This has probably been more or less true of every country since the advent of democracy. Yet in Israel, this seems even truer. (Ironically, it could almost be said that the US has no foreign policy, only an Israeli domestic policy.)

In order to understand our foreign policy, we have to look in the mirror. Who are we? What is our society like?

IN A classical sketch, well known to every veteran Israeli, two Arabs stand on the sea shore, looking at a boat full of Russian Jewish pioneers rowing towards them. “May your house be destroyed!” they curse.

Next, the same two figures, this time Russian Jewish pioneers, stand on the same spot, launching Russian curses at a boat full of Yemenite immigrants.

Next, the two are Yemenites cursing German Jewish refugees fleeing from the Nazis. Then, two German Jews cursing Moroccan arrivals. When it first appeared, that was the last scene. But now, one can add two Moroccans cursing the immigrants from Soviet Russia, then two Russians cursing the latest arrivals: Ethiopian Jews.

That may also be true for every immigrant country, from the United States to Australia. Every new wave of immigrants is greeted by the scorn, contempt and even open hostility of those who came before them. When I was a child in the early 1930s, I frequently heard people shouting at my parents “Go back to Hitler!”

Still, the dominant myth was that of the “melting pot”. All immigrants would be thrown into the same pot and cleansed of their “foreign” traits, emerging as a uniform new nation without any traces of their origin.

This myth died some decades ago. Israel is now a kind of federation of several major demographic-cultural blocs which dominate our social and political life.

Who are they? There are (1) the old Ashkenazim (Jews of European origin); (2) the Oriental (or “Sephardi”) Jews; (3) the religious (partly Ashkenazi, partly Oriental); (4) the “Russians”, immigrants from all the countries of the former Soviet union; and (5) the Palestinian-Arab citizens, who did not come from anywhere.

This is, of course, a schematic presentation. None of the blocs is completely homogeneous. Each bloc has several sub blocs, some blocs overlap, there is some intermarriage, but on the whole, the picture is accurate. Gender plays no role in this division.

The political scene almost exactly mirrors these divisions. The Labor party was, in its heyday, the main instrument of Ashkenazi power. Its remnants, together with Kadima and Meretz, are still Ashkenazi. Avigdor Lieberman’s Israel Beytenu consists mainly of Russians. There are three or four religious parties. Then there are two exclusively Arab parties, and the Communist party, which is mainly Arab, too. The Likud represents the bulk of the Orientals, though almost all its leaders are Ashkenazim.

The relationship between the blocs is often strained. Just now, the whole country is in an uproar because in Kiryat Malakhi, a southern town with mainly Oriental inhabitants, house owners have signed a commitment not to sell apartments to Ethiopians, while the Rabbi of Safed, a northern town of mainly Orthodox Jews, has forbidden his flock to rent apartments to Arabs.

But apart from the rift between the Jews and the Arabs, the main problem is the resentment of the Orientals, the Russians and the religious against what they call “the Ashkenazi elite”.

Since they were the first to arrive, long before the establishment of the state, Ashkenazim control most of the centers of power – social, political, economic, cultural et al. Generally, they belong to the more affluent part of society, while the Orientals, the Orthodox, the Russians and the Arabs generally belong to the lower socio-economic strata.

The Orientals have deep grudges against the Ashkenazim. They believe – not without justification – that they have been humiliated and discriminated against from their first day in the country, and still are, though quite a number of them have reached high economic and political positions. The other day, a top director of one of the foremost financial institutions caused a scandal when he accused the “Whites” (i.e. Ashkenazim) of dominating all the banks, the courts and the media. He was promptly fired, which caused another scandal.

The Likud came to power in 1977, dethroning Labor. With short interruptions, It has been in power ever since. Yet most Likud members still feel that the Ashkenazim rule Israel, leaving them far behind. Now, 34 years later, the dark wave of anti-democratic legislation pushed by Likud deputies is being justified by the slogan “We must start to rule!”

The scene reminds me of a building site surrounded by a wooden fence. The canny contractor has left some holes in the fence, so that curious passers-by can look in. In our society, all the other blocs feel like outsiders looking through the holes, full of envy for the Ashkenazi “elite” inside, who have all the good things. They hate everything they connect with this “elite”: the Supreme Court, the media, the human rights organizations, and especially the peace camp. All these are called “leftist”, a word curiously enough identified with the “elite”.

How has “peace” become associated with the dominant and domineering Ashkenazim?

That is one of the great tragedies of our country.

Jews have lived for many centuries in the Muslim world. There they never experienced the terrible things committed in Europe by Christian anti-Semitism. Muslim-Jewish animosity started only a century ago, with the advent of Zionism, and for obvious reasons.

When the Jews from Muslim countries started to arrive en masse in Israel, they were steeped in Arab culture. But here they were received by a society that held everything Arab in total contempt. Their Arab culture was “primitive”, while real culture was European. Furthermore, they were identified with the murderous Muslims. So the immigrants were required to shed their own culture and traditions, their accent, their memories, their music. In order to show how thoroughly Israeli they had become, they also had to hate Arabs.

It is, of course, a world-wide phenomenon that in multi-national countries, the most downtrodden class of the dominant nation is also the most radical nationalist foe of the minority nations. Belonging to the superior nation is often the only source of pride left to them. The result is frequently virulent racism and xenophobia.

This is one of the reasons why the Orientals were attracted to the Likud, for whom the rejection of peace and the hatred of Arabs are supreme virtues. Also, having been in opposition for ages, the Likud was seen as representing those who were “outside”, fighting those who were “inside”. This is still the case.

The case of the “Russians” is different. They grew up in a society that despised democracy, admired strong leaders. The “whites”, Russians and Ukrainians, despised and hated the “dark” peoples of the south – Armenians, Georgians, Tatars, Uzbeks and such. (I once invented a formula: “Bolshevism minus Marxism equals Fascism”.)

When the Russian Jews came to join us, they brought with them a virulent nationalism, a complete disinterest in democracy and an automatic hatred of Arabs. They cannot understand why we allowed them to stay here at all. When, this week, a lady deputy (though “lady” may be euphemistic) from St. Petersburg poured a glass of water on the head of an Arab deputy from the Labor party, nobody was very surprised. (Somebody quipped: “a Good Arab is a wet Arab”). For Lieberman’s followers, Peace is a dirty word, and so is Democracy.

For religious people of all shades – from the ultra-Orthodox to the National-Religious settlers, there is no problem at all. From the crib on, they learn that Jews are the Chosen People; that the Almighty personally promised us this country; that the Goyim – including the Arabs – are just inferior human beings.

It may be said, quite rightly, that I generalize. I do, just to simplify matters. There are indeed a lot of Orientals, especially of the younger generation, who are repelled by the ultra-nationalism of the Likud, the more so as the neo-liberalism of Binyamin Netanyahu (which Shimon Peres once called “swinish capitalism”) is in direct contradiction to the basic interests of their community. There are also a lot of decent, liberal, peace-loving religious people. (Yeshayahu Leibovitz comes to mind.) Some Russians are gradually leaving their self-imposed ghetto. But these are small minorities in their communities. The bulk of the three blocs – Oriental, Russian and religious – are united in their opposition to peace, and at best indifferent to democracy.

All these together constitute the right-wing, anti-peace coalition that is governing Israel now. The problem is not just a question of politics. It is much more profound – and much more daunting.

Some people blame us, the democratic peace movement, for not recognizing the problem early enough, and not doing enough to attract the members of the various blocs to the ideals of peace and democracy. Also, it is said, we did not show that social justice is inseparably connected with democracy and peace.

I must accept my share of the blame for this failure, though I might point out that I tried to make the connection right from the beginning. I asked my friends to concentrate our efforts on the Oriental community, remind them of the glories of the Muslim-Jewish “golden Age” in Spain, of the huge mutual impact of Jewish and Muslim scientists, poets and religious thinkers throughout the ages.

A few days ago, I was invited to give a lecture to the faculty and students of Ben-Gurion University in Beer Sheva. I described the situation more or less along the same lines. The first question from the large audience, which consisted of Jews – both Orientals and Ashkenazim, and Arabs – especially Bedouins was: “So what hope is there? Faced with this reality, how can the peace forces win?”

I told them that I put my trust in the new generation. Last summer’s huge social protest movement, which erupted quite suddenly and swept [“along”?] hundreds of thousands, showed that yes, it can happen here. The movement united Ashkenazim and Orientals. Tent cities sprang up in Tel Aviv and Beer Sheva, all over the place.

Our first job is to break the barriers between the blocs, change reality, create a new Israeli society. We need blockbusters.

Yes, it is a daunting job. But I believe it can be done.

There will be cursing.

I was perusing sordid silly news the other day when I came across the unlikely teaser, “Jerry Lewis told fuck you by Hollywood producer”. I thought it was kinda rude to tell a dead guy “fuck you” and I’m not sure what purpose it serves…. so I went on to read what precipitated such –well, fuckery. Turns out, he’s not dead! But he is a jackass.

A few years ago, Jerry Lewis answered a question about women in comedy with “I don’t like any women comedians. A woman doing comedy doesn’t offend me but sets me back a bit. I, as a viewer, have trouble with it. I think of her as a producing machine that brings babies in the world.”

Wow! Jerry Lewis. Wow! That is some magnificent mildew.

I repeated this gem to a friend of mine, and she wryly commented that maybe it was actually a funny comment, but it was only understood in France. Possibly, but I tend to come down on the side of that guy who said “fuck you Jerry Lewis”.

I know Jerry Lewis has about as much cultural relevance at this time as a Clara Bow sexual dalliance, but even so, sometimes the assholes shine a light on some sordid beliefs stinking and lurking under the couch next to that damn sock.

Joel Apatow, the producer/director of much vanilla, but benign fare, was the one who said “fuck you” to Lewis. He would like more female comedy to be produced, hence his ire towards the mastodon–but he just didn’t go far enough though. There’s some more fuckery that needs to be addressed. That “producing machine” comment didn’t occur in a vacuum.

I’ve come across it before. When women make a joke it’s often disregarded unless it’s a self-debasing “math is hard” kind of  laugh. And I would say humor is the great connector. It can tie people together in warmth and empathy in a manner cold logic never can. It’s hard to maintain a war against a person, group (or an entire gender) when someone can point out the common absurdities of life.

Of course, the Jerry Lewis creeps of the world don’t enjoy a funny woman. It might erase some boundaries. Suddenly the mysterious withholder/controller of sex becomes just another poor schlub trying to make sense of the world too. The enigmatic virgin/whore or “baby producer” is just a more comfortable way of processing the world than addressing the fact that if you have issues with half the population….well maybe it’s you.

But women are not blameless in this. I have cracked jokes (that were pretty fucking good) in the company of women only to be given a cold look from them, but a hearty laugh from the men. Women can be gatekeepers of accepted behavior as well. These are the ones that can really sting you.

I’ll never forget an early, quite crappy job I had in college, not even 20 then.  It was as a hostess at a restaurant that hilariously considered itself to be quite elite, even though it was about one rung above Cracker Barrel. And the ladder rung was broken and hanging on the wall. It was incredibly boring, standing in front of the place, ushering people to tables so I humored myself by cracking jokes, basically being silly with the patrons waiting for tables to open when it was crowded and full. The owner noticed this and in a frigid manner told me it was my job to stand there and be pretty, not to do stand-up comedy. She actually got angry at me for this! Weird ass reason to be chastised by your boss. I wish I had pilfered a side of beef or something. Anyway, this was the same women who discarded a job application from someone because that individual was in her (gasp) 30′s… too long in the tooth to hire she said! I giggle with malignant glee sometimes thinking about this previous employer and how she would be firmly in old age by now. I can only hope she has urinary incontinence and a rascal. So fuck you too, women gatekeepers of feminine decorum. Fuck you right along with Jerry Lewis.

But it all really does get a bit more serious than just the issues of cracking jokes and looking unsexy. It’s a culture that springs from organized religions that peddle tales that women are the source of all that is unclean, and are to be viewed as the lesser “creation”. There’s not much love there in that dogma! I could go on and on how I think that worldview was necessary to push forward a culture of dominion and control, over not just women, but all fluid goodness on the planet. The end result sucks for most men as well, I’m thinking.

And hell, it’s not just that a woman can’t be funny, but it’s that she needs to be viewed as a two-dimensional being. It’s hard to denigrate those that we relate to, and discouraging female humor is about keeping those walls up. So fuck you organized religion for firming up the base that implies women aren’t every bit as fully fleshed out creations of humanity. Fuck you right along with Jerry Lewis.

And fuck every single person who can’t accept a person for what they are as long as it isn’t harming others.

So, yes, I think there is a lot of fuck you to go around. But Jerry Lewis is a start. The start of a fuck you dialogue and that makes me proud.

Now don’t even get me started about those who think women shouldn’t curse.

I don’t mind receiving Christmas cards or being wished a “Merry Christmas” from friends, clerks, or even in junk mail trying to sell me something no sane person should ever buy. My wife and I even send Christmas cards, with messages of peace and joy, to our friends who are Christians or who we don’t know their religion.

I like Christmas music and Christmas carolers, even if some have voices that crack now and then, perhaps from the cold.

At home, from as early as I could remember, my family bought and decorated a Christmas tree, and gave gifts to each other and our friends. Usually we put a Star of David on the tree, undoubtedly an act of heresy for many Jews and Christians. We learned about Christmas—and about Chanukah, the “feast of lights,” an eight day celebration of joy and remembrance of the rededication of the Temple of Jerusalem at a time when it seemed as if a miracle had saved the Jews from darkness during the Maccabean revolt in the second century BCE.

This year, my wife and I have a two-foot tall cypress tree, decorated with white felt angels, glittered silver tin snowflakes, and small white LED lights, a gift from a devout Christian. We weren’t offended by the gift; we accepted it and displayed it on a table in our dining room in the spirit of friendship. In Spring, we’ll plant the tree in our backyard and hope it grows strong and tall, giving us shade and oxygen, perhaps serving as a sanctuary for birds, squirrels, and other wildlife.

What I do mind is the pomposity of some of the religious right who deliberately accost me, often with an arrogant sneer on their lips, to order me to accept their “well wishes” of a “Merry Christmas.” Their implication is “Merry Christmas—or else!” It’s their way of saying their religion is the one correct religion, that all others are wrong.

Although I try to understand and tolerate other beliefs, the extreme right doesn’t tolerate difference or dissent.

Right wing commentators at Fox News are in their final week of what has become a holiday tradition of claiming there is a “War on Christmas.” The lies and distortions told by these Shepherds of Deceit, and parroted by their unchallenging flock of followers, proves that at least in this manufactured war, truth is the first victim.

The Far-Right-But-Usually-Wrong claim that godless liberals are out to destroy Christmas, and point to numerous examples, giving some facts but never the truth.

They are furious that many stores wish their customers a “Happy Holiday” and not a “Merry Christmas,” unable to understand that sensitivity to all persons’ religions isn’t some kind of heresy. The ultra-right American Family Association even posts lists of stores that are open on Christmas, have their clerks wish customers a “Happy Holiday,” and don’t celebrate Christmas the way they believe it should be celebrated. (Of course, the AFA doesn’t attack its close ally, the NRA, which on its website wishes everyone “Happy Holidays.”)

Because of their own ignorance, they have no concept of why public schools may teach about Christmas or even have students sing carols but can’t put manger scenes on the front lawn. Nevertheless, the Extremists of Ignorance and Intolerance parade the Constitution as their own personal shield, without having read the document and its analyses, commentaries, and judicial opinions that define it, and can’t understand there is a strict separation of church and state. The Founding Fathers, especially Franklin and Jefferson, were clear about that. They were also clear that this is a nation where a majority of its people profess to be Christians, but it is not a “Christian nation.” There is a distinct difference.

The ultra-right—some of whom stanchly believe Barack Obama is not only a Muslim but wasn’t even born in the U.S—follow the guiding star of Fox to wrongly claim that the President Obama hates Christianity so much that he won’t even put up a Christmas tree but calls it a “holiday tree.” Perhaps they were too busy imbibing the bigotry in their mugs to know that the President and his family helped light the National Christmas Tree near the White House, wished Americans a “Merry Christmas,” and even told a bit about what Christians believe is a divine birth.

When confronted by facts, these fundamentalists point out that the Puritans, the ones who fled England for religious freedom, demanded adherence to a strict code of Protestant principles—and if it was good enough for the first American “citizens,” it’s good enough for the rest of us. What they never learned, obviously, is that the Puritans banned Christmas celebrations, declaring them to be pagan festivals.

If the Fox pundits, leading their sheep into the abyss of ignorance in a counter-attack in a war that doesn’t exist, would take a few moments to think before blathering inanities, they might realize that the man they worship was called “the Prince of Peace” not “the General of War.”

The nativists, xenophobes, racists, and Republican Party activists and legislators who support the harsh new immigration bill (HB 56) targeting undocumented migrants in the state are delighted.

The flight of thousands of Latinos from the state regardless of legal status is not an unforeseen consequence of the legislation — it’s the entire point. As Lindsey Lyons, the mayor of Albertville, Alabama, put it in an interview with National Public Radio: “[W]e’re going to see an exodus of those moving to other states that don’t have any pending legislation.” The point is not immigration reform; the point is to make the growing Latino population go away.

For the law’s authors and backers, the state of Alabama is living a fantasy they have long wished, and worked, to see play out on a national level. Importantly, the fantasy of a vanishing Latino population is not strictly a legal one. It is, in fact, a cultural project, and it has a long history.

Culture, Power and Illusion

How do you make tens of millions of Latinos disappear from the national public sphere? This is a spectacular trick, on the order of illusionist David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty vanish in front of a live television audience. Copperfield’s 1983 deception relied on the cover of darkness and strategic manipulation of the audience’s perspective. The trickery that seeks the relative public invisibility of Latinos in the U.S. is performed in broad daylight using a combination of rhetorical manipulations and legislative measures.

We are all familiar with the rhetoric by now. The constant, drum beat-like association by anti-immigrant nativists of the terms “illegal” and “Mexican” and “immigrant,” amplified and reproduced in the news media and in demagogic political discourse, has created a semantic cloud obscuring the presence, in plain view, of diverse millions of Latinos in American public life.

A restaurant owner in my Minneapolis neighborhood who had emigrated (legally) from Ecuador told me about being questioned by police while taking a summer walk with his son. The police officers’ dogged assumption was that he was Mexican, and they seemed to believe that he had entered the U.S. illegally.

“I am from Ecuador,” he told me, “but all they could see was an illegal Mexican.” The Statue of Liberty, one might say, disappeared before his very eyes.

The public illusion in this instance results from cultural messaging that denies Latinos full cultural citizenship – the right to be different and to bring that difference into the public process. Theoretically, all citizens have equality under the law. In practice, however, public cultural norms are structured by an often unspoken hierarchy of values that privileges some citizens over others.

Think about how in a public meeting the fellow citizen who speaks an English accented by non-English phonetics might carry less moral authority with her audience than the fluent English speaker, despite being equally understandable and possessing the same legal rights. Or think of how a man wearing a West African dashiki might be assumed by many in a U.S. audience to be a non-citizen. Social hierarchies of race, class, gender, and age are reflected in recognition, or denial, of full cultural citizenship to different social groups.

Markers of cultural difference in the body politic can be, and often are, converted into signs of second-class status. This is an important intersection of culture and politics in the U.S., and one exploited actively by those who would make Latinos disappear from the public sphere.

The targeting of immigrants with the rhetorical hammer of “illegal,” pounds into place a chain of equivalences in the public mind. Where Latinos are concerned, the anti-immigrant anvil and hammer of “illegal” and “Mexican” seek to remake brown skin, the Spanish language, and other markers of Latino visibility as signposts of the outer boundaries of American public life. “They,” non-Latinos are being told, are not like “us.”

Behind the media sensationalism and electoral campaign posturing lays a politics of cultural containment and subordination, and of civic divisiveness. As the facile external markers of Latino identity are transformed into the civic equivalent of scarlet letters, Latinos are implicitly rendered less legitimate as public actors, and less visible as fellow citizens. In the process, any resources particular to their cultural heritage that they might bring to the national project are categorically segregated and expelled from the public sphere.

Spanish is preempted as a language of legitimate civic engagement. Regions of the country are subtly (and not so subtly) dispossessed of their rich Hispanic heritage in the minds of many Americans, who are encouraged to forget the pluricultural history etched into Spanish-language place names like Arizona, Nevada, and Florida.

The U.S. public’s ignorance about Puerto Ricans — who are born United States citizens since passage of the Jones Act in 1917, although without the right to vote in U.S. elections — is deepened and extended to another generation. Bilingualism becomes suspect, rather than being recognized as a tremendous national economic and cultural resource and a civic virtue. Important forms of public culture — murals, corridos, pachangas — are marked as Other. Voices critical of U.S. foreign policy — with personal experience of the human rights implications for Salvadorans, for Guatemalans, and others, of military funding or trade agreements — are silenced.

And my Ecuadorian-American neighbor finds himself caught up in a mass cultural deception that denies him full cultural citizenship, despite his undeniable legal rights. He is denied the power to define his own public presence, his own identity as a fellow citizen, and to be recognized as fully American.

Laws, Politics, and Culture

The dark magic worked by manipulative public rhetoric has its limits, thankfully. People can endure, and respond to, name-calling. And public discourse is never a one-sided affair. My Ecuadorian-American neighbor, for example, has undoubtedly told his story to many of his fellow local citizens, generating a retail-level awareness that counterbalances in some measure the wholesale misrepresentation of national realities by anti-immigrant sensationalism. Educators continue to teach Spanish, and student interest in the language has grown alongside the growing number of Americans who understand the political and economic and cultural value of bilingualism.

And at some point, the anti-immigrant talk begins to say more about the speaker than about the object of the speaker’s rancor. Of the 308 million heads counted by the 2010 Census, more than 50 million, or greater than 16%, identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino. At some point, talking as if 16% of the nation doesn’t (or shouldn’t) exist becomes a fool’s strategy.

This is where the policy mechanisms of the cynical anti-Latino vanishing act come into play. A confluence of xenophobic, nativist and Republican Party interests — having watched demographic changes unfold over the past two decades, and their electoral consequences begin to take hold — see an even greater need to contain Latino culture and subordinate Latino public involvement. They have learned that rhetoric alone will no longer do the trick.

Predictably, after the 2008 elections resulted in convincing victories for the Democratic Party with sizable margins of support among Latino voters, several Republican state legislatures have approved laws targeting undocumented immigrants in several states.

The Arizona state legislature in 2010 approved SB 1070, a law that criminalizes the failure to carry immigration documents and allows police to detain anyone suspected of being an undocumented migrant. (In order to make clear that the political and cultural target included Latino citizens, the Republican majority also passed a law banning the teaching of Ethnic Studies in the public schools.) In 2011, Georgia, Indiana, Utah, and South Carolina subsequently passed their own versions of the Arizona law, similarly promoting racial profiling and criminalizing social and economic interaction with undocumented immigrants.

Not to be outdone, Alabama passed HB 56, a law that, among other things, bars undocumented immigrants from attending state colleges, criminalizes “transporting, harboring, or renting property” to them, and requires public schools to verify the legal status of their students.

The laws bring state power — in the form of racial profiling — to bear on the cultural messaging that subordinates and marginalizes Latinos’ presence in the public arena. One measure of the cultural effect of the Alabama law: those Latino children who haven’t disappeared from the public schools now report they are bullied for being “illegals.”

All of these states share two key elements: First, state government is controlled by the Republican Party, and second, the 2010 Census found a dramatic growth rate among the Latino/Hispanic population that sooner or later could jeopardize Republican political dominance in the state.

Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama saw eye-popping growth rates for the Latino/Hispanic population, 96.1%, 147.9%, and 144.8%, respectively. Indiana’s growth rate for the Hispanic or Latino category was 81.7%, and Utah’s was 77.8%, nearly double the national growth rate for that sector of the population. In the case of Arizona, population growth among Latinos/Hispanics was a “mere” 46.3%, but what was likely more troubling for Republicans, racists and xenophobes, the Latino/Hispanic population had grown to represent approximately 30% of the state population.

It is difficult not to view these states’ anti-immigrant legislation as a preemptive effort to change the demographic facts for future elections, and prior to the inevitable moment in which comprehensive federal immigration policy reform provides a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 million or more undocumented immigrants nationwide, principally from Mexico and Central America.

At the same time, the state-by-state anti-immigrant legislation can be viewed as a desperate effort to use the law to leverage an extended life for the cultural politics that has long sought to subordinate and diminish Latino participation in the public sphere.

Redefining America

The stakes of the present conjuncture are not just electoral and legal. The cultural parameters of U.S. public life are also in play. The long-term stakes are nothing less than the means and meaning of democratic public life in America, i.e., the question of who is allowed to speak, and how, and about what.

It is important to remember (and remind) that the cultural politics that denies Latinos equality in American public life has a long history. Current efforts to drive Latinos out of public life find common parentage in the assaults on Mexican-Americans that occurred after the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which officially ended the U.S.-Mexico war and called for Mexico to relinquish roughly half of its national territory to the U.S.

The 1848 Treaty included an option for U.S. citizenship for the many Mexicans who suddenly found themselves living in U.S. territory, but xenophobic and racist sentiment conspired with economic interests to drive Mexicans off their land throughout the region, and to strip them of their mining stakes in California. One of the myriad ways these interests operated on the social body to excise the Mexican-American presence was the passage of legislation that directly targeted these would-be citizens.

The “Greaser” laws (as they were called by their proponents) included an 1855 anti-vagrancy statue in California that explicitly applied to “All persons who are commonly known as ‘Greasers’ or the issue of Spanish and Indian blood… and who go armed and are not peaceable and quiet persons.” This legislative assault on the public presence of Mexican-Americans and Native Americans was preceded by the 1850 Foreign Miner’s Tax, which levied an exorbitant monthly license fee on the mining claims of the foreign-born, with the practical effect of driving Mexicans and Latin Americans (and French and Germans) off their claims in the context of the Gold Rush. Of course, the xenophobic hostility stoked against Spanish-speakers made no distinction between native-born Californios and Mexicans.

The cultural politics that aims to make Latinos disappear cannot overcome the blunt object reality of a growing population. David Copperfield could make the Statue of Liberty seem to disappear, but when the sun came up the next morning, there it was. The difference is that Copperfield wasn’t attempting to change the meaning of Liberty.

Recent nativist attempts to update the 19th century “Greaser laws” for the 21st century will not, ultimately, make Latinos literally disappear. But the trickery in this instance changes the potential meaning of America, diminishes democratic possibilities, preempts current and future potential dialogue and social relationships. Cultural resources and perspectives that Latinos could bring to the common table are diminished and sidelined. Efforts to counter the inequality these laws promote must systematically engage the cultural dimension of the struggle over American democracy.

Will unemployment be 40 or 50%? Will we be fighting a dozen wars, or, defeated everywhere, maybe even none? Will the occupy encampments become “enduring” tent cities? Will Chicago protesters plant vegetables and raise chickens in Grant Park? For a preview of what’s to come, look no further than Philadelphia itself.

Unlike elsewhere, Mayor Nutter has been sympathetic towards these protesters. He visited them on the very first night, showing up at 1:15AM to say, “The things you’re talking about are the things I talk about every day.” He instructed his police chief to have the First Amendment, about freedom of assembly, to be read at roll call each morning, at each police district. Most importantly, he allowed protesters to pitch tents right next to City Hall.

Two weeks into Occupy Philly, there are about 350 tents right in the heart of Philadelphia, as well as makeshift dwellings of pallets, tarps, cardboard and plywood. One has a two-foot-high platform, so it can endure the cold and rain better than most. These people are planning to stay, in short. This plaza has long been a magnet for Philly’s homeless, with about 50 folks curled up on benches each night. Now they’re joined by hundreds who are only symbolically homeless.

Some of the long-time homeless have picked up donated tents, and three times a day, they also line up at the Occupy Philly chow tent. Though they tend to be more scruffy and older, it’s not always easy to distinguish between a regular homeless person and a protester, but, if you think about it, each homeless individual is already a protester.

All-too-visible and rapidly increasing in each city and town, the homeless are an accusation that our system is truly messed up. In the “greatest country on earth,” the top 10% own 71% of the wealth, while the bottom 40% must scrape by on less than 1% and, this year, at least 3.5 million Americans, or more than 1%, will experience homelessness at some point.

The brainwashed will sneer that the poor deserve to be broke because they’re so damn lazy and, well, not enterprising enough, but, in any society, no one works harder than those at the very bottom, where it takes a superhuman effort just to survive from day to day, and it wasn’t poor Americans who conned the entire world, then looted our treasury to reward themselves eight-figure bonuses. In this upside down nation, it’s the bottom 90% who must sacrifice everything to succor the top 10%. We must eat less and even sleep outside so they can indulge their vicious, insatiable greed and endless war. Our biggest companies rake in trillions from organized carnage and swindling, yet Citigroup, Bank of America, GE, Chevron, Boeing, Conoco, Exxon Mobil and other big boys pay no taxes. Instead, they get rebates from the IRS. Money buys influence, and all the rules are rigged against us, and unless we revolt, we must endure increasingly savage destitution. Not satisfied with our sweating and bleeding bodies, these ogres want to devour generations to come. No wonder the kids are rebelling.

Martin Luther King’s last project was to organize Resurrection City, where poor Americans could be made visible to the Washington elite, the rest of America and even foreign tourists. Living in makeshift dwellings, they were a protest against America’s misplaced priorities, but King was shot before Resurrection City was even erected, and Bobby Kennedy, its brainchild, was murdered just afterwards.

In Philadelphia, a new Resurrection City has arisen, however, and across the street from this rapidly expanding community, there’s Philly’s swankiest address, the 48-story Residences at The Ritz-Carlton, where a one-bedroom bachelor’s pad can be had for half a million bucks, and the penthouse, $12 million. Backlit by warm, yellow lights, Ritz-Carlton residents can be seen each night looking down at the mess of tents below. Some peer through binoculars, others snap photos, but they didn’t pay through their cosmetically enhanced noses to put up with this stinking Third-World vista. It is quaint and lively, yes, but also squalid and somewhat menacing. Tonguing a prosciutto roll, they frown and imagine the day, soon, too soon, when these tents will surround them completely.

The war in Libya is just the start of a new cycle of external military adventurism inside Africa. The U.S. now wants more military bases inside Africa. France has also announced that it has the right to militarily intervene anywhere in Africa where there are French citizens and its interests are at risk. NATO is also fortifying its positions in the Red Sea and off the coast of Somalia.

As disarray and turmoil are once again uprooting Africa with external intervention, Israel sits silently in the background. Tel Aviv has actually been deeply involved in the new cycle of turmoil, which is tied to its Yinon Plan to reconfigure its strategic surrounding. This reconfiguration process is based on a well established technique of creating sectarian divisions which eventually will effectively neutralize target states or result in their dissolution.

Many of the problems afflicting the contemporary areas of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Africa, and Latin America are actually the result of the deliberate triggering of regional tensions by external powers. Sectarian division, ethno-linguistic tension, religious differences, and internal violence have been traditionally exploited by the United States, Britain, and France in various parts of the globe. Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia are merely a few recent examples of this strategy of “divide and conquer” being used to bring nations to their knees.

The Upheavals of Central-Eastern Europe and the Project for a “New Middle East”

The Middle East, in some regards, is a striking parallel to the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe during the years leading up to the First World War. In the wake of the First World War, the borders of the multi-ethnic states in the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe were redrawn and reconfigured by external powers, in alliance with local opposition forces. Since the First World War until the post-Cold War period the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe have continued to experience a period of upheaval, violence and conflict that has continously divided the region.

For years, there have been advocates calling for a “New Middle East” with redrawn boundaries in this region of the world where Europe, Southwest Asia, and North Africa meet. These advocates mostly sit in the capitals of Washington, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv. They envisage a region shaped around homogenous ethno-religious states. The formation of these states would signify the destruction of the larger existing countries of the region. The transition would be towards the formation of smaller Kuwait-like or Bahrain-like states, which could easily be managed and manipulated by the U.S., Britain, France, Israel, and their allies.

The Manipulation of the First “Arab Spring” during World War I

The plans for reconfiguring the Middle East started several years before the First World War. It was during the First World War, however, that the manifestation of these colonial designs could visibly be seen with the “Great Arab Revolt” against the Ottoman Empire.

Despite the fact that the British, French, and Italians were colonial powers which had prevented the Arabs from enjoying any freedom in countries like Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan, these colonial powers managed to portray themselves as the friends and allies of Arab liberation.

During the “Great Arab Revolt” the British and the French actually used the Arabs as foot soldiers against the Ottomans to further their own geo-political schemes. The secret Sykes–Picot Agreement between London and Paris is a case in point. France and Britain merely managed to use and manipulate the Arabs by selling them the idea of Arab liberation from the so-called “repression” of the Ottomans.

In reality, the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic empire. It gave local and cultural autonomy to all its peoples, but was manipulated into the direction of becoming a Turkish entity. Even the Armenian Genocide that would ensue in Ottoman Anatolia has to be analyzed in the same context as the contemporary targeting of Christians in Iraq as part of a sectarian scheme unleashed by external actors to divide the Ottoman Empire, Anatolia, and the citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it was London and Paris which denied freedom to the Arabs, while sowing the seeds of discord amongst the Arab peoples. Local corrupt Arab leaders were also partners in the project and many of them were all too happy to become clients of Britain and France. In the same sense, the “Arab Spring” is being manipulated today. The U.S., Britain, France, and others are now working with the help of corrupt Arab leaders and figures to restructure the Arab World and Africa.

The Yinon Plan

The Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem in the Middle East, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the Middle Eastern and Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

This map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters and published in the Armed Forces Journal, June 2006. Map © Ralph Peters 2006. Click for larger image.

The Eradication of the Christian Communities of the Middle East

It is no coincidence that Egyptian Christians were attacked at the same time as the South Sudan Referendum and before the crisis in Libya. Nor is it a coincidence that Iraqi Christians, one of the world’s oldest Christian communities, have been forced into exile, leaving their ancestral homelands in Iraq. Coinciding with the exodus of Iraqi Christians, which occurred under the watchful eyes of U.S. and British military forces, the neighbourhoods in Baghdad became sectarian as Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims were forced by violence and death squads to form sectarian enclaves. This is all tied to the Yinon Plan and the reconfiguration of the region as part of a broader objective.

In Iran, the Israelis have been trying in vain to get the Iranian Jewish community to leave. Iran’s Jewish population is actually the second largest in the Middle East and arguably the oldest undisturbed Jewish community in the world. Iranian Jews view themselves as Iranians who are tied to Iran as their homeland, just like Muslim and Christian Iranians, and for them the concept that they need to relocate to Israel because they are Jewish is ridiculous.

In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exacerbate sectarian tensions between the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze. Lebanon is a springboard into Syria and the division of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means to balkanizing Syria into several smaller sectarian Arab states. The objectives of the Yinon Plan are to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and the Druze. There could also be objectives for a Christian exodus in Syria too.

The new head of the Maronite Catholic Syriac Church of Antioch, the largest of the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches, has expressed his fears about a purging of Arab Christians in the Levant and Middle East. Patriarch Mar Beshara Boutros Al-Rahi and many other Christian leaders in Lebanon and Syria are afraid of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Syria. Like Iraq, mysterious groups are now attacking the Christian communities in Syria. The leaders of the Christian Eastern Orthodox Church, including the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, have also all publicly expressed their grave concerns. Aside from the Christian Arabs, these fears are also shared by the Assyrian and Armenian communities, which are mostly Christian.

Sheikh Al-Rahi was recently in Paris where he met President Nicolas Sarkozy. It is reported that the Maronite Patriarch and Sarkozy had disagreements about Syria, which prompted Sarkozy to say that the Syrian regime will collapse. Patriarch Al-Rahi’s position was that Syria should be left alone and allowed to reform. The Maronite Patriarch also told Sarkozy that Israel needed to be dealt with as a threat if France legitimately wanted Hezbollah to disarm.

Because of his position in France, Al-Rahi was instantly thanked by the Christian and Muslim religious leaders of the Syrian Arab Republic who visited him in Lebanon. Hezbollah and its political allies in Lebanon, which includes most the Christian parliamentarians in the Lebanese Parliament, also lauded the Maronite Patriarch who later went on a tour to South Lebanon.

Sheikh Al-Rahi is now being politically attacked by the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance, because of his stance on Hezbollah and his refusal to support the toppling of the Syrian regime. A conference of Christian figures is actually being planned by Hariri to oppose Patriarch Al-Rahi and the stance of the Maronite Church. Since Al-Rahi announced his position, the Tahrir Party, which is active in both Lebanon and Syria, has also started targeting him with criticism. It has also been reported that high-ranking U.S. officials have also cancelled their meetings with the Maronite Patriarch as a sign of their displeasure about his positions on Hezbollah and Syria.

The Hariri-led March 14 Alliance in Lebanon, which has always been a popular minority (even when it was a parliamentary majority), has been working hand-in-hand with the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the groups using violence and terrorism in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood and other so-called Salafist groups from Syria have been coordinating and holding secret talks with Hariri and the Christian political parties in the March 14 Alliance. This is why Hariri and his allies have turned on Cardinal Al-Rahi. It was also Hariri and the March 14 Alliance that brought Fatah Al-Islam into Lebanon and have now helped some of its members escape to go and fight in Syria.

A Christian exodus is being planned for the Middle East by Washington, Tel Aviv, and Brussels. It is now being reported that Sheikh Al-Rahi was told in Paris by President Nicolas Sarkozy that the Christian communities of the Levant and Middle East can resettle in the European Union. This is no gracious offer. It is a slap in the face by the same powers that have deliberately created the conditions to eradicate the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. The aim appears to be the resettling of the Christian communities outside of the region so as to delineate the Arab nations along the lines of being exclusively Muslim nations. This falls into accordance with the Yinon Plan.

Re-Dividing Africa: The Yinon Plan is very Much Alive and at Work…

In the same context as the sectarian divisions in the Middle East, the Israelis have outlined plans to reconfigure Africa. The Yinon Plan seeks to delineate Africa on the basis of three facets:

(1) ethno-linguistics;
(2) skin-colour;
(3) religion.

It seeks to draw dividing lines in Africa between a so-called “Black Africa” and a supposedly “non-Black” North Africa. This is part of a scheme to create a schism in Africa between what are assumed to be “Arabs” and so-called “Blacks.”

An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway.

This objective is why the ridiculous identity of an “African South Sudan” and an “Arab North Sudan” have been nurtured and promoted. This is also why black-skinned Libyans have been targeted in a campaign to “colour cleanse” Libya. The Arab identity in North Africa is being de-linked from its African identity. Simultaneously there is an attempt to eradicate the large populations of “black-skinned Arabs” so that there is a clear delineation between “Black Africa” and a new “non-Black” North Africa, which will be turned into a fighting ground between the remaining “non-Black” Berbers and Arabs.

In the same context, tensions are being fomented between Muslims and Christians in Africa, in such places as Sudan and Nigeria, to further create lines and fracture points. The fuelling of these divisions on the basis of skin-colour, religion, ethnicity, and language is intended to fuel disassociation and disunity in Africa. This is all part of a broader African strategy of cutting North Africa off from the rest of the African continent.

Israel and the African Continent

The Israelis have been quietly involved on the African continent for years. In Western Sahara, which is occupied by Morocco, the Israelis helped build a separation security wall like the one in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. In Sudan, Tel Aviv has armed separatist movements and insurgents. In South Africa, the Israelis supported the Apartheid regime and its occupation of Namibia. In 2009, the Israeli Foreign Ministry outlined that Africa would be the renewed focus of Tel Aviv.

Israel’s two main objectives in Africa are to impose the Yinon Plan, in league with its own interests, and to assist Washington in becoming the hegemon of Africa. In this regard, the Israelis also pushed for the creation of AFRICOM in this regard. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) is one example.

Washington has outsourced intelligence work in Africa to Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv is effectively involved as one of the parties in a broader war not just “inside” Africa, but “over” Africa. In this war, Tel Aviv is working alongside Washington and the E.U. against China and its allies, which includes Iran.

Tehran is working alongside Beijing in a similar manner as Tel Aviv is with Washington. Iran is helping the Chinese in Africa through Iranian connections and ties. These ties also include Tehran’s ties to private Lebanese and Syrian business interests in Africa. Thus, within the broader rivalry between Washington and Beijing, an Israeli-Iranian rivalry has also unfolded within Africa.¹ Sudan is Africa’s third largest weapons producer, as a result of Iranian support in weapons manufacturing. Meanwhile, while Iran provides military assistance to Khartoum, which includes several military cooperation agreements, Israel is involved in various actions directed against the Sudanese.¹

Israel and Libya

Libya had been considered as “a spoiler” which undermined the interests of the former colonial powers in Africa. In this regard, Libya had taken on some hefty pan-African development plans intended to industrialize Africa and transform Africa into an integrated and assertive political entity. These initiatives conflicted with the interests of the external powers competing with one another in Africa, but it was especially unacceptable to Washington and the major E.U. countries. In this regard, Libya had to be crippled and neutralized as an entity supportive of African progress and pan-African unity.

The role of Israel and the Israeli lobby was fundamental in opening the door to NATO’s military intervention in Libya. According to Israeli sources, it was U.N. Watch that actually orchestrated the events in Geneva to remove Libya from the U.N. Human Rights Council and to ask the U.N. Security Council to intervene.² U.N. Watch is formally affiliated with the American Jewish Committee (AJC), which has influence in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy and is part of the Israeli lobby in the United States. The International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), which helped launch the unverified claims about 6,000 people being slaughtered by Gaddafi, is also tied to the Israeli lobby in France.

Tel Aviv had been in contact simultaneously with both the Transitional Council and the Libyan government in Tripoli. Mossad agents were also in Tripoli, one of which was a former station manager. At about the same time, French members of the Israeli lobby were visiting Benghazi. In a case of irony, the Transitional Council would claim that Colonel Qaddafi was working with Israel, while it made pledges to recognize Israel to president Sarkozy’s special envoy Bernard-Henri Lévy who would then convey the message to Israeli leaders.³ A similar pattern (to that of Israel’s links to the Transitional Council) had also developed at an earlier stage in South Sudan, which was armed by Israel.

Despite the Transitional Council’s position on Israel, its followers still tried to demonize Gaddafi by claiming he was secretly Jewish. Not only was this untrue, but it was also bigoted. These accusations were intended to be a form of character assassination that equated being a Jew as something negative.

In reality, Israel and NATO are in the same camp. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Had Gaddafi been conniving with Israel while the Transitional Council was working with NATO, this would mean that both sides were actually being played as fools against one another.

Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”

It is at this point that all the pieces have to be put together and the dots have to be connected.

The chessboard is being staged for a “Clash of Civilizations” and all the chess pieces are being put into place.

The Arab World is in the process of being cordoned off and sharp delineation lines are being created. These lines of delineation are replacing the seamless lines of transition between different ethno-linguistic, skin-colour, and religious groups.

Under this scheme, there can no longer be a melding transition between societies and countries. This is why the Christians in the Middle East and North Africa, such as the Copts, are being targeted. This also why black-skinned Arabs and black-skinned Berbers, as well as other North African population groups which are black-skinned, are facing genocide in North Africa.

What is being staged is the creation of an exclusively “Muslim Middle East” area (excluding Israel) that will be in turmoil over Shiite-Sunni fighting. A similar scenario is being staged for a “non-Black North Africa” area which will be characterized by a confrontation between Arabs and Berber. At the same time, under the “Clash of Civilizations” model, the Middle East and North Africa are slated to simultaneously be in conflict with the so-called “West” and “Black Africa.”

This is why both Nicolas Sarzoky, in France, and David Cameron, in Britain, made back-to-back declarations during the start of the conflict in Libya that multiculturalism is dead in their respective Western European societies.⁴

Real multiculturalism threatens the legitimacy of the NATO war agenda. It also constitutes an obstacle to the implementation of the “Clash of Civilizations” which constitutes the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor, explains why multiculturalism is a threat to Washington and its allies: “[A]s America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [e.g., war with the Arab World, China, Iran, or Russia and the former Soviet Union], except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War [and exists now because of the 'Global War on Terror'].”⁵

Brzezinski’s next sentence is the qualifier of why populations would oppose or support wars: “[The consensus] was rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were being threatened, but also in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianisms.”⁵

Risking being redundant, it has to be mentioned again that it is precisely with the intention of breaking these cultural affinities between the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region and the so-called “Western World” and sub-Saharan Africa that Christians and black-skinned peoples are being targeted.

Ethnocentrism and Ideology: Justifying Today’s “Just Wars”

In the past, the colonial powers of Western Europe would indoctrinate their people. Their objective was to acquire popular support for colonial conquest. This took the form of spreading Christianity and promoting Christian values with the support of armed merchants and colonial armies.

At the same time, racist ideologies were put forth. The people whose lands were colonized were portrayed as “sub-human,” inferior, or soulless. Finally, the “White Man’s burden” of taking on a mission of civilizing the so-called “uncivilized peoples of the world” was used. This cohesive ideological framework was used to portray colonialism as a “just cause.” The latter in turn was used to provide legitimacy to the waging of “just wars” as a means to conquering and “civilizing” foreign lands.

Today, the imperialist design of the United States, Britain, France, and Germany have not changed. What has changed is the pretext and justification for waging their neo-colonial wars of conquest. During the colonial period, the narratives and justifications for waging war were accepted by public opinion in the colonizing countries, such as Britain and France. Today’s “just wars” and “just causes” are now being conducted under the banners of women’s rights, human rights, humanitarianism, and democracy.

1. The Economist, “Israel and Iran in Africa: A search for allies in a hostile world,” February 4, 2011.
2. Tova Lazaroff, “70 rights groups call on UN to condemn Tripoli,” Jerusalem Post, February 22, 2011.
3. Radio France Internationale, “Libyan rebels will recognise Israel, Bernard-Henri Lévy tells Netanyahu,” June 2, 2011.
4. Robert Marquand, “Why Europe is turning away from multiculturalism,” Christian Science Monitor, March 4, 2011.
5. Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books October 1997), p. 211.

There is no need for additional forensic evidence of what exactly transpired at Maspero, the site of a massacre that can only be called a crime against humanity. What started out as a peaceful march against religious persecution by Salafi vandals with a nasty habit of destroying Coptic churches turned into a blood bath. Two dozen demonstrators were murdered, the youngest of them 12 years old.

The only real question remaining is whether the slaughter was premeditated. From where I sit in Cairo, it sure looks that way. How else can one explain the outright lies and deceptions propagated by state owned media operatives?

The provocative coverage by State TV made it sound like Coptic gangs armed with machine guns had assaulted unarmed military police. And the public ate it up because they ‘saw’ it on their Telly. A call went out for ‘honorable’ citizens to go out and defend the army.

Of course, that story turned out to be a load of state manufactured manure. The online English language Al-Ahram website, also a government media outlet, gave a very different account.

A march of 10,000 Copts began today from Shubra to the State TV building in Maspero turned violent when protesters were attacked by stone throwing mobs from on top of the surrounding walls while they were trying to cross the Shubra tunnel. A 15-minute battle ensued as the Coptic protesters fought back and hurled stones at their assailants. Gun shots were fired in the sky, leaving terrified demonstrators wondering aloud if they were going to be shot.

During the attack, panic ensued as women protesters were told to stand under the bridge for safety as Coptic youth tried to contain the march. After the battle stopped the march, once again regained its peaceful nature and continued towards Maspero.

On their way to Maspero they stopped in the neighboring Galaa Street and were attacked once again. A car sped through the crowd and randomely shot at protesters. The march continued once again to Maspero where the protesters were attacked again with increased vigour and violence.

An Ahram Online correspondent at Maspero reports seeing glass being thrown down at protesters from inside the State Broadcasting building in Maspero while armoured personnel carriers were driven by the army through the crowds, hitting and running protesters over. Eyewitness accounts posted on Twitter detail people being shot by the armed forces and attacked by plain-clothed thugs, with fire consuming vehicles by the Nile.

So far confirmed as being among those killed are Mina Daniel, an activist and blogger; Wael Yunna, a journalist for Coptic TV; and Michael Mosaad, an activist and member of the Maspero Youth Coalition.

The protest was organised by the Maspero Youth Union, a group of young Coptic activists to protest against the recent violations against Copts. The protesters chanted, ‘raise your head high you are a Copt,’ and ‘no to burning of churches.’

The protesters also chanted against the army, shouting “the people want the fall of the Field Marshall Tantawi,” and chanted: “Tantawi, where is your army, our homes and churches are being attacked.”

The very next morning, the Arabic print version of Al-Ahram spared all of 150 words to report the story. The brief account didn’t even mention a clash or report on the casualties. This sanitary version of the events had Muslims and Christians marching peacefully chanting “Muslims and Copts are One Hand.” My best guess is that they didn’t want to squander all their recently acquired post-revolutionary virginity on a single story.

By Tuesday morning, Al-Ahram was back to usual form and reporting an eyewitness account from a wounded soldier who claimed he saw 14 of his comrades burned alive in an armored personnel carrier. The journalist who wrote that story is well-advised to invest a little money in a calculator. The official death toll is 25 killed. Of those, 21 have already been identified as Copts, two bodies are unidentified and it’s not exactly certain who the other two are. They could have been soldiers but then again they could have been Muslim activists who were marching in solidarity with their Coptic brothers. The army initially claimed that three of its soldiers had died and now refuses to confirm the exact count.

Usually, in similar circumstances, the soldiers who die in the line of duty are identified and their families are awarded compensation and press coverage to honor their sacrifice. So it could be that the military suffered no fatalities.

The bottom line is that the state owned press accounts were all over the place even though the reported events happened right under their noses. The site of the massacre was across the street from the State Television building at Maspero. State media, any state media, is always a suspect source of information. But when you get this level of confusion in Egyptian state media outlets, it is a sure sign of a cover-up.

The behavior of these ‘journalists’ – and I use that word very loosely – is very similar to what happened on February 2, 2011. That is exactly the same scenario that transpired during the infamous “Battle of the Camels” when armed thugs on horses and camels attacked demonstrators in Tahrir Square.

At the time, the army had already committed itself to protecting the demonstrators and volunteered to be a “custodian of the revolution.” But a curious thing happened – the army didn’t intervene and never bothered to explain how the hired goons had penetrated their lines or how they had manage to pass unnoticed through dozens of army checkpoints that were set up to enforce a curfew. That remains a taboo subject.

But there are some things we now know about the Battle of the Camel. It was a carefully orchestrated attempt by the Mubarak regime to abort the revolution and the plan included a very well-defined role for state media operatives. Their instructions were to ignore it and concentrate on reporting on ‘spontaneous’ outbreaks of support for the now deposed president. It’s fair to speculate that similar instructions were handed down to state media operatives on Bloody Sunday. For the record, these government salaried scribes are pretty much the same crowd that faithfully supported Mubarak for thirty years.

The massacre at Maspero came straight out Mubarak’s play book. Manufacture chaos, pose as a savior of the nation and extend the emergency laws or maybe go a bit further and declare martial law. Field Marshal Tantawi is already signaling the need to impose harsher measures against unidentified domestic and foreign provocateurs.

The Coptic demonstrators were not hooligans armed with machine guns; their ranks included women, children and sympathetic Muslim activists. And autopsies confirm that many of them were shot, stabbed, crushed by armored personnel carriers or beaten to death.

There is absolutely no need for a massive inquiry here. Just ask the soldiers and officers what their instructions were and who gave the orders. Pull in a few of the journalists on the state payroll and ask them the same thing. Round up a few of the thugs who attacked the demonstrators to determine if they acted ‘spontaneously’ or if they also had instructions. I’ll bet my last dollar that this was a False Flag operation to manufacture chaos and create enough sectarian tension to justify continued military rule.

Which gets me back to my initial thesis which is that there never was an Egyptian revolution. What happened in Egypt was a coup d’état that rode the back of a popular uprising, tamed it and now plans to re-establish six decades of military dictatorship. The generals were more than happy to get rid of Mubarak and his heir, a son who was not only a corrupt investment banker but also a draft dodger who never served a day in the military and was rumored to have a British passport.

The Copts who perished on Bloody Monday will go down as the last martyrs of the first Egyptian uprising or the first martyrs of the second Egyptian uprising. Either way, their blood will remain an indelible stain on Egyptian history. May God have mercy on their souls.

The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.

Winston Smith, Ministry of Truth, Oceania

And so it begins.

The compulsory veneration of the seminal event 10 years ago that gave us our national security state will dominate our media and be pounded into our consciousness. In newspapers, on TV and on radio we will be assaulted by endless replays of the World Trade Centre collapse, interviews with survivors or bereaved relatives, stories of pain and suffering, heroic portrayals of rescuers, and moralizing about the need to defend our freedoms.

We will have drummed into us, subtly and not so subtly, the official story of how the U.S. was attacked by Muslim terrorists, and why we citizens must, for our own safety, willingly accept sacrifices to our civil liberties, the evisceration of the rule of law, the deaths of our soldiers in needless aggressions, and the mutation of our civilian police from law enforcers to law breakers.

There will be no proper context, factual analysis or intelligent debate because the commemoration is designed to impose obedience to authority, not foster understanding. If this sounds too bizarre for words, it shouldn’t; history is full of events that become moralized and take on a life of their own. The WTC attack, like the Crucifixion and the Holocaust™, is just another moralized historical event around which an moral absolutism is built. That absolutism engenders its own political authority to propagate the core belief and coerce public obedience to it. Those who reject the manufactured reality to seek the truth, suffer ostracism, slander, torture or even death. Truth is the enemy of the state.

In each of these three examples, a prominent death has been exploited to coerce public obedience to a political authority. The Christian Church uses the icon of the crucified, and then risen, Jesus to compel Christians into self-identify with it accepting that Jesus died for them.

But why would Jesus go out of his way to be tortured and put to death in such a gruesome manner? That question cannot be discussed freely because it invites alternate theories about Jesus’s nature and motives, many of which are contained in the gnostic gospels.

Imposing belief in the literal truth of the Crucifixion and Resurrection had nothing to do with Jesus, but everything to do with the Church, whose political authority is based not on the history of Jesus but on the myth of Jesus. Since a myth cannot withstand scrutiny because it has no rational foundation, so the Church can only be defended its power by waging war on free belief and massacring its critics, even heterodox Christians.

The Zionism Church (a.k.a. Israel and The Lobby) exploits Hitler’s persecution of Jews to sermonize about Jewish victimhood. The emotional blackmail of Jewish suffering includes the mantra of 6 million dead, gas chambers, Western guilt for not saving Jews, and the belief that Jews need a “homeland” to be free from persecution.

But are not Jews today persecuting Palestinians, and do not Palestinians deserve a homeland for the same reason? Can’t ask that question! If you doubt or in anyway weaken the canonical verities of the 6 million dead, the gas chambers, and the need for Israel you’re not only a heretic but an “anti-Semite,” and deserving of whatever persecution or violence that is inflicted on you. Israel is based on myths, not fact, and the fear of having those myths uncovered lies behind the zionist persecution of free belief and Palestinian rights.

The Terrorism Church (a.k.a. Project for the New American Century) has exploited the WTC attack to instill in us the myth that Muslim terrorists flew hijacked aircraft into the WTC and Pentagon, killing thousands of innocent Americans. The need to defend the U.S. from subsequent attacks made necessary the USA PATRIOT Act, which superseded the Constitution, and gave us our security-obsessed state.

But if Muslims in aircraft did all that, what explains all those explosions in the buildings below the level of impact, and the inability of a steel-framed structure to withstand a simple fire the way WTC1 did on Feb. 14, 1975? For that matter why would Muslims commit an act of violence knowing full well what the retribution would be? Way out of bounds! Any question about what happened and who was responsible invites analyses of the official absurdity, which the public is supposed to accept as holy writ. We can’t have a police-state if we don’t fear Muslims, and if we don’t fear Muslims, we need to ask who else could have planned and carried out the attack. That leads us to Israeli involvement, which is verboten.

The ability to believe an absurdity is easy if you accept the given zero-sum frame of reference between good and evil. If the absurdity is presented as “good,” then criticisms can be neatly compartmentalized and dismissed as “evil.” When George W. Bush said the Muslims attacked because they hate American freedoms, he reduced these alleged hijackers to evil stereotypes.

When a person or cause is stigmatized as evil, defence becomes impossible. This is why otherwise intelligent people cry “conspiracy theory” when faced with facts about the absurdity of the WTC narrative. To listen to a dissenting opinion would amount to respecting the devil. To foster this image, these “churches” promote hatred of the “other”: Jews killed Jesus; Nazis killed Jews; and Muslims attacked the WTC attack. (Though Nazis did kill Jews, this good/evil dogma does not recognize the zionist Jews who helped run the concentration camps and prop up the Nazi regime.)

Without a convenient scapegoat for people to vent their hatred, and without the image of the state as society’s saviour, belief in the absurdity will collapse. It is here we see how official demonization of “terrorist” Muslims is similar to the daily “Two Minutes Hate” orgy in George Orwell’s 1984. The object of the hate is Emmanuel Goldstein, the number one “enemy of the people.” Goldstein was never proven to be a real person, but the daily hate hurled at his image reinforced public loyalty and dependence to the state security apparatus.

As you read this except from 1984, note how Orwell’s depiction of Goldstein as a contrived object of hatred closely resembles our depiction of Osama bin Laden:

Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters, perhaps even—so it was occasionally rumoured—in some hiding-place in Oceania itself…. What was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of the State.

As if on cue, Israel’s Canadian satrap Stephen Harper gave official sanction to hatred of Muslims in an interview with the CBC. After Sept. 11, 2001, he said the major threat to Canada was still “Islamicism”—a nonsense propaganda term meant to incite public hatred of Muslims and sympathy for the state. To emphasize the point, Harper claimed that Canada even had “homegrown” Islamic radicals, necessitating a return to arbitrary police-state powers to execute warrantless arrest and coerce testimony from witnesses. According to the CBC, neither the police or prosecutors had a reason to make use of these powers, but now we’re supposed to believe they do have a reason?

“WTC Victim–Hate Week” reaches its nauseating crescendo on Sunday, but unlike Oceania, Canada has no law to compel citizens to take part. It is therefore the duty of every rational human being not to participate in this orgy of fraud. Wherever you find yourself: Turn off. Tune out. Unplug. Disbelieve.

Until 2010, Social Security had always been a net gain, meaning that money contributed by workers had always exceeded the amount sent to retirees. This surplus means that Social Security, as is, should be sustainable until 1936, but that’s assuming the economy won’t seriously unravel, but even if it will, Social Security should be the very last program to be tampered with. Waste is needless wars and bank bailouts, not money spent on the old and the disabled.

In a traditional society, one must take care of one’s aging parents, and let’s not sugarcoat this. There is a Vietnamese proverb, “One mom can feed ten children, but ten children can’t feed one mom.” In Saigon, an old lady also confided to me, “My daughter pinched my inner thigh out of spite the last time she gave me a bath, so I said to her, ‘Why don’t you go ahead and kill me already?’”

In the Republic of Goldman Sachs, NASCAR, and Lady Gaga, however, most kids won’t be around to pinch our inner thighs as we fade into senility. Also, more American women won’t have any children. In 1970, it was only one in ten. Today, it’s one in five. Fewer of us are also getting married. What you have, then, is a huge aging population without any income beyond the Social Security check that arrives each month.

Substituting for the missing children, three workers now support each retiree, but this is only fair, since for decades, these old people were the de facto filial sons and daughters of other senior citizens.

As working citizens, we have no choice but to participate in Social Security, but this has never been a problem, since the vast majority of us has always recognized its necessity. Who’d want to be old and curled up under a bridge?

At $1,177, your average social security check will pay for a one bedroom apartment in a semi-slum neighborhood, plus enough leftover for discount groceries, bought with several fistfuls of coupons. It’s not much, but it’s survival, and not something to be messed with, unless, of course, you belong to the very rich.

The wealthy hate Social Security because they don’t need it. Even the concept of surviving on a grand a month boggles their minds. That is so pitiful! Such chump change won’t even get them three bottles of Pinot Noir at Bistro Bis, a favorite of belt-tightening advocate, Paul Ryan. Never been there, but if I go, I’ll order a Spam musubi. Can I have an extra plate, please? Me and the wife will share.

For the wealthy, for people whose earnings derive mostly from investments and dividends, and not grunting work, it is somehow scandalous that we should get a thousand a month after a lifetime of honest labor. They can steal from us to finance their endless war and banking shenanigans, but it’s not OK for us tapped out lumpens to have a minimum income in old age? Instead of gutting Social Security, we should wipe out the superfluous Department of Homeland Security.

This vicious campaign against Social Security is nothing but class warfare, pure and simple. Unless we do something about it, and soon, the ruling class will continue to rip us off as we sweat, and starve us when we’re no longer useful. They and their enablers, Bush, Obama and Boehner, et al., are not of us or among us. Never on the streets except when hustling votes, they never see the senior citizens already sprawling on our sidewalks.

Old people of limited means are a drag, really, since they can’t be sent to war, and you may have to clean up after them, instead of the other way around, as is customary with the poor. What good is a poor person who won’t clean your toilet, give you a sensual massage or kill and die for the empire?

According to Japanese legends, Ubasuteyama is a mountain where old people are abandoned to die. With each cut to Social Security, we will be erecting our own Ubasuteyama.

At the age of sixty, David visits a British military cemetery in Israel. For the first time in his life he is about to call upon the grave of his father Ralph who was blown up in 1947 at the age of twenty five by the Jewish Stern Gang.

The play is a unique encounter between David, a middle-aged Englishman, and his dead father Ralph, a young English Corporal at the time of the British Mandate. It is a meeting through which we, the audience, can ‘witness’ six decades of Israeli brutality, through the eyes of a dead British Corporal buried in foreign soil along side thousands of his peers. The play is a cleverly constructed dialogue between a sixty year old son: a man who grew up in post WWII Britain, an indoctrinated gentleman and a liberated dead father who is free to call things what they actually are.

The play is a journey into the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It dares to look into the role of the British in the creation of yet another endless war. It is also courageous enough to review and assess the cruelty of Jewish terror-groups towards the British military. It goes deeper than most political commentators and academics, for it is brave enough to look honestly at the imaginary distinction between Jews, Israel and Zionism. Ralph is obviously impervious to political correctness — he sees Zionists and Israelis for what they are — namely, Jews. Initially, David couldn’t agree less, insisting that Jews are kind and compassionate people. He would contend, that it is merely the Israelis and Zionists who may be slightly problematic.

As the play evolves, David witnesses Israeli brutality for himself. And once he has visited a Palestinian home he falls in love with Palestine, immediately empathising with the Palestinian plight. Overnight, David is transformed into a Palestinian advocate. He then meets Israeli soldiers at a road block and he encounters the arrogance of an MIT lieutenant, a new Jewish-American immigrant who claims ownership of someone else’s land. He also meets a Romanian female sergeant who teaches him a lesson in Israeli rudeness.

These events are enough to transform David into an anti-separation wall activist. Needless to say that by that time, the old school English tie is replaced by a Palestinian scarf, hung loosely around his neck.

As the the play unfolds, we witness a continuum of six decades of merciless vengeance enacted by new comers, people who do not belong to Palestine. You can call them Israelis, or Zionists, or Jews — in fact it doesn’t really matter — whoever or whatever they are, they must be stopped.

The play is on for another week. If you happen to be in or around London, you don’t want to miss it. The play once again reaffirms my view that art and beauty are leading the journey towards justice, for art excels precisely where academia, politics, activism, journalism and the so called Left have failed so miserably.

Untill Monday 6 June 2011

Tuesday to Saturday at 8:30pm
Saturday & Sunday at 4:45pm

Tickets
£16 (Concs £14)

To Book

0870 033 2733

In an increasingly urbanized world such a phobia could be paralyzing (and for some people, is) absent the psychic mechanism Canetti also proposed that we possess and that compensates for this primal fear by allowing our sense of individual identity to dissolve, merging with the strangers around us in a collective persona.

In its positive forms this defense mechanism is responsible for the phenomenon of good-natured crowds at sporting events and along parade routes. In its destructive manifestation this defense mechanism is the driving force behind the sudden and unpredictable formation of mobs.

In our own history there are numerous examples of this destructive kind of crowd formation. Between 1890 and 1920, lynch mobs were responsible for murdering some 3,000 people – and those are only the cases that we know about. The New York City Draft Riots of 1863 lasted three days, resulted in the deaths of numerous innocent victims, and were only quelled when federal troops were commandeered from the front to restore order.

For most of history, mobs have formed spontaneously, dissipating their energy once they have achieved their immediate end of destroying property and/or harming or killing human beings, then disbanding as quickly as they form.

But one of the most sobering lessons of the 20th Century is the discovery that, under the right circumstances – the rise of skillful demagogues, the control of the organs of mass media by those demagogues – it’s possible to generate a sustained mob mentality, and to direct its demonic energy toward specific, hellish goals.

Political science offers numerous definitions of fascism, but none strike us as definitive. That’s because fascism is not simply a political ideology like Soviet-style Communism; that is to say, fascism is not just the product of reason gone awry.

Fascism is, essentially, the modern nation state as mob rule, with a national mob mentality constantly stirred up by the state with inflammatory rhetorical attacks directed against scapegoats – Jews, Blacks, immigrants, homosexuals, socialists, Muslims or whichever other group happens to bears the brand of The Other in a given culture.

Fascism’s intentional harnessing of the defense mechanism that drives the formation of crowds explains fascism’s allure, at least to some, which is the opportunity to unburden one’s isolated, individual sense of self by identifying completely with the exhilarating collective energy of the “Volk.” It is this dynamic that renders fascism, by whatever name, irredeemably irrational and destructive.

Thus institutionalized, and married to the apparatus, organizational power and armed might of the modern nation state, the mob energy harnessed by fascist regimes in the last century came very close to destroying the civilized world as we know it and could only be stopped by massive organized violence inflicted upon those regimes by other advanced nation states.

This critical mob mentality component of fascism also explains why countries do not “slide” into fascism, as some warn is happening in the United States; mobs do not form slowly. They gel, they materialize, they appear instantaneously, almost magically, with little or no forewarning.

In his speech this past week to military personnel, Barak Obama announced that the targeted assassination of Osama bin Laden reflected “The essence of America, the values that have defined us for more than 200 years” and that, furthermore, these values are “stronger than ever.”

He was dead right, though not in the way he intended. The manner in which bin Laden’s death was carried out reflects at least one face of American values as did, even more dramatically, the deprave celebrating that erupted in the wake of his killing in cities and on college campuses around the country.

From the extrajudicial execution of a dehumanized enemy to the choice of “Geronimo” as code name for Osama bin Laden to those outbursts of jubilation, the killing of The World’s Most Wanted Man does indeed connect to those American values responsible for the country’s history of violent racism, imperialism, repression, militarism, and near-genocide of the indians.

And those post-assassination victory celebrations were not analogous at all to the outpouring of relief and joy that accompanied the end of World War II. Bin Laden’s assassination did not spare millions of Americans from the prospect of going off to fight in a global war or from the equally harrowing prospect of watching one’s child, husband or brother being marched to the front.

The killing of OBL ended nothing, except his life. The celebrations were not about victory. They were about death. They were celebrations of death. Those dancing in the street were acting out their own version of the motto of the Falange – i.e., fascist — movement during the Spanish Civil War. “Viva la Meurte.”

Long live Death.

The time is not yet ripe for the clock to strike Midnight in America, but it won’t take much to push us over the edge. Another major terrorist attack on the “Homeland.” Another financial crisis on the scale of the most recent one, which could easily be triggered by the failure to raise the federal debt ceiling. The appearance on the scene of a skillful demagogue with the organizational ability to marshal a mass movement and an unslakable thirst for political power.

Even now, egged on by the right-wing demagogues already among us and bankrolled by right-wing billionaires plotting in undisclosed locations, the American mob longs to shake its collective fist and cry out for vengeance and blood in a hoarse collective voice.

Long live Death! And long live the Death of Democracy!

Hell is where many false commitments must be unlearned.

— Ricardo J. Quinones, Dante Alighieri

Richard Goldstone’s journey from Justice to Sinner represents the spiritual act of dying in the Zionist world. By recanting his own report he has attempted to break the bonds that cast him into the sufferings in Caina, Antenora, and Judecca where, in Dante’s Inferno, those treacherous to their own, are removed from the light and warmth of their kin, their country, and their masters and suffer eternal damnation in the remorseless dead center of the ice in the most bottomless circle of Hell. Fortunately, Goldstone like Dante can learn that he has, in his journey, aligned himself with many false gods and many false attachments ignoring on the way the elementary truths that bind humankind ineluctably in one race in a bond of human grace.

The Zionist world needs no Hell since it heeds no conscience. It exists on one foundation, a solid block of ice that freezes the soul of all who bear allegiance to its creed of absolute obedience, an ancient form of tribal slavery bound by fear that shackles the soul, by isolation that instills despair, by humiliation that corrodes self, and by victimhood that bonds the tribe in self-perpetuating agony. It is in this sense Medieval, a remnant of the inquisitorial mind that harbored no dissent, gave no credence to personal freedom, and obligated all to one monolithic understanding of commitment to the powers that control.

Goldstone, nearing the end of his life’s journey, vested in the mantle of Jewishness with all the warmth of family and community, surrounded by companions from adolescence to manhood, imbued with curiosity and fervor for the history of his people, and sustained over the years by his commitment to justice for his people found himself confronted by a state that would not cooperate in the pursuit of that justice when he and his commission found it to be wanting.

Thus did the Goldstone Report, executed on behalf of all nations united in pursuit of truth, become the lodestone that attracted the attention of the world and brought condemnation to the state of Israel. In retaliation for such an act, he suffered the consequences of those who act treacherously to their masters, the Zionist powers that used time-tested punishments of those who find fault with the tribe: damnation, isolation, coercion, rejection, humiliation, and expulsion from his own. Thus did the false gods expose themselves, forcing Richard Goldstone to retract his own words in a blind attempt to seek solace in the tribe that condemned him. But these false gods are “dead people” in Dante’s Inferno, they have rejected spiritual values by yielding to bestial appetites for land and power through the use of violence, perverting their human intellect to fraud or malice.

Had Goldstone paid heed to his history, he would have realized that his retraction would illicit exactly this behavior. Forgiveness does not exist in the tribal culture; it is a sign of weakness. If history had recorded the truth of the Jewish war against Britain during the Mandate period, the means by which they operated in coordinated violence and terrorism against the very nation that made possible the existence of a Jewish homeland, would be known.

The existence of the Jewish Agency, formed initially in coordination with the British authorities, metamorphosed into a clandestine Jewish government that used that acceptance by the British to aid Jewish immigrants coming to Palestine, as a means of violating the civil rights of the very Jews they were purportedly aiding. The reality of this period, from 1939 to 1948 demonstrates conclusively that the Zionist rulers of the Jewish Agency, most especially the Consultancy as labeled by Dr. Ilan Pappe, declared a war against the Mandate Police and British forces operating in Palestine while they controlled the entering Jews with mandated taxes through a calculated process of extortion, coercion, and fear.

In Top Secret documents collected by the British Mandate Police, specifically Head Deputy of the Criminal Investigation Division Richard C. Catling, filed in the archives of the Rhodes House library in Oxford, in Appendices used as evidence for a 48 page report on six areas of violations against the Mandate Authority, are details of an Emergency Fund under the control of the Consultancy that stipulates procedures for forced collection of illegal taxes from Jews providing specific actions to be taken against those who do not pay.

Under item 4.a, page 3,

Measures of pressure against the stubborn are executed under the direct supervision of the Central Office in conjunction with the Department of collection or by the management of the local committee. No incidental pressure or assault or causing excitement to the person refusing before he is warned and declared as stubborn.

A.b. In the second instance, it will be referred to the party or the organization, institute, economical society, manager of the synagogue, or friends of the person concerned so that they can influence him to pay.

A.c. In cases where all these measures prove ineffective a decision is passed against the person to inflict on him the following measures. (1) To publish his name and the fact of his refusal and post it in the corridor of the house where he lives. (2) These facts are also circulated amongst his comrades in the party to which he belongs. (3) A demand is made to the party, organization or synagogue etc. to discharge him from membership. (4) Circulation of his name is made in a special notice to be posted in the zone where he lives. (5) Circulation of his name in the press. (6) A request is made to his party and clients to influence him. (7) A demand to the Rabbinate to inflict on him a boycott in case he belongs to the Orthodox Society. (8) To post a permanent picket of protest to accompany him on roads, to stand at the door of his house, office, shop etc., until he fulfills his obligations

And indeed, the names are posted: “The following are the wealthy people of Tel Aviv who have not responded to the appeal of the Emergency Fund…Morris Gredinger, David Ilgovsky, Hillel Turkeldove, etc. etc….”(about 25 additional names followed by an amendment with more.)

The Tel Aviv Municipal Council makes the following declaration: “The Municipal Council denounces their behavior and has decided to adopt all means of public pressure at its disposal in order to force those who would evade payment to carry out their civic and national duties.” Other documents in Catling’s file, all seized from the Jewish Agency and its affiliated organizations, testify to individuals who challenged the Emergency tax and also described some “disappearances” of individuals that could have resulted from a refusal to pay.

It would appear that no Jew arrived in Palestine without having to commit himself/herself to the Zionist enterprise. Personal freedom appears to be non-existent. Those who arrived and had not yet reached the age of 18 would upon reaching that age be required to enter the Jewish military forces known then as gangs but which were in reality well trained troops. If they entered the Hagana forces they had to take the Hagana Oath which committed them for life to the wishes of the High Command even unto death. Commitment, obedience, total acquiescence to the Zionist Consultancy and its beliefs ruled in Mandate Palestine.

Today we may not expect that kind of coercion over individuals to be a practice in a purported Democracy. Yet with the passage of recent McCarthy-like oaths that force commitment by citizens to the democratic and Jewish State, where total allegiance is required not only of Jews but of Israeli Arabs, Israel has virtually branded itself a racist, apartheid state. Even more alarming is the Lieberman designed act that declares remembrance of the Nakba to be illegal and punishable by fine or imprisonment. This is nothing short of a totalitarian imposed attempt to rob Israeli Palestinians of their memory of the catastrophe that left them aliens in their own land.

Gilad Atzmon, perhaps the most incisive intellect investigating the Zionist mind today, offered these observations recently about the treatment Goldstone has endured from Zionist intolerance to anti-Zionism:

…for some time now, we have witnessed Goldstone being subjected to relentless measures of exclusion and abuse from his Zionist brethren. As a matter of fact, intolerance towards critical voices is inherent within Jewish culture, identity, and politics, for Zionism is clearly a demand for ideological collectivism.

But interestingly enough, Jewish anti Zionism is also no different in its modus operandi : all too often we come across a Jewish ‘progressive’ poisonous smear campaign against one ‘Jewish self-hater’ or another.

As tragic as it may sound, Jewish identity politics is an exercise in some different variations of collective hatred; hatred towards the Goyim, but also towards Jewish dissidence.

The Goldstone saga is then, an opportunity to peep into contemporary Jewish political intolerance, and Goldstone emerges as a tragic figure: he sacrificed his professional name for the sake of just a little Jewish empathy. (On Jewish Intolerance)

What more can be said? Richard Goldstone stands as a tragic figure, a man that stood against forces he could not defeat, aware of the righteousness of his acts as an observant Judge, resilient in his desire to act in total truthfulness, a figure due great respect given his heritage, a man of unquestioned faith in the potential of law to serve the greater good, yet a victim of his own nature that was nurtured by his Jewishness which always taught equity to all, compassion for all, justice for all only to find that Zionism had destroyed that heritage and those principles and had the power to turn his own against him.

He now wanders the stage a defeated man in the streets of Jerusalem where all turn from him regardless of his vain attempt to reconcile with his past. But his past is not the Zionists’ past; they have corrupted true Judaism. His future lies with those who seek truth, in the very garden that he so fruitfully watered with his report; it is the lesson of his journey through Hell, false gods have tried to kill his soul and, truth be told, he must abandon them. Those who know him well will come to him. He is like the protagonist of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, John Proctor, but Richard Goldstone is his name, it is his identity in this life and forevermore; it alone will testify to the truth of his actions, not the veiled curse of those who would destroy his being and erase Richard Goldstone from memory.

Reformers who are always compromising, have not yet grasped the idea that truth is the only safe ground to stand upon.

– Elizabeth Cady Stanton

As we approach the prophetic and supposed media hyped end-of-times year of 2012, hysterical speculation will abound. But the ubiquitous corporate media don’t seem to notice that We the People of these United States already stand at our own precipice– the potential end of what has been deemed the Great American Experiment, the institutional embodiment of human freedom protected by government of, by, and for the people.

Of course, for many, the promises of equality and democracy that lie therein may never have existed in the history of the United States. Certainly, racism, sexism, classism, and imperialism, have all played the role of antagonist to said promises. However, America’s founding documents were particularly rife with rhetorical flourishes that were supportive of liberty, freedom of expression, the pursuit of happiness– all of which actually sprouted many social and political movements that changed American culture by striving toward those founding principles, achieving them in varying degrees. In this regard, America has succeeded in realizing the essence of some of its promises. But in reality, the US, in historical terms, has fallen short in myriad ways across the demographic spectrum and that trend is not abating. This is in large part due to American’s reliance on reform over revolutionary ideals and action as tools for change.

Arguably, the root of these aforementioned problems within democracy, beyond exclusion or manipulation of the franchise, chiefly resides in the controlling of public information and education, and access to it. Thomas Jefferson once offered a possible solution to these issues when he wrote, “The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves, nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe.”

The focus then is to achieve a truly free press and a literate citizenry in maintenance of democratic government. More timely, this was purportedly the focus of the organizers and A-list participants of the National Conference on Media Reform this past weekend in the historic (once revolutionary?) city of Boston. However, these reformers have also fallen short of achieving this goal.

We the people should go straight to the root of our problems with media, which means taking a radical approach in dealing with the current problems of our supposed free press to ensure that all are, as Jefferson put it, safe. For starters, we should move well beyond reformist calls for attenuating institutional dials, changing a few metaphorical channels, or appointing new FCC commissioners. This has not worked. The root of democracy is with the people, in education, in literacy, in media awareness, and the path to change comes from the people, not the president. That we move beyond a reform ethos concentrated on elite media control must be agreed upon by all those aware of the problem in order for real change to take place. And while moving beyond reform, we cannot succumb to “hope and change we can believe in,” which was promised, yet never delivered after the 2008 election where many reformers focused great efforts to no avail. These eventual outcomes of reform serve to create a subculture of acceptance in defeat, living to fight again… in another four years. That is a long game. And we have played it for a long time. It is true that reforms play a role in radical changes, though they are stepladders to paradigmatic changes. The time to unite, face reality, and act to rebuild a new and relevant democracy on the foundation of a truly free press is upon us as we are in dire straights as a country, as a world.

Like falling empires of old, the US today is mired in multi-front, unilateral wars and is engaging in new ones ongoing while living well beyond its means at home; ignoring domestic affairs when not outright waging internal wars against those who actually expect elected and appointed officials to live up to our founding Enlightenment principles. These current so-called “wars on terror” have cost over $3 trillion to date and occupy a great deal of time of political leaders. All the while, the US boasts record declines in middle and working class incomes and opportunities; a jobless “recovery” in the wake of the economic collapse of 2008 (caused in large part by the biggest banks on Wall Street which subsequently were not held accountable and instead bailed out at taxpayer expense); a crumbling infrastructure; failing schools (including public and private charter); abysmal records on access and quality of healthcare given the overall wealth and technological prowess of the country; rising infant mortality rates; increasing homelessness; skyrocketing foreclosures; collapse of community development and non-profit support systems; faulty elections procedures; the use of torture abroad and at home; the list goes on and on.

Last but not least, we suffer a hyperreal condition as a society, spurred on by fearful, factless, and feckless news programming by the nation’s supposed leading journalistic outlets. This is why most people in America do not seem to notice the inevitable descent. America is so disconnected that even while individuals may suffer in large numbers they lack a collective adhesive in a modern media landscape. They erroneously believe they suffer alone, and thanks to corporate media propaganda, are often afraid of the wrong things. Yet, a truly free press should help build and protect democracy for the people, not destroy it.

All this is taking place in what appears to be absolute decline across the board for most Americans as the upper few percent of the population control most of the nation’s wealth. A real free press would tell us to forget the GDP and focus on community building and works programs, not abstract market fluctuations. America is a debtor nation and has not made much outside of weapons and related technologies accompanied by military industrial media complex propaganda/advertising for years– all masquerading as official foreign policy and the “news.” The US government, along with this massive military industrial complex, has now armed the world to the teeth to justify a permanent warfare state.
America, its government of and by corporations over the people, is now locked in a self-created, last-ditch effort to occupy the nether regions of oil, industrial capitalism’s dwindling lifeblood. The US forces the rest of the world to trade on the dollar to maintain global hegemony, funding its expansion of over a thousand military bases in over 130 countries. Meanwhile, China, Russia, and several South American countries, are already operating outside this monetary imposition, which as the late scholar and author of the Blowback trilogy Chalmers Johnson argued, is what would spell the end of American empire– fiscal bankruptcy. The collapse of the dollar would hasten that. Indeed, that time draws nigh as the cry for austerity from ostentatious leaders rings hollow across the land.

But again, don’t expect the so-called mainstream media to explain all this to the public. After all, according to the mainstream media in the US (in actuality, it is the corporate media, but the term “mainstream” is used so often people tend to forget it is not so mainstream) there are teachers to blame and public workers to vilify, and there is an ever ready supply of immigrant populations to enslave or deport as well as exotic lands Americans can’t find on a map to invade in efforts to rout evildoers that supposedly cause our current calamities. And if that’s too much to handle, big media in the US can intersperse a steady diet of junk food news where Americans can vicariously feast on celebrity gossip and sport spectacles ranging from Charlie Sheen and Dancing With the Stars to the Super Bowl and March Madness in hopes that the problems we all face in the real world will simply just go away.

These are the same issues many in the media reform movement also decry, and rightfully so. Reform efforts have been laudable. But the solutions reformers offer mostly seem to involve “fixing the system” by focusing on influence of advertisers or regulating ownership (which to date have not achieved reformer objectives). Other reformers want the government to step in to “fix the system” by creating a public media, without noting government has played a big role in the current problem and even while public media is under attack by Congress, PBS and NPR have hardly stood out in major ways to challenge the plutocracy in the name of the people.

These reform notions do not go to the root of the problem, they do not map out a radical solution. And, despite reformers’ benevolent instincts and intentions, don’t always expect reformers that criticize the big media messengers’ behaviors to realize that the system they spend so much time trying to repair is now defunct, if it ever existed in any democratically functional means in the first place. This is why we, the media literate citizens of this dying republic, must now move beyond reform to create a new way.

We need to be the media in word and deed, not lobby those in power to reform their own current establishment megaphones for their own power elite agendas, as that will not happen, and indeed, it has not in the past. In order to achieve real change, we need not have elaborate conferences that rely on power elite voices, their foundation monies, and their apologetic reformist rhetoric. In the words of 19th century American activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, we need to embody the true change she channeled when she said, “Reformers who are always compromising have not yet grasped the idea that truth is the only safe ground to stand upon.” Indeed.

The time to speak truth to power, to media power elites and their political allies, is now. Media reform is an important movement, but it should not be seen as the only path to create a more just and democratic media system. More radical approaches are needed at this point. So just say no to reform driven agendas delivered as so much managed news propaganda and embrace the possibilities of a radical media democracy in action, of, by, and for the people. Show it with actions through citizen journalism and support of local and independent, non-corporate, community media. Do it after the reform spectacle of vicarious deference to power and celebrity is over in Boston this year, as the real change only begins with true, radical action at home. That’s the only way a truly free press can be created, preserved, and grown to be a tool of the people and not the reformers with their unrequited overtures to the media power elite. The time to act is now. We may not have time enough for the next reform conference to save us.

For better or worse, there seems to be an ingrained tendency for people to form group affiliations. The motivation can be utilized to strengthen ties to those nearby, increasing group well-being or it can be used in a more malignant manner, that of simply creating distraction, mayhem, and eventually even violence. The foundation is being laid for division and hatred of this kind, and the outcome will be uncontrollable, even by the cynical politicians and billionaires who created the situation.

Convincing individuals that they are part of a distinct and superior group is the first step towards the process, and vilification of the “other” follows. We are seeing this done to great effect in places like Wisconsin where the working poor are having their angers stoked towards public employees. There is media emphasis being given to tales which cherry-pick unfair situations, such as retirement double dippers and those with non-representative and stratospheric pensions.

Mainstream media outlets have amplified the budget shortfall condition, without the same weight being placed on the causes of said shortfalls. In the case of Wisconsin, the fact that fresh corporate giveaways almost wondrously equal the looming deficits has not been as widely reported. The media coverage overwhelmingly has steered towards discussion that austerity is the remedy but it is not to be shouldered by corporate interests. This brazen stance would never be tolerated if the populace was not distracted by infighting with groups remarkably like themselves. The resulting hostility magically replaces the issue of corporate welfare in the public discourse.

The meat of the situation may be found in a little discussed time bomb tucked into the Wisconsin legislation. Provisions to allow for the sale of Wisconsin public utilities, on a no bid basis are tucked into the bill. Those that defend this aspect of the bill say that it is needless worry to consider that this could become an all out bonanza for industrial interests, such as comic book villainous characters, the Koch Brothers. Most know about their unfettered support for the current Wisconsin governor. These same interests have generously provided funds for media ads in his support during this crisis. The brothers have a major interest in the workings of this small state.

This public utility sale provision should be paramount in media coverage, but it has disturbingly been ignored. The no-bid context negates any argument that it is simply a precaution to allow for effective future state fund raising. We know about no-bid contracts. Common sense dictates that this is not in the best interest of anyone except large industrial entities in the wait.  If the argument hadn’t been successfully framed in terms of “unworthy, greedy public employees versus my few dollars” the groups could possibly realize they have quite a lot in common; namely, being the recipients of a “collective” screwing from individuals like the Kochs.

The working class, those who have to work, no matter what the specifics of their employment, are certainly not beneficiaries in the current divisive discourse. All manner of slicing and dicing is taking place in regard to the great mass of the population. “State employees versus private sector workers” is just one of the latest flavors. The last decade has been rife with this sort of thing, “liberal versus conservative” being the most popular. The common ideals have been systemically buried beneath the comic team affiliations. The one unifying theme is that the looting has continued unabated while juvenile squabbles became the norm in public discourse.

Extreme but instructive examples of this sort of distraction can be found in numerous historical antecedents. One glaring example would be the behavior of Belgian colonialists in the nation of Rwanda. The horror of the 90’s genocide is well known, but less realized is the historical precedent that helped create this frenzy of violence. The colonialists implemented bizarre practices amongst the native population. Mind you, these were individuals whose group membership was not necessarily clearly delineated. They shared language, religion, and intermarriage was common. For all practical purposes, the differences were slight.

The similarities did not stop the Belgians from categorizing the Hutu (Bantu) and Tutsi (Watusi). Measurements were taken of skulls, noses, and height until a determination was made that the Tutsi were essentially more “white”. They were given permission to lord over the Hutu and subsequent rage simmered. The Tutsi were put in an untenable situation, in essence told to act as middle management over the Hutu. The end result was a period of time in which common sense allies (the Hutu and Tutsi) did not merge in a collective effort to rid their homeland of the colonial menace.

This was an extreme example of elite manipulation of the masses, while thievery continued unhindered.

It’s instructive to view what can happen when these types of divisions are put in place. When the looting is complete and the global elites move on, the resentments and group affiliations can linger. The situation is no longer predictable and violence is a very real possibility. In the outrageous case of Rwanda, searing resentments continued, stoked by groups jockeying for leadership. Much of the bile was being peddled by hate radio. The world knows what happened next. At least 800,000 were murdered, often in the shadows of modern buildings in a time that this sort of thing was just not supposed to happen.

Thankfully our situation is not so dire, but the behavior of colonialist oppressors or modern day industrialist looters, are remarkably similar. That of division and diversion. The masses generally exhibit enormous gullible capacity for distraction and this is enough to advance the interests of the few. Brutality isn’t needed yet for their agendas to move forward.

Once the concept that a group is inherently different is ingrained, then all that needs to come next is a spark of violence. This spark is often difficult to ignite, maybe taking decades or more, but once the fire takes, the results are unmanageable and brutal. What was once theory and group mindset can becomes a very real desire for revenge once the first blood is shed. The cycle of escalation is in place and the instigators are generally far away and safe during from the mayhem they established.

Recent examples, even in the United States, indicate that a notion of the “other” can produce a propensity for violence, even in populations very similar to each other. The border skirmishes between Kansas and Missouri during, and prior, to the Civil War show an almost comical tribalism, the settlers having few distinctions amongst themselves. Hardly any settlers owned slaves and most were subsistence farmers. The distinctions were as laughable as the measuring of Hutu/Tutsi noses — but once the violence started, it grew with a life of its own as revenge took over as the prime motivator.

We have over a decade of heavy mainstream media coverage of “right and left” and now “state employee versus the private sector”. This has allowed for unparalleled thievery of our remaining resources as the noise effectively shuts out rational discourse.

We are undeniably at a crossroads. The notion of a civil war may be almost laughable at this point, but the seeds are there. Our imperative is to stop this slide towards factional hatreds that benefit only the industrial aristocracy.

This end game pillaging diverts many of the resources left that could be used to cushion the societal collapse that we seem to be careening towards. The possibility of finding successful replacement for untenable systems becomes unlikely when the scraps left over are simply to be used to solidify an upcoming feudal system. The class that advances these nightmarish scenarios probably won’t be around to be considered culpable for any social violence. They will most likely occupy gated realms in areas deemed safer and less polluted. We will be managed as far flung cattle ranches.

This is the time to take heed of prejudices we may have that enhance division. It’s time to clearly identify who is pulling strings and who benefits; namely; the looter class. Though individuals near us may not be wise to the history of the tactic, it should be our imperative to find common ground, and to try to temper the mounting insanity that surrounds us. This could be the most subversive stratagem available to us. We are not living in benign times; all of this will matter, if not tomorrow, soon.

Lipstadt is clearly opposing holocaust deniers whom she also identifies as anti-Semites, yet, she fails to define what denial means. She also comes short of suggesting what anti-Semitism stands for. I guess that for Lipstadt, ‘deniers’ are those who insist that our past must be revisited, scrutinised and be told from different perspectives. People who hold such views are usually called historical revisionists or simply historians. Yet, historical revisionists are clearly perceived by Lipstadt as anti-Semites — I guess that for Lipstadt, those who dare touch or fiddle with the Jewish past are nothing less than enemies.

The ‘deniers’, according to Lipstadt, are a lively movement that is working vigorously to “distort history and inculcate anti-Semitism”. Yet, it is far from being clear how anyone can ‘distort history’, for history is not a singular set of facts laid down and dictated by one group of people alone. Rather it is an attempt to transform the past into a story aspire to as full a narrative as is possible, drawn from as many points of view and from as wide a body of research as is available. History is an attempt then, to build a narrative. Different people should be entitled to hold different perspectives of their past.

Seemingly, Lipstadt is not happy with it all. She wants the chapter known as the holocaust to become a meta-historical impenetrable narrative. It is not clear to me and to a growing number of academics, artists and ordinary people, why Jewish academics and institutions are so afraid of this particular chapter in history being looked at and discussed freely.

For some peculiar reason Lipstadt regards herself as a ‘scholar’, yet her engagement with the subject matter is far from being scholarly oriented. Her reading of the Nazi era is utterly embarrassing — for instance, she says “had the world taken Nazi anti-Semitism more seriously from the outset of the rise of the Third Reich the subsequent tragedy might have been quite different.”

But it seems as if the world did actually react very seriously to Nazi anti-Semitism. It basically followed the Nazi agenda. America and Britain closed their gates to Jews, leaving European Jewish refugees to face their fate. Even the Zionists failed to do much to save their European brothers and sisters. It is also clear that the Nazis would not have succeeded in their ethnic cleansing project unless they had been assisted by European communities, governments, and even by Jewish institutions. It seems as if the Nazis were not the only anti-Semites; they were just more open about it.

Lipstadt’s ignorance knows no limits. She continues, “in the 1930s and 1940s, of course, observers—and the potential victims—could not fathom where Hitler and his cohort’s anti-Semitism might lead.” I guess that the Jewish ‘historian’ doesn’t really know that in the 1930’s and the early 1940’s ‘Hitler and his cohort’ also didn’t know themselves where they were aiming’. We do know that they wanted a Germany free of Jews — and this is, indeed, pretty outrageous. Yet, it is not that different from the vast majority of Israelis, who want a Palestine that is free of Palestinians.

Lipstadt is convinced that the ‘deniers’ are motivated by “hatred of Jews and their desire to do them harm”. But the truth of the matter is slightly embarrassing: historical revisionism is a growing body of knowledge. It doesn’t claim to address ‘the Jewish question’, nor does it offer any political agenda, and neither does it call to harm Jews. However, one may note that rather too often we come across Jewish institutional calls to harm, and even to destroy, Arabs and Muslims. I would then, expect Lipstadt to be consistent, and to stand against her own brothers’ and sisters’ genocidal inclinations. But clearly, integrity is not something you should expect from a Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies.

When it becomes clear that Lipstadt has nothing clever to say about the subject (or maybe any subject) she pulls the rabbit out of her hat, or should we say, she pulls Ahmadinejad out of her wig. “During the past five years we have heard a stream of Holocaust denial, overt anti-Semitism, and threats against Israel emanate from the mouth of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial is linked directly to his animus toward Israel.”

And this is where Jewish past, present and future are wrapped together into a collective meaning that appears totally impervious to reason, ethics or humanity. It is obviously clear that those who oppose Israeli barbarism may, at a certain stage, look at the Zionist’s raison d’être, namely the holocaust. It is obviously natural for those who detest Israeli lies to scrutinise every Israeli or Jewish narrative – And the question is, what is so wrong with doing so? Why are Jews, or at least some Jews, horrified by the idea that others might be suspicious of aspects of their historical narratives? Why is it so difficult for Lipstadt to accept that Ahmadinejad opposes Israel, and also, questions aspects of the Jewish past?

“In 2009”, says Lipstadt, “after questioning the existence of the Holocaust, he (Ahmadinejad) declared it was a ploy used by the Jews to get the West to accede to the creation of Israel.” Again, isn’t it a scholarly and legitimate question on behalf of Ahmadinejad? Are not the holocaust and the foundation of the Jewish State inherently linked?

But — Don’t you worry, it is not Ahmadinejad alone whom the Yeshiva Scholar hates. “Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser spoke of the lie of the 6 million Jews… Spokesmen for Hamas have also engaged in Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial themes can be found in newspapers in many parts of the Arab world, including in Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon.”

Even Mahmoud Abbas was a ‘denier’ according to the Shoa genius, “as a young student, (Abbas) wrote a dissertation that was pure denial.” But guess what, Abbas doesn’t have to worry; Lipstadt has forgiven him already. He (Abbas) “subsequently repudiated his view” and Lipstadt “fully believes his repudiation.” At least, Lipstadt is flexible enough to amend her ‘academic’ views so they fit into the current Israeli political agenda.

I guess that it would make sense to argue that Lipstadt is continuing to fight what is by now a lost battle. Our past is not a Jewish property. When I read Lipstadt’s pseudo-academic diatribe, I am convinced that aspects of the Zionist view of history must continue to be scrutinised and debated, for history cannot be handled or censored by any form of Yeshiva scholarship, for Yeshiva ideology is the complete opposite of Western spirit, intellectual debate and openness.

Lipstadt asserts, “seventy years ago people had an acceptable reason to say, ‘We could never fathom that Hitler meant what he said.’ Today we no longer have that luxury. At the very least it behooves us to take Ahmadinejad and those among his fellow Muslim leaders and opinion-makers seriously.”

Seemingly Lipstadt urges Western leaders to dismantle Iran and other Muslim countries in the name of the history she doesn’t allow them to revise or scrutinise. I guess that for the sake of world peace, it is necessary to expose people like Lipstadt and her cohort.

In her final paragraph Lipstadt seems to find out what is wrong with the revisionists, “their Holocaust denial is part of their contemporary political agenda.”

In psychological terminology, the above is defined as projection — Lipstadt projects her own symptoms on historical revisionists. It is obviously clear that Lipstadt’s ‘holocaust evangelism’ is there to serve her own Zio-centric political agenda.

The question you may want to ask yourself at this stage is, for how long will we let Yeshiva supremacist Ideology determine our vision of our past? I myself believe that time is ripe to say NO to Jewish Ideology and politics. Enough is certainly enough.

While the mayor and police chief were both found guilty last year, their defenders say the trials have not resolved the conflict. Rachel Conner, a lawyer representing Higginbotham in his appeal, says she has never seen a case with so many flaws. “Essentially, every single thing that you can do to violate someone’s constitutional rights from beginning to end happened in his case,” she says.

The charges and counter charges are difficult to untangle. At the center of the case is a state audit of Waterproof that found irregularities in the town’s record keeping. The Parish District Attorney says the audit shows mayoral corruption. The mayor says the problems pre-date his term, and he had taken steps to correct the issues. The mayor’s opponents claim he stole from the town by illegally increasing his salary. His supporters say he received a raise that was voted on by the town aldermen. The mayor initially faced 44 charges; all but two were dropped before the trial began. Those charges – malfeasance in office and felony theft – were related to the disputed raise and use of the town’s credit card. Miles Jenkins, the police chief, faced charges related to his enforcement of traffic tickets.

The mayor was quickly convicted of both charges but lawyers have raised challenges to the convictions, bringing a number of legal complaints. For example: in a town that is 60% African-American, Mayor Higginbotham had only one Black juror. Higginbotham’s counsel was disqualified by the DA, and the public defender had a conflict of interest, leaving the mayor with no lawyer. Two days before trial began, the DA gave Higginbotham 10 boxes of files related to his case. Higginbotham’s request for an extension to get an attorney and to examine the files was denied.

There’s more: during jury selection, when Higginbotham – forced to act as his own lawyer – tried to strike one juror who had relationships with several of the witnesses, he was told he could not, even though he had challenges remaining. There was also a problem with a sound recorder that the court reporter was using, and as a result there is no transcript at all for at least two witness’ testimony. Finally, during deliberation, the judge gave the jury polling slips that had “guilty” pre-selected, and then later hid the slips.

When Higginbotham was convicted, the judge refused to set bail in any amount. Although a possible sentence for the crime was probation, and despite former mayor’s obvious ties to the community, Higginbotham has spent the last ten months in jail while his lawyers have worked on his appeal. “He’s not a flight risk,” says Conner. “He’s tied to Waterproof and he’s got a vested interest in clearing his name.”

Civil Rights and Black Political Power

Waterproof, Louisiana is a rural town near the Mississippi border best known for holding an immigration detention center. The town – population approximately 800 – sits in Tensas Parish, a mostly agrarian region of the state. Community members say the civil rights movement came late to Tensas – it was the last parish in the state where Black residents were able to register to vote, and the Klan was active until late in the 20th century.

The current troubles began in September of 2006, when Higginbotham was elected mayor of Waterproof. Soon after, he appointed his associate Miles Jenkins as chief of police. Jenkins, who served in the US military for 30 years and earned a master’s degree in public administration from Troy University in Alabama, immediately began the work of professionalizing a small town police department that had previously been mostly inactive. While both Jenkins and Higginbotham are from Waterproof, both had also spent much of their adult lives working in other places, and brought a professional background to their new positions. Allies of Higginbotham and Jenkins say this threatened Parish Sheriff Ricky Jones and DA James Paxton. Annie Watson, a school board member and former volunteer for the mayor, says officers working for Jones told her, “As soon as you people learn that the sheriff controls Tensas Parish, the better off you’ll be.”

The charges against Higginbotham come in a context where many African Americans in Louisiana feel that Black political power in the state – and in the country – is under attack. Tens of thousands of African-American, mostly Democratic, voters remain displaced from the state post-Katrina. For the first time since the post-civil war era, both houses of the legislature have Republican majorities, and every statewide elected official is Republican. The newly-dominant Republican majority will oversee the state’s legislative redistricting, as well as passage of Governor Bobby Jindal’s agenda, which includes large cuts to public education and other services, including the elimination of Southern University of New Orleans, a historically Black state university.

The allegations also come at a time of corruption investigations around the state that many civil rights activists say have disproportionately targeted Black elected officials. Tommy Nelson, the Black mayor of the Louisiana town of New Roads, recently filed a motion in US district court that accuses government investigators of exclusive targeting Black elected officials, beginning with a National Conference of Black Mayors gathering in New Orleans in June 2008. The investigation Nelson refers to resulted in racketeering charges against him, as well as Black elected officials in the Louisiana towns of White Castle and Port Allen. While the Waterproof case is not connected to these other corruption investigations, the cases add context to the charges from allies of Higginbotham that Black political power is the real target of the investigations.

For Conner, the fact that the former mayor remains locked in jail awaiting appeal is the most shocking part of this case. “The vindictiveness, and whatever else is going on under the surface, I think that’s where it shows itself,” she says. Pointing to much more high-profile cases, with much more money involved, Conner asks why Higginbotham is still locked up. “William Jefferson is out on bail, Tom Delay is out,” she says. “And then you’ve got a guy with errors in his trial from A to Z. They didn’t even set three million dollars as his bond. They set no bond.”

The mayor and his allies have filed legal appeals, and are hoping for the US Department of Justice to investigate, or for national media to come in. Tens of thousands of people have signed a petition, initiated by Color Of Change, asking Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to intervene. Chief Jenkins, who still has pending charges, believes that once word gets out, justice will come to Waterproof. “People need to see exactly what is going on in these little southern towns around here,” he says.

How did this happen? The most salient cause for the death of Black Power in Chicago rests with the First Black President, himself, Barack Obama. Harold Washington’s 1983 election as Chicago’s First Black Mayor crowned Chicago as Black America’s political capital. Home to both Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan, Black folks from around the country trekked to Chicago to study and replicate in their own cities the methods and means of Washington’s upset victory.

1983 marked the inauguration of not just a new and progressive Black mayor. Long dormant notions of “Black Power” as the political and economic embodiment of an over-arching philosophy of “Black Nationalism” were reinvigorated by a distinctly Chicago-esq infusion of energy and urgency. A renewed consciousness – a New Black Renaissance – rose phoenix-like amidst the ashes of Ronald Reagan’s all out assault against the cities and all things Black. Throughout Washington’s five-year reign, street gang violence in Chicago’s tougher Black neighborhoods dropped precipitously. A new optimism pervaded those self same neighborhoods. Senior citizens were afforded more honor and respect. Everyone, young people especially, held their heads higher as visions of limitless possibility became real and tangible. Not only a “can-do”, but a must-do spirit prevailed. People actually spoke to each other on the streets.

Basking in the afterglow of Washington’s triumph, Jesse Jackson was an unintended beneficiary of a large measure of Black Chicago’s newfound political capital. He promptly sought to exploit Washington’s success by launching his own now “serious” run for the presidency in 1984. But Washington’s unexpected death just three years later shocked Black Chicago into a state of political paralysis from which it has yet to recover. Thus, beginning in 1989, Black candidate after Black candidate, in election cycle after election cycle, attempted to pick up Washington’s fallen sword of state. Each, by default, assumed the role of Chicago’s Great Black Hope, the most prominent of whom included:

• a former appellate court justice;
• a former state attorney general;
• a sitting congressman;
• a Baptist preacher, and most recently,
• America’s erstwhile First Black Female Senator.

None of these people managed to recapture Washington’s magic, and Richard M. Daley’s Black vote percentages grew with each passing election.

After Washington’s death, Chicago’s united Black community split into assorted pieces and factions — from something called the “Harold Washington Party” to the “Regular” (read white) Democratic Party Organization, which included a significant number of Black aldermen who were beholden to Daley for their appointments to office. A separate set of Black aldermen loyal to Washington’s memory faced off against “Black nationalists” who themselves were at odds with “Black community activists.”

The few “Black capitalists” who owned modest to large real estate holdings, insurance companies, ad agencies, neighborhood banks and currency exchanges, etc. were deeply indebted to the giant national and multi-national banks and mortgage houses downtown. There was (and remains) only one daily Black newspaper (The Chicago Defender), amidst a plethora of neighborhood newsletters. Black presence in electronic media was also negligible, with the exception of religious and various music programming and formats. The one Black radio talk station, WVON (“Voice of the Nation” nee “Voice of the Negro”) saturated the Black community with “black consciousness” programming and was instrumental in getting Washington elected. Black academics generally postured as “nonpartisan” while the ever present Black preachers sat on Daley-dominated boards and commissions which oversaw the systematic dismantling of public education and public housing.

The masses of Chicago’s Black poor and working classes were unevenly dispersed among all these groups and slowly re-adapted to, and ultimately adopted, the new and improved Daley dominance. Adapting his late father’s tried and true pattern of divide and conquer to new conditions, Richard M. Daley patiently, methodically deepened these divisions. He used to full effect the vast power of political patronage, also developed by his father over his 21-year reign as mayor, and placed Black political sycophants in high profile positions while purging his Black political enemies. By the time mayoral election of 2011 rolled around, Black Chicago as a singular and potent political force was little more than a wistful memory.

Daley’s surprise announcement of his retirement after 22 straight years in office caught everybody off guard, especially Chicago’s putative Black power brokers. A farcical mad dash to identify a “consensus Black candidate” began with at least three separate groups of Black “leaders” convening – each ironically proclaiming “Black unity” as its prime directive. And “candidates” sprouted like mushrooms after a spring rain. There were, of course, the usual suspects – a bevy of perennial (professional) candidates, former and current congressmen, community activists, city, county and state elected officeholders, and the ubiquitous black preachers (one of whom was both a state senator and pastor of one of Chicago’s largest “mega churches”).

In a sad irony, dripping with historical overtones, the one Black politician who held the most promise to actually defeat the Daley machine had shot himself in both feet just after Obama became America’s First Black President — Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. Junior had been groomed since his election to Harold’s congressional seat in 1995 to some day succeed Harold Washington as Mayor of Chicago as well. But, in what may only be described as a tragi-comedy, he had disqualified himself by making constant, very public, very loud and obsequious pleas to be named as Obama’s U.S. Senate successor by the indicted (and ultimately impeached and criminally convicted) ex-governor Rod Blagojevich. Further, an allegation surfaced against the married Congressman of an unseemly dalliance with a youthful blond Washington, D.C. “hostess.” Jackson Junior’s less than forthcoming explanations for both incidents ruled him out of the mayoral sweepstakes.

Thus, at one candidates’ forum held at a historic Black Baptist church, over 20 individuals showed up claiming to be “The One.” The one Black candidate, that is, whom Black Chicago was looking for as the rightful heir, protector and embodiment of Harold Washington’s legacy.

Early in the First Black President’s term his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, publicly declared that he considered the mayoralty of Chicago as his ultimate “dream” job – but would only seek that office if the current mayor, Richard M. Daley (after 21 consecutive years in office), chose not to run again. This pronouncement set in motion a fast-moving and apparently unstoppable train of events: The First Black President rushed to bless his Chief of Staff’s aspirations, dutifully declaring that Rahm would make a “great” mayor of Chicago. Daley, as if on cue, promptly announced his retirement, citing, among other reasons for his decision, family issues (sick wife). The First Black President’s Chief of Staff, again in turn, resigned and returned to Chicago to run for his now suddenly open “dream job.” (Of course, it was merely coincidental that Rahm Emanuel had once also served as Daley’s Chief of Staff). And then, the pièce de résistance: As Emanuel’s replacement, the First Black President nominated the mayor’s very own brother, William Daley, recently a Wall Street honcho and past heavyweight in the Clinton regime, as his new Chief of Staff. Emanuel went on to soundly defeat all comers, Black and Hispanic. The Hispanic vote split between two prominent Hispanic candidates. Conveniently, all potential white candidates had dropped out of the mayoral sweepstakes earlier – actually well before the contest moved even into second gear — without having attended so much as one “white candidate consensus” meeting. The circle had been squared and all is now right with the world.

Black people in Chicago, particularly the elderly, and more particularly elderly Black women, seem to believe that the First Black President can do no wrong. They supported and voted for Emanuel not because he represented anything that might actually help them or our people. They voted for Emanuel because the First Black President told them to. They voted for Emanuel so that the First Black President would not be “embarrassed” by his “base” constituency in his “home town.” How else to explain their desertion of a Black woman, who despite her many flaws, was much more so than Rahm Emanuel or even Obama, himself, ever could be, of them, from them? These people are simply, plainly, thankful that they have lived long enough to see a putatively “Black” family in the White House. His presence alone appears to have satisfied them. His presence alone appears to have compensated them for their long sojourn and travail at the absolute bottom of white America’s political, economic, cultural, social, and racial hierarchies.

Thus, the First Black President is routinely excused for every insult or disrespectful position, policy or utterance he makes with regard to Black people. More often than not, however, he simply ignores Black people and their longstanding “issues.” This First Black President pretends that there is no “Black Agenda” separate or distinct from the larger framework of “America.” (The “rising tide” syndrome). We must understand, his indefatigable supporters argue, the unique pressures that he is under; that for him to openly embrace anything “Black” would alienate him from that minority among whites who put him over the top in 2008 and who will be necessary in 2012 for his re-election. It is then, they believe – hope — that Obama’s “blackness” will come to the fore, when he has no more elections to worry about, when he does not have to answer to the big moneyed people on Wall Street or any other street. Then he will turn his attention to Black people and their unresolved problems.

I agree to a point. At that time, of course, just as he did 30 days prior to the 2010 mid-term elections, the First Black President will re-discover the 40 million Black people who have unwaveringly supported him. But whether he also rediscovers his own blackness, his half-blackness, as well remains to be seen. Until that time, though, Black people should expect more of the same from this First Black President: not much bread, but any number of circuses, with him as the leading purveyor of a particularly venomous snake oil.

Each lie you embrace means you blind yourself to a truth.

— John Trudell

We are well disposed, as Native People, to stress and express our indigenous heritage. We display our crafts, speak our language, dance our dances and share our stories.

Of course, all these vital expressions of our culture and their continuation are essential to our survival as a distinct and separate people. What I fear we neglect too often, however, is to take the additional steps necessary to promote the real foundation of all of this and the true key to our survival — Indigenous Thought.

How do we think as Indigenous People and how does that thought process affect our world view and our value system? Is an indigenous existence about more than just the physical manifestations of our culture? What is the true foundation of our identity?

These are indeed questions with far-reaching implications and they would require a great deal of time spent in honest reflection to answer, which is precisely the point. This is an exercise we need to engage in.

More than an exercise, this is a journey that we must embark upon both individually and collectively with the ultimate destination being a place of consensus. Like all journeys it must have a beginning and a path ahead which we can more easily find by determining a point of reference. To begin here we will use a point of reference that has been the topic of much discussion lately and is familiar to most — American politics.

As an Indigenous person, I’ve been asked my opinion on the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, and to these inquiries I have expressed a “cautious optimism.” I explain that this optimism was not based on a party affiliation or political philosophy. I understand that Native People have not prospered in the two hundred plus years of this country being ruled by a singular ethnicity, so the monumental shift in just that reality was enough to give space for hope.

But as Indigenous People what were we hoping for, what do we look for beyond the rhetoric and the promises? If we are indeed a Native People with an indigenous world view, then we must look to the issues that affect us here and around the world. Indigenous Peoples have a relationship to each other and to the land that birth us and sustains us, relationships that are at the core of our identity and value system. It is these relationships that we need to make the foundation of our political evaluations also.

So if Indigenous People are going to evaluate the Obama presidency or any other political leader, then we must use our own value system to do it with. To us the opinions of Air America or Fox News should never be as relevant as the continued effects of government policies and actions on Indigenous Peoples here and around the world.

The Christian bible tells us that “faith is the substance of things hoped for” and indeed that is exactly where our attention needs to be focused, on the substance. No matter how much we long to hope we must temper that desire with a commitment to truth.

There is an old story among Indigenous People that is meant to caution us about the merits of clear thinking. The details vary from tribe to tribe but the core message is always consistent.

Many years ago a young hunter was making his way through the swamp in search of game with which he could feed his family. He had been gone from home several days and thus far all the deer had eluded him.

As he stepped around a large Cyprus tree directly in his path, there was a particularly large rattlesnake, sante’lo in the language of the hunter. The snake and the hunter eyed each other suspiciously as the snake began to rattle and the hunter notched an arrow to his bow.

“Let us not get carried away here young warrior,” cautioned the sante’lo. “I see from your appearance that both our hunts are not going well.”

“My belly is empty, perhaps your flesh will provide enough substance to keep me going for another day,” replied the hunter.

“I’m sure my underfed body would be of some use, but if you will spare my life I can offer much more. I know of a place where there is more than enough game for both our needs, but I have not the strength left to get there on my own. If you will carry me there, I will show you the way,” offered the sante’lo.

“And if I let you near me, you will not bite me?” asked the hunter, well aware of the natural instincts of the snake.

“I am so hungry,” replied the sante’lo, “for now we are allies.”

The hunter weighed the offer, fearful of letting his guard down but also willing to ignore his natural cautions to relieve the pangs of hunger.

So together they traveled many miles to the west till the sante’lo led him to a large chênière, an oak-covered ridge of high ground in the swamp.

Seeing the countless deer that inhabited the place, the hunter absently set the snake down. Facing away, with his guard down, he was caught by surprise when the sante’lo stuck him on the leg. Looking down at his still bleeding wound he then looked to the snake in astonishment.

“Why do you look surprised” asked sante’lo, “I am, after all, a snake.”

So has the election of November 2008 brought about a seismic shift in the paradigm of American politics or are the changes merely “skin deep?” I believe by examining the new, seemingly benevolent, face of the empire we can know with some assurance what lies in the heart of sante’lo.

Paradigms of Conflict and Identity

From the moment of European landfall in the Americas there has been a consistent, relentless war waged against native people not only physically, socially and culturally but also intellectually.

From the very beginning the two choices presented to Indigenous People were assimilate or die. At the dawn of the American empire these options were the basis for what came to be known as United States Indian Policy.

…In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi.

— Thomas Jefferson to William Henry Harrison, 1803

American history tells us that Jefferson’s vision of a nation of yeomen farmers was the basis for his Indian policy. We are told that he sought to assimilate tribes into this benevolent republic by having them reject their culture and society and embrace the advanced civilization of the man from Europe.

What is not emphasized, of course, is the all encompassing requirements of this assimilating process. Concepts ingrained in Indigenous world views such as collective land ownership, equal rights of women, and environmental stewardship were deemed “primitive” and were to be cast aside.

Of course, there were attempts at accommodation, most notable being the Cherokee People who adopted many of the European lifeways but at the same time sought to protect the inherent sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation. Concessions were made with the hopes of peaceful coexistence with the growing American empire but in the end there would be no place for sovereign, independent native people. The fate that awaited the Cherokee Nation on the Trail of Tears and beyond was foreseen by one of their greatest leaders decades before it actually transpired, a perfect example of the vision afforded by true Indigenous Thought.

Whole Indian nations have melted away like snowballs in the sun before the white man’s advance. They leave scarcely a name of our people except those wrongly recorded by their destroyers. Where are the Delawares? They have been reduced to a mere shadow of their former greatness. We had hoped that the white man would not be willing to travel beyond the mountains. Now that hope is gone. They have passed the mountains and have settled on Cherokee lands. They wish to have that action sanctioned by treaty. When that is gained, the same encroaching spirit will lead them upon other land of the Cherokees. New cessions will be asked. Finally the whole country, which the Cherokees and their fathers have long occupied, will be demanded, and the remnant of Ani-Yunwiya, The real people, once so great and formidable, will be compelled to seek refuge in some distant wilderness. There they will not be permitted to stay but a short while, until they again behold the advancing banners of the same greedy host. Not being able to point out any further retreat for the miserable Cherokees, the extinction of the whole race will be proclaimed. Should we not therefore run all risks, and incur all consequences, rather than submit to further loss of our country? Such treaties may be alright for men who are too old to hunt or fight. As for me, I have my young warriors about me. We will have our lands.

— A-Waninski, I have spoken.”
— Tsi’yu-gunsini (Dragging Canoe)
— Chickamauga Cherokee Chief

Dragging Canoe was one of the hundreds of Indigenous leaders who fought for the survival of their people, leaders whose names we still respect and admire today. King Phillip, Little Turtle, Tecumseh, Osceola, Sitting Bull, and many more, are our heroes and our inspiration. But what were they fighting for and how do those struggles relate to our world view today and to our understanding of the concept of Indigenous Thought?

We are taught in school that the various Indian “uprisings” were either massacres perpetuated by renegades or noble struggles of a dying race. The important part of the story, as told by the American education system, is that in the end “we” won. As the story is told, by 1890 the Indian Wars were over and the United States was on the path to fulfill its “Manifest Destiny.” It is of little wonder then why the graduates of this system fail to understand why some Indigenous People within this country still cling to a philosophy of resistance. Indeed they question the very existence of Indigenous Nations in the face of two centuries of assimilation and wonder why there is not the universal acceptance of being American.

And, indeed, the notion of identity is a key pillar in the understanding of true Indigenous Thought. As native people we have done great harm to ourselves and hindered our own intellectual ability by accepting the names and places assigned to us by the now dominate society. To truly see through indigenous eyes we must first truly see ourselves.

Tribal identity was another strong point of the traditional Indians. They did not, in many instances, even bother to use the word Indian unless they used it in a derisive manner; it was too broad and generalized a definition. Uninformative about social and kinship responsibilities, it seemed only an ethnic label that whites had pinned on their tribe. Anyone could act like an Indian; it took a certain amount of self-discipline and knowledge of the customs to act like a Lakota, a Navajo, a Nez Perce, or a Crow.

— The Nations Within, Deloria and Lytle

The ongoing debate over whether we prefer to be called Native American or American Indian is an indicator of the confusion among native people over the concept of identity. Both sides have their talking points and their reasoning but neither argument is based on coherent Indigenous Thought.

I realize that in this modern world of paper-work mountains and digital valleys the system has to identify and categorize us. That is precisely my problem; I see both monikers as the ethnic identifiers that are used to distinguish us from the rest of the ingredients in this great melting pot called America. When we internalize these terms we have, in essence, accepted the definition assigned to us.

Je suis Houmas, I am Houma, I was born to the Houma people, raised in a Houma community, a citizen of the United Houma Nation, and have come to look at the world around me from a Houma perspective. My identity is neither generic nor hyphenated but rather it is purposeful and specific.

In this world of blood quorums and CDIBs an indigenous person quite often hears the question, “How much Indian are you?” Somehow I have a hard time imagining white people being pestered with the “How white are you?” question but the real disappointment comes when these sorts of questions come from Native People.

The proper context for a discussion of my indigenous identity is not centered on my ethnicity or my genealogy. Though I acknowledge and treasure my Houma ancestry, my identity, especially as it relates to the American people and government, is not so much founded in genetics as it is in politics. My indigenous identity, in this context, is based on my citizenship in an Indigenous Nation and that Nation’s relationship to the international community and to the United States in particular.

Where we lose focus is when we concentrate on the concept of the historic Indian or the historic Indian tribe. Nothing is more insulting than to be called a “descendant of the historic Houma” as if I were some walking, talking relic. This is the same mindset that relegates Indigenous cultures to the “Museum of Natural History” as if all that we were went out of existence with the dinosaurs. I am not a “descendant of the historic Houma,” I am Houma!

My identity exists today, I exist today, and my people exist today. Yes, like all people we have a history, but we are still here. We are not sitting in some rest stop along the historic timeline but rather we have made it as a people into the twenty-first century with the rest of the world.

To most Americans those generic Indian identifiers come with images of feathers, pow-wows and teepees. Their concept of the indigenous inhabitants of this continent never rises above the last John Wayne movie or for the real progressives there is the Dances With Wolves stereotype. So when they are confronted with a camouflage-clad Mohawk warrior standing in defense of his land and his people in the present day, they become lost in a sea of preconceived notions.

Unfortunately when we see ourselves as a hyphenated being we cannot clearly and coherently view the world around us as we were meant to. Deloria and Lytle, in the quote above, make the distinction between “traditional” and “ethnic” Indians while the famed Seneca jurist and intellectual, Robert Odawi Porter, in The Demise of the Ongwehoweh and the Rise of the Native Americans, termed the distinctions “Ongwehoweh” and “Native Americans.” Both works see a division among native people reflecting the degree of their embrace and acceptance of the American system in preference to their own traditions.

Of course we must understand that Indigenous Thought is not based in a fantasy world in which we all don fatigues and take up AK-47s and drive the white man back across the ocean. True Indigenous Thought is not now are ever was based on unrealistic assumptions but was rather founded on firm ideals and concepts.

Tecumseh’s goal was to clear space on the ground for the free and unfettered existence of Onkwehonwe. His goal was not to live without white government, culture, and society, but to live against them. To do this today, Onkwehonwe warriors will need to engage the colonizer in a rebellion of truth, redefine the meaning of our renewed world in a mystic vision of struggle and justice, and force a reckoning with our regenerated and unified Onkwehonwe power through rites of resurgence. This is the warrior’s path of spiritual self-determination that has been laid before us by the ancestors and the Brothers and Sisters who share our values and vision.

— Taiaiake Alfred, Wasa’se

True Indigenous Thought gives us the ability to see the world around us for what it is and to help us navigate the path that leads us to the survival of our people. Our struggle is not for civil rights and a place at the table; rather our struggle is for the survival of our Indigenous Nations and for that we must be able to distinguish truth from rhetoric. So let us look at the “new” political reality brought by the presidential elections of 2008 and examine, from an indigenous perspective, the face of American politics.

War is Peace?

There are those who would accuse us of being naive, of not understanding the complexities of the modern world. They would see the philosophy behind our intellectual exercise as flawed because we look at the world in black and white without appreciating the intricacies of grey.

From our perspective it is not a matter of not understanding western thought and philosophy but rather the inverse, we understand very well. We have seen the effects it has had on our people, our culture, our society for centuries and it is that knowledge that inspires us to seek the separation Tecumseh and the others fought for.

The famed Dakota philosopher warned us over a century ago about the effects of internalizing a system that was so foreign to our own in many ways. He had seen how those who had come before him had sought to integrate the economic policies of colonizers and he had witnessed the devastation that had come to indigenous society as a result.

Once we had departed from the broad democracy and pure idealism of our prime, and had undertaken to enter upon the world’s game of competition, our rudder was unshipped, our compass lost, and the whirlwind and tempest of materialism and love of conquest tossed us to and fro like leaves in a wind.

— Ohiyesa (Charles Eastman)

So above all we must be honest with ourselves and look at the realities of American politics through the eyes of our culture and our history. We must examine current events truthfully, not with naivety but with the clarity of vision our ancestors used to guide our people towards a secure future. We cannot deal with political reality as an Indigenous People if we subject our judgment to the whims of our feelings alone. As we said in the beginning hope is a wonderful thing but for hope to be effective it must be founded on substance.

In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

— George Orwell

When lies rule, a warrior creates new truths for the people to believe.

— Taiaiake Alfred, Wasa’se

To lead our people into the century ahead we need a revolution. Not a revolution of violence, however, but rather a revolution of truth. To survive as Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Nations we must face the reality of our existence and make real choices based on those observations.

In 2009 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Barack Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” This was said in spite of the fact that he had just began his term in office and was, in fact, the Commander and Chief of the United States Armed Forces that were engaged in two major conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

During his acceptance speech the President touched on many subjects including the United States’ well publicized penchant for torturing captives in its war on terror.

That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have affirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions.

— President Barack Obama, Nobel Prize Speech

As the President was affirming these commitments in Geneva, the United States Supreme Court was hearing the case brought against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld by four British citizens who had been prisoners in the same Guantanamo Prison he spoke of.

While Obama spoke of his appreciation of the Geneva Conventions, lawyers from his Justice Department were arguing against the four British former prisoners. The contention of the U.S. Government is that there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or abused in any American prison abroad. The Obama administration sought and eventually got the Supreme Court to refuse to hear the case. This affirmed the lower court ruling that torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants.

During the years of the Bush/Cheney administration we had little difficulty in seeing the living reality of American empire. Indeed the unapologetic embrace of imperialism was very evident as they pursued their Middle East “crusade” against Islam. To a large extent the Peace Prize was awarded to President Obama because he ended the bellicose rhetoric of empire but looking beyond words we see the glaring lack of substance to this new found hope.

While the President spoke in admiration of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., he then dismissed their philosophies of peace saying that he could not be guided by their examples alone. He spoke of the necessity of “just wars” and indeed we have heard these sentiments expressed many times before. America is perceived, at least by Americans, as a peace loving nation that only engages in warfare when it must to preserve the peace. While most U.S. citizens can speak of the major conflicts such as the Civil War, World Wars I and II, or Vietnam few realize that their country has continuously been engaged in some sort of military endeavor from1776 to the present day.

Of course, Dr. King saw and understood this, and he expressed this revelation in a manner you will not hear from President Obama or any other governmental official.

Their question hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government

— Martin Luther King, “Beyond Vietnam”

What King so clearly understood, and what we must see as Indigenous People, is that Indigenous Thought is merely the clear, cognitive expression of a human being. It is the understanding that beyond nation, race, and creed there are certain principals that unite us as human beings and give us the foundation to build societies based on real values. This must be the substance on which true hope is based. Indeed in this same speech Dr. King called us to this vision of our common humanity.

This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation’s self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls “enemy,” for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

— Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam

We as indigenous people must be very observant of the tendencies of empire to justify its aggressive nature on the activities of the “other.” Today the other is a Terrorist, in days past he was a Communist, a Socialist, at one time he was a Spaniard but even before that there was a time when the other that justified the “just war” was an Indian.

This is, unfortunately, not some obscure historical analogy; the Obama administration is actively postulating a link between the indigenous resistance of the Seminole People in nineteenth century Florida and their modern “terrorist” enemies. In its continued attempt to prosecute Ali al Bahlul on terrorism charges at Guantanamo (yes the same Guantanamo the President vowed to close in 2009) the U.S. Government is again attempting to bathe its imperialistic history in the clear cleansing solution of patriotic rhetoric.

Ambrister and Arbuthnot, both British subjects without any duty or allegiance to the United States, were tried and punished for conduct amounting to aiding the enemy. Examination of their case reveals that their conduct was viewed as wrongful, in that they were assisting unlawful hostilities by the Seminoles and their allies. Further, not only was the Seminole belligerency unlawful, but much like modern-day al Qaeda, the very way in which the Seminoles waged war against U.S. targets itself violated the customs and usage of war. Because Ambrister and Arbuthnot aided the Seminoles both to carry on an unlawful belligerency and to violate the laws of war, their conduct was wrongful and punishable.¹

Ambrister and Arbuthnot were captured, tried and executed by the army of General Andrew Jackson. Jackson had been tasked with fighting the Seminole “insurgents” in Georgia but soon used the conflict as an excuse to illegally invade Spanish Florida. It was in the course of this campaign, burning villages and exterminating “hostiles” outside the territory of the United States, that Jackson initiated this conviction and execution. As to the “unlawful Seminole belligerency,” they were indeed guilty of defending their people and lands and seeking to protect the villages of runaway slaves that had sought refuge among them. Despite the high sounding intentions espoused by the U.S. historical narrative what brought Jackson to Spanish Florida was the damage being done to the business of chattel slavery by the runaways and the desire for U.S. territorial expansion.

The above referenced document also tells us that: “A number of leading figures shared the view that the conduct of Ambrister and Arbuthnot was illegal.” These are given to us as President James Monroe and Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, both of which sought plausible deniability for Jackson’s foray into Spanish territory but protected him from any punishment for his actions. Both, of course, take partial credit for the eventual annexation of Florida.

So, we are asked, is the basis of Indigenous Thought the rehashing of America’s sins long past? To answer this we would need to make two important observations. The first would be that for Native People the Indian Wars did not end in 1890. At Black Mesa, Newe Segobia and many other places the struggle is ongoing. The second observation would be that the battle is global in nature and goes far beyond the borders of the United States. From the Mapuche in Chile and Argentina to the Ogoni in Nigeria and a thousand places in between Indigenous People struggle around the globe for the same “space on the ground” that Tecumseh died for in 1813.

Opposed to this is a capitalistic free-market philosophy that promotes the ascendancy of the individual and the God-given right to the accumulation of wealth. It is prefaced on the never ending growth of capital that has bequeath on us a world in which twenty percent of the worlds population controls eighty percent of the world resources. Despite all excuses to the contrary, “just wars” are fought primarily to maintain and expand this imbalance. This is the antitheses of Indigenous Thought; it is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow of assimilation.

This struggle has multiple degrees and variations between the extremes of the scale but the warnings of Ohiyesa must be appreciated. If we give ourselves to the philosophy of consumption we will eventually be “tossed to and fro like leaves in a wind.” All the paths of assimilation eventually lead to our abandonment of indigenous intellectual capacity and the acceptance of western thought processes. This process has come to us with colonization and has been making inroads into our society for centuries. This is not to say that there are no good, positive influences outside of indigenous society. On the contrary, for a culture to live it must grow and change with the influences it encounters but this can only be accomplished by meeting these influences from a position of strength. In this way, Indigenous Thought becomes the gate-keeper that allows us access to the worlds outside our own while still protecting those attributes that are the foundations of our existence as Indigenous Peoples.

In western culture great importance is placed on the rights ascribed to the individual within his society. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the legacy passed down to them by their founders. In Indigenous society, it is not rights but responsibilities that are passed to us. We who live today must maintain and pass on the legacy left to us. For myself there is an intrinsic value in being Houma that goes beyond mere words. My sense of self, my world view, my conscience, my faith are all linked to the reality of my identity, and it is this value system that I pass on to my children and grandchildren and those that will follow.

I would argue that there is something intrinsically unique about being “Indigenous” that must be sustained into the future. This intrinsic uniqueness is far more than being able to claim that one descended from some Indian that lived hundreds of years ago. It is possessing a bundle of attributes — such as language and culture — that must be preserved, strengthened, and regenerated in order to maintain a collective existence as separate and distinct people. The absence of such attributes is a hallmark characteristic of an assimilated and extinct people.

— Robert Odawi Porter, Pursuing the Path of Indigenization

Indigenous Thought leads us on a path of resurgence that saves us from ethnocide and cultural genocide and guides us towards a revitalized Indigenous existence. This is a foundation for hope that no politician or government official could ever give us but it requires our active participation in the process.

If we embrace the culture that represses us, we can only reflect the thoughts and aspirations of that mindset. We have to make a determined effort to educate ourselves and ground ourselves in our own cultural expression.

To my Indigenous brothers and sisters I say take nothing for granted, not even these words written here. Examine them, debate them, and prove them in the fires of your own native reality. Resolve to face the challenges ahead with the heart and mind of an indigenous person.

If Native Nations are to survive, they have to be lead by people who are not American-Indian, or Native-American, or any other hyphenated ethnic minority.  It must be lead by people who know who and what they are, our hope will be in the hearts of a people who are firmly anchored in their perceptions and identity.

1. United States v. Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman Al Bahlul, Appellee’s Response to Specified Issues, 11 March 2011

Writes Fisk, “Gaddafi is a fruitcake and … he probably does occasionally chew carpets as well” and “Gaddafi is completely bonkers, flaky, a crackpot on the level of Ahmadinejad of Iran and Lieberman of Israel…” Yes, Fisk did add in Lieberman, but the implication is that Arab rulers are flakes while flakes do not become rulers in Israel.

Fisk avers that seldom do fruitcakes rule in Europe: “The Middle East seems to produce these ravers – as opposed to Europe, which in the past 100 years has only produced Berlusconi, Mussolini, Stalin and [Hitler] …”

Fisk acknowledges that “there is a racist element in all this.”

And for Fisk, the apple does not fall far from the tree, as he describes Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, as “crazed” and states the father-son “should meet their just rewards, along with their henchmen?”

Did Fisk ever write that Bush Sr and Bush Jr “should meet their just rewards, along with their henchmen?” Does Fisk ever describe the mercenaries² of the US, UK, Canada, etc. as “henchmen?” Is this not tendentious reporting, if not racist?

When did Fisk become a psychologist?

What makes western rulers such as George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, David Cameron, Stephen Harper saner than Gaddafi? Was aggressing Iraq on a contrived pretext and slaughtering upwards of a million Iraqis and forcing millions more to become refugees sane?

Can mass murders be sane? Is not mass murder the apical quintessence of sociopathology? Meanwhile, the killing continues under Obama whose sanity Fisk has never called into question.

Fisk’s entire piece is tinged with bias and demonization. For example, he writes of “Gaddafi’s tanks,” but would he write of “Blair’s tanks,”³ Cameron’s planes, or Obama’s warships?

What are readers supposed to deduce from Fisk’s superfluous ad hominem? Has he lost a journalistic marble or two?

That Arabs are saddled with authoritarian rulers is immensely due to western states foisting such rulers upon the people, as Fisk well knows.

Instead of rabbiting on about the mental delusions of Arab or Iranian rulers, Fisk might define sanity for his readers and what makes western rulers such as Bush, Blair, Cameron, Obama sane versus Middle Eastern rulers. Otherwise, he is casting stones from a glasshouse.

Fisk realizes that the invasion of Libya now is “a Nato force committed to regime-change…”; however, he does not delve much into the more important matter of whether regime change is legitimate or sane.

He does address whether “we” should be the ones to invade. In doing so he neglects recent history when he writes: “However bad our behaviour in the past, what should we do now?” He finds such a question is too late. Late or not, surely a retreat into a distant past is unnecessary when invasions/occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti and succor to coups in Honduras and Venezuela are current history. And there is the decades-old, ongoing western — overt and tacit — support for the dispossession of, discrimination against, and killing of Palestinians.

Gaddafi may well be mentally unbalanced, but he is not launching insane massive invasions of far-flung countries. Criticizing his long tenure as a “leader” in Libya is also fine; however, this criticism should be applied equally to other countries. There is virtually no US criticism of the unelected Abdullahs in Jordan or Saudi Arabia, the unelected king Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa in Bahrain, nor was there of the despotic ruler of Egypt — Hosni Mubarak.

Surely what “we” should not be doing now is focusing on psychologically assessing the mental fitness of rulers from afar, while giving free passes to “our” own rulers who are, at a minimum, accomplices in mass killing. As for colonially created nation states, I submit what they should do now is try to undo the monumental crimes they committed against Indigenous peoples whose land they stole and remain in occupation of before passing judgement on others.

1. Robert Fisk, “First it was Saddam. Then Gaddafi. Now there’s a vacancy for the West’s favourite crackpot tyrant,” Independent (UK), 19 March 2011.
2. Mercenary is arguably an apt term for fighters in western “volunteer” militaries because surely a number of them enlisted for a paycheck
3. My internet search turned up nothing attributable to Fisk on this nor for “Blair’s warships,” “Blair’s ships,” “Blair’s planes,” and since the British public is Fisk’s main readership, this search was deemed sufficient. I leave it to more diligent readers to try and snoop out such a quotation.

What is Bahrain?

Bahrain is a tiny nation consisting of 33 islands with a territory of about 717 square miles (to put that into context, it is about 3.5 times the size of Washington, DC). ¹ The country is located in the Persian Gulf midway between the Qatar peninsula and Saudi Arabia. In 1986, Bahrain opened the 16 mile King Fahd causeway which links it directly to Saudi Arabia. The Persian Gulf contains the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s vital oil choke points. The importance of this choke point gives Bahrain a strategic location. Further, as Bahrain is positioned between Iran and Saudi Arabia, it is perceived as essential in checking Iran’s regional influence.

Bahrain became a British Protectorate in 1866 and retained its protectorate status until gaining formal independence on August 5, 1971. Some media outlets have asserted, with little evidence, that Iran considers Bahrain to be its “fourteenth province.” These allegations perhaps stem from a statement attributed to Ali Akbar Nateq-Nuri, an Iranian government official. As will be explained in more detail below, the reasons for exaggerating Iranian influence in Bahrain are readily explicable. For now, it is worth noting that Iran formally accepts United Nations Security Council Resolution 278 which explicitly endorses Bahrain’s independence asserting that, as a “sovereign state,” Bahrain should be “free to decide for itself its relations with other states.”² Consistent with this, the Bahraini leadership, according to classified cables released by Wikileaks, does not take Iran’s alleged comments seriously.³

Although Bahrain is considered one of the more liberal Gulf States, competitors include such bastions of liberty as Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Qatar. The country has been ruled by the ‘soft’ fist of the Khalifa family since 1783. Sheikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, the current king, took power when his father died in 1999. Like many US designated “moderates” in the region, Hamad is friendly to American interests and received his formal education in Western institutions (Cambridge, the US Army Command and Staff College). On February 15, 2002, Bahrain became a nominal constitutional monarchy with a bicameral legislation. However, the King appoints the 40 member upper house (Majlis al-Shura); the commanders of the armed forces; all judges and governors; and is legally able to amend the constitution and write law.⁴ His uncle, Prime Minister Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa, is currently the longest serving Prime Minister in the world. The twenty-five member cabinet Salman Al Khalifa presides over contains 20 members from the royal family. The lower house (Majlis Al-Nuwab), which is directly elected, has little power in shaping the affairs of the nation.

Bahrain has experienced rapid population growth over the last 10 years. Most of this growth can be attributed to the ever increasing presence of guest workers, who now comprise 54% of the Bahraini population (most guest workers are from Southwest India).⁵ Undoubtedly the largest demographic issue in Bahrain is the majority Shia population. Approximately 70% of native Bahrainis are Shi’ites, while the ruling family and most elites are Sunnis. This state of affairs has led to a quasi-apartheid mentality among the Sunni ruling family. Currently, Shi’ites are not allowed to work in the army, the intelligence service, or the police force, nor are they fairly represented in top-level governmental positions.⁶ Indeed, as Nicholas Kristof wrote of the Khalifa’s attitude toward Shi’ites in his New York Times Blog: “the language of the ruling party sounds a lot to me like the language of white South Africans — or even like the language of white southerners in Jim Crow America, or the language of militant Israeli settlers in the West Bank. There’s a fear of the rabble, a distrust of full democracy, a sense of entitlement.”⁷

The Protests

While myriad variables contributed to the Bahraini uprising, there are systematic factors which allow for greater understanding of the protestors’ grievances. Certainly the uprising in Tunisia, which led President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to flee on January 14, and the later uprising in Egypt, which led to the eventual overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, played a large role in emboldening those individuals already infuriated with the Khalifa regime. However, the protests are not simply the result of “contagion.” Aside from sectarian tensions, Bahrain is home to a swelling youth population (median age is 30.1 years, see reference 1), many of whom have watched the Sunni elite appropriate land to construct luxurious buildings and mega-malls: an attempt to attract tourists from the region and rich investors from Europe and the United States. At the same time, inner-city and village conditions have deteriorated and environmental degradation is rampant.⁸ Finance comprises 25% of Bahrain’s GDP, making the nation a “regional financial hub” according to the Heritage Foundation, which lauds the Kingdom’s “commitment to structural reforms” and “openness to global commerce.”⁹

Bahrain has followed what geographer David Harvey calls “accumulation by dispossession.”¹⁰ This form of neoliberal accumulation entails financialization, commodification, privatization, and state redistribution to elite sectors. For too long, the human costs of these policies have fallen on the majority Shia population while the Sunni elite have reaped the benefits. Unlike other nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council, Bahrain lacks the Croesusesque petroleum wealth to satiate its population through the provision of free housing, education, health care, food subsidies and jobs for life. This lack of provisioning has led some commentators to assert that the nation’s issues lie in the perceived breach of a tribal social contract that entails the tit of acquiescence to tyranny for the tat of guaranteed social welfare. ¹¹

While neoliberalism goes some way toward explaining recent protests, the oppression of Shi’ites, as partially documented above, is an important factor. The Shia majority has protested on and off for decades with nothing yet to show for their efforts. In 2006, Dr. Salah Al Bandar allegedly uncovered a conspiracy headed by government officials who wished to foment sectarian strife and keep the majority population oppressed. The conspiracy included spying on Shi’ites and subsidizing new Sunni converts.¹² Many Shi’ites believe that the government fast-tracks Sunni naturalization in order to alter the demographic balance. This widespread belief is supported both by demographic statistics and by Dr. Bandar’s report. Through 2008 and 2009, there were increasing reports of Shi’ites suffering oppression and humiliation at the hands of the Sunni elite. Poor Shia villages around the capital, Manama, reported unemployment rates up to 50%. This while foreign nationals, who are willing to work for a lower wage, were entering the country at alarming rates. Shi’ites also complained that they faced discriminatory hiring in the public sector.¹³ In 2009, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights documented continuing religious discrimination against Shi’ites, including the ridicule of their beliefs on state-sponsored television.¹⁴ As tensions between Shi’ites and the government mounted, protests in Shia villages were organized nightly. The Khalifa regime sent Sunnis to bring order to the villages, leading to even more discontent and anger.

The grievances documented above are selective. It is possible to fill a large volume documenting the Khalifa clique’s many abuses of Shi’ites. This combination of neoliberal dispossession, overt oppression, and contagion from the Arab Revolt proved to be more than enough to spark an uprising. The current protests began on February 14, 2011, which marked the tenth anniversary of the National Action Charter.¹⁵ On February 14-15, two protesters were reportedly killed. Subsequently, protesters moved to Pearl Roundabout in central Manama where, on the 17th and 18th, riot police attacked with tear gas, rubber bullets, live rounds, and metallic pellets. Many of the protesters who suffered injuries were moved to Salmaniya hospital which reported being filled with injured protesters, some of whom were arriving “with their brains blown out.”¹⁶ There have been at least seven confirmed deaths and over 200 injuries since the protests began.¹⁷

After the government crackdown, Washington, no doubt embarrassed by the actions of its ally, strongly urged restraint. The White House issued a statement which read in part: “As a long-standing partner of Bahrain, the President said that the United States believes that the stability of Bahrain depends upon respect for the universal rights of the people of Bahrain, and a process of meaningful reform that is responsive to the aspirations of all Bahrainis.”¹⁸ The tone is now one of reconciliation and national dialogue between the government of Bahrain and the protesters. Although the protests have continued, the government, restrained by Washington, has been much more circumspect in its response (see below on the “Bahrain model”).

US Interests in Bahrain

The US has obvious interests in the Middle East which involve possessing unfettered control of the oil resources of the region. Such control has long been understood to give the possessor tremendous international leverage. This desired control has led the US to pursue a policy which involves supporting rulers who obey its orders and opposing any signs of independence in the region, especially the scourge of independent nationalism.¹⁹ Dictators who follow Washington’s orders, even if rulers of theocratic and patriarchic states, are often given the label ‘moderate’ by commentators and pundits. As Stephen Zunes puts it:

The term [moderate] is used primarily in reference to governments that have been friendly to the United States and its foreign policy goals in the Middle East; it has also been used in reference to governments that have been relatively less hostile towards Israel and U.S.-led peace initiatives. In either case, there is virtually no correlation between this label and a given government’s record on democracy and human rights.²⁰

Human rights and democracy are of little importance to the US. Instead, the drivers of policy are furthering “national security interests” and maintaining or promoting “stability.” These terms, like most American political argot, need to be translated from the imperial tongue. “National security interest” generally refers to policies that are perceived to benefit elite sectors of the population and has little to do with true security. Indeed, many actions undertaken in the name of “national security” have predictably made the US less safe, such as the March, 2003 invasion of Iraq.²¹

“Stability,” per Noam Chomsky, refers to the “maintenance of specific forms of domination and control, and easy access to resources and profits.”²² Bahrain is an important strategic ally of the US: it promotes “stability” in the Gulf, and is vital to the administration’s goal of checking the “destabilizing” influence of Iran. Thus, supporting Bahrain furthers our nation’s “national security interests.” Not surprisingly, the Al-Khalifas are “moderates” in US nomenclature.

A key element of Bahrain’s strategic importance is its location in the Persian Gulf through which about a fifth of the oil supplies of the world pass. Furthering Bahrain’s importance, it is the home of the US Navy Fifth Fleet which was logistically important in both Iraq wars, helps guard the strategic Strait of Hormuz, and serves as a counterweight to Iran in the Gulf. As explained on its official website, the Fifth Fleet “conducts persistent maritime operations to forward U.S. interests, deter and counter disruptive countries, defeat violent extremism and strengthen partner nations’ maritime capabilities in order to promote a secure maritime environment in the USCENTCOM area of responsibility.”²³ Once the requisite translation is conducted, the mission of the Fifth Fleet becomes clear. In any future conflict with Iran, the Fifth Fleet would be essential.

Aside from these functions, Bahrain’s Shi’ites present headaches for the Saudi ruling family. Saudi Arabia is the largest oil producer in the region and a staunch US ally. While Shi’ites make up only 15% of Saudi Arabia’s population, they are estimated to dominate in many of the key eastern petroleum cities, such as Qatif, Damman, and al-Hasa, which are geographically close to Bahrain. Many Shi’ites in Saudi Arabia relate more to fellow Shi’ites in Bahrain than they do their Sunni counterparts.²⁴

The minority Shia population in Saudi Arabia has complained of discrimination and oppression for some time and the Saudi Kingdom has not been immune to the reverberations of the Arab revolt. On Wednesday, February 23, King Abdullah called for an additional 36 billion in social spending, including house-hold debt relief, more housing loans, and a 15% raise in wages for state workers.²⁵ This came on the heels of Facebook calls for protests, the first of which consisted of around 100 Shi’ites and took place on March 4, leading to 22 arrests. The Kingdom’s most recent, if predictable, response has been to place a ban on all protests.²⁶ Clearly, if Shi’ites in Bahrain were able to successfully overthrow the Khalifas it would place additional strain on Saudi Arabia and could potentially see Bahrain move closer to Iran. This is an eventuality that is not acceptable to US policy makers.

US Policy toward Bahrain in a Regional Context

US policy toward Bahrain and the Gulf states both before and during the uprising has been unequivocally supportive. From 2005 to 2009, the US sold around 37 billion dollars worth of arms to the Gulf states and recently announced a 60 billion dollar package, including 70 Apache attack helicopters and a fleet of F-15s, with Saudi Arabia.²⁷ ,²⁸ In 2010, the US provided Bahrain with an estimated 19 million dollars worth of foreign military funding.²⁹ It is estimated that the countries comprising the Gulf Cooperation Council — Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, along with stalwart ally Jordan — will spend 70 billion dollars on defense in 2011. Much of this spending will be used to procure US arms.³⁰

Arms sales and military assistance are often explained as moves designed to beef up the defense capabilities of the Gulf region in order to curtail Iran’s expansionist desires. While this may be one factor in the decision-making process, there are more insidious reasons having little do with Iran. One reason for weapons sales, of course, is that it creates large profits for weapons manufacturers. Another reason these states purchase US weapons — and one which must be known to US policy makers — is that they can use them on their own populations, should they need to. This promotes “stability,” if we are fluent in the imperial tongue. Supporting the more insidious interpretation, while Bahraini officials have asserted that Iran is meddling in their internal affairs, the US has found no supportive evidence. A classified cable leaked by Wikileaks discusses this issue:

Bahraini government officials sometimes privately tell U.S. official visitors that some Shi’a oppositionists are backed by Iran. Each time this claim is raised, we ask the GOB [government of Bahrain] to share its evidence. To date, we have seen no convincing evidence of Iranian weapons or government money here since at least the mid-1990s, when followers of Ayatollah Shirazi were rounded up and convicted of sedition. (The so-called Shirazis were subsequently pardoned and some now engage in legal politics as the very small Amal party, which has no seats in Parliament.) In post’s assessment, if the GOB had convincing evidence of more recent Iranian subversion, it would quickly share it with us.³¹

Further support of the insidious interpretation comes from Bahrain’s response to the recent protests. The government quickly rolled out M60A3 tanks and flew F5 Freedom Fighter Warplanes, both made in the USA.³² Indeed, it is not at all clear why a tiny island nation with no conceivable enemy capable of invading — Iran would be insane to try — would need armored tanks. The US is not the only guilty party: British arms, including tear gas canisters, shotguns, and stun grenades were also used in the anti-protest crackdown.³³

Whatever the exact reasons for arming Bahrain, it is clear that both Bahrain and the US have an interest in seeing Iran’s influence limited. If Bahrain exaggerates the nature of Iran’s influence over its Shi’ites, the US is only too happy to go along. Thus, there is a synergistic effect at work benefiting both sides. Aside from the cozy security relationship between the US and Bahrain, the two nations also have close commercial relations with each other including a bilateral free trade agreement which was signed into law by George W. Bush in 2006.

Given this milieu, it is unsurprising that the administration has not greeted the Bahraini uprising with the euphoria one would expect if democracy were a concern. While the administration allegedly supports the “democratic aspirations of all people,” it is clear that such aspirations are only operational if they do not interfere with “stability.” The administration’s public response to the Arab uprising is telling. In regard to Egypt, the regime had been given warnings by policy makers for well over a year that the “calm” was an illusion and that Egypt’s young population was disillusioned with the Mubarak regime.³⁴ Exactly what the administration did with this information is unknown, but they were clearly taken by surprise when protests broke out. This must be placed within the context of the long US-Egyptian alliance, which has included the US sending billions of dollars to the Egyptian army. In June of 2009, during an interview with the BBC, Barack Obama was asked whether he thought Hosni Mubarak was an authoritarian ruler. His response is telling:

No, I tend not to use labels for folks. I haven’t met him. I’ve spoken to him on the phone. He has been a stalwart ally in many respects, to the United States. He has sustained peace with Israel, which is a very difficult thing to do in that region. But he has never resorted to, you know, unnecessary demagoging of the issue, and has tried to maintain that relationship. So I think he has been a force for stability. And good in the region. Obviously, there have been criticisms of the manner in which politics operates in Egypt.³⁵

Unfortunately, the population did not think that this dictator was “good” although, in the imperial tongue, he was “a force for stability.” The administration’s response when the Egyptian protests broke out was muddled. In the end, the administration saw the writing on the wall and decided to throw its rhetorical weight behind the aspirations of the protestors. Unlike Bahrain, Egypt does not have a majority Shia population capable of aligning with Iran or threatening Saudi Arabian “stablity.” Further, the Egyptian army, which has been firmly ensconced in power since 1952, and the US have cooperated closely for decades. Therefore, lending rhetorical support to the uprising was a relatively costless move. Indeed, assuring Israel that their peace treaty would be honored was one of the first acts of the post-Mubarak ‘transitional’ regime. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman succinctly stated what Washington was certainly thinking; namely, that Israel was not concerned with Egypt’s internal affairs, but only that “regional stability be preserved and the peace treaty respected.”³⁶

From the beginning the administration has rhetorically and strategically supported the ailing Bahraini regime. The New York Times noted that the US was taking “two paths” in its response to protests in Iran and Bahrain. Speaking to Bahrain and other allies, Obama counseled, “you have a young, vibrant generation within the Middle East that is looking for greater opportunity; and that if you are governing these countries, you’ve got to get out ahead of change. You can’t be behind the curve.” Speaking to protestors, rather than the government, in Iran, Obama hoped they possessed “the courage to be able to express their yearning for greater freedoms and a more representative government.”³⁷ Given the administration’s open disdain for Iran and the strategic importance of Bahrain, this tact is readily explicable. The Obama administration needs to avoid “instability” in the region, while lending enough rhetorical support to democratic movements so as to avoid being accused of blatant hypocrisy.³⁸ This appears to be the diplomatic strategy Washington has settled on:

After weeks of internal debate on how to respond to uprisings in the Arab world, the Obama administration is settling on a Middle East strategy: help keep longtime allies who are willing to reform in power, even if that means the full democratic demands of their newly emboldened citizens might have to wait.³⁹

On February 20, Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, traveled to Saudi Arabia to reassure the Kingdom and other Arab allies that the administration would provide security and remained an ally. On the 23 of February, both Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave full support to the Khalifa regime and encouraged what they called “a national dialogue” between the regime and the mostly Shia protestors. At this time, the idea was hatched that Bahrain would make reforms in return for full support from the White House. This was offered as the “Bahrain model,” and could be readily transposed to other beleaguered US allies in the region. According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House accepted and threw its full support behind King Khalifa on February 27 while a similar message was delivered to embattled Moroccan King Mohammed VI.⁴⁰ The “Bahrain model” is not a model that emphasizes democracy and human rights: It is imperial rebranding, much like Obama himself, that is intended to perpetuate decades old policies under the guise of democracy, reform, and change. In short, there will be no regime change or democracy in Bahrain.

The Future of Bahrain

The future of Bahrain remains uncertain, while the Arab Revolt that has affected so many countries — including Oman, Tunisia, Iraq, Morocco, Libya, Yemen, and Egypt — shows no signs of abating. Washington is certainly watching with trepidation as calls for democracy and threats to regional “stability” spread. In recent days, the price of oil has topped 106 dollars a barrel, a 2-1/2 year high.⁴¹ The unrest and uncertainty gripping the Middle East has led analyst Michael T. Klare to declare that the world is permanently exiting the stage of cheap petroleum.⁴² Whether or not this is true remains to be seen. One should not underestimate the strength of forces pushing for maintenance of the status quo. The Bahraini government is trying to bribe protestors with offers of 2,600 dollars for every family and the Interior Ministry has recently announced that it is seeking 20,000 workers.⁴³ In addition, the Gulf Cooperation Council is mulling a proposal for a “stability fund” to be awarded to Bahrain and Oman. It is estimated that Bahrain alone would receive 10 billion dollars.⁴⁴ Thus far these efforts have failed to stymie protestors, whether in Bahrain or the larger region. As one Bahraini protestor put it, “We want America not to get involved, we can overthrow this regime. All we want is for America not to support the dictatorship in Bahrain.”⁴⁵

As US citizens we should seek to educate each other about Bahrain and the Middle East; we should hold seminars and educational sessions; we should write our representatives, urging that the US not participate in squelching any incipient democratic movements; and we should get busy organizing. This much is our responsibility.

1. Unless otherwise noted, all basic information about Bahrain is taken from three sources:
   The CIA World Factbook: Bahrain
   BBC Country Profile: Bahrain
   Al Jazeera Country Profile: Bahrain
2. United Nations Security Council Resolution 278.
3. Cable 09MANAMA91, Bahrain as Iran’s Fourteenth Province.
4. F.H. Lawson. Countries at the Crossroads: Bahrain. A Freedom House Report.
5. Pepe Escobar (February 18, 2011). All about Pearl roundabout. Asia Times.
6. Husain Abdulla (October 15, 2008). Nabeel Rajab: Shia only holds 13% of the high official post in the country. Bahrain Center for Human Rights.
7. Nicholas Kristof (February 22, 2011). Is this Apartheid in Bahrain. New York Times.
8. Finnian Cunningham (February 18, 2011). Bahrain: The Social Roots of Revolt Against Another US Ally. Global Research.
9. 2011 Index of Economic Freedom: Bahrain. The Heritage Foundation.
10. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Raymond Barrett (February 21, 2011). How a broken social contract sparked Bahrain protests. Christian Science Monitor.
12. Zara Al Sitari (September, 2006). “Al Bander-Gate”: A political scandal in Bahrain. Bahrain Center for Human Rights.
13. The Economist (April 3, 2008). Bahrain: Not so sunny for Shias.
14. Bahrain Center for Human Rights (January 15, 2009). Bahrain: An oppressive campaign against Shia.
15. Bahrain National Action Charter.
16. Amnesty International (February 19, 2011). Appeal for action: Deaths and injuries in Bahrain.
17. Human Rights Watch (February 28, 2011). Bahrain: Hold perpetrators of crackdown accountable.
18. Janine Zacharia (February 19, 2011). Washington Post.
19. Noam Chomsky (February 4, 2011). It’s not radical Islam that worries the US –it’s independence. Guardian.
20. Zunes, S. (2003). Tinderbox: U.S. foreign policy and the roots of terrorism. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. Quote taken from page 11.
21. Mark Mazzetti (September 24, 2006). Spy agencies say Iraq War worsens terrorism threat. New York Times.
22. Noam Chomsky (1999) “Stability” Excerpted from Fateful triangle.
23. Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, U.S. Fifth Fleet. http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/mission/mission.html”>Official Mission Statement.
24. Anees al-Qudaihi (March 24, 2009) Saudi Arabia’s Shia press for rights. BBC.
25. The Economist (March 3, 2011). The royal house is rattled to.
26. The Guardian (March 6, 2011). Saudi Arabia bans public protest.
27. Mina Kines (February 24, 2011). America’s hottest export: Weapons. Fortune.
28. Kristen Chick (October 6, 2010). How arms deals are shaping the Mideast. Christian Science Monitor.
29. Jeremy M. Sharp (June 15, 2010). U.S. Foreign Assistance to the Middle East: Historical Background, Recent Trends, and the FY2011 Request. Congressional Research Service.
30. Adam Entous (February 23, 2011) U.S. reviews arms sales amid turmoil. Wall Street Journal.
31. The Guardian (February 15, 2011). US embassy cables: Bahrain’s relations with Iran.
32. Jason Ditz (February 18, 2011) The arsenal against democracy: US arms fuel Bahraini crackdown. Antiwar.com.
33. Peter Beaumont & Robert Booth (February 17, 2011). Bahrain uses UK-supplied weapons in protest crackdown. Guardian.
34. Jay Solomon (February 16, 2011). U.S. had year of warnings over Egypt. Wall Street Journal.
35. Justin Webb (June 2, 2009). Obama interview: The transcript. BBC.
36. Barak Ravid & Reuters (February 12, 2011). Netanyahu: Egypt-Israel peace is cornerstone of Mideast stability. Haaretz.
37. Mark Landler & David E. Sanger (February 15, 2011). U.S. follows two paths on unrest in Iran and Bahrain. New York Times.
38. Michael Slackman & Mark Landler (February 17, 2011). Bahrain turmoil poses fresh test for White House. New York Times.
39. Adam Entous & Julian E. Barnes (March 5, 2011). U.S. wavers on ‘Regime Change’. Wall Street Journal.
40. See Adam Entous & Julian E. Barnes for an excellent discussion of the administration’s thinking and diplomacy.
41. Ben Rooney (March 7, 2011) Oil tops $106 a barrel. CNNMoney.
42. Michael T. Klare (March 3, 2011). Oilquake in the Middle East: The Collapse of the Old Oil Order. TomDispatch.
43. Thomas Fuller (March 6, 2011). Bahrain’s promised spending fails to quell dissent. New York Times.
44. Simon Henderson (March 7, 2011). The battle for Bahrain. Washington Institute.
45. Al Jazeera (March 7, 2011). Bahrain protests reach US embassy.