The United States of Manufactured Hysteria

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

Image by Mike Licht | CC BY 2.0

hank God for the Charlottesville Nazis! For a moment there, it was looking like we were actually going to have a few days to stop and reflect on the state of America without being subjected to some new form of manufactured mass hysteria. Seriously, just a few short weeks ago, as the corporatist ruling classes’ ridiculous attempt to convince the world that Donald Trump is some sort of Russian sleeper agent appeared to be finally fizzling out, a significant number of leftist types were beginning to wonder if maybe, just maybe, the fact that the United States government is controlled by a global corporate plutocracy that has no allegiance to any nation, or people, or to anything other than itself, and that is in the process of demonizing and potentially deposing an elected president … that maybe that might be something to focus on, not exclusively, by any means, but alongside other vital issues, like defending the rights of transgender drone pilots and purging syllabi of oppressive pronouns.

Fortunately, thanks to the Nazis of Charlottesville, this dangerous moment of doubt has now passed. If you were listening closely on August 11, you could hear the collective sigh of relief whooshing out of Resistance quarters like a hypnagogic idiot wind as roughly one hundred white supremacists marched into town with their tiki torches barking N.S.D.A.P. slogans and otherwise making asses of themselves. Corporate media apparatchiks, mandarins of the Internet Left, professional and amateur Naziologists, and assorted other Nazi experts immediately went to DEFCON 1, signaling imminent Nazi invasion. Photos of bug-eyed, torch-bearing Nazis, their mouths wide open in mid-Nazi shriek, veins bulging out of their Nazi necks, were released to the public and circulated widely. Millions of conflicted leftists (many of whom had been feeling uneasy about collaborating with the corporate plutocracy in their efforts to delegitimize Trump, and every last American who voted for him), upon seeing glossy, color close-ups of these Nazis waved in front of their faces, responded as every Good American has been conditioned to respond since early childhood. They instantly switched off their critical faculties and began reenacting the Second World War … or rather, the mythical version of it wherein the USA defeated the Nazis, which is one of Americans’ favorite pastimes.

Look, I don’t mean to make light of Charlottesville. We’re talking actual neo-Nazis, with actual Nazi flags and haircuts, shouting actual Nazi slogans, and the Ku Klux Klan, and heavily-armed militia, and just garden variety racist rednecks … all of which have been standard features of American life for decades, and longer, but this is no time to reflect on history, or try to put things into perspective. Also, one of these Nazi morons ran over people with his car the next day, killing one woman, and injuring many others, which renders any critical thinking about the actual size of the Nazi menace (which remains ridiculously small, as ever) or the motives of the corporate media in blowing it up all out of proportion tantamount to Nazi sympathizing, and I’m already in enough trouble as it is.

Plus, Charlottesville was just the beginning … kind of like a Nazi Tet Offensive. Just one week later, on August 19, literally forty to fifty Nazis (cleverly disguised as Trump supporters, libertarians, and right-wing oddballs) occupied a public gazebo in Boston, and were right on the verge of expressing virulent Nazi views to the cops surrounding them. Luckily, just in the nick of time, a contingent of approximately forty thousand anti-fascist Resistance members arrived on the scene to deny them a platform, and chase down anyone wearing one of those MAGA hats and verbally abuse them.

You can see how confusing all this gets … when you’re trying to figure out how to oppose both the supranational corporatocracy that is superseding sovereign nations as the hegemonic power in the world and the neo-nationalist reaction against it, which is essentially fascist in nature, and which the corporatocracy also opposes … and desperately wants you to help them oppose by buying their manufactured hysteria about Russians, or Nazis, or whatever scary monster they wave in front of your face.

You’d think the Nazis would have gotten the message … but no, last Sunday, August 27, another ten or eleven Nazis (many of them posing as “Trump supporters,” as if that didn’t make them Nazis, and some of them even going so far as to attempt to pass themselves off as “Latinos”) audaciously tried to assemble in Berkeley. The Resistance showed them no mercy this time. Thousands of peaceful counter-protesters quickly frightened the Nazis away, then squads of masked-up anti-fascists hunted down any Nazi-looking stragglers, “apparent alt-righters,” and nosy photographers, and stomped the living Hitler out of them. This alarmed the more liberal Resistance, which set about branding the anti-fascists who beat the crap out of the folks the liberals had branded Nazis “domestic terrorists.”

Elsewhere in America, Resistance members were frantically tearing down Confederate monuments, which had suddenly become intolerably offensive, and searching through online business directories for anyone named after Robert E. Lee, or horses named after General Lee’s horse, or the horses of other racist Nazis. That, and hastily organizing the upcoming March to Confront White Supremacy (presumably in order to make a mockery of the 1963 March on Washington), and penning lengthy explications of the evils of racism, white supremacy, and all other forms of Naziism associated with Donald Trump … and otherwise whipping people up into a sputtering frenzy of Nazi hysteria.

Now, you have to hand it to the fake Resistance … this Nazi hysteria is good for everyone. Not only is it an easier sell than that ridiculous Russian hacking nonsense (because Trump really is a racist, of course), but it’s something the broader Left can embrace, as it plugs straight into identity politics, which is pretty much all we’ve got these days.

See, up to now, the dilemma we’ve been facing (or some of us have been facing, anyway) is how to respond to the ruling establishment’s concerted campaign to “regime-change” Trump. On the one hand, Trump is a living embodiment of everything the Left opposes. On the other hand, going after Trump has meant carrying water for the fake Resistance, i.e., that global corporatocracy (which, by the way, does not mean “the Jews.” I always like to slip that in to piss off my anti-Semitic readers.) This has been a bit awkward for some of us, restraining our impulse to stick it to Trump (at least on whatever talking points the Resistance is currently putting out) because in doing so we would align ourselves with the ruling establishment’s attempt to demonize, and eventually depose an American president who isn’t playing ball with them properly. If we oppose regime change in other countries, shouldn’t we also oppose it at home? Or do the ruling classes get a pass this time because Trump is such an exceptional monster? But wait … wasn’t Saddam a monster? And Gaddafi? And all the other “Hitlers” that wouldn’t play ball with the corporatocracy? And Assad? Isn’t he a monster?

Charlottesville Nazis to the rescue! How much simpler could it possibly get? Corporatocracy? What corporatocracy? We got goddamned Nazis coming out of the woodwork! Racist Nazis! Confederate Nazis! Nazi apologists! Nazi sympathizers! This is no time to worry about who’s actually wielding political power, or how they’re manufacturing hysteria and otherwise manipulating people (not you, of course … other people). No, what we need to do now is censor the Internet, and other venues for Nazi hate speech, and round up all these racist Nazis and subject them to anti-Nazi therapy, or anti-racist empathy programs, or just gang up on them and beat them senseless.

OK, sure, that might sound extreme, or authoritarian, or just plain old creepy, but keep in mind that This Is Not Normal! And racism and Naziism is very, very bad. And Love Trumps Hate! And Scope Kills Germs! And we never literally meant that Trump was an actual Russian agent or anything. Forget about all that Russia stuff now. Trump is Hitler. Trump has always been Hitler. America has always been at war with Hitler. America will always be at war with Hitler.

Oh, yeah, and I almost forgot, today’s edition of the Two Minutes Hate will begin in approximately fifteen minutes. Please assemble in the usual location. Thank you for your cooperation.

About the Author

cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

By subscribing you won’t miss the special editions.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” -- acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump -- a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all.— Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

window.newShareCountsAuto="smart";

Russian TV Reports U.S. Secretly Backing ISIS in Syria

BE SURE TO PASS OUR ARTICLES ON TO KIN, FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES

Vox populi, Vox Dei, except in the US and the rest of the "West" where the truth is murdered every day 24/7.

US led coalition airplanes over Syria: always up to no good.

Russian television headlined on September 1st, "Syrian rebel defector says his US-trained unit sold arms to ISIS”, and reported statements by a defector from — a man who had quit — the U.S.-backed Maghawir al-Thawra group (the remnants of America’s New Syrian Army. The CIA-organized New Syrian Army had, in turn, been the remnants of the Free Syrian Army, which the U.S. had formed in Syria in 2011, during the “Arab Spring” uprisings across Arabia.

So, this defector had quit from what was actually the straggling and failing end, of America’s proxy-army of Syrians, who were fighting to overthrow Syria’s President, Bashar al-Assad. The U.S. Government had used the uprising in Syria to bring down Assad, who is allied with Russia. Ever since 1949, the U.S. Government has been trying to take over Syria. After the “Arab Spring,” the U.S. backed Al Qaeda in Syria in order to transform that Syrian uprising into that long-sought U.S. victory. What this defector said had caused him to quit, was America’s lies about what they were fighting for, and what they were fighting against. He didn’t want to be fighting for ISIS, against Assad. That’s what the Syrian war had now come down to, and so he quit.

This defector had been stationed at America’s Tanf military base inside Syria, ten miles north of (U.S. ally) Jordan, at which base the U.S. was claiming to be training “anti-ISIS” “moderate rebels.” Apparently, as the war progressed, America’s promises to its fighters in Syria changed from overthrowing Assad, to defeating ISIS, because even Assad’s opponents inside Syria came increasingly to abandon their efforts to overthrow Assad, while they increased even more their determination to conquer ISIS.

This is one of several military bases that the U.S. has set up inside Syria after having invaded that country subsequent to the “Arab Spring.” That U.S. base is illegal — it’s a hostile military occupation of Syrian sovereign territory — but all of America’s presence in Syria is that. The U.S. Government doesn’t care about illegality, except when it can be cited against a country that the U.S. wants to conquer, such as against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (his ‘WMD’ or weapons of mass destruction), to ‘justify’ invading it.

This defector, Assad As-Salem, says he defected because America’s statements and promises were all lies, and that, instead of fighting ISIS, the U.S. was training fighters to use U.S.-made weaponry which was being supplied to the base, but which the head of the base sold to ISIS; and that some Maghawir al-Thawra regulars, according to the article posted by Russian Television, "reported that to American base command, but following our report no action has been taken, the Americans only ramped up the support to the man who was appointed our commander and who was dealing with ISIS,' As-Salem said.” The U.S. had appointed their commander, who was actually assisting ISIS — a group the defector loathes. And the U.S. didn’t punish that commander, but instead "the Americans only ramped up the support to the man who was appointed our commander and who was dealing with ISIS.”

If that statement is true, then the countries which have been financing ISIS (mainly Saudi Arabia) are the actual buyers of these U.S.-made weapons; and, of course, the U.S. weapons-manufacturers were actually selling these weapons to the funders of ISIS, which funders then donated these weapons to ISIS, as their part of the U.S. coalition’s campaign to overthrow and replace Assad. Of course, the Sauds regularly receive training by the U.S. in how to operate U.S.-made weapons; so, this training can be passed along to ISIS, by their U.S.-trained Saudi troops.

What’s described here is, then, essentially, a sales-and-marketing campaign by the U.S. Government, to increase sales-volumes for U.S. weapons-makers (who, of course, heavily lobby Congress, so they’ve got support there to increase military funding). This is truly the free market at work, but relying heavily upon government, as any economy itself inevitably must (because without laws, etc., there can’t be any “market” at all). (To be against corruption is intelligent; to be against ‘government’ is not; government is necessary. The only question about government is “good or bad?” not “small or large.”) This sales-and-marketing campaign certainly isn’t the libertarians’ fantasy of creating zero government (anarchy), nor even just “to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub” — as one mega-corporate lobbyist proudly proclaimed to be his goal. It’s the real world; it’s no libertarian (or any other) fantasy about things, at all.

A link to this news-report on RT, Russian Television, became posted at reddit, under the category “Syrian Civil War”, and reader-comments there were generally in the nature of “Corrupt Syrian soldiers sell arms to rebels and corrupt rebels sell arms to ISIS/Al Nusra.” Apparently, most readers were blaming the Syrians, not the U.S. Government. However, one comment was at least open-minded: “War and corruption go hand in hand. One should try to investigate here.” That “investigation” is our aim. But in order to investigate the situation, one must first know accurately what it really is. One can’t know that, without knowing the relevant context, which is what we are now focusing on.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]his report, from RT, provides a very different picture than does a recent article by America’s CNN, on July 26th, headlined “US tells local Syrian allies they must only fight ISIS and not Assad, prompting exit of allied group”, which stated that:

(CNN)The US-led coalition fighting ISIS has told its local Syrian allies that they must be exclusively focused on fighting ISIS and not fight the Syrian regime, a directive that prompted one rebel group to depart a joint coalition base in Southern Syria, several coalition and US defense officials told CNN.

"The coalition supports only those forces committed to fighting ISIS," coalition spokesman US Army Col. Ryan Dillon told CNN.
..

But one US-backed group which calls itself "the Shohada Al Quartyan" has balked at the restriction, opting to leave the base to carry out independent operations against Syrian regime troops several US and coalition officials told CNN. The officials added that other local allies remain at the garrison and continue to cooperate with coalition advisers.

"The Shohada Al Quartyan have made it known that they may want to pursue other objectives. The coalition is making it clear to Shohada Al Quartyan leadership that if they choose to pursue other objectives, the coalition will no longer support their operations," Dillon said. …

Though both the RT report and the CNN report agree that the U.S. Government is telling its Syrian ‘moderate rebels’ that they are fighting against ISIS, the reports disagree in that RT’s says that quitters are leaving because America’s actual focus is on overthrowing Assad, whereas CNN’s says that quitters are leaving because there’s not enough focus on overthrowing Assad. Both reports could be true, because the two reports deal with different groups of ‘Syrian rebels’.

Perhaps, the U.S. is telling its fighters in Syria, their target is to be only ISIS, even at the same time that the U.S. is actually using those fighters as an excuse to bring into Syria U.S.-made weaponry that are secretly then to be supplied to ISIS. Of course, if that’s the real case, the Shohada al-Quartyan people might be leaving the U.S. alliance because they’ve been deceived by their American bosses to think their target to be ISIS instead of Assad. However, the Maghawir al-Thawra group are alleged to have quit the U.S. alliance on account of having been lied-to and themselves seen that the U.S. is actually selling U.S.-made weapons to ISIS. The CNN article alleges only that the Shohada al-Quartyan group had left because of what their U.S. bosses merely told them: that ISIS would now be the target. So, possibly, both articles are true; but, in that case, America is now telling Syrian rebels that their focus is to be on eliminating ISIS; and, some rebel-groups are abandoning the American effort because of this instruction, while other rebel-groups are abandoning the American effort because that allegation by their U.S. commanders is actually a lie and the U.S.’s real objective is to overthrow Assad.

Therefore, quite possibly, both RT and CNN are telling different aspects of the same narrative (though focusing on different aspects of it).

I have previously provided detailed documentation that the U.S. was relying almost exclusively upon Al Qaeda in Syria — called “al-Nusra” there — in order to lead and train virtually all anti-Assad forces there. However, apparently, the more successful the Syrian-Russian-Iranian coalition has been at defeating in Syria the U.S.-Saudi-Qatari-UAE coalition, which employed Al Qaeda’s leaders in Syria to train fighters to overthrow and replace Assad, the more reliance the U.S.-Saudi-Qatari-UAE group has come to place upon ISIS, and the less they’re placing upon Al Qaeda in Syria.

I reported on this development — America’s increasing reliance upon ISIS after the decline of Al Qaeda in Syria — in several previous articles, especially these two:
..

12 December 2016, "Obama and Erdogan Move ISIS Terrorists from Iraq to Syria, to Weaken Assad”

30 April 2017, “How Obama & Erdogan Moved ISIS from Iraq to Syria, to Weaken Assad”

Those ISIS jihadists were being moved from the Iraqi city of Mosul, to the Syrian city of Deir Ezzor, otherwise called Der Zor, at the center of Syria’s oil-well territory. If ISIS wins firm control of that city, plus transit-routes out in order to sell the oil, they won’t need any more money from the Sauds. CNN starts their report with the false assumption that Syria doesn’t own Syria, that Syrian national sovereignty (the legal Government of Syria, which is headed by Assad) doesn’t exist; and, so, CNN continued their 26 July 2017 report:

Some time ago, Bashar al-Assad's forces — supported by Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah proxy militias on the ground, and Russian air force on the air — realized that ISIS was in retreat, so they moved quickly to grab as much territory as they could [notice the allegation here, that Syria’s Government is ‘grabbing’ this Syrian territory, which ISIS had stolen]: in the north to west of Raqqa; in the middle of the country moving east of Palmyra, toward Al Sukhna — a crossroads town considered a gateway to Deir Ezzor; and in the south along the Jordanian and Iraqi borders in Tanf, blocking the path to Deir Ezzor. It's obvious that Assad and his allies are eyeing Deir Ezzor. [This statement reinforces that Assad isn’t the legitimate head-of-state there.]…
..

If Assad and his allies reach Deir Ezzor and the strategic border town of Abu Kamal before the coalition forces advancing from north, then it's game over for the coalition.

CNN’s ‘news’ treats America’s attempted theft of Syria, from the Syrian Government, as being instead an attempted protection of the Syrian people, from the Syrian Government. (Never mind that America is backing jihadists to become the new Syrian government, as a supposed improvement upon Assad’s decidedly secular Government of Syria.) And America claims to be a law-abiding nation, ‘protecting the peace of the world’, instead of to be grabbing yet another piece of the world.

That CNN ‘news’-report is cited here only as being a contrast to the news-report on Russian Television. So, we’ll now briefly complete our discussion of the RT report:

In other words, America’s sudden determination, late in Obama’s Presidency, to oust ISIS from Mosul in Iraq, was intended specifically to provide this emergency-assistance by means of ISIS, to the U.S. coalition’s failing al-Qaeda-led effort to overthrow Assad. This is what we know of Obama as a strategic thinker. He was resourceful, and adapted to changing conditions, when he was faced with the failure of his existing strategy. There aren’t yet sufficiently clear signs to indicate Trump as a strategic thinker.
..
According to another RT news-article, on August 25th, Al Qaeda still remains intensely devoted to the effort to oust Assad. (Perhaps Al Qaeda still is getting enough support from the Sauds and UAE, even if the U.S. is no longer backing them.) RT headlined “New 25,000-strong Syrian terrorist force unites 70 gangs – Russian General Staff”, and reported that:

A new terrorist formation, Hayat Tahrir ash-Sham, consists of 25,000 militants, with Jabhat al-Nusra jihadists at its core, the intelligence chief of Russia’s General Staff said. He also spoke of the terrorists’ favorite tactics, state-of-the-art equipment and ways of getting profit.

“Currently, more than 70 gangs, including those from the ranks of the opposition, which used to consider themselves ‘moderate,’ have banded together. The total strength of the Hayat Tahrir ash-Sham group exceeds 25,000 militants,” Col. Gen. Igor Korobov, the head of the Main Directorate of the Russian General Staff (the foreign military intelligence agency), said during a roundtable on Friday as part of the Army-2017 international military-technical forum, held in the Moscow Region.

The key role in the formation belongs to Jabhat al-Nusra (Nusra Front)

Here is what Peter Korzun, at Strategic Culture, said on September 1st, about Hayat Tahrir ash-Sham:

Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS), an alliance led by al Qaeda's former Syrian branch, has consolidated its grip over large parts of Idlib after their main rival, the Kuwait-backed Ahrar al Sham, was ousted from the province's main towns and villages. The HTS is even crueler than Islamic State (IS). Its leadership rejects the very idea of dialogue with anyone. The group is a great spoiler and a hindrance on the way to Syria’s crisis management based on the [Russian-led] Astana peace process. No ceasefire or peace is possible as long as this Al-Qaeda affiliate controls the province and its border with Turkey.

On August 7th, al-Monitor, the news-site owned by Jamal Daniel of Houston, who is the head of Crest Investment Company, and a friend of the Bush family (who are buddies of the royal Sauds), reported about HTS, by saying that “the group’s aggressive behavior reflects the organization’s priority to expand its territory and consolidate its power, which would make it a de facto interlocutor in the cease-fire deals ongoing in Syria.” A reasonable assumption would be that HTS is extremely well-funded by outside sources.

Apparently, the U.S. still hopes to win this war: On August 19th, South Front bannered “US-LED COALITION WARPLANES BOMB SYRIAN ARMY IN KADIR VILLAGE IN CENTRAL SYRIA. ISIS ATTACK FOLLOWS – REPORTS”, and said that:

Warplanes of the US-led coalition have carried out airstrikes on the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) Tiger Forces in the village of Kadir in the province of Homs, according to pro-government sources.

America’s support of ISIS in Syria, is, in any case, becoming more overt. And, Al Qaeda’s failure, which caused the U.S. to turn to ISIS instead, has left the Saud-backed Al Qaeda competing with ISIS now, as the prime head-choppers against Syrians.

Regardless of what the explanations for America’s turn (at least temporarily) toward ISIS are, America’s weapons-makers will profit handsomely from it, just as they have profited enormously from the entire Syrian campaign since 2011. It’s probably an effective business-strategy for them, at the present stage.

About the author

They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

By subscribing you won’t miss the special editions.

Nationalists,Racists, Neo-Fascists and Capitalism

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

hile neo-liberals fight neo-conservatives in a war between roommates, the landlord and bank keep collecting rent and mortgage payments and are hardly noticed by most of the battling tenants. The lesser evil political system we call a democracy in which only a minority actually votes for winning Demublicans simply perpetuates its political economic foundation, which is crumbling not only in the USA and Europe but all over the world. Or the planet, to use the brand name popular among many wishing to bring about change but too often manipulated into finding it in the sex, skin tone, religion or sales pitch of the individual alleged changer. The present episode of Trump as villain president is a typical case - if more serious than any in recent history - as millions are programmed into opposition to him, while remaining unaware of the anti-social capitalist roots of the problem which bring the austerity, inequality, wars and environmental destruction which have been going on since the 19th century but at a much faster pace since the 1970s.

What is both positively and negatively labeled Nationalism is often human reaction to capital forcefully transforming people and earth to promote private profit with no regard for communities in process of being destroyed by that economic system. What would identity group labelers call Indians, Palestinians, and others whose lives became commodities for colonial capital and who rebelled against them? Xenophobes? Nationalists? Racists? That’s what they might look like from the high rise, the hilltop or the ivory tower, but at street-level things are very different from the theoretical-academic vantage point of that economic high ground where many, if a dwindling number, are privileged to reside.

Derogatory labeling of people as neo-fascists is often the practice of those who do quite well in that liberal democratic state in which great majorities never vote for the neo-lib-con professional class who strengthen capitalism with essays and term papers about change read by their peers while rarely if ever being activated if what they propose is radical. These treat majority workers in missionary fashion as under educated and even lesser human material - unless they are of politically correct chosen people of the moment - only speaking of and about them and rarely if ever to them. Whether fundamentalist worshippers at the church of market forces or more sophisticated language manipulators of control techniques useful in maintaining class privileges, the same divisive social forces at work now were those that helped the downfall of the Russian revolution and the triumph of fascism in Germany.

Sometimes sincere advocates of change who were at best unable or at worst unwilling to communicate with the great mass of the population which, in the first place attempted a revolution eventually destroyed by forces within and outside the nation - including invaders from the USA -, and second, allowing an arch-reactionary force to make more sense to those suffering the failings of capitalism. Whether consciously or not, too many still work to help division with politics that reduce all others to enemies and perpetuate the minority wealth that reduces people to consumers of material and intellectual waste, when they are left with enough means to consume anything at all in a credit based economy which could burst at any moment when a majority cannot pay its bills or worse, nature forecloses on a society and culture not just breaking but savaging its laws.

Those incapable of stopping the slaughter of Muslims in their homelands rise in anger against those who fear Muslim retaliation and support barring their entry into the USA. But the crisis that destroys nations, murders people and reduces so many to refugee status is the primary problem, not those reacting in fear that sometimes leads to hateful ignorance. End the first injustice and there will be no possibility of the second. Instead, the willful or helpless perpetuators of murder label the reactors who pay for it as neo-fascists, racists and worse.

Those whose jobs are lost to cheaper immigrant labor and who absorb the social costs that bring greater profit to capital – the backbone of this economy since immigrants came here in the 15^th century – are labeled derogatorily in the same fashion and in the same reactionary spirit. But if instead of lower economic end Spanish speaking immigrants from the south we had millions of English speaking upper end professionals entering the country from Canada, the reaction would likely be the same though coming from different economic strata. If we could get lawyers for 25 dollars an hour, teachers for 12.50 and doctors for 30, many Americans would be delighted while those of formerly upper middle incomes would be reduced to screaming about job, property and status loss – with good reason - and a few at the extremes might soon be parading about with shaved heads and swastika tattoos. The economic system that sets people apart by bringing great benefits to some only at great cost to others goes unquestioned. Only the divisiveness and labeling is highlighted.

Armed to the teeth under “fascist” Trump? We spent 600 billion on warfare under alleged peacenik Obama and started a multi billion-dollar program to upgrade nuclear weapons and further arm Israel in its democratic humanitarian suppression of Palestinians. Of course, the Palestinians are all nationalist-identitarian-xenophobe-racist-neofasicsts. Trump is a big individual problem, as is any CEO of this imperial corporation but the political economy of war capitalism is the much bigger problem, and its supporters, servants and willful or innocent constituents are not simply found on the right.

Fascist-populist-hate labeling brings comfort to some who can afford the high end marketplace community but can be demeaning to those carrying the social burdens at the lower end neighborhood of that same mall, though both play a role in maintaining the profits of private capital in divided groups which should be working together to make the entire community better for all its people. In this way, economic class barriers grow larger, more divisive and less visible, playing right into the identity group conflicts which are more easily seen and used by our rulers to keep democracy a word without meaning.

The political economy that lavishes billions of dollars on warfare and pet care while millions of its people live in poverty and lack health care and even housing is liberal and conservative, not either one or the other. It’s people who are of color, no color, some color, straight, gay or bent. It isn’t simply a good or bad person, however good some us think ourselves and however bad some of us are. We are part of a system that needs to be changed, radically, not simply part of a fake democracy which shuffles representatives of minority wealth every couple of years. Labels, including hate speech simplifiers, are used to manipulate us into continued buying of a stale and rotten product. It’s time we learn to understand the substance of our society and not just the words we are programmed to use, and abuse, in belief in its individualist myths and in opposition to one another.

Nationalism, like resistance to gentrification or immigration, is often the reaction of communities being radically changed by outside forces with no input from the people of those communities or nations. Are those who resent development that changes their high crime-low income community to a higher income-lower crime community all nimby ”not-in-my-backyard” types? Or do they express political economic protest, even if limited to only their own immediate surroundings, over having their survival further threatened?

Are protesters against immigration which takes jobs from their communities and transforms those places in language and culture, with absolutely no voice in that transformation, all guilty of hate? Or are they just like anti-gentrification folk, with economic and other protests against change in their lives and communities over which they have no control?

Labeling protesters against immigration changing communities over which they no longer feel at home as evil nationalists or racists - as though immigrants were another race - makes perverted sense only if supporters of gentrification and immigration were labeled capitalist, globalization supporting colonialists for their anti-human policies that bring profit to those outside those communities and loss to those within. Ignorance and hate are not the best ways to stand against ignorance and hate.

Ultimately, we need to see the community we all inhabit – that rebranded “planet” – and all its inhabitants as dwellers on and in a common space, in a common time of great stress in which humanity must, and finally can, come to democratic practice in running the political economy by changing it from the destructive path the current form is on to a new, more positive and hopeful road that will assure a future for all, and not just a privileged few. If conditioned product-commodity label identification is imprinted in our heads, it’s long past time to change that label from an identity group minority “them” to the majority group humanity “us”.

email: fpscott@gmail.com

About the Author

Frank Scott writes political commentary and satire which appears online at the blog legalienate.blogspot.com. He lives in Richmond, California.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

window.newShareCountsAuto="smart";

Hurricane Harvey: Its Three Unspeakable Descriptors

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

By Mike Rivage-Seul

Dateline: September 2, 2017

(Sunday Homily)

here are three terms Americans will scarcely hear mentioned in media reporting of climate disasters. The first two are "climate change" and "profit." The third is a person's name. The name is "Pope Francis."

As everyone knows, hurricane Harvey struck Houston, the 4^th largest city in the United States, last week. Apart from its obvious devastation, initial reports said Harvey had caused at least 12 deaths across an area that is home to more than 6 million people.

What most don't know is that on the other side of the world, in Bangladesh, India and Nepal people are currently experiencing 100 times the initially reported Houston death toll. There torrential rains have killed more than 1200 people and wreaked havoc in the lives of up to 40 million South Asians living in those countries. One third of Bangladesh is currently under water.

At the same time, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have recently published a warning that the parts of Asia just referenced (as well as Pakistan) will soon become uninhabitable for its 1.5 billion residents because of rising temperatures. Incessant heat waves will soon make it impossible for peasant farmers to work their fields. The predictable result will be famine and unimaginable loss of life.

[dropcap]D[/dropcap]espite such climate events and dire warnings, there are three terms Americans will scarcely hear mentioned in media reporting of these disasters. The first two are "climate change" and "profit." The third is especially relevant to a Sunday homily like this. It is a person's name. The name is "Pope Francis." In fact, I'll wager that this Sunday you'll not hear him or his encyclical Laudato Si' (LS) mentioned in connection with Hurricane Harvey even in most Catholic Churches. And that sad fact (despite Pope Francis' brave efforts) simply underlines the irrelevance to which the church has been reduced.

Begin by considering the silence of our leaders and media about "climate change," "global warming," or "climate chaos." Even during non-stop TV coverage of Harvey, the terms hardly crossed the lips of commentators. That's because virtually alone in the world, the United States (and its media enablers) stand in aggressive denial of the obvious fact that the "American" economy and way of life remain the major causes of such disasters. (Even the Chinese contribution to climate chaos is largely induced by U.S. factories relocated there.)

In fact, far from admitting its criminal and willful ignorance, the Republican-controlled presidency and congress are moving in the exact opposite direction of that required to address super-hurricanes (like Katrina, Sandy, and now Harvey), as well as torrential flooding, disintegrating icebergs, rising sea levels, and soaring temperatures. Setting itself in opposition to the entire world, our country has withdrawn from the landmark Paris Climate Accord, and is doubling down on the production and use of the dirtiest fuels at human disposal (including coal) .

Additionally, hardly a day goes by without our president threatening nuclear war. As Jonathan Schell pointed out even before most of us were aware of climate change, that event would also have devastating effect on the earth's atmosphere aggravating the climate syndrome already so well under way.

[dropcap]S[/dropcap]o you don't hear much these days about climate chaos and the devastating effects of climate change denial. The reason? That brings me to the second culturally unpronounceable word: "profit." In fact, as Noam Chomsky points out, that word is so unspeakable that it must now be pronounced and spelled as j-o-b-s. Nevertheless, we all know, the real reason for climate denial isn't jobs, but capital accumulation. Capitalism. That is, corporations like Rex Tillerson's Exxon are willing to destroy the planet, rather than respond appropriately to the climate impacts of their products that their own research uncovered decades ago.

Pope Francis has pretty much denounced capitalism by naming its central components and colossally malignant dynamic, but he still refrains from spelling it all out clearly and forcefully.

Pope Francis has recognized the deception and hypocrisy of it all. And that's why his name along with climate change and profit, is unmentionable in connection with Harvey. Yet, more than two years ago, Francis wrote an entire encyclical addressing the problem. (Encyclicals are the most solemn form of official teaching a pope can produce.) Still, his dire warnings remain largely ignored even by "devout Catholic leaders" such as Paul Ryan and his Republican cohorts. Even worse, the pope's words generally go unreferenced by pastors in their Sunday homilies.

Yet the pope's words are powerfully relevant to Harvey, Sandy, and Katrina -- to Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan. For instance, in section 161 of Laudato Si' Francis says,

"Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain. We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth. The pace of consumption, waste, and environmental change has so stretched the planet's capacity that our contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes such as those which even now periodically occur in different areas of the world. The effects of the present imbalance can only be reduced by our decisive action here and now. We need to reflect on our accountability before those who will have to endure the dire consequences."

And what are the "here and now" "decisive actions" the pope called for? Chief among them is the necessity for all nations of the world to submit to international bodies with binding legislative powers to protect rainforests, oceans and endangered species, as well as to promote sustainable agriculture (LS 53, 173-175).

That, of course, is exactly what the Exxons of the world fear most. Such submission threatens ~~jobs~~ profits.

But realities much more important than ~~jobs~~ profits are at stake here. We're talking about the survival of human life as we know it.

This is a matter of faith. It is a matter of basic decency and common sense.

In fact, Hurricane Harvey and the other climate disasters I've just mentioned remind us of the most dreadful papal observation of all. "God always forgives," Pope Francis has said. "Human beings sometimes forgive. But nature never forgives."

Last week's events in Texas demonstrate that truth. Mother Nature is angry, and She's coming after us.

Are we listening?

Select Comment by Special Contributor Patrick Walker

This is a SUPERB article--especially where it concerns the censorship of Pope Francis by America's Catholic bishops. If Catholics wish to be pro-life without IMMENSE hypocrisy, they'd better start speaking LOUDLY about climate change.

My only problem with the article is its focus on Republicans--its failure to censure Democrats as "the other climate destruction party." Thus, it has no mention of Obama's highly destructive "all of the above" energy policy. Nor of his inexcusable failure to mention climate change AT ALL in his 2012 debates with Mitt Romney. Nor is there any mention of how much the U.S. under Obama watered down the Paris climate talks, to the extent top climatologist James Hansen described the talks as "a fraud." Nor is there any mention of Hillary Clinton possibly worse-than-Obama climate policy (she long supported both Keystone XL and the climate-hostile Trans-Pacific Partnership), which Hansen again reviled as "just plain silly."

Given Trump's utterly destructive climate policies and humanity's pressing timetable, Bill McKibben--a heroic climate educator but long too soft on Democrats--has recently called for an immediate transition to 100% renewable energies. Anyone who thinks Democratic politicians will do that without being threatened with the political equivalent of crucifixion is a GOD-DAMNED FOOL.—PW

About the Author

Mike Rivage-Seul is a liberation theologian and former Roman Catholic priest. Recently retired, he taught at Berea College in Kentucky for 36 years where he directed Berea's Peace and Social Justice Studies Program.Mike blogs at http://mikerivageseul.wordpress.com/

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

And what are the “here and now” “decisive actions” the pope called for? Chief among them is the necessity for all nations of the world to submit to international bodies with binding legislative powers to protect rainforests, oceans and endangered species, as well as to promote sustainable agriculture (LS 53, 173-175).

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

By subscribing you won’t miss the special editions.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

window.newShareCountsAuto="smart";

Steven Jonas on Racism, Antisemitism and Free Speech

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH
Special to The Greanville Post

Murray

In my book, The 15% Solution: How the Republican Religious Right Took Control of the U.S., 1981-2022: A Futuristic Novel, currently being serialized on OpEdNews and several other webmagazines, I wrote an extensive Appendix (No. VI) about Murray and his collaborator at the time, one Richard Herrnstein. This column consists in part of an abridged version of that Appendix.

“In 1994 Murray and Herrnstein published The Bell Curve (New York: The Free Press). They attempted to prove that the lower “Intelligence Quotient” levels (IQ) found by some researchers among ‘blacks’ as compared with ‘whites’ were produced by genetic differences between the two groups (Browne, M.W., “What Is Intelligence, and Who Has It?” [a review of The Bell Curve along with two other racist books], The New York Times Book Review, October 16, 1994, (p.3).

“Then, making the leap that IQ differentials established genetic differentials between various groups of people, they went on to argue that since ‘blacks’ were genetically inferior to ‘whites,’ it didn’t make any sense for the latter to spend any money trying to bring the former up to either educational or economic speed. Acknowledging the racist content of their analysis, they called it ‘scientific racism,’ as if that somehow would clean it up.

Judging people by skin pigmentation is often entering a slippery slope. On the surface, slight gene variations can account for a lot, but the scale is basically stepless.

Italian? Spanish? Irish? Don’t bet your life on it. Actress Jennifer Beals, best known for her roles in Flashdance and the Showtime series The L Word, was born to an African-American father and an Irish-American mother. Beals also played a biracial woman passing for white in the 1995 period film Devil in a Blue Dress, starring Denzel Washington.

“One detail always ignored by racists, whether of the scientific or non-scientific variety, was exactly how skin color can be used to define anyone into groups. First of all, it was a given that there was a very wide range of skin color in any of the ‘races’ as the racists defined them. Some ‘blacks’ have lighter skin tones than some ‘whites.’ But that makes no difference to the racists’ group assignments. Furthermore, in any one individual whether ‘white’ or ‘black,’ skin tone often changes over time in response to such factors as sun exposure, weathering, or ageing.

CAROL CHANNING Skin color is deceiving. The legendary Broadway performer was always celebrated as another glamorous white star. However, in her autobiography released in 2002, she shocked the world when she revealed that her father was actually a biracial black man. Channing did not know this until she attended college and her mother revealed it.

[dropcap]M[/dropcap]ore important is the observation that in the United States there are rarely any persons who are purely ‘black’ in skin color, like native Africans are. Virtually all African-Americans are the product of, over the centuries, African women whose ancestors had been brought to North America as slaves, being impregnated by white men, most often involuntarily. This practice continued down through the Jim-Crow era. If African-Americans are indeed ‘intellectually inferior’ due to their gene pool, this must mean that the countless white men who forcibly or otherwise impregnated formerly African women over the centuries were intellectually inferior too. However, this is a detail which seems to have slipped past the ‘intellectually superior’ minds of Murray and Herrnstein as well as those of all the countless other U.S. racists down through the centuries, indeed to the present time. Indeed, as has so often been the case, such facts always fail to confuse the analysis of any dedicated racist, whether of the scientific or the non-scientific variety.

“’Scientific’ racism had a long history in the white Western world, linked with the names of such discredited ‘scientists’ as Jensen and Shockley, Galton and Pearson, Osborn and Davenport. Its ‘scientific’ base had been on more than one occasion shown to be patently false, as for example in the lengthy book by Allan Chase entitled The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism (Knopf, 1977). Chase summarized the general theory of ‘scientific” racism well in the Preface to his book (p. xv):
..
‘ “Scientific racism” is, essentially, the perversion of scientific and historical facts to create the myth of two distinct races of humankind. The first of these ‘races’ is, in all countries, a small elite whose members are healthy, wealthy (generally by inheritance), and educable. The other “race” consists of the far larger populations of the world who are vulnerable, poor or non-wealthy, and allegedly uneducable by virtue of hereditarily inferior brains.

‘In the teachings of scientific racism, most of the human race’s physiological ailments, anatomical defects, behavioral disorders and — above all else — the complex of socio-economic afflictions called poverty are classified as being caused by the inferior hereditary or genetic endowments of people and races. Historically, these core pseudo-genetic myths … have provided … “scientific” rationales for doing nothing or next to nothing about the prevention of scores of well-understood impediments to proper physical and mental development…

‘Coupled, as it often is and has been, with much older forms of gut racism based on religious, racial, and ethnic bigotry, scientific racism invariably exacerbates the already agonizing traumas … for all minorities from Auschwitz and Belfast to Boston and Birmingham (AL). Nevertheless, bigotry is not one of the functions of scientific racism; it is merely a later adjunct in the furtherance of the basic socioeconomic functions of scientific racism.’

“And, one might add, its political functions as well.

“Jim Naureckas, editor of has put this matter of the Murray/Herrnstein book very well (“Racism Resurgent: How Media Let The Bell Curve’s Pseudo Science Define the Agenda on Race,” FAIR: EXTRA!, Jan./Feb. 1995, p. 12):

‘When The New Republic devoted almost an entire issue 10/31/94 [Author’s Note: appropriately, Halloween], to a debate with the authors of The Bell Curve, editor Andrew Sullivan [note that, dear reader] justified the decision by writing: “The notion that there might be resilient ethnic differences in intelligence is not, we believe, an inherently racist belief.” [oh really, Andrew?] In fact, the idea that some races are inherently inferior to others is the definition of racism. What The New Republic was saying — along with other media outlets that prominently and respectfully considered the thesis … is that racism is a respectable intellectual position, and had a legitimate place in the national debate on race…’

“However, Naureckas went on to point out, nearly all the ‘research’ Murray and Herrnstein cited to support their claims on the relationship between race and IQ was paid for by the Pioneer Fund, characterized by the London Sunday Telegraph, hardly left-wing itself, as a ‘neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far right in American politics.’

“Presently [1995], the Southern Poverty Law Center describes Murray (Seelye) as a ‘white nationalist’ who uses ‘pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of black [and now] Latino communities, women, and the poor [generally, I guess].’ One does have to wonder how he would classify rich folks who become poor and poor folks who become rich. But, as some say, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. (Actually, that’s only said by inconsistent folks who get caught, but that’s another matter.)

Naureckas points out that Herrnstein and Murray, not wanting to be confused by facts, simply ignored the findings of social scientists like Jane Mercer that when IQ differences are found, they wash out if the data are adjusted for socioeconomic variables. Further, [even back in 1994-5] there was 50 years of research in population genetics. A principal finding of the definitive work in the field, the book The History and Geography of Human Genes by Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza is that (Subramanian, S., “The Story in Our Genes,” Time, January 16, 1995, p. 54):

‘Once genes for surface traits such as coloration and stature are discounted, the human races are remarkably alike under the skin. The variation among individuals is much greater than differences among groups. In fact, the diversity among individuals is so enormous that the whole concept of race becomes meaningless at the genetic level. The authors say there is “no scientific basis” for theories touting the genetic superiority of any population over another.’

“Finally, the newspaper columnist Robert Reno commented on Herrnstein/Murray’s use of psychometry (a now discarded field that was about as much a science as were alchemy and phrenology) (” ‘Bell Curve’ Just Gives Ammo to Garbage Carriers,” Newsday, October 26, 1994):

‘(1.) The “science” of psychometry — the measurement of mental abilities — has a lengthy and somewhat disreputable history. The ideas that even modern IQ tests have reached some state-of-the-art infallibility is ridiculous. The slop Murray has served up is not only unappetizing but warmed over. Proving the inferiority of races has for 100 years been the mischief of self-promoting scholars as credentialed as Murray and as squalid as the louts who churned out the “science” behind Dr. Goebbels’ loathsome ravings. Giving Murray an “A” for originality — or even guts — is an offense to their infamy. There is a convincing body of scientific literature suggesting Murray is simply wrong, is practicing bad genetics, that interracial differences in IQ scores are really explained by such factors as pre- and post-natal experiences.”

Nevertheless, there are some cooks who never get tired of serving up slop, and Murray is apparently among them. But the majority of students at Middlebury just didn’t like the taste and never gave Murray the chance to offer it up.
But what about “free speech,” then? An editorial on The New York Times on the subject was entitled “Smothering Speech at Middlebury” Oh really? Supposing that Murray was a well-known anti-Semite (and given Breitbart, etc., in certain circles anti-Semitism is being given a certain buffing. Further, anti-Semitic violence is now occurring on a regular basis, certainly without any national outrage greeting it). If he had indeed been invited (which he almost certainly wouldn’t have been because although old-fashioned racism is OK for discussion in certain “liberal” circles, like the one inhabited by the President of Middlebury, one Laurie Patton) anti-Semitism almost certainly would not be. But wouldn’t that be “silencing free speech?”

And then what about what happened to Milo Yiannopoulos at the recent annual Conservative Political Action Conference? At CPAC, for years, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and etc. have all been OK, indeed promoted by some attendees and speakers. Yiannopoulos, a gay man himself, has been particularly big on the first two. But when it came out that he had in the past condoned pederasty and spoke positively of sexual experiences with Catholic priests he had known while growing up, well, that earned him a dis-invitation. Of course, rightists like Bill Kristol and the Fox “News” Channel’s (or should I say the Republican Party Propaganda Channel’s) Brit Hume went absolutely nuts about what happened to Murray at Middlebury. Somehow, they failed to notice that CPAC did the same thing to Yiannopoulos. But “limiting free speech” is really all relative, as this whole episode shows.

Racism was not OK at Middlebury. Pederasty was not OK at CPAC. So far, anti-Semitism would be not OK at either. But if students “smother free speech” over racism, why is not CPAC’s action “smothering free speech as well?” And since in certain quarters Breitbart is considered to be anti-Semitic, when will the prevention of anti-Semitic speeches at universities and similar venues be considered “smothering of free speech” too? One does not have to go back to the McCarthy Era to realize that “free speech” is indeed a relative term, whether a majority of U.S. like to think of it that way or not.

https://www.amazon.com/15-Solution-Steve-Jonas/dp/0984026347/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1479660269&sr=1-1&keywords=The+15%25+Solutiono) originally published in 1996. The Middlebury “free speech” controversy is dealt with in the last three paras. of the column, more extensively in: https://www.opednews.com/articles/On-the-Limits-of-Free-Spe-by-Steven-Jonas-Anti-semitism_Fascism_Free-Speech-Censored_Homophobia-170329-472.html.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Senior Editor, Politics, Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor Emeritus of Preventive Medicine at StonyBrookMedicine (NY) and author/co-author/editor/co-editor of over 35 books. In addition to his position on The Greanville Post, he is: a Contributor for American Politics to The Planetary Movement; a “Trusted Author” for Op-Ed News.com; a contributor to the “Writing for Godot” section of Reader Supported News; and a contributor to From The G-Man. Furthermore, he is an occasional contributor to BuzzFlash Commentary Headlines and The Harder Stuff. Dr. Jonas’ latest book is Ending the ‘Drug War’; Solving the Drug Problem: The Public Health Approach, Brewster, NY: Punto Press Publishing, (Brewster, NY, 2016, available on Kindle from Amazon, and also in hardcover from Amazon.

His most recent book on US politics is The 15% Solution: How the Republican Religious Right Took Control of the U.S., 1981-2022: A Futuristic Novel (Trepper & Katz Impact Books, Punto Press Publishing, 2013, Brewster, NY), and available on Amazon.

Statue-of-Liberty-crying-628x356