Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Netanyahu, Hegel and the Jewish Spirit

by Gilad Atzmon

“Spirit does not toss itself about in the external play of chance occurrences; on the contrary, it is that which determines history absolutely, and it stands firm against the chance occurrences which it dominates and exploits for its own purpose”. (Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 1770 – 1831)

PM Netanyahu was quoted by the Israeli Ynet last week saying that the “whole of Israel would be surrounded by a fence eventually”. According to another report he said “there will be no choice but to fence Israel in on all directions”. What Netanyahu means by ‘fence’ and ‘all directions’ may be left open for the time being. However, PM Netanyahu has managed to bring to light an Hegelian interpretation of the notion of ‘Jewish spirit’ as a relentless inclination towards segregation and isolation. It is the tendency to keep oneself apart that determines and shapes Jewish collectivism. Whether it is the Zionists and their walls, the Orthodox and their Kosher universe or even Jewish anti Zionists and their racially segregated miniature activist cells, somehow every form of Jewish political engagement is there to set the Jews apart.

“For Hegel” says Francis Fukuyama, “the contradictions that drive history exist first of all in the realm of human consciousness, i.e. on the level of ideas”. It is reasonable to argue that from an Hegelian perspective, all human behaviour and human history is rooted in a prior state of consciousness. For Hegelian thinkers such as Alexandre Kojève, understanding the underlying processes of history requires understanding the realm of consciousness for it is consciousness that will ultimately remake the material world into a mirror image of its own spirit. In short it is the spirit that would eventually shape the material reality as a mirror of itself. Accordingly, the Jewish state, could be realised as a reflection of the Jewish spirit for it is the Jewish spirit that shapes the reality of the Jewish state.

For Hegel history ended in 1806. For him mankind reached its end with the French and American Revolutions. Whether Hegel was correct or completely deluded in his reading of human history and mankind’s evolution is a matter for an ongoing philosophical debate. The Jewish state, however, can be easily interpreted in Hegelian terms as the ‘end of Jewish history’. Zionism presented a dream, it set itself a serious challenge: it promised to transform the Jew into a ‘civilised and authentic human being’. It vowed to make the Jews people like all other people. Zionism was in fact a call of defiance against the hitherto Jewish spirit. Yet, the current state of Israel proves beyond doubt that the spirit has defeated the Zionist proclaimed fantasy. The will to be ‘fenced from every possible direction’ prevailed. The aspiration to be ‘people amongst people’ is a matter for historical enquiry, it has no support on the ground whatsoever. The spirit won over the rational ideological fantasy.

As tragic as it may sound, it would be almost impossible to reflect on Jewish history without Israel. It would be impossible to understand how one people managed to bring so much hate on themselves. Israel is, no doubt, a unique social experiment in Jewish history. It is in the Jewish State where the people of the book have managed to liberate themselves of any inhibitions. It is in the Jewish state where "kosher" bus lines feature “separate seating for men and women”. It is in Israel where Jews live their spirit to the max. It is where Jews celebrate their cultural, material, spiritual and ideological symptoms. But it is also a place where Jews live happily on stolen land while oppressing and starving the indigenous population. As it happens, in the Jewish state Israelis celebrate their national ‘home coming’, and they do it all behind fences and at the expense of the Palestinians.

In Hegelian terms Israel is a product of Jewish spirit. Yet, Israel is NOT a representation of Judaism as Israel is not a Halachic State*. It is not the state of the Jews as the majority of Jews prefer to live amongst the Goyim. However, Israel defines itself as the ‘Jewish state’. It is the place where Jews freely explore the meaning and pride of being Jewish. Hence, the reality of the Israeli state and its categorical ethical failure leads us towards an Hegelian critical confrontation with the notions of Jewish consciousness, ideology (Jewishness) and spirit.

The failure of Zionism to erect a civilised humanist Jew is an accepted fact. It instead managed to raise an extremely brutal version of the ‘Diaspora’ tribal subject it aimed to amend. Needless to say that Israeli war crimes are not an isolated rare event, they are actually institutional and committed by a popular army (IDF) that is following orders given by a democratically elected government. As if this is not enough, the Israeli crimes are supported by the vast majority of the Israelis. The fact that at the time of the Gaza war 94% of the Israeli Jewish population supported the genocidal crime is more than enough to incriminate the entire Israeli society as a collective. But it goes further, the Israeli crime is supported institutionally by world Jewry. It would be intelligible to argue that from an Hegelian perspective Israel is the end of Jewish history as much as the French revolution was the Hegelian end of history of mankind. Israel is the materialisation of the Jewish consciousness.

Netanyahu’s recent admission that Israel will be fenced from every possible direction is far more than mere symbolism. It is there to expose the solid kernel at the heart of the Jewish collective tribal desire. As Hegel suggests, it is “spirit that determines history” or to be precise and concrete, it is the Jewish spirit i.e. the inclination towards isolationism that determines Jewish history and the reality of Israeli barbarism.

Listening to Netanyahu and looking at the reality of Israel makes it obviously clear that rather than the Goyim, it is actually the Jewish spirit that imposed the Ghetto on the Jew. Emancipation of European Jewry provided Jews with an opportunity to leave tribalism behind. Needless to say that many Jews bought into the idea and found their way into the crowd. Many Jews had become voices for humanist causes and thoughts. However, many others decided to maintain a spiritual partition. In order to do so they invented a phantasmic cultural ethos. They may have even invented ‘victimhood’ and ‘anti Semitism’ just to justify their state of self imposed alienation. Observing Israel and any other form of Jewish politics makes it too easy to grasp how and where it all goes wrong.

As things stand there is no easy remedy for the secular Jew for there is no safe haven for Jewish secular collectivism or identity that fits into the notion of humanism or universalism. If Jews insist upon being secular and humanist they may have to drop their ‘J’ prefix and to operate as ordinary people. This is the only alternative to Zionism and it can also be a beginning of a wonderful friendship (with others as well as nature).

* The concept of a Halachic state refers to a theocratic state based upon Jewish Law.

Yanukovich -- Man for all seasons

Ukraine's new president -- unless there is another Orange Revolution -- has fashioned a comeback worthy of Nixon, marvels Eric Walberg

Ukraine's presidential elections Sunday were remarkable in more ways than one. The winner of the first round and favourite to lead Ukraine at a crucial moment in its history is the one politician observers long ago dismissed as a has-been. Viktor Yanukovich is mocked by his opponents as an illiterate bumpkin, a puppet of Ukrainian business magnates, a former criminal and communist, a conspirer against the brave democrats of the legendary Orange Revolution of 2004. Have I left anything out? Does he kick dogs or beat his mother?

As the results came in, pro-Western commentators rushed to claim that Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko (25 per cent) would surge past Viktor Yanukovich (36 per cent) in the runoff 7 February, Tymoshenko announcing she would immediately seek the support of the also-rans to "move forward with uniting the democratic forces." However, the two candidates who came third and fourth, former Central Bank chief Sergei Tigipko (13 per cent) and former parliament speaker Arseniy Yatsenyuk (seven per cent), said they would not support any candidate in the second round. President Viktor Yushchenko polled five per cent and Ukrainians are holding their breath till they see the last of him.

The real story behind the rivals is not as it appears. Tymoshenko, with her faux peasant blond braids and matriushka doll demeanour, amassed a fortune in her years of speculative buying and selling of Russian gas, for which she spent several months in prison under president Leonid Kuchma. Her pretenses as a populist democrat are skin-deep.

Yanukovich comes from a working class background and worked his way up honestly literally from rags to hard-won respectability. He lost his mother at the age of two and grew up in bleak post-WWII Ukraine. His attitude towards dogs is unclear, but he was indeed jailed for hooliganism at the age of 17, apparently learned his lesson, was released after eight months for good behaviour and never looked back, at least until the so-called Orange Revolution of 2004. In the waning days of the Soviet Union, he graduated in engineering from the Donetsk Polytehnic Institute and joined the Communist Party, when it was no longer fashionable or of much use, suggesting he is much more a populist than any of his elite rivals (Yushchenko and Tigipko are bankers). He served under president Leonid Kuchma as prime minister, and was the favourite to succeed him.

Certainly, the 2004 elections were marred by electoral rigging, but to blame Yanukovich is a mistake, as the whole process was infiltrated by US-sponsored NGOs as part of policy of "colour revolutions" across the region. Ukraine is sharply divided -- a legacy of Stalin -- between the anti-Russian west (formerly part of Poland) and the pro-Russian east, with rigging taking place according to these preferences across the country whenever possible.

The first results in the previous elections were probably more or less fair, with Viktor Yanukovich winning, but Western-organised street protests and the possibility of rioting and bloodshed (a la Iran this past summer) convinced Yanukovich to allow a rerun. Of course, when you blink, people figure you're the loser. Western-backed Viktor Yushchenko dramatically claimed he was poisoned by his rival namesake, a ploy now consigned to storybooks, but with all the media hype, Yushchenko managed to snatch the victor's laurels, so to speak. Ukrainian affairs lurched from one crisis to another under the Orange revolutionaries, including arming the mad Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in his wars against Russia. Doubts about the possibility of a truly fair election this time linger, with 57 per cent saying the results could well be manipulated.

In an interview with The Times, Yanukovich outlined his policies, stating clearly Ukraine would not join NATO, but that it "can and must take an active part in the creation of a European collective defense system." He wants to return relations with Russia to a friendly basis: "Relations should be natural, as they are between the Ukrainian people and the Russian people." He has expressed sympathy for retaining the Russian Black Sea fleet in Simferopol when its lease expires in 2017, a wise move considering that Crimea has a large Russian population that would be delighted if Russia took it back (it was ceded to Ukraine on a whim by Khrushchev in 1954). He has indicated he would recognise Georgia’s two breakaway regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia (as well might Turkey, with its large Abkhazian diaspora) and said he would sign up to a Russian-led economic co-operation agreement between former Soviet republics.

Russia, despite accumulated grievances over the past five years, has stayed out of the fray this time, bracing itself for the possible election of Tymoshenko, who fancies herself a compromise bridging the east-west divide in Ukraine.

But in addition to her Orange baggage, she is assiduously courted by Saakashvili, who Russian media reported sent three charter flights with 400 "athletic" Georgians to Kiev and Donetsk, both strongholds of Yanukovich, prior to election day, part of a planned 3,000 Georgian election "observers" apparently approved by Tymoshenko. "Some of them had lists of all polling stations in the region, though they told border guards that the purpose of their visit was to meet with Ukrainian girls they met on social networking sites." The Georgians were to "interfere in the electoral process with an aim to change the outcome of the elections and disrupt the vote," Party of the Regions member Mykola Azarov told a news conference on Saturday. Yanukovich called for them to stay in Tbilisi on Sunday.

Is this perhaps the latest ploy by Saakashvili and his National Endowment for Democracy advisers to ensure the survival of his fraternal colour revolutionaries? Stranger things have happened when NED gets involved in ensuring democratic procedures are observed.

Georgia continues to be the region's loose cannon, with both the Russian Interior Ministry and Federal Security Service accusing it of harbouring and funding terrorist groups from the Caucasus. The US continues to pour millions of dollars of weapons into Georgia, and it can only be concluded that Washington is well informed of what Saakashvili is up to. NATO will soon approve the 2010 Action Plan for Georgia. "It is important for us to continue the reforms that bring Georgia to the organisation," Georgia's European Integration Minister Giorgi Baramidze said last week.

A victory in the runoff for Tymoshenko will be a bitter blow for Ukrainians who seek accommodation with Russia, most of whom according to polls would prefer a union with their neighbour to the present hollow independence. This yearning by Ukrainians and Russians alike for union is perhaps hard for outsiders to understand. Explains James Sherr, at the London-based Chatham House, "Ukraine, for Russia, is not just a neighbour. Ukraine, for Russia, is part of Russia's own identity. Kiyv and Rus is the origin of the Russian, as well as the Ukrainian state."

Despite the ravages of Stalin in Ukraine in the 1930s, this sense of a common identity is shared by virtually all Ukrainians except for those in the west who identify more with Polish (hence, anti-Russian) history. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is the most popular foreign politician and, according to one poll, would have won the Ukrainian presidential election if he had run.

Bizarre as Ukrainian politics are, both Yanukovich and Tymoshenko acted as prime ministers under the pockmarked president, the former, briefly, because of an early falling-out between Tymoshenko and her democratic comrade-in-arms. Yulia, a shrewd politician, managed to mend fences with both Yushchenko and the Russians and is still PM. She talks now only of her beloved "democratic forces", but her claims that she will breeze past the nasty, undemocratic Yanukovich are belied by the fact that she shares the blame for the disaster of the failed Orange Revolution (she makes no mention of it these days, to be sure). This is confirmed by the refusal of her rivals to have anything to do with her, though her American advisers -- the firm of Obama's closest political adviser David Axelrod -- assure her this problem can be overcome.
***
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/

Monday, January 18, 2010

Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal

by Glenn Greewald for Salon.com

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs." In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role." Sunstein's 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story's Daniel Tencer.

There's no evidence that the Obama administration has actually implemented a program exactly of the type advocated by Sunstein, though in light of this paper and the fact that Sunstein's position would include exactly such policies, that question certainly ought to be asked. Regardless, Sunstein's closeness to the President, as well as the highly influential position he occupies, merits an examination of the mentality behind what he wrote. This isn't an instance where some government official wrote a bizarre paper in college 30 years ago about matters unrelated to his official powers; this was written 18 months ago, at a time when the ascendancy of Sunstein's close friend to the Presidency looked likely, in exactly the area he now oversees. Additionally, the government-controlled messaging that Sunstein desires has been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions over the last decade, including in some recently revealed practices of the current administration, and the mindset in which it is grounded explains a great deal about our political class. All of that makes Sunstein's paper worth examining in greater detail.

* * * * *

Initially, note how similar Sunstein's proposal is to multiple, controversial stealth efforts by the Bush administration to secretly influence and shape our political debates. The Bush Pentagon employed teams of former Generals to pose as "independent analysts" in the media while secretly coordinating their talking points and messaging about wars and detention policies with the Pentagon. Bush officials secretly paid supposedly "independent" voices, such as Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher, to advocate pro-Bush policies while failing to disclose their contracts. In Iraq, the Bush Pentagon hired a company, Lincoln Park, which paid newspapers to plant pro-U.S. articles while pretending it came from Iraqi citizens. In response to all of this, Democrats typically accused the Bush administration of engaging in government-sponsored propaganda -- and when it was done domestically, suggested this was illegal propaganda. Indeed, there is a very strong case to make that what Sunstein is advocating is itself illegal under long-standing statutes prohibiting government "propaganda" within the U.S., aimed at American citizens:

As explained in a March 21, 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service, "publicity or propaganda" is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or (3) "covert propaganda." By covert propaganda, GAO means information which originates from the government but is unattributed and made to appear as though it came from a third party.

Covert government propaganda is exactly what Sunstein craves. His mentality is indistinguishable from the Bush mindset that led to these abuses, and he hardly tries to claim otherwise. Indeed, he favorably cites both the covert Lincoln Park program as well as Paul Bremer's closing of Iraqi newspapers which published stories the U.S. Government disliked, and justifies them as arguably necessary to combat "false conspiracy theories" in Iraq -- the same goal Sunstein has for the U.S.

Sunstein's response to these criticisms is easy to find in what he writes, and is as telling as the proposal itself. He acknowledges that some "conspiracy theories" previously dismissed as insane and fringe have turned out to be entirely true (his examples: the CIA really did secretly administer LSD in "mind control" experiments; the DOD really did plot the commission of terrorist acts inside the U.S. with the intent to blame Castro; the Nixon White House really did bug the DNC headquarters). Given that history, how could it possibly be justified for the U.S. Government to institute covert programs designed to undermine anti-government "conspiracy theories," discredit government critics, and increase faith and trust in government pronouncements? Because, says Sunstein, such powers are warranted only when wielded by truly well-intentioned government officials who want to spread The Truth and Do Good -- i.e., when used by people like Cass Sunstein and Barack Obama:

Throughout, we assume a well-motivated government that aims to eliminate conspiracy theories, or draw their poison, if and only if social welfare is improved by doing so.

But it's precisely because the Government is so often not "well-motivated" that such powers are so dangerous. Advocating them on the ground that "we will use them well" is every authoritarian's claim. More than anything else, this is the toxic mentality that consumes our political culture: when our side does X, X is Good, because we're Good and are working for Good outcomes. That was what led hordes of Bush followers to endorse the same large-government surveillance programs they long claimed to oppose, and what leads so many Obama supporters now to justify actions that they spent the last eight years opposing.

* * * * *

Consider the recent revelation that the Obama administration has been making very large, undisclosed payments to MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber to provide consultation on the President's health care plan. With this lucrative arrangement in place, Gruber spent the entire year offering public justifications for Obama's health care plan, typically without disclosing these payments, and far worse, was repeatedly held out by the White House -- falsely -- as an "independent" or "objective" authority. Obama allies in the media constantly cited Gruber's analysis to support their defenses of the President's plan, and the White House, in turn, then cited those media reports as proof that their plan would succeed. This created an infinite "feedback loop" in favor of Obama's health care plan which -- unbeknownst to the public -- was all being generated by someone who was receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in secret from the administration (read this to see exactly how it worked).

In other words, this arrangement was quite similar to the Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher scandals which Democrats, in virtual lockstep, condemned. Paul Krugman, for instance, in 2005 angrily lambasted right-wing pundits and policy analysts who received secret, undisclosed payments, and said they lack "intellectual integrity"; he specifically cited the Armstrong Williams case. Yet the very same Paul Krugman last week attacked Marcy Wheeler for helping to uncover the Gruber payments by accusing her of being "just like the right-wingers with their endless supply of fake scandals." What is one key difference? Unlike Williams and Gallagher, Jonathan Gruber is a Good, Well-Intentioned Person with Good Views -- he favors health care -- and so massive, undisclosed payments from the same administration he's defending are dismissed as a "fake scandal."

Sunstein himself -- as part of his 2008 paper -- explicitly advocates that the Government should pay what he calls "credible independent experts" to advocate on the Government's behalf, a policy he says would be more effective because people don't trust the Government itself and would only listen to people they believe are "independent." In so arguing, Sunstein cites the Armstrong Williams scandal not as something that is wrong in itself, but as a potential risk of this tactic (i.e., that it might leak out), and thus suggests that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," but warns that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed." In other words, Sunstein wants the Government to replicate the Armstrong Williams arrangement as a means of more credibly disseminating propaganda -- i.e., pretending that someone is an "independent" expert when they're actually being "prodded" and even paid "behind the scenes" by the Government -- but he wants to be more careful about how the arrangement is described (don't make the control explicit) so that embarrassment can be avoided if it ends up being exposed.

In this 2008 paper, then, Sunstein advocated, in essence, exactly what the Obama administration has been doing all year with Gruber: covertly paying people who can be falsely held up as "independent" analysts in order to more credibly promote the Government line. Most Democrats agreed this was a deceitful and dangerous act when Bush did it, but with Obama and some of his supporters, undisclosed arrangements of this sort seem to be different. Why? Because, as Sunstein puts it: we have "a well-motivated government" doing this so that "social welfare is improved." Thus, just like state secrets, indefinite detention, military commissions and covert, unauthorized wars, what was once deemed so pernicious during the Bush years -- coordinated government/media propaganda -- is instantaneously transformed into something Good.

* * * * *

What is most odious and revealing about Sunstein's worldview is his condescending, self-loving belief that "false conspiracy theories" are largely the province of fringe, ignorant Internet masses and the Muslim world. That, he claims, is where these conspiracy theories thrive most vibrantly, and he focuses on various 9/11 theories -- both domestically and in Muslim countries -- as his prime example.

It's certainly true that one can easily find irrational conspiracy theories in those venues, but some of the most destructive "false conspiracy theories" have emanated from the very entity Sunstein wants to endow with covert propaganda power: namely, the U.S. Government itself, along with its elite media defenders. Moreover, "crazy conspiracy theorist" has long been the favorite epithet of those same parties to discredit people trying to expose elite wrongdoing and corruption.

Who is it who relentlessly spread "false conspiracy theories" of Saddam-engineered anthrax attacks and Iraq-created mushroom clouds and a Ba'athist/Al-Qaeda alliance -- the most destructive conspiracy theories of the last generation? And who is it who demonized as "conspiracy-mongers" people who warned that the U.S. Government was illegally spying on its citizens, systematically torturing people, attempting to establish permanent bases in the Middle East, or engineering massive bailout plans to transfer extreme wealth to the industries which own the Government? The most chronic and dangerous purveyors of "conspiracy theory" games are the very people Sunstein thinks should be empowered to control our political debates through deceit and government resources: namely, the Government itself and the Enlightened Elite like him.

It is this history of government deceit and wrongdoing that renders Sunstein's desire to use covert propaganda to "undermine" anti-government speech so repugnant. The reason conspiracy theories resonate so much is precisely that people have learned -- rationally -- to distrust government actions and statements. Sunstein's proposed covert propaganda scheme is a perfect illustration of why that is. In other words, people don't trust the Government and "conspiracy theories" are so pervasive precisely because government is typically filled with people like Cass Sunstein, who think that systematic deceit and government-sponsored manipulation are justified by their own Goodness and Superior Wisdom.

UPDATE: I don't want to make this primarily about the Gruber scandal -- I cited that only as an example of the type of mischief that this mindset produces -- but just to respond quickly to the typical Gruber defenses already appearing in comments: (1) Gruber's work was only for HHS and had nothing to do with the White House (false); (2) he should have disclosed his payments, but the White House did nothing wrong (false: it repeatedly described him as "independent" and "objective" and constantly cited allied media stories based in Gruber's work); (3) Gruber advocated views he would have advocated anyway in the absence of payment (probably true, but wasn't that also true for life-long conservative Armstrong Williams, life-long social conservative Maggie Gallagher, and the pro-war Pentagon Generals, all of whom mounted the same defense?); and (4) Williams/Gallagher were explicitly paid to advocate particular views while Gruber wasn't (true: that's exactly the arrangement Sunstein advocates to avoid "embarrassment" in the event of disclosure, and it's absurd to suggest that someone being paid many hundreds of thousands of dollars is unaware of what their paymasters want said; that's why disclosure is so imperative).

The point is that there are severe dangers to the Government covertly using its resources to "infiltrate" discussions and to shape political debates using undisclosed and manipulative means. It's called "covert propaganda" and it should be opposed regardless of who is in control of it or what its policy aims are.

UPDATE II: Ironically, this is the same administration that recently announced a new regulation dictating that "bloggers who review products must disclose any connection with advertisers, including, in most cases, the receipt of free products and whether or not they were paid in any way by advertisers, as occurs frequently." Without such disclosure, the administration reasoned, the public may not be aware of important hidden incentives (h/t pasquin). Yet the same administration pays an MIT analyst hundreds of thousands of dollars to advocate their most controversial proposed program while they hold him out as "objective," and selects as their Chief Regulator someone who wants government agents to covertly mold political discussions "anonymously or even with false identities."

UPDATE III: Just to get a sense for what an extremist Cass Sunstein is (which itself is ironic, given that his paper calls for "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups," as the Abstract puts it), marvel at this paragraph:

So Sunstein isn't calling right now for proposals (1) and (2) -- having Government "ban conspiracy theorizing" or "impose some kind of tax on those who" do it -- but he says "each will have a place under imaginable conditions." I'd love to know the "conditions" under which the government-enforced banning of conspiracy theories or the imposition of taxes on those who advocate them will "have a place." That would require, at a bare minumum, a repeal of the First Amendment. Anyone who believes this should, for that reason alone, be barred from any meaningful government position.

UPDATE IV: Paul Krugman has replied to the part of this post which pertains to him and Jonathan Gruber; my response to that is here.

The lesson of Haiti

by Fidel Castro

Two days ago, at almost six o’clock in the evening Cuban time and when, given its geographical location, night had already fallen in Haiti, television stations began to broadcast the news that a violent earthquake – measuring 7.3 on the Richter scale – had severely struck Port-au-Prince. The seismic phenomenon originated from a tectonic fault located in the sea just 15 kilometers from the Haitian capital, a city where 80% of the population inhabit fragile homes built of adobe and mud.

The news continued almost without interruption for hours. There was no footage, but it was confirmed that many public buildings, hospitals, schools and more solidly-constructed facilities were reported collapsed. I have read that an earthquake of the magnitude of 7.3 is equivalent to the energy released by an explosion of 400,000 tons of TNT.

Tragic descriptions were transmitted. Wounded people in the streets were crying out for medical help, surrounded by ruins under which their relatives were buried. No one, however, was able to broadcast a single image for several hours.

The news took all of us by surprise. Many of us have frequently heard about hurricanes and severe flooding in Haiti, but were not aware of the fact that this neighboring country ran the risk of a massive earthquake. It has come to light on this occasion that 200 years ago, a massive earthquake similarly affected this city, which would have been the home of just a few thousand inhabitants at that time.

At midnight, there was still no mention of an approximate figure in terms of victims. High-ranking United Nations officials and several heads of government discussed the moving events and announced that they would send emergency brigades to help. Given that MINUSTAH (United Stabilization Mission in Haiti) troops are deployed there – UN forces from various countries – some defense ministers were talking about possible casualties among their personnel.

It was only yesterday, Wednesday morning, when the sad news began to arrive of enormous human losses among the population, and even institutions such as the United Nations mentioned that some of their buildings in that country had collapsed, a word that does not say anything in itself but could mean a lot.

For hours, increasingly more traumatic news continued to arrive about the situation in this sister nation. Figures related to the number of fatal victims were discussed, which fluctuated, according to various versions, between 30,000 and 100,000. The images are devastating; it is evident that the catastrophic event has been given widespread coverage around the world, and many governments, sincerely moved by the disaster, are making efforts to cooperate according to their resources.

The tragedy has genuinely moved a significant number of people, particularly those in which that quality is innate. But perhaps very few of them have stopped to consider why Haiti is such a poor country. Why does almost 50% of its population depend on family remittances sent from abroad? Why not analyze the realities that led Haiti to its current situation and this enormous suffering as well?

The most curious aspect of this story is that no one has said a single word to recall the fact that Haiti was the first country in which 400,000 Africans, enslaved and trafficked by Europeans, rose up against 30,000 white slave masters on the sugar and coffee plantations, thus undertaking the first great social revolution in our hemisphere. Pages of insurmountable glory were written there. Napoleon’s most eminent general was defeated there. Haiti is the net product of colonialism and imperialism, of more than one century of the employment of its human resources in the toughest forms of work, of military interventions and the extraction of its natural resources.

This historic oversight would not be so serious if it were not for the real fact that Haiti constitutes the disgrace of our era, in a world where the exploitation and pillage of the vast majority of the planet’s inhabitants prevails.

Billions of people in Latin American, Africa and Asia are suffering similar shortages although perhaps not to such a degree as in the case of Haiti.

Situations like that of that country should not exist in any part of the planet, where tens of thousands of cities and towns abound in similar or worse conditions, by virtue of an unjust international economic and political order imposed on the world. The world population is not only threatened by natural disasters such as that of Haiti, which is a just a pallid shadow of what could take place in the planet as a result of climate change, which really was the object of ridicule, derision, and deception in Copenhagen.

It is only just to say to all the countries and institutions that have lost citizens or personnel because of the natural disaster in Haiti: we do not doubt that in this case, the greatest effort will be made to save human lives and alleviate the pain of this long-suffering people. We cannot blame them for the natural phenomenon that has taken place there, even if we do not agree with the policy adopted with Haiti.

But I have to express the opinion that it is now time to look for real and lasting solutions for that sister nation.

In the field of healthcare and other areas, Cuba – despite being a poor and blockaded country – has been cooperating with the Haitian people for many years. Around 400 doctors and healthcare experts are offering their services free of charge to the Haitian people. Our doctors are working every day in 227 of the country’s 337 communes. On the other hand, at least 400 young Haitians have trained as doctors in our homeland. They will now work with the reinforcement brigade which traveled there yesterday to save lives in this critical situation. Thus, without any special effort being made, up to 1,000 doctors and healthcare experts can be mobilized, almost all of whom are already there willing to cooperate with any other state that wishes to save the lives of the Haitian people and rehabilitate the injured.

Another significant number of young Haitians are currently studying medicine in Cuba.

We are also cooperating with the Haitian people in other areas within our reach. However, there can be no other form of cooperation worthy of being described as such than fighting in the field of ideas and political action in order to put an end to the limitless tragedy suffered by a large number of nations such as Haiti.

The head of our medical brigade reported: "The situation is difficult, but we have already started saving lives." He made that statement in a succinct message hours after his arrival yesterday in Port-au-Prince with additional medical reinforcements.

Later that night, he reported that Cuban doctors and ELAM’s Haitian graduates were being deployed throughout the country. They had already seen more than 1,000 patients in Port-au-Prince, immediately establishing and putting into operation a hospital that had not collapsed and using field hospitals where necessary. They were preparing to swiftly set up other centers for emergency care.

We feel a wholesome pride for the cooperation that, in these tragic instances, Cuba doctors and young Haitian doctors who trained in Cuba are offering our brothers and sisters in Haiti!

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Milestone reached for Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth

The website of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth (ae911truth.org) reports that 1000 architects and engineers have now signed the AE911T petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation (another 6158 individuals from other professions have also signed this petition as of today).

I would like to extent my heartfelt congratulations and gratitude to all the folks at AE911T for having reached this milestone, in particular since their work as been the most influential in transforming me from a longtime "911 agnostic" into a committed "911 truther".

And to all of you who still cannot believe that "9/11 was in inside job" I will say the following: keep doubting, but keep an open mind and keep educating yourself about what happened on that day. Please remember this simple truth:

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Kind regards,

The Saker

Criminal State - A Closer Look at Israel's Role in Terrorism






Saturday, January 16, 2010

Speech of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah at the Arab International Assembly to Support the Resistance

In the Name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, The Lord of the world. Peace be on the Seal of prophets, our Master and Prophet Abi Al Qassem Mohammad and on his chaste and pure Household, chosen companions and all prophets and messengers. Peace be upon you all and Allah's mercy and blessing.

Brothers and sisters! Ladies and gentlemen! I welcome you all in the city of Beirut, the capital of culture, freedom, Arabism, struggle and resistance. Welcome in powerful Lebanon which has forsaken the marvel of Lebanon's strength in its weakness to the truth of Lebanon's strength in the solidarity of its army, people and resistance. Welcome in Lebanon the victorious which could - thanks to the blood of its children and the sacrifices of its martyrs and lionhearted resistance - expel the occupier from its land and restore its captives from prisons and stand proud and revered in face of Israeli risks, challenges and threats. Thus it made for its people and nation a new advanced post in the way of the final victory Inshallah. I address you with my thanks after my welcome. Thank you for your massive and truthful attendance to support the resistance, its project, movements, peoples and cultures and to embrace and support the resistance in the time of challenges and difficulties. Brothers and sisters! Know that your blessed attendance and the views and stances which you will present will have great impact on the awareness, will, determination and resolution of our peoples and its confidence in the future.

Brothers and sisters! Because of the time limit, I resorted to writing. I would like to talk about the brilliant side of the ongoing struggle. Many in this world unfortunately do talk about the dark side. Since the powers of hegemony and arrogance founded Israel as an entity which usurped Israel and as an advanced military barrack for arrogance, these powers and their Zionist collaborators aspired to establish a strong expanding settlement entity which poses a permanent guarantee for their interests in our region. This was known as the project of Great Israel. Thus was the Israeli victory in 1948 and in 1967 which was more expansive. The Zionists and their masters thought that they were about to achieve the project of Great Israel. Then was the war of Ramadan - October 1973. Today I will talk about facts without any courtesies. They formed a historic and important turning point in the struggle with the Israeli enemy. Truly both the Egyptian and Syrian Arab armies made unforgettable historic and heroic epics. That put a limit to the Zionist aspirations to expand. Years later, the Egyptian regime put Egypt outside the struggle with Israel via Camp David. This was the most dangerous change in the history of the struggle. But Allah, the Benefactor, wished that Imam Khomeini let Iran in the struggle through the victorious Islamic revolution and toppling the Shah regime which is an agent to America and Israel. This also was the most critical change in the history of the struggle.

In 1982, Zionists troops invaded Lebanon and occupied the Arab capital Beirut. They wanted to control Lebanon and annex it finally to Israel. The Israeli invasion revived anew the dream of establishing Great Israel. Yet after few years of the resistance of the Lebanese, their sacrifices, chaste blood and legendary steadfastness, Israel was pulled out of Lebanon defeated and humiliated dragging its tail between its legs as the Zionists themselves said in May 25, 2000. This was a flagrant announcement for the final flop of the project of Great Israel. Thus started the theories of the great Israel which is outstanding in power in return for the previous project of Great Israel which has geographic expansion. Few months after the Lebanese victory Al Aqsa Intifada in Palestine started and then turned to great towering jihadi resistance. Great Israel thus started feeling perplexed, weak and worried. They started talking anew about the battle of existence and the second independence. Even remaining in historic Palestine seemed impossible. Here Gaza of the Resistance expelled the occupation with resistance. With their grudge and spite to Gaza, Zionists wished it would be drowned in the sea but it will not be drowned, it will rather drown them Inshallah. Walls were erected in the West Bank as an attempt to re-delineate anew borders in which Zionists might hide from the bravery of the Palestinian fighters and self-martyrs. Afterwards, Israel launched its aggressive war against Lebanon in July 2006 to crush the resistance but the resistance remained in Lebanon and it grew stronger and greater. It launched the war to restore the lost deterrence prestige but it lost what remained of this prestige. All of Israel acknowledged its defeat in July and the dreams of great Israel were dispersed in Maron Arrass, Aita Shaab and Bint Jbeil. And the dream of great Israel was branded with the sealing wax on the hands of those who fought until martyrdom and victory in Gaza in 2008.

Israel stepped out of its wars with the resistance in Palestine and Lebanon to examine Vin Grad and draw conclusions in an attempt to rebuild its army and its morals. Brothers and sisters! Frankly speaking and without exaggeration, Israel today is living in a true crisis of which its leaders, experts, newspapers, elites, parties and polls are talking. It's the crisis of the project and the dream… the crisis of leadership…the crisis of the undefeatable army which was defeated by a small group of resistance fighters. It's the crisis of trusting the regime, institutions and the future. Today Israel is trying to address all of that through the rattle of weapons, the beating of drums and daily threats on platforms against Lebanon, Gaza, Syria and Iran. These threats do not frighten anyone anymore but cowards and the defeated. But those who experienced the battles of jihad and tasted the divine victory look forward to encounter and confront to make for their nation a new pride and great victory Inshallah.

Here is defeated Israel seeking power against the resistance movements and powers from the international community, the Security Council, international institutions and some Arab regimes and intelligence. It is also seeking power through building steel walls, the campaigns of terrorizing, falsification and siege. But at the same time it is taking into account all the considerations of a direct military confrontation. Brothers and sisters! Israel is searching for guarantees for victory and triumph in any upcoming war.

As for the project of US hegemony in the region, I may also say that we have overcome one of the most dangerous stages in the history of our region and nation. The US military, security, economic and political strength has reached its peak in the past two decades. Its monopoly in the world has encouraged it to move with its project and aggressions in our region, nations and peoples to the end seizing what it considered a historic chance to put a decisive end to its struggle with out nation. Thus was the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the incessant threat to the regime of the Islamic Republic in Iran and Syria, the attempt to control Lebanon and the support and sponsorship of the Israeli wars on Lebanon and Gaza. What was demanded was liquidating the resistance movements in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan and drying up the various sources of support in the world to these movements and toppling the regimes of opposition to the hegemony project which support the resistance especially in Iran, Syria and Sudan. They wanted to impose the culture of succumbing and failure on our peoples and governments. They wanted to achieve a settlement for the Palestinian cause with US-Israeli conditions. They wanted to thrust the region finally in the US-Zionist era. The title of this project, attack and fight was a new Middle East which Condoleezza Rice talked about its labor pains on the onset of July War 2006.

Anew the resistance, opposition and steadfastness project and people could make great historic achievements. The resistance movements remained steadfast in all battlefields, war and bodily and moral liquidation attempts. The opposition governments remained steadfast before all pressures, isolation and penalties. Our peoples adhered to the culture of nobleness, freedom and jihad. Thus they became more proud and more unwilling to succumb to humiliation and surrender. The settlement negotiations went into a coma. Many inadequate doctors are trying to revive it. The new Middle East project collapsed before the arms of the fighters, the awareness of the elites and the sacrifices of the people, children, women and elderly and the massive demolition which made with steadfastness and resistance great victories.

If we did not talk today about the final collapse of the US project in our region, at least we may talk about the US flop, retreat and feeling of weakness and loss of choices. These are prelude to the final collapse for this project and war on our nation Inshallah. This is a quick representation of the great victories and achievements of the resistance in our nation and region. They were achieved in the worst Arab conditions in the history of our Arab nation and this increases its brilliant historic greatness and importance. They were the worst Arab and international conditions which you are acquainted with. The resistance movements made the greatest achievements in the worst conditions of desolation, loneliness, siege, terrifying, conspiracy, connivance and backstabbing even from those "next of kin". Still it gained victory with its faithfulness, truthfulness, determination, sacrifices and the blood of its fighters and pure martyrs. We are saying this to stress to our peoples through your noble conference that the choice of resistance is the true, logical rational and victorious choice. It has great horizons and expectations. It is not a transient emotion or a whim of anger.

Brothers and Sisters! The resistance project, movements and people need all kinds of political, media, legal and financial support and embracement especially to confront the psychological war which is among the great risks which are still facing the resistance movements but is the most dangerous and critical. My hope at the end of my speech is to call on this conference with all the attendance is the true aid in face of this kind of war. It's the war of distortion to touch on its awareness, will, authority and the trust of its people in it on the national level and the trust of its nation in it on the general level. How? It's through questioning its futility and consequences and talking about the martyrs and demolition that took place in Gaza and Lebanon; through questioning its futility and consequences with its clear victories; through accusing it of perpetrating crimes which have no relation with the resistance but rather it condemn them in every occasion; through accusing it of moral corruption such as promoting drugs and the like; through challenging its personalities, leaders and factions; through branding it with sectarianism and factionalism; and through accusing it of betting on regional countries and especially Iran and Syria which must be thanked always and forever on their unlimited and unconditional support which they offer to the resistance. Still the resistance movements in our countries are among the most honorable national movements in history and among the most honorable national movements in the world. It's also through accusing it of promoting the culture of death which is in fact the culture of jihad and martyrdom in face of the culture of surrender which they call the culture of life; through thrusting it and dragging it to internal struggles which the resistance refuse to get engaged in; through pushing it to change its priorities; through misleading the nation through replacing the enemy with the friend and being antagonistic to Syria and Iran; through besieging the resistance and its voice and logical, rational, humanistic, noble, clear and faithful rhetoric; and through preventing it from attending conferences; through the act the US administration is seeking to issue to silence voices and which aims above all against Al Manar and Al Aqsa among other TV channels which are trying to say the truth. Unfortunately, brothers and sisters, many Arab media outlets and pens which are so called Arab are being used to serve this war against the resistance movements while great financial and technical capacities are being used in this perspective.

One final word if you allow me. I call on your honorable conference which gathers these political, intellectual, religious, cultural and jihadi elites from all around the world: support the resistance in the first hand in confronting this gigantic media war which they call today the soft war and which could be one of the important war means which led to the collapse of the USSR and the socialist campaign as Gates, the US War Minister himself acknowledged. I assert on you brothers and sisters to be assured. I know all the resistance movements. I assert to you we will not be defeated by this or any form of war. We will face them with faith, patience, awareness, determination and certitude. We are the children of that Divine Book which has been eternally calling on us for hundreds of years: "Men said to them: A great army is gathering against you, so fear them: but it only increased their faith: they said: for us Allah sufficeth, and He is the best disposer of affairs." In our previous wars we said "For us Allah sufficeth, and He is the best disposer of affairs" and we gained victory and today and in the future we say "For us Allah sufficeth, and He is the best disposer of affairs" and we will gain victory.

Today, I would like to promise you who love Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, the nation and the resistance in face of all of these threats against Lebanon which you hear daily – I promise you as I used to promise you always. In any future confrontation with the Zionists we will frustrate the aggression goals. We will beat the enemy. We will make great historic victory. We will change the face of the region Inshallah. I assert for you ladies and gentlemen the future of the region is that of the resistance, dignity, honor and freedom. Israel, the occupation, the hegemony and arrogance are to an end Inshallah. Peace be upon you and Allah's blessing and mercy.

10 Questions for David Rovics

It is truly a huge pleasure for me to publish this Q&A with David Rovics, a phenomenal artist whose music I have only recently discovered, and about whom I wrote a piece entitled "David Rovics - the beautiful voice of the American Resistance". Three months have passed since I wrote this piece. I discovered more of David's songs and I came to the conclusion that he is probably the most talented American singer I have ever heard, bar none.

For those of you who have not listened to his music yet, I have selected what I think are 52 of his very best songs, archived them into one zipped file, and made them available for download here (enter the word "saker" next to "Пароль на файл:" and then enter the number you see next at the right of "Код безопасности" in the box "Введите код: and hit "enter", and the download will start in 5 sec). Alternatively, you can also download it from here. (Note: all the songs which I refer to in this Q&A are included in this archive)


I contacted David and asked him to agree to a Q&A exchange for my blog. He kindly agreed and here is the result of our exchange:

Q: Please tell us something about your family background: where were you born, what was the ethnicity/origin of you mom and dad, do you have any siblings, what kind of education did you get, were did you go to school, etc.?

A: I was born in New York City and raised in the well-off, white suburbs of Wilton, Connecticut. My parents are both classical musicians who taught at the University of Long Island. I wasn't brought up with any particular religion but my father is of Jewish lineage and my mother's family was Episcopalian, though she later became a Quaker. I have a sister named Bonnie, 3 years younger, who is also a leftwing musician among other things. I was educated in primary school in a wonderful hippie place called the Learning Community. After that I went to Wilton public schools and then briefly to Earlham College and Evergreen State College, but never got a BA.

Q: Who are the main influences of your art in terms of ideas, of course, but also in terms of music? What are your favorite authors/poets and what kind of music do you listen to most?

A: Musically I've been influenced profoundly by Appalachian music, bluegrass, traditional and contemporary Irish music, the singer-songwriter scene, nueva cancion, African music, all kinds of stuff. If I were to name a single songwriter who has impacted me most profoundly it would be Jim Page, with many others close behind.

Q: You are clearly not afraid of singing about topics and people which no other artist would ever dare touch, not with a 10 foot pole. For example, "Jenin" is about a Palestinian suicide-bomber, "Burn It Down" is about what the Uncle Sam would call "eco-terrorism", "Song for Ana Belen Montes" is about a top DoD official who spied for the Cuba not for money, but because her conscience told her to do so, "Lebanon 2006" is about Hezbollah and "International Terrorists" is about the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines! Even though these are some of your most powerful and beautiful songs, I know that they sometimes deeply offend, scandalize and infuriate people. Are you concerned about such reactions?

A: There are also many songwriters and other artists who would and regularly do write about all of those things. The ones who are scared of them usually either don't know enough about the issues or they're afraid of losing their record contract. The independent musicians like me don't have such concerns, for better or for worse, so our only concern might be for our safety. I don't think I have much to worry about in that regard. I can't think of a single instance of an artist in the US being killed for his or her art. Harassed, audited, spied on, phones tapped, passports taken and maybe jailed briefly (in the 1950's) but these are not serious concerns for anyone who gives a shit about humanity. And anyway, I rarely have the pleasure of reaching audiences beyond those who are already part of the progressive community, so I rarely cause controversy of any kind, unfortunately.

Q: Your music is very clearly American in style - it covers a wide breadth of American music styles - and I suppose that this choice an expression of your love for this land, its people, their culture and its landscapes. Yet at the same time you are clearly dismayed by the history of what the ruling elites have done to your country ("Parking Lots and Strip Malls", "Everything Looks the Same", "Before they nuke DC", "Floating Down the River"). How do you personally deal with the pain of seeing the country you love also being the "homeland" of the ideology which you despise so much? Have you ever considered leaving the USA and going into permanent exile? ("I think of moving eastward, Maybe Gant or Amsterdam, Far from Ronald McDonald, And his greedy Uncle Sam") or do you feel that your place is fundamentally here?

A: There are many places in the world I'd love to live. The US (or parts of it anyway) is only one of those places where there are wonderful people, lots of natural beauty, and other good things in life. Basically it's a beautiful world, and the US is beautiful too, it's just that the government is a neo-fascist empire bent on wiping out life on Earth. I feel like the place I can be most effective is in the US, where I'm from, which is one of the reasons I stay. Though of course I leave often, for tours... As for playing a distinctly American kind of music, nah. If I sang with an Irish accent or an English accent it'd be Irish or English music. There are lots of people there who like bluegrass and play guitar the way I do. Is bluegrass American? Sort of. At least to the extent that Irish immigrants and African slaves were/are American. The banjo is an African instrument.

Q: Some of your songs are amazingly optimistic ("We Are Everywhere", "Shut Them Down"). Considering what is going on in the world, how do you overcome a sense of despondency, of doom and gloom ("The Draft Is Coming")? Do you do that by seeking beauty and peace in the people we love ("Life is Beautiful") or do you see objective reasons to continue to hope that things will eventually change for the better ("Minimum Wage Strike", "The Pirate Radio Song", "Who Will Tell The People")?

A: There are all kinds of ways things can go at different places and times in this world, and what's certain is that mass movements are necessary to make things go in a positive direction. What's also certain is that music needs to be part of any movement. So I do my thing, hoping for the best. Things look pretty grim in the US, Europe and a lot of other places right now. The neoliberals and the xenophobes seem to get more powerful every day. On the other hand there is South America, where real changes are happening real fast. South America is the beacon of hope for the future of planet Earth at this time, it's largely where my hope for the future comes from right now, on a macro scale, but in little ways my hope for the future comes every day I have the pleasure of interacting with more kind and generous human beings, who are everywhere.

Q: One of your songs ("Whoever Wins in November") ends with the words "whoever wins in November, Neolib, neocon, Stands only for death, Whichever face he has on, We will build a new world, And set us all free, Once we drive the whole lot of them, Right out of DC". I personally fully agree with you in that I see no hope whatsoever in this corrupt system or in the naive hope that the elites which run it will somehow "reform themselves". But how do you think can they be "driven right out of DC"? Do you still believe that a 3rd party candidate can eventually win, do you believe in a Gandi-like satyagraha peaceful civil resistance or do you believe that only violence can and will eventually bring down this entire system?

A: Of course the first step in the process is education. People need to understand that the two-party system is hopelessly corrupt, and give up on it. Then there's the possibility for change in all kinds of ways. There's the possibility of a third party movement, of a mass nonviolent movement, of a violent uprising, who knows? All kinds of ways change can happen. I think it would be silly and dishonest to predict how that change might come about or which kind of change will be most effective, because we don't know the future or the circumstances it will involve yet, but change can happen in all kinds of ways. Not through voting for Democrats though.

Q: Your songs are a wonderful education tool for children. I have three kids whom I homeschool; they listen to your songs every day and constantly ask me questions about the events or people you refer to. I cannot think of a better history, civics or social sciences "curriculum" than your songs (-: "Homeschoolers for David Rovics!" - what a slogan :-). When you wrote these songs, did you just speak about the issues which were dear to you, or did you make a conscious effort to educate people or their kids?

A: I'm so glad you think my songs work well for educating children, 'cause home school vs. school is a constant theme in my life, having a little girl myself. I'm more in favor of home schooling, though right now she's part-time at a Waldorf place she seems to like (when she gets enough sleep). I didn't write these songs with children in mind, but I did write them with the idea in mind of communicating the most essential aspect of a story and not complicating it too much with tangents. I think songs about historical or current events tend to work best that way. That also works well for kids, at least if they're old enough to have some idea of the context. Of course I also write songs that are explicitly for kids, little kids, where I'm making different assumptions in terms of awareness of context, more appropriate for the age group.

Q: Your songs are extremely "singable" in the sense that they have simple choruses and melodies which are ideally suited to group singing (we often sing them with my wife and kids during car trips and we have a great deal of fun doing this). This is something which the vast majority of singers seem to have totally forgotten, that songs are not only meant to be listened to, but actually sung. Many popular music traditions aboard (Latin America, Celtic countries, Russia, Greece, etc.) also share that feature of being "singable", but in the USA you are one of the very few artists who cares about this. Why is it? Is that something you deliberately decided to include in your songs?

A: Interesting you say this, because I just did a tour of Tvind schools in Denmark and some of the headmasters complained that though they liked my songs, they were often not singable enough. It's all relative... Compared to many modern singer-songwriters my songs are singable. Compared with, say, songs of the civil rights or union movements, my songs are completely obtuse and not very singable. I like writing some songs that are easy to sing along with, and I like writing songs that aren't very good for that as well. But the thing is that if you like a song enough any song can be good for singing along, even if it doesn't have a chorus!

Q: Your entry in Wikipedia says that you are Jewish and in one of your poems you write "I think of the walls around our own ghetto, And how we had to crawl through the sewers, Looking for rats to eat, While we could hear their children playing, On the other side". Do you consider yourself Jewish and, if yes, what does it mean to you? Some "Jews" such as Shlomo Sands or Gilad Atzmon do not even believe that there is such thing as an ethnic Jew, that being "Jewish" is in reality a cultural/tribal self-identification, something one chooses but not something which one "is". You are not religious (at least according to the Wikipedia) and you very clearly abhor the Zionist ideology as in the same poem you say "I feel sick, Sick of your displaced anger, Sick of your self-deception, Sick of your attempts to deceive the rest of the world, Sick of your accusations of anti-semitism, Sick of your occupation, Sick of your apartheid state, Sick of Zionism". But then who is the "we" that you speak of in this poem? Can there be a way of being Jewish other than an ethnic, religious or ideological one?

A: I'm Jewish in the sense that I'm Jewish enough to have been gassed in Hitler's gas chambers and Jewish enough for Israeli citizenship. I'm also Jewish in the sense that I was told about this heritage and what it meant from birth by my father's mother especially. In terms of religion I'm an atheist. In terms of ethnicity I don't know if such a thing exists on a scientific basis or how that would be defined. There are genetic differences between people from one village to the next. At what point is an ethnicity constituted? Who knows? Personally I just don't care, I think it's all silly, but it would be equally silly to say that I'm not Jewish. What would that mean? Just as little or as much as being Jewish means. But certainly it's mostly a political and to some extent cultural definition, not genetic or religious in nature, at least not as far as I'm concerned.

Q: You wrote only one song about 9/11 - but an extremely powerful one (Reichstag fire). The chorus of this songs is "I am left to wonder, As the flames are reaching higher, Was this our latest Lusitannia, Or another Reichstag Fire?" Are you still wondering about this, or have you come to some conclusion?

A: I think there are many unanswered questions around what happened on 9/11. I think there are many people who have come to all kinds of unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable conclusions based on guesses and not concrete facts, which is unfortunate for all of us. But there are certainly unanswered, important questions, and I imagine that will continue to be the case for a long time.
-------

If you want to find out more about Rovics and his music, the following ressources are available on the internet:

http://www.davidrovics.com (main web site)
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/davidrovics (weekly radio show, every Monday 11AM PST)
http://www.soundclick.com/davidrovics (his music)
http://songwritersnotebook.blogspot.com (his blog)
http://www.myspace.com/davidrovics
http://www.facebook.com/davidrovics
http://twitter.com/drovics
http://davidrovics.guestbooks.cc

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Israel's latest SNAFU

You all heard the story: the Israelis got pissed-off at Turkey for showing a TV show which they don't like, they decided to humiliate the Turkish envoy to Israel with some totally immature antics (sitting him on a lower chair, only putting a little Israeli flag on the table and by, quote, "not smiling" - at least on camera).

This time, the customary arrogance of the "Jewish state" ended up backfiring badly when the Turks decided not to take that crap and demanded not one, but TWO apologies form a state which is only used to disdainfully accepting all kinds of apologies, but never presenting one

Worse, the Turks actually gave a public ultimatum with an equally public deadline "or else". And the Israelis blinked and rolled over. I can just imagine the terrible anguish that the expert practitioner of "chutzpah" which pass for "diplomats" in the "Jewish state" must have felt when they had publicly present their apologies.

What a fantastic admission of weakness too. If Turkey can humiliate the Ueber-arrogant Israelis, just imagine what a determined major power could do to it!

Whatever one might think of the Turkish government - and I sure am not fan of it at all - it has to be said that Ankara handled this situation brilliantly.

The smackdown of the arrogant bastards who run the "Jewish state" is a fantastic PR success for the Turkish government.
In the past, the Turks have already bullied Syrian into submission (with threats over the PKK), and now they succeeded in bullying the Israelis. The only ones who actually forced the Turks to back down, though not too publicly, where the Russians (who clearly indicated to the Turks that any further intervention in the Caucasus or the Black Sea would be met with force if needed).

I strongly believe that Israel far from being strong, is really an extremely weak state which is hiding this weakness under an external appearance of arrogance and constant sabre-rattling. But look at the fact: the Israeli lost ALL their wars since 1973 - they could not even beat Hamas in Gaza, nevermind Hezbollah in Lebanon - and they are the most unanimously hated nation on earth surviving only by the ruthless exploitation of the USA by the Israel Lobby.

By smacking down the Israelis the Turks have essentially declared "the Emperor has no clothes!". Hopefully, everybody else will now come out of their stupor and follow suit.

The Saker

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

The truth will prevail

by Gilad Atzmon

The Israeli government doesn’t think twice before it orders a genocidal attack against civilians. Israeli military leaders do not think twice before they drop bombs on one of the most densely populated places on the planet. They also do not hesitate whether to use artillery shells against a UN refugee shelter. The Israeli people do not think twice before they approve en masse their army’s inhuman tactics. But for some bizarre reason, the Israelis are devastated to find out that the rest of humanity is coming to terms with their true nature. Once again it is a Turkish TV drama that exposes the Israelis for what they are. A murderous collective motivated by vengeance.

A few months back it was "Ayrilik". A Turkish prime-time TV series that portrayed the IDF as a bloodthirsty army.

To watch film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M596Ga8-rmU

This week it is "Valley of Wolves" a TV drama that depicts Mossad agents and Israeli representatives in Turkey as baby snatchers.

To watch film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu8hmLvateE

If you wonder what the Israelis do when they are exposed for who and what they are, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon has an answer to offer. Ayalon went out of his way this week to snub Turkey's ambassador to Israel over his country's “persistent criticism of the Jewish state”. The Israeli official refused to shake the Turkish Ambassador’s hand and made him sit on a lower seat at a meeting. He also made sure that a cameraman was there to document the humiliation. Submerged in Jewish pride the Israeli Deputy Foreign minister was probably convinced that for Israel to get away with murder, treating a Goy diplomat with contempt must be the way forward.

The Israelis are boiling with anger with the Turks. They do not like to be seen through, they much prefer to be loved and admired regardless of their criminal record. For some peculiar reason Israelis lack the capacity to see themselves through others, they categorically insist on avoiding looking in the mirror. Instead they demand that the rest of humanity turns a blind eye to their war crimes and even apologizes for being witnesses to their horrific acts.

The spokeswoman for the Turkish TV production company behind "Valley of Wolves" was bewildered by such an Israeli demand. She clearly refused to apologize. “Israel” she says , “has already been declared a war criminal many times in the past by international rights organizations, including the UN, which has written about this in its reports."

Like many of us, the Turkish spokeswoman legitimately wondered “how can the same Israeli authorities, who bombed children hiding under the UN flag in Gaza without hesitation, are so concerned now with a television show that merely displays what they did?” The spokeswoman fails to understand that Israelis are not interested in truth.

The current diplomatic rift between Israel and Turkey is just a symptom of a wide and sickening phenomenon: Israel, Jewish lobbies and Jewish ethnic campaigners around the world are employing different means to conceal the truth about the Jewish national project and its grave inhuman implications. An Israeli official would use a low seat together with an arsenal of abusive bad manners to snub a foreign diplomat, the Jewish ethnic Campaigner in the left would cry anti-Semitism in order to impose a total paralysis onto the anti Zionist discourse. In their universe the Jew never takes responsibility. In their segregated planet, the Jew never regrets or repents. The Goy, on the other hand, becomes subject to insults for just telling the truth or even for being associated with the truth. If Israel and its supporters believe that they can maintain this tactic for much longer, they are pretty deluded. The tide is changing.

Humanity is primarily grounded on truthfulness. Hope is fuelled by our capacity to say things as we see them. In that respect, Turkey is a light at the end of the tunnel. As it happens, it is Turkey’s TV and Turkish leaders who are willing to say in the open what our ‘liberal’ leaders fail to admit or even spell in their minds.

Truth is not on Israel’s side. In fact, truth is becoming the biggest foe of the Jewish national project, its phantasmic narrative and its fictional notion of history. The Israelis know that truth will prevail. They have good reason to panic. The wall of defiance is emerging around them and their supportive lobbies.

Us vs. Them: On the Meaning of Fascism

by Roger Tucker

"We have met the enemy and they are us." - Pogo

Pretty much everyone nowadays rejects fascism, but nobody seems to know quite what it is. The words "fascist" and "fascism" are frequently flung about, but they seem to be applied to all sorts of different and unrelated people and things. The dictionaries and Wikipedia are no help because they all assume that the word refers to a political phenomenon that arose in Europe in the 20th Century. That is indeed when the word "fascism" was coined (in the form of "fascismo," an Italian word for the ideology of Benito Mussolini's political party). Here's an excellent contemporary example: "The definition of “fascism” has some academic variance, but is essentially collusion among corporatocracy, authoritarian government, and controlled media and education. This “leadership” is only possible with a nationalistic public accepting policies of war, empire, and limited civil and political rights." (1) However, it is rather easy to demonstrate that fascism, in terms of usage (what people mean when they employ the term) dates back to the dawn of history. In order to do that we have to look at what goes into the process of properly defining a word. There are two things that need to be taken into consideration; the historical, linguistic roots (the etymology of the word) and contemporary usage. The Oxford English Dictionary is usually helpful with the former but not in this case, as it too (following the OED rule that looks at the first instance in print) refers only to the recent manifestations in Italy and Germany. In order to determine usage we need to pay close attention to how and when people nowadays commonly employ the terms "fascist" and "fascism."

The Etymology

The word "fascism" has as its root the Latin term "fascis." Here Wikipedia is helpful: "[Fasces:] from the Latin word fascis, meaning "bundle," symbolize summary power and jurisdiction...The traditional Roman fasces consisted of a bundle of white birch rods, tied together with a red leather ribbon into a cylinder, and often including a bronze axe (or sometimes two) amongst the rods, with the blade(s) on the side, projecting from the bundle. It was used as a symbol of the Roman Republic in many circumstances, including being carried in processions, much the way a flag might be carried today...Believed to date from Etruscan times, the symbolism of the fasces at one level suggested strength through unity. The bundle of rods bound together symbolizes the strength which a single rod lacks. The axe symbolized the state's power and authority." Another word with the same root is "fascia," which Wikipedia defines as follows: "(from latin: a band) is the soft tissue component of the connective tissue system that permeates the human body...It is responsible for maintaining structural integrity..." Again there is a sense of the binding factor, suggestive of the social glue or cultural bond that defines and holds a community together and gives it strength and endurance.

The Etruscan origin is probably correct and some have theorized that the original symbol depicted a bound sheaf of wheat. Whether factual or not, this hypothesis is very suggestive and goes to the heart of the matter. The bound sheaf of wheat, or bundle of sticks tied together, are clearly symbolic of the basic family, clan or tribal group that lives and works the land together cooperatively. That is what most of the names of indigenous tribes or peoples all over the world mean in their own language, "us," "the people," bound together by blood, language and place.

In its primary and positive sense the fasces symbolizes how we are bound to the earth and how, by working harmoniously with it, we sustain ourselves. It evokes primal feelings of oneness with nature and with one another and is suggestive of nurturing and fertility. It invokes the feminine, or mother principle, and it is no wonder that the early agricultural communities worshipped an earth goddess. Its not so benign meaning emerges with the addition of the axe blades, symbolizing the masculine principles of power, authority and the monopoly of force wielded by those who sit atop the heirarchy that naturally develops in human groups. In that sense, the original holders of the fasces were the mother and father of the primitve family and through the evolution of culture has become invested at the highest level in the leaders of nation-states and those who represent them.

In the simplest and most basic sense we are talking about group ego. The term "ego" is generally understood as the sense of self, all of the disparate physical, emotional, spiritual and intellectual elements that we think of as an "I," an ongoing, solid and independent actor. All wisdom traditions point out the danger of solidifying this concept. They teach us that we are inextricably connected, existing only in relation to one another and to everything else. Whether perceived as pacific and cooperative or aggressive and warlike, all group identities court the same danger, the reification of the concept of "Us." Fascism is neither masculine nor feminine, neither rightist or leftist, but a combination of both. Nor does it have anything to do with a particular political or economic setup. Let's take a look at what the Italian fascisti, the ones who coined the term, had in mind. The following is in Wikipedia's translation of the Fascist Manifesto:


The Manifesto (published in "Il Popolo d'Italia" on June 6, 1919) is divided into four sections, describing Fascist objectives in political, social, military and financial fields. Politically, the Manifesto calls for:

Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women;
Proportional representation on a regional basis;
Voting for women (which was opposed by most other European nations);
Representation at government level of newly created National Councils by economic sector;
The abolition of the Italian Senate (at the time, the Senate, as the upper house of parliament, was by process elected by the wealthier citizens, but were in reality direct appointments by the King. It has been described as a sort of extended council of the Crown);
The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made of professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers (this concept was rooted in corporatist ideology and derived in part from Catholic social doctrine).

In labour and social policy, the Manifesto calls for:

The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers;
A minimum wage;
The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions;
To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants;
Reorganisation of the railways and the transport sector;
Revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance;
Reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.

In military affairs, the Manifesto advocates:

Creation of a short-service national militia with specifically defensive responsibilities;
Armaments factories are to be nationalised;
A peaceful but competitive foreign policy.
In finance, the Manifesto advocates:
A strong progressive tax on capital (envisaging a “partial expropriation” of concentrated wealth);
The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor;
Revision of all contracts for military provisions;
The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.

The Manifesto thus combined elements of contemporary democratic and progressive thought (franchise reform, labour reform, limited nationalisation, taxes on wealth and war profits) with corporatist emphasis on class collaboration (the idea of social classes existing side by side and collaborating for the sake of national interests; the opposite of the Marxist notion of class struggle).


This sounds remarkably like a program that most liberals and progressives could salute, doesn't it? Of course, fascismo changed markedly after Mussolini assumed control and turned it into a right-wing dictatorship, but what we're concerned with here is the evolution of the term fascism from its linguistic origins in pre-Roman Italy to the present. However, we must guard against the notion that there is anything particularly Italian (or German for that matter) about fascism. The symbolism of the fasces is widely used and displayed in government sponsored designs in the U.S., France and a number of other Western democracies. Similar symbols are native to most cultures; it is well night universal.

In order for fascism to come to dominate an identity group, it must have a compelling narrative. Whether group identity is based on nationality, ethnicity, religion, class, caste, gender or whatever, there is sure to be a story that glorifies the "tribe" and sets it above all others. Typically, it reaches far back into history and has elements both of exaltation and humiliation, triumph over its adversaries and victimhood. And it will come replete with slogans and symbols, and nowadays, more than likely, bumper stickers.

To sum up, the linguistic root of the term fascism and its visual representation clearly refer to identification with a particular group of people, originally based on family, clan and tribe, including place and language, evolving eventually into what we would nowadays call nationalism, or internationalism when it is based on a politico-economic ideology like capitalism or communism. As will be discussed further, the essential principle applies to any kind of identity politics that distinguishes between "Us" and a "Them" and asserts "Our" interests as primary. At what point, then, does this basic pattern, which is neither good nor bad in itself, become malevolent and get properly labeled as "fascist"? One could say that it turns ugly when sports fans, for example, start physically assaulting one another rather than just rooting for the home team. At the scale of international relations, when nationalism becomes aggressive and predatory, then we can clearly identify the pattern as fascistic. The simplest manifestation is that of the schoolyard bully, usually consisting of a leader and his loyal followers. Writ large, it supplies the tacit or explicit rationale for all wars.

It must be stressed that there is nothing inherently wrong with group identification. On the contrary, without it we would be alienated and lost. The turning point is when a healthy sense of group pride turns into belligerent arrogance and racism; when patriotism becomes an excuse for hating foreigners, when we start dehumanizing and vilifying others, when we go along with a party line that gives us the right to oppress and dispossess outsiders.

Usage

Many observers have remarked that people use the words "fascist" or "fascism" in a context that has only the vaguest reference, if any, to historical events that occurred in the previous century. However, there is a remarkable consistency to the usage that is commonly overlooked. First of all, it is always negative, something to be rejected and actively opposed. Second, it is always used to refer to something characteristic of a particular group of people unlike us, people with whom "we" don't identify, all of whom have in common this "fascistic" quality. And it always contains some explicit or implicit accusation of injustice, abuse of power and arbitrary use of force. At this point it should be becoming clear that fascism is a word that may have been coined in the context of 20th century European politics, but which has been adopted in popular speech to refer to something far more basic, universal and timeless, for which no handier term existed. I suspect that the peculiar potency of the word derives from the enormously successful wartime propaganda of the Allies that strove to identify "our enemies" du jour with evil incarnate, and kept alive through a myriad of films, books and the approved version of history taught to young people. It is no accident that fascists are always the "other," while "we" are always both the victims and the heroic warriors keeping "them" at bay.

Let's look at some circumstances in which a person or some group of people are typically labeled fascist. Children sometimes accuse their parents, or caretakers, of being fascists. What they mean is that their liberty to do as they please is being unfairly circumscribed. No, you can't stay up late playing video games. You can't sleep over with your friends, or whatever. They are fascists because they have used the authority vested in their position to control your behavior and activities. You must comply, because they have a monopoly on the use of force, the ability to withold whatever you want or feel you need and are entitled to, and in the last resort, to inflict physical punishment if you do not obey. Another frequent use of the term occurs in the context of confrontations with the police. They represent authority, as signified by their uniforms and the fact that they are armed and have the government sanctioned option to use their weapons. Nowadays, in our generally disaffected mood, the Government is commonly perceived to be fascist. Here, the relationship to the Roman fasces is obvious - they are identified with the State and its power. A wonderful example of the notion of fascism as it is popularly understood is the character of Nurse Ratchett in Ken Kesey's classic "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." She represents the absolute and arbitrary power of established authority to control others' lives. One might accuse one's boss of being a fascist for exactly such reasons. They have the authority and the power and, as you see it, they abuse it.

In terms of politics, the term is generally employed in reference to parties whose ideology asserts a prerogative to rule based on ethnocentric supremacy, a form of extreme nationalism. However, it has been applied to a variety of political views based on group identity if that identity is used as a rationale for precedence over others. "We" could just as easily be "the working class" as self-proclaimed representatives of national or religious identity. It is useful to remember that both the Italian Fascist party and the Nazis considered themselves to be socialist, while the Spanish and Japanese parties openly appealed to conservative, traditionalist sentiments. In terms of a useful definition of fascism, these distinctions are meaningless.

Let's try a thought experiment to test our own fascist propensities. Create a mental list of those characteristics that constitute your identify. I will provide an example by doing this for myself. I am male, Caucasian, an American, a Jew by birth and a Buddhist by inclination, a senior citizen and retiree, a veteran, a writer, a revolutionary, left-handed and blue-eyed with dark hair. And that's just a partial survey. To what extent do I identify with each of the groups just enumerated? The answer is all of them, to a greater or lesser extent. By identify I mean that there is some emotional attachment, some sense of tribal belonging, however vague and ill-defined that might be. But is that really who I am? Note that all of the above are accidents of birth, except for being a Buddhist and a writer, which are the result of choices that I made (I enlisted in the Army when I was young, confused and looking for a place to hang my hat, and almost immediately regretted it), Also note that, with the exceptions mentioned, all of these identity groups have a story associated with them, ranging from some simple positive affirmation to a long and complicated narrative. Let's look at them one by one in terms of fascist potential.

Male - Just ask a feminist (or vice-versa)
White - Just ask anyone who isn't
American - The Free (to dominate, monopolize, control and bomb) and the Brave (when backed up by overwhelming firepower)
Jewish - When I was young I thought Chosen People meant chosen to suffer. But things morph and change, and now it appears to mean to make others suffer (see the Old Testament).
Buddhist - Yes, there are Buddhists who claim exclusive possession of the Truth
Senior/Retiree - Ah, the Gray Panthers and AARP
Veteran - Ever been to a VFW gathering?
Writer - Those who really know about stuff, the intellectual elite
Revolutionary - the Vanguard of the People (the new ruling class in waiting)
Left-handedness - Well, you know, we are more intuitive and creative
And so on and so forth...

Examples

Fascism, as herein defined, is ubiquitous and has no particular origin. It seems to make sense, then, to talk only about the two varieties with which I'm most familiar, being both an American and a Jew. Coincidentally, they also represent the greatest political challenges facing our world today.

American fascism

American fascism, by definition, became possible once the inhabitants of the Colonies began to see themselves as other than ordinary Englishmen who happened to reside on the other side of the Atlantic. They had to become an identity group. That self-perception solidified, at least among the disaffected, as soon as friction arose between the two populations, culminating in the War for Independence. Victory arrived with all of the fascist accoutrements, tribal symbols, a self-glorifying national narrative and, of course, a flag. However, those who had the responsibility of fashioning the new nation were an unusual assembly of highly educated, sophisticated people (mostly lawyers) who were well aware of the dangers the fledgling republic was facing - not external dangers, but internal ones. Much consideration went into creating obstacles to giving birth to what we are calling a fascist state. But the seeds had already been planted; America's development was dependent on the processes of genocide and slavery. If one overlooks American poaching in Canada and Florida and similar early adventures, one could say that it was pretty much a done deal once the Republic engaged in its first full-blown war of international aggression, which resulted in the acquisition of the northern half of Mexico. Not too much later, the United States proclaimed itself a full-blown Imperialist power in the European tradition with its conquest of the Spanish territorities of the Phillipines, Cuba and Puerto Rico, while at the same time grabbing Hawaii from its indigenous population.

Something needs to be said at this point about two terms that are closely related to fascism, "racism" and "imperialism." Fascism necessarily includes racism. Just as in the case of individual egoism, group ego requires the solidification of the sense of separation and distinctness from the other. Furthermore, in order to start going down the road to full-blown fascism, group identiy must become chauvinistic, that sense of overwheening pride in ourselves and our superior characteristics. The expression of this sense of superiority over others is what is called racism, and America, as we know, is a profoundly racist country and always has been - although the "other," aside from the old standbies - the blacks, the Indians and the Hispanics - kept changing depending on who the latest immigrants were. The next step, to full-blown imperialism, requires nationalistic aggression against other states. Whether to acquire loot in whatever form, or to expand control over an ever increasing territory, the drums of war are frequently heard around the land. All of this has become fully institutionalized in the U.S., to the extent that the prevailing national doctrine is now perpetual war (the current Pentagon term is "the long war"). Not that long ago President Calvin Coolidge could say that "the business of America is business." But times have changed; imperialist war - business by other means to paraphrase Clausewitz - has become our major occupation and economic activity - and, no doubt, will in due time be our undoing, as history so clearly tells us. This pattern of serial aggression, which requires creating enemies when they don't conveniently present themselves, is inherent in the dynamics of fascism. All empires have fallen when they have become fully overextended, militarily, financially, geographically and in every other respect. America now has clearly has opted for this destructive and self-defeating strategy.

Jewish fascism (aka Zionism)

Another clear, albeit bizarre, example is Israel, which would no doubt quickly implode without the requisite unifying principle of an external enemy with which the nation must always be at war, or preparing for war. I refer to it as Jewish fascism because it predates the Zionist project. When I was in Hebrew school in the early 50's, in preparation for my bar mitzvah, I thought I should read the Old Testament. What struck me was that much of it conformed to what we were being taught was the essence of fascism, though I didn't make much of it at the time. Although I haven't read it, it appears that the Talmud, the primary scripture of the Orthodox ashkenazim, is a veritable manual of Jewish fascism. (4)
Israel is exceptional in a number of ways:
1. It is the only nation that has ever been deliberately created with the express purpose of occupying foreign territory through the ethnic cleansing of its inhabitants.
2. It is the only nation that required the invention of a "people" to carry out such a settler/colonialist project (1).
3. It is the only nation to have invented a religion (the Holycause) to complement its secular political ideology (Zionism).
4. It is the only nation that is wholly parasitical, dependent on extorting the economic means to survive from other societies that it (or its agents in other countries) has effectively subverted.
Thus, Israel combines three convergent forms of fascism: ethnocentric (based on mytho-history much like the Nazi notion of an Aryan race); religious (nominally Jewish, although its founders were secular. Following the 1940's the place of Judaism as the sustaining religious identity was essentially replaced by Holocaustism, complete with a Holy Inquisition.); and, of course, virulently nationalistic. Fortuitously for the Jewish fascists, or maybe not so coincidentally (3), an extremely powerful ally emerged from within the American fascist world, the Christian Zionists. Although essentially a doomsday cult, it numbers, conservatively, 40-50 million Americans eager for Israel to build the Second Temple, thereby paving the way to Armageddon. At this point American and Jewish fascism appear to have converged into an aggressive pathological force that endangers humanity more than any such phenomenon in the past. At this point American and Jewish fascism appear to have converged into an aggressive pathological force that, considering Israel's nuclear arsenal, endangers humanity more than any such phenomenon in the past. Both Americans and Jews have made extraordinary positive contributions to world civilization, but a ruthless and predatory American imperialism and fascistic Zionism we can do without.

The Antidote

The inner fascist in all of us claims to be one of the "good" people, the "superior" people, the "strong" people, or the "smart" people, but whatever flavor it comes in, we are one of the "entitled" people. The antidote to such delusions is the realization that we are just people, pretty much like everybody else, with as much right to be here as anyone else (and vice-versa). This realization cuts through self-deception, protects us from buying into whatever snake-oil the zealots happen to be selling today and contains within it the possibility of a sane society, however far off and illusory that may seem. We all belong to one tribe, humanity, and if we take our cue from those whom history has deemed wise, we realize that caring for others and the environment that supports us is the key. When we attempt to separate ourselves, individually as egomaniacs or as part of some fascistic identity group, then we're only asking for trouble. We may think we are protecting ourselves by attempting to control and manipulate others, but in the end what goes around comes around, a pointless and painful cycle that reason and experience tell us to abandon. Fascism as we have been describing it is a social pathology and it can legitimately be considered humanity's most urgent public health problem. If enough people come to understand what the disease is and how to diagnose it, perhaps there will emerge a means to inoculate ourselves. At this point American and Jewish fascism appear to have converged into an aggressive pathological force that endangers humanity more than any such phenomenon in the past.
In the short term, it is imperative to dissolve the Jewish state of Israel. Such a state, which has no basis other than a fascistic narrative constructed out of paranoia and mythology, has no legitimacy in our world. It embodies all of the characteristics that humanity has resoundingly rejected in the last century - settler colonialism, racism, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide. The dehumanization and destruction of a people, along with the dispossession of their land and property, is utterly intolerable. The only feasible alternative is its replacement by a pluralistic, democratic state that includes the Palestinians as equals. There is no other viable solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, a conflict that threatens to engulf the entire planet in nuclear devastation. In the long term, we must overcome the tendency to adopt belief systems that are based on blind faith, whether they take the form of political or religious dogmas. Only then can we grow up and have the opportunity to create a truly sane world.

"...According to Sand, the description of the Jews as a wandering and self-isolating nation of exiles, "who wandered across seas and continents, reached the ends of the earth and finally, with the advent of Zionism, made a U-turn and returned en masse to their orphaned homeland," is nothing but "national mythology." Like other national movements in Europe, which sought out a splendid Golden Age, through which they invented a heroic past - for example, classical Greece or the Teutonic tribes - to prove they have existed since the beginnings of history, "so, too, the first buds of Jewish nationalism blossomed in the direction of the strong light that has its source in the mythical Kingdom of David."...

“Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves.” - 'The True Believer' by Eric Hoffer