Hedges takes aim at Trump: Two devastating, definitive broadsides

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



Editor's Note

Truthdig's Chris Hedges is known for penning searing critiques of Donald Trump. In a field now almost crowded with liberals taking shots at the improbable president, Hedges stands out for his usual incisiveness and the comprehensiveness of his attacks. These two columns deserve special mention. No anthology on Trump should be without them. True, Donald Trump and his multitude of petulant idiosyncrasies make an easy target for critics, almost like shooting at a stranded whale, but it still takes talent to wield the scalpel with this mordancy and precision. Hedges here propounds some resonant truths that need wide dissemination, especially amid normally clueless liberals still embracing a faux reality of moral superiority. This para alone is worth the price of admission:


The elites’ moral and intellectual vacuum produced Trump. They too are con artists. They are slicker than he at selling the lies and more adept at disguising their greed through absurd ideologies such as neoliberalism and globalization, but they belong to the same criminal class and share many of the pathologies that characterize Trump. The grotesque visage of Trump is the true face of politicians such as George W. Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.


Take this material to them, and see what happens. They will either choke on it or see the light or go on being...liberals. But if you don't try, who will?  So here, without further ado...—PG


The cynical capitalist ruing class is trying to impute all the evils and problems of a decomposing capitalism on Trump, as if he had created them.


The Useful Idiocy of Donald Trump
Truthdig

This is a repost of a Jan. 28, 2018, column by Chris Hedges.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he problem with Donald Trump is not that he is imbecilic and inept—it is that he has surrendered total power to the oligarchic and military elites. They get what they want. They do what they want. Although the president is a one-man wrecking crew aimed at democratic norms and institutions, although he has turned the United States into a laughingstock around the globe [this however is not to be regretted, losing respect for the criminal empire is a healthy development for all vassals and oppressed peoples—Ed], our national crisis is embodied not in Trump but the corporate state’s now unfettered pillage.

Trump, who has no inclination or ability to govern, has handed the machinery of government over to the bankers, corporate executives, right-wing think tanks, intelligence chiefs and generals. They are eradicating the few regulations and laws that inhibited a naked kleptocracy. They are dynamiting the institutions, including the State Department, that served interests other than corporate profit and are stacking the courts with right-wing, corporate-controlled ideologues. Trump provides the daily entertainment; the elites handle the business of looting, exploiting and destroying.

Once democratic institutions are hollowed out, a process begun before the election of Trump, despotism is inevitable. The press is shackled. Corruption and theft take place on a massive scale. The rights and needs of citizens are irrelevant. Dissent is criminalized. Militarized police monitor, seize and detain Americans without probable cause. The rituals of democracy become farce. This is the road we are traveling. It is a road that leads to internal collapse and tyranny, and we are very far down it.

The elites’ moral and intellectual vacuum produced Trump. They too are con artists. They are slicker than he at selling the lies and more adept at disguising their greed through absurd ideologies such as neoliberalism and globalization, but they belong to the same criminal class and share many of the pathologies that characterize Trump. The grotesque visage of Trump is the true face of politicians such as George W. Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The Clintons and Obama, unlike Bush and Trump, are self-aware and therefore cynical, but all lack a moral compass. As Michael Wolff writes in “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” the president has “no scruples.” He lives “outside the rules” and is “contemptuous of them.” And this makes him identical to those he has replaced, not different. “A close Trump friend who was also a good Bill Clinton friend found them eerily similar—except that Clinton had a respectable front and Trump did not,” Wolff writes.

Trump, backed by the most retrograde elements of corporate capitalism, including Robert and Rebekah Mercer, Sheldon Adelsonand Carl Icahn, is the fool who prances at the front of our death march. As natural resources become scarce and the wealth of the empire evaporates, a shackled population will be forced to work harder for less. State revenues will be squandered in grandiose projects and futile wars in an attempt to return the empire to a mythical golden age. The decision to slash corporate tax rates for the rich while increasing an already bloated military budget by $54 billion is typical of decayed civilizations. Empires expand beyond their capacity to sustain themselves and then go bankrupt. The Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Mayan, Khmer, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires all imploded in a similar fashion. The lessons of history are clear. But the illiterate charlatans who seize power in the dying days of empire know nothing of history. They are driven by a primal and inchoate lust for wealth, one that is never satisfied no matter how many billions they possess.

The elites in dying cultures turn everything into a commodity. Human beings are commodities. The natural world is a commodity. Government and democratic institutions are commodities. All are mined and wrecked for profit. Nothing has an intrinsic value. Nothing is sacred. The relentless and suicidal drive to accumulate greater and greater wealth by destroying the systems that sustain life is idolatry. It ignores the biblical injunction that idols always begin by demanding human sacrifice and end by demanding self-sacrifice. The elites are not only building our funeral pyre, they are building their own.

The elites, lacking a vision beyond satiating their own greed, revel in the intoxicating power to destroy. They confuse destruction with creation. They are agents of what Sigmund Freud calls the death instinct. They find in acts of national self-immolation a godlike power. They denigrate empathy, intellectual curiosity, artistic expression and the common good, virtues that sustain life. They celebrate a hyper-individualism embodied in celebrity, wealth, hedonism, manipulation and the ability to dominate others. They know nothing of the past. They do not think about the future. Those around them are temporarily useful to their aims and must be flattered and rewarded but in the end are ruthlessly cast aside. There is no human connection. This emotional numbness lies at the core of Trump’s personality.

[Stephen] Bannon described Trump as a simple machine,” Wolff writes. “The On switch was full of flattery, the Off switch full of calumny. The flattery was dripping, slavish, cast in ultimate superlatives, and entirely disconnected from reality: so-and-so was the best, the most incredible, the ne plus ultra, the eternal. The calumny was angry, bitter, resentful, ever a casting out and closing of the iron door.”

The elites in a dying culture confuse what the economist Karl Polanyi calls “real” and “fictitious” commodities. A commodity is a product manufactured for sale. The ecosystem, labor and money, therefore, are not commodities. Once these fictitious commodities are treated as real ones for exploitation and manipulation, Polanyi writes, human society devours itself. Workers become dehumanized cogs. Currency and trade are manipulated by speculators, wreaking havoc with the economy and leading to financial collapse. The natural world is turned into a toxic wasteland. The elites, as the society breaks down, retreat into protected enclaves where they have access to security and services denied to the wider population. They last longer than those outside their gates, but the tsunami of destruction they orchestrate does not spare them.

As long as Trump serves the interests of the elites he will remain president. If, for some reason, he is unable to serve these interests he will disappear. Wolff notes in the book that after his election there was “a surprising and sudden business and Wall Street affinity for Trump.” He went on: “An antiregulatory White House and the promise of tax reform outweighed the prospect of disruptive tweeting and other forms of Trump chaos; besides, the market had not stopped climbing since November 9, the day after the election.”

The Russia investigation—launched when Robert Mueller became special counsel in May and which appears to be focused on money laundering, fraud and shady business practices, things that have always characterized Trump’s financial empire—is unlikely to unseat the president. He will not be impeached for mental incompetence, over the emoluments clause or for obstruction of justice, although he is guilty on all these counts. He is useful to those who hold real power in the corporate state, however much they would like to domesticate him.

Trump’s bizarre ramblings and behavior also serve a useful purpose. They are a colorful diversion from the razing of democratic institutions. As cable news networks feed us stories of his trysts with a porn actress and outlandish tweets, the real work of the elites is being carried out largely away from public view. The courts are stacked with Federalist Society judges, the fossil fuel industry is plundering public lands and the coastlines and ripping up regulations that protected us from its poisons, and the Pentagon, given carte blanche, is engaged in an orgy of militarism with a trillion-dollar-a-year budget and about 800 military bases in scores of countries around the world.

Trump, as Wolff describes him in the book, is clueless about what he has unleashed. He is uninterested in and bored by the complexities of governance and policy. The faster Trump finds a member of the oligarchy or the military to take a job off his hands the happier he becomes. This suits his desires. It suits the desires of those who manage the corporate state. For the president there is only one real concern, the tumultuous Trump White House reality show and how it plays out on television. He is a creature solely concerned with image, or more exactly his image. Nothing else matters.

“For each of his enemies—and, actually, for each of his friends—the issue for him came down, in many ways, to their personal press plan,” Wolff writes of the president. “Trump assumed everybody wanted his or her fifteen minutes and that everybody had a press strategy for when they got them. If you couldn’t get press directly for yourself, you became a leaker. There was no happenstance news, in Trump’s view. All news was manipulated and designed, planned and planted. All news was to some extent fake—he understood that very well, because he himself had faked it so many times in his career. This was why he had so naturally cottoned to the ‘fake news’ label. ‘I’ve made stuff up forever, and they always print it,’ he bragged.”

Yes, the elites wish Trump would act more presidential. It would help the brand. But all attempts by the elites to make Trump conform to the outward norms embraced by most public officials have failed. Trump will not be reformed by criticism from the establishment. Republican Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee, who denounced Trump, saw their approval ratings plummet and have decided not to run for re-election. Trump may have public approval of only 39 percent overall, but among Republicans the figure is 78 percent. And I don’t think those numbers will decrease.

The inability of the political establishment and the press to moderate or reform Trump’s egregious behavior is rooted in their loss of credibility. The press, along with political and intellectual elites, spent decades championing economic and political policies that solidified corporate power and betrayed and impoverished American workers. The hypocrisy and mendacity of the elites left them despised and distrusted by the victims of deindustrialization and austerity programs. The attempt to restore civility to public discourse and competency to political office is, therefore, fruitless. Liberal and establishment institutions, including the leadership of the two main political parties, academia and the press, squandered their moral authority. And the dogged refusal by the elites to address the engine of discontent—social inequality—ensures that they will remain ineffectual. They lay down the asphalt for the buffoonery of Trump and the coming tyranny.

Take 2
Hedges filed this second dissection of Trump a year later. (Dec 17, 2018)

Trump, the Quintessential American


“Confidence men,” as Melville understood, are an inevitable product of the amorality of capitalism and the insatiable lust for wealth, power and empire that infects American society.

(Mr Fish)

[dropcap]D[/dropcap]onald Trump is part of the peculiar breed Herman Melville described in his novel “The Confidence-Man,” in which the main character uses protean personas, flattery and lies to gain the confidence of his fellow passengers to fleece them on a Mississippi River steamboat. “Confidence men,” as Melville understood, are an inevitable product of the amorality of capitalism and the insatiable lust for wealth, power and empire that infects American society. Trump’s narcissism, his celebration of ignorance—which he like all confidence men confuses with innocence—his megalomania and his lack of empathy are pathologies nurtured by the American landscape. They embody the American belief, one that Mark Twain parodied in “Pudd’nhead Wilson,” F. Scott Fitzgerald excoriated in “The Great Gatsby” and William Faulkner portrayed in the depraved Snopes clan, that it does not matter in the crass commercialism of American society how you obtain wealth and power. They are their own justifications.

American culture is built on a willful duplicity, a vision we hold of ourselves that bears little resemblance to reality. Malcolm Bradburywrote “that in America imposture is identity; that values are not beliefs but the product of occasions; and that social identity is virtually an arbitrary matter, depending not on character nor an appearance but on the chance definition of one’s nature or colour.” We founded the nation on genocide and slavery, ravage the globe with endless wars and the theft of its resources, enrich an oligarchic elite at the expense of the citizenry, empower police to gun down unarmed citizens in the streets, and lock up a quarter of the world’s prison population while wallowing in the supposed moral superiority of American white supremacy. The more debased the nation becomes, the more it seeks the reassurance of oily con artists to mask truth with lies.

Trump, like most con artists, is skilled at manufacturing self-serving news and a fictional persona that feed the magical aura of his celebrity. The showman P.T. Barnum is the prototype of this strain of Americanism. In the 1830s, he exhibited Joice Heth, an elderly African-American slave who he claimed was the 161-year-old former nurse of George Washington. When Heth lost her novelty, Barnum announced that what he had been displaying was a robot. “The fact is, Joice Heth is not a human being,” he wrote to a Boston newspaper, “… simply a curiously constructed automation, made up of whalebone, india-rubber, and numerous springs ingeniously put together and made to move at the slightest touch, according to the will of the operator. The operator is a ventriloquist.” The crowds, which at their height had collectively paid $1,500 a week (then a huge sum) to see Heth, returned in droves to see the supposed machine. After Heth died in 1836 at age 79 or 80, Barnum sold tickets to her autopsy, which was viewed by 1,500 paying customers.

“[Barnum] began to demonstrate the countless variations he would master in his numerous publicity campaigns: the quick discovery, the barrage of rapid and unusual information, the maximum exploitation—all these he utilized almost immediately,” Neil Harris wrote in “Humbug: The Art of P.T. Barnum.” “It was during Joice Heth’s tour that Barnum first realized that an exhibitor did not have to guarantee truthfulness; all he had to do was possess probability and invite doubt. The public would be more excited by controversy than conclusiveness. The only requirement was to keep the issue alive and in print. Any statement was better than silence.”

Barnum, schooled in the wily deceits of Yankee peddlers and salesmen as a child in Connecticut, also built the first temples to celebrities, including, in 1841, the American Museum in New York City, which Twain called “one vast Peanut stand” and said he hoped “some philanthropist” would burn down. Barnum was the high priest of the polytheistic, secular religion of Americans and the creator of kitsch as an aesthetic, characteristics that define Trump. Trump built his own temples to celebrity and to himself, among them the Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City and Trump Towers in various cities. Trump, like Barnum, understood that celebrities and their relics function in American culture as totems and magical talismans. He, as did Barnum, caters to the vulgarity of the mob, elevating the salacious and the sleazy and claiming it is culture and art.

Confidence men are adept at peddling fictions designed solely to attract publicity and belittle their opponents. Trump’s demand for Barack Obama’s birth certificate or Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test was not designed to uncover fact, but to belittle and entertain. The release of Obama’s birth certificate and Warren’s DNA finding did not puncture the lies. Old lies were replaced by new ones that again catered to the emotional yearnings of the mob. The tawdry rumor that Eliot Spitzer, the disgraced former governor of New York, wore black dress socks when he was having sex with prostitutes was given currency by the political operative and Trump confidant Roger Stone, cut from the same lump of clay as Barnum and Trump. “What kind of guy does it with his socks on?” Stone said to the New York Post.

In a documentary film about Spitzer by Alex Gibney titled “Client 9” Gibney interviews a prostitute, whose identity remains secret and whose words are read by an actor, who said she had numerous liaisons with Spitzer and denied he wore socks while having sex. Because of Stone’s comments, however, Spitzer felt compelled to deny, in Gibney’s film and in public, that he wore socks while having sex with prostitutes. The press had a feeding frenzy. Stone’s lie won by being endlessly repeated.

Stone, in the midst of the self-generated furor, wrote an article on Tucker Carlson’s The Daily Caller website that attacked those who questioned his assertion:

In his largely fictionalized movie, Gibney utilizes an actress to assert that Spitzer never wore droopy black socks in his romps with prostitutes. Supposedly the actress is mouthing the denial of a call girl that Gibney declines to identify by her real name. That’s because Gibney has no source willing to put their name on this lie. Gibney is not a journalist or filmmaker; he’s a left-wing propagandist with the same disregard for facts as Oliver Stone. Spitzer’s black sock fetish was previously confirmed by The New York Post on April 24, 2008, when an FBI source confirmed the New York Democrat’s passion for knee-high hosiery, which he declined to remove while engaging in paid-for sex. Gibney ignored this fact in his well-made-but-false movie.

Stone, like Trump, understands how to evoke images and emotional responses to overwhelm reality and replace truth. Such lies and pseudo-events, because they are so entertaining, are largely immune to deflation. Madison Avenue advertisers and publicists use the same tactics to saturate the landscape with skillfully manufactured illusions and false promises. The unmasking of the deceptions only adds to their allure and power.

An autobiography by Barnum, “Struggles and Triumphs,” which was published in 1869, shamelessly details the sleights of hand and deceptions that made him very, very wealthy. He understood, as he wrote in the autobiography, that “the public appears disposed to be amused even while they are conscious of being deceived.” This understanding underlies the popularity of entertainments such as professional wrestling and reality television shows, along with Fox News, all of which are premised on cons.

Con artists like Barnum, Trump and Stone exploit everyone and everything around them. When Barnum’s prize elephant Jumbo was killed by a train, he fabricated a story about Jumbo sacrificing himself to save a baby elephant. He bought another elephant, who he named Alice, and had pictures taken of her standing next to the stuffed body of her martyred “husband.” The deception was so outrageous and shameless that the public of that day, like a public that now gorges itself on reports of Spitzer wearing black socks while having sex with prostitutes, longed to believe it.

In our Barnumesque culture, those who create the most convincing fantasies in the cycles of nonstop entertainment are lionized. Those who puncture the fantasies with the prosaic truth are condemned for spoiling the fun. These pseudo-events and fabrications lift people up out of their daily lives into an Oz-like world of fantasy. They destroy a civil discourse rooted in verifiable fact, obliterating any hope of holding back the magical thinking that lies at the core of all totalitarian societies.

Barnum once asked E.D. Gilman, who had recently returned from the gold fields in California, to give a talk on prospecting, the wages prospectors earned, the equipment that was required and the living conditions. “While doing this,” Harris wrote, “he was to pass his hand over a twenty-five pound lump of gold, implying it was from California. Gilman replied that this would be humbug, for seven ounces was the largest lump he had ever heard of. ‘My dear sir,” replied the impresario, ‘the bigger the humbug, the better the people will like it.’ ”

Thomas Low Nichols in a memoir described an incident when Barnum was in desperate need of a blackface entertainer after his white singer quit. All he could find to replace his white singer was a young, talented black boy who danced and sang. It was impossible for Barnum to present the genuine article, given the yearning for illusion and his shameless catering to racial prejudice. Barnum “blacked and wigged” the boy, Harris wrote, so he would pass for a make-believe African-American, “because the New Yorkers, who applauded what they supposed a white boy in a blackened face and wooly wig, would have driven the real negro from the stage and mobbed his exhibitor.”

Trump, in a 2005 promotional video for a scam that made him about $40 million, employs the familiar hyperbole of the con artist in declaring: “At Trump University, we teach success. That’s what it’s all about—success. It’s going to happen to you. We’re going to have professors and adjunct professors that are absolutely terrific—terrific people, terrific brains, successful. We are going to have the best of the best. These are people that are handpicked by me.”

Only there was no university.

“The faux university also did not have professors, not even part-time adjunct professors, and the ‘faculty’ (as they were called) were certainly not ‘the best of the best,’ ” David Cay Johnston writes in “The Making of Donald Trump.” “They were commissioned sales people, many with no experience in real estate. One managed a fast food joint … two other instructors were in personal bankruptcy while collecting fees from would-be Trump university graduates eager to learn how to get rich.”

“Among [an] investigator’s findings was that students who attended a ‘next level’ seminar ‘are taught to prey upon homeowners in financial turmoil and to target foreclosure properties,’ ” Johnston writes. “They were also instructed, on the first morning of the three-day course, ‘to call their credit card companies, banks, and mortgage companies and ask for an increase or extension of credit so that they may finance the ‘Gold Elite’ package purchase. Defendant Trump U will even ask attendees to call their bank during these one-on-one sessions while the [Trump] representative waits. The primary goal of the 3-day seminar appears to be more high-pressure sales tactics in an attempt to induce them into purchasing Defendant Trump U’s ‘Gold Elite’ package for $35,000.”

Trump’s get-rich-quick schemes and seminars, including his books, were a con. His casinos were a con. His paid speeches on behalf of self-help gurus such as Tony Robbins were a con. Tales of his sexual prowess, spread by himself masquerading over the phone as a Trump spokesperson, were a con. His building projects were a con. Trump even had, Johnston writes, “imaginary employees.” Trump and his kleptocrats and grifters are today triumphant, and neither democratic norms or simply human decency will inhibit their pathological lust for more.

Perhaps it was inevitable that this poison would come to dominate our culture and our politics. It is the triumph of artifice. We live in an age when the fake, the fraudulent, the fabricated and the theatrical supplant reality. Trump’s manufactured persona was advertised on a reality television show. He sold this manufactured persona, as his ratings declined and he was in danger of being taken off the air, to become president. There are legions of agents, publicists, consultants, scriptwriters, celebrities, television and movie producers, wardrobe consultants, pollsters and television personalities dedicated to creating the myriad illusions that saturate the airwaves with Barnum-like lies. We can no longer tell the difference between illusion and reality; indeed when a version of reality is not verified on our electronic screens and by our reality manipulators it does not exist. The skillful creation of illusion and the manipulation of our emotional response, actions that profit the elites to our financial and political detriment, have seeped into religion, education, journalism, politics and culture. They solidify mob rule and magical thinking. Trump’s crass vulgarity, greed, unchecked hedonism and amorality, along with his worship of himself, are intrinsic to America, but his ascendancy, and the ascendancy of the character traits he personifies, represents cultural death.

CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE

Art by Mr. Fish

Cartoonist
Mr. Fish, also known as Dwayne Booth, is a cartoonist who primarily creates for Truthdig.com and Harpers.com. Mr. Fish's work has also appeared nationally in The Los Angeles Times, The Village Voice, Vanity…


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

(TGP)

Chris Hedges is a Truthdig columnist, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, a New York Times best-selling author, a professor in the college degree program offered to New Jersey state prisoners by Rutgers University, and an ordained Presbyterian minister. He has written 12 books, including the New York Times best-seller “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt” (2012), which he co-authored with the cartoonist Joe Sacco. His other books include "Wages of Rebellion: The Moral Imperative of Revolt," (2015) “Death of the Liberal Class” (2010), “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle” (2009), “I Don’t Believe in Atheists” (2008) and the best-selling “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America” (2008). His latest book is "America: The Farewell Tour" (2018). His book “War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning” (2003) was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction and has sold over 400,000 copies. He writes a weekly column for the website Truthdig and hosts a show, "On Contact," on RT America.

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

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Revolutionary wisdom

Words from an Irish patriot—

 

No, Antifa, This is Not the 1930s and We Don’t Need to Punch a Nazi

horiz-long grey

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

Tactics & Strategies
Counterpunch


Editor's Note: In a period of worldwide tumult and decay, with global capitalism and its citadel, the US, in progressive disarray, the left is groping for new tactics and strategies to push its natural agenda of peace, egalitarianism, and now ecological respect, forward. When I speak of the left, I mean the genuine left, what the author here apparently prefers to call "the ultra-left", as she appears to be writing from a centrist/liberal platform. (The term "ultra-left" itself I find tendentious, calculated to automatically "deligitimate" the target in the court of "respectable" public opinion, and should be avoided). Antifa may deploy controversial tactics, but Antifa is on the left. Antifa is not liberaloid and is certainly not on the right, let alone the fascistoid right. Antifa is not the enemy. They should be treated with respect and afforded comradely standing. The dialog with Antifa needs to be deepened. That said, this is the moment when all options should be examined. If not now, when?  So let's hear what Ms Contursi has to say. She has important points in need of consideration.—PG


Mosley with adherent (1936)

The “Battle of Cable Street” is a key event in the “creation myth” of the anti-fascist movement. It goes like this:

On Sunday, October 4, 1936, about 5,000 members of the British Union of Fascists (BUF), led by Sir Oswald Mosley, planned to march in full Blackshirt regalia through several Jewish neighborhoods in London’s East End. Six thousand police were assigned to protect them from about 100,000 anti-fascist protesters. The anti-fascists fought the police and erected barricades to block the marchers. When the fascists saw there was no possibility of moving beyond the barricades, they abandoned the march and dispersed. [1]

Some accounts of the battle claim that the fascists and anti-fascists fought hand-to-hand, but Reg Weston, a journalist who was in his early twenties when he actually participated in the battle, makes it clear that the two sides never clashed. The police and barricades kept them apart. It’s a myth, Weston says, “that the ‘battle’ was between the protesters and the Blackshirts. It was not — it was a battle with the police.” [2]

Nevertheless, the crowd celebrated that day. The “Battle of Cable Street” went down in history as a victory for anti-fascist forces and to this day is part of the heroic mythology of the ultra-left: “For many members of contemporary anti-Fascist groups, the incident remains central to their mythology, a kind of North Star in the fight against Fascism and white supremacy across Europe and, increasingly, the United States.” [3]

But was it really a victory?

On the surface, the battle appears to justify the preferred tactic of the ultra-left: direct physical confrontation in the streets. However, like all myths, the battle and its outcome have been distorted and embellished over the years. When we look at what actually happened in the weeks, months and years following the battle, two things become clear.

First, as a tactic violence can, at best, bring short-term gains, but those have to be weighed against long-term consequences. In other words, we don’t want to win the battle but lose the war. This is what happened at Cable Street. Second, justifying violence by comparing the U.S. today with fascism in the 1930s is a red herring. In the 1930s, Nazis posed a real threat to democracy; in 2017 America, they do not. It’s time to ask, cui bono – who benefits?


After the battle the fascists grew stronger 

[dropcap]U[/dropcap]nfortunately, the anti-fascists celebrating their victory in 1936 couldn’t have known that their actions would ultimately do nothing to stop either the Nazi juggernaut that descended upon Europe three years later, or the immediate popularity of the BUF. In fact, the BUF benefitted from the violence and became even stronger over the next four years, until 1940, when it was banned by the government.

What the anti-fascist forces did achieve at Cable Street was a singular victory in stopping a single march. But at what price? In the aftermath of that action, membership in the BUF grew. Rather than smashing fascism, the battle turned out to be a recruitment tool for the BUF. The organization gained an additional 2,000 members immediately, and its membership continued to climb steadily. Seven months before the battle, BUF membership was around 10,000; one month after the battle, it rose to 15,500. It continued to rise until, by 1939, the BUF had about 22,500 members. [4]

The anti-fascist actions didn’t dampen the peoples’ enthusiasm for Mosely’s message. In the weeks after the battle, pro-fascist crowds in the thousands turned out for BUF meetings, listened to Mosley’s fascist proselytizing, and marched through London without much opposition. [1] An intelligence report on the battle noted that afterwards, “A definite pro-Fascist feeling has manifested itself. The alleged Fascist defeat is in reality a Fascist advance.” [1]


Mosley in Rome. Where he met Il Duce.

Violence, it seems, provided free publicity for the fascists. The BUF “thrived off the publicity that violent opposition produced. The national media, under pressure from the government, largely avoided reporting on Fascist activity other than when disorder occurred. A leading Mosleyite lamented the ‘total silence’ in the press when BUF events passed without incident, complaining that only after disruption by opponents did newspapers show any interest.” [1]

And the fascists were quick to make the best of their notoriety. They cast themselves in the role of victim and hammered home the charge that the Left was interfering with their right to free speech and assembly.

Other confrontations with BUF fascists at Stockton (September 1933) and Newcastle (May 1934) had similar results. The anti-fascists succeeded in stopping the BUF temporarily, but as long as the fascists were perceived to be the victim of mob violence, their popularity and membership grew.

If these arguments from the 1930s sound familiar it’s because what we’re witnessing today in the ultra-right vs. ultra-left skirmishes is a replay of the anti-fascist strategy – and failures – from that era. But does that mean that the only choice we have is between doing nothing and taking violent action? That’s the ultra-left position, but it’s a false dichotomy that smacks of a lack of imagination or commitment to social change.


What stopped the British fascists?  

The single event that put a dent in the BUF’s power and propaganda was the end of its access to the press. The Daily Mail and Daily Mirror were its main propaganda tools. Their owner, Lord Rothermere, stopped supporting Mosley after the fascists were accused of initiating brutal violence during a meeting at Olympia in 1934. After that meeting, Rothermere’s Jewish advertisers in the UK threatened to pull their advertising unless he stopped editorially supporting Mosley. [5] Without the press, the BUF’s message was limited, and its membership dropped to 5,000 the following year. The final nail in the BUF’s coffin came in 1940, when the government banned them after the start of WW2.

So, the lessons to draw from Cable Street and the other anti-fascist actions in the 1930s are:

1) Violence is not an effective long-term tactic against Nazi hate groups. When Mosley’s fascists were perceived to be the victims of violence, their membership grew; but when they were perceived to be the perpetrators of violence, it dropped.

2) What does work, but is more difficult for peace groups to achieve, is applying economic pressure to the fascists’ financial base and swamping their propaganda with truth. This requires a long-term organizing strategy beyond the occasional demonstration or peace march (a good example of a long-term nonviolent strategy is the BDS movement).

No, today’s America does not resemble 1930s Germany 

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hile this notion is thrown around – mostly into the faces of people who don’t condone violent confrontation with white supremacists – as “common knowledge,” it’s never actually questioned. Peace workers are simply expected to quake at the very idea of 1930s Germany. But what did 1930s Germany look like, and is there really any comparison with today’s America?


Hitler pretty much took over the German state in seven months, between January and July 1933. In January 1933, President von Hindenburg appointed Hitler Reich Chancellor under pressure from the German ruling political and business classes. In February, after the Reichstag fire, Hitler began his move against the Left, which inGermany was strong in the labor movement. Using the SA (Sturmabteilung–Storm Detachment, the paramilitary wing of the National Socialist party) and his Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State, Hitler suspended civil liberties and began a full-scale terror campaign against the German Communist Party (KPD), including arrests, occupation of their offices, and shutting down of their press (again, note the critical role communications play). Many Party leaders went underground and many were executed. Without visible leadership and a printing press, the Communists were effectively neutered.

In early March, Hitler went after the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and confiscated its property, including its press. By late March, the regime passed the Enabling Bill, giving Hitler the power to rule by decree. With the Left parties out of the way, the trade unions no longer had effective leadership and Hitler was free to attack them next. In May he occupied the offices of the independent trade unions and confiscated their property. The regime then created the  German Labour Front to “represent” German workers. In June, the SPD was banned, and in July the regime passed the Law Against the Establishment of Parties—outlawing all political parties except the National Socialists. With all political and trade union opposition out of the way, and Germany a police state, it remained only for Hindenburg to die, which he did the following year in August 1934, whereupon Hitler merged the offices of the Chancellery and Presidency and became dictator. [6]

Even in this brief summation of the early years of 1930s Germany one would be hard pressed to see any comparison with today’s America, Trump notwithstanding, or any grounds for the irrational fear among liberals that the country is about to be overrun by Nazis.

Instead, what should be clear is the continuity of the neocon and neoliberal agenda from the 1990s — under both political parties — that has brought us never-ending regime change wars, deep cuts in domestic programs, and internecine identity politics conflicts within the working and middle classes.

Divided, we cannot effectively confront the ruling classes, and they know it. There is one issue capable of splitting and cracking the organized peace and justice movement, and that’s the issue of tactics — violence vs. nonviolence. Historically it has split the Left into smithereens over and over again. In fact, if the ultra-left hadn’t appeared at this point in history, the ruling class would have had to create it, sponsor it, glorify it in the media, and allow it the freedom to divide the left and destabilize protests that, in the past, have gone on without incident. Again, cui bono?


Violence is a dead-end…time to get creatively nonviolent

Why violence?

[Antifa] believe that elites are controlling the government and the media. So they need to make a statement head-on against the people who they regard as racist. There’s this ‘It’s going down’ mentality and this ‘Hit them with your boots’ mentality that goes back many decades to confrontations that took place, not only here in the American South, but also in places like Europe.

— Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. [7]

The idea in Antifa is that we go where they (right-wingers) go. That hate speech is not free speech. That if you are endangering people with what you say and the actions that are behind them, then you do not have the right to do that. And so we go to cause conflict, to shut them down where they are, because     we don’t believe that Nazis or fascists of any stripe should have a mouthpiece.

— Scott Crow, a former 30-year member of an Antifa group. [7]

When you look at this grave and dangerous threat — and the violence it has already caused — is it more dangerous to do nothing and tolerate it, or should we confront it? Their existence itself is violent and dangerous, so I don’t think using force or violence to oppose them is unethical.

— Antifa activist [8]

What strikes me in the rhetoric of the ultra-left is a sense of urgency and danger, which then feeds the perceived need for the use of force against an overwhelming enemy. This is a crusade, and the enemy is evil itself. So, to the question of, “Why do you use violence,” Antifa answers, “Violence is necessary against Nazis because you can’t talk to evil.” If this seems to mirror what imperialist America has been saying about its “enemies” for decades, that’s no coincidence. The war industry has become America’s bread and butter, and its world view has percolated down through every level of society.

But “Why” is the wrong question. From a purely tactical stance, the question should be, “Does is work?” And the answer that comes down to us from history and experience is, “Not in the long-term.”

The lesson from Cable Street is clear—the anti-fascists succeeded in shutting down one march. But in the aftermath of that action, fascist membership grew and, within a few weeks, the BUF was marching again—with little or no opposition.

Most organizations working for social change do so with an explicit commitment to nonviolence, as stated in their mission statements. There are good reasons, and a lot of historical precedents, for this. These groups know that peace work is long-term work that requires decades, often generations of commitment. No organization can hope to sustain its work and maintain its membership over the long term through violence. Organizing the masses around hatred of an “Other” is not a long-term winning strategy, especially when that Other isn’t even the real enemy. There is some irony in the fact that the ultra-right hates the Deep State as much as the ultra-left does.

The Nazi organizations in the U.S. are not the Italian Blackshirts or the German Brownshirts. Contemporary U.S. Nazis resemble their Italian and German idols only in their symbols and rhetoric. Beyond that, they are isolated groups that split, fracture, often kill one another, and have no political party backing. The fact that the media and its political handlers have chosen this moment in history to hype the “Nazi threat” should raise a few eyebrows, if not questions.


Is nonviolence “pacifism”?

Ultra-leftists use the “P” word to imply that those advocating nonviolence are cowards, do-nothings and enablers of fascism. These charges can be expected from individuals who have little foresight, little knowledge of history and little experience in actual organizing – but who have a lot of fear and confusion about current events.

So, a word about what nonviolence is and is not. Nonviolence is not pacifism. It is not toleration. It is not cowardice. Nonviolent direct action is struggle. It is courage. It is thoughtful and creative strategizing. It is for the future of humankind.

To the false and loaded question of, “Is it more dangerous to do nothing and tolerate it?” we can let Howard Zinn, a life-long nonviolent fighter for peace and justice, have the final word:

Thus, none of the traditionally approved mechanisms for social change (not war, nor revolution, nor reform) is adequate for the kind of problems we face today in the United States and in the world. We need apparently some technique which is more energetic than parliamentary reform and yet not subject to the dangers which war and revolution pose in the atomic age.

This technique, I suggest, is that which has been used over the centuries by aggrieved groups in fitful, semi-conscious control of their own actions. With the Negro revolt inAmerica, the technique has begun to take on the quality of a deliberate use of power to effect the most change with the least harm. I speak of non-violent direct action. This encompasses a great variety of methods, limited only by our imaginations: sit-ins, freedom rides and freedom walks, prayer pilgrimages, wade-ins, pray-ins, freedom   ballots, freedom schools, and who knows what is on the horizon? Whatever the specific form, this technique has certain qualities: it disturbs the status quo, it intrudes on the complacency of the majority, it expresses the anger and the hurt of the aggrieved, it publicizes an injustice, it demonstrates the          inadequacy of whatever reforms have been instituted up to that point, it creates tension and trouble and thus forces the holders of power to move faster than they otherwise would have to redress grievances. [9]

References

[1] Daniel Tilles, “The Myth of Cable Street.” History Today, Volume 61 Issue 10 October 2011

[2] Reg Weston, “Fascists and police routed: the battle of Cable Street

[3] Daniel Penny, “An Intimate History of Antifa.” The New Yorker. August 22, 2017

[4] G. C. Webber, “Patterns of Membership and Support for the British Union of Fascists,” Journal of Contemporary History. Vol. 19, No. 4, Reassessments of Fascism (Oct., 1984), pp. 575-606

[5] Steven Banks, “Revealed: The Extent of the Daily Mail’s Support for the British Union of Fascists.”

[6] Stephen Salter, “The Object Lesson: The Division of the German Left and the Triumph of National Socialism.” In The Popular Front in Europe, ed. by Helen Graham and Paul Preston. NY: St. Martin’s Press. 1987. For a definitive account of 1930s Germany see Richard J. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin Books. 2005.

[7] Jessica Suerth, “What is Antifa?

[8] Thomas Fuller, Alan Feuer, Serge F. Kovaleski, “Antifa’ Grows as Left-Wing Faction Set to, Literally, Fight the Far Right.” The New York Times. August 17, 2017.

[9] Howard Zinn, “Non-Violent Direct Action” 


About the Author
 Janet Contursi is a freelance writer and peace activist in Minneapolis. She can be reached at jancontursi@msn.com

JANET CONTURSI—Violence, it seems, provided free publicity for the fascists. The BUF “thrived off the publicity that violent opposition produced. The national media, under pressure from the government, largely avoided reporting on Fascist activity other than when disorder occurred. A leading Mosleyite lamented the ‘total silence’ in the press when BUF events passed without incident, complaining that only after disruption by opponents did newspapers show any interest.”

 Creative Commons License
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";




What to Do with Latinos?: Get Used to Them


horiz grey line

tgplogo12313

OpEds | Controversy


Fred Reed
(Reed is refreshingly politically incorrect, as the late Hunter Thompson was, with opinions ranging from libertarian to anti-imperialist, and certainly anti-racist, and he happens to be an American expat in Mexico. Some of the things he says may be over the top, but they deserve to be heard, and not snuffed out by liberal sanctimony. On many points he’s undeniably correct, if jarringly so. Deal with it, comment and counter argue, if you like. All sane comment welcome.)


Posted on March 2, 2017 by Fred Reed

Following Mr. Trump’s kaleidosopically shifting policies isn’t easy. He was going to declare China a currency manipulator on day one, but didn’t; going to impose a forty-five percent tariff on Chinese goods but apparently won’t; was going to shift the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem but isn’t; going to tear up the Iran treaty but hasn’t; going to end the wars but isn’t; and going to rid the country of illegal aliens within two years. Now it seems he has backed off this too, and there is  in the air the merest whiff of…amnesty?


Editor’s Note: Deportations of Latin Americans, mostly Mexicans, is not new in America’s racist history. Trump is but the latest to deflect the population’s anger toward the system by blaming foreigners, not accidentally among the most vulnerable in the US. The highly popular war hero Ike Eisenhower did it (“Operation Wetback”, in 1954), and so did Obama, in great numbers, albeit the public scarcely heard about it and most liberals never made a fuss about it. Before that, during the Depression, the capitalist rulers abruptly rounded up and sent millions of Mexican laborers back to Mexico, under the so-called “repatriation” program, a nice word for mass deportation. Can anyone honestly argue that we would have been doing the same to a horde of good looking Swedish beauties? 

Oh well. Mass deportation  was a loony idea to begin with. Consider:

For years there have been said to be 11 million illegals, a number having a  suspicious stability. Foes of immigration have put it at thirteen or fourteen. Call it at least 12 million. To deport them in two years, Trump would have to deport 500,000 a month. For twenty-four months. To deport a tenth as many, he would need to expel 50,000 a month.

Is the man crazy? Does he just shoot from the lip on crucial policies without thinking? Can’t do arithmetic? Or lies in the normal manner of politicians?

His promised expulsion would rank among history’s most awful humanitarian disasters. Mexico could not possibly absorb such a huge tsunami of returnees. They would have nowhere to stay, nothing to eat, no jobs.

The embittered anti-immigration people, readers of sites like Vdare, would not care. Screw the vile brown scum, rapists and welfare parasites, murderers, drug peddlers, low-IQ nasty unevolved human flatworms. The bastards came illegally, so to hell with them. But, I think, not enough of the country will buy it. Stopping the influx will probably fly.  The Wall? Maybe, but I wouldn’t bet on it. We seem to hear less about it. Criminals? Most would favor deporting them.

But twelve million? Or anything resembling it? For many reasons, both charitable and self-interested, too many groups aren’t up for mass arrests and deportations. Not businessmen, who want the cheap labor, nor the Democratic Party that wants the votes, nor academia, nor the media, nor sanctuary cities, nor many of the young, nor liberals. Nor…California.

The question is not whether it was a good idea to encourage illegals to come. It wasn’t. The question is not even whether it would be good for the country to run them out. Doing it would be too ugly to gain support from the public. Too many illegals have been in the country for five, ten, fifteen years, speak English, have employers who value them, have children who are citizens and sometimes do not speak Spanish.

The Hispanic genii is out of the  bottle. It is a done deal. Trump can’t do much about it. Neither can anyone else. Deporting a few hundred thousand of 56 million would not make a dent.  A million would constitute less than two percent of the Latino population.


[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n any event, running out the illegals would leave 44 million legal Latinos. Or, increasingly, sort of Latinos. Is Rosa Gutierrez, nineteen, born and raised in California, whose English she speaks flawlessly–a Latina? Quite possibly she has never been to Mexico. She thinks that she is an American. Why isn’t she?

Worse, Rosa is pretty and feminine. If Pew is to be believed, the intermarriage rate is at 26 percent. This horrifies white nationalists, gratifies assimilationists, but neither horror nor gratification is going to change things. Will Rosa’s children, had in conjunction with her husband Robert Williams, be Latinos? They won’t think so. And you cannot deport American citizens.

Oozing dark sludge. Young Anglo men may not see her exactly that way. Sofia Vergara: OK, she’s Colombian not Mexican, but still 100% Latina.

Much of the hostility, though expressed in practical terms of lost jobs and so on, is in fact racial, and therefore incurable. Many of the white nationalists exhibit an almost effeminate squeamishness at the thought of their precious bodily essences being polluted by oozing dark sludge. Well, as you will. There are reasons why this view isn’t going to prevail. See below right.

Since huge numbers of Latinos are in the country, and are not going to leave, the intelligent question–yes, I know this is a political column, but we can try a little eccentricity here–is: Can they be part of America? Well, let’s see.


They are approximately Christian, though like all Christians they don’t always remember the parts about adultery and fornication. They don’t do terrorism. Brown Lives Matter doesn’t burn malls and loot shoe stores, in part because it doesn’t exist. They don’t genitally mutilate their daughters, forbid them schooling, or make them wear funny black bags. They do not yell “Pancho-hu akbar” and stab people .An estimated million Americans including your scribe live amicably in Mexico. If it were such a horrible experience, you might expect us to notice. Wherever I have been in the US–LA, San Fran, New York, San Antonio, Houston, Laredo, Chicago, Washington–they have seemed integrated, working in restaurants, doctors’ offices, what have you and both learning English and, often, forgetting Spanish.

There are down sides. While very few Mexicans are involved in the drug trade, a high proportion of those involved in the drug trade are Mexicans. Another is that if government can turn them into welfare dependents, it will.

What the white nationalists can do, perhaps, is to alienate white from brown and split the country into three mutually hostile groups, white, black and Latino. The constant disparagement of Latinos by Trump and the anti-immigrant enthusiasts appears  aimed at just that. Strictly speaking, Trump might respond that he is not against Latin Americans but only against criminals and illegals, but it certain sounds as though he hates Mexicans. The racialist sites post endless stories, not infrequently dishonest, about Latino stupidity, crime, shiftlessness, and vile behavior. Mexicans, rightly or wrongly, conclude that they are hated. This does not encourage assimilation–assimilation being of course the last thing that white nationalists want. To endorse assimilation would be to grant legitimacy to  the assimilees.

This attitude will prove unfortunate, since assimilation is the only hope of not having the United States become an ethnic disaster.

White nationalists tend to believe, and obviously hope, that Latin Americans are genetically criminal and incapable of fitting into nations of the First World.  This allows a comforting faith that mixing  should be prevented at any cost. Yet those who have  traveled in the world will have seen that economics, not genetics, is primary in behavior. In particular, as people move into the middle class, crime and fertility decline sharply and interest in education rises.

Just so, here. The Mexican middle class is no more violent than anyone else’s. (From which we derive genetically fascinating conclusions. Apparently the presence of a refrigerator and indoor plumbing alter the genetic makeup of those near them.  Weird Kelvinator rays, one supposes.) Another observation readily made around the planet is that middle classes usually get along well with each other. All of this would suggest that encouraging immigrants to move into the middle class might be a Real Good Idea.

Bracero program. Hard  jobs in the agricultural sector have long relied on cheap Mexican labour. One of the reasons why food continues to be cheap in the United States.

Unfortunately an assimilated Mexican middle class would intermarry vigorously with whites, thus polluting our precious bodily essences. Many of the anti-immigrants simply do not want anything to do with any Mexican ever under any circumstances. Thus they have no policy other than getting rid of people most of whom cannot be gotten rid of.

In particular they furiously oppose amnesty for illegals. This would be a rational position if there were a possibility that Mr. Trump could chase them out of the country–which he can’t do in significant numbers, which would mean many millions. At that point keeping them illegal amounts to preventing their economic rise and creating another permanent underclass.

Gosh, what a swell idea. 



NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS • PLEASE COMMENT AND DEBATE DIRECTLY ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP CLICK HERE

Fred can be reached at jetpossum-readerss@yahoo.com.  Reply unlikely due to volume, not bad manners.: Get Used to Them 

MAIN IMAGE: Self explanatory.  The opinions expressed in our opeds are solely the writers’ and do not necessarily mirror the editorial position of The Greanville Post which regards as part of its mission to disseminate many types of viewpoints frowned upon and suppressed by the mainstream guardians of American correctness. 


Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey

uza2-zombienationWhat will it take to bring America to live according to its own propaganda?


black-horizontal

black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable
Please see our red registration box at the bottom of this page

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary. In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.

horiz-black-wide
REMEMBER: ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.




black-horizontal

THE GREANVILLE POST

For media inquiries contact us at greanville@gmail.com




Stop Millions of Western Immigrants!

horiz grey line


//

 

ANDRE VLTCHEK

andrevltchek

Tens of millions of European and North American immigrants, legal and illegal, have been flooding both the cities and countryside in Asia, Latin America, and even Africa.

We are told that some few hundred thousand African and Asian exiles are now causing a great “refugee crises” all over Europe! Governments and media are spreading panic, borders are being re-erected and armed forces are interrupting the free movement of people. But the number of foreigners illegally entering Europe is incomparably smaller than the number of Western migrants that are inundating, often illegally, virtually all corners of the world.

No “secret paradise” can be hidden any longer and no country can maintain its reasonable price structure. Potential European, North American and Australian immigrants are determined to enrich themselves by any means, at the expense of local populations. They are constantly searching for bargains: monitoring prices everywhere, ready to move at the spur of the moment, as long as the place offers some great bargains, has lax immigration laws, and a weak legal framework.

Everything pure and untapped gets corrupted. With lightning speed, Western immigrants are snatching reasonably priced real estate and land. Then, they impose their lifestyle on all those “newly conquered territories”. As a result, entire cultures are collapsing or changing beyond recognition.

Overall, Western immigrants are arrogant and stubborn; they feel no pity for the countries they are inundating. What surrounds them is only some colorful background to their precious lives. They are unable and unwilling to “adopt” local customs, because they are used to the fact that theirs is the “leading culture” – the culture that controls the world.

They come, they demand, and they take whatever they can – often by force. If unchecked, they take everything. After, when there is almost nothing left to loot, they simply move on. After them, “no grass can grow”; everything is burned, ruined and corrupted. Like Bali, Phuket, Southern Sri Lanka, great parts of the Caribbean, Mexico and East African coast, just to name a few places.

***

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]ho represents the greater “menace”: some 300,000 “illegal” refugees escaping from the countries destabilized or outright destroyed by the West, or those millions of Westerners who are annually fleeing their depressing lifestyles and selfishly over-imposing themselves on so many economically weaker and therefore more vulnerable parts of the world?

I believe the answer is obvious.

People from devastated countries are often left with no choice: many are coming to their tormentors, forced by circumstances to accept totally unreasonable conditions, humiliation and marginalization. They have to work extremely hard. They have to accept jobs Westerners think themselves “too good for”, and they are expected, even ordered, to “adapt” culturally. They go through horrific screenings and interviews, and almost all of them have to degrade themselves just in order to survive and feed their children. Only a minority is allowed to stay. Those who do stay greatly contribute to local economies.

Of course, this is a part of the dirty trick: the West needs foreigners; it cannot survive without immigrants, without their cheap labor. But it would never admit it openly. Before “accepting them”, it has to first humiliate and break even those whom it desperately needs. It has to further demean those whose nations were already robbed of everything, and even thrown into war by the West’s imperialist foreign policy and by corporate terrorism.

andre-chomskyvltchek

The author with Noam Chomsky.

The West’s migrants are encountering totally different treatment in most of the countries they are inundating.

To begin with, Western immigrants do not even need visas to enter most countries. Decades ago, the Empire opened by force almost all “developing states”. Westerners are treated preferentially, and generally promoted as a “source of income” by local regimes.

It is mainly the Western multi-nationals that are dividing the loot from Asian, African and the Middle Eastern countries, but some part of booty always ends up in the pockets of those ordinary European and North American citizens, mainly in the form of retirement plans or other social benefits. Then, annually, tens of millions of Westerners, armed with funds that have been stolen from the “developing world” are hitting the road, trying to make their money go further in those places where their funds actually originated!

It is no secret that Western migrants are taking advantage of poverty, low prices, and corrupts legal systems. Their arrival raises prices for housing and land. It leaves millions of local people literally homeless, and it raises the prices of food and basic services for the local population.

In a way, people in many poor countries get robbed twice: by Western corporations, and then again, by Western migrants.

But damaged countries are not sending coast guard ships to intercept Western migrants. And there are hardly any deportations. Only those who dare to criticize the system get expelled.

“In a way, people in many poor countries get robbed twice: by Western corporations, and then again, by Western migrants.”

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] saw entire islands being eaten alive by Western immigrants. Almost no coastal areas are left for local people on the Indonesian islands of Lombok and Bali. The Scandinavian mafias, the Central European mafias, Australian mafias… The theft had reached unimaginable proportions. Even when it is illegal to purchase land, the Europeans and the North Americans are teaming up with local gangs, or forging schemes that include marriages to local women. Western migrants are tremendously canny! There is always some way how to get around the laws and screw poor people in the most miserable countries on earth.

The Italian “takeover” of the Kenyan coast… the child prostitution there.

Thailand’s islands are all gone. No culture remains, almost no houses belonging to the local people… almost no coastal stretch is left untouched. There is just some banal, horrid tourist infrastructure, and millions of Western migrants baking on the sun, all year round, with their pot bellies exposed, wearing flip-flops, downing beer, hand in hand with their culturally uprooted Thai companions. What did these people bring to Thailand? Freedom? Prosperity? High culture? Seriously! Or honestly, isn’t it just a moral corruption and total cultural ruin?

There are literally millions – maybe even tens of millions – of Western (mainly European) migrants living all over Southeast Asia. Exact numbers are unknown; there are no reliable studies and statistics. Many Western immigrants in Southeast Asia are actually “illegal”. Some are “semi-legal”, with their constant “visa runs”, false marriages and shady investments.

Cambodia is one of the places that has been attracting the most depraved migrants from the West. Their sex sprees and “2 dollars per ‘shag’ bargains” have been described in detail in several colorful books.

In Cambodia, as well as many other nations where poverty is rampant, prostitution starts early, often entire families are swallowed by these rackets.

In Cambodia, as well as many other nations where poverty is rampant, prostitution starts early, often entire families are swallowed by this sordid traffic.

I encountered many “expats” and “migrants” when I was first investigating and then helping to close down one of the most notorious child-prostitution centers on earth, so-called “Kilometer 11”, located just outside the capital city of Phnom Penh. There, thousands of kidnapped girls, many of them minors, were forced to serve predominantly European clientele. Some of them were kidnapped and gang-raped on the way by traffickers; dragged here from all over Cambodia and neighboring Vietnam. The girls lived in captivity, guarded by vicious gangsters. And all over the place, flashing their proverbial beer bellies, were cheerful middle-aged European migrants, who just moved here, as I was told, “shagging a minor is much cheaper than downing a pint of shitty beer”.

A local Reuters correspondent and I managed to interview several 14-years old girls, some of them clearly dying from AIDS. Later on, when we began photographing the scene from the car, the entire crowd of men began charging, beer bottles in their hands, shorts falling off from their backsides, ready to kill. A great gain for the country of Cambodia, those European migrants!

I fought with all my might those venomous German immigrants at Colonia Dignidad in Southern Chile. There, many European Christian religious fanatics set up their entire state inside the Chilean state, closely collaborating with the US-backed Pinochet’ dictatorship. At one point, Bormann was there, as well as other prominent Nazis. After settling in their “new fatherland”, the German immigrants went busily to “work”, raping children, performing medical experiments on local orphans, and mercilessly torturing opponents of the fascist dictatorship. Of course, they did not immigrate only to Chile; there were millions of European fascist émigrés pouring into all corners of South America. The most prominent of them were shipped there with care by US and British intelligence services.

While Western propaganda keeps talking about illegal immigrants crossing into the US from Mexico, there is very little talk about those tens of millions of people who are continuously immigrating to Latin America from all over Europe, settling in Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela and elsewhere. Before the latest wave of Latin American revolutions finally guaranteed equality and respect for the indigenous people of the continent, most European immigrants managed to implant deep racial and social segregation. In some places like Peru and Bolivia, the situation closely resembled that of South African apartheid. Until recently, European immigrants had been pushing the native population to extreme margins, stealing their land and making their cultures irrelevant. It was done all over Latin America and is still done in many other parts of the world.

So, “what are we going to do with those millions of Western immigrants?”

Can we really afford having them in our countries? Can we accommodate them? Can we pay for their needs, for their aggressiveness and their wild and violent cultural and behavioral patterns? Can we allow them to take everything from those who have very little left?

***

[dropcap]L[/dropcap]ook left and right: the entire planet is full of Western immigrants. They are controlling diamond mines in South Africa as well as “conservancy areas” in Kenya. They are holding huge land expanses in Asia, and virtually all profitable commercial land and industry in Latin America.

And they are coming and coming! They are unstoppable. Most of them are sick of their gray lives in Europe and North America. They are full of superiority complexes, but in reality, they would do anything to escape their loneliness, depression and emptiness at home.

In order to be able to stay “legally” in Southeast Asia, millions of Western male immigrants are marrying maids, go-go dancers, or even sex workers. But then they treat them with spite (as many of them don’t really know how else to behave towards people from other cultures). There are tens of thousands of former US GI’s, living in the villages of Northern Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. After bombing Southeast Asia into the stone age, they “could not cope” with the treatment they received after coming back home. And so they immigrated; they returned to the land that they had already so thoroughly destroyed, poisoned and raped.

I met many of them, as I was writing about this part of the world for many years. Some former GI immigrants were now totally broke, trying to borrow money from me, and coming up with bizarre stories and schemes. Almost all of them felt spite for the local people, but were unable to return to their homeland, because they lost all contacts and skills that could allow them to live there. Some overstayed their visas, owing huge amounts of money in fines to the local authorities.

***

I heard countless desperate stories. But, unlike those profound and heartbreaking stories told by the migrants from the countries destroyed by the West, the stories of the Western immigrants were mainly selfish, centered on the desire to improve their lives, or yearning to escape unpleasant conditions in their countries of origin. Most of the time, their presence brought nothing positive to the countries where they managed to relocate.

In her iconic book “Karma Cola”, an Indian writer Gita Mehta described, already a quarter of century ago, those millions of Westerners who have been flooding Sub-Continent in search of “enlightenment”, alternative lifestyles and other mass-produced, Westernized cultural and religious trends. Many ended up as illegal migrants, rotting in ashrams and in bizarre communes, some even selling their passports in order to survive.

***

The world has been patient – I’d say too patient – with the Western immigrants!

This patience should end, because of the brutality, even savagery, that Europe has been recently demonstrating towards those desperate men, women and children who have been trying to escape from their countries resembling “sinking ships”; “ships” that were torpedoed by Western imperialism.

The world owes nothing to the West, to the contrary! Therefore, visa and immigration policies should be reciprocal, which is exactly the approach of several Latin American countries.

Practically speaking, there are many more legal and illegal Western immigrants living in Indonesia or Thailand, than the other way around. The same goes for countries like Chile.

After horrible centuries during which Western colonialism and imperialism managed to destroy billions of human lives in all corners of the world, Europe still dares to treat its desperate victims as worse than animals. I recently witnessed its spite towards refugees arriving in Greece, France, Germany and the Czech Republic.

And after what I saw, I feel indignant and appalled.

Enough is enough!

With its wars, destabilization campaigns, economic terror, and its plunder of the planet, the West continues to demonstrate how low and brutal its culture really is. The “refugee crises” is just the latest chapter of the never-ending neo-colonialist horror show.

While European ships keep intercepting pitiful boats crammed with wrecked people who are fighting for their lives, while European armies are re-erecting border controls, several Latin American countries which are now governed by progressive governments, including Argentina and Chile, have been demonstrating tremendous moral superiority, solidarity and internationalism, by inviting and taking care of thousands of Syrian and Palestinian refugees, and on top of that, treating them with great dignity and kindness!

***

In one of the hotels in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in a bar late at night, I overheard a conversation between a visiting Swiss businessman and his Chilean counterpart:

“You know, those immigrants that we call ‘paperless’”, lamented Swiss man. “It’s too many of them… too many! We should just throw them directly to the sea; we should drown them! We don’t need such scum in Europe.”

A few days earlier, my friend, an Ecuadorian government official based in Quito, told me a story:

“Lately, many Europeans keep coming to Ecuador and to other Latin American countries, searching for jobs, trying to migrate. Their economies are collapsing, but there is no humility when they come here, only arrogance. Another day, a Spaniard came to me, applying for a job. I asked him for his CV. He looked at me with total outrage: ‘But I am a Spaniard!’ he shouted. ‘So what?’ I replied. ‘These days are over, comrade; days when just being a white European man would be enough to land you a job anywhere in Latin America!’”

“The world has been patient – I’d say too patient – with the Western immigrants!”

The non-Western world simply cannot afford to tolerate an annual influx of the millions of Western immigrants! First, it gets attacked by the West, and then robbed, and at the end, is expected to tolerate enormous hordes of ruthless, locust-like, self-centered migrants who are trying to swallow what little is left behind by the Western corporations and governments.

Reciprocal visa regimes should be introduced. Legal frameworks should be strengthened to prevent corruption and speculation with land and real estate. Potential Western immigrants should be forced to prove that their presence would benefit the country where they want to settle, that their skills are really needed, just as all African and Asian immigrants are obliged to prove when they want to settle in Europe, in North America or in Australia.

And once again: let us not forget that there are many more Western immigrants trying to settle abroad, than there are people from poor countries applying for residency in the West.

Immigration crises? Yes of course! But not really “crises” for the West!

Those who do not realize it should check the numbers!

Certainly, many of us understand how depressed many Westerners really are; how their lives in Europe and in North America are disagreeable, gray and confusing. We really understand how much they want to immigrate to a warmer (in terms of weather and in terms of human relationships) part of the world. And if they would humbly admit what they feel, instead of demonstrating arrogance and superiority… if we could have it all in open… if the same rules would apply for everyone… if they would be the same for those who want to immigrate to Europe, to the US, to Asia, Africa or Latin America… then I am sure that at least some people would be willing to show their sympathy and consider accepting at least some of the most desperate Western migrants.

But there can be no sympathy if there is no justice. While Westerners are freely immigrating wherever they desire, Europe is now deploying its military in order to intimidate, humiliate and to stop those mugged and tortured victims of Empire!



ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Andre Vltchek
 is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”.Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western TerrorismPoint of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.



Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long greyNauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to 

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

Statue-of-Liberty-crying-628x356
horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.





Obama’s West Point speech: A prescription for unending war

obama-west-point2_19497435The US media has broadly cast the speech delivered by President Barack Obama at West Point on Wednesday as a farewell to the decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and an embrace of a more multilateral and less militaristic American foreign policy.

 

This interpretation willfully ignores the content of the speech, which even more than those Obama has given in the past asserts a policy of permanent and global war in pursuit of the interests of the US financial elite. The media distortion is driven, on the one hand, by the partisan motives of Obama’s Republican rivals, who seek to portray him as weak-kneed, and, on the other, by the support from a wealthy and privileged “liberal” elite for wars of aggression waged under the banners of “human rights” and “democracy.”

The real content of the speech was in sync with the venue in which the president chose to deliver it. As is so often the case, the audience selected for what was supposedly a major foreign policy address was uniformed and captive, subject to military discipline. In this case, it was the graduating cadets of the US Military Academy, who are joining an officer corps that is entrusted with organizing and leading Washington’s global military interventions.

Reflecting the ever-increasing dominance of the military and intelligence apparatus over the US government and American political life, Obama’s speech was replete with paeans to the military. He told the West Point graduates that “our military has no peer” and that they would “embody what it means for America to lead the world.”

“The military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone” of US “leadership” on the world stage, Obama declared, providing his audience with a succinct definition of American militarism in the 21st century.

In his speech, Obama quoted Dwight Eisenhower, the supreme commander of allied forces in Europe in World War II and subsequent US president, who told the same corps of cadets in a 1947 commencement speech, “War is mankind’s most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.”

That speech came barely half a year after the last of the trials of surviving Nazi leaders held in Nuremberg, and it was in that context that Eisenhower made his remark. The principal charge against the Nazi leaders was initiating and waging aggressive war.

In what immediately followed his quotation from Eisenhower, however, Obama elaborated a doctrine with which Adolf Hitler would have had little quarrel.

“The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it—when our people are threatened, when our livelihoods are at stake, when the security of our allies is in danger… International opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland, or our way of life.”

Clearly Obama is not elaborating here a policy of defensive war to be waged only in response to an attack or the threat of an imminent attack. He is spelling out that the US reserves the right to intervene militarily wherever it believes its “core interests”—i.e., the access of its corporations and banks to markets, raw materials, cheap labor and profits—are involved.

When he speaks of “our livelihoods” and “our way of life,” he is referring not to the ever-declining living standards of the American worker, but to the eight-figure compensation packages of American CEOs, whose fortunes are founded on the exploitation of the working populations and resources of the entire planet.

The US president went on to assert the right to launch wars even where no case could be made that there was any threat posed to the US, but rather where there were issues that “stir our conscience.”

As recent history has proven, this “conscience” is highly flexible. When unsubstantiated claims were made in 2011 that the Libyan military was on the verge of invading the rebellious eastern city of Benghazi and massacring its inhabitants, Washington and NATO launched a full-scale bombing campaign and proxy ground war that killed tens of thousands and ended with the overthrow and lynching of the country’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi. Today, having already succeeded in toppling the elected president of Ukraine, Washington is providing full support to a right-wing coup regime in Kiev as its sends troops and fascist thugs to invade the eastern city of Donetsk and massacre protesters there.

And while touting “America’s support for democracy and human rights” wherever Washington seeks to carry out regime-change, Obama included a specific exception for the Sisi regime in Egypt, which overthrew an elected president, has murdered thousands, jailed tens of thousands and outlawed the country’s largest political party. “In countries like Egypt, we acknowledge that our relationship is anchored in security interests,” he said.

In America’s “humanitarian” wars of choice, Obama proclaimed, “the threshold for military action must be higher.” Washington, he said, “must mobilize allies and partners to take collective action.” He continued: “We have to broaden our tools to include diplomacy and development; sanctions and isolation; appeals to international law; and, if just, necessary and effective, multilateral military action.”

This scenario fits precisely the roadmap followed by Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, in mobilizing his “coalition of the willing” to wage the “war of choice” against Iraq.

Everything put forward by Obama is a repudiation of international law and an endorsement of the policy of aggressive war practiced by the Nazis three-quarters of a century ago.

In how many countries is the US already carrying out military interventions and proxy wars? Obama’s West Point speech was preceded by his announcement that nearly 10,000 US troops are to remain in Afghanistan after the formal end of the US occupation at the close of this year, and that a residual force will remain there indefinitely.

Drone strikes, night raids and other actions are being carried out in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and elsewhere, while American forces are fanning out across Africa on the pretext of combating Kony, finding the Nigerian school girls or battling Islamists.

In Ukraine, Washington instigated a coup that brought it into direct confrontation with Russia, a nuclear power, and has since sent US ground troops into Poland and the former Soviet Baltic republics, while deploying warships in the Black Sea. It has carried out even more provocative naval exercises and B-52 fly-bys directed against China.

In Syria, the Obama administration is currently discussing a plan to deploy US military forces to train and arm the so-called rebels, thereby escalating and prolonging the sectarian civil war that has decimated that country. In his speech, Obama called for the creation of a new $5 billion “Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund” to promote interventions and arm and train repressive forces in the Middle East, Africa and anywhere else on the planet that falls within the crosshairs of the White House.

Obama used the speech to defend his assertion of unlimited power to carry out drone massacres and assassinations, which have already claimed at least 5,000 victims, most of them civilians. The US president made the obscene claim that such strikes are carried out only when there is “a near certainty of no civilian casualties.”

The speech comes in the immediate wake of congressional testimony in which administration officials asserted that the president has unlimited powers to launch wars and carry out drone assassinations, including against American citizens, with no need for either congressional authorization or judicial approval. This only makes explicit what is already Washington’s modus operandi, in which Congress is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the US war machine.

The executive, embodying the power of the military-intelligence apparatus, has the right to do virtually anything. But what rights are left to the American people? Those that remain are being rapidly erased. The last vestiges of democracy must be dispensed with in order to impose conditions of war, inequality and economic austerity opposed by the vast majority of the population.

Obama’s high-flown rhetoric about the US having passed through its “long season of war” notwithstanding, what his speech indicates more than anything is that American imperialism is preparing a global catastrophe of unprecedented dimensions.

Bill Van Auken is a senior member of the Social Equality Party, publisher of wsws.org.