Next to the White House

While visiting Washington DC in March, I found it interesting to note the edifices closest to the White House.
The Executive Office Building

EAST, WEST
The neighbor to the immediate East of the Obama’s White House is the Department of the Treasury. Is that any surprise? Of course not, but how bourgeois! I could imagine Scrooge McDuck sneaking across the White House garden twice a day to check his reserves. To the West is what we now call the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building. It’s the site of the suspicious office fires which may or may not have masked a recent vice-president’s misdeeds. The edifice looks straight out of A Series of Unfortunate Events, and check out the plaque which commemorates what the building used to be called:

State War and Navy Departments

Probably that should be no surprise as well: the White house sandwiched between Treasury and War. “State, War and Navy.” How so much less duplicitous than the “Department of Defense.”

SOUTHWEST
Behind the former War offices, to the Southwest of the White House, lies the war memorial to end all war memorials. It’s the WWI Memorial, of considerably diminutive size compared to those commemorations of subsequent wars which have spilled unto the Mall, but its form followed the convention of the typical Great War monuments erected throughout Europe among the nations who had participated.

WWI monument to US Army Expeditionary Force

Except the American version is dedicated to the “Expeditionary Forces” which I just love. That’s what WWI was about for the US. The trenches of Europe were no place Americans needed to defend their freedom. The troops we sent, to relieve France and England, represented a foreign expedition, exactly that. More precisely, our troops were an R&D expedition for our blustering capitalists.

(This may be no time or place to note that history books do not link America’s WWI experience with the Influenza outbreak of 1917-18, which began in the barracks of US soldiers being mobilized for war. American soldiers took their flu to Europe and ultimately killed 50 million people. Those were not the days before we knew better to stay home to prevent infecting others.)

The US entry into WWI was bitterly opposed by a peace movement which the war-opportunist-profiteers maligned as isolationist. Selfish globalization-denying isolationism has been the slander ever since, used against anyone who tries to block military interventions in all their guises.

Ultimately WWI was no affair of ours, had the Huns emerged victorious, American foreign affairs would hardly have changed. Our foreign trading partners would have numbered more Germans, that’s all. But it’s useless to compare alternative outcomes of WWI, all things staying constant, because America participated and profited wildly.

If American investors had not jumped in Over There, the greatest business opportunities of blossoming industrialism would have been missed. The opportunities offered by the Europeans fighting amongst themselves, proved to have been momentous.

And here was the monument to those lost American lives, sacrificed so that American industrial might, in particular the new banking monopolists, could seize the European spheres of influence throughout the world. Of course the lost lives of the American Expeditionary Force were remembered thus:

“…WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES IN THE WORLD WAR THAT LIBERTY AND THE IDEALS OF OUR COUNTRY MIGHT ENDURE”

It would take another World War for the US to appropriate the colonies and oil fields by means of contracts and loans, with the leverage of coming to their aid again, this time armed with lend-lease bills.

SOUTHEAST
To the Southeast of the White House, across the back lawn, lies the monument antecedent to the Great War. It’s the Civil War Memorial, atop which rides the triumphant General William Tecumseh Sherman. (Who, to be fair, presided over the War Department for a long stretch after the Civil War, actually this nation’s longest peacetime period.)

Sherman monumentCurious that I chose to crop his personage from my pictures, but my eyes were drawn to the lesser figures around the base of the monument, in particular, a half naked woman.

The memorial seemed to include various uniformed Civil War participants. How egalitarian to include a woman. But this woman was no French Revolutionary with breast bared oblivious as she rallied her comrades to victory. This delicate woman was unarmed and stripped to the waist, her children in tattered rags at her feet.

Could this statue be offering another conceit to the reality of war, to Sherman’s March to the sea, to the burning of Atlanta, to the shameful destruction he visited on the secessionist South? Was this a nod to the real role given to Women in war, their sons and husbands taken from them, a non-combatant left helpless to defend her children or herself. Did the shirt torn from her body confess to the woman’s rape?

More probably the feminine likeness personified man’s attraction to war, a soldier’s predilection for her beauty. How many war monuments memorialize as they also beacon?

Much of the terrain around the White House grounds is blocked off by secondary and tertiary security perimeters. But for the arrival of bus unloadng its visitors to see it, the Civil War Monument is normally cordoned off. When I had passed it earlier, a balaclava-clad guard was blocking the only entrance.

SOUTH
The grassy expanse immediately South of the White House, permitting the First Family an uninterrupted view of the National Mall, has actually been given over to parking permits. The loop of asphalt across the lawn, with cars strewn diagonally along the edges, gives the unfortunate impression of overflow event parking. In any other neighborhood, the crowd of cars would be a dead giveaway that someone on the block was having a party.

UN says Darfur conflict now much less deadly than before

Even as inter-fighting between former rebel groups in Southern Sudan has recently killed hundreds (See SUDAN: Fresh clashes in Jonglei State “worrisome” – UN official.) , the UN has just come out with a report that states that the fighting inside Darfur has become much less deadly than before.

That’s bad news for Israel and the US whose governments both want the option to militarily intervene against Sudan’s central government at will and in total disregard to international law. See Darfur is now a “low-intensity conflict”: U.N

Sudan is a huge country (as big as all of Western Europe together) and one that is destitute in most regions. That simply gives other more powerful countries, a big eye toward dividing it up like has been already been done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Long term this division can only hurt the peoples of the region though, so hopefully the Sudanese peoples can come together some, but this will most likely only happen if foreign powers ae kept out of the conflicts inside Sudan? That’s unfortunately a big IF since so many want to make US intervention against Sudan’s central government a cause celebre.

Cornmeal

maize mealLack of money to pay for higher priced cornmeal is what is helping starve millions in Southern Sudan, Kenya, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Somalia, and elsewhere in Africa. Many are just a few weeks from dying because they can’t buy the cornmeal at current prices.
 
See:
ZAMBIA: A better meal than maize-meal.
and:
Facing hunger in Kenya’s Kajiado.

Why not send the cornmeal in, instead of sending in the troops, setting up ‘no fly zones’, and spending money on ‘pirate control’? Not to mention all that money being spent on supplying those US troops spread all around the globe with their daily rations of hamburger with cheese? Where’s the humanitarian interventionism?

Because your government is so horrible you can do your own personal part in helping people out here. Go to any dollar store and buy a couple of dollar bags of corn meal, then go the post office, get the stamps and send it off to…

Starving Child Aid
c/o Barack Obama
White House USA

with a note…

Please make sure this food gets to countries in Africa where the poor can’t buy cornmeal because you are spending so damn much world $$$ on ‘missile shields’, wars on drugs, wars on a ghost called global terrorism, and the war against common sense.

Thank you,
Mr. President

Then again? …better yet, just send it straight to…

Starving Child
Postal service of
African Country with increasing hunger

It would get there then perhaps? Less corruption.

Yuppie Feminist Brigade comes to life on behalf of US Imperialism in Afghanistan

hollywoodIt’s impossible to make this yuppie humanitarian interventionist lunacy up on our own, and since we at Not My Tribe have talked so much about Greg Mortenson and his Three Cups of Tea, why not take a quick look at Jay Leno’s wife’s new “cause celebre.” See: Jay and Mavis Leno turn serious about the plight of Afghan women.

Move over Darfur. Move over Tibet. There’s a new ‘In’ thing for yuppie America to focus its tears on. And the new team has on board CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, former National Organization for Women President Eleanor Smeal, knuckle chinned Jay Leno and wife, and wait!!! …where’s Madelyn Albright? It must just be a matter of time before she and the President’s wife come into the act, too! Whooppee! The Imperial Yuppie Feminist Brigade is now coming to life to save women in Afghanistan! Move over Greg Mortenson!

Humanitarian interventionism tied now to terrorist extermination by Pentagon drone! Isn’t this all so sweet? I know that the Muslim women of occupied Afghanistan must just be so happy about this ‘aid’.

Bombs away! Bombs away with NOW, Ms. Magazine, and the ‘Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission’ propaganda drops on dumb-founded America, too! Hollywood America appeals to Shopping Mall America to CARE!

The Bolsheviks had the right idea…

As far as ending World War One.

Since the issue was raised that the United States intervention in 1917 was what ended the war.

Silly on the face of it and sillier still the further you delve into the idea.

Britain and the rest of the Triple Entente (although there were far more than three of them) had the propaganda going about “That Small nations might have the same rights as the Great Powers”.

Just not nations like Ireland, India, China, Kenya, VietNam (only “our” French allies were calling it “Cochin China”… Cochin is French for “pig”) the Congo, the Sudan, South Africa… you know, the Small Nations inhabited by those the European Royalists considered “inferior”.

So while the Band of Cousins, related by blood and by their arrogance, sent “their” subjects to do bayonet charges against poison gas and belt-fed water-cooled machine guns, eventually, the worst of the lot, Cousin Nicholas Romanoff, pissed off his Peasant Slaves errr Lawfully Appointed Subjects to the point that they got sick of it, and gave him and his Demon Spawn family exactly what they deserved..

If it had spread much further, and the American intervention was the only thing the “free” nations had to end it…(Free to Obey Your King as though he were anointed by God) (and the Royalists still believe that they ACTUALLY ARE anointed by God)

If there were no American intervention the general mutiny that was building in ALL the trenches, French, Belgian, English, Turkish, German, Austrian… the same way it had amongst the Russian Conscripts, would have reached it’s natural apex, and they would have gotten rid of THEIR parasite class the same way the Russian people had.

The war would have ended a lot sooner, and even the Spanish Influenza epidemic might have been averted.

And since it wouldn’t have ended on terms imposed by the “victors”… it would actually have been over.

Instead of, you know, our generation still fighting the same war, different battles.

Ward Churchill: Some People Push Back

British edition titled Reflections on the Justice of Roosting ChickensHere is Ward Churchill’s notorious 9/11 “Little Eichmanns” essay, published online September 12, 2001, presented here for archival purposes lest critics think they can silence one of our nation’s strongest dissenting voices. Churchill later expanded this piece into a book entitled On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: reflections on the consequences of U.S. imperial arrogance and criminality published by AK Press in 2003.

Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens
by Ward Churchill

When queried by reporters concerning his views on the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963, Malcolm X famously – and quite charitably, all things considered – replied that it was merely a case of “chickens coming home to roost.”

On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens – along with some half-million dead Iraqi children – came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York’s World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well.

The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable – in fact, widely predicted – result of the 1991 US “surgical” bombing of their country’s water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other “infrastructural” targets upon which Iraq’s civilian population depends for its very survival.

If the nature of the bombing were not already bad enough – and it should be noted that this sort of “aerial warfare” constitutes a Class I Crime Against humanity, entailing myriad gross violations of international law, as well as every conceivable standard of “civilized” behavior – the death toll has been steadily ratcheted up by US-imposed sanctions for a full decade now. Enforced all the while by a massive military presence and periodic bombing raids, the embargo has greatly impaired the victims’ ability to import the nutrients, medicines and other materials necessary to saving the lives of even their toddlers.

All told, Iraq has a population of about 18 million. The 500,000 kids lost to date thus represent something on the order of 25 percent of their age group. Indisputably, the rest have suffered – are still suffering – a combination of physical debilitation and psychological trauma severe enough to prevent their ever fully recovering. In effect, an entire generation has been obliterated.

The reason for this holocaust was/is rather simple, and stated quite straightforwardly by President George Bush, the 41st “freedom-loving” father of the freedom-lover currently filling the Oval Office, George the 43rd: “The world must learn that what we say, goes,” intoned George the Elder to the enthusiastic applause of freedom-loving Americans everywhere. How Old George conveyed his message was certainly no mystery to the US public. One need only recall the 24-hour-per-day dissemination of bombardment videos on every available TV channel, and the exceedingly high ratings of these telecasts, to gain a sense of how much they knew.

In trying to affix a meaning to such things, we would do well to remember the wave of elation that swept America at reports of what was happening along the so-called Highway of Death: perhaps 100,000 “towel-heads” and “camel jockeys” – or was it “sand niggers” that week? – in full retreat, routed and effectively defenseless, many of them conscripted civilian laborers, slaughtered in a single day by jets firing the most hyper-lethal types of ordnance. It was a performance worthy of the nazis during the early months of their drive into Russia. And it should be borne in mind that Good Germans gleefully cheered that butchery, too. Indeed, support for Hitler suffered no serious erosion among Germany’s “innocent civilians” until the defeat at Stalingrad in 1943.

There may be a real utility to reflecting further, this time upon the fact that it was pious Americans who led the way in assigning the onus of collective guilt to the German people as a whole, not for things they as individuals had done, but for what they had allowed – nay, empowered – their leaders and their soldiers to do in their name.

If the principle was valid then, it remains so now, as applicable to Good Americans as it was the Good Germans. And the price exacted from the Germans for the faultiness of their moral fiber was truly ghastly. Returning now to the children, and to the effects of the post-Gulf War embargo – continued bull force by Bush the Elder’s successors in the Clinton administration as a gesture of its “resolve” to finalize what George himself had dubbed the “New World Order” of American military/economic domination – it should be noted that not one but two high United Nations officials attempting to coordinate delivery of humanitarian aid to Iraq resigned in succession as protests against US policy.

One of them, former U.N. Assistant Secretary General Denis Halladay, repeatedly denounced what was happening as “a systematic program . . . of deliberate genocide.” His statements appeared in the New York Times and other papers during the fall of 1998, so it can hardly be contended that the American public was “unaware” of them. Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Madeline Albright openly confirmed Halladay’s assessment. Asked during the widely-viewed TV program Meet the Press to respond to his “allegations,” she calmly announced that she’d decided it was “worth the price” to see that U.S. objectives were achieved.

The Politics of a Perpetrator Population
As a whole, the American public greeted these revelations with yawns.. There were, after all, far more pressing things than the unrelenting misery/death of a few hundred thousand Iraqi tikes to be concerned with. Getting “Jeremy” and “Ellington” to their weekly soccer game, for instance, or seeing to it that little “Tiffany” and “Ashley” had just the right roll-neck sweaters to go with their new cords. And, to be sure, there was the yuppie holy war against ashtrays – for “our kids,” no less – as an all-absorbing point of political focus.

In fairness, it must be admitted that there was an infinitesimally small segment of the body politic who expressed opposition to what was/is being done to the children of Iraq. It must also be conceded, however, that those involved by-and-large contented themselves with signing petitions and conducting candle-lit prayer vigils, bearing “moral witness” as vast legions of brown-skinned five-year-olds sat shivering in the dark, wide-eyed in horror, whimpering as they expired in the most agonizing ways imaginable.

Be it said as well, and this is really the crux of it, that the “resistance” expended the bulk of its time and energy harnessed to the systemically-useful task of trying to ensure, as “a principle of moral virtue” that nobody went further than waving signs as a means of “challenging” the patently exterminatory pursuit of Pax Americana. So pure of principle were these “dissidents,” in fact, that they began literally to supplant the police in protecting corporations profiting by the carnage against suffering such retaliatory “violence” as having their windows broken by persons less “enlightened” – or perhaps more outraged – than the self-anointed “peacekeepers.”

Property before people, it seems – or at least the equation of property to people – is a value by no means restricted to America’s boardrooms. And the sanctimony with which such putrid sentiments are enunciated turns out to be nauseatingly similar, whether mouthed by the CEO of Standard Oil or any of the swarm of comfort zone “pacifists” queuing up to condemn the black block after it ever so slightly disturbed the functioning of business-as-usual in Seattle.

Small wonder, all-in-all, that people elsewhere in the world – the Mideast, for instance – began to wonder where, exactly, aside from the streets of the US itself, one was to find the peace America’s purportedly oppositional peacekeepers claimed they were keeping.

The answer, surely, was plain enough to anyone unblinded by the kind of delusions engendered by sheer vanity and self-absorption. So, too, were the implications in terms of anything changing, out there, in America’s free-fire zones.

Tellingly, it was at precisely this point – with the genocide in Iraq officially admitted and a public response demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were virtually no Americans, including most of those professing otherwise, doing anything tangible to stop it – that the combat teams which eventually commandeered the aircraft used on September 11 began to infiltrate the United States.

Meet the “Terrorists”
Of the men who came, there are a few things demanding to be said in the face of the unending torrent of disinformational drivel unleashed by George Junior and the corporate “news” media immediately following their successful operation on September 11.

They did not, for starters, “initiate” a war with the US, much less commit “the first acts of war of the new millennium.”

A good case could be made that the war in which they were combatants has been waged more-or-less continuously by the “Christian West” – now proudly emblematized by the United States – against the “Islamic East” since the time of the First Crusade, about 1,000 years ago. More recently, one could argue that the war began when Lyndon Johnson first lent significant support to Israel’s dispossession/displacement of Palestinians during the 1960s, or when George the Elder ordered “Desert Shield” in 1990, or at any of several points in between. Any way you slice it, however, if what the combat teams did to the WTC and the Pentagon can be understood as acts of war – and they can – then the same is true of every US “overflight’ of Iraqi territory since day one. The first acts of war during the current millennium thus occurred on its very first day, and were carried out by U.S. aviators acting under orders from their then-commander-in-chief, Bill Clinton. The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course.

That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint.

They did not license themselves to “target innocent civilians.”

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire – the “mighty engine of profit” to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to “ignorance” – a derivative, after all, of the word “ignore” – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.

The men who flew the missions against the WTC and Pentagon were not “cowards.” That distinction properly belongs to the “firm-jawed lads” who delighted in flying stealth aircraft through the undefended airspace of Baghdad, dropping payload after payload of bombs on anyone unfortunate enough to be below – including tens of thousands of genuinely innocent civilians – while themselves incurring all the risk one might expect during a visit to the local video arcade. Still more, the word describes all those “fighting men and women” who sat at computer consoles aboard ships in the Persian Gulf, enjoying air-conditioned comfort while launching cruise missiles into neighborhoods filled with random human beings. Whatever else can be said of them, the men who struck on September 11 manifested the courage of their convictions, willingly expending their own lives in attaining their objectives.

Nor were they “fanatics” devoted to “Islamic fundamentalism.”

One might rightly describe their actions as “desperate.” Feelings of desperation, however, are a perfectly reasonable – one is tempted to say “normal” – emotional response among persons confronted by the mass murder of their children, particularly when it appears that nobody else really gives a damn (ask a Jewish survivor about this one, or, even more poignantly, for all the attention paid them, a Gypsy).

That desperate circumstances generate desperate responses is no mysterious or irrational principle, of the sort motivating fanatics. Less is it one peculiar to Islam. Indeed, even the FBI’s investigative reports on the combat teams’ activities during the months leading up to September 11 make it clear that the members were not fundamentalist Muslims. Rather, it’s pretty obvious at this point that they were secular activists – soldiers, really – who, while undoubtedly enjoying cordial relations with the clerics of their countries, were motivated far more by the grisly realities of the U.S. war against them than by a set of religious beliefs.

And still less were they/their acts “insane.”

Insanity is a condition readily associable with the very American idea that one – or one’s country – holds what amounts to a “divine right” to commit genocide, and thus to forever do so with impunity. The term might also be reasonably applied to anyone suffering genocide without attempting in some material way to bring the process to a halt. Sanity itself, in this frame of reference, might be defined by a willingness to try and destroy the perpetrators and/or the sources of their ability to commit their crimes. (Shall we now discuss the US “strategic bombing campaign” against Germany during World War II, and the mental health of those involved in it?)

Which takes us to official characterizations of the combat teams as an embodiment of “evil.”

Evil – for those inclined to embrace the banality of such a concept – was perfectly incarnated in that malignant toad known as Madeline Albright, squatting in her studio chair like Jaba the Hutt, blandly spewing the news that she’d imposed a collective death sentence upon the unoffending youth of Iraq. Evil was to be heard in that great American hero “Stormin’ Norman” Schwartzkopf’s utterly dehumanizing dismissal of their systematic torture and annihilation as mere “collateral damage.” Evil, moreover, is a term appropriate to describing the mentality of a public that finds such perspectives and the policies attending them acceptable, or even momentarily tolerable.

Had it not been for these evils, the counterattacks of September 11 would never have occurred. And unless “the world is rid of such evil,” to lift a line from George Junior, September 11 may well end up looking like a lark.

There is no reason, after all, to believe that the teams deployed in the assaults on the WTC and the Pentagon were the only such, that the others are composed of “Arabic-looking individuals” – America’s indiscriminately lethal arrogance and psychotic sense of self-entitlement have long since given the great majority of the world’s peoples ample cause to be at war with it – or that they are in any way dependent upon the seizure of civilian airliners to complete their missions.

To the contrary, there is every reason to expect that there are many other teams in place, tasked to employ altogether different tactics in executing operational plans at least as well-crafted as those evident on September 11, and very well equipped for their jobs. This is to say that, since the assaults on the WTC and Pentagon were act of war – not “terrorist incidents” – they must be understood as components in a much broader strategy designed to achieve specific results. From this, it can only be adduced that there are plenty of other components ready to go, and that they will be used, should this become necessary in the eyes of the strategists. It also seems a safe bet that each component is calibrated to inflict damage at a level incrementally higher than the one before (during the 1960s, the Johnson administration employed a similar policy against Vietnam, referred to as “escalation”).

Since implementation of the overall plan began with the WTC/Pentagon assaults, it takes no rocket scientist to decipher what is likely to happen next, should the U.S. attempt a response of the inexcusable variety to which it has long entitled itself.

About Those Boys (and Girls) in the Bureau
There’s another matter begging for comment at this point. The idea that the FBI’s “counterterrorism task forces” can do a thing to prevent what will happen is yet another dimension of America’s delusional pathology.. The fact is that, for all its publicly-financed “image-building” exercises, the Bureau has never shown the least aptitude for anything of the sort.

Oh, yeah, FBI counterintelligence personnel have proven quite adept at framing anarchists, communists and Black Panthers, sometimes murdering them in their beds or the electric chair. The Bureau’s SWAT units have displayed their ability to combat child abuse in Waco by burning babies alive, and its vaunted Crime Lab has been shown to pad its “crime-fighting’ statistics by fabricating evidence against many an alleged car thief. But actual “heavy-duty bad guys” of the sort at issue now? This isn’t a Bruce Willis/Chuck Norris/Sly Stallone movie, after all.. And J. Edgar Hoover doesn’t get to approve either the script or the casting.

The number of spies, saboteurs and bona fide terrorists apprehended, or even detected by the FBI in the course of its long and slimy history could be counted on one’s fingers and toes. On occasion, its agents have even turned out to be the spies, and, in many instances, the terrorists as well.

To be fair once again, if the Bureau functions as at best a carnival of clowns where its “domestic security responsibilities” are concerned, this is because – regardless of official hype – it has none. It is now, as it’s always been, the national political police force, an instrument created and perfected to ensure that all Americans, not just the consenting mass, are “free” to do exactly as they’re told.

The FBI and “cooperating agencies” can be thus relied upon to set about “protecting freedom” by destroying whatever rights and liberties were left to U.S. citizens before September 11 (in fact, they’ve already received authorization to begin). Sheeplike, the great majority of Americans can also be counted upon to bleat their approval, at least in the short run, believing as they always do that the nasty implications of what they’re doing will pertain only to others.

Oh Yeah, and “The Company,” Too

A possibly even sicker joke is the notion, suddenly in vogue, that the CIA will be able to pinpoint “terrorist threats,” “rooting out their infrastructure” where it exists and/or “terminating” it before it can materialize, if only it’s allowed to beef up its “human intelligence gathering capacity” in an unrestrained manner (including full-bore operations inside the US, of course).

Yeah. Right.

Since America has a collective attention-span of about 15 minutes, a little refresher seems in order: “The Company” had something like a quarter-million people serving as “intelligence assets” by feeding it information in Vietnam in 1968, and it couldn’t even predict the Tet Offensive. God knows how many spies it was fielding against the USSR at the height of Ronald Reagan’s version of the Cold War, and it was still caught flatfooted by the collapse of the Soviet Union. As to destroying “terrorist infrastructures,” one would do well to remember Operation Phoenix, another product of its open season in Vietnam. In that one, the CIA enlisted elite US units like the Navy Seals and Army Special Forces, as well as those of friendly countries – the south Vietnamese Rangers, for example, and Australian SAS – to run around “neutralizing” folks targeted by The Company’s legion of snitches as “guerrillas” (as those now known as “terrorists” were then called).

Sound familiar?

Upwards of 40,000 people – mostly bystanders, as it turns out – were murdered by Phoenix hit teams before the guerrillas, stronger than ever, ran the US and its collaborators out of their country altogether. And these are the guys who are gonna save the day, if unleashed to do their thing in North America?

The net impact of all this “counterterrorism” activity upon the combat teams’ ability to do what they came to do, of course, will be nil.

Instead, it’s likely to make it easier for them to operate (it’s worked that way in places like Northern Ireland). And, since denying Americans the luxury of reaping the benefits of genocide in comfort was self-evidently a key objective of the WTC/Pentagon assaults, it can be stated unequivocally that a more overt display of the police state mentality already pervading this country simply confirms the magnitude of their victory.

On Matters of Proportion and Intent
As things stand, including the 1993 detonation at the WTC, “Arab terrorists” have responded to the massive and sustained American terror bombing of Iraq with a total of four assaults by explosives inside the US. That’s about 1% of the 50,000 bombs the Pentagon announced were rained on Baghdad alone during the Gulf War (add in Oklahoma City and you’ll get something nearer an actual 1%).

They’ve managed in the process to kill about 5,000 Americans, or roughly 1% of the dead Iraqi children (the percentage is far smaller if you factor in the killing of adult Iraqi civilians, not to mention troops butchered as/after they’d surrendered and/or after the “war-ending” ceasefire had been announced).

In terms undoubtedly more meaningful to the property/profit-minded American mainstream, they’ve knocked down a half-dozen buildings – albeit some very well-chosen ones – as opposed to the “strategic devastation” visited upon the whole of Iraq, and punched a $100 billion hole in the earnings outlook of major corporate shareholders, as opposed to the U.S. obliteration of Iraq’s entire economy.

With that, they’ve given Americans a tiny dose of their own medicine.. This might be seen as merely a matter of “vengeance” or “retribution,” and, unquestionably, America has earned it, even if it were to add up only to something so ultimately petty.

The problem is that vengeance is usually framed in terms of “getting even,” a concept which is plainly inapplicable in this instance. As the above data indicate, it would require another 49,996 detonations killing 495,000 more Americans, for the “terrorists” to “break even” for the bombing of Baghdad/extermination of Iraqi children alone. And that’s to achieve “real number” parity. To attain an actual proportional parity of damage – the US is about 15 times as large as Iraq in terms of population, even more in terms of territory – they would, at a minimum, have to blow up about 300,000 more buildings and kill something on the order of 7.5 million people.

Were this the intent of those who’ve entered the US to wage war against it, it would remain no less true that America and Americans were only receiving the bill for what they’d already done. Payback, as they say, can be a real motherfucker (ask the Germans). There is, however, no reason to believe that retributive parity is necessarily an item on the agenda of those who planned the WTC/Pentagon operation. If it were, given the virtual certainty that they possessed the capacity to have inflicted far more damage than they did, there would be a lot more American bodies lying about right now.

Hence, it can be concluded that ravings carried by the “news” media since September 11 have contained at least one grain of truth: The peoples of the Mideast “aren’t like” Americans, not least because they don’t “value life’ in the same way. By this, it should be understood that Middle-Easterners, unlike Americans, have no history of exterminating others purely for profit, or on the basis of racial animus. Thus, we can appreciate the fact that they value life – all lives, not just their own – far more highly than do their U.S. counterparts.

The Makings of a Humanitarian Strategy
In sum one can discern a certain optimism – it might even be call humanitarianism – imbedded in the thinking of those who presided over the very limited actions conducted on September 11.

Their logic seems to have devolved upon the notion that the American people have condoned what has been/is being done in their name – indeed, are to a significant extent actively complicit in it – mainly because they have no idea what it feels like to be on the receiving end.

Now they do.

That was the “medicinal” aspect of the attacks.

To all appearances, the idea is now to give the tonic a little time to take effect, jolting Americans into the realization that the sort of pain they’re now experiencing first-hand is no different from – or the least bit more excruciating than – that which they’ve been so cavalier in causing others, and thus to respond appropriately.

More bluntly, the hope was – and maybe still is – that Americans, stripped of their presumed immunity from incurring any real consequences for their behavior, would comprehend and act upon a formulation as uncomplicated as “stop killing our kids, if you want your own to be safe.”

Either way, it’s a kind of “reality therapy” approach, designed to afford the American people a chance to finally “do the right thing” on their own, without further coaxing.

Were the opportunity acted upon in some reasonably good faith fashion – a sufficiently large number of Americans rising up and doing whatever is necessary to force an immediate lifting of the sanctions on Iraq, for instance, or maybe hanging a few of America’s abundant supply of major war criminals (Henry Kissinger comes quickly to mind, as do Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton and George the Elder) – there is every reason to expect that military operations against the US on its domestic front would be immediately suspended.

Whether they would remain so would of course be contingent upon follow-up. By that, it may be assumed that American acceptance of onsite inspections by international observers to verify destruction of its weapons of mass destruction (as well as dismantlement of all facilities in which more might be manufactured), Nuremberg-style trials in which a few thousand US military/corporate personnel could be properly adjudicated and punished for their Crimes Against humanity, and payment of reparations to the array of nations/peoples whose assets the US has plundered over the years, would suffice.

Since they’ve shown no sign of being unreasonable or vindictive, it may even be anticipated that, after a suitable period of adjustment and reeducation (mainly to allow them to acquire the skills necessary to living within their means), those restored to control over their own destinies by the gallant sacrifices of the combat teams the WTC and Pentagon will eventually (re)admit Americans to the global circle of civilized societies. Stranger things have happened.

In the Alternative
Unfortunately, noble as they may have been, such humanitarian aspirations were always doomed to remain unfulfilled. For it to have been otherwise, a far higher quality of character and intellect would have to prevail among average Americans than is actually the case. Perhaps the strategists underestimated the impact a couple of generations-worth of media indoctrination can produce in terms of demolishing the capacity of human beings to form coherent thoughts. Maybe they forgot to factor in the mind-numbing effects of the indoctrination passed off as education in the US. Then, again, it’s entirely possible they were aware that a decisive majority of American adults have been reduced by this point to a level much closer to the kind of immediate self-gratification entailed in Pavlovian stimulus/response patterns than anything accessible by appeals to higher logic, and still felt morally obliged to offer the dolts an option to quit while they were ahead.

What the hell? It was worth a try.

But it’s becoming increasingly apparent that the dosage of medicine administered was entirely insufficient to accomplish its purpose.

Although there are undoubtedly exceptions, Americans for the most part still don’t get it.

Already, they’ve desecrated the temporary tomb of those killed in the WTC, staging a veritable pep rally atop the mangled remains of those they profess to honor, treating the whole affair as if it were some bizarre breed of contact sport. And, of course, there are the inevitable pom-poms shaped like American flags, the school colors worn as little red-white-and-blue ribbons affixed to labels, sportscasters in the form of “counterterrorism experts” drooling mindless color commentary during the pregame warm-up.

Refusing the realization that the world has suddenly shifted its axis, and that they are therefore no longer “in charge,” they have by-and-large reverted instantly to type, working themselves into their usual bloodlust on the now obsolete premise that the bloodletting will “naturally” occur elsewhere and to someone else.

“Patriotism,” a wise man once observed, “is the last refuge of scoundrels.”

And the braided, he might of added.

Braided Scoundrel-in-Chief, George Junior, lacking even the sense to be careful what he wished for, has teamed up with a gaggle of fundamentalist Christian clerics like Billy Graham to proclaim a “New Crusade” called “Infinite Justice” aimed at “ridding the world of evil.”

One could easily make light of such rhetoric, remarking upon how unseemly it is for a son to threaten his father in such fashion – or a president to so publicly contemplate the murder/suicide of himself and his cabinet – but the matter is deadly serious.

They are preparing once again to sally forth for the purpose of roasting brown-skinned children by the scores of thousands. Already, the B-1 bombers and the aircraft carriers and the missile frigates are en route, the airborne divisions are gearing up to go.

To where? Afghanistan?

The Sudan?

Iraq, again (or still)?

How about Grenada (that was fun)?

Any of them or all. It doesn’t matter.

The desire to pummel the helpless runs rabid as ever.

Only, this time it’s different.

The time the helpless aren’t, or at least are not so helpless as they were.

This time, somewhere, perhaps in an Afghani mountain cave, possibly in a Brooklyn basement, maybe another local altogether – but somewhere, all the same – there’s a grim-visaged (wo)man wearing a Clint Eastwood smile.

“Go ahead, punks,” s/he’s saying, “Make my day.”

And when they do, when they launch these airstrikes abroad – or may a little later; it will be at a time conforming to the “terrorists”‘ own schedule, and at a place of their choosing – the next more intensive dose of medicine administered here “at home.”

Of what will it consist this time? Anthrax? Mustard gas? Sarin? A tactical nuclear device?

That, too, is their choice to make.

Looking back, it will seem to future generations inexplicable why Americans were unable on their own, and in time to save themselves, to accept a rule of nature so basic that it could be mouthed by an actor, Lawrence Fishburn, in a movie, The Cotton Club.

“You’ve got to learn, ” the line went, “that when you push people around, some people push back.”

As they should.

As they must.

And as they undoubtedly will.

There is justice in such symmetry.

ADDENDUM
The preceding was a “first take” reading, more a stream-of-consciousness interpretive reaction to the September 11 counterattack than a finished piece on the topic. Hence, I’ll readily admit that I’ve been far less than thorough, and quite likely wrong about a number of things.

For instance, it may not have been (only) the ghosts of Iraqi children who made their appearance that day. It could as easily have been some or all of their butchered Palestinian cousins.

Or maybe it was some or all of the at least 3.2 million Indochinese who perished as a result of America’s sustained and genocidal assault on Southeast Asia (1959-1975), not to mention the millions more who’ve died because of the sanctions imposed thereafter.

Perhaps there were a few of the Korean civilians massacred by US troops at places like No Gun Ri during the early ‘50s, or the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians ruthlessly incinerated in the ghastly fire raids of World War II (only at Dresden did America bomb Germany in a similar manner).

And, of course, it could have been those vaporized in the militarily pointless nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There are others, as well, a vast and silent queue of faceless victims, stretching from the million-odd Filipinos slaughtered during America’s “Indian War” in their islands at the beginning of the twentieth century, through the real Indians, America’s own, massacred wholesale at places like Horseshoe Bend and the Bad Axe, Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, the Washita, Bear River, and the Marias.

Was it those who expired along the Cherokee Trial of Tears of the Long Walk of the Navajo?

Those murdered by smallpox at Fort Clark in 1836?

Starved to death in the concentration camp at Bosque Redondo during the 1860s?

Maybe those native people claimed for scalp bounty in all 48 of the continental US states? Or the Raritans whose severed heads were kicked for sport along the streets of what was then called New Amsterdam, at the very site where the WTC once stood?

One hears, too, the whispers of those lost on the Middle Passage, and of those whose very flesh was sold in the slave market outside the human kennel from whence Wall Street takes its name. And of coolie laborers, imported by the gross-dozen to lay the tracks of empire across scorching desert sands, none of them allotted “a Chinaman’s chance” of surviving.

The list is too long, too awful to go on.

No matter what its eventual fate, America will have gotten off very, very cheap.

The full measure of its guilt can never be fully balanced or atoned for.

In response to criticism, Churchill issued this press release January 31, 2005:

PRESS RELEASE

In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.

* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.

* I am not a “defender”of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people “should” engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, “Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.”

* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King’s April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, “I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government.”

* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that “we” had decided it was “worth the cost.” I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.

* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as “Nazis.” What I said was that the “technocrats of empire” working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of “little Eichmanns.” Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American “command and control infrastructure” in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a “legitimate” target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than “collateral damage.” If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these “standards” when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.

* It should be emphasized that I applied the “little Eichmanns” characterization only to those described as “technicians.” Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that’s my point. It’s no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the “Good Germans” of the 1930s and ’40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today’s world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.

Ward Churchill
Boulder, Colorado
January 31, 2005

NO TO NATO Protest 2009

A No to NATO Protest 2009 is being organized in Strasbourg, France, but where is the US Antiwar Movement? A similar protest against NATO should and could be built on the same date in Washington DC at the Pentagon, so why does the American Antiwar Community always give NATO a free ride?

Look below at the organizing committee for the Strasbourg event and notice how the US antiwar Community is simply MIA. That’s very sad…

No to NATO Protest Saturday 4th April 2009 – Sunday 5th April 2009 Details to be confirmed…………………………………………..
A protest is being organised outside the NATO conference in Strasbourg, France marking the 60th anniversary of NATO.

Sixty years of NATO are enough. NATO is the main driving force behind global war. NATO stands for the missile defense system, military bases around the world, nuclear weapons and military interventions and expenditure. NATO is a rival to the UN and the system of international law, and it is intertwined with the European security and defense system. But NATO is not all-powerful, indeed it is under extreme pressure right now in Afghanistan.

Members of the open preparation committee for the protest at the 60th anniversary of NATO include:

Arielle Denis (Le Mouvement de la Paix, France)
Reiner Braun (IALANA, speaker of Cooperation for Peace, Germany)
Chris Nineham (Stop the War Coalition, UK)
Tobias Pflüger (MEP, IMI, Germany)
Thomas Magnusson (International Peace Bureau, Sweden)
Sotiris Kontogiannis (Stop the War Coalition, Greece)
Elaheh Rostami Povey (Stop the War Coalition, UK/Iran)
Peter Strutynski (Federal Committee Peace Council, Germany)

International Peace Bureau (IPB)
International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES)
International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms (IALANA Europe)
War Resisters’ International
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), Germany
Le Mouvement de la Paix, France
Stop the War Coalition, Great Britain
Stop the War Coalition, Greece
Cooperation for Peace, Germany
Federal Committee Peace Council, Germany

Further details of the NO TO NATO demonstration will be available shortly. To read a briefing on NATO’s expansion by Kate Hudson, the chair of CND, click here.

They wanted to ‘Save Darfur’ but are promoting using White Phosphorous on Gaza instead!

olive treeIt seems that many of those who wanted to ‘Save Darfur’ are now actually out there supporting Israel and its daily bombardment of Gaza’s civilian population with thousands of half-ton explosives, cluster bomblets, and White Phosphorus shells, many if not most, made in the USA! What a puzzle?

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden is one of those notables since he’s been a long time Zionist and demander of increased US military aggression against Sudan, but the group of newly gung-ho genocide advocates against the Palestinians also includes Hillel, the largest Jewish student group around the world. They fairly recently made ‘Saving Darfur’ the major focus of their political work. Now they have returned to the ‘Saving the Jewish State’ theme by killing Palestinians which is their #1 cause once again. See their website for the position Hillel Endorses JCPA Support for Israel. Now check out their ‘Save Darfur’ campaign for calling for military intervention by principally the US and Britain into Africa. Never Forget. Save Darfur and never save Iraq, Afghanistan, or Somalia, let alone Gaza?

OK, let’s go on over to another US group advocating vocally to ‘Save Darfur’, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum down in Miami, Florida of all places. What are they up to? Just check on CONSCIENCE at their website to see if they have located any problems in the world today other than Darfur? Oops, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Congo, Gaza are all missing! Gaza civilians not a problem for them…. ??? Neither are Armenians, Native Americans, nor Black African slaves. What holocausts? I guess there was only one with maybe an add on of Darfur? I’m surprised, in fact. Well they are worried about the Chechens, too, it seems. Just to be fair…

There are many others out there who wanted to ‘Save Darfur’. Some of them are the local peace do-nothings at the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission here in Colorado Springs allied with United for Justice and Peace nationally, which has had many a member concerned about ‘Saving Darfur’. So much so that they actually held a rally or two to show their desire for more intervention by the US government. I remember seeing some of them in tears even.

Today I’m not sure where they have disappeared to? White phosphorus and Gaza just not their thing I guess? Neither is Somalia, Congo, Afghanistan, nor really even Iraq! Funny group of people. They never really seem to get it together to demonstrate for anything other than themselves? Always fundraising though. Got some money for their office people? Staff salaries are always important! They may or may not show up at the next rally against war? You never know with these folk?

What about the group Stop Genocide Now? What did you find other than their concern about Darfur? They claim to be the following…

‘Stop Genocide Now (SGN) is a grassroots community dedicated to working to protect populations in grave danger of violence, death and displacement resulting from genocide.’

Only Darfur seems to be where they have found this ‘population’ though. Go figure? ‘Genocide’ seems to be only in Darfur? That’s amazing!

OK, I’ll stop here. I think the reader has gotten the picture by now. ‘Save Darfur’ as a rallying point really is not about saving people that much by promoting peace in the civil wars of Sudan. There is another and rather well kept hidden agenda behind this campaign, and the fact that so many groups have a blind side about this hidden agenda they are supporting is quite telling.

For many of these folk, Darfur is on the back burner and blasting away at Gaza is primary. Don’t worry though, since they’ll all be back urging humanitarian intervention quite soon. Oh wait! Supporting the US-Israeli war on Palestinians is seen by many of these people as being humanitarian interventionism. Ain’t that right, Willy Pete? Where else will they go next?

“Because you have drowned others, you were drowned…” –Rabbi Hillel

UN Ambassador speaks of the hidden genocide against the Somali people

The UN envoy to Somalia, Ahmedou Ould Abdallah, has said there is a “hidden genocide” taking place in the country. Left unsaid is that it is the United States of America that is responsible for this genocide, but at least the reality of the massacre was broadcast to the world so that hopefully some action might be taken, Somalia facing ‘hidden genocide’ What does it say about the character of the American people what they have done to Somalia?

Here in Colorado Springs, there is a group of pacifist liberal voters for the Democratic Party organized in the so-called Pikes Peak Justice and Peace commission. They have agitated through public rallies for more US military intervention into Africa despite being nominally a ‘Peace’ organization. They have done this saying that more US intervention into Africa was necessary to stop genocide from taking place! So one asks what have they said about this genocide against the people in Somalia where their own US government has been responsible for? What have they done to stop it? The answer to both these questions is that they have totally ignored what was going on. It has been of no interest to them.

Something very similar to this has taken place on the national level at the United for Peace and Justice ‘Peace’crat group, and all their local affiliates. What does that say about the character of the American liberal community? It really says to the general public that their supposed ‘protestations’ for ‘Peace’ should be taken with a big grain of salt. It also says that when these same people get onto the band wagon talking about genocide in regions of Sudan where the US government is itching to get further involved for multiple reasons all having absolutely nothing to do with stopping any sort of mayhem, that one should also weigh their inaction about not caring the least about people in Congo and Somalia, not to mention the continent of Africa as a whole. After all, the US government has been responsible for the destruction that is now causing this genocide in Somalia, but the liberal ‘Peace’crat voice is on MUTE.

The best we in the US can do to stop world genocides from taking place, is simply to understand the negative role ALL Us government intervention plays in creating world war zones. Their is not a positive role the US military has to play as long as we have a government run by the military-industrial-government complex. To call on this complex to do nice and decent things is just absolutely the worst thing to do. The call should be to eliminate this monstrous danger to the world, not advocate for its use somewhere or other.

UN Ambassador Abdallah’s voice will be ignored by the Powers that caused the hidden and silent genocide to occur in the first place unless other voices rise up and speak out. You won’t win many friends at the ‘Peace’crat groups for doing so, but doing so is a necessity. The US government is responsible for multiple genocides around the world taking place and we must move against the ‘Peace’ groups that barricade action from forming against these policies of Pentagon slaughtering. It’s time to get to work and demand better than what the liberal Democrats will ever have to offer.

Noam Chomsky criticizes Human Rights Watch’s pro US government propaganda

In an open letter to the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch, over 100 experts on Latin America criticized the organization’s recent report on Venezuela, A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela, saying that it “does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility.”

Thus begins a letter signed by More Than 100 Experts (whom) Question Human Rights Watch’s Venezuela Report, including Noam Chomsky. It’s about time that this phony front for the US State Department’s foreign policy objectives, claiming to be a human rights organization, gets taken to task for its reactionary posturing.

Too often, many corporate funded ‘non governmental organizations’ (NGOs) are given a pass on the propaganda they spread, often times in the cause of supporting US governmental interventionism (sanctions, war, etc.) against other countries. Many of these organizations spout a lot of seemingly liberal rhetoric, but their goals are in line with the most reactionary US governmental goals, policies and objectives.

It’s nice to see Noam Chomsky lending his name to the list of signatories here. That means that many who might not have paid any attention to this criticism of Human Rights Watch, may now look up and take some notice about how this group is funded and operates?

Anti-Zimbabwe sanctions create cholera epidemic in Africa

There is nobody more cynical and murderous than Gordon Brown, the Barack Obama equivalent who is Great Britain’s Prime Minster at the time. Here is Gordon the Goodie promoting genocide in July of this year UK looks to Europe for Zimbabwe sanctions Now here is the same Gordon Brown in December PM urges Zimbabwe cholera action where he blames Mugabe for the cholera outbreak and not himself. He wants regime change in Zimbabwe and he is not about to cry (other than crocodile tears) about any collateral damage he might cause!

Who gave Gordon Brown and the British the right to be intervening against any government of Zimbabwe anyway? This all started back when Mugabe moved against the couple of thousand left over Rhodesian White Apartheid regime’s leftovers in the country, who had taken away about 40% of the best land in the country from its indigenous Black population. Mugabe began a program of redistribution of that land and Great Britain went bananas about it. Today, cut to the cholera epidemic where the same Brits have used economic warfare to destroy Zimbabwe and to create untold suffering.

Mugabe is no hero in all this, but the issue really is imperialist intervention and not just one unlikable head of state is up to or not? It really is nauseating to see the BBC reports where they honey coat their pro economic warfare against Zimbabwe ‘reports’ as they always do. Gordon Brown as saint? Not even close.

US and Britain are starving Zimbabwe to death

zimbabwe currencyThe so-called US government’s ZIMBABWE DEMOCRACY AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT passed in 2001, began the US/ British efforts to starve Zimbabwe to death in a form of war called “Economic Sanctions.” This was a process similar to how the Clinton Administration began to kill off Iraq with economic sanctions that served to soften that country up for the Bush Administration invasion and subsequent occupation of that country, now to be managed once again by a Democratic Party presidency under Barack Obama.

The results in Zimbabwe have been equally as appalling as to what has been done to Iraq as inflation now runs at 231,000,000%! That’s right, you read that correctly. See BBC’s report Zimbabwe inflation hits new high

The background can be read about, too, at newzimbabwe.com… Economic sanctions undermine Zimbabwe’s economy, where one can find out about the role the International Monetary Fund played in beginning the warfare against Zimbabwe’s now starving people.

That’s right, and as people are starving to death in Zimbabwe due to the British and US government war against that country,there are those liberal fools who, ignoring the lessons of Somalia, Congo, and Zimbabwe, actually want the British and US governments to increase their military interventionism into Sudan! They call that humanitarian, too! In fact, our own local Colorado Springs ‘Peace’crats of the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission are just some of those people, who call for interventionism even as they parade themselves off as pacifists. Not heard one word from them about Zimbabwe though. And mums the word for them about Afghanistan and Somalia, too, countries which are in similar dire straights due to US government imposed wars.

The US Antiwar Movement needs to wake up to where the wars are on fast, and to who’s the government pushing this stuff (their own). I’m from Texas and though I like the group ‘Asleep at the Wheel’, but when you see DP voting liberals driving while as asleep at the wheel as the local pacifists are, then it just makes one want to throw up IMO. Very sad, because the people of Zimbabwe, as elsewhere, certainly need some coherent support for their liberation. And I don’t just mean from Mugabe either, but from the US government and all its vampirish European government allies, too.

The United Nations pushes war and starvation onto the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Congo, and Haiti

haitiAid workers: Hungry kids dying in Haiti- At least 26 malnourished children have perished; scores others treated You saw that picture of the starving young girl in Haiti in the US media last week as they reported the rise of starvation inside Haiti post this year’s hurricane season. They didn’t mention though that the United Nations is overseeing this starvation on behalf of the United States government.

This is more than a tragedy that somehow just fell out of the sky and the Haitians themselves are certainly not to blame. You can thank the United States government, the United Nations, and YES, you can thank the lazy, lazy, not-so-liberal ‘Peace’crats here in the US, who think that the United Nations is the cure all of all problems instead of a major instrument of the US government’s imperialism for sitting by and letting this happen. These ‘Peace’crats are the folk to blame for helping let the United Nations rule over the peoples of these multiple countries through these US pushed ‘UN mandates’ and letting them starve to death.

Yes, billions of dollars go into using United Nations troops and the people are starving in these countries. Why in the world are sincere, good hearted young people wanting the United Nations to intervene yet more? Can’t they see what this US government directed, United Nations intervention leads to? Apparently not…

It’s time to call for the US and the UN to get out of all these countries once and for all. The UN does not bring in the economic support these people need, but instead are no more a Pentagon back up squad. The US antiwar movement needs to stop pretending that the UN is up to some good, since despite all the blather about world ‘peace’, the UN merely assists the US in spreading war and starvation across the planet.

Brave New Chickens

Not what you might think.

Actually it’s from a segment of “How It’s Made” on the Science Channel, coupled in with Aldous Huxley’s frequently banned book.

This one (I watched it today) was on Eggs.

And they proceeded to show what’s essentially a mechanized Egg Factory.

From time to time as I write this I’ll put in references to the book.

Civilization is sterilization, repeated 50,000 times between the ages of 5 and 6…

So they’ve got these hens, right, the basis of The Egg industry. A couple hundred thousand of them.

Raised in cages. Fed by a conveyor belt that delivers a mixture of feed that’s scientifically measured out for Maximum Egg Production.

Mesh floor so their droppings fall onto another conveyor belt.

All the cages identical, all the portions of the feed identical, the eggs as standardized as possible, the hens so identical they look like they’ve been cloned.

They lay their eggs, which roll out the cage onto yet another of those damned conveyor belts.

For the sake of literary diversity I’ll insert here, the hens looked like one huge Bokanovsky Group.

I’ll point out that one of the big commercial sponsors of the show is an Investment Banking group whose advertising- du-jour has thousands of Identical Looking factory workers (who aren’t the customers of the investment bank, no, we’re not THAT important to them) first at their identical, uniform “individual” workstations. Wearing of course uniforms. Sterile White Uniforms. Like the chickens, white. Sterile.

One wonders if they have a catheter arrangement where their droppings fall through the floor onto another conveyor belt…

Then that segues into the workers at the Cafeteria, at perfectly spaced, identical round white tables, (all of this As Seen From Above, so we’re literally “looking down on them”) eating identical meals, and I’d swear by the Lord God who made us all that they were eating in unison, coordinated just as surely as if they were marching.

Civilization is sterilization, repeated 50,000 times between the ages of 5 and 6.

The eggs are carried by the conveyor belts through various machines which measure them, by volume then by weight.

Machines that pick them up 5 dozen at a time and stack them quickly, efficiently, quietly, cleanly, then stacks them onto carts. Here one of the Human Intervention squads come in, identical looking workers wearing Sterile White Clothes pushing the carts onto conveyor belts which carry them into a refrigerated storage area.

Then they’re rolled, again by machines, this one triggered by a thermostat, and fed through some more sorting apparati.

A bright light is shone from behind them, and a computer reads the image to find each egg which is cracked, and mark it out for removal.

Another Worker Drone goes in with a scoop and efficiently as any machine, scoops the “tagged” eggs out.

Another computer imaging device spots which ones have traces of blood in the egg.

And the routine is once again repeated.

Then about 2 minutes more of the Glory Of The Machine being expounded…

Then the Narrator chirps much about how the chickens start laying eggs when they’re 7 weeks old, and have a productive cycle of about 52 months. Just under 4 and a half years.

Then they get a free, all expenses paid trip to the slaughterhouse.
The Narrator actually used that expression.

Which we’ve seen that mechanized, standardized operation as well…

From Hatch to Hatchet all Untouched by Human Hands.

Now, I’m sure some Industrial Apologist Type A-2 is going to give the same identical speech the Director of World Hatcheries gave to John the Savage in the book.

When John the Savage and Bernard Marx had, in a Rage Against the Machine action, interrupted the doping of a Bokanovsky Group, where they were being given their Soma rations, which triggered an Automated Security system where Soma in vaporized form was sprayed through vents in the walls and ceilings, and a Recorded Voice says “Friends, why are you being angry? Everybody belongs to everybody else, after all. ” and a couple of other Mass Calming subliminal messages they had repeated to them in their Hypnopædia sessions 100,000 times between the ages of 5 and 7…

Then Bernard and John the Savage and their friend are talking to the Director of World Hatcheries and it’s calmly explained to them, the DWH shows John the Savage copies of Shakespeare and the Bible and other Anti-social books, says the people were already so well conditioned that even if the books were given to them, they would simply dismiss it with one or more of the one-line platitudes they had been taught since childhood….

By the way, the “Hatcheries” means where Humans were grown in glass bottles until birth.

No mother, no father, just “Genetic Donors”.

The message? Conform or Else.

Uncle Tom’s Hotel Rwanda

Is the Don Cheedle?Let’s clear something up for the sake of poetic justice. Uncle Tom was a maltreated slave who bore his burden with dignity. He was no collaborator, no stool pigeon, no upper class of black slave that kept the lower savages in order. That “Uncle Tom” is what the term has come to mean: a white man’s black man, owing perhaps to the original character’s civilized humanity which a white reader might not have expected to be a capacity of an African slave. The neo-Uncle Tom is a Tutsi.

I heard the film Hotel Rwanda was just incredible, I’m sure it was. I watched the Frontline documentary to commemorate the anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda and so thought I knew the sad story already. Well I was right and I was wrong, but not about the film.

The mounting trouble in the Democratic Republic of Congo is causing leaders to forewarn of genocide such as Rwanda experienced in 1994. We’re told the same Hutus are marauding today. In addressing the issues of the Congo, do we have an understanding of what happened in 1994, beside the film dramatization?

The question to ask is whether what happened in Rwanda was genocide. That’s not to minimize the killings, but to scrutinize the motives. Was the fighting between Hutus and Tutsis racially motivated tribal warfare, or was it class warfare? Were the events of 1994 components of a peasant rebellion, distinguished by the opposing forces being from different ethnicities?

The distinction is critical. Behind the Hotel Rwanda imagery is the theme that African tribes need to be protected from each other. This happens in the form of UN intervention usually. The storytellers also know that if the narrative is bloody enough, a Western audience is just as ready to throw up its hands. Thus our impulse to join the Peace Corps or Medecins Sans Frontieres is quietly scrubbed in favor of calling in the cavalry. And then, only in the event of genocide.

Someone keeps wanting Westerners to believe that African tribes will continue to kill each other regardless what we do. Is it true? No, the Africans fight because of what we do.

The Tutsi victims of Hotel Rwanda were not just hotel keepers and clerks. The Tutsis were the administrative enforcers of post-colonial central Africa. The Hutus were the oppressed, and rose up against the Tutsis after generations of oppression and killings.

If Africa were let to develop autonomous states from its indigenous populations, its people could put their natural resources to use improving their lives. Instead, our post-colonial tentacles continue to stir up instability. Our business interests make sure that the native Africans never get their footing. We fund strong men to enforce violent rule over the inhabitants. It’s a controlled instability that facilitates the minimal societal infrastructure our traders require. But instability is difficult a balancing act. When the mayhem gets out of hand, peace-keepers are brought in at the people’s expense, to restore the disordered order.

GOP has been drunk on NeoFascism for the last 8 years, now is the time for an intervention.

“Welcome to ObamaNation, comrades!” That’s what you should say to all your Republican friends today, and watch them crap their pants. Then mutter under your breath, “Fascism is dead, now we hang the fascists.”

It was quite hilarious, last night watching Karl Rove on Faux News, even after the utter repudiation of the last 8 years, still claiming that this somehow remains a Right Wing country.

Down a series of tubes. Only a state stupid enough to elect Sarah Palin governor would re-elect a convicted felon to the Senate.

Equality for gays in California still hanging by a thread.

Heterofascist hatemonger Marilyn Musgrave lost her seat in Colorado, and can now return to Hell from whence she came.

Openly gay Dennis Apuan won a state House seat in my own district, right here in Colorado Springs. Take that, Dr. Dobson!

Openly gay sheriff re-elected in Dallas.

President-elect Obama puts Zionist Israeli in charge of the White House. I could not be more disappointed. This is a very bleak day for Palestinians.

Excerpts from Thomas McCullock’s Nov 5 notes, thomasmc.com.

El Paso County Board fine with long lines

el-paso-countyEL PASO COUNTY, COLO.- I visited the Board of County Commissioners today to seek their intervention with problems developing with the upcoming election. They’d already voiced their support for Clerk and Recorder Bob Balink’s voter intimidation of Colorado College students. In light of national criticism of vote suppression tactics such as the fewer early-voter stations, longer wait times, and the possibility of running out of paper ballots, I wanted to give the commissioners a chance to reassure voters of El Paso County. Long lines? They’re all for them. In their own words:

While disadvantaged citizens are particularly burdened by the prospect of long lines at the polling stations, this was not a concern shared by the commissioners. They saw long lines as a sign of greater voter participation. In particular, for that reason, Commissioner Sallie Clark said “I hope there are long lines.”

Two other commissioners also up for reelection on Tuesday held the same view. Commissioner Amy Lathen said “Long lines mean people are getting out and voting … I don’t think that’s a problem.” Commissioner Dennis Hisey added “Waiting to vote is an American tradition.”

County Treasurer Sandra Damron felt compelled to stand up and add that she thought “casting aspersions” was unwarranted. Damron reminded me of a typical small town administrator bucking at the oversight of Federal supervisors whose job it is to know better.

“I’m really angry that outside organizations, feel that they can come into our community, and try to cast aspersions, when there are none that are deserved. … Last time I looked, there is no constitutional right to avoiding long lines. They just happen.

Commissioner Jim Bensberg put the blame for long lines on voters who come to the polls “without having done their homework” in view of the lengthy ballot initiatives. Commissioner Wayne Williams thought that those who criticized our local election were “ignorant” and of “questionable judgment.”

Commissioner Hisey answered the criticism of no early polling location for the South East part of town, where there are more African American, Hispanic, and military families. He explained that the Citadel Mall early-vote facility was targeted for them. “We put a polling place in the heart of where the minorities live, shop and work.”

News reports reflect the turnout at the Citadel Mall has been primarily white.

Every commissioner wanted to admonish any complainants with the reminder that they had their opportunity to mail in their ballots. No one addressed the reports of many who’ve yet to receive such ballots, nor those who await confirmation that they are registered.

The County Attorney answered a concern about Absentee ballots sent in without photocopies of personal IDs. Even he was unsure if sufficient warning was given that such photocopies were required, but he consulted with a colleague before admitting that all such ballots would be considered provisional, and then duly discarded as insufficient.

By the way, every board member took the occasion to make an opening statement at today’s meeting. Each was a Republican partisan reminder to vote for the candidates who promise smaller government, etc, etc. Commissioner Bensberg ended with this anecdote.

“One of my constituents called me yesterday with a suggestion. He was concerned that there might be a long line at the polling place, and he came up with an idea that I think is worth pursuing. I’d like to pass this along to our Clerk and Recorder, and that is, that all Republicans should vote on Tuesday, and all Democrats should vote on Wednesday.

To which Commission Hisey said “I’ll leave that one alone.” I’d say Commissioner Bensberg was trying to be humorous, but if you wonder why that disinformation tactic reemerges every election, and has been reported recently in numerous precincts around the country. We can certainly question whether elected officials should be joking about it, without a preface, or explanation. In light too of the many serious violations that the El Paso County Board of Commissioners appears to be adamant to overlook.

You can observe the complete statements on Comcast Channel 17 tonight at 7PM or later at 10PM. Otherwise the audio file becomes available at this link on the El Paso County website.

Jim Bensberg also suggested that complaints about voting irregularities always came from the “other side,” suggesting questionable motives on their part. I paraphrase: Perhaps accusations of partisanship could be dropped only when complaints come from both sides.

Well, I do not wish for either. But maybe Bensberg should let us know the minute a phony “November 5” notice emerges which instructs REPUBLICANS to vote the day after. An example I doubt we’ll ever see. Number one, because believers in democracy don’t want to disenfranchise anyone, but two, Republicans don’t dare make a fake flier to discredit the Dems, because it would mean risking their own voters falling for the ruse. An entirely likely outcome.

A fake notice distributed in Virginia:
virginia-elections-fake-flier.jpg

The Scamble for Africa- Darfur, Intervention, and the USA

africaThose interested in Darfur might want to check this book, ‘The Scramble for Africa’, out some when it comes out? Especially with the Biden, Obama gang headed towards the White House soon. Certainly this is a timely release for this book.

*** Book of the Month for** **October 2008*

*THE SCRAMBLE FOR AFRICA*

*Darfur — Intervention and the USA*

*Steven Fake and Kevin Funk*

*As massive human suffering continues to engulf the Darfur region of
Sudan, the crisis has garnered a rhetorical circus of saber-rattling and
hand wringing from Western politicians, media, and activists. Yet such
bluster has not halted the violence.*

*In a careful yet scathing indictment of this constellation of
holier-than-thou government leaders, corporate media outlets, and spoon-fed
NGOs, Steven Fake and Kevin Funk reveal the myriad ways in which the West
has failed Darfur.*

*Praise for Scramble for Africa:*

*”A devastating critique of the ‘humanitarian’ response of the United
States to the Darfur crisis. Well-researched, easy to read, and utterly
convincing, a crucial book for anyone concerned about achieving a morally
and politically acceptable U.S. foreign policy.”
–Richard Falk, Milbank Professor of Law Emeritus, Princeton University*

*”Sudan has been a nightmare for many. It still is. The outside world is
responsible as well. This book shows why. The authors avoid easy answers,
and provide a quality analysis with compelling arguments to revise Western
policies.”
–Jan Pronk, Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of
Mission for the United Nations Mission in Sudan, 2004-06 *

*”Explosive, masterful, and impeccably fair. Consider it the thinking
person’s guide to Darfur.”
-John Ghazvinian, author of **Untapped: The Scramble for Africa’s Oil*

*STEVEN FAKE and KEVIN FUNK are activists and political commentators whose
writings have been published in such media as **Foreign Policy in Focus,
Common Dreams, CounterPunch, ZNet**, and **Black Commentator**.*

*344 pages, bibliography, index
Paperback ISBN: 978-1-55164-322-9 $19.99
Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-55164-323-6 $39.99*

*For more information on **The Scramble For Africa**, our October Book of
the Month selection, including additional testimonials and Table of
Contents, see **http://www.blackrosebooks.net/darfur.htm*
* *

*The Scramble For Africa will be launched in the Boston area on October
28th. For more information see http://www.blackrosebooks.net/events.htm*

*To Order This Book, Call Toll Free 1-800-565-9523*

*Independent Publishing for Independent Minds*

*What others are saying about Scramble for Africa*

“Kevin Funk and Steven Fake have written a devastating critique of the
‘humanitarian’ response of the United States to the Darfur crisis, while
offering a genuine humane alternative that would lessen the ordeal, if not
bring it to an end. Well-researched, easy to read, and utterly convincing, a
crucial book for anyone concerned about achieving a morally and politically
acceptable U.S. foreign policy.”
*–Richard Falk, Milbank Professor of Law Emeritus, Princeton University, and
since 2002, Visiting Distinguished Professor, Global Studies, UCSB*

“Sudan has been a nightmare for many. It still is. The outside world is
responsible as well. This book shows why. The authors avoid easy answers,
and provide a quality analysis with compelling arguments to revise Western
policies.”
*–Jan Pronk, Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of
Mission for the United Nations Mission in Sudan, 2004-06*

“At a time when everyone from George Clooney to George Bush is an instant
expert on Darfur, Kevin Funk and Steven Fake have given us what we so
urgently need: a clear, sober assessment of the conflict and how it fits
into the foreign policy of the United States. With neither fear nor favour,
they take us back stage, show us our blind spots, and come up with some
troubling conclusions. Explosive, masterful, and impeccably fair. Consider
it the thinking person’s guide to Darfur.”
*–John Ghazvinian, author of Untapped: The Scramble for Africa’s Oil*

“A commanding exposé of the duplicitous and damaging role played by US
leaders and others in a dark drama. Well-written, well focused, deeply
informed—an excellent corrective for the many who cannot tell the difference
between humanitarian assistance and imperial aggrandizement.”
*–Michael Parenti, author of ‘Contrary Notions’ and ‘Against Empire’*

“Elegantly written, erudite without being academic, and with a forceful yet
sensible political argument, Scramble for Africa is a must read for anyone
concerned with making sense of one of the most haunting crises of our time.”
*–Stephen Eric Bronner, Rutgers University*

“Scramble for Africa: Darfur Intervention and the USA is the book we’ve all
been waiting for. Clearly written, and scholarly without losing its
skeptical edge, this new work takes on the U.S. Government and the Save
Darfur coalition alike, offering a fresh analysis of Darfur in its larger
geopolitical context. Scramble for Africa belongs on every Darfur activist’s
bookshelf.”
*–David Morse, Darfur activist and journalist*

“So much of what has been written on Darfur is either expression of
humanitarian concern without awareness of the imperial context, or
denunciation of Western perfidy without appreciation of the horrible human
tragedy that has been unfolding. In this extremely well-documented study,
Steve Fake and Kevin Funk combine deep compassion with a keen critical
analysis to show how we might best support the suffering people of Darfur.
This is a book for all those interested in working for a more just world.”
*–Stephen R. Shalom, Professor of Political Science at William Paterson
University in New Jersey and author of, among other works, Imperial Alibis:
Rationalizing US Intervention After the Cold War*

“This extremely well-researched analysis reveals the real goals of US
foreign policy in one of the greatest horrors of our generation. The authors
have produced an essential book for analysts and activists everywhere,
together with a call to action which no-one should ignore.”
*–Mark Curtis, author, Web of Deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World*

“One of the few works to tackle honestly the vexing question of what is to
be done about Darfur. Cheerleaders for intervention and humanitarians who
persist in rosy fantasies about the U.S. role in the world have had no
trouble advocating “solutions,” but for others on the left the question has
been much more difficult. Not content, like so many, to simply wash their
hands of the question, the authors have constructed a deeply informed and
carefully reasoned argument that addresses seriously the possibilities for
constructive humanitarian interventions in an imperfect world vitiated by
great power interests and political posturing. For the cruise-missile left
and the hard-core anti-interventionist left alike, Darfur is not about
Darfur but about their own self-image; Fake and Funk rightly bring the focus
back to what is best for the people on the ground.”
*–Rahul Mahajan, activist and author of Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power
in Iraq and Beyond*

“At last there is a book on Darfur that places the conflict in the context
of the new ‘scramble for Africa,’ the contest between the old imperialism of
England and its successors, the US and China. Fake and Funk’s analysis
unmasks the propagandistic deploying of powerful language alleging
‘genocide’ and the ‘world’s worst humanitarian crisis’ in Sudan for its
political advantages to the US and its neglect of the suffering of Darfur’s
victims. When analyzing the politics of the ‘Save Darfur Coalition’ the
journalists-authors work with a scalpel in a refreshing and penetrating
analysis of why the Darfur conflict became the ’cause célèbre,’ when it
should have been the war in Iraq. Activists and astute observers of the
contemporary global political scene will find this scrupulously researched
volume a must read, virtually unique among available works on the subject.”
*–Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, Professor of Anthropology, Rhode Island College,
veteran Sudan researcher*

“For those, like myself, who have long felt both revulsion and confusion by
the humanitarian crisis in Darfur and wished to know more, this is the
perfect handbook. …an objective, dispassionate, meticulously researched
account of the conflict… The authors of Scramble for Africa… startle us with
their documentation of the little known but equally sordid role our own
government has played in Sudan for the past thirty years – suggesting that
our present official “humanitarian concerns” are merely crocodile tears
masking another agenda.”
*–Timothy Kendall, Ph. D., Senior Research Scholar, Dept. of
African-American Studies, Northeastern University and Director of
Archaeological Mission, Jebel Barkal (Karima), Sudan, Sudan Dept. of
Antiquities and Museums (NCAM), Khartoum, Sudan*

“The Scramble for Africa stands against the muck of neo-liberal ideology,
taking us through the Darfur conflict, putting it into history and allowing
us to think of a non-imperialist way to bring peace to a tormented region.
Save Darfur, surely; but as much from Washington as Khartoum, as much from
fantasies of humanitarian intervention as the brutalities of
IMFundamentalism and Islamism.”
*–Vijay Prashad, author, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third
World*

“The Darfur conflict has proven to be intractable, at terrible cost to the
people of that region. There is a crying need for on-going international
activism based on a thorough analysis of Sudan and the role of the US, China
and other states. The Scramble for Africa by Kevin Funk and Steven Fake is a
well-researched, important and progressive contribution in this regard. It
should be widely read, from the White House to the grassroots.”
*–Laurie Nathan, research fellow at the London School of Economics and
member of the African Union mediation team for Darfur in 2005/6*

“This excellent book presents the basic information on the political and
military aspects of the conflict, examines the options from a clear and
transparent ethical position, and presents ways forward with a concern for
broad international implications and concern for the hundreds of thousands
of victims. It is is exactly what is needed and I hope it is very widely
read. I will recommend it to everyone.”
*–Justin Podur, writer and activist*

Who is losing in the debates? We are.

FOX NEWS claims McCain is winning. MSNBC seems to be making an un-characteristic Obama gambit. Who’s losing the presidential debates? We are. And I’m not even talking about the exclusion of third party voices like Nader or McKinney. The Dems are winning, this last by “that one” but so is an escalation in Afghanistan, an attack on Pakistan, backing Israel in war-making against Iran, military intervention in Sudan, and the corporate profit replenishment bailout.

Lost in the concern about the Palin versus Biden match-up was Biden’s straight-up militancy. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Sudan. The Dems plan some kind of deceleration in Iraq, but more troops everywhere else. American voters haven’t become energized because they favor Dems over Repugs. They are against war! The American people prevailed eventually against the Vietnam War and they find themselves three decades later having to rise again to stop their government from waging war against the world in the name of the so-called GWOT.

Meanwhile the Democratic Party has co-opted that energy by posing as antiwar, and as the only social justice voice in Washington. Work within the system they say. But then you come against a hawkish leader like Joe Biden. What now. Are energized Dems cheering Biden’s war cries?

An audience member in last night’s debate advocated killing Bin Laden no matter where he’s hiding. Forget arguing whose borders must be respected. And the candidates seem to jostle for who is more eager to get Osama. I’d like to ask that woman if we should call in an air strike if it turns out Osama’s hiding in HER house? Should the US DoD violate American public’s territorial integrity?

Is this what American justice has become? Air strikes in lieu of day in court, rule of law, innocent until proven guilty? Do Dems and Republicans form just a blood-thirsty mob out to buttress their standard of living at any cost?

I caught some of the call-ins on C-SPAN after the debate. A number of the callers were for neither candidate and wanted to discuss the issues and candidates being cut out of the presidential debates. C-SPAN hung up on those.

Is Bush sending tanks from Ukraine to Kenya to South Sudan to foment civil war there?

somalia-modern-pirates_big.jpg Hijacked tanks ‘for South Sudan’ Who paid for these tanks? The US government?

South Sudan doesn’t have that much cash on hand at all. One should ask these questions especially with Barack Obama just having called in the debate tonight for US military intervention against the Sudanese government. Whoa there! Bush has got the Democrat beat on the punch and we can all rest assured in our nice little American homes that our government is going to once again initiate yet more genocide in Africa! …in the name of preventing it, no doubt. Poor Obama, he just can’t quite seem to outflank Bush’s and McCain’s militarism to the Right no matter how hard he tries. And he does try hard!

US-Rwandan backed general, Laurent Nkunda, to ‘liberate’ Congo again- Watch out!

Laurent NkundaRenegade Congolese General Laurent Nkunda has told the BBC he is now fighting to “liberate” the whole of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Nkunda and Rwanda, alongside some other players, have caused around 6,000,000 deaths in Congo over less than the last decade, far surpassing the number who died during the genocide in Rwanda previously. So who all has their hand in this new state of affairs? To help answer that, first let’s trip over to the US State Department for some info about current US-Rwanda relations.

‘In 1998, Rwanda, along with Uganda, invaded the Democratic Republic of the Congo (D.R.C.) to back Congolese rebels trying to overthrow then-President Laurent Kabila. Rwandan troops pulled out of the D.R.C. in October 2002, in accordance with the Lusaka cease-fire agreement.

In the fall of 2006, Rwanda broke diplomatic relations with France, following a French judge’s indictment of senior Rwandan officials on charges of having participated in the shooting down of the presidential jet in 1994. Rwanda rejects these charges. Rwanda, along with Burundi, joined the East African Community in 2007.

U.S.-RWANDAN RELATIONS
U.S. Government interests have shifted significantly since the 1994 genocide from a strictly humanitarian concern focusing on stability and security to a strong partnership with the Government of Rwanda focusing on sustainable development. The largest U.S. Government programs are the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the President’s Malaria Initiative, which aim to reduce the impact of these debilitating diseases in Rwanda. Other activities promote rural economic growth and support good governance and decentralization. Overall U.S. foreign assistance to Rwanda has increased four-fold over the past four years.’

Information provided to us from the US Dept. of State website. And, information about Laurent Nkunda can be found at wikipedia and other sources.

Why is it that we think of there having been a Rwandan genocide, yet nobody in the US talks about there having been a Congo genocide? Part of the reason I think, is simply that US citizens don’t really know that much about any part of Africa, Congo and Rwanda included as well as Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia, the so called Horn of Africa. They tend to want to accept at face value the prettified US Government USAID version of US interventionism in Africa. However, aid to Rwanda involves much more than Macy’s sale items or other such silly little nonsense as highlighted at the USAID site.

US aid to Rwanda is also US interventionism into the affairs of Congo and General Laurent Nkunda is a primary player in what is being bought. In D.R.Congo, Laurent Nkunda Forces On The Offense Again

The US blocked the United Nations from ever having confronted and disarmed Laurent Nkunda and his army, simply because it was part of the Rwanda military in the region, a military allied with the Pentagon. Now, that may be about to unravel into terrible bloodshed once again?

Why is the US playing around in Africa in the first place? Isn’t AFRICOM now the biggest player in the region? How much is Laurent Nkunda really in rebellion against the US? Perhaps he is more allied to the Pentagon than opposed? And maybe the commander of AFRICOM, US General William E. Ward might have the answers to some of these questions, but wouldn’t it be better if we were not intervening into and stroking the flames of Africa’s internecine strife?

Both France and the US need to get out of Africa once and for all. These games for influence in the region are quite deadly to the people that live there.

US liberal radicals silent about ‘self determination’ now that South Ossetia and Abkhazia want it

One of the most aggravating things about American (and British) liberals has been how they consistently line up with the US government shouting ‘Self-Determination! Self Determination!’ every time the Pentagon uses some small nationality against another government.

When Australia wanted to split East Timor off of Indonesia, this was their shout. When the US and the Western Europeans wanted to carve up Greater Yugoslavia into nation-lets under their control this was their call. We hear their call again against China as the US government wants to use Tibet to propagandize for the Pentagon and against the Chinese. We hear it in Africa as they use the issue of the fighting in Darfur to move against Sudan.

Liberal radicals are always using the issue of ‘self determination’ to support US militarism while pretending to be doing the exact complete opposite. That is why their silence is so deafening now about keeping quiet about ‘self determination’ for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Apparently the liberal interventionist American Left is only for ‘self determination’ when the Pentagon calls for it? This is a sad illustration about the liberal Left’s own lack of self examination and their pro US nationalism and pro imperialism that hides behind liberal human rights rhetoric. Some even hide behind Marxism to justify what positions for the Pentagon they take!

What about the Ossetians? Once again the Libertarian Right is more honest than the pseudo Marxists and Left liberal ‘Progressive’ community is. They ask the question about the Ossetians when the phonys remain silent. While the pro Democratic Party liberals/radicals are out cheerleading Barack it is antiwar.com that keeps us informed about the dangerous buildup for war involving Russia and the US. And unfortunately, this constant misuse of the issue of ‘self determination’ in support of State Department propaganda is often used by many even to the Left of the Democratic Party, too. Shameful. But now they are all silent when it comes to South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Ossetia South doesn’t want to be West

Ossetia dividedSOUTH OSSETIA? You might very well ask, where’s NORTH Ossetia? The Republic of North Ossetia-Alania is in the Russian Federation. So the minority enclave of South Ossetia wants to break from Georgia? They’ve watched developments in the increasingly US-controlled Georgian leadership and they don’t want to be pawns of the West. South Vietnam? South Korea anyone?

Bruce Gagnon sent more this morning:

Some old sage once said we learn world geography by tracking American wars – or in this case American proxy wars. I am as certain as I can be that this is a proxy war. The U.S. and Israel have been arming Georgia heavily in recent years. The U.S. and Israel have been sending military advisers to Georgia. There is no doubt in my mind that the U.S. has been, at the very least, “encouraging” Georgia to make a grab for the independent territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia knowing that by doing so they would very well provoke Russia to respond. I am convinced the U.S. wants to confront Russia militarily and if they can get someone else to do it then why not. It’s the cold war strategy come back to life.

The corporate media in the U.S. is having a field day promoting Russian aggression against Goergia. One very interesting CNN-TV story detailed Russian destruction of the Georgian city of Gori but then the camera man who took the footage said the film he took was actually of Georgian destruction of Russian peacekeeper forces in Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia. You can see why the American people are so often confused and misinformed. We are being led with rings in our noses into a new protracted war.

A distant cousin of mine who lives in Massachusetts wrote me saying that when she went to work yesterday the folks there were convinced that Russia had bombed the American state of Georgia. “Why do we bother?” she asked.

Bruce also suggested this article:

Marching through Georgia
By Patrick Schoenfelder

Maybe everyone is already up to speed on this, but if you are depending on the usual drumbeat of warlike bluster from the mainstream media (in the words of Paul Krugman, “real mean don’t think things through”) you are missing most of the news.

Therefore, a brief memo:

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are small areas on the border between Georgia and Russia where the majority of residents belong to ethnic groups other than Georgian. During the Soviet era, both of them were semi-autonomous areas under Soviet control.

In 1990, after Georgia became independent, Georgia claimed both areas as part of Georgia.

Russia opposed this claim as did residents of the areas, and Russia forced Georgia at gunpoint to allow autonomy to both regions in 1992, and both regions have been acting as de facto independent countries since then.

Peacekeepers from Russia commissioned by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe have been stationed in both countries since then.

After the so-called Rose Revolution and the overthrow of Edward Shevardnadze in 2003 it became a policy of the Georgian government to repudiate the independence of both regions and to work for re-establishment of Georgian control.

In 2006, a referendum was held under OSCE supervision with 34 observers from Poland, Germany, Austria, and Sweden. The referendum drew a 95% turnout and voted 99% in favor of full independence.

Georgia rejected the results, claiming that ethnic Georgians were intimidated out of voting, and arguing that the Russian peacekeepers actually were supporting the Ossetians.

Meanwhile, Georgia developed a close relationship with the Bush administration and cultivated a relationship with the EU, beginning application for membership in both the EU and in NATO. Georgia has the third largest number of troops in Iraq, after the US and Britain. The US has supplied the Georgian army with a large amount of war material.

In mid-July of this year, the US military held a joint war games training exercise in Georgia with the Georgian military.

The US left a number of “military advisers” in Georgia after the exercise.

On August 7, the Georgian army invaded South Ossetia in force, advancing rapidly across the area and killing both Ossetian soldiers and Russian peacekeepers.

On August 8, the Russians moved a large force into South Ossetia, including use of airpower for bombing and support. The Georgian army was rapidly crushed and began to retreat into Georgia. The Russians continued to pursue them into Georgia and used artillery and planes to bombard both military and civilian targets in Georgia as they advanced. They also declared that Georgian troops stationed in Abkhazia must leave or surrender, and sent troops into Abkhazia as well.

The Russians at this point seem to be determined to remove the Georgian leadership and establish independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The extent to which they will occupy or establish control in Georgia proper, and for how long, is not clear.

The Georgians, after starting the war, probably partly at the urging of the US, are now screaming for peace.

The US and the Europeans, while expressing dismay (“I am shocked, shocked I say!”) have exactly zero ability to do anything about the situation, since the area is well within Russian sphere of influence and away from any means of support (think of a US military action in Mexico.) They are hanging the Georgians out to dry (think of the Kurds under Reagan and Bush the elder.)

The Russians have been pointing out the similarity with Kosovo and US activity there. They have also pointed out that the US is in no position to complain about superpower military intervention or occupation of any place, given their record over the last eight years.

The possibility of any meaningful economic or other sanctions against the Russians is slight, since Russia is the number one supplier of oil and natural gas to Europe and an important trading partner, and the Russian bloc has the second largest oil reserve in the world (perhaps even the first, depending on the results of exploration in the Caspian region) and is a huge supplier of mineral resources from metals to diamonds.

IMPORTANT BLOOD FOR OIL FOOTNOTE: The largest pipeline between the Black Sea and Caspian oil fields and Europe and the only one not completely under Russian control is the 1 million barrel a day capacity BP line that passes through Georgia and parts of Abkhazia. Both the Russians and the Georgians would benefit hugely from ability to control this pipeline. Some observers suggest that war efforts on both sides are related partly to the issue of this pipeline.

I wore polka dots today

polka dots are the new black
…and felt like an idiot. Why? I think polka dots are adorable. They are playful and happy and youthful which are traits I value. And the outfit I had on was classy and cute. So why did I feel anxious that someone might pop over unexpectedly and see my polka dots? I’m not sure, but I changed rather than further contemplate the issue.

I think that maybe polka dots aren’t me. Whatever that means. Like all women, I have a closet full of clothes that I never wear. Truthfully, my closet is a schizophrenic mixed bag pining for psychiatric intervention. I must’ve worn these styles at one time, but I guess I’ve changed. Or, more likely, they were never me. I just didn’t know it, because I was adept at changing me to be a part of the crowd du jour.

I don’t think men are this way. A couple years ago, a friend and I took a getaway to Mexico for a few days. We hung out under a big beach umbrella, two pale obviously-American chubbies in a sea of gorgeous foreigners. The women were thin, tanned, and beautiful, but they couldn’t hold a candle to the men. Unbelievably fit, glistening brown skin, boy shorts. At once holding a cigarette and a partner’s perky breast, we couldn’t stop staring at the men.

When the couples eventually got up and dressed, the guys wore capri pants, silky dark shirts, and closed-toe leather sandals. But even through my drool I knew that, were I given the chance, I probably wouldn’t date any one of them. Seriously! They were not my type.

As pretty as the beach boys were, my type of guy doesn’t spend much time thinking about his hair and wardrobe. A makeover is buying his favorite shirt in another color. I’ve never succeeded in slipping Bruni Maglis over his tennis shoes, nor a man purse over his shoulder. Even the plain front/pleated front battle can rage for days, so sartorial transformation has never been in the cards. Men know what they are comfortable wearing, and are usually unwilling to indulge our female fantasies. Truly, I wouldn’t want it any other way.

If men can stay true to form, why do women’s closets suffer from bipolar disorder? Are we multifaceted and complex, or are we being unduly influenced the expectations of our mates, the opinions of our friends, and the daily media mind fuck?

Though my closet doesn’t reflect it yet, my chameleon days are over. I am newly unapologetic about my hairstyle, my yoga pants, and my Doc Martens. When I dress up I usually wear black from head to toe. I don’t show a lot of skin, and hide my few curves. I wear simple earrings, no other jewelry. I no longer worry about fashion trends, because I refuse to be trendy.

My manner of dress is merely an outward manifestation of the natural, unadorned, athletic, private girl that I am. I cover my body in such a way that I’m not constantly mindful of the fact that I’m wearing something. Something that feels foreign and awkward. Like polka dots.

Save Congo

A spin off group from Human Rights Watch reports that over 2,000 women were reported raped in one province of East Congo alone. Over 2,000 raped last month in Congo’s east -report In Kivu, there are over 1,000,000 refugees from the war there, and the United Nations and African Union have already arrived, implemented a peace treaty under their direction, and yet the bloodshed goes on.

Who brokered this deal? Why it was the European Union, the United States, the African Union, and the United Nations. See DR Congo: Peace Process Fragile, Civilians at Risk This is the same sort of ‘response’ that the group Save Darfur has called for in Darfur, Sudan, so it is instructive to see the failure of these military responses from imperialist countries located outside of Africa, in yet another locale, East Congo. Military solutions even while disguised as ‘humanitarian interventions’ under the direction of the UN are prescriptions for failure, and East Congo underlines this.

The United Nations is completely under the control of the United States and its gang of allies, and none of them are willing to take the steps to actually help any African country out. Instead, the name of the game for them is CONTROL. We need to Save Congo, as well as Save Darfur. The only way we are ever going to do it is to break the military control that the US and Europeans use to strangle the African continent. It is truly a tragic situation, and the solution must come in form of releasing the control of imperialism on the region, not increasing it by calling for troops to be sent in.

As a side note, the issue of women being raped in Darfur is one of the big drawing cards for emotional responses to do something that the Save Darfur groups always make. Where are they though when it comes to the Congo conflict?

It seems that their focus on rape is as selective as can be, and is reminsicent of when Americans became concerned about babies in Kuwait which they once used to justify the beginning of the US assaults on Iraq. Women are being raped in Darfur, so the imperialist knights must rush in to save them! But we have the knights in place in East Congo, and women are still being raped. Go figure?