plan for a national missile defense system against nuclear attack,” writes Xiaodon Liang in an Arms Control Association issues brief, “is that cost-exchange ratios favor the offense and US adversaries can always choose to build up or diversify their strategic forces to overwhelm a potential shield.” As Liang goes on to remark, the missile shield fantasy defies a cardinal rule of strategic competition: “the enemy always gets a vote.”

Monster system; monstrous integration issues. Confusion with the name and trademark problems. Strategically misguided, even foolish. Golden Dome, it would seem, is already being steadied for a swallow dive.

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

The search for an energy alternative to fossil fuels has renewed interest in nuclear power production across the globe. Despite nuclear boosters’ promotion of the energy source, Tim Judson of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service calls nuclear power an “elaborate greenwashing scheme.” Nuclear is “not carbon-free,” says Diné organizer Leona Morgan, who highlights the fuel costs and environmental contamination — particularly within and around Indigenous communities in the southwest United States — of the uranium mining required to produce nuclear power. Because the carbon costs before and after nuclear generation are not factored into energy calculations, says Morgan, “it’s really not going to solve the energy crisis.”

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

Charles Reitz, widely recognized as a scholar of Herbert Marcuse, has brought to life his ideology for a prosperous healthy society, proposing that “nature is an ally” in his book The Revolutionary Ecological Legacy of Herbert Marcuse, 284 pgs. Daraja Press, 2023.

Today, it can be argued that a byzantine world of discordant parties; i.e., (1) global ultra-high-end capitalism (2) neofascism (3) racism (4) anti-establishmentarianism (5) flagging democracy are converging altogether at an explosive point in time in a new chapter of human history, and hopefully, as an aside, everlasting fusion technology (that really works) to take the heat off global warming but still decades in the making.

The works of Herbert Marcuse in the spirit of a hearty revival of the New Left are timely and may be necessary in today’s world to re-establish some semblance of sanity by offering balance to a geopolitical order that seems utterly confused and directionless and at each other’s throats.

Author of Eros and Civilization (1955) and One-Dimensional Man (1964) Marcuse was thrust onto the big stage as the preeminent theorist of the New Left, arguably more relevant today than during the 1960s. His widely read One-Dimensional Man exposes the inherent weaknesses in capitalism and communism found in a stifling conformity of life (somewhat in the spirit of Aldus Huxley’s Brave New World) via modern modes of domination and social control but hopeful of human freedom and happiness by way of liberation, as expressed in Eros and Civilization.

“The distinguishing feature of advanced industrial society is its effective suffocation of those needs which demand liberation.” (One-Dimensional Man, pg. 7)

Charles Reitz’s comprehensive study of Marcuse: “These works challenged corporate capitalism’s illusions of democracy characterized by consumerism, cultural anaesthetization, intellectual compliance, environmental degradation, and war as untenable forms of wasted abundance and political freedom.”

Accordingly, “If the New Left emphasizes the struggle for the restoration of nature, for public parks and beaches, for spaces of tranquility and beauty; if it demands a new sexual morality, the liberation of women, then it fights against material conditions imposed by the capitalist system and reproducing this system. (Marcuse 1972, 17) Marcuse’s political-philosophical vision continues to offer intelligent strategic perspectives on current concerns—especially issues of neofascist white supremacy, hate speech, hate crimes, police brutality, environmental destruction, and education as monocultural social manipulation. These troubles are profound, yet they can be countered through a Marcusean strategy of revolutionary ecological liberation and women’s emancipation— radical socialism as I will attempt to show in my concluding chapter 10 below. Marcuse’s posthumously published Paris Lectures at Vincennes University, 1974 underscored his belief that the women’s movement was one of the most important political forces for system change.” (The Revolutionary Ecological Legacy of Herbert Marcuse, pg. 145)

Marcuse’s work lays the groundwork for the 99% to be awakened, politically prepared, and strengthened, calling for a new ecosocialist world system Charles Reitz refers to as “EarthCommonWealth” with emphasis on equality and liberation of labor in a world of nature’s restoration. He interconnects the basic elements of a good life by removing the rotting influence of capitalistic excesses that stealthily brainwash the subconscious, by-the-hour, day-in, day-out via television, social networking galore, city bus posters, blaring radio ads, freeway billboards, insolent mobile phone ads, subway wall glitterati of comparables for purchase, on credit, over time.

As explained by Reitz, EarthCommonWealth is a revolutionary alternative to the “misuse of limited natural resources for profit.” Accordingly, this misuse is at the heart of a disruptive world climate system and disadvantaged lifestyle for labor throughout the world.

In the context of Marcuse’s criticisms of contemporary society, Reitz zeroes in on America: “Racial animosity, anti-immigrant scapegoating, and a resurgent nationalism/ patriotism are being orchestrated today in the troubled system of American/ global capitalism. These are neo-populist/neo-fascist instrumentalities of social control and economic stabilization… All this is said without mentioning the name of Donald Trump, though it has clear relevance to recent political developments in terms of a resurgence of reactionary rhetoric and racist tendencies on the right.”

“One-dimensional thought is systematically promoted by the makers of politics and their purveyors of mass information. Their universe of discourse is populated by self-validating hypotheses, which, incessantly and monopolistically repeated, become hypnotic definitions or dictations.” (One-Dimensional Man, pg. 14)

Underlying America’s extreme racial animosity used as a political weapon, radicalization of education provides a contemptuous convenience that “Marcuse anticipated back in the 1960s of counterrevolutionary tendencies now raging in higher education to reduce the liberal arts in American general education to the conservatively filtered monocultural residue of an elitist, Anglocentric curriculum.”

Reitz defines democracy’s experiment with capitalism, especially in the eyes of younger generations, portending a different future that older generations should contemplate: “Given today’s workforce discontent and destabilization, it is no wonder that an openness to socialist alternatives is taking hold among younger people. An opinion piece in The New York Times, (Goldberg 2017) carried the heading “No Wonder Millennials Hate Capitalism.” Millennials are the “older cousins” of Generation Z (Volpe 2). The piece concludes that the “rotten morality” behind today’s intensifying inequalities is more apparent than ever, hence radicalizing young people. This reflects the steady growth among the youth of what Marcuse called the “New Sensibility”—new needs, generated under capitalism, but which capitalism cannot fulfill, for gender equality, ecological economics, and anti-racism.”

“New needs unfulfilled by the current system” are fully exposed for all to see by America’s broken-down dysfunctional politics of infighting as a normal course of governing, failing to address “new needs.” How is it possible to take this seriously?

“Today the 1% is armed with its own theory; the 99% is not. A fundamentally different outlook is necessary. The main problem, as I see it, is to develop an incisive vision for humanity as sensuous living labor. I have developed in this volume a labor theory of ethics, an ethical realism grounded on the mutual respect, cooperation, and reciprocity of commonwealth labor… EarthCommonWealth envisions the displacement and transcendence of capitalist oligarchy as such, not simply its most ugly and destructive components. This is a green economic alternative because its ecological vision sees all living things and their non-living earthly surroundings as a global community capable of a dignified, deliberate coexistence,” pg. 257.

The Revolutionary Ecological Legacy of Herbert Marcuse by Charles Reitz with an afterword by Nnimmo Bassey is an antidote, a breath of fresh air, to society’s state of confusion and misdirection, and above all else, a sense of relief knowing there is another way that is much better.

This short review does not come close to doing justice to Reitz’s remarkable work that shines a beam of enlightenment, with impressive detail and brilliant source material, on a better course for the world’s 99%. It should be in the library of every serious advocate for a better ecologically safe existence, a much better existence.

The Revolutionary Ecological Legacy of Herbert Marcuse needs to be studied, reread, and then reread and studied again, and then shared. It’s worth it!

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

To effectively deal with sudden and unpredictable new risks, Lee stressed that legislating Article 23 of the Basic Law – Hong Kong’s mini constitution – with laws to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against Beijing is urgent.

Lee was responding to questions from lawmakers of the Legislative Council, or LegCo, on Thursday about the progress of legislation on Article 23, and what the government is doing to revive Hong Kong’s economy, which is being hammered by underperforming stock and property markets.

With legislation completed, Hong Kong can only then fully strive for economic development, Lee told lawmakers, revealing that the work has entered the final stage and will be completed this year.

But such a move has been controversial. A previous attempt in 2003 failed following mass protests and was shelved until Beijing’s imposition of the National Security Law in 2020.

“The Hong Kong National Security Law helps us deal with the most critical national security issues in 2019. But there are still many issues, such as treason, and the management of some political organizations and political activities with foreign contacts. The relevant laws have not yet been perfected,” Lee said. 

He argued that compared with foreign countries, which often have more than 20 national security-related laws, Hong Kong has just one, and this would be clearly explained internally and to external stakeholders. A “response and refutation team” and an “interpretation team” will be established to respond to propaganda from hostile forces during the legislative process.

But exiled former legislator Ted Hui said Lee’s argument that foreign countries have multiple security-related laws is aimed at downplaying the damage and impact of such laws on Hong Kong.

Since Lee took the helm as chief executive, he has not only taken a tough position politically but also on policies relating to people’s livelihood, cracking down on areas such as traffic violations and hawking, sparking criticisms even from pro-government lawmakers. 

At LegCo on Thursday, pro-communist legislator Paul Tse criticized the government for overreaching – law enforcers issuing traffic tickets 24/7 and penalizing hawkers heavily for road obstruction, plainclothes officers lurking to catch jaywalkers, and authorities cracking down on bookstores and factory canteens.

“Will the government review its heavy-handed enforcement of alleged excessive fines and money grabbing?” Tse said. 

Lee said such opinions only evoke “conflicts”, likening Tse’s vocabulary to terms used during the 2019 anti-government protests, which Beijing and the Hong Kong authorities described as “black terror.”

Still, even pro-communist organization Patriotic Force founder Chan Ching-sum could no longer stay silent. 

“Since Lee Ka-chiu took office as the chief executive, I have only seen the current government trying every means to mentally abuse the people,” she posted on Weibo, referring to Lee’s Chinese name. “I can’t stand the Lee Ka-chiu government! But there is no way to complain. Now as an ordinary Hong Kong citizen, I now make a complaint on Weibo against Lee Ka-chiu!”

Chan’s post was quickly deleted but not before being circulated widely online.

Translated by RFA staff. Edited by Taejun Kang and Mike Firn.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Chen Zifei for RFA Mandarin, Alice Yam and Chingman for RFA Cantonese.

We had run up against the Judeo-Christian commitment to one God, one religion, one reality, that has cursed Europe for centuries and America since our founding days. Drugs that open the mind to multiple realities inevitably lead to a polytheistic view of the universe. We sensed that the time for a new humanist religion based on intelligence, good natured pluralism and scientific paganism had arrived.

— Dr. Timothy Leary (recounting Aldous Huxley’s 1960 demand for a new world religion)

The Science of History: Pregnant Moments vs Linear Chronologies

The study of history can be approached from a number of directions, and using a number of diverse assumptions… but not all of them are equal, and some are extremely destructive.

Some people believe that history is simply associating events onto a linear time line and then adding creative writing to explain away causes of those events. Others presume that history is divided by “ages” with the “causes” of each event explained away by the age in which they occur. Others presume that the events across ages are caused by a never-ending class struggle of rich vs poor while others presume no causality exists behind the events on a time line except for raw hunger, greed or stupidity.

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that history is best understood as a living process shaped by 1) ideas of good and evil, 2) decisions to act according to those ideas whether right or wrong, and 3) the freedom to embrace error, corruption and lies which often wear the clothing of truth.

When those false ideas are permitted to shape the cultural standards of what is considered “normal” for too long, decay across all spectrums of life can be found.

The physical, mental and spiritual health of people slowly decays, as those creative discoveries needed to meet the challenges of nature fail to be made, and scarcity, hunger, wars, and ignorance grow like a cancer.

The tension caused by this decay, and the better expression of human nature animated by obedience to truth, morality and creative reason manifests in the form of periods of dense potential, comparable to ‘pregnant moments’ where systemic changes for good or evil become ripe.

1866: A World Caught Between Two Paradigms

As I wrote about in The Clash of the Two Americas volume one, the years following America’s Civil War (1861-1865) unleashed a brilliant example of what such a pregnant moment looked like.

During this time, humanity was pulled by two very different paradigms.

On the one hand, an ancient system of hereditary power which aspired to enslave of the masses of the globe was breaking down.

This ancient system of exploitation and suppression overextended itself globally, and like its earlier incarnation in the Roman Empire, the British Empire was collapsing under its own internal contradictions.

The British Empire had expended vast energy and finances in manufacturing wars around the world to weaken and destroy all of her rivals. While these manipulations wrecked vast destruction onto Russia (during the Crimean War), India (suppressing vast rebellions), China (during two Opium Wars), and through London’s orchestration of the Civil War in America. Despite vast bloodletting, the world was quickly awakening to the evil of this empire and the false Christianity promoted under its banner.

On the other hand, the positive example of Abraham Lincoln’s USA, as a nation founded upon liberty, the consent of the governed and the notion of equal rights for all were spreading electrically across the world in the wake of the Civil War.

In Russia, Lincoln’s national system of political economy was transforming an agrarian serfdom into a modern industrial nation with the application of the protective tariff, productive credit and internal improvements like canals, railroads, electric power and schools. Czar Alexander II, Finance Minister Sergey Witte and the great scientist Dimitry Mendeleev spearheaded this reform.

In France, Germany, Italy and across Asia this system was spreading rapidly centered on the notion that scientific progress and technological improvements were caused by a divine spark of reason found in all people elevating humanity above the status of mere cattle, slaves or feudal serfs.

Many had every right to believe that an age of moral reason was on the horizon as nations were breaking free of the shackles of colonialism and ignorance… The defining character of this global movement was characterized by 1) technological progress, 2) leaping over the limits to growth by encouraging new discoveries and 3) recognizing all people as creatures made in the image of a living reasonable Creator.

Lincoln’s leading economic advisor and global grand strategist Henry C. Carey outlined this clash of paradigms in his 1852 Harmony of Interests where he said:

Two systems are before the world…. One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other to increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of ELEVATING while EQUALIZING the condition of man throughout the world.

Unlike the British Empire’s Theosophists and Fabians- obsessed with uniting eastern and western cultures around Aryanism, eugenics and mysticism, the leading American system strategists around Carey sought to unite the world around the universal aspirations for development, moral goodness and cooperation.

This spirit was expressed eloquently by Lincoln’s former bodyguard, first governor of Colorado, and leading proponent of the international rail corridors named William Gilpin who wrote in his 1890 Cosmopolitan Railway:

In Asia, a civilization resting on a basis of remote antiquity has had, indeed, a long pause but a certain civilization- although hitherto hermetically sealed up from European influence- has continued to exist. The ancient Asiatic colossus, in a certain sense, needed only to be awakened to new life, and European Culture finds a basis there on which it can build future reforms.

Contrasting his concept of a Christianity based on doing the greatest good possible in opposition to the British Empire’s perversity of Christianity, Gilpin described what this new state of human civilization was destined to look like as “win-win cooperation” replaced the outdated geopolitical doctrines of “might makes right” and zero sum thinking prevalent under oligarchism:

The weapons of mutual slaughter are hurled away; the sanguinary passions find a check, a majority of the human family is found to accept the essential teachings of Christianity IN PRACTICE… Room is discovered for industrial virtue and industrial power. The civilized masses of the world meet; they are mutually enlightened, and fraternize to reconstitute human relations in harmony with nature and with God. The world ceases to be a military camp, incubated only by the military principles of arbitrary force and abject submission. A new and grand order in human affairs inaugurates itself out of these immense concurrent discoveries and events.

It was clear that the days of empire were coming to an end.

In the face of this crisis of cooperating nation states breaking out of the cages of empire, a series of new think tanks were created that served to re-organize the dying British Empire using new techniques of psychological warfare, scientific manipulation, and predictive programming. Talent was needed from outside of the ‘elite bloodlines’ in order to figure out how to save systems of hereditary power.

Two of the most important new think tanks that were mandated to re-organize the crumbling system of empire were known as 1) The Fabian Society and 2) The Round Table Organization.

Fabian Society and New World Religion

The Fabian Society called itself a socialist, concerned for the working poor, but in actual fact saw the masses as useful tools to be manipulated by a scientific priesthood who despised them and simply desired the state grow in power not to defend the people but to control them through the science of eugenics, sterilization and murder of the unfit.

The Fabian Society soon created their own school called ‘The London School of Economics’ and established a political party dubbed the Labor Party in 1901.

Historian Stephen O’Neil wrote the following of the Fabian Society’s guiding principle of Permeation theory:

Despite their traditional political image, the Fabians, under the impetus of Sidney Webb, thought that they had a new and unique weapon in the policy of permeation. It was through the utilization of this tactic, according to Webb, that the Fabians, in the spirit of the Trojans and their legendary horse, would enter the ranks and minds of the politically influential by providing them with programs, ideas, opinion, and research heavily documented with statistics which could be conveniently drafted into public policy.

Despite being managed by members who called themselves “Christian” or at least “spiritual”, the Fabian Society’s disdain for Christianity can be gleaned from the logo commissioned by George Bernard Shaw in the form of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

This symbolism was a direct reference to the Apostle Matthew’s warning in the New Testament which read: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

The larger stained-glass window on which the Fabian wolf appears additionally features a large image of Sidney Webb and Shaw hammering the world featuring the line: “Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire”. Below this imagery, are the other 12 leading Fabians praying to socialist texts as new gospels.

Fabian grand strategist H.G. Wells (featured in the stained glass window alongside Theosophist leader Annie Besant), worked extremely hard to outline the need for a new religion for the new age, which he described in his 1928 work “The Open Conspiracy: Blueprint for a World Revolution” saying:

…if religion is to develop unifying and directive power in the present confusion of human affairs it must adapt itself to this forward-looking, individuality-analyzing turn of mind; it must divest itself of its sacred histories…The desire for service, for subordination, for permanent effect, for an escape from the distressful pettiness and mortality of the individual life, is the undying element in every religious system.

The time has come to strip religion right down to that [service and subordination is all Wells wants to keep of the old relic of religion]…The explanation of why things are is an unnecessary effort…The essential fact…is the desire for religion and not how it came about…The first sentence in the modern creed must be, not “I believe,” but “I give myself.” [emphasis added]

The aim of this new religion and remoulded human nature was outlined in blood curdling detail by Wells in his Open Conspiracy where he stated:

It is the system of nationalist individualism that has to go… We are living in the end of the sovereign states… In the great struggle to evoke a westernized World Socialism, contemporary governments may vanish…. Countless people… will hate the new world order….and will die protesting against it.

Wells’ remarks were widely held among the leading establishment of the British Empire and were expressed by Charles Darwin’s cousin Sir Francis Galton, who extended Darwin’s new theory explaining evolution into human systems when he created the new statistical science of eugenics. In 1904, Galton said:

[Eugenics] must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious, tenet of the future, for eugenics co-operate with the workings of nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races…. I see no impossibility in Eugenics becoming a religious dogma among mankind.

In 1911, Annie Besant- as leader of the theosophists, Indian Congress Party, eugenicist and Fabian spoke of her desires for a new world religion uniting all people under the British Empire stated:

Britain is working in India; how India is re-acting on Britain; until you can see gradually forming, amid the dust and the turmoil of the present, the outlines of a mighty World-Empire, with East and West together; mighty World-Powers linking, and marching side by side, until India shall no longer be a constant menace, a danger in the moment of Britain’s weakness, but shall be a buttress and a strength; the oldest and the youngest branches of the Âryan family joining hands in one mighty Empire, which, by the peace it will make, will offer a fit field for the spread, for the teaching, of a World-Religion.

Besant was explicit that this world religion would be based upon a universal mysticism and help liberate mankind from all concepts of right or wrong, which she attributed to the causes of war and conflict:

The World-Religion of the future will bring out the way again in sight of the people, will show them how to walk; it will lead them into a knowledge of their own Divinity; mystical in its teaching, so that the teaching can be translated by all the religions into the varied dogmas; scientific with the knowledge of the Spirit, so that men may learn to develop the spiritual faculties and then use them for the perfecting of their own nature; with no antagonists, for it will be universal; with no quarrels within it, for it will be all-inclusive. That mighty World-Religion is to be proclaimed by the supreme Teacher, the Teacher of Angels and of Men.

This world religion would not teach its adherents to become humble to God’s will, or find the divine within through obedience to the will of a reasonable god, but rather, Bessant’s World Teacher would help all mystics of the world realize that each of us, is literally, god. Bessant states that this future world religion will “transform man into God.”

While maintaining an outward appearance featuring differences in form, the two new organizations (Fabian Society and Round Table) would work closely together throughout the 20th century- following a very specific formula that was used by oligarchical systems as far back as ancient Babylon (and even earlier).

While one order took on a conservative veneer, the other a socialist veneer. Yet both were united in a commitment to eugenics, elitism, and the creation a new global priesthood to manage humanity which all leading members called ‘Social Imperialism’.

In fact, there were always strong overlaps with Lord Alfred Milner becoming a founding member of Beatrice and Sidney Webb’s Coefficience Club from 1902 where he was joined by other Round Table leaders such as Leo Amery, Philip Kerr, Lord Arthur Balfour and Halford Mackinder. H.G. Wells, Shaw and Bertrand Russell were also frequent participants of this so-called ‘dinner club’ which was nothing less than a nerve center of creative planning for the entire British Empire during the early 20th century. Meanwhile five Rhodes Scholars founded the Canadian Fabian Society in 1931- demonstrating that the differences were less than skin deep.

While much has been written about these entities and the evil their members carried out during the last 120 years (namely here, here, here and here), what is less known is that both organizations had directly revived ancient mystery cults that had overseen the transformation of Rome from a republic into an evil empire 2000 years earlier.

In the next installment we will explore the ancient (occult) roots of the British Empire’s Fabian Society, and a small, yet influential array of pagan mystery religions which have permeated society from the time of Babylon, Persia and Rome, through the Crusades, Templars, Franciscans, Inquisition, Jesuits and modern age.

This exercise will help us better understand how the ancient pagan mystery religions have been revived during the 20th century, the origins of today’s drug culture, the mass initiation ceremony being prepared under a new Great Reset.

This story will be continued in the next chapter “The Round Table as Grail Knights of Mithra and a New Gaia Cult of Cybele Revealed”.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Matthew J.L. Ehret.

Revival Within the Status Quo

The revival of the PLO would not be possible under the leadership of PA President Mahmoud Abbas or his inner circle. It would therefore either necessitate a change in PA leadership through democratic elections—including from within Fatah—or mass Palestinian mobilization demanding representative and legitimate leadership committed to liberation. Either way, an interim period marked by detrimental effects on Palestinian health would likely follow, especially if there are cuts to foreign aid.

In fact, regardless of the way the PLO is revived, the initial reaction of the international community would likely be one of caution, spurring decisions that have negative ripple effects on the health sector. Indeed, the US’s annual waiver on its relationship with the PLO depends on the whims of the regime in power. In 2018, for example, the Trump administration shuttered the PLO office in Washington, D.C.; Trump’s successor, Joe Biden, pledged to reopen the office, but two years into his term, has yet to do so. 

This indicates a reluctance among donors to re-engage with the PLO. If the PLO reclaims its place as the global representative of the Palestinian people, it is highly likely that a significant portion of the international community would at least temporarily reduce or halt funding to the PA and its institutions, since it serves as the de facto service provider of the PLO. This would be especially likely if the PLO reintegrates armed struggle in its methods. A cessation of funding to the PA would likewise disrupt the functioning of the Ministry of Health (MoH) in the West Bank, leading to similar outcomes on the health sector as a collapse of the PA altogether. 

Furthermore, with Hamas currently out of the fold of the PLO, it is unclear what a revived PLO would mean for healthcare in Gaza. If donors like Qatar—which financially supports Hamas but is at least rhetorically supportive of the PLO—pause or reduce funding, the health sector would be severely impacted in the Hamas-controlled enclave. International humanitarian agencies may also face funding shortfalls if they are perceived to be cooperating with a designated “terrorist organization,” and thus, even this potential cushion to a funding crisis for the PA would be threatened. 

Israel may additionally designate domestic Palestinian health-related organizations as terrorist groups, as it did with the Palestinian Health Work Committees in 2021. This would limit their ability to function within the West Bank and Gaza, and may impact their fundraising opportunities with foreign donors. Finally, health organizations directly related to the PLO, such as the Palestine Red Crescent Society, would face uncertainty of their own. If the PA faces a financial crisis, the Red Crescent would likely experience significant funding shortfalls, as the Palestinian National Fund provides about 27% of the organization’s funding. Depending on the global reception of the revived PLO, international donors to PLO-affiliated organizations may pause or limit their funding, creating additional challenges.

Possible Benefits

The revival of the PLO could invigorate grassroots Palestinian liberation efforts in the West Bank, Gaza, 1948 territories, and the diaspora, that would have positive effects on health in the long-term. Indeed, unlike the PA, which is an administrative body limited in its mandate to the West Bank and Gaza, the PLO was created to be “the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people…everywhere.” 

The process to reform the PLO as this genuinely representative body would be painstaking and difficult. However, assuming such a transition, many of the community-led efforts to address issues in health, education, agriculture, and other sectors may be revitalized after years of co-optation by the rigid structures of the PA—structures that were built to mimic the western institutions of the countries funding them. Such institutions could be rebuilt under a reformed PLO, even with less international funding, to more closely meet the needs of Palestinians towards a liberation agenda. 

A liberation agenda spearheaded by a revived PLO would require two aims in the health sector: first, building a Palestinian-led health system in the West Bank and Gaza that is inclusive, responsive, evidence-based, and intersectional—one that engages with the unique risks to the Palestinian body and mind. Efforts of such a system would include a focus on preventive and holistic wellness, a complete reformation of medical education, and an innovative approach to service delivery that also emphasizes health access for all Palestinians. However, this would be difficult in the event of a loss of funding from international donors, and depending on the constraints imposed by Israel, healthcare provision could become exceedingly difficult.

Thus, the second aim would have to be centering Palestinian health and well-being as part of a call for liberation that engages the international community, including Palestinians outside of colonized Palestine. A revived PLO would need to treat healthcare as a human right long denied to Palestinians in a variety of ways, instead of as simply the consequence of military action or humanitarian inaction. External health initiatives would thus have Palestinian oversight, and efforts that are not sustainable, that do not acknowledge the sociopolitical experiences of Palestinians, that enable Israel’s human rights violations, or that do not build long-term capacity in the West Bank and Gaza, would be rejected. 

Importantly, the revival of the PLO could shift the global consciousness towards Palestine and Palestinians, not just from the international community, but within Palestinian communities in colonized Palestine and the diaspora. Recognition of the Palestinian cause as not just one of protracted conflict or humanitarian tragedy, but one of liberation and justice, presents opportunities for a truly decolonized health system—one that could serve as a model for other oppressed populations. 

The post Revival of the PLO: Health appeared first on Al-Shabaka.

This content originally appeared on Al-Shabaka and was authored by yara asi.

Multiple news outlets reported late Monday that the Biden administration is considering restarting migrant family detentions that were used extensively by previous administrations in an attempt to crack down on border crossings.

While "no final decision has been made," according to The New York Times, "the move would be a stark reversal for President Biden, who came into office promising to adopt a more compassionate approach to the border after the harsh policies of his predecessor, former President Donald J. Trump."

Immigrant rights advocates were quick to warn Biden against following through with any plan to revive migrant family detentions, which the administration had largely shut down.

"I've got one word for them: unacceptable," wrote Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council.

"The thing about family detention is not only that it's cruel and inhumane," Reichlin-Melnick added, "but also that it was a money pit and absolutely useless as a 'deterrent.'"

Bob Libal, an immigration justice advocate and consultant with Human Rights Watch, said it is "absolutely shameful that this is even being considered again."

Both the Obama and Trump administrations made expansive use of family detention, with the latter attempting to rescind limits on how long children can be held in migrant detention facilities—an effort that was ultimately blocked in federal court.

On the campaign trail, Biden condemned the practice of family detention—as well as the separation of migrant families—as morally bankrupt, writing in a Twitter post: "Children should be released from ICE detention with their parents immediately. This is pretty simple, and I can't believe I have to say it: Families belong together."

But with the 2024 election looming, the Biden administration has moved to reinstate immigration policies that it previously denounced as cruel—including a Trump-era asylum ban—as it prepares for the May expiration of Title 42, another Trump administration policy that Biden has used to rapidly deport migrants.

\u201cNO NO NO NO NO NO. \n\n\u201cThe administration will continue to prioritize safe, orderly and humane processing of migrants,\u201d Luis Miranda, a department spokesman, said in a statement.\u201d\n\nFAMILY DETENTION IS INHERENTLY INHUMANE. BABY JAILS ARE INHUMANE. https://t.co/FajlFvBGKj\u201d

— Valeria Gomez (@Valeria Gomez) 1678151345

Reuters reported Monday that in addition to restarting family detentions, the Biden administration is "weighing reviving immigration arrests of migrant families within the United States who have been ordered deported."

"It's all on the table," an unnamed official told the outlet.

In the place of family detentions, the Biden administration has used ankle bracelets and other methods—decried as "digital prisons" by rights groups—to track migrant families as they move through the court system.

But as the Detention Watch Network has observed, the Biden administration did not end its contracts with facilities that were previously used to hold migrant families.

"Instead, following cues from the Obama administration, it converted the contract with Berks County to detain adult women and shifted its usage of the Dilley facility to detain single adults," the organization noted.

Citing one unnamed official, CNN reported Monday that the Biden administration is "looking at multiple options for how to handle migrant families at the southern border, not all of them involving family detention."

"Another source familiar with the deliberations added that among the options discussed are some that wouldn't involve detaining families in ICE facilities," CNN added. "This source said that family detentions would be limited to a small number of days—an attempt to set the policy apart from the Trump administration's handling of family detentions."

But it's not likely that rights groups and advocates would accept such an alternative.

"I was part of a legal team that sued to get access to the first family detention center that President Obama opened (in Artesia, N.M.)," Karen Tumlin, a civil rights litigator, recounted Monday. "Talking to families and kids detained at Artesia was one of the lowest points of my legal career. I can see the cribs lining the hallway now, families and babies crammed into tiny rooms."

"A family detention policy is a policy of adding trauma to trauma," Tumlin added. "It is painful to see this as a rumored proposal from the Biden administration."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

U.S. drug policy reform advocates condemned President Joe Biden's commitment to "accelerating the crackdown on fentanyl trafficking" as part of his administration's strategy for tackling the opioid crisis, a policy the White House announced in a preview of Tuesday night's State of the Union address.

Although the SOTU preview says the administration will be "expanding access to evidence-based prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and recovery," the document says Biden will "work with Congress to make permanent tough penalties on suppliers of fentanyl," fentanyl analogs, and fentanyl-related substances (FRS).

The outline states that Biden "looks forward to working with Congress on its comprehensive proposal to permanently schedule all illicitly produced FRS into Schedule I," the most severe Drug Enforcement Administration classification.

"The push to place all fentanyl-related substances in Schedule I is unfortunate and misguided. Schedule I is supposed to be for substances that we know to be harmful and not helpful."

"Traffickers of these deadly substances must face the penalties they deserve, no matter how they adjust their drugs," the preview asserts.

In response to the SOTU preview, Maritza Perez Medina, director of the office of federal affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance, said in a statement that "we are glad to see President Biden continue to call for increased access to evidence-based treatment, harm reduction, and recovery services."

"But, his support for harsher penalties for fentanyl-related substances—which will result in broader application of mandatory minimum sentencing and disproportionately harm Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities—in the same breath is incredibly counterproductive and fails to recognize how we got to this place to begin with," she asserted. "Over 100,000 of our loved ones being lost to avoidable overdoses a year is not because of a lack of enforcement, it's a direct result of it."

Gregory Dudley, who chairs the chemistry department at West Virginia University, argued that "the push to place all fentanyl-related substances in Schedule I is unfortunate and misguided. Schedule I is supposed to be for substances that we know to be harmful and not helpful."

"We don't know which of these substances would be harmful or helpful, and how could we without testing them?" Dudley asked. "Some of these substances could be lifesaving opioid antagonists like naloxone, or better. This proposal prioritizes criminalization over healthcare."

Susan Ousterman, who lost her son Tyler to an accidental overdose in 2020 and subsequently founded the Vilomah Memorial Foundation, said that "it's incredibly disheartening to see the president co-opting the grief of mothers like me in an attempt to increase penalties, rather than prioritizing the health measures that are desperately needed to save lives."

"Increased penalties for people who use or sell drugs, including fentanyl-related substances, would not have kept my son alive or the countless children of other mothers I have met," Ousterman stressed. "In fact, it's policies such as these that created the increased stigma and fear that kept our children from accessing help, and it's what has led to the increasingly dangerous drug supply that resulted in their deaths."

"It's time for the president and other policymakers to prioritize the lives of all humans by embracing a health approach rather than engaging in politics that only perpetuate this disastrous war on drugs," she added. "As a person who understands the profound impact both substance use and child loss have on families, I expected more."

Biden was one of the architects of the 1980s escalation of the War on Drugs. He coined the term "drug czar" while advocating the establishment of the cabinet-level position and was a key supporter of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, legislation that accelerated U.S. mass incarceration.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

The U.S. climate movement this week vowed to keep fighting against Sen. Joe Manchin's thrice-defeated "dirty deal" after the West Virginia Democrat indicated he intends to work with House Republicans to force through fossil fuel-friendly permitting reforms.

Frontline climate campaigners and progressives in both chambers of Congress worked tirelessly last year to quash Manchin's proposals—while also advocating for updates to permitting policy that would speed up the renewable energy transition.

The GOP took narrow control of the House earlier this year, and the chamber's Natural Resources Committee is now led by Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.). Manchin, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, met with him on Wednesday to discuss permitting legislation.

"Permitting reform as proposed in recent legislation would undermine effective tools used to protect air, water, and climate from the most damaging new infrastructure under consideration."

"They're going to work on something," Manchin said of the House, according to E&E News. "I think it's a high priority, which both sides know that we need it. Everyone has come to agreement that you got to have permitting. Let's take the politics out of it, and do what's doable."

After the meeting, Westerman said he saw "common ground between Sen. Manchin and myself."

The same day, the Republican Study Committee, the largest House GOP caucus, convened to discuss priorities for debt ceiling negotiations. According to a leaked portion of a slideshow, one policy endorsed by the committee for those talks is "enact a package of inflation-busting reforms to increase domestic energy capacity and reduce associated regulatory and permitting barriers."

Meanwhile, the Green New Deal Network—a U.S. campaign that includes 15 national organizations–pledged Wednesday that "we'll be here, ready to kill Manchin's dirty deal all over again."

The battle over the dirty deal, as critics call it, began last summer, when Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) agreed behind closed doors to push through permitting reforms in exchange for Manchin's support for the Inflation Reduction Act. Despite Manchin and Schumer's efforts to advance various versions of a permitting bill, it was blocked in September and then twice in December.

"Defeated for the third time this year, this zombie bill would have fast-tracked dangerous fossil fuel and mining projects that would undercut the positive impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act," Chelsea Hodgkins, Oxfam America's climate policy adviser, said in mid-December. "Sen. Manchin's proposal would do nothing to address the real barriers to renewable energy development, which include fully resourcing underfunded agencies and investing in community-supported renewable systems."

Manchin and Westerman's meeting came after Politicoreported Tuesday that Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who supported including the dirty deal in a December military spending package, "is bullish about the prospects of passing a bill to ease permitting rules now that the House is in GOP hands."

Capito, who will again serve as ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, told Politico that "permitting—it's a very important aspect of energy development and we have a big role in that at EPW. One of the reasons it failed [last year] is because it didn't go through the committee process. I would love to see us try to work through a committee process that can be successful in the end."

"I'm certainly going to be pressing and we're going to be having meetings with our House colleagues on this very issue," Capito said during a Thursday press briefing. "We'll look and see what the House comes up with and see if it's something I think we can get good compromises on."

"Finding reasonable compromise to permit pipelines and power lines and other things is important to both sides," added Capito—who, like Manchin, wants to see the controversial and long-delayed Mountain Valley Pipeline completed. "If you want more renewable, you can't do it without transmission. If you want more natural gas, like I do, you can't do it without pipelines."

E&E News reported that House Republicans now plan "to use, as a starting point, legislation introduced in previous sessions of Congress by Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), known as the 'Builder Act,' which would achieve the main goals of speeding up permits for energy projects by making changes to the National Environmental Policy Act," or NEPA—which is expected to anger Democrats.

Asked by the outlet whether he would accept changes to NEPA as part of a deal, Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee—who, as the panel's chair last year, led Democratic opposition to Manchin's legislation—said, "No."

Amid discussion on Capitol Hill this week, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists asked six experts to weigh in on permitting reform. Associate editor Jessica McKenzie summarized their arguments in a series of tweets:

"Reform advocates rightly emphasize the need for rapidly constructing wind, solar, geothermal, energy storage, and transmission," wrote Dustin Mulvaney, a professor in the Environmental Studies Department at San José State University and fellow with the Payne Institute for Public Policy at the Colorado School of Mines.

"The problem is that streamlining environmental rules and regulations could have the opposite effect, unless the 'streamlining' is achieved via planning processes that include stakeholder feedback," he stressed. "More important, permitting reform as proposed in recent legislation would undermine effective tools used to protect air, water, and climate from the most damaging new infrastructure under consideration—namely oil, gas, and tar sands pipelines."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Indigenous, climate, and conservation advocates on Wednesday welcomed the reintroduction of congressional legislation to restore protections and prevent fossil fuel development in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), along with Reps. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), reintroduced the Arctic Refuge Protection Act, the continuation of legislative efforts dating back to the 1980s to protect the critical wilderness and its inhabitants.

The lawmakers said in a statement that their bill "will restore critical protections to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—home to the Gwich'in people and the nation's largest national wildlife refuge—by designating the Coastal Plain ecosystem as wilderness under the National Wilderness Preservation System."

If passed, the bill "would permanently halt any new oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, and drilling on the Coastal Plain, and would safeguard the subsistence rights of the Arctic Indigenous peoples who depend upon the unique ecosystem within the Arctic Refuge," the statement explained.

As Huffman's office noted:

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge covers 19.6 million acres and is the largest unit in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 1.56 million-acre Coastal Plain, the biological heart of the refuge, contains the calving grounds for the Porcupine caribou herd and is home to denning polar bears, musk oxen, wolves, and more than 150 species of migratory birds. The 9,000-strong Gwich'in Nation, living in Alaska and Canada, make their home on or near the migratory route of the Porcupine caribou herd, and have depended on this herd for their subsistence and culture for thousands of years.

"The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a national treasure and a cultural and spiritual home for Arctic Indigenous peoples," said Markey. "The traditional relationship that the Gwich'in and Iñupiat have had with the refuge for generations, as well as the singular ecosystem on the Coastal Plain, should not be put into harm's way because of old failed promises of a fictional financial windfall."

"We need a law on the books that will affirm these lands are not for sale, preserve the wilderness of the Coastal Plain, and uphold the sovereignty of Arctic Indigenous peoples—who must be consulted regarding the use, management, and conservation of the Coastal Plain," he added.

"The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a national treasure and a cultural and spiritual home for Arctic Indigenous peoples."

Karlin Itchoak, Alaska regional director for the Wilderness Society, stated that the bill "recognizes not only the importance of protecting wildlife and public land, but also shows respect and concern for the Indigenous peoples who live in and near the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."

"The Coastal Plain of the refuge is sacred to the Gwich'in Nation, and the Iñupiat people have stewarded this land since time immemorial," Itchoak added. "Protecting the Coastal Plain from oil drilling is essential to their cultures, food security, and ways of life, as well as to the global climate."

Some Indigenous and conservationist activists expressed their deep disappointment last year after congressional Democrats excluded Arctic protections from their $430 billion budget reconciliation package. Protections including a measure to end the Trump-era mandate for oil and gas leases on the Coastal Plain were included in the Build Back Better package that made it no further than passage by House Democrats in 2021.

The lawmakers said the reintroduced bill "would enshrine the protections sought by President [Joe] Biden on his first day in office, which were reaffirmed last June when the administration temporarily suspended drilling lease sales in the Arctic refuge."

However, they stressed that "the Coastal Plain ecosystem remains at risk due to oil and gas lease sales mandated by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act"—also known as the Republican Tax Scam—signed into law by then-President Donald Trump. Such lease sales ultimately generated little interest.

The reintroduction of the Arctic Refuge Protection Act came on the same day that the Biden administration's Bureau of Land Management infuriated climate advocates by publishing an environmental assessment recommending partial approval of ConocoPhillips' Willow Project, a major drilling initiative on Alaska's North Slope, which contains much of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

In a last-ditch bid to revive the expanded Child Tax Credit in some form by year's end, the White House has reportedly suggested to congressional Democrats that it is willing to accept a compromise deal that adds more stringent work requirements to the anti-poverty program—a reversal of President Joe Biden's previous opposition to such restrictions and a move that some progressives condemned.

The Child Tax Credit (CTC) boost enacted in 2021 did not contain a work requirement, meaning the poorest families were eligible for the CTC for the first time. But the CTC enhancement, which brought about historic reductions in U.S. child poverty, expired at the end of last year due to the opposition of Republicans and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who refused to support a renewal of the expanded CTC unless a "firm work requirement" was added.

"Just a complete disconnect from the reality of who benefitted from this policy and why."

At the end of 2021, the CTC reverted to its previous form, which essentially already contains a work requirement given that only families with at least $2,500 in yearly earned income are eligible for the credit—a regressive design that excludes the very poorest from benefits.

Biden publicly opposed Manchin's 2021 push to add a work requirement to the boosted CTC, but Politico reported Monday that the White House has "privately signaled to Democrats that it would support a compromise deal to revive the expanded Child Tax Credit, even if it includes work requirements."

Research indicates that work requirements do little to boost employment, the purported goal of those who support adding them to social programs. However, work requirements do often succeed at denying benefits to vulnerable people, including many who are eligible.

"The evidence shows the red tape associated with work requirements can cause people to lose access to vital supports, even when they are working or should be exempt," Elaine Waxman and Heather Hahn of the Urban Institute observed last year. "Unfortunately, work requirements are not merely a mechanism for program integrity to prevent ineligible applicants from receiving services—they can also be an intentional mechanism to reduce program access for people who are eligible."

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated around 80% of the child poverty-reducing impact of the boosted CTC was attributable to the provision that made families with zero or very little earned income eligible for the full credit of up to $3,600 annually per child. That money was paid out in monthly sums, helping families afford food and other necessities amid the pandemic and resulting economic turmoil.

"Just a complete disconnect from the reality of who benefitted from this policy and why," Rebekah Entralgo, managing editor of Inequality.org, tweeted in response to news of the Biden White House's about-face on work requirements. "The expanded CTC lifted millions of children out of poverty precisely because it was fully available to families too poor to pay income taxes."

Politico's reporting came amid growing pessimism that congressional Democrats—who hold a slim majority in both chambers until next month—will be able to secure a tax-related deal with Republicans before the end of the year. Republicans have been pushing for a batch of corporate tax cuts, which Democrats have said they're willing to entertain in exchange for a revival of the CTC enhancement, which the GOP has opposed.

"The package, which negotiators are hoping to slip into the omnibus, would be less substantial than the Child Tax Credit expansion Democrats passed in 2021, due to cost limitations and the need to win over 10 Senate Republicans," Politico reported Monday. "Whereas that 2021 version boosted payments across the board, for example, this time the focus is more on expanding the percentage of recipients who qualify for the current $2,000 yearly maximum, according to those involved in the process."

"The parents of roughly 19 million children don't receive that full amount as of now, either because they earn too little or aren't working at all," the outlet added.

Murshed Zaheed, a progressive strategist, argued Monday that "reviving an anti-poverty measure... shouldn't come at the expense of giving more corporate tax breaks and adding cruel work restrictions demanded by Manchin—especially after passing an $800B+ military bill."

"This would be a shameful cave by Biden and Democrats," Zaheed added.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Prerequisites for Reviving the PLO

The structures of a revived PLO must be based on inclusive representation, credibility, and national legitimacy to politically represent Palestinians wherever they may be. It must be rebuilt through a democratic process that enables it to represent the entire spectrum of Palestinians, and a mechanism must be implemented to ensure that all representatives of Palestinian communities participate in renewed PLO institutions. This would ensure accountability for national representatives, including in division of power, as well as freedom of expression and association. The Palestinian National Council (PNC) would be held accountable through regular elections or other forms of democratic selection. Further, the PLO’s Executive Committee would be accountable before the new PNC, including in sources of funding. The forms and means of such accountability would need to be spelled out clearly in the PLO’s statute.

Furthermore, a revived PLO should be built on the legacy of secular Palestinian civil resistance movements, honoring the separation between political and religious institutions, and prioritizing pluralism. A commitment to preserving the secular, civic, and pluralistic character of the PLO should be stipulated in its National Charter. 

Social Implications of a Revived PLO 

Provided these steps are taken as part of the revival process, the PLO could play an active role in combating the distortive and fragmentary rhetoric surrounding Palestinian history, geography, national identity, heritage, and struggle for liberation, and promote unifying counternarratives. It may also support Palestinians everywhere in their efforts to do the same.

An effectively revived PLO could additionally promote the formation of trade unions, professional associations, and federations of women and youth, foster interdependence between them, and encourage their participation in national deliberations, specifically on strategies to resist settler colonialism, military occupation, poverty, siege, and racial discrimination. In this framework, the PLO would work to ensure the rights of each Palestinian community to adopt the resistance strategy they choose, so long as the strategy represents the community through consensus, and does not conflict with the PLO’s charter, the collective struggle for liberation, or the values of freedom, equality, justice, and human rights. 

Should the Palestinian Authority (PA) remain, the PLO must ensure that its institutions provide basic services (education, health, water and electricity, and infrastructure) in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza. This endeavor would require the reconfiguration of PA tasks in accordance with a new vision that makes it accountable to the PLO, and that prevents it from overtaking or marginalizing revived PLO institutions. Likewise, the PLO must prevent bureaucratic inflation across its institutions, thwart clientelism and rentierism, and reject the quota formulas in the formation of its leadership bodies, unions, and professional associations.

Conclusion

To successfully revive the PLO, the process must be democratic, representative, participatory, transparent, and inclusive. A revived PLO has the potential to foster self-determination and interdependence among the different subgroups of the Palestinian community. It could likewise promote secular resistance and honor each subgroups’ strategy for securing liberation, so long as the strategies align with the organization’s unifying vision. Provided that the aforementioned prerequisites are adopted, a revived PLO may pave the way for a more prosperous, equitable, and unified Palestinian society. 

The post Revival of the PLO: Society appeared first on Al-Shabaka.

This content originally appeared on Al-Shabaka and was authored by Jamil Hilal.

A recent revival of local prime-time TV documentaries has highlighted some thorny social issues and raised awkward questions about justice and equality.

Among them was a revealing investigation this week showing the cost of white-collar crime dwarfs that of welfare fraud, but draws lighter punishments and gets a lot less scrutiny in the media than the kind of crimes that play out in public.

For years, the heyday of New Zealand TV documentary and current affairs seemed to be in the past.

• LISTEN TO RNZ MEDIAWATCH: ‘Uncovering injustice and inequities’

Gone are the days of Mike McRoberts’ mellifluous voice introducing local investigative stories on 60 Minutes after a few seconds of distinctive clock-ticking. The popular franchise stopped producing local content some years ago.

20/20, while still on air, mainly releases repackaged content from the US these days and in spite of the continuing long-form journalism of TVNZ’s Sunday, documentaries have been fading from New Zealand screens for some time.

Lately though, TVNZ has revived the strand Documentary New Zealand with a series of eight new NZ On Air-funded films for TVNZ1 on Tuesday nights between Eat Well For Less and Coronation Street, and on the on-demand service TVNZ+.

Among the most engaging and often moving ones was No Māori Allowed, which aired last week.

Pukekohe discrimination
The documentary delves into the history of Pukekohe, where for decades Māori were subject to discrimination and sometimes, violence.

It deftly navigates several tensions — first between local Pākehā and Māori who lived though an era of segregated movie theatres, but also between the people trying to bring the area’s past to light and the kuia and kaumatua who lived through it, and still bear the scars.

While No Māori Allowed highlighted historic racism and the legacy it has left, this week’s documentary Crime: Need vs Greed trains its eye on a more modern form of racial and economic injustice.

Host Tim McKinnel argues we’ve “sleepwalked” into a $5 billion white collar crime wave of costly fraud and deception offences while the attention of our justice system and media is turned toward often low level street crime.

“While society and the media fixate on gang crimes, ram raids, and other forms of street crime, white collar criminals have been robbing us blind. We’ve sleepwalked into a $5 billion crime wave that no-one wants to talk about. Instead we’re tough on crime and spend billions locking up the poor,” he says in Need vs Greed.

Not only have white collar criminals been robbing us blind — the documentary presents evidence they’ve been getting away with it.

Tax law specialist Lisa Marriot delivers some staggering statistics on the double standard. Her research found people convicted of tax fraud crimes averaging $287,000 have a 22 percent chance of receiving a prison sentence — while those convicted of welfare fraud worth an average of $67,000 are imprisoned 60 percent of the time.

The lack of consequences for white collar crime belies its scale and impact.

$1.7 billion fraud prosecution
A 2014 investigation by New Zealand Herald journalist Matt Nippert helped trigger a $1.7 billion fraud prosecution against the company South Canterbury Finance.

In Crime: Need vs Greed, he says it’s “more than every Treaty settlement combined in New Zealand’s history” or “a hundred years of benefit fraud in one go”.

Given the relative figures involved, it’s worth asking why benefit fraud or street crime like ram raids get so much more attention.

Nippert says part of the reason is obvious: street crime is visceral and a lot more understandable to audiences.

“It’s the comparison between a Jerry Bruckheimer action flick and something much more slow and sedate like a documentary spread across, say, six episodes.

“I think ram raids are quite a violent, shocking act and should be covered. But they are also effectively a pre-scripted sort of action heist movie — with car crashes and getaways and splitting the loot — all condensed down to this one moment of action.

“But the white collar financial crimes often occur very subtly, very carefully, very deceptively over years, sometimes decades,” he says.

Fraud story legal threats
Fraud stories also pose legal difficulties, partly because the perpetrators can afford to hire lawyers and threaten defamation action.

Nippert is routinely threatened with legal action over his investigations. The Herald‘s lawyers have to check almost everything that he writes.

Meanwhile, street crime is more likely to come before the courts, and reporting on it is less likely to be subject to suppression orders and legal challenges from defendants.

“A lot of reporting comes from courts are a reflection of wider problem,” Nippert says.

“You will tend to get far more disadvantaged people in the District Court facing charges. On the other side of it, when you’re looking at sort of white collar crimes . . . I’ve run into suppression orders many, many times. So that not only maybe dampens down the reporting, but also slows it down enormously.”

Journalists have been highlighting inequities in the court system recently, with NZME running the Open Justice project and RNZ’s Is This Justice, which revealed — among other things — that Pākehā are discharged without conviction and granted name suppression at higher rates than Māori, that 90 percent of High Court and Court of Appeal judges are Pākehā, and that judges could be presiding over the cases of people they know.

Human brain ‘and zeros’
Another issue contributing to the comparative dearth of fraud reporting is that the “human brain does funny things when it sees zeroes,” Nippert says.

“The difference between $10 million and $100 million becomes quite ethereal. But everyone can understand what $1000 in the hand looks like.”

Despite the inherent disadvantages fraud stories have in a click-based media economy, Nippert says more reporters should cover them because of the huge costs these crimes impose on victims and society.

That might mean doing a basic accountancy paper at university or downloading Google Sheets onto their phone, but the barriers to entry aren’t as high as some reporters might think, he says.

“I used to think I didn’t have that sort of brain [for numbers]. But then I was made redundant and the only job I could get was a business reporter in the NBR and you know, if you give it a go, I think you’ll find it’s a lot more straightforward than you’ve conditioned yourself to fear,” he says.

“It’s important to point out for readers that some of these cases are alarming and we should be paying close attention because that $100 million isn’t just $100 million from some insurance company — that’s likely to be a thousand families who have lost their nest egg, and whose financial future is extraordinarily precarious, probably for the rest of their lives.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

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

This decades-long marginalization of the PLO has not troubled most Palestinian factions. Indeed, Hamas and Islamic Jihad do not view the PLO as representative of all Palestinians, and though they oppose the PA, they do not consider the revival of the PLO as a solution. Meanwhile, the PLO’s marginalization has not been a threat to Fatah since the movement also leads the PA. Left-wing movements have been too weak to have a say, and some have simply chosen to follow Fatah’s lead.

Still, between 2006 and 2022, several developments took place that rekindled the goal of reviving the PLO. The most notable development was the post-2006 change in Hamas’s position toward the PLO — namely, the movement’s acceptance of a reformed PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. This indicated Hamas’s awareness of the PLO’s significance and international recognition, as well as the organization’s need for reform. Hamas’s 2017 political manifesto stated that it would retract its charter’s insistence on the Islamization of the PLO as a precondition for obtaining its recognition. According to the manifesto, the PLO need only be rebuilt on democratic foundations to be recognized by Hamas.

The change in Hamas’s position, which was mirrored by Islamic Jihad, was accompanied by a growing conviction that the political settlement had failed to reach a two-state solution acceptable to Palestinians. As such, the PA and PLO failed in the quest for statehood, and also had records of corruption and human rights violations that eroded Palestinians’ confidence in them, especially the PA. Indeed, many Palestinians became convinced that building a state under occupation is impossible, and that the national effort should focus on liberation from Zionist settler colonialism. Accordingly, efforts to restore the PLO would receive popular support, provided that Fatah does not insist on following the same political approach of demanding statehood within the 1967 borders, a territory that is continually shrinking due to Israeli annexation, expansion, and de-Palestinization.

In addition, the Palestinian factions that remain outside the PLO are gradually gaining strength – especially Hamas, which has garnered popular support after every confrontation with Israeli occupation forces, particularly since the 2021 Saif al-Quds (Sword of Jerusalem) battle, which showed a qualitative development in Palestinian resistance. This gave Hamas the leverage to demand membership within and reform of the PLO, and to claim that the PLO without itself and Islamic Jihad is only a “political salon.” This discourse would not have surfaced had it not been for Hamas’s recognition of Palestinian public support for resistance, as well as its rejection of PA policies at the levels of politics, security, and, more recently, healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Theoretically, no Palestinian movement, including Fatah, has ever rejected the demand to reform the PLO. However, the word “reform” is open to factional interpretation, which could obstruct any meaningful change. Fatah views the reform of the PLO merely as the formation of a new national council and the revival of certain PLO institutions, without retracting the agreements signed with the Israeli regime and without exploring new paths for all Palestinians. Hamas, on the other hand, believes that reforming the PLO requires rebuilding its institutions and rewriting its political manifesto. Thus, while political adversaries have agreed upon the need to reform the PLO, the interpretation of reform is a point of contention and, indeed, a serious obstacle.

Another obstacle is the varying conditions of Palestinians across the globe. Palestinians in the lands occupied in 1948 and 1967, and in the diaspora, are subject to different authorities, none of which would allow for free and fair elections of a national council. Even if Palestinians were successful in holding elections in one place, polls would still fail in many other locations. The difficulty in holding elections could prolong the interim leadership framework, which has little control over decision-making when compared to the president. 

However, these obstacles do not preclude the development of a more unified vision for reforming the PLO. Al-Shabaka, for instance, published a lengthy study on reclaiming the PLO, with detailed recommendations on how to overcome the inability to hold general elections for the Palestinian National Council by naming representatives of Palestinian communities. To overcome disagreement on the platform, the study suggests beginning by forming the council using all available measures that are in line with democratic values. The new council would then review all agreements signed by the PLO, embark on formulating a new national strategy, and restore PLO institutions.

The post Revival of the PLO: Political Overview appeared first on Al-Shabaka.

This content originally appeared on Al-Shabaka and was authored by Belal Shobaki.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.