couldn’t care less for JFK, apart from the fact that he is now but an
international airport. I only care to see how many died talking about
his death, over 40 now at the last count, and I wonder, deep down, if I
will be shot for writing this article. The powers that be certainly do
not kid around when it comes to JFK, they kill you outright even today.
Let’s test it then, I don’t care dying an accidental death.
so happens, and I cannot describe this as anything else but a
coincidence, or destiny, I don’t know, my best friend was the lover of
Lee Harvey Oswald, the so-called killer of JFK. It didn’t matter to me, I
didn’t know, what did that have to do with JFK? The man
died way before I was even born, nearly 50 years ago, and this is all
American stuff, I’m not American, I’m Canadian. Let the Americans sort
themselves out, I thought. Not so easy when your best friend was right
in the middle of it, and is about to publish the greatest bestseller
ever on JFK’s death. Dear me, I thought, I will have to read the book
and write an article about it. After all, this kind of journalism is
rare these days when freedom of speech is all but nonexistent.
threats is all Judyth Vary Baker ever suffered from the very day
multiple shots hit JFK. She had to abandon a promising career in medical
science; no wonder, since she was involved in plotting the
assassination of Fidel Castro with Oswald, and nearly succeeded until
this change of plan that ordered instead the death of JFK. At the time
the power behind the throne thought that the death of one or the other
would be all that was required to change the world. Eventually it was
decided that it was easier to kill JFK than Castro. I’m not surprised.
But then, all the willing participants who were willing to save America
and the world from Castro, as they were told they were working on, were
thrown into saving us all by killing JFK. Oswald, who had been an
American spy for quite a while, was not keen on the idea. He never shot
at JFK, although he was ordered to do so by the US government, and yet
he became the scapegoat of such a devilish plan.
is where my friend Judyth Vary Baker comes in. She was working on plan
A, to kill Castro. She was not keen on plan B, to kill JFK. As the lover
of Oswald, she was privy to everything. However she was so frightened
into silence, that only today she is willing to tell the truth, and dear
me, she was so central to it all. Baker was the first ever
non-combatant American woman to succeed in gaining asylum seeker status
in the world, in Sweden, just to show how threatened she has been, and
how convincing a case she was able to produce to the relevant
authorities in Europe. To this day her life is still threatened, and I
am here to tell you that it is too late for anyone to harm her, for the
book will be published in November no matter what. And it is useless to
threaten me, this is the only article I will ever write about the JFK
don’t have to wait until the book “Me and Lee, How I came to know, love
and lose Lee Harvey Oswald” comes out in November to find out what
Judyth has to say about the JFK’s assassination. She was central to the
controversial television documentary series “The Men Who Killed Kennedy”
on ITV in England and the History Channel:
In the present essay I introduce the general notion of“roundabout” as a mechanism of conflict avoidance used by privileged socialjustice activists. I then contrast this pseudo-liberation activism with theneeded true liberation activism of Malcolm X, which I argue to be consistentwith the model of liberation of Freire.
The now familiar concept of “pacifism as pathology” wasintroduced by Ward Churchill as the central characteristic of First-Worldmiddleclass so-called social justice activism. Churchill argued from historythat all liberations were leveraged through violence and proposed that pacifismas cowardice was pathology. 
Gandhi stated that it was better to practice armedresistance than to use pacifism as an excuse for cowardice . Both men(Churchill and Ghandi) saw acceptance of and self-justification for one’s(legal or circumstantial) slavery as pathology.
Paulo Freire’s work showed that all hierarchies, no matterhow cushioned in comfort, are violent and oppressive and argued that we couldonly fight our own oppression – that “solidarity” meant standing side by sidewith those fighting our same oppression. Freire advanced that all liberationshad to be rooted in and driven by the struggles of the oppressed themselves nomatter how underprivileged and that inter-social-class “solidarity” wasinsignificant and limited to rare individuals who joined in battle on the frontlines. 
Churchill concentrated on the use of pacifism as an excuseto avoid the needed direct confrontation with the oppressive system. He andothers have deconstructed and exposed First World pacifism as avoidance;including mainstream life-style environmentalism, ecological or economicisolationism, love ideologies, and so on, when taken to be activisms inthemselves. These authors did not explore the main creative active strategieswhereby pacifism can be enacted.
I explore the latter strategies of evasive action(roundabout) used by the most activist-minded sector of concerned citizens.
My goal is to provide a radical self-criticism for dedicatedanti-hierarchy (social justice) activists to help ensure that we are aseffective as possible and are not simply fooling ourselves. I hope that myanalysis will help us to more easily recognize when we are fooling ourselvesand wasting our energies and will help us to identify optimally effectiveoutlooks and strategies.
North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the Russian
Federation Air Force conducted a cooperative air defense exercise from
August 8-11 that focused on combating terrorism.
was hailed as a milestone exercise between the Cold War era rivals. It
included Russian, U.S., along with Canadian Air Force personnel
operating from command centers inside Russia and the United States
directing fighter jets, as well as civilian air traffic controllers. It
took several years to stage the drill which centered around, “an
international air terrorism scenario exercised over the Pacific Ocean
consisting of forces from the U.S. and Russia responding to the
simulated hijacking of a B-757 en route to the Far East.” The joint
exercise was, “designed to establish clear communication processes that
would allow the two forces to work together during a real crisis.”
Russian Air Force Col. Alexander Vasilyev emphasized the importance of
cooperation in combating the dangers of air terrorism. He stated,
“Terrorism is something that affects all our countries. So it is very
important that we work together to develop procedures and bring the
relationship between our countries closer together to unite our
countries in the fight against terrorism.”
In April, it was announced
that, “NATO and Russia have begun a testing phase of a joint system for
air traffic coordination. This will be the first NATO-Russia system of
this kind to be fielded. The system focuses primarily on the fight
against terrorism and will provide a shared radar picture of air traffic
and early notification of suspicious air activities.” The report
entitled the Moscow Metro Bombings and Terrorism in Russia
also addresses the possibility of developing further practical
NATO-Russia cooperation in regards to terrorism. President Barack Obama
has called for Russia and the U.S. to further deepen collaboration on
security and anti-terrorism matters. In May, the Associated Press reported
that, “Obama told a Russian television station that no single country
can defeat terrorists who have attacked targets throughout the world. He
said he looks forward to ‘increasing cooperation between the United
States and Russia’ on fighting terrorism.” Despite any past or present
tension between the two countries, the seemingly endless shadowy war on
terrorism has provided a common enemy and demonstrated how the global
conflict can at times make strange bedfellows.
The recent NORAD-Russian air drill was preceded by an incident where Canadian fighter jets repelled
two long-range Russian bombers off the coast of Labrador near the
Arctic. Russia contends the flight was simply a training mission and deny
trying to enter Canadian airspace. They maintain that the Canadian
military was aware of the exercise contrary to Defence minister Peter
MacKay who insists that they were not notified. NORAD fighters have
intercepted between 12 and 18 bombers annually since 2007. In advance of
President Obama’s visit to Canada back in February of 2009, Canadian
fighter jets were scrambled
to head off Russian bombers approaching its airspace. Prime Minster
Stephen Harper promised that Canada would defend its airspace and
sovereignty by responding every time the Russians make any kind of
intrusion into its Arctic territory. At times, Canada and Russia have
both been guilty of a war of words in regards to Arctic sovereignty. The
latest so-called Russian bomber incursion appears to be nothing more
than an attempt by the Conservative government to capitalize on the
event to further its political interests.
About halfway through
Saturday’s “Restoring Honor” rally on the DC mall, I realized
that I was starting to like Glenn Beck.
Before any friends of
mine initiate involuntary commitment proceedings, let me explain. It’s
not that I really liked Beck, but more that I experienced his likeability.
Whether or not he’s sincere, I came to admire his ability to project
sincerity and to create coherence out of his incoherent rambling about
religion, race, and redemption.
As a result, I’m
more afraid for our political future than ever.
First, to be clear: Beck
is the embodiment of everything I dislike about the U.S. politics and contemporary
culture. As a left/feminist with anti-capitalist and anti-empire politics, I
disagree with most every policy position he takes. As a journalist and
professor who values intellectual standards for political discourse, I find his
willful ignorance and skillful deceit to be unconscionable.
So, I’m not looking
for a charismatic leader to follow and I haven’t been seduced by
Beck’s televisual charm, nor have I given up on radical politics.
Instead, I’m trying to understand what happened when I sat down at my
computer on Saturday morning and plugged into the live stream of the event.
Expecting to see just another right-wing base-building extravaganza that would
speak to a narrow audience, I planned to watch for a few minutes before getting
onto other projects. I stayed glued to my chair for the three-hour event.
My conclusion: What I saw
was the most rhetorically and visually sophisticated political spectacle in
recent memory. Beck was able to both connect to a right-wing base while at the
same time moving beyond the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement,
potentially creating a new audience for his politics. It’s foolish to
make a prediction based on one rally, but I think Beck’s performance
marked his move from blowhard broadcaster to front man for a potentially
game-changing political configuration.
My advice: Liberals,
progressive, and leftists -- who may be tempted to denounce him as a demagogue
and move on -- should take all this seriously and try to understand what
he’s doing. Here’s my best attempt to understand it.
It felt surreal to be inside
the home of Erik Prince, the founder, owner and chairman of Blackwater (or Xe,
as it is now called). Prince, a former Navy Seal, provides security for the
CIA, the Pentagon and the State Department. His company trains 40,000 people a
year in skills that include personal protection. Yet his home in McLean,
Virginia, has no security. None. Not even a fence or a guard dog or a No Trespassing
sign. And his mother-in-law, who helps care for his young children, invited a
total stranger--me--into his home without hesitation.
I had gone to Prince's home,
together with two CODEPINK colleagues, assuming it would be empty. I'd read in
the New York Times
that Mr. Prince and his family had moved out of the country, fleeing from a
series of civil lawsuits, criminal charges and Congressional investigations
stemming from his company's contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the
news, "In documents filed last week in a civil lawsuit brought by former
Blackwater employees accusing Mr. Prince of defrauding the government, Mr.
Prince sought to avoid giving a deposition by stating that he had moved to Abu
Dhabi [which is in the United Arab Emirates] in time for his children to enter
school there on August 15." Susan Burke, the lawyer seeking the deposition, announced
that she was flying to the Emirates to find him.
I had been feeling
particularly upset about Blackwater lately. Seeing the combat troops leaving
Iraq, I'd been thinking about the banner CODEPINK members held in countless anti-war
vigils: "Iraq War: Who Lies? Who Dies? Who Pays? Who Profits?" Politicians lied
about weapons of mass destruction, Iraqis and American soldiers died, U.S.
taxpayers paid, and companies like Blackwater make a killing. In just a few
years, Blackwater received over $1 billion in U.S. government contracts, contracts
that accounted for 90 percent of its revenue. Erik Prince, the company's sole
owner, was now taking his profits, trying to sell the company and running away
to the Emirates, a country that has no extradition treaty with the United
So we decided to make a
symbolic gesture of visiting his home in McLean to bid good riddance to bad
rubbish. On Friday, August 20, five days after the Prince children were
supposed to be starting their new lives as schoolchildren in the Emirates, we mapquested
the old McLean home and drove there, ready to take a photo with our "Adios
Diablo Prince" sign and leave.
But when we got there, to our
surprise we could see through the window that the house was full of people and
furniture. There were no moving boxes, no empty rooms. Could the new owners
have settled in so quickly? Curious, I rang the doorbell and before I knew it,
I was invited in and found myself inside the living room with a bunch of young
children and several adults, who turned out to be grandma, grandpa and wife
The rest happened very
quickly. Joanna asked who I was and why I was there. I asked the same
questions: Was this the Prince family and if so, why weren't they in Abu Dhabi?
She freaked, told the grandparents to call the police, and she pushed me out
We hung around outside
waiting for the police. We wanted to assure them that there was no problem--that
I had indeed been invited inside and left when asked to leave. In the meantime,
I wrote a letter to Erik.
Dear Erik Prince,
On behalf of U.S. taxpayers, we say "Shame on You." Through
your company Blackwater, or Xe as you now like to call it, you made--or should I
say stole?--hundreds of millions of dollars and your employees also killed
innocent civilians in Iraq. You should be held responsible. Don't run away to
the Emirates to escape prosecution. Stay here in the USA and face the
consequences of your actions, like a good Christian.
When the police arrived, Joanna
Prince lied and said I'd been told to leave the house and refused. I was arrested,
charged with trespassing, held for 5 hours and forced to pay $500 in bail. I
have to appear in court on September 28. So does Joanna Prince. Will she show
up in court or will she--like her husband--run away to Abu Dhabi? Will the court
subpoena her to appear? Will her husband, a man who shuns publicity, tell her
that she is crazy to pick a public fight with CODEPINK (or Pinkwater, as we now
call ourselves) and make her drop the charges? Will I be able to sue her for
Stay tuned for round two of Xe
(formerly Blackwater) vs. Pinkwater (formerly CODEPINK).
Michael Enright, a 21-year-old college
student, slashed a NYC cab driver in the face and neck because this
man was Muslim. Enright is being held in a psychiatric ward. If he is
mad, then the United States is also insane. Enright's assault merely
mirrors what we, as a nation, have done for nearly a decade.
The United States has responded criminally
and incoherently to what happened on September 11, 2001. Lopped of our
twin members, downtown, we also lost our authoritative voice. Two days
after that disaster, George Bush grimly declared, "The most important
thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority
and we will not rest until we find him." Six months later, Bush shrugged,
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't
care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." Our current
president never mentions bin Laden, yet Obama has sent many more troops
into Afghanistan. We're not leaving any time soon, that's for sure.
Congress has just approved 1.3 billion dollars to expand our military
bases there. Our new mission, if Time Magazine is to be believed,
is to defend Afghan women against the Taliban, whom we created in the
first place, to fight the Soviets. America gets a kick out of these flip
flops. We propped up Saddam Hussein, then we had him hanged. We fought
Communist Vietnam, then we staged a naval exercise with that same regime,
as happened just recently, riling up China. Tension feeds the military
industrial complex. Wars are even better.
Responding to 9/11, America also invaded
Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with that catastrophe. Since
the real reasons for our two current conflicts, access to oil and natural
gas, defense of the petrodollar, war profiteering, are never admitted
to, many Americans have concluded that we're simply waging war against
Islam, which is, frankly, not that far off the mark considering our
unequivocal support for Israel whenever it attacks Gaza, Lebanon, Syria
or any other Muslim population. The U.S. has also been killing Pakistani
civilians and threatening Iran. It's a miracle many Muslims don't
hate us more.
Without Israel and oil, it's a safe
bet we wouldn't be demonizing Muslims so relentlessly. As is, this
stoked hatred is bringing out the worst in our character. On Yahoo!
News, many comments on the Enright story don't condemn but applaud
his obvious crime, and also bash Islam.
Bruce, "Slay the infidel.....stone
the rape victim......beat your wife........mate with your goat.....wipe
your bu tt with your bare hand.....AHHH the joys of islam!"
David, "this guy should get a medal
and be aloud [sic] to blow up the mosque at the ground zero sight, its [sic] about
time someone in ny stepped up and showed some american balls!!!"
Spreading like cancer across the internet,
openly hateful and racist comments are especially common after stories
about Muslims, blacks or Mexicans, the top three scapegoats at the moment.
Obama is a lightning rod for anti-black racism, which is ironic because
he does not favor blacks in any way. Like Bush, Clinton and the rest
of our bank-bailing-out, paid-for politicians, Obama couldn't care
less about the little guys. Eyeing his own wallet and his future after
the White House, Obama's here to defend the moneyed interest. His
blackness is merely symbolic, but that's enough to enrage the racists.
After Michelle Obama went to Spain,
Alternative Right, a webzine with contributions from several established
authors, had an article titled, "Michelle's Vacation in Whitey World."
Among the comments, one man suggested that she should have gone to a
blacker destination, like "Ghana or the Maldives."
One Sheila wrote, "I cringe every
time I see a photo of the Sasquatch/Wookie as purportedly "First
Lady" of American women. My spouse always comments that she reminds
him of a chimp with her underbite, and I am always struck by her enormous
feet and trapezius muscles. Either way I feel a sort of cognitive dissonance,
such as when I view old photos and see 19th century blacks dressed in
As far as her amazing European adventure, she is putting herself in
white people's faces. Her very presence is a way of announcing the new
Note: I am working on a Psychohistory
analysis of one of the most popular websites on the Internet, DailyKos
(Alexa Traffic Rank 4,025)]
Mentioning DailyKos to outsiders will provoke a rant about a leftwing
gatekeeper website populated by left wing ignorant kooks kept in line
by a sexist man working for the CIA.
Daily Kos is blog where pinko retard
basement dwellers highlight the moar deluded of the leftard section of
the tinfoil hat crowd’s conspiracy theories about George W. Bush,
conservatives, and the state of the nation. Articles on this shrill blog
repeat how Bush stole the election ad infinitum, that Dick Cheney is a
robot when he is actually just an eminence gris, and fantasize about Ann
Coulter being a man. This last claim is particularly cruel in view of
the Daily Kos viewpoint that shemales should always be identified as
The site is controlled by the CIA but not for the purpose of
disinformation or gate keeping. The CIA run the site to manage the
emotional band of the community just above apathy but below effective
activism. A psychohistory case study explaining why it is important to
keep the members of the Dailykos community engaged in the Democratic
process is coming soon.
DailyKos is owned and operated by Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and in one
of those coincidences that don’t happen very often, was born September
And speaking of 9/11 and ‘Conspiracy Theories’ in general, they are
forbidden at DailyKos.
The FAQ (rules and guidelines for posting diaries)
DailyKos accepts that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by agents of
Al-Qaeda. It is forbidden to write diaries that:
refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any
assisted in the attacks
refer to claims that the airplanes that
crashed into the WTC and
Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their
subsequent collapse. Yes, this does include ‘controlled demolition’ of
“911 Truthers are Dummies” published at Dailykos on August 4 (below)
and was my successful attempt at getting around the rules and
My position on September 11:
I’ll get right to the point, I have read the books and watched the
documentaries on September 11 for three years and the 9/11 official
Nineteen fanatical Arab hijackers,
masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, crash airplanes
into steel skyscrapers because they “hate our freedom to consume” and
inexplicably on 9/11 jet fuel, which is basically kerosene that burns at
about 400c, took on the qualities of an explosive demolition agent,
vaporizing 70 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke and causing
110-story buildings to collapse into a pile of rubble. 
Is so stupid Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn’t expect
you to believe it.
Truthers are Dummies (hyperlink provided in case you want
to read the comments at DailyKos. The Kogs missed the subtle message. My
guess is that you guys will figure it out.)
DailyKos Disclaimer about why conspiracy theorists
are consistently wrong. All conspiracy theories (C/T) can be reduced to a
supposed discrepancy or anomaly in one official record or another. To
the conspiracy theorists the holes in an “official story” are some kind
of truth that conspirators are trying to cover up. However, because
theorists rarely if ever have any coherent beginning-to-end narrative of
what they think happened, the perceived discrepancies constitute the
entire basis of their arguments.
What the conspiracy theorists consistently ignore (and rarely does
anyone point out) is how simple it would be for the criminals to change
or falsify the alleged discrepancy or anomaly. The act of doing so would
be trivial compared to the magnitude of other acts the theorists claim
the conspirators committed.
September 11, 2001
It’s getting harder these days to avoid gullible progressive
Democrats telling ludicrous fairy tales about 9/11.
I've always believed in unions. I come from a long line of union members: steel workers, sanitation workers, office workers, police, fire, you name it. They're all in my family. My American family typifies the American working class. In fact, if all the unions represented by my family were to strike for a week, the whole country would suffer. Construction would stop. Crime would go undeterred. Fires would go unextinguished. And in my case, students would go untaught. Yes, I, too, am a union member. I'm a teacher.
Right now, America's unions are under fire. Millions of workers are unemployed and companies large and small are suffering. Business owners would love nothing more than to bypass unions to use lower wage, uninsured personnel. Given the opportunity, unemployed non-union labor would replace union workers in a New York second for the same jobs at lower wages with no benefits. In today's fragile economy, the only lovers of unions are the union members themselves.
Given how unpopular unions are, one would think union members would be extra careful to be welcoming, congenial, considerate and non-ideological with potential employers when jobs are on the line. All types of businesses and individuals contract with unions; from those held in the highest esteem, to those of ill repute. With such a diversity of contractors, not every union member feels kinship with those who foot their bills. Not every cop or fire fighter coalesces with the person and business s/he's assigned to protect, but s/he protects them just the same.
Educators can't choose not to teach certain pupils simply because they don't want to. Black, white, hispanic, asian, jewish, catholic, muslim, buddhist, bipolar, down-syndrome, hyperactive students all deserve education. Teachers unions don't boycott specific groups of students because they don't like their sect or color, or because they're somehow reminiscent of a painful past. If that should happen - if unions and union members should be so self-serving, unprofessional, prejudiced and juvenile to use criteria like ethnicity, religion, race, disability or reminiscence to defer services - those unions and union members should be stripped of union privileges and forfeit their jobs to those who prize propriety. Unions are contracted because of skills and compliance with rules and regulations - not because of bias and ideology. The only ideology acceptable for a union should be dedication to the excellent performance of one's job.
Of course there are legitimate circumstances where unions are correct in refusing contracts and in making demands in the interest of their rank and file. Members' health and safety are of paramount importance. No effective or worthwhile union should accept unsafe working conditions or an unhealthy workplace. Abuse of workers should never be tolerated. Unions exist to negotiate the best possible work environment and compensation for their members. However, nowhere do unsubstantiated fear, contempt for religion, or resurgent memory factor into union contracts as negotiable provisions for worker rights and protection. Such issues are frivolous, unprofessional, and unworthy of consideration; except of course if a worker's emotional or psychological state as a result of such fear renders him legitimately unable to perform. That's another matter.
The New York Daily News is reporting that union construction workers are refusing to build the Manhattan mosque to be located two blocks from Ground Zero. This is ideological impropriety that union leadership should cease immediately. It's bad enough that only 41% of Americans had a positive view of unions prior to this unfounded anti-Muslim tantrum. Adding cultural and religious bias, logistic sensitivity and unfounded fear to the existing union stereotypes of over-coddled and over-paid, affords union detractors greater ability to incite anti-union sentiment with new pejoratives like hyper-sensitive, hysterical, illogical and emotionally weak.
On June 17, Israel's
Cabinet issued a six point plan, agreeing to ease access for civilian
goods entering Gaza without loosening inflexible security measures to
restrict them. So what's changed? Not much. Increased truck traffic has
been modest at best. The consumer ban was partially lifted, permitting
previously prohibited items like ketchup, chocolate and children's toys.
Yet, banned products still
include vitally needed industrial and construction items, unrelated to
security concerns Israel claims, bogusly calling them "dual use." As a
result, the promised ease is unfulfilled. Strangling Gaza economically
continues. Raw materials, spare parts, essential equipment, and numerous
other non-military related goods are denied. In addition, no policy
change eased people movement into and out of Gaza, those inside
effectively imprisoned, exports still banned, and humanitarian flotillas
threatened with forcible interdiction, in some cases their cargos and
personal possessions stolen to prevent essential goods and cash
donations from being delivered.
In an August 22 Common
Dreams article, Ann Wright headlined," "Israeli Soldiers Sell Gaza
Flotilla Passengers' Computers and Steal Hundreds of Thousands of
Dollars in Cash," saying:
"An Israeli newspaper has
revealed that four to six computers (among the hundreds seized from Mavi
Marmara passengers were) sold by an Israeli First Lieutenant to three
junior military personnel. On August 18, a second officer was arrested
in connection with the theft."
Labor Party MK Eitan Kabel
called the revelation "embarrassing, humiliating and infuriating," but
there's more. "Israeli commandos also took cash and credit cards from
passengers," an estimated $1,000 or more from each, or at least
$750,000, donations intended for Gazans. Four passengers alone had
$68,000 stolen, money needy Gazans didn't get.
Other items were also
taken, including cell phones, cameras, and electronic equipment,
supposedly kept safe but not returned when passengers were released. No
one so far has been held accountable, nor for the cold-blooded murder of
up to 15 passengers, three commissions investigating them, including:
-- the UN Human Rights
Council (HRC), hopefully a second Goldstone Commission;
-- Israel's Turkel
Commission, the Netanyahu government's arranged whitewash; and
-- a second Ban Ki-moon
appointed UN commission with former Colombian president Alvaro Uribe
vice-chairman, a man tainted by corruption, scandal, and links to his
country's drug cartels and paramilitary death squads, responsible for
murdering thousands of trade unionists, campesinos, human rights
workers, independent journalists, pro-democracy advocates, and others
opposing Colombia's narco-state terrorism and ties to US imperialism -
his appointment outraging activists demanding justice, not coverup and
In an August 17 open
letter, Besieged Gaza, Palestine, its members listed below, wrote
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, urging he demand Ban
Ki-moon remove Uribe, saying:
"Mr. Prime Minister, it is
an insult to the memory of those killed (including nine Turkish
citizens on Turkey's Mavi Marmara) to have their blood 'redeemed' by a
man who has a record of violations against human rights and
international law. (He was) an accomplice in corruption and crimes
against humanity....(He) supported the displacement of Afro-Colombian
families from their ancestral territories in La Toma, Suarez, and kept
silent against the denial of their economic and territorial rights.
(He's also) a devoted Zionist, committed to the myth and fabrication of
'Israel's security.' "
America's march to a disastrous war in Iraq began in the
media, where an unprovoked U.S. invasion of an Arab country was
introduced as a legitimate policy option, then debated as a prudent and
necessary one. Now, a similarly flawed media conversation on Iran is
Last month, TIME's Joe Klein warned
that Obama administration sources had told him bombing Iran's nuclear
facilities was "back on the table." In an interview with CNN, former
CIA director Admiral Mike Hayden next spoke
of an "inexorable" dynamic toward confrontation, claiming that bombing
was a more viable option for the Obama administration than it had been
for George W. Bush. The pièce derésistancein
the most recent drum roll of bomb-Iran alerts, however, came from
Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic
Monthly. A journalist influential in U.S. pro-Israeli
circles, he also has access to Israel’s corridors of power. Because
sanctions were unlikely to force Iran to back down on its uranium
enrichment project, Goldberg invited readers to believe that there was
a more than even chance Israel would launch a military strike on the
country by next summer.
His piece, which sparked considerable debate in both the blogosphere
and the traditional media, was certainly an odd one. After all, despite
the dramatics he deployed, including vivid descriptions of the Israeli
battle plan, and his tendency to paint Iran as a new Auschwitz, he also
made clear that many of his top Israeli sources simply didn’t believe
Iran would launch nuclear weapons against Israel, even if it acquired
Nonetheless, Goldberg warned, absent an Iranian white flag soon,
Israel would indeed launch that war in summer 2011, and it, in turn, was
guaranteed to plunge the region into chaos. The message: the Obama
administration better do more to confront Iran or Israel will act crazy.
It's not lost on many of his progressive critics that, when it came
to supporting a prospective invasion of Iraq back in 2002, Goldberg
in lobbying liberal America, especially through his reports of
"evidence" linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Then and now, he
presents himself as an interlocutor who has no point of view. In his
most recent Atlantic piece, he professed a "profound,
paralyzing ambivalence" on the question of a military strike on Iran and
subsequently, in radio interviews, claimed to be "personally opposed"
to military action.
His piece, however, conveniently skipped over the obvious
inconsistencies in what his Israeli sources were telling him. In
addition, he excluded
perspectives from Israeli leaders that might have challenged his
narrative in which an embattled Jewish state feels it has no alternative
but to launch a quixotic military strike. Such an attack, as he
presented it, would have limited hope of doing more than briefly setting
back the Iranian nuclear program, perhaps at catastrophic cost, and so
Israeli leaders would act only because they believe the "goyim" won't
stop another Auschwitz. Or as my friend Paul Woodward, editor of the War in Context
website, so brilliantly summed up the Israeli message to America: "You
must do what we can’t, because if you don’t, we will."
Goldberg insists that he is merely initiating a debate about how to
tackle Iran and that debate is already underway on his
terms -- that is, like its Iraq War predecessor, based on a
fabricated sense of crisis and arbitrary deadlines.
Last Friday, the New York Timesreported that
the Obama administration had convinced Israel that there was no need to
rush on the issue. Should Iran decide to build a nuclear weapon (which
it has not done), it would, administration officials pointed out,
quickly make its intentions clear by expelling the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors who routinely monitor its nuclear work,
and breaking out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). After that, it
would still need another year or more to assemble its first weapon.
Gilad Atzmon (Hebrew: גלעד עצמון, born June 9, 1963) is a jazz
musician, author and anti-Zionist activist who was born in Israel and
currently lives in London.
"Anti-Semite is an empty signifier, no one actually can be
Anti-Semite and this includes me of course. In short, you are either a
racist - which I am not - or have an ideological disagreement with
Zionism... which I have."
He was born a secular Israeli Jew in Tel Aviv, and trained at the
Rubin Academy of Music in Jerusalem. His service in the Israeli military
convinced him Israel had become a militarized state controlled by
religious extremists. In 1994, Atzmon emigrated from Israel to London,
where he studied philosophy. Atzmon is an anti-Zionist who critiques
Jewish identity issues and
supports the Palestinian Right of Return as well as the establishment of
a single state in Israel/Palestine. He is a signatory to the
"Palestinians are the Priority Petition" which states “full and
unconditional support of the Palestinian people is a condition sine qua
non for activists to adopt.
by Gilad Atzmon:
in a world dominated by relentless Zionist lobbying, I am far from
being captivated by the current state of Western democracy. I am not
impressed at all by the lethal enthusiasm to democratize the World in
the name of ‘moral interventionism’. I am sickened by the murderous zeal
that led the USA and Britain into a criminal war that left already more
than 1.5 million Iraqi fatalities….
And yet, democracy can also be a genuine universal
call. As it happens, it is the Palestinians who are teaching us what
democracy is all about, what it stands for and why we favoured it in the
first place. Read the Declaration of the Movement for One Democratic
State (ODS) in Palestine. I assume that moral interventionists better
visit the ODS conference in October so
they gather that democracy is actually a humanist call.
Instead of an ethno-centric
exclusive ‘Jews only democracy’ we are talking here about an inclusive
multi ethnic state of its citizens.
of the Movement for One Democratic State in Palestine
Vision of the Movement
1. The entire territory of
Palestine between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is one
country that belongs to all its citizens including all those who live
there and all those who were expelled over the past century and their
descendants. The country shall be constituted as an independent
sovereign State in which all citizens enjoy equal rights and all can
live in freedom and security.
2. The reunified country in Palestine shall be
constituted as a democracy in which all of its adult citizens shall
enjoy equal rights to vote, stand for office and contribute to the
country’s governance. No State law, institution, practices or activities
may discriminate among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity,
religion, language, nationality or gender.
3. The State shall not establish or accord
special privilege to any religion and shall provide for the free
practice of all religions.
4. Public land of the State shall belong to the nation as a whole
and all of its citizens shall have equal access to its use. Private
property of Palestinian refugees shall be restored or compensation
arranged. The natural and economic resources of the country shall
benefit all of its citizens equally.
5. The State shall provide the conditions for free
cultural expression by all of its citizens. It shall ensure that all
languages, arts and culture can flourish and develop freely. All
citizens shall have equal rights to use their own dress, languages and
customs, and to express their cultural heritage free of insults or
Citizens shall have equal access to employment at all levels and in all
sectors of the society. Employment shall not be determined or restricted
by language, race, religion, gender, or nationality. Education and
vocational training shall not be segregated or specialized in any way
that impedes equal access of all citizens to employment and other
opportunities to fulfill their talents and dreams.
7. The State shall uphold
international law and seek the peaceful resolution of conflicts through
negotiation and collective security in accordance with the United
Nations Charter. The people of a unified Palestine shall reject racism
and promote anti-racism throughout the world. The State shall seek to
build a world order in which all countries and peoples enjoy their
social, cultural and political rights as set out in relevant United
Nations covenants. The State shall seek and contribute to the
establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East that will also
be free of all weapons of mass-destruction.
Israelis have signed up for a campaign of civil disobedience, vowing to
risk jail to smuggle Palestinian women and children into Israel for a
brief taste of life outside the occupied West Bank.
The Israelis say
they have been inspired by the example of Ilana Hammerman, a writer who
is threatened with prosecution after publishing an article in which she
admitted breaking the law to bring three Palestinian teenagers into
Israel for a day out.
Ms Hammerman said she wanted to give the
young women, who had never left the West Bank, “some fun” and a chance
to see the Mediterranean for the first time.
Her story has
shocked many Israelis and led to a police investigation after right-wing
groups called for her to be tried for security offences.
It is illegal to
transport Palestinians through checkpoints into Israel without a permit,
which few can obtain. If tried and found guilty, Ms Hammerman could be
fined and face up to two years in jail.
But Israelis joining
the campaign say they will not be put off by threats of imprisonment.
Last month, a
group of 11 Israeli women joined Ms Hammerman in repeating her act of
civil disobedience, driving a dozen Palestinian women and four children,
including a baby, through a checkpoint into Israel.
The Israeli women
say they are planning mass “smugglings” of Palestinians into Israel over
the coming weeks.
“The Palestinians who join us are mainly
looking to have a good time after years of confinement under the
occupation, but for us what is most important is our act of defiance,”
said Ofra Lyth, who helped establish an online forum of supporters after
attending a speech by Ms Hammerman.
“We want to overturn this immoral law that
gives rights to Jews to move freely around while keeping Palestinians
imprisoned in their towns and villages,” she said, referring to
regulations that bar most Palestinians in the occupied territories from
entering Israel, and Israelis from assisting them. Exceptions are made
for Palestinians with permits, sometimes issued for a medical emergency
or to some labourers with security clearance.
For the Palestinian
women, though, it is not about making a statement or defying an unjust
law, said Ms Lyth.
When the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry
Division rolled out of Iraq
last week, the colonel commanding the brigade told a reporter that his
were “leaving as heroes.”
While we can understand the pride of
professional soldiers and the
emotion behind that statement, it’s time for Americans -- military and
civilian -- to face a difficult reality: In seven years of the
named “Operation Iraqi Freedom” and nine years of “Operation
Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan,
no member of the U.S.
has been a hero.
This is not an attack on soldiers, sailors, and
personnel may act heroically in specific situations, showing courage and
compassion, but for them to be heroes in the truest sense they must be
in a legal and morally justifiable conflict. That is not the case with
the U.S. invasions and occupations of Iraq or Afghanistan, and the
pressure on us to use the language of heroism -- or risk being labeled
or traitors -- undermines our ability to evaluate the politics and
wars in a historical framework.
The legal case is straightforward: Neither
invasion had the necessary
approval of the United Nations Security Council, and neither was a
an imminent attack. In both cases, U.S. officials pretended to engage
in diplomacy but demanded war. Under international law and the U.S.
Constitution (Article 6 is clear that “all Treaties made,” such as
the UN Charter, are “the supreme Law of the Land”), both invasions
The moral case is also clear: U.S. officials’
the invasions were necessary to protect us from terrorism or locate
mass destruction were never plausible and have been exposed as lies. The
is a more dangerous place today than it was in 2001, when sensible
changes in U.S.
foreign policy and vigorous law enforcement in collaboration with other
could have made us safer.
The people who bear the greatest legal and
moral responsibility for
these crimes are the politicians who send the military to war and the
who plan the actions, and it may seem unfair to deny the front-line
personnel the label of “hero” when they did their duty as they
understood it. But this talk of heroism is part of the way we avoid
and deny the unpleasant fact that these are imperial wars. U.S. military
forces are in the Middle East and
Central Asia not to bring freedom but to extend and deepen U.S. power in
a region home to the
world’s most important energy resources. The nation exercising control
there increases its influence over the global economy, and despite all
propaganda, the world realizes we have tens of thousands of troops on
ground because of those oil and gas reserves.
Individuals can act with courage and compassion
serving in imperial
armies. There no doubt were soldiers among the British forces in
colonial India who acted heroically, and Soviet soldiers
stationed in Eastern Europe were capable of
bravery. But they were serving in imperial armies engaged in
attempts to dominate and control. They were fighting not for freedom but
advance the interests of elites in their home countries.
closest South American ally, is a corrupted narco-state, a repressive
death squad faux democracy, threatening regional neighbors, and reigning
terror against trade unionists, human rights workers, campesinos,
pro-democracy organizations, independent journalists, and legitimate
resistance groups like the FARC-EP. Established in 1964, James Petras
calls it the "longest standing, largest peasant-based guerrilla movement
in the world," persisting valiantly for decades.
Thanks to Plan Colombia
and other support, the state is heavily militarized, more than ever now
serving as Washington's land-based aircraft carrier against regional
targets, including neighboring Venezuela.
The Pentagon got expanded
access, former President Alvaro Uribe agreeing to US forces on seven
more military bases (three airfields, two naval installations, and two
army facilities), as well as unrestricted use of the entire country
as-needed for internal and external belligerency, including
out-of-control violence and human rights abuses, the region's most
extreme to keep two-thirds of Colombians impoverished, millions
displaced, corruption endemic, wealth concentration growing, and
corporate predators freed to exploit and plunder.
Also to facilitate record
amounts of Colombian cocaine from government-controlled areas reaching
US and world markets, new President Juan Manuel Santos embracing the
"Uribe Doctrine," now his. It's extremist, hard right, corrupt, brutal,
corporate-friendly, and militarized in lockstep with Washington.
As Uribe's Defense
Minister, James Petras explained that Santos was an assassin, deploying
military forces and paramilitary death squads "to kill and terrorize
entire population centers, (murdering) over 20,000 people....falsely
labeled 'guerrillas.' "
UN Special Rapporteur
Report on "Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions"
Mandated by the Human
Rights Council (HRC), Special Rapporteur Philip Alston issued his March
31, 2010 report, based on his June 8 - 18, 2009 Colombia mission,
understating the reality by citing "important gains," yet nonetheless
damning, saying "very serious problems remain." Calamitous for most
Colombians more accurately describes them.
may rationally ponder that how is it, that such a long running global
conspiracy for world government as outlined in Project
Humanbeingsfirst’s report “The Enduring Capitalist Conspiracy
for World Government”, can be kept alive across centuries and
across geographies. This brief paper examines that question.
Chomsky had once observed an insightful nature of such “conspiracies”,
as the open shared natural goals stemming from the very nature of its
definition, which could therefore, no more be termed a conspiracy than
both GM and Ford endeavoring to maximize their profits at all cost be
termed a ‘global corporate conspiracy’.
have always added to that, the equally un-remarkable observation that a
hungry lion anywhere in the world pouncing upon a lamb is similarly no
global conspiracy by the world’s lions to eat up all the lambs on the
planet. That is just the nature of the bestial predators when its “might
defines right”. The higher cerebral concepts of “right”, “wrong”,
“moral”, immoral”, etc., do not even exist among any primal predators,
for these only behave according to their nature. Pious platitudes, if
they could be argued by the lion or the snake for instance, would in
fact only be disseminated to the lambs and the mice to make them an even
easier morsel to acquire!
only thing that occasionally deters such exercise of primacy is a
collective natural response like the one observed in the “Battle at
Kruger” park. Indeed, the quest for the holy grail of extracting
voluntary servitude from the masses of mankind is the key idea of
cultivating a willingly compliant public in order for the illuminated
ones becoming their stewards for life. In Bertrand Russell’s’ timeless
characterization, to extract voluntary servitude such that: “a
revolt of the plebs will become as unthinkable as an organised
insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.”
we observe that from Plato to Nietzsche, from the philosopher-king to
the ‘ubermensch’, all have argued the necessity of ruling upon the
sheepish masses as the ‘divine’ imperative of the “enlightened ones”.
Indeed, Zbigniew Brzezinski even sub-titled his seminal book “The
Grand Chessboard” with its egotistical subtitle “American
Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”, merely extending that
idea of ‘ubermensch’ rule from the most “enlightened ones”, to the most
same theme exists among the “Chosen Peoples”, to deem their primacy
upon the goyem their inherent nature, their divine destiny. The
‘ubermensch’ are suckled these lessons in their mothers’ milk to acquire
those imperatives across generations in perhaps the same way as the
generations of corporate executives and CEOs who inherently know that
they need to continually enhance the valuation of their company’s stock
performance in a capitalist system.
when these ‘divine’ ubermensch creatures who are beyond good and evil,
behave in their primal predatory natural manner across time and space,
across evolution or creation, are they being “conspiratorial”?
the Chomsky-Ebrahim nomenclature, perhaps not.
the Ron Paul nomenclature, it is merely a shared “Conspiracy of
Ideas” in which “CFR exists, the Trilateral Commission exists”,
and that, it is only “an ideological battle” wherein:
“some people believe in Globalism, and
others of us believe in national sovereignty; and there is a move on
toward a North American Union just like early on there was a move on for
a European Union and it eventually ended up. …
These are real things, it’s not
somebody made these up, it’s not a conspiracy, they don’t talk about it,
and they might not admit about it, but there has been money spent on it
So it’s not so much a secretive
conspiracy, it’s a contest between ideologies; whether we believe in our
institutions here, our national sovereignty, our Constitution, or are
we going to further move in the direction of international government,
more UN. You know, this country goes to war under UN Resolutions. I
don’t like big government in Washington. So I don’t like this trend
towards international government …
But it’s not so much it’s a sinister
conspiracy, it’s just knowledge is out there, if we look for it, you’ll
realize our national sovereignty is under threat!”
concept is an old one. The amount of human blood spilled over control
of fossil energy deposits and associated transfer routes, in the 20th
Century alone, probably rivals the amount of oil BP’s Macondo well has
unleashed in the Gulf of Mexico so far. But in the 21st Century the
concept has gained a popular name, and really hit its stride—all the way
to perhaps relegating the entire life-support system of Earth as an
energy sacrifice zone.
Who Actually Owns BP?
appears that much of the Internet is being scrubbed of this detail. Most
relevant sites agree that 40% of the shares of BP are held in the
United Kingdom, 39% of the shares are held in the United States, while
the remaining 21% are held throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
The largest single holder of shares is getting harder to track down.
Generally an Internet search will lead to the other 9 leaders, roughly
BlackRock (New York) 5.9%
Legal & General (United
Barclays Global Investor (owned by BlackRock) 3.8%
Bank Investment Management (Norway) 1.8%
Kuwait Investment Authority
(manages funds for the Kuwaiti Government) 1.75%
M & G
Investment Management (UK asset owned by the Prudential) 1.67%
Life (Scottish insurance company) 1.5%
Capital Research &
Management Company (Los Angeles) 1.3%
China’s State Administration of
Foreign Exchange 1.1%
many sites fail to mention who owns a whopping 28.34% of BP—more than
the other 9 out of the top 10 together. That would be Wall Street’s
JPMorgan Chase. And that certainly explains why our own government has
offered mostly limp and phony bluster and coverup as BP has done pretty
much whatever it wants in our new energy sacrifice zone—such as the
deliberate blockage of oil collection in favor of bringing in “Carolina
Skiffs” and huge aircraft to spray dispersants at night. BP lies, our
government lies and covers, and the Gulf dies. Evidently, our
government’s top priority is limiting BP’s liability.