Een
vreemde zet van Trump tijdens zijn laatste dagen in het Witte Huis:
hij heeft een groot aantal geheime FBI documenten aangaande Russiagate vrijgegeven.
Wat
iedereen al had kunnen weten (vooral de reguliere media en politici
in zowel de VS als de rest van het westen) is dat de voormalige Britse
agent Steele van MI6 expres zaken heeft gelekt die beschadigend waren voor
Trump zoals Robert Mueller al had aangetoond.
Steele
had 2 klanten, Hillary Clinton en de FBI, toen de CIA met de
beschuldiging kwam dat Clinton een smerig spel had gespeeld in
aanloop naar de presidentsverkiezingen in 2016 (wat Bernie Sanders de
nominatie tot Democratisch presidentskandidaat kostte), heeft Steele
zaken gelekt die beschadigend waren voor Trump, hij deed dat om
het misdadig gedrag van Clinton uit de wind te houden…….
Zoals
gezegd, iedereen die een beetje oplette (zoals D66 kwaadaardigheid
Ollongren met opzet niet deed) had kunnen weten dat het hele
Russiagate verhaal je reinste kul was. Echter de reguliere westerse
(massa-) media en de meeste politici bleven (en blijven nog) vasthouden aan het
Russiagate verhaal en dat heeft nogal wat gevolgen gehad, niet alleen
voor Rusland, maar ook voor de burgers in westerse landen, bij wie
haat en angst werd gezaaid tegen/voor de Russen….. Rusland werd
overal van beschuldigd ‘wat fout ging’ (in de ogen van politici en de
afhankelijke, niet objectieve westerse reguliere media), zoals het
Oekraïne referendum, het Brexit referendum en het Catalaanse
onafhankelijkheidsreferendum…… D66 oplichter en kwaadaardigheid Ollongren en anderen durfden een
paar maanden geleden de Russen zelfs alweer te beschuldigen van het
manipuleren van de Tweede Kamerverkiezingen a.s. 17 maart, zonder ook maar een flinter aan bewijs te geven…….. (dat deed Ollongren overigens al veel eerder en dat in aanloop van de Gemeenteraardsverkiezingen van 21 maart 2018 en de Statenverkiezingen van 20 maart 2019……..)
De
laatste 4 jaar hebben diezelfde media en politici Trump en Rusland
valselijk beschuldigd voor het manipuleren van de
presidentsverkiezingen in 2016, wat plotseling stopte toen Biden werd
gekozen tot Democratisch presidentskandidaat, terwijl die media en
politici moord en brand schreeuwden toen Trump stelde dat de
verkiezingen van afgelopen november werden gestoken ten voordele van Biden…….
Wat een
zootje, ongelofelijk!!!
Onder het volgennde artikel eerder gepubliceerd op Just the News en nog eens Just the News, door mij overgenomen van Information Clearing House, kan je klikken voor een ‘Dutch vertaling’, dit kost wel enige teintallen seconden tijd:
Trump declassifies
all FBI documents in Russia probe
By
John Solomon
January 16, 2021
“Information
Clearing House”
– WASHINGTON, D.C. According to Fox Business News Lou Dobbs
who today interviewed
John Solomon, who was formerly an executive and editor-in-chief
at The
Washington Times,
the remaining FBI documents on Russian collusion have been
declassified and could be released as soon as Monday.
Solomon,
an award-winning investigative journalist, said that the entire
narrative of Trump Collusion was created and leaked to the news media
to neutralize Hillary Clinton’s concern that her email scandal had
not gone away.
Solomon
also said while confirming to Dobbs, that indeed “he
can confirm”
that the President has delivered, “in
a big way”
on one of his last remaining promises; to authorize the release of
what he said is more than a “foot
high stack of documents”
– those which are the ones he said the FBI has tried to keep from the
public for four years.
Delivering in his
final days on one of his last unfulfilled promises, President Trump
is declassifying a massive trove of FBI documents showing the Russia
collusion story was leaked in the final weeks of the 2016 election in
an effort to counteract Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.
The memos to be
released as early as Friday include FBI interviews and human source
evaluation reports for two of the main informants in the Russia case,
former MI6 agent Christopher Steele and academic Stefan Halper.
The president
authorized the release of a foot-high stack of internal FBI and DOJ*
documents that detail significant flaws in the investigation and
provide a detailed timeline of when the FBI first realized the Steele
dossier was problematic, multiple government officials told Just the
News.
Among the bombshell
revelations is an admission by Steele that he violated his
confidential human source agreement with the FBI and leaked
information from his dossier to the news media in the final weeks of
the election because he wanted to counteract new revelations in the
Hillary Clinton email scandal that were hurting her election efforts.
The former foreign intelligence officer made the confession in a fall
2017 interview with agents.
Steele, who was hired
by Clinton’s campaign law firm to compile anti-Trump dossiers
attempting to link Trump to Russian influence, told agents he had two
clients at the time — Clinton and the FBI — and chose the
interests of the Democratic candidate over the bureau in leaking.
Steele told the bureau
that then-FBI Director James Comey’s decision to reopen the Clinton
email probe in fall 2016 triggered him to leak his dossier details in
what he described as a taking-the-gloves-off moment.
The FBI interview
summary makes clear that Steele, a British citizen, was allegiant to
Clinton, did not like Trump and believed a Trump presidency would be
negative for his homeland and thus made a decision to meddle in the
U.S. election by leaking information to the news media.
The leaks, which led
to Steele’s termination as an FBI informant, have been known for more
than a year, but his motivation for leaking was hidden in the
classified documents.
His admission that the
Russia collusion narrative, later debunked by Special Counsel Robert
Mueller, was injected into the public as a means of counteracting
Clinton’s email scandal corroborates other information obtained by
the CIA.
Late last year, the
Trump administration declassified evidence showing the CIA warned
President Obama and the FBI that it had intercepted intelligence
indicating Hillary Clinton had personally ordered up an operation to
“vilify” Trump with a false story of collusion as a m
eans
of distracting from the negative publicity of her email scandal.
Multiple
investigations have concluded that much of Steele’s dossier was
debunked or never corroborated by the FBI and likely contained
Russian disinformation planted with his sources.
The probes found the
FBI wrongly continued to rely on the allegations of Russia collusion
to target Trump campaign figures for investigation and failed to
disclose major flaws in their investigations to the courts that had
authorized surveillance warrants.
The investigation also
found that Steele’s primary source of Russian intel later disowned or
distanced himself from the claims attributed to him in the Steele
dossier and that U.S. intelligence had concerns the source was tied
to Russian intelligence.
The
soon-to-be-released records also expose a tantalizing connection
between Steele, his primary source and one of the Democrats’ key
impeachment witnesses in the Ukraine scandal, former Trump National
Security Council Russia expert Fiona Hill.
Steele divulged to the
FBI that he was introduced by Hill to his primary sub-source of
information for his anti-Trump dossier and that he later told Hill
that the source had provided information for his now infamous memos.
The documents also
will settle a long-debated question in Washington about whether the
FBI’s tactics amounted to spying on the Trump campaign.
Tasking instructions
the FBI gave to Halper, an academic who long worked as an FBI
informant, make clear he was instructed to infiltrate the Trump
campaign by posing as someone who wanted to work for the GOP nominee
and then targeting campaign advisers to find out what they knew about
Trump or his campaign’s ties to Russia.
Halper was
specifically instructed by the FBI to focus on campaign advisers Sam
Clovis, George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, in some cases recording
some of their conversations, the records are expected to show.
In her impeachment
testimony in 2019, Hill acknowledged she knew Steele since 2006 when
he worked for MI6 and she worked for the Bush administration.
She, however, did not
make any mention of introducing Steele’s primary subsource and in
fact expressed her own doubts about the Steele dossier, suggesting it
could very well have been Russian disinformation.
She said she held
“misgivings and concern that he could have been played” by the
Russians because they “would have an ax to grind against him given
the job that he had previously.”
“I don’t believe
it’s appropriate for him to have been hired to do this,” she
testified about Steele. “I almost fell over when I discovered
that he was doing this report.”
‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende twee artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)
PS: zag nog een kop voorbijkomen waarin wordt gesteld dat opperhufter Leon de Winter nog steeds gelooft in Russiagate, hoe ongelofelijk dom moet je zijn?!!
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
regelmatige lezer van dit blog weet dat ik al een paar jaar een
aantal van 2,5 doden aanhoudt die deze eeuw zijn gevallen in de illegale
oorlogen van de VS (of zwaar gesteund door de VS met een vitale rol
in coördinatie van bombardementen enz.) in Afghanistan (en daarmee
deels in Pakistan), Irak, Libië, Syrië, Somalië en Jemen. Men
hield mij wel eens voor dat het aantal van 2,5 miljoen overdreven
was, echter nu blijkt (of eigenlijk al in 2018) dat het aantal doden
die in deze oorlogen zijn gevallen minstens 5 miljoen moet zijn, dit
gebaseerd op een artikel in Consortium News van 25 april
2018, geschreven door Nicolas JS
Davies, een artikel dat bestaat uit 3 delen en waarvan ik deel 3 voor
een deel heb overgenomen. (Davies gaat uit van minstens 5 miljoen
doden, maar stelt dat dit er ook 7 miljoen kunnen zijn……)
In
de eerste twee delen komt Davies tot de slotsom dat de (illegale)
oorlog van de VS tegen Irak minstens 2,4 miljoen mensen het leven
moet hebben gekost (let wel met hulp van andere NAVO-partners,
waaronder Nederland…)….. Terwijl de (illegale) oorlog van de VS
en haar NAVO-partners tegen Afghanistan en de meer geheime oorlog
tegen o.a. de Taliban in Pakistan 1,2 miljoen mensen het leven moet
hebben gekost, waar Davies aan toevoegt dat ook de CIA hier een grote
rol in heeft gespeeld (zoals de geheime acties tegen de Taliban in
Pakistan…….)
In
het laatste deel, dat hieronder gedeeltelijk is opgenomen, gaat
Davies diep in op de VS oorlogen tegen Libië, Syrië, Somalië en
Jemen. Daarin ook weer aandacht voor de geheime militaire acties
veelal geleid door de CIA. Verder wijst Davies op het feit dat alleen
wat betreft de (illegale) oorlog van de VS tegen Irak diepere studies
zijn gedaan naar het aantal doden, onderzoeken die veel verder gaan
dan die waarop de officiële cijfers zijn gebaseerd (aangeleverd door
media en andere bronnen) middels ‘actief onderzoek’ naar het aantal
doden, aangegeven door huishoudens. Onafhankelijke onderzoeken op
universitair niveau en niet zoals de andere (niet onafhankelijke)
onderzoeken onder toezicht van overheden. (braaf overgenomen door de afhankelijke reguliere westerse media)
Andere
onafhankelijke onderzoeken naar vergelijkbare oorlogen zoals die in
Angola, Bosnië en Congo (ook wel Democratische Republiek Congo
genoemd of kortweg DRC), Kosovo, Rwanda, Soedan, Oeganda en Irak
(waarvan we inderdaad door studies weten dat het aantal doden veel
hoger is dan het officieel aangehouden getal), tonen aan dat het
werkelijke aantal doden 5 tot 20 keer hoger liggen…….
Door
de afwezigheid van zulke uitgebreide studies in Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Libië, Syrië en Jemen, heeft Davies ‘passieve
rapportages’ (n.a.v. niet-onafhankelijk onderzoek) over oorlogsdoden
geëvalueerd en beoordeeld wat het werkelijke aantal doden moet zijn,
gezien eerdere (wel onafhankelijke) studies naar andere
oorlogsgebieden waarbij de officiële cijfers zijn vergeleken met het
werkelijke aantal doden die daar later werden geteld middels
(onafhankelijke) studies (zo dat is er ook weer uit). Het voorgaande
is een versimpelde weergave van de woorden die Davies gebruikt (wat
mij betreft behoorlijk ingewikkeld, maar ja ik ben dan ook weer een
dag ouder).
Davies
heeft alleen de gewelddadige doden (vermoorden) geteld en niet de
doden die indirect door die oorlogen zijn gevallen, zoals de doden
die vielen door het bombarderen van ziekenhuizen en andere medische
faciliteiten, de doden die in andere situaties te voorkomen waren
geweest zoals door besmettelijke ziekten, ondervoeding en zware
milieuvervuiling, ook al is het aantal doden dat daardoor is gevallen
behoorlijk groot (kan je nagaan…..)….. Zelf tel ik die doden wel
op bij het totale aantal doden dat door een oorlog is gevallen, zo
zijn er in Jemen minstens 500.000 doden gevallen (waaronder meer dan
100.000 kinderen), dit door honger, cholera en difterie, die zonder
oorlog niet zouden zijn overleden….. Deze mensen zijn dan ook
allemaal vermoord door de smerige oorlog die de Saoedische
terreurcoalitie voert tegen de sjiitische bevolking van Jemen, met
directe en indirecte steun van de VS en Groot-Brittannië, vandaar
ook dat ik al jaren spreek over een (immer voortgaande) genocide die
deze terreurcoalitie uitvoert in Jemen….. (terwijl Nederland wapenonderdelen levert aan S-A…..)
Wat
betreft Irak houdt Davies het aantal vermoorde mensen op 2,4 miljoen,
o.a. gebaseerd op de schattingen naar aanleiding van een studie door
de Lancet in 2006 en 2007 die in overeenstemming waren met elkaar,
waar hij een som heeft losgelaten op het aantal doden genoemd in
passieve rapportages en het aantal doden gevonden in actieve studies
als tussen die van de Lancet en Iraq Body Count (IBC) in 2006
vergeleken met het aantal doden in het IBC onderzoek vanaf 2007.
Davies
gaat ook in op de manier waarop de oorlogen worden verslagen door de
media, waarbij al vanaf Obama zo min mogelijk of helemaal geen
oorlogscorrespondenten werden toegelaten tot gebieden waar de VS als
een beest tekeerging, neem ook de VS bombardementen op een groot
aantal steden in Irak en Syrië zoals respectievelijk Mosul en Raqqa…..
De
mensen in Mosul, Raqqa, Kobane, Fallujah, Ramadi, Tawergha en Deir ez-Zor stierven met bosjes als er geen westerse
verslaggevers en tv ploegen aanwezig waren om de bloedbaden te
verslaan….. Harold Pinter vroeg toen hem in 2005 de Nobelprijs voor
de Literatuur werd toegekend of deze bloedbaden plaatsvonden en of ze
in alle gevallen te danken waren aan het buitenlandbeleid van de VS.
Het antwoord was: ja, deze bloedbaden hebben plaatsgevonden en waren
in alle gevallen te danken aan het buitenlandbeleid van de VS…..
Maar jij zou het niet weten. Het gebeurde nooit. Er gebeurde nooit
iets. Zelfs toen het plaatsvond gebeurde het niet. Het deed er niet
toe. Het was van geen belang. (………)
Voor
de rest van de informatie verwijs ik je naar het originele artikel,
waarin Davies o.a. tot de conclusie komt dat het totale aantal
gewelddadige doden (i.t.t. Het aantal passieve doden of indirecte
doden) wat betreft Libië op 250.000 doden ligt (minimaal 150.000 en
maximaal 360.000 doden). Als het gaat om de illegale oorlog tegen Somalië en dan vanaf 2006 (de VS voerde al veel eerder oorlog tegen
dat land) schat Davies het aantal door oorlogsgeweld gevallen doden op
650.000 (minimaal 500.000 en maximaal op 850.000 doden. Tot slot
Jemen: hier schat hij het aantal door oorlogsgeweld gevallen doden
op 175.000 doden (minimaal 120.000 en maximaal 240.000).
Nogmaals:
de manier van rekenen dus doden gevallen door oorlogsgeweld en het
aantal doden dat indirect door oorlogen valt, vind ik nogal vreemd,
immers ook de indirecte doden moet je meetellen, daar zonder oorlog
deze mensen niet waren omgekomen…..
Lees
het (hele) artikel van Davies en zegt het voort, de wereld moet zo
snel mogelijk de VS oorlogsmachine stoppen, of het nu om 2,5
miljoen doden of 5 dan wel 7 miljoen doden gaat, elke dode is er één
teveel, de terreur van de VS en de NAVO moet eindelijk gestopt
worden, hoe kunnen we ons wel druk maken om Coronadoden en het veel
grotere aantal vermoorde mensen in de illegale VS oorlogen maar links
laten liggen (beter: rechts laten liggen……)….. Dit artikel vond ik door een link in een bericht van Caitlin Johnstone, dat ik op een later tijdstip zal plaatsen.
How
Many Millions Have Been Killed in America’s Post-9/11 Wars? Part 3:
Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen
April
25, 2018
In the third
and final part of his series, Nicolas JS Davies investigates the
death toll of U.S. covert and proxy wars in Libya, Syria, Somalia and
Yemen and underscores the importance of comprehensive war mortality
studies.
By
Nicolas J S Davies Special
to Consortium News
U.S. Army forces operating in southern Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Apr. 2, 2003 (U.S. Navy photo)
In the first
two parts of this report, I have estimated that about 2.4
million people have been killed as a result of the U.S. invasion
of Iraq, while about 1.2
million have been killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a result
of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. In the third and final part
of this report, I will estimate how many people have been killed as a
result of U.S. military and CIA interventions in Libya, Syria,
Somalia and Yemen.
Of the
countries that the U.S. has attacked and destabilized since 2001,
only Iraq has been the subject of comprehensive “active”
mortality studies that can reveal otherwise unreported deaths. An
“active” mortality study is one that “actively” surveys
households to find deaths that have not previously been reported by
news reports or other published sources.
These studies
are often carried out by people who work in the field of public
health, like Les Roberts at Columbia University, Gilbert Burnham at
Johns Hopkins and Riyadh Lafta at Mustansiriya University in Baghdad,
who co-authored the
2006 Lancet study
of Iraq war mortality. In defending their studies in Iraq and
their results, they emphasized that their Iraqi survey teams were
independent of the occupation government and that that was an
important factor in the objectivity of their studies and the
willingness of people in Iraq to talk honestly with them.
Comprehensive
mortality studies in other war-torn countries (like Angola, Bosnia,
the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Iraq, Kosovo, Rwanda,
Sudan and Uganda) have revealed total numbers of deaths that are 5
to 20 times those previously revealed by “passive” reporting
based on news reports, hospital records and/or human rights
investigations.
In the
absence of such comprehensive studies in Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen, I have evaluated passive reports of
war deaths and tried to assess what proportion of actual deaths these
passive reports are likely to have counted by the methods they have
used, based on ratios of actual deaths to passively reported deaths
found in other war-zones.
I have only
estimated violent deaths. None of my estimates include deaths
from the indirect effects of these wars, such as the destruction of
hospitals and health systems, the spread of otherwise preventable
diseases and the effects of malnutrition and environmental pollution,
which have also been substantial in all these countries.
For
Afghanistan, I estimated that about 875,000
Afghans have been killed. I explained that the annual
reports on civilian casualties by the UN
Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA) are based only on
investigations completed by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights
Commission (AIHRC), and that they knowingly exclude large numbers of
reports of civilian deaths that the AIHRC has not yet investigated or
for which it has not completed its investigations. UNAMA’s
reports also lack any reporting at all from many areas of the country
where the Taliban and other Afghan resistance forces are active, and
where many or most U.S. air strikes and night raids therefore take
place.
I concluded
that UNAMA’s reporting of civilian deaths in Afghanistan appears to
be as inadequate as the extreme under-reporting found at the end of
the Guatemalan Civil War, when the UN-sponsored Historical
Verification Commission revealed 20 times more deaths than previously
reported.
For Pakistan,
I estimated that about 325,000
people had been killed. That was based on published
estimates of combatant deaths, and on applying an average of the
ratios found in previous wars (12.5:1) to the number of civilian
deaths reported by the South
Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) in India.
Estimating
Deaths in Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen
In the third
and final part of this report, I will estimate the death toll caused
by U.S. covert and proxy wars in Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen.
These wars
have been catastrophic for the people of all these countries, but the
U.S.’s “disguised, quiet, media-free” approach to them has been
so successful in propaganda terms that most Americans know very
little about the U.S. role in the intractable violence and chaos that
has engulfed them.
The very
public nature of the illegal but largely symbolic missile strikes on
Syria on April 14, 2018 stands in sharp contrast to the “disguised,
quiet, media-free” U.S.-led bombing campaign that has destroyed
Raqqa, Mosul and several other Syrian and Iraqi cities with more
than 100,000 bombs and missiles since 2014.
The people of
Mosul, Raqqa, Kobane, Sirte, Fallujah, Ramadi, Tawergha and Deir
Ez-Zor have died like trees falling in a forest where there were no
Western reporters or TV crews to record their massacres. As
Harold Pinter asked of earlier U.S. war crimes in his 2005
Nobel acceptance speech,
“Did they
take place? And are they in all cases attributable to U.S.
foreign policy? The answer is yes, they did take place, and
they are in all cases attributable to American foreign policy. But
you wouldn’t know it. It never happened. Nothing ever
happened. Even while it was happening, it wasn’t happening. It
didn’t matter. It was of no interest.”
For more
detailed background on the critical role the U.S. has played in each
of these wars, please read my article, “Giving
War Too Many Chances,” published in January 2018.
Smoke is seen after an NATO airstrikes hit Tripoli, Libya Photo: REX
But the war
instead killed far more civilians than any estimate of the number
killed in the initial rebellion in February and March 2011, which
ranged from 1,000 (a UN estimate) to 6,000 (according to the Libyan
Human Rights League). So the war clearly failed in its stated,
authorized purpose, to protect civilians, even as it succeeded in a
different and unauthorized one: the illegal overthrow of the Libyan
government.
SC resolution
1973 expressly prohibited “a foreign occupation force of any form
on any part of Libyan territory.” But NATO and its allies
launched a
covert invasion of Libya by thousands of Qatari and Western
special operations forces, who planned the rebels’ advance across
the country, called in air strikes against government forces and led
the final assault on the Bab al-Aziziya military headquarters in
Tripoli.
“We were
among them and the numbers of Qataris on the ground were in the
hundreds in every region. Training and communications had been
in Qatari hands. Qatar… supervised the rebels’ plans because they
are civilians and did not have enough military experience. We acted
as the link between the rebels and NATO forces.”
There are
credible reports that a
French security officer may even have delivered the coup de grace
that killed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, after he was captured,
tortured and sodomized with a knife by the “NATO rebels.”
A
parliamentary Foreign
Affairs Committee inquiry (FAC) in the U.K. in 2016 concluded that a
“limited intervention to protect civilians drifted into an
opportunistic policy of regime change by military means,” resulting
in, “political and economic collapse, inter-militia and
inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread
human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across
the region and the growth of Isil [Islamic State] in north Africa.”
Passive
Reports of Civilian Deaths in Libya
Once the
Libyan government was overthrown, journalists tried to inquire about
the sensitive subject of civilian deaths, which was so critical to
the legal and political justifications for the war. But the
National Transitional Council (NTC), the unstable new government
formed by Western-backed exiles and rebels, stopped issuing public
casualty estimates and ordered hospital staff not
to release information to reporters.
In any case,
as in Iraq and Afghanistan, morgues were overflowing during the war
and many people buried their loved ones in their backyards or
wherever they could, without taking them to hospitals.
A rebel
leader estimated in August 2011 that 50,000
Libyans had been killed. Then, on September 8th 2011, Naji
Barakat, the NTC’s new health minister, issued a statement that
30,000 people had been killed and another 4,000 were missing,
based on a survey of hospitals, local officials and rebel commanders
in the majority of the country that the NTC by then controlled. He
said it would take several more weeks to complete the survey, so he
expected the final figure to be higher.
Barakat’s
statement did not include separate counts of combatant and civilian
deaths. But he said that about half of the 30,000 reported dead
were troops loyal to the government, including 9,000 members of the
Khamis Brigade, led by Gaddafi’s son Khamis. Barakat asked
the public to report deaths in their families and details of missing
persons when they came to mosques for prayers that Friday. The NTC’s
estimate of 30,000 people killed appeared to consist mainly of
combatants on both sides.
The most
comprehensive survey of war deaths since the end of the 2011 war in
Libya was an “epidemiological community-based study” titled “Libyan
Armed Conflict 2011: Mortality, Injury and Population Displacement.”
It was authored by three medical professors from Tripoli, and
published in the African
Journal of Emergency Medicine
in 2015.
The authors
took records of war deaths, injuries and displacement collected by
the Ministry of Housing and Planning, and sent teams to conduct
face-to-face interviews with a member of each family to verify how
many members of their household were killed, wounded or displaced.
They did not try to separate the killing of civilians from the
deaths of combatants.
Nor did they
try to statistically estimate previously unreported deaths through
the “cluster sample survey” method of the Lancet
study
in Iraq. But the Libyan Armed Conflict study is the most
complete record of confirmed deaths in the war in Libya up to
February 2012, and it confirmed the deaths of at least 21,490 people.
In 2014, the
ongoing chaos and factional fighting in Libya flared up into what
Wikipedia now calls a second
Libyan Civil War. A group called Libya
Body Count (LBC) began tabulating violent deaths in Libya, based
on media reports, on the model of Iraq
Body Count (IBC). But LBC only did so for three years, from
January 2014 until December 2016. It counted 2,825 deaths in
2014, 1,523 in 2015 and 1,523 in 2016. (The LBC website says it was
just a coincidence that the number was identical in 2015 and 2016.)
The
U.K.-based Armed Conflict
Location and Event Data (ACLED) project has also kept a count of
violent deaths in Libya. ACLED counted 4,062 deaths in 2014-6,
compared with 5,871 counted by Libya Body Count. For the
remaining periods between March 2012 and March 2018 that LBC did not
cover, ACLED has counted 1,874 deaths.
If LBC had
covered the whole period since March 2012, and found the same
proportionally higher number than ACLED as it did for 2014-6, it
would have counted 8,580 people killed.
Estimating
How Many People Have Really Been Killed in Libya
The Libyan
Armed Conflict (LAC) study was based on official records in a country
that had not had a stable, unified government for about 4 years,
while Libya Body Count was a fledgling effort to emulate Iraq Body
Count that tried to cast a wider net by not relying only on
English-language news sources.
In Iraq, the
ratio between the 2006 Lancet
study and Iraq Body Count was higher because IBC was only counting
civilians, while the Lancet
study counted Iraqi combatants as well as civilians. Unlike
Iraq Body Count, both our main passive sources in Libya counted both
civilians and combatants. Based on the one-line descriptions of
each incident in the Libya
Body Count database, LBC’s total appears to include roughly
half combatants and half civilians.
Military
casualties are generally counted more accurately than civilian ones,
and military forces have an interest in accurately assessing enemy
casualties as well as identifying their own. The opposite is true of
civilian casualties, which are nearly always evidence of war crimes
that the forces who killed them have a strong interest in
suppressing.
So, in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, I treated combatants and civilians
separately, applying typical ratios between passive reporting and
mortality studies only to civilians, while accepting reported
combatant deaths as they were passively reported.
But the
forces fighting in Libya are not a national army with the strict
chain of command and organizational structure that results in
accurate reporting of military casualties in other countries and
conflicts, so both civilian and combatant deaths appear to be
significantly under-reported by my two main sources, the Libya
Armed Conflict study and
Libya Body Count. In fact, the National Transitional
Council’s (NTC) estimates from August and September 2011 of
30,000 deaths were already much higher than the numbers of war deaths
in the LAC study.
When the 2006 Lancet study of mortality in Iraq was published, it revealed
14 times the number of deaths counted in Iraq Body Count’s list of
civilian deaths. But IBC later discovered more deaths from that
period, reducing the ratio between the Lancet study’s
estimate and IBC’s revised count to 11.5:1.
The combined
totals from the Libya Armed Conflict 2011 study and Libya Body Count
appear to be a larger proportion of total violent deaths than Iraq
Body Count has counted in Iraq, mainly because LAC and LBC both
counted combatants as well as civilians, and because Libya Body Count
included deaths reported in Arabic news sources, while IBC relies
almost entirely on
English language news sources and generally requires “a minimum
of two independent data sources” before recording each death.
In other
conflicts, passive reporting has never succeeded in counting more
than a fifth of the deaths found by comprehensive, “active”
epidemiological studies. Taking all these factors into account,
the true number of people killed in Libya appears to be somewhere
between five and twelve times the numbers counted by the Libya Armed
Conflict 2011 study, Libya Body Count and ACLED.
So I estimate
that about 250,000 Libyans have been killed in the war, violence and
chaos that the U.S. and its allies unleashed in Libya in February
2011, and which continues to the present day. Taking 5:1 and
12:1 ratios to passively counted deaths as outer limits, the minimum
number of people that have been killed would be 150,000 and the
maximum would be 360,000.
Syria
The “disguised,
quiet, media-free” U.S. role in Syria began in late 2011 with a
CIA operation to funnel foreign
fighters and weapons through Turkey and Jordan into Syria,
working with Qatar and Saudi Arabia to militarize unrest that began
with peaceful Arab Spring protests against Syria’s Baathist
government.
The
mostly leftist and democratic Syrian political groups
coordinating non-violent protests in Syria in 2011 strongly opposed
these foreign efforts to unleash a civil war, and issued strong
statements opposing violence, sectarianism and foreign intervention.
But even as a
December 2011 Qatari-sponsored opinion poll found that 55%
of Syrians supported their government, the U.S. and its allies
were committed to adapting their Libyan regime change model to Syria,
knowing full well from the outset that this war would be much
bloodier and more destructive.
The CIA and
its Arab monarchist partners eventually funneled thousands
of tons of weapons and thousands of foreign Al-Qaeda-linked
jihadis into Syria. The weapons came first from Libya, then
from Croatia and the Balkans. They included howitzers, missile
launchers and other heavy weapons, sniper rifles, rocket propelled
grenades, mortars and small arms, and the U.S. eventually directly
supplied powerful anti-tank missiles.
Meanwhile,
instead of cooperating with Kofi Annan’s UN-backed efforts to bring
peace to Syria in 2012, the U.S. and its allies held three “Friends
of Syria” conferences, where they pursued their own “Plan B,”
pledging ever-growing support to the increasingly Al-Qaeda-dominated
rebels. Kofi
Annan quit his thankless role in disgust after Secretary of State
Clinton and her British, French and Saudi allies cynically undermined
his peace plan.
The rest, as
they say, is history, a history of ever-spreading violence and chaos
that has drawn the U.S., U.K., France, Russia, Iran and all of
Syria’s neighbors into its bloody vortex. As Phyllis Bennis
of the Institute for Policy Studies has observed, these external
powers have all been ready to fight over Syria “to
the last Syrian.”
The bombing
campaign that President Obama launched against Islamic State in 2014
is the heaviest bombing campaign since the U.S. War in Vietnam,
dropping more
than 100,000 bombs and missiles on Syria and Iraq. Patrick
Cockburn, the veteran Middle East correspondent of the U.K.’s Independent
newspaper, recently visited Raqqa, formerly Syria’s 6th largest
city, and wrote that, “The
destruction is total.”
“In other
Syrian cities bombed or shelled to the point of oblivion there is at
least one district that has survived intact,” Cockburn wrote. “This
is the case even in Mosul in Iraq, though much of it was pounded into
rubble. But in Raqqa the damage and the demoralization are all
pervasive. When something does work, such as a single traffic
light, the only one to do so in the city, people express surprise.”
De
enorme onbeschoftheid van de welgestelden kent heden ten dage geen grenzen meer,
zonder enige compassie met de grote arme onderlaag van bevolkingen,
ook die in het westen, prijst men zichzelf aan als zou men begaan zijn met het trieste lot dat honderden miljoenen treft in ontwikkelingslanden, als was men jezus zelf, ook als de geschiedenis van een dergelijk persoon volkomen het tegenovergestelde laat zien…..(om nog maar te zwijgen wat velen van die welgestelden hebben bijgedragen aan de klimaatverandering en deze middels hun bedrijven nog steeds aanjagen)
Zo heeft ook Obama een boek geschreven over zijn
leven, terwijl hij zijn kiezers zwaar heeft besodemieterd en er zijn hand niet voor omdraaide ook het Nobelprijs comité te belazeren, van wie hij de prijs voor de vrede kreeg,
terwijl hij daarna liet zien een grote oorlogsmisdadiger te zijn, die al lang gevangen had moeten zitten in Scheveningen…… (na te zijn veroordeeld door het Internationaal Strafhof >> ICC) Deze hufter is door
zijn presidentschap zelfs miljonair geworden….. Obama heeft daarnaast amper iets kunnen betekenen in de strijd tegen het alomtegenwoordige racisme in de VS……. Naast Obama zou ook Jeff Bezos een boek hebben geschreven, aldus het Care2 team, al kan ik alleen
boeken vinden die anderen over hem schreven.
Het
Care2 team is een petitie is gestart om Bezos erop te wijzen dat
alle ‘mooie zaken die hij zichzelf toeschrijft’ (in dat boek), zoals elke dag rustig ontbijten met zijn kinderen, ook mogelijk zouden moeten zijn voor zijn werknemers. Werknemers die worden uitgebuit tegen een slavenloon, werknemers die
maar in een fles moeten plassen, zodat ze geen onnodige tijd kwijt
zijn met een bezoek aan het toilet, anderen dragen een luier, zodat
ze de urine kunnen laten lopen…… Werknemers ook die veel te lang
moeten werken, terwijl Bezos zich op de borst slaat daar hij dagelijks
om klokslag 17.00 u. zijn kantoor verlaat……
Lees en teken de petitie van het Care2 team ajb en geeft het door! Amazon
het bedrijf van Bezos heeft haar gore poten nu ook in Nederland staan….. Bezos de rijkste
man ter wereld moet eindelijk zijn werknemers fatsoenlijk behandelen
en betalen. Deze ploert wist zijn al schandalig hoge vermogen verder
te vergroten door de Coronacrisis, waarbij dat vermogen steeg van 73 miljard naar een slordige
200 miljard dollar…… De waarde van Amazon is intussen gestegen tot boven de 1 biljoen dollar en daar zijn vooral zijn medewerkers en die van toeleveranciers uit arme landen verantwoordelijk voor, mensen die tegen slavenlonen moeten werken….. De eerste tekst is een wat kortere weergave
van de petitietekst die ik daaronder heb geplaatst:
Jeff
Bezos’s employees are struggling, but he brags about 8 hours of sleep
each night
Miranda
B., Care2 Action Alerts <actionalerts@care2.com>
Jeff
Bezos just laid out his secrets to success. Surprise: they’re all
things he doesn’t allow his overworked, abused employees to do.
Before the pandemic hit, Jeff Bezos
was already worth an astounding $73 billion. During the crisis, his
worth has more than doubled
to upwards of $200 billion. No wonder he sleeps so well at night! But
his warehouse employees have seen their fortunes go in the opposite
direction. Before the pandemic, they were already struggling so badly
under producitvity demands, they had to wear adult diapers and
urinate in bottles at their workstations. Since then, the conditions
have only gotten worse as Amazon sales have skyrocketed — all on
the backs of abused, exploited staff. Yet Jeff Bezos expects us to
all swoon over his cozy, privileged best practices? Save
the self-aggrandizing “wisdom,” Jeff. Pay your workers! Sign
the petition to demand justice for Amazon’s beleagurered employees.
Hier de tekst bij de petitie, een iets
meer uitgebreide tekst:
Oh great, Jeff Bezos wrote a book.
It includes an essay about the
Amazon CEO’s daily rituals, which includesleeping for at
least 8 hours a night,somehow
taking his mornings slow and also doing all of his important work at
that time, making sure to eat breakfast with his kids, and ‘clocking
out’ around 5 pm every day.
What a beautiful example of work life balance — one which has been made
impossible for nearly every
single Amazon employee.
Sign the petition and demand that Jeff Bezos actually improve
working conditions, increase pay, and provide real benefits to
Amazon’s employees so that they can live the healthy, balanced life
he seems to think is so important for himself.
Before the pandemic, Jeff Bezos
was worth $73 billion. During the pandemic, that worth more
than doubled to over $200 billion. No
wonder he sleeps so well at night.
Before the pandemic, Amazon
warehouse employees were already struggling so badly under
productivity demands that they had to urinate in bottles at their
workstationsrather than risk
losing time in the facilities, or put in constant overtime instead of
spending time with their families. Office employees were expected to
answer emails well into the middle of the night, and reports of
people crying at their desks were common.
During the pandemic, these conditions have only gotten worse as
Amazon usage has skyrocketed. COVID-19 cases in Amazon warehouses
have exploded as their
essential workers are expected to show up, but are provided little or
no personal protective equipment, social distancing space, or hazard
pay (their temporary $2/hour increase in wages was quickly eliminated
even as the pandemic rages on).
Amazon’s market value passed $1 trillion this year.It
is 100% because of its employees who are being exploited and abused.
But Jeff Bezos thinks he can write a book about what HIS best
practices are, and somehow expect us to all swoon like his wisdom
will do us any good?
SAVE THE ‘WISDOM,’ JEFF. PAY YOUR
WORKERS.
Sign the petition and demand that Jeff Bezos provide his
employees with the work life balance he boasts about — increase pay,
lower productivity standards or hire more people to meet them,
increase benefits, create actual COVID-19 precautions and testing
systems…basically, tell Jeff Bezos to treat his employees like
human beings.
Voor meer berichten over Bezos, Amazon en/of Obama, klik op het betreffende label, direct onder dit bericht. Het label BLM staat voor Black Lives Matter.
In
het echt progressieve deel van de VS hoopte men dat Trump in zijn
laatste weken als zittend president Julian Assange en Edward Snowden
een pardon zou geven, echter helaas is dat niet gebeurd en het zal
‘ook niet’ gebeuren. Behoorlijk dom trouwens dat men dit geloofde,
immers zowel Snowden als Assange zijn door de reguliere media in de
VS (en de rest van het westen) al jarenlang afgemaakt als verraders en dat op zo’n manier dat je van
hersenspoelen kan spreken……. Hoewel Trump deze media voor het
overgrote deel ‘fake media’ noemt, is het laatste wat hij wil dat zijn
achterban hem als vriend van verraders zal gaan zien…….
Caitlin
Johnstone schreef een kort en bondig artikel over deze zaak en gaat
verder in op de beloften die Trump deed tijdens de verkiezingsstrijd
in 2016, zoals het beëindigen van de (illegale) oorlogen die de VS
destijds voerde (‘getting the troops home’), iets waar bitter weinig
van terecht is gekomen en de VS zou nu zelfs meer troepen in het
buitenland hebben dan voor Trumps aantreden, niet zo vreemd daar
Trump het Pentagon toestemming gaf om naar eigen inzicht meer troepen
in te zetten…… Overigens, ook het aantal bommen dat werd
afgeworpen is nog weer groter dan onder Obama die George W. Bush weer
overtrof (terwijl aan Obama de Nobelprijs voor de Vrede werd toegekend…)….
Over die illegale oorlogen gesproken en zoals je al in de kop kon lezen: Trump heeft gisteren 3 oorlogsmisdadigers, die een levenslange gevangenisstraf moesten uitzitten, pardon gegeven, dus deze vreselijke moordenaars mogen naar huis, terwijl degenen die oorlogsmisdaden aan het licht brachten geen pardon krijgen en Julian Assange zelfs in isolatiefolter gevangenzit…… Mede daarom wil ik nog eens opmerken dat het journaille van de reguliere westerse (massa-) media zich de ogen uit de kop moet schamen dat ze Assange zo hebben gedemoniseerd, NB een gelauwerd collega van hen die uitstekend werk verrichtte in het openbaren van o.a. oorlogsmisdaden door VS militairen begaan, een collega die ze dagelijks zouden moeten ophemelen tezamen met de eis hem onmiddellijk vrij te laten, wat een geteisem!!! (en dat tuig heeft het gore lef om zich onafhankelijk te noemen…..)
Voorts
wijst Caitlin volkomen terecht op het feit dat Obama meer
vluchtelingen deporteerde dan Trump….. Waar Obama wordt gevierd als
groot strijder voor mensenrechten en hij zichzelf flink wat veren in
de vieze oorlogsmisdadige reet stak in het boek dat onlangs werd uitgegeven……. Met de uitgave van zijn boek heeft Obama interviews gegeven in de landen waar het valse flutboek werd uitgebracht, maar
hij wilde niet dat journalisten hem interviewden, nee bekende
schrijvers in die landen kregen deze taak….. Dat laatste was niet
voor niets, immers er zouden nog steeds journalisten kunnen zijn die
hem het vuur aan de schenen zouden hebben gelegd…… Schande dat
die schrijvers akkoord gingen met deze gang van zaken zoals de
Nederlandse broodschrijver en kakzever de luxe Tommy Wieringa, wat
overigens ook geldt voor het programma Nieuwsuur…… (Nieuwsuur van
de zogenaamd onafhankelijke partijen NOS en NTR…..)
After
weeks of speculation and desperate hopes that Donald Trump might be
preparing to pardon
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden
and/or WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange
before leaving office on January 20th, what the latest round of
presidential pardons has delivered is about as far from that as you
can conceivably imagine.
“In
an audacious pre-Christmas round of pardons, President Trump granted
clemency on Tuesday to two people convicted in the special counsel’s
Russia inquiry, four Blackwater guards convicted in connection with
the killing of Iraqi civilians and three corrupt former Republican
members of Congress,” the New
York Timesreports.
I
probably don’t need to tell my regular readers this, but a Trump
pardon for Assange and Snowden is almost certainly not in the cards.
Trump has done nothing but protect the imperial status quo the entire
time he’s been in office and a pardon for either of those heroic
government transparency advocates would be a deviation from his
established patterns unlike anything he’s ever once demonstrated
while in office. It’s good
to pressure politicians to do the right thing
even when they probably won’t, but it’s a safe bet that he won’t.
Story
coming shortly from @nytmike
and me – Trump pardons or commutes Papadapolous and another Mueller
probe target, four men connected to killing Iraqi civilians and 3
corrupt R congressmen
Trump’s
entire term has revealed that virtually everyone, all across the US
political spectrum, has been wrong about him. And it’s a testament to
the power of media echo chambers that for the most part they remain
just as wrong about him as they were four years ago.
To
this day, even after four years of evidence to the contrary, many on
the left still continue their
frequent claims
that Trump is a uniquely fascistic or Hitler-like president, despite
his having far
fewer deportations
than Obama had. And despite the fact that he will with absolute
certainty leave office on January 20th after losing an election.
All
sides pretended that Trump was a radical deviation from the norm, and
so did Trump, when all he actually did throughout his entire time in
office was protect the status quo just like his predecessors did. As
writer and activist Sam Husseini recently put
it,
“Trump is the opposable thumb of the establishment. He looks
like he’s on the opposite side, but he just helps it grab more.”
Only if you assume that Trump has ever had any real interest in rocking the boat in any meaningful way. He doesn’t. He’s done nothing but protect the status quo throughout his entire term. https://twitter.com/Jeannin55385803/status/1341550885726404608 …
143
47 people are talking about this
After
four years everyone–left, right and center–has been proven wrong
about Trump. He was neither a uniquely evil monster (he was
indisputably not even as bad as Bush), nor a populist hero draining
the swamp and fighting for the common man against the Deep State.
In
actuality Trump’s term has clearly established what he really was
this entire time: he was a US president. Better than some, worse than
others, but also deeply awful all around since he voluntarily served
as the face of the most evil and destructive force on earth, namely
the United States government. He was the same kind of monster as his
predecessors.
Trump
was a US president of fairly average depravity, with a truly massive
overlay of narrative heaped on top of him by partisan media on all
sides. In reality he was pretty much what you’d get if you took any
average American Fox News-watching boomer who yells at Obama on TV,
made him rich, and then made him president.
That’s
what Trump is and has been. Nothing more extraordinary than that. It
is only the effectiveness of echo chambers and the human tendency to
prioritize narrative over factual data which prevents more people
from seeing this.
And
now he is leaving, with his imaginary crimes still held as real and
his actual crimes completely ignored. Humanity will not be able to
create a healthy world until we find a way to transcend
our unhealthy and delusional relationship with mental narrative
which so easily obscures our perspective of what’s really happening.
________________
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, throwing
some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal,
purchasing some of my sweet
merchandise,
buying my
new book Poems For Rebels 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.
Moet
zeggen dat het me van van Veldhoven meeviel dat ze alsnog de kleine
plastic flesjes met statiegeld door zowel de Tweede als Eerste Kamer
kreeg geloodst*. Immers van Veldhoven, die D666 vals groen waste de
laatste 10 jaar, zei na haar aantreden als staatssecretaris van
o.a. milieu, dat statiegeld een kwestie was die de producenten
onderling moesten afspreken, precies het argument dat ze in de Kamer
altijd verfoeide (ja moet je nagaan….)
Meike
Rijssen van Greenpeace is een petitie gestart in een poging van
Veldhoven in beweging te zetten ook statiegeld op de blikjes
door de Kamers te trekken, me dunkt ze heeft nog een paar maanden,
dus opstaan van Veldhoven en probeer nog één keer iets goed te doen!!
Let
vooral niet op de koppen in de petitietekst want daar wordt je ter
plekke onpasselijk van, neem dat: ‘Yes We Can’, weet je nog, dat de
grote bedrieger Obama deze gebruikte en waar hij na het presidentschap te hebben
gewonnen, zonder enige prestatie op dat gebied de Nobelprijs voor de Vrede kreeg?? Om daarna ongelofelijk genoeg 4
illegale oorlogen te beginnen (of daartoe te hebben aangezet, zoals de oorlog in Oost-Oekraïne…)….. Obama de zoveelste niet vervolgde
oorlogsmisdadiger, al zijn de meeste andere oorlogsmisdadigers (althans ‘de
groten’ onder hen) hoofdzakelijk wit……
Meike
Rijssen heeft wel een dubbele pet op, immers ze is campagneleider
plastic, die zich nu met blik bemoeit, zal wel tijdelijk zijn, want het lijkt me van belang om daar
een aparte campagneleider op te zetten, maar een kniesoor die daar over valt……
Lees en zie wat blik kan doen met bijvoorbeeld koeien en ik verzeker je: daar word je niet vrolijk van, of je moet een sadistische psychopaat zijn. Lees en teken de petitie ajb en geeft het door!!
Laat
Stientje afrekenen met zwerfafval
Jaarlijks
belanden er 100-160 miljoen blikjes in de natuur. Tijdens het maaien
versplinteren de blikjes in messcherpe stukjes. Het gevolg? 12.000
zieke en 4000 dode koeien!
Statiegeld is een effectieve methode tegen
zwerfafval. Vraag staatssecretaris Stientje van Veldhoven nú
statiegeld op blik in te voeren.
Dankzij
supporters als jij hebben we een historische overwinning behaald.
Onze petitie ‘I LOVE STATIEGELD’ is meer dan 100.000 keer
ondertekend in 2018. Samen met o.a. de Statiegeldalliantie en de
Plastic Soup Surfer hebben we ervoor gezorgd dat er statiegeld op
kleine flesjes komt. Nu nog op blik!
*
Door de beide Kamers, al zou ik me van de Eerste niets meer
aantrekken nadat Ollongren een motie van die Kamer over het bevriezen
van de huren naast zich neerlegde, de inhumane en onbeschofte D666
trut!!!
Jammer
dat het hieronder opgenomen artikel van CounterPunch niet al
voor de Democratische voorverkiezingen werd gepubliceerd, grote kans
dat oorlogsmisdadiger Joe Biden dan niet door de Democratische Partij zou zijn gekozen als kandidaat voor het
presidentschap Hoewel de grote opzet was om Bernie Sanders de gang
naar het Witte Huis te belemmeren, daar hij te links was en wel eens
werkelijke verandering had kunnen brengen (in tegenstelling tot de
meer dan valse belofte van Barack Obama)……..
Jack
Delaney heeft een uitgebreid artikel geschreven waarin hij Joe Biden neerzet
als een racist en dat al meer dan 40 jaar lang……
Zo was
Biden tegen het federale schoolbusproject waarmee men de integratie
van zwarte en anders gekleurde kinderen op witte scholen wilde
bevorderen…… Uiteraard was dit niet de enige manier waarop Biden
zich inzette om integratie van gekleurde kinderen op witte scholen
te voorkomen, op alle mogelijke (politieke) manieren heeft Biden
zich daartegen verzet……
Biden
heeft zich onder de administratie van oorlogsmisdadiger Bill Clinton
ingezet voor de ‘three strikes out’ wetgeving, waarmee zelfs met
kleine vergrijpen, je na drie van die vergrijpen ‘levenslang’
gevangen kon worden gezet en uiteraard waren het vooral de gekleurden
die hier in verhouding het hardst onder hebben geleden….. Zo werd
het gebruik van crack (cocaïne) t.o.v. gewone cocaïne (een heel
stuk duurder) veel zwaarder gestraft en je raadt het al: vooral de
gekleurden gebruikten crack, daar ze altijd tot het armste deel van
de VS behoorden en behoren…….
Overigens
was het ‘three strikes out’ het gevolg van de inzet van Biden al onder de
totale mafketel en oorlogsmisdadiger (en C-acteur) Ronald Reagan, de
neoliberale republikeinse president in de 80er jaren van de vorige
eeuw….. (die begon met het opschroeven van de VS schulden tot
onaanvaardbaar grote hoogte) Het is zelfs zo dat Biden Reagan heeft
gepord om hardere straffen te zetten op drugsovertredingen. Het
uiteindelijke gevolg van de inzet die Biden liet zien was dat in veel
staten 90% van de veroordeelden door drugsgebruik en andere
drugsgerelateerde zaken gekleurd waren…….
Onder
Clinton was Biden één van de hoofdverantwoordelijken voor het
verhogen van straffen en hij was er trots op dat de Democraten
verantwoordelijk waren voor 60 meer doodstraffen en de verhoging van
straffen. Verder was de Democratische administratie van Clinton
verantwoordelijk voor het aannemen van 100.000 meer politieagenten en het bouwen van 125.000 extra
gevangeniscellen…… Gevolg was dat tegen het jaar 2000 de VS met
5% van de wereldbevolking, de VS een gevangenispopulatie had die 25%
vertegenwoordigde van het totale aantal gevangenen over de wereld……. Gekleurden liepen 5 keer meer kans in de gevangenis te
belanden dan hun witte medeburgers………
Biden
heeft zich van 1984 tot 2018 ingezet voor het snijden in de sociale
bijstand, terwijl juist de gekleurde bevolking daar het meest op was aangewezen…… Voorts was Biden verantwoordelijk voor het opschroeven
van schulden voor studeren en zoals je kan uittekenen, ook hier waren
m.n. de gekleurden het slachtoffer van (hoewel deze schuldenlast nu
zo groot is dat dezelfde schoft nu heeft beloofd daar wat aan te gaan
doen, echter denk daarbij aan de beloften van Obama, die voor het
grootste deel in het ‘grote archief’ verdwenen……)
Over
Obama’s beloften gesproken: ondanks een gekleurde president en een
aantal gekleurden op sleutelposities, is het zijn administratie niet
gelukt om de positie van gekleurden te verbeteren en ook hiervoor was
Biden deels verantwoordelijk…… Sterker nog Black Lives Matter
(BLM) ontstond onder de Obama/Biden administratie…..
Ook de
buitenlandpolitiek van de VS onder Obama en vicepresident Biden was
het ‘business as usual…’ De Obama/Biden administratie was
verantwoordelijk voor het destabiliseren van landen als Jemen,
Honduras (een door de CIA en Hillary Clinton georganiseerde coup),
Syrië, Somalië en Libië (het eens rijkste land van Afrika werd 60
jaar terug in de tijd gebombardeerd en behoort nu tot de armste
landen van dat continent, terwijl er nog steeds oorlog wordt
gevoerd….). Intussen vervolgde deze administratie het bloedige
beleid die de erfenis vormde van het Bush tijdperk: de illegale
oorlogsoperaties in Afghanistan, Pakistan en Irak……
Het
moorden middels drones kreeg ook al een extra duw in de rug van
de Obama/Biden administratie, terwijl zo’n 90% van de vermoorde slachtoffers
niet eens werden verdacht, dus veelal vrouwen en kinderen…….
Biden was ook voor die moorden de tweede
hoofdverantwoordelijke…….
Wat
betreft vluchtelingen uit Latijns-Amerika (o.a. door de coup van 2009
in Honduras) heeft de Obama administratie meer dan 2,5 miljoen
vluchtelingen gedeporteerd en werd er geen onderzoek gedaan naar
massagraven met vluchtelingen uit dat deel van de 3 Amerika’s…….
Tijdens
zijn verkiezingscampagne heeft Biden herhaaldelijk gelogen dat hij
Nelson Mandela ontmoette in Zuid-Afrika en dat hij daarvoor werd
gearresteerd….. Terwijl hij zoals eerder gemeld ronduit een racist
was en eigenlijk nog is (en dan ben je m.i. niets anders dat een fascist)….. Deze fascist
ging zelfs zover om het volk voor te houden dat wanneer ze een
probleem hadden om op hem te stemmen, deze kiezers niet zwart waren,
waarvoor hij later dan wel zijn excuus aanbood…….
Met
Biden zal er niets ten goede veranderen voor de gekleurde bevolking
van de VS en ook het imperialistische buitenlandbeleid van de VS zal niet
veranderen, sterker nog: de kans is groot dat de VS weer nieuwe
oorlogen zal aangaan, zeker als je in gedachten neemt dat Biden al
heeft gesteld dat dit beleid onder Trump slap was als het gaat om
de landen Iran en Venezuela……. Ook de agressieve buitenlandpolitiek t.a.v. China zal niet veranderen, zo heeft Bidens vicepresident Kamala Harris laten weten……. Door de sancties van Trump alleen al tegen
Venezuela, zijn meer dan 50.000 mensen om het leven gekomen, als je
dat slap vindt kan er maar één stap straffer zijn: weer een (illegale)
oorlog……. (overigens ook in Iran moeten grote aantallen mensen, inclusief veel kinderen, zijn overleden als gevolg van de illegale VS sancties……)
It was the days of purple haze and
the post-civil rights movement that President-elect Joe Biden
cemented his political legacy, yet he was rarely on the right side of
history. The era was marked by assassinations of political leaders,
spurred a coalition opposing the Vietnam war, and produced police
violence carried out on demonstrators. The unrest set the stage for
Richard Nixon and advisor Lee Atwater’s southern
strategy.
Nixon’s ‘68 campaign strategy
relied on polished racist dog whistles and rhetoric promising law and
order, which delivered the southern vote along with the White House.
With a political realignment — where segregationist southern
Democrats found refuge within the GOP — political newcomer, Joe
Biden found opportunity.
Delaware’s Dixiecrat
Before the 1972 elections, then a
city government official, Biden launched a bid for the U.S. Senate.
In his campaign against Delaware’s Republican incumbent, J. Caleb
Boggs, Biden set himself apart from his opponent and supported the
integration of schools through federally mandated busing. Yet in a
few years following his first Senatorial win, he would reverse his
stance and sharpen his words.
After a deciding vote that nixed a 1974
anti-busing amendment, the freshman Senator faced backlash and
pressure from constituents. Biden’s vote against the ‘74
amendment would stand as his sole exception of supporting school
desegregation through federally mandated busing. After his
controversial vote, constituent outrage ensued. Parents began to
heckle the Senator at a town
hall meeting and he would promptly change his position to match
his base’s sentiments.
Through 1972 until the end of
federally mandated busing, Biden would join staunch segregationists —
Senators Strom Thurmond, James O. Eastland, Herman E. Talmadge, and
others — backing bills that would prevent the federal government
from enforcing school integration.
After the 1975 white anti-busing
riots in Boston, Biden joined with former Dixiecrat — North
Carolina Republican Jesse Helms — to introduce an anti-busing
amendment a year later. The proposal’s aim was to handcuff the
enforcement of school desegregation by limiting the federal
government from collecting data on integration. As reported by NPR,
Biden later said in a 1975
interview he supported a Constitutional amendment to end the
busing mandate.
In support of Helms’s amendment,
Biden would rise on the Senate floor stating,
“I have become convinced that busing is a bankrupt concept.”
Helms’s measure failed but Biden introduced a similar and more
bipartisan amendment
that barred funding for local governments assigning teachers to
schools based on race. Later that year, Biden issued a statement on
busing in an interview, calling
the policy, “[an] asinine concept, the utility of which has never
been proven to me.”
The New
York Times notes that
Biden proposed a 1976
measure that would block the Department of Justice (DOJ) from
treating busing as a form of desegregation. A year later the Senator
cosponsored an amendment
that limited federal funding from busing oversight while leading legislation
that would limit court-ordered busing enforcement.
By 1982, Biden joined former
Dixiecrats to vote for a DOJ appropriations amendment that included a
section labeled
“the toughest anti-busing rider ever approved by either chamber of
Congress.” He then voted in favor of an amendment
that granted DOJ the ability “to remove or reduce the requirement
of busing in existing court decrees or judgments.”
From the early 1980s up until
present day, racialized mass incarceration took hold — sponsored
by the war on drugs, heightened sentencing, and through the
empowerment of prosecutors and law enforcement. The
New Jim Crow author
Michelle Alexander writes, “Ninety percent of those admitted to
prison for drug offenses in many states were black or Latino, yet the
mass incarceration of communities of color was explained in
race-neutral terms, an adaptation to the needs and demands of the
current political climate. The New Jim Crow was born.”
Biden’s role in the genesis of
the New Jim Crow began during the Reagan years. As reported by The
Intercept, Biden
lobbied the Reagan administration to beef up law enforcement and
adopt harsher sentences. While courting Reagan, the Senator reached
across the aisle to find common ground with an old
friend.
Biden teamed up with Strom Thurmond
to introduce the Comprehensive
Control Act of 1984. The bill expanded penalties for marijuana
production and trafficking, permitted punitive legal strategies, and
included a civil
asset forfeiture clause. By 1986
and 1988
he would support and partly author two Anti-Drug Abuse Acts that
imposed stricter sentencing on crack compared to powder cocaine and
bolstered prison sentences for drug offenders.
During Biden’s first bid for the
White House, a 1987 Philadelphia
Inquirer piece reports
that he gloated about receiving
an award from Alabama’s former segregationist governor George
Wallace in 1973. Shortly thereafter, Biden delivered a stump
speech in Alabama, stating, “we [Delawareans] were on the
south’s side in the Civil War.” Continuing on the campaign trail,
he further remarked that he participated as a civil
rights activist in the 60s, yet the claim was unfounded.
After the Reagan-era, a 1991
peak in national crime escalated calls for law and order and was
followed by a media frenzy. In the ‘92 Presidential campaign, Bill
Clinton rebranded the Democratic Party as tough on crime, which paid
off and delivered the White House. Shortly after the Clinton victory,
Biden introduced The
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, also known as the
‘94 crime bill.
Biden was a substantial contributor
to the legislation and shepherded it through, rising on the Senate
floor boasting
that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party was responsible for 60
new death penalties, 70 enhanced penalties, 100,000 more cops, and
125,000 new prison cells. The Senator continued the next year, standing
in support of the bill, “We have predators on our streets who
are beyond the pale….We have no other choice but to take them out
of society.”
As the policies took shape, the war
on drugs and mass incarceration exploded, delivering the U.S. the
world’s largest prison population. No secret — by the 2000s, with
only 5 percent of the globe’s population, the U.S. had 25
percent of the world’s prison population. Data from the U.S.
Census shows that black people are five
times more likely to face incarceration than white people, while
a study
published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine showed
police murders skew excessively towards people of color.
Late Senate and Obama Years
Towards the twilight of Biden’s
Senate career, he pursued neoliberal
economic reforms and championed financial deregulations. For over
40 years — from 1984 until 2018 — Biden would support proposed
freezes and cuts to Social
Security spending, while people of color are disproportionately
served by Social Security income benefits.
He continued with deregulation
through the ‘90s and ‘00s. In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
was introduced and proposed to eliminate Great Depression-era
financial regulations formed through the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.
The sweeping deregulatory bill paved the way and further incentivized
finance capital to pursue predatory lending, redlining,
and fiscal trickery which disproportionately
disadvantaged people of color. Biden supported and voted for the
bill.
Following the erasure of
Glass-Steagall, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer
Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), known as the bankruptcy bill, was
introduced. Through BAPCPA’s time in the legislative process, Biden
would offer three
amendments that hallowed existing statutes. The law would unequally
impact people of color, and down the road, exacerbated the student
debt crisis, impacting people of color at more
costly levels.
During the Obama-Biden years,
videos and reports of police murders of black people would surface.
Ferguson and Baltimore became centers of the uprisings that ensued in
2014 and 2015, respectively, and were precursors to the current Black
Lives Matter (BLM) movement. Yet the two-term administration didn’t
deliver the change that was promised in the ‘08 campaign.
Abroad it was also business as
usual for the Obama-Biden White House. The foreign policy apparatus
during the administration actively destabilized
regions, causing crises in Yemen, Honduras, Syria, Somalia,
and Libya,
while continuing W. Bush-era operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Iraq.
The drone program would also surge
under Biden’s White House years. Since the drone warfare-era, the
administration amassed the highest number of civilian drone strike
casualties. As reported by the Bureau
of Investigative Journalism,
at least 380 to 801 civilians in the Middle East and Africa were
killed by drone strikes during Obama and Biden’s tenure.
A May 2020 CNN
interview with Harvard professor, Dr. Cornel West, succinctly summed
up the Obama-Biden years. “The system cannot reform itself.
We’ve tried black faces in high places. Too often our black
politicians, professional class, middle class become too accommodated
to the capitalist economy.” West continued, “The Black Lives
Matter movement emerged under a black President, a black Attorney
General, and a black Homeland Security, and they couldn’t deliver.”
On The Campaign Trail
Biden didn’t launch his campaign
with much
backing from the Democratic base, bundlers, or much of a vision.
The core of Biden’s messaging appealed to white
suburbanites, offering nothing more than a return to normalcy and
an alternative to Trump. Top Democrats, much like the base and
donors, were also initially skeptical of Biden’s path to victory.
Before Biden was thrusted into the
Democratic front runner spotlight, the former Vice President clashed
with future running mate, Kamala Harris, regarding his record on
busing during the debates. While Vice President-elect Harris has her
own controversial
record on criminal justice, the Biden camp deflected and muddied
the waters.
During the campaign, Biden would falsely
and repeatedly claim that he was arrested after meeting with
Nelson Mandela while protesting apartheid in South Africa. He would
also state in an interview, “If you have a problem figuring out
whether you’re for me or Trump, then
you ain’t black,” which he later apologized for.
Peculiar phrases and malarkey
aside, it didn’t matter for the Biden coalition. The centrist
candidates dropped out and consolidated to crush an insurgent Bernie
Sanders challenge, delivering Biden key wins and the nomination.
Surrounding his primary victory
were potentially the
largest uprisings and movement in U.S. history. Following the
police murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, mass rebellions
stormed nationwide — continuing ever since. The majority
of Americans support the BLM movement and the rebellions
against U.S. institutions.
With popular support behind BLM,
Biden didn’t seize the moment like during the post-civil rights
political realignment. Nonetheless, the black vote turned out to deliver
him the White House. With that said, recent indications show a Biden
administration will take the black vote and the energy around BLM for
granted.
Following the police murder of Walter
Wallace Jr. — a young black man experiencing a mental health
episode in Philadelphia — the then Presidential nominee condemned
the uprisings. Biden would then appear for remarks on the campaign
trail to address the hopelessly frustrated crowds, “There is no
excuse whatsoever for the looting and the violence. None whatsoever.”
The campaign also issued a written
statement in response, adding in a qualifying “but at the
same.”
The President-elect previously
denounced demonstrators in Portland,
Oregon and elsewhere. Prior to issuing statements, Biden has also
called for police to “shoot
‘em in the leg” and doubled down on that remark during a town
hall when asked about police de-escalation techniques.
The Biden transition team was also
considering former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel for a top
cabinet slot but walked his appointment back after criticism. In
2014, Emanuel attempted to cover
up the police killing of black Chicagoan, Laquan McDonald, along
with gutting
the city’s social infrastructure for vulnerable communities.
Biden’s “Tranquilizing
Drug Of Gradualism”
Two years before Malcolm X was
assassinated, he delivered
a speech skewering white liberals, “The white liberal differs
from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more
deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical
than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the
one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro’s friend and
benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of
the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or
tool in this political “football game” that is constantly raging
between the white liberals and white conservatives.”
Martin Luther King Jr. would share
similar sentiments on white centrists in his letter
from the Birmingham jailhouse, writing, “I must confess that
over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the
white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that
the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is
not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the
white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice;
who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a
positive peace which is the presence of justice.”
The warnings issued by X and King
ring true today.
Opposing full school integration
and using rhetorical pitches reminiscent of Atwater’s southern
strategy gave Biden the political capital he needed to rise through
the ranks and develop bipartisan favor. The racist war on drugs, mass
incarceration, rampant
disenfranchisement, the prison industrial complex, exploited
labor, and militarized
police forces didn’t magically appear.
Austerity and financial
deregulation further empowered conservatives and incentivized debt
profiteers to prey on vulnerable people. The continuation of endless
wars and coup d’états, building a mass deportation system, and
failing to leverage power to yield change had someone behind those
policies and inactions.
The policy failures that have
perpetuated a white supremacist society weren’t just lazily passed
and implemented — they were championed and safe-guarded. Biden’s
career has been built on working for white supremacy.
While securing the election by
placating voters of color and appealing to comfortable white
suburbanites — like his strategy in the early throes of his career
— has proven he will not build long-overdue and necessary
systematic justice. Rather than championing a popular and righteous
cause, he has countlessly gone out of his way to support and pay
homage to white supremacist notions and institutions, twisting his
record to the public. Though Biden’s record and words are clear,
“nothing
will fundamentally change.”
Like Biden, the U.S. has yet to
repent for its past and present. For any significant change to occur
in the Biden years and beyond, it will take a sustained mass movement
constantly agitating institutions. During the Biden years and
throughout Democratic strongholds, there will still be brutality,
police murders, and white supremacy. The only possible way for
meaningful change to occur — not symbolic victories — is for all
decent people to continuously take to the streets and, by any means
necessary, demand justice and freedom.
As put by Martin Luther King Jr.,
“this is no time to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.”
Jack Delaney
is a former policy analyst. He worked on issues relating to health
care, disability, and labor policy, and is a member of the National
Writers Union.
Jonathan
Cook heeft een flink artikel geschreven op Information Clearing House,
waarin hij betoogt dat we de planeet moeten redden (voor zover dat
nog mogelijk is*) en dat de weg daartoe bestaat uit het stoppen van
de westerse oorlogsmachine, die vooral draait om de inhumane neoliberale
kapitalistische status quo te handhaven.
Het
kapitalisme houdt geen rekening met de gevolgen van het plunderen
van de planeet plus het vervuilen van lucht, water, bodem en
ondergrond door productieprocessen en om deze processen draaiende
te houden. De kosten die nu al worden gemaakt door de
klimaatverandering, zijn niet meer in een getal te vatten, je moet denken aan
‘duizenden miljarden’, terwijl de mensenlevens die door dit proces
verloren zijn gegaan al helemaal niet in geld zijn uit te
drukken…… (het kapitalisme heeft daar totaal geen moeite mee….) Zoals Cook terecht opmerkt, die kosten worden op ons
afgewenteld, terwijl de grote bedrijven doorgaan met het naar de
gallemiezen helpen van de planeet……**
Om
e.e.a. vol te kunnen houden zijn de media nodig, die weliswaar niet
langer kunnen schrijven dat er geen sprake is van een
klimaatverandering en dat deze een normaal verschijnsel is (de
klimaatverandering gaat sneller dan ooit eerder gezien sinds de
‘moderne’ mens op aarde rondloopt, alleen met een meteoor als die van 65
miljoen jaar geleden kan het sneller). De media kunnen niet langer
ontkennen dat er enorme kosten zijn verbonden aan de
klimaatverandering, vandaar dat men zwijgt over deze kosten, logisch
daar de plutocratische eigenaars van die media er alle belang bij
hebben dat de winsten van de grote bedrijven blijven bestaan, immers
daarvan zijn zij de grootaandeelhouders……. Ja toen Greta Thunberg van zich liet horen gaf het grootste deel van die media complimenten aan haar en de jeugd die haar volgde, echter niet voor lange duur….. Nu wordt ze in veel mediaorganen afgeschilderd als een psychiatrisch patiënt………
Cook
stelt verder dat het voorheen de religieuzen waren die werden beloond
door de vorsten, daar ze deze figuren hebben gepromoot bij het volk
met het dogma dat ze door god werden gezonden, zodat het plebs
gehoorzaam hun taak vervulde zonder vragen te stellen. Nu doen de
media in feite hetzelfde: men hersenspoelt het volk dat het
kapitalisme de enige ware weg is naar een beter leven, echter degenen
die het meest profiteren is maar een beperkte groep aangeduid als de
1% (al is dat wat mij betreft al te simpel, het is minstens 10% van
de mensheid die ongelofelijk profiteert van vernietiging en
onderdrukking), terwijl daarvoor de wereld zoals wij die kennen wordt
vernietigd…..
De westerse oorlogsmachine, het leger van de VS en andere NAVO-lidstaten (de NAVO altijd onder militair opperbevel van de VS!!), zorgt ervoor dat de grondstoffen en productiecentra ten behoeve van het westen veilig blijven voor exploratie en productie, dan wel daarvoor veilig worden gesteld…… Uiteraard met grote steun van de grote bedrijven als oliemaatschappijen en de geheime diensten, waar die diensten van de VS de hand niet omdraaien voor het organiseren van een opstand en een coup tegen een onwillig land……..
Cook
heeft een uitgebreid artikel geschreven op Information Clearing House dat de moeite van het lezen meer dan de moeite waard
is!! (onder het artikel kan je klikken voor een ‘Dutch vertaling’)
The Planet Cannot
Heal until We Rip the Mask off the West’s War Machine
By
Jonathan Cook
December 01, 2020
“Information
Clearing House”
– Making political sense of the world can be tricky unless one
understands the role of the state in capitalist societies. The state
is not primarily there to represent voters or uphold democratic
rights and values; it is a vehicle for facilitating and legitimating
the concentration of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands.
In a recent
post, I wrote about “externalities” – the ability of
companies to offset the true costs inherent in the production
process. The burden of these costs are covertly shifted on to wider
society: that is, on to you and me. Or on to those far from view, in
foreign lands. Or on to future generations. Externalising costs means
that profits can be maximised for the wealth elite in the here and
now.
Jonathan Cook
@Jonathan_K_Cook
My latest: The increasingly desperate task of capitalism’s perception managers is to dissociate our economic system from the emerging environmental crisis – to break our understanding of the causal link between the two
Capitalism is double-billing us: we pay from our wallets only for our future to be stolen from us
Our own societies must
deal with the externalised costs of industries ranging from tobacco
and alcohol to chemicals and vehicles. Societies abroad must deal
with the costs of the bombs dropped by our “defence” industries.
And future generations will have to deal with the lethal costs
incurred by corporations that for decades have been allowed to pump
out their waste products into every corner of the globe.
Divine Right
to Rule
In the past, the job
of the corporate media was to shield those externalities from public
view. More recently, as the costs have become impossible to ignore,
especially with the climate crisis looming, the media’s role has
changed. Its central task now is to obscure corporate responsibility
for these externalities. That is hardly surprising. After all, the
corporate media’s profits depend on externalising costs too, as
well as hiding the externalised costs of their parent companies,
their billionaire owners and their advertisers.
Once, monarchs
rewarded the clerical class for persuading, through the doctrine of
divine right, their subjects to passively submit to exploitation.
Today, “mainstream” media are there to persuade us that
capitalism, the profit motive, the accumulation of ever greater
wealth by elites, and externalities destroying the planet are the
natural order of things, that this is the best economic model
imaginable.
Most of us are now so
propagandised by the media that we can barely imagine a functioning
world without capitalism. Our minds are primed to imagine, in the
absence of capitalism, an immediate lurch back to Soviet-style bread
queues or an evolutionary reversal to cave-dwelling. Those thoughts
paralyse us, making us unable to contemplate what might be wrong or
inherently unsustainable about how we live right now, or to imagine
the suicidal future we are hurtling towards.
Lifeblood of
Empire
There is a reason
that, as we rush lemming-like towards the cliff-edge, urged on by a
capitalism that cannot operate at the level of sustainability or even
of sanity, the push towards intensified war grows. Wars are the
lifeblood of the corporate empire headquartered in the United States.
Jonathan Cook
@Jonathan_K_Cook
My latest: The new documentary on Greta Thunberg – I Am Greta – isn’t about climate change. It’s about something even more important: the elusiveness of sanity in an insane world
US imperialism is no
different from earlier imperialisms in its aims or methods. But in
late-stage capitalism, wealth and power are hugely concentrated.
Technologies have reached a pinnacle of advancement. Disinformation
and propaganda are sophisticated to an unprecedented degree.
Surveillance is intrusive and aggressive, if well concealed.
Capitalism’s destructive potential is unlimited. But even so, war’s
appeal is not diminished.
As ever, wars allow
for the capture and control of resources. Fossil fuels promise future
growth, even if of the short-term, unsustainable kind.
Wars require the state
to invest its money in the horrendously expensive and destructive
products of the “defence” industries, from fighter planes to
bombs, justifying the transfer of yet more public resources into
private hands.
The lobbies associated
with these “defence” industries have every incentive to push for
aggressive foreign (and domestic) policies to justify more
investment, greater expansion of “defensive” capabilities, and
the use of weapons on the battlefield so that they need replenishing.
Whether public or
covert, wars provide an opportunity to remake poorly defended,
resistant societies – such as Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria – in
ways that allow for resources to be seized, markets to be expanded
and the reach of the corporate elite to be extended.
War is the ultimate
growth industry, limited only by our ability to be persuaded of new
enemies and new threats.
Fog of War
For the political
class, the benefits of war are not simply economic. In a time of
environmental collapse, war offers a temporary “Get out of jail”
card. During wars, the public is encouraged to assent to new, ever
greater sacrifices that allow public wealth to be transferred to the
elite. War is the corporate world’s ultimate Ponzi scheme.
The “fog of war”
does not just describe the difficulty of knowing what is happening in
the immediate heat of battle. It is also the fear, generated by
claims of an existential threat, that sets aside normal thinking,
normal caution, normal scepticism. It is the invoking of a
phantasmagorical enemy towards which public resentments can be
directed, shielding from view the real culprits – the corporations
and their political cronies at home.
The “fog of war”
engineers the disruption of established systems of control and
protocol to cope with the national emergency, shrouding and
rationalising the accumulation by corporations of more wealth and
power and the further capture of organs of the state. It is the
license provided for “exceptional” changes to the rules that
quickly become normalized. It is the disinformation that passes for
national responsibility and patriotism.
Permanent
Austerity
All of which explains
why Boris Johnson, Britain’s prime minister, has just pledged
an extra £16.5 billion in “defense” spending at a time when the
UK is struggling to control a pandemic and when, faced by disease,
Brexit and a new round of winter floods, the British economy is
facing “systemic crisis”, according to a new Cabinet Office
report. Figures released last week show
the biggest economic contraction in the UK in three centuries.
If the British public
is to stomach yet more cuts, to surrender to permanent austerity as
the economy tanks, Johnson, ever the populist, knows he needs a good
cover story. And that will involve further embellishment of existing,
fearmongering narratives about Russia, Iran and China.
To make those
narratives plausible, Johnson has to act as if the threats are real,
which means massive spending on “defence”. Such expenditure,
wholly counter-productive when the current challenge is
sustainability, will line the pockets of the very corporations that
help Johnson and his pals stay in power, not least by cheerleading
him via their media arms.
New Salesman
Needed
The cynical way this
works was underscored in a classified 2010 CIA memorandum, known as
“Red Cell”, leaked to Wikileaks, as the journalist Glenn
Greenwald reminded us last week. The CIA memo addressed
the fear in Washington that European publics were demonstrating
little appetite for the US-led “war on terror” that followed
9/11. That, in turn, risked limiting the ability of European allies
to support the US as it exercised its divine right to wage war.
The memo notes that
European support for US wars after 9/11 had chiefly relied on “public
apathy” – the fact that Europeans were kept largely ignorant by
their own media of what those wars entailed. But with a rising tide
of anti-war sentiment, the concern was that this might change. There
was an urgent need to further manipulate public opinion more
decisively in favour of war.
The US intelligence
agency decided its wars needed a facelift. George W Bush, with his
Texan, cowboy swagger, had proved a poor salesman. So the CIA turned
to identity politics and faux “humanitarianism”, which they
believed would play better with European publics.
Part of the solution
was to accentuate the suffering of Afghan women to justify war. But
the other part was to use President Barack Obama as the face of a
new, “caring” approach to war. He had recently been awarded the
Nobel Peace Prize – even though he had done nothing for peace, and
would go on to expand US wars – very possibly as part of this same
effort to reinvent the “war on terror”. Polls showed support for
existing wars increased markedly among Europeans when they were
reminded that Obama backed these wars.
“Obama’s
most important value was in prettifying, marketing and prolonging
wars, not ending them. They saw him for what U.S. Presidents really
are: instruments to create a brand and image about the U.S. role in
the world that can be effectively peddled to both the domestic
population in the U.S. and then on the global stage, and specifically
to pretend that endless barbaric U.S. wars are really humanitarian
projects benevolently designed to help people — the pretext used to
justify every war by every country in history.”
Obama-style
Facelift
Once the state is
understood as a vehicle for entrenching elite power – and war its
most trusted tool for concentrating power – the world becomes far
more intelligible. Western economies never stopped being colonial
economies, but they were given an Obama-style facelift. War and
plunder – even when they masquerade as “defence”, or peace –
are still the core western mission.
That is why Britons,
believing days of empire are long behind them, might have been
shocked to learn last week that the UK still operates 145 military
bases in 42 countries around the globe, meaning it runs the second
largest network of such bases after the US.
Such information is
not made available in the UK “mainstream” media, of course. It
has to be provided by an “alternative” investigative site,
Declassified UK. In that way the vast majority of the British public
are left clueless about how their taxes are being used at a time when
they are told further belt-tightening is essential.
Declassified UK
@declassifiedUK
REVEALED — The UK military’s overseas base network involves 145 sites in 42 countries.
The results of a months-long investigation by @pmillerinfo
The UK’s network of
bases, many of them in the Middle East, close to the world’s
largest oil reserves, are what the much-vaunted “special
relationship” with the US amounts to. Those bases are the reason
the UK – whoever is prime minister – is never going to say “no”
to a demand that Britain join Washington in waging war, as it did in
attacking Iraq in 2003, or in aiding attacks on Libya, Syria and
Yemen. The UK is not only a satellite of the US empire, it is a
lynchpin of the western imperial war economy.
Ideological
Alchemy
Once that point is
appreciated, the need for external enemies – for our own Eurasias
and Eastasias – becomes clearer.
Some of those enemies,
the minor ones, come and go, as demand dictates. Iraq dominated
western attention for two decades. Now it has served its purpose, its
killing fields and “terrorist” recruiting grounds have reverted
to a mere footnote in the daily news. Likewise, the Libyan bogeyman
Muammar Gaddafi was constantly paraded across news pages until he was
bayonetted to death. Now the horror story that is today’s chaotic
Libya, a corridor for arms-running and people-trafficking, can be
safely ignored. For a decade, the entirely unexceptional Arab
dictator Bashar Assad, of Syria, has been elevated to the status of a
new Hitler, and he will continue to serve in that role for as long as
it suits the needs of the western war economy.
Notably, Israel,
another lynchpin of the US empire and one that serves as a kind of
offshored weapons testing laboratory for the military-industrial
complex, has played a vital role in rationalising these wars. Just as
saving Afghan women from Middle Eastern patriarchy makes killing
Afghans – men, women and children – more palatable to Europeans,
so destroying Arab states can be presented as a humanitarian gesture
if at the same time it crushes Israel’s enemies, and by extension,
through a strange, implied ideological alchemy, the enemies of all
Jews.
Quite how
opportunistic – and divorced from reality – the western discourse
about Israel and the Middle East has become is obvious the moment the
relentless concerns about Syria’s Assad are weighed against the
casual indifference towards the head-chopping rulers of Saudi Arabia,
who for decades have been financing terror groups across the Middle
East, including the jihadists in Syria.
During that time,
Israel has covertly allied with oil-rich Saudi Arabia and other Gulf
states, because all of them are safely ensconced within the US war
machine. Now, with the Palestinians completely sidelined
diplomatically, and with all international solidarity with
Palestinians browbeaten into silence by antisemitism smears, Israel
and the Saudis are gradually going public with their alliance, like a
pair of shy lovers. That included the convenient leak this week of a
secret meeting between
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi ruler Mohammed
bin Salman in Saudi Arabia.
Israel’s likely
reward is contained in a new
bill in Congress for even more military aid than the record $3.8
billion Israel currently receives annually from the US – at a time
when the US economy, like the UK one, is in dire straits.
Jonathan Cook
@Jonathan_K_Cook
My latest: Pompeo’s declaration that criticism of Israel and the peaceful movement urging a boycott of its settlements are ‘antisemitic’ marks the logical endpoint of a foreign policy consensus rapidly taking shape in the US and Europe
The west also needs
bigger, more menacing and more permanent enemies than Iraq or Syria.
Helpfully one kind – nebulous “terrorism” – is the inevitable
reaction to western war-making. The more brown people we kill, the
more brown people we can justify killing because they carry out, or
support, “terrorism” against us. Their hatred for our bombs is an
irrationality, a primitivism we must keep stamping out with more
bombs.
But concrete,
identifiable enemies are needed too. Russia, Iran and China give
superficial credence to the war machine’s presentation of itself as
a “defence” industry. The UK’s bases around the globe and Boris
Johnson’s £16.5 billion rise in spending on the UK’s war
industries only make sense if Britain is under a constant,
existential threat. Not just someone with a suspicious backpack on
the London Tube, but a sophisticated, fiendish enemy that threatens
to invade our lands, to steal resources to which we claim exclusive
rights, to destroy our way of life through its masterful manipulation
of the internet.
Voor de
rest van het artikel zie het origineel en lees verder bij
het ‘hoofdstuk’ getiteld: ‘Crushed
or Tamed‘
*
De klimaatverandering is niet meer te stoppen, hoe vaak de politiek
en de media je ook vertellen dat ‘we’ dat voor elkaar kunnen krijgen
en dat we de temperatuurstijging kunnen stoppen op 1,5 graad Celsius
tegen het eind van deze eeuw. Er zijn meerdere cumulatieve effecten
gaande, die de klimaatverandering steeds verder aanjagen. ‘We’ mogen
blij zijn als tegen het eind van de eeuw de temperatuur met niet meer
dan 5 graden C. zal zijn gestegen en dat betekent dat een fiks deel
van Nederland tegen die tijd onbewoonbaar zal zijn geworden, door een
enorme stijging van de zeespiegel…….
** Hetzelfde is in feite aan de hand met het Crononavirus: terwijl de wereld ‘vecht’ tegen het Coronavirus waarbij de economie wordt vernietiged en velen in diepe ellende werden en worden gestort, gaan de militaire laboratoria door met het ontwikkelen van dodelijk besmettelijke ziekten als wapen voor oorlogsvoering…… In Fort Detrick in de VS staat zo’n (groot) militair laboratorium, dat werd vorig jaar zomer in grote paniek gesloten daar een gevaarlijk virus was ontsnapt….. (het Coronavirus???) Nu draait dat laboratorium weer als ‘vanouds….’ (hoe is ‘t mogelijk??!!!) Overigens is het wel bijzonder vreemd dat men zoveel maatregelen treft voor het Coronavirus als je nagaat dat alleen in ons land ieder jaar rond de 18.000 mensen vroegtijdig overlijden ten gevolge van langdurige auto-uitstoot inademing…… (en dat na een akelig ziekbed) Waarom worden daarvoor niet ongelofelijk veel maatregelen getroffen om dit binnen1 of 2 jaar te stoppen?? (Hetzelfde geldt voor alcoholgebruik, ook door deze harddrug vallen jaarlijks vele duizenden doden……)
Zoals
verwacht: nu Biden de presidentsverkiezingen definitief heeft
gewonnen, komt de Republikeinse Partij met beschuldigingen dat Biden
een marionet is van China. Dit terwijl Biden zich omringt met figuren voor sleutelposities die bij de Republikeinen goed liggen……
Zo is de te verwachten nieuwe minister van defensie voor de VS, Michele
Flournoy, een politicus die juni dit jaar nog liet weten, dat de VS
een wapenrace (‘arms race’) moet beginnen om de capaciteit te verkrijgen
een geloofwaardige dreiging te kunnen laten uitgaan aan het adres van China dat de VS in staat is om binnen 72 uur in de Zuid-Chinese
Zee alle Chinese oorlogsschepen, duikboten en koopvaardijschepen te
torpederen…….. Hoe bedoelt u slap beleid tegen China???
Het
is als de mantra van de Democratische Partij dat Trump een lakei van
Rusland zou zijn, terwijl hij de koude oorlog tegen
Rusland (nieuw) leven heeft ingeblazen en het land continu aan haar
westgrenzen te maken heeft met militaire oefeningen van de VS en de
andere NAVO-partners…….. (zo meer daarover)
De
minister van buitenlandse zaken onder Obama zal Antony ‘Tony’ Blinken zijn,
een havik die op meerdere gebieden de strijd aan wil gaan met China,
dus ook op economisch gebied, precies wat Trump heeft gedaan…..
Voorts heeft Blinken al aangegeven dat hij achter de demonstranten in
Hongkong staat en alles zal doen om hen te steunen en China dus dwars
te zitten….. Niet vreemd dus dat Blinken goed ligt bij de
Republikeinen……
Jake
Sullivan die Biden aan zal wijzen als National Security Advisor,
alweer een havik die stelt dat China zich opmaakt om de wereldleider
te worden ten koste van de VS……. Hoorde op 30 november een deel van BBC’s Hardtalk, een gesprek tussen de neoliberale hufter en presentator Stephen Sackur en de VS ambassadeur voor de EU onder Obama, Anthony Gardner. Deze liet weten dat Blinken een groot verschil zal maken met het buitenlandbeleid van de Trump administratie……… ha! ha! ha! ha! Dan te bedenken dat deze Blinken adviseur was voor oorlogsmisdadiger Obama (waar hij o.a. ook oorlogsmisdadiger Hillary Clinton adviseerde over het zo ongeveer vernietigen van Libië), Clinton was destijds de eerste minister van buitenlandse zaken in die administratie en werd opgevolgd door John Kerry.
Kortom
als Biden een lakei van China zou zijn, zou hij zeker deze figuren
niet aanstellen, bovendien is hij afhankelijk van de senaat voor
goedkeuring van de kandidaten die hij aanwijst en is daarmee gebonden
wat betreft de keuzes die hij maakt (waarschijnlijk blijft de senaat
ook na a.s. 5 januari, wanneer er senaatsverkiezingen worden gehouden in Georgia, in handen van de Republikeinen, waardoor het
Biden moeilijk zal vallen om te regeren zonder steun van deze
partij……..
Ondanks
alles blijft men in de Republikeinse Partij pijlen afschieten op
Biden met fantastische verhalen dat hij de economie naar de knoppen
zal helpen met hulp van China……
Caitlin
Johnstone gaat verder in op de demonisering van Biden door de Republikeinen,
waarbij ze juist laat zien dat Biden waarschijnlijk een grotere ramp zal
zijn voor de buitenlandspolitiek van de VS dan Obama en Trump samen…… Volgens Caitlin terecht opegemerkt: alles mogelijk gemaakt door de echoënde media in de VS, die ook 4 jaar lang Trump afschilderden als een Russische agent, terwijl hij zoals gezegd juist de koude oorlog met dat land opnieuw heeft opgetuigd en een poltiek ontwikkelde tegen dat land, die zelfs tijdens de grote Koude Oorlog niet voor mogelijk zou zijn gehouden, zoals het herhalen dat de VS zich het recht voorbehoud een kernoorlog te beginnen, i.p.v. het kernwapen als afschrikkingsmiddel te zien, zoals het altijd werd gepresenteerd (‘als we worden aangevallen met kernwapens zullen we terugslaan met kernwapens’)…….
Joe Biden set to appoint another compromised SIMP for China. Imagine my shock. (SIMP*)
3,548
696 people are talking about this
Prior
to the US election I wrote a couple
of articles
saying that if Biden wins he will be attacked by the right as a Xi
Jinping puppet even as he escalates dangerous cold war aggressions
with China, in exactly the same way Trump was attacked by Democrats
as a Putin puppet even as he escalated
dangerous cold war aggressions
with Russia. This extremely obvious prediction is of course already
coming true.
I’m
still getting dopey wingnuts in my social media notifications telling
me that Biden is a Xi Jinping puppet who is going to be soft on
China, even as Biden packs his cabinet with virulent anti-China
hawks:
Biden’s expected
Defense Secretary
Michele Flournoy opined
this past June
that the US military needs a new arms race to obtain “the
capability to credibly threaten to sink all of China’s military
vessels, submarines, and merchant ships in the South China Sea
within 72 hours”.
Biden’s choice
for National Security Advisor
Jake Sullivan was described
by Forbes
this past June as a “Peter Navarro-like China hawk”
who believes that Beijing is “gearing up to contest America’s
global leadership” and that those signs are “unmistakable, and
they are ubiquitous.”
It’s
not hard to see where people of a certain ideological bent are
getting the impression that Biden is going to be a sycophantic
Beijing lackey, though, with influential rightist voices pounding
that message into their skulls all day every day despite all evidence
to the contrary. Just today within hours of this writing you’ve got
Republican congressman Dan Crenshaw tweeting
that “Biden‘s plan is to let radicals destroy our economy,
with little if any benefit for the environment, and huge benefits for
China,” right-wing pundit Paul Joseph Watson labeling
the murderous war whore Blinken a “compromised SIMP for China”,
and bloodthirsty psychopath Tom Cotton proclaiming
on no basis whatsoever that Biden is “surrounding himself with
panda huggers who will only reinforce his instincts to go soft on
China.”
“Panda
huggers.” This is a sitting member of the US Senate.
As
Bob Gates said, Joe Biden has “been wrong on nearly every major
foreign policy and national security issue over the past four
decades.”
Now
he’s surrounding himself with panda huggers who will only reinforce
his instincts to go soft on China.
This
complete schizm from reality, where you’ve got an incoming
administration stacked with Beltway insiders who want to attack
Chinese interests running alongside an alternate imaginary universe
in which Biden is a subservient CCP lackey, is only made possible
with the existence of media echo chambers. It’s the same exact
dynamic that made it possible for liberals to spend four years
shrieking conspiracy theories about the executive branch of the US
government being run by a literal Russian agent even as Trump
advanced mountains
of world-threatening cold war escalations
against Moscow in the real world.
You
see this dynamic at work in conventional media, where plutocrat-controlled
outlets like Breitbart are
still frantically pushing
the Russiagate sequel narrative
that Hunter Biden’s activities in China mean that his father is a CCP
asset. You also see it in social media, where, as explained by
journalist Jonathan Cook in
an article
about the documentary The
Social Dilemma,
“as we get herded into our echo chambers of self-reinforcing
information, we lose more and more sense of the real world and of
each other.”
“We
live in different information universes, chosen for us by algorithms
whose only criterion is how to maximise our attention for
advertisers’ products to generate greater profits for the internet
giants,” writes Cook.
Because
people are a lot more likely to click, read and share information
which validates their pre-existing opinions and follow people who do
the same, social media is notorious for the way it creates
tightly insulated echo chambers which
masturbate our confirmation bias and hide any information which might
cause us cognitive dissonance by contradicting it. Whole media
careers were built on this phenomenon during the years of Russiagate
hysteria, and we see it play out in spheres from imperialism to
Covid-19 commentary to economic policy.
Biden
becoming president effectively makes the US a vassal state of China.
Someone
benefits from this dynamic, and it isn’t you. As we’ve discussed
previously,
we know from WikiLeaks
documents that powerful people actively seek to build ideological
echo chambers for the purpose of propaganda and indoctrination, and
there is surely a lot more study going into the subject than we’ve
seen been shown. Splitting the public up into two oppositional
factions who barely interact and can’t even communicate with each
other because they don’t share a common reality keeps the populace
impotent, ignorant, and powerless to stop the unfolding of the
agendas of the powerful.
You
should not be afraid of your government being too nice to China. What
you should worry about is the US-centralized power alliance advancing
a multifront new cold war conducted simultaneously against two
nuclear-armed nations for the first time ever in human history. There
are far, far too many small moving parts in such a cold war for
things to happen in a safely predictable manner, which means there
are far,
far too many chances
for something to go very, very wrong.
Whenever
someone tells you that a US president is going to be “soft”
on a nation the US government has marked as an enemy, you are being
played. Aways, always, always, always. It’s just people manipulating
you away from your natural, healthy inclination toward peace. Get out
of your echo chamber, look at the raw information instead of the
narratives, and stop letting the sociopaths manipulate you.
_____________________
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, throwing
some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal,
purchasing some of my sweet
merchandise,
buying my
new book Poems For Rebels 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.
* SIMP: simp (plural simps) (slang) A simple person lacking common sense; a fool or simpleton. (slang, by extension) Someone who is not worthy of respect.
‘Bidens puppeteers verwijten Trump slap buitenlands optreden‘ (o.a. tegen Iran en Venezuela, terwijl de sancties van Trump tegen Venezuela al aan meer dan 50.000 mensen het leven hebben gekost en ook in Iran zijn al veel slachtoffers te betreuren door de illegale sancties van de VS……. Als dit slap optreden is valt er maar één ding te vrezen: oorlog…..)
Met Xi (in de kop) wordt Xi Jinping bedoeld, de Chinese president. (voor meer berichten over deze figuur, vul zijn naam in op het zoekvlak rechtsboven aan deze pagina en klik daarna in het eerste bericht dat je ziet op zijn naam in de labels, direct onder dat bericht, dit voor een chronologische volgorde van berichten)
CaitlinJohnstone verwacht dat de Biden administratie gewelddadiger zal zijn
dan die van Obama en dat zal leiden tot de voorwaarden die het een
‘tweede Trump’ (of zelfs Trump) mogelijk zal maken om de verkiezingen
over 4 jaar te winnen. Caitlin ziet het als een teruggang in de tijd,
vlak voordat de Democraten werden verslagen door Trump.
Terecht merkt Caitlin op dat linkse
Democraten nu al moeten beginnen met het verzet tegen de Biden
administratie, zoals Biden nu al bezig is om alles wat naar links
ruikt en zeker de leiders van de linkse Democraten, Bernie Sanders en
Elizabeth Warren buiten zijn regering te houden en alle plannen die
ze hadden bij een eventuele verkiezingswinst door de
papiervernietiger te halen……
Niet
voor niets dat Biden vrouwen aanstelt in zijn administratie, daar dit
al als links/progressief wordt gezien door zowel de linkse als de conservatieve (neoliberale) tak van de Democraten (waar de laatsten uiteraard niet zo blij mee zijn)…… Daarbij is Kamala Harris als Biden een oorlogsmisdadiger, zij moet de zwarte
bevolking behagen en lokken voor de verkiezingen over 4
jaar en kan door haar recente agressieve geschiedenis rekenen op de steun van de door de Republikeinen beheerste senaat….. Bovendien haalt Biden met Harris ook nog eens een aardig
deel van de bevolking binnen die van oorsprong uit Midden- en
Zuid-Amerika komt. Kortom ‘3 vliegen in 1 valse klap……’
Eigenlijk
haalt Biden nog veel meer groepen binnen, daar hij de wapenindustrie
al veel winsten heeft beloofd met zijn oorlogstaal tegen Venezuela,
Iran en Rusland…… China zal hij noodgedwongen blijven aanpakken daar
hij zich anders de woede van werkloze arbeiders en het conservatieve,
ofwel neoliberale deel van de Democraten op de hals haalt….. Bovendien heeft aankomend vicepresident Harris al belooft de ‘koude oorlog’ met China in stand te houden….. (tot groot genoegen van de Republikeinen)
Voorts
haalt Caitlin het boek van Obama aan, memoires van zijn
presidentschap en de aanloop daartoe, dat nu in de winkels
ligt (zal daar later nog een bericht over brengen). Onder andere noemt Caitlin de
uitlatingen van Obama over de meer dan belachelijke ‘oorlog tegen
terreur’, waar hij stelt dat hij deze oorlog door George W. Bush begonnen ten volle steunde en nog steunt, terwijl die oorlog
juist met grootschalige terreur werd en wordt uitgevoerd en een groot
aantal terroristen heeft gekweekt, om nog maar te zwijgen over de 2,5 miljoen doden die dit heeft opgeleverd siunds 2001…… (en dat cijfer is nog buiten de 3.000 mensen die zouden zijn omgekomen bij de aanvallen op de Twin Towers, waarover nu meer dan duidelijk is dat deze werd geregisseerd door de CIA en de NSA…….)
It
looks like a safe bet that Joe Biden will be sworn in on January 20th
after successfully campaigning on returning the murderous and
oppressive Orwellian US empire back to its pre-Trump “normal”.
The
problem with this, apart from the obvious fact that it was an embarrassingly
close victory
only made possible by the Covid outbreak, is that returning to the
pre-Trump “normal” is returning to the exact positions
which created Trump. It’s like using a time machine to prevent a
train wreck, but only going back to one millisecond before the train
wreck occurred.
It
is clear that Trump’s election was the
result of the easily exploited dissatisfaction
caused by years of neoliberal austerity at home and neoconservative
bloodshed abroad which Obama forcefully expanded and facilitated
throughout two terms as president. Trump voters famously
defended
opting for the reality TV star over the anointed establishment
favorite Hillary Clinton as a middle finger to the Beltway orthodoxy
which did nothing but enrich the “swamp” Trump pretended
to oppose
on the campaign trail while ordinary Americans suffered.
Obama
openly defends his murderous drone wars in his new book.
He
also praised parts of Bush’s bogus “War on Terror,”
writing, “Unlike some on the left, I’d never engaged in
wholesale condemnation of the Bush administration’s approach to
counterterrorism” https://t.co/73kiSL4MNp
If
I prove right about this, the Biden administration will
generate backlash just like that which arose in response to the Obama
administration, and that backlash will
be more severe than its previous iteration. This is absolutely
guaranteed. You can only oppress, neglect and enrage a population so
much before the discontent begins to grow.
There
is absolutely nothing American leftists can do to prevent this
backlash from coming. They will have absolutely no say in this
administration’s policies or behavior; BidenCorp has no reason to
listen to them, has made no pretense of having any interest in
listening to them, and is even freezing
Sanders and Warren
out of cabinet roles already.
All
US leftists will have any control over is whether this backlash will
break to the left, or if it will break to the far right.
Contrary
to what many mainstream liberals seem to have been imagining,
American racism and far right extremism did not begin with Trump, and
will not end with Trump. The white supremacists, xenophobes,
ethnonationalists, QAnon cultists and right wing militias are not
going anywhere after Biden takes office, and the backlash against his
administration and its worst impulses will be inflamed and co-opted
by mainstream Republican narrative managers. This will set the stage
for something a lot uglier than Trump down the road if it’s
successful.
What
the left can do is get ahead of the game. Take control of the
anti-Biden, anti-establishment pushback by leading the
charge–sooner, more aggressively, and more compellingly than the far
right does. Use the awfulness of the Biden administration to ignite a
true leftward zeitgeist in mainstream America that is so strong it
eclipses the inevitable rightist backlash in energy and appeal.
We
already know the American left has the ability to pull this off. The
grassroots, populist support for Bernie Sanders during his two
primary campaigns has been one of the most energized and inspired
political forces I’ve ever witnessed, consistently forcing aggressive responses
from the establishment narrative managers
to contradict the damage it did to their preferred candidates.
The
problem with Bernie Twitter and the rest of his powerful support base
is that it only exists for a few months at a time, fizzling out when
it becomes clear that their candidate has had the door shut to him
and then reluctantly diverted into support for the establishment
candidate under the guidance of Sanders himself.
The
only thing more depressing than watching Bernie Twitter devolve from
soaring energy and inspiration to petty sectarianism and infighting
is watching it happen a second time.
But
imagine if that did not happen. Imagine if the US left realized how
extremely urgent it is to control the unavoidable backlash against
the Biden/Harris administration so that the right does not and built
momentum in a healthy direction instead, not for a few months but for
years on end. Seizing every disgusting, ridiculous and hilarious
thing this government does and attacking it, lampooning it, mocking
it, creating funny and interesting content absolutely wrecking it.
An
actual, energized counterculture could be created which could reshape
US culture as a whole. The Breitbart
crowd recognizes
that politics is downstream from culture while the left has generally
failed to make this connection, which is arguably why their guy is in
the White House right now and the left’s guy isn’t. A Biden
administration will provide ample fodder for attacks against status
quo politics, and this can be used to galvanize America’s hidden
progressive impulses
into a movement vastly greater than any one candidate.
But
the ball needs to start rolling on this now.
Not after the Georgia runoffs, not after Biden takes office, not
after the midterms: now.
The longer US leftists wait to start pushing this thing forward, the
less of a head start you’ll have on the rightists while they’re
fixated on Trump’s recounts and legal challenges. You’ll only be able
to lead the backlash if you get in early and hit the ground running
as fast as you can.
If
we know anything for certain, it’s that US power structures find it
infinitely preferable to deal with a right-populist movement that can
be appeased by some obnoxious tweets and an 8chan psyop than with
real leftist populism. They’re more than happy to throw the far right
a tax cut and some immigration restrictions, but real revolution can
only come from the left. There is an opportunity to create an opening
for that to occur, but it needs to happen before this thing can be
steered rightward.
I
know I’m regarded as a bit of a crackpot in some leftist circles; I’m
the girl a lot of lefties read in private but don’t share in public.
But this is a really important idea that needs to get out there, and
I’m hoping it reaches the eyes of some leftist thought leaders who
can advance it in their own words in their own way. This is very
urgent and the more people understand this the better shot we’ll all
have at creating a healthy world for everyone. Please get thinking
about this, everyone.
________________________________
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, throwing
some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal,
purchasing some of my sweet
merchandise,
buying my
new book Poems For Rebels 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.