Tony
Blinken, een figuur die zich onder Obama ontpopte als oorlogsmisdadiger van formaat, heeft in een
Twitterbericht het gore lef gehad om te zeggen dat de VS nooit zal
twijfelen om geweld te gebruiken als de levens van ‘Amerikanen’ op
het spel staan en vitale belangen van de VS gevaar lopen…….
Waarna hij vervolgd met te zeggen dat de VS dit alleen zal doen als
de doelstellingen duidelijk en haalbaar zijn en in overeenstemming
zijn met onze waarden en wetten (ha! ha! ha!) en met
de toestemming van het geïnformeerde volk en dat in combinatie met
diplomatie…… (ha! ha! ha! ha!)
Caitlin
Johnstone heeft volkomen terecht gehakt gemaakt van deze enorme
leugens. Ze stelt dat er nooit levens van VS burgers op het spel
staan als de VS weer eens illegaal (unilateraal) ingrijpt, hooguit de
levens van VS ‘burgers’ (militairen en beambten van de geheime
diensten) die al niet aanwezig zouden mogen zijn in een bepaald land,
juist omdat de VS daar bijvoorbeeld al illegaal heeft ingegrepen (of daar op andere manier de boel destabiliseert, daar zo’n land zich niet onderwerpt aan de VS). Ze haalt hierbij het
voorbeeld aan van de VS beschietingen van doelen in Syrië onlangs, daar VS
doelen in Irak met raketten zouden zijn beschoten vanuit Syrië,
waar geen flinter aan bewijs werd geleverd voor wie
verantwoordelijk was voor die aanvallen…….* De grootste leugen in
deze is echter het feit dat de VS burgers in het geheel niet werd
gevraagd om toestemming voor die VS aanvallen, zoals Blinken zo ‘mooi
formuleerde….’
Caitlin
pluist verder dat ‘consent’ (toestemming) van het volk uit. Natuurlijk
wordt er geen toestemming door het volk gegeven als een VS president weer eens
beslist om doelen in het buitenland te bombarderen, of als de VS een
zoveelste illegale oorlog begint. De media spelen hier een
belangrijke rol door het manipuleren van de bevolking: met veel omhaal worden leugens van de geheime
diensten en het Pentagon herhaalt, waarbij men tevens stelt dat bijvoorbeeld in het geval dat de VS weer eens illegaal een oorlog is begonnen, dit gebeurt voor het handhaven van mensenrechten en
het brengen van democratie, zaken die in eigen land en andere landen waarmee de VS goede banden onderhoudt (zoals Saoedi-Arabië) met voeten worden getreden…….
Als je
stelt dat deze toestemming (consent) er wel degelijk is, gezien de
talkshows en andere media uitlatingen, is dat alleen omdat het volk
werd gehersenspoeld met leugens door media, politiek en geheime
diensten en dan nog wordt een deel van die toestemming pas achteraf
middels propaganda leugens verkregen…….
Gezien
de agressie die de Biden administratie nu al heeft getoond (hij is
pas net president) valt er niets goeds te verwachten voor de komende
4 jaar……
Caitlin
geeft aan het eind van haar artikel haar visie op de wereld, waarin
de massa’s moeten worden gewekt om de van hen gestolen macht terug te
eisen, niet middels een gestoken politiek systeem dat werkt in het
voordeel van de weinigen (en is gericht tegen velen niet alleen in
het binnenland, maar juist ook in het buitenland, waar de VS zich
oppermachtig acht…). Het voorgaande kan alleen als genoeg mensen
zich hebben bevrijd uit de psychologische manipulaties van politici
en media. Dat kan volgens Caitlin als we als eerste het
publieke vertrouwen in propaganda operaties verzwakken en de massa
wekken met de waarheid. Als er voldoende mensen zijn ontwaakt uit hun
door propaganda opgewekte sluimeren, kunnen we onze wereld opeisen en alle sociopathische manipulators buitenspel zetten zonder één schot af te vuren,
alleen door op te staan en te laten zien waar we voor staan.
Moet
zeggen dat ik Caitlin wat betreft het direct voorgaande naïef vindt, immers de overheden hebben
intussen zoveel gereedschappen om het volk te controleren dat het me
sterk lijkt dat er zonder strijd verandering zal komen, maar het zou
geweldig zijn als Caitlin toch gelijk heeft……
Lees het
uitstekende artikel van Caitlin en geeft het door!!
A
new Twitter
post
by Secretary of State Tony Blinken reads as follows:
“We
will never hesitate to use force when American lives and vital
interests are at stake, but we will do so only when the objectives
are clear and achievable, consistent with our values and laws, and
with the American people’s informed consent – together with
diplomacy.”
Like
pretty much everything ever said by Blinken, and indeed by every US
secretary of state, this is an absolute lie.
Firstly,
US military force is never used to protect “American lives”
in modern times, unless you count the lives of US troops and
mercenaries in foreign lands they have no business occupying in the
first place. The US military is never
used to defend American lives against an invading enemy force; that
simply does not happen in our current world order. It is only ever
used to protect the agenda of unipolar planetary domination, which
would be the “vital interests” which Blinken obliquely
refers to above.
Secondly,
Blinken’s claim that the Biden administration will never use military
force without “the American people’s informed consent” has
already been blatantly invalidated by Biden’s
airstrikes on Syria
last month. The American people never gave their consent to those
airstrikes, informed or uninformed. A nation the US invaded (Syria)
was bombed because troops are being attacked in a second nation the
US invaded (Iraq) on the completely unproven claim that a third
country against whom the US is currently waging
economic warfare
(Iran) supported those attacks. At no time were the people asked for
their consent to this, and at no time was any attempt made to ensure
that they were informed of the situation before it happened.
Secretary Antony Blinken ✔
@SecBlinken
United States government official
We will never hesitate to use force when American lives and vital interests are at stake, but we will do so only when the objectives are clear and achievable, consistent with our values and laws, and with the American people’s informed consent – together with diplomacy.
Thirdly,
US military force is never, ever conducted with the American people’s
informed consent. Literally never. Consent is alwaysmanufactured
for US wars by lies
and mass media propaganda, one hundred percent of the time, without
exception. The bigger the military operation, the more egregious the
deceit used to manufacture consent for it. Even in relatively
“peaceful” times when the US is merely raining dozens
of bombs and missiles per day
on foreign soil, Americans are subject to a nonstop
deluge
of distorted and outright false narratives about their military and
the nations it targets for destruction.
Consent
that has been artificially manufactured by propaganda is not informed
consent, any more than sex with someone who’s been dosed with
rohypnol is consensual sex. US imperialism does not rely on informed
consent, it relies on disinformed consent; consent for it is
manufactured by disinformation. Informed consent plays no role
whatsoever in the use of US military force, nor indeed in any other
major aspect of the behavior of the US or its allies.
Every
aspect of the US-centralized power alliance is propped up by a
relentless deluge of mass-scale psyops. Imperialism, capitalism,
electoral politics; consent for all its key pillars is constantly
being manufactured by the plutocratic news media, by television, by
movies. All of the most influential generators of modern mainstream
thought and culture are heavily influenced by a plutocratic class
which has a vested interest in keeping power out of the hands of the
people.
This
is the only thing keeping us from moving into a healthy new paradigm
where we collaborate with each other toward a healthy world based on
truth and beauty instead of competing with each other over who can
create the most profitable pieces of future landfill. No hard
obstacles are in place stopping us; our cages only exist between our
ears. It is only because powerful people are manipulating our minds
to their advantage that we have not already used the power of our
numbers to create a healthy, harmonious and enjoyable earth.
For
most of recorded history, domination by brute force has been the norm
for human civilization. Someone claws their way into a position of power
over the other humans, and you obey and respect him…
It’s
important to be aware of the fact that our consent has been
manufactured for this mess, because it means we never gave them our
informed consent, which means no existing power structures have any
legitimacy at all. They have power because they stole our power from
us, and it is our prerogative to take it back. We do not need to go
through the political systems they have rigged to their advantage or
the ideological spectrum of acceptable debate that they have confined
mainstream discourse to. We can just take it.
This
will only happen after we have freed ourselves in sufficient numbers
from their mass-scale psychological manipulations, which will
only happen
after we have prioritized weakening
public trust
in their propaganda operations and waking the mainstream public up to
the truth. Once a sufficient number of people have been awakened from
their propaganda-induced slumber, we can reclaim our world from the
sociopathic manipulators without firing a shot, just by standing up
to our true size and flexing our giant muscles.
I
sincerely believe this will happen, and that it will happen fairly
soon. Then we will extract their rapey fingers from our minds and
create something truly amazing together.
_______________________
Thanks
for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make
sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list
for at my
website or on
Substack,
which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My
work is entirely
reader-supported,
so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook,
following my antics on Twitter,
or throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal.
If you want to read more you can buy my
new book Poems For Rebels (you
can also download
a PDF for five bucks)
or my old book Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do
with this platform, click
here.
Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has
my permission to
republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else
I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
De
Biden administratie heeft ‘onverwacht’ gereageerd op het rapport
waarin Mohammad Bin Salman (MBS) en andere Saoedische despoten
worden veroordeeld voor de moord op Jamal Khashoggi: in tegenstelling
tot wat Biden nog afgelopen november durfde te zeggen dat
Saoedi-Arabië (S-A) de gevolgen zou voelen van de moord op Khashoggi en
dat er een wapenembargo zou worden ingesteld tegen deze
reli-fascistische terreurstaat, worden er amper maatregelen genomen.
De regelmatige lezer van dit blog weet dat ik e.e.a. al onmiddellijk
totaal ongeloofwaardig vond, immers de VS is middels Israël en de
eigen o.a. grondstof belangen gebonden aan Saoedi-Arabië en niet in de
laatste plaats vanwege de strategische ligging van S-A, de
onvoorstelbaar grote wapenaankopen van dit land in de VS plus de haat
van de Saoedische dictators tegen Iran, de wederzijdse gezworen
vijanden van de VS en Israël, waar de VS zoals bekend alles goedvindt wat
Israël flikt, zelfs het op grote schaal vermoorden van ongewapende
Palestijnse demonstranten………
GlennGreenwald heeft een uitvoerig artikel geschreven over de relatie
tussen de VS en Saoedi-Arabië en andere dictatoriale regimes. De
reguliere westerse media en politici dragen steeds weer het meer dan
belachelijke idee uit dat de VS de politieagent van de wereld is en
daarbij strijdt voor democratie en vrijheid….. In werkelijkheid
interesseert het de VS totaal niet of het te maken heeft met een
bloedige dictatuur, zolang deze maar de belangen van de VS behartigt
en gehoorzaam doet wat de VS voorschrijft (alweer zoals zo vaak op
deze plek gemeld), mag het doen wat het wil met haar bevolking of die
van andere landen (zie nogmaals Saoedi-Arabië en bijvoorbeeld een
land als Turkije of het Brazilië van Bolsonaro)….. Sterker nog: de
VS is zelfs graag bereid om terreur van zo’n land te steunen, zo
werkt de VS mee aan de genocide die de S-A uitvoert in Jemen, waarbij
intussen al meer dan 500.000 mensen zijn vermoord….. (alleen al
meer dan 100.000 kinderen….)
Glenn
Greenwald stelt ten onrechte dat dit pas vanaf de Tweede Wereldoorlog
het geval is, echter dit gebeurde eigenlijk al vanaf het moment
waarop de VS onafhankelijk werd van Groot-Brittannië…….
Greenwald
legt de nadruk op Jamal Khashoggi, wat mij betreft is dit vergeleken
met de genocide in Jemen een kleinigheid, hoe gruwelijk de moord op
Khashoggi ook was (en vergeet niet dat Khashoggi verreweg het
grootste deel van zijn werkzaam leven de Saoedische dictatuur heeft
bejubeld en gesteund……)
Gelukkig
haalt Greenwald de totaal tegenstrijdige behandeling van Julian
Assange aan, die wat Biden betreft mag wegrotten in de gevangenis
(niet in de laatste plaats daar deze oorlogsmisdaden van de VS
openbaarde, die deels werden begaan toen Biden vicepresident was en
die daarmee mede verantwoordelijk was voor die ernstige oorlogsmisdaden…..
), terwijl Biden aan de andere kant de behandeling van journalisten op
deze manier ‘aan de paal wil nagelen’ (althans dat zegt), neem nogmaals een
figuur als Khashoggi…..
Lees
het uitstekende artikel van Greenwald, maar houd in je achterhoofd
dat hij Jemen totaal is vergeten, zoals gezegd een land waar Saoedi-Arabië al jaren
met de steun van de VS (Groot-Brittannië, Frankrijk en o.a. de wapenleveringen van Nederland aan S-A) een
afschuwelijke genocide uitvoert……. (hoewel elke genocide minstens afschuwelijk en barbaars is)
That
the U.S. opposes tyranny is a glaring myth. Yet it is not only
believed but often used to justify wars, bombing campaigns,
sanctions, and protracted conflict.
Saudi
Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal (2nd R) welcomes then-US Vice
President Joe Biden (C) at the Riyadh airbase on October 27, 2011
(Photo: AFP via Getty Images)
A
staple of mainstream U.S. discourse is
that the United States opposes tyranny and despotism and supports
freedom and democracy around the world. Embracing murderous despots
is something only Donald Trump did, but not normal, upstanding
American Presidents. This belief about the U.S. role in the world
permeates virtually every mainstream foreign policy discussion.
When
the U.S. wants to start a new war — with Iraq, with Libya, with
Syria, etc. — it accomplishes this by claiming that it is, at least
in part, motivated by horror over the tyranny of the country’s
leaders. When it wants to engineer regime change or support
anti-democratic coups — in Venezuela, in Iran, in Bolivia, in
Honduras — it uses the same justification. When the U.S. Government
and its media partners want to increase the hostility and fear that
Americans harbor for adversarial countries — for Russia, for China,
for Cuba, For North Korea — it hauls out the same script: we
are deeply disturbed by the human rights violations of that country’s
government.
Yet
it is hard to conjure a claim that is more obviously and laughably
false than this one. The U.S. does not dislike autocratic and
repressive governments. It loves them, and it has for decades.
Installing and propping up despotic regimes has been the foundation
of U.S. foreign policy since at least the end of World War II, and
that approach continues to this day to be its primary instrument for
advancing what it regards as its interests around the world. The U.S.
for decades has counted among its closest allies and partners the
world’s most barbaric autocrats, and that is still true.
Indeed,
all other things being equal, when it comes to countries with
important resources or geo-strategic value, the U.S. prefers
autocracy to democracy because democracy is unpredictable and even
dangerous, particularly in the many places around the world where anti-American
sentiment
among the population is high (often because of sustained U.S.
interference in those countries, including propping up their
dictators). There is no way for a rational person to acquire even the
most minimal knowledge of U.S. history and current foreign policy and
still believe the claim that the U.S. acts against other countries
because it is angry or offended at human rights abuses perpetrated by
those other governments.
What
the U.S. hates and will act decisively and violently against is not
dictatorship but disobedience. The formula is no more complex than
this: any government that submits to U.S. decrees will be its ally
and partner and will receive its support no matter how repressive,
barbaric or despotic it is with its own population. Conversely, any
government that defies U.S. decrees will be its adversary and enemy
no matter how democratic it was in its ascension to power and in its
governance.
In
sum, human rights abuses are never the reason the U.S. acts against
another country. Human rights abuses are the pretext the U.S. uses —
the propagandistic script — to pretend that its brute force
retaliation against noncompliant governments are in fact noble
efforts to protect people.
The
examples proving this to be true are far too long to chronicle in any
one article. Entire books have been written demonstrating this. In
May, journalist Vincent Bevins released an outstanding
book
entitled The
Jakarta Method.
As I wrote in my review of it, accompanied by an interview
with the author:
The
book primarily documents the indescribably horrific campaigns of
mass murder and genocide the CIA sponsored in Indonesia as an
instrument for destroying a nonaligned movement of nations who would
be loyal to neither Washington nor Moscow. Critically, Bevins
documents how the chilling success of that morally grotesque
campaign led to its being barely discussed in U.S. discourse, but
then also serving as the foundation and model for clandestine CIA
interference campaigns in multiple other countries from Guatemala,
Chile, and Brazil to the Philippines, Vietnam, and Central America:
the Jakarta Method.
When
people who want to believe in the core goodness of the U.S. role in
the world are confronted with those facts, they often dismiss them by
insisting that this was a relic of the Cold War, a necessary evil to
stop the spread of Communism which no longer applies. But the fall of
the Soviet Union did not even minimally retard this tactic of
propping up and embracing the world’s worst despots. It remains the
strategy of choice of the permanent bipartisan Washington class known
as the U.S. Foreign Policy Community.
And
nothing makes that point clearer than the long-standing and ongoing
support the U.S. provides to the Saudi regime, one of the most savage
and despotic tyrannies on the planet. As the Biden administration is
now demonstrating, not even murdering a journalist with a large U.S.
newspaper who resided in the U.S. can ruin or even weaken the tight,
loyal friendship between the U.S. government and the Saudi monarchy,
to say nothing of the brutal repression which Saudi monarchs have
imposed on its own population for decades.
An
intelligence report released
by the U.S. Government on Friday claims
what many have long assumed: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
personally and directly approved the gruesome murder in Turkey of Washington
Post
journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the subsequent carving up of his
corpse with a buzzsaw for removal to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis
continue to deny
this allegation, but it is nonetheless the official and definitive
conclusion of the U.S. Government.
But
beyond a few trivial and inconsequential gestures (sanctioning a few
Saudis and imposing a visa ban on a few dozen others), the Biden
administration made clear that it intends to undertake no real
retaliation. That is because, said The
New York Times,
“a consensus emerged inside the White House that the cost of such a
breach, in terms of Saudi cooperation on counterterrorism and in
confronting Iran, was simply too high.” Biden officials were also
concerned, they claimed, that punishing the Saudis would push them
closer to China.
Not
only is the Biden administration not meaningfully punishing the
Saudis, but they are actively protecting them. Without explanation,
the U.S. withdrew
its original report that contained the name of twenty-one Saudis it
alleged had “participated in, ordered, or were otherwise complicit
in or responsible for the death of Jamal Khashoggi” and replaced
it with a different version of the report that only named eighteen —
seemingly protecting the identity of three Saudi operative it
believes to have participated in a horrific murder.
Even
worse, the White House is concealing
the names of the seventy-six Saudi operatives to whom they are
applying visa bans for participating in Khashoggi’s assassination,
absurdly citing “privacy” concerns — as though those who
savagely murder and dismember a journalist are entitled to have their
identities hidden.
Worse
still, the U.S. is not imposing any sanctions on bin Salman himself,
the person most responsible for Khashoggi’s death. When pressed on
this refusal to sanction the Saudi leader on Sunday, White House
Press Secretary Jen Psaki claimed
— falsely — that “there have not been sanctions put in place
for the leaders of foreign governments where we have diplomatic
relations and even where we don’t have diplomatic relations.” As
the foreign policy analyst Daniel Larison quickly noted,
that is blatantly untrue: the U.S. has previously sanctioned multiple
foreign leaders including Venezuela’s Nicolas
Maduro,
currently targeted personally with multiple sanctions, as well as
North Korea’s Kim
Jong Un,
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali
Khamenei,
and the now-deceased Zimbabwean
leader Robert Mugabe.
It
cannot be disputed that Biden has quickly and radically violated his
campaign pledge: “I would make it very clear we were not going to,
in fact, sell more weapons to them, we were going to, in fact, make
them pay the price and make
them the pariah that they are.”
As even CNN noted:
“It was a far cry from a comment in November 2019, in which Biden
promised to punish senior Saudi leaders in a way former President
Donald Trump wouldn’t.” Even the new administration’s early
announcement that they would cease helping the Saudis wage war in
Yemen was accompanied by a vow
to continue furnishing the Saudi regime with “defensive” weapons.
It
is in instances such as now — when U.S. propaganda becomes so
unsustainable because the government’s actions diverge so glaringly
from the mythology, such that the contradictions cannot elude even
the most partisan and gullible citizens — that White House
officials are forced to be candid about how they really think and
behave. When they see the Biden administration protecting one of the
most despicable regimes on the planet, they are left with no choice:
nobody will believe the standard fictions they typically spout, so
they have to defend their real mentality to justify their behavior.
And
so that is exactly what Psaki did on Monday when confronted with the
glaring disparities between Biden’s campaign vows and their current
reality of coddling the Saudi murderous despots. She admitted that
the U.S. is willing to tolerate and support even the most barbaric
tyrants. “There are areas where we have an important relationship
with Saudi Arabia” and Biden, in refusing to harshly punish the
Saudis, is “acting
in the national interest of the United States.”
Now,
there are some who believe that the U.S. should be
indifferent to the human rights practices of other governments and
should simply align and partner and even install and prop up whatever
dictators are willing to serve U.S. interests, regardless of how
tyrannical and repressive they are (what constitutes “U.S.
interests,” and who typically benefits from their promotion, is an
entirely separate question). In the past, many have advocated this
view explicitly. Jeane Kirkpatrick catapulted to Cold War-era fame
when she insisted
that the U.S. should support pro-U.S. right-wing autocrats because
they are preferable
to left-wing ones. Henry Kissinger’s entire career as an academic
and foreign policy official was based on his “realist” philosophy
which was explicitly welcoming of despotic regimes that were of use
to “U.S. interests” as defined by the ruling class.
At
least if there is that sort of candor, the real scheme of motives can
be engaged. But the laughably false conceit that the U.S. is
motivated by a genuine and profound concern for the freedom and human
rights of others around the world and that this noble sentiment is
what animates its choices about who to attack, isolate and sanction,
or befriend, support and arm, is so blatantly propagandistic that it
is truly stunning that anyone continues to believe it.
And
yet not only do they believe it, it is the predominant view in the
mainstream press. It is the script that is non-ironically hauled out
every time the U.S. wants to go to war with or bomb a new country and
we are told that nobody can oppose this because the leaders being
targeted are so very bad and tyrannical and the U.S. stands opposed
to such evils.
Biden’s
protection of bin Salman
is not, to put it mildly, the first post-Cold-War example of the U.S.
lavishing praise, support and protection on the world’s worst
tyrants. President Obama sold the Saudis a record
amount
of weapons, and even cut short his state visit to India — the
world’s largest democracy — to fly
to Saudi Arabia
along with top officials in both political parties to pay his
respects to King Abdullah upon his death. Our Snowden reporting in
2014 revealed
that the Obama-era NSA “significantly expanded its cooperative
relationship with the Saudi Ministry of Interior, one of the world’s
most repressive and abusive government agencies,” with one top
secret memo heralding “a period of rejuvenation” for the NSA’s
relationship with the Saudi Ministry of Defense.
When
she was Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton notoriously
gushed
about her close friendship with the brutal Egyptian strongman
supported for 30 years by the U.S.: “I really consider President
and Mrs. [Hosni] Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see
him often here in Egypt and in the United States.” As Mona Eltahawy noted
in TheNew
York Times:
“Five American administrations, Democratic and Republican,
supported the Mubarak regime.”
Both
the Bush and Obama administrations took extraordinary steps to conceal
what was known about Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attack. Indeed,
one grand irony of the still-ongoing War on Terror is that the U.S.
has bombed close to ten countries in its name — including ones with
no conceivable relationship to that attack — yet continued to hug
closer and closer the one country, Saudi Arabia, which even many D.C.
elites believed
had the closest proximity to it.
When
President Trump hosted Egyptian dictator Gen. Abdul el-Sisi in the
White House in 2017, and then did the same for the Bahraini autocrat
(to whom Obama authorized
arms sales as he was brutally crushing a domestic uprising), a huge
outpouring of contrived
indignation
spewed forth from the media and various foreign policy analysts, as
if it were some radical, heinous aberration from U.S. tradition,
rather than a perfect expression of decades-old U.S. policy to
embrace dictators. As I wrote
at the time of Sisi’s Washington visit:
In
the case of Egypt and Bahrain, the only new aspect of Trump’s
conduct is that it’s more candid and revealing: rather than
deceitfully feign concern for human rights while arming and
propping up the world’s worst tyrants — as Obama and his
predecessors did — Trump is dispensing with the pretense. The
reason so many D.C. mavens are so upset with Trump isn’t because
they hate his policies but rather despise his inability and/or
unwillingness to prettify what the U.S. does in the world.
And
all of this is to say nothing of the U.S.’s own despotic practices.
The U.S. has instituted policies of torture, kidnapping, mass
warrantless surveillance, and due-process-free floating prisons in
the middle of the ocean where people remain in a cage for almost 20
years despite having never been charged with a crime. The Biden
Justice Department is currently trying to imprison Julian Assange for
life for the crime of publishing documents that revealed grave crimes
by the U.S. government and its allies, and is attempting to do the
same to Edward Snowden. One need not look toward the barbarism of
U.S. allies to see what propagandistic dreck is the claim that the
U.S. stands steadfastly opposed to authoritarianism in the world:
just look at the U.S. Government itself.
And
yet, somehow, not only do large numbers of Americans and most
corporate journalists believe that mythology, they are well-trained
to divert their attention away from the abuses of their own
government and its allies — which they could do something about —
and instead obsess over repression by governments adversarial to the
U.S. (which they can do nothing to change). That’s what explains
the U.S. media obsession with denouncing Putin and Maduro and Assad
and Iran while devoting far less attention to the equal and
often-more-severe abuses of their own government and its “allies
and partners.” Nobody captured this dynamic and the motives behind
it better than Noam Chomsky, when asked
why he devotes so much time to the crimes of the U.S. and its allies
rather than those of Russia and Venezuela and Iran and other U.S.
adversaries:
My
own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my
own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be
the larger component of international violence. But also for a much
more important reason than that: namely, I can do something about it.
So even if the US was responsible for 2% of the violence in the world
instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2% I would be
primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment.
That
is, the ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated
and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the
atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as
denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century.
But
this propagandistic mythology that holds that the U.S. only embraces
democrats and not despots is too valuable to renounce — even when,
as Biden is doing now with the Saudis, the glaring falsity of it is
rubbed in people’s faces. It remains a key ingredient to:
justify
wars and bombings (how
can you oppose our bombing of Syria when Assad is such a monster or
why would you object to our war in Libya given all the bad things
Gaddafi does?);
keep
people satisfied with protracted and dangerous conflict with chosen
adversaries (of
course Russia is our enemy: look at what Putin does to journalists
and dissidents);
allow
citizens to feel good and righteous about the U.S. Government (sure,
we’re not perfect, but we don’t hang gays from cranes like they
do in Iran);
and, most importantly of all,
distract
Americans’ attention away from the crimes of their own ruling
class (I’m
too busy reading about what’s being done to Nalvany — by a
government over which I exercise no influence — to care about the
civil liberties abuses by the U.S. Government and those government
with whom it aligns and supports).
What’s
most remarkable and alarming about all this is not how dangerous it
is — though it is dangerous — but what it reveals about how
easily propagandized the U.S. media class is. They can watch Biden
hug and protect Mohammed bin Salman one minute, send General Sisi
massive amounts of arms and money the next, announce that his DOJ
will continue to pursue Assange’s imprisonment, and then somehow,
after seeing all that, say and
believe
that we have to go to war with or bomb or sanction some other country
because it’s the role of the U.S. to protect and defend freedom and
human rights in the world. If the U.S. Government can get people to
actually believe that,
what can’t they get them to believe?
The same trends of repression, censorship and
ideological homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have
engulfed the media outlet I co-founded, culminating in censorship of my
own articles.
Mijn excuus voor het geringe aantal labels, de ruimte is beprekt >> voor een aantal gemiste labels, kan je het zoekvlak rechtsboven aan de pagina gebruiken, als je bijvoobeeld Donald Trump invoert kan je onder het eerste bericht wel met dat label alsnog op die naam klikken, zodat je het overgrote deel van de berichten met deze fascistische schertsfiguur te zien krijgt.
Jovenel
Moïse, de voormalige president van Haïti wenst niet af te treden en
de VS, zogenaamde bevorderaar van democratie over de wereld, is daarmee akkoord gegaan, samen met het door haar en fascisten uit Latijns Amerika
gedomineerde OAS, de Organisatie van Amerikaanse Staten…….
‘Leuk ook te weten’ dat de EU, als de VS, Canada en Brazilië, samenwerkt met dictator Moïse……..
Former
Haitian President Jovenel Moïse has now officially become a dictator
and he’s done it with the support of the U.S. and Organization of
American States (OAS). Tens of thousands of Haitians have taken to
the streets demanding he step aside – they deserve our solidarity.
Haiti
has been under constant pressure for over 200 years, all for the
“crime” of freeing themselves from slavery and colonialism. Haiti
can’t breathe and we cannot allow the U.S. and OAS to impose yet
another dictatorship on our neighbors.
Moïse’s
term expired on February 7, but he unilaterally gave himself another
year in office. He dissolved Parliament, illegally fired Supreme
Court Justices and other officials who opposed him, and jailed
opposition figures. The Haitian police have brutally suppressed
protesters, including attacking journalists and committing a
massacre.
Now
Moïse is working with what’s known as the Core Group (the United
Nations, OAS, European Union, Brazil, Canada France, Germany, Spain
and U.S.) to rewrite Haiti’s constitution. It’s worth noting that
the UN trained Haiti’s police forces and also brought cholera that
ended up killing 30,000 Haitians. Without this key support from
outside powers, the Haitian people would likely have overthrown his
corrupt government.
MAKE
ART, NOT WAR! Join CODEPINK for an online exhibit between March 25 –
31 to express solidarity with the people in Haiti who are struggling
for democracy, justice, and reparations. To participate, please
submit artwork– poems, songs, music, videos and other forms of art
expressing solidarity with Haiti. All mediums welcome. Videos
should be under 7 minutes. Deadline
for submission is Sunday, March 21st.
Please include the title of work, full name and/ or band name,
country, organization (optional), social media handle (optional)
to haiti@codepink.org
CODEPINK
is working with dozens of organizations over the coming weeks to
denounce U.S. and OAS interference in Haiti. We’ll keep you updated
with our actions so you can join in. We definitely want to see you
next week at our Haiti solidarity event – details are in the P.S.!
In
radical solidarity, Leonardo,
Ciara, Michelle, Teri, Medea and the entire CODEPINK team
Ongelofelijk
dat men werkelijk denkt dat met Biden de situatie voor veel landen
zal verbeteren als het gaat om mensenrechten en misdaden tegen de
menselijkheid >> waarom zou men dat denken als je ziet dat Biden tot
de weinige VS presidenten behoort die al voor diens presidentschap
aangemerkt moet worden als oorlogsmisdadiger…… Deze
‘twijfelachtige eer’ verwierf Biden al onder ‘vredesduif’ Obama, als
diens vicepresident is hij mede verantwoordelijk voor de illegale
oorlogen die de VS aanging en de oorlogen die de VS veroorzaakte tijdens de administratie van Obama…… Dit
nog naast medeverantwoordelijkheid voor het ingrijpen in landen middels het organiseren van
opstanden en zelfs staatsgrepen, zoals die in het Honduras van
2009….. Deze coup werd door Hillary Clinton, destijds VS minister van buitenlandse zaken, georganiseerd en samen met de CIA geregisseerd….. (nogmaals: onder medeverantwoordelijkheid van Joe Biden en Barack Obama….)
Sinds
die tijd is er een waar (beter: zwaar) terreurbewind gaande in
Honduras, waarvan al velen het slachtoffer zijn geworden en milieu-
en mensenrechtenactivisten als Berta Cáceres vogelvrij zijn
verklaard……… Een aantal van hen zijn als Cáceres vermoord en niet zelden
op een vreselijk barbaarse manier……. Ondanks dat de verkiezingen
die sinds de staatsgreep in Honduras werden gehouden en die
overduidelijk waren gestoken, werd er geen kritiek geleverd door de
VS of de rest van het westen, dit in sterke tegenstelling tot andere
landen in Latijns-Amerika, die niet als een hond achter de VS
aanlopen en waar de westerse landen na elke verkiezing stellen dat
deze werden gemanipuleerd (hoewel internationale waarnemers ze wel
als eerlijk beoordeelden, zoals de laatste verkiezingen in
Venezuela)……
Het gaat
de VS en de rest van het westen dan ook om het veiligstellen van
grondstoffen en belangenbehartiging van westerse bedrijven in die landen,
zo heeft de NAVO nu ook 2 bases in Colombia……. Over Colombia
gesproken: gisternacht op BBC World Service het bericht dat de regering
van Álvaro
Uribe Vélez,
veelal aangeduid als (Álvaro) Uribe, die het land regeerde van 2002
tot augustus 2010, verantwoordelijk is voor massamoorden, dit door de vondst van massagraven waarover men
bekend maakte dat daar 6.500 burgers werden gevonden, vermoord door
regeringstroepen…… (eerder ging men uit van rond de 2.000 moorden) Uribe, de fascist die goede banden onderhield met zowel
George W. Bush als ‘vredesduif’ Obama……
Trump
sloot een verdrag met Honduras en Guatemala, om
vluchtelingenkaravanen richting VS uit elkaar te slaan (mensen die
vluchten vanwege overheidsgeweld en de uitzichtloze situatie voor de
sterk verarmde grote onderlaag). Je zou verwachten dat Biden
onmiddellijk een streep heeft gezet door dat misselijkmakende
verdrag, gezien zijn woorden in aanloop van de verkiezingen, maar
niet is minder waar >> Biden laat Honduras en Guatemala gewoon doorgaan
met de zware repressie en het uiteenslaan van vluchtelingen
karavanen, die na het verdwijnen van Trump weer zijn ontstaan en
waarvan er een paar alweer op weg zijn naar de grens tussen Mexico en
de VS, waar al 25.000 vluchtelingen wachten om te worden toegelaten
tot de VS, of die ten einde raad de gevaarlijke illegale overgang van
de grens zoeken, waar velen het leven laten in de woestijn……
Roberta
Jacobson, Bidens hoogste ambtenaar die de opdracht kreeg om een
nieuwe, veilige en humane migratie politiek te vormen, heeft Biden
gevraagd geduldig te zijn en heeft er bij hem op aangedrongen
geen nieuwe migranten toe te laten…… (nogmaals terwijl er al
25.000 mensen aan de grens wachten om te worden toegelaten, mensen
die daar vaak al langer dan een jaar wachten, terwijl zij op de vlucht zijn voor door de VS veroorzaakte terreur…)….
Overigens is het de vraag wat Biden en Jacobson achter gesloten
deuren hebben besproken, daar het bepaald niet ondenkbaar is dat deze
woorden van te voren door Biden werden ingefluisterd, immers de man
is een enorme hypocriet….)
Bidens
immigratie politiek houdt o.a. in dat de VS 4 miljard dollar zal
spenderen aan Honduras, Guatemala en El Salvador, om met dat geld de
reden voor het vluchten tegen te gaan, waarbij de Biden administratie
ervan uitgaat dat dit puur economische redenen zijn, wat ze duidelijk
niet zijn en dat moet hij gezien zijn geschiedenis weten!!! Volkomen terecht dan ook dat John Perry, de schrijver
van het hieronder opgenomen artikel, stelt dat geld pompen in landen
waar de regering voor enorme ellende zorgt niet zal helpen, sterker
nog dat kan het probleem alleen maar verergeren (en nogmaals: totdat
de foute machthebbers weg zijn, al is dat zelfs geen garantie zoals
Perry opmerkt, daar het systeem erop is gericht om de belangen van
het westen veilig te stellen….. Een ‘Catch 22’ situatie, immers
Biden en zijn administratie zullen op zeker niets doen tegen deze
belangenbehartiging…..
Perry
schrijft in zijn artikel dat eerder op London Review of Books werd
gepubliceerd en dat ik overnam van Information Clearing House (ICH), o.a. over
de in feite onwettige president van Honduras, Juan
Orlando Hernández (JOH), dat deze van Honduras een narcostaat heeft
gemaakt en dat een laboratorium voor cocaïne, onder zijn verantwoording beschermd door het
leger, verantwoordelijk is voor de maandelijkse ‘export’ van honderden
kilo’s cocaïne naar Miami (Florida)…… Terwijl organisaties die
verantwoordelijk zijn voor herstel na bijvoorbeeld orkanen amper of
niet werken, de hulpgelden verdwijnen voor een groot deel in
‘bepaalde zakken’, vandaar ook dat men in Honduras zegt dat wanneer
deze organisaties drugslaboratoria waren geweest, de boel wel zou
werken…..
Onder het ICH artikel kan je klikken voor een ‘Dutch vertaling’, dat kost je wel enkele tientallen seconden aan tijd:
If it were a narco
lab, it would be working
By
John Perry
February 18, 2021
“Information
Clearing House”
– On the day he was inaugurated, Joe Biden halted the construction of
Trump’s Mexican border wall. A few days earlier, 1500 miles to the
south, a new ‘caravan’ of at
least eight thousand Honduran migrants had set off northwards,
partly in the hope that by the time they tried to cross into Texas,
Biden’s promised softening of immigration policy might have taken
effect.
Obstacles left by
Trump still stand in their way. Agreements he made with Honduras and
Guatemala led to police attacking and dispersing the refugees.
Scattered groups are still heading towards the Mexican frontier at
Chiapas – according to one
Trump-era official, ‘now our southern border’ – where they
will face Mexican troops. If they eventually reach the Rio Grande,
they’ll join 25,000 asylum seekers in camps, waiting to be
processed by US border officials. Roberta Jacobson, Biden’s
official charged with forming his new ‘secure, managed and humane’
migration policy, has asked
them to be patient and pleaded for no new arrivals.
Why do people take
these risks? The truth is that Honduras is a failed state and, unless
US policy towards it changes radically, many thousands more will head
north. Since the military
coup in 2009 there have been three corrupt elections. The last,
in 2017, which saw Juan Orlando Hernández (JOH) re-elected when
he had clearly lost, led to even more repression. Persecution of
human rights defenders is unceasing, even after international
condemnation of the murder
of Berta Cáceres five years ago. Seven were killed in 2020, and
four young leaders from Garifuna communities, abducted in a single
night seven months ago, are still
missing.
Curfews during the
Covid-19 pandemic appear to have worsened the day-to-day violence:
eleven corpses were found in the street in one week in January;
bodies are being chopped up and left wrapped
in plastic. Perhaps the most emotive case occurred earlier this
month: a doctor and student nurse, who had been working with Covid
patients, were arrested for breaching the 9 p.m. curfew. The doctor
was freed, but the nurse died in police custody. Protests erupted.
Five people were arrested, tortured
by the police and forced to confess to crimes they didn’t
commit.
In November, two
hurricanes hit
a country totally unprepared for them, destroying 6000 homes and
seriously damaging 85,000 more. By December, JOH was touring
financial institutions in Washington looking for money. He collected
more than $3 billion in aid for hurricane victims, despite
well-publicised corruption in the disbursement of funds donated
earlier to tackle Covid-19. Shortly after his visit, federal
prosecutors in New York –who a year ago established that JOH had
created a narco-state
– filed documents in a new
drugs case. After quoting JOH saying he would ‘shove the drugs
right up the noses of the gringos’ by flooding the US with cocaine,
they accuse him of ‘embezzling aid money provided by the United
States through fraudulent non-governmental organisations’. A
Honduran narcotics lab, protected by the military on JOH’s orders,
had been sending hundreds of kilos of cocaine to Miami every month.
The massive disruption
caused by the storms provoked a fresh peak of Covid-19 infections:
1100 new cases on a single day in mid-January, the highest so far.
Weakened by corruption and underfunding, the health service is
overwhelmed. At least 75 doctors and dozens of nurses have died, many
as a result of overcrowded wards and poor equipment. ‘We have to
wait until someone dies to give their bed to someone else,’ a
doctor said.
To fill the gaps, seven mobile hospitals were ordered last March but
only two are working properly. The head of the agency which made the
$47 million deal, accused of corruption, was sacked. People protested under
the banner: ‘If it were a narco lab, it would be working.’
Biden’s immigration
policy includes spending $4 billion in El Salvador, Guatemala and
Honduras to address the problems that spur migration. It should be
obvious, not least from the evidence accumulated by New York
prosecutors, that the ruling party in Tegucigalpa is unfit to govern,
even if JOH is replaced in elections in November. But the problems go
much deeper than that: the whole governing system serves the needs of
big business – often North American companies – as it exploits
both the land and the workforce, destroying the environment and
maintaining the
second biggest gap between rich and poor in Latin America.
Throwing money at the problems could simply make them worse unless
Biden makes the fundamental changes in US policy that both Obama and
his secretary of state Hillary Clinton refused to contemplate.
Perhaps aware that this won’t be achieved quickly or easily, Biden
officials appear to have quietly asked
Mexico and its neighbours to continue to deter migrant caravans, even
as a new one is said to be forming.
JOH meanwhile faces
not only political rejection but possible extradition if the US turns
against him. He’s reported
to be ‘trying to figure out how to refashion himself from a Trump
ally into a Biden one’. He tweeted a photo
of himself with Biden in 2015: ‘I hope we can work together,’ he
wrote, ‘like in the past.’
Op 4
april 1967, opvallend* genoeg precies een jaar voor hij onder regie van de FBI werd vermoord,
gaf Martin Luther King (MLK) een toespraak in de Riverside Church
(New York) waarin hij de VS de grootste leverancier van geweld noemde op
de toenmalige wereld…….
Hoe
weinig is er veranderd sindsdien, sterker nog je kan nu zonder meer
stellen dat de VS de grootste terreurentiteit ter wereld is, de VS
ook aangeduid als het Vierde Rijk, met haar meer dan 800 militaire
bases over de wereld, de VS met haar voortdurende illegale oorlogsvoering (sinds het begin van de Obama administraties geen dag meer zonder oorlog…),
de VS met haar geheime militaire acties waar het maar uitkomt en met haar
moordprogramma uitgevoerd middels drones…… Alleen deze eeuw heeft de VS met hulp van haar oorlogshond NAVO al meer dan 5 miljoen mensen
vermoord…..
Het is
dan ook schunnig als je ziet dat de reguliere (westerse) media en
politici het moorddadig optreden van de VS steunen zonder te spreken
over het enorme aantal slachtoffers, terwijl ze tegelijkertijd
Rusland, China en Iran durven te beschuldigen van agressie en het
destabiliseren van de situatie in het Midden-Oosten, Azië en zelfs
het westen, de laatste met leugens over cyberaanvallen, waarvoor geen
flinter aan bewijs kan worden geleverd……
Het is juist ook nu van belang de stilte te doorbreken, de stilte over hoe mensen in massa’s worden vermoord door militairen van de VS en haar NAVO-partners, de stilte over het nog steeds verdrukte gekleurde volk in de VS, zelfs na de gekleurde president Obama die dan ook maar weinig of niets voor de gekleurde bevolking heeft gedaan, de politie vermoordt ze nog steeds op grote schaal…., de stilte over het bloedige beleid van Israël tegen het verdrukte Palestijnse volk, mogelijk gemaakt door de VS, de stilte over de genocide in Jemen uitgevoerd door de Saoedische terreurcoalitie, politiek en militair gesteund door de VS, Groot-Brittannië en Frankrijk (waar de laatste 2 hoofdzakelijk zorgen voor wapenleveranties aan Saoedi-Arabië en de training van soldaten), de stilte over de smerige spelletjes die de VS in veel landen speelt om de boel te destabiliseren en zelfs democratisch gekozen regeringen omver te werpen…… (waarna de VS een dictator aanstelt die braaf doet wat de VS verlangt…)
De stilte ook over de enorme vervuiling door het militaire apparaat, ook daarin is de VS de ‘grootste….’ (bovendien een fikse aanjager van de klimaatverandering, om over de vervuiling middels radioactieve munitie maar te zwijgen, de reden voor veel medische ellende nadat de VS is verdwenen**) De stilte over seismische proeven van de VS marine in de oceanen, die alles wat onderwater leeft in de nabijheid doet sterven en verder walvis- en dolfijnachtigen geheel in verwarring brengen, volgens deskundigen één van de redenen waarom zo nu en dan grote aantallen walvisachtigen stranden……. Tot slot de stilte in de reguliere westerse (massa-) media over de meeste van deze zaken (Black Liver Matter >> BLM is al lang weer vergeten….), een stilte die zelfs bewust wordt gehandhaafd door die media, zie ook hoe zogenaamde journalisten van die media, NB collega’s van Julian Assange die hem hebben besmeurd, hem voor verrader en spion hebben uitgemaakt en hem zelfs een charlatan durfden te noemen, terwijl één van de eerste onthullingen op Wikileaks het neerschieten was van burgers door militairen van de VS vanuit een helikopter, waarbij 2 journalisten van Reuters werden vermoord…… Hoe kan je je als journalist keren tegen een collega die dit soort vreselijke oorlogsmisdaden openbaart…???
Oh vergeet ik nog een belangrijke: laten we de stilte doorbreken die wordt veroorzaakt door de hysterie over het Coronavirus en waarmee in korte tijd een groot aantal burgerrechten geweld werd en wordt aangedaan!!
Lees de
toespraak van MLK en zie hoe weinig er is veranderd:
“Beyond
Vietnam”
A
Time to Break Silence
By
Rev. Martin Luther King
By 1967, King had
become the country’s most prominent opponent of the Vietnam War, and
a staunch critic of overall U.S. foreign policy, which he deemed
militaristic. In his “Beyond Vietnam” speech delivered at
New York’s Riverside Church on April 4, 1967 — a year to the day
before he was murdered — King called the United States “the
greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”
Time magazine called
the speech “demagogic slander that sounded like a script for
Radio Hanoi,” and the Washington Post declared that King had
“diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his
people.”
Beyond
Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence
By Rev. Martin Luther
King
4 April 1967
Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at
Riverside Church in New York City
I come to this magnificent
house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other
choice. I join with you in this meeting because I am in deepest
agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has
brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The
recent statement of your executive committee are the sentiments of my
own heart and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening
lines: “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” That time
has come for us in relation to Vietnam.
The truth of these
words is beyond doubt but the mission to which they call us is a most
difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men
do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy,
especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without
great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within
one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover when the
issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this
dreadful conflict we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by
uncertainty; but we must move on.
Some of us who have already
begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling
to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must
speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited
vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely
this is the first time in our nation’s history that a significant
number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the
prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm
dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of
history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us
trace its movement well and pray that our own inner being may be
sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way
beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.
Over the
past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own
silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have
called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many
persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart
of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: Why are
you speaking about war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of
dissent? Peace and civil rights don’t mix, they say. Aren’t you
hurting the cause of your people, they ask? And when I hear them,
though I often understand the source of their concern, I am
nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the
inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling.
Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in
which they live.
In the light of such tragic
misunderstandings, I deem it of signal importance to try to state
clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from
Dexter Avenue Baptist Church — the church in Montgomery, Alabama,
where I began my pastorate — leads clearly to this sanctuary
tonight.
I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate
plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or
to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to
Russia.
Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the
total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy
of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the
National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the
role they can play in a successful resolution of the problem. While
they both may have justifiable reason to be suspicious of the good
faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony
to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give
and take on both sides.
Tonight, however, I wish not to speak
with Hanoi and the NLF, but rather to my fellow Americans, who, with
me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has
exacted a heavy price on both continents.
The Importance of
Vietnam
Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not
surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into
the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious
and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the
struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago
there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there
was a real promise of hope for the poor — both black and white —
through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new
beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the
program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political
plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would
never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its
poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and
skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was
increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to
attack it as such.
Perhaps the more tragic recognition of
reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing
far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was
sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and
to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of
the population. We were taking the black young men who had been
crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to
guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in
southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced
with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens
as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to
seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal
solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that
they would never live on the same block in Detroit. I could not be
silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
My
third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows
out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three
years — especially the last three summers. As I have walked among
the desperate, rejected and angry young men I have told them that
Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have
tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my
conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through
nonviolent action. But they asked — and rightly so — what about
Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of
violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted.
Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise
my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without
having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in
the world today — my own government. For the sake of those boys, for
the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands
trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.
For those
who ask the question, “Aren’t you a civil rights leader?”
and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have
this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: “To save
the soul of America.” We were convinced that we could not limit
our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed
the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself
unless the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the
shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston
Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:
O,
yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And
yet I swear this oath–
America will be!
Now, it should be
incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the
integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If
America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must
read Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the
deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who
are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of
protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.
As if
the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America
were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me
in 1964; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Prize for Peace was also
a commission — a commission to work harder than I had ever worked
before for “the brotherhood of man.” This is a calling that
takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present
I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the
ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to
the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those
who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they
do not know that the good news was meant for all men — for Communist
and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white,
for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my
ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully
that he died for them? What then can I say to the “Vietcong”
or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I
threaten them with death or must I not share with them my
life?
Finally, as I try to delineate for you and for myself
the road that leads from Montgomery to this place I would have
offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true
to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of
the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this
vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the
Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless
and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.
This I
believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem
ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and
deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation’s self-defined
goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the
voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy,
for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our
brothers.
Strange Liberators
And as I ponder the madness of
Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond
to compassion my mind goes constantly to the people of that
peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the
junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under
the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of
them too because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful
solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their
broken cries.
They must see Americans as strange liberators.
The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after
a combined French and Japanese occupation, and before the Communist
revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they
quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document
of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to
support France in its reconquest of her former colony.
Our
government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not “ready”
for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western
arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long.
With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government
seeking self-determination, and a government that had been
established not by China (for whom the Vietnamese have no great love)
but by clearly indigenous forces that included some Communists. For
the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the
most important needs in their lives.
For nine years following
1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For
nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive
effort to recolonize Vietnam.
Before the end of the war we
were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the
French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of the
reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge
financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they
had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of
this tragic attempt at recolonization.
After the French were
defeated it looked as if independence and land reform would come
again through the Geneva agreements. But instead there came the
United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily
divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of
the most vicious modern dictators — our chosen man, Premier Diem.
The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly routed out all
opposition, supported their extortionist landlords and refused even
to discuss reunification with the north. The peasants watched as all
this was presided over by U.S. influence and then by increasing
numbers of U.S. troops who came to help quell the insurgency that
Diem’s methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have
been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to
offer no real change — especially in terms of their need for land
and peace.
The only change came from America as we increased
our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly
corrupt, inept and without popular support. All the while the people
read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and
democracy — and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and
consider us — not their fellow Vietnamese –the real enemy. They
move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their
fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are
rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So
they go — primarily women and children and the aged.
They
watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their
crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas
preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the
hospitals, with at least twenty casualties from American firepower
for one “Vietcong”-inflicted injury. So far we may have
killed a million of them — mostly children. They wander into the
towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes,
running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children,
degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children
selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their
mothers.
What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with
the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words
concerning land reform? What do they think as we test our latest
weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new
tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of
the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these
voiceless ones?
We have destroyed their two most cherished
institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their
land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the
nation’s only non-Communist revolutionary political force — the
unified Buddhist church. We have supported the enemies of the
peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and
killed their men. What liberators?
Now there is little left to
build on — save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations
remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of
the concentration camps we call fortified hamlets. The peasants may
well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as
these? Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them
and raise the questions they cannot raise. These too are our
brothers.
Perhaps the more difficult but no less necessary
task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies.
What of the National Liberation Front — that strangely anonymous
group we call VC or Communists? What must they think of us in America
when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of
Diem which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in
the south? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led
to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity
when now we speak of “aggression from the north” as if
there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us
when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of
Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of
death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings even
if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men
we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that
our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest
acts.
How do they judge us when our officials know that their
membership is less than twenty-five percent Communist and yet insist
on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they
know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam
and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this
highly organized political parallel government will have no part?
They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is
censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely
right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form
without them — the only party in real touch with the peasants. They
question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace
settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are
frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political
myth again and then shore it up with the power of new violence?
Here
is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence when it
helps us to see the enemy’s point of view, to hear his questions, to
know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see
the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we
may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are
called the opposition.
So, too, with Hanoi. In the north,
where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the
waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak
for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and
especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are
the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and
the French, the men who sought membership in the French commonwealth
and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the
colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French
domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up
the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth
parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us
conspire with Diem to prevent elections which would have surely
brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized
they had been betrayed again.
When we ask why they do not leap
to negotiate, these things must be remembered. Also it must be clear
that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops
in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military
breach of the Geneva agreements concerning foreign troops, and they
remind us that they did not begin to send in any large number of
supplies or men until American forces had moved into the tens of
thousands.
Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us
the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how
the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been
made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and
built up its forces, and now he has surely heard of the increasing
international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the north.
He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of
traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor
and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of
the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a
poor weak nation more than eight thousand miles away from its
shores.
At this point I should make it clear that while I have
tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless on
Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called
enemy, I am as deeply concerned about our troops there as anything
else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in
Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war
where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding
cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short
period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are
really involved. Before long they must know that their government has
sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more
sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy
and the secure while we create hell for the poor.
This Madness
Must Cease
Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I
speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam.
I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are
being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the
poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at
home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the
world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I
speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be
ours.
This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of
Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words:
“Each
day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the
Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The
Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies.
It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the
possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process
they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image
of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and
democracy, but the image of violence and militarism.”
If
we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the
world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. It will become
clear that our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American
colony and men will not refrain from thinking that our maximum hope
is to goad China into a war so that we may bomb her nuclear
installations. If we do not stop our war against the people of
Vietnam immediately the world will be left with no other alternative
than to see this as some horribly clumsy and deadly game we have
decided to play.
The world now demands a maturity of America
that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we
have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that
we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The
situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our
present ways.
In order to atone for our sins and errors in
Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this
tragic war. I would like to suggest five concrete things that our
government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult
process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish
conflict:
End all bombing in North and South
Vietnam.
Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such
action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.
Take immediate
steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing
our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in
Laos.
Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation
Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play
a role in any meaningful negotiations and in any future Vietnam
government.
Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from
Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva agreement.
Part of
our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant
asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime
which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what
reparations we can for the damage we have done. We most provide the
medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country
if necessary.
Protesting The War
Meanwhile we in the
churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our
government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must
continue to raise our voices if our nation persists in its perverse
ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by
seeking out every creative means of protest possible.
As we
counsel young men concerning military service we must clarify for
them our nation’s role in Vietnam and challenge them with the
alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this
is the path now being chosen by more than seventy students at my own
alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the
American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover I
would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their
ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors.
These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at
the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is
to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide
on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all
protest.
There is something seductively tempting about
stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has
become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must
enter the struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even
more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper
malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering
reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and
laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. They will be
concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about
Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and
South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names
and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and
profound change in American life and policy. Such thoughts take us
beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living
God.
In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that
it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world
revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern
of suppression which now has justified the presence of U.S. military
“advisors” in Venezuela. This need to maintain social
stability for our investments accounts for the counter-revolutionary
action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American
helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and why
American napalm and green beret forces have already been active
against rebels in Peru. It is with such activity in mind that the
words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years
ago he said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will
make violent revolution inevitable.”
Increasingly, by
choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken — the
role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to
give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense
profits of overseas investment.
I am convinced that if we are
to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must
undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the
shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a
“person-oriented” society. When machines and computers,
profit motives and property rights are considered more important than
people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are
incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will
soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our
past and present policies. n the one hand we are called to play the
good Samaritan on life’s roadside; but that will be only an initial
act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be
transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and
robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion
is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and
superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars
needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look
uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With
righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see
individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in
Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no
concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: “This
is not just.” It will look at our alliance with the landed
gentry of Latin America and say: “This is not just.” The
Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others
and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of
values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: “This
way of settling differences is not just.” This business of
burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with
orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins
of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody
battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged,
cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that
continues year after year to spend more money on military defense
than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual
death.
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the
world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is
nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering
our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence
over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a
recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it
into a brotherhood.
This kind of positive revolution of values
is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer.
Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or
nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and through
their misguided passions urge the United States to relinquish its
participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise
restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not call everyone a
Communist or an appeaser who advocates the seating of Red China in
the United Nations and who recognizes that hate and hysteria are not
the final answers to the problem of these turbulent days. We must not
engage in a negative anti-communism, but rather in a positive thrust
for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism
is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with
positive action seek to remove thosse conditions of poverty,
insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed
of communism grows and develops.
The People Are
Important
These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men
are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression and
out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality
are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are
rising up as never before. “The people who sat in darkness have
seen a great light.” We in the West must support these
revolutions. It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency,
a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice,
the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary
spirit of the modern world have now become the arch
anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism
has the revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgement
against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the
revolutions we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to
recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes
hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and
militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge
the status quo and unjust mores and thereby speed the day when “every
valley shall be exalted, and every moutain and hill shall be made
low, and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places
plain.”
A genuine revolution of values means in the final
analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than
sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to
mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual
societies.
This call for a world-wide fellowship that lifts
neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class and nation is in
reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all
men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept — so readily
dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force
— has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When
I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak
response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great
religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love
is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate
reality. This Hindu-Moslem-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about
ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of
Saint John:
Let us love one another; for love is God and
everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth
not knoweth not God; for God is love. If we love one another God
dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
Let us hope
that this spirit will become the order of the day. We can no longer
afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of
retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the
ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of
nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of
hate. As Arnold Toynbee says : “Love is the ultimate force that
makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning
choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory
must be the hope that love is going to have the last word.”
We
are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted
with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life
and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination
is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked
and dejected with a lost opportunity. The “tide in the affairs
of men” does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out
deperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to
every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue
of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: “Too
late.” There is an invisible book of life that faithfully
records our vigilance or our neglect. “The moving finger writes,
and having writ moves on…” We still have a choice today;
nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.
We must
move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for
peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world — a
world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be
dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved
for those who possess power without compassion, might without
morality, and strength without sight.
Now let us begin. Now
let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter — but beautiful
— struggle for a new world. This is the callling of the sons of God,
and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds
are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our
message be that the forces of American life militate against their
arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there
be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their
yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The
choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must
choose in this crucial moment of human history.
As that noble
bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:
Once
to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide,
In the
strife of truth and falsehood,
For the good or evil side;
Some
great cause, God’s new Messiah,
Off’ring each the bloom or
blight,
And the choice goes by forever
Twixt that darkness and
that light.
Though the cause of evil prosper,
Yet ’tis
truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold,
And
upon the throne be wrong:
Yet that scaffold sways the future,
And
behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow
Keeping
watch above his own.
* Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat deze toespraak van Martin Luther King tevens zijn doodvonnis was, niet voor niets dat hij precies een jaar na deze toespraak werd vermoord door de FBI…….. (hoe ongelofelijk cynisch, maar ja wat wil je: de FBI en dan ook nog eens in de 60er jaren, toen Hoover, de topgraaier van deze terreurrorganisatie, zich nog oppermachtig voelde, al werd er al flink aan z’n stoelpoten gezaagd)
** Wat doet denken aan het enorme aantal slachtoffers in Vietnam door het gebruik van Agent Orange door de VS in die smerige door de VS gevoerde illegale oorlog, nog steeds eist dat Agent Orange slachtoffers onder kinderen die een leven vol ellende wacht……
Oorlogshitser
Victoria Nuland, wordt hoogstwaarschijnlijk door Biden genomineerd
als zijn staatssecretaris politieke zaken….* Volgens World Beyond
War was Nuland adviseur van vicepresident Dick Cheney (onder George W.
Bush), later was zij van 2005 tot 2008 VS ambassadeur bij de NAVO,
waar ze eigenlijk meer te zeggen had dan de secretaris generaal, in
dat geval CDA oplichter de Hoop Scheffer, die dan ook na één
termijn kon opzouten daar hij zwaar ondermaats presteerde, o.a. volgens Nuland**. (de NAVO staat al vanaf de oprichting onder militair opperbevel van de VS en fungeert daarom in feite als de oorlogshond van de groootste terreurentiteit ter wereld: de VS…..)
Nuland
is ook één van de hoofdverantwoordelijken voor de oorlog in
Oekraïne (waarvoor Hillary Clinton als minister van BuZa onder Obama
de fundamenten legde en e.e.a. betaalde met 5 miljard dollar >> zelf hield ik het altijd op 4 miljard, maar steeds meer bronnen stellen dat
het 5 miljard moet zijn)…… Nuland zat o.a.achter het installeren van
fascist Arseniy Yatsenyuk als juntaleider en opvolger van de verjaagde democratisch
gekozen Oekraïense president Janoekovytsj, een duidelijke staatsgreep die het westen nog steeds zo weigert te noemen……
Op het
Maidanplein in Kiev deelde Nuland koekjes uit (tja weer ‘s wat anders
dan kogels en bommen), hetzelfde plein waarvoor de CIA
scherpschutters had ingehuurd die de politie en het publiek onder
vuur hebben genomen, om dit als false flag operatie in de schoenen
van Janoekovytsj te schuiven……. Terwijl Duitsland Polen en
Frankrijk overleg voerden met de regering Janoekovytsj over
vervroegde verkiezingen, namen neonazi’s het heft in eigen handen en
hebben de regering verjaagd, waarbij ze de eerder genoemde Arseniy
Yatsenyuk aanstelden als president….Ten overvloede bewees de VS
toen nogmaals een terreurentiteit te zijn, daar ze de neonazi
regering onmiddellijk erkenden….. (en reken maar dat Nuland ook in deze zaak een belangrijke rol speelde….)
Nuland
werkte openlijk met de neonazi partij Svoboda, voorts heeft zij zich
ingezet om Oekraïne het modernste oorlogstuig te geven en als kers
op de taart heeft zij zich ingezet voor Joe Biden, destijds de vicepresident
van de VS, om de zittende Oekraïense junta onder druk te zetten, de openbaar aanklager te vervangen, daar deze
de misdadige handel en wandel van Hunter Biden onderzocht….. (Biden
gaf zelfs toe dat hij de regering in Oekraïne onder druk had gezet
deze aanklager te ontslaan daar Oekraïne anders geen wapens zou
krijgen van de VS…..) Ofwel oorlogshoer Nuland kan wel een potje
breken bij Biden….
Uiteraard
heeft ze Rusland voortdurend gedemoniseerd met leugens en andere
achterklap, pleitte ze voor NAVO bases aan de grens met Rusland en
zoveel mogelijk ook voor de Russen zichtbare militaire oefeningen
langs de grens met hun land…… Ze wil de oude wapenrace tussen de VS en Rusland nieuw leven inblazen en zo Rusland failliet te laten gaan, echter ze vergeet dat de VS staatsschuld vergeleken met de 80er jaren van de vorige eeuw nu zo gigantisch groot is, dat elk ander land al lang failliet zou zijn verklaard en het wachten is dan ook niet of de dollarkoers zal inklappen maar wanneer dat zal gebeuren en die dag kan dichterbij zijn dan deskundigen denken……. (op die dag zal ook ons geld geen fluit meer waard zijn)
Ach ja,
World Beyond War maakt zich druk maar wat wil je met een president
die al voor zijn aantreden tot de nek in het bloed van ontelbare
slachtoffers staat…… Nogmaals geeft ook dit geheel overbodig nog
eens aan dat er met Biden alleen maar meer (illegale) oorlogsvoering is te verwachten……..
Victoria Nuland, former foreign
policy adviser to vice president Dick Cheney, should not be nominated
for Undersecretary of State, and if nominated should be rejected by
the Senate.
Nuland played a key role in
facilitating a coup in Ukraine that created a civil war costing
10,000 lives and displacing over a million people. She played a key
role in arming Ukraine as well. She advocates radically increased
military spending, NATO expansion, hostility toward Russia, and
efforts to overthrow the Russian government.
The United States invested $5
billion in shaping Ukrainian politics, including overthrowing a
democratically elected president who had refused to join NATO.
Then-Assistant Secretary of State Nuland is on video
talking about the U.S. investment and on audiotape
planning to install Ukraine’s next leader, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who
was subsequently installed.
The Maidan protests, at which
Nuland handed out cookies to protesters, were violently escalated by
neo-Nazis and by snipers who opened fire on police. When Poland,
Germany, and France negotiated a deal for the Maidan demands and an
early election, neo-Nazis instead attacked the government and took
over. The U.S. State Department immediately recognized the coup
government, and Arseniy Yatsenyuk was installed as Prime Minister.
Nuland has worked
with the openly pro-Nazi Svoboda Party in Ukraine. She was long a
leading proponent
of arming Ukraine. She was also an advocate for removing from office
the prosecutor general of Ukraine, whom then-Vice President Joe Biden
pushed the president to remove.
Nuland wrote
this past year that “The challenge for the United States in 2021
will be to lead the democracies of the world in crafting a more
effective approach to Russia—one that builds on their strengths and
puts stress on Putin where he is vulnerable, including among his own
citizens.”
She added: “…Moscow should also
see that Washington and its allies are taking concrete steps to shore
up their security and raise the cost of Russian confrontation and
militarization. That includes maintaining robust defense budgets,
continuing to modernize U.S. and allied nuclear weapons systems, and
deploying new conventional missiles and missile defenses, . . .
establish permanent bases along NATO’s eastern border, and increase
the pace and visibility of joint training exercises.”
The United States walked out of the
ABM Treaty and later the INF Treaty, began putting missiles into
Romania and Poland, expanded NATO to Russia’s border, facilitated a
coup in Ukraine, began arming Ukraine, and started holding massive
war rehearsal exercises in Eastern Europe. But to read Victoria
Nuland’s account, Russia is simply an irrationally evil and
aggressive force that must be countered by yet more military
spending, bases, and hostility. Some U.S. military
officials say this demonizing of Russia is all about weapons
profits and bureaucratic power, no more fact-based than the Steele
Dossier that was given
to the FBI by Victoria Nuland.
SIGNED BY:
Alaska Peace
Center
Center for Encounter and Active
Non-Violence
CODEPINK
Global Network Against Weapons &
Nuclear Power in Space
Greater Brunswick PeaceWorks
Jemez
Peacemakers
Knowdrones.com
Maine Voices for Palestinian
Rights
MK Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence
Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation
Nukewatch
Peace Action Maine
PEACEWORKERS
Physicians
for Social Responsibility – Kansas City
Progressive Democrats of
America
Peace Fresno
Peace, Justice, Sustainability NOW!
The
Resistance Center for Peace and Justice
RootsAction.org
Veterans
For Peace Chapter 001
Veterans For Peace Chapter 63
Veterans
For Peace Chapter 113
Veterans For Peace Chapter 115
Veterans
For Peace Chapter 132
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity
Wage Peace
World BEYOND War
======================================
* De taken van dat ministerie: Het beheren van de Amerikaanse
ambassades en consulaten en korps van diplomaten. Het beschermen van
Amerikaanse staatsburgers in het buitenland. Het assisteren van
Amerikaanse bedrijven op de internationale markt. (tekst van Wikipedia)
**
CDA kloot de Hoop Scheffer, tegenwoordig gvd ook leraar aan een hoge
school, kreeg de functie bij de NAVO als beloning voor het meedoen van Nederland
aan de illegale oorlog tegen Irak, steun en militaire deelname zowel
voorafgaand aan die oorlog als daarna, dus niet alleen politieke
steun zoals vreemd genoeg een flink aantal mensen denkt…….
Ondanks dat die oorlog was gebaseerd op leugens, heeft de Hoop
Scheffer nog steeds geen spijt van de Nederlandse deelname aan deze
oorlog die gezien moet worden als één van de ergste vormen van
terreur!! In die oorlog zijn meer dan 2,5 miljoen mensen
vermoord……… Ofwel een oorlogsmisdadiger mag in dit land gewoon
les geven (en dan is hij ook nog eens prominent CDA lid….)……
Desiree
Hellegers heeft een uitgebreid artikel geschreven over de door de
VS georganiseerde en geregisseerde coup tegen het socialistische
bewind van Salvador Allende op 11 september 1973 (de eerste 9/11).
Hellegers
begint haar artikel met de vraag op Facebook van haar vriendengroep waar zij zich bevonden
gedurende belangrijke gebeurtenissen als de 9/11 aanvallen op de Twin
Towers en de moord op John F. Kennedy in 1963. Ze vraagt zich af of
ze later op de huidige tijd zal terugkijken als een korte pauze in
het afzakken van de VS naar een ‘full blown’ fascistische staat (het
aantreden van Biden als VS president ziet ze dan als pauze*). Als dat gebeurt
zal ook de klimaatverandering verder worden aangejaagd door de VS,
wat overigens ook gebeurde onder Obama, die zelfs toestemming gaf
voor de bouw van een enorme kolencentrale aan de rand van een uiterst
belangrijk natuurgebied de Sundarbans dit over de grens met India in dit natuurgebied, op de kant behorend tot Bangladesh………
Onder Obama werd de
VS de op één na grootste steenkoolexporteur, de absolute nummer 1 is het als de VS zo
door de klimaatverandering geteisterde Australië dat nu nog 1
miljoen ton steenkool per dag exporteert en daar binnenkort nog een
fikse schep bovenop doet, als de nieuwste en grootste
steenkoolterminal ter wereld wordt geopend, waarvoor een zeekanaal dwars door het Groot
Barrièrerif werd gegraven…… Het is maar de vraag of Biden inderdaad een andere koers zal inslaan, immers ook hij is een marionet van de oliemaatschappijen, het militair-industrieel complex en de financiële maffia…….*
Ook
besteedt Hellegers aandacht aan de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen
het Noord-Vietnamese volk en bijvoorbeeld de rol van Henry Kissinger,
een uitermate smerige oorlogsmisdadiger die al lang in Scheveningen
gevangen had moeten zitten (na te zijn berecht door het
Internationaal Strafhof >> ICC)… Echter deze schoft, die
schunnig genoeg ook de Nobelprijs voor de Vrede kreeg, zal gewoon in
een bed buiten de gevangenis sterven, zoals zoveel witte
oorlogsmisdadigers……
Hellegers wijst o.a. op de triomf van het huidige Chileense volk dat in een
referendum eiste dat de grondwet die door Pinochet in 1980 werd
opgesteld wordt vervangen door een nieuwe grondwet en waarmee men nu
bezig is deze op te stellen.
‘Terug
naar Chili van 1973’ en de bloedige coup van fascist,
massamoordenaar, verkrachter en martelbeul Pinochet, die zoals gezegd
werd gesteund door de VS (ofwel de CIA, zonder deze hulp was de coup mislukt!!).
Hellegers spreekt veel over de politiek activist, protestzanger en
schrijver Victor Jara, die eveneens werd vermoord na de bloedige
staatsgreep in 1973, samen met minstens 3.000 anderen, o.a. bestaande
uit intellectuelen, studenten, professoren, advocaten en politiek activisten.
Lees
het uitgebreide artikel van Hellegers en zegt het voort, de reguliere
media hebben amper aandacht voor de enorme invloed van de VS die
zoals gezegd ook de grondslag was voor de coup in het Chili van
1973….. (overigens heeft de VS voor en na die coup nog meer staatsgrepen
met wapens, organisatie en regie gesteund in Latijns Amerika, zoals
die in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazilië en die tegen de socialistische president
Morales van Bolivia….) In het artikel verder een vergelijking van Victor Jara met Martiun Luther King en een korte beschuwing over het ijskoude inhumane neoliberalisme, geïntroduceerd door de duivels Margareth Thatcher, de Britse ex-premier en C-acteur en VS president Ronald Reagan, een politieke ideologie die de meeste westerse landen schunnig genoeg nog steeds volgen….. (‘onze’ huidige valse premier Rutte stelt wel dat hij het neoliberalisme niet meer als leidraad neemt, echter dat is de zoveelste leugen van deze aartsleugenaar!!)
You can easily carbon
date your friends on Facebook based on where they were during any
major milestone in U.S. history. As a university professor teaching
now for decades at what we euphemistically call a “land grant”
university, many of my students these days were born after 9-11–into
the U.S.’s seemingly endless “War on Terror.” It’s a war that
some of their family members died in, but one that few of them seem
to know much about.
Last month, older
friends on Facebook who came of age in the 1960s were busy reflecting
on what they were doing when they heard the news that JFK had been
assassinated. Personally, I had only recently graduated from diapers
to plastic pants and was likely occupied with important matters like
trying to do the twist in front of the TV while my grandmother
clapped and sloshed Scotch all over her TV table. But like most
Americans who have not washed down decades of Rush Limbaugh with
great swigs of QAnon Kool-Aid, I can’t help but wonder how we will
look back at this moment in history. Is this the moment we turn the
tide, or is it a brief respite from the country’s descent into
full-blown fascism? The latter scenario would mean, of course, full
speed ahead into climate collapse, given that the U.S. military is
hands down the single largest carbon emissions machine on the planet,
and our collective dust speck is already close to the boiling point.
May you live in
interesting times. You got that right. These times are so interesting
that we’ve had a lame duck president holed up in the White House
consulting with his legal team from the Island of Malevolent Misfit
Toys about the possibilities for declaring martial law to overturn
the results of the election and it’s not the top story.
That stands to reason,
I guess, when you’ve got a pandemic death count equivalent of a
hundred 9-11s, and across the country bodies stacking up like
cordwood in overstuffed mobile morgue units.
It’s hard to sustain
the level of national alert so many of us felt during the run up to
the election and the vote count, when Trump’s
automatic-weapon-waving goon squads were busy battering on windows at
voting precincts or sky-writing “Surrender Gretchen” over the
Michigan State House. A meme was making the rounds at the time on
Facebook: American politics as Night of the Living Dead. Personally,
I was starting to feel like an insomnia-addled Lady Macbeth who’d
been mainlining Halloween candy or days, and as in all things, I
blamed my lovely spouse, who had shopped for Halloween candy like he
was stocking up for Y2K.
Like me, my spouse
knows how to brace for the worst, a skill we bonded over when we met
organizing against the second Gulf War. One of the biggest
misconceptions about the anti-war “movement,” if such a thing
exists right now, is that peace activists somehow hate veterans.
Since well before the war in Vietnam, the U.S. military has given
veterans critical insight into the American war machine, along with
heavy helpings of trauma and self-loathing. Some of my favorite peace
activists are veterans, my spouse chief and foremost among them. We
bonded organizing protests and staging a die-in in front of the
Portland federal building. It was one of those “what are you doing
after the die-in?” kinds of courtships.
I don’t remember
exactly when I began thinking of Victor Jara’s hands and how they’d
been crushed by Chilean soldiers in the early days of the
U.S.-sponsored Chilean coup in 1973. I do know, though, that as my
spouse and I took a left turn to drop our ballots off at our local
library, Victor Jara had been on both our minds. It wasn’t a total
coincidence, given that only a day or two before, on October 25,
Chileans had voted overwhelmingly in favor of drafting a new
constitution.
The referendum was a
concession wrenched from President Sebastian Piñera following a year
of street protests and civil unrest. The vote was a definitive kiss-off
to the Chilean constitution of 1980, enacted under the regime of
General Augusto Pinochet.
Living in the U.S.,
you’d never know that Chile had had its own national disaster on
September 11, nearly three decades before the U.S.
Not many Americans can
define neoliberalism, let alone know that on September 11, 1973, it
was ushered into Chile by U.S.-made tanks and at the butt of
U.S.-made guns—automatic weapons of the sort Trump’s “very
fine” friends never seem to tire of waving. And not at all unlike
the militarized Portland Police, and the BORTAC and Homeland Security
armies that spent all summer pounding and traumatizing friends of
mine in the streets of Portland, and spraying them with chemical
weapons long ago judged too dangerous to use in war, the health
effects being so severe and long term.
It was on September
11, 1973, that Richard Nixon and his henchman Henry Kissinger swept
Pinochet to power as the front man for the U.S.-sponsored
“experiment” in neoliberalism. A folksinger-songwriter, often
referred to as “Chile’s Bob Dylan,” Victor Jara would be the
most visible of more than 3,000 Chileans executed by Pinochet’s
death squads in September, as the coup began. You can get a quick
overview of the horrors that the U.S. helped unleash on Chileans in
the 1970s by watching the 2019 Netflix documentary Massacre
at the Stadium.
Shortly after
Pinochet’s reign of terror began, an estimated five thousand were
detained at a Santiago stadium—then named Estadio Chile, and since
renamed Estadio Victor Jara—and another twenty thousand at the
Estadio Nacional across town. Professors, students, musicians, farm
and factory workers were crowded shoulder to shoulder and sorted into
lines to live or die, to be interrogated, beaten, tortured, and/or
murdered. At Estadio Chile, more than seventy were executed on site,
while others were “disappeared.” Today a quote painted on the
back of the Estadio Nacional reads: “Un
pueblo sin memoria es un pueblo sin futuro” – “A people
without memory are a people without a future.”
Jara grew up poor, in
a family of farmworkers, but went on to become a theater director and
teacher, and to achieve international visibility with songs like
“Manifesto,” which speaks to Jara’s understanding of art
as a critical tool in struggles for justice, as an instrument of
decolonizing resistance, of spiritual, material, and ecological
liberation.
“I don’t sing for
the love of singing, /or because I have a good voice,” sang
Jara, “I sing because my guitar/has both feeling and reason. It
has a heart of earth/and the wings of a dove….”
Jara’s music was
inspired by his mother Amanda Martínez’s love of folk music rooted
in her Indigenous Mapuche heritage; his music was also shaped by a
Catholic education that included a brief period in the seminary.
Jara’s music was embraced in the 1960s and ‘70s by American folk
heavies like Pete Seeger and Joan Baez. Arlo Guthrie and Holly Near
are among the American songwriters who have since written tribute
songs. In the run-up to the election of Allende, Jara’s version of
the song “Venceremos” or “We Will Overcome,” became the
anthem of Allende’s Popular Unity Coalition, and also figured
centrally in eyewitness accounts of Jara’s death. Pinochet’s
U.S.-supported forces beat and tortured him, smashing his wrists.
At
some point in the stadium, Jara reportedly sang to the other
prisoners “Venceremos,” a song he’d adapted with new lyrics
that had egged Allende on to victory. Before he was executed, shot
more than 40 times by Pinochet’s U.S.-funded forces, Jara wrote his
final song: “What horror the face of fascism creates!/They carry
out their plans with knife-like precision./Nothing matters to
them./To them, blood equals medals,/slaughter is an act of
heroism./Oh God, is this the world that you created?”
No human cost was too
high to pay to usher in neoliberalism, to eviscerate the gains that
labor had made under Allende’s Popular Unity Coalition, and to
maintain a steady flow of cheap copper, fruit and fish to the U.S.
under the auspices of “trade liberalization.” The new
constitution passed under Pinochet’s dictatorship rolled back the
reforms instituted under Allende. It expanded the power of the
presidency and enshrined private property and corporate profits over
social needs; Pinochet rolled back taxes on corporations and the
wealthy, and eliminated a host of government services. State-owned
companies, public housing, education, health care, and pensions were
all privatized, turned into profit centers for corporations and the
wealthy. The constitution written under Pinochet limited reforms,
and the gap today between rich and poor in Chile is one of the
highest in Latin America.
Jara may be
technically dead, but if you do a bit of digging around on the
internet, you’ll see evidence of his long afterlife; hence the
title of a documentary about his impact on musicians in particular: The
Resurrection of Victor Jara.
Tens of thousands of hands have gone on playing Jara’s songs in the
nearly fifty years since his torture and murder in the stadium. Jara,
says Chilean musician Horacio Salinas, in the documentary, “could
create a ceremonial effect with his music.” On youtube, you can
find countless videos of musicians playing Jara’s songs, and songs
written in tribute to him, including my personal favorite, “Victor
Jara’s Hands,” by Joey Burns of the Tucson-based indie-rock
band Calexico, sung alternately in Spanish and English: “Songs of
the birds like hands/ call the earth to witness/ Sever from fear
before taking flight.”
And for the past year,
as across the streets of the U.S. Black Lives Matter activists have
demanded justice for George Floyd and the defunding of police
departments that consume the lion’s share of city budgets across
the country, Jara has been resurrected again and again–in an
all-star Chilean studio recording–and on the streets of Chile.
At an October 25, 2019 march in Santiago with a crowd estimated at
more than a million, people sang together Jara’s anti-war anthem
“El Derecho De Vivir En Paz,” or “The Right to Live in Peace,”
while countless
people played along on the guitar.
This past year,
workers in Chile have risen up again to demand a world in which
workers do more than just struggle to survive, one in which everyone
has a right to not just bread, but roses, music, and art.
Over the past year,
Chilean women have created their own distinctive, woman-centered
actions on the streets of Chile, with thousands collectively
performing the song “Un
Violador en Tu Camino,” or “A Rapist in Your Path,” in a
public rite of resistance to rape culture and femicide.
The song was inspired
by the work of the renowned Argentinian-Brazilian feminist
anthropologist/bioethicist Rita
Laura Segato. The song calls out the role of police and the
courts in perpetrating and perpetuating sexual violence that repeats,
on a smaller scale, the systemic rape and torture of women that
happened under Pinochet, and that is a central feature of fascism.
If the goal in
Chile—as it would be later in Iraq—was, as Naomi
Klein has argued–to disorient or “shock” the country into
submitting to a radically different and patently exploitative
economic system, the system that was imposed was also more rigidly
patriarchal. Sexual violence and degradation were integral
parts of Pinochet’s fascist playbook. But as Chileans battle the
legacy of Pinochet, this rite of feminist resistance, together with
other longstanding organizing, is propelling Chile to break new
ground internationally: Chile will be the first country in the world
with a constitutional assembly comprised equally
of women and men.
I turned twelve the
month that Pinochet came to power, and I have no memory whatsoever of
hearing about the murder of Jara, the mutilation of his hands, or the
thousands of Chileans who were tortured or disappeared. Looking back,
I find this fact stranger for the fact that I grew up within miles of
the White House. And when I look back on growing up in two very white
suburbs on the edge of Washington D.C., it might as well have been
Apartheid South Africa, the lines of demarcation between the Black
inner city; Georgetown, where my father was a professor; and the
white suburbs, were so clear and stark.
My first inklings of
the Chilean coup came in 1976, when the political violence of the
Pinochet regime erupted in Washington, D.C. I was fifteen, and a
friend of my older sister was dating Pablo Letelier, the son of
Orlando Letelier, when the latter was blown to pieces in a
car bombing, along with his co-worker Ronni Karpen Moffett.
Orlando Letelier had been a close associate of Allende and remained
until his death an outspoken critic of Pinochet, who was eventually
pegged for the bombing, though a fat lot of good that did.
By the age of fifteen
in 1976, I was not a complete newbie when it came to assassinations.
Just months before the Chilean Coup, in July of 1973, Colonel
Yosef Alon, a 42-year-old an Israeli Air Force pilot and military
attaché, whose daughter Yael rode the bus with us to school in the
morning, was assassinated in their driveway.
But Alon’s
assassination was not the first to have entered the sphere of my
privileged white childhood. My guess is that would have been the
Yablonski murders on New Year’s Eve, 1969.
We attended a
parochial school at the time called The Little Flower School, which
made the news not too long ago as the grade school alma mater of
Brett Kavanaugh. I was eight and my sister was seven when we learned
that the in-laws of one of the teachers at Little Flower—“Mrs.
Yablonski”—had all
been mowed down in their Pennsylvania home: Chip Yablonski, the
President of the United Mine Workers Union, his wife Margaret, and
their daughter Charlotte Yablonski.
I imagine this was
around the time I came home one day from school to find myself locked
out of the house, and when I banged on the window and peered inside,
I found my two older siblings had staged their own murder, knives
lying on the floor, a theatrical flourish of ketchup here and there.
Perhaps I’ve coped with my third-grade trauma by picturing myself
as a stony-faced critic who found the scene unconvincing, their
characters lacking in development.
The field of
Epigenetics assumes that stress is genetically transmitted. I don’t
need to know that my genetic fibers are somehow entangled in my
parents’ to understand that I’ve carried some of their trauma
into my own life. I grew up listening to—and, at times taking notes
on—my parents’ stories of trauma. My mother’s stories were
about growing up the child of a working-class single mother too poor
to raise her. She told stories about kids who accidentally jumped off
trains onto chainsaws, and about her experience dressing dead bodies
as a young student nurse on a deserted ward.
My father’s trauma
centered around the May 10, 1940, Nazi invasion of the Netherlands.
Barely a month short of his fourteenth birthday, he ended up lying in
a ditch next to his eighty-year-old grandmother, mortars flying,
trees bursting into flames overhead. His family narrowly made it
across the border before it closed. My father had four brothers,
including twins, one of whom, my Uncle Pierre, had suffered brain
damage from oxygen deprivation during delivery. My father lived with
the knowledge throughout his life that something as small as a hand
visibly shaking as a man pockets his papers, and they might have
landed in Westerbork or Auschwitz rather than in England, and his
brothers might have been medically tortured and dissected.
I know exactly where I
was when my father’s life ended on May 8, V.E. Day, 1979, just
outside Amsterdam. I was accompanying him on his lecture tour, the
chance to see Europe a high school graduation present. I was at my
uncle’s house, my father’s body still warm on the couch before
me, where he’d reclined after diagnosing his own heart attack. He
died just two days before the thirty-ninth anniversary of the Nazi
invasion of the Netherlands in 1940. The last destination I visited
with my father was Anne Frank’s “Secret Annex.” War, as I
learned on that trip, throws out shockwaves and unexploded
ordinance—both physical and emotional—that explode across
generations, and can shave decades off a single life.
While the “Neoliberal
Experiment” began in Chile in 1973 with tanks and guns—and on a
smaller scale in New York City with the manufactured financial crisis
of 1975—Reagan would become its American figurehead, its
presidential mad social scientist. I was in my second year at
Georgetown when Reagan was inaugurated, and I can remember exactly
where I was when Reagan was elected 40 years ago, on November 4,
1980. I was at the Republican election watch party at some tony D.C.
hotel, the details documented somewhere in a newspaper article buried
deep in my office closet.
In the fall of 1980, I
was in my second-year writing for the more liberal of Georgetown’s
two student newspapers, The
Voice.
Whether the story was assigned to me or I chose it out of some
perverse curiosity or out of an unshakeable conviction that
Republicans had better hors d’oeuvres, I can’t quite remember.
While I wasn’t the most savvy reporter at the time, I can say that
voting for Reagan was as unthinkable to me then as now. And if memory
serves, I covered the election party with all the rhetorical gravitas
of a monkey throwing shit at their new zookeepers.
I would go on to
attend the inauguration in D.C., again out of the kind of curiosity
that one might feel toward newly–landed
Martians walking the red carpet from their space capsule. I was a
sophomore and busy running from one panicked deadline to the other,
but Reagan’s inaugural speech got my attention. “[A]mong all the
nations of the earth,” as Reagan
would have it, “[The U.S. was] special…The freedom and the
dignity of the individual have been more available and assured” in
the U.S. “than in any other place on Earth,” Reagan claimed.
What I missed the
first time around, though, was his distillation of neoliberal
principles: The one barrier to the “individual liberty” of
citizen/workers in a country “without ethnic or racial divisions”
was government itself. “It is time,” Reagan proclaimed, “to
check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of
having grown beyond the consent of the governed.” While Reagan
deftly tipped his hat to working people—to “men and women who
raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and our factories,
teach our children,” and on and on—for Reagan, as for Trump, the
joke was on working people.
The years I spent at
Georgetown in the wake of my father’s death provided a crash course
in the importance of the social safety net that Ronald Reagan was
hell bent on gutting. At the time, if I was somewhat oblivious to the
nuances of Reagan’s political agenda, it was likely because I was
occupied a good bit of the time with trying not to have a nervous
breakdown. My personal social safety net at the time consisted of
Social Security Survivor’s Benefits, four years of free tuition to
Georgetown–where my father had taught for more than a decade–and
something I never thought very much about having: white skin. My
father’s death sent my mother off her fragile rails, and within six
months of Reagan’s inauguration, during the summer of 1981, my
sister and I were homeless.
My sister and I
learned that summer that with white skin, student I.D.’s, and a
keen eye out for security guards, there are ways of getting by on a
college campus rent-free. At the time, I didn’t think much about
the role that whiteness played in stopping us from falling any
further. I was oblivious to the fact that the safety net we found in
sleeping in vacant dorms would not have been available to us had we
been Black or brown. As it was, there would be no cops, no Karens
staring skeptically at our student I.D.’s, no guns pointed in our
faces, no one asking if we were enrolled or if we’d paid summer
rent for the dorm rooms. That experience, together with my father’s
death, would radically remap my life for decades to come.
+++
When neoliberalism
arrived in Chile, Victor Jara and working class supporters of
Socialist President Salvador Allende were under no illusions about
whose benefits the coup would serve.
If neoliberalism was
brought into Chile with guns and tanks, in the U.S., it was done with
smoke and mirrors. Reagan was inaugurated forty years ago this
January on a platform based on the self-interested lies and
deceptions crafted by the so-called “Chicago Boys”––the
architects of neoliberalism. Reagan greased his personal path to the
White House on the neoliberal snake oil of “Trickle Down Economics”
and Free
Market Fundamentalism. And while Jimmy
Carter had already gotten the ball rolling, Reagan would jump
start the neoliberal bait and switch transfer of funds from public
housing, education, and welfare, to policing, prisons, and endless
war.
Ronald Reagan was as
eager to shill for trickle-down economics and gutting
the social safety net as he’d been for the House Unamerican
Activities Committee and the warmongers at General Electric.
Meanwhile, in the UK, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was happily
breaking the glass ceiling for women intent on dropping bombs on
babies and exploiting working families. On opposite sides of the
pond, Thatcher
and Reagan were simultaneously slashing corporate taxes,
deregulating the financial industry—and setting the stage for waves
of future financial crises. And both of them were intent on breaking
labor.
Though my siblings and
I were all given four years of free tuition, in the 1980s, you didn’t
have to have a scholarship—or a parent who was a professor—to
walk away from a four-year degree debt-free or close to it. In 1983,
the year I graduated, tuition at a public university barely topped a thousand
a year.But public universities had already been on Reagan’s hit
list in the 1960s when he was governor of California, and students at
Berkeley were busy mobilizing for free speech, civil rights, and an
end to the Vietnam War.
To Reagan, Berkeley
students were nothing more than unruly “welfare bums”; free
tuition was their dole, and Reagan was hell bent on sending them
“back
to work.”
Defunding higher
education and slapping students with debt was, Reagan understood, a
path to reign in “beatniks, radicals and filthy speech advocates….”
Today California spends more money incarcerating people than it does
educating them—from K-12 through university. In the U.S.
today, tuition at public universities is ten
times higher than it was when I graduated in 1983. Inflation
counts for less
than a third of the increase.
Over the past forty
years, public universities have been steadily transformed into
student debt delivery machines operated on the backs of debt-strapped
adjuncts. University presidents, who routinely make five times more
than governors, sell students—as “customers”—on the fiction
that History–along with Literature, Women’s Studies, Comparative
Ethnic Studies, Philosophy, and the Arts–are frivolous luxuries we
can no longer afford to fully fund. The Gipper might be pleased today
to see 18-22-year-olds signing off on documents they’d need MBAs in
finance to understand and then emerging as desperate and pliable
indentured servants for corporations. Even pre-COVID, 48% of
university students in the U.S. were at risk of, or already,
experiencing houselessness.
Historian Howard Zinn
observed, “If you don’t know history, it’s as if you were born
yesterday,” and that lack of knowledge is convenient for corporate
interests intent on red-baiting and enlisting workers to rail against
social programs and benefits that their own grandparents struggled
mightily for. I may have learned nothing while I was at Georgetown
about the U.S.’s role in the Chilean coup that killed Victor Jara,
but I did learn a few things about what can happen to white American
nuns who are labeled Communist sympathizers for getting too cozy with
Indigenous farmworkers in Central America struggling for some very
basic forms of justice.
In 1981, I stumbled
across a talk Daniel Berrigan was giving on campus. Berrigan, I’ve
long since learned was a rock star of the American peace movement. By
the early 1970s, Berrigan,
a Jesuit priest, poet, playwright, and professor, had made the FBI’s
Most Wanted List for burning draft files in the parking lot of the
Catonsville, MD draft board with homemade napalm in 1968, and then
going underground to dodge the charges so he could keep organizing
other actions.
“Apologies, good
friends, for the fracture of good order, the burning of paper instead
of children,” Berrigan famously said of the action. The American
banality of evil in a nutshell.
On this particular day
in 1981, though, I knew nothing about Berrigan, who quickly
surrendered the floor anyway to a middle-aged Catholic couple, the
parents of one Jeanne Donovan, a “Maryknoll lay missioner.” And
the story the couple told went something like this: on December 2,
1980, this nice, idealistic young Catholic woman was raped
and murdered, executed at close range—along with three nuns,
Ita Ford, Maura Clarke, and Dorothy Kazel. And suddenly Donovan’s
parents had a chilling political awakening, as they began to
understand the role that U.S. military advisors and U.S.-funded and
-trained death
squads played throughout Central–and much of Latin–America in
repressing labor organizing and movements for social justice.
Donovan’s parents were extremely convincing. I couldn’t come up
with any plausible communist plot that would explain these two
straight-laced Catholic squares having to talk about the rape and
murder of their daughter.
If the 1980 crimes
against the nuns and Donovan occurred in the final month of Carter’s
administration, the perpetrators knew that it would be left to Reagan
to answer for it. It would be Reagan’s job to rationalize the rape
and murder of nuns as acceptable collateral damage in the U.S.’s
holy war against Communists. The chief spinner of malevolent tall
tales about Donovan and the nuns would be a professor of political
science at Georgetown, Reagan’s newly appointed ambassador to the
U.N.: Jeane Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick is remembered as a “principal
architect” of the bloodbath the U.S. helped fund and unleash
throughout Central America.
Questioned by
reporters, Kirkpatrick was eager to put the matter to rest, to drive
rhetorical nails into coffins that held the bodies of Donovan and
nuns that had been dragged out of the ground by ropes around their
ankles. The nuns, Kirkpatrick told TheTampa
Tribune,
“were not just nuns. The nuns were also political activists.”
They were aligned, she
claimed, with guerillas of the Farabundo Marti National
Liberation Front—the FMLN.
I have another
somewhat fonder Kirkpatrick-related memory from that same Spring
semester at Georgetown, one in which Kirkpatrick is standing at a
podium delivering a commencement address and, slowly graduating
seniors begin to rise and quietly turn their backs on her. Their
message was clear, impressive, and unapologetic: Kirkpatrick didn’t
deserve an honorary degree, and Georgetown had done them a disservice
by pretending otherwise. What Kirkpatrick did, in fact, deserve–the
student action clearly conveyed–was to be tried as a war
criminal at the Hague.
There’s a famous
quote from a Brazilian archbishop named Dom Helder Camara that
encapsulates the distinction between charity and social justice:
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint; when I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a Communist.” Union organizing,
demands for the redistribution of stolen Indigenous lands, and
anything else that threatened the profits of U.S. corporations would
be labelled—and battled– under Reagan as part of an international
Communist threat orchestrated by Cuba and the Soviet Union.
By the Fall of ‘81,
having had my own brief and very privileged run-in with
houselessness, I started volunteering at shelters in D.C. That
experience gave me a small window into the
ways in which poverty
served up daily reminders to D.C.’s Black residents of just how
disposable they were to the city’s white elite and any god they
might construct in their own image. Forty years of neoliberalism and
gentrification have only intensified Black poverty in D.C. And
poverty, coupled with the daily toll of racism in the U.S., can shave
years–or decades–off a life. Today white privilege in
Washington, D.C. translates into seventeen additional years of
living. Seventeen
years.
In 1981, the “Great
Communicator” was busy cranking up his racist propaganda machine to
rally low income white voters against their own best interests.
Reagan managed to sell a sizable portion of the white working class
on the patently obvious lie that the majority of welfare recipients
were not only Black but living as “queens.”
It turns out that all kinds of white folks would happily collaborate
in slashing benefits they were desperately going to need in the
future that Reagan’s administration was setting in motion–one in
which jobs would become the U.S’s main global export.
“The Gipper”
happily picked up the mantle of Nixon’s War on Drugs and ran with
it. He stoked terror at the prospect of Black crack “fiends”
running amok in inner city war zones, and SWAT teams began invading
and terrorizing Black neighborhoods. As Michelle Alexander explains
in The
New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness,
Reagan put the U.S. squarely on the path to becoming the global
leader in locking people up. Prisons and militarized policing at home
and abroad would begin sucking up enormous amounts of money that
could have gone to housing, health care, and public education.
As expensive as
in-state college tuition is these days, the annual cost of a prison
bed in most states is equivalent to four
years of in-state college tuition.
In 2017 in California, the cost of a
single prison bed exceeded the cost of a year’s tuition and
living expenses at Harvard.
Prisons and immigrant
detention facilities generate huge profits for a tiny elite, while
brutalizing everyone else, including the people
who work there. But Nixon, Kissinger, and Pinochet were all
well aware that once people caught on to the swindle, the bait and
switch trickle-down-free-market government-for-the-corporations game,
there was a good chance they would need guns, tanks, and plenty of
tear gas to hold back the rebellion.
Predictably one of the
first casualties of the “neoliberal Experiment” would be people
living in public housing. They would increasingly land on city
streets and sidewalks, and the lucky ones in shelters like the ones I
worked at in Seattle in the mid ‘80s. Between 1978–midway through
the Carter administration–and 1983, midway through Reagan’s first
term, the HUD budget was slashed by nearly three quarters. It went
from “$83
billion
to a little more than $18
billion
(in 2004 constant dollars) and shelters opened throughout the United
States.”
No administration to
date–Democrat or Republican–has made a serious move to
restore the budget to its level in 1978, which is why today,
prisons—along with military bases—are now by far the country’s
largest supplier of public housing.
And so, decades into
the U.S.’s “neoliberal experiment,” it’s not unusual in
Portland, LA. or Seattle to see walkers and wheelchairs next to tents
on the street. And the real human misery—the economic and housing
fallout–from COVID-19 has yet to fully register. In 2019, 117
people shuffled off their mortal coils on the streets and
sidewalks of D.C. In L.A., 1039
died on the street, no bed to cushion their aching bones, no roof
overhead, no privacy, no sanitation, no dignity.
If speeches by Martin
Luther King, Jr. were high school seniors, hands down, the one voted
least likely to be read by American school children would be his 1967
sermon “Beyond
Vietnam: A Time to Break the Silence.”
As radical as the
“military industrial complex” might sound the first time
Americans hear it, the term wasn’t the demon spawn of Karl Marx, or
the Weather Underground. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s speech
writer coined the term in the
farewell speech he wrote for him.
This was in 1961, back
when the orderly succession of putatively democratically elected
presidents was a given in the U.S., no matter how many coups
Eisenhower and the
Dulles Brothers had busied themselves orchestrating in Guatemala,
Iran, Indonesia, the Philippines, and God–and historians–only
know where else. Jack and Jackie and their Camelot myth-making
press machine were about to sweep into the White House, followed by
more military advisors and troops into Vietnam.
MLK would paint the
consequences of the military industrial complex in far starker, more
vivid, human and urgent terms than Eisenhower. The U.S., Dr. King
seems to have suggested, was a war junkie–and it was a given that
war and racism went hand in hand. The Vietnam War, King argued, was
poisoning the country with racism and hatred:
This business of
burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes
with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into
the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark
and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically
deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love.
The sniper fire that
cut King down exactly a year later to the day—on April 4, 1968 in
Memphis—likely said as much about his 1967 speech as it did his
support for Memphis Sanitation workers. In his 1967 speech King
famously compared the war in Vietnam to a “Demonic destructive
suction tube” that vacuumed up funds that might have otherwise gone
to LBJ’s “War on Poverty.”
If you want to get a
really good idea of how much war just cost the U.S. in the time it
took you to read this article, check out the National Priorities
Project. The military budget for 2020 alone at $738
billion, , would be enough to provide “24.6 million [year-long]
Hospital Stays for COVID-19 Patients,” “20.96 million [four year
] Scholarships for University Students,” or “23.65 million People
receiving $600 weekly unemployment insurance payments for 1 Year.”
There’s plenty of money. It’s just helping the super-rich, who
are profiting at all our expenses.
King condemned in no
uncertain terms the massive aerial spraying of the defoliant Agent
Orange as akin to Nazi medical experimentation. “What do [the
Vietnamese] think as we test out our latest weapons on them,” asked
King, “just as Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in
the concentration camps of Europe?” Today in the U.S., the test
subjects are the kids in Detroit drinking water contaminated
with lead, while Nestles is pumping, bottling, and profiting to
the tune of 400
gallons a minute of fresh Michigan water; the Water Protectors at
Standing Rock drenched for months with pepper spray, tear gas, and
reportedly other chemical agents, along with water in freezing
and subzero temperatures; the Black Lives Matter activists
sprayed—sprayed along with hundreds of houseless people—all
summer on the streets of Portland with chemical
weapons banned for use in war; the BIPOC, elderly, and people
with disabilities, dying
at vastly higher rates of COVID-19.
And meanwhile, Vietnam
is witnessing the third generation born with Agent Orange-related
health effects, from missing eyes and limbs to spinal bifida and
severe intellectual disabilities. The Middle East is littered with
depleted uranium, cancer rates are soaring, and babies are born with
a wide range of “congenital
anomalies.”
By 1967, King had
struck up a friendship with the Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat
Hanh. And by ‘67, King, like every other major organizer in the
Civil Rights Movement, had been pegged by the FBI as a Communist.
Make of it what you will, it seems likely to me that given enough
time on earth, King and Jara might have had long talks, written songs
together, formed a fast and deep friendship. In his song “Derecho
De Vivir En Paz”–or “The Right to Live in Peace”–released
on his 1971 album, Jara wrote of “Indochina… the place/beyond the
wide sea,/where they ruin the flower/ with genocide and napalm.”
He and King were
definitely on the same page about the Vietnam War and so much more.
Feminists, in
particular, have aptly spoken of our collective relationship to Trump
as akin to domestic or intimate partner violence, with Trump a
gaslighting batterer. But as metaphors go, battering and gaslighting
are also fitting descriptions of the Chicago Boys’ neoliberal Magic
Trick— brought into Chile, and later the Middle East, with guns and
tanks. It’s the magic trick ordinary Americans have watched this
year, as we’ve been fleeced of taxes that have gone to fatten the
unimaginable wealth of a handful of billionaires, and to endless
weapons and wars that have made the U.S. the hands down leader of the
global arms trade. Martin Luther King, Jr. warned us in 1967 that “A
nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military
defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual
death.” Fifty years later, at the end of the Trump presidency, we
seem to be rapidly approaching garlic and wooden stake territory.
Still too many
Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief now that the
Batterer-in-Chief has been handed his eviction papers, and they are
looking to Biden as our collective white knight, our national pater
familias.
But anyone who knows anything about the dynamics of battering will
tell you that the myth of the White Knight is a racist and
patriarchal set up for repeating the cycle of abuse. We’re sitting
now on the razor’s edge of fascism, and fascism isn’t interested
in electoral cycles. We can’t count on having another four years to
sort the situation out.
The RootsAction “No
Honeymoon for Biden” campaign, embraced by Nina Turner,
recognizes the urgency of the situation and would go a long way
toward undoing the damage done by fifty years of neoliberalism. It
would shift funds from militarism and mass incarceration to universal
healthcare and a more inclusive, multi-racial “Green New Deal”
that would fund free higher education. The campaign also calls for a
$15 federal minimum wage and for Biden to cancel student debt across
the board. Research has shown that wiping out existing student debt
would be shot
in the arm for the economy. We need to pull back from our
domestic and global cycle of battering and make government work for
working people if we are going to stop a free fall into fascism and
climate chaos.
Finally, there are a
lot of lessons the U.S. could draw from the Chilean fight against
fascism and the legacy of Pinochet. The global spark that Las Tesis
set off this past year with street performances that drew thousands
of women to witness collectively to their shared experience of sexual
harassment and assault is a testimony to the power of art to mobilize
resistance and speak truth to power. And the immortal life of Victor
Jara–his presence this past year on the streets of Santiago,
where thousands of hands fluttered across guitars–testifies
to the power of art to preserve history even in the face of guns,
tanks and bullets bent on wiping it out.
Now, more than ever,
we need to demand reinvestment in the arts—from K-12 to higher
education. To paraphrase the quote Woody Guthrie famously scrawled
across his guitar: we need art to kill fascism. What better reminder
than the hollow man in the White House of the frustration life
without art generates? We need art to foster empathy, to remind us of
our collective humanity, to preserve in our national memory records
of those who stood for justice, and those who collaborated to
undermine it. We need art to preserve history, to sustain and
energize us, to give us courage for the long struggle ahead.
Dedicated to the
memory of Roxane Elizabeth Roberts (November 5, 1952-December 24,
2018).
Desiree Hellegers
is a co-founder and affiliated faculty of the Collective for Social
and Environmental Justice at Washington State University Vancouver.
and a member of the Socialist-Feminist Old Mole Variety Hour
Collective on KBOO, Portland, Oregon’s community-supported radio
station.
=====================================
*
‘Beetje dom’ om te geloven dat de situatie in de VS en haar
buitenlandbeleid zal veranderen met oorlogsmisdadiger en
mensenrechtenschender Biden…… Bovendien zit Biden in de zak van
de financiële maffia en daarmee in die van de oliemaatschappijen,
het militair-industrieel complex, de farmaceutische maffia en andere
grote misdadige bedrijven >> hoe kan je ook maar enige
verandering verwachten van zo’n figuur??!!! Toevallig werd vanmorgen op de BBC gemeld dat een aantal grote bedrijven en banken hun steun stoppen aan republikeinen die achter Trump blijven staan, ofwel deze bedrijven kopen de politiek niet alleen voorafgaand aan de verkiezingen, maar doen dat doorlopend, hoe kan je dan nog spreken van een democratie, als de politici volledig in de zak zitten van bedrijven….?? (om nog maar te zwijgen over het belemmeren van de stembusgang voor een groot aantal VS burgers)
‘Chili, de protesten en de verslaggeving‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht, o.a. over het Amazonewoud en de strijd van burgers tegen oliemaatschappijen, maar ook over de situatie in Brazilië en Venezuela)
Voor meer berichten over de steenkoolcentrale in de Sundarbans, vul deze naam in op het zoekvlak rechts bovenin deze pagina. Dat geldt ook voor andere namen en instanties die genoemd woorden in het artikel van Hellegers (de ruimte voor labels is wat mij betreft te klein, t.w. 140 tekens)
De
geheime diensten van de VS hebben zich met de grote bedrijven gekeerd
tegen de zogenaamde ‘Pink Tide’, de wens van
Latijns-Amerikaanse volkeren voor een socialistische beleid in hun
land en waar een aantal van die volkeren deze wens waarmaakten door met grote meerderheden te kiezen voor socialistische partijen. Voorbeelden te over, neem Venezuela, waar de al jaren durende oorlog* van de VS
tegen het Venezolaanse volk en het door Maduro socialistische
gevoerde beleid in dat land…… Volgens de laatste berichten hebben de
illegale sancties van de VS (gesteund door Canada en onze EU) al aan
meer dan 100.000 mensen het leven gekost, dit o.a. door een
blokkade op voedsel**, medicijnen, medische hulpmiddelen en medische
apparaten….. De VS zegt wel dat medicijnen en voedsel niet onder de
sancties vallen echter de bewijzen van het tegendeel liegen er niet
om…….
Of
wat dacht je van de bloedige coup door de VS georganiseerd tegen het
uiterst succesvolle socialistische bewind van Evo Morales in Bolivia.
Deze man, de eerste president sinds de witte Europeanen daar een aantal eeuwen geleden begonnen met de
genocide tegen de oorspronkelijke bevolking van dit land…… Deze bevolking vormt NB een
meerderheid in het land en niet vreemd dus dat Morales daar de ene na
de andere verkiezing won en de armoede onder de oorspronkelijke
bevolking wist weg te werken, waarbij ze recht kregen op goede
en goedkope: -scholing, -gezondheidszorg, -energievoorziening en -huisvesting…..
De CIA en de OAS (Vereniging van Amerikaanse Staten) hebben een
opstand georganiseerd in het land en leger en politie omgekocht om
aan de zijde (van de minderheid) van meer welgestelde burgers en het
grootkapitaal in dat land te vechten tegen de oorspronkelijke
bewoners en hun regering….. Morales werd door de militairen
ontvoerd en naar Mexico gedeporteerd….. Intussen is de partij van
Morales toch weer de grootste en heeft men een medestander van
Morales gekozen tot president…..*** De junta, o.l.v. de fascistische
christenhoer Áñez, is op de vlucht geslagen…..
Ook
speelde de VS de hoofdrol in de ‘constitutionele crisis’ in Brazilië,
waar de socialistische presidenten Dilma Rousseff en Lula da Silva
werden beschuldigd van corruptie middels een smeercampagne en zogenaamde (vervalste) bewijzen een eind maakten aan de regering van da
Silva en hij in de gevangenis verdween…..
Dan
heb je nog Honduras waar Killary Clinton en de CIA in 2009 een
staatsgreep pleegden en een eind maakten aan de socialistische regering van Manuel Zelaya…… Er
zijn nog meer voorbeelden te noemen echter niet vergeten moet worden
dat de CIA (en daarmee de VS) ook verantwoordelijk was voor een bloedige
(fascistische) staatsgreep in Guatemala in 1954 die een eind maakte
aan het bewind van President, Jacobo Árbenz, om nog maar te zwijgen
over de uiterst bloedige coup in Chili, op 11 september 1973 (ja
de eerste (9/11….) tegen de socialistische president Salvador
Allende en diens regering door de CIA en zijne kwaadaardigheid nazigeneraal Pinochet…….
Lees
het volgende uitstekende artikel van T.J Coles, die veel verder
ingaat op de VS bemoeienis met Latijns-Amerika, gepubliceerd op CounterPunch en zegt het voort!! De hoogste tijd dat alle
volkeren over de wereld zich gaan verzetten tegen het fascistische
Vierde Rijk, de grootste terreurentiteit ter wereld, ofwel de VS!!
U.S. intelligence
agencies and corporations have pushed back against the so-called Pink
Tide, the coming to power of socialistic governments in Central
and South America. Examples include: the slow-burning
attempt to overthrow Venezuela’s President; Nicolás Maduro;
the initially
successful soft coup in Bolivia against President Evo Morales;
and the constitutional
crises that removed Presidents Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff
in Brazil.
In 2009, the Obama
administration (2009-17) backed
a coup against President Manuel Zelaya. Since then, Honduras has
endured a decline in its living standards and democratic
institutions. The return of 1980s-style death squads operating
against working people in the interests of U.S. corporations has
contributed to the refugee-migrant
flow to the United States and to the rise of racist politics.
EMPIRES: FROM
THE SPANISH TO THE AMERICAN
Honduras (pop. 9.5
million) is surrounded by Guatemala and Belize in the north, El
Salvador in the west, and Nicaragua in the south. It has a small
western coast on the Pacific Ocean and an extensive coastline on the
Caribbean Sea in the Atlantic. Nine out of 10 Hondurans are
Indo-European (mestizo).
GDP is <$25bn and over
60 percent of the people live in poverty: one in five in extreme
poverty.
Honduras gained
independence from Spain in 1821, before being annexed to the Mexican
Empire. Hondurans have endured some 300 rebellions, civil wars,
and/or changes of government; more than half of which occurred in the
20th
century. Writing in 1998, the Clinton White House acknowledged
that Honduras’s “agriculturally based economy came to be
dominated by U.S. companies that established vast banana plantations
along the north coast.”
The significant U.S.
military presence began
in the 1930s, with the establishment of an air force and military
assistance program. The Clinton White House also noted
that the founder of the National Party, Tiburcio Carías Andino
(1876-1969), had “ties to dictators in neighboring countries and to
U.S. banana companies [which] helped him maintain power until 1948.”
The C.I.A. notes
that dictator Carías’s repression of Liberals would make those
Liberals “turn to conspiracy and [provoke] attempts to foment
revolution, which would render them much more susceptible to
Communist infiltration and control.” The Agency said that in
so-called emerging democracies: “The opportunities for Communist
penetration of a repressed and conspiratorial organization are much
greater than in a freely functioning political party.” So, for
certain C.I.A. analysts, “liberal democracy” is a buffer against
dictatorships that legitimize genuinely left-wing oppositional
groups. The C.I.A. cites the case of Guatemala in which “a strong
dictatorship prior to 1944 did not prevent Communist activity which
led after the dictator’s fall, to the establishment of a
pro-Communist government.”
REDS UNDER THE
BED
To understand the
thinking behind the U.S.-backed death squads, it is worth looking at
some partly-declassified C.I.A. material on early-Cold War planning.
The paranoia was such that each plantation laborer was potentially a
Soviet asset hiding in the fruit field. These subversives could be
ready, at any moment, to strike against U.S. companies and the
nascent American Empire.
In line with some
strategists’ conditional preferences for “liberal democracies,”
Honduras has the façade of voter choice, with two main parties
controlled by the military. After the Second World War, U.S. policy
exploited Honduras as a giant military base from which left-wing or
suspected “communist” movements in neighboring countries could be
countered. In 1954, for instance, Honduras was used
as a base for the C.I.A.’s operation PBSuccess to overthrow
Guatemala’s President, Jacobo Árbenz (1913-71).
Writing in ‘54, the
C.I.A. said
that the Liberal Party of Honduras “has the support of the majority
of the Honduran voters. Much of its support comes from the lower
classes.” The Agency also believed that the banned Communist Party
of Honduras planned to infiltrate the Liberals to nudge them further
left. But an Agency document notes
that “there may be fewer than 100” militant Communists in
Honduras and there were “perhaps another 300 sympathizers.”
The document also
notes: “The organization of a Honduran Communist Party has never
been conclusively established,” though the C.I.A. thought that the
small Revolutionary Democratic Party of Honduras “might have been a
front.” The Agency also believed
that Communists were behind the Workers’ Coordinating Committee
that led strikes of 40,000 laborers against the U.S.-owned United
Fruit and Standard Fruit Companies, which the Agency acknowledges
“dominate[d] the economy of the region.” In the same breath, the
C.I.A. also says that the Communists “lost control of the workers,”
post-strike.
A PROXY
AGAINST NICARAGUA
A U.S. military report states
that “[c]onducting joint exercises with the Honduran military has a
long history dating back to 1965.” By 1975, U.S. military
helicopters operating in Honduras at Catacamas, a village in the
east, assisted “logistical support of counterinsurgency
operations,” according
to the CIA. These machines aided the Honduran forces in their
skirmishes against pro-Castro elements from Nicaragua operating along
the Patuca River in the south of Honduras. By the mid-1990s, there
were at
least 30 helicopters operating in Honduras.
In 1979, the National
Sandinista Liberation Front (Sandinistas) came to power in Nicaragua,
deposing and later assassinating the U.S.-backed dictator, Anastasio
Somoza Debayle (1925-80). For the Reagan administration (1981-89),
Honduras was a proxy against the defiant Nicaragua.
The U.S. Army War
College wrote at the time: “President Reagan has clearly expressed
our national commitment to combating low intensity conflict in
developing countries.” It says that “The responsibility now falls
upon the Department of State and the Department of Defense to develop
plans and doctrine for meeting this requirement.” The same document confirms
that the U.S. Army Special Operations Forces (SOF), the 18th
Airborne Corps, was sent to Honduras. “Mobile Training Teams (MTT)
were dispatched to train Honduran soldiers in small unit tactics,
helicopter maintenance and air operations, and to establish the
Regional Military Training Center near Trujillo and Puerto Castilla,”
both on the eastern coast.
A SOUTHCOM document
dates significant U.S. military assistance to Honduras to the 1980s.
It notes
the effect of public pressure on U.S. policy, highlighting: “a
general lack of appetite among the American public to see U.S. forces
committed in the wake of the Vietnam War [which] resulted in strict
parameters that limited the scope of military involvement in Central
America.”
According
to SOUTHCOM, the Regional Military Training Center was designed “to
train friendly countries in basic counterinsurgency tactics.”
President Reagan wanted to smash the Sandinistas, but “the
executive branch’s hands were tied by the 1984 passage of the
Boland Amendment [to the Defense Appropriations Act], banning the use
of U.S. military aid to be given to the Contras,” the
anti-Sandinista forces in Nicaragua. As a result, “the strong and
sudden focus instead on training, and arguably by proxy, the
establishment of [Joint Task Force-Bravo],” an elite military unit
assigned a “counter-communist mission.”
The Green Berets
trained the contras
from bases in Honduras, “accompanying them on missions into
Nicaragua.” The North American Congress on Latin America noted
at the time that “Military planes flying out of Honduras are
coordinated by a laser navigation system, and contras
operating inside Nicaragua are receiving night supply drops from
C-130s using the Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System,” first
used in Vietnam and operational only to a few personnel. “The CIA,
operating out of Air Force bases in the United States, hires pilots
for the hazardous sorties at $30,000 per mission.” The report notes
that troops from El Salvador “were undergoing U.S. training every
day of the year, in Honduras, the United States and the new basic
training center at La Union,” in the north.
SPECIAL UNITS
AND ANTI-COMMUNISTS
The U.S. also launched
psychological operations against domestic leftism in Honduras. This
involved morphing a special police unit into a military intelligence
squad guilty of kidnap, torture, and murder: Battalion 316. Inducing
a climate of fear in workers, union leaders, intellectuals, and human
rights lawyers is way of ensuring that progressive ideas like good
healthcare, free education, and decent living standards don’t take
root.
In 1963, the Fuerza
de Seguridad Pública
(FUSEP, Public Security Force) was set
up as a branch of the military. During the early-‘80s, FUSEP
commanded the National Directorate of Investigations, regular
national police units, and National Special Units, “which provided
technical support to the arms interdiction program,” according
to the CIA, in which “material from Nicaragua passed through
Honduras to guerrillas in El Salvador.” The National Directorate of
Investigations ran the secret Honduran Anti-Communist Liberation Army
(ELACH, 1980-84), described by the C.I.A. as “a rightist
paramilitary organization which conducted operations against Honduran
leftists.”
The C.I.A. repeats
allegations that “ELACH’s operations included surveillance,
kidnappings, interrogation under duress, and execution of prisoners
who were Honduran revolutionaries.” ELACH worked in cooperation
with the Special Unit of FUSEP. “The mission of the Unit was
essentially … to combat both domestic and regional subversive
movements operating in and through Honduras.” The C.I.A. also notes
that “this included penetrating various organizations such as the
Honduran Communist Party, the Central American Regional Trotskyite
Party, and the Popular Revolutionary Forces-Lorenzo Zelaya (FPR-LZ)
Marxist terrorist organization.”
Gustavo Adolfo Álvarez
(1937-89), future head of the Honduran Armed Forces, told
U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s Honduras Ambassador, Jack Binns, that
their forces would use “extra-legal means” to destroy communists.
Binns wrote
in a confidential cable: “I am deeply concerned at increasing
evidence of officially sponsored/sanctioned assassinations of
political and criminal targets, which clearly indicate [Government of
Honduras] repression has built up a head of steam much faster than we
had anticipated.” But U.S. doctrine shifted under President Reagan.
Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, Thomas O.
Enders, told
Binns not to send such material to the State Department for fear of
leakage. Enders himself said
of human rights in Honduras: “the Reagan administration had broader
interests.”
Under Reagan, John
Negroponte replaced Binns at the U.S. Embassy in the capital
Tegucigalpa, from where many C.I.A. agents operated. In 1981, secret
briefings informed
Negroponte that “[Government of Honduras] security forces have
begun to resort to extralegal tactics — disappearances and,
apparently, physical eliminations to control a perceived subversive
threat.” Rick Chidster, a junior political officer at the U.S.
Embassy was ordered
by superiors in 1982 to remove references to Honduran military abuses
from his annual human rights report prepared for Congress.
THE MAKING OF
BATTALION-316
In March 1981, Reagan authorized
the expansion of covert operations to “provide all forms of
training, equipment, and related assistance to cooperating
governments throughout Central America in order counter
foreign-sponsored subversion and terrorism.” Documents obtained by The
Baltimore Sun
the reveal
that from 1981, the U.S. provided funds for Argentine
counterinsurgency experts to train anti-Communists in Honduras; many
of whom had, themselves, been trained by the U.S. in earlier years.
At a camp in Lepaterique, in western Honduras, Argentine killers
under U.S. supervision trained their Honduran counterparts.
Oscar Álvarez, a
former Honduran Special Forces officer and diplomat trained
by the U.S., said:
“The Argentines came in first, and they taught how to disappear
people.” With training and equipment, such as hidden cameras and
phone bugging technology, U.S. agents “made them more efficient.”
The U.S.-trained
Chief of Staff, Gen. José Bueso Rosa, says:
“We were not specialists in intelligence, in gathering information,
so the United States offered to help us organize a special unit.”
Between 1982 and 1984, the aforementioned Gen. Álvarez headed the
Armed Forces. In 1983, Reagan awarded him the Legion of Merit for
“encouraging the success of democratic processes in Honduras.”
When C.I.A. Station Chief, Donald Winters, adopted a child, he asked
Álvarez to be the godfather.
After WWII, the U.S.
Army established, in the Panama Canal Zone, a Latin American Training
Center-Ground Division at Fort Amador, later renamed the U.S. Army
School of the Americas and moved to Fort Benning, Georgia. Now called
the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, the
C.I.A.’s Phoenix
Program in Vietnam and its MK-ULTRA
mind-torture programs influenced the Honduras curriculum at the
School.
In 1983, the U.S.
military participated in Strategic Military Seminar with the Honduran
Armed Forces, at which it was decided that FUSEP would be transformed
from a police force into a military intelligence unit. “The purpose
of this change,” says
the C.I.A., “was to improve coordination and improve control.” It
also aimed “To make available greater personnel, resources, and to
integrate the intel production.” In 1984, the Special Unit was
placed under the command of the Military Intelligence Division and
renamed the 316th
Battalion, at which point “it continued to provide technical
support to the arms interdiction program” in neighboring countries.
A C.I.A. officer based
in the U.S. Embassy is known
to have visited the Military Industries jail: one of Battalion 316’s
torture chambers in which victims were bound, beaten, electrocuted,
raped, and poisoned. Battalion torturer, José Barrera, says: “They
always asked to be killed … Torture is worse than death.”
Battalion 316 officer, José Valle, explained
surveillance methods: “We would follow a person for four to six
days. See their daily routes from the moment they leave the house.
What kind of transportation they use. The streets they go on.” Men
in black ski masks would bundle the victim into a vehicle with
dark-tinted windows and no license plates.
Under Lt. Col. Alonso
Villeda, the Battalion was disbanded
and replaced in 1987 with a Counterintelligence Division of the
Honduran Armed Forces. Led by the Chief of Staff for Intelligence
(C-2), it absorbed the Battalion’s personnel, units, analysis
centers, and functions.
In 1988, Richard
Stolz, then-U.S. Deputy Director for Operations, told
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in secret hearings that
C.I.A. officers ran courses and taught psychological torture. “The
course consisted of three weeks of classroom instruction followed by
two weeks of practical exercises, which included the questioning of
actual prisoners by the students.” Former Ambassador Binns says:
“I think it is an example of the pathology of foreign policy.” In
response to the allegations, which he denied, former Assistant
Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, Elliott
Abrams, replied:
“A human rights policy is not supposed to make you feel good.”
Between 1982 and 1993,
the U.S. taxpayer gave half
a billion dollars in military “aid” to Honduras. By 1990, 184
people had “disappeared,” according
to President Manuel Zelaya, who in 2008 intimated that he would
reopen cases of the disappeared.
THE ZELAYA
COUP
After centuries of
struggle, Hondurans elected a President who raised living standards
through wealth redistribution. Winner of the 2005 Presidential
elections, Manuel Zelaya of the Liberal Party’s Movimiento
Esperanza Liberal
faction increased the minimum wage, provided free education to
children, subsidised small farmers, and provided free electricity to
the country’s poorest. Zelaya countered media monopoly propaganda
by imposing minimum airtime for government broadcasts and allied with
America’s regional enemies via the proposed ALBA trading bloc.
The Congressional
Research Service (CRS) reported
at the time that “analysts” reckoned Zelaya’s move “runs the
risk of jeopardizing the traditionally close state of relations with
the United States.” The CRS also bemoaned Zelaya delaying the
accreditation of the U.S. Ambassador, Hugo Llorens, “to show
solidarity with Bolivia in its diplomatic spat with the United States
in which Bolivia expelled the U.S. Ambassador.”
Because Zeyala did not
have enough Congressional representatives to agree to his plan, he
attempted to expand democracy by holding a referendum on
constitutional changes. Both the lower and Supreme Courts agreed to
the opposition parties blocking the referendum. In defiance of the
courts, Zelaya ordered the military to help with election logistics,
an order refused by the head of the Armed Forces, Gen. Romeo Vásquez,
who later claimed that Zelaya had dismissed him, which Zelaya denies.
Using pro-Zelaya demonstrations as a pretext for taking to the
streets, the military mobilized and, in June 2009, the Supreme Court
authorized Zelaya’s capture, after which he was exiled to Costa
Rica.
In the book Hard
Choices,
then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s ghostwriters, with
her approval, refer to Latin America as the U.S.’s “backyard”
and to Zelaya as “a throwback to the caricature of a Central
American strongman, with his white cowboy hat, dark black mustache,
and fondness for Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro” (p. 222). The
publishers omitted
from the paperback edition Clinton’s role in the coup: “We
strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras” (plus the usual
boilerplate about democracy promotion.)
Decree PCM-M-030-2009
ordered the election be held during a state of emergency. The
peaceful, pro-Zelaya groups, La
Resistencia
and Frente
Hondureña de Resistencia Popular,
were targeted under Anti-Terror Laws. The right-wing Porfirio Lobo
was elected with over 50 percent of the vote in a fake 60 percent
turnout (later revised to 49 percent). U.S. President Obama described
this as “a restoration of democratic practices and a commitment to
reconciliation that gives us great hope.” Hope and change for
Honduras came in the form of economic changes benefitting U.S.
corporations:
The U.S. State
Department notes:
“Many of the approximately 200 U.S. companies that operate in
Honduras take advantage of protections available in the Central
American and Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement.” Note the
inadvertent acknowledgement that “free trade” is actually
protection for U.S. corporations. The State Department also notes:
“The Honduran government is generally open to foreign investment.
Low labor costs, proximity to the U.S. market, and the large
Caribbean port of Puerto Cortes make Honduras attractive to
investors.”
Four years into
Zelaya’s overthrow, unemployment jumped from 35.5 percent to 56.4
percent. In 2014, Honduras signed an agreement with the International
Monetary Fund for a $189m loan. The Center for Economic and Policy
Research states:
“Honduran authorities agreed to implement fiscal consolidation…
including privatizations, pension reforms and public sector layoffs.”
The Congressional Research Service states:
“President Juan Orlando Hernández of the conservative National
Party was inaugurated to a second four-year term in January 2018. He
lacks legitimacy among many Hondurans, however, due to allegations
that his 2017 reelection was unconstitutional and marred by fraud.”
RETURN OF THE
DEATH SQUADS
Since the coup, the
U.S. has expanded its military bases in Honduras from 10 to 13. U.S.
“aid” funds the Honduran National Police, whose long-time
Director, Juan Carlos Bonilla, was trained
at the School of the Americas. Atrocities against Hondurans increased
under the U.S. favorite, President Hernández, who vowed
to “put a soldier on every corner.” SOUTHCOM worked
under Obama’s Central America Regional Security Initiative, which
supported Operation Morazán: a program to integrate Honduras’s
Armed Forces with its domestic policing units. With SOUTHCOM funding,
the 250-person Special Response Security Unit (TIGRES) was established
near Lepaterique. The TIGRES are trained
by the U.S. Green Berets or 7th
Special Forces Group (Airborne) and described
by the U.S. Army War College as a “paramilitary police force.”
The cover for setting
up a military police force is countering narco- and
human-traffickers, but the record shows that left-wing civilians are
targeted for death and intimidation. To crush the pro-Zelaya,
pro-democracy movements Operation Morazán, according
to the U.S. Army War College, included the creation of the Military
Police of Public Order (PMOP), whose members must have served at
least one year in the Armed Forces. By January 2018, the PMOP consisted
of 4,500 personnel in 10 battalions across every region of Honduras,
and had murdered
at least 21 street protestors.
Berta Cáceres
co-founded the Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of
Honduras. One of the Organization’s missions was resisting the Desarrollos
Energéticos (DESA) corporation’s Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam
on the Gualcarque River, which is sacred to the Lenca people. DESA
hired a gang, later convicted of murdering Cáceres. They included
the U.S.-trained
Maj. Mariano Díaz Chávez and Lt. Douglas Geovanny Bustillo, himself
head of security at DESA. The company’s director, David Castillo,
also a U.S.-trained
ex-military intelligence officer, is alleged to have colluded with
the killers. The TIGRE forces oversaw
the dam’s construction site.
Between 2010 and 2016,
as U.S. “aid” and training continued to flow, over
120 environmental activists were murdered by hitmen, gangs,
police, and the military for opposing illegal logging and mining.
Others have been intimidated. In 2014, for instance, a year after the
murder of three Matute people by gangs linked to a mining operation,
the children of the indigenous Tolupan leader, Santos Córdoba, were threatened
at gunpoint by the U.S.-trained, ex-Army General, Filánder
Uclés, and his bodyguards.
Home to the Regional
Military Training Center, Bajo Aguán is a low-lying region in the
east, whose farmers have battled land privatization since the
early-1990s. After Zelaya was deposed, crimes against the peoples of
the region increased. Rights groups signed a letter to then-Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton, who facilitated U.S. aid to Honduras, stating:
“Forty-five people associated with peasant organizations have been
killed” between September 2009 and February 2012. A joint
military-police project, Operation Xatruch II in 2012, led to the
deaths of “nine peasant organization members, including two
principal leaders.” One 17-year-old son of a peasant organizer was
kidnapped, tortured, and threatened with being burned alive. Lawfare
is also used, with over 160 small farmers in the area subject to
frivolous legal proceedings.
“BACK TO THE
PAST”
In the 1980s, Tomás
Nativí, co-founder of the People’s Revolutionary Union, was
“disappeared” by U.S.-backed death squads. Nativí’s wife,
Bertha Oliva, founded of the Committee of Relatives of the
Disappeared in Honduras to fight for justice for those murdered
between 1979 and 1989. She told The
Intercept
that the recent killings and restructuring of the so-called security
state is “like going back to the past.”
The iron-fist of
Empire in the service of capitalism never loosens its grip. The names
and command structures of U.S.-backed military units in Honduras have
changed over the last four decades, but their goal remains the same.
* Een oorlog van de VS tegen het Venezolaanse volk, bestaande uit illegale sancties, het organiiseren van een opstand en het bewapenen van extreem rechtse groepen, beter gezegd fascistische groeperingen, plus het regisseren van geweld gepleegd door die fascisten….. Deze groeperingen hebben korte lijnen met extreem rechtse parijen, zoals die van fascist Guaidó, al is deze ploert pas sinds vorig jaar januari bekend geworden, voor die tijd was hij onbekend bij het overgrote deel van de bevolking….. De VS heeft deze fascist uit de anonimiteit gehaald en zelfs benoemd tot president van Venezuela, terwijl het overgrote deel van de bevolking kiest voor de partij van Maduro en voor de gematigde oppositie partijen in dat land…… Zie wat dit betreft: ‘Guaidó is een ordinaire couppleger van de VS, e.e.a. gaat volledig in tegen de Venezolaanse constitutie‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht)
** Al onder Obama werd de grote supermarktketens van de VS, die winkels in Venezuela hebben, ‘gevraagd’ (onder sterke dwang) hun voorraden niet langer aan te vullen……. Ofwel hier was in feite al sprake van illegale sancties, al waren deze ‘geheim’, onder Trump werden dergelijke sancties ‘gelegitimeerd’ en officieel gemaakt, waarna de sancties een paar keer werden verscherpt…. Volkeren middels sancties of andere valse redenen voedsel en medicijnen onthouden is een zware misdaad tegen de menselijkheid……
Ongelofelijk
het bedrag dat 651 miljardairs in de VS dit jaar rijker zijn geworden
sinds midden maart: 1 biljoen dollar, een bedrag waarmee je 330
miljoen VS burgers, ruwweg het aantal inwoners van de VS, ieder $
3.000,– kan geven……. Het vermogen van deze miljardairs is daarmee gestegen naar een totaal van 4 biljoen dollar…… Die biljoen dollar
is zelfs hoger dan wat de Trump administratie aan staatssteun heeft
gegeven voor de schade die de Coronacrisis heeft veroorzaakt bij
bedrijven en vergeet daarbij niet dat er bedrijven tussen zitten die
in handen zijn van deze miljardairs, dan wel dat ze middels een enorm
aandelenpakket in feite bezitten…..
Als je daarentegen de armoede in de VS ziet, krijg je ter plekke het gevoel dat je in een derdewereldland bent aangekomen, ongelofelijk hoe mensen niet anders kunnen dan maar proberen de eindjes aan elkaar te knopen, terwijl ze beseffen dat ze hoogstwaarschijnlijk nooit uit de financiële ellende zullen komen……. Onder het hieronder opgenomen artikel stond een documentaire van PBS/Fronline die op YouTube werd gezet, maar daar intussen is verwijderd, ‘logisch’ daar de spuugrijke top van dit bedrijf de ellende niet wil zien, die in feite door de rijken wordt veroorzaakt…… Neem bijvoorbeeld miljardair Bezos (Amazon), die in het artikel wordt genoemd daar hij sinds maart (waarop het Coronavirus toesloeg in de VS) maar liefst 53 miljard dollar rijker is geworden, terwijl hij zijn personeel onderbetaald en wel op zo’n manier dat ze in feite niet rond kunnen komen van hun salaris……….
(Je kan je beeld vergroten door op de drie horizontale streepjes rechtsboven in je scherm te klikken en daar op de plus van de zoomfunctie te klikken)
Daarnaast is een schoft als Bezos ook nog eens verantwoordelijk voor enorme vervuiling, niet alleen in de VS maar ook in derdewereldlanden, waar hij z’n personeel nog veel verder uitknijpt…… Niet voor niets ook dat veel arme Latijns-Amerikaanse mensen vluchten naar de VS, daar ze niet rond kunnen komen van het meer dan karige salaris……. De VS zorgt er dan ook voor dat sociale regimes in Zuid- en Midden-Amerika ten onder gaan, immers dat soort landen, zoals Venezuela hebben een eind gemaakt aan de uitbuiting (neokolonialisme) van hun burgers door bedrijven uit de VS en andere rijke westerse landen….. De VS doet e.e.a. door ofwel een opstand te organiseren als dat niet helpt organiseert de VS een staatsgreep en als zelfs dat niet lukt grijpt de VS militair in…….
Zo valt te vrezen dat Joe Biden als hij op ‘de stoel met de knop zit’, Venezuela zal aanvallen, niet in de laatste plaats vanwege de enorme bodemschatten van dat land, waar de illegale sancties van de VS (Canada en de EU) zoals ik gisteren zag, ervoor hebben gezorgd dat al meer dan 100.000 mensen zijn omgekomen, i.p.v. de meer dan 50.000 die ik al ruim een jaar aanhoud……. (zo is er een groot tekort aan medicijnen en medische hulpmiddelen en apparaten, waarvan de VS ontkent dat die onder de sancties vallen, maar dat is dan ook een heel smerige leugen, terwijl die illegale sancties zonder meer een misdaad zijn tegen de menselijkheid!!)
Ondanks het voorgaande heeft de meerderheid van de Venezolaanse bevolking op de partij van president Maduro gestemd, logisch dat zijn de arme mensen die op alle manieren werden en worden gesteund en geholpen door de regering. Binnekort zal ik weer een bericht over Venezuela plaatsen, waarmee ik VPRO oplichter (Latijns-Amerika ‘deskundige’) Edwin Koopman weer eens mee om de smerige oren en de leugenachtige vuilbek zal slaan, wat een smerige oplichter en schoft is dat, wat zeg ik? Hij is een ordinaire fascist!!
Ik sprak al even over de vervuiling in de VS, het is daar zelfs zo dat de arme mensen voor een groot deel
in gebieden/stadselen wonen waar de luchtvervuiling het grootst is…….
Door armoede zijn veel mensen in de VS aangewezen op ongezond voedsel,
niet voor niets dat obesitas onder deze mensen groot is, immers een
gezonde maaltijd met groente en fruit is zelfs een stuk duurder dan in ons
land…….
Heb een paar onderdelen van de documentaire ‘Growing up Poor in the U.S.’ op YouTube gevonden, verhalen die ronduit ontluisterend zijn en dan te bedenken dat dezelfde VS een ‘defensie begroting’ (lees: oorlogsbegroting) heeft die de 700 miljard op jaarbasis fiks overtreft…………
Het is
de hoogste tijd voor een revolutie!, waarmee de maatschappij
drastisch wordt hervormd en deze plutocraten ‘hun bezit’ mogen
inleveren!! (‘hun bezit’ voor 99% verkregen over de rug van
onderbetaalde arbeiders…….) Een wereldrevolutie waardoor de zaken
eindelijk eerlijk verdeeld worden over alle aardbewoners!! (en waar we eindelijk echt actie kunnen ondernemen tegen de klimaatverandering, om deze nog enigszins af te remmen, immers het is een leugen dat we de klimaatverandering kunnen stoppen, iets wat de machthebbers en de reguliere media je bijna dag in dag uit voorliegen….)
$1
trillion wealth gain by 651 U.S. billionaires since mid-March
That’s
more than it would cost to send a stimulus check of $3,000 to every
one of the roughly 330 million people in U.S.
By
Americans for Tax Fairness
Wealth
Increase in 9 Months Exceeds Likely $908 Billion Cost of Covid Relief
Package GOP Has Stalled as Too Costly
December 09, 2020
“Information
Clearing House”
– “” – The
collective wealth of America’s 651 billionaires has jumped by over
$1 trillion since roughly the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to a
total of $4 trillion at market close on Monday, December 7, 2020.
Their wealth growth since March is more than the $908
billion in pandemic reliefproposed
by a bipartisan group of members of Congress, which is likely to be
the package that moves forward for a vote in the next week, but has
been stalled over Republican concerns that it is too costly.
The
total net worth of the nation’s 651 billionaires rose from $2.95
trillion on March 18—the rough start of the pandemic shutdowns—to
$4.01 trillion on Dec. 7, a leap of 36%, based on Forbesbillionaires,
according to anew
report by
Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) and the Institute for Policy Studies
(IPS). By around March 18 mostfederalandstateeconomic
restrictions in response to the virus were in place. Combined, just
the top 10 billionaires are now worth more than $1 trillion.
Forbes’
annual billionaires report was published March 18, and ATF and IPS
collected the real-time data on Dec. 7 from the Forbeswebsite.
The methodology of this analysis has been favorably
reviewed by PolitiFact. The ATF-IPS analysis also looks at wealth
growth since February 2019—the date of Forbes’ immediately
previous annual billionaires report published well before the start
of the pandemic and resulting market gyrations.
The $1 trillion
wealth gain by 651 U.S. billionaires since mid-March is:
More
than it would cost to send a stimulus check of $3,000 to every one
of the roughly 330
million people in America. A family of four would receive over
$12,000. Republicans have blocked new stimulus checks from being
included in the pandemic relief package.
Double
the two-year estimated budget gap of all state and local
governments, which is forecast to be at least $500
billion. By June, state and local governments had already
laid off 1.5 million workers and public services—especially
education—faced
steep budget cuts.
“Never
before has America seen such an accumulation of wealth in so few
hands,” said Frank Clemente, executive director of
Americans for Tax Fairness. “As
tens of millions of Americans suffer from the health and economic
ravages of this pandemic, a few hundred billionaires add to their
massive fortunes. Their pandemic profits are so immense that
America’s billionaires could pay for a major COVID relief bill and
still not lose a dime of their pre-virus riches. Their wealth growth
is so great that they alone could provide a $3,000 stimulus payment
to every man, woman and child in the country, and still be richer
than they were 9 months ago. Joe Biden won a tax-fairness mandate in
November. We look forward to working with him and Congress to deliver
on that mandate by taxing the massive wealth of these billionaires.”
“The
updraft of wealth to the billionaire class is disturbing at a time
when millions face eviction, destitution, and loss,” said Chuck
Collins of the Institute for Policy Studiesand
co-author of Billionaire
Bonanza 2020, a report looking at pandemic profiteering and
billionaire wealth. “Billionaires are extracting wealth at a time
when essential workers are pushed into the viral line of fire.”
Sources: All
data in table is from Forbes and available
here.
Collective
work income of rank-and-file private-sector employees—all hours
worked times the hourly wages of the entire bottom 82% of the
workforce—declined
by 2.3%
from mid-March to mid-October, according to Bureau of Labor
Statistics data.
98,000
businesses have permanently closed. [Yelp/CNBC]
12
million workers have lost employer-sponsored health insurance during
the pandemic as of August 26, 2020. [Economic
Policy Institute]
Nearly
26 million adults reported their household not having enough food in
the past week between Nov. 11-23. From Oct. 28 to Nov. 7, between 7
and 11 million children lived in a household where kids did not eat
enough because the household could not afford it. [Center
on Budget & Policy Priorities (CBPP)]
12.4
million adults—1 in 6 renters—reported in November being behind
in their rent. [CBPP]
Without
a federal fiscal relief package, workers will face even greater loss
of jobs and services than they have already suffered. The Economic
Policy Institutepredicts
that without more federal aid 5.3 million public-sector
jobs—including those of teachers, public safety employees and
health care workers—will be lost by the end of 2021.
Because
of long-standing racial and gender disparities, low-wage
workers, people
of colorand womenhave
suffered disproportionately in the combined medical and economic
crises of 2020. Blacks and Latinos are far more likely to become
infected with Covid-19and
to die from the disease. Billionaires are overwhelmingly white men.
The
stock market surge and lock-down economy have been a boon to tech
monopolies and helped create four U.S. “centi-billionaires.” Jeff
Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are now each worth
more than $100 billion. Prior to this year, Bezos had been the only
U.S. centi-billionaire, reaching that peak in 2018. Bezos and other
billionaires have seen particularly astonishing increases in wealth
between March 18 and Dec. 7:
Jeff
Bezos’s wealth
grew from $113 billion on March 18 to $184 billion, an increase of
63%. Adding in his ex-wife MacKenzie Scott’s wealth of $60 billion
on that day, the two had a combined wealth of almost a quarter of a
trillion dollars thanks to their Amazon
stock. If Bezos’s $71.4 billion growth in wealth was distributed
to all his 810,000
U.S. employees, each would get a windfall bonus of over $88,000
and Bezos would not be any “poorer” than he was 9 months ago.
Elon
Musk’s
wealth grew by nearly $119 billion, from $24.6 billion on March 18
to $143 billion, a nearly five-fold increase, boosted by his Tesla
stock. SpaceX founder Musk has enjoyed one of the biggest boosts in
net worth of any billionaire. That $119 billion growth in wealth is
more than five times NASA’s $22.6
billion budget in FY2020, the federal agency Musk has credited
with saving his company with a big federal contract when the
firm’s rockets were failing and it faced bankruptcy.
Mark
Zuckerberg’s wealth grew
from $54.7 billion on March 18 to $105 billion, an increase of 92%,
fueled by his Facebook
stock.
Dan Gilbert,
chairman of Quicken Loans,
saw his wealth rocket by 543%, from $6.5 billion to $41.8 billion,
the second biggest percentage increase of all the billionaires.
See
also
====
Growing
Up Poor In The U.S.
Documentary By
Frontline
SCHANDE
DEZE VIDEO IS VERWIJDERD WE MOGEN BLIJKBAAR NIET ZIEN HOE ZWAAR ARME
MENSEN (EN IN FEITE WIJ ALLEN) GENAAID WORDEN DOOR DE
SUPERWELGESTELDEN, ONZE REGERINGEN, DE GROTE BEDRIJVEN, DE FINANCIËLE SECTOR EN HET MILITAIR-INDUSTRIEEL
COMPLEX!!!
Growing Up in Poverty in the USA | Marcell’s Story | UNICEF:
A 14-Year-Old’s View of “Hidden Homelessness” | Growing Up Poor in America | FRONTLINE:
Heb ook het label BLM (Black Lives Matter) als label direct onder dit bericht opgenomen, daar je ook beelden ziet van een kleine vreedzame demonstratie tegen politiegeweld (en in feite ook tegen de vreselijke armoede waarin kinderen moeten opgroeien en volwassenen voor het overgrote deel nooit uit zullen komen..)….
Gisteren veel aandacht op de nationale radio nieuwszenders in Nederland, Duitsland, België en Groot-Brittannië. Het ging hier om, zoals deze zenders meldden, een barbaarse executie van journalist Ruhollah Zam, die beschuldigd werd een grote demonstratie, die in geweld eindigde, mede te hebben georganiseerd….. Niets mee mis deze aandacht voor inderdaad een barbaarse doodstraf, deze middels ophanging, al is elke doodstraf uiteraard barbaars, zijn er wel gradaties in gewelddadigheid……..
Maar wat een verschil met ‘de aandacht voor’ het grote aantal doodstraffen in Egypte, even barbaars middels ophanging…… Op dezelfde zenders geen woord over het feit dat de Egyptische junta onder leiding van de corrupte schoft al-Sisi de laatste 10 dagen ‘maar liefst’ 49 mensen heeft laten vermoorden…… Dit nog naast het feit dat Egypte in oktober en november (jl.) in totaal al 57 mensen heeft laten vermoorden, het gaat hier om advocaten en politieke activisten (dat laatste ben je in Egypte al als je als burger meedoet aan een demonstratie tegen de junta…)……
Hoe is
het mogelijk dat de westerse media daar geen aandacht aan hebben
geschonken en schenken? Oh simpel: de westerse regeringen hebben
goede banden met de Egyptische junta, alleen al vanwege het feit dat
al-Sisi de democratisch gekozen regering van de Moslim
Broederschap omver heeft geworpen (uiteraard met hulp van de CIA….)……
En je
weet het waarschijnlijk wel: de westerse media in handen van
plutocraten verdedigen hun eigen regeringen, vooral als deze een
neoliberaal beleid voeren en dat is voor de overgrote meerderheid van westerse landen het
geval, waarbij men liever een executie in Iran, China of Syrië
verslaat als barbaars en schending van mensenrechten, terwijl
executies in Saoedi-Arabië, de VS en zoals in dit geval Egypte
liever worden verzwegen, juist daar de westerse regeringen en bedrijven goede
handelsbetrekkingen onderhouden met dat soort bloedige dictaturen, of zoals het
geval in de VS, met deze in feite politiestaat (ook een vorm van
dictatuur)…….Het viel me nog alles mee dat die media wel aandacht hadden voor het grote aantal federale doodstraffen in de VS, al heeft dit alles te maken met het feit dat deze doodstraffen (de meest gruwelijke: middels de elektrische stoel….) werden uitgevaardigd door Trump, die al jaren niet goed ligt bij diezelfde media……….
Lees en teken de petitie van het Care2 team ajb en geeft het door!! De petitie is gericht aan grote westerse bedrijven als BP die in Egypte werkzaam zijn en waarin de top van die bedrijven wordt gemaand zich uit te spreken tegen deze executies en de junta te pressen deze te stoppen.
The Egyptian government executed 49 people in 10 days.
Miranda
B., Care2 Action Alerts <actionalerts@care2.com>
Egypt
is rounding up activists and lawyers and killing them in record
numbers
Amnesty International is calling it
an “execution spree.” In the past few months, the
organization has witnessed a terrifying uptick in government
executions carried out by Egyptian authorities, with no signs of
abating. In two months — October and November 2020 — state
officials hanged 57 individuals, more than double the number of
people who were officially executed in the entire preceding year. Of
these, 49 were killed in mass executions held over a period of just
10 days. Many
of the prisoners who were rounded up and put to death during this
reign of terror were citizens who dared to voice their own opinions.
Despite the fact that the President
of Egypt, Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, claims there are “no political
prisoners” in the country, that is simply a lie. Scores of
activists and lawyers have been detained in recent years, including
three employees at a civil rights NGO who were jailed in November.
Once in custody, they are typically tortured into issuing false,
pre-written confessions. We need powerful voices to speak out if we
are to have any hope of changing this tide. Money
talks, and that’s why we’re calling on BP to use its position of
influence to speak out now.
As the largest and most powerful foreign corporation operating in
Egypt, it must utilize its leverage to end this horror show. Sign
the petition to demand that major foreign investors, including BP,
pressure the Egyptian government to halt these executions now!
Voor meer berichten over de doodstraf, executie, Abdul Fatah al-Sisi, Moslim Broederschap, Egypte en/of Iran, klik op het desbetreffende label, direct onder dit bericht.