The End of the Great White Bogeyman Theory of History?

Have We just Witnessed a Sea Change in American Racial Propaganda?

by Dave Fryett / January 13th, 2024

For most of American history the dominant racist line was that of the Great White Benefactor bringing the gifts of civilization and abundance to the backward, immiserate peoples of the world; to liberate them from idolatry, want and depravity. All nonsense, of course, but it served its perception management  purpose and helped to garner the necessary support for the global pillage it was intended to camouflage. I came of age in the 1960s when that fictive narrative, its bankruptcy no longer concealable, began to invert. President Kennedy, in a nationally televised address, stated that “The treatment of the American Indian is a national disgrace.” No president had ever told the American people that they had something to be ashamed of. It came as quite a shock, and certainly was an unequivocal rebuttal of White Man’s Burden and all that had gone unchallenged before.

Kennedy should not be overcredited, he was merely reflecting the change which was ongoing in America’s self perception, not spearheading it. Nevertheless, this view and his support for civil rights for Blacks, be they impelled by conscience or realpolitik, did much to mainstream the revisionist position. The Great White Benefactor, now in his death throes, gave way to a new reification–the Great White Malefactor. No longer were Whites depicted by White elites and their institutions as uniquely altruistic, rather, now, uniquely venal. While many a ghastly crime has been committed by Whites against others, such horrors are now amplified, assigned solely to him, reproduced endlessly for mass consumption, attributed to “Whiteness” and White culture, and White victimhood at the hands of others ignored, denied or dismissed as justified. Western civilization was entirely good, now wholly base and villainous. The theory of White exceptionalism is maintained, but the script has been flipped and Whites are largely if not wholly responsible for the world’s injustices. So profound and widespread is the new anti-White racism that in a new book on critical race theory, penned by Geraldin Heng of the University of Texas, entitled The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages, she refers to White people as a “monstrous race.” Did UT-Austin censure her for such unmistakable racist defamation? No, in fact they gave her an award.

Meanwhile, the old, anti-Black racism remains in force, save now in a more subtle, plausibly deniable form. Together, the two racisms have synergy in that they validate each other and inflame the aggrieved. Both racist delusions, exceptional White virtue and exceptional White vice, are only sustainable by massive distortion of world history and a pseudoscience like critical race theory to invest it with the imprimatur of the academy. If you have any doubts about White iniquity just ask Geraldine Heng, she is, after all, an award-winning author and college professor. What more validation could you want?

The point of the propaganda shift, I insist, is the preservation of the age-old canard of a racial hierarchy of merit. The new Great White Bogeyman paradigm foments racial animosity within the working class and compels the primacy of race in political discourse. The race war is class war in disguise, and the only winners are the plutocrats who oppress us all.

However, of late the Great White Malefactor Theory has come under attack, and from what I believe to be a state-aligned institution–of all places. Wikipedia describes PragerU as: “The Prager University Foundation, known as PragerU, is an American 501(c)(3) nonprofit advocacy group and media organization that creates content promoting conservative viewpoints on various political, economic, and sociological topics.” It is a mouthpiece for American imperialism whose belief in the sanctity of free-market capitalism never wavers. Their “content” is poorly researched and often inaccurate, and it’s clear that they do not care. Recently, they produced a video, hosted by Candace Owens, entitled “A Short History of Slavery” which has caused quite a stir.

In other venues, Candace Owens, a Black, has stated that American Blacks were doing quite well until the 1960s when they began to receive welfare (aid for the poor), which is daft. She has also said that British colonialism in Africa was a net positive for the colonized, which is daft and obscene. For those who may be unfamiliar with American history, let me assure you that these contentions are not merely incorrect but outlandish, sheer lunacy. Whether Owens is an idiot or just plays one on YouTube need not concern us. In the video in question, she gets it basically right.

One of the great racist myths of the Great White Malefactor school of American history is that the Transatlantic Slave Trade was something White people did to Black. In reality, White European elites and Black African elites were partnered in the abomination. Blacks did almost all of the capturing of slaves and sold them on the coast to White slavers under terms dictated by the Africans. Both elites prospered from the lucrative trade.

A brief history of the Transatlantic Slave Trade and its origins: The people of ancient China were menaced by a confederation of Steppe nomads whom they called the Qiongnu, which roughly translates, Sinologists speculate, to “the fierce people.” The Qiongnu frequently raided Chinese territory stealing whatever they could and raping, killing and enslaving captives for sale or personal use. Around 250 BCE, Qin Shih Huang united China and became its first emperor. He ordered the building of a wall along the northern border to prevent further attacks. In so doing, he set in motion a mass migration which would change the world.

This wall, later to be expanded to become the Great Wall of China, forced the Qiongnu to move west in order to get around it as brigandage is how they made their living, hideous as that is. As they did, they attacked the Yuezhi people who had once occupied the land now vacated by the Qiongnu. The invasion forced the Yuezhi westward again which in turn forced the migration to the west and south of the peoples now displaced by the newly arrived Yuezhi. This resulted in successive invasions of India.

Like the Qiongnu, the Yuezhi were a federation and one of its constituents, the Kushans, came to dominance, and they were one of the peoples who stormed through the Khyber Pass and struck at India. Unlike their predecessors, they were successful. The Kushan Empire soon became quite large and rich.

There had long been east-west trade across the Eurasian Steppe, but it had always been a dangerous venture. Now, with the stability brought to China by unification and centralization and the rise of the Kushan Empire, trade flourished. At this point there were four empires–Chinese, Kushan, Parthian, and Roman–strong enough to police the trade and provide security from the Pacific overland to the Atlantic. Nearly everyone in Afro-Eurasia would be touched by this trade.

The Silk Road may have been more accurately called the Spice Road. In addition to cookery, spices were used in medicine, cosmetics, and food preservation. They were household essentials. The trade became extensive and many peoples around Afro-Eurasia came to depend upon it.

The peace was not to last. The cascade of falling dominoes initiated by the Great Wall was not yet exhausted. The jostling for land upon the Steppe continued and the Road was harried by marauders as the empires weakened over time. Sections of it fell under the control of Huns, Turkics, and others. In time an empire would arise to capture nearly all of it.

The empire of the Mongols was so vast that it became impossible to maintain. It first broke into a few big pieces and then into many small fragments. Instead of being marked up a few times before reaching Europe, now dozens of statelets inflated the price as spices passed through their lands. By the time they reached Europe the cost was so high they were no longer affordable. The Portuguese sought to circumvent the problem by sailing around Africa. Columbus persuaded the Spanish that one could sail directly west from Spain and reach India.

At every stage of this process atrocities were committed. The Yuezhi did not grant permission to the Qiongnu to claim the land they themselves had expropriated by force. It was taken from them by violence in the same way that the American Indian was dispossessed. The Kushans were not invited into India. If the Mongols were guilty of half the barbarity they boasted of then they are the indisputable atrocity champions. It is estimated that they killed ten percent of the global population.

The discovery of the Americas was the greatest economic boom in human history. So colossal was the windfall that the endless stream of New World precious metals collapsed the Spanish economy. Predictably, the allure of easily acquired riches caused an international rugby scrum for control of the trade.

The Europeans in the Americas are guilty of acts of unimaginable savagery. Imperialism, genocide and slavery predates the arrival of Columbus in the New World, but the scale and scope of the predation he was to introduce had never been seen. This coupled with the diseases he brought resulted in the deaths of as many as 56 million people. So great was the death toll that “new research also reveals that following this rapid population decline and the subsequent reduction in land use, there was a global cooling trend.” It is the worst thing that has ever happened. We in the Americas are living in the world’s largest graveyard.

From the Real History of Columbus

None of this is denied or suppressed. What is omitted from state-sanctioned New World histories is that the same outrages were perpetrated in Africa, and by Black Africans against their fellow Black Africans. The discovery of the New World and the subsequent labor shortage created by the mass depopulation spurred demand for slaves which African profiteers were only too happy to supply. Slavery in Africa was Millennia old when Columbus landed in Hispaniola. Before Islam reached West Africa, slaves were used locally in agriculture, mining, government service and as domestics. With the arrival of Islam, the West African empires were connected to the Silk Road and the wider slave trade. Needless to say, this was good for business and the exporting of salt, slaves and gold made the West African empires exceedingly wealthy and powered a golden age of scholarship. However, none of this prepared African slavers for the unprecedented, ceaseless orders for slaves coming from the Americas. What followed is one of the ugliest chapters in human history.

African fought African for market share: the coastal Ouidah raided the smaller tribes of the interior capturing and selling literally millions. Covetous of Ouidah wealth, the Fon attacked and took over the sordid business. Then the Oyo attacked the Fon. And then the Allada and the Ashanti and the Mane and the Kingdom of Kongo and so it went. Some smaller tribes were literally sold out of existence. So profitable was the trade that some tribes abandoned traditional means of subsistence and gave themselves over to the slave trade as their sole occupation. As a result, fields lay fallow and craft production in particular suffered. This weakened Africa and made it more vulnerable to the European imperialism which was to come.

The worst example was the Kingdom of Dahomey. It became a slave state like no other. Half the population was enslaved to perform those tasks necessary to sustain the Kingdom while the other half was engaged in slave capture. Human sacrifices were regularly if infrequently held and the Dahomey kings insisted that the European slave buyers attend the ghoulish ritual. Dahomey was as close to dystopia as we are ever likely to see. The slave trade devastated African society. Culturally it sowed distrust of African for African, and materially it depopulated the continent and deprived it of its young. This in time brought a decline which further embedded Africa in the slave trade, the very thing which was causing this most vicious of cycles.

As stated above, Blacks and Whites were partnered in the slave trade, and both bear responsibility for the ransacking of the New World which likely would not have been possible without Africa’s provisioning the colonizers with millions of slaves. Buyer and seller are guilty. So why is this history suppressed? Why isn’t the Transatlantic Slave Trade presented in an open and accurate way? It isn’t. The American school system teaches that the slave trade occurred because White people are immoral. The reason for such slander is that an honest rendering of events outlined above, precludes race as cause. From Ancient Bactria to imperial Mali and colonial Virginia, people engaged in unspeakable acts, and White, Black, Brown and Asian people all have innocent blood on their hands. The Great White Bogeyman Theory of history serves the interests of the ruling class in that it acts to cow White people with guilt and to give Blacks every reason to fear and loathe Whites. A forthright accounting might make White and Black people feel differently about each other, and that might very well spell the end of capitalism. Interracial working-class cooperation is what American elites fear most; and what Whiteness studies, critical race theory, wokeness, intersectionality and all the other species of insipid race fetishism are intended to avert. When the curtain is lifted and truth revealed, it becomes abundantly clear that it was not race which catalyzed the holocaust that was the Transatlantic Slave Trade, but profit. The people on both ends of the oceanic slave trade were not sadists, they were businessmen.

And this is why PragerU’s video is so confounding. They have just slaughtered one of the sacred cows of American racism. Why? They have just debunked their own racial propaganda, one which has served the plutocracy well for half a century. Why decommission the Great White Bogeyman? Could this be related to the butchery currently occurring in Gaza? With Whites exterminating Browns with impunity perhaps some grandee thought it prudent to preemptively rehabilitate Mr. Bogeyman before too much anger developed and things got out of control. Could it be that this has something to do with the upcoming election? Is it an attempt by the anti-Trump faction to deprive him of discursive ammunition and take the sting out of his strongest talking points? Maybe it is merely a case of the faux social media Right provoking the faux social media Left so that both can attract clicks. Or perhaps it is just the latest tune pounded out on the ol’ Mighty Wurlitzer.

Whatever its purpose it seems a dangerous tack to release that genie from her bottle. It brought a tear to my eye watching several Black YouTubers wail in bewilderment that they had been taught something different. It made me reflect on how much we have been disinformed and made to hate each other, and it deepened my hatred of this loveless capitalist world in which we are condemned to live.

It should be noted that the video was not too heterodox. At the end Aunt Thomasina implores her fellow Blacks to put their faith in Uncle Sam and embrace American patriotism. I don’t believe the young Black YouTubers who reviewed her video will heed that call.

Dave Fryett is an anarchist in Pacific Northwest and can be reached at: metrobusman@yahoo.com. Read other articles by Dave, or visit Dave's website.

Criminality in the White House: The Rise of the Political Psychopath

by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead / January 12th, 2024

When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.

— Richard Nixon

Many years ago, a newspaper headline asked the question: “What’s the difference between a politician and a psychopath?”

The answer, then and now, remains the same: None.

There is no difference between psychopaths and politicians.

Nor is there much of a difference between the havoc wreaked on innocent lives by uncaring, unfeeling, selfish, irresponsible, parasitic criminals and elected officials who lie to their constituents, trade political favors for campaign contributions, turn a blind eye to the wishes of the electorate, cheat taxpayers out of hard-earned dollars, favor the corporate elite, entrench the military industrial complex, and spare little thought for the impact their thoughtless actions and hastily passed legislation might have on defenseless citizens.

Psychopaths and politicians both have a tendency to be selfish, callous, remorseless users of others, irresponsible, pathological liars, glib, con artists, lacking in remorse and shallow.

Charismatic politicians, like criminal psychopaths, exhibit a failure to accept responsibility for their actions, have a high sense of self-worth, are chronically unstable, have socially deviant lifestyles, need constant stimulation, have parasitic lifestyles and possess unrealistic goals.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about Democrats or Republicans.

Political psychopaths are all largely cut from the same pathological cloth, brimming with seemingly easy charm and boasting calculating minds. Such leaders eventually create pathocracies: totalitarian societies bent on power, control, and destruction of both freedom in general and those who exercise their freedoms.

Once psychopaths gain power, the result is usually some form of totalitarian government or a pathocracy. “At that point, the government operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups,” author James G. Long notes. “We are currently witnessing deliberate polarizations of American citizens, illegal actions, and massive and needless acquisition of debt. This is typical of psychopathic systems, and very similar things happened in the Soviet Union as it overextended and collapsed.”

In other words, electing a psychopath to public office is tantamount to national hara-kiri, the ritualized act of self-annihilation, self-destruction and suicide. It signals the demise of democratic government and lays the groundwork for a totalitarian regime that is legalistic, militaristic, inflexible, intolerant and inhuman.

Incredibly, despite clear evidence of the damage that has already been inflicted on our nation and its citizens by a psychopathic government, voters continue to elect psychopaths to positions of power and influence.

Indeed, a study from Southern Methodist University found that Washington, DC—our nation’s capital and the seat of power for our so-called representatives—ranks highest on the list of regions that are populated by psychopaths.

According to investigative journalist Zack Beauchamp, “In 2012, a group of psychologists evaluated every President from Washington to Bush II using ‘psychopathy trait estimates derived from personality data completed by historical experts on each president.’ They found that presidents tended to have the psychopath’s characteristic fearlessness and low anxiety levels — traits that appear to help Presidents, but also might cause them to make reckless decisions that hurt other people’s lives.”

The willingness to prioritize power above all else, including the welfare of their fellow human beings, ruthlessness, callousness and an utter lack of conscience are among the defining traits of the sociopath.

When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, jailed if we dare step out of line, and then punished unjustly without remorse—all the while refusing to own up to its failings—we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic.

Instead, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.”

Worse, psychopathology is not confined to those in high positions of government. It can spread like a virus among the populace. As an academic study into pathocracy concluded, “[T]yranny does not flourish because perpetuators are helpless and ignorant of their actions. It flourishes because they actively identify with those who promote vicious acts as virtuous.”

People don’t simply line up and salute. It is through one’s own personal identification with a given leader, party or social order that they become agents of good or evil.

Much depends on how leaders “cultivate a sense of identification with their followers,” says Professor Alex Haslam. “I mean one pretty obvious thing is that leaders talk about ‘we’ rather than ‘I,’ and actually what leadership is about is cultivating this sense of shared identity about ‘we-ness’ and then getting people to want to act in terms of that ‘we-ness,’ to promote our collective interests…. [We] is the single word that has increased in the inaugural addresses over the last century … and the other one is ‘America.’”

The goal of the modern corporate state is obvious: to promote, cultivate, and embed a sense of shared identification among its citizens. To this end, “we the people” have become “we the police state.”

We are fast becoming slaves in thrall to a faceless, nameless, bureaucratic totalitarian government machine that relentlessly erodes our freedoms through countless laws, statutes, and prohibitions.

Any resistance to such regimes depends on the strength of opinions in the minds of those who choose to fight back. What this means is that we the citizenry must be very careful that we are not manipulated into marching in lockstep with an oppressive regime.

Writing for ThinkProgress, Beauchamp suggests that “one of the best cures to bad leaders may very well be political democracy.”

But what does this really mean in practical terms?

It means holding politicians accountable for their actions and the actions of their staff using every available means at our disposal: through investigative journalism (what used to be referred to as the Fourth Estate) that enlightens and informs, through whistleblower complaints that expose corruption, through lawsuits that challenge misconduct, and through protests and mass political action that remind the powers-that-be that “we the people” are the ones that call the shots.

Remember, education precedes action. Citizens need to the do the hard work of educating themselves about what the government is doing and how to hold it accountable. Don’t allow yourselves to exist exclusively in an echo chamber that is restricted to views with which you agree. Expose yourself to multiple media sources, independent and mainstream, and think for yourself.

For that matter, no matter what your political leanings might be, don’t allow your partisan bias to trump the principles that serve as the basis for our constitutional republic. As Beauchamp notes, “A system that actually holds people accountable to the broader conscience of society may be one of the best ways to keep conscienceless people in check.”

That said, if we allow the ballot box to become our only means of pushing back against the police state, the battle is already lost.

Resistance will require a citizenry willing to be active at the local level.

Yet if you wait to act until the SWAT team is crashing through your door, until your name is placed on a terror watch list, until you are reported for such outlawed activities as collecting rainwater or letting your children play outside unsupervised, then it will be too late.

This much I know: we are not faceless numbers.

We are not cogs in the machine.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we are not slaves.

We are human beings, and for the moment, we have the opportunity to remain free—that is, if we tirelessly advocate for our rights and resist at every turn attempts by the government to place us in chains.

The Founders understood that our freedoms do not flow from the government. They were not given to us only to be taken away by the will of the State. They are inherently ours. In the same way, the government’s appointed purpose is not to threaten or undermine our freedoms, but to safeguard them.

Until we can get back to this way of thinking, until we can remind our fellow Americans what it really means to be free, and until we can stand firm in the face of threats to our freedoms, we will continue to be treated like slaves in thrall to a bureaucratic police state run by political psychopaths.

John W. Whitehead, constitutional attorney and author, is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He wrote the book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015). He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Read other articles by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.

 

The West will Stand in the Dock Alongside Israel at the Genocide Court

Israel’s allies aren’t just turning a blind eye to Gaza’s killing fields. They have cheered on the bloodshed, provided diplomatic cover and supplied the arms

by Jonathan Cook / January 12th, 2024

Israel is urging western states to rally to its side as the International Court of Justice prepares to hear this week South Africa’s case that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

The court is being asked by Pretoria to issue an immediate injunction ordering Israel to halt its military assault on the tiny enclave, to avoid further casualties.

Some 23,000 Palestinians are known to have been killed by Israel so far, a majority of them women and children, and many thousands more are believed to be lying under the rubble. Tens of thousands are seriously wounded. A majority of the population have lost their homes to the three-month bombing campaign.

Israel has intensively and repeatedly targeted the supposedly “safe zones” to which it has ordered Palestinian civilians to flee.

It has destroyed almost all of Gaza’s infrastructure and is blocking most aid from reaching the enclave. Famine and disease are likely to rapidly increase the death toll.

South Africa’s 84-page brief argues that Israel’s bombing campaign and siege breaches the 1948 Genocide Convention, which defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

Israel expects support from western capitals because they have nearly as much to fear from a verdict against Israel as Israel itself. They have staunchly backed the killing spree, with the US and UK, in particular, sending weapons that are being used against the people of Gaza, making both potentially complicit.

According to a cable from the Israeli foreign ministry, leaked to the Axios website, Israel hopes that, given the difficulties of making a legal case in defence of its actions, diplomatic and political pressure on the court’s justices will win the day instead.

The Biden administration led the way late last week in dismissing South Africa’s detailed legal brief as “meritless, counterproductive and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever”.

That would sound patently ridiculous to western audiences had they been provided with serious coverage of Gaza. But Israel has been heavily restricting access to the enclave, while killing Palestinian journalists there at an unprecedented rate to stop their reporting.

In addition, western media are willingly – and secretly – submitting to an onerous Israeli censorship regime.

Incitement to genocide

Israel’s “strategic goal” at the court, according to the leaked cable, is to dissuade the judges from making a determination that it is committing genocide. But more pressing is Israel’s need to prevent the Hague court from ordering an interim halt to the attack.

Israeli officials will argue, Axios reports, that its sustained assault on Gaza fails to reach the threshold of genocide, which requires “creating conditions that don’t allow the survival of the population, together with the intent to annihilate it”.

Israel will try to convince the judges that it has been seeking to increase humanitarian aid to Gaza and minimise the toll on civilians.

Its argument flies in the face of the evidence South Africa has amassed.

Its brief contains nine pages of declarations by Israeli leaders showing clear genocidal intent, including statements from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, senior figures in the cabinet, President Isaac Herzog and many serving and former Israeli military commanders.

Giora Eiland, an adviser to war council minister, Benny Gantz, has called Israel’s goal the creation of “conditions where life in Gaza becomes unsustainable”. An Israeli military spokesman stated from the outset that the aim was to inflict “maximum damage” on Gaza.

Herzog suggests the entire civilian population is a legitimate military target, while Netanyahu refers to the Palestinians as “Amalek”, a biblical enemy. In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites to annihilate the Amalekites, putting “to death men and women, children and infants”.

One of the provisions of the Genocide Convention is an absolute prohibition on incitement to genocide. Israel’s most senior politicians and military commanders have indisputably breached that section of the convention.

A letter to Israel’s attorney general last week from a group of Israeli academics, lawyers, human rights activists and journalists underscored that point. They warned that incitement to genocide had become “an everyday matter in Israel”.

The letter added: “Normalised discourse which calls for annihilation, erasure, devastation and the like is liable to impact the manner by which soldiers [in Gaza] conduct themselves.”

Taking the gloves off

But dehumanisation – the precursor to genocide – is not the only problem.

Israel’s prosecution of what it terms a “war to eradicate Hamas” has fully met its own definition of genocide. “Conditions that don’t allow the survival of the population” were already being created long before the onslaught Israel unleashed immediately after Hamas broke out from Gaza on 7 October. Some 1,140 Israelis and other nationals were killed in the ensuing carnage.

Mostly forgotten in the back and forth about what is unfolding in the enclave is the context: United Nations officials warned nearly a decade ago that Israel’s siege of Gaza – now 17 years in duration – was designed to make the enclave “uninhabitable”.

In other words, Israel was precisely “creating conditions that don’t allow the survival of the population”.

Even before its current, extended assault, Israel had placed severe restrictions on access to water for the enclave’s 2.3 million inhabitants. As a direct result, overstretched aquifers under Gaza were allowing in seawater, making the enclave’s drinking water unfit for human consumption.

Food was similarly in short supply. Back in 2012, Israeli human rights groups managed to make public a secret document showing that the army had been tightly controlling food going into Gaza from 2008 onwards. As a result, two-thirds of the population was food insecure, and every 10th child was stunted by malnutrition. The aim was to induce long-term food poverty, effectively putting the population on a starvation diet.

Israel’s repeated attacks on Gaza over the past 15 years – what Israel calls “mowing the grass” – destroyed many of its homes and much of the infrastructure, creating ever greater overcrowding and unsanitary conditions.

Israel’s repeated bombing of Gaza’s only power station, and its chokehold on supplying additional energy, limited electricity to a few hours a day.

The Israeli siege blocked medicines and medical equipment from entering the enclave, often making serious health conditions difficult or impossible to treat. And given the Israeli-imposed restrictions of goods in and out of Gaza, the economy was already in ruins, with nearly half the population unemployed.

Long ago, back in 2016, the head of Israeli military intelligence, Herzi Halevi, warned that the catastrophe Israel was engineering in Gaza could blow up in its face – as indeed it did on 7 October.

Israel’s three-month rampage has simply accelerated and intensified all the genocidal policies that had long been established. Hamas’s break-out simply gave Israel licence to take the gloves off.

Gaza ‘uninhabitable’

This is why the UN’s head of humanitarian affairs, Martin Griffiths, declared last week that Gaza had reached the point where it was indeed “uninhabitable”.

He added: “People are facing the highest levels of food insecurity ever recorded. Famine is around the corner.”

With the vast majority of the population homeless and most hospitals no longer functioning, infectious disease was spreading.

Israel’s “complete siege” policy meant aid could not get in. According to Griffiths, Israel had destroyed roads, blocked communication systems, and was shooting at UN trucks and killing aid workers.

Returning from a visit to the border crossing with Egypt, two US senators observed at the weekend that Israel had imposed unreasonable conditions creating endless delays that prevented aid from reaching the people of Gaza.

In other words, Israel has now successfully “created conditions that don’t allow the survival of the population”.

The aim of the 1948 Genocide Convention, drafted in the immediate wake of the Second World War and the Nazi Holocaust, was not simply to punish those who carry out genocides.

It was designed to help identify a genocide in its early stages, and create a mechanism – through the rulings of the International Court of Justice – by which it could be halted.

In other words, the purpose of South Africa’s case is not to arbitrate what happens once Israel has annihilated the Palestinians of Gaza, as far too many observers appear to imagine. It is to stop Israel from annihilating the people of Gaza before it is too late.

Based on strange logic, Israel’s supporters imply that the genocide charge is unwarranted because the real aim is not to exterminate the Palestinians of Gaza but to induce them to flee.

Israeli leaders have encouraged this assumption. In an interview on Sunday, the national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, noted of Gaza’s population that – after being bombed, made homeless, starved and left vulnerable to disease – “hundreds of thousands will leave now”. Duplicitiously, he termed this a “voluntary” mass emigration.

But such an outcome – itself a crime against humanity – entirely depends on Egypt opening its borders to allow Palestinians to flee the killing fields. If Cairo refuses to submit to Israel’s violent blackmail, it will be Israel’s bombs, the famine it inflicted, and the lethal diseases it unleashed that decimate Gaza’s population.

The International Court of Justice must not adopt a wait-and-see approach, pondering whether Israel’s bombing campaign and siege lead to extermination or “only” ethnic cleansing. That would strip international humanitarian law of all relevance.

Line in the sand

If Israel and its western allies fail to bludgeon the court into submission, and South Africa’s case is accepted, it will not only be Israel in legal difficulties.

A genocide ruling from the court will impose obligations on other states: both to refuse to assist in Israel’s genocide, such as by providing arms and diplomatic cover, and to sanction Israel should it fail to comply.

An interim order halting Israel’s attack will serve as a line in the sand. Once made, any state that fails to act on the injunction risks becoming complicit in genocide.

That will put the West in a serious legal bind. After all, it has not just been turning a blind eye to the genocide in Gaza; it has been actively cheering it on and colluding in it.

Leaders in the UK such as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and opposition leader Keir Starmer have steadfastly opposed a ceasefire and thrown their weight behind a central pillar of Israel’s genocidal policy: the “complete siege” of Gaza that has left the population starving and facing lethal epidemics.

The British and US governments have rejected all calls to stop the flow of arms. The Biden administration has even bypassed Congress to speed up the supply of weapons to Israel, including indiscriminate “dumb” bombs that are laying waste to civilian areas.

Israel’s ambassador to the UK, Tzipi Hotovely, has regularly been featured by British media making genocidal statements. Just last week, when an interviewer noted that she appeared to be calling for the destruction of the whole of Gaza – every school, mosque and home – she answered: “Do you have another solution?”

British and US media have given airtime to Israeli officials who openly incite genocide.

All that would have to stop immediately after a ruling. The police in western nations would be expected to investigate and the courts prosecute those inciting genocide or providing a platform for incitement.

States would be expected to deny Israel weapons and impose economic sanctions on Israel – as well as on any states that collude in the genocide.

Israeli officials would risk arrest for travelling to western countries.

Double standards

In practice, of course, none of that is likely to happen. Israel is far too important to the West – as a projection of its power into the oil-rich Middle East – to be sacrificed.

Any effort to enforce a genocide ruling through the UN Security Council will be blocked by the Biden administration.

Meanwhile, the UK, along with Canada, Germany, Denmark, France and the Netherlands, have already demonstrated how unabashed they are about their own double standards.

Weeks ago they submitted formal arguments to the International Court of Justice that Myanmar was committing genocide against the Rohingya ethnic group. Their central argument was that the Rohingya were being subjected “to a subsistence diet, systematic expulsion from homes, and the induction of essential medical services below minimum requirement”.

But none of these western states is backing South Africa’s genocide submission to the same court – even though conditions in Gaza engineered by Israel are even worse.

The truth is that a genocide ruling by the court will open up a can of worms for the West, and its readiness to accept that the provisions of international law apply to it too.

Israel has been at the forefront of efforts to unravel international law in Gaza for more than a decade. Now it is ostentatiously flaunting its perpetration of the crime of genocide, as if daring the world to stop it.

Perversely, it is reversing the very international safeguards put in place to stop a repeat of the Nazi Holocaust.

Will the West defy Israel or the court? The post-war consensus that serves as the foundation for international law – already shaken by the failure to address the West’s war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan – is on the verge of complete collapse.

And no one will be happier with that outcome than the state of Israel.

• First published in Middle East Eye

Jonathan Cook, based in Nazareth, Israel is a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). Read other articles by Jonathan, or visit Jonathan's website.

Neither Evidence nor Law will Convict Israel of Genocide

by Paul Larudee and Calvin Larudee / January 11th, 2024

If the International Court of Justice, AKA the World Court, convicts Israel of genocide or enjoins it from committing acts that contribute to genocide, it will not be on the basis of evidence or law. There will be deliberation before the fifteen judges announce their decision, but it will have little to do with the reason South Africa is requesting a judgment.

The fifteen judges that will meet in the Hague are eminent jurists, but their role is political, not legal. They will vote the way their country tells them to vote, not upon conclusions drawn from the proceedings. They were selected by their respective countries on that basis, and elected by a majority vote of the UN General Assembly and Security Council.

That’s an odd combination. In the General Assembly, each member has one vote, and in the Security Council, each member also gets one vote. But since all the countries on the Security Council are already represented in the General Assembly, when they vote for judges in the ICJ, they get two votes. And since five members of the SC are permanent, they permanently have two votes.

In addition, the absolute majority requirement means that only the most powerful and influential nations can cajole, influence, threaten or bribe enough votes to meet the requirement. Generally speaking, this means that the US can command enough votes in the court to control most of the decisions of consequence. The haggling is almost certainly taking place right now, before the court has even heard the case.

Of course, the US doesn’t control every vote. The judges from China, Russia, Slovakia, Lebanon, Somalia and Morocco, for example, are unlikely to take orders from the US on this issue. But neither are they likely to vote on the basis of law or evidence. They will vote according to what they believe to be in their country’s interest. If it happens to accord with the evidence, so much the better for justice. But, barring one or more renegade votes, justice will be coincidental.

Following is an analysis of the probable votes of the judges, based in part on the opinion of Norman Finkelstein as well as views expressed directly by government figures in the countries that nominated the judges.

Judge Joan E. Donoghue of the United States: A no-vote is almost certain to come from Donoghue, given the United States’ long and unwavering support for Israel’s actions. United States officials blame the large numbers of civilian casualties on Hamas’s supposed usage of civilians as “human shields” and have adamantly denied that Israel’s actions constitute genocide.

Judge Kirill Gevorgian of the Russian Federation: While the Russian government has shown sympathy for the Palestinian cause and spoken against excessive civilian casualties, they may be wary of the potential consequences of such a landmark genocide ruling that could be used against them in the future regarding their military actions in Ukraine. Even so, showing support for the Palestinian people and taking a stand against America and its allies could be advantageous to Russia’s image. For this reason, a yes vote from Russia is possible but uncertain.

Judge Peter Tomka of Slovakia: Slovakia has enjoyed friendly relations with Israel and has refrained from criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza. However, Slovakia has voiced concern over illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and supports a two-state solution. Slovakia abstained in a recent UN General Assembly vote calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. For this reason, it is difficult to predict how the Slovakian judge may vote, but constituting Israel’s actions as a genocide would be a leap in Slovakia’s foreign policy regarding the matter. Therefore, such a ruling appears more unlikely than likely to come from Judge Tomka.

Judge Ronny Abraham of France: France has remained a strong supporter of Israel and its policies throughout the years, and the two enjoy a friendly and cooperative relationship. However, French President Emmanuel Macron has harshly criticized Israel’s recent military actions in Gaza, saying there is “no justification” for the bombing campaign and urged Israel to cease its hostilities. The ruling from Judge Abraham could go either way, with significant evidence backing either possibility.

Judge Mohammed Bennouna of Morocco: The Moroccan population has shown unwavering support for the Palestinian cause, with tens of thousands of Moroccans marching in the streets to protest Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. Although Morocco’s government adopted a policy of normalizing ties with Israel in return for recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over the disputed territory of Western Sahara, Moroccan authorities continue to voice support for Palestine’s struggle for human rights and statehood. Hence, a yes vote is highly likely to come from Mohammed Bennouna, and the alternative would cause widespread anger and discontent among Morocco’s population.

Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf of Somalia: The nation of Somalia unwavering supports the Palestinian cause and the liberation of its people. Somalis took to the streets to stand with Gaza and protest Israel’s bombardment of the strip. Somali Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre condemned international silence on the Israeli occupation and praised Hamas for fighting for liberation. A yes vote is highly likely to come from Judge Yusuf.

Judge Xue Hanqin of China: The Chinese government has been a strong critic of Israel’s actions in Gaza and supports an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. However, China may be hesitant to set a precedent regarding violations of the Genocide Convention for similar reasons as Russia. Some accuse China of committing genocide against the Uyghurs, a Muslim minority in China. For this reason, a yes vote from China is possible but not assured.

Judge Julia Sebutinde of Uganda: Uganda’s position regarding the situation in Palestine is nuanced and not apparent. Uganda has tentatively friendly relations with Israel and supports a two-state solution. However, during a visit to Uganda from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni repeatedly referred to the land as Palestine, including describing relations between “Palestine and Africa.” Uganda’s Minister of State for International Affairs confirmed that Uganda supports Palestine and its right to an independent State. Uganda’s votes in the UN General Assembly regarding conflicts in Palestine have been inconsistent, with the Ugandan representative voting no on resolutions critical of Israel in several cases. However, Uganda recently voted for a resolution calling for a ceasefire of hostilities in Gaza. Judge Sebutinde’s ruling is somewhat unpredictable, but either decision is possible.

Judge Dalveer Bhandari of India: While in the past India has shown support for the Palestinian cause, the modern Hindu-majority government has shifted India to a nation described as pro-Israel. India views Israel’s actions in Gaza as a “counterterrorism operation” but called for international humanitarian law to be maintained in the strip. India was one of the first to condemn Hamas’s October 7th attack on Israel and banned protests in support of Palestine. Therefore, a no-vote is a probable ruling to come from India.

Judge Patrick Lipton Robinson of Jamaica: Jamaica’s history of oppression at the hands of the British has caused them to be a defender of resistance against unjust governments. They were the first nation to issue sanctions against the apartheid state of South Africa, paving the way for others to follow suit. However, the Jamaican government’s silence on Israel’s bombardment of Gaza has drawn criticism from the Jamaican population, who generally support the Palestinian cause. A yes vote from Jamaica would answer calls to take a clear stance on the conflict, and for that reason, it is the more likely possibility.

Judge Nawaf Salam of Lebanon: A yes vote is almost certain to come from the Lebanese Judge, as the struggle of the Palestinians is historically intertwined with Lebanon’s struggle against Israel. The Lebanese population staunchly supports the Palestinian cause and views Israel as an occupying and oppressive state. The Lebanese militia Hezbollah has led successful military campaigns against Israeli forces in the past and is currently shelling the northern areas of the territory that Israel controls. Over 270,000 Palestinian refugees reside in Lebanon, and scores took to the streets to protest Israel’s actions in Gaza. Lebanon and Israel have no official diplomatic relations.

Judge Iwasawa Yuji of Japan: Japan advocates for a two-state solution and maintains a hesitant and tentative foreign policy approach regarding the conflict. Japan unequivocally condemned Hamas’s October 7th attack and voiced support for a cessation of hostilities. Japan is a strong Asian ally of the United States and Western European states, and Japan’s foreign policy often aligns with the positions of those states. Hence, constituting Israel’s actions as genocide would be a large leap from the country’s current position, and a no-vote would be most probable.

Judge Georg Nolte of Germany: Germany has been a strong supporter of the Israeli government and its actions, and the two maintain a “special relationship” based on Western values and historical perspectives. Some analysts suggest Germany’s unwavering support of the Jewish state is an attempt to make amends for the atrocities committed against the Jewish population by the Nazis during WWII. Following October 7th, German Chancellor Olaf Sholz offered military aid to Israel and dismissed calls for a ceasefire. Germany also banned demonstrations in support of Palestine. As such, a no vote is highly likely to come from Judge Nolte.

Judge Hilary Charlesworth of Australia: Australia supports a two-state solution and often defends Israel’s policies and actions. Australia’s foreign policy is often reflected by its strong relationships with Western states such as the United States. However, the Australian population is split in its stance on the conflict, and large demonstrations have taken place in support of Palestine. Still, a no vote is the most likely ruling to come from Judge Charlesworth.

Judge Leonardo Nemer Caldeira Brant of Brazil: Brazil strongly supports a Palestinian state according to its 1967 borders (including the West Bank and Gaza), and the Brazilian population is split in its support for either side. President Lula has attempted to walk the diplomatic line between either side, emphasizing the need for de-escalation. The potential for a cessation of hostilities in the event of a conviction of Israel violating its obligations may sway the Brazilian judge to rule accordingly. Therefore, a yes vote is a more likely possibility.

Considerations:

Each of the judges on the court has highly esteemed experiences, academics, and careers, and their knowledge and insights should not be ruled out in predicting their decisions. They do not officially represent their nation and are required to be uninfluenced by politics and policies. However, powerful nations have ways of “persuading” weaker nations and individuals to vote as directed. It is therefore unlikely that evidence and law will be more than window dressing in the outcome of the case against Israel.

Paul Larudee is a retired academic and current administrator of a nonprofit human rights and humanitarian aid organization. Calvin Larudee, Paul's grandson, is a high school student in Castro Valley, California. He provides international weekly news summaries and analysis at International Informants, to which subscribers are welcome. Read other articles by Paul Larudee and Calvin Larudee.

 

King and Douglass on What is Needed

by Ted Glick / January 12th, 2024

A solution of the present crisis will not take place unless men and women work for it. Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable. Even a superficial look at history reveals that no social advance rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals. Without persistent effort, time itself becomes an ally of the insurgent and primitive forces of irrational emotionalism and social destruction. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.

— Martin Luther King, Jr., Stride Toward Freedom, p. 197

Three days from now, January 15, will be the first day of the 95th year since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was born. It’s a federal holiday, won through the years-long struggle decades ago of many people who organized for it to be so. Because they did that work, for the last 39 years and for decades to come, young people and all people in the USA learn about Dr. King at this time, are exposed to some of his ideas, and without question this contributes to the building and strengthening of movements for justice, equal rights and peace.

People need examples of clarity and courage to be so themselves.

However, King’s quote above should deepen our understanding of what our responsibilities are as people trying to change the world for the better. Substantive change, change that is desperately needed, doesn’t happen without hard work, without “sacrifice, suffering and struggle.”

Frederick Douglass is famous for something similar that he said on August 4, 1857:

Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are those who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

King and Douglass were not saying that our lives need to be constant work, constant struggle against the racist, rich and regressive, predominantly white men with whom we must do battle. Both of them were part of an African-grounded culture in which singing and community-building were central. The civil rights movement of the 1950’s was a movement where singing was essential to the ability of that movement to ultimately win major victories, after years of struggle and sacrifice. And it wasn’t just singing in churches at rallies. People sang in jail. People sang when demonstrating right next to white racists. Singing gave them power.

2024 is a big year for us. Our grandchildren and great grandchildren and the seven generations to come need us to work hard and together on the major issues of today, to defeat Trump and the MAGA fascists, elect genuine progressives, and in so doing, lay the basis for the systemic, justice-based change the world urgently needs in this climate emergency time.

\
Ted Glick works with Beyond Extreme Energy and is president of 350NJ-Rockland. Past writings and other information, including about Burglar for Peace and 21st Century Revolution, two books published by him in 2020 and 2021, can be found at https://tedglick.com. He can be followed on Twitter at twitter.com/jtglick. Read other articles by Ted.

Massive trove of ancient artifacts, skeletons found in Brazil

By AFP
January 12, 2024

Archaeologists examine ceramic fragments found during excavations at the construction site of a complex of popular apartments in the city of Sao Luis, Brazil - Copyright W Lage Arqueologia/AFP Handout

Joshua Howat Berger

Workers were just starting construction on a new apartment complex in northeastern Brazil when they began finding human bones and pottery shards, their edges worn smooth by time.

Soon, excavations at the site in the coastal city of Sao Luis had uncovered thousands of artifacts left by ancient peoples up to 9,000 years ago — a treasure trove archaeologists say could rewrite the history of human settlement in Brazil.

The lead archaeologist on the dig, Wellington Lage, says he had no idea what he was getting into when Brazilian construction giant MRV hired his company, W Lage Arqueologia, in 2019 to carry out an impact study at the site — part of the routine procedure of preparing to build an apartment building.

Covered in tropical vegetation and bordered by the urban sprawl of Sao Luis, the capital of Maranhao state, the six-hectare (15-acre) plot was known as Rosane’s Farm, for the daughter of a late local landholder.

Researching the site, Lage learned intriguing vestiges had been found in the area since the 1970s, including part of a human jawbone in 1991.

His team soon found much more: a flood of stone tools, ceramic shards, decorated shells and bones.

In four years of digging, they have unearthed 43 human skeletons and more than 100,000 artifacts, according to Brazil’s Institute for National Historic and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN), which announced the discovery this week, calling it “grandiose.”

Researchers now plan to catalogue the artifacts, analyze them in detail, put them on display and publish their findings.

“We’ve been working four years now, and we’ve barely scratched the surface,” said Lage, a 70-year-old Sao Paulo native whose wife and two children are also archaeologists.

– Rewriting history –

The preliminary findings are already grabbing attention in the scientific community.

Lage says his team — which grew to 27 people in all, including archaeologists, chemists, a historian and a documentary filmmaker — has found four distinct eras of occupation at the site.

The top layer was left by the Tupinamba people, who inhabited the region when European colonizers founded Sao Luis in 1612.

Then comes a layer of artifacts typical of Amazon rainforest peoples, followed by a “sambaqui”: a mound of pottery, shells and bones used by some Indigenous groups to build their homes or bury their dead.

Beneath that, around two meters (6.5 feet) below the surface, lies another layer, left by a group that made rudimentary ceramics and lived around 8,000 to 9,000 years ago, based on the depth of the find.

That is far older than the oldest documented “pre-sambaqui” settlement found so far in the region, which dates to 6,600 years ago, Lage said.

“This could completely change the history of not just the region but all of Brazil,” he told AFP.

Scientists have long debated exactly when and how humans arrived in and populated the Americas from Asia.

Lage’s find suggests they settled this region of modern-day Brazil at least 1,400 years earlier than previously thought.

– ‘Landmark’ –

Archaeologists now plan to date the artifacts more precisely using isotopic analysis.

Already, the site “represents a landmark in our understanding of prehistoric Brazil,” IPHAN said in a statement.

“It’s a testament to the long history of human settlement (in the region), demonstrating it predates what had previously been recorded in Brazil.”

Archaeologist Arkley Bandeira of the Federal University of Maranhao, which is building a lab and museum to house the artifacts with funding from MRV, said in a statement the site could provide valuable new insights into the culture and history of ancient peoples lost to the past.

“These finds… play a crucial role in narrating our long history,” he said.