Tuesday, November 12, 2024

 

The Remembrance Day Amnesia Racket


It was catastrophic, cataclysmic and all destructive.  It wiped out empires and aristocracies and tore through the middle class.  The First World War was a conflict that should never have happened, was pursued foolishly and incestuously by the royal families of Europe and fertilised the ground for an even greater war two decades later.  It produced an atmospheric solemnity of grief and loss, and a lingering, collective neurosis.

On November 11, 1918, when the guns fell silent in Europe, some 16 million had been left dead.  A ceremonial ritual grew up around commemorating the fallen.  So horrific were those events that a convention known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact was born, an instrument that initially began as a bilateral agreement between the United States and France to abandon war as an instrument of foreign policy.  Eventually, virtually all the established states of the day signed it, heralding a most fabulous illusion, pursued even as countries began rearming.

The commemorators that tend to make an appearance on Remembrance Day often prove to be the war makers of tomorrow.  The demand that we all wear red poppies and contribute to the causes of veterans would be all the more poignant and significant were it to discourage killing, foster peace and encourage the brighter instincts of human progress.  Instead, these occasions are used by the military minded to ready the populace for the next conflict, a form of vulgar conditioning.  Before his death in 2009 at the ripe age of 111 years, Harry Patch, a veteran of the Great War’s trench warfare, proposed that war was “a license to go out and murder.  Why should the British government call me up and take me out to a battlefield to shoot a man I never knew, whose language I couldn’t speak?”  That logic is hard to better.

The statement here is not “lest we forget” but “what should be remembered?”  Corpses are only memorable if they are useful.  The fallen serve as bricks and masonry for the next slaughter, engineered by war criminals, the negligent and the incompetent. They died so that you could live and prosper, or so we are told.  The commemorative classes repeatedly refer to “democracy”, “freedom” and “our way of life”, a seedy way of suggesting value in sending the young to an early grave.  Accordingly, so that your children should be able to live in a way befitting their standing, you must participate in the next murderous, maiming conflict.

If these commemorations served as lessons, then they should be revered, repeated and rerun with mighty fortitude.  Unfortunately, those lessons are never observed.  Were that to be the case, such quixotic, costly provocations as the AUKUS pact, which incites nuclear proliferation and arming for future conflict against phantom threats, would be matters of the past.

As things are, these commemorative days mark human idiocy and venality, anticipating the next bloodbath that will enlist the docile for war, leaving the planners untouched by accountability, be it in any legal or ethical sense.  To this day, former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and former US President George W. Bush, remain at large for illegally invading Iraq in March 2003.  It was an invasion based on a monstrous lie on Iraq’s capabilities, notably in the Weapons of Mass Destruction department, one that dismembered a state and unleashed an Islamic fundamentalist whirlwind in the Middle East.

Those in the Remembrance Day promotions business are keen to remind younger converts that the occasion is not just for previous generations.  Bianca Wheeler, the new Director of Veterans SA, offers some unconvincing waffle to any unsuspecting newcomers to the creed: “Remember Day is about linking the past to the present, and then taking that and considering what it means for the future.”  Wheeler, herself a former naval officer, is keen to change the conventional view of what a veteran is: not necessarily one festooned in medals from the great conflicts, but one dedicated to service.  How eye-piping in sweetness.

With each November 11, there is a growing concern.  The young seem increasingly estranged and disassociated from these occasions, worry those in the Remembrance Day amnesia racket.  “For many  young people,” ponders the Hawkesbury Post, a New South Wales paper, “Remembrance Day may seem like an event disconnected from their daily lives.  After all, the wars it commemorates feel like ancient history.”

If history is but a record of agreed upon facts, then this occasion is one about agreed upon mythology.  Wheeler would have you believe that a historical exercise is at play, hence the following platitude: “You can’t know where to go in the future without knowing where you come from.”

The onus should be on the warmaker, the arms manufacturer and merchants of death, to explain why their nasty handiwork needs to be remembered.  By focusing on the dead, we can ignore the reasons for their deployment, the circumstances they found themselves in countries they barely knew existed, falling for causes they could hardly articulate.  The statues, monuments and honour boards always mention the heroically fallen; never do they mention those who signed their death warrants to guarantee the Grim Reaper his fill.

As things stand, the armaments complex has far better things to do than turning up at war memorials.  Killing fellow human beings is a frightfully pressing business, and there is always ruddy cash to be made from the quarry of the eternally gullible.
TwitterRedditEmail

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.comRead other articles by Binoy.

 

A Veterans Day Tribute

This originally appeared on November 11, 2008.

Every Veterans Day, I try to do something special to remember or honor a veteran. I don’t like the standard flag-waving event that this day has become for many people. In many Veterans Day speeches, the speakers talk about the hundreds of thousands of American veterans who gave their lives for our freedom. The problem with that is twofold: (1) Very few of those who were killed in war literally gave their lives but instead had their lives ripped away, and (2) very few of them fought for our freedom. So my tribute this time is to a veteran who did not give his life and knew that he wasn’t fighting for our freedom. That veteran is Richard H. Timberlake, Jr.

Dick Timberlake, who has become a personal friend, is a fairly well-known monetary economist and a veteran of World War II. Timberlake’s book They Never Saw Me Then is his account of his time in World War II, first training to be a pilot in the United States and then being a co-pilot of a B-17 on bombing raids over Germany. The book ends with his being wounded in one such raid and then recuperating in hospitals in England and the United States. The title of his book, he explains, comes from the thought that he and his buddies had about their wish for various friends, relatives, and “enemies”: “Boy, if they could see me now.” But because they couldn’t see him then, he writes, his recourse is to tell the story himself. He tells it well.

One thing that is clear throughout the book is that Dick Timberlake had one main goal during the war: to preserve the life of Dick Timberlake. And, he points out, this was the norm. He quotes from Arthur Hoppe, a journalist for the San Francisco Chronicle: “I suppose there were a few in World War II who were fighting for freedom or democracy, but in my three years in the Navy I never met one of them. … [W]e were fighting to stay alive. And that is the true horror of war.”

Arthur Hoppe, writes Timberlake, “had it right.”

But if this is how everyone thought, what makes Timberlake’s book special? Not mainly that he’s a good writer, but that he is willing to speak out about the horror of war. It helps, also, that Timberlake is a free-market economist who understands the harmony that markets lead to and the chaos and destruction that war causes.

We often hear about soldiers in World War II trying to go after Hitler. But Timberlake recognizes the reality. He writes:

“All of my fellow airmen and I knew that Hitler and his henchmen were atrocious and loathsome examples of the human race. Yet, any U.S. soldier or airman who thought even briefly about his job of trying to kill and destroy ‘the enemy,’ knew that he was not within range of damaging Hitler and other Nazi leaders. We could not reach their personal environments or influence their decisions; our activities were many magnitudes removed from hurting them. We could only chip away at the peripheries of their domain and hope that they would realize the futility and fallacy of their ways. To do so, we had to try and kill our enemy counterparts with whom we had no personal quarrel at all. We aimed our bombs at their strategic war-making industries and infrastructure, but in the process we knew that we could not avoid hitting churches, schools, and innocent people. Many of us thought that a better way must exist. Fifty-six years later, I still think so.”

Reading the line about killing counterparts with whom he had no personal quarrel, I thought of a vignette I read years ago:

General: “Men, we’re surrounded, but the enemy has the same number of soldiers we do. So some man out there is going to try to kill you, and your job is to kill him first.”

Private: “General, could you point to the man you want me to kill? I believe that he and I can make another arrangement.”

Timberlake gives a pithy statement of the essence of war: “War is the mutual destruction of capital, both human and non-human.”

Timberlake also recognizes the cause of war. He writes:

“Finally, in their external affairs governments must resist any temptation to intervene in the affairs of other peoples. It takes a government to wage a war. So governments must take the same oath of nonintervention – live-and-let-live – with other governments as each individual observes with other individuals. The model for this point-of-view is the political system the Founding Fathers put together when they wrote the Constitution of the United States.”

So what do we owe our veterans on this Veterans Day and, indeed, on all days? Timberlake has an answer:

“Surely, if societies owe anything to the veterans of former wars and the innocent soldiers and people destroyed in these catastrophes, it is a responsibility to avoid further warfare by every practicable means. So far as I can see from my vantage point, societies and governments are not following my simple prescription – or any other effective strategy – for preventing wars of all varieties. In not doing so, they are betraying the trust that my wartime colleagues, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, and I reposed in them.”

Copyright © 2008 by David R. Henderson. Requests for permission to reprint should be directed to the author or Antiwar.com.

Author: David R. Henderson

David R. Henderson is a research fellow with the Hoover Institution and an emeritus professor of economics in the Graduate School of Business and Public Policy at the Naval Postgraduate School. He is author of The Joy of Freedom: An Economist’s Odyssey and co-author, with Charles L. Hooper, of Making Great Decisions in Business and Life(Chicago Park Press). His latest book is The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (Liberty Fund, 2008). He has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor, the Jim Lehrer Newshour, CNN, MSNBC, RT, Fox Business Channel, and C-SPAN. He has had over 100 articles published in Fortune, the Wall Street JournalRed HerringBarron’sNational ReviewReason, the Los Angeles TimesUSA TodayThe Hill, and the Christian Science Monitor. He has also testified before the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. He blogs at http://econlog.econlib.org 


LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: WWI Xmas Mutiny

 

The Man Who Can Help Trump Bring Peace to Korea


Columbia Professor of Genetics Joseph D. Terwilliger has an exceptional resume. Along with his post at an elite institution, he is an accomplished tuba player, speaks a multitude of languages, has traveled to nearly every country on Washington’s official enemies list, and served as translator for NBA legend Dennis Rodman when he traveled to North Korea to meet with Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un.

So, how did Terwilliger translate the conversation between two of the most fascinating people on the planet?

Part of the story involves his career as a geneticist. He spent years teaching at Pyongyang University of Science and Technology. Unlike the perception most Americans have of North Koreans, Joe speaks highly of the people and paints a picture distinctly different from the Kim-run death cult that is often presented.

The other part involves Terwilliger making a $2,500 gamble. After Rodman made his first trip to North Korea, Joe saw an opportunity.

Terwilliger was in North Korea during Rodman’s first visit. He told the Libertarian Institute that he witnessed the students “[rethinking] their stereotypes about Americans” because Rodman was willing to say positive things about their country.

So, Joe won a game of HORSE against Dennis with a $2,500 silent auction bid. There, he and Rodman discussed a return visit to North Korea.

“[The] hope was to engage Kim Jong Un to try and build a relationship based on trust,” a mission Joe believes he was able to accomplish. “When we took the basketball players to [North Korea on Kim’s] birthday, [the supreme leader] remarked that we were the first Americans that ever kept their word.”

During Donald Trump’s first presidency, he showed a willingness to break with long-established policy in Washington, which has insisted that Pyongyang abandon its nuclear weapons before any talks can begin.

Of course, Kim would never give up his nuclear arsenal, as it serves as a deterrent to an attack from the United States. But that does not mean relations with the DPRK could not improve.

In 2018, Trump and Kim met in Singapore and signed a deal meant to create a roadmap for a more substantial agreement in Hanoi the next year. During the second summit, rather than present Kim with a peace deal, Trump allowed his ultra-hawkish National Security Adviser John Bolton to sabotage the talks.

Bolton exploited his position at the table to demand North Korea follow the “Libya-model” of denuclearization. Invoking Libya as an example raised immediate red flags for Kim, as the long-time Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was subjected to a regime change by NATO and roadside execution after giving up his nuclear program.

Terwilliger said the examples of Libya and Iraq were recounted to him by Kim during his trip to North Korea. “Kim told me Gaddafi gave up his nukes in exchange for security guarantees, and then we killed Gaddafi. [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussien] let nuclear inspectors in – they found nothing – and we killed Saddam anyway.”

He added that Kim further recounted that Pakistan, a nuclear weapons state, harbored Osama bin Laden, and the U.S. did not go to war with Islamabad.

Trump made a historic trip to the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) to again shake hands with Kim in 2019. Unfortunately, by this late date Trump was unable to turn the summit into a more substantial diplomatic effort.

For the past four years, the world has been subject to the dictates of the feeble Joe Biden and his inept staff, who have attempted to cover up the president’s weakness by waging war across the globe.

In the Asia-Pacific, Biden returned to the previous policy of refusing to engage with Pyongyang unless Kim forfeited his nukes.

However, Biden was also committed to Trump and Barack Obama’s military buildup targeting China. That policy calls to create more alliances between the United States and Asia-Pacific nations for a future war with the People’s Republic.

While Washington claims the blocs have no hostile intentions, Beijing and Pyongyang see the growing military presence near their waters as a significant threat.

Combined with the mistake of refusing to engage with Kim, Biden also sought to isolate Russia from the rest of the world as punishment for President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Predictably, this only pushed Moscow to form closer relations with its Asian neighbors. During the Biden administration, Putin has significantly strengthened Russia’s military ties with both North Korea and China.

With the recent pact between Pyongyang and Moscow – which includes a mutual defense agreement – is it too late for the United States to make a deal with North Korea? Tensions have steadily increased with hundreds of missile tests, dueling war games near the border, and frequent American deployments of nuclear-capable weapons platforms to the Korean Peninsula.

Donald Trump has pledged to end wars, not start them. If he wants to be a peacemaker, why not start in Korea?

Terwilliger believes there is an opportunity for diplomacy, and he could be just the man to do the job. He is one of the very few people in the West who knows Kim personally. Joe is a libertarian who is dedicated to peace. His familiarity with North Korea, gained from his years of teaching there as well as his knowledge of the Korean language, make the perfect combination to ink a heretofore elusive deal with the DPRK.

“I think they mistrust us, but trust building is needed, and there is a personal relationship Trump and I have with the North Koreans that can be used for good.” Terwilliger emphasized, “The objective should be exchange of ambassadors, end of war treaty and an agreement about peaceful coexistence of North and South Korea without the baggage of unification issues or denuclearization.”

Kyle Anzalone is news editor of the Libertarian Institute, opinion editor of Antiwar.com and co-host of Conflicts of Interest with Will Porter and Connor Freeman.

 

What’s Really Going On In the South China Sea Between the Philippines and China


Maritime clashes between the Philippines and China had been mostly over the Philippines’ military outpost, BRP (BRP – Barko ng Republika ng Pilipinas, which translates to “Ship of the Republic of the Philippines” – the ship prefix for the Philippines) Sierra Madre, in the Spratly Islands, which is disputed by Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan (a province of China, as recognized by the United Nations’ Resolution No. 2758), and Vietnam. The BRP Sierra Madre was intentionally run aground on a reef near the Second Thomas Shoal in the disputed Spratly Islands, in 1997, so that the Philippines could stake their territorial claim.

The WWII-era ship is rusted out and on its way to disintegrating.  In December 2023, the Philippines allocated funds to replace the ship with a permanent structure. Coincidentally, in September 2023, Blake Herzinger, a research fellow at the United States Studies Centre of the University of Sydney, penned an article titled, “It’s Time to Build Combined Forward Operating Base Sierra Madre.” This outpost would be “manned by combined rotational forces from both the Philippines and the U.S. Marine Corps,” according to Herzinger.  In it, he admits that doing so, “would be a provocative move, and it would not be without significant risk.”

In October 2023, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFU) admitted that their resupply missions to the BRP Sierra Madre were carrying materials that were used in the maintenance and repair of the ship. China had been accusing the Philippines of using its resupply missions to send “illegal building materials” to reinforce the dilapidated ship on several occasions.  In June of this year, The Financial Times revealed that the Philippines had “secretly” reinforced the BRP Sierra Madre at the Second Thomas Shoal.

On March 5, 2024, in response to an incident at the Second Thomas Shoal, U.S. State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller stated that “Article IV of the 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty extends to armed attacks on Philippine armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft, including those of its coast guard, anywhere in the South China Sea.”  At the time, the crash was “not the time or reason to invoke a Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States,” according to Philippine President Bongbong Marcos. Invoking the Mutual Defense Treaty by the Philippines could lead to an armed conflict between China and the U.S. Military.

Recently, these clashes have been occurring at the Sabina Shoal, another disputed atoll in the Spratly Islands. In May, the Philippines claimed that China was carrying out “small-scale reclamation” and anchored the BRP Teresa Magbanua at Sabina Shoal to “catch and document the dumping of crushed corals over the sandbars” (China denied this).  The Philippines had been using the BRP Teresa Magbanua as a staging area for their resupply missions to the BRP Sierra Madre at Second Thomas Shoal. A new Philippine Coast Guard vessel was sent to Sabina Shoal, according to Jonathan Malaya, the spokesperson for the National Security Council of the Philippines, on September 26. However, he declined to comment on the specifics of their intentions or plans, citing operational security concerns.

Behind the scenes, an information operation has been going on. Information operations, also known as influence operations, involve spreading misleading information and obtaining tactical knowledge about competitors to get the upper hand.  Think tank representatives, financed by the US government and corporate sponsors, have been working with the Philippine Coast Guard on “assertive transparency,” or what the Philippines calls their “transparency initiative.”  With grants from the U.S. State Department, between 2022 and 2024, the Stratbase ADR Institute held a series of roundtable discussions highlighting the importance of multilateral cooperation and strategic alliances in addressing regional “security challenges” and “public diplomacy,” or the act of “influencing foreign publics” to support “U.S. foreign policy goals.”

On January 5th, 2023, Stratbase, together with the US Embassy in the Philippines, hosted a town hall discussion where experts and scholars shared their assessments and recommendations on the various Indo-Pacific strategies and the foreign policy of Marcos Jr.’s administration.  It was here that Ray Powell introduced his “Project Myoushu” strategy, which was inspired by the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).  CSIS receives funding from the U.S. government and other governments allied with the U.S.non-governmental and nonprofit organizations (NGOs & NPOs), defense contractors and other corporate donors.  Another such event occurred on March 8th, 2023, where Ray Powell gave a presentation in which he described using “independent analysts, storytellers, influencers, media, and embedded journalists.”

Powell, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force and a former Defense Attaché (the Defense Attaché System is part of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the “Pentagon’s top spy agency”), is the team lead of SeaLight, at Stanford University’s Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation (GKC).  The creation of Stanford University’s GKC was sponsored by the Office of Naval Research (ONR), an organization within the Department of Defense.  Stanford University has contracts with the U.S. government.  The center’s goal is to assist the U.S. government in rethinking how it approaches “national security” matters.

The “transparency initiative” tactic highlights China’s “gray zone activities”, in the South China Sea.  One aspect used is embedding journalists on these resupply missions.  The original purpose of embedding was to control journalists, according to Helen Benedict, a professor at the Columbia Journalism School.  Citing award-winning Australian journalist Phillip Knightley’s book The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero and Myth-Maker from the Crimea to Iraq which describes how the U.S. government invented embedded journalism in response to critical coverage of the Vietnam War.  As civilian casualties in Afghanistan reached 5,000, the Pentagon sought a media strategy that would bring attention back to the military’s role in the war, especially the role played by ordinary American service members.  This would require bringing war correspondents on side.

Another aspect of this “transparency initiative” is using civil society organizations, such as the Atin Ito Coalition, led by Rafaela David and Edicio dela Torre, to draw attention to the South China Sea.  Rafaela is also the executive director of the Center for Youth Advocacy and Networking (CYAN).  CYAN has been financed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which gets the majority of its funding from the U.S. Congress.  With its origins dating back to the late 1960s, when the Central Intelligence Agency faced criticism for secretly supporting activists and opposition groups in nations that appeared to be leaning closer to the Soviet Union. Following the revelation of those CIA plots, the agency faced criticism for what some perceived to be devious manipulation of sovereign states. Congress established the NED in 1983 after years of discussion about whether and how the financing should continue.

Edicio dela Torre is the current President and Vice Chairperson of the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM).  The PRRM was started in 1952 by Chinese rural education advocate Y. C. James Yen with financial assistance from the United States and the Rockefeller family.  In 1983, Yen was awarded the People to People Eisenhower Medallion.  The People-to-People Program was initiated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, with initial connections to the U.S. government through the United States Information Agency (USIA).  The USIA’s public diplomacy activities were ultimately transferred to the U.S. Department of State, while its propaganda operations were transferred to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which has since become the U.S. Agency for Global Media.  In the 1950s, during the Hukbalahap Rebellion, the CIA covertly funded the PRRM through front organizations such as the Asia Foundation (formerly the Committee for a Free Asia) and the Catherwood Foundation.

On September 15th, Powell appeared on 60 Minutes, along with the Philippine Secretary of National Defense Gilbert Teodoro, and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Romeo Brawner Jr.  In the 60 Minutes episode, Teodoro refused to confirm if the Typhon missile launcher – a mid-range missile system capable of reaching mainland China – would be permanently stationed in the Philippines. Three days later, Philippine army spokesperson, Colonel Louie Dema-ala, said training was ongoing, and it was up to Philippine authorities and the United States Army Pacific Command (USARPAC) to decide how long the missile system would stay.  Presently, the Typhon is situated in the Taiwan Strait and faces the South China Sea on the northern island of Luzon. In early September, the U.S. announced that it wants to deploy another Typhon missile launcher “around Japan’s southwestern islands, which are near Taiwan”.  While the U.S. claims that these missile launchers are to “strengthen deterrence”, their deployment has only provoked tensions in the area.

While 60 Minutes did state that “in 2016, an international tribunal at The Hague ruled the Philippines has exclusive economic rights in a 200-mile zone that includes Sabina Shoal” and that “China does not recognize the ruling”, their statements were misleading.  The South China Sea Arbitration did not rule on sovereignty, and China does not recognize it because the Arbitral Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. “The Arbitral Tribunal violated the principle of state consent, exercised its jurisdiction ultra vires and rendered an award in disregard of the law. This is a grave violation of UNCLOS and general international law, Wang said.” The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is an international treaty that establishes a legal framework for all marine and maritime activities.  The Permanent Court of Arbitration is not an agency of the United Nations. The PCA rents space in the same building as the UN’s International Court of Justice.  A Congressional Research Service report, dated August 2023, stated that the U.S. has not declared its position regarding sovereignty over any of the geographical elements that comprise the South China Sea.

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimates that about 80% of global trade is carried out by sea, both in terms of volume and value. Of that amount, 60% of marine trade travels through Asia, with approximately one-third of all shipping occurring in the South China Sea. Because the Strait of Malacca connects the South China Sea and, consequently, the Pacific and Indian oceans, China, Taiwan (the United States does not officially support Taiwan’s independence), Japan, and South Korea depend heavily on its waters. China’s economic security is intimately linked to the South China Sea, as the country has the second-largest economy globally and more than 60% of its trade is conducted by water. If the U.S. were to attempt to enforce a blockade in the South China Sea, they would risk retaliation from China.

A war with China would not only interrupt international trade, it’s highly probable that the United States would lose due to China’s anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities. Anti-Access refers to any action, activity, or capacity, usually long-range, that is intended to prevent an advancing military force from accessing an operational area. Area denial is described as any action, activity, or capability, usually short-range, that is intended to limit an adversary force’s freedom of action inside an operational area. Long-range artillery and rocket weapons, air defenses, littoral anti-ship capabilities, and layered, integrated long-range precision-strike systems are all part of the threat A2/AD defense architecture.  China’s advanced A2/AD system includes missiles and hypersonic weapons, which the US lacks defense against. China is also developing microwave-photonic radar systems to track incoming hypersonic missiles, potentially enabling defense against powerful militaries’ latest offensive technologies.

The Philippines, has succeeded in garnering support from Western countries through military assistancefunds to upgrade military bases and infrastructuremodernize the Armed Forces of the Philippines, defense agreements with at least 18 countries (minilateralism), joint military exercises in the South China Sea, and the addition of four new EDCA (under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, American military personnel, planes, and ships may station themselves periodically in the Philippines at predetermined sites) – three in north Luzon facing Taiwan and one in Palawan facing the South China Sea. China sees this “coalition of the willing” as undermining “regional security and peace.”  The Philippines should seek détente with China and practice quiet diplomacy, as their “transparency initiative” has only escalated tensions in the South China Sea, instead of risking World War III.

Tina Antonis is an independent researcher and blogger.  An avid reader of Antiwar.com, she has been blogging about U.S. foreign policy on her WordPress since 2017.  She can be found on Twitter or contacted by email at ms_cat71@aol.com.

Drone Captures Haitian Police Execution of an Innocent Man


From Uncaptured Media:

The video provides a stunning and emblematic example of on-going police massacres of civilians as the U.S. government pushes for a UN intervention….

Go to Uncaptured Media.

Dissident Voice Communications (DVC) is a non-profit meta-company in the public interest (well, depends on which public), we aim to challenge the hegemony of Big Media by communicating... all sorts of stuff. Read other articles by Dissident Voice Communications.

 

Everybody Knows: Do They?

Everybody knows the boat is leaking/Everybody knows the captain lied.

– Leonard Cohen, “Everybody Knows”

When the polls closed on Tuesday, November 5, I was sound asleep, like a baby rocking gently in his cradle, lost to the frenzied rants or joyful shouting of the different political claques. Even though I missed the results of what the mass media had been telling us was the most important election in our lifetimes, I was happily oblivious to their cant.  I remember hearing that nonsense many times before.

I gave up on my country’s electoral system more than fifty years ago. Every presidential election is a contest between two sides of the ruling monied elite, chosen to represent their interests. It is corrupt beyond repair and was so even then.  Do most people have a clue that their country is owned and run by a small group of the super-rich and ten or so financial institutions, such as BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, etc., the big banks and financial interests that in 1947 formed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to spearhead the U.S. warfare state around the world in support of its economy that is reliant on endless war?

The electorate continually puts its hope in the performers that the spectacle’s producers put up to front for their interests, failing to grasp that the rulers’ interests are not theirs. Arguing and anguishing over certain policy differences between Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, they fail to see that both exist to serve global capital, not regular people, that exchanging presidents is a counterfeiter’s con-game with the voters the scammers’ marks.

Trump’s current victory is an example of that, as was Biden’s in 2020. If Harris had won, it would have proven the same.  They are two sides of one coin. That the system is rigged by the oligarchs should be obvious but isn’t. Or maybe it is obvious but people secretly harbor a perverse liking for it. Stranger things are true, as on personal levels people embrace the symptoms of their neuroses because the symptoms are their disguised solutions, their ways of staying stuck because change is hard and frightening and requires admitting repressed realities.

The cliché that all politics is local has a certain appeal and a trace of veracity, but 99 + % of the truth lies elsewhere.  Apprimately 145 + million Americans just lined up to vote like puppies looking for a bone to be thrown their way by the people who own the country. They do get a bone here and there, which keeps them looking for the meat, but that is reserved for the fat cats, as always.

I understand why people prefer upbeat words, but very often the upbeat is really the downbeat of hopelessness in disguise. A coverup. And seemingly hopeless words, such as that our presidents are the public personae of the rapacious oligarchy, are actually far more hopeful, even though they reveal long-held assumptions to be delusional.

Imagine what might happen if a great portion of people refused to vote for the charlatans chosen to run for president.

The fear that there was even a slight chance that this might happen lies behind all the pep talks and moralizing about doing your civic duty, which is such “a privilege.” Vote, even if it’s for the “lesser of two evils.”

But please, let us not mention the great evil that lies behind these lessers. Vote and we’ll give you a sticker. A sticker that signifies your gullibility.

There is a “system,” as young radicals referred to the U.S.’s political-economic structure back in the 1960s.  I was one of them, a conscientious objector from the Marine Corps and a graduate student studying sociology, deeply influenced by the work and moral voice of C. Wright Mills and his powerful books, The Power EliteThe Causes of World War III, and Listen, Yankee, and William Domhoff’s Who Rules America, a work that has gone through seven updated editions.

There were (and are) many other books that told the story truly, but even reading them won’t help unless you are willing to dispense with the obvious illusions and face the bleakness of a corrupt system. Willing to take it personally. Willing to recognize the systemic evil that under-girds the System. Willing to accept the void that the Trappist monk Thomas Merton termed the Unspeakable:

It is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said; the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment when they are pronounced, and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss.

This void is the fact that the U.S. political economy is controlled by a small group of the wealthiest nihilists and is maintained through lies, a military-industrial economy, and perpetual wars around the world to maintain and increase their wealth.  It is a death cult that people worship by their participation.

Although in subsequent years it became fashionable to decry the use of the term “the system,” there was a system then and there is one now, run by the upper class elite whose wealth has increased exponentially over the years throughout Democratic and Republican administrations. This system is tightly entwined throughout the social structure of the country, part of the everyday fabric of American life. It is fueled by the corporate mass media of all political persuasions. Understanding it helps to explain most of what is going on today, including the farcical election just concluded. A battle between two candidates who represent the forces that oppress the common people, support the genocide of the Palestinians, and are figureheads for the warfare state.

The system has evolved its methods of control since the 1950s but is essentially unchanged.  It is now monopoly global capitalism joined with the steroidal injection of digital technology and the Internet to create a seamless marriage of economic exploitation and non-stop propaganda that has coopted and controlled the working classes and leftist intellectuals alike. Those middle to upper middle classes who like to consider themselves liberal or progressive accept the status quo because it rewards them at the expense of struggling peoples at home and abroad. They can afford to play along and look away, being typical Babbitts.  And the right-wing was always in the pocket of the power elites.

Elections are said to be about pocket-book issues, which is largely true, but the oligarchic control of the nation’s pocketbook is not the focus. Small stuff is.

Listen to Peter Philips, a sociologist in Mills’s tradition, who tells the truth that most can’t bear to hear and will never accept. His latest book is, Titans of Capital.  Here he is being interviewed by Robert Scheer, These Ten Companies Run Our “Democracy.”

It’s nothing new, but to accept it would require an American revolution, which isn’t coming.  No, it’s not coming when so many people “do their civic duty” and vote for presidential candidates fronting for the upper class’s interests.

As I am finishing writing these words, a headline appears at the New York Times Corporation to make me laugh and give me that all-over happy tingle.  It reads: “Popularist Revolt Against Elite’s Vision of the U.S.” Subheaded with these introductory words: “In the end, Donald Trump is not the historical aberration some thought he was, but a force reshaping the modern U.S., writes Peter Baker in an analysis.”

Not an historical aberration! Then he must not be a deviation from the normal type of American president.  Trump is a good old normal American president, claims the Times. Is this a Freudian slip?

The “elite’s vision?” So the Times is also admitting that there is an elite and they have a vision for the common people?  I wondered what kind of confession was to follow? So I followed.

The article by Baker has a strangely punctuated title with an ambiguous meaning that its text contradicts: ‘Trump’s America’: Comeback Victory Signals a Different Kind of Country.”  It opens with the introductory words I quoted above, as if to reinforce the point.  Not an historical aberration, which for anyone who understands the English language means he is normal.  But then Baker mixes his illogical word salad with dressing.

He writes, as if there were some logical connection between his sentences:

Populist disenchantment with the nation’s direction and resentment against elites proved to be deeper and more profound than many in both parties had recognized. Mr. Trump’s testosterone-driven campaign capitalized on resistance to electing the first woman president.

Is he not saying that there is an elite that the common people are rebelling against by voting for Trump and that Harris has been chosen by this same elite and as a woman she is the focus of the fat, seventy-eight year-old Trump’s massive testosterone drive because she is a woman?

But if Trump is not an historical aberration and therefore has also been chosen by the elite, then the “popularist revolt” is no revolt at all but a con job played out by the billionaire elite who support Trump.  Baker and all the “experts” he quotes are loathe to admit openly that the ruling oligarchy is split; that both Harris and Trump are candidates of the elite who war among themselves but who in the end reap the spoils of the system.  That they are allied in an overall goal.

Baker tells us about Kamala Harris, who was not chosen by the people but by the elite who control the Democratic party, that “Once she took the torch from Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris initially emphasized a positive, joy-filled mission to the future, consolidating excited Democrats behind her, but it was not enough to win over uncommitted voters.”

Joy didn’t work. Well what the heck!

Baker also tells us that trashing Trump and emphasizing unity didn’t either because the American people want a strongman.

What? a non-aberrational strong man?

But Baker goes on to castigate Trump as a criminal, a liar, a fraud, a conspiracy theorist, etc. while the joyful Harris just miscalculated and underestimated popular discontent. This is the usual Times’ schtick. Turn to the New York Post for the obverse and have a chuckle at the absurd game the media play on the public.

Baker’s headline tells us that Trump’s win signals that the U.S. is now a different kind of country because so many people are fed up with how it’s being run. Different from 2016 when Trump won?

If only it were a different country, but it isn’t. The same elite money forces run the show. Elections don’t change that.  People continue to be suckers.

Baker lets it slip again with these words:

The assumption that Mr. Trump represented an anomaly who would at last be consigned to the ash heap of history was washed away on Tuesday night by a red current that swept through battleground states – and swept away the understanding of America long nurtured by its ruling elite of both parties.

Yes, the “ruling elite.” One elite. Both parties. And nothing was swept away. This ruling elite is just laughing and no doubt secretly applauding the stenographers who serve their interests, such as Peter Baker, who portrays them in typically deceptive Times’ gobbledygook fashion as “perplexed.”  Have a laugh!

“Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich stay rich
That’s how it goes
Everybody knows”

Do they?

Edward Curtin writes and his work appears widely. He is the author of Seeking Truth in a Country of LiesRead other articles by Edward, or visit Edward's website.