What’s happy about the Fourth of July?

AYFKM? Even “have a nice day” has more credibility, or have a holiday that’s happy. Should our national day of flag waving, specifically OUR celebration of patriotism as citizens of an ever broadening, ever more savage repressive empire, remind us to be happy? How about, don’t cry? Over the past week, as neighbors stood curbside to thank the firefighters returning from the Waldo Canyon Fire, they waved flags and wore red white and blue, because, it’s the only thing Americans know to wave I guess. What does it mean, thanking firefighters with American flags? Competence and bravery are American qualities? Heroism is patriotic? We kick wildfire ass? Did we? Because we didn’t, as President Obama’s disaster zone visit confirmed. Much the reverse. And we’re reaping the same cataclysm with our imperial flag planting everywhere.

Nonviolence is the refuge of cowards

I say this with the full authority of my own personal experience: nonviolence is for cowards. When push has come to shove, I stepped to the sidewalk but I am so full of admiration for those who stayed in the line of fire. Today much of the world commemorates Bastille Day, France’s unique independence day, because it launched the French Revolution. Not just a revolution for the masses of humanity, but their Enlightenment. Storming the Bastilles was no small transformative event, and the sans-culottes were not led by urgings to keep it nonviolent. The monarchy took heed, as it had for every historic concession, because the citizenry had it scared to death.

Have you changed social inequity by voting in the polls? Have you found justice via protest? Sought, beseeched, was as far as you got. Violent uprising has not lately looking too effective either. But it’s got the track record.

I’m not saying I’m up to the task, but I assure you I have the courage to be nonviolent in spades.

It is a most self-aggrandizing dishonesty that holds nonviolence to be brave. There is nothing easier than to take the path of least resistance. I don’t mean to downplay the audacity to protest, as opposed to conforming, although isn’t sticking to your principles squarly self-indulgent? I claim no credit for failing to bend on matters of principle. In fact, sometimes I feel positively anti-social.

But taken the next step, what’s easier than subjecting yourself to the authority of the sword? Again it’s the principle of not becoming like your abuser, another no-brainer, but no-bravery required.

Standing up for what you believe? Easy-peasy. To the death? Positively cowardly lion.

This is you inner dialog, be honest: I defy your authority, but only so far. I reject your physical oppression, but just kidding. I call for the total destruction of your hierarchy, but only in words, I’m entitled, and you can’t lay a finger on me because I’m playing by the rules.

Hope of getting anywhere: dismal. Modern social movements have only Gandhi and Mandela as purported success stories. But I’ll not insult the elders. The Gandhi and Mandela of our textbooks bear no resemblance to the reality, they are false role-models put forth by fascists who want to blunt every effort to rise against power.

Oh, nonviolence is the higher ideal, sure. Lovely. Browny points for the afterlife. Trickle-up transcendence has as much potential for success as awaiting extraterrestrials or building playing fields for disgraced baseball reincarnates.

Unless power wants to transcend the human experience, and lift all of us with it, mankind is not going anywhere. The only way you’re going to levitate powerful heads is with a guillotine. Dreadfully eighteenth century, but check out the horrific bygone days from which they’re reconstituting torture and feudalism.

You can probably contrive a litany of rationalizations for why it would be beneath you, but imagine picking up a gun and having a go against the overwhelming power of the state. Now that’s terrifying.

LTE, 1899: May the thunderbolt which is to fall from heaven upon this nation

For Independence day we might ask: is it more patriotic to support illegal wars than to oppose them? I’d like to revisit a century-old letter to the editor submitted to the Springfield Republican on April 21, 1899, by Caroline Hollingsworth Pemberton a few days after tax day. She wrote to defend another letter writer, critic of America’s imperial expansion into the Philippines, accused of “treason” for suggesting that his taxes should not be funding a war of aggression.

The number of persons who share, without expressing, the sentiments of the young single taxer, F. Stevens, is doubtless increasing daily. It may be a wise economical policy for the government executives to decide that his utterances do not constitute “treason,” for the reason that there are not, and probably never will be, enough prisons in his land to contain all the “traitors” that now reside in it.

Alas! we are all of us made traitors (and against our wills in many cases) by the deliberate acts of those whom we have chosen to represent us. We are already traitors to the high ideals of a free people: traitors to our constitution and to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Whether we want to or not, we “treacherously” support a policy of “criminal aggression” whenever we lick a revenue stamp and stick it on a check or receipt, and help pay the cost of sacrificing our principles before the world.

My soul loathes this Filipino slaughter, yet I am actively supporting it out of my own pocket every day of my life. I count myself the worst kind of a traitor, –yet it is well that our government has decided to look leniently on traitors, for there are thousands and millions like me, some willingly and many most unwillingly made traitors like myself!

One can choose between two kinds of treason. Mr. Stevens chooses what he takes to be the lesser kind. We have that much choice and that is all that is left to us.

For my part, I pray that the thunderbolt which is to fall from heaven upon this nation for its career of crime in the Pacific ocean may fall quickly and end the iniquities for which in the sight of God we are all individually responsible. If this is “treason” of the peculiar brand that newspapers do not approve, it is to be remembered as an “extenuating circumstance” that my education in treason has not progressed far enough yet for me to distinguish with certainty the various brands, –accidentally, as it were, I have picked up the wrong kind– for which I ask their kindly indulgence.

C. H. Pemberton

Springfield Republican, April 21, 1899

Quoted in The Anti-Imperialist Reader, Volume I, Philip S. Foner, ed., p. 404

Israel is pot calling the kettle non-white

Zionist annual March of the Living
World Jewish leaders urge boycott of Durban conference -because the International Conference on Racism is planning to condemn Israeli racism. So the headlines scream: World Jewish Congress president lauds US’ decision to withdraw from anti-racism conference which he says ignores “plight of victims of true racism.” Head of European Jewish Congress calls on EU to boycott event as well. Then a curious headline invites conference attendees instead to join a pilgrimage to Auschwitz.

First of all, we’re accustomed to hearing that only Jews have been the victims of genocide. Did you know they are racism’s only true victims too?!

AuschwitzThe March of the Living is a Zionist organization dedicated to shepherding young “birthright” Jews to Nazi concentration camp memorial sites to indoctrinate them afresh with the horrors of the Holocaust. The visitors drape themselves with Israeli flags as they tour the iconographic gates and museums. Photographs are taken and reprinted in sepia tone, as if to depict the “Living” visitors in the same circumstances as less fortunate predecessors.

After which, the young charges travel to Israel, to participate in the anniversary of Israel’s creation.

Here is yesterday’s article on the MARCH OF THE LIVING 2009 invitation. I reprint it in its entirety because it is comically oblivious to irony. Here the “living” want to memorialize the dead, at the expense of the living. It’s a repudiation of hatred, by pretending it is vanquished.

Each classic Zionist fallacy is there: 1) to accuse Jews of racism is racism, 2) mankind has suffered no greater evil than the Holocaust, and 3) Auschwitz ergo Israel.

Auschwitz march to protest Durban II

This year’s March of the Living to be held while anti-racism conference convenes in Geneva. Organizers call on all government’s to follow US’ example, withdraw from gathering and attend march instead
Ynetnews

The International March of the Living has announced that precisely while many countries will be convening in Geneva for the Durban II gatherings, 10,000 youths—Jewish and non-Jewish—will be at the gates of Auschwitz on Tuesday, April 21, to give the next generation a strong platform to “Say No to Hatred Today.”

The event will commemorate several important milestone dates: International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the 70th anniversary of the beginning of World War II and the 60th anniversary of the ratification of the International Human Rights Declaration.

Organizers of the March of the Living saluted the decision of the United States Government to abstain from the planned proceedings in Geneva. “This is a compelling moral position by the US leadership, displaying that hatred and intolerance have no place in international discourse.” said Dr. Shmuel Rosenman, Chairman of the International March of the Living.

“We call upon all governments with conscience to follow suit and demonstrate the ultimate repudiation of genocide through participation in the March of the Living 2009 at Auschwitz.”

Global call for action
As a further means to counter the messages that are expected to emerge from the Geneva event, tens of contemporary victims of genocide, offering a united voice against hatred and persecution, have been invited to lead the march, which this year is under the sponsorship of Guma and Jamie Aguiar.

Canadian MP and former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, internationally recognized human rights advocate, today announced his decision to come to Auschwitz from the conferences he will be attending then in Geneva—together with other well-known human rights activists—to join the youthful participants at March of the Living.

“Auschwitz is the most powerful symbol with which to memorialize evil found in Jewish history – in fact in the history of mankind,” said Cotler who also serves as the honorary co-chair of the International March of the Living Advisory Board. “It is a compelling reminder of the dangers of state-sanctioned incitement to hatred and genocide, and the indifference and inaction left in its wake. This global effort is a call to remembrance and action so that never again will we be indifferent in the face of mass atrocity and injustice.”

In addition to Cotler honorary co-chairs include: Dan Kurtzer, Lord Greville Janner, Jennifer Laszlo-Mizrahi, Tal Brody and Daniel Ayalon .

Since 1988, the March of the Living has brought over 140,000 students to Poland to participate in educational missions aimed at better understanding the horrors of the Holocaust.

The March of the Living, with an expected attendance of over 10,000 young people from around the world, will include a three kilometer march from Auschwitz to the death camp at Birkenau where over 1.5 million Jews perished. Most of the participants will then visit Israel during the week of that nation’s Memorial Day and Independence Day.

Shlomo Sand and shattering a national mythology

Shlomo SandShattering a ‘national mythology’ Shlomo Sand’s book is titled “When and How the Jewish People Was Invented?” and you probably will not find it stacked up on tables for sale in Barnes and Noble or Borders. I don’t expect it to be readily available for Colorado Springs librarian patrons either. Ask for it though.

The Haaretz interview:

Actually, most of your book does not deal with the invention of the Jewish people by modern Jewish nationalism, but rather with the question of where the Jews come from.

Sand: “My initial intention was to take certain kinds of modern historiographic materials and examine how they invented the ‘figment’ of the Jewish people. But when I began to confront the historiographic sources, I suddenly found contradictions. And then that urged me on: I started to work, without knowing where I would end up. I took primary sources and I tried to examine authors’ references in the ancient period – what they wrote about conversion.”

Experts on the history of the Jewish people say you are dealing with subjects about which you have no understanding and are basing yourself on works that you can’t read in the original.

“It is true that I am an historian of France and Europe, and not of the ancient period. I knew that the moment I would start dealing with early periods like these, I would be exposed to scathing criticism by historians who specialize in those areas. But I said to myself that I can’t stay just with modern historiographic material without examining the facts it describes. Had I not done this myself, it would have been necessary to have waited for an entire generation. Had I continued to deal with France, perhaps I would have been given chairs at the university and provincial glory. But I decided to relinquish the glory.”

Inventing the Diaspora

“After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people remained faithful to it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom” – thus states the preamble to the Israeli Declaration of Independence. This is also the quotation that opens the third chapter of Sand’s book, entitled “The Invention of the Diaspora.” Sand argues that the Jewish people’s exile from its land never happened.

“The supreme paradigm of exile was needed in order to construct a long-range memory in which an imagined and exiled nation-race was posited as the direct continuation of ‘the people of the Bible’ that preceded it,” Sand explains. Under the influence of other historians who have dealt with the same issue in recent years, he argues that the exile of the Jewish people is originally a Christian myth that depicted that event as divine punishment imposed on the Jews for having rejected the Christian gospel.

“I started looking in research studies about the exile from the land – a constitutive event in Jewish history, almost like the Holocaust. But to my astonishment I discovered that it has no literature. The reason is that no one exiled the people of the country. The Romans did not exile peoples and they could not have done so even if they had wanted to. They did not have trains and trucks to deport entire populations. That kind of logistics did not exist until the 20th century. From this, in effect, the whole book was born: in the realization that Judaic society was not dispersed and was not exiled.”

If the people was not exiled, are you saying that in fact the real descendants of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah are the Palestinians?

“No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years. But the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents. The first Zionists, up until the Arab Revolt [1936-9], knew that there had been no exiling, and that the Palestinians were descended from the inhabitants of the land. They knew that farmers don’t leave until they are expelled. Even Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second president of the State of Israel, wrote in 1929 that, ‘the vast majority of the peasant farmers do not have their origins in the Arab conquerors, but rather, before then, in the Jewish farmers who were numerous and a majority in the building of the land.'”

And how did millions of Jews appear around the Mediterranean Sea?

“The people did not spread, but the Jewish religion spread. Judaism was a converting religion. Contrary to popular opinion, in early Judaism there was a great thirst to convert others. The Hasmoneans were the first to begin to produce large numbers of Jews through mass conversion, under the influence of Hellenism. The conversions between the Hasmonean Revolt and Bar Kochba’s rebellion are what prepared the ground for the subsequent, wide-spread dissemination of Christianity. After the victory of Christianity in the fourth century, the momentum of conversion was stopped in the Christian world, and there was a steep drop in the number of Jews. Presumably many of the Jews who appeared around the Mediterranean became Christians. But then Judaism started to permeate other regions – pagan regions, for example, such as Yemen and North Africa. Had Judaism not continued to advance at that stage and had it not continued to convert people in the pagan world, we would have remained a completely marginal religion, if we survived at all.”

How did you come to the conclusion that the Jews of North Africa were originally Berbers who converted?

“I asked myself how such large Jewish communities appeared in Spain. And then I saw that Tariq ibn Ziyad, the supreme commander of the Muslims who conquered Spain, was a Berber, and most of his soldiers were Berbers. Dahia al-Kahina’s Jewish Berber kingdom had been defeated only 15 years earlier. And the truth is there are a number of Christian sources that say many of the conquerors of Spain were Jewish converts. The deep-rooted source of the large Jewish community in Spain was those Berber soldiers who converted to Judaism.”

Sand argues that the most crucial demographic addition to the Jewish population of the world came in the wake of the conversion of the kingdom of Khazaria – a huge empire that arose in the Middle Ages on the steppes along the Volga River, which at its height ruled over an area that stretched from the Georgia of today to Kiev. In the eighth century, the kings of the Khazars adopted the Jewish religion and made Hebrew the written language of the kingdom. From the 10th century the kingdom weakened; in the 13th century is was utterly defeated by Mongol invaders, and the fate of its Jewish inhabitants remains unclear.

Sand revives the hypothesis, which was already suggested by historians in the 19th and 20th centuries, according to which the Judaized Khazars constituted the main origins of the Jewish communities in Eastern Europe.

“At the beginning of the 20th century there is a tremendous concentration of Jews in Eastern Europe – three million Jews in Poland alone,” he says. “The Zionist historiography claims that their origins are in the earlier Jewish community in Germany, but they do not succeed in explaining how a small number of Jews who came from Mainz and Worms could have founded the Yiddish people of Eastern Europe. The Jews of Eastern Europe are a mixture of Khazars and Slavs who were pushed eastward.”

If the Jews of Eastern Europe did not come from Germany, why did they speak Yiddish, which is a Germanic language?

“The Jews were a class of people dependent on the German bourgeoisie in the East, and thus they adopted German words. Here I base myself on the research of linguist Paul Wechsler of Tel Aviv University, who has demonstrated that there is no etymological connection between the German Jewish language of the Middle Ages and Yiddish. As far back as 1828, the Ribal (Rabbi Isaac Ber Levinson) said that the ancient language of the Jews was not Yiddish. Even Ben Zion Dinur, the father of Israeli historiography, was not hesitant about describing the Khazars as the origin of the Jews in Eastern Europe, and describes Khazaria as ‘the mother of the diasporas’ in Eastern Europe. But more or less since 1967, anyone who talks about the Khazars as the ancestors of the Jews of Eastern Europe is considered naive and moonstruck.”

Why do you think the idea of the Khazar origins is so threatening?

“It is clear that the fear is of an undermining of the historic right to the land. The revelation that the Jews are not from Judea would ostensibly knock the legitimacy for our being here out from under us. Since the beginning of the period of decolonization, settlers have no longer been able to say simply: ‘We came, we won and now we are here’ the way the Americans, the whites in South Africa and the Australians said. There is a very deep fear that doubt will be cast on our right to exist.”

Is there no justification for this fear?

“No. I don’t think that the historical myth of the exile and the wanderings is the source of the legitimization for me being here, and therefore I don’t mind believing that I am Khazar in my origins. I am not afraid of the undermining of our existence, because I think that the character of the State of Israel undermines it in a much more serious way. What would constitute the basis for our existence here is not mythological historical right, but rather would be for us to start to establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens.”

In effect you are saying that there is no such thing as a Jewish people.

“I don’t recognize an international people. I recognize ‘the Yiddish people’ that existed in Eastern Europe, which though it is not a nation can be seen as a Yiddishist civilization with a modern popular culture. I think that Jewish nationalism grew up in the context of this ‘Yiddish people.’ I also recognize the existence of an Israeli people, and do not deny its right to sovereignty. But Zionism and also Arab nationalism over the years are not prepared to recognize it.

“From the perspective of Zionism, this country does not belong to its citizens, but rather to the Jewish people. I recognize one definition of a nation: a group of people that wants to live in sovereignty over itself. But most of the Jews in the world have no desire to live in the State of Israel, even though nothing is preventing them from doing so. Therefore, they cannot be seen as a nation.”

What is so dangerous about Jews imagining that they belong to one people? Why is this bad?

“In the Israeli discourse about roots there is a degree of perversion. This is an ethnocentric, biological, genetic discourse. But Israel has no existence as a Jewish state: If Israel does not develop and become an open, multicultural society we will have a Kosovo in the Galilee. The consciousness concerning the right to this place must be more flexible and varied, and if I have contributed with my book to the likelihood that I and my children will be able to live with the others here in this country in a more egalitarian situation – I will have done my bit.

“We must begin to work hard to transform our place into an Israeli republic where ethnic origin, as well as faith, will not be relevant in the eyes of the law. Anyone who is acquainted with the young elites of the Israeli Arab community can see that they will not agree to live in a country that declares it is not theirs. If I were a Palestinian I would rebel against a state like that, but even as an Israeli I am rebelling against it.”

The question is whether for those conclusions you had to go as far as the Kingdom of the Khazars.

“I am not hiding the fact that it is very distressing for me to live in a society in which the nationalist principles that guide it are dangerous, and that this distress has served as a motive in my work. I am a citizen of this country, but I am also a historian and as a historian it is my duty to write history and examine texts. This is what I have done.”

If the myth of Zionism is one of the Jewish people that returned to its land from exile, what will be the myth of the country you envision?

“To my mind, a myth about the future is better than introverted mythologies of the past. For the Americans, and today for the Europeans as well, what justifies the existence of the nation is a future promise of an open, progressive and prosperous society. The Israeli materials do exist, but it is necessary to add, for example, pan-Israeli holidays. To decrease the number of memorial days a bit and to add days that are dedicated to the future. But also, for example, to add an hour in memory of the Nakba [literally, the “catastrophe” – the Palestinian term for what happened when Israel was established], between Memorial Day and Independence Day.”

Fort Carson’s boot on your 4th of July

Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph July 4, 2008I just love the Gazette’s headline on their July 4th front page: POST IS KEEPING TABS ON ITS ‘BOOTPRINT’. Is it a cute eco play on words, or an ironic malapropism? About collateral damage, Rumsfeld famously said the US doesn’t do body counts. I am reminded of course of George’s Orwell’s foretelling: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”

Certainly the PR crew at Fort Carson meant to imply the equivalent of an environmental footprint in Army lingo. But footprint is itself no longer the literal track left behind you as you walk. It has come to mean the space you occupy, or the resources you consume. Or that of your computer or the printer on your desk for example. The portion of surface resources which each item displaces.

There must be a semantic fallacy which applies here, a mixed semaphore perhaps? As if you could tell me “put a sock in it.” And the Army would add “Put a BOOT in it. HA HA.”

If the Fort Carson sustainability spin doctors want to call the Army eco impact a “bootprint” instead, it probably is more accurate. Their activities have devastation-unleashing consequences. And as the interviews in the article reveal, the warrior’s real passion is in the warfare, hybred-whatsits be damned.

On this Independence Day when we’re all wishing ourselves “Happy” Patriotism, let’s reflect on the full context of Orwell’s 1984 passage:

Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

Where’s the independence on Independence Day?

American FlagThe Fourth of July is celebrated as America’s ‘Independence Day’ but where’s the independence? Sure, you’re free to get drunk, barbecue up some meat product on the grill, shoot fireworks off dangerously, and run your mouth about why one just supposedly has to vote for McCain or Obama, BUT…

Yes, but where’s the independence in Independence Day? If you have low expectations don’t worry about it OK? But some of us do think about it some and we’re still working on obtaining Independence for ourselves, our families, and our communities. There’s really little to celebrate yet.

Look, Independence Day was a flawed day from the very beginning, and just like our many other very flawed national holidays like ‘Columbus Day, Thanksgiving, etc., it just lacks real substance big time. Can’t you sense that? The Fourth of July is just a very shallow celebration, with the flag waving and all. Americans do not have independence. No, we have no more independence than a group of serfs under the King once did. We are merely blinder and more ignorant than the serfs were, it seems.

We live in a top down authoritarian society, and our lives are ordered around to the most minuscule detail. The not so hidden hand of authoritarianism is everywhere, and it tells us how to think, and what to do. Many of the more daft of us don’t see it much though. We’re too busy earning the bread, shopping for bread, and shitting to notice how society is actually arranged. We don’t quite know why so many of us are miserable?

We see the guns, we see the orders, we see the lack of respect, but many of us just can’t seem to figure anything out. So some go to church, some take dope, some just smoke their cigarettes. Some sell Mary Kay, some sell real estate, some sell Amway, or do Ebay. Some play the lottery, some play Bingo, some shoplift for their gambling instead. Indian Casino anybody?

All this supposedly is a sign of liberty and independence, according to the pundits! Watch TV, play public radio on KRCC… you’ll see what I am saying. They’ll do their puff pieces about the Fourth.

But seriously? Where’s the independence on Independence Day? I don’t see it. It’s just not there.

America- a nation founded on the abuse of law

America is a nation founded on the abuse of law. The original laws set up in the US during the Revolutionary Era were designed to disenfranchise women, slaves, and the Native population.

The only real revolutionary element to these laws was that they disenfranchised the power of the British King and British nobility, too. Because of that, the new US laws were considered radical for their time.

US law has been modified through the years, often only through bloody conflict. Still, the basic disenfranchisement of the common person remains the bedrock of American law. The law in the US is based on assessing the purchasing power of the individual. Those with little ability to purchase legal ‘rights’ get the book thrown at them, so to speak. Those with major purchasing power, write the books.

Understanding that the US is a nation historically founded on abuse of law to disenfranchise people helps us better understand how the US court systems have consistently allowed torture of prisoners to occur. A recent case ruling is illustrative of how rampant the abuse of law in the US really is… Judge Won’t Inquire Into CIA Tapes Case

Here, we see that a judge summarily refuses to investigate the destruction of evidence of abuse and torture of prisoners by the government. This ruling is not an aberration in American law. In fact, it is par for the course.

Law today does not protect us in America. Law abuses us and we should look towards trying to modify the abuse of law as has had to be done previously for slaves, women, and Native Americans. The modifications and changes in the previous abuse of American law that were made in the past, are far from being enough to protect us today.

Today, the whole American legal apparatus is a structure more guaranteed to deny us rights, than to guarantee that we have them. We need another Revolutionary Era that could change that. Without it, we will continue to be a nation where the common citizenry is more abused by law enforcement than protected by it. In a way, the police today are every bit as much the king’s men as they were before Independence Day, 1776.